ML20214V543
| ML20214V543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214V535 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706120146 | |
| Download: ML20214V543 (3) | |
Text
, -.
===:-
x p KfC UNITED STATES
[
o,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l,
E 9j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4
i RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 j
McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION i
Existing Technical Specification (TS) 3.11.1.1 and its referenced Figure 5.1-4,
" Site Boundary for Liquid Effluents" define the authorized discharge point for radioactive material released in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas as being only to Lake Nonnan, an upstream impoundment of the Catawba River. By letter
]
dated March 19, 1986, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested a change to.
i the TSs for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.. This proposed change ~would modify Figure 5.1-4 to add a new release point for radioactive liquids and i
thereby permit the release of liquids containing trace quantities of radio-activity into the Catawba River, via the conventional waste water treatment system. The change would affect only the discharge location, and would not' contained in the treatment pond, (2)g (1) the qudhtity of radioactive material increase existing TS limits regardin j
allowable doses to the public from releases to unrestricted areas, and would not decrease existing TS requirements regarding
,,l; liquid discharge monitoring. The licensee provided additional information to j
support the request by letters dated December 3,1986 and June 4,1987.
j; The change would be accomplished by deleting from TS Figure 5.1-4 an existing, obsolete footnote which authorized a one-time discharge to the Catawba River 1
]i on June 20, 1986, but retaining the existing arrow at the river and its label,
" Liquid Waste Discharge Point."
(The existing arrow, label, and footnote were added in response to a separate application by the licensee submitted subsequent to the March 19, 1986 request.)
EVALUATION The McGuire plant is designed to release radioactive liquid effluents to Lake Norman and effluent controls are based on the concentrations of activity at i
the point of release to Lake Norman. The outflow from Lake Norman is into the 1
Catawba River. Conventional ("non-radioactive") waste water is released through another discharge point directly to the Catawba River.
i Water from the turbine building sump is normally released through the conven-tional wastewater treatment system. The quantity.of radioactive material contained in each treatment pond, and in each batch of slurry (used power l
resins) to be transferred to the treatment ponds, is limited cor.sistent with 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table II by existing.TS 3/4.11.1.5 and is not changed 8706120146 870605 PDR ADOCK 05000369 i
P pop
..~
l by these amendments. There are provisions for releasing turbine building sump water through the liquid radwaste system if the sump water is contaminated with radioactivity. The liquid radwaste system is capable of processing 27,500 gpd, whereas the turbine building sumps can add up to 120,000 gpd during operation with primary to secondary leakage. Thus, the liquid radwaste
(
system is not capable of handling the turbine sump discharge on a continuing basis as would be requimd by the present technical specifications if there were small steam generator tube leaks. Furthennore, when low levels of radioactivity,are detected in a large pond (e.g., in one of the two 2.5 million gallon settling ponds of the conventional wastewater treatment system)
. release thn> ugh the liquid radwaste system is impracticable. The licensee i
t investigated several alternatives to the proposed additional release point and concluded that other possible solutions were unduly costly and were unwarranted in view of the low levels of radioactivity and doses involved. Therefore the licensee requested approval to release low level liquid radwaste through the conventional wastewater treatment system.
l The TS change does not decrease the existing monitoring requirements (TS 3.3.3.8 and referenced TS Table 3.3-12) which assure that instantaneous radioactive release rates remain within 10 CFR 20, Appendix B limits, and that radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation remains operable or appropriate compensatory action taken. There are provisions for sampling and monitoring the water going into, and being released from, the conventional waste water system. The licensee has committed to make these measurements with the i
sensitivity necessary to assure that the concentrations are below the levels needed for compliance with the dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I.
j Specifically, the licensee consnitted to maintaining a lower limit of detection of 0.1 pC1/L or less for Cs-137. These provisions satisfy General Design Criterion 64 which require that a means be provided for monitoring effluent discharge paths.
L' The dose or dose commitment to a member of the public from radioactive.
materials in liquid effluents released from each McGuire unit is limited consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I by existing TS 3/4.11.1.2 and is not changed by these amendments. The licensee has consnitted to ensuring that e
the use of this new release point does not increase the total pennitted release from the station. To accomplish this, doses at both the new and old release points will be added and the total will be maintained below the limits of Technical Specification 3.11.1.2.
The concentration of radioactive material released in liquid effluents 1
to unrestricted areas is limited consistent with 10 CFR 10 Appendix B, Table II by existing TS 3/4.11.1.1 and is not changed by these amendments.
i The change also, will not increase the concentration of radioactivity in the Catawba River. The radioactive material that is released to Lake Norman reaches the Catawba River after some delay. Use of the new release point is a more direct release path for some of the material into the River.
This will lower concentrations in Lake Norman without materially changing the concentrations in the River. This is true because almost all of the activity released by the new pathway will be relatively long lived (i.e.
l tritium and Cs-137) which are not affected by the delay. Also in the low concentrations pennitted by the technical specifications the short lived materials are inconsequential.
i u
-i
+
. The staff concludes that this proposed technical specification change is in accordance with release requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, Part 50 Appendix I and 10 CFR 20 Appendix B; and in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion 64 requirements for monitoring radioactivity releases. The change does not increase the liquid effluent release rates or the annual dose resulting from station liquid effluent releases. Thus, although the effluent release path is changed, neither the dose, quantity nor concentration of radioactive effluent in the River is changed. Therefore the proposed change is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes to the installation or use of facility com-ponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has detennined tha, the amendments involve no significant increase in the amotets, 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 cunu;lative occupational exposure. The NRC staff has made a detennination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION
~
The Consnission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration ~which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 36088) on October 8,1986. lThe licensee's subsequent submittals dated December 3,1986, and June 4,1987, do not alter the scope of the licensee's requested amendments as described in the October 8,1986 Federal Register; nor do they affect the Cownission's proposed no significant hazards cons 1 aeration detennination. The Consnission 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 Connissico's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical f.9 :he common defense and security or to the health.and safety of the pum.
Principal Contributors:
D. Hood,.PD#II-3 C. Willis. PRPB Dated:
June 5, 1987 f
' l i
._