ML20079G249
| ML20079G249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289B673 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401190544 | |
| Download: ML20079G249 (2) | |
Text
______ _______ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 20 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 22, 1983, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) requested changes in the Technical Specifications per-taining to the Condensate Demineralizer Backwash Effluent Line (CDBEL) and the Processed Steam Generator Blowdown Effluent Line (PSGBEL). The licensee's proposal will result in the addition of requirements for CDBEL monitoring to the Technical Specifications and provide operational and surveillance requirements for the associated effluent sampling and monitoring; it will also change the existing Technical Specification ACTION statement for the PSGBEL.
II.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Currently, there is no Technical Specification pertaining to the CDBEL; instead there is License Condition 2.C(21) in this regard which requires the licensee to install and calibrate the CDBEL monitor, RM-L11, prior to startup after the first refueling outage.
In addition, the existing Tech-nical Specification ACTION statement for the PSGBEL (a batch release) erroneously implies that the release is continuous.
By' letter dated July 22, 1983, the licensee informed us that the task stipulated in the License Condition 2.C(21) has been completed, i.e., the effluent monitor RM-L11 has been installed and calibrated and consequently requested us to revise the Technical Specifications to reflect the changed situation. The licensee proposed to add the CDBEL to the Technical Speci-l fications and provided the appropriate operational and surveillance Tech-nical Specification requirements for the associated effluent sampling and monitoring. Also, the licensee requested that the existing Technical Specification ACTION statement pcrtaining to the PSGBEL be changed into an ACTION statement appropriate for batch releases.
We have reviewed the current Technical Specifications, as well as the pro-posed changes by the lice.see. Justifications for the proposed changes were provided by the licensee in the above mentioned letter. Based on our review, we have concluded that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable for the following reasons:
1.
The addition of the CDBEL to the existing Technical Specifi-cations for liquid effluent lines is a logical cordequence 8401190544 840105 PDR ADDCK 05000395 P
~
. of the licensee's completion of the requirement stipulated 'in License Condition 2.C(21) for the continued operation beyond the first refueling outage, and will enhance the monitoring and sampling capability of this potentially radioactive effluent release pathway.
2.
The addition of the CDBEL to the Technical Specification will not result in either. a change in effluent types or the total amount of radioactivity estimated to be released to the environment previously by us.
3.
The operational and surveillance requirements for sampling and monitoring of the associated CDBEL provided by the licensee are appropriate.
4 The proposed revision to the Technical Specification ACTION statement for the PSGBEL (batch release) is appropriate for batch releases.
III. 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 concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact state-ment or negative declaration and environnental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
IV.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was put:ished in the Federal Register (48 FR 49596) on October 26, 1983, and co.isulted with the state of South Carolina. No public coments were received, and the' state of l
South Carolina did not have any comments.
l l
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 conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or t,o the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Jon B. Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL Thyagaraja Chandrasekaran, Meteorology & Effluent Treatment Branch, DSI Dai.ed: January 5, 1984
,,-n v,
,, -. -- ~
-