ML20141D531
| ML20141D531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141D528 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706270244 | |
| Download: ML20141D531 (2) | |
Text
.
a uru p
4 UNITED STATES s
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 3
4.....,&
4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 141 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 I
DOCKET NO. 50-423
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 17, 1997, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.
(the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would modify TS 3.7.14 by clarifying the' actions to be taken when an area temperature exceeds its temperature limit.
4 2.0 EVALUATION TS 3.7.14 requires that the temperature within various areas of the plant be limited to ensure that the applicable systems, structures, and components are operated within their design bases.
Specifically, TS 3.7.14 requires specific actions to be taken with one or more areas exceeding the temperature limits shown in Table 3.7-6 by (1) less than 20*F and for less than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> (TS 3.7.14.a), (2) less than 20*F and more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> (TS 3.7.14.b), and (3) more than 20*F (TS 3.7.14.c).
In its letter dated April 17, 1997, the licensee stated that the actions to be taken when an area temperature is exceeded by exactly 20*F is not defined nor is the action to be taken when the duration is exactly 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
To correct this issue, the licensee proposed adding the words " greater than or equal to" 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> to TS 3.7.14.b and " greater than or equal to" 20*F to TS 3.7.14.c.
The licensee stated that this wording change will correct these discontinuities.
4 The licensee's proposed wording ensures that action is designated for the conditions when area temperature exceeds the limit by exactly 20*F or for a time period exactly equal to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
In both cases, the licensee placed the more restrictive action when the temperature limits are exceeded by exactly 20*F or for exactly 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that these changes are acceptable.
/
9706270244 970624 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
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. 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 (62 FR 27798 dated May 21,1997). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant tv 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessme'it need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, 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.
Principal Contributor:
J. Andersen Date:
June 24, 1997 0
/