ML20215D414

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Confirmation That Tech Specs Accurately Reflect as-built Plant & Fsar.Confirmation Submitted to Satisfy NRC 860822 Request
ML20215D414
Person / Time
Site: Braidwood  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/03/1986
From: Reed C
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2211K, NUDOCS 8610140127
Download: ML20215D414 (4)


Text

..-

.J .

} Commonwealth Edison 72 West Adams Street Chicago, Ilhnois y

  • Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767~

Chicago, Ilknois 60690 - 0767 October 3, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications NRC Docket Nos. 50-456/457

REFERENCES:

See Attachment

Dear Mr. Denton:

This letter provides Commonwealth Edison's confirmation that the Technical Specifications which have been prepared for Braidwood Units 1 and 2 accurately reflect the as-built plant and the FSAR. This confirmation is submitted to satisfy the NRC's request in reference (u).

Because Braidwood is a replicate of the Byron Station, the Braidwood Technical Specifications were developed from the approved Byron Technical Specifications. The accuracy of the Byron Technical Specifications has been demonstrated by direct experience with them since Byron Unit I was licensed in late 1984. The only differences between the Technical Specifications for Byron and Braidwood are site-specific and typographical / editorial in nature.

As there are only a limited number of differences between Byron and Braidwood, the reviews documented in references (f) and (g) support any conclusions regarding the Braidwood Technical Specifications. These circumstances, and the reviews described below for the Braidwood Technical Specifications, provide a high degree of confidence in the appropriateness of the Braidwood l Technical Specifications, i

In addition to the above referenced reviews, the development of the l

Braidwood Technical Specifications involved an extensive, multidisciplined review of the entire volume to further assure their accuracy. Braidwood Station personnel conducted a 100% on-site review of proposed Technical Specifications for Braidwood derived from a marked-up version of the Byron Full power Technical Specifications, and a 100% on-site review of all station-initiated technical changes since the initial submittal. In addition, input and review was obtained from several other organizations when deemed appropriate by the Braidwood Station. These organizations included: Byron Station and several departments in the Commonwealth Edison Company, including Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Licensing, Nuclear Fuel Services, and Project Engineering. Appropriate credit has also been taken for the reviews of the Byron Technical Specifications conducted by Westinghouse (NSSS vendor) and Sargent & Lundy (Architect- Engineer) 0610140127 861003 6 QY (g

{

PDR ADOCK 0500 A I

s All substantive changes from the approved Byron Technical Specifications are site-specific in nature. It is our understanding that substantial agreement on them has been achieved through discussions with the NRC Staff.

Several change requests applicable to Braidwood are currently pending on the Byron and Braidwood dockets. These changes are listed below with brief descriptions of their status and acceptable deadlines for their resolution.

, ISSUE TIMEFRAME FOR RESOLUTION a

HELB Instrumentation - Proposed Prior to initial issuance specification submitted 9/16/86 of license.

(Johnson to Denton). Removal of these instruments from ESP Tables is also required Heatup and Cooldown Curves - Prior to initial issuance Westinghouse has issued revised of license curves. Submitted 8/13/86 (Miosi to Denton).

Fire Protection tables - number Prior to initial issuance

! and location of detectors and hose of license stations updated to reflect as-built i facility. Submitted 8/15/86 l (Johnson to Denton)

Interim Technical Specifications for Prior to initial issuance VA, VC deferrals. Submitted 9/30/86 of license.

(Miosi to Denton).

Maximum uranium weight per fuel Prior to initial issuance rod submitted 7/30/86 (Johnson to of license.

Denton) l Grid plane locations - Westinghouse Prior to 5% license.

has altered the reference point for the measurement of these locations.

New locations submitted 9/30/86 (Johnson to Denton).

Target Axial Flux difference value. Prior to 5% license.

Request submitted 7/30/86 (Johnson to Denton).

Diesel Oil Day Tank Level - The level Prior to Full Power license.

% currently reflected as being equiv-alent to 420 gallons is within 2% of absolute accuracy. Submitted 8/5/86 (Johnson to Denton).

I i

t

. - - . , , . , . . . . - . . . . . , . . ~ - - . ---.___,m _,- . ~ . , _ , - , . _ _ . . . - - _ _ - , _ _. , _ . . _ , - - - , ~ , - - - , . , , -..y_--,._,

_ ISSUE TIMEFRAME FOR RESOLUTION Seismic Monitor location - Proposed Prior to Full Power License.

location of sixth monitor submitted i 9/29/86 (Miosi'to Denton). Reference to Pond Screenhouse monitor requires
deletion.

Section 6 changes to reflect Station Staff's convenience i hanager concept - no technical impact. Submitted 9/29/86 (Johnson to Denton).

Based on the above described extensive, in-depth reviews, and the proposed resolutions of the above listed docketed change requests, Edison believes that the Braidwood Technical Specifications accurately reflect the as-built facility and the Byron /Braidwood FSAR as amended by Amendment 47. The upcoming draft i Amendment 48, to be docketed prior to fuel load, has also been reviewed to ensure consistency with the Technical Specifications.

i There are certain Technical Specification requirements, such as surveillance times, which are patterned after the Westinghouse Standardized Technical Specifications and are not directly linked to specific FSAR analyses. To the extent that we can demonstrate such requirements to be unnecessarily conservative, we intend to propose

. Technical Specification changes in the future.

l

All of the safety limits, LCO's and setpoints specified in the l technical specifications are based upon conservative analyses. To j the extent that those analyses are unnecessarily conservative, we j may be proposing specific changes to redefine those limits. Changes to correct overly conservative technical specifications may also be i proposed as experience is gained through the performance of those ,

surveillances and as the Technical Specifications are implemented j during the startup program.

i We have also reviewed the Technical specification against out

, understanding of the NRC Staff's SER. We are not aware of any changes required to the Technical Specifications based on this i review.

l To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained

! herein are true and correct. In some respects, these statements are

! not based on my personal knowledge but upon information received i from other commonwealth Edison and contractor employees. Such

information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable, s

_4-If there are any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

  • ^

yaL --\

Cordell Reed Vice President CR/DLF/df/2214K

^

1

,/

ATTACHMENT Refer'nces: e (a): August 27, 1984 letter from B. J. Youngblood to D. L. Farrar.

(b): October 12, 1984 letter from B. J. Youngblood to D. L. Farrar.

(c): October 19, 1984 letter from B. J. Youngblood to D. L. Farrar.

(d): October 23, 1984 letter from T. R. Trams to H. R. Denton.

I (e): May 2, 1984 letter from L. O. DelGeorge to H. R. Denton.

(f): October 23, 1984 letter from C. Reed to H. R. Denton.

l (g): February 12, 1985 letter from C. Reed to H. R. Denton.

(h): July 17, 1985 letter from A. D. Miosi to H. R. Denton.

(1): October 7, 1985 letter from B. J.Youngblood to D. L. Farrar.

} (j): November 20, 1985 letter from A. D. Miosi to H. R. Denton.

(k):- January 13, 1986 letter from J. A. Stevens to D. L. Farrar.

(1): April 7, 1986 letter from A. D. Miosi to H. R Denton.

i (m): June 10, 1986 letter from J. A. Stevens to D. L. Farrar.

9 (n): July 1, 1986 letter from A. D. Miosi to H. R. Denton.

(o): July 17, 1986 letter from D. L. Farrar to H. R. Denton.

l (p): July 30, 1986 letter from I. M. Johnson to H. R. Denton.

1 (q): August 5, 1996 letter from I. M. Johnson to H. R. Denton.

(r): August 13, 1986 letter from A. D. Miosi to H. R. Denton.

4 (s): August 15, 1986 letter from I. M. Johnson to H. R. Denton.

. (t): August 19, 1986 letter from I. M. Johnson to H. R. Denton.

f (u): August 22, 1986 letter from V. S. Noonan to D. L. Farrar.

(v): September 10, 1986 letter from I. M. Johnson to H. R. Denton.

(w): September 16, 1986 letter from I. M. Johnson to H. R. Denton.

1 2211K i

a i

I 4

.----.,-,-----m-#- __w,-.,.,-_.-- _,,,-_,,c,,_, - --,. . , , , - , - - . , , . . - _ ,--.,w,._._.,.r,---,... . - - - - .. _ - , . . .-..m-.-y ~, . , , , . . - .. - _,.-- - _ _ - ..