ML20206M502
| ML20206M502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M476 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704200123 | |
| Download: ML20206M502 (2) | |
Text
A. : iR
~
~
L.r... m.,
m,
.c.
. > ~
in Me
'o UNITED STATES ~
g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
i SAFETY FVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOP REGULATION I
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 98 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.
s CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GEFERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 i,
INTRODUCTION f
By letter dated September 2, 1986, as supplemented January 15, 1987, Florida Power Corporation (FPC or the licensee) requested amendment to the i
Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License
[
No. DPR-72 for the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3).
The proposed amendment would relax the requirements for diesel generator (DG) j testing in Section 3.8.1.1, Actions a, b, c and d.
The licensee proposes to delete the requirement to demonstrate DG operability within one hour and i
every eight hours thereafter.
In lieu of the preceding, the licensee i
proposes to substitute a requirement to demonstrate DG operability within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for Actions a and b, and within eight hours for Actions c and d.
)
EVALUATION i
The licensee's proposal addresses two areas of NRC staff concern. One deals i
with increasing DG reliability by decreasing the frequency of DG testing.
i The proposed TS change would reduce the number of tests per DG in Actions a and b from a possible nine tests in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to one test in 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. There 1
would also be a commensurate reduction in tests per DG in, Actions c and d.
The proposed changes are consistent with the current NRC staff position with regard to the concept of reducing DG testing and the specific number of tests required for a given period of time. The second area of NRC staff concern deals with activity at a nuclear plant immediately following degradation or
{
loss of an AC power source. Our opinion is that activities in this event should be concentrated on ensuring adequate core cooling and determining i
i the cause of degradation or loss of the AC power source..The requirement to j
demonstrate DG operability within one hour after the above loss takes l
operators away from potentially more critical activities. Therefore, the licensee's proposal to delete this requirement and substitute a requirement to demonstrate DG operability within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is also consistent with the current NRC staff position.
[
Based on our review, we conclude that the licensee's proposed TS Section i
3/4.8.1, in general, is acceptable for the above stated reasons.
In the January 15, 1987 supplement, the licensee submitted a revision to Section 3/4.8, Electrical Power Systems Bases.
NPC staff had expressed concern that the licensee's proposal indicated that DG operability can be demonstrated by performing Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.7.a.4.
This e
B704200123 870407 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P
?-
portion of the surveillance deals with demonstrating that the DG starts and accelerates to rated speed and voltare.
It does not require that the DG be loaded.
It is our position that a demonstration of DG operability includes the ability to accept and carry load. We acknowledge, however, that there are circumstances under which paralleling a DG with the grid for the purpose of loading is not recommended. These circumstances include any time thera is grid instebility, or potential instability such as when a hurricane or fire threatens transmission lines.
The January 15, 1987 Bases revision contains a commitrent to denonstrate CG operebility by carrying load unless circunstances would constrain loading.
Thus, DG loading cay be limited or eliminated during inclement weather or whenever loading would present e sefety concern. Pe have determined the change to the Eases is an acceptable method of addressing the above mentioned concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This arendment involves a chance in surveillance requirements. Ve 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 occuoational radiation expcsure. 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 amendrent meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.??(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental asses 5 rent need be prepared in connection with the issuance o' 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 rict be endangered by operation in the proposed marner, and (?) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's reguletions and the issuance of this anendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 7,1987 Principal Contributors:
F. Tomlinson
--