ML070600447

1R21 Outage - NRC Inspection Question Log Complied by Amergen (12 Pages)

ML070600447
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek, Three Mile Island, Clinton
Issue date:	10/31/2006
From:	NRC Region 1
To:
References
Download: ML070600447 (12)

Text

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log1 1-8PM lR21 Outage - NRC Ins iection Question Log teq. by Assignee Due Question Response 2esoived locurnenls provided LFerdas (andasamy 31-Oct Insure that Tech Eva1for repairs This action is captured in 'ORC ief. IR 546049 wlilos 5 reviewed by PORC the 1R21 Reg. cheduled Assurance Actions Log or Nov 4 at items 6, 14, and 16. 200

'.Kaufman hintenz 240ct Ioes the fact that there is no Although the Level 2 JRC inswer provided by T.

urb in the trench area affect the PRA took some credit for eviewing 2uintenz IR 550022

AMA analysis as part of LRA the curb probabilistically, it is not significant enough to markedly change LERF or the conclusions of the SAMA analysis. IR is being written as a measure to make the appropriate changes to the Level 2 PRA. Also, if there are any further questions in this area Greg Krueger in Corporate Risk Assessment would be the contact point. He will provide support for any further discussions on this topic, and we can arrange for that support as needed.

'.Kaufman ramburro 1-NOV loes the fact that there is no urb in the trench area affect the

urrent Licensing basis K/Engr/l R21Drywell/NRClnsp

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM em i Date teq. by Assignee Due Question Response lesolved Iocuments provided

- 4 6-Oct '.Kaufman Juintenz 29-Oct will we change any LRA The License Renewal IRC commitments previously made Team will evaluate ?viewing as a result of 1R21 issues; How whether any License will we implement or document Renewal commitments any plan changes.(Have we need to be changed or addressed the need for a more added as a result of formal response machanism to inspections performed or this question Le. submittal? new operating Which of the July 8,06 experience identified commitmtents have we met this during 1R21. For outage?) example, the effects of water on the inside of the drywell shell will be reassessed to determine if additional aging management activities, programs or commitments are needed. AmerGen will make this determination and submit any such information to the NRC.

We plan to submit a letter, supplementing the LRA with any updates that are needed to aging management programs, activities and commitments related to the wetted drywell shell internal surface, by early

- - ,. , . .

5 6-OCt LFerdas Provided Copy 10/29/06 'es 'ech Eva1A21527W06 copy of the Tech Eva1for the -ech Eva1A2152754-09 repairs/disposition of identified

-

WEngr/l R21Drywell/NRClnsp

I .

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log1 1-8PM Date ZG-.by Assignee Due Question Response lesolved Iocurnents provided

-

6-Oct 4. Ferdas 10/30/06Provide copies of Work order (or Provided Copy 10/30/06 RC LCR 06-00879 AWAS AWA, ECR, procedure or vendor ?viewing -ech Eva1A2152754-05 instructions) on how to install caulk 6-Oct '.Kaufman NRC asked to review the Part of Tech Eva1 es \2152754-06 structural monitoring report from our walkdown - visual inspection by S.Markos and D.Fiorello

.7-0ct -.O'Hara 3aY What is the service life of the Qualified to L?152754-05 caulk? Should address service environmental conditions life - how long it will last and of DBA. Is conditionally perform as needed - and specify monitored every outage a replacement schedule based by ER-OC-450, on that conclusion - May need to Structures Monitoring say that we will perform visuals Program.

and structurally monitor to prove it is okay long term if lab results are non-conclusive for service life question

!7-oct -. OHara Tamburro What YOof the concrete can we Mike Ade, S&L rovide jturctural - Mike Adel Hallenbeck estimate is underwater or performed calculation IRC calc saturated with water?

!7-0ct LChaudary What is the ph of the water - did Ray answered that IRC 42152754-06

'we analyze for any trace of samples indicated ?viewing corrosion - did it show any corrosion has stopped -

'ferroustraces - NRC wants to follow up - NRC wants to lsee data review data.

Clarifying memo from Chemistry for initial sample out of trench in Bay 5 with Ph identified.

I See item I O WEngr/l R21DrywelllNRClnsp

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log?1-8PM Due Question Response Documents provided

m k Rate :eq. by Assignee I

-12 7-Oct LChaudary :ay Why can't we keep track of all Calculate volume for ?s- see ITech Eva1 A2152754-05 our inventory of water so we Item 9 could quantify amount that may

- -

13 :7-Oct .. O'Hara Lay be in concrete area?

Did we try a test to pour water Repairs to prevent water down the inside wall of the liner entering concrete at to see where it goes ( during SD interface to shell water runs down wall but during Ops, leaks go to trough through piping) Need to rule out possibility that water running down wall is a source of water that could go between gap and liner - How are we sure? Why didn't we do this type of test?

-14 !7-oct VRC Can we calculate how much Close to Item 9 water might be in this mass of

- 15 27-oct S .Chauday concrete Will the tech eval include In attachment to Tech assessment that worst spot for Eval, Barry Gordon corrosion is at water-air interface, where the cut-out is?

Justify in tech eval

- 16 27-OCt T. O'Hara Why did we choose bays 5 and Pete Tamburro, in eval 17 in 1986, when the worst for UT corrosion is suspected at bays '

and 13 - why not look at those?

Where do bays 5 and 17 rank compared to others for "catalysi potential at the surface for corrosion

- 17 Same as 16 WEngr/l R21DtywelVNRCInsp

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM Date 27-0ct Time Req. by 930 T. O'Hara Assignee I Question If shell is breached at the

Response

Shirk add to Tech Eva1 iesolved )ocurnetits provided bottom, would out Type A leak test identify that? Does the grout / caulk addition affect this answer, or was it included as an assumption during review?

27-Oct 930 S.Chaudary What are the C02 and 02 levels Artz - need to address in )pen until in the water found in the trench Tech Eva1 JRC as this would affect corrosion .eviews and what effect do these values rech Eva1 have on our corrosion estimates (NRC commented that cracks develop from tension in concrete and they could carry 0 2 through cracks to liner K/Engr/l R21Drywell/NRClnsp

, .

. -

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM I

k Date 27-Oct Time Req. by 930 T. O'Hara Assignee Quintenz Due Question Now that there is a new

Response

I

[Resolved Documents provided environment to consider, we ma) requires each license need to address the need to re- renewal applicant to do the aging management "notify the program based on what we Commission of found in 1R21-we assume information identified by sumps and piping function as the applicant as having, designed -will there be a new for the commitment to inspect regulated activity, a regularly? NRC raised concern significant implication for on 10CFR 54.13 accuracy public health and safety ofinformation - Did we only or common defense and consider 5 years history in all security." After reviewins aging management programs?lf the evaluation of the the LRA is based on design and impact of water found in operating experience, why didn't the bay #5 inspection out our LRA include assessment trench in the drywell of this history of water in the DW floor, liner area? Exelon has determined that 54.13(b) does not apply. The evaluation, as documented in AIR A2152754 Eva1 06 and Eva109, has determined that the drywell structural integrit) is maintained and the drywell continues to meet all of its design basis requirements.

WEngrll R21DrywelllNRClnsp

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM em 1 Time ieq. by Assignee Due Question Response !esofved )ocuments provided

-21 )30 -. O'Hara Confirm that we have a ER-OC-450 )we copy of procedure to taY commitment to perform UT IRC Testing of wall thickness in trenches 5 and 17 every outage as part of the monitoring program. When will we UT trench area next? (Engr.

responded next outage) - need to confirm. NRC is expecting that there will be more UT inspections planned to prove no corrosion is active(at least 3 times, with the third time being post POE) (related to Item 4).

Do we have plans to do more inspections for this purpose?

-22 )30 2.Kaufman .ambert Will we be able to supply NRC Draft provided 'es )raft of white paper with a white paper - a high level -

single page or summary of what we found, what we did to fix it and why we think this is okay -

by end of Friday

-23

-

130 AFerdas Will we add any visual or other No,covered by existing testing of the trenchltrough to program the forced outage schedule?

-

24

-

130 r. O'Hara NRC requests list of all IRs and 'es assignments for both commitments and from "new" DW water issue, that need

-25

-

i30 r. O'Hara hintenz closure prior to start up.30-013 Request for our submittal of DW List provided 'es

- related commitments IMoved to item 21 26 WEngdl R21DrywelllNRClnsp

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM Item d Date Time Req. by Assignee Due Question Response Resolved Documents provided 27 Added to item 21 28 30-Oct 830 T. O'Hara Ray 30-Oct NRC needs clarification on TE - UT (May need to NRC to whether corrosion is actually adjust wording in tech review tech

-

arrested they were told in eval to say that with the Eva1 submittals and ACRS that it was known minimal corrosion but data suggests othewise - rate, applied to the next need to review data with 20 minimum years, we inspectors to clarify would be okay )

I I 29 Added to item 20 IR - I 1 WEngr/l R21DryweWNRClnsp

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log1 1-8PM

-

em i Date

-

Time i e q by A& ignee Due Question Response

-~

!esolved

~ ~~ ~

Iocuments provided-

- I'Hara 30 Io-oct 500 luintenz At the ACRS meeting, there may AmerGen has reviewed have been a statement made by the July 22, 2005 Oyster Exelon the corrosion has been Creek License Renewal "arrested" Confirm if possible. Application (LRA), the Did we say that in any April 7,2006 response to correspondence?(LRA) NRC RAls on Drywell corrosion (AmerGen Letter 2130-06-202289),

the June 20,2006 letter forwarding supplemental information to NRC following the June 1, 2006 public meeting on drywell corrosion (AmerGen Letter 2130-06-20353), the June 23, 2006 submittal that provided the NRC Staff with an update to Appendix A of the LRA following all the Audits (AmerGen letter 2130-06 203%), and the transcripts from the October 3,2006 ACRS Subcommittee meeting.

Based on review of these documents, AmerGen concludes that within these written documents and also as part of the oral comments made at the October 3rd ACRS Subcommittee meeting,

- - 1-WEngr/l R21DrywelVNRClnsp

. -

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM Due Question Response qesolved Documents provided Do we know we have identified In Tech Eva1 and ECR the source of the water? Do we know we have stopped it? Can we prove it? Do we intend to tesi repairs? Do we know how long leakage path was there? Does TDR address bottle discovery?

Does the design bases assume In Tech Eva1 no leakage to liner area? Do we hav any documents that say its okay to be wet?

Did we consider possibility of In Tech Eva1 external sources of water?

When water was identified back DRAFT Respose under in around 1994, what corrective review in ArnerGen actions did we plan to resolcve issue? Did we do them? Cancel them?

Do we intend to submit report to In tech eval - Tech eval ASLB? Are lawyers looking at it? only addresses When will we decide? operability - it is not a submittal -would become part of mandatory disclosure.

WEngr/l R21DrywelVNRClnsp

...

NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM

'tern Date

-

Time teq. by Assignee Due Question

~

Response ?esolved Iocuments provided

- 36 ;o-oct

-

500 'inney luintenz Sand bed drains were uncloggec The future surveillance this outage - what frequency will plan for the sand bed they be checked? Future drains will be determined surveillance plan to ensure after our review of the drains are open and operable? IR21 operating experience. Any further commitments relative to sand bed drain surveillance to ensure they are open and operable will be considered in our formal submittal discusseed in Item ##4.

37 'l-oct

-

30 :erdas NRC wants copy of completed Work order number work package that repaired R2088495 printout clogged drains. Want to see provided with CREM to visual inspection report of drains Mark Ferdas 11/2/06 0830 Meeting WEngrll R21DrywelllNRClnsp

. . -

a NRC Inspection Question - Resolution Log11-8PM Date mz- 130 Time ?eq. by Assignee Due Question s there any OE on containments

Response

The EPRl Structural I

iesolved Documents provided hat have been demolished that Tools document

hows effects of wetted liner and references the use of the mrosion in embedded regions? Shippingport experience with concrete, but does not reference experience with embedded steel. In discussions with Fred Polaski, License Renewal Manager he was not aware of any specific operating experience from decommissioned plants which has been used.

We are using the NRC GALL for our work and there may be some experienced factored into it, but that is not known at this time.

K/Engr/l R21DrywelVNRCInsp