ML19351D325
| ML19351D325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351D324 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-42345, NUDOCS 8010090537 | |
| Download: ML19351D325 (2) | |
Text
,
()1 (g" '80 k UNITED STATES 09 NUCLEAR REGU'.ATORY COMMISSION o
WASHsNGTON, D. C. 20555 5
- y
\\+.***/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 34 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-72
)
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT l
DOCKET NO. 50-302 Introduction By letter dated July 23, 1980, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) proposed a change to the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Technical Specifications (TSs) to delete the power level cutoff requirement of TS 3/4.1.3.8. xenon reactivity.
Evaluation The power level cutoff and accompanying TS requiring a hold at that level when returning to full power after a power reduction from above the power level cutoff were established to permit the effects of the xenon transient on power peaking to be dissipated prior to going to full power. Conservative calculations were performed by FPC. The power transient leading to the largest effect en power peaking was analyzed (the " Design Power Transient").
Instantaneous return to power from the low power portion of the transient was assumed. No restrictions were placed on part-length rod motions during the transient.
FPC has performed analyses making use of actual maneuvering practice to obtain the peaking penalty associated with the transient xenon. They find that adequate margin exists to loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) limits without holding at the power level cutoff. Specifics of the analyses performed were not given nor were quantitative results. Nevertheless, we find the proposed change to be acceptable for the present authorized power level of CR-3 for the following reas r s:
1.
The analyses were perfonned for a core power of 2595 MWt (2544xl.02) while core power is limited to 2452 MWt, 2.
The peak heat generation rate during the transient occurs at approximately mid-core height where the margin to limits is' greatest, 3.
Present analysis methods (BAW-10122A, " Normal Operating Controls",
November 1979) typically do not require the power hold for 205 fuel assembly feed-and-bleed plants, and 4.
Violations of the linear heat generation operating limits do not, of themselves, lead to violations of thermal limits.
80100-90637
, i Prior to approval of this change for cycles in which the core power is 'to be above 2452 MWt, we will require more detailed information on the differences between the analyses which show that the power level cutoff may be changed to 100% of full power and those showing the necessity for a 90% of full power cutoff.
1 In summary, we conclude that ' deleting the power level cutoff is acceptable for the current authorized power level for Crystal River Unit 3, but further information will'be required before implementing the change for cycles in which the power would be higher than 2452 MWt.
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 1
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 in 10 CFR d51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact state-
- ment, or negative declaration and environmental irnpact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion-We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not-involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonabic assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) i such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical i
to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of j
the public.
Dated: September 24, 1980 l
._m,_,.
_. _ -,,. _. _ -. -