ML20245E609

Application for Amend to License NPF-49,revising Tech Specs to Allow Storage of Fuel W/Max Enrichment Up to 5.05 Weight Percent U-235 Fuel in Safe & Subcritical Configuration During Normal & Abnormal Conditions

ML20245E609
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	04/20/1989
From:	Mroczka E NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20245E610	List: B13164, Proposed Tech Specs Allowing Storage of Fuel W/Max Enrichment Up to 5.05 Weight Percent U-235 Fuel in Safe & Subcritical Configuration During All Normal & Abnormal Conditions ML20245E609
References
B13164, NUDOCS 8905020060
Download: ML20245E609 (4)

Text

- _.

. l

,~,.

I N. UTILITIES cenerai Orrices . seiden street, seriin, Connecticut 9 *sua wauc um en eacmc ca'" P.O. BOX 270 ines wea *oma c= "

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 i k L J 7,7,'['7%,c%~,

, (203) 665-5000 f April 20, 1989 Docket No. 50-423 B13164 Re: 10CFR50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~ Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3  !

Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications In a letter dated January 24, 1989,(I) Northeast ' Nuclear inergy Company (NNEC0) provided the NRC Staff with information and the evaluations associated with the installation of new fuel (dry) storage racks at Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3. These new fuel storage racks are designed to store i fuel assemblies with a maximum enrichment up to 5.05 weight percent U-235 fuel in a safe and subcritical configuration during all normal and abnormal condi- i tions.

Currently, the Millstone Unit No. 3 spent fuel pool (SFP) storage racks are i only licensed to store fuel with maximum enrichments up to 3.85 weight percent  !

U-235. For future cycles of operation, beginning with the Cycle 3 reload in i May 1989, NNEC0 has received and will begin reloading fuel with nominal  ;

enrichments greater than 3.8 weight percent U-235. Cycle 3 reload fuel will have nominal enrichments of 4,1 and 4.5 weight percent U-235. The purpose of this letter is to request an amendment to the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications to allow storage of fuel up to a maximum enrichment of 5.05 weight parcent U-235 in the Millstone Unit No. 3 SFP.

' Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, NNEC0 hereby proposes to amend its Operating License, NPF-49, by incorporating the attached proposed changes into the Technical  ;

Specifications of Millstone Unit No. 3. The proposed Technical Specification changes are included as Attachment 1. Attachment 2 provides additional supporting evaluations.

The proposed changes to each Technical Specification section are described below:

1. Section 1.0--Definitions New definitions, proposed Sections 1.40 and 1.41, will be added to define the required fuel storage patterns. Section 1.40 defines the fuel l

(1) E. J. Mroczka letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications," dated January 24, 1989.

890502')O60 DR 890420 "

1k I

j  !

Lp ADOCK 05000423

• I! j

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 813164/Page.2 April 20, 1989 storage pattern of Region I fuel, and Section 1.41 delineates the fuel j 4

storage requirements of Region II fuel. The reason for this change to a  ;

regionalized storage pattern is to account for the required three-out- l of-four storage pattern required for criticality considerations of fuel assemblies with no burnup or minimum burnup and with nominal enrichments  ;

less than or equal to 5.0 weight percent U-235 and greater thar.

3.8 weight percent U-235. f

2. Section 3/4.9--Refuelina Operations New Sections, 3/4.9.13 and 3/4.9.14, Spent Fuel Pool, have been added, with new accompanying Limiting Conditions for Operation 3.9.13 and 3.9.14 and Surveillance Requirements 4.9.13 and 4.9.14. The reason for these changes is to provide the specific conditions and criteria for SFP reactivity and regionalized fuel storage, with the accompanying applica-bility and verification requirements. In addition, a new Figure 3.9-1 has been added to provide the fuel burnup versus enrichment criteria, and a new Figure 3.9-2 has been added to provide the Region I fuel assembly loading schematic. The accompanying new Bases 3/4.9.13 and new Bases 3/4.9.14 have been added to provide the bases for new Sec-tions 3/4.9.13 and 3/4.9.14. Additionally, new Bases 3/4.9.13 makes reference to administrative controls to verify fuel assembly burnup.

These controls are currently being formalized and will be in place prior to the issuance of this amendment request.

3. Section 5.6--Fuel Storaae Section 5.6.1.1 has been modified and expanded in order to address the storage of fuel utilizing a regionalized storage scheme.

Section 5.6.1.2 will be deleted. The reason for this change is that this section was only applicable to storage of new fuel stored dry in the spent fuel racks, during the first reload, and is no longer applicable.

Section 5.6.3, Capacity, has been enanged from specifying the specific number of fuel assemblies allowed to be stored in the SFP to specifying only the number of storage locations available. The reason for this change is to account for the varying number of cell blockers which may now occupy various fuel storage locations in support of the regionalized storage scheme. Utilizing cell blockers, it may not be possible to fill all possible storage locations with spent fuel. Therefore, the number of storage locations, not fuel issemblies, need be addressed.

1

4. The Technical Specification index has been revised to reflect the addi-tion of new sections.

Significant Hazards Consideration In accordance with 10CFR50.92, NNEC0 has reviewed the proposed changes and 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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration because the changes would not: ) ,

l c ,

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l B13164/Page 3 April 20, 1989

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an )

accident previously analyzed.

l

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. l 1

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. q The discussion and justification for this conclusion is provided in Attach-ment 2.

Moreover, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards set forth in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6, 1986, 51 ?R 7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. Although the proposed changes to Technical Specification Sections 5.6.1.1, 5.6.1.2, and 5.5.3 and the addition of new Technical Specification Sections 1.40, 1.41, 3/4.9.13, and 3/4.9.14 are not enveloped by a specific example, the proposed changes would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previ-ously analyzec'. Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the conse-quences of any event previously analyzed. A discussion and justification for this conclusion is provided in Attachment 2.

The NRC has reviewed the anticipated widespread use of extended burnup fuel in commercial light water reactors and has concluded (February 29, 1988, 53 FR 6041) that there are no significant adverse radiological or nonradio-l logical impacts associated with the use of extended burnup fuel and that this .

I use will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Moreover, the NRC has endorsed the recently issued NUREG/CR5009, " Assessment of the use of Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Reactors," which concludes a finding of no significant impact for fuel up to a nominal 5 weight percent U-235 and burnup up to 60 Gwd/MTU.

l Based upon the above and the information in this submittal, there are no significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed changes, and the proposed changes will not have a significant effect j on the quality of the human environment.

l The Millstone Unit No. 3 Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the proposed amendment and concurred with the above determination.

In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), we are providing the State of Connecticut l with a copy of the proposed amendment.  !

The next refueling outage is currently scheduled to begin in mid-May 1989, and the new fuel assemblies for Cycle 3 reload will consist of assembiios with l nominal enrichments up to 4.5 weight percent U-235. Approval of this proposed I license amendment would not be required until the reload fuel for Cycle 3 is to be discharged; therefore, this license amendment may be processed on a routine basis. However, if a condition arose where an emergency core off-lcad j was required prior to approval of this license amendment, then thir license amendment may then be required on an emergency basis. Additionally, it is NNEC0's intention to perform a 10CFR50.59 evaluation to allow interim storage of the new Cycle 3 reload fuel in the SFP prior to reloading into the reactor.

(

i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13164/Page 4 April 20,.1989 Since this would be storage of new unburnt fuel, there are no thermal hydrau-lic or radiological concerns. The new fuel will be stored in a three-out-of-four pattern, consistent with the applicable actions of this proposed license amendment. In addition, although the spent fuel racks have been qualified for storage of fuel with a maximum enrichment of 5.05 w/o U-235, the thermal hydraulic evaluation is Cycle 3-specific. NNEC0 uill be performing a reanaly-sis of the thermal hydraulic impacts of storing spent fuel with enrichments greater than those of Cycle 3, for fuel cycles beyond Cycle 3, prior to the next refueling.

We trust you will find this information satisfactory, and we remain available to answer any questions you may have. ,

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY

$i bi E. J. Mroczka M Senior Vice President L

By: C. F. Sears Vice President cc: W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Mr. Kevin McCarthy Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, CT 06116 STATEOFCONNECTICUT)

) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) ,

Then personally appeared before me, C. F. Sears, who being duly sworn, did state that he is 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 Licensees herein, and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of l his knowledge and belief.

Aid xtNr' NotaryPpic 1400~;r an Q spp.g,un[

l

_ ___-_______--__