ML20114B879
| ML20114B879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114B873 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9208310327 | |
| Download: ML20114B879 (2) | |
Text
_
g alcg 2
j' '
?+h UNITED STATES 3
y.
?-
W,<
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lh 3 [f f
WASHINoTON. O C. 20565 gv SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-87 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY. ET AL.
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-445
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated June 24, 1991, November 11, 1991, and November 11, 1991, Texas Utilities Electric Company ((TV Electric or the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-87) and to the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) (Appendix B to Facility Operating License No. NPF-87) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSE5), Unit No. 1.
The proposed changes would correct typographical errors in Technical Specification (TS) 4.6.2.lb and 4.P 1.1.2dl)(b) and delete a reference to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations from Section 3.1 of the EPP.
The licensee's May 4,1992 letter requested a change to the implementation period following the date of issuance of the license amendment t
l and therefore did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION TV Electric has proposed three amendment requests which invoive editorial changes only.
Specifically:
a.
By letter dated June 24, 1991, the licensee requested to change Section 3.1 of the EPP for CPSES, Unit 1, to delete a reference to Section 51.5(b)(2) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The intent of the reference was to cite the paragraph providing the bases for the requirements for environmental assessments and environmental impact i
statements.
The bases for providing environmental assessments and impact statements are now in paragraphs 51.20, 51.21, and 51.22.
The removal of the CFR parapraph citation will not change the licensee's requirement to comply with regulations, nor will it change the intent of the EPP.
b.
By letter dated November 11, 1991, the licensee requested to change CPSES, Unit 1, TS 4.6.2.lb to correct a typographical error (i.e., discharge pressure of 245 psig (gauge pressure) should be 245 psid (differential pressure)) in the containment spray system surveillance requirement.
Measuring pump performance using discharge gauge pressure does not account for any net positive suction head (NPSH), but using differential pressure corrects for NPSH.
Since NPSH is never negative, the use of differential 9208310327 920821 PDR 3 DOCK 05000445 P
N 0 pressure will require better pump performance in that each pump must i
provide a higher discharge pressure for a given flow rate.
I
)
c.
By letter dated November 11, 1991, the licensee requested to change CPSES, Unit 1, TS 4.8.1.1.2d.1)(b) to correct a typographical error (i.e.,
l kinematic viscosity test for new fuel should be conducted at 40*C and not l
40'F) in the diesel generator fuel oil surveillance requirement. The l
change will make the TS consistent with ASTM-0975-1981, as required by TS l
4.8.1.1.2d.l.
l The staff has reviewed these changes and determined that they are editorial in nature, do not alter the intent of their respective paragraphs, and thus do not have an adverse impact on safety.
Therefore, the staff has determined that the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
1r accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Texas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no
- comments, j
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a l
facility componert located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant l
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 22271). 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 amendment.
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Scott Flanders, NRR Date:
August 21, 1992
.~
.