ML20084J892
| ML20084J892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1971 |
| From: | Kinsman G FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Low L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084J894 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305190042 | |
| Download: ML20084J892 (2) | |
Text
- }
P O BOX 3100 MIAMI. FLORIDA 33101 cm' p
p f:AL#</
V V
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY August 16, 1971 Mr. Lawrence D. Low, Director Division of Compliance U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 Re:
Docket No. 50-250 - Turkey Point Plant, Uni $ No. 3
Dear Mr. Low:
This is in response to your lett er of Jut, 23, 1971, in which you requested a summary report concerning the fuel for Turkey Point Unit No. 3.
All fuel delivered to Turkey Point for Unit 3 met specifications at the time of delivery and satisfied the design and performance requirements specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
It would have been loaded and used provided construction and licensing were complete.
Its use would have met our joint concern for the health and safety of the public, and would not have been permitted to exceed any limit established in the Technical Specifications by the Division of Reactor Licensing.
It is to be noted that the subject Technical Specifications are the ultimate limitation on fuel quality.
Af ter forty-five (45) of the fifty-two (52) fuel assemblies for Region 2 of the core had been delivered, the fuel vendor refined l
the fuel pellet specifications to improve fuel reliability.
Archive pellet specimens showed Region 1 and 3 fuel on site met the new specifications, which resulted from extensive proprietary research and development programs.
Examination of Region 2 archive specimens for the forty-five (45) assemblies on site did l
not conclusively establish that it met the revised specifications.
jjp //f/7/
fThe fuel vendor offered to accept return of the subject forty-five (45) Region 2 fuel assemblies, to examine them and to upgrade them h
as necessary to meet the new specifications.
In like manner the
{
vendor had offered fuel rod pressurization with helium prior to the first fuel shipment as a design improvement, and this offer i
s d M had been accepted and reported to the AEC.
The offer of the latest in improved pellet specifications was evaluated and accepted, also, and reported to the AEC.
8305190042 711103 PDR ADOCK 05000250
/'
A PDR
/
a4, l /z.
~~
H E L PIN G DUILD FLORID A b COPY SENT REGION
- t ] g. Lcircnco Dt L m AEC s
August 16, 1971: (
Paga 2 c
i The details of the additional work on Region 2 fuel were reviewed with Division of Complianc'e inspectors on July 20 and' 21,1971, at the fuel, fabrication facility and their reports will' support this summary report that the objective is to upgrade fuel to meet the-
--latest in fuel technology.
It is to be noted that all fuel supplied to us has met specifications
-'and rigorous quality control.
It is feared design improvements, which provide a competitive " edge" fer vendors, will not be passed on'to utilities in the future if the' Division of Compliance presses for'public dicelosure of proprietary improvements as in the subject case.- Already, competitors of our fuel vendor have seized on the unfortunate and erroneous words in your letter, i.e. " suspected problems-with the fuel for Turkey Point 3" and sought.to gain informa-
)
tion from us that would be used again,st our vendor.. We have honestly told them your letter was in error, and that our fuel vendor had offered us improved quality assurance, which we.had accepted because the startup schedule permitted additional checks and double-checks j-of components.
Very truly yours,
_ + ~
l
.\\
George K in Senior Vice President m
,/
ie
/
r i
GK:std
?
1-k-
1
.)
i.
+
l%
\\..
O<
g
[
3 S.
g
- _.__ j rmJ....,..._._,_,,._..____.
.