ML20135J124
| ML20135J124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135J122 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509250288 | |
| Download: ML20135J124 (6) | |
Text
,
panogh UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
s a
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 A..../
SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDMENT NO. 2a TO NPF-11 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-373 Introduction' By letter dated July 15, 1985, as supplemented by letters dated August 9 and 12, 1985, Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) requested a one-time-only approval to temporarily extend a limited number of the surveillance requirements in the Technical Specifications, which must be performed every 18 months and which can only be done when the plant is shutdown. The extension would extend l
the 18 month surveillances 36 days beyond the maximum 25 percent extension.
This would pemit the licensee to delay performing this testing until the refueling outage, currently scheduled to connence on or before October 27, 1985.
Evaluation The Technical Specifications (TS) require a number of surveillance tests to be perfomed about once every 18 months during a refueling outage. Since the La Salle Unit I has been through,an extended startup program and has been i
shutdown several times for equipment failure, feedwater check valve problems, and environmental qualification equipment upgrade, the core has not been fully utilized. Therefore, the licensee rescheduled the refueling outage from September 22, 1985 to October 27, 1985 in order to operate the plant to extend useful core life. The result of this action is that some surveillance testing, normally perfomed at least onse every 18 months during a refueling outage, becomes due before the October 27, 1985 date.
The 18-month surveillance interval was selected to be consistent with the maximum anticipated interval between refueling outages. However, Specification t
4.0.2 of the TS does allow the time interval between surveillance testing to be l
extended by 25 percent in order to accommodate operations scheduling. The end of the most limiting surveillance interval, including the allowable 25 percent extension, for la Salle Unit 1 is September 22, 1985. Therefore, the temporary TS change would actually extend the pemissible time to perfom this test only about 36 days.
7 The requirements of the Technical Specifications
- for testing every 18 months for which deferrals are proposed and the reason these surveillances can only be perfonned while the reactor is shutdown are as follows:
1.
Logic / Functional Testing Specification 4.3.1.2 (Reactor Protection System), Table 4.3.3.1-1 and i
4.3.3.2 (Low Pressure Coolant inspection), 4.3.4.1.2 (ATWS-RPT),
i Table 4.3.7.11-1 (Off-gas Post Treatment Monitor), 4.3.8.2 (Feedwater/
l e5092502es e50920 t
PDR ADOCM 05000373 P
e
. Main Turbine High Level Trip), 4.6.1.4C (MSIV Leakage Control), and 4.8.3.3.1 Themal Overload Bypass-RHR).
All of the above systems have had functional tests and/or calibrations within their TS surveillance frequency. These functional or calibration tests verify operability of the instrumentation and/or components of which this logic system is a part. The testing perfomed to meet the above specifications generally entails verification that all portions work together. The result of this testing, however, requires actuation of systems in a mode which is not possible during normal power operation.
Since the parts of the systems which are more likely to fail (valves, instruments, etc.) are verified to be operable by current surveillances during the extension period, no impact on plant safety will occur.
2.
Pressure Isolation Valves Specification 4.4.3.2-Table 3.4.3.2-1(ValveNumber1E12-F0428,IE12-F042C,1E12-F0538,1E21-F005.)
A redundant valve in each line listed above will remain within the Tech Spec surveillance interval. No valves listed are check valves. Gate and globe valves have had a good history of meeting the leakage rate requirements. Alams monitor the low pressure piping to ensure that any leakage is detected (the alarm function is tested every 31 days).
All valves were last left with zero leakage. These valves cannot be tested with the reactor vessel at nomal operating pressure. The test also requires access to the drywell which is inerted.
3.
Calibrations Specifications (a) Table 4.3.1.1-1-10 (Turbine Control Valve Pressure Switches) and (b) 4.4.3.1.b (Primary Containment Floor Drain Sump Flow Monitoring)
The items listed above receive periodic functional testing to ensure the ability of the system to operate if requireo. All devices were found within accept 4 ole limits at the last surveillance.
Item (a) requires that the turbine control oil system be shutdown and requires access to the main turbine control valves. The turbine control oil system cannot be secured if the turbine is operating or if the bypass valves are passing steam. Therefore, the unit would have to be shutdown with the Main Steam Isolation Valves shut to perfom this test. To perfom Item (b) calibra-tion would require access to the drywell.
4.
Electric Power Source Specifications (a) 4.8.1.1.2.d (Diesel Tests) and (b) 4.8.2.3.2.d.2.c (DivisionIIIBatteryTests)
The testing required by item (a) is normally done during refueling.
