ML20082M862

Proposed Tech Specs Deleting Section 3.11/4.11, High Energy Piping Integrity (Outside Containment)

ML20082M862
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	08/29/1991
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20082M857	List: ML20082M855 ML20082M862
References
NUDOCS 9109060053
Download: ML20082M862 (9)

Text

- - _ - - _ - -

QUAD-CITIES DPR-29 3.11/4.11 HIGH ENERGY PIPING INTEGRITY

, (OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT)

HITING COND1110NS FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQulREMENTS App cability: Applicability:

Applie to operating status of certain Applies to the periodic examination

' piping o. side primary containment, requirements for certain piping o side primary containment.

Objective: Objectivc:

To assure the in grity of sections of To determine the condit n of the sec-piping which is po tulated to effect safe tions of piping.

plant shutdown.

SPECIFICATIONS The high energy piping sec ions identi- The inspect' ns listed in lible 4.11-1 fied in Table 4.11-1 shall maintained shall be 'rformed as speci'ied, free of visually observable t ough wall leaks.

J

1. If a leak is detactad by e surveillance program of Sp ifi-cation 4.11, efforts to iden) fy the source of the leaks shall s started immediately.

2. If the source of leakage nnot be identified within 2 ours of detection or if the 19 is found to be from a eak in the piping sections i ntified in Table 4.11-1, t pressure with-in the sectio of piping shell be brought atmospheric pres- 3 sure with 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.  ?

3. When e modifications identi-fie in Commonwealt's Edison's 1 .ter to the NRC caled 7D.eptember 16, 1975 (G. Abrell to Ziemann) have been completed, Technical Specifications 3.11 and 4.11 will no longer be required.

3.11/4.11-1 Amendment No. 114 9109060053 910929 PDR ADOCK 030002S4 P PER

f(

1 l

QUAD-CITIES-  !

-OPR-29

'3. . 11 BASES l Intensive analys ._ review has shown that there are specific postulat Mtfi" energy piping system fa which have the potential to inhib cold shutdown of tha r . .

This cinchQon is based on-ng the basic NRC

.. Lhigh energy line L  ::riteria.- To redo ability of such failures, P -- certain plant modif. .aions-are nec . Unt e modifications are comple'.a. additional surv Sela

~

will be performed.duri ant operation to enhance the~ deteJeserC. piping system defects. The inservice ation and

the fre eney15T inspection-will provide a means for timely detection o j defects.

l-i j-I I-4 t

+

4 h

3.11/4.11-2 Amendment No. 114 e

- e i,+ - - .+.m. ~-,~,.s, ....,,m.,-m...------,-e --.-....-m,- -,,-_,.1-- +.-,w ..~-,v--.

- - . ., ,-,,-v- em -

.- .l QUAD-CITIES DPR-29 I TABLE 4.11-1 -I SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH ENERGY PIPINC OUTSIDE CONTAINME Piping Surveillance  !

Survelliance Area Technique frequencJ ',

14ain Steam from primacy containment penetration to secondary Visual (3) 0 days- .!

containment penetration

. l 6

Reactor Feedwater rom primary containment  ;

Piping- .p etration to secondary j

con n t penetration Visu 30 days -

and "A reactor feed t pump disc ge to the 24-inch

• diameter fee ter header '

HPCI Steam Piping i From the primary c nment  ;

penetration to th e tor Visual (3) 30 days >

building penet ion RCIC Steam Piping. From pr ry containment  !

pene y ine.

tion to the RCIC \ ual(3)

Q 30 days-i

~

N  ;

Notes: i

[1] Visual ervation of piping insulation and area for evidence of wetnes or any '

phys I damage resulting from a leak. Surveillance to be performed using ormal ess without scaffolding or-any other access aids. i L j 2) "A" Reactor feed pump-for Unit 1 "C" Reactor feed pump for Unit 2.  ;

l-  !

l' .

l l  !

I e

I l  :

! '[

i-1 I

3.11/4.11-3 Amendment No. 114 I

)

h i

, , . , . , , . . . , . , . ...-.,,c,.

c:

s J'

[.:.

~

SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EVALUATION ,

Proposed Deletion of 'TS 3.11/4.1.1

'HIGH . ENERGY PIPING INTEGRITY" l:

EVAI,UATION ZQB SIGNIFICANT HAZABDJ CONSIDERATION PROPOSED DELETION OF SPECIFICATION 3.11/4.11 HIGH ENERGY PIPING INTEGRITY t

The proposed changes provided in this amendment request are made in order to delete requirements in the Technical specifications that are no longer in effect. These changes have been reviewed by Commonwealth Edison Company and we believe that they do not present a Significant Hazards Consideration. The basis for our determination is documented as follows:

BASIS EQB HQ SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION  !

