ML20129D225
| ML20129D225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129D224 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9610240234 | |
| Download: ML20129D225 (2) | |
Text
_ _.
So asogk UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 206W0001
.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 204 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY JHE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY THE WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET N0. 50-336
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 21, 1995, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 (Millstone Unit 2), Technical Specifications (TSs).
The requested changes would revise TS Section 5.2.2, " Design Pressure and Temperature," to clarify that the reactor containment temperature is an equilibrium liner temperature and not the air temperature.
The supporting Bases Sections 3/4.6.1.4, " Internal Pressure," 3/4.6.1.5, " Air Temperature,"
and 3/4.6.1.6, " Containment Structural Integrity," are updated to reflect the changes and to include the main steam line break (MSLB) accident, in addition to the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), as the limiting events affecting the containment temperature and pressure.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee provided a revised response to Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin (IEB) 80-04, " Analysis of a PWR Main Steam Line Break with Continued Feedwater Addition," for the Millstone Unit 2, on January 13, 1993.
The NRC staff approved the revised analysis and provided its Safety Evaluation (SE) to the licensee by letter dated January 24, 1994. The NRC staff indicated in its supporting SE that the peak pressure was 53.7 psig and the peak air temperature was found to be 426*F, which represented a short duration at super heated conditions.
It was further noted that the surface temperature of safety-related equipment would not exceed the saturated temperature of the steam pressure in containment and, therefore, would not exceed the qualification (and design) temperature of 289'F.
The staff concluded that the plant systems, structures and components in containment would not be exposed to unacceptable pressure or temperature conditions as the result of a design basis MSLB.
9610240234 961021
~
PDR ADOCK 05000336 P
i j
f i
)
l The proposed change to TS 5.2.2 indicates that the reactor containment building design temperature is an equilibrium liner temperature rather than an air temperature. This proposed change provides clarification and is i
consistent with the previous NRC staff's SE, as discussed above.. The analysis demonstrated that containment integrity is maintained with the revised LOCA and MSLB air temperature profiles, including the short duration peak temperature. Therefore, the staff has determined that this change is acceptable. The staff has also determined that the updated Bases Sections i
reflect this change and includes the MSLB with the LOCA as limiting events affecting containment temperature and pressure, which is also consistent with the approved reanalysis for the MSLB.
f
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State i
official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 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.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, j
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 (60 FR 65684). 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 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:
D. Mcdonald Date: October 21, 1996
.-