ML20102B060

Provides Results of NSHC Package Re Administrative Controls.License Will Be Amended to Delete Condition to Perform Emergency Exercises,As Condition Already Contained in 10CFR50,App E

ML20102B060
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	10/31/1983
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	Lainas G NRC
Shared Package
ML20102A920	List: ML20102A922 ML20102A925 ML20102A929 ML20102A931 ML20102A933 ML20102A934 ML20102A937 ML20102A939 ML20102A942 ML20102A944 ML20102A946 ML20102A948 ML20102A959 ML20102A961 ML20102A969 ML20102A974 ML20102A981 ML20102A984 ML20102A999 ML20102B001 ML20102B008 ML20102B010 ML20102B032 ML20102B045 ML20102B058 ML20102B060 ML20102B063 ML20102B068 ML20102B080 ML20102B085 ML20102B106 ML20102B112 ML20102B114 ML20102B120 ML20102B122 ML20102B125 ML20102B127 ML20102B139 ML20102B142 ML20102B147 ML20102B156 ML20102B159 ML20102B167 ML20102B177 ML20102B185 ML20102B194 ML20102B196 ML20102B200 ML20102B206 ML20102B211 ... further results
References
FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090061
Download: ML20102B060 (1)

Text

.

October 31, 1983

. Note to Gus Lainas

~

SUBJECT:

VERMONT YANKEE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (0 ELD #838771)

The package.is perfectly okay Gus, but it raises a policy problem. We are amending Vennont Yankee's specs at its request to delete from the license a condition to perfonn the emergency exercises because that's already contained in the Regulation, 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.

Its a perfectly acceptable reason C

for deleting the tech specs; I know of nothing in the tech specs to add any-thing to the Regulation so its okay with me; however, you have a policy problem. The policy problem results from the fact that you have lots of other amendments coming through, I see them every week, in which specifications are amended calling for the emergency planning exercise so we have lots of other places where we have specs requiring them to do something that the Regulation requires them to do.

I have another example of it before me today.

Its a Browns Ferry amendment in which.we are amending the tech specs to include the L-requirements for a meeting on the safeguards contingency plan as required by the Regulation.

If its okay to delete redundant requirements covered by the the Regulation from Vermont Yankeee's tech specs,'then its should be okay for everybody. ' You have to decide what you want.to do on this problem..

9 oe Scinto 3.

t' Mk209fj61e40528 ADAToe4-166 pog 57

~~.c..=

= m. =.- x n :-

==

., =,

=: ~ -

m

~

^

n

- (

c October 31, 1983 Note to Dick Clark

SUBJECT:

BROWNS FERRY 1 MINIMUM LEVEL OF WATER IN SPENT FUEL P0OL (0 ELD # 838 741)

C You need to do some more work on this package. You seem to be treating the occupational exposure issue as a non-safety issue. That's not correct. _It is a safety issue.

It may not be an offsite consequences issue but it is a safety issue and the potential for causing an over exposure to a working individual is'an accident. So, you have to address the standards in that light.. Basically, why don't you indicate what the dose changes would be from 66'- Si' of-water.

I can't see any other affect and if those changes are significant and you may not want to give these guys the grant. What is the change in the exposure levels resulting from the change in the water level? In the absence of that, you can't tell what your argument is.

Discuss what the change is.and if its small, that a good description of why its insignificant.

If its not small, you have tc think about this package again.

I oe Scinto Yh nf2 1 hu v^<n gy c -,

.. :. = = _.,.

.:. = =. =.:= n = = = = =;+..a =

.