U-601253, Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept,Jan-June 1988

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept,Jan-June 1988
ML20153F152
Person / Time
Site: Clinton Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/30/1988
From: Holtzscher D
ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
U-601253, NUDOCS 8809070130
Download: ML20153F152 (46)
v • d • e


Text

.. .. . -- ._ -. . . _ ._

a t f CLINTON POWER STATION

, SEMIANNUAL RADIOACTIVE

EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT JANUARY 1,1988 - JUNE 30,19885
/

I 1

] .

T

"r i p t jip g g gl } ,

. ___ .fl y a- .-

l "Q

j j, -- A ,-

'A ~

$_, c n_

[

)

................,.' ^

_ _ -_ l

!' ,,.-- =

- - 1.~ _

1 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION l

DEPARTMENT I. L ILLINOlt POWER COMPANY l

4 8809070130 000630 PDR

\ R ADOCK 05000461 PNV / \ \

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

............................................ 1 2.0 GASEOUS EFELUENTS....................................... 1 2.1 Regulatory Limits for .'aseous Effluents........... 1

( 2.2 Maximum Permissible Ccncentrations................ 2 2.3 Measurements and Approximations of Total.......... 3

} Radioactivity 2.4 Gaseous Effluent Releases........................ 4 f 3.0 LIQUID EFFLUENTS........................................ 6 3.1 Regulatory Limits for Liquid Effluents............ 6 1

3.2 Maximum Permissible Concentrations................ 6 3.3 Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity..................................... 7 3.4 Liquid Effluent Releases......................... 7 4.0 SOLID WASTE............................................. 8 4.1 Regulatory Specifications......................... 8 4.2 Solid Waste and Irradiated Fuel Shipments......... 8 l

l 5.0 SITE METEOROLOGY........................................ 9 6.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN............................. 9 6.1 Dose to Maximum Individual from Liquid Effluent Pathway.......................................... 9 6.2 Dose to Maximum Individual At and Beyond Site Boundary Fr em Gaseous Effluent Pathway. . . . . . 10 I

l

7.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REP 0RTS........................ 10 7.1 Limiting Condition for Operation Reports......... 12 7.2 Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual Changes. . . . . . . . . 12 7.3 Solid Waste Process Control Program Changes...... 13 l 7.4 Major Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment l

Systems.......................................... 15 7.5 Land Use Census.................................. 15 8.0 TABLES Table 1i Gaseous Effluents-Summation of All Releases Table 1B Gaseous Effluents-Mixed Releases Table 1C Gaseous Effluents-Ground-Level Releases Table 2A Liquid Effluents-Summation of All Releases Table 2B Liquid Effluents Table 3 Solid Waste and Irradiated Fuel i Shipments 1

1 Table 4A Joint Frequency Distribution of Meteorological Parameters Table 4B Classification of Atmospheric Stability ATTACHMENT A - ODCM REVISION 3 AFFECTED PAGES ATTACHMENT B - SOLIDIFICATION VENDOR PROCEDURE / DOCUMENT APPROVAL COVER SHEET

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for January 1, 1988 through June 30, 1988, is submitted in accordance with Section l 6.9.1.7 of Appendix "A" (Technical Specifications) to License No, i NPF-62. This report was prepared in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.21, as applicable, to the Clinton Power Station (CPS)

Technical Specifications. Portions of the Technical Specifications applicable to this report, Sections 3/4.3.7.11, 3/4.3.7.12, 3/4.11, 3/4.12, 6.9.1.7, 6.13.2, 6.14.2, and 6.15.1, are herein referred to collectively as the Clinton Power Station Technical Specifications.

With the exception of one abnormal gaseous release, all liquid and gaseous radioactive releases to the environment during this reporting period were sampled, analyzed and monitored in accordance with the requirements of the CPS Technical Specifications.

Measurable quantities of radioactivity were detected in the liquid and gaseous releases during the first and second quarters of 1988.

All of the effluent releases were well within the concentration and I release limits specified in the Clinton Power Station Technical Specifications.

For purposes of this report, any sample with measurable radioactivity that was greater than a Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) was considered significant. If the measured radioactivity was not greater than the MDA value, then zero activity and no dose was reported. An MDA value is the minimum detectable amount of radioactivity in a sacple above background levels at a given confidence level. All effluent sample MDA values for this report were well below the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) required by Technical Specifications Table 4.11.1-1 and Table 4.11.2-1.

Technical Specifications Table 4.11.1-1 and Table 4.11.2-1 define LLD as an a priori (before the fact) detection limit representing the minimum capability of the measurement system.

Calculations and other terms utilized in this report are those outlined in the CPS Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Rev. 3 (ODCM).

2.0 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS I

2.1 Regulatory Limits for Gasects Effluents Technical Specification 3/4.11.2 describes the requirements for release of radioactive gaseous effluents to areas at or beyond the site boundary. Concentrations of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents are limited by quarter / annual dose and dose rate values.

These values limit the concentrations of radioactive materials in areas at or beyond the site boundary to less than those specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Part 20 (10CFR20),

Appendix B, Table II, Column 1. Additionally, they limit the amount released to that which could deliver the dose objectives as specified in 10CFR50, Appendix I, Sections III.A and IV.A. The following is a list of the Technical Specification limits for radioactive gaseous effluents.

Page 1 of 15

2.1.1 Technical Specification Dose Rate Limits - Gaseous Effluents Fission and Activation Gases - Effluent dose rate limit at any time for noble gasea to areas at or beyond the site boundary shall be such that the following limits are not exceeded:

500 mrem / year-to the total body 3000 mrem / year-to the skin Radiciodines and Particulates - Effluent dose rate limit for the sampling period fe~ all radioiodines, tritium and radioactive materials in particulate form with half-lives greater than 8 days shall be such that the following limit is not exceeded:

1500 mren/ year to any organ 2.1'2 Technical Specification Cumulative Dose Limits - Gaseous j Effluents Fission and Activation Gases - The dose in air from noble gases in gaseous effluents to areas at or beyond the site boundary shall be such that the following limits are not exceeded:

5 mrad / quarter - gamma air dose 10 mrad / year - gamma air dose 10 mrad / quarter - beta air dose 20 mrad / year - beta air dose Radiciodines and Particulates - The dose from tritium, radioiodines and radioactive material in particulate form with half-lives greater than 8 days in gaseous effluents shall be such that the following limita are not exceeded:

7.5 mrem / quarter - to any organ 15 mrem / year - to any organ 2.2 Maximum Permissible Concentrations The Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) for gaseous effluents are specified in 10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1. Clinton Technical Specifications establish requirements to limit the release rate of effluents such that discharges of gaseous radioactive material will not result in the exposure of a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC in an UNRESTRICTED AREA either within or outside the SITE BOUNDARY to average annual concentrations exceeding MPC limits.

Page 2 of 15

The MPCs of 10CFR20 are not utilized directly for limiting gaseous effluents. (See Section 2.1.1, 10CFR20 Limits - Gaseous Ef fluen ts ) .

l 2.3 Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity Gaseous release at Clinton Power Station was confined to two release points: the Heating, Ventilation and Air Condition Stack (HVAC Stack) and the Standby Gas Treatment System Stack (SGTS Stack). One abnormal release occurred resulting in approximately a two minute release through a relief line on the roof of the Radwaste Building (See 2.4.2). Both HVAC and SGTS stacks were continuously monitored for gaseous radioactive material. Each of these release points has an integrating type sample collection device which concentrates particulates and iodine, and flow measurement devices which continuously record the flow rate of gaseous effluent released. In addition to the gaseous, particulate and iodine release measurements that are conducted, tritium, gross alpha, and gaseous isotopic measurements of each effluent stream are conducted according to Technical Specification Table 4.11.2-1 requirements. At the end of each semi-annual period, a summary of the gaseous release for each quarterly period is compiled as described below.

2.3.1 Fission and Activation Gas The total amount of activity, in curies, was determined for each individual release and then summed for all releases in the quarter. Analyses of specific radionuclides in effluent samples taken at the release

. points were utilized with the corresponding system flow rates to determine radionuclide composition and concentration of effluents. These results, along with the volume of radioactive discharges, were used to determine the cumulative amounts of material released.

2.3.2 Radioiodine Releases Iodine releases were determined at least weekly for I-131 and I-133 for each release point. Sample collection media were analyzed using gamma spectrosco7y to identify the radiciodines and quantity released. These results, along with sample and effluent release volumes, were used to determine cumulative amounts released.

2.3.3 Particulate Releases Particulate releases were determined at least weekly for each release point. Af ter each calendar quarter th'e particulcte filters from each release point were combined and assayed for Strontium isotopes (Sr-89, Sr-90) by chemical separation techniques. Since sample flows and discharge stack flows are essentially constant over each monthly period, the filters from each release point were dissolved together. Decay corrections were made back to the middle of the quarterly collection period.

Page 3 of 15

h 2.3.4 Gross Alpha Release

[

The gross alpha activity released was analyzed each month by counting We particulate filters for gross alpha

{ activity in a proportional counter. These results were recorded on a data sheet and the activity was used to determine total activity released each month.

[ 2.3.5 Tritiun Release Tritium samples were obtained at least monthly from each

[ release point by passing a known volume of the sample stream through a gas washer containing a known quantity of demineralized water. The tritium samples were

[ distilled and analyzed by liquid scintillation. From the L

measured tritium concentration, the volume of sample, the tritium collection efficiency, and the stack exhaust flow 1 rates, the tritium release was calculated for each

[ release point. The quarterly release summary was generated from the monthly release calculations.

( 2.4 Gaseous Effluent Releases 2.4.1 All gaseous affluents were continuously released via r effluent stacks. There were no (normaD batch releases L

during this report period and one abno. mal release (considered batch). Summaries of the radionuclide total curie activities and average release rates are reported

[ in Table 1A. The activity of specific radionuclides measured in gaseous effluents is reported in Table 1B and

, 1C.

As specified in the Illinois Power Company Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, the site specific annual average dispersion factors are calculated as Mixed Mode. In

[ utilizing the Regulatory Guide 1.21 format for gaseous releases, all gaseous releases were considered as mixed mode. Mixed mode represents a combination of the ground

( level and elevated level release criteria as described in Section 7.0 of the ODCM.

2.4.2 Abnormal Release

{

on May 16, 1988, at approximately uz00, auxiliary steam r being utilized in plant Radwaste Processing Systems was

[ inadvertently released to the environment from an overpressure relief vent line. This release occurred because a Radwaste Operator repositioned a valve which

~

allowed the overpressure relief valve to vent to the environment instead of to the main condenser. This release constituted an unmonitored abnormal batch release.

I L

Page 4 of 15

.{

As delineated in Section 7.0 of the Illinois Power f Company Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, this release was determined to be a ground mode release. As determined by spectral analysis of a sample of the water used to

[ produce the steam released, Mn-54 was released at a rate of 4.35E-01 uCi/see for 120 seconds. This resulted in a total release of 5.2E-05 Curies. Meteorological r canditions at the time of release are presented below. A L summary of dose rates and total dose determined in accordance with the Illinois Power Company Offsite Dose Calculation Manual due to this release are presented

[ below.

METEOROLOGICAL DATA 10 meter wind speed 5.33 miles per hour 10 meter temperature 16.19'c j 10 meter wind direction 322.94*

l 60 meter wind speed 10.54 miles per hour 60 meter temperature 16,75'c 60 meter wind direction 327.59' f

DOSE RATE / DOSE EQUIVALENT DATA Dose Rate (mrem /yr) Dose Equivalent (mrem)

{

Bone N/A N/A r Total Body 1.12E-02 4.25E-08

[ Thyroid N/A N/A Kidney 1.17E-02 4.47E-08 I

Liver 5.04E-10 1.92E-07 Lung 1.86E+00 7.06E-06 GI-LLI 2.69E-02 1.02E-07 2.4.3 Estimation of Errors The estimate of overall error for gaseous effluents includes applicable random and systematic components of individual errors due to measurement of ventilation flow rates, measurement of sample, flow rates, non-steady state conditions, and errors involved in sample preparation and counting. The overall error for gaseous effluents is estimated to be 75%.

Page 5 of 15

3.0 LIQUID EFFL"ENTS 3.1 Regulatory Limits for Liquid Effluents Technical Specifications 3.11.1.1, and 3.11.1.2 establish

[ concentration and dose limits to a member of the public from radioactive material released in liquid effluents to the j UNRESTRICTED AREA.

3.1.1 Technical Specification Concentration Limits Liquid Effluents f

Technical Specification 3.11.1.1 requires that the concentration of radicactive material released in liquid effluents to UNRESTRICTED AREAS shall be limited to the concentrations specified in 10CFR20, A 7 pendix B, Table II, Column 2 for radionuclides other than dissolved or entrained noble gases. For dissolved or entrained noble gases, the concentration shall be limited to 2E-4 microcuries/ml total activity.

l 3.1.2 Technical Specification Cumulative Dose Limits - Liquid Effluents CPS Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) 3.11.1.2 requires that the cumulative dose contributions to an individual from radioactive material in liquid effluents released to the UNRESTRICTED AREA be determined at least once per 31 days. The applicabic dose limits are:

1 1.5 mree/ quarter - to the total body 1 5 0 arem/q srter - to any organ 13.0 mrem / year - to the total body 1 10.0 mrem / year - to any organ 3.2 Maximum Permissible Concentrations The Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of radioactive material in liquid effluents are limited by Technical Specifications to those values as spccified by 10CFR20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2. The MPC chosen was the most conservative value of (whether soluble or insoluble) MPC for each isotope, 1

Page 6 of 15

{

3.3 Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity k

Representative pre-release grab samples were obtained and analyzed according to the Technical Specification Table 4.11.1-1 requirements. Isotopic analyses were performed using gamma

{ spectroscopy. The results were then utilized with the actual discharge and dilution flows to calculate the total amount of a material released and the corresponding dose to man. Aliquots of I each grab sample, proportional to the waste volume released, were composited in accordance with Technical Specification 4.11.1-1.

Strontium determinations were then made by performing a chemical

{ separation and counting the separated strontium using a gas flow proportional counter. Tritium and Iron-55 concentrations were determined by using liquid scintillation techniques. The concentrations of dissolved and entrained gases were determined by gamma-ray apectroscopy.

The concentrations of composited isotopes and the volumes of the

( releases associated with these composites establish the proportional relationships that are then utilized for calculating the total activic,, released for these isotopes.

{ 30 4 Liquid Effluent Releases r Summaries of the radionuclide total curie activities, the average

( diluted concentrations, and the concentrations as a percentage of MPC are reported in Table 2A and 2B. There were no continuous or abnormal releases of radioactive material in liquid effluents this

[ report period.

3.4.1 Batch Releases LIQUID RELEASES b ist Quarter 1988 2nd Quarter 1988 Number of Batch Releases 13 5 Total Time of Releases (min) 1.16E3 5.27E2 Maximum Time for a Release (min) 1.48E2 1.55E2 E

L Average Time for a Release (min) 8.89El 1.05E2 Minimum Time for a Release (min) 7.10E1 6.90E1 7 Average Effluent Stream Flow L During Periods of Release 4.09E4 3.99E4 (1/ min)

~

Total Waste Volume (liter) 9.36E5 3.48E5 Total Dilution Volume (liter) 4.73E7 2.10E7

(

[

Page 7 of 15

( ____

3.4.2 Estimation of Errors l

The estimate of overall error for liquid effluents includes individual errors due to measurement of flow rates, tank volumes, non-homogeneous samples, and errors involved in sample preparation and counting. The overall error for liquid effluents is estimated to be 75%.

4.0 SOLID WASTE 4.1 Regulatory Specifications Regulatory Specifications for solid waste are governed by the CPS Technical Specificat!.ons, the Process Control Program (PCP), by the NRC regulations of Title 10, Part 20, 61 and 71 and the De'aartment of Trans7ortation (DOT) regulations of Title 49 Part 171 through 178 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These specifications require that the waste being shipped from the site for burial be

( classified, monitored, accounted for, and packaged for proper disposal.

4.2 Solid Waste and Irradiated Fuel Shipments

\

During this reporting period there were five (5) radioactive vaste r shipments and no irradiated fuel shipments from CPS as reported in l Ttole 3. All waste shipped in this reporting period was classified as Class A. In addition, CPS Technical Specifications, section 6.9.1.7 requires reporting of the following information for solid f waste shipped offsite during the report period.

1. Container volume: 7.50 and 11.6 cubic feet (2 different

{ container sizes used).

2. Total curie quantity: 3.89E0 curies as determined by dose-to-curie methodology and sample concentration methodology estimates.

- 3. Principal radionuclides: See Table 3 A.2.b. for listing of L measured radionuclides.

4 Source of waste and processing employed: Spent resins, filter t sludges, and evaporator concentrates solidified in bitumen.

Compacted and non-compacted dry active waste.

5. Type of container: 17E 55-gallon drums, and 17H 55-gallon

_ drum.

_ 6. Solidification agent or absorbent: Bitumen

[

, Page 8 of 15

5.0 SITE METEOROLOGY cumulative jof.nt frequency distributions of wind speed, wind direction and atmospheric stability for the quarterly periods January 1, 1988 through June 30, 1988 are normally presented in Table 4A. Clinton Power Station Technical Specification 6.9.1.7 allows this information to be kept on file and to be provided to the USNRC upon request. The first six months of meteorological information will be included as an annual summary within the semiannual report to be submitted after January 1, 1989.

