ML20213D967
| ML20213D967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213D919 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-43, GL-85-19, NUDOCS 8705140421 | |
| Download: ML20213D967 (3) | |
Text
r s
o pR Rion
,(
[o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y yi w g
/
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,/
t SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PEGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO.50-029
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NRC Generic letter No. 83-43, dated December 19, 1983, discussed revisions to notification and reporting requirements in 10 CFR Part 50.72 and Part 50.73 and requested licensees to revise technical specifications to be consistent with the new requirements. NRC Generic Letter No.
85-19, dated September 27, 1985 notified licensees that they could propose to revise technical specifications on reporting requirements for primary Atomic Electric Company (y letter dated February 5,1986, the YankeeYAEC) s coolant iodine spikes. B Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TS) in response to these generic letters.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The proposed revisions include changing the definition of " reportable occurrence" to that of " reportable event " deleting unnecessary and confifeting references to reporting requirements in the limiting conditions for operations and surveillance requirements sections, and revising the administrative controls section to reference 10 CFR Part 50.73 and to delete the previous reporting requirements, now unnecessary or conflicting.
The proposed revisions also incorporate staff-recomended reporting requirements for primary coolant iodine spikes; that is, as part of the annual report rather than as a licensee event report.
The changes requested by the licensee were responsive to the intent of the i
generic letters. However, during the course of the staff's review of the oroposed changes, the need for revisions to some of the TS was identified 1
Notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors)(! mediate for internal consistency and for consistency with 10 CFR 50.72 Theseadditionalchanges(seebelow)areconsideredtobeencompassed within the scope of the notice of consideration published in the Federal Register on March 12,1986 (51 FR 8604) as they do not relieve any existing requirements of the TS or impose new requirements for reporting not already required by the TS or by 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73.
0700140421 070507 PDR ADOCK 05000029 p
r
. In addition to the TS pages requested by the licensee, where the ohrase "in lieu of a Licensee Event Report" would be deleted, the Technical Specifications regarding fire protection systems would also be modified by deletion of the phrase "in lieu of any other report required by Specification 6.9."
With deletion of TS Section 6.9.4 and inclusion of TS Section 6.6, which incoroorates the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73, this phrase no longer has any meaning.
In a few other cases, the staff detennined that the licensee's proposal to delete certain reporting requirements specified in the TS was not appropriate as these requirements may not be fully covered by 10 CFR 50.73.
In these instances, rewording of the existing soecification was done to reference Speci-fication 6.9.6 (Special Reports) instead of Specification 6.9.4 (Reportable Occurrence).
In the case of steam generator inspection results that fall into Category C-3, a clarification was made to the existing report requirement that the report is considered to be required by 10 CFR 50.72, rather than a special report, since the present requirement is for a report prior to resumption of power operation and since such results would constitute serious degradation of a principal safety barrier.
The intent of these additional wording changes is to clarify the relationship between the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 and those called for by the TS.
In those instances where both would appear to apply, clari-fication is provided that a separate "special report" is not necessary when notification has already been made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 or 50.73.
In addition, some minor changes were made regarding recipients of required reports for consistency with revised 10 CFR 50.4, which become effective January 5, 1987 (51 FR 40303, November 6, 1986). These changes were in TS 6.9, 6.9.3 and 6.9.6.
As noted in the supplementary information supporting the final rule, the Conmission authorized pen-and-ink changes to remove conflicting requirements and did not require formal applications for amendment of license to incorporate these changes. However, since the reporting requirements TS already were being revised by staff action on the licensee's February 5,1986 application, the necessary TS changes were included by the staff on the appropriate pages. These changes make the TS consistent with the Commission's regulations. All of the above changes to the TS were discussed with and agreed to by representatives of YAEC.
The proposed revisions are administrative in nature since they only revise the reporting requirements for reportable events and special reports. The revisions do not involve physical changes in plant safety related systems, components, or structures. The revisions will not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, will not increase the conse-quences of an accident previously analyzed, nor create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Based on the above, the staff finds the proposed reporting requirement revisions, ds revised, Acceptable.
a w
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. The staff hss 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 curaulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission 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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)
(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement 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 public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defe.nse and security or to the health and, safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor:
D. Haverkamp, Region I.
Dated: MAY 071937 6
l