ML20101M092
| ML20101M092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101M069 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501020478 | |
| Download: ML20101M092 (8) | |
Text
8 A
UNITED STATES E"
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
-j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTiliG AMEtiDMENT N05.88 AN0 60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. OPR-51 AND NPF-6 ARXANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-313/368
1.0 INTRODUCTION
To comply with Section V of Appendix ! of 10 CFR Part 50, the Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) has filed with the Commission plans and proposed technical specifications 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. AP&L filed this infonnation with the Comission by letter dated April 13, 1984, supplemented on April 26, 1984, which requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to facility Operating License Nos. OPR-51 and NPF-6 for ANO-0NE, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The proposed technical specifications update those portions of the tech-nical specifications addressing radioactive waste management and make them consistent with the current staff positions as expressed in NUREG-0472.
These revised technical specifications would reasonably assure compliance, in radioactive waste management, with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, as supplemented by Appendix ! 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 8.
8501020478 841214 DR ADOCK 05000313 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 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 liquid and gaseous effluents, any quantities of radioactive materials released 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 publi.c resulting from the ef fluent 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 for radioactive materials to the erwironment; Criterion 63, Monitoring fuel and waste storage; and Criterion 64, Monitoring radioactivity releases. C ri terion 60 requires that the nuclear power unit design include means to control suitably the release of rad,icactive 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 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 miy be released from normal 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 specificati.ons 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-0472 provides radiological effluent technical specifications for pressurized water reactors which the staff finds to be an acceptable standard for licensing. actions. Further clarification of these accept-able methods is provided in NUREG-0133, " Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifigations 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 staf f positions on the methodology for estimating radiation exposure due to the release of radioactive materials in effluents and on the administra'tive control of radioactive waste treht-ment systems.
The above NUREG documents address all of the radiological ef fluent technical specifications needed to assure compliance with the guidance and requirements provided by the regulations previously cited.
Howev er, t
alternative approaches to the preparation of radiological effluent technical specifications and alternative radiological ef fluent technical specifications may be acceptable if the staf f determines that the alternatives are in compliance with the regulations and with the intent of the regulatory guidance.
=
P e -w-e m -Pwew=--
. The standard radiological effluent technical specifications can be grouped under the following categories:
(1)
Inst rumentation (2) Radioactive ef fluents (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 i
actions to be taken in the event that the limiting condition is not met.
In general, the specifications established to assure compliance with 10 i
l CFR Part 20 standards provide, in the event the limiting conditions of i
operation are exceeded, that without delay conditions are restored to within the limiting conditions.
Otherwise, the facility is required to 1
effect approved shutdown procedures.
In general, the specifications i
I established to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50. pro /ide, in the e/ent the 1.imiting conditions of operation are exceeded, that vithin l
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.
1 i
l J
- 6'-
The specifications concerning design features and administrative controls contain no limiting conditions of operation or surveillance requirements.
Table 1. indicates the standard radiological effluent technical specifications that are needed to assure compliance with the particular prwisions of the regulations described in Section 1.0.
I 3.0 EVALUATION The enclosed report (EGG-PBS-6628) was prepared for us by EG8G, Idaho, Inc. as part of our technical assistance contract program. Their report prwides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the Licensee's 4
submitt'al with NRC prwided criteria. The staff has reviewed this TER*
and agrees with the evaluation.
3.1
SUMMARY
The proposed changes to the radiological effluent technical specifica-tions for ANO, 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-0472 (ANO, Units 1 and 2, are pressurized water reactors) and thereby fulfill all the requirements of the regulations related to radiological effluent technical specifi-cations.
The proposed changes will not remove or relax any existing requirement related to the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant hazards censideration.
- Although the Report contains a legend that this is "an infomal report intended for use as a preliminary working document," the report in fact represents EG&G's final evaluation of this amendment request for NRC. These statements will be clarified in reports issued in the near future.
e,e are e %
- J U
u.n a
o e.
O n,s m
2
-Q w
e,
.,. 0 wm
-x nn n 0
aC =
13 ** Gr r*
e'
- l
- 1 al r*
NC dB ee 4 e1 O
O 3 r3 & 2 e.=== *a=
1 c*
".1 l "4 d
r3 ce r=
= = * *
- 3 A C
- " a ce
,* v o.
3C 3 % an en G4 y,.,,,,,
4
, g.,
MOe3 1 L.4 N
- a O e. 3 m
i.r, e' r,3
- =
-- m e
O g
4, C
- c' 9 "es
- 9 C
3
--e'--w
< & e*
C C 4
C
-3 8'
r9 C s e, -
r*
-- -* es "1
"1 0'
C e. 3
.".I- -=
== b Mw 3 -.= 1.
7,# $
c 3
&n 9D C.-
bb
- =
0
- 1
, O 7 as G D e 3 U%
O O O
OU 33 q 9 8 3 3 e K J
23
<D
- c. O v5 wt Go a 3e 7
U 3 3 3
3U Mim 3
- 7-w*
h* C 9" tg a
r* yU e* 3 e 3 a "I
4 4 f3 e.* w'U r* Op e9
- 34 3
e.
rt O L. O
.3 er r* Es w* O 3 3 0 m 09 m3 O
3 es 7C n O
3 fg 3 c, O C. Q 7
Ch 3 =* n 7 m
a rg i et O c'
- ce C -
C., O.
sa ha e.*
a re N
re L. 3== 3 w*
m== c= n g n,y
=
r* ee
- l !9 a,.
cy R n,* r* m e
=
C
., n3, 0
O - < e c3 0
,e 0
3
-~~O
-3 1 O O
=a C
T3
- i f"I >
f4 O -- "I en r*
,, g g O3
-an d
- n 7 3
- 3== - (9 3
Om G*
-e OO at C 3O O**
-a y
,.3 cm e
en 3.
m 7 "I
-~ U tD g.,,
3 3. a. 3 9
n we C O
-a C
3 as wt
- l es et 3
ee O ** O M g,
, n,,,
e g'
.E.=
-
- es r*
e 3 c a
1 ** f U
.g CC ce r*
-m ft
- 1 Ci t.O.a m to C.'
,, n.,
.= r* (D as 3
M n0 a "1 n
- c. 23 C C
O O O w*
9 O v3 rg r*
C O=
es rb 7 ft - as
l "I ee r* --.=3 en O
U O *1 n
$, g n,~
Ce, o nob 4
3 m
1 9 A
O e m a
-b Q s -3 r* "1
.= 0 "1
AJ 3 n
O "1
-9 O
a g
3 op #5 3*
G4 3 e r3 -.@d
-a es we m em 3
ce C
r*
n *** #9
<a a
C.
a v* 4 C en Oe
[ h""* 3 v,g ar3 Ua er
==
- 3 es n r0 (9
f5 U 3 r* 3 3a3 M,m<c G
M, A - <
aNo&
M e
a
-k O mh e O
o C, O r* e O,, g 5.r O > oC re O tt C o
et 3
'1 et e e*
- 3. w.**
23 <
- O *
- i 3
-=
e w*
a r9 M es
-= ft es 4
a 't w* * =*
rg 3
O O
-e r*
We co sa M %
we
- = - = =
3 ** /t w*
e 3
K
- D *== "1 O
g.y e,,,.
-. =.
3 m
C n a 7 es -
n a e,
wt Oe 3 9
re y
e r3, 1
O, O, ee n.
a r3 c 3
Dm 9
c O
G we c
= =.
em w9 et 7
O w*
- n
==
-O n r*
b n 3 3 7 ft 3 O
e*
a pe 0
,e,n3 o.U 7 p a n, m,
{*
0, 4
- 3 3
h 9e n
n 4
O O
3 e
e 7
-n
.e.
3 3 n
O 7
2 7
e we K
3
<3 w*
n ne 3 **
. e, O a <. O *l r,D q
wa a m r3 rg et >
r3 <
O,
- l M
O FD U.w F*
1 n 3
-m U n et e
- g c=
we 3
- ei n
f3 > sw #5 ***
- I re Ge A
ce we 3 01 f3 r*
r*
I es r3 f- "1 3 -=
0.= a f-7
-O
-M "9 "1
-=
'O c.
's)
(
@ 3 er "i 6
U a
ADO C.. (C O
C L3 q"**
y 9 a n.
3 (D
n 22 en D
-i #D #9 1
- 1 r3 n
e e D w*. 3 Qe we
<D - e et r0 C
O9 e D. r0 f3 e ce M
.-=r*
3 3O
- 9 3
E 7 s OF 3
,2,3
==
- J G
3 e
>we
~.
& r* os f*
ed m
4.
O,
"'n e
~
O
.a..
n 3
r*
r-e.
e n-O re O
e os r.*=
- 1't c
O e*
Ce n
3 23 w*
r3 c 3
r*
- 5 re D
e rt C
7 t
to O
c e,
O-a 3
s l
3 I
8
- 8 4 S
Rad. Liquid Effl. Monitorin9 "43 3
0 3e e
l 3
ce,c.
e ee e e e
Rad. Gas. Effl. Monitoring
=.
i as C.
3a
~
8 Effluent Concentration r-OeS e
e ee Dose E
O G
G 9 8 4 Liquid Rad-aste Treat ent E-U.
a x
c 9
9 44 Liquid Holdup Tanks 3
a e
ee Dose sate I o--
a a-O ee e
o ee Oose Noble Gases j
a w
Oee e
e S e Dose I-131. Trit. and Part.
p e
O e
Explosive Gas Mixture 4 R a
we e O 99 9
4 9 8 8 Gaseous Radenaste Treat ent
-d El r3 m"*a O
e e
ee Gas Storage Tanks
, r! O o
8
'S S e Gaseous Radwaste Treat.ent r
n
- [
OO#
9 9 8 6 Ventilation Exhaust Treat:::ent C
'e 8'
e e
e Main Condenser C
O l
4 ee Mark I or !! Contain; ent n
C 8
9 8
Solid Radioactive Waste l
a,
<=
~
s e Total Dose t
e.,
- z m
4 O ne m
to 3
S Rad. Env. Monitoring Program 3 a n
- =
- C e*
m 3
S S
Land Use Census O,m 3
3 n,
e
.e, e
Interlab. Comparison Program 3c,-
e e
n m
7 U0 3.
n eo n
ee <3 s.
Site Soundaries*
t
,o e
ne re 3 U
e e
n i
4 Review and Audits I
n D
ce O
le 9
e Procedures O
- 3 3
3 S
8 Reports y
e c
g Record Retention l
re g
e e.
r O
e, O
e G
G ee eGS Offsite Oose Calc. Manual O
e e
Major Changes to Rad. Systed:s c.e A
re
,O w*
.g.
_8_
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. The staff, therefore, finds the proposed changes acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change in the requirements with respect to the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined J
in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change in inspection or surveillance requirements.
The staff has 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 j
10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 GENERAL 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 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.
Enclosure:
INEL Technical Evaluation Date: December 14, 1984 Principal Contributors:
W. Meinke, C. Miller
-