ML20217P116
| ML20217P116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217P085 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708260450 | |
| Download: ML20217P116 (2) | |
Text
e sk" M4g f/
4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON. D.C. 30666-0001 o%{(*.. * *,/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF. NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELAlt0 TO AMENDMENT NO. 146 TO FACILITY _0PERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 l
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 1.0 1HTRODUCT10N By letter dated May 1,1997, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 lechnical Specifications (TS).
TS 3/4.8.2.2 and 3/4.8.3.2 specify which electrical power systems are required to be operable in Modes 5 and 6.
The proposed amendment would clarify the requirements by identifying the specific equipment required and their alignments in Modes 5 and 6.
2.0 EVALVATION in its letter dated May 1, 1997, the licensee stated that the current TS 3/4.8.2.2 and 3/4.8.3.2 are inconsistent as to the number of battery banks required operable and vague as to the specific electrical distribution system equipment readired operable in Modes 5 and 6.
2.1 Battery Banks The proposed amendment request would change the current wording of 15 3/4.8.2.2 from, "As a minimum, one 125-volt battery bank and its associated fell-capacit; charger shall be OPERABLE." to "As a minimum, one Train (A or B) of batteries and tileir associated full capacity chargers shall be OPERABLE."
The licensee stated that this change would increase the battery banks required to be operable in Modes 5 and 6 from one to two and resolve an inconsistency with TS 3/4.8.3.2, which currently requires two battery banks energized in Modes 5 and 6.
The HRC staff has determined that the proposed change clarifles the number of batteries required to be operable in Modes 5 and 6, and removes the inconsistency oetween TS. Therefore, the staff finds the change acceptable.
2.2 Specific Electrical Eouioment Reouired The proposed amendment request would reword TS 3/4.8.2.2 and 3/4.8.3.2 to identify the specific equipment required and their alignment during Modes 5 and 6.
The licensee stated that the change is being proposed to reduce the vagueness in the present TS and does not alter the manner in which any system M
N k h $$423 p
1 or component is operated during normal or accident conditions.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed change clarifies the s)ecific equipment 4
required to be operable in Modes 5 and 6, and reduces tie vagueness of the current TS.
Thercfore, the staff finds the change acceptable.
2.3, Editorial Chanaes The proposed amendment request would make an editorial change in TS 3/4.8.2.2 to replace words similar to "125-volt battery bank" and/or " full-capacity charger" with the word " train." The staff finds this change acceptable.
1 3.0 11AIE CONSULTATION j
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State I
official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments, j
4.0 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 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 si occupational radiation exposure.gnificant increase in individual or cumulative The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 30637 dated June 4, 1997). Accordingly, the amandment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 40 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
i 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 issance of the amendment will not be inimical to the corrmon defense and security or to the-health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Andersen Date: August 21, 1997