ML20134L123
| ML20134L123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1985 |
| From: | Shawn Campbell SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SAFE) |
| To: | Youngblood B NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509030065 | |
| Download: ML20134L123 (3) | |
Text
--
Sinnissippi Alliance L F for the Environment 326 North Avon Street Rockford, Illinois 61103 U.S. N.R.C.
Attn:
B.J. Youngblood t
Washington, D.C.
20555 August 14, 1985 On August 9 we received notice of the enclosed amendment request for the Byron Nuclear Power Plant.
We went to the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) and found outdated technical specifications. We are in no position to determine whether or not the request by Commonwealth Edison is appropriate.
If the public is to be afforded the chance to respond to such requests, we should have access to updated information.
We could intervene in the amendment request, ask for a hearing, and receive the information during discovery, but that could prove to be a waste of your time and ours.
We therefore request that you update the technical specifications in our local PDR, and review the material to insure that it is complete.
i Please respond as to when this will be done.
- Yours, 2.,
Stanley. Campbell Secretary cc: Rep. Lynn Martin p?A 8509030065 850014 Ii PDR ADOCK 05000454 P
PDR 1
O Federal Regist:r / V 1. 50. N.147 / Wedn;sd;y, July 31.1985 / N: tic:s 310G7 involve a significant reduction in a to enter OC 2 (Startup/Ilot Staadby) the APRMs and IRMs in the respectise
['
' margin of safety.Derefore,the staff frorn OC 1, the surveillsnee tests tables and eloes not constitute a
/
proposes that the amendments do not required for OC 2 must be performed.
significant change In a margin of safety, involve a significant hazards llowever the channel functional test Based on our review of the consideration.
circuitry of some instrumentation is amendment request and the above Loco / Public Document Room bypassed when the RMS is in the RUN discussion. the Commis: Ion proposes to location: Southport. Brunswick County, position, thereby prohbitine determine that operation of the facility Library,109 W. Moore Street, Southport, performance of the channef functional
. in accordance with the proposed North Carolina 28461.
test. The proposed TS change would amendment would not:(1) Involve a Attorneyforlicensee: George F.
allow for performance of the required significant increase in the probability or Trowbridge. Esquire. Sha w. Pittman.
surveillance test to be completed within consequences of an accident previously Potts and Trowbridge.1800 M Street, 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of entering OC 2 from OC 1 for evaluated:(2) create the possibility of a NW Washington, DC. 20036.
the affected instruments. Instruments new or different kind of accident from NRC Bmnch Chief: Domenic B.
affected by this change are identified as any accident previously evaluated or (3)
Vassallo.
Items 1.a and 1.b of TS Table 4.3.1-1 and involve a significant reduction in a Items 1.d. 3.a. 3.c, and 3.d of n Table margin of safety.Therefore, this request Camlina Power & IJght Company, 434-1.
involves no significant hazards Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, In addition to the changes described consideration.
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 above, a weekly channel functional test Loco / Public Document Room and 2 Brunswick County, North is added to the Neutron Flux liigh trip location Southport, Brunswick County Carolina function of the Intermediate Range Library.109 W. Moore Street. Southport.
Date of application for amendment:
Monitors (IRM) during OC 2 (Item 1.a-North Carolina 28481.
july 1,1985:
Table 4 3.1-1).This ensures that the trip Attorneyforlicensee: George F.
Descript on of amendment mquest function is periodically tested during Trowbridge* Esquire' Shaw, Pittman, The proposed amendment would revise extended unit operation in OC 2 (greater m en dge. m M heet the Technical Specifications (TS) to than 7 days).This survei!!ance as@nM%
change the surveillance requirements for requirement is currently in effect for the NRC Fr,anch Chief: Domenic B%
the Reactor Protection System 1RM inoperative trip function and is Vassallo.
Instrumentation and the Control Rod consistent with the Standard Techr'ical Withdrawal Block Instrumentation as Specif cation (NUREG-0123).
Commonwealth Edisos Company, given in Table 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.4-1 of the Basisforproposedno significant Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-Brunswick.1 and Brunswick-2 TS.
hozords consideration determination:
455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Ogle At specified intervals and/or prior to We have reviewed this request and County, Illinois each reactor startup, the rionitors determined that the proposed
"# #I"PPh#"I # *'"'"#*'#
associated with the Control Rod amendment does not increase the Withdrawal Block and the Reactor probability or consequences of an 28.1 %
- C#'## " #I"**" g ##
Protection System are required to have accident previously evaluated as there The amendment would revise the channel functional tests performed.
is no physical alternation of the plant Technical Specification Section 6.12.2.
flowever when the Reactor Mode configuration or changes to sdpoints or The proposed change would allow Swi;ch (RMS)is in the shutdown operating parameters. The operational m nnel to enter areas with radiation position, existing circuitry in the RMS condition of the plant is based on RMS fevels g eater than 1000 mR/h during prohibits testing of some of these position and average reactor coolant certam mergenc,les weout an instruments. In order to perform the temperature.The RMS position controls approved Radiation Work Permit channel functional test on these only the logic circuitry of the plant: none (RWP). During emergency situations instruments without excessive circuit of the other parameter dictating an OC inv tving personnelinjury or potential jumping, this TS change would allow the will be varied when performing the damage to major equipment, the RMS to be temporarily placed in a required channel functional test.
proposed change wold allow for position other than that corresponding Our review also venfied that the continuous surveillance and readiation to the actual plant Operational proposed amendment does not create monitoiing of the area by a qualified Condition (OC). It should be noted that the possibility of a new kind of accident ndivhfualin lieu of an approved RWP.
I no change in the actual plant operation because the control rods will be fully condition will occur, only a change in inserted and remain so until all LCOs Bosts fo. E-oposed No Significant Horoids usederation Determination the position of the RMS. Instruments are met for the performance of required Based on the three criteria in 10 CFR affected by these proposed changes are surveillance during Startup/ Hot for defining a significant hazards identified as items 2 s and 2.b of TS Standby. Shutdown or Refueling modes.
50.92,dera%n operation of Byron consi t
Table 4.3.1-1 and items 1.b.1.d. and 4.a Also. performing a channel functional 8
of TS Table 4.3.4-1.
test in the actual logic configuration in Station. Units 1 and 2. In accordance A similar conditions exists for other which the components will be required with the proposed amendment will not:
instruments associated with the Control during the surveillance addresed by this (1)Invo!= a significant increase in Rod Block and Reactor Protection request is preferable to the extensive the prcbabihty or consequences of an S) stem when the plant is in OC 1 (Run).
use oflumpers currently employed to accident previously evaluated.The Section 4 0.4 of the TS prohibits entry accomplish the channel functional test.
probabiley of an accident previously into an operational condition unless all The addition of footncte (d) to items evaluated remains unchanged since the Surveillance Requirements associated 1.s and 1.b of Table 4.3.1-1 and to Items proposed change only involves an I
with the I.imiting Conditions for 1.d. 3.a. 3 b. 3.c. and 3.d of Table 4.3.4-1 administrative control associated with Operation (LCO) applicable to the OC to allows for performance of the required radiation protection or workers. The be entered have been performed within surveillance within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of entering consequences of an accident previously j
the applicable surveillance laterval or as OC 2 from OC 1. This change is evaluated also remain unchanged since othewise specified. Therefore,in order consistent with existing allowances for the offsite doses that have been i
i
.-=.
g, e
a l
31068 Federal RMster / Vct. 50. NL tt;7 / W:dnesday, luly 31,1985 / N:tice3 predicegi for previously evaluated restrictions or controls that are not involve any signiftant increase in the.
cccidents will remain unchanged.
included in the present Technical probability or consequences of an (2) Create the possibility of a new or Specifications, and fit example (ii).
accident previcasly evaluated, would diff; rent kind of accident from any The staff therefore proposes that these not create the possibility of a new or cccid;nt previously evaluated because amendments do not involve significant different kind of accident previously I
r1dirtion protection for workers will hazards consideration.
analyzed, and would involve no still be in effect. %e proposed change LocoIPublic Document Room reduction in the margin of safety. We, cll:ws for an alternate means of location: Zion Denton Ubrary District.
therefore propose to characterize the providing radiation protection for 2000 Emmaus Avunue. Zion. Illinois proposed amendment as insobing no work:rs during certain emergencies.
60099.
significant hazards consideration.
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a A ttorney to licensee: P. Steptoe. Esq.
LocalPublic Document Room mirgin of safety because the Isham. Uncoln and Beale. Counselors at location: B.F. Jones Memorial Ubrary, administrative radiation exposure limits Law.Three First National Plaza,51st for w:rkers are not affected by this Floor Chicago. Illinois 00602.
663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa.
Pennsylvania 15001.
change.
NRC Dmnch Chief: Steven A. Varga.
Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Th:refore, the staff proposes to d:t;rmine that the amendment does not Duquesne Ught Company. Docket No.
Charnoff. Esquire. Jay E. Silberg, involve a significant hazards 50-334. Beaver Valley Power Station.
Esquire Shaw.Pittman.Potts. and Unit No.1, Shippingport. Pennsylvania Trowbridge.1800 M Street. NW.
of I DocumeM Date of ameni/ ment request Washingt n. D.C. 20038.
location: Rockford Public Ubrary,215 N.
December 12,1984, as supplemented NRC Bmech Chief: S:even A. Varga.
Wym:n Street. Rockford. Illinois 61103.,Jdne 27,1985 Nebraska Public Power District. Docket IterneyforlicFAWe3fich1It1 Miller.~ ~
Description ofomendment request:
No. So-29e. Cooper Nuclear Statica.
Ishim. Uncoln & Deale. One First Regarding the request for amendment Nemaha County. NebrsAs -
N tional Plaza. 42nd Floor. Chicago, dated December 12.1984, the Illinois 60003.
Commission has issued a proposed no D teofamendmentrequest: April 28 NRCBmnch Chief B.l. Youngblood, significant hazards determination on 1985. as supplemented May 5. and June Commonwealth Edison Compa'ny, February 27,1985 (50 FR 7986). He June 14.1985.
De8ct/ tion ofamendment request P,
Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304 Zion 1985 request, however, expands the Nuclear Power Station. Unit Nos.1 and scope of the December 1984 request as The proposed amendment would revise rollows.
the Technical Specifications (TS) in the
- 2. B rton County. lilinois The expanded scope of the proposed following areas:(1) Standby Cas Date of applicationforamendments amendment would revise applicable Treatment System (SCTS) and Control Jun228.1985.
specifications to allow the use of the Room Ventilation System flow and Description of amendments request:
Low Ifeed Safety injection (UISI) operability requirements: (2) Reactcr Thes2 amendments would modify rumps with an open Reactor Collant Vessel Water Level trip settings;(3)
Sections 3.22. 4.22. and 6.5.D of the System (RCS) vent of 3.14 square inches clanfication of Refueling Interlock Technical Specifications. These changes in place of a charging pump when in requirements;(4) deletion of Equipment cra being submitted in order to convert Modes 5 and 6. Applicable surveillance Qualification (EQ) program deadline these Sections to the Standardized requirements would be added to require date; and (5) correction of typographical Technical Specification's content. In all demonstration of UISI pump operability errors and other editorial changes.
categ: ries, with the exception of and verification of an open vent when (1) SCTS and Contro/ Room hydraulic snubber visual inspection and used in place of the charging pump. The Ventilation System. The proposed functional testing. the proposed Mode 5 and 6 Action statement would changes to the SCTS and control room Tzchnical Specifications willimpose also be resised to specify action to be ventilation system TS would revise the additional restrictions that are not taken wher, no charging pump or UlSt limiting conditions for operation (LCO) included in the present Techniral pump is operable. no Dases would be for each system to specify the numerical Sp:cifications.
revised to provide justification for using values for design flow rate for filter While the proposed programs for a UlSI pump in place of a charging bypass limits. flow velocity for filter hydr ulic enubber visualinspections pump.
effectiveness limits, and system fan end functional testing he se not been ne use tRoe UfSt pumps in capacities. At present, the numerical significantly altered, the acceptince conjunction with an open RCS vent in values for these parameters are not cri'eria for these activities have been lieu of a charging pump when in Modes provided in the system LCOs. The more closely defined. Thus, these 5 and 6 will allow the removal of the proposed change would also add the constraints also coastitute an additonal latter from mice for inspection.
numerical value of reactor budding contr:1 not included in the present modification or milntenance.
pressure that must be obtained from T;chnical Specifications.
Basis forproposedno significant SGTS operation. The current SG'IS LCO B=isforproposed no sognificnnt bc:ctds cc.-:Meration dstermination:
does not address this requirement in hazards considerution determination:
Modes 5 and b refer to cold shut down addition to the above, wording -ha:7es Th2 Commission's examples of actions refueling. respectis ely. The requested are proposed to clarify the Bases secuon involving no significant hazards amendment would permit use of either for both the SGTS and the control room consideration (48 FR 14870) include:(ii) the chargict pump or the UlSI pumps ventilation systems.
o ch:nge that constitutes an additional during these modes. Therefore, the plant (2) Reaction Vessel Water Level Trip.
limitation, restriction, or control not would continue to have the capability to The proposed amendment would change presently included in the technical provide reactivity control and coolant the containment isolation trip setting for specifications: for example. a more makeup. via use of either type of pumps.
the reactor water sample valves from string:nt surveillance requirement.
On such basis, we conclude that the reactor low. low water level (greater Tha abose changes to Sections 3.22.
proposed 6mendment, as described in than or equal to -37 trtl to reactor low-4 22 and 65 B allinvoh e additional the lune 27.1985 submittal, would not low-hw water level (greater than