ML17221A673
| ML17221A673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17221A672 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803180161 | |
| Download: ML17221A673 (6) | |
Text
~PA RECIJ Wp
+
0 Cy p 1~
0O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0
++**+
SAFETY FVALUATION BY THF. OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSF NO.
DPR-67 FLORIDA POItIER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ST.
LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-335 INTRODUCTION By application dated August 17, 1987, the Florida Power and Light Company (FPAL, the licensee) proposed to upgrade the technical specifications (TS) dealing with inservice inspection of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components.
By application dated November 16,
- 1987, as supplemented December 30, 1987, the licensee also proposed to upgrade the TS dealing with inservice testing of ASME Code Class 1,
P.,
and 3 pumps and valves.
The above two applications supersede previous applications dated July 1, 1977, September 16, 1977, and September 8,
1978.
The proposed updated TS are in the same format and have the same content as the St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 TS and the Combustion Engineering-Standard Technical Specifications (CF-STS).
The first 10 year inser'vice inspection and testing program for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.
1 ends February ll, 1988.
By letter dated Seotemher 2, 1987, the licensee submitted the second 10 year ISI program and associated relic:
reauests.
By letter dated September 4, 1987, the licensee submitted the second 10 year IST program and associated relief reauests.
The staff review of the second 10 year programs and associated relief requests will be the subiect of other safety evaluations to be forwarded to the licensee at a later date.
The following evaluation deals with the proposed TS changes only; it is divided into three maior sections:
inservice inspection (ISI) TS changes, inservice testing (IST) TS changes, and other changes.
EVALUATION - ISI TS CHANGES The present TS dealing with ISI are addressed in TS Section 3.4. 10, entitled "Structural Integrity."
TS 3.4. 10. 1, 2, and 3 arldress Class 1, 2, and 3
components, respectively.
In addition, each TS section contains the ISI program for that particular class of component.
For example, TS 3.4. 10. 1 contains the ISI program for Class 1 components.
The present TS were issued in 1976 when the operating license was issued.
Minor administrative changes to the TS were made December 6,
1985 (Amendment No. 69); these minor changes deleted certain reporting requirements.
8803180161 880307 7
PDR ADOCK.05000335 p
The form and content of the ISI TS have changed substantially since 1976.
The presentlv preferred form and content are contained in the CE-STS and in the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 TS.
The CE-S rS do not include the ISI program as a
TS, but require it as a '.icensee-controlled document.
This is accomplished bv adoption of a qeneral surveillance reauiremer t TS (TS 4.0.5), which requires the licensee to have an ISI program that meets the Commission's ISI requlatinn (10 CFR 50.55a(g))
and the ASIDE Code,Section XI.
The licensee is proposinq the same ISI form and content of the CF.-STS as further discussed below.
The licensee proposes to combine the limiting conditions of operation (LCO),
action statements, and surveillance requirements fnr the Code Class 1, 2, and 3
components (TS 3.4. 10. 1).
The licensee proposes the same TS as contained in the CF.-STS and the Unit 2 TS (including TS <.0.5) with one exception.
The licensee did not propose as a
TS surveillance requirement that the reactor coolant pump flywheel be ir spected per the recommendations of Regulatory Position C.4.5 of Regu',atory Guide 1. 14, Revision 1, Auqust 1975.
The reactor coolant pump flywheel inspection requirement would normally be an open item.
However, the staff reviewed the proposed second 10 year
?SI program, and the flywheel examination is included.
The examination requirements use Pequlatory Guide 1.14.
Therefore, the staff will not reoui re the licensee to add this inspection requirement tn the TS.
The sta+f reviewed the existing TS to ensure that thev are covered bv the new TS.
Nn LCO's have been deleted that are not covered by a
new LCO.
All operating modes are specified in the new applicability sta..ement.
No action statements have been deleted that are not covered by a new action statement.
No surveillance requirements have been deleted that are not covered by proposed TS 4.0.5 and the second l0 year ISI program.
Although the staff's detailed review of the second 10 year ISI program wil~
be the subject of another licensing action, the staff compared the program contained in the TS to the proposed second 10 year program.
The purpose of the comparison was to ensure that the secord 10 year program was eauivalent to or better than the ISI program be'.no deleted from the TS.
