ML19317E740
| ML19317E740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317E734 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912180895 | |
| Download: ML19317E740 (2) | |
Text
_
I
>nme:y UNITED STATES
[
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 e
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 31 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 31 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-47 i
l AMENDMENT NO. 28 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letter dated July 30, 1976, Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications appended to Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units Nos.1, 2 and 3.
The proposed change would establish provisions for implementing alternate measures to assure that liquid waste effluent release limits are not exceeded whenever liquid waste monitors cannot be set to properly alarm and control liquid releases.
Discussion The Oconee Technical Specifications require that the liquid effluent control monitors be set to alann and automatically close the waste discharge valve such that the appropriate specifications governing liquid waste discharge are met. The licensee has experienced difficulty with high background readings in the liquid effluent monitors such that the settings of these monitors cannot be made to functior as required by the Technical Specifications.
Efforts are in progress to correct the high background condition that exists, however, until a proper resolution can be made. The licensee is proposing alternate measures to be followed whenever the effluent control monitor is inoperable or cannot be calibrated to perform its specified function. These measures would consist of a redundant valve lineup check of the effluent pathway and redundant sample analyses prior to each liquid effluent release to ensure that the appropriate discharge limits are not exceeded.
i 91% N
Evaluation The licensee has estaolished a task group within the company which includes the services of a vendor consultant to study three possible solutions to the high background level problem at the liquid effluent monitors.
By letter dated August 10, 1976, the licensee committed to correcting this problem by December 1,1976 such that continuous monitoring during liquid effluent releases would again be in effect.
Although continuous monitoring during such releases is desirable, the measures proposed by the licensee to be followed in the interim period provide significant control over the procedures followed while conducting a liquid release.
A release is performed on a batch basis such that the quantity or volume released is known beforehand.
The redundant valve lineup proposed by the licensee would provide added assurance that no other quantities of liquid wastes are involved.
The redundant sample analyses proposed by the licensee would provide an accurate determination of the activities present in the batch release.
In addition, the licensee bas indicated that even though no accurate alam setpoint can be determined, the liquid effluent monitors would be utilized to the extent possible to detect liquid effluent release rates.
In view of the above we conclude that the interim measures proposed by the licensee provide adequate assurance that the liquid effluent release limits will not be exceeded and are therefore acceptable.
We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an and pursuant to 10 CFRaction which is insignificant from the standpoint of environ 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
_ Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probab (1) or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety mar significant hazards consideration, (gin, the amendments do not involve the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of the not be inimical to the coninon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 24, 1976 4
IU
(
l R
.