ML20082D785: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Commonwealth Edison One First Natcnal Prta. Chicago. librIoys | {{#Wiki_filter:Commonwealth Edison One First Natcnal Prta. Chicago. librIoys | ||
(' | (' | ||
' Addr:ss R ply t;: P:st Offic; Box 767 Chicago. illinois 60590 November 21, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Os | |||
, Director Office of Nur,1 car niactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 | |||
November 21, 1983 | |||
Mr. Harold R. Os | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
| Line 30: | Line 28: | ||
==Dear Mr. Denton:== | ==Dear Mr. Denton:== | ||
The purpose of this letter is to request the following emergency change in Technical Specifications for LaSalle County Station Unit 1. | The purpose of this letter is to request the following emergency change in Technical Specifications for LaSalle County Station Unit 1. | ||
CHANGE REQUEST NPF-ll/83-05 Exempt the reactor fecdwater inboard check valves from Type C test requirements until startup following the first refueling outage. | CHANGE REQUEST NPF-ll/83-05 Exempt the reactor fecdwater inboard check valves from Type C test requirements until startup following the first refueling outage. | ||
This proposed change is addressed in Attachment A and has rcccived onsite and offsite review and approval. Unit 1 startup is expected around November 30, 1983; but may occur as carly as November 27, 1983. Therefore we feel that this change falls within the Emergency Change Category. | This proposed change is addressed in Attachment A and has rcccived onsite and offsite review and approval. | ||
Unit 1 startup is expected around November 30, 1983; but may occur as carly as November 27, 1983. | |||
Therefore we feel that this change falls within the Emergency Change Category. | |||
A condition for approval o# an cmcrgency amendment requires the licensce to appropriately demonstrate why this emergency situation occurred and wny it could not avoid this situation c.g. that the licenscc did not " create" the emergency situation in order to take advantage of the cmergency provision of 10CFR 50.91. | A condition for approval o# an cmcrgency amendment requires the licensce to appropriately demonstrate why this emergency situation occurred and wny it could not avoid this situation c.g. that the licenscc did not " create" the emergency situation in order to take advantage of the cmergency provision of 10CFR 50.91. | ||
Although we determined on November 3, 1983 that the feedwater check valves in question failed their Type C test we had undertaken several corrective actions in the following weeks, as delinated in Attachment A, to the point where we believe the scal designed on material for these valves will be essentially identical to those successfully used and tested at other sites for several years. With these corrective sctions we believe the valve will pass future Appendix J tests. | Although we determined on November 3, 1983 that the feedwater check valves in question failed their Type C test we had undertaken several corrective actions in the following weeks, as delinated in Attachment A, to the point where we believe the scal designed on material for these valves will be essentially identical to those successfully used and tested at other sites for several years. | ||
Nevertheless Regional NRC inspectors of ficially notified us on November 18, 1983 that they could not allow startup on the basis of the history of the past failures and that an exemption to provisions of Appendix J would be a startup condition. Accordingly we are submitting this amendment request. | With these corrective sctions we believe the valve will pass future Appendix J tests. | ||
Nevertheless Regional NRC inspectors of ficially notified us on November 18, 1983 that they could not allow startup on the basis of the history of the past failures and that an exemption to provisions of Appendix J would be a startup condition. | |||
Accordingly we are submitting this amendment request. | |||
ff 90 pn88sa% | |||
/3(#%sFlg f | |||
\\ | |||
.d | |||
i | i determined-that no significant hazard consideration existsCom | ||
determined-that no significant hazard consideration existsCom | .is documented in Attachment B. | ||
Our review I | |||
Our review | Pursuant to 10 CFR 170, this change reflects onc example of a Class III amendment. | ||
A remittance of $4,000 is, therefore, enclosed. | |||
Such | herein and in the attachment are true and correct.To the best of m mation furnished by other Commonwealth Edison an In some respects Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable. | ||
request for this amendment by transmittal of a coCommonwealth Ed its attachments to the designated State Official.py of this letter and If this office.you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact i | |||
copics of this letter and the~ enclosures. Enclosed please find three (3) sign Very truly yours, ffh-B. Ry a Nuclear Licens ng Administrator Attachments cc: | |||
copics of this letter and the~ enclosures. Enclosed please find three (3) sign Very truly yours, ffh-B. Ry a Nuclear Licens ng Administrator Attachments cc: | Dr. A. Bournia NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS G. N. Wright (State of Illinois) | ||
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to | SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to | ||
, before.mc this 4/M day | |||
, of O AufhtAf4) | |||
, 1983 Af-tt L 0 | |||
Af-tt L | |||
7 Notary Pub 11C 7215N | 7 Notary Pub 11C 7215N | ||
,}} | |||
Latest revision as of 07:17, 14 December 2024
| ML20082D785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1983 |
| From: | Rybak B COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082D788 | List: |
| References | |
| 7215N, NUDOCS 8311230052 | |
| Download: ML20082D785 (2) | |
Text
Commonwealth Edison One First Natcnal Prta. Chicago. librIoys
('
' Addr:ss R ply t;: P:st Offic; Box 767 Chicago. illinois 60590 November 21, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Os
, Director Office of Nur,1 car niactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Unit 1 Request for An Emergency Change to NPF-11 Appendix A Technical Specifications Regarding Reactor Fecdwater Inboard Check Valves Type C Test NRC Docket No. 50-373
Dear Mr. Denton:
The purpose of this letter is to request the following emergency change in Technical Specifications for LaSalle County Station Unit 1.
CHANGE REQUEST NPF-ll/83-05 Exempt the reactor fecdwater inboard check valves from Type C test requirements until startup following the first refueling outage.
This proposed change is addressed in Attachment A and has rcccived onsite and offsite review and approval.
Unit 1 startup is expected around November 30, 1983; but may occur as carly as November 27, 1983.
Therefore we feel that this change falls within the Emergency Change Category.
A condition for approval o# an cmcrgency amendment requires the licensce to appropriately demonstrate why this emergency situation occurred and wny it could not avoid this situation c.g. that the licenscc did not " create" the emergency situation in order to take advantage of the cmergency provision of 10CFR 50.91.
Although we determined on November 3, 1983 that the feedwater check valves in question failed their Type C test we had undertaken several corrective actions in the following weeks, as delinated in Attachment A, to the point where we believe the scal designed on material for these valves will be essentially identical to those successfully used and tested at other sites for several years.
With these corrective sctions we believe the valve will pass future Appendix J tests.
Nevertheless Regional NRC inspectors of ficially notified us on November 18, 1983 that they could not allow startup on the basis of the history of the past failures and that an exemption to provisions of Appendix J would be a startup condition.
Accordingly we are submitting this amendment request.
ff 90 pn88sa%
/3(#%sFlg f
\\
.d
i determined-that no significant hazard consideration existsCom
.is documented in Attachment B.
Our review I
Pursuant to 10 CFR 170, this change reflects onc example of a Class III amendment.
A remittance of $4,000 is, therefore, enclosed.
herein and in the attachment are true and correct.To the best of m mation furnished by other Commonwealth Edison an In some respects Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable.
request for this amendment by transmittal of a coCommonwealth Ed its attachments to the designated State Official.py of this letter and If this office.you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact i
copics of this letter and the~ enclosures. Enclosed please find three (3) sign Very truly yours, ffh-B. Ry a Nuclear Licens ng Administrator Attachments cc:
Dr. A. Bournia NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS G. N. Wright (State of Illinois)
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to
, before.mc this 4/M day
, of O AufhtAf4)
, 1983 Af-tt L 0
7 Notary Pub 11C 7215N
,