ML20132C575
Text
.
t a Y .3
.k
- ,......,#o UNITED STATES
,J
!l ) ,c ~'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.p,Q)j/l eAssincron. o. c. zosss
% *44 ....
NOV 2 8 He '_
Docket No. 50-412 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM: Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI
SUBJECT:
METEOROLOGY AND EFFLUENT TREATTY %ANCH INPUT FOR THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT PERTA3".hA TO THE BEAVER VALLEY STATION, UNIT NO. 2, FINAL SAFETY AN/. LYSIS REPORT PLAtlT NAME: ' Beaver Valley, Unit No. 2 LICENSING STAGE: OL DOCKET NUMBER: 50-412 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: LB#3; B. K. Singh, PM REVIEW STATUS: SER input complete with some open items Enclosed is the marked-up input to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) regarding the meteorological and radiological effluen'. treatment sections of the Beaver Valley, Unit No. 2, Final Safety Ansiym M.irt. At this time, some adoitional information and analysis is rn due to close out several open items. These items are listed below
- 1. .Section 11.3, Gaseous Waste Processing Systems, unresolved issues pertaining to the containment vacuum system exhaust filtration (i.e., unsatisfactory iodine removal filtration system).
- 2. Section 11.5, the applicant must specify the ranges for the effluent release monitors.
- 3. The applicant, in FSAR Sections 1.10 ano'13.5.2.1 has not adequately i described their program tc minimize reactor coolant leakage outside the containment (NUREG-0737, Item 111.0.1.1). A cescription of this program ccvering the systems and the surveillance methccs and maintenance procedures snculd be submitted for NRC approval.
- a. The applicant must submit and obtain NRC approval of their Solic Waste Process Control Program prior to processing for disposal of any solid waste.
1 i
ewh f1
\_ *-
T. M. Novak NOV 28 384 This review was performed by Earl Markee (x27635), Meteorology Section, and Robert Fell (x27642), Effluent Treatment Systems Section, METB.
Please contact the respective reviewers for any questions.
Original stamed hva, Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration
Enclosure:
As stated cc: R. Bernero (w/o encl)
W. Gammill (w/oencl) 6 C. Willis /oencl)
I. Spickler (w/o (w encl)
R. Fell E. Markee DISTRIBUTION: (w/o encl) -
Docket File 50-412 (with encl)
METB Docket File (with encl)
METB Reading File ADRP Reading File 4
1 4n/
0FC :05I:RF:METB :D5I:P.P: METS :D5i:RE: METS :DSI:R?:hEi6 :DSI;>RF:yEia : DSI:RF :
_ . . . . : _ _ _ _ _ _fg. : . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . : _ _ _ _.!, . .l. . . . : . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . : _ _ _ _ . /. _ _ : . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : . . . . . .
NAME :EHMark'ee:dj : RWFel '. 4.ISoickier : CAWillis : hPGamill : GPN, ##gr .
..__.:....____..__: .._________:________....:........____:__... ______:._ v.....__.:_________._
DATE -11/19/84 : 11/ /84 : 11/C '/84 : 11/cuC/84 : 11/T . '/84 : 11/ 1J /84 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
s e
+
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 INPUT TO N SER 2.3 Meteorology '_
Evaluation of regional and local c li ma to log i c al i nf o rma tio n, including ext remes of c li ma te and seve re weather occurrences which may affect the design and siting of a nuc lear pla nt, i s r equi red to assure that b
the plant can be designed and operated within the requirements of Commission regulations. In f o rma tio n concerning atmospheric diffusion characteristics of a nuclear powe r plant site i s r ecui r ed for a d e t e rmi na-tion that radioactive effluents from postulated accidental releases, a s well a s routine ope rational releases, a re wi thin Commi ssion gui delines.
Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.5 have been preca red in ac cordance wi th the review pr ocedur es de sc rib ed in the St anda rd Revi ew Pla n (NUREG-OS00), ut ili zi ng in-f o rma tion p r esent ed in Section 2.3 of the FSAR, resconses to recuests for ad di tio nal i nf o rma tion, and generally a v a ila b le reference materials as described in the ap pr oc r i a t e sections of the S t anda rd Review Plan.
2.3.1 Regional Climatology
~
The clant is located in southwest Pennsylvania in a mountain valley near the western edge of the Appalachian Mountains and in a hunid c c 9 t i a. e n t a l ty se of c li ma t e.
I
2-Continental air masses, predominantly of polar origin, .
i dominate the region in wi nter, and alt ernate wi th ma ri-time tropical air masses in summer. The mean annual [
temperature in the area is about 10 C (50 F) ranging from about -2.2 C (28 F) i n J a nua ry to about 22.2 C (72 F) in July. Annual precipitation in the area is about 915 mm (36 inches).
The site lies near a principal track of s to rm s moving northeast along the Atlantic ccast and of low pressure systems moving across the U.S., resulting in a va riety of seve re weather phenomena which affect the site area. About 5 3 t hunde rs to rms can be expe ct ed on about 36 days each year. About 70% of these t hun de rs to rms occur from P. a y through August. ConsiTering the frecuency of t hunde rs to rms, the applicant has estimated the number of lightning strikes to the containment structure pe r year to be 0.8. Hail often acccc:anies 1
severe t hunde rs to rm s. During the period 1955-1767, eight occurrences of hail wi th di ame ters 19 mm (3/4 inch) or greater were r ec o rt ed in one-degree latitude-longitude square containing the site. .
Tornadoes are not uncon on in the region. For a one
! degree Latitude-longitude "s cua re"- (3,5 97 s cua e
o .
. -3. ,
l miles) containing the site, an average of ab ou t 1.04 tornadoes pe r year were repo rt ed f or the pe riod 1954-1981. Using a calculated e xpe ct ed mean tornado path erea of 0.5 5 squa re miles, the computed proba-b i li ty of occurrence for a tornado at the plant site is about 1.6 x 10" pe r year. The applicant has computed a lowe r p robabili ty of occurrence Cabout
~
1.4 x 10 ' pe r y e a r) based on a smal le r tornado p ath area (0.4 square miles) and a higher annual frecuency (1.22 to rnadoes pe r ye ar) using the period of record from 1950 through 1981. The p res sur e d rop rate characteristics of the design basis tornado con-sidered by the applicant for the Beave r Valley plant are different than the r e c om me r.d a t i o n s of Regulatory Guide 1.76, " Design Basis Tornado f or Nuc lear Powe r Plants," for this region of the country. The applicant's design ba sis tornado has a 290 .t.ph rotational ve l o ci ty with a translational ve l o ci ty of 70 mph, a total pressure drop of 3 psi and an average rate.cf pressure drop of 3 psi in 3 seconds. The tornado winds and tc al pressure drep are c nsistent wi th Regula to ry Guide 1.76. Hewever, the rate of pressure drop is not censiste9t .ith Eegulat0ry
i i
C Guide 1.76, in which a rate of pr es sur e d rop of I 2 psi /see is specified. -T'.. ..LLs . . . .g;- ,
d ;; ; : - . '. y . I- $..v ws ,
- 3. w .' ..s COT. C., !
et urtu :: ::- r* :: : r---det: : p,c;;u r d r; c' accaptaboll+y of the.
2 ;;' ' r r . The design of C a,t e g o ry I structures .
A with respect to NRC cesign basis tornado ch a r ac t e ri st ics and load combinations is di scussed in Section 3.3.2. .
I i
High wind speed occurrences in the area are u sua l Ly ;
a s so ci at ed with severe t hunde rs to rms and extratropical cyclones. The highest " fastest mile" l wind speed r epo rt ec a t Greater Pi t tsburgh Airport .
was 58 mph in Feburary 1967. The applicant has 6
selected an ope rating ba sis wind speed (defined as the " fastest site" wind speed at a height of i
30 feet with a return pe riod of 100 ye ars) to be 80 mph for consideration in p la nt .de s ign.
Since the ultimate heat sink for the plant is the i Onio Rive r, meteorological c ond i t io ns related to ,
I evaporation and heating are not relevant to determination of the adecuacy of the ri ve r to ,
I perform its functicn 10r a 30 day pe -i co. !
i
. , . I
--. - 1
~ l Heavy snowf alL i s not uncommon in the region, and roof loads may accumulate due to a wintertime precipitation mixture of snow, ice, and rain. Maximum monthly snowf al L obse rved a t Greater Pittsburgh Airport was 1021 mm (40.2 inches) in Janua ry 1978, and the maximum snowfall i n a 2 4-hour pe riod a t Pittsburgh was 373 mm (14.7 inches) in March 1962.
Ice storms, which can plug drains and scupoers as well a s disrupt offsite power, are relatively frequent.
The applicant estimates that ice pellets or f r ee:i ng rain may occur about 8 times pe r ye ar in the Beaver Val Ley region, wi th a glaze accumulation of 0.5 i n ch es 9IThe applicant '
o r greater expe ct ed about once per year.
has estimated the weight on the ground of the 100 ye a r return period snowpack to be 19.5 psfs/ ': d ; . . .- ' :
'- t';
t '. ; ; ch:bi: cc:2 u- n : . '. c e d ... ::nt ' d : :: :-
4+4 4cn ^# ::f:ty t:t:d ;; a;;; er, t's apolic:-' ';r and ed f ^t the weight of the LS-hour probable maximum a +c be g winter precipitation (Icuivalent to 71.2 psfq) : '
cri;5: : f . ;. c 1:0 .;; . r- :n: ::;k f.. o :;;:.
i...
= i;>: =- ,0.7 m n a plut d=:in 2n.;: h a :>::.s? :r-je e /t.; it u., s ( *// f.C+b w
- -- e. .- - - _ , - - - - - .-, ,,. , - - -
W loo-year re~ turn ter oN The staff's estimate of thejsnowpack based on ANSI 58.1-1982, extrapolated froo the 50 year return pe riod in the standard to a 100 year return pe riod, produces a weight of near 30 psf. This snowpack weight, when added to the weight produced by the 48-hour probable maximum winter dat2l precipitation (about 70 psf) produces a d:: y s/AdA :lw//da ra bow awd A de /oa dg fyg,.,. .l,,,, Jag.,
snowload of 100 psf 33 z' : c ' '. ' t- -- .r - , :: :
..m . . . . . . . .. . : :e :::ry tt ::_r::
- :t ::::- :d..-. o . . . . . '. ; e d e' "00 p:'. The ac cep t abi li ty of the ap p li c a nt 's design of safety related structures, with respect tc the staff's estimate of design snowload a nd load combinations, .
i s di scussed in Section 3 . 8 '.1, Large-scale episodes of a tmo s che ri c stagnation occur in the region. About 41 atmos phe ri c stagnation cases tot ali ng at least 164 da y s were reported in the area in the pe riod 1936-1975.
As di s cus sed above, the staff has reviewed available inf o rma tion eetative to the regional meteorological conditions o' imecrtance to the safe design and siting of this plant in accordance 1
l
i 7- ,
i with the c ri t e ri a c ont ained i n Se ct ion 2.3.1 of ,
the Standa rd Review Pla n. Based on this review, t
the staff concludes that, with the ex ception of i t
the design basis tornado rate of pressure d r op and i snowpack, the ap pli c a nt has identified appropriate e i
regional meteorological conditions for consideration in the design and siting of this ;
plant. With the ex cept io n of t'r "7: cr'::ri: ';-
l t' 1:: ;- 52: !: :; ::: _. _. . . . . . . d ::
2n atseptabit. *
'Sc;;.;. !.!.!! ..J d;;ign t;;i; snowpack 2enjn (Section 3.8.1), the applicant has met the f; recui rement s of 10 C FR Pa rt 100.10 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterike2,bJ*/V, Although/the d e s i gn ,Va s i s t'o rn afo c h a r'a c t e r i s t i c s \ h i / a . s ,
selectd'd by the ap pli c a nt are di f fe rent than the
/
pos <' tion s.e t forth in kegula to ry Guide 1.76, the '
d i .' f e r e n c e s are not considered significant for the
'd e t e r m i n a t i o n of an ac cep t ac le design basis to rnaco f or mi ssile generation. Therefore, the aoolicant i
has met the rec ui r eme nt s o f 10 CFR Part 50, Accendix A, General Design Cri te rion 4 f o,r the ,
I c ons ide ra tion of to rnado mi ssile s.
I
8- !
i 2.3.2 Local Meteorology ,',l Climatological data from Pittsburgh, PA, and available !
onsite data have been used to assess local meteoro- !
Logical characteristics of the plant site.
Extreme temperatures of -27.8 C (-18 F) and 37.2 C 1
(99 F) have been repo rt ed a t Pittsburgh. The applicant has conside red a maximum outdoor tempe rature ,
of 32.2 C (90 F) and a minimum temperature of -20.6 C >
(-5 F) in the design of all h e ating, ventilating and j air conditioning (HV A C) systems. Regional analyses in j NUR EG /C R-1390, "P robabi li ty Estimates of Temperature Extremes for the Contiguous United States" show that an ambient temperature of 35 C (95 F) wiLL be exceeded
- for at least one hour eve ry two ye ars, on the average, i
- - . o and that an ambient tempe rature of ab ou t 41.1 C fi (106 F) will be exceeded at least one hour eve ry 100 years, on the ave rage. Also, an ambient t empe ra-ture of less than -22.2 C (-8 F) is e x pe ct ed to cecur f or at least one hour eve ry t.o years, on the average, and an anbi ent te pe rature of less t h a n -3 6.7 C (-3 4 F) i s expect ed to occur fer at least one hour eve ry 100 ye a rs, on the average. -
";-t':- .' _ ;; ' 'i;;;ic r :' t h e .ac4 ou c.y. :.f th e...uh.Lant-eds.or.4.-teape-r a t-u r e s c ons i d e r ed- brth s c el i o+ n t- 4++.
the. esign-of.dvAC-systems pr ot ect ing safetf re12: 20-t
a 9-i eu i'# S- , :, t;;; -d ::- :.:-t: i: ;;.. ;d. ~'I.-
The aff esant l
d22 dnam dre W N d ;
viii b; : ;r.. .. .; :-i, i' exceedence of extreme i willnY design temperatur -
';r :t;g """.: _,.t.; resulty in Sudden failure _: ;i'_... "m of C a t ego ry I au xi li a ry A Su Sestr**n.g 9.4./ dm,44 4.4.f%
( :
systems and compone s:g ::P .. --.. :v;i ;;;d 5, i
t ;. . mvTi..., ;,:---e ' : ;5 s
I Precipitation is welL-distributed t hr oughou t the year, t ranging from about 61 mm (2.4 inches) in F eb rua ry to about 97 mm (3.8 inches) i n July. Maximum and minimum mo nt hly amounts of precioitation observed at Pittsburgh have been 208 mm (B.2 inches) in October ,
i 1954 and 4 mm (0.16 inches) in Oct obe r 19 63, re- !
I spectively. The maximum amount of precipitation in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> oe riod a t Pittsburgh was 90 mm (3.56 inches) in October 1954
. Annual p r eci pi t a t io n at Pittsburgh is aoout 919 mm (36.2 inches) and ons ite precipi tation me asurements for the 5 year pe riod 1976-1980 oresented by the 4
applicant indicate annual precipitation of about i
572 mm (22.5 inches). These ci f fe rences can be i
attributed to the different periods of reccrd and l terrain differences. [
i i
f Wind data t aken f rom the 10.7 m level of the onsite -
meteorological tewer for a 5 year period (J anua ry 1976- -
i December 1930), as suenari:ed cy the acetdesnt, u'
k
~
10 -
indicate prevailing winds from the sou t hwe s t (10. 5 % )
and west-southwest (10.2%) with a se conda ry peak frequency from the southeast (9.2%). Winds from the north-northeast and north-northwest for this period occurred least frequently, each o c cu r r ed less than 4% of the time. The mean annual wind speed o b s e~rv e d at the 10.'7 m level of the onsite meteorological tcwer for the period 1976-1980 was about 1.9 m/sec (4 mp h) ,
with cats conditions (defined as wind speeds less than the starting threshold of the anemometer) o c cu r r-ing almost 0.8% of the time.
Wind data taken from t he 152 m level of the onsite ,
tower for the 5 year pe riod (1976-1980) indicate prevailing winds from the southwest, west-southwest and west (t o t at i ng 37.7%) . Winds from the north-northeast direction occurred least frecuently at 2.7%
of the time. The mean annual wind speed obs e rv ed at the 152 m level of the tewe r for t he 19 76-19 80 period of record was about 4.5 m/sec (10 mp h), with calm condi tions occur ring a b ou t 0.2t of the time.
Atmospheric stability assessments, based on vertical temperature difference measure ents for t5e E year
- eriod (1974-1900), have been sua.ari
- 4. Ly the
11 -
?
applicant for a shatlow (45.7 m to 10.7 m) Laye r and a deep (152 m to 10.7 m) Layer. Unstable conditions (indicating rapid di f f usion rates) o c cur 21.6% and 5.0% of the time in the shatlow and deep laye rs, respectively. Neutral and slightly stable conditions predominate and occur 53.2% and 80.1% of the time, respectively, in the shatlow and de ep laye rs.
Moderately stable and extremety stable conditions (indicating stow di f f usion rates) occur 25.3% of the time in the shallow layer and 14.9% of the time in the deep layer.
As discussed above, the staff has reviewed available ,
information relative to local meteorological condi-tions of impo rt ance to the safe design and s i t i ng of this plant in accordance with the c ri t e ri a contained i n Section 2.3.2 of the Standard Revi ew Pla n. The staff concludes thatf e;;' : :::.p'. .o .. . 'i s de s-ig n-b-e s + , ; . ,- -; : : 2 s.as --6e r >:V A C wyTt -ars , the plant w:lladequably v'Lt e/ stir ** t 4
- 3 -
.. .s... > s ., a... .. m:d:--d-spoeee.c M e
'- - fer';- =^4-Local meteorological conditions 4+4nc ** +: - '- - and, therefore, meets the requirements of 10 C F R P a r t 100.10 a nd 10 C F R Part 50, Appendix A, General Cesign Criterion 2.
?
i t
2.3.3 onsite Meteorological Measurements Program The present onsite meteorological measurements program was initiated at the Beaver Valley site in J a nua ry 1976. Measurements are made on a towe r ext endi ng 152 m (500-feet) ab ov e a grade of 223 m (730 f eet) est, located about 1100 m northeast of the Beave r Val Ley Power Station, Unit No. 1, r e a c t o r s t ru c t'ur e Location and about 800 m northeast of the natural draft c oo li ng tower locations for both units. The f o l Lowi ng meteorological measurements are made on the tower:
wind speed and direction at the 10.7 m, 45.7 m, and 152 m levets; vertical t empe ra ture g radi ent between the 45.7 m and 10.7 m tevels and between the 152 m and 10.7 m levels; and temocrature and dewpoint at the 10.7 m level. Precipitation is measured at an elevation of about 1 m a b ov e grade near the tower.
A digital data accui si tion system, backed up by analog strip charts, has been and i s cur rently being used to record meteorological data. The measurements system was inspected dally, and the entire system was calibrated cuarterty. The jcint data recove ry for
.ind speed, and wind di rection at the 10.7 m level, and at ospheric stability (defined by the .erti:at
9 t empe rature di f f e rence between the 45.7 and 10.7 m levels) f o r the 5-ye ar period J anua ry 1976-December 1980 presented in the FS AR was 90% with yearly data r e c ov e ry ranging from 85 to 93%. The joint data r e c ov e ry for wind speed and wind di rection at the 152 m level and a tmospheric s tabili ty (defined by vertical t emperature di f f erence between the 152 and 10.7 m levels) for the 5 year period was 38% with yearly data r ec ov e ry ranging from 7o to 937..
The ,me teorological measurement s sys tems compli es wi th sob' and theg accuracy specifications in Regulato ry Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs."[Howevfr, inythe l ,
/ / !
ER-OL/the applica c h a ng es/
e makes,/the ,.9t atement that in he met orological tower locatien 'in J a nu a ry 1976 j l
p oduced a shift in the' prevailing wind di rect ions ,t
/
I - \
/ and t t this shift,was due to the ch anneli ng effect ;
t
/ -
of e val, key. Therefore, the applicant was asked {*
, i
/ t he staff (RAI E451.4) to provide addi tio nal in-
'f o rma tio n on the representativeness of the new tcwer 1
location f o r the deternination of a tmos phe ric di s ce r-t sion. Until this question is resolved, the assessments
!in SER Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3 5 cann.ot be finaLi:ed. ,
r 14 -
The representativeness of the 5 year period of onsite data of Long term conditions was determined by compari-sons of data from the concurrent 5 year period f o r Pittsburgh wi th da ta from a 25 year period for Pittsburgh. These compa risons indicate that reasonable estimates of a tmos pheric di spe rs ion for accidental and routine releases of radioactive effluents can be made from the onsite data record.
The meteorological crogram described above ap ears to meet the c ri t e ri a f o r upgraded meteorol:gical measurements during plant operation as part of the emergency response capability. These upgrades must ,
be completed in accordance wi th the schedule of NUR EG-073 7, III.A.2, "C l a r i f i c a t io n el TMi Action P la n Requirements," and its supplement, and a post implementation staf f r eview wilL be conducted. The incorpo ration of current meteorological inf o rma tion into a real-time atmospheric di spe rsion model for oose assessments will also be c ons ide red as part of the upgraded c apac i li ty .
The staff has reviewed the onsite meteorotegical measurements system in accordance sith the criteria
z contained in Section 2.3.3 of the Standard Review Plan.
.w.*
n u .._ w .w- -- i4,,-+ .. ,,,4,. he current instrumentation and data reduction procedur es c onf o rm to the recommenda tions of Regulato ry Guide 1.23, "0nsite Meteorological Programsg" ,.eff s..e .. evo-
, i n su L vu . w... .er.;;;rt;; .eusa, e. .oe a .r e- :':d :: t'; -
- -
- :.;- i.._- -- The current meteorological measurements program has provided JdetW4it data to represent onsite meteorological conditons as recuired i n 10 C FR Part 100.10 g]ko w e v e r, th s t a y'f \
co tinuir i t s je'v a l u a.t i o n of the adeo o f the *
' i
/ .- ,? / acy/
Neverthelpss, the}
's pro osed u/pgradyb to the program.
/ ; / / . .i s -
aff 9enclude's that the hi sto ri c al /s i t e d4 ta provide!
/ . / \
'a regsonab le ba s i s f o r maki ng preliminary estimates
/ ,
p o f /a tmo s ph e ri c,'di spe rs io n 'cond i t io n s for estimating l
/ . I
,c ons eque nc e s o f de i s gn basiv accident and routine j i .
p eas,es from the plant. _ . _ . . .
2.3.4 Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates To audit the applicant's estimates, the staff has
- - ' ' ' - ' - assessment of pe rf o rmed an independent, s ho rt-t e rm (less than 30 days) accidental releases from buildings and vents using the directien-decendent atmospheric di spe rsion model de sc rib ed in R e g ul a t e ry e
Guide 1.145, " A t mos phe ri c Dispe rsion Models for .
Potential Ac cide nt Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Powe r Pla nt s," with consideration of increased lateral di spe rsion during stable conditions accompanied by low wind speeds. Five years (January 1977-December 1981) of onsite data available to the staff on magnetic tape, which had 92" data recovery, we re used I for this evaluation. Wind speed and wind direction data were based on measurements at the 10.7 m level ,
l and atmospheric stability wa s defined by t he ve rtical t empe ratur e g r adi ent measured between the 45.7 m and i
s 10.7 m levels. A ground-Level release with a bui t di ng 2 I wake factor, cA, of 800 m was assumed. The relative j concentration (X/G) for the 0-2 hour time pe riod was hi -3 3 determined to be 4 ,* x 10 sec/m at an ex clusion ;
517 area bounda ry distance c f abb6 m in the northwest sector. The X/Q values for aporcoriate time periods at the outer boundary of the Lew population :ene (5800 m) are:
Time Period X/Q (sec/m )
- 9. 7 -5 0-3 hours ne* x 10 b'N -5 8-24 hours 5ff x 10 31 -5 1-4 days ac* x 10 ,,
4-30 days
/. ;
&e*" x *0
_f
17 -
3b The applicant has calcula ted a lower (about 44%) X/C value'for the 0-2 hour time pe riod at the exclusion area boundary than that calculated by the staff. The X/Q values calculated by the applicant for the va rious anc Lo time pe riods at the LPI di s t a n c e Aw i t h i n ASC of those calculated by the staff. ?+ : e : :11 di : ::: ;
5: '---b.; m - :: '. :; _z ..c. c... ym .;mus .'
- ...;r
- :; :' _ .. mew. d re d L 7 th- . .. ..J w ire
_s a m ?
Based on the ab ov e p.
_ evalua tion oe rf o rmed in
-SA P accordance with the c ri teri a contained in section 2.3.4
.' ...c ....J:" "-'*:1 'i;n, the staff concludes that '
Cl$A?ly the applicant has gunderestimated atmospheric di spe rs ion conditions at the exclusion area b eunda ry for assess-ments cf the conseque nces of radicactive releases for design basis accidents in ac cordance wi th the requi renent s of 10 CFR Part 100.11. The atmospheric di spe rs ion estimates pr ov i d ed a b ov ey w h i c h .ere independently calculated by the staff.have ~
been used it:
by the staff in '- ::: _. . -
'.:- assessment A:- ..s of the cons ecue nces of r adi c a c t ive releases for design basis ac cide nt s.
l
~i I
i l
I l
e 2.3.5 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates To audit the applicant's estimates, the s t a f f -we64 p e r-ed forg an independent cal cula tion of annual ave rage relative concentration (X/4) and relative deposition (D/Q) values.
nual average relat concent, ration (X/d) and relative deposition'(D/Q) values at specific r eyec/ to r 1
1 i points and in a r,f a y s to 30 Km (50 mi) f or use in j i /
I p o p u l a t i o n d op'e assessment will be based on ~ the /
l / .'
s t r a i g h t-l i,s e g a u s s i a n atmospheric di spe rsion model,
< /
de sc ribed i n Regula to ry Guide 1.111, modi f i ed to i /
- r e f l e ct spatial and t empo ral variations in airflov .
i usip/lg the applicant's correction factors c a l cu la t ed Releases j
{ fr'om a va ri ab le t r a j e c to ry plume model.
- 'through the turbine enclosure and the reactor l
! enclosur e vent s will be considered to be pa rt ially ;
elevated, based on the c ri t e ri a contained in j Regula to ry Guide 1.111. .
t
- However, the staf f di f fusion estimates cannot be pe rf o rmed until the i s s ue s in F!AR Section 11.3 are .
resolved and the r e s po ns e to a recuest for ad di tio nal inf o r ation on the ER-OL ( P. A : E451.5) is received and evaluated.
w
-M-0:AV;E VALL;i ? W R TA:::M, '?
MET::::L :::Am ; ara; i; A.r::::" :
T DE'~~ :'.17^:C:aTAu 5iaTL;;;T ,
Annual average relative concentration (X/Q) and relative deposition (D/Q)
$*r of ettWa reeefbr potStt 2ndbr Al-ny: to foKw(Zowi) values were calculatedj using the straight-line Gaussian atmospheric dispersion model described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, modified to reflect potential spatial and temporal variations in airflow using site-specific correction factors developed by the applicant. Releases through the process vent (at the top of the cooling tower) were assumed to be elevated, and releases from the turbine building were assumed to be at ground level with mixing in the turoulent wake of plant structures. Releases through the containment vent were assumed to be partially elevated, except for the transport directions (af fected sectors) of north-northeast, northeast, east-southeast, and southeast. Dispersion in these transport directions is affected by the large natural draft cooling towers, and, for these transport directions, releases f rom the containment vent were assumed to be at ground level with mixing in the turbulent wake of plant structures.
Intermittent releases through the containment vent were evaluated using the methodology contained in NUREG/CR-2919.
A 5-year period of record (January 1977-December 1951) of onsite meteorological cata was used for this evaluation. For releases frcm the containment ano turbine building vents, wind speed and direction data were based on measurements pade % the 10.7m (25-ft) level, and atmospheric stability was defined by the vertical temperature dif ference bet een the
'5.7m (150-f t) and 10.7m levels. For releases through the process .'ent at
the top of the cooling tower, wind speed and direction data were based on measurements made at the 152m (499-ft) level, and atmospheric stability was defined by the vertical temperature difference between the 152m and 10.7m l ev el s .
e The applicant has calculated similar X/Q and D/Q values to those calculated by the NRC staff.
Based on the above evaluation performed in accordance with SRP Section 2.3.5, the NRC staff concludes that the applicant has considered representative atmospheric dispersion estimates for demonstrating compliance with the The atmospheric numerical guides for doses in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
dispersion estimates developed by the NRC staff have been used in its assessment of compliance with Apper. dix I, which appears in Section 11.3 of this report. They have also been used in the preparation of the NRC staff's Draft Environmental Statement and are included in the assessment of the radiological impact to humans from routine releases to the atmosphere that appears in the Beaver Valley, Unit Nc. 2, Envircnmental Statenent.
Y e
, .i'
. g 6.5 Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Filter Systems 6.5.1 Introduction Section 6.5 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contains inf o rma tio n pe rtaining to engi neered s afety feature (ESF) filter systems, t heir design bases, and -
applicable ac ceptance criteria.
6.5.2 Acceotance C ri t e ri a The staff has revi ewed t he applicant's design, design criteria, and design bases for the ESF filter systems j fo r the Be ave r Valley Nuclear Generating Station, i'
Unit 2. The acceptance criteria used as the basis fo r our evalua tion are set fo rt h in the St anda rd Revi ew ,
Plan (SRP) N UR EG-0 800, in Section II of SRP 6.5.1. ;
i These acceptance c ri t e ri a include the applicable General Design Criteria (Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50), ANSI St anda rd N5 09-19 80, "Nuc le a r Powt r Pla nt Air Cleaning Units and Components", and ANSI Standard N 510-19 80,
" Testing of Nuc le a r Air Cleaning Systems". Guidelines
+
for implementation of the recuirements of the acceptance c ri t e ri a are provided in the ANSI Standards, ,
Regula to ry Guide 1.52, and ot he r docune nt s identified - .
in Section II of the SRP. Co nf o rma nce to the I t
G 1
- ~ , _ - . _ . . . _ . _ . . _. ._ h
p ..
. r acceptance criteria provides the bases for c on c ludi ng ,
that the ESF filter systems meet the requi rements of
+
6.5.3 Method of Review The Beaver Val Ley Station, Unit 2, has two ESF filter systems, the Control Room Pressurization Fresh Air Filter System, and the Su pp l eme nt a ry Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS). Each of these these systems.
was reviewed in accordance wi th the SRP. The results
-of these reviews are discussed below.
6.5.4 Review Discussion The ESF filter systems fo r the Beave r Valley Station, Unit 2, include the main control c o.o m area pressuriza-tion filtration system and the supplementary leak collection and release system (SLCRS). These systems operate after an accident to control the release of radioactive materials in ga secus effluents (radiciodine and particulates.
6.5.4.1 Main control Room Pressurization Filtration System Part of the function of the c ont rol buildi ng ve nt i t a-tion system is to i sola te the control room and provide a fresh supply of air in the event of an accicent.
l I
e -
For this purpose, the main control room pressurization filter system is activated during an accident when the control room bottled air pressurizing system is depleted. This 100% redundant filt er system takes suction from the control room outside air intake at -
1,0 0 0 c f m . The air is dehUmidi fied by a demister and electric heater, passed through a HEPA filter, a charcoal filter and another HEPA filter and then through a 1,000 cf m fan before the air enters and pressurizes the control room. The system and components are designed to seismic Ca t go ry I, are powered by Cla ss 1E buses, and located in a seismic
~
Category 1 structure. A complete description of the j system is provided i n Se ct ion 9.4.1 of the Beaver Valley Station FSAR.
Fo r the evalua tion of the ESF filter systems in Section 6, the staff has assigned removat efficiencies of 95% for all radiciodines ano 99% f o r pa rticula t es, as specified f o r 2-i nch deep charcoal beds and HEPA filters, respectively. From the system de sc ript ion in the FSAR, we determined that the control room pressurization filter system is designed consistent with GDCs 19 and 61 and as referenced in the SRP.
= ,
i 2
Exc ept for some minor deviations f rom Regulato ry Guide 1.52 Revision 2 requirements noted in t f
Section 6.5.5, we find the design of the ESF :
I control room pressurization filter system adequate to maintain a positive control room ,
pressure and significantly remove concentrations l l
of radioactive asterials from the control room makeup supply air.
6.5.4.2 Supolementary Leak Collection and Release System f The function of the s up p l e me nt a ry leak collection f
and release system (SLCRS) is to operate during ;
an accident to collect, process and filter , . , ,
containment air leakage prior to atmospheric , ,/ '
1 release. In ad di tio n, the SLCRS wilL also l I
process exhaust air from the f ue l bui t di ng, some J j i
exhaust air from potentialLy contaminated a reas of the Auxiliary bu i l di ng , and exhaust air from f t he Waste Handling buildi ng . This system is a ;
seismic Catego ry 1 design with redundant ESF filter trains each powe red by normal and ;
e me rga ncy Class 1E buses. During a los s of i
c oola nt accident, t he SLCRS collect s, f ilt ers ,
and releases at the top of the containment any Le ak age into the contiguous areas which house J
i
. r
. o r
containment penetration and ESF equipment cubicles that circulate radioactive water.
Also, f o r a f uel h andling ac cident, the SLCRS processes Leakage from the f uel building.
