ML18227C733

Referring to Letter of 5/20/1976 Which Proposed Tech Spec Changes Relating to Containment Building Tendon Surveillance Program, Letter Advising Changes Are Not Acceptable

ML18227C733
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/01/1976
From:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
References
Download: ML18227C733 (6)

Text

gjQ f +76 Distribution k Fi ORB k3 Local PDR NRC PDR VStello Dockets Nos~0~2 KGoller and 50-251, TJCarter Attorney, OELD" OI8E (3) e GLear Florida Power and Light Company DEl 1 i ott hTTH: Dr. Robert E. Uhrig. CParrish Vice 'President DEisenhut P. 0. Box 013100 TBAbernathy

. fliami, Florida 33101 JRBuchanan ACRS (16)

Gentlemen:

In your letter dated Hay 20, 1976, you proposed Technical Specification changes relating -to the containment building tendon surveillance program at Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station Units Ho. 3 and No. 4. Me have reviewed your proposed Technical Specification changes and find them not acceptable as presented.

Enclosed is our evaluation of your proposed Technical Specification changes. In our evaluation we have provided guidance on how your sub-mittal of ttay 20, 1976, can be modified to make it acceptable. If you wish to modify your proposed Technical Specification changes we will be glad to consider them following resubmittal.

If you have any questions regarding our evaluation of your proposed containment building tendon surveillance program, please contact us.

Sincerely, Original signed by George Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page OPPICB 3P ORB ]f3 ORB 0'3 SURNAME& DElliott. jf GLear DATC 3a 10/g/76 1Ii/( /76 FOTIn hEC-318 (RST. 9-33) hZCM 0240 4 U, B, OOVBRNMBNTPRINTINO OPPICBI IOT4 SSS IOS

0 "J J I

l "I

l e

I l

I II

'I I lI l',II r ll N

H

,I J

m I II I

I J

I +I I,

I I % JI l

~ W I4l I J II tII

, \ I I t r,JI 4'J . g > i'll

Florida Power 8 Light Company CC:

Mr. Jack R. Newman, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis 5 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Suite 1214

Washington, D. C. 20036 Environmental 8 Urban Affairs Library Florida International University Miami, Florida 33199

EVALUATION TURKEY POINT UNITS NO. 3 AND NO. 4 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES CONTAINMENT TENDON SURVEILLANCE TEST PROGRAM Discussion By letter dated May 20, 1976, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) pro-posed Technical Specification changes relating to the tendon surveillance program for the prestressed concrete containment buildings at Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units No. 3 and No. 4.

The Technical Specifications presently require that lift-off readings be taken on nine (9) specified tendons (3 vertical, 3 hoop, and 3 dome) for both Units 3 and 4. Hire inspections are also required on one horizontal, one vertical and one dome tendon for each unit. The lift-off readings and wire inspections are required at the end of the first, third and every fifth year thereafter from the date of the structural integrity test (SIT). In addition to the specified surveillance program for each unit, the Technical Specifications require additional surveillance on Unit No. 3 dome tendons at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after the SIT.

The proposed Technical Specification changes would require that lift-off readings be taken on nineteen (19) tendons (3-vertical, 10 hoop, and 6 dome) for the fifth year inspection of the Unit No. 3 containment. Hire inspections would be similar to that previously required. The tendons in the selected sample for Unit No. 4 would be visually examined to the extent practical without dismantling load bearing components of the anchor-age. If the results of the fifth year inspection are reduced acceptable, the to nine (9) sample for subsequent five year inspections would be tendons (3 vertical, 3 hoops, and 3 dome).. Different dome and hoop tendons would be chosen for each inspection and would be randomly distributed.

Evaluation Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.35 (Rev. 2, Jan. 1976) states that "if it can be shown by the applicant that identical containment structures are located on one site, that no environmental or other differences are apparent, and that they were constructed by the same contractor in the same manner at the same time (continuous construction), every second containment struc-ture need only be visually inspected as described in regulatory position C.3". The containments for Turkey Point Units No. 3 and No. 4 satisfy the above conditions. However, in order to use RG 1.35 as a justification for reducing the surveillance requirements on Unit No. 4, the proposed Technical Specification changes should be revised to incorporate other surveillance requirements presented in RG 1.35 and Section 4.6.1.7 of the Standard Technical Specifications (STS).

Listed below are suggested ways in which the. proposed Technical Specifi-cations could. be modified so that they would satisfy the guidance pro-vided by RG 1.35 and Section 4.6.1.7 of the STS.

1. Section 4.4.6.2(a) of the proposed Technical Specifications does not provide any visual inspection of the concrete surrounding the tendon anchorages. Regulatory position C.2 in RG 1.35 and Section 4.6.1.7.2 of the STS provide guidance on this matter.

2. Section 4.4.6.2(b) of the proposed Technical Specifications should also include provisions for an unloading cycle as described in regulatory position C.4.2 of'G 1.35,

3. Section 4.4.6.2 of the proposed Technical Specifications does not provide any acceptance criteria or provisions for reporting'to the Commission as described in regulatory positions C.7 and C.8 of RG 1.35 and Sections 4.6.1.7.1 and 4.6.1.7.4 of the STS.

Section 4.4.6.4(a) (2) of the proposed Technical Specifications requires that only three (3) vertical tendons be selected for inspec-tion. Regulatory posi tion C.2.1.1.2 of RG 1.35 and Section 4.6;1;7,1(a) of the STS state that five (5) vertical tendons. should be .inspected.

5. Sections 4.4.6.2(c) and 4.4.6.4 of the proposed Technical Specifica-tions indicate that during subsequent inspections, only the dome and hoop tendons will be varied. Regulatory position C.2.3 of RG 1.35 indicates that only one'tendon from each group (vertical, hoop and dome) may be kept unchanged after the initial selection.

6. There are no provisions for periodic liner surveillance'as described in Section 4.6.1.7.3 of the STS.

Point Units No. 3 and No. 4 have both completed their second tendon

'urkey inspection (three years after SIT). 8etween the two units a sufficient number of tendons have been inspected to justify the use of the surveillance program recommended by RG 1.35 starting with the inspection 5 years after SIT. The use of the surveillance program recommended by RG 1.35 would eventually in fewer tests than presently required.'owever, since the sample 'esult group would change each time an inspection is performed, a thorough inspection of the entire containment would be achieved during the life of the facility.

Conclusion The proposed Technical Specification changes for the tendon surveillance program for the prestressed concrete containment buildings at Turkey Point Units No. 3 and No. 4 are not acceptable.. A reduction of the tendon

surveillance requirements for Unit No. 4 can be justified by Regulatory Guide 1.35 provided the Technical Specifications are modified to incor-porate the tendon survei,llance test program presented in Regulatory Guide 1.35 and Section 4.6.1.7 of the Standard Technical Specifications.