ML17223A814
| ML17223A814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17223A813 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006200219 | |
| Download: ML17223A814 (4) | |
Text
~
r
~it Rfo>
~4-0 e
s tsO sus ss V/
~
+y
~O
++*<<+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 103 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-67 FLORIDA POWER 81 LIGHT COMPANY ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-335 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 15, 1989, as modified April 24, 1990, Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) proposed changes to St. Lucie Unit I Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed amendments would revise the Unit I TS to reduce the number of fast cold starts as well as excessive testing of diesel generators consistent with the recommendations provided in the Commission's Generic Letter 84-15, "Proposed Staff Actions to Improve and Maintain Diesel Generator Reliability," July 2, 1984.
The proposed changes would also make the Unit 1 TS comparable with those of Unit 2.
The April 24, 1990 letter added two tests to the proposed Technical Specifications and provided clarifying information.
This additional information did not change the staff's initial determination of no significant hazards consideration as published in the Federal
~Re ister on January 10, 1990 (55 FR 933).
Our evaluation of the proposed changes is as follows:
EVALUATION Action Statement 3.8.1.1:
AC Sources All action statements (3.8.1.1.a-e) have been rewritten to incorporate the recom--
mendations of Generic Letter 84-15 and the changes made to the St. Lucie Unit 2 specifications.
A new Action Statement 3.8.1.1.f has been
- added, allowing Unit I to use the Unit 2 startup transformer when one Unit 1 transformer is not operable.
This design feature of the St. Lucie plant was evaluated and found to be acceptable by the staff during the licensing of St. Lucie Unit 2.
Surveillance Re uirement 4.8.1.1.1 This surveillance requirement has been amended to allow verification of the oper-ability of two offsite circuits every 7 days in lieu of every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
An addi-tional requirement for the verification of manual and automatic transfer capability from auxiliary transformers, or normal circuit, to the startup transformers, or alternate circuit, has been added.
This new surveillance is to be performed once every 18 months.
The above changes are consistent with St. Lucie Unit 2 TS.
90062002l9 900607 PDR ADOCN, 05000335 i
P PNUi t,
Surveillance Re uirements 4.8.1.1.2.a e and f These surveillance requirements have been re-written to incorporate diesel generator testing requirements consistent with St. Lucie Unit 2 TS and the recommendations of Generic Letter 84-15.
However, the licensee has taken exceptions to Unit 2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.e.3 (full load rejection test) and performance of Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.e.4.b (hot start) after the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test (4.8.1.1.2.e.7).
The staff agrees with the licensee's position.
Scheduling of'he tests is also being amended to require that test frequency be dictated by the number of failures during a specified testing period.
A new Table 4.8-1 has been added to be consistent with St. Lucie Unit 2 TS.
Surveillance Re uirements 4.8.1.1.2.b c and d
Current Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.b is being replaced by Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1.1.2.b,c and d.
The new oil surveillances are identical to those approved for St. Lucie Unit 2.
A minor change has been made to the Unit 1 TS which allows the removal of accumulated water from the diesel oil storage tanks once. every 94 days, as opposed to the current requirement of every 31 days.
Plant experience has shown that the amount of water removed from the tanks is minimal and does not warrant the waste of fuel oil caused by more frequent removal.
The staff agrees with the licensee's assessment.
Surveillance Re uirement 4.8.1.1.3 The existing Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.3 is being replaced by a new diesel generator fai lure reporting requirement.
This new reporting require-ment has been added to make the Unit 1 TS consistent with. St. Lucie Unit 2 TS.
The new Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.4 will encompass the requirements of'he existing 4.8.1.1.3.
Action Statement 3.8.1.2:
Electrical Power S stems - Shutdown The existing operability requirements of A.C. sources have not been
- amended, however, the action statement has been amended to make the Unit 1 TS consistent with St. Lucie Unit 2 TS.
Surveillance Re uirement 4.8.1.2.2 This new surveillance has been added to address reporting of diesel generator failures in Nodes 5 and 6 to make the Unit 1 TS consistent with St. Lucie Unit 2 TS.
The above proposed set of changes would accomplish the following general objectives.
First, for routine diesel generator testing and action, statement
'ests, fast starts (10 seconds) and fast loadings (60 seconds) would be deleted, except for once per 6 months and during 18-month (refueling) tests.
- Second, for action statement
- tests, the number of diesel generator tests would be reduced.
Third, the Unit 1 TS would be consistent with St. Lucie Unit 2 TS.
SUMMARY
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and concludes that the changes are consistent with Generic Letter 84-15 as well as TS changes accepted by staff on St. Lucie Unit 2.
The SE for St. Lucie Unit 2 was issued on February 7, 1989, which provides safety basis for accepting the above changes to TS.
Since Unit 1 is like the St. Lucie Unit 2,'the staff finds the above changes to be acceptable for Unit I also.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
We have determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signif-icant 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 issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 of the amendment wi 11 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
June 7,
1990 Princi al Contributor:
m opra
V