ML20238B116
| ML20238B116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238B110 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709010075 | |
| Download: ML20238B116 (5) | |
Text
,
[*g UNITED STATES
+
3 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.113 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY-PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 10, 1987, DuquesneLightCompany(thelicensee),
submitted a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1.
This amendment would revise several radiation monitor setpoints listed in Table 3.3-6, revise the meteorological monitoring instrumentation in Table 3.3-8, and revise action statements 27 and 29 in Table 3.3-13.
By letter dated April 10, 1987, the licensee provided additional information l
which supplemented the February 10, 1987 application. This supplemental information did not change the requested amendment, and therefore did not c5ange the initial determination of no significant hazards consideration as published in the Federal Register.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION (a) Radiation monitor setpoints (Table 3.3-6)
The licensee's proposed Technical Specification change includes revision of the alarm setpoints for the following monitors:
Monitor Current Proposed System Designation Value Va'ue Containment RM-RM-219 A & B 30 R/hr 1600 R/hr i
High-Range Area Monitor SLCRs RM-VS-110 Ch. 7 350 cpm 66 cpm
& Ch. 9 Aux Bldg RM-VS-109 Ch. 7 275 cpm 55 cpm Vent System
& Ch. 9 k[0ggoh 4-P j
a
l I
. Monitor Current Proposed System Designation Value Value Process RM-GW-109 Ch. 7 18000 cpm 31000 cpm Vent System
& Ch. 9 Auxiliary FW RM-MS-101 650 cpm 50 cpm pump Turbine Exhaust The following factors contribute to the need for these changes:
(l') Gaseous effluent monitor response efficiencies changed due to work performed. The most significant change is attributable to incorporation of automatic pressure compensation on the SPING monitors.
In addition, some minor modifications were made in the way that periodic calibrations are performed.
(2) Emergency Action Levels (EALs) for a General Emergency were revised j
downward in 1985 by about a factor of 5.
EPA Protective Action Guides (PAGs) pemit exposures in the range of 1 to 5 rem whole body, and 5 to 25 rem thyroid. Previously, the licensee based its EALs on the upper j
limit of these PAGs, but decided in 1985 to take a more conservative j
approach.
I (3) The licensee wished to arrange the alarm setpoints for the various j
monitors on a consistent buis related to the general emergency, i.e.,
j to set them such that the alarm would correspond to a site boundary dose l
of I rem whole body or 5 rem thyroid. Currently, some setpoints are based on the general emergency, while others were based on a site emergency.
~
(4) Previously, the calculation of monitor response was based on the Updated FSAR chapter 11 expected source terms. Additional conservatism would be obtained by changing the source term to reflect the most restrictive i
emergency source term for the applicable release point. These source terms are found in Chapter 14 of the Updated FSAR.
(5) TheXfQvaluewasrevisgddownwardin1983fromtheoriginal1.58E-3 sec/m to 8.91E-4 sec/m. The latter value was developed during the reanalysis of the design-basis LOCA.
It represents the highest sector value for the exclusion area boundary at the 0.5 percentile, i.e. the value which is exceeded no more than one-half of one percent of the time. This revision would result in a factor of 1.77 increase in the setroints of the listed monitors.
It should be noted that the overall effect of the licensee's proposed revision would be to raise the setpoints of two monitors (RM-RM-219 and RM-GW-109),
while it would lower the others listed above. Although all of the listed monitors are affected by the revised value of X/Q, the lower setpoint values for three of the monitors are the result of the other factors discussed in paragraphs 1 through 4 above.
r'
. With the exception of paragraph (5), we determined that the reasons given for the setpoint changes are acceptable. However, the change in the value of X/Q described in paragraph (5) needs to be justified because it does not conform to the analysis provided in the SER (NUREG-1057) for the licensee's Unit 2 facility, and is less conservative than the value provided there. Additional information is needed for us to complete review of the requested change, j
(b) Meteorological monitoring instrumentation (Table 3.3-8)
The licensee proposes a revision to Table 3.3-8 to add the redundant meteorological monitoring instruments for air temperature delta T, wind speed, and wind direction. The minimum operability requirements would be increased i
at the same time, permitting the loss of either primary or redundant channels, but maintaining the same overall minimum availability of data.
The proposed change would not remove the requirement for operability or accuracy of the meteorological monitoring equipment, and would not decrease the availability of data in the event of failure of a particular instrument.
