ML082740144

Request for Additional Information for License Amendment for Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate- Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2

ML082740144
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	10/03/2008
From:	Pickett D Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Spina J Calvert Cliffs
Pickett D
References
TAC MD9554, TAC MD9555
Download: ML082740144 (4)

Text

October 3, 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

ML082740144 OFFICE PM/LPL1-1 LA:LPL1-1 BC/EICB BC/LPL1-1 NAME DPickett SLittle WKemper by MKowal memo dated DATE 10 /02/ 08 10 /02/ 08 9 / 24 / 08 10 /03/ 08 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 & 2 MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE In the application dated August 29, 2008, Page 8, Section 1.7 of Attachment 2, lists the following six conditions that will trigger a plant computer alarm for the leading edge flow meter (LEFM) meter status:

• failure of one or more transducer paths,

• velocity profile out of limits,

• analog input out of limits,

• system uncertainty out of limits,

• loss of communication from the LEFM CheckPlus System to the Plant Computer,

• cabinet temperature exceeds limit, The following three outage times are proposed for the above alarms:

a) If the LEFM CheckPlus System is in a degraded condition with the plant computer available to perform the secondary calorimetric calculation, the allowable outage time is 30 days.

b) If the LEFM CheckPlus System is out of service (OOS) with the plant computer available to perform the secondary calorimetric calculation, the allowable outage time is 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, provided steady-state conditions exist. Steady-state conditions are defined as power variations of less than 10 percent from the initial power level when the system is declared OOS.

c) If the plant computer is unavailable or if another input to the secondary calorimetric calculation fails (other than the LEFM CheckPlus System), the allowable outage time is less than or equal to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

1.1 Please identify which of those six alarm conditions are Failed conditions that cause the LEFM to be OOS and which are the Alert conditions for degraded status, and explain the reasons for this division.

1.2 Please clearly explain the nature and impact of the degraded condition on the LEFM measurement uncertainty to support continued operation at the proposed power uprate for 30 days.

1.3 Based on the transmitter drift record at the plant, please provide the calculated effect of the transmitter drift on the power calorimetric during the proposed 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> AOT when the LEFM CheckPlus system is out of service.

Enclosure

1.4 What is meant by another input to the secondary calorimetric calculation fails (other than the LEFM CheckPlus System)? Does it mean failure of LEFM together with another input or failure of two inputs while LEFM is operable?

2. Please submit the following reports in order to verify the assumptions used in the calorimetric uncertainty calculation:

a) Hydraulic modeling and testing results by Cameron International Corporation b) Selection and evaluation of the pressure instrumentation c) Feedwater flow uncertainty calculation