ML20056H425
| ML20056H425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H422 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309090298 | |
| Download: ML20056H425 (2) | |
Text
._
e d"%y j
_8
?g
.,[ ( '$
E UNITED STATES
- 1 j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,/
wAsmotou. o c. msseos SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 i
1.0 1[{TRODUCTION By letter dated June 25, 1993, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would clarify the definition of " core alteration" to include only those components which affect core reactivity.
2.0 EVALUATION The Vermont Yankee TS at 1.0.B currently defines " Alteration of the Reactor Core" as follows:
"The ut of moving any component in the region above the core support plate, below the upper grid and within the shroud. Normal movement of the control rods, or the neutron detectors is not defined as a core alteration."
The proposed change to TS 1.0.8 would read as follows:
"The act of moving any component affecting reactivity within the reactor vessel in the region above the core support plate, below the upper grid and within the shroud. Normal movement of control rods or neutron detectors, or the replacement of neutron detectors is not defined as a core alteration."
The definition of core alteration identifies a specific type of activity for which the TS impose appropricte controls and limitations. The statement of objective for these controls in TS 3.12 is "to assure core reactivity is within capability of the control rods, to prevent criticality during l
refueling, and to assure safe handling of spent fuel casks."
i i
The proposed clarification by adding the words "affrcting reactivity within i
e the reactor vessel" will still include in the definition the movement of objects which affect reactivity or the potential for criticality. This change does not affect the objective of safe handling of spent fuel casks.
4 Therefore, the appropriate controls required by the TS will remain.
The NRC staff finds this change acceptable.
4 9309090298 930903 PDR ADOCK 05000271 l
P PDR 1
l
j d-k The proposed exclusion of "the replacement of neutron detectors" from the j
definition of core alterations expands upon the existing " normal movement...
of neutron detectors." The neutron detectors do' not significantly affect core reactivity or the potential 'for criticality and do not affect the safe handling of spent fuel casks. The TS Bases for Section 3.12.8 state that:
j
" requiring two operable SRMs [ source range monitors] in or adjacent to any l
core quadrant where fuel or control rods are being moved assures. adequate j
monitoring of that quadrant during such alterations." With respect to core monitoring for reactivity changes or approach to criticality, TS 3.3.B.5 and.
TS 3.12.B retain requirements for the operability of SRMs during the movement of control rods for startup or refueling and during core alterations, respectively.
These existing TS requirements assure that these operations will not occur during replacement of SRM detectors in the affected regions of the core.
For these reasons, the NRC staff finds the proposed change acceptable.
f
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Vermont State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official i
had no coments.
j
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in-10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC' staff has determined that the amendment involves no i
significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no.
J significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation i
exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding-(58 FR 41517). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR SI.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of i
the amendment.
l
5.0 CONCLUSION
I The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above,
)
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the J
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such--
j activities will be conducted in compliance with the _ Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
)
Principal Contributor: D.-Dorman Date:
September 3, 1993
.