ML19317G540
| ML19317G540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G538 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003180842 | |
| Download: ML19317G540 (3) | |
Text
-
~
UNITED STATES
,3 8'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20686 r
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO LICEN 2 NO. DPR-72 l
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT l
DOCKET NO. 50-302 Introduction By letter dated August 4, 1977, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) informed us that due to a misunderstanding, Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.c.4, a demonstration of diesel generator operability for Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3), had not been perfonned during the required interval.
In addition, FPC requested an extension of the surveillance time interval required under this Technical Specification. This Specification requires that each diesel generator be demonstrated merable at least once every 18 months during shutdown by verifying the diesel generator operates for > 60 minutes while loaded to > 3000 kw.
FPC stated that the 18-month inverval, plus the allowable extension of 25% authorized by Specification 4.0.2.a. ended on July 4, 1977.
The-starting point for this interval was the previous operability demonstration completed prior to initial criticality of this facility.
It had been FPC's understanding that the surveillance intervals began
=at receipt of operating license (issued December 3, 1976) until informed otherwise by~an NRC inspector.
FPC has also.;tated that a comparison of load demand forecasts for August 1977, to net generating capability including purchased power, indicates that the loss of CR-3 generation would result in a deficiency '
of approximately 350 MW(e). Therefore, they have requested an extension of the deadline for this demonstration of diesel generator operability until midnight August 22, 1977, by which time other power sources will be available.
Evaluation The time intervals given in the Technical Specifications are set forth as general guidance for surveillance programs and are not safety limits.
In the case of the diesel generators, the program specified in Specification 4.8.1.1.2.c.4 must be perfonned while the reactor is shutdown. The 18-month interval was detennined from the fact that a I
- nsiso gqg
% Dressurized water reactor of.the Crystal River Unit 3 type 'is
. expected to be shutdown for refueling about every 18 months, and that the testing of the diesel generators would be perfonned during reactor refueling.
In-order te provide. operational flexibility because of scheduling and performance considerations, Specification 4.0.2.a provides a tolerance of up to 25 percent for performing surveillance activities beyond the nominal surveillance interval.
The total time interval between successive tests of the diesel generators, as authorized by Specifications 4.8.1.1.2.c.4 and 4.0.2.a. is 22-1/2 months.
FPC's failure to perfonn the surveillance during the past 4 weeks plus the requested additional 3 weeks, totaling 7 weeks, is short relative to the 22-1/2-month interval authorized. Therefore, the 3-week extension, in addition to the 4-week delay already incurred, does not significantly reduce the assurance that the diesel generators will be capable of perfonning their safety function if called upon to do so during this interval.
Additional assurance that the diesel generators will function properly is provided by FPC's performance of surveillance requirement 4.8.1.1.2.a.5.
This requires that the diesel generators be operated > 60 minutes loade' to > 1503 kw et least once per 31 days.
FPC procedures for perforning-this test require loading of 2750 kw.
Sased on the above, we have deternined that the total 7-week extension of the surveillance interval does not involve a significant increase
' in the probability or consequences of an accident or a significant decrease in a safety margin. Accordingly, FPC's request for an
?xtension until midnight August 22, 1977, is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration
' We have determined that the amendment does 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 amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in' connection with the issuance of this amendment.
i.
~
~ ~ ' ~~
~
i j
3-Conclusion-
-We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
.(1) becaus-the amendment does not involve a'significant increase in the proba... ty or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, 1
the amendment does 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: ' August 5,1977 O
e m
e e
,-n.
-