ML18017A346
| ML18017A346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017A345 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005190182 | |
| Download: ML18017A346 (6) | |
Text
'
800608 0 088 e 4 mit Rg
~v
on is defined as o~eration with the primary coolan. temperature greater than 350 F. (2) The licensee submittals refer to "effective full power" months which we interpret to mean "equivalent months." Hy letter (L-80-32) dated January 23, 1980, the licensee has again requested an additional two (2) month extension which would increase the total operating interval to ten (10) equivalent months and which would oermit operation of Turkey Point Unit 4 until its next scheduled outage. The licensee submitted its technical justification by letter dated February 1, 1980 which cited the previous inspection results, pre-. ventivee tube plugging for ten ( 10) equivalent months, leak free operating experience since the previous inspection, and submitted analyses. EVALUATION We have reviewed the licensee's submittals dated January 23 and February 1 and 14, 1980 and find that the technical basis claimed to support a ten (10) month operating interval is essentially the same as submitted previously by the licensee in its letter dated May 18, 1979. This technical basis was discussed and evaluated in our Safety Evaluation Report supporting License Amendments 41 and 43 which authorized a six (6) month operating interval and a subsequent two (2) month extension, respect-ivelyy. We continue to have reservations about the validity of extrapolating the prediction methodology beyond the operating interval of six (5) months. We believe there is not a sufficient technical basis to reasonably conclude that the previously implemented plugging,criteria are sufficiently conservative to support a ten (10) month operating interval between steam generator inspections at this unit.
- However, we believe a four (4) equivalent weeks of operation beyond the currently authorized eight (8) month operating interval can be justified on the basis that (1) the currently authorized eight month interval has essentially been completed with no detectable
- leakage, (2) the 0.30 gpm primary to secondary leakage rate limit ensures that appropriate corrective action will be taken, should a leak actually occur, such that an individual crack will not become unstable during normal operation or a design basis accident, (3) the probability of a design basis accident during a
four (4) week period of operation is small, and (4) the probability that a design basis accident would occur during the short period of time between leak detection and subsequent plant shutdown is even smaller. .Therefore, we find that the operation of Turkey Point Unit 4 may be extended by four (4) equivalent weeks beyond-the currently authorized interval of eight (8) equivalent months without undue risk to public health or safety. We do recommend, however, that the licensee be required to perform a steam generator inspection (in all steam generators) in the event of a plant shutdown during the current operating interval due to steam generator leakage in excess of the 0.3 gpm license restriction on the leakage rate. E nvi ronmenta 1 C ons ide rat ion We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not res'ult in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant fran the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR f51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Oate: February 22, 1980 l