ML20128E104

Forwards Questions Re Change Request 2 Re Proposed off-gas Sys

ML20128E104
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/24/1971
From:	Grill R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Knuth D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212070473
Download: ML20128E104 (5)

Text

.-. .

• o .,

f*[ UNITrD S1 ATES '

N' #

ATOMIC CNERGY COMMISSION p I

d'. ,' WAC.WNGs10N. O C tuSC 7y

,dh F #

'D5 liny 24, 1971 D. Knuth, BWR No.1, DRL MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLNtr E-5979,110CKET NO. 50-263 QUESTIONS Our questions concerning !!onticello Nuclear Generating Plant E-5979 are attached.

h u R. P. Grill, Oiicf Site Safety Branch Division of Peactor Licensing

Enclosure:

Monticello Questions ep w/cn os  :

vn. Boyd

11. Denton V. Benaroya i

i I

t 78A I8en u8880sa P PDR

HONTICELLO NUC!IAR GENEltATING Pl. ANT E-5979

, DOCKET No. 50-263 l

OIANr2 IGQUEST NO. 2 4

1. In the meeting held at out Bethesda office on Hay !!,1971, we understood that the proposed off-gas system and the structure in wfiich it will be housed will be designed to withstand the Desirn Basis 7'

i ggps4

/

Earthquake, the Probahic Maximum Flood (PMF) as defined by th e Army Corps of Engineers, and the design basis tornado (300 mph rotational and 60 mph translational winds with a 3 psi pressure drop in three seconds). Provide sufficient design detnits and criteria so that we can make an independent evaluation of the adequacy of the design to meet these criteria, ,

i 2. Describe what will be done with the radioactive liquid condensate formed in the recombination and condensation proc 9ses.

3. We understand that there have been several changes in the proposed design of the off-gas system including pressure parameters and the addition of filters (llEPA and/or charcoal) between the existing 30 minute delay line and the compressor and following the decay tanks. Doctment i

these changes and provide a current PrilD of the pronosed l systen. .

4. Provids your criteria for designing the proposed system against any 1 '

single passive or active failure.

i .

m

• r . .

i

5. You have calculated routine and accidental release radiological consequences at the nearest site boundary. Provide the meteorological parameters and distaness which were used to derive the atmospheric dispersion factors used.

6. Evaluate the expected annual " fence post" doses at the most critical

. point- offsite due to releases from 1) containment purging

2) steam turbine gland seal- leakage, 3) IIPCI turbine testing,

4) plant ventilation systems, 5). plant startup, 6) Icakage from the proposed pressurized off-gas system and 7) liquid radioactive waste system vents. Present- the bases for thesh doses including assumed source terms, rates and duration of releases and type of -

release (ground 1cvel or elevated stack).

7. Reevaluate the consequences of routine releases and accidental releases from the proposed off-gases system to include the dose contributions from halogens and particulates. Present' and justify all assumptions used to make these evaluations. Include an analysis of accident doses which might be received by plant personnel and control roor operators.

8. Clarify what you mean on page 4 of the report entitled "Gaseouse Radwaste System Modification Report" dated March 1971, by "1he two remaining ' processes ... were ,4udged essentially identical with' regard to environmental effects,-based on equal retention times ...".

I l

4 5

... ____m.__.___.__ __

1 4

l, ..

I

- 3-

^ s 1

9. Clarify what the 1% carrymer refers to in Table 1 (Page 13) of  !

i 1 . the report mentioned in question 8.  ;

~

3 i '

10. Provide design details of the proposed gas compressors which will

.l provide capability for essentially zero leakare. '

11. Provide design details of the air ejector off gas monitor and the stack l ,

i monitors to show that representative samples of the nobic gases,

]  ;

i halogens and particulates can be obtained and that these monitors 1

have sufficient sensitivity to detect plant releases at levels which

~

i h

will allow you to be confident of remaining within the new plant i technical specification limit (which will not allow an instantaneous s

i

release in excess of the calculated maximum allowable annual j average release of 0.27 Ci/sce noble gases and 2.4 uCi/see of halogens and particulates with half lives greater than 8 days). .

12. h'here will the ventilation system for the off-gas system building

+

i discharge? h' hat type filtration and radiation monitoring system will be included in the system to minimize, monitor and record the potential releases from this building?

13. 'Ihe t,torage room for the waste gas storage building will not l be accessibic when any of the tanks are pressurized. Discuss i

~

the safety implications of this design feature. Include operational situations which would require remedial action to avert an accident or to avert a significant release of radioactivity and provisions (such as'. interlocks,. alarms, etc) which would prevent access of unauthorized personnel.

$4 1

-.--,-,,>-,or- .-,,- , ,.,,,-,,-,.m,,-,w,v,,y-,-r-- ,-,,,n.m. , --.y vc,....,.ww, , . , _ ,.,.,,,-vr,- " ' - *--v" w- ----re--

+.. ,.

. 4

/

14. Provide a set. led plot plan indicating the location of the -

proposed facility relative to the stack, site property boundary, Restricted area boundary, the exclusion radius and the nearest residence. ,

,4 I ,

i l

l i

4 I

e 4