ML20213A044
| ML20213A044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213A029 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704270359 | |
| Download: ML20213A044 (2) | |
Text
%
a nc g
o, UNITED STATES
(
,o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
1 o,
.Y ff WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.100 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET N0. 50-293
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 2,1986 (Ref.1) from J. M. Lydon, Boston Edison Company (BECo), to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, BEco proposed to change the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Unit 1 Technical Specifications to provide for the addition of a new fuel type (BP8DRB300) for the Reload Cycle #7 operation.
2.0 EVALUATION The General Electric Company (GE) pressurized 8x8 retrofit barrier fuel (BP80RB300) has been previously staff-reviewed and approved based on the use of design methodologies described in the approved GE topical report NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II)" (Ref. 2). Therefore, we conclude that the design analysis of the fuel assembly is acceptable.
The licensee has proposed that the MAPLHGR curve, based on plant specific LOCA and LHGR analyses using standard, approved methodologies for the fresh fuel bundles of BP8DRB300, be added to the PNPS technical specifications (LC0 3.11 A and Figure 3.11-7) for the Reload Cycle #7. The staff finds that this change is acceptable and appropriate.
The licensee submittal did not address the Cycle 7 reload design or the transient and accident analyses for Cycle 7 operation. Therefore, our evaluation is restricted to the proposed technical specification change and does not imply staff review and approval of the Cycle 7 operation.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component 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 significent increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation j
exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no sionificant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the g42]Q $o 3
P
1 W 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.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from J. M. Lydon, Boston Edison Company, to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, dated October 2, 1986.
2.
GESTAR II, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, NEDE-24011-P-A-8-US Class III, April,1983, and its Proposed Amendment 13 (to Revision 6 to NEDE-24011-P-A) submitted September 24, 1985 and approved March 26, 1986.
Principal Contributor:
U. Cheh Dated: APR 9 1937
.