ML20023B768
| ML20023B768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023B759 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305060287 | |
| Download: ML20023B768 (2) | |
Text
.
- ns%
f y,
%'i
.*~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
wasmmatow, p. c. 2cass
- ...../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THF CFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR i<EGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 68 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-293 1.0 Introduction By letter dated January 14, 1983, Boston Edison Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TSs) in-volving a) limiting conditions for operation and s~ rveillance requirements u
associated with the drywell-pressure suppression chamber vacuum breaker position alarms, b) the limiting condition for operation associated with operation with i
a limiting control rod pattern, and c) the addressee associated with the re-porting requirement of TS 6.9. A.2 pertaining to Monthly Operating Reports.
2.0 jglpation 2.1 Drywell-Torus Vacuum Breaker Alarm TSs The proposed change to Specifications 3.7.A.4.a (3) and 4.7.A.4.a (3) (aiid their bases) which involve the drywell-torus vacuum breakers modifies the T3s i
to eliminate ambiguous language by describing the alarms in, detail and deleting outdated requiremerts applicable only until such time as the (now-installed) drywell-torus vacuum breaker position alarms were installed.
We have reviewad these proposed changes and have determined that they would 4
clarify the existing Technical Specifications by eliminating obsolete re-quirements and by more clearly defining and descrf bing the system to which the spscifications apply.
Consequentiy, we find the proposed changes to TSs 3.7.A.4.a(3) and 4.7.A.4.a(3) (and their bases) acceptable.
2.2 Minimum Critical Power Ratio TS The second changh proposed by Boston Edison (BECo) would replace the incorrect reference in Specification 3.3.B.5.c to a Minimum Criti. cal Power Ratio of 1.06 by a correct reference to the Safety limit MCPR (presently 'l.07). Previous re-load analyses established the Safety Limit MCPR at 1.07 (vice the less con-servative 1.06 erroneously stated in TS 3.3.B.5.c), and previous amenoc nts revised the TSs to refer to the S?fety Limit MCPR defined in TS 1;1.A rather than de-lineating the numerical value of this parameter in each specification.
- However, 3
such a change to TS 3.3.B.5.c had apparently been overlooked.
8305060P97 B30422 DR ADOCK 05000293 p
PDR 1
l m
s 2
We have reviewed this proposed change and have determined that it would correct the erroneous MCPR value of 1.06 stated in TS 3.3.E.5.c with the correct, more conservative, value of the Safety Limit MCPR (107). Consequently, we find the proposed change to TS 3.3.B.5.c acceptable.
2.3 Monthly Operating Report Submittal TSs The final change proposed by BECo would revise the reporting requirements of TS 6.9.A.2 (Monthbr0perating Report) to reflect reporting guidelines contained in the latest revision of Regulatory Guide 10.1.
This change does not affect in any way the frequency or content of reports submitted pursuant to this Specification.
The proposed change only identifies a new addressee to reflect the guidance contained in the latest revision (Revision 4) of Regulatory Guide 10.1.
3.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact, Naving 1
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 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraise 1 need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this unendment.
4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations -discussed above, that:
(1) because the snendment does not ir.volve a significant increase in the probetility or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the unendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of th? public will not be endangered by i
operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common l
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 22,1993 Principal Contributor:
K. Eccleston
-_.