ML20028B949
| ML20028B949 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B948 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301040072 | |
| Download: ML20028B949 (17) | |
Text
--,__..a_
+. ~.....
e a
p Eso f
UNITED STATES
([j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\%
ft E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%****Q* SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFI i
i SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.15 TO FACILITY OPERATING
^
LICENSE NO. DPR-22 l
t NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 1.0 Introduction '
To comply with Section V of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50, Northern States Power Company (the licensee) has filed with the Commission plans and proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as is reesonably achievable. The licensee submitted this information to the Commission by letter dated May 1,1979, revised July 23,1982 (References 1 and 2) which requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Genera-
'l ting Plant. The proposed Technical Specifications update those portions of the Technical Specifications addressing radioactive waste management and make them consistent.with the current staff positions as expressed in NUREG-0473. These revised Technical Specifications would reasonably assure compliance, in radicactive waste management, with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.36a, as supplemented by Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, lq with 10 CFR Part 20.105(c),106(g), and 405(c); with 10 CFR Part 50, l
Appendix A. General Design Criteria 60, 63, and 64; and with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
i 2.0 Background and Discussion 2.1 Regulations Section 50.36a of 10 CFR Part 50, " Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors," provides that each license authorizing operation of a nuclean power reactor will include Technical Specifications that (1) require compliance with applicable provisi.ons of Section 20.106 of 10 CFR Part 20, " Radioactivity in Effluents to.Uru estricted Areas d'_[2),.
require that operating procedures develo ed for the control,of effluents. -
be established and followed and ' hst biu ' ment installed in the~
~
t '
radioactive ' waste system be maint'a'in'eE an ~ use'd; "a'nd ~(3.Dequ' ire.the periodic submission of reports to the NRC specifying the quantity of each.
of the principal radionuclides released to' unrestricted areas in liquid y
and gaseous effluents, any quantities of radioactive materials released j
that are significantly above design objectives, and such other information 4
8301040072 821217 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P
PDR m
= _... -
~
3 1
L
~
t as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose to the public resulting from the effluent releases.
t i
Sections 20.105(c), 20.106(g), and 20.405(c) of 10 CFR Part 20, require that nuclear power plant and other licensees comply with 40 CFR Part 190, l
" Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Opera-l tions," and submit reports to the NRC when the 40 CFR Part 190 limits have been or may be exceeded.
Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 54' General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," contains Criterion 60, Control of releases of radioactive materials to the environment; Criterion 63, Monitoring fuel and waste storage; and Criterion 64, Monitoring. radioactivity releases. Criterion 60 requires that the nuclear power unit design includes means to control suitably the release of radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents and to j
handle radioactive solid wastes produced during normal reactor operation, including anticipated operational occurrences. Criterion 63 requires
,i that appropriate systems be provided in radioactive waste systems and associated handling areas to detect conditior.s that may result in ex-cessive radiation levels and to initiate appropriate safety actions.
i p
Criterion 64 requires that means be provided for monitoring effluent dis-I j
charge paths and the plant envirors for radioactivity that may be released from normal operations, including anticipated, op,erational occurrences and l
{
postula,ted accidents. Appendix B o,fJ0 CFR, far,t. 50 establishes quality.
,assurance requirements for nuclear power plants.
3 Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50, Section IV, provides guides on' Technical Specifications for limiting conditions for operation for operations for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50.
I p
2.2 Standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications j
NUREG-0473 (Reference 3) provides radiological effluent Technical Specifi-cations for boiling weter reactors which the staff finds to be an accept-able standard for licensing actions. Further clarification of these j
acceptable methods is provided in NUREG-0133, " Preparation of Radiological j[
Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants" (Reference 4).
NUREG-0133 describes methods found acceptable by the staff to calculate j
certain key values required in the preparation of proposed radiological j
effluent Technical 5pecifications for light-water-cooled nuclear power i
i plants. NUREG-0133 also provides guidance to licensees in preparing re-A quests for changes to existing radiological effluent Techni. cal Specifi-V.
cations for operating reactors.
It also describes current staff positions j
on the methodology for estimating radiation exposure due to the release 1
of radioactive materials in effluents and on the administrative control of P
radioactive waste treatment systems.
The above NUREG documents address all of the radiological effluent Technical Specifications needed to assure compliance with the requirements and also 1
I u
]
l 3
]
l 1
.iL,..Jh.
2-L...L
- XL.
.L.-
lT**
'RT
" 3C!2L '
=--- - _.
- z. _ _. u o. _;
.m_..-.-.
.u-
.._,.m, o
i
'3 -
f provide guidance to meet the intent of the regOations. However, al-3 ternative approaches to the preparation of radiological effluent
.i technical specifications and alternative radiological effluent Tech-nical Specifications may be acceptable, if 'the staff determines that
~
l-the alternatives are in compliance with and meet the intent of the y
regulations.
1 The standard radiological effluent Technical Specifications can be grouped under the following categories:
I (1)
Instrumentation 4
(2) Radioactive effluents (3) Radiological environmental monitoring (4) Design features (5) Administrative controls i
- t Each of the soecifications under the first three categories are comprised of two parts: the limiting condition for operation and the surveillance requirements. The limiting condition for operation provides a state-ment of the limiting condition, the times when it is applicable, and the actions to be taken in the event that the limiting condition is not met.
In general, the specifications that assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 standards require that when the limiting conditions of operation (LCO) j are exceeded, conditions are restored (within LCO),withoutdelay.
In the specifications that assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50
. general, hat when the lim'it'ing conditions for oheration are excee.ded I.'_. ~.
require t al ternative s
corrective actions'are to be taken within specified times;
[.
means of operation are to be employ'e'd, and certain reports are to be sub-mitted to the NRC describing these conditions and actions.
The specifications concerning design features and administrative con-trols contain no limiting conditions foroperation or surveillance require-ments.
L Table 1 indicates the standard radiological effluent Technical Specifica-i tions that are needed to assure compliance with the particular provisions of the regulations described in Section 1.0.
3.0 Evaluation 3.1 General Description of Radiological Effluent System l
This section briefly describes the radwaste liquid and gaseous effluent treatment and control systems installed at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
t I
- g-
=. _ - --
g-
,7.,
____ M _ O. ' ; p__--- - _______--_- - -- ~_ d _m- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - ~ ~ -
~
R
.m n
V V,
V 9
m.
O f/t f*t,
f, 2 OM f,
O e
't f"1,*
w 3
.f m
- 1 CTJ3 -a. 6 e't Jl3 c* 6 C. C M T3 e ce
,* r* *1 "1
- 1 N
c M en fD Q
M 9
fD B (b C,@ e m
=
-e t
C en B,"I W N w 4"1 r*
=a.
==
-a.
&Q
=en ce S 4
3C 3%
Q*
Ga8 y p,,,,
M e
er 3 m W
- ** ** m O*
3
N
==== c* -. em U
O't e
-5 g 3 C e C,*
- ww==. 4. w& e*
C C 4
fD C, mid O
a 1 "1
- 1 f O r* V es e =.s D 9
-a e,
1 I 'I 2
r,* 3 O FD e e, a, #3 CL =a -=
CP n,
> 3m wh at it y C (b e 3 T3 V OO O=
= > > *rt m B== fD=
O
}I n
OV M-
"5 (D 3 3 er* K 3
f*
es a.k av 2
V V
33 3
3V n
't 3 c* 2 ===.
e e,,, e,e,,
c t-
$.,. $. r,* e m m CI
.h O,
hh
.m m
c.
e c-c a w - o c. o
, a 3-n2 3 c.
2 ".* ", ",::
- r
- 2 It ;r..
. ;r F.D
""r" gag "O
e i,
O 3
,3--C 3.Oae
.e O _,c. n mO 3
e s _,D
_. m,,
m, 8 8 2 5_. r"*8.
8%
55V r
gx
. 3 E'. Ra n,"e",O"
-De
~
==
s e, E.
e ce fD en e
a.
-- a r*
e.
O
- Oe e, n 3
=a OC r* r* m.
fD, O
.a a.
EeEV w
CL "1 M c* 2 c c M
.g 3 D **
nO O, O O e *1 O. @
(D n.
4 E
-=
@ fD C
w c*
c O*
De O74* er
, ce w== - 3 ee O
V O.'ai"1 O E m
e fD -=
O
== F -*
CL
= C* CL -
- n O en. O *1 m
3 en
-s e
ta 9
as f5
=3
- E' 3 e fD
.e.,. E,,e,s n
3 3 r* "1 -
N 3
,e O
"1 %
O "O
CL r* fD C ce Oe
- 3*
- C C== es e =ge em C c 6 een (D =
CL M
i (D D 3,r* 3 D CL 3, c*
fD g.
M
=w
-a fD es n G.e CL N n as p,,,,,,
fD V fD e
CL
-.= ca O (D e
- 1 %==fD * "I
!{
a y
- 1 "I 5
a 2e c* * ".
"*5* 8 E E=G o, F S 5
O "~ %
g,*,E zS ti 3
o,
,3 O
O-e c* to M "E e
==
3 ** fD e e
3 E
fD m.* *1 O f
CT e (D "I==
- O3 6 c O n CL "lr ce e n
CL me eOe3
"'I g.y fD =
e fD c'*
E* **
Las.
fD ce== 3 "I
> (D as er O fD e c
- ==
en og e
fD A
e een
=
aOne e"1n337 23 O
e e
a g.
n
-a.
f, '
g
" O 4 r* r* 3 Q E T. 7 3 C 3
-a. CL e* es Me f9 e G
O O
(D
- 13 3 m
O 7 3
"1 a,,
O3 3"
7 fD em fD 3"
=a an (D
'1 '"
fD M
M C. G fD fD ft > fD 4. erE O CL. <a **e *1
@ Jo es f
= O 9
fD em n
8 e.'.
