ML013440338

Issuance of Amendment 263 Changes to TS Definitions for Core Alteration & Refueling Operations (Tac No. MB1779)

ML013440338
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	01/11/2002
From:	Harrison J NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1
To:	Price J, Danni Smith Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
Harrison J, NRR/DLPM, 415-3199
References
TAC MB1779
Download: ML013440338 (15)

Text

January 11, 2002 Mr. J. A. Price Vice President - Nuclear Technical Services - Millstone Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

c/o Mr. David A. Smith Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385

SUBJECT:

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE: CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DEFINITIONS FOR CORE ALTERATION AND REFUELING OPERATIONS (TAC NO. MB1779)

Dear Mr. Price:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 263 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, in response to your application dated April 11, 2001, as supplemented September 26 and November 16, 2001.

The amendment revises Technical Specifications 1.12, Core Alteration; 3.9.1, Refueling Operations - Boron Concentration; 3.9.2, Refueling Operations - Instrumentation; and 3.9.11, Refueling Operations - Water Level - Reactor Vessel. The amendment also revises the Technical Specifications Bases to reflect the changes to the definitions.

A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

/RA/

John T. Harrison, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-336

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 263 to DPR-65

2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page

January 11, 2002 Mr. J. A. Price Vice President - Nuclear Technical Services - Millstone Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

c/o Mr. David A. Smith Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385

SUBJECT:

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT RE: CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DEFINITIONS FOR CORE ALTERATION AND REFUELING OPERATIONS (TAC NO. MB1779)

Dear Mr. Price:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 263 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, in response to your application dated April 11, 2001, as supplemented September 26 and November 16, 2001.

The amendment revises Technical Specifications 1.12, Core Alteration; 3.9.1, Refueling Operations - Boron Concentration; 3.9.2, Refueling Operations - Instrumentation; and 3.9.11, Refueling Operations - Water Level - Reactor Vessel. The amendment also revises the Technical Specifications Bases to reflect the changes to the definitions.

A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission's biweekly Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

/RA/

John T. Harrison, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-336

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 263 to DPR-65

2. Safety Evaluation cc w/encls: See next page DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC EAdensam JHarrison ACRS CAnderson, RI PDI-2 R/F JClifford TClark GHill (2) AAttard OGC WBeckner KKavanagh NRR-058 *SE provided 11/30/01; no major changes made.

Accession No. ML013440338 **See previous concurrence OFFICE PDI-2/PM PDI-2/LA D/RTSB* OGC** PDI-2/SC NAME JHarrison TClark WBeckner RHoefling REnnis for JClifford DATE 1-9-02 1-9-02 11-30-01 1-8-02 1-9-02 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 cc:

Ms. L. M. Cuoco Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Senior Nuclear Counsel Rope Ferry Road Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Waterford, CT 06385 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. D. A. Christian Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Edward L. Wilds, Jr., Ph.D. and Chief Nuclear Officer Director, Division of Radiation Innsbrook Technical Center - 2SW Department of Environmental Protection 5000 Dominion Boulevard 79 Elm Street Glen Allen, VA 23060 Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Mr. C. J. Schwarz Regional Administrator, Region I Master Process Owner - Operate the Asset U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

475 Allendale Road Rope Ferry Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Waterford, CT 06385 First Selectmen Mr. John Markowicz Town of Waterford Co-Chair 15 Rope Ferry Road Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Waterford, CT 06385 9 Susan Terrace Waterford, CT 06385 Charles Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations Mr. Evan W. Woollacott ABB Combustion Engineering Co-Chair 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 330 Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Rockville, MD 20852 128 Terry's Plain Road Simsbury, CT 06070 Senior Resident Inspector Millstone Nuclear Power Station Mr. D. A. Smith c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Process Owner - Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 513 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Niantic, CT 06357 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. W. R. Matthews Vice President and Senior Nuclear Ms. Nancy Burton Executive - Millstone 147 Cross Highway Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Redding Ridge, CT 00870 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 Ernest C. Hadley, Esquire P.O. Box 1104 West Falmouth, MA 02574-1104 Mr. P. J. Parulis Process Owner - Oversight

Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 cc:

Mr. G. D. Hicks Master Process Owner - Training Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385 R. P. Necci Vice President - Nuclear Operations - Millstone Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385

DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.

DOCKET NO. 50-336 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 263 License No. DPR-65

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment by the applicant dated April 11, 2001, as supplemented September 26, 2001, and November 16, 2001, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 263, are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA REnnis for/

James W. Clifford, Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate I Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: January 11, 2002

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 263 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-65 DOCKET NO. 50-336 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A, Technical Specifications, with the attached revised pages. The revised pages are identified by amendment number and contain marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Insert 1-3 1-3 3/4 9-1 3/4 9-1 3/4 9-2 3/4 9-2 3/4 9-11 3/4 9-11 B 3/4 9-1 B 3/4 9-1

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 263 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-65 DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated April 11, 2001, as supplemented September 26 and November 16, 2001, the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MP2) Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the licensee requested revisions to the following TSs: TS 1.12, Core Alterations; TS 3.9.1, Refueling Operations - Boron Concentration; TS 3.9.2, Refueling Operations -

Instrumentations; and TS 3.9.11, Refueling Operations - Water Level - Reactor Vessel. The licensee also proposed to modify the TSs Bases to incorporate the proposed changes. The September 26 and November 16, 2001, letters provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff have been working to improve the improved Standard Technical Specifications (STS) NUREGs which has resulted in the development of generic changes. These changes are issued by the NEI Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) using a process developed by the industry and approved by the NRC. The licensee is proposing changes to their TSs which adopt the STS as modified by TSTF-47 Revision 0, TSTF-272 Revision 1, and TSTF-20 Revision 0.

TSTF-47 Revision 0 deletes the words or manipulation from the definition of Core Alterations since it is improbable that components such as fuel, reactivity control components or sources could be manipulated without moving the component. TSTF-47 Revision 0 was approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated September 18, 1996.

TSTF-272 Revision 1 clarified STS 3.9.1 and the Bases to state that boron concentration limits do not apply to the refueling canal and refueling cavity when these areas are not connected to the reactor coolant system (RCS). STS 3.9.1 limits the boron concentrations of the RCS, the refueling canal, and the refueling cavity during refueling to ensure that the reactor remains subcritical during MODE 6. When the refueling canal and refueling cavity are isolated from the RCS, no potential for dilution exists. Therefore, in this condition, it is not necessary to place a

limit on the boron concentration in the refueling cavity and the refueling canal. TSTF-272 Revision 1 was approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated March 14, 1997.

TSTF-20 Revision 0 deleted Required Action A.3 from STS 3.9.7, Refueling Cavity Water Level. The completion of Required Actions A.1 and A.2 results in exiting the Mode of Applicability. Therefore, Required Action A.3 is not necessary. TSTF-20 Revision 0 was approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated March 13, 1997.

The effect of the proposed changes is the following: TS 1.12 is modified with the adoption of TSTF-47 Revision 0; TS 3.9.1 is revised with the adoption of TSTF-272 Revision 1; TS 3.9.2 is revised; and TS 3.9.11 is modified with the adoption of TSTF-20 Revision 0. Other plant-specific changes were also proposed for these TSs. The MP2 TS Bases will also be modified as a result of the proposed changes.

3.0 EVALUATION 3.1 Revision to TS Definition 1.12, Core Alteration The licensee proposed to revise TS Definition 1.12 as follows:

CORE ALTERATIONS shall be the movement of any fuel, sources or reactivity control components within the reactor vessel with the vessel head removed and fuel in the vessel.

Suspension of CORE ALTERATIONS shall not preclude completion of movement of a component to a safe position.

