BSEP 02-0034, Response to Request for Additional Information Re Request for License Amendments - Extended Power Uprate

Response to Request for Additional Information Re Request for License Amendments - Extended Power Uprate

ML020650244
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	02/01/2002
From:	Keenan J Carolina Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
BSEP 02-0034, TAC MB2700, TAC MB2701, TSC-2001-09
Download: ML020650244 (8)

Text

(CP&L John S.Keenan CP&L AProgress Energy Company Vice President Brunswick Nuclear Plant FEB 0 1200Z SERIAL: BSEP 02-0034 TSC-2001-09 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324/LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENTS - EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (NRC TAC NOS. MB2700 AND MB2701)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On August 9, 2001 (Serial: BSEP 01-0086), Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) Company requested a revision to the Operating Licenses (OLs) and the Technical Specifications for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2. The proposed license amendments increase the maximum power level authorized by Section 2.C.(1) of OLs DPR-71 and DPR-62 from 2558 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2923 MWt. Subsequently, on December 10, 2001, the NRC provided an electronic version of a Request for Additional Information (RAI) requesting information associated with the Civil & Engineering Mechanics Section's review of the extended power uprate amendment request. CP&L responded to this RAI on January 24, 2002 (Serial: BSEP 01-0164), with the exception of NRC Question 11-4. The response to NRC Question 11-4 is enclosed.

Please refer any questions regarding this submittal to Mr. Leonard R. Belier, Manager - Regulatory Affairs, at (910) 457-2073.

Sincerely, ohn S. Keenan MAT/mat PO. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 T> 910A457.2496

> 910.457.2803

Document Control Desk BSEP 02-0034 / Page 2

Enclosure:

Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) 11-4 John S. Keenan, having been first duly sworn, did depose and say that the information contained herein is true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge and belief; and the sources of his information are officers, employees, and agents of Carolina Power & Light Company.

Notary (Seal)

My commission expires: 1-2 .

Document Control Desk BSEP 02-0034 / Page 3 cc:

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II ATTN: Dr. Bruce S. Mallett, Regional Administrator Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-8931 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. Theodore A. Easlick, NRC Senior Resident Inspector 8470 River Road Southport, NC 28461-8869 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Electronic Copy Only)

ATTN: Mr. Allen G. Hansen (Mail Stop OWFN 8G9) 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. Mohammed Shuaibi (Mail Stop OWFN 8H4A) 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Ms. Jo A. Sanford Chair - North Carolina Utilities Commission P.O. Box 29510 Raleigh, NC 27626-0510 Mr. Mel Fry Director - Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609-7221

BSEP 02-0034 Enclosure Page 1 of 2 ENCLOSURE BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324/LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENTS - EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (NRC TAC NOS. MB2700 AND MB2701)

Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) 11-4

Background

On August 9, 2001 (Serial: BSEP 01-0086), Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) Company requested a revision to the Operating Licenses (OLs) and the Technical Specifications for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2. The proposed license amendments increase the maximum power level authorized by Section 2.C.(l) of OLs DPR-71 and DPR-62 from 2558 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2923 MWt. Subsequently, on December 10, 2001, the NRC provided an electronic version of a RAI requesting information associated with the Civil &

Engineering Mechanics Section's review of the extended power uprate (EPU) amendment request. CP&L responded to this RAI on January 24, 2002 (Serial: BSEP 01-0164), with the exception of NRC Question 11-4. The response to NRC Question 11-4 follows.

NRC Ouestion 11-4 In reference to Section 3.3.2, you indicate that if there is an increase in annulus pressurization (AP), jet reaction, pipe restraint or fuel lift loads, the changes are considered in the analysis of the components affected due to upset, emergency and faulted conditions. Provide a summary discussion of how these loads are affected by the proposed power uprate. Confirm whether and how these loads are incorporated in the EPU evaluation of the reactor vessel and internal components.

Response to Question 11-4 The applicable loads on the reactor vessel and internals were considered for the EPU evaluation, as discussed in Section 3.3 of the PUSAR (i.e., Enclosure 3 of CP&L's EPU amendment request (Serial: BSEP 01-0086, dated August 9, 2001)). The EPU evaluation considered AP, jet reaction, pipe restraint or fuel lift loads.

The jet reaction load is a function of the vessel pressure, which remains unaffected by the EPU.

Pipe restraint loads are imposed on the shield wall and do not affect the vessel or internals.

Section 4.1.2.3 of the PUSAR addresses the availability of adequate margin in the shield wall.

The reactor internals pressure difference evaluation documents that a net, positive fuel lift

BSEP 02-0034 Enclosure Page 2 of 2 margin exists for the fuel bundle due to the combined effect of reactor internal pressure difference and weight.

As discussed in Section 4.1.2.3, the AP load showed a minimal increase due to EPU. A reconciliation of the existing AP load evaluation basis of the vessel and internal components was performed for the change in the AP loads due to EPU. The resulting loads (i.e., the combination of seismic and AP loads) for those vessel and internal components, consistent with the existing design basis analysis, were determined to be within their corresponding allowable loads.