ML20148J635
| ML20148J635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148J469 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801270453 | |
| Download: ML20148J635 (3) | |
Text
_
y sto,
u
! Njip g[k UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
Jjj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- t. 4a/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGl'LATION SUPPORTING AMEND 4ENT NO 103 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 24, 1986, with modifications and clarifications submitted May 13, 1986, June 9, 1986, January 16, 1987, and February 2, 1987, the Vernont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee, the licensee) requested changes to the Vermont Yankee Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) as incorporated in Facility Operating License DPR-28.
2.0 EVALUATION License Arendment No. 83 to Facility Operatino Licensd DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station was issued October 0, 1984 The amendment authorized the incorporation of the RETS into tha Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications (TS).
The RETS were implemented by Vermont Yankee on April 1, 1985.
The proposed changes are consistent with NUREG-0473, "Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for BWRs", Revision P, February 1, 1980 (model RETS) and would:
- 1) modify tabular notations for noble gas activity monitors on the auamented offaas systen and plant stack to reflect current plant configuration; 2) modify tabular entries for the radiological environmental monitorino orogram to decument more 1
clearly the required locations for radiciodine and particulate samoling;
- 3) modify definitions and bases entries to reflect current interpretation l
of staff guidance; and 4) add a CO-60 reporting level for sediment samples which are presently reouired to be taken but have no reporting level.
During review of the implemented RETS the licensee found that the TS did gk not define the actions to be taken if the plant stack noble gas activity mM monitor became unavailable, as Table 3.9.1 requires.
The pertinent table mo notation currently listed for both the augmented offoas (A0G) systen ard px the plant stack reflects only the action to be taken for the noble gas h]
monitor on the A0G system.
The proper action to be taken for the noble i
gas monitor on the plant stack was inadvertently omitted and.the licensee N
requested that it be reinserted in the table as a separate note.
This Em note prescribes what the licensee must do if the plant stack noble gas activity monitor becomes unavailable, and binds the licensee to an i
obligation that the TS does not currently include.
Inasmuch as the proposed notation for the plant stack monitor follows the guidance of the model RETS, this change is acceptable.
-I
-q.
The second change requested involves clarification of the sample location commitments made by the licensee for radiciodine and particulate sampling.
The original Vermont Yankee RETS uses the ceneric modei RETS wording to define the radiciodine and particulate samoling locations.
The Varmont Yankee site's terrain, hcwever, renders these model RETS ambicuous. Given the Vernont Yankee RETS' ambicuity, it is not possible to deternire whether the current Verront Yankee sampling locations, which the licensee has used for a number of years, satisfy the generic ccmnitments of the TS.
The licensee's submittal substitutes more specific 1arguage for the generic descriptions in the present TS.
In its criainal evaluation of the RETS, the staff deened the current sampling stations to meet the intent of the model RETS.
Since the requested chance is strictly.
a natter of clarification of the ceneric wording by making it more specific, the revised wording is acceptable.
The third part of the licensee's request involves cicrical changes, i
Two definitions included in the approved RETS amendrent are cutside the scope of the RETS and are being deleted.
In addition, a typographical error is being corrected in the Basis Section.
These clerical changes are acceptable.
In addition, by letter dated January 6,1987, the licensee proposed a reporting recu Nerent for a given activity of Co-60 measured in sedicent samples taken from the north storm drain outfall.
Previously, the Technical Spe :ifications contained no such reporting recuirerent so this chance represents an enhancement to the radiological environmental monitoring procram.
The staff considers the proposed reporting level acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The regulations provide for a categorical exclusion from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment for amendments to licenses or permits pursuant to part 50 that change surveillance requirements if the amendrents involve no significant hazards considerations, do not significantly change the types or amounts of any effluents released offsite, and do not significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational radiaticn exposure ( 10 C.F.R. @ 51.?2(c)(9)).
The regulations define another categorical exclusion from the recuirement to do an environmental assessment for amendments to licenses or permits pursuant to part 50 that change recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or recuirements (10 C.F.R. ? 51.22(c)(10)).
All the chances in the instant amendment fall under one or both of these categorical exclusions because the changes involve surveillance, reporting, or administrative requirements.
Further, this amendment imposes new TS recuirements and makes administrative chances to the TS.
Prior to this acendment the T.S. would have permitted, but not required, operation in accordance with this atendment, therefore, the staff has deternired that the amandment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that the amendrent will not cause any significant increase in irdividual or curulative occupationel radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant bazards consideration and has not received any public comment on that finding. Accordinoly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environrental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the anendment.
4.0 CO.':CL US IO?i IIe have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety cf the public will not be endancered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comnission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendrant will r.ot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
W. Meinke and V. Rooney Dated:
January 20, 1988