The results of the staff review indicates the second 10 year program is superior
+o the program contained in the TS.
The licensee has a more indepth knnwledqe of what constitutes a superior ISI program and has implemented this knowledge by way of the program.
Based upon the above evaluation, the licensee's proposed ISI TS changes are acceptable.
It should be noted that acceptance of these TS changes should not be construed to mean that the staff is granting (at this time) any reliefs requested in the second 10 year IST program.
EVALUATION - IST TS CHANGES The present TS dealing with inservice testing
( IST) of pumps and valves are located throughout the TS on a system basis.
The licensee proposes tn remove those pump and valve testing requirements that are contained in the TS on the basis that the requirements are already contained in the IST program.
IST-related TS were issu'ed in 1976 when the operating license was issued..
The form and content of IST TS have also changed substantially since 1976.
The presentlv preferred
- orm and content ar~ contained in the CF.-STS and in the St. Lucie Plant, Unit P. TS.
The CF.-STS do not include the IST of pumps and valves as a
TS but requires it as a licensee-controlled document.
This is accomplished hy adoptaon of a general surveillance requirement TS (TS 4.0.5),
which requires the licer see tn have a
IST program that meets the Commission's IST reoulation (50.55a(q))
and the ASME Code,Section XI.
The licensee is proposing the same form and content of the CE-STS as further di cussed
- below, ircluding the adoption of TS 4.0.5.
The staff reviewed the pump testirg requirem~nts that are proposed tn be deleted from the TS tn determine if they are contained in the second
!.0 year IST program.
The staf+ also reviewed the pump testina requirements that are proposed to be added to the TS tn determine if they are in the same form and content of the CE-STS.
A check against the Unit 7 TS was also made.
Table A
contains a
summary of the staff review.
The table contains the list of safety-related
- pumps, the affected TS spctions, the TS to be deleted, the determination that the pump testing requirements are addressed in the IST
- program, the TS to be added, and the determination that the added TS are in the same form and content n+'he CE-STS.
Since the deleted pump testing TS are covered bv the second 10 year IST program and the added TS are in the same form and content as the CE-STS, the proposed changes related to the pump testirg requirements are acceptable.
It should be nnted that acceptance of these TS changes shnuld not be construed tn mean that the staff is granting (at this time) any pump-related reliefs requested in the second 10 veer IST proaram.
The staff reviewed the valve testing reauirements that are propnsed to be deleted
<rom the TS to determ'.ned i< thev are contained in the second 10 year IST program.
The staff also reviewed the valve testing requirements that are proposed to be added to the TS to determine if they are in the same form and cor tent of the CE-STS.
A check against the Unit ~ TS was also made.
Table R
contains a
summary 'o~ the staff review.
The table contains a list o: sa<ety-related systems whose valves require IST, the affected TS sections, the TS to be deleted, the determination that the valve testing requirements are covered in the IST program, the TS tn be added, and the determination that the added TS are in the same format and content of the CE-STS.
Since the deleted valve testing TS are covered hy the second 10 year program and the added TS are in the same form and content as the CE-STS, the proposed changes related to the valve testing requirements are acceptable.
It should be note0 that acceptance of these TS changes should not be construed to mean that the staff is granting (at this time) any valve-related reliefs requested in the second 10 year IST program.
EVALUATION - OTHER CHANGES The licensee requested a few changes that do not come under the scope of ISI and IST.
The licensee reouested that the containment sump isolation valve ooen test and recirculation valve to the re~uelina water tank clnsure test via the recirculation actuation signal be changed from monthly to ]8 months.
The present TS is contained in TS 4.F.2.b.3.
The proposed TS would be contained in TS <.5.7,.3.3.
In addition, the licensee requested that the containment sump isolation valve open test and recirculation mode flow path through an operable shutdown cooling heat exchanger test via the recirculation actuat:on signal
be changed from monthly to 18 months.
The present TS is contained in TS 4.6.2. l.a.5.
The proposed TS would be contained ir TS.4.t'.2. l.c.3.
The staff evaluated the acceptability nf the ]8 month testing frequency in the establish-ment of th~ CF-STS and the Unit 2 TS.
These proposed changes are acceptable since they are identical to the CE-STS.
The licensee requested an additional action statement to be associated with the operability of the main steam safety valves (FSSV)
(TS 3.7. 1. 1).
In addition, the licensee requested to re<erence the YSSV table on lift settings in the
- LCO, since
<<he references would be deleted
~rom the survei~ lance requirement.
The added action statement reads:
"The provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not applicable."
The licensee states that this proposed change is consisten+ with Table 3.7-1, "Maximum Allowable Power Level - High Trip Setpoint wi<<h Inoperable Steam Line Safety Valves During Operation with Pnth Steam Generators," ir that startup and/or power operation is allowable with safety valves inoperable within the limitations of the action requirements.
The staff agrees with the basis for changing the specification; therefore, the change is acceptable.
- Lastly, some editorial changes are proposed.
The deletion o~ various TS and addition of other TS wilt reouire TS numbering changes.
These numbering changes are acceptabl~.
ENVIRONt'.ENTAL CONS IDFRATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located wi+hin the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes a surveillance requirement.
The sta..
has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi+icant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual nr cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously puhlished a proposed findina that the amendmen involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no pubs'.c comment on such find:ra. Accordingl.v, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFP 51.22(c}(g).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b}, no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance o
the amendment.
CONCLUSION Me have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that
(~.> there is reasonahle assurance that <<he health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- mariner, and (2) such activi<<ies will he 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.
Dated:
March 7, 1988 Princi al Contributor:
ourigny Attachments:
Table B
ranm Table A
Pump Related TS Ch~an es Pu~mT~e Charging Pumps
- Shutdown Charging Pumps
- Operating Boric Acid Pumps
- Shutdown Boric Acid Pumps
- Operating TS Section 3/4.1.2.3 3/4.1.?.4 3/4.1.?.5 3/4.1.P.6 TS Deleted 4.1.?.3.a,h, and c
4.1.?.4.a and b
4.1.?.5.a,b, and c 4.1.2.6.a,b, and c
Is Deleted TS Covered In IST~Pro ram Yes Yes Yes Yes TS Added 4.1.2.3 4 ~ 1.2.4 4.1.2.5
<.1.2.6 Is Added TS in Form and Content of CE-STS Yes Yes Yes Yes HPSI/LPSI Pumps 4.5.2 AFl~ Pumps CCW Pumps ICW Pumps 3/4.7.3..2 3/4.7.3.l.
3/4.7.<.]
Containment Spray 3/4.6.2. I 4.5.2.b.l and 2
<.6.?.l.a.l,2 and 3
4.7.3.1.a. 1,2,3 and 4
4.7.3.l.a.l,2,3 and 4
<.7.4.l,a.l,?,3 and 4
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.5.2ef 4.6.2.1.b 4.7.1.2.a.l 8
?
None None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table B
gc valve Related TS Changes Val~ve T e
Boration System Flow Path Auto Valves
- Shutdown TS Section 3/4.1.?..]
TS Deleted 4.1.?.>.a.>
Is 1S Covered by IST Proaram Yes TS Added None Is Added TS in Form and Content of CE-STS Yes Boration System Flow Path Auto Valves
- Operating Pressurizer Code Safety's ECCS Flow Path Valves 3/4.1.?.2 3/4.4.2 and 4.3 3/4.5.2 4.1.?.2.a.]
4.1.2.2.c.l 4.4.?.
and 4.4.3 4.5.2.b.4 Yes Yes Yes None 4.4.?
and 4.4.3 None Yes Yes Yes Containment Spray 3/4.5.3 Flow Path Valves 4.6.?.l.a.4 and 4.6.?.l.c.l Yes None Yes Containolent Isolation Yalves 3/4.6.3 4.6 3.l.l 4.6.3.1.?..b and c Yes 4.6.3.1.3 Yes Yacuum Relief Yalves 3/4.6.5 4.6.5.1.a Yes 4.6.5. l Yes NSSY's AFW Flow Path Valves YSIV's CCW System Flow Path Valves ICW System Flow Path Valves 3/4.7.1.1 3/4.7.1.2 3/4.7.1.5 3/4.7.3.1 3/4.7.4.1 4.7.1.]
4.7.1.2.a.?.4 and 4.7.1.2.b 4.7.1.5.a and b
4.7.3.l.a.5 ard h.l 4.7.4.1.a. 5 and h.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.7.1.1 None 4.7.1.5 Hone None Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes