ML17325A529
| ML17325A529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1977 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Desiree Davis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712160331 | |
| Download: ML17325A529 (25) | |
Text
A BOY 8 877 Docket No. 50-315 NB/ORANOUi'. FAR:
D. Davfs, Actfna Chief, Operating Reactors Pranch No. 2, DO!".
Fr,c.".:
St@JL'CT:
J. T. Collins, Chief, Effluent Treatment Systems
- Branch, DSE OSE EVALUATION OF 0.
C ~
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UVIT
!'0. 1, liITH RESPECT TO APPE!DIX I TO 1C CFR PAPT 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of'he radioactive waste treatment systor.:s installed at D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant with respect to the requirements of Pypendix I.
The results of our evaluation are contained in the attached "Safety Evaluation ar 4 Environr!ental Impact Appraf sal."
Me have also attached a draft "Notice of Issuance of a>endiNent to Facflfty Operating Licenses and fieoatf ve !>eel aratinn."
Pased on ourievaliiation, we conclude that the radioactive iraste treatment syste-'.s installed at D. C.
Coo}: are cap-ble of Fiafntafnfna releases of radio-actfve raterials in effliients to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in confor.iance with the rooufrenIents of 10 CFA Part 50.34a, and conform]s to the require!ents of Sections II.", II.P, II.C, and II.D of Appendix I.
On t':arch 29, 1977, OSE transmitted tn ELP ar, NRC staff repert entitled, "Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis Peaiiirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 to Nuclear Power Plants Mhose Apolfcatfons Vere Docketed Before Janilal v 2, 1971."
This report provides the staff's justification for using the September 4, 1975 a!Mendment to Ppnendfx I, r'ather than perforr!ifnp a detafled cost-benefit analysis r equfred by Section II.D of Appendix I.
On Auaust 17, lo77, we received ELD co!:r..ents on this report and we are currently preparing a
!!UREG report itihich wfll document our ffndinos.
Phen this report is coiit!leted, rie will forward to you a paraqraph to be fr.serted on page 1 of the enclosed.""fety Evaluation, rrovfdfnr,fustfffcatfon for the use of the Septeriber 4 option to the cost-benefit analysis.
When the nodel effluent radiological TechnfcaliSpecfffcatfons, currently under develop>>ent, have been approved they wf11 he fonerded to vn>> for tranmfttal to the licensee.
XhAL SIG)K9 BY 87>aseos3>
77> 08 PDR ADOCK 050003i5 P
~
~ ~M A ~ Cl John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Syster. s Br anch Ofvfsion of-Site Safety and OPPICC~
x 27775 SVIINAMCW DSE,; SA 'g, $ B FCar dile:do,
--~
...........1N2.8/?7 10/3J /77 9SK.'..M Kr..e jdgS ge.r
/?7......
D, MB..
,,I 1.
IL.....
~'3..J..)7....,.,
0
~
Sg
~ns
)/8 /77 NRC FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240
- VIE,OOVCI\\NM2 PIIIHTINOOPPICEI !010 02~f4
e~
~ C D
- l I
~c f'p~'n<cr NOV 8 ]gyp ncl csiir~~EEvalnatfon I
cc.
~ ~
I ~II~
f/ ~
K.
f> ~
C. ~~
~
~ 0 f~
fi I
~
lI fi~
I '0r r.
li~
F.
~on+or
~tel 1 o "oil or Vassallo VniI..'1 i'.C11I r iaffeo
,rlo ""sr
!'1 one" >k Ei senf.:<<t f r".-elf'.r f:LI1 4"I"ni
('ri~';1-s f iarL."~ r-Conrol Rant'ar f.'ger!ip CQ t f.'-'l 1 e DISTR IBUTIOW Docket File 50-213 NRR Reading File DSE Reading File ETSB Docket File ETSB Reading File JTCollins OffiCC~
4uWHAM4%
DAT4~
- UID,OOVCIIHMCHTfiIIHTIHOOfflCEI 1474 44~44
SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT WO.
TO FACILITY LICFNSE NO. DPR-58 INDIANA AWD MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY D. C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-31.
INTRODUCTIOW On Nay 5, 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in the r ulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents.
This decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
On September 4, 1975, the Commission adopted an amendment to (1)
Appendix I to provide persons who have filed applications for construction (2) permits for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or after January 2, 1971, and prior to June 4, 1976, the option of dispensing with the cost-benefit analysis reouired by Section II.D of Appendix I, if the proposed or installed radwaste systems satisfy the guides on desion obiectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors proposed hy the Regulatory Staff in the rulemaking proceeding on Appendix I (flocket RM 50-2), dated February 20, 1974. (3)
A paragraph will be added which will provide justification for us'ing the September 4, 1975, amendment to Appendix I for application for construc-tion permits filed prior to January 2, 1971.
Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 reouires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976;
- 1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable",
and
- 2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas durinq normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences "as low as is reasonably achievable."
In conformance with the reouirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Indiana and Michiqan Electric Company
( IMEC) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976
, September 2,
1976 '
December 6, 1976
, June 22, 1977, (4)
(5)
(6)
(7) and July 20, 1977,the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the (8)
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, with respect to the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C'f Appendix I.
In these suhmittals, IHEC provided the necessary information to show conformance with the Commission's September 4, 1975 amend-ment to Appendix I rather than perform a detailed cost-benefit analysis reouired by Section II.D of Appendix I.
By letter dated IMEC submitted proposed chanqes to Appendix A
Technical Specifications for D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant.
The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid. and gaseous effluents are "as low as is reasonably achievable" in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at
the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1;
- 1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Par ts 50.34a and 50.36a,
- 2) to meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Sections II.A, II.P., and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3) to determine if the installed radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives proposed in RH 50-2 rather than an individualized cost-benefit analysis as required by Section II.D of Appendix I.
I.
Safet Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's pro-posed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff's evaluation consisted of the followina: 1) a review of the information provided by the licensee in his June 4, 1976, September 2, 1976, December 6,
- 1976, June 22, 1977, and July 20, 1977, submittals; 2) a review of the radioactive waste
( radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAP);
- 3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant;
- 4) the calculation of rela-tive concentration (X/9) and deposition (D/0) values for the D.
C.
Cook site;
- 5) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 6) the comparison of the calculated releases and doses with the proposed design objectives of RH 50-2 and the reauirements of Sections II.A, II.B, II.C and II.D of Appendix I.
0 The radwaste treatment and effluent control systens installed at the D.
C.
Cook Huclear Plant have been previously evaluated in Section 11.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report, dated September 10, 1973, and have been (10) described and evaluated in Section II.D.2 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated August 1973.
Since the FES was issued, the licensee has (11) modified these systems to include provisions for one of the two CVCS boric acid evaporators to function as a liquid radwaste evaporator if additional processing capability is required and to include use of mixed bed resins in the steam generator blowdown system demineralizer instead of anion bed resins.
The modifications noted above were considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liauid and gaseous source terms have been qenerated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix I.
The new source
- terms, shown in Tables 1
and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in HUREG-0017 In making these determinatsons, (12)
~
~
the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary and secondary system and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences.
The 1
principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liquid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3.
The staff also reviewed the operating exp'erience accumulated at Unit Ho.
1 in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1
and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liauid and gaseous eff'iu ::t.
Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering 1976.
A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Ho. 1, reached initial criticality in January
- 1975, and commercial operation in Auqust 1975.
Since the staff does not consider data fron the first year of operation to be representative of the long term operating life of the plant, only effluent release data from 1976 I
for Unit 1 were used in comparing actual releases from Unit Ho. 1, with calculated releases.
For the year 1976, the reported release of liquid effluents is 0.26 Ci/yr for total activity (except tritium) and 192 Ci/yr for tritium.
These values are in good agreement with the staff's corresponding calculated values of 0.36 Ci/yr for total activity (except tritium and 680 Ci/yr for tritium.
For the year 1976 the reported release of gaseous effluents is 980 Ci/yr for noble gases, 0.001 Ci/yr for Iodine-131, 0.00001 Ci/yr for particulates, and O.l Ci/yr for tritium.