There are two redundant filter trains. Each train consists of a dehumidifier and electric heater for humidity cont rol, f olLowed by two parallel HEPA, charcoal and HEPA filters. FolLowi ng a re two 100%
redundant filter exhaust f a'ns that di sch a rge to the
- elevated release point. A manual wa ter spray system i
is provided to prevent ignition of the charcoat in the event of decay heat buildup. .
From the system de sc ript ion in the FSAR, we determined -
that the SLCRS is designed consistent with GDC's 41, 42, 43, 61, and 64, as ref erenced in the SRP. In our t evaluation of the system design efficiencies for removal of elemental ' iodine and organic iodines, we assigned the system radiciodine decontamination efficiencies of 90% f o r normal and 95% for accioent conditions for the SLCRS ca rbon adso rbe rs (one 2-inch deep bed with humidi ty control), in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.140 and 1.52 and 99% f o r pa rticu-Lates for the SLCRS HEPA filters. Encept for some minor deviations from R egula to ry Guide 1.52,
. o
? - 24
.V .
l i a
,/
- Rwvi si d6-T r;cd : ste istTi in sessiorr-C.t.5r, we t.)
s) -
find that the design of the ESF supplementary leakage ,
\ control system adequate to collect and filter radio- I, j
,3 .,
I s ,. active particulate and iodine f rom containment and
']
f uel buitding Leakage. .
hc-I
, 6.5.5 Deviations from the Standard Review plan Our r evi ew of the above systems has found agreement with the guidelines of the Standard Review Plan (SRP),
NUREG-0800, except for the items noted below. These items are deviations from Regula to ry Gudie 1.52, R e v i s i o n 2, arnd-arre c ons idered a s "op en itbs"
_r.aq u i.r i ng-f u rt h e e-ev e l-u a t i o n b y t h e a'p o Ci c a n t :
Seve ral pa ragraphs of IEEE-STD 279-1971 relating to tes'ttng of manual initiation and system status of protective systems have been deleted. The staff does not agree wi th the applicant that these design recui rement s c an be deleted f o r ESF f ilt er sys tems.
- The applicant has taken emceotion to t5e recuirement that dampers used in contaminated air streams be designed to ANSI 331.1 (construction Cla ss , A dampe rs) . In s t e ad, t he s e dampe rs wil L b,e i,de s ign ed onty to meet the strength and leak tightness necessary f or use in conisminated air streans. The staf f conside rs t hi s po s i t io n ac c ep t ao '.e, en ceo t that 4
e
l 0
- a dampers used f o r i_so_ Lit to n--a nd s h ut o f f o f c o n t a m i -
n a t ed. ad r~s t r'eini~(e i t he r to xi c ch emi c al o r ai rbo rne r.ad.ioac t ive ma t e r i al s ) should be construction
~ ~
Class A. The -appli c ant should 've"ri f y t o t he s t a f f that. aL Li solation and s hutof f dampe rs in potentially -
contaminated airstreams are in fact construction
. C.L a s s-A .**"
The applicant has taken enception to the 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per month filter purge, wi th heaters operational, to maintain the charcoat in an "ac cident ready" con-
, dition. Instead, the applicant considers 15 minutes alL that is necessary to demons trate ope rabili ty
- t. . .
- . 4..
and keep the charcoal free ,of moisture.4 7he-etsff
. ..... ~ s . t ,
di sagrees wi th the applicant. Wi th rega rd to the .
control room pressurization system, the charcoat filters wilL normalLy be idle, thus, during periods of high humidity and wi th dampe rs that do not seal 100%, wa ter vapor by di f f usion wilL enter the ,
charcoat and pos sibly degrade i t s pe rf o rmanc e. ,,
Therefore, it is essential to ceriodicalLy purge 4
the charcoal filters with tow h umidi ty air for a : .
duration (considered to be 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />) to maintain the charcoal dry and in an " accident ready" condition.
l
, )
6.5.6 Evaluation Findings The staff concludes that the design of the ESF atmosphere cleanup sys tems, including t he equipment and instrumentation to control the release of radio-active materials in gaseous ef fluents following a postulated 08A, a re ac cep table. This conclusion is based on the applicant having met the requi rements of GDCs 19, 41 and 61 by pr ov i di ng ESF atmosphere cleanup systems on the control room habitability, containment and associated systems. The applicant has me t the requirements of GDC s 42, 43, and 64 by providing f o r inspecting and t esting the ESF atmo-sphe re cleanuo sys tems and moni toring f o r radioactive -
materials in of fluent s f rom these systems. In meeting these regula tions, t he apolicant has demonstrated that the design of the ESF atmosphere cleanup systems wi+A es c ent4e ns_nueddn 6. 5. 5 me e t the guidelines of t egula to ry Guide 1.52 and t he Aris! 4509 and *l510 industry standards, as referenced in the SR*. We have reviewed the applicant's system descriotions and design caiteria fo r the ESF atmosphere cleanup systems.
Based on our evalua tion wi th rescect to the SRP c riteria, we find the proposed ESF atmoschere cleanup l
27 -
sys tems a re ac cept ab Le, pe ndi ng -ressivi ivi. e t he_"agen 4'a==" ,, - ;~. F.- The filter efficiencies given
--tjf in Tab Le 2 of Regulato ry Guide 1.52 are appropriate for use in accident analyses.
10.4.2 Main condenser Evacuation system 10.4.2.1 Introduction se ct ion 10.4.2 of the Final safety Analysis Reoo rt (FSAR) contains inf ormation pe rtaining to the main condenser evacua tion (air removal) system, the system design bases, and the applicable acceptance criteria.
10.4.2.2 Acceptance criteria The staf f has reviewed the applicant's design, design criteria, and design bases f o r the main condenser evacuation system (MCES) fo r Beave r Val Ley, Unit 2.
The ac ceptance c riteria used in our evaluation are those in the St andard Revi ew mLan (SRP), NUREG-0900, in Section !! of SRP 10.4.2. The SRP acceptance criteria include the apolicabLe GDC (Appendis A to 10 CFR Pa rt 50) and Heat Enchanger Institute Standard "St anda rds f o r S t eam Surface Condensers." Guide-Lines fo r inclement ation of the requi rements of the
acceptance criteria are provided in the Regulatory Guides referenced in Section !! of the SRP. Con-I formance to.the acceptwnce criteria of the SRP provides the bases for concluding that the MCES meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. -
I 10.4.2.3 Method of Review The MCES was reviewed in accordance with the SRP.
The result s of the review a re di se cussed below.
10.4.2.4 Review Discussion The MCES is designed to (1) establi sh a vacuum in the condenser and (2) remove non-condensable gases from l t he main condenser and di sch arge them to the atmo-sphere. For condenser evacua tion, a priming steam i
driven air ejector is utilized to bring the condenser from atmospheric pressure to 15 inches sercury absolute pressure. Then, t he prima ry ej ecto r i s I isola ted and one (or two) main air ej ector is b rough t into service to complete the evacuation down to 1 inch of mercury absolute.
The effluent air from the air ejectors is norma (Ly di scharged di rectly to the atmosphere stop the Beaver Valley Unit 1 cooling tower. If radioactivity is i
w________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
a detected in this effluent by t he air ej ecto r di s-charge activi ty moni tor, t his ef fluent air will be ;
redirected to the Beaver Valley Unit 2 air ejector i i
charcoal delay sys ten (di scussed f urther in l Se ct ion 11.3) .
- l There are three ac tivi ty monitors associated wi th this effluent stream; one at the air ejector discharge, one at the discharge point stop the Beaver Valley Unit 1 cooling tower, and one downs tream of the air ejector ('
charcoal delay system.
u 10.4.2.5 Evaluation Findings The main condense r evacua tion sys tem includes equip-ment and instrument s to establish and maintain
- r condenser vacuum and to prevent an uncontrolled ,
I release of gaseous radioactive material to the environment. The scope of our review included t he system capability to transfer radioactive gases to the i gaseous waste processing system or ventilation exhaust sys tems, anu t he des ign provi sions incorpo rated to I g
i monitor and control releases of radioactive materials .t in effluents. The staff has reviewed the applicant's 5 system de sc ript ions, piping and ins trumenta tion l l
~
l i
l
\
l r
a e =
diagrams, and design criteria for the components of the main condenser evacuation system in accordance with the SRP.
The staf f concludes that the Beaver Valley Unit 2 design is acceptable in that the applicant has met the requirements of GDCs 60 and 64 with respect to the control and monitoring of releases of radioactive matertats to the environment. The applicant has met the criteria for apptying appropriate industrial standard on the design of heat enchangers and air ej e cto rs.
10.4.3 Turbine Gland seatina system 10.4.1.1 Introduction Section 10.4.3 of the Final Sa f ety Analysis Report contains inf ormation pert aining to the turbi9e gland seating system, the design bases, and appli:abLe ,
acceptance criteria.
10.6.3.2 neeentence criter4 i The staff has reviewed the aoolitant's design, design criteria, and de sign bases f o r the turbine gland sealing system for Seaver Vat Ley, Unit No. 1. The r
4
l .
l l
l '
l . !
i i
l l
acceptance criteria used as the basis for our evalua-tion are set forth in section 10.4.3 of the Standard .
Review Plan (SRP) NURt8-0800. The acceptance criteria are the applicable Soc (Appendia A to 10 CFR Part 50) !
as referenced in the SRP. Guidelines fo r implementa- *
.o tion of the requirements of the acceptance criteria are provided in the Regutatory Guides identified in Section !!. of the SRP. Conforsance to the acceptance ,
criteria provides the bases for concluding that the ,
i turbine gland seating system meets the reaut rements of 10 CFR Part 50. {
r 10.4.3.3 Method of seview The turbine gland sealing system fo r Beave r Valley, i
Unit 2, was reviewed in accordance with SRP 10.4.3. f The result s of the review a re discussed below.
10.4.3.4 seview of Turbine otand cestins system i i
The turbine gland seating system (70$$) is designed !
to provide a continuous supply of " clean" steam to [
t main turbine shaft tests. 7%is sealing steam is used l l
to prevent air le ak i ng into the steam cycle and !
radioactive steam tesking out of the steam cycle into the Turbine buitdin0 Non-c ondens tble ga ses are l
1 5
i i
h t
4 a
evacuated f rom ~the gland seal steam condenser by one
. of two 100% capacity charcoal filtration units. Each l
unit draws air through a moisture separator / electric heater f or humidity control, then through charcoal and HEPA filters followed by an exhaust fan which -
discharges out the Auxiliary building ventilation stack.
The TGS$ includes the equipment and instruments to provide a source of clean sealing steam to the annutus space where the turbine shaftu penetrate their casings.
The sc ope of our review included t he source of sealing (
steam and the provisions incorpo rated to monito r and ,
control releases of radioactive material in gaseous effluents in accordance with GDC 60 and 64 We have reviewed the septicant's system desc riptions and design criteria for the components of the TG$$ and found them consistent wi th Regulatory Guide 1.26.
The basis fo r ac ceptance in our review has been con =
formance of the applicant's designs, design ce4teria, and design bases for the turbine gland sealing system to t he ac ceptance c riteria o* Sep 10.4.3.
i i
p f
s e
- 3,3 -
a 10.4.3.5 Evaluation Findings ,
The staf f concludes that the turbine g land s ealing system design is acceptable in tnat the applicant has met the requi rements of GDCs 60 and 64 with respect to the control and monito ring of releases of radio-active materials to the environment. i 11.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 11.1 Introduction The radioactive waste management systems fo r Beaver j Valley, Unit 2, is designed to provide for the con-t rolled h and Li ng and t reatment of Liquid, ga seous and solid wa stes. The Liquid radioactive waste system .
r processes wastes from equi pme nt and floor drains, sample wa stes, decontamination and Lab o r a to ry wastes, and chemical wastes. The gaseous radioactive waste sys tem provides holdup capacity to allow decay of s ho rt Lived noble gases reteased f rom the prima ry coolant ga s strippe r and vent s f rom tanks and other equipment c ont aining prima ry coolant. The Liquid and ga seous waste systems utilize decay tanks and charcoal adso rbers to obt ain "as L ew as i s r easonab Ly achievable" Levels in accordance wi th 10 C FR Pa rt 20 and 10 CFR Pa rt 50.34a. The solid radioactive waste
.~
1 I
l L !
I .. o l .
systen has been designed to solidi fy al L we t wa ste, provide short term interim sto rage and ship off-site for final burial. At this time, the radioactive wa ste management review a rea includes the process and effluent radiological moni to ring and sampling systems -
prcvided f or the detection and measurement of radio-active materials in plant process and effluent streams.
11.1.1 Acceotance Criteria The staff has reviewed the applicant's design, design cri teria, and design ba ses for the radioactive waste management systems fo r the Be ave r Val Ley Station, Unit 2. The acceptance criteria used as the basis ,
for our evalua tion are set fo rt h in the SRP, N UR EG-0 800, in Section II of SRPs 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, a nd 11.5. These acceptance criteria include the applicable GDC (Appendix A to 10 C FR Pa rt 50),
S e ct io n 20.106 of 10 C FR Pa rt 20, 4ppendix I to 10 C FR Part 50, and ANSI S t anda rd N13.1, " Guide to Sampling Ai rborne Radioactive Materials in Nuclear Facilities".
Guidelines for implementation of the requi rements of the acceptance criteria are provided in the ANSI St anda rds, Regulato ry Guides, and other documents identified in Section II of the SRP. Conf o rmance to
)
i I
.* j
< 1 i
the acceptance criteria provides the bases for con-cluding that the radioactive waste management systems ,
i meet the requirements of 10 CFR Pa rt 20 and 10 CFR !
Part 50.
11.1.2 Liquid and Gaseous Effluent Source Terms [
f The estimated expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and ga seous ef fluents we re calculated by t he applicant using the PVR GALE Code de sc ribed i n N UR EG-0017. The staff has revihwed these l 1
source terms and found them consistent with the [
t
- guidelines of SRP 11.1. The applicant's source terms were used in our evalua tio n. These source terms are .
given in Table 11.1-2 of the FSAR. The principal parameters used in our catculations are given in i l
Table 11.1 of this SER. .
I 11.1.3 Method of Review The Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, l
has three radioactive wa ste management systems; a Liquid Waste Management System that serves Uni t 2, but can be cross. connected to receive waste from Unit 1; a l Gaseous Waste Management System; and a Solid Waste !
Management System. Ad di t io nal ly, the Seaver Valley i.
i
. .a a
Unit 2 Station has several radiation monitoring sub-
~
systems used f or radiological monito ring of' processes 9
and plant effluents. These systems are reviewed in accordance with the applicable portions of the Standard Review Pla n S e c t i o ns 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, -
and 11.5. The result s of these reviews are discussed below.
11.2 Liouid Waste Management System 11.2.1 System Descriotion and Review The liquid radioactive waste management system consists of process equipment and i ns t rume nt a t io n necessary to collect, delay, process, monitor and .
di spose of radioactive liquid wastes. The liquid wastes from operation of Be ave r Val Ley, Unit No. 2, originates from the containment sumo, Auxiliary building sump, Labora to ry drains, reactor coolant samples, condensate demineralizer rinse water, and ot her mi scellaneou s sour ces. Turbi ne bui t di ng liquid drains are moni to red and i f no activi ty i s detected, released wi thout processing to the environment.
Ot he rwi se, the turbine bui t di ng drains are sent to the Liquid waste processing system for delay and processing prior to retease.
e f
s -
The liquid waste procesing system consists of two 7,500 gallon waste' drain tanks fo r collection and initial holdup; two 20 gpm evapo rato rs for initial radio a c t ivi ty removed; folLowed by two mixed bed ion demineralize rs and t hen two 18,000 gallon test tanks fo r sampling processed Liquid prior to release. If j addi tio nal s to rage is required, due to unusual Leakage or out of service processing equipment, two 50,000 galLnn steam generato r blowdown ho Ld t anks are made availabte to accommodate the addi tional storage.
The applicant states the expected daily waste ftows to be processed i s approximately 4,060 gallons per -
day. This input is consistent with $38 guidelines.
At this rate, assuming onty one waste drain tank and one steam generato r blowdown ho ldu p tank are ava ilab te (57,500 gallons storage capacity),
sufficient s to rage tank capacity (ove r 14 days) is provided to accommodate transient flows and unexpect ed maintenance activities recuiring shutdown of the processing equipment. With a process ftow of 20 gom through the evapo ra to r and demineralizer, the expected daily flows can be processed in sufficient time, less than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
f t , ,
38 -
r After the water has been processed by t he evapo ra to r, it can be sent directly to the test tank s o r through mixed bed domineralizer prior to entering the test
- tanks. The water in the test tanks is sampled at the primary sampt'e panel to. determine its activity level. '
If additional cleanup i s requi red, the test tank pumps can direct water through the mixed bed cleanup domineralizer at a rate of 100 gom and return the filtered water to the test tanks. Wi th the water in the test tank s de termined to be ac ceptab Le fo r di s-charge, the test tank pumps di scharge the tank contents through a flow control valve to either the Unit 1 or Unit 2 cooling towe r blowdown. An activi ty monitor continuously surveys the discharge prior to retease to the blowdown ftow. The discharge flow witL be terminated i f high activity i s de tec t ed.
l l
The evaporator bot toms gradually buitdup high con-l centrations of radioactive elements, suspended solids, and chenicals. The evapo rato r bot toms are pe riodi cal-l ty di sc h arged via redundant evaporato r bottoms pumps at 20 gom through a cooter and into a heat traced f
evaporator bottom hoLduo tank (2,200 gallons). The
t l
T holdup tank pump then transports the contents to the solid waste processing system for solidification and offsite disposal. .
In our evaluation of the liquid radioactive waste management system, we c ons ide r ed : (1) the capability of the system f o r keeping t he levels of radioactivi ty in effluents "as Low as is reasonably achievable" based on expected radwaste input s over the Life of the plant, (2) the capability of the system to main-tain releases below the limits in in CFR Part 20 and also to limit radiological doses to less than atLowed by Appendia I to 10 CFR 50, during pe riods of fission -
product Leakage at design levels from the fuel, (3) the capability of the system to meet the process-ing demands of the station during anticipated ope ra tional occurrences, (4) the quality group and seismic design cla ssi fication appli ed to t he eauipment and conponents and structures housing the system, and (5) the design features that are incorporated to con-trol the releases of radioactive materials in ac cordance wi th General Design criterion 60.
e h.
~
0 * .
The estimated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents were catculated by the applicant using the PWR-GALE Code described in NUREG-0017.
~
The PWR-GALE Code is a computerized mathematical model f or cat culating the routine releases of radioactive material in effluents from pressurized water reactors (PWR). The code has been in use since 1976 f o r alL PWR Licensing reviews. The calculations in the code are based on (1) data generated f rom operating r eac to rs, (2) field and La b ora to ry tests, (3) standardized coolant activities de rived f rom Ame rican Nuc lear Society (ANS) 18.1 Wo rk i ng Group recommendations, (4) release and transport mechanisms that result in the appe arance of radioactive materiat in liquid s treams, and (5) the Seaver Valley Unit 2 radwaste system design features used to reduce the quantities of radioactive materials ultimately released to the environs. The principal paraneters used by the staff in their catculations are given in Table 11.1 of this SER.
The Liould source term is given in Table 11.1-2 of the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report.
e .
- .. j
. c 4
l 11.2.2 Evaluation Findings i The liquid radwaste systems include the equipment necessary to control the releases of radioactive materials in liquid ef fluents in 'accordance wi th GDCs 60 and 61 of Appendix A of 10 C FR Pa rt 50 and -
10 C FR Pa rt 5 0.3 4a . Capacities of principal com-ponents considered in the liquid waste processing system evaluation are Li sted i n Tab Le 11.2-12 of the FSAR. The staf f concludes that the design of the Liquid waste management system is acceptable and meets the requi rements o f 10 C FR Pa rt 20, Section 20.106, 10 C FR pa rt 50, S e c t io n 5 0.3 4a, GDC's 60 and 61 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, a s ref e renced in the SRP.
This conclusion is based on the f o t L owi ng :
- 1. The applicant has met the requi rements of l Section II.A of Appendix I of 10 C FR Pa rt 50 wi th respect to dose limiting objectives by proposing a liquid radwa s t e treatment system that is capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents such that the catculated individual doses fo r two unit operation in an unrestricted a rea f ecm att tiquid
0
- T pathways of exposure are less than 5 mittirems/yr to the total body and less than 15 milli rems /yr to any organ.
- 2. The staff has concluded that the applicant has met the requirements of the Commi ssion's -
September 4, 1975 Annex to Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 wi th respe et to meeting t he "a s l ow as r easonably a chievable" c ri te rion, and i s, t he r e-fo re exempt from the cost-benefit analysis r equi r ed by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
- 3. The applicant has met the requi rements of 10 C FR Part 2 0, S e c t i o n 2 0.106 s i n c e w e have considered the potential consequences resulting from reactor operation and have determined that the concentra-tions of radioactive materials in liquid i effluents in unrestricted a reas will be a small fraction of the limits in 10 C FR Part 20, Apoendix B, Tab le II, Co lumn 2. !
I 4 The applicant has met the requirements of GDCs'60 l!
I and 61 with respect to c o n t r o l li ng releases of I
-i radioactive material to the environment since !
l we have cens ide red the capabilities of the I proposed liquid radwaste treatment system to meet
.. .s r
the demands of the plant due to anticipated operational occurrences and have concluded that the system capacity and design flexibility are adequate to meet the anticipated needs of the plant. We have revi ewed t he appli cant's quali ty -
a ssurance provi sions fo r the liquid radwa st e systems, the quality group classifications used f o r system components, and the seismic design applied to structures housing these systems.
The design of the systems and structures hou si ng these systems meet the c ri te ri a as set fo rt h in R eg u la to ry Guide 1.143. We have revi ewed t he
~
provisions i n c o rpo ra t ed in the applicant's design to control t he release of radioactive materials in Liouids due to inadvertent tank cverftows and conclude that the me asures proposed by the applicant are consistent'with the criteria as set fo rt h in R eg u la to ry Guide 1.143.
11.3 Gaseous waste Management-11.3.1 System Descrietion The gaseous radioactive wa ste di sposed and plant .
ventiL a tion sys tems a re designed to collect, store, orocess, monitor, and di sc h a rge potentialLy
, . I I
I z
radioactive gases which are generated during normal operation of the plant. The systems consist of equipment and instrumentation necessary to reduce l
releases of radioactive gases and particulates to :
i' the envi ronment. The principal sources of gaseous waste are the effluents from pr ima ry coolant gas ,
strjppers, vents from t ank s and ot her equi pment processing reacto r coolant, condenser evacuation system, and ventilation exhausts from the radwaste bui l di ng, containment, auxili ary buildi ng, fuel i
bu i l di ng, and turbine buildi ng.
11.3.1.1 Degassifier Portion of Gaseous Waste Discosal System A po rtion of the reactor coolant letdown ,
containing di ssolved hydrogen and fission gases ;
is normalLy di rec t ed to a degasifier in the boron ,
r ec ove ry system from the Letdown line upstream j of the VCT of the CVCS. Liquid collect ed by the ;
nuclear equipment vent and drain system is ,
di rect ed to the other degasifier. Di sso lved gases are separated from the liquid in the j
degasifier at a pressure of approximately 2 psig.
~
Effluent gases from the degasifier contain primarily i l
hydrogen, wa te r vapo r, a smalL amount of nitrogen, and l 1
traces of xenon, krypton, and iodine. These gases are _l
~l 1
l i
j i ,
)
f i
dehumidified (dew point approximately 52 F) in one !
of the two sets of coolers (degasifier vent chiller l in the 8RS and gaseous waste chiller). Condensation effluent from the water trap i s r eturned to the primary drain transfer tank (PDTT) located outside containment, via a liquid seal. The cooled gas stream i s passed t hrough and filtered by ambient temperature charcoal bed adso rbe rs (cubicle tempe rature maintained at approximately 85 F) and one of two redundant pre-filters. The heat due to radioactive decay is small and does not affect the adso rp tion of noble ga ses on the charcoal. The charcoal bed adso rbers are designed to delay xenon isotopes for a minimum of 30 days, and provide a 2 day ' delay for krypton isotopes for the normal letdown flow rates (60 gom) when operated in series. In ad di tio n, decontamination of iodi ne to neg li gi b le levels i s obt ained during passage through the charcoal beds. The only radioisotooes present upon l e avi ng the charcoal in the pr edominantly hydrogen strean is krypton-95.
After leaving the charcoal, one of the two ove rhead ga s c omp r es so rs c ompr es ses the radioactive ga s stream in a gas surge tank to a pressure of about 65 psig.
. 's '
Most of the ga s flo,w i s reduced in pressure and returned to the VCT in the CVCS. Periodically, for removal of krypton-85, the surge tank gas is bled to either the Beaver Valley Unit 1 charcoal delay tanks or the Beaver Valley Unit 2 gas waste storage tanks (GWST).
The compresso rs ope rate automatic ally in response to the suction pressure, t hus maintaining t he dega si fier's ove rhead components at a pressure between e s t ab li s h ed limits.
The degasifier effluent po rtion of the GWD system is
~
designed to include hermetically-sealed valves and welded pipe. In ad di t io n, the gas flow i s monito red for oxygen content. At an indication of a high oxygen content, the c ompr es so rs are shut off. These precautions are used to preclude potentially explosive mixtures of oxygen / hydrogen.
In the event of unusually prolonged meteorological condi tions of poor di spe rs ion, or modes of fuel failure which might result in abnormal concentrations -
of fission products in the reactor coolant, storage space is also provided in Beaver Valley Unit 1 decay E
3 tanks or Beaver Val Ley Unit 2 GWSTs. The tanks wilL be allowed to go to a higher holding pressure and wilL thus be able to accommodate a la rge r volume of gas.
The higher pressure wit L not ex ceed t he design pressure of the system. -
11.3.1.2 Air Elector Effluent Portion of Gaseous Waste Discosal system The gaseous effluent stream from the main condenser air ejecto rs of Beave r Val Ley Unit Nos. 1 and 2 is di rect ed, a s neces sa ry, to the air ejector vent charcoal delay beds which provide sufficient holdup for decay of sho rt-li ved radioactive components.
orior to entering these charcoal beds, the cas stream -
has a dew point of 55 F and the humidity is decreased by allowing the gas stream to heat up b e f o re entering the charcoal beds (cubicle maintained at approximately 77 F). NormalLy, the effluent from the air ej e cto rs is not contaminated and the charcoal adsorber beds are by passed.
11.3.1.3 Gaseous Waste storage Tanks The Unit 2 gaseous waste s to rage tankage is designed to handle att the gas generated by e ither Beave r
e Valley Unit 1 or Unit 2 when going to a cold shutdown
, condition from the following sources:
- 1. Noncondensible gases in the pressurizer steam .
4 space, via the degasifier,
- 2. Hydrogen in the reactor coolant, and -
During shutdwn activities, addi tional provi sions are included to allow t he unit which is operating to discharge to the beave r Valley Unit 1 gaseous waste decay tanks while the Unit 2 GWSTs receive i nput from the above sources. ,
The system utilizes seven tanks with the abili ty for individual i so la tio n. p r e s s ur e-r eli ev i ng devices are provided on each tank. The total rated relieving capacity of each pressure-relief device is sufficient to prevent pressurization greater t han 100 p si . These p r e s sur e-r eli ev i ng devices di scharge to the process vent release point on Beave r Val Ley Unit 1.
An off-line radiation monito r is provided to detect .
the contained activity in the tanks.
T'
, - . - . - - - . - - - - , . , , . , . _ - - n ,
The discharge path from the Unit 2 GWSTs is routed to the Unit 1 gaseous waste decay tanks discharge path. This path is maintained by a flow control valve and is provided with automatic isola tion upon receiving a high radiation signal from the process vent final release radi ation moni to r.
11.3.1.4 VentiL& tion Filter Systems Beave r Valley Unit 2 utilizes a po rtion of the SLCRS to normalLy process potentialLy contaminated exhaust flows from the f o llowi ng items:
- Containment purge exhaust (30,000 and 7,500 cfm)
- Fuel building exhaust (3,000 cfm) normalLy filtered
- Portions of the auxiliary building where radioiodine gases may-be present; these are the cha rgi ng pump and component c oo li ng pump rooms (13,000 cfm); and radwaste area of the au xili ary building and waste handling bui l di ng (39,000 cfm) normalLy filtered
- Main steam value area (4,000 cfm) normalLy filtered
- Contiguous enclosed a reas around the reactor con-tainment (23,000 cfm) normalLy not filtered but wilL be filtered if high ac t ivi ty i s de tect ed in this flow stream.
r The filtration system consists of two parallet trains.
Each train consists of a moisture separator and an electric heater to remove water and contre L humidi ty folloved by two pa rallel filter assemb Lies consisting of a HEPA/ Charcoal /HEPA filter arrangement.
The SLCRS filtration system is employed during a c ci de nt conditions, as welL as during normal ope ration. This system fo r normal ope ration neets the requi rement s of Regula to ry Guide 1.140. The filtration ef ficiencies for iodine and particulate removal assigned by the staff during normal operations are 90% and 99%, respectively.
11.3.1.5 Containment Vacuum System Exhaust The containment vacuum system exhaust has not been adequately addressed in the FSAR as a source of radio-active gaseous release. As presentty designed, redundant 45 cf m water seal vacuum pumps take suction i on the c ont a i nme nt and exhaust (at 100% RH) through !
the Unit 1 gaseous wa st e di spos al charcoal filter.
However, no provi sions have been made on this Unit 1 filter to remove water, control relative humidity, provide particulate filter protection of the charcoal, ;
I j
e o 51 -
E provide adequate surveillance D0P leakage testing, and methyl iodine Laborato ry charcoal pe rf o rmance testing. These conditions do not meet the requi r eme nt s fo r non-ESF filt er systems in Regula to ry Gui de 1.140. Co ns eq ue n t l y , no iodine .
removal credi t can be allowed for this system.
The appli c ant shout d provide an alternate discharge path fe r this flow sytream (such as
,, . < . /. ., m , , . ,
upstream of the SLCRS f i l t e r u n i t s ),fa nd -pao +id e -
an analy. sis to include the dose contributions -
for this_ source with at L the other sources.
'-i ,-' , ?- l - y
' I- ' - '
11.3.2 Review Discussion In our evaluation of the gaseous radwa ste ,
management system, we conside red the folLowing SRP criteria: (1) t'h e capability of the system f or keeping the levels of r adi oact ivi ty in effluents "as Low as is reasonabty achievable" based on expected radwaste input s ove r the life of the plant, (2) the capability of the system to maintain releases below the limits in 10 C F R Part 20 during pe riods of fission product Leakage at design Levels from the fuel, (3) the capability of the system to meet the processing denands of the s tation during anticipa t ed operational 4
% , *e seman e.
, ,3
-e -
- e. --y r - - , -- -.-u ., - - - -
e e
fxas =
71 s mm ru &
chum < !"% W e$chevLL Sm. w 8
.e 7 Afa ,T.)-n-Ar, 4 9 g , ; , j-W N x& "Ah , -s ny jg 786-labpitcta sg eubzy 4 -
7 l
t i
- 0
...m. . . . ,
,-e e
dd t4 4/ '
/uud :
t4 M ~ m >A d r rs +s- - as4 ar,a y s p w Q A v u D ef d ,
aap u dora m .
./ A a/_o
&a -
u ch u A v sn % uow A49 owsu P N A [ [ 3; 4 AJ Ae -.
i g" yj*
f
= . a .
,, n6 p- M , % bnu w d</
a 1w 3, @-
4 + A en d w ps y e d u / )
$26 .n ,
/p: pt 14-4 x s, n . ,a /v<v w t y.-s o7,+ .
b c"W ,I c. >
a- cJ Lyb ! su a-ps.-Jp:y(%
y,-mau 1iL sn .
aap - w.w m usuwhxwe.w.s
.- d
b i
i occurrences, (4) the seismic design classification applied to the equipment and components and structures housing t,he system, (5) the design features that are incorporated to control the releases of radioactive materials in ac cordance wi th GDC 60, and (6) the potential for gaseous releases due to hydrogen explosion in the gaseous radwaste system."
The estimated releases of radioactive materials in ga seous ef fluent s we re cat cula ted by the applicant using the PWR-GALE Code de sc ribed i n NUR EG-0017,
" Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from oressurized Water ,
Re acto rs." The PWR-GALE Code is a computerized i mathema tical model f o r calculating the routine releases of radioactive material in effluents from PWRs. The code has been in use since 1976 f o r alL PWR Licensing r evi ews . The calculations in the code I
are based on (1) da ta generated from ooerating j reactors, (2) field and Lab or a to ry tests, (3) standardized coolant activi ties de rived f rom Ame ric an Nuc le a r Society (ANS) 13.1 Wo rki ng Group j recommendations, (4) release and transoort mecha-t nisms that result in the accearance of radioactive material in gaseous streams, and (5) the Seaver !
Valley Unit 2 redwaste system design features used to reduce the quantities of radioactive materials ultimately released to the environs.
The principal parameters used by the staff in their cat culations are given in Table 11.2 of this SER.
We have revi ewed t he appli cant's quali ty assurance provisions for the gaseous radwaste systems, the Quality group e Lassifications used f o r system ccmponents, the seismic design criteria applied to the design of the system, and of structures housing the radwaste systems. The design of the system and s tructures housing these systems meet the criteria as set forth in Regulatory ,
Guide 1.143 for radwaste processing systems and referenced in the SRP.
t We have reviewed t he provi sions i n c o rpo ra t ed in the applicant's design to control releases due to hydregen explosions in the ga seous radwa ste system and conclude that the measures proposed by the applicant are adecuate to prevent the -
occurrence of an explosion or to withstand the effects of a hydrogen detonation, r
e I
l t
0
t We have reviewed the provisions incorporated in the applicant's design to collect airborne radioactive materials in the normal ventilation exhaust systems ;
t during normal plant operation, includi ng anticipa ted ,
operational occurrences. We find, wi th the ex ception -
i noted i n 11.3.1.5 pe rt aining to t he containment ;
evacuation system, the design cf air filtration and adsorption units consistent with Regula to ry Guide 1.140, as referenced in the SRP.
11.3.3 Evaluation Findings The staff concludes that the design of the gaseous.
waste manage.nent systems, except as noted i n 11.3.1. 5 (Containment Evacuation Exhaust System) of tt: 0 :ft SER, a re ac cep t ab le and meet the requi rements of 10 CFR Part 2 0, Se ct io n 20.106; 10 C FR Pa rt 50, Sect ion 50.3 4a; GDC 3, 60 and 61; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Annex (RM-50-2), as referenced in the SRP.
These c on c lu s io ns are based on the f o L Lowi ng f i ndi ng s r ega rdi ng at L gaseous waste processing and filtratior systems except for the c o n t a i nr.e n t evacuation exhaust I
system:
b
- 1. The applicant has met the recui rements of GDC 60 ;
and 64 wi th respect to c on t r o l li ng releases of a
f l
, a
'.- i 55 -
a radioactive material to the envi ronne nt by assuring that the design of the gaseous waste management system includes the equipment and instruments necessary to detect and to control the release of radioactive materials .
in gaseous ef fluents. Capacities of principal ,
components considered in the gaseous waste processing system evaluation are listed in Table 11.2.
- 2. The appli cant has met the requi rement s of
- Appendix I, Annex to 10 C FR Pa rt 50 by ,
meeting the "as Low as is reasonably f
achievab Le" c ri terion as folLows: -
- a. Regarding Sections II.B and II.C of ,
f Appendix I, we have considered releases j i
of radioactive material (noble gases, ;
i radioiodine and particulates) in ga seou s {
effluents fo r normal operation i n c ludi ng !
anticipated ope ra tional oc cu r renc es based on expected radwaste input s ove r the Life of the plant. We have !
de t e rm i ned that the proposed ga seou s 'j waste management system is c apable of limiting releases of radioactive [
materials in gaseous effluents such Yl f
i
E such that the calculated individual doses in an unrestricted area from aLL pathways of exposure are less than 5 areas to the total body or 15 areas to the skin and less than 15 mress to any organ f rom releases ,
of radioiodine and radioactive material in pa rticula te f o rm.
- b. The applicant has met the requirements of
- the Commi ssion's Sep t embe r 4, 1975, Annex to Appendix I to 10 C FR Pa rt 50 wi th respect to me et ing t he N'a s low ..a ..s reasonably ,
7 , . .
achievable" c r i t e r i o..rl.a, and j s therefore
.-rr;; 0,=- 4he cost-benefit analysis -
required by Section II.0 of Appendia I to
. 7- ~ - , _
10 CFR Part 50 . '. . _
..-,o ..a-g -
- c - - ---- -.Lw. .
'~ .
- 3. The applicant has met the requi rement s o f 10 C FR Part 20 since we have c ons ide red the potential consequences resulting fece reacto r ope ration with primary coolant activities associated wi th 1% f ailed f uel and de strained that under these conditions, the concentrations of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents in unrestricted r
e .
" ~ ~
. r areas witL be a smalL fraction of the Limits
. t specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix e, l
\
Table !!, column 1. '
4 We have considered the capabilities of the pro-posed gaseous waste management system to meet the demands of the plant due to anticipated operational occurrences and have concluded that l the system capacity and design flexibility are adequate to meet these demands. '
- 5. We have reviewed the applicant's quality assurance provi sions fo r the ga seous wa ste management system, t he quali ty group classifica- .
tions used f o r sys tem components, t he seismic design applied to the design of the system, a9d of structures housing the radweste system. The design of the system and of structures housing the system meet the criteria as set forth in Regula to ry Guide 1.143.
- 6. We have reviewed the provisions i nco rpo r a t ed in i the applicant's design to control releases due
! to hydrogen explosions in the gaseous waste l
l management system and concluded that the measures i
0 e
l
3 58.-
' proposed by the applicant are adequate to ,
prevent the occurrence of an explosion in accordance with GDC 3 of Appendia A to 10 CFR Part 50.
11.4 golid Weste Processine System The solid waste processing system is designed to t collect, process and package radioactive wa stes
] generated as a result of normal plant operation, including anticipated ope rational fluctuations and to store this packaged waste until it is shipped off-site to a Licensed burial site. Spent
- domineralizer resins evaporator bottoms, decanted sludges, and spent filter media wit L be solidi fied and packaged in 55 gallon drums. Dry solid wa ste consisting of ventitation air filters, contaminated clothing, rags, and paper wilL be compacted in the Unit 1 compaction facility.
A detailed description of the Beave r Val Ley Unit 2 solid waste processing system is found in Section 11.4 of the FSAR.
The review of the solid-wa ste-management system and components was perf ormed under SRP Section 11.4 The review included an evaluation
o .
i t
i
\
ir r '
of the system design, system design objectives i (including expected and design volumes of waste),
activity and expected radion.u c lide di st ribution, :
i equipment design capacities and design parameters, flow diagrams and piping and instrumentation -j diagrams, and special design features. Also f
included in the review we re expe ct ed chemical content, radionuclide concentrations,
. solidi fication me thods, type and s ize of waste ,
I containers, packaging and storage, and quality group classification.
i l The applicant estimated that the expected annual "
l solidified wet waste volumes that wilL be shipped i
, of f site or s to red annually wilL be approximately 11,200 ft 3 containing 9,400 Ci; dry solidi fied wa ste t
l (i.e., spent filters) is estimated to be approximately ;
3 2,600 ft /yr containing approximately 2,600 ci; and i l
dry compressible wastes shipped or stored annually wil L have a volume of 6,500 f t and contain less than 5 C1. I The applicant has employed components, system designs, and design criteria for the solio-radwaste systems l l
that are consistent with components ano systems used ,.
f i
i[
j l
e in operating plant s which have demonstrated their ef ficiency, c ap a ci ty ratings, and availabili ty f actors in ext ensive ope rational use.
The applicant has not yet submitted a process control program for the purpose of providing assurance that waste solidi fication wilL meet l
the requi r eme nt s for packaging, handling, shipping, '
and di spos al. Although such a program is not
~
addressed in this report, such a program wilL be required by the Technical Specifications as specified by BTP ETSB 11-3. Included with this !
Process Control Program, the ap p li c a nt is requi red .
to address the ad di tio nal requi rements of 10 C FR Part 61. f The ap p li c a nt wilL provide adeouate storage space i for onsite storage of solidi fied and dry wastes ,
(28 weeks at the expected waste input rates) as [
specified by BTP ETS8 11-3. The capability of the proposed system to process the ty pe s and volumes of waste generated during ncemal ope ra t io n, i nc ludi ng anticipated operational occurrences, i
is in accord with GDC 60.
- i T
+
_ _ _ . _ . - _ _ __ ~ , _ . .
61 -
~
r Provisions for handling of the wastes are in accordance with 10 CFR 20 and 70, and 49 CFR 171 to 179 (which are Department of Transportation regulations). The applicant's quali ty group c las sification and s eismic
~
design have been found to be ac cep t ab Le. The system meets the requi rement s of Regu la to ry Guide 1.143. ,
The basis for the staff acceptance of the solid waste management systems has been conf o rmance of the system design and ' design c ri te ri a to the regulations and guides referenced above. Based on the foregoing evaluation, the s taf f c onclude s that the proposed solid-radwaste system i s ac cept ab Le. .
11.5 Process and Effluent Radiological Monitoring and Samoling Systems 11.5.1 Radiotonical Monitor Descriotion The process and effluent radiologi cal monito ring and I
sampling systems, monitor, r ec o rd, and control t he !
release of radioactive ma t e ri als that may be ge ne rated during normal ope ra tio n, anticipated coe rat ional variations and pos tula ted ac cident s. These mo ni to rs !
I supply inf o rma tion to ope rating pe rsonnel concerning radioactivity levels in plant process and ef fluent l
streams.
l 4
t i
Monitors used in liquid streams are either "In Line" o r "of f Line" gamma de tectors. Monitors in process ,
gas o r ventilation air s treams are units that extract an isokinetic sample and pe rf o rm the fo t Lowing functions on the sample; continuously filter for i particulates (moving f i lt e rs ) and measure particula te activity as the filt er medi a moves past a detector; collect radioiodine in charcoal f i tle r cartridges f o r s ubs equent L ab o r a to ry counting; and cont i nu ou s ly i de termine the noble ga s act ivi ty as the gas sample passes through a gamma de tecto r. Pipe mounted l
shielded gama detectors are utilized on steam lines. ,
Table 11.3 Lists the process and effluent mo ni to rs utilized in Beave r Val Ley Unit E. ~ e j
Our revi ew included the L oca tio ns and types of j effluent and proces s mo ni to ri ng provided f o r Beave r Valley, Unit No. 2. Based on t he plant design and i on c ont inuou s mo ni to ri ng lo ca t io ns and intermittent sampling locations, we conc luded t hat alL normal and potential release pathways wilL be monitored. The
. +
applicant's de s c ript io n indicates that the process h
and effluent mo ni to ri ng system design meets the guide-Lines in Regula tc ry Guide 4.15 f o r quali ty assurance.
f
. i 63 - l We also determined t hat the sampling and monitoring p r ovi sio ns are adequate f or detecting radioactive material Leakage to normally uncontaminated systems and for monitoring plant processes which could af fect
~
r adioa ct ivi ty releases. On these bases, we consider >
i that the mo ni to ri ng and sampling provi sions meet the !
requires.6u*s of General Design C ri te ri a 60, 63, and 64 and the guidelines of Regula to ry Guide 1.21,.
and, the ref o re, me et the acceptance c riteria of the l SRP.
i 11.5.2 Evaluation Findings i The staff concludes that the process and effluent .
radiological monito ring instrumentation and sampling systems are ac cep t ab le and meet the relevant require-ments of 10 CFR Part 2 0, S e c t io n 20.106, and GDC 60, 63, and 64, as referenced in the SRP. This conclusion is based on the following: The process and effluent radiological monito ring a nd s ampli ng systems include the instrumentation f o r. moni to ring a nd s amp li ng radioactivity, contaminated licuid and gaseous process and effluent streams. Our revi ew included t he provi sions proposed to sample and monitor all s tation effluents in ac cordance wi th GDC 64, the p r ovi sions
1
. .t*
proposed to provide automa tic t ermi nation of ef' flue nt releases and assure control ove r discharges in accord-ance with GDC 60, the provi sions proposed f or sampli ng and monitoring plant waste liquid and gaseous process streams for process control in accordance with GDC 63, and the provisions for conducting sampli ng and analytical programs in ac cordance wi th the guidelines in Regula to ry Guides 1.21 a nd 4.15.
The review included piping and instrument diagrams and process flow di agrams for the liquid and ga seous processing sys tems and also f o r ventila tion sys tems, and the location of monito ring points relative to ef fluent release points as shown on the site plot
- diagrams.
We have determined that the applicant's designs, design c r'i t e ri a, and design bases for the process ard effluent radiological' moni to ring instrumentation and sampling sys tems provided f o r normal ope ration meet the guidelines and industry standards referenced in SRP 11.5.
Ooen Items The only open item remaining is for tha applicant to l
specify the ranges for the post accident elevated release ef flue nt moni to rs used in the Beave r Val Ley Unit 2 design.
1 L...
L
.. .L-15.7.3 Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liouid Tank Failures 15.7.3.1 Introduction The applicant's analysis of the radioactive liquid waste tank failure accident appears in Section 15.7.3 of the FSAR. An evaluation of this accident was pe rf o rmed and t he applicant's analysis wa s reviewed, in accordance with review s pe ci fi ed i n NUR EG-0800, SRP S e c t io n 15.7.3.
I 15.7.3.2 Acceotance c ri t e ri a '
The staff has conducted an independent evaluation of j the consequences of component failures for l radioactive-liquid-waste-components Located outside the reac to r cont ainment which coutd result in releases ;
of liquid containing radioactive materials to the 4
environs.
The principal criteria governing acceptance in our review were (1) GDC 60, a s it relates to the radio-active waste management systems being designed to control releases of radioactive materials to the environment; and (2) 10 CFR Part 2 0, a s it relates to ef fluent s to unrestricted areas. Tanks and associated component s c ont aining r adi oac t ive liquids b
I
. s outside containment are considered acceptable, by the criteria of SRP 15.7.3, i f f ailur e does not result in radionuclide concentrations in ex cess of the limits in 10 CFR Pa rt 20, Appendix 8, Table II, Column 2, at the nearest potable water supply in an unrestricted -
area. I 15.7.3.3 Method of Review Beaver Valley Unit 2 has seve ral radioactive liquid waste processing and storage tanks which are en-compassed by the review conducted under SRP 15.7.3.
The result s of the r ev i ew s are discussed below.
15.7.3.4 Review Discussion '
The applicant submitted one failure case that is i considered Limiting. I This case is the failure of the i ref ueling wa ter s to rage tank. This tank is not enclosed and a rupture would release the water onto the ground surface and run into the river. The -
applicant states the dilution and decay time provided by the ri 2r is sufficient to maintain at the nearest pot able wa ter supoly intake (7.1 mites downstream) radionuelide concentrations below 10 CFR 20 timi ts.
i
.n ,
,t*
1 -
A. .t d e 7 M
,. s/./.l,t
. '.s sy -
o3 i / ., . .s
, t .. t ' ,
Y' ;, s L t.. . .. ('-,
.- .,./. lu, , .
. . - o
, Th e s t a f f iv p e - ---ry am ef a r=%g a n independent T4re -
analysis to verify the applicant's conclusions./
resett-ef-th4sanalysit wi L L be ava ilab le by Jun e 1984
/
f h , " r.c c. . T ot-icfL i n_ t o ..th e -F i n al-5 E R . -- -
15.7'.3.5 Evaluation Findings (To be comple ted pr-f o r to Final SER).
f
-. I -
- .' \ ,
-w . , t a t.
,s lt; ,
~
o .
t 7 ,
E
,. i .. .
-n l' .' .- -
o ..
- i. . . . ! ;
if t . .f.
1f a ,, , .,
um msk .
j
.L.Lg,j '
y , ") -
f a { .*
u . !. . -i
. .a.-.s.. .l I.
e
. i. ,
I S
O f O* .
f .
l e 0 G
t t
0
. . . . . . -- '~~ - * *
. ,~.'
Table 11.1 Parameters for Liquid Waste Processing Systems Reactor Powe r 2766 MWt Mass of Primary Coolant 420,000 lbs Primary Sys tem Letdown Flow 60 gpm Letdown Cation Domineralizer Flow 5.5 gom Number of Steam Generato rs 3 Total Steam Flow (mi t Lion Lbs/hr) 11.6 Mass of Steam in Each Steam Generator 6,700 lbs Mass of Liquid in Each Steam Generator 9 9,300 lbs -
Tot al Mass of Seconda ry coolant 720,000 lbs St eam Generato r Blowdown Treated by Liquid 13,800 lbs/hr Waste System Condensate Demineralize r Flow Fraction 1.0 Radwaste Dilution Flow 7,800 gom Shim Bleed Rate 1440, gal / day Decontamination f actors (1, Cs, O t h e r) 10 2 , 10*, 10' Boron r e c ov e ry ho ldi ng t ank collection time 27 days Process time 3.6 days Discharge fraction 0.1 Equipment Drains 75 gal / day Fraction of pr ima ry c oo la nt a c t ivi ty 1.0 3econtamination f acto rs (I, Cs, O t he rs) 103 , 3o4, 10' Collection time 1.5 days Process time 0.2 days D i sch a rge fraction 1.0 -
Dirty Waste 3985 gal / day Fraction of prima ry coolant ac t ivi ty 0.007 Decontamination f actors (I, Cs, others) 103 , 10', 10' Collection time 1.5 days Process time 0.2 days Fraction released 1.0 Steam Gene rato r B L owdown Fraction Processed 1.0
' Decont ami natien f act ors (I, C s, O t he rs) 103 , 10 4 , 10' Collection time 1.0 cay Process time 0.6 day Release fraction 1.0 l
1
-_l 1
, s- ;
- 1 Table 11.2 Parameters for Evaluating Gaseous Waste System ,
l Continuous gas stripping of Letdown flow: -60 gpm Noble gas holdup time Krypton: 2.6 days Xenon: 4.6 days Ventilation exh au st through charcoat (90% iodine removal) and HEPA (99% pa rticulate removal) filters for auxiliary building Containment vo lume : 1.8 mitLion ft Containment atmosphere cleanup rate: 6,700 cfm Two containment volume purges pe r ye ar Continuous 45 cfm containment Low volume purge without iodine removal Total mass of charcoal delay beds: 4,000 lbs Dynamic adsorbtion coefficient (cm /gm)
Krypton: 18.5 Xenon: 330 Charcoal delay bed flow rate: 0.31 cfm l
o"
a O
_. e 3
0 9
9 _
. y 4
a 8 .
8 _
i l c
- o. ec t g/
nt
- c. a Cs
- 0 o
01 - 0 '- - ' *
- t. R (a 101 o o 1 0 0 0 0 o'
t 8 1 9 1 .
' o t o _
t o t'
o t o o o o t t t t t r r ' s -
r
- r _
e e '- t O e t e ** ' ' e '
t t e. - * - - - t :,
% a a a O0s O 004 1 0 0 a 0 L L I 17 L I 1 9 L 1 T
N
- y E
- t U
L
- I) wc F I c * ' * ' _
F t/ ' ' '*' ' * ' * ' *
- E gnet - - - .- - - - - - * * - -
m i sC n p_ O 0 OOO OOO O O OO O O o O e
t e{
t n
1 t tt u um t t t uum t
u t
u t t uu t
u t
u t
u t
u A S I 1 t t7 t O7 t t t t l t O t S
S E
C O e R ce PS RO R
rip ep rt 3
3 7
3 9 3
35 1 35 3 7 3 3 3
0 3 3
71 3
3 7
3 3
3 2 _
OT oo 9 9
39 8 31 8 9 3 31 s 1 1 9 f FI 1 - - 1 - - - -
iD - 1 - - - - o .
3 N e o s - or - or s o - e s e s e .
SO R N C I NK l NW C N I N C N C N 3 1 I M -
N 1
t N _
eO t
l e iI RT b A a IUI QD dn jr .
T E A RR . u L l oAm r
ge 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 O 0 S mhy 5
A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t 9 5 2 C acm l
e ma(
p B I
C E
I R
- 0 n e ** e ** e 1 o t t t C rs at 2 aI 2 a E otp l l l f
ce
) uss uss us f
er m
icaa caa o icaG se t s
O a GC IGG t t is tr c e t t s y t s e s s st r r r s r 4 s e r s De a a$ a a t a a 4 a t a D G G( P P a G P L G I G e
D y r a a r e e h t e t g p D s c n s n n o .
a s e a e
c t ej u s, '
e e i d
w e u t n e
id gr ra ner w s
n l
e n le el t f l
u w l
l ur to,ter t re me o r4 ot e o
s r m ag en i
t d r sf ao sv a
a e g t an t w
a p nss ee aaw t .
em n
cn w l t wa o t a a e s ge si e et u w e t e ew t r sr t t s e s g nh n gt i c t ng oj t a
wte Intg s
s t
a v es e e c t r a. esk sl c e
si n o rt r
e t w e
t a t n
Ms n eg s
e e t I ei i
r e l e no so ir at w
r l a oot t
ra ur s
s en eye c.r n.c n
o e
n D u Et o
Mh v E Lp Ws Cps f o e l w es C a w
B c e f o e f r m E P a
Q
~
o
~ .,
y ,.
Table 11.3
- tilIttiswa IttisNical at Ou t ag net Ni$ I ON PitOCE55 AND EFFlutNT aaptalitsee enONI10645 esasseiam stentou=** Detectacle es.... t oe tie t ec t or eackgrouno* meterence sensetovlty eenge l'"5 !'7'8 !!a'!
9' H E! Ell _".! laaer=/Intj [3eloce 08CI/cc) 08cI/cc) a ar e lec tor d e scenarue cas O.15 no-833 tuto
- Later atr elector delay Cas 25 me-833 tatO
- Later two o e setier O. ,
I sera tens went cas 25 me-133 IntO 10** to 10
teanseer aone Coms o.eeest coote=;/ tcysto 25 Cs-837 tutO '
service water 40 ' to 80 '
component cooteng alquad 25 Cs-137 auto * '
poca t encesanger 10-* to 50**
see w ta:e we eer S te = Omeora tor t sepsto 2.5 Cs-837 tutO 10 to 90**
tieoe siewes amassa e .g peactor roosant a seposo 25 cs-t38 ento
Ieeekswes Iow range IO
- to 10' G.esesmas was te surge Gas 25 4(r-85 tutO-'
tase t raess f er a seee 10-8 to 10' cont =w.en t casoleswj t espelas 25 Cs-137 t=t0
- 80-* to IO '
ase. s t tary s t emen a lepetes 25 Cs-837 tulO ' 80** to 80 '
- s. wusenosate t wassoe mtor retwit ter tltpsed 25 Cs-137 tutO
- 10 to 10-'
cewedeensa t e W.ss t e gas s t or ate., Gas 25 t ae ede s Re-131 teIO
- 10
- to 80 '
e s '.
'Itaa.b ete anse est f e emn 9.eme.e 3 of a Devew eneses gy
- *t ter t e-c t e r sessesIttwtty wII re t asr to itsee tysittavie.e eterscr itsed en AN$t 13 10.
- *
- I t .e. weest G la t toes wewit aemt elevatest release mineit tors loc liede two gas colectoss - one of notilcts is o p.emm e sents I t Iwe meus tten etteer t>e e a sareis e t t we f or mas eaman 1(r-as sens t e av 4 ty.
a e.e.e. seen 3 2 of 2 Oc otaer e943 0
I