ML20154N220

Proposed Tech Specs,Providing More Flexibility for Demonstrating Operability of RHR Pumps

ML20154N220
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	03/11/1986
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20154N199	List: ML20154N195 ML20154N220
References
1353K, NUDOCS 8603170237
Download: ML20154N220 (4)

Text

._ . _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l

. 0*

l l

AmA PROPOSED CHANGE TO APPENDII A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE WPF-37 Revised Pame: 3/4 5-5 8603170237 860311 PDR ADOCM 05000454 P PDR 1353K I

i

EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued)

1) For all accessible areas of the containment prior to establishing CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY, and

2) Of the areas affected within containment at the completion of each containment entry when CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY is established.

d. At least once per 18 months by:

1) Verifying automatic isolation and interlock action of the RHR System from the Reactor Coolant System by ensuring that:

a) With a simulated or actual Reactor Cool' ant System pressure signal greater than or equal to 360 psig the interlocks prevent the valves from being opened, and b) With a simulated or actual Reactor Coolant System pressure signal greater than or equal to 662 psi.g the interlocks will cause the valves to automatically close'.

2) A visual inspection of the containment sump and verifying that the subsystem suction inlets are not restricted by debris and that the sump components (trash racks, screens, etc.) show no evidence of structural distress or abnormal corrosion. .

e. At least once 'per 16 months, during shutdown, by:

1) Verifying that each automatic valve in the flow path actuates to its correct potition on a Safety Injection test signal and on a RWST Level-Low-Low test signal, and

2) Verifying that each of the following pumps start automatically upon receipt of a Safety Injection actuation test signal:

a) Centrifugal charging pump, b) Safety Injection pump, and c) RHR pump.

f. By verifying that each of the following pump'sdevelops the indicated differential pressure on recirculation flow when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5:

1) Centrifugal charging pump ,

,t 2396 psid,

2) Safety Injection pump 1 1412 psid, and

3) RHR pump q 101 pid. -

Per de. RHR pap MW-m Accer+.I,le. Pec torume. Curve.

BYRON - UNITS 1 & 2 3/4 5-5 L.____ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___m -

AMB REASONS FOR PROPOSgD CHANGE Technical Specification 4.5.28 requires the performance of each residual heat removal (RNR) pump to be periodically tested by verifying the pump develops 'a specified differential 3.ressure on recirculation flow. The specified differential pressure corresponds to a flow rate of 500 spa on the minimum acceptable performance curve. When operating an RHR pump on recircu-lation flow during this surveillance, flow rates in escess of 650 spm have been observed. These higher flow rates correspond to a lower difforential pressure. The proposed change, which would allow use of the minimum acceptable performance curve instead of a point on the curve, will provide f more flexibility in demonstrating the required performance of the RHR pumps. f The RHR pump minimum acceptable performance curve will be included in the Byron Station survelliance that verifles the RHR pumps develop tha required dit(*rential pressure. The minimum acceptable performance curve is i the upper curve shown on FSAR figure 6.3-3.

l 1353K

r- .

...~*

i ATTACIGIENT C SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION Cosumonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed amendment and determined that it does not represent a significant hasards consideration.

Based on the criteria for defining a significant hasards consideration t

established in 10 CFR 50.92, operation of Byron Station Unit 1 in accordance l with the proposed amendment will not:

1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed change involves the use of a pump perforinance curve instead of a point on the curve to detemine acceptable perfotinence of a RHR pump. Therefore, the probability of accidents previously evaluated remains unchanged. The curve which would be referenced in the Technical specifiestion is a test curve which exceeds the curve used in previous evaluations of accidents.

Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated would not change.

l

2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed change only provides more flexibility in the acceptance criteria of a surveillance used to check the performance of pumps.

3) Involve a s1F,nificant reduction in a morsin of safety because the proposed change maintains the same margin between points on the test curve and the curve used for ECCS analysis.

Based on the preceding assess:nont, it is concluded that the proposed amendment meets the standards provided in 10 CFR 50.92 and therefore, does j

not involve a significant hasards consideration.

l l

l f

f 1353K

.