,3, 0,
'8 i
- 1 ma Vn4e aa
= - * -
V
- I M
O (D
n, fD f
,D. fD *'en "1 e* Cr r-,'S r* e,*
= "I,,=>
5 O
F
,3
-.e aw to a.*
(,
e e
3-O 3O a
,., gg
,i m
V a 2* m, < c e,<
E
,o g a, e
ce 3
m a
n m e - fD fD fD 3
o
,3, O
c e
r E
h3*2%
830 al
~
,4 a
V, a
e
>e o, O, an.
e
=
o r_
e, e
n,*
E e
,1
.m n
R O
2 e e.
a O
1
,0,
,3 ze fD io O
c fD 2*
em r
3 E
B 3*
O 999 9 9 9
Rad. Liquid Effl. Monitorin CAE E
O 3 e,*
e D-e EGG e e 9
Rad. Gas. Effl. Monitoring ap g
c.
Effluent Concentration r-9 9 99 9
eeG Dese
~
S 9
9 9 9 9 Liquid Radwaste Treatment
[
[
9 44 Liquid Holdup Tanks g
g j
SS Dose Rate V
E 4
[j 9 99 9
!e e G Dose Noble Gases
[
- t a
G GS S
S eG Dose I*131. Trit. and Part.
p g
g' l:
w O
G G
Explosive Gas Mixture 4 a n_
t-
= e
- #9 9
4 S GG Gaseous Radwaste Treatment 3
U r
f-r fD o.
O I
e S
eS Gas Storage Tanks
= o io l.
9 9 99 Gaseous Radwaste Treatment 8 E O
c x
- 88 9
9 9 84 Ventilation Exhaust Treatment E
E g
[
9 9
- g i
e ee Mark I.or II Containment O
S 4
Solid Radioactive Waste E
E
,l e e Total Dose S
~
4 xx f,,
-e o=
ft
.I e
9 Rad. Env. Monitoring Program 3,,,n g
g G
Land Use Census qg g
-(
e*
a 3
3 e,
2 e
e Interlab. Comparison Program g:p g
n w
\\\\
i
=, (?
n,-
R
-c, n
t e
O I
Site Boundaries *
~
C, io r,
u e
.m 3 V
i n
a" 8
9 Review and Audits
.7.
1 0
O' e
9 9
Procedures R
V "5
O S
8 3
3 Reports
- T 3
i e
g Record Retention 7
g g
c O
e, S
e 9
9 9 9 8 44 Offsite Dose Calc. Manual E
g 3
9, 9
Major Change 3 to Rad. Systems mn O
s"M 1
e D
m
..--~n.
-f.-.
...,....m j
. -. -. -...... -.... ~..
x..-. u ~.
. s.:. w e
a i
~
i -
~
3.1.1 Liquid Effluents Most of the water required for tne operation of the Monticello Nuclear i
Generating Plant is taken from the Mississippi River and returned.to the river, or evaporated. The liquid and gaseous discharge pathways are shown in Figure 1.
The discharge point for the service water system is the discharge canal. Any potential component cooling water releases b
would be via the service water system. The schematic diagram and flow path of the radioactive liquid waste system is shown in Figure 2, but l'
it should be noted that no liquid radwaste has been discharged for 6 years and no discharges are anticipated. Special permission is required from the State of Minnesota before a release may be made.
J 3.1. 2 Gaseous Effluents
{!
The gaseous effluent discharge points, shown in Figure 1, are fhipIan't' stack and the reactor building vent. The turbine building exhaus~t has H
been modified to vent to the reactor building exhaust plenum. These re-4 lease points are continuously monitored. Radiation monitors automatically j
isolate the plant stack and/or the reactor building vent if a high level of radioactivity is detected.
Figure 3 shows the gaseous radwaste proces-l!
sing system at Monticello.
H ri 3.2 Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS)
[i Our consultant, EG&G, used as guidance NUREG-0473 and NUREG-013.3 (References 3 and 4), to evaluate the licensee's proposed changes to the Technical 50, (2)(1) 10 CFR 50.36a, as sup)ple-Specifications against the requirements of l
mented by Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 10 CFR 20.105(c),106(g and
~
j 405(c), (3) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A: General Design Criteria 60, 63 and 64, and (4) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
EG&G evaluated-the following:
(1) a review of information provided in the licensee's May 1,1979 (revised Januaiy 2.4,1980)_(RETS) submittali(References _1 and 5), (2) a review of the licensee's November 25, 1981 submittal } Reference 6), (3)' the resolution.
of problem areas in that submittal by means of a site visit (Reference 7),
(4) a review of the licensee's April 2,1982 submittal (Reference 8), (5) telephone conferences on May 19 and May. 26,1982 (References 9 and 10), to discuss the review, and (6) review of the licensee's July.23,1982 revision A conference call then was _ eld 'on' August 6,1982'with the EG&G. _
h L
(Reference 2).
F review team to discuss deviations from the model requirements. All open,
questions were resolved at this time and a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) was finalized for transmittal (Reference 11).
3 d
EG&G concluded that the proposed changes to the Monticello Technical Specifi-
]
cations meet the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (subject to sub-quent discussion between the NRC and the licensee's staff). To account ll4 l
for plant unique differences, the licensee and the staff agreed to minor
~
j modifications which still meet the intent of NUREG-0473.
14 i
I l1 l
l
'L -
l _._..__._ - - ---.. _- _ -
.m
__._.1.
i.
g e
/
u q
r.
p, Z+
+v 3
L T'
ll h
a
%..-l
- 7:I,/,
,9
/y!,
9
,i
//.*
u
,/*/ i
/
('
' '/
h, s
e H
e
,/,/
n li e',\\
g
/
i v{g N
/t s
,//
t; o
s fo ll 0 jf /
~
O '/,/
ln,. h
[
I!
/
's)o!!
,/
dN!
.4.
9
/\\
,/
f j j.31
!:j i
/
g f /
3 r--
q 9
l ay oL
//
g
/
a I
p,'
j lL g.b')
v g3,p,: w, 7
=
3
'~
=
- u e 4
m 5e g o,I,
(*) '.e g t
Y,
/
- j K
~
i E
,/,/
=
i lt i
l 4[
/
6,
~~
=
/'i o f )/
/
s
/
l 1a a
i
=
f g'
i a
V*y 2 inn ll i
/
/ "/
00 I
l*
i
'n g
a W gia
~c s
4
,- );
,/
g*.
9
'1 6 *
- l
-o 3
\\
/
\\,
,/
/
/
/
/
]lI
[
/
~
k e
/
1 i
l t
o
/
[._
[/
~
3 g
'l 9
,' /[7'/
E i
)
/
I 1
l 4a
?.- -
m_
..-.a.e s.-
.u w.
.e % L A....,.. - ~ ;m.
.ecm.
e 9
.t i
m
=
me M
m cWe z
a.=>.- G i
=
>=
Jem
- E L.J W
C<-
>=
C I
M3C C E"' a J aC Z U aC 3-h O
4s j
mO%
mA-m
<UC E *C >
Z atC 3
48 U3-wwc CMW cmc
.s M "D""
r==
U J
Zvv
= aC.
eC M =
O aC W C=w
=6m v"c yam r
- c. E H
ovc a
m
= L.J z 2
mQ= Z
-===9.=
J
=
i aC c _J aC W
M
=
www C. m m
E C
>= P-E J
=Z at og g aC g y y
8
- O H
CJO i
zmmM w
,)
=Z AB 1
EC w 2
DOMM C
<wwg g
j I
SwQ 1C l.
3 w
Zc Cr..
5 m
a Cr. a u
(
D.><==
mJN w
<ve y
I aC aC
.m M "D'" > J
=
v w C.
>=
p hl.
<=-
- w z
o omm vm w
Am W
MMJ=c M -, ap g *dCaC
.t=
3 J
I I
l
)
6 Omt-w h
>=
M l
4 lt g
=
l r-4 C e-
__e
(
o J<
<m v
i l
MZ
-W s
3 o-
=-
li C= asC 4Jm l
W
- C M Z *C L
JQ v3 s
a
_J i-y l
t c.
V U
l 5
I I
m E
l p
M 4
l W
w
(
e M
WZ
>=
l M
tA i'
g C
>=a==
m h
Z f
k mz i
E b
- 8ag
- 2. H m
m sig" w 3
e 8IC M
IM C.
JC2-J 2o e
z o
a e
m m
u e e-o e
aC W
Ce 5 W
en=
v P
CK
.=====.9m
- v. -
l c
in O M J M >= W 9"*""*
aC 86 C
HCmZ EW EW OJ 3
l g
f w
W&<=
8&
42 e
U 3 C=
os J
o 80 1
p E
eC P- *C C M io J==
>=
L
= ce y cc O mu 6m W
M C A = E D-=
w t
T J
Y W
b O
I h
y u
ses I
=
a l
m w
mm e
ama z
m.-
e o
k ~
6-
=
=
er w 2
W
> =
4 m
mJ g
Wm JEHW Em l
c
[
i z
soms 2
mm u
G Z w >- < =
m l
y
=
=== 3 V 3
i-----j gsg=g==
ms, 5 e
E
.l e
,e
= =.
'"" @ g E D e
o y
f.;
g=,E E
. Wgy m
zwwom mez
J = Z >
aC D eC J V 6 4C m 3 m >=
=
i l
l l
4b t
~
n.
" ~ r
.x
- -,. ~. - - -
=
j
.a i
Ie PIAllT STACK L,
ii
['
110111 TOR O -
f l
Iloc *s f
Wa l
f
~
n
(
l
)
q _.
{
)
';iAllD i
SEAb Sil0RT h
110llllP PIPE I
i g
CollDElisER STACK DILITTION N
AIR
[
y
}lOlllTOR Sil0RT
~
PARTICUIATE 11 0 P IPE
.ll012UP PIPE FII.TER
~!
D t=0 t=t dly y
t=t REC llER ddly
{!
A1,F EJECTORS e'
REACTOR VESSEL l'
TAllK FILL llEADER
~
PARTICUIATE
& CilARCOAL FILTER 1
2 3
4 5
5 '
f
~
fI
~ TAliK DISCllARCE IIEADER L*tlioldup Figure 3.
Monticello Gaseous Radwaste Treatment System.
l
j 0
1 -
1 3.2.1 Effluent Instrumentation The primary objective of the RETS with regard to effluent instrumentation
'j The licensee's information provides assurante that all effluent release is to ensure that all significant releases of radioactivity are monitored.
l points are monitored. In the past 6 years, no liquid radwaste discharges i
have been made from the plant because Minnesota is concerned about re-1 leases to the Mississippi River. Therefore, the provision for automatic i
termination of liquid radWaste releas,es~is not necessary since,relea'ses' j
may be made only under very spe,cial,* conditions. Before any releases p
are made, functional surveillance is required.
Furthermore,. because the d
component cooling water system at Monticello is a closed system, monitoring h
is not required; any potential releases would be via monitored systems s
(i.e., the service water system and the discharge canal).
g Gaseous effluent releases from Monticello are monitored, including the H
turbine building ventilation. A recent design change has been made to il route the turbine building gaseous effluents to the reactor building h
plenum, a monitored release point.' The reactor building plenum has three noble gas monitors; one for monitoring purposes and two for building isolation and initiation of the standby gas treatment system. The plant j
stack noble gas monitoring system initiates automatic isolation and monitors 1
the main condenser effluent off-gas. Some instrumentation surveillance will be done less frequently than required by the model (i.e., the monthly 1
j.
source check for the air ejector monitors and the stack flow rate monitors),
h, but adequately to assure proper quantification of releases. Air ejector t
radionuclide releases are measured at the stack and conservative flo'w rate:
assumptions are used to assure that stack flows are quantified. Therefore, we find this acceptable.
3.2.2 Concentration and Dose Rates of Effluents The objective of the RETS with regard to concentration and dose rates of effluents is to ensure that offsite effluent concentrations do not exceed I
the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) established by 10 CFR Part 20,
(
Appendix B Tab,le II, Columns 1.end 2.
The licensee has stated that,the concentration of radioactive material will be monitored "at all times,"
or "during releases" for batch releases. The setpoints at each release
~
l point are pre-established to prevent exceeding the release concentrations L
or corresponding dose rates of 10 CFR Part 20 in unrestricted areas._ The
[
concentration of 1.iquid effluents and the dose rate due' to gaseous.. effluents L
will he determine.d _in. accorda.nce..with the_.0ffsite Dose Ca]cu13t.i.onal. Mawal
.(00CM).
. e nave reviewed this..and._f.i.nd 1.t acceptable.
W The gaseous. monitoring systems are equipped with automatic termination of 1
effluents. Should concentrations exceed the MPC specified in 10 CFR Part 20 j
based on monitoring setpoint values, release rates will immediately be
(!
decreased.
g I
~
j l
I f
s fwer= m pu m ggy
e
.-....~~...w.
= _.
o e
i j 1 The concentration of radioactive materials in releases from Monticello will be determined as required by the RETS. The ventilation exhaust systems will be monitored as required except for noble gas grab samples.
The noble gas concentration in the plant exhaust is generally below minimum detection limits. Therefore, it is considered acceptable to take samples of the air ejector exhaust and with appropriate decay periods to calculate the release rates from the ventilation exhausts, h
Also, the sampling requirements for startups, shutdowns, and 15% power changes is considered too severe for normal failed fuel levels. Therefore, a daily sampling requirement is proposed when the activity in the primary coolant is > 10% of the Technical Specification level and/or when a 25% change in the reactor coolant dose equivalent I-131 concentration occurs.
We have reviewed this and find it acceptable because it meets the intent of 1
the model RETS.
3.2.3 Offsite Doses From Effluents The objective of the RETS with regard to offsite doses from effluents is to ensure that offsite doses are kept As Low As Reasonable Achievable i
(ALARA), and are kept to a small fraction of the 10 CFR Part 20 limits, and l
are in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to meet the quarterly j
and yearly dose criteria for liquid effluents and to use the 00CM methodology L
for determining the cumulative dose to individuals, thus meeting the intent of NUREG-0473. The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifi-p cations to maintain the air doses in unrestricted areas, for noble gases, to i
those 'specified in Section 3.11.2.2 of the model RETS. The licensee has also i
proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to maintain the dose level h
to an individual from release of Iodine-131, tritium and radioactive particu-j lates with half-lives greater than 8 days to meet the design objectives of Section 3.11.2.3, of the model RETS, thus satisfying the intent of NUREG-0473.
1 We have reviewed this and find it acceptable.
I 1
L 3.2.4 Effluent Treatment a
j The objectives of the RETS with regard to effluent treatment are to ensure that wastes are treated to keep releases ALARA and to satisfy the requirement 3
ip for Technical Specifications governing the maintenance and use of radwaste treatment equipment.
The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to use the liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment system when the projected doses averaged over 31 days exceed 25% of the annual dose design objectives prorated monthly. The gaseous waste treatment must be in operation at all times, except for maintenance periods, to meet the dose design objectives. This meets the intent of 10 CFR_ Part 50, Appendix I, 1
Section II.D.
The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifica-J 1 east'to make necessary dose projections i,n accordance with the 00CM, at j
least once per month.
This indicates that the licensee has met the intent
?
of NUREG-0473. Therefore, we find the licensee's response acceptable.
4 q
e
,l It L_
~ 'i _
_i__
'F-
.. - - mam m.m m...- i
_.m h
d h
^
7-o p
q j,
3.25 Tank Inventory Limits b
]
The objective of the RETS with regard to tank inventory limits is to ensure h
that the rupture of a radwaste tank would not cause offsite doses greater j-than the limits set in 10 CFR Part 20 for n6noccupational exposure. The a
licensee has put a curie limit on all temporary, outside liquid tanks that are i
not diked and has committed to surveillance in accordance with NUREG-0473.
!j For liquid holdup tanks, this limit (i.e., <10 curies) excludes tritium a
and dissolved or entrained noble gases. For waste. gas storage tanks which j
are in constant use, a limit of e 22000 curies for noble gases has been I
set. Surveillance to determine gas storage tank inventory will be done by j
calculation from the steam jet air ejector off-gas analysis. This is con-j sidered an acceptable method of determining that an unplanned release from a waste gas decay tank could not exceed effluent release limits.
d
~
3.2.6 Explosive Gas Mixtures
[;
The objective of the RETS with regard to explosive ' as mixtures is to g
[
prevent hydrogen explosions in the main condenser off-gas treatment system.
The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications that maintain a safe concentration of hydrogen in this system. The hydrogen concentration will be maintained at <2%.
If the concentration increases
]
above this limit, it will be reduced to the acceptable limit within 48 L
hours. The licensee will maintain a constant monitoring of H2 by using a minimum of three channels and two independent shutdown signals.
This monitoring system is considered acceptable as was. discussed with the licensee at the site visit on February 2-3,'1982.
The system will be in
[
use only during power operation, which is considered adequate.and the requirements for an explosion proof system are being met, although the t
system is of an explosion proof design. Therefore, we find this acceptable.
i 3.2.7 Solid Radwaste System I
The objective of the RETS with regard to the solid radwaste system is to
~
ensure that radwaste will be properly processed and packaged before shipped to the burial' site. The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical
~
Specifications to use the methods prescribed in the process control
[
program-(PCP) to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10
[
CFR Part 71 are met prior to shipment of radwaste from the site.
)
6 3.2.8 Environmental Monitoring
[
The objectives of the RETS with regard to, environmental monitoring are to
[
ensure that an adequate and full-area-coverage environmental monitoring program exists and that the.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I requirements for Technical Specifications on environmental monitoring are satisfied. The licensee has explicitly followed NUREG-0473, including the Branch Position dated November r
1979. The licensee's methods of analysis and maintaining yearly records q
Q C
i nn=
n
=d
-. ~.. _ _ _,. - - i
.)
e-l J
l ~
satisfy the requirements and meet the ir. tent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
The specification for the land-use census satisfies the requirements of Section i
3.12.2 of NUREG-0473 by providing for the census once a year in the areas specified. The specification for interlaboratory comparison satisfies the l
requirements of Section 3.12.3 of NUREG-0473 by requiring t' e lice'sNe"to h
n participate in the NRC approved program.
Therefore, we find this acceptable.
l 1
3.29 Audits and Reviews u
The objective of the RETS with regard to audits and reviews is to ensure that 1
audits and reviews of the radwaste and environmental monitoring programs are L
properly conducted. The licensee's administrative structure designates the Operations Committee (OC) and the Safety Audit Committee (SAC) as the h
two groups responsible for the review and audit of the radiological environ-l mental monitoring program, the ODCM, the PCP, and a quality assurance (QA) program meeting the requirements of ANSI N18.7-1972 rather than Regulatory Guide 4.15.
The SAC is responsible for auditing.these four programs, with the frequency of review to be equal to or greater than that required by NUREG-0473. The DC is responsible for reviewing every unplanned release L,
of radioactive material..The review will include an event description, f
remedial action to prevent recurrence, and corrective action. The OC also F
reviews any changes in the ODCM and the PCP. Therefore, we find this acceptable.
3.2.10 Procedures I
The objective of the RETS with regard to procedures is to. establish a i
requireme'nt for implementing the ODCM, the PCP, and the QA program. The h
licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications that establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for the PCP, ODCM, and QA program.
Therefore, we find the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to be acceptable.
t.
