ML20082B445
| ML20082B445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1991 |
| From: | Beck G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082B449 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107150178 | |
| Download: ML20082B445 (7) | |
Text
.......
10 CFR 50.90 PIIILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.
WAYNE, PA 19087 5691 (215) 640-6000 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING & $ERVICES DEPARTMENT July 2, 1991 Docket Nos.
50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications Change Request
Dear Sir:
Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) hereby submits Technical Specifications Change Request (TSCR) No. 91-01, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, requesting a change to Appendix A of the Peach Bottom Fccility Operating Licenses for DPR-44 and DPR-56.
The proposed changes concern the Technical Specifications surveillance requirements for the Emergency Service Water System. to this letter describes the proposed changes, and provides justification for the changes.
Attachment 2 contains the revised Technical Specifications pages.
If you have any question regarding this matter, please contact us.
Very truly yours, o
yh,f0vb G.
J.
Beck, Manager Licensing Section Nuclear Engineering & Services
Enclosures:
Affidavit, Attachment,1 cc:
T.
T.
Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC J.
J. Lyash, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, PB T.
M.
Gerusky, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania N
O 9107150178 910702 IIi PLR AIJOCK 05000277 ll P
4 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
ss.,
a COUNTY OF CHESTER D.
R.
Helwig, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company; the Applicant herein; that he has read the foregoing Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-44'and DPR-56 (Technical Specifications Change Request No.
91-01-0) to change the method of testing the Emergency Service Water Pump, and know that the contents thereof; and that the
-statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his-knowledge, information and belief, t
I Vice Presiden#
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8 day of 1991.
ww~
Notary Public HOTARIAL SEAL CATHER!NE A. MENOEZ Nowy rut 6c Trcernn Twp., Cherer Counti 2093@.@EEmn Een Sc & N
4 3
ATTACHMENT 1 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC PC ER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278-J License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST 91-01
'" CHANGING THE METHOD OF ESW PUMP TESTING"
_ ~.. -
TSCR 91-01 July 2, 1991
)
Page 2 i
l Philadelphia Electric Company, Licensee under Facility Operatton Licenses DRP-44:and DPR-56 for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3, respectively, hereby requests an amendment to the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A to the Operating Licenses as indicated by a bar in the margin of the attached pages 221 and '24.
i Licensee proposes to change the method of testing the-Emergency Service Water (ESW) pumps. The Peach Bottom Technical Specifications (TS) _ currently have a Surveillance Requirement (4.9.C.1.a) to test the Emergency Service Water (ESW) pumps by measuring the discharge pressure at shut off head.
To complete l
this test, the ESW flow is established to a Diesel _ Generator (DG) and then the air operated discharge valve'from the DG cooler is closed.
The ESW pumps run_against a closed flow path and the shut _off head is measured.
Operation in this configuration could
.cause excessive vibrations and recirculation flow which could degrade hydraulic parts and bearings in the ESW pumps.
In addition, because the ESW pump is a centrifugal pump a certain amount of minimum flow is required to cool the pump.- With this l
flow blocked, continued testing could cause the pump to overheat.
Therefore this application to change the PoAPS TS is being submitted to replace the current test method with a test method J
which does not have the same potential to degrade the pump.
The test method being proposed by this TS change application conforms to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components with the exception of pump instrumentation accuracy requirements, for which-specific written relief has been granted.
A plant modification (Modification number 3110) was completed to allow for a different method of testing the ESW pumps.
Ultrasonic flow devices were mounted onto a section of pipe.
This modification _was completed prior to startup from the eighth refuel outage on Unit 2.
_The ESW pump operability can now be determined without running the pump at shut off head.
[
~
'. TSCR:91-01 July-3, 1991 Page 3 Description of Changes-Licensee proposes the following changes:
1)
Surveillance Requirement 4.9.C. l.a currently states:
" Pump operability - the pump.shall be manually started and flow capability checked (via discharge pressure 2 54.0 psig at shut off head).
The licensee proposes that the new SR 4.9.C.1.a-will state:
" Pump operability - the pump shall be manually started and flow capability tested in accordance l
with the Section XI of the ASME Boiler pressure L
Vessel code and applicable addenda except where relief has been granted."
2)
The Bases of Section 4.9-currently states:
" Pump flow tests during aormal operation will be-performed by measuring the shut-off head."
The licensee proposes that the new Bases of l
Section 4.9 state:
I-l
" Pump flow tests during normal operation will be performed by measuring the head and flow in the system using suitable flow-equipment and pressure instrumentation."
I:
1 Safety Discussion-l Change Request (1) is proposed to replace a current r
method of testing which could have an adverse affect on the l
reliability of the ESW-pump.
Testing the ESW in accordance with.
l the proposed test method will minimize these affects and provide a more reliable ESW pump, Change request (2) is proposed to make the Bases and the Surveillance Requirements consistent.
This change is necessary to avoid confusion in interpreting the Specifications.
No Significant Hazards Consideration The proposed changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Operating Licenses are in the interest of safety and do
. TSCR 91-01 July 2, 1991 Page 4 I
not constitute a significant hazards consideration in that they would not:
1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The four design basis accidents described in Section 14 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are: Control Rod Drop Accident, Loss of Coolant Accident, Refueling Accident and Main Steam Line Break.
Revising the SRs in Sectjon 4.9.C.1.a will not affect the accident precursors, initial conditions, assumptions or sequences of events of these accidents as described in the UFSAR.
It is concluded that the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be increased by the implementation of these proposed changes.
OR 2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes concern changing the method of testing the ESW pumps. Implementing these changes will not involve any unanalyzed plant conditions, piping configurations or valve line-ups and therefore will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
OR 3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes will not affect the discharge temperature, pressure or flow rate from the pumps.
The proposed changes may increase the reliability of the ESW pumps by replacing a potential damaging method of testing with a more effective method of testing.
Therefore the margin of safety will not be reduced.
.~..
~
~ TSCR 91 July 3,-1991' Page 5 i
Envircnmental Considerations 1
i
-This proposed amendmont revises the Surveillance
)
Requirements for the Emergency Service Water System.
Licensee has determined that this amendment to the Technical
- Specifications-involves no increase in the amounts and no change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and has-also determined-that there is no increase in the individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefore, there is no environmental consideration involved and consequently an
. environmental report is not submitted.
- Conclusion
-The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board have reviewed these proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and have concluded that they do not involve unreviewed safety questions, Significant Hazards Considerations nor environmental considerations and will not endanger the health and safety of the public.
1 i
2098a. doc ra w
e'
<rw#t.w.
evi+
w==im-.-
4er--AF' M ---
O mN=
-pr7--'t
-1r-y~q
)