ML17346A882

Requests Notification of Whether Util 850201 Request for NRC Review of Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Involves Tech Spec Change or Unreviewed Safety Issue.If Affirmative,Submittal Should Be Modified Per 10CFR50.59

ML17346A882
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/26/1985
From:	Mcdonald D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Williams J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
TAC-56805, TAC-56808, NUDOCS 8503060824
Download: ML17346A882 (8)

Text

February 26, 1985 Docket Nos.

50-250 and 50-251 Mr. J.

W. Williams, Jr., Vice President Nuclear Energy Department Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno

Beach, Florida 33408 Distribution

- ORB¹1 RDG HThompson DMcDonald PMcKee ACRS (10)

TBarnhart (8)

WJones RDiggs

=Docket file LPDR Gray file (4)

CParrish EJordan OELD DBrinkman Jpartlow OPA, CMiles

Reference:

TAC Nos.

56805 and 56808

SUBJECT:

SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY EXPANSION By letter dated November 21, 1984, the Commission issued Amendment No.

111 to Facility Operating License No.

DPR-31 and Amendment No.

105 to Facility Operating License No.

DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Plant Units 3 and 4, respectively, which allowed expansion of the spent fuel storage facilities.

Copies of the supporting Safety Evaluation and Notice of Issuance and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration were also enclosed.

The Safety Evaluation (SE) and the appended Technical Evaluation Report (TER) provided the basis for our issuance of the requested amendments.

Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 of the SE and the appended TER indicated that postulated loads from a seismic event will not result in failures to the racks or pool structures, thus their integrity will be maintained.

As indicated in Section 3.3.4 of the TER, there would be no lift-offof the rack modules from the pool liner during a seismic event.

This conclusion was based on your September 28, 1984, letter which provided the results of the Westinghouse analysis.

By letter dated February 1,

1985, you indicate that Westinghouse informed you, subsequent to your September 28, 1984 letter, that administrative controls on fuel loading are required for racks whose outer rows overhang the support pads in order to be consistent with an assumption by Westinghouse during its analysis.

That is, the outer (overhanging) rows would not be fully loaded while the remaining portion of the rack module is empty.

The NRC staff's SE and the supporting TER conclusions have remained valid due to the administrative controls initiated when you became aware of the potential need for the controls.

These controls, which were prior to any fuel loading in the affected racks, preclude the possibility of any lift-off.

Your February 1, 1985, letter requested that we review the information provided as the result of a reanalysis of fuel racks with only overhanging rows loaded with fuel which indicates the. worse case lift-offis less than 0.2 i'nches during a seismic event and this minimal lift-offwill not result in failures to the racks or pool structures and their integrity will be maintained regardless of the loading pattern.

8503060824 85022b PDR

• DOCK 05000250 PDR

P I

N kw Fw I 'I W

~

4 I

If If, 4

4 4

f r

h 4

) I'F 4

44 I

N Ih F

1 4

~

4 f4 f4 i k

44 I )

I II F I Fhf i

w, PW

~ g 4

If

~

~

t g li Ih 4"

4 g

Mr. Williams February 26, 1985 This request for our review of the reanalysis represents a change in a basis supporting the above referenced amendments as documented in the supporting Safety Evaluation.

10 CfR 50.59, "Changes tests and experiments,"

indicates that licensee's may make changes, conduct tests or experiments not described in the Safety Analysis Report without prior Commission approval unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.

It is not clear from your submittal whether you have performed a 50.59 review and documented the results in accordance with the provisions of 50.59(a) and (b) or; that you have determined that the reanalysis requires a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the licenses or that the change represents an unreviewed safety question.

If you have performed a 50.59 review in accordance with the provisions of 50.59(a) and (b) and determined that neither an explicit technical specification change nor an unreviewed safety question is involved, you do not need our prior approval and your request may be withdrawn.

However, if you have determined a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question exists, we request that your submittal be modified in accordance with 50.59(c) including a proposed Notice for public comment using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 concerning the issue of no significant hazards consideration.

We will take no further action on this request until we receive clarification.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely,

/5/ DGNcDonald Daniel G. McDonald, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch II1 Division of Licensing ee previous white for concurrences ORBgl: DL*

CParrish 02/ 26/85

DL DMcDonald/ts 02/y@85 BC-ORBP1: DL*

OELD*

SVarga 02/26/85 02/ 26/85

f I r

'"I M

~ $

I ir l Pr) r)

~

~

M 11 lr ~

r M

f l',

M

'I Mtlrhhl 7 I

M F

M fh' I

II

~ (

1 h

~

M M ~

Ml II I

r w

e>.

f ) 'f

~I'l Irlh f

~

5 II I II

'Mfh f

'I

'll,

~

gd 3

'I hl

Mr. Williams This request for our review of the reanalysis represents a change in the design basis for the above referenced amendments as documented in the supporting Safety Evaluation.

10 CFR 50.59, "Changes tests and experiments,"

indicates that licensee's may make changes, conduct tests or experiments not described in the Safety Analysis Report without prior Commission approval unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.

It is not clear from your submittal whether you have performed a 50.59 review and documented the results in accordance with the provisions of 50.59(a) and (b) or; that you have determined that the reanalysis requires a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the licenses or that the change represents an unreviewed safety question.

If you have performed a 50.59 review in accordance with the provisions of 50.59(a) and (b), you do not need our prior approval and your request may be withdrawn.

However, if you have determined a change in the technical specifications incorporated. in the license or an unreviewed safety question

exists, we request that your submittal be modified in accordance with 50.59(c) including a proposed Notice for public comment using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 concerning the issue of no significant hazards consideration.

Me will take no further action on this request until we receive clarification.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Daniel G. McDonald, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch ¹1 Division of Licensing Enclo e:

stated cc w/esekosW See next page ORB¹1:DL CParrish 02/Zj/85 ORB¹1:DL DMcDonal d/ts 02/g4'85

~

~

BC-0 81:DL OEL~<~

SVarga

/5Y~

02@b/85 02/ab /8S

4 I *I

' [

h

~

~

4 N

IF

J.

W. Williams, Jr.

Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Plants Units 3 and 4

cc:

Harold F. Reis, Esquire Newman and Holtzinger P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 10036 Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Norman A. Coll, Esquire

Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center

Miami, Fl orida 33131-2398 Mr.

Ken N. Harris, Yice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company P.0.

Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Mr. M. R. Stierheim County Manager of Metropolitan Dade County Miami, Florida 33130 Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 57-1185 Miami, Fl orida 33257-1185 Regional Radiation Representative EPA Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N.W.

Atlanta, GA 30308 Intergovernmental Coordination and Review Office of Planning 8 Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator, Region II U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 2900 101 Marietta Street

Atlanta, GA 30303 Martin H. Hodder, Esquire 1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Joette Lorion 7269 SW 54 Avenue Miami, Florida 33143 Mr. Chris J.

Baker, Plant Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company P.O.

Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Allan Schubert, Manager Public Health Physicist Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Pf