ML20027E345
| ML20027E345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027E342 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211150065 | |
| Download: ML20027E345 (2) | |
Text
.
o UNITED STATES g
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3e g
a wassimaTou, o. c. rosss o
\\-
)
SAFETY EhLUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 77 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-39 AND AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-48 COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY ZION STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-295 AND 50-304 In'troduction By letter dated April 13, 1982, Comonwealth Edison Company proposed changes which would replace specific descriptions of special nuclear, byproduct, and source materials in Li anse No. DPR-39 and DPR-48 with a generalized fomat consistent with the recently issued operating license at their' LaSalle County Station. A July 29, 1982 submittal proposed the addition of Technical Speci-fications for limiting condition for operation and surveillance requirements for sealed sources.
' Discussion A Health Physics Appraisal Report (50-295/80-05 and 50-304/80-04) cited as a shortcoming Zion Nuclear Power Station's inability to achieve dose rates high enough to calibrate its radiation instruments above about 20 R/hr. CECO committedto modify its calibration methods and arranged to procure a larger calibrated source (400 Ci CS-137) to pemit calibration of high range TMI monitors and other instrumentation.
The present wording of the license regarding the possession and specifications for radioactive isotopes was based on the initial specific needs of the licensee and did not make provisions for future requirements.
In order to cover the possession and use of the new calibration source and at the same time provide greater flexibility for future needs, the licensee requested a license change that provides broader limits currently applied at other facilities.
The proposed change revised Paragraphs 2.B. 2.C and 2.D of License No DPR-39 and Paragraphs 2.B(2), 2.B(3), and 2.B(4) of License No. DPR-48 to incorporate a more generalized format relative to the authority for the receipt, possession, and use of special nuclear, byproduct, and source materials.
Moreover, the amendment revises the Technical Specifications to incorporate limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for sealed sources.
r211150065 821028 PDR ADOCK 05000295 P
PDR l
. Based on our review of CECO's request, we found it necessary to modify their proposed Technical Specifications change to make them consistent with the provisions of the Standard Technical Specifications. These modifications were discussed with and agreed to by licensee representatives.
Evaluation We have determined that the proposed Technical Specifications, as modified.
and the procedures for safe handling of radioactive materials at Zion Station provide reasonable assurance that special nuclear, source, and byproduct materials would be stored, used, and accounted for in a manner which meets the applicable radiation protection requirc.1ents of 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70. We, therefore, find the incorporation of flexible yet controlled licensing provisions for the receipt, possession, and use of special nuclear, source, and byproduct materials into Ld. cense No. DPR-39 and DPR-48 and the proposed changes to its appended Technical Specifications 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 dete.,nination, we have further concluded that the amendment ir.volves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental 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 amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possi-bility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment l
does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable l
assurance that the health and safety of the public wi,11 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 this amendment'will not be inimical to the conmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 28, 1982 i
Principal Contributors:
D. E. Miller T. N. Tambling
.