ML20059C508
| ML20059C508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059C506 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401050285 | |
| Download: ML20059C508 (2) | |
Text
..
[gerc%
~.
UNITED STATES y q.
_y.
j.y Lf. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISLION
- k WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 o% %,/
....+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CAllAWAY PLANT. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-483
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application for license amendment dated August 1,1991, Union Electric Company (the licensee), requested changes to Technical Specifications (TS) for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
The proposed changes would revise various TS to reflect editorial and typographical changes for consistency and clarity. The changes include trip setpoint corrections, description clarifications, reference updates, and title deletions.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has made a number of proposed changes to various sections of the Technical Specifications. The changes will be discussed separately.
Sections 3.3.3.6.b and 3.3.3.6.c currently references containment radiation level " monitor", in the singular form.
The change to
" monitors", in the plural form, corrects the. typographical error in the TS.
Table 3.3.4, item 8.a currently reflects incorrect values for an engineered safety features actuation system instrumentation trip setpoint as stated in NRC letter dated November 1, 1984.
The change is a minor editorial revision consistent with the Facility Operating License No. NPF-30.
i i
Table 3.3-10, items 15,16, and 18 currently do not specify the particular accident monitoring instrumentation referenced. The editorial revision describes item 15 as the Containment Normal Sump Water Level in lieu of Containment Water Level, and items 16'and 18 by instrument-identification numbers.
Section 3.6.4.1 currently is less restrictive regarding operability of the containment hydrogen analyzers. The change is consistent with TS 3.3.3.6 regarding applicable modes and the limiting condition for i
operaticn action statement.
Section 4.11.2.5 currently reflects an incorrect reference to Table 3.3-13 regarding the Waste Gas Holdup System. The change removes the reference to Table 3.3-13 which was initially requested by a previous 9401050285 931221 PDR ADOCK 05000493 P
+>
' ;u amendment request. The previous amendment, Amendment No. 50 dated.
February 12, 1990, granted the change but, did not revise the text of the technical specification.
Section E.2.2 currently references the Assistant Superintendent, Operations as a member of the unit staff. This position was deleted on June 1,-1991.
Since all the proposed changes are typographical or editorial in nature, the staff finds them acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
j In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Missouri 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 the installation or'use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that.
the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no i
significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant. increase in individual or cumulative i
occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a J
proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding ll (56 FR 47244).
Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.
J
5.0 CONCLUSION
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, (2)-such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, i
and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. R. Wharton Date:
December 21, 1993 e
'I