ML081830663

2008/06/20 Indian Point Lr Hearing - Draft Telecon Summary of May 30, 2008 Re Clarification on AFW System

ML081830663
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	06/20/2008
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
Download: ML081830663 (7)

Text

1 IPRenewal NPEmails From: Kimberly Green Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 2:21 PM To: STROUD, MICHAEL D; Tyner, Donna

Subject:

Draft Telecon Summary of May 30, 2008 re Clarification on AFW system Attachments:

Telecon Summary 05-30-08 BOP-AFW.doc Mike and Donna, Attached is the draft telecon summary from the call on May 30, 2008. Please review and let me know if any corrections are needed.

Thanks, KimberlyGreenSafetyPM(301)4151627kimberly.green@nrc.gov Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number: 131 Mail Envelope Properties (Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov20080620142100)

Subject:

Draft Telecon Summary of May 30, 2008 re Clarification on AFW system Sent Date: 6/20/2008 2:21:02 PM Received Date: 6/20/2008 2:21:00 PM From: Kimberly Green Created By: Kimberly.Green@nrc.gov Recipients: "STROUD, MICHAEL D" <MSTROUD@entergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Tyner, Donna" <dtyner@entergy.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 297 6/20/2008 2:21:00 PM Telecon Summary 05-30-08 BOP-AFW.doc 68090 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

LICENSEE: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

FACILITY: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON MAY 30, 2008, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., CONCERNING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. held a telephone conference call on May 30, 2008, to obtain clarification on Entergy's response to a request for additional information (RAI) regarding the Indian Point license renewal application (LRA). By letter dated March 12, 2008, Entergy submitted its response to an RAI regarding the auxiliary feedwater system. The staff reviewed the information contained therein, and requested additional information/clarification on a few

items.

provides a listing of the participants, and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the items discussed with the applicant, including a brief description of the resolution of the items.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Kimberly Green, Safety Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosures:

1. List of Participants

2. Summary of Discussion cc w/encls: See next page

G:\ADRO\DLR\RPB2\Indian Point\Safety Review\Telecon Summaries\Telecon Summary 05-30-08 BOP-AFW.doc OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR NAME KGreen RFranovich DATE 06/ /08 06/ /08 06/ /08 ENCLOSURE 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MAY 30, 2008 PARTICIPANTS A FFILIATIONS Kim Green U.S. Nuclear Re g ulator y Commission (NRC)Stan Gardocki NRCMike Stroud Enter gy Nuclear O p erations, Inc.

(Enter gy)Alan Cox Enter gy Ted Iv y Enter gy John Curr y Enter gy Charlie Ca p uto Enter gy

ENCLOSURE 2 CLARIFICATION ON RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION May 30, 2008 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. held a telephone conference call on May 30, 2008, to discuss and clarify the following responses to a request for additional information (RAI) concerning the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal application (LRA).

By letter dated February 13, the staff requested additional information regarding the auxiliary feedwater system, among other items. By letter dated March 12, 2008, Entergy responded to the staff's RAI.

Upon review of the information contained in Entergy's response letter, the staff determined that additional clarification was warranted. The items requiring clarification are discussed below.

1. In response to RAI 2.3A.4.2-2, Entergy identified components that are not highlighted on a license renewal drawing but that may need to be considered for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). The staff had asked for the extent of condition. Upon further review of the drawing, the staff identified the lines containing the following components that were also not highlighted, but not identified by the applicant in its response: CT-709, CT-710, and CT-711. The staff needed clarification on whether the components in question are within the scope of license renewal or if they are evaluated within another system.

Applicant's clarification:

The line containing valve CT-711 is within the scope of license renewal because it meets the criterion in 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1), and is evaluated in the auxiliary feedwater system (AFW). The line and the valve were inadvertently not highlighted on the license renewal drawing.

The lines containing valves CT-709 and CT-710 are within the scope of license renewal because they meet the criterion for spatial interaction in 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2), and are evaluated in

the condensate system.

Entergy further clarified that components that are/form part of the pressure boundary for the AFW system are in scope for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1) and are evaluated within the AFW system.

However, components that are attached to or could spatially interact with safety-related components are in scope for 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2) and are evaluated with the condensate system

or other system as appropriate.

Staff Correction

During the telephone conference, the staff informed the applicant of two RAI numbering/naming

errors: 1. RAI 2.3A.4.2-2, in letter dated February 13, 2008, refers to the auxiliary feedwater system, but is numbered for inclusion in the main feedw ater system. In the Safety Evaluation Report, this RAI and its response will be discussed in Section 2.3A.4.3. 2. In letters dated December 7, 2007, and February 13, 2008, the staff issued two RAIs numbered identically (i.e., RAI 2.3A.3.14-2). Both RAIs and the respective responses will be discussed in SER Section 2.3A.3.14 and will be referred to by number and dates of letters.