ML20065G955

Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-76 & NPF-80,changing Tech Spec 3.3.3.6 to Eliminate Requirement to Shut Down Plant If One of Four Channels Inoperable

ML20065G955
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	08/22/1990
From:	Kinsey W HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20065G956	List: ML20065G957 ST-HL-AE-3542, Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-76 & NPF-80,changing Tech Spec 3.3.3.6 to Eliminate Requirement to Shut Down Plant If One of Four Channels Inoperable
References
ST-HL-AE-3542, NUDOCS 9010240300
Download: ML20065G955 (9)

Text

- . .

'v I {

-;p . - ..; ,

y The Light J i Houston c o mLighting p a nky5 uth Texas Projec Electric Generating Station P. O. Bos 289,, Wadsworth, Tenas 77483 Power ,

m August 22, 1990-N ST HL AE 3542.. '

File No.: 09.06, C20.01'

'10CPR50.90

1. ,' 10CFR50.92

.' 10CFR$1-

~

+ ,.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control-Desk Washington, DC= '20555 -

% South Texas Project Electric Generating Station l Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN 50 498, STN 50 499 e i

' Proposed Amendment to the Unit.1 and. Unit 2 3

, Technical Soecification 3.3.3.6 for Containment Pressure Instrumenta @ !

c ,

Pursuant;to 10CFR50.90, Houston Lighting & Power Company (HLC/) hereby-

. proposes to.~ amend'its Operating Licenses NPF 76 and NPF 80.' The proposed' 4

L ~amenament would change. Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.6 regarding.the action to be taken in' the event' of one of the four containment pressure post-

~

accident monitoring channels becoming inoperable.- The change would eliminate the : requirement to . shutdown tht: plant if one of the four channels is-inoperable. The shutdown? requirement would.be retained for'the condi; ion of; '

two inoperable channels. The proposed change wi11' maintain ~a conservative ,

~

7 .!

design and reduce the potential for-unnecessary unplanned shutdowns, therebyf

-- v ' ,

increasing plant safety and-reliability. >This proposed change is to thet Technical Specifications for the South-Texas Project ElectricL Cenerating  ; >

iM 1 Station (STPEGS) UnitsE1:and 2. A"similar Technica1rSpecification change was

• 1 approved and incorporatedLinto Table 3.10 l'of Technical;Specificatien 3.3'.3.6 Lin Amendm'ent Nos'14 and 4 to Facility Operating. License Nos NPF 76 and NPF 80 -

o .

- HL&P has reviewed the attached proposed amendment' pursuant' to 10CFR50.92

- and' determined that it 'does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

~

4

~The basis for.this determination is provided in the' attachments.

based on the information contained in this submittal and-in the NRC Finali In' addition,

. ] I Environmental-Statement related to the operation of STPEGS Units 1 and.2 H1AP.

has- concluded that, pursuant: to 10CFR51, there are' no significant radiological -  !

.or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action'and the=

proposed' license amendment will not have a significant.effect on.the quality: )

j,a

'of the environment. t ge.d

e. S- g 1

[1dDsgu@j 8 9ef '

lL : Q' L A1/040.N14 A Subsidiar) ot' Houston Industries incorporated h

P K

hg. '

Houstan Lighting & Power C:mpany -

- South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ST-HL AE-3542

.,. File No.: C9.06, C20.01

, , Page 2  ;

The STPECS Nuclear Safety Review Board has reviewed and approved the f . proposed changes.

l j

1 In accordance with'10CTR50.91(b),.HL&P is providing the State of Texas

=

.vith a copy of this proposed amendment.  ;

i' u . If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact L Mr. A. W. Harrison at (512) 972 7298 or myself at (512) 972 7921..

l l

hh L W. H. Kinse L- Vice Presid s Nuclear Generation- i SDP/ amp  ;

I Attachments: 1. Significant Hazards Evaluation for

! . Eliminating from Technical Specification E 3.3.3,6 the Shutdown Requirement for. Loss -

l of:One of Four Channels of Containment 4 I Pressure Instrumentation .,

l'

~

2. Proposed Technical Specification Change s 3.3.3.6, Table 3.'3 10 .

i

(

1 I

n t.

!s A1/040.N14 n <

• -1

~

ST.HL.AE-3542 ,

. 'lienston Lighting & Power Company File No.:G9.06, G20.01 South Tesas Project Electric Generating Station -Page 3-cc:

Regional Administrator, Region IV Rufus S. Scott Nuclear Regulatory Commission Associate General Counsel .

