ML20106C061
| ML20106C061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106C055 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8502120129 | |
| Download: ML20106C061 (2) | |
Text
_
/[ga ag%g UNITED STATES y
lg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,,
y{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING dMENDMENT N0. 2 TO FACILITY OPERATING' LICENSE NO. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY dALLAWAYPLANT, UNIT 1 3
DOCKET NO. STN 50-483
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 3, 1984, as i olemented December 6, 1984 and December 27, 1984, Union Electric Comp ay (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License flo. NPF-30 for operation of the Callaway Plant in Callaway County, Missouri.
The amendment would modify Table 4.11-1 of the Callaway Technical Specifications (TS) to include two additional Batch Waste Release Tanks.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested the addition of two 100,000 gallon tanks for the purpose of storing liquid waste generated from the secondary coola..t sluice water. This waste water originates from the condenser hot well and is used as the working fluid,to transport resins from the condensate demineralizers into the condensate demineralizer regeneration system, and also to carry acid and caustic into the same system.. As this sluice water. leaves the condensate demineralizer regeneration system, it contains amounts of dissolved solids and conductivity that is unacceptable for returning to the condenser hot well without additional treatment..The secondary liquid waste system possesses the flexibility to either process this water through an evaporator and/or demineralizer so that it can be returned to the condenser hotwell, or to directly discharge the untreated water to the river.
ne In a telephone conversation on December 19, 1984, Union Electric stated l
g@
that if this stream contains radioactivity, as determined by sarpring and/or monitoring of the secondary waste discharge, it would be redirected reo 88 through the secondary waste evaporators and demineralizers at.which time-mg it would then be returned to the condenser hot well. 'However, because o-there normally is insignificant radioactivity in this stream, Union l
35 Electric has chosen, for financial considerations, to by-pass the secondary waste. evaporator and demineralizers and discharge the water to the g<
environment while making up the loss of condensate by cheaper methods.
l l
om
@@g To ensure releases are within technical specification radioactivity and j
t l
NPDES limits,t nion Electric will add storage tanks (two 100,000 gallon.-
U l
tanks) in parallel with the two existing secondary liquid waste monitor i
l tanks (15,000 gallons each) to provide sufficient time.for sampling i
and analyses: prior to discharge.
i l
~ 1 Theskafffindsthedesignchangetoaddtwo100,000 gallon discharge
?
l monitor' tanks and'the associated Technical Specification change to be-
-l acceptable.
This conclusion is based ~on the following facts:
I
- a). Even though the secondary waste evaporator and demineralizers are by-passed, there will only be:an insignificant increase in radioactivity relea.ee via this stream.
b)
Allsecondarywasteissampledandmonitorekforradioactivityprior to and during releases.
c)
. Releases of secondary waste pollutants (such as radioactivity, chemicals'and total dissolved solids) is limited by Technical.
Specification'and NPDES limits.
d)
Proper tank protection features meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.143 for radioactive waste treatment systems are provided.
e). Ali radioactive effluents are limited by Technical Specifications.
This amendment does not affect these limits.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
4 This" amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The-staff has determined that.the amendment involves no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that i
,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 this ament *nent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been nc public comment on. such" finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility.
criteria 'for categorical _ exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
,1 An environmental assessment was prepared for this amendment request (49FR50848) in which.it was determined that an environmental impact l
statement was not required for this action.,
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thati:
(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 wil1 not be inimical to j
the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: February 4,1985 l
j a
Principal Contributors:
R. W. Fell, METB i
J. A. Stevens, LB#1 f
'?
u
-