ML20235X580

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re 870501 Tech Spec Change Request to Allow Use of Addl Monitored Release Points for Gaseous Effluents

ML20235X580
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	07/17/1987
From:	Crocker L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
TAC-65244, TAC-65245, NUDOCS 8707240246
Download: ML20235X580 (5)

Text

i N.

Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 JUL 171987 ,

I Mr. James P. O'Reilly '

Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Georgia Power. Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 i

Subject:

Request for Additional Infomation Regarding Gaseous Effluent

]

Release Points for Hatch Units 1 and 2 (TACS 65244/65245) l By letter dated May 1,1987, Georgia Power Conpany requested changes to the Technical Specifications.for Hatch Units 1 and 2 to allow use of additional monitored release points for gaseous effluents. These additional release points would be used on a temporary basis to augment existing ventilation -

systems for temperature control and to reduce noble gas concentrations.

The NRC staff has conducted a preliminary review of.the GPC request and has i determined that additional information.is required.to enable it to complete  !

the review. The information required is identified in the enclosed requost '

for additional information (RAI).

It is requested that you respond to the RAI in a timely manner so that we may complete the review of this amendment request.

Sincerely,

\S\

Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager: i Project Directorate II-3 l

Division of Reactor Projects. I/II i

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION , )

,,&Docket J.11e S(:p" NRC PDR

i Local.PDR PRC System l PD23 Reading L

MDuncan-LCrocker BJYoun /

ACRS10) (gblood Reading n OGC-Bethesda 8707240246g{$0 21 JPartlow PDR ADOCK PDR .

s EJordan P !l SVar ainas

(' ,

PDfII-3/DRP-I/II PDQI3/DRP-I/II PD# f , P-I/II LCrocker/mac MDunc n BJY n 1ood ,

07//6/87 07//>/87 07/ 87-

.__.__________.._O

l i

+ . .

I q J l

)

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY l

HATCH 1 AND 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST

)

GASE0US EFFLUENT RELEASE POINTS i

l The subject request submitted by Georgia Power Company (GPC) on May 1, 1987, contains inappropriate wording for the Technical Specification (TS) changes described, and insufficient information for the NRC staff to develop a final Safety Evaluation. Specifically, the generic approach proposed by the licensee 3 is insufficiently specific for a Technical Specification on effluents. This l can be perfected by a more specific TS entry as outlined below. Furthermore, 1 the statements limiting the times when operability and/or actions are required for the monitoring systems are proposed for the " Bases" Sections, despite the .

statement in the Hatch TS that "The Sumary Statements contained in this I section provide the bases for the Specifications in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 and l are not considered a part of the technical specifications as provided in 10 CFR 50.36", To serve the purpose described in the text of the request, these concepts should be incorporated into footnotes to the tables.

Preliminary discussions on April 22, 1987 with James Heidt, Raymond Baker and S. C. Ewald of GPC relative to the high noble gas activity problem in the Hatch Turbine Building established preliminary parameters of concentration, air flow, building volume, activity release and present exhaust capacity, and in addition provided an overview of how the augmented ventilation would be accomplished. No documentation of these parameters and no such overview was provided in the subject request for the Turbine Building or any other building. The licensee should provide specific details related to the augmented exhaust systems referred to in the TS.

This additional infomation should include but not be limited to the following:

A. Reconstruction of TS Amendments

1. The concept of " augmented ventilation" needs to be documented in the TS. A definition could be added to the TS Section 1.0. Also, when'is ventilation considered augmented? Are standard or special effluent pathways used? When would GPC propose to augment the ventilation of a building?

2. The proposed entries in Table 4.15.2-1 commit to continuous sampling capabilities for iodines, principal gamma emitters in particulate, gioss alpha, and Sr-89,90, in addition to principal gamma emitters and tritium in gaseous samples. These commitments should be added to L_-_______-___________-_____________:_____-_

A V l the entries in Table 3.14.2-1 as well. In other words, commitments to the same items as for entries #2 and #4 in Table 3.14.2-1 should be made for the augmented ventilation monitors - with the same action statements.

3. The entry in Table 3.14.2-1 should specify the buildings to which the licensee expects to apply augmented ventilation. For example the entry might then read; Building Exhaust Monitor for Augmented Exhaust in the Following Buildings, as appropriate:

a. Turbine Building 3

b. Recombiner Building

c. ----------

~

d. ----------

e. ----------

4. Similarly, for Table 4.15.2-1 the entry should be changed as in 3 above, to specify the possible buildings in which augmented ventilation could apply.

5. The statements as to when the instrumentation is to be operable and the surveillance applied should be transferred from the Bases ]

Sections to footnotes in both Tables 3.14.2-1 and 4.15.2-1.

B. Supporting Information

1. Certain basic information about the ventilation system of each l building for which augmented ventilation is proposed should be '

documented, including identification of the effluent pathway involved in the augmentation. It should also be stated as to what circumstances would trigger the augmented ventilation mode. This basic information, including appropriate ventilation parameters, was l discussed by telecon regarding the Hatch Turbine Building and had .

been expected to be part of the documentation in the TS Amendment submission. Similar information should be documented relative to potential augmentation in other buildings.

2. The potential augmented ventilation pathways should be shown on a  ;

simplified flow diagram showing the gaseous redwaste and gaseous effluent flow paths approved under the current Hatch TS.

3. The ODCM would be a useful place to preserve the documentation of Items B1 and B2 above in a document that receives both licensee and NRC review. Furthermore, there will need to be changes made to the t

( -

• Hatch ODCM prior to implementation of the 'iS changes to assure compliance with the TS. It would be helpful in the review of the TS Amendment if the ODCM Section containing the backup information were made available to the staff at the time of the TS Amendment request

)

submittal.

i I

l l

l l

- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . . _ _ - - - _ .--

,' Mr. James P. O'Reilly Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Georgia Power Company Units Nos. I and 2 cc:

G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 Mr. L. T. Gucwa Engineering Department Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 l Nuclear Safety and Compliance Manager i Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Mr. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services, Inc.

P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, P. O. Box 279 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georiga 30323 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairman Appling County Commissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _