ML18113A780

2018/04/23 Vogtle COL Docs - RAI Transmittal for Vogtle 3 & 4 LAR 17-037 (RAI LAR 17-037-4)

ML18113A780
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/23/2018
From:	NRC
To:	NRC/NRO/DNRL/LB4
References
Download: ML18113A780 (4)

Text

Vogtle PEmails From: Habib, Donald Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:02 PM To: ptapscot@southernco.com; Chamberlain, Amy Christine; WASPARKM@southernco.com; Redd, Jason P.; Amundson, Theodore Edwin; Hicks, Thomas E.

Cc: neil.haggerty@excelservices.com; Patel, Chandu; Vogtle PEmails; Dixon-Herrity, Jennifer

Subject:

RAI Transmittal for Vogtle 3 & 4 LAR 17-037 (RAI LAR 17-037-4)

Attachments: SCVB RAI LAR 17-037-04 RAI_9537 As Issued 04-23-2018.docx To All:

By letter dated December 21, 2017, Southern Nuclear Company submitted License Amendment Request No.17-037 to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17355A416). The NRC staff is reviewing the request to enable the staff to reach a conclusion on the safety of the proposed changes.

The NRC staff has identified that additional information is needed to continue the review. The staffs request for additional information (RAI) is contained in the attachment to this email.

To support the review schedule, you are requested to respond within 30 days of the date of this email. If changes are needed to the final safety analysis report, the staff requests that the RAI response include the proposed wording changes.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, you may contact me at 301-415-1035.

Sincerely, Donald Habib, Project Manager Licensing Branch 4 Division of New Reactor Licensing Office of New Reactors 301-415-1035 1

Hearing Identifier: Vogtle_COL_Docs_Public Email Number: 261 Mail Envelope Properties (SN4PR0901MB217383477481C536B4A2D08A97890)

Subject:

RAI Transmittal for Vogtle 3 & 4 LAR 17-037 (RAI LAR 17-037-4)

Sent Date: 4/23/2018 3:01:59 PM Received Date: 4/23/2018 3:02:03 PM From: Habib, Donald Created By: Donald.Habib@nrc.gov Recipients:

"neil.haggerty@excelservices.com" <neil.haggerty@excelservices.com>

Tracking Status: None "Patel, Chandu" <Chandu.Patel@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Vogtle PEmails" <Vogtle.PEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Dixon-Herrity, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Dixon-Herrity@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "ptapscot@southernco.com" <ptapscot@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Chamberlain, Amy Christine" <ACCHAMBE@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "WASPARKM@southernco.com" <WASPARKM@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Redd, Jason P." <JPREDD@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Amundson, Theodore Edwin" <X2TAMUNS@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None "Hicks, Thomas E." <X2TEHICK@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: SN4PR0901MB2173.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1222 4/23/2018 3:02:03 PM SCVB RAI LAR 17-037-04 RAI_9537 As Issued 04-23-2018.docx 26594 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Request for Additional Information - LAR 17-037-4 Issue Date: 04/23/2018 Application Title: VEGP Units 3 and 4 - LARs Operating Company: Southern Nuclear Operating Co.

Docket No.52-025 and 52-026 The process for changes and departures from Tier 2* information is provided, in part, in 10 CFR Part 52 Appendix D Section VIII.B.6.b (i.e., Tier 2* matters that do not expire at full power) and states that departures from Tier 2* will be treated as a license amendment request and require prior staff review and approval.

SECY-17-0075 (ML16196A321) provides regulatory insights regarding Tier 2* content. Per SECY-17-0075, the purpose of the Tier 2* designation is to control certain information which the staff has determined to have safety significance commensurate with Tier 1 information. Any modification to the Tier 2* change process must still ensure that information with safety significance commensurate with that of Tier 1 information is controlled in a similar manner (e.g.

changes to such information require prior staff review and approval).

Part 52 Appendix D,Section VIII.B.6.b Item (7), "Screen design criteria," (for containment sump screens) is one of the items designated as Tier 2* information for the AP1000 design. LAR 17-037 proposes to evaluate departures from item (7) in part by applying a screening criterion identified as Qualifying Criterion 4, "[a]dversely affects the debris screen design criteria."

LAR 17-037 Enclosure 1 provides screening guidance used to assess if a proposed change is adverse with respect to Qualifying Criterion 4. Specifically, "[a]n adverse change is any change that would be considered a non-conservative change of a debris value established in the UFSAR" and "[a]n adverse change would be any change that changes any element of the evaluations used to determine the design of the debris screens."

The staff requests that the applicant provide the following information in the LAR:

1. Identify the DCD/UFSAR Section(s) which contain(s) information subject to LAR 17-037 Qualifying Criterion 4 and associated guidance.

2. Identify the debris value(s) that are subject to Qualifying Criterion 4.

3. State how you would evaluate (e.g., in the Qualifying Criterion 4 bases section) any relaxation of the debris values identified in response to item (2) above and state whether each relaxation adversely affects the debris screen design criteria, including in-vessel debris effects on long-term core cooling. Explain the basis for your conclusion regarding each relaxation, whether adverse or not adverse.

4. Identify a) the elements of the evaluations, other than debris values, used to determine the design of the debris screens that are subject to Qualifying Criterion 4 and b) the debris screens that are subject to Qualifying Criterion 4.

5. State how you would evaluate (e.g., in the Qualifying Criterion 4 bases section) any relaxation to any element of the evaluations used to determine the design of the debris screens associated with item 4) above (other than debris values) and state whether each relaxation adversely affects any element of the evaluations used to determine the design of the debris screens. Explain the basis for your conclusion regarding each relaxation, whether adverse or not adverse.

6. Revise license condition 2.D.(13)(a)4 (i.e., Qualifying Criterion 4) to include containment debris limits in addition to debris screen design criteria.

As part of the response, provide a markup of the LAR to reflect this information request or describe in detail why it is not necessary.