B11689, Application for Amend to License DPR-21,revising Tech Specs to Define Refuel Condition & Operability Requirements of Sys During Refuel & Shutdown Conditions.Fee Paid
| ML20138J344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1985 |
| From: | Opeka J, Sears C NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138J349 | List: |
| References | |
| B11689, NUDOCS 8510290320 | |
| Download: ML20138J344 (6) | |
Text
1
..p MdWAST UTILITIES cener.i omc.. seioen street. Beriin connecticut w ccmc icutto e ao aoaia cw=
ms..
ss.c,w s race c cow =
P.O. BOX 270
.uo a aa'ea 'oara cw~
HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 k
L J [,7', CN '"~.
(203) 665-5000 October 16,1985 Docket No. 50-245 B11689 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. John A. Zwolinski, Chief Operating Reactor Branch #5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications Operability Requirements Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby proposes to amend its Operating License, DPR-21, by incorporating the attached proposed changes into the Millstone Unit No.1 Technical Specifications.
Of the four possible positions of the mode-selector-switch, only the Refuel Condition is not defined in the existing Technical Specifications for Millstone Unit No.1. With the incorporation of a definition of Refuel Condition it then becomes possible to clarify the operability requirements of various systems for both the Refuel and Shutdown Conditions. While such clarifications may in certain instances impose conditions more restrictive than those presently in existence, the overall intent is to simplify operational requirements in the Refuel condition or mode. These proposed changes define the Refuel Condition and clarify operability requirements of various systems during the Refuel and Shutdown Conditions. In many instances, the proposed changes are editorial in nature in that they remove redundant wording. An explanation of each of the proposed changes is provided as Attachment 1.
NNECO has reviewed the attached proposed changes pursuant to 10CFR50.59 and has determined that they do not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
Specif!.ny, the margins of safety as defined in the Technical Specification Bases are maintained.
In addition, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of a previously analyzed accident have not been increased and the possibility for a new type of accident not previously evaluated has not been created. The proposed changes define Refuel Condition and modify operability requirements in light of the new definition. The Shutdown Condition has been previously defined as all operable control rods fully inserted, the reactor mode switch in the shutdown position, and no core alterations being performed. The existing definition has two categories as a function of temperature.
Hot 0510290320BS[oh45 DR ADOCK O PDR
'\\
-)
v
i e shutdown is categorized as reactor coolant temperature greater than 2120F and cold shutdown categorized as reactor coolant temperature less than or equal to 2120F with the reactor vessel vented. The proposed definition for the Refuel Condition is patterned after the definition of the Cold Shutdown Condition but provides for a lower maximum allowable reactor coolant temperature.
Once the new definition is incorporated into the Technical Specifications, the need arises for revision of numerous sections to clarify specific equipment operability requirements for the Refuel Condition. it is the intention of this proposed change to clarify equipment operability requirements for the Refuel and Shutdown modes of operation.
NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes in accordance with 10CFR50.92, and has concluded that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration. The basis for this conclusion is that the criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised, a conclusion which is supported by our determinations made pursuant to 10CFR50.59. Additionally, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing examples (48FR 14870, April 6,1983). The proposed change in item I of Attachment No. I by providing a lower limit for maximum reactor coolant temperature in the newly defined Refuel Condition, falls within the envelope of example (ii) of items not likely to involve significant hazards considerations in that they constitute an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications. The current Technical Specifications contain an explicit definition of the " Cold Shutdown Condition" which requires a reactor coolant temperature limit equal to or less than 2120F. In the proposed wording which provides an explicit definition of the " Refuel Condition", the reactor coolant temperature limit is less than 2000F. This proposed change incorporates previously existent features of the " Cold Shutdown Condition" definition but provides a more restrictive reactor coolant temperature limit. The proposed changes in the remaining items of Attachment No. I fall within the envelope of example (i) in that they involve changes to ensure consistency throughout the Technical Specifications.
The Millstone Unit No. I Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the attached proposed revision and has concurred with the above determinations.
In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), NNECO is providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this proposed amendment.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR170.12(c), enclosed is the application fee of $150.00.
t
- i o We trust you find this information satisfactory and remain available to assist you in the expedited review of this matter.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY d b.D J.F. Opeka '
Senior Vice President By: C. F. Sears Vice President cc: Mr. Kevin McCarthy Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06116 STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Then personally appeared before me C. F. Sears, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Vice President of Northeast it; clear _ Energy Company, Licensee herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the name and on behalf of the Licensee herein and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
1hhdh5 hHu W Notary Publig//
My Comm:ssion Expires March 31,1988
Docket No. 50-245 Bil689 Attachment No.1 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications Definition of Refuel Condition October,1985 L
s o
An Explanation of Proposed Changes 1.
Definitions, page 1-8 An explicit definition of " Refuel Condition" is added to complete the definitions of each of the four possible mode-selector-switch positions. The definition is essentially the same as that existing for the Cold Shutdown Condition while providing a more restrictive limit on reactor coolant temperature and allowing core alterations to be performed.
2.
Technical Specification 3.4.1, Standby Liquid Control System page 3/4 4-1.
The new definition of Refuel Condition is incorporated to allow refueling operations without the implied need for the Standby Liquid Control system to be operable.
This change is essentially equivalent to the current wording in light of the definition of Refuel Condition except that placing the reactor in the Refuel Condition imp >ses a more strict reactor coolant temperature limit. The elimination of the words "and all control rods are fully inserted"is an editorial change to remove redundant words in as much as the Refuel and Shutdown condition definitions as written call for all control rods to be fully inserted or the Refuel Interlocks to be operable with not more than one control rod not fully inserted.
3.
Technical Specification 3.4.B.2, Standby Liquid Control System, page 3/4 4-2.
To reflect current terminology the designation " Atomic Energy Commission" is replaced by " Nuclear Regulatory Commission".
4.
Technical Specification 3.5.A.6, Core and Containment Cooling Systems, page 3/4 5-3.
The new definition of Refuel Condition is incorporated to allow refueling operations without the implied need for all core spray and LPCI subsystems to be operable.
This change is essentially equivalent to the current wording in light of the definition of Refuel Condition except that placing the reactor in the Refuel Condition imposes a more strict reactor coolant temperature limit.
5.
Technical Specification 3.5.B.6, Containment Cooling Subsystems, page 3/4 5-5.
The new definition of Refuel Condition is incornorated to allow refueling operations without the i.nplied need for all containment cooling subsystems to be operable.
This change is essentially equivalent to the original wording in light of the definition of Refuel Condition except that placing the reactor in the Refuel Condition imposes a more strict reactor coolan!;
temperature limit.
6, 7, 8.
Technical Specifications 3.5.c.4 FWCl Subsystem, page 3/4 5-6; 3.5.D.B, Automatic Pressure Relief (APR) Subsystem, page 3/4 5-7; 3.5.E.3, Isolation Condenser System, page 3/4 5-8.
i
m.
o The FWCI, APR, and. Isolation Condenser systems are required to be operable whenever the reactor coolant temperature is greater than 3300F and irradiated fuel is in the reactor vessel. By removing the requiremnts to be.in cold shutdown condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and substituting the requirements that the reactor coolant temperature be less than 3300F within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the same target condition is met in that the temperature parameter of the reactor system is reduced such that operability of these systems is no longer required.
9.
Technical Specification 3.5.F.4' Minimum Core and Containment Cooling System Availability, page 3/4 5-9.
The new definition of Refuel Condition is incorporated to allow refueling operations without the implied need for all core and containment cooling systems to be operable.
This change is essentially equivalent to the
-current wording in light of the definition of Refuel Condition except that placing the reactor in the Refuel Condition imposes a more strict reactor coolant temperature limit.
10,11.
Technical Specification 3.6.c.1 a & b, Coolant Chemistry, page 3/4 6-2B.
The new definition of Refuel Condition is incorporated into the reactor coolant chemistry specification. Removal of the words "with the average reactor coolant temperature less than 2120F" serves to eliminate a redundant coolant temperature reference as the coolant temperature is provided in the definition of Refuel Condition and Cold Shutdown.
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19,20,21,26,27 Technical Specification 3.6, Primary System Boundary, pages 3/4 6-10, 11, 12;. 3.7 Con _tainment Systems, pages 3/4-3, 4, 11, 12, 17; 3.12.A Fire Protection System, page 3/412-3.
The new definition of Refuel Condition is incorporated into the specifications. This change is essentially equivalent to the current wording in light of - the definition of Refuel Condition except that placing the reactor in the Refuel Condition imposes a more ' strict. reactor coolant temperature limit.
22,23,24,25 i
Technical Specification 3.7.C, Secondary Containment, pages 3/4 7-13 and 14.
This is an editorial change which deletes redundant wording specifying reactor coolant temperatures and operations which are specified in the existing definition of the Cold Shutdown Condition.
..