ML17339B161
| ML17339B161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1980 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-80-206, NUDOCS 8007080140 | |
| Download: ML17339B161 (47) | |
Text
REGULATORY r ORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY M (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8007080140 DOCeDATE: 80/06/30 NOTARIZED'O DOCKET FACIL:50 250 Turkey Point Planti Unit 3i Florida Power and Light C 05000250 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGg R ~ E ~ Florida Power 8 Light Co,.
RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFF IL'IATION EISENHUTiD ~ G ~ Di.vi si.on of Li.censing
SUBJECT:
Requests permission to, delay scheduled shutdown for steam generator insp until 801006 'elay needed to accomodate peak load 'demand for Jul Aug 1980;Updated generating capaci.ty 8 expected load demand info B c'lass III fee
'CODEo A001S COP'IES RECEIVEDiLTR + ENCL encl'ISTRIBUTION Q SIZEi TITLE: General Distribution for. after Issuance of Operating Lic sores: M~cs~ 4g ooo, ~
BC,pygmy'P RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR 'ENCL ACTION: 5, 05 1 1 PM QR4TFAl//'WlS +, 12 12 INTERNALS D'IRiHUM FAC SFY 1 1 I8E 12 2 2 MOOREiV ~ 22 1 1 NRC PDR 02 1 1 OELD 14 1 0 OR ASSESS BR 19 1 0 01 1 EXTERNAL; ACRS 20 16 16 LPDR 03 1 1 NSIC 04 1 1 JUL 3.6 lggg TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 39 ENCL ~ 37
il A nf l $ U il, )I r 1i W
i',
I ')
f Y
.O. BOX 529100, MIAMI,FL 33162
~ykll/4>>
FLORIOA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY June 30, 1980 L-80-206 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
Re: Turkey Point Unit 3 Docket No. 50-250 Steam Generator Ins ection On June 9, 1977, Florida Power 8 Light Company submitted information which demonstrated that the steam generator inspection and preventive tube plugging program, developed by Florida Power 8 Light and its NSSS vendor, ensures the protection of the health and safety of the public duri ng normal plant operation and postulated accident conditions. The program has been used successfully at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 since June, 1977.
On January 10, 1980 (L-80-8), Florida Power 5 Light Company submitted th' results of the last steam generator inspection and preventive tube plugging performed for Turkey Point Unit 3. As discussed in the January 10 report, additional tubes were plugged beyond those required for a six month operating period. The criteria applied for the steam generator inspection and preventive plugging. were the same as applied previously with additional plugging criteria included to increase the conservatism in the existing program. The additional plugging criteria resulted in .plugging additional tubes to justify an operating period in excess of ten months. Unit 4 recently completed a successful ten month operating interval.
Unit 3 has been operating since July, 1978 with no steam generator tube leaks. Since June 4, 1980, leakage attributed to a weeping steam generator tube plug has remained at a very low level (0.0035 gpm), well below the license limit of 0.3 gpm, and essentially constant.
In addition to normal operating conditions, postulated accident conditions have also been evaluated. The 25$ tube plugging ECCS analysis, which has been approved by NRC, conservatively bounds the current steam generator. tube plugging level of 19.41.. The main steam line break accident has also been addressed (for a 10 month operating interval) in our submittal of June 10.
The extensive inspections and conservative level of preventive plugging performed during the last outage, analyses of postulated accident conditions, and operating restrictions provided by existing license conditions, ensure p,Q safe plant operation for a period in excess of ten months and continue to )($ ~@
assure protection of public health and safety.
B 1I0POse gD PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
0 1f i". 'I" ll'g !,'/
'fD,. l l
4 II
C ~
t1r. Darrell G. Eisenhut Page Two Attachment l provides FPL's an update of information provided to the NRC staff earlier this year on generating capacity and expected load demand. This information has been updated to reflect the predicted conditions for the
. months of July, August, and September 1980- FPL has concluded:that a shutdown of Turkey, Point Unit 3 during these months would jeopardize our. 'ability to provide reliable electric service to our customers in south Flarida. Reserves are less than desired even with Turkey Point Unit 3 operating'(because of the delay in commercial operation of our first Hartin unit), and become much more severe if Unit 3 is shutdown during this 3 month interval.
