ML20246L243
| ML20246L243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18041A198 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180272 | |
| Download: ML20246L243 (4) | |
Text
_-_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
pD CEcy o
UNITED STATES
.f k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'd j
WASHINGTON D. C. 20666
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCl. EAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT'NO. 111 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 00CXET NO. 50-302 INTRODUCTION By letter dated April 14, 1983, as modified December 13,1983, July 25,1984 January 24 and October 16, 1986 and August 18, 1987, Florida Power Corporation 4
(FPC or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 for the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3).
The proposed amendment would clarify portions of Section 6 of the TSs, and modify audit frequencies of the Security, Emergency, and Fire Protection plans to be consistent with 10 CFR 73.40(d).
Also, in the December 13, 1983 letter, FPC proposed changes to TS Table 3.7-3,
" Safety-Related Hydraulic Snubbers," which would have added six new safety-related hydraulic snubbers to the Table and clarify others.
However, Amendment 88 to the license deleted this list from the TSs, and therefore, this change is not addressed in this evaluation.
SECTION 6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS General f
FPC proposed changes throughout this section in titles of various positions to agree with the revised organization charts, as well as renumbering certain sections. These changes are administrative in nature, reflect the position functions, and are acceptable.
PRESENT CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed changes to Figure 6.2-1, " Corporate Organization," to indicate the present corporate organizational structure and to add a footnote stating that the corporate organization m.y be changed "without prior License Amendment l
provided that a revision to Figure 6.2-1 is included with the next License Amendment request."
Except for the footnote, the proposed change is administrative in nature, and is acceptable.
The proposed footnote is not acceptable, even though the NRC staff does not disagree with its intent, h5 272 8905o3 P
OCK 050003,
o The staff recognizes the addition of the footnote as an attempt by the licensee to address the problem of burdensome administrative effort and delays in imple-mentation of desired organizational changes.
However, the proposed footnote would permit unilateral licensee changes to the TS without prior NRC review and approval. This would violate the regulations. A more appropriate solution is presented in Generic Letter 88-06, which permits removal of organization charts from the TS with appropriate changes to the administrative control requirements of the TS.
In FPC letter dated April 27, 1989, it was stated that FPC will proceed expeditiously
- request an amendment removing the organization charts in accordance with Generic Letter 88-06. This will satisfactorily accomplish the intended goal of the proposed footnote.
FACILITY ORGANIZATION Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed changes to Figure 6.2-2, " Facility Organization," to show the general responsibilities of each department rather than every position in each department and to add a footnote similar to that added to Figure 6.2-1.
Except for the footnote, the proposed changes are administrative in nature.
Listing departmental responsibilities rather than the positions within each department will help clarify the responsibilities of each group and the inter-departmental relationships.
The proposed changes are acceptable, except for the footnote, as discussed in Present Corporate Organizational Structure, above.
PLANT REVIEW COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed a change to TS 6.5.1.6.e by replacing " preparation and forwarding of reports" with " review of reports."
Changing PRC responsibility to review TS violations clarifies the role of the PRC in the submittal process concerning TS violations and should continue to assure that proper evaluations and recommendations concerning these violations are performed.
Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
hUCLEAR GENERAL REVIEW COINITTEE, OVALIFICATIONS Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed a change to TS 6.5.2.3, which would add "or the equivalent" after
" Bachelor of Science in Engineering or related field" in both parts "a" and "b."
The proposed Nuclear General Review Committee (NGRC) membership qualifications will allow FPC to equate adequate experience to a degree; otherwise, highly qualified individuals may be excluded from NGRC membership.
Including these non-degreed individuals with substantial expertise in the NGRC can potentially increase the effectiveness and quality of this committee. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
7 NUCLEAR GENERAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed changes to t 6.5.2.8, which would update the NGRC review require-ments to concur with ANSI N18.7-1976, so that the TS accurately reflect the ANSI standard. ANSI N18.7-1976, which was endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, dated February 1978, upgraded their Quality Assurance program and FPC stated compliance to this standard in their FSAR. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
NUCLEAR GENERAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AUDITS Discussien and Evaluation FPC proposed changes to TS 6.5.2.9, which would revise the Emergency Plan, Security Plan, and Fire Protection Plan auditing frequency from 24 months to 12 months. This change is required by 10 CFR 73.40(d). Therefore, this change is acceptable.
PROCEDURES Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed changes to TS 6.8.2.1.a, which would require the PRC and the Director, Nuclear Plant Operations to review "those test procedures associated with plant modifications that affect nuclear safety" only, rather than those associated with all plant modifications as previously required. This change would bt consistent with the scope of the TS, namely, matters dealing with nuclear safety.
It would relieve the PRC of the burden of reviewing test pro-cedures for modifications not affecting nuclear safety, which could detract from nuclear safety matters.
In addition, the proposed change would be consistent with the responsibilities of the PRC as defined in TS 6.5.1.6.
Therefore, we conclude that this change is acceptable.
MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT Discussion and Evaluation FPC proposed to update TS 6.9.1.6 to specify the correct NRC address for submittal of the required monthly reports.
Since submittal of the proposed change, the NRC address has again been changed and the proposed change has been modified accordingly.
This revision is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment relates to changes in administrative requirements.
The Commissior has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations and there has been no public comment on such categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(gibility criteria for finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli 10).
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.
4 l
. CONCLUSION We have-concluded, based on the considerations. discussed above, that:
j (1) there is reasonable assurance that the, health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the propcsed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuence of this amendment will not be inimical to the coninon defease and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: May 5, 1989 Principal Contributors:
G. Pick H. Silver 1
i f