ML20151T201
| ML20151T201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T198 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804280613 | |
| Download: ML20151T201 (3) | |
Text
<
i l
[pnaq y
o UNITED STATES
[,j
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,
e.
WASHING TON, D. C. 20655
%, *..../
\\
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REL ATED _TO A7E,ND,PE,N,T N,0,,,,]7, TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 N0c1HEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
klLLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO 3 DOCKET NO 50-423 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 5,10PE, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Ccepery (licensee) proposed to change the Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specification 3/4.4.6 Peactor Coolant System Leakage to allow continued plant operation for up to 30 days with both the Containnent Atnespheric Gaseous and Particulate Radioactivity Pcnitoring Systems inoperable as lcng as certain conditions are net.
These changes would (1) increase the tirne allowed for continued operation with both the Containcent Atrosphere Gaseous Radioactivity Vcnitoring Systen and the Centainnent Atmosphere Particulate Radioactivity Monitorieg Systert inoperable to 20 days, (2) increase the limitin once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to once per 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br />, and (3)g grab sariple frequercy from delete the requirement fer grab samples when one radioactivity monitor is inoperable.
EVALUATION The existing Technical Specification Section 3.4.6.1 identifies three Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Systems. These are:
a.
Containment Atmosphere Gaseous Radioactivity Fonitoring System b.
Containn.ent Drain Surp Level or Pumped Capacity Fonitoring Systen.
and c.
Containtrent Atmosphere Particulate Radioactivity Penitoring Systen.
If any one system is inoperable continued operation is allowed for 3C days.
If either cf the radioactivity monitoring systems is inoperable, grab samples of l
the containtrent atmosphere are required once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
If both radioactiv-f ty monitoring systems are inoperable or if either one of the radioactivity monitoring systems and the Containment Drain Sump level or Pumped Capacity Monitoring System are inoperable the plant is required to shut down.
8804280613 000418 PDR ADOCK 05000423 p
PDR i
t o
-?-
The Containment Atmosphere Gaseous Monitor and the Containment Atmosphere Particulate Monitor share a comon sample point, sample line, isolation valves, sarple fan, radiation monitor skid and power supply.
There are two monitoring systems; one looking at a particular filter and the other at a gas chamber.
Should one o' the comon components in the system fail, both systems will fail.
With the present Technical Specifications, the unit is recuired to shut down in 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. However, plant shutdown is unnecessary because adequate capability remains to detect primary system leakage.
The containment sump monitoring capabilities are available and containment atmosphere airborne radioactivity levels will be determined using grab samples.
To eliminate this unnecessary shutdown requirement, the proposed action state-ment for inoperable Containment Atmosphere Gaseous and Particulate Radioactivity Monitors would permit continued operation for 30 days to allow repair or replacement of inoperable components, it requires more frequent samples (i.e.,
once every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> rather than once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) than the present statement.
We find this change acceptable.
The proposed action statement for inoperable Containment Drain Sump level or Pumped Capacity Monitoring System would permit continued operation for 30 days to allow for repair or replacerent of inoperable components if either the gaseous or particulate radioactivity monitorino systems are operable.
This is the same requirement as the present Techni:a1 Specification. Grab samples would not be recuired because adeouate leakage detection is provided by the Containment Orain Sump Level or Pumped Capacity Monitoring System and the operable radioactivity monitor without the grab samples. We find this change acceptable.
C The proposed change eliminates unnecessary plant shutdowns because of inorerable component; corrnon to the Containment Atmosphere Gaseous and Particulate Radio.
activity Monitoring Systems.
It also eliminates en unnecessary sampling procedure when at least one radioactivity monitor system is available for leak detection.
Further, it improves the compensatory measures of grab sampling via the increased sample frequency and prompt analysis requirement. We find the proposed technical specification ace.eptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This 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 70. The staff has determined that thc 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 Comission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. 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 amendnent.
6 i
E l
2 l
-3 l
CONCLUSION Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,that(1) 1 there is reascnable assurance that the health and safety o' the public will r.ct be endangered by cperation ir, the proposed e ant.er, and (?) such activities will be ccnducted in compliance with the Comniission's regulations, and the issuance of the aner.dnent will nct te inipiical to the cornen defense and security or to the health ar.d safety of the l
l public.
I Cated:
April 18,1988 Principal Contributor:
i i
l P. Ferguson I
l l
i l
I l
l I
)