ML20072S679
| ML20072S679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072S677 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9409140198 | |
| Download: ML20072S679 (4) | |
Text
1 i
.?pa Dia A ug t
Q'Mf )E E
UNITED STATES pb
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001
%4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 90 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT l
DOCKET NO. 50-263 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 10, 1993, Northern States Power Company (the licensee) requested a revision to the radiological effluent technical specifications i
(RETS) for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The proposed changes are f
intended to provide clarification of sampling and analysis requirements prior i
to venting or purging the primary containment.
A second portion of the change involves an update to liquid effluent sampling and analysis requirements to reflect improvements in sample analysis technology.
The remaining changes are editorial in nature and are intended to correct typographical errors in the 4
Technical Specifications (TS) section.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to revise the TS to clarify the sampling and analysis requirements prior to venting or purging the containment.
TS 4.8.B.6.b. states, " Prior to containment venting or purging, the sampling and analysis requirements of Table 4.8.4 shall be met."
However, in Table 4.8.4, the sampling and analysis frequency is noted as being required "each purging." Venting is not mentioned except for note (h) in the text; thus it is not clear from the TS whether or not sampling and analysis is required prior to venting.
The licensee proposes the following RETS changes:
Section 4.8.B.6.b currently reads:
" Prior to containment venting or purging the sampling and analysis requirements of Table 4.8.4 shall be met."
Revise to:
" Prior to containment ouraina, the sampling and analysis 4
requirements of Table 4.8.4 shall be met."
9409140198 940907
~
l
- l. l Table 4.8.4, Note h. currently reads:
3
- "H analysis shall not be required prior to venting if the limits of 3.8.B.1 are satisfied for other nuclides.
The analysis shall be l
completed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after sampling however."
I Revise to:
3 "H analysis shall not be required prior to purging if the limits of 3.8.8.1 are satisfied for other nuclides. However, the H analysis shall be completed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after sampling.
i l
Purging and venting should be clearly distinguished in the TS because they represent two distinct and different activities.
Purging involves the addition of air or gas (nitrogen) to the drywell to purify (inert or de-inert) the atmosphere and can, therefore, involve the release of large volumes of containment atmosphere.
Because large volumes of containment atmosphere are being displaced and released by this process, the potential for a significant release of activity is inherently greater.
I No replacement of air or gas (nitrogen) is provided for venting and the amount l
of containment attr; sphere released is comparatively small.
Consequently, the i
potential for an! significant release of activity is negligible.
Table 4.11-2 of NUREG-1302, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance:
Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors," references sampling and analysis before purging, but not before venting.
The staff finds the TS changes proposed by the licensee acceptable.
t l
The licensee also proposed to revise Table 3.8.1, pages 1981 and 198j.
The current specification (action requirement) for the discharge canal gross radioactivity monitor, the service water discharge pipe gross radioactivity monitor, and the turbine building normal drain sump monitor states that releases / discharges:
"...may continue for up to 30 days provided that at least once every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> a grab sample shall be collected and analyzed for gross beta and gamma radioactivity at an LLD (lower limit of detection) of 10'7 sci /ml."
Revise to:
...may continue for up to 30 days provided that at least once every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> a grab sample shall be collected and analyzed for gross beta at an LLD of 10'7 #Ci/ml or gamma isotopic for principal gamma emitters at an LLD of 5.0 x 10'7 nCi/ml."
l The gamma isotopic analysis lower limit of detection (LLD) of 5.0 x 10'7 pCi/ml in the preceding revision is consistent with the batch release gamma emitter analysis requirement of the TS in Table 4.8.3, and with Regulatory Guide 1.21, " Measuring, Evaluating and Reporting Radioactivity in Sold Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants." The staff finds this revision acceptable.
l
- The other changes to the TS are editorial in nature:
Pace Section Proposed Chanae 51 Table 3.2.1 Revise note (2)(a) to read "With one required instrumental channel inoperable...."(error that occurred when Amendment 81 was issued).
195 3.8.A.3.a Delete redundant word "used" from first sentence (error that occurred when Amendment 15 was issued).
198 4.8.B.2 Correct spelling of the word " noble" (error and that occurred when Amendment 40 was issued).
4.8.B.2.a l
198i Table 3.8.1 Revise the specification (action requirement) for the 1
l liquid radwaste effluent line gross radioactivity monitor as follows (error that occurred when Amendment 15 was issued):
i i
a.
At least two independent samples are analyzed in accordance with Specification 4.8.A.I.b 198d 4.8.B.5.2 Correct spelling of the word "following" (error that occurred when Amendment 46 was issued).
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Minnesota State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State Official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in-the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 57855). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR l
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
i l* !
5.0 CONCLUSION
l The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
l (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, l
l Principal Contributor:
J. L. Minns i
Date;
-eptember 7, 1994 l
t l
I