ML18038A269

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to License NPF-69 & Proposed NSHC Determination & Opportunity for Hearing.Amend Revises Tech Specs to Allow Svc Water Supply Header Discharge Temp Limit of 81 F

ML18038A269
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	08/10/1987
From:	Neighbors J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML18038A270	List: ML18038A269
References
TAC-65898, NUDOCS 8708170133
Download: ML18038A269 (10)

Text

~ ~

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NIAGARA MOHAMK POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-410 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-69 issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, New York Electric and Gas Corporation, and Long Island Lighting Company (the licensee)*, for operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 plant, located in Oswego

County, New York.

The proposed amendment would revise the service water supply header discharge temperature limit in Technical Specification 3/4.7. 1 to 81'F.

The proposed amendment is in accordance with the licensee's application of August 3, 1987 as amended August 6, 1987.

Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations, The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant

~gP C

p i

t t

i dt g

f listed owners and has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.

P DR ADOCK 050004 i0

~ ~

~

~

increase'n the probability or conseouences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; of (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The Commission has provided guidance for the application of these criteria by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (48 FR 14870).

The proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated for the following reasons.

ll The proposed amendment involves increasing the plant service water system operating temperature limit in the Technical Specifications from 76'F to 81'F.

The licensee has stated that all components cool'ed by the plant service water system have been evaluated and been found to be able to perform their intended function under normal operation,

shutdown, abnormal and accident conditions with a service water temperature of up to 82'F.

Further, the licensee has stated that'the proposed change does not adversely affect the

'nvironmental qualification of any plant equipment, nor does it impact post-accident containment response.

By the determination that the suppression pool is not affected in the post-accident containment

response, assurance is provided that the LOCA analysis also remains valid.

Finally, the integrity of the service water operating temperature limit to 81'F will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

~

~

~ ~

P

The proposed changes will not create the possibility of a newer different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated for* the following reasons.

The containment post-accident response to previously evaluated accidents remains within previously assessed limits of temperature and pressure.

This also applies to the LOCA analysis.

Further, all safety-related systems and components remain within their applicable design limits.

Thus,,system and component performance is not adversely affected by this change, thereby assuring that the design capabilities of those systems and components are not challenged in a manner not previously assessed so as to create the possibility or a new or different kind of accident.

In addition, the environmental qualification of plant equipment is not adversely affected by the proposed

changes, further assuring that components are not challenged in a manner not previously assessed.

In summary, the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously eva'luated.

. The proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety for the following reasons.

A number of conservatisms were used in establishing the design basis for the service water system.

The margins of safety resulting from these conservatisms are not significantly affected by the proposed change to the Technical Specifications.

The change in the margin of safety is insignificant compared to the remaining margin of safety from conservatisms applied in the analyses.

~

~

~

~

I

Therefore, based on these considerations and the three criteria given

above, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has determined that failure to act in a timely way would result in a shutdown of the plant.

Therefore, the Commission has insufficient time to issue its usual 30-day notice of the proposed action for public comment.

If during the comment period, the lake temperature should exceed 77 degrees Fahrenheit for sustained

periods, the Commission may issue the license amendment before August 31, 1987, provided that its final determination involves no significant hazards considerations and that the application satisfies the provisions of 10 CFR 50.92(a)(5).

If the proposed determination becomes final, an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register at a later date and any hearing request will not delay the effective date of the amendment.

If the Commission decides in its final determination that the amendment does involve a significant hazards consideration, a notice of opportunity for a prior hearing will be published in the Federal Register and, if a hearing is granted, it will be held before any amendment is issued.

The Commission is seeking public comnents on this proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.

Comments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to Robert A. Capra, Acting Director, Project Directorate I-I, by collect ca'll to 301-492-4556 or submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S; Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

0

~

~

~

I Washington, DC

20555, ATTN:

Docketing and Service Bt anch.

All comments received by August 31, 1987 will be considered in reaching a final determination.

A copy of the application may be examined at the Comnission's Public Document

Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC and at the Local Public Document Room, Penfield Library, State University College,

Oswego, New York 13126.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of August 1987.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R,

sep D. Neighbors, Se i r Project Yianager roject Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II

I ~