ML20209B432
| ML20209B432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B415 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702040042 | |
| Download: ML20209B432 (4) | |
Text
.
. to ULNRC-14 40 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES Specification 3/4.7.5 8702040042 870129 PDR ADOCK 05000483 P
NFygg PLANT SYSTEMS l
3/4.7.5 ULTIMATE HEAT SINK a-s LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION
3.7.5 Theultimateheatsink(UHS)shallbeOPERABLIwith
A minimum water level at or' above 13.25 feet (El 831.25 feet MSL) from
~
a.
the bottom of the UHS, b.
An average water temperature of less than or equal to 90*f, and c.
Two UHS cooling tower trains (2 cells per train).
APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, 3, and,4.
ACTION:
Mere. both +.ains)
( [.th th J"; 'n ::r 3 +;;owee 4 vain inogey46k e ene.
S cool:n (b. g i. rc:tr;; th.... to ERABLE status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 30 nours.
y
- 2 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS
- 4. 7. 5.1 The UHS shall be determined OPERABLE at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by i verifying the average water temperature and water level to be within their limits.
4.7.5.2 The VHS cooling tower trains shall.be demonstrated OPERABLE at least once per 31 days by verifying that ea.ch cooling tower fan operates for at least 15 minutes in both the slow and fast mode and at least once per 18 months by visually inspecting and verifying no abnormal breakage or degradation of the fill materials.
4.7.5.3 The UHS shall be determined OPERABLE at least orce per 31 days by i
visually inspecting the UHS riprap for any abnormal degradation which might I
lead tu blockage of the ESW pump suction.
fe5R!f d levok of (d;4h Me. (Al4$ ihhe era.kole. ass e. uns ceeente sus et
% erowe, res d4Lin 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or be, in d leqst-ST STA2 BV WYOin E-Merd
(,
koges ancl iw COL.D SlOTDOWd I
gith Ne. k Nein 30
- hears, k
~
)
CALLAWAY - UNil l 3/4 7-13
. to ULNRC 1440 SAFETY EVALUATION This amendment request revises Technical Specification 3/4.7.5 in accordance with the annotated page provided in Enclosure 2.
The revision and its respective safety evaluation are discussed hereinafter.
This change to Technical Specification 3/4.7.5, Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS), revised the Action Statement to reflect the existing condition as described in the Callaway Plant FSAR (Site Addendum)
Section 9.2.5.2.2.
The UHS cooling tower is sized with 100 percent redundancy to provide heat dissipation for safe shutdown following an accident.
The cooling tower is divided into 4 cells with one fan assembly per cell.
Two of the 4 cells (one train of the Essential Service Water System) are required for safe shutdown.
However, currently as stated, the Technical Specification Action Statement considers the UHS inoperable if one train has an inoperable cell, and an inoperable heat sink results in the two trains of Essential Service Water being declared inoperable.
This change is to clearly delineate the fact that there are two separate trains of cooling available, and the inoperability of one cell from one train does not constitute inoperability of the entire UHS or the two trains of the Essential Service Water.
In summary, this amendment request provides clarification for Technical Specification 3/4.7.5 associated with the UHS.
No changes are being made to the system or its function.
Therefore the original design bases are met and consequently: 1) the probability and consequences of an accident or malfunction of
. equipment important to safety are not increased; 2) a new or different kind of accident from those described in the FSAR is not created; and 3) the margin of safety as described in the bases of the Technical Specifications is not decreased.
Pursuant to the above information, this amendment request does not adversely affect or endanger the health or safety of the general public and does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
.... to ULNRC-1440 SIGNIFICANT HAZARD EVALUATION This amendment request consists of a change to Technical Specification 3/4.7.5.
The following discussion addresses this change and its corresponding significant hazards evaluation.
This change involves the wording of the Action Statement for Technical Specification 3/4.7.5.
It will be revised to establish two Action Statements in lieu of the existing one to clearly delineate that there are two independent trains of cooling available to justify the operability requirements of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS).
As currently stated, the UHS is considered inoperable with one cell of one cooling tower train out-of-service.
If the UHS is inoperable, then the entire Essential Service Water System is inoperable, and the requirements of Technical Specification 3.0.3 must be met.
This change provides consistency between the Technical Specifications and the FSAR as to the purpose for providing two independent trains of cooling for the UHS.
This change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change provides clarification to establish operability of the UHS thus averting the entry into an Action Statement erroneously.
This change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
This is based on the f act that the method and manner of plant operation is unchanged.
This change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This is based on the fact that no design change is involved, but the intent of the Technical Specification is clarified to meet the as-built condition as specified in the FSAR.
Based on the above discussions, the amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; nor create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; nor involve a reduction in the required margin of safety.
Based on the foregoing, the requested amendment does not present a significant hazard.