ML17241A454
| ML17241A454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1999 |
| From: | Gleaves W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Boland A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| TAC-MA3141, NUDOCS 9909100143 | |
| Download: ML17241A454 (12) | |
Text
gp R RSuuc fp0 co A.0
~0
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Sept'-ember 8, 1999 MEMORANDUMTO:
Anne T. Boland, Acting Chief Projects Branch II Division of Reactor Projects Region II THRU:
FROM:
Herbert N. Berkow, Project Director Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation William C. Gleaves, Prospect Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II
/
~
Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
ST. LUCIE, UNIT2-REVIEW OF AMENDMENT12 TO THE UPDATED FINALSAFETY ANALYSISREPORT AGAINST 10 CFR 50.71 (TAC NO. MA3141)
The purpose of this memorandum is to enter notes on the subject review into the NRC official records.
By letter dated June 1, 1999, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) submitted amendment number 12 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for St. Lucie, Unit 2, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
Their letter provided the certification by FPL that the update accurately reflects changes made during the period between May 26, 1997, and December 9, 1998, and the replacement pages for the FSAR update, including engineering drawings.
10 CFR 50.71(e) requires the UFSAR be revised to include the effects of:
1.
"...all changes made in the facility or procedures as described in the FSAR..."
"...safety evaluations performed by the licensee either in support of requested license o~
amendments..."
Since this'category clearly involves NRC staff approval of licensing ftr basis changes, other changes that the staff approved (e.g., topical reports, reliefs to ASME Code sections, exemptions, etc.) but were not conveyed as amendments are also implied.
"...or in support of conclusions that changes did not involve an unreviewed safety question..." These are evaluations performed by the licensee in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
9909i00i48 990908 PDR ADOCK 05000389 P
~I ~~II'~CGPt
Anne T. Boland 'ember 8, 1999 Both f50.71(e) and 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) also require the UFSAR and f50.59 report be submitted to meet a timeliness standard:
"Subsequent revisions must be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months.
The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of tfiling]."(f50.71(e))
"...a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments...may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by f50.71(e)...." (f50.59(b)(2))
My review found that this amendment was filed within 6 months after the end of the last Unit 2 refueling outage and that 19 months have elapsed since the previous UFSAR amendment.
This amendment also reflected all changes up to 6 months prior,to the amendment submittal
'ate.
FPL's f50.59 Report also met the above stated timeliness goals.
I reviewed the 12~ amendment to the St. Lucie, Unit.2,-FSAR with these caveats:
b.
My review was based on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71, 10 CFR 50.59, and precedents established by past reviews (e.g., memo from P..Tam to J. Crlenjak, September 3, 1996), and current management guidance (NRC/DLPM Project Manager's Handbook, Section 4.5).
I, 10 CFR 50.59 says that the staff has to review and approve the changes in the UFSAR, only ifFPL makes a change in the facilityor procedures, or conducts tests or experiments described'in'the technical specifications or involves an unreviewed safety question, as defined in f50.59. However, the purpose of my review is to confirm compliance with the previously mentioned regulations in 'breadth-wise'eview of the FSAR update, and not to approve any design basis changes.
c.
I did not review the licensee's evaluations for compliance to 10 CFR 50.59.
- However, checks were made, on a sampling basis, of the more risk-significant changes to the FSAR to determine whether 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations were performed.
d.
I did not review previous amendments to the St. Lucie UFSAR.
I conclude that the 12~ amendment to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR complies with 10 CFR 50.71.
Docket No. 50-389
Attachment:
Review of 12~ amendment to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR Distribution:
WGleaves PUBLIC SPeterson gDocket'File i
JZwolinski TRoss, Rll LWert, Rll St. Lucie Rdg.
HBerkow BClayton DOCUMENT NAME: G:>PDII-21St. Lucie>FSAR Review>St Lucie 1999 FSAR-REV.w d OFFICE PM:PDII-2 E LA:PDII-2 O'C:PDII-2 D:P NAME DATE WGleaves~
A/o499 8~
BCla ton 8/a /99 SPeterson 8/
/99 HBe w
/8'/99 OFFICIALRECORD COPY
I (
ill I
lf
(
Anne T. Boland 3.
"...all analyses of new safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at Commission request."
Examples include licensee actions as a result of generic letters, bulletins, etc.
Both f50.71(e) and 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) also require the UFSAR and f50.59 report be submitted to meet a timeliness standard:
"Subsequent revisions must be filed annually or 6 months after each refueling outage provided the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months.