Turkey Point Unit 3 currently must be shut down by July 31, 1980 to perform a steam generator inspection. Since an outage at this time is not required to ensure continued protection of the health and safety of, the pbb1ic and since the shutdown will impact our ability to provide reliable servic'e'to,our customers, Florida Power 8 Light Company requests permission to. delay the next
~
steam generator inspection of Turkey Point Unit 3 until October 6, 1980. This
. would lead to a continuous operating interval of approximately 8-1/2 equivalent full power months, which is well within the 10 month period that has been justified as described above. Following the proposed October inspection, a subsequent inspection is planned for the next refueling outage scheduled for March, 1981.
I This request has been reviewed by the Turkey Point Nuclear Safety Committee and the Florida Power 2 Light Company Nuclear Review Board. They concluded that granting this request will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
I Me have determined that this submittal involves a Class III fee,.in accordance with 10 CFR 170. Accordingly, a check for $ 4,000 is enclosed.'lease.
feel free to contact me if you should have any question regarding this matter.
Very truly yours, P,obert E. Uhri g Vice President Advanced Systems 5 Technology REU/RAK/RJA/t@S/cph Attachments cc: Nr. J. P- O'Reilly, Region II Harold F- Reis, Esquire
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF DADE )
E. A. Adomat, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That. he is Executive Vice President of Florida Power Light Company, the herein; That he has executed the foregoing document; that the state-ments made in this said document are true and correct to the best. of his knowledge, information, and belief, and that he is authorized to execute the document on behalf of said E. A. Adomat Subscribed and sworn to before me this cg r>>>>
30 day of June l9 80 NOTARY PUBLIC, d for the County of Dade, State of Flo ida ~ygy,.Public. State.ot- Florida a4 Large
'Ay. Commission Expires October 30, 1983 commission expires: %only.- tlirt Maynqrd- 8ondinq Agency.,
My
0 0 U
ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 81 t
- g. A listing of all utility-owned (in whole or in part) generators and their I
expected availability and capacity to produce power. Indicate planned unit maintenance or other outage and rationale for scheduling such outage at this time.
A. A listing of FPL's generating units is provided below. No units are scheduled for maintenance during July, August, and September except for 257 Mw of Gas Turbines as shown on Table k'2.
TABLE 1 FPL SYSTEM GENERATING CAPACITY Net-Summer Unit Name Continuous Ca abilit Turke Point 2079.5 1 367 2 367 3 666 4 666 Diesel s 13.5 Lauderdale 910 137 5 137 GT's 636 Port Ever lades 1473.5 1 204 2 204 3 367 4 367 Diesels 13.5 GT's 318 Riviera 653 40 69 272 272 St. Lucie 777 777 Ca e Canaveral 729 367 362 Sanford 861 3 137 4 362 5 362 Putnam 430 215 215 Manatee 1528 1 764 2 764
~Ft. M ere 1116 1 137 2 367 GT's 612 Total Installed Net Ca abilit 10557:
- .. Item ¹2
- g. A listing of all existing electric power purchase and sale contracts.
'Also, identify any special purchase or sales of power that take place. Indicate the specific applicability in megawatts of any of these contracts 'to the period of concern.
A. Florida Power 8 Light (FPL) has interchange contracts with other utilities I
both external and within the state of Florida. Firm purchases of:.100 MW are presently being made from external to the state but additional finn purchases could not be negotiated on such short notice. Interchanges could occur under presently approved economy and emergency schedules, however, the availability of such power is unpredictable and not guaranteed. Even if'ower:were avail-able for purchase, reliability considerations dictate a maximum import capability of 223 MW. This number is based on an import capacity of 1000 MW reduced by the output capacity of our largest unit, 777 MW. (Assuming SL 1 is off.)
(See Item ¹10).
Item ¹3
- g. A copy of any regional power sharing or reliability agreement indicating the specific applicability of any part of this agreement and provide detailed I
information regarding the possible impact of applicable load curtailment plans.
A. There is no reliability agreement within the state of Florida and no sharing of power other than interchange transactions as described in Item ¹2.
