ML20039G667
| ML20039G667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Callaway, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | Goodwin E NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA) |
| To: | Fraley R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201180600 | |
| Download: ML20039G667 (2) | |
Text
..
DEC 151981 DISTRIBUTION:
Central File H. Denton C. Michelson S. Hanauer NRC PDR E. Case R. Smith H. Thompson TSB R/F W. Dircks V. Stello R. Vollmer ACRS R/F K. Cornell H. Shapar B. Snyder E. Goodwin R. DeYoung PPAS P. Check J. Carter T. Rehm D. Eisenhut S. Cavanaugh (ED0-11096, 11097 &
J. Funches R. Minogue R. Mattson 11098)
P. Brandenburg (ED0-11096, 11097 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Raymond Fraley, Executive Director
& 11098)
Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards f
FR0'i:
E. F. Goodwin, Technical Assistant Technical Support Branch Planning and Program Analysis Staff t
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
!j
SUBJECT:
REPORTS ON ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT 2, CALLAWAY PLANT, y
UNIT 1, AND COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, 2
UNITS 1 AND 2
.e In letters dated Novenber 17, 1981, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards provided its comments and recomendations following its review of the applications for licenses to operate che above named plants. This is to advise the comittee that each of its recommendations is being considered by the staff or the applicant and will be addressed in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report Supplements scheduled to be issued in January 1982.
E. F. Goodwin, Technical Assistant Technical Support Branch Planning and Progran Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ch WJux sy s
lff q
f-D ?"?
12-c)
\\-
)
,.8
/O
\\-
. 'l
\\
/
1
~~ w omah TSB
/.g.
l l
I 8201180600 811215 S'""'"" >].EGood I "/ LM.
4 M fY n, PDR ADOCK 05000389 1
I
......Y..
i w+
12//J/81 l}q/
/q(
O PDR j
j OFFICIAi_
ECORD C PY unc ron ass o soTWn o
~
A
l O
.e
--n.-
_s
.--~A--
-.cr
-.--uw-
^
e v-'
1 FROM.
ACTION CONTRO L DATES CONTROL NO11096 COM L oEAou~E -
o f,, n, EId:
J. C2FSOn Ps k ACxNOwtEOGuENT d'
r '
DATE OF DOCUMENT INTERIM REPLv jj/j7[$)
a TO:
PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE Ch4fraan Palladino riNAt R EPLv, 4/ 9f,, f.
$cNo,nu,N FILE LOCATION
/
/
O EXECUTIVE olRECTOR
[/b/
OTHERs DESCRIPTION gLETTER OMEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Report on Comaxhc Peak Steam Electric PDR Suspease - 11/24/81 Station tatts 1 and 2 CLASSIFIED DATA OOCUMENT/ COPY NO.
CLASSlFICATIONl NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGORY POST AL REGISTRY NO.
O NSI O Ro O fro
~
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATION ROUTING
~, LEG AL REVIEW 0 FINAL 0 COPY b_?-_.
I? *?
11117./01 Djpght CgTg*gga ASS'GNFdt0 oATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS 4
m,....
.m......--
NOTIFY:
N Awfa 11/1A/21 Cornell Shaper 3
ryg -
0 toO AoMiu CORREs sR
,,__nw;, w, ; ;w,.37 Reta Michelsen a g
n2 ext.
ggg gg jyg OMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT.
I O O icAE W M@ATIOh0ECWAh3R)ED:
O vEs O NO l
NRC FORM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL 1
l l
<?
'o UNITED STATES 7,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
y,
',E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 0,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,o'g k9 *****
November 17, 1981 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON C0t1ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
Dear Dr. Palladino:
During its 259th meeting, November 12-14, 1981, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the application of the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO), Dallas Power and Light Company, Texas Electric Service Com-pany, Texas Power and Light Company, Texas Municipal Power Agency, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and Tex-La Electric Cooperative for a li-cense to operate the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2.
The Units are to be operated by the Texas Utilities Generating Company.
A Subcommittee meeting was held in the Dallas / Fort Worth area on June 29, 1981 to consider this project. A tour of the facility was made by Subcommittee members on June 29, 1981. An additional Subcommittee meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on November 11, 1981.
Durinq its review, the Committee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the Applicant and the NRC Staff. The Committee also had the benefit of the documents listed.
The Committee commented on the construction perait application for this station in its report dated October 18, 1974 to AEC Chairman Dixie Lee Ray.
The Comanche Peak Station is located in Somerville County in North Central Texas about 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth, Texas, the nearest city having a population in excess of 25,000 persons.
Each Comanche Peak Unit is equipped with a Westinghouse pressurized water reactor having a rated power level of 3425 MWt.
Each unit is housed in a steel-lined, reinforced concrete, dry containment building with a design pressure of 50 psig.
The Reactor Protection System will use N-16 gamma radiation detectors to provide a signal for reactor trip.
Because this system has not been proven in commercial applications, we recommend that the NRC Staff closely follow its implementation ar.4 operation. The Committee wishes to be kept informed.
This is the first commercial nuclear power plant to be operated by TUGC0 and the first in the state of Texas. The Committee's review included considera-tion of the management organization and capability and the operator training
/Jf d ll, J L.s D
e i
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 17, 1981 l
program. The training program is well planned and comprehensive, and includes simulator training at other facilities.
We were favorably impressed with the training program, general competence, and responsive attitude of the utility's operating organization.
Nevertheless, there is a significant lack of hands-on experience with large commercial nuclear power plants that will only be cor-rected by the operation of the Comanche Peak Plant. The NRC Staff is requir-ing the utility to strengthen its own organization with on-shift personnel having experience with large commercial PWR operations until suitable experi-ence has been developed by the operating staff.
We endorse the NRC Staff requirement but recommend that attainment of 100% rated power should not be the only consideration in determining that operational proficiency has been achieved.
The Committee also recommends that the operating organization establish a list of technological matters which may have to be faced in future opera-tion of the nuclear plant and identify sources of skilled personnel and expertise that ought to be available to address these matters when needed.
The Committee wishes to be kept informed.
The Station Operations Review Committee, the Independent Safety Engineering Group, and the Operations Review Group should include personnel from outside the operating organization who are experienced in the operational management of large PWRs and related technology as well as other independent advisors with mature judgment about public safety matters.
TUGC0 should expand its studies on systems interaction and probabilistic assessment so that it will have a better understanding of the Comanche Peak nuclear systems.
Other issues have been identified as Outstanding Issues, License Conditions, and Confirmatory Issues in the Staff's Safety Evaluation report supplement dated October 1981. The ACRS is satisfied with the progress on these topics and believes that they should be resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NRC Staff.
TUGC0 is evaluating potential methods of providing instrumentation for detec-tion of inadequate core cooling as discussed in the ACRS letter to the Execu-tive Director for Operations dated June 9,1981. The Committee believes that this equipment should not be installed until it is well established that the instruments will provide reliable information of significant value beyond that provided by the instrumentation which is already installed.
We believe that if due consideration is given to the recommendations above, and subject to satisfactory completion of construction, staffing and pre-operational testing, there is reasonable assurance that Comanche Peak Steam
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 17, 1981 Electric Station Units 1 and 2 can be operated at power levels up to 3425 Mdt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely yours,,
J. Carson Mark Chairman
References:
1.
" Final Safety Analysis Report for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2," including Amendments 1 through 23.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission " Safety Evaluation Report related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2," USNRC Report NUREG-0797, dated July 1981 and Supplement No.1 dated October 1981.
3.
Letter from Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation To 5. Duraiswamy, ACRS, regarding the licensing of Comanche Peak, dated July 18, 1981
r.
__.m.,,_.,
/z'
/
e,
h h. i -
h
.. :. l 4. '.....
- ~
- ~~~~ -- --
- - ~ - ~ ~
j s~.
..-e FROM:
s ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTRO L N sfy g ]I :: l COMPL DEADLINE f,,
f )l r
ERS
- J. Carsee nrk ACKNOWLEDGM ENT 1
s
-5 DATE OF DOCUMENT
~
INTERIM REPLY j j f) y pg]
TO-PREP ^hE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
g g g g g jgg g m
FINAL REPLY g/
f-
/. --
O CHAIRMAN FILE LOCATION
/
/
O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR f
~,*
^
/ */ / 4 /[Y OTHER:
4
{
DESCRIPTI,0N.,
LETTER OMEMO O REPORT O OTHEF.
SPECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS l
a
.r PM hspense - 11/20/81 i
Report en The Callaway Plant Uaf t he.1 h hl
~'
g.
4 CLASSIFIED DATA DOCUMENT / COPY NO.
CLASSIFICATION l NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGORY 0 Nsi O RD D FRD
-N'
' 'U
\\'E
~
POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATION ROUTING Mg%pfiy4v 0 FINAL 0 COPY L
ira =
nm/n-oireks ee w as
" " "s** 1;pN
- ?^' " '" ""
I e-na.
sggg ggjj ggp 1
PPAC O EDO ADMIN & COR RES BR Rahls Michelso"- L' M "*"d*
D" Minogue Central TR._
t--
- 7.
Ch*CROMM ENTS. NOTIFY:
ti.~.-=-
E_
E Vder EX1.
u...___
e Saris Stello 7dAE NOttiT6ATION RECOMMENDED:
O N ES O NO
{ i*. NRC FORM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS 111-75)
DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL h
e *'-
v
'o UNITED STATES
~g I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON n
E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 0,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,&g
+....
November 17, 1981 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON THE CALLAWAY PLANT UNIT NO. 1
Dear Dr. Palladino:
During its 259th meeting, November 12-14, 1981, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the application of the Union Electric Company (the Applicant) for a license to operate the Callaway Plant Unit No.1.
A tour of the facility was made by members of the Subcommittee on November 4, 1981, and a Subcommittek meeting was held in Columbia, Missouri on November 4 and 5, 1981.
During its review, the Committee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff and with representatives and consultants of the Applicant, Westinghouse Electric Corpo-ration, and Bechtel Power Corporation. The Committee also had the benefit of the documents listed below. The Committee commented on the construction per-mit application for this plant in its report dated September 17,1975 to NRC Chairman William A. Anders.
The Callaway Plant application was one of four submitted in response to the Commission's standardization policy as described in Appendix N to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
This option allows for a simultaneous review of the safety-related parameters of a limited number of duplicate plants which may be constructed within a limited time span at a multiplicity of sites.
The five utilities that originally joined together designated their common design the " Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System" (SN'JPPS). At the present time, in addition to the Callaway Plant Unit No.1, only the Wolf Creek Generating Station remains an active SNUPPS project.
The Callaway Plant is located in a rural section of Missouri about 80 miles west of St. Louis.
The site is approximately 5 miles north of, and about 325 feet above the flood plain of, the Missouri River. The nearest population center is Jefferson City (estimated 1980 population about 34,000), which is 25 miles west-southwest of the Plant.
The Plant will use a Westinghouse, four-loop, pressurized water reactor, nuclear steam supply system having a rated power level of 3425 MWt. The Plant employs a cylindrical, steel-lined, reinforced, post-tensioned concrete containment structure with a free volume of 2.5 million cubic feet. The con-tainment design pressure is 60 psig.
(.)
>0-
v l
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 17, 1981 The Callaway Plant will be the first commercial nuclear power plant in the state of Missouri, and is the first nuclear power plant to be operated by the Union Electric Company. The Committee reviewed the Applicant's management organization, experience, and training prcgram. We were favorably impressed by the general competence and attitude of the Applicant's personnel, but we believe their commercial nuclear experience is less than desirable. The NRC Staff is requiring the utility to augment its own organization with on-shift personnel having experience with large commercial PWR operations until suit-able experience has been developed by the operating staff.
We endorse the NRC Staff requirement but recommend that attainment of 100% rated power should not be the only consideration in demonstrating operational profi-ciency. We also recommend that a highly competent, senior individual with considerable professional experience on commercial PWRs be assigned to as-sist the Plant Superintendent as an advisor through at least the first year of full power operation.
The Committee reconmends that the operating organization establish a list of technological matters which may have to be faced in future operation of the nuclear plant and identify sources of skilled personnel and expertise that ought to be available to address these matters when needed.
The Committee wishes to be kept informed.
The Onsite Review Committee, Nuclear Safety Review Board, and Independent Safety Engineering Group should include personnel from outside the operating organization who are experienced in the operational management of large PWRs and related technology as well as other independent advisors with mature judgment about public safety matters.
During our review, it was noted that Shift Technical Advisor training in the areas of Plant Systems and especially Transient / Accident Analysis appears' mar-gi nal.
It is recommended that the NRC Staff evaluate this matter and apply the results to those nuclear plants where they are generically applicable.
Discussion with the Applicant indicated that emergency operating procedures for dealing with off-normal plant behavior are incomplete.
However, the Applicant is endeavoring to develop such procedures utilizing new and promis-ing approaches, and we encourage such efforts. The Committee wishes to be kept informed.
Other issues have been identified as Outstanding Issues, License Conditions, and Confirmatory Issues in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report dated October 1981; these include some TMI Action Plan requirements. We believe these issues can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NRC Staff and recommend that this be done.
The Committee believes that, if due consideration is given to the recommenda-tions above, and subject to satisfactory completion of construction, staffing, and preoperational testing, there is reasonable assurance that the Callaway
g
-r Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 17, 1981 Plant Unit No.1 can be operated at power levels up to 3425 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Additional comments by Dr. M. W. Carbon, ACRS Member, are presented below.
Sincerely, J. Carson Mark l
Chairman Additional Comments by Dr. M. W. Carbon, ACRS Member It is my belief that the NRC Staff's requirement for experienced, on-shift personnel during the early operation of the plant is inadequate.
I therefore recommend that a licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO), who has been previously licensed as an SR0 on another Westinghouse PWR, be available on each shift in an advisory capacity through the first year of full-power operation.
I also believe that the advisor to the Plant Superintendent should have an educational background at least equal to a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering or a related discipline.
References:
1.
" Final Safety Analysis Report for Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System," including Revisions 1 through 7.
2.
" Final Safety Analysis Report for Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System, Callaway Plant Units No.1 and 2 Addendum," including Revisions 1 through 4.
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Callaway Plant, Unit No.1," NUREG-0830, dated October 1981.
l
- N
<1' ; yr j...-
=
. p~
~
-p-*-...--.,..c,,,..-
ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO i
FROM:.
COMPL DEADLINE g3, %,., 'l
' (-
A 6
DATE OF DOCUMENT ACE $:
J. Cgrggg %d ACKNOWLEDGM ENT
)
INTERIM REPLY
))pyfg I
TO:
PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE FINAL REPLY g/
,,[
CHAIRMAN Chairma y1adias f
FILE LOCATION O EXECUTIVE OlRECTOR j
3
,, - y
.s e, OTHER:
r
[
DESCRIPTION M LETTER OMEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS b'
Report on St. Lacle Plant Unit he. 2,
PDR Suspensa - 11/20/81 ej,~
$,. [,k,
it
*t g
l
'5' CLASSIFIED DATA s
OOCUMENT/ COPY NO.
CLAS$1FICATIONl f
i*.*
Li { NUMBER C'F PAGES CATEGORY PCIT AL REGISTRY NO.
O Ns O Ro O fro ASSIGNED TO:
DATE INFORMATION ROUTING MQAAmp D FINAL 0 COPY t
i,
-TET5kf*ug%
$ T N N "' "*
[
ht". "
M/17/31 Dircks Davts e-
'a -
1111A/11 Carmell Ot h ng 1.
P.".e D EDO ADMIN & CORRES BR r 8 ",,6.
Kraser
- Exy, l
nots M1c k1-- '= ~ - ~ ' --
5 Cht 33MMENTS. NOTIF Y:
Stelle' Central P11ss 3.
"=n
- SnydW EXT.
s.
M A0gue N PEP hE MvMNtlON RECOMMENDED:
0 YEs O NO NRC FORM 732 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY
[
"]
PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
.. _ _ _ _. _ -.... _ -. _ _ - _,. - -,.. _. -......- _ -.--... - ~..
o UNITED ST6TES 3,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a e ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 0,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/g
+..+
November 17, 1981 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
REPORT ON ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO. 2
Dear Dr. Palladino:
During its 259th meeting, November 12-14, 1981, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the application of the Florida Power and Light
/
Company (the Applicant) for authorization to operate the St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2.
The project was considered at a Subcommittee meeting in West
/
Palm Beach, Florida on October 30-31, 1981 and members of the Committee toured the facility on October 30, 1981.
In its review the Committee had
'j.
the benefit of discussions with representatives of the Applicant, Combustiori Engineering, Inc., Ebasco Services, Inc., the NRC Staff, and members of the
.s public.
The Conaittee also had the benefit of the documents listed.
The Committee commented on the construction permit application for St. -Lucie Plant Unit No. 2 in a report dated December 12, 1974 to AEC Chairman Dixie Lee Ray.
St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2 is located on Hutchinson Island adjacent to iinit No.1, which went into commercial operation in December 1976.
Both units use Combustion Engineering nuclear steam supply systems with a rated core power of 2560 flWt. The two. units are nearly identical.
A number of items have beerfidentified as-Outstanding Issues, Confirmatory Issues, and License Conditions in the1 NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report-dated October 1981. These include some TMI-2 Action Plan requirements.
We believe these issues can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NRC Staff. We also recommend resolution of. concerns on instrumentation for detection of inadequate core cooling expressed' in tRe ACRS letter to the i
Executive Director for Operations dated June 9,1981.-
Discussion with the FloridI Power and Light Company 5[aff in'dicated that'
~
~
emergency operating procedures for dealing with off-normal plant behavior
's' that might develop during the operation of St. Lucie~ Plant Unit No. 2 are incompl ete. We -recommend that a concentrated effort be made bf the-Florida Power and Light Company staff to complete emergency operating pro- <
cedures which take advantage of new infomation and approaches devoleped,
during the past two years.
This matter should be resolved in a manner c
~
satisfactory to the NP.C Staff. The Committee wistys'to be kept infomedT
.y
- u
./
i*'
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 17, 1981 l
At the time this site was initially approved, the population density was relatively low, and the projected increase during the life of the plant was not unusually large.
Since that time, the growth in population has been much more rapid than predicted, and current estimates predict continued growth at relatively high rates.
Although the present population and that predicted for the next several years are not a cause for concern, it now seems possible that the population density in portions of the surrounding
^
area could reach a level, during the lifetime of the St. Lucie Plant, that might then warrant additional measures. We recommend that the Applicant and the NRC Staff periodically review the actual and projected population g rowth.
If required as a result of these reviews, plans for appropriate preventive or remedial measures could then be made in a considered but timely manner.
We recommend that the Staff give due regard to the special nature of this site in evaluating the final emergency plan.
N Th'e kdvisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards believes that, if due regard is given to the items mentioned above, and subject to satisfactory com-pletion of construction, staffing, and preoperational testing, there is
< reasonable assurance that the St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2 can be operated at core power levels up to 2560 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Additional comments by Members H. W. Lewis and M. S. Plesset are presented i
l bel ow. j s
Sincerely yours,
/
J. Carson Mark
/
Chairman 1*
4
' Additional Comments by Members H. W. Lewis and M. S. Plesset In ttre aftermath of the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2, which dramat-ically emphasized the importance of instrumentation to follow the course of an accident, the NRC Staff has required applicants for an Operating License to
. demonstrate specific capability to detect the onset of inadequate core cooling. For PWRs this has come to mean in practice the provision, inter
~
al'ia, of an instrument which can be called a water-level indicator for the pressure vessel.
( Although the NRC Action Plan allows for alternati'/es, none appear to have been seriously contemplated.) A number of such devices have been accepted and/or proposed, some of which measure differential pressure, some average void fraction in a part of the pressure vessel, some cooling rate at a number of places in the vessel. All can give spurious response because of dynamic effects.
f i
(
~
,i.y '..
~
L,
- - - Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino November 17, 1981 Many of these views' have been previously expressed in the Committee letter of
- June 9,1981.
We are concerned' that, in the commendable eagerness to avoid a repetition of TMI, the NRC 5taff is requiring'ill-defined instrumentation without any clear picture of the contribution of that instrumentation to the prevention or mitigation of accidents - considerations which must necessarily be scenario dependent.
If it were really true that core water level were the important paraceter, then differential pressure indicators would appear to be preferable, provided the coolant is quiescent.
If instead cooling capa-city is important, then some form of heated wire or thennocouple would ap-pear to be preferable.
Since either may be acceptable, we are left with the inference that the NRC Staff has not really clarified the role of this instrumentation.
We believe that, before, not after requiring these instruments for all the new plants, the NRC Staff should develop a position regarding their utility.
This position, which should be based upon accident analysis and risk assess-ment, would lead to a much clearer understanding of just what instrumenta-tion, if any, is needed.
REFERENCES:
1.
Florida Power and Light Company, "St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Report," with Amendments 1 through 6.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
2," Docket No. 50-389, USNRC Report NUREG-0843, dated October 1981.
3.
Letter from Betty Lou Wells to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on-Reactor Safeguards, dated October 28, 1981.
4.
Written statement by Joette Lorian, Research Director for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility.
J e.
/
h
.