ML20117L282
| ML20117L282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1996 |
| From: | Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117L284 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9609130095 | |
| Download: ML20117L282 (8) | |
Text
Station Support Deptrtmtnt
{__ '
10 CFR 50.90 PECO NUCLEAR ecco tme,2v comneev Nuclear Group Headquarters A Umr or PECO ENRcy 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard Wayne, PA 19087 5691 September 6,1996 Docket No. 50-277 50-278 Ucense No. DPR-44 DPR-56 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 l
SUBJECT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Facility Operating Ucense Change Request, ECR 96-03093
Dear Sir:
PECO Energy Company hereby submits Ucense Change Request, ECR 96-03093, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 requesting changes to Appendix A of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Units 2 and 3 Facility Operating Ucenses.
The proposed changes affect Technical Specifications Sections 3.3.5.1, "ECCS Instrumentation," and 3.8.1, "AC Sources-Operating." Changes proposed to Section 3.3.5.1 will add notes to Table 3.3.5.1-1 to allow the Core Spray and LPCI pumps to start out-of-sequence under certain conditions. Changes proposed to Section 3.8.1 will add clarity notes to selected Surveillance Requirements (SR) to indicate when they must be met. to this letter describes the proposed changes and Attachment 2 contains the revised Technical Specifications and Bases pages.
If you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact us.
Sincerely, G. A. Hunger,(W., f.
d.
r Director - Ucensing M0020 dM//
Enclosures:
Affidavit, Attachments cc:
H. J. Miller, Administrator, Region I, USNRC W. L Schmidt, Senior Resident inspector, PBAPS, USNRC
]
R. R. Janati, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 9609130095 960906 I
PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
- Ss.
COUNTY OF CHESTER D. B. Fetters, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Vice President of PECO Energy Company; the applicant herein; that he has read the attached License Change Request (ECR 96-03093) for changes to the Peach Bottom Facility Operating Ucenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, and knows 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 m,
~Vice President i
Subscribed and sworn to before me this b day of 1996.
Not#y~Public Notaral Seal Mary Lou SkrocAi. Notary Public j
Tredyffrin Twp., Chester County My Comm:ssion Expires May 17,1999 ja..ur.PenrwAw s;axamanof NC
i i
i i
ATTACHMENT 1 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 and 3 Docket No. 50-277 50-278
)
Ucense No. DPR-44 DPR-56 Facility Operating Ucense Change Request ECR 96-03093 Changes to Technical Specifications Sections 3.3.5.1, "ECCS Instrumentation,"
and 3.8.1, "AC Sources-Operating" Supporting Information for Changes 5 pages 1
J
I 1
l.*
j l
PECO Energy Company (PECO Energy), Ucensee under Facility Operating Ucenses DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, requests that the Technical Specifications (TS) contained in Appendix A to the Operating Ucenses be amended. The handwritten proposed changes to the TS and Bases pages are contained in Attachment 2. PECO Energy requests that the proposed changes be made effective upon issuance of the amendment.
Descriotion of Chanaes The proposed changes add notes to Table 3.3.5.1-1 in Section 3.3.5.1, "ECCS Instrumentation," and to selected Surveillance Requirements in Section 3.8.1, "AC Sources-Operating."
Ucensee proposes the following changes:
i Section 3.3.5.1. "ECCS Instrumentation" i
1)
Table 3.3.5.1-1, page 1 of 5, Function 1.f, " Core Spray Pump Start-Time Delay Relay (offsite power available)."
Add Note (g) to read:
l
" Allowable values not applicable when associated pump is running."
l 2)
Table 3.3.5.1-1, page 2 of 5, Function 2.f, " Low Pressure Coolant injection Pump Start-Time Delay Relay (offsite power available)."
(a)
Add Note (f) to read:
" Allowable values not applicable for the associated LPCI pump when its DG is in test mode and connected to its emergency bus."
(b)
Add Note (g) to read:
" Allowable values not applicable when associated pump is running."
Section 3.8.1. "AC Sources-Ooeratina 1)
Surveillance Requirements 3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.11, and 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.20.
Add Note to read:
l "Not required to be met when DG is in the test mode."
\\
1
4 2)
Surveillance Requirement 3.8.1.17.
Add Note to read:
"Not required to be met unless the DG is operating in the test mode and 4
connected to its bus.
I Safety Discussion Proposed Changes to TS Section 3.3.5.1, "ECCS Instrumentation" i
l The purpose of the ECCS instrumentation is to initiate appropriate responses from the systems to ensure that the fuel is adequately cooled in the event of a design basis accident or transient.
The changes proposed to Section 3.3.5.1 involve adding two (2) notes, (f) and (g), to Table 3.3.5.1-1. Note (f) is added to indicate that the TS Allowable Values for Function 2.f are not applicable for the associated Low Pressure Coolant injection (LPCI) pump when its diesel generator (DG) is in the test mode and connected to its emergency bus. The required LPCI pump start sequence with an offsite power source available is for two pumps (A & B) to i
start between 1.9 and 2.1 seconds, and the other two pumps (B & D) to start between 7.5 and 8.5 seconds.
