ML17219A240
| ML17219A240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1986 |
| From: | Tourigny E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612040147 | |
| Download: ML17219A240 (6) | |
Text
November 25, 1986 Docket No. 50-335 Mr. C. 0.
Woody Group Vice President Nuclear Energy Florida Power 5 Light Company P. 0.
Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Distnbution NRC Ik L PDR PBD-8 Reading FMiraglia EJordan BGrimes JPartlow OGC-Bethesda Gray File 3.7a NThompson ETourigny PKreutzer ACRS (10)
ELantz
Dear Mr. Woody:
SUBJECT:
REANALYSIS OF RCP SEIZED ROTOR AND LOSS OF ALL NON-EMERGENCY AC POWER In conducting our review of your August 31, 1982 and September ll, 1984 submittals relating to the above subject at the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1, we have determined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review.
In order for us to maintain our review schedule, your response is required within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Please contact me at (301) 492-8007 if you have any questions concerning this letter.
Sincerely,
/S/
E.
G. Tourigny, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate b'8 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosure:
Request for Additional
,Information cc: w/enclosure See next page PBD-PK er 10 gQ/86 TAC448795 PBD-8:
EGTour) ny:jch 10/pp/86
<<(~<I~
RS EL n
)QIS6 PBD-8:
ATha4ani
]Itj+I86 8612040i47 861125 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
II V
I
~tthU tttV 1
li 1
VItV 1
4 II I
t If V
1
~
~
Mr.
C. 0.
Woody Florida Power 8 Light Company St.
Lucie Plant CC:
Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Resident Inspector c/o U.S.
NRC 7585 S.
Hwy AlA Jensen
- Beach, Florida 33457 State Planning 8 Development Clearinghouse Office of Planning 8 Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida
- 32301 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Newman 8 Holtzinger 1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
McCarthy, Steel, Hector and Davis 14th Floor, First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Weldon B. Lewis, County Administrator St.
Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Washington - Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. Allan Schubert, Manager Public Health Physicist Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Director for Operations 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323
P
Request for Additional Information for St. Lucie Unit No.
1 Reanalysis of RCP Seized Rotor and Loss of All Non-Emergency AG Power
References:
1.
Letter from C.
C. Nelson, USNRC, to R.
E. Uhrig, Florida Power 5 Light Companv, November 23, 1981.
2.
Letter from R. A. Clark, USNRC, to R.
E. Uhrig, Florida Power E Light Company, April 26, 1982.
3.
Letter from J.
W. Williams, Jr., Florida Power 8
Light Company, to J.
R. Miller, USNRC, September 11, 1984.
4.
Letter from D. E. Sells, USNRC, to C. 0. Woody, Florida Power and Light Company, January 15, 1986.
In the Safety Eval,uation for St. Lucie, Unit 1, License Amendment No. 48 (Reference 1), which authorized an increase in the licensed power from 2560 to 2700 MWth, it was found that three items needed further attention.
One of these items was closed out via Reference 2; two items remained open.
The first open item was an analysis of the, loss of non-vital AC power taking into consideration the single failure criterion.
The second open item was an analysis of the seized reactor coolant pump rotor event taking into consideration loss of offsite power and the single failure criterion.
Florida Power 5 Light Company (FPLC) reanalyzed these two postulated events and submitted the results to the NRC on August 31, 1982.
Following requests for additional information, FPLC made a second submittal at the end of 1983 and a third on September ll, 1984 (Reference 3).
After reviewing these submittals, the staff finds that information provided concerning the flow of auxiliary feedwater during these two postulated events is still unclear.
FPLC's response to question 3 requires further clarification.
The final two sentences of the licensee's response to question 3c are:
"As a result, both steam generators depressurize virtually at the same rate, showing no apparent asymmetry.
However, since the affected steam generator discharges more steam through the stuck opened ADV than the unaffected steam generator due to its proximity to that valve, its level reaches the AFW actuation setpoint; initiating the delivery of the AFW following a 2 minute delav time."
These two sentences appear to be contradictory.
If both steam generators depressurize at virtually the same rate, how could more steam be discharged from one than the other2 Wouldn't the water levels in the two steam gener-ators have to be the samel FPLC should explain this apparent discrepancy.
Specifically, FPLC should provide time-dependent plots of the various important parameters, e.g.,
steam generator pressure and level, main and auxiliary feedwater flow and steam flow, in order to support the response.
Lastly, Reference 4 approved an AFh'elivery time delay of greater than two minutes.
FP8L needs to address the different assumptions on feedwater delivery time and describe how the reference 4 assumption affects the conclusions in the analvses associated with,the above two open items.