B15377, Application for Amend to License DPR-65,incorporating Tech Specs Rev to Section 5.2.2 & Bases for Sections 3/4.6.1.4, 3/4.6.1.5 & 3/4.6.1.6 Re Containment Bldg Design Pressure & Temp

Application for Amend to License DPR-65,incorporating Tech Specs Rev to Section 5.2.2 & Bases for Sections 3/4.6.1.4, 3/4.6.1.5 & 3/4.6.1.6 Re Containment Bldg Design Pressure & Temp

ML20094P380
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	11/21/1995
From:	Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20094P383	List: B15377, Application for Amend to License DPR-65,incorporating Tech Specs Rev to Section 5.2.2 & Bases for Sections 3/4.6.1.4, 3/4.6.1.5 & 3/4.6.1.6 Re Containment Bldg Design Pressure & Temp ML20094P386
References
B15377, IEB-80-04, IEB-80-4, NUDOCS 9511290110
Download: ML20094P380 (3)

Text

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

-e--'%$.-.

.107 Selden Street, Berhn, CT 06037 -

h[

Utilities System sonh t um scree c,y P.O. Box 270 Hardord, cr 06141-0270

, ~ (203) 665-5000 November 21, 1995 Docket No. 50-336 B15377-Re: 10CFR50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Millstone. Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications containment Building Design Pressure and Temperature Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby proposes to amend its Operating License, DPR-65, for Millstone Unit No. 2 by incorporating the attached Technical Specifications revision to Section 5.2.2 and the Bases for Sections 3/4.6.1.4,-3/4.6.1.5 and 3/4.6.1.6.

'In a' letter dated January 13, 1993,"3 NNECO provided a revised response to Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 80-04. This response was submitted subsequent to October 18, 1991, when a reportable condition was identified during a reanalysis of a main steam line break (MSLB) event. It was discovered that certain assumptions made in the earlier MSLB analyses were nonconservative with respect to power level, break size, and single active failure.

When more restrictive assumptions were used, it was determined that the design limits for containment pressure and temperature could be exceeded. ' Subsequent arrfifications and reanalysis have been performed and were descrioed in detail in our letter dated January 13, 1993. At that time, NNECO calculated that the peak containment pressure would be less than the containment design pressure of 54 psig anil that the peak containment atmosphere temperature would be 426'F. Although the Technical Specification limit - for . containment building temperature is 289"F, NNECO noted that the containment atmospheric temperature would only exceed this "I

lJ. F. Opeka letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

" Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, Inspection and

' Enforcement Bulletin 80-04, Revised Response," dated

-January 13, 1993.

e 4:2 who, 1800R3 -

0o i 9511290110 951121 L PDR ADOCK 05000336..

, L __.-.,_ _ fDR, g

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B15377/Page 2 November 21, 1995 4

value for a short period of time, therefore, the building

' temperature would never reach 289'F. As a result, VNECO committed to clarify Technical Specification 5.2.2 and to update the Bases sections affected by the recent MSLB analysis.

The proposed amendment will clarify the reactor containment building temperature as "an equilibrium liner temperature," and the i affected Bases will be updated to reflect the resu)ts of the most recent MSLB analysis. The changes to the Bases also identify that i the limiting event affecting containment temperature and pressure j now includes the MSLB in addition to a Loss of Coolant Accident.

j ' Attachment 1 to this letter provides a safety assessment of the i- proposed change. Attachment 2 is the determination of no  ;

_ significant hazards considerations. Attachment 3 is a copy of the i

marked-up version of the appropriate sections of the current Technical Specifications and Bases. Attachment 4 is the retyped Technical Specification sections and Bases.

4 NNECO has reviewed the proposed Technical Specification changes in accordance with 10CFR50.92 and concludes that the changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. NNECO has also

reviewed the proposed license amendment against the criteria of  !

10CFR51.22 for environmental considerations and concludes that the l changes do not increase the types and amounts of effluent that may I be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or i

cumulative occupational radiation exposures. Thus, NNECO concludes

that the proposal satisfies 10CFR51. 22 (c) (9) for categorical

exclusion from the requirements for an environmental impact i statement. i l

l The Nuclear Safety Assessment Board concurs with the above determinations. In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), NNECO is providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this proposed license amendment.

4 NNECO is submitting this amendment request in response to our

! commitment made to the staff as reflected in our letter dated

January 13, 1993. Regarding the proposed schedule for this amendment, we request issuance at your earliest convenience and implementation within 60 days of issuance.

There are no commitments contained within this letter. I l

I 4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B15377/Page 3 November 21, 1995 If there are any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Philip J. Lutzi at (860) 440-2072.

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY At 6 J. P. 4 eka U Executive Vice President a

4 cc: T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 P. D. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Mr. Kevin T.A. McCarthy, Director Bureau of Air Management Monitoring and Radiation Division Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 0/7 day of M MlantdfA) , 1995 ti+1/ 9  ? Hn enG Date Commi sion Expires: 8// /!9f