ML20134N025

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 91 to License DPR-40

ML20134N025
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	08/22/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20134M957	List: ML20134M954 ML20134M960 ML20134N025
References
NUDOCS 8509040391
Download: ML20134N025 (2)

Text

..

[

,,, g o

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t ri.(p+ aj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 c

e.. 9. 5 l

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-40 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-285

Introduction:

By letter dated April 3, 1985, the Commission issued Amendment No. 86 which revised the licensee's Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS).

The amendment was effective within 6 months of the date of issuance. In the cover letter, the staff stated that the one page specific surveillance requirements for solid radioactive waste, specification 3.12.2, had not been received yet, and that this would be the subject of a separate licensing action. The staff requested the licensee to submit the specific surveillance requirements within 60 days so that they would be able to be issued on a schedule consistent with the RETS becoming effective. By application dated June 6,1985, the licensee submitted the proposed surveillance requirement.

Evaluation:

The licensee will use a Process Control Program (PCP) to ensure that radioactive waste shipped offsite will be solidified prior to shipment. The staff has provided guidance to licenses regarding acceptable surveillance requirements.

, The guidance is contained in NUREG-0472, Revision 3, dated September 1982 entitled " Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Pressurized Water Reactors." The licensee proposes to use the PCP to verify the solidification i

of wet radioactive waste. If the solidification is not demonstrated, corrective

! actions are'specified. The proposed surveillance requirements are consistent

with the staff guidance. Therefore, the proposed TS are acceptable.

Environmental Consideration  :

1 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 or '

a change in an inspection or surveillance requirement. The staff has 4

detennined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released l offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative i occupational radiation exposure. The Consnission has previously published a i proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards

! consideration and there has been no public comment-on such finding. Accordingly,

i.

• the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 951.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 951.22(b), no environmental

! impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection

~

with the issuance of the amendment.

8509040391 850822 C '

M -^

l DR ADOCK O g5  ; gh _M.

E .me.-

~ * ..

l

- 2-Conclusion Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,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 Comission'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. j

-Date: August 22, 1985 j

Principal Contributor:

E. Tourigny.

s

.h t

4 v q

. :L;m -

- e

' ), /

n ', $ ' ,

4' ' W 4 l d' , . .

A

'i- ;' , , . ,,s E ', k ' - 'I  :. " ' '4 3

'-~  ;

(_ .

9 3: ~ s;QC%8diOhWh*

.L scw.iws:jgw i+- +