ML20045H540
| ML20045H540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045H535 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307200347 | |
| Download: ML20045H540 (4) | |
Text
o UNITED STATES
g
[
s'.
g
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION rE WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\..... #
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIQ!i RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 44 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-73 GPU NULLEAR CORPORATIOJi THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 1, 1991, (reference 1) GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN or the licensee) requested the approval of a license amendment to change the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI-2) Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS).
The purpose of the amendment request is to replace the current technical specification which requires NRC staff review of operating procedures to limit Processed Water Disposal System (PWDS) operations and effluents with a new technical specification that specifies numerical limits on PWDS ef fluents.
2.0 BACKGROUND
GPUN submitted a proposal to dispose of contaminated water resulting from the March 1979 accident in July of 1986 (revised October 1986).
This water is defined in the TMI-2 TS as accident generated water (AGW).
The NRC staff completed an environmental impact review of this proposal and published Supplement 2 to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) in June of 1987 (reference 2).
On February 25, 1987, the licensee requested a TS change which would allow implementation of the proposal and operation of the PWDS. The NRC staff issued the license amendment and approved the PWDS Technical Evaluation Report (TER) in a letter dated September 11, 1989 (reference 3).
As discussed in the above NRC staff letter (reference 3) the principal technical issues concerning the PWDS evaporator system were:
1.
The ability to preprocess water to achieve the base case radionuclide concentrations as described in the PEIS Supplement 2 (reference 2).
2.
The ability of the evaporator system to achieve a decontamination factor of 1000 while processing base case water.
9307200347 930712-PDR ADOCK 05000320 p
3.
The ability of the licensee to monitor effluents from the process stack and the building ventilation during routine and off normal conditions.
4.
Potential accidents associated with the use of the evaporator.
5.
potential for any safety problems in the transporting of evaporator bottoms to the low level waste disposal site.
The staff found that the PWDS system design and operational parameter limits would satisfactorily address each of the issues.
NRC staff approval was required on the initial PWDS operating procedures and all procedure changes which affected disposal of AGW.
In reviewing operating procedures and procedure changes, the NRC staff verified that the procedures and process controls would achieve effluents less than 0.1 percent of base case water and that they would assure adequate monitoring of effluents.
(The last two items related to accidents and transportation are addressed in the PWDS TER, annual updates to the PWDS TER, and NRC approval of these documents.) The NRC staff also performed a special inspection of the licensee program for sampling and analysis of process and effluent streams from the PWDS, including independent laboratory measurements taken by the NRC staff (reference 4).
The staff concluded that procedures and analytical capabilities for sampling and measuring process and effluent streams were acceptable.
3.0 DLAU)ATION The change to the TS is principally administrative in nature.
Operating limits on the PWDS would be placed directly in the TS rather than using NRC staff review and approval to verify that they were incorporated into operating procedures.
Limits on effluent releases to the environment would not change.
The staff evaluation of each of the licensee proposed changes to the TMI-2 technical specifications are as follows:
(1)
Change TS "INDEX" by revising page ii of the table of contents to j
reflect the addition of the definition of " BASE CASE WATER."
Evaluation:
The licensee has s.pdated page 11 to reflect the addition of a i
definition of " BASE CASE WATER" as discussed previously. The staff finds this 1
change administrative in nature and therefore finds it acceptable.
(2) Add to TS section 1.0 " DEFINITIONS" the definition for," BASE CASE WATER."
1 Evaluation: The definition of BASE CASE WATER is identical to that used by the NRC staff in their environmental impact analysis in the PEIS Supplement 2 (reference 2).
The staff finds this change acceptable.
I N9
1f 2 i i'.
1 (3) Change TS section 3.9.13 " ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER" to' delete the requirement for:using NRC-approved procedures for. disposal of ACCIDENT GENERATED WATER and substitute an effluent limit of ~less than 0.1 percent of BASE CASE. WATER on a quarterly 1 average basis.
Evaluation: This change removes the requirement for NRC staff approval of procedures, but places the limits the staff.would impose directly in the TS.c i
The staff finds this change acceptable.
(4) Change TS section 3.9 to add table 3.9-1 " PROCESSED WATER DISPOSAL '
SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE RATES (pCi/ml)"
Evaluation:
This table is added to implement the revised wording of TS section 3.9.13.
The tabular values are 0.1 percent of the values in table 2.2 of PEIS supplement 2 (reference 2). The NRC staff environmental evaluation in PEIS supplement 2 and the staff approval of the PWDS (reference
- 3) were based on environmental effluent releases not exceeding 0.1 percent of-table 2.2 on a quarterly average basis. The staff finds this change acceptable.
(5) Change the basis for TS section 3/4.9.13 to' remove the outdated bases which refer to the need for the then impending environmental-impact evaluation and Commission action and add a new basis describing the results of the staff environmental evaluation and the Commission-action.
Evaluation: The revised basis reflects.the completion of.the NRC staff.PEIS, Supplement 2 and app ' val lof GPUN.PWDS TER.
It also reflects the Commission action in April of 1989 to approve processing and disposal of AGW. 'The ' staff finds these changes acceptable.
Note: The bases are not part of the TS~as
- i defined in 10CFR50.36.
(6) Delete TS section 6.8.3.1(d). This section described the licensee-methodology' for making temporary changes to. procedures requiring '
NRC approval.
Evaluation:
Since procedures related to the disposal of AGW will no longer be required to have NRC approval, this TS section-is moot and no longer needed.
The staff finds this change acceptable.
Based on the above evaluations, we find that the licensee proposed changes to the TS are consistent with the NRC staff PEIS, Supplement 2, prior staff approval of the PWDS TER, and Commission approval of disposal of AGW. The staff therefore finds the proposed changes acceptable.
1 E
a
.g ume%
~
w
i
- c..
4.0 STATE CONSULTATI0l{
In accordance with Commission regulations, the cognizant individual of the State of Pennsylvania was notified of the proposed issuance of this amendment.
The State official had no comment.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in administrative procedures and changes in reporting requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no increase in the amounts, and no change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no change in individual cumulative occupational exposure or exposure to the public. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards' consideration, and there has been no ;,ublic comment on such finding (58 FR 16225 dated March 25, 1993). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical. exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 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 this amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S We have 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, and (2) such activities will be ccnductcd in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and _
security or to the health and safety of the public.
7.0 REFERENCES
1.
GPUN letter C312-91-2046 dated August 1, 1991, from R. L. Long to NRC with attached Technical Specification Change Request No. and Recovery Operations Plan Change Request No. 47 2.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,' Unit 2, Supplement 2 (NUREG 0683, Supplement 2), June 1987 3.
NRC letter dated September 11, 1989, from M. T. Masnik to M. B. Roche, GPUN re:
Issuance of Amendment (TAC NO. 62068) and Approval of the TER.
on Processed Water Disposal System 4.
NRC letter with attached Inspection Report No. 50-320/91-02 dated March 8, 1991, from J. J. Joyner, III to R. L. Long, GPUN Principal Contributor:
Lee H. Thonus Date:
July 12, 1993