ML20126H621

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 135 to License DPR-36

ML20126H621
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	12/29/1992
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20126H592	List: ML20126H587 ML20126H607 ML20126H621
References
NUDOCS 9301050270
Download: ML20126H621 (2)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ . -

1

(

/j$ '%% UNITED STATES E\

n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,i WASHINGTON, D C 20SM

.F s% . . . . . *"

1AJETY EVALVATION BY THE OfflCE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELAIED TO AMENDMENT NO.135 TO FAClllTY OPERATING LICLt(1L110uDPFh36 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY MillLJANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION DOCKET NO. EQ_1Q2 1.0 JNTRODUCTION By letter dated August 31, 1992, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (the licensee), submitted a request to change the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Technical Specifications (TS). The requested change would make two corrections to the core operating limits presented in Technical Specification 5.14.1. Specifically, item 5.14.1.c is deleted and item 5.14.1.1 is changed to specify that the excore symmetric offset limits apply with the incore monitors operable.

A previous amendment to the Technical Specifications (Amendment No. 124, dated November 18, 1991) created the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) and defined the list of cycle-specific parameters to be included therein. The list of cycle-specific parameters became Technical Specification 5.14.1, and is the subject of this amendment.

2.0 EVALVATION Technical Specification 5.14.1 includes a limit on fuel centerline melting, which is not cycle-specific. Removing fuel centerline melting from the list.

of cycle-specific parameters presented in Technical Specification 5.14.1 is an administrative change. Technical Specification 2.2.B presents the fuel centerline melting temperature Safety Limit, and continues to be used in evaluating accident probabilities and consequences. We therefore conclude that this proposed change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

As currently presented in Technical Specification 5.14.1.1, the circumstances under which excore symmetric offset limits apply is incorrect. The subject excore symmetric offset limits apply with the incore monitors operable. This correction is an administrative change and does not impact accident evaluations previously considered. The presentation of excore symmetric offset limits in the Core Operating Limits Report and Technical Specification 3.10.c.2 is correct. This administrative change to Technical Specification 5.14.1.1 modifies neither the definition nor use of excore symmetric offset limits. We therefore conclude that this proposed change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

9301050270 921229 1 PDR ADOCK 05000309 '

p PDR

4 l

i l

These proposed administrative changes do not involve physical alterations to the plant configuration, changes to setpoint values, or changes to the ,

application of setpoints and limits. The existing accident basis remains and conservatively bounds plant operation. We therefore conclude that neither of these proposed changes creates the possibility of a new or different kind of-accident from any previously evaluated.

These proposed changes do not modify the existing safety analysis methodologies, the resulting Safety Limits, or the _ setpoints used for plant operation. Further, the acceptance criteria associated with the safety analysis supporting the current operating cycle We therefore conclude that these proposed changes (Cycle do not 13)any involve are not changed.

reductions in a margin of safety.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Maine State offical was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no coments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The Nic staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant incres ]e 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 issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public c ment on such finding (57 FR 55582). Accordingly, the-amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSIDH The Comission 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 Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon.

defense and security or to the health and' safety of the public. ~

Principal Contributors:- A. Yang E. Trottier Date: December 29, 1992

..,_m- -.s . ,,. - -