ML20128A946
| ML20128A946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128A920 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.095, RTR-REGGD-1.095 NUDOCS 8507030071 | |
| Download: ML20128A946 (2) | |
Text
-..
\\
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Id WASHiteGTON, D. C. 20066 k.....
[
\\
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.100 TO DPR-65 i
t NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY ET AL.
l f
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 f
i DOCKET NO. 50-336 4
i 1
i INTRODUCTION l
1 The staff has reviewed the technical specification modifications submitted on 4
April 2,1985 by Northeast Utilities for Millstone Unit 2.
The proposed modifications' reflected the requirements of NUREG-0737. Item III.D.3.4,
~
]
regarding control room habitability. The proposed technical specification modifications (1)lowerthechlorineconcentrationtrip)setpointforthe control room chlorine detectors from 5 ppm to 1 ppm, (2 increase the 1
required filtered air flow rates from 2000 cfm to 2500 cfm, and (3) l incorporate control room monitoring information.
[
DISCUSSION The staff finds that these modifications fulfill the licensee's previous commitments required by the staff's July 19, 1982 safety evaluation concerning control room habitability and are, therefore, acceptable. The cossnitments were included in licensee letters dated December 15 and 31, 1980,. July 1, 1981 and June 4 1982. However, the technical specification contains no provisions to periodically verify the licensee's calculational assumptions regarding the control room inleakage during isolation. The staff will pursue resolution of r
this prior to the next refueling outage currently scheduled for late 1986 or 1
early 1987 The staff finds interim operation acceptable because the l
Ifcensee has substantially improved the ability of the emergency system to protect the operators and the periodic testing of the control room for leakage is only intended to ensure that the licensee's assumptions regarding the inleakage into the control room remain valid for the lifetime of the l
plant. The staff does not expect any significant degradation of leakage i
during Cycle 7 operation.
I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION I
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CfR Part 20.
4 The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents e
that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase y
on
~
l l
I 2-in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment i
involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no subite comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligi)ility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.2?(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: June 19, 1985 Principal Contributor:
T. Ouay, AEB I
i i
)
l I
i l
i I
J
..