ML20065R831
| ML20065R831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065R824 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405160105 | |
| Download: ML20065R831 (3) | |
Text
'
, wo A
,.t 5 hM E
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%g U,/
wAssincion, o.c. 20s554005 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 60 AND 49 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS, NPF-76 AND NPF-80 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTON1Q CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS DOCKET NOS. 50-498 AND 50-499 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT. UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated March 14, 1994, Houston Lighting & Power Company, et.al.,
(the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80) for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP). The proposed changes would add a new limiting Condition for Operation (LCO), 3.0.6.
LCO 3.0.6 would allow equipment removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with actions to be returned to service, under administrative controls, solely to perform testing required to demonstrate its operability or the operability of other equipment.
2.0 EVALUATION The new LC0 was proposed to resolve a conflict in the technical specifications.
The licensee anticipated a problem in returning to service equipment which had been declared inoperable or had been removed from service to comply with technical specification action statements.
The testing that is used to demonstrate the operability of this equipment requires that the equipment be returned to service to perform the testing. This creates a conflict in the technical specifications that would require enforcement discretion or a change of mode prior to performing the testing.
In September 1992, the NRC issued NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants."
NUREG-1431 resolved this conflict by adding an LC0 that provided an exception to the requirement of LC0 3.0.2 for systems returned to service during the performance of testing.
Houston Lighting & Power proposed to implement this new LC0 for STP.
9405160105 940429 PDR ADOCK 05000498 P
s
, I The testing will-be performed under administrative controls that will include guidance to the Shift Supervisor on compensatory actions, logging the time the equipment is returned to service in conflict with the action statement, and logging the time the equipment is declared operable or removed from service again.
The administrative controls will also ensure that the time the equipment is in conflict with the requirements of the action statements is limited to the time absolutely necessary to perform the required testing.
The application of this LC0 is limited to the testing necessary to prove 4
operability. The testing will be performed after all necessary maintenance has been completed, and there is a high confidence level that the component will perform as designed.
In addition, the eauipment will only be tested in its designed configuration. Therefore, noncompliance with the applicable action statements while the equipment is being tested will not present a safety concern.
In a telephone conversation on April 12, 1994, the licensee requested editorial changes to make the wording of the Technical Specification and Bases agree more exactly with the wording in NUREG-1431.
Because the proposed change has been endorsed by the NRC in NUREG-1431, and the licensee will implement appropriate administrative _ controls, the change is acceptable.
The licensee also proposed to revise the Bases to reflect'the additional LCO.
The change it acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Texas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 amendments involve no significant hazards. consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 14889). Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 amendments.
e e
q y--,.+
3
,-g-m w
y n
=
1 o
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 Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Skay Date:
April 29,1994
.