L-2015-035, Proposed Changes to Technical Specifications (TS) to Remove Communications and Manipulator Crane Requirements and Relocate to Licensee-Controlled Documents, License Amendment Request No. 232

Proposed Changes to Technical Specifications (TS) to Remove Communications and Manipulator Crane Requirements and Relocate to Licensee-Controlled Documents, License Amendment Request No. 232

ML15198A153
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/02/2015
From:	Summers T Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2015-035
Download: ML15198A153 (21)

Text

a FPL July 2, 2015 L-2015-035 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Re: Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Proposed Changes to Turkey Point Technical Specifications (TS) to Remove Communications and Manipulator Crane Requirements and Relocate to Licensee-Controlled Documents License Amendment Request No. 232 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) hereby requests an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating Licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41 for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, respectively. The proposed amendment would remove Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.5, "Communications," and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," and relocate the requirements to the Turkey Point Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and related procedures. This proposed amendment is consistent with NUREG-1431, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Plants."

The Enclosure to this letter contains a description of the proposed changes and includes a no significant hazards determination and environmental considerations.

The proposed changes have been evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1) using criteria in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and it has been determined that these changes involve no significant hazards consideration.

There are no new commitments or changes to existing commitments made in this submittal.

Although this request is neither outage related nor required by any specific date, a prompt review is requested. Once approved, the amendment shall be implemented within 60 days of its receipt by FPL.

Florida Power & Light Company 9760 SW 3 44 th St., Florida City, FL 33035

d Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Page 2 of 2 The Turkey Point Plant Nuclear Safety Committee has reviewed the proposed license amendment.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), a copy of this letter is being forwarded to the State Designee of Florida.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mitch Guth at 305-246-6698.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 2, 2015.

Very truly yo r, Thomas Summers Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Enclosure cc: USNRC Regional Administrator, Region II USNRC Project Manager, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Ms. Cindy Becker, Florida Department of Health

A Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 1 of 11 TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 232 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TURKEY POINT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO REMOVE COMMUNICATIONS AND MANIPULATOR CRANE REQUIREMENTS AND RELOCATE TO LICENSEE-CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS ENCLOSURE

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 2 of 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 232 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TURKEY POINT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO REMOVE COMMUNICATIONS AND MANIPULATOR CRANE REQUIREMENTS AND RELOCATE TO LICENSEE-CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE Cover Sheet 1 Table of Contents 2

1.0 Purpose and Scope

3 2.0 Background Information 3 3.0 Description of Proposed Change 3 4.0 List of Commitments 7 5.0 Conclusion 8 6.0 No Significant Hazards Consideration 9 7.0 Environmental Considerations 11 ATTACHMENTS 1.0 Marked-up Technical Specifications Pages 2.0 Retyped Technical Specifications Pages

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 3 of 11 Purpose and Scope Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) proposes to revise the Turkey Point (PTN) Units 3 and 4 licensing basis by removing Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.5, "Communications,"

and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," and relocating the requirements to the Turkey Point Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and related procedures. Changes to the UFSAR and procedures are controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. The change is consistent with NUREG- 1431, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Plants."

Note that plant-specific TS relating to "Communications," and "Manipulator Crane," were not included in the original version of NUREG-143 1 because these TS did not meet the TS inclusion requirements as identified in the NRC letter from T. E. Murley to W. S. Wilgus, dated May 9, 1988.

1.0 Background Information TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," provides requirements for communications capability to ensure that refueling station personnel can be promptly informed of significant changes in the facility status or core reactivity conditions during core alterations.

TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," provides requirements for the cranes used for movement of drive rods or fuel assemblies to ensure each crane has sufficient load capacity and that the core internals and pressure vessel are protected from excessive lifting force in the event that they are inadvertently engaged during lifting operations.

2.0 Description of Proposed Change TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," are proposed for removal from the TS and relocation to the Turkey Point UFSAR and related procedures.

Note that the proposed removal results in several TS pages being deleted. Changes to the relocated requirements will be controlled by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 to deternine if prior NRC approval is required.

Regulatory and Technical Analysis The NRC position on application of screening criteria to apply to TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," based on the Commission's Interim Policy Statement Criteria to Technical Specification Improvements is documented in a letter dated May 9, 1988 from T. E. Murley (NRC) to W. S. Wilgus (B&W Owners Group).

The screening criteria were later incorporated into 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii), which contains the requirements for a limiting condition for operation (LCO) that must be in the TS:

(A) Criterion1. Installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 4 of 11 (B) Criterion2. A process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.

(C) Criterion3. A structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.

(D) Criterion4. A structure, system or component which operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.

An assessment of TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane,"

requirements against the four criteria of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) is provided below.

3.1 TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications" TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," is applicable only during core alterations, which can only be conducted with the reactor head removed and the reactor coolant system depressurized. The components covered by this TS include radios and associated power and transmission equipment necessary to establish and maintain communications between the control room and the refueling station.

10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(A) Criterion 1 applies to installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Equipment used by personnel to establish and maintain communications between the control room and the refueling station is not part of any installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Therefore, Criterion 1 is not met for this LCO.

10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(B) Criterion 2 applies to a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Equipment used by personnel to establish and maintain communications between the control room and the refueling station is not a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Therefore, Criterion 2 is not met for this LCO.

10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(C) Criterion 3 applies to a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Equipment used by personnel to establish and maintain

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 5 of 11 communications between the control room and the refueling station does not include any structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Therefore, Criterion 3 is not met for this LCO.

10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(D) Criterion 4 applies to a structure, system or component which operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety. Equipment used by personnel to establish and maintain communications between the control room and the refueling station has not been shown in any operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment to be significant to public health and safety.

Therefore, Criterion 4 is not met for this LCO.

Since the 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) criteria have not been met for inclusion in the TS as an LCO, TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," may be removed from the TS and relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures. Following NRC approval of this proposed license amendment, changes to the relocated requirements will be controlled by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if prior NRC approval is required.

3.2 TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane" TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," is applicable only during movement of drive rods or fuel assemblies within the reactor pressure vessel, which can only take place with the reactor head removed and the reactor coolant system depressurized. The Operability requirements for the manipulator cranes ensure that:

1. Manipulator cranes will be used for movement of drive rods and fuel assemblies,

2. Each crane has sufficient load capacity to lift a drive rod or fuel assembly, and

3. The core internals and reactor vessel are protected from excessive lifting force in the event they are inadvertently engaged during lifting operations.

The manipulator cranes are located inside containment. The manipulator crane is a rectilinear bridge and trolley crane with a vertical mast extending down into the refueling water. The bridge spans the refueling cavity and runs on rails set into the floor along the edge of the refueling cavity. The bridge and trolley motions are used to position the vertical mast over a fuel assembly in the core. A long tube with a pneumatic gripper on the end is lowered from the mast to grip the fuel assembly. The upper end is still contained in the mast when the gripper end contacts the fuel. A winch mounted on the trolley raises the gripper tube and fuel assembly up into the mast tube. The fuel is transported while inside the mast tube to its new position. The manipulator crane can lift only one fuel assembly at a time.

The suspended weight on the gripper tool is monitored by an electric load cell indicator mounted on the control console. A load in excess of 110 percent of a fuel assembly weight stops the winch drive from moving in the up direction.

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 6 of 11 The gripper is interlocked through a weight sensing device and also a mechanical spring lock so that it cannot be opened when supporting a fuel assembly.

The requirement that the auxiliary hoist load indicator be used to prevent lifting excessive loads requires manual action. The auxiliary hoist load indicator does not include any automatic mechanical or electrical interlocks that prevent lifting loads in excess of 600 pounds.

10 CFR 50.3 6(c)(2)(ii)(A) Criterion 1 applies to installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The manipulator cranes do not meet this criterion because they are not related to any installed instrumentation that performs these functions. Therefore, Criterion 1 is not met for this LCO.

10 CFR 50.3 6(c)(2)(ii)(B) Criterion 2 applies to a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. The initial conditions of Criterion 2 are not limited to only process variables assumed in safety analyses, but also include certain active design features and operating restrictions needed to preclude unanalyzed accidents. Active design features are intended to be those design features under the control of operations personnel (i.e., licensed operators and personnel who perform control functions at the direction of licensed operators). Should an LCO involve a physical, designed-in plant feature that prevents operations staff from immediately placing the plant in an unanalyzed condition in the course of operations (one that would require a design change before operators could exceed the limits of the LCO) that LCO would not satisfy Criterion 2. A design basis accident has been identified that could involve the manipulator cranes; "Fuel Handling Accidents," as described in UFSAR Section 14.2.1.

The Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) consists of a fuel assembly dropped in containment. For a FHA to occur in containment, the fuel assembly would be dropped from the manipulator crane. TS 3/4.9.6 only provides limits on minimum load capacity and load limit controls for the manipulator crane. The fuel assembly and the manipulator cranes have physical, designed-in features that would prevent the operators from inadvertently placing the plant in an unanalyzed condition. In order to use a different fuel assembly in the reactor or a different manipulator crane that could change an initial condition for the FHA, a design change and review under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 would be required. Therefore, Criterion 2 is not met by this LCO for the FHA.

10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(C) Criterion 3 applies to a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. The manipulator cranes are used solely during refueling operations with the reactor head removed. They do not meet this criterion because they

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 7 of 11 neither actuate to mitigate a design basis accident or transient nor are related to equipment that does meet this criterion. Therefore, Criterion 3 is not met for this LCO.

10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(D) Criterion 4 applies to a structure, system or component which operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety. The manipulator cranes have not been shown in any operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment to be significant to public health and safety. Therefore, Criterion 4 is not met for this LCO.

Since the 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) criteria have not been met for inclusion in the TS as an LCO, TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," may be removed from the TS and relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures. Following NRC approval of this proposed license amendment, changes to the relocated requirements will be controlled by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if prior NRC approval is required.

3.0 LIST OF COMMITMENTS NONE

4.0 CONCLUSION

Based on the above, removal of TS 3/4.9.5, "Communications," and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," from the TS and relocation to the Turkey Point UFSAR and related procedures does not adversely impact nuclear or public safety, plant safety, or the environment. This License Amendment Request is similar to a License Amendment Request approved by letter dated February 17, 2010 (ML100200644), "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Issuance of Amendments Re: Relocation of Certain Technical Specification Requirements Associated with Refueling Operations (TAC Nos. ME 1279 and ME1280)."

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 8 of 11 5.0 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazard if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

FPL is proposing that the Turkey Point Renewed Facility Operating Licenses be amended to remove Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.5, "Communications," and TS 3/4.9.6, "Manipulator Crane," and relocate the requirements to the Turkey Point Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and related procedures. The proposed change is consistent with NUREG- 1431, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Plants."

FPL has reviewed this proposed license amendment and determined that its adoption would not involve a significant hazards consideration.

The basis for this determination is as follows:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

No. The proposed changes remove the current necessity of establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures, which will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. Once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

The probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased because these changes do not introduce any new potential accident initiating conditions. The consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected because the ability of the components to perform their required functions is not affected.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 9 of 11

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

No. The proposed changes remove the current necessity of establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related

'procedures, which will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. Once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

The proposed changes do not introduce new modes of plant operation and do not involve physical modifications to the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). There are no changes in the method by which any safety related plant structure, system, or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis accident analyses were performed remain valid.

No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of the proposed change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the propose~d changes.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

No. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their accident mitigation functions. The proposed changes remove the current necessity of establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures, which will have no impact on any safety related structures, systems or components. Once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to establishing and maintaining communications between the control room and the refueling station and the minimum load capacities and load limit controls required for the manipulator crane limits will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

The proposed changes do not physically alter any SSC. There will be no effect on

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 10 of 11 those SSCs necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions.

There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Conclusion:

Based on the above, FPL concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c),

and accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) provides criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion from performing an environmental assessment. A proposed amendment of an operating license for a facility requires no environmental assessment, if the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not: (1) involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) result in a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, or (3) result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. FPL has reviewed this license amendment request and determined that the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment. The basis for this determination is as follows.

Basis This change meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) for the following reasons:

1. As demonstrated in the 10 CFR 50.92 evaluation, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

2. The proposed amendment does not result in a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the design or operation of any plant systems, structures, or components. The proposed amendment does not affect the amount or types of gaseous, liquid, or solid waste generated onsite. The proposed amendment does not directly or indirectly affect effluent discharges.

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 L-2015-035 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Enclosure License Amendment Request No. 232 Page 11 of 11

3. The proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the design or operation of any plant systems, structures, or components. The proposed amendment does not directly or indirectly affect the radiological source terms.

TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 232 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TURKEY POINT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO REMOVE COMMUNICATIONS AND MANIPULATOR CRANE REQUIREMENTS AND RELOCATE TO LICENSEE-CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 MARKED-UP TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PAGES This coversheet plus 3 pages

INDEX LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION AND SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SECTION PAGE 3/4.9 REFUELING OPERATIONS 3/4.9.1 BO RO N CO NCENTRA TIO N .......................................................................... 3/4 9-1 3/4.9.2 INSTRUM ENTATIO N ..................................................................................... 3/4 9-2 3/4.9.3 DECAY TIM E .................................................................................................. 3/4 9-3 3/4.9.4 CO NTAINM ENT BUILDING PENETRATIO NS .............................................. 3/4 9-4 rlf"%RARAI 1II It" A T

- I Ckl 3/4.9.5 ................................................................................ 12 1A Q r IDELETED ~A~kIID. .I.I. ......

3/4.9.6 ,lN.  !, P A T iR. G R A N S. ................................................................................ l 3/4.9.7 DELETED 3/4.9.8 RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL AND COOLANT CIRCULATION High Water Level ............................................................................................ 3/4 9-7 Low W ater Level ............................................................................................. 3/4 9-8 TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 & 4 xii AMENDMENT NOS. 26QAND2*6

REFUELING OPERATIONS Aký,ý DELETE 3/4.9.5 COMMUNICATIONS IMIIITIGI N-TIO"N -FOROP-RADTI"II 3 Drect re. cemncteo emwR rR-eRsA be

-hl m. inRtainc Red b--Neat::e the controil roo~m and perconnol at the refueling etation.

A1212'CABILIP: DurinqGCRE ALTErRATIONIS When diroc-t comniaioebeFPoe the on~trol roomA and poMreonnl aRt the rflngtAtin annot 14e mA;-i/ntainIed, sue r-nd all COREALTERATIOIS.

R (*-r, I AW", RRWR.4T SURID\EIIIAI.ICE DREUl IREMENkl'~TS*

4.0.6 Directcemmuicatione between the control roomA and peFAReonnl at thAe refueling Gtatien chall be-demene~trated vithin 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> prior to thc sta~t of and at lcast once pcr 12 houre dur~ing CORE AITErRATIONS.

TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 & 4 3/4 9-5 AMENDMENT NOS. 4,3-7-AND4

REFUELING OPERATIONSDE TD 3/4.9.6 MAANIPUV.'-TOGk-R,4~NE LIMITINIG CONDPITION' FOR PPERATION' 3.9.6 T-ho manipulatoFr crane and auxiliar4ay hoict hall bo ucoL-L-d for move ment of drioY rode orfuel a seemblioc and chaD-l bea OPER.ABLRE, with:

c ThoA m;;ani~pulator crFano e forFmo9VomenA-t of f-oRiaecomblioc haying:

44 Am~in*mum sapacfity of 2760 pounde, and4 24 An ovorloaRd- cu'-to-ff limi~t 18 than or equ~al to 279(0 pounda.

T-ho auxiliar; hoemt ucoAd- fo-r lcigand unlatching drive rods haying:

4) A mA*i~nium capacity of 6610 pounde, and

2) A.loadindicato-r wAhich ~h-All bo ucod to prevent lifting bade inocRA- 9f 600 pode.R APPLI CAR"W Dur~ing movemenAt of driVo rdA or fuel asembliec woth*R the reactor voccol.

V'fth the roquirm~enteF for cFrao And/or heist OPE-RARB!LITY not satisfiod, eurepnd ure of any inoporablo mfanipulato cFran and~ auxiliary hoict 9froopor-Atioe nvA the movemenAt of drive rode and fue

'AccoAmblioc within therocrvce.

S1URVEmlILANICE- RE-QUI REMENWTS 4.0.-6. 1 At loa-At onceA e~ach refueling, each FmanipulateF crFane ucod for mov9Femet o-f fuelA- -AecemblfiecW~thin the reActoFrAvoeol hAll be doMoncr*atod OPERABLE wiAthin 100 hourFprior totho etaF of euch peratione by Pe~fo9Fming a load test of at loact2750 poundre and demoncraUtigqan uoaiRodctf hntecaela e)(coode 2700 peunde.

41.0.6.2 At loact once eAch refueling, each auxiliary heist and aseoi-atod-load indicator ucod forF meQVz-mont of d-rive; ro-de within the reactor vecrel shall be demonstrateed OPERABLE within 100 heure prier- to-the sta-F of such 3/4.9.7 DELETED TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 & 4 3/4 9-6 AMENDMENT NOS. 260 AND 2-66

TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 232 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TURKEY POINT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO REMOVE COMMUNICATIONS AND MANIPULATOR CRANE REQUIREMENTS AND RELOCATE TO LICENSEE-CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENT 2 RETYPED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PAGES This coversheet plus 3 pages

INDEX LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION AND SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SECTION PAGE 3/4.9 REFUELING OPERATIONS 3/4.9.1 BO RO N CO NCENTRATIO N .......................................................................... 3/4 9-1 3/4.9.2 IN STR UMENTATIO N ..................................................................................... 3/4 9-2 3/4 .9.3 D E CAY T IME .................................................................................................. 3/4 9-3 3/4.9.4 CONTAINMENT BUILDING PENETRATIONS .............................................. 3/4 9-4 3/4.9.5 DELETED 3/4.9.6 DELETED 3/4.9.7 DELETED 3/4.9.8 RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL AND COOLANT CIRCULATION Hig h W ater Level ............................................................................................ 3/4 9-7 Low Water Level ............................................................................................. 3/4 9-8 TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 & 4 xii AMENDMENTNOS. AND

REFUELING OPERATIONS 3/4.9.5 DELETED TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 & 4 3/4 9-5 AMENDMENT NOS. AND

REFUELING OPERATIONS 3/4.9.6 DELETED 3/4.9.7 DELETED TURKEY POINT - UNITS 3 &4 3/4 9-6 AMENDMENTNOS. AND