Item ¹4
- g. The expected peak load for each month for the period of concern, identifying any interruptible loads available. Additionally, an analysis of the impact of adverse weather conditions on monthly peak demand should be supplied.
A. The expected monthly peak load for the period of concern of 8990 MW'is
- Loads experienced during the month of June indicate that the forecast is most probably conservative.
reflected in the calculations in Item 89.
FPL has no interruptible load. FPL has approximately 175 MH of curtailable load.
Item 85
- g. A description of any expected system transmission line loading, voltage control, or system stability problem. Identify any extended transmission line or generating unit voltages which may have an impact.
A. Southeast Florida is that area bounded by St. Lucie County on the north, the Florida Everglades on the west, and Dade County on the south. This area encompasses approximately three million people and nearly 70 percent of the total FPL load. The total generating capacity of the area s five active power plants is less than the total area load. As a result, the area is perenially dependent on its transmission interconnections one 500 kV and one 230 kV line to the west and two 230 kV lines to the north--to serve its needs.
Because of its size, natural boundaries, and dependence on external transmission, Southeast Florida has unique reliability and transient stability characteristics.
Accordingly, FPL attempts to operate and control this area within carefully defined limits.
After considerable study and operating experience, it has been established that, to consistently maintain an acceptable level of reliability within Southeast Florida and reduce the likelihood of system islanding, total transmission flows into Southeast Florida must be controlled to a level equal to (1500 MH minus the largest area generating unit). Since the largest generating unit within this area is typically St. Lucie 81 (777 MW) or Turkey Point 83 or 5'4 (666 MH each), total transmission flows are thereby typically constrained to 700-800 MW.
~
This operating practice ensures that, for the sudden loss of a large Southeast Florida generating unit, all transmission flows, stability limits, and voltages remain within long term ratings. Moreover, for more serious disturbances, the likelihood of system islanding is substantially reduced, if not avoided.
Table 2 shows Southeast Florida generating reserves under different operating I
conditions. As shown, TP ¹3 being off causes reserves to fall to -10.4X.
Negative reserves mean the above described limit is violated and;consequently the reliability risk associated, with any disturbance increases accordingly.
Item ¹6
- g. The level of current fuels inventories, an assessment of the, adequacy of fuel supplies to meet energy requirements during planned nuclear outage, and the expected impact of the nuclear unit outages on these levels'.
A. Current and projected fuel inventories are adequate.
Item ¹7 ii. A description of any expected impact on the ~re ional power supply network.
A. Assuming the "regional" network refers to Peninsular Florida', 'FPL has not attempted to estimate the impact of the outage of TP 3 on Peninsular Florida.
Item ¹8
- g. A monthly compilation of the utility's net energy for load for the projected outage period and for the same time period of the previous year (includes details on generation, purchases and sales, and anticipated load). Provide details on any load management or similar activity which might cause significant variations in customer energy requirements.
.A. FPL's 1980 estimated and 1979 actual net energy for load for the period
of concern are given below. These figures assume,no interchange transactions but do include wholesale sales under our Partial Requirements (PR)~land Sale for Resale (SR) rates. I 1979 Net Ener For Load Time Period Ener Million kWH July 4577 Aug. 4621 Sept. 4462 1980 Estimated Net Ener For Load Time Period Ener Million kWH July 4510 Aug. 4885 Sept. 4755 Item ¹9 Q. A calculation of the anticipated minimum generating reserve margin during eachmonthof the period. The minimum reserve margin shall be calculated as the generating capacity in megawatts available to supply load above the anticipated system peak load for the month, (This calculation should consider system power sales and purchases.) Please relate the reserve margin calculation to its corresponding loss of load probability.
A. Table 2 calculates reserve margins for FPL and Southeast Florida for different time periods and under the stated operating conditions.
A 20 percent reserve margin is generally regarded by the electric utility industry and by those government agencies responsible for reviewing reliability standards, as the minimum reserve level which should be maintained by systems
0 such as FPL to insure ade cy of generation supplies. Th 0 percent reserve margin is essential to= protect against unscheduled generating outages, unit deratings, and other contingencies; as well as to maintain, and when necessary supply, spinning reserve commitments.
'An examination of Table 2 shows that, during August and September, even under the most, favorable conditions--i.e., all FPL units fully available--reserve margins for FPL's system and for Southeast Florida fall below 20 percent (13.0 percent and negative 0.20 percent, respectively). Under .operating conditions with TP 3 out of service--reserve margins for FPL fall to approximately 5.9 percent and for Southeast Florida become negative 10.4 percent.
The reserves on the FPL system, particularly in Southeast Florida, are depressed because of the forced delay in the operation of Martin Unit 1 (764'w).
As regards Loss of Load Probability (LOLP), FPL analyzes and calculates LOLP on an annual basis. The data base and analytic tools readily available to FPL to calculate LOLP do not lend themselves to weekly or even monthly calculations of,LOLP.
it has I
In prior LOLP evaluations of the FPL system, been determined that acceptable LOLP indices, whether for FPL or for Peninsular Florida, generally correspond to FPL reserve margins above 20 percent.
- g. A statement on the availability of emergency support from contiguous control areas, indicating size of potential support and conditions on avail-abi1 i ty.
A. The total estimated import capability of the FPL system from the inter-connected network is approximately 1000 MW. To protect against the sudden loss of.a large FPL generating unit and preclude more serious consequences, FPL must "reserve" out of this total import capability an amount equal to the largest FPL generating unit. Accordingly, the analysis assumes FPL could p'urchase
(and neighboring systems can collectively sell), on a firm basis, an amount equal to the remaining import capacity (1000 NW minus the largest FPL generating unit). This is the amount used for calculation purposes in Table 2.
Il 0 ~ >>Cy-
FPL SYSTEM TABLE 2 Net Total Time Installed
~RC I R I C ~tit Dependable
~lt Transmission R
Total Expected L d Spinning II ~IR Gen i t Reserves Rll R July 10,557 25?1 10,300 223 10,523 8,885 320 9,205 1318 14.3 9232 9,634 223 9,857. 8,885 320 9,205 652 7.1 Aug, 10,557 257 10,300 223 10,523: 8,990 , 320 9,310 1213 13.0
. Sept. 9232. 9,634 223 9,857 8,990 320 9,310 547 5.9 SOUTHEAST FLORIDA July 5,893 193 5,700 804 6,504 6,220 224 6,444 60 0.93 859 5,034 804 5,838 6,220 224 6,eve . (e06) (9.e)
~
Aug. 5,893 193 5,-700 804 6,504 6,293 224 6.517 (13) (0.20)
~
Sept. 859 5,034 " ... 804 5,838 .. -6 293 224 6 517 (679) (10.4)
Gas Turbines Scheduled Off for Maintenance 2 Gas Turbines Scheduled Off for Maintenance, Plus Outage of Turkey Point 83
II J 1i
v x
s
~flliam.D. thiller, Chief ~ Date'. X A/> cz License Fee Management Bra<<ch, ADM AmeM orm Date:
FACILITY AHENDME CLASSIFICATION - DOCKET NO(S). ~d - P~& 5o aN Licensee:
'Plant Name and Unit(s):
'icense No(s): ~+ f Mail Control No: ~ >+~ ~ ~ ~~ 1
. Request. Dated: Fee Remitted:" Yes No Assigned TAC No: mPF
Subject:
ganendment No.
1..
4 4 'W '7~ -N8>~
7 W AY>
~-~ -~
'ate None This request has been reviewed by DDR/DRY
. =
of c
I'nc . I in accordance with Section.
170.22 of Part 170 and. is properly categorized.
2.'his request is incorrectly classified and.should be properly categorized as -Class . Justification for .classification or reclassi fication:
t
- 3. Additional'information is required to properly categorize the request:
t
-4. This request is a Class t of action and is exempt from fe type s because i.t:
RECEIV D BY LFMB was filed by .a nonprofit educational institution, b was filed.by. a Government agency and is not for a Date....... POWer reactor,
'Log..... + ...... fc is for a Class (can only be a I, II, or III) amendment
'hich results from a writ en Commission request dated
'or the application and tne amendrient is to simpl'ify or clarify .
