ML20137R135

From kanterella
Revision as of 15:09, 16 June 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Addl Info Re 851031 Response to Violation Noted in Insp Repts 50-454/85-38 & 50-455/85-42 on 850828-29,to Continue Reconsideration of Violation 2.Analysis Showing Dilution of Bolus in Water Blowdown Pipe Requested
ML20137R135
Person / Time
Site: Byron  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/21/1985
From: Shafer W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Reed C
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8512050434
Download: ML20137R135 (2)


See also: IR 05000454/1985038

Text

,*. .- I

i

NOV 21 G85

l

1

l

Docket No. 50-454 1

Docket No. 50-455 )

Commonwealth Edison Company

ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed

Vice President

Post Office Box 767

Chicago, IL 60690

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: BYRON STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORTS

NO. 50-454/85038 AND NO. 50-455/85042, NRC DOCKET NO. 50-454

AND NO. 50-455

Reference: -(a) Letter from W. D. Shafer to Cordell Reed dated October 1, 1985

(b) Letter from D. L. Farrar to James Keppler dated October 31, 1985

Your response to the Notice of Violation associated with the inspection

conducted by Mr. L. J. Hueter on August 28-29, 1985, of activities at Byron

Station requests our reconsideration of the validity of Violation No. 2

for reasons stated in your response. In consideration of your request, we

wish to clarify one item in your response and request additional information,

not previously available, to continue our review.

In your response you state it is your understanding that the violation is

predicated on the belief that initiation of the circulating water blowdown

radiation monitor alarm indicates a release in excess of allowed limits, and

therefore, requires immediate action per Technical Specification 3.11.1.1,

and that such a belief is not correct. However, we wish to inform you that

the violation is not predicated on the specific alarm setpoint but on the

bases described below:

  • Liquid radwaste having a concentration of 30 times MPC was pumped into

the circulating water blowdown line.

  • Intended dilution flow did not exist.
  • The circulating water blowdown monitor alarmed within one minute,

indicating a problem.

  • An' additional nine minutes elapsed before it was determined that a

radwaste release had been initiated (causing the alarm) and the release

terminated.

B512050434 851121 Qb

PDR

0

ADOCK 05000454

PDR

M) I$ 1

.

,- - -

y

-

r

. g, ,

Commonwealth Edison Company 2

NOV 21 E85

  • The blowdown line was closed at'the downstream end and the line filled

with dilution water providing an unknown mixing of the 2700 gallon

radwaste bolus before release to the river.

  • A sampling interval of 20 minutes compared with an expected discharge

transit-on the order of a minute, depending on dilution.

JYou assert in your response that you have subsequently performed additional

analyses that demonstrate dilution of the bolus in the circulating water

blowdown pipe was sufficient. Please submit the analysis for our further

evaluation.

Sincerely,

W. D. Shafer, Chief

Emergency Preparedness and

Radiological Protection Branch.

cc: D. L. Farrar, Director

of Nuclear Licensing

V. I. Schlosser, Project Manager.

.

Gunner Sorensen, Site Project

Superintendent

R. E. Querio. Plant Manager

DCS/RSB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch

Resident Inspector, RIII Byron

_

_ Resident Inspector, RIII

Braidwood-

Phyllis Dunton, Attorney

General's Office, Environmental

Control Division

D.-W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.

Diane Chavez .DAARE/ SAFE ~

Steve Lewis, ELD-

L. 01shan,'NRR-LPM

H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance

Division 1

RIII RIII RII RIII

f

g'e)ter/jp

g ' ]]VJe

LW vschumacher orney Shafer

.11/20/85

r .

.

O

w

_t