ML11284A016

9/21/11 - Summary of Tele Conf Call Held Between the USNRC and NextEra Seabrook, Concerning Clarification of Information Pertaining to the Seabrook Station License Renewal Application

ML11284A016
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/13/2011
From:	Plasse R License Renewal Projects Branch 1
To:	NextEra Energy Seabrook
Plasse R
References
Download: ML11284A016 (6)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555-0001 October 13, 2011 LICENSEE:

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC FACILITY:

Seabrook Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2011, BElWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME4028) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra or the applicant), held a telephone conference call on September 21, 2011, to obtain clarification on information contained in the Seabrook Station license renewal application (LRA). The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the applicant's information in the LRA. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a summary of the issues discussed during the call with the applicant.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary. Rick Plasse, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License' Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Listserv TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL LIST OF September 21, PARTICIPANTS Rick Plasse Roger Kalikian Ching Ng Bo Pham Richard Cliche Bob McCormack Ed Carley Ali Kodal Henry Mentel Dennis Bem is Paul Willoughby U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) NRC NRC NRC NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC. (NextEra)

NextEra NextEra NextEra NextEra NextEra NextEra ENCLOSURE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SEABROOK LICENSE RENEWAL Draft RAI In response to request for additional information (RAJ) by letter dated February 2011, on page 9 of 92, the applicant stated, "The flux thimble tube no longer provides a of pressure boundary hence, it has no license renewal function, and it will be removed In response to follow-up RAI 3.1.1-60-01102, by letter dated April 22, 2011, on page 6 of 43, applicant stated, "When the incore detector assembly is inserted, the thimble housing (outer tube) provides the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary to keep the detector assembly internal volume dry." The letter further stated that, "The thimble tube (inner tube), although considered a RCS pressure boundary, is not in contact with Following the August 3,2011, teleconference discussion on the above topic, the staff still clarification as to where exactly the applicant is taking credit for the RCS pressure boundary the incore detector assemblies in the applicant's license renewal application and how it dispositioned under 10 CFR NextEra provided clarification of the thimble tube design configuration, provided a description the RCS pressure boundary, and described the associated aging management NextEra agreed to provide this detailed information in a subsequent RAI Follow-up Draft RAI By letter dated April 22, 2011, the applicant responded to RAI 4.3-1 b stating that the boundary portion of the ASME Class 1 valves were designed, analyzed, and qualified service (including fatigue) in accordance with the rules of American Society of Engineers (ASME) Code Section III Subsection NB-3500. Updated Final Safety Report (UFSAR) Table 5.2-1 identifies the code edition and addenda applicable to the design the following types of Class 1 valves: pressurizer safety valves, motor-operated valves, valves, control valves, and pressurizer spray valves in the reactor coolant systems. Table 5.2-10 also identifies the valves that are included in the reactor coolant The staff noted that, in the 1971 and later editions of the ASME Section III Code, NB-3545.3 and NB-3550 required fatigue analyses for valves that have an inlet connection larger than 4 inches nominal pipe size unless the exemption reqUirements ENCLOSURE 2 NB-3222.4(d) are met. The staff also noted that the 1968 Draft ASME Pump and Valve Code Sections 452 and 454 included applicable time-dependent cyclic or fatigue assessment criteria to be performed jf the inlet piping connection is larger than 4 inches nominal pipe size. It is not clear to the staff if the fatigue analyses for these Class 1 valves were performed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable ASME codes. Request: Identify all the Class 1 valves that did not have a fatigue analysis performed as part of the design-basis and their associated design code. In addition, justify why a fatigue analysis was not required for these Class 1 valves in accordance with the ASME Section III Code or the ASME Draft Pump and Valve Code, with reference to the applicable sections of the design code. If a fatigue analysis was performed as part of the design-basis for Class 1 valves, justify the conclusion that the fatigue analyses for these Class 1 valves do not need to be identified as a time-limited aging analysis in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(c)(1).

Response:

Following discussion of the draft RAI, the applicant stated that they understood what was being requested and would be able to respond.

October 13, 2011. LICENSEE:

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC FACILITY:

Seabrook Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME4028) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra or the applicant), held a telephone conference call on September 21, 2011, to obtain clarification on information contained in the Seabrook Station license renewal application (LRA). The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the applicanfs information in the LRA. Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a summary of the issues discussed during the call with the applicant.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary. IRA Arlhur Cunanan fori Rick Plasse, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

See next page ADAMS Accession No.: ML11284A016 OFFICE LA:DLR* PM:RPB1 :DLR BC:RPB1 :DLR I I NAME SFigueroa RPlasse (ACunanan for) DMorey DATE 10/11/11 10/12/11 10/13/11 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy Memorandum to NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC from R Plasse dated October 13, 2011

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, CONCERNING CLARIFICATION OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME4028) DISTRIBUTION: E*MAIL: PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrOlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrOlrRasb Resource RidsNrrOlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource MWentzel RPlasse DMorey OWrona EMiller ICouret, OPA EOacus,OCA MSpencer, OGC WRaymond, RI OTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI NSheehan, RI OScrenci, RI JJohnson, RI ABurritt, RI