3.2.11 Reports L
The objective of the RETS with regard to reports is to ensure that appro-I priate periodic and special reports are submitted to the NRC, and that these reports meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.36a. The licensee has
[
proposed changes to the Technical Specifications that require issuance of i
L annual and semiannual reports Qneeting the requirements of Sections 6.9.1.12, and 6.9.1.9, respectively, of NUREG-0473). The licensee, also proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to require the issuance of special reports l
(Prompt Notification) when (1) offsite releases exceed the limits specified under paragraphs 3.11.1.1 and 3.11.2.1 of NUREG-0473 and (2) inventory limits for the storage tanks have exceeded those listed under Section 3.11.1.4 and 3.11.2.6 of NUREG-0473. We have reviewed the-proposed changes to the Technical Specifications.and conclude that they meet the requirements stated l
in NUREG-0473 and thererfore, are acceptabie.
l 3.3 Offsite Oose Calculation Manual (00CM) 0
(,
t A brief discussion of the methodology and approach used by the licensee to, I
calculate offsite dose and to maintain the operability of the effluent i
system is provided in this section. The methodology used by the licensee l
9 a
h s.. -
. x.mmm
.m
~..-.-...u.....-
L w.x
=
.. ~ - _..
is evaluated for consistency against the methodology and guidelines set by l
the NRC staff. As a minimum, it is required that the ODCM provide equations k
and methodology for the following topics:
f 6
o alarm and trip setpoint on effluent' instrumentation b
o liquid effluent concentration in unrestricted areas gaseous effluent dose rate at or beyond the site boundary f
o I
o liquid and gaseous effluent dose contributions o liquid and gaseous effluent dose projections o description and location of samples for the environmental monitoring program e
The licensee meets these requirements.
In addition, it has been suggested (but not required) that flow diagrams defining the treatment paths and the components of the radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid waste management systems be included and reviewed for consistency against the system being used at the station. The licensee has provided, io..t.he OD,CM, a,di.agram of the gaseous radwaste treatment system and a description and location of samples in support of the environmental monitoring program.
3.3.1 Evaluation
(
The licensee has followed the methodology of NUREG-0133 and Regulatory i
Guide 1.109 to determine the alarm and trip setpoints for the liquid and gaseous effluent monitors. A conservative factor is used for the setpoints, l
which ensures that maximum permissible concentrations (MPC's) will not be exceeded. Continuous releases of liquid effluents do not occur at Monticello
[
but if they do occur, the equations for calculating concentrations have been included.
(
The dose rate at or beyond the site boundary due to gaseous effluent release is in compliance with 10 CFR Part 20. Gaseous effluents are released from two release points for which conservative values of relative concentration
}'
and reistive deposition for the average atmospheric dispersion conditions are used by the licensee, b
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive j
material in liquid effluents is stated to be in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.
l The dose contributions are calculated once per 31 days.
l Evaluation of noble gases released to the atomsphere. includes. bo.t'h'.Mia a'nii p
gamma doses at the off-site locations with the highest calculated annual average. relative concentrations of effluerits from the reactor building vent (X/Q)
_. l For radioiodine, tritium, and particulates, the licensee has shown tiiat, t.he ",
method used in the ODCM for calculating releases to unrestricted areas will meet the design ob.iective values of maintaining an annual dose or dose commitment not "to exceed 15 mrem to any organ of the maximum exposed in-dividual. The licensee has shown acceptable methods of calculating the dose
- - = - w -- ===...
.,2 x. w. : -. -... = c.:.a-w.. u...
k e -
- 1 using the highest calculated annual average relative concentration of effluents released via plant vents for any area at or beyond the site boundary in cluding the effects due to relative deposition for long-term release at the critical locations (X/Q and D/Q values).
The licensee has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to erform dose projections for liquid effluent releases once every 31 days co p e h 0 R
rt 4 CFR art nc g
se o
ne.
i)
The licensee provides a complete description of sample locations in the ODCM
)
Figures 5.1-1 through 5.1-3 and Table 5.1-1.
This description is consistent s.
with the sampling locations specified in the licensee's RETS. Table 5.1.-1 in j
the licensee's ODCM tabulates the site number identification, sector location, I
distance from station center, and sample point description. Table 5.1-1
]
covers all of the licensee's committed sampling ' exposure pathways in accordance with Table 3.12-1, RETS Environmental Monitoring program.
3.4 Summary of Technical Evaluation Table 2 contains a correspondence between NUREG-0473 the current Technical Specifications and the licensee's proposal.
The licensee's proposal was evaluated and the following conclusions.were reached:
1.
The licensee's proposed RETS meets 'the intent of the NRC staff's current standard, " Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications,"
NUREG-0473, Revision 2, February 1980.
2.
The licensee's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) uses documented and approved methods that are consistent with our methodology in NUREG-0133. The ODCM is also consistent with the proposed' Technical Specifications. On this basis, we find the licensee's ODCM acceptable.
3.
The licensee submitted a Process Control Program (PCP) which was given a preliminary review.
It consists of portions of the topical reports on the ATCOR and Chem Nuclear Services, Inc.,
waste solidification systems. _ The licensee requested a later inspection by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
l l
3.5 Evaluation Conclusions t
..T.hp,_ptop{ sed radiological effluinf Tsch'n'ical Specifications for,the' Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant have been evaluated, reviewed and found j
to be in compliance with the express requirements of the NRC regulations and with the intent of NUREG-0133 and NUREG-0473 (Monticello is comprised of one all the requirements of the regulations boiling water reactor) and thereby; Technical Specifications have been fulfilled.
l U
related to radiologics1 effluent-
~
l
. 77 ;,
___;__=_.
4 1
I!
TABLE 2.
CORRESPONDENCE OF PROVISIONS OF NUREG-0473, THE CURRENT TECHNICAL J
SPECIFICATIONS AND THE LICENSEE'S PROPOSAL f;
d Current Technical Licensee-NUREG-0473 1 Specification
- Proposal U
RETS Reouirement
,[Section)
(Section)
(Section) 1, O
Effluent 3.3.7.11 2.4.2.d, e, f 4.8. A.1, a, b, Instrumentation 3.3.7.12 2.4.3.d, e, h, 4.8.B.1, a, b, d j
2.4.4.d l
l Concentrations 3.11.1.1 2.4.4.e 3.8.A.1.a 3.11.2.1 2.4.2.c 3.8. 6.1 Off-site Doses 3.11.1.2 2.4.a. b 3.8.A.2.a 3.8.B.2.a 3
3.11.2.2 2.4.c, d, e 3.8.B.3, 3.8.D i
3.11.2.3 3.11.4 Effluent Treatment 3.11.1.3 2.4.1 3.8.A.3.a l
3.11.2.4 2.4.3.e, f, g 3.8.B.4.a 3.11.2.5 3.11.2.8 l
Tank Inventory 3.11.1.4 2.4.1.e 3.8.A.4.a Limits 2.4.3.j 3.8.B.4.c i
Condenser Air 3.11.2.7 2.4.3.f h
Ejector Release Rate Explosive Gas 3.11.2.6 3.8.B.4.c Mixtures Solid Radwaste 3.11.3 2.4.5 3.8.C.1 Environmental 3.12.1 4.8 4.76.A.1 Monitoring r
Audit and Review 6.5.1 6.2.A 6.2.A 6.5.2 Procedures 6.8 6.5.A 6.5.A Reports 6.9.1.6 6.7.C.1.a 6.7.C.l.b, c, d 6.9.1.10 6.7.C.1.b 6.7.A.3
- Existing Sections Affected by the Proposed RETS a
(
10a
_ x -- - - ~
~ -- n - -
.J. _
E Z M
~~
a 12Z T J L - C L-l i ;
l
{
The proposed changes will not remove nor relax any existing requirement related j
to the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do i
not involve a significant hazards consideration.
}
The proposed changes will not remove nor relax any existing requirement needed I
to provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will i
not be endangered by o'peration in the proposed manner, f
4.0 Environmental Consideration J
^
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in I
effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an
- j action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, i
and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, 4
or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 Conclusion d
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
)
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the J[
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the a
Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will
)
not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health I
and safety of the public.
l
~
Dated:
December 17, 1982 Principal Contributors:
L f
F. Congel A.'
ll k
....._ _ _ _ T. ' l ' T - _ J L
?.L ' ' " ' ' ~
L L---- -T! - ^
L------
~
:-----.- - :: --- ::------ - : :.... = :::---... -.-..
-... --- n a
_.u 2
(...-
- 4 a
j
~
P 6.0 References 1.
Letter, L. O. Mayer (NSP) to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
[
Regulation (USNRC), May 1,1979 and revised Janu_ary 24, 1980 (with g
attachments).
4 il 2.
Letter, D. M. Musolf (NSP) to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor.
Regulation (US NRC), July 23,1982, (with attachments).
l 3.
NUREG-0473 " Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications," Revision 2, j
February 1980.
4.
NUREG-0133, "Rreparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants."
5.
F. B. Simpson, letter of transmittal, Transmittal of Questions for the
]
Monticello RETS Review - SIM-33-81, December 16, 1981.
i j
6.
' Northern States Power Company, letter of transmittal, Revised Monticello RETS Submittal, November 25, 1981.
}
}
7.
Monticello Plant visit, Review of Monticello Radiological Effluent 1
Technical Specifications, February 2-3, 1982.
]
8.
Northern States Power Company, letter of transmittal, Revised Monticello l
Nuclear Generating Station RETS Submittal. April 2,1982.
I j
9.
H. Nicolaras (NRC), D. Musolf (NSP), and D. W. Akers (EG&G), telephone conference, May 19, 1982.
I 10.
H.
Nicolaras (NRC), F. Congel (NRC), D. Musolf (NSP), J. W. Mandler (EG&G), and D. W. Akers (EG&G), telephone conference,' May 26, 1982.
- 11. Akers. D. W. and et.al., " Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) Implementation Monticello Nuclear Generating Station", Technical Evaluation Report, EGG-PHYS-5972, September 1982.
i
~
o b
s
<r 9
1 4
3 ~ _~
_ _. _ _.