ML20154F920

Application for Amend to License DPR-65,clarifying Intent of Tech Spec 4.4.5.1.4.a.8 Re Extent & Origination Point of Steam Generator Tube Exams.Fee Paid

ML20154F920
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/13/1988
From:	Mroczka E NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20154F924	List: B13017, Proposed Tech Specs Clarifying Intent of Tech Spec 4.4.5.1.4.a.8 Re Extent & Origination Point of Steam Generator Tube Exams ML20154F920
References
B13017, TAC-69401, TAC-69557, NUDOCS 8809200177
Download: ML20154F920 (3)

Text

. . .

. o Mfp General Offices

• Selden Street. Berlin, Connecticut t  ; 03) 5 September 13, 1988 Docket No. 50-336 B13017 Re: 10CFR50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Hillstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications Steam Generator Tube Inspection Acceptance Criteria .

Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby proposes to amend its operating licensing, DPR-65, by incorporating the changes identified in Attachment 1 into the Technical Specifications of Hillstone Unit No. 2.

The proposed change would clarify the intent of Technical Specification 4.4.5.1.4.a.8 regarding the extent and origination point of steam generator tube examinations. The existing technical specification calls for examination of steam generator tubing originating from the hot leg side. The proposed change would add the cold leg side as an alternate point of entry.

The proposed change will allow steam generator tube inspections performed from either the hot leg side or the cold leg side to the tube end on the opposite side to be considered valid tube inspections. The proposed change will also optimize the inspection patern to minimize inspection time and personnel radiation exposure.

The intent of Regulatory Guide 1.83 (as it applies to this proposed change) is to ensure that the hot leg and U bend segments of the tube will be inspected.

The proposed change will meet this intent. Inspection of the hot leg and U bend tube segments can be accomplished from either the hot leg side or cold leg side. From the cold leg, the probe must be inserted through the tube to the hot leg tube end to accomplish this coverage. From the hot leg side, the probe &c.st '0e inserted to at least the highest cold leg support. Therefore, an inspe: tion from either the hot leg side or cold leg side to the tube end on the opposite leg will provide the coverage specified by Regulatory Guide 1.83.

The choice of entry side has no adverse effect on the inspection capability or result. Etidy current probe response to imperfections is not dependent on the 8809200177 000913 h! t c,f DR ADOCK OM, 6

.ft\Y

l d.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission B13017/Page 2 September 13, 1988 l

entry side selected. Therefore, inspections performed from the hot leg side l are equivalent to inspections performed from tie cold leg side. '

NNECO has reviewed the proposed change in accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.92 and has determined it -does not involve a significant hazards )

consideration. Specifically, the proposed change does not:  !

1. Involve a significant increase in the arobability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Tie proposed change will only i affect the criteria which defines an acceptable tube inspection, l The change will allow tube inspections to be performed by inserting i the probe into either the hot leg or cold leg side of the steam  !

generator. The requirement that the tube be inspected from the hot l 1eg side completely around the U bcnd to the top support of the cold  ;

leg is not changed, and the inspections will continue to meet the l intent of Regulatory Guide 1.83. Therefore, there can be no impact t on the consequences of any accident and since the ability to detect i steam generator tube degradation is not affected, there is no (

increase in probability of a steam generator tube rupture.  !

7 Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The l proposed change has no impact on plant response and does not intro- i duce any new failure modes. Thus, a different type of accident is  ;

not possible.

3. Involve a s'gnificant reduction in any margin of safety. As i discussed above, the change has no impact on the consequences of any  !

accident. Furthermore, since no changes are proposed to any acces- l tance criteria related to tube defects, there is no impact on tie c integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. '

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (51FR7751, March 6,1986). The j change proposed herein does not conform to any of the above mentioned exam- -

ples. However, NNECO has determined that the propssed change does not involve I a significant hazards consideration, in that tie proposed change clarifies the t technical specification definition of a valid examination technique, i i

The Millstone Unit No. 2 Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the -

attached proposed revision and has concurred with the above determinations.

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

[

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

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY A 6 9 6 +. d E.W;/hezka (/

!l Sentbr Vice President  !

l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission B13017/Page 3 September 13, 1988 cc: W. T. Russell, Region ! Administrator D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit Nos. 2 and 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 P. Habighorst, Resident inspector, Millstone Unit No. 2 Mr. Kevin McCarthy Director, Radiation Contro'l Unit

, Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06116 STATE OF CONN (CTICUT ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD Then personally appeared before me, E. J. Mroczka, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, a Licensee herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the 4regoing information in the name and on behalf of the Licensee herein, and that the i statements contained in said information are true and corr tt the best of his knowled M and belief. /

t/te r/O ~'

AM lic Mpary i Tm Le D 'res Much 31,1933 1

)

l t

_