ML20028A751
| ML20028A751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1982 |
| From: | Miller W NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Hancock J FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-48844, NUDOCS 8211240370 | |
| Download: ML20028A751 (1) | |
Text
DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR S. Miner, OR3-4 R. Ingram, ORB-4 NOV 17 1982 Regulatory Docket File (Record Cy.) /
LFMB Reactor File LFMB Pending Check File R. M. Diggs Docket No. 50-302 LFMB R/F (2)
Florida Power Corporation ATTH: Mr. John A. Hancock Vice President, Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 14042 - M.A.C. H-2 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Gentlemen:
We thank your company for the September 10, 1982 letter signed by Mr. David G.
Hardis regarding our letter dated July 29, 1982, which requested a fee pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22 for your April 9,1982 application. Our July letter requested a Class III fee of $4,000 for this application which requested approval to operate Crystal River Unit No. 3 at 75% of 2300 MWt with three reactor coolant pumps operating and the RCPPM's bypassed.
It was our position that the April 9 application was a separate regnst and not supplemental to the one of April 1.
Your September letter provided a chronology of your requests and the licensing i
actions related to operation with RCPPM's bypassed which is consistent with ours, with one exception. This exception is that your chronology does not re-flect the fact that the April 9 request was reviewed but not approved due to t
the lack of your analysis of the three pump loss of coolant flow transient at 1725 MWt (75% of 2300 MWt). This is reflected on page 2 of the July 16, 1932 Safety Evaluation and letter accompanying Amendment No. 56 which authorized operation at up to 2475 MWt with four reactor coolant pumps in operation and the RCPPM's bypassed.
l i
While the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff agree that the issue of Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) margin associated with a loss of flow transient is common to all the requested levels of operation, the need for operation at various levels required additional reviews which were not administrative or pro forma in nature and were at your company's request be-cause of your desire to return the plant to power following the problem with spurious plant trips caused by the RCPPM's. Therefore, even though your company considers the April 9 application to be supplemental to your April 1 application, we view the application as a separate request. As a result, it l
is requested that your company remit the sum of $4,000 to this office within fifteen days after your receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, Signada C. 3:anas wg.g 4,,
8211240370 821117 PDR ADOCK 05000302 William 0. Miller, Chief P
PDR License Fee Management Branch I
Office _of Administration Y'"
S-
- ?-
- ' "a
......R C
REQUESTED "O ' >
..RM
- W.f..CJHohay.... Shiner..
.V
.l.l /$. /.82....U /... }.( /.82....g.l.l /..*. /.82,,
,1,1,/ /,,,(82 enc ronu sia no soi unpu ono, OFFQCIAL RECORD. COP.Y
_