ML20040B088
| ML20040B088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Prairie Island, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1982 |
| From: | Diianni D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mayer L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201250126 | |
| Download: ML20040B088 (21) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f 3g.-
1 JM 7iW Distribution BSiege'l Cocket File RAClark l
NRC PDP, Ippolito Cocket !!os. 50-2R?
NSIC FCongel 50-306 TERA WGammill atj 50-263 ORB #3 Rdg INovak DEisenhut OELD I&E-3 Mr. L. O. Itayer,!!anager ACRS-10 Nuclear Support Services JHeltemes
!!orthern States Power Company PMkreutzer-3 414 Nicollet flall-8th Floor PM-DDilanni Itinneapolis, Minnesota 55401 RAClark Gray File
Dear fir. I'6yer:
We have completed our review of the Prairie Island Units 1&2 and the !!onticello Padiological Effluent Technical. Specifications (RETS) submitted by letter dated January 24, 1980, Our review also covers the Offsite Dose Calculation flanual (0DCM) and the Process Centrol Program (PCP). Enclosed are our coments on these documents.
In order to resolve these coments we plan to visit your corporate office and, if need be the plant during the week of February 1,1982 (a specific time table to be deternined by telecon). I expect that all differences of opinion will be resolved during this meeting and any changes to the RETS will be nade to the satisfaction of all concerned. Therefore, this meeting is to be consWered a working session where "on the spot" de:cisions ill be nade by those concerned w
(NSP/t;RC) in order that an acceptable RETS for both the_ Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant and the Ponticello Plant will be achieved.
Sincerely.
s d'f3bDj Orfrzins.1 irned by:
Byn Stey\\
g-e,'
9 Domini,Dilanni, Pro.icctMannRT 46CEfYEO OperatingReactorsBranch#3fClj S
M 1
%.o@N ]y g82A Division of Licensing 2
w. w, o
e-
Enclosures:
Coments on RETS g%,/f%
cc: See next page p
8201250126 820107 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P
PDR M
s
,PTR.B,g((gggg[_ c,,qh, 7 RAB[\\,,
, Eg Og,8#3 g, ORB #3:DL[
omce>
, hzer
.ggiegg},/ dbar.k..
.M......i.....FCoge, ',,,
P
.,,G a m i,,,,1,,,,
W pp,ppngqq, j
s->
1.&ts2
.ue.zaz..
.v.h/.az..
11.a../.82
..u.(da2........uk.m.......t4../.az....
uc wou ais oa n t,ncu em OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ec; isei--sas-*o
=.
O a
o l
i i
Northern States Power Company
- a. ' -
I CC:
Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Bernard M. Crancm Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Bureau of Indian Affairs, DOI.
1800 M Street, ".W.
15 South 5th Street Washington, D. C.
20036 Minneapolis, Mir.nesota 55402
~
Mr. Louis J. Breimburst Mr. R. L. Tannner i
Executive Direettr County Auditor Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Red Wing, Minnesota 55066 1935 W. County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federak Activities Branch j
The Environmental Conservation Library Region V Office l'.inneapolis Public Library ATTN:
Regional Radiation i
'00 Nicollet Mall Representative Minneapolis, Minresota 55401 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60504 i;r. F. P. Tierney, Plant Manager Prairie Island !!uclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company
~
Route 2 Welch, Minnesota 55089 Jocelyn F. 01 son, Esquire Special Assistant Attorney General
"- sr i 2 ;;':-
- : ;" : t.:.
e..:-
- n. :.
.:ss.;i's, ".irr. cts a E5i13 i
J.S. *:cclear regui a.: ry C ermi s sier.
'es'rs
' !:E: t-s O ice
~
". h [ $$
U f
66 C I.,
si e
l'
=
t' 17".
1
-w-=
w s-y 9
rw-q n yy-,
w-
-.<--g yg
-=gew.
4
-.,mT---
-y--e3----amsw g-m%--------
~
1 RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (RETS) REVIEW FOR THE PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATINC' PLANT UNITS 1&2 f.e-I.
Statements Not in Direct Comoliance With the Model RETS The licensee statements where clarification is required are l'isted
~~
below in the order of the model RETS:
Prairie Island
~
No.
NUREG 0472 RETS Consnents 1
Definitions Definition X.
The word " homogeneous" is excluded 1.31 (T.S.1-7) from the definition of solidification.
Is an approved process control program being followed such that a homcseneous solid is being produced?
2 3.3.3.9.b 3.9.A.l.c The requirement that both reactors be in hot shutdown within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and cold shutdown within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> is some-what more conservative than the action statements required by NUREG 0472.
3 Table 3.3-12 3.9-1 There is no grcss activity monitor with an automatic termination of release function en the turbine building sumps effluent line.
Is there a reason for not monitoring this release point?
4 Table 3.3-12
- 3. 9 -1.
Table 3.9-1 states that the monitors and samplers will be cperable during releases.
Is there a potential for uncontrolled releases from the monitored release points if the monitors are not in operation? Tm unplanned and unmoni-tored release wo:Ad violate this 4
spacification.
e 5
Table 3.3-12
~3 9 1 There isf no gross _ activity monitor in the service wateresystem effluent line.
Is there a. reason for not monitoring this release point? -
m e
- e e.
e--m
=**e,-
=em T ?.
9
Prairie Island
- io.
NUREG 0472 RETS Comments s.
6 Table 3.3-12 3.9-1 No radioactivity ~ recorders are listed.
c, These instruments are. required only
-l when the alarm / trip setpoint is based or a recorder-controller.
^~
7 Table 3.3-12 3.9-1 Can it be shown the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> sampling Notation riotation requirement is as conservative as the' No. 30 No-3 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> requirement stated-in the model?
P Table 4.3-12 4.17-1 A monthly source check on the liquid radwaste effluent line is considered as being less conservative than the model which recuires source checks prior to each release.
9 Table 4.3-12 4.17-1 The channel chesi requirement for the steam generator blowdown effluent line composite sampie flow monitor has not been addressed.
10 Table 4.3-12 4.17-1 The expanded 'defi5ition of' channel Notation calibration as listed in the model has not been addressed.
11 Table 3.3-13 3.9-2 The waste gas' holdup system does not have an associated monitoring system as required by the model.
Alternatives may be acceptable if tne system can be shown to be.Edequately monitored and regulated,'sa that uncontrolled releases cannot occur.
12 Table 3.3-13 Table 3.5-2 0xygen monitors caly, with 2 minimum operable channels, are stated as meeting the hycrogen (2) and hydrogen or oxygan (2) canitoring requirements of the model.
~
a.
Ks oxygen used as the limiting ~
e component for the catalytic reaction in the recombiner, is there adecuate assurance that oxygen inleakage into downstream portions cf the system will not produce an explosive mixture (i.e., is a positive pressure j.~
mainta1nea in the system at all
~*
tim'es)?
y~
p B
Prairie Island do.
fiUREG 0472 RETS Comments
~
~
12(cont'd)'
b.
Is there more than one~ oxygen J '
~.
sampling location (4.c 5 other than the recombiner), such that "
~
other locations in the system will be monitored?. :
~
13 Table 3.3-13 Table 3.9-2 The condenser evacuaticYsybtem monitoring requirements have not been'.
met 6ther than a noble gas monitor on the air ejector.' Does the' air ejector vent to a monitored exhaust system or is there a justifiable reason for not monitoring the system?
14 Table 3.3-13 Table 3.9-2 The vent header system is not stateci as being monitored as is required by the model.
~
15 Table 3.3-13 Table 3.9-2 Exhaust flow rate monitors are not listed for the gaseous effluent rel;.ase points.
Is there _ assurance that.
releases are conservative ~ly estimatad using the design flow rates?,,
16 Table 3.3-13 Table 3.9-2 Is there an uamonitored gaseous release point for the steam generator blowdown -
vent such that acnitoring should be required?
17 Table 3.3-13 Tabl.e 3.9-2 Can it be shown'that the radwaste building exhaust irea cannot receive enough radioactive material such t;1at autcr.atic termination cf the release would be requirea?
18 Table 4.3-13 Tabl e 3.9-2 The channel calibratica method for Notation Notation the waste gas system hydrogen / oxygen monitoring systen has not been addressed (i.e,_the specific i-composition.of the Itandards).
~'
19 Table 4.3-13 Table 3.9-2 The source check requirement for periodic releases (i.e., containment -
purge and waste gas system) is prior to each release rather than -
monthly.
-.. 7-
.m a
20 Table 4.3-13 Table 3.9'2 Th.e application of "if provided" in
. e.,
Notation Notation the channel functional test definitions w.
is not clear.
~
4
Prairie Island
.lo.
NUREG 0472 RETS Comments.
~
21 4.11.1.1.2 4.17.A.1 The surveillance requirement for the"~ ~. -
~
analysis of composited beta and alpha" 2 -
samples and the post-release calculation.
of these releases in accordance with the ODCM is not ' listed.
- s '
22 Table 4.11-1 Table 4.17.3 A further clarification of the plant's Notation Notation usage of Sb in the Lower Limit of.
~
part a.
Detection (LLD) definition may be
-w.
required.
~
'u 23 Table 4.11-1 Table 4.17.3 No definition of a " batch release" is Notation d.
listed.
24 3.11.1.2 3.9.A.2 No statement requires that corrective :
Action a actions to be taken "in the remainder'"
l of this quarter and during the subse-'
l l
quent three quarters" he listed in the special recort persuant to specification 6.9.2.
I 25 3.11.1.3 3.9.A.3.a Operation of the ' liquid radwaste treatment ' system when the projected dose averaged over 31 days would exceed 0.06 arem whole body or 0.2 mrem to any organ.is required to implement the ecst-benefit analysis.
Otherwise, in scme cases, no usage of the liquid radwaste treatment equipment would be necessary to reach the dose design objectives.
25 4.11.1.3.2 4.17.A.3 The licuid rad.: acte treatment equipment must be demonstrated as being operable.
The 92 day requirement cr a justifiable alternative that is equally as conservative.
27 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.17-4 The LLD for principal gamma emitters on.wasti: gas storage tanit samples should be 1 x 10 28 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.17-4 The LLD for I-131 on continuous samples should be 1 x 10-12,,
..:. +..
.=
m 29 Table 4.11-2
. Table 4.1J-4 fio, statement showing continuous monitor-ing of noble gases, grcss beta, and r,.
z-gross gamma at the effluent ~ release points (including air ejector vents).
No LLD is listed.,
s.
Prairie Island.
.io.
NUREG 0472 RETS Comments 30 Tabis 4.11-2 Table 4.17-4 No statement requiring a 1 sis off N ;.-
~
Notation b -- Notation grab samples following startsps," -
shutdowns, and 15 percent power changes.' -
is, listed.,
.g.
31 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.17-4 No requirement fer daily tritium..
Notation c Notation sampling during periods the refueling.z-canal is flooded.
3
- y..
n.;_
32 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.17-4 No statement has been'made that' Notation d Notation requires weekly-particulate and iodine sample en effluent release points, with an analysis within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
- ~
a 33 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.17-4 There is no stated requirement for...
Notation e Notation weekly tritium grab samples on the'-
spent fuel pool effluent release point.
34
- 3. ll. 2.2.b 3.9.B.2.a No provision nas been made for reducing the dose design objectives based on (a) predicted nahle gas releases from the turbine buiTding or (b) expected I
public occupancy within the site boundary.
35 3.11.2.2 3.9.B.2.b No statement requiring that corrective Action a actions be defined "during the rer.iainder of the calendar quarter and during the subsequent three quarters."
36 3.11.2.3 3.9.B.3.b No statement requiring that corrective Action a actions be def.ined "during the remainder of the calendar quarter and during the subsec,uent three cuarters."
37 4.11.2.3 4.17.B.3.b The GALE code assumption that 0.67 curies / year / plant is released may be an allowed assumption, but may be conservative.
i-38 3.11.2.4 No statement is listed that requires 3.9.B.4.a operation of the ventilation exhaust treatment system if the projected doses from the site when averaged over 31 days would exceed 0.3 mrem to any organ.
5 39 4.11.2.4.2 4.17.B.4 '
No, requirement is's a for eiAfng
tTie gaseous radwaste treatment systems at least.every 92 days.
w, 9
i l*
}
Prairie Is1and
--~2
~
- to.
NUREG 0472 RETS Ccaments
'~
.--.3.'~
..-44?
l 40 3.11.2.5.4 3.9.B.4.e No statement recariring that the oxygen #fp.
Action b level be reduced to <.2Lwithin one 4 d- -
hour.
Forty-eight hTmrs is proposed, if->
-e i.-
41 4.11.2.6 4.17.B.4.c No statement rec.uriring that the' quantity? -
of material present in the tank be
~
determined ever.y 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when radio-l9 :
activ.e materials are bein~ ' added.
g
-y.
.e= :% u g-l..i.- ;
.c._;
42 4.11.3.1 3.9.C.1 No statement is shown that-requires, '-- '
that the radwaste solidification system be demonstrated operable at least once per 92 days in accordance with a PCP or verification of the existence of a -
~
valid contract for solidification...
-r 3
=:.
- ~. - -
43 4.11.3.2 4.17.C.1 No statement is made that one representa-j tive test specimen from at least every l
tenth batch of each type of wet radio '
active waste shall be taken.
l l
44 4.11.3.2.b 4.17.C.1 There is no provision for testing 3 consecutive test specimerzs for solidification after the original failed to solidify.
45 3.11.4 3.9.D.6 Does not state that the corrective Action a actions should be stated in tbt special report which ner ally has a 30 day reporting period.
a6 3.12.1.6 4.10.A.3 The model requires a 30 day reporting requirement whereas the plant specifies 45 days.
Some nexibility may be allowed on this requirement.
47 Table 3.12-1 Table TS.4.10-1 Unless the sampling sites are redundant, 5 locations for airborne radiciodine saepling are required.
I" 48 Table 3.12-i Tabie TS.4.10-l' The analysis frequency for all samples should be listed.
49 Table 3.12-1 Table TS 4.10-1 Ko statement is listed for airborne particulate samples that requires a l.
gamma _ isotopic analysis when the grossm bga activity is > 10 times the yearly P
.a mean of control samples.
r..
- .. e ' '
9 Prairie Island.
^ ' ' Comment P -- ^^
- lo.
^
On the river water sample,.mf.9g(m y+.. 2 :,-y
..... :.y "
Q) - i s' e -#.--
v.
50 Table 3.12-1 Table TS 4.10-1 shown.
For clarification-purposes
~
~
strontium should be indicated.1.x
"=
. ~
-y 51 3.12.2.b 4.10.B.1 NUREG 0472~rdiiu, ires a report' on?'T _
~
. changes in the land use census within~
30 days rather than as soonJas' prac.
ticable.
.-' "'~
myh.c. ' -
~
P.-
o
. w.
.. _ s.p
,. L ;.4+. e
^
52 3.12.a 4.10.6 Nc requirement is made to report.the Y'"
corrective actions taken when the J e
interlaboratory comparison program.
indicates measurement problems.;...
~
.; c-wJ-~~ -
53 6.5.1 6.5 -
The Unit Review Group (Operations.
Committee) is responsible for review functions rather than implementation.
.. p. ;;
54
. 6.5.2 6.2-1 Reg Guide 4.15 aust be reviewed on an
. annual basis.
55 6.5.2 6.2-3 The audited items Ii.e., the radio -
~
logical environmental monitoring, the ODCM, the PCP, and Reg. Guide 4.15) should be specifically addressed.
~6 6.9.1.6 6.7-7 No requirement for a map was. included in the Annual Radiation Environmental Monitoring Report.
1 57 6.9.1.10 6.7-2 Although changes to the ODCM may not be required to. be submitted within 30 days, a reporting requirement should be specified..
58 6.10 6.6 no requirement of maintaining records of analyses is shown.
59 6.13 6.5-3 The PCP should be.. submitted for NRC approval rather phan review.,
i-60 6.15 No section is listed that states the evaluation requirements for major changes to radioactive waste treatment systems.
- p
='
_.-l
. j.Q;=-wg ;= p..x..
m
- e..
w-O c
_~
OFF-SITE DOSE CALCULATION (0DCM) QUESTIONS FE2 THE
~
PRAIR1: ISLAtlD fluCLEAR-GEtiERATING PLANT No.
Reg. Document ODCM Section 1
2.1.1.4 The equation for C'.R. should be 2.1.2.2 present and the : snits for efficiency 3.1.1.5 defined.
2 2.3-1
.The site specific value for the mixing effect winen operating in a recycle mode is '30.
How was this value determinec2 3
tiUREG-0133 2.3-3 The term 730/D, has been removed from the equation shcun in NUREG 0133 which is consistent with use of the receiving water for drink 5mg wat.er purposes.
4 NUREG-0133 3.1.1 The calculaticceil methodology for determining alannl. trip setpoints for radiciodines and particulates on gaseous effluent.nonitors is not presented.
~
S NUREG-0133 3.3-3 There is a typocraphical error in the 8
tera -.17 x 10 c_s shown.
The minus sign en the expcrential is missing, should be 3.17 x 10-8,
6 NUREG-0133 3.3-3 In equation 3e2-3 the tern R is ifak used, and is def'ned as the dose facter for each identified radionuclide i, pathway j, age pup a, and organ k, with units of mE nrem/yr per Ci/s or 3
mrem /yr per pCi/=a. Were the NUREG-0133 equations 5 3.1.1-5.3.1.5 used in calculating the values of.R i
ijak -
eb M
y
-y-f.
RAD?OLOGTCAL EFFLUENT TECHNICAL SPECfFICATIONS (RETS) REVIEW FOR THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
~
J.
3 I's Statements Not-in Direct Comoliance With the' Model RETS"~~Th~ '-
~
~
~
The licensee statements where clarificatiori is required are listed 1.
below in the order of the model RETS:
~~~
Montic?llo No.
NUREG 0472 RETS Con====ts 1
1.0 The following definitions were not included in the REIS submittal:
e.
Channel calibration b.
Channel check
- c. - Channel functional test d.
Dose equivalent I-131 e.
Gaseous Radwaste Treatment System f.
Ventilat'lon Fdanst Treatment System 2
3.3.7.11 4.8.A No applicability statement is shown that requires the sper_ification to be applicable "at all times."
3 3.3.7.11 4.8.A (2)
No action statement is shown that state: "that if the alarm / trip setpoints are less conservative than.
required, then releases should be discontinued-br the channel c eclared inoperable."
4 Table 3.3.7.11-1 Table 3.8.1 Does the liquid rad. taste monitor prc-vide for automatic termination of the
_, release as well as the alarm? ' -
w 5
Table 3.3.7.li l Table 3.8.1 Is the Component C=oling Water Effluent line mnitored?
e 1
~-
- =eam T.".
a
Monticello flo.
fiUREG 0472 RETS Ccmments 6
Table 3.3.7.11-1 Table 3.8.l' ~
tio radioactivity recorIe
~
ara listed. These instrum_e.n_ts need to be-listed only when the alarm / trip set-point is based on a recorder-controller.
7 Table 3.3.7.11-1 Table 3.8.1 Are there any outside liquid tanks that require tank level indicating devices?
8 Table 3.3.7.11-1 Table 3.8.1 The plant requirement that liquid j
flotation 110 radwaste discharges will be discon-I tinued if the monitoring channel is l
l inoperable is more conservative than I
the model.
9 Table 3.3.7.11-1 Table 3.8.1 The plant action requirements for the ~
tiotation 113 discharge ca=al and liquid radwast'e effluent flow monitors is more conservativr than required by the l
model.
l 10 Table 4.3.7.11-1 Table 4.8.1 Sensor check is not defined.
11 Table 4.3.7.11-1 Table 4.8.1 The expanded definition of channel l
[
functional test as listed in the model has not been addressed.
l 12 Table 4.3.7.11-1 Taoie 4,?.1 Are the plan; functional test frequency recuirements of.3 months prior to a release as conservative
~
as the model which requires a functional test every 3 months?
13 Tabl e 4.3.7.11-1 Table 4.8.1 is the calibration frequency of "each operating cycle" or within 12 nonths of =aking a release as conservative as the model (i.e., a normal operating cycle is 12 months).
14 3.3.7.12 4.0.B fio action' stet'ement is shown that ttnes "that if the alarm / trip setpcints are less conservative than required, then releases should be discontinued or the channel declared inoperable."
.c.
15 3.3.7.12 4.0.8 110 statement is shown that requires
- FI-the gasaus : monitoring instrumentation to be set in accordance with the ODCM.
e 2
3 Monticello No.
NUREG 0472 RETS Comments V _
16 Table 3.3.7.12-1 Table 3.8.2 Is the plant equiramknti that the.
condenser air ejector. noble gas monitors and hydrogen monitors be in operation during power operation only,-
as conservative as the "at all times" model require::nent?
.. w 17 Table' 3.3.7.12-1 Table 3.8.2 No particulate or iodine samplers " -
are shown to be associated with the main condenser exhaust.
Can it be shown that these releases are monitored at another point (i.e., the plant stack)?
18 Table 3,3.7.12-1 Table 3.8.2 Redundant hydngen monitors on t e --
two recombiner, trains are stated as meeting the explosive gas monitoring requirement.
Do each of the monitors have redundant operating channels?
19 Table 3.3.7.12-1 Tabl e 3.8.2 -
Are all syste::d addressed in the model RETS released via release points monitored with particulate and iodine samplers and also sample and stack flow instruments?
20 Table 3. 37.12-1 Table 3.5.2 The model requires that the ficw rate notation 122 ce estimated every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> tihereas the submittal allows eight hour estimates.
~
21 Table 2.2.7.12-1 Table 3.5.2 The plant requireme.,
that the Notation 123 reactor reach hot standby in 30 minutes if the concenser air ejector noble gas monitor is inoperable is more conservative than RETS notction 123.
It appears that this require-
)
ment is the result of another r
tectinical. spei:ification.,
'I 22 Table 3,3.7.12-1 Table 3.8.2 The plant requirement that operation Notation 126 of the compressed storage subsystem be terminated if hydrogen monitoring capability is lost does not appear to meet the RETS requirement of 14.*
_i
--. days operation with one channel 'or to
/
hot standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> with two ctrannsis inoperable. -
e 3
Monticello No.
HUREG 0472 RETS Iomments
~
23 Table 4.3.7.12-1 Table 4.8.2-The expanded definitioiis of sensor
~
check, channel calibration, and channel fcnct5onal' test 1 ave not been addressed.
24 Table 4.3.7.12-1 Table 4.8.2 The channel check for particulate and iodine samplers has not been -
included in t:he surveillance require-ments.
25 Table 4.3.7.12-1 Table 4.8.2 The calibration of stacit flow rate monitors has not been addressed.
26 Table 4.3.7.12-1 Table 4.8.2 The model reenrires that channel calibrations $e perfbnned quarterly whereas the Sant specifies "once __
each operatizaj cycle." This is -
less conser-mative as the operating cycle is ncrs;aally 12 snonths.
