ML17341A677
| ML17341A677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17341A676 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112070142 | |
| Download: ML17341A677 (4) | |
Text
~y8 RKGII~
~C
+
0 rq
+~*~4 UNITED STATES'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
73 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-31 AND NENDHENT NO.
67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-4'1'LORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NOS-3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-250'ND 50-.251
~ =
~ N
'I
~ " ~ I 0
\\
~
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 the certain By letter dated August 7, 19750",-the NRC requested Florida Power 8
- Light Company
(.FPL) -to revtew:its containment leakage te'sting progr'am for Turkey Point; Untts 3=and 4;---and the associated TecFInical Specifi-cations, for compliance with the requirements of Appendix J to. 10 CFR
'Part 50.
Appendix J to 10. CFR Part-5Q,-was published on February 14, 1973.
Sincp there already were many operating nuclear power plants and a
number of others in advanced stages of design or construction, the NRC decided to have these plants re-evaluated against the requirements of this new
'egulation.
Therefore, begi'nntng tn August 1975, requests for review of the extent of compliance with the requirements of Appendix J were made of each licensee; Following the initial responses to these
- requests, NRC staff positions were developed which would assure that the objectives of the testing requirements of the above cited regulation were satisfied.
These staff positions have since been applied in our review of the submi ttals filed by the Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4
licensee.
The results of our evaluation are provided below.
The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to:
(1) include
'the air lock testing according to Appendix 0 to. 10.CFR Par t.50 (2) make corrections in terminology to be consistent with Appendix J; and I
(3) make certain admini strative corrections.
EVALUATION Our consultant, the Franklin Research
- Center, has reviewed the licensee's submittals L2, 3, 4, 5] and prepared the attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER). of containment leak rate tests for Turkey Point, Units 3
and 4.
We have reviewed this evaluation and concur in its'ases and findings.
/ Bii2070i42 Biii04 >
PDR ADOCK 05000250,I PDR In the TER, the staff's consultant agreed with the licensee's proposed change to Technical Speci'fi'cation (T.S.k 4.4.2.2'as stated in Reference 4, wMch. requires that ai'rlocks Ke tested as follows:.
"4.4.2 LOCAL PEHETRATIOH TESTS Test. Procedure-and Frequency "Local'eak'detectioii.tests-of the following components shall Be performed at a pr essure not less than 50 psig using pressure
- decay, soap bubble, halogen detection or eq*uivalent methods. at. the frequency listed, unless other-wise noted:
~'
Personnel:and Emergency Airlocks a.
Within 3 days of every first of a seri'es of openings when. containment integrity is required, verify that door seals have not been damaged or seated improperly by vacuum testing the volume between the door seals tn accordance witli approved plant procedures K.
At least once per 6 months, conduct an overall atrlock leakage test to verify that the overall air lock leakage rate is within its limit."
The proposed exemption from the requirements of Appendix J involves testing the airlock seals with a vacuum test instead of a pressure test within 3 days of every first'f a series of openings when contain-ment integrity is required.
In a m'ajority of plants, the airlock door seals are tested for proper seating by pressurizing the volume between the inner and outer seals of the inner and outer doors.
The inner door seal is on the containment side of.the door.
With the pressurization of the volume between the seals, the inner seal would tend to be lifted off its seat and the outer seal
><ovid tend to be better seated.
The pressurization test is conservative because during an accident both the inner and outer seals would tend to be 5etter seated by the containment high pressure during an accident.
The vacuum test proposed by the licensee is also a conservative test because it will tend to lift the outer seal and seat the inner seal.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Based on our review of the enclosed technical evaluation report as prepared by our consultant (FRC), the following conclusions are made regarding the Appendix J review for Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4.
g
~
3
~ ~
1)
FPL's proposal to verify that airlock door-seals have not been damaged or seated improperly by vacuum testing the vol'ume between
'he seals wi'thin 3 days of every first of a series of openings when containment,i'ntegri'ty.ts requi'red in the interim Eetween full-pressure 6-month tests is an accepta6le alternative to the after-each.-opening requi'rement of Appendix J (,provided that results are conservatively extrapolated to Pa).
No exemption from the require-.--
ments of Appendix.J is required 6ecause of the revision to Section IIl.0.2 effective 'OctoEer 22, 1980.
2}
FPL's proposed change to Technical Specification 4.4.2 is acceptable since it conforms to the requirements of Appendix J except for air-jock testing which, has 6een found to be an accepta6le alternative.
3}
The, changes-.in terminology and other miscellaneous administrative
=":.,::
changes not al1 eady incorporated in reference 3 are acceptable.
~ a Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in'ffluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power.level and' will not result in any sigii'ificant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that.the"amendhents
'nvolve an action which is insignificant frcm the standpoint of envirormental impact and, pursuant'o 10 CFR
$51. 5(d)(4), tha't an environmental impact statenent or. negative declaration and en'viron-mental impact appraisal need noi be prepared in connection with the i ssuance 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 noi involve a significant decrease ir, a sa=eiy margin, the e,"."men s do not 1nvol ve a
5 i gn1 f1 cant.
hazel ds consideraiiion,
(
)
there is reasonable assurance thai the h'ealih 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 noi be inihical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
November 4,
1981
4
4.0 REFERENCES
(1).
NRC generic letter vegardi'ng implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, at TMI'-1, dated August 7, 1975.
(.2).
FPL letter from Dr.
R. E. Uhrig to Mr. K. R. Goller dated September 12, 1975.
(3}
FPL letter from Dr.
R. E. Uhrig to Mr. E.
G.
Case dated September 20, 1974.
(4}
FPL letter'from Dr. R.
E; Uhrig to Mr. V; Sthllo'ated JUly 27; 1977.
(5)
FPL letter from Dr.
R. E:
- Novem5er 26, 1981.
Uhrtg to Mr. S: A. Varga dated