ML20054B629
| ML20054B629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054B628 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204190007 | |
| Download: ML20054B629 (3) | |
Text
li 1
!s.SKfEgk UNITED STATES E y r.
,' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,.3 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
- A e
%..u e f
..+
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 82 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. 76 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
_ TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT NOS. 3 AND 4 DOCKET N05. 50-250 AND 50-251 Introduction By letter dated August 15, 1980 Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) submitted an amendment request for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and and DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos. 3 and 4 The amendments proposed to modify the Technical Specifications to update the emergency power system surveillance tests.
Background
Florida Power & Light Company experienced an electrical power system distur-bance on Sunday, May 14, 1978, which resulted in the loss of offsite power to the St. Lucie Plant for approximately eight minutes. Reconstruction of the events leading to the disturbance revealed that it was caused by a combination of operator error and a design deficiency.
Details of the event are presented in " Report on System Distrubance, May 14, 1978," Florida Power
& Light Company, dated May 25, 1978. The report was submitted to the NRC on May 25,1978 A meeting was held with the licensee on June 5,19.78, in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss loss of offsite power to the St. Lucie plant on May 14, 1978, and ORNL reports on transmission system disturbances dated April 11 and May 11, 1978.
Based on the meeting, the licensee committed to provide proposed methods, procedures and plans for implementation of the staff position in a letter dated June 8,1978 In addition, the licensee committed to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.108, " Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," as implemented in the Standard Technical Specifications for surveillance of onsite power sources for the Turkey Point Plant.
On August 15, 1980, the licensee proposed Technical Specifications. These Technical Specifications superceded those ;r :ginally provided on September 8,1978.
8204190007 820405 PDR ADOCK 05000250 P
Evaluation On June 8,1978, the licensee committed to the requirements that were presented by the staff in the June 5,1978 meeting. Those requirements are as follows:
General Design Criterion (GDC-17) requires that the offsite electrical system, which supplies power to a nuclear power station through two separate circuits, be designed "so as to minimize to the extent practical the likelihood of their simultaneous failure under operating and postulated accident and environ-mental conditions." Based on the evaluation of the information supplied by the licensee on the May 14, 1978 system disturbance, our technical consultants have provided certain recommendations which could improve the operation of the licensee grid system in meeting GDC-17. We have evaluated these recommendations and have developed the following staff positions. We required that the licensee submit its proposed methods, procedures and schedules to implement these positions.
Staff Position No.1 Under certain well-defined and predefined conditions, a power system shall be declared to be in some class of alert.
For each such class there shall be well defined procedures to mandate or to guide the actions of the operating personnel. Some of the things which might place a system in an alert condition are:
planned outage of significant components, extended severe weather spells which strain capacity over an extended area, impending storms, fires, floods, sudden loss of components, or sudden misbehavior of state variables for no known reason. The listing and the definition of the alert status and the prescription of req' ' 'ed remedies during any alert condition are to be provided by the licensee.
Staff Position No. 2 Prior to the planned outage of any major component, a stability evaluation of the resulting configuration of bounding magnitude shall be performed.
When the stability evaluation is performed by steady state (load flow) and transient stability analyses, both single and double contingencies shall be considered in the computations to determine the state of alertness appropriate to the system configuration (Position No.1).
In addition, we required that the licensee:
a.
Improve telemetering equipment that transmits current information on the state of all major transmission and generation components to the Control Center; and b.
Provide and maintain current daily reports of equipment availability, disabling of major relays, etc., in the Control Center.
I
On Septenber 8,1978, the licensee responded with proposed Technical Specifications. The staff review of these Technical Specifications was provided in a letter to the licensee on March 9,1979. The licensee provided additional information on May 7,1979 and resubmitted Technical Specifications on August 15, 1980.
We are currently reviewing diesel generator reliability under Task Action Plan A-44 " Station Blackout." When that review is complete we may find additional requirements are necessary.
In the interim these technical specifications proposed by the licensee improve the diesel generator rel iabil i ty.
We have reviewed the proposed technical specifications and find that they significantly improve the reliability of the emergency diesel generators at the Turkey Point Plant and are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration R. have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent
~
,/,
types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insigni-ficant from the standpoint of environmental impact r..d, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: April 5,1982 J. Lasevnick M. Grotenhuis
-