ML20235T677

Application for Amend to License NPF-49,changing Tech Specs for Cycle 2 Operation.Fee Paid

ML20235T677
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/30/1987
From:	Mroczka E NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20235T680	List: B12692, Proposed Tech Spec Pages 3/4 4-8,3/4 9-1,3/4 9-1a,5-5 & B 3/4 9-1,changing Requirements for Cycle 2 Operation.Safety Evaluation Encl ML20235T677
References
B12692, NUDOCS 8710130175
Download: ML20235T677 (6)

Text

.. .. . . , . .

A NAST UTILITIES cenerei Orrice. . seicen street. Berlin, Connecticut ba **

HARTFOR , CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 L t T ; CZ'L'*J' '%"",

(203) ses-sooo September 30,1987' Docket No. 50-423 B12692 Re: 10CFR30.90 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Reference (1): E. J. Mroczka letter to U. S. NRC, Cycle 2 Reload, Technical Specification Change Request, dated September 9,1987.

Gentlemen:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Cycle 2 Reload, Technical Specification Change Request On September 9,1987, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) submitted a proposed amendment to facility Operating License NPF-49 for Millstone Unit No. 3 (Reference (1)). That amendment would revise certain Technical Specifications required for Cycle 2 operation of Millstone Unit No. 3. In Reference (1), NNECO also indicated that additional Technical Specification changes required for Cycle 2 will be submitted to the NRC on or about September 30, 1987. Therefore, pursuant to 10CFR50.90, NNECO hereby proposes to amend Operating License NPF-49 by incorporating the attached proposed changes into the Technical Specifications of Millstone Unit No. 3. A descriptir of the proposed changes is provided in Attachment 1. The revised pages of the Technical Specifications are provided in Attachment 2.

NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes pursuant to 10CFR50.59 and determined that they do not represent an Unreviewed Safety Question. The basis for this ::onclusion is included in Attachment 3.

Significant Hazards Consideration In accordance with 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the attached proposed changes and has concluded that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration. The basis for this conclusion is that the three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised; a condusion which is supported by our determinations made pursuant 10CFR50.59. The proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration because these changes would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. As stated in Attachment 3, design basis accidents were evaluated for the impact on accident consequences by the

\

p 8710130175 DR 870930 ADOCK 05000423 PDR W) I I

i

1

.. i U. W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12692/Page 2 j September 30,1987 1 proposed changes to the Technical Specification Sections 3.4.l'6', 3.9.1.2 and 5.3.1. In all postulated fuel handling accidents keff remaiis 4.0.95.

In the boron dilution event, the intial conditions assumed and -the results l obtained are not changed. In addition, the proposed changes will not have j any impact on the probability of occurrence of any design basis accident. 1

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. As stated in Attachment 3, there are no new failure _

modes associated with these changes and failure modes associated with )

these changes are covered by the existing analyses. Therefore, no new accidents must be considered.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. For the proposed change to the Technical Specification Section 3.4.1.6, there is no increase in the consequences of any accident. Therefore, there will be no impact on the protective boundaries. For . the proposed changes to Technical 1 Specification Sections 3.3.1 and 3.9.1.2, steady state and accident l condition results show that Keff in the spent fuel pool remains 4. 0.95.

Therefore, there is no impact on the safety limits. Thus, the proposed changes do not reduce the margin of safety as specified in the basis of any Technical Specification.

Moreover, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6,1986, FR_7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. The proposed changes to Technical Specification Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.4.1.6 are enveloped by examples (ii), a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the {

Technical Specification. The proposed changes to Technical Specification l Section 3.9.1.2 place an operational surveillance requirement on the boron j concentration in the spent fuel pool during all fuel handling operations. .The i proposed changes to the Technical Specification Section 3.4.1.6 place an l operational requirement for the isolated loop to be brought into service at.a '

boron concentration of 2300 ppm or greater without regard to the rest of the .

RCS. Although the proposed changes to Technical Specification Section 5.3.1  !

are not enveloped by a specific example, these changes would not involve a '

significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The results of the safety evaluation show that ke yi in the spent fuel pool remains 4 0.95. Therefore, the changes proposed herein would not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Based upon the information contained in this submittal and the environmental assessment for Millstone Unit No. 3, there are no significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the proposed license amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

The Millstone Unit No. 3 Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the attached revision and concurs with the above determinations.

E__________________ __ ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - J

U. W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12692/Page 3 September 30,1987 In accordance with 10. CFR50.91(b), NNECO is providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this proposed amendment, j Pursuant to the requirements' of 10CFR170.12(c), enclosed with this amendment request is the application fee of $150.

We trust you find this information satisfactory and request review and approval  !

I of this amendment request by December 5,1987, in order' to support the start of Cycle 2.

Very truly yours, l I

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY.

I 1

.. h, E.3. W6czka /

Senior Vice President  !

l cc: Mr. Kevin McCarthy l Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06116 W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator l R. L. Ferguson, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 W. 3. Raymond, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit No. 3 l l \

l STATE OF CONNECTICUT )

I

) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD )

l Then personally appeared before me, E. 3. 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 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.

AAAAAxl b 97u f

~

l Notary Publi My Commission Expires March 31,1988 l

1 Docket No. 50-423 B12692 .;

'I 1

i Attachment 1

]

Millstone Nuclear Powc r Station, Unit No. 3' Description'of Proposed Technical Specification Changes l Cycle 2 {

l i

l l

l l l

l l

September,1987 i l

l l

' 1

' Attachment 1. q B12692/Page1 j Attachment 1 Description of Proposed Technical Specification Changes I

In addition to the proposed Technical Specification changes provided in  :

Reference (1), the following proposed Technical Specification changes have been prepared to support the Cycle 2 Reload.  ;

1. Section 3.4.1.6 - In some instances the existing specification would require that an isolated loop be greater than 2300 ppm prior to bringing it back. 1 into service. The new specification will require at most 2300 ppm. )

2. Section 3.9.1 - Adds a new section 3.9.1.2 which provides an 800 ppm boron minimum concentration in the spent fuel pool whenever fuel movement is in progress.

3. Section 5.3.1 -The proposed change will delete the maximum total weight 3 of uranium limitation per fuel rod. Also, the proposed change clarifies the maximum enrichment for future core loads.

i

)

.i i

i

Docket No. 50423 B12692' i

l i

'l l

j J

4 Attachment 2 Millstone Nuclear Power Station 1 Proposed Changes to Technical Specification l Cycle 2 I I

l September,1987 1

)

_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _