ML19339B299
| ML19339B299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339B287 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011060685 | |
| Download: ML19339B299 (3) | |
Text
!
W.7 = =
j UNITED STATES
{3 3
"4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 O\\...
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGU_LATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 47 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (YANKEE-ROWE)
DOCKET NO. 50-29 Introduction By application dated February 17, 1978, Yankee Atomic Electric Coripany (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Facility Operating License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee-Rowe).
The amendment would delete the requirenent in the facility Technical Specifi-cations for the Intemediate Power Range nuclear channel setpoint adjust-ment to 25% during core physics testing.
By letter dated August 25, 1977, we advised the licensee that if it desires to receive credit for use of respiratory equipment at Yankee-Rowe after December 28, 1977, such use must be as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15, rather than as specified in its current Technical Specification:.
Since the Technical Specifications contain a revocation provision of the current specification on respiratory protection, we advised the licensee that we would delete this specification in the next license amendment processed after December 28, 1977.
Discussion and Evaluation On July 14, 1976, we reissued, with klendment No. 27 to Operating License DPR-3, Technical Specifications for Yankee-Rowe in the new format.
The revised Technical Specifications were written to confom as closely as practical with the fomat of the Standard Technical Specifications, STS, for a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR).
By application dated February 17, 1978, the licensee brought to our attention an error in the new Specifications 3.10.3 and 3.10.4 concerning special test exceptions during low power physics testing. These tests require that during core physics testing in Mode 2 (startup) both the intemediate power range and the power range nuclear channels be set to trip at < 25% of rated power. The design of the existing Yankee-Rowe 8011060 685~
(
L_
= n==-
p p.
2-
==
=y 1.~.7.
nuclear instrumentation includes three power range channels that can f===-
be set to trip at < 25% of rated power.
However, the intermediate
'= M...
power ra'nge channeTs do not have this capability and were not intended i=: 7 to be used to perform a trip function at < 25% rated thermal power
~
(rather thar
.c. the normal setpoint) duriiig low power physics testing.
3m;;; _
To-correct thu oversight, the licensee proposed in its February 17
_.... ~
application to delete the provisions in the Technical Specifications
~
which require the intermediate power range nuclear channels to be set at < 25% rated power and operable during low power physics testing.
=
Imposing this requirement was an oversight when the new format Technical Specifications were issued since it was inconsistent with the existing and previously approved Yankee-Rowe nuclear instrumentation
_~~
features. To provide an even greater level of safety during physics W
testing the licensee had accepted our modification to its proposal-to require that the three power range nuclear channels be operable with i
their trip setpoints set at < 25% of rated thermal power.
This explicit J
requirenent will assure that all power range channels which have the low
=-
setpoint capability will be operable during physics testing. With this h
addition, we,have concluded that the licensee's proposal is acceptable.
r 2
Resoi-atory protection program On tiovember 29, 1976, the Commission published in the Federal Reaister,
~
an amended Section 20.103 of 10 CFR 20, which became effective on December 29, 1976. One effect of this revision is that in order to receive credit for limiting the inhalation of airborne radioactive material, respiratory protection equipment must be used as stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15.
Another requirement of the amended regulation is that licensees authorized to make allowance for use of respiratory protection equipment prior to December 29, 1976, must have brought the use of this respiratory protective equipment into conformance with
~
Regulatory Guide 8.15 by December 29, 1977.
Since the respiratory protective program described in Section 6.12 of the Yankee-Rowe Technical Specifications differs from that stipulated in Regulatory Guide 8.15, the Technical Specification must be amended. At s
present, the provisions of Section 6.11 of the Technical Specifications require conformance with 10 CFR 20, but Section 20.103 of 10 CFR 20 no longer requires specific authorization to employ respiratory protective ecu i pment.
In view of the revocation provisions of subsection 6.12.3 of the Technical Specifications, we advised the licensee that the necessary amendnent could be effected by deleting Section 6.12 and that we would
" = = =
include the deletion in the absence of prior written objection, in an amendment approved after December 28, 1977. The licensee has offered no such objection and, therefore, we are including the deletion of
~~
Section 6.12 in this amendment.
=r-
=
a u-,.
(-
.e, Environmental Consideration
]L7 b=
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
=Er determination, we have further concluded that the amemdment involves an action which in insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact state-ment or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
=
probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendnent does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Ccmmission's regulations and the issuance of this snendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: April 3,1978
- i
- :.
=:
(
I i
.,