ML15244A174
| ML15244A174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1986 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15244A175 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611050087 | |
| Download: ML15244A174 (5) | |
Text
October 30, 1986 Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Mr. Hal B. Tucker Vice President - Nuclear Production Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
USE OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE INCINERATOR
Reference:
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 In your letter dated June 10, 1985, you requested approval, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 20, Sections 20.302 and 20.305, to operate a low-level radioactive waste incinerator at the Oconee Nuclear Station. The incinerator is one component in the radwaste facility. In your letter, you stated that the safety evaluation modifications of the design, construction and operation of other plant systems and components related to the use of this facility were handled by you under the auspices of 10 CFR 50.59.
Your original submittal described the design and operation of the low-level radioactive waste incinerator and was supplemented with information in letters dated October 9, December 13, 1985, May 9, August 18. and September 11, 1986.
The December 13, 1985 letter revised the original June 10, 1985 submittal.
We have reviewed this information and conclude that the operation of the incinerator will not present an undue hazard to either the safe operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station or the public health and safety. However, Technical Specification changes incorporating limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the radiation monitors covering the releases of radioactive materials in airborne effluents from the incinerator will be required to ensure adequate control of releases from the system before the system may be actually operated.
We have received your August 27, 1986 application to amend the Oconee licenses and add Technical Specifications on the monitoring of the gaseous effluents from the system. If we find them acceptable, the amendments will be issued after the expiration of the 30-day notice period. We have enclosed a copy of our Federal Register notice and proposed determination of no significant hazards considerations. The notice was published in the Federal Register on October 8, and the 30-day notice period expires on November 7, 1986.
8611050087.861030 PDR ADOCK 05000269 x
Mr. H. B. Tucker
-2 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the Commission has caused to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER the enclosed "Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact" for the low-level radioactive waste incinerator (51 FR 39719).
Our Safety Evaluation approving the design of the incinerator is also enclosed.
Sincerely, John F. Stolz, Director PWR Project Directorate #6 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice
- 2. Environmental Assessment
- 3. Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION ACRS-10 CMcCracken Docket File BGrimes GEdison NRC PDR JPartlow DCrutchfield L PDR HPastis Edordan PBD-6 Rdg RIngram SWest FMiraglia Gray File NThompson OGC-MNBB 9604 PBD-6p PB PBD PBD-PB O-C Rlngram HP s;jak SW CMcCracken G on JStolz DCrutchfield M
10/k)/86 10//6/86 10/
/86 10//q/86 10////86 10/7/86 10h1(/86 10/Lf/86
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Power Company Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. William L. Porter Mr. Paul F. Guill Duke Power Company Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Post Office Box 33189 422 South Church Street 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 1986 / Notices 3608!
consistent with 10 CFR Part 20.
probability of an accident previously standards in10 CFR 50.9 by providng Appendix B. Table 11 by existing TS 3/
evaluated or create the possibility of a certain examples (51 FP 7750). Exarple 4.11.1.1. The dose or dose commitment new or different kind of accident from (I) of the types of amendments not likely to a member of the public from any accident previously evaluated.
to involve significant hazards radioactive materials in liquid effluents Because the change does not involve considerations is an amendment released from each McGuire-unit is.
any new or novel changes in equipment.
considered to be a purely administrative limited consistent with 10 CFR So, design, operating procedures and limits, change to the TS: for example, a Appendix I by existing TS 3/4.11.1.2.
setPoints 01 limiting conditions for change to achieve consistency These Ss (3/4.11.1.1. 3/4.11.1.2. and 3/
operation, It has no effect on accident throughout theis. correction of an 4.11.1.5) would apply to both the causal mechanism.
eror, or a change in nomenclature.
CWWTSe and the Lake Norman On the above bases the Cois sion One of the proposed changes to the diuharge points. the change would also paopos s to determine that these Sa has been determined to contain Becaused thenhange do not involve not decrease the existing moitoring pa only administrative changes. The requirements (T'S 3.3.3.8 and referenced significant hazards consideration, requested changes are required so that
'S Table 3.3-12) which assure that LocliI Pub&licum'ent Room the M'S are updated and no longer note instantaneous radioactive release rates otion Atkins ibrary Univerity of obsolete footnotes. Alaon some typing rr
- 20. A e
North Carolina. Charlotte (UNCC format changes have proposed.
B limits, and that radioactive liquid Staton No Carolina For the other proposed revision to the effluent monitoring instrumentation Attorney for lcense. Mr. Albert Carr, i'SIe. to add operability requirement6 remains operable or appropriate Duke Power Company, P.O. Box 338.
of monitors and surveillance items
- compensatory action taken. Rather, the 422 South Church Street. Charlotte.
required by the addition of the radwaste change provides for consistency of as North Carolina 28242 facility the Commission has provided tFigure 5.1-4 with these other existing rC Project Dirctor B.J.
guidance concerning the determination Sq which assure that such discharges.
Yougblood.
of significant hazards considerations by concentrations and doses are consistent Duke power Company, Dockets Nos. W0 providing certain standards (10 CFR with the Commission's regulations.
29, So-and O-2Pb Oconee Nuclear 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an Therefre, as noted in the licensee's Station, Units N.i. r2 and 3, r
cyn.e operating license for a facility involves submittal, the change more accurately County, South Carolina no significant hazards considerations if reflects station design and practice D
of amendment requst. August operation of the facility in accordance when operating with a primary-tor n y as supplemented with with the proposed amendment would secondary leak in steam generato additional information on September2 not:
The Commission has provided certain (1) Involve a significant increase in examples (51FR 774) of actionslikely D riptio of amendmant r the probability or consequences of an to involve no signific ant haards The proposed amendments would revise accident previously evaluated or considerations One of the examples ()
the Station's common Tecnic (2) Create the possibility of a new or relates to amendments for a purely Specifications (TDk) to add operability different kind of accident from any administrative change toeichncal requirements of monitors and accident previously evaluated; or Specifications. Removal of the obsolete surveillance items required by the (3) Involve a significant reduction in a footnotd has no safety implication and addition of the radwaste facility at the margin Of safety.
matches this example. The remainder of Oconee Nuclear Stations (ONS). The These requested amendments will not the change, which designates the river proposed amendments would also involve a significant increase in the as a liquidwaste discharge point does delete certain outdated footnotes with probability or consequences of an not match any of those examples.
the gaseous process and effluent accident previously evaluated. The However, the staff haszreviewed the monitoring in mentation.
licensee states-that the amendments licensee's request for the above In a letter dated June 10, 1965 and constitute operability requirements of amendments and has determined that supplements the lien requested monitors and surveillance requirements should this portion of the change be approval under IS OR Part 20. S230 for the incinerator. Appropriate accident implemented, It would not involva: (1) A to treat or iser ofa ensei material analyses for the incinerator were ignificant increase in the r quenes by incnetion. The Cineratorla one provided in the June N0.1cea submittal of an accident previously evaluated or maro nteal com ponent of the new The activity release by nuclide and the (2)a sigiicant reduclogin a margin of volume reduction radwasta facility.
dose estiated for each of the accident safety. The change does not Increase the The acensee.wil moit the proes cas analyzed are provided in the June radioactive waste produced by or exhaust froa the volume reduction to.1, 1965 submittal. The doses calculated released frm the station. The systemrs it i mixed with normal n.wee drivedwith conservative concentrations ofadoacivity in the facility heat ventation and sir atsumptions and were found to be CWWB are i ntained low ing condition (HVAC) exhaust before below 0 R Part 20 annual dose limits.
accordance with existing I S ree An isokinetic sampli system Therefore, the consequences of these requirements and the potential is etoobtain representative acidents analyzed will not be caccident r
ve lasea u m the omajol air samples for radiological significantly increased The proposed CWWB are bounded by the releases monitoring and analyses. A continuous changes inclde additional operability from the postulated design-basis liquid noble gas activity monitor and sample requirements of monitors and tank failures evaluated by the cartridge for continuous collection of surveillance requirements associated Commission in the Mcuire Safety iodine and particulate samples al with the incinerator. As such, this Evaluation Report. Section 15.3.10. and
- provided, change is not considered to be an found to result in acceptable Basis for p posed no aifcan initiator of the accidents analyzed. We radionuclide concentrations Ia the hazards consideration determination:
agree with the licensees analysis.
Catawba River. This part of the change The Commission has provided guidance The proposed amendments do not also would not (3) Increase the concernin the application of the create the possibility of a new or
36090 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 195 / Wednesday. October 8. 1988 Not(ces different kind of accident from any incorporated to maylmize the operational restrictions are modified by accident previously evaluated because inspectability of structures. systems, and changing the duration of the license.
the proposed changes do not involve equipment. Surveillance and (2) Create the possibility of a new or any physical changes to the plant. These maintenance practices which have been different kind of accident from any amendments result from the addition of implemented in accordance with the accident previously evaluated. The the radwaste facility at ONS. No new or ASME code and the facility Technical proposed change introduces no new different kind of accident can be created Specifications provide assurance that mode of plant operation nor does It since these amendments only add any unexpected degradation in ant require physical modification to the additional sampling points for equipment will be identified plant.
surveillance and define the operability corrected.
- (3) Involve a significant reduction in requirements for the radwaste facility The design of the reactor vesse and the margin of safety. Any reduction in monitors.
its internals considered the effects of a the margin of safety will be maintained The proposed amendments do not 40-year design life (3 Effective Full within acceptable bounds by continued involve a significant reduction in a Power Years), and a comprehensive Implementation of the referenced margin of safety. Operation of the vessel material surveillance program is ongoing programs (Qualification radwaste facility including the maintained In accordance with 10 CPR Maintenance Program. Reactor Vessel incinerator willatill be within Ap pedix Part 54 Appendix H. Analyses showing Mateals Survelliance Program.
I to 10 CFR Part 50 numerical guiles for compliance with the-NRC pressurized environmental monitoring. etc.). These the three unit site. and accordingly the thermal shock screening criteria have programs are de ed to assure there margin of safety is unchanged.
demonstrated that the expeeted neutron would be no significant reduction In the Based on the above, the Commission's fluence will not be a limiting associated margin(s) of safety.
staff proposes to determine that these consideration. In addition to these Based upon the above, the proposed amendments do not involve a calculations, surveillance capsules Commission proposes to determine that significant hazards consideration.
placed inside the reactor vessel provide the proposed amendment which Local Public Document Room a means of monitoring the cumulative provides for a 40year operating life for location* Oconee County Library. 501 effects of power operation.
pr s for y oeatNglefr West Southbroad Street. Walhalla.
Aging analyses have been performed the Crystail River Unit No.3 Nuclear South Carolina 2000.
for all safety-related electrical Generating Plant. involves no significant Attorney for licensee* J. Michael equipment in accordance with 10 CFR hazards considerations.
McGarryM II Bishop. Lieberman. Cook.
5049. "Environmental qualification of cl River Public D
mbrary.
Purcell and Reynolds& 1200 17th Street electrical equipment important to safety O N.W. First Avenue Crystal River, NW.. Washington. DC 2003M for nuclear power plants," Identifying 8irda 32A2 v
NRC Project Director John F. Stolz.
qualified lifetimes for this equipment Florda Powe corporadon, at a.
These lifetimes will be incorporated into Atorney forcensee:RW. Neiser, Docket No. so-a. crystal River Uni plant equipment maintenance and Senior Vice President and General No. I Nuclear Generating Plant. Ctrus replacement ctices to ensure that all Counsel. Florida Power Corporation.
County, Fida safety-relat electrical equipment P.O. Box 1402, St.Petersburg, Florida remain qualified and available to on t
7Date of amendment equest February perform all safety functions regardless NRC Plect Disector John F. Stolz.
17.19 t
o d
of the overall age of the plant General Public Utilities Nuclear Decription of amendment request-The licensee has reviewed the Fina Corporation Docket No.55-320 Three The proposed amendment would change Environmental Statement (ME) to Jjjje Nuclear Station Unit No. 2.
the expiration date for Facility determine if its calculations will be Lndonderry Township Dauphin Operating License No. DPR-7z from materially affected by the proposed cut.Pnslai September 2L 2006 to December 3.2018.
extension and has determined that there 40 years from the issuance of the will be no significant increase tn annual Date of amendments request August operati license.
riskto the public and that assurances to 1
M Basisorp signfant protect the environment will continue Dcsiption amendments rquest' haz acanaidetion determinOthm thru t pheeproposed plant oe p
would revise The currently licensed term for the lI&oheAMRA o
is expected to Section L& ofthe Appendix A Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclea offset any tendency creased Technical Specifications b changing Generating-at is 40 Yo oftsatUI ty
=co atn Tre Mle lan Ncla M theht is 40 yearscuptional exposure doe to plant age tim title Of the Rdoo Cnrl
'ommnmcing with issuance of the in ion considerable financial Director at hree Mile Isand Nuclear Construction Permit (September 25.
benefits to the local population and to Generating Station. Unit. Section U
.. 2 1966). Accounting for the time required the utility's customers would continue to specila the qualifications for for plant construction, this represents an accrue from continued operatior of the '
adlogicl controls personnel. The effective operating license term of 31 facility..
change is a change In title only, and years and 10 months. he licensee's The licensee has concded, andwe there is no change in the required application requests a 40-year operating agree. that the proposed extension will qualifications ofthe Individual flling the lans term.
not modify any operating parameters position. The change is requested b the The licensee's request for extension of and restrictions except to allow lcensee to achieve consistency wit the the operating license is in accordance continued operation for a longer period corporate organizational structure.
with 10 CFR 50.51 and is based on the of time. This is consistent with current Basis farproposed no significant fact that a 40-year service life was regulatory practice under the hazards consideration determination:
considered during the design and requirements of 10 CFR 50.51. Based on The Commission has provided guidance construction of the plant. Although this the above, this amendment will not:-
concerning the application of standards does not mean that some components (1) Involve a significant increase in for deternining whother. significant will not wear out during the plant the probability or consequence of an hazads consideration exists by lifetime. design features were accident previously evaluated. No providing certain examples (51 FR 7751)