ML20199D570
| ML20199D570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199D567 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711200363 | |
| Download: ML20199D570 (3) | |
Text
[
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
WASNINGTON. o.C. acene01 I
- ...+
)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT*2 I
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 135 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATERFORD STEAN ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated October 7,1997 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 TS 3.3.3.7.3, and Surveillance Requirements (SR) 4.3.3.7.3 for the broad range gas detection system. Also it wculd make some changes to the Bases in section 3/4.3.3.7 to incor) orate information associated with the existing toxic gas monitors.
These c1anges to the TSs are necessary due to a potential unreviewed safety question identified during final review prior to installation of a new broad range gas detection system approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission (NRC) staff by Amendment 133 dated August 19, 1997, in effect, the licensee is requesting that the TSs and associated Basis for the broad range gas detection system that were in effect prior to Amendment 133 be retained instead of implementing the approved Amendment 133, 2.0 EVALUATION During the review of the design change to install the new broad range gas detection system approved by the NRC staff, the licensee identified a potential unreviewed safety question on September 29, 1997.
Specifically, the new broad range toxic gas detection system has a self-calibration feature that utilizes the plant instrument air system. This feature improves the system's performance, but does create a scenario, involving a slow increase in toxic gas levels that could cause detection of the toxic gas to be masked.
This scenario is a low probability event that could introduce the possibility of a malfun: tion that was not previously reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff.
As the currently installed system does not use instrument air or any other outside air source-for calibration which would be affected by this scenario, it is not susce>tible to similar potential vulnerability. To further evaluate the design of tie new toxic gas detection system, the licensee requested that the TSs be changed such that the current detection system can remain in service until the new design is approved by the NRC staff.
1 9711200363 971114 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P
pm
e i
?
I 6
The current toxic gas detection system has a photolonization detector, a local-readout and alam adjustment for d6tection of toxic gases and isolation of the control room.
In the past this system had snee reliability concerns, and it required excessive amount of mail.tenance and calibration efforts. The new monitors, which the licensee intends to use in future, are based on a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) analysis technique. This technique utilize.
microprocessor gas analysis based on infrared spectrum analysis.
It is expected to be more accurate than the N+ hod used currently. However, the licensee has increased the calibrattw
. equency to improve the reliability of the existing system.
The licensee has proposed the following changes to broad range gas detection
- system TSs:-
I Remove two asterisks and a foot note annotating the two asterisks in limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.3.7.3 and ACTION statement. The footnote states that the requirement for maintaininy the system operable-does not apply during the time (approximately one u nute) when the instrument autow tic background / reference spectrum check renders the instrument incperable.
This foot note is not applicable to current broad range gas detection systems.
y In SR 4.3.3.7.3, a regt.irement for a calibration every seven days is being added as the currently installed system does not automatically perform an eqJivalent function. The details regarding the calibration are beirig added in the Surveillance Requirement.
The Bases in Section 3/4.3.3.7 will be modified to remove a description of the new toxic gas detection system, its operation and its calibration procedure.
The revised Bases will reflect operation of the currently installed broad range gas detection system. The description of the system is being changed to reflect the method of operation of the current system.
Page B 3/4 3-3 in Bases was issued with Amendment 133 to reflect the Bases change made in Amendment 122. However, the staff erroneously put the wrong Amendment number at the bottom of page.
This amendment will reflect correct amendment number.
The staff has evaluated the licensee's proposed modification to the TSs for the toxic gas detection system. The licensee would like to modify these TSs to make them applicable to the existing toxic gas detection systems it plans to use until the new system is reviewed and approved by the NRC staff.
The proposed changes by licensee do not affect the number of independent systems required to be operable, and the ACTION-statement. The existing gas detection system was reviewed and ap) roved by the NRC during the licensing process of
. Waterford 3.
Therefore, tie NRC staff concludes that the proposed amendment to the TS for the toxic gas detection system is acceptable.
g.-
.m--,-
m
- o. wu
-r-yi.--w-s-*-wv,,
,-.m
,wre
~
p
--se, m%6
.-en-e-.-.v..4we,-,----..-ww.w--.,=---o e-v e > w-,w
..ee.-,.
.ww---
,,,,,.---w,,
ve:.e,---
b o
3
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 CONSIDERAU Q!f l
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to..sta11ation or use of a facility compoaent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the am 'Jment 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 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 53660). 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) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
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 Ccmmission'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:
C. Patel Date:
November 14, 1997