ML20065D998
| ML20065D998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065D993 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9010010191 | |
| Download: ML20065D998 (2) | |
Text
.- -
. s
.o a9 L/
\\
UNITED STATES
[
9
'I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,-[
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555
(
(/
k e
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION.
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49
?
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR' ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL, MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3' DOCKET NO. 50-423 f
INTRODUCTION By application for license amendment dated June 13, 1940, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), requested changes to Millstone Unit 3 Technical. Specifications-(TS).
The proposed amendment would change Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specification'.
l (TS) 4.0.2 by deleting the requirement that the combined time interval ~ for ~
any three consecutive surveillance intervals is not to exceed 3.25 times the specific surveillance interval.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Technical Specification 4.0.2 includes the provision that allows alsurveillance interval.to be extended by 3 percent of the specified time interval. This.ex-tension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of ~ surveillances and to permit consideration of plant-operating conditions that'may not be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval. Such operating i
conditions include transient plant operation _or ongoing surveillance or mainte-l nance activities. Specification 4.0.2 further limits' the allowance for extending' r
surveillance ' intervals by requiring that the combined time interval:for any three.
consecutive surveillances not exceed'3.25 times the specified time-interval. The.
purpose of this provision-is to assure that surveillances are not extended re.
peatedly as an operational convenience to provide an'overall increase'in the, surveillance interval 1
Experience has'shown that the 18-month surveillance interval,'with
- a. provision L
to extend it by 25 percent, is usually sufficient to accommodate n Lal-varia-j tions in the 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 risk to safety is low in contrast:to the alternative of a' forced shutdown to perform these surveillances. Therefore, the 3.25 limita-tien on extending surveillances has not been a practical limit on the.use of the 25-percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling-outage basis.-
9010010191 900919 ADOCK0500g3 DR w
j
f'
, Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a i
benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not i
suitable for conducting the surveillance.
This may occur when transient plant operating conditions' exist or when safety systems are out of service for maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to i
safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit derived by limiting the use of 25 percent allowance to extend a surveillance.
i Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use'of the 25 percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3,25 limit.
On August 21, 1989, the NRC Staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 89-14, "Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications-Removal of the 3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals." Generic Letter 89-14 concludes that it is appropriate to delete the 3.25 factor for surveillance intervals for Technical Specifications for all power reactor licensees.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed change to TS 4.0.2.
We conclude that the proposed change to the TS conforms to the staff's guidance contained in GL 89-14 in that it would eliminate the 3.25 factor as it applies to consecutive surveillance intervals.
Accordingly, the licensee's proposed change to the TS is acceptable.
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.
We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amount!. and no-significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, i
l and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The staff has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there h" been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly.-the amendment meei3 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 We have 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, and (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.
Dated: September 19, 1990 Principal Contributor:
D. Jaffe
--,,,