ML17055B583
| ML17055B583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055B582 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605050540 | |
| Download: ML17055B583 (4) | |
Text
'gW po Cy I
0O (N
++*+'+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY FVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RFGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 81 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 2.0
3.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated Decembe~
6, 1985, as supplemented January 13,
- 1986, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) requested an amendment to Appendix A of Facility Operating License No.
DPR-63 for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1.
The amendment would modify Technical Specification Section
- 3. 1.7 to reflect the addition of Maximum Averaqe Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) limits for the General Electric fuel bundle, type PBDRB299.
These limits were calculated using the same approved General Electric methods used for the present fuel type P8DNB277.
The change would allow for the use of tvpe P8DR8299 fuel in future reloads.
EVALUATION The proposed Technical Specification changes to Section 3.1.7 and Figure
- 3. 1.7(f) reflect the addition of the MAPLHGR limits for the General Electric fuel bundle, type PBDRB299.
These limits were calculated using the same approved General Electric methods used for the present fuel type PBDNB277.
The licensee has analyzed the loss of coolant accident response of the P8DRB299 fuel and results for-the type PBDRB299 fuel analysis demonstrate that
( 1) the peak cladding temperature and maximum oxidation fraction limits are approximately the same as for previous fuel types; (2) the loss of coolant accident response is approximately the same as for the fuel currently used; and (3) the peak cladding temperature and the maximum oxidation fraction limits are within the limits set by 10 CFR 50.46.
Therefore, the proposed amendment to Section
- 3. 1.7 and Figure 3.1.7(f) of the Technical Specifications to reflect the addition of the MAPLHGR limits for fuel type P8DRB299 is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no siqnificant increase in individual or cumulative occupational ooooo4o 8~oooo PDR ADOCK 05000220 PDR
0
radiation exposure..
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibilitv criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (2) 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 nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T.
Huang Dated:
April 30, 1986.