ML040850654
| ML040850654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/2004 |
| From: | Kalyanam N NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4 |
| To: | Venable J Entergy Operations |
| Kalyanam N,NRR/DLPM,415-1480 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC1355 | |
| Download: ML040850654 (7) | |
Text
March 24, 2004 Mr. Joseph E. Venable Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751
SUBJECT:
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (WATERFORD 3) -
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO REVISION TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS -
EXTENDED POWER UPRATE REQUEST (TAC NO. MC1355)
Dear Mr. Venable:
By letter dated November 13, 2003, and supplemented by letters dated January 29 and March 4, 2004, Entergy Operations, Inc. proposed revisions to the Waterford 3 operating license and Technical Specifications which would allow an increase in the rated thermal power from 3,441 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,716 MWt.
After reviewing your request, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that additional information is required to complete the review. We discussed this information with your staff by telephone and they agreed to provide the additional information requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-1480.
Sincerely,
/RA/
N. Kalyanam, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate IV Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page
March 24, 2004 Mr. Joseph E. Venable Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751
SUBJECT:
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (WATERFORD 3) -
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO REVISION TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS -
EXTENDED POWER UPRATE REQUEST (TAC NO. MC1355)
Dear Mr. Venable:
By letter dated November 13, 2003, and supplemented by letters dated January 29 and March 4, 2004, Entergy Operations, Inc. proposed revisions to the Waterford 3 operating license and Technical Specifications which would allow an increase in the rated thermal power from 3,441 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,716 MWt.
After reviewing your request, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that additional information is required to complete the review. We discussed this information with your staff by telephone and they agreed to provide the additional information requested in the enclosure within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-1480.
Sincerely,
/RA/
N. Kalyanam, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate IV Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC PDIV-1 r/f RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDlpmLpdiv1 (RGramm)
RidsNrrPMNKalyanam RidsNrrLADJohnson RidsRgn4MailCenter (AHowell)
TChan/RDavis RDennig/MHart DSolorio/AStubbs RidsNrrDlpmDpr RidsNrrDeDpr RidsNrrDssaDpr Accession No.: ML040850654
- RAI input from the staff without any major change OFFICE PDIV-1/PM PDIV-1/LA DE/EMCB*
DSSA/SPLB*
DSSA/SPSB*
PDIV-1/SC NAME NKalyanam DBaxley for DJohnson TChan/RDavis DSolorio/AStubbs RDennig/MHart RGramm DATE 03/24/04 03/24/04 02/05/04 03/19/04 03/09/04 0324/04 OFFICIAL COPY
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (WATERFORD 3)
DOCKET NO. 50-382 Piping Integrity and Non-Destructive Examination Section 1.
Please identify all reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) materials and provide a discussion for each of these materials as to why the proposed extended power uprate (EPU) will not effect material integrity.
2.
Identify dissimilar metal welds within the primary coolant piping system (including vessel safe end welds).
3.
Identify any mitigating steps that have been taken to control primary water stress-corrosion cracking or any other degradation mechanism in the RCPB system.
4.
If mitigating steps have been taken, discuss why the EPU will not adversely effect the mitigating steps that have been taken.
Balance of Plant - Cooling System 5.
Please explain how the equipment and floor drainage system is impacted by the EPU.
6.
Section 2.5.5.3 of the application, addresses the impact of EPU on the Reactor Auxiliary Cooling Water Systems. In the evaluation section, it is stated that Under EPU conditions, the maximum heat load from containment during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) is lower than the maximum heat load considered on the component cooling water system (CCWS) and auxiliary CCWS (ACCWS) systems under pre-Uprate conditions. The containment heat load under EPU conditions was determined using a more detailed evaluation of the containment heat loads than was performed previously under Pre-EPU conditions.
a.
Provide the pre-EPU and post-EPU heat loads for the CCWS and ACCWS systems.
b.
Explain, in detail, the differences in the methods and assumptions use to calculate the pre-EPU and post-EPU heat loads. Identify what conservatism, if any, has been removed, and provide appropriate justification for the changes made in the way the heat load was calculated for post-EPU plant operation.
c.
Section 2.5.5.4 of the application addresses the impact of EPU on the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS). The EPU evaluation arrived at lower peak heat loads than those used in the current UHS analysis, due to lower maximum CCWS heat loads that resulted from a more detailed evaluation of post-accident heat loads.
Please discuss how the UHS analyses were performed, and identify any differences in the analysis methods, assumptions or inputs between the pre-EPU evaluation and the post-EPU evaluation.
7.
Section 2.5.5.5 of the application addresses the impact of EPU on the emergency feedwater system (EFS). In the Evaluation Section the licensee states: Although EPU will cause an increase in the decay heat, engineering evaluations for the EPU determined that no change to the EFS performance (flow rate and delivery pressure) is required. Please provide additional details on the analysis used to support the above statement. Explain how the increased heat load is accommodated by the EFS without any change in the system performance requirements.
8.
In Section 2.5.5.5 it is also stated that The increased demand for condensate requirements for cooldown as a result of EPU can be met with the current system configuration and operation. Please provide both the total inventory required by EFS for cooldown, and the total inventory available for use by the EFS for the post-EPU plant.
9.
As a result of plant operation at the proposed EPU level, the decay heat load for any specific discharge fuel scenario will increase. In Section 2.5.5.1 of the application, it is stated that for power uprate conditions the maximum bulk pool temperature limit of 140 F for normal refueling outage will not be exceeded and that the maximum bulk pool temperature limit of 155 F for full core offload will not be exceeded. However, a detailed discussion of the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) evaluations performed to support the above statements was not provided. Based on the plants current SFP analysis, the peak fuel pool temperature for the normal discharge case is 139.4 F, and for the full core discharge is 151.6 F. Please provide the following information for both pre-EPU, and post-EPU operation.
a.
Please provide, the methodology and assumptions (i.e. number of fuel assemblies off loaded, hold time, number of previously discharged fuel assemblies in the SFP, UHS temperature, etc.) used in the SFP thermal-hydraulic analysis for each scenario analyzed. Also, provide the SFP bulk temperature results for both the pre-EPU and post-EPU conditions, and identify any changes made to the SFP analysis for the EPU evaluation, the SFP heat loads and corresponding peak calculated temperatures during planned (normal) refueling outages under partial and full core off-load conditions, and unplanned (abnormal) full-core offload outages for both pre-EPU and post-EPU conditions.
b.
In the event of loss of the SFP cooling system, what impact does the EPU have on the time for the SFP temperature to rise from the maximum bulk pool temperature limit of 140 F to boiling at 212 F. Confirm that the time to boil-off the post-EPU plant is sufficient to allow mitigative actions and that makeup water requirements are within the system capacity.
10.
In Section 2.5.8.1 of the application, it is stated that The fuel oil consumption rates were based on actual measured rates as opposed to vendor supplied rates determined when the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) were new. The consumption rates used in the evaluation were less than the vendor-supplied rates used in the Analysis of Record, but greater than the measured rates. Please provide the following information:
a.
The consumption rate assumed in the current Analysis of Record.
b.
The measured consumption rates, and conditions under which they were measured.
c.
The consumption rate assumed in the EPU evaluation, and the corresponding fuel oil requirements for post design basis accident operation.
d.
A detailed discussion on how the consumption rates used for the EPU analysis was selected. Include discussions uncertainties associated with the measured data, and margins applied to the assumed consumption rate.
11.
In Section 2.5.8.1 of the application, it is stated that A time-dependent load profile was developed based on expected power requirement and run time of each component powered by the EDG under accident conditions. This evaluation considered the ECCS
[emergency core cooling system] performance and containment design analyses, along with engineering judgement for long-term portion of the event and for components not modeled in those analyses." Please identify the parts of the analysis where engineering judgement was used and provide the appropriate rationale.
Dose Analysis 12.
The staff and the licensee held a conference call on February 13, 2004, to clarify the licensees position on updating the control room analyses for design-basis accidents (DBAs) other than the LOCA and the fuel handling accident (FHA), since they were not submitted as revised for the EPU. The licensee plans to provide updated information on the measured control room unfiltered inleakage and its impact on all the DBA control room analyses as the information is available, expected by June 2004. The staff will consider this information in the context of the EPU review as it is received. The timing of this additional information may impact the EPU review schedule.
13.
A burnup of 70,000 mega-watt day per metric ton of uranium (MWD/MTU) was assumed in the calculation of the fuel gap inventory for the FHA. What gap fractions were used?
If the gap fractions in regulatory guide (RG) 1.195 were used (0.08 for I-131, 0.10 for Kr-85, and 0.05 for others), Footnote 7 states that the gap fractions in RG 1.195 are applicable to fuel with burnup up to 62,000 MWD/MTU. Please justify use of the gap fractions for fuel with burnup >62,000 MWD/MTU.
14.
Please provide the calculated revised radiological consequences analysis dose values that were used to evaluate the impact of the EPU for the main steamline break, reactor coolant pump shaft seizure/sheared shaft, control element assembly (CEA) ejection, letdown line break, and steam generator tube rupture.
15.
Was spray removal assumed in the containment for the LOCA and for the CEA ejection? If so, what spray removal assumptions were used?
July 2003 Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 cc:
Mr. Michael E. Henry, State Liaison Officer Department of Environmental Quality Permits Division P.O. Box 4313 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4313 Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Director Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205 General Manager Plant Operations Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751 Licensing Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Resident Inspector/Waterford NPS P. O. Box 822 Killona, LA 70066-0751 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Parish President Council St. Charles Parish P. O. Box 302 Hahnville, LA 70057 Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Chairman Louisiana Public Services Commission P. O. Box 91154 Baton Rouge, LA 70825-1697