,license or technical specifications has only minor safety Action cont>>i.. 'sigrnficance, and is being issued ior the convenience of the Commission, or (d) ~other (state reason therefor): ~~
cc y LFMB 5/30/8 Docket Fi 'I e (2)
Reactor File (2)
P .-
- Pfu ~ r'5 >'m Exemption Fi.le S.Varga, ORB-1 9M- ivision of Ooeratina Rea ctors/Project Managem.',
INITIAL,FEE DETERMINATION HAS BEEN REASSESSED AND IS HEREBY AFFIRMED The above request has been, reviewed and (s exempt from fees.
4 v '0 % I'Pl(~~ r William Q. Miller, Chief . Oat'.e LFYiB 6/78 License Fee Management Branch
'1
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY PERATING LICENSE The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coranission (the Commission) has
.issued Amendment No. 57 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-3'l, and Amendment No. 50 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 issued to Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee), which revised Tech-nical Specifications for operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (the facilities) located in Dade County, Florida.
The amendments are" effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendments incorporate the results of a revised ECCS analysis for a steam- generator tube plugging level of 25M.
The application for the amendments-complies with the standards and requirements of the Ato'mi c Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Coomission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments. Prior public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
I S lk
~P
7590-01 The Commission has determined that the issuance of these amendments will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR $ 51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of these amendments.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated April 29, 1980, (2) Amendment Nos. 57 and 50to License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, and (3) the Comnission's related Safety Evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Environmental and Urban Affairs Library, Florida Interna-tional University, Miami, Florida 33199. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 15th day of May, 1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION even A.
L arga, C i ig Operating Reactors Branch ¹1 Division of Licensing
~p,g AEgg c~
~o UNITED STATES
~(I n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4 ~ 0
+>>*a+ May 15, 1980 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Yice President Advanced Systems and Technology Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 529100 Miami, Florida 33152
Dear Dr. Uhrig:
The Comission, has issued the enclosed Amendment No- 57 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 and Amendment No. 50 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
3 and 4, respectively. The amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications in response to your application transmitted by letter dated April 29, 1980.
These amendments incorporate the results of a revised ECCS analysis for a steam generator tube plugging level of 25$ -
Copies of, the Safety Evaluation and the Notice of Issuance are also enclosed.
Si ncerely, I
even K.LYarga, C i f Operating Reactors anch >1 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 57 to DPR-31
- 2. Amendment No. 50 to. DPR-41
- 3. Safety Evaluation
- 4. Notice of Issuance cc: w/enclosures See next page
Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power and Light Company May 15, 1980 cc: Mr. Robert Lowenstein, Esquire Mr. Jack Shreve Lowenstein, Newman, Reis and Axelrad Office of the Public Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Room 4, Holland Building .
Suite 1214 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Washington, D. C. 20036 Administrator Environmental and Urban Affairs Library Department of Environmental Florida International University Regulation
~
Miami, Florida 33199 Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida Mr. Norman A. Coll, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Steel, Hector and Davis Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1400 Southeast First National Bank Bui.lding Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esquire, Miami, Florida 33131 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Henry Yaeger, Plant Manager Panel Turkey Point Plant U'- S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission FIorida Power and"Light Company Washington, 0-. C. 20555 P. 0. Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Honorable Dewey Knight Panel County Manager of Metropolitan U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Dade County Washington, D. C. 20555 Miami, Florida 33130 Mr. Mark P. Oncavage Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations 12200 S. 'W..110th Avenue 660 Apalachee Parkway Mi ami,'l ori da 33176 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Neil Chonin, Esquire Resident Inspector New World Tower Building, 30th Floor Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission.
Miami, Florida. 33132 Post Office Box 971277 guail Heights Station Henry.H- Harnage, Esquire Miami, Florida 33197 Peninsula Federal Building, 10th Floor 200 S. E. First Street Director, Technical Assessment Division Miami,, Florida 33131 Office of Radiation Programs '(AW-459)
U. S. 'Environmental Protection Agency 'Dr. Oscar H. Paris Crystal Mall 02 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN: E IS COORD INATOR 345 Courtland Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgi a 30308
0 c~
go,R Rico
~4 ~o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
+~*~%
.FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET 'NO. 50-250 TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 3 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendhent No. 57 License No. DPR-31
- 1. The Nuclear Regulatory C'oranission {the COInnission) has found that:
A. The application for amendment by Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) dated April 29, 1980, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the COImission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the CoIInIission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that, the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the CoIImission's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comnission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2- Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 3.B of, Facility,Operating License No; DPR-31 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Technical- S ecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 57 , are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
- 3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of its issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
ven A. arga, C f Operating Reactors B a ch 01 Division of Licensi g
Attachment:
Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of, Issuance: May 15, 1980
0
~R Rf00 Cy n0 P~
UNITED STATES I
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0: C. 20555 Vr
+0 qO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-251 TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 50 License No. DPR-41
- 1. The Nuclear Regulatory COImission (the ComIiss.ion) has found that:
A. The application for amendment by Florida Power and Light Cooyany (the licensee') dated April 29, 1980, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and'he Comnission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the ComIission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted with'out endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will 'be conducted in compliance with the ComIission's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and'ecurity or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- 2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as. indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 3.B of Facility Operating License No-..DPR-41 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Technical S ecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 50,, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the'echnical Specifications-
- 3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of its issuance-FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY ar COMMISSION'ttachment:
even A.
0 p eratin g R eactor rane Division of Licensing Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: May 15, 1980
ATTACHMENT TO 'LICENSE AMENDMEHTS
'AMENDMEHT NO- 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. 'DPR-31 AMENDMEHT HO. 5OTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-41
'DOCKET NOS. 50'-250 AND '50-251 Revise Appendix A. as fol.lows:
Insert Pa es 3.2-3 3.2-3 Figure 3.2-3b Figure 3.2-3b
reactivity insertion upon e-'ection greater than 0.3% k/k at rated power.
Inoperable rod worth shall be determined within 4 weeks.
- b. A control rod shall be considered inoperabl'e the rod cannot be moved by the CRDN, or if (a)
(b) the rod is mi'saligned from its banlc by more than 15 inches, or (c) the rod drop time is not met.
- c. If a control rod cannot be moved by the drive mechanism, shutdown margin shall be increased by boron addition to compensate for the ~
withdrawn worth of the inoperable rod.
- 5. COZZROL ROD POSITION IibD'ICATION If either the power range channel deviation alarm or the rod deviation monitor alarm are not operable rod positions shall be logged once per shift and after a load change greater than 10% of rated power. If both alarms are inoperable for two. hour or more the nuclear over-power trip shall be reset to 93% of rated, power.
- 6. PO'HER DISTRIBUTION LlaiITS
- a. Hot channel factors:
(1) Mith steam generator tube plugging >22% and 25%, the hot channel factors (defined in the basis) must meet the following limit- at all times ezc pt during low power physics tests:
Fq (Z) < ('.97/P) x K(Z), for'P > .5 Fq (Z) < (3-94) x K(Z), for P < .5
,F~~ < i.55 'fl.+0.2 (1-P))
4'here P is the fraction of rated power at which the, core is operating; K(Z) is the function given in Figure 3.2-3b; Z is the core height location of F .
If F , as n
predicted. by approved physics calculations, 'exceeds 1.97, the power will be limited to the rated power multiplied by the ratio o'f 1.97 divided by the predicted F , or augmented surveillance of hot channel factors shall be implemented.
(2) bith,steam generator tube plugging ~22%, the hot channel factors (defined in the basis ) must meet the following limits at all times except during low power physics tests:
F< (Z) 'E.(l.'99/P)' K(Z), for P > .5 F< (Z) < (3.98) x K(Z), for P < .5 Fgq 6 1.55 [ 1.+0.2 (1-P) ]
Wicre P is the fraction of rated power at which the cora is operating; K(Z) is the function given in Figure 3.2-3a; Z is the core height location oi F .
3~ 2 3 Amendment Ho. 57, Unit 3 Amendment No. 50, Unit 4
4~
HOT CHANNEL FACTOR NORMALIZED OPERATING ENVELOPE (for steam generator tube plugging 25K and Fq=1.97) 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 10 12 Bottom Top CORE HEIGHT (FT.)
Figure 3.2-3b Amendment No. 57, Unit 3 Amendment No. 50, Unit 4
II 4~
~gg RK0(
c<
0 UNITED STATES Op NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y/
+0 .
'0
++*++
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO FACILITY'PERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING, UNIT NOS. 3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251 Introduction By .letter dated April 29, 1980 (Reference 1), Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Operating License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 for. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The letter contains a LOCA analysis and proposed Technical Specification changes in connection with the operation of Units 3 and 4 with 25 percent of steam generator tubes plugged and a peaking factor Fq of 1.97. In addition, the licensee provided sensitivity study indicating that the penalty caused .by intro-ducing the new fuel performance models developed by the NRC (Reference 2) is compensated by the conservatisms existing in the present ECCS models (Reference 1) and therefore no reduction of Fq due to this effect is required .
The changes to the Technical Specifications requested by the licensee are the following:
(a) Specification of Fq = 1.97 for plant operation with 25 percent of steam generator tubes plugged.
(b) Change 'of the Hot Channel Factor Normalized Operating Envelope for a steam generator tube plugging level of 25 percent (Figure 3.2-3b)
Since the limiting value of Fq is below the level at which the excore detectors could provide reliable readings and because the "18 case FAC analyses" performed for both units indicated that the maximum predicted Fq exceeded the LOCA determined limits, the licensee is required either to operate the plant with the augmented power distribution surveillance or at the suitably reduced power 1'evels.
Eval uat ion The licensee has provided an evaluation of the performance of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) for both, Units 3 and 4 corresponding to the hot channel peaking factor value of Fq = 1.97 and assuming a steam generator plugging level of 25 percent, a 5 percent reduction in thermal'esign flow and a removal of 65'F fuel temperature conservatism in the PAD fuel performance evaluation code. The reduction of thermal design flow was introduced to compensate for an additional hydraulic resistance caused by the plugged steam generator tubes . It is a conservative assumption.
The removal of 65'F fuel temperatur e conservatism is a non-conservative assumption because in itself it would cause the peak cladding temperature to increase. However, other assumptions existing in the PAD code compensate for it and as a result'the fuel performance evaluation by the code is conservative. This change has been approved by us in Reference 3.
The LOCA analysis was performed using the February 1978 version of the Westinghouse Evaluation Model (Reference 4) which was reviewed and approved by us (Reference 5). It was performed for a double ended cold leg
.guillotine break (DECLG) with a discharge coefficient of CD = 0.4.
The licensee has shown in the previous submittal (Reference 6) that this break size corresponds to the highest value of peak cladding temperature and Zr-water reaction . The licensee has also demonstrated that the break size remains unaffected by the number of the steam generator tubes plugged (Reference 7).
The previous analysis for Units 3 and 4 (Reference 8). was performed using the same evaluation model and assuming the same steam generator tube plugging level. However, the value of Fq was 2.03 for both units.
This value was subsequently administratively reduced to 1".87 to compensate for an error discovered in the input to the SATAN computer code, used in LOCA evaluation (Reference 9) and to account for the changes in the fuel performance models (Reference 10).
The currently submitted LOCA analysis includes the input corrections to the SATAN code, but it does not include the changes caused by the modified fuel performance models. The input parameters assumed in the anal.ysis are listed below:
Core Power: 102 percent of 2200 g<t (rated power)
Peak Linear Power: 102 percent of 11.19 KW/ft Peaking Factor: 1.97 Accumulator Water Volume: 875 cu ft/each The results of the analysis indicate a peak cladding temperature of 2136'F, a maximum local Zr-water reaction of 6.945 -percent and a total Zr-water reaction of less than '0.3 percent. All these values are below the limits specified in 10 CFR 50.46.
The licensee did not include small break analysis since steam generator tubes plugged did not affect significantly the results of the original analysis.
