ML17209A599
| ML17209A599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1981 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17209A600 | List: |
| References | |
| L-81-20, NUDOCS 8102030279 | |
| Download: ML17209A599 (4) | |
Text
REGULATOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION S STEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR; 8102030279 DOC ~ DATE: 81/01/19 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL:50"335-St~ Lucio Plant~
Unit 1~ Florida Power 8 Light Coo'AUTH
~ NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGiR ~ E. 'lor ida Power
'. 8 Light Co ~
RECIP ~ NAME.
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION EI SENHUT g D ~ G ~
Assistant Director for Licensing
SUBJECT:
Requests amend to App A of License DPR 67 'roposal responds to Condition 9 of Encl 1 to OL L suppls 790209 submittal'afety evaluation encl.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
A001S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR "ENCL'"
SIZE:
TITLE: General Distr ibution for. af tei Issuance'f Operating License.
NOTES; DOCKET ¹ 05000335 RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME; LTTR ENCL ACTION; CLARKe R ~
04 13 13 REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME'OPIES LTTR'NCL INTERNAL: D/DIRpHUM FAC08 ILE 06 11 REG F
01 1
1 2
2 1
0 1
1 DIRg DIV OF LIC NRC PDR 02 OR ASSESS BR 10 1
1.
1 1
1 0
EXTERNAL; ACRS NSIC 09 05 16 16 1
LPDR 03 1
1-I FEB 04 1981 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED ~
LTTR 39 ENCL 37 II
0 II jl t
I '1 A
r(
e Li ni
$f E
f cr P
1 4
1%
Ik
P.O. BOX 529100, MIAMI,FL 33152 6
+
+Puui,ups FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHTCOMPANY January 19, 1981 L-81-20 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Nr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C, 20555
Dear Hr. Stello:
Re:
St. Lucie Unit 1
Docket No. 50-335 Proposed Amendment to Facilit 0 eratin License DPR-67 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30, Florida Power 5 Light Company submits herewith three (3) signed originals and forty (40) conformed copies of a request to amend Appendix A o Facility Operating License DPR-67.
This proposal is being made in response to Condition g of Enclosure 1
to the operating license, and supplements an earlier submittal dated February 9, 1979 (L-79-37).
Pa e 6-16b New Specification 4.6.2.2.d is added to require flow path verification testing of the NaOH containment spray additive system on a once per 5 year basis.
The proposed amendment has been reviewed by the St. Lucie Facility Review Group and the Florida Power 8 Light Company Nuclear Review Soard.
They have concluded that, it does not involve an unreviewed safety question, Very trul
- yours, obert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems 5 Technology REU/MAS/TCG/ah Attachment cc:
James P. O'Reilly, Region II Harold F. Reis, Esquire Poc I 5
~j~
P3CPGSQu2F'0 PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
SAFETY EVALUATION Re:
St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 S ra Additive Flow Path Verification NaOH Introduction This evaluation supports the proposed addition of Technical Specification surveillance requirement 4.6.2.2.d.
The additional surveillance is being proposed in response to Condition g of Enclosure 1 to Operating License DPR-67.
Condition g was established by Amendment 26 dated May 23, 1978.
II.
Discussion New specification 4.6.2.2.d is added to require flow path verification testing of the NaOH Containment Spray Additive System on a once per five year basis.
The flow path verification would consist of a two step process with each step involving flow rate measurement.
- First, NaOH would be allowed to flow from the NaOH Spray Additive Tank to a test connection immediately downstream of the tank outlet valve wh'ere flow rate would be measured.
After this first flow rate measurement, the initial section of test line would be flushed and demineralized water injected (at the test connection) into the Containment Spray System where a second flow rate measurement would be made.
Any modifications needed to support the proposed flow rate testing to flow path ver'ification will be made before the end of the first surveillance interval.
Flow rate testing represents additional surveillance and provides additional assurance that the spray additive system will maintain operability.
III.
Conclusions The new specification provides additional surveillance.
As such, it provides added reliability for the spray additive system and thus tends to increase margins of safety.
Based on the considerations discussed
- above, (1) 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, (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.