ML20092H834
| ML20092H834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1992 |
| From: | Vissing G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092H642 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9202210376 | |
| Download: ML20092H834 (2) | |
Text
__
[g 4 N 0(,, 'o, UNITED STAT [h
'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
) cy t
WALHINGiott D. C. 70656 g
/
s.....s SAFE 1Y EVAL 4&1 LOR _BY THE OfflCE Of lik(LEAR REACTOR RESVLATI0B fl[LAl[D TO AMl!!DEEHL!iQJ3 TO FACILITY OPERAlltfE_llCENSE NO. QEIL-H If0R1til ASL!!4(LLAJLElf[RQL(0&MH ltiLC.0MfLCllCUT LLGHT AfiDl0RE1LC_0&Mu lilLHE31ERN MA.SjlAL11MS11JS ELECIPJLLOMPANY HILLS 10NE NMCLEAR PQMER STAl10N. UlflLif0.1 DOCKET NO. 50-336 1.0 tillRQDUCTION By application for license amendment dated October 9,1991, as supplemented by letter dated November 26, 1991, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licenste) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2.
The proposed amendment would change the Index of the TS, TS Sections 3.1.3.6, 3.9.18, 3.9.20 and the Bases Sections 3/4.9.17, 3/4.9.18, 3/4.9.19 and 3/4.9.20 to provide for correction of editorial and typographical errors.
The proposed amendment would also change the bases for the Thermal Margin / Low Pressure trip limiting safety system setting (Bases page B 2-7) to account for the reevaluation of the pressurizer pressure instrument uncertainty.
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed TS changes relating to the Index and TS Sections 3.1.3.6, 3.9.18, 3.9.20 and Bases Sections 3/4.9.17, 3/4.9.18, 3/4.9.19 and 3/4.9.20 and confirm that the proposed changes are miscellaneous editorial and typographical corrections that do not change the intent of the TS.
Thus they are acceptable.
The change in the bases for the Thermal Margin / Low Pressure trip limiting safety system setting relates to the change in the pressure measurement uncertainty allowance.
This change reflects a reevaluation of the pressurizer pressure instrument uncertainty.
The previous value of up to 22 psi, combined with a 50 psi time delay allowance, gave a total allowance of 72 psi. A modification in the instrumentation to measure pressurizer pressure has reduced this uncertainty to up to 19 psi.
In addition, elevation differences between the pressurizer and the transmitter were found to add another S psi h
kh h o
36 p
PDFs
, bias that was not previously considered.
The combination of this bias and the uncertainty gives a worst case pressure error of 24 psi.
This allowance value, combined with the 50 psi time delay allowance, gives a total allowance of 74 asi.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's pro)osed change resulting from tie licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 determination that tiere is no unreviewed safety question and have determined it to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CMSilLTATION 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.
4.0 ENV1RONMENTAl-CONSIDERATJON The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located wi_ thin the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, The NRC staff has determined that the amendment invnives 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 hatards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 712). 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the publicwillnotbeendangeredbyoperationintheproposedmanner,(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:
G. S. Vissing Date:
February 14, 1992 l
A