ML20205M712
| ML20205M712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M705 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704020473 | |
| Download: ML20205M712 (2) | |
Text
.
/
'o UNITED STATES 89-
' I,,o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i
r
\\
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THF 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FACIL.TY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY RIVER BEND STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 29, 1986 as supplemented on February 19, 1987, Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 for the River Bend Station, Unit 1.'
The proposed arrendment would require the Average Power Range Monitor (APRM)
Flow Bias Simulated Thermal Power - High, APRM Flow Biased Neutron Flux-Upscale and Reactor Coolant System Recirculation Flow-Upscale flow reference transmitters to be calibrated on an 18-month basis.
2.0 EVALUATION River Bend Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.3.1, Table 4.3.1.1-1 Item i
2.b, " Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) Flow Biased Simulated Thermal Power-High;" Technical Specification 3.3.6, Table 4.3.6-1, Itein 2.a.
"APRM Flow Biased Neutron Flux-Upscale;" and Item 6.a. " Reactor Coolant System Recirculation Flow-Upscale," presently have requirements to l
perform a channel calibration of these functions at least semi-annually.
The proposed changes wculd require the flow reference transmitters for these three (3) functions to be calibrated on an 18-month basis.
l The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will not revise the Trip Setpoint or Allowable Values stated in Technical Specifications 3.3.1 and 3.3.6.
The change will only extend the surveillance interval of the flow reference transmitters. An 18-month calibration cycle for the flow reference transmitters has been calculated to be within the drift allowance -
utilized in the determination of the setpoints.
i The flow reference transmitters are Rosemount 1152 type. Based upon the methods outlined in the licensee's February 19, 1987 letter, the instru-ment drift is 2.2% for 18 months. The 2.2% calculated drift is lower than the allpwed 3% instrument drift utilized for determination of the current Technic 41 Specification setpoints. Therefore, the calculated drift for these i nstruments with an 18-month surveillance frequency is within the allowed' drift used to develop the current setpoints.
The transmitters are also used at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant for the same application and have been approved for an 18-month calibration i
frequency.
8704020473 870328 PDR ADOCK 05000458 P
PDR l
y y.
l i
l
?-
Based oh the above, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the River Bend Station Unit 1 Technical Specifications are consistent with the SRP. Section 7.2 acceptance criteria and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirer.ent with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance require-ments. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, arid no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative cccupational radiation exposure. The Consission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public corment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical esclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pur-suant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
l 4.0 ~ CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasorable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and the security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: B.Mareds S. Stern 1
Dated: March 28, 1987 b
,