ML20079C085
| ML20079C085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079C084 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501090324 | |
| Download: ML20079C085 (3) | |
Text
.
t y,...f
.f g
UNITED STATES
[
b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20eMM001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 67 AND 56 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-76 AND NPF-80 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS l
DOCKET N05. 50-498 AND 50-499 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT. UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated July 18, 1994, Houston Lighting & Power Company, et.al.,
t (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs)
(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 remove three one-time amendments that are no longer necessary and incorporate six minor editorial changes.
t
2.0 BACKGROUND
Removal of One-Time Amendments On May 20, 1992, the licensee requested an emergency TS change to allow plant operation at power uritil a surveillance on the manual reactor trip circuitry could be performed during shutdown of each unit. On June 2, 1992, the staff approved the request and issued License Amendment Nos. 37 (Unit 1) and 28 l
(Unit 2). The licensee subsequently performed the surveillances in the fourth refueling outage for Unit I and the third refueling outage for Unit 2.
i On May 26, 1992, the licensee requested a one-time amendment to extend the inspection interval for Unit I turbine valves from 50 months (including the 25 percent grace period) to 52 months. On August 18, 1992, the staff approved the request and issued License Amendment No. 40. The licensee subsequently performed the inspections within the normal inspection interval during an unplanned cutage in 1993, and did not use the requested extension.
t l
9501090324 941227 PDR ADOCK 05000498 p
~
. On December 6,1993, the licensee requested a one-time amendment to extend the allowed outage time for Unit I turbine driver auxiliary feedwater pump from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br />. On January 25, 1994, the staff approved the request and issued License Amendment No. 58. The licensee successfully tested the Unit I turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump, completed the Unit 1 outage, and returned Unit I to power operation in February 1994.
Editorial Chanaes The editorial changes include adding the main feedwater system limiting condition for operation to the index, adding the Unit 2 amendment number to the bottom of page 3/4 3-84, and adding page 3/4 3-78a (a new page). Other changes include removing note "(1)" from " Reactor Coolant Flow--Low" on page 3/4 3-3, changing the wording in the action statement and surveillance requirements for the recirculation fluid pH control system on page 3/4 6-15, and changing the term "E0C" (Emergency Operations Center) to "E0F" (Emergency Operations Facility) on Figures 5.1-1, 5.1-3, and 5.1-4.
3.0 EVALUATION Removal of One-Time Amendments The applicable period for these amendments has expired. Removing these amendments return the TSs to the exact wording prior to these amendments. The staff finds that returning the TSs to the exact wording is an administrative change because the actions related to the one-time amendments have been completed, they are no longer applicable, and their removal will make the TSs easier for operator use.
Editorial Chances Adding the main feedwater system limiting condition for operation to the index will allow the reader to locate this section in the TSs. Adding the Unit 2 amendment number to the bottom of page 3/4 3-84 consolidates the two different versions of this page (one applicable to Unit I and the other applicable to Unit 2) into one page that is now applicable to both units. Adding page 3/4 3-78a (a new page) for unused TS 3.3.3.10 prevents the reader from thinking a page is missing between TS 3.3.3.9 and TS 3.3.3.11.
Removing note "(1)" from the " Reactor Coolant Flow--Low" functional unit in Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Table 3.3-1 will remove a non-applicable note from this table (note "1" refers to Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation Table 3.3-3, and the reactor coolant flow instrument is not an ESFAS instrument). Changing the wording in the action statement and surveillance requirements for the recirculation fluid pH control system on page 3/4 6-15 is consistent with the existing limiting condition for operation (LCO) and improves clarity.
The existing LC0 provides the required upper and lower limits of trisodium phosphate.
In the text of the action statement and the surveillance requirements, the licensee changes the wording from a reference to a lower limit to an amount within the specified range.
1
. Changing the term "EOC" to " EOF" on Figures 5.1-1, 5.1-3, and 5.1-4, distinguishes this onsite emergency facility from the offsite county and state emergency facilities. This terminology is also consistent with the current revision of the emergency plan.
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 changes 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 45024). 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 amendments.
6.0 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 Contributors:
A. Bryant T. Alexion Date: December 27, 1994