ML17320A760: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Mr.Haro1dR.DentonAEP:NRC:0849 ATTACHMENT 1EMERGENCY CORECOOLINGSYSTEMSSURVEILLANCE REUIREMENTS Continued f.Byperforming aflowbalancetestduringshutdownfollowing completion ofmodifications totheECCSsubsystem thatalterthesubsystem flowcharacteristics andverifying thefollowing flowrates:BoronInjection SystemSinlePum"Loop1BoronInjection Flow117.5gpmLoop2BoronInjection Flow117.5gpmLoop3BoronInjection Flow117.5gpmLoop4BoronInjection Flow117.5gpmSafetyInjection SystemSinlePum""Loop1and4ColdLegFlow>300gpmLoop2and3ColdLegFlow>300gpmTheflowrateineachBoronInjection (BI)lineshouldbeadjustedtoprovide117.5gpm(nominal) flowintoeachloop.Undertheseconditions thereiszerominiflowand80gpmsimulated RCPsealinjection lineflow.TheactualflowineachBIlinemaydeviatefromthenominalsolongasthedifference betweenthehighestandlowestflowis10gpmorlessandthetotalflowtothefourbranchlinesdoesnotexceed500gpm.Minimumflow(totalflow)requiredis345.8gpmtothethreemostco(servative (lowestflow)branchlines.TotalSIS(singlepump)flow,including miniflow,'hall notexceed650gpm.8310060329'31003 PDRADOCK05000315PDR0.C.COOK-UNIT13/45-6aAmendment No.
{{#Wiki_filter:Mr. Haro1d R. Denton                                              AEP:NRC:0849 ATTACHMENT 1 EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE RE UIREMENTS      Continued
w/J Mr.HaroldR.tonATTACHMENT 2BASISFORTECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGEREQUESTThebasisforchangingtheTechnical Specification isthatwehaveperformed asystemtestanddemonstrated thattheEastpumpwoulddeliver499gpmtotheReactorCoolantSystem(RCS)injection pointswithanadditional 80gpmsimulated reactorcoolantpumpsealinjection flow.Inaddition, wehaveperformed anevaluation ofpumpoperation at580gpmtotalflowunderaccidentconditions, andthatevaluation hasshownthat.therewouldbeadequateNetPositiveSuctionHead(NPSH)forproperpumpoperation atthisflow.Onthisbasis,weconcludethatwiththesysteminitsminimumresistance configuration, theECCSEastchargingpumpwillbeoperableinamannersoastoprecludetotalpumpflowfromexceeding runoutconditions.
: f. By performing a flow balance test during shutdown following completion of modifications to the ECCS subsystem that alter the subsystem flow characteristics and verifying the following flow rates:
Itshouldbenotedthat.inarrivingattheaboveconclusion, therunoutcondition iswiththepumpinthealignment delivering 500gpmtotheRCSinjection pointsandanadditional 80gpmsimulated reactorcoolantpumpsealinjection flow.WithregardtotheWestpump,ourjustification isthatbothpumpsareofsimilardesignandhavesimilarNPSHrequirements.
Boron  Injection  System        Safety Injection System Sin le Pum  "                  Sin le Pum ""
IftheWestpumpwereallowedtodeliver500gpmtotheinjection points,wewouldanticipate thattherewouldbenoproblemregarding runoutbaseduponourEastpumptestresults,designsimilarity, andourNPSHevaluation.
Loop  1 Boron Injection          Loop  1 and 4 Cold Leg Flow 117.5 gpm                  Flow > 300 gpm Loop 2 Boron    Injection        Loop 2 and 3 Cold Leg Flow 117.5 gpm                  Flow > 300 gpm Loop 3 Boron    Injection Flow 117.5 gpm Loop 4 Boron    Injection Flow 117.5 gpm The  flow rate in each Boron Injection (BI) line should be adjusted to provide 117.5 gpm (nominal) flow into each loop. Under these conditions there is zero miniflow and 80 gpm simulated RCP seal injection line flow.
SincetheonlyitemofconcernwiththischangerequestismaximumECCSchargingpumpflow,andsincebothpumpsdelivertheminimumrequiredECCSflowwiththe'roper flowsplitbetweeninjection points,wealsoconcludethatthisrequested changewillnotaffecttheminimumfloworflowsplitrequirements asdefinedinthebasisforthisTechnical Specification.
The actual flow in each BI line may deviate from the nominal so long as the difference between the highest and lowest flow is 10 gpm or less and the total flow to the four branch lines does not exceed 500 gpm. Minimum flow (total flow) required is 345.8 gpm to the three most co(servative (lowest flow) branch lines.
F$"I),')"'I~,),~>*Pd)I>I""f)V,'C.')f3)~F,I'),'L')5)>,0fI'F>,Q!))I),.>F)')JI4).J*)>IyI)())~,)>>))',.<<>>,g<f)I()fj.gQ),I'',>+'I)>).)A('3)F>I>f>)~>I'I"C),,I".)FYIIIII'>'.)MI).),"'"<<f.),)>>")'>.>')iI'II@'Iff*>'>IgI',')f)I>F'II,7fI'l1~>>i">)I)7>~9)r>I>)",~~F~'.)"'3">'I>)-))~hfC>..'*")}}
Total SIS (single pump) flow, including miniflow,'hall not exceed          650 gpm.
8310060329'31003 05000315 PDR ADOCK          PDR
: 0. C. COOK   - UNIT 1                    3/4 5-6a                Amendment No.
 
w
/
J
 
Mr. Harold R. ton ATTACHMENT 2 BASIS FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST The basis  for changing the Technical Specification is that we have performed a system  test and demonstrated that the East pump would deliver 499 gpm to the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) injection points with an additional 80 gpm simulated reactor coolant pump seal injection flow. In addition, we have performed an evaluation of pump operation at 580 gpm total flow under accident conditions, and that evaluation has shown that. there would be adequate Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) for proper pump operation at this flow. On this basis, we conclude that with the system in its minimum resistance configuration, the ECCS East charging pump will be operable in a manner so as to preclude total pump flow from exceeding runout conditions. It should be noted that. in arriving at the above conclusion, the runout condition is with the pump in the alignment delivering 500 gpm to the RCS injection points and an additional 80 gpm simulated reactor coolant pump seal injection flow.
With regard to the West pump, our justification is that both pumps are of similar design and have similar NPSH requirements. If the West pump were allowed to deliver 500 gpm to the injection points, we would anticipate that there would be no problem regarding runout based upon our East pump test results, design similarity, and our NPSH evaluation.
Since the only item of concern with this change request is maximum ECCS  charging pump flow, and since both pumps deliver the minimum required ECCS flow with the'roper flow split between injection points, we also conclude that this requested change will not affect the minimum flow or flow split requirements as defined in the basis for this Technical Specification.
 
F$
                                                                                                                  "I),   ')                       "'I           ~,),
                                                                                                                                                                    )
Pd
                                                                                                                                                                        ~>
* I
              >I""f )       V,   'C.             ') f3                                                   *    )     >  I y
I
                                                                                                                                          >>)
                                                                                                                                                  )      ())~,)
)                                               ~ F, I')
                                                                        ,'L '                                            )',.     <<>>,       g<f
              )5 )>,0
                                                                                        )I fI
()f j . gQ),I '',>+         '               I)         >)   .       )A(
                                                                                                        '3 ) F>I>f>)   ~ >
                                                                  ')                                            I'
                                  'F>,Q!) )I ),.        >F  )        J I     4).J fI'l
                                      ".)
FYI I I II'
                        ,I                          >                     '.                                   ).),       "   '"
                                                                                                                                    <<f.),)>>       " )
I" C),                                                      )M        I                                                                              '>.>')i I'                 II@'If  f              *>
                                                                                              ">)    I)  7 1~                                                                                h
  '>I g I',                         i
            ')f) I>F 'I 9
I, 7
                                                                                                > ~
                                                                                            )r>I> )       ~ ~F~'           .)"'     3 ">'I>) -)
                                                                                                                                          )~
f C>..'*")}}

Latest revision as of 01:41, 4 February 2020

Proposed Tech Spec Re ECCS
ML17320A760
Person / Time
Site: Cook American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 10/03/1983
From:
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:
Shared Package
ML17320A757 List:
References
AEP:NRC:0849, AEP:NRC:849, NUDOCS 8310060329
Download: ML17320A760 (4)
v • d • e


Text

Mr. Haro1d R. Denton AEP:NRC:0849 ATTACHMENT 1 EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE RE UIREMENTS Continued

f. By performing a flow balance test during shutdown following completion of modifications to the ECCS subsystem that alter the subsystem flow characteristics and verifying the following flow rates:

Boron Injection System Safety Injection System Sin le Pum " Sin le Pum ""

Loop 1 Boron Injection Loop 1 and 4 Cold Leg Flow 117.5 gpm Flow > 300 gpm Loop 2 Boron Injection Loop 2 and 3 Cold Leg Flow 117.5 gpm Flow > 300 gpm Loop 3 Boron Injection Flow 117.5 gpm Loop 4 Boron Injection Flow 117.5 gpm The flow rate in each Boron Injection (BI) line should be adjusted to provide 117.5 gpm (nominal) flow into each loop. Under these conditions there is zero miniflow and 80 gpm simulated RCP seal injection line flow.

The actual flow in each BI line may deviate from the nominal so long as the difference between the highest and lowest flow is 10 gpm or less and the total flow to the four branch lines does not exceed 500 gpm. Minimum flow (total flow) required is 345.8 gpm to the three most co(servative (lowest flow) branch lines.

Total SIS (single pump) flow, including miniflow,'hall not exceed 650 gpm.

8310060329'31003 05000315 PDR ADOCK PDR

0. C. COOK - UNIT 1 3/4 5-6a Amendment No.

w

/

J

Mr. Harold R. ton ATTACHMENT 2 BASIS FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST The basis for changing the Technical Specification is that we have performed a system test and demonstrated that the East pump would deliver 499 gpm to the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) injection points with an additional 80 gpm simulated reactor coolant pump seal injection flow. In addition, we have performed an evaluation of pump operation at 580 gpm total flow under accident conditions, and that evaluation has shown that. there would be adequate Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) for proper pump operation at this flow. On this basis, we conclude that with the system in its minimum resistance configuration, the ECCS East charging pump will be operable in a manner so as to preclude total pump flow from exceeding runout conditions. It should be noted that. in arriving at the above conclusion, the runout condition is with the pump in the alignment delivering 500 gpm to the RCS injection points and an additional 80 gpm simulated reactor coolant pump seal injection flow.

With regard to the West pump, our justification is that both pumps are of similar design and have similar NPSH requirements. If the West pump were allowed to deliver 500 gpm to the injection points, we would anticipate that there would be no problem regarding runout based upon our East pump test results, design similarity, and our NPSH evaluation.

Since the only item of concern with this change request is maximum ECCS charging pump flow, and since both pumps deliver the minimum required ECCS flow with the'roper flow split between injection points, we also conclude that this requested change will not affect the minimum flow or flow split requirements as defined in the basis for this Technical Specification.

F$

"I), ') "'I ~,),

)

Pd

~>

  • I

>I""f ) V, 'C. ') f3 * ) > I y

I

>>)

) ())~,)

) ~ F, I')

,'L ' )',. <<>>, g<f

)5 )>,0

)I fI

()f j . gQ),I ,>+ ' I) >) . )A(

'3 ) F>I>f>) ~ >

') I'

'F>,Q!) )I ),. >F ) J I 4).J fI'l

".)

FYI I I II'

,I > '. ).), " '"

<<f.),)>> " )

I" C), )M I '>.>')i I' II@'If f *>

">) I) 7 1~ h

'>I g I', i

')f) I>F 'I 9

I, 7

> ~

)r>I> ) ~ ~F~' .)"' 3 ">'I>) -)

)~

f C>..'*")

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17320A760&oldid=2426845"