ML20206N659
| ML20206N659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206N650 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905180027 | |
| Download: ML20206N659 (2) | |
Text
y
. l"% fk
- UNITED STATES p
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
't WASHINGTON D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 170 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-49 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY. ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 18,1999, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the
. licensee), submitted a request for a change to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested change would modify TS 3/4.2.2 to be in accordance with NRC-approved Westinghouse methodologies for the heat flux hot channel factor - Fo(Z). In addition, the proposed amendment would make changes to the core
- operating limits and the analytical methods used to determine core operating limits contained in Section 6.9.1.6.a and b, respectively, by adding, modifying, or de!eting references.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Changes to TS 3/4.2.2 in its letter dated January 18,1999, the licensee stated that the proposed change to TS 3/4.2.2 modifies the existing heat flux hot channel factor to be in accordance with NRC-approved Westinghouse' methodologies for Fa(Z) surveillance (WCAP-10216-P-A, Revision 1 A, Relaxation of Constant Axial Offset Control, FQ Surveillance Technical Specification,"
February 1994 (W Proprietary)).
The staff reviewed the information in the licensee's submittal and has determined that the changes are consistent with WCAP-10216-P-A, Revision 1A, and direct the licensee to take the proper actions to maintain peaking factors within the limits assumed in the Millstone Unit 3 accident analysis. The changes to the associated Bases explain the various surveillance requirements. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to TS 3/4.2.2 and the associated Bases to be acceptable.-
2.2 Changes to TS 6.9.1.6.e
- In its letter dated January 18,1999, the licensee stated that TS 6.9.1.6.'a does not administratively reflect each item that the TS reference in the core operating limits report
. (COLR)..Speedically, shutdown margin monitor minimum count rates required in TS 3.3.5,
" Shutdown Margin Monitor," are listed in the COLR but not identified as a core operating limit in 4-2"MM Mh a
4.>
m I
/
- i..
i 2-TS 6.9.1.6.a. The licensee proposed adding the shutdown margin minimum count rate to the
' list of core operating limits. The staff finds this change to be acceptable.
' 2.3 Changes to TS 6.9.1.6.b j
TS 6.9,1.6.b contains references to the NRC approved analytical methods, that the licensee j
used to determine the core operating limits. In its letter dated January 18,1999, the licensee proposed making changes to this section by adding, modifying, or deleting references. This included (1) adding a reference to the NRC Safety Evaluation Report on NUSCO-152,
~ Addendum 4, which approved Northeast Utilities ability to perform pressurized water reactor j
physics calculations for Millstone Unit 3, (2) adding references to the licensee's shutdown margin analysis methods which were approved by the NRC and bring conformity between the references in the TS and the cycle-specific parameters in the COLR, (3) deleting a reference that is no longer applicable in determining core operating limits, and (4) making other editorial changes. The staff has reviewed the changes to this section, determined the changes are administrative in nature, and finds them to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
{
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility I
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes
)
surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no i
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 in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously isswd a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, aqd there has taen no
'public comment on such finding (64 FR 6705). 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 r.ssessment 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.
I Principal Contributor: L.Kopp Date: May10,1999 1
.