ML061860205

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail from S. Sandlike of Entergy to J. Noggle of USNRC, Regarding Dose Assessment
ML061860205
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/23/2006
From: Sandike S
Entergy Corp
To: Noggle J
NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2006-0195
Download: ML061860205 (19)
v • d • e


Text

James.Noggle --Dose assessment PageiJ From:

"Sandiký, Steven" <SSandik@entergy.com>

To:

"'jdn @ nrc.gov" <jdn @ nrc.gov>

Date:

3/23/06 11:05AM

Subject:

Dose assessment The meat of this will go with Don Croulet's work and other info on the Docket....

<<IPEC GW&SW Dose-3-22-6.pdf>>

Steve Sandike Effluents / RMS ENN Indian Point Energy Center Buchanan, NY 10511-0308 phone: 914-736-8455 fax:

914-734-6010 email: ssandik@entergy.com

Indian Point Energy Center Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water An Assessment of 2005 Effluent Impact Performed By: ________

Steven Sandike, Sr. Chem Specialist Reviewed By:

L ilson, Chemistry Superintendent Approved By:

z

.-Z 64, Don Mayer, Dire or, Special Projects Contributors:

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc IPEC Chemistry and Rad Protection DAQ, inc March 21, 2006

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Purpose and Scope:

The purpose of this assessment is to provide a bounding estimate of the amount of radioactivity being transported to the Hudson River via previously undocumented groundwater and storm water pathways. There are other monitored pathways, such as the North Curtain Drain and the Sphere Foundation Drain Sump of Unit I that are sampled and directed to the Discharge Canal. These Unit 1 releases have been discharged as described in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and they are included in the Regulatory Guide 1.21 Effluents Report.

As such, the Unit I releases are not included in this IPEC Water Mass Balance Assessment.

The water mass balance methodology is used as a conservative interim measure until sufficient data becomes available from the existing and planned monitoring wells. This current water mass balance methodology is not the complete site conceptual model that describes the groundwater flows. The site conceptual model is under development, and it will be completed after sufficient groundwater elevation and flow data are obtained.

Methodology

Description:

The basic methodology for this dose assessment is based on an overall mass balance driven by precipitation.

The hydrology portion of this assessment was performed by IPEC's consultant, Matthew Barvenik, of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. IPEC concurs with this methodology. This "watershed analysis" partitions the precipitation falling on the watershed catchment area (i.e., that portion of the Facility area where the surface topography is sloped towards the river) into water that infiltrates the ground to become groundwater (GW),

water that flows off the surface as storm water (SW) and that water which directly moves back into the atmosphere via evapotranspiration and other processes. See Figure 1, "IPEC Groundwater and Storm Drain Conceptual Drawing". This method of analysis is based on'well established hydrologic principles. Our selection of parameters is heavily biased towards larger flows and higher concentrations of H' and Sr90. As such, we believe that this analysis is significantly conservative, resulting in estimates of activity moving to the river (both directly and via the Discharge Canal) that will most likely prove to be substantially higher than the activities we will determine later, as additional data becomes available.

Over the entire watershed catchment area of 3.2 million f12, the GW and SW has been segmented relative to the areas of the Facility through which it flows (primarily established based on H3 concentrations in the various Facility areas). See Figure 2, "Indian Point Site Overview" depicting groundwater areas and storm water zones.

Overall, the partitioning was established as follows for infiltration areas contributing to GW flow (does not include paved or building areas):

GROUNDWATER AREAS:

" AREA 1. The northwestern most area where GW appears to move directly to the river, but passes to the north of the Unit 2 Turbine Building Road (area of 0.25 million ft2). This GW is unlikely to contain appreciable H-3 concentrations based on the data available to date and the lack of likely H3 sources;

" AREA 2. The area where the GW appears to move through Unit 2 facilities (area of 0.57 million ft2);

" AREA 3. The area where the GW appears to move through Unit 1/3 facilities (area of 1.7 million ft2);

" AREA 4. The southwestern most area where GW appears to move directly to the river, but passes to the south of the Unit 3 Turbine Building Road (area of 0.67 million ft2). This GW is unlikely to contain appreciable H3 concentrations based on the data available to date and the lack of likely H3 sources.

Page 1

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water SW flow from paved areas and building roof areas has also been partitioned into various zones within the above Facility GW areas as follows:

STORM WATER AREAS:

  • ZONE A. The eastern most parking lots which likely drain along flow paths where the SW is unlikely to contain H3, and storm drain exfiltration into the GW flow zone is also unlikely to pick up H3 (area of 0.35 million ft2);
  • ZONE B. Within the Unit 2 Facility, the eastern and westem zones where SW appears to discharge to the river, but does not pass through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard (area of 0.21 million fl2);

ZONE C. Within the Unit 2 Facility, the middle zone where SW flows to the Discharge Canal, and does pass through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard (area of 0.15 million ft2);

ZONE D. Within the Unit 1 Facility where SW flows to the Discharge Canal (area of 0.13 million ft2);

and ZONE E. Within the Unit 3 Facility where SW flows to the Discharge Canal (area of 0.75 million fl2).

A portion of the SW has been assumed to leak out of storm drains and thus increases the GW flow to the river as follows:

  • ZONE A. Storm drain exfiltration =0% - set to 0% because exfiltration from pipes in this zone are unlikely to contribute flow to GW which contains H3 and the SW itself is unlikely to contain H3; ZONE B. Storm drain exfiltration =0% - set to 0% because exfiltration from pipes in this zone are unlikely to contribute flow to GW which contains H3 and the SW itself is unlikely to contain H3;
  • ZONE C. Storm drain exfiltration =25% - set to a relatively high value to result in higher than anticipated GW flow through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard which contains the highest H3 GW values, so as to be conservative;
  • ZONE D. Storm drain exfiltration =50%; set very high given current knowledge of these drains; and
  • ZONE E. Storm drain exfiltration =10%; set to a nominal value given current lack of specific data and limited impact on overall H3 flux due to low H3 concentrations.

H3 concentrations have been established for all Areas and Zones using 2005 data. Very conservative Nickel-63 and Strontium-90 have been included for groundwater flow from an early sample result in Area 2.

GW flow AREA 1. [H3] = 0 pCi/L given lack of likely H3 source areas and flow path which appears not to flow through areas exhibiting H 3 concentrations in the GW ;

GW flow AREA 2. [H3] = 200,000 pCi/L which represents an upper bound average of the concentrations found in the Unit 2 Transformer Yard. It is expected that the pending Phase I and II data will prove this assumed value for H3 in the GW moving to the river through the Unit 2 area to be significantly higher than actual values. Very conservative Ni63 and Sr90 source terms were added (100 and 50 pCi/L, respectively) from a single early sample from a Monitoring Well in March, 2006.

GW flow AREA 3. [H3] = 620 pCi/L which represents an upper average of the concentrations found in the Unit 1 and 3 Facility areas;

  • GW flow AREA 4. [H3] = 0 pCi/L given lack of likely H3 source areas and flow path which appears not to flow through areas exhibiting H3 concentrations in the GW; SW flow ZONE A. [H3] = 0 pCi/L given that exfiltration from pipes in this zone are unlikely to contribute flow to GW which contains H3 and the SW itself is unlikely to contain H3; SW flow ZONE B. [H3] = 651 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations; SW flow ZONE C. [H3] = 2,900 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations; SW flow ZONE D. [H3] = 1,560 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations; and SW flow ZONE E. [H3] = 1,560 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations.

Page 2

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water The infiltration rate in non-paved/building areas was established at 0.46 feet/year based on the USGS report:

Water Use, Groundwater Recharge and Availability, and Quality in the Greenwich Area, Fairfield County, CT and Westchester County, NY, 2000 - 2002. The precipitation rate for the area was set at 3.74 feet/year based on onsite meteorological data.

Based on the above analysis, it is estimated that approximately 1.36 Ci/year of H3 migrates directly to the river via the GW flow path. It is also estimated that less than 0.02 Ci/year flows directly to the river via SW. It is further estimated that approximately 0.16 Ci/year flows to the river with SW via the Discharge Canal.

