ML20058F720
| ML20058F720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1990 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058F712 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9011090078 | |
| Download: ML20058F720 (3) | |
Text
-
- _ ~ _. -
. o pun i
og UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO APENDMENT NO. 47 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-245 l
1
,.NTR00VCTION ly letter dated August 22, 1990, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (HNECO or
'icensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1. The proposed change removes the provision '
of TS 1.0.X that limits the combined time interval for three consecutive j
surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified test interval. Guidance "
.on the proposed TS change was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants in Generic Letter (GL) 89-14. "Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications - Removal of'the 3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals," dated August 21, 1989.
EVALUdTION TS.I.O.X includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be
. extended by 25 percent of the specified time interval. This extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillance and permits consideration of whether the prevailing plant operating conditions are conducive for such testing. Sur'.i operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillr. ice or maintenance activities. TS 1.0.X further limits the allcwance for extynding surveillance intervals by requiring that
'the combined time interval for.any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the.specified.;ime interval. This provision assures that r
surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience s
resulting in an overall increase of the surveillance interval.
k Experience has shown taat the 18-month surveillance interval, with the provision to extend i'. by 25 percent, is usually' sufficient to accommodate normal variations-in ;he length of a fuel cycle..However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risivtg safety is low in contrast to the alternative of a forced shutdown t6 pefform these surveillances. Therefore, the 3.25 limitt.tian onsg4ending any three i
consecutive surveillances has not practica117,fimfled the use of the 25-percent allowance for surveillance performed on a refueling outage basis.
Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can result in a
' benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time when plant cond1tnons are not suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur.
pOk 00h o 5
. s
~.
r 9
?
, when the plant is in a transient operating condition or when safety systems are out of-service and performance of the surveillance test would either further degrade plant safety system operability or unacceptably increase the risk of a challenge to plant safety systems.
In such cases, the safety benefit of extending a surveillance interval exceeds any safety benefit derived by limitino the use of the 25-percent allowance for any three consecutive surveillance intervals and requiring performance of the surveillance. - Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
l In view of tMsc findings, the NRC staff concluded that TS 1.0.X should be
- changed to remuve the 3.25 limit for all surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect on safety. The guidanca provided in GL 89-14 included the following change to the TS and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
"Each Surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillan7 interval with a maximum allowable interval not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval.
' The licensee's proposed change to TS 1.0.X is consistent with the above recommended GL 89-14 guidance.
In addition, GL 89-14 recommended that the TS '
Bases section.be updated to reflect the proposed TS change. Since the licensee has proposed to change TS Section 1.0, " Definitions," and there is no corresponding Bases for this section of the TS, the licensee has incorporated the generic letter reconsnended changes to the Bases into TS 1.0.X.
l' On the basis of its review of this matter, the NRC staff finds that the above changes to the M111 sone Unit 1 TS provides an adequate level of safety and is acceptable.
ENVIRONNENTALCONSIDERATION L
This amendment involves a change in surveillance requirements. We have i
L determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, j
- and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released p
offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational rad.iation 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).
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.
CONCLUSION.
s&
We have concluded, based on the consideratjoaa digessed above, that (1) there I
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 i
1
3 4
. 3 L
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: November 1, 1990 Principal contributors:
T. G. Dunning OTSB/DOEA F. Rinaldi PDII-3/DRP r
7; l
M e
s I
i v.
.f
_w p a
1
..,m--
~
'