ML20126L906
| ML20126L906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126L895 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508010121 | |
| Download: ML20126L906 (2) | |
Text
y%g Ig UNITED STATES ysy' s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 L;
c
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGblATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPCRATION, ET AL.
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 Introduction By letter dated May 31, 1984, Florida Power Corporation (the licensee) requested an arendment to Facility Operating License No. OPR-72, revising the Appendix A Technical Specifications to exclude the (1) Reactor Coolant Systam Vents, (2) Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation System, and (3) Spent Fuel Storage Pool from the requirement of Section 3.0.4.
Only items (2) and (3) above are addressed in this Safety Evaluation; item (1) will be evaluated in a future licensing action.
Section 3.0.4 states that " Entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified applicability condition shall not be made unless the conditions of the Limiting Condition for Operation are met without reliance on provisions contained in the ACTION statements unless otherwise excepted. This provision shall not prevent passage through OPERATIONAL MODES as required to comply with ACTION statements."
We have reviewed the licensee's request and a summary of our evaluation follows.
Discussion and Evaluation (1) Reactor Coolant System Vents Proposed Technical Specifications had previously been submitted by the licensee by letter dated February 24, 1984, as a result of the staff's Generic Letter 83-37. Review of that submittal is ongoing. Parts of the May 31, 1984, submittal serve to revise the February 24, 1984, submittalt we will therefore address these parts in a future evaluation.
(2) Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation System The licensee requested that Specification 3.9.9, which addresses Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation System operability for refueling operations (Mode 6), not be subject to the requirements of Specification 3.0.4.
Specification 3.0.4 prohibits entry into operational modes when the Limiting Condition for Operation is not met.
Since Specification 3.9.9 permits the Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation System to be inoperable (with the system penetrations isolated) when in Mode 6, entry 0500010121 850627 DR ADOCK 0500 2
' into Mode 6 with the system inoperable will not present a'new safety problem. Therefore, revising Specification 3.9.9 to eliminate the mode change restriction is acceptable.
(3) Spent Fuel Storage Pool The licensee requested that Specification 3.9.11, which addresses the spent fuel storage pool, not be sub,iect to the requirements of Specification 3.0.4.
Specification 3.9.11 currently requires that the missile shields and 23 feet of water be maintained over the top of irradiated fuel asserrblies in the storage racks.
If these two requirements are not satisfied, the reactor cannot be started up from a shutdown until they are met. Separate Technical Specifications governing spent fuel pool safety are provided independent of plant operating mode. Since the state of the storage pool has no impact on the safe operation of the reactor, we conclude that revising Specification 3.9.11, as proposed by the licensee, to eliminate the mode change restriction will not degrade plant safety. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed Technical Specification change is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in 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 increase in the amounts, and no significant channe 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 connent on such categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(gibility criteria for finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli 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 amendrent.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed abcVe, that:
will not be endangered uy operation in the proposed manne.', and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: June 27,1985 Principal contributors:
J. Guo and R. Anand
-