ML17339B171
| ML17339B171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1980 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Oncavage M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160808 | |
| Download: ML17339B171 (24) | |
Text
LlitIILIOII II RI',ifLti I i<I.:l3I'It Docket,Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.
W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176
Dear Mr. Oncavage:
DISTRIBUTION
.Docket Files 0-250 and 50-NRC PDRs (2)
Local PDR TERA NSIC NRR Reading ORBl Reading D. Eisenhut T.Nova k S.
Varga M. Grotenhuis S. Goldberg C. Parrish IaE (3)
D. Whittier, FPL On May 20, 1980 we acknowledged receipt of your letter of February 29,
~
1980 and provided. a response
.to your April 2, 1980 letter.
Enclosure 1
to this letter answers the first 31 questions you raised in your April 2 correspondence.
In addition, we enclose copies of two pertinent reports and a
page each from the Turkey Point Technical Specifications and the Standard Technical Specifications, which are referenced in Enclosure 'l.
The remainder of the questions raised in your April 2 correspondence concern matters which are less readily available and will be answered a
little later.
P I trust that these answers are r esponsive to your questions.
S incerel y,
Enclosures:
l.
Answers to guestions 1-31 2.
NUREG-0523 3.
P, B 3/4 2-1 from STS P. 3.2-3 from TS Steven A. Varga, Chief
'perating Reactors Branch N Division of Licensing
, "SEE ATTACHED MARK UP orrIcc9R g
CVIIHAl4CW ITATC~
DL:ORBl YGrotenhuis:j 06/
80
- 0 S
~
~
~ I ~
80
'%MrX8I 'P5'P --
06/10/80 NRC PORN 918 (9.76) NRCN 0240 Q II,C, 44VCRHMCHT PRIHTIH4 4PRICCI I ~ TP T ~ 0 TCP
Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 Distribution 0-250 and 50-251 NRC0PDRS (2)
Local PDR TERA NSIC NRR Reading ORB1 Reading D. Eisenhut Hr. Hark
. Oncavage T. Novak 12200 S.
4 110th Avenue S. Varga Miami, Flor da 33176 H, Grotenhuis
.S. Goldberg
~
F P~
Dear Hr-Onca ge:
C. Parrish I8IE (3)
On Hay 20, 1980 e acknowledged-your letters of February 29, 1980 and April 2, 1980 and provided some of the information you requested.
Enclosure 1 to this letter answer most of the questions you asked.
In addition, we enclose copies of two perti
.nt reports and a page
- each, from the Turkey Point. Technical Specifications and th Standard Technical Specifications, which are referenced in Enclosure 1.
The r mainder of the questions concern matters which are less readily available
~
d will be answered a little later.
I trust that these answers are responsive to your questions.
Sincer ely, 5
Steven A. Yarga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 81 ivision of Licensihg
Enclosures:
1.
Answers to guestions 1-31 2.
NUREG-0523 3-NUREG/CR-0718 4.
P.
B 3/4 2-1 from STS 5.
P. 3.2-3.from TS gD
/VW femmS~yg
/
gra(
I'I'ICK~
OURNAMCW OATC~
.DL;.ORB 5MGrqPenhuf.s
.06/g./80:gb
.DL.:ORB1...
5AV.av:ga..
.Q6/...../30 l}l..: 0.08.
IMN
.ak:..
06/..../.8Q.
4-~4 -gO NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
/
gf U,D, OOVCRNMCND DRINDINO OI0I0ICRI I ~ 'I~
DD ~
DDD
I
~C
~
dp.0
) j( I o
s-ijgl~+P
'a**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/MrfJr -v/
Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251
( pg s pre pro&'rc,
~pyryru r~ "V~q~ Ar~'~
Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.
M. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 r~i~.~r~ ~ rrsrrr~s ro Sincerely, P DV+
Dear Mr. Oncavage:
~~rrir s et/ p~ "<
I On May 20, 1980 we acknowledged yeerq letters of February 29, 1980 andnApril 2, 1980 aa Enclosure 1 to t
~s letter answers meQ~f the questions you asked.
In addition, we enclose ai copies o
two pertinen repor s and a page each~from the Turkey Point Technical Specifications and the Standard Technical Specifications, which are referenced in Enclosure 1.
The remainder of the questions concern matters which are less readily available and will be answered a little a er.
am ac, ro >~ f ~ r~ i%/+IS
~g r pry'Ace I trust that these answers are responsive to your questions.
Steven A. Yarga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 81 Division of Licensing, Encl os ures:
l.
Answers to questions 1-31 2.
NUREG-0523 3.
P.
B 3/4 2-1 from STS 5.
P. 3.2-3 from TS r,C
EAR REOO
~c n
+~
~O
+a**+
Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 UNITED STATES CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,'D. C. 20555 JUNKIE c <
Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.
M. 110th Avenue Niami, Florida 33176
Dear Hr. Oncavage:
On Hay 20, 1980 we acknowledged r'eceipt of your letter of. February 29, 1980 and provided a response to your April 2, 1980 letter.
Enclosure 1
to this letter answers the first 31 questions you raised in your April 2 correspondence.
In addition, we enclose copies of two pertinent reports and a
page each from the Turkey Point Technical Specifications and the Standard Technical Specifications',
which'are referenced in Enclosure l.
The remainder of the questions raised in your April 2 correspondence concern matters which are less readily available and will be answered a
little later.
I trust that these answers are responsive to your questions.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
l.
Answers to questions 1-31 2.
NUREG-0523 3.
P.
B 3/4 2-1 from STS 5.
P. 3.2-3 from TS
,C'i f Operating Reactors nch 4'1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure 1
RESPONSES TO'PRIL';"1980 'QUESTIONS (1-31 )
BY HR.
HARK P.
ONCAVAGE OF FL.ORI DIANS UNITED FOR SAFE ENERGY 1.
15% hoop strain is the strain of steam generator tube in the circumferential (hoop) direction.
In general, the strain is a measure of elongation of materials for a given length.
2.
17.5% hoop strain contour - The definition of hoop strain is the maximum circumferential elongation per unit circumferential length.
In the context of steam generator tubing, hoop strain refers to the strain in the steam generator tube wall surface in the circumferential direction.
The tube hoop strain contour is an imaginary line connecting all tubes, at the given support plate elevation, with the same level or equal amount of the tube hoop strain.
Tube hoop stra, in contours are calculated by a finite element analysis based on the observed rate of tube support plate deformation due to the magnetite growth.
Selected values of hoop strain contours (e.g.,
15K and 17.5A) are defined to bound observed areas of significant denting and as an aid in predicting the. growth of significant denting and potentially stress corrosion cracking during the next operating interval.
The selected values of hoop strain for this purpose is redefined periodically to reflect actually observed patterns of denting.
3.
F~ (or F~(z)) is the Heat Flux Hot Channel
- Factor, The number 1.99 controls the magnitude of the heat flux for the Turkey Point Pl ant.
The current
- number, according to Amendment Nos.
58 and 51, dated June 12 198O, is 1.93, Th";s number is in the Technical Specifications which is the
device through which these controls are instigated.
A more detailed definition is given on p. 3/4 2-1 of the Standard Technical Specifica-tions for Westinghouse PWRs (copy enclosed).
4.
P is the fraction of rated power at which the core is operating.
You will find the ratio 1.93/P on page 3.2-3 of the Technical Specifications for the Turkey Point Plant (copy enclosed).
5.
Tube lane area - This is the region separating the hot and cold leg tubes.
The tube support plate flow slots are located in the tube lane area.
6.
Hedge area - Wedges are used to position and support the tube support plates and the wrapper within steam generator shell.
These areas are stiffer, in the plane of the support plate, than other locations and therefore are more likely to induce denting of tubes.
See Figure-13 of NUREG 0523 ("Summary of Operating Experience With Recirculating Steam Generators" ) for locations (copy enclosed).
'U 7.
Patch Plate Region - The patch plate is a square section in each
'support plate which is intentionally left open during steam generator manufacturing to facilitate tubing insertion.
