ML20247H371
| ML20247H371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247H369 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905310221 | |
| Download: ML20247H371 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
[' *%,#
UNITED STATES
- y" i,
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
3 r
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT10h j
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 114 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.
CRYSTAL RIVF" UhlT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-302 BACKGROUND By letter dated March 31, 1953, as supplemented June 22, 1983, and by letter doted December 31, 1984, as superseded April 25, 1988 and revised November 28, 1986, Florida Power Corporation (FPC or the licensee) proposed changes to their Technical Specifications (TS) for the Crystal River Plant, Unit 3.
The proposed changes would remove Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valves, from the TS and place it in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Relocation of the table
. wes propused by Florida Power Company as a line-item improvement to TS on a lead-plant basis for Crystal River Unit 3.
The proposed amendment would also revise Surveillance 4.6.3.1.1 for clarification and add Surveillance 4.6.3.1.3 and 4.6.3.1.4 to address the isolation time requirements for the limiting condi-tion for operation, and provide verification that purge valves are shut, respectively.
In addition, the proposed amendment would revise Specifications a.6.1.1.a.1, 3.6.3.1, 4.6.3.1.1, 4.6.3.1.2, and Definition 1.8 to delete the reference to Table 3.6-1.
By letter dated November 28, 1988, the licensee provided it. formation which clarified portions of the April 25, 1988 submittal. The staff has reviewed this clarifying information and has determined that the November 28, 1988 letter cid not provide information that would alter the staft's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
In addition, during the staff's review of the proposed amendnent, the staff determined that further clarification was needed to the licensee's proposed changes to TS 4.6.1.1.a.1 and TS 3.6.3.1.
Discussions were held between the staff ano the licensee on the staff's proposed rewording, and the licensee agreed with the staff's proposed changes. However, these changes were clarifying in nature and therefore did not alter the staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
EVALUATION j
The operability of containment isolation valves ensures that the containment atmosphere will be isolated from the outside environment in the event of a release of radioactive material to the containment atmosphere or pressurization of the containment. All items currently contained in Table 3.6-1, Containment isolation Valves, will be removed from the TS and relocated in the FSAR. The requirement for containment isolation valve operability will still remain in the 15. The action statement and surveillance requirements will also remain in the TS. The relocation of this table would allow future changes to be made 8905310221 890522 fDR ADOCK 05000302 PNU e
4 h.
r 4
without a license amendment.
This would relieve both the NRC and the licensee of an administrative burden.
Maintaining the table in the FSAR would also ensure that the information is still available to the operators.
Changes to the table j
would be controlled under 10 CFR 50.59 as a change to the facility.
Therefore, 6dequate measures exist to control changes to the facility without having these components listed in the TS.
Due to the proposed relocation of Table 3.6-1 from the TS to the FSAR, references to the table would be deleted from TS 4.6.1.1.a.1, 3.6.3.1, 4.6.3.1.1, and 4.6.3.1.2.
The Commission's Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements recognized the advantages of improved TS and endorsed the recommendations of the nuclear industry and the NRC staff for a program to develop improvements in TS.
An important part of that program is the implementation of line-item improvements in TS.
This change has been implemented in the TS for new licenses and 1s consistent with previous guidance provided by Generic Letter 84-13 on removing the list of snubbers from TS.
Guidance to licensees regarding removal of this list from TS will be provided to all power reactor licensees in a future generic letter based on this lead-plant review and approval.
The proposed change to Surveillance 4.6.3.1.1 would clarify that when work is done on a valve which would not affect the valves's performance, a valve stroke test is not required. Work that could affect the valve's performance would still, require a retest.
The addition of Surveillance 4.6.3.1.3 would ensure that the isolation time of each power-operated or automatic valve is within its limit. Thus, isolation time requirements would remain in the TS.
Finally, thc addition of Surveillance 4.6.3.1.4 would ensure that all purge isolation valves were verified shut at leest once every 31 days. This ensures that the valves will be shut in the event of an accident and is consistent with the Commission's policy on purge / vent valve isolation dependability criteria per NUREG-0737.
SUMMARY
The stoff finds that the requested changes will maintain conservative limiting conditions for plant operation and adequate surveillance requirements.
- Thus, the staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility com-ponent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes 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 indivioual 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
t t:
I g
~
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 environmentui assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and t?, 'ssuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defenae and security or to the health and safety of the public and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
May 22, 1989 Principal Contributor:
G. Wunder i
i
______________________________.___________1________._________________.___.._________
_m