ML20005D905
| ML20005D905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1989 |
| From: | Querio R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005D906 | List: |
| References | |
| BW-89-3215, NUDOCS 9001020214 | |
| Download: ML20005D905 (7) | |
Text
y c-Oc0 BW/89-3215 December 23,1989 1
$10RITYROUTINo Mr. A. Bert Davis I
Region lll Administrator pkg i
-~ --
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OE T t ^~
799 Roosevelt Road
[Q[
?L Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 M
f1LE
~
Subject:
Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 License No. NPF-77 Confirmation of Enforcement Discretion Technical Specification 3/4.5.4 - Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST)
NRC Docket No. 50-457
Reference:
December 22,1989 telephone conference calls between NRC Region lil and Braidwood Station personnel.
L
Dear Mr. Davis:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the verbal discretionary enforcement granted to Braldwood Station Unit 2 during a phone conversation between Messrs. Clayton and
- Taylor of USNRC Region ill and Messrs. Masters, Hoots and Miller of Commonwealth -
Edison, Braidwood Station. The discretionary enforcement was granted for a period of twenty-four hours beginning at 2200 hrs. on December 22,1989. The relief was limited to the RWST vent header temperature, which has a lower limit of 35'F per Technical Specification 3/4.5.4.
At approximately 1800 hrs. on December 22,1989, the RWST vent heater temperature had dropped to approximately 36 F, with a decreasing trend evident. This unusual circumstance is attributed to the extremely cold weather prevalent over the past several days. The Technical Specification relief was sought in order to provide sufficient time to implement compensatory actions to reverse the decreasing trend on vent header temperature.
1 l
This situation was discussed with members of your staff, and the relief was granted l
contingent on the completion of the following actions:
-l
- 1) Verify that no blockage in the vent header exists.
- 2) Perform a safety evaluation documenting the acceptability of continued operation with a lower vent header temperature. This evaluation shall be reviewed by the Onsite Review and Investigative Function.
}@d\\
1 g--D w DEC 2 81985
,4
- 3) Shut down the unit if the RWST bulk water temperature falls below the lower limit.
- 4) Do not allow any load swings on the affected unit.
Braidwood Station >ersonnel have compiled with the provisions of the relief approval, and these act ons have been reviewed with the Station Manager. The Safety Analysis and Onsite Review are attached.
Although the outdoor portion of the vent header is heat traced, this alone was not sufficient protection against the extremely cold weather. At approximately 0030 hrs, a temporary alteration was installed on the RWST recirculation pump and heater. This temporary alteration allowed the heater to run continuously, thereby allowing the RWST water temperature to increase above the normal setpoint. As the bulk water temperature slowly increased, so did the vent header temperature due to the rise in RWST vapor space temperature.
The vent header temperature was monitored frequently throughout'the night and soon after the compensatory measures were in place, the decreasing temperature trend was reversed. At no time did the vent header temperature drop below the Tech. Spec.
limit of 35 F. Therefore, entry into the Tech. Spec. Action Statement was never required.
- As a result of this incident, Braldwood Station is pursuing the actions necessary to preclude the recurrence of this situation.
Braldwooo Station is grateful to your staff for their timely response to our cold weather problem. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact D. Miller on extension 2702.
Respectfully submitted, R, E. Querlo tation Manager Braidwood Nuclear Station REO/DJM/rmg (15ZD71G) cc:
T. J. Malman K. L. Graesser T.J.Kovach S. C. Hunsader D. J. Miller 1
1* ' ;.
~
-SWAP 1205-311~
tw
, [* *
- 3 _,
.R; vision 1.
4 traidwood On-sito Review and Iny:stis tion Report
.Reytows h r.99-/60L c#
Dates /2.13-89 Subject Reviews Evddik o f lo w bb=Es Q Ac SMrw
.fmk
( b o sT) -t-emte.e S t._
~
Disciplines Reiuireds kA Buclear Power Plant Technology t
FB teacter operations-O c neactor ansineerins APPROVtD/
0D Chemistry.
1 OE tadiation Protection JUL 2 91986 =
0F Instrumentation and Contrei L
4hp Nechanical and Electrical Systems eMEfrYw
Participants:
? en Au
.5 e 0E
(
p T~5 S Ott Membership Approved E M b b 1 n 23-99 Technical StEff Supervisor,
/
Date l
10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation-is Required - - - - - - - - - - - - Y/5 Y
If yes, attach completed documentation.in accordance
.f with twAP 1205-4.
10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation Requires Action - - - - - - - - - - Y/W N
Submittal to Offsite Review is Required - - - - - - - - - - - - Y/ s -
Y 1
-Findings and Recommendations.
- 12.cb[ b cd cJieJ F ind.n s _ a Rec.%.wdd-ans.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee**eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee**
i On-Site Review f.,ommitteet Signature indicates concurrence with Findings and 1
Recommendations and 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation.
81anatureg Disciolinefs) 9313
& S, DrL-A Cn a 23-99 Alhofw/,or A.A
&> Wf
$0dN/l.7kdh$v A,8 b G 290R89 9
Approved by:
/
/ / J /> V
/
AfIc8 MANAGER
/ DsTE '
/
O/'
(Final) 0694P(072584)/0057A 1
l1
s 70 -..
~
Findings and Recommendations of OSR 89-160 The Onsite Review Committee has evaluated the impact of continued operation of Braldwood Unit 2 with the RWST vent header temperature less than 35 F, and finds no adverse safety impact based on the following considerations:
1)
Assurance is provided that the RWST vent header is not blocked based on the successful execution of temperature monitoring surveillances conducted daily since the outside air temperature has fallen below 35'F.
2)- The minimum tem wrature of 35'F required by Tech. Spec. 3/4.5.4 reflects a Westing wuse Standard Tech. Spec. value, and is based on ensuring that zron precipitation and ice and snow blockege do not occur. The vent header does not contain borated water; it communicates with the RWST vapor space. Thus, boron precipitation is not a concern. High accuracy contact pyrometers are available, so the capability to readily determine that the vent header temperature remains above 32 F exists. An allowable '
temperature of 33 F has been established, so that ice and snow formation will not occur.
~ 3)
' If the bulk RWST water temperature f alls below 35'F, the unit will be shut down in an orderly manner. This will ensure that no concems over boron precipitation arise.
4)
A tem wrary alteration is installed which allows continuous opera: ion of the RWST heaters, which will aid the installed heat tracing in maintaining the vent header temperature above freezing.
These sctions have and continue to ensure that the RWST is capable of delivering the required volume of borated water upon demand. With this capability ensured,'the results of the Chapter 15 Accident Analyses (UFSAR) remain valid.
16(122389)
ZD71G
- 1 7 J. ; *
- y DwAP 1205-671 R3 vision 0 4
1 10CFR50.59 FORMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION station N M C d Unit 2
System
$Z-OSR Wo.
99-/6 e t l l _l Modification No.
l _l Procedure No.
Rev.
]
~
l ~l Test No.
Rev.
l
,l Experiment No.
Rev.
Procedure / Test / Experiment Title Equipment Name kChuedth U
- b S bo e a 3e - t U lt -
Equipment Number M T C' i~I' Description
%chndsl Ev.Jo.42, /f.4d bb ef D4J.) & Lbh4 3
@be N o r g c.
/ % 4. (R. L3( 7) h 4 l8
% N o*
- b l* -
f-
'muw 2 4 6-pe*M
-t c. m p < r du.s +-. sa p &
~
l.
([
10 CFR 50.59 Questions
~
- 1) Is a change to the Technical Specifications needed?
YES NO
- 2) Is the probability of an occurrence, the consequence of an accident, or f
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the
'I FSAR, increased? YES NO P
becaute:
I b
snow y iu v il) % m kK a + M e. R wLT vcah ha' w h '"
l
+we u.a u t i m 4.s4 wed. 6t -f.<te3,4 h oe<a4-ru.-re, e.. m ps, l
w?4L N <r Amut mL'
-t e mo eca4v^ l[c.+
p re-c[ < 6 p o< a.<
m orc 1
ne s 4, o reask.sa vss A I. bel b dcAerm.'
he. kws T* vd pJ L 4e, p,, G
.\\
l t
l li
- 3).Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than i
any previously evaluated in the FSAR created? YES NO Y, because:
l Op ua l.'i.h, a4 %e Vta sT v n 4 INe, e,ad.
f4s ek operd. lil-., d Mr e
s VMiT,vas o, c,,/4. d ia /4, o u d.,, F M k ;2. L/ k - pt<IA la e N s u r,4 e
v.s
~ 6 e. f.unie./-[m sarsba M._ v J I,Je fe m, e r k,c L'
- 4) Is the margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, reduced? YES NO P, because:
3 1
'TL e 9.xa E.T uc>> f INe a a uou4k
+J. rw h of de ev ed.
~
4FFROyeo g ggg Performed By:
< M Date I b.1%-95 I
en Asowvvo Approved By m.~
Date i t-2 > - ?7 e
oe+4rra asviaw f
7128P(072586)
(Final) 0973A 1
Y
S ?"'C*
. SAFETY EVALUATION CHECKLIST /WORKSHEET
. TAP 1206-v;,'
K-R; visits 3-E rocedure/ Test / Modification Number Q%E M-l60 P
Rev. 4 t.~ us k ),<.L o $ ScN\\E., U b G-O t<~ y l N k Ved Lo e lemnte1,n J' ^
s E.
.)escription of the change (s) to the procedure or test or' description of the Mod:
[) d m w,,' r4 w.M 't IlwAi
.4 RR S.T ve A I Lt. t%per d reJ6<.y a h (. a_<f /3.u 6
33 - F.
11.b. Purpose of the change (s) to the procedure or test or pv.rpose of the Mod:
To c.,l\\w 0 f w 4 J-~
/en.M W. u_ gde,p A 4,',,,,,
4, y,ju rne4 s es +-
11.c.Listsys[emsai>Icopoeist eked:
E O
a
/
' "4.
bih C
- 24 List reference documents reviewed which describe the components or administrative c3ntrols applicable to the procedure or test.
Proposed tests must include review of l
UFSAR chapter 14.
REVIEW DOCUMENTS REVIEWED j.77
.g I 3 UFSAR Section(s) 4 / Y Y OL / 3 ['e V) f.
Fire Protection Report Section(s)
T c.
/
/
b.
SER Section(s) 8 V/tod W 6 26 g.
JIO's P7 c.. Tech Specs A h 5 '/ ' 3 k /, 2.
6 6 h.
CFR's
/Los d.
Previous Safety Evaluations 1.
Reg. Guides e.
Unit Operating License j.
Other XJr/t? r 6 M 1(.
/L4. m STc
(<w1w/-tL iv AL i. 4%&
//
3.
State-the effects of the proposed change on the following functions:
a) Site or Security Men' b) Mechanical M u.-t c)- Structural h--
d) Electrical te w e)
Instrument and Control te + +
f)
Fire Protection 49 -
g). Radiological W~
h) Flood Protection N*-
- 1) Administrative Control hn wl A A+ s Cwb-i t C,
+- L.w r P-W v<. + m;u e.
., 6-e_.
NOTE:
FOR MODIFICATIONS, SETPOINT CHANGES, COMPONENT REPLACEMENTS, QUESTIONS 4, 5, AND 6 ARE NOT APPLICABLE.
- 14..
Does the procedure or procedure revision constitute a change to a procedure as described in the UFSAR7 YES (
) NO ( + )
5.'
Does the test involve operating methods or configurations contrary to those as described in the UFSAR7 YES (
) NO ( & )
6 '.
Is a Tech. Spec. change required?
YES (
) NO ( t- )
If ALL of the answers in 4, 5, or 6 are NO, this evaluation is complete.
If AHX of the answers in 4, 5, or 6 are YES, answer the 10 CFR 50.59 questions on BwAP 1205-6T1.
APPROVED f'
La, c
n ELL i /2 CS APR 131989 PreParedBf (Final)
h [ $ ( '.t-p-' x
- :. f :., -
y BwAp 1203-6T2 1
Revision-1 10CFR50.59CHECKLISTFORFACILITlCNGES DS E Modificatien-Number M-I6*
[
Q w2v M l
Is any unreviewed safety question involved, i.e.,
(1) Is the probability of an occurrence or the consequences-of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to l'
. safety previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report increased?
Yes No P, (2) Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a differg.nt type than any previously evaluated in the Safety J{p Analysis Report created?- _Yes
.No (3) Is the margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any
.echnical Specification reduced?" Yes
,. No i
(1 Any Answer Yes (
)
All Answers No ( e) 1 Is a change in the Technical k
Yes (
)
Specification involved?
Request and receive Nuclear Regulatory No (4-)
Commission authorization for chance, Document-Change Including:
(1) Description of change (2) Written Safety Evaluation which provided-bases for items-(1), (2), and (3) above.
(3) Update FSAR (if required) i Description and Safety i
Authorization received (
)
Evaluation complete (4-)
l Initiate Installation of Modification 1-APPROVED (Final) 1 SEP 2 31986 7128p(091386) 0973A
- ME74Ya"w
..