ML20033G628
| ML20033G628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G625 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004100419 | |
| Download: ML20033G628 (2) | |
Text
.- -
i
[pi.
UMTED STATES I
+ [' s e r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N I
i f
W A&HING T ON. D. C. PD666 J
j t*....e t
t l
l l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGl'LATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 43_
I l
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR 21 f
f l
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO._1 t
i DOCKET No. 50-245 l
)
l i
INTRODUCTION j
By letter dated November 21, 1989, Northeast Nucler Energy Company (NilECO or t
the licensee) sulmitted a request to chan l
Unit No.1. Technical Specifications (TS)ge the Millstone Nuclear power Station.
i The request would change the TS by adding a new requirement to ensure that the Keff of the spent fuel pool is less than or equal to 0.90 by requiring a rinimum gadolinium loeding in the fuel rods as a function of the fuel rods initial U-235 enrichment. This change is in response to restrictions placed on spent fuel stcrage that were imposed as part i
of the spent fuel pool expansion, which was approved in Amendment No. 40 to the Technical Specifications, dated November 27, 1969.
i EVALUATION In approving the spent fuel pool expansion at Millstone Unit 1 the staff required thelicenseetoaddressthelimitedapplicabilityoftheK-infinityvalueinthe TS in assuring that the Keff of the s?ent fuel pool was less than or equal to 0.90.
In its November 21, 1989, subnittal tie licensee proposed ensuring that the Keff value requirement would be met by adding a new requirement to the TS that would impose a minimum fuel's initial U gadolinium loading in the spent fuel as a function of the spent 235 enrichment. This new re minimum of three fuel rods per fuel assembly.quirement would have to be met by a l
In its June 24, 1988 submittalsupportingthespentfuelpoolexpansion,the licensee stated credit for the presence o' gadolinium burnable poison was neces-sary to justify the criticality safety of fuel with initial U-235 enrichments greater than 3.05f. The licensee demonstrated the minimum concentration of gadolinium in three fuel rods in one fuel assembly necessary to ensure a Keff less than or equal to 0.90 in the spent fuel pool.
In the Safety Evaluation supporting Amendment No. 40, the staff stated that.
"The first part of the existing TS 5.5.B. indicating a K-effective criterion of 0.90 for the spent fuel peol, hk b$d$$$$$$34 i
2-is applicable for both the old and new racks. However, the second part of the specification,l asseu61y is less stating the criterion is satisfied if K-infinity of the fue than 1.35 is applicable to only the old racks and should not be considered as applying to the new racks. While this second statement is probably true for the new racks, this particular aspect has not been directly addressed in the submittal and is therefore not considered to be relevant to them. The proposed gadolinium and burnup limit curves are acceptable for the new racks and should become a part of the procedures developed to assure that these limits are observed.'
The proposed change to TS 5.5.8 is the addition of the gadolinium limit curve reviewed by the staff and found acceptable in its November 27,1989, Safety Evaluation. This limit curve will ensure that criticality in the spent fuel pool will be precluded if the initial fuel enrichment and gadolinium loading requirements are met. The staff finds this proposed change to the TS acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amndtrent changes a recuirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component locatec within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have 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 staff has )reviously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant iazards considera-tion and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly the amendmentmeetstheeligibilitycriteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin 10CFR551.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the ensiderations discussed above that(1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pub 1Ic will not be endangeredbyoperationintheproposedmanner,and(2)suchactivitieswillbe conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and(3)theissuance of the amendment will not be inimical to tTe consnon defens,e and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 30, 1990 Principal Contributor:
M. Boyle i