ML20129H192
| ML20129H192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129H182 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9610310124 | |
| Download: ML20129H192 (3) | |
Text
_ _
.~
O ctouq
~
k UNITED STATES p
4 S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006E4001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 205 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY THE WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4 By letter dated August 27,1996, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes clarify the limiting condition for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements to ensure that the appropriate number of charging pumps and high pressure safety injection (HPSI) pumps are operable for reactivity control and reactor coolant system (RCS) makeup requirements, while also limiting the number of operable pumps to ensure that the low temperature overpressure (LTOP) limits will not be exceeded in the event of a mass addition to the RCS during shutdown conditions.
Specifically, LC0 Section 3.1.2.3 and Action Statement 3.1.2.3.b are changed to replace the word " operable" with " capable of injecting." Surveillance Requirements 4.1.2.3.2 and 4.1.2.3.3 are revised by replacing the phrase "except for the above OPERABLE pump (s)" with "not intended to be capable of injecting." This change will ensure that the inoperable pumps remain inoperable.
The associated TS Bases remain unchanged as the result of the proposed clarification.
2.0 EVALUATION By letter dated February 15, 1995, the NRC staff issued Amendment No. 185 to Facility Operating License No. DRP-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2.
The approved TS changes were in response to Generic Letter (GL) 90-06 " Resolution of Generic Issue 70, ' Power-0perated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability,' and Generic Issue 94, ' Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light Water Reactors,' Pursuant to 10 CFR
- 50. 54 ( f). "
In addition, changes were made to the TSs to address baron dilution and shutdown risk. The amendment specified the number and conditions 9610310124 961025 DR ADOCK 0500 6
t
_2_
i i
l for the required operable charging and HPSI pumps in shutdown conditions (Modes 5 and 6) indicating that the remaining charging and HPSI pumps be inoperable.
The licensee is proposing the wording changes identified above to provide 1
clarification to ensure that the required operable pumps would not be rendered inoperable under certain conditions. The current definition of operable l
requires, in part, that the normal and emergency electrical power sources be available.
Recently, while the unit was in a shutdown condition, one of the i
two emergency diesel generators was inoperable and the other was required by j
TSs to have surveillance testing performed resulting in no emergency power available to the required charging and HPSI pumps while the unit was in a j
shutdown condition.
l As noted, the intent of Amendment No. 185 was to ensure that the required charging and HPSI pumps would be available for reactivity (boron) control and j
RCS makeup to minimize shutdown risk while ensuring the remaining pumps would be inoperable for LTOP protection. The surveillance requirements of TSs l
4.1.2.3.2 and 4.1.2.3.3 could be interpreted as requiring that the pumps used j
for reactivity control and RCS makeup should be demonstrated to be inoperable, in addition to those required to be inoperable for LTOP protection, if no emergency power is available. The surveillance requirements were added in l
Amendment No. 185 only to ensure LTOP protection and were not intended to j
result'in disabling the pumps necessary to provide reactivity protection and RCS makeup during shutdown conditions when normal power is available. Thus, g
the proposed TS changes, as discussed above, provide adequate clarificaticn to j
ensure that the necessary reactivity protection and RCS makeup capability will be provided for all conditions when the unit is shut down.
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed changes are j
accaptable. As previously noted, the associated TS Bases remain unchanged.
i j
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 a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and 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
=.
~.
- =
' J proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 49498). 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, i
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:
D. Mcdonald Date: October 25, 1996 1
i 6
h h
i
!