ML20247A994
| ML20247A994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A991 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907240013 | |
| Download: ML20247A994 (2) | |
Text
-_
pa
[f
- q %,
UNITED STATES
.c g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7n -
j WASHINC(ON D. C,20555
\\...../
j i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 j
AND AMENDMENT NO. 60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52
]
i CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
)
1 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
{
9 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 12,1987,)and supplemented July 9,1987, Duke Power l
Company, et al., (the licensee proposed changes to Catawba Units 1 and 2 l
Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3-12 " Radioactive Liquid Effluent Nonitoring Instrumentation," Table 4.3-8 " Radioactive Liquid Effluent l
Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements," and Table 4.11-1 l
" Radioactive Liquid Waste Sampling and Analysis Progranf to add operability and surveillance requirements for radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrumentation for water from the turbine building sump after treatrant by an alternate demineralized system. The proposed amendments would provide program requirements for the sampling and analysis of the demineralized sump water and l
its surveillance by radiation monitor EMF-31 before discharge into the Low Pressure Service Water System.
By letter dated November 17, 1987, the NRC staff requested additional information regarding the proposed changes.
By letter dated January 8,1988, the licensee responded to NRC concerns.
Furthermore, by letter dated November 16, 1988, the NRC staff transmitted a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) and requested that all the items in the TER related to the proposed amendments to the TSs be incorporated within six months in the next revision to the Offsite Dose Calculation Monitor (0DCM).
By letter dated May 3,1989, the licensee provided responses to the discrepancies documented in the November 16, 1988 letter. However, the licensee stated in the letter dated May 3, 1989, that the concerns note ~d in the TER will be addressed in the upcoming revision to the ODCM to be issued by September 1989.
Because the January 8,1988, and May 3,1989, submittals clarified certain aspects of the request, the substance of the changes noticed in the Federal Register and the proposed no significant hazards consideration were not affected.
2.0 EVALUATION The Radwaste Treatment System (capacity 16,000 to 18,000 gallons per day) will remain the primary treatment system for processing highly contaminated wastes. The licensee proposes to install portable equipment to deminerelb.e the larger volumes of slightly radioactive wastewater, 72,000 gallons pet oay or more, which can result from primary-to-secondary leaks in the steam 8907240013 890718 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PDC L--------------------
]
generators.
The Turbine Building sump also receives waste water with very low levels of radioactivity from other sources such as floor drains and the Auxiliary Building drain sump. The treated waste water would be discharged through radiation monitor EMF-31 into the effluent from the Low Pr,5sure Service Water System.
The radioactive release rates would meet 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B limits.
The NRC dose limit imposed by the TS and 10 CFR Part 50 would also be met.
The discharges would also be sampled and monitored in compliance with the HPDES permit. Turbine sump water meeting these requirements without treatment 4
could be discharged directly through radiation monitor EMF-31 to the Conventional Wastewater Treatment System.
Table 4.11-1 specifies the supplemental wastewater sampling and analysis requirements when the EMF-31 monitoring channel is operable.
In the event that the EMF-31 monitor is not operable, the more frequent sampling and i
analysis scnedule is specified in Table 3.3-12, Action 42.
Based on the its review of the licensee's submittals, the staff concludes that
{
the changes have no adverse impact on safety and would not pose an undue risk i
to public health and safety. Therefore, they are acceptable, f
i
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32 the Commission has determined that the issuance of s
these amendments will have no significant impact on the environment (54FR29623).
j i
4.0 CONCLb3 ION 1
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR35791) on September 23, 1987. The Commission consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of South 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 common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. Jabbour, PDII-3/0RP-I/II Cated:
July 18, 1989 i
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _