ML073120270
| ML073120270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2007 |
| From: | Lyon C NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV |
| To: | Parrish J Energy Northwest |
| Lyon C Fred, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 301-415-2296 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML073120268 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD6209 | |
| Download: ML073120270 (15) | |
Text
December 13, 2007 Mr. J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 (Mail Drop 1023)
Richland, WA 99352-0968
SUBJECT:
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE:
MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (TAC NO. MD6209)
Dear Mr. Parrish:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 205 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-21 for the Columbia Generating Station. The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated November 6, 2007.
The amendment revises TS 1.4, Frequency, TS 3.1.5, Control Rod Scram Accumulators, TS 3.4.1, Recirculation Loops Operating, TS 3.5.1, ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] - Operating, TS 3.5.2, ECCS - Shutdown, TS 3.7.1, Standby Service Water (SW)
System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS), TS 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current] Sources -
Operating, TS 3.8.2, AC Sources - Shutdown, and TS 5.5.6, In-service Testing Program.
The changes include updates to adopt approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Travelers 284, Revision 3, Add Met vs. Perform to Specification 1.4, Frequency, TSTF-479, Revision 0, Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a, TSTF-485, Revision 0, Correct Example 1.4-1, and TSTF-497, Revision 0, Limit Inservice Testing Program SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. The Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's next biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Carl F. Lyon, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 205 to NPF-21
- 2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page
Pkg. ML073120268 (Amendment/License ML073120270, TS Pgs ML073120275)
OFFICE LPL4/PM LPL4/LA DSS/SRXB/BC ITSB/BC OGC LPL4/BC NAME FLyon JBurkhardt GCranston TKobetz, GMW for Bklulan, NLO THiltz DATE 11/26/07 11/20/07 11/28/07 12/3/07 12/10/07 12/12/07
June 2007 Columbia Generating Station cc:
Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council P.O. Box 43172 Olympia, WA 98504-3172 Mr. Douglas W. Coleman (Mail Drop PE20)
Manager, Regulatory Programs Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Chairman Benton County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 190 Prosser, WA 99350-0190 Mr. William A. Horin, Esq.
Winston & Strawn 1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-3817 Mr. Matt Steuerwalt Executive Policy Division Office of the Governor P.O. Box 43113 Olympia, WA 98504-3113 Ms. Lynn Albin Washington State Department of Health P.O. Box 7827 Olympia, WA 98504-7827 Technical Services Branch Chief FEMA Region X 130 - 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Mr. Mike Hammond Department of Homeland Security FEMA/REP 130 - 228th Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-4005 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 69 Richland, WA 99352-0069 Assistant Director Nuclear Safety and Energy Siting Division Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion Street NE Salem, OR 97301-3742 Special Hazards Program Manager Washington Emergency Management Div.
127 W. Clark Street Pasco, WA 99301
ENERGY NORTHWEST DOCKET NO. 50-397 COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 205 License No. NPF-21 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Energy Northwest (licensee), dated July 30, 2007, as supplemented November 6, 2007, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and Paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. NPF-21 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2)
Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 205 and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
3.
The license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
Thomas G. Hiltz, Chief Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-21 and Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: December 13, 2007
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 205 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-21 DOCKET NO. 50-397 Replace the following pages of the Facility Operating License No. NPF-21 and Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached revised pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain vertical lines indicating the areas of change.
Facility Operating License REMOVE INSERT 3
3 Technical Specifications REMOVE INSERT 1.4-1 1.4-1 1.4-2 1.4-2 1.4-3 1.4-3 1.4-4 1.4-4 1.4-5 1.4-6 1.4-7 1.4-8 3.1.5-2 3.1.5-2 3.4.1-2 3.4.1-2 3.5.1-5 3.5.1-5 3.5.2-4 3.5.2-4 3.7.1-2 3.7.1-2 3.8.1-3 3.8.1-3 3.8.2-3 3.8.2-3 5.5-5 5.5-5 5.5-6 5.5-6 (3)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess, and use at any time any byproduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required; (4)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source of special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and (5)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility.
(6)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to store byproduct, source and special nuclear materials not intended for use at Columbia Generating Station. The materials shall be no more than 9 sealed neutron radiation sources designed for insertion into pressurized water reactors and no more than 40 sealed beta radiation sources designed for use in area radiation monitors. The total inventory shall not exceed 24 microcuries of strontium-90, 20 microcuries of uranium-235, 30 curies of plutonium-238, and 3 curies of americium-241.
C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
(1)
Maximum Power Level The licensee is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels not in excess of full power (3486 megawatts thermal). Items in shall be completed as specified. Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated into this license.
(2)
Technical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 205 and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in l
Appendix B, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
a.
For Surveillance Requirements (SRs) not previously performed by existing SRs or other plant tests, the requirement will be considered met on the implementation date and the next required test will be at the interval specified in the Technical Specifications as revised in Amendment No. 149.
Amendment No. 205
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 205 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-21 ENERGY NORTHWEST COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-397
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated July 30, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML072220111), as supplemented by letter dated November 6, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML073180488), Energy Northwest (licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-21) for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS). The proposed changes revise Technical Specification (TS) 1.4, Frequency, TS 3.1.5, Control Rod Scram Accumulators, TS 3.4.1, Recirculation Loops Operating, TS 3.5.1, ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] - Operating, TS 3.5.2, ECCS - Shutdown, TS 3.7.1, Standby Service Water (SW) System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS), TS 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current] Sources - Operating, TS 3.8.2, AC Sources -
Shutdown, and TS 5.5.6, In-service Testing Program. The changes include updates to adopt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Travelers 284, Revision 3, Add Met vs. Perform to Specification 1.4, Frequency, TSTF-479, Revision 0, Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a, TSTF-485, Revision 0, Correct Example 1.4-1, and TSTF-497, Revision 0, Limit Inservice Testing Program SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.
The supplement dated November 6, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49572).
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act (the Act) requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to include technical TSs as part of the license. These TSs are derived from the plant safety analyses.
The NRC staff reviewed the proposed changes for compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.36, Technical Specifications, and consistency with the precedent as established in NUREG-1433, "Standard Technical Specifications [STS],
General Electric Plants, BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor]/4." In general, licensees cannot justify TS changes solely on the basis of adopting the model STS. To ensure this, the NRC staff makes a determination that the proposed changes maintain adequate safety. Changes that result in relaxation (less restrictive condition) of current TS requirements require detailed justification.
In general, there are two classes of changes to TSs: (1) changes needed to reflect revisions to the design basis (TSs are derived from the plant safety analyses, which are part of the design basis), and (2) voluntary changes to take advantage of industry and NRC evolutions in policy and guidance affecting the required content and preferred format of TSs over time. The proposed amendments are administrative changes that reflect evolutions in policy and guidance.
Licensees may revise the TSs to adopt improved STS format and content provided that the plant-specific review supports a finding of continued adequate safety because: (1) the change is editorial, administrative or provides clarification (i.e., no requirements are materially altered),
(2) the change is more restrictive than the licensees current requirement, or (3) the change is less restrictive than the licensees current requirement, but nonetheless still affords adequate assurance of safety when judged against current regulatory standards. The detailed application of this general framework, and additional specialized guidance, are discussed in Section 3.0 in the context of specific proposed changes.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
The licensee proposes to make changes to the TSs that are editorial or administrative in nature or provide clarification. The NRC staff reviewed the proposed changes to determine that they did not alter the TS requirements.
3.1 TS 1.4, Frequency 3.1.1 Met and Perform TS 1.4 includes language regarding the specific meaning of the terms met and performed as used in the TS SR notes. The licensee proposes to revise TS 1.4 consistent with TSTF-284, Revision 3, to (1) delete the reference to Example 1.4-4 in the third paragraph of the DESCRIPTION, (2) revise the end of the fifth paragraph of the DESCRIPTION clarifying when Surveillances must be met or performed, and (3) add new Examples 1.4-5 and 1.4-6 for the use and application of SR notes that use met and perform.
Specifically, the licensee proposes to revise the end of the fifth paragraph of the DESCRIPTION section of TS 1.4 to add the following clarification:
Some Surveillances contain notes that modify the Frequency of performance or the conditions during which the acceptance criteria must be satisfied. For these Surveillances, the MODE-entry restrictions of SR 3.0.4 may not apply. Such a Surveillance is not required to be performed prior to entering a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability of the associated LCO [limiting condition for operation] if any of the following three conditions are satisfied:
a.
The Surveillance is not required to be met in the MODE or other specified condition to be entered; or b.
The Surveillance is required to be met in the MODE or other specified condition to be entered, but has been performed within the specified Frequency (i.e., it is current) and is known not to be failed; or c.
The Surveillance is required to be met, but not performed, in the MODE or other specified condition to be entered, and is known not to be failed.
Examples 1.4-3, 1.4-4, 1.4-5, and 1.4-6 discuss these special situations.
Adoption of TSTF-284, Revision 3, is an administrative change and serves to clarify terminology and provide additional examples for application of SR notes. No changes in the application of any TSs are involved. The NRC approved TSTF-284, Revision 3, by letter from W. Beckner (NRC) to J. Davis (Nuclear Energy Institute) dated February 16, 2000.
The NRC staff concludes that the licensees proposed changes are acceptable since they are administrative, do not alter the TS requirements, and are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-284, Revision 3.
3.1.2 Example 1.4-1 The licensee proposes to revise Example 1.4-1 consistent with TSTF-485, Revision 0.
Specifically, the licensee proposes to revise the second paragraph of the example to state:
If the interval as specified by SR 3.0.2 is exceeded while the unit is not in a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability of the LCO for which performance of the SR is required, then SR 3.0.4 becomes applicable. The Surveillance must be performed within the Frequency requirements of SR 3.0.2, as modified by SR 3.0.3, prior to entry into the MODE or other specified condition or the LCO is considered not met (in accordance with SR 3.0.1) and LCO 3.0.4 becomes applicable.
TSTF-359, Revision 9, was implemented at CGS as part of Amendment No. 187, dated June 4, 2004. Amendment No. 187 revised LCO 3.0.4 and SR 3.0.4. The changes made in TSTF-359 to SR 3.0.4 made certain statements in the existing Example 1.4-1 of TS 1.4 incorrect.
Example 1.4-1 states that if the interval as specified by SR 3.0.2 is exceeded while the unit is not in a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability of the LCO for which performance of the SR is required, the Surveillance must be performed within the Frequency requirements of SR 3.0.2 prior to entry into the MODE or other specified condition. Failure to do so would result in a violation of SR 3.0.4.
TSTF-359, Revision 9, modified SR 3.0.4 to state that when an LCO is not met due to Surveillances not having been met, entry into a MODE or other specified condition in the Applicability shall only be made in accordance with LCO 3.0.4. TSTF-359, Revision 9, modified LCO 3.0.4 to provide conditions under which it is acceptable to enter the Applicability of the LCO with the LCO not met. Therefore, it is possible to enter the Mode or other specified condition in the Applicability of an LCO with a Surveillance not performed within the Frequency requirements of SR 3.0.2, and this does not result in a violation of SR 3.0.4.
TSTF-485, Revision 0, revises Example 1.4-1 to be consistent with the current requirements of SR 3.0.4. In order to do this, the second paragraph of Example 1.4-1 is modified to parallel the discussion in the previous paragraph. The previous paragraph discusses Surveillances that exceed the interval without being performed while in the Applicability. The second paragraph would be modified to make a similar statement regarding Surveillances that exceed the interval while not being in the Applicability.
The second sentence of the second paragraph is modified to refer to the provisions of SR 3.0.3.
This is necessary since TSTF-359, Revision 9, modified SR 3.0.4 to recognize the possibility that performance of a missed Surveillance may have been extended, and that a MODE change occurs prior to performance of the missed Surveillance, but within the time permitted under SR 3.0.3.
The statement is deleted that failure to perform a Surveillance prior to entering the Applicability would constitute a violation of SR 3.0.4, and a statement is inserted to state that the LCO would not be met and LCO 3.0.4 becomes applicable. This is consistent with the revised SR 3.0.4.
The NRC approved TSTF-485, Revision 0, by letter from T. Boyce (NRC) to TS Task Force dated December 6, 2005. Implementation of TSTF-485, Revision 0, is administrative and ensures consistency between Example 1.4-1 and the remainder of the TSs. No changes in the application of any TS are involved.
The NRC staff concludes that the licensees proposed changes are acceptable since they are administrative, do not alter the TS requirements, and are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-485, Revision 0.
3.2 TS 3.1.5, Control Rod Scram Accumulators The licensee proposes to indent the OR logic operator between TS 3.1.5 Actions B.2.1 and B.2.2. TS 3.1.5 provides LCOs and Required Actions for control rod scram accumulators.
Action B.2 is a two part action denoted as Required Action B.2.1 and B.2.2. B.2.1 requires that the rod scram time of all of the control rods associated with the inoperable accumulator be declared slow if they were within the limits of Table 3.1.4-1 during the last scram time Surveillance. Action B.2.2 states that the control rods associated with the inoperable accumulator be declared inoperable. Actions B.2.1 and B.2.2 are placed in an OR relationship; however, the logic designator is not currently indented in a manner consistent with the requirements of TS 1.2, Logical Connectors. TS 1.2, Example 1.2-2, states that the indented position of the logical connector OR indicates...alternative choices, only one of which must be performed.
Indenting the logic operator OR between Actions B.2.1 and B.2.2 is an administrative change and serves to ensure that the logic is consistent with TS 1.2. No changes in the application of TS 3.1.5 are involved. The NRC staff concludes that, since the proposed change is consistent with TS 1.2 and does not alter the TS requirements, the change is acceptable.
3.3 TS 3.4.1, Recirculation Loops Operating TS 3.4.1 requires that, while in Mode 1 or 2, either two recirculation loops with matched flows be in operation or one recirculation loop in operation provided that the certain limits are applied.
Condition A stipulates that action be taken if recirculation loop flow mismatch is not within acceptable limits. Condition B requires that action be taken if LCO 3.4.1 is not met for any reason other than that identified in Condition A.
The current language for Condition C requires that the plant be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> if the completion time of actions associated with Condition B is not met. Since Condition C is silent relative to a failure to complete Required Action A.1, Condition A would be covered by LCO 3.0.3, which would require that the plant be placed in Mode 3 within 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />.
The licensee proposes to revise Condition C to require that this condition be entered if the Required Action associated with Condition A or B is not completed. This would eliminate the need to enter LCO 3.0.3 upon failure to complete the actions associated with Condition A, and instead, would subject it to the Mode transition associated with the Required Action of Condition C. Therefore, when the plant is in the adverse condition of having mismatched recirculation flow outside of acceptable limits and it cannot be corrected within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the plant would transition into Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> as opposed to the 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> required by LCO 3.0.3.
The change is consistent with the general format of other CGS TSs.
The NRC staff concludes that the proposed change enhances the clarity of TS 3.4.1 and results in a more conservative operator action, since the transition to Mode 3 would be required in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> instead of 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.4 TS 3.5.1, ECCS - Operating SR 3.5.1.4 requires that each ECCS pump be verified to demonstrate a specified flow rate and developed head consistent with expressed acceptance criteria. The licensee proposes to replace the terms Developed Head and Total Developed Head used in SR 3.5.1.4 with Differential Pressure between Reactor and Suction Source.
SR 3.5.1.4 currently uses the terms Developed Head and Total Developed Head (TDH). The licensee states that usage of these terms is misleading within the context of this SR. TDH is the total resistance against which a pump is working and comprises the dynamic, static, and velocity head of the system. Therefore, TDH includes parameters such as flow resistance created by friction in system piping, valves, fittings and liquid viscosity, the elevation to which a liquid must be raised, as well as the pressure required to accelerate the liquid to its flow velocity.
The TS Bases for SR 3.5.1.4 states that ECCS pump flow rates are verified against a system pressure difference. For the Low Pressure Core Spray and Low Pressure Coolant Injection pumps, the pressure difference is equivalent to that between the reactor and the suppression pool air volume. For the High Pressure Core Spray pump, the pressure difference is equivalent to the differential between the reactor and the air volume above the suction source (suppression pool or condensate storage tank). Under these conditions, the total system pump outlet pressure is adequate to overcome the elevation head pressure between the pump suction and the vessel discharge, the piping frictional losses, and reactor pressure vessel pressure present during an event requiring ECCS. Therefore, the term Differential Pressure between Reactor and Suction Source, is a more appropriate description of the pressure value given.