The staff's corresponding calculated values are 4100 Ci/yr for noble gases, 0.072 Ci/yr for Iodine-131, 0.002 Ci/yr for particulates, and 680 Ci/yr for tritium.
Considering that the plant is still in early operational life, the actual values are in reasonable agreement with the calculated values which considers operation over a 30 year plant
Therefore, the staff believes that the calculational model of NUREG-0017 reasonably characterizes the actual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No. l.
Therefore, the calculated releases
'given in Tables 1 and 2 were used in the dose assessment discussed below.
The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion conditions for the D.
C.
Cook site using the atmosphere dispersion model pre-sented in NUREG-0324, which is based on the Straight-Line Trajectory (13)
II Model" described in Regulatory Guide l.ill.
All releases at the D.
C.
(14)
Cook site were considered as ground-level, with adjustments for mixing in the buildino wake.
An estimate of increase in calculated relative concen-tration (X/0) and relative deposition (D/(}) due to spatial and temporal varia-tions in airflow, not considered in the straight-line model, was included as presented in NUREG-0324.
The calculations also included consideration of intermittent releases during more adverse atmospheric conditions than indicated by an annual average calculation as a function of total duration of release (HUREG-0324).
Radioactive decay of effluents and depletion of the effluent plume were considered as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
One year (Hay 1975 - April 1976) of onsite meteorological data was used in the analysis.
All releases were evaluated using joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction at the 15.2 m (50-ft.) level by atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperature gradient measured between the 9.1 m (30-ft.) and 54.9 m (180-ft.) levels.
Wind speeds were adjusted to represent conditions at the 10 m (33-ft.) level.
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent categories:
- 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to Lake t!ichigan; 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radioiodines, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere.
The mathematical models used to perform the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109. (15)
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liquid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.
For the total body dose, we considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) harvested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from D.
C.
Cook into Lake Michigan, consumption of drinking water (730 1/yr) from the Lake Township intake, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr).
For the organ
- dose, we considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet include the consumption of drinking water (510 1/yr) from the Lake Township intake.
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a
calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence havinq the hiohest dose.
The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.38 miles H relative to the D.
C.
Cook Station.
The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at the same location.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radioiodine, particulates, carbon-l4, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the maximum exposed individual.
For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum
exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the consumption of milk (330 1/yr) from a cow grazing at 1.8 miles ENE of the D.
C.
Cook Station.
The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture equivalent to 6 months per year total diet, Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area to be less than 3 mrem/reactor and 10 mrem/reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II.A of Appendix I.
Usinq the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/0) value given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual oamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad/reactor and 20 mrad/reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II.B of Appendix I.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted
- above, the calculated releases of radioiodine, carbon-l4, tritium, and particulates given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/(}) and deposition (D/0) values given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of the maximum exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem/reactor in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I.
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and re-place those given in Table V-5 and V-6 of the FES-OL (11)
Rather than performing an individualized cost-benefit analysis reauired by Section II.D of Appendix I, the licensee elected to show conformance with the numerical design objectives specified in the September 4,
1975 amendment to Appendix I (RN 50-2).
The dose desiqn obiectives contained in RH 50-2 are on a site basis rather than a per reactor basis while the curie releases are on a per reactor basis.
As shown in Table 1, the calculated release. of radioactive material in liquid effluents is less than 5 Ci/yr/ reactor, ex-cluding tritium and dissolved noble gases.
As given in Table 2, the calcu-lated quantity of iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents is less than l Ci/yr/reactor.
The calculated doses combined for D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No.
1 are less than the dose design objectives set forth in RH 50-2, and therefore, satisfy the requirements of'ection I I.D of Appendix I.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Ho. 1, are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liauid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the reouirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the 'radwaste systems installed at D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1.
This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the calculated individual doses are less than the numerical dose design objectives of Section II.A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives set forth in Rth 50-2 and, therefore, satisfy the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the revised Technical,Snecifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability of conseauences of accidents pr'eviously considered and does not ihvolve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reason-able assurance that the hea'1th and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation i.n the proposed
- manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
II.
Environmental Im act A
raisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the D.
C.
Cook Huclear Plant, Unit Ho. 1, located in the State of Hichigan, in Berrien County, at power levels up to 3250 megawatts thermal
()1Wt).
The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the reactor.
Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action; it does not affect the benefits of electric power affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in The Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for D. C..-
Cook Huclear Plant, Docket Ho. 50-315.
The revised liaui d and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from D.
C.
Conk Nuclear Plant, Unit Mo. l.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the reouirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-active materials in liouid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is reasonably achievable."
If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives in a quarter, the licensee must:
(1) identify the cases, (2) initiate a proqram to reduce the releases; and (3) report these actions to the HRC.
The revised Technical Specifications specify.that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I.
Conclusion and Sasis for Negative Declaration On the basi s of the foregoing evaluation, it is concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated:
y(
TABLE 1
CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIK~c MATERIALS Ii~J Ii'J LI UID EFFLUE."IS FROM D. D. C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO.
1 Nuclide
~Ci/ r Nuclide Corrosion and Activation Products Fission Products Cr-51 hen-54 Fe-55 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Zr-95
Ãb-95 Np-239 1.2 (-4) 1(-3)
- 1. 1(-4) 7(-s)
- 5. 1 (-3)
- 8. 8 (-3)
- 1. 4 (-3) 2 (-3) 4(-5)
Br-93 Rb-86 Rb-8S Sr-89 h/o-99 Tc-99n Ru-103 Ru-106 Ag-110'e 137'e-127 Te-129'e-129 3(-5) 3 (-5)
- 1. 5 (-3) 3 (-5) 4(-3)
- 6. 6 (-3) 1.4(-4) 2.4 (-3) 4.4( 4) 2(-s) 4(-s) 9(-s) l.6 (-4)
Fission Products I-130 Te-131m Te-131 I-131 Te-132 I-132 1-3.33 I-134 Cs-134 I-13S Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-137 Ba-140 La-140 Ce-144 All Others Total except tritium Tr1tlUQl
- 1. 1 (-4) 7(-5) 1(-4) 2 (-1).
1.2 (-3) 3 (-3)
- 4. 7 (-2) 1-2(-4) 2.2 (-2) 4 (-3) 4 (-3) 3 (-2) 5(-3) 1(-s) 1 (-5)
S. 2 (-3) 6(-S) 0.36 670
-4 a = exponential notation, 1.2(-4)
= 1.2 x 10
Nuclides TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM D.
C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO.
RELEASE {Ci/yr/reactor)
Waste Gas Processing Steam Jet
~5t R
~Alii 7 ti
~Ai E't T t 1
Kr-83m Kr-85m Kr-85 Kr-87 Kr-88 Kr-89 Xe-131m Xe-133m Xe-133 Xe-135m Xe-135 Xe-137 a
260 a
18 83 a
3 10 a
17 37 3400 a
16 a
3 150 a
2 96 a
6 270 1
9 a
35 42 3700 26 Xe-138 Total Noble Gases I-13'I I-133 a
Co-60 7(-5)c Co-58 1.5(-4)c Fe-59 1.5(-5)c M.-54 4.5(-5)
Cs-137 7.5(-5)c Cs-134 4.5(-5)c Sr-90 6(-7)c sr-89 3.3(-6)c Total Particulates 2.1(-3) 2.S(-3) 4.2(-2) 5.9(-2) 2.7(-4) 6(-4) 6(-5) 1.8(-4) 3(-4) 1.8(-4) 2.4(-6) 1.3(-5) 1.6(-3) 1.5(-3) 2.6(-2) 3.7(-2) 4100 7.2(-2) 1 {-1) 3.4(-4) 7.e(-4) 7.6{-5) 2.3(-4) 3.8(-4) 2.3(-4) 3(-e) 1.6(-5) 2{-3)
C-14 Ar-41 7
1 25 680 25 a = less than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble gases, less than 10-4 Ci/yr for iodine.
b = exponential notation; 2.4(-4)
= 2.4 x 10 "
c = less than 1% of total
(
TABLE 3 P.
IPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIO St:0 IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL'IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM D. C.
COOK, UNIT No.
