NRC 2005-0012, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Plant License Renewal Application

Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Plant License Renewal Application

ML050340166
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	01/26/2005
From:	Koehl D Nuclear Management Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NRC 2005-0012, TAC MC2099, TAC MC2100
Download: ML050340166 (4)

Text

Nu El Committed to Nuclear Excellent" Point Beach Nuclear Plant Operated by Nuclear Management Company, LLC January 26, 2005 NRC 2005-0012 10 CFR 54 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-266 and 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Point Beach Nuclear Plant License Renewal Application (TAC Nos. MC2099 and MC2100)

By letter dated February 25, 2004, Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC),

submitted the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application (LRA). On January 10, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested additional information regarding the Feedwater and Condensate System (Section 2.3.4.2 of the LRA). The enclosure to this letter contains NMC's response to the staff's questions.

Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact Mr. James E. Knorr at (920) 755-6863.

This letter contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed on January 26, 2005.

Dennis L. Koehl Site Vice-President, Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC Enclosure 6590 Nuclear Road

• Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Telephone: 920.755.2321 Ac)cf
  )

Document Desk Page 2 cc:

Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Project Manager, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC Resident Inspector, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC PSCW

ENCLOSURE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The following information is provided in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's request for additional information (RAI) regarding the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) License Renewal Application (LRA).

The NRC staff's question is restated below, with the Nuclear Management Company (NMC) response following.

Section 2.3.4 Steam and Power Conversion Systems 2.3.4.2 Feedwater and Condensate System Request for Additional Information (RAI)

RAI 2.3.4.2-4 In a letter dated November 16, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested additional information regarding the Auxiliary Systems (LRA Section 2.3.3) and Steam and other Balance of Plant (BOP) Systems in LRA Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 respectively. PBNP response to this request was submitted to the NRC in Nuclear Management Company, LLC letter dated December 22, 2004. The NRC review of the PBNP response to RAI 2.3.4.2-1 identified two follow-up questions regarding the scoping for the small bore branch piping from the NSR portion of the 16" main feed water header (FW) between the feed regulating valve and the downstream steam generator FW inlet check valve:

1.

Recognizing the NRC would not require a formal HELB evaluation be performed on piping 1-inch and less, did PBNP perform any evaluation (i.e., walkdown, etc.) to confirm that a break in the branch piping would not impact any safety related equipment in the immediate vicinity of the possible break location?

2.

Please discuss flooding associated with a failure in the branch piping and its impact on safety related equipment.

NMC Response:

1)

The section of main feedwater piping in question was included in scope to protect the safety-related (SR) (but non-Environmentally Qualified) feedwater flow transmitters (1/2FT-466, -467, -476, -477). Walkdowns were performed to verify that no high energy branch piping (including branch piping one-inch and less) was in proximity to the SR Page 1 of 2

transmitters where pipe whip or jet impingement could be a hazard. Additionally, the transmitters are in large open areas where the energy input from a failure of a small bore line off of this header Would not create a sufficiently harsh environment to affect the function of these transmitters.

2)

The SR feedwater flow transmitters in question are located on the 26' elevation for Unit 2 and the 39' elevation for Unit 1, and mounted about four feet off of the floor.

Any leakage from the main feedwater header branch connections at these elevations would cascade to lower elevations, and not affect the function of these transmitters nor any other safety-related equipment due to flooding.

Page 2 of 2