ML20096E999
| ML20096E999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20096E998 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-90-09, GL-90-9, NUDOCS 9205200134 | |
| Download: ML20096E999 (3) | |
Text
,
o anag 3'
UNITED STATES n
3 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
o,
[
WASHINoTON, D.C. 20666
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY'THE OFFIEE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE __NO DPR FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION. ET AL, CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLAyl QQCKET NO. 50-302
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 20, 1991, as supplemented December 19, 1991,-and January 20, 1992, Florida Power Corporation (the licensee) reo'rasted a revision to Technical Specifications (TS Operating License No. DPR-72 for Crystal) River, Unit 3.Section 4.7.9.1 of l uility This proposed revision provides a visual inspection program forf snubbers consistent with the guidance of Generic Letter 90-09, " Alternative Requirements for Snubber Visual Inspection Intervals and Corrective Actions," dated December 11, 1990.
2.0 EVALUATIO4 The TS-required surveillance for safety-related snubbers censists of two parts:
functional testing and visual inspection.
Functional = testing provides H
a 95% confidence level that more_ than 90% of-the plant = snubber-population operates within the specified acceptance limits.
Presently, one hundred percent of the snubbers are vir" ally inspected; their-intervals are determined solely by the number of inoperable snubbers discovered during the previous visual inspection, regardless of-the size of the population.~ - Visual inspections are scheduled on the assumption that refueling intervals will not exceed 18 months. As a result, plant personnel may~be' subjected to unnecessary radiological exposure in order-to comply with the visual inspection-requirements should the refueling interval exceed 18 months.
To alleviate this situation, the staff has developed an alternate schedule for visual inspection of snubbers-which maintains the same 95% confidence level that the snubbers will function properly when required,-yet permits licensees to perform visual-inspections and corrective _ actions during plant outages.
The alternate schedule is described in Generic letter.90-09.
The licensee proposes to. adopt the alternate schedule for-visual inspection for Crystal River Unit 3 and will revise its visualLinspection procedure:to 1
include Table 4.7.2 of Generic letter 90-09 as Table-4.7-4Lin the Crystal River 3 TS.
a 9200200134 920504 PDR ATOCK 05000302 P
.pgg
W paem w-Jwe,e ere -
' N MJ'eEBWGr.4--NeN a#M4.Mo hm AS Wa* _4MM M-"--
~wa his.6 M4 AM 4.m4M.6 AM -h M" d M44.5 b~
i e
r 1
)
h~
l l-4 i
t
[-
t:
1-I e
f l
I P
s 4
1 p
I h,
1.
I f
l l.:
I~
l I '
~
[
i l
I
,..l
d 3.0
SUMMARY
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed revision to TS Section 4.7.9.1 and has found it to be consistent with guidance of Generic Letter 90-09.
Therefore, we find the proposed revision to be acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendment, the Florida State official had no comments, d
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined-in 10 CFR C
Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined
+ Sat the amendment 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 no significant' increase in-individual or cumulative-occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 11107).
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR SI.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be-prepared in cont.ection with the-issuance of this amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) th, e is reasonable assurance that the-health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
H. Shaw F. Rinaldi Date: May 4, 1992 b
5 5
N b
4 i
DATED:
May 4, 1992 AMENDMENT NO.142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-72-CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 Docket File NRC & Local PDRs l
PDii-2 Reading S. Varga, 14/E/4 G. Lainas, 14/H/3 H. Berkow D. Miller I
H. Silver OGC-WF D. Hagan, 3302 HNBB G. Hill (4), P-137 Wanda Jones, MNBB-7103 C. Grimes, 11/F/23 J. Miller, ll/F/23 ACRS (10) GPA/PA OC/LFMB l
M. Sinkule, R-II F. Rinaldi
[
4 t
i s
j l
i e
4 W
f y
w r
^
m T--
g P
w 9-