ML20011E263
| ML20011E263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E262 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002130019 | |
| Download: ML20011E263 (2) | |
Text
_
- .F p asty l
-l(.
k UNITED STATES '
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 WASHINGTON, D, C. 20666
{
i SAFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUCLEARPEACTORREGULATIOE i
RELATED TO AMENDNENT N0. 45 I
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTNEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR P0kER STATION UNIT NO. 3 l
DOCKET N0. 50-423 f
i INTRODUCTION By applications for license amendment dated October 17 and October 19,1989, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et. al (the licensee), nquested changes to l
MillstoneUnit3*technicalSpecifications(TS).
The proposed amendment vould change the Millstone Unit 3 TS as follows:
(1) TS 4.3.1.2, " Reactor Trip System Instrumentation" and TS 4.3.2.2, " Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation" would be changed-to require i
testing of input relays as part of the response time testing program, and (2) TS Table 4.3-2, " Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation -
Surveillance Requirements" would be changed to clarify loss-of-Offsite Power (LOOP)Testrequirements.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The purpose of response time testing is to assure that equipment which is i
i credited in the safety analyses for preventing, or ameliorating, the consequences of accidents will respond within the time frame assumed in the l
I safety analyses. At the Reactor Trip System (RTS)present time, the instrumentation associated with the l
and the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) are response time tested under TS 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.2, respectively.
One design feature that is comon to the RTS and the ESFAS it the two trains of input relays which are actuated by sensors and subsequently actuate the RTS and ESFAS. The licensee has proposed a change to TS 4.3.1.2 and 4,3.2.2 to explicitly include testing of the input relays as part of the RTS and ESFAS response time testing programs.
l The licensee's proposed change to TS 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.2 does not affect any response times or associated safety analyses but does serve to assure that the input relays are tested with the intended frequency. Accordingly, the proposed changes to TS 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.2 are acceptable.
[C PR 10 : O P-
n e
g, r.
Test intervals for the ESFAS are specified in TS Table 4.3-2.
At the present time, LOOP testing associated with ESFAS instrumentation is adoressed twice in TS Table 4.3-2 and is, in fact, the same requirement.
Item 6.e is the LOOP actuation surveillance for the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System while Item 8 is the LOOP actuation surveillance for all ESFAS instrumentation devices (including AFW). The licensee has proposed that Item 6.e of TS Table 4.3-2 be eliminated by referring to Item 8.
In addition, the licensee has proposed the following clarifying note for the monthly LOOP test required by Item 8 of TS l
Tabla 4.3-2:
On a monthly basis an undervoltage condition will be initiated at the I
sensing device to verify the operability of the trip actuating device and verify that the associated logic and alarm relays operate.
The proposed changes to the TS do not affect equipment test methods or frequencies but do serve to clarify existing requirements. Accordingly, the proposed changes to TS Table 4.3 2 are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIO_N This 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. We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increese in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released effsite, ar.d 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 censideration and there has been no public comrrent on such finding. Accordingly, the amendirent meets the eligibilitycriteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51,22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenvironmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION L
U We havp concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reatonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activitias will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the iscuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and secur!?.y or to the health and safety of the PM 04hrebtuary 2,1990 Prindpill Contributo(:
David h, Jaffe nx' L
P
)
, _