ML20115C935: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[HL-2409, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,revising Definition of Members of the Public & Unrestricted Area, in TS & Deleting Ref in ETS Footnote Re RM Instrumentation, in Response to New 10CFR20 Requirements,Per GL 89-01]]
| number = ML20115C935
| issue date = 10/14/1992
| title = Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,revising Definition of Members of the Public & Unrestricted Area, in TS & Deleting Ref in ETS Footnote Re RM Instrumentation, in Response to New 10CFR20 Requirements,Per GL 89-01
| author name = Beckham J
| author affiliation = GEORGIA POWER CO.
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
| docket = 05000321, 05000366
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = GL-89-01, GL-89-1, HL-2409, NUDOCS 9210200141
| package number = ML20115C939
| document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS
| page count = 20
| project =
| stage = Request
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Georg.a Tower Company -
40 inverness centu Park Aay Prat Omce Bax 1295 B:rmmgham. Alabama :6 201 Vepoone 205 8/7-7279 m
J. T. Beckham, Jr.                                                              O      MM V ce Pres ym-Nx'ea'
                                                                              ,      y. ,  g, Haten Pro 3er.t HL-2409 October 14, 1992 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555
                                  . ANT HATCH - UNITS 1 AND 2 JR' DOCKETS 50-321,50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREh1ENTS Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of JO CFR 50.90 as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), Georgia Power Company (GPC) hereby proposes changes to the Plant Hatch Units I and 2 Technical Specifications (TS), Apoendix A to Operating Licenses DPR-57                -
and NPF-5.
A As part of Georgia Power Compav's etrategy to facilitate implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch units 1 and 2, a' respor.se to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Genene Letter 89-01 was submitted on September 21, 1992. Generic Leiter 89-01 allows the procedural. details contained in the Radiological EfIluent Technical Specifications (RETS) ta be relocated to the Offsite Dose Calcalation Manual (ODCM) and the Process Control Program (PCP) with appropriate programmatic controls being incorporated into the Administrative Controls section of the TS.
Accordingly, the programmatic controls will be used to revise the RETS requirements located in the ODCM and PCP to reflect the new 10 CFR 20 requirements. However, the RETS requirements that will be relocated to the ODCM and PCP in accordance with Generic Letter 89-01 do not represent all the TS requirements that are impacted by the new 10 CFR 20 requirements.
                      -e 9210200141 921014                                                                            h  i<
fDR ADOCK 03000321          PDR                                                                    l j
 
-      U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t        October 14,-1992 Page Two Enclosure 1 provides a detailed description of the proposed changes and the reasons for the change request.
Enclosure 2 details the bases for our determination that the proposed changes do 4
not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Enclosure 3 provides page change instructions for incorporating the proposed-changes. The proposed changed TS pages for Units 1 and 2 follow Enclosure 3. The markup of the proposed changes is also included; The proposed changes provided in Enclosure 3 represent the remaining scope of TS requirements impacted by the new 10 CFR 20 requirements. Several of the proposed TS changed paoes sub nitted by GPC letter dated September 21, 1992 in esponse to Generic Letter t,J-01 are also affected by the revisions to 10 CFR 20. Therefore, for completeness, the affected proposed TS changed par,:s provided;in Enclosure 3'also
      ' incorporate the Generic Letter 89-01 changes. In addition, all of the proposed TS changes associated with the new to CFR 20 requirements have been " clouded" to distinguish them .
from the Generic Letter 89-01 changes. An additional change, not directly related to the new 10 CFR 20 requirements, is also being proposed to correct an enor in the Unit 1 TS that is located in a table that is also impacted by the new 10 CFR 20 requirements. This change has been " double clouded" to distinguish it from the Generic Letter 89-01 changes and the new 10 CFR 20 requirement changes. Accordingly, it is requested that a single license amendment combining the effect of this submittal with the September 21, 1992 submittal be issued.
GPC requests that these proposed TS changes be approved by the NRC no later than March 1,1993, to facilitate implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at -
Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2.          GPC has committed significant funding and manpower resources to meeting that date. Postponing implementation could have budgetary impact" and impose conflicts with manpower resource allocationc In the event unforeseen circumstances delay implementation of:ne new 10 CFR 20 requirements, it is requested-that the conditions of the license amerJment be made effective upon implementation of' the new 10 CFR 20 requiremer.ts but no later than January 1,1994.
In accoidance with the requirements of 10 CFR'50.91, a copy of this letter and all appf;able enclosures will be sent to t'ne designated State official of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
I l
 
                          ..      -. __-.= _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ --_ - -                                                                  --                      .
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1992 Page Three q
J. T. Beckham, Jr. states he is duly authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Company, and to the best of his knowledge and belief, the facts set forth in this letter are tme.                                                                                                                                                                  i 3
i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY By:
J. T. Beckham, Jr.
[                                                                                                      .
Sworn to and subscribed before me                                                                daythis                        [b N of !5M  C ,1992.
V          I                  /
              - Notary Public Wb JSOliWISX2E30,ITA JTB'TMM
 
==Enclosures:==
 
cc: Georgia Power Company -
Mr. H. L. Sumner, General Manager - Nuclear Plant -
Nonns U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D/ Cm Mr. K. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manage. - Hatch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. L. D. Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch
          ' State of Georgia Mr. J. D.''I anner, Commissioner - Department of Natural Resources
_        m---E____._m                                          - - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ . _ . - _ _ . - . - _ _ _                    .m____-m..-... -m_l-_.._._-_._m_.a
 
sva
                                                                                                        ~ ''
                                                                                                                                                                            ,        7
_ .                                                                  r
: (--
        , '                                                                                                                                                                                . =
          '        f 1
                                                                                                          'E..,''~
                                                                                                                                                                                            -- 1,
                                                                                                                                                              ..g n
ENCLOSURE 1.
                                                    - PIIANT HATCH L UNI 1S 1:AND 2.-
LNRC DO.CKETS 50-321,50-366e
                                                  - OPERATING LICENSES DPL57,' NPF-5.
REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS :
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 'NEW 10 CFR-20 REOUIREMENIS -
                                                        - BASIS FOR CHANGE REOUEST -
e;
: ) i c
m                                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                                                        . i i
1
            - m___    ______.__._.m.m__            .-mm___.a .ma._-        _m. m_._ _ _.. ._._mm              m  . _m.  - m    __  _-_    ._..am m.
 
ENCLOSUREI PLANT llATCH - UNITS 1 AND 2
                                                                  'NRC DOCKETS 50-321,50-366                                                                                        i OPERATING . LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 REQUEST TO . REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENLS BASIS FQllCHAN%.REOUEST s
PROPOSED CHANfsE 1                                                                                                                                                                ;
This proposed change revises the definnion of MEMBER (S) OF THE PUBLIC found in -                                                                                                  i Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) 1.0.ZZ and Unit 2 TS 1.0, and the definition of UNRESTRICTED AREA found in Unit 1 TS 1.0.BBB and Unit 2 TS 1.0.
B ASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGFJ The definitions of MEMBbR(S) OF THE PUBLIC and UNRESTRICTED AREA are -
being changed to be_ consistent with their respective definitions contained w cte uew 10 i
CFR 20.1003.                  These changes are simply administrative in natur:. to facilitate '
implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch The requnements of the Plant Hatch Units I and 2 TS will not be reduced by this change.
}-  PROPOSED CHANDE_2-This proposed change deletes the reference to the Environmentrl Technical Specifications (ETS) contained in Unit 1 TS Table 3.2-8,~ Item 1, and Unit -2 ' TS Table' 3.3.6.1-1,                                          -
footnote (a), regarding radiation monitoring instrumentation and replaces it with a specific reference-to. proposed Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.18(7) contained in Georgia Power Company's (GPC's) response to Generic Letter 89-01 dated September 21,1992, for Plant                                                                                            a Hatch.                                                                                                                                                                              -
    .B ASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE 2 Item 1 of Unit- 1 TS Table 3.2-8 regarding the Off-Gas Post Treatment Radiation Monitors states that the trip setting shall be at a value not to exceed the equivalent of the stack release limit indicated in the ETS. . Also, Unit 2 TS Table 3.3.6.1-1 contains the same statement in footnote (a) regarding the Off-Gas Post Treatment Monitors (2Dll .
K615 AJ B). In_ GPC's response to Generic Letter 89-Ol_, . programmatic controls -
regarding gaseous release limits .were transferred - to proposed TS 6.18(71 -To be coasistent with that proposed change, the above stated references to the ETS in the Unit 1 HL-2409                                                                                                                  El-1                                                      g
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - . - _ . _ _ - - - _ _ . . _ . - - _ - - - - . - _ - . - - . _ - _ - ~ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
ENCLOSURE i (Continued)
REQUtiSY TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFIQQEEOUIREMENTS BASIS FQ1LGIAN_GE REOUEST and Unit 2 YS should be revised to reference proposed TS 6.18(7).' These changes are simply administrative in nature in order to facilitate implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Fl ant Hatch.
In addition, this proposed change corrects errors that have existed in the _ Unit I and Unit 2 TS since. issuance of license amendments 110 and 48, respectively.              The license arsendments revised the TS to add Radiological Efiluent Technical Specifications (RETS) to Appenom /.
* Mth units' licenses and to delete.the radiological TS from Appendix B -          !
to both u' nits' licenses A . change to the above-stated references to the ETS in the Unit' I and Unit 2 TS was inadvertently omitted during the preparation of the proposed license amendments associated with the original RETS changes.
PROPOSED CHANGE 3 This proposed change revises the trip setting for the Refueling Floor Exhaust Vent Radiation Monitors contained in Unit 1 TS Table 3.2 8, Item 2 by deleting the reference to the ETS and replaci_ng it with a specific trip setting value.
BASIS FOR PROlOSED CHANGE 3 Item 2 of Unit 1 -TS Table 3.2-8 regarding the Refueling Floor Exhaust Vent Radiation Monitors states that the trip setting shall be at a value not to exceed the equivalent of the.    ,
stack release limit indicated in the ETS, However, these instruments are not intended for        i the control of routine releases but rather serve to perform an emergency safety feature function associated with Standby' Gas Treatment System operation and primary and secondary containment isolation. To be consistent with the instruments that perform the same function as those listed in Unit 2 TS Table 3.3.2-2, Item 2.d, the stated reference to the ETS should be replaced with a specific trip setting value of 5 20 mr/hr. The ability of -
these instruments to continue to activate the Standby Gas Treatment System and to perform their primary containment and secondary containment isolation functions in the event a high radiation condition exists in the refueling floor ventilation exhaust is not adversely affected by this change.
HL-2409                                        El-2                                              ,
h
 
ENCLOSURE I (Continued)                                                                      1
                . REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Lhi"LEMENTA, TION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS                                                                .
E_6 SIS FOR CHANGE REOUEST PROPOSED CHANGE 4 This proposed change corrects the footnotes for Unit 1 TS 3.15.1.4 and Unit 2 TS 3.11.1.4 regarding the liquid holdup tanks.
B ASIS FOR EROPOSED__ CHAT:GE 4 -
The footnote designation for_ Unit 1 TS 3.15.1.4 is missing and is being corrected to reference footnote (a) found at the bottom of page 3.15-8 which contains Unit _1 TS 3.15.1.4. The footn' ote designation for Ur.it 2 TS 3.11.1.4 is also being corrected since it contains a reference to (d) instead of(a) found at the bottom of page 3/411-8 which contains Unit 2 TS 3.11.1.4, These changes correct typographical errors and will not-reduce the requirements of the Unit I and Unit 2 TS.
PROPOSED CHANGE 5 This proposed change deletes action statement b from Unit 1 TS 3.15.1.4 and Unit 2 TS 3.11.1.4 regarding the liquid holdup tanks. Action statement b st'ates, "The provisions of Specification 6.9.1.13(b) are not applicable."
B ASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE 5 This proposed change corrects an error that has existed in the Unit.1 and Unit 2 TS since issuance of license amendments 149 and 86, respectively. The license amendments modified the TS to incorporate revised reporting requirements, including those found in 10 CFR 50.73. Accordingly, the reporting requirements found in.TS 6.9.1.13(b) were deleted. Previously, TS 6.9.1.13(b) required that a Licensee Event Report be prepared for                              _
conditions leading to operation in a degraded mode _or plant rSutdown required by a                                              .
limiting condition for operation. However, the requirement was deleted in order to conform to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.73. The proposed change is ' simply administrative in nature and will not reduce the requirements of tha Unit I and Unit 2 TS.
HL-2409 '                                    El-3 1
_        _ - _ - _ . -    - _ - - - - - - - -                      - - - - - - - - _ - - - - . -  - .a
 
F ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)
REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS -
IMELEMENTATIO~N OF THE NEW'10 CFR 20 REQU REMENTS B ASIS FOR CH ANGE REOUEST EROPOSED CHANGE 6                                                                              5 This proposed change revises Unit 1 TS Bases 3/4.15.1.4 and Unit 2 TS Bases 3/4.11.1.4 to reference the acceptance criteria contained in the new 10 CFR 20 which is.used to determine the activity limit for the liquid holdup tanks.
D ASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE 6 The discussion in Unit i Bases 3/4.15.1,4 and Unh 2 Bases 3/4.11.1,4 is modified to state that_ in the event of an uncontrolled release of the outside temporary holdup tanks, the  _
resulting concentration would be less than th'e effluent concentration limits (ECL) of the new 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(i) in lieu of the limits specified in the old 10 CFR 20 .
Appendix B, Table II, Column 2.
An evaluation was performed to determine the activity that could be released from a tank rupture based on ECL values as compared to the current Unit 1 TS (3.15,1.4) and Unit 2 TS (3,11.1.4) limit of 10 curies which is based on_MPC values contained in the old 10 CFR 20. The evaluation prhvided a larger allowable tank activity based on the ECL values. Since a higher activity limit can be determined based on the ECL values, it is conservative to retain the current activity limit of 10 curies. Maintaining the activity limit at 10 curies is also consistent with the guidance co.ntained in NUREG-0133,'.which states that the curie limit for a temporary tank should be limited to less than or equal _to 10 curies, exc'uding tritium and dissolved or entrained gases, which is consistent with Unit 1 TS 3.15,1.4 and Unit 2 TS 3. I1.1.4.
PROPOSED CHANGE 7 This proposed change revises Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.9.1.5.a by updating footnote 2 to incorporate the new 10 CFR 20 reference regarding reports ofindividual monitoring.
BASIS FOR PROPOSED CUANGE 7 Footnote 2 to Unit I and Unit 2 TS.6.9.1.5.a currently contains the old 10 CFR .20 reference to paragraph 20.407 regarding personnel monitoring reports. This reference is being revised to incorporate the new 10 CFR 20 reference to paragraph 20:2206 which HL-2409                                          El-4
 
1 1
                                                                                              -l
                                ' ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)
REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS B ASIS FOR CH ANGE REOUEST 4
supersedes the old 10 CFR 20 reference to paragraph 20.407. This change does not reduce the reporting requirements contained in Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.9.1.5.a. This change is simply administrative in nature to facilita.e implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch.
EBDERSED_CJJANGE 8 This proposed change revises Unit I and Unit 2 T_S 6.12.1 by incorporating the new 10 CFR 20 reference related to the control of access to high radiation areas.                    .
B ASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE 8 Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS 6.12.1 currently contains the old 10 CFR 20 reference to paragraph 20.203(c)(2) regarding caution signs, labels, signals and controls associated with entrance or access to high radiation areas. This reference is being revised to incorporate the new 4
10 CFR 20 reference to paragraph 20.1601(a) which supersedes the old 10 CFR 20 reference. This change will not decrease the etrectiveness of the radiation protection i programs at Plant Hatch to provide control of exposure from external sources in restricted -
areas. This change is simply administrative in nature in order to facilitate implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch.
PROPOSED CHANGE 9 This proposed change revises proposed Unit _1 and Unit 2 TS 6.17.1.a.2 and 6.18(3) subm4ted by Georgia Power Company letter dated September 21,1992, in. response to Generic Letter 89-01, to incorporate the new 10 CFR 20 reference regar. ding dose limits for individual members of the public.
BASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE 9 Proposed Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.17.1.a.2 and 6.18(3) submitted by Georgia Power -
Company letter dated September 21,1992, contained the Generic Letter 89-01 reference to the old 10 CFR 20.106 regarding radioactivity in efiluents to unrestricted areas! This reference is being revised to incorporate the new 10 CFR 20 reference to paragraph HL-1409                                        El-5 1
 
ENCLOSURE I (Continued)
R8 QUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NE1V_j 0 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS
                                  'HASIS FOR CHANGE REOUEST 10 CFR 20.1302 which supersedes the old 10 CFR 20 reference to paragraph 10 CFR 20.106.      This change i- .nply administrative in nature in                order to facilitate implementa'. ion of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch.
I ROPOSED CHANGE 10 This proposed change revises proposed Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.18(2) submitted by-
! Georg , Power Company letter dated September 21,1992, in response to Generic Letter 89-01, in order to accommodate needed operational flexibility to facilitate implementatio'n of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch.
B ASIS FQR PROPOSED CHANGED 10 Proposed Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.18(2) submitted by Georgia Power Company letter dated September 21,1992, states that liquid emuent releases to unrestricted ereas must conform to the old _10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2. In accorduce with the old 10 CFR 20,_ the _ annual dose to a member of the public upon which these cencentrations are based is 500 mrem. Although the old 10 CFR 20.106 allows emuent concentrations to be averaged over a year, the TS require that liquid emuent releases b'e -
4 limited to these concentrations at all times-(i.e., for instantaneous releases). More-restrictive limits were incorporated into the TS by the NRC to assure the dose limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I or 40 CFR 190 are not exceeded.
The basic requirements for TS _on emuents from-nuclear power reactors are stated in 10 '
CFR 50.36a. These requirements indicate that compliance with emuent TS will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in emuents at small percentages of-the limits specified in_ the old 10 CFR-20.106.' These' requirements further indicate ; hat operational flexibility is allowed, compatible with considerations of health and safety, which may tempcrarily result .in releases higher than such small percentages, but still within the limits specified in the old 10 CFR 20.106 which references ' Appendix B; Toble II concentrations. These referenced concentrations are specific values which relate to an' annual dose of 500 mrem: It is further indicated in 10 CFR.50.36a;that when using or crational flexibility, best efforts shall be_ exerted to kcap levels of radioactive materials in emuents as low as is reasonably achievable'as set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix IJ l
[                                                                                                        I HL-2409                                            El-6 Y                                                                                                      ,
 
ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)                                            ,
REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 RERUIREhiEb'.T_S BASIS FOR CHANGE REOUEST In accordance with the Introduction to Appendix B of the new 10 CFR 20, the liquid efiluent concentration limits stated in Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, are based on a dose of 50 mrem in a year. Therefore, the previous NRC position that ellluent icleases must be limited by TS to the concentrations stated in the old 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table I:,
Co!amn 2, at all times, does not appear to be warranted for the concentrations stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, because the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a are presented in terms of the old 10 CFR 20.106, which relate to an annual dose of 500 mrem, not 50 mrem. Since a release concentration corresponding to a limiting value of 500 mrem in a year (as a dose rate of 500 mrem / year) has been acceptable as a TS limit for liquid effluents, which app'ies at all times as an assurance that the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix ! are not likel to be exceeded, it should not be necessary to reduce this limit by a factor of 10.                                                                                  <
Subpart D, Section VI, of the Supplementary Information whichl accompanied the nov 10 CFR 20, states that for power reactor licensees, compliance with the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190 will demonstrate compliance with the limits of the new 10 CFR 20.1301, in which dose limits for members of the public are specified. The limits in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190 are specified as annual dose limits; therefore, dose determinations to show compliance with these requirements are in terms of cumulative _ doses (doses in a quarter or year for Appendix I and a year for 40 CFR 190).
If a dose limit of 50 mrem in a year were inn!uded in a TS as a limit which applies at all times (i.e., a' dose rate of 50 mrem / year), operational flexibility would not be available because the dose rate limit would already be very close to the dose limits specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190, Operational history at Plant Hatch has demonstrated that' the use of the concentration values associated with the old iO CFR 20.106 as TS limits which apply at'all times has resulted in calculated doses to a member of the public that are well below the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix L Therefore, the use of concentration values corresponding to annual doses of 500 urem (10 times the concentration values stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2) should not have a negative impact on the ability to continue to operate within the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190.
Having the operational flexibility discussed above is especially important in establishing a basis for effluent monitor setpoint calculations. As discussed above, the concentrations HL-2407                                        El-7
                                            -        _              _- - - __ -_- _ _- - - _ _ _ - _A
 
ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)-
REQUEST TO_ REVISE TECIINICAL SPECIFICATIONS NPL,EMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS
.                                  B ASIS FOR CHANGE PEOUEST stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, relate to a dose of 50 mrem in a year. When applied on an instantaneous basis, this corresponds to a dose rate of 50 mrem / year. Such a' low value is impractical for use as a basis for effluent monitor setpoint calculations for many liquid emuent release situations when monitor background, sensitivity, and performance must be taken into account.
Therefore, to accommodate operational flexibility needed for emuent releases, proposed Unit I and Unit -2 TS 6.18(2) submitted. by Georgia- Power Company letter dated September 21,1992, is being revised by restating the limit as 10 times the concentrations-stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, to apply at all times -The multiplier of 10 is proposed because the annual dose of 500 mrem, upon which the concentrations in the old 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II,- Column 2, are based, is a factor of 10 higher than the annual dose of 50 mrem, upon which the concentrations in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix E, Table 2, Column 2,'are based. Compliance with the limits of the new 10 CFR 20.1301 will be demonstrated by operating within the limits of 10 CFR -
;      50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190.
l PROPOSED CHANGE _11 This proposed change revises proposed TS 6.18(7) submitted by Georgia Power Company -
l      letter September 21,1992, in response to Generic Letter 89-01, in ~ order to accommodate needed operational flexibiinty to facilitate. implementation: oflthe new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch.
BASIS FOR PROPOSED CHANGE 11 Proposed Unit I- and Unit 2 TS 6.18(7) submitted by. Georgia Power. Company letter dated September 21,1992, states that gaseous emuent releases to areas beyond the site boundary must-conform to the doses associated with the old 10 CFR 20, Appendix B,-
Table II, Column 1. In accordance with the old 10 CFRL20, the annual dose to a member of the public upon which these concentrations ~ are based is 500 mrem. Although the old' 10 CFR 20.106 allows emuent concentrations to be averaged over a year, the TS require.
      - that gaseous emuent releases be limited to a dose rate of 500 mrem / year (total body) which corresponds to these concentrations at all times (i.e., for instantaneous releases).
1 9
HL-2409                                      El-8 h      .~g                =--g-          f  & T
 
ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)-
REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE_]iEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMFEIS BASIS FOR CHANGE REOUEST More restrictive limits were incorporated into the TS by the NRC to assure that the dose limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I or 40 CFR 190 are not exceeded.                                        >
                                                                                          ~
The basic requirements for TS on emuents from nuclear power reactors are stated in 10 CFR 50.36a. These recirements' indicate that compliance with emuent-TS will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in emuents at small percentages of the -
limits specified _in the old 10 CFR 20.106, These requirements further indicate that operational flexibility is allowed, compatible with considerations of health and safety, which may temporarily result in releases higher than such small percentages, but still within the limits specified in the old 10 CFR 20.106 which references Appendix B, Table II concentrations. These referenced concentrat'.ons are specific values which relate to an annual dose of 500 mrem. It is further indicated.in 10 CFR 50.36a-that when using operational flexibility, best efforts shall be exerted to keep levels of radioactive materials in      '
emuents as low as is reasonably achievable as set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix L In accordance with the Introduction to Appendix B of the new 10 CFR 20, the gaseous emuent concentrt, tion limits stated in . Appendix B, Table 2, Columa 1, are based on a dose
                                                                              ~
of 50 mrem in a year. Therefore, the previous NRC position that e 1uent          5 releases must be -
limited by TS to the concentrations :tated in the old 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1, at all times, does not appear to be warranted for the concentrations stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix D, Table 2, Columr. ., because the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a are presented in terms of the old 10 CFR 20.106,_which relate to an annual dose of 500 mrem, not 50 mrem. Since a release concentration correspondig to a limiting value of 500 mrem in a year (as a dose rate of 500 mrem / year) has been acceptable as a TS limit for gaseous effluents, which applies at all times as an assurance that the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I are not likely to be exceeded, it should not be necessary to reduce this limit by a factor of 10.
In Subpart D, Section VI, of the Supplementary Information which accompanied the new 10 CFR 20, it is stated that for power reactor licensees, compliance with the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190 will demonstrate compliance with the limits of the new 10 CFR 20.1301, in which dose limits for members of the public are specified. The limits in 10 CFR -50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190 are specified as annual dose limits; therefore, dose determinations to show compliance with these requirements are in terms of '
cumulative doses (doses in a quarter or year for Appendix I and doses in a year for 40 CFR 190). If a dose limit of 50 mrem in a year were included in a TS as a limit which HL-2409                                              E l-9
 
ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)
REQUEST TO IGVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REO_UIREMENTS BASIS FOR CHANGE REOUEST applies at all times (i.e., a dose rate of 50 mrem / year), operational flexibility would not be available because the dose rate limit would already be very close to the dose limits specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 and 40 CFR 190.
Operational history at Plant Hatch has demonstrated that the use of the concentration values associated with the old 10 CPR 20.106 as TS limits which apply at all times has resulted in calculated doses to a member of the public that are well below the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. Therefore, the use of concentration values corresponding to annual doses of 500 mrem (10 times the concentration values stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1) should not have a negative impact on the ability to continue to operate within the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190.
Ha hy Ae operational flexibility discussed above is especially important in establishing a basis O ;filuent monitor setpoint calculations. ' As discussed above, the concentrations stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1, relate to a dose of 50 mrem in a year. When applied on an instantaneous basis, this corresponds to a dose rate of 50 mrem / year. Such a low value is impractical for use as a basis for effluent monitor setpoint calculations for many gaseous effluent release situations when monitor background, sensitivity, and performance must be taken into account.
Therefore, to accommodate operational flexibility needed for effluent releases, proposed Unit I and Unit 2 TS 6.18(7) submitted by Georgia Power Company letter dated ~
September 21,1992, is being revised by restating the limit as 10 times the concentrction l stated in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Cohimn 1, to apply at all times. The multiplier of 10 is proposed because the annual dose of 500 mrem, upon which the concentrations in the old 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1, are based, is a factor of 10 higher than the annual dose of 50 mrem, upon which the concentrations in the new 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1, are based. Compliance with the limits of the new 10 CFR 20.1301 will be demonstrated by operating within the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and 40 CFR 190.
L 1
l
. HL-2409                                        El-10
/
l
 
T
                        =                                                                                                              --w, d
q
                                                                                                                                                                                .j 1
s k'
c
{                                                                            ENCLOSURE 2 ~
j                                                                          -
j                                                              1 P.LANT HATCH - UNITS 1. AND 2 -
;                                                                NRC DOCKETS.50-321,50-366                                                                                        -
;                                                      -' OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57 NPF-5 :                  ,
r i.:                                            REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS..,                                                                                      t l-                                  - INfPLEhfENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS =                                                                                        l I                                                                                            .
l;                                                                  10 CFR 30.92 EVALUATION i
9 i
g.--
)                                                                                                                                                                                  r e
e a                                                                                                      e                                                                    et 3
k
      .                  __    _.                                                                                              _                  ~
l L
4 4
h 1
                                    -w v, v - r    * - -.-,'      +r        . + -  -  4..-  3          6 -u    . - , .  <r,,      ,      ->    -  rwi y    - - . v. - ;-
 
ENCLOSURE 2 PLANT HATCll- UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321,50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENLS 10 CFR 50.92 EVALUATION The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a-                    i significant hazards consideration exists, A proposed amendment to an operating license does not involve a significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not ;
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any cccident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed amendment and has determined its adoption would not involve a significant hazards consideration.                  The basis for this -
determination is given below.
 
===Background===
By letter dated September 21, 1992, Georgia Power Company submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) la response to Generic Letter 89-01 'which allows the procedui.a details contained in' the Radiological EfIluent Technical Specifications (RETS) to be relocated to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and the Process Control Program (PCP) with appropriate programmatic controls being incorporated into the Adm:nistrative Controls section of the TS. Following approval by the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission, the programmatic controls will be used to revise the procedural details of the RETS, which will be incorporated into the ODCM.and PCP to reflect the new 10 CFR 20 requirements. However, the scope of Generic Letter 89-01~
does not encompass all of the TS requirernents impacted by the.new .10 CFR 20.
Additional TS changes have been identified, as discussed in Enclosure 1, and are needed in -
conjunction with the Generic Letter- 89 response- to facilitate Georgia Power--
Company's goal'ofimplementing the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch.
HL-2409                                                        .E2-1
 
ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)
REQUEST TO REVISE TECilNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMllitiTAIl0X0EI11FJiEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS 10 CFR 50 92_JiYAlcVAT10N bnabis The proposed changes to the TS are required in order to implement the new 10 CFR 20 requirements at Plant Hatch. The proposed TS changes involve (1) Unit I and Unit 2 revisions to the Definitions, Bases, and Administrative Controls section, and corrections to footnote and table errors in order to appropriately incorporate the new 10 CFR 20 requirements, (2) a correction to a Unit I table error related to instrumentation used to mitigate the radiological consequo.ces of an accident, and (3) revisicns to the Unit I and Unit 2 Administrative Controis section proposed changes submitted by Georgis Power Company letier dat:d September 21,1992, in response to Generic Letter 89-01 to provide operational flmibility needed for liquid and gaseous releases. The level of radiological control will not ce reduced by these proposed changer i.ce cepliance with applicable regulatory requirements governing radioactive elliuents and radiological environmental monitoring, including 10 CFR 50 36a,10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 and 40 CFR 190, and requirements governing accident releases including 10 CFR 100, w;ll continue to be maintained, llasilfethDnordLNo,SignifwanLilazatdf faniideniloBReicDninatinit EvalualinnsfAopstesLGinnges_L2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. anda These changes do not involve a significant hazards considerat!on for the following reasons;
: 1. The proposed changes to the TS do not involve a signincant increase in F :
probability or consequences of an a:cident previously evahiated because they . re administrative in natute The proposed changes update specific defk.itions and old refcances to 10 CFR 20, and correct footnote and table errors in order to facilitate impicmentation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements. The proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in any F5AR accident analyses. Since the FSAR accident anclyses remain bounding, ~ the radiological consequences previously evaluatad are no adversely affected by the pioposed changes.
t IIL-2409                                      E2-2
 
ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)
REQUEST TO REVISE TECliNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 10 CFR 20 REO_UIREMENIS 10 CFR 50.92 EVALUATION 4
: 2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of iccident from any accident previously evaluated because they are administrative in nature and do not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or component important to safety, nor has any new limiting single failure been identified as a result of the proposed changes. Also, there will be no change in types or increase in the amount of efiluents released offsite.
: 3. The picposed changes do not invoke a significant reduction in a margin of safety because they are administrative in nature and do not reduce the effectiveness cr .he radiation protection programs at Plant flatch: Also, the prcpacd changes do not
,              involve any actual change in the methodolcgy used in the control of solid radioactive
{              wastes or radiological environnc.:ntal monitoring. The methodology to be used in the control of radioactive ellluents will result in the same efiluent release rate as the current methodology now being used.
llasinfor Proposed No Significantlinards Consideration _D_cLerminatiOE Iinlaatinaof Prop. pled Changel This change does not involve a significant hazards consideration for the following reasons:
: 1. The proposed change to the TS do not myolve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because it is administrative in nature ;ince it corrects a table error by making the instrument trip setting identical to that found in the more current Unit 2 TS. The proposed change does not alter the conditions or assumptions in any FSAR accident analyses. _ Since the FSAR accident analyses remain bounding, the radiological consequences previously evaiuated are not adversely affected by tiie proposed change,
: 2. The proposed change does not create the possibiliq of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because it is administrative in nature and does not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of the Standby Gas Treatment System, or to the ability to isolate primary and secondary .
4 IIL 2409                                                                E2-3                                                                l
 
    . ..      . -          .      .      .  =          -..              .--                . - . -          ,
ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)
REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IMP.LFAiENTATION OF TIIE NEW 10 CFR 20 REOUIREMENTS 1(LCFR 50 92 EVAL.UATION e
containment. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any plant -
system or component important sa safety, nor has any new limiting single failure been identified as a result of the proposed change.
3 J. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because it is administrative in nature and does not _ impact routine rei:.es.
* l Therefore, there will be no reduction in the effectiveness of the radiation protection progams at Plant Hatch. Additionally, the accident analyses are not impacted because primary and secondary containment isolation functions and Standby Gas Treatment System operation are unaffected l,y this change. Therefore, compliance
;                            with the requirements of 10 CFR 100 wi!! be maintained.
,                    Basis for ProppledEp_SigniSpAntligag[LComidsigtinid2EICEDipnation.
.                    Evaluation oGroposed ChaDges 10 and 11 These changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration _ for the following reasons:                                                                                                            .
i
: 1. The proposed changes to the TS do not' involve a significant increase in t%
probability or consequences of an accident _ previously evaluated because the operational flexibility needed for efilucnt releases is' needed to - facilitate implementation of the new 10 CFR 20 requirements. ' Compliance with applicable-regulatory requirements will continue to be maintained. 'The proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in any FSAR accident-analyses. Since the.
* FSAR accident analyses remain bounding, the radi.ological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely affected by the proposed changes.
: 2. The proposed changes do not crcate the possibility of a new or different kind _of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the operational. flexibility needed for efiluent releases does not involve any-change to the configuration-or method of operation of any plant equipment.- Accordingly, no new failure modes 4
have been defined for any plant system or component important to safety, no_r has any new limiting single failure been identified as a' result of the proposed changes.
l                            Also, there wi!! be no change in tynes or increase in the amount of efiluents release::
n                            offsite.
G
                      ;iL-24_0_9                                              E27t                                                        ;
        .v.-    - -          ,.      -    ,      .    .    ,- . , . - ,        . - . , . .        - -- ,-                , - - , -
 
E I
nNCL0sVRE 2 (Continued) .
REQUEST TO REVISE TECilNICAL SPECIFICATIONS                                                            .
B1PLEMEN I'ATION OF Tile NEW 10 CFR 20 REO_UIREMENTS 10 fell 10 22.JWALUATION                                                              >
l
                                    't . The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety                                          i because the operational flexibility needed for emuent releases does not redate the effectiveness of the radation protection programs at Plant Hatch. The proposed changes do not involve any actual change in the methodology used in the control of solid radioactive wastes or radiological environmental monitoring. The methodology ~
to be used in the control of radioactive efiluents will result in the same efiluent release rate as 'the current methodology being used. The operational- flexibility--
needed for emuent releases requires the use of concentration values 10 times the values given in the new 10 CFR 20. Ilowever, this is acceptable since annual doses '
                                        - will be limited to the doses specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 and 40 CFR 190.
i e
i t
1
                                                                                                                                                                  -i HL-2409.                                                                  E2-5
=            =.                                                                                                                                                    ,
9 w g y      - .4-e~ +=/e-pe,e            y ? y g-+-se gewgp -g,pc. 9%#9 9  e--  .. ~ , . . . y p u:-m  y -w,.==-.-e7 r g, g-yws,
* 4-e}}

Latest revision as of 07:07, 23 September 2022

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20115C935&oldid=3475534"