ML20058M519
| ML20058M519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1993 |
| From: | Robert Stransky Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stratman R CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9310060064 | |
| Download: ML20058M519 (2) | |
Text
a p _,n N.!
2 o
b September 29, 1993 1
' Docket No. 50-440 i
i
'Mr.' Robert A. Stratman, Vice President Nuclear - Perry
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating l
Company 10 Center Road
' Perry, Ohio 44081
Dear Mr. Stratman:
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR f 2.206 On March 28, 1993, the Directo'r, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued a decision under 10 CFR 2.206 in response to a petition filed by Mr. Steven C.
LaTourette on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners. This
' decision was supplemented on September 21, 1993 (DD-93-15).
A copy of the supplemental decision is enclosed for your information.
i Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
{
Robert J. Stransky, Project Manager Project' Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
1 As stated s
cc:
1 See next page DISTRIBUTION j
-Docket File JHall ACRS(10)
[
. NRC/ Local PDRs PDIII-3 Gray i
PDIII-3 Reading MRushbrook i
JRoe-RStransky JZwolinski EGreenman, RIII JHannon OGC i
f 0FFICE PDIII-3:LA:DRPW PDIII-hPM:DRPW PDIII-3:PD:DRPW NAME MRus M k Rdr'anYk NJHannon DATE S />9/93-1/2T/93 7/N/93 f
0FFICIAL RECORD DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ PERRY \\GT8130SP.RV1 N$$ bY
- i 010000 1
u $85S$$p
C i
~7
)
Mr. Robert A. Stratman Perry Nuclear Power Plant Centerior Service Company Unit Nos.'1 and 2 cc:
Jay'E. Silberg, Esq.
Mr. James W. Harris, Director Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Division of Power Generation 2300 N Street, N.W.
Ohio Department of Industrial Relations Washington, D.C.
20037 P. O. Box 825 Columbus, Ohio 43216 l
Centerior Energy Corporation The Honorable Lawrence Logan 300 Madison Avenue Mayor, Village of Perry Toledo, Ohio 43652 4203 Harper Street Perry, Ohio 44081 Resident Inspector's Office The Honorable Robert V. Orosz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mayor, Village of North Perry-Parmly at Center Road North Perry Village Hall Perry, Ohio 44081 4778 Lockwood Road
~
North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General 799 Roosevelt Road Department of Attorney General Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 30 East Broad Street i
Lake County Prosecutor i
Lake County Administration Bldg.
Radiological Health Program 105 Main Street Ohio Department of Health Painesville, Ohio 44077 Post Office Box 118 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0118 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 8275 Munson DERR--Compliance Unit Memtor, Ohio 44060 ATTN:.Zack A. Clayton P. O. Box 1049 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Mr. Thomas Haas, Chairman Perry Township Board of Trustees Ashtabula County Prosecutor 3750 Center Rd., Box 65 25 West Jefferson Street Perry, Ohio 44081 Jefferson, Ohio 44047 State of Ohio Mr. Kevin P. Donovan Public Utilities Commission Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company East Broad Street Perry Nuclear Power Plant Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 P. O. Box 97, E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 David P. Igyarto, General Manager Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company James R. Williams, Chief of Staff Perry Nuclear Power Plant Ohio Emergency Management Agency P. O. Box 97, SB306 2825 West Granville Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Worthington, Ohio 43085 a
.*,. 7 p
po uc Enclosure
" ! ' @[# !
E UNITED STATES
'. ' " %\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q-g Q,(/
wassincrow, o.c. nosss-aooi September 21, 1993 Steven C. LaTourette, Esl.
Lake County Prosecuting Attorney Courthouse, P.O. Box 49f, Painesville, Ohio 44077
Dear Mr. LaTourette:
In my decision of Narch 28, 1993 (DD-93-05), I denied your petition of September 29, 1992, submitted under 10 CFR 2.206 on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners.
In the petition, ye's requested the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take certain actions regarding the proposed construction of an interim onsite, low-level radioactive waste storage facility at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. On April 21, 1993, you formally requested that the Commission review and reverse that decision.
As you know, 10 CFR 2.206(c) provides that a director's decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of issuance of the decision, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that time.
In this case, the period for the Commission's review was initially extended until May 22, 1993. However, upon reviewing your letter of April 21, 1993, I have elected to issue a supplement to clarify the bases for DD-93-05. Consequently, on May 20, 1993, the Executive Director of Operations informed the Commission of the staff's intent to supplement DD-93-05 and recommended that the Commission extend the period for reviewing that decision until after issuance of the supplement. On May 24, 1993, the Commission issued an order extending the time within which the Commission may act to review DD-93-05.
The enclosed supplemental decision (DD-93-15) confirms my previous denial of your petition and does not change the bases for that denial. The supplemental decision clarifies several points. The licensee for the Perry plant performed a safety evaluation for the proposed facility in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
1 The staff reviewed the licensee's evaluation and confirmed that, with limited exceptions, the construction and operation of the interim facility do not involve changes in the handling and storage of low-level radioactive wastes as described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The few exceptions where there are changes to the FSAR description do not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59; therefore, the licensee may construct and operate the facility without prior NRC review and approval.
Thus, no Federal action is involved, and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act do not apply to this activity.
In the supplemental l
decision, I discuss in greater detail the basis for the staff's determination that the potential radiological effects of the facility are acceptable.
The NRC staff conducted a thorough review of the licensee's evaluation for this facility and has concluded that the licensee has acceptably addressed all relevant safety issues posed by the construction and operation of the interim q-jCh d /R/3 f
.o Mr. Steven C. LaTourette September 21, 1993 facility. As noted in DD-93-05, the NRC sponsored a public meeting on October 1,1992, at Lakeland Comunity College, to hear public concerns about the proposed facility.
In reviewing this issue, the staff considered the concerns expressed at that meeting.
A copy of the supplemental decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, for the Comission to review in conjunction with its review of DD-93-05. The original decision, as supplemented, will constitute the final action of the Comission, unless the Comission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within 25 days of the issuance of this supplemental decision.
Copies of this supplemental decision will be placed in the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555, and in the local public document room at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081.
For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice regarding this supplemental decision that has been filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Supplemental Director's Decision (DD-93-15) 2.
Federal Reaisier Notice
Steven C.1LaTourette, Esq..
cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Robert A. Stratman, Vice President Nuclear - Perry The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Mr. James W. Harris, Director Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Division of Power Generation 2300 N Street, N.W.
Ohio Department of Industrial Relations Washington, D.C.
20037 P. O. Box 825 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Mary E. O'Reilly Centerior Energy Corporation 300 Madison Avenue The Honorable Lawrence Logan Mayor, Village of Perry Tolefo, Ohio 43552 4203 Harper Street Perry, Ohio 44081 Resident Inspector's Office The Honorable Robert V. Orosz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mayor, Village of North Perry Parmly at Center Road a
North Perry Village Hall Perry, Ohio 44081 4778 Lockwood Road North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator, Region 111 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attorney General 799 Roosevelt Road Department of Attorney General Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 30 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Lake County Prosecutor take County Administration Bldg.
Radiological Health Program 105 Main Street Ohio Department of Health Painesville, Ohio 44077 Post Office Box 118 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0118 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Ohio Environmental Protection Agency DERR--Compliance Unit Memtcr, Ohio 44060 ATTH: Zack A. Clayton P. O. Box 1049 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Mr. Thomas Haas, Chairman Perry Township Board of Trustees Ashtabula County Prosecutor 3750 Center Rd., Box 65 25 West Jefferson Street Perry, Ohio 44081 Jefferson, Ohio 44047 State of Ohio Mr. Kevin P. Donovan Public utilities Comission Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company East Broad Street Perry Nuclear Power Plant Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 P. O. Box 97, E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 David P. Igyarto, General Manager James R. Williams, Chief of Staff Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant Ohio Emergency Management Agency P. O. Box 97, SB306 2825 West Granville Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Worthington, Ohio 43085
DD-93-15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (Thomas E. Murley, Director)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-440 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
License No. NPF-58 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant
)
Unit 1)
)
SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 3
1 I.
INTRODUCTION On September 29, 1992, Mr. Steven C. LaTourette submitted a petition on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners (the petitioners),
requesting that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take certain actions with respect to the proposed construction of an onsite, low-level radioactive waste storage facility at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Perry). The petition specifically requested that (1) a public hearing be held before the licensee constructs such a facility and (2) the construction of the facility be suspended until (a) either the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the licensee (the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.) produces an environmental impact statement assessing the risks of onsite storage of low-level waste and (b) the NRC promulgates regulations for storing low-level radioactive waste at nuclear power plant sites. On March 28, 1993 (DD-93-05), I denied the petitioners' request on the bases that the petitioners raised no substantial health and safety issues and that the y
)
i s.
licensee had complied with the applicable NRC regulations and guidance.
In a letter of April 21, 1993, the petitioners requested that the l
Comission review and reverse DD-93-05.
In that letter, the petitioners contended that DD-93-05 and 10 CFR 50.59 " fall far short of demonstrating the safety of the facility itself," as they claim that the discussion in the director's decision only addresses the effect the facility could have on existing equipment in the plant. Although 10 CFR 2.206(c)(2) provides that i
the Commission will not entertain any petition or other request for review of a director's decision under that section, I am issuing this supplemental decision to clarify the bases for my earlier decision, in response to the petitioners' letter of April 21, 1993.
II. BACKGROUND Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reculations, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," includes regulations governing the licensing and operation of commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.
Section 50.59 addresses the disposition of changes, tests, and experiments at these facilities, as follows:
(a)(1) The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (1) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test, or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
(2) A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question (1) if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of ar accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety
~.
analysis report may be increased; or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created; or (iii) if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
(b)(1) The licensee shall maint-. records of changes in the facility and of changes it proceduru made pursuant to this section, to the extent that these changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report or to the extent that they constitute changes in procedures as described in the safety analysis report. The licensee shall also maintain records of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to paragraph (a) of.this section.
These records must include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment' does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
(2) The licensee shall submit, as specified in f 50.4, a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each. The report may be submitted annually or along with the FSAR updates as required by 6 50.71(e), or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license.
(3) The records of changes in the facility shall be maintained until the date of termination of the license, and records of changes in procedures and records of tests and experiments shall be maintained for a period of five years.
(c) The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility who desires (1) a change in technical specifications or (2) to make a change in the facility or procedures described in the safety analysis report or to conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, which involve an unreviewed safety question or a change in the technical specifications, shall submit an application for amendment of his license pursuant to S 50.90.
In August 1992, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company announced plans to construct an interim onsite low-level radioactive waste (LLW) storage and processing facility, in anticipation of the possible loss of access to the three disposal sites currently operating in the United States.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and NRC staff guidance in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 81-38,
Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites," dated November 10, 1921, the licensee performed and documented a safety evaluation
for the proposed facility.
In the safety evaluation, the licensee concluded i
that the construction and operation of the interim LLW facility do not constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) and that no changes in license conditions or technical specifications are necessary. Therefore, the licensee further concluded that the facility could be built and operated without prior NRC approval, as stated in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1). The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's safety evaluation and supporting documentation for the interim onsite LLW storage and processing facility. As discussed in 00-93-05, the staff concluded that the licensee correctly determined that the interim LLW storage and processing facility does not constitute an unreviewed safety question and that the design and operation of the facility will conform with the safety analyses in the Perry Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
III. DISCUSSION In accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(b)(1), the licensee evaluated the interim LLW facility in a written safety evaluation, which provided the bases for the conclusion that the interim onsite LLW storage and processing facility does not involve an unreviewed safety question. lhe bases for the licensee's conclusion and the staff's agreement with that conclusion are described below in greater detail, to address the petitioners' assertions of April 21, 1993, that DD-93-05 and 10 CFR 50.59 fall far short of demonstrating the safety of the facility itself and only address the effect the facility could have on existing equipment in the plant.
The licensee analyzed the processing and storage of solid radioactive waste in Section 11.4 and a spectrum of potential accidents and events in Chapter 15 of the Perry FSAR, to demonstrate the ability of the plant to operate within regulatory guidelines without undue risk to the public health and safety. This spectrum was selected to represent the types of accidents and events postulated to occur at Perry and to bound the potential consequences of less significant accidents and events. The NRC staff evaluated and accepted this spectrum of accidents and events as part of the licensing basis for the plant. While this spectrum of accidents and events if primarily focused on reactor safety and the equipment and systems directly affecting reactor safety, the licensee also evaluated other types of accidents not affecting reactor safety, including fuel handling accidents and liquid radioactive waste tank failures, both of which could result in the release of radioactive material offsite.
The licensee addressed the three criteria of 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) to determine if a change, test, or experiment involves an unreviewed safety question, as part of its safety evaluation of the construction and operation of the interim onsite LLW storage and processing facility. The licensee divided the three criteria into seven separate items in performing its analysis. Although the licensee's seven-point analysis did not explicitly address certain of the matters discussed below, the licensee's safety analysis and its attachments, and the FSAR, provide sufficient information for the staff to confirm that the construction and operation of the interim LLW facility do not involve an unreviewed safety question.
o 2
Effect on the Reactor Facility The licensee's analysis clearly demonstrates that there are no interactions between the interim onsite LLW storage and processing facility and the operation of the reactor facility. The licensee has analyzed the potential catastrophic failure of the interim LLW facility and determined that the facility is located far enough away from other plant structures to prevent a postulated complete failure of the building from damaging any plant systems or equipment important to reactor safety. The interim LLW facility is not interconnected with any system relied on to mitigate any accident or event previously evaluated in the FSAR. The only significant system connected to the interim LLW storage and processing facility is the fire protection water system (FPWS), which is controlled in accordance with facility-approved guidance (i.e., licensee procedures and training provide that the FPWS is to be available when and where it is needed and also provide that it can be t
isolated from the interim LLW facility, if necessary to ensure integrity of the FPWS). The licensee determined that a failure of the FPWS branch piping to the interim LLW facility will not reduce the fire suppression capability in the plant.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and agrees that, with respect to the safe operation of the reactor facility, the construction and operation of the interim LLW storage and processing facility will not (1) i increase the probability or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated, or (3) redute the margin of safety.
]
~
j 7-Doeration of the Interim LLW Facility (1) Dry Solid Radwaste Currently, processing of dry solid radioactive wastes is carried out mainly in the radwaste building, but some activities are carried out in other locations of the plant in accordance with the FSAR description. Many of these activities will continue to be performed in the same locations. The processing of low-level dry radwaste material with average, contact radiation levels less than 5 millirem per hour (mrem /hr) will be carried out in the interim LLW storage and processing facility. Dry solid radwaste with radiation levels in excess of 5 mrem /hr will continue to be processed in the radwaste building.
In addition, the plant will retain the previous capability to process dry solid radwaste in the radwaste building.
Dry solid radwaste will be stored in the interim LLW storage building.
The operating license for Perry contains no restriction on the storage of dry radwaste and the FSAR addresses the storage of dry radwaste at any location at the site, provided such interim storage locations are evaluated for compliance with NRC GL 81-38. GL 81-38 provides guidance on a number of aspects of the design of onsite, temporary low-level radwaste storage facilities, including limits on the amount of radwaste to be stored, the potential consequences of design-basis accidents, shielding and dose limits from normal activities, container selection and inspection, physical security, monitoring of potential release pathways, and the control of liquid drainage. The licensee's
]
evaluation demonstrates that storage of dry radwaste in the interim LLW facility complies with the provisions of GL 81-38. Thus, the storage of dry i
1 radwaste at the interim LLW facility does not involve a change to the Perry FSAR.
i
+.
The only change to the FSAR description for the processing of dry radwaste is the location of the compactor used for processing low-level dry radwaste with average contact radiation levels less than 5 mrem /hr. This material will be processed in the interim LLW building rather than in the radwaste building. Although the interim LLW facility will use an' improved compactor and a shredder, neither the plant's operating license nor the FSAR specify details of the compactor. Further, the licensee indicates and the l
staff agrees that this equipment is similar to that currently used and does not represent a handling process different from that described in the Perry FSAR.
Thus, the storage of dry radwaste has been evaluated against the guidance of GL 81-38 as set forth in the FSAR, and the changed location for the processing of dry radwaste with radiation levels below 5 mrem /hr has been evaluated against the standards of 10 CFR 50.59.
The licensee designed the interim LLW facility and has established administrative controls to ensure that (1) the volume and activity of the stored radwaste will be limited, (2) sufficient radiation shielding will be provided, (3) periodic monitoring and inspections will be performed, and (4) the other applicable provisions of GL 81-38 are satisfied.
The interim LLW facility will incorporate safety features similar to those existing in the radwaste building processing and storage area, including foot-thick concrete walls for shielding, a fire suppression sprinkler system, and a ventilation system incorporating high-efficiency particulate air filters and radiation monitors. The facility ventilation system is designed to maintain a negative pressure in the building so that all effluents will be discharged through the filtered, monitored pathway. Although NRC regulations
r-
-g-do not require such facilities to be designed to specific seismic criteria, the basic structure of the facility is designed to withstand the effects of the maximum predicted earthquake. However, the licensee did not take credit for this design feature in conservatively postulating a complete failure of the building (due to unspecified causes) for the purpose of performing an accident analysis, as discussed later.
In addition, the licensee sited the building so that the probable maximum flood from Lake Erie _.would still be 15 feet below the level of the curb surrounding the building.
The licensee has analyzed the consequences of various potential accidents involving the interim LLW facility, including a catastrophic failure of the building itself, which the licensee does not consider a credible event.
For such a failure, the licensee assumed that 10 percent of the radioactivity of the entire 5-year volume of LLW would be released, a reasonable assumption based on the design of the storage containers, the nature of the waste, and the design features of the facility described above. The maximum calculated radiation dose to an individual at the nearest offsite point (the shoreline of Lake Erie, north of the plant) is approximately 5 millirem for this accident.
This accident dose is several hundred times smaller than the NRC staff guidance of GL 81-38 for accidents involving onsite storage of radwaste, 2.5 rem (i.e.,10 percent of the 10 CFR Part 100 limits of 25 rem radiation dose to the whole body).
The consequences of accidents involving dry radwaste processing or
. storage were not specifically calculated in the Perry FSAR; rather, the FSAR computes the consequences of a category of accidents involving "iadioactive release from subsystems and components." This category encompasses releases from radioactive waste systems. The radiological consequences of accidents in
' this category were bounded by the consequences of the fuel handling accident, for which the calculated consequences result in a radiation exposure of approximately 1000 millirem at the excbsion area boundary.
The potential radiologic *? consequences from the storage and processing of dry radwaste at the interim LLW facility were calculated to be a maximum of 5 millirem, far below tt.e value specified in the guidance of GL 81-38. Thus, the storage of dry radwaste conforms to the provisions of the FSAR, and the consequences associated with the processing of dry radwaste with contact radiation levels less than 5 mrem /hr are far below the consequences of the category of radwaste accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR.
The NRC staff concludes that the storage of dry radwaste in the interim LLW facility is consistent with the requirements of the FSAR and that the processing of dry solid radwaste at the interim LLW facility will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated, nor will it create the possibility -
of an accident or malfunction of a different type from that previously evaluated. The dry solid radwaste processing and handling activities are essentially unchanged, except for the fact that some of these activities will be performed in the interim LLW facility. The equipment and processes to be employed in the interim LLW facility are similar to the equipment and handling processes currently used in the radwaste building. There are no margins of safety associated with the handling of dry solid wastes as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
(2) Resin Processing The processing, dewatering, and handling of radioactive resins is j
unchanged and will continue to be carried out in the radwaste building. The
i dewatered or solidified liners resulting from these activities will continue to be packaged into high integrity containers (HICs) in the radwaste building.
The only change in resin handling is that the HICs containing spent resin will be placed in individual Onsite Storage Containers (OSSCs). The OSSCs are cylindrical concrete and steel-reinforced vessels designed to provide additional shielding and structural protection for the HICs containing spent resin material.
Again, the Perry operating license contains no restriction on the storage of HICs, and as indicated above, the FSAR permits the storage of radwaste, including dewatered resins, at any location at the site, provided such interim storage locations ars evaluated for compliance with NRC GL 81-38.
The licensee's evaluation demonst*ates that storage of dewatered resins in the DSSCs complies with the provisions of GL 81-38. Thus, the storage of HICs in i
the OSSCs does not involve a change to the Perry FSAR.
The licensee has analyzed the effects of tornadoes, floods, and seismic events on the OSSCs and concluded that these events will not result in the failure of the OSSCs, nor in the release of any radioactive material contained in the HICs inside the OSSCs.
Further, the OSSCs will be kept on a concrete pad away from any potential sources of combustible material and are not i
themselves subject to ccmbustion. Therefore, the licensee does not consider a potential fire in the vicinity of the OSSCs to be a credible event.
The specific consequences of accidents involving spent resin radwaste processing or storage were not explicitly calculated in the FSAR for the Perry facility, but are encompassed by the category of accidents involving radioactive releases from subsystems and components. This category of accidents is bounded by the consequences of the fuel handling accident.
o In connection with the design of the interim LLW storage and processing facility and the OSSCs, the licensee calculated the consequences of an accident involving the failure of a HIC as a result of dropping a HIC during placement into an OSSC. The calculation assumes that 10 percent of the contents of a HIC are released for dispersal into the atmosphere. This is a very conservative estimate since the radioactive material is chemically and physically bound to the resin naterial and would not be readily dispersed.
In addition, the HIC is designed and tested to withstand a drop of 25 feet, and the licensee has established administrative controls to limit the lifting of /
HIC to a maximum height of 15 feet. The maximum calculated dose at the nearest offsite point (Lake Erie, north of the plant) is approximately 80 millirem for this accident. This is about 3 percent of the limit recommended in the NRC staff guidance in GL 81-38 for accidents involving the onsite storage and handling of radwaste.
It is also substantially lower than the offsite dose consequences calculated for the bounding fuel drop accident in the FSAR (approximately 1000 millirem).
In summary, storage of the HICs in the OSSCs conforms to the guidance of GL 81-38 and thus conforms to the requirements of the FSAR.
Although the consequences of an accident involving the failure of a HIC were not explicitly calculated in the FSAR, the FSAR indicated that such storage containers would be used for offsite transport of spent resin material. The failure of a HIC as a result of dropping the container while loading it into an OSSC would be similar to a potential failure during the existing processes for the temporary storage or loaolng of HICs for transport offsite. The dropping of a HIC while loading it into an OSSC would not be more likely than a handling accident during the temporary storage or loading
a of a HIC for transport offsite.
The NRC staff has concluded that the licensee's evaluation of the three criteria of 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) is sufficient and that the construction and operation of the interim onsite LLW storage and processing facility and the associated OSSCs at Perry do not involve an unreviewed safety question.
fnvironmental Imnact Statement Issue The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, s
requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 51.20 also specify criteria for licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements.
Since the licensee can construct and operate the LLW storage facility on the Perry site without prior NRC apprcval, no Federal action is involved and neither NEPA nor the provisions of 10 CFR 51.20 apply. Therefore, neither a hearing nor an environmental impact statement is required.
IV. CONCLUSION In DD-93-05, I determined that the petitioners' requests concerning the temporary onsite low-level radioactive waste storage and processing facility at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant did not present any substantie' health and safety issues and did not provide a basis for the NRL to require a public hearing for the construction and operation cf the facility, or for the NRC to write (or require the licensee to produce) an environmental impact statement for the use of the facility. The staff concluded that the interin.
4
LLW facility does not require an amendment to the plant's operating license; j
therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1), prior NRC approval is not required for the licensee to construct and operate the facility.
In this supplemental decision, I have clarified the bases for the staff's previous finding that the construction and use of the facility does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
I am issuing this supplemental decision to address the petitioners' contentions raised in their letter of April 21, 1993, to the Secretary of the Commission.
I find that those contentions also fail to raise any substantial health and safety issues.
Therefore, I confirm my previous conclusion in DD-93-05, that the petitioners have not submitted a sufficient basis for the NRC to require the i
preparation of an environmental impact statement or to hold a hearing regarding the facility.
I have not changed my previous finding from that discussed in DD-93-05 concerning the petitioners' request for rulemaking.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this supplemental decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of Septe.mber 1993 V
c.
l 7590-01 l
r UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.
I PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-440 ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 6 2.206 l
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor I
)
Regulation (NRR), has issued a supplemental decision concerning a petition of!
September 29, 1992, submitted by Steven C. LaTourette on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Comission2rs (petitioners). The petition requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) take action, so that (1) a public hearing is held before the construction of an onsite, low-level radioactive waste storage facility at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and (2) the construction of the storage facility is suspended until (a) the NRC or the licensee produces an environmental impact statement on the risks of onsite storage of low-level radioactive waste and (b) the NRC promulgates regulations for the storage of low-level radioactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites.
The Director, NRR, denied the petition in Director's Decision DD-93-05 dated March 28, 1993. On April 21, 1993, the petitioners requested that the Comission review and reverse that decision. Although the regulations of 10 CFR 2.206 provide that no petition or other request for Comission review of a director's decision under that section will be entertained by the Comission; q
the Director, NRR, subsequently elected to issue a supplement to the original decision, to clarify the bases upon which that decision was reached.
9 (3l( K \\
c c
i
. g..
The Director, NRR, has confirmed the previous denial of the request.
l The reasons for this decision are explained in the " Supplemental Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-9345), which is available for public inspection in the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.
(Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
20555, and at the Local Public Document Room at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081.
A copy of the supplemental decision has been filed wIth the Secretary of I
the Comission for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c)%
The decision, as supplemented, will constitute the final action of the l
Comission, unless the Comission, on its own motion, institutes review of the decision, as supplemented, within 25 days of issuance of the supplemental l
decision.
i
[
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of September 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
i
)
+