ML17264A101

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Issuance of Amendment No. 112 to License DPR-35, Revises Technical Specifications to Clarify Operability Requirements for the Standby Gas Treatment System and Control Room High Efficiency Air Filtration System
ML17264A101
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 01/20/1988
From: Wessman R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Bird R
Boston Edison Co
References
TAC 55571
Download: ML17264A101 (19)
v • d • e


Text

,.**.* _,.. d.' **:.,,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RE.GULATORY COMMISSION n-------------

WA~t11NGTON. D. C. 20555 RECEIVED_

January 20, 1988 FEB 0 119881

(_

UCENSING~

D.ocket No.: 50-2-93

.Boston Ed1son Con.rpany ATIN:* Mr.* Ralph E. Jird Senior V:icQ! Pres1dei"lt - NuclE!ar' 800 Boylston S.treet Boston~ Massach~se:ets 02199

~-.;;..

0 SUB~E.CT:

ISSUANCE OF M1£NDMENT NO. ll2 TO FACILITY.OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35

{TACH 55S7U PILGRIM NUCLEAR P.OWER STA1ION D~ar Mr.* Bird::

  • rti:e Comml$sion has issued the eocfo~ed' Jl.~ndment No. ll2 to *Facility Operat-ing.Lfc:e,nse No,o DPR-35 for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power St~t1on. ThJs a~ndment c:onslsts of *changl!S <:to*the Techl'l1cal Specifkatfons. 1n responsez-to Your appl 1ca.Uon dated Au.gust 9, 1984 as. supplemented by letters dated

. A~gust ~\\) 1985~, July 24, 1987 p Decemb~r 7, 1987 and January *14 11 1988.

This a.mendment revJses the Te:chntcaJ Specffkation fTS) to c1ar1f.Y the requirements concerning dflerabH1ty 1n. S~ctfons 3.7.8 *. 1 and 4.7.B.1 for the

  • s:tandby Gas Treatment System and S.ections 3. 7.B.2 ahd 4.7.B.2 for the Control Roo111 High :Efficiency Air Filtration System, and corrects an error of omi.ss1on 'in Section 4.7.B.ha(3). Your s.tipplemental letters dated December 7; 198.7 ~nd January *14. 1988 consoHdated pr:ev*fous.subm1tta 19 and corrected errors ident1fi_ed by t*he NRC *staff~

A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed.

The Notice of Issuance will be inc.luded.in the Conm1ssfon *s 0-1-week ly Federal Register Not lee.

Enclosures:

lo Amendment No *.112

~o DPR-35

2. Sa;fety Eva ltiation cc w/enclosures:

See next page Sincerely, R.ichard H. Wes.sman, SenJor Project Manager

.Project Directorate I-3 01v1s1on of Reactor Projects l/ll

Mr. Ralph Ct. Bird Boston Edison Company cc~

Mr. K. P. Roberts~ Nuclear Operations Pilqrim Nuclear Power Station

  • Boston Edison Compahy RFD #1~ Rocky Hill Road PlymouthS) Masscrchusetts 0~360 Resident Inspector 1 s Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 867 Plymouth 9 Massachusetts 02360 Chairman*, Board of Selectmen 11 Lincoln Str*eet Plymouthsi Massachusetts 02360 Off1ce of the Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering One !<!'inter Street BostonJ Massachusetts 02108 Office of the Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place

-19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Mr. Robert M. Ha 1 Hsey, Director Radiation Control Program Massachusetts Department of Pub He Hea 1th 1SO Tremont Street, ?.nd Floor Boston~ Massachusetts 0?.111 Regional Administratoro Region I U.. So Muc1ear Regulatory Cofli!lfssfon 631 Park Avenu@

King of Prussia~ Pennsylvania 19406 1Mr.,:Ja,mes ~ D:;' Kf.?,yesi' Re~ju'rator.Y Affairs~'and Programs Group Leader Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree H 'i11 Park Bra1ntree 11 Massachusetts 02184 Pilgrim Nuc1ear Power Station Boston Edison Comoanv ATTN:

Mr. Ralph G. Bird Senior Vic-e. President -

Nu.sleQr~

ROO Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Mr. Richard N. Swanson~ Manager Nuclear Engineer'f nq Department Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree Hill Park Rraintreeg Massachusetts 021R4 Ms. E1aine D. Robinson Nuclear rnformation Manaqer Pilgrim Nuclear Power Statio~

RFD #19 Rocky Hf 11 Road Plymouth, Massachusetts M360 Assistant Secretal"'y Peter l.f. Agnes Executive Office of Public Safety One Ashburton Place Room 213 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Charles V. Ber~v Secretary of Public Safety Executive Office of Public Safety On?. Ashburton Place Bostonp Massachusetts 0?.108

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50*293 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION AMENill\\l'ENT TO FAClLITY*OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.112 License Nd. DPR-35

1. 'The Nuclear Regu1at9ry Cormtis*sfon {the Commission) has found that:

06

a.

A.

TI:te application for amendment by Boston Edison Company (the 11~ensee}

datl!d August 9, 1984.as supplemented by letters dated August.9, l985w July 2411 1987 >> December 7, 1987 11 and January 14, 1988 complies with the s_tandards and requirements of the Atomic' Energy Act of 1'954, as-amend_ed. (the Act}, and the Commission's' rules and regulat1ons set *forth 1 n 10 -CFR Chapter I:;

Bo The facility will operate in conformity with the application., the prc>v:f sions of the Act. and the rules and regulations of the Commission; Co There is reasonable assurance '(1) that the activities author1z~d by th1.s amendment ca.n be. conducted without endangering the health and safetY;of ttfe pu_b11c, and ( f1 l that such activities w1 ll *be con!iucted in corrrp lf ance wfth the Corm11ssion 1 s regulations; D.

The issuance of th 1 s amendm!.nt wi 11 not be 1 n f m1ca1 to th.e common defense and security or to the* health and safety o.f the public;.. and E.

The. issuance of this amendment 1s in ac.cordance with 10 CF'R Part 51 of the *corrm1ssion 1s regulatfons and all applicable r~qu1.raments have been satisfied..

2..

Accord"lngJyl) the *l'kense ls ame~ijed b.v changes to the T~hnfcal Spec1~f1catfons as indica.ted 1n the attachment to this Hcens~ amancbnentp and paragraph 3.. Bof Fac1J1ty'Operat1ng License No. DPR-35 is hereby amend.ad to* read as* fol lows:

(?.)

Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained 1n Appendix A~ as rev1sed through Amendment No. 112, are hereby incorporated in the license.

The Tf censee sha 11 operate the facility iFJ accordanc-e with the

    • ~
  • Technical Specifications.
3. This license amendment is effective immediately.

Attachment:

Change*s to the Techn1ca1 Spec.iffcations FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

Richard H. Wessman~ Acting Director Pro,iect Directorate !-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/I~

,..*,..,,"J Date of Issuance: January 20, 1988

\\

I

  • ._._~.!'

ATTACHMENT TO LlCENSE AMENDMENT N0.112 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-35 DOCKET NO. 50-2,93 R'eplace the following pages of the Appendix A Technlcal Specificatfons with the e.ncJosed page~. The revised pages are iden~Hied by amendment..number and c::on;tain vertical lines* fnd:i,catfng the ar-eas of change.

The corresponding

- - ~

  • overleaf pages are provided t,o maintain document completenesso

.Remov.e Pages 158 158A 15ae tsac 172 173 i74 l74A' Insert Pages rsa 158A 1.588 158C 172 173 174 l74A

LIMITIN.

.Fi ltrat1on SyHW!r

. I l. Standby Gas Tr~a~ment Sys tern

a.

Exi:e.p.t as specified in*

3.7.J.1.c below, bQth *train~

o.f the standby gas treatment system arid the diesel genera tors requ1 red for operat1 on of s.uch trains shal l be operabJ.e, at *a.Y 1 t1mes wheo seconda,r,y cont af nment f nt,gr1 ty h required *or the reactor sha:11 b.e s hotdown 1 n 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />.

'b.

(1. )

The results o'f *the in-place cold COP tests

,on HEJ?A filters shall show 299i* *OOP reroova l.

The results of halog,nated* h,ydrocarbo tests. on charcoal a.dsorber banks shal 1 show 1991 halogena_ted hydroccfrbon reinov& l *

(2.J The res*u1ts of the laboratory carbon sample arialys1s shall sho., *2951.methyl 1od1d removalat a velocity

_withtn *10'1 of system

--:design, 0.5 to 1.5 mg/m3 inlet methyl iodide concentration*.

2:701 R.H. and ll90~F.

The analys.1 s results are *to be verified as acceptable wlthf n 31 days after sample removal, or dechl.rt that trafo 1noperbJe and take the ac.tfons speclfhd 3.7:.B.Lc.

c.

From and' after the date that one train of,th.e Standby Gas Treatment Sys:tent -1$* made or found *to be htoperabl e for any reason o cont'f nued reacto operation, f rradlated fuel

. handl f ng, or* ne~ fuel

4. 7.B Standby Gas Treatmgnt System and Contro.1 Room Hlgh Efficiency Air filtration System
1.

Standby Gas Treatment Sys.tern

a.

Cl.) At least once every.JS.

months. ft shall.be demonstrated that pressure drop a.cross t~e comb1 ned hJgh* efff'c1ency fi 1 tars ancr cha rcoa 1 adsorbfr.. ~

  • banks 1 s 1 ess than a 1 nches o.f itater a,,t 4000 cfm.

(2:,. > At least ones every la months. demonstrate that

the 1 nle,t heaters on each.
  • train ~are operable and are capable of an output of at J leas.t 14 kH.

(3. > Th'e tests and an':llysis'. of Spec1ffcat1on,J,7.B. l.b.

shall be performed at least once every 18 months or fo llow1 ng pa 1 nting.

f1 re or chemica 1 release 1n any ventilation zone COiillltintcatlng *1th the system lt.b1le the system 1s operating that could co,.tam1 nate the H'EPA filters or charcoal adsorber:s.

(4. > At least once every 18 months, automatic 1n1t1at1on of each branch of the *standby gas tr~atment system sh~11 be demonstrated. wHh Sp.ecif1catton 3. 7.8. l.d sat1sf1ed.

CS.)

heh train of the, standby gas treatm~nt system sha 1.1 be operated fo.r at least lS mtn*u~es.per month~

C6.)

The tests and analysh of Specincatf on 3.7.B.-1.b.(2) shal1 be perforn1e.d after every 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of system opera t1 on.

158

3.7.8 (Cdntinued)

\\

handling over the spent fu*e 1 p_qo*1 o.r, c9re 1 s

,permi ssi'ble '.Only* during the s*ucc.eedlng seven days providing that within 2 ho.ur.s a.1 l active components of the other standby gas trea:tment tor a fn. s ha 11 be de-monstrated to be operable.

d.

fans. sh al 1 operate tTSithi n zlOt of 4000 cfm.

e.

E.x.cept as s,pecl'fi ed ln 3.7.B.J~c. both traHrs qf t~~.Standby Gas Treatment

~System shal 1 be ope.rab1 e during 1 rradi'ated fuel' handling, or oew fuel ha11dU.ng QVer the speot.

  • f'-'e 1 p()Ol.or core. If the system 1s not operable.

fu*e 1 move~ent sha:l 1 not be started~ Any fuel assembly movem~n~ in progress m~y be comp 1 eted.

(~~endment No. Jg!, ~1, 112 URVE!LLANCE RE* IREMENTS 4.7.B (Continued)

b.

0.)

(2.)

In-place cold DOP testing shall be performed on the HEPA filt*rs aft~r each c'omp1 eted or part.i a 1 replacement of the HEPA fi 1 te*r bank and after any 1tructural maintenance* on the HEPA filter system housJng ~htch could affect the HEPA fi'l ter bank.bypass leakage.

Ha] ogj!na.ted hydr.oc:~rbon te,s.tf ng shall be performed on the charcoal a.dso.rber bank *a.rter each

  • part1a1 or complete replacement o.f the charcoal adsorber bank.*or after any st,ructurill maintenance on the charcoal adsorber housing which could affect the. c*harcoa 1 ads.orber bank bypass leakage.

158A

      • -'" *~'--**,;,*....

FOR OPERATION J.7.B CContiTiued)

2.

Control Room High Eff'kiency Air filtration System

a. Except as spe~tfted 1 n l

Specif1catfon, 3.. 7.B.2.c below.

/

both trains. of the Control Room

.i High Efftdency Afr Flltra:tion system us_etl". for the proce:ssing I

of inlet.a*1r to the control room 1 under accid.eot condJ ti ons and the 'di ese} generator(s) required !

for op*~ra~ton of eac.b train of 1

the sys:tem s*nall be operab ta whenever secondary.containment 1ntegr1 tY rs.. requt red and during fue*l * *nandl in'g Qperatlons..

(2.)

The results of the i n-p*l a:c~,c:otd. OOP tests on HEPk filters shall s.how

~99"L'DOP remo~a:l. The results of :th~ halogenafe.d hydrocarbon tes-ts on charcoal adsorber banks shal 1 ' shov }.9'91.

ha:lqgenated hydrocarbon remaval when test results a.re. extrapolated to the initta:,t1on of, the test.

The results of the laboratory carbon sample ana lys1 s shal 1.show 2951.

methyl iodid.e removaJ at a veloclty within lot of system de!tgn9.. Q.05 to 0.15 mg/m inlet 111ethyl 1od1de concentratfon9 21r:t1.*

R:H., and 125 ° F.

The analysfs results are to be ver1 f.1 ed as acceptable*

r4ftMn 31 days after u.mpl e remova 1, or dee 1 are that tra 1 n htoperabJ e and take the acUons specified 1n 3. 7.B.2.c,.

r RVEILLANCE RE UIREMENTS 4.7.B (Continued)

~* Control Room High Efficiency Air Fi ltratfon System

a. At least once every 18 months the pressu.re drop across each combined ftlter train shall be demonstrated to be less than 6 inches of water at 1000 tfm or the calculated equivalent.
  • -~ -
b. < 1. > Th~ ~e,sts and analysis of Specif1cat1on 3.l.6.2.b sh.all D:e perf'o.nned once every 18

-months or fol lowf ng painting, f1 re. or cbemica 1 rel ease. 1n

  • an,9' vent1 la,tion zone commun*1ca.tlng wlth the system whll e ;t.he. system h operat1 ng.

(2.l In-place cold COP testing shall be,performed after each complet,e or parUa1 r~plac~ment of the HEPA filter bank or after any

$-tructural ma1.ntena.nce on the system hous,tng wh1 ch could affect the HEPA filter bank bypass leakage.

(3.) Halogenated hydrocarbon testing sha.11 be performed af.ter each complete or partial replacement of the c*harcoal adsorber bank. or a.fter any struct~ral maintenance on the system houstng llaMch could' affect the charcoa.1 adsor.ber bank

,bypa:ss 1 ea.kage.

(4.)

Each train shaH be operat.e?

w1'th the neaten 1n a11tomatic for at least 15 m1nuhs every month.

CS.)

The test *and ana.lysh of Spec1ficatton 3.7.8~2.b.(2) sha 1 l be** perf armed a. f ter every 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of system oper&~1on.

1588

I LIMITING -CONDITIONS

~.
;R OPERATION
3. 7. 8 (Continued)
c. From and after the date that one train of the Control Room High Efficiency Air Filtration System is made or found to be incapable c~ supplying filtered air to the control room for any reason., react9r operation or refueling operations are permissible only during the succeeding 7 days providing that ~ithin 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> all active components of the other CRHEAF train shall be demonstrated operable. If the system is not made. rully operable ~ithin 7 days, reactor shutdown shall be initiated and the reactor shall be in cold shutdown ~ithin the next 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> and irradiated fuel handling operations shall be terminated within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Fuel handling operations in progress may be completed.

d. Fans shall operate within +/-101 of *1 000 c f rn.

Amendment No. ~~1 %~, ~7, 112 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.7.B (Continued)

c.

At least once every 18 months demonstrate that the inlet heaters on each trafn are operable and capabJe of an output of at least 14kw.

d.

Perform an instrument functional iest on the humidistats controlling the heaters once per 18 months.

!SSC I

BASES:

3.7.B.l and 4.7.B.1 - Standby Gas Treatment System The Standby Gas Treit.,tment Sys tern ls designed to fi l ter and exhaust the reactor building atmosphere to. the stack.during secondary containment isolation conditions..

Up.an containment i.solatiOn, both standby gas treatment fans are des.igned to s*hrt to bring the reactor bui1ding pressure n.egattve so that a11 leakage *should be in leakage..After a preset time delay, the sfandby fan autofliati c;al 1 y shuts down. so the reactor bl!i l di,ng pressure is maintained approx-imate*1y 1/4 inch of water negative.

Sh.ould one: system fail to start.

the. redun~ant s*ystem is des fgned to.start automaticaTl y.

Each of the two tr.ains ha*s lOQ). capacity..

Hi*gh, Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) *fitters. are installed before, and after th.e charcoal.adsorbers to miliimtze pqter:itial releas.e of particulates to t_he envTronment. and to prevent c:toggJng_ pf the lodine adsorbers.

The cha_rcoal adsorbers are installed to reduce the poterttf.al re.lease of rad1o1odine to the environment~. The in-place. tes-t r~sults should fndicate a systel!l leak tightness or 1 es.s_. t~an 1 perc'ept bypass leakage for the charcoal adsorbe.rs and

.a: HEPA ff_lter eff1 cf ency of at 1 east 99 percent remov.aJ of cold *oop

.partfc1.11a*tes.

The 1 abora..tor:y car~on sample test results should tridicate -a methy'l *1od1de-*remova1 e:fffcfenc:Y of at le~st 9:5 percent far expected accident

conditions. The specift ed efffci en~*ies for t~e charcoal and partf.culate f11 ters-1s suffi ci.ent to pteculde exc;eedfo*g 10 tFR 100 gut-deltnes for the acttdent:s analyzed *. Th_e analysfs of *the loss. of coolant accident assumtfd a charcOa'i adsotbe.r eff,1 d ency of 95'1 and TIO 1,4844 f1ss1 on product source

~

tenns. hen~e. tns:t~l 11 ~g two banks of a~_sorbers. and fi lter:s. fo e.ach tra.1 n provtdes ade.quate margin.

A. 1'4 ~H heater maintains relative humidity below 701. in ord_er to ensur\\a. the effi-clent removal of methyl fodlde on the impregnated charcoal adsorbers. Considering the re.lathe simplicity of the heating circuit, the test frequency of once per 18 months 1s adequate to demonstrate ope:ra:bfl1 ty.

Air *ft ow thro.ugh the f11 ters and charcoal adsorbers for 15 minutes each, month assures ap*er~b11 Uy.of ~he system. Since the system heaters are automat1 cally controlled, -the. a.1 r flowing through the f1 Jters an<:t adsorbers w111 be. ~.7a1.

relative humtdity and w111 have the de.sired drying effecl.

Tests of impregnated charcoal identical to that used in the filters 1nd1cate that shelf life of five years leads to only minor decreases 1n methyi 1odlde removal ef.fic1ency. Hence, the frequency of lab~ratory carbo11 sample analysis is adequate to demonstrah acceptab1 Hty. Si nee adsorbers must be.be* removed to perform th'1 s an~lys1s tM s frequency also m.1n1m1zes the sys:hm out of service ti me as a: result of survei llan.ce test1 ng.

In addition~ ~lthough the ha.logenated hydrocarbon. testing. 1s basically a. leak test, the adsorbers have

. charcoal of known effi:cij!ncy and ho1d1 ng capacity fo.r el ementa"l 1od1 ne and/or methyl tod1de, *the testing also gives an 1nd'1caUon of the relathe efftdency of the 'installed system.

The 3.1 day requirement for the ascerta1n1ng of test res.u lts ensures that the abn Hy.of the charcoa 1 to perform its des 1 gned function is demonstrated a11d l<.no,.n tn a tlmely. manner.

Th.e requtred Standby Gas Treatment System flotlf rate is that flow, less than or equal to 4000 CFM which is needed to rna1nta1n the Reactor Building at a 0.25 inch of tJater negative pressure under calm wind conditions. This c~pab1Hty 1s adequately demonstrated during Secondary Containment Leak Rate Test1ng pe.rformed punuant to T:echni,ca 1 Specification 4. 7.C. l.c.

Amendment No. -~~, 112 172

0 0

BASES:

J.7.B.1 and 4~7.B.1 <contiriu~d)

The test frequencies are adequate to detect equipment deterioration prior to s-ignificant defects, but tne tests are not frequent enough to lqad the filters or ad_sorbers, thus reducing their reserve capacfty too quickly.

The fflter testing is performed- -pursl)ant to approprf ate procedures _reviewed and approved by the, Oper.attons Review Committee pursuant to Section 6 of these Technical Speci fi oati ans.

The in-place testing of charcoal f1 lters. is performed by injecting a halogenated hydrocarbon lnto the system upstream of the charcoal adsorbers. Measurements of the concentratton upstream and downstream are mad~. The ratio of the inlet and outlet concen.trations gtves an overal 1 - -..,,;

  • indication of the leak. ttg}itness of the system.

A s:im11ar procedure subs:tftuti ng dioctyl phthal ah for halogenated hydrocarbon h us,ed to test the HEPA f11 ters..

Pressure drop tests across fU ter and adsorber b'ank.s are performed to detect plugging or leak. paths though the filter or -adsorber media.

Considering the relatively short times the 'fans will be run for test'pUrposes, __ plugg1ng 1s unHk.ely and the test interval of once per 18 months 1s reaso_nable.

System -drain-s and housing gasket doors are designed such that any leakage wouJ d be i:nleaka_ge from the- 'S,tandby Gas Treatment System.Room.

Thf s ensures that there will be no bypass of process air around the filters or actsorbers.

Only one of the two' Standby Gas Treatment Systems (SBGTS) is needed to mai nta1 n the secondary-containment at a 0.25 f.nch o_f water negative pres-sure upon con ta 1 nment 1so1 a ti on. If one.system ts found -to be i noperab 1 e, there is no immediate threat to the containment system performance and reactor operation or refueling activities ma.y continue \\1hile repairs are being,made.

In the event one SBGTS fs inoperable. the redundant system's acthe components win be tested within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

This substantiates the* availability of the operable system and justifies continued reactor or refue11ng operations.

If both tra1 ns of SBGTS are 1 noperabl e. the pl ant is brought to a conditic>n where. the --SBGTS is no_t requ1 red.

173 Amendment No. ait 112

\\

'r\\

\\.

r)

\\...;_/

  • ()

~.-J-..... '.

-, ~

~ :..

.Mill:

3.7.B.2. and 4.7.8.2. -*Control RoQm High Efficiency Air Filtration System

'f The Control Room Hi_gh Efficiency Air Filtration System fs designed to filter intake a.ir for the control room atmosphere during conditions when normal intake' air may be contaminated.

Following manual initiation. the Control Room High Effjcfency Air F11tration System is designed to position dampers and start fans which divert the normal air flow through charcoal adsorbers before it reaches the control room.

High Effic1ency Particulate Air <HEPA> fflters are installed before the.

charcol! 1 adsorbers to prevent cl egging of the 1 odine adsorb.ers.

The charcoal --...:. -

adsorb.ers a,re installed to reduce the *potential intak:e of r.adioiod1ne to the control.re.om.

A second ban~ of HEPA filters 1 s 1 nstall ed downstream of the charcoal f*1 lter, The in-place test results should indlcate a system leak. Ughtness of less than 1 percent bypass leakage for the charcoal adsorbers and a HEPA efficiency of at least.99 perce.nt removal of cold OQP particulates.

The laporatory carbon sample test re~ults should 1nd1ca,te a methyl iodide removal effk1ency of at least 90 percent'for expected accident conditions.

Tests of i.mpregnated charcoa. l 1'den't1 cal to that used in the filters 1 ndi cate that she:l f 11 fe of five yea:rs leads 1:0 only minor decrea$eS ln methyl 1od1de removal efficiency.

Hence. the frequency of laboratory carbon sample* analysis 1.s adequate t"o demonstrate acceptabil 1 ty.

Sf nee adsorbers mus:t be removed to perform this analysis. this *frequency also minimizes the systemou.t of service time as a result of surv.e1llan.ce testing,.. In *add1t1on*. although the halogena~ed hydrocarbon testing 1s baska.lly a 1 eak test, the adsorbers have* charcoal of known *effiden:cy and holding capacity for elemental 1odine and/or methyl iodide, the testing also gives an indication of the.-relat1v*e efficiency of the installed system.

The 31 day requirement for the ascertaining of test resuHs.

ensures that the ab1 li ty of the :charcoal to perform 1ts designed function is demon.strated and known in a: timely manner.

Determination of the system pressure drop once per operating cycle provides indication* that the HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers are not clogged by excessive amounts of foreign matter and that no bypass routes through the fi lte.rs or adsorbers had developed. Considering t.he relativ.e.Jy short times the sy$te.ms w1 l1 be operated for test purposes. plugging 1s unlikely and the test interval of once per op.erating cycle 1s reasonable.

The -test frequenci'es are adequate to detect equipment deter1orat1on prior to signi'ficant defects, but the tests are not frequent enough to load the filters or adsorbers, thus reducing their reserve capacity too qutck1y. The ftlter tssUng ls performed pursuant to appropriate procedures reviewed and approved by the Operattons Review.Committee pursuant to Section 5 of these Technical Speclficat1ons.

Th~ 1n-place testing of charcoal filters fs performed by 1 nj.ecting a ha*logenated *hydrocarbon.into the system upstream of the charco*at adsorbe~s. Measur.enien*ts of the concentrat1 on up*stream and downstream are madE!~

Jhe ratio of the inlet and outlet concentrattons g,ives* an overall 1nd.1:catfon of the l?ak tightness of the system.

  • A s1m11ar*procedure s'ubstitµ:ti ng dioC:tyt ph.thillate for. halogenated hydrocarbon 1s use_d. to.test the HEPA filters.

Amendment No. ~i, 112 174

BASVi:

~

3.7.B.2. and 4.7.B.2. CContinw@

Air flow through the filters and charcoal adsorbers for 15 minutes each month assures operability of the system.

Since the system heaters are automatically controlled. the a1r flowing through the filters ~nd a_dsorbers will be..{70%

relative humidity and will have the desired drying effect.

If one train of the system is found to be inoperable, there iS no immediate threat to the control room. and reactor operation or fuel handling may continue for a 1 i mited period of ti me while repairs are being made.

In the event one CRHEAF tra 1 n is 1noperab1 e. the redundant system* s-act1 ve components will be-tested within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. If both trains of-the CRHEAF-system are inoperable, the reactor wi l1 be brought to a co,ndition where the Control _Room High Efficiency Air Filtration Syste~ is not required.

Amendment No. /412. >> 112 174A

UNIT.ED' STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

(

SA~ETY. EVALUATION 'BY THE OFFlCE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

  • RE[ATED TO AMENDMENT NO. i i Z TO FACITHY OPERATING 'LICENSE No.** DPR-35 aosrnA *EbtsoN'*COf1PANY PtLGR]M NUC[EAR POWER 5'1'J{TION OOCKt't Ro. 5o-P.93

- -*-.ill By 1 etter* dated' August 9,, 1984 an<j 0supp lemented by 1 ette.rs dated August 9.*

1'.985., July 24, 1987, D.eceml>er 7, l987g and January 14, 1988 Bos'ton Edis.on Company transmitted a. proposal to ~hange the P1Jgr1m,Technlcal Specifications (TS) co.ncerl'.lfng operabfUty *of the* ~SF.alr filtration-systems.

The r.eque~ted ch!!nges will be implemented immedbtely upon approval by the staff.

The licensee speclf1cally requ~sted that, the Pilgrim TS be a.mended tp clarify Sect-ions,3.7.B. l.a:nd 4.7.B. l for thE! S.tandby Gas Treatment System (SGfS) and Sections 3 *.7.B.2 an,d 4.7'.a.2.for the Contro;l Room Hf'gh Efficfef!CY Afr,

.Ffltratfon System (CRHEAFS).

Th' licensee's supplemental letter da;ed Decembe,r 7, 1987 ~onsol idat~d. all previously propos.ed TS changes ar:id ~orrected an inconsistency betwee.n the Bases and the prevfous.ly proposed TS sectfon

  • chanqes.. The flrst b.ases change deletes the reference to " *** test~d da f l.Y" which is to be deleted. from' Section 3.7.B. l.co The second Bases change adds the sentence, "ln the event one CRHEAF tra.1n is inoperable, the.redundant system's ac.t1Ve components will be tested within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />". This change reflects a restriction addP.d to Section 3:.7.B.2.c.

~ ** O EVAtUATlON *

  • The SGJS i.s p-rovi~.ed to f11ter the reactor hui lding atmosphere ~xhausted to the vent st.ack during secondary containment isolation cciridlt1ons.

The system cons*ists of two 100* perc:erit capacity redundant units (4000 cfm each) to ma.fota;fn a negative pressure in the reactor building of *0,25 inches of water.

Each unit contafos a charcoal adsorber, two HEPA filters, and an electric heater.

The CRHEAFS is desi'gned to provide adequate vent1lat1on 1n the main control room to ~nsure hab1tab1Hty for control room operators and to pressurize the control.room to prevent a,1r 'f.nf1ltration dur1ng and following.a desiqn basis accidant (LO~A). Two 111,000 Cfm capacity redundant h1qh efficiency

{emargency) air filtration trains f11ter outside makeup air prior to introducing 1t tq the ma1n control room.

Each train consists of a heating cofl 11 pref1lter.g HEPA f11ter 11 charcoal ads*orber, and final HEPA filter.

The licensee requested an amendment to the following Pilgrim TS sections concerning operation and surveillance of the SGTS and CRHEAFS *.

?..l Sect,ions 3.7.B.1.a, 3.7.B.1.c, 3.7.B.1.e, 3.7.B.i'.a, and 3.7.8.?..c These sections are su~~rscripted with an asterisk whic~ refers to superseded and expired footnotes..

(The footnotes concernPd a conditional relief to the LCO during the startup for cycle 6 in early 1982).

The propos.ed change clarifies the TS sections by deletfog both the aster-i sks and footnotes.

The staff finds thfs editorial change to be acc~mta:ble.

2.2 Sections 3.7.B.1.b{?.) and.3.7..Bo?..b.(2)

The proposed chanqe to these ~ections is to. add the. fo1 lowfng requirement 'for charcoal testfn~ and s1mi lar language to the corres_ponding bases (TS pages 172 and 174):

The analysis results are to b.e verified as. acceptable with in :31 days after sample remova 1, or declar-e the tra 1 n lnoperab h~ and take the actions specified in 3.7.B. l.c. * (3.7aB.2.C *. ).

The staff f1nds the ad<fition of the above requirement and the correspondffl9 bases to be acceptable since it is in accordance with the guidelines of Generic Letter 83-13 which requested that a t1me limit be placed on ascerta1n*ing test results for charcoal adsorber samp*lP.s in order to establlsh filter* system operab.i HtY.

2.3 *sect1on 4.7.B.l.a.(3)

It was originally intended that the. surveillance.section of this TS address the DOP testing of HEPA filters and the halogenated hydr~carbon test1ng of the charcoal absorbers as specified in the guidP.11nes of Regulator.v Guide 1.5?..

Howeverg as currently written, th1-s section onl.Y re"erences the carbon adsorber testing-*(Section 3,7.B. 1.b.(?.)) and does not include re'ferences to the DOP testing of HEPA filters (Section 3.7.B.1.b.(l)). The proposed change w111 rev1 se this TS section to reference Section 3. 7.B. l.b in its entirety and thereby include *the HEPA filter testf.nq.

The staff finds th1s proposed change to be acceptable since 1t properly corrects the orevious error and is in conformance with the guidelines of Regulatory Guide l.52.

2.4 Section l.7.B.1.c As now ~pecified 11 this section currently states:

~From and after the date that one train of the Standby Gas Treatment SystP.m 1s made or found to be 1noperab1e for any reason>> continued raaetor operation or fuel hand.ling is perm*iss1ble only during the suece~ding seven days providing that wftMn 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and daf ly thereafter 9 all active components of the other standby gas treatment train shall be demonstrated to be operable.n

CJ

. ** The propos'ed change will modify this TS section to state:

"From and after the date th.at one train of the Standby Gas Treatment System is found to be 1noperabla for an.v: reason, continued reactor operation, frradiat.ed fuel handlinq, or new fuel handling over the spent fuel pool or core fs permi.ssible only during the succeeding seven days providing that within two hours, all active components of-the other standby gas treatment train shall be demonstrated to be operable.* "

This chan9e will clarify the specific fuel handling. operation to which.the LCO requirements apply, and.delet.ethe phrase 11 *** and da11y thereafter.... ".

The licensee ass~rts, and the staff agrees, that daily testing does not necessarily add to the assurance that the rema1ning trafn is operable because

.excessive test1nq ma:v degrade the equipment.

The deletio.n is consistent. with the correspond.1ng standard technical specification guf.delines identified in NURG-0123. Revision 3, 11Standa.rd Technical Specification for Genera 1 Electric BWRs {STS)n and,.therefore, the.staff finds the above c1arif'1cat1ori and deletion to be acceptable

  • 2.5 Sectfon 3.7.* B.1.e As n.ow worded, this s~tion currently states:

"Except as specified 1n 3.7~8. l.c, both trains of the standby gas treatment system shall be operable durinCJ fuel handH'!,q operations.

If the system 1s not operable fuel movement shall not be started

{any fuel assembly movement i'n progress may be completed)."

The proposed change wfll add the worcts "irradiated" and 11new 11 to precede the word 11fuel 11 and clarifying wording of the TS thereby chang1ng the TS section to read:

11 Except as.specified in 3.7.B. l.c, both trains of the Standby Gas Treatment System *sha l1 be operable during irradiated fuel handling, or new fuel hand ling over the spent fue 1 pool or core. If the system is 11ot op~rabJ e, fue 1 movement sha 11 not be started.

Any fue 1 assembly movement in progress may be ~ompleted.~

T~i s chan.ge is consistent with t~e corresponding Sections 3o6.5.3.a and

  • 3.6.5.3.b of the G.E STS* andp therefore', the staff finds these clarifications to be aeceP,table.

.As now specified, thts s.ectfon currently states~

a.At least.once every 18 months the following shall be demonstrated:

l}

Operability of heaters at rated power.a

  • '~.

'/I

,' o The licensee 1 s sub!T'litta1s of Auqust 9p 19R4 and August 9 9 1985 p*roposed S.ection 4 *.7.B *. 2.c to state:

"At least.once ever.v 18 month*s demonstrate the abi 1 lty of the heab!rs to J)erfo.rm their design function."

The staff. *requested that the proposed change be revised to* read ".At 1east once ever.v 18 months demons:trate *that the. in1et beaters on eac~ tra.1n are operable and capable of an, *out.put df at lecist 14 KW.* " Th fa chanqe was r-equested. by the staff t.o clarify* the ~equ1rement for CRHEAFS.fi lt~r tratn heater operability, spe<;ify ~he destgn function rat1*ng,.*.and 1s consist.ent. wi.th the requirements.already sp*ecified' in -ehe currf;!nt Pilgrim TS for the S.GTS (Section 4.~1.B.1..a.2}, which cqntains the sa~ req~irements: as the r-equested.change; and the correspondlng sec:t1ons of the *srs.

Therefor.e,, the staff *finds the change to be acceptable.

  • 2
  • 7 o Section 4 o7. B
  • 2
  • d As now specified, th~1s sectlon does not contain a s.urveil lance p:eriod for*

teS"t1rig the huml~istat wh1~h controls, the heaters.

This change prov.ides such

a. survei11af1Ce period by addt*nQ 11 *** onc.e.per 18. monthsn to the exis:tinq statemen.t...

The staff finds this. change to be accept11ble and it 1s consistent with the surveilla11ce fnterval for.* the. CRHEAF heaters11 themselves..

  • 2.a Seectfon 4.7.B. l.a.(2J As now specifieq 9
  • th-ts sectfon requires t.he performance of an instrument functtoria1 test on the 'SGTS humid'istats.

The proposed change deletes this requirement sine~ the hum1d1stats* are* no longer used for SGTS heater control and the heaters are operable whenever the. SGTS is operating.

The proposed change does no-t-!!':omprom1se safety because the. pur:pt>$e of the humid1stats, wh.ich are relative humiditv sensors intended to control the relative huinfdit.Y" (.RHl of the inco1riing *gas str.eam b.v energ1zing the SBGTS heaters, is not ess~n'tfal. The. humidity will continue to be adeqµately co.ntrol1ed by the SBGTS heaters~ whicji wfll now be energ1zed when ~he exhaust fans are energized.

The.heaters are protected from overheating by h:iqh temperature sensors,. which deenergize the heaters prior to-temperat1n:ies* wn,c.h could irnperi l the cnarcofll beds. Th.eref ore, the* system is capable of performing its designed functi.on* wi.thout t.he humid1statss-and ~ecause of the una:val lab i 1 i ty *9f: qua l. if fed humj di stat$, bypass in~ them e.nhances assurance of

  • . pr.oper heater operation. _ This b.vpass~ng of courset re~Vt!S the "eed to test.

. the btimiclJsta,ts,- and the need.:t~Lhaye such a survefl1ance test 1n 4.7.Bo 1.~o

  • The. ~st:aff~ findS, Jhe '.pr.op()sed ;9hciin~g': tp be accepti!blt! sin.ce the h,Umidistat controls. are:. not reqtiired* in. :order to ensure proper hea~er o,perat1on.

(~

'*J

,,**1\\

I J

\\.J 2*.9 Section 3.7.B.2.-c As now specified~ this section states:

"From and after the date that one train of the Cqntrol Room High Efficiency Air.F11tration System is made or found to be fncapable of supplying filtered air to the control room for any reaso~, reactor operation or refueling operations are permissible only during the succeedfng 7 days. 11 The proposed change wil1 provide an additional requirement consistent with proposed Section 3. 7.B. 1.c which reads:

" *** during the succeeding 7 days provid.ing that within two hoursg all act1ve components of the other CRHEAF train shall be demonstrated operab1e.

11 The staff finds this add1t1ona1 requirement to be acceptable for the same reasons ~iven in Se~tion 2.4 of th1s SER as it c1ar1fies the operability*

requirements fo)4 the CRHEAF and is consistent with GE STS.

3.0

SUMMARY

Bas~ on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the Pi1gr1m Technical Specifications concerning operability requirements for the SGTS and CRHEAFS are acceptable.

The bases for the staff's acceptance are that the proposed changes provide adequate clar1fication and meet the appropriate guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.52, and the GE STS (NUREG-0123, Revision 3, dated December 1980).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S This amendment 1nvolves a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined 1n 10 CFR Part 20.

The staff has determined that the amendment fnvo1ves no sign1ficant. increase 1n the amounts>> and no significant change in the types~ of any effluents that may be released offs1te, and that there 1s no sf~nificant increase 1n indiv1dua1 or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The Corrmission has previously published a proposed ffoding that the amendment fnvo.lves no s1gvdficant hazaY"ds cons1deratfon and there has been no pubi1c comment on such finding. Accordinglyg the arnandment meets the e11gib11ity c~iter1a for categorical exc1us1on set forth in 10 CFR §51.22(c){9). Pursuant to 10 CFR

§51.27(b} 9 no env1Y"onm2ntal impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connectfon w1th the 1ssuance of the amendment.

  • -~a 5.0.

CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the constderations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonab1e assurance that the health and ~afety of the public will not be endan~ered by operatton in the proposed manner9 and (2) such activities wi11 be conducted in compliance with the Commissio.n 1 s regu1ations, and the issuance of tMs amendment will not be in1m'fcal to the-common defense -

-- ~

  • and security or to the health and.safety of the publfc.

Principal Contributor: J. Lee Dated:

January 20 ~ 1988

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17264A101&oldid=5105890"