ML20235F546
| ML20235F546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235F541 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709290192 | |
| Download: ML20235F546 (4) | |
Text
['
=
po nang 8 'I Io,,
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
g g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
/
MFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATIONSUPPORTING l
AMENDMENT NOS. 124 AND 127 TO FACILITY OPERATING i
I LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY Ld PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NUS. 50-277 AND 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
!t '
By letter dated December 17, 1986, Philadelphia Electric Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
This amendment would revise a single page of the Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect the addition of a radwaste treatment sub-system to treat and filter chemical and oily wastes and also to make related editorial and format changes.
1 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee specifically(requested that the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 subsystem (chemical and oily waste treatment subsystem) quid radwaste Technical Specifications TS) be amended to add a new li 1
to those other J"
subsystems listed in TS Section 3.8.8.4 on page 207.
In addition, the licensee proposed an exception for the new subsystem from periodic operability surveillance requirements and also to make a few minor editorial and format changes to the same TS section for clarification.
The Peach Bottom liquid radioactive waste treatment system, common to both units 2 and 3 consists of four collection subsystems:
(1) The equipment drain subsystem with one 25,000 gallon capacity waste collection tank, l
(2) The floor drain subsystem with one 21,000 gallon capacity floor drain collection tank, (3) The chemical waste subsystem with one 5,000 capacity chemical waste tank, and (4) The laundry subsystem with two 1000 gallon capacity laundry drain tanks.
8709290192 B70922 DR ADOCK 050 27 1
- t
u In the proposed TS changes, the licensee requests the use of the existing chemical waste tank for, storage of chemical / oily waste before treatment and the use of the existing laundry drain tanks for storage of processed chemical / oily waste prior to sampling and analysis for discharge via the existing common single discharge line to the circulating water system.
The licensee stated during discussions with the staff that the laundry drain tanks are rarely used since the licensee utilizes an outside contractor for handling potentially contaminated laundry generated at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3.
l A filtration system using disposable activated carbon filters will be added between the existing chemical waste tank and the existing laundry 1
6 drain tanks. The system is also provided with connections to acconinodate use of a disposable demineralized skid if needed. Thus, the new-e
~
subsystem will consist of a chemical drain tank, disposable filters or demineralizers, and two laundry drain tanks to process chemical / oily radioactive waste.
The licensee stated in the referenced letter that the proposed chemical /
oily waste subsystem will share the single common discharge line with other liquid radwaste subsystems. The common discharge line is equipped with two flow meters in parallel, a radiation monitor, and an automatic discharge isolation valve.
The automatic discharge isolation valve 7
closes if the liquid radwaste release rate, discharge canal dilution flow rate, or radioactivity concentrations are not within the preset values q
determined from the sample analysis.
The prdposed TS changes are limited to the physical realignment of the sub-systems with the addition of the filters and do not affect the processing requirements prior to discharge specified in TS Section 3.8.8.4 The staff finds that the proposed realignment of the liquid radwaste j
subsystems (forming a new chemical / oily waste subsystem) does not affect the capability of the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 liquid radwaste system to meet the staff's acceptance criteria delineated in Section 11.2 of Standard. Review Plan. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes to j
i be acceptable.
The licensee also stated in the referenced letter that the new subsystem will not be used routinely but used only for periodic processing of batch waste on an as-needed basis.
Therefore, the licensee requested an j
exception from quarterly operability test requirements as specified for i
other subsystems in TS Section 4.8.8.4b.
The staff estimates that the J
average number of chemical / oily waste batches to be processed by the new 1
sub-system will not exceed more than three batches per year. Thus, because the system is not in routine use, the staff concludes that the requested exception from quarterly operability tests is also acceptable.
In addition, the licensee also proposed the following editorial and description changes, and a correction to the TS's:
1
]
O t._....,--
4 N,
(1) A new format is proposed to list the four liauid radwaste subsystems in tabular form for ease of identification rather than including them in the body of the paragraph as is presently written (Section 3.8.8.4 on page 207).
(2) A new phrase is added in Section 3.8.B.4 on page 207 to read
"... effluent releases at and beyond the SITE BOUNDARY..." to be consistent with the terminology used in Section 4.8.B.4a of the surveillance requirements.
(3) Paragraph number 6.9.3 for Special Report Specification referenced in Section 3.8.8.4 on page 207 is corrected to paragraph 6.9.2.
This is a correction of a previous oversight.
The staff finds the above editorial and description changes and the paragraph number correction to be acceptable.
On the basis of the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications concerning the new chemical / oily liquid radwaste system are in accordance with the staff's acceptance criteria delineated in Section 11.2 of the Standard Review Plan, and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendmen'ts involve no I
significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsita and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
As noted below, the staff consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on September 8, 1987. Two potential concerns were identified, one dealing with whether or not process sampling and post-accident sampling liquids were going to the floor drains and the other concern dealing with whether or not the proposed chemical / oily waste treatment subsystem should be excepted from quarterly surveillance testing requirements. The NRC Staff, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania representative and the licensee discussed these matters orally on September 16, 1987. Utilizing updated FSAR Figure 9.2.la, Revision 3, the licensee stated that the proposed amendment will have no significant effect on the handling of the inputs to the chemical waste tank since these liquids will now drain by gravity directly into the floor drain collector tank instead of collecting in the chemical waste tank and then being pumped into the floor drain collector tank. The licensee also emphasized the basis for their periodic surveillance testing exception by noting that operability of the system
e '
is. inherently demonstrated by the acceptability or lack thereof of the sampling which must be performed'on each batch of chemical / oily waste effluert prior to disposal.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania representative found this information to be acceptable and indicated that there were no further concerns with the amendment. The NRC staff has found the proposed amendment to be acceptable as stated in.the Evaluation above and has not identified any information which impacts its previous proposed determination'of no significant hazards consideration.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria fnr categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance. of the. amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal o-Register (52 FR 23105) on June 17, 1997 and consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania identified several potential concerns which were resolved as discussed in Section 3.0 above. There were no other public comments.
The staff has 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 Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Pr.incipal Contributor:
J. Lee Dated:
september 22, 1987
]
t
)
I
,i i
~.
z
.