ML20086A482

License Amend Request 91-001 to License NPF-87,correcting Containment Spray Sys Surveillance Requirement in TS 4.6.1.1B to Verify That Each Train Provides Total Discharge Flow of Greater than or Equal to 245 Psid

ML20086A482
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20086A485	List: ML20086A482 ML20086A488
References
TXX-91401, NUDOCS 9111190171
Download: ML20086A482 (6)

Text

i i

. l

< i l

01 '".".

$E  ;::

Log # TYX-91401 File # 916 (3/4.6)

:: Ref. # 10CFR50.90 TUELECTRIC & #

William j. Cahill. Jr.

Gwup Ykr President November 11. 1991 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-445 LICENSE AMENDHENT REQUEST (LAR)91-009 REVISED CONTAINHENT SPRAY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 10CFR50.90. Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric) hereby requests an amendment to its Operating License No. NPF-87 by incorporating the attached proposed change to the Technical Specifications for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Unit 1.

The proposed change corrects the Containment Spray System surveillance requirement specified in Technical Specification 4.6.2.lb. to verify that each train provides a total discharge flow through the test header of greater than or equal to 6600 gpm at *245 psid" in lieu of '245 psig".

TV Electric has reviewed the attached proposed amendment pursuant to 10CFR50.92 and determined that it does not involve a significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is included in Attachment 2.

For administrative purposes, it is requested that the approval transmittal for this proposed amendment include a seven day implementation period following the date of issuance.

In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), TU Electric is providing the State of Texas a copy of this proposed amendment.

t Sincerely,

=- ,

William J. Cahill. Jr.

l RSB/grp i

i bh5 [

c111190171 911111 \

l l DR ADOCK 0500 g5 400 N. olive street LB. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201

a TXX-91401 Page 2 of 2 Attachments: 1. Affidavit

2. Significant Hazarde Consideration Evaluation (10CFR50.92)

3. Technical Specification Page Markup e- Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident inspectors, CPSES (2)

Mr. T. A. Bergman, NRR Mr. D. K. Lacker Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78704 -

o Attachment 1 to TXX-91401 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of )

)

Texas Utilities Electric Company ) Docket No. 50-445

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Unit 1) )

AFFIDAVII William J. Cahill, Jr. being duly sworn, hereby deposes ano says tnat he is Group Vice President Nuclear of TU Electric, that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this tiansmittal of License Amendment Request 91-009; that he is familiar with the content thereof: and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knewledge, information and belief.

/ YJ ,

William J. Cahi1 K Jr. ~~/'

Group Vice President Nuclea6 STATE OF TEXAS )

)

C0ljNTY OF DAMAS )

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on this 8th day of November , 1991.

,I ll ;b Odd j l J .:Jb otary Public

Attachment 2 to TXX-91401 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 2 TO TXX-91401 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION HEAD PRESSURE CRITERIA FOR CONTAINHENT SPRAY PUMP TEST PRESSURES

Attach ent 2 to TXX-91401 Paga 2 of 3 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION PROPOSED CPSES UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE HEAD PRESSURE CRITERIA FOR CONTAINHENT SPRAY PUMP TEST PRE,SSURES Pursuant to 10CFR50.92, TU Electric has evaluated the proposed amendment to the CPSES Unit 1 Technical Specifications and has determined that operation of the f acility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve significant hazards considerations. In accordance with the three factor test of 10CFR50.92(c). implementation of the proposed changes would not: 1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: 2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or; 3) involve a significant reduction in the margin of sLfety.

I. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFIQATION CHANGE REQUEST The proposed change will correct Technical Spacifications Section 4.6.2.lb. the surveillance requirements for the Containment Spray pumps. The correct units for pressure in this surveillance is "psid" in lieu of "psig".

II. BACKGROUND The existing design calculations properly derive the Total Dynamic Head (TDH) for the Containment Spray pumps as 565 feet. This TDH value was converted directly into 245 psig when the Technical Specification was issued. The correct units should have been psid.

III. ANALYSIS The Operating Test Procedure which tests these pumps has been revised to use a pressure of 245 psid.

As such, all future testing will be consistent with the corrected Technical Specification surveillance and remains compliant with the existing surveillance since the corrected surveillance is more conservative The data obtained during previous testing, which was performed using the existing incorrect pressure units. has been reviewed and compared to the design calculations. It has been confirmed that the pumps performed within the requirements of the calculations and were operable.

-IV. NO SIG"?"ICANT HAZARDS EVALUATION PER 10 CFR 50.92 TV El. '.ic has evaluated the no significant hazo.ds considerations involved with the proposed change by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10CFR50.92(c) as discussed below:

1-

Attach::nt 2 to TXX-91401 Page 3 of 3 Does the proposed change:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The change in units from psig to psid will ensure that the Containment Spray System will performed as designed and as assumed in the existing calculations and accident analyses. Without the change, the Containment Spray pumps could have potentially degraded, undetected, below expected performance and thereby, adversely affect the consequences of accidents previously evaluated.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

The scope of this change is limited to surveillanca acceptance

. criteria for the performance of the containment spray pumps.

These pumps function to mitigate accidents previously evaluated but a change in pumps performance will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Involve-a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

This change increases the margin of safety as defined in the Technical Specifications. This change corrects the required testing performed on the Containment Spray pumps to assure that the Containment Spray pumps will perform their safety-related function when they are required to. Without the proposed change, the Containment Spray pumps could have potentially degraded, undetected, below expected performance levels and thereby, reduce the margin of safety available in certain accidents previously evaluated.

Based on the above evaluations, TU Electric concludes that the activities associated with the above described changes satisfy the "No Significant Hazards Consideration" standard of 10CFR50.92(c) and accordingly a no significant hazards consideration finding is justified.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION l_ TV Electric has evaluated the proposed change and has determined that the change does not involve (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the proposed change meets the eligibility L criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b). an environmental assessment of the proposed change is not required.

I l

l