L-86-281, Application for Amend to License NPF-16,incorporating Revised Pressure/Temp Limits & Results of Low Temp Overpressure Protection Analysis Into Tech Specs.Safety Evaluation & NSHC Encl.Fee Paid

Application for Amend to License NPF-16,incorporating Revised Pressure/Temp Limits & Results of Low Temp Overpressure Protection Analysis Into Tech Specs.Safety Evaluation & NSHC Encl.Fee Paid

ML17216A623
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/15/1986
From:	Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17216A624	List: L-86-281, Application for Amend to License NPF-16,incorporating Revised Pressure/Temp Limits & Results of Low Temp Overpressure Protection Analysis Into Tech Specs.Safety Evaluation & NSHC Encl.Fee Paid ML17216A623 ML17216A625
References
L-86-281, NUDOCS 8607220403
Download: ML17216A623 (18)

Text

REQUL~

JRY INFORMATION DISTR IBUTI SYSTEN

< R IDS >

'I )ACCESSION NBR: 8607220403 DOC. DATE: 86/07/15 NOTARIZED: YES FACIL: 50-389 St.

Lucie Planti Unit 2> Florida Power 5 Light Co.

AUTH. NAKE AUTHOR AFFILIATION WOODY'. O.

Flor ida P over Zc Light Co.

RECIP. NANE RECIPiENT AFFILIATION THADANI,A. C.

PWR Prospect Directorate 8

DOCKET I-0500038'P

SUBJECT:

Application for amend to License NPF-i&i incorporating revised pressure/temp limi+s 5 results of-lout temp overpressure protection analysis into Tech Specs. Safety evaluation 5

NSHC encl. Fee paid.

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

AOOID COPIEB RECEIVED: LTR I ENCL 0 SIZE: 9 +3 ~

TITLE:

OR Submittal:

General Distribution NOTES:

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NANE PNR-8 EB PNR-8 FOB PNR-8 PDB PD 01 PNR-8 PEICSB INTERNAL: ADl'1/LFNB NRR/ORAS RQN2 COPIES LTTR ENCL REC IPIENT ID CODE/NANE PWR-8 PEICSB PNR-8 PDB LA TOUR IQNYi E PWR-8 RSB COPIES LTTR ENCL EXTERNAL:

EQ~~<Q BRUSKEi S NRC PDR 02 LPDR NSIC 03 05 TOTAL NUBBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 22 ENCL

I lf, 1

" 'r"'4 <<0" ">9

>$ 1 ~,'g.',

e "R

~

> i<Xi r

$,1 r r I

r $

,l l

r I

ff C r

b.J 1

r g1gj')

r r

l, I

,';) a, "-"

\\/

rJ li l

I l

II j

r

( 1 r

EZ 0

.~ C,rk'I

/,

I, I

Il

~r t

'X BOX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408 zii) Ilr FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY

~

1 618M L-86-28 I Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Mr. Ashok C. Thadani, Director PWR Project Directorate II8 Division of PWR Licensing - B U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Thadani:

Re: St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Proposed License Amendment P/T Limits and LTOP Anal sis In accordance with I,O CFR 50.90, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submits herewith three signed originals and forty copies of a request to amend Facility Operating License NPF-I 6.

The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate revised Pressure/Temperature (P/T) limits and the results of a recent Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) analysis into the Technical Specifications for St. Lucie Unit 2. P/T limit calculations and LTOP anlayses were performed for 5, IO, IS, 20, 25, 30, and 32 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY).

Heatup

curves, cooldown

curves, and alignment temperatures have been provided for each time interval. Your approval of the proposed amendment is requested prior to the plant reaching 2.6 EFPY (September I I, l986), as the existing P/T curves expire at that time.

We are prepared to meet with your staff a's necessary to expedite the review process.

Attachment I is a Safety Evaluation of the proposed amendment. is a determination of the "No Significant Hazards Consideration."

Revised Technical Specification pages are provided in Attachment 3.

The proposed amendment has been reviewed by the St. Lucie Facility Review Group and the Florida Power &Light Company Nuclear Review Board.

In accordance with IO CFR 50.9I(b)(l), a copy of the proposed amendment is being forwarded to the state designee for the State of Florida.

8b07220403 8b0715 tf PDR ADOCK 05000389 P

PDRJ I~+~ol< g/gd ao MAS3/02 I/ I PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

a H

C P

j 1

g ~

h

Mr. Ashok C. Thandani, Director L-86-28 I Page two In accordance with IO CFR l70.2I, FPL Check No. I802 is attached as remittance of the license amendment application fee.

Very truly yours, C. 0. Woody Group Vic esident Nuclear Energy CO W/MAS/gp Attachments cc:

Mr. Alan Schubert, Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services Dr. J. Nelson Grace, USNRC, Region II Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman Bc Holtzinger MAS3/02 I /2

I I

I It ih, A

I"

~,

II

~

ll c

ti

~

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE

~d.dddd d

d d

fd d d,d d

That he is a Grou Vice President of Florida Power & Light Company, the Licensee herein; That he has executed the foregoing document; that the statements made in this document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and

belief, and that he is authorized to execute the document on behalf of said

- Licensee.

C. O. Woody Subscribed and sworn to before me this

, l9gd.

id' HOTARV PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIOA RV COHHISSIOH EXP SEPT 18,1989 BOHDEO THRU GEHERAL IHS.

URDAR dMy Commission expires:

~iS"day, of

'+ ~<<"NOTARYvPUBLlC,in and for the County

"<ri~,'of Dade, State of Florida Id'<III dd dd I'Ii'

II 4'4

'I

ATTACHMENT I

St. Lucie Unit 2 P/T Limits and LTOP Analysis Safet Evaluation l.

INTRODUCTION New pressure/temperature (P/T) limit curves have been generated in intervals of five Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). There is a separate set of two curves, one for heatup/criticality and one for cooldown/

inservice-testing, for each 5-year interval out to 32 EFPY (32 EFPY corresponds to 40 calendar

years, which is the term of the Operating License).

A new Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) analysis has also been performed to maximize heatup and cooldown rates (while leaving sufficient margin) for each new set of P/T limit curves.

II.

METHODOLOGY I.

P/T Limits New pressure/temperature (P/T) limits have been calculated for 5 to 32 EFPY in 5 EFPY increments.

The P/T limits are intended to provide assurance that the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (RCPB) behaves in a non-brittle manner and the probability of rapidly propagating fracture is minimized.

These limits were developed using a conservative Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) methodology in accordance with the fracture toughness requirements of IO CFR Part 50 Appendix G as supplemented by the ASME Code Section III Appendix G, "Protection Against Nonductile Failure".

Seven critical locations of the reactor vessel were considered.

At each location being

analyzed, a

maximum postulated flaw was assumed.

At the same location, the mode I stress intensity factor Kl was calculated for the specified loadings (pressure and thermal stresses) and the sum of the K~ values is compared to a reference stress intensity value KIR which is the highest critical value of Kl based upon the static, dynamic, and crack arrest fracture toughness values that can be ensured for the material and temperature involved.

MAS3/026/2

II 1

A V

h 1

A A

For the reactor vessel beltline region, a postulated semi-elliptical surface flaw oriented in the axial direction with a depth of I/4 of the vessel thickness was analyzed.

For the reactor vessel flange

area, a postulated defect with a depth of.75" was analyzed as permitted by the ASME Code Section Ill Appendix G.

Factors of safety utilized on the membrane and thermal stress intensities were 2.0 and I.O for normal operation and l.5 on membrane stresses for hydrostatic tests.

I The P/T limits were based on fast neutron fluence predictions for the ends of the respective operating periods.

Reactor vessel material surveillance capsule P/I was used to establish baseline data.

The shifts in the reference transition temperature of the controlling metal at the reactor vessel wall I/4 t (for I.D.) and 3/4 t (for O.D.) locations were calculated using Regulatory Guide I.99, Revision 02 (Draft) shift predictions and C-Es flux attenuation factors.

The P/T limits have been adjusted to indicated pressurizer pressure and indcated RCS temperature by correcting for instrument loop and hydrodynamic errors using actual startup test data.

The pressure correction factors for core delta-P and RCS piping losses are based on actual flow velocities for specific RCP operating combinations.

An upward correction of l5 psi has been applied to the RCP curves to conservatively account for the current I8-month (as opposed to 6-month) calibration interval.

~I.TOA A The most limiting (worst case)

RCS pressure transients were identified and analyzed with either PORVs or SDCS relief valves mitigating.

Consistent with the single failure criterion, only one PORV or SDCS relief valve was assumed to be available to mitigate the transients.

The energy addition (RCP start) transient analysis was performed for a secondary-to-primary temperature differential of 40 F and was based on the existing SDCS relief valve setpoint and a number of PORV setpoints.

Water-solid conditions in the pressurizer were assumed in the RCP start analysis.

The mass addition transient analysis was limited to two cases:

(I) two charging pumps and (2) one HPSI and three charging pumps.

Both transients were analyzed under water-solid conditions.

Additionally, the latter was analyzed assuming a steam bubble in the pressurizer.

MAS3/026/3

4 ff 4

4

)

4 I

III.

CONCLUSION The revised P/T limit curves are shown in Attachment 3 (Proposed Technical Specification Changes).

Revised heatup/cooldown rates and operational limitations based on the LTOP analysis are shown on Tables I through 7.

The LTOP analysis is based on maintaining the shutdown cooling system (SDCS) relief valves at the current setpoint of 350 psia.

Both power operated relief valves are assumed to have a setpoint of 470 psia.

MA53/026/4

I p

k F,

I U

1 I f g A

1 d

I

ATTACHMENT 2 St. Lucie Unit 2 P/T Limits and LTOP Analysis No Si nificant Hazards Consideration The standards used to arrive at a determination that a request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration are included in the Commission's regulation, I 0 CFR 50.92, which states that no significant hazards considerations are involved if the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (I) 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.

Each standard is discussed as follows:

(I)

Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The pressure/temperature (P/T) limit curves in the Technical Specifications are conservatively generated in accordance with the frature toughness requirements of IO CFR 50 Appendix G as supplemented by the ASME Code Section III, Appendix G.

The RTNg~ values for the revised curves are based on Regulatory Guide l.99, Revision 02 (Draft) shift predictions and Combustion Engineering flux attenuation factors.

The analysis of reactor vessel material irradiation surveillance specimens are used to verify the validity of the fluence predictions and the P/T limit curves.

Use of the revised curves in conjunction with the surveillance specimen program ensures

.that the reactor coolant pressure boundary will behave in a non-brittle manner and that the possibility of rapidly propagating fracture is eliminated.

In conjunction with revising the P/T limit curves, a

low temperature overpressure protection analysis has been performed to establish the configuration and PORV setpoints of the Unit 2 overpressure protection system.

To ensure compliance with the P/T limit curves, overpressure protection is provided to keep the RCS pressure below the P/T limits for any given temperature after the initiation of assumed pressure transients (energy-addition and mass-addition transients) while operating below the temperature at which the pressurizer safety valves provide overpressure protection during heatup and cooldown.

MAS3/026/5

il I

~

It 1

4>>>>

4 4

It it

~

1 )

'I Mll I

I II Ih I

~ L 1 1

tl'I 4

I

>> It 4',)I<< I f

Ir Pl

~

)

I 1 '

I 4

I I

I P

I

'I

)

~ I 4

4

~

1 ll

• 'IP P

gr),h

')')

IM '4 V<<)~" "r<<('tC)

MP '.)

foal Ld)

)4<<

$ f, tll)

(

4 I

4, PP]h, P) "h till f

)) ft

~

PL)

• <<t I'

4 I

)

<<I I '

)

<< I) lf 1 t<<)

tt

~ 4 I

4 4

~

4 1

1 1

1

,I Il 1

tt II I <<I' 1

P I

Ir, 1 lf 4

'1)hf '

II

'1 I',l f'I 1

I' P

4 I

4 1

ll II I

1

>>PM

'I l

The revised P/T curves and LTOP system do not represent a significant change in the configuration or operation of the plant.

The results of the LTOP analysis show that the limiting pressures for a given temperature are not exceeded for the assumed transients and that reactor vessel integrity is maintained.

Thus, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of events previously evaluated.

(2)

Use of the modified specification would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The evaluation performed by Combustion Engineering has resulted in revised P/T limits based on the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix G,

and in a

revised low temperature overpressure protection system based on standard energy-addition and mass-addition transients.

Use of the revised limits/setpoints will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

(3)

Use of the modified specification would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, because the fracture toughness requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix G are satisifed and conservative operating restrictions are applied for the purpose of low temperature overpressure protection.

ln conclusion, based on the analysis performed by Combustion Engineering, we have determined that the amendment request does not (I) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the probability of a new and different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety; and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

MA53/026/6

II P1 3, A

I I

4 II F

II II 1

1 h

I',

ll W

I' 4

II

(

A II fil

~

I ll

, ~

S II A

ll U