ML20234C369
| ML20234C369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1987 |
| From: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234C344 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707060437 | |
| Download: ML20234C369 (8) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ - _ - _
7590-01 l
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-245 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT NAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY,FOR HEARING i
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. OPR-21 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy company (NNECO), (the licensee), for operation of J
the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, located in New London County, Connecticut.
The amendment would change the Millstone Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications (TS) to reflec: Reload 11/ Cycle 12 in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated May 21, 1987 as modified by letter dated June 30, 1987.
The proposed changes will amend the current minimum critical power ratio (MCPR),
linear heat generation rate (LHGR) and maximum average planar linear heat gen-eration rate (MAPLHGR).
The core reload consists of 196 new (unirradiated)
General Electric Type GE8 x 8EB (GE-88). fuel assemblies.
The new MAPLHGR curves and MCPR and LHGR valves reflect the new core conditions subsequent to refueling.
i Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
9707060437 870630 PoK Apocn 050oo245 PDK
l 7590-01 The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment Under the Commission's request involves no significant hazards consideration.
regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously I
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant l
reduction in a margin of safety.
NNEC0 has reviewed the attached proposed changes pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 and has determined that they do not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety (i.e., safety-related) previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) has not been increased.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report has not been created.
There has not been a reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.
The new MAPLHGR curves and MCPR and LHGR values will not only accurately reflect the new core conditions subsequent to l
this refueling outage, but they will also ensure that safety analysis assump-tions will be maintained.
NNECO has also reviewed the proposed changes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92 and has concluded that they do not involve a significant hazards con-sideration in that these changes would not:
1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
Per 10 CFR 50.46, all requirements will be met for Cycle 12 operation as long as the MAPLHGR limits are met.
The
7590-01 MAPLHGR limit for the GE-7B fuel bundles applies for all the lattices in the bundle.
However, since the GE-8B fuel contains axially zoned gadolinia, the MAPLHGR limits for GE-8B is lattice-specific.
Thus, there is no impact on the consequences of a LOCA due to this The change.
Additionally, limiting MCPR transients were analyzed.
MCPR safety limit for Millstone Unit 1 is 1.07.
The operating limit is arrived at by the calculated ACPR for the limiting transient to the safety limit value (1.07 -ACPR).
This ensures that the safety limit will never be violated for any expected operational transient.
The limiting MCPR event for Millstone Unit 1 is the load rejection without bypass event, which for Reload 11 results in an MCPR limiting condition for operation (LCO) of 1.30.
Additionally, there is no adverse impact on overpressurization events due to the proposed changes.
Therefore, NNECO concludes that these changes do not impact the j
consequences of any transteat relating to MCPR concerns since the safety limit will not be violated for any expected operational transient.
Additionally, these changes do not impact the consequence of many design basis loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs).
Since no new failure modes are introduced, there is no increase in the probability of any accident previously analyzed.
2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from j
any previously analyzed.
Fuel operational limits are set such that plant response to all design basis transients and accidents are bounded by the FSAR analyses.
Additionally, since a mislocated fuel bundle loading
l j
7590-01 error will result in an MCPR greater than the safety limit, and since the ACPR for a disoriented bundle is zero, no potential for creation of a 1
new unanalyzed event exists.
3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Adequacy of protective boundaries is ensured by the set operational limits.
In l
l addition, the proposed changes do not impact the technical basis for any Technical Specification.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
~
Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this l
notice will be considered in making any final determination.
The Commission l
1 will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Procedures l
l Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U. S.
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Written comments may also be delivered to Room 4000, Maryland National Bank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By August 3, 1987, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
7590-01 1 petition for leave to intervene.
Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules If a of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set I
forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and The how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding.
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be i
permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fif teen i
(15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceed-ing, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
l l
1
7590-01 Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are.
sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails
)
to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to 1
any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result
l 7590-01 for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue I
the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided f
that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will l
publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after l
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur issuance.
l i
very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nu:: lear Regulatory I
Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch, i
or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Cecil 0. Thomas, Director, Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate, Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects:
petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel - Bethesda, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, attorney for the licensee.
t 7590-01 j
! Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, l
supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic l
Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a 'oalancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the j
i 06385.
Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut
)
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 30th day of June 1987.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
1 06 00, WAf Cecil 0. Thomas, Director Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects-III, IV, V and Special Projects 1