ML120830038

Nuclear Generating Plant - Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request

ML120830038
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	05/04/2012
From:	Siva Lingam Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Franke J Progress Energy Florida
Lingam S, NRR/DORL, 301-415-1564
References
TAC ME6527
Download: ML120830038 (6)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 May 4, 2012 Mr. Jon A. Franke, Vice President Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA2C)

ATTN: Supervisor, Licensing & Regulatory Programs 15760 W. Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708

SUBJECT:

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (TAC NO. ME6527)

Dear Mr. Franke:

By letter dated June 15, 2011, as supplemented by letters dated July 5, 2011; August 11, 2011 (two letters); August 18 and 25, 2011; October 11 and 25, 2011; December 15, 2011 (two letters); December 21,2011; January 5,2012 (two letters); January 19, 2012 (two letters);

January 31,2012; and March 19, 2012; Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted a license amendment request for an extended power uprate to increase thermal power level from 2609 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3014 MWt for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing the submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete its evaluation. This request was discussed with Mr. Dan Westcott of your staff on March 22, 2012, and it was agreed that a response to the enclosed request for additional information would be provided within 45 days from the date of this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at 301-415-1564.

Sincerely,

~q>.~

Siva P. Lingam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-302

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING EXTENDED POWER UPRATE TO INCREASE THERMAL POWER LEVEL FROM 2609 MEGAWATTS THERMAL TO 3014 MEGAWATTS THERMAL CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 By letter dated June 15, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML112070659), as supplemented by letters dated July 5, 2011; August 11, 2011 (two letters); August 18 and 25, 2011; October 11 and 25, 2011; December 15, 2011 (two letters); December 21, 2011; January 5, 2012 (two letters);

January 19, 2012 (two letters); January 31, 2012; and March 19, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos.

ML112010674, ML11228A032, ML11234A051, ML11234A427, ML11242A140, ML112860156, ML113040176, ML11354A232, ML11354A233, ML11361A460, ML12011A035, ML12030A209, ML12024A300 ML12024A301, ML120330114, and ML12081A293, respectively), Florida Power Corporation (the licensee), doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for an extended power uprate (EPU) to increase thermal power level from 2609 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3014 MWt for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (Crystal River 3 or CR-3). In order to complete its review of the above documents, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requests additional information originating from our Nuclear Performance and Code Review Branch (SNPB) related to Sections 2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3, and 2.8.4.1 of Attachment 5 of the original LAR dated June 15, 2011:

SNPB Requests for Additional Information Section 2.8.1 Fuel System Design

1. Section 2.8.1.2, Description of Fuel Rod Analyses and Evaluations states that "Augmentation factors were derived for TAC03 and GDTACO to correct cladding strain and centerline fuel melt limits for the effects of degradation of fuel thermal conductivity. Fuel rod internal gas pressure analyses were examined and were determined to not be adversely impacted."

(a) Provide detailed descriptions of evaluations, analyses and results for the derivation of augmentation factors for TAC03 and GDTACO to correct (1) cladding strain, (2) cladding fatigue, and (3) centerline fuel melt limits for the effects of degradation of fuel thermal conductivity with burn-up.

(b) Provide justification for the statement that the fuel rod internal gas pressure was determined not to be adversely impacted even after incorporating augmentation factors in TAC03 and GDTACO codes to correct for the thermal conductivity degradation (TCD) with burn-up.

2. Appendix K to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 - ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling system1 Evaluation Models, Section 1.A.1 stipulates that "The steady-state Enclosure

- 2 temperature distribution and stored energy in the fuel before the hypothetical accident shall be calculated for the burn-up that yields the highest calculated cladding temperature (or, optionally, the highest calculated stored energy.) To accomplish this, the thermal conductivity of the U02 [uranium dioxide] shall be evaluated as a function of burn-up and temperature, taking into consideration differences in initial density, and the thermal conductance of the gap between the U02 and the cladding shall be evaluated as a function of the burn-up, taking into consideration fuel densification and expansion, the composition and pressure of the gases within the fuel rod, the initial cold gap dimension with its tolerances, and cladding creep."

(a) Explain how TAC03 predicted loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) initialization fuel rod temperatures adequately account for the degraded thermal conductivity with burn-up for any peak cladding temperature limited analysis.

(b) If TAC03 or any other fuel performance codes used for the mechanical performance design, specifically TCD of the CR-3 fuel, lacks the capability to treat TCD, provide details of how the TCD is evaluated, when those were used.

3. Explain how the impact of TCD with burn-up on the non-LOCA transients and postulated accidents analyses have been implemented in, specifically but not limited to, the spectrum of control rod ejection accident analyses.

4. Provide details of the tests and the results from those tests that confirm that the spacer grids provide adequate support to maintain the fuel rods in coolable configuration under all conditions including EPU conditions for safe shutdown earthquake and LOCA.

5. Provide details of the fuel rod bow evaluations performed to assure that the Mark-B-high thermal performance (HTP) fuel design is bounded by the rod bow criteria established under the plant design conditions of the CR-3 EPU.

Section 2.8.2 Nuclear Design

6. Describe the analysis procedure used to ensure that the shutdown margin for Modes 1 and 2 operations is within the Technical Specification limits throughout the transition and equilibrium cycle of EPU operation at CR-3. Specifically, show how the eigenvalue biases and uncertainties are determined and accounted for during the transition cycles.

7. Provide the calculations that support the statement that "Shutdown margin requirements can be satisfied with increases in boric acid volumes in the Boric Acid Storage Tank(s)."

