ML20004F880
| ML20004F880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004F877 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106260099 | |
| Download: ML20004F880 (2) | |
Text
j
.p %q
[('g{w [),j v
umn:::=r:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmwotos. o c. 2osss
,j
%s[*@
e#
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 57 TO LICENSE NO. OPR-36 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY MAINE YANKEE ATCMIC POWER STATION
~
DOCKET NO. 50-309
==
Introduction:==
By telecopy dated May 22, 1981, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company recuested an emergency change to the Technical Specification appended to Facility Operating License No. OPR-36 for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.
The proposed change involves:
Revising Technical Specification 3.17.B.7.b to allow the operation of the reactor building purge system to by-pass the charcoal absorbers during the cycle 6 refueling operation only under the following conditions:
1.
During the time the Low Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) system check valves are being installed or completion of refueling operation, whiqh-ever is earlier.
2.
During the charcoal absorber by-pass mode the containment purge valves will be trippable manually and automatically.
Discussion and Evaluation Technical Specification 3.17.3.7.b requires the reactor building purge to be filtered through the hich efficiency particulate air filters and charcoal absorbers whenever irradiated fuel is being handled or any object is being handled ove: irradiated fuel in the reactor building. This requirement precludes by passing the filters during operations that could possibiv poison the charcoal absorbers, cuch as welding in the containment be '. ding during refueling.
In compliance with a confirmatory order dated Aoril 20, 1981, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station is cutting and welding, into the Law Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) system piping in order to install new check valves. Exhausting the emissions from this cutting and welding operation could " poison" the charcoal absorbers and make them inoperable.
In order to preserve the charcoal absorbers the licensee proposes, on a one-time only basis, to by-pass the charcoal absorbers during the welding and cutting coeraticn. During the ceriod the absorbers are by-cassed the containment purge valves shall be trippable automatically and manually in order to provide the capability to limit the re lease of radioactivity if required.
\\
'8106260099
2-In our review of the licensee request we have considered the fact that a dect time of greater than 210 hours0.00243 days <br />0.0583 hours <br />3.472222e-4 weeks <br />7.9905e-5 months <br /> has occurred prior to the current fuel handling operations inside containment.
In previous reviews we have determined for Maine Yankee that exposures associated with the fuel handling accident inside containment will be at levels well below.10 CFR 100 guidelines without the use of charcoal absorbers if the fuel has experienced decay times greater than 210 hours0.00243 days <br />0.0583 hours <br />3.472222e-4 weeks <br />7.9905e-5 months <br />. This coupled with the ability to close the purge valves automatically or manually and the one-time only feature provides adequate assurance that the requested excepticn will not constitute a signi-ficant hazard to the health and safety of the public. Accordingly we find that the proposed modificaticn to technical specification 3.17.3.7.b is acceptable and therefore it is approved.
Environmental Consideration 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 determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which '
insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental 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 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 prc9csed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliar.ce 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.
Date: June 12, 1981 e
0 e
- - - _. -. ~.., -,
c n -
-