ML20054D662
| ML20054D662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D631 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-48771, NUDOCS 8204230248 | |
| Download: ML20054D662 (2) | |
Text
.. -
s eer o,,
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
g j
wAsHmGTON, D. C. 20S56
\\ '"** /
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 56 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-293 Author: Kenneth T. Eccleston 1.0 Introduction By letter dated February 19, 1982, Boston Edison Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifica-tions (TS) to incorporate limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for safety relief valve (SRV) discharge pipe (tailpipe) temperatures and associated instrumentation.
2.0 Background
The safety relief valves employed at Pilgrim are two stage Target Rock valves which were installed prior to Cycle 5 operation.
Setpoint drift experienced during as-received testing of these valves at Wyle Laboratories after Cycle 5 operation has been attributed, at least in part, to excessive valve leakage.
3.0 Evaluation i
j The TS changes proposed by the licensee require 1) daily recording of SRV.
discharge pipe temperatures whenever these SRVs are required to be operable and 2) calibration, instrument checks, and operability for the thermocoupies installed to monitor discharge In addition, limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) pipe temperatures.
have been proposed which require the submittal of a prompt report to the NRC describing the corrective actions taken or planned and measures taken to grevent recurrence if the temperature of any i
SRV discharge pipe exceeds 212 F for a period of greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
In addition. LCOs have been proposed which require testing of any valve 0
whose discharge pipe temperature exceeds 212 F for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or-more at the next cold shutdown of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or more.
Further, NRC approval is required before operation may continue for more than 90 days after 0
discovery of discharge pipe temperatures in excess of 212 F.
Discharge pipe 0
temperatures of 212 F correspond to minimal SRV leakage. The proposed i
surveillance requirements include testing of all SRVs in the as-found condition during both Cycle 6 and Cycle 7.
As-found testing of the SRVs will provide further assurance of satisfactory SRV' performance during the l
current and future cycles of operation.
Finally, the proposed TS require that an engineering evaluation be performed justifying continued operation j
for the temperature increases experienced.
.8204asgo2 %
2 s
The proposed LC0/ surveillance requirements associated with SRV tem.neratures and temperature monitoring instrumentation provide assurance that valve leakage will be identified when valve leakage is minimal, thereby minimizing the potential for valve setpoint drift. The additional testing, reporting, and engineering evaluations required by these TS assures timely identification and resolution of any problems before excessively long (>90 days) operation with leaking safety relief valves. Consequently, we find the licensee's ' proposed TS acceptable.
4.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not involve a change in effluent types or total amounts 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 prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 Conclusions 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 considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (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 compliance with the Commission's regulations and the_ issuance.
of the amendment will not be inimical to the cormon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 20,1982 8
9
...>.sv
-