ML20071N642
| ML20071N642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071N639 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408080090 | |
| Download: ML20071N642 (3) | |
Text
-
e
.h ye 2
E UNITED STATES 3#
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k..... j #
e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 26 AND 12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-87 AND NPF-89 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY 1
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated February 14, 1994, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric /the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to f acility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) by increasing the Unit 2 boron concentration for the refueling water storage tank (RWST) and the emergency core cooling system (ECCS); and make an administrative change for both units to delete a requirement concerning refueling canal boron concentration that is no longer applicable.
The increase in RWST and ECCS boron concentration is necessary to accommodate shutdown margin and safety analysis requirements associated with an extension of the reload cycle to 18 months.
The April 29, 1994, supplement provided additional editorial changes and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The proposed changes to baron concentration for the RWST and ECCS have been previously evaluated for CPSES Units 1 and 2 in a safety evaluation dated October 5, 1993.
The license amendments supported by that safety evaluation made identical changes to the Unit 1 boron concentration limits for the Unit 1 RWST and ECCS.
The safety evaluation was applicable to both units, in that safety evaluation, the staff determined that the proposed changes were acceptable.
In addition, the licensee has requested an administrative change to delete a footnote requirement concerning refueling canal boron concentration 'for CPSES l
Units 1 and 2.
This footnote is only applicable during the initial fuel load for each unit. As both units have completed the initial fuel load, this footnote is no lor,qer applicable.
9408000090 940002 ADOCK0500g5 DR
. 3.0 EVALUATION As determined by the staff's safety evaluation dated October 5, 1993, supporting Amendment Nos. 19 and 5, the proposed boron concentration for the Unit 2 RWST and ECCS are acceptable.
The staff reviewed the effects of the proposed increased boron concentration limits on the non-LOCA and LOCA safety analyses and concluded that all pertinent safety criteria were satisfactorily met.
The proposed technical specification changes (1) do not significantly change the corrosive nature of fluids in the RWST, ECCS Accumulators or RCS, (2) will not change the results of the licensee's calculations of the offsite iodine doses which are determined to be released following a design basis accident, and (3) will not significantly increase the amount of primary water stress corrosion cracking in the reactor vessel internals or steam generator components fabricated from Inconel 600.
Thus, the licensee's request to increase the boron concentration range in the RWST to 2400-2600 ppm and to 2300-2600 ppm in the accumulators is acceptable.
Prior to operation with t revised core configuration, the effects on the accident analyses of the hicher boron concentrations in the RWST, ECCS accumulators, and RCS will be explicitly evaluated by the licensee during the reload safety evaluation process.
The administrative change concerning boron concentration in the refueling canal for both units is acceptable as the conditions for the requirement are no longer applicable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Texas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
5.0 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 and change surveillance requirements.
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 (59 FR 22015). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
i
1
\\
i 6.0 [DNCLUSION 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:
T. Bergman Date: August 2, 1994 l
1 e
.