ML081200047
| ML081200047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2008 |
| From: | Geoffrey Miller NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLI-2 |
| To: | Peschel J, St.Pierre G Florida Power & Light Energy Seabrook |
| Miller G, NRR/DORL, 415-2481 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml081200044 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD8247 | |
| Download: ML081200047 (12) | |
Text
April 29, 2008 Mr. Gene St. Pierre, Site Vice President c/o James M. Peschel Seabrook Station FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC PO Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE:
NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (TAC NO. MD8247)
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 118 to Facility Operating License (FOL) No. NPF-86 for the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), in response to your application dated March 7, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated March 26, 2008.
The amendment revises the Seabrook Technical Specifications to extend the time allowed to collect initial plateau curves for the intermediate and power range neutron detectors to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after reaching 100 percent of rated thermal power.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commissions biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/ra/
G. Edward Miller, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 118 to NPF-86
- 2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page
April 29, 2008 Mr. Gene St. Pierre, Site Vice President c/o James M. Peschel Seabrook Station FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC PO Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE:
NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (TAC NO. MD8247)
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 118 to Facility Operating License (FOL) No. NPF-86 for the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), in response to your application dated March 7, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated March 26, 2008.
The amendment revises the Seabrook Technical Specifications to extend the time allowed to collect initial plateau curves for the intermediate and power range neutron detectors to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after reaching 100 percent of rated thermal power.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commissions biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/ra/
G. Edward Miller, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 118 to NPF-86
- 2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 RidsOgcRp RidsRgn1MailCenter PUBLIC RidsNrrPMGMiller RidsAcrsAcnw&mMailCenter LPL1-2 R/F RidsNrrLAABaxter SMiranda, NRR RidsNrrDorlDpr GHill (2)
RidsNrrDirsItsb Package Accession No: ML081200044 Amendment Accession No: ML081200047; TS Pages Accession No: ML081200061 OFFICE LPLI-2/PM LPLI-2/LA DSS/SPSB/BC DE/EICB/BC OGC LPLI-2/BC NAME G. E. Miller A. Baxter G. Cranston W. Kemper MBaty H. Chernoff DATE 4/08/08 4/08/08 3/27/08 3/28/08 4/10/08 4/29/08 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 cc:
Mr. J. A. Stall Senior Vice President, Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Peter Brann Assistant Attorney General State House, Station #6 Augusta, ME 04333 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seabrook Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874 Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03823 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Board of Selectmen Town of Amesbury Town Hall Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Robert Poole Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 99 High Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Mr. Tom Crimmins Polestar Applied Technology One First Street, Suite 4 Los Altos, CA 94019 John Giarrusso Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Ms. Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General Mr. Orvil Fitch, Deputy Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Christopher M. Pope, Director Homeland Security & Emergency Mgmt.
New Hampshire Department of Safety Bureau of Emergency Management 33 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 Mr. M. S. Ross, Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President - Nuclear Technical Services Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 James M. Peschel Regulatory Programs Manager FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC PO Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Ms. Marjan Mashhadi Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 cc:
Mr. Mark E. Warner Vice President, Nuclear Operations, North Region (Seabrook & Duane Arnold Plants)
Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Joseph Roy Director of Operations Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company Moody Street Ludlow, MA 01056 Mr. Don E. Grissette Vice President, Nuclear Training and Performance Improvement Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 3340 Mr. Michael W. Kiley Plant General Manager FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874
FPL ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, ET AL.*
DOCKET NO. 50-443 SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 118 License No. NPF-86
- 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment filed by FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, et al. (the licensee), dated March 7, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated March 26, 2008, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commissions regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPLE Seabrook) is authorized to act as agent for the: Hudson Light & Power Department, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, and Taunton Municipal Light Plant and has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.
- 2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operaitng License No. NPF-86 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2)
Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 118, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
- 3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ra/
Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the License and Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: April 29, 2008
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO._118 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 DOCKET NO. 50-443 Replace the following page of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 with the attached revised page as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the area of change.
Remove Insert 3
3 Replace the following page of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised page as indicated. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the area of change.
Remove Insert 3/4 3-12 3/4 3-12
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 118 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 FPL ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 7, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML080830246) as supplemented by letter dated March 26, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080910064), FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPLE or the licensee) submitted License Amendment Request (LAR) No. 08-01, requesting changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook). The NRC staffs original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2008 (73 FR 14850). A correction to the notice was published on March 27, 2008, (73 FR 16327) and a duplicate, bi-weekly notice was published on April 8, 2008 (73 FR 19111). The licensees March 26, 2008, supplement provided clarifying information and did not change the staffs original no significant hazards consideration determination published March 19, 2008.
The amendment would revise the Seabrook TSs to extend the time allowed to collect initial plateau curves for the intermediate and power range neutron detectors to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after reaching 100 percent of rated thermal power.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.36(d)(3), Surveillance Requirements, states:
Surveillance Requirements [SRs] are requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditions for operation will be met.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Background
Currently, Seabrook TS Table 4.3-1, Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, requires performance of a channel calibration on the Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint and Intermediate Range Neutron Flux (Functional Units 2.a and 5, respectively) at least once per 18 months. These SRs are modified by note 5, which states:
(5)
Initial plateau curves shall be measured for each detector. Subsequent plateau curves shall be obtained, evaluated and compared to the initial curves. For the Intermediate Range and Power Range Neutron Flux channels the provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable for entry into MODE 2 or 1.
FPLE has proposed to modify the note as follows:
(5)
Initial plateau curves shall be measured for each detector. Subsequent plateau curves shall be obtained, evaluated and compared to the initial curves. The plateau curves for the Intermediate Range and Power Range detectors are required to be measured or obtained within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after attaining 100% of RATED THERMAL POWER. For the Intermediate Range and Power Range Neutron Flux channels the provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable for entry into MODE 2 or 1.
In its request, FPLE stated that the revision is necessary to support replacement of the intermediate and power range detectors, as the current SR does not provide sufficient time to measure or obtain plateau curves. Measurement of the plateau curves, in accordance with the manufacturers specifications, should be done at 100 percent of rated thermal power. The licensee stated that a normal plant startup (not following a refueling outage) takes approximately 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> to reach 100 percent of rated thermal power following entry into MODE 2. Additionally, the licensee stated that the startup schedule for the spring 2008 refueling outage (when the next requirement to take initial plateau curves would be in effect) attains 100 percent of rated thermal power approximately 116 hours0.00134 days <br />0.0322 hours <br />1.917989e-4 weeks <br />4.4138e-5 months <br /> following entry into MODE 2.
TS 4.0.4, requires that all surveillances be met prior to entry into a mode where they would be applicable. Note 5, applicable to the SR for the two functional units, allows an exception to TS 4.0.4, recognizing that entry into the mode is necessary to obtain plant conditions appropriate to perform the SR. The global time allowed for an exception to TS 4.0.4 is 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> which, in this specific case, does not provide adequate time to achieve appropriate conditions and perform the test. FPLE has proposed to extend this exception by allowing 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after reaching appropriate conditions to perform this test, instead of the current time-frame start-point of entry into the mode of applicability.
3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Change The purpose of the detector plateau curves is to provide initial baseline data for long term trending of detector health and aging characteristics and a measure of detector fill gas purity.
These curves are taken initially upon installation of a new detector and subsequently thereafter at intervals not greater than 18 months (i.e., once per operating cycle). Comparison of the subsequent curves to the initial allows FPLE to appropriately monitor and maintain the instrumentation over the course of the instrument life.
FPLE stated that the replacement detectors will be functionally tested prior to installation and that, during startup, multiple SRs are performed to verify instrument operability. Specifically, FPLE stated that the following surveillances will be conducted during startup:
Channel Calibration; Channel Check at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; and Daily comparison of reactor power determined by calorimetric and the power range instruments These surveillances provide adequate assurance that the detectors are operable. Therefore, lack of the initial plateau curve during the first startup with the new instrument would not impede the ability of the instrument to provide proper input to the reactor protection system or any other systems drawing input from the detectors.
Given that the lack of initial plateau curves during the relatively brief exposure time between initial entry into MODE 2 and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after reaching 100 percent of rated thermal power would not impede the ability of the detector to perform its functions and will continue to allow the licensee to properly monitor instrument health, the proposed modification to note 5 will continue to provide adequate assurance that the instruments are operable and their associated Limiting Conditions for Operation met. The NRC staff finds that the proposed change will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(d)(3) and is, therefore, acceptable.
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
The Commission may issue the license amendments before the expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. This amendment is being issued prior to the expiration of the 60-day period.
Therefore, a final finding of no significant hazards consideration follows.
The Commission has made a final determination that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission=s regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below.
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] are unaffected by this proposed change. The duration for obtaining neutron detector plateau curves is not an initiator of any accident previously analyzed. There is no change to any equipment response or accident scenario, and this change results in no additional challenges to fission product barrier integrity. The proposed change does not alter the design, configuration, operation, or function of any plant system, structure, or component.
The requested amendment modifies the frequency of the channel calibrations for the intermediate and power range detectors by permitting 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to perform the SR
[surveillance requirement] (measure and obtain neutron detector plateau curves) after achieving steady-state operation at rated thermal power. This change has no impact on the consequences or probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not impact the ability of the nuclear instrumentation, reactor protection system, or any other system, structure, or component to perform its intended function to mitigate the consequences of an accident within acceptable limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological assumptions used in analyzing the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change neither increases the type or amount of radioactivity released offsite nor increases public or occupational radiation exposures. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system. The proposed change neither installs nor removes any plant equipment, and it does not alter the design, physical configuration, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component. No physical changes are being made to the plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no affect on the operability or performance of the safety-related systems and components. The proposed change does not alter the design, configuration, operation, or function of any plant system, structure, or component. The ability of any operable structure, system, or component to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by this change.
With this change, the TS will continue to require operable nuclear instrumentation.
The proposed change does not create an initiating event, increase the likelihood of an initiating event, affect the ability to mitigate an event, affect containment performance, or affect operator actions in response to an event. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the TS is not reduced and the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee=s analysis and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92 are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State officials had no comments.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (73 FR 14850). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) the amendment does not (a) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (b) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (c) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; and (4) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
G. E. Miller Date: April 29, 2008