ML20054K929
| ML20054K929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1982 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054K930 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207060303 | |
| Download: ML20054K929 (3) | |
Text
.
N Docket No. 50-373 i
fir. Louis 0. De1 George Director of Nuclear Licensing Cc,monwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. De1 George:
Subject:
Amendment No. 2 to Facility Operating License No. HPF-11 The Cmmission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 2 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-11 for the La Salle County Station, Unit 1.
The amendment consists of the following changes to the Technical Specifications in response to your applications dated May 24,1982, June 1,1982, June 7,1982, and June 14,1982.
The changes to the Technical Specifications were as follows:
(1) : nodi fy Technical Specification 4.6.6.1(b)(2) from 1200 F + 9 F to 1200 F + 25 F; (2) change the main steam isolation valve scran setpoint from a ncEinal value of 94 percent open to a nominal value of 92 percent open; and (3) modify Technical Specification 3/4.10.7 so as to pemit perfomance of the confimatory flow induced vibration test with one low pressure core injection loop isolated.
In addition, some Technical Specification inputs and changes were subnitted as a result of our review and reported in our Supplements to our Safety Evaluation Reports in order to fullfil your commitment. These Technical Specifications were: revised list of snubbers pursuant to the provision of 2.C.5(a) of the license, a list of tendon surveillance schedules pursuant j
to the provision of 2.C.7 of the license, and finally increase the nutter of fire detection instrumentation as a result of our requirenent to install j
a general sprinkler systen in the diesel-generator corridor.
Your letter of %y 24, 1982, infomed us of your request for two changes in the Technical Specifications. The first had to do with the recombiner heater temperature controller deviation of 1200 F + 9 F.
This 9 F deviation l
does not allow for any operating variations. This operating limitation resulted in the inability to aeet the Technical Specification limit during the pre-operational testing. You requested that the deviation be changed to 1200 F + 25 F to allow for small over and under shoot during the tine required to stabTlize the heater.
In this regard, we note that your proposal provides a reasonable functional test, and at the same time maintains the 99.9 percent recombination efficiency stated in La Salle's Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, we conclude that the change is acceptable.
8207060303 820621 PDR ADOCK 05000373 p
PDR OFFICE >
................ ~..
....~.a...u.=~a.
..a
.~..a a n.a..
suaname) 04rr >
...... ~............
.....-aa.........
sac ronu ms oo-somscu oao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa m = - m ma
-J Ml Mr. t.ouis 0. De1 George With respect to the second change in your May 24, 1982 letter, you requested a change in the main stem isolation valve closure set point frm a nminal value of 94 percent open to a nominal value of 92 percent open and an allowable value 88 percent open. This change would result in a slight delay to scre for events in which nain steam isolation value closure initiates reactor trip. At La Salle, the only event, for which main stem isolation valve closure is credited for tripping the reactor, is the main steam isolation valve closure transient. Your reanalysis of the main stem isolation valve transient, using an anlaysis value of 85 percent open, bounds the proposed values of 92 percent (nominal) and 88 percent (allowable), and includes consideration of setpoint calibration, accuracy and drift. The ODYN code which has been approved by us was used for the reanalysis. The reanalysis results indicate that the operating limit minimum critical powr ratio is unaffected by the proposed change. The change in critical power ratio for the main stem isolation valve closure event is still bounded by several other anticipated operational occurrences such as the feedwater controller failure or load rejection events. Peak vessel pressure was calculated to be 1203 pounds per square inch gage which is 4 pounds per square inch higher than in the previous analysis, but remains well below the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code limit of 1375 pounds per square inch gage. Based upon the results of your reanalysis, we find the proposed Technical Specifications change acceptable.
Finally, in your letter of June 1,1982, you requested Technical Specification 3/4.10.7 he modified to include suspension of Technical Specification 3.5.1 for the loop B of the low pressure core injection, and Technical Specification 3.4.3.2.d, for isolation valve leakage for valve IE12-F041B of loop B of the low pressure core injection. These changes would pemit execution of the confirmatory flow induced vibration test while:
(1) loop B of low pressure core idection is isolated, and (2) prior to loop B of the low pressure core injection check valve being shown to satisfy the leak rate criterion of 1 gallon per minute given in Technical Specification 3.4.3.2.d.
In our letter dated June 7,1982, we authorized these changes for the following reasons:
(1) Technical Specification 3/4.10.7 requires that the confimatory flow induced vibration test be performed prior to initial criticality (since no previously irradiated fuel is included in the first core, there is no decay heat source); (2) the high pressure core spray, low pressure core spray, and loops A and C of the low pressure core idection are available to provide water makeup, if necessary; (3) Technical Specification 3/4.10.7 is self-cancelling upon either empletion of the test, or initial criticality, and therefore, these changes will only be in effect during the test period itself; and (4) return-to-service maintenance procedures require valve realignnents in loop B of the low pressure core injection after completion of this test and maintenance, so as to return the loop B of the low pressure core injection to operable status prior to operation.
OFF6CE )
suaune >
one>
nac ronn ais oo-somacu oao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usono
Mr. Louis 0. DelGeorge We have determined that the amendment does not involve a change in effluent types or total anounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environnental impact. Having nade this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an enviromental impact statement or r.ogative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not ha prepared in connection wi th the issuance of this amendment.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Cmmission's regulations and the issuance of this amndment will not be inimical to the cmmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
A copy of a related Notice of Issuance is also enclosed.
\\
Sincerely,
I I <1 A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing Encl osures:
1.
Amendment No. 2 to NPF-11 2.
Notice cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
/
/
,/
5 4
suauwe>..M.o.ur.nJ.nRt
..,CWoodhead ASc
[.@.h..
OFFICE )
.."....u.aa..a
.~.a aaa.a.a..
a.a a aaaaa" *a
.... W...
cer
...ua..............u.
..../..l 6./. 8 2
..../..V./. 8 2
..../.;
2........
6 6
6 o-,
NRC FORM M 00@) NHCM cm OFFiClAL RECORD COPY uso m i.u - m e
.._ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - -. -.