ML083100624

Request for Additional Information, License Amendment for Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate

ML083100624
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	11/17/2008
From:	Pickett D Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Spina J Calvert Cliffs
pickett , NRR/DORL, 415-1364
References
TAC MD9554, TAC MD9555
Download: ML083100624 (4)

Text

November 17, 2008 Mr. James A. Spina, Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: LICENSE AMENDMENT FOR MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE -

CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 -

(TAC NOS. MD9554 AND MD9555)

Dear Mr. Spina:

By letter dated August 29, 2008, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. requested Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to increase the core thermal power rating of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 by 1.38 percent from 2700 megawatt-thermal (MWt) to 2737 MWt.

The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. Enclosed is the staffs request for additional information (RAI). As discussed with your staff, we understand that you intend to respond to this RAI by December 31, 2008.

Please contact me at 301-415-1364 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

ML083100624 OFFICE PM/LPL1-1 LA:LPL1-1 BC/SRXB BC/EMCB NAME DPickett SLittle GCranston by memo dated KManoly by memo dated DATE 11 /13 / 08 11 /12/ 08 11 / 03 / 08 10 / 31 / 08 OFFICE BC/AFPB BC/LPL1-1 NAME AKlein by memo dated MKowal DATE 11 / 04 / 08 11 /17 / 08

Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 & 2 MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE (MUR) POWER UPRATE Reactor Systems Branch

1.

What are the instructions for transducer replacement uncertainty described in ER-551P, LEFM CheckPlus Transducer Installation Sensitivity, Revision 3, dated April 2008?

2.

Describe and provide drawings of the location where the ultrasonic flow meters will be installed in the 16 feedwater header for each steam generator.

3.

Describe the location where the two pressure transmitters will be installed.

4.

Describe the test configuration and test specifics of the hydraulic testing performed at Alden Labs. Please provide drawings of the test configuration and explain any differences between the as-tested and installed configuration.

5., Section 1.5, Table I-1, explain how the plant computer calculation entries were determined.

6.

In Enclosure 1, Section 7.2.2.3, Feedwater Temperature, Part f, define TPFW-IND(m),

TPFW-IND(M), and TPFW-IND(M1).

7.

Section 7.2.2.3, Feedwater Temperature, Part f of Enclosure 1 states, Calorimetric uncertainty will be evaluated at both minimum and maximum feedwater temperatures, with indicated temperature greater than actual temperature. Please explain the entries in the three tables.

8.

Section 7.5.2 of Enclosure 1; explain what is referenced from Section 4.2.1.

9.

Section I.7 of Attachment 2 of the subject license amendment request states (about the LEFM CheckPlus system operating in a degraded condition):

In this condition, the system basically operates as the LEFM Check System described in References I-1 and I-2, capable of supporting uprates on the order of the requested 1.38% uprate. However, if the site-specific uncertainty analysis for the LEFM CheckPlus System does not support the uprate, the 30-day outage time will not be adopted.

a. The term basically is unclear. What provides the necessary assurance that, in a degraded condition, the system still operates in a manner that supports the requested uprate?

b. What is meant by the phrase, If the site-specific uncertainty analysis for the LEFM CheckPlus System does not support the uprate? Will approval for an uprate be requested if the site specific uncertainty analysis does not support the uprate? Please clarify this sentence.

Mechanical & Civil Engineering Branch

1.

Table IV-1 of your August 29, 2008 submittal indicates that the steam flow per steam generator will increase to 5.999 Mlbm/hr (million pound mass per hour) from 5.9 Mlbm/hr. In addition to Note 6 of this table, Table 4-3 of the Calvert Cliffs Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) indicates that the design steam flow value for the secondary side of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) is approximately 6 Mlbm/hr. Page v of Attachment 2 of your submittal indicates that the approach utilized in this application follows the guidance provided in Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-03. With regards to the bounding nature of this approximate value for steam flow, please summarize the effect(s) this may have on the secondary side components with respect to the guidance provided in Section IV.B of Attachment 1 to RIS 2002-03.

Fire Protection Branch

1. of the license amendment request (LAR),Section IV.11, Appendix R mentions safe-shutdown fire analysis. This section states that Appendix R compliance can be affected by adding heat to plant areas that could affect Appendix R safe-shutdown because the higher temperatures could affect Appendix R equipment and plant operators. However, the overall temperature changes in the primary and secondary systems are very small such that the issue of added heat load to the plant is not a concern The staff requests the licensee to verify that the overall temperature changes in the primary and secondary systems are very small (i.e., provide the values) and, at these higher temperatures, Appendix R equipment and plant operators are unaffected, thereby remaining in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.

Further, the staff requests the licensee to verify that additional heat in the plant environment from the measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate will not prevent required post-fire operator manual actions, as identified in the Calvert Cliffs fire protection program from being performed at their designated time.

2.

The results of the Appendix R evaluation for MUR power uprate are provided in of the LAR,Section IV.11, Appendix R. However, this section does not discuss the time necessary for the repair of systems required to achieve and maintain cold shutdown nor the increase in decay heat generation following plant trips. The staff requests the licensee to verify that the plant can meet the 72-hour requirements in both 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Sections III.G.1.b and III.L with increased decay heat at MUR power uprate conditions.