ML20246L912
| ML20246L912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246L902 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180426 | |
| Download: ML20246L912 (3) | |
Text
_, _. -
i l: E purcg'o
![.
UNITED STATES
.g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
}
'i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
. l SAFETY.EVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICE.0FNUCLEAR__RQC,TORREGULATION RELATED T0 AMENDMENT.NO.55 TO FACILITY.0PERATING LICENSE.NO. NPF-38 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY-WATERFORD. STEAM ELECTRIC STATION,. UNIT 3 DOCKET H0. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated December 23, 1988, Louisiana Pcwer and Light Comparty-(LP&L or the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to facility Operating License No. NPF-38) for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
The prcposed changes would incorporate the correct operating range for the Containment Area Radiation Mcnitors and clarify the radiation background setpoint for containment. purge and exhaust isolation.
2.0 -DISCUSSION The Technical Specifications list the operating range for the four cer.tainmont radiation monitors for isol6 tion of purge and exhaust in the unlif ely ever.1 cf an accident inside containment. The ranges were derived from the Con.bustion Engineering Standard Technical Specifications and from Generic Letter 82-16 which used counts per minute. The original numbers were proposed for the trenitors and the 'iicensee has determined that at the icwer end of the range requirements (pcr the Technical Specification), the rnonitors are not accurate ~or reliable and would be called inoperable.
This places the pl60t in an unwarranted pusition in some modes end pertlizes cper6 tion. The setpoint is set at twice background for isolation cf purge and exhaust but background at the low end of the range may be below the monitor capability to measure. The 5
1 monitor reliability and accuracy begins at 20 mR/hr and goes up to 5x10 mR/hr. The licensee proposes to incorporate this accurate range in the Technical Specifications and to isolate purge and exhaust at readings twice the lowest accurate reading or twice backgrour,d whichever is the highest.
Exceeding the setpoint will initiate the logic for the Containment Purge Isolstion Sigr.al (CPIS). CPIS is also initiated by monitors in the exhaust stack which is the reference operation in the Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The exhaust stack monitors and the ODCM are not chanced by the proposed amendment.
l l
P l
{
3.0 EVALUATION We have reviewed the licensee's prcpesed amendment and agree with the licensee's detailed discussion and evaluation of the Technical S] edification changes proposed for the Containment Area Radiation Monitors. Tae proposed entries in Table 3.3-6.1.6 correct the original entries for Containment-Purge and Exhaust Isolation so that the operating range listed corresponds to the sensitivity of the containment area monitors and reflect the as-built condition of these monitors consistent with the Waterford 3 FSAR.
We further agree with the licensee's position on setpoint changes for
~j containment purge and exhaust isolation at twice the lowest accurate reading or twice background whichever is the highest. At these values, the safety of plant operation remains unchanged and should improve the response to actual events by not having premature or false actuations of the logic for the Containment Purge Isolation Signal. For the above items, we have also reviewed the preposed Technical Specification changes and find them acceptable.
4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NRC staff has advised the Administrator, Nuclear Energy Division, Office of Environmental Affairs, State of Louisiana of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. No comments were received.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment relates to. changes in installation or use of a facility component located within the restrictcd 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 ar.y effluents that may be released offsite end that there is no significant 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, the amendment meets the eli criteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9)gibility
/
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenviron-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Based upon its evaluation of the proposed changes to the Waterford 3
)
Technical Specifications, the staff has concluded that:
there is reason-i able 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 I
i
u_
, ;j;
- [l., ~ '
z 4
' ssuance of the amenda.ent vill r.ct N inimical to the conrron dei'ense and i
security or to the. he61th and safety of the public.. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed changes are acceptabh, and are he eby incorporated into the Waterford 3 Technical' Specifications.
f Dated: fiay. 2, 1989 Principal Contributor:
W. Wayne Meinke i
l l'
l:
L