ML11286A084

Acceptance for Review of License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate

ML11286A084
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	11/21/2011
From:	Siva Lingam Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Franke J Progress Energy Florida
Lingam S, NRR/DORL, 301-415-1564
References
TAC ME6527
Download: ML11286A084 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 21,2011 Mr. Jon A. Franke, Vice President Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA2C)

ATTN: Supervisor, Licensing & Regulatory Programs 15760 W. Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708

SUBJECT:

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT -ACCEPTANCE REVIEW OF LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (TAC NO. ME 6527)

Dear Mr. Franke:

By letter dated June 15, 2011, as supplemented by letters dated July 5, 2011, August 11 (2 letters), August 18 and 25, 2011, and October 11 and 25, 2011, Florida Power Corporation (the licensee or FPC), doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted a license amendment request for an extended power uprate (EPU) to increase thermal power level from 2609 megawatts (MWt) to 3014 MWt for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (Crystal River, Unit 3). The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this amendment request. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there was sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.

Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license (including the technical specifications) must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required.

This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and prinCipal safety considerations.

The NRC staff has reviewed your application dated June 15, 2011, and requested additional information (RAI) required to continue the acceptance review. You provided the responses to these RAls by supplemental letters dated July 5, 2011, 2 letters dated August 11, 2011, August 18, and 25, 2011, and October 11 and 25, 2011. In your letter dated October 11, 2011, you committed to provide NRC by November 11, 2011, a summary of a feedwater line break overpressure protection analysis including key analysis input assumptions and reactor coolant system pressure results, which the NRC staff had indicated was required for its detailed review.

This information was provided in your letter dated October 25, 2011.

The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it provides sufficient technical information to enable the NRC staff to initiate its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

J. Franke

- 2 Given the lesser scope and depth of the acceptance review as compared to the detailed technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.

The typical EPU review duration goal is 1 year after NRC acceptance of the application.

However, review of the Crystal River, Unit 3 EPU will require additional time based on the following:

• This is a first-of-a-kind application for a Babcock and Wilcox nuclear steam supply system plant.

• The application includes crediting a new safety-related fast cooldown system to assist the emergency core cooling system during a small-break loss-of-coolant accident, which requires substantial review by the NRC staff.

Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates it will require more than 1 year, and possibly up to 2 years, from the date of this letter to complete its review.

In addition to the above, you indicated in your October 25, 2011, letter that the EPU implementation will occur following completion of Crystal River, Unit 3 containment repair activities, and you are still developing the repair plan. Given these schedule uncertainties, the NRC staff may defer portions of our review activities until we have a better understanding of your plan to repair the containment. Once you finalize the containment repair plan and provide a more definitive implementation schedule, we will update our overall review schedule accordingly.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, I may be reached at 301-415-1564.

Sincerely,

~~.~

Siva P. Lingam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-302 cc: Listserv

• ML11286A084 OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-2/LA SRXB/BC LPL2-2/BC PGCB/BC NAME SLingam CSoia AUlses (MRazzaque for)

DBroaddus SRosenberg (MBanic for)

DATE 11/8/11 11/8/11 11/9/11 11/8/11 11/9/11 OFFICE DSS/D DORUD DPR/D NRR/D LPL2-2/PM NAME WRuland MEvans TMcGinty (RNelson for)

ELeeds (BBoger for)

SLingam DATE 11/9/11 11/16/11 11/15/11 11/18/11 11/21/11