ML20245D296
| ML20245D296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D289 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904280214 | |
| Download: ML20245D296 (4) | |
Text
---_
e 2
- [
'c, UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
E WASMNGTON, D. C. 20666
)
l 4.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.29 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-21 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-245 i
INTRODUCTION By letter dated January 20, 1989, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Technical Specifications (TS).
The amendment will revise the TS by replacing cycle specific parameter limits with a reference to the Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for the values of those limits. The proposed changes also include the addition of the Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal to the Definitions Section and to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls Section of the TS.
Guidance on the changes was developed by the NRC on the basis of the review of a lead-plant proposal. This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16, dated October 4, 1988.
The amendment will also revise the Minimum Critical Power Ratio from 1.07 to 1.04 as previously, generically, approved by the NRC by letter from A. C.
Thadani to J. S. Charnley, " Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment 14 to GE licensing Report NEDE-24011-P-A," dated December 27, 1987.
Finally, the amendment will restore the requirement that all 20 jet pumps have flow indichtion prior to initiating plant startup. This change reflects a limited time TS amendment granted August 6,1987 that allowed plant startup with I of the 20 jet pump flow indications unavailable during Cycle 12 operation only.
EVALUATION 1.
Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits (Generic Letter 88-16)
The licensee's proposed changes to the TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below.
2MKO50002 4 890414 P
5 PN
, (1) The Definitions'section of the TS was modified to include a definition of the Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal (SRLS) that.
requires cycle / reload-specific parameter limits to be established on.
a unit-specific basis in'accordance with an NRC-approved methodology that maintains the limits of the safety analysis. The definition notes that plant operation within these limits is addressed.by individual specifications.
l (2) The following specifications were revised to replace the values of cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the SRLS that j
provides these limits.
t 2.1.2 Fuel Cladding Integrity 3.11 Reactor Fuel Assembly (3) Specification 6.9.1.9 was added to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS. "his specification requires that the SRLS be submitted, upon issuance, to the NRC. The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that' are applicable for the current fuel cycle. Furthennore, this specification requires that the values of these limits.be established using the NRC-approved methodology in " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (SESTAP)", NEDE-24011-P-A and be consistent with all applicable limits of the safety analysis.
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documented in the SRLS before.
i each reload cycle or remaining part of a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
On the basis of the review of the above items, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits in TS. Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specifc parameter limits that are established using an NRC-approved methodology, the NRC staff concludes that this change is administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
2.
Decrease in Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) l The MCPR safety limit and the limiting condition for operation are set to I
protect the fuel cladding from undergoing boiling transition following l
any design basis transient. The fuel cladding, as is the margin of safety, is maintained as long as 99.9 percent of all fuel rods do not experience boiling transition following a design basis transient. These criteria are met even though the safety limit is being changed from 1.07 to 1.04, i
l t
j i
.]
o
~L e
, 4 The NRC staff in a letter dated December 27, 1987 from A. C. Thadani to J. S. Charnley, " Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment 14 to GE Licensing Report, NEDE-24011-P-A", approved this reduction in the MCPR for all D-lattice plants with a core which has operated with two consecutive reloads of high bundle initial R-factor GE B/P8x8R and/or GE8x8EB fuel. Because Millstone Unit I meets tN :a criteria, the staff finds the-reduction in MCPR from 1.07 to 1.04 acceptable.
3.
Inoperable Jet Pump Flow Instrumentation By a TS Amendment dated August 6, 1987, the NRC approved a change in requirements to allow plant startup if I of the 20 jet pump flow indications is inoperable. This amendment was granted for Cycle 12 operation only.
This change to the TS will restore the original requirement that all 20 jet pump flow indications be operable prior to initiation of reactor startup and will retain the som conservative surveillance requirements imposed previously.
Since this TS amendment restores a more restrictive operating requirement, the staff finds this change to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility' component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and with respect to recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative i
procedures or requirements. We have determined that the amendment' involves nn significant increase in the amounts, and no significant chance in the types, of I
any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no'significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The j
staff has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves j
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 651.22(c)(9) and (10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment
)
need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
q CONCLUSION l
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 endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such l
1 l_
0
, i
\\
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the coninon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 14, 1989 Principal Contributor:
D.B. Fieno T.G. Dunning M.L. Boyle I
1
)
i i
l j