ML19344A066
| ML19344A066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A065 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003160044 | |
| Download: ML19344A066 (4) | |
Text
-
/
.s' I
e l
g__
'l
-. (^:T x.
ENCLOSURE 1.
SAFETY FVALUATION~FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RE GASE0US EFFLUENT.INSTRUMENIATION TRIP SETPOINTS-Discussion Florida Power Corporation's letter of July.15,1977 proposed changes to Section 3/4.3 (Instrumentation).of.the Appendix A Technical Specifications 4
-for -Crystal-P.iverc unit No. 3.
These changes are to Tables 3.3-4-(Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation Trip Setpoints),
3.3-6 (Radiation Monitoring (RM) Instrumentation), 4.3-2 (ESFAS Instrumen-tation Surveillance Requirements) and 4.3-3 (RM Instrumente. ion Surveillance Piequirements).
The licensee requestei the following:
1.
Change the " Trip Setpoint" for the Reactor Building _ Purge
.and Exhaust Duct Isolation from "I x 10 p Ci/sec" in Table 3.3-4 (item 4.a) and "< 2 x backcround" in Table 3.3-6 (item 2.b.i.a) 'to that " Determined by requirements of Appendix B, Section -2.4.2
. Crystal River. 3 Operating
-License No.-DPR-72."
2.~ Change the." Channel Calibration" for the'Feactor, Building Purge and Exhaust Duct Monitor from "d" (refueling) to "Q" (quarterly) in Tables 4.3-2.(item 4.a) and Table 4.3-3
'(item 2.b.ti.a).
To support"the. proposed changes,.the 1.icensee stated that these changes will remove inconsistencies'(1) within the AppendixLA Technical Specifications and (2)'.between:the Appendix A and Appendix B Technical Specifications. The
.80031600 6
.2 licensee also~ states that because compliance with Section 2.4.2 of the Appendix B Technical Specifications assures compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50.36a Section 2.4.2 should specify the trip setpoint for the Reactor Building Purge Exhaust Duct Monitcr.
Evaluation We have completed our review of the proposed changes to Tables 3.3-4, 3.3-6, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 of the Appendix A Technical. Specifications for Crystal River Unit 3.
The monitor instrumentation referred to in Tables 3.3-3, 3.3-4 and 4.3-2
.(item 4.a) as the " Reactor Building Purge Isolation....." is the "Contain-nent Purge and Exnaust Isolation" in Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3 (item 2.b.i.a).
Both titles refer to the Reactor Building Purge Exha0st Duct Monitor (FSAR 11.4.2.1.2.a).
To avoid confusion, the titles in the above tables should all read " Reactor Building Purge Exhaust Duct Isolation." The licensee has
. agreed to this change to the above tables.
The proposed changes to.the trip setpoint of the Reactor Building Purge Ex-2 haust Duct Monitor, to replace the' phrases "1 x 10 Ci/sec" (Table 3.3-4) and~"f,2xbackground"(Table 3.3-6)bythephras'e"Determinedbyrequire-ments of Appendix "B," Section.2.4.2 - Crystal River 3 Operating License No.
DPR-72," doe's not allow the licensee to discharge concentrations greater j
than 'the maximum _ allowed.
The proposed changes will remove the inconsistency.
among Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 of the-Appendix A Technical Specifications and.
i
_ Section ' 2.'4.2-of the Appendix B Technical - Specifications. The 'two tables and Section 2.4.2 each require different trip setpoints for the Reactor
-Suilding Purge Exhaust Duct' Monitor.' Because compliance with Section'2.4.2
...m_
=.
~
-3:
- ass'ures compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part.50.36a, the trip.
setpoints specified in Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 should -be determined by Section 2.4.2.
Therefore, the proposed changes to Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 are acceptable.
The~ changes to Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, to change the frequency of channel calibration from "R" (at least once per 18 months) to "Q" (at least once per 92 days), increases the frequency of channel calibration. This also removes the inconsistency betw'een the Appendix A Technical Specifications (Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3) and the Appendix B Technical Specifications (Section 2.4.2.I).
Therefore the prcposed changes to tames 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 are acceptable.
These proposed changes will not allow the licensee to discharge concentrations nor total activity greater than the maximum allowed.
Consequently,<there will be no. appreciable effect on the. environment or health and safety of tne public from this action.
By letter dated June 4,1976 the licensee provided additional information pursuant.to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. After we complete.our evaluation of this'infomation we -intend to revise the Technical Specifications to re-flect the requirements of Appendix I.
Environmental' Consideration Weihave determined.that the amendment does not authorize a significant. 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 insig-nificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuaint to 10 CFR 1
Sl.5(d)(4),lthat an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and y
a g-g
'l
,N',
e
&-+,
lLv 4-m 4
l
.4-en'vfronmental impact' appraisal need not be_ prepared 'in connection-with the is-
- suancetof this amendment.
Conclusion l
- We have' concluded,-based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) the amendment does-not involvs a significant increase-in' the probability s e conse-quencesJof accidents'previously considered and does not involve a :significant hazards 1 consideration,j(2)';there is ressonable assurance-that the health and
- safety of ths public ~wil1:not be endangered by operation in the proposed r
I manner, and (3).such activities'will be conducted in compliance with the
- Commihsion's? regulations and the issuance of this amendment will-not be inimi-l cal. to ths: comon defense'and security or' to the health and safety of the.
public.
p; l-r 4
t t
e-l s
p e
+c-a s
y w-
'