ML11290A238
| ML11290A238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/2011 |
| From: | Richard Anderson Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-2011-434 | |
| Download: ML11290A238 (8) | |
Text
0 Florida Power & Light Company, 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 F=PL October 12, 2011 L-2011-434 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re:
St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request
References:
(1) R. L. Anderson (FPL) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (L-2011-021), "License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate," February 25, 2011, Accession No. ML110730116 (2) Email from NRC (T. Orf ) to FPL (C. Wasik), "St. Lucie 2 EPU - draft RAIs Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch (SRXB and SNPB)," September 6, 2011 By letter L-2011-021 dated February 25, 2011 [Reference 1], Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) requested to amend Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 6 and revise the St.
Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed amendment will increase the unit's licensed core thermal power level from 2700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3020 MWt and revise the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS to support operation at this increased core thermal power level. This represents an approximate increase of 11.85% and is therefore considered an Extended Power Uprate (EPU).
By email from the NRC Project Manager dated September 6, 2011 [Reference 2], additional information was requested by the NRC staff in the Reactor Systems Branch (SRXB) to support their review of the EPU License Amendment Request (LAR). The draft request for additional information (RAI) identified four questions. The response to these RAIs is provided in to this letter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 (b)(1), a copy of this letter is being forwarded to the designated State of Florida official.
00oo/
an FPL Group company
L-2011-434 Page 2 of 2 This submittal does not alter the significant hazards consideration or environmental assessment previously submitted by FPL letter L-2011-021 [Reference 1].
This submittal contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.
Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Christopher Wasik, St. Lucie Extended Power Uprate LAR Project Manager, at 772-467-7138.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on /&-e 4.-L--
A-* I Very truly yours, Richard L. Anderson Site Vice President St. Lucie Plant Attachment Enclosure Paper copy of drawings to support FPL's responses to RAI 2.4.4-1 (SRXB-99) and RAI 2.4.4-3 (SRXB-101) cc:
Mr. William Passetti, Florida Department of Health (w/o Enclosure)
L-2011-434 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 2 Response to Request for Additional Information The following information is provided by Florida Power & Light in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Request for Additional Information (RAI). This information was requested to support the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) License Amendment Request (LAR) for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 2 that was submitted to the NRC by FPL via letter (L-2011-021),
February 25, 2011, Accession Number ML110730116.
In an email dated September 6, 2011 from NRC (Tracy Orf) to FPL (Chris Wasik),
Subject:
"St.
Lucie 2 EPU draft RAIs Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch (SRXB and SNPB)", the NRC staff requested additional information regarding FPL's request to implement the Extended Power Uprate. This response is limited to the four questions from the Reactor Systems Branch pertaining to Feedwater Flow, Measurement Uncertainties Recovery (MUR),
as discussed in Section 2.4.4 and Appendix F to LAR Attachment 5, Licensing Report. These four RAI questions and the FPL responses are documented below.
RAI 2.4.4-1 (SRXB-99):
ER-736 figures show the test configurations but do not provide the distance between the spool pieces and the next downstream component, such as an elbow, that may perturb the flow profile. Please provide the approximate distances or provide a statement that the distances are at least five pipe diameters downstream of the chordal paths.
Response
As stated in Section 2.4.4.2.2.1.1 in Attachment 5 of the Licensing Report (page 2.4.4-2):
"The LEFM CheckPlus system consists of one flow element (spool piece) installed in each of the two FW flow headers. The "A" header spool piece is to be installed a minimum of 8 diameters upstream from the existing FW venturi and a minimum of 19 diameters downstream from the nearest 900 bend. The "B" header spool piece is to be installed a minimum of 14 diameters upstream from the existing FW venturi and a minimum of 9 diameters downstream from the nearest 900 bend."
The "A" FW venturi is identified as FE-9011 on isometric drawing BF-M-3 and the "B" FW venturi is identified as FE-9021 on isometric drawing BF-M-4. These drawings are also part of the response to RAI 2.4.4-3 (SRXB-101) below, and are enclosed with this letter.
RAI 2.4.4-2 (SRXB-100):
ER-736 Figures 1 - 3 show test pipe IDs that differ from the Spool IDs. Is this diameter difference typical for testing CheckPlus UFMs that has existed in previous CheckPlus tests? What is the actual plant feedwater pipe ID at the CheckPlus installation location?
Please discuss the configuration of the diameter change and the effect on the flow profile.
Response
The LEFM spools will be installed in the main feedwater headers, which are 20 inch, schedule 120 pipe with a nominal inside diameter of 17 inches. As noted in Section 2.2 of Cameron Engineering Report ER-736, the piping model used at Alden Labs was designed to replicate the installed location in the St. Lucie Unit 2 feedwater header piping and therefore also had an
L-2011-434 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 2 internal diameter of 17 inches. The Cameron LEFM spools are specifically designed to match the 20 inch OD and 17 inch ID piping at St. Lucie. By design, these spools include a gradual transition section on the inlet and outlet to a nominal 16.5 inch ID metering section. The resulting hydraulic profile effects are beneficial and are fully considered in the development of the meter factor and the meter factor uncertainty.
RAI 2.4.4-3 (SRXB-101):
Please provide plant configuration drawings that corresponding to the Alden test configurations either as similar drawings or as isometric drawings. However, the plant information should cover the piping from the feedwater pumps to the first hardware such as an elbow or a venturi that is downstream of the CheckPlus UFMs.
Response
The requested information is contained in the following main feedwater system piping isometric drawings, which are enclosed with this letter:
2998-G-1 25 sheet BF-M-1, Revision 13 (Feed pump discharge to inlet of fifth stage heaters) 2998-G-125 sheet BF-M-2, Revision 17 (Inlet and outlet of fifth stage heaters) 2998-G-125 sheet BF-M-3, Revision 22 (Feed regulating valve and venturi for A header) 2998-G-125 sheet BF-M-4, Revision 21 (Feed regulating valve and venturi for B header)
RAI 2.4.4-4 (SRXB-102):
If there is a commitment to conduct an in-plant assessment of CheckPlus operation in comparison to the Alden test data please provide a reference to the location of the commitment. If not, then please provide a commitment. Note that the assessment does not have to be submitted but should be available for inspection.
Response
Section 2.4.4.2.2.1.2 in Attachment 5 of the Licensing Report (page 2.4.4-5, Response to Criterion 4) states:
"Final verification of the site-specific uncertainty analyses occurs as part of the LEFM CheckPlus system commissioning process. The commissioning process provides final positive confirmation that actual performance in the field meets the uncertainty bounds established for the instrumentation as described in Cameron engineering report ER-736."
THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR
- FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:
"FEEDWATER PIPING",
SHEET BF-M-1, REV. 13 WITHIN THIS PACKAGE D-01 I
THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR
- FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:
"LARGE BORE PIPING ISOMETRIC FEEDWATER",
SHEET BF-M-2, REV. 17 WITHIN THIS PACKAGE D-02
THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR
- FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:
"FEEDWATER PIPING" SHEET BF-M-3, REV. 22 WITHIN THIS PACKAGE D-03
THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR
- FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:
"FEEDWATER" SHEET BF-M-4, REV. 21 WITHIN THIS PACKAGE D-04