ML20029B168
| ML20029B168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1991 |
| From: | FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029B165 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103060062 | |
| Download: ML20029B168 (2) | |
Text
-
ItEACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM SURVE111.ANCE RE0pIREMENTS {Qontinued) 4.4.5.3 Inspection frecuencies - lhe above required inservice inspections of steam-generator tubes shall be performed at the following frequencies:
a.-.The first inservice inspection shall be performed after 6 Effective full Power Months, but within 24 calendar months of initial criticality.
Subsequent inservice inspections shall be performed at intervals of not less than 12 nor more than 24 calendar months
- after the previous ~ inspection.
if two consecutive inspections following service under all volatile treatment (AVT) conditions, not including the preservice inspection, result in all inspection results falling into the C-1 category, or if two consecutive inspections demonstrate that previously observed degradation has not continued and no additional degradation.has occurred, the inspection interval may be extended to a maximum of once per 40 months, b.
If_the_inservite inspection of a steam generator, conducted in accordance with Table 4.4-2 and/or Table 4.4-6 requires a third sample inspection whose results fall in_ Category C-3, the inspection frequency shall be reduced to at least once per 20 months. The 1
reduction in: inspection frequency shall apply until a subsequent inspection demonstrates that a third sample inspection is not
- required, c.
Additional unscheduled inservice inspections shall be performed on each-steam generator in accordance with the first sample inspection specified in Table 4.4 4 and/or Table 4.4-6 during the shutdown subsequent to any of the following conditions:
1.
Primary-to-secondary tube leaks (not including leaks originating from tube-to-tube shect welds) in excess of the limits of Specifi. cation 3.4.6.2, 2.
A seismic occurrence greater than the Operating Basis Earthquake,
+
3.
A. loss-of-coolant accident requiring actuition of the engineered safeguards, or 4.
A main steam line or feedwater-line brr.ak.
4.4.5.4 Acceptar,ce Criteria
- a. -As used in this Specification:
p
- 1...lmcatl~tLqu means an exception to the dimensions, finish or contot
,' a tube from that required by fabrication drotings The-twenty four months inspection interval sch6duled to end by-d May 29., 1992, may be extended until Refuel B.
910306006,2 910222 ADOCK0500gg2 DR
)
CRYSTALRINR-tjNIT3 3/4 4-8 Amendment No. 33 1
1
SHOLLY EVALUATION OF REQUEST:
Florida Power Corporation (FPC) has reviewed the requirements of 10CFR50.92 as they relate to the proposed change of the eddy current testing surveillance interval requirements.
FPC considers the proposed one time change not to involve a significant hazards consideration.
In support of this conclusien the following analysis is provided:
1.
The proposed change will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because analysis of previous inspection data does not indicate or pre'Jict that tube failures are more likely to occur as a result of an extension to the inspection window. The consequences of a tube rupture accident are not affected by this change since the frequency ard magnitude of steam ator tube leaks are not predicted to increase.
Rcactor coolant ystem leak detection and recovery actions remain unaffected by this change, 2.
The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident frea any accident previously evaluated because the change will not alter plant configuration or change parameters governing normal plant operation.
The FSAR steam generator tube rupture analysis continues to bound the conditions for steam generator tube failure:.
3.
The propa
.hange wi s at insolve a significant reduction to the margin of.arety becausa tne magnitude and frequency of steam generator tube failur s ore not significantly affected by this change.
The primary to secondary system leakage monitoring system and criteria remain unchanged.
Recovery actions are unaffected by this change and sufficient to ensure a safe plant shutdown and any off-site releases are maintained n' thin the FSAR accident analysis guidelines.
I h
__