L-76-257, Responding to Letter of 6/10/1976, Letter Furnishing Information Concerning Reactor Pressure Vessel Supports
| ML18227B774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1976 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-76-257 | |
| Download: ML18227B774 (6) | |
Text
NRC FOAM 195.
I2 70)i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C SS ION OO A
o-o TO:
NRC DISTRIBuTION FDR PART 50 DOCI(ET MATERIAL FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT CO MIAMI FLA R E UHRIG FILE NU DATE OF DOCUMENT
- LS-"]to DATE RECEIVED O-l~-"t4 LETTER
+ORIGINAL Q COPY C3NOTORIZED, UNCLASSIFIED PROP INPUT FOAM NUMOEA OF COPIES RECEIVED Gi4~cb DESCAIPTION LTR RE OUR 6-'10<<76 LTR..'."..FURN 'ADDL INFO TO REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SUPPORTS ENCLOSURE IKCKNP~EDG>D PLANT NAME:i~gQ~ia
~
~
O~W)~
Q C
I DISTRIBUTION FOR REACTOR VESSEL SUPPORT INFO FOR OPERATING REACTORS PER MR, TRAMMELL 7 12 7
FRTX FOR ACTION/INFORMATION EA PR~OECV IIANA E
~
LIC ASST:
INTERNALDISTRIBUTION NRC PDR KNIGHT ROSZTOCZY CHECK CD TRAMMELL SHAO P.
BARAN(NSKY.
P, NORIAN R
BOSNAK ~
V ~
NOONAN PDR:
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONTROL NUMBER
~I%
I[
t' r~=
6 tl 0
A 0
~
A
> C)
N r.
I<
~u5torj DoclIet File
Dear Mr. Lear:
Re:
TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 and 4
DOCKET NOS.
50-250 and 50-251 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SUPPORTS
~~~p so~
>s~t.
AggI g
'vC+I ~
~~~~+IJI Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. George Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch g3 Division of Operating Reactors U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
$ 0555
~ O. BOX OI3100, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33101 FLORIDA POWER Bt LIGHT COMPANY July 13, 1976 L-76-257r e&
I,A 4
~6 1'a>~~80@ y/0 Your letter of June 10, 1976 requested that Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) inform you of our schedule for providing an evaluation of the adequacy of the reactor pressure vessel supports at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
Our response was to be based on a Request for Additional Information which was attached to the letter.
Your request, was a followup to your letter of October 17, 1975 which informed us that you were initiating a generic evaluation of reactor pressure vessel supports.
Since October
- 1975, FPL and several other utilities with operating Westinghouse PWRs have met to discuss how to address the adequacy of reactor pressure vessel supports in operating plants.
This "owners group" considered performing analyses similar to those suggested in your Request. for Additional Information either for each individual design or for several typical designs which would envelope most of the plants in the owners group.
Discussions with Westinghouse Electric Corporation have indicated, that such analyses would require a significant effort and, in fact, would, take more than one year but probably less than three years to complete.
Plants in the design stage can include those design 'features which reduce the amount of analysis needed to demonstrate acceptable consequences from postulated events.
Operating
- plants, on the other'and,,cannot easily change structural configurations.
- Thus, events which were.previously analyzed in accordance with approved techniques and found acceptable will now, because of recently developed analytical methods, require costly state-of-the-art techniques to demonstrate that the consequences remain within acceptable limits.
We have therefore concluded that our most reasonable course of action in response to your questions is to propose HELPING BUILD FLORIDA
0
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2
implementation of an augmented inservice inspection program to preclude a reactor coolant pipe break near the reactor vessel nozzles.
This program will have a positive impact on plant safety and eliminate the need to perform extensive and lengthy analyses which would have minimal impact on the real margin of safety existing in our plants.
Representatives of the owners group and the Westinghouse Electric Corporation met with menbers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff on May,25, 1976 to discuss the efforts the group has made up to that time.
The discussions included justification for an augmented inservice inspection program and the technical merits of such a program.
A report, detailing the discussions held at that meeting is now being prepared and should be completed by September 1,
1976.
Upon completion, it will be formally transmitted to you as tech-nical justification for our selection of the augmented inservice inspection program.
Very truly yours,
- Robert, E. Uhrig Vice President REU/bfp CC:
Mr. Norman C. Mosely Jack R.
Newman, Esquire
~ 4-v pa~~
V