ML20199J329
| ML20199J329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199J326 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711280118 | |
| Download: ML20199J329 (3) | |
Text
.
[ija**s:g%
UNITED STATES s
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINof oN. C.C. 2006 HOD 1
't 6
4 4
}AFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.136 TO FAtlllTY GPERAllNG LICENSE NO. NPF_)]
ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC..
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated February 6, 1996, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Technical Specifications (TSs).
The requested changes would modify the TS to correct several inconsistencies.
a)
Revise the following allowable values for parameters identified in Table 3.3-4, " Engineering Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Trip Values," to be consistent with Table 2.2-1,
'deactor Protection Instrumentation Trip Setpoint limits".
Old Value New Value Containment Pressure - High s 17.3 psia s 17.4 psia Pressurizer Pressure - Low 2 1644 psia 2 1649.9 psia Steam Generator Pressure - Low 2 748 psia 2 749.9 psia Steam Generator Level - Low 26.'/%
k 26.48%
c b)
Revise TS 4.10.2.2 and TS 4.10.4.2 of section 3/4.10 Special Test Exceptions to delete reference to previously removed TS 3.3.3.2.
c)
Revise Table 4.3-2, item 5.c. to specify Mode 4 applicability to be consistent with TS Table 3.3-3.
2.0 fvALUATION a)
On September 5,1995, A'nendment 113 to Facility Operating License NPF-38 revised several allowable values for parameters identified in Table 2.2-1, " Reactor Protective Instrumentation Trip Setpoint Limits" so that they would be consistent with the setpoint/ uncertainty methodology.
The licensee's application dated December 9, 1994, requesting the proposed change failed to identify the duplicate parameters and values appearing in Table 3.3-4,
" Engineering Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Trip Values".
Since this change is requesting that the allowable values 97112001la 971120 PDR ADOCR 05000302 P
2-for parameters in Table 3.3-4 be consistent with Table 2.2-1, the change is administrative. The technical basis for revising the values is provided in the staff's safety evaluation for Amendment i
113.
b)
On May 30, 1995 Amendment 107 to Facility Operating License NPF-38 removed the Incore Detection System Requirements specified in TS 3.3.3.2 and deleted TS 3.3.3.2.
The basis for moving the incore detector requirements from the TS to the UFSAR is provided in the staff's safety evaluation for Amendment 107. This change is only deleting reference in TS 4.10.2.2 and TS 4.10.4.2 to the previously deleted TS 3.3.3.2 and is administrative.
t c)
On November 9, 1992, Amendment 78 to facility Operating License NPF-38 inadvertently deleted Mode 4 from specified surveil,ance requirements of TS Table 4.3-2, item 5.c.
Revising Table 4.3-2, item 5.c. to specify Mode 4 applicability to be consistent with TS Table 3.3-3 is an administrative change to correct this earlier error.
The staff has concluded that all of the above changes to the TS to improve consistency and to correct previous inadvertent errors 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 CONSIDERU103 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 significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase ih 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 sucn finding 61 FR 28615. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR St.22(b)-no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
f*
l j
^
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above.-
i that:
there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public w(1)l.not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such il -
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: Marsha Gamberoni
- Date:
November 20. 1997 l
i i
1
'i e
.