ML20236K237
| ML20236K237 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236K230 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-65396, NUDOCS 8708070041 | |
| Download: ML20236K237 (2) | |
Text
-_____.________ __ _ __ _ __ ______ _
UNITED STATES
- f fo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
s wAsv :.GTON, D. C. 20655
[
,i
- tw.....*/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY RIVER BEND STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 15, 1987 as supplemented by letters dated June 30, and July 15, 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 amendment would extend the surveillance intervals, on a one-time basis, for certain reactor protection system and isolation actuation instrumentation until the first refueling outage scheduled to begin September 15, 1987.
The extensions requested range from about 24 days to 31 days. The licensee's June 30, 1987 letter withdrew the Technical Specification (TS) change request as specified in
' to the May 15, 1987 application.
2.0 EVALUATION Detailed reviews and evaluations of the licensee's May 15, 1987 submittal 1
were performed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general The licensee's response was reviewed, supervision by the NRC staff.
evaluated, and the results reported by EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER), " Technical Evaluation Report for Review of River Bend Station Unit 1 Proposed Technical Specification Amendntent (RBG-25955)",
dated July 1987 (attached). The staff has reviewed this report and concurs with the conclusion that the licensee's one-time request for extension of channel calibration and logic system functional tests is acceptable for the following instruments:
Reactor Vessel Steam Dome Pressure-High (Reactor Protection System)
Reactor Vessel (RHR Cut-In Permissive) Pressure-High (RHR System Isolation)
Main Steam Line Flow-High (Main Steam Line Isolation)
Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low Low Level 2 (Primary Containment Isolation) 8708070041 870B03 PDR ADOCK 05000458 PDR p
-- - _ _-_a
Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low Low Low Level 1 (Main Steam Line Isolation)
Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low Low Level 2 (Secondary Contain-ment Isolation)
Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low Low Level 2 (Reactor Water Cleanup System Isolation).
The TER notes that the asterisk footnote on TS page 3/4 3-11 includes the words " Isolation System Response Time" but no justification has been provided to support an extension to the surveillance interval for this surveillance. The TER recommends that these words be deleted from the footnote.
The licensee's letter dated July 15, 1987 provides the clarification that these words should be deleted.
The staff concurs with this change to the footnote.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and/or changes to the surveillance requirements. 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 signif-icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this 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 nor environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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, 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:
W. A. Paulson Dated: August 3, 1987
Attachment:
Technical Evaluation Report
-__-