ML17053C993
| ML17053C993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201150054 | |
| Download: ML17053C993 (4) | |
Text
~ ~8 REGII (4
P0 Cy A.
I n
C O
Qs Cy
+r+~
~ ~O
++*++
UNITEDSTATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.4" TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-63 NIAGARA MOHAMK POMER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 1.0 Introduction 2.0 In References 1
and 2, General Electric Company requested that credit for calculated peak cladding temperature margin as well as credit for recently approved, but unapplied, ECCS evaluation model changes be used to offset any operating penalties due to high burnup fission gas release.
This proposal was found acceptable (Ref. 3) provided the generic analysis was found to be applicable to each plant citing the GE position.
In Attachment B of Reference 4 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation stated that the generic analysis is applicable to Nine Mile Point Unit l.
On this basis we find the proposed Technical Speci'fication changes (MAPLHGR limits) given in Attachment A of Reference 4 acceptable.
Environmental Considerations 3.0 Me have determined that this 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 this 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 weed not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 reasonable 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the 'common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
December 24, 1981 820ii50054 8ii224 PDR ADGCK 05000220 P.
'DR
~ ~~ i T.
-. J
.-References 1.
R.
E. Engel (GE) letter to T. A. Ippolito (NRC) dated May 6, 1981 2.
R.
E. Engel (GE) letter to T. A. Ippolito (NRC) dated May 28, 1981 3.
L. S. Rubenstein (NRC) memorandum for T.
M. Novak (NRC) on "Extension of General Electric Emergency Core Cooling Systems Performance Limits" dated June 25, 1981 4.
H. H. Voigt (Niagara Mohawk) letter to H.
R. Denton (NRC) dated October 26, 1981