ML20247N911
| ML20247N911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247N908 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908030224 | |
| Download: ML20247N911 (2) | |
Text
-
5f![
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
I
.,E WASHWGTON, D. C. 20555
\\..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTIWG AMENDMENT NO.' 31 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. NPF-37 AND NPF-66 BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-454 AND 50-455 AN,D, SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 21 TO FACILITY OPERATIflG LICENSES NOS. NPF-72 AND NPF-77 BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 At:D 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-456 AND 50-457 1.0 INTR _0 DUCTION By letter dated June 17,1987, supplemented May 6, 1988 and June 23, 1989, Co m enwealth Edison Company (the licensee) prcposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would modify the ACTION statements that apply when some of the reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection systems are inoperable.
2.0 EVALUATION By letter dated June 17, 1987, the licensee proposed changes to TS ACTION statements 3.4.6.lb. and c.
The proposed change to ACTION statement b. would have allowed 30 days to restore the Containment Floor Drain and Resctor Cavity Flow Monitoring System to operable before beginning to shut down the plant. We did not find this acceptable because we felt that 30 days were to long to be without this flow monitoring system, and we didn't think it should take 30 days to restore this system to operable status, The proposed change to ACTION statement c. would have changed the ACTION statement to apply to any two of the three leakage detection systems. The original TS applies to two specific leakage detection systems. The staff did not approve this change because the licensee did not satisfactorily justify the need to make such a change.
l By letter dated May 6, 1988, the licensee revised its proposal. The revised proposal was to allow the Sump Narrow Range Level Instruments as an alternative to the Containment Floor Drain and Reactor Cavity Flow Monitoring System as a means for detecting reactor coolant leakage. We found this unacceptable because the Sump Harrow Range Level Instruments do not meet the Regulatory Guide 1.45 recommendations and therefore cannot be accepted as an equivalent (RCS) leakage detection system.
s 8908030224 890726 PDR ADOCK 05000454 l
P PDC
{
___ _____ _ _____ _ d
l lo 4 By letter dated June 23, 1989, the licensee proposed to change ACTION statement b. to allow 7 days to restore tt'e containment floor Drain and Reactor Cavity Flow Monitoring System to operable before beginning plant shutdown. The licensee did not propose to change ACTION statement c. and did not propose to use the Sump Narrow Range Level Instruments as an equivalent RCS leakage detection system.
The June 23, 1989 proposal of 7 days was determined to be a reasonable time needed to restore the system to operable based on actual work history.
For this reason, and because during the 7-day period, the two radioactivity monitoring systems (gaseous and particulate) would still be operable, we find this proposal to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the re:;tricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenvironmentalassessment need be prepared in connection with the issuar.ce of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
On the basis of the considerations discussed above, the NRC staff concludes that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Renee Perfetti Leonard 01shan Dated: July 26,1989
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -