ML20114B793

Application for Amend to License NPF-23,revising Tech Specs Pages 3/4 6-21,3/4 6-22,3/4 6-23 & 3/4 6-24 Re Footnote to Permit Certain Containment Isolation Valves to Be Opened on Intermittent Basis Under Administrative Control

ML20114B793
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	01/18/1985
From:	Tramm T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20114B794	List: ML20114B793 ML20114B802
References
9654N, NUDOCS 8501290506
Download: ML20114B793 (3)

Text

[

[ Commonwealth Edison f One First National Plaza. Chicago, libnois t, G 7 Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 (j' Chicago. Illinois 60690 January 18, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Byron Generating Station Unit 1 Containment Isolation Valves NRC Docket No. 50-454

Dear Mr. Denton:

Commonwealth Edison hereby requests amendment of the Byron 1 Operating license, NPF-23. This amendment is necessary to permit certain containment isolation valves to be opened on an intermittent basis under administrative control. NRC review of these changes is requested on an emergency basis.

Enclosed are proposed revisions to Technical Specification pages 3/4 6-21, 3/4 6-22, 3/4 6-23, and 3/4 6-24. A footnote is being added to permit intermittent opening of the manual isolation valves (lFWO15A, B, C, and D) on the chemical feed piping attached to the steam generator feedwater piping. Periodic operation of these valves is necessary to control secondary water chemistry.

This footnote is part the NRC's Stardardized Technical Specification but was indvertantly omitted from the Byron Technical Specifications. The same note is being attached to certain main steam line drain valves (lMS021A, B, C & D). These valves are positioned between the containment wall and the MSIV's. They must be opened intermittently to drain the main steam lines. This note is also being attached to the residual heat removal system hot leg suction valves (lRH8701A and B and 1RH8702A and B). These valves must be opened in modes 3 and 4 to accomplish decay heat removal during normal heatups and cooldowns. Appropriate administrative controls are in place to assure that these valves will be opened only when necessary.

We believe that changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. Attachment A to this latter contains our proposed basis for this determination. Similarly, we see no adverse environmental-impact associated with these changes.

Unless the NRC acts immediately upon this request, Byron 1 must be returned to Mode 5 because valve operations would not be

, p

m 4 .

9 permitted to control secondary water chemistry and steamline condensation.- Earlier notice of the need for these changes could not be-given because this omission from the Technical Specifications was discovered only today.

We understood that the NRC has already notified the State of Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety of these change.

The required fee for this change will be submitted under separate cover.

This letter is being telecopied to Mr. Len Olshan. One signed original and fifteen copies are also being provided.

Very truly yours, f ( fA/A.n T. R. Tramm Nuclear Licensing Administrator cc: J. G. Keppler - RIII Resident Inspector - Byron SUCSbRIBED'AND SWORN to before me this- / L-/ day of Ow si, , , 1985

~"

Mtitbk:(7 a Lbi.-.)

. Notary,Public f

t T

9654N 1

b

a .

ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION Description of Amendment Request This proposed amendment change adds a footnote to Table 3.6-1 which had been inadvertently omitted. The footnote is being added is identical to the one used in the Standard Technical Specifications.

Basis for Proposed-No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of specific standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870).

Example (i) reads: "a purely administrative change to Technical Specifications: ...a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature.' Clearly this proposed changes falls within example (1). Discussions with the NRC staff and our own review indicates the footnote was inadvertantly omitted. The intent of Table 3.6-1 was to clearly include that footnote.

.Therefore, since this application for amendment involves proposed changes that are similar to examples for which no significant hazards consideration exists, Commonwealth Edison has made the determination that the application involves no signficant hazards consideration.

9654N

.