The classification of atmospheric stability utilized in Table 4A is presented in Table 4B.

As per the Clinton Power Station Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, the site specific annual avyrage dispersion factors (X/Q) are calculated as Mixed Release . In utilizing the Regulatory Guide 1.21 format for gaseous releases, all gaseous releases are considered as mixed mode. Mixed mode represents a combination of the ground level and elevated level criteria as described in Section 7.2 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.

6.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN Dose eniculations for radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents for this reporting period were well below 10CFR20, 10CFR50, and Technical Specifications limits. The dose estimates

} reported in this section utilize information from Tables 2.4, 3.4

( and 3.5 of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. The dose calculation methodology corresponds to that of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and utilizes the limiting pathways as defined by

[ the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.

6.1 Dose to Maximum Individual from Liquid Effluent Pathway TOTAL DOSE EQUIVALENT (mren) 1st Quarter 1988 2nd Quarter 1988 I

~

Total Body 2.09E-3 5.67E-03 Bone 2.63E-3 3.88E-02

~

Liver 7.36E-3 1.56E-02 Thyroid 8.32E-5 1.94E-05 L

Kidney 2.36E-3 4.38E-03 Lung 2.73E-4 9.51E-05 GI-LLI 2.84E-2 6.63E-02 1

The CPS ODCM refers to "Mixed Release" as mixed mode.

{

Page 9 of 15

6.2 Dose to Maximum Individual At and Beyond the Site Boundary From l Gaseous Effluent Pathway The following assessment of doses to the Maximum Individual At and Beyond the Site Boundary was performed utilizing the annual Average Relative Concentration (X/Q) and Radiciodine and Particulate Relative Disposition (D/Q) at the controlling sector as identified in the Clinton Power Station Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. In accordance with Technical Specification 6.9.1.7, an assessment of doses to the Maximum Individual At and Beyond the Site Boundary utilizing meteorological conditions concurrent with time of release will be arovided as an annual summary within the semiannual report to be submitted after January 1, 1989. Doses from the abnormal gaseous release described in Section 2.4.2 are included in this assessment.

Fission and Activation Gases 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter Gamma Air Dose (mrad) 1.29E-4 1.24E-4 Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1.65E-4 1.58E-4 Particulate, Radiciodine and Tritium lat Quarter 2nd Quarter Bone (mrem) 2.92E-5 3.51E-5 Liver (crem) 1.62E-4 5.21E-5 Total Body (mrem) 1.61E-4 5.17E-5 f Thyroid (mrem) 2.04E-4 5.74E-5 Kidney (mrem) 1.62E-4 5.18E-5 Lung (mrem) 1.66E-4 6.45E-5 GI-LLI (mrom) 1.62E-4 5.28E-5

{

7.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REPORTS Per the Clinton Power Station Technical Specifications, certain

- reportable items, changes to Technical Specification referenced

- documents, and findings are reportable in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.

7.1 Limiting Condition for Operation Reports These reports are provided pursuant to the Clinton Power Station

- Technical Specifications, Section 3.3.7.11. Limiting Conditions L for Operation (LCO) are defined in the CPS Technical Specifications.

{

Page 10 of 15

f 7.1.1 LCO Event: 87-07-74 7.1.1.1 Information:

Operability Requirement: Table 3.3.7.ll-1-1A Date Entered  : 7/29/87 0 1745 Date Restored  : (To be restored upon approval of proposed Facility Operation License Change)

Time Period of LCO  : 337 Days 6 Hours (as of June 30, 1988) 7.1.1.2 Explanation:

The cause of this Limiting Condition for Operation was presented in the Illinois Power Company Clinton Power Station Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period July 1,1987 through December 31, 1987, f As of June 30, 1988 the p osed amendment to Facility Operating License NPF-62 not been approved. The Liquid Radwaste Discharge Process Radiation Monitor (ORIX-PR040) was calibrated by Clinton Power Station procedure CPS No. 9437.63 on May 26, 1988. Upon approval of the proposed amendment, the Liquid Radwaste Discharge monitor will have a channel Functional Test performed and be declared operational.

7.1.2 LCO Event: 88-03-53 1

7.1.2.1 Information:

Operability Requirement: Table 3.3.7.11-1-3b

( Date Entered  : 3/28/88 0 0600 Date Restored  : 4/28/88 @ 0824 Time Period of LCO  : 31 days 2.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />

[ 7.1.2.2 Explanation:

On March 17, 1988 the Plant Service Water Effluent Line

[ Monitor (0UIX-PR052 channel 3) was declared inoperable due to failure of its channel calibration procedure.

Maintenance Work Request (MWR) C53518 was written to troubleshoot and repair the cause of failure.

{

On March 26, 1988 partial instrument loop calibration was performed satisfactorily per Clinton Power Station procedure CPS No. 9432.45, and the loop was restored without any repair work being required. On March 27,

_ 1988 a partial calibration was satisfactorily performed on the flow transmitter per CPS No. 9432.45. On March 29, 1988 a Heise Gage used as measuring and test equipment during the calibration failed its post calibration check. Control and Instrumentation

[ supervision evaluated the impact of the failed post ll calibration check on the instrument calibration and , 4:

Page 11 of 15

determined the calibration to be valid. On April 2, 1988 a Post Adjustment Loop Calibration was performed per CPS No. 9432.45 to verify calibration following the failure of post calibration check by the Heise Gage. This calibration revealed that at low Plant Service Water flow rates the square root transmitter portion of the flow instrumenc is inaccurate.

Field Problem Report 201,965 was generated on April 13, 1988 to evaluate the inaccuracy at low Plant Service Water flow rates and to recommend corrective action.

Based on the results of this evaluation, it was determined on April 20, 1988 that the benefits of installing a low flow element to provide more accurate flow data at low flow rates is not cost effective compared to the needs that require only conservative estimates of flow. On April 28, 1988 a channel check was performed satisfactorily per Clinton Power Station procedure CPS 9911.24 and the monitor was returned to service.

7.2 Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual Changes Technical Specification 6.14.2 requires that revisions to the CPS ODCM be reaorted in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. T'ae following is a list of revised aages and a sumnary of revision 3 to the ODCM. The first part of t'ais revision became effective on January 8, 1988 and the second part became effective on February 8, 1988. Attachment A contains copies of the changed pages and the documentation of required reviews.

PAGE

SUMMARY

OF REVISION 2-7 Revised setpoint determination criteria for Plant Service Water Process Radiation Monitor to allow calculation of setpoints based on observed background count rates with sufficient margin to detect and alarm on inadvertent releases of radioactive material.

3-12 Revised Table 3.4-3 to add annual dose information at residences identified by the 1987 Land Use Census.

5-4 Revised Table 5.0-1 to delete a garden located 2.5 miles from the main ventilation exhaust in the east sector and establish a new garden located 0.9 miles from the main ventilation exhaust in the north Sector.

5-13 Revised Figure 5.0-1 to be consistent wi.th change on Table 5.0-1 (added locatiin CL-117).

9 5-11 Revised Figure 5.0-2 to be consistent with change on Table 5.0-1 (added location CL-18).

( Page 12 of 15

L

[

PAGE

SUMMARY

OF REVISION f

7-16 Revised Table 7.2-5 to be consistent with change on Table 5.0-1.

These changes do not affect the teethodology of dose calculations or setpoint determinations during discharges. Dose calculation and setpoint determination accuracy or reliability is not affected by these changes.

7.3 Solid Waste Process Control Program Changes

{

Technical Specification 6.13.2 requires that all changes to the Solid Waste Process Control Program (PCP) be reported in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. The following is a list of those PCP changes that occurred during this report period.

The reference document is: "Process Control Prop' ram - ATI

{ Transportable Volume Reduction System (TVR) III, Rev. 5, dated February 23, 1988. This document is proprietary to Associated Technologies Incorporated (ATI). The following ATI originated changes were made and implemented as applicable to Clinton Power Station on February 23, 1988:

Section No.

Rev. 4 Rev. 5 Brief Description of Change 3.2.2 2.2.2 A clarification was added to distinguish between free water and bound water.

] 3.4.6 2.4.6 Words were added to indicate that distillate must meet quality specifications of the contract.

[ 4.1.1 3.1.1 The description of the bitumen used was L changed to reflect the current practice of using only an oxidized bitumen.

I 3.1.4 /s requiretrent to obtain bitumen certification was added.

4.2.5 3.2.5 A clarification was added to allow for the

[ occasional presence of limited amounts of powdered resins and activated carbon in waste sludge waste streams.

3.2.6 A new waste stream description wao added to

_ provide for processing the activated carbon and the mixtur( of anthracite and clay generated by th distillate filter system.

3.3.1 A statement was added to identify the

[ quality requirements for process' chemicals.

[

Page 13 of 15

[

Section No.

( Rev. 4 Rev. 5 Brief Description of Change 4.3.6 3.3.7 A statement was added to clarify the purpose l

I for adding potassium permanganate to certain concentrate wastes.

4.4.3 3.4.3 A clarification was added which indicates that filter media containing absorbed oil can be processed successfully.

5.1.1 4.1.1 These paragraphs were rewritten to more 5.2.1 4.2.1 clearly describe the available waste stream sampling options.

5.2.2 4.2.2 A section was added which describes the methods of adjusting the waste analysis results to correct for dilution of the CPS l Concentrate Waste Tank during transfers to the waste batch tank.

6.1 5.1 This section was modified to include waste sludge, rather than having a separate section for waste sludge alone, thus eliminating Section 6.3 of Rev 4, 6.2.1 5.2.1 Because the salt concentration in the waste can vary, a curve was added to optimize use i of the waste batch tank.

6.2.2 5.2.2 The limit for reducing agents was increased

[ from 0.025 Normal to 0.04 Normal, based on additional information from SGN. A requirement for allowin g a one hour reaction

after the addition of the potassium I permanganate was added based upon new information from SGN.

[

6.2.3 5.2.3 The weight of Reagent 3 was increased to prevent crystallization of solids on the internal surfaces of the evaporator to

( prevent resultant mechanical problems.

5.3 A new section was added to provide for r processing the activated carbon and the

[ mixture of anthracite and clay generated by the distillate filter system.

~

7.1.1 6.1.1 These sections were expanded to provide for 7.2.1 6.2.1 the processing of the activated carbon and the mixture of anthracite and clay generated by the distillate filter system.

(

Page 14 of 15

[ N.-

g Section No. I

( Rev. 4 Rev. 5 Brief Description of Change 10.0 8.0 This section was rewritten to clearly

[ differentiate between requirements for l solidificatim and requirements for stabilization.

( 11.0 9.0 This section was rewritten to clarify responsibilities related to waste characterization.

( 12.2 10.2 This section was expanded to provide for processing of the activated carbon and the mixture of anthracite and clay generated by the distillate filter system.

12.5 10.5 This section was expanded to reflect the

[ inclusion of requiring bitumen certification.

None of the changes made to the Process Concrol Program reduces the overall conformance of the solidified waste product to existing criteria for solid waste.

Attachment B provides documentation of Facility Review Group (i.e.

Safety Review Committee) review and approval in the form of CPS No.

1913.03F001, "Solidification Vendor Procedure / Document Approval Cover Sheet".

7.4 Major Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems Technical Specification 6.15 requires that major changes to the Effluent and Waste Treatment Systems be reported in tne Semiannual r Radioactive Effluent Release Report. No major changes to the Waste

[ Treatment Systems were reviewed and approved by the Facility Review Group during this reporting period.

[ 7.5 Land Use Census In accordance with Technical Specification 6.9.1.7, a listing of

[

i new locations for dose calculations and environmental sampling identified by the annual land une census shall be reported in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report pursuant to r performance of Technical Specification 3.12.2 Land Use Census. As

( of June 30, 1988, Land Use Census had not begun. Results of the 1988 Land Use Census will be provided within the semiannual report

- to be submitted after January 1, 1989.

{

Page 15 of 15

(

{

{

SECTION 8.0 TABI.ES

( TABLE 1A Gaseous Effluents-Summation of All Releases TABLE IB Gaseous Effluents-Mixed Releases TABLE IC Gaseous Effluents-Ground-Level Releases TABLE 2A L quid Effluents-Summation of All Releases TABLE 2B Liquid Effluents TABLE 3 Solid Waste and Irradiated Fuel Shipments TABLE 4A Joint Frequency Distribution of Meteorological Parameters TABLE 4B Classification of Atmospheric Stability f

{

{

{

L

TABLE 1A EFFLUENT AND k'ASTE DISPOSAL SDfIANNUAL REPORT (1988)

CASE 0US EFFLUENTS - SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES

{

[ UNIT GUARTER QUARIER EST. TOTAL l 1 2 ERROR, %

(A. FISSION &ACTIVATIONGASES

1. Total release 2.21E0 2.13E0 C1 7.50E1
2. Average release rate for period uC1/see 2.81E-1 2.71E-1
3. Percent of Technical Specification limit i < 0.1 < 0.1 B. 10 DINES f 1. Total iodine-131 Ci 5.72E-5 9.48E-6 7.50E1
2. Average release rate for period uC1/sec 7.28E-6 6.03E-7
3. Percent of Technical Specification limit I < 0.1 < 0.1 C. PARTICULATES
1. Particulates with half-life greater than 8 days Ci 2.06E-3 2.46E-3 7.50E1
2. Average release rate for period uC1/see 1.21E-6 3.13E-4
3. Percent of Technical Specification limit I < 0.1 < 0.1
4. Gross alpha radioactivity Ci 7.65E-6 3.66E-6 I

D. TRITIUM

1. Total release ci 2.75E0 3.45E-1 7.50E1

{ 2. Average release rate for period uCi/sec 3.50E-1 4.39E-2

3. Percent of Technical specification limit I < 0.1 < 0.1

(

( _

{

L

l

[

TABLE IB EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (19fd)

( GASEOUS EFFLUENTS - MIXED RELEASES CONTINUOUS MODE BATCH MODE

[ Nuclides Released Unit Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter i 1 2 1 2 lo Fission Gases [None this period)

Krypton-85 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Krypton-85m Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Krypton-87 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0

{ Krypton-88 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Xenon-133 C1 0.00E0 0.00E0

[

Xenon-135 C1 2.21E0 2.13E0 L Xenon-135m Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Xenon-138 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Others Argon-41 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Total for Period Ci 2.21E0 2.13E0 20 Iodines Iodine-131 Ci 5.72E-5 9.48E-6 Iodine-133 C1 1.13E-4 0.00E0 Iod in e-135 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Total for Period C1 1.70E-4 9.48E-6

3. Particulates Strontiam-89 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Strontium-90 C1 0.00E0 0.00E0 Cesium-137 ~

C1 0.00E0 0.00E0 Barium-Lanthanum-140 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 f Others: Sodium 24 C1 1.96E-3 7.83E-4 Cerium-143 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Chroetum-51 C1 1.98E-3 2.30E-3 Manganese-54 Ci 7.95E-5 1.13E-4

{' Technetium-99m C1 4.26E-4 3.91E-5 Cesium-138 Ci 7.99E-4 0.00E0 l B.a rium- 13 9 C1 1.55E-4 0.00E0

( __ Yttrium-91m C1 2.61E-5 0.00E0 Arsenic =76 C1 3.27E-5 0.00E0

{

1 Soe Section 5.0 for Definition of Mixed Release.

- TABLE 1C FFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT (1988)

CASEOUS EFFLUENTS - CROUND-LEVEL RELEASES CONTINUOUS M DE BATCH MODE Nuclides Released Unit Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 1 2 1 2

1. Fission Cases [Fone this period)

( Krypton-85 Ci 0.00E0 Krypton-85m Ci 0.00E0

[ Krypton-87 C1 0.00E0 l Krypton-88 Ci 0.00E0 Xenon-133 C1 0.00E0 Xenon-135 C1 0.00E0

( Xenen-135m Xenon-138 Ci 0.00E0 Ci 0.00E0 I Others: Argon-41 Ci 0.00E0 l

l 1

Total for Period C1 0.00E0 '

2. Iodines Iodine-131 Ci 0.00E0 Iodine-133 Ci 0.00E0 Iodin e-135 Ci 0.00E0 Total for Period Cf 0. 00 E 0
3. Particulates Strontium-89 Ci 0.00E0 1 Strontium-90 C1 0.00E0 Cesium-137 Ci 0.00E0 Barium-Lanthanum-140 C1 0.00E0 Others: Hanganese-54 Ci 5.20E-5

TABLE 2A EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEMIAFNUAL REPORT (1988)

LIQUID EFFLUENTS - SU}0 TAT 10N OF ALL RELEASES Unit Quarter Quarter Est. Total i 2 Error, %

A. Fission and Activation Products

1. Total release (not including tritius, gases, alpha) Ci 9.47E-3 1.80E-2 7.50El
2. Average diluted concentration during period uCi/mi 1.96E-7 8.43E-7

} 3. Percent of applicable limit  ! 40.4 < 7. 6 B. Tritium

, 1. Total relesse C1 7.14E-1 2.03E-1 7.50El

2. Average diluted concentration during period uCi/mi 1.48E-$ 9.51E-6
3. Percent of applicable limit  % 'O.5 < 0. 4

\

C. Dissolved and entrained gases

1. Total Relesse Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 7.$0E1
2. Average diluted concentration during period uC1/mi 0.00E0 0.00E0
3. Percent of applicable limit  ! NA NA D. Cross alpha radioactivity
1. Total Release Ci 5.94E-6 0.00E0  ?.50E1, E. Volume of vaste released (prior to dilutie::) liters 9.36E5 3.48E5 1.50E1 F. Volume of dilution water used during period lite s 4.73E7 2.10E7 1.50E1 1

TABLE 2B EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SEliIANNUAL REPORT (1988)

LIQUID EFFLUENTS CONTINUOUS MODE BATCH MODE Nuclidos Released Unit .uarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 1 2 1 2 Strontimm-89 di 2.21E-4 4.21E-3 Strontium-90 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Cesium-134 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Cesium-137 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Iod ine-131 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Cobalt-58 C1 1.04E-3 4.69E-3 Cobalt-60 Ci 8.77E-4 2.98E-3 Irsn-59 C1 3.63E-4 1.36E-4 Manganese-54 C1 3.27E-3 5.30E-3 Chromium-51 Ci 2.73E-3 5.07E-4 Zirconium Niobium-95 "

Ci 6.68E-6 0.00E0 Molybdenum-99 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Technetium 'J9m Ci 1.15E-4 0.00E0 Barium-Lanthanum-140 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Cerium-141 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Other: Iron-55 C1 7.51E-4 1.43E-4 Sodium 24 Ci 7.99E-5 0.00E0 Tritium C1 7.14EE-1 2.03E-1 Zine-65 Ci 2.04E-5 0.00E0 Total for period (above) Ci 7.23E-1 2.21E-1 r

{

Xenon-133 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 Xenon-135 Ci 0.00E0 0.00E0 l

l

{

l

TABLE 3 EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SDiIANNUAL REPORT (1988)

SOLID WASTE AND IRRADIATED FUEL SHIPMENTS A. SOLID WASTE SHIPPED OFFSITE FOR BURIAL OR DISPOSAL (Not irradiated fuel)

1. Type of Waste Unit 6-month Est. Total Period Error, %
a. Spent resins, f11ter sludges, evaporator m 2.55El bottoms, etc. Ci 3.32E0 30.0
b. Dry compressible waste, contaminated m 3.40E1 equip, etc. Ci 5.79E-1 30.0
c. Irradiated components, control m 0.00E0 rods, etc. Ci 0.00E0 0.0
d. Other (describe) m 0.00E0 Ci 0.00E0 0.0
2. Estimate of major nuclide composition (by type of waste)
a. Fe-55 26.2% 8.69E-1Ci Mn-54 39.7% 1.32EOCi Cr-51 14.6% 4.84E-1Ci Co-58 5.9% 1.95E-1C1 Co-60 9.3% 3.07E-1Ci j Fe-59 3.0% 9.81E-2Ci l Other 1.3% 4.29E-2Ci
b. Cr-51 48.7% 2.82E-1Ci Mn-54 24.6% 1.42E-1Ci Fe-55 16.6% 9.63E-2Ci Co-58 4.7% 2.74E-2C1 Co-60 4.0% 2.34E-2C1 Fe-59 6.67E-3Ci

( Other 1.2%

0.2% 1.28E-3Ci

c. None N/A N/A
d. None N/A N/A L
3. Solid Waste Disposition f Number of Shipments Mode of Transportation Destination 5 Truck Richland, Washington B. IRRADIATED FUEL SUIPMENTS (Disposition)

Number of Shipments Mode of Transportation Destination None N/A N/A

c. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS - NA r

f

\ .

l .

V TABLE ',A l JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 1

METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS

( ,

[

[

[

[

E 1

Not submitted this periodi sec Section 5.0.

r L.

{

TABLE 4B CLASSIFICATION OF ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY Stability Pasquill 1 Std. Dev. Temperature change Classification Categories (degrees) with height ('C/100m)

Extremely unstable A 25.0 -1.9

{Modetatelyunstable B 20.0 -1.9 to -1.7 Slightly unstable C 15.0 -1.7 to -1.5 Neutral D 10.0 -1.5 to -0.5 Slightly stable E 5.0 -0.5 to 1.5 Moderately stable F 2.5 1.5 to 4.0 Extremely stable G 1.7 4.0 1 Standard deviation of horizontal wind direction over a period of 15 minutes to I hour.

[ The values shown are average for each stability classification.

1 .

{

{

r L

[

[

F u

e

[

[

[

[

{

[ CLINTON POWER STATION I

SEMIANNUAL RADIOACTIVE EFILUENT RELEASE REPORT f January 1, 1988 - June 30, 1988 ATTACHMENT A ODCM REVISION 3, AFFECTED PAGES l

{

l

[

r L

{

{

'.... . l.[

(- y '. g .;.,, .S .

[

SAFITYEVkLUATIONFORM

[

Docu=ent Evaluated: RM See:rrea 2.3.2.12eerned Ls5 Los # : pn s t,f7m

References:

Tecu Sper (o.14 2. 3.3.1 ll .

MSED e Y-94l~l (4l22l6d 3 -

F_sAK its.2.2.S r.,X.g).fis. i. I.ij it.s. l.1.2 1. c (..e),7.6. l.

CCT"4toSoS NOTE: Zach bicek (including the lines provided for a written response following the YES/NO questions) must be completed.

Describe the basic document or system and the changes being cade.

Include the interface / impact on other systems.

6,J~ 2.s.t. o ' k CDM uo ?Ju L<hde Oe t 24Mu'ye sehIA hc 6

o IdM f eacN/ek m.oM b"E. Drec, eta 1 feNISIert re!M eC S# N, d b b g a f Cdhdo M edleu) OdcML f sheth b.u1 et ebseated Wbred J couhdu M SA, de.3 -uk ku Abd u.1.ed% b.c_.A. ede f rea ONre & oex. O & A

  • LAA aL OA. $L % sA.U N I e u.M u ee k d - [foueu w o b bv d A\ax % .s:h h '.M si b ,so /

m ob h as e M.s o , b 't k O,repesed etN'slort, o

BLOCK A - 10C7R50.59 APPLICABILITY Answer the question corresponding to the type of change being made (i.e., question "a" for modifications; question "b" for procedures: question "c'" for tests : and question "d" for

[ experiments). Mark all other questions 'N/A". For any I question (s) not marked "N/A", provide an explanation for ycur answer.

YES ~~~ 50 /U/A a. Is this a change te'the facili:y as described in the FSAR?

YES /50 N/A b. Is this a new procedure or a change to a f procedure as described in the FSAR?

L YES NO / N/A c. Is this a test not described in the FSAR?

[ YES NO / N/A d. Is this an experi=ent not described in the I FSAR7

- - _ - - - %n i no &

~ ~ ~~'

[ _

I I .

SAFETY EVALUATION FORM (Con't)

( BLOCK A - 10CFR50.59 APPLICABILITY (Con't)

Explcin the reason for the YES/NO Answer:

% FsAR. does not J< css A Ctd1.* soetiCco.llu i > \

.'fk refe4evec1 3- 3 .

f~sAR erJm do nd discuss hov.Id wrtiker doeinY cle3cw'mt.ien cr% cia.,

\ . p I

NOTE: If any of the questions in Block A is checked YES, then 10CFR50.59 applies to the change or activity, and it will be reported to the NRC in the annual repert, l

BLOCK B - RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTTES YES / NO The proposed activity involves a codification to the Radiological Waste Treat =ent Systems described in Chapter 11 of the FSAR.

Because: 'i~O ottM qvNien c3 % ess rod _leh mn%r Ee. *d dehv%dsc./

ceb't wUd Mcem nei cerdda e. & wc{L.Cah',% 4 -de D2we sie

{

s c h + ( e, h es) i A Ited d cps. .

I If the above statement was answered YES, complete CNP 1.09 Attachment 3, "Safety Evaluation for Changes to Radioactive Waste Treat =ent System" I

BLOCK C - TECH. SPEC. / LICENSE IMPACT YES /NO The proposed activity involves a change to any part of the Operating License, including the Technical Specification and Appendix B.

Because *N ORM i<, A Men dee.umed rebeece.1 hu . ld AN

)<

5tec$uJlu catDel Ir, o4ui 4e_d d . de CPE Teck Sc>ees. ODUA tw e , e o.llew N M in Orier U R(' ccecufreum ck $p et 6,. ( d 2. ,

J CCK D - 1.*NREVIEk'ED S AFETY C1.*ES*"~ CN r Inple=entation or perfor:ance of the proposed

[ activity willi '

YES / NO a. Increase the probability of oce.urrence of an.

l accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.

YES / NO b. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.

Page 2 of i

[ _

-m _. -- -

SAFETY EVALUATION FORM (Con'c)

[ 3 LOCK D - UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION (Cen't)

[ YES /NO c. Create the possibility of an accident of a .

different typa than any already avsluated in the FSAR.

YES / NO d. Increase the probability of a calfunction of.

equipment i=portant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.

YES /NO e. Increase the consequences of a calfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluation in the FSAR.

YES /NO f. Create the possibility of a calfunction of .

equipment important to safety.different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.

YES /SO g. Reduce the cargin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.

Provide the written bases for your answers to the YES/NO guestions. Include discussions of the systec/ procedural

. unctions and the effect of the change en these functiens, operating characteristics, hatards analyses, radioactive l releases, and interfacing systems. (Use additional pages if necessary) l  % o, < cosd cocn cwlsie,t_

o cEds k ddvaMD cl .eN; fs S, c Ne 3cUsirj 3 .

liou.2A celieubi yeen T%.dc bvia Wehr Sk& Wee A; Eel RI 6

( H<d&c.hwe,M_)ic.c. ddu.,.Le. wees x acit clei.edd as beim inbwe.A&

4 a g reouled le wddJn plad <afe6 ad d cele. ce.4w.v,< wkie.hdeu a44erm D I d O J nornuu we-RW. 56 4. ods 6t w ecar.l Lta.,e-9%.

o d 44. Aulve devices M ach emdMew d.0 M , e caccIn dqMbgel q diedxc + wh% . I as, ceg acri lz. E x .cro.d a w .t M e lv.% 4 ad .sv.artJ L Ns Wviciou sLes d r,colsel se._ i tdeb b . cAlfLk dlew k d MC'D4EA., d eMm

\wL k h cc. A skJ dwleM cAlces. Ulr~ o a$d alu~

tWE.i socluder inhweh Is readed h todait_ d i[ ausc% , adModt g s >< q O cdvdeJ cMen.Ne eevloen dws wok (c2we_ k %6eCGe[d u i (coM If any statecent in this block was answered YES, the action ' J cp.s) described in the evaluated docucent involves an Unreviewed Safety Question.

Page 3 of f .

[

_.'~~~ - --

[

SAFETY EVALUATION ORM (Con't)

{ BLOCK E - St*F.ARY Check the applicable boxes:

[ [ [ The evcluated docu= ant does not involve a change to the Technical Specifications, Operating License, or an k Unreviewed Safety Question. Proceed with implementation.

{

() he evaluated document involves a change to the Technical Specifications or the Operating License. NRC approval is required before imple=entation.

( ) The evaluated document involves Unreviewed Safety Question. NRC approval is required before implementation.

] ORIGINATOR 2.KOcm4E4 /22387 Print Nace Signature /Date DE?T. HEAD (.O Print Na t > r- /2 23 O

~ Signat,1"e / Da t e MANAGER NSED _ . '[

Print Nace 4AF /bf 'Y"?[)

Signature /Date MANAGER L&S D. / .N e /b se b.f .'TJ. / Ebh FAs la/if):

l Print Nace Signat.b. e/ Daee csell h b WYbbr b TRG Print Nace has' Signature / Sate ^k

/E NRAG A% w/3r ; n, Print Nace 6 Signature /Date e

+

Page 4 of i _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

{ a oex o - uatevraasp . . SAFE.TY .Q4ESTIod._. CmMO . . . . . __ _ ._ ...

ce dep.1iv%._kw'sh< T=A Sp shee.the. c97l6bk.

. _ .L Cordikoq<..ogh A w d N ~.e..re a M ._.......__._

e6 iq6+d. A updd. Osce. grevd, &g re.vi d.4 . .

I wa\ W..iqud ; %che. uMk ces e4o. 74to.so, AR/PR . _.

GETibTMT .MODIFrcATrord' ad o .CCT siered h tro<1 Oe. . .. . . ..

re. pet 3 re J te m

  • 43 et s h Sg u (o.I4.z. m . ._. ._. .

\

\

e. .. a . ._

Y

. @.6 .=u. WM-_.e4.W . ememe . e+q.gm. a m. e . ,q. - 6se ae a e I

. .em.a. . e awMe . W. h66mN 4 _ e.4 ee 64 g e e hh W+- M.Oewa.we S+6 e .m=m- .ee. --um.p.g-us= . 4 4M-@.@_ m m.We

. $_ me _.a.e-. .e. .m . 4 e . e, e_ m .> . . . e e g .ga. . .

. -m. .. m. .

..$ . e., .ee.. i aun . e.

. -- e ei w -.ee , ..-s. . e-m. -

o- . . . = . .

/

4 TaY S oC T-6 ._.. -------- - - - - -

. . , ., - e .

' .o

~

f SAFETY EVALUATION FORM '

nev. 3 i'9 a.-<s # #

Document Evaluated:

ObcM 4th'n 50 fge.Jo /.50 ,1 TJleg l .f S Log # :_3$-N3

References:

%Lue. sas.9 /0 S ta. ifA r m s,sa./

ccT* o% w 7 , Leo rwaa - m - s 7 s ces %)l.w out Lea A C ns u , ,

Radelg6.1 Asusw.4 ba-d %Wu-l %4.N b 1 3 No e embe WII .

NOTE:

Each block (including the lines provided for a written response completed.following the YES/NO questions) must be i

1 Describe the basic document or system and the changea being made.

Include the interface / impact on other systems. .

%d nn 4 Le- m A erSe a n n oal land ans. een<ss  % t.,ei l S n,,,nec+,a t ro.n (C c

\

mee JM [ndeveh' ens fo r ik14Mia,anA cc eec&[n n

  • anu c, a lye _F.In/d b i
  • 3 j ,.v 4 u '

na[eteette \ e nolc enm, nb l raciihe,h ,

a -

a o. c eancam.

m- uw le - h all k, includ2d tw Ne_ be, teenoa! e dinork vo ue ck e k e c ad . kl an d i n t% u d tar.

4 revih A 0[eu,t (sl nnA -h W (d Prem n, o_

v OBcM e, fle eN e a 4u o

chonu t . Ye ro a ct nn an ef t on onu

" i

' hnk vo s c9 a ceA u N M Nc, V '

_ O, f n .n h

  • 9 f' O OOA R ,

w BLOCK A - 10CFR50.59 APPLICABILITY Answer the made (i.e. , question question corresponding "a" for modifications: to .the type of. change being ----..

procedures "c" question "b" for

{ experiments) question for tests "d" for

. Mark all other questions ' Nand querrienFor any question (s) not marked "N/'A", provide an ex/A". planation for your answer.

YES NO /"N/A a. Is this a change to,the facility as.

YES_ <NO N/A described in the FSAR7

b. Is this a new procedure or a change to a YES NO /N/A procedure as described in the FSAR?
c. Is FSAR7 thic a test not described in the' *
  • YES NO /N/A d. Is this an experiment not described in *:he F9AR7 l

l 1

Page1of,$,, ,

,. t SAFETY EVALUATION F05! (Con't)

BLOCK A - 10CFR50.59 APPLICABILITY (Con't)

Explain the reason for the YES/NO Answer: .

Tle. FGAR does nb+ cddress -fh e- ObcM e, uc 1k urho $ es of &

F S% C <e $ e e 4n '

en fe u in+> n n < mm de- tn n eeer da ne e wl4L 4h nbc M LA 4Le obcet not

(

,e cor+ of -Re fsAR NOTE:

If any of the questions in Block A is checked YES, 10CFR50.59 applies to the change or activity, andthen it will be reported to the NRC in the annual report..

\-

k BLOCK B - RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS YES_ /NO The proposed activity involves a modification to the Radiological Waste Treatment Systems described in Chapter 11 of the FSAR. -

\_

Because _h ON M c b cp do nd cons h f ote et mndlC d dn

. h We L A u A T~ . A mi d Lh e d

, OES. _. . .

[

L r

If the above statement was answered YES complete CNP 1,09 - -

I Attachment Treatment System" 3, "Safety Evaluation for Changes to Radioactive Waste

{

BLOCK C - TECH. SPEC. / LICENSE IMFACT YES_ /NO -

i The proposed activity involver a chan e t cr any ---"- -

L_. . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ .

part of the Operating License, includ ng the

.._ _ _ Technical. Specification .and Append 4 v - Bm--- -

= - - - -

Because Tkt ObCM ha sfetko n clocumerff ustel to domo d ec4,-

ch m o h a nei no W L s CPS %el %m.s nsd ObCH e kom ex ce-( nh tu e el u>i& & pr ic e v

ns td ec. centureance. pe Teck Sp r . 6 IV 2 I

I

_ BLOCK D - UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION Implementation activity will: or performance of the proposed

_ YES /NO a. Increase the probabilit of occurrence of an YES /NO b-. accident previously eva uated in the FSAR.

Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.

Page 2 of ,Y_,

e. .

I SAFETY EVALUATION FORM (Con't)

BLOCK D - UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION (Con't) ,

[ YES # NO c.

Create the possibility of an accident of a different

'he FSAR.

type than any already evaluated in YES # NO d. Increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously YES V NO e. evaluated in the FSAR.

Increase the consequences of a malfunction of -

l equipment important to safety previously YES / NO evaluation in the FSAR.

f.

Create the possibility of a ma,1 function of equipment important to safety different than -

YES /NO g. kreviouslyevaluatedintheFSAR.

l educe the margin of safety as defined in the

' basis for any technical specification. .

Provide the questions. written bases for your answers to the YES/NO i Include discussions of the system / procedural functions operatin and the effect of the change on these functions,

, , . _ releases,g characteristics, hazards analyses, radioactive necessary)_and interfacing.systemsw 4Usevadditionahpagest 16 era m

~N e eeyu el c hanye in +ke onc M n e, ns d ,1.h felle e s .- (>T 'Ta bl - s. o - t /e3_

soweie i ce ehier CL-18 in & E su+ee and add a t- l 1 / ;

(O R e J< ,, N, oot, S. o - I +e etCle e+ R, a na A i+, sn of' ct-n 7 /M re v se.

t 0/enre. c; .o - a +e ..

i 9 .

reftee+ +ke a e tei$en of tt- l9. 'Tkr e ca o s, d obe r4 ce_v ide n ildi not n fC, et a ny of ikt om d-[ ens b .d In

n. - a tdo cow rEdk camole loco Non ru,l l vk lishd '

in 4Le

_0 ce m 6cnou- +ke- c r u- ik loca l, J n tA [i d e, +k,-

X k ilo ruh r en a son %ehd m 4ke- obcM and i e n edi n ve ne k klev s n e#

a l _ c o l le t4ul & Me e n ,n e certer c.4 l.i 6 de m e4, et Com kke.

enain po ca- a dsle M n s h e t- es knoel l .

If any statement in this block was answered YES the action

{ described in the evaluated document involves an,Unreviewed Safety Question.

Page3ofi

- - I

\ .

l- .

. l SAFETYEVALUATIONF05i(Con't)

BLOCK E -

SUMMARY

Check the applicable boxos:

( d The evaluated document does not involve a change to the

  • Technical Specifications, Operating License, or an Unreviewed Safety Question. Proceed with i=plementation.

( ) The evaluated document involves a change to the Technical Specifications or the Operating License. NRC approval is required before implementation.

i ( ) The evaluated document involves Unreviewed Safety Question. NRC approval is required before implementation.

ORIGINATOR Owess R Caca.e 0,, ~ f Ocu t- a/1/n Print Name Signature /Date DP MEAD -

U N% e f 2 ~T .W Print Naye ~

Signat p/Date

~

MANAGER NSED _E.w/.M#

Print Name IM.Edert /,MS d%, z-ie-ar .

S mature / Date

~

MANAGER L&S Fehr E. Wa!bera P43 b( f,f N/[/p/

Print Name j' Signature / Djate '

FRG ,)% tf A SbaeJ Ner f $4xSignature/ At-L-Y/ge',

Print Name /

/Date ~

NRAG Print Name Nk Signature YQ 2/f/J6 /Date Page 4 of A --

C,PS-0DCM 2.3.2 Plant Service Water Effluent PRM Setpoints

( Plant service water effluent continuously releases to the Seal Well where it mixes with circulating water effluent (if present) prior to entering Lake Clinton via the 3.4 mile discharge flume. The plant service water effluent is not considered a radioactive discharge pathway unless liquid radwaste discharges are in progress or any service water cooling load heat exchanger has been detected as failed. To ensure that Plant Service Water intersystem leakage has not occurred, weekly Service Water effluent grab samples will be obtained (when in service) and analyzed to determine the identity and quantity of principal gamma-emitting radionuclides. In addition, a quarterly composite of positive grab samples will be analyzed to determine the quantity of H-3, Sr-89, Sr-90, Fe-55 and gross alpha species released. The analytical Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for these analyses are specified in CPS-RETS Table 4.ll.1-1.A.

If the weekly grab sample analysis indicates the absence of contamination above background, the Plant Service Water s effluent PRM setpoint should be established as close to background as practical to prevent spurious alarms, and yet assure an alarm should an inadvertent release occur.

If the weekly grab sample analysis indicates the presence of contamination above background, PRM setpointo will be established following section 2.3.1 methodology as follows:

l 2.3.2.1 Perform section 2.3.1.2, solving equation (3) for DF using the appropriate values in the concentration term from the grab sample analysis.

2.3.2.2 A modified dilution factor, DF , must be determined so that m

available dilution flows may be apportioned among simultaneous discharge pathways. The modified dilution factor is defined as:

DF m

= DF (6) p-A where FA is an administrative allocation factor which may be assigned any value between 0 and 1 under the condition that CLINTON-1 2-7 Rev.3-12/87

CPS-0DCM TABLE 3.4-3 ANNUAL DOSES IN UNRESTRICTED AREAS Total Body Skin Organ Distance Occupancy Dose Rate Dose Rate Dose Rate

  • Location (mile / meter) Sector (hrs /yr) (nrem/yr) (nrem/yr) (mrem /yr)

Road 0.3/495 SE 243(1) 0.04 0.08 0.02 Agricultural Acreage (2) 0.9/1372 SSW 964(3) 0.02 0.05 0.01 l

Clinton Lake 0.2/335 NW 2208(4) 1.0 2.1 0.51 Department of Conservation Recreation Area 0.8/1287 ESE 2208(5) 0.1 0.2 0.05 Residence 0.8/1219 SW 8760 0.5 1.0 0.24 Residence 1.5/2414 WSW 8760 0.18 0.41 0.10 Residence 1.7/2736 SSE 8760 0.17 0.37 0.09 4

{

(1) Assumes travel on road for forty minutes per day.

[ (2) Maximum farm acreage (2/6) within site boundary.

(3) Assumes 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> in field per acre farmed.

(4) Assumes continuous occupation on Clinton Lake for the months of June, July, and August.

[ (5) Assumes continuous occupation on Department of Conservation camping areas for the months of June, July, and August.

~

  • Child inhalation

[

s

. CLINTON-I 3-12 Rev.3-2/88

C,PS-0DCM i

Table 5.0-1 (continued)

REQUIRED NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED SAMPLING REQUIRED TYPES EXPOSURE PNIHWAY SAMPLES AND AND COLLECTION AND FREQUENCY and/or SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE LOCATIONS FREQUENCY OF ANALYSIS

c. Food Samples of 3 Monthly when Gamma isotopic Products different kinds available and I-131 (Cont.) of broad leaf analysis.

{ vegetation (such as lettuce, cabbage, and swiss chard) grown nearest each of two different offsite locations of highest pre-dicted annual average ground-level D/Q if milk sampling is not performed.

SECTOR CODE DISTANCE from station (miles)

NE CL-115 0.9 N CL-ll7 0.9 1 sample of each of the similar broad leaf vege-tation grown 15-30 km distant in the least prevalent wind direction if milk sampling is not performed.

SECTOR CODE DISTANCE from station (miles)

SSE (Control) CL-114 12.5 CLINTON-I 5-9 Rev. 3-2/88

CPS

,.. . -0DCM FIGURE 5.0-1 l

REMP LOCATIONS WITHIN 1.5 MILES OF CPS i ':: "

.,- 1 'i \ '"

A h )i',,,g\.Vhl$h.h&W .

' ' ~ '-

,I t- . ..

IN ' -

J R W M e. % # $ $ % ii W./

..r ": -

_ _ _ ~ - ~

2

_ _23 g.. w._._ .,

u.n _

tf y ~ . i,i ) ,

= - .

i -

r, ., ,, .. . .., , .

g, ,- .

w s p %p g ; anunag%Ny/ n, 31 3 7 1D7A~ll x' -

h .: , ^

i^

I 92~ ~

-) 94 t . ~.

&q @ # k " '--_ " '*1?'$ W . '

  • WNi :n W .W. h M ;+ n t >< W "

m 4 ~v p SW )p$'

,o %g',,W't.%'-Q;BCR O/

- '9 M Q Q' c l ." ~ ~ i c+"W-

'. S u

- lNRs-

'ff l (g , '

N-

. n \ -

q(o ,

,. ~.

. _, i=.<

g' gg r-t ,',,<

g j- .;

mg,

..,, 3 %y{ws.or, y

p ~Nseere!egy te e,.s 4.

m; g

u -

.w:A,.[u,

- - -_, --,,j. -,. 4 ., ..

7r g's e., 7 y es

- .J y .g e , - .-

W tM ,4, q, .ve;.:e aq u

h (%,

  • C 5y f &,& '_ b . I ' ' W \ <fW- ~{

Q~ ~ ~6~; o N,.C R & BkW7 W T ; A E % h l.2i b d C f % Y@ *

'/.V.-- /2

,J h

{

% l s.x.

EI3[0,.C fb

'l e 1.'Jl ' ' ,'h e

/e' '

[h N. - f.e e m..d.

" C i t, e scale ,

. . > ~ ' ..< . Bomda tj' 00 feet f #Crrv ir otm tc samp ia ns f.or o t im CLINTON-I 5-13 Rev. 3-1/88

CPS-0DCM FIGURE 5.0-2

{ REMP LOCATIONS WITHIN 6 MILES OF CPS l

Morth j .

{ i- o i.v..

. r .. .

-- ,..;.,.n ,"

f l. M .l . D' i

s. .

i , ..

o.

r I -

. :1,.__ a 7 } .. ... .s.

l

), -[ _..st s.,.::. <. .

,r.

... . . _..,-. e.- ,,Y1 -.

w --_ _n._ _ . _ ,

r, F '. '.,, ', .

-- .0(. A_. g . g.. M . .

.. ,- m, m

.. _/ g. . .

,' . t. . i. .fi ' "/l W . _ . . .

g6J ,.u J d r* ,, y. .-

,n,s

/

/...sl.'g-W . W **

.- ,5s4t w

^. .t.[i".#T,'t n. 7 b7. r -

, , J ps ,

.\_.Li3 e,L434 h A-

,. i . .

". f ,90 L ,..

a, n" , ',w

_.. 1. __\ .gj:,,A8 . '~g.u l, 9.Jw"3

" ~ '

,1 3 p,, j_,.n. .

.w

-~1. i ,i .. , l  !! . .<.m .

. a m -

L. J.Ju

<%a = -- w ; .:. -.o, . J. v g  %%CT.S ~- ,.t..: , s ~i's '), , . ,. ; _ l 13}dFSI~~O, 3 . & g j= Q, . W .' W T 43 ,*.. I _,. l. . I.c - ': - .' . p. .i H . .. l . i ' . I : F 53I D J.T

..,N t ', . .

..i. . .c .< . . . 1 ., . . . 2s-Scale Lag en d l - esses.e $it e Botrida ry 1 a1.l e G Env1.rorce ncal Sarpling Loca eim CLINTON-I 5-14 Rev. 3-1/88 r b C,PS-0DCM f TABLE 7.2-5 [ SITE BOUNDARY DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION PARAMETERS Sector Distance Release Point XM Release Point D7Q [ l (mile /rnter) (sec/m3) (m 2) HVAC Stack SGTS Stack HVAC Stack SGTS Stack N 0.9/1402 9.537E-7 9.537E-7 6.224E-9 6.224E-9 NNE 0.8/1341 7.543E-7 7.543E-7 5.548E-9 5.548E-9 NE 0.7/1097 8.750E-7 8.750E-7 6.616E-9 6.616E-9 [ ENE 0.8/1219 4.679E-7 4.679E-7 3.443E-9 3.443E-9 E 0.8/1219 5.127E-7 5.127E-7 4.040E-9 4.040E-9 { ESE 3.0/4816 6.970E-8 6.970E-8 4.695E-10 4.695E-10 SE 2.4/3841 8.696E-8 8.696E-8 5.589E-10 5.589E-10 SSE 1.7/2736 1.140E-7 1.140E-7 8.177E-10 8.177E-10 S 2.1/3353 8.565E-8 8.565E-8 3.911E-10 3.911E-10 SSW 2.9/4633 4.976E-8 4.976E-8 2.318E-10 2.318E-10 SW 3.2/5121 7.591E-8 7.591E-8 2.722E-10 2.722E-10 WSW 1.5/2414 2.006E-7 2.006E-7 6.926E-10 6.926E-10 f W 1.4/2256 2.045E-7 2.045E-7 7.755E-10 7.755E-10 WNW 0.7/1097 4.414E-7 4.414E-7 2.356E-9 2.356E-9 f NW 0.9/1463 3.871E-7 3.871E-7 1.578E-9 1.578E-9 NNW 1.0/1585 5.069E-7 5.089E-7 2.640E-9 2.640E-9 ~ Controlling CPS RETS ,P,a t hway Sector Comments ( 3.11.2.1 Immersion N Considers occupancy factors for other sectors 3.11.2.1 Inhalation N Considers occupancy factors for other sectors 3.11.2.2 Air Dose N Considers occupancy factors for other sectors 3.11.2.3 Inhalation N considers occupancy factors for rther sectors 3.11.2.3 Ground Plane N Considers occupancy factors for other sectors 3.11.2.3 Cow Hilk N Nearest milk cow is at 3.2 miles in NE sector (2) 3.11.2.3 Goat Hilk N No milking goats within 5 mile radius of CPS (3) 3.11.2.3 Cow Heat N No meat animals identified in annual census (4) 3.11.2.3 Vegetation N Notes (1) Controlling locations and sectors are based on 1987 Land Use Cenaus. ( (2) Nearest nilk cow is at 3.2 miles in NE sector. Milk sample is not available, alternate vegetation samples are collected in N and NE sectors. At distance 3.2 miles, D/Q in N sector is 1.295 x D/Q in NE sector. (3) Assumes a milking animal resides at a distance of 4.5 miles from CPS in the worst case sector a's stated on page 30 of NUREG-0133. (4) Assumes a cow meat animal is located at a distance of 4.5 miles from CPS in the worst ( case sector. CLINTON-I 7-16 Rev.3-2/88 / 4 ( l { { { l CLINTON POWER STATION SEMIANNUAL RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT January 1, 1988 - June 30, 1988 ATTACHMENT B SOLIDIFIC/. TION VENDOR PROCEDURE / DOCUMENT APPROVAL COVER SHEET f f c CLAS6 CODE: SNQD1 ' f CPS No.1913.03F001 (Rev. 1) ( '. j ( . [- _ SOLIDIFICATION VENDOR PROCEDURE /DOClHENT APPROVAL COVER _ SHFET r L TITLE: Process Control Program I ATI Transportable Volume Reduction System TVR III \ For'- Clinton Power Station Illinois Power Coccpany , Rey. 5 I 9----- I - MAINTENANCE DEPAR*fMENT . . . . . . . . . . Ft / Signature Date CatalsrRT cR m .................. '\dh Signature , su.46 ~Date TECHNICAL DEPAETMENT ............__ k[1- / Signature Date __ NUCLEAR STATION - / ENGINEERING DEPARTHENT. . . . . . . . . . ._ Signa /hA / re / ate RADIATION PROTECTION DEPARTMENT . _N[A- / Signature Date a QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT .... M _g/[,6 /2-/9,f/ Signature Date RADb'A S TE GRO UP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. W Fi / de / P 88 5 Lgnacyte Date FACILITYRIhlE'iGROUP.,.......... . e_- / 7' O *d r' ~ Sign Kure Date i \ _ _ _ _ _ ___________ _ _. Dnnn  % ^G

  • U 601253 Y

L30-8808 29')-LP 1A.120 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY t ' iPJ CLINTON POWEA STATION. P.o.2780x 678 CLI August 29, 1988 Docket No. 50-461 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Washingten D. C. 20555 Document Control Desk Subjec t: Clinton Power Station Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release r Repo t

Dear Sir:

Clinton Pcuer Station (CPS) for the 1988. period e ease P.epert of for JAttached is sectionThis submittal 6.9.1.7 of is provided in accordance withanuary 1, 1988 - July 31, the CPS Technical Specifications. the requirements of If you have any questions, please contact me .

Sincerely yours,

%. /L D. L. Holtzscher Acting Manager - Licensing and Safety DW/ckc Attachroents ect NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office Regional Administrator, Region III, USNRC Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

\

\

t i

\

fY$

s

  • I e - *'

U- 601253 L30-8808 49 )-LP 1A.120

/LLIN0/G POWER COMPANY CLINToN PontR STAfloN. P.O. box 678. CLINToN, ILLINOIS 61727 August 29, 1988 I

p i Docket No. 50-461 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Clinton Power Station Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report Dear Sir Attached is the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for Clinton Power Station (CPS) for the period of January 1, 1988 - July 31, 1988. This submittal is provided in accordance with the requirements of section 6.9.1.7 of the CPS Technical Specifications.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely yours,

%. / ~

D. L. Holtzscher Acting Manager - Licensing and Safety DW/ckc Attachments cc NRC Clinton Licensing Project Ihnager NRC Resident Office l Regional Administratcr, ,;egion III, USNRC  ;

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ]

t f6'tT f

'I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=U-601253,_Semiannual_Radioactive_Effluent_Release_Rept,Jan-June_1988&oldid=3353720"