ML20003G703
| ML20003G703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G701 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104300562 | |
| Download: ML20003G703 (2) | |
Text
_ __
y UNITED STATES q
yy g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20585 W..OM/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR' REGULATION 3 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO. FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (YANKEE-ROWE)
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CGMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-29
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 13, 1981, Yankee Atomic Electric Compan; (the lice'nsee) requested a change to the Technical Specification's appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee-Rowe).
This change would allow extension of the. Cycle XIV LOCA limits to 16,300 MWD /MTU core average burnup from 16,000 MWD /MTU.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The Core XIV LOCA limits implemented through Technical Specification (TS)
Figure 3.2.1 are currently valid to a cycle average burnup of 16,000 MWD /MTU.
Due to a longer coastdown than normal, an end of cycle burnup of 16,200. MWD /MTU is anticipated at Core XIV shutdown presently scheduled for May 2,1981.
Extension of TS Figure 3.2.1 slightly beyond the anticipated end of cycle burnup is required to permit plant coastdown beyond the 66,000 MWD /MTU cycle average burnup.
The LOCA analysis, to show compliance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46, assumed burnups of 27,883 MWD /MTU and 32,703 MWD /MTU.for the fresh and high powered exposed individual hot rods.
Using these values a conservative cycle average burnup TS was developed to a 16,000 MWD /MTU cycle end point. This is Figure 3.2.1, " Core XIV Allowable Peak Rod LHGR versus Cycle Burnup. The actual anticipated burnups of these rods at 16,300 MWD /MTU cycle' average burnup are expected to be about 23,900 MWD /MTU for the fresh': fuel'and about 27,700 MWD /MTU for the high powered exposed fuel which is still below the assumed burnups in the safety analysis.
We therefore conclude that there is reasonable assurance that operation of Yankee-Rowe consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications will not endanger the health and safety of the public, and that the proposed Technical Specifications are acceptable.
8104300 h
2-a 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAECONSIDERATION
- ~ ' - ' - - - - - - - - -
We have determined that the amendment iloes 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 determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an
- action which is 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.
4.0 CONCLUSION
' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- ~ ---
.s--
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 amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable I
~
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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the co:nnon defense and. security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
April 22,1981 1
l G
O
,. - - - - -,,. ~, _. - -,. - - _ -,,.
...._-,-......y-
_,.. - -, _. -, - _, ~.
. -. ~, _. _., -
.-y
..,,,,,,,w.
,,-.y,c
,,.n--__,,,-w,,e-y
. _ _,,,,,--,-,._.,,,._,,-,u,