ML17213A526
| ML17213A526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17213A525 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210040046 | |
| Download: ML17213A526 (4) | |
Text
~pg AEQUI
~ OQc+
~o
~%1,0
~O
>>a*+~
t UNITED STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
53 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-67 FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ST.
LUCIE 'PLANT UNIT N0.1 DOCKET NO. 50-335 Introduction By application dated June 28, 1982, Florida Power 8 Light Company (FPL or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License No.
DPR-67 for the St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No.
1 (St. Lucie-1).
The amendment requested the deletion of periodically testing certain under-ground Class 1E underground cables at St. Lucie-1 to verify their environmental integrity.
Back round The existing technical specifications for St. Lucie-1 require that at least once every 18 months a sample of the underground cables between (1) the switch-gear and the diesel generators, (2) the switchgear and the component cooling water pumps, and (3) between the switchgear and the intake cooling water pumps be electrically tested for insulation degradation.
If insulation degradation is found, then additional measures must be taken.
The concern which generated this requirement was that, because the underground Class lE system at St.
Lucie is not watertight, the cable insulation might deteriorate over a period of time due to the alternately wet and dry environment.
Discussion'and Evaluation The licensee has been conducting the insulation resistance (megger) and high voltage dc tests required by the technical specifications at St.
Lucie since 1978; and he indicates that the cables have tested and worked perfectly.
A review of the test data by the licensee however indicated that the leakage of the 5
kV cables over the four year period ranged from 0.0 to 17 microamperes.
Subsequently, a
circuit that had the 17 microamperes reading was retested
- and, after careful cleaning of the porcelains, yielded a
new net leakage of 0. 15 microamperes after 10 minutes.
This demonstrates that the leakage was due to dirty connections and not due to deterioration of the electrical insulation.
The licensee has also reviewed the history of the butyl rubber insulated cables installed in the duct and manhole system of Miami beach beginning in the 1940s.
The licensee indicates that these cables are subject to environmental conditions more severe that those at St. Lucie.
The results of his review indicate there has never been. an electrical deterior'ation failure of any kind on these cables or the splices associated with them.
. ~BBBZOMvzD OIIzgjppI, 82i0040046 82Omi
~GI'i:lfiGQ B)r PDR ADOGK 05000335 P'DR
Additionally, the licensee has provided results from accelerated life tests which compare butyl rubber ipsulated wire to crosslinked polyethylene insulated wire which is the type of insulation used in the Class 1E underground system at St. Lucie.
The results of the tests indicate that the crosslinked polyethylene insulation is superior to the butyl rubber insulation in a wet environment.
These results, therefore, when combined with the good operating history of the butyl rubber cables installed in the Miami Beach area, provide good assurance that the crosslinked polyethylene insulated cable installed in the underground system at St. Lucie will function satisfactorily in that environment.
The proposed license amendment to the St.
Lucie Technical Specifications which deletes the requirement to periodically test the electrical insulation of the Class lE underground cable at St.
Lucie is therefore acceptable.
It is noted that the proposed amendment does not delete the requirement to mechanically check the underground cable duct integrity following movement of a heavy load over it.
This requirement correctly should be retained under this amendment.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the-amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental'mpact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction
. in a margin of safety, the amendment 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 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
o<<e:
September 21, 1982 Princi pal Contributors:
J. Lazevnick Eben Conner D. Wagner
~R RECD
~4 PO ee e
Cl C
O
'+n qo
~>>*++
Docket No. 50-335 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 DISTRIBUTION Docket File ORB83 Rdg.
PHKreutzer Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission
SUBJECT:
FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT CONPANY, St.
Lucre Plant Unit No.
1 Two signed originals of the Federal Register Notice identified below are enclosed foryour transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register forpublication. Additional conformed copies (].2 ) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
0 Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s),
0 Notice of Receipt of Partial Application forConstruction Permit(s) and Facility License(s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
0 Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report.
0 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
0 Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s);
Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
0 Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
0 Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
0 Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
0 Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
0 Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
Other:
Referenced documents have been provided PDR.
Enclosure:
As Stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licens 1 ng OFFICE~
SURNAME~
DATE~
NRC FORM 10' 79 DL~ RBP.;...
PPl r.,e.u..zer...:d.........,..........;,
9/ 3./32.
I V
1
~ ~
I