ML20082H075
| ML20082H075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082H074 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9108230024 | |
| Download: ML20082H075 (2) | |
Text
.
a aseg'o
,n
? c\\' V[,g y'
7/
UNITED STATES
)
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
l g vy/
WASHINoToN D C. 20666
.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 69 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 October 16, 1989, Louisiana Power and Light Company submitted a request for changes to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Technical Specification (TS). The requested changes would revise the channel functional tests from monthly to quarterly for the Reactor Protection System (RPS) except for the reactor trip breakers, and for the Engineering Safety Features Actuation' Systems (ESFAS) except for the automatic'_ actuation logic tests. The exceptions remain unchanged. By letter dated September 14, 1990, Entergy Operations, Inc. (E01 and now the licensee) provided assurance that the setpoint drift suffered by any of the instrument channels addressed -in CEN-327 over the extended test interval should not exceed-the allowable value as calculated by the setpoint methodology.. This September 14 -1990, letter-provides the related assurance needed for acceptability of the CEN-327 approval and does not change in any way the notice of no significant hazards published in the Federal Register on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6106).
2.0 EVALUATION By letter to the CE Owners Group (CE0G) dated November 6,1969, the NRC approved the CE0G's Topical Report CEN-327, "RPS/ESFAS Extended Test Interval Evaluation". The Safety Evaluation transmitted by -that letter found that extending the surveillance-test interval for the RPS and the ESFAS channels was-acceptable-for CE plants and therefore, for_Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3.
In the case of Waterford, however, the licensee didlnot-obtain the necessary support for-the mont' ly ~ automatic actuation = tests and the n
reactor trip breakers ' tests and-these ' tests remain unchanged.
In our review of CEN-327, it was determined that each CE licensee to which CEN-327 applies must also confirm that the instrument drift' occurring over the proposed test interval would not cause:the setpoint values to exceed those-l assumed in the safety analysis and specified in the Technical: Specifications.
The licensees were to confirm their review of the drift against the allowable value as calculated for that channel by their setpoint methodology. The Waterford 3-application was received before the'CE0G Owners Group. letter was issued and this confirmation was not included. The licensee, by letter dated l
-9108230024 910B08-l PDR.- ADOCK 05000382 e
PDR=
. September 14, 1990, provided that confirmation. We have reviewed the licensee's proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and their confirma-tion of the setpoint drift-issue and conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission'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 amendnent 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 in 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 significar.t 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 (55 FR 6106).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for-categorical exclusion set forth 4
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)1there 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:
D. Wigginton Date:
August-8, 1991 4
'