ML19302E275
| ML19302E275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19302E274 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010010303 | |
| Download: ML19302E275 (2) | |
Text
't
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
n.
{
WASHINGTON D. C. 205$5
- %...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 55 T,0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 INTRODUCTION By application for license amenoment dated June 29, 1990, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), requested a change to Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed amendment would change Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS) 4.4.8, " Specific Activity," to allow reactor startup without prior deter-mination of E-bar (a measurement of the specific activity of all isotopes in the reactor coolant that have half lives greater than 10 minutes).
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Technical Specification 4.4.8 requires the licensee to measure E-bar at least every 6 months.
This surveillance requirement further states that the 'easurement m
must take place after a minimum of 2 effective full power days and 20 days of power operation.
An additional provision, TS 4.0.4, applies to TS 4.4.8 and requires that, "... Entry into an OPERATIONAL MODE or other specified condition shall not be made unless the Surveillance Requirement (s) associated with the Limiting Condition for Operation has been performed within the stated surveillance interval or as otherwise specified."
In the' event that the licensee has not performed the required surveillance during the stated surveillance interval, the combination of TS 4.4.8 and 4.0.4 would preclude reactor startup since E-bar must be deternined after operation at full power (TS 4.4.8), while full power operation is precluded since a required surveillance has not been performed (TS 4.0.4).
This situation occurred at Millstone Unit 3 in that, on January 18, 1990, the licensee discovered that the surveillance that requires E-bar be measured once every 6 months per Technical Specification Section 4.4.8 had not been met.
On January 18, 1990, the licensee requested NRC Enforcement Discretion regarding the requirements of Specification 4.0.4'to allow start-up of' Millstone Unit No. 3 from MODE 3 in order to take a reactor ccolant sample to satisfy the requirement for the E-bar determination.
The NRC subsequently granted relief from Technical Specification 4.0.4, regarding completion of surveillance requirements per Section 4.4.8 prior to plant start-up.
This relief permitted restart of Millstone Unit No. 3 to allow taking a reactor coolant sample to satisfy the E-bar determination.
9010010303 900919 PDR ADOCK 05000423 p
PDC 4
6
, The proposed change to TS.4.4.8 would add a statement that TS 4.0.4 is not applicable to the E-bar determination. Thus, should the E-bar determination not be made within the required interval, startup of Millstone Unit 3 would be permitted.
The NRC staff understands that the E-bar determination would be made, subsequently, at the earliest permitted time.
The NRC staff recognizes that a conflict exists in TS 4.0.4 in that, when a surveillance can only be accomplished in a particular operational mode, TS 4.0.4 may prevent entry into that mode to perform the surveillance.
It is the NRC staff's position that an exception to TS 4.0.4 should be permitted when entry into an operational mode is required to perform a surveillance.
The proposed change to TS 4.4.8 allows entry into an operational mode where E-bar can be determined. Accordingly, the proposed change to TS 4.4.8 is acceptable.
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. We have 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 staff has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimaactstatementorenvironmental assessment need be prepared in connection with tae issuance of tne amendment.
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 (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.
Dated: September 19, 1990 Principal Contributor:
~
D. daffe
<