L-14-001, Response to Request for Additional Information Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, Flooding Walkdowns

Response to Request for Additional Information Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, Flooding Walkdowns

ML14030A559
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	01/30/2014
From:	Belcher S FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-14-001
Download: ML14030A559 (6)

Text

FENOC Fi.,tEnetg/Nucl*, Op.r"Urgh 76 South Main Street Akron. Ahio 443O8 Samuel L. Belcher Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Operating Officer January30,2014 L-14-001 10cFR50.54(0 ATTN: Document ControlDesk U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission 11555Rockville Pike Rockville,MD 20852

SUBJECT:

BeaverValleyPowerStation,UnitNos.1 and2 DocketNo.50-334,LicenseNo.DpR-66 DocketNo.50-412,LicenseNo.NpF-73 Davis-Besse NuclearPowerStation DocketNo.50-346,LicenseNo.NpF-3 PerryNuclearPowerPlant DocketNo.50-440,LicenseNo.NpF-Sg to RequestforAdditional I Associ Near-Term T Recommendation 2.3. FloodinoWalkdowns On March12,2012,the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)issueda lettertitled, "Requestfor Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Codeof FederalRegulations 50.54(f)Regarding Recommendations 2.'1,2.9,andg.3of the Near-Term TaskForce Reviewof Insightsfromthe Fukushima Dai-ichiAccident," to all powerreactorlicensees and holdersof construction permitsin activeor deferredstatus[Agencywide Documents Accessand Management System(ADAMS)AccessionNo.MLlZOSgng4ol.

Enclosure 4 of the 10 CFR50.54(f)lettercontainsspecificrequested actions,requested information, and requiredresponse associated withRecommendation 2.3for 1ooding walkdowns.By letterdatedJune11,2012(ADAMSAccession No.ML12163A318),

FirstEnergy NuclearOperating Company(FENOC)confirmedits intentto useNuclear Energyfnstitute(NEl) 12-07,Guidetines for PertormingVerificationWatkdowns of Ptant FloodProtectionFeatures,as the basisfor the floodingwalkdownsat BeaverValley PowerStation(BVPS),UnitNos.1 and2; Davis-Besse NuclearPowerStation (DBNPS); andPerryNuclearPowerPlant(PNPP).FENOCsubmitted the required floodingwalkdownreportsfor BVPS,UnitNos.1 and2; DBNPS;and PNPPby letter datedNovemb er 27, 2012(ADAMSAccessionNo.ML1233sA3 41).

BeaverValleyPowerStation,UnitNos.'l and2 Davis-Besse NuclearPowerStation PerryNuclearPowerPlant L-14-001 Page2 Oneof the requirements of NEI 12-07is to identifythe availablephysicalmargin(APM) associated witheachapplicable floodprotection feature,determine if the margin providedis small,andevaluateanysmallmarginsthathavepotentially significant consequences throughthe correctiveactionprocess.The resultsof this effortare to be maintained on sitefor futureNRCaudits Following the NRCstaff'sinitialreviewof thewalkdownreports,regulatory siteaudits wereconducted at a samplingof plants.Basedon walkdownreportreviewsandsite audits,the NRCstaffidentified additionalinformation necessary to allowthe staffto completeitsassessments. By letterdatedDecember23,2013(ADAMSAccession No.ML133254891), the NRCstaffrequested thisadditional information. The response to the requested additional information for BVPS,UnitNos.1 and2; DBNPS;andPNPP is attached.

Thereare no regulatory commitments containedin thisletter.lf thereareanyquestions or if additionalinformation is required,pleasecontactMr.ThomasA. Lentz,Manager-FleetLicensing, at 330-315-0810.

I declareunderpenaltyof perjurythatthe foregoingis trueandcorrect.Executedon January3a ,2014.

Sincerely, SamuelL. Belcher

Attachment:

Response to RequestforAdditionalInformation cc: Director, officeof NuclearReactorRegulation (NRR)

NRCRegionI Administrator NRCRegionlll Administrator NRCResidentInspector (BVPS)

NRCResident Inspector (DBNPS)

NRCResident Inspector (PNPP)

NRRProjectManager(BVPS)

NRRProjectManager(DBNPS)

NRRProlectManager(PNPP)

DirectorBRP/DEP SiteBRP/DEPRepresentative UtilityRadiological SafetyBoard

Attachment L-14-001 Response to RequestforAdditional Information Page1 of 4 By fetterdatedNovemb er 27, 2012[Agencywide Documents Accessand Management System(ADAMS)AccessionNo.ML12335A34U, FirstEnergy NuclearOperating Company(FENOC)submitted floodingwalkdownreportsfor BeaverValleyPower Station(BVPS),UnitNos.1 and2, Davis-Besse NuclearPowerStation(DBNPS), and PerryNuclearPowerPlant(PNPP).By letterdatedDecember 23, 2013(ADAMS Accession No.ML133254891), the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)staff requested additional information necessary to allowthe staffto completeits assessments. The responseto the requestfor additional information (RAl)is provided below.The NRCstaffquestionis presented in boldtype,followedby the FENOC response.