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite.1000 Houston Lighting & Power Company "

Arlington,-TX 76011 P. O. Box 61867 Houston, TX- 77208 George Dick, Project Manager

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission INPO Vashington, DC 20555 Records Center 1100 circle 75 Parkway J. I. Tapia Atlanta, GA 30339 3064 Senior Resident. Inspector 1 c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie Commission. 50 Be11 port Lane P. O. Box 910- Be11 port, NY ~11713 '

Bay City, TX 77414

, . D. K.' Lacker-L J. R. Newman, Esquire Bureau of Radiation control

! Newman & Holtzinger', P.C. Texas Department of Health r> 1615 L Street, N.W. 1100 West 49th Street Washington, DC 20036 Austin, TX 78704 g D. E. Ward /R. P. Verret

i. Central, Power & Light Company L i-P. 0.' Box 2121 .

i Corpus Christi, TX 78403 i p J.'C. Lanier Director of Generation b City of' Austin Electric Utility 721 Barton-Springs Road l

-Austin.'TX 78704 ,

,e '

R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt- '

City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, TX 78296 4

l

. t' ~

l Revised 12/15/89 r

L4/NRC/

L

I

,: e . g, i P_;" (

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGU1ATORY COMMISSION

- In the Matter )

)

Houston Li5hting & Power )

' Docket Nos. 50 498 Company, et al'., ) 50 499

)

South Texas Project )

Units.1 and 2- )

AFFIDAVIT '

.y V.-'H. Kinsey being duly sworn, hereby deposes.and says that he is Vice President, Nuclear Generation, of Houston Li 5hting.& Power Company;-that he is duly authorized to sign'and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the

- attached proposed change to' the South Texas Project Electric Generating .

Station Technical Specification 3.3.3.6; is familiar with the content'.thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and. correct to the best'of his' kncviedge and belief.

-W. H. Kinsey Vice Presiden Nuclear Generation-

o Subscribed and sworn to before me,La Notary Public in and for The h , . State of Texas this MGday of (, tuna.4r , 1990

I .

t

'kt b"^ha c @t #%'  %

.

• STATE OF TEXAS Notary Public in and for thdi j

State of Texas

$,y..

~ .g uf comm. Exo. Apr.e.1991 ,

a

r. .

Ii?

A1/040.N14 f

v,' _ s  !

. - '" 7

, m; ; ~' r l [ F: f , ') '*

-p

,%), > e

,y .

r ,

o. >

3 '

' t ', i y,

i A

r  ?

i I

t < '

I,=

'r

.I i .

1 y

ATTACHMENT 1-SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS EVALUATION-FOR ELIMINATING FROM THE~ 'u TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3.3.3,6 THE' SHUTDOWN REQUIREMENT FOR (

1 LOSS OF-ONE OF FOUR-CHANNELS OF CONTAINMENT PRESSURE INSTRUMENTATION .

i m 4

, h s

1

,i

,3

+

o.. o?r

y .[

C

+

9 A1/040.N14  !

in.

d

... f ,

SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS EVALUATION FOR ELIMINATING 71t0M THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3.3.3.6 THE SHUTDOWN REQUIREMENT FOR IDSS OF ONE OF FOUR CHANNELS i CONTAINMENT PRESSURE INSTRUMENTATION Background  ;

• The Post Accident Monitoring (PAMS) instrumentation involved.in the proposed change is containment pressure. These are Regulatory Ouide 1.97 Rev. 2 category 1 instruments, as shown in STPECS UFSAR Table 7.5 1. For this.

function there are four safety grade channels that input into the Qualified  ;

' Display Processing System (QDPS). The.QDPS post accident monitoring function for the subject parameter will remain operable as long as there is at least

.one valid input. This provides STPEGS a degree of redundancy ar.d consnvatism when compared to the requirements of Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.. Requiring plant shutdown in the.acti,6 statement with the a loss of only one channel is overly restrictive to plemt operation and unnecessarily creates the potential for unplanned plemt shutdowns. HMP' ..!

belf eyes that- eliminatig this requirement will resu'it in more reliable and safer operation.

L . .

