ML19347D269

Submits Nuclear Safety Task Force Recommendations Which Will Be Resolved in 1981.Schedule & Resources Estimate 1981 for Resolution of Recommendations in Category 7 Will Be Submitted by 810417

ML19347D269
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	03/06/1981
From:	Baynard P FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
3-011-05, 3-11-5, TAC-12961, NUDOCS 8103110699
Download: ML19347D269 (4)

Text

e Florida

_ Power March 6, 1981 File:

1. 3-011-05 3-0-3-a-3

/.8

\

/\

Mr. Harold R. Denton / B Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(. 1gopY L U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 31 -9 Washington, D. C. 20555 2 o.e

Subject:

Crystal River Unit 3 .g' s Docket No. 50-302 'N Operating License No. DPR-72 Nuclear Safety Task Force Followup

Dear Mr. Denton:

In our letter of November 26, 1980, Florida Power Corporation stated we would inform you which Nuclear Safety Task Force recommendations would be resolved in 1981. By this letter, Florida Power Corporation fulfills that commitment.

As mentioned in our November 26, 1980, letter, those Task Force recom-mendations remaining unresolved after CR-3's August 1980 startup have i been re-prioritized to identify those reconnendations which have the potential of providing the greatest incremental increase in safety. Our action plan has been designed to give higher priority recommendations prompt attention, while deferring others of lesser safety significance for later resolution. In addition, the Task Force made a number of recommendations which could potentially improve the performance and reliability of the plant, while not directly affecting safety. These recommendations have been identified and will be deferred to a later date for implementation as time permits and as cost /beriefit studies indicate advisable. The priorities assigned the Task Force Reconnenda-tions have been based on the following criteria:

Priority 1. Has definite nuclear safety significance. Will provide measurable ine ease in safety margins. Should be given highest priority.

Priority 2. Has potential nuclear safety significance.

Priority 3. Can be of value for plant reliability and performance improvement.

Priority 4. Defer action. Not worthy of further Task Force atten-8103110/,9p , ti n. May be of value to individual supervisors.

Generat Office 3201 in.ny.tounn street soum. P O Box 14042. st PeterSDurg Florida 33733 813 - 866 5151

t, Mr. Harold R. Denton Page Two March 6, 1981 Categories 1 through 5 of Enclosure 1 are a tabulation of all recomend-ations that have been resolved since the Task Force Report w;s issued.

Category 6 details those recomendations which we plan to resolve in 1981. We currently anticipate spending $900,000 to $1,000,000 tais year in pursuit of these concerns.

The Task Force recommended that a number of studies be done *.o evaluate the potential safety significance of concerns and to reco mend solu-tions. A number of these for which engineering sttdies will be completed in 1981 are listed under Category 7 of Enclosure 1. As each of these studies is completed, the corresponding Task Force recommenda-tion will be considered as closed. An evaluation will then be made of the results of the engineering study and a determination made as to whether the subject should be pursued further. If it is determined that the issue warrants further attention, a new priority will be assigned comensurate with its safety significance in relation to other safety enchancement activities in progress at that time. Based on the revised priorities, each recommendation will be pursued till completion.

We are presently compiling a schedule and resources estimate for 1981 for resolution of recomendations in Category 7. We will provide this information to you by April 17, 1981. Additionally, we will advise you as to the results of these engineering studies and our plans for further pursuit of these items. This information should be available early it.

1982. We will also advise you promptly of any significant safety concerns resulting from these studies.

Category 8 of Enclosure 1 details several reommendations which will be resolved as part of the Emergency Feedwater System upgrade and the Safe Shutdown Panel Upgrade efforts currently being pursued. The Emergency Feedwater System Upgrade is described in our submittal dated December 19, 1980, and the Saf e Shutdown Panel Upgrade is described in our submittal dated December 17, 1980. These upgrades will be made during our 1983 refueling outage and are expected to cost $2,750,000.

Resource comitments for resolution of Task Force recommendations must be determined with full recognition of the safety significance of many other projects. We wish to emphasize that the amount of progress made in resolution of these recommendations, is heavily influenced by the many other safety significant plant additions and modifications currently in the design stage, which are unrelated to the Task Force effort. The number and complexity of arojects which represent significant safety improvements will influence the time in which resolu-tion can be achieved on some Task Force recomendations which are not t identified as significant safety concerns (Priority 1). We do, however, remain comitted to the resolution of all Task Force recomendations affecting safety.

l

t Mr. Harold R. Denton Page Three March 6, 1931 We will advise you pronptly should there be any changes in the schedule outlined above.

Very truly yours, l l

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION (ri.,'./fa.,,.w,I l P. Y.' Baynard l Manager ,

Nuclear Support Services l l

Mardis(WO6)D1-1 l l

l l

9 ENCLOSURE 1 MARCH 6, 1981 4 CURRENT STATUS OF NUCLEAR SAFETY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Category 1. Recommendations which have already been resolved through physical changes or Irocedure changes:

1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.23, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.14, 5.16, 5.19, 5.29, 5.41, 5.55, 5.71, 5.84, 7.5 (Except Parts D and F), 7.7, and 7.9.

Category 2. Recommendations which have been studied and a determination made that no reasonable solution to the recommendations existed bat the concern had been adequately addressed through other reconnends-tions:

5.48.

Category 3. Recommendations which have been studied and a determination n3de that the concern was unfounded:

5.51, 7.22.

Category 4. Recommendations which have been deferred to other recommendations due to the similarity or overlap between the concerns which are

, being addressed comensurate with their appropriate priority level:

3.5B deferred to 6.7 and 6.8; 5.81 deferred to 1.13; 6.6 deferred to 5.95; and 7.1 deferred to 3.6, 5.46, 5.47, 5.63, and 5.93.

Category 5. Recommendations whose intent has been met by changes other than that recommended:

5.79, 5.108, 7.6, 7.8, 7.10.

Category 6. Recommendations which will result in plant modifications or procedure changes which will be completed before the end of 1981:

Priority 1: 3.1, 3.2, 5.70 and 5.90.

Priority 2: 1.29 B and C, 4.2 and 5.64, i

i Category 7. Recommendations which represent engineering studies to be l completed before the end of 1981:

Priority 1: 5.1, 5.8, 5.33, 5.62, 5.67, 5.91 and 6.8.

[ Priority 2. 1.19, 1.21, 3.6, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 4.4, 5.20, 5.35, 5.36, 5.49, 5.54, 5.65, 5.75, 5.76, 5.78, 5.82, 5.86, 5.95, 5.105, 5.106, 5.112, 5.113, 6.7, and 7.50 D and F.

Priority 3: 5.40 and 5.110.

l Category 8. Recommendations which will be imple n ?nted during the 1983 refueling l

outage as part of the Emergency Feedwater System Upgrade and Remote Shutdown Panel Upgrade (All Friority 1):

l l 3.7, 3.8, 5.16, 5.42, 5.45, 5.46, 5.47, 5.56, 5.57, 5.68, 5.69, l 5.74, 5.83, 5.87, 5.92, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4.

l

. . , . . - _.-__--.- - ,.- - . .- , - . - - - ,-