ML20217Q467
| ML20217Q467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217Q465 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804100444 | |
| Download: ML20217Q467 (3) | |
Text
l e' MGu y"
4 UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
o
't WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655 0001 k
8 p
i n...
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.141 TO EACillTY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated May 24,1997, as supplemented January 21,1998, 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 TSs 3.1.1.1,3.1.1.2, 3.10.1 and Figure 3.1-1 by remcving the cycle dependent boron concentration and boration flow rate from the Action Statements and removing the "RWSP at 1720 ppm" curve from the figure. A change to TS Bases 3/4.1.1.1 and 3/4.1.1.2 has been included to support the change. The January 21,1998, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION l
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act (Act) requires that applicants for nu: lear power plant operating licenses state TS and that the TS be included as a part of the license. The Commission's regulatory requirements related to the content of TS are set forth in 10 CFR 50.36.
That regulation requires that the TS include items in five specific categories, including (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls.
However, the regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS.
The rule specifies that limiting conditions for operation (and associated surveillances) are to be included in a plant's TS if the item meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) an installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor cooiant pressure boundary, (2) a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier, (3) a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design-basis accident or transient that either assumes the l
failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier, or (4) a structure, l
system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment has shown to
)
be significant to public health and safety.
t I
I 9804100444 980408 PDR ADOCK 05000382 P
The proposed change to remove the boration concentration and boration flow rate from the
- action statements of TS 3.1.1.1,3.1.1.2, and 3.10.1 is acceptable since shutdown margin
. evaluations do not address the rate of boration, ohiy that the final boron concentrations are sufficient. This is consistent with the intent of NUREG 1432," Standard Technical Specifications
- Combustion Engineering Plants, which states that in the determination of the required combination of boration flow rate and boron concentration there is no unique requirement that must be satisfied." The action statements will require the operator to initiate boration to restore the Shutdown Margin to within the limit. The limits are specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).' The required amount of Shutdown Margin is determined by the safety analyses performed every cycle for the new core design (i.e. the Reload Analysis). The Cycle 9 Reload Analysis has determined that the current Shutdown Margin requirements described in the COLR are acceptable for Cycle 9 operation. The approved methodology for determining Shutdown Margin is Reference 1 in TS 6.9.1.11.1. The associated Bases page B 3/41-1 was also changed to reflect these changes to the TSs.
The proposed change to remove the RWSP at 1720 ppm curve from Figure 3.1-1 is
- administrative. The staff approved an increase in the RWSP boron concentration from 1720 ppm to 2025 ppm in a safety evaluation dated May 29,1997, license amendment 129. The RWSP 1720 curve is no longer required.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed TS changed and concluded that the above changes are acceptable. These requirements are not related to detection or indication of reactor coolant pressure boundary degradation; are not process variables, design features, or operating restrictions that are initial conditions of a design-basis accident or transient analysis; are not part of a primary success path to mitigate a design-basis accident or transient; and have not been shown by operating experience or probabilistic risk assessment to be significant to public health ~
and safety. Therefore, they do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) criteria and are not required to be in TS. Therefore the proposed deletion of these requirements, boron flow rate and boration concentration, is 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 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 Par 120 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant
. increase in the arnounts, 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding 62 FR 33123. 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) rio environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
p i
I
- l l
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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 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. M. Gamberoni Date: April 8,1998 l
i l