ML20205E288

From kanterella
Revision as of 18:50, 7 December 2024 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 90 to License DPR-35
ML20205E288
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 10/09/1985
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20205E277 List:
References
NUDOCS 8510170255
Download: ML20205E288 (2)


Text

.

op at4 9'o,,

UNITED STATES

+8

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

5 E

WASHINGTON, D C. 20555

%.....)

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 90 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-293

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated June 18, 1985 the Boston Edison Company (licensee) proposed a change in Table 3.2.8 relative to the trip level setting for Reactor Low Water Level (inside shroud). The change consists of replacing the setting specification of " & 302 inches above vessel zero (2/3 core height)" with

" >f 307 inches above vessel zero (approximately 2/3 core height)."

2.0 EVALUATION The proposed change would raise the minimum trip level setting for Reactor Low Water Level by 5 inches to 307 inches above vessel zero. This is a correction to make the setting more nearly equivalent to the general term "2/3 core height". The 307-inch level above vessel zero will serve the purpose of the minimum setpoint, which is to prevent inadvertent operation of the containment spray during an accident condition. The 5-inch higher minimum level will also provide a somewhat greater degree of core coverage d* ring an accident condition. On this basis, we find that safety considerations would not be adversely affected by the proposed change.

It is, therefore, acceptable.

i

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S This amendment involves a change in 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 significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Connission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public connent 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

9 0510170255 OS 293 PDR ADOCK PDR P

i l

_ - ~. _,

4.0 CONCLUSION

We have 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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

P. H. Leech Dated:

October 9,1985

\\-

4 4

e d

i J

i l

a f

. _,