ML20245B525

Requests That Encl Draft Safety Evaluation Provided to Util Be Provided to NRC & Lpdr

ML20245B525
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	06/22/1987
From:	Heitner K NRC
To:	NRC
References
NUDOCS 8706250025
Download: ML20245B525 (7)

Text

.

Doche+ No, so - u 7 Dae . ,

6 tt r)

Nde +o, Pocket R ter o+2 From '

, K. L, Ht: b ec F-ut n a y en P cafeas+, V m1m FoJ+ (

PreucLed A h+

S u\od : Occa A The a M ach ed Aran docu-6 h a s- been proJ,Jed b th e Pa %)i su v r & .%pany o+

Cdoexdo, ~1. a co d a nce.

mi+L N f2 ft 060 ce Le4ec

%.+3, we r ey er\ %\

n aco vr a z cope r %

hhe. 4 RC onc1 L oca; F D R 's "KL WL p- - ~ ~

- , y (, )

e cr p,./ \

a o

E' i UNITED STATES h ( ,$

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHt NGTON, D. C,20555 f

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE O N S_UPPORTING AMENDMENT TO NO.

FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-34 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO _

FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STA DOCKET NO. 50-267 1.0 _ INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND By letter dated January 15 _

changes to the Fort St. Vra,in (FSV) technical speci Safe Shutdown Cooling.ing reliance on the reheater m nat- sectio s for the licensee in Licensee Event Reports (LER's) dated Au (P-86513)andOctober 17, 1986 (P-86587). IntheseLERgust 11, 1986 s, the licensee only support Safe Shutdown Cooling at gre Theresection, were also limitations onsevere.izer-evaporator the econom s.

(EES) but these were less superheater By letter dated January 15 changes to the Fort1987, St. the Vra,inlicensee submitted proposed (FSV) Technical quire Specifica both EES 03eration sections at power and both as the minimum number a

reheater of oper uringbl sections be Tae FSV Technical Specifications currently e heat exchangers.require both th section and the EES section of one steame generator eater and e reheater section or the operable for the removal of decay heat. EES section of the other steam g each ing fromEES powersection levels upprovides to 87.5 percent.adequate capability ool-for Safe Sh does not provide adequate capability for Safe ng at Shutdown Coo power level.

levels above 39 percent, and therefore the o licensee will longer rely on reheaters for Safe Shutdow ..

ower other down Cooling.abnormal events, but are not or relied up The licensee also proposed a second LC0 change which stated that the EES sections shall be capable rom of receiving w during power operationboth the Emergency Condensate water Header Hea one of these emergency, headers.instead of the former minimum all o

s v

~ q, LQ

@ RAFT 4 Although the EES sections ecan be suppli d gency of the two Condensate Header and the Emergency Feed headers is neede er Header for Safe Shutdown Cooling. d to supply the from the Emergenc required water i coo Feedwater Header.yThe reheatersHeader, Condensate can be supplied but gency not with er from i

4 wa the tions of a reheater section to adequat lThe with lation firewater following a eninety e desirable minute dueI tto the limita-10FC). y support Safe Shutdown Cooling strates(that reliance onn the EES erruption sections of Force Circu- fTh meets all of the regulatory requirements or Safe Shutdow f zowh'ch dem The licensee also submitted detailed anal or emergency operation levels up to 87.5%usingreactor an EES power section for Safe Shutdyses to own Cooling at power Appendix R Fire Padequacy These of shutdown coolingtheusing F

. , analyses also confirm 82% reactof power.rotection cooling water flow path from roximately Safe Shutdown Cooling from power levelThe er section cannot support Since the proposed changes to LC0 4 3 1

.. s above approximately 39% power, theconsequences the reheaters for for Safe Shutdown other accidents Coolion only eliminate reliance and both EES sections to be operable . ng, these changes do not affect the likelihood that the necessary By requiring h ,t both reheaters ea the proposed changes increase when called upon to provide events. cooling excnangers forbeoth would available er accidents and abnormal (P-87053)The licensee has also submitted by lette involve Safe Shutdown .

Coolingabnormal e FSAR which do not s and e, v

2. 0 core cooling for the The otherlicenseeFSAR stated that ors can provide adequate accidentsana these EVALUATION specification changeThis evaluation only concerns itself w operation at a higher, power and doeslevel not constitute approval of plantthe pr amendment is when the staff approv. Thus, the effective date of this

\

level above 35 percent of es fulloperation powerof FSV at a power s

This change concerns itself with the availability of a sufficient number of steam generator heat exchanger 3 and water sources to I assure Safe Shutdown Cooling can be accomplished. These changes modify the current plant Technical Specifications so that both ESS sections are available, and two water sources are available. The licensee has evaluated this modified system for a variety of initiating accidents, including:

High Energy Line Breaks Seismic Events, and Tornadoes.

^~ f These evaluations have shown the adequacy of the system in terms of the number of heat exchanges and water sources. : 3

--t Lc '

Furthermore, the licensee evaluated these changes against the requirements for decay heat removal by the auxiliary feedwater system of a PWR as stated in the Standard Review Plan, Section 10.4.9, Subsection III.2, and General Design Criteria 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 46. The licensee found these changes acceptable by these criteria.

the inb~b F r"'d ed )

In view of the limited nature of this change, and a review of the licensee's analysis against accepted regulatory criteriaAlc.thestaff Sa u +d u-finds these proposed changes acattele. h he-Coubn3 E tus pw h c a. ca c ca.p h %e. ,

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.

Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR S51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

< . i

Inred-A hO \N h Vl k

, t k <- E a bc  % 4down Cxh- 9\ow ,r

. - T/Jkk H U &. a u w - k u o k A m e.1 g-g;g-

_ _ . _ _ _ f f E _ + jf i . R h _ I b ;e _- - ER_ Eh'"_1_c) ~ "*o m..

-_5 p en&> ca%y . % -.a e u res ans_psd.

. Aue-_ eka g, es ..Av khz 3%_pak-

. x _ . s-% %k %a war -

___ _a_lalty exclu. min + 4L ,

-yak _ n.vaskaMe &_pwL<mul .

a -

_ r a q el .. _c uf hs___ealy11r

~ L .td c6xd bl h

.- .Et(Es Ah- Cood m__s_ys+- J

_maalck fumhoc eh - i

_acAw_e. nuq~ c 40 i J u e_ . amd  ;

- co.akh wr%ss k A a akxxavr 5 t.gle ea21ue a4 ek h hw h '~2}+ N opv c' .

V u k Ne e m oce 3 l

_ _ _ ihe._ %.oret h ur ._al m _ J esx6613 Aed Ad b ~9ay-A !

um m A yw &

_ _ _ -.__._.a. opo .puaix

_-eq.mpmed qunMcdu

. _ . . . . a c_e.cn m nea x, i -

As m o .

s9f_ a.tr_ b we pumpn

._._y a m._CLnd___okhcc -e_c t ot.p m -e_n. b . _ .

_ - - - _ rn_v_olv1A cevnnK u nAxaw9 -ecL .

. . _ _ . . . __ _ Wo .ra e._w e_McdMr.Ab.uo . ._

-..- - - o- E  %. ,s s b_CS._d caml'ueAr x+ -

cuyuar_so - r-- ---

l

_ . _._ p<o e c .

_._cm1 .r r..c 4 .

.\ s- .

a . _. no n , ,.

hw__an pemcu hxo l d._ .A h r

.sic

%m \

S'~.ecL-sM m

m.e

.. c.._. 1 _tlae x_ \

_%p_.-

n  %.e.cn. r3 .~c

.- -k .. q C n % c z_ _ _ _ _ _

_w c & =a= n _n _pnh\_

_ n_~~7 __ ,_ ___ . _ .

___._m.yp_le xcagw

_._._M1

_-s_e___ILttr_._._p_

_.ke r aut mok cm1___\oc& i . -. ._.. _

. __. . . m e nm ec ew c-e-

- 05 _~_cck - r .- >m ( -f O**L S *4 m

.__ __ ___ CL a

_m -

rkrqd___ u

_gra w

mecq_

w 6e e. .e de

.e m

_ _ _ _. _y d _t__.1.o&

_ _.- % _ 6mes

% c__rtcas ,

%,, J ,

,%r ___-

.._ _.~ .\

w-ceh__%h_h m h

__ _i N, L._1I s <e

/ _ _ j w_ e m-z e a

ctymM,i , _ . .

_ .__ h CAL._ A Cbd

. _ _.p1 S-(A.

O M&,___l.. _ _._ _ _ __

O7 m __ _ _ ___ W .

" * - . C CA _ kV _ . _.....__ _ _ _

4nWckcN.mLn

_ w _. a W i m e A T ,- h ck

_ _ ,_. ,5 I sa_.-LT-OY1Vs-- cc>N _

2_1 O ^C 8 ___

L

-cob 5_,__f_ _____ .

~ _

.w _ {

O

i k

)

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety i

of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with j the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will  ;

not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health  !

and safety of the public.

Dated:

Principal Contributor: Kenneth L. Heitner, PD-IV

(