ML20024G393

Application for Amend to License DPR-22,clarifying Sections of Interim Radioactive Effluent Tech Specs

ML20024G393
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/20/1978
From:	NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20024G392	List: ML20024G391 ML20024G393 ML20024G703
References
A00L-780320, AL-780320, NUDOCS 9102110416
Download: ML20024G393 (6)

Text

4 ,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION NORTRERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No. 50 263 REQUEST FOR AMENDHENT TO OPERATING LICE 5SE NO nPR. 22)

(License Amendment Request Dated March 20, 1978)

Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, requests authorization for changes to the Technical Specifications as shown on the attachments labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Exhibit A describes the proposed changes along with reasons for the change. Exhibit B is a set of Technical Specification pages incorporating the proposed changes.

This request contains no restricted or other defense information.

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By YC?2h[. 25, W L J Wachter Vice President, Power Production 6 System Operation on this 20th day of March , 1978, before me a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared L J Wachter, Vice President, Power Production 6 System Operation, and first being duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document in behalf of Narthern States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof and that to the bert of his knowle.dge, infomation and belief, the statemente made in it are true and that it is not interposed for delay.

- /

/

/

>l

(/nLjJ// . ,

/

'd ~ /, ,

fH : - - ., . ~ - .. - ,. . - 204 2 ~, CEN!SE E HALVOR90N 3

o,1 .- t.a ars ww . v.v.u :- :

{i% ,

HENNEPIN COUNTY j

i<

s co w s,y r. , .v

. . ....:.- .. :-- ::. :J 9102110416 780320 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P PDR

4 EXHIBIT A MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No. 50-263 Licente No. DPR-22 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED MARCH 20, 1978 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Pursuant to 10CFB50.59, the holders of Provisional Operating License DPR-22 hereby propose the following changes to the Intertm Radioactive Effluent Technical Specifications. Appendix B of DPR-22:

BACKGROUND Interim radioactive effluent Technical Specifications were issued for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant on May 20, 1976. Ihese limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements were to remain in effect until Technical Specifications are issued in accorcance with Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.

The limitations on radioactive effluents con-tained in the dix I guidelines.

interin Technical Specifications generally satisfy Appen-New models and methodology under development by the NRC Staff will be incorporated in the final version of the radioactive effluent Technical Specifications when that work is completed.

A number of requirements contained in the May 20, 1976 interim radio-active effluent Technical Specifications must be reworded for clarifi-ca t ion. In addition, minor errors have been found in a few instances.

The purpose of this License knendment Request is to propose changes which will provide the required clarification and correction. No changes are proposed which wo21d revise any of the radioactive effluent Itmitations or substantially :hange any of the existing surveillance re-quirements.

PROPOSED CHANGES AND REASONS ,OR CHANCE We ask that the following changes be made to the TS B.2.4 Interim Techni-cal Specifications relating to radioactive effluents. Refer to Exhibit B for the necessary page changes:

a. On page TS L.2 4-4, change specification 2.4.2.f to read:

f.

The continuous effluent monitors listed in Table 2.4.3 shall be calibrated at least quarterly by means of a liquid or solid radi > active source which has been calibrated to a Nati1nal Bureau of Standards source.

Each conitor shall also have a functional test monthly 4

and an instrument cleck prior to making a release.

This change is necessary to make clear that the calibration

\

l EXIIIBIT A requirements apply only to the effluent monitors in Table 2.4-3. This table lists other monitors which are not located at effluent points (e.g. service. water discharge pipe). Cali-bration requirements for these monitors are located in the Appendix A Technical Specifications if required.

This change is also needed to permit monitor calibration using a liquid source. This is the preferred method of cali-brating liquid effluent monitors. The current wording of 2.4.2.f allows only solid sources to be used for calibration.

b. On page IS B.2.4-8, change the definition of the 1.1 factor to read:

1.1 = average ratio of tissue to air energy absorption :oefficients The existing wording of this definition is not correct,

c. On page TS B. 2.4- 13, change specifica tion 2.4.4.c to read, "An isotopic analysis shall be made of a representative sample of gaseous activity at the discharge of the steam jet air ejectors and at the plant stack..."

The current wording requires sampling at the discharge of the steam jet air ejector and at a point prior to dilution and discharge of stack releases. Since this wording was placed into effect, we have learned that the characterization of plant stack releases is best done by taking gas sampics at the stack using the installed sampling probe. Samples taken upstream, prior te addition of dilution air, will not include the major contri n' tor to stack releases which is the gland seal exhaust.

d. On page TS 3.2.4-13, change specification 2.4.4.d to read:

d. The continuous effluent monitors listed in Table 2.4.4 shall be calibrated at least quarterly by means of a known gaseous or solid radioactive source which has been calibrated to a National Bureau of Standards source.

Each monitor shall have a functional test at least monthly and an instrument check at least daily.

This change is needed to make clear that the calibration require-ments apply only to the effluent monitors in Table 2.4-4. This table lists other monitors which are not located at effluent points (c. g. steam jet a r ejector monitors). Ca lib ra tion

l i

i EXHIBIT A requirements for monitors which are not located at effluent points are contained in the Appendix A Technical specifications.

This change .is also needed to permit monitor calibration using gaseous source.

-.a {

This is the preferred method of calibrati1g gaseous effluent monitors. The current wording of 2.4.4.d )

allows only solid sources to be used for calibration. _

i j

e. On page TS B.2.4-17, revise the second paragraph to read:

.5pecification 2.4.3 8 requires that the drywell

~

atmosphere receive treatmcnt for the removal of gaseous iodine and particulates during purging.

When primary containment integrity is not required,. )

ventilation air is not treated but is released through the acnitored reactor building vents.

This change will clarify the requirement for processing of con-tainment ventilation air prior to release. During refueling, when the containment is open for maintenance, the ventilation air flow exceeds the . cap city of the standby gas treatment system. There are no significant. sources of radioactivity in the exhaust air during these times. In the event radiation is detected in the exhaust air, radiation monitors automa tically tenminate the ventilation exhaust flow.

f.

Change the last sentence in the fifth paragraph on page TS B.2.4-17 to read, " Staff analysis of an elevated release under accident meteorology for a minimum release period of 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />s-indicated a release of 22,000 curies of Xe-133 or the dose equivalent woult result in a whole body dos'e of 20 t

mrem f rom noble gases at the site boundary. "

The current wording is incorrect. The original NRC Staff analysis was performed in conjunction with Amendment-No. 11 to DPR-22 dated September 17, 19'5. The analysis, using conservative methodology, rest Lted in a 22,000 curie tank limit based on the then existing 20-mrem offsite dose limit.

g. Revise Table TS L.2.L-2 to:

1) Clarify the type of activity analysis for containment purges. Because purges are processed by the standby gas trea tment system and monitored by the continuous stack monitoring syctem, only principal noble gas gamma emitters must be ana'> zed.

EXHIBIT A

2) Clarify the requirement to analyze for principal noble

. gas gamma emitters in gas samples and principal particu .

late gamma emitters in particulate samples.

3) Revise note (f) to pernit stack isotopic analyses to be performed at the point of release. Characterization of plant stack releases is best done by taking gas samples at the stack using the installed sampling probe. Samples taken upstream, prior to' addition of dilution air, will not include. the major contributors to stack releases.

Due to extremely long holdup times in the main condenser offgas system (approximately 600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> at Monticello),

activity in the main condenser offgas stream no longer constitutes the majority of the activity released from the stack.

4) Add note (g) to the table to expand on the requirements for analyses prior to containment purges.

Refer to Exhibit B, Tab'e TS B.2.4-2, for the proposed wording of each of the above changes. All changes are intended to 7

- clarify the sampling and analysis requirements and to eliminate

- meaningless sampling,

h. on Table TS B.2.4-3, add a note (a) to the bottom of the page as follows:

a Not an effluent release point.

1 Add a reference to note (a) to the table entries for tne primary coolant system and the closed cooling water system.

This revision is required to clarify which monitors and sample points are associated with effluent points and which are not.

1. On Table TS B.2.4-4, add a note (b) to the bottom of the page as follows:

f b Not an effluent release point. Monitor surveillance requirements are specified in the Appendix A Tech-nical, Specifica tions .

Add a reference to note (b) to the table entries for con-denser / air ejector and o ffgas treatment system.

i

~ . . - , - . .

I' i EXHIBIT A This revision is required to clarify which monitors and sample points are associated with effluent points and which are not,

j. Replace Figure TS B.2.4-1 with the figure provided in Exhibit B, attached. The figure has been redrawn to improve readability.

No changes have been made to the limits shown on the figure.

SAFETY EVALUATION All of the proposed changes described above are intended to clarify the interim radioactive effluent Technical Specifications. No limits are changed and no changes to the intent of the surveillance requircnents are proposed. Therefore, these revisicns would not reduce the degree of protection provided to the health and safety of the public.

i,

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