ML19345F004
| ML19345F004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F005 | List: |
| References | |
| A00974, A974, NUDOCS 8102060508 | |
| Download: ML19345F004 (3) | |
Text
..
NORTHEAST UTH.rflES 5
172,ZCU~
NAIFonN CONNECTICUT 06101
'::.: ::M':"~
aan sween k
L J
77 ' ' * ', ';L*7 D,
January 29, 1981
~
m Docket No. 50-2h5 A0097h
, ;j-3 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s
~.if H
Attn:
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
References:
(1)
D. G. Eisenhut letter to All Power Reactor Licensees, dated April 10, 1980.
(2)
W. G. Counsil lettter to D. G. Eisenhut, dated May 21, 1980.
(3)
T. M. Novak and G. C. Lainas letter to W. G. Counsil, dated November 19, 1980.
(4)
W. G. Counsil letter to D. M. Crutchfield, dated January 2, 1981.
Gentlemen:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Proposed Technical Specification Changes on Operable / Operability Clarification In Reference (1), Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) was requested l
to submit proposed changes to the Millstone Unit No.1 Technical Specifications incorporating the requirements of Enclosure 2 to Reference (1). NNECO indicated in Reference (2) that the existing format of the Millstone Unit No.1 Technical Specifications did not lend itself to adoption of the NRC Staff's request. The major com-plication involved the review of each individual specification and possible incorporation of a statement indicating that the generic action statements of the model Technical Spe :ifications 3.0.3. and 3.0.5 in Enclosure 2 to Reference (1) were not applicable. Therefore, due to the significant effort that would have been involved to appropriately respond to the NBC Staff's request which NNECO felt did not constitute a matter of safety significance, NNECO did not submit proposed changes to the Technical Specifications in Reference (2).
sien 507
/
- In Reference (3), the NRC Staff again requested that NNECO submit proposed changes since the NRC Staff disagreed with NNECO's contention that the subject changes did not constitute a matter of safety sig-nificance.
However, it is worth noting that in Reference (3) the NRC Staff also stated the following, regarding their evaluation of the proposed Technical Specification change for Millstone Unit No. 2:
Since the amenument applies only to the clarification of the definition of the term OPERABLE, it does not involve significant new safety information of a type not consid? red by a previous Commission safety review of the facility.
It does not 4 avolve a significant increase in the probability of consequences of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a sclety margin, and therefore does not involve a significant haza. ds consideration. We have also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by this action.
Nonetheless, pursuant to 10CFR50.90 and in response to References (1) and (3), UNECO hereby proposes to amend it. opersting license for Millstone Unit No.1 (DPR-21) by incorporating the attached changes into the Millstone Unit No.1 Technical Specifications. These proposed changes ar-being submitted to the NRC Staff by the extended date requested by NNu 0 in Reference (h).
The enclosed " Description of Changes and Safety Evaluation Summary" should prcvide sufficient information for the NRC Staff to review and approve the recommended changes to the Technical Specifications. The off-site Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved these proposed changes and has determined that these changes do not cor.stitute any unreviewed safety questions pursuant to 10CFR50.59 NUECO has reviewed the proposed license enendment pursuant to the require-ments of 10CFR170 and has determined that no fee is applicable in this instance. The basis for this determination is that the proposed amendment resulted from a written Cocmission requect which serves to clarify existing Technical Specifications, has at most only minor safety significance, and j
vould be issued for the convenience of the Commission.
We trust you find the attached proposal responsive to the Reference (1) request.
Very truly yours,
j NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
/
_8bd/d j
W. G. Counsil j
Senior Vice President
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
)
ss.
Berlin p,
g g' j 9 r/
COUNTY OF IL\\RTFORD
)
Then personally appeared before me W. G. Counsil, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, a Licensee herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the name and on behalf of the Licensees herein and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
E r. b b
i 7
Notary Public My C c.%:'cn D;'rM Airch 31,121 t
,