ML17221A491
| ML17221A491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17221A490 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711050278 | |
| Download: ML17221A491 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.
86 AND 25 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS.
DPR-67 AND NPF-16 FLORIDA POWER 8( LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
ST.
LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-335 AND 50-389
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By applications dated March 17, 1987 and March 31 1987, the Florida Power and-Light Company (FPSL); the licensee, requested various changes to the technical specifications (TS) for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The March 17;
-1987 application addressed TS changes for Unit No. 1, and the March 31, 1987 application addressed TS changes for Unit No. 2.
The staff's=evaluation of the proposed changes follows.
2.0 EVALUATIOI'I-OVERVIEW The proposed TS changes can be grouped into five broad categories.
Category 1
changes deal with.changing the unit of reactivity from "delta-k/k" to "pcm."
Category 2 changes delete requirements that are currently outdated.
Category 3
changes correct typographical errors.
Category 4 changes provide the currently correct titles and composition of the Company Nuclear Review Board.
Category 5
changes delete specific titles of NRC addressees.
The staff's evaluation of the changes by category is contained below.
2.1 Evaluation - Unit of Reactivit The unit of reactivity currently used in both TS is "delta-k/k."
The licensee proposed to change the unit to "pcm."
One percent delta k/k equals 1000 pcm's, and one delta k/k equals 100,000 pcm's.
The affected specifications are TS 3/4.1.1.1 (Boration Control - Shutdown Margin - Tave greater than 200'F),
TS 3/4.1.1.2 (Boration Control - Shutdown Margin - Tave less than or equal to 200'F),
TS 3/4. 1. 1.4 (Moderator Temperature Coefficient),
TS 3/4.1.2.2 (Flow Paths - Operating),
TS 3/4. 1.2.4 (Charging Pumps - Operating)
(Unit 2 only),
TS 3/4 1.2.6 (Boric Acid Makeup Pumps - Operating)
(Unit 2 only), and TS 3/4.1.2.8 (Borated Water Sources - Operating).
Similar changes are proposed in the associated bases sections.
Although the unit of reactivity is proposed to be changed, the actual reactivity required by the TS and the safety analyses will not change.
Thus, the proposed change is acceptable.
87ii050278 87i023 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
PDRj
rQ r
I I I,
~
I
~
'I
% ~
, (ll W
2.2 Evaluation - Re uirements That are Currentl Outdated The licensee proposed to delete two requirements from the Unit No.
1 TS which were in effect until October 1, 1981.
The first requirement was a special operability requirement for the incore detection system (TS 3/4.3.3.2).
This special requirement, which expired on October 1, 1981, was specified as 'a foot-note to the TS operability statement.
The original requirement contained in the body of the TS is currently utilized.
Therefore, deletion of the footnote is acceptable.
The second requirement was a special action statement requirement for the power-operated relief valve block valves (TS 3/4.4.12).
This special require-ment, which expired on October 1, 1981, was specified as a footnote to the TS action statement.
The original requirement contained in the body of the TS is currently utilized.
Therefore, deletion of the footnote fs acceptable.
TS 6.13 for each unit specifies requirements for the process control program (PCP).
TS 6.14 for each unit specifies requirements for the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM).
These specifications require the PCP and ODCM to be approved by the Commission prior to implementation.
The licensee proposed to delete these-requirements on the basis that the PC~ and ODCM were approved by the Commission before FPSL implementation.
The PCP was approved for both units on May 10,
-1983 by-letter ~rom G. Knighton to R. Uhrig.
The ODCM was approved for both units on iluly 28, 1982 by letter from G. Knighton to R. Uhrfg.
On this basis, it is acceptable to delete the PCP and ODCM implementation requirements.
The licensee proposes to delete a secondary water chemistry TS for Unit No.
1 which was never fully specified (TS 3/4.7.1.6).
The associated bases statement would also be deleted.
The partial specification was added to the TS when the unit was licensed
{1976), and was never fully specified or deleted.
The requirements for secondary water chemistry are currently contained in the administrative control section of the TS (TS 6.8.4.C).
The detailed program fs defined in TS 6.8.4.C and its purpose is to monitor secondary water chemistry, and to inhibit steam qenerator tube degradation.
Since an acceptable secondary water chemistry program is in effect, there is no need for the additional TS on this subiect; therefore, TS 3/4.7. 1.6 may be deleted.
A number of'pecifications were put in place at the time of licensing for Unit No.
2 that required plant modifications to be completed before initial criticality in 1983, before exceeding 5X rated thermal power in 1983, and before cycle 2 startup subsequent to 1983.
In regard to radiation monitoring instrumentation (Table 3.3-6 of TS 3/4.3.3), the containment area high range monitors, reactor auxiliary building exhaust system (plant vent high range monitor), and atmospheric steam dump valve discharge monitors were to be com-pletely installed and made operable prior to exceeding 5% rated thermal power.
The licensee proposed to delete these footnotes on the basis that tbe require-ments were met pr ior to exceeding 5$ rated thermal power.
The licensee advised the staff by letter dated July 6, 1983 that the containment high range radia-tion monitors were installed and operable prior to exceeding 5% ~ated thermal power.
NRC Inspection Reports 50-389/R3-25 dated April 6, 1983, and 50-389/83-59 dated September 27, 1983 confirmed that the other two monitors were installed and operable prior to exceeding 5X rated thermal power.
On the basis of the above-described documentation, the footnotes may be deleted.
A, "I
t
/
,r r
, ~
'I
~ ~
~, I f
k
'I II I
I t
-" ~
~
s~ ~
l
+g C
C, yl II r
1 I
W I'
I C
~ >
1
~
I I
I
,t ~
r Af
In addition, the reactor coolant system vents were to be installed and made operable prior to exceeding 5% rated thermal power.
This requirement was placed as a footnote to the RCS vent TS (TS 3/4.4.lO).
The licensee proposed that this footnote be deleted because the requirement was met.
The licensee advised the staff by letter dated June 6, 1983 that the reactor coolant system vents were installed and operable prior to exceeding 5X rated thermal po'wer.
On this basis, the deletion of the footnote is acceptable.
Finally, the sound-powered telephone system was to be installed and made operable prior to exceeding 5X rated thermal power.
This requirement was placed as a footnote to the refueling operations-communications TS (TS 3/4.9.5).
The licensee proposed to delete this footnote because the requirement was met.
This requirement was satisfied as documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-389/83-47, dated July 28, 1983.
Therefore, the deletion of the footnote is acceptable.
The licensee proposed to delete a footnote relating to the installation and operability of the auxiliary feedwater system automatic initiation system.
This requirement called for the system to be operable prior to initial criticality and is contained in TS 3/4.7.1.2, auxiliary feedwater system.
This requirement was satisfied as documented in NRC Inspection Repor t 50-389/83-47, dated July 28, 1983.
Therefore, the deletion of this footnote is acceptable.
The licensee also proposed to delete a footnote dealing with fire-rated assem-.
- blies (TS 3/4;7.12).
This footnote states that the assemblies would be inst$ 1-led and made operable prior to exceeding 5$ rated thermal power, with the excep-tion of the permanent flame impingement shields in containment, which would be
~
installed and made operable prior to startup following the first refueling outage.
These requirements were discussed in the staff's Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No.
3 issued in April 1983 (see Sections 9.5.1.11(a) and 9.5, 1.11(b)).
In addition, a license condition was placed in the original license to assure that these modifications would be completed on the schedule specified (license condition 2.C.13).
By letter dated November 20, 1984, the staff was provided a status of the completion of the license condition.
In regard to license condition 2.C.13, the licensee stated, "The fire protection p~ogram was implemented as specified in Sections 9.5.1.11(a) and (b) of Supple-ment No.
3 to the Safety Evaluation Report.
This license condition has been satisfied."
The removal of the license condition itself is the subject of a separate licensing action.
The proposed removal of the two footnotes are accept-able on the basis of the licensee's statement that the fire-rated assemblies and flame impingement shields were installed and operable as required.
The licensee proposed to delete footnotes associated with Valve Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 from the Unit No.
2 TS.
Valve Table 3.6-1 is entitled, "Containment Leakage Paths."
Valve Table 3.6-2 is entitled, "Containment Isolation Valves."
These footnotes were placed in the Unit No.
2 TS by Amendment No. 10, issued on March 15, 1985, and were associated with valve changes to be made at a
future date.
The valves were part of the station air line associated with Containment Penetration No. 8.
By letter dated March 13, 1987, the licensee advised the staff that the modification was complete.
Thus, the footnotes are being removed and the currently correct valve tag numbers associated with Containment Penetration No. 8 are being incorporated into the body of the tables.
Thus, the proposed changes are acceptable.
4 f I
t I >
~
L I
P r'
II I
r
gC+
(g) 2.3 Evaluation - Correction of T po ra hical Errors A number of typographical errors exist in the TS of both units.
The licensee proposed that these be corrected.
The Unit No. I TS typographical errors are contained on pages 3/4 5-4 and 3/4 7-8.
The Unit No.
2 TS typographical errors are contained on pages 3/4 3-34, 3/4 3-39, 3/4 3-53, 3/4 3-57, 3/4 4-27; 3/4 5 6) 3/4 6 15) 3/4 8 1 ~ 3/4 8 2 3/4 11 6
3/4 11 10) R3/4 0 3) B3/4 1 4) B3/4 2-1, and B3/4 3-4.
The staff has reviewed each individual error as well as the licensee's rationale for correcting these errors and concludes that these corrections are acceptable.
2.4 Evaluation - Currentlv Correct Titles and Com osition of the Com an uc ear ev ew oar TS 6.5.2.2 for each unit contains the titles and composition of the Company Nuclear Review Board.
The number of members changed from 8 to 10.
The following members remain on the board:
Group Vice President - Nuclear Energy Vice President - Nuclear Operations Director - guality Assurance Chief Engineer - Power Plant Engineering Manage~ - Nuclear Fuel Senior Project Manager - Power Plant Engineering The following members were added:
Group Vice President Director - Nuclear Licensing Manager - Nuclear Energy Services Vice President - Engineering, Projects and Construction The following two members were deleted:
Vice President, Advanced Systems and Technology Power Plant Engineering Principal Engineer It should be noted that the Vice President - Engineering, Projects and Construc-tion is a higher official than the Power Plant Engineering Principal Engineer in the same FPAL'rganization.
Therefore, the discipline area of the Power Plant Engineering Principal Engineer remains.
As a result of the changes, the staff believes that a higher level of collective talents are now on the board and a higher quality of independent review and audit of designated activities should result.
On this basis, the changes are acceptable.
2.5 Evaluation - Deletion of S ecific NRC Addressees The licensee proposes to delete specific NRC addressees from the TS for both units.
The specific NRC addressees are the Regional Administrator and the Director of the Office of Resource Management.
The addressees are contained on pages 6-15, 6-16 and 6-19 for the Unit No. I TS, and on pages 6-16, 6-17, and 6-20 for the Unit No.
2 TS.
The licensee proposed to keep the words,
. submitted to the NRC."
The licensees used a recent change to
t
~ $
t C
l i ~
I k
yl 10 CFR 50.4, effective lanuary 5,
- 1987, as the basis for these changes.
The licensee stated that the revised regulation directs that Part 50 reports be addressed to the Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555.
- Thus, when the TS state ".
. submit to the NRC," the
> icensee will send the report to the Document Control Desk.
The proposed change by the licensee is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes to a requirement with respect to the instal-lation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
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 amendments also involve changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or require-ments.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for cate-gorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR.51.22{c)(9) and (10).
The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve nn significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared fn connection with the issuance.
~f these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that {I) 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'f the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
October 23, 1987 Princi al Contributor:
E. Tourigny
PI I ~
~
I rI
~
I
~ q
~ r I
N
'I ~ ~
,I 1
~
e>
Ir I I I
I
' r
~ I
~
e
~
~ \\
I ~
"W('