ML20214P018

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 83,111,112 & 1 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-49,respectively

ML20214P018
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000
Issue date:	09/09/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214N967	List: ML20214N965 ML20214N997 ML20214P018
References
NUDOCS 8609170226
Download: ML20214P018 (3)

Text

-_

. pa na

( UNITED STATES

-[g o,$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a wasHmorow.o.c.zosos

%.....)

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-61 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.111 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-21 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.112 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-65 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 1 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT AND MILLSTONE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-213, 50-245, 50-336 AND 50-423

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated May 30, 1986, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) submitted requests for changes to the Haddam Neck Plant and Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 technical specifications.

These amendments revise the technical specifications on fire protection and loss prevention audits to conform with the guidance of Generic Letter 82-21. More specifically, the triennial fire protection program audit for each plant will be perfonned by a qualified fire protection consultant independent of Northeast Utilities.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested actions was published in the Federal Register on July 16,1986(51FR25768). No comments or requests for hearing were received.

8609170226 860909 3 DR ADOCK 0500

2.0 EVALUATION Generic Letter 82-21, dated October 6, 1982, from the Director, Division of Licensing, to all licensees, specified that the annual audit, in

- accordance with Standard Technical Specification-(STS) 6.5.2.8.1, may i be performed by qualified utility personnel who are not directly responsible for the site fire protection program or an outside independent fire protection consultant, but the three-year audit in accordance with STS 6.5.2.8.j must be perfomed by an outside independent fire protection consultant.

i Technical Specifications 6.5.2.8.1 for the Haddam Neck Plant and 6.5.4.7 e for Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 require that th,e annual audit of the licensee's fire protection and loss prevention program shall be perfonned

> by an outside fim.

1 By letter from T. J. Martin to W. G. Counsil dated August 1, 1984, the NRC transmitted two inspection reports which expressed concern that the relationship between the fire protection auditors and those being audited may not meet the present requirements of the technical specifications for Haddam Neck and Millstone Units 1 and 2.

j By letter dated May 30, 1986, CYAPC0 and NNECO requested changes to the fire protection and loss prevention audit technical specifications to remove any conflict with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 82-21.

1 In their response letter, the lic.:nsees proposed that, beginning in November 1986, a qualified fire protection consultant, independent of Northeast Utilities, perfonn triennial fire protection program audits for each plant.

The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the technical specifications i for the Haddam Neck Plant and Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 and has concluded that the proposed changes conform to the guidance concerning triennial

! fire protection audits provided by Generic Letter 82-21. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable. .

j

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

These amendments involve changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission '

has previously issued proposed findings that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public connent on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 these .

. amendments.

t

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff 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.

and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

4 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by F. Akstulewicz.

Dated: September 9,1986 4

. - - - - - - - - - - - . - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - - - - - - --r,---,-- - , ., . - - -, , - ~.. . - - . -- . - - --

-