ML19341B042
| ML19341B042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101300085 | |
| Download: ML19341B042 (2) | |
Text
.
O
eum $.
u~ o ='a'
=
7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
WASHINGTON,D C.20555
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 62 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (YANKEE-ROWE)
DOCKET NO. 50-29
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated May 20, 1980 (Proposed Change 169) Yankee Atomic Electric Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee-Rowe). The amendment would make changes to the Technical Specifications to clarify the use of the term OPERABLE, as it applies to the single failure criterion for safety systems in power reactors. The licensee submitted the proposed amendment in response to our letter dated April
', 1920.
2.0 EVALUATION The amendment proposed by the licensee differs from the model Technical Specifications issued by our April 10, 1980 letter in that the proposal requires the reactor to be placed in the cold shutdown condition within 31 hours3.587963e-4 days <br />0.00861 hours <br />5.125661e-5 weeks <br />1.17955e-5 months <br /> instead of 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br />, when a limiting condition for operation is exceeded. This is a more conservative l
requirement. On this basis, we conclude that the proposed amendment would not reduce the level of safety of the facility and, is therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
I We have determined that this amendment does not authorize a change l
in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in 'ny significant environmental inpact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to T' CFR551.5(d)(4),thatan environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
- "hdW C
~,
a g:. ; -- ~3 y; 8101300 O %
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerati~ s discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve.
" cant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents pre. asly considered and does not involve a,significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment 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 nenner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in ccmpliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: January 12, 1981 1