ML20210S179

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 99 to License DPR-3

ML20210S179
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	09/23/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20210S171	List: ML20210S167 ML20210S174 ML20210S179
References
NUDOCS 8610080030
Download: ML20210S179 (3)

Text

-

p Kf Gg

+ g UNITED STATES

' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

& j

% f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 99 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO.50-029

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated September 30, 1985 the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) submitted a request for changes to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TS). Supporting information was provided in a letter dated January 20, 1986. On August 22, 1986, YAEC withdrew one of the proposed changes.

The amendment modifies portions of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications to make them consistent with current NRC guidance for environmental monitoring.

2.0 EVALUATION On February 16, 1983, the staff issued Amendment No. 80 to the Facility Operating License (DPR-3) for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. This amendment incorporated the Radiciogical Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) into the Yankee operating license.

The licensee's September 30, 1985 application would modify portions of the licensee's RETS. These changes occur on pages 3/4 12-1, 3/4 12-3, 6-12 and 6-13 of the licensee's present TS. The proposed change for page 6-13 was withdrawn by the licensee by letter dated August 22, 1986. The remaining changes tequested by the licensee are discussed below.

Technical Specification (TS) 3.12.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring-Monitoring Frogram The proposed change would substitute a reference to Table 3.12-2 for an existing reference to Table 6.9-1 in TS 3.12.lb (page 3/4 12-1). This change corrects a typographical error (there is no Table 6.9-1) and makes this TS self-consistent. Therefore the staff finds this administrative change acceptable.

8610080030 860923 9 PDR ADOCK 0500 P

1 .

Technical Specification Table 3.12-1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program The proposed change would remove the requirement to perform I-131 analysis of surface waters. The change would reduce the amount of laboratory analysis to be performed.

Present NRC guidance for RETS requires this type of analysis only for water sources that are used for drinking water. The Deerfield River, which is the point of liquid effluent discharge for Yankee, is not used for drinking water. The staff concludes that this change will make the Yankee TS consistent with NRC requirements in this area and the proposed change is, therefore, acceptable.

Technical Specification 6.5.2.9 Audits The proposed change would modify subsection 6.5.2.9k. of TS relating to audits of activities required by the Quality Assurance Program to meet the provisions of Regulatory Guides 1.21 and 4.1. The existing TS was implemented as part of the RETS in Amendment No. 80 to the license.

The intent of this TS requirement is to audit the performance of activities that might affect quality in the context of effluent and environmental monitoring, not to audit the plant Quality Assurance Program (this is addressed in other TS). Therefore, the licensee proposed to change this TS to read:

"6.5.2.9 Audits of facility activities shall be performed under the cognizance of the NSAR Committee. These audits shall encompass:

k. The performance of activities affecting quality as required by

- effluent and environmental monitoring procedures at least once per 12 months, 25%."

The staff concludes that the proposed change meets the intent of the NRC model RETS, NUREG-0472, Revision 2 and that it makes the Yankee TS consistent with the most recent revisions of NRC guidance. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding

,'o that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFP 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(bl no environmental inpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this anendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has 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.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributors: W. Meinke and E. McKenna Dated: September 23, 1986 e

a, -

- g --

s I l

that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFP 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this anondment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations . discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will nct 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.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributors: W. Meinke and E. McKenna Dated: September 23, 1986 4