ML17216A351
| ML17216A351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17216A350 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511260639 | |
| Download: ML17216A351 (2) | |
Text
a
~s ~zoo (4
~
+4 0
I O
IIll Cy
+o
~O
+a*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-16 FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-389 Introduction By letter dated August 31, 1984, Florida Power 5 Light Company (FP8L, the licensee) proposed certain changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2.
FP8L proposed to change sections 3.6.1.7 and 4.6.1.7.2 of the TS to modify the limiting condition f'r operation of the 8-inch purge system and the surveillance requirements for the 8-inch purge valves.
The current TS allows the 8-inch containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves to be open for less than or equal to 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> per calendar year.
However, the licensee proposed to eliminate the 1000 hour0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> limit because activity levels experienced in the containment have made it necessary to limit.'the access time of worker to a maximum of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> per 7 day period.
Evaluation Based on a review of the FP8L proposal, the staff concluded that simply deleting the 1000 hour0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> limit was not acceptable.
Unrestricted use of the system is not permissable; the 8-inch containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves should only be opened for safety-related purposes.
After several discussions with the licensee, FP8L amended their proposal by letter dated April 12,-1985.
The proposed TS were revised as shown in the enclosure to that letter to limit use of the 8-inch containment purge system for required safety-related
- purposes, such as, (I) maintaining containment pressure within the TS limit and (2) reducing containment atmosphere activity and/or improving air quality to an acceptable level for containment entry to conduct safety-related tasks.
The stated action to be taken if the 8-inch purge valves are open for reasons other than as specified above were also included in the TS change.
Furthermore, the licensee is required to conduct documentation reviews once per 18 months to ascertain that operation of the 8-inch containment purge system is in accordance with the TS.
85ii2bOb39 85iii4 PDR ADOCK.05000389 P
The licensee has demonstrated in their submittal that the St. Lucie 2 containment purge system design meets the requirements of Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4, "Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operations,"
Revision 2.
The licensee also analyzed the radiological consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident occurring during purging, assuming a
5 second isolation valve closure time; the results remain within 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines.
The purge system will not be used for temperature and humidity control within the containment since a separate internal ventilation system is provided for that purpose.
The staff therefore, concludes that it is acceptable to revise the TS in a way that emphasizes using the 8-inch containment purge system for safety-related pur poses and requires recordkeeping for periodic accountability, rather than merely prescribing an annual time limit for system use.
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change in surveillance requirement.
The 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 published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there-is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
November 14, 1985 Principal Contributors:
C. Li D. Sells