ML19338D568

Forwards Proposed Tech Spec Changes Re Implementation of TMI Lessons Learned,Category a Requirements,In Response to NRC 800702 Request.Dresden Unit 1 Tech Spec Changes Will Be Submitted 90 Days Prior to Scheduled Startup

ML19338D568
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden, Quad Cities
Issue date:	09/18/1980
From:	Janecek R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19338D569	List: ML19338D568 ML19338D571
References
NUDOCS 8009230463
Download: ML19338D568 (3)

Text

b$

1

~

I

~-

p-

.n one First National Piera. Chicago, minois 5

j::;

.f'!

^;

7.c Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767

,K j

1 Chicago,' illinois 60690 -

-Septsmber-18,-1980 Director:of: Nuclear' Reactor Regulation U;S.= Nuclear RegulatoryfCommission.

~

Washing ton, ; DC: 120555

Subject:

Dresden Station Units'1, 2, and 3 Quad Cities Station Units 1.and=2

. Proposed Amendm'ents to Technical Specifications, Appendix A to

-Operating Licenses-DPR-19, 25, 29, and 30.

NRC Docket'Nos. 50-10/237/249 and

~50-254/265

Reference:

(a):

D.-G.

Eisenhut letter'tc.all Boiling Water Reactor Licensees dated July 2,.1980.

~0 ear Sir:

' Reference (a) requested submittal of Technical Specification change _sl pertaining to~the implementation of theJTMI-2 Lessons Learned' Category."A"' items.' Per that request,_and pursuant _to 10 CFRD50.59, Commonwealth Edison proposes to amend Appendix.A, Technical:-Specifications, to Operating Licenses.DPR-19, 25, 29,-and 30 for:Dresden,2,LDresden 3, Quad Cities _1,.and Quad Cities 2, respectively. J0ue-'tofthe' extended shutdown of'Dresden 1 and the postponed implementation of_: Category "A"' items, Technical Specifications pertaining'to those Items will'be submitted 90 days prior to scheduled startup of Dresden 1.

The' proposed. changes to the Technical Specifications are

included in' Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 for Dresden ~ 2, 3 and Quad Cities 1,L2, respectively.

These: proposed changes have received

-on;-site'and'of.f-site review and approval.

_ 'No changes [have been proposed relating;to the Eaergency Power Supply / Inadequate Core Cooling.and Containment: Isolation'

requirements, since our-l review; of' existing -Technical Specification

requirements: indicated ed_ equate' agreement with those requirements e

proposed l byJ.Re fe'rence (a).

TheLremaining pro ~ posed changes'have:been prepared;inTaccordance;with the-guidance'in Referenc.e (a), with:the exception;of;the-~following. two -items:

1.:

L'imiting;Conditioniof' Operation ;(LCO) requirements;for Nalve, Position _ Indication in'strumentation,'and 2.n cImp~1ementationidate and title.forithe Shift Technical

. Advisor' positi'on'.

~

f 3daewoM.

r6 m

~

a m

~'

+'

u

. g:

+

g

~

q',

3 p

7,

~

" ~

1 Commonwealth Edisonf

~

-:2.--

v Our basis.for / pr'oposing-dif ferent' LCO requirements for - the.

safety andirelief. valve positionfindicators is two-fold.

First, the valve positionLindicators (thermocouples, acoustic'fluidfflow fmonitors) provide noiaccidentomitigation function.. A stuck open.

= spring; safety valve would. evidence itself, through' numerous indicat' ions, inclu' ding high drywellsp'ressure (with'resulting SCRAM),

~

' increasing =drywell temperature','and rapidly decreasing reactor.

. pressure.

The event _would1 appear-to.be the same as a small steam

--line break,_and since no! remote control devices or block valves.

existffor;the safety _ valves, any plant / operator response would be the.same.

The.value'of the valve ~ position inditntion would-be in the area fof event reconstruction, which could also be performed by Ldirect :inspecti'on following recovery.

