ML19322B329
| ML19322B329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B321 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912020176 | |
| Download: ML19322B329 (3) | |
Text
.
j UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION W ASHIN GTON. D. C. 20555 g
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION f
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.19 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-38 l
SUPPORTING AhENDMENT N019 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-47 SUPPORTING AhENDMENT NO.16 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287 an Introduction By letter dated February 5,1976, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nucicar Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.
The proposed change would allow the transfer of byproduct and special nuclear material between each of the three Oconee units.
Discussion Condition 2.E of each of the operating licenses for the Oconee units presently reads as follows: " Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70, to possess, but not separate such byproduct and special nuclear The materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility."
term " facility" as described in the license, refers to the applicable unit and associated equipment. The possession by one unit of byproduct and special nuclear material produced by operation of the other units, or facilities, is therefore not specifically allowed as a condition of the licenses.
On December 22, 1975, the staff issued an amendment to the Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications which approved an increase in the storage 3 spent fuel pool. The increased storage capacity is capacity of the Unit to be shared by each of the three Oconee units and, therefore, the transfer of spent fuel assen.blies between the Unit 1 and 2 spent fuel pool and the In order to provide for such transfer and Unit 3 pool will be involved.
for the possession by one unit of byproduct and special nuclear material produced in the operation of another unit, the licensee is requesting that Condition 2. Eof each of the Oconee licenses be changed to read as follows:
f enwe ;
p go2o(76
-W
?>>e. s
{
l
~
" Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70, to possess but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3."
Evaluation Condition 2.E in each of the Oconee Unit licenses is a standard provision included in all reactor operating licenses.
It is intended to be a permissive condition rather than a restrictive one.
It is a necessary condition in order to provide the legal authority for the licensee to possess (but not separate) the byproduct and special nuclear material that is unavoidably generated as a direct result of operating the reactor.
l In the case of a multiple-unit power station such as the Oconee Nuclear Station, Condition 2.E in each license has the effect of restricting the g
l
- transfer between units of any byproduct or special nuclear material.
This was not the intended purpose as evidenced by the fact that Oconee Units 1 and 2 have been licensed to share a common spent fuel pool in which byproduct and special nuclear material in the form of spent fuel assemblics from the operation of both units will be stored.
In the Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal supporting the December 22, 1975 Amendment approving the expansion of the storage capacity of the Unit 3 spent fuel pool, we addressed the anticipated transfer of spent fuel assemblies between the two Oconee spent fuel pools.
It was concluded that the transfer of spent fuel assemblies could be safely conducted with negligible environmental impact.
We have concluded that the transfer of byproduct and special nuclear material between the three Oconee units is an activity that was not intended to be excluded when the licenses were originally issued.
In addition, such transfers were considered during the initial licensing review of Oconee Units 1 and 2 and during the review of the Unit 3 spent fuel pool modifications.
In view of the above, we find the proposed amendment to be 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 action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4) that an environmental statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
- @%wB he o
t 3-Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
MAR 151976 i
~
Date:
9 9
0 e
e wittL 5 st:
M ee e
m
- -..