ML20210A400
| ML20210A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210A248 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702060467 | |
| Download: ML20210A400 (4) | |
Text
[
4 UNITED STATES
.p" i1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 2
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DRP-21 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-245
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 27, 1986, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specification (TS) for facility operation License No. DPR-21.
The amendment would: 1) change the wording of TS 4.6. Item E.4 by adding a clarifying sentence to exclada the testing of inaccessible pressure switches during the quarterly functional testing of the valve position indication system; and 2) change the wording of TS 4.6, Item E.5 to require the calibration of the valve discharge temperature monitor once per operating cycle instead of once every 18 months.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on April 23,1986(51FR15405). No comments or requests for hearing were received.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The proposed changes are associated with the surveillance requirements for systems which detect and alarm the opening of a safety / relief valve.
The two proposed changes are reviewed separately below:
l l
8702060467 870129 I
PDR ADOCK 05000245 l P
i f
1.
The first proposed change adds a clarifying sentence to define the method by which the Valve Position Indication System is functionally tested. The licensee proposes to exclude the channel sensors (pressure switches) from the quarterly functional testing of this i
system.
The licensee states that, due to the location of the sensors within the drywell, the quarterly functional surveillance is performed by injecting a simulated signal into the monitoring channel rather than the sensor. The licensee maintains that it would not be prudent to conduct a drywell entry for the purpose of including the sensors in j
the quarterly functional surveillance.
l
}
Existing Technical Specifications define instrument functional L
tests as "the injection of a simulated signal into the instrument l
primary sensor to verify proper instrument channel response, alarm,
}
and/or initiating action." Specific sensors are explicitly excluded from functional testing due to inaccessibility of the sensor, among other reasons.
1 NUREG-0123. " Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric l
Bolling Water Reactors," Section 1.0 - Definitions, provides the I
general requirements for functional testing.
It requires that, for l
Bistable Channels, the test be performed by the injection of a simulated signal into the sensor but allows, for analog channels, the I
injection of a simulated signal into the channel as close to the
{
sensor as practicable. The proposed change would, therefore, be l
allowed by the definition of the Standard Technical Spedications.
i i
l The staff concludes that this proposed change is consistent with the intent of Standard Technical Specifications and agrees with the licensee's conclusion that it would not be prudent to enter the Mark I Containment for the purpose of including the sensors in the quar-l terly functional surveillance. Therefore, the proposed change to Technical Specification 4.6, Item E.4 is acceptable.
l !
2.
The second proposed change modifies the surveillance interval for calibration of the valve discharge temperature monitor by replacing the phrase "once every 18 months" with the phrase "once per operating cycle." The existing Technical Specification defines operating cycle as the " interval between the end of one refueling outage and the end of the next subsequent refueling outage." Since the nominal length of an operating cycle is approximately 18 months and since this change would achieve consistency with other existing Technical Speci-fications, the staff concludes that this proposed change to Technical Specification 4.6, Item E.5 is acceptable.
We have evaluated the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and conclude that they are administrative in nature and do not involve any physical change to the plant's safety-related structures, systems or components.
Further, the staff concludes that the changes do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed, or create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated. Therefore, as stated above, we find the licensee's requested changes to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 this amendment.
l o
e I
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have 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; and
- 2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; and 3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS:
Lawrence J. Wink Eben L. Conner DRP i
Dated:
January 29, 1987 i
1 r.
_