ML17055D593
| ML17055D593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055D592 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802190273 | |
| Download: ML17055D593 (6) | |
Text
pe RKCIJ~
<G"
~y A
0 4**~4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-63 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 INTRODUCTION On November 2, 1984, the staff issued Amendment No.
66 to Facility Operating License DPR-63 for Nine Mile Point Unit 1.
That amendment incorporated the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) into the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 operating license.
By letters dated February 17, 1987 {corrected editorially by letter dated July 27, 1987) and July 31, 1987 (corrected editorially by letter dated September 11, 1987), Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (licensee) proposed license amendments to modify portions of the Unit 1 RETS.
The proposed modifications relate to Sections 3.6, 4.6 and 6.9 of the licensee's present Technical Specifications.
EVALUATION Sections 3.6.2a(8),
Table 3.6.2h, and Table 4.6.2h would be revised to omit reference to Off-gas Isolation.
Off-gas monitor surveillance would be covered under Section 3.6. 14b and Table 4.6. 14-2.
The reference to Specification 3.6.1 would be removed because it provides no further action.
Note (h) of Table 3.6. 14-1 would be removed because it does not apply to Radioactive Liquid Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation.
Table 3.6. 14-2 would be revised to more closely resemble Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications.
The footnotes
- and **would be corrected to reflect gaseous rather than liquid applicability limits.
Technical Specification 3.6.14.b, Gaseous Process and Effluent, requires, in part, that a minimum of one operable channel is required to monitor the release of iodine and particulates via the Radioactive Gaseous Process (stack gas) system.
With less than the minimum number of operable monitoring
- channels, Technical Specification Table 3.6. 14-2 allows continued stack gas release of iodine and particulates provided that samples are continuously col'tected with auxiliary equipment.
While the Technical Specifications require the operation of auxiliary equipment, they do not allow adequate time for the system to be placed into operation.
aooaoo 88>
~DOCS; pDR Bo2gqop73 ooooo220
1 A
A change to Technical Specification Table 3.6.14-2 is reauired to clarify this issue.
The proposed change recognizes the necessary delay in connecting the auxiliarv equipment and is consistent with the interval provided in the Technical Specifications d'or Nine Mile Point Unit 2.
The above changes were proposed in the licensee's letter dated February 17, 1987.
The licensee's letter of July 27, 1987 corrected an inadvertent wording change in Technical Specification 3.6. 14 that had been proposed in the February 17, 1987 letter.
The licensee's letter of July 31, 1987 proposed changes to Technical Specifications 3.6 and 6.9.
Section 3.6. 15.d would be revised to delete reference to Nine Mile Point Unit 1.
Dose estimates reported in accordance with 40 CFR 190 must consider all uranium fuel cycle sources within five miles, not,iust from Nine Mile Point Unit 1.
Table 3.6.20-1 would be revised to clarify the requirements for sampling the fish ingestion and food products
- pathway, making this Table more consistent with the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
Table 4.6.20-1 and Table 6.9.3-1 would be revised to make them more consistent with the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
Section 3.6.22 would be revised to correct a typoaraphical error; Section 4.6. 15.b.3 is the correct reference.
Section 6.9. 1.e would be revised by the addition of footnotes that would provide the licensee with the option of not submitting meteorological
- data, but to retain such data on file.
This change was approved earlier by the Commission for Unit 2 and, therefore, makes the requirements consistent for the two units.
The licensee's letter of September 11, 1987 corrected unintentional errors; the correction returned those portions of the Technical Specifications to their original wording.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that the changes are either editorial or they meet the intent of the NRC model Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) for BWRs, NUREG-0473, Revision 2, February 1, 1980, or they make the associated requirements for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 consistent with those of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 on the same site.
They are, therefore, acceptable.
ENVIPONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of the facility components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20.
The staff has determined that this amendment involves no siqnificant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may
s L
h be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational 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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 851.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to +he health and safety of the public.
Dated:
February 8, 1988 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
W. Meinke
C 6 'e 1