Commonwealth Edison has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards consideration.

In accordance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c) a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility, in accordance with the proposed amendment, would not:

1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, because:

Present Section 3.11/4.11, High Energy Piping Integrity  !

(Outside Containment), was a temporary addition to the Quad Cities Technical Specifications and was intended to be deleted when modifications were made to the affected high energy piping systems. Since required modifications were completed in 1979, the proposed deletion of Section 3.11/4.11 is an administrative removal of requirements that are no longer applicable. Due to the administrative nature of the proposed change it cannot involve a significant increase in the probability or t'asequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident

• from any previously evaluated because:

The proposed change deletes temporary requirements that are no longer applicable and are not being used at Quad Cities '

Nuclear Station. The modifications to the piping systems to address high energy line breaks outside containment were reviewed and approved by the NRC prior to installation and were designed to meet or exceed applicable design codes and ,

standards. Since this change dclctes temporary provisions thr.t are no longer applicable, 't cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any l previously evaluated.

3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because:

i

\

f/

e*~

c .

c

,4, at

- The--deletion of the temporary provisions of Section-3.11/4.11- ,

- upon completion of acceptable. modifications, follows NRC i

guidance in the NRC letter dated March 8,--1976,-that '

authorized issuance of Amendments 24 and 23=to Quad Cities:

Units:1 and'2,-respectively. The-piping modifications were- -

- approved.:by the NRC prior to installation and tho-installation was-made in accordance-with approved design change documentation. - Since the proposed change deletes temporary provisions-that are no longer applicable, it cannot involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

1 4

4 4

f

-l c

h wy-, 4w .+, p - --wwa-ve,,*c-,ew- e w g , I w w g s we --rw,, erg,e,v--n.pe-, . - ~e+,,m-,v-~ ewg op.,, ,,---a-=.r r - , e w,-- ew-- <em - - ,a,~ow ,N,-- o-we - --,-c ~= ----**

• EHLT_BqHHHHTAL AREEEEliEXT EVALUATIOH PROPOSED SPECIFICATION-SECTION 3.11/4.11 HIGH ENERGY PIPING INTEGRITY Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of-10 CFR 51.21 and has determined that the amendment meets the requirements for

• categorical exclusion as specified by 10 CFR 51.22 (c) (9) . '

Commonwealth Edison has determined that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, there are no significant change in the types or significant increase in  ;

the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, and there .is no significant increase in individual or-cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The proposed amendment does not modify the existing facility and doos not involve any new operation of the plant.

As such, the preposed amendment does not involve any change in the type or significant increases in effluents, or increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The deletion ut Section 3.11/4.11 "High Energy .

Piping Tntegrity'* does not impact the safe operation of the  !

plant since the curveillances required by the specification have been discontinued in response to thu installation of modifications, ac provided for in the Technical Specification.  ;

t 9

F 1

W P

4 i

i

44.'

= _;f s

h l L 1

e

-- - a, QC-1/ QC-2 DIFFERENCES l 1 f

i

-)

e -

a b

--TS 3,11/4.11 y

-t

'HIGH ENERGY PIPING INTEGRIT-Y'-  :

t

-I i

~;

-l

- 5 i

t

?

I

?

' I I

l l'

i i

a i

, . . . . . . ..-.,ry..ys.. ,-..,w.,_e,,,,,w.,_, ,y e . ,w_..m .:,,,, ,. , ...,-,_.+r. . ..y4._,,,,,.~,....,,m.-.#,< ~ - y% -,- ,. .-..~m._ . _ + , . . .. ..~..---.sa

1.

s

.; E +

8 COMPARISON OF.. UNIT 11MRD UNIT 2 TECHNICAL BPECIFICATIONS FOR THE i IDENTIFICATION OF-TECHNICAL' DIFFERENCES' l

.SECTION:3.11/4.11

. :i HIGH ENERGY PIPING INTEGRITY  :

=t Commonwealth Edison'has conducted a comparison review of '

the Unit'l and Unit-2 Technical Specifications to identify  :

, any technical differences in support of combining the

. Technical Specifications:into one. document. The intent of the review was not to identify any differences in *

.prese.itation style-(e.g. table formats, use.of capital

' letters, etc.)?or punctuation but rather-to identify creas  !

which the Technical. Specifications are technically different. i The: review of Section- 3.11/4.11, "High Energy Piping k

Integrity did not reveal any technical or administrative  ;

differences.

P

?

f

~

.- t 3

s k

I l

t i

8

.i 3

d S

[N . - - . . . . - . . , . , . - - - . . . . _ . . _ . . -