ML17056C295

NMPNS - Unit 2 Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for Jul-Dec 1992

ML17056C295
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/31/1992
From:	NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17056C296	List: ML17056C295 ML17056C297 ML18038A737
References
NUDOCS 9303100371
Download: ML17056C295 (96)

Text

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT JULY - DECEMBER 1992 NIAGARA MOHAWKPOWER CORPORA TION 003636LL 9303i0037i 930301 PDR ADOCK 050004i0 R

PDR

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT JULY - DECEMBER 1992 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Facility:

Nine Mile Point Unit ¹2 1.

Technical Specification Limits:

Licensee:

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation A)

Fission and Activation Gases:

1.

The dose rate limit of noble gases from the site to areas at and beyond the site boundary shall be less than or equal to 500 mrems/year to the total body and less than or equal to 3000 mrems/year to the skin.

2.

The air dose due to noble gases released in gaseous effluents from the Nine Mile Point 2 Station to areas at and beyond the site boundary shall be limited during any calendar quarter to less than or equal to 5 milliroentgen for gamma radiation and less than or equal to 10 mrads for beta radiation, and during any calendar year to less than or equal to 10 milliroentgen for gamma radiation and less than or equal to 20 mrads for beta radiation.

B5C)

Tritium, lodines and Particulates, half lives ) 8 days:

1.

The dose rate limit of Iodine-131, Iodine-133, Tritium and all radionuclides in particulate form with half-lives greater than eight days, released to the environs as part of the gaseous wastes from the site, shall be less than or equal to 1500 mrems/year to any organ.

2.

The dose to a member of the public from Iodine-131, Iodine-133, Tritium and all radionuclides in particulate form with half lives greater than eight days as part of gaseous effluents released from the Nine Mile Point 2 Station to areas at and beyond the site boundary shall be limited during any calendar quarter to less than or equal to 7.5 mrems to any organ and, during any calendar year to less than or equal to 15 mrems to any organ.

D)

Liquid Effluents:

1.

The concentration of radioactive material released in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas shall be limited to the concentrations specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 for radionuclides other than dissolved or entrained noble gases.

For dissolved or entrained noble gas, the concentration shall be limited to 2E-04 microcuries/ml total activity.

003535LL

D)

Liquid Effluents (Cont'd):

2.

The dose or dose commitment to a member of the public from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released from Nine Mile Point Unit 2 to unrestricted areas shall be limited during any calendar quarter to less than or equal to 1.5 mrems to the total body and to less than or equal to 5 mrems to any organ, and during any calendar year to less than or equal to 3 mrems to the total body and to less than or equal to 10 mrems to any organ.

2.

Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity:

Described below are the methods used to measure or approximate the total radioactivity and radionuclide composition in effluents.

A)

Fission and Activation Gases:

Noble gas effluent activity is determined by on-line gamma spectroscopic monitoring (intrinsic germanium crystal) or gross activity monitoring (calibrated against gamma isotopic analysis of a 4.0L Marinelli grab sample) of an isokinetic stack sample stream.

B) lodines:

Iodine effluent activity is determined by gamma spectroscopic analysis (at least weekly) of charcoal cartridges sampled from an isokinetic stack sample stream.

C)

Particulates:

Activityreleased from main stack is determined by gamma spectroscopic analysis (at least weekly) of particulate filters sampled from an isokinetic sample stream.

D)

Tritium:

Tritium effluent activity is estimated by liquid scintillation or gas proportional counting of monthly samples taken with an air sparging/water trap apparatus.

E)

Liquid Effluents:

Isotopic analysis of a representative sample of each. batch and composite analysis of non-gamma emitters.

003636LL

2.

Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity (Cont'd):

F)

Solid Effluents:

Isotopic contents of waste shipments are determined by gamma spectroscopy, gross alpha and water content analyses of a representative sample of each batch.

Scaling factors established from primary composite sample analyses conducted off-site are applied, where appropriate, to find estimated concentration of non-gamma emitters.

For low activity trash shipments, curie content is estimated by dose rate measurement and application of appropriate scaling factors.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT1 Summary Data Page 1 of 2 Unit 1 Unit2~

Uquid Effluents:

10CFR20, Appendix 8, Table II, Column 2 Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 1.16E-03 a

4.2SE-04 Average Energy (Fission and Activation gases - Mev):

Qtr. 3 Qtr. 4 Uquid:

Ey

~ 1.115+00 4f Ey

~ 8.23E.01 (Jf 6.55E-01 M

8.43E-01 Number of batch releases Total time period for batch releases (hrs.)

63 2.17E+ 02 Maximum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

3.S1E+00 Average time period for a batch release (hrs.):

3.45E+00 Minimum time period for a batch release (hrs.)

Total volume of water used to dilute the liquid effluent during release period (L)

Total volume of water used to dilute the liquid effluent during reporting period (L) 1.50E+ 00 1.35E+ 09 2.68E+ 10 UNIT 1 (ONLY)

Gaseous (Emergency Condenser Vent):

NOT APPUCABLE FOR UNIT 2 Number of batch releases

~NA Total time period for batch releases (hrs.)

~NA Maximum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

~NA Average time period for a batch release (hrs.)

NNIA Minimum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

~NA Gaseous (Primary Containment Purge):

Number of batch releases 10 Total time period for batch releases (hrs.)

2 606+02 Maximum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

8.445+01 Average time period for a batch release (hrs.):

2,60E+01 Minimum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

1.06E+00 00353SLL

ATTACHMENT1 Summary Data Page 2 of 2 Unit I Unit 2 X Reporting Period Jul.December 1992 Abnormal Releases:

THERE WERE NO ABNORMALRELEASES DURING THE REPORTINQ PERIOD A.

Liquids Number of releases 0

Total activity released

~NA Ci B.

Gaseous Number of releases 0

Total activity released NIA Ci 003535LL

ATTACHMENT2 Unit 1 Unit 2)L, Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - SUMMATIONOF ALLRELEASES ELEVATED AND GROUND LEVEL Fission 8c Activation ases'.

Total release 2.

Average release rate Ci pCi/sec.

3" QUARTER 1.36E+ 01 1

3E+ 00 44 EST. TOTAL QUARTER

~ERROR 1.86E+ 00 5.00E+01 2.365-01 B.

lodines 1.

Total iodine 2.

Average release rate for period Ci pCI/sec 1.47E-03 1.87E-04 1,51E-03 1.92E-04 3.00E+01 Particulstes2 1.

Particulates with half-lives ) 8 days 2.

Average release rate for period 4.

Gross alpha radioactivity Ci pCI/sec.

Ci 1.42E-03 1.815-04 3 08E.OE 8.83E-04 1.12E-04 1.60E-05 3.00E+01 2.50E+01 Tritium'.

Total release 2.

Average release rate for period Ci pCi/sec.

1.89E+ 00 2.40E-01 6.12E+00 5.00E+01 7.79E-01 Percent of Tech. S ec. Limits Fission and Activation Gases~

Percent of Quarterly Gamma Air Dose Umit (5 mram)

Percent of Quarterly Beta Air Dose Limit (10 mrem)

Percent of Annual Gamma Air Dose limit to Data (10 mrem)

Percent of Annual Bets Air Dose Limitto Date (20 mrem)

Percent of Whole Body Dose Rate Umit (500 mrem/yr)

Percent of Skin Dose Rate Limit (3000 mrem/yr)

Tritium lodines and Particulates with half.lives rester than 8 da s

Percent of Quarterly Dose Umit (7.5 mrem)

Percent of Annual Dose Umit (16 mrem)

Percent of Organ Dose Rate Limit (1600 mrem/yr) 1.24E-01 9.56E-04 1.20E-01 1.19E-03 4.74E.03 9.23E-04 6.05E-02 4.67E-02 2 46E.03 1.25E-02 1.70E-04 1.26E.01 1.27E-03 4.74E-04 9.33E-05 8.27E.03 4.99E-02 3.13E-03 Concentrations lass than the lower limit of detection of 1.00E-04 pCi/ml for Noble Gases, 1.00E-11 pCi/ml for particulates, 1.00E-12 pCi/ml for lodines, and 1.00E-06 pCi/ml for Tritium as required by Technical Specifications are indicated with a double asterisk.

s Tritium, Iron-SS, and Strontium results were not received from the off-site vendor at the time of this report.

Actual numbers will be provided in the next Semi-Annual Report.

003636LL

ATTACHMENT3 Unit 1 Unit2~

Reporting Period Jul -December 199 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - ELEVATED RELEASE CONTINUOUS MODE*

Nuclides Released Fission Gases'rgon.41 Krypton-85 Krypton-85m Krypton-87 Krypton-88 Xenon-127 Xenon-133 Xenon-135 Xenon-135m Xenon-137 Xenon-138 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 3Q

~QUARTE 6.87E+ 00

~ 0

~ 0 4.51E-01 5.76E-01

~ 0

~ 0 5.77E.02 4.70E.01 1.64E+ 00 3.53E+ 00 44 QUARTER 9.37E-02

~ ~

4.73E-02 8.42E-02 1.63E.01

~ 0

~ 0 7.28E.02 2.14E.01 5.29E-01 6.54E-01 lodines'odine-131 iodine-133 Iodine-135 Ci Ci Ci 5.72E.04 2.55E-04

~ 0 8.30E-05 1.42E.03 0 ~

Particulates'trontium-89 Strontium-90 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Cobalt-60 Cobalt-58 Manganese.54 Barium. Lanthanum-140 Antimony-125 Niobium-95 Cerium-141 Cerium-144 Iron-59 Cesium-136 Chromium-51 Zinc-65 Iron-55 Molybdenum-99 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci'i Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 9.38E-06

~t

~ 0

~ 0 2.08E-05

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 3.88E-05

~ 0

~ 0 9.38E-06 4.20E-07

~t

~t

7. 21E-06

~ 0

~t

~ ~

~I

~ 1

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ ~

3.50E-06 1.87E-05 6.54E-06 4,

Tritium Ci 1.27E+ 00 3.18E+ 00 Concentrations less than the lower limit of detection of 1.00E-04/rCI/ml for Noble Gases, 1.00E-11 /rCI/ml for particulates, 1.0OE-12/iCI/ml for lodines, and 1.00E-OS /rCI/ml for Tritium as required by Technical Specifications are indicated with a double asterisk.

s Tritium, Iron-55, and Strontium results ware not received from the off.site vendor at the time of this report.

Actual numbers willbe included in the next Semi-Annual Report.

No batch mode release occurred during the reporting period.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT4 Unit 1 Unit 2 X Reporting Period Jul Zlecembor 1992 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - GROUND LEVEL RELEASES CONTINUOUS MODE BATCH MODE Nuclides Released Fission Gasesi 3"

QUARTER 401 QUARTER 3"

401

~QUA TE QUARTER Argon-41 Krypton-85 Krypton-85m Krypton-87 Krypton.88 Xenon-133 Xenon-135 Xenon-135m Xenon.137 Xenon-138 Xenon-127 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0 0 ~

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 Iodine s'odine-131 Iodine.133 Iodine-135 Ci Ci Ci 1.60E.04 4.81E.04 1 O1E-OO

~ 0

~ 0 Particulates'trontium.89 Strontium-90 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Cobalt.60 Cobalt.59 Manganese-54 Barium.Lanthanum-140 Antimony-125 Niobium-95 Cerium-141 Cerium-144 Iron-59 Cesium-136 Chromium-51 Zinc.65 Iron.55 Molybdenum-99 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 1.58E-04

~ 0 3.74E-05 00

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 1.3SE.04 1.00E-03 1.19E-05 1.31E-OS

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 8.22E-05

~ 0 1.68E-OS

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 3.16E-04 3.76E-04 1.19E-OS 3.44E-05 4,

Tritium Ci 6.16E.01 2.94E+ 00 Concentrations less then the lower limit of detection of 1.00E-04yCi/ml for Noble Gases, 1.00E-11 yCi/ml for particulates, 1.00E-12 yCi/ml for lodines, and 1.00E-06 yCi/ml for Tritium as required by Tochnical Specifications aro Indicated with a doublo asterisk.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT5 Page 1 Of 2 Unit 1 Unit2~

Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 UQUID EFFLUENTS - SUMMATIONOF ALLRELEASES A.

Fission ST ActivationProducts'"

QUARTER 4A EST. TOTAL

~QUARTE

~ERROR

1. Total release (not including tritium,

gases, alpha)

2. Average diluted concentration during reporting period Ci pCi/ml 8,91E-02 6.15E-09 1.23E-01 9.94E-09 S.OOE+01 B.

Tritium

1. Total release

2. Average dilutod concentration during reporting period C.

Dissolved end Entrained Gases'i pCi/ml 2.80E+00 1.93E.07 1.87E+ 00 S.OOE+01 1.52E.07

1. Total release

2. Average diluted concentration during roporting period D.

Gross Al he Rsdioactivi

1. Total release Ci pCi/ml Ci

~ 0

~ O

~ 0 6.48E.05

~2.272 I

~ 0 5.00E+01 5.00E+01 E.

Volumes

1. Prior to dilution

2. Volume of dilution water used during release period

3. Volume of dilution water available during reporting period Uters Uters Uters 3.55E+ 06 9.00E+ 08 1.45E+ 10 2.07E+ 06 4.47E+ 08 5.0OE+01 5.00E+01 1,23E+ 10 5.00E+01 F.

Percent of Technical 9 ecificstio Limits Percont of Quarterly Whole Body Dose Umit (1.5 mrem)

Percent of Quarterly Organ Dose Umit (5 mrem)

Percent of Annual Whole Body Dose Umit to Dato (3 mrom)

Percont of Annual Organ Doso Umit to Date (10 mrom)

Percent of 10CFR20 Concentration Umit Parcont of Dissolved or Entrained Noble Gss Umit (1.00E-S pCi/ml) 2.76E+ 00 1,84E+ 00 2.1 1E+ 00 1.41E+ 00 1.72E-02

~t 2.68E+ 00 1 TTEAOO 3.4SE+ 00 2.26E+ 00 1.05E+ 00 2.63E-OS Concentrations less than tho lower limitof detection of S.OOE-07 pCi/ml for gamma emitting nuclides, 1.0OE-05 pCi/ml for dissolved and entrained noble gases and tritium, S.OOE-OB pCi/ml for Sr-89/90, 1.00E-06 pCi/ml for Fe-55 and 1.00E-07 pCi/ml for gross alpha radioactivity as roquirod by Technical Specifications are indicated with a double asterisk.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT5 Page 20f 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 X Nuclidas Released'QUID EFFLUENTS RELEASED 3"

QUARTER Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 BATCH MODE 407

~QUARTE Strontium-89 Strontium-90 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Iodine-131 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 1.85E-04

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 4.88E-03 3.90E.04

~ 0

~ 0 0 ~

Cobalt.58 Cobalt.60 Iron.59 Zinc-65 Mangsneso-54 Chromium-51 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 3.56E-04

~2.772.0

~ 0

~4.402.0

~I26 E.O 3.63E.03 1.95E-02 2.81E-05 3.58E-02 6.98E-03 5.75E-03 Zirconium.Niobium.95 Molybdenum-99 Technetium-99m Barium.Lanthanum-140 Cerium-141 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 Tungsten-187 Arsenic-78 iodine-133 Iron.55 Noptunium-239 Praseodymium-144 Iodine-135 Silver-110m Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 7.86E-04 00

~ 0

~ 0 4.88E-02

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 4.19E-04 Dissolved or Entrained Gases Tritium Ci Ci

~ 0 2.80E+ 00 6.48E-05 1.87E+00 Concentrations loss than tho lower limitof detection of 5.00E-07 pCi/ml for gama emitting nuclides, 1.00E-OS pCi/ml for dissolved and entrained noble gases and tritium, 5.00E-OS pCi/mi for Sr.89/90, 1.00E-OS pCi/ml for Fe-55 snd 1.00-07 pCi/ml for gross alpha radioactivity as requirod by Technical Specifications are indicated with a double astorisk.

003536LL

ATTACHMENT6 Page 1 of 6 Unit 1 Unit2~

Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 SOLID WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS A.l TYPE A

Volume (me)

Class

~Activit

'Ci)

Class 1.

Spent Resin 8.23E+ 01 1,44E+03 Filter Sludge Concentrated Wasto Total 8.23E+ 01 1.44E+03 2.

Dry Compressible Waste Dry Non.Compressible Waste (Contaminated Equipment)

THERE WERE NO SHIPMENTS SENT DIRECTLY FOR BURIAL. ALLSHIPMENTS WERE SENT TO A VENDOR FOR PROCESSING AND SUBSEQUENT BURIAL. (SEE ATTACHMENT6, PAGE 5.)

3.

Irradiated Components (LPRM's) 8.28E-01 1.79E+ 04 The estimated total error is 5.00E+01%.

There were no shipments during the reporting period.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT6 Page 20f 6 Unit 1 Unit 2 X Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 SOLID WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS A.l TYPE Container Solidification AAAd t 1.

Spent Resin HIC

~Te A Cement Filter Sludge Concentrated Waste 2.

Dry Compressible Waste Dry Non-Compressible Waste (Contaminated Equipment)

ISee Attachment 6, page 5) 3.

Irradiated Components ILPRM's)

Steal Liner

~Te A

~NA There were no ehlpmente dudng tha reporting period.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT6 Page 30f 6 Unit 1 Unit 2~

Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 SOLID WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS A.2 Estimate of Ma or Nuclide Com osition b

T e of Waste a.

Spent Resins, Filter Sludges, Concentrated Waste Nuclide Zn.65 Co-60 Cr-51 Fe.55 Mn-54

~Percen 7.63E+01 1.10E+01 4.42E+ 00 3.98E+ 00 2.50E+ 00 Other 1,82E+00 b.

Dry Compressible Waste, Dry Non-Compressible Waste (Contaminated Equipment)

THERE WERE NO SHIPMENTS SENT DIRECTLY FOR BURIAL. ISee Attachment 6, page 5.)

c.

Irradiated Components ILPRM's)

Nuclide Fe-55 Co.60 Mn-54 Ni 63

~Percen 6.01E+ 01 3.37E+ 01 4.93E+00 1.28E+00 Other

< 1.00E+00 d.

Other THERE WERE NO OTHER SHIPMENTS.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT6 Page 4 Of 6 Unit 1 Unit 2 X Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 SOUD WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS A.3.

Soiid Waste Dis osition Number of Shi ments 19 Mode of Trans ortation Truck Destination B

wllBC B.

IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS DISPOSITION Number of Shi ments Mode of Trans ortation Destination 0

NIA 003535LL

ATTACHMENT6 Page 5 Of 6 Unit 1 Unit2~

Reporting Period Jul sDecembar 1992 SOLID WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS C.

SOLID WASTE SHIPPED OFF.SITE TO VENDORS FOR PROCESSING AND SUBSEOUENT BURIA Below is a summery of Dry Activated Waste that was shipped off-site for processing end burial by vendor facilitias (i.e., ALARON, QUADREX, and/or SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY GROUP) during Jul Necernber 1992.

These totals were reported separately from 10CFR61 Solid Waste Shipped for Burial (i.e., Section A of Table 3A) since (a) waste classification and burial was performed by the vendors, end (b) Technical Specification 6.9.1 requires reporting of information for each class of solid waste (as defined by 10CFR61) shipped off.site during the reporting period

. The information provided in this section, therefore, is in addition to that required by the Technical Specifications.

The following data represents the actual shipments made from the off.site vendors of our non-compacted commingled trash that was processed prior to burial.

C.l. T~fW t

- neneempented nemminpted trash shipped to Oakridge, TN for processing prior to burial at Bamwell, SC Burial Volume Activity

~CI Est. Total

~dr 5.15E+ 01 3.11E+ 00 5.00E+ 01 C.2.

Estimate of Ma'or Nuclide Com osition Nuclide 1

Zn65 2

Co-60 3

Cr-51 5

Mn-54 6

Cs-137 7

A 110m 8

Fe-55 9

Co-58 10 Other Percent 4.96E+01 2.14E+01 8.22E+00 7.03E+00 4.53E+00 2.98E+00 3.20E+ 00 1.23E+ 00 1.81E+00 C.3.

Solid Waste Die osition'umber of Shi ments Mode of Trans ortation Destination True Truck B

it dc

~pe It NV The number of shipments reported here represents the total number that was shipped for burial. This does not represent the number of shipments Niagara Mohawk sent to be processed.

003535LL

Unit 1 Unit 2 X

ATTACHMENT6 Page 6 of 6 Reporting Period I

- D mb r 1 2

SOLID WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS D.

EWA E

L D

E HIPPED T A TREATMENT FA ILITY ENTER F R PR E

IN AND

~BRIAL Below is a summary of the sewage sludge which was removed from the site sanitary treatment facility and transferred to a municipal sewage treatment facility, for subsequent drying and disposal to a landfill. This is a site release, and therefore includes the results from Unit 1 activities, also.

f wa

- sewage sludge D.2.

E im fM 'N li Disposal Volume Activity Ll 3.78E+ 04 3.40E-07 fn I

I n

~N( Iidf(

Co-60

~Pron 1.00E+02 D.3.

Ii W Di sii n Nm er f himn M

fTrn in Truck Fin I D in i n Landfill There were two shipments of sewage sludge with quantified Co-60 that were sent by vendor vacuum tank truck from NIVIP to the treatment facility with a total volume of 3.78E+04 Liters.

The number of shipments sent from NMP does not reflect the number of shipments to the ultimate destination or actual burial volume (i.e., landfill). Sludge is mixed with municipal sludge, dried, and subsequently transferred to a state approved landfill by municipal personnel.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT7 Unit 1 Unit 2 X Reporting Period Jul.December 1992

SUMMARY

OF CHANGES TO THE OFFNITE DOSE CALCULATIONMANUAL See Pert 1 of the attached LDCR included with Revision 7 to the U.2 ODCM {enclosed).

003535LL

ATlACHMENT 8 Unit 1 Unit 2 X Reporting Period Jul.December 1992

SUMMARY

OF CHANGES TO THE PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM There were no changes to the technical content of the Process Control Program {PCP) during the reporting period; however, the PCP has been revised to be a licensing document similar to the ODCM, and is not identified with the previous procedure number GAP-RMP-02, Rev. O. The new document is not identified with a number, and has the title, "Unit 2 Radwaste Process Control Program". This change became effective December 31, 1992.

003535LL

ATTACHIVIENT9 Unit 1 Unit 2 X

SUMMARY

OF INOPERABLE MONITORS Reporting Period Jul -December 1992 Monitor 1.

VENT NOBLE GAS MONITOR Dates of Inoperability 6/19/92 to 7/29/92 Cause and Correctivo Actions The cord used to supply power from the pre-amplifier was made from wire with an incorrect gauge causing loss of power to the pre-amp.

This affected the field effect transistor causing inoporability. This was being trackod by a DER f2 92-2792.

The DER was closed on 9/25/92 with tho approval from Engineering to use tho new gaugo wire. This is considered a

closed item. AuxiliarySampling and Analysis was used during this reporting poriod.

003535 LL

ATTACHMENT10 Page 1 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION ¹2 DOSES TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DUE TO THEIR ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 Doses to members of the public (as defined by the Technical Specifications) from the operation of the NMP2 facility as a result of activity inside the site boundary is controlled by activities at the Energy Center.

This facility is open to the public and offers educational information, summer picnicking activities and fishing. Any possible doses received by a member of the public by utilizing the private road that transverses the east and west site boundaries are not considered here since it takes a matter of minutes to travel the distance.

The activity at the Energy Center that is used for the dose analysis is fishing because it is the most time consuming.

Although there is no specific survey information available, many of the same individuals have been observed to return again and again because of the access to salmonoid and lake trout populations.

Dose pathways considered for this activity include direct radiation, inhalation and external ground (shoreline sediment or soil) doses.

Other pathways, such as ingestion pathways, are not considered because they are either not applicable or insignificant.

In addition, only releases from the NMP2 stack and vent were evaluated for the inhalation pathway.

The direct radiation pathway is evaluated in accordance with the methodology found in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). This pathway considers three components:

direct radiation from the generating facilities, direct radiation from any possible overhead plume and direct radiation from plume submersion.

The direct radiation pathway is evaluated by the use of high sensitivity environmental TLDs. Since any significant fishing activity near the Energy Center occurs between April through December, environmental TLD data for the approximate period of April 1 - December 31, 1992 was considered.

Data from two environmental TLDs from the approximate area where the fishing occurs were compared to three control environmental TLD locations for the same time period.

The average fishing area TLD dose rate was 7.34E-03 mRem per hour for the period.

The average control TLD dose rate was 5.76E-03 mRem per hour for the period (approximate second, third and fourth calendar quarters of the year).

The average increase in dose as a result of fishing in this area at a conservative frequency of eight hours per week for 39 weeks is 4.93E-01 mRem from direct radiation for the period in question.

The majority of the dose from this pathway is from the NMP1 facility because of its proximity to the fishing area.

A small portion may be due to the NMP2 facility.

003635LL

ATTACHMENT10 Page 2 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION 0'2 DOSES TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DUE TO THEIR ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 The inhalation dose pathway is evaluated by utilizing the inhalation equation in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, as adapted from the Regulatory Guide 1.109.

The equation basically gives a total inhalation dose in mRem for the time period in question (April-December).

The total dose equals the sum, for all applicable radionuclides, of the NMP2 stack and vent release concentration, times the average NMP2 stack and vent flowrate, times the applicable five year average calculated X/0, times the inhalation dose factors from Regulatory Guide 1.109, Table E-7, times the Regulatory Guide 1.109 annual air intake, times the fractional portion of the year in question.

In order to be slightly conservative, no radiological decay is assumed.

The 1992 calculation utilized the following information:

NMP2 Stack:

Unit 2 average stack flowrate = 4.39E+01 m~/sec X/0 value = 9.60E-07 (annual NWN sector, historical average)

Inhalation dose factor = Table E-7 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 Annual air intake = 8000 m'er year (adult)

Fractional portion of the year = 0.0356 (312 hours0.00361 days <br />0.0867 hours <br />5.15873e-4 weeks <br />1.18716e-4 months <br />)

I-131

= 1.31E+00 pCi/m'-133

= 1.63E+00 pCi/m'e-55

= 1.82E+00 pCi/m3

. Mn-54

= 1.17E-03 pCi/m'o-60

= 6.97E+00 pCi/m'r-51

= 4.69E-03 pCi/m'n-65

= 3.42E+00 pCi/m'o-99

= 6;29E+00 pCI/m~

Sr-89

= 9.28E-01 pCi/m3 H-3

= 3.23E+03 pCi/m'r-90

= 4.07E+00 pCi/m'MP2 Vent:

Unit 2 average vent flowrate = 1.03E+02 m'/sec X/0 value = 2.8E-06 (annual historical average)

Inhalation dose factor = Table E-7 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 Annual air intake = 8000 m'er year (adult)

Fractional portion of the year = 0.0356 (312 hours0.00361 days <br />0.0867 hours <br />5.15873e-4 weeks <br />1.18716e-4 months <br />)

Cr-51

= 1.38E+00 pCi/m'03535LL

ATTACHMENT10 Page 3 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION ¹2 DOSES TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DUE TO THEIR ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 NMP2 Vent (Cont'd):

Co-60 Mn-54 Zn-65 Mo-99 I-131 I-133 H-3 Sr-89 Sr-90 Co-58 Fe-59 Fe-55 5.56E-01 pCI/m~

7.69E-01 pCi/rn'.08E+00 pCi/m'.74E-01 pCi/m'.51E-01pCI/m~

1.97E-01 pCI/m~

4.80E+02 pCi/m'.65E-01 pCi/m'.27E-01 pCi/m'.98E-02pCi/m~

1.03E-02 pCi/m'.35E-01 pCi/m'he inhalation dose to a member of the public as a result of activities inside the site boundary is 9.42E-04 mRem to the bone (maximum organ dose) and 7.19E-05 mRem to the whole body.

The dose from standing on the shoreline to fish is based on the methodology in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual as adapted from Regulatory Guide 1.109.

During 1992, it was noted that fishing was performed from the shoreline on many occasions although waders were also utilized.

In order to be conservative, it is assumed that the maximum exposed individual fished from the shoreline at all times.

The use of waders, of course, would result in a dose of zero from this pathway.

The shoreline sediment doses are not taken into consideration by environmental TLD data.

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual equation basically gives the total dose to the whole body and skin from the sum of all plant related radionuclides detected in shoreline sediment samples.

The plant related radionuclide concentration is adjusted for background sample results, as applicable.

The equation, therefore, yields the whole body and skin dose by multiplying the radionuclide concentration adjusted for any background data (as applicable), times a usage factor, times the sediment or soil density in grams per square meter (to a depth of one centimeter) times the applicable shore width factor, times the regulatory guide dose factor, times the fractional portion of the year over which the dose is applicable.

In order to be conservative and to simplify the equation, no radiological decay is assumed since the applicable radionuclides are usually long lived.

003S3SLL

ATTACHMENT10 Page 4 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION 0'2 DOSES TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DUE TO THEIR ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 The calculation utilized the following information:

Usage factor = 312 hours0.00361 days <br />0.0867 hours <br />5.15873e-4 weeks <br />1.18716e-4 months <br />.

Density in grams per meter = 40,000.

Shore width factor = 0.3.

Whole body and skin dose factor for each radionuclide =

Regulatory Guide 1.109, Table E-6.

Fractional portion of the year =

1 (used average radionuclide concentration over total time period).

Average Cs-137 concentration

= 0.402 pCi/g.

Average Co-60 concentration

= 0.036 pCi/g.

The total whole body and skin dose from standing on the shoreline to fish is 8.61E-03 mRem whole body and 1.01E-02 mRem skin dose for the period.

Doses to members of the public relative to activities inside the site boundary from aquatic pathways other than ground dose from shoreline sediment/soil are not applicable.

In summary, the total dose to a member of the public as a result of activities inside the site boundary. from the direct radiation, inhalation and shoreline dose pathways is 5.02E-01 mRem to the whole body and 9.42E-04 mRem to the maximum exposed internal organ (bone).

The dose to the skin of an adult is 1.01E-02 mRem.

These doses are generally a result of the operation of NMP2. However, a portion of these doses for the direct radiation pathway are attributable to the NMP1 facility.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT11 Page 1 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION 0'2 RADIATIONDOSES TO THE LIKELYMOST EXPOSED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 Radiation doses to the likely most exposed member of the public outside of the site boundary are evaluated relative to 40CFR190 requirements.

The dose limits of 40CFR190 are 25 mRem (whole body or organ) per calendar year and 75 mRem (thyroid) per calendar year.

The intent of 40CFR190 also requires that the effluents of NMP2 as well as other nearby uranium fuel cycle facilities be considered.

In this case, the effluents of NMP1, NMP2 and the James A. FitzPatrick (JAF) facilities must be considered.

Doses to the likely most exposed member of the public as a result of effluents from the site can be evaluated by using calculated dose modeling based on the accepted methodologies of the facilities'ffsite Dose Calculation Manuals or may, in some cases, be calculated from the analysis results of actual environmental samples.

Acceptable methods for calculating doses from environmental samples are also found in the facilities'ffsite Dose Calculation Manuals.

These methods are based on Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology.

Dose calculations from actual environmental samples are, at times, difficultto perform for some pathways.

Some pathway doses should be estimated using calculational dose modeling.

These pathways include noble gas air dose, inhalation dose, etc.

Other pathway doses may be calculated directly from environmental sample concentrations using Regulatory Guide 1.109 methodology.

Since the effluents from the generating facilities are low, the resultant gaseous and liquid effluent doses are anticipated to be low.

In view of this, doses can be based on calculated data.

Doses are not based on actual environmental data for 1992 with the exception of doses from direct radiation, fish consumption and shoreline sediment.

In addition, in order to be conservative and for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed in the dose calculations that the likely most exposed member of the public is positioned in the maximum receptor location for each pathway at the same time. This approach is utilized because the doses are very Iow and the computations are greatly simplified.

The following pathways are considered:

1.

The inhalation dose is calculated at the critical residence because of the high occupancy factor.

