ML17055D686
| ML17055D686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055D685 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-65889, NUDOCS 8803210465 | |
| Download: ML17055D686 (4) | |
Text
~
~S ROC' I
a I
cA
+ ++*++
UNITEDSTATES 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 MII E POINT NUCLFAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 8, 1987, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DRP-63 for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The proposed change would revise Technical Specification 3.2.2, Minimum Reactor Vessel Tem erature for Pressurization, and the associated Bases.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The purpose of the change is to update the reactor vessel pressure-temperature limits for thirteen effective full power years (EFPY).
In.lanuary 1986, the licensee proposed a similar change to the pressure-temperature limits for eleven EFPY.
The licensee used Regulatory Guide 1.99, proposed Revision 2, to calculate the shift in the reference temperature, RT using testing and irradiation data from surveillance specimens removed from 5$
reactor in 1979 and 1982.
The corresponding pressure was calculated based on Appendix G of the ASME Code.
By Amendment No. 85, dated June 10, 1986, the NRC approved the limits for eleven EFPY.
At the time of submittal of the 11 EFPY request, the licensee had also established the limits that would be appropriate for up to 13 EFPY.
At that time, the licensee did not request the Technical Specifications be changed to reflect 13 EFPY limits because it would have meant unnecessarily restrictive operating limits than required.
The licensee's methods for establishing the limits for 13 EFPY are the same as those approved earlier for 11 EFPY.
Based on the Safety Evaluation supporting Amendment No. 85 and our review of the proposed
- change, we have confirmed that the licensee used the same methodology for determining the limits for 13 FFPY as for 11 EFPY.
Therefore, we conclude that the pressure-temperature limits for 13 EFPY satisfy the requirements of Appendix 6 of 10 CFR 50 and are acceptable.
88032l0465 8803)5 PDR aDOCX 05DODaaD t
In consultation with the licensee's 'staff, additional editorial changes were made to the Bases to identify more clearly the parts of the reactor being discussed.
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 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 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 551.22(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 Me 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 the health and safety of the public.
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
J. Tsao, EMTB/NRR Dated:
March 15, 1988