ML20069F712

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 82 to License DPR-65

ML20069F712
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/11/1983
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20069F703	List: ML20069F712 ML20069F716
References
TAC-49793, NUDOCS 8303240041
Download: ML20069F712 (2)

Text

- - -

dFer

-8 UNITED STATES

.[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-F WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO_N_

SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 82 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE 'NO. DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR-ENERGY: COMPANY, ET AL.

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 INTRODUCTION

'By telecopied letter. dated March 1,1983, ts Northeast Nuclear Energy e

Company (the licensee)' requested a temporary change to the Technical

~

- Specifications -(TSs)- appended to Facility Operating License No'. DPR :

i for Millstone Nuclear Power-Station Unit 2..

The change would modify

+

the Appendix A paragraph 3.4.6.2 Action requirement by adding a foot-note as follows:

b.

With any Reactor Coolant. System leakage greater than any one of the above limits, excluding PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE, reduce the leakage rate to within limits within-4 hours or-be in COLD SHUTDOWN within the.next 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />.**

For th_e shutdown commencing on March 1,1983, the unit shall-be placed in HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and COLD U

. SHUTDOWN within' the next 54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br />.

l BACKGROUND

._ The Millstone 2 Reactor Coolant System-(RCS) unidentified leakage limit L

of 1.0 gpm was exceeded at 2:00p.m. on March 1,1983.. The unidentified leakage-was calculated to be 1.3 gpm. The Action statement for Technical g

Specification 3.4.6.2.b requires the plant to be in ' Cold Shutdown within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> if the leakage is not reduced to below 1 gpm within the' first

~.4. hours. The licensee has requested a one-time ~ Technical Specification

= change to extend the' time to Cold Shutdown to 60.hourst This will allow time to identify the source of the. leakage and put in place a collection 4

system so the leakage can continue to be considered as -Identified Leakage (for which the limit is 10 gpm).

~

EVALUATION The licensee will place the plant-in Hot' Shutdown thereby mitigating the~ consequences of any events which could be associated with excessive unidentified leakage -(i.e. LOCA). The licensee will confirm the current expectation that the leakage is associated'with valve stem leakage (PCRV. Block Valve Stem Leakage).

If the licensee's investigation in-dicates _ that there is any Pressure Boundary Leakage, the plant will be taken.to Cold Shutdown.

i 8303240041 830311 m- 'PDR ADOCK 05000336 p

PDR

x-4

.2'.

e

.=

The: licensee's actions' will: meet the intent of the Technica1' Specification "in that any Pressure Soundary Leakage willL result in 'a'~ Cold Shutdown, and leakage below 10 gpm.which can;be classified asHIdentified Leakage,

- Lwill;not require a shutdown;at:all.

In ' addition, if the :11censee's; investigation determines. that some.of the-leakage is Pressure Boundary Leakage, the period of exposure:to~ such a condition will' be short.(a

. : maximum of 60. hours-vs lthe current 36 hour4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> specification) andithe plant:

. ill. already have been placed inLHot Shutdown.

w

~

CONCLUSION a

'The proposed actions.do not constitute a significant change in the cur.

rently. allowed plant conditicn

and will not result in any undue risk.to

.the health and safety-of the1public.

Environmental Consideration' ~~

^

~

~

~~

~

.N have detennined that the amenNment does not : authorize-a change in effluent _ types or total; amounts nor an increase in~ power level and will not result in any significant environmental-impact.. Having made.

this dttermination, we have further concluded that the amendment

-involves:an action which is < insignificant from the standpoint of, environmental impact and, pursuant -to.10 CFR $51.5(d)(4), 'that an

' environmental impact statement or negative-declaration and environ-

. mental-. impact appraisal.need not be prepared in connection with the issuance ~of?this amendment.

Conclusion We-have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in

- the probability or consequences of an ac'cident' previously evaluated, 1does not create the possibility of an accident of a type-different from any evaluated _ previously,"and does not' involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant.

~

~

~ hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable as'surance that the health

' ' and safety of-the public will notbe endangered by operation in the proposed: manner, and ~(3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with'the: Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and j

safetyiof the public...

Principal Contributor:

Gary Holahan, ORAB

' Date: March 11, 1983

-