ML20127E306

TER for Evaluation of ODCM Rev 3,Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1

ML20127E306
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/30/1992
From:	Akers D, Bohn T, Thomas Young EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML18010A949	List: ML20127E306
References
CON-FIN-D-6034 EGG-PHY-10462, NUDOCS 9210090149
Download: ML20127E306 (33)

Text

_. ~ . . _ _ _ . _ . ._ _ __ . - -_ _ . ._-. __ _..._ . _ _ _ _ _ _

c- .

- ,' ENCLOSURE EGCcPHY 10462 Technical Evaluation Report for the Evaluation of ODCM Revision 3 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 NRC Docket No. 50-400 NRC License No. NPF-63 T.E. Young T.S.Bohn D. W. Akers Published September 1992 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G-Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C,20555 1 l Under DOE Contract No. DE AC07 401001020 FIN No. D6034 -

0

'DV O ,g b n ,

r-.,s',--e ,ie- ,,,r.,.ce.w y--sw-w -

,a .

ABSTRACT The Offsite Dese Calculation Manual (ODCht) for the Sheator4 liarris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (SliNPP) contains current methodology and parameters used to calculate offsite doses, dose rates, effluent monitoring alarm / trip setpoints, and conduct the radiological environmental monitoring program. The NRC transmitted the moi, recent complete S!!NPP ODCM, Revision 3. updated through Advance Change 3/4, dated December 18,1991, to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for review by EO&O Idaho,Inc. The ODCM was reviewed by EO&O, and the result:

are presented in this report, it was determined that the ODCM uses methods that are,in general, within the guidelines of NUREO 0133. }{owever, the following items should be addressed promptly: (a) doses due to liqu ad related pathway

• sliould include components due to the long term buildup of radlon,uclides in liarris Lake,(b) the .illution associated with potable water pathways .

should be Ilmited, and errors in the calculation of doses to the teen and child age groups should te corrected (c) input paramet :rs for GASPAR and LADTAP !! calculations should be added to the ODCM; OASPAR !! sF:.,ald be used for dose calculations, (d) methodology used to determine release rates and total releases of gaseous effluents should added.

f l

l 1

I

l.*.  :

.r J

FOREWORD Thl t'. port ir submitted as partial fulfillment of the " Review of Radiological Issues" project being

,l conducted by the Idaho National Enginecang Laboratoly for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory j Commission, Office of Npelear Reactor Regul: tion. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

funt.ei the work under FIN D6034 (Hoject 5) and NRC B AR Number 2019 05 03.

Thl report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

!l. Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their empicyees, makes any warrait, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility

I for any third party's use, or the results of such use, or of any informatlou, appara! s, product or

) process disclosed in this rep rt, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe

! privately owned rights, i

)

3 i

l i

f 3 .

e

• l i

1 e

l

.. b e'

4 CONTENTS 1

1 U

A B S TR A CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I t

i F O R EW O R D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l i i 1. I NTR O D U CTI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !

2. REVI EW CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! .

! 3. RAD!OACTIVE EF19 UENT RELEASE ROUTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3

4. EV ALU ATIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 i

3 5 . S U M MAR Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

6. CO N CLU S IO N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

7. R EFERE N CES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 FIGURES 4

1. Liquid waste prw;ess flow diagram for SHNPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Liquid effluent flow stream diagram for SHNPP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4

3. Normal service water flow diagram for SHNPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

- 4. Other liquid effluent pathways at SHNPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. SHNPP gaseous waste streams, Unit 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6. Schematic of SHNPP airborne effluent release points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 l

- 7. SHNPP condenser off. gas system at SHNPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1

. I lil

r. -

-.-m . .. - -x, o~ w _ .... .- , , , . , , . , , . _ _ , . - , - . . . . . , - - - ,.

-e ,

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Review This document reports the review and evaluation of the most recent version of the Offsite Dose Calculation Mannai (ODCM) is the Shenton Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (SHNPP),

submitted by the UcanJeo, CMrolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). The ODCM is a supplementary document for implementing the Radiological Effluent Technical Spe:ifications (RETS)in compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix ! requirements.' This review was performed to assess conformity of the SHNPP ODCM to the SHNPP Technical Specifications and current NRC guidelines.

1.2 Plant Specific Background Initial approval of the ODCM for SHNPP is documented in a le!!er from B. Buckley (NRC) to E. E. Utley (CP&L), dated May 30, 1986.8 No major changes were made in the ODCM until a complete ODCM was submitted with th2 semiannual effluent report for Jan Jun 1989.8 Minor changes to improve the clarity and completeness of the ODCM were submitted with the semiannual reports for Jul Dec 1989,' Jul Dec 1990,8 r.nd Jul Dec 1991.*

The SHNPP plant is located in a central North Carolina farming area approximately 16 miles SW of Raleigh, North Carolina.

2. REVIEW CRITERIA Review criteria fw the ODCM were provided by the NRC in two documents:

NUREO 0472, " Standard Radiological Effluent Contron for PWRs"'

NUREO 0133. " Preparation of RETS for Nuclear Power Plants"'

The following NRC guidelines were also used in the ODCM review:

Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1"'

Branch Technical Position, " General Contents of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)"

4 As specified in NUREO 0472, the ODCM is to be developed by the licensee to document the j methodninFy and approaches used to calculate offslie dones and maintain the operability of the radioactive efnuent systems. As a minimum, the ODCM should provide equations and methodology for the following:

i

- Alarm and trip setpoints on effluent instrumentation g

Liquid efnuent concentrations in unrestricted areas j - Gaseous eiduent dose rates at or beyond the site boundary 1 -

Liquid and gaseous effluent dose contributions

- Liquid and gaseous effluent dose projections.

4 In addition, the ODCM should contain flow diagrams, consistent with the systems being used at the station. defining the treatment paths and the components of the liquid and gaseous management

! systems. A description and the location of samples in support of the environmental monitoring program are also needed in the ODCM.

]

1 l

l i

4 4

)

}

l 1

i

.I e

-2

, -m-. m,., ,y--, ,_.,m.. _ _,.y,. ,,.,,.,,,..-.,,,,_.m..-m._,_ , . . , . . ..,__m, , ... . . . _r..

3. RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASE ROUTES 3.1 Liquid Effluent Release Routes Liquid efnuents from SHNPP are diluted by the cooling tower discharge line which has a normal discharge rate of 16.5 cfs. De discharge is to a reservoir, which has a volume of 3.35 x 10' cubic feet. Thl: reservoir appears to be referred to interchangeably as Hants Lake, the Harris reservoir, the Buckhorn Creek impoundment, or the main reservoir. " Harris Lake" will be used to reference the main water storage reservoir. The atmual average now from the Harris Lake to the Cape Fear River is approximately 43 cfs.

Technical Specification 3.3.3.10 requires the following radioactivity monitors with alarm / trip setpoints set to ensure that the limit of TS 3.11.1.1 are not exceeded:

1. Radioactivity Monitors Providing Alarm and Automatic Termination of Release

a. Liquid Radwaste Efauent Lines.

1) Treated Laundry and Hot Shower Tanks Discharge Monitor.

2) Waste Monitor Tanks and Waste Evaporator Condensate Tanks Discharge Monitor.

3) Secondary Waste Sample Tank Discharge Monitor.

2. Radioactivity Monitors Providing Alarm But Not Providing Automatic Termination of Release.

a. Normal Service Water System Return From Waste Processing Building to the Circulating Water system,

b. Normal Service Water System Return From the Reactor Auxiliary Building to the Circulating Water System.

Figures 1,2,3, and 4, copied from the SHNPP ODCM, show the treatment pathways and release routes of liquid efnuents.

3.2 Gaseous Effluent Release Routes

, Section 3.0 states,"At SHNPP there are four gaseous efnuent alease points: Plant Vent Stack 1, Turbine Building Vent Stack 3A, and the Waste Proce.ssing Buliting Vent Stacks 5 ad 5A. These are shown in Figures 3.1,3.2, and 3.3 along with their tributaries. All gaseous efnuent releases at the plant are considered ground level releases." The figures showing the waste streams and release points are reproduced as Figures 5,6, and 7 in this report.

Technical Specification 3.3.3.11 requires monitors on the Turbine Building Vent Stack, Plant Vent Stack, Waste Processing Building Vent Stack 5, and Waste Processing Building Stack 5A, but does not specify whether they are to provide alarm only, or alarm and automatic termination of release.

3 l

._ _ m-m 2 _ ___m.s - . ~ - w. _ m, --,, a a..

e 8 e l

l El 2

• 6 1 Baa E30

- it.

og 'n r -

.ls i s. 3Y m u*

07 3 W

.: E ,

~ ~

n a . n ,

I l

.c Iea S u

9S un3 D G v

O -

2 e

fie 2 2 2 h y ognE e

e y

e u

e u a n

= G5&

go .n

=

n

=

n c

m u

5  ; b b b S g

4 -

Cl e

ed a1 i

S5 WM k oe e"

o .a u9 eu9n eM eu u8 e E

c6$5 $3 $M E

=o co w e

• O v

I

'8

>=

8 __ --

5 a:

S.E

= mo e e e _B m 2 n .e 3 8 n E

n.

e 55uli we Jr .e .e . -

e m

p-

& 25.

C 0 [ [ M C M > m U

b b a -

o

,. e .

h -

g T .5 0 g O >

• M g 4 o Go *M H H C ef Sn e4 et E om .

m e- S5 we 9a O* g MH e .= -

E9 am 29m E L

ts u

N a

-s C '3 5= E C

• m=

om u= gen *a o- S. RR

.w - e~~ o2 ,

Ti 5 Wi E. 5 E5@ u Od 5 OO E E

. ec 5

4

h 8 e e

[ ==oomew imot o= noes a

l  :

l;1 3

a s 4 i x 1 8

's . 8 51 I: l o 6

$ i s I

2 E G b

~

[ w

-ls 2 O O, "2 2, a A _.

i j g s

i g i i w

@ai.

@i! . G 1.

i s

i-v 5

t y 3 i

m 1

s kz s

5 b

.I a

. e f g Eg a. e is = 's  ?

- O > L se i O. 51 2 9 >

!!  ! Q,.

IB j  ?

e

!,!. - . t ,

I l

n x O-- 5 is.

3 t

w 85 j-i 3 53 i

=

Q+  ;- i a un

~

" l { e F E C

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

a 1' .

. . ., a n

• w a ... . , o w..m .N c, I k 3

] "4 I i ;j N i

! W'  !! I.  :

l sat smans -

2  ; .

i (N e N

3 I

i a t <

• ^* *

) , Y

,3

! ./ \

] '

h l NtatLDADS * ')

wASTt P#0tl$$1N$

0 WILDING j l /

)5 5 wa NccNetwilm , .

• )s 1

l

[' . ~

i I .

, tweessit suik0 SNG -

i.

l 4

1 l

l CinCVLATING n&Ttm PUMPS LICINO

i agw maptat:0N ip*LutNT poNiton l Nsw NomadaL $84vtCI waT8 A r

O .

l C*34tNCTQwlm $AllN l p

j i

. IO C'  : ,L Q.Qa, i

kta PWurl y y 5

~,anas 9

f.

. va l1 i

9'

{ -

Namats LAER CGOumsTon34gbOWOOw notes e a, .

s. . . ..-

s,.. ., %...

...ia.

4 r Figure 3. Normal service water flow diagram for SHNPP (Reproduced From Figure 2.13 of the SHNPP ODCM).

I

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

t

P

. .t .. sw= t e

. v.es ,

'.a= aas s -. y a'a ** y ....un..

I ,'= son .m .'e e.a. . on 4 a s ,,p 7 i

3 a

9 r j ~

. s ..  : y -

r 1

i E

F 1

......,t I

- m

. e .= m r

y .. . . . .

. ac . ne j .c,= .n . .... , r 1

4

- -c w. no

! ......n.

=== n e .

1 T

I b

i l

_ Figure 4. Other liquid effluent pathways at SilNPP (Reproduced from Figure 2.1.4 of the SilNPP ODCM).

a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .__ m__._._

I1 I

~

~

e e

s e e r

vet e

. um o re es s s a 8 t s

s # t e

e reme I U

v cae eeasa s t s

t 0

3 0

3 se resc e u e a ) )

etsese ae s t

s L t r

z I e

v mnm w8eno m

e s

t 8 5 H 1

, E R s!ko asc c g

f s

T S nt UA s R o t r

m s A U on S O c ae a u s

or L

A a s EN I Ks H s N (O s cw w w s. 1 st

1. c s A i , u

-e S M I s ,

I T a s leeo e e A u o AE s ,, U i

m e a e esse A Y t a A e s=Ssm t A o R A t ,A t t

A W

E R R A C A L G

t A

M u.D t NS 1

(

v C,

R E C ne R S A. 4 t n t c

CA . e 4

5 8 s M a R m ,,.

7 s ,

o R Ni 8 f E .

4 O C G E ,

0 s w )

t s E

e w0 s A ee 8 ei e M

C t ** t o 05 W nn I i C I t s D

O

_ e .

r n

,t e e P s s e 3

3 3 s 3 P w

w w-A s . N u,

f a '

w A  ;

s. l i

s S .

_ e s

w s

- s e

r e -

S

, e - r a t

s s - 5 e mI n n 3 3 3 3 ht t t t t

)u r g

r a

f S

w f

o eW

',E . s s

, a r

a t

1. i p a w 8 u 1 g

3 F e

@ g D

[ Q g i

r u

g

=

a r

'

• C

• a = a

• = ** fF u s

o r

f c w c w c c

& e>>r r wr=rr

& - > > Cgdceu

)

=

g h ){ d

. s

' eo r e

( p A

n s "

Mh e

I R

e 3

5 a (

3

.

• 3

• 3 1

• - 3 3 S t - t

) 3 t s e w i a

c T ) t

- # a n es u

S r

t e

a c

i s

uA A'

s e

t

~

s e

- U

( A s a s ,

1 s 4

M

's A

u

( e m

=

=

• t as s n

s s e E S o

- t s i

r a

S D u e C K 3 E K s nT S S 3 r C - R C t S s u UA -

3 I t v s A

r a R A w -

U u o i E L

s G

- E I w A A A e t

e s s r

a f S i s T S s G

- NE M B

r D s e

- Hl t

t s

l A r p

R R u S A A T m s

e E c n YT T r

p P T a D Y S M 3 N N RE I

N a w 0 0 ou 4 S N M R UA K b

A E

t v U M E A E V 0 0 H i A t U l e

r s S s u

K R A

L Y 2 R A C D -

E Y

C A c

e n G A M 4

E M S E o A D MAC o R S o N C t

r. n W E E- Y NG E ' e enOL E AR f

L D L I

D s S

I T O t A U l P Ot a E C S *J f

a C f

WAE LR OC E L B EC Q I E e 1 T H t

B s 1 U I AP g

t N

T R c &

O ACas0 a A S G R t E

• cRt P C E "

N t s I D t 1 R C l T K R E t HEG P E e t n 0 G f f

t e P 4 R WV t O A C G N E a

u N V i D

N as a

p s

C O D E S S I S S

S H r H L S S S S s A

T A

A I

t E W O 5" R

r l C c t E s N - s SD

• e i D

O C c r6SwWAW w C WP wPu ru t

u T

O C R A

H RH^ R AW ^ a S L

B o O N .

a R E 5 E P P V c l r l

i c E T u g

B i l N

t s S i l

l U

I si f  % fP A

L F

D C

! l1 l l!

,I!t!!L

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . . _,...___..___~_..__..__.m._.._mm_._m..._u,__m,%m.,____.i__

_ u.a .t i

"s d '

. . i i,

i 5.

t 1-t I

)

O"*. 9tfMo**E 91as SUBS ttT 35 35 0 gANCedi visee Stata .3m

,,,,,, -O -

3-cussee.

l. .- 4 0 ,

i I

t i

i .!

I g .

I

_f  !

i i e "

N N  : evrais' mee. i I

4 i a==s.  !

ca .wa i  :

K '

t

! t i

, e van '

t t '

! m ,v . .

""5" """a********* I i == ..,..s ,

I 1.. -

!' con .senv cin  ;

l remar e F,teseeet esseataneseg ' AtsumerseEfst *

s,s sem  ;

i-  ;

1 i i

Figure 6.~ Schematic.of SIINPP airborne effluent releas*e points (Reprodisced froaa Figure 3.2 of the SHNPF ODCM).

l 4 8

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

O sine env 3s is : genuag we see s.at. 3a sames -

us.=

s

_g O

~

N 0 twrers* -

f.4 $

co=== a-

?

-v watve A rtaa.e - -

=ac= m a. ace ces

== . aa . .. e n , t . ..

coa.. s ...c Wf Ff Lt. test 5seeatestset A88. ster e6 fee o n e . .e Figure 7. Condenser off-gas system at SHNPP (Reproduced froen Figure 3.3 of abe SIINPP ODCM).

4. EVALUATION As stated by the bcensee: "De Off. Site Dose Calculation hianual(ODCM) prov! des the information and methodologies to be used by Shenton Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) to ensure l

compliance with Technical Specifications 3.3.3.10, 3.3.3.11, 3/4.11.1, 3/4.11.2, 3/4.11.4, 4.12.1, 4.12.2,4.12.3, and 6.9.1 of the SHNPP Operating License. These specifications are those related to normalliquid and gaseous radiological efnuents, environmental monitoring, and reporting, ney are intended to show compliance with 10CFR20 based requirements and 10CFR50.36a, Appendix

! of 10CFR50, and 40CFR190 in terms of appropriate monitoring instrumentation and set points, dose rate, and cumulative dose limitations. Off site dose estimates from non routine releases will also be included in the cumulative dose estimates for the plant to comply with Appendix ! of 10CFR50, 4

The ODChi is based on ' Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications' (NUREO 0452),

' Preparation of Radiological Efnuent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants' (NUREO 0133), and guidance from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Specific plant procedures for implementation of this manual are pretented in the SHNPP Plant Operating hianual. These procedures are utilized by the operating staff of SHNPP to ensure compliance with technical specifications."

The ODChiis generally well organized and complete, but some additions are needed.

4.1 Liquid Effluent Monitor Setpoints . '

l Pursuant to Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.10, Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the ODChi contain l

methodology to determine the setpoints of the liquid effluent radioactivity monitors to ensure that the limits of TS 3.11.1.1 are not exceeded. Technical Specification 3.11.1.1 requires, "The concentration of radioactive material released in liquid effluents to UNRESTRICTED AREAS (see Figure 5.13) shall be limited to the concentrations specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Table 11, j

t Column 2 for radionuclides other than dissolved or entrained noble gases. Por dissolved or entrained noble gases, the concentration shall be limited to 2 x 10" microcurie /mi total activity."

Radioactivity monitors for batch releases have both alert alarm and high alarm setpoints. The alert alarm setpoint provides alarm only; the high alarm setpoints provide both alarm and automatic termination of release. Tank release rates are adjusted to dilute the tank activities to 50 percent of the allowable concentrations at the release point to Harris Lake.

In addition to the radioactivity monitors required by TS 3.3.310, Section 2.1.3 requires monitors providing automatic termination of release on the normally non radioactive Outdoor Tank Area Drain Effluent Line and the Turbine Building Floor Drains Effluent Line.

11

- - . - . _ _ . . _ - . - _ _ - _ _ - =~ -- - . . . .-

If setpoints for the batch release monitors were determined using Eq. 2.17 the monitors would alarm :ntermittently or continuoutly. beenute the netpoints are at the concentration of the undiluted liquid effluents in the line. The instructions for determining an alarm setpoint should require that it correspond to a concentration greater than that in the effluent line. Similarly. Eq. 2.18, to determine the alert setpoint, should also define a setpoint corresponding to a concentration greater than that in the liquid effluent line. Therefore, the monitor would always indicate an alert status.

Both the alarm and alert setpoint determination methodologies described in the ODCM should be corrected to remove the problem of spurious alarms. Note: When the setpoints are increased to prevent spurious alarms, the tank release rates (RR) will need to be reduced to prevent the concentrations in the releases from exceeding the specified limits. -

The long term buildup of radionuclides in Harris Lake should be considered in the calculation of setpoints for thi, liquid effluent radioactivity monitors, since the concentration in the effluent stream is the sum of the steady state concentration in the lake and the concentration due to the liquid radwaste added. An estimate of the steady state concentration in Harris Lake, using data from the Final Environmental Statement." the completely mixed model in Regulatory Guide 1.113 " and release data for the first six months of 1989 indicates that for this period the true concentrations of radionuclides in the liquid effluents are 5 to 10 percent larger than those determined by the methodology of the ODCM. "11:e safety factor of 2 included lu Eq. 2.12 provides sufficient margin to prevent the limits of TS from being exceeded when the present ODCM methodology is used.

This problem is discussed more completely in Section 4.5 of this report.

Section 2.1.1 should require at least administrative controls to prevent simultaneous batch releases.

l The first sentence of Subsection 5, Section 2.1.1 is true, but implies that the concentration of each radioniiclide is permitted to be near the 10 CFR 20" concentration. The concentration limit should be restated in the terms used in item 1 e " NOTE" at the end of Appendix B to 10 CFR 20; or the equivalent. Item 4 of " NOTE" at the end of Appendix B to il 20.100120.2401 of 10 CFR 20."

The meaning of HSP, in Eq. 2.17 would be clarified if it were identified as the monitor setpoint in " equivalent Cs.137 concentration." If this change is not appropriate, the meaning of HSP, should be more completely defined.

The methodology to determine setpoints of the liquid effluent radiation monitors is within NRC guidelines, since the concentration of radionuclides in the effluents will not exceed the limits of TS (3.11.1.1 because of the factor of 2 safety margin. However, the ODCM should identify the effect of radionuclide buildup in we lake and the resulting contribution to the concentration of radionuclides in the effluents, l

12 1

o

1 4.2 Gaseous Effluent Monitor Setpoints Pursuant to TS 3.3.3.11, Sections 3.1 through 3.1.3 contain methodology to determine gaseous efnuent monitor setpoints to ensure that the dose rate limits of TS 3.11.2.1.a are not exceeded.

Technical SpeciDestion 3.11.2.1.a requires,The dose rate due to radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from the site to areas at and beyond the SITE BOUNDARY (see Figure 5.11) shall be limited to the following:

s. For noble gases: Less than or equal to 500 mrems/yr to the total body and less than or equal to 3000 mrems/yr to the skin, and ...."

The methodology for determining setpoints of the gaseous effluent radiation monitors considers simultaneous releases from all release points and the maximum release rate is based on the most restrictive of the total body and skin dos? rates. Therefore, the methodology is within NRC guidelines.

4 4.3 Concentrations in Liquid Effluents Technical Specification 4.11.1.1.2 requires thai the results of the radioactivity analyses required by TS 4.11.1.1.1 be used in accordance with the methodology and parameters in the ODCM to assure that the concentrations at the point of release are maintained within the limits of TS 3.11.1.1.

Pursuant to TS 4.11.1.1.2, Section 2.1.1.8 requires a post. release verification of compliance with TS 3.11.1.1. De requirements of TS 3.11.1.1 are giwn in Section 4.1 of this report.

For clarity, the definition of C ifor Eq. 2.1 14 should require that the concentrat!on of radionuclide "1" be determined by the analyses specified in Table 4.111. Also, the dennition of Vg should specify " undiluted liquid efnuent."

The determination of concentrations in the liquid efnuents does not consider the buildup of radionuclides in Harris Lake. Applying the meth0dology of Regulatory Guide 1.113 will add 5 to l

10 percent to the calculated concentration in released liquid efHuents. These larger calculated

, concentrations will not result in an indicatics that the concentration limits are exceeded because a safety factor of 2 is included in Eq. 2.12, for the minimum acceptable dilution factor. De problem l

of the buildup of radienuclides in the take is discussed in more detail in Section 4.5 of this report.

The licensee's methodology to assure that the concentrations at the polit of release are maintained within the limits of Specification 3.11.1.1 is within NRC guideline". However, the recommended clarifications should be considered.

13

1

4.4 Dose Rates Due to Gaseous Effluents a

Technical Specification 3.11.2.1 requires, "The dose rate due to radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from the site to ueas at and beyond the SITE BOUNDARY (see Figure 5.1.31) shall be limited to the following:

s. For noble gases: Less than or equal to 500 mrems/yr to the total body and less than or i equal to 3000 miems/yr to the skin, and ,

i l

b. For lodine.131, lodine.133, tritium, and for all radionuclides in particulate form with half. *J l lives greater than 8 days: Less than or equal to 1500 miems/yr to any organ."

4.4.1 Dose Rates Due to Noble Gases Technical Specification 4.11.2.1.1 requires that the dose rate due to noble gases in gaseous effluents be determined to be within the limits of TS 3.11.2.1 in accosaance with the methodology and parameters in the ODCM.

Pursuant to TS 4.11.2.1.1, Section 3.2.1 of the ODCM contains methodology to calculate the total body and skin dose rates due to releases of noble gases. This section contains the following

statement

"The gaseous effluent monitor set points are utilized to show pre. release compliance with l Techniul Specification 3.11.2.1. However, because they may be based upon a conservative (GALE Code) ne of radionuclides, when using Table 3.1 1, the possibility exifts that the set points could

- be e.sceeded and yet 10CFR20. based limits may actuall) be met. Therefore, the following methcdology has been provided in the event the high alarm set points are exceeded, a determinstion may be made as to whether the actual releasts have exceeded the dose rate limits of Technical Specification 3.11.2.1." Also, for each monitor, the high set point identified in Section 3.1.1.5 is at' one.hsti the release rate allotted to the release route being monitored. 'Dierefore, each monitor

could alaran even though the total release rate from the site may be only slightly more than one. half l the limit.

' The description of the methodology in Section 3.2.1 is incomplete. The definitiou of Q,, ior Eq. 3.21 and 3.2 2 does not speelfy how the release rates of radionuclides are to be determined, Methodology should be added to detemilne the Qt,'s. The Qi, s sl:ould include seleases from all release points. This methodology should also include a commitment to determine the distribution of noble gas radionuclides by uslag the sampling and analyses require /. 5y TS Table 4.11.2, if releases are sufficiently large to make this possible. It should also describe the method used to determine the total activity if the OALE code distribution is used.

If appropriate methodology is added, as recommented in' the previous paragraph, the licensee's methodology to determine that the dose rates due to noble gases in gaseous effluents are within the limits of TS 3.11.2.1 will be within NRC guidelines.

14

4.4.2 Dose Rates Due To Other than Noble Gases Pursuant to TS 4.11.2.1.2, Sectios 3.2.2 contains methodology to determine that the dose rate due to lodine.131, iodine 133, tritium, and all radionuclides in particulate form with half lives greater than 8 days in gaseous effluents are within the limits of TS 3.11.2.1. Technical Specification 3.11.2.1 limits the dose rate due to these radionuc!! des to less than or equal to 1500 mrem /yr to any organ.

The methodology of Section 3.2.2 is based on the interpretation of TS 3.11.2.1.b contained in the basis statements of NUREO 0473 the SHNPP TS; 1.e., that compliance with TS 3.11.2.1.b msy be demonstrated by showing that the dose rate to the thyroid of a child via the inhalation pathway does not exceed !$00 caem/yr.

