ML20148J333

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 39 to License DPR-3

ML20148J333
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	06/03/1977
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20148J306	List: ML20148J301 ML20148J319 ML20148J333 ML20148J344
References
NUDOCS 8011210686
Download: ML20148J333 (3)

Text

- .. _ . .. .

m . ,_ : a

. .a .._ y ., . . . . - .. - -:_ . ~...--- - - - - - - - .

' ' ' ' " 8 '"

UNITED STATES y g s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%f+b.

,].

• SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 39 T0' FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 '

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY'

.Y_ANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (YANKEE-ROWE)

. 00CKET NO. 50-29 Introduction By applications dated March 2 and May 20, 1977, Yankee Atomic Electric Company' (the . licensee) .propo' sed changes to the Appendix A Technical ,

Specifications appended to License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee-Rowe reactor. The proposed. changes relate to modifying the Technical '

Specifications authorized by Amendment No. 33 dated December 29, 1976.

Amendment No. 33 authorized the licensee to expand the storage capacity-of the Yankee-Rowe spent fuel storage pool and amended the Technical Specifications accordingly.

s Discussion Amendment No. 33 authorized a revision to the Yankee-Rowe Technical Specifications relating to spent fuel storage and movement of equipmen't over the. spent fuel pool. The March 2, 1977 Yankee-Rowe proposal is to clarify the Technical Specification relating to the criticality of the stored (new and old) fuel. Our review of the material submitted by the licensee in support of Amendment No. 33 considered the licensee's confomance with our acceptance criterion to maintain ~ the effective multiplication factor (keff) equal to or less than 0.95. Our detailed evaluation of that review has been presented in the Safety Evaluation supporting Amendment No. 33 dated December 29, 1976.

The May 20, 1977, application relates to allowing additional equipment . ,

to be' moved over the spent fuel pool. The December 29, 1976 amendment '

allowed only certain specific equipment to be moved over the spent fuel pool and restricted passage over the spent fuel pool for any other equipment weighing greater than 900 pounds. -

,,w... - - - - , ,-v-- ,e. ------..-.r

.l1

. . .- L-I i

Evaluation Section 5 of the Yankee-Rowe Technical Specifications, Design Features, currently addresses new and spent fuel storage criticality, but in the context of referencing the FHSR. The Yankee-Rowe proposal is to delete the reference and provide information relating to the limitations imposed by our criteria.

We discussed these changes with the licensee and recommended that the current requirements be maintained without adding any further descriptive infor-mation but deleting the specific FHSR reference. The licensee has agreed with this change.

Based on our review of this change, we find that it is administrative in nature and clearly reflects the criteria on which the original evaluation was based. We conclude that this proposal as changed in our 4 discussions with the lipensee, does not alter the findings made in our previous evaluation and is therefore acceptable. '

Amendment No. 33 imposed a weight limitation on equipment moved over the spent fuel pool. The intent of this restriction is to prevent heavy objects from being moved over spent fuel until such time that the licensee provides an acceptable analysis of the consequences of dropping a large piece of equipment or container (e.g., spent fuel cask) on the spent fuel. An exception to this restriction was allowed in Amendment No. 33 for certain. equipment provided written administrative controls are exercised to restrict that equipment from movement over the spent fuel itself. On May 20,1977, the licensee requested that sc e additional equipment (the fuel inspection stand and fuel handling equipment) be similarly permitted to be moved over or into the spent fuel pool. This equipment which is essential during refueling operations, was not considered during the previous evaluation. The licensee has stated that this equipment will only be used in, or transported over, that portion of the spent fuel pool not containing spent fuel and that written administrative procedures will be used to ensure that no objects will be moved over spent fuel.

The additional equipment for which the exception is requested, weighs less than that which was previously excepted,' will be used during refueling operations only, and will be restricted to that portion of the spent fuel pool which contains no spent fuel. On this basis, we conclude that I the proposed change to the Yankee-Rewe Technical Specifications which l permits use of the fuel handling equipment and the fuel inspection stand ,

over or in the spent fuel pool in an area void of spent fuel is acceptable, provided that the written administrative controls and procedures to be applied are consistent with those previously employed to restrict the movement of the spent fuel racks and the spent fuel pool roof hatches.

________.i.______ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ - _ =

1 l

We have discussed this change with the licensee and recommended a change to the format of the requested amendment to be consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications. The licensee has agreed with this change.

l Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not a'uthorize a change in I effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and wili not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made .i this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involved an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental 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 proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Cocmission'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 3,1977 l

. .