ML20031C289
| ML20031C289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1965 |
| From: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110070029 | |
| Download: ML20031C289 (3) | |
Text
.
EiCsNSE AUTHORITY Fli.E COPY
& li L.
~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE RESEARCH AND POWER REACTOR SAFETY BRANCH DIVISION OF REACTOR LICENSING IN THE MATTER OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPOSED CHANCE NO, 69 DOCKET NO, 50-29 Int roduction Purcuant to the provisions of Sectiou 50.59 of the Commission't regulations, Yankee Atomic Electric Company in Proposed Change No. 69, dated Octobe r 15, 1965, requested cuthorization of a change in the Technical Specifications atta.hed as Appendix A to Lic2nse No. DPR-3.
This proposed change would permit reactor 3peratiou with from on2 to four regenerative antimony-beryllium neutron sources.
Discussion
~'to Yankee reactor normally contains a complement of four antf mony-beryllium neutron aurces. These sources are located at a peripheral pos! tion in each quadrant of the
. ora, and provide a detectable flux for the low level neutron monitors during periods of shutdown and nuclear startup. This source of neutrons is aupplemented by the photoneutrons that are produced by irradiated fuel elements in the reactor.
Yankee has proposed to operate the reactor with from one to f sur antimony-beryllium nsutron sources. Howeverg operation with less than four neut ron sources would only ba required if it were necessary to remove a neutron source, and a suitable replace-ment was not currently available. The remaining activated scurces could be moved, if required, to provide the most favorable detector-source gc ometry. This change does not af fect the minimum neutronic count rate required fo-start-up. In addition, since only about half of the fuel elements are replaced at e.ich reactor refueling, tha recycled fuel elements will provide a satisfactory soure of neutrons. There fore,
wa believe that the safety of reactor operations will not be adversely affected by this change.
Conclusion Wa have concluded that the Proposed Change does not present significant harards considerations not described or implicit in the hazards su:r:ary report, and that there is reasonable assuranc-that the health and safety of the public will not ba cndangered.
p.:.,.. _.,
Rocer S. Boyd, Ctief Research & Power Reactor Safety Branch Division of Reactor Licensing Date:
Okho9 PDR
l i
i i
I i
l t
NO SAFETY EVALUATION FOR CHANGE NO. 87 l
f 9
i NO SAFETY ayAlllATION FOR CHANGE 1:0, gg i