ML20045H087
| ML20045H087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H085 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307190040 | |
| Download: ML20045H087 (2) | |
Text
p nsuq
-s
"., i
,I t
UNITED STATES
[.
L! i j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001
,f SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 82 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated April 24, 1992, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
submitted a request for changes to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would remove the requirement to conduct wall-cracking surveillance as part of the basemat cracking program.
By letter dated February 25, 1993, the licensee requested that the term mapping" in the requirement statement be replaced with the term d
" monitoring" to more accurately describe the licensee's actions.
The February 25, 1993, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION We have reviewed Waterford 3's Basemat Surveillance Program Plan, which was submitted by Louisiana Power and Light (LP&L) on June 26, 1987, and approved by the NRC staff on October 27, 1987.
Section 4.c of the plan, " Wall Crack Surveillance," states that the photographic survey will continue for two additional 18-month cycles and then be discontinued if no significant changes are noted during the two surveys.
By letter dated January 26, 1990, LP&L informed the NRC staff that the photographic survey had been discontinued because no significant changes had been noted during previous surveys. We have reviewed the Basemat Monitoring Program Report No. 4, dated January 1993, and found that the crack width variations in the basemat were below the allowable 15 mils.
That the crack width variations in the basemat are low indicates that the crack width variations in the walls resulting from potential basemat problems should also be low, so discontinuance of photographic surveys on wall cracks is justified.
The crack surveillance for the basemat has been performed by measuring crack width at 15 locations on the basemat.
Therefore, changing the word " mapping" to " monitoring" is appropriate and acceptable.
9307190040 930708 PDR ADOCK 050003B2 P
PDR r,
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comissica's regulations, the Louisiana State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance 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 pro-posed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 28200).
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
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:
J. Ma Date:
July 8, 1993
.,