ML19270F959

Summary of 790316 Meeting W/Ga Power Co in Bethesda,Md Re Radiological Effluent Specs

ML19270F959
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	03/22/1979
From:	Verrelli D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-08043, TAC-08095 NUDOCS 7904090292
Download: ML19270F959 (4)

Text

\\

3 M

+-

warn rn o

,..s A. i s G 'J ' I ' i ' ; -

j

[

'.xm:an :;. u.

. :5 March 22, 1979 Docie: ?!o. 50-321 and 50-336 ME '.0R/,001 FCR-Thcmas A. Ippolito, Chief, CRS 0, CCR FROM:

David l1. Verrelli, Project : tanager, CRB v3, DCD

SUBJECT:

SU: FARY OF EETING 'dITH GEORGI A FC'.lER CC:!PA:if CN RADICLCGICAL EFFLUEliT SPECIFICATIONS FCR HATCH UNIT 305. 1 A:D 2 On March 16, 1973 members of the staff net with representatives of Georgia Pc.;er Ccnany (licensee) in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the licensee's submittal (December 21,1973) for incorpcrating radiological effluent requireTents into the Technical Specifications for Haten Unit Mcs. I and '

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the licensee's submittal with the objective of reaching final resolution en the content of radiological effluent Technical Specifications or to identify those items where infor ation is neeced to ccm.olete staff revicw.

A summary of the meting folicws:

A.

The staff indicated that it had not yet ccmplettd its review of the radiological assessment pcrtion cf '.he licensee's submittal (e.g.,

Section on Radiological Environmental 'tonitoring Pecgrac).

The discussions at the meeting were limited to radiological effluents and ef fluent treatment. The staff agreed to provide corrents on the licensee's Radiological Environmental :!cnitoring Progran and the Offsite Cose Calculaticn Manual, B.

The staff provided for discussion a working copy of draf t Technical Specifications for Hatch which incorpcrated the licensee's suggestions with which the staff agrees; those specifications that the staff recuires and the licensee has not provided adequate justificaticn for deletion / revision; and changes frca the staff's sample specifi-cations (NUREG-0473) based cn recent reviews.

C.

The staff identified 7 substantive areas of the licensee's submit:ai wnich need revision or justification for deviation fecm the sample specificaticns:

7904090292

T. Ippolito 1.

~he licenste stated that h is currently studying tha practicality of upgrading his solid waste system and that Technical Scecifi-cations cn such a systcm is premature. The staff indicated that as a mininum the licensee should provide a Process Control Program for his currently ins talled systen.

2.

The licensee's proposed limits (T.S. 3.11.1.3) to indicate.vhen the liquid raduaste treatment system would be put in service are 3 factor of 6 higher than the staff's stated limits.

Tne licensee should agree with the staff's limits or provide justification fcr the higher values.

3.

In the licensee's submittal, the ACTIC:! stateacnt associated with dose or dose commitment to an indivicual (T.S. 3.11.1.2) would provide a cutoff at the end of the calendar year The staff indicated that the proposal is a significant variation frca its position and is not acceptable.

4.

The licensae proposed an alternate for assessing gross alpha activity. The alternate would be a calculation of gamma activity times a previcusly observed ratio of alL..u-;o-ganma activity. The staff indicated that the licensee would have to provide information to demonstrate that this technicce is as good or better tnan direct measuremcnt cf alpha radiation.

5.

The licensee's submittal did not include a ficw diagram of effluents sucn as to permit the staff to evaluate which process and effluent mcnitoring instrumentaticn should be included in the Technical Specifications. The licenste agreed to provide this informaticn.

6.

The licensee's submittal would lijnit the staff's requirerent for Plant Review Board (PRB) review of any unplanned release to the environment to unplanned releases of specified curie levels.

The staff indicated that the PRE should review all unplanc.ed releases. Further, the Administrative Controls portion of the Technical Specifications nust include a requirement for report-ing to the NF.C.

7.

Thu staff indicated that the licensee should provide site ac(s) t.iat clearly depict:

(a) site boundary, (b) points where efflu-ents (iiquid and gaseous) are released, (c) informa:icn cescriced in Section 2.1.2 of the FSAR and (d) L:w ?cpulation Zone bcuncary.

The licensee agreec.

s e

T.

Ippolita -

A list of attendees is attached

,i

/

il4,,:, r-dwx Da/id M. '/erre71i, Project l'anager Ocerating Reactors Ceanch =3 Division of Operating P.eactors

Enclosure:

List of Attendees

s.

MEETIriG ',!ITH GEORGIA PO'.!ER CC."PMlY Hatch Unit flos. I and 2 Radiolcaical Effluents March 16, 1979 flRC D. Verrelli J. Colling J. Boegli J. '.li ng

'1.

Burke H. Krug R. Emch Georgia Pc'.wer Cc cany 1

R. Baker C. Sya W. Regers J. Betsill W. Ollinger T. Potter (Consultant)

SCS D. Crove J. ?!cLeod