BECO-85-147, Application for Amend (Proposed Change 85-10) to License DPR-35,revising Tech Spec Table 3.1.1, Reactor Protection Sys (Scram) Instrumentation Requirement. Fee Paid
| ML20134C102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1985 |
| From: | Oxsen A BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134C105 | List: |
| References | |
| BECO-85-147, NUDOCS 8508160208 | |
| Download: ML20134C102 (4) | |
Text
,
,o, l
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY 800 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS D219 9 A.L.OXSEN August 9, 1985 VICE PeESIDE847 SouCLEAR OPER ATIONS BECo 85-147 Proposed Change 85-10 Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 License DPR-35 Docket 50-293 Proposed Change to Technical Specification Table 3.1.1
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Boston Edison Company hereby proposes the attached modification to Appendix A of Operating License No. DPR-35.
This modification revises Table 3.1.1, "Raactor Protection System (SCRAM) Instrumentation Requirement", by changing a footnote at the Table's bottom, and by reinstating
- a. footnote reference number which was inadvertently deleted in an earlier amendment.
Should you require further information on this submittal, please contact us.
Very truly yours, PMK/kmc.
Attachment One original and 39 copies Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
County of Suffolk.
)
Then personally appeared before me A. L. Oxsen, who, being duly sworn, did
. state that he is-Vice President - Nuclear Operations of the Boston Edison Company,.the applicant herein, and that he is duly authorized to execute and file the submittal contained herein in the name and on behalf of the Boston Edison Company and that the statements in said submittal are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
[
9 My Commission expires: M ah79gg f
Notarf P b'lic cc: See next page
~
] j(/ td 9 fgd i 8508160208 850809
/g PDR 4 DOCK 05000293 oft p$$g -
[
P PDR
.r.-
ss BOSTON EDISON COMPANY i
t Mr. Ocmenic B. Vassallo, Chief f
August 9, 1985 Page 2 cc: Mr. Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Program
-Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health 600 Washington Street, Room 770 I
l Boston, MA 02111 I.
l l
1 l
+
1
(
f
{
- c
}-
g ;
Proposed Change Reference is made to Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit #1 Technical Specifications Appendix A, Table 3.1.1 " Reactor Protection System (SCRAM)
(;:-
Instrumentation Requirement".
,)
Currently;-the footo.ote assxiated with the APRM high flux scram setpoint
!*1 states:
+
~
FRP "
- APRM high flux scram setpoint 1 (.65W + 55)
MFLPD Two recirc pump operation.
This is to be changed to:
l 7,-
- *APRM high flux. scram setpoint 1 (.58H + 627.)
MFLPD Two recirc pump operation.
~ The other proposed change-is to place the note reference (13) in the " Trip Level Setting" column at the "APRM Inoperative" line.
i 3
Reason for Change
-The change-to the formula at the bottom of Table 3.1.1 is proposed to correct f'
an oversight which occurred with Amendment #72. Amendment #72 changed the formula in PNPS Technical Specification 2.1.A.l.a (pages 6 and 7), and the-APRM Scram Line oftFigure 3.11-9 " Pilgrim Power / Flow Map" (page 205H).
The formula should have been' changed on Table 3.1.1 at that time.
i The reinstatement of note reference (13) to Table 3.1.1 is to correct its inadvertent deletion which occured in Amendment #15. Amendment #15 became effective May 21, 1976. At that time (13) was no longer on the page, probably due to a typographical error.
Its reinstatement gives guidance to table users concerning APRM operability.
Safety Considerations e
i The change to the formula on page 27.is not,of safety significance because it is administrative in nature.
The proposal.which:became Amendment #72 was supported by NED0-22198, and was found by NRC to'present no unreviewed safety concerns orisignificant hazards.
' Restoring reference to note (13) in Table 3.1.1 is also administrative in nature because its only purpose is to aid in locating the definition of APRM g.
- Inoperability.
1 This proposed change'has been reviewed and approved by the Operations Review
+
Committee and revlewed by the Nuclear Safety Review and Audit Committee.
s f
4
)
L.
6..
e
.. o
\\
-Significant Hazards Considerations The Commission has provided guidance for the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant h4zards considerations (48FR14870). One such amendment is a change which either may result in some increase in the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where'the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified:
for example, a change
'resu; ting from the application of a small refinement of a previously used scalculational model or design method.
The' change proposed to the APRM scram setpoint formula is such a change. Chapter 3 of the Pilgrim Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) describes the basic operating envelope within which normal reactor operations are conducted.
Subsequent analyses were conducted to justify expansion of this operating region using refinements of previously employed calculational models.
The results of the analyses were reflected in the September 1982 Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Cycle 6 and NE00-22198.
The formula change now being proposed therefore reflects the appilcation of a small refinement of a previously used calculational model and as such involves a proposed change similar to examples for which no significant hazards consideration exists.
Another example of an amendment which would not be considered likely to involve significant hazards considerations is a purely administrative change:
for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature.
The proposed reinstatement of note reference (13) to Table 3.1.1 is such a change because it corrects a previous error, the unintentional deletion of note reference (13) during an earlier emendation.
Therefore, since this application for amendment involves proposed changes that i
are similar to the examples for which no significant hazards consideration exists, Boston Edison proposes that a determination should be made by the NRC that this application for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Schedule of Change This change will be effective 30 days after receipt of the Commission's approval.
Fee Determination Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12(c) this submittal includes a check for $150.00 in payment of the application fee.
1 19 b