ML17228B010
| ML17228B010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17228B009 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-93-05, GL-93-5, NUDOCS 9502140230 | |
| Download: ML17228B010 (5) | |
Text
gp,R 850( 'fp0 A00 O
<rg
~O
+)t**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.
133 ND 72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.'PR-67 AND NO.
NPF-16 LORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ET AL.
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-335 AND 50-389
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION In Decembe}
- 1992, NRC published NUREG 1366, "Improvements to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements."
NUREG 1366 summarized NRC staff's comprehensive study of surveillance requirements in technical specifications (TS) that require testing during power oper ation and recommended a number of enhancements and improvements to TS.
Subsequently, on September 27,
- 1993, NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 93-05, "Line-Item Technical Specification Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation," which provided guidance to licensees who plan to adopt applicable line-item recommended improvements.
By letter dated July 25, 1994, Florida Power
& Light Company (FPL) requested to amend Technical Specifications for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 to imp ement several enhancements recommended by NUREG 1366 and GL 93-05, specifically, Items 5.8, 6. 1, 7. 1 and 7.5.
Unit 1 TS 4.3.3.2.a and Unit 2 TS 4.3.3.2.a correspond to Item 5.8; Unit 1 TS 4.4.6.2.e.2 and Unit 2 TS 4.4.6.2.2.b correspond to Item 6. 1; Unit 1 TS 4.5. l.b and Unit 2 TS 4.5. l.l.b correspond to Item 7. 1; and Unit 1 TS 4.5.2.c.2 and Unit 2 TS 4.5.2.d.2 correspond to Item 7.5.
2.0 DISCUSSION
The B&W surveillance for incore detectors should be used for CE plants.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 surveillance requirement 4.3.3.2.a.
The current Incore Detector surveillance requires a channel check within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of use and once per 7 days thereafter.
The recommended change uses the wording from the B&W standard technical specifications which require the 9502i40230 950209 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
channel check to be performed only within 7 days prior to use.
These changes do not change any operability requirements for incore detectors, just the surveillance requirements.
2.2 G
93-05 Section
- 6. 1 Reactor coolant s stem Isolation Valves GL 93-05 Recommendation:
Increase the 72-hour time for remaining in cold shutdown without leak testing the reactor coolant system (RCS) isolation valves to 7 days.
Unit 1 surveillance requirement 4.4.6.2.e.2.
and Unit 2 surveillance requirement 4.4.6.2.2.b.
The current RCS pressure isolation valve surveillance requires a leak test of RCS pressure isolation valves if the unit is shut down more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> if the valves have not been tested within the last 9 months.
The recommended change requires the RCS pressure isolation valve leak test surveillance only if the unit is in cold shutdown 7 days or more and if leakage testing has not been performed in the previous 9 months.
2.3 GL 93-05 Section 7. 1 Surveillance of Boron Concent} ation in the Safet In'ection Tank GL 93-05 Recommendation:
It should not be necessary to verify boron concentration of Safety Injection Tank inventory after a volume increase of IX or more if the makeup water is from the refueling water tank (RWT) and the minimum concentration of boron in the RWT is greater than or equal to the minimum boron concentration in the Safety Injection Tank (SIT), the recent RWT sample was within specifications, and the RWT has not been diluted.
Unit 1 Surveillance Requirement 4.5. l.b.
and Unit 2 Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1. I.b The current SIT surveillance requires verification of boron concentration once per 31 days and within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> after each solution volume change of greater than IX of the tank volume.
The recommended change eliminates the requirement to verify boron concentration within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> after each solution volume change of 1X if the makeup water source is from an RWT that had its latest test in specification and the RWT minimum concentration is equal to or greater than the minimum SIT boron concentration.
For St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2, the RWT and SIT technical specification minimum boron concentrations are the
- same, 1720 ppm.
2.4 G
93-05 Section 7.5 Visual Ins ection of the Containment Sum
/
GL 93-05 Recommendation:
Inspection of the containment at least once daily if the containment has been entered that day, and during the final entry to ensure that there is no loose debris that would clog the sump
~
Unit 1 surveillance requirement 4.5.2.c.2 and Unit 2 surveillance requirement 4.5.2.d.2 The current containment surveillance requires a
visual inspection of the containment sump at the completion of each
~'
containment entry.
The recommended change to the surveillance requires a sump inspection only once daily or at the end of containment entries for multiple entries in one day.
3.0 TECHNICAL FINDING The above proposed changes are in full agreement with the recommendations of NUREG 1366 and follow guidance of GL 93-05.
Based on that, the staff finds them acceptable.
4.0 S
E CONSULT TIO Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendments, the Florida State official had no comments.
- 5. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments change 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 change surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 issued a
proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 45023).
Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Jan Norris Date:
February 9, 1995
'I J