ML20244C416

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Effluent Treatment Sys Section SER Suppl Input Re Monitoring Requirements for Svc Water & Radioactive Gaseous Waste Sys
ML20244C416
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date: 07/13/1983
From: Muller D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Novak T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20235T530 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-51 NUDOCS 8307200450
Download: ML20244C416 (9)
v • d • e


Text

.

i 1

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 50-443 Docket File 50-444 (w/o en:1)

METB Docket Files  !

METB Reading File I ADRP Reading File Docket Mos. 50 443/444 M 13 B83 ,

l

?tFMOR ANDtti FOR Thomas M. Novak Assistant hirector '

for Licensing DL FROM Oaniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Radiation Protection DSI SUBJECT SiETB INPUT FOR SilPPLEMENT TO SEARR00K SER Attached is input fron the Ef fluent Treatment Systens Section METB which covers the monitoring requirements for the service water and RG4S for Seabrook. This input should be included in Sections 11.5 and 11.3 of the next supplement to the Seabrook SER. If thare are any questions contact J. Hayes (x27649) who is the cognizant reviewer for Seabrook.

Origiral signed by Daniel R. Muller j Paniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Divi sion of Systens Integration Attachment As stated J

(

I cc- R. Mattson W . Gamill G. Knighton L. Wheeler C. Willis J. Hayes n

cm

_f W hA b 4 D.s I..,R,P,,:M,E,B, ',0,11,,h,,M,E,]},,,Q,S,1, ,,,,,,9 S.I : RP,,,,,,

omen , ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , _ , , ,

sunna c Jm JT-lj Odilli s WP 1

.~

r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - -

~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ -

y g;;~ ~ 5~ g,;- g5- g- -

wn -- - - - - - - - --~-

t

SUPPLEMENT TO SEABR00K'SER l l

I

\

I 11.3 Gaseous Waste Management System The staf f expressed concern in the SER as to' the manner in which the applicant would handle concentrations greater than 4". H2 in cubicles con-l taining components of the radioactive gaseous waste system (RGWS). The applicant in response to a staff question, stated that some cubicles of the RGWS would be monitored for H and if concentrations approached 4",

2 (a) the affected components of the process stream will.be isolated l and/or the af fected component purged with N 25 (b) the af fetted cubicle will be ventilated to reduce the H2 concentra-tion; and (c) unnecessary personnel will be evacuated f rom the area.

The staf f's concern was that the affected cubicle was not ventilated on a routine basis and that, with a H concentration greater than 4",, to 2

begin ventilation would present an 02 source and pote .:ially an explosive mixture. The staff's position was that the cubicle should not be ventilated unless the cubicle's concentration of H i2 s reduced. This could be done by_ j purging the af fected compor.ent with N2 ' j The applicant has revised it's response to the staf f's original question on the H2 concentrations in cubicles of.the RGWS co p;r.ents. This revised response stated that potential leakage from the RGWS components is vented along with normal building exhaust air to Unit 1 plant vent and that this ventilation flow is c.aintained in the event of abnor. al levels of H2 pastenuD ORICITE

)

i

, g gg g gy

. / 7 /Obd _.-

6

within the cubicles of the RGWS. For abnormal levels of H2 within the H 2 surge tank cubicle, an additional 20,000 scfm purge systen will auto-matica11y activate on high Hp concentrations. Tne normal and supplemental ventilation flows will dilute and reduce the H2 concentration in the af fected compartments.

The staff considers this revised response to have satisfied its concerns on the adequacy of diluting Hp cnntentrations in various cubicles housing l

RGWS components. With the resolution of this item, the staff concludes I that the design of the gaseous waste management systems is acceptable and meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 20.106,10 CFR Part 50 and 50.34a, General Design Criteria 3, 60 and 61, and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1. This conclusion is based on the following:

1. The applicant has net the requirements of GDC 60 and 61 with respect to controlling releases of radioactive na.erial to t're environ.~ent by assuring that the design of the caseous waste management systems include the equipnent and instruments necessary to detect and to control the release of radioactive materials in gaseous ef fluents.
2. The applicant has met the requirements of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 by meeting "as low as is reasnnably achievable" criterion as follows:

(a) Regarding Sections ll.B and II.C of Appendix 1, the staff has considered releases of radioactive caterial (noble gases, radiciodine and particulate) in gaseous ef fluents for nornal

3 operation including anticipated operational occurrences based on expected radwaste inputs over the life of the plant for each reactor on the Seabrook site. Tne staf f nas determined that the proposed gaseous waste management systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents such that the calculated individual doses in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure are less than 5 mrem to the total body or 15 mrem to the skin and less than 15 mrem to any organ f rom releases of radiciodine and radio-active material in particulate form.

(b) Regarding Section ll.D of Appendix :. the staff has considered the potential ef festiveness of aug snting the proposed gaseous waste management systems using iters of reasonably demonstrated technology and has determined that 'arther ef fluent treatment will not ef fect reductions in the c. .uiative proulation dose within a 50-mile radius of the reactor at a cost of less than

$1.000 per man-rem or $1000 per me -thyroid-rem.

3. The applicant has met the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 since the staff considered the potential consequences resulting from reactor operation with "1% of the operating fission product inventory in the core being released to the primary coolant" for a Pw'R. and determined that under these conditions the concentrations of radioactive )

I l

l

I materials in gaseous ef fluents in unrestricted areas will be a small f raction of the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B, Table II, Column 1.

4. Tne staff has considered the capability of the proposed gaseous waste management systems to meet the anticipated demands of the plant due to anticipated operational occurrences and has concluded that the system capacity and design flexibility are adequate to meet the I

anticipated needs of the plant. '

l

5. The staf f has reviewed the applicant's quality assurance provisions for the gaseous waste management systems, the quality group classi-fications used for systems components, the seismic design applied to the design of the systems, and of structures housing the radwaste systens. The design of the system and structures 'bousing these systems meet the criteria as set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.143.
6. The staf f has reviewed the provisions incorporated in the applicant's design to control releases due to hydrogen explosions in the gaseous waste management systems and concluded that the measures proposed by the applicant are adequate to prevent the occurrence of an explosion or to withstand the ef fects of an explosion in accordance with General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR rart 50.

l l

l l

l j

1.5 Process and Ef fluent Monitoring in the Seabrook SER (NOREG-0896) the staf f indicated that the applicant had committed to incorporating into plant proceoures a requirement to obtain periodic grab samples of the service water whenever a leak between the primary component cooling water (PCCW) system and the service water system is confirned and the PCCW is radioettively contaminated. In the SER the l

staff stated that such a proposal did not satisfy the intent of Table 2 of SRP 11.5 and that the staf f will require either a radiation monitor or a continuous sampler of the service water.

After a series of meetings and telephone conversations, the applicant and the staf f have agreed to an approach which will satisfy the intent of Table 2 of SRP 11.5. The applicant has made commitments which will ensure that the potential releases from the service water system are known. ]

These commitments are summarized below:

1. Weekly sample and analysis of the PCCW and the service water system.

Daily sampling and analysis of the PCCW and service water system if

2. Daily sample and analysis of the service water discharge when the PCCW concentration is > 10-3 uCi/cc.

i

3. Sampling and analysis of the service water once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> when the activity level in the PCCW is > 10~ uCi/cc and leakege is confirmed from the PCCW system t.o the service water system.

j

I 4 Installation of a rate-of-change alarm 5 'ch will indicate a decreas-ing liquid level in the PCCW head tank 015ed upon detecting an LLD

~b of 10 uCi/cc.

l l

The aoove commitments, which will be incorporated into the technical specifications' sampling analysis requirements for the service water system, extend over various operating ranges with the 'ncreased sampling and analysis at times when leakage f rom the PCCW to the service water is occurring and/or the activity level in the PCS is high.

l l

l The rate-of-change alarm would work in conjunc* ion with the PCCW radiation mor,itor to alert the operator in the main con: ol room of a leak to the service water system from the PCCW, For the rzte-of-change alarm, the applicant will select a set point based upon :stecting an activity level of 10' uti/cc in the combined discharge of t s service water system. This activity level was selected because it is the 'nimum detectable level of a service water monitor if such a monitor tre installed.

1 Weekly sanpling and analysis of the service water system will provide ef fluent data when confirmed leakage from the ::CW system exists and the PCCW activity level is less than 10- uti/cc. "t will also provide a check of the operability of rate-of-change nor*: ors function. Weekly l

sanpling and analysis of the PCCW will confirn the operability of the PCCW radiation monitor.

l Should tne PCCW radiation monitor be inoperable, daily sampling and analysis of the service water and the PCCW will ensure that any release will be cetermined within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and that a record of effluents from the service water may be maintained if a leak exists from the PCCW to the service water.

The intent of daily sampling and analysis of the service water when the PCCW activity level is > 10~3 uCi/cc is to cover those situations where the responsiveness of the rate-of-change alarm nay be slow indicating a f leak due to equal inleakage and outleakage f rom the PCCW. With this sanpling and analysis requirement, the time period before a leak is determined is minimized (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> versus 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br />) and the potential consequences of such a leak are reduced. The PCCW activity level of 10-3 uCi/cc was chosen because release of activity above this level would be unacceptable if allowed to continue for 7 days. The rate-of-change alarm would provide the operator with an alert should a leak j I

develop during this period of tine.

For those occasins where confirned leakage f rcn the PCCW system exists and the radioactivity level in the PCCW is > 10 uCi/cc, sanples will be taken and ar.alyzed of the service water once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. The l l

requirement to sample and analyze once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is the standard l l

action statement for the service water system if its radiation nonitor l is inoperable. The staf f finds the concentration level of 10 uCi/cc

. ,r J

acceptable for initiating this twice daily sanoling because at this 1

concentration the leak rate f rom the pCCW would have to be at least l

1.1 gpm ir, order f or a service water monitor to detect. At concentrations below 10 ', the weekly sample and analysis is sufficient.

~

The rate-of-change alarm provides a reasonable approach to determine leakage f rr the PCCW system. It's alarn set point will be established

~0 at a concentration of 10 uCi/cc. This translates to leak rate of I approximately 1.1 gpm at a concentration of 10 uCi/cc. With the i

incorporation of the PCCW radiation monitor and the rate-of-change in PCCW head level, the fluctuation in the PCCW can be seen in a short period of time. ~he methodology establishing the set point for this alarm will be included in the applicant's ODCM.

Based upor the staf f's review of the proposed technical specifications for the sa pling and analysis of the service ater system, PCCW, and utili:atice of the rate-of-change alann, the applicant's proposed approach 1

for deterr'ning ef fluents from the service water system, in lieu of a j l

service water nonitor, is acceptable and meets the intent of Table 2 of SRP 11.5. j 1

i

\

l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20244C416&oldid=3107096"