ML20212P976
| ML20212P976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212P971 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703160436 | |
| Download: ML20212P976 (4) | |
Text
__ _
[.f -
g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
l W ASHINGTON, D, C. 20655 g
a
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAP PEACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.17 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-38?
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By applications dated August 20 and October 1, 1986. Louisiana Power and LightCompany(thelicensee)requestedchangestotheTechnicalSpecifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38) for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
The proposed changes would:
(1)revisethe reporting requirements for release of liquid radioactive effluents to unrestri*ted areas; (2) revise the action to be taken in the event that the liquid i Jioactive offluent monitoring instrumentation is inoperable and, (3) revise the action to be taken in the event that the gaseous radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation is inoperable.
i 2.0 DISCUSSION The proposed changes to the technical specifications requested by the licensee are in tiree areas, as described below.
,j 2.1 Liquid Radioactive Effluent Release Reporting (NPF-38-33)
The proposed change would modify Technical Specification 3.11.1, " Liquid
'I Effluents," which addresses the release of liquid radioactive effluents to unrestricted areas, by adding an additional action requirement to " describe j
the events leadir.9 to this condition in the next Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report."
2.2 Liquid Radioactive Effluent Monitorico Instrumentation (NPF-38-49)
Technical Specification 3.3.3.10. " Radioactive Liquid Effluent Monitoring l
Instrumentation," provides for operable liquid radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation to ensure that the release of liquid effluents l
does not exceed specified limits.
The proposed changes would revise Action Statement "b" to Technical Specification 3.3.3.10 by providing a 30-day time period to restore any requiredmonitoringinstrumentation(listedinTable3.3.-12)toOperable i
status or, if unsuccessful, to explain in the next Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report why the instrumentation was not restored in the specified time, j
8703160436 070304 I
PDR ADOCK 050003G2 i
p PDR
f
/.
2-Also, Action Statements 28, 29 and 30 to Table 3.3-12 will be modified by removing any reference to a specified time period and allowing releases to continue as long as the Actions of Table 3.3-12 are continued and best efforts are made to repair the required instrumentation.
In addition, i
the last part of Action Statement 28 will be deleted since it is already clear that releases through a specific pathway may not occur if the two conditions of this Action Statement cannot be satisfied.
I 2.3 Gaseous Radioactive Effluent Monitorine instrumentation (NPF-38-50) i Technical Specification 3.3.3.11. " Radioactive Gesecus Effluent Monitoring I
Instrumentation," provides for operable gaseous radioactive effluent
{
monitoring instrumentation to ensure that the release of gaseous effluents does not exceed specified limits.
I The proposed changes would revise Action Statements "a" and "b" to Technical i
Specification 3.3.3.11 to add an option that would return the plant to compliance with the LC0 and to specify a 30-day time period in which to restore an inoperable instrument to Operable status before it must be reported in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
t j
Also, Action Statements 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 to Table 3.3.12 have been i
modified by removing any reference to a specified time period and allowing
[
]
releases to continue as long as the specified Actions of Table 3.3-13 are continued and best efforts are made to repair the required instrumentation.
f 3.0 EVALUATION r
\\
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications requested by the licensee l
i and described in three areas above, are evaluated below.
3.1 Lieuid Radioa:tive Effluent Release Reportina (NPF-38-33).
As the proposed change to Technical Specification 3.11.1 imposes another reporting requirement on the licensee and is strictly a hinistrative in 1
i nature, the staff concludes that adding the additional Action requirement to " describe the events leading to this condition in the next Semiannual t
Radioactive Effluent Release Report" is acceptable, i
j 3.2 Lievid Radioactive Effluent Monitorine Instrumentation (NPF-38-49) l The proposed changes to Technical Specification 3.3.3.10 and Action f
Statements 28, 29 and 30 to Table 3.3-12 are consistent with the guidance c
of NUREG 0472, " Standard Radiological Effluent Technical 5+ecifications for PWRs," in which the intent is to eliminate the need for a iisoness Event l
l Report simply because the required instrumentation could not be restored to Operable status within the specified time. The concentration of
[
l radionuclides will remain within the limits specified in Technical Specifica-i tion 3.11.1 and 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B because the proposed Actions i
specified in Table 3.3-12 prior to and during any liquid effluent releases i
are continued. This will ensure that the levels of radioactive materials
'--T--
- - ~ +w -W evy t Nw.,
,pg.gseeg.-.mme-gr-w&
w esp-N'Mpyw u sW Newswp#w 9iy-w emisiy
t 3-in bodies of water in unrestricted areas will not result in exposures to any member of the general public in excess of 3 milliress to the total body or 10 millirems to any organ in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section II.A.
As these changes meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A General Design Criteria 60, 63 and 64, which require a means to control and monitor all radioactive storage areas and releases to the environment during nomal operation, including operational occurrences and postulated accidents, the staff finds them acceptable.
3.3 Gaseous Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Instrunentation (NPF-38-50)
The proposed changes to Technical Specification 3.3.3.11 and Action Statements 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 to Table 3.3-13 are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-0472, " Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWRs," in which the intent is to eliminate the need for a Licensee Event Report simply because the required instrumentation could not be restored to operable status within the specified time. By continuing to comply with the Action Statements of Table 3.3-13, the radioactive gaseous effluents released would not result in the exposure of a member of the public to an average concentration exceeding the limits specified in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20.
In addition, this proposed change is consistent with the requirements of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 by keeping the annual dose from gaseous effluents to individuals in unrestricted areas less than 10 millirads for gama radiation and 20 millirads for beta radiation.
As these changes meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criter<a 60, 63 and 64, which require a means to control and monitor all radiological storage areas and releases to the environment during nomal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents, the staff finds them acceptable.
4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NPC staff has advised the Administrator Nuclear Energy Division Office of of Environmental Affairs, State of Louisiana of the proposed detemination of no significant hazards consideration. No coments were received.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area. The staff has detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Cosuiission has previously issued proposed findings that the amendment involves no significant harards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such findings. Accordingly, t
4 forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical exclusion setPursuant to 10 C the amendment meets the eli impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
6.0. CONCLUSION Based upon our evaluation of the proposed changes to the Waterford 3 Technical Specifications, we have concluded that: there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
We, therefore, conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable, and are hereby incorporated into the Waterford 3 Technical Specifications.
Dated: March 15,1987 Principal Centributor:
C. Nichols 4