ML20149E807
| ML20149E807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149E796 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707210074 | |
| Download: ML20149E807 (3) | |
Text
_ _ - _ - - _ _
@ Msv
~,
p UNITED STATES I
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHfMGToN D.C. 30006 4 001 j-SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 88 AND 75 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-76 AND NPF-80 t
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO i
J CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY i
CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS DOCKET NOS. 50-498 AND 50-499 j
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT. UNITS 1 AND 2 4
~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application' dated August 15, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 1996, and May 29, 1997, Houston Lighting & Power Company, et.al.,
(the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) j (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 a requirement for performance of a surveillance incorporating a high toxic gas test signal.
L The October 31, 1996, and May 29, 1997. supplements provided clarifying
~
information and'did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The licensee requested to remove Surveillance Requirement 4.7.7.e.5.
1-Surveillance Requirement 4.7.7.e.5 verifies that on a high toxic gas test signal, the control roem makeup and cleanup filtration system automatically j
l switches into a recirculation mode of operation by isolating the normal supply i
and exhaust flow within 5 seconds.- The reason for this amendment is that the capability for monitoring toxic gases was eliminated from the plant and
' consequently, the surveillance requirements are not needed. The toxic gas monitoring capability was removed from the plant as a result of an analysis performed by the licensee which indicated that an accidental' release of any toxic chemical that is stored inside the plant or stored or transported within 4
five mile radius from the plant would not incapacitate control room operators.
i -
The licensee performed this plant modification under 10 CFR 50.59 because on 1
i July 6,;1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved relocation of L
9707210074 970717 F
PDR ADOCK 05000498 i
P PDR
.l
l l*
' l l
l the specification dealing with the toxic gas monitoring system (TS 3/4.3.3.7) from the plant's TSs to the licensee-controlled Technical Requirements Manual.
Following the relocation, the licensee was able to demonstrate that the removal of the toxic gas monitoring system does not involve an unreviewed i
safety question.
The October 31, 1996, supplement provided the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation that l
addressed removal of the toxic gas monitoring system. The May 29, 1997, supplement provided administrative changes to the affected page of the TSs that was initially proposed in the August 15, 1996, application to ensure punctuation and organization consistency.
3.0 EVALUATION l
The following two toxic chemicals are stored in the plant:
ethanolamine and i
hydrazine. The licensee's analysis has indicated that their accidental release could not result in buildup of the concentrations in the control room which could incapacitate plant operators.
There are several potentially toxic chemicals which are either stored or transported within five mile radius from the plant.
In accordance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.78, some of them were eliminated from consideration because of their very small quantities present, or their low volatility. However, the licensee found that the effect on habitability of i
the control room had to be evaluated for six of them.
The original number was eventually reduced to four because anhydrous ammonia and hydrochkric acid were not stored or transported any more near the plant.
i The evaluation of these four chemicals (acetic acid, vinyl acetate, acetaldehyde and naphta) was performed by the licensee using dispersion j
analysis to calculate the concentration inside the control room and probabilistic analysis to determine the probabilities of building up the i
concentrations which could incapacitate the control room operators.
Using the results of these analyses, the licensee demonstrated that either the concentrations in the control room were below the values which could incapacitate the operators, or the probabilities of reaching these concentrations were below the permissible values, specified in Section 2.2.3 of the Standard Review Plan.
It concluded, therefore, that these chemical did 1
not pose any safety concern. The licensee's evaluations were reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable.
4.0 SlMiARY
- The staff has evaluated the proposed amendment to eliminate the surveillance requirement for performance of a surveillance incorporating a high toxic gas test signal. The staff finds that the technical bases used by the licensee in removing the toxic gas monitors from STP are acceptable, and also finds, therefore, that elimination of TS 4.7.7.e.5 is justified.
4 4
w' we w
+1#w W
-p y.-
,---og y
w
1*
l' !
i
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Texas State official was i
notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
l 6.0 ENVIRONNENTAL 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 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 considerat*on, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 50344). 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, j
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed menner, (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:
K. Parczewski Date: July 17, 1997 1
4 4
w.
w.
u-,
,.w<<
-