ML20057F855
| ML20057F855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057F843 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-86-10, GL-88-12, NUDOCS 9310190247 | |
| Download: ML20057F855 (4) | |
Text
- qf y ;,A f
S UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL ATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 NORTHEAST NVCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-245
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By "B14408, Proposed,Deleted TS 3.12 Re Fire Suppression Water Sys, Spray &/Or Sprinker Sys,Carbon Dioxide & Halon 1308 Sys,Fire Hose Stations,Fire Protection Instrumentation & Penetration [[Topic" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid.s|letter dated April 16, 1993]], as supplemented June 23, 1993, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes would relocate the Millstone 1 fire protection requirements from the TS to the Millstone 1 fire protection program in accordance with the guidance provided in Generic Letter (GL) 66-10, " Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements," dated April 24,1986, and GL 88-12, " Removal of Fire Protection Requirements from Technical Specifications," dated August 2,198h The June 23, 1993, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards conside-ation determination.
]
2.0 DISCUSSION i
NNEC0 has requested an amendment to its operating license which would relocate i
fire protection Technical Specifications to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
The TS changes proposed by NNECO are as follows:
1.
Delete the definition of fire suppression water system from TS 1.0.A.
l 2.
Delete TS 3.12 and the associated bases for fire suppression water system, spray and/or sprinkler systems, carbon dioxide and Halon 1301 systems,
'i fire hose stations, fire detection instrumentation, and penetration fire barriers.
3.
Delete TS 6.2.2.f and the applicable portion of TS Table 6.2-1 relating to site fire brigade.
4.
Delete TS 6.4.2 requirements related to the fire brigade training program.
9310190247 931013 PDR ADDCK 05000245 P
1i
. 5.
Add TS 6.5.1.6(j) to include the review of the fire protection program and implementing procedures as an additional responsibility of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC).
t 6.
Add TS 6.5.2.6(i) to include responsibility for the review of the common site fire protection program and implementing procedures by the Site Operations Review Committee (SORC).
7.
Delete TS 6.9.2.d related to the requirement for special reports for fire detection instrumentation.
8.
Delete TS 6.9.2.e related to the requirement for special reports for fire suppression systems.
P 3.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff reviewed the license amendment request for Millstone 1 against the guidance provided in GLs 86-10 and 88-12. GL 86-10 requested that licensees incorporate the NRC-approved fire protection program in its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the facility and specified a standard fire protection license condition. GL 88-12 addressed the elements a licensee should include in a license amendment request to remove fire protection requirements from TS. These elements are (1) the NRC-approved fire protection program must be incorporated into the FSAR; (2) the Limiting Conditions for Operations and Surveillance ~ Requirements associated with fire detection systems, fire suppression systems, fire barriers, and the administrative controls that address fire brigade staffing would be deleted from the TS (the existing administrative controls related to fire protection audits would be retained in the TS); (3) all operational conditions, remedial actions, and test requirements presently included in the TS for these systems, as well as the fire brigade staffing requirements, shall be incorporated into the fire protection program; (4) the standard fire protection license condition specified in GL 86-10 must be included in the facility operating license; (5) the Unit Review Group (0nsite Review Group) shall be given responsibility for the review of the fire protection program and implementing procedures and for the submittal of recommended changes to the Company Nuclear Review and Audit group (Off-site or Corporate Review Group); and (6) fire protection program implementation shall be added to the list of elements for which written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained.
NNECO incorporated the NRC-approved fire protection program for Hillstone 1 into the Millstone 1 UFSAR on March 27, 1987. Therefore, NNEC0 has satisfied element 1 of GL 88-12.
NNECO has incorporated the current TS operability and surveillance requirerents for the fire detection systems, fire suppression systems, and fire rated assemblies into the Millstone 1 TRM and the UFSAR. NNECO has also l
M-i !
?
incorporated the TS requirements relating to fire brigade training and staffing into the TRM and UFSAR.
Therefore, NNECO has satisfied elements 2 and 3 of GL 88-12.
NNEC0 stated in the June 23, 1993, letter that the current license condition 6
relating to the fire protection program is consistent with the standard I
license condition suggested in GL 86-10. However, the license condition does t
not reflect all the applicable dates for NNECO submittals and NRC safety evaluations.
In a telephone conversation between NNECO and the staff on September 15, 1993, NNECO committed to submit a request to update the license condition.
By letter dated October 7, 1993, NNECO submitted a proposed t
revision to the operating license to update the license condition.
Therefore, based on NNECO's October 7,1993, letter, element 4 is satisfied.
i To satisfy elements 5 and 6 of GL 88-12, NNECO added TS 6.5.1.6(j) to include i
the review of the fire protection program and implementing procedures as an additional responsibility of the PORC, and TS 6.5.2.6(i) to include the responsibility for the review of the common site fire protection program and I
implementing procedures by the 50RC.
Element 6 of GL 88-12 specified that the licensee add fire protection program implementation to the list of elements i
for which written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained. Millstone 1 TS 6.8.l(f) currently addresses the fire protection i
program, therefore, no changes are required. Therefore, NNECO has satisfied i
elements 5 and 6 of GL 88-12.
NNK0 also proposed to delete TS 6.9.2.d and 6.9.2.e, related to the requirement of special reports of fire detection instrumentation and fire suppression systems. Therefore, these reporting requirements will.no longer i
be applicable to the Millstone 1 TS.
The deletion of TS 6.9.2.d and 6.9.2.e are, therefore, acceptable.
t NRC staff guidance regarding TS for alternate shutdown equipment was discussed with NNEC0 during a telephone conversation on August 18, 1993. NNECO informed i
the staff that the Millstone 1 TS do not include TS for alternative shutdown equipment as specified in GL 81-12. The staff informed NNECO that it would pursue implementation of alternative safe shutdown equipment TS, consistent i
with GL 81-12, independent of this TS change request.
j Based on the above, NNECO's TS amendment request for Millstone Unit 1 is in accordance with NRC guidance provided in GLs 86-10 and 88-12 and, therefore, the NRC staff finds it acceptable. However, operability and surveillance requirements for alternative shutdown components have not been incorporated into the TS in accordance with GL 81-12.
The implementation of alternative safe shutdown equipment into the TS will be pursued with NNECO independent of this TS change request.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State i
official had no comments.
t
t t
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 requiremer.ts. The amendment also relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or 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 tnat 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 (58 FR 28057). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10).
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:
A. Singh Date: October 12 -1993
i September 28, 1993 NOTE TO:
James Andersen FROM:
Janice Moore f
SUBJECT:
FIRE PROTECTION AMENDMENT.
f f
i As we discussed by phone this afternoon, I think it would be better if the Licensee had submitted the amendment application to amend i
the license condition to include all of teh necessary dates before you issue this amendment, rather than issuing it subject to a commitment which says that they will submit the dates by September 30.
Since that is Thursday, it would be awkward if they didn't i
meet that date and you issued the amendment subject to that commitment.
Since it is so close, see if you can hold the t
amendment until you receive the letter, and then modify your letter accordingly.
The sE also mentions a commitment, so you might want
[
to modify that as well.
It probably would not be necessary, although it would be better to do it to make the package consistent.
Janice Moore P
l
,