Determination and documentation of availablephysicalmargin(APM)

Background:

The NRCstaff observedthat severallicenseesdid not consistentlydetermine and/ordocumentavailablephysicalmargin(APM)in a mannerthat met the expectedinterpretationof [NuclearEnergyInstitute]NEI 12-07during audits associatedwith reviewof the [Near-TermTask Force]NTTFRecommendation 2.3 reportsubmittals.APM is definedin Section3.13of NEI 12-07and the process for obtainingand evaluatingAPMvaluesis describedin Section5.8 of NEI 12-07.

Consistentwith NEI12-07,a numericalvaluefor APMshould be determinedand documentedfor everyapplicableflood protectionfeature(e.g.,wall, penetration, berm,door,etc.). This would normallybe a numericalvalue reflectingthe differencebetweenthe licensingbasisflood heightat the locationof the feature and the point at which the functionof the flood protectionfeatureis compromised(e.9.,the top of a barrieror the heightof the first unsealed penetrationin a barrier)such that the resultingflood can affecta structures, systems,and componentsimportantto safety. Next,in accordancewith Section5.8of NEI12-07,if the APMappearsto be small and the consequencesof floodingappearto be significant,the licenseeshouldenterthe conditioninto the

[correctiveaction program]CAPand appropriateaction be taken. While NEI12'07does not requirethat a specificnumericalthresholdvaluefor "small" APM be definedfor eachsite, doing so establishesa consistentbasisfor determiningwhat instancesneedto be enteredinto the CAP. lf a numericalAPM valuecannotbe determinedfor any flood protectionfeature,the licenseeshould performan assessmentof the ability of the barrierto withstandthe licensing basisflood plus the contributionof the additionalwater correspondingto the pre-establishedsmall-margin threshold

Attachment L-14-001 Page2 of 4 value. lf the barriercan withstandthis flood,the APMfor the featureis "not small" and furtherevaluationin accordancewith Section5.8of NEI I 2-07is not required. lt is further notedthat conclusionsregarding"largen'valuesof APM shouldbe basedon engineeringevaluationsor existingdesigndocuments.

Licenseesshould ensurethat the processfor APM determinationand evaluation usedduringtheir floodingwalkdownsis consistentwith the guidancein NEI12'07. The intentof this RAI is not to repeatthe floodingwalkdownsor performan extensiverevision of the walkdown record forms and other paperwork. Insteadthe purposeis to verify or modify the process used to determineAPMsuch that everysite is awareof the marginat each of its flood protectionfeaturesand take appropriateinterimactionswhen the APM is small and the consequencesare significant. Instanceswhere numericalvaluesfor APM were not determined,or wherethe basisfor the APMwas found to be questionable,should be rectifiedby eitherthe documentationof a specificvalue or an explanationof why a non-numerical valueis appropriate.

Request:

Pleaseprovidethe following:

1. confirmationthat the processfor evaluatingApM was

2. Confirmationthat the APM processis now or was alwaysconsistentwith the guidancein NEI12-0Tand discussedin this RAI;

3. ff changesare necess?ry,a generaldescriptionof any processchangesto establishthis consistency;

4. As a resultof the auditsand subsequentinteractionswith industryduring public meetings,NRCstaff recognizedthat evaluationof APMfor seals (e-.g.,

flood doors, penetrations,flood gates,etc.)was challengingfor some licensees.Generally,licenseeswere expectedto use eithei ApproachA or ApproachB (describedbelow)to determinethe APMfor seals:

a) lf seal pressureratingswere known,the seal ratingswere usedto determineAPM(similarto example2 in Section3.13of NEI12-071.A numericalvaluefor APMwas documented.No furtheractionwas performedif the APMvaluewas greaterthan the pre-established small-marginthresholdvalue. lf the APMvaluewas small,an assessmentof "significantconsequences"was performedand the guidancein NEI 12-OT Section5.8was followed.

b) lf the seal pressureratingwas not knowtr,the APMfor seals in a flood barrieris assumedto be greaterthan the pre-established small-margin

Attachment L-14-001 Page3 of 4 thresholdvalue if the followingconditionswere met: (1)the APMfor the barrierin which the seal is locatedis greaterthan the small-margin thresholdvalueand there is evidencethat the sealswere designed/procured, installed,and controlledas floodingsealsin accordancewith the flooding licensingbasis. Notethat in orderto determinethat the seal has beencontrolledas a floodingseal,it was only necessaryto determinethat the seal configurationhas beengovernedby the plant'sdesigncontrol processsince installation.In this case,the APM for the seal could havebeendocumentedas "not small."

As part of the RAI response,state if eitherApproachA or ApproachB was used as part of the initialwalkdownsor as part of actionstakenin responseto this RAl. No additionalactionsare necessaryif eitherApproachA or B was used.

lf neitherApproachA or B was used to determinethe APMvaluesfor seals (eitheras part of the walkdownsor as part of actionstaken in responseto this RAI),then performthe followingtwo actions:

o Enterthe conditioninto the CAP(note: it is acceptableto utilizea single CAPentry to capturethis issuefor multipleseals). CAP dispositionof "undetermined"APMvaluesfor sealsshouldconsider the guidanceprovidedin NEI12-07,Section5.8. The CAPdisposition should confirmall sealscan performtheir intendedsafetyfunction againstfloods up to the currentlicensingbasis flood height.

Dispositionmay occur as part of the IntegratedAssessment.lf an IntegratedAssessmentis not performed,determinewhetherthereare significantconsequencesassociatedwith exceedingthe capacityof the sealsand take interimaction(s),if necessary,via the CAP processes.

Theseactionsdo not needto be completeprior to the RAI response.

o Reportthe APMas "undetermined'n and providethe GAPreferencein the RAf response.

Response

BVPS,UnitNos.1 and2 FENOChascompleted a reviewof the floodingdesignbasiswalkdown APMprocess for BVPS,UnitNos.1 and2. Theoriginalwalkdowneffortfollowedthe guidance providedin NEI 12-07;however,a smallmarginhadnotbeendefined.Thissmall marginfor the sitehasnowbeendefinedwithinthe guidanceof NEI 12-07.Features thatfallwithinthe smallmarginhavebeendocumented withinthe CAPfor further evaluation.A numberof featureshadtheAPMindicated as notapplicableduringthe

Attachment L-14-001 Page 4 of 4 originalwalkdowns.Thesefeatureshave been reviewedand the APMs have been updatedconsistentwith the guidanceprovidedin NEI 12-07.

The flood sealsat BVPS,Unit Nos. 1 and 2, were includedin the walkdownsof the specificwallsthat containedthese seals. The approachto the walkdownswas to treat the wall as a feature,not the individualseal. However,seal pressureratingsand respectivetechnicalbasiswere known. These ratingswere used to determineAPM of the wallscontainingthe seals. A numericalAPM valuefor the wallswas documented.

Sincethis was basedon documentedpressureratingsfor the seals,ApproachA was followed.

DBNPS FENOChas completeda reviewof the floodingdesignbasiswalkdownAPM process for DBNPS. The originalwalkdowneffortfollowedthe guidanceprovidedin NEI 12-07; however,a small marginhad not been defined. This small marginfor the site has now been definedwithinthe guidanceof NEI 12-07. A numberof featureshad the APM indicatedas not applicableduringthe originalwalkdowns.Thesefeaturesrequire reviewso that theAPMs will be consistentwith the guidanceprovidedin NEI 12-07and dispositioned as "notsmall." This has been capturedin the CAP.

The flood seals at DBNPSwere includedin the walkdownsof the specificwalls that containedthese seals. The approachto the walkdownswas to treat the wall as a feature,not the individualseal. APM was not determinedfor the individualseals. As part of the actionstaken in responseto this RAl, this has been capturedin the CAP (ConditionReportNo. 2014-00373)for the seals havingundeterminedAPM. Seal pressureratingsand respectivetechnicalbasisare known. These ratingswill be used to determineAPM of the walls containingthe seals.

PNPP FENOChascompleted a reviewof thefloodingdesignbasiswalkdown APM process for PNPP.The originalwalkdowneffortfollowedthe guidanceprovidedin NEI 12-07; however,a smallmarginhadnotbeendefined.Thissmallmarginfor the sitehasnow beendefinedwithinthe guidanceof NEI 12-07.Featureshadbeenassignednumeric valuesfor APMduringthe originalwalkdowns.Features thatfallwithinthe smallmargin havebeendocumented withinthe CAPfor furtherevaluation.

Thefloodsealsat PNPPwereincludedin thewalkdowns of the specificwallsthat contained theseseals.The approachto thewalkdowns wasto treatthe wallas a feature,notthe individual seal. ApproachA was usedfor the majorityof seals,but in instances wheresealpressureratingswerenot known,ApproachB was used.