ML20087C596
| ML20087C596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087C584 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9508090261 | |
| Download: ML20087C596 (3) | |
Text
,
l
"'P%g f,..
k
., o UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001
'\\....+/
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.11n TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DQCKET NO. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated May 12,-1995, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
submitted a request for changes to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, i
Unit 3 (Waterford 3), Technical Specifications (TSs).
The requested changes would remove the specific scheduling requirements for Type A containment leakage rato tests from the TSs and replace these requirements with a requirement to perform Type A, testing in accordance with Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
The proposed changes adopt the wording for primary containment integrated leak rate testing that is consistent with the requirements of the Combustion Engineering leproved Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1432).
The proposed changes also include several administrative changes.
2.0 [ VALUATION Waterford 3 TS 4.6.1.2.a. currently requires that a set of three Type A tests be performed specifically at 40 1 10-month intervals during each 10-year service period, with the third test of each set performed during the shutdown-for the 10-year plant inservice inspection.Section III.D. of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that Type A tests of the containment be scheduled as a set of three tests, to be performed at approximately equal intervals, during each 10-year service period, with the third test to coincide with the shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspection.
While the Waterford 3 TSs i
essentially duplicate the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, the TSs contain the aJditional requirement that Type A testing be performed at 40 i 10-month intervals.
For units, such as Waterford 3, on 18-month fuel cycles the 40 i 10-month requirement ~ essentially requires performance of a test every two fuel cycles as three cycles would be 54 months which exceeds the allowance.
Since a test is required every two cycles over a 10-year period, this necessitates either the performance of a fourth test or the request for a period extension between two of the tests. Due to this scheduling difficulty the licensee has proposed to revise the TS requirement for Type A tests to simply reference the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, as modified by approved exemptions. Satisfactory leakage results are a requirement for the establishment of containment operability. The required number of Type A tests would not be changed by the proposed changes and the j
9500090261 950003 '
PDR ADOCK 05000392 P
. Appendix J requirement that the tests be performed "at approximately equal intervals" remains in effect. Also, the maximum allowable leakage rate at the calculated peak containment pressure would not be changed.
Only the detailed 40 i 10-month test interval would be eliminated to provide more flexibility.
Type A test acceptance criteria would not be changed.
The proposed changes do not impact the design basis of the containment and would not change the response of containment during a design basis accident.
Finally, the testing method and acceptance criteria are not changed by the proposed revisions to the TSs.
The Basis section of the TSs has been appropriately revised to reflect the changes.
Therefore, based on all of the above, the staff finds the revision to TS 4.6.1.2.a. to be acceptable.
TS 4.6.1.2.b., 4.6.1.2.c. l., 4.6.1.2.c.2. contain additional testing requirements regarding the schedule for retesting if a test fails to meet the 0.75 L, requirement and supplemental testing to verify accuracy of Type A tests.
These testing requirements in the TSs and in Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 are essentially identical.
The licensee has proposed to delete these TSs for simplicity.
Since the regulatory and TSs requirements are essentially identical, the proposed deletion is administrative and acceptable.
TS 4.6.1.2.c.3. provides specific testing direction regarding the quantity of gas to be displaced during a supplemental Type A tests.
The licensee stated that these Type A test requirements are also specified in Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 and need not be reiterated in the TSs.
However, Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.c.3. is not specified in Appendix J to the same level of detail.
While 4.6.1.2.c.3. mandates a specific quantity of gas to be displaced from containment during a supplemental test, Appendix J refers to Appendix C of ANSI N45.4-1972 for guidance on an acceptable supplemental test.
Although the requirements are not specified in the same level of detail in Appendix J as in the TS surveillance requirement, the requirement for a supplemental test and general requirements for the accuracy of the test are specified in Appendix J.
In addition, it is not necessary for the TSs to contain the level of detail specified in sections 4.6.1.2.c.3.
For example, the improved Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, are consistent with the licensee's proposal in this respect.
Based on the above, the staff finds the deletion of TS 4.6.1.2.c.3.
to be acceptable.
Finally, the licensee has proposed to remove the footnotes identified by the single asterisk and double asterisk.
The removal of single asterisk note is an administrative change as it no longer applies.
The note with double asterisk will no longer be required under the proposed changes.
The staff finds both of these changes to be acceptable. Other minor editorial changes are also acceptable to the staff.
i e i
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 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 j
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 i
and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 29876).
j 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 at:nve, 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Patel j
Date:
August 3. 1995 i