ML20248M194
| ML20248M194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248M193 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806150133 | |
| Download: ML20248M194 (2) | |
Text
____
ash a
t UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 0001
...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.167 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-302
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Inservice inspection Program described in improved Technical Specification (ITS) 5.6.2.8 requires inspection of the reactor coolant pump (RCP) motor flywheels in accordance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.14, Revision 1, dated August 1975. Amendment No.
153 to the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Operating License, issued February 15,1996, added a one-time deferral of the RCP flywheels inspection until"the Spring 1998 refueling outage,"
which at that time was the scheduled date for Refueling Outage 11.
Shortly after issuance of Amendment No.153, CR-3 entered into a 17-month extended, non-refueling outage. As a result of this extended outage, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) deferred Refueling Outage 11 until Fall 1999. By [[letter::3F0398-07, Rev 0 to LAR 227 to License DPR-72,requesting Editorial Change to Improved Tech Specs 5.6.2.8.c Re Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Flywheel Insp|letter dated March 20,1998]], FPC submitted a request to replace the wording " Spring 1998 refueling outage" with " Refueling Outage 11R."
Additionally, this request corrects typographical errors in this ITS.
2.0 EVALUATION in November of 1995, CR-3 submitted a Technical Specification Change Request requesting that the reactor coolant pump flywheel inspections for the second 10-year interval (which were scheduled to be performed during the CR-3 Spring 1996 refueling outage) be postponed until the Spring 1998 refueling outage. This postponement was based upon the number and results of previous CR-3 flywheel inspections, as well as the low probability of flywheel failure as demonstrated by industry experience. In its safety evaluation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concluded, based on the favorable results from previous volumetric examinations and the low probabilility of flywheel failure based on industry records, that the inspection could be deferred one operating cycle (from refueling outage 10 until refuleing outage 11) without affecting the structural integrity of the flywheels or increase the failure probablity of the flywheels significantly.
Because of the extended maintenance outage, CR-3 is stillin the operating cycle which will conclude with refuleing outage 11 in the Fall 1999. During the maintenance outage, the RCPs accumulated no significant operating time, since the plant was in cold shutdown conditions for 9806150133 980608 PDR ADOCK 05000302 p
..... nearly the entire outage. Therefore, the basis for deferring the RCP flywheel inspection until refueling outage 11 ramains valid, and the staff finds this change acceptable.
l
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
Based upon written notice of the proposed amendment, the Florida State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendment changes requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has
-l 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' (63 FR 25110). Accordingly, the 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 the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
Based on its evaluation, the staff concludes that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,
-(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or i
to the health and safety of the public.
Principal' Contributor: Len Wiens Dated: June 8,1998 1
i i
i
.