ML20133J187
| ML20133J187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133J156 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701170426 | |
| Download: ML20133J187 (2) | |
Text
_m
._m
___.._m J
f M ato d
UNITED STATES y
a I
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. was =1
- ,o 1
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
RIVER BEND STATION. UNIT 1 i
j DOCKET NO. 50-459 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i l
By application dated October 24, 1996, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) l requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47) for the River Bend Station, Unit 1.
The l
proposed changes would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 by replacing i
Table 3.8.1-1, " Diesel Generator Test Schedule", with a single surveillance j
interval of at least once per 31 days. The NRC provided guidance on the i
proposed TS changes in Generic Letter (GL) 94-01, " Removal of Accelerated Testing and Special Reporting Requirements for Emergency Diesel Generators,"
dated May 31, 1994.
l 2.0 EVALUATION I
The surveillance interval for testing of emergency diesel generators (EDGs) is i
i currently governed by TS 3.8.1, which gives a diesel generator test schedule based on the number of EDG failures experienced in the last 25 tests. This practice of increasing the testing frequency with the number of failures is commonly referred to as accelerated testing. Accelerated testing is begun i
when an EDG experiences four or more failures in the last 25 valid tests.
This increased test frequency continues until seven consecutive failure free j
tests have been performed.
As stated in GL 94-01, the staff has concluded that implementing the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65, " Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (the maintenance rule), including the j
applicable regulatory guidance, will assure reliable EDG performance.
Measures to be implemented in accordance with the maintenance rule include performance of detailed root cause analysis of individual EDG failures, l
effective corrective actions to individual EDG failures, and implementation of EDG preventive maintenance. The staff has determined that the implementation of these measures will justify removing the accelerated testing requirements.
In its application dated October 24, 1996, the licensee committed to comply i
with the guidelines as set forth in GL 94-01; the licensee noted that they l
were already in compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.65 by l
implementation of the Maintenance Rule on July 10, 1996, and are maintaining EDG performance in accordance with rule and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.160, l
9701170426 970114 i
PDR ADOCK 05000458 F
l
" Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants."
In addition, the bases of the technical specifications are being changed to include reference to 10 CFR 50.65 and RG 1.160. On the basis of the licensee's implementation of the maintenance rule and RG 1.160, the staff finds acceptable the proposed changes to (1) TS 3.8.1 to remove reference to TS Table 3.8.1-1 for test intervals and (2) to remove accelerated testing l
requirements for EDGs. The corresponding changes to the bases to reflect the proposed changes to the TS and the addition of references to 10 CFR 50.56 and RG 1.106 are acceptable.
The GL 94-01 also addressed the deletion of reporting requirements from the TS for EDG failures on the basis that existing reporting requirements, such as I
those of 10 CFR 50.73, adequately ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) learns of significant problems with EDG performance. The licensee has adopted the Improved Technical Specifications which relocated the EDG reporting requirements to the Technical Requirements Manual.
Subsequent to the issuance of this amendment, the licensee will examine the removal of i
those requirements by the 10 CFR 50.59 change process. Therefore, no action is required here on deletion of EDG reporting requirements as addressed by GL 94-01.
1
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 insta116 tion or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent 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 proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 64384). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR J
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: D. Wigginton Date:
January 14, 1997
.