I
1 These diesel tests are included in the testing program to periodically ensure that certain functions have not degraded. These tests include logic testing and preventive maintenance. The diesel generators are verified to be operable while in operations by performing several surveillances required by specifications 4.8.1.1.2.a. b and c.
This 4
ensures that the diesel will start, will accept load and has available such auxiliaries as necessary.. This applies to Divisions II and III only. All Division I testing will remain within the required interval.
The testing required by item (b) is for the Division III battery, and this test only verifies that the battery still has sufficient capacity by actual testing. However, verification that battery specific gravities j
and voltages are proper assures that the battery will be available if i
required. This slight delay does not affect battery availability. The i
Technical Specifications require the plant to shutdown to perform this surveillance.
l S.
Others Specification Table 3.6.3-1 note (j) (Valves 1833-F013A, B and 1833-F017A,8) j The testing'for this Specification is a water leak test to verify that these check valves are able to c1cse. These lines are small (3/4 in.)
and provide seal injection water to the recirculation pumps from the i
Control Rod Drive System. The leak test of the 1833-F013A/B and 1833-F017A/B valves cannot be perforined during normal operation for the following reasons:
(1) The line must be isolated inside the drywell Which is inerted, and (2) The line normally has flow from the CRD system to the reactor recirculation pump seals.
The 3/4 inch recirculation pump, seal water line extends from the recirculation pump seal through the drywell and connects to the CRD supply line outside the drywell. The consequences of leakage through this small line are minimal since the line is always full of water.
It has been evaluated that even if failure did occur, it would be bounded by the analysis for a failure of an instrument line. These four valves all had zero leakage during the last test.
I Based.cn the above, we conclude that extension of the interval for the surveillance testing by 36 days on a one-time-only basis is acceptable because the increased surveillance interval of 36 days does not significantly increase the possibility that an undetected failure will occur in any of t,he related equipment covered by 4
these Technical Specifications.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment changes some surveillance requirements on a one-time-only basis.
We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be i
released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or i
1
4-cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment nieets 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.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's. regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: SEP 2 0198:i O
9
1 Docket No. 50-373 i
SEP 2 0 gg Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Licensing
}
Commonwealth Edison Company i
P.O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 l
)
Dear fir. Farrar:
i.
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT N0. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE h0. NPF LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 1 l
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 24 j
to Facility Operating License No. hPF-11 for the La Salle County Station.
l Unit 1.
This amendment is in response to your letter dated July 15, 1985, as sucpleraented by letters dated August 9 and 12,1985. The amendment l
wculc extend on a one-tire-only basis a limited number of the surveillance l
requirements in the Technical Specifications which must be performed every i
18 months and which can only be dcne when the plant is shutdcwn. Your reason i
for this extension is that La Salle has been through an extended startup program and has been shutdcwn for various reasons over the past months, and the core e
I has r.ot been fully utilized. Therefore, you have deferred your refueling outage l
from September 22, 1985 to October 27, 1985.
1 A copy of the related safety evaluation supporting Amendment No. 24 to Facility
]
Operating License NPF-11 is enclosed.
j Sincerely, j
origine 31 % 37, 3
7 l
Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing i
1 i
Enclosures:
i i
1.
Amendment No. 24 to NPF-11 2.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i
DISTRIBUTION See next page hI[4V h
LBr2[DL/LA LB#2/DL/PM OELD Bf2/DL/BC EHylton ABournia:lb kood RButler p
4 85 08/p/85 08/p/85 8/ cj/85 08/
/
1
.-,,.n r.
3.
This amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION urigi.tec nrg vi 4
Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Changes to the Technical Specifications
$Ef N Date of Issuance:
j i
i
/LA LB#
L/PM -
OELD B#2/DL/BC A.
/D Hylton ABournia:lb CWooc ea WRButler T1Novak 08/17/85 08/M/85 08/s) /85 08/gg/85-
/Q/85 l
4 A
_._.s A
e DISTRIBUTION
- 0ocket File'
'NRC PDR Local POR PRC System NSIC LBf2 Reading EHylton ABournia TNovak JSaltzman, SAB Woodhead, OELD CMiles HDenton JRutberg AToalston hMiller, LFMB JPartlow BGrimes i
EJordan LHarmon TBarnhart(8) l FEltawila l
I e
f i
f 1
i f
i i
1
.- - _ _ -. -. _ _ -., - _ - - -._...-,_ __-, _ -- --_,,., - -