ML20034A087

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 127 to License DPR-72

ML20034A087
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	04/09/1990
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20034A086	List: ML20034A087
References
NUDOCS 9004190289
Download: ML20034A087 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _..... -...

6.

p asoq -

y:

UNITED STATES j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

o p

WASHINoTON, D. C. 20555

...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 127 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0_. DPR-72 i

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

1 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 BACKGROUND By letter dated March 26, 1990, Florida. Power Corporation (FPC or.the licensee) requested an amendment on an' emergency basis to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operatiac License No. OPR-72 for the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Huclear Generating Planc (CR-3).. The proposed amendment would add a fcotnote to Technical Specification 3.9.8.2 that would allow either the normal or emergency power source for each decay heat loop to be inoperable when in Mode 6 with the water level above the top of the _ fuel but less than 23 feet.

A Temporary Waiver of Compliance was issued on March 26 1990 to permit utilization of this change.until the amendment could be issued.

i EVALUATION By letter dated June 11, 1980, the Commission requested that licensees subinit TS that would provide redundancy in decay heat removal capability in all modes.

A Babcock & Wilcox Standard Technical Specification (STS) was enclosed for use by licensees in preparing their amendment requests.

The STS included a-_ footnote allowing either the normal or emergency power supply for each decay heat loop to be inoperable in Mode 6 (refueling) with the water. level'less than 23 feet above the top of the fuel.

An amendment request intended to make the Crystal River Unit 3 TS consistent I

with both the Commission's' guidance on decay heat loop redundancy and the Babcock & Wilcox Standard Technical Specifications was submitted,.and Amendment No. 117 was issued on May 31, 1989.

The licensee, however, inadvertently-omitted the footnote.

The amendment request currently being considered would add such a footnote, which, for purposes of clarity, has been modified i

slightly to refer to the limitations of TS 3.8.1.2.

The footnote is consistent with the Commission's guidance on decay beat loop redundancy, was in the sample STS provided' for licensee use, and wot.bf therefore, ha e been approved in Amendment 117 had it been requested.

By inadvertently omitting the footnote from their original amendment request, the licensee has placed an unnecessary restriction on itself.

Therefore, the staff has concluded that the proposed change as modified is acceptable.

9004190289 900409 PDR ADOCK 05000302

,p PDC

/

([

f '

J

~

~2-

SUMMARY

Based & our review, the change proposed in this request, as modified, is j

g adeq W e and acceptable.

EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES l

On March 14, 1990, Crystal River Unit 3 commenced shutdown for Refuel 7.

As a part of this refueling-outage, extensive modifications to the diesel generators are-to be performed.

These modifications will-require that one diesel generr. x be inoperable for much of the outage.

1

.On March 22, 1990, with one diesel generator-inoperable, the licensee realized that TS 3.9.8.2 would prevent the plant from entering Mode 6, as the specification-'

did not have a note allowing an emergency power' supply for a decay heat loop to i

be. inoperable.

This section of the TS was amended on May 31, 1989_.

This is_

the.first time an' entry-into Mode 6 has been planned since,the issuance of that amendment.

Since the licensee's original amendment submittal placed an unnecessary i

restriction on plant operations through an administrative error, and since this is the first attempt at entering Mode 6 since the issuance of the amendment, the staff believes that the licensee could not-reasonably have identified the situation earlier.

Therefore, the staff has determined-that the licensee has not abused the emergency provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(5) in this instance.

Since the issuance of this amendment will prevent the unnecessary extension of the refueling outage, the Commission has determined that there are emergency circumstances warranting prompt approval.

FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92 state that the Commission may make a final determination that a lb.ense amendment involves no significant hazards considerations if operability of the facility in.accordance with the proposed r.hanges would not:

3

~ 1'.

involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated, or i

2.

create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or 1

3.

involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

.s

n-w

$l 4...,

t The licensee evaluated the request'in ' light of these three criteria; In regard to the first criterion, the licensee determined that the' proposed amendment.

would not involve a'significant, increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated since redundant decay heat loops will be provided.

Each loop will be provided with adequate assurance of.a reliable i

power source.

In regard to the second criterion, the licensee determine'd that the proposed amendment will-not create the possibility for a new or different kind of accident.

from any. accident previously evaluated since adequate decay heatLremoval capa-bility is maintained with redundant decay heat removal-loop operability.

- Therefore,'no new accident conditions are created as a result of this request.-

In regard to the third criterion, the licensee determined that the proposed i

amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since there will be adequate: assurance of a reliable power supply to each of the 3

redundant decay heat removal loops.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment is' consistent with the Commission's guidance and with~the Babcock &'Wilcox Standard Technical Specifications.

The staff has evaluated the licensee's submittal and agrees that'it satisfies the standards of of 10 CFR 50.92.

Therefore, the staff has made a final determination that the proposed amendment involves no significant' hazards r

considerations, f

i ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves the change in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area.

as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

We have determined that the amendment involves no significant.increc e in the amounts, and no significant change in the types,-

of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there:is no significant increase in individual or cumulative. occupational radiation exposure.

The Commission has made a final no significant hazards consideration determination with respect to this amendment.

Accordingly, this amendment meets the i

eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance ~of this amendment.

1 h

CONCLUSION 4

We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) this emergency situation could not be avoided; (2) the licensee acted in a timely-manner with respect to responding to this emergency; (3) the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident I

w?viously. evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or differentitype of accident from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant-i reduction in the margin of safety, (4)'there is-reasonable assurance that the s

f f

r.

,p!s 4

?

4~

health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, nd (2) 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:

April 9, 1990 Principal Contributors:

H. Silver i

G. Wunder i

1 i

E

\\

i I

i

[

-t a