ML20248E615
| ML20248E615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248E614 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910050343 | |
| Download: ML20248E615 (3) | |
Text
t
[jnog e
k UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
En
-j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
~
/
SAFETY EVALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATI0h RELATED TO DELETION OF DYNAMIC ROD DROP TEST AND STATIC RCCA DROP AND RCCA BELOW-BANK POSITION MEASUREMENT TESTS HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-498 AND 50-499 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
By letters dated July 28, 1988, pursuant to License Cor.dition 2.C.(4) of License No. NPF-76, Houstcn Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) (the licensee) informed the staff of changes in the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS)InitialTestProgram(Ref.1). The changes were for the deletich of Test #26, Dynamic Rod Drop Test and Test #27, Static RCCA Drop and RCCA Eclow-Bank Position Measurements Test. These tests are routinely deleted for 12 foot Westinghouse cores. STPEGS however, is the first h icot core licensed in the United States, so the staff initiated a review. As part of the justification for the deletion of these tests the licensee stated that these tcsts have been perforr.ied in foreign reactors with 14 foot cores. The staff requested results from the foreign tests and the licensee respcr.ced with letters dated April 6, and May 31, 1989 -(Refs. 2, 3).
2.0 EVALUATION Houston Lighting & Fower Company provided data from the Dynamic Rod Drop Test performed at Tihange 3 in 1985. TI.e test was the same as that in the li.itial Startup Test Program for STPEGS.
It was performed from approximately SL pcrcent pcwer and the stated cbjective was tc reach a negative rate flux trip while dropping the minimum number of rods.
Rods K-8 and F-8 (from the same group) with a combined worth of approximately 420 pcm were dropped. The trip was caused by a negative change in flux and the stated acceptance criteria were met. The Tihange 3 core is of similar design to the STPEGS core. The staff reviewed the data supplied by the licensee and found that the test conclusions agree with those from the domestic 12 foot core tests. Thus it is concluded that deletion of the Dynamic Rod Drop Test for STPEGS is acceptable.
i The licensee also provided information about the Static RCCA Drop and RCCA i
l Below-Bank Position Measurement Test done at the Tihange 3 plant on June 27, 1985. The tests were similar to those in the STPEGS Startup Program. The acceptance criteria, while stated slightly differently, cover the same areas of concern as in the STPEGS prc5 ram. The licensee provided data showing that t.11 acceptance criteria were met. The staff reviewed the cata provided and agree that the 14 foot core behaved no differently than the 12 foot cores. Thus (ele tion of this test is acceptable.
8910050343 890921 PDR ADOCK 05000498
.P pnu
y
'~.y
-.i l.
3.0 CONCLUSION
S Based on the-above the staff finds that deletion of Test #26, Dynamic Rod Drop l-Test and Test #27,- Stctic RCCA Drop and RCCA Below-Bank Position Measurement
-' Tests is acceptable for STPEGS.
Dated: September. 21, 1989' Principa1' Contributor:
M. Chatterton j
c
-_-__-_- _ a
h ;3.:.;.e,-
g j
- 1. '.
as
' 3-p;p 4.0 PREFERENCES' p
'l12 Letter from M.' A. McBurnett (HL&P).to NRC', dated July 28, 1988.
2.
Letter from M. A.'McBurnett (HL&P) to.NRC, dated' April 6 1989.
.3...
Letter.from M. A. McBurnett (HL&P) to NRC dated May~ 31, 1989.
'f R
't f
_ _ -.. _.. - _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - -