ML19340A342
| ML19340A342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340A339 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003160050 | |
| Download: ML19340A342 (3) | |
Text
.
r l
m
.Q l
L Safety Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specification Amendment i
l I
Introduction Florida Power Corporation's (the licensee's) letter of October 11, 1977 requests an amendment to the Operating License DPR-72, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for i
l l
Crystal River Unit 3.
The purpose of the request is to add a definition to the l
Technical ~ Specifications defining " Unplanned Releases of Radioactive Material from t
the Site" to be "Any release of radioactive material from the site that is not planned and contains radioactive material in quantities such that the.elease rate is >105 of the allowable instantaneous release rate."
Evaluation We have ccmpleted our review of the proposed amendment to the Crystal River Unit 3 i
i
. Technical Specifications.- We have reviewed the present Technical Specifications.
Specification 5.6.2.A requires the licensee to make Non-routine Reports (NRR) in the i
event of any ~ unplanned release of radioactive material from th'e site. The proposed i
definition of unplanned releases of radioactive material from the site would not require the licensee to submit a NRR when the release rate is less than 10% of the allowed instantaneous release: rate.
l We.have-reviewed the NRRs. submitted by the licensee per Specification 5.6.2.A on un--
planned releases; Since the commercial operation of Crystal River Unit 3 on 3/13/77, the licensee ~ submitted five NRRs because ~of= unplanned radioactive gaseous releases.
In each. case, the unplanned release was caused.by bicwn loop seals in the gaseous waste. system. The.naximum amount of noble gas release was 33 Ci and the maximum release rate at the peak of the discharge profile was less than 10% of the 80081 ao o50 a
' instantaneous release rate limit of Specification 2.4.2A(1). The licensee is in the process of upgrading the gaseous waste system to minimize the occurrence of un-planned releases caused by blown loop seals.
Considering these occurrences of low level unplanned releases we conclude that the licensee should be able to detect all unplanned releases, detennine the causes, take measures to prevent such releases and report all instances of unplanned releases in the Semiannual Effluent Report on Radioactive Effluents. We also conclude, how-ever, that unplanned releases of radioactive material in quantities less than 10t of the instantaneous release rate limit should not require a Non-routine Report.
In-stead of defining " Unplanned Releases" as proposed, we have concluded that Specifi-cation 4.5.2.A should be modified to not require non-routine reports whm the radio-active material in an unplanned release is at a ratc less than 10'; of the allowed instantaneous release rate. We have also amended Specification 5.6.1(3) on Semi-l annual Effluent Report - Radioactive Effluents to require the licensee to include all unplanned releases and to identify the causes of each of those releases. The same information on patterns in unplanned releases will therefore be available for our review. The licensee has agreed to these changes.
Environmental Consideration The radiological consequences of the amendment are not different from those analyzed in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated May,1973 as the amendment consists only of a change in administrative report procedure.
We have determined that the a-mendment does not authorize a' change in effluent type or total amount and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we conclude, in pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(d), that an environmental impect statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
^
nj
. Conclusion We have concluded, based on the evaluation discussed above, that:(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endange by operation in the proposed manner and (2) such activity will be conducted in com-pliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
t
- - _ - - - - - - - -