ML16138A766
| ML16138A766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A765 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9310070084 | |
| Download: ML16138A766 (2) | |
Text
ptREG, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 202 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 202 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-47 AND AMENDMENT NO. 199TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 25, 1993, as supplemented May 20 and August 31, 1993, Duke Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise the TS to change the frequency of reporting the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released from the plant site to unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents from semiannual to annual.
2.0 EVALUATION As noticed in the Federal Register on August 31, 1992 (57 FR 39353), the NRC has amended 10 CFR 50.36a to reduce the required frequency of reporting the quantity of each principal radionuclide released to unrestricted areas in liquid andgaseous effluents from every 6 months to every 12 months. The amended regulation is intended to reduce the administrative burden to licensees. The NRC staff finds that the proposed amendments for Oconee with respect to reporting releases in liquid and gaseous effluents on an annual (rather than semiannual) basis is consistent with the revised regulation, has no adverse safety implication, and is, therefore, acceptable.
The letter of August 31, 1993, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The revised requirement that the report be submitted before May 1 of each year will provide additional time for completion of analyses and will assist in elimination of the need for supplements to the initial report.
The reporting requirement for solid waste releases is not addressed by the revised 10 CFR 50.36a. However, reporting the quantity of solid waste releases on an annual (rather than semiannual) basis is consistent with the intent of the proposed changes for liquid and gaseous effluents. Moreover, this change affects only the reporting frequency and has no adverse safety implications. The change to an annual reporting basis for solid wastes is, therefore, acceptable to the NRC. Additionally, the NRC staff contacted the 9310070084 930924 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
-2 agencies that receive the reports regarding the proposed issuance of the amendments. These agencies are: (1) the Division of Habitat Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, (2) the Reactor Radiological Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and (3) Region 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The representative of each agency acknowledged that reporting of solid waste on an annual basis would be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 41504 dated August 4, 1993).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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 of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: R. Martin Date:
Septmrber 24, 1993