ML20138E569
Text
l s*
fo-h%
9 50-3 3$
t UNITED STATES
' [
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 20M5-0001 January 20, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO:
David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II FROM:
Dichard H. Wessman, Chie J.echanical Engineering Branch i
Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF ST. LUCIE UNIT 1, AND TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4, RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE (USI) A-46, SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO GENERIC LETTER 87-02 This memorandum transmits the staff's safety evaluation (SE, Attachment 1) of i
the Florida Power and Light Company's, the licensee, resolution of USI A-46 as delineated in Generic Letter (GL) 87-02, for St. Lucie Unit 1, and Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
This evaluation is primarily based on the information presented in the licensee's September 8, 1902, July 15, 1993, and May 5, 1994 submittals, but also considered supporting and/or clarifying information provided during several meetings and conference calls, and the information provided in References 5 through 17 of the enclosure. The September 8, 1992, and July 15, 1993, submittals contained the licensee's final summary reports of its plant-specific implementation programs at St. Lucie and Turkey Point respectively. The May 5,1994, submittal proposed some additions to the program in order to address staff concerns, and also provided responses to an earlier staff request for additional information (RAI).
It is noted that the licensee's program is considerably reduced from the generic resolution which was reviewed and approved by the staff, and which is being implemented by the majority of USI A-46 plants. The scaled-back program, which was accepted in concept by the staff in 1988 but was not previously reviewed in detail, is based on the low seismicity of the plant sites.
Our review of the information described above identified several areas where it is not clear if the licensee's scaled-back program adequately satisfies the intent of GL 87-02. The major concern is with the licensee's extensive reliance on judgements made by a team of seismic engineering experts, and the minimal documentation available to support the judgements. Consequently, the staff will perform site inspections to verify the adequacy of the Seismic Review Team's (SRT's) judgements, and to verify the overall adequacy of the licensee's implementation programs. The enclosure describes specific areas of concern which will be focus of the inspections. The staff is currently developing plans for an NRC team inspection at Turkey Point tentatively scheduled for spring 1995. Following the completion of the inspection, and, if necessary, any licensee followup actions to resolve outstanding inspection items, the staff will issue a supplement to the enclosed SE which will close
)
the USI A-46 issue' at Turkey Point. The need for a separate inspection at t
Y I
- F' ~ [""" cEMR COPY f.
CONTACT: Michael McBrearty, DE/EMEB g
504-2725 6
o/ /3 0 a /4M Mh
/
.=-
O y
D. B. Matthews 2
the St. Lucie site will be determined based on the results of the Turkey Point inspection.
This evaluation was performed by the Mechanical Engineering Branch (EMEB),
with inputs from Civil Engineering & Geosciences Branch (ECGB), and Reactor
~
Systems Branch (SRXB) in their respective areas of responsibility. The SALP input is provided in Attachment 2.
Docket Nos.: 50-335, 50-250/251
Attachment:
As stated i
_i _s t ri but ' on:
e tral F ' _lfr E EB RF/PF/CHRON BSheron Glainas WButler JChen HAshar i
KDesai i
JNorris MDrouin i
RCroteau DDorman l
MCunningham DNorkin 4
DOCUMENT NAME:G:\\CHEN\\FPLSER.195
~
- See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure ErCopy with attachment / enclosure N = No copr OFFICE EMEB_:0E*
E EMEB:DE*
E EMEB:DE EdRdE N
WE rt.y:eh PYChen KManoly [ /[ahi DATE 01/11/95:jb 01/11/95
/ //J/95
\\ /O/95 OFFICE SRXB:DSSA 6 EMEBlDE E
RJonesN/
RWeNab WE DATE
//jld/95
/ /@/95 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l