Procosed Chance HMP proposes to revise Table 3.310 Item 1 of Technical Specification 3.3.3.6 to eliminate the shutdown requirement'of ACTION 38.for loss of one of four channels of-containment pressure instrumentation. AL . ,

similar Technical Specification' change was approved in Amendment Nos 14 and 4 to Facility Operating License Nos NPF 76 and NPF 80. A new action statement (ACTION 43), which considers the additional redundancy existing at STPEGS .,l Units 1 and 2 to measure pressurizer level,. was incorporated into Table 3.310 of Technical Specification 3.3.3.6.

Safety Evaluation l The STPEGS Technical Specifications presently require that'the plant-be shutdown if one channel is inoperable and the channel cannot be restored in 90 days. HMP believes that -imposing- a plant shutdown because of. the l unavailability of:one of four channels of post accident monitoring ,

4 l instrumentation is unjustified in view of the degree of redundancy and the i

, undesirability of performin8 an unplanned shutdown with its attendant cycles on plant equipment. The Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse  !

Pressurized Water Reacto: s, NUREG-0452, Revision 5 require a total of two channels for the Containment Pressure PAMS. The minimum channels operable t requirement is one and with one channel operable the allowed outage time (A0T) is 7 days. With both channels inoperable, the A0T is'48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.

The' proposed Technical Specification change provides a 31 day A0T with only two. channels operable which is conservative when compared to the

' - Standard Technical Specifications and reflects the design of STPEGS.

l. .!

l A1/040.N14 l

l

q i

c J Attachment 1~7 Page 2 Safety Evaluation. Cont'd.

The proposed-7 day A0T for only one channel operable _and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> for no channels operable follows the Standard Technical Specifications.; Note that there are no changes to the existing STPEGS ACTIONS for more than one channel inoperable.- Additionally, the proposed change will not. require a plant

> shutdown with one channel inoperable which will have"a positive effect on plant reliability and reduces potential' challenges to safety systems. , ,

The proposed change, to use existing action statement _(ACTION 43),

,, involves no physical changes-to the' station. The plant design and

-instrumentation configuration and quality classification are unchanged. The "U

proposed change does not in any'way affect the requirements'of Technical.

Specifications =3.3,1 governing the ESFAS function associated with this instrumentation.

Based on'the evaluation above, HL&P concludes that the-change,in no way degrades the reliability or design of the post-accident monitoring instrumentation and further reduces the potential-for unplanned: plant.

shutdowns'and is consequently an overall improvement in station safety and reliability.

Determination of Significant Hazards Pursuant to 10CFR50.91, this analysis provides a determination-that'the-proposed change to the. Technical. Specifications does not' involve ~any significant hazards consideration as defined in 10CFR50.92.

v

1. The proposed change does not involve's significant increase'in the probability ar_ consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Eliminating the shutdown requirement in the actionLatatement for loss of-one-of four channels of post accident monitoring instrumentation does not effect the probability-of an accident.

because monitoring instrumentation does not contribute to accident' probability. The accident mitigation function of. the subject .

instrumentationLis addressed by-other Technical Specifications,

~

which~ are unaffected by this proposed change. Additionally, three' ,

channels of Containment Pressure Instrumentation can monitor the- ,

containment pressure in a post-accident mode and provides'one more channel than the redundancy specified in Regulatory Guide 1.97.: The consequences of an accident are not affected by the proposed ' change.;

g.

2. The proposed change does not create the possibi','.ity of a new cri different kind of accident from that previously evaluated. The proposed change involves no changes to the station or its design bases nor'does it impose any new accident scenarios, t

A1/040.N14

, 3 c;-  !

j 3 -- . -- ', . - g

w. -

_t

.y . .  ;

i Attachment 1- -i n.g3 Page 3 I Determination of Sirnificant Hazards. Cont'd.

3. The proposed change does not involve a sigt ificant reduction in a

~ margin of safety. There is no change to the margin of safety-

.since there is no change to the-station or its design bases.

1 Conclusion [

\; ,

L Based on the above, HMP concludes that' the proposed change satisfies  !

7, the significant hazards' considerations standards of 10CFR50.92(c) and a no l significant hazards consideration finding is justified.  ;

L i

l,

(

t

..g p .

7 1e '

-j I _t _I y, i \.

6,-

l-te i i '

l'.

n if ll p l'

A1/040.N14

__1__1_ n _______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .-- _ _ . . _-- _ . _ _ _ _ - - . . .