ML20136G835

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 103 to License DPR-65

ML20136G835
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000
Issue date:	08/12/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20136G766	List: ML20136G758 ML20136G783 ML20136G790 ML20136G803 ML20136G812 ML20136G835
References
NUDOCS 8508200036
Download: ML20136G835 (2)

Text

-. ,_ . _ _ _ _ _ _

'g

!(

b  :

c UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAS,41NGTON, D. C. 20555 9

SAFFTY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.103 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-65 NOPTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, D' LIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 INTRODUCTION By letter dated May 18, 1983, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNEco or the licensee) requested an anendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications

.. appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2. The proposed changes would delete certair ervironmental qualification schedule and documentation requirements which have been suner-seded by new requirenents in 10 CFR Part 50.49.

EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

! Currently, Administrative Controls technical specification (TS) 6.13 " Environ-mental Qualification" describes the implementation schedule and records requirements for environmental qualification of all safety-related electrical

, . . . equipment in the facility. Specification 6.10.2.1 reouires reccrds for 1

environmental qualification to be retained for the duration of the facility operating license. The licensee proposed to delete TS 6.13. Additionally, '

during the staff's evaluation, the staff noted that TS 6.10.2.1 contained words in part that were nn longer applicable and should be deleted. The proposed revisions by the licensee and additional changes by the staff were discussed and agreed to by the licensee during a telephone conference on May 31, 1985.

The staff finds that deletion of these requirements from the TS can be made since schedule and documentation reovirements for environmental qualification i of electrical equipment are superseded by 10 CFR Part 50.49 (effective June 30,

! 1982). The deletion of these requirements from the Millstone Unit 2 Technical i

Specifications published in theisFederal also consistent Register onwith final rulemaking(by November theaE111.),

15, 1984 49 FP Comission, as i The staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the TS and concludes that these charges are administrative and do not involve any physical change to the plant's sa'ety-related structures, systems or components. Further, these changes do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, or increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed or create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated. Therefore, based on the above, the staff finds the licensee requested changes to revise record retention requirements and environ-mental qualification schedule and documentation requirements to be acceptable.

I P

~

.p.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION .

This accrdment involves changes in recordkeeping and administrative procedures or requirements. This amendment also involves changes in schedule requirements with respect to installation or use of facility electrical components located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has

~ determined that the amendment involves no significent change in the types, and no sionificant increase in the arounts, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significent increase in individual or cur:ulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this errendment involves no significant hazards i 1 consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.

- Accordingly, exclusion set this forthamendnent meets the eligibility) in 10 CFP. 51.22(c)(9) criteria fortocategorical and (10 . Pursuant 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental iroact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

CONCLUSION

$ The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thet:

(1) tie e is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public l will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; erd (?) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimicel to the comon defense i and security or to the health and safety of the public.

I-' ACYNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor:

Michael Schaeffer, Region I DATED August 12, 1985.

1 i

l 1

j i

4 i

~, , - - - -