ML20041B492

Tech Spec Change Request 84 Consisting of Deletion of Nonradiological Environ Monitoring Requirements from ETS

ML20041B492
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	02/19/1982
From:	FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20041B488	List: ML20041B487 ML20041B492
References
TAC-48066, NUDOCS 8202240120
Download: ML20041B492 (46)

Text

s DELETE OLD PAGE:

INSERT NEW PAGE:

Front /Back Front / Sack i/ii 1/ii iii/iv iii/iv 1-1/1-2 1-1/1-2 1-3/1-4 1-3/1-4 2-3/2-4 2-3/2-4 3-1/3-2 3-1/3-2 3-3/3-4 3-3/3-4 3-5/3-6 3-5/3-6 4-1/4 -2 4-1/4-2 5-1/5-2 5-1/5-2 5-3/5-4 5/3-5/4 5-4a/5-4b 5-4a/5-4b 5-5/5-6 5-5/5-Sa blank / blank 5-6/ blank 5-7/5-8 5-7/5-8, 5-8a 5-9/5-10 f'

5-9/5-10 5-11/5-12 5-11/5-12 Appendix B Part II t

8202240120 820219 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P

PDR

.a

PROPOSED CHANGE - SECTION 1 The changes proposed will eliminate all definitions and figures which pertain to water quality requirements.

REASON FOR PROPOSED CHANGE All water quality requirements are regulated under the authority of the Crystal River Unit 3 NPDES permit.

This change removes water quality requirements frcm the Environmental Technical Specifications, and incorporates the water quality requirements of the NPDES permit into an Environmental Protection Plan.

Therefore, these definitions and figures will no longer apply to the remaining portions of the Environmental Technical Specifications.

SAFETY-COST / BENEFIT OF PROPOSED CHANGE Thare will be no adverse environmental cost associated witn this change, because the NPDES permit adequately defines the terms that will be deleted.

The benefit will be to better define regul atory au-hority and reduce the recuncancy associatec with resent water cuality programs.

PROPOSED CHANGE - SECTION 2 The changes proposed will eliminate the Limiting Conditions for Opera-tion, associated Surveillance Requirements and Bases whicn pertain to water quality requirements.

REASON FOR PROPOSED CHANGE All water quality requirements are regulated under the authority of the Crystal River Unit 3 NPDES permit.

Tnis change removes water quality requirements from the Environmental Technical Specifications and incorporates the water quality requirements of the NPDES permit into an Environmental Protection Plan.

Therefore, these Environmental Technical Specifications are no longer necessary.

SAFETY-COST / BENEFIT OF PROPOSED CHANGE There will be no adverse environmental cost associated with this change since these requirements are adequately regulated by the NPDES permit.

Effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements will remain in effect.

The benefit is realized in the elimination of redundant requirements imposed by multiple regulatory authorities.

PROPOSED CMANGE - SECTION 3 The changes croposec aill eliminate the General Ecological Survey Monitoring Program.

REASON FOR PROPOSED CHANGE All non-radiological envi ronmental moni tori ng programs are being removed from the Environmental Technical Specifications and incorpor-atad into an Environmental Protection Plan, insofar as required by the Crystal River Unit 3 NPDES permit.

This change will ensure proper regulatory authority over these environmental monitoring programs.

SAFETY-COST / BENEFIT OF PROPOSED CHANGE There will be no adverse environmental cost associated with this change since continuation of these programs is required-by the NPDES permit.

The benefit will be realized in the elimination of redundant requirements imposed by multiple regulatory authorities.

PROPOSED CHANGE - SECTION 4 The changes proposed will eliminate the Special Surveillance, Research or Study Activities requirements of the Environcental Technical Speci-fications.

REASON FOR PROPOSED CHANGE The Special Surveillanca, Research or Study Activities have been ccm-pleted and reports were submitted (letters dated 6/13/78 and 9/17/79; W.

P. Stewa rt, FPC to Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement, USNRC).

These specifications are no longer necessary.

SAFETY-COST / BENEFIT OF PROPOSED CHANGE There will be no change since these programs were previously com-pleted.

PROPOSED CHANGE - SECTION 5 The changes proposed for Section 5 f all into two categories:

a.

Elimination of administrative controls related to develop-ment of an Environmental Protection Plan.

b.

Upgrading of administrative controls for reasons not related to the development af an Environmental Protection 'lan.

REASON FOR PROPOSED CHANGE A.

Consistency of the remaining Environmental Technical Specifica-tions will require that they be identified as Radiological Environmental Technical Scecifications, and that all references to the non-radiological portions be celeted.

3.

The uograding :f the remaining cortions of the Envi ronmental Tecnnical Spec:fications sill reflect the acministrative controls

-2

l 7

..~4, 7,y.

under present Company organization, and eliminate redundancy in description of the NGRC ahich is already covered in.the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifications, Appendix A.

The procedure review process of Section 5.5.2 has al so been augmented, and the following improvements are expected:

1.

By having clearer line responsibility, reviews are more likely to be thorough and accurate.

2.

The actual individuals working on a problem wi'l have the most current expertise on various issues.

They will also be most able to identify proper reviewers in interfacing departments.

3.

The Qualified Reviewers in each department will 'evelop a broad understanding of the imcact of various,)roce-dures on other departments.

a.

Less PRC :ime will be taken uo in routine activities.

5.

Important management time will not ' be diverted from primary roles.

SAFETY-COST / BENEFIT OF PROPOSED CliMCg A.

There will be no adverse environmental cst associated with these changes since the environmental program will continue.

The bene-fit will be reali:eo in the elimination of redundant requirements imposed by multiple regulatory authorities.

9.

The elimination of a description of the NGRC from Appendix B is purely administrative and for convenience since the description, which was exactly as in Appendix A,is referenced.

Benefits of the revised review process are clearly stated above.

FPC also considered a potential drawback in that the revised review process could lessen the quality of review.

However, FPC considers this highly unlikely.

Superintendent level approval and 50.59 review by PRC is required to assure necessary manage-l ment involvement.

By placing more responsibility on those doing

" detail" work, quality is expected to improve.

l i

i 1 L

e l-1 4

4 i

I j

1 APPENDIX B PART I

}

_T_O

)

FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-72 CYRSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 j

FLORIDA POWER CORPCRATION DOCKET NO. 5-302 1

i RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL j

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS i

i i

i i

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace No.

1.0 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Frequency 1-1 1.2 Gross (3,Y) Analysis 1-1 1.3 Deleted 1-1 1.4 Deleted 1-1 1.5 Unit 3 Mixing zone 1-1 1.6 Deleted 1-1 1.7 Deleted 1-1 1.8 Known Radioactive Source 1-3 1.9 Intake Area 1-3 1.10 Deleted 1-3 1.11 Deleted 1-3 1.12 Deleted 1-3 1.13 Channel Calibration 1-3 1.14 Channel Check 1-3 1.15 Channel Functional Test 1-3 1.16 Dose Equivalent !-131 1-3 2.0 LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION 2.1 Deleted 2.2 Deleted 2-3 2.3 Deleted 2-3 2.3.1 Deleted 2-3 2.3.2 Deleted 2-4 2.4 Radioactive Effluents 2-4 2.4.1 Liquid Waste Effluents 2-5 2.4.2 Gaseous Wasta Effluents 2-9 2.4.3 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal 2-16 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE i

3.1 Deleted 3-1

[

t l

fi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Pace No.

3.1.1 Deleted 3-2 l

3.1.2 Deleted 3-3 3.1.3 Deleted 3-4 3.1.4 Deleted 3-5 l

3.1.5 Deleted 3.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring 3-5 3.2.1 Milk and Green Leafy Vegetables Census 3-26 3.2.?

Media Other Than External Radiation 3-27 3.2.3 External Raciation 3-27 3.2.4 Milk anc Green Leafy Vegetables 3-27 4.0 Deleted 4.1 Deleted a-1 4.2 Deleted 4-2 4

4.3 Deleted 4-2 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS I

5.1 Organization 5-1 5.2 Responsibility 5-1 5.3 Review and Audit 5-3 5.4 Action to Be Taken Limiting Condition for Operation is Exceeded 5-5 5.5 Procecures 5-5 5.6 Plant Reporting Requirements 5-6 5.6.1 Routine Reports 5-6 5.6.2 Non-routine Reports 5-8 5.5.3 Changes 5-11 i

5.7 Records Retention 5-11 5.3 Deleted 5-11 l

1 i

i i

-.. _ - _ ~ _,. _ _,...

,o iii LIST OF TABLES No.

Page No.

2.4-1 Radioactive Liquid Sampling and Analysis 2-17 2.4-2 Radioactive Gasecc3 Waste Sampling and Analysis Frequency 2-19 2.4-3 PWR-Liquid Waste System:

Location of Process and Effluent Monitors and Samples Required by Technical Specifications 2-21 2.4 a PWR-Gaseous Wasta System:

Location of Process and Effluent Monitors and Samples Required by Technical Specifications 2-22 2.a-5 Gamma and Beta Dose Factors for Crystal River Unit 3 2-23 3.2-1 Sumnary or Preoperational Environmental Surveillance Results 1971-1974 3-9 3.2-2 General Pathway Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 3-15 3.2-3 Critical Pathway Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 3-18 3.2-4 Operational Sample Station Locations 3-19 3.2-5 Lower Limit of Detection 3-21 5.6-1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program Summary 5-9 e.

-+.-r--

e..

-m

-w--.

.,s.

y 9

e

+

.v.w-y e-a

iv List of Figures No.

Page No.,

1.1-1 Deleted 1-2 1.1-2 Deleted 1-4 3.1-1 Deleted 3-8 4

3.2-1 Environmental Media and Exposure Pathways 3-23 3.2-2 Offsite Sample Station Locations 3-24 3.2-3 Onsite Sample Station Locations.

3-25 5.1-1 Organiza*.icn for Implementing Environmental Technica' Specifications 5-2 2

5.3 Organization for Independent Review and 5-4 Audit 5.3-1 Deleted 5-12 I

i 1

i l

l i

a i

l l

i i

1 i

E 1-1 1.0 Definitions The following terms are defined for uniform interpretation of the Environmental Technical Specifications for Crystal River Unit 3.

1.1 Frecuency - Terms used to specify frequency are defined as follows:

One per shift - At least once per 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.

/

Daily - At least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Weekly - At least once per 7 days.

Monthly - At least once per 31 days.

Quarterly - At least once per 92 days.

Semiannually - At least once per 6 months.

A maximum allowable extension for each surveillance requirement shall not exceed 25" of the surveillance interval.

1.2 Gross (3,Y) Analysis

- Radioactivity measurements of gross beta or gross ceta in conjunction with gross gamma as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.21.

1.3 Deleted 1.4 Deleted 1.5 Unit 3 Mixina Zone - The enclosed area of the discharge canal bounded by the eastern ena of the canal and the cable chase from Units 1 ana 2 by crossing the canal.

1.6 Deleted 1.7 Deleted

.-ye

__ m a

uezA...h42Am m

m-.---

1. -wee..J.-.

a es a

.a-aa w--aa-w

=m.m-O O

'l e

o

}

i 1

]

I 4

i I

f 1

r i gu re,u.1-1 e

Deleted 9

0 I

1

-r-

..~~.,,, _. ___

Mwvm-w,..

1-3 1.8 Known Radioactive-Source - A calibration source which is traceable to the Nctional Bureau of Standards radiation measurement system and is capable of reproducible geometry.

1.9 Deleted 1.10 Deleted 1.11 Deleted 1.12 Deleted 1.13 Channel Calibration - The adjustment, as necessary, of the channel output sucn that it responds with necessary range and accuracy to known values of the parameter which the channel monitors.

The channel calibration shall encompass the entire channel including the senscr and alarm and/or trip functions, and shall include the channel func-tional test.

Channel calibration may be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping or tocal channel steps such that the entire channel is calibrated.

1.14 Channel Check - The qualitative assessment of channel behavior during operation by observation.

This determination shall include, where possible, comparison of the channel indication and/or status with other indications and/or status derived frcm independant instrument channels measuring the same parameter.

1.15 Channel Functional Test - The injection of a simulated signal into the l

cnannel as close to the primary sensor as practicable to verify opera-bility including alarm and/or trip functions.

1.16 Dose Ecuivalent I-131 - That concentration of I-131 (uCi/ gram) which alone would produce the same thryoid dose as the quantity and isotopic mixture of I-131, I-132, I-133, I-134 and I-135 actually present.

The thyroid dose conversion factors used for this calculation shall be those listed in TID-14844

t l

I.

Figure I 1-2 Deleted i

I I

I l

i l

i i

f o

f

.. ~ _

2-3 2.2 Deleted 2.3 Deleted 2.3.1 Deleted l

I 1

2-4 2.3.2 Deleted 2.4 RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS Objective: To define the limits and conditions for the controlled releata of radioactive materials i' liquid and gaseous effluents to the environs to ensure that these releases are as low as reasonably achievable.

These releases should not result in radiation exposures in unrestricted areas greater than a few percent of natural background exposures.

The concentration of effluent disenarges of racioactiv-ities shall be witn:n the limits speci# iac in 10 CFR Part 20.

To ensure that the releases of radioactive material acove background to unrestricted areas be as icw as reasonably achievao!e, the follow-ing design objectives apply:

For liquid wastes:

A.

The annual dose above background to the total body or any organ of an individual from all reactors at a site should not exceed 5 mrem in an unrestricted area.

B.

The annual total quantity of radioactive materials in liquid waste, excluding tritium and dissolved gases, discharged from each reactor should not exceed 5 Ci.

For gaseous waste:

i C.

The annual total quantity of noble gases above background dis charged from the site should result in an air dose due to gamma radiation of less than 10 mrad, and air dose due.to beta radiation of less than 20 mrad, at any location near ground level which could be occupied by incividuals at or beyond the boundary of the site.

D.

The annual total quantity of radiciocines anc racicactive material in particulate forms above backgrounc from all reactors i

3-1 30 ENVTRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE 3.1 Deleted i

i l

1 l

I f

l l

1 l

I,

3-2 4

i.

l I

I, I

f 3.1.1 Deleted i

i 1

I i

}

I l

i h

i l

3-3 3.1.2 Deleted

3-4 3.1.3 Deleted i

i 3.1.4 Deleted j

i i

I i

t l

l

O O

g 3-5 I

I r

315 Deleted I

l 1

f I

I

3-6 3.2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Objective The radiological environmental monitoring program will provide informa-tion which can be used to assist in assessing the type and quantity of radiation exposure in unrestricted areas resulting from plant operation.

Background

Preoperaticnal raciological environmental nonitoring programs, to 2

establish baseline environmental concentration values, were initiated in mid-1970.

One program was operated by the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; another program was operated by the University of Florida.

A s_mmary of the preoperational surveillance results is shown in Table 3.2-1.

This summary includes median values of the ' observed environmental concentrations and 95 percentile values (i.e., values which exceed 95 percent of all the comparable measured values).

These values will be taken as the preoperational baseline concentrations.

In some cases the values listed are smaller than the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD).

The 95 percentile values indicate the random frequency of high measured values during the operation of the plant contributes negligibly to l

the environmental radioactivity.

These 95 percentile values will be used during operation to assess the probability that any observed high concentration value is due to random fluctuations in measurements rather than to a true increase in environmental concentrations.

l Scecification (Program) i i

Environmental media which are sampled and analyzed for radioactivity are shcwn by the two diagrams on Figure 3.2-1.

Each box in the dia-grams contains the name of an environmental mecia which is sampleo.

l The upper ciagram shcus the critici pathways; the lower diagram shows

[

the otner monitored pathways.

l Amendment No. 37

4-1

[

4.0 Deleted 4.1 Deleted 1

i i

i i

l I

i 4

4-7, 4.2 Deleted i

~

4.3 Deleted t

b l

1 i

I i

i I

I i

5-1 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS Objective To define the organization, assign responsibilities, describe the environmental surveillance procedures, provide for a review and audit function, and prescribe the reporting requirements in order to insure continuing protection of tne environment and implement the Environmental Technical Specifications.

5.1 ORGANIZATION The organization responsible for radiological environmental pro-tection, radiological environmental monitoring and the implementa-tion of the Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications for Crystal River Unit 3, is shown on Figure 5.1-1.

5.2 RESPONSIBILITY The resoonsibility for the conduct of the operational radiological environmental monitoring program described in Section 3 is that of the Nuclear Suppcrt Services Department under the direction of the Vice President, Nuclear Operations.

The pla.it organization is responsible for the development of Oper-ating and Surveillance Procedures described generally in Section 5.5 and supplying field data to the Manager, Nuclear Support Ser-vices as required by Sections 2 and 3 of the Radiological Environ-mental Techncial Specifications.

The Manager, Nuclear Support Services is responsible for consul-tant contracts, State and local regulatory agreements, assemoly of data, preparation and review of reports required by Section 5.6 of these Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications, and making recommendations to improve radiological environmental pro-tection practices.

l t

5-2 I

=

t

$4

=

F5 dp-2:o-r g c* 1

-ra.

s e is i o

t 55 l

,=

c p )............

,p r 1 a

t sz-

=

i c:

s:5 l

27 r102 155 j

(

f' eI

)

=

5 l

5

.45 i

0 5 3 c

=r 6=53 1

as:

2. 3_2 33 is

2. u. : 2

-5 352-laca g:5 5 ' [ g 3s*!, s:

IT3

.m i

s w

g i.n.8

. :2 I

e l

i!

E-rii!l

-l',2

=_)

=-

e.

s ges-gas to

.t m

5 5 -

2, 5c 5

us:.

_. : 8 a=--

5':1 2:2 l

Yg!

1gs il:

is' i

i =

Hof fo*

3r3 3"'

o 3:s -

s!

ao a

g y

e-2s5 Ein 9 I q

.5 g

Ls= 3 a

-

c'3l a=

100, 132; 3 ?

n ii l.

15,3 !. l1;9 5

a 3

_I C i l

! ads l;3!

!; 5

_ ',a_ !, - ax t : I

,s-;-

-3 s

3. :. ;

ia i

s i,s.

. x.. :

: 2 4. !

.=

i i

!.J z,.

s. o f =,

l.;u..I

- i i

i

- 35y

.s w.

i:51!

j i ;* i i

i L

.i i

iGURE 5.1.1 GRGANIZATICH FOR :MPLEMENTING AND lNCEPENDENT RE'/IEW j

AND AUJIT JF EN'/IRONMENTAL TEC:-iNICAL SPECIFICATICH

5-3 5.2 REVIEW AND AUDIT 5.3.1 Function The Nuclear General Review Committee shall function to provide independent review and audit of designated activities in the areas of radiological environmental monitoring and surveillance.

5.3.2 Composition The NGRC shall be composed as described in the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 6.5.2.2.

i l

5.3.3 Oual i fications The Nuclear General Review Comnittee members' qualifications shall be as described in the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifica-l tions, Appendix A, Section 6.5.2.3.

l i

4

l t

5-4 i

f l

I FIGURE 5.3.1 DELETED i

l l

l h.

1 E

o i

6

"""v-

5-4a 5.3.4 Alternates All alternate members shall De appointed in accordance with the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 6.5. 2. 4.

5.5.5 Consultants Consultants shall be utilized as provided in the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 6.5.2.5.

5.3.6 Meeting Frecuency The NGRC shall meet as required by the Crystal River Unit 3 Tech-nical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 6.5.2.6.

5.3.7 Ouorum A quorum of NGRC snall be as designated in the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 6.5.2.8.

5.3.8 Review The NGRC shall review:

a. Proposed changes to the Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications and the evaluated impact of the changes.

b. Proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment and the evaluated impact which would require a change in the procedures described in 5.5.1 below (or which would affect the evaluation of the plant's radiological environmental impact) as determined by the Plant Review Committee.

c. Reported instances of violations of Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications, the reaching of specified reporting l

levels, and rescrtable radiological environmental occurrences.

t i

d. Proposed special tests or experiments which might involve I

a change in the Radiological Environmental Technical Specifica-tions or involve an unreviewed increase in radiological effluents.

e. Events requiring 2a hour notification to the Commission.

f. Descriptions or changes, tests or experiments, and the I

results thereof, as described in 5.5.3.a.

I l

4-5-4b 4

h.

Audits of the radiological environmental monitoring and sur-veillance program.

5.3.9 Audits J

Audits of facility activities shall be performed under the cognizance of the NGRC.

These audits shall encompass:

a.

Implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring and surveillance programs at least once per twelve months.

b.

Conformance to procedures and RETS requirements at least i

once per twelve months.

c.

Contractor radiological environ.nental monitoring and sur-veillance activities at least once per twelve months.

5.3.10 Recorcs Records of NGRC activities shall :e prepared, approved anc distributed as indicated below:

a.

Minutes of each NGRC meeting shall be prepared, approved and forwarded to the Senior Vice President Engineering and Construction within 14 days follaving each meeting.

b.

Reports of reviews encompassed by Section 5.3.3 above, shall be prepared, approved and forwarded to the Senior Vice President Engineering and Construction within 14 days fol-lowing the completion of the review.

I c.

Audit reports encompassed by Section 5.3.9 above, shall be forwarded to the Senior Vice President Engineering and Con-struction and to the management nositions responsible 'or the areas audited within 30 days after completion of tre i

audit.

5.3.11 Authority The NGRC shall report to and advise the Senior Vice President Engineering and Construction on those areas of responsibility specified in Sections 5.3.8, 5.3.9 and 5.3.10 (see Figure 5.3-1).

l

5-5 5.4 ACTION TO BE TAKEN IF LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION IS EXCEEDED.

5.4.1 Immediate remedial actions as permitted by these Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications shall be implemented until such time as the limiting condition for operation is met.

5.4.2 The occurrence shall be promptly reported to the Chairman of the Nuclear General Review Committee and investigated as specified in Section 5.3.

5.4.3-The Nuclear General Review Committee shall prepare and submit a report for each occurrence in accordar.ce with Section 5.3.10.

5.4.4 The Vice President, Nuclear Operations, or his designee, shall report the occurrence to the NRC as specified in Section 5.6.2.

5.5 PROCEDURES 5.5.1 Explicit written procedures, including applicable check-off lists and instructions, shall be prepared for the implementation of the monitoring requirements described in Sections 2 and 3, approved as specified in Section 5.5.2, and adhered to for operation of all systems ano components involved in carrying out the effluent release and environmental radiological monitoring programs.

Pro-cedures shall include sampling, instrument calibration, analysis, and action to be taken when limits are approached or exceeded.

Calibration frequencies and standards for instruments used in per-forming the measurements shall be included.

Testing frequency of alarms shall be included.

These frequencies shall be determined from experience with similar instruments in similar environments and from manufacturers' technical manuals.

5.5.2 Each procedure in 5.5.1 above, and changes thereto, shall be reviewed and approved prior to implementation as follows:

a.

Except as noted in b:

1.

All procedures and changes theretc shall be subjected to a review by a Qualified Reviewer within the responsible department, interdisciplinary review by Qualified Reviewers within interfacing departments as specified in Administrative Procedures, and the responsible superin-tencent or Plant Manager as specified in Administrative Procedures.

l

5-6 5.5.3 Special Tests or Changes:

The licensee may make changes in station design or operation or perform tests or experiments provided such changes, tests or experiments do not involve an unevaluated radiological impact question or involve a change in these Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications.

Any change in station design or operation or test or experiment which could involve an.unevaluated radiological impact question or involve a change in these Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications shall be submitted to the Nuclear General Review Committee for review and report to the Vice President, Nuclear Operations for resolution prior to implementation.

5.6 PLANT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 5.6.1 Routine Reports l

I w..

---

7-..

5-7 i

Radiological Volume A report on the radiological environmental surveillance programs for the previous 12 months of operation shall be suomitted to the Director of Inspection and Enforce-ment (with copy to Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation) by April 1, each year.

The report shall include summaries, interpretations, and statistical evaluation of the results of the radiological environ-mental surveillance activities for the report period, including a comparison with preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate) and previous environmental surveillance reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment.

If harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected by the monitoring, the licensee shall provide an analysis of the problen and a proposed course of action to alleviate the problem.

1 o

5-8 Results of all radiological environmental samples taken shall ce summarized on an annual basis folicwing the format of Table 5.5-1.

In the event that some results are not available by April 1, the report shall be sub-mitted, noting and explaining the reasons for the miss-ing results.

The missing data shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.

B.

Semiannual Ooeratino Reoort - Radioactive Effluents A report on the radioactive discharges released from the site during the previous 6 months of operation shall be suomitted to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (with a copy to Director, Office of tiuclear Reactor Regula-tion) as part of the Semiannual Operating Report by March 1 1

and September 1 each year.

The report shall include a sum-mary of the quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and solic waste released from the plant as outlined in USt4RC Regulatory Guice 1.21, with data summarized on a quarterly basis folicwing the format of Appendix 3 thereof.

Any unplanned releases of radioacti ve material from the site will be reported in accordance with Appendix B Section A.6,

" Abnormal Release" of Regulatory Guide 1.21, with the cause of each release identified.

The report shall include a summary of the meterological con-ditions ccncurrent with the release of gaseous effluents during each quarter as outlined in USttRC Regulatory Guide 1.21, with data summarized on a quarterly basis following the format of Appendix 8 thereof.

Calculated offsite dose to humans resulting from the release of effluents and their sub-sequent dispersion in the atmosphere (Regulatory Guide 1.109) shall ce reported in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.21.

i 5.6.2 fion-Routine Recorts A.

Limiting Condition for Oceration Exceeded In the event that:

(1) a limiting condition for operation is exceeded, (2) an unplanned release of radioactive material from the site occurs in quantities such that the release rate is greater than 10", of the allowed instantaneous release rate spceified in 2.4.lA or 2.4.2A or (3) an event involving a significant adverse radiological environmental impact occurs, a report will 'ce made within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by teleonone and tele-graph tr) the Director of the Office of Inscection ano Enforco-ment folicwed oy a written report with a copy to the Director, Office of Fluclear Reactor Regulation eith11 15 days.

The telegraan report will quana fy the occurrence, 4:s causes anc, if aspects af the Crystai River Unit 3 :ceration are among the

_.. ~

~

-A 5-Ga causes, planned remedial action to the extent possible.

The written report will fully describe the occurrence and will describe its causes and corrective action as fully as possible.

I i

~

l I

1 TABLE.

5.6-1 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

I I

Name of Facility Docket No.

i Location of Facility Reporting Period l

(County, State) i Typc and Lower Limit Number of Medium or Pathway Total Number of All Indicator Locations Location with Highest Annual Mean Control Locations Nonroutine i

Sampled of Analyses Detection

• Mean (f[

Mean (f[

Name Mean (fib Reported (Unit of Measurement)

Performed (LLD)

Range Distance and Direction b

Range Measurements" Range Air Particulates i

l (pCi/m )

Gross # 416 0.003 0.08 (200/312)

Middletown.

0.10(5/52) 0.08(8/104) 1 3

(0.05-2.0) 5 miles 340*

(0.08-2.0)

(0.05-1.40) 7-Spec. 32 Cs 0.003 0.05 (4/24)

Smithville 0.08(2/4)

<LLD 4

g (0.03-0.13) 2.5 miles 160*

(0.03-0.13)

I bc 140 Y

g 8a 0.003 0.03 (2/24)

Podunk 0.05(2/4) 0.02 (1/8) 1 io ct (0.01-0.08) 4.0 mites 270*.

(0.01-0.08) s 3

89Sr 40 0.002

<LLD

<LLD 0

{

E 90Sr 40 0.0003

<LLD.

<LLD 0

p; pCi/kg (dry weight) 7-Spec. 8 137 Cs 80

<LLD

<LLD 00 (1/4) 0 1

134 Cs 80

<LLD

<LLD

<LLD 0

COCo 80 120(3/4)

River Mile 35 See column 4

<LLD 0

(90-200)

Podunk River

• Nominal Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) as defined in H ASL-300 (Rev. 8/73), pp. D-9841,02,03.

b Mean and range baseerpon detectable measurements only. Fraction of detectable measurements at specified locations is indicated in parenther,es. (f) i

• Nontoutine reported measurements are defined in Section 5.6.2.h.

d Note: The example data are provided for illustrative purposes only.

1

--y:

---g yi

+

a v

y

, - +

5-10 B.

Deleted C.

Radiolacical Recorting Levels In the event a report level specified below is reached, a report shall be made within the designed time period to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement with a copy to the Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

i (1)

Radioactive Discharge r

If.neasured rates of release of radioactivity in the environment, averaged over a calendar quarter, exceed the design objective rates as specified in specifica-tions 2.4.1.H for liquid effluents and in 2.4.2.C for airoorne effluents, a report of the causes of the

~

release rates and of a proposed program of action to reduce the release rates will be submitted within 30 days from the end of the quarter during which the release occurred.

(2) Radiological Environmental Monitoring i

If a single measured value of radioacivity concentra-tions in critical pathway environmental medium samples identified in Section 3.2 exceecs ten times the control station value as defined in Section 3.2, a written notification including an evaluation of any release conditions, environmental factors, or other aspects l

necessary to explain the anomalous result shall be sub-mitted to the Director of the NRC Regional Office (with a copy to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation) within 10 days after confirmation.*

'C:nfirmation is cefinec in Regulatory Guice 2.3.

i

5-11 5.6.3 Chances A.

A report shall be made to the Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prior to implementation of a change in plant design, in plant operation, or in procedurcs described in Section 5.5 if the change wculd have, in the judgement of the licensee, a significant adverse effect on the environ-ment or involves a radiological environmental matter or question not previously reviewed and evaluated by the USNRC.

The report shall include a description and evalua-tion of the change and a' supporting benefit-cost analysis.

B.

Request for changes in Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for review and authorization.

The request shall include an evaluation of the impact on the change and a suoporting ber.efit-cost analysis.

5.7 RECOROS RETENTION 5.7.1 Records and logs relative to.the folicwing areas snall be retain-ed for the life of the plant:

a.

Records and drawing changes reflecting plant design modifi-cations made to systems and equipment as described in Section 5.6.3.

-b.

Records of radiological environmental surveillance data.

l c.

Records to demonstrate compliance with the limiting condi-tions for operation in Section 2.0.

5.7.2 All other records and logs relating to the radiological environ-mental technical specifications shall be retained for five years.

5.3 Deleted haencment 'lo. 37

5-12 Figure 5.3-1 Deleted Ai:endt.ient

'o.

37

,m

O e

e APPENDIX B PART11 TO FACILITY OPERATING I.ICENSE NO. DPR-72 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-302 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NON-RADIOLOGICAL)

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NON-RADIOLOGICAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

Section Page l

1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan 1-1 2.0 Environmental Protection Issues 2-1 2.1 Aquatic Issues 2-1 3.0 Consistency Requirements 3-1 3.1 Crystal River Unit 3 Design and Operation 3-1 3.2 Reporting Related to the NPDES Permits and State Certification 3-1 3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations 3-2 4.0 Environmental Conditions 4-1 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events 4-1 4.2 Environmental Monitoring 4-1 5.0 Administrative Procedures 5-1 5.1 Review and Audit 5-1 i

5.2 Records Retention 5-1 5.3 Crystal River Unit 3 Routine Reporting Requirements 5-1 l

1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is to provide for protection of environmental values during construction and operation of Crystal River Unit 3.

The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows:

(1)

Verify that Crystal River Unit 3 is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the FES and other NRC environmental impact assessments.

(2)

Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and Local requirements for environmental protection.

(3)

Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of Crystal River Unit 3 construction and operation and of actions taken to control those effects.

Environmental concerns identified in the FES which relate to water quality matters l

are regulated by way of the licensee's effective NPDES permit.

l l

l l

l l-1

~

t 4

i o

2.0 Environmental Protection Issues In the FES-OL dated May 1973, the staff considered the environmental impacts associated with the operation of Crystal River Unit 3.

Certain environmental issues were identified which required study or license conditions to resolve 4

?

environmental concerns and to assure adequate protection of the environment.

i 1

2.1 Aquatic Issues Specific aquatic issues raised by the staff in the FES-OL were:

i i

1.

The need to control the release of heat (temperature) and chlorine within those discharge concentrations evaluated.

2.

The need for aquatic monitoring programs to confirm that thermal mixing occurs as predicted, and that effects on aquatic biota and water

?

quality due to Crystal River Unit 3 operation are no greater than p

l predicted, i

3.

The need for special studies to document levels of intake entrainment and impingement.

t Aquatic issues are addressed by the effluent limitations, and monitoring l

requirements contained in the ef fective NPDES perrnit.

J 1

4 2-1

3.0 Consistency Requirements 3.1 Crystal River Unit 3 Design and Operation Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity. The licensee shall provide a written evaluation of such acti ities to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

3.2 Reporting Related to the NPDES Permits and State Certifications Violations of the NPDES Permit or the State certification (pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act) shall be reported to the NRC by submittal of copies of the reports required by the NPDES Permit or certification.

Changes and additions to the NPDES Permit or the State certification shall be reported to the NRC within 30 days following the date the change is approved. If a permit or certification, in part or in its entirety, is appealed and stayed, the NRC shall oc notified within 30 days following the date the stay is granted.

l The NRC shall be notified of changes to the effective NPDES Permit proposed by l

the licensee by providing NRC with a copy of the proposed change within 30 days of the time it is submitted to the permitting agency.

The notification of a licensee-initiated change shall include a copy of the requested revision submitted to the permitting agency.

The licensee shall provide the NRC a copy of the application for renewal of the NPDES permit v>ithin 30 days of the time the application is submitted to the permitting agency.

t l

3-1 1

1

3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations Changes in Crystal River Unit 3 design or operation and performance of tests or experiments which are required to achieve compliance with other Federal, State, or local environmental regulations are not subject to the requirements of Section 3.1.

3-2

4.0 Environmental Conditions 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events Any occurrence of an unusual or important event that indicates or could result in significant environmental impact causally related to Crystal River Unit 3 operation shall be recorded and reported to the NRC within 30 days following the event by a written report.

The report shall 1) describe, analyze and evaluate the event including the impact of plant operating characteristics; 2) describe the, probable cause of the event and action taken to prevent repetition of the event. The following are examples: excessive bird impaction events; onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks; mortality or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973; fish kills; increase in nuisance organisms or conditions; and unanticipated or emergency discharge of waste water or chemical substances.

No routine monitoring programs are required to implement this condition.

4.2 Environmental Monitoring Only those routine monitoring programs required by the effective NPDES permit are identified as necessary for Crystal River Unit 3.

4-1

t 5.0 Administrative Procedures 5.1 Review and Audit The licensee shall provide for review and audit of compliance with the Environmental Protection Plan. The audits shall be conducted independently of the individual or groups responsible for performing the specific activity. A description of the organization structure utilized to achieve the independent review and audit i

function and results of the audit activities shall be maintained and made available for inspection.

5.2 Records Retention Records and logs relative to the environmental aspects of Crystal River Unit 3 operation shall be made and retained in a manner convenient for review and inspection. These records and logs shall be made available to NRC on request.

Records of modifications to Crystal River Unit 3 structures, systems and components determined to potentially affcct the continued protection of the environment shall be retained for the life of the plant. All other records, data and logs relating to this EPP shall be retained for a minimum five years or, where applicable, in accordance with the requirements of other agencies.

5.3 Crystal River Unit 3 Routine Reporting Requirements Copies of Routine Environmental Monitoring Reports required by the licensee's effective NPDES permit shall be provided to the NRC within 30 days of when they are provided to other permitting agency (les). If the activities implemented under subsection 4.2 of this EPP reveal harmful effects or evidence of trends towards irreversible damage to the environment the licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the d'.a and a proposed course of action to alleviate the problem.

5-1

--