ML20199D541

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 96 to License DPR-3

ML20199D541
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	06/09/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20199D531	List: ML20199D525 ML20199D534 ML20199D541
References
NUDOCS 8606200375
Download: ML20199D541 (2)

Text

__

[ o g UNITED STATES

,,[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

5 ;y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.....,/ 1 1

1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 96 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO.50-029

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated January 8, 1986, the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) submitted a request for changes to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TS).

The amendment modifies the TS to replace a listed manual containment isolation valve with a blank flange.

2.0 EVALUATION By letter dated January 8, 1986, the licensee proposed a change to Table 3.6-1 (Containment Barriers) of the Technical Specifications to reflect the use of a blank flange in the fuel chute dewatering pump discharge system in place of a manual valve as the containment isolation barrier.

The blank flange will be equipped with a testable, double 0-ring seal and will be subject to the Type B local leak rate testing requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. The impetus for the licensee to add a blank flange inboard of the current manual containment isolation valve is to provide a more reliable isolation barrier, from the standpoint of leak tightness.

A testable blind flange is an acceptable substitute for a valve as a containment isolation barrier, as prescribed in Standard Review Plan section 6.2.4 (Containment Isolation System) of NUREG-0800. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed change to Table 3.6-1 of the Technical Specifications to be acceptable.

Sh08029 PDR

. . .*, l

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signifi-cant 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 issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the elig)ibility CFR 51.22(c)(9 . criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 Pursuant to 10 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; andsuch (2) public activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conmission'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.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor: Chang-Yang Li Dated: June 9, 1986 l

_ . . _ -_- _