ML20209E572
| ML20209E572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209E562 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609110228 | |
| Download: ML20209E572 (4) | |
Text
.'
.f
'g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
{
.l w AsHINGTON, D. C. 20$65
\\,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO.
SD-483 INTRODUCTION (thelicensee)
Union Electric Company (TS) of the Callaway By letter dated October 16, 1985 requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications Plant Unit 1.
Specifically the amendment would modify the surveillance interval for analog channel operational tests and the allowable out-of-service time of reactor trip system instrumentation. Our evaluation regarding this TS change follcws.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION By letter dated February 21,1985,(Ref.2)theNRCstaffissueditssafety evaluation report for Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-10271 (Ref. 3),
" Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out of Service Times for the Reactor Protection Instrumentation System" and Supplement 1 (Ref. 4) thereto By letter dated whichwassubmittedby)theWestinghouseOwnersGroup.
July 24, 1985, (Ref. 5 the NRC staff provided connents to the Westinghouse Owners Group on their guidelines for preparing submittals for TS changes based on the topical report. The licensee has requested TS changes based on the staff's evaluation of WCAP-10271 and the staff's connents on the imple-mentation guidelines. Further the licensee has provided a response to those items which the staff had noted as subject to review on a plant specific basis as a condition of its approval of the topical report.
We have reviewed the proposed TS changes and find that they are consistent withtheWestinghouseOwnersGroupguidelines(Ref.6)whichwererevised based on the NRC staff's connents. Therefore, we find that the pronosed changes are acceptable.
The licensee has noted that procedures will be implemented to address plausible connon cause problems following the approval of increased sur-veillance intervals. We find that this action is responsive to this aspect of the plant specific considerations and, therefore, acceptable. The Itcensee noted that a program will be implemented to collect and review drif t data in response to this aspect of plant specific considerations.
We find this acceptable and, therefore, all plant specific considerations have been accepta11y resolved consistent with the staff's generic review of this matter.
N,,b0 O ((c ) N $ $,,,n a
In conclusion, based on the above, we find the proposed amendment request to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes in the use of a facility component located within the rustricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The 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 in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant huards con-sideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51FR27290)onJuly 30, 1986, and consulted with the state of mssourt. No public coments were received, and the state of Missouri did not have any coments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proused manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Comission's regulations eml the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
References:
1.
LetterfromDonaldF.Schnell(UEC)toH.R.Denton(NRC)," Revision to Technical Specification 3/4.3.1 Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,"
ULNRC-1174, dated October 16, 1985.
2.
Letter from H. R. Denton (NRC) to J. J. Sheppard (Westinghouse Owners Group), " Acceptance for Referencing Licensing Topical Report WCAP-10271,"
dated February 21,1985.
3.
LetterfromJ.J.Sheppard(WOG)toH.R.Denton(NRC),"WCAP-10271 Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and out of Service Times for the Reactor Protection System Instrumentation," dated February 3,1983.
4.
LetterfromJ.J.Sheppard(WOG)toH.R.Denton(NRC)"ResponsetoNRC Request for Additional Information and WCAP-10271, Supplement 1," dated October 4,1983.
5.
Letter from H. R. Denton (NRC) to L. D. Butterfield (WOG), dated July 24, 1985.
6.
Letter from L. D. Butterfield (WOG) to H. R. Denton (NRC), " Revision 1 to WOG Guidelines for Preparation of Submittals Requesting Revision to RPS Technical Specifications," dated September 3, 1985.
Principal Contributors: Paul O'Connor, PWR#4/DPWR-A T. Dunning HFTS Dated: september 8, 1986
DISTRIBUTION CALLAWAY AMENDMENT NO. 17 DATED:
September 8, 1986 e
mcret n ie ;
4RC POR Local PDR NSIC PWR#4 R/F HThompson MDuncan TAlexion P0'Connor 0GC-Bethesda LHannon EJordan BGrimes JPartlow TBarnhart(4)
WJones ACRS(10)
OPA i
LFMB i
NThompson i
i 1
1 1
1 i
4 i
)
l i
i i
.