ML20086J386
| ML20086J386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084C016 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401230626 | |
| Download: ML20086J386 (6) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _
- p areg'%
UNITED STATES 5y.
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3J N/ /
C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 62 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 88 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
To comply with Section V of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50, the Carolina Power & Light Company has filed with the Commission plans and proposed Technical Specfications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as is reasonably achievable. The Carolina Power & Light Company has filed this information with the Commission by lettcr dated December 13, 1982, supplemented by letters dated October 17 and November 11, 1983, which reauested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-71 and DPR-62 for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed Technical Specifications update those portions of the Technical Specifications addressing radioactive waste management and make them con-sistent with the current staff positions as expressed in NUREG-0473. These revised Technical Specifications would reasonably assure compliance, in radioactive waste management, with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, as supplemented by A pendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, with 10 CFR Parts 20.105(c),
106(g), and 405(c, with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 60, 63, and 64; and with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
2.0 BACKGROUND
AND DISCUSSION 2.1 Regulations 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Section 50.36a, " Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors," provides that each license authorizing operation of a nuclear power reactor will include Technical Specifications that (1) required compliance with applicable provisions of Part 20.106,
" Radioactivity in Effluents to Unrestricted Areas;" (2) require that operating procedures developed for the control of effluents be established and followed; (3) require that equipment installed in the radioactive waste system be maintained and used; and (4) require the periodic submission of reports to the NRC specifying the quantity of each of the 8401230626 831227 I
PDR ADOCK 05000324 I
P PDR
principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effuents, any quantities of radioactive materials released that are significantly above design obiectives, and such other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose to the public resulting from the effluent releases.
10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation," paragraphs 20.105(c), 20.106(g), and 20.405(c), require that nuclear. power plant and other licensees comply with 40 CFR Part 190, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations," and submit reports to the NRC when the 40 CFR Part 190 limits have been or may be exceeded.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A - General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, contains Criterion 60, Control of Releases of Radioactive Materials to the Environment; Criterion 63, Monitoring Fuel and Waste Storage; and Criterion 64, Monitoring Radioactivity Releases.
Criterion 60 requires that the nuclear power unit design include means to control suitably the release of radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents and to handle radioactive solid wastes produced during normal reactor operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.
Criterion 63 requires that appropriate systems be provided in radioactive waste systens and associated handling areas to detect conditions that may result in excessive radiation levels and to intitiate appropriate safety actions. Criterion 64 reouires that means be provided for monitoring effluent discharge paths and the plant environs for radioactivity that may be released from normal operations, including anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, establishes cuality assurance reouirements for nuclear power plants.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,Section IV, provides guides on Technical Specifications for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50.
2.2 Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications NUREG-0473 provides radiological effluent Technical Specifications for boiling water reactors which the staff finds to be an acceptable standard for licensing actions.
Further clarification of these acceptable methods is provided in NUREG-0133, " Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifcations for Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-0133 describes methods found acceptable to the staff of the NRC for the calculation of certain key values required in the preparation of proposed radiological effluent Technical Specifications for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
NUREG-0133 also provides guidance to licensees in preparing requests for changes to existing radiological effluent Technical Specifications for operating reactors.
It also describes current staff positions on the methodology for estimating radiation exposure due to the release of radio 5ctive materials in effluents and on the administrative control of radioactive waste treatment systems.
i
{ The above NUREG documents address all of the radiological effluent Technical Specifications needed to assure compliance with the guidance and requir.ements provided by the regulations previously cited. However, alternative approaches to the preparation of radiological effluent Technical Specifications and alternative radiological effluent Technical Specifications may be acceptable if the staff determines that the alternatives are in compliance with the regulations and with the intent of the regulatory guidance.
The standard raciological effluent Technical Specifications can be-grouped under the following categories:
1)
Instrumentation;
- 2) Radioactive Effluents;
- 3) Radiological Environmental Monitoring;
- 4) Design Features; and
- 5) Administrative Controls.
Each of the specifications under the first three categories is comprised of two parts: the limiting condition for operation and the surveillance requirements. The limiting condition for operation provides a statement of the limiting condition, the times when it is applicable, and the actions to be taken in the event that the limiting condition is not met.
In general, the specifications established to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 standards provide, in the event the limiting conditions of operation are exceeded, that without delay, conditions are restored to within the limiting conditions. Otherwise, the facility is required to effect approved shutdown procedures.
In general, the specifications established to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50 provide, in the event the limiting conditions of operation are exceeded, that within specified times corrective actions are to be taken, alternative means of operation are to be employed, and certain reports are to be submitted to the NRC describing these conditions and actions.
The specifications concerning design features and administrative controls contain no limiting conditions of operation or surveillance requirements.
Table 1 indicates the standard radiological Technical Specifications that are needed to assure compliance with the particular provisions of the regulations described in Section 1.0.
'ilil ll i
P P
P P
E I
T N
a a
a a
l P
a O
o r
Cr S
M ER 5
r b
t t
edux f sa t
t rr r
rt 2 ucaese
'0 v.
l e
mebe((( rt i ii i i 4
bqift m 0.0 munfaa 3
l v
ptI e
osmr321oan 5
5 t t t
t5
~
1 ron 0
niit)))vbt 0
0 ee e
e0 1
iitlbi 6
s o
d 1
0sgt iia rr r
r C0 tpauln a
i vai N
t n bcrqdli p
p oo o op R(
rennsw n
A A
ii t
t A
F5 miei o
isc e
r rehaues n
ssa e
aoesada h
p p
nn n
np c en thi T
s iut R
d t bp t nind r
e e e
1)ptas tne ore e
e ejo g at ase n n 6(
6 6n 9,
o n
ahuc o
ne al d
ereet it ul d
d 43 1
0d 0 r
d nich f
t na cctfsit are i
2 t
d n ln t
ot f
ol va i
i
- x 0,s foe och dt x
x u
ei T
i o
n iio i n e o e s s
flac i
m Bo fvfrn snie I
8 HM F
CA 1
e oira t
tps on f
oe t
- ls oorumo 0
s lm l
l hip l
u r
csu o
l
- nnaean -
6 e
r lip e
ele lB y
.m a
s r t'
aw iidltt
(
m a
otos l
ac ie l
ltea ni GQ tti erg g
i d
wswp 1
rni nt co o.d r ct Ruu ooosroe
)
i ee 0
ecf g w a
eheTa rratiln a
o porc t
u g ei e
o lkf m.d iadl iicoa e
n a
rf i
C i
u c
We m
ae
&nse i
n n t r lo r 2
n c
o rf o
lwa an p
d teua os tgg iasfa 0
u t
c5ei d
ait t
l e
epnt m mdn y
vg l
.4 l
v d2ca a
i e ac e
eP tt i u
s.
d ria oeat rfietr rr r
rest nsbo A
aut oeD 0
e u0tt o
iho o
n o
e des.
i iil s
deya le 5
a r.
oi f
n o
olt s
tgyH s
il ntes
(
n w
e1ro nts Rv sh ei t
b serI on e u o cdhai c
d a
s0sn F
. et as j
eain r
Ae r aao esg
)
s 6
s e
ssc h
ci o
t ettnI ioct a
cnnh en o
t t
d to nbh n
t dt aes C
t e
o o
e ia dt on h
b eseh gji c
i rnn C
o h
n r
e y
x dee
. e e A" e
rs e vwodvor m e s
c a
na s
r c
f pcvs iallifi p
r y
o e
l o
e A" a e f tr c
rta C
ts ir t
l s
n f
ie f
s a
eLrnl oibL r yt nore i
t t
f R
f p
l dAevu g s lo i
e g na e a
e r
l e
in t
e
.c R a ie reew t
r mdi n
m o
u g
ee h
c t Asrn as e es aeia c
l e
u de e
h "
ot m
( A r
lt nno e
n l
i p
e ns As d
f i
eo dta t
a R
e ci r
m t
L a ar c
w s
t o
e o
Ai d
e a
c n
Rs sa t
i i
g eg i
t f
o u
t e
t A
se v
h r
n l
.d
)
e o
s a
io m
t n
i s
t mi o
G
{pt e e e
4 s u C. g{6"2 ien n
o ons s
ntt e.
g eS e S G
6 o:. aC..
55e ar a
n u
n d
g4 t
Cn 83t, g L
h 9 gO S
4 sg i
e q
9 S
4 9 eg a3 2Iu.a;jU u
S i
t d
R a
e 8
g#
-' a3 =2Sn 4s, a
n d
d 9
g#
i P
a o
r S 39 S
9 Sg W
% s * *C a
d R
c S
S ge S
9 '4 g 3 v=. A ". g[h.
/
t t R
B i a a
W g
.8 g
E's 2
- 5. E g,
- R v
n d
G e d
i S ge S
e 4 Gg a
a o
3a. a4 "S..jE a P
s E r l
W e f d o
e 0
g#
. n8.g
- t.
R o f
g u l R i
s s
0 Gg a :4
- - ugyo s u a
c Sge G
e 0 4g E; sc d2s,, gE.f -
B n
i a
e d
l W
t o
6 9
e g
S"8eEt R
s l
E o
f e
g#
t ~ as C "8s.
u g
f i
l e
e g
- u su3t3. g U li c
u a
e g s 0 ss l
n i
E 4
HH f
T oa f
e e
g 4 w:. 2e3tp iE2, i.d n
l c
u h
e e
? => : eEa.
oE n
i t
e n
rn t
c iv a
g g
- re. $ab:g iEl, ni T
l g.r e
c S
h p
n e
F i
c eD c
i ae a
f
- = i h *t ts l
i ui c
rg S
a en p
t s
e i
c o
j.g i
n 3
Tg "i ".
f s
ic f
A a
o g
8 87s:
d t
r m
io P
i g
4 n
n r
&t.
i s
e s
s t
s r
u 3
E3? :Es8 a
r t
i i
z v
e 3
e e
8:. 8"e 'eg S e
d C
W o
a S
g O
e g ee98 b
- . s*u%azj%
n t
t e
r r
o 6
e EA s
&. 3 y
'E h.
l R
eac
~
to rs l
lIlj
'1
!I l!ll1)lI{
r.
3.0 EVALUATION The enclosed report (TER-C5506-85/86) was prepared for us by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of our technical assistance contract program. Their report provides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the licensee's submittal with NRC provided criteria.
The staff has reviewed the TER and agrees with the evaluation.
The staff also reviewed clarifying information provided in two letters dated October 17, 1983 an one letter dated November 11, 1983.
One letter dated October 17, 1983 contained only schedular information with regard to certain effluent monitoring instrumentation and was not pertinent to our technical review.
The other letter of Octcber 17, 1983 contained changes to the principal RETS submittal of December 13, 1982 with regard to the surveillance of effluent monitoring instrumentation.
One change provides a more appropriate surveillance interval and another provides a better calibration point, closer to the alarm point for the instrument.
Three other changes provide clarifying information to foot-notes regarding the applicability of certain surveillance frequencies.
We reviewed these changes and found that they do not affect the substance of the December 13, 1982 amendment request.
By letter dated November 11, 1983 the licensee submitted changes to the administrative' controls section in order to de-couple the schedule for issuing the RETS from the schedule for issuing organizational related changes that are under reivew by the staff.
These administrative controls are consistent with our previous review and are therefore acceptable to the staff.
3.1 Safety Conclusions The proposed radiological effluent Technical Specifications for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2 have been reviewed, evaluated, and found to be in compliance with the requirements of the NRC regulations and with the intent of NUREG-0133 and NUREG-0473 (the Brunswick plant is comprised of two boiling water reactors) and thereby fulfill all the requirements of the regulations related to radiological effluent Technical Specifications.
3 The proposed changes will not remove or relax any existing requirements related to the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The proposed changes will not remove or relax any existing requirement needed to provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner.
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 4 4.0 ENVIRONf1 ENTAL CONSIDERATIONS We have determined that the amendments do 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 amendments involve 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 environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 C0fiCLUSIONS 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 endar.gered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regula-tions and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the, health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
W. Meinke F. Congel C. Willis Franklin Research Center
Enclosure:
Technical Evaluation Report Dated: December 27, 1983
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - -