ML20210Q878
| ML20210Q878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210Q876 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709020191 | |
| Download: ML20210Q878 (4) | |
Text
pa nacoq g*
t UNITED STATES p
}
NUCLEAR RESULATCRY C3MMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30eeHo01
~s.,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIQ(
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
RIVER BEND STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated October 26, 1995 Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) requetted changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) (Appendix A to Facility l
Operating License No. NPF-47) for the River Bend Station, Unit 1.
The proposed changes revise the TSs for sixteen editorial changes and deletes the requirement for a program to prevent and detect Asiatic Clams (Corbicula) in the service l
water system (SWS). By letter dated April 7, 1997, the licensee respoded to our May 20, 1996, request for additional information.
By letter date6 July 30, 1997, the licensee provided further clarification information on the TS and bases to assure they conform to the industry standard. The information in the April 7 and July 30, 1997, letters provided clarification information and did not change the initial no significant hazards determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Py Amendment No. 81 dated July 20, 1995, the TSs for the River Bend Station were replaced with a set of TSs based on NUREG-1434, " Improved BWR-6 Technical Specifications," dated September 1992. The improved technical specifications (ITSs) were implemented at River Bend on October 1,1995.
Between July and October 1995, the licensee had performed trkining on the new ITS and in the course of training and implementation, some 16 editorial changes were discovered which would make the ITS more correct with plant design and operation, correct typographical errors, or to be consistent with the writers guide for the ITS.
The licensee now proposes to revise the ITS for River Bend to incorporate the editorial changes.
The original design of the River Bend Station included water makeup from the Mississippi River. During early operation of the facility, the licensee encountered problems with Asiatic Clams which were introduced to the SWS from water makeup from the Mississippi River. The facility was modified so that water makeup now comes from demineralized water or well water which is used to eliminate the source of Asiatic Clams. The licensee also proposes to eliminate the program for Corbicula prevention and detection for the SWS.
3.0 E'/ALUATION The licensee's proposed editorial changes are as follows:
9709020191 970826 PDR ADOCK 05000450 P
=
1)
'LCO 3.2.4 on page 3.2-4 is modified to add ' Fraction of Rated Thermal Power" at the first place in the TS in accordance with_the writers guide.
This change-is acceptable.
2)-
Table 3.3.3.1-1, Function 12 on page 3.3-22 is modified to add
" automatic" for the primary containment isolation valve (PCIV) Position to
-be consistent with Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) position indication i
requirements.- The licensee in a letter dated May 7,1997, responded to our request for additional information on the PAM PCIV position indication.
- This clarification that only automatic valves are addressed in the TS table also makes the specification consistent with other 8WR-6 TSs; NUREG-1434 Revision 0 does not include the Penetration Flow Path. PCIV_ position in the l -
table. *On the basis of consistency with requirements and consistency with
- other similar. plant TSs, this change is acceptable.
3)
LCO 3.3.7.1 on page 3.3-69 is revised to include wording which is l
consistent with other required action wording. The use of " emergency mode" in place of "the isolation mode of operation" is an enhancement for the operators and is acceptable.
4)
Table 3.3.7.1-1 on page 3.3-71 is modified to include the distinction of local intake monitors from other monitors. This reflects accurate plant design and is acceptable.
5)
Table 3.3.8.1-1 on page 3.3-74 is corrected for seconds -in place of minutes,- accurately reflects. plant design, and is acceptable.
6)
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.4.11.8 and 3.4.11.9 are corrected to indicate THERMAL POWER is limited a "less than er eaual to" 30% of related
- thermal power (RTP). This modificatio+ incorporates the previous or old TS requirements, corrects a typographicas error, and is acceptable.
-7)
SR 3.6.4.1.2 on page 3.6.47 is modified to add the requirement to verify
-loor seals are also filled. This change is to cover all potential leakage patis,- is consistent with plant design and is, therefore, acceptable.-
8)-
SR 3.6.4.2.1 on page 3.6-50 is deleted on the basis that River Bend-does-not have any secondary containment isolation manual dampers (SCID) or blind flanges that are required -to be closed during accident conditions.
This is
- consistent with plant design and-requirements and is acceptable.
SRs 3.6.4.2.2 and 3.6.4.2.3 are renumbered.
= 9) -.
The new SR 3.6.4.2.1 on page 3.6-50 is modified to add reference to-
" required" SCIDs to allow distinguishing which SCIDs apply when handling.
fuel in the fuel building. The plant design includes SCIDs between the secondary containment and the fuel handling building and between the
+
secondary building and the auxiliary building. The integrity of the buildings are controlled during operating modes and when handling fuel.
The operation of the SCIDs is required in Modes 1, 2, and 3 and when fuel handling and can be different between the buildings. The licensee proposal
1.-
3 is to distinguish between building integrity requirements and ap surveillance regirements on the appropriate SCIDs as necessary. ply We-agree with this process. The licensee's revised wording in the July 30, 1997, letter provides further clarification and is in conformance with.the industr accepta{le.s standard language for " power operated" SCIDs. These changes are
- 10) The new SR 3.6.4.2.2 on page 3.6-50 is modified to include the differention-on SCIDs when handling fuel;-i.e., by adding " required" to distinguish when handling fuel. This is the same as in item 9) above and is_ acceptable.
- 11) SR 3.6.4.5.2 on page 3.6-55 is modified to correct for plant design.
The River Bend facility does not have shield blocks in the fuel building, but does have hatch covers. -This correction.is acceptable.
.12) LCO 3.6.5.2 on page 3.6-62 was proposed to be changed to correct the " Note" to." Notes" indicating there are more than one. This was approved by Amendment No. 87, t
.13) SR 3.8.1.17 on page 3.8-13 is changed to delete the "1.".
This is consistent with the writer guide to not use numbers where there is only one item. This is acceptable.
14)- LCO 3.8.2.a on page 3.8-17 is changed to delete the "and" in agreement with the writers' guide. - This is acceptable.
- 15) LCO 3.8.g Condition E on page 3.8-39 is modified to delete reference to "AC vital buses". The River. Bend facility does not have any Division ll! AC vital buses..This is acceptable.
- 16) Administrative Controls 5.7.3 on page 5.0-21-is changed by deleting-the words "cannot be" and adding the words "is not" to reflect that any area can be guarded, but some areas are best guarded by means other than a guard. Amendment No. 81 provides an_ option to_the licensee of guarding or enclosing high radiation areas. The proposed change clarifies that option for the licensee and is acceptable.
The _ licensee also proposes to delete the Asiatic Class (Corbicula) detection and prevention program from the TSs. This program was necessary before plant modifications were made that allowed SWS makeup to come f om domineralized water or from well water. Those modifications made the Corbicula' program in the TSs unnecessary because the new makeup arrangements can be closed loop and not susceptible to the larvae uptake from the Mississippi River.- In addition, inspections of the safety related heat exchangers, where Corbicula infestations are likely to occur, have not revealed any evidence of-clam infestations. The licensee will continue to treat the SWS and Standby Cooling Tower basin for biofouling without the need for a Corbicula detection and prevention program.
We agree with the licensee and find the deletion of the Asiatic Calm (Corbicula)
- program to be acceptable. Therefore, Section 5.5.12 "Biofouling Prevention and Detection" is deleted.
o 4
1 i
The licensee provided changes to the Bases to reflect the above proposed changes to the TSs..The revised Bases.are consistent with the TS changes and are acceptable.
)
4.0 ' STATE CONSULTATION In-accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Louisiana State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.- The State official had
. no coments.
1
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 1
Part.20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined i
L that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no i
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 issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards i
consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (60 FR 62492). 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.
L
6.0 CONCLUSION
j 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 endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be' conducted in compliance with the Comission'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:
D. Wigginton Date: August 26,' 1997 x
m w..+
-