ML20138A444
| ML20138A444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138A439 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-59254, NUDOCS 8510080562 | |
| Download: ML20138A444 (3) | |
Text
_
,pf UNITED STATES
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- [
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.105T0 DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In Reference 1, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) submitted a license amendment request to correct a typographical error discovered by NNECo during their review of Amendment No. 99 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65. This error was contained in NNECo's Reference 2 application which was subsequently approved in Amendment No. 99. The error is contained in Figure 3.2-2a which erroneously specified one coordinate as (-0.08,1.0) versus the intended coordinate of (-0.06,1.0).
2.0 DISCUSSION Figure 3.2-2a of Amendment No. 99 would have allowed the core power distribution to operate in an unacceptable region. Prior to startup from the Cycle 7 refueling and maintenance outage, NNECo discovered the error and took administrative action to limit operation to the proper co-ordinate.
Operation within the unacceptable region did not occur.
This amendment corrects the error and does not impact the previously derived maximum linear heat rate or any other parameter which could adversely impact plant transient or accident analysis. References 2 & 3 remain applicable to this change and support the conclusion that none of the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) are compromised. There has been no error in the analysis or methodology used to detennine the curve, rather the error is administrative.
Typographical errors in the NNECo Technical Specifications are rare and there is no evidence of pervasive errors of this nature so remedial action is not recomended. Based on the above discussion, we find the proposed change to the Technical Specification acceptable and necessary.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has 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 l
in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission l
B510000562 851003 l
PDR ADOCK 05000336 l
P PDR
. has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR $51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 951.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public j
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendnent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: October 3, 1985 Principal Contributor:
D. Osborne r
1 i
l
. ~
o' l
l References 1.
J. F. Opeka (NNECo), letter to E. J. Butcher (NRC), July 10, 1985.
2.
W. G. Counsil (NNECo), letter to J. R. Miller (NRC), with " Cycle Refueling - Preliminary Reload Safety Analysis," February 6, 1985.
4 3.
L. S. Rubenstein (NRC), memorandum for G. C. Lainas, " Safety Evaluation for Millstone Unit 2, Cycle 7 Reload", June 17, 1985.
1 1
i 1
i i
i 0
-