ML19350D176
| ML19350D176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350D173 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104130641 | |
| Download: ML19350D176 (3) | |
Text
n neo fg UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHIN'lTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE 0.';t ICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 48 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-293 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 2,1980, the NRC transmitted model Technical Specifications to licensees under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.36 (d)(3). The Boston Edison Company (BECo) responded by letter dated March 16,1981, which requested their plant specific license amend-ment. This evaluation 1s in response to that request.
2.0 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION The NRC staff completed its evaluation of the actions teken by the Boston Edison Company at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (PNPS-1) as a result of implementation of the Category A items from the TMI-2 Lessons Learned.
In order to provide reasonable assurance that operating reactor facilities are maintained within the limits deter-mined acceptable following the implementation of the TMI-2 Lessons Learned Category "A" items, we requested that licensees amend their TSs to incorporate additional Limiting Conditions of Operation and Surveillance Requirements, as appropriate. By letter dated July 2, 1980, BECo was provided guidance in the scope and types of Technical Specifications required for the facility. BECo responded to this request for an amendment by letter dated November 6,1980 (BECo
- 80-285). At the request of the NRC staff, a second submittal was made dated March 16, 1981 (BECo #81-57). There were five recomen-dations made in the NRC letter of July 2,1980. Of these five, BECo determined that two should be incorporated into the Technical Specifi-cations.
All five of the items will be discussed.
3,0 EVALUATION i
(a) Erwrgency Power Supply / Inadequate Core Cooling As applicable to Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's) we indicated that the water level instrumentation is important to post accident monitorirg and that surveillance should be performed l
on this instrumentation. Surveillance and operability require-i ments already existed in the PNPS-1 Technical Specifications.
No change was required for this item.
8104180[p'//'
O
. (b) Valve Position Indication Our requirement for installation of a reliable position indication system for relief and safety valves was based on the need to provide the operator with a diagnostic aid to reduce the ambiguity between indications based on the experi-ence at TMI-2. PNPS-1 utilizes four safety / relief and two spring safety valves which were equipped with acoustic moni-toring devices. These devices indicate flow in the line or tail pipe assembly. Additional back-up information is pro-vided by temperature monitoring with thermocouples installed on each discharge or tail pipe. BECo proposed surveillance and operability requirements for these devices be incorpor-ated into their Technical Specifications (BECo 81-57). The proposed changes will improve the reliability of the instru-mentation and provide the desired assurance regarding its operability during plant operations. The incorporation of these changes will not degrade the performance of any safety system. Therefore, the changes are found acceptable.
(c) Containment Isolation We requested that the Technical Specifications be modified to include a Table of Containment Isolation Valves which reflected the diverse isolation signals that the design utilizes. The PNPS-1 specifications already possessed this feature with the appropriate surveillance and operability features. No change is required for this item.
(d) Shift Technical Advisor We requested that the requirement for a Shift Technical Advisor (STA) be reflected in the specifications. BECo has added the STA as part of the Minimum Shift Crew Composition.
In their letter of January 5,1981 (BECo 81-01), BECo committed to the STA program.
Their letter of March 16, 1981 was modified
- l (pg. 211) to clarify the fact that the STA does not perform the simultaneous function of a Senior Reactor Operator. The upgrading criteria for control room personnel to assume the STA roll, has not been established. Therefore, the STA is l
required in addition to the staffing requirements identified in NUREG 0737 (I.A.I.e).
The duties of the STA, as committed to by BECo, are detailed in an attachment to item I.A.l.1 of BECo 81-01, January 5,1981. We find the proposal for this i
specification acceptable.
l l
- Telecon NRC (Williams) and BECo Keys March 20, 1981
(.e) BECo did not incorporate License Conditions for Systems Integrity and Iodine monitoring as requested by our July 2, 1980 letter. Based on a review of the Confirmatory Order issued to Boston Edison on January 2,1980, the staff has determined that enforceable equivalent conditions already exist in the license. Therefore, no additional action is required for this item.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S We have detennined that the amendment does not involve a change in effluent types or total annunts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be pre-pared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously con-sidered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards con-sideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in com-pliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the coninon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 1,1981 i
l l