ML20038A425
| ML20038A425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290F683 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-155, NUDOCS 8110300071 | |
| Download: ML20038A425 (4) | |
Text
.-
p p
i ff UNITED SThT ES 4-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
{j W ASHIN GTON; D. C. 20555
+
INFORMATION REPORT ADJUDICATORf secy-A-80-iss October 15, 1980 1
i For:
The Commissioners From:
Martin G. !!alsch f
Deputy General Counsel
Subject:
DIRECTOR'S DE!!I AL OF 2.206 RELIEF (IN THE l'.ATTER OF FLORIDA POWER A!!D LIGHT CO!!PA!2Y) t Facilityg Turkey Point Plant, Unit No. 3 i
To inform the Commission of the denial of
Purpose:
a request for the immediate suspension of the ope:ation of Turkey Point no. 3 for inspection l
of stpam generator leaks.
Review Time Expires:
October 22, 1980, as extended.
l I
Discussion:
By letter dated June _30, 1980, Florida Power and Liyht Company-(FP&L), the licensee for Turkey Point No.
3, requested authority to continue to operate that reactor' without a
+
shutdown for inspection for steam generator leaks for an additional two months bevond
~
the six months allowed by the Of fice.of ir,k.rr-.'. inn in this ra:Od W3; EOd Uuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) under l
m nco:1-nce d'.h ib i t:22 LI M2ICU License Amendment 52 -(Enclosure 2 to Attach-
-ment 1), issued January 25, 1980.
The Act, exemptions __I_
gg. Jg '/ T{ ___
utility's request was granted on July 30,
(
1980, in the fo m of License Amendment 59, which allowed operation of Unit No. 3 for an additional two and one-half months, or up until early Octol>er 1980. 1/
(Enclosure 1 to l
r 1/
In toto, License Amendments 52 and 59 allow for the opera-tion of Turkey Point-No. 3 for a period of eight and. one-half " equivalent" months, that is, eight and one-hal f months of operation with the reactor coolant at a temperature in excess of 350' F.
The Turkey Point reactor began such operation on January 31, 1980, and continued at that per-formance level until it was shutdown for inspection o-
.l October 6, 1980.
5 CONTACT:
Paul Bo11werk, OGC dfl /63Ooom I;[i 1
/3224 v
i\\
s
\\
'\\
the Commissioners 2
\\ )
On the same date that Amend-I ment 59 was issued, however, a group of homeowners whose property is purported 13 in close proximity to the Turkey Point power plant filed a motion requesting that the Commission issue an order to show cause why Turkey Point No. 3 should not be shut down by i
July 31, 1980, to perforn steam generator inspection and repair required by the pre-vious Amendment 52.
(Attachment 2)
Although this petition was not received in time for action to be taken by the July 31 date t
- oecified, nonetheless the Commission re-r ferred it to "
NRR staf f for expeditious considerativ-partaant to 10 CFR S 2.206.
The petition was denied by the NRR Director
+
on September 18, 1980.
(Attachment 1)
On i
Octcher 6, 1980, the licensee shutdown Unit No. 3 for the required inspection.
Petitioners challenged FP&L's request for additional time to operate 7brkey Point No. 3, and by implication the July 30 NRR decisicn granting the extension sought, on several different grounds.
They contended that: 1) to grant the request for; additional operating time without requiring an inspec-tion would be inconsistent withrprior' state-ments by the NRR staff that there was no adequate technical basis for p! 44cting stean generator performance for long han six months; 2) the request was prima.1v based on inappropriate and irrelevant economic and need for power considerations in view of the caveat in Amendment 52 that, absent an ins pection, no amendment providing additional operating time over six months would be granted without submission by the licensee of "an acceptable analysis of the susceptibility for stress corrosion cracking of [ steam generator) tubing"; and, 3) the shutdown of the reactor on July 31 after six months of i
operation was mandated both by the failure of FP&L to perform a required inspection of two tubes of the steam generator in its las.
inspection in December 1979 and by the j
discovery of loose metallic material in the j
Unit No. 3 steam generators.
o 1
J
~
\\
\\
(
\\
\\
i
\\
The Commissioners 3
l Addressing the first of these contentions, the Director found that the staff statenents
[
relating to predictability did not preclude the operation of a reactor for more than six months without inspection if an appropriate analysis had been provided and if the operat-ing experience of the Turkey Point reactor i
and other reactors with similarly degraded steam generators was satisfactory.
In this
?
instance, the Director determined that those requirements had been r.et.
The Director noted that in its January 1980 request for additional operating time, the utility pro-posed to undertake a program of preventative tube plugging that had criteria more con-servative than those accepted in the past by
[
the NRC as adequate to sopport six months of operation without shutdown for inspection.
The lack of any steam generator leakage during the last six months of 1979 and - the j
first six ronths of 1980, as detailed in the f
licensee's January and June 1980 statenents, l
was also considered significant.
Accord-ingly, the Director found that a two-month extension was not inconsistent with the i'
staff's earlier pronouncements on predicta-bility and would not jr-opardize the public '
health and' safety.
The Director also pointed out that it was apparent from the NRR saf ety evaluation relating to A_endment 59 that these technical considerations, not economic and need for power concerns, were the basis f or the decision to allow the operating extension.
Finally, the Director found no ~
merit to petitioners' complaints regarding the utility's f ailure to inspect two stear generator tutes and the discovery of foreign.
materials in the cooling systen of Unit No.
3.
The failure to probe the tubes during the last inspection of the Unit No. 3 steam generators in December 1979 was noted by the utility in its January 1980 filings and infornation was supplied to explain why PP&L believed there was only a remote possibility that the tubes might develop a leak.
The staf f, in turn, evaluated this data - in Jan-uary 1980, re-evaluated it in June of that same year, and in both instances found there v
A.
i
\\.
T s
g the Commissioners 4
s was no safety concern.
As'to the loose metallic fragments, which consisted of two pieces of improperly expanded steam generator tube plugging and several~small pieces of unalloyed. carbon steel that were all removed '
f rom the reactor's coolant system in December 1979, the staff concluded that-based lx>th on -
a review of the effect of such loose foreign
~
material on Turkey Point Unit No. 4 and on a broader 1978 staff survey of the safet'y implications of extraneous material in reactor oolant systems, there was no sig-e.ificant likelihood of tube blockage or of mechanical interference with the control rods.
This matter had previously been consid ered by the staff in granting the six-month operating amendment in January 1980.
r i\\.
i!
Recommendation:
i Q$ nn k {r e A.
Martin G. Malsch b1 Deputy General Counsel Attachments:
1.
Director's Denial dtd
(
8/18/80, with encls
'l relating to License
[
Amendments 52 and 59 2.
Petitioners' Motion dtd 7/30/80 DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat