ML17340B200
| ML17340B200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17340B199 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105150415 | |
| Download: ML17340B200 (3) | |
Text
paR ~ECy~
~, ((~,'Ii o
+4*4+
UNITEO STATES
.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSION VYASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO.
57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NOS.
3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS.
50-250 AND 50-251 Back round The staff recently completed a review of the LERs and Technical Sp'ecification requirements related to the Control Rod Position Indication System (RPI) at Westinghouse PWRs and determined that a wide variation exists'n the number of LERs received and the Technical Specification requirements.
Discussion and Evaluation Westinghouse has performed safety analyses for control rod misalignment up to
'15 inches or 24 steps
{one step equals 5/8'inch).
Since analysis of misalign-ments in excess of this'maunt have not been submitted, we have imposed an LCO restricting continued operation with a misalignment in excess of 15 inches.
~ Because the analog control rod position indication system has an uncertainty of 7.5 inches (12 steps),
when an indicated devi ation of 12 steps exists, the actual misalignment may be 15 i nches.
This is because one of the coils, spaced at 3.75 inches, may be failed withou the operator's knowledge.
The Standard Technical Specifications were written to eliminate any confusion about
- this, and restrict deviations to 12 indicated steps.
Surveillance require-
- ments, on the indication accuracy of 12 steps, were also prepared to ensure that the 15 inch LCO is met.
Since there is no difference. intended in requirements issued for any Westinghouse
- reactor, plants with Technical Specifications written in different terms of misalignment should consider the. 12 step instru-ment in accuracy when monitoring rod position.
A related problem is that the installed analog control rod position indicating system equipment may not, in some areas, be adequate to maintain the control rod misalignment specification requi rement because of drift problems in the calibration curves.
This is evidenced by numerous LERs concerning rod position indication accuracy.
In these
- cases, the uncertainty may be more than 12 steps.
Florida Power 'and Light Company (the licensee) was requested, by letter dated
'ctober 29, 1980, to review the Technical Specifications for th'e Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos.
3 and 4 to ensure that the control rods are required to be maintained within +12 steps indicated position and that the rod posi-tion indication system is accurate to within +12 steps.
8105150,)g'K~BI
~
~
By letter dated February 27,
- 1980, (L-80-62), the licensee responded to the NRC request and provided proposed Technical Specification changes to incorporate the staff's requirements.
~Summar Based on our review of the licensee's submittal, we find that the proposed changes are in conformance with the staff's request and are, therefore, acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or.total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoi nt of environmental impact
- and, pursuant to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4), that'an environmental impact statement or negative
. declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the heaTth and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
May 6, 1981