The proposed revision changes the current CORE ALTERATION definition from movement of any component to the movement of fuel, sources and reactivity control components. This revised definition specifically addresses components that affect reactivity. The CORE ALTERATION definition is used in limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) Applicabilities to establish requirements for nuclear instrumentation to monitor neutron flux and changes in core reactivity. The purpose of this definition is to protect from, or mitigate, a reactivity excursion event. The revised definition also contains an additional statement relating to the suspension of core alterations, which allows core alterations to continue until a component has been moved to a safe position. The proposed change ensures that if core alterations are required to be suspended by a TS, the time in which a component is in a transit location is minimized.

The staff has reviewed the proposed revision to TS Definition 1.12. Because movement of components other than fuel, sources, or reactivity control components is not considered a core alteration, and the revision allows continued movement of a component to establish a safer configuration, the staff concludes that the proposed revision to the CORE ALTERATION definition is acceptable. Additionally, the proposed revision incorporates the generic changes approved in TSTF-47 Revision 0.

3.2 Revisions to TS 3.9.1, Refueling Operations - Boron Concentrations TS LCO 3.9.1 provides the requirements for boron concentration in the RCS and the refueling canal in MODE 6. Specifically, LCO 3.9.1 requires that with the reactor vessel head unbolted or removed, the boron concentration of the RCS and the refueling canal shall be maintained sufficient to ensure that the more restrictive of the following reactivity conditions is met: either a

Keff of 0.95 or less; or a boron concentration of greater than or equal to 1,720 ppm. The licensee requested several changes to TS 3.9.1.

Amendment 201 to the MP2 TS revised TS 3.9.1 to allow a one-time change during the mid-cycle 13 shutdown. This change consisted of removing the requirement for uniform boration in the RCS and allowing the boron concentration of the water volumes in the steam generators and the connecting piping to be as low as the MODE 5 requirement of 1,300 ppm (SR 4.9.1.3). In order to restore TS 3.9.1 to the original state prior to the mid-cycle 13 shutdown, the licensee proposed to delete the footnote ** associated with the LCO and surveillance requirements (SR) 4.9.1.2. Footnote ** states that for cycle 13 mid-cycle core offload activities, it is acceptable for the boron concentration of the water volumes in the steam generators and connecting piping to be as low as 1,300 ppm. The licensee also proposed to delete SR 4.9.1.3 which requires the boron concentration in the cold leg side of the steam generators to be greater than or equal to 1,300 ppm prior to entering MODE 6. Additionally, the licensee proposed to add the words of all filled portions in front of the words Reactor Coolant System in the LCO and SR 4.9.1.2 to restore the original intent of the TS. However, the licensee did not elect to reinstate the requirement to maintain uniform boron concentration. The licensee stated that the boron concentration is normally uniform as a result of diffusion and forced circulation; and, therefore, the additional requirement is not necessary.

The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to TS 3.9.1 described above, and concluded that the proposed changes result in the restoration of the pre-cycle 13 TS conditions and, therefore, are acceptable. The staff also agrees that the pumping action of the Shutdown Cooling System in the RCS and the natural circulation due to thermal driving heads in the reactor vessel and refueling cavity result in a uniform boron concentration. Therefore, adding the word uniform in front of boron concentration in TS 3.9.1 is not required. This position is also consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants.

The licensee proposed to delete the words with the reactor vessel head unbolted or removed from the LCO. As stated above, TS 3.9.1 is applicable in MODE 6. MODE 6 (REFUELING**)

is defined in Table 1.1 of the MP2 TS. The REFUELING footnote ** further defines MODE 6 as fuel in the reactor vessel with the vessel head closure bolts less than fully tensioned or with the head removed. This definition is not being changed. Therefore, the staff finds this change acceptable because the words with the reactor vessel head unbolted or removed are not necessary in the LCO since they are specified in the definition of MODE 6.

TS 3.9.1 APPLICABILITY is MODE 6* where the footnote

• states that the reactor shall be maintained in MODE 6 whenever the reactor vessel head is unbolted or removed and fuel is in the reactor vessel. The licensee has proposed to remove the footnote*. The proposed change would result in the applicability being MODE 6, As discussed in section B, this change is also acceptable since Table 1.1 of the MP2 TS defines MODE 6, as fuel in the reactor vessel with the vessel head closure bolts less than fully tensioned or with the head removed.

