ML20080T455
| ML20080T455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080T453 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-48919, NUDOCS 8310240109 | |
| Download: ML20080T455 (2) | |
Text
.-
if UNITED STATES
,.y K e,c [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ; g'g/p E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 N.%f.f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t
Sb? PORTING AMENDMENT NO. 88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-65 r
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND By' letter dated September 24, 1982, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or the licensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 2.
The change was intended to clarify the requirements for boration sys-tem flow paths-as utilized in reactivity control and emergency core cooling systems and provide consistency between Specifications 3.1.2.2 and 3.5.2.
Specifically, the requested change modified Specification 3.1.2.2 to require both boric acid tanks and two independent flow paths to the reactor coolant system to be operable in the modes in which operability is required for ECCS considerations.
The licensee considered this change to be warranted followir;g review of an operating event on April 18-19, 1982 in which the reactor was taken from Mode 3 to E and Mode 2 to 1 without meeting all Limiting Conditi.ons for Operation required for those modes.
During that startup, one boric acid flow path was unavailable and operations personnel examined Specification 3.1.2.2, Reactivity Control Systems, and found that it was met because two of three stated flow paths were operable. However, the operators failed to recognize that Specifi-cation 3.5.2, Emergency Core Cooling Systems, was not met in that the unavaila-ble flow path from the boric acid pumps was required by Specification 3.5.2.
EVALUATION Amendment No. 52 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65, among other things, revised Specification 3.5.2 by adding a charging pump with independent flow path fron, a boric acid storage tank to the composition of an ECCS subsystem.
This specification requires two operable ECCS subsystems in Modes 1, 2 and 3 with pressurizer pressure greater than 1750 psia.
To provide consistency with the ECCS specification, the licensee has proposed changing Specification 3.1.2.2, Reactivity Control Systems Flow Paths -
Operating, by separating it into two requirements according to applicable
-plant condition. The first requirement (3.1.2.2.1) assures two independent flow paths of boric acid from the storage tanks to the reactor coolant system and is' applicable in Modes 1, 2 and 3 with pressurizer pressure greater than 1750 psia.
This requirement is in agreement with and complements the ECCS 8310240109 R31007
~
DRADOCK05000g
Specification 3.5.2.
The second reouirement (3.1.2.2.2) is unchanged from the~previcus Specification 3.1.2.2 and is applicable'in Modes 4 and'3 with pressurizer pressure less than 1750 psia.
This requirement assures at least two boron injection flow paths, one of which can be from the refueling water storage tank.
We have' reviewed the bases for these technical specifications and conclude that the proposed changes to Specification 3.1.2.2 are technically correct.
They also meet their intended purpose of clarifying the requirements for boration system' flow paths and providing consistency between Specifications E
3.1.2.2 and 3.5.2.
However, during our review it_was recognized that the preposed change would necessitate an additional administrative change to Specification 3.1.2.6, Boric Acid Pumps - Operating. This Specification contains a reference to Specification 3.1.2.2.a which will have to be changed to reference Specifica-tions 3.1.2.2.1 and 3.1.2.2.2.a.
This additional administrative change to Specification 3.1.2.6 was discussed with and agreed to by appropriate NNEC0 representatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment 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 determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 3 1.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration 5
and environmental 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) 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 the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the i
(
public.
l Date:
Principal Contributors:
Walter Rekito, Region I i
?
l l
I