ML17053C681
| ML17053C681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C679 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106170363 | |
| Download: ML17053C681 (6) | |
Text
~+ Rangy (4
0
'+n
~O
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY. THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL'ATION'UPPORTING AMENDMENT NO; 55 TO FACILITY OPERATING'LICENSE NO.'DPR-63 NIAGARA MOHAMK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 1.0 Introduction 2.0 By letter dated August 5, T980 (reference
- 1) the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (licensee). forwarded a proposed Technical Specification change that establishes revised reactor vessel water level setpoints that are consistent with a new common instrument zero level.
The proposed common reference level is 7'l" below the minimum normal water level in the reactor vessel.
This level corresponds to 12'" above the active fuel and will result in an indicator reading of -30".
(At Nine Mile Point Unit 1 numbering is referenced to plant elevation.
Plant grade is 261'0".
On this basis the minimum normal water level in the reactor is 302'9".)
Establishment of the common zero level for all reactor vessel water level instrumentation was required by item II.K3.27 of NUREG-0737, Three Mile Island (TMI) Action Plan (reference 2).
The evaluation of the licensee's compliance with this requirement is provided below.
Evaluation 3.0 Me have reviewed the proposed revised setpoints necessary to establish a
common zero level for all reactor level instrumentation.
The common reference level is 65 inches below the minimum normal level of 302'" 'The
=
proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will not change previously established safety settings, i.e., the setpoints for instrument safety functions will not change.
Since no change in actual level for any function is involved, and since no instrumentation is being modified, we find the proposed Technical Specification revisions acceptable.
Envi ronmental Cons ideration Me 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 invol.ves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(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.
4.0 Conclusion Me 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 ~easonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
pated:
June 1, 1981
References 1.
Letter dated August 5, 1'980 from.E..B.
Thomas to,H..R. Denton.
2.
NUREG-0737, "Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,"
forwarded by letter dated October 31, 1'980 from.D.,G. Eisenhut (NRC) to All Licensees.