ML20095C393
| ML20095C393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093C341 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408220531 | |
| Download: ML20095C393 (8) | |
Text
.
'o UNITED STATES
[ } ;,qf(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,d/ a y WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
/
- ,g f$..
- f.m SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS NOS.102 AND 104TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-44 AND DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIL SERVICE ELEGIRIC AND GA5 COMPANY DELMARVA P0lvER AND LIGHi COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECiRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWE'l STATIC'f. UNITS N05. 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 1.0, INTRODUCTION To comply with.5ection V of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50, Philadelphia Electric Company has filed with the Commission plans and proposed' tech-nical specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of i
a radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operatiqns, including expected operational occurrences', as low as is reasonably achievable. Philadelphia Electric Company filed this information with the Commission by letter dated Novemoer 29, 1932, which reouested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License has.
DPR 34 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3.
The proposed technical specifications update those portions of the tech-nical soecifications addressing radioactive waste management and make taen consiste'It with the current staff positions as expressed in NUP.EG-0473. These revised tecnnical specifications would reasonably assure comoliance, in radioactive waste management, with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, as supplemented by Appendix 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, Apcendix B.
8408220531 840803 PDR ADOCK 05000277 p
- 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) require 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 i
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 principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in Tiquid and gaseous effluents, any quantities of radioactive materials released 4
that are significantly above design objectives, 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 i
20.105(c), 20.106(g), and 20.405(c), require that nuclear power plant and other licensees canply with 40 CFR Part 190, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations" and submit reports i
to the NRC when the 40 CFR Part 190 limits have been or may be exceeded.
l i
1.
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 j
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 nonnal reactor operation, including anticip,ated operational occurrences.
Criterion 63 requires that appropriate systems be provided in radioactive waste systems and associated handling areas to detect conditions that may result in excessive radiation levels and to initiate appropriate safety actions.
Criterion 64 requires that means be provided for monitoring effluent discharge paths and the plant environs for radioactivity that may be released from nonnal operations, including anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, establishes quality assurance requirements 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.
7
--e-,
s- -
---e--
_ ~.
2.2 Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications NLREG-0473 provides radiological effluent technical' specifications for boiling water reactors which the staff finds to be an acceptable stan-i dard for licensing actions.
Further clarification of these acceptable methods is provided in NUREG-0133, " Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-0133 describes methods found acceptable to the staff of the NRC for the calculation of 5
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 4
requests for changes to existing radiological effluent technical speci-fications for operating reactors.
It also describes current staff positions on the methodology for estimating radiation exposure due to the release of radioactive materials in effluents and on the administra--
j tive control of radioactive waste treatment systems.
The above NUREG documents address all of the radiological effluent technical specifications needed to assure compliance with the guidance
'and requirements provided by the regulations previously cited. However, I
alternative approaches to the preparation of radiological effluent i
technical specifications and alternative radiological effluent technical specifications may be acceptable if the staff detennines that the alternatives are in compliance with the regulations and with the intent
,of the regulatory guidance.
~ _ _. _ _
The standard radiological effluent technical specifications can be grouped under the following categories:
(1)
Instrumentation (2)
Radioactive effluents (3)
Radiological environmental monitoring (4)
Design features (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 requi rements. The limiting condition for operation provides a statement of the limiting condition, the times when it is applicable, and the 1
actions to be taken in the event that the limiting condition is not met.
In general, the specifications established to assure compliance with 10 2
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 4
ef fect 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 j
operation are to be employed, and certain reports are to be submitted to the NRC describing these conditions and actions.
1
. The Specifications concerning design features and administrative controls contain no limiting conditions of operation or surveillance requirements.
Table 1 indicates that standard radiological effluent technical specifi-cations that are needed to assure compliance with the particular provisions of the regulations described in Section 1.0.
EVALUATION The enclosed report (TER-C5506-108/109). was prepared for the NRC by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of the NRC technical assistance contract program.
FRC's report provides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the Licensee's submittal with NRC provided criteria.
The staff has reviewed this TER and agrees with the evaluation.
SAFETY CONCLUSIONS The proposed radiological effluent technical specifications for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station is comprised of two boiling water reactors) and thereby fulfill all the requirements of the regulations related to radiological effluent technical specifications.
The licensee's proposed Lower Limit of Detection involving the newly added RETS noble gas monitoring is acceptable on an interim basis.
However, their
[
acceptance is based on the recognition that for older BWRs, installed instrumentation may not achieve the sensitivity obtainable in recent installations and thus a study by NRC of the noble gas monitoring systems for these plants is required.
1 m
e.e a.4 5,. s*.
x m
e o em u w. z
, n, n,
n, -
m n
. ~ w,t ee mm=
mac-es
=
C m
== =* ** a
.o 0
- 0. e. m, -,,* -
,. - =. =
gm 4..
ece
=
==
m w ~ - O es 3 mm co m o.
aC 3 - m es m
Cf3
===***=-ww*
CCW m at 4
't C e, O3
- =====**==7==
09 c't c'
== > "'t m
ft
O-O Q
i C w*eO c' & fi
=5 =t.
=== es "1
- 1 ce as C== 3 as
,e,,,,.
=
- 3 9 43 CL====== >
= =
==
]
rt 9
"4 ft 3 es C tt em 3 V
D O O O
OV 23 m "9
3 3 em K 3
,"",,n, e" C. es I
rt en O st we 7
3 3 3
3V n
et 3 e* 7==
==4 we
, g I
a
== F V ** 3=== 3 &
"9 ft
- 9 ft== wV e* es W
- 3 ft
=se C **
E O
9 j
cp te h O to es r* es we it 3
3 g
,",9 m O
On De 3 u2
- O 3
as7Cn O
e.n On as -
c.
It "1
ft it e*=== ** C
==e
& a l
co HI ce m
O== < es 3e t 4 0
4
==LQ "E
3 - n "3"
=
4=s
- =*
QC Nce
- c. "3
=ia 3 3 es a f'1 ee =ne we=== ce es *1 ft
== -
"'r Q* #*
O,, f1 M
C;4 *e C
ft==
g 3== - O - 3 ft O ft we g
==
i
"'t==* es n e
tra O Md M *1 3 ep 3== #5
== EII "E 2 "
f"1 D
- =al m
O== *1 es c*
Q O -v c'1 3O Cem
== 9
==
,,y,,
"3 O
=*
O ft 9*
- == we C
n we C O
.s e
a 3 3 es te es 3 e 0%
gg g
==, tts y
m"I
====U m
5
=.
m we 9==,
as E
==== CL== re ce
==
o co we
= et
==
a
= ce re es 3
CC 89
t C1 to
==
Q.
5 we V
g g,n,,
3 ce
==g nO Q. *1 n ** M C C O O O em *1 O <D w a
==
m at c
,=, n,
ce C
O*
es 4 X tt -
as
- 1 1 m -==== 3 es O
= O t rt ga g W
wm at y,, -
d *a
-ma -
--nom 4
3 m
9 m n
gm 3
as et 9e 3 we m 3 3 c* 9 =* O "1
N 3 n
O "I==
O een ft
==.t
,g,
,e, V
c* 4 C es O we
- l es O at as -
"4===== m e* '1 -
Q C c*
fi Q e4==.O es eft q er O.
a 413
- 3 em "3 3 Q= 3 y
=
4 es
== m as n ft m as W
Q. N t'l es
- 9 =g G.,4.===-
at wt 5
=q g=g l
CL ft we e
=eO
> me-One o e
Co--
O e
3 C
==
= =
we a ft e t es
- et m es
- 1
- O==
9 a
3 O
O --
m
-m M 2 e
==
3 -me a 3 2
mw90 "QW 3
t3 g e*
7 e# ft "I==*
O3 ft C O fi G. 3* es - n Q.
m wt C3em 3
""i q.
h St -3 9
km 9
mmO mee w
W m w 2
es we Q
n,* O i
- 4 e
es we ti
===== O n e*
es fi 33 7 et 3 O
ce C3.
i cm it ce ** 3 3 O* 7 3
c' Q. ce as #9 em e
e*
ft O
O re 2
m e m T,D ch
,rn,3
,9O o.. O,
m n
as O3 h,"
3 3 m
7 3
9 e
w
- o. ft 4,9 5 p
"'t f4 8 m
13 ft at we
=== es==*======m==<
V w.
et O
e
==
u fi 89 > es ft
=*e 9 ee as f"t ** eft
=="I e
==
em 3
=st O
eA es ft F" 9 3==
O=== 0" f" "I % e*
"3 O *T ft
==<
e*
e*
=
2
=,
'e'I "3
V
==o CL D ft 4 C 4C3 *"=== 0 ft 40 es 9 as "1
tt ft 23 as = vt
-1 ft at 4 s= 9 Q. -
3 O
C J3
- "8'" #3 y
f1
- D we "I 3 es ese ft ft= te es
=i== es
- 1
==
ft C
"3" e
O ** 3 = = = > "1 0 #8 at
==
V
- 9 ese 3e e
=
e*
3 3O ft 3
==
m ft O Q. - es ce as O'
==<
==
- 1 ce f""
es as *4 fi E
tfe r*
xy ti O
- 9 O
> e-wo es co Q*
et es ti
,3 ft. ec go 23 en
==
c*
=ut O
o
.C D
w
<3
=
=
3 m.
et 3
,e, O
=
I
'8 8 9 S S S
Rad. Liquid Effle Monitorin9 03,E E_
~5 J e* -
G
.e e S 9 e
Rad. Gas. Effl. Monitoring m
e eC 3
I Q.
G
- 8 Effluent Concentration
~
r" O4S G
eeG Oose I
O G
S S S S Liquid Radwaste Treatment k
[
S S
ee Liould Holdup Tanks
%,J g
l e
4S Dose flate g
lO 0 G G
e eG Dose Noble Gases f
"N 10 0 e e
eeG Dose !*131. Trit. and Part.
v p
7 l
8 e
e Explosive Gas Misture cn ;; a c-e m
U S9 9
S S S S Gaseous Raawaste Treatt ent 4
4 E
m e
e ee Gas Storage Tanks
.mio. -
to Elr3
==i n o
9 S
S S e Gaseous Racwaste Treatment xs C**
O##
9 4 8e Ventilation Exhaust Treatment E
g, a
u e
e e
e ee Mark I or II Containment C
=
O e
4 lSolidRadioactivewaste e
<t ee Total Dose E
~
m h
O m m
e e
Rad. Env. Monitoring Program e
30.
g g.
S 3
Land Use Cer. sus Om 3
=
3 13 ce n
es e
e Interlab. Comaarison Program j -
g e
n SA 2
u 3
ft
,e e n-n es <D e,
Site Boundaries *
- ' *=
, ia w
as 3
=
-3 c.
3 a
g Review and Audits n
m D
es O
G e
Procedures y
=
O
==
S 9
3 3
Reports C
g Record Retention 4
g e
e.
O O
8 G S44 Offsite Oose Calc. Manual E
O es e
8 Major Changes to Rad. Systems
~
n l
O
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve either changes in requirements with respect to the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes in surveillance requirements. We have determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: August 3,1984 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
W. Meinke
Enclosure:
Technical Evaluation Report s
_.