ML20215E614
| ML20215E614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1986 |
| From: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E598 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612230030 | |
| Download: ML20215E614 (4) | |
Text
.
(
l. 2.
(.
REGION OF UNACCEPTABLE OPERATION 1.0 d
0.9 oc (0.02,0.85)
(0.08,0.85) n.
- 0. 8.
I a
REGION OF W
UNACCEPTABLE a
- 0. 7 -
OPERATION f.**.
I; (0.3,0.67)
E b
0.6 REGION OF ACCEPTABLE I
E OPERATION O.5,
(-0.3,0.48) 0.4 _
I I
5 5
5 5
-0.6 0.4
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 '
O.6 PERIPEERAL ARIAL SEAPE INDER 0612230030 061210 DR
/ DOCK 0500 5
FISORE 3.3="3 ARIAL SEAPE INDEI VS. MEIMM ALLOWABLE POWER LEVEL PER SPECIPICATION 4.3.1.3 87* LWII - WIT 1 3/434 l
e
--~-~n--...-.-
w h
ATTACHNENT 2 SAFETY EVALUATION The proposed change to the St. Lucie Unit i Technical Specificottons consists of a reduction in the fraction of maximum allowable power level from 0.88 to 0.85 in Figure 3.2-2, Axial Shape Index versus Maximum Allowable Power Level Per Specificotton 4.2.l.3.
This Figure takes effect only when the Incore Detector Monitoring System becomes inoperable and monitoring of the linear heat rate needs to be performed with the Excore Detector Monitoring System. The fraction of maximum allowable power level hos been reduced to assure that the plant will operate within allowable safety limits for anticipated power distributions in future l
cycles.
l i
As operation of the plant will not change due to the proposed modification, the probability of the occurrence of a previously evoluoted occident or the occurrence of a new or different type of occident not previously analyzed will not increase.
The proposed Figure 3.2-2 has been made more restrictive to accommodate the potentlol for more restrictive axial shapes in future cycles.
The change is designed to ensure that operation under the proposed Figure 3.2-2 in the present and future cycles will continue to meet all acceptance criteria (reforence).
I i
i L
Reference:
St. Lucie Unit i LOCA/ECCS onalysis with ll% Steam Generator Tube Plugging, XN-NF-86-23, Rev. I, Exxon Nuclear Co., March r
I986.
EJW3/001/4 j
3 ATTACHMENT 3 DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The standards used to arrive at a determination that a request for amendment involves no significant hozords consideration are included in the Commission's regulations,10 CFR 50.92, which states that no significant hozords considerations are involved if the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve o significant increase in the probability or consequences of on accident previously evoluoted; or (2) create the possiblity of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evoluoted or (3)
Involve o significant reduction in a margin of safety. Each standard is discussed as follows:
(1)
Operation of the facility in occordance with the proposed amendment would not involve o significant increase in the probability or consequences of an occident previously evoluoted.
The proposed omendment will not result in any change to the plant's structure, systems, or componentst therefore, there is no increase in the probability of any accident previously evoluoted. Reduction of the fraction of maximum allowable power level from 0.88 to 0.85 will ensure operation of the plant within established safety limits for all anticipated power distributions, control rod positions and power levels in future cycles.
(2)
Use of the modified specification would not create the possibility of a new or dif ferent kind of accident from any occident previously evoluoted.
The proposed amendment will result in no changes to the plant's procedures, structures, components or modes of operation; therefore it does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any occident previously analyzed.
EJW3/00l/5
(3)
Use of the modified specification would not involve o significant reduetion
-In a margin of safety.
The proposed Figure 3.2-2 has been made more restrictive to accommodate the potential for more restrictive axial shapes in future cycles.
This change, therefore, does not reduce the margin of safety during the current cycle of operation and is designed to ensure that operation under the proposed Figure 3.2-2 in future cycles will continue to meet all acceptance criterio. Verificotton that operation under the proposed Figure 3.2-2 meets all acceptance criteria for future cycles is port of each cycle's reload safety analysis.
Based on the above, we have determined that the amendment request does not (I) involve o significant increase in the probability or consequences of on occident previously evoluoted, (2) create the probability of a new or different kind of accident from any occident previously evoluoted, or (3) involve o significant reduction in a margin of safety; and therefore does not involve a significant hozords consideration.
EJW3/001/6