ML20092A712
| ML20092A712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092A698 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9509110163 | |
| Download: ML20092A712 (3) | |
Text
f* **%c s
p.
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20655 4001
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 80 AND 69 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 DOCKET NOS. 50-498 AND 50-499 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT. UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated May 25, 1995, and supplemented by letter dated August 3, 1995, Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al., (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 I and 2 (STP). The proposed changes would revise the TSs on containment leakage, to make the action statement consistent with the need to perform Type C testing at power, and to replace the surveillance requirements with a single requirement to apply the requirements of Appendix J as modified by approved exemptions. The proposed changes would also revise the TSs on containment integrity, containment leakage, and containment air locks, to eliminate the numerical value of calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the design basis accident.
The August 3,1995, supplement provided clarifying information that did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
The related exemption for which the licensee also applied in its letter of May 25, 1995, was issued on August 31, 1995.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Action Statement for Containment Leakaae - TS 3.6.1.2 The licensee desires to change this action statement to replace the phrase j
regarding not exceeding 200*F with an unacceptable leakage rate, with a shutdown action statement identical to that associated with containment j
integrity (TS 3.6.1.1).
The initial application proposed that the phrase discussed above be replaced with a reference to the action statement in 9509110163 950907 l
PDR ADOCK 05000498 P
PDR l
l
i-I i
! i i
i
{
TS 3.6.1.1, but after further consideration, the licensee now proposes (in the j
August 3, 1995, supplement) that it is clearer to replace the phrase discussed i
above with the specific required action and time limits of TS 3.6.1.1, rather J
than reference TS 3.6.1.1.
I This proposed change will allow the licensee to perform Type B and Type C i
tests at power and has no impact on the requirements to maintain containment i
integrity.
In addition, since TS 3.0.4 applies to TS 3.6.1.2, a mode change to Mode 4 cannot be made with leakage rates in excess of those specified.
j Therefore, the existing limitation of 200*F is preserved when testing is performed during shutdown conditions. -
j 2.2 Surveillance Reauirements for Containment Leakaae - TS 4.6.1.2 The licensee desires to replace the existing surveillance requirements of TS i
4.6.1.2, which duplicate the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, with l
a reference to Appendix J, as modified by approved exemptions. Accordingly, i
there is no impact on the technical requirements associated with this change.
~
I 2.3 Deletion of Numerical Value of Calculated Peak Containment Internal Pressure Related to Desian Basis Accident - TS 3/4.6.1. TS 3/4.6.2. and
}
TS 3/4.6.3 (Containment intearity. Leakaae and Air Locks) i The licensee desires to delete the numerical value of calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the design basis accident. Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 states that this pressure is specified either in the TSs or the associated Bases. A value of 41.2 psig is specified in the Bases to TS i
3/4.6.2; therefore, this value need not be repeated in the TSs.
3.0 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 j
no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l i
j 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 l
l Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined i
that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released a
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 4
i consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 37092). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for j
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR j
51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
l
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:
T. Alexion Date: September 7, 1995 s
1 l
l
-