ML20140B555

Responds to Request for Clarification of 850930 Proposed Change 189 to License DPR-3.Changes to Environ Monitoring & Radiological Effluent Tech Specs Involve NSHC

ML20140B555
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	01/20/1986
From:	Papanic G YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FYR-86-006, FYR-86-6, NUDOCS 8601270042
Download: ML20140B555 (2)

Text

ks Telephons (617) 8778100 L

TWX 7163807619 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY 2.C.2.1

• ~

[* FYR-86-006

. Y*b 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 YANKEE .

January 20, 1986 United Status Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, iC 20555 Attention: Mr. George Lear, Director PWR Project Directorate #1 Division PWR Licensing - A

References:

(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)

(b) YAEC Letter to USNRC, dated September 30, 1985

Subject:

Additional Information for Yankee Proposed Change 189

Dear Sir:

Yankee submitted Proposed Change 189, Reference (b), to modify the Technical Specifications of License No. DPR-3. Mr. J. Clifford, of the USNRC, requested during a phone conversation that Yankee clarify several areas of the proposed change. The following is in response to this request:

A. For the changes in Table 3.12-1, Item 3.a, the separate I-131 analysis required under " Type and Frequency of Analysis," is requested to be deleted. This specific analysis is not specified by NRC guidance unless surface waters that are being sampled are associated with a drinking water pathway. The receiving water pathway associated with the requested change is the Deerfield River. The Deerfield River below the plant site traces its way through rural sections of Franklin and Berkshire Counties down to the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts. Discussions with the water cupply section of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) confirm that no use for drinking water purposes are made of either the Deerfield or Connecticut Rivers in Massachusetta. Drinking water supplies in these areas are taken from either wells or reservoir sources. Since the Deerfield River is not utilized for drinking water systems, this specific analysis for I-131 is not necessary. This modification is l consistent with the NRC's model RETS (NUREG-0472, Rev. 3) and the j Staff's Branch Technical position on environmental monitoring, and j will allow a reduction in the laboratory analyses whfch are presently required.

h

• UN

1 4

\

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Janue.ry 20, 1986 Attention: Mr. George Lear, Director- Page 2 l

! This change has been evaluated and determined to involve a no significant hazards consideration. This proposed change effects the analysis performed on periodic environmental: monitoring samples only-

j. dnd does not impact assumptions or methods used for accident analyses nor does it effect post-accident environmental- sampling.

The proposed change therefore does not:

'1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated; or i 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident l from any accident previously evaluated; or j' 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

B. For the changes in Technical Specifications 6.5.2.9.k and 6.8.1.d it

' is our present understanding of the NRC's guidance on radiological effluent technical specifications as it relates to audits of quality assurance activities, not to require audits of the plant's Quality Assurance Program for the inclusion of the provisions of Regulatory Guidea 1.21 and 4.1, but to audit the performance of activities effecting. quality as required by plant procedures which implement effluent and environmental monitoring requirements.

This change has been evaluated and determined to-involve a no significant hazard consideration. This proposed change only clarifies the intent of the required audits and does not impact I

assumptions or methods used for accident analyses. The proposed change therefore does not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated; or J 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of= safety.

We trust that you will find this additional information satisfactory; however, should you have any questions regarding this matter, 'please contact -

us.

I 4 Very truly yours,

. YANKEE ATOMIC ELECT C COMPANY

, l

~

A.u-George panic, ~Jr.

Senior Project' Engineer - Licensing i Yankee Project J

GP/ba f

r -g=-= -g+e y v w y w t-* ie--,-- . ,a p ,w, --e-w,,.,y-y y -w r ---y eg, - , -W-- + -----v--- vr e + w y-*.