ML20211J102
| ML20211J102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211J093 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606260181 | |
| Download: ML20211J102 (4) | |
Text
, _ _ - -.
\\
\\
a ux
+
UNITED STATES
)
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
\\.e /;a
.t.
wasumarow.o. c.2osos l
I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 58 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 l
AND AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 l
DUKE POWER COMPANY l
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 l
INTRODUCTION i
l These amendments authorize a one-time release of the existing contents of the Conventional (non-radioactive) Wastewater Basin, containing trace amounts i
of tritium, into the Catawba River. Technical Specification (TS) 3.11.1.1 and i
its referenced Figure 5.1-4, " Site lloundary for Liquid Effluents" define the
{
authorized discharge point for radioactive material released in liquid effluents j
to unrestricted areas as being only to Lake Noman. The authorization is accomplished by the addition of a footnote to TS Figure 5.1-4 at the discharge l
point for the Conventional Wastewater Basin into the Catawba River, stating i
that this discharge point is authorized for a one-time discharge of water which q
contains trace amounts of tritium in addition to the nomally processed effluents l
of the Waste Water Collection Basin, effective the date of Coinnission ap3roval.
i The change does not affect any existing limits or procedures regarding tie i
processing of conventional (i.e., non-radioactive) contaminants. These revisions to the technical specifications are made in response to the licensee's application j
for amendments dated May 20, 1986.
EVALUATION Non-radioactive chemical wastes from the McGuire Station (e.g., turbine i
building drains, water treatment system filter backwashes, domineralizer regeneration wastes) are routed through the Conventional Waste Water Treatment System (CWWTS) and subjected to physicochemical treatment. The CWWTS includes
)
4 a Basin of two parallel stream settling ponds with a capacity of about 2 l
i million gallons each. U)on completion of treatment, the discharges from this i
system are released to tie Catawba River downstream of Cowans Ford Dam. The i
discharge from the CWWTS may also be mixed with water from the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond to dilute waste concentrations prior to discharge to the river. Waste containing radioactive material is not intended for the CWWTS; rather such waste is routed to separate Liquid Radwaste Systems (see FSAR Section 11.2) for recycling, processing, and disposal.
I By letter dated May 20, 1986, the licensee noted that tritium, but no other radionuclide, had ente centrationof1.4x10,rgdtheBasinandhadsubsequentlybeendilutedtoacon-microcuries per milliliter. The licensee proposed to discharge the 4 million gallons of water in the Basin, along with its f
tritium, to the river at a rate of 500 gpm over a duration of 133 hours0.00154 days <br />0.0369 hours <br />2.199074e-4 weeks <br />5.06065e-5 months <br />. The j
Basin discharge would also be mixed by at least equal flow from the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond, such that the tgitium concentration at the river release point would be no more than 7 x 10~ microcuries per milliliter. This 0606260181 860620 DR ADOCK 05000369 PDR
i concentration is well within the limit of 3 x 10-3 microcuries per milliliter i
specified by 10 CFR 20.106 and associated Appendix B, Table II, for tritium l
concentrations in water released to an unrestricted area. The total amount of d
tritium to be released (about 0.25 curies) is small compared to the normal l
release of tritium from the plant (about 2.5 curies per day).
The NRC has evaluated doses resulting from the prop'osed discharge using l
models and assumptions in Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I."
For tritium the dominant j
exposure pathway is drinking water. The fish consum) tion pathway also makes a
{
small contribution to the dose. Other potential pat 1 ways (such as due to i
irrigation or swiming) are negligible because of the properties of tritium,
)
1.e. tritium does not accumulate either in the food chain or the body and it i
does not constitute a significant source of external radiation. The total body dose to a child or infant assumed to drink water from the river release j
point and to consume fish located at this release point was calculated by the i
Cossnission to be about 0.01 millirem. Corresponding doses to an adult or teenager were lower (i.e., about 0.008 and 0.006 millirem, respectively).
Section II.A of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 states that the calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive material above background to be released from each nuclear power reactor to unrestricted areas should not result in an j
estimated annual dose or dose comitment from liquid effluents for any individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of j
3 millirems to the total body. The biological characteristics of tritium are such that other requirements of Appendix I regarding organ doses are not j
limiting. Because the doses calculated for the proposed river discharge re-present only a very small contribution to this annual dose criterion of Appendix I, we find the proposed action to be consistent with Appendix I criterion.
I i
The licensee calculated similar but lower doses in its letter of May 20, 1986.
}
Unlike the licensee's calculations, the NRC results conservatively assume no i
credit for dilution of the tritium concentration within the river. Nevertheless, we find that the discharge concentrations of tritium and resultant doses deter-mined by the NRC are sufficiently low as to represent no significant safety concern, and, therefore, are acceptable.
l FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION i
l
)
The Comission has determined that the amendments involve no significant
{
hazards consideration. Under the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the amendments i
does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or j
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) in-t volve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Comission has provided guidance for the application of these criteria by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7744). The changes do not match any of the examples. However, based upon our review of the amendment requests and l
- = -.
i 3-1 i
our independent dose calculations discussed above, we find that the action is limited to the one-time release of very low concentrations of tritium within the Conventional Wastewater Basin which are well below limits permitted by 10 CFR 20, and if discharged to the Catawba River as proposed, would result in i
4 insignificant doses consistent with the guidance of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
No changes in plant design, limiting safety system setpoints or allowable values, limiting conditions for operations or plant operating procedures would result from the proposed action.
i Therefore, based on these considerations and the three criteria given above, the Comission has detemined that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations.
]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Comission has detemined that issuance of the amendments will have no significant impact on the environment (51 FR 19431).
FINDINGS OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES j
The unintentional release of tritium into the Conventional Wastewater Basin has created the need for prompt approval of the requested change to the technical specification. Unless the existing contents of the Basin can be discharged to the Catawba River as authorized by these amendments, the lack of available volume in the Basin will impair the station's ability to process conventional (non-radiological) liquid waste as required by the NPDES pemit issued by the state of North Carolina. Accordingly, those activities at the station which l
would otherwise be conducted during the current refueling outages of both l
Units 1 and 2 and which result in the generation of or the need to process i
significant quanities of conventional waste must be curtailed or deferred.
l Therefore, the date for completion of refueling activities and station restart I
would have to be extended if the proposed change is not authorized in a timely l
manner.
),
The licensee contacted the Connission promptly after first becoming aware of the 1
presence of tritium in the Basin, and also promptly advised the Comission of the need for change to the technical s wcification on an expedited basis. The licensee has deferred those activities whici would create conventional waste where such can i
j reasonably be deferred without significant impact on the refueling outage time.
j These best efforts by the licensee provided the Comission an opportunity for notMing the proposed action subject to a public connent period less than the usual 30 days. Accordingly, we conclude that the licensee has not delayed its application to take advantage of the Exigency License Amendment provisions of 10 CFR 50.91 and has used its best efforts to provide a reasonable opportunity (at least 15 days) for public noticing and comment.
CONCLUSION l
The Comission made a proposed detemination that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations which was published in the Federal Register i
i 4
a-c.-.,re--e----gr+
--e,
--wy-,_3-------w--
.y.,.,_,--,%-e
-. - _ - - -+,,.,,m.._.ww,-.-r.
---,.,.y.,
---i.-, - - -
,.,--m-------w-y.,c,
,,et-g------.,m,,,,.m..w,,yr
(51 FR 19637) on May 30, 1986. We have also determined that this action involves no significant hazards considerations and the exigency circumstances exist which justify taking this action on an expedited basis. We have consulted with the state of North Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any comments.
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 connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Darl S. Hood, PWR #4 PWR Licensing-A C. Willis, Plant Systems Branch, PWR-A Dated: June 20,1936 l
i l
\\
. -.