ML17101A697

Indian Point License Renewal Clarification Call on Baffle Bolt Rai'S

ML17101A697
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/25/2017
From:	William Burton Division of License Renewal
To:	Entergy Nuclear Operations
William Burton, NRR/DLR, 415-6332
References
CAC MD5407, CAC MD5408
Download: ML17101A697 (5)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 25, 2017

LICENSEE: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)

FACILITY: Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3)

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON APRIL 5, 2017, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENTERGY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE INDIAN POINT UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (CAC. NOS. MD5407 AND MD5408)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Entergy held a telephone conference call on April 5, 2017, to discuss and clarify the staff's requests for additional information (RAIs) concerning the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's RAIs.

provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 provides a summary of the key points discussed in the conference call. The RAIs can be found in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML17073A126.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Sincerely, /RA/ William Burton, Senior Project Manager

Project Management and Guidance Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosures 1. List of Participants

2. Summary of RAIs

cc w/encls: Listserv

ML17101A697 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPGB:DLR BC:RPG B:DLR PM:RPGB:DLR NAME YEdmonds WBurton SBloom WBurton DATE 4/19/2017 4/19/2017 4/25/17 4/25/2017 Enclosure 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL INDIAN POINT UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS APRIL 5, 2017 PARTICIPANTS A FFILIATIONSWilliam "Butch" Burton U.S. Nuclear Re g ulator y Commission (NRC)Jeff Poehle r NRCDavid Rudland NRC A llen Hise r NRC A lbert Won g NRCRichard Louie Enter gy Nuclear O p erations Inc.

(Enter gy)Richard Burroni Enter gyNelson Azevido Enter gy

Enclosure 2 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION APRIL 5, 2017 Background By letter dated February 6, 2017, Entergy submitted a revised reactor vessel internals (RVI) aging management program (AMP) and RVI Inspection Plan for Indian Point Unit, Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). The changes to the RVI AMP and RVI Inspection Plan include changes to the schedule for performing ultrasonic and visual examination of baffle-former bolts (BFBs) and replacement of baffle-former bolts at IP2 and IP3. The changes were prompted by operating experience with degradation of BFBs at IP2 and other pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) of similar design in 2016.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) st aff is reviewing the changes to the RVI AMP and RVI Inspection plan, and requires additional information to complete its review, as detailed

below. RAI 3.0.3.9-1 Section 6.2 of the revised RVI Inspection Plan for IP2 and IP3 lists five specific actions to be taken with regard to BFBs. The third and fourth item state: 3. Entergy will also perform general visual inspection to identify anomalies in the baffle structure at IP2 and IP3 during each subsequent refueling outage. 4. Entergy will perform an ultrasonic test (UT) inspection of in-service replaced (new) bolts if the general visual inspections performed in accordance with paragraph 3, above identify degraded new bolts. For replacement BFBs, based on Items 3 and 4, UT examination will not be performed during future refueling outages unless a general visual examination of the baffle structure reveals anomalies. The staff is concerned because the applicant did not provide sufficient detail about these general visual examinations for the staff to determine whether the visual examinations would be capable of detecting degraded replacement BFBs. The applicant also did not specify the timing for the UT examination of replacem ent bolts if the visual examination reveals degraded replacement BFBs. The staff therefore requests the following information: a. Describe the examination coverage and method (e.g. VT-1, VT-3) of the general visual inspection of the baffle structure discussed in Item 3. b. Clarify what is meant by "anomalies." What conditions observed during the visual examination would trigger a UT examination of replacement BFBs? c. Justify that the general visual inspection will be capable of detecting any and all visually degraded replacement BFBs. d. If the general visual examination reveals degraded replacement BFBs, when will the UT examination of the replacement bolts be performed? Justify the timing of this examination, if not performed during the same refueling outage as the discovery of the degraded replacement BFBs.

Entergy indicated that it could identify the examination coverage and method (RAI 1a) and will clarify what conditions would be considered "anomalies" (RAI 1b). With respect to RAI 1d, Entergy indicated its response may indicate that Entergy would evaluate any observed conditions through its corrective actions program before deciding what corrective actions would be taken and the timing of these corrective actions.

RAI 3.03.3.9-2 Operating experience from D.C. Cook, Unit 2, during Fall 2016 suggests that replacement BFBs and baffle-edge bolts may be susceptible to degradation if a large number of clustered original degraded bolts are present near the replacement bolts. The staff therefore requests the following information: If clustering of degraded original BFBs is found at IP2 or IP3 during future refueling outages: a. Will UT examination be performed on replacement BFBs installed during previous outages? If so, describe the scope and schedule of these examinations. b. Will baffle-edge bolts be examined? If so, describe the method, scope and schedule of these examinations. c. If the UT examination of replacement BFBs and examination of edge bolts will not be performed if clustered degraded original bolts are found, justify not performing these examinations.

Entergy stated that they understand what the staff is requesting in the RAIs and had no further

questions.

With respect to RAI 2a, b and c, Entergy indicated its responses may indicate that it would evaluate any observed conditions through its corrective actions program before deciding what corrective actions would be taken and the timing of these corrective actions.

RAI Response Date Entergy and the staff agreed that the RAI response will be provided no later than 30 days from the date of the RAI letter.