1 Reactor Power Level (MWt)
Plant Capacity Factor Failed Fuel Primary System Mass of.Coolant (lbs)
Letdown Rate (gpm)
Shim Bleed Rate (gpm)
Leakage to Secondary System (lbs/day)
Leakage to Containment Building
- Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (lbs/day)
Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns (per year)
Secondary System Steam Flow Rate (lbs/hr)
Mass of Steam/Steam Generator (lbs)
Mass of Liquid/Steam Generator (lbs)
Secondary Coolant Mass (lbs)
Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg (lbs/hr)
Blowdnwn Flow Rate (lbs/hr)
Containment Building Volume (ft3)
Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown)
Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power)
Iodine Partition Factors (gas/liquid)
Leakage to Auxiliary Building Steam Generator (volatile species)
Steam G nerator.
(nonvolatile species)
Main Condenser Air Ejector (volatile species)
Decontamination Factors (liquid wastes) 3391 O.so 0 12/o 5.6 x 105 75
'1 100 b
160 2
1.4 x 107 6.6 x 103 1.3 x 105 2.1 x 106 1.7 x 103 3.6 x 104 1.2 x 106 34 0.0075 1.0 0.01 0.15 I
Cs, Rb Others Shim Bleed 5
E
. Drain 1 x 103 1 x 103 1 x105 Misc. Wastes 1 x103 1 x104 1 x104 All Nucl ides Exce t Iodine Steam Gen.
Blowdown 1 x 103 1 x102 1 x103 Iodine Miscellaneous (Dirty) Waste Evaporator DF Boron Recovery System 5 Equipment Drain Evaporator DF Letdown Coolant Haste Demineralizers DF Evaporator Condensate Polishing Demineralizers DF Steam Generator Blowdown Demineralizers DF Cation Bed Demineralizers Anion Bed Demineralizers 1O4 103 Anions 10 10 102{10)c 1(1) 102(lO)
Cs, Rb 10 10(10) 10(10) 1(1) 103 lo2 Other Nuclides 10 10 102(10) 10(10) 1(1)
(Continued - next page)
y(
TABLE 3 (continued)
Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuc1ides Containment Kidney Charcoal Adsorber DF (Iodine Removal)
Gaseous Systems HEPA filter DF (Particulate Removal) 10 100 aihis value is constant and corresponds to 0.12Ã of the operating power fission product source term as given in HUREG-0017, April 1976.
15/day of the primary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.0015/day of the primary coolant iodine inventory.
For tv(o demineralizers in series, the DF for the second demineralizer is given in parenthesis.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY
OF LIQUID AND GASEOUS RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS FOR D.C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO.
1 1976(>>
~Ci/yr Li uid Peleases Total Activity (Except Tritium)
Tritium 0.26 192 Gaseous Releases Noble Gases Iodine-131 I
I Tritium Particulates 980
.0013 1 x 10-5 (1)
From "Environmental Operating Report, Indiana and Michigan Power
- Company, Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1," January through June 1976; and from "Environmental Operating Report, Indiana and Michigan Power
- Company, Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1,"
July through December 1976.
TABLE 5 D. C.
COOK, UNIT NO.
1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND DEPOSITION (D/Q) VALUES USED FOR DOSE CALCULATIONS Receptor
~Te Release Direction Distance miles)
~T e
X/Q sec/meters D/Q meters 2
Site Boundary 0.38 Continuous 2.3 x 10 7.9 x108 Intermittent
- 24 2-hr purges 5.8 x 10 Intermittent
- 15 8-hr purges 4.9 x 10 20x 107 1.7 x 10 7
Residence/Garden/
Milk Cow ENE 1.8 Continuous 9.2 x10 7
4.8 x 10 Intermittent
- 24 2-hr purges 2.7 x 10 Intermittent
- 15 8-hr purges 2.3 x 10 1.4 x 10 1.2 x 1D
~
uvula COMPARISON OF D.C.
COOK, UNIT NO. 1, WITH APPl'.NDIX I TO lo CFR PART 50, SI'.CT'tONS II.A, II.B, AND IT.C (MAY'5, 1975)
AND SIXTION I?,D, ANNI."X (SI;PTFtSFR 4, 1975)
COI.RN 1
COLII)1N 2 COI.UMN 3 Criterion I.iquid Efflrren t s Appendix I a Annex b c
Calcu] a ted Doses 11nit Nos.
- l. or 2
Dose to total horly from all pathways Dose to any organ from all pnthwnys Noble Cas I'.ffluents d Inrelll/y1%rnit 10 mrern/yr/unit 5 mrem/yr/site 5 mrern/yr/site 0.14 mrem/yr/unit 0.34 mrem/yr/unit Cnmmn
<lose
$ n a1r I'eta dose in air Dose to total hody of an individual, Dose to skin of an individual Rndioiodines and Otlrer I!adionucl ides Re Iysed to the Atmosphere 10 mrad/yr/unit 20 mrad/yr/unit 5 mrem/yr/unit 15 mrem/yr/unit 10 mrad/yr/site 20 mrad/yr/site 5 mrem/yr/site 15 mrem/yr/site 3.0 mrad/yr/unit 8.2 mrad/yr/unit 1.8 mrem/yr/unit 5.2 mrem/yr/unit Dose to any organ from all patlrways 15 mrem/yr/unit 15 mrem/yr/site 3-0 mrem/yr/unit 4,
~'7, 7
b Federal Re,ister, V.40, p, 40816, September 4, 1975, c Design objectives given on a site basis.
Therefore, these design objectives apply to 2 units at the site, d I.irnited to noble gases only.
e Carbon-14 and Tritium have been added to this category.
t t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION DOCKET NO. 50-315 INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No.
to Facility Operating License No. DPR-58, issued to Indiana and Hichigan Electric Company, for revised Technical Specifica-tions for operation of the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1, located near St. Joseph/Benton Harbor, Berrien County, Michigan.
The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
These amendments to the Technical Specifications will (1) imple-ment the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limiting conditions for oper ation (LCO) for the ouarterly and annual average release
- rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with Commission regulations.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and t
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate findings as reouired by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments.
Prior public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do not involve a siqnificant hazards considerations.
The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ-mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the ouality of the human environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated August 1973.
For further details with respect to this action, see
( 1) the application for amendment dated
, (2) Amendment No.
to License No. DPR-58, and (3) the Commission's rel ated Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street,
- k. W., Washington,
- 0. C.,
and at the St. Joseph Library, 500 tlarket Street, St. Joseph, lfichigan.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.
C. 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
'ated at Bethesda, Haryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COtNISSION Donald Davis, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 82 Division of Operating Reactors
REFERENCES Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Federal
- Reqister,
- v. 40, p. 19442, May 5, 1975.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paragraph II.D of Appendix I, Federal Re ister, V. 40 p. 40816, September 4, 1975, and revised as of January I, 1976.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff (and its Attachment) - Public Rulemakino Hearing on:
Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criteria "As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Docket Ho.
RM 50-2, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1974.
"Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Docket Hos. 50-315, 50-316, DPR-58."
Letter of Transmittal, June 4, 1976.
"Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, Docket Nos.
50-315 and 50-316, DPR No.
58 and CPPR Ho. 61."
Letter of Transmittal, September 2,
1976.
"Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, Docket Hos.
50-315 and 50.315, DPR No.
58 and CPPR Ho. 61."
Letter of Transmittal, December 6, 1976.
"Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Ho. 2, Docket Ho. 50-316, CPPR No.
61."
Letter of Transmittal, June 22, 1977.
"Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Hos.
1 and 2, Docket Hos.
50-315 and 50-316, DPR Ho.
58 and CPPR Ho. 61."
Letter of Transmittal, July 20, 1977.
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, Final Safety Analysis Report for D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, January 1971.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Safety Evaluation of the D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Hos.
1 and 2," Docket Nos.
50-315/316, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1973.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2," Indiana and Michigan Electric Co., Docket Hos. 50-315/
316, Washington,.
D.C., August 1973.
HUREG-0017, "Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liauid Effluents From Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
13.
NUREG-0324, Sagendorf, J.F.
and Goll, J.T.:
"XO(DOQ, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power
- Stations, (DRAFT)."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C, September 1977.
l4.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111, "Hethods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors,"
March 1976.
15.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Requlatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Averaqe Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," March 1976.