L-78-177, Response to Letter of 5/8/1978 Requesting Certain Information to Complete Review of Application to Restart St. Lucie Unit 1 Following Refueling. FP&L Will Provide Schedule to Responses by 6/8/1978

Response to Letter of 5/8/1978 Requesting Certain Information to Complete Review of Application to Restart St. Lucie Unit 1 Following Refueling. FP&L Will Provide Schedule to Responses by 6/8/1978

ML18114A174
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/19/1978
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-78-177
Download: ML18114A174 (4)

Text

REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS>

MS1'RI8UTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL 50-335 EC: REID R W ORG: UHRIG R E DOCDATE: 05/19/78 NRC FL PNR 8. LIGHT DATE RCVD: 05/24/78 DOCTYPE: LETTER NOTARIZED: NO COPIES RECEIVED

SUBJECT:

LTR 3 ENCL 0 RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST OF 05/08/78... FURNISHING INFO CONERNING APPLICANT"S APPL TO RESTART SUBJECT FACILITY FOLLOWING REFUELING> RE PROPOSED CONSERVATIVE TECH SPECS WITH RESPECT TO TOTAL PLANAR RADIAL PEAKING FACTOR (FXYT) AND TOTAL INTERGRATED RADIAL P PLANT NAME: ST LUCIE Ni REVIEWER INIT1 AL: X JM DISTRIBUTOR INITIAL:QQ DISTRIBUTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS AS FOLLOWS ++++<<~4+<+<++4+++

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR AFTER lSSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE.

(DISTRIBUTION CODE A001>

FOR ACTION: BR CHIEF REID4~LTR ONLY(7>

INTERNAL: RFG FII E+~lLTR NRC PDR4~+LTR ONLY(i>

ONLY(2) OELD+<LTR ONLY<i)

HANAUER+4LTR ONLY(i> CHECK+4LTR ONLY(i>

EISENHUT4+LTR ONLY(1) SHAO+4LTR ONLY(i)

BAER+~~LTR ONLY(i) BUTLER++LTR ONLY(i>

EEB+4LTR ONLY(1) J COLLINS+4LTR ONLY(i)

J. MCCOUGH~~LTR ONLY(1>

EXTERNAL: LPDR S FT PIERCE, FL~4LTR ONLY(1)

TIC++LTR ONLY(1 >

NSIC~~LTR ONLY( 1 )

ACRS CAT 8++LTR ONLY(ib>

DISTRIBUTION: LTR 40 ENCL 0 CONTROL NBR: 781450099 SIZE: 2P

%%.f 4%%0l %4 %%%%%%%%%%W%%%4 %0l %%%%%%%%% THE END

4

~V

y4>I//g~

6

~//Aliii>'l FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY May 19, 1978 L-78-177 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Reid:

Re: St. Lucie Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-335 Your letter of May 8, 1978, requested certain information to complete your review of our application to restart St. Lucie Unit No. 1 follow-ing refueling. Your letter further stated that since resolution of your concerns prior to our planned restart of Unit No. 1 was doubtful, we should propose conservative Technical Specifications with respect to Total Planar Radial Peaking Factor (FxyT) and Total Integrated Radial Peaking Factor (Fr )-

We have reviewed your suggestion that we resubmit Figure. 3.2-3 with FxyT based on a 9.8% uncertainty factor arid FrT based on a 7.8% un-certainty factor and have 'determined that these uncertainties are presently incorporated in Figure 3.2-3 as submitted in our application of March 22, 1978. The Fr values related to the DNB LSSS and LCO proposed for Technical Specifications for St. Lucie Unit 51 Cycle 2-are based on a physics uncertainty of 5.1 percent. In addition, the FrT values are augmented by an additional penalty of 4.6 percent to cover the water hole peaks as discussed in the licensing submittal.

This implies a total penalty of F of 9.7 percent.

Likewise, the FxyT values related to the peak linear heat rate LSSS and LCO include a 5.8 percent physics uncertainty, plus the 4.6 percent water hole peaking factor, which implies a total penalty of 10.4 percent.

Based on these allowances (9.7 percent for FrT and 10.4 percent for Fxv ), the present proposed Technical Specifications, i.e., 3.2.2, 3.2.3, anct Figure 3.2-3, already include uncertainty factors sufficient to address the concerns noted in your letter of May 8.

Data to be used in monitoring integrated and planar radial peaking factors from in-core detector measurements will include an incremental adjustment factor of 4.6 percent to explicitly account for water hole peaking .effect's. .This will provide appropriately adjusted peaking factors to compare to the pioposed limits. Therefore, there is no need to revise Figure 3.2-3.

7aissooo9 >ID PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

Mr. Reid May 19, 1978 Pag.e "Two of your staff have expressed agreement with this determination Members in that discussions a revised on this matter. Accordingly, Figure 3.2-3 is unnecessary.

it is our understanding With regard to the information requested in your letter, we propose to provide you a schedule for furnishing our response to the questions contained in Enclosures 1, 2, and 3 by June 8, 1978.

Yours very truly, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President r

REU:LLL:lc cc: Peter B. Erickson James P. O'Rei13.y, Region XI Harold F. Reis, Esquire