ML110980836

E-mail from R.Guzman to T. Darling Supplemental RAI Questions Emcb - Extended Power Uprate Review

ML110980836
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	04/08/2011
From:	Richard Guzman Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To:	Darling T Nine Mile Point
Guzman R, NRR/DORL, 415-1030
References
TAC ME1476
Download: ML110980836 (2)

Text

From: Guzman, Richard To: "Darling, Theresa H"

Subject:

NMP2 EPU EMCB Supplemental Request for Additional Information (TAC No. ME1476)

Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 7:55:59 PM

Theresa, As discussed during todays conference call, Im providing you a list of the additional questions from the technical staff supporting the mechanical and civil engineering review -

shown below.

The staff has identified these additional information needs in review of the supplemental information provided in your April 16, 2010, RAI Letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML101120658). The staff requests you provide a response to these questions within 30 days of the date of this message. Please let me know if you have any issues with this proposed schedule.

Thanks, Rich Guzman Sr. Project Manager NRR/DORL US NRC 301-415-1030 Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.2 (NMP2)

EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU)

LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (LAR)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, LLC (NMPNS)

DOCKET NO. 50-410 TAC NO. ME1476 NMP2-EMCB-RAI-14

1. The licensees response to EMCB-RAI-14 states that the current licensed thermal power (CLTP) analysis applied a stress index different than the one described in the code of record (1974 ASME Section III) in two instances where higher than allowable stresses occurred, and that the revised stress index was taken from the 1989 ASME code edition. Please provide a discussion of the acceptability of the use of a revised stress index based on a later code edition (1989) instead of the use of the 1974 ASME code of record to produce extended power uprate (EPU) stresses lower than allowable. Quantitatively show the equation where the revised

index is used and how does it differ from the original stress index.

NMP2-EMCB-RAI-16 and NMP2 Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR) Tables (Section 2.2)

2. Provide an example(s) to quantitatively demonstrate how the scaling factor of 5.1 in PUSAR tables 2.2-2a and 2.2-2b are derived.

3. Provide an explanation for terms K, H, Mt and M used in PUSAR Tables 2.2-3d, 2.2-3e, 2.2-4c.

NMP2-EMCB-RAI-21

4. Please revise response to EMCB-RAI-21, as appropriate, to show whether any piping modifications are required due to the EPU and provide a list of the modifications along with its schedule of completion.

NMP2-EMCB-RAI-22

5. The licensees response to EMCB-RAI-22 indicates that EPU comparisons are made to original licensed thermal power (OLTP) temperatures and pressure, and also refers to OLTP stresses. Please clarify whether the response meant to make reference to CLTP and not OLTP. In addition, the licensees response to RAI-22 (page 21 of 34) states that for feedwater (FW) supports, total OLTP loads calculated are higher than EPU and are bounding. Table 2.2-4d though, clearly shows that current support total loads are less than the EPU loads, and therefore, are not bounding. Please clarify whether the response meant to say that EPU pipe support total loads are within the pipe support capacity loads, and, are therefore acceptable.