ML20126M298

Application for Amend to License DPR-65,revising Tech Specs to Expand Storage Capacity of Spent Fuel Pool from 667 to 1,112 Storage Locations by Reracking Spent Fuel Pool W/Combination of Poison & Nonpoison Racks.Fee Paid

ML20126M298
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/24/1985
From:	Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20126M302	List: B11549, Proposed Tech Spec Revs to Sections 5 & 3/4.9,expanding Storage Capacity of Spent Fuel Pool from 667 to 1,112 Storage Locations by Reracking Spent Fuel Pool W/Combination of Poison & Nonpoison Racks in Two Region Arrangement ML20126M298
References
B11549, TAC-59294, NUDOCS 8508010311
Download: ML20126M298 (3)

Text

.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

E5 a ,no,,,0,,,c.. . s ,io n si,,,,.B.,nn conn,ct,co,

' '

• P.O. BOX 270 g ' J .w.

N .

% e m iw= c w=,

HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 66s-s000 July 24,1985 Docket No. 50-336 Bl1549 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Edward J. Butcher, Chief Operating Reactors Branch //3 U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l

References:

(1) W. G. Counsil !ctter to 3. R. Miller, dated March 30, 1934.

(2) D. B. Osborne letter to W. G. Counsil, dated June 4,1984.

Gentlemen:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Proposed Change to Technical Specifications Modifications to Spent Fuel Storage Pool In Reference (1), Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), licensee for Millstone Unit No. 2, provided information to the NRC Staff regarding our plans for interim onsite storage of Millstone Unit No. 2 spent fuel. An integral two-step program was described which would increase the storage capacity of the Millstone Unit No. 2 spent fuel pool, first by a reracking project, and later by a fuel co solidation project. In subsequent meetings between the NRC and NNECO specific questions were raised by the Staff and identified in Reference (2). Attachment 4 to this submittal addresses each of these previously identified questions.

Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company hereby proposes to amend its operating license, No. DPR-65, by incorporating the attached proposed changes into the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications.

The proposed revisions to Sections 5 and 3/4.9 are provided as Attachment I and concern expansion of the storage capacity of the Millstone Unit No. 2 spent fuel pool from 667 to 1112 storage locations. The proposed expansion is to be achieved by reracking the spent fuel pool with a combination of poison acks and non-poison racks in a two region arrangement. Detailed descriptions of the two types of spent fuel storage racks as well as a discussion of the safety and environmentalimplications of the reracking are found in Attachment 2.

h k L Ibb 8500010311 050724 6 DR ADOCK 0500 g )g rf8 b f J

The smaller pitch values for fuel stored in the spent fuel pool as a result of the pr posed reracking results in an increase in the number of fuel assemblies per unit area of the pool, in analyzing the consequences of a cask drop accident for this increased storage density, it was determined that the site boundary two hour whole body doses would rise from 140 millirem to 240 millirem, an increase of 100 millirem. However, this increase is well within the requirements established in 10CFR100.

NNECO has determined that the increase in consequences of the cask drop accident constitutes an unreviewed safety question pursuant to 10C FR 50.59(a)(2)(i), llowever, the limiting criterion given in 10CFR 100 for this accident is not exceeded. The actual increase in consequences is acceptable from a safety standpoint. Thus, the attached analyses support the changes proposed and demonstrates continued conformance with applicable requirements with ample margin.

NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes,in accordance with 10CFR50.92, and has concluded that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration. In accordance with 10CFR50.91(a), Attachment 3 is an analysis of the proposed action in light of the standards, contained in 50.92(b) regarding the issue of no significant hazards consideration.

The Millstone Unit No. 2 Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the attached proposed revision and concurs with the above determinations.

In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), NNECO is providing the State of Connecticut a copy of this proposed amendment.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR170.12(c), enclosed with this amendment request is the application fee of $150.00.

We trust you will find this information satisfactory and remain available to assist you in the expedited review of this matter. To support current plant schedules, NNECO respectfully requests issuance of this amendment by October 25, 1985.

We remain available to promptly respond to staf f questions or to participate in meetings in your offices to support this requested schedule.

Very truly yours, NORTilEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY F Guf~V J. F. Opeka Senior Vice President cc: Mr. Kevin McCarthy Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection liartford, CT 06116

)

3 e o STATE OF CONNECTICUT )

) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD )

Then personally appeared before me 3. F. Opeka, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, a 1.icensee 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, n:LAk 6 t%tary Public

,% Commission Empires March 31,1988

]