In order to be conservative, the maximum whole body and organ dose assumes no correction for residing inside a residence.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT 11 Page 2 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION ¹2 RADIATIONDOSES TO THE LIKELYMOST EXPOSED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 2.

The milk ingestion dose is calculated utilizing the maximum milk cow location.

As noted previously, in order to be conservative and for the sake of simplicity, the likely most exposed member of the public is assumed to be at all critical receptors at one time.

In this case, the member of the public at the critical residence is assumed to consume milk from the critical milk location.

3.

The maximum dose from the milk ingestion pathway as a result of consuming goat's milk is based on the same criteria established for item 2 above (ingestion of cow's milk).

4.

The maximum dose associated from consuming meat is based on the critical meat animal.

The likely most exposed member at the critical residence is assumed to consume meat from the critical meat animal location.

5.

The maximum site dose associated with the consumption of vegetables is calculated from the critical vegetable garden location.

As noted previously, the likely most exposed member of the public is assumed to be located at the critical residence and is assumed to consume vegetables from the critical garden location.

6.

The dose as a result of direct gamma radiation from the site encompasses doses from direct "shine" from the generating facilities, direct radiation from any over head gaseous plumes, plume submersion and from ground deposition.

This total dose is measured by environmental TLD. The critical location is based on the closest year round residence from the generating facilities as well as the closest residence in the critical downwind sector in order to evaluate both direct radiation from the generating facilities and gaseous plumes as determined by the local meteorology.

During 1992, the closest residence and the critical downwind residence are at the same location.

The measured average dose for 1992 at the critical residence was 53.0 mRem.

The average control dose (average of five locations) was 50.3 mRern.

The average dose at the critical residence is slightly greater than the average control location dose.

The net increase in dose is due to the differences between doses from naturally occurring radionuclides in the soil and rock at the different locations and due to the standard deviation in TLD measurements.

This 003535LL

ATTACHMENT11 Page 3 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION ¹2 RADIATIONDOSES TO THE LIKELYMOST EXPOSED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 difference in dose rate can be demonstrated by observing the 1992 average dose for an environmental TLD located near the critical residence TLD, but approximately 700 feet closer to the generating facilities. The annual average dose for this TLD location was 49.6 mRem.

The dose for this location is lower than the critical residence location even though they are close to one another and even though the TLD location with the lowest dose is closer to the generating facilities.

7.

The dose, as a result of fish consumption, is considered as part of the aquatic pathway.

The dose, for 1992 is calculated from actual results of the analysis of environmental fish samples.

For the sake of being conservative, the average

. plant related radionuclide concentrations were utilized from fish samples taken near the site discharge points.

The average concentration was adjusted to account for any background concentrations using average control sample data.

Only Cs-137 was detected during 1992 at a net concentration of 1.3E-3 pCi/g wet. The calculated maximum adult organ dose was 3.0E-3 mRem to the liver.

The maximum whole body dose is 1.9E-03 mRem to an adult.

8.

The shoreline sediment pathway is considered relative to recreational activities.

- The dose due to recreational activities from shoreline sediment is based on the methodology in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual as adapted from Regulatory Guide 1

~ 109.

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual gives the total dose to the whole body and skin from the sum of plant related radionuclides detected in shoreline sediment samples.

The plant related radionuclide concentration is adjusted for background sample results, as applicable.

Tlie total whole body and skin dose from shoreline recreational activities is 1.04E-03 mRem whole body and 1.21E-03 mRem skin dose for the period.

9.

In summary, the maximum dose to the most likely exposed member of the public is 1.31E-01 mRem to the bone (maximum organ dose) and 7.62E-02 mRem to the whole body.

It should be noted that the maximum organ dose and maximum whole body doses are based on the sum of the maximum doses observed for all three facilities regardless of age group.

This results in some conservatism.

The maximum organ and whole body doses were a result of gaseous effluents.

Doses as a result of liquid effluents were secondary.

The total whole body, 003535LL

ATTACHMENT 11 Page 4 of 4 SEMI-ANNUALRADIOACTIVEEFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT (1992)

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION AI'2 RADIATIONDOSES TO THE LIKELYMOST EXPOSED MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARY JANUARY - DECEMBER 1992 maximum organ and skin dose from shoreline recreational activities and fish consumption are 2.34E-03 mRem whole body, 3.00E-03 mRem to the liver, and 1.21E-03 mRem skin dose for the period.

The direct radiation dose to the critical residence from the generating facilities was insignificant or zero.

These maximum total doses are a result of operations at the Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Nine Mile Point Unit 2 and the James A. Fitzpatrick facilities. The maximum organ dose and whole body dose are below the 40CRF190 criteria of 25 mRem per calendar year to the maximum exposed organ or the whole body, and below 75 mRem per calendar year to the thyroid.

003 535LL

UPDATES TO PREVIOUS REPORTS 003635LL

ATTACHMENT1 Summary Data Page 10f 2 Unit 1 Unit2~

Uquid Effluents:

Maximum Permissible Concentration - /rCI/ml 10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 Reporting Period Janus

- June 1992 Average MPC (Qtr. Q1

~ 2.83E-03

'verage MPC (Qtr.+2

~

1.66E-03 Average Energy (Fission end Activation gases - Mev):

Qtr. 2 Qtr. 2 Uquid:

Ey

~ 9.94M)1 Ey

~ 6.22E-01 Eff 2.61E-01 29 1 07Ee00 Number of batch releases Total time period for batch releases (hrs.)

1.85E+ 02 Maximum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

3.51E+00 Average time period for a batch release (hrs.):

3.48E+00 Minimum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

3.47E+00 Total volume of water used to dilute the liquid effluent during release period (L)

Total volume of water used to dilute the liquid effluent during reporting period (L) 1.03E+09 2,26E+ 10 UNIT 1 (ONLY)

Gaseous (Emergency Condenser Vent):

NOT APPUCABLE FOR UNIT 2 Number of batch releases Total time period for batch releases (hrs.)

~NA Maximum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

~NA Average time period for a batch release (hrs.):

~NA Minimum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

~NA Gaseous (Primary Containment Purge):

Number of batch releases Total time period for batch releases (hrs.)

3.89E+ 01 Maximum time period for a hatah reie ihra1:

269Ea01 Average time period for a batch release (hrs.):

1.94E+01 Minimum time period for a batch release (hrs.):

1.20E+01

'his attachment supersedes Attachment 1 (page 1) of the January-June 1992 report submitted August 31, 1992. This value hss been updated to reflect the actual offsite vendor analyses of Sr-89/90 and Fe.55.

003 535LL

ATTACHMENT5 Page 1 Of 2 Unit 1 Unit 2~

Reporting Period Janus

~ Juno 1992 UQUID EFFLUENTS - SUMMATIONOF ALLRELEASES 1

2~

EST. TOTAL QUARTER QUARTER

~ERROR A.

Fission ai Activation Products'.

Total release (not including tritium, gasos9 alpha)

2. Average diluted concentration during reporting period Ci

/rCI/ml 1.92E.03 2.04E-10 4~999.0 E.OOE+01 3.46E.09 B.

Tritium

1. Total release

2. Average diluted concentration during reporting period Ci

/rCI/ml 1.19E+ 00 1 2TE-OT 2 90EA 00 E.OOE+01 2.20E-07 C.

Dissolved and Entrained Gases'.

Total release

2. Average diluted concentration during reporting period D.

Gross Al ha Radioactivi

1. Total release Ci

/rCI/ml Ci 1.13E.04 1.20E-11

~ U

~ 0

~ ~

~ 0 5.0OE+01 5.00E+01 E.

Volumes

1. Prior to dilution

2. Volume of dilution water used during release period

3. Volume of dilution water available during reporting period Uters Uters Utero 1.08E+ 06 1.78E+ 08 9 40EA 09 3,69E+06 8.53E+ 08 5.00E+01 5.00E+01 1.32E+ 10 5.00E+01 F.

