ML082530171
| ML082530171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/2008 |
| From: | Jack Cushing Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Meyer L Nuclear Management Co |
| Cushing, J S, NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1,415-1424 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD9321, TAC MD9322 | |
| Download: ML082530171 (6) | |
Text
September 10, 2008 Mr. Larry Meyer Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant3 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE REVIEW FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NUMBER 247 SPENT FUEL POOL CRITICALITY CONTROL-SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED (TAC NOS. MD9321 AND MD9322)
Dear Mr. Meyer:
By letter dated July 24, 2008, FPL Energy Point Beach , LLC (the licensee) submitted a license amendment application to revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Units 1 and 2 licensing basis to reflect a revision to the spent fuel pool criticality analysis methodology. The amendment was not accepted by document processing until August 11, 2008, due to the application missing the proprietary attachment. 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 is 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 and concluded that the information delineated in the enclosure to this letter is necessary to enable the staff to 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.
In order to make the application complete, the NRC staff requests that the licensee supplement the application to address the information requested in the enclosure by September 19, 2008.
This will enable the NRC staff to begin its detailed technical review. If the information responsive to the NRC staff=s request is not received by the above date, the application will not be accepted for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.101, and the NRC will cease its review actives associated with the application. If the application is subsequently accepted for review, you will be advised of any further information needed to support the staff=s detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
L. Meyer The information requested and associated time frame in this letter were discussed with Ms. Flentje of your staff on September 4, 2008.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1424.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jack Cushing, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page
L. Meyer The information requested and associated time frame in this letter were discussed with Ms. Flentje of your staff on September 4, 2008.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1424.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jack Cushing, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnw&mMailCenter RidsNrrDorlDpr RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 LPL3-1 r/f RidsNrrLATHarris RidsRgn3MailCenter RidsNrrPMJCushing GCranston , NRR TNakanishi, NRR KWood, NRR Accession Number: ML082530171 *ML082480315 OFFICE NRR/LPL3-1/PM NRR/LPL3-1/LA DSS/SRXB* NRR/LPL3-1/BC NAME JCushing THarris GCranston LJames (PTam for)
DATE 09/9/08 09/9/08 09/04/08 09/10/08 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:
Licensing Manager John Bjorseth FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC Plant General Manager 6610 Nuclear Road Point Beach Nuclear Plant Two Rivers, WI 54241 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Mark E. Warner Town of Two Creeks Vice President, Nuclear Plant Support 13017 State Highway 42 Florida Power & Light Company Mishicot, WI 54228 P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Antonio Fernandez 6612 Nuclear Road Senior Attorney Two Rivers, WI 54241 FPL Energy , LLC P. O. Box 14000 Chairman Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Mr. Mano Nazar P.O. Box 7854 Senior Vice President and Madison, WI 53707-7854 Nuclear Chief Operating Officer FPL Energy, LLC Mr. J. A. Stall P. O. Box 14000 Executive Vice President, Nuclear and Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Chief Nuclear Officer FPL Group Abdy Khanpour P. O. Box 14000 Vice President Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Engineering Support FPL Energy, LLC T. O. Jones P. O. Box 14000 Vice President, Nuclear Operations Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mid-West Region Florida Power & Light Company J. Kitsembel P. O. Box 14000 Electric Division Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P. O. Box 7854 Peter Wells Madison, WI 53707-7854 Acting Vice President, Nuclear Training and Performance Improvement Mr. M. S. Ross Florida Power & Light Company Managing Attorney P. O. Box 14000 FPL Energy, LLC Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptability Review Currently, there is not a generically-approved methodology for performing spent fuel pool (SFP) criticality analysis. By letter dated July 27, 2001, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff concluded that the Westinghouse methodology of WCAP-14416 could no longer be referenced as approved methodology by the NRC staff or the licensees. In its letter, the NRC stated, For future licensing actions, licensees will need to submit plant-specific criticality calculations for SFP configurations that include technically-supported margins. Therefore, the application must justify the applicability of the methodology to Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) and technically support adequate margins.
The licensee cites the recently approved SFP criticality submittal for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (BVPS) as a precedent for PBNP. However, the initial BVPS application was deficient in information that would support the adequacy of the methodology. Only through subsequent requests for additional information (RAI) and audits, the staff was able to obtain satisfactory information for BVPS.
Based on the acceptance review of the PBNP application, the staff finds that it also lacks the quantitative information to support the fidelity of the key methodology aspects. Specifically, the staff finds information lacking in the following areas:
- 1) Burnup uncertainty - Licensee proposes a method that deviates from staff guidance (Reference 1) but does not quantitatively justify the deviation. The proposed method was rejected by the staff for the BVPS submittal. Provide the quantitative justification for the deviation.
- 2) Soluble Boron credit - Licensee does not quantitatively justify the use of parallel vs.
serial application of boron worths, as was done for BVPS through RAIs. Provide the justification for the use of parallel vs. serial application of boron worths.
- 3) SFP Temperature bias - Licensee does not provide the details of the SFP temperature bias calculations, as was done for BVPS through RAIs. Provide the details of the SFP temperature bias calculations.
- 4) Moderator Temperature Profile - Licensee does not quantitatively show the effect of the limiting temperature profile assumption for depletion calculations, as was done for BVPS through the RAIs. In addition to providing the moderator temperature profile for depletion calculations, the submittal should consider the effects of the assumed values for the other depletion parameters identified in NUREG-6665 (e.g., fuel temperature, soluble boron, specific power and operating history, fixed burnable poisons, and integral burnable poisons).
These effects should also be addressed for the uniform axial burnup profile where applicable.
- 5) Biases and Uncertainties with Boron - Licensee does not quantitatively show the effect of boron presence on biases and uncertainties. Provide the quantitative effect of boron presence on biases and uncertainties.
The staff acceptance review concludes that additional information addressing the above items is necessary to begin the detailed review of the application.
REFERENCES:
- 1. NRC Memorandum from L. Kopp to T. Collins, Guidance on the Regulatory Requirements for Criticality Analysis of Fuel Storage at Light-Water Reactor Power Plants, August 19, 1998 (ADAMS ML003728001).