27' Table 4.3.7.12-1 Table 4.8.2 For calibratilan of the hydrogen monitors, the volume percents of hydrogen andi axygen are not specified.
28 Table 4.3.7.12-1 Table 4.8.2 Channel functional test $ are to be performed mos:thly rather than quarterly.
29 4.11.1.1.2 4.S.A The pcst release analysis of 4.11.1.3 composited sa=ples and the collection of liquids fr=m continuous discharge points have =st been addressed (i.e.,
no continuous release points). -
30 3.8.A Figure 3.8.1 The figures siculd probably be placed in the ODCM - ather than the technical specificaticrs.
(This figure is shown in seves al sections.)
31 Table 4.11-1 Table 4.8.3 Arc-continuous releases not addressed bec:iiuse the plant has no -
liquid cunti:mous releases?
32 Table 4.11-1 Table 4.3.3 The P-32 analysis requirement has been eliminated.
33 Table 4.11 Table 4.8.3 The mixing technique for'sanipIing
~
x footnote d foofnote b
~~ batch releases should be a method
-s..
dgscribed its the ODCM as. required by the modeT.-
4 v
3 Monticello
.!a.
NUREG 0472 RETS Consnents 34 -
3.11.1.2 3.8.A.2.b No statement is includ$d^that-
^
requires the defined corrective Action a
~ ~
actions to reduce "the comulative ~.
dose to within 3 mrem total boc(y, ' ~ ~
and 10 mrem to any organ for the remainder of the calendar year."
35 4.11.1.3.2 4.8.A.3 The requ;rement that 't![e liquid' r'adwaste treatment equipment be demonstrated operable every 92 days has not been addressed.
3G 3.11.1.'4 3.8.A.4 Are there outside permanent tanks..
that should have a < 10 curie capacity?
c 37 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.8.4 Are there waste gas storage tanks -
such that monitoring should be -
required?
38 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.8.4 The model RETS, requires that grab samples be taken of the containment purge following 15% thermal power changes. This assumes that the containment may be purged when the reactor is operating.
39 Table 4.11-2 Table 4.8.4
-The footnote does not state the fco:ncte d fo :no:e :
analysis periccs after sampling required by..the model or the 157.
thennal power change requirements.
0 Tole 4.11-2 Tabl e *.8.4 No statement is cade which requires footnote a weekly tritium samples be taken from the spent fuel pool ventilation exhaust.
41 3.11.2.2 3.5.B.2 The action statement does not state Action a that releases' must be reduced so as
- to limit the umulative dose rate for the~rerhain' der of the calendar -
year to 10 mrad gamma and 20 mrad beta.
42 4.11.2.3 4.8.B.3 Dose calculations are to be calculated cumulatively for the current c,alendar.
_, quarter and calendar year.
- ; '~"' '
~
j..:-r N=;.
l 1
i 5
[
Monticello
- lo.,
NUREG 0472 RETS T.ousnents j
= u:
.... w :- >
43 3.11.2.4 3.8.B.4 No statement is made tilat requires a c:"
~ ~
report to be filed with the Commission if the gaseous radwaste treatment '
'I system is inoperab1S for more than~7 '.
. 2.;u l
'-.f
~
days.-,
44 4.11.2.4 4.8.B.4 The requiremest that Ih'e gaseous :
- ~-
radwaste treatment system be.
demonstrated operable every 92 days.
has not been addressed...,..'
The ventilation exhaust treatment 45 4.11.2.5 system was not addressed'in the. ",
submittal.
46 4.11.2.6,_...
- 3. 8. B.._....
The p1 ant states that hydrogen ^ ;=. _..
monitoring will be dcne only "during power operation." Is this as conservative as' requiiring monitoring at'all t,imes?
47 3.11.2.7 3.8.B.5 The model RET 5' limitation on noble gas releases (beta and/or gamma) have not been directly addressed.
Also the requirements the release rate is limited at the air ejector rather then following a 30 minute delay.
Is this as conservative?
48 3.11.2.8 3.8.B.6 The submitta1 did not state that all venting or purging is to be suspended if the purge is not done through tha standby waste gas treatment syns:..
49 3.11.3 3.3.C.1 There is no recuirement @r a report to tne Commission if the solid rad-waste system,is inoperable for more than 31 days.
50 4.11.3.1 4.8.C.1 No requirement'is stated-that the solid radwaste system be demonstrated operable at least once every 92 days.
51 4.11.3.2 4.8.C.1 The plant response on verification of sample solidification shoul_d beg...,
p
_, developed in :nore detail; as -
-~
'^
discussed in the model.
-s:.
52 3.11.4 :.
3.8.D.6
" -The -model requires -a-30-day.ireporting.,
requirement rather than 90 as speci fied in the submittal.
6
N 7
3s Monticello
~
~
~
~'
~
tro~
~
RETS Comments j -
~
The reqbirement for filing a report '
53 3.12.1 6 4.15.B s
with the Comadssion wh'errthe sum of the ratios cf the concentrations.of environmental samples divided by' the -
limit value is > 1.0 is act stated.
s r
4.15. A No statementiis made that a report.
54 3.12.1.6 Will be filed if the potential s
annual dose "o an individual is equal' to or greater than the calendar year limits specified in the model for g
gases and liquids.
55 Table 3.12-1 Table 4.15.1 The airborne radiciodine samples ~
are not specified as being analyzed...
weekly. The weekly gamma analysis is more conservative than RETS.
56 Table 3.12-1
. Table '4.15.1 Only 37 TLD locations are specified whereas 40 are required.
T 57 Table 3.la.1 Table 4.15.1 No tritium analysis of composited river water samples every 92 days is listed.
58 Table 3.12-1 Table 4.15.1 Only one drirting water sample is J
identifed whe eas two samples are required.
Also it is assu.ed that a gamma scan analysis includes I-131 on the composited samples.
59 tam e 3.12-1 Table 4.15 Is the shoreline sediment sample taken semian= ally and is a gamma.
analysis performed?
60 Table 3.12-1 Table 4.15 On milk samples a gamma isotopic analysis is required on each sample and is the a:aalysis frequency the same as the collection frequency.
61 Table 3.12-1 Table 4.15 A portion of the exponential tenn Notation a Notation a has been left out of the LLD calculation.
62 3.12.2-4.15.B If an elevated release point i,s,u_s,ed...
2 all 500 ft g,rdens within 3 miles must.be identified
,s' O
7
I q
v
~
~
Monticello
?-
.:"1b
~
do.
- " Cc.7nents. - -
, y. m
. -- - i.b-
_ - ~
63 3.12.2 4.15.B The submittal does not require filing:-
a report within 30 days-if a sample -.
location is found which. yields a
. ~ ~
larger calculated dose than those -
specified in the current land use '-
~
... Ji~1 X-u-a census.
y:.
2 cgy; W._ :4_=;; g g; _
64
.3.12.3 4.15.C The interlaboratory comparison _must -
- be approved by the Comunission.:=wd c_;;
.. +
~
- c. h 65 6.5.1 6.2 Insufficient information is provided to review the functions of the Unit Review Group (i.e., the plant.
C --
operating committee and the Company.
~
Nuclear. Review and Audit Group &._..,,,,,._...
.m m
66 6.8 6.5 The procedures covering the Quality Assurance Program are not covered.
67-6.9.1.6 6.5 No statement is raade mquiring the Annual Report to be in the format of Reg. Guide 4.8.
Does the report contain a map and a summary of the radiological monitoring program as specified?
68 6.9.1.8 6.7.4
'lill the semi-annual repor:-include s= aries of the sclid waste releases?
69 6.9.1.8 6.7.4 The model requires that the summary of the yearly metecrological data be reported in the January 1 semiannual report.
Alsc, this report should.
contain an assessment of the radiation doses of the previcus calendar year that were released frca the site and to the public o.;e to their activities inside the si'te bocndary.
70 6.9.1.10 6.7.3 The model requires that a copy of the monthly report should be sant to the regional office of Inspection and -
Enforcement.
-M.y3--
~. Qr,
'~
^
71 6.9 l.12..
6.7.B.1
. The plant specification for. p'rompt,..
~
~
notification with written folTowu,4. '*'
p
~~ does not specify'for 1500 mrem / year d
a.
to any organ other radionuclides
~
with a half-life greater than 8 days.
~~
8'
CJ Monticello
.lo.
~'
Toranents
..- :. e.. -
72 6.9.'l.13 6.7.2 Tlie.model ~ r~e~inires that the 30 dayL-M reports incTmale the measured levels ~ -
of radioactivitf thati exc'eeds the. - ~
reporting lfair2s of Table,3.12-2. -..
- -..p..
, ^ c ;
_.=-
~
73 6.10.2 The model re=prires records to be..
maintained om t.he radiological e,nvironmentaE nonitori~ng program. ~ - -
.:.a.
Changes' to t5me ODCM should be 74 6.14.2 included-in -dbe monthly report.
~
N~
15 E.15 Cliang.::es to t5me. Radio.. active Waste,-
Treatment Sys:tems were not included in the submimi..r.5-c. ;
/
y.- r. -.
e
-e.
m e
e I
i 1
i l
1 I
i -
I
)
j
~~
~
1-1 0
'w
,p.
-- k.. Q,
e
?
- i-#
e
- 5
- -
9
~
/
~.
0FF-SITE DOSE CALCULATION (ODCM) QUESTIONS FC2 THE.'.~f.-N ~,'."
- Vf m~N
.MONTICE![0 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT - T :. d d b $ N U N I
.7
- Th5piM'.Y
- =W -G:4
^
. 3 2
' ":=:. - -W:G : m.. -: =
_. Ta. -
'?-
.;.2
".. -:-. p-Rec. Document ODCM Section-n.am. N
~
- ~;.:- 5.~ C...,. % g '... L f.~.;
10 CFR Part 20 Table 2.1-1 1)
Table II'of 10 CFR Part 20-does not P..V.e i
Appendix B-list MPC values for Cs-138;' Br-83, and d.
~ Table II La-141 which are listed on table 2.1-1.
.n. ;
How were the. listed MPC values obtained?' '
.; z.; u.23::y 4;..
~
~~
10 CFR Part 20 Table 2.1-1 2)
'Why aren't Br-82 and La-140 listed in ~ :..;..
Appendix B
' table 2.1-17. f. ;jg[,
z J
fable II 2.
1C CFR Part 20 Table 2.1-1 3)
The MPC listed in Table 2.1-1 does ~not' -
Appendix B agree with the 10 CFR Part 20 value for
. ~. -
C s-134. -- -- -.. - --.... - r,,
2.3-1 4)
The site specific value for~ the mixing effect when operating in a recycle mode ~
is 1.86.
How was this value detemined? -
Reg. Guide 5)
Dose from food grown on land with 1.109 contaminated water has not been addressed in the ODCM submittal.
Is this deletion consistent with current agricultural practices (i.e., is Mississippi river water an irrigation source)?
NUREG-0133 3.1.1 6)
The calculational ::sthodology for detemining alarm'/ trip setpoints for rndiciodines and particulates on gaseous effluent monitors is not presented.
In the tem (L (X/Q)s + 1.1 S.) was the 3.1-9 7) g worst case (X/Q) Wae assumed in calcu-lating the values listed in table 3.1-2 for the above ten:6 NUREG-Ci33 3.3,3 8)
In equation 3.3-3 the tem R is used, -
ijak
- 5. -. l.1 -
and 'is defined as ~the dose factor for each 5.3. L 5 identified radionuclide i, pathway j,2 ge.
a group a, and organ k; with units cf a mrem /
3 yr per Ci/s or mres/yr per pCi/m.
Were -
the NUREG 0133' equations 5.3.1.1-5.3.1.5 cr T. ' ~" ? #
used in calculating the valuf of R.13ak,W N
- ~
~
- i '
w
.=sw.
- =
~
~l
./
e i
g
,n :.., u::. M PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM QUESTIONS FOR.THE-- -W_..
... - w ;.
M TE X.r.rww_E.21T. :M:.
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ~. :
e*'
,.:.; r;
.-3
-.i. :.
. g'lp y -.- 7. - *. [..&?
,y,,
- ,g,.g,.-
i Yl; Y.*(..
- ~ -;1 +. ; _..
- w ;
.;.a;;:. --
?" ~:
Monticello
'Y No.
.= :c.. :
'=== M;.O
- =4-:
. ::7 y.i.g.3 5 3..
'"g. g.:;.=.
l m.
.2-:
.w 1
.2.2-1
" Batch" is not adequately defined such that.tlie7 amount hp u.
of liquid waste that may be, processed.between, samples.':'973.y is known.
For quality assurance purposes.a hopper.
g= ~
tank may be too Srsat a volumed." 9&I@!.u:ery^..
...;;.5 % - '
m.% r
-:^ ~
2
-2.2-1 The model requirement (i.e., R TS 3.15.3) 'wh'eIein 'at' -
'l -
(
. least 'one representative test specimen.must be taken from._.'
at least every tenth batch of each type of wet radio 7.x;'n.-
active waste has not been addressed. Non-radioactive:
~
test samples are used which may or may not b~e representative ~
.. '....^
of the radioactiye samp1es.:u....-.
~.:7.--~ - 1..:..; - :- _ -
3 1 The procedures to be used in the eve'nt thaIbolidification.
~
of the test sample fails have not been addressed. The testing of subsequent batches as described in section 3.11.3 of the model also has not been stated, but this requiremant will be dependent on the definition of
batch" that is used.
+. -
1 4
3-1 Tests' for foa: ring action of the liquid radwaste have l
not been addressed.
Foaming can cause significant problems in the. solidification process, but the' recuirement for testina should be based on previous plant experience.
E 2.2 The iest solidification procedure has not been described and acceptance criteria for the solidified waste has not been discussed.
o p'
,9 h
e.
.g gI.k '
'e 4
.*Dk g
-x
~
-g..
.p-4
- _. _ - _ _ _ _