ML20235K410
| ML20235K410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235K404 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710050078 | |
| Download: ML20235K410 (3) | |
Text
-______
yn N?vq
[1 '
k
+
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REG RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.119 TO DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336
\\
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By applications for license amendments dated July 14,1987(supplementedby
~
Company, et al. (the licensee), requested changes to the Technicaland A i
Specifications (TS) for Millstone, Unit 2 as follows:
(1) a new TS 4.7.6.13.e which would require periodic verification of control room inleakage, (2) a new TS 6.9.1.5d, " Annual Reports ', would require reporting of and (3) a new TS 6.17, " Secondary Water Chemistry", nuld pressu fur the steam generator secondary water chemistry program. pecify requirements In addition to the TS changes described above, the July 14, 1987 application also requests a change to the TS regarding steam generator tube degradation which will be addressed in a future licensing action.
2.0 D_ISCUSSION AND EVALUATION With regard to control room inleakage, on July 19, 1982, the NRC staff issued its Safety Evaluation (SE) concerning TMI Action Item III.D.3.4, " Control Room Habitability".
The SE approved control room HVAC modifications proposed by the licensee, as described in the licensee's letter dated July 1, 1981, which included increasing tbs capability of the control room charcoal filtration system and reducing the control room unfiltered inleakage.
Subsequently, on June 19, 1985, the NRC staff issued License Amendment No.100 for Millstone Unit 2 which included TS consistent with the staff's July 19, 1982 SE.
The SE associated with License Amendment No. 100, however, concluded, "...the technical specification contains no provisions to periodically verify the licensee's calculational assumptions regarding the control room inleakage during isolation.
The staff will pursue resolution of this prior to the next refueling outage currently scheduled for late 1986 or early 1987."
Following discussions with the NRC staff, the licensee submitted their application dated August 3,1987.
licensee (TS 4.7.6.le.3) would require measurement of the control roomThe TS propo inleakage at least once per 18 mo iths.
would be 100 efm at a delta P of 1/16" water gauge.The maximum allowable inle l
We conclude that proposed TS 4.7.6.le.3 acceptably responds to our request for periodic verification of control room inleakage and, thus, is acceptable.
87 goo % l h h 36 D
PDR p
p
. By letter dated July 23, 1979, the NRC staff infonned licensees that a review of steam generator water chemistry status within the nucle specific water chemistry programs.
More recently, the NRC staff 11as '
requested that the licensees propose inclusion of water chemistry program requirements in the Administrative Controls section of the TS.
The July 14, 1987 application proposes a change to the Administrative Controls section of
'the TS to incorporate secondary water chemistry requirements in accordance with the NRC letter dated July 23, 1979 as follows:
1.
l Identification of a sampling schedule for the critical variables and control points for these variables.
2.
Identification of the procedures used to measure the values of the crif.ical variables.
3.
Identification of process sampling points, which shall' include
~
monitoring the dischar L
condenser in-leakage, ge of the condensate pumps for evidence of k
4 Procedures for the recording and management of data, 5.
Procedures defining corrective actions for all off-control point chemistry conditions, and 6.
. A procedure identifying:
(a) the authority responsible for the interpretation of the data, and (b) the sequence and timing of administrative events required to initiate corractive action.
. 9 The above program would be incorporated in new, proposed, TS 6.17.
h We conclude that the proposed TS 6.17 reflects the NRC staff's position regarding secondary water chemistry and, thus, is acceptable.
e The final change to the TS, addressed herein, concerns TMI Action Item II.K.3.3, " Reporting of RV and SV Failures and Challenges." In an NRC letter dated March 8,1982, the NRC staff expressed the need to formalize the reporting of pressurizer RV and SV failures and challenges via a change to the TS. No model TS was provided at that time.
In a subsequent NRC letter dated October 29, 1986, the licensee was provided with an acceptable model TS.
The July 1,1987 application, as supplemented by the licensee's letter dated July 31, 1987, proposes an addition to the annual reporting requirements of TS 6.9.1.5 to include:
" Documentation of all failures (inability to lift 'or reclose within the tolerances allowed by the design basis) and challenges to the pressurizer PORVs or safety valves."
i We conclude that proposed TS 6.9.1.5 acceptab'y conforms to the NRC staff posicion on reporting RV and SV failures and challenges and is, thus, acceptable.
= = = = -- = = - -
u l
. J 4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This anendment changes surveillance requirements. This amendment also
(
telates to changes in recordkeeping, repnrting, or ad :ir.istrative procedures or requirements. The staff ha determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant j
increase in individual or cc.nulative occupational radiation exposure. The j
Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment i
involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eli criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibilityand (10).
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.
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 i
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public
- such, j
if activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the < issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon
(
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Dated:
September 25, 1987 Principal Contributor:
D. Jaffe t
l t
f s
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _