ML20205B837
| ML20205B837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | Johnson I COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 1960K, NUDOCS 8608120177 | |
| Download: ML20205B837 (2) | |
Text
m
/
h f
\\._,. One First Nahonal Plaza. Chca00, Illinois C-Address Reply to: Poet Omco Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60600 0767
]
August 6, 1986 1
a i
Mr. Harold Denton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC.
20555
Subject:
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457
Reference:
Letter dated August 5, 1986 from I.M. Johnson (CECO) i to H.R. Denton (NRC), regarding j
Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License, NFP-37, Appendix A, Technical Specifications, NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 l
and 50-455
Dear Mr. Denton:
In the above referenced letter, Commonwealth Edison submitted a proposed amendment to Appendix A, Technical Specifications to Facility Operating License NPF-37 (Byron Station)
]
to make two changes pursuant to the criteria of 10CFR 50.90.
i i
These changes are also applicable to Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2, and should be incorporated into the initial Braidwood i
Technical Specifications, if they are found to be acceptable.
i l
It is requested that the Byron submittal dated August 5, l
1986 be placed on the Braidwood Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457.
The l
Byron submittal is attached to this letter.
1
}
There is no fee associated with this submittal.
Commonwealth Edison is notifying the State of Illinois of our application for this amendment by transmitting a copy of this j
letter and its attachment to the designated state official.
t i
i 4
0608120177 860006 i
PDR ADOCK 05000454 P
PDR o\\
\\
t t
1 Please direct any questions you may have regarding this matter to this office.
One signed original and fifteen copies of this letter for your use.
Very truly yours, I. M. Johnso Nuclear Licensing Administrator 4
4
/klj att.
cc:
Resident Inspector-Byron Braidwood L. Olshan J. Stevens M. C. Parker 1960K l
1 a
1
Commonwealth Edison One First Nabonal Ptara, Checago, Mnois Addross Reply to: Post Omce Box 767 Crucago, Encis 60600 0767 4
August 5, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC.
20555
Subject:
Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License, NPF-37, Appendix A, Technical Specifications NRC Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455
Dear Mr. Denton:
Pursuant to 10CFR 50.90, Commonwealth Edison proposes to amend Appendix A Technical Specifications to Facility Operating License NPF-37, to make a change.
This proposed change is listed in, and further described in Attachment 2.
The proposed change has been reviewed and approved by both On-site and Off-site review in accordance with Commonwealth Edison Company procedures.
We have reviewed this proposed amendment in accordance with 10CFR 50.92(c) and determined that no significant hazards considerations exist.
Our evaluation is documented in.
This change is also applicable to Byron Unit 2.
Commonwealth Edison is notifying the State of Illinois of our application for this amendment by transmitting a copy of this letter and its' attachment to the designated state official.
In accordance with 10CFR 170, a fee remittence in the amount of $150.00 is also enclosed.
j
)
.. Please direct any questions you may have regarding this matter to this office.
Three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37) copies of this letter and its attachments are provided for your use.
Very truly yours, I. M. Johns Nuclear Licensing Administrator
/klj att.
cc:
Resident Inspector-Byron L. Olshan i
M. C. Parker Attachments 1:
Proposed Changcs to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating Lic. NPF-37 2:
Summary of Changes 3:
Evaluation of Significant Hazards Consideration SUBSC IBED and W RN to befor me th[s.
day of
@ t K_
1986 AM
' Notary Public 1951K I
O PLANT SYSTEMS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION
- 3. 7.1. 2 At least tw'o independent steam generator auxiliary feedwater pumps and associated flow paths shall be OPERABLE with:
a.
One motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from an ESF Bus, and b.
One direct-driven diesel auxiliary feedwater pump capable of being powered from a direct-drive diesel engine and an OPERABLE Diesel Fuel Sucply System consisting of a day tank containing a minimum ;IG3::pt EW 20 gallonsE of fuel.
APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, and 3.
ACTION:
a.
With one auxiliary feedwater pump inoperable, restore the required auxiliary feedwater pumps to OPERABLE status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
b.
With both auxiliary feedwater pumps ' inoperable, be in at least HOT STANDBY within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in HOT SRUTDOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
SURVEILLANCE REOUIREMENTS 4.7.1.2.1 Each auxiliary feedwater pump shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:
a.
At 'least once per 31 days on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS by:
1)
Verifying that the pump develops a differential pressure of greater than or equal to 1825 psid at a flow of greater than or equal to 85 gpm on the recirculation flow when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5; BYRCtr - UNITS 1 & 2 3/4 7-4 wf)DJ L-Q"% W Q r a nn n-7 p
'r 3
i-INSTRUMENTATION SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION j
i 3.3.3.3 The seismic monitoring instrumentation shown in Table 3/3-7 shall ce a
OPERA 8LE.
j APPLICABILITY: At,all times.
]
ACTION:
With one or more of the above required seismic monitoring instruments I
a.
)
inoperable'for more than 30 days,' prepare and submit a Special Report j
to the Commission pursuant to Specification 6.9.2 within the next 10 days outlining the cause of the malfunction and the plans for restoring l
the instrument (s) to OPERABLE status.
4 i
b.
The provisions of Specifications 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 are not apifcable.
l SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS
^7 1
]
4.3.3.3.1 The seismic monitoring instrumentation, shall be determined OPERAELE:
I At least once per 31 days by verifying' operable status indications of t
)
a.
l the seismic monitoring instrumentation.
3 l
b.
At least once per 92 days by verifying that:
l 1)
The triaxial acceleration sensors and the time-history accelero-3 graphs properly process the equipment internal test signals.
4 2)
The response spectrum analyzer properly executas its diagnostic routine.
At least once per 184 days by verifying that the triaxial acceleration c.
sensors and the time-history accelerographs properly record the equipment internal test signals. The test may be performed in lieu of the test required by Specification 4.3.3.3.1.b.1), and d.
At.least 6nce'per 18 monthsg L W ; C :- g by:
l t
l' 1)
Verifying the electronic calibration of the time-history i
accelerographs.
2)
Installing fresh magnetic recording plates in the triaxial peak accelerographs.
4.3.3.3.2 Upon actuation of the seismic monitoring instruments, the equipment t
l
+
listed in Table 3.3-7 shall be restored to OPERABLE status within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following the seismic event., Data shall be retrieved from actuated instruments l
and analyzed to determine the. magnitude of the vibratory ground motion.
A j
Soecial Report shall be prepared and submitted to the Commission pursuant to l
Specification 6.9.2 within 14 days describing the magnitude, frequency spectrum and resultant effect upon facility features important to safety.
7 t,
,\\
t
[
e i
f BYRON - UNITS 1 & 2 3/4 3-44
?
l u
I h,(
9.;
ATTACHMENT 2
\\)
I i.
Summary of Chances I
i Two changes have been identified in the Byron Stat-ion i
Technical Specifications due to differences between Unit 1 and Unit g
2, or are administrative in nature as indicated below:
i' 1)
Page 3/4 3-44, Surveillance Requirements 4.3.3.3.1d i
l Delete the words ", during shutdown," and the comma proceeding and following the words, so the sentence reads:
"At least once per 18 months by:
2)
Page 3/4 7-4, Auxiliary Feedwater System, Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.1.2.b.
a l
Delete the words " level of 714".and insert "of" in its place.
Also, remove the parenthesis surrounding j
420 gallons, so the sentence reads:
"One l
direct-driven diesel engine and an OPERABLE Diesel Fuel Supply System consisting of a day tank containing a minimum of 420 gallons of fuel.
6 i
l 1
i i
]
I i
l 1
t c
V l
1 i
i i
i r?
, ;.r. _ -..--
...-,__..m._,-
m
___--....,--mm,_,._,~.,,,...-4.
~..... _, -.... _ -..
ATTACHMENT 3 Evaluation of Significant Hazards Consideratien A.
Scismic Instrumentation (pace 3/4 3-44)
Description of Amendment Request The requested change deletes "during shutdown" for the surveillance requirement.
This procedure can be done in any mode and does not require shutdown conditions.
As currently worded, both Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 would need to be shutdown for the performance of this surveillance.
The reason this constraint was originally imposed was due to ALARA considerations.
Although the seismic monitors are located inside containment, the tests are perfarmed outside containment.
Therefore, ALARA is not a pertinent issue in determining when these curveillances are performed.
This proposed change is also applicable to Braidwood and, if approved, should be included in the draft Braidwood Technical Specifications.
Basis for Proposed No Sionificant Hazards Consideration Determination Commonwealth Edison has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards considerations.
In accordance with the criteria of 10CFR 50.92(c),
the proposed amendment does not:
(1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
(a) the proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which the surveillances are performed.
The change merely allows the option of doing the seismic instrumentation surveillances while the units are in l
operation.
The seismic instrumentation does not perform a protective function: changing the mode of operation during which the surveillances are performed does not cause a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
j
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of (2) accident from an accident previously evaluated; because:
i i
(a) the sole purpose of these instruments is to perform a monitoring function.
Therefore, changing the mode of operation during which these tests are done does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
This is en administrative change which would (b) permit surveillances to be performed while the units are operating.
4 Involve a significant reduction in the margin of (3) safety, because:
there is no margin of safety associated with (a) these seismic monitoring instruments.
Based on the preceeding assessment, Commonwealth Edison has determined that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and request its approval in accordance with i
the provisions of 10CFR 50.91(a)(4).
j i
B.
Auxiliary Feedwater System (Dace 3/4 7-4)
Description of Amendment Recuest The requested change is to replace the words " minimum level (420 gallons) of fuel" for the diesel fuel supply system day of 71%(specification 3.7.12), with " minimum of.420 gallons of fuel".
tank This change is sought to remove the 71% reference from the Technical Specifications.
The 71% figure is based on level indication which is a The function of the diesel fuel supply system day tank dimensions.
dimensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 day tanks differ, hence, the 71%
reference is not valid for Unit.2.
The minimum required level of 420 gallons is correct for both units and is not being altered.
This change is therefore considered an administrative change for clarification.
This proposed Technical Specification change is also applicable to Brai6 wood and, if approved, should be included in the draft Braidwood Technical Specifications.
L
- ~.
i Basis for No Sionificant Hazards Consideration i
4 Commonwealth Edison has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that it involves no significant hazards i
considerations.
In accordance with the criteria of 10CFR 50.92(c),
the proposed amendment does not:
Involve a significant increase in the probability or (1) consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
(a) the proposed amendment does not alter the minimum required level vi fusi in tus diccel fuel supply system for the direct driven diesel auxiliary feedwater pump.
The amendment merely deletes references to (b)
"71%" to eliminate confusion due to different instrument spans and physical tank capacity on Unit 1 and Unit 2.
~
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of (2) accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
(a) the proposed amendment does not allow any new equipment or modes of operation which could initiate or effect the control of a transient or accident because the minimum required level of fuel for the DFSS day tank is not being altered.
Involve a significant reduction in the margin of (3) safety, because:
(a) there are no changes being made to hardware, or in the manner that the system is being operated.
Hence, the margin of safety _is not being compromised or changed.
This proposed licensing amendment should be considered an administrative change.
Based on the preceeding assessment. Commonwealth Edison has determineG that this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and request its approval in accordance with the Provisions of 10CFR 50.91(a)(4).
1923K
.