ML20083B932
| ML20083B932 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083B931 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505150008 | |
| Download: ML20083B932 (2) | |
Text
_-
[ps>*%
4 UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 111 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 I
'l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 28, 1994, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, 1
submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications. The requested changes would eliminate the l
requirement to perform Type A tests on an interval of 40110 months while reiterating the Appendix J requirement that the Type A tests be performed three times, at approximately equal intervals, during each 10 year service 1
period.
i In addition, a footnote is added which states that the third Type A test will be performed during the sixth refueling outage. This reflects an exemption to l
Appendix J, granted by separate correspondence, which separates the third Type l
A test from the 10 year inservice inspection.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed change is administrative. The change revises Section 4.6.2.1.a to read:
Three Type A tests (Overall Integrated containment Leakage Rate) shall be conducted at approximately equal intervals during shutdown at a pressure not less than P,, 53.27 psia (38.57 psig), during each 10-year service period.
This change eliminates the requirement to perform the Type A tests at intervals of 40110 months but retains the Appendix J requirement that the tests be done at approximately equal intervals. Since it is not always possible to schedule the tests within the 40110 month interval, because of variations in outage scheduling, removing this requirement eliminates an operational restriction which is in addition to the requirement of the regulation. The staff finds that the regulation defines the interval sufficiently well and therefore finds this change to be acceptable.
I 950515ooos 95050s
{
DR ADOCK 0500 3
l
. In addition, the licensee has added'the following footnote to Section 4.6.2.1.a:
The third Type A test will be conducted during the sixth refueling outage. As a result, the duration of the first 10 year service period t
will be extended to the end of the sixth refueling outage.
i This footnote reflects an exemption to Appendix J which removes the requirement to perform the third Type A test when the plant is shutdown for the 10 year plant inservice inspections and which allows the first containment service period to be extended until refueling outage 6, currently scheduled for April 1997, a nominal extension of 12 months. The staff finds this to be acceptable since the technical specification footnote reiterates an approved exemption, granted in separate correspondence.
3.0 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.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, 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 public comment on such finding (59 FR 60384). 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.
5.0 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: M. Griggs Date:
May 8, 1995 n
3
,,-x.-
- -i---