ML17054A320
| ML17054A320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17054A319 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401060188 | |
| Download: ML17054A320 (4) | |
Text
'~p8 REgy O~
Cy A
a
+gr*g+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF.
NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
53 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE'NO: DPR-63 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 1.0 Introduction By letters dated March 22,
- 1978, supplemented March 17,
- 1980, hand superseded May 2, 1983, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License No.
DPR-63 for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. l.
The revision to the Technical Specifications addressed in this Safety Evaluation concerns adding Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO), sur-veillance requirements, and changes to the bases for the Fire Protection Program at the facility.
The proposed change was submitted at NRC's request using guidance provided by NRC.
The change brings the Technical
'Specifications in concert with the fire protection program by listing additional detectors installed, clarifying reporting requirements, and specifying requirements for newly installed fire protection systems.
The Technical Specification changes reflect revisions found mutually acceptable by the NRC and licensee in a telecon December 6, 1983.
7.0 Evaluation The licensee has proposed changes to the listing of fire detectors adding the new detectors installed as a part of the fire protection program upgrade and revising the operability requirements for the minimum numbers of detectors to be more restrictive than the Standard Technical Specifications for GE BWRs, NUREG-0123, Rev. 3, and the current staff practices for new operating licenses.
The bases for fire detection have been changed to reflect the upgraded fire detection capability.
The Technical Specifications for LCO and surveillance requirements for Fire Suppression (sprinkler and spray systems),
Carbon Dioxide Suppression
- System, Fire Hose Stations, Fire Barrier Penetrations, Halon Suppression System and Yard Fire Hydrants and Hydrant Hose Houses have been changed to be equal to or more restrictive than the BWR Standard Technical Spec-ification requirements with one exception.
This exception in certain surveillance requirements that are on an 18-month cycle in the BWR Standard Technical Specification are specified at each refueling outage for Nine Mile Point, Unit No.
1 since the facility is on a 24-month fuel cycle.
We find this difference to be acceptable because the tests used to be performed during refueling, the deviation from the 18 month Standard 840i060i88 83i220.
'PDR ADOCK 05000220 P
1
'1 t
Technical Specification is not significant and the extension of the test interval is not expected to result in loss of equipment reliability.
The bases for the above mentioned items have been changed to support the proposed LCOs and surveillance requirements.
Certain administrative changes such as adding a definition for "Fire Watch Patrol," referencing the definition, referencing the reporting requirements to paragraph 6.9.2.b, and others for clarity have been incorporated in a manner we find acceptable.
3.0 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 deter-
- mination, 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.
4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonabl,e assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) such activ-ities 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.
Principal Contributor:
R.
Hermann Dated:
December 20, 1983
A l
l