ML070310017

MD2835 Draft RAI

ML070310017
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	01/25/2007
From:	Feintuch K NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLE
To:
K. Feintuch, LPL3-1
References
TAC MD2835
Download: ML070310017 (4)

Text

1413k 7

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Piease contact if items are not clear.

1. RAI (1.1) Ugdate Information Relative to SRP 14.2.1 By application 'dated February 27. 2004, as supplem ented by letters dated August 9, 2004 and January 7, 2005, the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) requested an amendment for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) that would remove license condition 2.C.(2)(b). Due to the nature of plant modifications for the DAEC extended power uprate (EPU) project, the NMC letter dated January 7, 2005, requested that the NRC issue separate license amendments, one for each of the two large transient tests (LTTs) associated with the license condition. On March 17, 2005, the NRC issued Amendment No. 257 for the DAEC that modified license condition 2.C.(2)(b) to remove the requirement to perform the main steam isolation valve closure (MSIVC) test.

To address the NMVC request for the removal of the remaining license condition that would require the performance of a generator load rejection test at 15 percent above the pre-EPU power level of 1658 MWt (i.e., 1906 MWt), the staff requests additional information to complete a safety evaluation Standard Review Plan (SRP) 14.2.1, "Generic Guidelines for Extended Power Uprate Testing Program," provides general guidelines for reviewing proposed EPU power ascension testing programs. This review provides assurance that the proposed testing programs adequately demonstrates that plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety that are affected by the proposed power uprate will perform satisfactorily in service at the proposed uprated power level.

The staff requests the following supplemental information, as necessary, to fully update the letters dated August 9, and January 7:

(a.) Update the discussion of the comparison of the proposed EPU test program to the initial plant test program.

(b.) Update the discussion of the modifications performed to achieve the EPU and the power ascension test considerations for plant modifications.

(c.) Update the discussion on the justification for eliminating EPU power ascension test. The discussion would include:

(i.) Relative power uprate operating experience; (ii.) Introduction of new thermal-hydraulic phenomena or identified system inter-actions;

'T741s~ P/Su3mTIL1,vicr

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pzr Ot 1EQ VA (IKWCO-rr) 1/1/0 b LL 4 Via f C&1of9AN>h Alb UIr M~)~,

13', kARL 1or --

o' ~~

---

-i~c

--- -r

PE2-(iii.) Facility conformance to limitations associated with computer modeling and analytical methods; (iv.) Plant operator familiarization with facility operation and trial use of operating and emergency operating procedures; (v.) Reductions in the margin of safety; (vi.) Guidance contained in vendor topical reports; and (vii.) Risk implications.

(d.) Update the discussion related to evaluation of the adequacy of proposed testing plans.

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT aF~7TPPo/C S 13'1WA/O a~lrII~~

85~ p S uDI /^ t-

/~~~~~~~,ý NJALYV' -oLL- icj flY 7 ( f TEM~S I'J A

(&'op&> -rAf8LE) w~LLOS..AtOTC-g ,3 j~a SF)JT~IA~

9~AC-LiIPrLA~c PS -h USED 1,Q oPR(C / dsse,,J-/[e0 oý Lineýý,'A 4-~

h4-> 2 8 3 5- 2835 LiPzhs*-i RVZAK S9 W9 REQUESTS, FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAIS)

DAEC LICENSE AMEN DMVENT'REQU EST (LAR) - REMOVE COND ITION FOR MAIN GEINERATOR LOAD REJECT TEST- 2.C.(2(b)

RAI Reviewer Question Summary Full Text Number___________

1.0 Budzynski, J Main Generator Load The Hatch generator load reject events, at EPU conditions, have been referenced Reject at Hatch Units at several times in your justification for relief of performing the LTT. Please provide the EPU conditions event data for these two events including the post-scram event evaluation and the applicable transient analysis for comparison of the actual plant response to the analytical results.

2.0 Budzynski, J Comparison data between In several of your documents for justification for removal of the generator load reject DAEC and Hatch test from EPU testing, DAEC has been compared as similar to Hatch in several respects including MARK I contain ment..Please provide additional plant comparison data of both DAEC and Hatch including at least the following: rated thermal power (MWT), power density (MW/assembly), SRV capacity (% of steam flow), turbine bypass capacity (% of steam flow), turbine closure time (sec '),main steamn valve closure time (sec), scram insertion time (se~c), and turbine control valve stroke (full or partial).

3.0 - Budzynski, J Generator load reject initial Please provide the generator load reject test results from the initial plant startup test startup test results and program. Also, please provide the event data for each generator load reject event other GLR events at DAEC experienced at DAEC during the life of the plant.

Prz-rT

0' Ls,- -1136 CYT 7'36Ft M-D 2.9 3 (__ E C-LA A) j:) CAt'710N O(-_ ý_FG6-)

ýLJ PO A

/'~~

/

Parameter Ref p/curt Comment./~A~

-Acc, .1. J~

A J I Power Density, e% I Equivalent MW/assembly Number of JtU.has'.h'.%less fueland cor-Fuel Assem- respondingly lower steam blies .flow thanreY F Steam Line "F- has 'ITV% smaller length, Legh ft. though the stem flow is corre-spondingly less than 1ie fit 4 23-Safety and Re- Ie,~ Equivalent

'3 lief Capacity, C,

% of Steam 0

Bypass capac- - ~ has 1)% greater capacity ity, % of Steam resulting in milder pressure rise following a tur-bine/generator trip.

Turbine Valve i;<,Cj Equivalent Closure Time, sec.

Main Steam </ / Equivalent Valve Closure Time, sec.

SCRAM Inser- </= gl < Euivalent tion Time, sec.

'r-YI.I"e Vr'jVC