ML20127P543
| ML20127P543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127P497 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302010312 | |
| Download: ML20127P543 (2) | |
Text
- -
. p.* *8 eg'o p
UNITED STATES 4
~g l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WASHING TON, D. C. 20S55 g
g f
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NVCLEAR REACTOR P JLATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 145 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET N0. 50-293 1.0 JNTRODUCTION By the letter dated August 10, 1992, Boston Edison Company (SECo), requested a revision to the Technical Specifications of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to change the surveillance requirements (SR) of the station batteries.
The proposed amendment is to revise the performance test and add a service test of the batteries (Sections 4.9.A.2.c and 4.9.A.2.d).
2.0 EVALVATION The proposed change is to revise the Technical Specifications (TS)
" Surveillance Requirement" of the station batteries to add a service discharge test (load profile) at each operating cycle and establish the performance discharge test (capacity) once every 5 years.
The present SR Section 4.9.A.2.c of the TS requires that the safety related batteries be tested at " rated load discharge test" at each operating cycle.
BEco interpreted the " rated load discharge test" as the performance discharge test and not the service discharge test.
The TS change, Section 4.9.A.2.c, proposes to perform the service discharge test once-per-operating-cycle and a proposed TS Section 4.9.A.2.d was added to subject the batteries to a performance discharge test once every 5 years.
However, the proposed TS does not include a provision for battery replacement and degradation as described in IEEE Std. 450-1975 which shtes " annual performance (discharge). test of the battery capacity should be given to any battery that shows signs of degradation or has reached 85% of service life expected for the application."
In response to the above concern, BEco has agreed to revise the Surveillance Test Procedures to include a performance
-(discharge) test every 12 months to the battery that shows sign of degradation or has reached 85% of service life expected for the application in accordance with IEEE Std. 450-1975.
EELB has reviewed the proposed battery test provision and finds it acceptable.
The service discharge test provides adequate indication of the ability of the battery to meet the design requirements of the associated dc systen and the performance discharge test provides assurance and indication of battery ampere 9302010312 930125
-PDR ADOCK 05000293 P
f I.
e hour capacity.
These two proposed tests represent improvement in detecting a degraded cell.
In addition, the reduction in. frequency of the-performance test from once-per-operating-cycle to once every_5 years will effect*ively increase the battery life.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Massachusetts State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use'of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC' staff has determined.
that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual-or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding tbat the amendment involves no significant hazards tre has been no public comment on such finding-consideration, ant 4
(57 FR 61107). Ac:
Jingly, the amendment meets _the eligibility _ criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement oor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulatiers, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not'be inimical to'the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
E. Y. Wang Date: January 25. 1993 N
1 January 14, 1993
-I Dr. Andrew C. Kadak, President I
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 580 Main Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398
Dear Andy:
This is in reply to your letter of January-4 in which you explained the reasons you felt that a licensee cannot successfully renew a license under the-present license renewal rule.
My. staff and I are reviewing the rule and the means for implementing the rule, and we have concluded that a rule change is not needed.
We plan to discuss our implementation plans in a public meeting with NUMARC on January 29, 1993, at NRC headquarters.
If you or Don Edwards would like to attend and provide comments on our plans based on your experience with license renewal, we would be pleased to consider them.
Sincerely, Original signed by ThesasE. Eurley Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
W. Rasin, NUMARC DISTRIBUTIOJ
- Central, Files '
PDR TMurley R/F DCrutchfield WTravers WRussell FMiraglia JPartlow 9302010323 930114
?, 1 0 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC
.l PDR OFC R
NAME Tilurley:aj i
1/h93 DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: Kadak:licrenewal (2d pg ggJORI SN'
[f)?smc
[
-