ML20058C406
| ML20058C406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058C392 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011010218 | |
| Download: ML20058C406 (2) | |
Text
.
' ['"4 b
- UNITED STATES $
c NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WASW NG TON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUAT10H BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDitENT NO.137 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTP.1C COMPAt!Y YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO.50-029
_lHTR000CT10N By letter dated June'4, 1990, the Yankee Atomic Electric Company-(YAEC or the lictnsee)-requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee !!uclear Power Station (YNPS or the plant).
The proposed -
amendment would modify page 3/41-27, Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4.a. to delete reference to control rod Group A as a contro1' group and change the term
" regulating group" to " control group" for consistency with the wording provided in Technical Specification 3.1.3.5.
EVALUATION Presently, reference is made in Technical Specification section'4.1.3.4.a to
" regulating Groups C and A."
Technical Specification 3.1.3;5 allows only control rod Group C to be used as a control group.
Control rod Group A is used only as a shutdown group. Therefore, in order to provide consistency of both practice and wording, this proposed change is being requested.
This proposed change is strictly administrative and, as'such, will'not change current operating practices or compromise operating safety margins. The basis for this change is to provide clear and consistent delineation between control and shutdown groups.
EllVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERAT10tl This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined-in 10 CFR Part 20 and~
changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no 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 significant increase in individual.or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenvironmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
1 9011010218 901022 PDR ADOCK 0500 9
P s
i I
2-CONCLUSION i
The Cornission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves-no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal j
Register (55FR36607)onSeptember 19, 1990.
No public comments were l
received and the State of Massachusetts did not have any comments, 1
i The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, i
that:
(1) there is, reasonable essurance t!.at the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, j
and (2) such ectivities will be conducted in compliance with the tcmmission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Patrick Sears Dated: October 22', 1990
+
l
-k
__