ML20138C786
| ML20138C786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1985 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138C772 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510230043 | |
| Download: ML20138C786 (3) | |
Text
7.
f ATTACHNENT B PROPOSED CHANGE TO APPENDIX A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION TO OPERATING LICENSE tPF-ll REVISED PACE: 3/4 6-25 i
0761K 8510230043 851011 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
~
TABLE 3.6.3-1 (Continued)
E PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES E
MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME I
VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP ")
(Seconds)
EU Automatic Isolation Valves (Continued) w 8.
Containment Vent and Purge Valves #
4 IVQO26
< 10**
IVQO27 7 10**
IVQO29 7 10**
IVQO30 7 10**
IVQO31 7 10**
IVQO32 75 510**
gg IVQO34 IVQO35
<5 7 10**
IVQO36 w5 IVQ040 7 10**
IVQ042 7 10**
m O
IVQ043 7 10**
IVQ047 35 IVQ048 15 IVQ050 15 IVQ051 15 IVQ068 55 9.
RCIC Turbine Exhaust Vacuum Breaker 9
N.A.
I18 Line Valves IE51-F080 IE51-F086 10.
LPCS, HPCS, RCIC, RHR Injectio k
_ Testable Check Bypass Valves g M.A.
N.A.
9, j
(IE21-F333 3
1E12-F327A, B, C l
z IE51-F354 1 1E51-F355 W
(
g
r ATTACHMENT C SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification Amendment and determineo that it does not represent a significant hazards consideration. Based on the criteria for defining a significant hazaros consideration established in 10 CFR 50.92, operation of LaSalle County Station Unit 1 in accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
- 1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because with the bypass valve removed a leakage path around the testable check valve is eliminated. While this bypass valve was leak tested when the testable check valve was tested and failure of the bypass valve was analyzed, removal of this valve will prevent a possible leakage path. Cycling the testable check valve during cold shutoowns only ensures that couble isolatial of the high to low pressure interface is maintained when required. The operability (ability to open) of the check valve will still be assured by the cycling on a cold shutoonn basis.
- 2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from nny accident previously evaluated because by removal of the bypass valve eliminates a possible failure mechanism. Failure of the check valve to open is the same as failure of-the motor operated injection, valve to open which has been anlalyzed in the UFSAR.
- 3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because all previous requirements will be maintained.
Based on the preceding discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
{
system change clearly falls within all acceptable criteria with respect to the l
system or component, the consequences of previously evaluated accidents will not be increased and the margin of safety will not be decreased. Therefore, i-based on the guidance provided in the Federal Register and the criteria established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), the proposed change coes not constitute a significant hazards consideration.
l I
j 0761K l
!