Text

Licensee Answer to Contentions Proposed by Intervenors Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony.* Air & Water Pollution Patrol & Rl Anthony Failed to Plead Single Admissible Contention.W/Certificate of Svc
	ML20238F177
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	09/11/1987
From:	Conner T; CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	CON-#387-4366 GL-85-19, OLA, NUDOCS 8709160014
	Download: ML20238F177 (27)
	v • d • e

. _ - __- _ _ - __ _ _- ___ - --

l 1

.t .y Y -

Oct pg pf;;.

m.q g Q

l

-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. '87 SEP 14. P4 36 -

1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION On c Before the Atomic' Safety and Licensing BoaYde 3 z- , jg' Mi ric

'In the Matter of )

)

. Philadelphia Electric' Company. .) Docket No. 50-352-OLA (TS Iodine)

? )

'(Limerick Generating Station, )

Unit 1) )

LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO CONTENTIONS PPhPOSED BY

' INTERVENERS AIR AND WATER POLLUTIOtt PATROL AND ROBERT L.JANTHONY Preliminary Statement l

LIn a Memorandum- and Order 'ated July. 28, 1987, the d

presiding Atomic.' Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing' li Board" or " Board") provisionally granted separate petitions-i for leave to intervene' filed in this proceedingiby Air and Water Pollution Patrol ( '.' AWPP " ) (represented by Frank R.

. Romano) and Robert - L. Anthony. ! The Board ordered the' interveners to file proposed contentions as a supplement to each petition for leave to intervene by August 28, 1987.2/

The provisionally granted petitions result from a requested amendment of the operating license for the L

n K :l/.

~

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating l Station, Unit 1) , " Memorandum and Order (Provisionally Ordering a Hearing and Provisionally Granting Petitions for' Leave to Intervene)" (July 28, 1987).

2/ Limerick, " Notice of Hearing on Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License" at 3 (July 28, 1987).

8709160014 g70933

.{DR ADOCK 05000352 PDR b@

0 t: _ _- ________-___-___-_-__ _ _ a

_e

- 2~-

Limerick -Generating Station', Unit 1 (" Limerick"). The

~ amendment'will change the Technical. Specifications' contained in-Appendix A of Facility Operating _ License'NPF-39 for Unit 1 of Limerick.' The: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ('Commis-sion" _ or ' "NRC") Staff had requested Philadelphia - Electric Company (" Licensee")' to file the request for this amendment to " delete unnecessary reporting and related requirements.

Essentially, it incorporates the NRC model Technical Speci-fications provided with Generic Letter No. 85-19 for report- -

ing. iodine spikes during normal plant operation.

The procedural history of the amendment request and the notice of opportunity to request a hearing has been previ-ously described.and need not be repeated.1 For the reasons discussed below, AWPP and Mr. Anthony have failed to supple-ment their petitions with a single . admissible contention.

Indeed, given the analysis performed by the regulatory Staff concerning'this minor change in plant Technical Specifica-

tions, it is difficult to imagine any technical matter which could be the subject of .a litigable contention. Their petitions should therefore be denied.

Nature of the Amendment A proper understanding of the nature of the amendment is essential in analyzing and applying the NRC's 3/ See Licensee's Answer in Opposition to Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene by Air and Water Pollution Patrol (May 20, 1987).

requirements-lfor a ' litigable contention. The requested u

l amendment resulted from the Staff's position in a two-page document circulated as Generic Letter.No. 85-19 (September l~ 27,1 1985). (copy attached) . The Staff. stated that "as part

'of our l continuing program 'to delete unnecessary reporting 1;

requirements, we have reviewed the reporting requirements related to primary coolant specific' activity levels, specif-

-ically primary coolant iodine spikes" and." determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking can be reduced from a short-term report (Special Report or Licensee Event l Report) to an item which is to be included in the Annual Report."

The Staff also stated that "to eliminate unnecessary Technical' Specification requirements," it had determined that -" the existing. requirements to shut down a plant if coolant iodine activity limits are exceeded for 800' hours in a 12-month period can be eliminated." As the basis for this J l

conclusion, the NRC stated that the " quality of nuclear fuel has been greatly improved over the past decade with the I result that ' normal coolant iodine activity (i.e. in the absence of iodine spiking) is well below the limit."

In the past, iodine spiking had been considered an important indicator of significant fuel cladding degrada-tion. In Generic Letter No. 85-19, the Staff stated that this ' concern is adequately addressed by 10 C.F.R.

S50.72 (b) (1) (ii) , which " requires the NRC to be immediately notified of fuel cladding failures that exceed expected i l

!.1,-.

{ ,

L i values or that are caused by unexpected factors." The Staff therefore concluded that the short-term reporting require-1 ment for iodine spiking in plant Technical Specifications j

is no longer considered necessary on the basis that proper l l

fuel management by licensees and existing reporting require- 1 ments should preclude over approaching the limit." The Staff requested licensees to seek an amendment based upon the model Technical Specifications provided.

In its application dated August 19, 1986, Licensee proposed to incorporate the model Technical Specifications

~

suggested by the NRC Staff. To meet the formal requirements for any amendment to an operating license, the application i

discussed the safety significance and environmental consid- ;

1 erations of the change as well as the NRC's "significant hazards consideration" determination under the three crite-ria set forth in 10 C.F.R. $50.92(c).

On March 12, 1987, the NRC published in the Federal Register its intent to issue the requested amendment.b It i discussed the background analysis which led to the iss'ance u of Generic Letter No. 85-19 and then evaluated the three criteria under Section 50.92(c). The Staff's analysis of the three criteria under Section 50.92(c) and its determina-tion of "no significant hazards consideration" are 4/ 52 Fed. Reg. 7691 (March 12, 1987).

1

J. -

independent' of the issuance of the amendment itself.5_/

.Nonetheless, the analysis is . important in explaining the

' nature of.the amendment, its lack of impact upon existing plant' operations'and, consequently, the failure by AWPp and Mr. Anthony to provide any technical basis or specificity for their proposed " contentions."

Under the first criterion of Section 50.92(c) (involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated), the NRC stated:

The change in the reporting require-ments is administrative in- nature.

Although the reporting requirement for iodine spiking events is- being reduced from' a short term report to an item whi'ch is to be included in - the Annual Report, the immediate notification and reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 will provide adequate information on an increase in coolant activity which may be indicative of significant fuel degradation. The change in reporting requirements does not affect any plant equipment, or operational procedures or conditions for operation which could impact the probability or consequences of an accident.

The elimination of the cumulative 800-hour operating time limit in a 12-month period is based on consideration of improvements in the quality of nuclear fuel which have resulted in the normal coolant iodine .

activity being well below the limit and l

l 5/ As discussed at page 12, infra, the "no significant !

hazards consideration" finding is not reviewable by a licensing board. That Staff finding merely permits the NRC under Section 50. 91(a) (4) to issue the amendment 3 prior to the conclusion of any hearing, if requested.

I i

_--_1----_---_

the' high likelihood .of appropriate actions being taken in response .to -the requirements for plant' shutdown and increased surveillance, as discussed ~

above, long before accumulating 800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months within the specified limits. This change does not increase the current (coolant iodine)- limits on ' specific activity and, ,therefore,- does not increase the radiological consequences of any accident in which reactor coolant is postulated to be released to the environment.

. . . Further, the [ amendment] does not involve any change in the design of plant equipment or reactor operator practices that could impact the probability or consequences of an

' accident and does not involve degrada-tion of any of the conservative as-sumptions used in staff's previously performed dose assessment analysis.6,/-

With respect to the second criterion (create the possibility .of a new or different kind of accident from any l

L. accident previously evaluated), the NRC stated:

The administrative changes in report-ing requirements do not vary or affect any plant operating condition or parame-

. t e r,. . . . [T}he design of the plant is unchanged, the inputs, assumptions and results for the previously performed safety analyses are unchanged, and no new paths are introduced that could lead to a new or different . kind of acci-dent.7/

On the third criterion (involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety), the NRC similarly stated:

l l

6/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 7693 (emphasis added).

7/ Id. (emphasis added).

I.

- _ _ - _ - . - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..-_s _ .___-._.__m, . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . - . , . _ _

The administrative changes in report-ing ' requirements do not vary or affect any plant operating condition or parame-ter, do not change any of the design bases of the plant and thus do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety of any plant parameter.

. . . There is no change in the design of the plant and the inputs, assumptions and results for previously performed and accepted safety analyses are un-changed.8/

In essence, the minor change in Technical Specification requirements is an administrative measure which will have no perceptible impact upon plant operations, Argument I. AWPP Has Not Met The Requirements For An Admissible Contention Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, an intervenor must " include a list of the contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated."U Thus, the threshold requirement for any admissible contention is, quite simply, that a 8/ Id. (emphasis added). As noted, the proposed amendment eliminates, at the NRC Staff's suggestion, the requirement under the existing Technical Specification to cease plant operation if ecolant iodine activity limits (greater than 0.2 microcurie per gram dose equivalent I-131 but less than or equal to 4 microcuries per gram) are exceeded for a cumulative total of 800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months in a 12-month period. The Staff found that the greatly improved quality of nuclear fuel in recent years plus existing requirements for immediate notification of fuel cladding failure "should preclude ever approaching the limit" of 800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months of excessive coolant iodine activity in a 12-month period.

See Generic Letter No. 85-19 (attached).

9/ 10 C.F.R. 52. 714 (b) .

recognizable, discrete " contention" or set of " contentions" exists. In this instance, AWPP has not complied with this rudimentary requirement. Instead, the supplement to its petition is just a narrative reiteration of generalized concerns about the dangers of radioactivity and an attack upon Licensee's management as previously presented in its petition.

Hence, AWPP has filed no contention at all. The Board certair.ly has no obligation to recast AWPP's dissertation into a discernible contention.EI Indeed, expansion of AWPP's contention beyond "its own self-imposed limita-tions . . . would be tantamount to the raising of a new issue sua sponte," which is permitted only under exceptional.

circumstances.NI In an earlier license amendment case involving Limerick, the Licensing Board found a petition filed by Mr.

Romano on behalf of AWPP defective for the same reason. The Board described AWPP's proposed contention as "a rambling, argumentative paper, which except for its title, has no 10/ Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and

2) , ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 406 (1974).

M/ Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) , ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105, 1115 (1982). In fact, it is doubtful whether a licensing board possesses sua sponte authority in an operating license amendment proceeding. See vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-869, 26 NRC (July 21, 1987)

(slip op, at 14).

m

' i.

4 discernable relevance to the . . . ~ proceeding" ' a nd - "is without any' merit."N AWPP's proposed' contention ~here fares.no better.

-In addition, the matters raised by AWPP are irrelevant to ' the requested amendment. Contrary to the explicit lan-

~

guage of the. amendment, AWPP claims that it serves "to raise the amount of radioactive Iodine (Unit 1) can release at any one- isolated time or isolated times and have it .be con-sidered on.the one year ' basis. "1_3,/ Elsewhere, AWPP . refers to alleged " excess releases" and implies a change in " allow-able limits for radioactive iodine releases."UI As noted, however, the amendment will'not authorize any increase -in radioactive effluents. AWPP has wholly failed to provide any technical basis showing that the proposed amendment will increase radiciodine ' releases or permissible limits of releases.NI~

M/ Limerick, LBP-86-9, 23 NRC 273, 278 (1986).

M/ AWPP (Romano) Supplement at 1 (August 21, 1987).

14/ Id. at 2.

M/ As the Licensing Board summarized in the Hartsville proceeding:

[O)nce it has been determined that the plant and site are adequate, technical

-specifications which will be part of any-operating license will govern ultimate L plant operation and insure that plant releases meet the guidelines [of 10 ;

C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I]. Actual (Footnote Continued)

I The precedents establish that AWPP has failed to provide any basis or specificity to support its allegations. )

The Commission has ruled that contentions " lack the requi-site specificity" if they "do not identify any particular structures, systems or components for which it is claimed i

that [the licensee's activities are] not commensurate with their safety function." E Similarly, the Board in Shoreham stated that a valid contention must "specify the particular features" of the regulatory requirement at issue and "show the nexus of those features" to safety or environmental issues directly trace-able to the amendment.17/ AWPP's proposed " contention" is (Footnote Continued) operating data from radioactive effluents and radioactive environmental !

monitoring will be used to calculate doses to the public, and these running calculations of doses during the year will be used to assure compliance with Appendix I.

Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartville Nuclear Plant, Units IA,1 2A, 1B and 2B), LBP-77-28, 5 NRC 1081, 1106 (1977).

i 16/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powe.r Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-84-14, 20 NRC 285, 286 (1984).

H/ Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-18, 14 NRC 71, 75 (1981). The Board further stated:

The requirement of greater specificity is necessary to provide a fair opportunity for other parties to learn precisely what the issues are, what proof, evidence or testimony is required (Footnote Continued)

so ~ completely lacking in technical specificity that it is intpossible'to discern any allegation of substance, including .i I

the requirement or other regulation with which Licensee has l i

allegedly failed to comply. !

1 The Appeal Board recently stated that although the Rules. of practice "do not state a precise equation for i determining what is an adequate basis," sufficient basis must be shown to demonstrate, inter alia, "that the issue at j hand is appropriate for litigation in the particular pro-ceeding."N! AWPP's supplement falls far short of meeting ]

I even this minimum standard for an acceptable contention.

Its musings over hypothetical releases, accidents and other conjectural occurrences which have nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment fail to show any basis, much less one 1 1

i (Footnote Continued) to meet the issues, and what the Intervenor intends to adduce for its allegations.

1 S*

18/

~~

Texas Utilities Electric Company (Comanche Peak Steam ;

Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868, 25 NRC (June l 30, 1987) (slip op. at 32-33). The Appeal Board added I that the requirement of an adequate basis is " designed to make certain that a proffered issue is sufficiently articulated to provide the other parties with its broad i I

outlines and to provide the Licensing Board with enough information for determining whether the issue is appropriately litigable in the instant proceeding. The requirement generally is fulfilled when the sponsor of j an otherwise acceptable contention provides a brief !

I recitation of the factors underlying the contention or references to documents and texts that provide such l

reasons." g. at 33.

1 i

L . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - i

..12 -

with specificity, for. challenging the . validity of the amendment.

-The other' points raised.in AWPP's proposed?" contention"

are likewise irrelevant to the amendment. The activities of Licensee's management, whether related to Limerick-Unit 1 or lthe.' Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, is not.a litigable issue; in this proceeding. '

The "no significant -hazards

l. .

H consideration" determination by the NRC Staff with respect l . .

I to this' amendment-is also not a matter which this Board is empowered - to review.E! Neither is "the use of potassium iodide' as an ' antidote [ sic] for radioactive' iodine"El at

' issue regarding the amendment.

II . - Mr. Anthony Has Not Met The Requirements For An' Admissible Contention As with AWPP, Mr. Anthony has not actually' pleaded any specific contention.. The numbered paragraphs in his supple-ment' discuss 'various concerns, but 'do not propose any particular contention by which the issue would be joined for

. litigation. As such, Mr. Anthony's supplement is simply an 1

argumentative dissertation which fails to meet minimum ,

)

pleading requirements for contentions under 10 C.F.R.

52. 714 (b) . )

I l

19/ Vermont' Yankee , LBP-87-17, 25 NRC (May 26, 1987) .j (slip op. at 6-7), aff'd and rev'd in part on other ~

grounds, ALAB-869, 26 NRC (July 217 1987).

20/ AWPP (Romano) Supplement at 3 (August 21, 1987).

( aj.]

.. 7 - 13 _

li , o In any event, even if deemed " contentions," the various statements by'Mr. Anthony are irrelevant to the requested

amendment . under consideration here. In Paragraph .1, Mr.

Anthony alleges employee misconduct and deficiencies in management, principally related to the Peach Bottom plant .

These allegations are- irrelevant' on their ' face. This proceeding is' strictly limited to the requested amendment to change the plant's Technical Specifications regarding iodine spiking. It cannot be expanded to an open-ended inquiry into other matters. pertaining to the plant's operation.U I

' As the Appeal Board stated in a Point Beach license i

amendment proceeding:

In a license amendment proceeding, a licensing board has only limited juris-diction. The board may admit a party's issues'for hearing ~only insofar as those ;

issues are within the scope of matters !

outlined in the Commission's notice of hearing on the licensing action. Here, the notice of. hearing stated [that] the proceeding would concern the repair of steam generator tubes by sleeving and-the operation of the Point Beach plant 1 with sleeved tubes.- Thus [intervenor) i l

H/ In Catawba, the Appeal Board emphasized that

"[a] adjudicatory boards do not have plenary subject matter jurisdiction in Commission proceedings" because they are " delegates of the Commission and, as . such, they may exercise authority over only those matters that the Commission commits to them" by notice of hearing. Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-825, 22 NRC 785, 790 (1985)

(footnotes omitted). See also Portland General Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979); Public Service Companv of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, ;

Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167. 170-71 (1976). J l

l I

a______--__._-_._-_____-____---. .__ . _ _ - . _ _ - _ . _ _ .

m . esp had t'o put forth a _ cognizable: claim that some element .of the sleeving pro::ess gives. rise to_an enhanced likelihood of tube rupture and the allegedly concomi--

tant consequences'. . .. . -(Intervenor) was aware it had to- make this show-ing .-..., yet it failed to provide any link demonstrating- that sleeving may lead, or be related, to tube fail-ures.p/

Similarly, in an amendment proceeding involving . the Zion plant, the Appeal Board ' affirmed the exclusion of testimony as to alleged inadequacies in-the emergency plan unrelated to the amendment. The Appeal Board stated that the Licensing Board "was not empowered to reconsider whether

~

the Zion. facility should have been licensed to operate in the first instance, or whether the emergency plan approved in conjunction with that 111 cense was generally in need of revision."2_3)~ Mr. Anthony's proposed " contention" relating to Licensee's management should be denied because it simi-larly fails to establish any nexus to the requested. amend-ment.-

As'with AWPP, Mr. Anthony has offered no technical or scientific basis to connect the requirements of the proposed amendment relating to primary coolant iodine spikes with offsite effluent releases from the plant. As noted, the 22/ Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear

~"~

Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-739, 18 NRC 335, 339 (1983)

(citations omitted) (footnotes omitted).

'23/ Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980).

~"~

l requested amendment does not authorize any increase in radioactive effluents, including radiciodine. Mr. Anthony, like AWPP, has shown no basis whatsoever to establish that the proposed amendment will result in an increase of radio-active effluents or the level of permissible releases.

Accordingly, the matters contained in Mr. Anthony's Para-graphs 2-6 fail to state any basis for litigation.

Moreover, as Mr. Anthony acknowledges, the matters _ he wishes to raise now were the subject of his motion to reopen which was denied during the operating license proceeding.24/

Mr. Anthony elected not to seek judicial review of that decision, which is now res judicata.

Further, Mr. Anthony's discussion of the Chernobyl accident in Paragraphs 5 and 6 does not provide any basis for an admissible contention. Inasmuch as the requested amendment will not change the permissible limits of radioac-tive effluents from the plant, " releases added to the l

atmosphere from other plant (s]," including radiciodine from !

l I

Chernobyl,25/ are irrelevant.

l l

Finally, each of the numbered items discussed by Mr.

Anthony, like the matters raised by AWPP, fall far short of l 1

providing the requisite scientific or technical basis required for an admissible contention under 10 C.F.R.

l

,2,4/ Limerick, ALAB-828, 23 NRC 13 (1986).

25,/ Anthony Supplement at 2 (August 26, 1987).

J l

S2.714(b). While Mr. Anthony has cited a number of docu-ments, none of them relates to the proposed amendment or i

shows any connection between the amendment and Mr. Anthony's allegations. In particular, the scientific journals and

.related data cited by Mr. Anthony pertain to geographic areas directly affected by the Chernobyl accident or address in a general fashion the hazards of radiation. None of this is in any way relevant to the minor change in the Technical Specifications for Limerick at issue here.

Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, both AWPP and Mr.

Anthony have failed to plead a single admissible contention.

Their provisionally granted intervention should therefore be denied and the proceeding dismissed.E!

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P, m .~ '

s ",l)pj DL

- >? n< / [

Troy B. Conner, Jr. '

Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader l l

\

Counsel for Licensee j I

i September 11, 1987 i

l l

l 26/ See 10 C.F.R. S2.714(b); Duquesne Light Company (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2), LBP-84-6, 19 NRC 393, 395, 430 (1984).

1 l

l l

w--___----_____. ._.

l /

~

H L

L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEP 14 P4 56 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

r: ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing B'ard~ o In the Matter of ')

)

Philadelphia Electric Company )~ Docket No. 50-352-OLA

) (TS Iodine)

(Limerick Generating Station,. )'

l Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby-certify that copies of'" Licensee's Answer to Contentions Proposed By Interveners Air And Water Pollution Patrol And Robert L.1 Anthony" dated September 11, 1987 in the. captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit' in the United States mail this lith. day of September,'1987:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.

Chairman- Robert M Weisman, .Esq.- J Atomic Safety and. Counsel for NRC Staff I Licensing. Board Panel - Office of-the General l U.S.fNuclear Regulatory Counsel I l

Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission' Washington, D.C. 20555.

Dr.. Richard.F. Cole Atomic Safety and Docketing and Service Licensing Board Panel Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. .20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Mr. Frank R. Romano Atomic Safety and 61 Forest Avenue Licensing Board Panel . Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,

Commission Mr. Robert L. Anthony Washington, D.C. 20555 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, PA 19065 0 1 '

u Robert M. Rader ,

i i

UNITED STATES \

l : . ': NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION s W G f ,

g 9ASHINGTON. D C 20555 Seotember 27, 1985 RECENED 4 L %, ,,,,,# ,

CCT 101985 %

M '/ NUCLEAR CINERADcN j Q

TO ALL LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATING POWER REACTORS A ', .s\

0F CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR POWER REACTORS Mi i' Gentlemen: '

SUBJECT:

Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes (Generic Letter No. 85- 19 )

Generic letter No. 83-43 was issued on December 19, 1983, to provide guidance on Technical Specification revisions required as the result of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.7? (! mediate Notification Requirements of Significant Events l at Operating Nuclear Power Reactors) and of implementation of 10 CFR 50.73 '

(Licensee Event Report System). That generic letter discussed changing the requirement from a Licensee Event Report to a Special Report for operating conditions where the specific activity limits of the reactor coolant are exceeded. ,

As part of our continuing program to delete unnecessary reporting require-ments, we have reviewed the reporting requirements related to primary coolant I specific activity levels, specifically primary coolant iodine spikes. We have '

determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking can be reduced from a short-term report (Special Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item which is to be included in the Annual Report. The infomation to be included in the Annual Report is similar.to that previously required in the Licensee Event Report but has been changed to more clearly designate ,

the results to be included from the specific activity anilysis and to '

delete the information regarding fuel burnup by : ore region.

In our effort to eliminate unnecessary Technical Sp!M:ification requirements, we have also detennined that the existing requirement:i to shut down a plant if coolant iodine activity limits are exceeded for.300 hours0.00347 days 0.0833 hours 4.960317e-4 weeks 1.1415e-4 months in a 12-month period can be eliminated. The quality of nuclear fuel has been greatly j improved over the past decade yith the result that normal coolant icdir.e j activity (i.e. in the absence of iodine spiking ) is well below the limit. i Appropriate actions would be initiated long before accumulating 800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months l above the iodine activity limit. In addition, 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) l reouires the NPC to be immediately notified of fuel, cladding failures that j exceed expected velues or that are caused by unexpected factors. Therefore, this Technical Specification limit is no longer considered necessary er the J basis that proper fuel management by licensees and existing reporting l requirements should preclude ever approaching the limit.

Licensees are expected to continue to monitor iodine activity in the primary coolant and take responsible actions to maintain it at a reasonably low level (i.e., accumulated time with high iodine activity should not aporoach !

! 800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months ).

RECEt h

-~~ u os34sa6 & ~.

OCT 1 6 49 q 9. G. H00U'

'i ,

L*' 2

"' Enclosed are model Techr.ical Specifications in Standard Technical Specification (STS) format showing the revisions that N y be used in a submittal o' proposed I -Technical Specifications or proposed changes to existing Technical Specifications.

These chantes will also be incorporated in the next revision of the STS for all nuclear power reactor vendors. The changes are indicated by a line in the margin of the Action Statement for the Limiting Condition for Operation. A Technical Specification amendment request should be submitted to the f!RC for each facility which currently has Technical Specification reporting requirements upon exceeding coolant iodine activity limits or which has a requirement to shut down after 800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months with iodine above the limit. Your request should include. appropriate changes to the bases section of your Technical Specifi-cations.

As a matter of information, when Technical Specification changes or other prcposed :

license amendments and approvals (i.e., proposed facility modifications requirino

?!RC approval) are required as a result of this or crother generic letter, they are i sub,iect tn the fee provisions of 10 CFR 170 and a $150 application fee should accompany your request (see 10 CFR 170.12(c) and 170.21). j l

If you have any questions relating to this subject, pleese contact M. Virgilio of ]

my staff on (301 492-8947). l l

This request has been approved by CMP Clearance Number 3150-0011, which expires j September 30,1936. j Sinccrely, I

Huth . Thompson. tnr I

, D ior of Licensing L !

f/'1

Enclosure:

"Vedel Technical Speci#icetions y showing Fevisions to STS Reporting Requirements for Primary (colant o Specific Activity" i.ist of Generic Letters g

[

3+

> r r .\

)

r i.

I A_-._-L______

.J REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 'q .

4 3/4.4.8 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY ,

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.4.8 The specific activity of the reactor coolant shall be limited to:

a. Less than or equal to 1 microcurie per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, and

b. Less than or equal to 100/I microcuries per gram of gross radioactivity.

APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

ACTION:

MODES 1, 2 and 3*:

4. With the specific activity of the reactor coolant greater than 1 microcurie per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 for more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during one continuous time interval or exceeding the limit line shown on Figure 500'F 3.4-1, within be in at 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months ; andleast HOT STAND 8Y with T**8 less than

b. With the specific activity of the reactor coolant greater than 100/l microCuries than 500'F within per gram, be in at least HOT STANDBY with T**9 less 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .

MODES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:

With the specific activity of the reactor coolant greater than 1 microcurie per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 or greater than 100/T micro- '

Curies per gram, perform the sampling and analysis requirements of Item 4.a) of Table 4.4-4 until the specific activity of the reactor coolant is restored to within its limits.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.4.8 The specific activity of the reactor coolant shall be determined to be within the limits by perfonsance of the sar.pling and analysis pFogram of Table 4.4-4.

"With T,yg greater than or equal to 500* . ,

I W-STS 3/4 " 23

[ '

, s

g. 'f s. 3 Q L, ^

.l j 't REAC10pCf4LANTJYEEJ ,.

3.

T, ( y ' 3/4. t. 8 $$CIF1CACTIYGT

. W.

g ,(

,2 \. LIMITING 10,$!JiOW/0R OPERATION ,,,

a 3 m. _

- - - - . . - -=

. .,1 A4g ,

c ,

o i ;

3.4.8 The specific 6ctivity of the priinary coolant'shall be limitert to:

1h -

o; a.

Less than or equat t.o 1.C'esieroarie/grat 003E EQUIVALENT I-131', and

b. Lessthanorequal'to100/2microcurids/ gram..

t APPLICA81LITY: MODES 1, 2, 3, 4 Tnd 5.

k ACTION:

L ,, ,

4 MCDES 1,'2 and 3":

S ' e ,. With the speciile cctivity of then primary. coolant greater than 1.0 microcurio/ gras; DOSE EQUIVALENT I-137,.for oors.than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months

. , derhg one contintcus time interval or tuceeding the limit line '

sawn en Figure 3.4-1, be in at least KOT STAC 3Y'with T**0 lest

( s than 500*F within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months . '

k b. W;th the specific activity'of the primary 'cocVait grestatA than )

N' 100/l microcuries/ gram, be in at 54ast HOT SP.08Y..with T'UQ 1ess j than 500'F within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months . j MODES 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:

\ hith the specific activity of the primary coolant greater than 1.0 microcurie / ,

,, gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 or greater than 100/l microcuries/ gram, perfors the l s sampling and analysis requirements of item 4 a) of Table 4.4-4' until the speci-5 fic activity of the primary coolant is restored to within its 1.imits, t: < .

MVEILLANCE .REQUIREM'iNTS q

, . .1 J

' i

, i i 4.'4. A The sset:ific activity of the primary 1oolant shall bt determined to be l'O within tna 1!mits by' performance of th.: 5.ani11ing anc analys,is program of j

i

! S Tame 4.4-4. ,

I t

a s- ~-- ,

, r 5 With T avg greater than or soual to 500*F.

I

' ~

r s

, j

(

t .

3/4 4-23 I i ,.

v CE-S T ,.

I

. j 7

.' sk f CO. H'o1 ' '

a 4

REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM i

3/4.4.9 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.4.9 The specific activity of the primary coolant shall be limited to:

. a. Less than or equal to 1.0 microcurie / gras DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, and

b. Less than or equal to 100/I microcuries/ gras .

APPLICABILITY: MODES 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

ACTION: '

l MODES 1, 2 and 3*. l

a. With the specific activity of the primary coolant greater than 1.0 microcurie / gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 for more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during one continuous time interval or exceeding the limit line !

shown on Figure 3.4-1, be in at least HOT STANDBY with T less :

than 500*F within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months . avg

b. With the specific activity of the primary coolant greater than 100/l 4 sierocuries/

500'F withingram be in at least HOT STANOBY with T**9 less than 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .

MODES 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5:

a. With the specific activity of the primary coolant greater than 1.0 '

micrecurie/ gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 or greater than 100/l microcuries/

gram perform the sampling and analysis requirements of item 4 a of !

Table 4.4-4 until the specific activity of the primary coolant is restored to within its limits.

I SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS l 1

i 4.4.9 The specific activity of the primary coolant shall be detemined to be I within the limits by perforinance of the sampling and analysis program of Table 4.4-4. , j l

"With T,yg greater than or equal to 500'F.

i l B&W-STS 3/* -2~

REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 3/4.4.5 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION ,

3.4.5 The specific activity of the primary coolant shall be limited to:

a, less than or equal to 0.2 microcuries per gras DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, and

'b. Less than or equal to 100/E microcuries per gram.

APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 and 4.

ACTION:

a. In OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2 or 3' with the specific activity of the primary coolant;

1. Greater than 0.2 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 but less than or equal to 4.0 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 for more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during one continuous time interval or greater than 4.0 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN with the main steam line isolation valves closed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months .

2. Greater than 100/l microcuries per gram, be in at least HOT SHUT-DOWN with the main steamline isolation valves closed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months .

b. In OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 or 4, with the specific activity of the primary coolant greater than 0.2 ricrocuries per gras DOSE EQUIVA-LENT I-131 or greater than 100/E microcuries per gram, perform the sam-pling and analysis requirements of Item 4a of Table 4.4.5-1 until the specific activity of the primary coolant is restored to within its limit.

c. In OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 or 2, with:

1. THERMAL POWER changed by more than 15% of RATED THERMAL POWER i

in one hour *, or

2. The off gas level, at the SJAE, increased by more than (10,000) microcuries per second in one hour during steady state operation at release rates less than (75,000) microcuries per second, or

3. The off-gas level, at the SJAE, increased by more than (15)% in one hour during steady state operation at release rates greater than (75,000) microcuries per seconc',

perform the sampling and analysis rec;irements of Item Ab of Tabie 4.4.5-1 until the specific activity of the primiry coolant is restored to within its limit.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 1

4.4.5 The specific activity of the reactor coolant shall be demonstrated to I

be within the limits by performance of the sampling and analysis program of Table 4.4.5-1.

Not applicable during the startup test progra. l GE-STS (BWR/4) 3/4 4-15

1

.' REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM ,

l 3/4.4.5 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY i LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.4.5 The specific activity of the primary c'oolant shall be limited to:

a. Less than or equal to 0.2 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, and

b. Less than or equal to 100/Y micrecuries per gram.

APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 and 4.

ACTION:

a. In OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2 or 3 with the specific activity of I the primary coolant; l

1. Greater than 0.2 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-13 but !

less than or equal to 4.0 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT j I-131 for more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during one continuous time interval -

or greater than 4.0 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN with the sain steam line isolation valves closed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months .

2. Greater than 100/I microcuries per gram, be in at least HOT SHUT-DOWN with the sain steamline isolation valves closed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months

b. In OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 or 4, with the specific activity of the primary coolant greater than 0.2 aicrocuries per gram DOSE EQUIVA-LENT I-131 or greater than 100/l microcuries per gras, perform the sam-pling and analysis requirements of Ites 4a of Table 4.4.5-1 until the specific activity of the primary coolant is restored to within its limit.

c. In OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 or 2, with:

1. THERMAL POWER changed by more than 15% of RATED THERMAL POWER in one hour *, or

2. The off-gas level, at the SJAE, increased by more than (10,000) nicrocuries per second in one hour during steady state operation at release rates less than (75,000) nicrocuries per second, or

3. The off gas level, at the SJAE, increased by more than (15)% in one hour during steady state operation at release rates greater ,

than (75,000) nicrocuries per second, j perform the sampling and analysis requirements of Item ab of Table 4.4.5-1 until the specific activity of the prima'ry coolant is restored to within its limit. I SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS l 4.4.5 The specific activity of the reactor coolant shall be demonstrated to be within the limitt by performance of the samoling and analysis program of l Table 4.4.5-1.

"Not applicable during the ;ti ... . . :,1 :***

GE-STS (BVR/5) W -l' l

i I REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM ,

6 3/4.A.5 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.4.5 The specific activity of the primary coolant shall be limited to: '

a. Less than or equal to 0.2 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, and

b. Less than or equal to 100/l microcuries per gram.

APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 and 4.

ACTION:

a. In OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2 or 3 with the specific activity of 1 the primary coolant;

1. Greater than 0.2 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUlVALENT I-131 but }

1ess than or equal to 4.0 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT l I-131 for more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months during one continuous time interval or greater than 4.0 microcuries per gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, l be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN with the main steam line isolation l valves closed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months . 1

2. Greater than 100/l microcuries per gram, be in at least HOT SHUT-DOWN with the main steamline isolation valves closed within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ,

b. In OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 or 4, with the specific activity of 1 the primary coolant greater than 0.2 microcuries per gram DOSE l EQUIVALENT I-131 or greater than 100/l microcuries per gram, perform '

the sampling and analysis requirements of Item 4a of Table 4.4.5-1 until the specific activity of the primary coolant is restored to within its limit.

c. In OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 or 2, with:

1. THERMAL POWER changed by more than 15% of RATED THERMAL POWER in one hour *, or

2. The off-gas level, at the SJAE, increased by more than (10,000) microcuries per second in one hour during steady state operation at release rates less than (75,000) microcuries per second, or l

3. The off gas level, at the SJAE, increased by more than (15)% in one hour during steady state operation at release rates greater than (75,000) microcuries per second, 1 perform the sampling and analysis requirements of Itern 4b of T6ble 4.4.5-1 until the specific activity of the primary coolant is restored to within its limit.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.4.5 The specific activity of the reactor coolant shall be cemenstrated to be within the limits by performance of the samoling and analysis program of Table 4.4.5-1. l l

Not applicaole during the startup test prog *ar.

GE-ST5 (BWR/6) 3/4 4-14 l

S

?

ADMfNISTRATfVE CONTROLS

)

ANNUAL REPORTS (Add the following to this section) ,

The results of specific activity analysis ih which the primary coolant exceeded the limits of Specification 3.4.8 (W and CE plants),

3.4.9 (B&W plants) or 3.4.5 (GE plants). The following information shall be included: (1) Reactor power history starting 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months prior to the first sample in which the limit was exceeded; (2) Results of the last isotopic analysis for radioiodine performed prior to ex-ceeding the limit, results of analysis while limit was exceeded and results of one analysis after the radiciodine activity was reduced to less than limit. Each result should include date and time of sampling and the radiofodine concentrations; (3) Clean-up system flow history starting 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months prior to the first sample in which the limit was exceeded; (4) Graph of the I-131 concentration and one other radiciodine isotope concentration in microcuries per gram as a function of time for the duration of the specific activity above the st:ady-state level; and (5) The time duration when the specific activity of the primary coolp9t exceeded the radiciodine limit.

i i

i STS-ALL PLANTS I

!@ LX5T OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENER8C LETTERS

,s GENERIC

'E SUBJECT

-LETTER NO. DATE 85-03 Clarification of Equivalent Control Capacity 1/28/85 For Standby Liquid Control Systems 85-04 Operator Licensing Examinations 1/29/85 85-05 Inadvertent Boron Dilution Events 1/31/85 85-06 Quality Assurance Guidance for ATWS Equipment that is not Safety-Related 4/16/85 85 Implementation of Integrated Schedules 5/02/85 for Plant Modifications 85-08 10 CFR 20.408 Termination Reports - Format 5/23/85 85-09 Technical Specifications for Generic Letter 83-28, Item 4.3 5/23/85 85-10 Technical Specifications for Generic Letter 83-28 Items 4.3 and 4.4 5/23/85 85-11 Completion of Phase II of " Control of 6/28/85 Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" NUREG-0612 85-12 Implementation of TMI Action Item II.K.3.5,

" Automatic Trip of Reactor Coolant Pumps" 6/28/85 85-13 Transmittal of NUREG-1154 Regarding the Davis 8 esse Loss of Main and Auxiliary Feedwater Event 8/5/85 84-14 Commercial Storage at Power Reactor Sites of Low Level Radioactive Waste not Generated by the Utility 8/1/85 l 85-15 Information teleting to the Deadlines for i Compliance with 10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental ;

Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants 8/6/95 85-16 High Boron Concentrations 8/23/85 85-17 Availability of Supplements 2 & 3 to !

NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of i Generic Safety Issues 8/23/85 85-18 Operator Licensing Examinations 9/27/85 85-19 Reporting Requirements on Primary Coola t 9/27/85 Iodine Spikes i

l l

1

ML20238F177

Text

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search