ML20215L315

Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-11 & NPF-18, Correcting Inconsistency Between Tech Spec Requirements Re Suppression Pool High Level Alarm.Fee Paid

ML20215L315
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	04/29/1987
From:	Allen C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20215L318	List: ML20215L315 ML20215L324
References
3018K, NUDOCS 8705120186
Download: ML20215L315 (4)

Text

. . .

O-.

c.,,,,,,,,,,,

/ One Fwst Nabonal Plaza. Chcago, isnois

'~'

Address Reply to: Poet Omco Box 767 Chea00,lanois80000 0767 t

April 29, 1987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Proposed Technical Specification for Facility Operating License NPF-11 and NPF Suppression Pool Water Level Alarm NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a): LaSalle County Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 7.3-1

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Commonwealth Edison Proposes to amend Appendix A, Technical Specification, to Facility Operating License NPF-ll and NPF-18. This proposed change is being submitted for your staff's_ review and approval. This change corrects an inconsistancy between Technical Specification requirements regarding the Suppression Pool High Level Alarm.

Attachment A provides background and discussion. The proposed revised Technical Specification page changes are enclosed in Attachment B. The attached change has received both On-Site and Off-Site review and approval. We have reviewed this amendment request and find that no significant hazards consideration exist.

This review is documented in Attachment C.

Commonwealth Edison is notifying the State of Illinois of our request for this amendment by transmitting a copy of this letter and its attachments to the designated State Official.

\

b6 8705120186 B70429 I ADOCK 05000373 g {)

PDR e "*" Qe;) 41a.n 4/$*

US NRC April 29, 1987 In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.170, a fee remittance in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.

Please direct any questions you may have regarding this matter to this office.

Very truly yours, l - __

C. M. Allen Nuclear Licensing Administrator Cs Attachments A: Background and Discussion B: Technical Specification Change to NPF-ll and NPF-18 C: Evaluation of Significant Hazards Consideration cc: Region III Inspector - LSCS Dr. A. Bournia - N2R M. C. Parker - Ste.Le cf Ill.

Regional Administrator - RIII SUBSCElIBED and gey N to befo L me phis d i day of qu _. y , , 1987

~~ ~

. 0%h

' Notary Publ'ic 3018K

p . __

9 a

( .'

ATTACHMENT A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

/

\-

A I

y l

l-l t

w I e l

2115K

BACKGROUND On September 14, 1986 it was discovered that an inconsistency existed between the requirements in Technical Specification 4.6.2.1.c and Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-2.

Technical Specification 4.6.2.1.c.1 requires a setpoint of less than er equal to 26 feet 8 inches (equivalent to a plant elevation of 700 feet 0 inches) for the suppression pool high level alarm. Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-2 and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UPSAR) Table 7.3-1, (Reference ( }) require a trip setpoint cf less than or equal to 700 feet 1 inch and an allowable value of less than or equal to 700 feet 2 inches for Suppression Pool Water Level - High. Both of these alarm setpoints are below the maximum cllowable Suppression Pool level of 26 feet 10 inches indicated in Technical Specification 3.6.2.1.a.1.

DIBCUSSION The subsequest investigation into the cauge of the inconsistency concluded that one of the contributing factors was the use of different reference points for the suppression pool high level alarm setpoints identified in the technical specifications.

-That is the levels were referenced to plant elevation in one case and to the bottom of the suppression chamber in the other. 'The '

investigation also found that the reference points used in the technical specifications for the Limiting conditions for Operations and trip setpoints are not consistent with the instrument references ,

used for the control room and local suppression pool level indications. The instrument zero for all plant suppression pool level indications is set at a plant elevation of 699 feet 11 inches.

These inconsistencies within the technical specifications and between the technical specifications and plant indications have the potential to cause future personnel errors. It is therefore proposed that the following amendments be made to the technical specifications:-

1. The suppression pool high water level alarm setpoint in Technical Specification 4.6.2.1.c.1 be raised 1 inch to be consistent with Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-2 and the UPSAR.

t

2. All references to suppression pool level in the technical specifications be amended to be consistent with plant indications.

3. A figure be added to the technical specification bases which will correlate plant elevation, suppression chamber levels and suppression pool level indications.

3018K '

c m . ~ . ..._ .-.. -,_ _,. . _ ____m - - . . ,r,_, ,,_ r. -m_,, . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _