ST-HL-AE-3094, Forwards Evaluation Re Deletion of Pseudo Rod Ejection Test from Initial Test Program,Confirming That Change Does Not Constitute Unreviewed Safety Question

Forwards Evaluation Re Deletion of Pseudo Rod Ejection Test from Initial Test Program,Confirming That Change Does Not Constitute Unreviewed Safety Question

ML20247E139
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/18/1989
From:	Mcburnett M HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
ST-HL-AE-3094, NUDOCS 8905260138
Download: ML20247E139 (4)

Text

_

The Light  !

. company P.O. Box 1700 llouston, Texas 77001 (713) 228 9211 q Ilouston Lighting & Power. ,~~ -. . - - - . - -

i i

May 18, 1989 ST-HL-AE-3094 File No.: G21.01 10CFR50.59 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Unit 2 Docket No. STN 50-499 Deletion of Pseudo Rod Ejection Test from Unit 2 Initial Startup Test Program Pursuant to license condition 2.C(4) of Facility Operating License No. NPF-80, Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) submits the attached description of a change in the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS) Initial Test Program. The description addresses deletion of the Pseudo Rod Ejection Test from the Unit' 2 Initial Test Program. Deletion of the test is in accordance with RG 1.68, Appendix A.S.e, Revision 2. The attached evaluation pursuant to 10CFR50.59 confirms that this change does not constitute an Unreviewed Saf'zty Question.

If there are any questions on this matter, please contact me at (512) 972-8530.

W W5 M. A. McBurnett Manager Operations Support Licensing MAM/PLV/km

Attachment:

Unreviewed Safety Question Evaluation 89-052 8905260138 890518 PDR ADOCK 05000499 i P PDC NL.89.128.01 A Subsidiary of liouston Industries Incorporated

l:...

n I . . ~ Houston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-3094 File No.: G21.01 Page 2 ccs 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 1700 Houston, TX 77001 George Dick, Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission INPO Washington, DC 20555 ' Records Center 1100 circle:75 Parkway Jack E. Bess Atlanta, Ga. 30339-3064 Senior Resident Inspector-Unit I c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie P. O. Box 910 50 Be11 port Lane Bay City, TX 77414 Be11 port, NY 11713 J. I. Tapia Senior Resident Inspector-Unit 2 c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 910

, Bay City, TX 77414 J. R. Newman, Esquire

'Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 R. L. Range /R. P, Verret Central Power & Light Company P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 R. John Miner (2 copies)

Chief Operating Officer City of Austin Electric Utility

721 Barton Springs Road

' Austin, TX 78704 R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, TX 78296 i

Revised 12/21/88 NL.DIST

_ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ = _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ .

.. .h

9

.. Ilouston Lighting & Power Company Attachment ST-HL-AE-3094 File No.: G20.01 10CFR50.59

, Unreviewed Safety Question Evaluation 89-052 Subj ect: Deletion of Pseudo Rod Ejection Test l Descriptions The Pseudo Rod Ejection Test has been deleted f rom the South Texas Project Electric Generation Station Unit 2 Initia1'Startup Test Program.

Safety Evaluation:

1) Does the subject of this evaluation increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report?

The testing performed on STPEGS Unit I demonstrated that the measured hot-channel factors fer the Hot Zero Power (HZP) and 30% power pseudo ejected rod configurations were less (more conservative) than those predicted in WCAP-11123 and assumed in FSAR Chapter 15.4.8 (Safety Analysis). Additionally, Unit 2 HZP testing verified that the measured hot channel factors were also less (more conservative) than those predicted in WCAP-11299 and assumed in FSAR Chapter 15.4.8.

The actual Westinghouse design is conservative with respect to Safety Analysis assumptions, and the Westinghouse calculational methodology for predicting hot-channel factors is consistent as well as conservative with respect to actual measured vslues. In addition, the measurements made during Unit 2 HZP testing reaffirms the adequacy of both the Westinghouse design and calculational methodology for predicting hot-channel factors. Since the calculational models and design of Unit 2 are identical to those of Unit 1, the Pseudo Rod Ejection Test need not be repeated on Unit 2.

This is in accordance with RG 1.68, Appendix A.S.e, Revision 2. The deletion of this test will not increase the probability of occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report.

2) Does the subject of this evaluation create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report?

The consequences of a rod ejection accident are evaluated in STPEGS FSAR Chapter 15.4.8, and the conservatism assumed have been validated by Unit I testing. Therefore, deletion of this test will not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report.

NL.89.128.01

- - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ l

e libu'ston Lighting & Power Cornpany Attachment ST-HL-AE-3094 File No.: G20.01 10CFR50.59 Unreviewed Safet7 ^aestion Evaluation 89+052 (Cont.)

3) Does the subject of this evaluation reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification?

STPEGS Unit 1 testing verified that the most limiting hot-channel f actor FQ(Z), when adjusted for uncertainty, was determined to be 2.2841 for the case when Rod D-12 was positioned 12 steps above its bank demand position. This was less than the limit established per Technical Specification 3.2.2 (FQ(Z) < 5.000) for recetor power levels less than 50%. Since the adequacy of the Westinghouse calculational methods for predicting hot channel factors has been-validated (as described in (1)), the margin of safety will not be reduced.

Based upon the above, there is no unreviewed safety question.

Approved: 04/18/89 l

I

~

NL 89.128.01

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _