ML17215A261

Proposed Tech Specs Re Initial Inservice Insp of Two Mechanical Snubbers on Containment Spray Sys

ML17215A261
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/24/1984
From:	Williams J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17215A260	List: ML17215A259 ML17215A261
References
NUDOCS 8403010302
Download: ML17215A261 (6)

Text

PLANT SYSTEMS 3/4.7.9 SNUBBERS LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.7.9 All snubbers listed in Tables 3.7-3a and 3.7-3b shall be OPERABLE.

APPLICABILITY:

MODES 1, 2, 3,

and 4.

MODES 5 and 6 for snubbers located on systems requi red OPERABLE in those MODES.

ACTION:

With one or more snubbers inoperable, within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> replace or restore the inoperable snubber(s) to OPERABLE status and perform an engineering evaluation per Specification 4.7.9g.

on the supported component or declare the supported system inoperable and follow the appropriate ACTION statement for that system.

SURVEILLANCE RE UIREMENTS 4.7.9 Each snubber shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of the following augmented inservice inspection progran.

As used in this specification, type of snubber shall mean snubbers of the same design and manufacturer, irrespective of cap aci ty.

b.

Visual Ins ections The first inservice visual inspection of each type of snubber shall be performed after 4 months but within 10 months of commencing POWER OPERATION and shall include all snubbers listed in Tables 3.7-3a and 3.7-3b.** If less than two snubbers of any type are found inoperable during the first inservice visual inspection, the second inservice visual inspection shall be performed 12 months

+ 25$ from the date of the first inspection.

Otherwise, subsequent visual inspections shall be performed in accordance with the following schedule:

No. Inoperable Snubbers of Each T

e er Ins ection Period 3,4 5,6,7 8 or more Subs equent Vi su al Ins ection Period*g 18 months

+ 25$

12 months

+

25K, 6 months

+ 2Q, 124 d@s

+ 25),

62 days

+ 25$

31 days

+ 25$

St. Lucie - Unit 2

'403010302 840224 PDR ADDCK 05000389 P

3/4 7-21

W

~

44

~

W

.i b

e I

W 4

g I

41 4

l II V

4 4

V

~

4 W

V

(

4

Pl ant Systems 3/4.7.9 Snubbers (continued)

(M

• The inspection interval for each type of snubber shall not be lengthened more than one step at a time unless a generic problem has been identified and corrected; in that event the inspection interval may be lengthened one step the first time and two steps ther eafter if no inoperable snubbers of that type are found.

The provisions of Specification 4.0.2 are not applicable.

• • The visual inspection of snubber numbers 129 and 130 (PSA-1's) on, containment spray m@

be deferred until the first refueling.

St. Lucie - Unit 2 3/4 7-2la

1 S

P' a

II J

1 4

'b

~ ~

~

r

~

4

~,

~

NTACHNENT A SAFETY EVALUATION SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS EVALUATION The proposed change delays the initial in-service inspection on two safety-related snubbers until the first refueling outage.

All other snubbers have been inspected according to the existing requirements.

The basis for the visual inspection frequency is "based upon maintaining a constant level of snubber protection to systems."

The two remaining snubbers

(¹129 and ¹130) are located high in the shield building annulus and could not be reached during the recent outage when the other snubbers wer e inspected without breaking shield building integrity or major scaffolding.

These are PSA-1 snubbers on the containment spray system.

Snubber ¹130 was examined by means of a searchlight and binoculars, and no indication of problems were found.

Snubber

¹129 could not be examined in this manner due to line of sight obstructions.

This proposed amendment compares closely to example (vi) as listed in the "Examples. of Amendments that are not considered likely to involve Significant Hazards Considerations",

48 FR 14870 (4/16/83) as shown below:

vi)

The proposed change may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of previ ously-analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin due to the rel axed inspection interval on some snubbers.

Further, FPL has visually inspected all other snubbers against the criteri a of T.S. surveillance 4.7.9(d) and found no discrepancies.

The two snubbers in question are on lines in standby service so are not subject to vibration or thermal expansion.

Additionally they are inside the shield building so they are not subject to either weather or plant related environmental effects.

This provides additional confidence that the two remaining inaccessible snubbers will function satisfactorily in the interim period.

Based on the preceding safety evaluation and comparison to the Examples of Amendments are not likely to involve significant hazards consideration, these

, proposed changes are not a significant safety hazard in that they do not:

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.

~ i ~

Oh

~"

~

~

I I E

ih 0

jj'bfl hf I'

fI

~

I if l,h I

I Ii'l I

hi h

h, h

jj h

h

) jh"'

h h

h lh II