ML20083L692
| ML20083L692 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Nine Mile Point |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1982 |
| From: | Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083L677 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-14 NUDOCS 8206250092 | |
| Download: ML20083L692 (18) | |
Text
.-
(
(
I, DISTRIBUTION:
i
<DOCUT FIC l
RAB R/F Mg RAB. Plant File Docket No50-220 j@ 0 8 q
O fiqN/kp s
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director jf g
for Operating Reactors, DL Ey e.,
J.gI2g A,
-g
- \\ (, *..,
g
- M FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director 4,
'O b
for Radiation Protection, DSI
~
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AND ENVIROPMENTAL IMPA ' APP INPUTS FOR NINE MILE POINT SAFE END REPLACEMENT Enclosed are copies of the RAB inputs to the SER and EIA for the Nine Mile Point safe.end replacement. This review was performed by F. Skopec, RPS and M. Wangler, RIS, RAB.
i Originsi eigned by eRousten R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration
Enclosure:
As Stated '
l l
cc: w/o encl:
l R. Mattson F. Congel D. Vassallo D. Collins W. Pasciak cc: w/ enc 1:
F. Skopec M. Wangler P. Polk
{bosBeeOSenffop0R 206250092' 08' CF ADoCK o o
\\
l]7(t t
- J I
B DSI RA DSI-DSI:RAB v..
cmcn>
sunuan>
.......p e..c.......
...D..Co... l..i..n..s.......
..F..J..Co..n..g e..l......,,.
.NA.......l..l.,........
../.4 /.8 2....
....... 6../....../. 8. 2...6../..
/. 8. 2.....6../......../. 8. 2....~6./.-.. -./.8. 2..
l 6
u.n y OFFIClAL RECORD COPV usom mi
,33. so j
(
s SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT NINE. MILE POINT S AFE END REPLACEMENT i
Niagara iiohawak has taken into account ALARA considerations.for the activities involved in the replacement of safe ends on the Nine Mile
{
Point primary coolant re c i r culat i on lines.
The licensee has committed to implement an overall radiation protection /
l ALARA program for the replacement ~ project that includes job planning cnd evaluation; training of personnels including mock-up training; review of work while'in progress to detect problems and implement improvements; cnd post-task evaluation to incorporate lessons-learned into subsequent tosks.
i The pre-job planning has considered evaluation of alternative methods of replacing the safe ends an'd evaluation of alternative techniques for specific tasks.
Activities,.specifically directed to reducing occupational dose resulting from this planning include coolant pipe decontamination; use of temporary shielding; use of audio visual communication equipment i
to cinimize the n, umber of personnel in high dose rate areas; muck-up training of workers; use of automated pipe cutting machinese welding equipment and weld crown reduction tools; use of portable ventitation i equipment to reduc'e airborne radioactivity; and use of water shielding in the primary coolant sy' stem where appropriate.
These conditionLare
. 'c on s i s t e n t with Regulatory Guide 8.8 and are. acceptable.
Tha training of workers includes use of two futt scale mock ups of the intot nozzle and outlet nozzle areas of the drywell.
The radiation h
protection training program is base'd on Regulatory Guides 8.13, 8.27 and p
ph 8.29 cnd is acceptable.
r 1
\\
$)I m
Ei:
.r..
o.
h
. During the jobs the Licensee-proposes to summarize daily personnet doses 1
'[
- by. individual and by task.
The Licensee has committed these daily dose f-
.r' d
- reports wiLL be reviewed byisite supervisors daily.
These. doses wiLL e
Se baseo on pocket. dosimeter readinos.
The Licensee has committed to
. implement a pocket dosimeter test program in accordance with Regulatory
'4 Guide 8.4.
The Licensee has committed to supplement the plant radiation protection staff with engineers and technicians necessary to complete the project.
The Licensee has committed that technicians in responsible positions wilL be. ANSI 18.1 qualified and that they witL be qualified on plant. procedures that they are to perform.
The licensee provided a detailed breakdown of the tasks to be performedi the-measured or estimated doce rates in the areas where work will be and the estimated performedi the projected person-hours for each tasks person-rems for-each task.
The Licensee has committed to seview the l
person-hour estimatess as appropriate, based on the experience from the l
l mock-up training.
The Licensee has also committed to update the dose l
l and after draining l
rate projection.s after decon of the components The Licensee
~ he reactor' vessel and making new-dose rate measurements.
t
-wiLL.use these updates to review the person rem estimates as appropriateis 1
t In addition the Licensee wiLL refine the estimates as the work progresses the f'
to incorporate dose reductions based on experiences gained during L
.first loop modification.
The gained experience th,a'n wiLL be applied to l
~
1 1
subsequent work on the remaining four Loop modifications, which may t
l risult in further dose reductions.
l
\\
b
L C
C
- The licensee has currently estimated 2906 per son rem for the safe end nozzle replacement project.
Based on our review of information provided by the licenseer w? conclude that the estimated person-rem doses for the project a p p e a r.4 conservative.
'N s_
N Based on our review of information provided by'the Licenseer we conclude that the estimated person-rem doses for the project appear
'l i c
- p.is-a r es A5 eate,qfdaMhtellechWe-L c onserve44 ve.3and that the licensee intends to implement appropriate occupational ALARA actions.
We conclude that the licensee has provid'ed reasonable assurance that individual radiation doses wiLL be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR 20 and the total person-rem doses ALARAr consistent with guidelines of Regulatory Guide 8.5.
We therefore find the proposed occupational dose control aspects of the proposed project acceptabic.
S S
9 s
e e
5
f
(
po $g RAD 10 LOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF RaulATION E-Xp050RE RESULTING FROM THE NINE MILE POINT REACTOR RECIRCULATION N0ZZLE SAFE-END REPLACEMENT PROJECT DOSE 1.
OCCURATIONAL (ON SITE) EFrPOSURE
' Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NM) has estimated that the react.or recircu-r I
lation nozzle safe-end replacement. project for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 'will result in approximately 2900 p'erson'-rems to workers.
This collective occu-
' ational radiation exposure estimate is obtained b.y adding the dos.e estimate p
of approximately 600 person-rems for the inlet nozzle replacement work and 1
II c
9
! { approximately 2300 person-rems for: the outlet nozzle replacement work.I Wc.
h/I
~ /,,,,6 iw c_ av.m 4
-A.., c.,t..J.e c. ) g... L A rkd ; r.u ny,...,,,,[g, l
l }
R u $ % 3 E e $ u \\ M..c.-lr g.
To' determine the relative environmental significance of the estimated maximum t
occupational dose of 2900 person-rems, comparisons were made with 1) the
.dki-
!. +. '. p.
doses expected from normal operation of,, nuclear plants, and 2) other non-nuclear risks.
Most of the do.se to nuclear plant workers results from external exposure to r
' radiation coming 'frem radioactive materials outside of the body rather than from internai exposure from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials.
[
. Experience shows that the dose to nuclear plant workers varies from reactor to 1
reactor and from year to year.
For environmental-impact purposes, it can be projected by using the experience to date with modern BW4s.
Recently licensed L
1000-MWe SWEs are operated in accordance with the post-1975 regulatory require-ments and guidance that place' increased emphasis on maintaining occup'ational exposure at nuclear power plants ALARA. These requirements and guidance are I
e u-.w
C C
. outlined primarily in 10 CFR Part 20, Standard Review Plan Chapter 12 (NUREG-0800), and' Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will 8e As low As Is Reasonably Achievable."
~
RWs proposed implenentation of these recuircaents and guidelines for the uf<-end etplacewent paject. for Nn.* Mle Pontt Unit 1-as reviewed by the NRC Staff, and the results of that review are reported in
~
the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report.
Table 4.1 shows the occupational dose history fon //M M/t EmN Und 1 Assuming that the total Nine Mile Point dose for 1982 is comprised of the 2900 person-rems for the safe-end replacement project, the average annual dose for the 13 years 'of dose history at g,nc N;/e p,,h (19hb through 1982.)
will be approximately 870 person-rems,$.
kccupational exposure estimates were not specifically considered in the #,ho /17/e Po.a U,,4 f FES) but were discussed during the' licensing hearing.
Table 4.2 summarizes the annual occupat'ional radiation doses at U.S. commercial
- nuclear power reactors for the years 1969 through 198f.6 Average collective occupational dose information for teo SWR reactor-years of operation is available for those plants operating between 1974 and 1981 (The year 1974 was chosen as a. starting date because the dose data for years prior to 1974 are primarly from reactors with average rated capacities below 500 MWe.)
These data indicate that the average reactor annual collective dose at SKRs has been
C~
C
. about770 person-rems, with some plants experiencing an average plant life-time annual collective dose to date as high as 1300 person-rans.,8 6
These dose averages are based on widely varying yearly doses at SWRs. The wide range of annual collective doses experienced at EWRs in the United States results from a number of factors such as the amount of required maintenance and the amount of reactor operations and inplant surveillance.fy ough the dose for these particular plants far exceeds the average of 770 person-r. ems for SWR's, these doses are included in the average and are considered normal deviations from the average, particularly since such maintenance contributes to effective and safe plant operation and since it is carried out with procedures that maintain exposures Al. ARA.
As Table 4.2, S& ~cd shows, ths 2S00 person-rems es' imate for the rcylacenstproject is within the t
A l
historical range of ooses above the average for a single unit in a year.
l We calculate that 2900 person-rems, the occupational dose estimate for the
[
Sde -Md repIou.-ed}roject, corresponds to a risk of less than one prema in the exposed work force population. We also calculate that 290 person-rems corresponds to a risk of less than one genetic effect to the ensuing five es -4 u e;.p,se d w & 2i~-- e n otd.ca s generations (~ These risks' are based on risk estimators derived in the BEIR I A
u,s.
Report ang! WASH-1400 from data for the population as a wh. ole.
New infor-9 10 A
II mation in the BEIR III Report would lead to an even lower estimated risk for premature fatal cancers. These risks are incremental risks (risks in addition to the normal risks of fatal cancers and genetic effects wa all face couc,wdgcs ie c
-Y continuously).
For a population of 1000.thes1! normal r'isks that are unrelated-s A
to //ru ft.k Ps,.N Nuclear Station would be expected to result in' about 190 cancer 3
41sf deaths and about 60 genetic effects in thT-e4sthg populationj% tic effect's-A L
E
(
(
re genetic diseases or malformations),9' plus about 300 more genetic effects among their descendants.
To make the health risk associated with radiation dose more understandable, risk comparisons can be made with non-nuclear activities commonly participate';
.: 7 One rem of radiation is numerically comparable to a
~'
'in by muny individuals.
lifetime mortality risk of about 10-4 Table 4.3 presents the equivalent risk of 10-4 for several common activities -
risks which many people take routinelj and conside.r to be insignificant.
~
As Table 4.3 shows, the' lifetime
~'
- N an.s am -e d (Inths/LYC risk from radiation dose for +"
.d project worker is smalle A
4 than the lifetime risk associatcd with many common activities.
Another perspective of an occupational risk comes from comparison of occupational mortality risks in U.S.
One such comparisen is shown in Table 4.4.
It indicates that radiation ' exposure in the work place, as experienced at an average radiation worker exposure rate, results in a relatively low occupational risk.
t Some have criticized occupationally related cancer estimates as being overly I
conservative.I4 However, most c'xperts feel the risk estimates in Table 4.4 relating to occupational exposure to low-LET radiation are also overestimates.
- Nr. Dave Porter. Manager, Nuclear Engineering Section, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point. Beach Nuclear Plant, provided this information to Mr. Timothy Colburn, Project Manager, U.S. NRC by telephone co6versation on May 5,1982.
e-
t
(.
. In our opinion, tiie comparisons just presente' are reasonable ones.
The risks d
, of occupational exposures in the range of 0.5 rem per year to 5 rem per year do not significantly affect a typical worker's total risk of mortality.
In summary, the NRC Staff has" drawn the following conclusior.s regarding dos occupational radiation dose. 4E's estimata of 2@0 person-rems for t e Ss(c.ca) is a ra&& W"d se falls 0 c Thfs n gin %t project at din's Mdo Aid u.e41 4s-reasonable.
within the normal range of annual occupational doses which have been observed in recent years at operating reactors. Although the doses resulting from the reaeter ree wc.u M o k n n2 /* saff -e- / <c Patew t*t will increase the annual occupational dose average of_ #me Milo Pomt um,+ 1 to approximately 87operson-remsy this is still well below the MSc person-rems per unit annual average of Swf s experiencing high levels of special maintenance work. '- /#1 has taken appropriate steps to ensure that occupational doses will be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and l
Al. ARA. The Additional health risks due to these doses over normal risks are quite small, less than one percent of normal risk to the project work force as a whole. The risk to an average individual in the work force will be lower than the risk incurred from particip*ation in many commonplace activities.
The Sr(e -estel individual risks associated with exposures involved in the wphermef program will be controlled and limited so as not to exceed the limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 for occupational exposure.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff coni:1udes that the environmental impact due to occupational exposure will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
S
=
.r f
L L
~
. 2.
PUBLIC (0FF SITE) RADIATION EXPOSURE ud no So
[se d HRC Staff has estimated mount'of radioactivity will be released A fe-coJ in liquid and gaseous effluents as a result of thettplar/ t-tproject.j Table 4.5 presents U
effluent releases for 1979
,1980 and 1981 from Mhc mic Pomt i and 7
the FES annual average effluent release estimates., and compares the ex-pected releases from the safe-end replacement project with FES estimates and act~ al annual radiological effluent releases at Nine Mile Point.
Based on u
t this comparison, we conclude that the offsite inviro'nmental impact than may o
occur during the period of this precedure will be s'maller than that which.:
occurs during normal operation.
n n.M6'ej gince we expect no larger radioactive effluents from #iu Mik/un? Ond f after l
fafe-en c (over P+ Pfae+ (P'"'##.h we conclinde that the impact on biota the s<(6-e nd other than man will also be no larger after thercplacnor project.
i sag-c+1 In summary, the radioactive releases resulting from the yetawt project will l
be less than those due to norIa1 pl, ant' operation. These releases are also much less than the esEimates presented in the FES._ The doses due to these releases are small compared to the limits of 40 CFR Part 190 and to the annual l,
Therefore, the radiological impact of doses from' natural background radiation.
S A -Cws theicpWtet' project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
4
(
(
3.
CONCLUSIONS reactor rceirtu./dr
. Based on our review of the p'roposed no)pe safe-end vcf>f.ecwM project, we have reached the following conclusions which are discussed in greater detail above.-
sde d (1) The estimated ocuptimicipese d.acperson-rems for the rcriare,i.c4 project is within the expected range of deses incurred at light water power reactors in a year.
SsSc &
(2) The risks to the workers involved in therepufmtwt project fror6 radiation exposure are no larger than the risks incurred'by:
(a) workers in other industrial businesses, and r-(b) most people, working or not, from commonplace activities such as driving a car.
l l
(3) NMhas t.aken appropriate steps to ensure that occupational dos'e will be misintained as low as is reasonably achievable and within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
(4) Offsite doses resp 1 ting from the sleeving project will be:
smaller than those incurred during normal operation of N,se /4:fd (a)
Po..t,umti, and (b) negligible in comparison to the dose menbers of the public in the vicinity offt,nc Mc Pa.41 Und 1. receive from natural. background radiation.
6
-~
c c
e 8-On the basis of the foregoing statements, the Staff concludes that the proposed Sak d gp5ct M project at the Niht Hil6 Po m*t dotst 1-util not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Mc-Ced' We have reviewed this proposedrerken.cd project relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council of Environmental Quality's Regulations 40 CFR Part 1500. We have determined that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
9 e
S l
1 q.
4 e
o t
L t
REFERENCES 1.
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Reactor Recirculation Nozzle Safe End Replacement Report prepared by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, May 24,1982 (revised Jdne 1,1982) and,information provided by T. Roman, Plant Superintendent via phone conversation *With NRC project ' manager, P. Polk on June 4,1982, 2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Code of-Federal Regulations,10 CFR Part 20, " Standards For Protection Against Radiation," as of January 1, 1981.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
3.
NUREG-0800, " Radiation Protection," in:
" Standard Review Plan," Chapter 12, July 1981 (formerly issued as.NUREG-75/087).
4.
U.S. Nur. lear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 8.8, Revision 3, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exnosures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as low as Is Reasonably Achievable,"
June 1978.
5.
NUREG-0713, Vol.1, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors,1979, U.S.N.R.C., March 1981.
6.
NUREG-0713, Vol. 2, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commerc'ial Nuclear Power Reactors,1980, U.S.N.R.C., December 1981.
Final Environmental Statement related to oneration of Nec MI/c Po,2 /hcle 7.
Statter Unit 1
' United States Atomic Eneray Commission, J.w<y 19W.
3 8.
NUREG-0692, Final Environmental Statement Related to Steam Generator Repair at Surry Power Station, Unit 1, July 1980.
9.
The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels.of Ionizing Radia-tion, "BEIR' Report," report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, November 1972.
l l'O.
WASH-1400, " Reactor Safety Study - An Assessment 'of Accident Risks in U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants," U.S.N.R.C., October 1975.
The Effects on Population of Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation
.11.
"BEIR III Report," report of the committee on the Biological Effects of l
Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences - National Research l
Council,1980.
11 2.
1979 Cancer Facts 'and Figures, American Cancer Society.
13.
E. Pochin. "The Acceptance of Risk," British Medical Bulletin 31(3), 1975.
14.
R. Peto,'" Distorting the Epidemiology of Cancer, the Need for a More Balanced Overview " Nature 284, 297-300 (March 27,1980).
s
(
. I i
(
6
V
(
(.I TABLE 4.1 ANNUAL COLLECTIVE
OCCUPATIONAL DOSE AT #hc. / hic Pg'.if UNITS 1*
COLLECTIVE OCCUPATIONAL DOSE YEAR _
(person rems) f/
.I179
/75 1971 2FF 1972 54 7
'973 F24 1974 6l'/
1975 V29 1976
/J PJ 1977 J/g 1978 N9) 1979
~
59/
1980 pg92 **
1981 i
- First commercial operation 12/69
{
RAB from data Hinson and R. Pedersene U.S.NRCr.RPSr
- Calculated by C.
. suaptied in May 4,lTB2 l. iter (re. 7;E. Lemp3es, Vice Pr sided, helw-Ge*,emlin e
A sdcyra. NoAnwt (NM) Pawer (o~ymli,;,to Director of Management an Program Analysise U.S. NRC in compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, Section l
20.407 t
e e
4 e
e D
'N 1
(. '
(
TABLE 4.2 AlitiUAL OCCUPATI0fML, RADIATION DOSES AT 6
'U.S. COMMERCIAL fiUCLEAR POWER REACTORS (person-rems per reactor unit)
PWR BWR Year Average Average Low High 1969 165 195 42 298 1970 684 127 44 1639 1971 307 255 50 768 197'2 464 286 61 1032 1973' 783 380 85 5262 1974 331 507 71 1430
~~
1975 318 701 21 -
2022 1976 460 549 58 2648 1977 396 828 87 3142 1978 429 604 48 1621 r.
1979 510 733 31 2140 1980 578 1,136 22 3626 jqgj+
(, g (,
- 9 f5*'
dY NSV 1
M c, hi.la iej f. C. Ni s~, K S #9 C, R tl FA'B 4;.w dat k.
J Su(phk d by ojo4% ye, c.h c g,y,.,,c c, y n u c'<
l v> t!- to ce2 Pa d >a, sC afu po.vo.y, e
]
(
b.
TABLE 4.3 L7 7 TIME MORTALITY RISKS 13 NUMERICALLY EQUIVALENT TO ONE REM Type of Activity Equivalent Risk to One Rem Smoking cigarettes I carton Drinking wine 66 bottles
. Automobile driving 6,600 miles Commercial flying 33,000 miles Canoeing 1.6 days
- Reing a man aged 60 1.8 days
- Eight hours per day 4
f*
e e
{.
. TABLE 4.4 OCCUPATIONAL RISKS (Events per year per 100,000 workers)
Mining &
All U.S'.
Radia tion guarryino Industries Trade _
Exposure (1)
' Fatal Accidents 63 11 6
<1 Delayed Effects Actual.
readily Occasionally not not Observabl e Observable Observa bl e Observeble 4-6 lethal cancers ($
Estimated
?
Includes 115-219
'?
- 1. ethal cancers (2) 1 *
(I)1976 data, from " Accident Facts,1977 Edition," National Safety Council.
.y.
(2) Estimates from " Toxic Chemicals and.Public Protection, A Report to the President by the Toxic Sub' stances Strategy Coramittee," Council an Environmental Quality, Government Printing Office, i4ay 1980.
Assu.nes 20-38% of all cancers are associated with occupation.
(3) Estimates from BEIR-III,1980, assuming an average radiation worker exposure rate of 0.5 rem /hr; exposure at the limit 5 rems /yr, would yield an estimate of from 37 to 63 lethal cancers per year per 100,000 workers.
Y G
9 D
L
s.
TAOLE 4.5 RADIOACTIVE EFFLUEllTS FR0ft Af.ht Mf4 Mful IT 1 d.t'.8ItI4.0Md britistL1Cll.
Type of Radioactive Estimates for fieteases FES Estleales of curing 'Jafe.ed PeplatM8 Etfluent Annual Releases (Cl) 1979 1Y80 1931 geg)
Gase:us.
flohte G'as"es llegLlg(ble
/.063) c 59(+2)
, 4/.62c)
/. / b'/)
"Iodtne & Particulates llegligible 3,g[.2) p,
,g
/.6(. M 3A[O) a Tritium flegligible f./h/)
f,/ (*2) 4,fa /)
d 3
1 Liould l
Is 1
fitted fission and OfjI'j' 0) 0.0 J/, g[o)
Activation products Tritiuk rie ugibte 6 44 o.o 5./63 2.o6) j 6
- Asdlosctive hatt lives'8 days or more.
boetow tower Linits of dqtectability for plant Instrumentation.
cp,0(su3 ), j,o no n l
dilo estinate was glven in FES, i
n 1
0 e
v (w
+
.~
3 o
v UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7590-01 m
DOCKET NO. 50-220 NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION
_ NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. 50 to facility Operating License No. DPR-63 issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) which revised the license operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (the facility) located in Oswego County, New York.
The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
l The amendment approves the recircolation system piping replacanent program, in:luding the welding of system piping and the worker dose mitigation program, and it provides license conditions related to the replacenent program.
ihe licensee's filings comply with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and i
regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations 10 CFR Chapter I which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the proposed action and has concluded that an envirorrnental impact statenent for this partii.ular action is not warranted because there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
A-n VM
I 2
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the licensee's filings dated August 6,16 and 26,1982, and Septaber 27 and October 6,1982, (2) Amendment No. 50 to License No. OPR-63, (3) the Commission's related Safety l
Evaluation, and (4) the Comission's related Envirortnental Impact Appraisal.
All of these itms are available for public inpsection at the Commission's public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington. 0.C. and at the Penfield Library, State University College at Oswego, Oswego, New York 13126.
A copy of itens (2), (3) and (4) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October,1982.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATt,RY COMMISSION
/
g-d Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing I
- y Q
Q
.-., o
. m_..... _ n m _
i
~#
y.
' NRC sORu 255 C(JN f 84 ACI NUMHf H (10 76#
NRC-10-82-385 DIVISION OF CONTh ACTS MOuiF #C ATION NUMaf R U.S. NUCLE AR HE GUL ATORY CCMMISStON 1
I-W ASHINGTON. O C 20$55 f)NEW 41 MODIFICATION 01HF R ISorcotyl NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT EXECUTION CONTHACTHASIDON TO. _
IM'mond J.
Di r ect,or I
,,,g p
I Tottel RFPA-lO-82-385 Division of Security DATE IOep,aase,oal February 3, 1982 Anne lloyle CONT R ACT CH ANGES F'En THIS ACTION Frons-10/14/82 tcoer,,te spec.,,.eri roarer Extend period of performance Procurement Agent from April 1, 1982 through Adnini vt r.it ive contracts Dr.mch February 12, 1983.
- ~. -.. _ _ _ _ _. _..
Modify ARTICLE VI - DELIVERY SriiE!)ULE AND PAYMENT
-t i
DIVISION Of CONTR ACTS. ADM -
CONTRQCTOH IfV,me A 1 ricer.on) i k L CUT ;Ot. DA TE J Mr. David Wright October 14, 1982 6622 Sulky Lane Rockville, Maryland 20852 T)PE Or CONTH ACT j'
Fixed Price PHaOCT TITL E PE RIOD OF PE HFORY ANCE
" Security Survdy Guides and Appraisal Guide" 4-1-82-2-12-83 PHINCIPAL INVESTiC ATOR j
Mr. David Wright NHC AUTI 041/[D f(E PH[SE NT ATIVE
~ '
Duane Jidd H& H P.U*.PHLlt iIN NUMHE H 47-20-25-902 31XG200.402 AMOUNT NEW NRC f UNDS S 9,800.00 FUNDING TOTALiv.y2., F-U N D IN G S 9,800,00
- l IOTAL NRC ORI IG ATlONS. jI S 9,800.00 coes HNes N: r uwt Hiv A11 ACHMt NTtSi C;;;vn493 nol014 yi.
PDR CONTR i
NRC-10-82-385 PDR CUN'"#C occovF NT e.__
c
y
/
( f
,) e j,,*(
, AT
- n. i, i i t i. l q.,fnI.f
(
s j
, o.. j.. j,,, o...e,n... i. a.., o.. c.$.... i
,,...,... i,,,, c a,u..... a e _
ri o,..,,,..i e... n.t,,
n s
)
RDP 5 83-26 - C Rn
'. ' /C ',".--Y ~~~hc s
RTNOC HDP 410128 92406011',8
,o', n.. s. n....
2,
.v..., o, so....m,o,-.....
' " " " " * '" * " 3
' "' e o" a"
' ". '"" a * > ' o o.. ". n.". " u " " ". * ]X l o,,..,..n n.
s o, } l i
o,..o....o..
n. n.,, v,.on.. 4 o - o
,...,,............,_................ n.........,,,._...,,...
........i.....n.,-...,..i:
l
,emar eht niamer,oul av yra tenoat eh i gni duleiri,snoiti1.n'u lap. nm re t rehfo IIA i
3891,21 y r atneleP..
....edioC lasiarplA laniF 6
i 3H9l,82 yrauna1........ediuG la.riarppA fo tfarD laniF no.tnemnoc/we i +.h CFN 5
2H91,82 rebmeceD....
.......ediuG laniarppA fo tf arD laniF 4
2if A' l,82 r eb.r e v uT!.........ediuG l an i a r.jrA fo en i l tuO iro t.re. mop /w i v-e N CEN 3
2H91,82 r ebo t cO... ed i uG laniarppA fo eniltuO 2
2891
,8 rebotcO..........sediuG yevron laniF 1
- wol.b debi rc red se tad ) reviled eh t tcelf e r o t TN -iMY A'l_ _ _.. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...
IV ELCIrtl A y f i d.n DNA ELUDlfiCS YHIVILrD -
1-j 3H91 21 yraurbeI hguorht 2H8'l
,1 li rpA mo rf al llahr tcar tnoc sih t r,,f ecna.r t,f r ep fo doirep ehT"
- ta e reh t ue i l ni j
gniwollof eht e tu t i t.rbu.! dna yte ri tne
.t t i ni ErN AM FOW, i i FO DO! b I 1 - III E.irIrfl A e t e l.D
..uo..... m o..
- .o. u - n...
..o o
.g,_.. j I,.i r i a.. i.... e. 3.... s.
...,.....a.,,.,...
...i...1 lin
..n.........<...,...
o..,, ] l,..
TNEitYA'l DNA FLUD !!!S YhFVILED - IV ELCITFA
,....,...,, o.
s a m.+,n....o <,o n an a,. a..
. oi, m e s u,,
. a m,
,i 2 0,'
,' ? - 0 2 - 7 4
/ 04. O O21(X l l
- o...... jg.,. o......
....,..........o.
,n
......,t.....t,...,.,............a.,..............._,..............<.......,,..
.....~o,o......,,,......m.,..e........o..,
.,.,..., -,, -, o,. e... o...e.<.. o....,,.. n,,,o,,,,e,o..
,. o.
<......o,,o
,.e
.........4
..................-...m_
-..........i........,.>........-,....,.....,....................,,,.....,,,n.........,...
.-.-..s....
.. oi
. ~.. - -. +.......,o..
.~...s.............,-...................
.......s.........<
.. _... m..., _._.. r ] [
~... -.. J I. s. -..... J I.... <.... -...,.,
.,,..... n
. s,:...... o
,m..... s.. _. n,...o s,,,,..... :.
,,,.. n..n 2 H/ono J
l n...o
>.s. <
,rH4-Q1-01 RN ow,itui, <..in o e ]l
..,,,./.,.s..
rs r
'o non. r.i.to 25HD2 dera l"> : %,ellivknuJ
.* * * " "b I n :,.o enaL yL ! u E '.T.M 19 4 -M,b ( -
)
thr i rW diva.1.rM owuo,.,vons..l
, l g
,o,,,,.m....
m m. o..., _. ~
}
. _... _.. l 101, t
..-._. -. } I, t u t
/
t t r ot r <. I t
a' n n o w.. !
S... O '.
r
.D, no t Jut i L. P LI tlrA t e n. r t n..C fo noi.iviD noi.?tn C y r,i t a i u q,.I t s. e l :r a 'N L 11 l s_ou_a
,,.n......,..,,,..a..
gs a 1 TCO
,o, u
..o,~
w_
2
/ loa in /s t oa 1M)*.P.
ow ts evo,. es..uevr,,u.irguoc. 3 uac i,.ono 3 on os,. t e,.ro.a, V 8= tw t..
- d l
l.,..............<.x.,o..
1
.t a,.,.<
..s..
. u a u..i m.a,f.,
i~
y 1( \\ t i
ie snus sm 4
y