The 1'icensee has provided additional calculations (Reference 1) to assess the potential impact of the recent concerns related to the fuel performance
.model changes included in draft report NUREG-0630 (Reference 2). Adoption of these changes would produce an increase of the peak cladding temperature by 405'F, due to the fuel burst model change and by 450'F, due to the fuel strain model change. To compensate for these changes and keep the peak cladding temperature below the 2200 F limit, the peaking factor Fq should be r'educed by 0.053. There are, however, two compensa'ting effects which could provide credits offsetting the above mentioned penalties in LOCA, analysis. 'These effects are due to the changes involving the slip and break flow models which have been approved by us for UHI plants after an extensive review. It is estimated that the total benefit of use of these models would be an increase of 0.38 units in F . However, at the present moment, no adequate basis exists for considerikg horizontal slip. Also an uncertainty exists in translating the phenomena at blowdown to an effect during reflood. It is our current best technical judgment that application of these model changes woul'd result in an increase of Fq by 0.15 (Reference 11),. This value more than offsets the penalties in FO and the results of the LOCA analysis submitted by the licensee (Reference
- 1) could'e considered conservative.
The licensee has performed the "18 case FAC analyses" for Unit 3, Cycle 7 and Unit 4, Cycle 6 (Reference 12) because the limiting peaking factor in the LOCA analysis was below the value for which the excore detectors could give reliable measurements. The results of these analyses have indicated that for both units the predicted maximum peaking factor exceeds the limiting value of Fq. The licensee is therefore required either to limit power to the rated power multiplied by the ratio of 1.97 divided by the predicted peaking factor or to implement the augmented surveillance discussed in Reference 13 and ascertain that the peaking factor would not exceed the limiting value of 1.97. This requirement could be lifted anytime during plant operation if the licensee demonstrates by the "18 case FAC analysis" that the maximum predicted Fq is within the LOCA determined l,imit.
~Sumnar Based on the review of the submitted documents, we conclude that the results of the LOCA analysis performed with Fq = 1.97 are conservative relative to the 10 CFR 50.46 criteria. Me consider the resultant changes to the Technical Specifications acceptable for operating Units 3 and 4 with up to a maximum of 25 percent of steam generator tubes plugged.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor.an-increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from 'the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR $ 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative .declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the cordon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: May 1,5, 1980
Refer ences
- 1. Letter from R. E. Uhrig (FPL) to D. G. Eisenhut (NRC), Serial No.
L-80-129, dated April 29, 1980.
- 2. HUREG-0630, Cladding Swelling and Rupture Models for LOCA analysis, November 1979.
- 3. NRC Memo from P. S. Check to A. Schwencer, Safety Evaluation .by NRR of LOCA Reanalysis for Zion Station, Units 1 and 2, dated March 14, 1980.
- 5. Letter from J. F. Stolz (HRC) to T. M. Anderson (Westinghouse),
dated August 29, 1978.
- 6. Letter from R. E. Uhrig (FPL) to V. Stello (NRC), dated December 9, 1976.
- 9. Letter from A. D. Schmidt (FPL) to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-Region II),
Serial No. PRH-LI-79-414, dated November 15, 1979.
- 10. Letter from A. D. Schmidt ( FPL) to'. P. O'Reilly (NRC-Region II),
Serial Ho. PRN-LI-79-423, dated November 23, 1979.
ll. G. N., Lauben (NRC) to R. P. Denise (HRC) Memorandum, "Review Status of Cons.idered Revisions to Vendor ECCS Evaluation Models," dated December 21, 1979.
Cl 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251 FLORIDA'POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY ER IN ICENSE The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comnission) has issued Amendment No. 57 to Facility Operating License Ho. DPR-31, and Amendment No. 50 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-41 issued to Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee), which revised Tech-nical Specifications for operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (the facilities) located in Dade County, Florida.
The amendments -are effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendments incorporate the results of a revised ECCS analysis for a steam generator tube plugging level, of 25%.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Coranission's rules and regulations. The Conmission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in, the license amendments. Prior public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
7590-01 2
The Coarnission has determined that the issuance of these amendments will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR $ 51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of these amendments.
For further details with respect to this action, see (I) the application for amendments dated Apri I 29, 1980, (2)'mendment Nos. 57 and 50 to License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, and (3) the Coaeission's related Safety Evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Environmental and Urban Affairs Library, Florida Interna-tional University, Miami, Florida 33'199. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division P
of L,icensing.
Dated at Bethesda, .Maryland, this 15th day of tray, 1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION even . a g ,
~
Operating Reactors B nch 8I Division of Licensing
4 3
C C
4