When a DG is in the test mode and in parallel with an offsite source, it wil!
separate from the grid and return to ready to load condition, per design, upon receipt of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) signal. During this scenario, the LPCI pump associated with the DG in test does not start as specified by the offsite source sequencing scheme because the DG output breaker is closed and its "a" switch is in parallel with the start timers. This scenario will result in the LPCI pump associated with the test DG starting on the offsite source at zero (0) seconds. This results in a LPCI pump out-of-sequence start, which is conservative with respect to the ECCS accident analysis.
j The out-of-sequence start has no detrimental affect on the LPCI pump motor since the operating parameters such as voltage, environment, and process conditions are identical to the normal start sequence. The offsite source with a fixed Load Tap Changer in combination with the alternate offsite source are fully capable of supporting this out-of-sequence LPCI pump start to mitigate a LOCA on one PBAPS Unit and an orderly shutdown on the other Unit.
Note (g) is added to Table 3.3.5.1-1 to indicate that the Allowable Values associated with Functions 1.f and 2.f are not applicable when the pumps are already running. This change is considered administrative in nature and is 2
being proposed for clarity purposes.
The Core Spray (CS), (Function 1.f), and LPCI, (Function 2.f), pumps provide core cooling for LOCA mitigation and have the potential to be operating prior to receipt of a LOCA signal (i.e., to perform surveillance testing). In the event the pumps are running prior to receipt of a LOCA signal, the Allowable Valees stated in Functions 1.f and 2.f would not be applicable because the pumps are already running. PECO Energy's Offsite Source Voltage Regulation Study has been revised to document a 4kV system preload of the limiting running ECCS pump (LPCI) and the results of the analysis are acceptable. The operability of the LPCI or CS systems are unaffected by DG tesung or ECCS pump operation prior to receipt of a LOCA signal with respect to ECCS start-time delay relay functions.
Proposed Changes to Section 3.8.1, "AC Sources-Operating" Notes have been added to selected Surveillance Requirements (Srs) contained in this Section. The purpose of these Notes is to cir.nfy when the SR must be met. Specifically, the Notes address SR applicability during diesel generator testing. For example, when a DG is in the test mode it has already achieved rated frequency and voltage thereby making it incapable of starting from a standby condition (a typical requirement of the SR). The added note would indicate that the SR is not applicable when the DG is in test. These changes l
are considered administrative in nature and are of no safety significance.
No Significant Harards Consideration Ucensee proposes that this application does not involve significant hazards consideration for the following reasons:
i)
The orooosed change does not involve a significant increase in the orobability
,or conseauences of an accident oreviousiv evaluated.
The changes proposed to TS Section 3.3.5.1 do not impact the initiators for i
design basis accidents. These changes do not impact any :.uctures, systems, or components which could initiate an accident. No pressure boundary interfaces or process control parameters will be challenged as a result of these changes. Proposed changes that allow for the out-of-sequence start of the LPCI pumps, with associated test DG in parallel with offsite source, do not adversely impact their design function.
l Changes proposed to the CS and LPCI pumps to clarify that the Allowable 3
4 Values are not applicable when the pump is already running, along with the changes to TS Section 3.8.1 are considered administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase either the probability or the consequences of accidents previously evaluated.
li)
The orooosed chanos does not create the oossibility of a new or different kind of accident from any oreviousiv evaluated.
The proposed changes do not impact the !nitiators for design bases accidents.
They do not impact any structures, systems, or components which could initiate an accident. Changes proposed to TS Section 3.3.5.1 involve the DG in test and the CS and LPCI pump start-time delay relays all of which support accident mitigation.
Changes proposed to the CS and LPCI pumps to clarify that the Allowable Values are not applicable when the pump is already running, along with the changes to TS Section 3.8.1 are considered administrative in nature. As such, they would not create the possibility of a new or different accident.
The proposed changes do not introduce any new modes of plant operation nor do they involve the installation of any new equipment or modifications to the plant. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created as a result of the proposed changes.
iii)
The orocosed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to TS Section 3.3.5.1 do not impact any accidents or transients. They do not impact the initiators for design bases accidents.
Changes proposed to the CS and LPCI pumps to clarify that the Allowable Values are not applicable when the pump is already running, along with the changes to TS Section 3.8.1 are considered administrative in nature.
No pressure boundary interfaces or process control parameters will be challenged as a result of these changes. Proposed changes that allow for the out-of-sequence start of the LPCI pumps do not adversely impact their design function. These changes do not impact any structures, systems, or components which could initiate an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not impact any margins of safety.
4 l
4 f
i Environmentalimoact Assessment l
An environmental impact assessment is not required for the changes proposed by this application because the changes conform to the criteria for " actions eligible for categorical exclusion" as specified in 10 CFR 50.22(c)(9).
The proposed changes affect TS Sections 3.3.5.1 by adding notes to allow ECCS pumps to start out-of-sequence and to indicate that the Allowable Values associated with Functions 1.f and 2.f are not applicable when the pumps are already running.
The proposed changes also ahct TS Section 3.8.1 by adding notes to selected Surveillances Requirements to clarify when they are required to be met.
i This Application involves no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite. As a result of the proposed i
changes, there will be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational i
radiation exposure, and no changes to power levels.
Conclusion The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board have reviewed this proposed change and have concluded that it does not involve an unreviewed safety question and that it is not a threat to the health and safety of the public.
f I
5