ML20132E231
| ML20132E231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132E186 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508010747 | |
| Download: ML20132E231 (3) | |
Text
-
f( -
h, UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
- [
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
\\....+/
7 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-72 4
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 l
j INTRODUCTIJN On September 27, 1982, the NRC staff issued a Safety Evaluation (SE) on Auxiliary (errergency) Feedwater System Automatic Initiation and Flow Indication (TMI Action Plan Item II.E.1.2).
On May 1, 1984, the NRC staff issued an SE on the EFW reliability upgrade (II.E.1.1). We requested the licensee to propose necessary changes to the Technical Specifications at a time that is appropriate to the installation and operation of the new Emergency Feedwater System (EFWS). By letter dated January 23, 1985, the licensee reauested a revision to the Technical Specifications to incorporate the required EFWS upgrades including operability and surveillance requirements for the emergency feedwater initiation and control logic. By letter dated June 6, 1985, the licensee submitted a letter to correct some administrative errors in the January submittal, and by letter of June 28, 1985 withdrew one change requested in the earlier submittal and clarified others.
i EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION The licensee proposed a revision to Technical Specification 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.3.6 i
to provide operability and surveillance requirements for the upgraded emergency feedwater system. We have reviewed the licensee's submittal and conclude that the Technical Specifications appropriately address the operability and surveillance requirements for EFWS manual initiation and automatic actuation logic and are i
i in conformance with the B&W Standard Technical Specifications. The proposed changes are therefore acceptable.
i The licensee also proposed changes to the EFWS Technical Specification 3.7.1.2 to incorporate the required EFWS upgrades. Specifically, this Technical Specification was revised to 1) delete the surveillance requirements on the i
air accumulators for valves FWV-39 and 40, 2) add 18-month surveillance on the newly incorporated EFW automatic actuation signals and 3) add EFW flow path operability verification following a refueling outage or other cold shutdown of longer than 30 days.
4 B500010747 850 6
1
l l Surveillance on the air accumulators for valves FWV-39 and 40 has been deleted due to EFWS piping modifications which change the function of these valves. Prior to the modification, these valves provided EFW flow control when the EFW block valves are closed. This function is now provided by four new valves, EFV-55, 56, 57 and 58. Therefore, verification of the operability of valves FWV-39 and 40 is no longer necessary as they are no longer in the system flowpath.
t Surveillance at least once per 18 months during shutdown to confirm automatic actuation of the EFWS pumps on receipt of a once through steam generator (OTSG) A or B low pressure test signal and all reactor coolant pumps tripped test signal has been incorporated. These automatic initiation signals were added in order to improve EFWS availability to mitigate certain transient conditions. This surveillance frequency is the same as that for the previously existing automatic actuation signals.
Per the recomendations from the NUREG-0737 Item II.E.1.1 review, the licensee has added a Technical Specification change to assure the operability of an EFWS flowpath by using an EFW pump to pump water from the water supply tank to the steam generators prior to startup after any refueling outage or other cold shutdown of 30 days or longer. This change satisfies the concern that the EFWS be in its operational configuration during e
power operation when it has not been utilized for plant startup. However, because the current EFW water source (condensate storage tank) is not J
condensate quality and may therefore cause degradation of steam generator internals, the licensee proposed not to implement this change until after installation of the new emergency feedwater supply tank during the Cycle 6 refueling outage. We find this schedule to be acceptable.
Based on our review of the proposed changes to Technical Specification 3.7.1.2 and a comparison to the Safety Evaluation for Item II.E.1.1 of NUREG-0737, we conclude that the EFWS Technical Specification changes 1
are in accordance with our criteria for improving EFWS reliability and are therefore acceptable.
In its letter of June 28, 1985, the licensee withdrew a previously requested change to the feedwater isolation response time (Table 3.3-5) leaving it unchanged from the present Technical Specifications because the requested change was overly conservative. The licensee connitted to reevaluate this response time, and if a change is indicated, to submit an amendment reouest to reflect the appropriate response time. We find this acceptable.
l Various word changes of an administrative nature are proposed to clarify j
existing requirements. Because these do not change the original meaning and j
intent of the Technical Specifications, these are acceptable.
r
. ENVIRONFENTAL C0flSIDERATION 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 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. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environnental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (21 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: July 16,1985 Principal contributor:
N. Trehan, J. Wermiel l
-