ML20247J873

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 133 to License NPF-3

ML20247J873
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	05/18/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20247J822	List: ML20247J818 ML20247J830 ML20247J873
References
NUDOCS 8906010151
Download: ML20247J873 (3)

Text

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

~

UNITED STATES -

'e '{,

• j .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U

,, j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r

1 F

k [

S_AFETY. EVALUATION.BY.THE.0FFICE.0F NUCLEAR. REACTOR. REGULATION RELATED T0. AMENDMENT N0. . 133. .T0 FACILITY.0PERATING LICENSE.NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO. EDISON. COMPANY THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING. COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE. NUCLEAR. POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In its letter dated August 6, 1987, the Toledo Edison Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 to delete the remaining portions of Appendix B to the license, Environmental Technical Specifications, and modify License Condition 2.F.(1) so as to delete that portion which refers to the Environmental Technical Specifications. In its subsequent letter dated May 12, 1989, the llansee committed to continue to report for the remainder of the lifetime of the opera-ting license, any significant adverse impacts on the terrestrial environment attributable to the Davis-Besse facility and its operation. This subject j' license amendment request supersedes a portion of a prior license amendment request contained in the licensee's letter dated August 18, 1983.

l 2.0 EVALUATION Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications, was issued originally with the Davis-Besse Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 and contained among other items: (1)requirementstoconductforalimitedtime and terrestrial environmental monitoring studies; (2) period, certain requirements aquatic regarding radioactiveeffluents;and(3)limitingconditionsofoperation.

Some of these elements were later deleted from Appendix B. Specifically, on March 11, 1983, Amendment No. 55 deleted those requirements in Appendix B related to the aquatic environment in recognition that these requirements were now superseded by the requirements in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-tion System (NPDES) permit. Subsequently, those requirements in Appendix B related'to radioactive effluents were removed from Appendix B and incorporated into Appendix A', Technical Specifications, in accordance with Appendix I to g6010151 890518 p ADOCK 05000346 PDC

o m -

~i-10 CFR Part 50, by Amendment No. 86 to the license', effective as of October.30, 1985. On this basis, the staff concludes that there is no significant effect on safety caused by the action of this amendment in that those portions of Appendix B relating to the monitoring, control and release of radioactive effluents. have previously been transferred and. retained.-. The action taken by this amendment is administrative in nature and is intended to relieve the licensee of the burden of certain environmental reporting requirements as discussed below though it does not eliminate the requirement for a long-term.-

terrestrial environmental monitoring program.

The remaining portions of Appendix B, after these deletions cited above, con-sisted of terrestria1' monitoring studies. These portions can be summarized as: (1) bird collision monitoring;. (2) vegetation surveys to detect changes in

.the composition, aerial extent and general health- of . vegetative cover types;-

(3)operationalnoisesurveillance;and(4)long-termmonitoringofterrestrial

. environmental impacts. With regard to Item 1 above, the licensees submitted >

in their letter dated August 20, 1980, a report entitled, " Cooling Towers as Obstacles in Bird Migrations," dated November 15, 1979. The NRC staff issued on April 14, 1981, a letter-to Toledo Edison agreeing with the licensees' con-clusion that there had been no significant adverse effect on bird populations due to the facility structures. Therefore, the staff concluded that it would no longer require further monitoring in this regard. On this basis, removal from Appendix B of those reporting requirements related to the effect of plant structures on bird populations is acceptable.

With regard to vegetation surveys conducted in accordance with Appendix B requirements, there is sufficient data gathered over an extensive period of time to indicate that there has been no evidence of any. direct effects upon either vegetation or comunity succession as a result of cooling tower opera-tion. For example, the latest annual report entitled, " Annual Environmental Operating Report, January 1,1988-December 31, 1988," presents in Section 6,

" Marsh Management," a review of the various vegetative covers found immediately l around the plant for the period from 1955 to 1988. The material in this i section indicates that the level of Lake Erie and the management of the dike system appear to be the dominant factors in determining the amount and character l

of the vegetative cover. Based on the lack of evidence of any direct effects of the cooling tower operation on the vegetative cover, the deletion of the annual terrestrial environmental reporting requirements from Appendix B of the license is acceptable. The item related to the requirement in Appendix B regarding the program for conducting operational noise surveillance has been satisfied with the prior submittal by Toledo Edison of its report entitled

" Environmental Noise Impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station," dated July 1983. On the basis of the licensee's submittal of this report, the staff finds that the remaining portion of Section 4.0, "Special Surveillance and Study Activities," may be eliminated.

The only remaining substantive element in Appendix B is the requirement for the licensee "... to maintain a check on the unit's nonradiological impact for the life of the unit." (Section 3.1 of Appendix B). It was anticipated i

_= __ _______ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ____ _ _ _ __ __ _i

p s

?

in Appendix B that the details of this less intensive program would be determined at a later time after a review of the initial terrestrial environmental monitoring program. The licensee has provided a commitment in its letter dated May 12, 1989 to continue this terrestrial environmental monitoring program. In this letter, the licensee proposes to revise the reporting requirements to require

-it to inform the NRC of any significant adverse terrestrial environmental impact attributable to the facility or its operation. The staff finds the licensee's proposal to be at an appropriately less intensive level of effort as anticipated in Section 3.1 of Appendu B. This finding is based on the lack of any significant terrestrial environmental impact cited above. On this basis, the staff agrees with the licensee that retaining Appendix B solely for the purpose of requiring a long-term, less intensive terrestrial environmental monitoring program is not necessary. The licensee's commitment in its letter of May 12, 1989 is sufficient to ensure that any significant adverse terrestrial impact attributable to the facility or its operation will be reported to the NRC.

Based on the preceding considerations, the staff concludes that deletion of the remaining portions of Appendix B in its entirety is acceptable. Similarly, the deletion of that portion of License Condition 2.F.(1) which refers to the Environmental Technical Specifications is also acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves changes in the environmental surveillance requirements.

The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, 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 cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards ,

consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, i this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set '

forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

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 Conission's regulations, and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and .

security or to.the health and safety of the public, i Principal Contributor: M. D. Lynch Dated: May 18, 1989