ML20127J394

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to License DPR-21 & Proposed NSHC Determination & Opportunity for Hearing.Proposed Amend Would Allow for Temporarily Bypassing MSL RM Trip Function While Placing Demineralizer Into Svc

ML20127J394
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	01/15/1993
From:	Andersen J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20127J374	List: ML20127J369 ML20127J394
References
NUDOCS 9301250125
Download: ML20127J394 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .

s.

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY ,

DOCKET NO. 50-245 NOTICE OF CONSIDfl@lLQ!(_Of_lji10ANCE OF AMENDMENT TO fEl(ITY OPERATING LICEHSE. PROPOSED t(LSIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPOPTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-21 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee /NNECO) for operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, located in New London County, Connecticut.

The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications would allow for

• temporarily bypassing the Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor (MSLRM) trip function in order to allow condensate demineralizers to be returned to service, thereby eliminating the possibility of an inadvertent initiation of the MSLRM trip function. A time limit of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per occurrence has been set to minimize the overall time that the MSLRM trip function may be bypassed.

The licensee requested expeditious review of this request because continued plant operation -dictates that the current typical-ultrasonic-resin cleaning cycle of two condensate demineralizers per week be resumed promptly.

A clean demineralizer has not beer, rotated into' service since December 29, 1992, because the licensee believes the evolution may result in a spurious and unnecessary main steam line high radiation monitor trip setpoint being exceeded.-

9301250125 930115 PDR ADOCK 0500 P.

, ~ , . . . . - . . , - . . - - , - . -

e Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, NNEC0 has reviewed the attached proposed change and has concluded that the change does not involve an SHC [Significant Hazards Consideration). The basis for this conclusion is that the three criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not compromised. The proposed change does not involve an SHC because the change would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The trip function of the MSLRMs is a postaccident function and hence changes to this function can not increase the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated ar.cidents. The Millstone Unit No. I design casis accident analysis does not take credit for this

.;

• unction and hence there are no effects on the consequences of previously evaluated accidents. in the control rod drop accident, all activity from failed fuel rods is assumed to be immediately transported to the turbine / condenser and is available for leakage from the condenser.

Additionally, the main steam activity detected by the MSLRMs will be removed by the steam jet air ejectors, be monitored by the redundant off-gas monitors and be directed to the off-gas treatment system.

The sensitivity of the off-gas monitors is much greater than the MSLRMs. The noble gas activity required to cause the MSLRMs m

- - . . ~ _---- - - -. - - - . - - - - - .._-

3 to exceed their alarm setpoint will be well above the trip setpoint for the off-gas monitors. The off-gas monitors will automatically initiate closure of the off-gas system discharge valve after a 15 minute time delay and hence, trap all activity within the off-gas system. No significant activity is expected to be released to the public, since it would be contained within the off-gas system, j Furthermore, not closing the MSIVs will reduce the potential dose, as the steam jet air ejector will remain available to direct activity to the off-gas system. If the HSIVs were closed, the activity would remain in the condenser. More activity would be expected to leak out of the condenser than the off-gas system.

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

The proposed changes allow the HSLRM trip function to be by)assed for a s1 ort period of time (conservatively selected as two lours per occurrence) while condensate demineralizers are placed into service.

The direct impact on the plant is that this particular trip function (i.e., MSIV closure and reactor scram) will not actuate while it is bypassed. Since the design basis accident analysis does not credit this trip function to demonstrate acceptable radiological consequences, the proposed changes have effectively been evaluated previously and are enveloped by the existing analysis. As stated above, in the control rod drop accident, all activity from failed fuel rods is assumed to be immediately transported to the turbine / condenser and is available for leakage from the condenser.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed changes do not impact the physical protective

-boundaries, nor do they affect the calculated off-site dose consequences, Therefore, there is no impact on the margin of safety. Furthermore, the changes will improve the overall reliability of the plant when compared to the as-found system, since the proposed changes will reduce the chances of an unnecessary plant I

transient occurring as a result of an inadvertent MSIV closure at i 100 percent power.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this l

review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) ai r satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the-amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

-e.- , , . - - .- , , ,- ,. ,

.-,3 . - ~ - - _ , ,

4-The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any connents received within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Directives Review Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:20 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.

By February 24 , 1993, the licensee may file a request for a hearing j with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Fractice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 1

2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Roem, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public

1 5-J document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Thames Valley State Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360.

If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in-the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature

of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; ,

(2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financf *l, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the

proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has i flied a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen 1

(15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference ,

scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are '

sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, in addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases-of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or.

expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.

Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. .

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.. (

If the amendment is issued before the expiration of_30 days, the i Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant c

%_.-, ,..___ . _ . - , .. _ _ . , _.__,m._,,-__,,. , _ . _ . . . , ,_.,----...s_..._..... . . , , , _ . _.,-,,_r,,,- , , 7_ _ . , _ _ . ,m.,. . . _ , yt g

i hazards consideration. If a hearing is requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place af ter issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before -

the issuance of any amendment.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be flied with the _ Secretary of the Commission, 'd.S. fiadaar Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, ,

or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the above date. Where

_.__.__-___.m. ___

4

(

1 petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission 'oy a toll-free  !

telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolzt petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, and to Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the-factors specified in 10 CFR 2,714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).

for further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 12, 1993, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room located at t

I f.

I

.g.

the Learning Resources Center, Thames Valley State Technical College 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, :onnecticut 06360.  !

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of January 1993.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i

- # ames J W. ndersen, Acting Project Manager Project Directorate 1-4 Olvision of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation d

j' gr -*r-vyvw' rws-t' w ryurey-r rw w wwy--y y e 'y we 9 -ap s m w.s- m-y- ew e cam-- pyt-t-wem e- r-f vct v= 7 M-- t-pW-Mme----T -T m m-eso--mi-suiew i =--mi t-m e -rco--- -i%~ seg u-e- rr-" m -p-m-