Percent of Technical S ecification Limits Percent of Quarterly Whole Body Dose Umit (1.5 mrem)

Percent of Quarterly Organ Dose Limit (5 mrem)

Percent of Annual Whole Body Dose Umit to Date (3 mrem)

Percent of Annual Organ Dose Umit to Date (10 mrem)

Percent of 10CFR20 Concentration Umit Percent of Dissolved or Entrained Noblo Gas Umit (1.ME-5/rCI/ml) 1.68E.01 1.11E.01 8.40E.02

~9.999.0 4.47E-03 1.20E-04 1.30E+ 00 8.62E-01 7.32E.01 4.87E-01 1.35E.02

~ 0 Concontratlons lees than the lower limitof detection of 5.00E-07/rCI/ml for gamma emmitting nuclides, 1.00E-05

/rCilml for dissolved and entrained nobis gases and tritium, 5.00E-08 /rCI/ml for Sr-89/90, 1.0OE-06/rCI/ml for Fe.55 and 1.0OE-07/rCI/ml for gross alpha radioactivity as required by Technical Specifications are indicated with a double asterisk.

Note:

This attachment supercedes Attachmont 5 of the January-June 1992 report submitted August 31, 1992.

Part A, above, was identified previously as gases, and therefore, is updated here as a summary of page 2, not including tritium, gases, or gross alpha.

003535LL

ATTACHIVlENT5 Page 20f 2 Unit 2 X Nuclides Released'QUID EFFLUENTS RELEASED 1 42 QUARTER Reporting Period Janus

- June 1992 BATCH MODE 2"

QUARTER Strontium-89 Strontium-90 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Iodine-131 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 Cobalt.58 Cobalt.60 lion.59 Zinc 65 Manganese-54 Chromium-51 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0 1.78E.04

~ 0 1.65E-03 9.18E-05 8.58E.05

~1.242.0 9.78E-05

~2.202.0 7.61E-03 4.32E-04 Zirconium.Niobium-95 Molybdenum-99 Technetium-99m Barium.Lanthanum-140 Cerium-141 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0

~ 0

~ ~

0 ~

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 Tungsten-187 Arsenic-76 Iodine-133 Iron.55 Neptunium-239 Praseodymium-144 Iodine-135 Silver-110m Dissolved or Entrained Gases Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci

~ 0

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 1.13E-04

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0

~ 0 3.77E-04

~ 0 Tritium Ci 1.19E+ 00 2.90E+ 00 Concentrations less than the lower limitof detection of 5.00E-07/ICI/ml for gama emmitting nuclides, 1.00E-05

/rCI/ml for dissolved and entrained noble gases end tritium, 5.00E-08 /rCI/ml for Sr-89/90, 1.0OE-06 /rCI/ml for Fe-55 and 1.00-07/iCI/ml for gross alpha radioactivity as required by Technical Specifications are indicated with a double asterisk.

Note:

This attachment supercedes (page 2 of 2i of the January-June 1992 report submitted August 31, 1992.

003535LL

ATTACHMENT6 Page 1 of 6 Unit 1 Unit 2 )L Reporting Period Janus

- June 199 SOUD WASTE AND IRRADIATEDFUEL SHIPMENTS A.1 TYPE VoIume (ms)

~Activit

'Ci)

Class Class 1.

Spent Resin 3.98E+ 01 4.26E+ 02 Filter Sludge Concentrated Waste 1.03E+ 01 5.23E+ 00 Total 6.01E+ 01 4.31E+ 02 2.

Dry Compressible Waste, Dry Non-Compressible Waste (Contaminated Equipment) s 1.62E+ 01 1.02E+ 01 Total 1.62E+ 01 1.02E+ 01 3.

Irradiated Components Control Rods NO SHIPMENTS The estimated total error is 5.00E+01%.

Since there were non.compressible tools and compressible trash combined in the waste shipments, the non-compressible and compressible waste categories were combined.

0 THERE WERE NO SHIPMENTS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD.

This attachment supersedes the Attachment 6, page 1 of the January-June 1992 SARERR. The total of A.1, above, was corrected to read 4.31E+02.

003535 LL

UMOHAWK,'-';,

o

~.CMNGE-'REQ c-ST Pun'-kvnunoN Q Unkt mi Unk2 0 Ste OPL 0 FecNtty Operalhg Ucense 0 Techrkat Spaclcatkes 0 Environmental Prat Plan UFS 0 UFSAA Q QA Topical Report Q Fae Prot QA Program Page J of~

Q Sile Emergency Plan (SEP) 0 ISI Program Ran (sl) 0 Phys Sec Plan, SCP &T&QP (SPS) 0 IST Program Plan(ST) 0 Prooass Control Program (PCP) 0 CORE Operating Limits Rept Igf Ollsile Dose Calo Manual (ODM)

(COL)

B. Descnption Q parmanent Q Temporary, Expected Duration:

S~-" Ar<~~~-

'(gal'V"'-"""

'age Section, Rgure, Table Section, Rgure, Table Sate Af1 Wee S1 ~>

ppcvc S cOc H D. Source of Change / References

~ + pa o~~ An c ~ TPc) c S Foa Q~ S I H T H a Aowl V IS 7 RATI gp 0 J

+~r 4 ~

p.TrJF -T s Ase nE 4cx+Tio>>s oF RtocE>>tao<

PhicT <

oocs O+ ao THt PCP

~f op Res ~o o~~ enf4Q S Rk>>lc<>>S<>> L Erva>> V'ev ceonAyc.S POO SaOR S

N uraE'6 t~T.

o~pA +Ms ssslca t o u~wM of nuNMm Do>>5f5 T>> ~H Flu noMTi~E'e ca'aSf 5 of ns'~Toit>>ff'4 VE<N mfa.ouiOf 41C<

Sq of.

EvpWhTIH bl Cps Nsal(f errl4 I>>Cti.So, APh. Z.

Fow>> o rcvny~ oily " pafaaf4so>>t4 of ~odor ~a>4 Evyur~v Tycho. specs.

Foa g p,p

~

E. NIP-SEY41 Review g Pre&a'nary Evafuatfoesafaty Ravfavv AtracfNd F. Ortgeator (Prfnt)

Q Srdety EaauatfonNo ELIZAhprd P, ~//OHMS Date I> //e'/9z PAin 2REvrElrvlAppRova.

A. SME (hht4rlfag Q hVA O. riomaS Date B. Re Org Branch Manager (Pdnlr trial)

/2 J(

aflak'Z

/~Qg i~~

Da C. Effectiveness Review D. SORCQ NR E.SRAB Z hN QI4R ZAe~

aeghk.:

fez.-og.

egDas:retie pg ego.:

MlgData F. Rant Mgr Q hN Q ObaJned per NIPMRG41 G. NRC (HIPMRG41 Submirtaf Require Q NN Q Ofrtaked per Doc Coversheat.

Q CNakwdper NIPSEV41 Q Letter NoAhta Q NRC AppfData Pun 3 fkrPLEafENrznoN A. OPL Onfy: Affected Documents Updated

8. UFS Only: Need'Assault'r Affect Document p CVPPORT~

+oCEOua.SS ~e,q C. Other; m

>)once K

C Closedby (prfottfnltfa()

/i Date tNPEJ%0t+>osl PART~LOSVRE A. II Incorp'd into Parent Doc, B. p Not Yet Incorp'd into Parent:hcotp'd'Rev:

Close Change Tracfdng OR Doc, App'd for Rev:

1

(MRPPOIF240)

Q SAFETY ANALYSSREPORT RELATED PROGRAMS Page < ot ll A. QualityAssurarrce Ngrrrm

~ Does the change(s) cease lo satisty the criteria of 10CFR50 Appendix 8 or reduce SAR program commitments previously acceptedbythe NRC?

Q Yea p No 8

Fire Protection Proglm

~ Does the change(s) signifcantly decrease the level of lire protection h the plant?...

Q Yae Q No

~

Does the change(s) result in failure to complete Fire Protection Program approved by the NRC prior to license issue?...... Q Yea p No Q SITE EMERGENCY PLAN

~

Does the change(s) decrease effectiveness of the SEP?

Q Yes QNo

~

Does the SEP, as chttnged, cease to meet the standards of t0CFR50.4?(b) and 10CFR50 Appendix E?.............--------p Y<<p No P

SECuRITY PLANS

~

Document:

~

Does the change(s) decrease the effectiveness of the Physical Security Ran or Security Personnel Training and Qualification Plan prepared pursuant to 10CFR50.34(c) or 10CFR73?

~

Does the change(s) decrease the effectiveness of the first four categories of informational Background, Generic Ranning Base, Ucensee Planning Base, and/or responsibility matrix of the Safeguards Contingency Plan prepared pursuant to 10CFR50.34(d) or 10CFR73?.

QY<<PNo Q Yes pNo Q PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM

~

Does the change(s) reduce the overall conformance of the solidified waste product to existing criteria for solid wastes in accordance with Technical Specifcations?

P Y<<PNo

~

Does the change(s) reduce the accuracy of retiaMity ot the dose calculations or setpoint detennoations xt accordance with Technical Specifications?

Q Yes fttf No BASIS r4PPRO vAl td nd Acomia c

m cpm y~d P

etVm Ts IH TH4.

~orniHi>1RAvrv a~

oi.s cvicru o oF PRoc ou c

DccAILs redo +ah IV~ C C'A'PO PCP. ~

APPROVAL lL 0

obc 5vn>Aas cr u

o e a scrRoCS Co

~

Qf &V4DC I.I+0>>

4~ o AH MAI 0

4 w~u ac&

pvTwe nft,e'os 0

cwind 4-utHvs 7%e' oui'-

y i.vpnuh cenpcqp~

lo(t 5i) pAR go

~

vga'& ~

is L oi c.

av z

cu.

FOR

~ RPe Preparer (Print)

QLILAPrFfH D. who~

r (SIpn)

Date IR /I< )9?

V LDCR/l 2-93-ODM-001 REV 00 Page 3 of 11 SECTION C OF PART 1 OF LICENSING DOCUMIPlT CHANGE REQUEST Part I of the ODCM was added as a result of Generic Letter 89-01 issued in 1989 from the NRC.

This letter requested that all licensees:

(1) transfer the procedural details of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications to the ODCM and (2) add programmatic controls to the administrative controls section of the Technical Specifications.

This LDCR addresses number (1), above.

The transfer of procedural details is a direct transfer with no change of text or action requirements.

The only change at this time is that the term "LimitingCondition for Operation (LCO)", which was previously used in the R.E.T.S., has been revised to be referred to as CONTROLS in the ODCM. The requirements remain the same, however, and only terminology has been changed.

The second requirement (number (2) above), to add programmatic controls to the Technical Specifications, willbe implemented in a future Technical Specification change.

Until that change is complete and accepted by the NRC, the radiological controls section (Part I) of the ODCM is for reference only and the Technical Specifications are the controlling licensing document.

This LDCR also addresses the changes to the Part II "Calculational Methodologies" section to the Unit 2 ODCM. The following pages present the revised page number, applicable section, and the reason for the change to the ODCM Part II.

003346LL

m r

QgQiin LDCR/I 2-93-ODM-001 REV 00 t

i'age 4 of 11 II 2, II 3 1.1.2.1 These paragraphs were moved from another section of the previous ODCM Revision 6, and consolidated into section 1.1.2.1.

In addition, a sentence was added to allow the determination of Fe-55, Sr-89 and Sr-90 using a composite sample of radwaste in addition to default values from the FSAR.

II3, II 4 1.1.2.1 The equation for the radwaste effluent alarm setpoint has not been changed; only the parameters and symbols were changed to be consistent with the site chemistry procedures.

rr 4 1.1.2.1 A sentence was added to specify the maximum flow rate of the pumps.

114 1.1.2.2 The equation for contaminated dilution water was changed to reflect the actual iterative procedure.

In addition, the alarm setpoint equation parameters were changed to be consistent with site procedures.

115 1.1.2.3 These paragraphs were relocated from a separate section and consolidated in section 1.1.2.3.

116 1.1.2,3 Since the detector response for service water and cooling tower blowdown has been determined during the first and second fuel cycles; the setpoint willremain based on the first fuel cycle data since the monitor's setpoint was more conservative based on the first fuel cycle data.

This is documented per memo from A. Moison to G. Montgomery.

003346LL Page 1 of 8

LDCR//

2-93-ODM-00l REV 00 Page 5 of ll 116 1.1.2.3 The example calculation of the setpoint was deleted since radiological engineering has the calculation documented.

rr6 The parameters and symbols for the alarm setpoint were changed to reflect what is in current site chemistry procedures.

The methodology was not changed.

1.2 In the Revision 6 sentence:

"No credit is taken for averaging and totalling", the word totalling was deleted.

This was an error that has no impact on plant safety or previous liquid concentration calculations.

II 7 1.2 The parameters and symbols are changed to reflect what is current in site chemistry procedures.

II 7 1.3 A reference to the T/S on the Liquid System Operability was deleted.

It is discussed in a separate section.

1.3 The example calculation for the dose from a liquid radwaste discharge was deleted.

Procedures can be referenced for example calculations.

In addition, the dose factor derivation was deleted here and placed in Appendix A.

II 8 1.4 A sentence was added to reflect the two different alarm settings:

The high alarm = 80% of the setpoint calculation and the alert alarm = 50% of the calculated setpoint or 60% of the high alarm.

003346LL Page 2 of 8

BRRRRRR QgQiin LDCR//

2-93-ODM-001 REV 00 R

R age 6 of 11 R~Rf II 8 1.4 A sentence was added to address sampling representativeness when taking a service water or cooling tower blowdown sample.

The grab-sample must be at least 1 liter which is 5 x volume in the length of tubing.

II 9 1.5 A sentence was added to reflect the current radwaste operation of no resin regeneration at NMP-2.

In the future, it may be necessary to regenerate resins; therefore, this option is being retained.

II 9 1.5 This sentence was rewritten to reflect T/S requirements.

This was done for clarification purposes.

rr 10, 11 11 2.1.2 These paragraphs were taken from separate sections and consolidated in section 2.1.2.

Certain sentences were rewritten for clarification purposes.

A sentence was added to address the alert alarm to be consistent "with site chemistry procedures, The alarm setpoint equation was revised to use release rate instead of activity to keep consistent with Unit 2 Technical Specifications.

This does not affect past setpoint calculations because the release rate is in the numerator and denominator and any flowrate that was used with concentration to determine release rate would cancel in the equation.

003346LL Page 3 of 8

4 LDCR//

2-93-ODM-001 REV 00 Page 7 of ll h

II 12 2.1.2.1 A sentence was added to address alert alarm settings to be consistent with current site chemistry procedures.

11 12 2.1.2.2 The vent noble detector alarm setpoint was revised to use release rate instead of total activity because the vent GEMS measures release rate and our Technical Specifications are in release rate.

This does not affect past setpoint calculations because the release rate is in the numerator and the denominator; thus, any flow rate that was used in the equation to determine release rate would be canceled in the equation.

II 13 2.1.2.2 A sentence was added to address the alert alarm setting to be consistent with current practice in site procedures of complying with the Unit 2 Technical Specification 3.4.5 for specific activity.

II 13 2.1.2.3 These paragraphs were moved from a separate section and consolidated in section 2.1.2.3.

In addition, a sentence was added to address the alert alarm settings to be consistent with the site chemistry procedures.

II 13, II 14 2.1.2.3 The alarm setpoint parameters and symbols were changed to reflect site procedures.

The methodology was not changed.

II 14 2.2 The reference to Technical Specifications was deleted.

11 14 2.2.1 No changes were made to this section; it was relocated from a previous section.

003346LL Page 4of 8

I C

QgQiin LDCR/I 2'-93-ODM-001

" REV 00 t

Page 8 of 11

~fh 2.2.2, 2.2.3 These sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 were rewritten to correctly define the plume shine parameter and the immersion dose factor.

In addition, example calculations were moved to an Appendix B. The dose methodology remained unchanged; however, the plume shine dose factors were revised to refiect the current methodology in R.G. 1.109, appendix F.

2.2.4 The organ dose rate methodology was revised to include dose calculations from all pathways.

In actuality, only the inhalation and ground plane dose rate pathways should be included.

However, until we are computerized, it is easier and conservative to use the same dose factors as the dose methodology.

2.2.4 A release rate limit was included in the dose calculations to alert NMP2 that limits may be exceeded and NMP-1 and JAF contributions to dose must be considered.

2.3.1 The reference to the section number from the FES was deleted.

2.3 2 2 3.3 The gamma and beta dose equations were not changed.

However, the text was rewritten to better explain the methodology.

These changes were done for clarification purposes.

Page 5 of 8

I C

P

QgLlln LDCR//

2-93-ODM-001 REV 00 Page 9 of 11

~f II 19 2.4 The I-133 and I-135 estimation section was rewritten to reflect current practice in site chemistry procedures.

The previous methodology was to estimate I-133 as 4 x the I-131 concentration or use a ratio as determined by quarterly analysis of short duration samples.

I-135 was not addressed previously.

II 19 2.5 A section on isokinetic sampling was added for clarification purposes.

II 19 2.7 The gaseous radwaste treatment system operation section was revised to delete the action requirements for the control.

These are addressed previously in Part I.

II21, II22, II23, II 24 3.1 The parameters and symbols of the equation in section 3.1 have been revised to be consistent with the Reg. Guide 1.109.

The actual methodology was not revised.

In addition, the sentence addressing calculations of doses from environmental sample media was revised to state they willbe based on Reg.

Guide 1.109 methodology instead of using the Reg. Guide

1. 109 methodology.

II23 3.4 The Energy Information Center is now the Energy Center.

This change is reflected in section 3.4.

II 25 4.2 The I-131 in milk and gamma emitters in food products was omitted to be consistent with the environmental monitoring progranl.

003 346LL Page 6 of 8

C 4

l

'LDCR//'-93-ODM-001 REV 00 Page 10 of 11 m r

~TI II 28-31 2-4 to 2-7 The liquid dose factors were revised to include the sediment pathway to be consistent with Reg. Guide 1.109 and the environmental monitoring program.

This pathway is not the major contributor to dose; therefore, omission did not affect nuclear safety.

II 33 3-2 Table 3-2 was revised to reflect the plume shine methodology of R.G. 1.109, Appendix F, The previous methodology used a line source equation.

While this was accepted by the NRC, it over-estimated doses because no plume dispersion was included.

II 35-53 3Q to 3-22 The dose and dose rate factors were revised to reflect changes in the assumptions used for Nb-95 and La-140.

In addition, the goat pathway was included to be consistent with the Reg.

Guide 1.109.

The Fe-55 and Nd-147 nuclides were, also, added.

003 346LL Page 7 of 8

T l

LDOR//'-93-ODM-001 REV 00 Page 11 of 11 h

II55 Table 3-24 This table was added to take the parameter values and corresponding references from the text of the ODCM Part II, section 3.4, and put in tabular form for clarification purposes.

rr 6O-104 Appendices A-D These appendices were added to present the detailed calculations for the dose factors used in setpoint and dose and dose rate calculations.

In addition, appendix D contains the gaseous and liquid radwaste treatment system diagrams.

These dose factor equations and diagrams were previously in the text portion of the ODCM and were removed for clarification and formatting purposes and to add details of the calculations.

Page 8 of 8

0 P

't I

Page 1 of 4 AQ~~AL JAT~t T<4(<!,, gcq~g~ 1, U.~.+ 1 o'Dc@- E'vo.lu.o4on ap RJ 9 CH N: ~ERMAAfJId'or Temporary 1

li r ~r~i. ~~ynfr l r

n

'.-~,qpgri~ig/~n~ gp QLf+pg e

l I i";,;vf-n w

~gn~ggvi~ /)~re ~

n' r

I cif '.

Bi e

D M n

I S

MF REVI ED:~nQ Tgg~ni'r~~~ficg[irin n

A, ls the SAR affected?

s from their description l

il fr ex r

IILi

~

ET gin in r

wih I

Does the proposal change the facilityor procedure in the SAR? (Yes/+Q)~N, ~

f BET~~h~+~i~gir~t t n f r wi h h

~~i(I(gn@

i%y~np ~it ri h n h

~n1itlun~~XXTCer~~'/,COl "MMm

~rWra~amta n

2h~n~ i&~~"afIXmhanaai

~h I i ilfl SaaaiX4 attua~u'nut~

a~l~<

~R~~~il ~qll~~~lqgygh gP~glgg~gvl~n~yr i~zgf r

~I pe@.0x5e2/8 ao b,

Does the proposed change alter the design, function, or method of performing the function or a component,

system, or structure described in the SAR?

(Yes/Ng

~amxcevuuneat.ne 1

h Does the proposod change atter procedures discussed In the initial operations and organizational chapters of the FSAR or the other procedural-type commitments, such as the emergency plan and modes and sequences of p!ant operation described In the SAR?

(Yes/gg) J~/~ig~gq lo n

GRJR>~Mmmed<mQvn lgERQL5 H~r&~f~pry W((f4LIWJLCUIKRRt dNmhmLPNe~~mire~t.

2.

Does the proposal involve a tost or experiment not described in the SAR?

(YeslNQ) hfg~gi~~hggL r

NIP-8EY41 Rev 00

1'I

~ ~

I',I t 0

r /

No,

-a//

NMPUnit~

Rev.

'g@gjgJj~f+M~igjt'L (Cont'd)

Page 2 of 4 3.

Could the proposal affect n<iclear safety in a way not previously evaluated in the SAR7 (Yes/~N)~~Vii I I n

h amaaa. M ~hML~~ela~r/ deL i /

f g~g~~ligii +~tg igjp I

'fi i D

f Bg failaI geilhl f

II '7h grr~rmq~gfjii;gnnr~l~/i)II I

ifi

~s7I Qgli~.(II~~~/~~f~i I I

n I

n "aw&Skhcfw

~i'hag~~/a~ip~an~n@

affg I

lfthe answer to all the above questions is "NO", a safety evaluation is not required.

If the answer is "YES" to any items in A, a detailed Safety EvalUation ls required to determine if an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.

8, Is a change to the Technical Specifications necessary7 QX$/No) tf Yes, ao to NIP-LPP41 DETAILEDSAFETY EVALUATIONIS REQUIRED7 YES ~It/0 NIP.SEV-01 Rev 00

t

JAH-26-93 TUE 1$ '08 HI!P". lIUCLEAR - SALINA NMi Vni~

Rev, FAX NO 'olNANo'o'o'5o'. 04 Page 3 of 4 iKEB$¹~AL%~FSAlN~Rv~w (Cont'd)

I. l CT~P~I. ~Op A.

Willthe change, test or experiment:

Result in a signifcant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously reviewed and evaluated in the NMP2 Final Environmental Statement - Operating License Stage (FES-OL) and other NRC Environmental impact assessments?

Result in a significant change in the effluents or power level?

Result In an activity not confined to an-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction?

YES YES gg YES gQ 8.

Concern a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified In question "1" above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact?

Constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the NMP2 Environmental Protection Plan IEPPP Is a change to the Environmental Protection Ran necessary?

Ifthe answer to all the above questions is "NO", the Environmental Evaluation is complete and no further action is required.~

answer is YES" to any items in II.A or ll.B above, Ied Environmental Evaluation is required to detertnine ifan Unrevtewed Environmental Question exits.

Contact Supervisor Environmental Protection.

OEfAILEDENVIRONMENTALEVALUATIONIS REQUIRED?

YES gQ YES gg YES Jg}

YES g2 003 444LL NIP SEY41 Rav 00

t t

JAN-26-93 TUE Il'06 g'" 'IUCLEAN SALiNA fI No.

-o 1 NMP Uni~

R JL FAI( HO 54532836 P,05 Page4of 4

~~;QMlg~+Qf (Cont'd)

~NallJ~H, IKS A.

Are SAR changes requiredt (Yes/I)

LDCR No.

Affected figures, tables, text sections (also indicate sheets for tables and figures and pages for text)

IV.

V.

A.

B.

P QTT~~Rf~lg QQg)~IT gQQ Excluding statements made in tAe SAR, does this change impact any commitments made to the NRC7 (Yes/5Q)

Ifyes, list commitment, agency.

agency 2,

agency Does commitment(s) need to be changed'YeslNQ)

Ifyes, notify the NRC Program Director.

PREPARER:

lbla Individual Oat ru pRovaa:

Approver ie Date

'ontact the NMP Supervisor Environmental Protection for assistance in answering these questions, if necessary.

NIP-SEV<1

0

't'v