The patch plate is re-inserted as one of the final steps in tubing the bundle, but with plug welded flow holes which increase the plate rigidity along the edge of the patch.
8.
Periphery - Outer edge of tube support plates.
9.
Full closure of tube support plate flow slots - Hourglassing to such a
degree that opposite edges of the rectangular flow slots have touched.
See NUREG 0523 for figures of hourglassing.
10.
"MIMS" stands for "Metal Input Monitoring System," the Westinghouse trade name for a loose-part detection system.
11, 12.
We do not normally tabulate information like this since it has no value to us and it is a tedious task.
However, the answers to these questions may be obtained from the results of the Turkey Point 3 steam generator inspection reports.
These reports are available in the local public document room.
13.
We are not aware that any plugs were observed to be lost during the most recent December 1979 steam generator inspection.
However, fragments of a tube plug skirt were removed during the inspection (Reportable Occurrence 250-79-39 dated December 31, 1979) from the hot leg of steam generator B.
14.
The plugging criteria at the time of the September 15, 1976 leak of steam generator 2A at Sur ry Unit No.
2 were in accordance with Regula-tory Guide 1.121.
No specific criteria were in effect at that time because denting had not been identified as a significant operational problem.
Current plugging criteria for denting were first implemented for this and other similarly degraded units following the September 15, 1976 Surry Unit No.
2 steam generator leak occurrence.
15.
One Hundred Fifty-Four (154) tubes were plugged at the time of the above-r eferenced leak which is approximately 4.5C of the tubes in steam generator 2A.
16.
Row 1, Col. 7.
17.
The interval of time between the inception of the leak and cold shutdown was about ll hours.
The tube rupture was readily apparent and the operator response was in an appropriate manner.
The cooldown was essentially a normal cooldown.
More details are available in NUREG-0651 which I enclosed with my letter dated May 20, 1980.
18.
The MIMS continuously monitors signals from accelerometers mounted at selected places on the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
These accelerometers pick up acoustic vibrations in the steel vessel
- walls, just as ordinary microphones detect audible sound in air.
When the NIMS is installed, each accelerometer channel is calibrated and an alarm setpoint is set based on the level of normal background noise.
When a metallic impact occurs, the MIMS sounds an alarm.
19.
Acoustic systems such as HIMS are very sensitive, and in a laboratory environment can easily detect a pin dropped on a steel plate.
- However, the inside of a large power plant is not a quiet environment.
The considerable background noise effectively limits the sensitivity of MIt5.
An impact of 1/2 ft-lb initial kinetic energy is a typical lower limit, although considerable variation is experienced between plants and between sensor locations within the same plant..
The primary purpose of loose-part detection systems (here, MIMS) in most plants is to detect loose part impacts in time to avoid severe mechanical damage.
The 1/2 ft-lb sensitivity is sufficient for this purpose.
The MIMS will probably detect a loose steam generator
- plug, if the plug strikes the vessel or steam qenerator wall (i.e., is not ouiescent and doesn't become wedged).
However, it is doubtful if the NIMS could detect small fragments of a steam generator plug.
20.
No.
MIMS, like all loose part detection
- systems, are consider ed developmental by the NRC staff.
Thus, they are safety related only in the sense of adding
.o the "defense in depth."
Safety evaluations are not based solely on MIMS.
In addition, we do not believe the available data proves that the MIMS malfunctioned.
The foreign objects appear to be small enough to probably be undetectable in normal operation, even if it were certain that they were striking the steam generator walls with a velocity equal to the average coolant velocity.
The MIMS system was installed in Unit 4 by Florida Power and Light Company on a voluntary basis.
In our order dated August 3, 1977 the safety implications of missing plugs was evaluated and the MIMS system was made a license requirement for Unit 4 as an added margin to the "defense in depth."
The Florida Power and Light Company has also agreed to install a
MIMS system on Unit 3.
21.
As explained in 820 above, we do not believe the MIMS is malfunctioning.
The normal procedure for such systems is to check calibration and functionally test each cha nel during each refueling outage.
We see no need to require more at this time.
22.
