ML19309H104

Requests Immediate Action on 791031 Request for Tech Spec Change Re Method Used to Calculate Dispersion Factor for Radioactive Gaseous Emission.Need for Issuance of Change Amplified by Encl Recent Negative Newspaper Article

ML19309H104
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	05/01/1980
From:	Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
1-050-02, NUDOCS 8005080388
Download: ML19309H104 (3)

Text

• 8005080 3 6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 551 UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 (501) 371-4422 May 1, 1980 WILLIAM CAVANAUGH lli Vice Prerident Generation & Construction 1-050-02 2-050-02 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN: Mr. R. W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors, Branch #4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Technical Specification Change Request of October 31, 1979 (File: 1511.1, 2-1511.1)

Gentlemen:

Our letter of October 31,19P, requested a change to the Technical Specification for Arkansas Nuclear One - Ur.its 1 and 2 (ANO-1 and 2).

This change concerned the method used to calculate the dispersion factor

( x /Q) for radioactive gaseous emission.

The calculational method employed in our current Technical Specifi-cation requires us to use a X /Q based upon a two hour model of worst case accident conditions. As stated in our October 31 letter, we feel that these restrictive limits are unjustified and are therefore requesting that a Technical Specification change be issued immediately.

The need for ininediate issuance of the Technical Specification change l was amplified by the unnecessary negative publicity we recently received i- in a newspaper article in the Arkansas Gazette. The article concerned our radioactive gaseous emissions exceeding the Technical' Specification report-ing requirements, as was reported in Licensee Event Report No. 80-006/04L-0.

, As was stated in the article, Mr. K. V. Seyfrit of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement stated that the releases were a very small percentage of the maximum limits set by the NRC and were not considered a hazard to the public.

l l

i

! MEMBER MIDDLE SOUTH UTruTIES SYSTEM

Mr. R. W. Reid May 1, 1980 Because of the statements made by Mr. Seyfrit and conversation:, we have had with members of your staff, we believe that the NRC staff has no real problem with the Technical Specification change we have requested.

Considering the argaments stated above and the ample time your staff has had to review the proposed change, we cannot understand why the request has not been granted. We, therefore, request your inmediate action on

this matter.

Very truly yours,_, 7 hw r ,~ ~

William Cavanaugh, III /

WC: MAS:skm Attachment D

b 1

ARKANSAS GAZETTE, Thursday, May 1, N80. o 3A l Nuclear One Radioactive Emissions ih 1st Quarter Require NRCReport By CAROL MATLACK mum litnits set by tile agency, place the defective fuelin Unit 1 Of the Gazette Staff and was not considered a hazard until next spring at the earliest, Radioactive gas emisions from to the public. (Unit 2, the newest and possibly not until late 1982, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, reactor at Nucler.; One, did cet he said.

were high enough during the first have enough emissions to require Donald Rueter, manager of quarter of 1980 to require a spe. a report to the NRC.) technical and environmental serv-cial report to the Nuclear Regula- William Cavanaugh, AP and L ices for AP and L, said the com.

tory Commission, although the vice president for generation and pany had aske1 the NRC to Commissica said the emissions construction, said that most of the amend its formula for calculating were nowhere near levels that gas was released during a radioactive releases from Nu.

could endanger the public.

• purge" of the Unit I reactor con- clear One because the formula Arkansas Power and Light tainment building in January, was "not realistic."

Company spokesmen said uten the plant shut down for Wednesday that the amount of modifications required by the Exposure Overestimated gas released was " insignificant" NRC.

and said they were trying to get Defecffye He said the formula overesti-fuel mated be exposse cat a person es on ra cae eg e- The radioactive gas levelin the near the plant woulu receive, be-issions from the plant, e ntainment has been unusually cause it assumed the worst possi-high for the last several months ble weather con ('tions, rather The NRC has a complex for-because some fuel in the reactor than typical weather conditions.

adioactiv as can rel c re is defective and has been Rueter estimated tnat the actual leaking. That causes an accumu. exposure level was only one-fifth it com d to t h a lauon of radioacun gases, princl. to owsevens ce Iml esumated wants the level kept low enocgh Pally renon and krypton. When by the NRC.

that a persca standing next to the 28 plant is shut down, the gases Most other nuclear plants have are , purged before workers en- been allowed to base their release plant for a year would be exposed ter the building. rates on " average" weather con.

to no more than 5 millirems of radioactivity, even under the Cavanaugh said the problem ditiens, Rueter said, but AP and L worst weather cor.ditions - that was made worse because the has been held to a more stringent is, no wind to disgrse the radio. NRC was requiring frequent shut- standard. Company officials have active gas downs for modifications. The asked to use the same standard as During the first quarter of m re ften the plant shuts down, the c2er plants, he said, and "we 1980, the re' ease rate frcm Unit I the more often the gases must be understand that the NRC is going Purged, he said. to have to problem in making was high enough that a person standicg next to the plant would ,A and_ ._L doesn}t plan to re- this change."

be exposed to aboct 10 millirems ~

a year, assuming the worst weather co:ditions.

CalledMisleading However, AP and L officials say the 10-cillire:n figure is mis-

[ leading because it's based on the worst possible weather condi-tions, and net on actual conditions around the plant.

Karl Seyfrit, director of the NRC's regienal offlee at Arling-ton, Tex., sa'd that while tie rate ,

for Unit 1 was "h!gher than nor-mal," it represented "only a very' small percentage" of the mari.

s

( H _

,c&..m ~