ML20100Q186

Proposed Tech Specs Surveillance Requirement 4.9.6 Re Refueling Platform Hoist Interlock Setpoints

ML20100Q186
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	01/21/1992
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20100Q167	List: ML20100Q166 ML20100Q186 ML20100Q191
References
NUDOCS 9202060209
Download: ML20100Q186 (10)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _______ -__-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _-___-_ ___ ____-. __ -_ -___ __ _ __________-_ __-_ _______

, ATTACllHENT D 4

PROPOSED CHANGES 10 APPENDIX A, TECilNICAL SPECiflCA110NS Of fACILI1Y OPERATING LICENSES NPf-11 AND NPT-18

_______ _ .- . N Rf - l L_ __ - _ .. -.._HPf-18. . . . . _ .

3/4 9-8 3/4 9-8  !

l 9202060207 920121 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P ,PDR _ , _ , , _ . _ . _

, ' REFUELING OPERATIONS

, 3/4.9.6 CRANE AND HOIST LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION . _ .

3.9.6 All crantes and hoists used for handling f uel assemblies or control rods within the reactor presbure vessel shall be OPERABLL.

APPLICABIL11Y: During handling of f uel assernblies or control rods within the reactor pressure vessel.

A_CT ] ON: i I

With the requirements for crane and hoist OPERABillTY not satisfied, su3 pend ,

use of any inoperable crane or hoist from operations involving the handling of l control rods and fuel assemblies within the reactor pressure vessel after ,

placing the load in a safe condition. l SURVEILLANCEREQUIREMEN15, 4.9.6 -Each crane or hoist used for handling of control rods or fuel assemblies within the reactor pressure vessel shall be derhonstrated OPERABLE within 7 days prior to the start of such operations with that crane or hoist by:

a. Demonstrating operation of the overload cutoff when the --

load exceeds: ,

ON ^ ~

d 1. 1200 60 coundLI.Dr_theJMel_h.od#

2. 1000 1 50 pounds for the auxiliary holst.

b. Demonstrating operation of the loaded interlock when the load exceeds:

NI 1, 485 ! 50 ocunds and 5501 T_pstuds f or the f uel hoist.

2. 400 1 50 pounds for the xiliary hoist.

-c. Demonstrating--operation of the fuel boist downtravel stop when downtravel exceeds 54 feet below the platform rails,

d. Demonstrating operation of the fuel hoist and auxiliary ho Kt up-travel stops when the grapple is lower tran or equal to 8 feet' below the platform rails,

e. Demonstrating operation of the fuel hoist slack cable cutoff when the noist ib unleaded.

l LA SALLE - UNIT 1 3/4 9-8 l

l L ,

t - _ ._ _ _ _ . . , _-- _ . .- _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _

l INSIRT A

1. For the fuel holst:

a) 1600 +100/-0 pounds with the Nf500 mast.

b) 1200 350 pounds with the 762E974 mast.

INSERT B

1. For the fuel hoist:

a) 700 450/-0 pounds with the NF500 mast.

b) 485 350 pounds and 550 +50 pounds with the 762E974 mast.

l l

L

REFUELING OPERATIONS 3/4.9.6 CRANE AND HOIST, LIMITikG CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.9.6 All cranes and hoists used for handling fuel assemblies or control rods within the reactor pressure vessel shall be OPERABLE.

APPLICA8ILITY: During handling of fuel assemblies or control rods within the reactor pressure vessel.

ACTION:

With the requirements for crane and hoist OPERADILITY not satisfied, suspend use of any inoperable crane or hoist from orerations involving the handling of controi rods and fuel assemblies within the reactor pressure vessel af ter placing the load in a safe condition.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.9.6 Each crane or hoist used for handling of control rods or fuel assemblies within the reactor pressure vessel shall be demonstrated OPERABLE within 7 days prior to the start of such operations with that crane or hoist by:

a. Demonstrating operation of the overload cutoff when the y,4 load exceeds:

U LINSG3 'A' , ei 1. 1200 1 50 po_unds for the fuel hoist.

2. 1000 1 50 pounds for the auxiliary hoist,

b. Demonstrating operation of the loaded interlock when the load y-rn exceeds:

N1. 485t50pounosand550+50poundsforthefuelhoist.I

2. 400 1 50~ pounds for thiiliary hoist.

c. Demonstrating operation of the fuel hoist downtravel stop when downtravel exceeds 54 feet below the platform rails.

d. Demonstrating operation of the fuel hoist and auxiliary hoist up-travel . stops when the grapple is lower than or equal to 8 feet below the platform rails,

e. Demonstrating operation of the fuel hoist slack cable cutaf f when the hoist is unloaoed.

I LA SALLE - UNIT 2 3/4 9-3

INSERI A

1. For the fuel hoist:

a) 1600 4100/-0 pounds with the l'"500 mast.

b) 1200 +50 pounds with the 762E974 mast.

INSLRT !!

1. For the fuel hoist:

a) 700 450/-0 pounds with the Nf500 mast.

b) 485 150 pounds and 550 tSO pounds with the 762E974 mast.

ATTACHMEHLC SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification Amendment and determined that it does not rapresent a significant hazards consideration. Based on the criteria for defining a significant hazards evnsideration established in 10CFR50.92, operation of LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment will not:

1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an acciaent previously evaluated because:

As discussed in UFSAR Section 15.7.4, a fuel handling accident (FHA) is postulated to occur as a consequence of a failure of the fuel assembly lifting fuechanism resulting in the dropping of a raised fuel assembly onto other fuel bundles in the core. The accident which produces the largest number of failed spent fuel rods (including consideration of the drop of a fuel bundle onto the Unit 2 consolidated fuel storage pool) is the drop of a spent fuel bundle onto the reactor core when the vessel head is off. This accident is expected to occur with the frequency of a 11 mitt:1 fault.

