ML20138M456

Proposed Changes to Tech Spec Tables 2-6(a),2-6(b) & 3-3 Re Snubber Listings,Accessibility of safety-related Sys Mechanical Snubbers & Min Frequencies for Checks,Calibrs & Testing,Respectively

ML20138M456
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	10/28/1985
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20138M450	List: ML20138M445 ML20138M451 ML20138M456
References
TAC-60064, NUDOCS 8511010339
Download: ML20138M456 (4)

Text

m A

=o , .

TABLE 2-6(a)

(Continued) l Located Accessible in Iligh Difficult to During Inaccessible Radia tion Remove for

• Snubber Normal During Normal

. No . Elevation Operation Areas During Functional Opera tion Shutdown Testing RCS-21 1032'.0" X RCS-22 1037' 6" X RCS '

Bottom ~1032' 0" X RCS-25 1033' 0" X RCS-27 1052' 9" X RCS-28 1052' 9" X RCS-30 1045' 6" X RCS-30A 1047' 0" X RCS-31 1052' 0" X RCS-32 1052' 0" X RCS-33 1052' 0" X RCS-34 1047' 0" -

X t ItC5-42 1007' 9" X RCS-44 1007' 9" X RCS Top 1009' 6" X RCS Bottom 1009' 6" X RCS Top 1009' 6" X

.BCS Bottom 1009' 6" X RCS-49. 1009' 6" X

.i RCS-51 -1007' 9" X h

P DOC Amendment No. 21, 79 2-80

6 .

Table 2-6(b)

ACCESSIBILITY OF SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEM MECHANICAL SNUBBERS

~

LOCATED ACCESSIBLE INACCESSIBLE IN HIGH DIFFICULT TO DURING DURING RADIATION REMOVE FOR SNUBBER NORMAL NORMAL AREAS DURING FUNCTIONAL H3. ELEVATION OPERATION OPERATION SHUTDOWN TESTING RCS-3A' 996' X RCS-16' 1015' X l RCS-29 1047' X RCS '_9A 1045' X Rrd-39 1048' X RCS-41 1048' X RCS-61 1051'6" X-RCS LOWER 1032' X RCS-65 1051'6" X RCS 1032' X RCS-68 1031' X RCS-69 1032' X RCS-70 1032' X '

~

RCS-71 1032' X SIS-114-A 1074' X SIS-114-2 1074' X SIS-114-E ' 1074' X SIS-11/-F 1074' X Amendmentilo.h,72 2-88a

TABLE 3-3 (Continued)

MIIII!El FREQUENCIES FOR CHECKS, CALIBRATIOIIS AND TESTING h

g OF MISCELLAIIEOUS INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS e

5 Surveillance

)pg Channel Description Function Frequency Surveillance Method lb. Nuclear Detector Well a. Check S a. Comparison of independer.t g Cooling Annulus Exit temperature readings.

x) Air Temperature Detectors

b. Calibrate R b. Calibrate with known temperature.

15 Reactor Coolant System a. Check M a. Calculation of reactor coolant Flow -

flow rate.

Y ys 16. Pressurizer Pressure a. Check S a. Comparison of !ndependent pressure readings.

17 Reactor Coolant. Inlet a. Check S a. Comparison of independent terpera-Temperature ture readings.

18. Low-Temperature Set- a. Test Pfl a. Verify operability of actuation cir-point Forer-Operated cuitry for low-temperature setpoint Relief Valves power-opersted re]ief valves by utili-zation of installed test switches.

b. Calibrate R b. Calibrate temperature and pressure channels.

Attachment "A"

m Attachment B e

Discussion, Justification and Significant Hazards Consideration The change to Technical Specification Table 3-3, Item 14.a. is pr'oposed tc en-sure consistency between the surveillance requirements and the Limiting Condi-tions for Operation (LCOs). The LC0 for the Nuclear Detector Weli Cooling Annulus Exit Air Temperature Detectors requires that there be at least two temperature detectors in service to measure annulus air tenperatures whenever the reactor is in service. In order to achieve consistency, it is proposed that the surveillance method be reworded fran " Compare eight (8) independent readings" to " Comparison of independent temperature readings." This change will ensure consistency between the two requirenents.

Additionally, pages 2-80 and 2-88a are being revised to update the snubber tables. The snubber changes adequately met OPPD review requirenents and are being transmitted in order to update the Technical Specification listing.

These changes do not involve significant hazards considerations as demors strated by the following:

(1) Would the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previous'y evaluated?

No. The change in wording of a surveillance method is intended only to achieve consistency and does not affect any accident analysis. The up-date to the snubber listing is also adminstrative to attain consistency.

(2) Would the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident fram any accident previously evaluated?

No. The change will not create the possibility of a different type. No different type of accident is possible from the changes being made.

(3) Would the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

No. The changes being made to the surveillance wording are to achieve consistency between a Section 2 LCO and the use of the equipment. No margin of safety is being reduced. The changes to the snubber listing are provided to administratively update the list. No margin of safety is i nvolved.

The NRC has previously published guidance concerning examples of anendments which are not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (48 FR 14670). The changes proposed in this application are similar to example (1),

in that they are administrative changes to achieve. consistency and update li stings. These changes do not involve significant hazards considerations.

L