If a relief valve sticks open, numerous' indications would also)be' present, including torus water temperature:and~1evel_ increases, sudden drop in turbine _ power or rapidly decreasing reactorLpressure.

=The benefit of knowing

.which~ valve (s) may-be open is to provide the operator a chance to cycle-the remote opening device ~on that velve in an effort to make the. valve reclose.

Our experience with stuck open valvesLin the past,has-shown this' action to.be. extremely ineffective in closing the'; valve.

No other remote control devices or block valves exist, so operator action with respect to stopping any blowdown is limited.

In addition, the: determination that a valve is open, and even which valve'is open, can-be.made by direct inspection in the area of the torus.

~Second,-and of equal concern, the LCO's proposed by

' Reference.(a) are-overly restrictive and are not commensurate with the original installation requirements for this instrumentation.

The original thermocouples on these valves'were not installed as safety-related equipment.and were provided without. redundancy.

The acoustic fluid ilow-monitors recently' installed in response.to

'NUREG-0578 section 2:.l.3.a were also not in~ stalled with any redundancy.and their reliability'has yet to be demonstrated.

Therefore,_ use of the LCO's-provided in Reference (a) could icause frequent shutdowns, withxresultant plant and fuel thermal cycles, which'would-beiunnecessary based upon the ' relative need of the instrumentation identified above.

We believe the LCO's provided cln~ourisubmittallare adequate in;that theyeprevent startup without all11nstrumentation'bei'ngloperable and require shutdown in a

_ reasonable : period 'of. time' when no instrumentation on any valve is operable.--

With respect to -the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) requirements,' obr Lproposed changes ~ include :an. implementation. date of

- Junell,3 1981,1whichiis in agr'eement'with previous 1 responses to the

, Lessons Learned; recommendations. 1The'" interim lsta'ffing requirements committed to in these responses.will be maintained 4until that date.

i din 1 addition,Ethe'positio'n/ title'for thelSTA function'at Dresden and

~

Quad 1CitiesLwillS be Shif t; Control RoomcEngineer '(SCRE), :and this

designatio'n hassbeencincludedjin the proposed changes.-

~

a-w N

p

,y

-Q -

D..

~

_, )

A

?

m-

~

+ g;a :

v7 w m;

.g a

f_. i. ~

~

L

'?

,.,f[:

, 9 j:v.-e.

3Ct

' (d.. "

-: g '

-4 4

n'

<.jpg g

j[:1

- n

• Commonwealth Edison :

4 f

3 (i,

?

$1

._:3_.

~

y x

One additional change'has~been proposed in' Table 3.24.for and 2.to-include airevised. reactor wate'r' level Quad. Cities'unitsi.1 instrument; range

tesulting from the incorporation of'a common

instrument'zero~pointi(also'aiLessons Learned recommendation)..

1

.. In accordance:withLthe; guidance'provided-iri Reference'(a),

no' fee is providedffor;thisLsubmittal per-10 CFR 170.11.

Please address any' questions concerning$.this matter'to this

~

- of fice. -

Three.(3) signed originals and fifty-seven-(57) copies of this transmittal are'.provided for'your use.

sq.

Very truly yours, Robert:F. Janecek Nuclear Licensing Administrator Boiling Water Reactors Enclosures cc: :RIII: Resident: Inspector, Dresden RIII Resident' Inspector,-Quad Cities J

SUBSCRIBED-.and SWO'RN to

,f befo Rry' d A(Wn

' No tary? Public.;

6-

,..=

-z 4

}', 1 x

v g

~

c n

.. :w p

Es l 6 6.86 A'-

, Z.

!?

Y-a.

s7 p

3_

s!.

., d,.

_ t 1

.s.

s

$ $y ' m.

c s

'. j;;

f ').

A.'

f

$4 S 3 ;._ -

r

(

T" w

>