This proposed change does not result in a change to any of the assumptions of the po:tulated FHA. The added weight of the NF500 mast is the only design change of safety significance. The refueling platform fuel-holst incorporates redundant lifting features (dual cables) so that no single component failure will result in a fuel bundle drop. The design of the grapple is not being changed as a result of this proposed change. The NF500 mast is similar in design and function to the presently installed triangular mast and meets or exceeds the design in all other aspects. There are no changes being made to interlocks on the platform which prevent unsafe operation over the reactor vessel during control rod movements, limit travel of the fuel grapple, and interlock grapple hook engagement with hoist power.

NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads of Nuclear Power Plants," was reviewed and is not applicable to the installation of the NF500 mast because the NUREG defines a Heavy Load as: "Any load, carried in a given area after a plant becomes operational, that weighs more than the combined weight of a single spent fuel assembly and its associated handling tool for the specific plant in question." Therefore, the NF500 mast is bounded by the FHA analysis.

The proposed fuel hoist overload cutoff setpoint ensures that excessive lifting forces are not applied to the top guide or fuel assembites. The proposed fuel hoist loaded setpoint ensures that the associated fuel hoist loaded interlocks are initiated when the weight of a channaled fuel bundle is applied to the grapple.

Further, the maximum height from which a fuel bundle could be dropped remains unchanged as does the minimum required water level above stored irradiated fuel. The postulated number of fuel rod failures due to a bundle drop with the increased weight of a NF500 mast analyzed by General

i AIIAGilH a i n entinuedi i Electric is 116 rods. This is bounded by the postulated failure of 125 l rods in the current UFSAR analysis. The radiological release for the FHA >

with the NF500 mast as calculated by current approved methods is less  :

than the release documented in the UFSAR. Therefore, this proposed  !

change will not increase the probability or consequences of any accident

• previously evaluated. *

2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any  ;

accident previously evaluated because:

No new failure modes will be introduced as a result of this proposed change. The NF500 mast is similar in design and function to the

• i currently installed mast and meets or exceeds all of the other design aspects so as not to introduce a new failure mode. fhe proposed fuel holst overload cutoff setpoint ensures that excessive lifting force is not applied to the top guide or fuel assemblies. The proposed fuel hoist loaded setpoint ensures that the associated fuel hoist loaded interlocks are initiated when the weight of a channeled fuel assembly is applied to the grapple. Therefore, this proposed change does not create a new or i different kind of-accident from any accident previously evaluated. t

3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because:

The fuel hoist setpoints serve no safety function. These setpoints serve to prevent damage to reactor internals such as caused by a stuck ,

fuel bundle. The setpoints are also designed to prevent the loading of ,

< fuel assemblies during core alterations when all control rods are not >

fully inserted. The proposed change in the fuel holst overload cutoff t and fuel holst loaded interlock setpoints solely account for the increased weight of the NF500 mast._ These setpoints provide ,

approximately. the same margin as the set)oints foi the current triangular  ;

fuel mast (762E974). The proposed fuel loist overload cutoff setpoint  !

- for the NF500 mast of 1600 +100/-0 pounda ensures that excessive lifting force is not-applied to the top guide or fuel assemblies. The )roposed ,

fuel hoist loaded interlock setpoint of 700 +50/-0 pounds for tle NF500 mast ensures that the associated holst loaded interlocks are initiated

'when the weight of a channeled fuel assembly is applied to the grapple. '

-The refueling platform mast design is not discussed in the bases of the Technical Specifications 3/4.9.6. As a result, there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Guldance has been provided in " Final Procedures and: Standards on No Significant Hazards Considerations," Final Rule, 51 FR 7744, for the

-application of standards to license change requests for determination of the 1xistence of significant hazards considerations. This document provides *

-examples of amendments which are and are not_ considered likely to. involve significant hazards cosiderations. -These proposed amendments most closely:

fit example e.(lv) of 51 FR 7751 where a change which may either result in

-some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed ,

accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of

.ae change are clearly within all. acceptable criter1a wtth respect to the

. system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan. The setpoints t

- ATTACRMENT C 1 continued) added '/or the Nf 500 f uel mast and the original mast setpoints satisfy Sections 9.1.2 and 9,1.4 of the Standard Review Plan in that instrumentation and controls are the same as originally reviewed and the assumptions used to deteimine the setpoints for the Hf500 fuel hoist are the same as the original fuel hoist mast.

This proposed amendment does not involve a significant relaxation of the criteria used to establish saf ety limits, a significant relaxa:1on of the

'ases o for the limiting safety system settings of a significa'..t elaxation of the bases for the li..iiting conditions for operations. Theiefore, based on the guidance provided in the federal Register and the criteria estabilshed in 10CFR50.92(c), the proposed change does not constitute a significant hatards consideration.

ATTACHMENT.D

[NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENI STAllHENT APPLICABILITY REVIEW Comnenwealth Edison has evaluuted the proposed amendment against the criteria for the identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.20. It has been determined that the proposed changes meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion as provided under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). This conclusion has been determined because the changes requested do not pose significant harards consideration or do not involve a significant increase in the amounts, and no significant changes in the types, of any effluents that may be release offsite. Additionally, this request does not involve a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

t

A11ACHMENI E SAFETY EVALUATION 10R LASALLE NUCLEAR S1A110N NIS00 CYLINDRICAL RLIVELING MAST l

l P

a--., y . . ,,~- w , - e - .,.,