ML20215L584
| ML20215L584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215L576 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610290127 | |
| Download: ML20215L584 (2) | |
Text
p ua
'o UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h r
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t:,.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 93 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-302 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 14, 1986, as supplemented October 6, 1986, Florida Power Corporation (FPC or the licensee) requested amendment to the 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 revise TS 4.5.2.f to extend the surveillance interval for the high pressure injection.(HPI) and low pressure injection (LPI) pump and valve actuation testing to once. per fuel cycle for Cycle 6 only.
The existing specified interval of once per 18 months would require the surveillance be performed prior to the end of the current fuel cycle due to an extended forced outage to repair the reactor coolant pumps at CR-3.
The surveillance could not be satisfied during the RCP outage because of the requirement to do the surveillance in Mode 6 when the reactor vessel head is removed. The head was not removed during the forced outage in order to avoid the unnecessary radiation exposure related to head removal.
The amendment would allow a one-time extension of the surveillance interval to eliminate a mid-cycle shutdown to perform the surveillance during Mode 6.
The HPI and LPI actuation testing would then be accomplished at the end of the fuel cycle (September 1987).
EVALUATION The existing TS 4.5.2.f requires that the surveillance interval for HPI and LPI pump and valve actuation testing be at least once per 18 months during Mode 6.
The intent of the 18-month surveillance interval was to perform the surveillance testing during each refueling outage. The requirement of the surveillance testing to be perfonned during Mode 6 when the reactor ' vessel head is off is to prevent the possible overpressurization of the system during low temperature conditions.
The licensee has actually performed the testing required by TS 4.5.2.f with successful results during startup from the forced RCP outage. The testing was conducted during Mode 3 when the reactor coolant was at a temperature at which low temperature overpressurization is not a concern. Therefore, the l
licensee has raasonably assured HPI and LPI pump and valve operability for the additional period of time.
$DR610290127 861021 ADOCK 05000302 p
,. Finally, the proposed changed would eliminate the need for an unnecessary removal of the reactor vessel head. This will result in the reduction of unnecessary personnel radiation exposure as well as a reduction in the probability of a reactor vessel head drop. Therefore, we find the proposed TS change acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in surveillance requirements. 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 environmental 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:
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 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:
October 21, 1986 Principal Contributors:
C. Liang B. R. Mozafari l
l