It is noted that the H3 concentrations adopted herein are expected to represent values which are significantly greater than those which actually exist given the conservatism exercised during parameter selection. An example of the conservatism employed in these assessments includes:

H3 concentrations selected for the various GW and SW flows are likely to be higher values than actually exist. It is believed that these values will be proven to be significantly too high with the acquisition of additional Phase I and II data. This is particularly true for the 200,000 pCi/L adopted for the Unit 2 Transformer Area; The areas contributing GW flow through various IPEC Facilities was biased toward placing more flow through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard where the highest H3 concentrations were used; All GW flow has been assumed to discharge directly to the river. Some of this GW flow must infiltrate the Discharge Canal thus reducing the apportionment to the river; All storm drain pipe leakage has been assumed to be exfiltration which will increase GW flow values.

However, current data in the Unit 2 Transformer Yard indicates that significant GW infiltrates the storm drain during rainfall events, thus flowing to the Discharge Canal via SW rather than directly to the river as GW. In addition, it is noted that SW H3 concentrations were typically obtained during non-storm events and thus represent the high end of H3 values associated with low flow conditions. However, these high H3 concentrations, were then applied to the much higher storm flows where much lower H3 values should exist; All precipitation falling on paved/building areas was assumed to result in SW flow. Some of this water actually evaporates directly to atmosphere from pavement and buildings; and The very large value of GW flow extracted from the GW system via the Unit 1 curtain and footing drains has not been subtracted from the GW flows adopted in the analysis.

The application of Ni63 and Sr9° at values determined from one early sample at a Monitoring Well between the Discharge Canal and the Hudson River in early March, 2006.

Results:

The results of the assessment are shown in Table 1. The annual dose from the groundwater and storm water (with the very conservative inclusion of Sr and Ni) remains well below the applicable limits (approximately 0.1%) but are, in fact, significant with respect to our routine levels (due to aggressive waste processing efforts).

These results are considered to be quite conservative due to assuming Sre and Ni63 concentrations from a single location as being representative of the bulk fluid in Area 2 for the entire year. These source terms will be re-evaluated after additional Monitoring Well data is assessed.

There are six tables attached, including one summary table, three tables of doses from storm water pathways and two tables of doses from groundwater pathways. The groundwater dose table for the area of Unit 2 transformer yard conservatively includes 100 pCi/L of Ni63 and 50 pCi/L of Sr9°. For comparison, the summary table shows the tritium dose alone and the total doses (including tritium, nickel, and strontium). In addition, these doses are compared to the annual limit and 2005 routine effluents. Figure 3 shows precipitation data for the site.

Page 3

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Figure 1 IPEC Ground Water and Storm Drain Conceptual Drawing Evaporation

-- ground ---

Hudson River

+

Page 4

Figure 2.. Indian Point Site Overview Page 5

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Purpose and Scope:

The purpose of this assessment is to provide a bounding estimate of the amount of radioactivity being transported to the Hudson River via previously undocumented groundwater and storm water pathways. There are other monitored pathways, such as the North Curtain Drain and the Sphere Foundation Drain Sump of Unit 1 that are sampled and directed to the Discharge Canal. These Unit 1 releases have been discharged as described in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and they are included in the Regulatory Guide 1.21 Effluents Report.

As such, the Unit I releases are not included in this IPEC Water Mass Balance Assessment.

The water mass balance methodology is used as a conservative interim measure until sufficient data becomes available from the existing and planned monitoring wells. This current water mass balance methodology is not the complete site conceptual model that describes the groundwater flows. The site conceptual model is under development, and it will be completed after sufficient groundwater elevation and flow data are obtained.

Methodology

Description:

The basic methodology for this dose assessment is based on an overall mass balance driven by precipitation.

The hydrology portion of this assessment was performed by IPEC's consultant, Matthew Barvenik, of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. IPEC concurs with this methodology. This "watershed analysis" partitions the precipitation falling on the watershed catchment area (i.e., that portion of the Facility area where the surface topography is sloped towards the river) into water that infiltrates the ground to become groundwater (GW),

water that flows off the surface as storm water (SW) and that water which directly moves back into the atmosphere via evapotranspiration and other processes. See Figure 1, "IPEC Groundwater and Storm Drain Conceptual Drawing". This method of analysis is based on well established hydrologic principles and the parameter selection we've employed is heavily biased towards larger flows and higher H concentrations. As such, we believe that this analysis is significantly conservative, resulting in estimates of H3 moving to the river (both directly and via the Discharge Canal) that will likely be proven to be substantially higher than actually exist with the acquisition of additional data.

Over the entire watershed catchment area of 3.2 million ft2, the GW and SW has been segmented relative to the areas of the Facility through which it flows (primarily established based on H3 concentrations in the various Facility areas. See Figure 2, "Indian Point Site Overview" depicting groundwater areas and storm water zones.

Overall, the partitioning was established as follows for infiltration areas contributing to GW flow (does not include paved or building areas):

GROUNDWATER AREAS:

" AREA 1. The northwestern most area where GW appears to move directly to the river, but passes to the north of the Unit 2 Turbine Building Road (area of 0.25 million ft2). This GW is unlikely to contain appreciable H3 concentrations based on the data available to date and the lack of likely H3 sources;

" AREA 2. The area where the GW appears to move through Unit 2 facilities (area of 0.57 million ft2);

" AREA 3. The area where the GW appears to move through Unit 1/3 facilities (area of 1.7 million ft2);

" AREA 4. The southwestern most area where GW appears to move directly to the river, but passes to the south of the Unit 3 Turbine Building Road (area of 0.67 million ft2). This GW is unlikely to contain appreciable H concentrations based on the data available to date and the lack of likely H sources.

Page 1

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water SW flow from paved areas and building roof areas has also been partitioned into various zones within the above Facility GW areas as follows:

STORM WATER AREAS:

" ZONE A. The eastern most parking lots which likely drain along flow paths where the SW is unlikely to contain H3, and storm drain exfiltration into the GW flow zone is also unlikely to pick up H3 (area of 0.35 million ft2);

  • ZONE B. Within the Unit 2 Facility, the eastern and western zones where SW appears to discharge to the river, but does not pass through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard (area of 0.21 million ft2);

ZONE C. Within the Unit 2 Facility, the middle zone where SW flows to the Discharge Canal, and does pass through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard (area of 0.15 million ft2);

  • ZONE D. Within the Unit 1 Facility where SW flows to the Discharge Canal (area of 0.13 million ft2);

and

  • ZONE E. Within the Unit 3 Facility where SW flows to the Discharge Canal (area of 0.75 million ft2).

A portion of the SW has been assumed to leak out of storm drains and thus increases the GW flow to the river as follows:

" ZONE A. Storm drain exfiltration =0% - set to 0% because exfiltration from pipes in this zone are unlikely to contribute flow to GW which contains H3 and the SW itself is unlikely to contain H3;

" ZONE B. Storm drain exfiltration =0% - set to 0% because exfiltration from pipes in this zone are unlikely to contribute flow to GW which contains H3 and the SW itself is unlikely to contain H3;

  • ZONE C. Storm drain exfiltration =25% - set to a relatively high value to result in higher than anticipated GW flow through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard which contains the highest H3 GW values, so as to be conservative;
  • ZONE D. Storm drain exfiltration =50%; set very high given current knowledge of these drains; and
  • ZONE E. Storm drain exfiltration =10%; set to a nominal value given current lack of specific data and limited impact on overall H3 flux due to low H3 concentrations.

H3 concentrations have been established for all Areas and Zones using 2005 data. Nickel-63 and Strontium-90 have been included for groundwater flow in Area 2.

GW flow AREA 1. [H3] = 0 pCi/L given lack of likely H3 source areas and flow path which appears not to flow through areas exhibiting H-3 concentrations in the GW ;

  • GW flow AREA 2. [H3] = 200,000 pCiJL which represents an upper bound average of the concentrations found in the Unit 2 Transformer Yard (it is expected that the pending Phase I and II data will prove this assumed value for H3 in the GW moving to the river through the Unit 2 area to be substantially higher than actually exists), Ni-63 and Sr-90 source terms were added from Monitoring Well information gathered through mid-March, 2006;
  • GW flow AREA 3. [HH31 = 620 pCi/L which represents an upper average of the concentrations found in the Unit 1 and 3 Facility areas;

" GW flow AREA 4. [H3] = 0 pCi/L given lack of likely H3 source areas and flow path which appears not to flow through areas exhibiting H3 concentrations in the GW;

" SW flow ZONE A. [H3] = 0 pCiIL given that exfiltration from pipes in this zone are unlikely to contribute flow to GW which contains H-3 and the SW itself is unlikely to contain H3;

  • SW flow ZONE B. [H3] = 651 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations;

" SW flow ZONE C. [H3] = 2,900 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations;

" SW flow ZONE D. [H3] = 1,560 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations; and SW flow ZONE E. [H3] = 1,560 pCi/L given measured storm drain concentrations.

