ML060890395

2006/03/30-Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, License Renewal Application (TAC No. MC7624) - Application Sections 4.3 and 4.7

ML060890395
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	03/30/2006
From:	Ashley D NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/RLRA
To:	Swenson C AmerGen Energy Co
Ashley D, NRR/DLR/RLRA, 415-3191
References
%dam200606, TAC MC7624
Download: ML060890395 (7)

Text

March 30, 2006C. N. SwensonSite Vice President AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

P.O. Box 388 Forked River, NJ 08731-0388

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THEOYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWALAPPLICATION (TAC NO. MC7624)

Dear Mr. Swenson:

By letter dated July 22, 2005, AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen or the applicant)submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) an applicationpursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew theoperating license for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The NRC staff is reviewing theinformation contained in the license renewal application and has identified, in the enclosure,areas where additional information is needed to complete the review.These questions were discussed with members of your staff during several conference callsthroughout February and March 2006. A mutually agreeable date for a response is within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-3191 or via e-mail at DJA1@nrc.gov

.Sincerely,/RA/Donnie J. Ashley, Project ManagerLicense Renewal Branch A Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-219

Enclosure:

As statedcc w/encl: See next page

ML060890395 DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML060890395.wpdOFFICEPM:RLRA:DLRLA:RLRA:DLRBC:RLRA:DLRNAMEDAshleyYEdmondsLLund DATE03/27/0603/24/0603/30/06 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station cc:

Site Vice President - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

P.O. Box 388 Forked River, NJ 08731Senior Vice President of Operations AmerGen Energy Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way, KSA 3-N Kennett Square, PA 19348Kathryn M. Sutton, EsquireMorgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004Kent Tosch, ChiefNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs AmerGen Energy Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555Regional Administrator, Region IU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415Mayor of Lacey Township818 West Lacey Road Forked River, NJ 08731Senior Resident InspectorU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

P.O. Box 445 Forked River, NJ 08731Director - Licensing and Regulatory AffairsAmerGen Energy Company, LLC Correspondence Control

P.O. Box 160 Kennett Square, PA 19348Manager Licensing - Oyster CreekExelon Generation Company, LLC Correspondence Control

P.O. Box 160 Kennett Square, PA 19348Regulatory Assurance Manager Oyster Creek AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

P.O. Box 388 Forked River, NJ 08731Assistant General CounselAmerGen Energy Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348Ron Bellamy, Region IU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415Correspondence Control DeskAmerGen Energy Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way, KSA 1--1 Kennett Square, PA 19348Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating StationPlant Manager AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

P.O. Box 388 Forked River, NJ 08731License Renewal ManagerExelon Generation Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way, Suite 230 Kennett Square, PA 19348 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station cc:

Mr. James RossNuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. Michael P. GallagherVice President License Renewal Exelon Generation Company, LLC 200 Exelon Way, Suite 230 Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. Christopher M. CranePresident and Chief Nuclear Officer AmerGen Energy Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 DISTRIBUTION: Ltr. to C.N. Swenson from Donnie Ashley dated: March 30, 2006

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THEOYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, LICENSE RENEWALAPPLICATION (TAC NO. MC7624)Adams Accession No.:

Ml060890395HARD COPYDLR R/FEMAIL:JFairRWeisman AMurphy RPettis GGalletti CLi GBagchi SSmith (srs3)

SDuraiswamy YL (Renee) Li RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRlra RidsNrrDlrRlrb RidsNrrDe RidsNrrDci RidsNrreEemb RidsNrrDeEeeb RidsNrrDeEqva RidsNrrDss RidsNrrDnrl RidsOgcMailCenter RidsNrrAdes DLR Staff

---

DAshley VRodriguez RLaufer GMiller RBellamy, RI RCureton, RI JLilliendahl, RIMModes, RI MSykes, RI AHodgdon DShum RidsOpaMail RidsNrrDorl OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONLICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)RAI 4.3-1Section 4.3.1 of the license renewal application indicates that the fatigue usage (based on theuse of projected cycles for 60-years) for the reactor vessel closure studs, the vessel supportskirt and the basin seal skirt to vessel flange junction was predicted to exceed the Oyster Creek acceptance limit of 0.8. The application also indicates that the fatigue usage of thesecomponents was shown to be acceptable by using more refined analysis methods. Describe the more refined analyses that were performed for these components. RAI 4.3-2Section 4.3.1 of the license renewal application indicates that the reactor vessel feedwaternozzles were reanalyzed to account for the effects of rapid thermal cycling. The applicationalso indicates that the analysis satisfied the original Oyster Creek reactor vessel design limits.

However, Table 4.3.1-2 of the license renewal application indicates that the 40-year fatigueusage of the feedwater nozzle was 0.952. Clarify whether the reanalysis of the feedwaternozzle for the rapid thermal cycling satisfied the original Oyster Creek reactor vessel design fatigue limit of 0.8. Also, indicate when the analysis that calculated the fatigue usage of 0.952was performed and provide the basis for its acceptance. RAI 4.3-3Section 4.3.3.2 of the license renewal application discusses the fatigue evaluation of theisolation condenser. Provide the following information regarding the evaluation:a.The application indicates that a fatigue analysis was not performed as part of theoriginal component design. The application also indicates that a later evaluation was performed for the tube bundle replacement in 1998. The application further indicates that the design life of the tube bundle replacement is 1500 cycles. Explainhow the design life of 1500 cycles was determined. Provide the fatigue usage basedon the peak stresses calculated for the Oyster Creek tube bundle replacement.b.The application references the fatigue analysis of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 isolationcondenser. The application indicates that the Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 isolation condenser stress and fatigue results are considered bounding for Oyster Creek.

Provide a detailed discussion of how it was determined that the Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 analysis was bounding for Oyster Creek. The discussion should include a comparison of the isolation condenser sizes and the sub-component materials, geometries and thicknesses. The discussion should also address the tube and shell thermal transients and flow rates.c.The application indicates that the isolation condenser piping outside of thecontainment was evaluated for fatigue as part of a leak-before-break (LBB) analysis completed in 1991. The application also indicates that the piping outside the drywellwas replaced in 1992. Provide the design criteria that was used to evaluate the replacement piping, including the number and types of thermal transients analyzed. Provide the maximum calculated fatigue usage for the replacement piping. RAI 4.3-4Section 4.3.4 of the license renewal application discusses the evaluation of the effects of thereactor coolant environment on the fatigue life of components and piping. Table 4.3.4-1provides the overall environmental fatigue multipliers for the components analyzed. Provide the calculation of the environmental factors for the RPV inlet and outlet nozzles and the feedwaternozzle. Explain how each parameter used in the calculation was determined. RAI 4.6-1Section 4.6 of the license renewal application discusses the fatigue of the primary containment.The application indicates that a structural evaluation of drywell thinning at various locations was performed in 1986 and 1987. Describe the structural evaluation that was performed and indicate whether the evaluation involved any TLAAs.RAI 4.7.3-1The staff needs the following additional information to complete its review of this TLAA:a.An explanatory figure of the equipment pool and the reactor cavity wall areasaffected by the rebar corrosion and leakages.b.The extent of areas of walls affected by the corrosion and leakages.

c.Calculated maximum stresses in the affected rebars during (1) normal operatingcondition, (2) the postulated accident condition, and (3) during the postulated seismic event for which the walls are designed.d.The effect of the 60-year corrosion on the stresses calculated in Item c. above.RAI 4.7.3-2The staff requests the applicant to provide (1) the bases for the corrosion rate established inthe analysis, (2) assertions that these rates will not be exceeded during the period of extendedoperation, and (3) a summary of the program for monitoring the actual corrosion of the rebarduring the period of extended operation.RAI 4.7.3-3The staff requests the applicant to provide the quantitative aspect (i.e., corrosion rate andamount of corrosion predicted) in Section A.5.3 of the UFSAR Supplement.