ML20043A570
| ML20043A570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A569 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005220255 | |
| Download: ML20043A570 (3) | |
Text
.
'.K804
.,{,
f
.0 t.
UNITED STATES
$y.
LNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,g; r,.
f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 -
f a
SAFETY EVALUATION BY-THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION v
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY. 0PERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47:
j GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY RIVER BEND STATION. UNIT 1
' DOCKET NO. 50-458'.
l.0. INTRODUCTION-
-i t
Bysletter'datedifebruary2,1990,'GulfStates.UtilitiesCompany(GSU)-(the-
. licensee) requested an_ amendment to' Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 for.
the River Bend Station, Unit,1.. The existing River-Bend Station Technical a
Specification Surveillance Requirement-4.8.1.1.2.f;8 requi?es~ that'a-simulated 1
loss of offsite power (LOP) test per Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1'.1.2.f.4.a and'b)2) be performed within 5 minutes of completing:the diesel generator (DG))2);
24 hourirun. The purpose.of requiring the: loss of:offsite power. test within.5 minutes following the 24; hour ~run test is to-assure:that the-DG'can perform this requirement-when the DG. operating temperature is equivalent to that after i
operating lat full load. Surveillance Requirement 4'.8.1.1.2.f.8 currently.
allows an acceptable alternative to reperforming the'24Lhour run if the LOP' 2
test is not satisfactorily completed. Under these conditions, the DG:is allowed..
to be operated at full load for one hour or until operating; temperatures havea stabilized prior to-performing the LOP test.-
The proposed amendment ~would separate the' loss:of offsite' power test from the l
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test and add Surveillance Requirement 4.8.I'.1' 2.f.4.c) for:stabiliza-t tion of full load operating. temperatures prior to initiating the LOP' test. The; i
stabilization would be accomplished by.having a! separate warmup period of the i
DGs at fu11' load and would last one hour.
The basis for the change.is that-scheduling the LOP test within 5. minutes of completing.the 24' hour test reduces flexibility, unnecessarily constrains outage activities, and-creates the potential for critical path scheduling complications and' delays.
1 I
The proposed amendment would also delete a. footnote that allow'ed specific surveillances to be delayed coincident with the completion of.the first refueling outage.
4 2.0 EVALUATION s
GSU has proposed changes to the Technical-Specifications.to modify the require-ment to perform a simulated LOP test.of the emergency DGs within 5 minutes of performing a required-24 hour run test. GSU. states that the proposal has been reviewed by the manufacturer-(Cooper Industries). The manufacturer concurred that the~ proposed special warmup period would achieve the same operating temperature condition as the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> run test. This fact is' recognized by a footnote to the existing Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.f.8 which states that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test need not be repeated prior to LOP. test if the 1
i 9
n j
900522 % h,O h 58 PDR A-PDC
(
P u.
- . ?.T I
initial LOP test is not satisf actorily completed. -Instead, the DG may be operated at the specified fu11' load for one hour or until the operating l
temperatures have stabilized prior to performing'the LOP test. Thus, the r
U present Technical Specification 4.8.1.h2.f.8 accepts the decoupling of the.
LOP test from.the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test -provided the DG is brought to a. stabilized operating temperture prior to the LOP teste This indicates that the coupling of the LOP test to the 24 hour-run test was for convenience (i.e., a special-warmup. test would not be required) rather than for any technical reason. This 7
conclusion is: supported by Regulatory Guide 1.108 which places the emphasis.on full load temperature conditions rather than'the 24' hour run test. Moreover,.
the staff-has previously. reviewed and approved similar, testing changes at L
McGuire.1 8 2 and-Grand Gulf;1. The staff review conducted for these requests?
are applicable to:this: proposed change. The. Technical Specifications require that the LOP test and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> run be performed at least every 18 months.to demonstrate proper. functioning of the DGs.while simulating LOP. To:obtain-more flexible-scheduling, it is proposed that the LOP, test lbe separated from' the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test. The DG would still be brought to a fullfload stabilized:
1 operating temperature ~before the LOP test, but at aidifferent time than following the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test. The staff has reviewed the licensee submittal and has concluded that the separate and additional full load warmup! period prior to the-L LOP test is equivalent to the existing ~ Technical Specification requirements, and that the proposed changes have previously been approvedjat other plants, r
and are therefore acceptable.
i The proposed editorial change deletes a footnote that allowed s)ecific-l surveillances to be delayed coincident with the completion of tie first refueling
~
outage. This refueling outage has been completedi there is no longer a current i
l or future purpose for this footnote. The GSU amendment request submittal failed to delete one notation (page 3/4 8-8) referencing.the footnote.
In a i
telephone conversation with GSV staff it was verified that the notation was to-be deleted.
~!
3.0.ENVIRONME,NTALCONSJDLRg]ON The amendment involves a change in a requirement with ru pect to the installa-tion or use of a facility. component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, changes in surveillance requirements, and' changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative-procedures or' requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant-increase-in the amounts, and no signif.icant change in the types, of any efflue_nts that may be released offsite, and that there is no'significant increase inlindividual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures. The Counission has previously I
issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. -Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth.in10CFRSection51.22(c)(9)and(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR-51.22(b), no l
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
l
'A
..l,
.i d
.4.0
_C_ONCLUSION-The staff.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, and (2):such activities will be: conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the' amendment will not~be inimical to-the common defense and security.or to the health and safety of the public. 'The staff-therefore-concludes-that the proposed' changes are acceptable.
Dated: May 11', 1990-Principal Contributors:
N. K. Trehan:
C. Abbate-7 J
l l
I i
R L
.