ML20070K788
| ML20070K788 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070K785 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103190153 | |
| Download: ML20070K788 (3) | |
Text
.
/en aseg%c D
pr UNITED STATES
'7' fS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINoTON, D.C, 20566
\\....p SAFETY EVALUATION BY'THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
WATERFORO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 DOCKET N0. 50-387 1, O INTR 000CTION i
By letter dated July 25, 1990, Entergy Operations,-Inc. (the licensee)-submitted a request for changes to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed changes would add a note to Table 4.3-2,"
Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements," concerning the testing requirements for certain specific-relays.
The purpcw of the change, and the associated plant modifications, is to reduce the number of emergency diesel generator (EDG) starts performed to meet surveillance testing requirements.
As described.in Generic Letter 84-15, the staff has concluded that excessive cold fast starts of the EDG's may reduce EDG availability to perform their safety function.
A reduction in the number of surveillance testing cold starts is, therefore,_ considered by-the staff to be an improvement in overall plant safety.
The surveillance of the ESFAS circuitry and an appropriate number of EDG tests are still performed.
The staff and the licensee held a meeting on December 20, 1990, to resolve staff concerns about the design changes proposed.
2.0 DISCUSSION-In TS Table 4.3.2, the channel functional test for the automatic actuation logic of the Safety Injection System contains a note (#1) which requires that each train or logic channel be tested at least every 62 days:on a staggered test basis.
Staggered test basis currently requires equal intervals between the tests such that each channel -is tested every 62 days with approximately 31 days between the Channel A and Channel B tests.
ESFAS relay. surveillance testing requires that the final contact in the circuit is verified to have functioned.
For specific relays designated as K110, K410, and K412 the ESFAS.
relay testing results in an_EDG start.with the normal diesel generator protective circuits bypassed.
The existing start circuitry is designed so that when -the -
EDG is started in the emergency mode, as it is during the_ESFAS relay test, it cannot be manually paralleled to the electrical bus to perform other required-surveillances.
h3IMK050003g 3 910315-P PD
. The EDG's are started for surveillance testing on a monthly basis that is also on a staggered basis, such that every EDG is tested every 31 days with approximately 15 days between the Channel A EDG test and the Channel B EDG test.
Because of the differences in the EDG and ESFAS surveillance test t
schedule, the EDGs are subjected to additional starts to meet the ESFAS surveillance requirements.
3.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes by the licensee fall into two basic parts.
The first part is the actual TS change which will change the note in TS Table 4.'3-2 so that those specific relays listed above will still be tested esery 62 days but the requirement for the equal time interval between channel tests will be eliminated.
The licensee would then be able to perform the ESFAS relay tests at the same time that the required EDG tests are performed and, therefore, reduce the total number of required EDG starts.
The effect on the ESFAS relay-testing would be that, for the relays listed, one half of the tests would have two weeks between Channel A and Channel B tests while for the other half there would be six weeks between testing.
Each relay would still be tested every-62 days.
The additional two weeks between tests for half the tests increases the time that a relay failure could be undetected.
Fortthe other half of the tests, a failure would be detected sooner.
The change in -test interval involves only a few relays and these relays have been reliable.
The staff considers the change in ESFAS relay test intervals to have an insignificant impact on EDG starting reliability and concludes that the TS change is acceptable.
The second part of the proposed changes involves a design change which is not specifically described in the TS.
This modification would modify the EDG contro; ciccuitry to allow the operators to parallel the EDG to the bus, manually remove it from the emergency mode, and perform the other required testing.
This change would allow the diesel generator protection circuits to be in place as the diesel is tested.
The EDG would remain available to respond to a valid emergency start signal during the test.
The staff concludes that t
the improvement in overall reliability of the EDGs achieved by reducing the number of cold starts warrants the changes and the! staff finds the changes acceptable.
4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Louisiana State official i
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
J l
1
- - - +.
rr <
7 e
4
..r-w7
.-,-,w,%
p.,--,-,.we-,
,,n
- m-.
e rw+1 m.
w m v-
3-
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a fecility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi-ficant 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 exposures. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amenoment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (55 FR 36343). Accordingly, the dmendment meets the elig1bility Criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission 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 amendmerit will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
N. Trehen, SELB/ DST J. Stewart, SICB/ DST Date:
March 15, 1991