ML20116N379
| ML20116N379 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116N373 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211230371 | |
| Download: ML20116N379 (3) | |
Text
-.
- _ =
/
~%,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
wAsmwoTow,0. c. 20sss SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 165 s
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE-NO. DPR-65 i
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Tile CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY THE WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY tilRSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONJ UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET f40. 50-336 1.O INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 17, 1992, supplemented by letter dated October 30, 1992, Northeast Nuclear Energy company (NNEC0/the licensee) submitted proposed Technical Specification-(TS) changes to facility Operating License No. OPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2-(tiillstone 2).
The proposed changes would change Technical Specifications ~(TS) 4.6.1'.6.1 to 4.6.1.6.4 related to prestressed concrete containment surveillance.
The October 30, 1992 letter provided information that did not change the initial proposed no significant aazards consideration determination.
The current TS is based on Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.35-Revision 0.
The.
proposed TS revision is to be based on Revision 3 of_ RG 1.35. However, the licensee's proposed revision adopted only some portions of RG 1.35 Rev.3, not in its entirety.
In view of this fact, the staff advised the licensee (Reference 2) to adopt.RG 1.35, Rev. 3, in its entirety and provided to the licensee-a sample standard TS.
In Reference 3, the licensee indicatediits commitment to revise its-TS in accordance with staff's requirement before the next tendon surveillence scheduled for 1997, 2.0 EVALUATION The_ licensee' proposed and the staff agreed to the following changes to the
-current TS:
a)
In section 4.6.1.6.1 "...a representative sample...." is changed to '.... a representative random sample..."
b)
In section 4.6.1.6.2 ".... adjacent concrete surfaces shall be demonstrated by-determining through inspection that no apparent; changes-have occurred"in the. visual appearance of the end anchorage concrete exterior su' faces or concrete crack' patterns r
c 9211230371 921116--
PDR-- ADOCK 05000336' p.
.,__~,.a,
__, _ a. _ _ x _-
~.
6 2
adjacent to the end anchorages" is changed to ".... adjacent -
concrete surfaces shall be demonstrated by determining through inspection that no apparent changes or degradation has occurred in the visual appearance of the end anchorage concrete exterior surfaces or as indicated by the concrete crack patterns adjacent to the end anchorages" The staff agreed to the change in a) because it conforms to the same term used i
in RG 1.35, Revision 3.
Because of the change in a) the tendons inspected will not always be the same tendons except for one in each group and, therefore, the word " changes" may not be applicable to all the tendons so the words "or degradation" are added to cover all the tendon conditions.
This explanation, as given by the licensee, appeared to be reasonable and the staff accepted the change.
The licensee proposed further revision to section 4.6.1.6.2 of ae TS from
" Inspections of the concrete shall be performed during the Type A containment leakage rate tests while the containment is at its reaximum test pressure" to
" Inspections of the concrete shall be performed concurrent with the containment tendon surveillance." This change is in accordance with regulatory position 3.4 of RG 1.35, Rev. 3, and limits only to the inspection of concrete surrounding visually inspected tendon anchorages.
The pretest requirements of inspecting the interior and exterior surfaces of the containment as a whole are to be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J.
On the basis of this understanding, the staff agreed to the change.
In view of the fact that the licensee has adopted the RG 1.35, Rev. 3, piece-meal, which is against the intent of the regulatorv guide, the staff requested the licensee to adopt it in its entirety.
The staff provided to the licensee a copy of the standard technical specification for its adoption.
The licensee has committed to revise the TS in accordance with the staff's request prior to next tendon surveillance scheduled for 1997.
The staff has reviewed and evaluated the licensee's revision of the TS on containment tendon surveillance in accordance with only some portions of RG 1.35, Rev. 3.
It is staff's position that the licensee must adopt RG 1.35, Rev. 3, in ite entirety.
The licensen has hgreed and is committed to revise the TS accordingly prior to next tendon surveillance scheduled for 1997.
On the basis of this condition, the stati accepts the licensee's revision to the current TS, which will have impact on actions to be taken during the containment leakage rate tests to be performed before the next tendon surveillance scheduled for 1997.
~.
4 1
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 CONSIQ1BATION 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 (57 FR 40217).
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 concludad, 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.
REFERENCES
- 1. Letter to NRC from J. F. Opeka of Northeast Utilities (NU) dated August 17, 1992.
- 2. Letter to J. F. Opeka of NU from G, 5. Vissing of NRC dated October 22, 1992.
- 3. Letter to NRC from J. F. Opeka of NU dated October 30, 1992.
Principal Contributor:
C. P. Tan Date:
November 16, 1992
.