ML20129J705

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 86 to License NPF-3

ML20129J705
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/02/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20129J698	List: ML20129J696 ML20129J705
References
NUDOCS 8507230251
Download: ML20129J705 (9)

Text

/

o UCITED STATES

[\\ -

'gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c

nj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55

\\*...*/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. CD TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. WF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRI CILLLNINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR PCWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346

1.0 INTRODUCTION

To comply with Section V of Appendix 1 of 10 CFR Part 50, the Toledo Edison Company has filed with the Commission plans and proposed tech-

-nical 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 achiev able. Toledo Edison filed this infomation with the Commission by letter dated March 15, 1984, which requested changes to the Techr.i-cal Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-3 for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.

The proposed technical

~ specifications update those portions of the technical specifications addressing radioactive waste management and make them consistent with the current staf f positions as expressed in NUREG-0472. These revised technical specifications would reasonably assure compliance, in radio-active waste nanagement, with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, as supplemented by Appendix 1 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 Cri-teria 60, 63, and 64; and with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

P

t 2.0 RACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 2.1 Regulations 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities", Section 50.36a, " Technical Specifications on Ef fluents from Nuclear Power Reactors",'prmides that each license authorizing operation of a nuclear power reactor will include technical specifications that (1) require compliance with applicable prwisions of Part 20.106,

" Radioactivity in Ef fluents to Unrestricted Areas"; (2) require that operating procedures developed for the control of ef fluents 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 IIRC specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid c.:d gaseous ef fluents, 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 public 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 cther 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 nay 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 emironment; Criterion 63, Monitoring fuel and waste storage; and Criterion 64, Monitoring radioactivity releases. Cri terion 60 requires that the nuclear power unit design include means to control suitably the release of radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid ef fluents and to handle radioactive solid wastes produced during normal reactor operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.

Criterion 63 requires tnat appropriate systems be prwided in radioactive waste systems and associated handling areas to detect conditions that may result in excessive radiatior, levels and to initiate appropriate safety actions. Criterion 64 requires that means be prwided for nonitoring ef fluent discharge paths and the plant emirons 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 requireme'nts for nuclear power plants.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1,Section IV, prwides guides on technical specifications for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50.

_4 2.2 Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Suecifications NUREG-0472 provides radiological ef fluent 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 Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-0133 describes nethods found acceptable to the staff of the NRC for the calculation of certain key values required in the preparation of

, proposed radiological ef fluent technical specifications for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. UUREG-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 nethodology for estimating radiation exposure due to the release of radioactive materials in

. effluents and on the administrative control of radioactive waste treat-nent sytems.

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, alternative approaches to the preparation of radiological effluent technical specifications and alternative radiological ef fluent 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.

5 The standard radiological effluent technical specifications can be grouped under the following categories:

(1)

Instrumentation (2) Radioactive ef fluents (3) Radiological environmental monitoring (4) Design features (S) 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 actions to be taken in the event that the limiting condition is not net.

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 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 neans 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 surveill'ance requirements.

Table 1 indicates the standard radiological effluant technical specifications that are needed to assure compliance with the particular provisions of the regulations described in Section 1.0.

3.0' EVALUATION The enclosed report (TER-C5506-91) was prepared for us by Franklin Reasearch Center (FRC) as part of our technical assistance contract program. Their report provides their technical evaluation of the com-pliance of the Licensee's submittal with NRC provided 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 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, 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 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, is a pressurized water reac*or) and thereby fulfill all the requirements of the regulations related to radio-logical effluent technical specifications.

y

e e

t t

t t

e es*

T o

a nt

• t m

2 mm m nn n O

mm mz 7

• 1 l e*

N C #9 ee O Wt 4 O

fl fg

-e. 7 r*

r= vi a C to 13 ett es e* ee

-m

-=

Jb O & Z3 =*

• e* 3 4..

g,,,,

4

?44 & #9=='= m e *1 ee -=

4.s N=== 0 es 3 e

4.ri ce e*

e*

r* e Q*

3C 3

• % es en t.a 1O7

-=.3 7

• = 0 we

=e*wa-====.*<

& r*

O O et to H

HO w

=="==g-

m we g

g e

O 3

-~ -= es 9 1

-1 1

mo r* 13 en C.-= 3 m

4 * * "

O em en e' & F1

-= #9

-m 9

g" $ gg

-m

-= b

• • 't w *1.d g,

M ce 3 9 D G.*==-

D D

= -

O O it3 23 e 3 3 3 we E 3

• 1 (D 7 es C (D wt 3 U

'O OO e"I s O re we es Om es 3"

c U 3 3 3

3 T3 ri ft 3

• • 3"-=

=4 we

-s. C r*

1. 8 e*

4 3 -3 &

-1 (D

rt ft

= = * * -V r* es w*

e* 3 4 ft

+

0

,,1 en

-e e* U. U e9 fB t O to en e* es wt ft 3

3 On On C3%

Cn 3

• D

• O 3

es 7CA O

a g

3 as 4

3 =n7 Sh 4 e e=*

Q Q. Q 1

4

=3 --* 3 O, ft,7, O f' a

et

• 't fD #9 e' -~ rec e

aG- - -

e e e

e se Owe C

4 --

=4 N

e*

d'1 n r* m em== ce ce 9 #9

== < es as M

CD O r*

O e*

m O

=

v'

"'**--*es n O3 O

3 -=

• O== 3 ft O #9 we CD TT

-'1 mD 4

O=== 7 as r*

we eVg

3. - e> w#3

- * * < m7 3 we e

OO

• 1 C 3O O

we

-m S

==

y

• • M O r3 e*

eo D

-1

==*== T3 FD (D==,= ft.g

'3 C

7 n wt C O

==*

e e

33 ee #9 es 3 0 C1

• 4 es O r* O M

. g g 3 ce e

3 as we 7 -en as E

-=== a -= re c' O 0C r*r*-.-

ft "1 to

-m a

E wt 1 13 w

a

-=

ft #9 O

,,5,3.,,,,

go a a

* re f3 ee 3==

,a,,.,,,

M nO a -1 O

r* "23 C C O O O em "1 O re r3 r*

C Oe me en 7 ft - ee 1 es e*==== 3 ee O

V O

1 n E r3

1. D 3

es

-1

-se f"i g

g5 O es. O 1 se 3

- r1

--en n d.a Se 3 we <D O

-

• 8t* m

.= =3 3 r* 9 N

3 n

O **

O

_. g g, ce 3

es te o e -= en em m me O C r*

n esa FD

• Q.

p[

4 T 13 a

e* et C ee O w*

3 3G3 M

<e w

W 4

en 4

• 1 "I

w 4

4D 3 7 ee O cD es r*

-1 m - f3 ee *1 Am =a a r%B (1 ee

== 7 O O

rp we a

1 o

o fB C O c' e O

,3 y,3 o

2<

O #3 it D

en C e m.

-.s. & C 3 we -

we "1 fB w' r*.

3 e

ce

~1 O==

m a #9.t<

rD==

ee e

3 fB o a 1 O a f3 wt (D

e y

- =.

3 c= it we w

e*to t< T we es we

• • .t 3

O O --

c' O 3 (D C O

f1 a 7 as -

n a es we O em 3 "r1

. 4,,

n

1. 3 r*

7

• • #D

• 1 D ft

• 1 es ce O (D w* *O WS O't em to y

,* O La.

fB es

+

w' we n

-==

- O O r*

De n3 3 7 ft 3 O

e*

e*

a

-e

{*

g 4,

4" o,e O

D em n

4 O

O M G M, "F

3 F

GMp 3 3 77 3

3 3 m

O eft 7

GW4 7 au- -

n 3 rs ett n

e' 3 es O

E Os =a < O -1 fD M

De a fD fD f3 ft > #D <

===-at==-

V

• 1 O

1. D

[Q

• 1 n 3

-un T3 n < we

== ee m

M 4 Demm 9 p m n we

=9 e

p 3

m

-85 27 e

e c,'

em es ft r

-1 3==

O

-a= 7 r-9 % e*

3 O "1 fB 4

g",3, GDGC C ee

~O

+

4 a36 9 6

4 y

V w

fB n

23 Os -4 9 f3 (D E r* 9 3 a =*-

3 S

O C

c r3 f1 e

r* 35 we *1 3 es are

1. t t0 we es fD - es n

=iis fD C

gg 7

w c*

33O ft 3

g M

==

7 a O r*

3 e=== D

- = - fB O, f*

Ge g

4 (D

D wt Q. r* es T,3 3 ett

=**

ce es n

E e

a a0

,86 C.

".=

n O*

1. D O

D-

• es O

23 wm it. go

,3 3h b

n 3

. 4 7

3 e.e, 4

e I

1. 9 a

o e

S S S

Rad. Liquid Effl. Monitoring "4E E

3 I

' S SlS S O 3 em we 9

.9 9 9 9 9

Rad. Gas. Effl. Monitoring 3 ** e,*

• n i

as a

e C 3

e a

r-9 S

SS Effluent Concentration E

8 48 8

8 8 8 Dose

[

O 8

G S S S Liquid Radweste Trectment S

S SS Liould Holdup Tanks g

g e

S SS Dose nate r

8 GS G G G Cose Noble Gases

[

a w

eSS S

S S S Cose I-131, Trit. and Part, as S

8 9

Expicsive Gcs Mixture E

f, g, O-e S 99 9

8 8 G G Gaseous Radwaste Treatmeit 4

x c--

.a r e a

O e

S eS Gas Storage Tanks x O e

C x

S 8

9 84 Gaseous Radwaste Treatment a

S 99 8

8 8 99 Ventilation Exhaust Treatment i

3., g m

2 S

S S

Main Condenser g

"'t G

SS Mark I or 11 Containment n

C S

S S

Solid Radioactive Waste me

<=

3 8 G Total Dose e

rm 2 :c Oh m

4 S

S S

Rad. Env. Monitoring Program 3, O-g g.

r*

<D 3

8 9

Land Use Census O, '3'

,3 n,

e S

Interlab. Comparison Program j ;-

g

,e n

m I

E

-1 n

a ft, ID n,

e e

Site Boundaries

• E* *.*

K

,e e

na 3"

3 O

n_

3*

4 Review and Audits 38 ee o

e 9

S Procedures C

==

0

"'J 3

3 e

S 8

Reports e*

e C

Record Retention

.e, S

~

M g

g g.

Process Control Program f,

c O

es S-G S

S S S S SS Offsite Oose Calc. Manual

if O

'S S

Major Changes to Rad. Systems

,j'

~

en f1 O

-1 e4 l

-L-

s

.g.

lne 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 staf f, therefore, finds the prnposed changes acceptable.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change in the requirements with respect to the use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined

~

in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change in inspection or surveillance requirements. We have determined that the amendment involves 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed inding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.

Accordingly, this amendment meets 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 this amendment.

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 regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the.comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Enclosure:

FRC Technical Evaluation Date: -July 2,1985 Principal Contributors:

W. Meinke, F. Congel, and C. Willis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

=L 9

W V-i g-f

-_.. -