8. Provide the details of a typical calculation in which margins to power peaking limits based on centerline fuel melt, transient cladding strain, and steady-state departure from nucleate boiling criteria were calculated to evaluate the reactor protection system (RPS) axial offset limits that would be input to the determination of the RPS power/imbalance/flow trip function.

9. Discuss the evaluations which indicated that the magnitudes of RPS offset limits, limiting condition for operation offset limits and shutdown margin-based rod insertion limits in some instances were more restrictive than previous CR-3 fuel cycles. Explain why these limits are

- 3 still acceptable for normal operation and anticipated operational transients for the EPU operation at CR-3.

10. For the control rod ejection accident analysis, provide details of how the impact of fuel TCD with burn-up has been implemented. Explain the impact of TCD on core stored energy (energy deposition in fuel).

11. An examination of NEMO-K topical report, BAW-1022'1 P indicates that its fuel pin temperature distribution calculation is based on a one-dimensional heat conduction equation with a fuel thermal conductivity as a function of just temperature and not fuel burn-up also.

Discuss the impact on the results from NEMO-K due to the non-dependence of thermal conductivity with fuel burn-up.

Section 2.8.3 Thermal and Hydraulic Design

12. Provide details of the steady-state analyses performed to assess the steady-state performance of the EPU core at CR-3, for expected nominal and overpower conditions and for a varying number of reactor coolant pumps in operation.

13. (a) Provide details of the process in which the statistical design limit (SDL) for departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) is established.

(b) Provide details of the process in which the thermal design limit (TDL) for DNBR is achieved.

(c) Explain how the margin between the TDL and the SDL is used to offset cycle-to-cycle abnormalities (such as transition core effects or deviations in uncertainty). Also, explain how the margin between the TDL and SDL is utilized to provide flexibility in the fuel cycle design.

General

14. The NRC staff intends to run FRAPCON-3.4 benchmark calculations of the Mark-B-HTP 15x15 fuel rod design (NUREG/CR-7022, Volume 1, "FRAPCON-3.4: A Computer Code for the Calculation of Steady-State Thermal-Mechanical Behavior of Oxide Fuel Rods for High Burn-up," and Volume 2, "FRAPCON-3.4: Integral Assessment," Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US NRC, March 2011). Please provide the following input.

A. Rod Power History, kilowatt per foot (KW/ft), as a function of gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium (GWd/MTU)

1.

Bounding thermal-mechanical operating envelope (e.g., radial falloff curve)

2.

Discuss any application of rod power uncertainties

3.

Include power histories for different pellet designs (U02, Gadolinium).

B. Axial Power Distribution (AXPD) (Fz at each axial node)

1.

Include AXPDs for different axial blanket configurations.

-4 C. Fuel Rod Design Specifications and Manufacturing Tolerances

1.

Outer diameter

2.

Inside diameter

3.

Pellet diameter

4.

Stack length

5.

Plenum length

6.

Pellet height

7.

Dish radius

8.

Dish depth

9.

Spring outside diameter

10.

Spring wire diameter

11.

Number of spring turns

12.

Maximum uranium-235 (U-235) enrichment (%)

13.

Average U-235 enrichment (%)

14.

Maximum gadolinia content (%)

15.

Water in pellet, parts per million (ppm)

16.

Nitrogen in pellet (ppm)

17.

Pellet density (% theoretical density)

18.

Open porosity (%)

19.

Pellet surface roughness (microns)

20.

Expected density increase (grams/cubic centimeter, gms/cc)

21.

Sintering temperature (OF)

22.

Cladding Alloy =(Material name)

23.

Final thermal treatment of the cladding alloy

24.

Cladding surface roughness (microns)

25.

Cladding texture factor

26.

Cladding Hydrogen content (ppm)

27.

Fill gas pressure

28.

Fill gas composition

29.

Rate of CRUD accumulation factor (mils/hr)

30.

CRUD thermal conductivity D. Coolant conditions

1.

Coolant inlet temperature (OF)

2.

Coolant mass flux (lbm/hr-ft2)

3.

System pressure (pounds per square inch absolute, psia)

May 4, 2012 Mr. Jon A. Franke, Vice President Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA2C)

ATTN: Supervisor, Licensing &Regulatory Programs 15760 W. Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708

SUBJECT:

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (TAC NO. ME6527)

Dear Mr. Franke:

By letter dated June 15, 2011, as supplemented by letters dated July 5, 2011; August 11, 2011 (two letters); August 18 and 25, 2011; October 11 and 25, 2011; December 15, 2011 (two letters); December 21, 2011; January 5, 2012 (two letters); January 19, 2012 (two letters);

January 31,2012; and March 19,2012; Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted a license amendment request for an extended power uprate to increase thermal power level from 2609 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3014 MWt for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is reviewing the submittal and has determined that additional information is required to complete its evaluation. This request was discussed with Mr. Dan Westcott of your staff on March 22, 2012, and it was agreed that a response to the enclosed request for additional information would be provided within 45 days from the date of this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at 301-415-1564.

Sincerely, IRA!

Siva P. Lingam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-302

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC LPL2-2 R/F RidsNrrDorlLpl2-2 RidsNrrPMSequoyah RidsNrrLABTully RidsOgcRpCenter RidsNrrDorlDpr RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR F. Saba, NRR RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsNrrDssSnpb M. Panicker, NRR ADAMS A ccesslon N0: ML120830038

• BjY memo OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-21LA SNPB/BC LPL2-2/BC LPL2-2/PM NAME SLingam BTuily AMendiola*

DBroaddus (EBrown for)

SLingam DATE 03126/12 03/26/12 03/21/12 05/04/12 05/04/12 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy