ML20235P200
| ML20235P200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235P198 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707200387 | |
| Download: ML20235P200 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ -
f* MC%\\
UNITED STATES
+
5*
'[}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. [' " s- (
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k *,,a y
I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.7 l
k 1
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
FILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 1.0 INTPCCUCTION By letter dated Jenuery 5, 1987, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company proposed Technical Specification changes for Millstone 3 to resolve an inconsistency between the FSAR safety ar.elysis and the Millstone 3 Technical Specifications. The inconsistency involves the number of reactor coolant pumps assumed to be operating in Mode 4 (hot shutdown) during a postulated control rod bank withdrawal accident.
i l
I On June 6,1985, the NRC staff expressed a concern to the licensee that the i
I Millstone 3 Technical Specifications for Modes 3 and 4 operatiens might be j
inconsistent with the assumptions of the existing safety analyses with respect to the number of reactor coolant pumps in operation. The staff requested the licensee to confirm whether Millstone 3 Technical Specifications had this inconsistency problem, especially for the analysis of rod bank withdrawal l
accident. The licensee responded in the ' letter dated January 5,1987 from E.
J. Mroczka (NNECO) to NRC that Millstone 3 Technical Specification requirements for Mode 3 operation are consistent with the FSAR analyses, including the red bank withdrawal from subtritical conditions which assumed two reactor coolant pumps in operation. However, the Millstone 3 Technical Specifications do not require two reactor coolant pumps in operation during Mode 4.
In lieu of performing an analysis for the rod bank withdrawal event for Mode 4 operation, the licensee chose to revise the Technical Specification requirements such that at least two reactor coolant pumps will be in 8707,700337 D70709 DR ADOCK OSOD 3
" j operction in Pece 4 when the reactor trip breakers are closed.
Our evaluation follows.
2.0 EVALUATION Section 3.4.1.3 Uncer the heeding " Hot Shutdown Limiting Condition for Operation" is revised to reflect the new requirements that at least two reactor coolant pumps must be operating in Mode 4 when the Reacter Trip Syster 1
breakers are closed (energized), and the Reactor Trip System brealers must be opened (de-energized) when there are less than two coolant pumps in operation.
4 By doing so the licensee ensures a consistency between the Technical Specifications and the FSAR analyses. We consider these changes acceptable.
Section 3/4.4 under the heading " Bases" is revised to describe the consistency between the Technical Specification requirer..ents and the accident analyses for Mode 3 and 4 operations. We consider this change acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendrent changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility corrponent located within the restricted area as defined in j
10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no i
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 published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amend-ment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR El.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
s
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 i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's t
regulations, and the issuance of the amendnent will net be inimical to
.]
the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the l
public.
Dated:
July 9,1987 Principal Contributor:
R. Ferguson
- 5. L. Wu l
l e
f I