ML11276A107

Request for Additional Information Regarding Measurement Uncertainty Recapture

ML11276A107
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/18/2011
From:	Mozafari B Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Jefferson W Carolina Power & Light Co
Saba F
References
TAC ME6169
Download: ML11276A107 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 October 18, 2011 Mr. William Jefferson, Jr.

Vice President Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165

SUBJECT:

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE (TAC NO. ME6169)

Dear Mr. Jefferson:

By letter dated April 28, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11124A180), as supplemented on June 23, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11179A052), Carolina Power & Light Company requested approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to increase the core thermal power level of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 from 2,900 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2,948 MWt, an increase of approximately 1.66 percent over the present licensed power level and to change the power plant technical specifications accordingly.

The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). It is requested that your response be provided by September 6, 2011, as discussed with your staff on August 4, 2011. If more time is needed to respond to the enclosed RAI, your request for additional time should include a basis for the need for an extension.

Please feel free to contact me at 301-415-2020 or bye-mail at brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov if you have any questions on this issue or require additional time to submit your response.

l-",---

renda Mozafari, Senior Projec Plant licenSing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE TAC NO. ME6169 By letter dated April 28, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11124A180), as supplemented June 23, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11179A052), Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to increase the core thermal power level of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1 from 2,900 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2,948 MWt, an increase of approximately 1.66 percent over the present licensed power level and to change the power plant technical specifications accordingly.

The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and determined that additional information is needed to complete its review.

1. Section IV.1.A.i of Enclosure 2 to Reference 1 states that the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) components at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP) were originally analyzed for a vessel inlet temperature (Tcold) of 536.6 degrees Fahrenheit (OF). Based on the nuclear steam supply system parameters presented in Table 4 of Enclosure1 to Reference 1, it was stated that a decrease in the vessel inlet temperature of 0.6 of from the originally analyzed value to the revised value, resulting from the measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate, would result in negligible changes in the transient thermal stresses for the RPV at MUR conditions. Clarify the relationship between the originally analyzed Tcold temperature, stated to be 536.6 of, and the value presented in Table 4 of Enclosure 1 indicating that the current design conditions for the vessel inlet temperature is 554.4 of.

2. Section IV.1.D of the NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2002-03 stipulates that the content of MUR license amendment request applications must include the codes of record used in the qualification of structures, systems and components to determine their structural adequacy at MUR conditions.Section IV.1.A.iv of Enclosure 2 to Reference 1 states that primary equipment supports were evaluated and found to be acceptable at MUR conditions. State the design code(s) of record for the primary equipment supports and confirm that the evaluations performed in support of MUR power uprate implementation at HNP were performed consistent with the provisions in the original design code(s) of record.

3. Section IV.1.A.ii.5 of Enclosure 2 to Reference 1 summarizes the evaluations performed to demonstrate the continued structural qualification of the reactor vessel internals (RVls) at HNP following the proposed MUR power uprate implementation. This section of Reference 1 states that the effects of higher heat generation, resulting from the power uprate , were considered in evaluating the structural integrity of the RVls. Confirm that all Enclosure

-2 other loads used in the current analyses of record (i.e., seismic, loss-of-coolant accident, reactor internal pressure differences, etc.), for the RVls remain unaffected by the proposed MUR power uprate implementation. Additionally, with respect to the evaluation of the RVls, state the design code of record used to qualify the RVls for MUR conditions and confirm that the original design code of record was utilized in the evaluations performed to support MUR power uprate implementation.

4.Section IV.1.A.ii.5.b of Enclosure 2 to Reference 1 describes the evaluations performed to structurally qualify the baffle-former bolts for operation at the proposed MUR power level. The basis of this evaluation is stated to be a comparison between a facility similar to HNP (Almaraz Unit 2) showing that the baffle-former bolts at Almaraz Unit 2 are structurally adequate under similar operating parameters.

Additionally, it is stated that the MUR power uprate has insignificant impacts on the thermal analyses for these components. Provide a tabulated comparison of the Almaraz Unit 2 and HNP parameters used to qualify the baffle-former bolts. This comparison should include information which demonstrates that the design basis requirements related to the structural integrity of these components will continue to be satisfied following MUR implementation.

5.Section IV.1.A.vi.3.b of Enclosure 2 to Reference 1 discusses the impact of the proposed MUR power uprate implementation at HNP on the flow-induced vibration and tube wear in the HNP steam generators (SG). It is stated that the fluid-elastic stability ratio will increase by as much as 3.4 percent while the tube vibration amplitude will increase by as much as 6.9 percent. Discuss the methodology used to extrapolate the stability ratio and vibration amplitude to the values expected at MUR conditions. Confirm that the methodology is consistent with that used in the current analyses of record for the SG tubes. If the methodology varies from that in the current analyses of record, provide a technical justification for the use of the alternate methodology.

October 18, 2011 Mr. William Jefferson, Jr.

Vice President Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165

SUBJECT:

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY RECAPTURE POWER UPRATE (TAC NO. ME6169)

Dear Mr. Jefferson:

By letter dated April 28, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11124A180), as supplemented on June 23, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11179A052), Carolina Power & Light Company requested approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to increase the core thermal power level of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 from 2,900 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2,948 MWt, an increase of approximately 1.66 percent over the present licensed power level and to change the power plant technical specifications accordingly.

The NRC staff is reviewing your submittal and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). It is requested that your response be provided by September 6, 2011, as discussed with your staff on August 4, 2011. If more time is needed to respond to the enclosed RAl, your request for additional time should include a basis for the need for an extension.

Please feel free to contact me at 301-415-2020 or by e-mail at brenda.mozafari@nrc.gov if you have any questions on this issue or require additional time to submit your response.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Brenda Mozafari, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400

Enclosure:

RAI cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPL2-2 R/F RidsNrrDorlLpl2-2 RidsNrrDeEmcb RidsNrrLACSola RidsNrrPMShearonHarris RidsOgcRp RidsNrrDorlDpr RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR W. Jessup, NRR ADAMS Accession No. ML11276A107 *By memo OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-2/LA BC:EMCB:DE LPL2-2BC LPL2-2/PM NAME BMozafari CSola MKhanna* DBroaddus BMozafari (FSaba for)

DATE 10/06/11 10/06/11 08/04/11 10/13/11 10/18/11 OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD