ML17053C178
| ML17053C178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C177 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300649 | |
| Download: ML17053C178 (6) | |
Text
~ r
~8 ARCED 1p0 I
0O
~O
<<>>*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 38TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-63 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 Introducti on By letter
- dated October 29, 1980 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporati on (the licensee} applied for amendment to License No.
DPR-63 and the Technical Specifications (Appendix A} for Nine-Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1.
The amendment would authorize plant operation with limiting conditions of operation for the secondary containment integrity revised to agree with the "Standard Technical Speciftcations for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors."
(NUREG 0123, Rev. 3); i.e., without secondary containment, restore secondary containment integrity within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or be in at least hot shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Back round By letter dated October 29, 1980 the licensee requested operation of Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, with secondary containment (Reactor Building} leakage in excess of the 2000 CFM Techni'cal Specification, Limiting Condition of Operation.
This interim relief is being requested to allow TMI related upgrading of several safety related systems.
A portion of the safety systems upgrade wor k consists of routing new electrical cable through secondary containment.
To accomplish thi's work the existing Reactor Building electrical penetrations must be opened.
This results in an inability of the Standby Gas Treatment System to maintain Reactor Building vacuum post accident; i.e., leakage in excess of system exhaust capability (2000 CFM).
The licensee has proposed several mitigating actions during the time upgrade work is in progress:
(1)
At any one point in time no more than one electrical penetration will be opened and the time that it is open will be minimized; 8o~msoo ggg
il
(2)
Actiyitiez which. have the potential to result in significant radioactive releases to the secondary containment will be suspended; and (3)
Administrative controls will be in effect which ensure that secondary containment integrtty can be restored immediately, if necessary.
Evaluation The present Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Technical Specifications allow operation for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> if secondary containment integrity exceeds the limiting con-ditions of operation.
If integrity is not restored within this specified
- period, then an orderly shutdown must be initiated.
Continued plant operation for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> ts based on the very small likelihood of an accident occurring during such a brief interval.
Since the licensee request does not seek approval for periods of loss of secondary containment integrity for more than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> the Nine Mile Point margins of safety would not 6e reduced.
Moreover., the licensee has proposed three mitigating actions which:
(1} limit the duration and degree of loss of secondary containment integrity; (2} preclude potential radioactive release while secondary containment has been opened; and (3} imposes administrative procedures which ensure that secondary containment integrity can be restored rapidly, if necessary.
Based on this, as well as the fact that once upgrades have Seen accomplished, plant safety will actually be enhanced, we conclude that the requested upgrade work will not endanger public health and safety and is, therefore, allowable.
)
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1} because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2} there is reasonable
0 t'
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities >rill be con-ducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
pated:
December 12, 1980
ey