ML20114B084
| ML20114B084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114B081 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9208240359 | |
| Download: ML20114B084 (3) | |
Text
,,,
Sacaao y'
7o UNITED STATES g
/, lE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoTON, D.C. 20655 SAFETY EVALUAT10tL3LUILQEFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RLL/ RED TO AMENOMENT N0. 66_
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
lilLLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50 4 U
).0 INTRODUCT10N by letter dated April 28, 1992, tne Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNEC0/ licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuciear Power Station, Unit No. 3, Facility Ope-ating License NPT-49. The requested changes would delete the following license conditions:
(1) 2.C(5) Inservice Inspection and (2) 2.C.(10) Initial Test Program. The licensee has proposed that the above ccnditions be deleted because they have been satisfied, and therefore, their existence is no longer necessary in the Operating License.
2.0 EVALUATION On January 31, 1986,-the NRC staff issued Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee) for operation of Millstone Unit No. 3.
As part of NPF-49, the NRC specified that certain s
actions, " License Cont'itions," were to be undertaken by the licensee.
The satisfaction of these conditions is described below.
License Condition 2.i'(5)-dnservice Insoection Proaram License Conditi i ?.C(5) in the Millstone Unit No. 3 Operating License requines that " Prior to May 25,1986, NNEC0 shal; submit the inservice inspection program which conforms to the ASME Code in effect on November 25, 1984 in accordance with 50.55(a)(g)(4), for NRC staff review and approval."
By letter dated May 22, 1986, NNECO submitted to the NRC the Miilstone Unit No. 3 Inservice Inspection Program Plan.
The Program Plan was submitted for I!
review and evaluation of its compliance with the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, regulations, and plant Technical Specifications.
In a letter dated February 8, 1991, the staff concluded that License Condition 2.C(5) had been met; therefore, removal of License Condition 2.C(5) is acceptable.
t 9200240359 920817 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
1 License Condition 2.C(10)--Initial Test Proaram License Condition 2.C(10) in the Hillstone Unit No. 3 Operating License requires that "Any changes to the Initial Test Program described in Section 14 of the FSAR made in accurdance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 shall be reported in accordance with 50.59(b) within one month of such change." NNEC0 made a series of submittals in accordance with Licensa Condition 2.C(10).
In a "05000245/LER-1989-009, :on 890420,weld Crack Discovered on Class I Stainless Steel Piping Inside Drywell.Caused by Igscc.Weld Repaired Using Weld Overlay Technique & [[Topic" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. Test Successfully Performed|letter dated May 10, 1989]], the NRC concluded that oe changes to the Initial Test Program are acceptable and License Condition 2.C(10) had been met.
By letter dated March 27, 1992, NNECO informed tha staff that a recent engineering review had revealed a change that had not been reported within one month, as called for by License Condition 2.C(10). NNECO also provided a review of the change with respect to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
By letter dated June 30, 1992, the staff, after reviewing the letter of March 27, 1992, concluded that the reporting requirement for this change was satisfied.
Therefore, removal of License Condition 2.C(10) is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuanca of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
J 4.0 EM IRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendmant changes a requirement witn respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no
-significant increase in the amounts, and no significant chanaa in the types, of any effluents that may ba 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 (57 FR 30253).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR P rsuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or 51.22(c)(9).
i environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The-Commission has concluded, based or, the considerations.iscussed above, shat:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health j safety of the 1blic will not be endangered by operation in the propee nanner, (2) such l
?
L
3 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance Jf the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
V. L. Rooney Date:
August 17, 1992 4
l' l
l-
,