The revisions must reflect all changes up to a maximum of 6 months prior to the date of [filing]."(f50.71(e))
"...a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments...may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by f50.71(e)..." (f50.59(b)(2))
My review found that this amendment was filed within 6 months after the end of the last Unit 2 refueling outage and that 19 months have elapsed since the previous UFSAR amendment.
This amendment also reflected all changes up to 6 months prior to the amendment submittal date.
FPL's f50.59 Report also met the above stated timeliness goals.
I reviewed the 12~ amendment to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, FSAR with these caveats:
a.
My review was based on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71, 10 CFR 50.59, and precedents established by past reviews (e.g., memo from P. Tam to J. Crfenjak, September 3, 1996), and current management guidance (NRC/DLPM Project Manager' Handbook, Section 4.5).
b.
10 CFR 50.59 says that the staff has to review and approve the changes in the UFSAR, only ifFPL makes a change in the facility or procedures, or conducts tests or experiments described in the technical specifications or involves an unreviewed safety question, as defined in f50.59.
However, the purpose of my review is to confirm compliance with the previously mentioned regulations in 'breadth-wise'eview of the FSAR update, and not to approve any design basis changes.
c.
I did not review the licensee's evaluations for compliance to 10 CFR 50.59.
- However, checks were made, on a sampling basis, of the more risk-significant changes to the FSAR to determine whether 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations were performed.
d.
I did not review previous amendments to the St. Lucie UFSAR.
I conclude that the 12'" amendment to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR complies with 10 CFR 50.71.
Docket No. 50-389
Attachment:
Review of 12'" amendment to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR
FEEDER TO AN UPCOMING INSPECTION REPORT No Licensee Personnel were Contacted During the UFSAR Review.
XY.1 Amendment 12 to the St. Lucie Unit 2 U dated ~inal Safet Anal sis Re ort By letter dated June 12, 1999, FPL submitted amendment 12 to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
This regulation requires:
This submittal shall contain all the changes necessary to reflect information and analyses submitted to the Commission by the licensee or prepared by the licensee pursuant to Commission requirement since the submission of the original FSAR or, as appropriate, the last updated FSAR.
FPL also submitted by letter dated June 7, 1999, a report of 10 CFR 50.59 changes to the FSAR for St. Lucie, Unit 2, which covers the same period as the UFSAR amendment no. 12. This report is required by 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) and contains a brief description and summary of safety evaluations for changes, tests, and experiments approved for Unit 2 during the same FSAR update period. This regulation requires:
The licensee shall submit, as specified in $50.4, a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each.
The report may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by $50.71(e), or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license.
10 CFR 50.71 provides that the updated FSAR shall be revised to include the effects of:
"Allchanges made in the facility or procedures as described in the FSAR" "Safety evaluations performed by the licensee either in support of requested license amendments..." - Since this category clearly involves NRC staff approval of licensing basis changes, other changes that the staff approved (e.g., topical reports, reliefs to ASME Code sections, exemptions, etc.) but were not conveyed as amendments are also implied.
"...or in support of conclusions that changes did not involve an unreviewed safety question" - These are evaluations performed by the licensee in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
3.
"Allanalyses of new safety issues performed by or on behalf of the licensee at Commission request" - Examples include licensee actions as a result of generic letters, bulletins, etc.
ATTACHMENT b.
Observations and Findin s The project manager (PM) desk-audited amendmont 12 to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR, and the f50.59 report during the week of August 9, 1999.
10 CFR 50.59 says that the staff has to review and approve the changes in the UFSAR, only if FPL makes a change in the facilityor procedures, or conducts tests or experiments described in the technical specifications or involves an unreviewed safety question, as defined in f50.59.
However, the purpose of this review is to confirm compliance with the previously mentioned regulations in 'breadth-wise'eview of the FSAR update, and not to approve any design basis changes.
The PM traced the changes, on a sampling basis amendment 12 to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR to documents in the official NRC records (amendments to the operating license, staff letters transmitting safety evaluations, annual 10 CFR 50.59 reports submitted by the licensee, inspection reports, licensee letters, etc.). The PM confirmed that changes conveyed by this latest amendment comply with the change scope specified by 10 CFR 50.71.
c.
Conclusion The PM concluded that amendment 12 to the St. Lucie, Unit 2, UFSAR meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71, based on a sampled review of UFSAR changes, and is therefore, in compliance.
The PM also concluded that FPL met the timeliness requirements for submission of this amendment to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), and that FPL satisfied the requirements relating to the timeliness and content of the f50.59 report.
REVIEW NOTES ON AMENDMENT12 TO THE UPDATED FSAR SUBMITTED BY LETTER DATED JUNE 1 1999 TAC No. MA3141 Cha ter 1 - Introduction and General Descri tion of Plant Site Characteristics Section 1.2.2.3 - Engineered Safety Features:
- Change corrects editorial errors in the description of the rod control system.
Section 1.2.2.4-Protection, Control, Instrumentation, and Electrical Systems:
- Correction to the description of the purpose of the auxiliary feedwater system.
- Correction to the description of the range of nuclear power instrumentation.
Section 1.2.2.8-Radioactive Waste Management System:
- Adds description of the Gaseous Radwaste Treatment. System.
- Deletes description of the boron recovery and reconcentration system.
Section 1.2.4 - Shared Systems and Instrumentation between Unit 1 and Unit 2:
- Rewrites entire section.
- Clarifies interconnected systems list and provides new descriptions of system functions.
Section 1.3.1 - Comparisons with Similar Facility Designs:
- Minor editorial correction.
Section 1.3.2.2 - Fuel Load and Operation Dates:
- Minor editorial correction.
Section 1.8.5 - NRC Regulatory Guides:
- Corrected reference to FSAR Section on discussion of RG 1.47.
Section 1.9.A - TMI Related Requirements:
- Adds discussion of plant PCM.
- Changes reactor coolant pump seal from SU-type mechanical seals to N-9000.
- Deletes description of method of comparing yearly leak test results from baseline test for the integrated leak-rate testing.
Cha ter 2-Site Characteristics Section 2.1.1.1 - Specification of Location:
- Deletes statement of location of largest urbanized area within 50 miles of site being West Palm Beach.
Section 2.1.2.2 - Control of Activities Unrelated to Plant Operations:
- Section is completely revised. Adds description of St. Lucie County Wastewater Treatment Facility Agreements.
I Section 2.1.3.9 - Update of Population Data:
- Adds reference to UFSAR Appendix 2.1A for thd 1998 update of population data.
References:
- Adds reference No. 219 to FSAR reference list.
Section 2.2.1 - Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and MilitaryFacilities:
- Adds to list of facilities the nearby St. Lucie Crunty Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Section 2.2.2.2.4-Onsite Products and Materials
- Updates list of compressed gases and other process chemicals.
Section 2.2.3.2-Design Basis Toxic Chemical Events
- Updates description of hazardous materials used at the St. Lucie Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Cha ter 3 - Desi n of Structures Com onents E ui ment and S stems.
Section 3.1.5, Criterion 5 - Sharing of Structures, Systems, or Components:
- FSAR description of shared components is modified to clarify the list of systems and provide a description of their operation.
Section 3.5.1.3.3.3.2.b - Special Barriers - Steel Grating:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.5 -
References:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.6-Protection against Dynamic Effects Associated with the Rupture of Piping:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.6.1.2.3 - Methods of Protection:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.6.2.1.1 - High Energy Piping Systems:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.6.2.6-Analytical Methods to Define Forcing Functions and Response Models:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.6A.1.3 - Jet Impingement Analysis:
- Various typographical and editorial changes made.
Section 3.6B - High Energy Pipe Rupture Analysis - Outside Containment:
- Various typographical and editoriai changes made.
Section 3.6C - Pipe Whip Restraints and Break Conditions:
- Adds paragraph that provides the purpose of this section and directs users to see the latest plant configuration in plant drawings.
Section 3.6F5 Moderate Energy Piping Failure Analysis:
- Various typographical and editorial changes made.
Section 3.9.4.1 - Description of CEDM:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 3.9.6 - Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves.
- Changes reflect the transition to the second IST interval with references to the current ASME codes.
- The discussion of relief requests contained a typographical error in the applicable 10 CFR reference.
~Cha ter 4 Section 4.2.1.1.10- Thermal Performance of a Composite Fuel Pin:
- Adds a short historical discussion as background.
Section 4.2.1.2 - Fuel Rod:
- Adds a complete description of a fuel rod.
Section 4.2.2.1 - Fuel Assembly:
- Section is modified to remove references to figures.
Section 4.2.3.4 - Control Element Assembly:
- Change updates references for CEA lifespan.
Section 4.2.4.1.1 - Weld Quality Assurance Measure:
- Adds paragraph, that describes the weld in Region M lower spacer grid to Iconel skirt weld.
Section 4.3.1 - Nuclear Design - Design Basis:
- This section extensively modified: All discussion of Cycle 10 is removed and a Cycle 11 discussion added.
Section 4.4.1.1 - DNBR Analysis:
- Corrects typographical error.
