ML19325D474
| ML19325D474 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325D473 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910240227 | |
| Download: ML19325D474 (4) | |
Text
,..
- _ =. - - - - - - - - - - -
{
/p x,).
t 5
UNITED STATES I
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMYlSSION y
i 3
W A SHING T oN, o. C. 20666 f
\\*'.....
f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE Or WUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.123 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA ?OWER CORPOPATION, ET AL.
~
CRYSTAL' RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT I
i D0CKET NO. 50-302 l
IhTRODUCTION I
By letter dated August 9,1989, Florida Power Corporation (FPC or the licensee) requested an aniendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to 6
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 for the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3).
The proposed amendment would extend, on a one-time basis, the surveillance interval for the diesel generator full load test until the Cycle VII reload. The surveillance interval, as it stands now, ends on i
i October 21, 1989, and Cycle V!1 reload is scheduled for March 1990.
EVALUATION CR-3 has two Emergency Diesel Cenerators (EDG).
The continuous rating of each unit is 2750kW, the 2000-hour rating is 2750kW to 3000kW, and l
the 30-minute rating is 3000kW to 3300kW. The full load test includes operation for 5 minutes in the 30-minute rating and for 55 minutes in the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> l
l rating. Allowable operation in the 30-minute rating, in which the maximum engineereo safeguards auto-start load for EDG 1A presently falls, is cumulative.
I Currently, TS 4.8.1.1.2.d.4 and 4.8.1.2.2.d.4 require that a full load test be performed every 18 months.
The TS currently allow an extension not to exceed 25%
cf the surveillance interval Due to an unplanned out49e to repair a reactor coolant pump, the surveillance interval, with maximum extension, runs out before the end of the current fuel cycle. The licensee's proposed changes would allow operation until the end of the current fuel cycle witicut conducting the full-load teste This would effectively extend the surveillance interval for 5 to 6 months.
The full load tests were last performed on both EDG on December 7,1987.
Since then, EDG 1A has been operated for less than 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />, and EDG 1B for less than 170 hours0.00197 days <br />0.0472 hours <br />2.810847e-4 weeks <br />6.4685e-5 months <br /> at an average load of approxinintely 2500kW.
EDG 1B has alsu been operated Ior 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at 2900kW.
It is expected that each EDG will accumulate 60-70 additional hours of operation between nuw and the end of the current fuel cycle.
In March of 1989, the licensee performed an inspection of both EDG in accordance with the manufacturer's recosundations.
Based on the results of this inspection, it is expected that the EDG will remain capable of supplying the required e*10240227 sososy fDR ADOCK 05000302 PDC
_ _ ~ _.. _....,. _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ _ _
_i
. g l
l 2
loads until Reload Yll. The run time since the last load test and the expected additional run time are small ano the probability of a wear failure in the i
requested extension period is low.
j in addition, other EDG tests have been eno will continue to be performert as specified in the TS.
J i
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposal and, based on the &bove, concludes
{
that there is little chance of failure of the EDG to carry the required load in the event of a postulated accident during the requestec extension period.
in l
adottion, the proposed amenenent would increase the time the EDG would be available to carry the maximum engineered safeguards load by viiminating running of the EDG in the 30-minute rating.
At the next outage, the system l
will be modified so that the test 196o will be reduced to below the 30-minute I
rating. We find, therefore, that the licensee's proposal is acceptable.
EX1 GENT CIRCUMSTANCES i
4 In conformance with 10 CFR 50.91, the Commission issued a " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operat'ing License and Proposed No Signi% cant I
Hazards consioeration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" which was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40221).
l As discussed above, the present TS requirements are such that the full load test must be performed by October 21, 1989 or the plant must be shut down.
If i
the test were to be conducted, the sortion of the test at a power level within the 30-minute rating would reduce tie time that the EDG would be available i
to carry the maxis.um engineered safeguards load.
Therefore, we conclude that i
i exigent circumstances exist and that the asendment should be issued promptly.
l l
There were no public comments in response to the Federal Register notice.
l*
FIML NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION f
The Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92 state that the Comission may nake a final deterniination that a license asendment involves no significant hazards considerations if operation of the facility in accordance with the amendsient would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequances of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility cf a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed asenoment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the EDGs are expected to be c.pable of performing their intended function for the remainder of the present fuel cycle.
Cperation of the facility in accordance with the proposed anendnent would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accioent from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed change introduces no new mode of plant operation nur coes it require any physical modifications to the plant.
l 1
--y--+9me v
-y w-w-y-y-e,-w---y-,
e g rw-rmv
-v--wwe--
wa"'-r-m-<,+e--,_-w m
--m-e
a:
j.
. r
{
! t Operation of the facility in acccreance with the proposed an.enoment would not i
involve a significant reduction in a urgin of setety because previous tests and inspections and the low run time since leed us to conclude that tha EDGs are expected to be capable of carrying the required load in the event of a postulated i
accident.
In addition, not performing the full load test would increase the s rgin of safety since it would increase the length of time the EDG would be l
available to carry the seximum engineered safeguards load in the event of a postulated accident.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that the amenoment meets the three criteria of 10 CFR 50.92. Therefore, the staff has made a final detsrmination that the t
proposed amenoment does not involve significant hazards considerations.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION i
l This amenos.ent involves a change in a surveillance requiremen";. We have outermined that the amenonent 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 oc significant increase in individual or cumulative l
occupational radiation exposure. The Consnission has previously issued a
=
proposed finding that this amendrent involves no significant hazards considera, tion and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this t
amendment nests the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in l
l 10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environnental impact statement or environrental assessnent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this asendnent.
CONCLUSION k'e have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thet (1) because the requested changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accidant previously evaluated, tio not create i
the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significarit reduction in a mar in of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration,g(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 Comunission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the consrun defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Cated: October 17, 1989 Principal Contributors:
- 5. Sabe C. Wunder i
l H. Silver
- - ~ - -
- -