Page 2

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water The infiltration rate in non-paved/building areas was established at 0.46 feet/year based on the USGS report:

Water Use, Groundwater Recharge and Availability, and Quality in the Greenwich Area, Fairfield County, CT and Westchester County, NY, 2000 - 2002. The precipitation rate for the area was set at 3.74 feet/year based on onsite meteorological data.

Based on the above analysis, it is estimated that approximately 1.36 Ci/year of H3 migrates directly to the river via the GW flow path. It is also estimated that less than 0.02 Ci/year flows directly to the river via SW. It is further estimated that approximately 0.16 Ci/year flows to the river with SW via the Discharge Canal.

It is noted that the H3 concentrations adopted herein are expected to represent values which are significantly greater than those which actually exist given the conservatism exercised during parameter selection. An example of the conservatism employed in these assessments includes:

H3 concentrations selected for the various GW and SW flows are likely to be higher values than actually exist. It is believed that these values will be proven to be significantly too high with the acquisition of additional Phase I and II data. This is particularly true for the 200,000 pCi/L adopted for the Unit 2 Transformer Area; The areas contributing GW flow through various IPEC Facilities was biased toward placing more flow through the Unit 2 Transformer Yard where the highest H3 concentrations were used; All GW flow has been assumed to discharge directly to the river. Some of this GW flow must infiltrate the Discharge Canal thus reducing the apportionment to the river; All storm drain pipe leakage has been assumed to be exfiltration which will increase GW flow values.

However, current data in the Unit 2 Transformer Yard indicates that significant GW infiltrates the storm drain during rainfall events, thus flowing to the Discharge Canal via SW rather than directly to the river as GW. In addition, it is noted that SW H3 concentrations were typically obtained during non-storm events and thus represent the high end of H3 values associated with low flow conditions. However, these high H 3 concentrations, were then applied to the much higher storm flows where much lower H3 values should exist; All precipitation falling on paved/building areas was assumed to result in SW flow. Some of this water actually evaporates directly to atmosphere from pavement and buildings; and The very large value of GW flow extracted from the GW system via the Unit 1 curtain and footing drains has not been subtracted from the GW flows adopted in the analysis.

Results:

The results of the assessments are shown in Table 1, and they show that the annual dose from the groundwater and storm water pathways due to tritium is 0.000015 millirem per year to the whole body (less than 0.1 percent of the 3 millirem per year liquid pathway limit). If N-63 and Sr-90 are included in the assessment, the dose to the critical organ (bone) is 0.00972 millirem per year, which is less than 0.1 percent of the 10 millirem per year critical organ limit. The total tritium activity calculated to be released via this pathway is 1.5 Curies, which is less than 0.1 percent of the liquid tritium releases via other pathways.

There are six tables attached, including one summary table, three tables of doses from storm water pathways and two tables of doses from groundwater pathways. The groundwater dose table for the area of Unit 2 transformer yard conservatively includes 100 pCi/L of Ni-63 and 50 pCi/L of Sr-90. For comparison, the summary table shows the tritium dose alone and the total doses (including tritium, nickel, and strontium). The total dose is also compared to the annual limit, in percent. Figure 3 shows precipitation data for the Indian Point site.

Page 3

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Figure 1 IPEC Ground Water and Storm Drain Conceptual Drawing Evaporation

--- ground ---

Hudson River

+

Page 4

Figure 2.. Indian Point Site Overview IN Atds a

[:ouet n

elipp._~stpidapflCD__40%uvyrSucXawdg VFHe Edit view Umwet Fomat Tools Draw Dimeansion Mockfy Express Wk1dow Map Hlpe Zý59 QQOEj

'buM ffped forgw j'-

BEiII vB~4

~

av~

8mer iv______

It......

0..