The NRC staff concludes that replacing Developed Head and Total Developed Head with Differential Pressure between Reactor and Suction Source is administrative in nature and would serve to appropriately characterize the subject condition. Since no changes in the application of any TS are involved, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.5 TS 3.5.2, ECCS - Shutdown SR 3.5.2.5 requires that each ECCS pump be verified to demonstrate a specified flow rate and developed head consistent with expressed acceptance criteria. The licensee proposes to replace the terms Developed Head and Total Developed Head used in SR 3.5.2.5 with Differential Pressure between Reactor and Suction Source. The circumstances for the proposed change are identical to those for SR 3.5.1.4 above.
The NRC staff concludes that replacing Developed Head and Total Developed Head with Differential Pressure between Reactor and Suction Source is administrative in nature and would serve to appropriately characterize the subject condition. Since no changes in the application of any TS are involved, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.6 TS 3.7.1, Standby Service Water (SW) System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS), and TS 3.8.1, AC Sources - Operating The licensee proposes to remove an obsolete note from TS 3.7.1 and TS 3.8.1. Amendment No. 195, dated December 5, 2005, revised TS 3.7.1 and TS 3.8.1 by adding a note that extended the allowable outage time for SW train B and diesel generator 2 from 72 to 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br />.
The note applied on a one-time basis during Cycle 18. The note allowed additional time for the licensee to conduct refurbishment/replacement activities for SW pump SW-P-1B. After issuance of the amendment, refurbishment/replacement activities were conducted for SW-P-1B.
Since removing the expired note is administrative in nature and would not change the application of any TS, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.7 TS 3.8.2, AC Sources - Shutdown The licensee proposes to correct a typographical error in SR 3.8.2.1 that was introduced in Amendment No. 199, dated November 27, 2006. SR 3.8.2.1 is modified by a Note which states that the following SRs are not required to be performed: SR 3.8.1.3, SR 3.8.1.9 through SR 2.8.1.11, SR 3.8.1.13 through SR 3.8.1.16, SR 3.8.1.18, and SR 3.8.1.19.
The reference to SR 2.8.1.11 in the note is a typographical error, and the note should refer to SR 3.8.1.11. There is no SR 2.8.1.11 in the CGS TSs. The NRC staff concludes that correcting the typographical error is administrative and does not change the application of any associated TS. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.8 TS 5.5.6, Inservice Testing Program 3.8.1 Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a The licensee proposed TS changes that are consistent with TSTF-479, Revision 0, Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a. TSTF-479 revised the STS by adopting ASME Code and certain associated periodicities for inservice testing activities consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and standards. TSTF-479 clarified the description of the test intervals in STS 5.5.8 for valves with intervals of 2 years or less to include intervals derived from risk-informed evaluations. STS 5.5.8 corresponds to CGS TS 5.5.6. Since the clarification to STS 5.5.8 did not affect the maximum 2 year valve test interval in STS 5.5.8, TSTF-479 does not alter the STS requirements. TSTF-479 also updates references to the ASME code from Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to the ASME code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code), consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a. The licensees revision also adopts TSTF-497, Revision 0, changes into TS 5.5.6 with additional wording confirming that the valve test interval extension in the inservice inspection program applies only to valves with test intervals of 2 years or less.
The NRC approved TSTF-479, Revision 0, by letter from T. Boyce (NRC) to TS Task Force dated December 6, 2005, and approved TSTF-497, Revision 0, by letter from T. Kobetz (NRC) to TS Task Force dated December 4, 2006.
The NRC staff concludes that the licensees proposed changes are acceptable since they are administrative, do not alter the CGS TS requirements, are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-479, Revision 0, and TSTF-497, Revision 0, and conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a.
3.8.2 Change to Remove Obsolete Note The licensee proposes to remove an obsolete note from TS 5.5.6 resulting from a missed inservice test of the inboard primary containment isolation valve on the transversing in-core probe (TIP) system nitrogen purge line, or TIP-V-6, during a 1997 refueling outage. The note was added by Amendment No. 152, dated September 18, 1997. As noted in NRC Inspection Report 50-397/98-21, dated October 27, 1998, testing was completed on TIP-V-6 on March 13, 1998. Since removing the expired note is administrative in nature and would not change the application of any TS, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.9 TS Bases The licensee proposed changes to the TS Bases to be consistent with the above changes to the TSs. The NRC staff has no objection to the proposed changes to the TS Bases.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Washington State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes administrative requirements. The NRC staff has 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (72 FR 49572, dated August 28, 2007).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). 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.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, 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 to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: F. Lyon Date: December 13, 2007