ML20039B979
| ML20039B979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039B978 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-47407, NUDOCS 8112280161 | |
| Download: ML20039B979 (2) | |
Text
!
[p s.
jo UNITED STATES g
s-g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
5g j
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\.',.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDfiENT NO. 47 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 Introduction By application dated December 8,1981, Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
, requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 for Crystal River Unit No. 3 (CR-3). The amendment would revise Figure 3.1-7 of the Technical Specifications (TSs) to be consistent with the operational Cycle 4 application of November 16, 1981. FPC failed to include this Figure in their proposed TSs for Cycle 4 and, subsequently, our approval of December 4,1981, of Cycle 4 did not include Figure 3.1-7.
Discussion and Evaluation Figure 3.1-7 of the TSs shows contro) rod group assignments. The proposed change in this Figure involves an interchange of the designations of which safety rods are Group 1 and which are Group 2.
This means an: interchange in which safety rods are moved to their outer limits first. There is no change in the operating characteristics of the reactor with this change in group designation, however, because the reactor will operate with both Group 1 and Group 2 rods in their fully withdrawn position.
The change in the rod designations was proposed by FPC in the Cycle 4 application to reduce the amount of boration needed to maintain the required shutdown margins during certain modes of operation. During Hot Standby, trippable negr tive reactivity is maintained by withdrawing Group 1 rods. Since the proposed Group 1 rods are less reactive, less baron is needed to maintain shutdown margin. Reducing the amount of boration reduces the amount of waste generated during de-boration on a return to power operation.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
8112280161 811210 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P
. Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the healthaand safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) 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: December 10, 1981 4
~., -,. _ _., _
.