ML021080238
| ML021080238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/2002 |
| From: | Starkey R NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 |
| To: | Feigenbaum T North Atlantic Energy Service Corp |
| Starkey, D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1122 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB4258 | |
| Download: ML021080238 (17) | |
Text
May 2, 2002 Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation c/o Mr. James M. Peschel P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE:
RELOCATION OF CERTAIN ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES PUMP VALUES FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS MANUAL (TAC NO. MB4258)
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum:
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 83 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 for the Seabrook Station, Unit No 1, in response to your application dated February 21, 2002.
The amendment revises surveillance requirements (SRs) in Technical Specifications (TSs) 4.1.2.3.1, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Shutdown; 4.1.2.4, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Operating; and 4.5.2, ECCS Subsystems - Tavg Greater Than or Equal to 350°F and associated Bases Sections 3/4.5.2 and 3/4.5.3, ECCS Subsystems. Specifically the changes relocate specific pressure, differential pressure and flow values, as well as specific test methods, associated with certain engineered safety features (ESF) pumps from the TSs to the Seabrook Station Technical Requirements Manual (SSTR). The amendment also relocates TS 4.5.2.h, regarding post-modification flow balance testing of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) subsystems, to the SSTR.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert D. Starkey, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 83 to NPF-86
- 2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page
May 2, 2002 Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation c/o Mr. James M. Peschel P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE:
RELOCATION OF CERTAIN ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES PUMP VALUES FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TO THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS MANUAL (TAC NO. MB4258)
Dear Mr. Feigenbaum:
The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 83 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 for the Seabrook Station, Unit No 1, in response to your application dated February 21, 2002.
The amendment revises surveillance requirements (SRs) in Technical Specifications (TSs) 4.1.2.3.1, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Shutdown; 4.1.2.4, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Operating; and 4.5.2, ECCS Subsystems - Tavg Greater Than or Equal to 350°F and associated Bases Sections 3/4.5.2 and 3/4.5.3, ECCS Subsystems. Specifically the changes relocate specific pressure, differential pressure and flow values, as well as specific test methods, associated with certain engineered safety features (ESF) pumps from the TSs to the Seabrook Station Technical Requirements Manual (SSTR). The amendment also relocates TS 4.5.2.h, regarding post-modification flow balance testing of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) subsystems, to the SSTR.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Robert D. Starkey, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443
Enclosures:
- 1. Amendment No. 83 to NPF-86
- 2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC JClifford GHill(2)
OGC TClark WBeckner ACRS SRichards CCowgill, RI PDI-2 R/F DStarkey Accession Number: ML021080238
- SE input dated 4-17-02, no major changes made.
- See previous concurrence OFFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA OGC**
RTSB
- PDI-2/SC NAME DStarkey TClark AHodgdon RDennig JClifford DATE 5/1/02 5/1/02 4-23-02 4-17-02 5/1/02 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 cc:
William J. Quinlan, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Mr. Peter Brann Assistant Attorney General State House, Station #6 Augusta, ME 04333 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seabrook Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874 Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03823 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Board of Selectmen Town of Amesbury Town Hall Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Dan McElhinney Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I J.W. McCormack P.O. &
Courthouse Building, Room 401 Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Stephen McGrail, Director ATTN: James Muckerheide Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General Steven M. Houran, Deputy Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Donald Bliss, Director New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management State Office Park South 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Daniel G. Roy Nuclear Training Manager Seabrook Station North Atlantic Energy Service Corp.
P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Mr. James M. Peschel Manager - Regulatory Programs Seabrook Station North Atlantic Energy Service Corp.
P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Mr. Gene F. St. Pierre Station Director Seabrook Station North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Mr. Frank W. Getman, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer BayCorp Holdings, LTD 20 International Drive, Suite 301 Portsmouth, NH 03801-6809
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 cc:
Mr. Bruce D. Kenyon President and Chief Executive Officer Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Mr. Steve Allen Polestar Applied Technology, Inc.
77 Franklin Street, Suite 507 Boston, MA 02110
NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL.*
DOCKET NO. 50-443 SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 83 License No. NPF-86 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment filed by the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, et al. (the licensee), dated February 21, 2002, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C.
There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
- North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (NAESCO) is authorized to act as agent for the:
North Atlantic Energy Corporation, Canal Electric Company, The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Great Bay Power Corporation, Hudson Light & Power Department, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Little Bay Power Corporation, New England Power Company, New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc., Taunton Municipal Light Plant, The United Illuminating Company, and has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.
2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 83, and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B are incorporated into Facility License No. NPF-86. NAESCO shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. The implementation of this amendment shall include the relocation of certain technical specification requirements to the Seabrook Station Technical Requirements Manual as described in the Licensees application dated February 21, 2002, and evaluated in the staffs Safety Evaluation attached to this amendment.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
James W. Clifford, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: May 2, 2002
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 83 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 DOCKET NO. 50-443 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised pages as indicated. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the area of change.
Remove Insert 3/4 1-9 3/4 1-9 3/4 1-10 3/4 1-10 3/4 5-6 3/4 5-6 3/4 5-7 3/4 5-7 B 3/4 5-2 B 3/4 5-2
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated February 21, 2002, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (the licensee), requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook). The proposed changes would revise surveillance requirements (SRs) in TSs 4.1.2.3.1, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Shutdown; 4.1.2.4, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Operating; and 4.5.2, ECCS Subsystems - Tavg Greater Than or Equal to 350°F and associated Bases Sections 3/4.5.2 and 3/4.5.3, ECCS Subsystems. Specifically the proposed changes would relocate specific pressure, differential pressure and flow values, as well as specific test methods, associated with certain engineered safety features (ESF) pumps from the TSs to the Seabrook Station Technical Requirements Manual (SSTR). The licensee also proposed relocating TS 4.5.2.h, regarding post-modification flow balance testing of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) subsystems, to the SSTR. These changes are consistent with the standard technical specifications (STSs), NUREG-1431, Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants," dated October 10, 2001.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to include the TSs as part of the license. The Commissions regulatory requirements related to the content of the TSs are set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. The regulation requires that the TSs include items in eight specific categories.
The categories are: (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; (5) administrative controls; (6) decommissioning; (7) initial notification; and (8) written reports.
However, the regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plants TSs.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.36 specifies four criteria to be used in determining whether a particular matter is required to be included in a limiting condition for operation (LCO), as follows: (1) installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to, the integrity of a fission product barrier; (3) a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design-basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to, the integrity of a fission product barrier; or (4) a structure, system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic safety assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety. LCOs and related requirements that fall within or satisfy any of the criteria in the regulation must be retained in the TSs, while those requirements that do not fall within or satisfy these criteria may be relocated to licensee-controlled documents.
The Seabrook TSs include detailed information related to system design and operation and also procedural details for meeting TS action and surveillance requirements. When inclusion of such information has been shown to give little or no safety benefit, its removal from the TS may be appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of: (1) generic NRC action; (2) new staff positions that have evolved from technological advancements and operating experience; or (3) resolution of the industry comments on STSs. The NRC staff reviewed generic relaxations contained in STSs and found them acceptable because they are consistent with current licensing practices and the Commission's regulations. The licensee proposed to relocate information from existing SRs that describes ESF pump inservice testing (IST) acceptance criteria and test methods. Also proposed for relocation is information regarding post-modification flow balance testing of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) subsystems.
The licensee stated that information related to ESF pump performance and ECCS flow balance criteria would be moved to the SSTR, a licensee-controlled document, which is referenced in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and used for implementing Seabrooks Technical Specification Improvement Program (TSIP). By virtue of the SSTRs incorporation by reference into the UFSAR, and as required by current TS 6.7.1.i, changes to requirements in the SSTR must be reviewed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. In addition, the TSs require such changes to be reviewed and approved by the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) prior to implementation.
The staff finds that in its submittal the licensee identified the applicable regulatory requirements.
The regulatory requirements and guidance on which the staff based its acceptance are:
10 CFR Sections 50.36, 50.55a, 50.59, 50.65, 50.90, and 50.92; The model TSs contained in the improved STSs, NUREG-1431, Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants," dated October 10, 2001; specifically SR 3.5.2.4 and associated Bases; Generic Letter 91-04, Changes in Technical Specification Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle, April 2, 1991; and Regulatory Guide 1.160, Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, March 1997.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
A current TS requirement may be removed from the TSs and placed in a licensee-controlled document provided that the requirement does not satisfy any of the four criteria of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) and adequate regulatory controls exist, such as 10 CFR 50.59, to govern future changes to the requirement. The staff has evaluated the information the licensee proposed to move from the TSs to the SSTR against these conditions. The following evaluation explains why this information is not required to be included in the TSs and why moving this information to the SSTR is acceptable.
3.1 Relocation of Pump Performance Criteria and Test Procedural Details from ESF Pump IST SRs to the SSTR 3.1.1 Statement of Proposed Changes The licensee proposed to relocate the ESF pump performance criteria values and test procedural details from the TSs to the SSTR as follows:
(a) Specification 3/4.1.2.3, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Shutdown TS 4.1.2.3.1 is changed from The above required charging pump shall be demonstrated operable by verifying on recirculation flow, that a differential pressure across the pump of greater than or equal to 2480 psid is developed when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5.
to The above required charging pump shall be demonstrated operable when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5.
(b)
Specification 3/4.1.2.4, Boration Systems Charging Pump - Operating TS 4.1.2.4 is changed from At least two charging pumps shall be demonstrated operable by verifying on recirculation flow, that a differential pressure across the pump of greater than or equal to 2480 psid is developed when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5.
to At least two charging pumps shall be demonstrated operable when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5.
(c)
Specification 3/4.5.2, ECCS SUBSYSTEMS - Tavg Greater than or Equal to 350F TS 4.5.2.f is changed from By verifying that each of the following pumps develops the indicated differential pressure on recirculation flow when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5:
- 1) Centrifugal charging pump 2480 psid;
- 2) Safety Injection pump 1445 psid; and
- 3) RHR pump 171 psid.
to By verifying operability of each pump when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5:
- 1) Centrifugal charging pump;
- 2) Safety Injection pump; and
- 3) RHR pump.
3.1.2 Evaluation of Proposed Changes Details for performing SRs are more appropriately specified in the plant procedures required by TS 6.7, the UFSAR, and the TS Bases. For example, control of the plant conditions appropriate to perform a surveillance is an issue for procedures and scheduling and has previously been determined to be unnecessary as a TS restriction. As indicated in Generic Letter 91-04, allowing this procedural control is consistent with the vast majority of other SRs that do not dictate plant conditions for surveillances. Prescriptive procedural information in an SR is unlikely to contain all procedural considerations necessary for the plant operators to complete the specified test. Referral to plant procedures is required in any event. Other changes to procedural details include those associated with limits retained in the TS. For example, TS 4.0.5 requires the inservice testing (IST) requirements of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME Code) as required by 10 CFR 50.55a for ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves. With respect to IST, TS 4.0.5 is equivalent to STS 5.5.8.
The STS Bases for SR 3.5.2.4, ECCS pump IST, states that Periodic surveillance testing of ECCS pumps to detect gross degradation caused by impeller structural damage or other hydraulic component problems is required by Section XI of the ASME Code. This type of testing may be accomplished by measuring the pump developed head at only one point of the pump characteristic curve. This verifies both that the measured performance is within an acceptable tolerance of the original pump baseline performance and that the performance at the test flow is greater than or equal to the performance assumed in the plant safety analysis.
SRs are specified in the IST Program, which encompassesSection XI of the ASME Code.
Section XI of the ASME Code provides the activities and frequencies necessary to satisfy the requirements. However, STS 3.5.2.4 does not contain explicit values of ECCS pump performance acceptance criteria or describe the pump test method. In addition, STSs do not contain specifications for boration systems because the boration function of the charging pumps does not satisfy the criteria in 10 CFR 50.36 for inclusion in TSs. Even so, the charging pumps would be included in the IST program.
TSs 4.1.2.3.1, 4.1.2.4, and 4.5.2.f provide details describing ESF pump acceptance criteria and test methods (e.g., testing on recirculation flow) associated with the performance of IST.
Including these details in TSs is not necessary to ensure the operability of the ECCS and boration subsystems. The requirements of the applicable LCO and the associated SRs for these subsystems, as well as the TS definition of operability, are adequate to ensure the ECCS and boration subsystems are maintained operable. In addition, these details are not a process variable or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to, the integrity of a fission product barrier. Thus, they are not required by 10 CFR 50.36 to be included in TSs. Therefore, these details are not necessary to ensure that the ECCS and boration subsystems can perform their intended safety function and are not required to be in the TSs to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety. The placement of these details in the SSTR is acceptable because changes to the SSTR, which are incorporated into the UFSAR by reference, are subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. The STS contains neither explicit values for IST pump performance criteria nor test procedural information. Thus, transfer of these details to the SSTR is consistent with the STS.
The staff finds that (a) the SSTR will continue to ensure adequate implementation of the information regarding IST pump performance criteria and test methods relocated from existing TSs 4.1.2.3.1, 4.1.2.4, and 4.5.2.f, (b) adequate regulatory controls exist through 10 CFR 50.59 and current TS 6.7.1.i to control future changes to this information, (c) the revised TS requirements, TS 4.0.5, and the IST program requirements are adequate to ensure the operability of the boration and ECCS subsystem pumps, and (d) this information is not required by 10 CFR 50.36 to be included in TSs. Therefore, the transfer of the information regarding IST pump performance criteria and test methods from existing TSs 4.1.2.3.1, 4.1.2.4, and 4.5.2.f to the SSTR is acceptable.
3.2 Relocation of ECCS Subsystem Flow Balance SR to the SSTR 3.2.1 Statement of Proposed Change to Specification 3/4.5.2, ECCS SUBSYSTEMS - Tavg Greater than or Equal to 350F TS 4.5.2.h is proposed to be relocated to the SSTR in its entirety; it states:
By performing a flow balance test, during shutdown, following completion of modifications to the ECCS subsystems that alter the subsystem flow characteristics and verifying that:
1)
For centrifugal charging pump lines, with a single pump running:
a)
The sum of the injection line flow rates, excluding the highest flow rate, is greater than or equal to 306 gpm, and b)
The total pump flow rate is less than or equal to 549 gpm.
2)
For Safety Injection pump lines, with a single pump running:
a)
The sum of the injection line flow rates, excluding the highest flow rate, is greater than or equal to 419 gpm, and b)
The total pump flow rate is less than or equal to 669 gpm.
3)
For RHR pump lines, with a single pump running, the sum of the injection line flow rates is greater than or equal to 4213 gpm.
3.2.2 Evaluation of Proposed Change TS SR 4.5.2.h requires the performance of a flow balance test to the ECCS subsystems following the completion of modifications that alter the subsystem flow characteristics. TS 6.7.1 requires the licensee to have written approved maintenance procedures that govern the restoration of equipment to operable status after maintenance or modification. Such procedures specify the appropriate post-maintenance testing. In addition, the TS definition of operability requires that an operable ECCS subsystem be capable of performing its intended safety function, and this depends on proper flow balance between the ECCS pumps in each subsystem. Thus, anytime repair, maintenance, modification, or replacement of a component makes a TS-required system or component inoperable, the licensee must conduct appropriate post-maintenance testing to demonstrate operability of the system or component. Therefore, this post-modification test requirement is not needed in TSs in order to ensure post-modification restoration of the required flow distribution of the centrifugal charging pump, safety injection pump, and RHR pump lines to support the operability of the associated ECCS subsystems. In addition, this post-modification test requirement is not an operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of, or presents a challenge to, the integrity of a fission product barrier. Thus it is not required to be included in TSs by 10 CFR 50.36. Therefore, the requirement to perform a flow balance test after modifications that alter flow characteristics is not required to be in the TS to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety.
In addition, modifications that alter the subsystem flow characteristics must be conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.65. Hence adequate regulatory controls exist for plant modification implementation. Finally, the requirement to conduct this testing during shutdown is unnecessary because flow balance verification and adjustment can only be accomplished during shutdown conditions.
The STS does not contain post-maintenance or preventive maintenance requirements. Thus, transfer of this specification to the SSTR is consistent with the STS. The placement of this specification in the SSTR is acceptable because changes to the SSTR, which are incorporated into the UFSAR by reference, are subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. Thus, by relocating this specification to the SSTR, any change to this specification will be made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, as specified in the licensees programs and procedures governing changes to the SSTR.
The staff finds that (a) the SSTR will continue to ensure adequate implementation of the existing flow-balance test requirements removed from existing TS 4.5.2.h, (b) adequate regulatory controls exist through 10 CFR 50.59 and current TS 6.7.1.i to control future changes to these requirements, (c) TS 3.5.2 and the definition of operability will ensure proper flow balancing is maintained, and (d) these requirements are not required by 10 CFR 50.36 to be included in TSs. Therefore, the relocation of the ECCS subsystem flow balance post-modification test requirement from existing TS 4.5.2.h to the SSTR is acceptable.
3.3 Conclusion The ESF pump performance criteria, pump test method description, and the ECCS subsystem flow balance post-modification test requirement do not fall within any of the four criteria contained in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). These requirements do not need to be included in the TSs to ensure the effectiveness of TSs to adequately protect the health and safety of the public.
These requirements are not required to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to public health and safety. Accordingly, these requirements may be moved to the SSTR, a licensee-controlled document for which changes are adequately governed by 10 CFR 50.59.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State officials had no comments.
5.0 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 that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (67 FR 12604). Accordingly, 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 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 regulations, 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: C. Harbuck Date: May 2, 2002