ML20125A577

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 710511 Meeting W/Nsp on Change 2 to TS Re Waste Gas Sys
ML20125A577
Person / Time
Site: Monticello Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/18/1971
From: Benaroya V
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Boyd R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212080401
Download: ML20125A577 (5)


Text

_ ,__ 7 _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

UNITED STATES f 4 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

~ M ' '

W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20549 l

?

)

May 18, 1971 i

Roger S. Boyd, Assistant Director, BWR, Division of Reactor Licensing TH -D nald F. Knuyh, hief. BWR-1, Division of Reactor Licens'ng e cre.aLLL. V-\

MEETING ITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (NSP) - MONTICELLO GENERATING PLANT (E-5979). CONCERNING TECH SPEC CHANGE NO. 2 - WASTE GAS SYSTEM, DOCKET N0.(50463]

Suntnary A meeting was held on May 11, 1971, with NSP to discuss Change No. 2 to ,

the Technical Specifications of the Monticello plant. An attendance list is enclosed.

Change No. 2 consists of proposed modifications to the gaseous radwaste '

system. The proposed modification will increase the holdup time of the condenser air ejector non-condensable gases from 30 minutes to 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br />.

The site boundary dose from this source alone is calculated to be 4 mrem / year, with other sources, ignored by the licensee, contributing an equal amount.

The proposed system consists of redundant hydrogen recombiners and compressors, y and 5 gas storage tanks which will hold gases at 300 psig.

We informed the applicant that the proposed system is an improvement over the existing waste gas system, but it probably does not meet the "as low as practicable releases" concept.

Discussion The proposed modifications, filed as a request for a change to the Tech-nical Specifications, is supposed to be reviewed by the Operations Committee and in turn the recommendations submitted to the Safety Audit Committee

~

for concurrence. The Vice-President is to take appropriate action (Table 6.1.1 of the Tech Specs). This has been emphasized to NSP on other occasionst however, the licensee stated that the safety committee had not completed its review yet. It was brought to the licensee's attention that this was

j - a clear violation of the existing Tech Specs, i

The design of the proposed gaseous radwaste system was discussed, and the licensee agreed to the followingt j

j I 1.- All equipment will be designed toiseismic Class I requirements.

4

2. The five storage tanks will be located above the probable maximum j

flood level or will be_ protected from such a flood, dyd h2 P

0 3

.n . .

I6 .4 ,

i l Roger S. Boyd 2

3. Data on the operation of the recombiner using BWR effluents (vetting as well as iodine act as poisons on some catalysts) will be provided.
4. The equipment, from the air ejector to the compressor, will be designed to 350 psig (it-is 300 psia now).
5. There will be a particulate (fiter upstream of the compressors.
6. The handling of the liquid discharges (dilution steam and from the recombiner) will be delineated.
7. Modifications to the system (desuperheater has been deleted, etc.)

vill be documented.

8. The instrumentatier, will be shown more clearly.
9. Attention will be paid to the stack, which is not designed to take tornadoes.
10. Operation of the unit under normal and abnormal conditions will be documented.

We informed the applicant that we did not agree with the statement in the report' that "the pressurized tank. holdup and charcoal holdup systems will provide identical environmental result's for equal holdup time." We said we are of the opinion that a charcoal system, for approximately the same

' cost, could further reduce the curie release rate by a factor of 10. .

Under normal operating conditions, the licensee did not take into consi-deration contributions from steam turbine gland seal, plant startup. HPCI turbine testing, SGTS systems operation, containment purging, shine from l

other radvaste tanks, and possible leakage from the proposed pressurized gaseous radwaste system. The licensee stated that the estimated release rate from the turbine gland seal system listed'in the FSAR was in error; the boundary dose rate contribution should be 3.5 mrem / year instead of 0.35.

In the dose calculations, the contribution of halogens has not been con-sidered, and therefore the thyroid dose for accident conditions has not been calculated. The licensee stated that they had the impression that l

l halogens are collected in the recombiner. We understand that at KRB, j very low concentrations of halogens have been detected downstream of the l recombiner; however, we have no documented evidence.

We mentioned that we could foresee some operational problems. Venting of

? the wreng tank due to an operational error seems quite probable.

l l

. .m . . .- . . . . . . ... . . . . . .

1"",

/

    • 4 e d

Roger S. Boyd 3 We informed the applicant that the proposed changes to the Technical Speci-fications are inadequate. We will discuss these changes af ter we have finished the review of the proposed system; and to expect some reduction on the allowable curie release rate.

We summarized the meeting by saying that the proposed gaseous radwaste system is an improvement over the existing one, and with some modifications it probably would be accepted. Ilowever, if it is compared to other systems proposed for other BWR's, (it is compared to the charcoal delay in the NSP report), we could not recommend it to our management as meeting the "as low as practicable" concept. A new rule is in preparation, and when-ever this new rule is published, Monticello may have to make modifications if the radwaste system is installed as proposed.

'h f = = -

Victor Benaroya, Project loader Boiling Water Reactor Branch No. 1 Division of Reactor Licensing

Enclosure:

Attendance List 1

i

{

l

{

4

+

) )

i 4

?

i j 4.* a +

i i

1 4

4 ATTENDANCE LIST I NORTHERN STATES P0kTR COMPANY - HONTICE110 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT May 11. 1971 1,

2 4  !

,. DRL NSP +

t,

^

I D. F. Knuth E. Ward V. Benaroya C. E. Larson ,

R.~ Grill R. J. Jensen N. Thomasson  ;

i SUNTAC-r l -

CO '

3. L. Renehan m I C. D. Telerabend . P. D. Arrowsmith i J. T. Sevier NUS 4

i

! A. W. DeAgazio 4

4 h

i d

i

    1. % t? (

a 8

4 9

9 1

t *- w w -e--*+ow m--veer'e--=a-w F--"*-wr--** W w e www- w * = v * - - ma *e vs#*Wr-rv- *w * <' *e+=-t* e-**~"wd *---w- + * -r-*e- *rw = -4 e- --c*-

.s. -

Roger S. Boyd 3 We informed the applicant that the proposed changes to the Technical Speci-fications are inadequate. We vill discuss these changes after we have finished the review of the proposed syatecit and to expect some reduction on the allovable curie release rate.

We summarized the meeting by saying that the proposed gaseous radwaste system is an improvement over the existing one, and with some nodifications it proonbly would be accepted. However, if it is compared to other systems proposed for other BWP,'s, (it is corepared to the charcoal delay in the llSP report), we could not recocunend it to our managedent as meeting the "as lov as pra:ticable" concept. A new rule is in preparation, and when-ever this new rule is published Monticello may have to make modifications if the radvaste system is installed as proposed.

!.5 /

Victor Benaroya, Project Leader Boiling Water Reactor Branch No. 1 Division of Reactor Licensing

Enclosure:

Attendance List Distribution:

Docket DRL Reading BWR-1 File PAMorris, DRL FSchroeder, DRL Asst. Directors, DRL BR. Chiefs, DRL/DRS ECCase, DRS RRMaccary, DRS BGrimes, DRL VBenaroya, DRL SMRari, DRL Compliance (2)

HDenton, SERSG omer > _. DRL : BWR.71 ...... ..DRL;BWRd.. . .

VBenaroyatkis SURNAME > .X. . .h.1. . . . .. .. ....N--- -

5/18/71 5/l

---4 w$ / 71 - -- -

DhTE > = = = - -- --

hirm AEC-818 (iteT 9 53j u s sovinhistN1 Paintins ortict 1,n -W M4-see