ML20082G078
| ML20082G078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082G061 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504130076 | |
| Download: ML20082G078 (4) | |
Text
R m atg lj UNITED STATES ~
1 g
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
WASHINGTON, D.C. 3000H001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 537 AND 23 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-87 AND NPF-89 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 l.0 INTRODUCTION
~
By application dated February 28, 1995, (Reference LAR 95-01, TXX-95050),
Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric /the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) (Appendix A to Facility 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 Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.2.lb by removing the acceptance criteria values for flow and differential pressure (head) for the containment spray pump with the general acceptance criterion that the pump develop'the required head at the flow test point. The licensee proposed ) lacing the actual required flow and head values in the licensee-controlled Tecinical Requirements Manual (TRM) where they may be revised pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
Along with this change, the licensee proposed to revise the associated Bases for TS 3/4.6.2.1 " Containment Spray System," to explain that (1) the CPSES containment spray pumps are tested.via a special test line.which allows testing at flows higher than that allowed by the miniflow recirculation line, (2) the " pump design curve" is termed the " analytical pump curve," and (3) the the specific flow and head values required to satisfy the containment; spray pump SR are defined in the TRM.
2.0- BACKGROUND
- 10 CFR 50.36 specifies the TSs to be included as part of.each nuclear power plant o)erating license, in accordance with Section 182a of the Atomic Energy
.Act (" tie Act"). That regulation requires that the TS include items in five spec 9fic categories, including (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings; (2)'11miting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; and (5) administrative-controls. However, the regulation does not specify the particular.
requirements to be included in a plant's TS. The Commission has provided guidance for the contents of TS in its " Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors" (" Final Policy Statement"), 58 FR 39132 (July 22,1993). The Final Policy Statement identified four criteria to be used in determining whether a particular matter 9504130076 950406 PDR ADOCK 05000445 P
e is required to be included in the TS, as follows:
(1) Installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (3) a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (4) a structure, system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic sa assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.fety As a result, existing TS requirements which fall within or satisfy any of the i
criteria in the Final Policy Statement must be retained in the TS, while those TS requirements which do not fall within or satisfy these criteria may be relocated to licensee-controlled documents.
3.0 EVALUATION Applying the criteria and other guidance in the Final Policy Statement to existing TS requirements, the staff previously determined'that existing TS requirements for systems such as the containment spray system must be retained J
in the TS.
In making this determination, however, the staff also concluded that certain details of system design, operation, and SRs, may be relocated to licensee-controlled documents where various means could be used to achieve the safety function and the level of protection would not be significantly altered if those details were changed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
The SRs for the containment spray pump demonstrate that the pump is capable of performing the safety functions demonstrated by the CPSES safety analyses.
The two design basis accidents, which define the performance requirements for these pumps, are the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and the main steam line break (MSLB) inside containment. The spray flow provided by these pumps limit the temperature and pressure peak inside containment and reduce the radioactivity of the containment atmosphere.
In order to perform their safety function, the pumps must meet or exceed the analytical pump curves assumed in the safety analyses.
The present SR confirms this required level of performance by verifying that the pumps provide a flow greater than or equal to a specified value (6600 gpm) at a specific head (245 psid) using a specific flow path. The proposed change would replace these specific acceptance criteria with a general criterion that each pump develop the required head at the flow test point, so that any i
The Commission recently promulgated a propos'ed change to 10 CFR 50.36, pursuant to which the rule would be amended to codify and incorporate these criteria (59 FR 48180). The Commission's Final Policy Statement specified that Reactor Core Isolation Cooling, Isolation Condenser, Residual Heat Removal, Standby Liquid Control, and Recirculation Pump Trip are included in the TS under Criterion 4.
i
,* appropriate combination of flow, pressure and head corresponding to the analytical pump curves consistent with the safety analyses may be used to demonstrate the performance of the pumps.
The effectiveness of this SR for confirming containment spray pump operability is not altered by specifying a general criterion. This SR will continue to be performed separately for each spray pump in accordance with the frequency required by the inservice testing program. This SR will also continue to confirm that each pump meets or exceeds the analytical pump curve assumed in the safety analyses. Thus, the capability of the spray pumps to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation c event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety, in the event of a design basis accident, will not be affected by this change.
These design details, which underlie the general criterion, will be maintained in the TRM in accordance with the provisions in 10 CFR 50.59, TS 6.5.1.6 and TS 6.8.1.
In accordance with the guidance in the Final Policy Statement, the staff concludes that these design details may be removed from SR 4.6.2.lb and placed in the TRM.
In addition, the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, TS 6.5.1.6, and TS 6.8.1 provide an acceptable means to control changes to these design details.
Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
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 SRs. 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 (60 FR 12255). 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.
i i
1
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 Contributor:
T. Polich C. Harbuck Date: April 6, 1995 A