ML20217K724
| ML20217K724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217K704 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708180093 | |
| Download: ML20217K724 (2) | |
Text
'
I ene:gk UNITE] STATES l
.t. * -
O j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGYON. D.C. 30MH001
'49.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAUpp RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.145 10 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 fiQRIHfAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 i
1.0 INTRODUCTIQB By letter dated June 13, 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 changes would modify TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.3.3 to be consistent with the requirements of TS 3.4.1.3.
Specifically, the change would bring TS surveillance 4.4.1.3.3 into agreement with TS 3.4.1.3 by requiring that the specified reactor coolant and/or residual heat removal (RHR) system loops be verified in operation and circulating reactor coolant at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> during Mode 4.
2.0 JVALUAliON TS 3.4.1.3 currently requires at least two of the reactor coolant loops listed therein be operable with at least two reactor coolant loops in operation when the reactor trip system breakers are closed.
It further requires at least two of the listed loops be operable and at least one of the loops be in operation with the reactor trip breakers open.
TS 3.4.1.3 is applicable in Mode 4 and lists the following loops: (1) reactor coolant loop 1; (2) reactor coolant loop 2; (3) reactor coolant loop 3; (4) reactor coolant loop 4; (5) RHR loop 1; and (6) RHR loop 2.
TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.3.3 currently requires that at least one reactor coolant or RHR loop be verified in operation and circulating reactor coolant at least once por 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, in its June 13, 1997, letter, the licensee stated that as currently written, TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.3.3 does not adequately ensure compliance with TS 3.4.1.3.
The licensee stated that the preposed change is necessary to bring TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.3.3 in ayreement with TS 3.4.1.3.
The licensee proposed that TS Surveillance Requiremett be revised to read as follows:
The required loops shall be verified in operation and circulating reactor coolant at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
^
4708100093 970005 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
O The licensee stated that the proposed change will require verification of (1) at least two reactor coolant system loops being operable with at least two reactor coolant system loops in operation when the reactor tri) system breakers are closed, and (2) at least two of the listed loops )eing operable and one in operation when the reactor trip system breakers are open.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and has determined that the proposed change is acceptable.
This determination is based on the need for the TS and its associated Surveillance Requirement to be consistent with each other and that TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.3.3 will ensure compliance with TS 3.4.1.3.
3.0 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.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
I The amendment changes a surveillance requirement.
The NRC staff has 1
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 cumul:.tive occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a propo' sed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 35850 dated July 2, 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 (DEWS 10ff The Commitsion has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
pubite w(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the ill 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: August 5, 1997
-v-w-,y--m-v-y y
,,,n.-,,
n-_-
p,rv.-.