ML20137B711
| ML20137B711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137B677 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511260333 | |
| Download: ML20137B711 (7) | |
Text
r 1
~
., pourg#o UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
j
- p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
- %... /
I SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDMENT N0. 30 TO NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO NPF-18 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-373 AND 50-374 Introduction By letter dated August 28, 1985, Comonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the La Salle, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications.
The proposed changes-pertain to the Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) gain adjustment in that some reasonable time should be allowed so that gain adjust-ment calibrations can be attempted before declaring the channels inoperable and requiring the imposition of half-scram. An interpretation and clarification is proposed to providp certain time delays before any action is required. Also, a clarification is proposed whereby it is acceptable to trip only the incoerable channel where trip systems have more than 2 channels per trip system.
Evaluation Comonwealth Edison has requested three clarifying changes to Technical Specifi-cations 3.2.2 and 3/4.3.1 for La Salle Units 1 & 2.
The concerns the interpretation and intent of a footnote, (d) primary proposed change
, in Table 4.3.1.1-1 relating to the weekly calibration of the APRMs. This footnote presently indicates that the calibration shall consist of an adjustment of the APRM channel to conform to the heat balance power detennination (above 25 percent power) when the absolute difference in the two is greater than 2 percent. No time limit is given for making the adjustment. The proposed change makes a distinction between cases where the APRM reading is greater or less than the thermal power determination, a distinction based on operating power level, and provides time limits for required adjustments.
For the case of the APRM reading less than the thermal power (Gain Adjustment Factor (GAF) > 1), the proposed specification remains the same as at present (adjust if difference is greater than 2 percent). However, a time limit of two hours is now added. For the APRM reading greater than the thermal power (GAF < 1), the proposed requirement also remains the same as at present if the power level is above 90 percent of rated thermal power. For power levels less than 90 percent, the adjustment must be made only if the APRM reads greater by at least 10 percent of rated thermal power. For both of these (GAF > 1) adjust-ments, a time limit of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is given.
8511260333 851120 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
Y There are thus no changes in the magnitude of deviations for required adjust-ments above 90 percent power. The change is the introduction of time limits l
to make the adjustment before declaring the channel inoperable.
The 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> time for GAF > 1 is the same as that used in Specifications 3.2.2 and 3.3.1 for comparable operation conditions and is reasonable and acceptable.
For GAF 4.1, the high reading of the APRM is conservative, and it is reasonable to allow a larger time for the adjustment. The proposed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for this adjustment is compatible with surveillance times given in Specifications 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and is reasonable and acceptable.
For power levels less than 90 percent, the proposal for GAF > 1 is the same as above 90 percent, i.e., adjust within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> if the difference is greater than 2 percent. This is similarly acceptable. For GAF 41, the adjustrcent is similar to that above 90 percent except the magnitude for a required adjustment is greater, i.e.. APRM reading larger by 10 percent of rated power. This larger increment below 90 percent power is compatible with the level and increment allowances in a similar action statement in Specification 3.2.2, and is reasonable and acceptable. As with the requirement in Specification 3.2.2 action statement, it is required that all needed adjustments be posted on the reactor control panel until made. It is also to be noted that the wording is such, and is to be so understood, that going above 90 percent power, after calibrating below 90 percent power, will require adjustments within time frames and magnitudes relevant to above 90 percent power operation.
Thus the changes to footnote (d) of Table 4.3.1.1-1 which introduce time limits and which increase the deviation requiring adjustment below 90 percent power when the APRM is reading conservatively high are acceptable.
The clarifying woro changes to Specification 3.3.1, Action a. and to footnote (a) of Table 3.3.1-1, replaces (or adds to) " placing the trip s.ystem in the tripped condition" with the referenced "channelr. in the tripped condition."
This relates to trip systems which have two or raore channels per system.
This change is in accordance with or similar to the Standard Technical Specifi-cations for BWR-5, Revision 3 and is acceptable.
The change to the footnote of Specification 3.2.2 removes the words "during power ascension" thus making it apply during power reduction as well.
It is thus more conservative (and correct) and is thus acceptable.
Based upon the above, the staff concludes that the requested Technical Specifi-cation changes provide a reasonable clarification of the intent of the specifi-cations and are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no signifi-cant increase in the amounts, and no significant changes in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant
t-
)
increase in individual or cumulative cccupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding 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 these amendments.
Conclusion The Commission made a proposed determination that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which were published in the Federal Register (50 FR 38912) on September 25, 1985. No public connents were received.
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 cperation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulat.ns and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common L.fense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: ROV 2 0 E85
J a
NOV 2 0 g Docket Nos. 50-373/374 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Licensing Comonwcalth Edison Ccmpany P.O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 6C690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 30 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE liO. NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT h0.17 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF 18 - LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 30 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-11 and Anendment No.17 to Facility Operating License llPF-18 for the La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2.
These amendments are in response to your letter dated August 28, 1985. The amendments revise the La Salle, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications with respect to the Average Power Range Monitor gain adjustment to allcw time to correct calibrations before declaring the channels inoperable and requiring hal f-scram.
In addition, a clarification is made to make it acceptable to trip only an inoperable channel where trip systens have more than 2 channels per system.
A copy of the related safety evaluation supporting Amendment No. 30 to Fccility Operating License NPF-11 and Amendment No.17 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-18 is enclosed.
Sincerely, Origital signed by a llalter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 30 to NPF-11 2.
Anendment No.17 to NPF-18 3.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION See next page h
LQ DL/LA LB#2/DL/PM OELD LBi2/DL/BC on ABournia:lb lo ehd WRButler i
/85 10/31/85
/ /85
}(/Q-/85
y av
. 3.
This amendment is effective as of date of issuance.
FOR THE fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: NOV 2 0 S35 60~
/
s LBJ DL/LA LB#2/DL/PM
'OEL LB#2/DL/BC A )/h
/
EM on
-A80urnia:lb oc ead WRButler TMNov 10/, /85 10/3/85
/ /85 10/p/85 14///85
~
. j 3.
This amendment is effective as of date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tWIISSIC'N Originalg$gn,4g,,
Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: ~l60V 2 01985
~
l LE
/DL/LA LB#2/DL/PM OELD LB#2/ L/BC A0 (btNi
~ABournia:1b C
WEButler TM @ak
[ ton
/85 10/11/85 1
/85 10/j;/85 1$///85
- - - ~
,-ow-,
.ag.n.
~m,y
,~g-<
,y g _..,,,,
DISTRIBUTION kkW
- NSIC
- LB#2 Reading
- EHylton (2)
A8ournia (4)
TNovak JSaltzman, SAB Woodhead, OELD
. Chiles HDenton JRutberg 3
AToalston WMiller, LFMB JPartlow 4
- BGrimes EJordan LHarmon TBarnhart'(8)
MVirgillio Mary Johns, Region III J
l i
1 i
i i
I T
.m
.i.
- m..
m m.
-