ML20045H309
| ML20045H309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H301 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-070, REF-GTECI-094, REF-GTECI-NI, TASK-070, TASK-094, TASK-70, TASK-94, TASK-OR NUDOCS 9307200071 | |
| Download: ML20045H309 (3) | |
Text
A
_Mus e
e t >R "f C A
.A a f f E
UNITED STATES ij g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' %,,r WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
.SAEETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT N0. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 19, 1993, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nu' lear Power c
Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would change the allowed out of service time for a single low temperature overpressure protection channel from 7 days to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when'in operating Modes 4, 5, and 6.
2.0 EVALUATION On June 25, 1990, the staff issued Generic Letter 90-06, " Resolution of i
Generic Issue 70, ' Power-0perated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability,'
and Generic Issue 94, ' Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light-Water Reactors,' Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)." The generic letter represented the technical resolution of the above mentioned generic issues.
Generic Issue (GI) 70, " Power-0perated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability," involves the evaluation of the reliability of power-operated relief valves (PORVs) and block valves and their safety significance in pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants. The generic letter discussed how i
PORVs are increasingly being relied on to perform safety-related functions and i
the corresponding need to improve the reliability of both PORVs and their associated block valves.
Proposed staff positions and improvements to the plant's technical specifications were recommended to be implemented at all affected facilities. This issue is applicable to all Westinghouse, Babcock &
Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering designed facilities with PORVs.
Generic Issue 94, " Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light-Water Reactors," addresses concerns with the implementation of the requirements set forth in the resolutinn of Unresolved Safety. Issue (USI)
A-26, " Reactor Vessel Pressure Transient Protection (Overpressure Protection)." The generic letter discussed the continuing occurrence of overpressure events and the need to further restrict the allowed outage time for a low-temperature overpressure protection channel in operating Modes 4, 5, and 6.
This issue is only applicable to Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering facilities.
9307200071 930712 PDR ADOCK 05000423 i
P PDR
-d
.+w_
d By letter dated March 19, 1993, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company proposed changes to the Millstone 3 technical specifications in response to Generic Letter 90-06. The licensee did not adopt the staff position for GI 70.
Rather, they proposed an alternative to the staff suggested technical specifications.
The staff has not yet reached a conclusion as to the acceptability of the licensee's position on GI 70. The proposed technical specifications addressing GI 70 will be dealt with at a later time. The licensee also proposed changes describing the reactor coolant system vent paths, which the staff has not yet reviewed.
This evaluation will address only the changes related to GI 94.
The actions proposed by the NRC staff to improve the availability of the low-temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) system represents a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety and a determination has been made that the attendant costs are justified in view of this increased protection.
The technical findings and the regulatory analysis related to Generic Issue 94 are discussed in NUREG-1326, " Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 94, Additional Low-Temper'ature Overpressure Protection for Light-Water Reactors."
The proposed changes to the Millstone 3 technical specifications -in the licensee's letter of March 19, 1993, are consistent with that proposed in the staff's generic letter.
The proposed modifications to the technical specifications involves plant operation in Modes 4, 5 or 6 with an inoperable LTOP channel.
The licensee has adopted the staff position in that operations under such conditions be limited to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before restoring the LTOP channel to operable status.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed modifications to the Millstone 3 technical specifications.
Sin'ce the proposed modifications are consistent with the staff's position previously stated in the generic letter and justified in the above mentioned regulatory analysis, the staff finds the proposed modifications to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 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
trzi2
. consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding-(58 FR 32388). 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.
5.0 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 +5e health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Edward Throm Douglas Pickett Vernon Rooney Date: July 12, 1993 f
!