ML15112B079
| ML15112B079 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15112B078 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-54862, TAC-54863, NUDOCS 8212010205 | |
| Download: ML15112B079 (6) | |
Text
UN ITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 116TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 116 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 113 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letters dated May 19, 1980 and December 17, 1980, Duke Power Company sub mitted a request to dispose of radioactivity contaminated oil by incineration in the auxiliary boiler at the Oconee Nuclear Station. This request was granted.and Technical Specifications were established on March 31, 1981, which detailed the conditions under which oil could be incinerated. In a letter dated February 3, 1982, Duke requested a Technical Specification revision to eliminate the six.hours per quarter burn limit. The licensee subsequently modified this request in a July 23, 1982 letter. In this letter the licensee requested that the Technical Specification be modified further to eliminate the limit on the quantity of radioactivity that may be present in a 55-gallon drum that is going to be.incinerated, and to eliminate the limit on the rate of incineration such that the concentration in the stack could be greater than 0.5 times the quantity given in Table 2, Column 1 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20. Duke requested that the incineration of contaminated oil be allowed as long as the present limits of Section 3.10 of.the Specifications were met.
8212010205 821115 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDR_
-2 Discussion In a letter dated May 19, 1980, Duke requested permission to dispose of contam inated oil by incineration in the auxiliary boiler at the Oconee Nuclear Station. At that time Oconee had 1320 gallons of contaminated oil in storage.
The source of this oil was the turbine building sumps and the reactor coolant pumps motor oil.
The latter source resulted in 1000 gallons of contaminated oil per reactor every two years. Most of the contaminants are in the form of cesium and cobalt isotopes. On December 17, 1980, a second request was received from Duke which requested approval for the incineration of an addi tional 935 gallons of oil.
On March 31, 1981, Duke's request was granted and Technical Specifications were established to allow the incineration of oil at the Oconee Station. These specifications (1) limited the amount of time that oil could be incinerated in any one quarter to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> (Specification 3.10.9.c), (2) limited the quantity of radioactivity that could be contained in any 55 gallons of oil to be incin erated to the quantities given in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 (3.10.9.a), and (3) limited the rate of incineration such that the concentration of radio activity in the stack could not exceed 0.5 times the quantity given in Table 2, Column 1, of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 (3.10.9.b).
On February 3, 1982, Duke requested that the limitation of 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of incinera tion per quarter be eliminated because the combination of the incineration time limit and the oil feed rate to the auxiliary boiler resulted in an increase in contaminated oil inventory rather than a decrease.. The oil feed rate was lower than anticipated because of the load-following characteristics of the auxiliary boiler.
-3 On July 23, 1982, the request to modify Specification 3.10.9 was revised to in clude deletion of Specifications 3.10.9.a and 3.10.9.b. It was proposed that contaminated oil could be incinerated as long as the limits of Specifica tion 3.10 were met.
In proposing the elimination of Specifications 3.10.9.a and 3.10.9.b, Duke indicated that such a change would not result in a significant radiological impact since the total quantity of radioactivity would be less than 0.5% of the annual limit, and the limitations on feed rate to the boiler ensure that the predetermined release rate will not surpass the Technical Specification limit at the exclusion boundary. In addition, removal of these specifications would allow the inventory of contaminated oil to be reduced.
As of June 16, 1982, the inventory of contaminated oil at the Oconee Station included 6636 gallons containing 1725 uCi of mostly cesium and cobalt isotopes, and 1763 gallons of oily water and sludge containing mostly cesium isotopes that Duke has indicated will require significant processing before any incinerable oil is extracted.
Evaluation and Environmental Appraisal We calculated the potential doses that could occur as a result of the incineration of contaminated oil, as proposed by Duke. Assuming the maximum concentration in any of the oil is the average for all 6636 gallons and assum ing the maximum exposed individual is an infant at the nearest residence located 4.5 miles WNW of the plant, the maximum dose to any organ was calculated to be less than 0.5 mrem/yr based upon an X/Q of 2.9 x 10 8 sec/m3 and a D/Q of
-4 7.4 x 10.
m 2 In this calculation, it was assumed that the contaminated oil was incinerated at a rate of 6.0 gpm for the entire year which would.
result in greater than 3.15 million gallons of oil being incinerated during the year.
The pathways which were considered to be present at the nearest residence were the cow milk, ground plane, and inhalation.
The concentration of radionuclides found in the most highly contaminated oil was provided by Duke in their July 23, 1982 letter.
The Oconee Technical Specifications contain only a one hour maximum release rate for 1-131 and particulate radionuclides with half lives greater than 8 days, and the conditions under which releases from the gaseous waste tanks and reactor building releases must be filtered.
No technical specification is included which proposes an annual limit for 1-131 and particulates.
Specification 3.10 contains Objective 2 which presents a yearly average release rate, however, this is not a technical specification but an objec tive. The objective is to limit the 1-131 and particulate releases such that the dose rate from all three reactors is less than 5 mrem/yr.
In our review, we did not consider it appropriate that the incinera tion of oil be allowed to be a major contributor to the release of radioiodine and particulates from the Oconee Station, especially in view of the fact that the auxiliary boiler has no means for controlling radioiodine or parti culate releases whereas a vessel dedicated to the incineration of radioactive material normally does. Therefore, on September 15, we had a conference
-5 call with Duke to relay this concern and to request that Duke propose an alternative emission limitation. On September 24, another conference call was held and Duke proposed that the effluents from the incineration of con taminated oil be restricted to 0.1% of Objective 2 of Specification 3.10.
A restriction of 0.1% of that value would limit the dose to 5x0-3 mrem per year.
As noted above, we calculated the dose contribution from continually burning contaminated oil containing the maximum radioactivity presently in any of the oil and at a feed rate of 6 gpm. Limiting the dose impact to the dose rate of 5x10 mrem/yr would restrict the volume of contaminated oil that could be incinerated to approximately 6100 gallons per year based upon the assumption that all contamidated oil contains the maximum concen tration of -radioactivity. We consider this to be an acceptable volume of waste to incinerate and a minimal, and therefore, acceptable impact (0.005 mrem/yr). Therefore, we find the proposed Technical Specification change to Technical Specification 3.10.9, as modified by our telephone conversation with Duke, to be acceptable.
Summary We have concluded that the proposed modification to Specification 3.10.9 of the Oconee Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Technical Specifications, as modified by our comment, is acceptable. We have further concluded that this change represents an insignificant change in the radioactive effluent release limits because the contribution from buring this oil will be less than one-tenth of one percent of the release objective.
-6 Conclusions On the basis of the foregoing analysis, we have concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact attributed to the proposed action. Having reached this conclusion, we have further concluded that no environmental impact statement for this action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
We have also concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) 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.
Dated: November 15, 1982 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation and Enviromental Impact Appraisal: Philip Wagner, J. Hayes.