ML20005A176
| ML20005A176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A174 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106290488 | |
| Download: ML20005A176 (2) | |
Text
.
[
\\
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<S WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF flVCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDf!ENT l10. 34 TO FACILITY.0PrdATIflG LICENSE fl0. DPR-54 SACRAMENTO MUflICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT RAflCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENEPATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-312 Introduction By telecopied letter dated June 5,1981, the Sacramento ttunicipal Utility District (the licensee) requested a temporary change to the Technical Speci-fications (T5s) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-54 for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. The change would add the following footnote to Specification 2.6.2.D:
"The last sentence in Specification 2.6.2.D is replaced by the following paragraph during the period June 6,1981 thrcugh June 30, 1981:
If these monitors are inoperable for a period exceeding 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, tank discharges may be continued up to 14 days provided that dis-charges are collected in a retention basin. The mixed retention basin will be sampled and analyzed. Retention basin valving will be verifled to prevent fur ~ther additions to the basin and diluted discharges from the retantien basin will be sampled and analyzed every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> during release."
Background
The reason for the requested change is to pemit water discharges from the plant with an inoperable radiation monicor in the effluent line. As a result of a steam generator tube failure, secondary system water was slightly contaminated. This water has been processed but will be dis-charged from the plant rather than be reused. The effluent radiation monitor piping arrangement e.reates a " crud trap" causing inaccurate activity level readings on the monitor. The effluent di rharge is the.
restricted, based on the inaccurate reading, and plant sta. tup could not continue without a violation of the TSs.
Evaluation The licensee's proposed changes have been evaluated against the NRC's tentative Appendix I Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications Acceptance Criteria. All criteria for discharge of effluent with an effluent monitor inoperable were either met or exceeded by the licensee's proposal.
Prior to, and every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> during release, effluent grab samples will be taken and analyzed.
The analysis will provide more precise information than would be available from the effluent monitor.
In addition, the increased frequency of sampling will provide:
(1) assurance that TS requirements are U 06290 % $
not exceeded, and (2) assurance th?t the radioactive material concentrations
.in the effluent do not exceed the limits specified in 10 CFR 20. Based on the above, we find the licensee's proposed change acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does 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 cancluded that the atendment involves an action which is insicnificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or necative declaration and environ-nental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendmant does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a sicnificant decrease in a safety margin, the anendment 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 procosed manner, and (3) such activities will be t.nducted in compliance with the Core:ission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the commo'n defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
June 23,1981 a
I
-r
,