The MIMS is not a system which is necessary for plant safety, and normally a plant's Technical Specifications will not mention MIMS Loose-part detection programs such as this are considered developmental.
For several
- years, the NRC staff has strongly encouraged licensees to install these devices as an additional precautionary measure (i.e.,
more depth to defense) and to encourage the development of these systems into a mature technology.
Virtually all modern plants have committed to such
- programs, and several older plants have installed these systems for their own preventive maintenance programs.
However, these systems are in addition to the safety requirements on which licensed decisions are based.
- Thus, even if the MIMS were malfunctioning, there would be no reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the basis of any Techrical Specification, and there would be no unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 (a)(2).
23.
The "malfunction of a NIMS's not on the list of unresolved safety issues as defined by the NRC. If a MIMS system were to malfunction in a plant a
formal loose-part detection program commitment, and reasonable efforts were not made to repair the system, the NRC would take "ppropriate action to hold the licensee to his commitment.
24a.
The bursting strengths at 600'F can be found in a report entitled "Steam Generator Tube Integrity - Phase I Report" by J.
M. A'lzheimer and others, Battelle - Pacific Northwest Laboratory, NUREG/CR-0718.
24b.
The highest historical transient temperature is conservatively estimated to be bounded by the saturation temperature at 2250 psi primary pressure, which is approximately 650'F.
At this temperature, the design minimum ultimate strength is not degraded relative to 600'F.
25.
through 31.
A restricted (dented) tube is constrained within the tube support plate against outward expansion under internal pressure.
The burst strenth of such tubes is considered.not to be degraded relative to non-restricted tubes.
Therefore, the subject of bursting is unrelated
.o issues related to tube denting and associated stress corrosion cracking.
~pg Rfg(
0
'%)
1 0
A:::g
"~au" UNiTED STATES NUCLEAR R EG ULATORY COMIVIISSI ON WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555 May 22, 1980 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Director Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Service Mashington, D.C.
20403
Dear Sir:
Enclosed for publication in the Federal Register are an original and two certified copies of a document entitled:
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Publication of the above document at the earliest possible date would be appreciated.
~'
This material is to be charged to requisition number F-131.,
Sl 6l'81$,
Enclosures:
Original 5 2 certified copies Samuel J..Chilk Secretary of the Comissioh I
bcc:
lh"g h
', Office of Public Affairs
- Executive Legal Director Office of Congressional Affiars Office of the General Counsel SECY -
CER Branch
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS.
50-250 AND 50-251 FLORIDA POk'ER AND LIGHT COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF NENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has
.issued, Amendment No.
57 to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-31, and Amendment No.
50 to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-41 issued I
to Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee),
which revised Tech-nical Specifications for operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos.
3 and 4 (the facilities) located in Dade County, Florida.
The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendments incorporate the results of a revised ECCS analysis for a steam generator tube plugging level of 25$.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comnission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Coranission's rul es and regul ati ons in 10 CFR Chapter I, whi ch 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 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 s'tatement 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 Coomission'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 Commission, 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.
- arga, C i Operating Reactors Branch tl Division of Licensing
"o
~4 esO X
e es0
+e
.0
+a*++
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
0
~
~.
UbOTEt7STATES.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-WASHINGTON,DM29555 Director Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records SerYice Washington, D.
C.
20403
Dear Sir:
~
Enclosed for publication in the Federal Register ar'e an original and two certified copies of a document entitled:
FLORIDA, POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Docket Nos. 50-250, -251)
Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facili eratin License This material is to be charged to requisition number F-131, Sincerely, e
d, Chi Secretary of
Enclosures:
Original and 2 certified copies I
bcc:
~Record Services Branch Office of Public Affairs Executive Legal Director Office of Congressional Affairs Office of the General Counsel k
he Commission
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS.
50-250 AND 50-251 FLORIDA POWER AND sLIGHT COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY PERATIN
- IC NSE 1
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comniision (the Commission) has issued Amendment No.
58 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-31, and Amendment No.
51 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 'Plant, Unit Nos.
