ML18106A615

Topics for the April 18, 2018, Telephone Call - Rev 1 with Aaron'S Rewrite

ML18106A615
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	04/16/2018
From:	Wong A NRC/NRR/DMLR/MRPB
To:
Wong A, 415-3081
References
Download: ML18106A615 (1)

Text

TOPICS FOR THE APRIL 18, 2018 PUBLIC TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ENTERGY ON THE RIVER BEND STATION, UNIT 1 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

1. Set 12 Responses (Dated April 3, 2018, ML18093A099) -

a. RAI 3.2.2.3.2-1a - The applicant revised LRA Sections A.1.34 and B.1.34 to include additional inspection activities to the Periodic Surveillance and Preventive Maintenance Program. However, no new AMR items are added to LRA Tables 3.2.2-2, 3.2.2-3, 3.2.2-4, and 3.2.2-5 to reflect these changes. The LRA is not adequate without additional new AMR items to the aforementioned tables.

2. Set 10 Response (Dated March 26, 2018, ML18087A188) -

a. RAI B.1.10 Scoping of standby liquid control system for portions of the standby liquid control (SLC) lines located inside of the reactor vessel (matter is being reviewed with DSS/SXRB) - use of the applicants basis for using BWRVIP-27-A as the sole basis for resolving the issue raised in RAI B.1.10-2.

b. RAI 3.1.2.1.2 Use of a one-time for managing loss of material in reactor vessel internals. The applicants basis provided in the response simply restates basis in original LRA, and the applicant relies only the fact the AMR Item IV.C1.RP-158 (an AMR item for Class 1 piping components) exists in the GALL Revision 2 report. The applicant does not provided adequate demonstration that IV.C1.RP-158 is an acceptable alternative AMR item to apply to aging management of BWR RVI components.

c. RAI 4.3.1 For listed reactor pressure vessel (RPV) components that have been analyzed with a CUF analysis, why does the response indicate that the CUF values were only based on an assessment of heatup and cooldown transients. That is not consistent with the transients that are listed as assumed transients for RPV component CUF analyses in USAR Section 3.9B.

d. RAI 4.3.1 Reactor vessel internal (RVI) components that have been analyzed with a CUF - listed BWRVIP reports for aging management and for disposition the CUF analysis of the component under 10 CFR 54.12(c)(1)(iii) may not inspect the RVI that have been identified as having CUF analyses. For example BWRVIP-18 cannot be credited as the basis for components in the core plate assembly because the BWRVIP report does not design BWR-6 core plates or any of the components in the core plate assembly for aging management inspections.

e. RAI 4.3.2 Question on LRA Section 4.3.2.1 - Scope/list of non-Class 1 systems that have been analyzed with a design basis cycle dependent expansion stress and maximum allowable stress range reduction analysis based only on an assessment of plant heatups and cooldowns. Applicant did not provide this information requested in the RAI.

f. RAI 4.7.3 Regarding Part 4 of the RAI: For reactor vessel internal (RVI) components that were projected to exceed the fluence threshold values, the applicant indicated that these components must meet additional strain criteria. The applicants RAI response did not describe how the strain criteria were derived.

Therefore, the staff would like to discuss the applicants additional strain requirements and the calculated projected strain values for each RVI component compared to these additional strain criteria.

1