ML20114B284
| ML20114B284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114B280 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9208250303 | |
| Download: ML20114B284 (3) | |
Text
a r
kt 8ttCg l
Cs-
.? '
UNITED STATES
- 3. M y/ i NUCLEAR REGUL-1 ORY COMMISSION
- %.g[jf W ASHINoToN, D.C. 20665 o
% **u
..+
EAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N05. 39 AND 30 TO FAClllTY 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 PRO.1ECT. UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated August 30, 1991, 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.
The proposed changes would clarify sections of the axial flux difference (AFD) and incore moveable detection system specifications.
The licensee's January 24, 1992, letter requested a 10-day implementation period following the date of issuance of-the license amendments.
The text of the AfD specification has been rewritten to provide clearer direction without changing the function of the specification.
The Surveillance Requirements for this specification have also been changed.
The current specification requires 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of AFD monitor alarm monitoring when the AFD Monitor Alarm is returned to operable status.
The proposed change would eliminate this requirement.
The second change clarifies the operability requirements for the incore l
Noveable Detection System in the unique circumstance that only the four symmetric thimble pairs are used te verify the quadrant power tilt ratio (QPTR) above 75 percent power. The QPTR specifications make allowance for using these eight unique thimbles, but the flux mapping system operability l
specification requires 75 percent of the incore flux thimbles be available before the system can be used for QPTR measu.ement.
The proposed change makes it clear that the eight thimbles to be used to monitor the QPTR can be used without accessing the rest of the incore thimbles.
9208250303 920018 PDR ADOCK 05000498 l
P PDR
c.
' 2.0 EVAL _UATION The proposed changes to the AFD specifications are much easier to read and understand. They should eliminate interpretation difficulties and do not change the function of the specification. The current specification required 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of AFD monitor alarm monitoring when the AFD monitor alarm is returned to operable status. The monitor alarm is often lost due to a process computer shutdot,n and the monitor alarm is returned to operable status within a few minutes.
Currently, a 24-hour log must then be kept.
Since the return to operability of the monitor alarm includes verification of it knd updating of any penalty time accumulated, the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> monitoring is redundant and unnecessary.
The QPTR must be determined to be within the -limit at least once every 7 days when the alarm is operable and at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> when the alarm is inoperable.
In addition, when one Power Range channel is inoperable the QPTR must be determined at least once every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
In the latter case, it may be determined using the movable incore dctection system subject to the requirements of Specification 3.3.3.2 or it may be determined using the four pairs of symmetric thimbles.
The present specification does not state whether the requirements of Specification 3.3.3.2, namely that 75 percent of the thimble locations are accessible must be followed if the four pairs of symmetric thimbles are used.
The. proposed change will state that Specification 3.3.3.2 does not apply when the four pairs of symetric locations option is being used.
The use of the four pairs of symmetric thimble locations as ellowed by Specification 4.2.4.2.a and discussed in the associated Bases is sufficient to verify equipment perfor:ance and is an alternative to the use of the full incore flux map method of Specification 4.2.4.2.b.
The added note which states that Specification 3.3.3.2, requiring 75 perce't of the thimbles be available, is not applicable clarifies the existing requirements. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Texas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no coments..
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in
! CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has l-determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, L
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 l
occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a l
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consider-I ation,. and there has been no public coment on such finding (56 FR 51926).
l
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the that:
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manc.r, (2) such activities will be conducted in enmpliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
M. Chatterton (SRXB)
Date:
August 18, 1992 I
i i
-,