3 and 4 (the facilities) located in Dade County, Florida.
The amend-ments are effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendments incorporate the results of a revised ECCS analysis for a steam generator plugging level of 25K for both Unit 3 and Unit 4 and permit continued operation of Unit 4 for six equivalent months of operation. from June ll, 1980, at which time the steam generators for Unit 4 shall be inspected.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
The Corynission has i*
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 The will not pursuant negative prepared Comnission has determined that the issuance of these amendments resuIt 'in any significant envircnmenta'I impact and that tr,;
to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be in connection with issuance of these amendments.
For further details with respect to.this action, see (1) the applications for amendments dated March 14 (L-80-83),
and June 5,
(2) Amendment Nos.
58 and 51 to License Nos.
and (3) the Commission's related Safety Eval-uation.
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 International 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, Ma'ryland, this 12th day of June, 1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMiMISSION en A
- arga, le Operating Reactors ranch. Pl Division of Licensing
o Docket Hos. 50-250... '~
and 50-251:. '
" Mr. Hark P."Oncavage 12200 S.W; 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 o
4
\\
o o<<m oooo
~
o
'E o-j
.Dear Mr. Oncavage::;.-
This will acknowledge.receipt of your letter of April 2; 1980.
Your
"."'ebruary-29, '1980 letter to Mr. Eisenhut was-not treated as an inter==o
'ention petition per your earlier discussion jlith Mr. Grotenhuis and.
in light of your April 2 letter,-: this will-not-.change. '.
Your letter dated February 29, 1980 concerning the Florida Power and.,
Light Company's Turkey Point Plant Unit Hos. 3 and 4 requested the criteria used by the NRC in granting or denying. amendment requests such
as that of January 23, 1980.. You also indicated that you would 'appreciate the opportunity to address issu'es such-as-the degradation of the steam
-generators in a meeting with the Staff in Miami.
To supplement the answer given to you in your telephone discussion with Mr. Grotenhuis, the criteria we 'use 'are;those given in the Safety Evaluations...,.,
supporting. the actions such as::..Amendment.no.- 43.to Unit 4 dated December 14;-'=.
- 1979; Amendment No. 52 to Unit 3 dat'ed January-25, 1980 and; Amendment. No. 44 -,
to Unit 4 dated February 22, 1980, which Mr."Goldberg sent to you on-March 10. 1980.'pecifically,'mendment No. 44 was issued in response to the January 23,. 1980 amendtt',ent request.',; You will note, that the Flori'da Power and L4gfj~~ Company had to submit two additional letters (February 1';,
...'nd 14, 1980, L-80-33 and L-80-53) in support of the original amendment.'
request, in order to satisfy the. Staff requirements. 'ur Safety Evaluation,-
states that we do onot have an adequate, basis for predicting. stean generator,.
performance for periods longer than six months and that our consideration) of extended operation beyond six months would"depend:upon operating experi',ence---
at this and other similarly degraded PHR units'.
-'. Turkey Point Unit. 4 has' now operated two years (since February 19?8) without experiencing a steam
~~=.-.-
generator leak.
That and the c'onservative inspection and plugging program:
have been included as part of our.basis for continued operation.
In additian-you will see on page 5 of the license (included in Amendment f(o. 44) that there are other limitations, i.e:, reactor coolant to secondary coolant '-
- leakage, radioiodine concentration and a metal impact monitoring system.
Limitations such as these are also included in our thinking when the operating,.
o OrI iCCW CMIINANC~
DAYCW
~,V
- r. Io /C.
~~LB ~
~
~
~ \\ ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~
~
P( )/9~zg
~
~ o ~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ \\ ~ o ~ ~\\ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
~ os ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~
~ o ~
~
~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~.
~ os
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
~ ~
~
o ~ o ~ ~ (
~ o ~ o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 2o ~ o ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
o hRC PORbC 518 (9 76) NRCbC 0240 R V,S OOVCNNKCNT ~IIINTINCINoIoICCI I ~ 7 ~
A~ ~ Tlt
1 Mr-Hark P.
Oncavage 2
You are also aware that another such amendment request dated March 11, 1980 has been recefved.
This amendment
- request, which has been approved as Amendirent No. 49 dated Yarch.21
. 1980 permitted operation until Ray. 1, 1980 You. should have, received 'this and the other araendments
. cited by nmc.
Unit 4. fs now,-down for a steam generator inspection and turbine repair.-'he'technical.-basis"for,this'"latest.
extension of the oheratfns'lnterral for Unit.4.Is'sech" the's'arne as for the last. one, th.at-.-
is, continued satisfactory performance following the'onservative plugg'ing progr am, which was desi gned -to,.last longer than, ten months.
Special
. =.=,limits.are fn the license to provide additional assurance
- that, should a
leak occur in a steam generator ft will.not lead to an unacceptable-.
radiation release.-.:-'.='
'":;"=--':=- -.--:-.,
=.--
==:"=".'-:=... *:."--"..-..:
As far-as the short-term future is concerned we have discussed with FPL, fn a meeting on March 4, 1980. the basis for steam generator inspection frequency.
Me have made it clear that we do not expect to have applications
....-for periods longer than six months-and-they will adjust the reload cycles
" " of both Unit 3.and Unit 4 accordingly--
The long range future as you know, is dependent upon the outcome of the steam generator repair proceeding to which you are a party..-
I hope that this letter has=beten responsive to the concerns expressed in your February 29 letter.
In. addition. Hr. Goldberg and Mr. Grotenhufs
--- will be available to discuss these or any other questions you may have regarding the Turkey Point Plant
. Due to the fact that we are in the process, of reorganization to respond to Three Mile 'Island recommendatfons we are unable to give.you a definite estimate of when'we can have all the answers.
to your. questions.in the April 2 letter. =Me'do have a recent report we issued regarding several steam generator tube rupture events, including the Surry Unit..No. 2 event, which is enclosed with this letter.
L'e -.
belfeve you will find ft informative In addition, it is illustrative of the kind of'ttention we pay to these
- events, even through we don't always ":
publfsh formal reports on each one.
Sincerely, Qriginal signe6 by:
Ss 4; Varga 4
'Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch
~1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
t(UREG-0651, "Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Rupture Events,"
March 1980
. OFFICE a"
SURNAME DATE N NRC FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240 4'V.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEt 1979.289.369
~
~
- o. ~
DI STRI BUT IOH Docket Files 50-250 and 50-25l HRC PDRs (2) '...'
'.;;" '" Local'PDR'..
- .. TERA RSIC
,:. NRR Rdading
-,.:,:."=-.=-'. '
- -=.~.-:.":;ORBI,Reading."-~.
,...-'==:::--' .. H Denton.;:
--=-.:--'=---:-:;-
E. Case-M: Russell ="..
'="-'I-'-"D. Muller
=
'D. Ross-R. M-attson
,. D.'isenhut
.T; Hovak S;. Varga" M. Grotenhuis.:.
Hoonan P.
Check
" G. Knighton
--" S. Goldberg =-'-'"=-'
~C. Parrish M.. Groff (HRR-.3922)
M., Jambor
- i. J.=:-Butts-.
M. Stine
~ o
-4
. ~o
~
I~
o h"
orricc+
I OATC~
DL':ORB MGr tenhuls:,
0 /4/80
ÃRC PORN 318 (976) NRCbf 0240 DL:ORBl SAVarga
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ \\ ~
y ~ /80 OELD SGoldberg
~ ~ ~
~ o ~ ~
o
~ ~
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/ /80
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ \\ ~
~ ~
~\\
~ ~ ~
~
- U4 OOVCIINIICNTrlIINTINOOI rICNI 'I ~ Te a ~ e Te ~
rn
~ ~
~
':::::::::::I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o or
~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
~ o ~ o ~ ~
~
~
~
Docket No. 50-250 50- 5 50-335 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIVIISSION WASHINGTON, O.C, 20555 Distribution
~Do t files R.
Ingram K. Parrish Apri1 22, 1980 OR8y4 Rdg Addressees:
See next page Subject; TURKEY POINT PLANT, UNITS NOS.
3 AND 4 ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO.
1 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information:
r Notice of Receipt of Application.
Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation, or Supplement No,, dated Notice of Hearing on ApPlication for Construction Permit.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License.
Application and Safety Analysis Report, VoL Amendment No.
to Application/SAR, dated Q
Construction Permit No. CPPR-dated Facility Operating License No. DPR-
, NPF-
, dated r
C]
Amendment No.
to CPPR-or DRR-, dated X
Other: ForIVardS mO ruary 1980.
DiviCCon of Operating Reactors, ORB84 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated CC:
'1 oFFicE IP SURNAME de DAJE NRC 21 (6 76)
ORB84:DOR R. Ing am
- 04/A@80
F 1 ori Ga ocher L Lighi Compa ny tJ I
~
Di v i s10.
G.
c" I o 1ca1 Servi ces B"."ea~
o-* Spor. Fisheries K kiii)ife U.
S. De-art-.:en:
o; the tnt r1or has'hing;"A, D.
C.
20240.
D rec o
Il
~'cSr<1AG-'On, D.
C raphic Da
=-
C neer
=-2 Service 5 Air;ospheric Ad;-inistration ot Co~-merce 2023'r
~ Lc Ja...es l.
l armer 1or 2 l 5'.-ea u o= Sta ACa rds
- . Ing on, D. C.
2023-':
Direc:or, Technical Div1sion 0771ce 07 PiaG1c 10A (A<5o) i..
S.
Environ;.,en al Crys:al Y;:11
=."2 Ar i
~ AGton, 1rc'lA12 Assess%.
At Programs
'I Pl otectioA Aoency 20<60 Ql ion 3~re Cou
< lan-.c n"ir;-r;.en:2 1 Pro-'ection Agency
'0- "'r" r:1-.-.='
"r e.','.E.
Beorc'=
3530K
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555 Distribution:)
Dochet Fishes R.
Ingram'.
Parrish ORB84 Rdg'.
P'ocket No.
50 250 50-50-3 5 Apri1 21, 1980 Addressees:
See next page
Subject:
TURKEY POINT PLANT, UNITS NOS. 9 AND 4 ST. LCCIE PLANT, UNIT NO.
1 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.'otice-of Receipt of Application.
Draft/Final Environmental Statement, dated Safety Evaluation, or Supplement No., dated Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License.
Application and Safety Analysis Report, Vol.
Amendment No.
to Application/SAR, dated Construction Permit No. CPPR-
. dated paciTity Operating License No. DpR-NPP-0 Amendment No.
to GPPR-or DRR-, dated E
Other:
, dated
Enclosures:
As stated Division of Operating Reactors, ORB%
Office of Nuclear Reactor Reyilation l
CC:
b oFFict + ORBIT':DOR
,R. Ingram Al IAA oATE NRC-21 (6-76I
florida Pose.
5 Light Companv Chi=-f 0> vii s 1 or o.
col ogi cal Services
- >'-'"eau o
Spor.
Fisheries K wildlife U. S.
D ~a."i;.:=,",: o, the. lnterio.
hash'iin'otoi*,
D.
C.
20240 D> rectol Na ~'on>a
> 0."eanosraphic Data Center r'iv i 1 0
. >en;a 1
D" a Sel vlcc t>ational 0= anic E AtmosPheric Administration U. S.
Departm>ent of Co;,merce washington, D.
C.
20735
. Dr.
James T. Tanner
'lla:ional Bu-,eau o= Standards ri "
or E>ui ic r r-253
.4'ash ington, D. C.
20234 Director, Technical Assessm nt Dlvl s 10 A 0> fice o
Radi ation Programs (A>~ 45g )
U.
S.
Environ-..ental Protection Agency Crystal thrall
=2 A1 r iAQ>OA, r'irclAia 20460 Envir=nm>enta 1 Protection Aoency Reciion IV D=f ice n>7l>:
EJS C00.=,)1."GATOR 3-".5 Courtla;G Str et, N.E.
Inurn> a L+e 'Yw rc 3J30B