ML20059H885
| ML20059H885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059H743 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311100254 | |
| Download: ML20059H885 (3) | |
Text
yf OUt a
4
.p s
[ l i+
i UNITED STATES (I
^!
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gy.....f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FELATED TO REVOCATION OF EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT NO. 67 i
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR p0WER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-245
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 27, 1993, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would eliminate the exemption concerning air lock testing and reword the description of the May 10, 1985, Appendix J exemptions described in Hillstone Unit 1 Operating License Section 2.D(2), deleting the reference to low pressure tests of the containment access air locks. The requested changes would also:
(1) replace Technical Specification Section 4.7. A.3.d(2) with wording consistent with paragraph III.D.2(b) of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, and (2) revise the Technical Specification Bases Section 4.7.A to state that personnel air lock door seal testing is performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J requirements.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In a letter dated May 10, 1985, the NRC granted three exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.
The third exemption, containment air lock testing at 10 psig, is an exemption to paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, which requires testing at P, (maximum accident pressure or 43 psig) prior to entering a mode in which primary containment integrity is required. This exemption was requested to allow NNECO to defer the full pressure test until after the last containment entry is made during startup.
Upon receipt of the May 10, 1985, Appendix J exemption, NNECO did not implement the appropriate changes to operating and surveillance procedures and the Technical Specifications, resulting in the lack of procedural guidance necessary to adequately comply with the requirements of the Appendix J exemption.
This resulted in a level IV violation in May 1991 for not performing a 10 psig local leak rate test (LLRT) of the drywell personnel air lock prior to operating the plant in a condition in which primary containment integrity was required.
9311100254 931101 PDR ADDCK 05000245-P ppg
i i,
In response to the violation, NNECO stated that future compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J would be ensured by revising the applicable operations and surveillance procedures to test the air lock at 43 psig prior to entering a mode in which primary containment integrity is required if the air lock was opened during the period when primary containment integrity was not required by technical specifications.
Part of the corrective action for this violation was to revise the technical i
specifications, thereby requesting revocation of the containment air lock testing exemption.
1 In the July 27, 1993, letter, NNECO proposed to eliminate the exemption concerning containment air lock testing and reword the description of the i
May 10, 1985, Appendix J exemption, which is described in Millstone Unit 1 Operating License Section 2.D(2), to delete the reference to low pressure tests of the containment access air locks.
In addition, NNECO proposed to:
(1) replace Technical Specification Section 4.7. A.3.d(2) with wording consistent with paragraph III.D.2(b) of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, and (2) revise the Technical Specification Bases Section 4.7.A to state that personnel air lock door seal testing is performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J requirements.
3.0 EVALUATION The existing technical specifications require a 10 psig LLRT within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the first of a series of openings when containment integrity is required.
The May 10, 1985, exemption allowed for the 10 psig test prior to entering a mode where containment integrity was required, and required a 43 psig test after the reactor coolant system walkdown was completed. The proposed changes require 43 psig LLRTs, both prior to entering a mode where containment integrity is required and after the completion of the walkdown.
Performance of a 43 psig LLRT of the air lock prior to entering a mode in which primary containment integrity is required provides assurance of the operability of the air locks during the initial startup period. Testing at 43 psig instead of 10 psig within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the first of a series of openings when containment integrity is required provides additional confidence in the performance of the air lock seal. The changes make the Millstone 1 Technical Specifications consistent with the air lock testing requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and, therefore, the NRC staff finds them acceptable.
4.0 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.
l l
t i
~
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. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no e
significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i
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 consideration, and there has been no l
public comment on such finding (58 FR 46238). 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.
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:
J. Andersen Date: November 1,1993 t
i L
i
.