ý26 A

\\

,NO I

s e X,

mand:q~v 1-f r

1721E840 72.ý '-22G41.X (oO I SWI~ GRIDI DRTH01 POLARt OSW4A OTsmDrj LwTIIOE 115 -

"7s-tall Page 5

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Table 1 Total IPEC Summary for Ground Water releases in 2005 (H-3, Ni-63, Sr-90)

Sum of two monitoring well calculations, 1P2 and 1P3, Areas 2 and 3 ISOTOPE H-3 Ni-63 Sr-90 totals Doses, in mrern BONE LIVER TOT BODY O.OOE+00 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.32E-03 9.17E-05 4.44E-05 8.40E-03 O.OOE+00 2.06E-03 9.72E-03 1.07E-04 2.12E-03 THYROID 1.52E-05 0.OOE+O0 0.00E+O0 1.50E:-05

.9-KIDNEY 1.52E-05 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 1.50E-05

-I

, LUNG 1.52E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.50E.-05 GI-LLI 1.52E-05 1.91E-05 2.42E-04 2.76E=-04I I1.36E+06 I6. 70E+ 02 Ma I

Storm Drain Water from Zone B, East/West Unit 2, near MH-2, going to river directly Doses, in mrem ISOTOPE BONE LIVER TOT BODY I THYROID KIDNEY LUNG G"LI H-3 O.OOE+00 1.63E-07 I 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 Storm Drain Water from Zones C and DIE (Central U2 & UIlU3) to Discharge Canal Doses, in mrem ISOTOPE IBONE

LIVER, TOT BODY ITHYROID KIDNEY ILUNG IGI-LLI.

H-3 O.OOE+00 2.82E-08 2.82E-08 I 2.82E-08 2.82E-08, 2.82E-08I 2.82E-08 Totals:

Doses, In mrem H-3 only IO.00E4-OO I 1.54E-05 I1.54E-05 I 1.54E-05 'I 1.64E-05 I1.54E-05 I1.54E-05 BONE LIVER

.TOT BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG -

GI-LLI H-3, Ni-63, Sr-90 9.72E-03 1.07E-04 2.12E-03 1.54E-05 1.54E-05 1.54E-05 2.76E-04

%AnnualLImt 1 0.097 1 0.001 1

0.071 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.003 r-.-E+041 I

.5E+061 Page 6

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Table 2 Storm Drain Zone B (MH-2 East & West Unit 2) to the Hudson River directly, 2005 Release Rate 6.15E+07 ml/day or 1.62E+04 gpd or 11.28 gpm Duration of Release, in days 365 Dilution flow 1.11E+05 gprm Dil Factor 1.02E-04 (dilutior Waste vol released =

5.93E+06 gal Dilution vol released =

5.83E+10 gal data per IP-CHM-05-042 from Dr. John Hamawi)

Activity IOCFR20 PRE POST POST MICRO-ISOTOPE Released EC*IO DILUTION DILUTION DILUTION CURIES uC1/mI conc limit CONC/MPC uCi/mi CONC/IMPC RELEASED H-3 6.51E-07 1.00E-02 6.51E-05 6.62E-11 6.62E-09

-1.46E+04 MN-54 3.OOE-04 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FE-55 1.OOE-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 00-58 2.OOE-04

.0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.002+00 00-60 3.00E-05 0.002+00 0.OOE+00 0.0012+00 NI-63 1.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SR-90 5.OOE-06 0.00E+00 0.002+00 0.002+00 0.00E+00 SB-125 3.OOE-04 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CS-134 9.OOE-06

.0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+-0 CS-137 I

1.00E-05 0.00E+00 0.00+E00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 00-57 I

6.OOE-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 TOTAL 6.51 E-07 nla 6.51E-05 6.62E-11 6.62E-09 1.46E+04 NUREG 0133 "Applicable Factor" for Near Field Dilution =

I 1.0OE+0 Adult Total Body mrem ISOTOPE BONE LIVER TOT BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI H-3 0OOOE+O0 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 MN-54 0OE+00 0.OOE+00 0.000+00 0.OOE+00 0..OE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 FE-55 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 CO-58 0,00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 00-60 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 NI-63 0,00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.002+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SR-90 0.002+00 0.00E+00 0.002+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-125 0,00E+00 0.002+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0S-134 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

.0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 OS-137 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 00-57 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 0.00E+00 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.632-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 Page 7

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Table 3 Central Unit 2 Storm Drain Releases of Tritium to the Hudson River via the Discharge Canal in 2005 (Zone C)

Release Rate a323E+07 Imi/day or 8,54E+03 gpd or 5,93 gpm Duration of Release, in days 365 Dilution flow I 1.39E+06 I gpm Dil Factor 4.27E-06 Waste vol released =

3.12E+06 gal Dilution vol released =

7.31 E+11 gal (dilution from actual 2005 data)

Activity IOCFR20 PRE POST POST MICRO-ISOTOPE Released EC*IO DILUTION DILUTION DILUTION CURIES uCi/mI wona limit CONC/MPC uCt/mi CONC/MPC RELEASED H-3 2.90E-06 1.00E-02 2.90E-04 1.24E-11 1.24E-09 3.42E+04 MN-54 3.00E-04 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 FE-55 1.OOE-03 O.00E+00 O.OOE+00 0.00+E00 0.00E+00 00-58 2.00E-04

.0OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 00-60 3.00E-05 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 NI-63 1.00E-03 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SR-90 5.00E-06 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SB-125 3.OOE-04 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 OS-134 9.OOE-06 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E÷00 0.00E+00 0.,-137 1.00E-05 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 00-57 6.00E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 2.90E-06 n/a 2.90E-04 1.24E-1 11 1.24E-09 13.42E+04

  • No gamma identified in storm drains, and 2.9E-6 was avg effluent H-3 in 2005 from MH-4a.

NUREG 0133 "Applicable Factor" for Near Field Dilution =

r 5.00E+001 Adult Total Body mrem ISOTOPE BONE LIVER TOT BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI H-3 O.OOE+00 6.11E-09 6.11E-09 6.11E-09 6.11E-09 6.11E-09 6.11E-09 MN-54 0.0OE000 0.00E+00

.0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 0.O0E+00 FE-55 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.O0E+00 00-58 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

,0.00E+00 0.00E+00 00-60 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 NI-63 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 O.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SR-90 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 SB-125 0.OOE+00

.0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00

.0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 CS-134 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 CS-137 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00+E00 00-57 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 0.00+E00 6.11E-09

-76.11E-09 6.112-09 6.112-09

. 6.11E-09 1 6.112E-09 Page 8

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Table 4 Storm Drain Releases of Tritium to the Hudson River via the Discharge Canal in 2005 from.Units 1 and 3 (Zones D and E)

Release Rate 2.17E+08 ml/day or 5.72E+04 gpd or 39.75 gpm Duration of Release, in days 365 Dilution flow 1.39E+06 gpm Dil Factor 2.86E-05 Waste vol released =

2.09E+07 gal Dilution vol released =

7.31 E+1 1 gal (dilution from actual 2005 data)

Activity IOCFR20 PRE POST POST MICRO-ISOTOPE Released EC*IO DILUTION DILUTION DILUTION CURIES uCi/ml oonc limit CONC/MPC uCi/ml CONC/MPC RELEASED H-3 1.56E-06 1.OOE-02 1.56E-04 4.46E-11 4.46E-09 1.23E+05 MN-54 3.OOE-04 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 FE-55 1.OOE-03 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 CO-58 2.OOE-04 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.O0E+00 0.OOE+00 00-60 3.OOE-05 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 NI-63 1.OOE-03 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SR-90 5.OOE-06 0.OOE+00

-0.OOE+00 0.OOE+O0 0.OOE+00 SB-125 3.OOE-04 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 CS-134 9.OOE-06 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 CS-137 1.OOE-05 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 CO-57 6.OOE-04 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 TOTAL 1.56E-06 nla 1.56E-04 4.46E-11 4.46E-09 1.23E+05 No gamma identified in storm drains, and 1.56E-6 was average of effected Storm Drains in 2005 NUREG 0133 "Applicable Factor" for Near Field Dilution =

r5.O-E70 Adult Total Body mrem ISOTOPE BONE LIVER TOT BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI H-3 O.OOE+0O 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 MN-54 O.OOE+00 O.00E+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 FE-55 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 CO-58 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 CO-60 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 NI-63 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 SR-90 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 SB-125 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 CS-134 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OCE+00 0.0OE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 CS-137 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 CO-57 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 TOTAL O.OOE+00 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 2.20F-08 2OE-O8 2.20E-08 2.20E-08 Page 9

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Table 5 IP3 Tritium Released to Hudson River via Bedrock Pathway in 2005 (from the area near IP3 waterfront, as determined by samples from Monitoring Wells - Area 3)

Release Rate 7.53E+07 ml/day or 1.99E+04 gpd or 13.81 gpm Duration of Release, in days 365 Dilution flow r 1.11E+0571 gpm Dil Factor 1.24E-04 (dilutior Waste vol released =

7.26E+06 gal Dilution vol released =

5.83E+10 gal data per IP-CHM-05-042 from Dr. John Hamawi)

Activity IOCFR20 PRE POST POST MICRO-1ISOTOPE Released EC*IO DILUTION DILUTION DILUTION CURIES uCilmI conc limit CONC/MPC uCl/mI CONC/MPC RELEASED H-3 6.20E-07 1.OOE-02 6.20E-05 7.71E-11 7.71E-09 1.70E+04 MN-54 3.OOE-04 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 FE-55 1.OOE-03 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 O.00E+00 0.OOE+00 CO-58 2.OOE-04 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 CO-60 3.00E-05 0.OOE+-0 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 NI-63 1.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 O.00E+00 SR-90 5.00E-06 0.00E+00 0.OCE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 SB-125 3.00E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 CS-134 9.00E-06 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 CS-137 1.00E-05 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 CO-57 6.OOE-04 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 TOTAL 6.20E-07 n/a 6.20E-05 7.71E-11 7.71 E-09 1.70E+04 NUREG 0133 "Applicable Factor" for Near Field Dilution =

I 1.00E+O00I Adult Total Body mrem ISOTOPE BONE LIVER TOT BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI H-3 0.00E+00 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 MN-54 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+O0 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FE-55 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-58 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 CO-60 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NI-63 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 SR-90 0.002+00

.0.00E+00 0.002+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 SB-1 25 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 CS-134 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 0S-137 0.00E+00

-0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-57 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 0.00E+00 1.91E-07 1.91 2-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 Page 10

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Table 6 IP2 Activity Released to Hudson River via Bedrock Pathway, 2005 (from the area near IP2 transformer yard. as determined by samples from Monitoring Wells - Area 2)

Release RateI 1.84E+07 ml/day or 4.85E+03 gpd or 3.37 gpm Duration of Release, in days 365 Dilution flow 1.11E+05 gpm Dil Factor 3.03E-05 (dilutior Waste vol released =

1.77E+06 gal Dilution vol released =

5.83E+10 gal data per IP-CHM-05-042 from Dr. John Hamawi)

Activity 10CFR20 PRE POST POST MICRO-ISOTOPE Released EC*IO DILUTION DILUTION DILUTION CURIES uCi/ml conc limit CONC/MPC uCm/ml CONC/MPC RELEASED H-3 2.00E-04 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 6.07E-09 6.07E-07 1.34E+06 MN-54 3.00E-04 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FE-55 1.00E-03 0.00E+00 0.00+E00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 CO-58 I

2.00E-04 0.002+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-60 3.00E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 NI-63 1.OOE-07 1.00E-03 1.OOE-04 3.03E-12 3.03E-09 6.70E+02 SR-90 5.00E-08 5.OOE-06 1.00E-02 1.52E-12 3.03E-07 3.35E+02 SB-125 3.00E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 O.00E+00 CS-134 9.00E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CS-137 I 1.00E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-57 I 6.002-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 200E-04 nla 3.01E-02 6.07E-09 9.13E-07 1.34E+06 NUREG 0133 "Applicable Factor" for Near Field Dilution=

1.OOE+00 Adult Total Body mrem ISOTOPE BONE LIVER TOT BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI H-3 0.00E+00 1.50E-05 1.5OE-05 1.50E-05 1.50E-05 1.50E-05 1.50E-05 MN-54 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00+E00 FE-55 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-58 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

'0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-60 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NI-63 1.32E-03 9.17E-05 4.44E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.91E-05 SR-90 8.40E-03 0.00E+00 2.06E-03 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.42E-04 SB-125 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

,CS-134 0.00E+00

.0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CS-137 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 CO-57 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL I

9.72E-03 I 1.07E-04 2.12E-03 1.50E-05 1.50E-05 1.50E-05 2.76E-04 Page 11

IPEC Water Mass Balance and Dose Assessment from Groundwater and Storm Water Figure 3 Precipitation (Inches) at IPEC 14.

Average 2000-2005; 2.92 inches permonth m

  • 0 0

U)

~

~

z 0

z 0)

Page 12

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML061860205&oldid=5361769"