ML20116M261
| ML20116M261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116M252 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211200162 | |
| Download: ML20116M261 (3) | |
Text
_ _ -___ _ _ -
..[
UNITED STAfES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- j W ASHINGTON, D, C. 20566
\\,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO 78 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 INTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATEBEORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 1.0. INTRODUCTION By application dated October 11, 1991, as supplemented by letters dated December 18, 1991, and August 27, 1992, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Waterford 5 team Electric Station, Unit 3, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would revise the frequency of 'he channel functional '.ests from monthly to quarterly for the engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) automatic actuation logic, excluding the subgroup relays._ Changes requested to the subgroup relays are omitted from this review by request of the licensee in the December 18, 1991, letter.
The August 27, 1992,~ letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALVATION By letter to the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) dated November 6, 1989, the NRC approved the CE0G's Topical Report CEN-327. 'RPS[ reactor-i protection system]/ESFAS Extended Test. Interval evaluation." The safety:
evaluation transm tied by that letter found that extending the surveillance test interval for the ESFAS channels was acceptable for Combustion Engineering
(
(CE), plants.
This acceptance was primarily based-on a low failure rate for L
the instrumentation f avolved in the functional channel. tests.
l In its review of CEN-327, the staff determined that CE licensees to which CEN-l 327 applies must also confirm that the. instrument driftf occurring over the z l-proposed test interval would not cause the setpoint values-to exceed those:
assumed in the safety analysis and spet.ified in the TS.
The licensees werelto-confirm their review of the drift against the allowable:value as calculated for the channel in accordance.with their:setpoint methodologye Entergy L
hD P_ -.
' Operations, Inc., had previously applied for a license amendment which was approved on August 8, 1991, as Amendment No. 69.
In its letter dated September 14, 1990, and found acceptablo in Amendment No. 69. Entergy Operations, Inc., provided confirmation of the setpoint drift issue for the channels on the RPS and the ESFAS.
The staff was concerned that part of the test frequency relaxation invo %ea relays that were manufactured by Potter Brumfield and specifically were the MDR type relays.
The staff is currently eviewing information that reports a higher than normal failure rate for these relays. As a result of this review and an ongoing concern we concludcd that it was not prudent or a good engineering position to relax test frequencies on equipment whose failure rate is suspect and is higher than that resorted on a generic basis.
By letter dated August 27, 1992, from R.F. Burs (i to UJS. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the licensee provided a listing of the relays that were involved in this amendment request.
The Matrix Logic Relays are manufactured by Douglas Randall (Model #29350), and the ESF Relay Logic relays are manufactured by Teledyne, Magnecraft, and Potter Brumfield. These Potter Brumfield relays are not the MDR type.
Based on the above discussion, the staff finds the Waterford 3 proposal to change the unit's Technical Specification concerning ESFAS relay testing interval from monthly to quarterly acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accord:.nce 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 INVIRONMENTAL 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 in surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment invol us no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may he released offsite, and that there is no signi.ficant increase in individual e cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a pro-posed finding that tia amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no pu'olic comment on such finding (57 FR 710).
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..
o 3
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission 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 enaangered 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 comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
S. Rnow Date: November 9, 1992 i
w w
,w-..
~.
-