ML20216B830
| ML20216B830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1987 |
| From: | Randazza J Maine Yankee |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216B837 | List: |
| References | |
| 8479L-SDE, MN-87-74, NUDOCS 8706300162 | |
| Download: ML20216B830 (3) | |
Text
1 i
j o
l O
AUGUSTA A NE 04336 h
(207) 623-3521 e
June 23, 1987 MN-87-74 Proposed Change No. 131 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:
Document Control Desk Hashington, D. C.
20555
References:
(a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309) j (b) USNRC Letter to MYAPCo. dated December 31, 1985. Amendment l
No. 86 and Safety Evaluation.
(c) Proposed Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors, February 6, 1987
)
[52 FR 378]
Subject:
Proposed Change 131:
Gentlemen:
l Based on our telecon of February 13, 1987, it is our understanding that members of your staff require the Maine Yankee Technical Specifications to include a specific requirement to process radioactive wastes for shipment to j
disposal facilities in accordance with Maine Yankee's Process Control Program (PCP). The PCP is defined in the Maine Yankee Technical Specifications as follows:
The PCP contains the current sampling and analysis methods to be used to ensure that radioactive waste from liquid systems are properly prepared for shipment to disposal facilities in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations.
Dry active waste such as compacted trash and contaminated components are not included in the scope of the PCP.
j In issuing Amendment No. 86, Reference (b), the NRC found Maine Yankee's proposed changes to "... fulfill all the requirements of the regulations related to radiological effluent technical specifications".
However, we agreed to submit the proposed technical specification change i
contained in Attachment A in order. that the staff be provided additional i
assurance that Maine Yankee's radioactive waste is processed for shipment in conformance-with existing, reviewed / approved plant procedures. He understand that the staff has determined that this proposed change is consistent with the Commission's recent policy statement on technical specification improvements (Reference (c)).
\\
8706300162 870623 goa 6eocs oeo m e As S w mam o
i
e M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two Attention:
Document Control Desk MN-87-74 A description of the proposed change and the significant hazards evaluation is included in Attachment A.
A revised Technical Specification page 5.8-1 is included (Attachment B).
This proposed change has been reviewed by the Plant Operation Review Committee and the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee.
The Plant Operations Review Committee has concluded that the proposed Technical Specification changes do not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
. A State of Maine representative is being sent a copy of this proposed change.
A license amendment application fee'of $150.00 is enclosed per 10 CFR 50.71.
Very truly yours, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY John B. Randazza Executive Vice President JBR/hbg Attachment cc: Mr. Victor Nerses Mr. William T. Russell Mr. Cornelius F. Holden Mr. Pat Sears Mr. Clough Toppan STATE OF MAINE Then personally appeared before me, John B. Randazza, who being duly sworn did state that he is Executive Vice President of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing request in the name and on behalf of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
\\m A
s jNo'faryPublic "nTrEfyNefic.N wi Wi4#,i5SiON EXPIRES APRIL 21,1994 8479L-SDE
l MAINE Y ANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY l
ATTACHMENT A Descriotion of Proposed Change The proposed change requires written administrative controls for the implementation of the Process Control Program (PCP).
Sianificant Hazards Evaluation The proposed change to require procedures for PCP implementation has been I
evaluated against the standards of 10CFR50.92 and it has been determined to not involve a significant hazards consideration.
This change does not:
1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change is strictly administrative in nature, and simply formally requires in the Technical Specifications the implementation of existing procedures.
]
2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change is strictly administrative in nature, and simply formally requires in the Technical Specifications the implementation of existing procedures.
3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change is strictly administrative in nature.
It does not reduce the margin of safety.
Maine Yankee has concluded that the proposed change to the Technical Specifications does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
1 8479L-SDE I