ML20040G440
| ML20040G440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040G435 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202160032 | |
| Download: ML20040G440 (1) | |
Text
-
[9 mu o,,
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o.,
4
~
% *...+ /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 63 0' FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 T
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A.'FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
' DOCKET NO. ' E0 -333
- 1. '0 Evaluation
~
'By letter' dated September 28, 1981 the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) requested a change in the Technical Specifications for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant which would change the units on maximum pe'rmitted enrichment of fuel stored in the spent fuel racks at the plant. The Technical Specifications currently limit storage in the racks to assemblies having maximum enrichment of 3.3 weight percent U-235. The. safety evaluation for the revised storage racks permitted loading with assemblies having up to 16.28 grams of U-235 per centimeter of assembly length. These are equivalent fuel loadings; i.e. only.the units are different.
PASNY requested a Technical Specification modification to include the 16.28 grams /cm value. Since the two values are equivalent the staff concludes that the change is accept;able.
2.0 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 ' oncluded that the amendment involves an c
action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursua'nt 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.
i 3.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considarations 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 sige.ificant 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the h'ealth and safety of the' public.
Dated:
January 29, 1982 Author:
Phillip J. Polk 0202160032 920129 D:t ADOCK 050003'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _