ML17353A423
| ML17353A423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17353A422 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510240114 | |
| Download: ML17353A423 (5) | |
Text
gP,R AE00
~4
~o Op O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&0001 cA rg 0
~O
~**~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY T E OFFIC OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AME DMENT NO.
178 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. 172 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT NOS.
3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-250 AND 50-251 1.
~TOU Tl~
By letter dated July 26, 1995, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or the licensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
The change consists of administrative corrections and clairifications.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The proposed amendments revise the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 TS to achieve consistency throughout the TS by (a) removing outdated material, (b) incorporating administrative clarifications and corrections, and (c) correcting typographical errors.
These changes represent an administrative update to the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 TS.
- 3. 0 EVALUATION The staff has evaluated the licensee's proposed TS Surveillance Requirements modifications as described below:
l.
TS BASES 3/4. 1.3 - Movable Control Assemblies:
Change the maximum step count reached from 231 to 230 on the step counter.
The licensee stated that newer Westinghouse plants can reach the 231 limit, but Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 can only be withdrawn to 230 steps.
Changes to the Bases do not require NRC approval.
The staff has no objection to this change.
Through periodic examinations of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 TS, the licensee identified several administrative inconsistencies.
These inconsistencies were then cross-checked by the licensee and verified to actually be in error, based on a review of NUREG-1431 and the present TS.
95iO240lle SSloi7 PDR ADOCK 05000250,'
TS 4.2.2.2.c.
1 Hovable Incore Detection System (HIDS):
Correct symbol for standard deviation from "j" to "oj".
The licensee stated that "uj" is the correct symbol for standard deviation, however the "e" was inadvertently omitted.
The staff considers that this proposed TS change is administrative, does not adversely affect plant safety, and, therefore, is acceptable.
TS 4.3. 1. 1 Reactor Trip System Instrumentation:
Capitalize
'Reactor'here it is stated "Each reactor Trip System..."
The licensee stated that in order to maintain consistency throughout the TS, Reactor Trip System should be capitalized.
The staff considers that this proposed TS change is administrative, does not adversely affect plant safety, and, therefore, is acceptable.
TS Table 3.3 Reactor Trip System Instrumentation:
Convert Item 18.B to Item 18.b.
Delete one of the 'per'ords in ACTION 2.b.
The licensee stated that in order to maintain consistency throughout the TS numbering
- system, the letters following Item 18 should be lowercase.
Only one
'per's required in ACTION 2.b.
The staff considers that this proposed TS change is administrative, does not adversely affect plant safety, and, therefore, is acceptable.
TS 3.9.4 Containment Building Penetrations:
Change 3.9.4.b.2) from "at least 23 feet of water above the fuel..." to "at least 23 feet of water above the reactor vessel flan e..."
The licensee stated that in order to maintain consistency throughout the TS and with current operating procedures,
'fuel'hould be changed to 'flange'i.e.,
TS 3.9.8.1, 3.9.8.2, 3.9. 10).
This change would be a more conservative requirement than the existing requirement of 23 feet of water above the fuel, and is requested to eliminate confusion when compared with other specifications governing refueling operations.
The staff considers that the change results in a more conservative requirement than currently exists, does not adversely affect plant
- safety, and, therefore, is acceptable.
TS 3. 12. l.c Honitoring Program:
Change reference to 'Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report'o
'Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.'S
- 3. 12.2.b Land Use Census:
Change reference to 'Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report'o
'Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.'he licensee stated that the required Radioactive Effluent Release Report is generated on an annual basis now versus the previous semiannual interval.
This change will remove outdated references from the existing TS.
10 CFR 50.36a requires submittal of an annual report that specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides release to unrestricted areas.
This is in the form of the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
Amendment Numbers 157 and 151 were issued on November 18, 1993, to reflect the change from a Semiannual Report to an Annual Report in response to the FPL request dated July 20, 1993.
All references to a Semiannual report were not identified in the review process for amendment numbers 157 and 151.
Annual reporting is the correct interval for this document per 10 CFR 50.36a; therefore, this change is acceptable.
7.
TS BASES 3/4.2.4 - quadrant Power Tilt Ratio:
Delete one of the words,
'action', in the third paragraph.
The licensee stated that only one
'action'ord is required.
Changes to the Bases do not require NRC approval.
The staff has no objection to this change.
8.
TS BASES 3/4.7.4 Ultimate Heat Sink:
Change the BASES for the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) to read as follows:
The limit on ultimate heat sink temperature in conjunction with the SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS of Technical Specification 3/4.7.2 will ensure that sufficient cooling capacity is available either:
(1) to provide normal cooldown of the facility, or (2) to mitigate the effects of accident conditions within acceptable limits.
With the implementation of the CCW [Component Cooling Water] heat exchanger performance monitoring program, the limiting UHS temperature can be treated as a variable with an absolute upper limit of 100'F without compromising any margin of safety.
Demonstration of actual heat exchanger performance capability supports system operation with postulated canal temperatures greater than 100'F.
Therefore, an upper Technical Specification limit'of 100'F is conservative.
The licensee stated that this BASES change will provide further clarification on the limitations of the UHS.
Pursuant to the requirement of 10 CFR 550.59, the requested change does not have an adverse effect on plant safety, security or operation, does not constitute an unreviewed safety question, and does not require changes to the TS other than an administrative change to the BASES Section.
Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 550.59, prior NRC approval for implementation is not required.
The staff notes that TS 3.7.4, which specifies an average supply water temperature to the Intake Cooling Water System less thorn or equal to 100 F, was not changed.
Under certain conditions, 100 F is not adequate to demonstrate operability and the Bases change clarifies this point.
Changes to the Bases do not require NRC approval.
The staff has no objection to this change.
9.
TS 6.8.2 Procedures
-and Programs:
Delete the reference to "dp 18'
.8.1 ~t h
d h
g h
d h
to refer to "Specification 6.8.1
- above, and changes
- thereto,
~exec t the ualit Control ro r m for environmental monitorin TS 6.8.3 - Procedures and Programs:
Delete the reference to
'dp tl'1 tt 8.8.1~88, d
h g
th t,"
d h
g refer to "Specification 6.8. 1 above."
The licensee stated that in order to maintain present and future consistency with 6.8. 1 as changes to it are made, restructuring the wording will eliminate the need for further revisions.
The staff finds that reference to 6.8. 1, rather than the sub-paragraphs, is adequate to communicate the requirements of the TS.
Neither the current TS nor the revised TS issued to the licensee on August 28,
- 1990, required that the provisions of TS 6.8.2 apply to the quality control program for environmental monitoring.
The staff considers that this proposed TS change is administrative, does not adversely affect plant
- safety, and, therefore, is acceptable.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff concludes that the proposed TS changes are administrative, more conservative than existing specifications, or do not require NRC approval (Bases changes).
The proposed changes do not adversely affect plant safety.
For these
- reasons, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed
- above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendments, the Florida State official had no comments.
- 6. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32 an environmental assessment has been published (60 FR 49927) in the Federal Redlister on September 27, 1995.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any environmental impacts other than those evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
Principal Contributor:
R. Croteau Date:
October 17, 1995
~
~
hl