ML20205H146
| ML20205H146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205H145 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608190733 | |
| Download: ML20205H146 (3) | |
Text
.n utu
~
'o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION DOCKET N0. 50-271
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NRC Generic Letter 83-43, dated December 19, 1983, discussed revisions to notification and reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and Part 50.73 and suggested that licensees revise technical specifications to be consistent with the new requirements. By letter dated March 4, 1985, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station to accomplish these revisions. Also, the requested amendment involves changes to reduce the amount of information presently provided in Monthly Operating Reports, to clarify the bases of Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) requirements, and to correct editorial errors associated with Amendment 83 Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications, i
2.0 EVALUATION i
The present event reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 render the reporting requirements of the Technical Specifications either unnecessary or conflicting. The proposed changes revise the definition and administrative control sections to eliminate these inconsistencies with 10 CFR 50.73. Based on telephone clarification, the licensee proposes to retain the term " reportable occurrence" instead of changing to " reportable event" as suggested in Generic Letter 83-43 to prevent numerous, needless changes to plant procedures. Other Technical Specifications were changed to be consistent with this definition. The reporting changes, which meet the intent of Generic Letter 83-43, are acceptable.
l The proposed amendment revises the administrative requirements for the Monthly Operating Report to rename it the Monthly Statistical Report and to delete the reporting of major safety-related maintenance activities.
The reporting of safety related maintenance activities facilitates staff scrutiny of these activities, thereby providing a second independent determination that pertinent safety issues are considered. The safety valve of this process exists if the activities are not only reported, but also if the report is reviewed by the staff.
It is possible that deleting the requirement for monthly reporting of safety-related maintenance activities may result in some increase in the probability or 8608190733 860811 DR ADOCK 0500 1
consequence of an accident. We have considered the frequency with which independent staff review occurs for safety related maintenance activities which have been reported, and also the frequency with which previously unidentified safety issues are identified by the staff. Based on this we have determined that staff review of these reports is not an effective use of resources.
Because the reports would not be reviewed by the staff, we conclude that there would be no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident that would result from removing the reporting requirements.
The deletion of maintenance reporting is based on the lack of any regulatory requirement and the alternative means of maintenance infonnation reporting, e.g., Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and Licensee Event Reports (LERs). The revision of the Monthly,
Operating Report is acceptable.
The proposed change to the MCPR bases is to clarify the relationship between the MCPR operating limits and the Core Performance Analyses Report. The clarification of the MCPR bases is acceptable.
Paragraph 4.8.D.1 was issued by ^mendment 83 as part of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS), but the word "or" was inadvertently added to the sampling frequency for liquid holdup tanks.
Based on telephone discussions the licensee agreed to revise the frequency requirement to clearly specify the intended frequency, i.e.,
within one week following additions to the tanks and one sample able to cover multiple additions. The editorial change to liquid holdup tank sampling frequency is acceptable.
We have evaluated the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and conclude that these changes are administrative and do not involve any physical change to, the plant's safety-related structures, systems or components.
Further, these changes do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, or increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed or create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated. Therefore, we find the licensee's requested changes to be ' acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment involves only changes in administrative procedures and requi rements. Accordingly, this arendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 o
of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have 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 defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
G. Meyer Dated: August 11, 1986 1
.. _. ~.,.
_