The licensee proposed to delete the statement the provisions of specification 3.0.3 are not applicable from the ACTION statement. LCO 3.0.3 is only applicable in MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Since TS 3.9.1 is applicable only in MODE 6, the staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

This change is also consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 2.

The licensee proposed to add a NOTE to the APPLICABILITY statement that states that the LCO 3.9.1 limits only apply to the refueling canal when it is connected to the reactor coolant system. The staff finds the proposed change acceptable because it is not necessary to place a limit on the boron concentration in the refueling cavity and the refueling canal because no potential for a dilution event exists when the refueling canal is isolated from the RCS.

Additionally, the proposed revision incorporates the generic changes approved in TSTF-272 Revision 1.

The licensee proposed to delete the discussion of boron concentration for the Cycle 13 mid-cycle core offload activities in the MP2 Bases. In its place, the licensee proposed to add a discussion of the LCO 3.9.1 NOTE which states that the limits on boron concentration are only applicable to the refueling canal when this volume is connected to the RCS. The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the TS 3.9.1 Bases and finds them consistent with the related TS changes previously described.

3.3 Revisions to TS 3.9.2 TS LCO 3.9.2 provides the requirements for source range neutron flux monitors in MODE 6.

Specifically, LCO 3.9.2 requires that two source range neutron flux monitors be operating, each with continuous visual indication in the control room and one with audible indication in the containment. The licensee requested several changes to TS 3.9.2.

The licensee proposed two administrative changes to TS 3.9.2. The phrase as a minimum will be deleted from the LCO. Since the LCO states the minimum requirements of the TS, the staff finds that the phrase as a minimum is redundant and not necessary. Additionally, the licensee proposed that the word operating be replaced by OPERABLE. The staff finds this change acceptable because the monitors must be operable in order to meet the second part of the LCO which requires continuous visual and audible indication.

As discussed above, TS LCO 3.9.2 currently requires that two source range neutron flux monitors be operating with continuous visual indication in the control room and one with audible indication in the containment. The licensee proposed to extend the requirement for audible indication to be in the control room along with the containment. As such, one monitor is required to have audible indication in the containment and control room. The basis for the proposed change is that personnel are not required to be in containment at all times during MODE 6. The staff finds the proposed change acceptable because audible indication in the control room will provide additional assurance that any increases in reactor core neutron flux levels during MODE 6 are identified in a timely manner.

TS 3.9.2 ACTION statement requires suspension of core alterations or positive reactivity changes when one or two source range neutron flux monitors are inoperable. The licensee proposed to divide the ACTION statement into two. ACTION a will address the inoperability of one source range neutron flux monitor and will require immediate suspension of all operations involving core alterations and positive reactivity additions. Proposed ACTION a is consistent with the current TS 3.9.2 ACTION and, therefore, is acceptable. Proposed ACTION b will address the inoperability of two source range neutron flux monitors. Proposed ACTION b will require immediate action to restore one monitor to OPERABLE status and will require that the boron concentration of the RCS be verified to satisfy the requirements of LCO 3.9.1 within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> thereafter. Proposed ACTION b provides alternate

monitoring requirements that adequately compensate for inoperable monitors and permit unlimited operation in Actions. The staff finds the proposed changes acceptable because the combination of the these two proposed actions ensure that core alterations do not occur when one or more neutron flux monitors are inoperable. These changes are also consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 2.

SRs 3.9.2.a and 3.9.2.b require that each source range neutron flux monitor shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST at least once per 7 days, and a CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> prior to the start of CORE ALTERATIONS. The licensee proposed to replace the requirements of SRs 3.9.2.a and 3.9.2.b with one SR 3.9.2.b which would require the performance of a channel calibration at least once per 18 months. The licensee stated that the channel functional test only provides indication of the neutron flux level in the core, while the channel calibration would ensure the instrument channels are properly aligned. Additionally, the proposed SRs for the Source Range Neutron Flux Monitor in MODE 6 are consistent with the existing requirements for the Wide Range Logarithmic Neutron Flux Monitors in MODES 3, 4, and 5 (TS SR 4.3.1.1.1). TS SR 4.3.1.1.1 also requires a Channel Check on a per shift frequency. The staff finds this change acceptable because the replacement of the 7-day and 8-hour Channel Functional Test surveillance requirements for the Source Range Neutron Flux Monitors with an 18-month Channel Calibration surveillance provides sufficient demonstration of the OPERABILITY of the channels during MODE 6 and is consistent with the Wide Range Monitor TS. The proposed change is also consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 2.

The licensee proposed to add a footnote to TS SR 4.9.2.b. Footnote

• would state that neutron detectors are excluded from channel calibration. The proposed footnote is consistent with the existing requirements of SR 4.3.1.1.1, Table 4.3-1 and, therefore, is acceptable. The proposed footnote is also consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 2.

The licensee also proposed to add the words and verification of audible counts to SR 3.9.2.c.

This administrative change would eliminate any confusion associated with the current wording which could be interpreted as requiring the channel check to include audio count rate indication.

This proposed change is consistent with the wording of LCO 3.9.2 and, therefore, is acceptable.

Additionally, the licensee proposed to delete the words during CORE ALTERATIONS from SR 3.9.2.c. The staff finds this change acceptable because this is a more restrictive change since SR 3.9.2.c would be performed once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> while in MODE 6 versus only being performed during Core Alterations.

The licensee did not propose any Bases changes for the TS 3.9.2 changes described above.

3.4 Revisions to TS 3.9.11 TS 3.9.11 currently requires that 23 feet of water shall be maintained over the top of the reactor pressure vessel while irradiated fuel assemblies are seated within the reactor pressure vessel.

The licensee has proposed to revise the LCO to state the following: As a minimum, 23 feet of water shall be maintained over the top of the reactor vessel flange. Additionally, the licensee proposed to replace the Applicability and Action statements in their entirety. The proposed Applicability and Action statements are as follows:

Applicability: During CORE ALTERATIONS, except during latching and unlatching of control rod drive shafts.

During movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment.

Action: With the water level less than that specified above, immediately suspend CORE ALTERATIONS and immediately suspend movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment.

As previously noted, the applicability is expanded to include core alterations, except during latching and unlatching of control rod drive shafts and the movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment. The action requirements are modified to be consistent with the proposed applicability. The proposed changes do not result in any technical changes to the requirements to maintain sufficient reactor vessel water level and, therefore, are acceptable.

These changes also incorporate the changes made by TSTF-20 and are consistent with NUREG-1432 Revision 2.

The licensee also proposed to modify TS SR 4.9.11 to require verification of refueling cavity water level at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The current SR would require verification of water level 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> prior to the start of fuel movement and at least once per 7 days thereafter. This proposed frequency change does not change the requirement that the refueling cavity has sufficient water level or that the water level is verified prior to the start of core alterations or movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment. SRs must be met prior to entering the applicability of the specification. Therefore, the water level of the reactor vessel cavity will be verified prior to the start of core alterations or movement of irradiated fuel within containment. Additionally, SR 4.9.11 will be performed on a more frequent basis since the frequency is proposed to be every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> versus every 7 days. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to SR 4.9.11 acceptable.

The licensee also stated that the proposed changes to TS 3.9.11 are consistent with the analysis of record for a fuel handling accident inside containment. As such, the proposed changes ensure that the consequences of this accident are not increased and will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public. The licensee did not propose any Bases changes for the TS 3.9.11 changes described above.

The staff has reviewed the licensees submittals and supporting documentation. Based on our review, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to TSs 1.12, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, and 3.9.11 for MP2 are acceptable; and, the changes to the Bases are consistent with the associated TS changes.

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes SRs.

The NRC 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 individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (66 FR 31705). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 the amendment.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: K. Kavanagh Date: January 11, 2002