ML101410643

May 20, 2010 Summary of Meeting Regarding the Licensee'S Proposed Response to the Request for Additional Information on Generic Letter 2004-02

ML101410643
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	06/09/2010
From:	Tam P Plant Licensing Branch III
To:
Tam P
Shared Package
ML101380268	List: ML101410643
References
GL-04-002, TAC MC4691
Download: ML101410643 (5)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 9, 2010 LICENSEE:

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. FACILITY:

Kewaunee Power Station

SUMMARY

OF MAY 20, 2010, MEETING REGARDING THE LICENSEE'S PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 (TAC NO. MC4691) On May 20,2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting by telephone with Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (the licensee).

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's proposed response to a Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated August 14, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092040006) regarding Generic Letter 2004-02, "Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design-Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors." Attendees of the meeting are listed in Enclosure

1. The licensee had previously provided draft responses to the RAI questions.

The collection of draft responses is included as Enclosure 2 (Accession No. ML101400507).

The NRC staff reviewed the draft responses and provided the following comments to licensee personnel: NRC Staff Comment on Draft Response Adequate as is. Adequate as is; proposed response says no Temp Mat will be remaining for the limiting breaks. Adequate as is because all debris is treated as fines. Adequate as is based on treatment of all debris as fines. The NRC staff stated that the licensee should plan to clean the containment each refueling outage and that the licensee should follow the NRC safety evaluation on NEI04-07, "Pressurized Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology," guidelines for sampling periodicity.

Licensee personnel said that they will find reference in their submittals where cleaning procedures are described.

Licensee personnel also stated that they plan to sample initially every other outage, and will adjust the frequency based on results and performance.

Licensee personnel further stated that they will clean the containment each time. These changes will be included in the formal response; accordingly, the response, as modified above, is considered adequate.

-2The licensee will clearly state that the separate debris interceptor testing will not be created, and the licensee will delete the statement that says results of the fiber transport test are still valid. With these changes, this response is considered adequate. 10 -Adequate as is Licensee personnel stated that they plan to remove most fibrous material, and what remains will be trended as fines. They plan to rely on an analytical argument that they will not have a filtering bed and on the existing test result in the presence of much less debris than previously evaluated. The NRC staff's view is that demonstrating analytically a bed will not form is the most likely success path. This item referring to the existing testing is not considered resolved but may be amenable to holistic resolution via established NRC staff practice.

13 Adequate as is Licensee personnel stated that they would remove this response and would commit to removing material so they are no longer relying on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) characterization of containment flow. The NRC staff stated that is an acceptable response, but that absence of demonstration of flow would not support confidence in the test result; the licensee should rely on the analytical approach it has described. Licensee personnel stated that they will make this response similar to 15 above, removing existing text and replacing it with a statement that commits to removing material and no longer relying on CFD for characterization of flow. NRC staff response was same as for 15 above.

17 Adequate as is Discussion of clean strainer head and head loss is adequate. The NRC staff will not rely on debris head loss results: thus, the balance of this response can remain in the formal response but will not be used by the NRC staff in its review. 20 -Adequate as is The licensee should more fully discuss the rationale for level and safety injection flow differences for the two scenarios, and revise and discuss with the NRC staff this revised draft response before formal submittal. Licensee personnel committed to provide a revised draft response by June 3, 2010; NRC staff participants agreed to provide feedback on the revised draft response by June 10,2010. Adequate as is Licensee personnel stated that they will state in the formal response that the licensee intends to remove the 1"x1" grid in the reactor cavity drain standpipe.

This response is adequate with this modification.

41 -3This will be resolved as part of the NRC staff review of WCAP-16793, "Evaluation on Long-Term Cooling Considering Particulate, Fibrous, and Chemical Debris in the Recirculating Fluid," on which the licensee relies. 42-44 Adequate as is The NRC staff had the following additional comments: The licensee should clarify Table B-1 by removing Note 1 and recalculating table entries accordingly, and then recalculating allowable latent debris. The licensee should make a physical, qualitative argument that miscellaneous debris will not be transported to the strainer, and the licensee should include discussion of interceptors and material-specific transport properties. After the NRC staff provided its feedback on the licensee's revised draft response to 32, the licensee should formally submit its entire response within 30 days. The licensee's discussion regarding zone of influence for inorganic zinc coatings is acceptable as is. No comment was received via the Public Meeting Feedback form. Please direct any inquiries to me at S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-305

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. Draft responses by the licensee cc w/Enclosure 1: Distribution via ListServ T. Breene L. Christensen P. Furio* J. Gadzala D. Hoang J. Kasper M. Khanna J. Lehning G. Miller S. Putman M. Scott S. Smith P.Tam R. Torres S. Yuen NRC and Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK) Meeting of May 20! 2010 List of Attendees (in alphabetical order) Organization DEK DEK Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant DEK NRC/NRR/Mechanical

& Civil Engineering Branch DEK NRC/NRR/Mechanical

& Civil Engineering Branch NRC/NRRISafety Issue Resolution Branch DEK DEK NRC/NRRISafety Issue Resolution Branch NRC/NRRISafety Issue Resolution Branch NRC/NRR/Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 I\JRC/NRRISafety Issue Resolution Branch DEK *Member of the public, present as observer Enclosure 1

41 June 9, 2010 -3This will be resolved as part of the NRC staff review of WCAP-16793, "Evaluation on Long-Term Cooling Considering Particulate, Fibrous, and Chemical Debris in the Recirculating Fluid," on which the licensee relies. 42 -44 Adequate as is The NRC staff had the following additional comments: The licensee should clarify Table B-1 by removing Note 1 and recalculating table entries accordingly, and then recalculating allowable latent debris. The licensee should make a physical, qualitative argument that miscellaneous debris will not be transported to the strainer, and the licensee should include discussion of interceptors and material-specific transport properties. After the NRC staff provided its feedback on the licensee's revised draft response to 32, the licensee should formally submit its entire response within 30 days. The licensee's discussion regarding zone of influence for inorganic zinc coatings is acceptable as is. No comment was received via the Public Meeting Feedback form. Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-1451.

IRAJ Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-305

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. Draft responses by the licensee cc w/Enclosure 1: Distribution via ListServ DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPL3-1 r/f RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource RidsNrrLABTully Resource RidsNrrDssSbpb R. Krsek, Region III RidsNrrDeEmcb RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource P. Tam, NRR S. Smith, NRR D. Hoang, J. Lehning, NRR R. Torres, NRR M. Scott, RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource S. Bagley, EDO Rill M. Kunowski, Region III ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBERS: Package -ML101380268 S ummary-ML101410643 -ML101400507 Meeting N otice-ML101170779 OFFICE NRR/LPL3-1/PM NRR/LPL3-1/LA NRR/DSS/SSIB/BC NAME PTam BTuily MScott DATE 6/9/10 5/26/10 6/9/10 NRR/LPL3-1/BC RPascarelli 6/9/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy