ML20207L263

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 104 to License DPR-21

ML20207L263
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/05/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207L242	List: ML20207L240 ML20207L258 ML20207L263
References
NUDOCS 9903180053
Download: ML20207L263 (3)

Text

~ - . .

q W too a

y*

f 4 o

UNITED STATES j j

~ A" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

%...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 i DOCKET NO. 50-245

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated December 4,1998, as supplemented by letters dated January 18 and 29, 1999, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (MP1) Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would modify the staffing and training requirements to allow the use of Certified Fuel Handlers to meet plant staffing requirements. The January 18 and 29, 1999, letters provided clarifying information and did not change the scope of the December 4,1998, application and initial proposed no significant hazards consideration  !

determination. ,

2.0 BACKGROUND

J By letter dated July 21,1998, NNECO certified to the NRC, under the provisions of ]

10 CFR 50.82(a), that MP1 had permanently ceased operations and that the fuel had been i permanently removed from the reactor vessel. NNECO is therefore prohibited from l operating the plant or placing fuelin the reactor vessel. NNECO has determined that plant operating activities requiring licensed and senior licensed operators will no longer be q performed at MP1. Therefore, by letters dated December 4,1998, and January 18 and 29,1999, NNECO submitted proposed amendments to the staffing and training ,

requirements contained in the MP1 TS. The purposes of the amendments are to l (1) eliminate the requirements for licensed operators and the licensed operator training program and replace them with Certified Fuel Handlers (CFH), and, (2) define staffing and training requirements for a defueled condition in a separate action, the staff has reviewed the CFH training program and found it to be acceptable.

1

~

9903190053 990305 PDR ADOCK 05000245 l P PDR '

l

l 3 3.0 EVALUATION l

l Licensed operator training in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 is no longer required at MP1 because the plant is permanently defueled. The licensee's letter dated December 4,1998, as supplemented by letter dated January 18 and 29,1999, requested an amendment to the MP1 TS Section 6.0, Administrative Controls, to reflect l

the staffing requirements and incorporate the training and qualification requirements that i are appropriate for operators at a permanently defueled facility.

In the proposed amendment, Section 6.2.2(c), which requires two licensed operators in the ,

control room during reactor startups, scheduled shutdowns, and recovery from reactor trips, and Section 6.3.1(b), which identifies the qualifications for Shift Technical Advisor l l (STA), would be deleted. In a permanently defueled condition, the evolutions discussed in Section 6.2.2(c) are no longer conducted and the STA is no longer required. Therefore, deleting the referenced sections is appropriate.

In the proposed amendment, Section 6.2.1(d), which describes the onsite and offsite organizations, Section 6.2.2(d), which describes the facility radiation protection staff requirements, and Section 6.2.2(e), which describes supervision requirements during core  :

attemtions, are modified. la cach case, the change replaces words referencing an operating status with words reflecting the permanently defueled condition of MP1 and are appropriate.

Changes are also proposed in Sections 6.2.2(g),6.3.1(a), and 6.8.3(b) to modify staff qualifications to reflect the use of the CFH in lieu of the licensed operator. The training requirements for a CFH have been incorporated into Section 6.4.1. The previous requirement to maintain the training of licensed operators in accordance with 10 CFR  !

55.59 has been deleted and the licensee has incorporated the requirement to maintain the ,

CFH training and retraining program. The CFH training and retraining program for MP1 has  !

been approved by the NRC in a separate safety evaluation. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.2, the CFHs are considered non-licensed operators and, as such, their training must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.120. Therefore, the changes to the training requirements contained in the technical specifications are appropriate.

The licensee submittal also proposed a change to Table 6.2-1, which describte tha minimum shift-crew staffing. The change reflects the use of a CFH in lieu of a licensed operator. Additionally, the change would require that a Non-Certified Operator also be part of the shift crew. In its letter dated January 18,1999, the licensee provided supplemental information about the qualifications of the Non-Certified Operator. In that letter, the Non-Certified Operator was defined as either an Equipment Operator who has been qualified in accordance with Millstone Training Program 7.087 or a Field Operator who has been qualified in accordance with Millstone Training Program 7.076. The qualification

{

i

l

)

l l requirements of the two positions filling the role of Non-Certified Operator are not equivalent. Therefore, a qualified Field Operator is not qualified to stand watch in the l control room. This is consistent with changes proposed to Section 6.2.2(b) which requires )

and would limit the control room watch to being either a qualified CFH or a qualified Equipment Operator whenever irradiated fuel is in the fuel pool. Therefore, the changes to the minimum shift-crew staffing, as stated in Table 6.2-1, are appropriate.

The staff has completed its review of the proposed amendments to the MP1 TS. The staff finds that the changes, including all additions, revisions and deletions are appropriate to i reflect the defueled conditions of the plant, are consistent with and meet the intent of the )

relevant review criteria and, therefore, are acceptable.  ;

4.0 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. -

)

5.0 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 dete' ied that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and j no signift t change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that  !

there is no ugnificant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. j The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no i significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 71657 dated December 29,1998). 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.

6.0 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: Mary Ann Biamonte Ashley Date: March 5, 1999