~Cha ter 5 Section 5.2.4.7-System Leakage and Hydrostatic Pressure Tests:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 5.2B Appendix - Analysis of St. Lucie Unit 1 Natural Circulation Cooldown without Upper Head Voiding and St. Lucie Unit 2 Condensate Storage Tank Requirements:
- Change modifies the predicted reactor vessel upper head fluid temperature from 409 F
to 409.5'F Section 5.3.1.5 - Fracture Toughness:
- Change removes listed predictions for EOL fracture toughness and moves them to the NRC docket under 10 CFR 50.61.
Table 5.4 Reactor Coolant Pump Parameters:
- Change notes that RCP, shaft seals were replaced during the '98 outage with the N-9000 design.
Table 5.4 Pressurizer Parameters:
- Change reduces the acceptable heating capacity of non-safety related pressurizer heaters from 1200kW to 1050kW by increasing the total allowable number of heaters allowed to be removed from service.
- The diesel backed, safety-related heater banks required remains the same.
~Cha ter 6 Section 6.1.2 - Organic Materials:
- Change clarifies Table 6.1-2.
Section 6.2.2.2.3 - Containment Sump Design:
- Adds a reference for a basis for minimum sump screen size. Also various editorial changes.
Section 6.2.6.2 - Containment Penetration Leakage Test:
- Modifies original paragraph header typographical error.
Section 6.3.2.2.1 - Safety Injection Tanks:
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 6.3.2.2.3 - High Pressure Safety Injection Pumps:
- Change clariTies description of conservatism in NPSH calculations at runout conditions.
Section 6.4.2.2 - Control Room AirConditioning System:
- Revised the description of the control room air conditioning system from two out of three trains required to only one or two out of three units to be in operation.
Section 6.5.2.3.2-Spray and Sump Water pH History:
- Corrects typographical error.
~Cha ter 7 Section 7.2.1.1.2.2.2 - Power Range Safety Channels:
- Editorial changes made.
Section 7.2.1.1.2.2.3 - Acceptability and Standard "addc power division" Design:
- Deleted section discussion of UPS system and batteries.
Section 7.3.1.1.1.h - Safety Injection Actuation Signal:
- Added description describing the redundancy provided in the SIAS.
Section 7.4.1.1.b - AuxiliaryFeedwater System Instrumentation and Control:
- Editorial changes made.
~Cha tera Section 8.2.1.1 - Transmission Lines between the UtilityGrid and the Switchyard;
- Corrects typographical error.
Section 8.3.2 - DC Power System:
- Corrects typographical error.
~Cha ter 9 Section 9.1.1.1: Fuel Storage and Handling:
- Addition to note that FPL-St. Lucie willvoluntarily comply with 10CFR50.68 for new fuel.
~Cha ter 10 bee Section 10.3.5.1 - Secondary Water Chemistry Control Basis"
- Addition of note to discuss new Dimethylamine chemistry system for S/G cleaning.
~Cha ter 11 Section 11.1.1.1 - Fission Product Activities in Reactor Coolant:
- Editorial change made.
Section 11.2.1 - Liquid Radwaste System - Design Basis:
- Additional text to enhance discussion of LWMS operation.
Section 11.2.2.1.3 - Boric Acid Concentrator Operation:
- Note is added to discussion saying that the Boric Acid Concentrators are no longer used.
~Cha ter 12 The update to Chapter 13 conveys a lot of changes that appear to reflect more accurately current information or practice, but do not appear to change design basis.
~Cha ter 13 The update to Chapter 13 conveys a lot of, changes that appear to reflect more accur-tely current information or practice, but do not appear to change design basis.
~Cha ter 14 There was a change to the index in this chapter.
~Cha ter 15
'ection 15.2.1.1 - Limiting Offsite Dose Event - Isolation of Turbine.
- Editorial change to the title of the chapter was made.
Section 15.2.5.2.1-Limiting Reactor Coolant Event - Loss of Feedwater Inventory with a loss of Offsite Power as a Result of Turbine Trip:
- Editorial change to the title of the chapter was made.
Section 15.4.2.3.9.2 - Analysis of Effects and Consequences:
- A minor clarification is added to calculation assumptions for a configuration where, in Mode 5, only one charging pump is in operation.
Section 15.4.2.4 - Limiting Loss of Shutdown Margin Event - Slow Positive Reactivity Insertion:
- Change to the list of control room indicators from 'high logarithmic power level trip in Mode 2,'o a 'high rate of change of power level trip in Mode 2.'Cha ter 16 No change.
~Cha ter 17 Section 17.2 - Quality Assurance During the Operating Phase:
- Change was made to the description of the Topical Quality Assurance Report, how procedures are controlled, how changes to the procedures are controlled, document control, and personnel responsibility for the program.