ML17229A594
| ML17229A594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1998 |
| From: | Wiens L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Plunkett T FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M95230, NUDOCS 9801280354 | |
| Download: ML17229A594 (9) | |
Text
~
~w ~
( ~R REoy
's G+
. +M
~o
'e
~c O
I e
ea O~
Vg
~e gO
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205564001 January 14.
1998 Hr. Thomas F. Plunkett President, Nuclear Division Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
SUBJECT:
ST.
LUCIE UNIT 1 STEAN GENERATOR RUN TINE ANALYSIS (TAC NO. H95230)
Dear Hr. Plunkett:
By letter dated October 24.
1996. Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) provided a run time analysis in support of a 15-month period of operation for the St. Lucie Unit 1 steam generators.
Revisions to this analysis were provided in letters dated April 4 and June 3.
1997.
The information pertains to Cycle-14 operation of Unit 1 which began in July 1996.
The NRC stai'f performed a preliminary review of the October 24, 1996.
. submittal and determined that additional information, including a revised dose assessment calculation, was necessary to complete the review of the analysis.
However. this preliminary review did not identify any significant safety concerns associated with the proposed 15-month operating cycle.
After receipt of the requested additional information, priority reviews of safety-significant issues at other plants prevented completion of a detailed review of the FPL analysis prior to completion of the 15-month operating cycle in October 1997.
Since Unit 1 has replaced the steam generators.
continued Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff effort to complete this review would be an unnecessary expenditure of resources.
Therefore.
we have terminated our review of.the FPL run time analysis.
I ~
Prior to termination of our review, NRC technical staff had identified questions and issues related to the analysis.
These questions and issues concerning the analysis are listed in the enclosure for your information.
Resolution of these concerns is not necessary in the context of run time.
However. their resolution may avoid delays in review of future submittals if similar assumptions or analysis are utilized. If convenient for your staff. I 980%280354 980% 14 PDR ADQCK 05000335 P
PDR 3, llllllllflllllllllllllllllillllllllllll~ M~~
Thomas F. Plunkett will arrange a call with the appropriate NRC reviewer to discuss these questions.
- However, a formal response to these questions is not necessary.
We appreciate your cooperation in responding to the staff's requests for information and the sharing of information concerning the condition of the St. Lucie steam generators.
If you have questions concerning this issue.
please contact me at (301) 415-1495.
Sincerely.
L. A. Wiens, Senior Project Nanager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-335
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Questions and Corments cc w/encl:
See next page
~
~
Thomas F. Plunkett will arrange a call with the appropriate NRG reviewer to discuss these questions.
,However, a formal response to these questions is not necessary We appreciate your cooperation in responding to the staff's requests for information and the sharing of information concerning the condition of the St. Lucie steam gen'erators; 'f you have, questions concerning this issue, please contact me at (301) 415-1495.
I 1
Sincerely,
/s/
L. A. Wiens, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-335
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Questions and Comments cc w/encl:
See next page
-:Docket Fi.le.
OGC PUBLIC ACRS St.Lucie Reading File B. Boger J.
- Johnson, RII DOCUMENT NAME:
G:NSTLUCIEKSGRUN.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PDI I-3/PM NAME LWiens: mw PDI I-3/LA BClayton FHebdon TSul 1 i va REmc PERB EMCB Q
E PDII-3/D, DATE 01/
/98 01/ V /98 01/ ~98 Ol/ [3/98 01/) 9 /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 01/
/98
rl lg 1
ji I
C'.
l II I
j
Mr. T. F. Plunkett Florida Power and Light Company ST.
LUCIE PLANT CC:
Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7585 S.
Hwy AlA Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Joe Myers, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 M. S.
Ross, Attorney Florida Power 5 Light Company P.O.
Box 14000 Juno
- Beach, FL 33408-0420 John T. Butler, Esquire
- Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Mr. Douglas Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Mr. Bill Passetti Office of Radiation Control Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Regional Administrator Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SM., Suite 23T85
- Atlanta, GA 30303-3415 H. N. Paduano, Manager Licensing 5 Special Programs Florida Power and Light Company.
P.O.
Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 J. A. Stall, Site Vice President St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. J. Scarola Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen
- Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. Kerry Landis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85
- Atlanta, GA 30303-3415 E. J.
Meinkam Licensing Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen
- Beach, Florida 34957
The SAIC-97-1008. Revision 1, analysis includes the assumption that the plant is allowed to operate for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> at a pre-existing spike activity level of 60 yCilg before the plant must start shutdown procedures.
However, per Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.8. Action a.,
as soon as that value is reached the plant must be placed in Hot Standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
The removal efficiencies for control room charcoal adsorber and HEPA filter were not appropriately reduced to account for the in-place test acceptance criteria being 1X.
Such an accounting typically results in a 0.95K reduction in efficiency.
The analysis assumed an adsorber efficiency of 95K for the elemental and organic forms of iodine when the laboratory test for charcoal in the TS surveillance only requires that the adsorber demonstrate an efficiency of 90K.
In addition, the laboratory test is conducted at a temperature of 130'C. which is far above the temperatures expected in the control room.
TS surveillance requirements for control room ESF ventilation system flow rates are inconsistent with the analysis.
The TS surveillance for the adsorber limits flow to 2.000 cfm + lOX.
However, the analysis assumed a flow of 2.450 cfm.
The pressurization flow range allowed by TSs is 0-450 cfm.
The analysis assumed pressurization flow was 450 cfm.
This assumption is not the most limiting case with respect to control room operator doses.
The analysis assumption for recirculation flow was 2.000 cfm. If pressurization flow is assumed to be 450 cfm. maximum recirculation flow is limited to 1,750 cfm.
It appears the meteorology data is changed from that in their design basis.
If revised design basis meteorology values are used to establish new x/Q values for the EAB. LPZ and control room. then the data to support such changes must be submitted to the NRC for review and approval prior to its use.
There appears to be an error with respect to the accuracy of the control room ventilation system model.
The term g should include the return of the recirculation air from the control room which has been passed through the recirculation filter.
The consequences of the accident-initiated spike and the failed fuel cases appear, to have underestimated the thyroid dose consequences by. in some cases.
an order of magnitude.
1.
From information contained in the UFSAR. with a loss of offsite power.
it was not clear whether there is a period of time before the control room ventilation systems operate.
If there is, then the analysis needs to account for this delay.
2.
Previous values for the control room volume indicated a volume of approximately 107,000 ft'.
Section 6.4 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report would seem to indicate this as such.
If the value for the control room volume has been changed.
what was the basis for the reduction to 62.000 ft'?
3.
What is the isolation time for the control room intake for a main steamline break accident?
What is the isolation based upon?
4 Table 6.4-1 indicates that the control room inleakage is 34 cfm.
The analysis assumed 100 cfm.
Explain the basis for the difference.