ML17341B100
| ML17341B100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17341B099 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204280127 | |
| Download: ML17341B100 (2) | |
Text
~
~C
~gR RECy~
+
P0
-~~i n
J..'::. g
+>>*<<+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION I
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. 75 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 Introduction By letter dated December 18, 1981, the Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos.
3 and 4, respectively.
The amendments update the Technical Specifications to include steam generator inspection requirements.
These inspection requirements will replace the Facility Operating License No.
DPR-31 conditions; paragraph 3.E.l through 3.E.7 for Unit 3, effective with this amendment and Facility Operating License No.
DPR-41 condition; paragraph 3.D.1 through 3.D.9 for Unit 4, effective as of the date of replacement of the steam generators of Unit 4.
We found it necessary to modify as follows the amendment request:
1.
The first tube sample selection needed clarification (4.2.5.2.b).
2.
A tube inspection.requirements was inadvertantly omitted (4.2.5.b.3).
3.
The second and third tube sample selection needed clarification (4.2.5.2.c).
4.
The first inspection interval needed clarification (4.2.5.3.a).
We discussed these modifications with the licensee staff and with their agree-ment the modifications have been incorporated.
Evaluation The amendment request was evaluated by Idaho Engineering Laboratory, under a contract to NRC.
Their Technical Evaluation Report (TER) noted modifications 1 and 4 above.
We accept the evaluation performed by the Idaho Engineering Laboratory and incorporated it into this Safety Evaluation Report by reference.
In addition, we noted modifications 2 and 3 above.
Item 1 is a clarification of T/S 4.2.5.2.b which indicates that the require-ment involves the first "sample of tubes selected" rather than "the first inservice inspection."
Item 2 inserts T/S 4.2.5.2.b.3 which was inadvertantly omitted.
Item 3 is a clarification of T/S 4.2.5.2.c which indicates that the requirement involves the second and third "sample selection" rather than the "inservice inspection."
Item 4 is a clarification of T/S 4.2.5.3.a which indicates the inspections required following completion of the steam generator repair program.
~ Me have reviewed these Technical Specifications and find that they meet the requirements for steam generator inservice inspection as expressed by the Standard Technical Specifications (NOREG-0452 Revision 4 Fall 1981).
This completes the requirements for steam generator inservice inspection which was requested by the NRC letter dated September 27, 1974.
This requirement was satisfied during the interim period by special license requirements when the denting of the Turkey Point steam generators was discovered.
Based on our evaluation, which incoroorates the TER prepared by the Idaho Engineer ing Laboratory, and the modifications listed above, we conclude that the proposed amendments are 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 standpoint of'environmental,impact
- and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(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 decrease 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 a reasonable assurance that the health 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
lfarch 24, 1982 Principal Contributors:
E. Murphy H. Grotenhuis