ML20059J841
| ML20059J841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059J839 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009200201 | |
| Download: ML20059J841 (2) | |
Text
.
... 7
. I[ heargg -.h
~
"I UNITED STAT Es u
NUCLE AR REGULATOF Y COMMISSION n
b L
WASHING TON, D. d. 20656 SAFETY EVALUATION'BY THE-0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUI.ATION SUPPORTINGi TENDMENT N0. 7~ T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSC N0. NPF-11 AND -
AMENDMENT NO. 59 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-18 i
COMMONWEALTHEDISONCOMPANI LASALLE COUNTY STATIONi UNITS 1 AND 2 i
DOCKET N05. 50a373 AND 60-374-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May.16,1990 (W.E. Morgan, Ceco to U.S.~ NRC), Cosmonwealth i
Edison Company-(CECO or.the lictune) proposed a. Technical Specification-L(TS) change.to revise the " single largest load reject" test value discrep -
ancy between,the TS at:d the Updated Final Safety-Analysis Report -(UFSAR) by using the more, conservative.UFSAR value..The licensee also proposes to.
clarify the ' requirements for the automatic bypassing'of the diesel generator j
trips on an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)Lsignal, for Division 3 2.0. EVALUATION I
Technical' Specification' 4.8.1.1.2.d.2. currentlyL calls for the. verification of.the the diese1' generator capability to reject a~ load:of greater than or equal to 2381 kw for diesel generator IB while maintaining. engine speed:less than'or equal to 75% of the difference between nominallspeed and the overspeed trip setpoint or 15% above nominal, whichever iscless. The 2381 kw equates to 3000 brake horsepower while the UFSAR' Table 8.3-1 has 3050 brake horsepower.
-The value for Table 8.3-1 bounds the maximum brake horse ower value determined from Figure 6.3-1 in the UFSAR (HPCS Pump Characteristic ).
The Unit 1 and H
2 high pressure core spray (HPCS) pumps are the ' trgest: loads r the ESF Division 3 busses 143 and 243, respectively..The licensee is proposing to changemthe TS value to 2421 kw.to coincide with'to the more conservative.
UFSAR value of '3050 brake. horsepower, and this is acceptable, In.HUREG-0519? March 1981,."SafetyEvaluationReportRelated:totheOpera-4 tion of.LaSalle County Stations Units liand 2" (SER),'the' diesel generator protective trip' bypass system was evaluated. This'SER' required that the-
'LaSalle diesel generator protective trip bypass system design meet the posi-tionssetforthinBranchTechnicalPosition(BTD)ICSB-17..ICSB-17 minimizes the potential for a. false' diesel generator' trip during accident conditions-by specifically stating that, "The design of standby diesel generator systeins should retain' only the engine.overspeed and the generator differential trips and bypass all other trips under accident conditions.": Revision 2 of-9009200201 900913 w
ADOCK0500g3 q
DR ll
.a 1
I e 1058-17 indicated tnt.the BTP had been superseded by Position 7 of Reaulatory t
L Guide 1.9.
The requitements of this ReguP+ory Guide are consistent with i
H the BTP and the LaSa11t Station design. Tiie LaSalle -Station design provided for the bypass of all.D' vision 3 diesel generator trips under accident conditions ~
with the exception of the engine overspeed, generator differential current and the emergency manual stop.
Based on these requirements, the licensee proposes to clearly state that all trips are to be bypassed under accident conditions except for engine overspeed, generator differential current and the emergency manual stop.
This is acceptable.
3.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA110N ~
The amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-
~1ation or use of a facility component. located within.the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement.. The staff has determined that this amendment involves no. significant increase-in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase.in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Conunission has previously issued a proposed fiading that these. amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the' eligibility criteria for' categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment, n
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnotbeendangeredbyoperationintheproposedmanner,(2)suchactivi-ties will be conducted in compliance with the-Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of.these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the : health and safety 'of the public.
i Principal Contributor:. Robert M. Pulsifer/NRR-PDIII-2' n
Dated: Septe.nber 13, 1990' 4
4
+
J o
- - - - -. + - - - - - - -. - - - - -