ML20065F544
| ML20065F544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065F542 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010100169 | |
| Download: ML20065F544 (2) | |
Text
,
+
4 4
, p. 4( s** %0 0q.
- ~ ~ '
og UNITED STATES
[
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, -
{
WASHINGTON, D. C, 20555
%,...+/
, SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE 0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 56 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423
' INTRODUCTION u
By application for license amendment dated July 10, 1990, Northeast Nuclear L
Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), requested changes to Millstone Unit 3 l
Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed amendment would modify Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS) Table.3.3-9 " Remote Shutdown Instrumentation " t errorandTSTable4.3-6,"RemoteShutdownMonitorIng.ocorrectaneditorial Instrumentation u
Surveillance l Requirements," to provide a note of clarification concerning the source range count rate.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION An editorial error has been identified in TS Table 3.3-9 which resulted in the column headings for " Readout Location," " Total ~No. of Channels" and " Minimum l.
. Channels Operable" being misaligned. The proposed change to TS Table 3.3-9 would result in the column headings being correctly aligned. While the
. licensee has identified only two columns as being effected, all three columns would be changed.
P The proposed change to Table 3.3-9 corrects the editorial error and does not l'
otherwise' change the requirements stated therein. Accordingly, the proposed change to TS Table 3.3-9 is acceptable.
i The proposed change to TS Table 4.3-6 would add a footnote to the surveillance-a requirements for source range count rate-channel check. At the present time
.TS Table 4.3-6 specifies a monthly interval for the source. range count rate channel check. Since power to the source range detectors,is removed in the i
intermediate neutron range (above the P-6 interlock) the source range detectors are effectively inoperable during power operation. Accordingly, a channel check of the source range count rate is meaningless during power o)eration. The licensee has )roposed that the following footnote be added to
.t1e source range count rate c1annel check: When below P-6 (intermediate range neutron flux interlock setpoint).
l-f 1
9010100169 900926 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
PNU
N
. The proposed footnote would have the effect of eliminating the requirement to perform a channel check on the source range count rate when the reactor is j
operating at power levels above the P-6 interlock.
The TS defines a " Channel Check" as follows:
"1.6 A CHANNEL CHECK shall be the qualitative assessment of channei behavior during operation by observation.
This determination shall include, where possible, comparison of the channel. indication and/or status with other indications and/or status-derived from independent instrument channels measuring the same parameter."
5 Since power is removed from the source range channels above the P-6 interlock,-
i a " Channel Check" of the source range channels would not provide a "...
qualitative assessment of channel behavior during operation by observation."
Accordingly, the subject surveillance is meaningless and its elimination from i
the TS would not effect the availability of the source range monitors.
Accordingly, the proposed change to the TS, which involves adding a footnote to TS Table 4.3-6 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
'I 10 CFR Part 20.and changes surveillance requirements. We have determined-that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no 1
significant change in the types,'of any effluents that may be released'offsite, j
and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative A
occupational radiation exposure.
The staff has previously published a-proposed 1
finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no oublic comment-on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibi'ity criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pu'suant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
1 i
CONCLUSION
.We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that-(1) 4 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.
4 Dated: September 26, 1990 Principal Contributor:
D. Jaffe
<