1 A survey of semiannual effluent reports indicates that radiolodine and particulate releases have historically been below LLD values. Section 3.2.2 states, "The radionuclide mix ls agaln based upon the normal operational source terms calculated using the OALE code and presented in Table 3.21 as a function of release point." It is not clear how the magnitudes of releases are determined; i.e., whether absolute values from Table 3.21 are used, or if the magnitude is scaled from some measurement. The dose rate to the thyroid of a child should be based on sampling and analyses specified in Table 4.!!.2, as required by TS 4.11.2.1.2. In addition to the normal weekly lodine and particulate samples, the more frequent samples following shutdown, startup, or THERMAL POWER changes exceeding 15% of RATED THERMAL POWER within a 1. hour period should be used when required by Notation 7 of TS Table 4.112.

l To be within NRC guidelines, the methodology to determine that the organ dose rate is within the limit of TS 3.ll.2.1.b should be based on releases determined by the sampling and analysis specified in Table 4.112. Therefore, cetails of the method used to determine the magnitude of the l

j radiolodine, tritium, and particulate releases should be added to Section 3.2.2.

1 l

4.5 Dose Due To Liquid Effluents Pursuant to Technical Specification 4.11.1.2, hetion 2.2.1 of the ODCM contains methodology to l determine the cumulative dose contributions from liquid effluents for the current calendar quarter and curient calendar year. Technical Specification 3.!!.1.2 requires "The dose or dose commitmcnt to a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released to UNRESTRICTED AREAS (see Figure 5.1. 3) shall be limited:

I a. During any calendar quarter to less than or equal to 1.5 mrems to the total body and to less than or equal to 5 mrems to any organ, and l

l 15 l

b. During any calendar year to less than or equal to 3 miems to the total body and to less than or equal to 10 miems to any organ."

The following errors / oversights should be corrected in Section 2.2.1t

1. The dilution now for potable water given by the product of the " applicable factor" (Ar=95),

the Cooling Tower blowdown now (V.=10.47 cfs), and the dilution factor (D =13.95) is 13,950 cfs. This is 4.46 times the average river now (3125 cis) and 194 times the 7-day minimum river flow (72 cfs). If the methodology now in Section 2.2.1 is retained as part of the dose calculation, the dilution now should be restricted to no more than the now of the Cape Fear River at the time of the waste discharge. However, an alternate methodology is recommended in the discussion of item 3 below.

2. The methodology of Section 2.2.1 to calculate the dose due to fish consumption does not account for the buildup of radioactive material in Hartis Lake. The model described in Regulatory Guide 1.113, Appendix A Section 5.a(1) can be used to estimate this buildup. For a non decaying substance, the expression for the concentration in the lake is: C = W/q,t where C, is the steady state concentration in the lake (Cl/ft'), W is the rate of addition of radioactive material to the lake (Ci/s), and q, is the rate'of blowdown from the lake (ft'/s).

This expression is based on assumptions that the radioactive material is completely mixed on the take (instead of the 80% mixing given in UFSAR Section 11.2.3) and that there is no decay of any of the radionuclides. The Regulatory Guide also gives expressions for the concentration which account for the half lives of the radionuclides. Section 4.3.2.1 of the Final Environmental Statement gives 43 cfs as the discharge from the lake, q , for 1 unit operation.

With these assumptions, the steady state concentration in the lake is: C, = W(Cl/s)/43(ft'/s).

Long term average values should be used for W and q., With the very conservative assumptions of no decay and infinite operating time, a quick estimate shows that the dose due to the equilibrium concentration of radionuclides in the lake is approximately 23 times the dose calculated using only the Knethodology of the ODCM. Proper accounting for the radioactive decay after discharge to the lake will reduce the dose due to the equilibrium concentration of H 3 by 10 to 15 percent. This dose will also be reduced by including evaporation from the lake and consumptive use of water in the discharge rate, q,. for the tritium calculation. The calculated doses due to fish consumption should be the doses calculated with the present methodology plus the doses due to the steady state concentrations in'the lake; i.e., C, = W/q.

or concentrations corrected for decay.

3. The concentration of radionuclides at the point of consumption of potable water does not consider the mixing of efnuents in the like water or holdup time in the lake, and is not a function of the rate of discharge from Harris Lake to the Cape Fear River. The doses due to drinking water at Lillington should be calculated using the concentration of radionuclides in 16

e the lake and the discharge from the lake to the river. Combining appropriate parts of Eq. 2.21 and 2.2 3 in eniculate the donc due to water consumption gives:

D, = I((1.14E+05) 730 (43 cfs/Fm) DF,, at Cm e' ),

i 1

where:1.14E+05,730, DFw N, and t, are as defined l's Section 2.2.1.

43 cfs = the blowdown now from the Harris Lake dam, it'/s; F = the flow of the Cape Fear River for the time period of the dose calculation,it'/s; 4 = the time period for which the dose is calculated, s.

The 1991 doses to the teen and child age groups due to drinking water are reported as zero in the semiannual effluent report for Jul Dec 1991. There is apparently an error thet should be corrected j in the program used to calculate these doses, i Concerning the assessment of doses due to radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released during the previous calendar year Technical Specification 6.9.1.4 requires "The assessment of radiation doses shall be performed in accordance with the methodology and parameters in the OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL (ODCM)." Section 1.0 of the ODCM states, "The assessment of annual radiation doses to members of the public from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents

from the plant is estimated using the NRC codes LADTAP !! and GASFAR using concurrent meteorology for the report period." If used properly, LADTAP 11 should yield doses consistent with l

the methodology and parameters of the ODCM.

! Doses due to liquid effluents were calculated using the methodology and parameters of the ODCM and the results were compared with the doses reported in Appendix 9. Enclosure 3. Table 1 of the Jul Dec 1991 semiannm.1 effluent report. For the fish consumption pathway, the calculated doses, except for the thyroid and GI LLI were between 53 and 60 percent of the reported doses. The calculated doses for the thyroid and GI.LLI were, respectively,250% and 175% of the reported doses. For the potable water pathway, the calculated doses were between 14 and 18 percent of the l

reported doses.' These results indicate that there may be two types of inconsistencies between the l ODCM methodology and the LADTAP !! calculations. First, incompatible dilution factors could l result in different magnitudes of the doses and different ratios of the doses due to the fish and 1

I

' Similar calculations were performed using the methodology of the ODCM and dilution factors reported in the Jul Dec 1991 semiannual effluent report (10 and 66.7, respectively, for the fish and potable water pathways). The doses calculated using these dilution factors were higher by factors of 4 and 8. respectively, than the fish and potable water pathway doses using the dilution factors from the ODCM.

17 l

-. . - .- . . = _ . . .

potable water pathways. Sec i, differences in half lives, oloaccumulation factors, transit times, or done factors could give the incendstencies between the doses to the thyroid and OI.LLI and the other organ t.ud total body doses. The inconalstencies between the methodology and parameters of the ODCM tend the calculations with LADTAP 11 should be resolved if LADTAP 11 is to be used to calculate reported doses. Input parameters for LADTAP 11 should be included in the ODCM.

To be within NRC guidelines, the methodology of Section 2.2.1 should: (a) account for the buildup of radionuclides in llarris Lake,(b) use a more realistic methodology to determine the dose j contributiot s due to potable water consumption; i.e., the maximum dilution for potable water should be limited by the flow of the Cape Fear River, (c) the error in the dose calculation for water I

consumption by the teen and child age groups (which gives zero doses) should be corrected. (d) the inconsistencies ti.twetn the methodology of the ODCM and LADTAP 11 calculations should be eliminated, and (e) loput puameters for LADTAP !! should be included in the ODCM.

4,6 Dose Due to Gaseous Elfluents Concerning the assessment of doses due to radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents released during the previous calendar year. Technical Specification 6.9.l A requires "The sssessment of radiation doses shall be performed in accordance with the methodology and parameters in the OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL (ODCM)." Section 1.0 of the ODCM states,"The enessment of annual radiation doses to members of the pub!!c from radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents from the plant is estimated using the NRC codes LADTAP !! and GASPAR using concurrent meteorology for the rerart period." The most recent version of the OASPAR code should be used for calculations. If used properly, OASPt.R 11 should yield doses consistent with the methodology and parameters of the ODCM.

4.6.1 Dose Due To Noble Gases Pursuant to TS 4.11.2.2, Section 3.3.1 (mislabeled on p. 3 21) contains methodology to detertnine the cumulative air dose contributions due to noble gases for the current calendar quarter and current calendar year. Technical Specification 3.11.2.2 requires "The air dose due to noble gases released in gaseous effluents, to areas at and beyond the SITE BOllNDARY (see Figure 3.1.3) shall be limited to the following:

a. During any calendar quarter: Less than or equal to 3 mrads for gamma radiation and less than or equal to 10 mrads for beta radiation and.

b. During any calendar year: Less than or equal to 10 mrads for gamma radiation and less than or equal to 20 mrads for beta radiation."

18

• f Methodology to determine the magnitude of the total releases of noble gases (tht Qi, s and q,,'s) '

should be included lo Section 3.3.1.

q The word " average" shou;J be replaced with " total" la the definitions of the noble gas release

• for Eq. 3.31 and 3.3 211.e., the definitions from NUREO.0133 should be corrected. .

A definition of M ifor Eq. 3.31 should be added to Section 3.3.1.

Section 3.3.1 should include a commitment to determine ine distribution of noble gas radionuclides from the sampling and analyses specified in TS Table 4.112 If thl la feasible.

Doses due to noble gases in gaseous effluents were calculated using the methodology and parameters of the ODCM and the results were compared with the doses reported in Appendix 9. Enclosure 3.

Table 3.A of the Jul.Dec 1991 semiannual effluent report. The calculsted bets. alt and gamma str doses were, respectively,79593% and 115&l78% of the doses repotied la the ODCM depending on the X/Q's chosen for the calculation. According to Section 1.0 of the ODCM, the reported doses were et!culated using OASPAR. If OASPAR is to be used to calculate the doses reported in the semiannual reports, the OASPAR. calculations should be correlated with the ODCM methodology and parameters, so equivalent doses are calculated. Also, all GASPAR parameters used for the calculations should be included in the ODCM.

The licensee's methodology to determine the gamma and beta air doses due to gaseous effluents is within NRC guidelines if the methodology used to determine the magnitude of noble gas releases is described and all parameters used for GASPAR calculations are added to the ODCM. The recommendations for other, relatively minor, additions should be considered.

4.6.2 Dose Due To Other Than Noble Oases -

Pursuant to TS 4.11.2.3, Section 5.3.2 (mislabeled on p.3 25) of the ODCM contains methodology to determine cumulative dose contributions for the current calendar quarter and current calendar year for lodine.131, lodine.133, tritium, and radionuclides la particulate form with half lives greater than 8 days. Technical Specification 3.11.2.3 r: quires "The dose to a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC from ,

lodine 131, lodine 133, tritium, and all radionuclides *n particulate form with half lives grer.ter than 8 days in gaseous effluents released to areas at and beyond the SITE BOUNDARY shall1e limited to the followingt

a. During any calendar quarter: Less than or equal to 7.5 mrems to any organ and,

s. During any calendar year: Less than or equal to 13 mrems to any orges.

19 l

i

Srction 3.3.2 describes a method for calculating the maximum organ dose due to releases of

radlonctive material other than noble gates in gueous efnuents that gives a congevetive etsimate.

, The calculation is performed for the beation of highest offsite D/Q using all possible pathways.

, This methodology can reasonably be expected to give a ca:@ted dose that is somewhat too high, but is acceptable as a method of showing that the limits of TS 3.11.2.3 are not exceeded. The advantage of the n'ethod is that ca.tculations do not need to N changed to account for chanBes ttut

}'

msy otherwise be required based on the results of the Land Use Crutus.

Section 3.3.2 states, "In the determination of the limiting location, the radionuclids mix of radiciodiraes amd particulates may be based upon the taurce terms calculated using the MLB -

Code." liwever, neither the tacthod used to determine the tungnitude of radionuchde reless a or distributions ate described lu this section. The methods used to detertaine the qurtitles and distributions of radionuc!! des other than noble gases released from the s! tit, rw! vartd in the dose calculations, should be described in Section 3.3.2. Both the quanitiu and distritullons should be based on the sampling acd analyses required by TS 4.11.2.1.2.

Doses due to gasceur elDuents ott.tr than no' ole geses were calculated using the methodology and parameters of the ODCM, and the results were compared with the doses reported in Appendix 9, Enclosure 3. TLble 2.A of the Jul Dec 1991 semiannual efnuent report. The calculated total body and organ doses we.e within +/ 20% of the doscJ reported in the OD"'M. According to Section 1.0 of the ODCM, the reported doses were calculated using OASPAR. If GASPAR is to be used to calculate the doses reported in the semiannual reports, the OASPAR calculations should be correlated with the ODCM methodology and parameters, so equivalent doses are calculated. All parameters used for the GASPAR calculations should be included in the ODCM.

The licensee's methodology to calculate the maximum organ dose due to the release of radioact vi material other than noble gases will be within NRC guidelines if all parameters required for the OASPAR calculations a.re added to the ODCM and the method used to determine the magnitudes and radionuclide distributions of releases are described.

4.7 Dose Projections Purttuant to TS 4.11.1.3.1 and TS 4.11.2.4.1, Scctions 2.2.2, 3.3.1.2, and 3.3.2.2 contain methodology to protect doses due to radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents. The methodologies to project doses incluise anticipated operational occurrences, and are therefore within NRC guidelines.

20

w -

4. 8 Diagrams of Effluent Release Routes i The ODCM contains simplified flow diagrams defining the treatment path 6 and the componento of the radioactive liquid and g;aseous wate management sytems, as recommended by the Branc5

- Technical Position, dated February 8,1979. Wrefore, the ODCM is within NRC guidelinet with i respect to disgrins of effluent release rouse.

4.9 Total Dose Pursuant to TS 4.11.4.1 and TS 4.11.4.2, SectiM 6.0 cortains methodology to evaluate compliance with TS 3.11.4. Technical Speciacitiou 3.11.4 tequires, "The annual (calendar year) dose or dose commlunent to any MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC due to releases of radioactivity and to radiation from uranium fttel cycle sourcu soc he limited to less than or equal to 23 mrems to the total body or any organ, except the thyroid, which shall be limited to less than or equal to 75 mrems."

Jtem 68 of Appendix 4 to that semiannual report," Changes to the Off site Dose Calculation Maaual (ODCM) Technical Specification 6.14,' states, "Revnlon 3 provides an improvement in the estimation of offsite doses by indicating the? the Regulatory Guide 1.109 and NUREO 0133 based NRC codes LADTAP H and GASPAR should be used for this purpose. Section 6.1.1 discusses the use in LADTAP 11 and GASPAR for calculations that may be required by TS 3.11.4, but does not l require their use. This section should include a requirement that any report of calculations required by TS 3.11.4 will include a complete statement of the assumptions and parameters used in the calculation.

O ,

The dose due to direct radiation associated with plant operation will be determined by comparing

quarterly TLD measurements with four year pre operational TLD measurements.

The licensce's methodology to determine the uranium fuel cycle dose is considereo to be within

> NRC guidei! cts if a commitment is added to include a comprehensive statement of the assumptions and parameters used in any repost regnited 'vy TS 3.11.4.

4.10 Environmental Monitoring Program Pursuant to Technical Specification 4.12.1, Section 4.0 identifies locations from which radiological environmenta! sainples are to be collected.

Table 4.1 identifies radiological environmental monitoring locations, sampling and collection frequency, and analysis type and frequency for the monitoring program. Figure 4.11 shows the exclusion boundary surrounding SHNPP. The maps of Figures 4.12,4.13, and 4.14 show the 21

i s locations of the various sampling pointe, and TLD locations. The sampling locations in these figures are hyrd to tht descriptions of locations in Table 4.1 pad Figure 4.15. which is a more concise

table of sampling locations.

( t i '

1 Section 6.0 completely describes the environmental monitoring program required by TS 4.12.1, and it therefore within NRC guidelines.

! 4.11 Interlaboratory Comparison Program Section 5.0 describes the licensee's Interlat, oratory Comparison Program, as required by TS 4.12.3, 4

and is therefore within NRC guidelines.

i a

4 1

4 1

l l

t l

l l

s

- - - < - . . - . . . . , , . . _ . . . . _ , _ _,m. . . , ,. .. . . - ,, _ . . -. _ . _ _ __ _,.,__....-m_. . . . . . , . - _ . , . , < . _ _ . . . . .... _ ,m

i .

l .. .

l.*

).

5.

SUMMARY

I Deficiencies and suggestions are summarized below in four catepries of decreasing importance.

! The items in Category A identify the most serious deficiencies, lar:1.iding oasissions that c.suse uacertainty as to whether the proper methodology is used in the ODCM. Category 5 contains less i serious deficiencies, and Category C contains minor deficiencies and editorial recoannendations.

'- Category D contales suggestions for changes the licensee may wish to make to simplify calculations, j update data, or rencove excess conservatism from the methodology. The number in parentheses at

j. the end of each item (e.g., (4.3)) refers to the section in this review that contains a discussion of 1 the item.

Catenorv A. Deso items identify errors or omissions that may result in calculated doses, dose rates, l- or concentrations that are lower than those that would be obtained if the deficiencies were corrected.

! Therefore, they should be addressed promptly.

}

l 1. In the methodology of Section 2.2.1, the dilution flow used for potable water consumption i should be !!mited to the flow of the Cape Fear River. (Note: An alternate dose calculation

! methodology is recommended.) (4.5) i

2. The methodology of Section 2.2.1 to determine doses via the fish pathway should account for l

i the fact that the fish live in the steady. state redlocuclide concentrations of Harris Lake.

Regulatory Guide 1.113 contains methodology to determine the steady. state concentrations.

I (4.5) l .

i

! 3. The methodology of Section 2.2.1 to determine doses via the potable water pathway should be based on releases from Harris Lake at the steady state radionuclide concentrations. (4.$)

l l

l 4. The error la the dose calculation for water consumption by the tera and child age groups f (which gives zero doses) should be corrected. (4.5) l

. S. The inconsistencies between the methodology of the ODCM and LADTAP 11 calculations should be eliminated. (4.5) l

6. . Input parameters for LADTAP 11 should be included in the ODCM. (4.5)

7. De method used to' determine the release rates and total releases of the OALE code distribution- -_

- of noble gas radionuclides should be described in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1. (4.4.1 and 4.6.1) l 8. The methods used to determine the relesse rates and total releases of radionuclides other than ,

noble lases should be' described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2. These should be based on the-c sampling and analyses required by TS 4.11.2.1.2. (4.4.2 and 4.6.2)-

s

~

_. . . - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . . . _ , ,_._._._..__..._.-m. . _ - . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _

7

9. The method used to determine the radionuclide distribution of the total releases of radionuclides other than noble gases should be addressed in Section 3.3.2 (4.6.2)

8. All GASPAR parameters used for the calculations of doses due to noble gases should be included in Section 3.3.1. (4.6.1)

9. The most recent version of the OASPAR code, GASPAR 11. should be used for calculations of doses due to gaseous efnuents. (4.6)

10. All GASPAR parameters used for the calculations of doses due to radionuclides other the noble gases should be included in Section 3.3.2. (4.6.2)

Category B. The items below concern information that should be added to make the ODCM more complete. prevent erroneous interpretation of the methodology, ur correct methodology that is erToneous.

1. The methodology in Section 2.1.1 to determine setpoints of the liquid efnuent radioactivity monitors should define setpoints corTesponding to concentrations greater than those existing in the undiluted liquid einuents, so continuous alarm does not occur. (4.1)

2. Section 2.1.1 should require at least administrative controls to prevent simultaneous batch releases. (4.1)

3. In Section 2.1.1, the long term buildup of radionuclides in Harris Lake should be considered in the calculation of setpoints for the liquid efnuent radioactivity rMuitors. (4.1)

4. The definition of C for i Eq. 2.114, Section 2.1.1. should require that the concentration of radionuclide "1" be determined by the analyses specified in Table 4.11 1. (4.3)

5. The definition of V for s Eq. 2.1 14,in Section 3.1.1, should specify " undiluted liquid efnuent."

(4.3)

6. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1 should include commitments to determine the distribution and release rates of noble gas radionuclides in gaseous effluents from the sampling and analyses specified in TS Table 4.112 if this is feasible. (4.4.1 and 4.6.1)

7. Section 6.1.1 should include a requirement that any report of calculations required by TS 3.11.4 willinclude a complete statement of the assumptions and parameters used in calculating doses for the report. (4.9) 24

, 1 Catenary C. De items in this category indicate omissions and editorial deficiencies that are not likely to cause significant problems:

1. The first sentence of Subsection 5. Section 2.1.1 should be restated in the terms used in item 1 of the Note at the end of 10 CFR 20, Appendix 5. (4.1)

. 2. De HSP, in Eq. 2.17 should apparently be identified as the monitor setpoint in " equivalent Cs.137 concentration." (4.1)

3. A definition of M ifor Eq. 3.31 should be added to Section 3.3.1. (4.6.1)

4. The word " average" should be replaced with " total" in the definitions of the noble gas releases for Eq. 3.31 and 3.3 2; i.e., the definitions from NUREO.0133 should be corrected. (4.6.1)

Catenory D. The following items concern methodology and parameters that the licenses may wish to change because the change may simplify calculations, remove unnecessary conservatism la the-calculations, or make use of recent data. No Category D items were identified.

4

- .________m______.____ . .

4 .

6. CONCLUSIONS The SHNPP ODCM, lievision 3. uses docummted and approved methods that are, in general, consistent with the metboblogy and guidance of NUREG 0133 and Regulatory Guide 1.109. The ODCM contains essetitially all of the required methodology. However, because of significant omissiots and i'ru., h is recommended that the NR" request another revision of the ODCM to address the most significant deficiencies identifle: a t e review.

,, } The most ir petant corrections and add!tions neede.! are summarized below:

s. The medodology of Sectims 2.2.1 to determme doses via the fish pathway should account for the fact that the fish live in the steady state radionuclide concentrations of Harris lap.e.

Regulatory Guide 1.113 contains methodology to determine the steady state concentrations.

2. In the methodology of Section 2.2.1, the dilution flow used for povble water consumption thou.:'. be limited by t'A flow of the Cape Fear River. Also, see the followiag item.

3. The methodology of Section 2.2.1 to determine doses via the potable water path < .hould be U based on releases from Harris Lake at the steady state radionuclide concentratic:

j 4.- The error in the dose calculation for water corism Mon by the teen and child age poups (which gives rero doses) should be corree'si.

5. Th ? v@tencies between the mets ..ogy M ine ODCM and LADTAP 11 calculations sacu . t eliminated; and !aput parameters for LADTAP 11 should be included in the CDCM,

6. Me90dology to determine the magnitude of the total releases of radioactive materials in gaseous efflueats (the Qi, s and qi,' s) should be included in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.1.

7. All GASPAR parameters used for the calculations of doses due to gaseoue effluents should be included in Sections 3.3.1. and 3.3.2.

8. The most recent verslou of the OASPAR t. ode, OASP/P II, should be used for calculations of deses due to gaseous effluents. .

26

4-4

,  ?

i 7. REFERENCES

1. Title 10. Code of Federa! Rerulations, Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and 5 Utilization Facilities" t

1 2. Letter from B. Buckley (NRC) to E. E. Utley (CP&L);

Subject:

Sheaton Harris, Unit 1 -

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual; May 30,1986.

4 l 3. Letter from R. B. Richey (CPAL) to Document Control Desk (NRC);

Subject:

Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report; August 29,1989.

! 4. Letter from R. B. Richey (CP&L) to NRC Document Control Desk (NRC);

Subject:

j Semlannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report: March 2,1990.

i.

! 5. Letter from R. B. Richey (CP&L) to NRC Document Control Desk (NRC);

Subject:

Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report; February 27,1991.

1

6. Letter from R. B. Richey (CP,&L) to NRC Document Control Desk (NRC);

Subject:

l

Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report: February 24,1992, i

! 7.- " Standard Radiological Effluent Controls fur Pressurized Water Reactors"; NUREG-0472,

! Revision 3, Draft 9. August 28,1989.

l

8. " Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants A i

Guidance Manual for Users of Standard Technical Specifications," NUREG 0133, l October 1978.

I

9. " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CPR 50, Appendix I," Reguistey Guide 1.109, Revision 1, October 1977,

10. " General Contents of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual", Revision 1, Branch Technical Position, Radit; logical Assessment Branch, NRC, February 8,197k.

11. " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operafba of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Dockets Nos. S'li4 50-400 and STN 50-401, Carolina Power and Light Company," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC; NUREO.0972, October 1983,

12. " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents fron. Accidental or Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," Regulatory Guide 1.113, Revision 1 NRC, April 1977.

.o .

e 0 ,

13. Title 10, Code of Federal Rerulations, Part 20. " Standards for Protection Against Radiation."

14 Title 10. Code of Federal Rerulations. Part 20. " Standards for Protection Agi*nst Radiation,"

Appendix B to il 20.100120.2401 Annual Limits on Intake (ALis) and Derived Air Coccentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure: Effluent Concentrations:

Concentrations for Release to Sewerage,(added to 10 CFR 20 by 56 FR 23360, May 21, 1991.)

4 2

i i

4

^

l i

t 1

i '

i

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

.o r- ,

6 g-Q 7...... .. ....... ...... - . ... ... ..... - ... .. ~

j ;7,:."J;i' sisU0 GRAPHIC OATA SHttT EGG-PHY-10462 i ............... .........

l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE EVALUATION OF i 00CM REVISION 3 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, l UNIT ?-NRC Docket No. 50-400 NRC License No. NPF-63 ,,. ,,,,

l ,

T*.0 - .. Septe_mber 1992-T. E. Young. T. S. Bohn, D. W. Akers

,,. ***" ****** * ".... l l; . Septiember - 1992

. ......u.......................<.. ...m...........

} Idaho National Engineering Laboratory u n r... m ..

! EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 63415 06034 l

-#r6. .. . . # .... . . . . . ... .. <.. . ... w ... . .-

j U. S. Nuclear Requlatory Commission i

Washington, D.C. 20555 . . . . .. 1.

4 i'

.,....;,a..

i TheOffsiteDoseCalculationManual(00CM)fortheShearonHarrisNuclear l Power Plant. Unit 1 (SHNPP) contains current methodology and parapeters used to calculate offsite doses, dose rates, effluent monitoring. alarm / trip setpoints, and conduct the radiological environmental monitoring program. The NRC i transmitted the most recent complete SHNPP ODCM, Revision 3, updated through i Advance Change 3/4, dated December 18, 1991, to the-Idaho National Engineering l Laboratory for review by EG&G Idaho, Inc. The ODCM was reviewed by EC4G Idaho,

.and the results are presented in this report. It was determined that the ODCM uses methods that<are, in general, within the guidelines of NUREG-0133.

4 However, the following items should be addressed promptly: -(a) doses due to .:

l 1Ll uid-related pathways should include components due to the long-term

! buildup of radionuclides in-Harris Lake, (b) the dilution associated with =

l potable water pathways should be: limited, and errors in the calculation of

doses to the teen and child age groups snould be corrected, (c) input i

parameters for GASPAR and LADTAP II calculations should be added to the ODCM;

! GASPAR II-should be used for dose calculations (d) methodology used to L determine release rates and total releases of gaseous effluents should be added. .

L m......._=,

. . 3. , 4..ute, i: ^

[ ..

w. . . .. . ..b.,

l p - -

...2......

e~

i . m. j i

l

% .. , , , , ...c.__-a.,,,,__,.. -.-.,,,,a.,..,___. . _ _ _ . _ . . . . , , . . - . _ - _ _ . . . _