ML20031F399
| ML20031F399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031F392 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110190750 | |
| Download: ML20031F399 (4) | |
Text
.
f*.'%'o,,
UNITED STATES v
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
\\..... o#
SAfETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATION SUPPCRTING AMENDMENT NO. 79 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-21 NORTHEAST K LEAR ENERGY COMPANY, MILLSTONE UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-245 I.
INTRODUCTI0k By letter dated September 16, 1980, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company'(NNECo)
(the licensee) proposed an amendment to Appendix A, Technical Specifications for Provisional.0perating' License No.~0PR-21, Millstone Unit No. 1.
The amendment involves the incorporation of certain of the TMI-2 Lessons Learned Category "A" requirements. The licensee's proposal and telephone agreements are in response to the NRC, staff's letter dated July 2, 1980.
II. BACKGROUND By our letter dated September 13, 1979, we issued to all operating nuclear power plants requirements established as a result of our review of the TMI-2 accident.
Certain of these requirements, designated Lessons Learned Category "A" requirements, were to.have been completed.by the licensee prior to any operatio.n subsequent to Janaury 1,1981. Our evaluation of the licensee:s complia3ce with these Category "A" items was attached to our letter to NNECo dated April 1, 1980.
l In order to provide reasonable assurance that operating reactor facilities are maintained within the limits determjned acceptable following* the implementetion of the TPI-2 Lessons Learned Category "A" items, we requested that licensees j
amend their Technical Specifications to. incorporate additional Limiting Conditions; of Operation and Surveillance Requirements, as appropriate.
'This request was i
transmitted to all licensees o.n July 2,1980.
Included therein were model l
specifications that we had detennined to be acceptable.
The licensee's application is in direct response to our request.
Each of the issues identified by the NRC staff and the licensee's response is discussed in the following Evalua t'i on.
h110190750 811005 PDR ADOCK 05000245
- - (P PDR
III. EVALUATION 1.
Emergency Power Supply / Inadequate Core Cooling As applicable to Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), we indicated that instrumentation is important to post-accident monitoring.and that surveillance of this instrumentation should be performed. The licensee's response to this request stated that their current surveillance require-ments for the reactor water level instrumentation are in adequate agree-ment with our requirements.
We have reviewed the current specifications (Tables 3.2.1 and 4.2.1) and determined that water level instrumentation is included. The specifications. provide ACTION statements for inoperable instrument channels. Surveillance i aquirements for instrument checks.and calibration are also included. The frequency of. surveillance meets or exceeds our guidelines. Based on this review, we. conclude that no changes are necessary to satisfy our requirements.
~
2.
Valve Position Indication Our requirements for installation of a reliable position indicating system for relief and safety valves was based on the need to provide the operator with a diagnostic aid to reduce the ambiguity between indications that might ndicate either an open relief / safety valve or a small line break. Such' a system did not need.to be safety grade provided that backup methods of determining valve positions are available.
Yhe licensee added acoustic and temperature monitor specifications (T.S. 3.6.E.3, 3.6.E.4, 4.6.E.3 and 4.6.E.4) as approved by 2
Amendment No. 73. Actions have been specified for the condition of an inoperable channel and for inoperability of both detector channels.
Additional calibration requirements are to be included in.accordance with this amendment (i.e. T.S. 4.6.E.5).
Based on our review. we find that the changes' identified satisfy our guidelines and are acceptable.
3.
Containment Isolation Our request indicated that the specifications should include a Table of Containment Isolation Valves which reflect the diverse isolation signal l
requirement of this Lessons Learned issue. The licensee's response to this request stated that their current specifications are in adequate agreement with our requirements.
We.have reviewed.the current specifications (Table 3.7.1) and conclude that no changes are required to satisfy our requirements.
U
l
. 4.
Iodine Monitoring
~
We requested that the licensees implement a program which will ensure the capability to determine the airborne iodine concentration in areas requiring personnel access under accident conditions. The licensee's program. includes training of personnel, procedures for monitoring and provisions for maintenance of sampling'and analysis equipment.
Based on our review we find that inclusion of this requirement :s T.S.
6.13 satisfies our requirement and is acceptable.
5.
Integrity of Systems Outside Containment Our request indicated that licensees should be required to periodically conduct a System Integrity Measurements Program to prevent the release of significant amounts of radioactivity to the environment via leakage from engineered safety : systems and auxiliary systems which are located ou" side reactor containment. The -licensee's program includes provisions for a preventive maintenance program and periodic visual inspections.
The pr5 gram also includes system leak test measurements at frequencies not to exceed refueling cycle intervals.
Based on our review we find that inclusion of this requirement as T.S.
6.14 satisfies our requirement and is acceptable.
6.
Shift Technical Advisor We requested that licensees revise the Technical.Sp'ecifications to reflect the augmentation of a Shift Technical Advisor.
We have reviewed the proposed Technical Specification changes, Section 6.3 and Table 6.2-1 and have concluded that the changes identified satisfy our objective and are, therefore, acceptable, IV. ENVIRONMENTAL C0fLilDERATIONS We have determined that the amendment does.not: authorize.a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in. power level and will not result in.
any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which 1.s insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
E
1 c
,, V.
CONCLUSION _
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not i,nvolve a significant increase in ttye probability
, or consequences of acciderits previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there'is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with will not be the Commission's regulations and the isstance of this', amendment inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
e Dated: October 6, 1981 9
, eSu r
[
t
\\
g i
7.
~
u N
^' 5 A h
I
.i
's e
w e
e o
e
/
a
..