ML20202H587

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 150 to License DPR-3

ML20202H587
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	02/03/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202H578	List: ML20202H574 ML20202H581 ML20202H587
References
NUDOCS 9902080129
Download: ML20202H587 (2)

Text

. . . . . . -

)

l-gtg% '

j?1 4* UNITED STATES E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 ,

,  %,- p'

• * * *

• SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.150 TO POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE NO. DPR-3 YANKEE A'OMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY I YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (ROWE)

DOCKET NO.50-029

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated August 20,1998, the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or licensee) i proposed to amend the facility Possession Only License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS or plant) through three changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) '

by deletion of the definition in TS 1.10 SITE BOUNDARY, deletion of TS 5.1 EXCLUSION AREA, and by moving the Site Boundary and Plant Exclusion Area map, TS Figure 5.1-1, from the TS to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The map would be replaced in the TS with a textual description of the site.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The reactor was first made criticalin 1960, began commercial operation in 1961, and operated until permanent shut down on October 1,1991. The nuclear steam supply system was a four-loop pressurized-water reactor designed by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. A Possession Only License was issued on August 5,1992. On December 20,1993, YAEC submitted a Decommissioning Plan (Plan) and requested NRC approval of the Plan. In an NRC Order dated February 14,1995, and subsequently by letter dated October 28,1996, the Plan was approved. The Plan permitted YAEC to decontaminate and dismantle the structures and components at the site.

Decommissioning activities have been proceeding under the approved Plan. As of fall 1998, most systems not required to support the storage of spent fuel have been dismantled and removed. The Spent Fuel Pool and other support systems asscciated with fuel storage have been electrically and mechanically isolated from all other remaining plant systems so that spent fuel will not be adversely impacted by future site activities.

3.0 EVALUATION The NRC has encouraged licensees to remove unnecessary and obsolete material from the facility TS. A removal proposed by YAEC is the TS definition 1.10 SITE BOUNDARY in the plant TS, which is both obsolete end redundant. The " residential quarters" it j references no longer exists and the SITE BOUNDARY definition is preempted by that in 10 CFR Part 20. As this definition appears in 10 CFR Part 20, the staff did not include it in its " Proposed Standard TS for Permanently Defueled Westinghouse Plants,"

l, NUREG-1625. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that deletion of this definition from Section 1.0 of the facility TS is appropriate and acceptable.

9902080129 990203 PDR ADOCK 05000029 P PDR ,

r .

l The licensee also proposed: (a) replacing the "YNPS Site Boundary and Plant Exclusion Arec" map in Figure 5.1-1 of the facility TS with a textual description of the site, (b) l deletion of TS 5.1.1 EXCLUSION AREA and (c) inclusion of the map in the FSAR. For Item (a), the licensee is following the guidance of NUREG-1625 by replacing the map with i a textual site description in a new TS 5.1 SITE LOCATION. Item (b) is a logical extension of item (a) as the only function of TS 5.1.1 was to reference the map in Figure 5.1-1; therefore, removal of the map makes TS 5.1.1 unnecessary. For item (c), the licensee chose to include the map in the FSAR, an acceptable alternative. Any changes made to the FSAR, subsequent to this license amendment, will be performed under 10 CFR 50.59 and 50.36(c)(2)(D)(iii)(6). Such changes are subject to inspection by the NRC staff.

Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that these changes to Section 5.1 of the TS are acceptable.

4.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts state liaison official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

1

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

l Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21,51.32 and 51.36, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the FederalRegister on February 3,1999 (64 FR l 5320).

Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such 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: Morton B. Fairtile Dated: February 3,1999