ML20210N817
| ML20210N817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210N794 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-85-19, TAC-63349, NUDOCS 8702130224 | |
| Download: ML20210N817 (3) | |
Text
-
' g "4 9'o,,
UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*..,*/
W SAFETY EVALUATION'BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NCi115 TO DPR-65
)d NORTHEA NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
9 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 N
DOCKET NO. 50-3351 s
INTRODUCTION By application for license amendment dated October 29, 1986, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), requested cha~nges to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Millstone Unit 2 related.to primary system iodine spiking:
(1) the requirement in TS 3.4.8, " Specific Activity", that
(
operation, outside predetermined primary coolant activity limits, not exceed 10 percent of the unit's total yearly operating time would be deleted; and (2) the current "spettal report" requirement in TS 6.9.21 associated with primary coolant; activity would be replaced by an annual report requirement in TS 6.9.1.4.
Discussion and Evaluation On September 27, 1985, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 85-19, " Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes." The purpose of GL 85-19 was to propose that licensees be relieved of certain unnecessary requirements associated with primary system activity, as follows:
As part of our continuing program to delete unnecessary reporting requirements, we have reviewed the reporting requirements related to primary coolant specific activity levels, specifically primary coolant iodine spikes. We have determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking can be reduced from a short-term report (Special Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item which is to be included in the t
Annual Report.
The information to be included'in the Annual Report is similar to that previously required in the Licensee Event Report but has been changed to more clearly designate the results to be included from the specific activity analysis and to delete the information i
regarding fuel burnup by core region.
y In our. effort to eliminate un'necessary Technical Specification require-ments,iwe have also determined t6at the existing requirements to shut
[ s.
down a plant if coolant fodine activity limits are exceeded for 800 lj hours in a 12-month period can be eliminated.
The quality of nuclear
.l l
fuel has been greatly improved over the past decade with the result that normal coolant iodine activity (i.e. in the absence of iodine spiking) is well below the limit.
Appropriate actions would be initiated long before accumulating 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> above the iodine activity limit.
In I
addition, 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) requires the NRC to be immediately notified of fuel cladding failures that exceed expected values'or that
-l
.are caused by unexpected factors.
Therefore, this Technical Specifica-tion limit _is no longer considered necessary on the basis that proper fuel management by licensees and existing reporting requirements should preclude ever approaching the limit.
Licensees are expected to continue to monitor iodine activity in the primary coolant and take responsible actions to maintain it at a reasonably low level (i.e., accumulated time with high iodine activity should not approach 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br />).
The licensee's application dated Oct.ober 29, 1986 was submitted in response to GL 85-19.
As indicated in GL 85-19, the improved quality of fuel and the existence of
=
adequate reporting requirements precludes the operation of the facility with primary system activity that is excessive.
Excessive primary system activity would be of concern in the event of.an accident involving release of reactor coolant.
In addition, the proposed changes to the TS conform with the NRC guidance provided in GL 85-19.
Based upon the above, the proposed changes to TS 3.4.8, 6.9.2 and 6.9.1.4 a,re acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component 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 indi-vidual or. cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no signifi-cant 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 51.22(c)(9).
This amendment also involves changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or require-ments. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
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.
- 3_._
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 the issuance
' of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
..Date: February 3,1987 Principal. Contributor:
D. Jaffe e
1 s
,e
.-n-.
..-..-,,,,-w-
,,c,,
.----wn
- - - - - - - ~
e-
-m w-,e-,
= ~~--, --
- -- --~~ - - '
~
- -