ML20207J876
| ML20207J876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207J874 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61560, NUDOCS 8701080632 | |
| Download: ML20207J876 (2) | |
Text
._. _ -
>1 [4 4
'o UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
7 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. Il4TO DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUC' LEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 '
DOCKET NO. 50-336 INTRODUCTION By application for license amendment dated September 26, 1986, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the licensee), requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Millstone Unit 2.
The proposed changes i
would renumber TS 3/4.9.3, " Decay Time" and incorporate the following new requirement in the TS: (1) a limiting condition for operation (LCO) and associated surveillance requirement (SR) addressing the need for fuel, newly discharged from the reactor at the end of the fuel cycle, to have a minimum decay time of 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br /> prior to. suspending operability of the spent fuel pool cooling system; and (2) an LCO and SR to require that the reactor remain shutdown in Modes 5 or 6 until discharged fuel has achieved a decay time of I
504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br />.
I DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION On January 15, 1986, the NRC issued Amendment No. 109 to Facility Operating l
License No. DPR-65 for Millstone Unit 2.
The amendment revised the TS to l
allow an increase in the spent fuel storage capability from 667 to 1112 fuel assemblies.
In the safety evaluation associated with Amendment No. 109, the NRC staff concluded that the existing TS should be supplemented by requirements to limit the temperature in the spent fuel pool to 140*F.
In their letter dated November 27, 1985, the licensee had previously committed to submitting a proposed TS change.
The application dated September 26, 1986 satisfies the licensee's commitment.
4 The proposed changes to the TS would require a combination of equipment to be operable, for spent fuel pool cooling, for at least 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br />, which provides sufficient capacity to limit the spent fuel pool temperature to 140*F.
Following the 504 hour0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br /> period, the spent fuel pool temperature can be maintained below 140*F with a reduced complement of cooling equipment.
The j
temperature limit of 140*F is specified in Standard Review Plan 9.1.3, " Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System," and is partly based upon the need to protect the resins, used in the spent fuel pool cleanup system, from 8701090632 861219 PDR ADOCK 05000336 i
P PDR w
--w.--g,,
w
,-v w,
,w-,n,--
e
,-r
. excessive temperatures.
Inaddition,thereactorwouldberequibedtobein shutdown until the most recently discharged fuel achieves a decay time.of 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br />.
The proposed changes to the TS represent additional requirements that were not previously contained in the TS.
0ur review. indicates that the proposed limits on minimum fuel decay time and operability of a specified spent fuel pool cooling capability provides assurance that the bulk spent fuel pool temperature will be limited to below 140*F. Accordingly, we find the proposed l
changes to TS 3/4.9.3, and the associated changes to the Bases, to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION i
1 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 or in a surveillance requirement. 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 in individual or cumulative occupational radiation i
exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that.
J 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).
l 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, j
CONCLUSION
]
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be 1
endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will j
be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: December 19, 1986 l
l Principal Contributor:
D. H. Jaffe i
i i
i l
1 i
, _. _ _ _ ~ _ _.,. _ _.,....,...
__