ML17347A150
| ML17347A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17347A149 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611240450 | |
| Download: ML17347A150 (3) | |
Text
pe RfgONp
~4 0
Cy
'P~
C O
I
,r.
lh g
0 ~
Cy
+**++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. 113TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT NOS.
3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-F50 AND 50-251 Introduction By letters dated April 2, 1984, as supplemented on April 18, 1984, October 11,
- 1985, and February 21, 1986, Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee),
requested changes to the Technical Specifications for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 to reflect revised Inservice Inspection (ISI) programs for these two units.
Back round Technical Specification 4.2.1 for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant describes the post-operational nondestructive inspections that were required of the licensee during the initial ten years of plant operation.
By letter dated March 30, 1984, the licensee submitted the ISI Second Ten-Year Summary Program to. the NRC staff for review per the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.55.a(g).
The program for the second ten-year interval references the 1980 Edition and Addenda through, Winter 1981 and differs in requirements from those listed in Table 4.2-1 of the Technical Specifications.
The NRC regulations (10.CFR Part 50.55.a(g)(5)(ii)) state that "If a revised inservice inspection program for a facility conflicts with the Technical Specification for the facility, the licensee shall apply to the Commission for amendment of the Technical Specifications to conform the Technical Specification to the revised program."
Evaluation The licensee proposes to revise the wording of Technical Specification 4.0.3 to incorporate the language that is used in Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse plants.
The proposed wording will reference the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR Part 50.55.a(g).
Consequently, future licensing amendments will not be required when revisions of the ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code are made because such changes are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.55.a(g)(4)(ii).
This section states that "Inservice examinations of components, inservice tests to verify operational readiness of pumps and valves whose function is required for safety, and system pressure
- tests, conducted during successive 120-month inspection intervals shall comply with the requirements of the latest edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of this section..."
8611240450 861027 "
PDR ADOCK 05000250 P
i..
~
Inasmuch as the ASIDE Code provides guidance for all aspects of the Second Ten-Year Summary Program (and successive programs in the future), the detailed requirements in Technical Specifications 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 and Table 4.2-1 are no longer needed and will be deleted.
The other proposed revisions to the Technical Specifications are editorial only.
4
~Ffndin The staff has determined that the actions proposed by the licensee are consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Section 50.55.a and Sections III and XI of the ASIDE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code that are referenced in Section 50.55.a.
The proposed revisions to the Technical Specifications are consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Section 50.55.a(g)(5)(ii).
Therefore, the staff has determined that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve changes in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(I) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) 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, Dated:
October 27, 1986 Princi al Contributors:
W. P. Kleinsorge