ML17229A013
| ML17229A013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17229A012 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9608220202 | |
| Download: ML17229A013 (5) | |
Text
gP,S REO0 "o
Cy I
nO I
0
~O
+)t**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&0001 SAF T VALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.
AND 0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENS NO. DPR-67 AND NO. NPF-16 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY A
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-335 AND 50-389
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated May 17,
- 1995, and supplemented by letter dated July 15,
request to amend the St.Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed changes are administrative in nature, and are intended to improve the consistency between the TS and the improved Combustion Engineering Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
Specifically, the requested amendments would (1) revise the definition of core alteration in TS Section 1.9, (2) replace "President-Nuclear Division" with "Site Vice President" in TS Section
- 6. 1.2 as the individual authorized to sign the annual directive regarding the responsibilities and command duties of the shift supervisor, and (3) revise the wording of TS 6.2.2.d to require that a
licensed senior reactor operator (SRO) with no other concurrent responsibilities be present during refueling and directly supervise all cor e alterations.
The July 15, 1996, letter made a minor change to the proposed definition of core al.teration which made it more closely match the wording in the STS and did not change the scope of the Hay 17, 1995, application and initial proposed no significant hazards consider ation determination.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION A. Definition of CORE ALTERATION.
The current definition of core alteration is the "...movement or manipulation of any component within the reactor pressure vessel with the vessel head removed and fuel in the vessel.
Suspension of CORE ALTERATION shall not preclude completion of movement of a component to a safe conservative position."
This definition required an interpretation to clarify that it referred to shuffling fuel or Control Element Assemblies (CEAs) or other equipment that could significantly affect reactivity or raise the possibility of damaging fuel.
The proposed change would adopt the definition of the STS with additional clarification.
The STS defines core alteration as "...movement or manipulation of any fuel, sources, or reactivity control components
[excluding ENCLOSURE 3 9608220202 9608l4 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
~
~
2 control element. assemblies (CEAs) withdrawn into the upper guide structure],
within the reactor vessel with the vessel head removed and fuel in the vessel.
Suspension of CORE ALTERATIONS shall not pre'elude completion of movement of a component to a safe position."
The proposed definition enlarges on the language of the Combustion Engineering STS by adding the statement that, "...evolutions performed with the upper guide structure (UGS) in place, such as control element assembly latching/unlatching or verification of latching/unlatching, do not constitute a
CORE ALTERATION."
The latching/unlatching verification is performed with the UGS in place by lifting the control element approximately 2 inches and measuring its weight.
This operation can have only a minor effect on the core reactivity.
With the UGS in place, the fuel elements cannot be moved and the control element assemblies cannot be shuffled.
The UGS also protects the fuel from the possibility of mechanical damage from objects being dropped upon it, and no components can be removed such as to create a direct radiation hazard.
Therefore, based on (1) the low probability for fuel damage, (2) the low potential for direct radiation hazard, and (3) the fact that the latching/unlatching operation could not result in a significant reactivity
- change, the staff finds the amended definition of CORE ALTERATION acceptable.
B. Management Change.
Secti'on 6. 1.2 of the current TS requires that the President-Nuclear Division annually issue a management directive that emphasizes the primary management responsibility of the shift supervisor for safe operation of the plant under all conditions on his shift and that clearly establishes his command duties.
The proposed amendment assigns this responsibility to the St. Lucie Site Vice President.
The St.
Lucie Site Vice President is the highest level of site management.
The NRC has no requirement that such a directive be issued
- and, in general, considers the senior site manager an adequate level of management to be responsible for overall plant operation.
Therefore, the staff finds this change acceptable..
C. Supervision of CORE ALTERATIONS.
Currently, Section 6.2.2.d of the TS allows the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) assigned to supervise fuel handling to perform these duties from the control room, the refueling deck or 'the spent fuel pool.
This wording did not conform with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iv), which required an SRO or an SRO limited'o fuel handling to directly supervise core alterations and not to be assigned to other duties
'uring these activities.
The proposed change brings this TS into conformance with the regulations.
The revised TS reads:
Either a licensed SRO or licensed SRO limited to fuel handling who has no concurrent responsibilities during this operation shall be present during fuel handling and shall directly supervise all CORE ALTERATIONS.
The revised wording conforms to the language of 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iv) and is therefore acceptable.
0 I
'I
3.0 ST U
0 Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendments, the Florida State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONNENTAL 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.
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 (60 FR 32363).
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
~ONCL Stall 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:
S.S. Kirslis Date:
August 14, 1996
A L>>
Y, II