Data obtained from the secondary instruments would be essentially equivalent to that obtained by the primary instruments, due to the placement of
)
the secondary instruments on the same tower as the primary instruments.
The increased operability requirements mean that the measurement of delta T will continue to be available from at least one elevation, and that wind speed and direction will continue to be available from at least two elevations.
Approval of this proposed change is consistent with the Beaver Valley Unit 1
)
Updated FSAR Section 2.2.3, Onsite Meteorological Monitoring Program. This j
section states that redundant cables, signal conditioning equipment, and i
readout devices are provided for the primary and secondary instrumentation for wind speed, wind direction, and delta T.
There are separate l
environmentally-controlled equipment shelters for the primary and secondary signal conditioning equipment and readout devices. An alternate source of power (diesel generator) is located near the tower.
The secondary instruments are normally calibrated in the same manner and at the same frequency as the primary instruments. Technical Specifications mandate that a channel that has not been calibrated within the specified time interval must be declared inoperable; thus a non-calibrated channel could not be used to satisfy the " Minimum Operable" requirement of revised Table 3.3-8.
A daily channel check of these instruments is also required to demonstrate operability. Therefore, the requested change is acceptable.
(c) Table 3.3-13 Action Statements 27 and 29 Included in the Technical Specifications for radioactive gaseous effluent monitoring instrumentation are requirements for noble gas activity monitors in the following systems: Gaseous Waste / Process Vent System, Auxiliary Building Ventilation System, and Reactor Building Supplemental Leak Collection and
r
. Release System (SLCRS). Associated with each of. these monitors is an action statement that presently requires grab sampling of any tank of waste gas to be released via one of these pathways, in the event that the continous noble gas monitor becomes inoperable.
The licensee proposes a revision to action statements 27 and 29 in Table 3.3-13 to provide untinuous monitoring by the use of alternate monitoring equipment having capabilities comparable to the primary instruments presently in service, in lieu of the grab sampling described above. The proposed wording in the revision also would require that the same surveillance requirements applicable to the inoperable channel be applied to the alternate channel when the latter is used to sa.tisfy the Technical Specification requirement.
The alternate instruments are normally calibrated in the same manner and at the same frequency as the primary instruments. Technical Specifications mandate that a channel that has not been calibrated within the specified time interval must be declared inoperable; thus a non-calibrated channel could not be used to satisfy the " Minimum Operable" requirement of revised Table 3.3-13.
A quarterly channel functional test of these instruments is
~
also required to demonstrate operability. A channel check and source check are required prior to each release via a pathway monitored by that channel.
The licensee has previously provided information concerning the capabilities of the radiation monitors for the process vent, ventilation vent (Auxiliary Building), and SLCRS. Each effluent monitoring system has in series a Victoreen monitor, an Eberline SA 9710 monitor, and an Eber11ne SPING-4 monitor. These monitors provide coverage extending from E-07 to E+05 uC1/cc, relative to Xe-133. The range over which all three systems actually overlap in coverage extends from somewhat less than E-04 to about E-01 uCi/cc.
Table 3.3-13 of the Technical Specifications requires that each of these three effluent release pathways have at least one operable monitor; otherwise the licensee is required to take the appropriate action as listed in the action statement applicable to the pathway. Section 3.3.3.10 of the Technical Specifications requires the alarm / trip setpoints of these monitors be detemined in accordance with the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM), to ensure that the dose limits of Section 3.11.2.1 are not exceeded. The ODCM provides methodology for determining the setpoint for the primary monitor and an alternate monitor for each of these systems. Therefore, the licensee has the ability to effectively monitor the effluent via aach of the pathways using either the primary or an alternate monitor, and if neither monitor is operable, the licensee will use grab samples or suspend releases via the pathway of concern.
The proposed change would not remove the requirement for operability or calibration frequency of the monitors, and would not decrease the availability of data in the event of failure of a particular instrument. Data obtained from the alternate instrument would be essentially equivalent to that obtained by the primary instrument. In addition, there is no change in the requirement to suspend releases via the affected pathway if monitoring instruments are inoperable and two independent grab samples cannot be obtained and analyzed, as stated in the current version (Amendment No. 66) of Section 3.3.3.10 of the
]
Technical Specifications.
- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
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 the individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant
{
hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no J'
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public j
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Consnission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health safety of the public.
Dated: August 27, 1987 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS:
R. Struckmeyer, Reviewer W. Kane, Division Director j
_ _ _ _. _ _ _. _. _ _. _ _