ML20137R509
| ML20137R509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137R507 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8602130257 | |
| Download: ML20137R509 (2) | |
Text
'
[ ano
'a UNITED STATES
~g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4
3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 92 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION s
\\
DOCKET NO. 50-293 N s
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 9, 1985, Boston Edison Company (the licensee) proposed two changes in Table 3.1.1 of the Technical Specifications fors Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
Table 3.1.1 lists the reactor protection system (SCRAM) instrumentation requirements.
Currently the footnote associated with the APRM high flux scram setpoint states:
. operation.
This is to be changea to:
- APRM high flux scram setpoint 1 (.58W - 62%) RITP5 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.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed change in the formula in the footnote. associated with the AP'M R
high flux scram setpoint is to correct an oversight which occurred with the issuance of Amendment No. 72 to the Pilgrim operating license.
Amendment No. 72 changed the same formula in Technical Specification 2.1.A.1.a and on the APRM Scram Line of Figure 3.11.9 " Pilgrim Power / Flow Map."
The formula in the Table 3.1.1 footnote should also have been changed at that time.
In our safety evaluation supporting Amendment No. 72, we found the s
change in the formula to be acceptable.
On the basis of that review, we also find this proposed change in Table 3.1.1 to be acceptable.
The other proposed change is simply to restore a reference to note (13) for Table 3.1.1 which was inadvertently deleted in issuing Amendment No. 15 to the Pilgrim operating license.
This reference will aid users of the table in locating the definition of APRM inoperability.
However, the restoration of this reference kill have no effect on safety considerations since the definition itself has continually been available in note (13).
This change is, therefore, acceptable.
kfYbN f.
P
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility compenent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The 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 that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this 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 nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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, and (2) 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 defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
P. H. Leech Dated: February 4,1986 l