ML17213A795
| ML17213A795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17213A794 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212090035 | |
| Download: ML17213A795 (4) | |
Text
CPS RECIj o
PlA0
+~ '0
<<>> *<<+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-67 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST.
LUCIE UNIT I DOCKET NO. 50-335 Introduction By application dated November 16,
- 1978, superseded on January 8,
1981 and supplemented May 26, 1982, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
BPR-67 for St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
1 (St. Lucie-I).
The amendment request consists of changes to Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.5 to reflect the new ultimate heat sink (UHS) flow barrier configuation and to delete the maximum water temperature limits.
Discussion and Evaluation The ultimate heat sink consists of two separate water sources:
I) the Atlantic Ocean, and 2) Big Mud Creek and the Indian River which are con-nected to the Atlantic Ocean via the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets.
To separate these two sources of'ater for normal operation, a barrier dam was designed and constructed.
The design of the barrier dam provides for flow control devices to be actuated only in an emergency to supply water from Big Mud Creek.
TS Surveillance Requirement 4.7.5.1.2 presently requires the availability of on-site equipment for removing the flow barrier between the intake structure and Big Mud Creek be verified at least once per seven days.
This TS was based upon the configuration of the interim barrier dam.
On July 31,
- 1977, as required by paragraph F.l of the license, installation of gates/valves to control water flow through the ultimate heat sink barrier dam was completed.
The present ultimate heat sink barrier dam configuration is described in the updated FSAR Section 9.2.7.2. 1.
The licensee has concluded that on-site equipment is required only in the event that the isolation (flow control) valves are inoperable and stop logs must be installed on an interim basis to block flow.
We agree with the licensee's conclusion that the on-site equipment is not requi red unless the isolation valves are inoperable.
- Further, we find acceptable their proposed changes to TS 3/4.7.5 which reflects the in-stallation of two 54 inch diameter butterfly valves to control water flow through the barrier dam.
82i2090035 82i203 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
1 4
In response to the licensee's original proposed
- change, we determined that deletion of the limitation on maximum water temperature was not justified.
Our response emphasized that more certainty might be attached to the licen-see's assertion of the low likelihood of intake canal temperature exceeding 95'F (34.9'C) if results from ongoing temperature monitoring in the canal is presented.
We suggested that such data might also show the relative effect of additional heating of intake canal water due to recirculation, and that the potential for recirculation might have been one of the primary reasons for imposing the maximum intake water temperature limit of 95'F (34.9'C).
We further expressed concern about the potential for high ambient temperatures in Big Mud Creek (the alternate source of emergency cooling water), although this was not directly addressed in the subject TS.
Since it was not demonstrated to be otherwise, we assumed that ambient temperatures of 95'F or greater in Big Mud Creek may occur during the life of the plant, and that an ambient temperature greater than the design inlet temperature of 95'F (34.9'C) would not provide adequate cooling to )1ace the plant in a safe shutdown mode.
FPL's response, dated May 26,
- 1982, documenting their position regarding UHS ambient temperatures is summarized below.
a.
The licensee reviewed their records of ambient water temperature from March 1976 to May 1981 and found no occasion where the average daily intake canal temperature exceeded 95'F (34.9'C).
Sample data supportive of this finding was submitted in Attachment A to the response.
b.
Hater temperature was measured at 4 points in Big Mud Creek monthly from April 1977 to March 1979.
During the year, temperatures ranged from 14.6'C (50.3'F) to 32.0'C (89.6'F) at the surface and from 14.3'C (57.7'F) to 23.2'C (73.8'F) at the bottom.
Bottom temperatures tended to remain low and were especially stable from May through December.
These findings were corroborated by respective graphical summaries in Attachment B to their reponse.
c.
The potential for recirculation of warm water from the discharge canal entering the intake canal was treated in detail in Amendment 5
to St. Lucie-2 Environmental Report.
Based upon both mat'hematical modes and the physical model studies, it was concluded that with both Units 1 and 2 in operation, the temperature rise attributable to recirculation would be small compared to natural ambient tem-perature variations, and should pose no significant problems for:-
plant operation.
Additionally, no recirculation effects have been detected during the six years of Unit 1 operation.
Unit 2 discharge piping extends farther away from the shore than that of Unit 1, and is provided with a more efficient diffuser design (Unit 2 FES-OL, Section 4.2.4).
There should be no major recir-culation attending Unit 2 operation.
d.
Surface water temperatures measured in the vicinity of the discharge canal outfall to the Atlantic Ocean from July 1971 to July 1974, and February 1976 to December 1978, disclosed that the maximum temperature did not exceed 86'F (30'C)
(Attachment C to licensee's response).
FPL concluded that the information provided in their response for addi-tional information represents a body of data sufficient to demonstrate that exceeding 95'F (34.9'C) in either Big Mud Creek or the intake canal is not a credible event.
Further, the analytical work undertaken for St. Lucie-2, ER-OL demonstrates that recirculation poses no significant impact attending operation of both Units 1 and 2.
Based upon our review of the licensee's response and other pertinent docu-ments including the FES-CP, ER-OL for St. Lucie Unit No.
2 and St. Lucie Unit No.
1 Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports for 1980 and 1981, we agree with their proposed changes regarding deletion of the limitations on maximum water temperature in TS 3/4.7.5 and the applicable surveillance'eqi rements in 4. 7. 5. 1. 1.
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
$8'1.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact 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) ther e is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public wi 11 not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities wi 11 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.
Date:
December 3, 1982 Principal Contributors:
A. Cunningham Wagner