BECO-85-226, Application for Amend to License DPR-35,revising Tech Specs to Allow More Efficient Operation of Nuclear Safety Review & Audit Committee.Fee Paid

Application for Amend to License DPR-35,revising Tech Specs to Allow More Efficient Operation of Nuclear Safety Review & Audit Committee.Fee Paid

ML20138R291
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	12/23/1985
From:	Harrington W BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:	Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20138R293	List: BECO-85-226, Application for Amend to License DPR-35,revising Tech Specs to Allow More Efficient Operation of Nuclear Safety Review & Audit Committee.Fee Paid ML20138R299
References
BECO-85-226, NUDOCS 8512310156
Download: ML20138R291 (4)

Text

4 5

BOSTON EotsDN COMPANY .

l B00 BovLaTON STREET BOSTON, M AaBACHU:ETTs 02199 WILLIAM D. HARRINGTON E[2.7" ""'"" December 23, 1985 BECo 85- 226 Proposed Change 85-14 Mr. John A. Zwolinski, Director BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D. C. 20555 License OPR-35 Docket 50-293 Proposed Administrative Technical Specification Change Nuclear Safety Review and Audit Committee (NSRAC)

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Boston Edison Company (BECo) hereby proposes the following revisions to Facility Operating License No. OPR-35, Appendix A. The requested changes are described in Attachment A and the revised Technical Specification pages are contained in Attachment B. In accordance with 10CFR170.22 " Schedule of Fees for Facility License Amendments". a check in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00), for an amendment initiation fee, is enclosed with this letter.

Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.

9512310156 851223 Very trqly yours, PDR ADOCK 05000293 GGH/ns kWh Attachnients Abb: IMR - L/RC's TEClf SUPPORT 3 signed originals and 37 copies " [ g,g PSB (L. HULNAN) cc: See next page CICS8 (SRINIVASAN)

RSB (ACTING)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts) FOB (VASSAI.LO)

AD - . w NAS (LTR ONLY)

County of Suffolk )

Then personally appeared before me W. D. Harrington, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President - Nuclear of the Boston Edison Company, the applicant herein, and that he is duly authorized to execute and f file the submittal contained herein in the name and on behalf of the Boston )

Edison Company and that the statements in said submittal are true to the best '

of his knowledge and belief. i My Commission expires: C

• M G W'ener N#*'v Mc Notary Public l

"# C

• ism wo, %,, t =

Ay{!

S0STON EDISON COMPANY

. Mr. John A. Zwolinski, Director December 23, 1985 Page 2 cc: Mr. Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health 150 Tremont Street F-7 Boston, MA 02111 k_________

Attachment A Proposed Technical Specification Changes Nuclear Safety Raview and Audit Committee (NSRAC)

Reason for Change The changes will bring the Technical Specifications (TS) in line with current NSRAC Administrative practices and policies, thus allowing more efficient operation of NSRAC within TS guidelines.

Description of Changes Attachment B contains the specific pages of TS required for this change.

For each change proposed in Section 6.5.8 of the Tech. Specs., the following justifications are provided:

1. Para. 6.5.B.2 - This change adds detail to clarify the composition of NSRAC.

2. Para. 6.5.B.3 - This change deletes redundant quorum requirements and shifts this statement to Para. 6.5.B.6.

3. Para. 6.5.B.6 - This change makes NSRAC quorum requirements more specific than presently stated, thus ensuring the effectiveness of NSRAC meetings.

4. Para. 6.5.B.7 - This change details the specific types of safety evaluations which NSRAC wiil review. The previous Tech. Spec. wording was too general, thus causing uncertainty in NSRAC's review responsibilities and overburdening NSRAC with unnecessary reviews.

5. Para. 6.5.B.10 - The present 14 day time requirement is detailed in the NSRAC charter. This type of administrative requirement is not necessary in the Tech. Spec.

Safety Considerations This change does not involve an unresolved safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59. It has been reviewed and approved by the PNPS Operations Review Committee and reviewed by the Nuclear Safety Review and Audit Committee.

Significant Hazards Considerations It has been determined that this amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission's regulations in 10CFR50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of

8 accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant-reduction in a margin'of safety.

The proposed changes revise parts of Section 6 of the Administrative Technical '

Specifications for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The changes are all administrative in nature and have no safety significance, do not physically affect plant safety related systems, and do not reduce any safety margin. On this basis, Boston Edison determined that the proposed amendment does not

', involve significant hazards considerations. '

4 Schedule of Change.

! This proposed amendment will be put .ato effect upon receipt of the approval of.the NRC. ,

1 1, ,

i i

1 1

i

, i i

i i i l

4 1

l 1

J r

4 6

i l

i

_ _ _ _ _ _______.__.__m. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .