ML20238D759
| ML20238D759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238D727 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-65647, NUDOCS 8709110377 | |
| Download: ML20238D759 (2) | |
Text
A f
3 o
'3 s
O
/g.I' '.%N uwTSU STATES i
i F,
t O '~ %
NUCt. EAR RidULATORY CCMM!SSIOrd Ih(
15 W ASH.NO T ON, D. C. 20556 i
f s
- %,,, -) f,!
t t,
...,,4 i
,5 1,
7 s
'i SAFE *Y EVALUhTION Bf 'iHE 07FTCF OF NU.rtEAR "CACTOR REGULATION
=_
\\
RELATED TO AMENDMP.'T NO. us TO' DJR-65
~
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY,,E_T AL.
$1_L}. STONE DICLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO,.J i
DOCKET N0_. 50-336 h.
< s INTRODUC' ION 1
By appination for license uendment dated June 25, 1987, Northeu t Nuclear Erbrgy Conpany, et al. (the liceme), reouested changes to the Technical Spec'ficalicns (TS) for Millstone Unit 2 regarding, hydraulic seismic restraints'(snubbers),T5.3/4.7.8.1, as follows:
/,1) the TS Tabh that s
survei'Irnce m uld be siiminated and (2) quired te be operable and undergo explicit y ' lists the snubbers; that aro re l
the TS numbering system for TS 3/4.7.8.1 would.ne cMeged. The third proposed change to the snuLber TS, which wottid t,1 tow the i f censee to perform an engineering evaluation to determintza snobber supported system / component to be operable.with an inoperable snubber, till be addressed in future correspondence.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION On by 3, 198e, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 84-13. "rechnical Specifications for Snubbers."
Th' contents of GL 84-13 state; in part:
e 4
Dring the last several years, a large number nf license amendments have been required to add, delete or widify the snubber listing within the technical specifications. We have reassessed the inclusion of snubber
)
listings within the technical specifications and conclude that such listings
\\
are not necessary provided the trubber technical specification is modified to specify which snubbers are rz! quired to be opartble. You should also note that the recordkeeping requirements of paragraph j
l.
4.9.7.f of the snubber technical specification are not altered by this l
- revisinn. Paragraph 4,9.7.f requiras that the piant records contain a j
l record of the service life, installat'en date, etc. of each snubber.
1 l
Since ary charges in snubber quantiths, types, or locati:ns would be a 1
i change to the facility, such changes would be subject to the provisions of j
10 CFR Part 50.59 and, of course, these changes would have to be reflected in tt e records required by paragraph 4.7.9.f.
a The licensee's June 25, 1987 application for license amendment is responsive to GL 84-13 in that it proposes the deletion of the~ TS snobber listing. As
. reconrner.ded by GL 84-13,, a revised Limiting Condition for Operation, (LCO) and associated Action Statement, replaces the snubber list. The proposed LCO and J
Actior-Statement define which snubbers must be operable land undergo survaiilance) and i.lsc provides appropriate remedici actions.
I B709110377 h h 36 PDR ADOCK ppR t'
(
Cp, '
- ,yv f j e ~4 "I
. l The proposed change to TS 3/4.7.8,1 does not decrease the seismic capability of snubber-supported systems in that.no change in the number or placement of snubbers will occur as a direct result of the proposed change. The proposed change to TS 3/4.7.8.1 would allow the licensee to add or delete snubbers, previously permitted under TS 3/4.7.8.1 without prior NRC approval, without a subTequent license amendment to keep the " snubber list" current. The licensee would still be required to prepare an evaluation, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(b)(1), prior to removal of a snubber associated with TS 3/a.7.8.1.
Based upon the above, proposed TS 3/4.7.8 (previously TS 3/4.7.8.1 and renumbered as TS 3/4.7.8 for convenience) is 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 or a change in surveillance requirements. 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 the individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant 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.??(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b1 no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health safety of the public.
Dated: September 1, 1987 Principal Contributor:
D. Jaffe
._.