ML19351A365

Application for Amend to License NPF-38,consisting of Tech Spec Change Request NPF-38-104,relabeling Reactor Vessel Surveillance Capsule Names Found on Table 4.4-5 to Agree W/ Source Document from C-E

ML19351A365
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	10/16/1989
From:	Dewease J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML19351A366	List: ML19351A365 ML19351A367
References
W3P89-0069, W3P89-69, NUDOCS 8910200122
Download: ML19351A365 (4)

Text

%-, s= 1 x.

teue6ana Power & Ught Company 4 317 Banwoo Sumn L*

f '. P. O. Box 60340 New Ortoans. LA 70160 0340

[ Td NM 695 2781 E

J. G. Dewease sanan vce pre,ei.

Nwa os .i ns W3P89-0069 A4.05 i QA October 16, 1989 i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

ATTN Document Control Desk

. Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 License No NPF-38 Technical Specification Change Request NPF-38-104 Gentlemen This letter requests corrections to typographical mistakes found in Waterford 3 Technical Specifications. First, please re-label the reactor vessel surveillance capsule names found on Table 4.4-5 to agree with the source document from Combustion Engineering. The withdrawal schedule, based on the capsule'o position in the vessel rather than its name, remains unchanged. Seccad, Amendment 50 inadvertently left a reference to fire brigades in a note to Specification 6.2.2. Attachment B includes a replacement for the note. Amendment 50 removed all other fire protection references. Last, Amendment 50 renumbered paragraphs under 6.2.2, but did not correct a reference to them in 6.8.1.h. Specification 6.8.1.h, concerning personnel overtime, should point to the corresponding paragraphs labeled "e" under 6.2.2.

Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please feel free to contact Steven Farkas at (504) 464-3383.

~ Very truly yours, u -

W co o f. evease J9enior ff@ Vice President Nuclear Operations o,g /f001 u,

CD C JGD/SEF/pi ' I NM Attachments: NPF-38-104 US cc Messrs. R.D. Martin

$@ F.J. Hebdon N D.L. Wigginton 3a: E.L. Blake

$@g W.M. Stevenson NRC Resident Inspectors Office Administrator Nuclear Energy Division (State of Louisiana)

American Nuclear Insurers

s .

p g. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

In the matter of ) l

) ,

Louisiana Power & Light Company ) Docket No. 50-382  ;

Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station )

, r '

K AFFIDAVIT  ?

i i: 1 4 J.G. Dewease, boing duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is Senior l l

Vice President - Nuclear Operations of Louisiana Power & Light Companyt [

that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory  ;

Commission the attached. Technical Specification Change Request NPF-38-104

,

i that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set i forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, i

. information and belief.-  !

5 l

1 - JW W i

f Jft!Dewease Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations [

4 STATE OF LOUISIANA)  ;

) es  ;

PARISH OF ORLEANS )

n Subscribed and sworn to before ge, Notary Publie f an f the Parish ,

and State-above named this /6 ~

day of ( Vsd , l 1989.

- i 6atary Public My Commission expires I

/

i

r

• 4 DESCRIPTION AND SAFETY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE NPF-38-104 l ,

[ The following justiffea corrections to typographical mistakes found in L Waterford 3 Technical Specifications. The first corrections re-labeling I

the reactor vessel surveillance capsule names found on Table 4.4-5 to agree with the source document from Combustion Engineering. . The withdrawal schedule, based on the capsule's position in the vessel.rather than its name, remains unchanged. Second, Amendment 50 inadvertently left a reference to fire brigades in a note to Specification 6.2.2. Amendment 50

, removed all other fire protection references. LP&L proposes to reword the d' note to exclude the fire brigade mentioned there now. Last, Amendment 50

[ renumbered paragraphs under 6.2.2, but did not correct a reference to them

[ in 6.8.1.h. Specification 6.8.1.h, concerning personnel overtine, should D point to the corresponding paragraphs labeled "e" under 6.2.2.

Existing Specifications See Attachment A Proposed Specifications i

l See Attachment B Safety Analysis The proposed change described above shall be deemed to involve a significant hazards consideration if there is a positive finding in any of the following areas:

1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed changes correct typographical and administrative errors.

None of the changes affect any plant hardware, plant design, safety limit settings, or plant system operation; and therefore, they do not modify or add any initiating parameters that significantly increase the probability or consequences of any previously analysed accident.

2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposal does not affect any equipment, nor does it involve any 1

,- 1

• - a ,

i pntential initiating events that could create any new or different  !

kind of accident. As such, the plant initial conditions utilized for the design besis' accident analyses remain valid. i i

L Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a  !

new or different kind of accident from any accident previously i evaluated.

i j 3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change l involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? j l

i, Responset No i t

I The plant safety margins come from limiting conditions for operation.  :

, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits presently given in -;

! the technical specifications.

! t The proposal only involves changing overtime and fire brigade  !

! cross-references along with a nomenclature change. Therefore, the l proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin  !

of safety. l

. i The Commission provided guidance concerning standards for determining .'

whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain l examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments that are considered not likely to l involve significant hazards considerations. This proposal most closely  !

resembles example (1) because it only changes cross-references and  ;

nomenclature. {

i I

Safety and Significant Hazards Determination 4 Based on the above Safety Analysis, it is concluded that: '(1) the proposed [

change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined  ;

by 10 CFR 50.92; and (2) there is a reasonable assurance that the health r and safety of the public will not be endangered by.the proposed change; and (3) this action will not result in a condition which significantly alters ,

the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final {

Environmental Statement.

l 1

i I

t F

l 2 r

- - -