ML20148E035
| ML20148E035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148E032 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706020240 | |
| Download: ML20148E035 (2) | |
Text
pc 6%
A UNITED STATES j
y NUCLEAR RETULATORY C'dMMiSSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055H001 i~
\\..... j/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.140 10 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT N0. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 31, 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 change would separate the required testing of motor-operated valve thermal overload protection into two new surveillances.
2.0 EVALUATION TS 4.8.4.2.2 requires testing of motor-operated valve thermal overload protection on a periodic bases and following maintenance on the motor starter.
Specifically, TS 4.8.4.2.2 states:
The thermal overload protection for the above required valves shall be demonstrated OPERABLE at least once per 18 months and following maintenance on the motor starter by the performance of a CHANNEL CALIBRATION of a representative sample of at least 25% of all thermal overloads ff the above required valves.
The licensee, in its letter dated March 31, 1997, proposed to separate the testing performei:1 on a periodic bases and the testing performed following maintenance on the motor starter into two new surveillances, 4.8.4.2.2.1 and 4.8.4.2.2.2, respectively.
In its letter, the licensee stated the current wording of the surveillance is confusing and that the proposed change will correct this by separating the two types of surveillance testing.
The proposed wording for TS 4.8.4.2.2.1 would incorporate the periodic testing requirements (once per 18 months) for motor-operated valve thermal overload protection. This periodic testing would continue to be accomplished by the performance of a channel calibration of a representative sample ci at least 25 percent of all thermal overloads for the TS-required motor-operated valves.
The proposed wording for TS 4.8.4.2.2.2 would incorporate the testing performed after maintenance on the motor starter of a specific motor-operated valve.
This testing would be accomplished by the performance of a channel calibration on the specific motor-operated valve, which had maintenance conducted on its motor starter.
9706020240 970529 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
_ - -. - - - -.. - - - -_= - -
(
I The NRC staff finds the proposed wording of TS 4.8.4.2.2.1 and 4.8.4.2.2.2
{
acceptable in that the TS identify the necessary testing for the thermal overload protection on both a periodic bases and after maintenance on the motor starter. Specifically, TS 4.8.4.2.2.2 clarifies the requirements for testing after maintenance of the motor starter, in that the channel i
calibration only needs to be conducted on the specific valve being worked on.
TS 4.8.4.2.2.1 continues to require periodic representative sample testing for all motor-operated valve thermal overload protection.
Further, the NRC staff had determined that the change is safe and assures that the motor-operated i
valve thermal overload protection will function as required.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
.In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State f
official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a surveillance requirement.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant incre.ase 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 tid the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 19833 dated April 23,1997). 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, 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: May 29, 1997 l
i