ML18227C690
| ML18227C690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1976 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-76-200 | |
| Download: ML18227C690 (10) | |
Text
NRC FORM 195 (2. 76 I V.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR OMMISSION D
R 50-250 51 NRC OISTRIBUTION FDR PART 60 DOCI(ET MATERIAL FIL-MR, VICTOR STELLO>> JR, FROM:
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY MIAMI>>
FLORIDA'R ROBERT ED UHRIG DATE OF DOCUMENT 5/20/76 DATE RECEIVED 5/26/76 PJtLETTE R gfOR IGINAL OCOPV DESCRIPTION OTOR IZED gVNCLASS IF I E D PROP INPUT FORM ENCLOSURE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED THREE SIGNED LTR, NOTORIZED 5/20/76 W/ATTACHED,",~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FURNXSHXNG XNFORMATXON CONCERNING LISENSE AMDT, REQUEST TO CHANGE TECH SPEC TO AMEND APPENDIX A OF. FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-31 AND DPR-41 PLANT NAME:
TURKEY POXNT 3 & 4 ACKNOWLEDGED DO NOT RZMOyZ FOR ACTION/INFO RiVIATION 5 26 76 RJL ASSIGNED AD:
BRANCH CHILT PROJECT MANAGER; LIC. ASST.:
LEAR 6
PARRXSH ASSIGNED AD:
BRANCH CHIEF:
PROJECT t4QIAGER:
LIC. ASST.:
REG FILF RC PDR I &E OELD GOSSXCK
&, STAFF MIPC HANAUER RLESS MANAGE~>>.
P COLLINS HOUSTON PETERSON hlELTZ SKOVHOLT LPDR: MIAMX FLORIDA NSIC ACM/ HHrBHiS SENT NRC FORM 19S I2.76 INTERNALD SYSTEMS SAFETY HEINEMAN SCHROEDER ENGINEERING KNIGHT PAWLICKI CTOR SAFETY ROSS NOVAK ROSZTOCZY CHECK AT&,I SALTZMAN RUTBERG EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION A L LAB REG. V-IE LA PDR CONSULTANl'S ISTR I BUTTON PLANT SYSTEhIS TEDESCO BENAROYA IPPOLITO OPERATING 8EACTO S STELLO OPERATiNG TECH EISENHUT SHAO SCHWENCER GRIMES SIT SAFETY
&, ENVIRO ANALYSIS DENTON 8e MULLER BROOKHAVEN NATL LAB ULRIKSON ORNL EPP'RO TECH PA,LLA SITE TECH GAMIILL STEPP HULIIAN SiTE ANALYSIS VOLLMER BUNCH J
COLLINS CONTROL NUiVIBER Keogh
1 4I 5 5 h%
4
~
4
~
~ ~
0 +
~
4 I
>/)~ i~~8~
FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 May 20, 1976 L-76-200
Dear Mr. Stello:
Re:
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4
Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 Proposed Amendment to Facility 0 eratin Licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30, Florida Power 6 Light Company submits herewith three (3) signed originals and forty (40) conformed copies of a request, to amend Appendix A of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41.
This submittal proposes Technical Specification changes relating to the surveillance of containment building tendons at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
The'proposed changes are as'described below and as shown on the accompanying Technical Specification pages bearing the date of this. letter in the lower right hand corner.
Pa es 4.4-4 and 4.4-5 Technical Specification 4.4.6 is revised to require extensive tendon surveillance for Unit 3 only, with a more simple visual inspection required for Unit 4.
The proposed surveillance program would eliminate costly duplication of effort without sacrificing any potential for discovering unsatisfactory tendon performance.
A safety evaluation of the proposed surveillance program is attached.
The proposed amendment has been reviewed within Florida Power 6
Light Company and the conclusion reached that it does not in-volve a significant hazards consideration, therefore, prenoticing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.105 should not be required.
Yours very truly, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/cpc Attachment cc:
Norman C. Mosely Jack R.
- Newman, Esq.
bOCKQED MAY/jpey6~
U.S. NUCLEAR RIG coMN!ISSIQII Neil Sadly ORY
~o
~gp p
4.4.6 TENDON RVEILLANCE 4.4.6.1 Test Fre uenc Containment tendon inspections, as described below, will take place at the end of the fifth year and every fifth year there-after from the date of the structural integrity test for Unit 3 (July 4, 1971) and for Unit 4 (February 19, 1972).
Tendon sur-veillance may be conducted during reactor operation.
4.4.6.2 Unit 3 a)
Visual Inspection All tendon anchorage assembly hardware such as bearing plates, stressing
- washers, shims, and buttonheads shall be visually inspected.
b)
Lift-offReadings Take lift-offreadings on each tendon in the selected sample to monitor loss of prestress.
Sample selection is specified in Section 4.4.6.4.
c)
Wire Inspection One horizontal, one vertical and one dome tendon will be relaxed and one wire will be removed from each as a, sample.
(At subsequent inspections, different tendons will be used for the dome and hoop samples).
Wires will be
-visually inspected for corxosion and pitting.
Tensile tests will be performed on three (3) samples cut from each wire (one from each end and one from the middle) of a length equal to the maximum length acceptable for the test apparatus to be used.
After samples are taken, tendons will be retensioned and final lift-offreadings will be taken."'.4.6.3 Unit 4 The Unit 4 containment has the same design as the Unit 3 contain-ment.
Both containments are located at the same site and were.
constructed in the same. way by the same contractor during a period of continuous construction.
Therefore, Unit 4 requires only the following inspection.
The tendons in the selected sample shall be visually examined to the extent practical without dismantling load bearing components of the anchorage.
- 4. 4. 6. 4 Sam le Selection a)
For the initial fifth year inspection, the following tendons will be selected.
'I 1)
Six dome 'tendons distributed to provide representative sampling, i.e.,
two from each 60'roup (three families of tendons).
- 4. 4-4 5/20/7 6
2)
Three vertical tendons distributed to provide repre-sentative sampling.
3)
. Ten hoop tendons randomly distributed to provide representative sampling.
b) If the initial fifth year inspection shows that there is.no abnormal degradation of the prestressed
- tendons, the sample for subsequent inspections may be selected as follows:
l)
Three dome tendons distributed to provide representative sampling, i.e.,
one from each 60'roup.
2)
Three vertical tendons distributed to provide representative sampling.
3)
.Three hoop tendons randomly distributed to provide representative, sampling.
c),
The results of any fifth year inspection which shows abnormal degradation of prestressed tendons will be evaluated to determine appropriate followup action.
4.4-5 5/20/76
SAFETY EVALUATION INTRODUCTION 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 53 entitled "Provisions for Containment Testing and Inspection" requires, in part, that reactor containments be designed to permit (1) periodic inspection of all important, areas and (2) an appropriate surveillance program.
The inservice inspection program for containment tendon surveillance at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is specified in Section 4.4.6 of Appendix A to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41.
This Safety Evaluation supports a proposed amendment which requests that Technical Specification 4.4.6 be revised such
,that:
a)
Based on the satisfactory results which have been obtained for inspections conducted to date, the Unit 4 containment tendons receive only a visual inspection.
b)
The initial fifth year inspection on the Unit 3 con-tainment fully inspects 3 additional dome tendons and 7
additional hoop tendons.
c)
Based on a satisfactory Unit 3. fifth year surveillance, the sample size may be decreased to include only 3 dome
- tendons, 3 vertical tendons, and 3 hoop tendons.
Different dome and hoop tendons will be chosen for. each inspection and will be randomly distributed to provide a representative sample.
DISCUSSION The containment design of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 provides for a pre-stressed concrete structure with ungrouted tendons.
Surveillance tendons are chosen such that a sample is obtained from each major tendon type (dome, vertical and hoop).
The specific choices within each.=type are selected to provide tendons which are subject to various environmental exposures.
The proposed amendment will result in expanded surveillance of Unit. 3 containment tendons for the initial fifth year inspection.
The proposed amendment. will also result in the examination of different, dome and hoop tendons at each inspection rather than
'examination of the same tendons.
In changing the tendons, a
representative sample will be maintained.
One tendon from each of the three dome groups will be included in each inspection.
The hoop tendon sample'ill still be selected to endeavor to cover a full 360'f the containment.
The vertical tendon
- sample, which will remain unchanged, will still provide a
sampling from three different sectors of the containment.
Therefore, the inspections will continue to properly provide sampling that is representative of sections of the containment with potentially different environmental exposure.
In fact, the sampling will be.
improved by selecting different dome and hoop tendons for each inspection because a larger number of different tendon. locations will be inspected'ver the life of the plant.
The elimination of lift-offtesting and wire removal from-the Unit 4 tendon. surveillance specification is justified because the Unit 4 containment has the same design as the Unit 3 containment.
Both containments were 'built by the same contractor during a continuous construction period.
They are located less.than 1000 feet apart and experience the same environmental exposures.
The phenomenon of greatest concern which we are trying to monitor is corrosion of the tendon wires.
Because'f the similarities des-cribed above, there is no basis for expecting one containment to experience'more or less corrosion attack than the other containment.-
Other phenomena such as stress relaxation, temperature variation of the wire, concrete deformation, and differential thermal expansion between the concrete and the tendon can lead to loss of tendon prestress and must also be considered.
- However, because both containments-have the same external environment, the same engineering design, and.experience the same internal operating conditions, these phenomena can be expected to have the same probability of occurrence in either containment.
Therefore, extensive surveillance of one containment will provide an adequate sampling of tendons to ensure that the tendons of both containments are not experiencing deleterious effects caused by these phenomena.
CONCLUSIONS It is concluded that containment structural integrity will not be degraded by using the proposed surveillance program and that the surveillance program meets the intent of General Design Criteria 53 as well as the intent of the current Technical Specifications.
Based on these considerations, (1) the proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents or mal-functions of equipment important to safety and does not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification, therefore, the change 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'ot, be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the-public.
'af '
)
STATE OF FLORIDA
)
)
ss COUNTY OF DADE
)
Robert E. Uhrig, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That, he is a Vice President of Florida Power 6 Light Company, the Licensee herein; That. he has executed the foregoing document; that the statements made in this said document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and that he is authorized to execute the document on behalf of said Licensee.
Robert E. Uhrig Subscribed and sworn to before me day of 1976 otary Public.c, zn and for the County of
- Dade, State of Florida NOTARY PU8LIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARIAT MYCOMMISSIONEXPIRES NOV 5Q I979 BC5DKO JHRU GENERAL INSy UNDERWRITERS
- -.My commission expires
A
~
~
p' h,
(0)y<~ ~a<,g tl
)
l ~
hg r
(
,(