ML17340A944
| ML17340A944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17340A943 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104090496 | |
| Download: ML17340A944 (18) | |
Text
Safety Evaluation Report Turkey Point Unit Nos.
3 and 4 Compliance with Appendix I Our evaluation of the radioactive waste management systems designed to process liquid, gaseous and solid radwastes is discussed in detail in the Safety Evaluation Report for the Turkey Point plant dated March 15, 1972.
On May 5, 1975, the Commission published in the Federal Register (40 FR 19439) amendments to Sections 50.34a and 50.36a of 10 CFR Part 50 and adopted Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix I sets forth numerical guidance on design objectives and limiting conditions for operation of light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the "as low as is reasonably achievable" criterion.
The amended -rule, effective on June 4, 1975, provides, in Section V.B of Appendix I, that, for each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor constructed pursuant to a permit for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971, applicants shall, within a period of twelve months from June 4, 1975, file with'he Commission such information as is necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as lo<
as is reason" ably achievable, and file with the Commission plans and proposed technical specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of expected operational occurrences as low as is reasonably achievable.
The Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, falls within the requirements of the amended rule because the application for a license to construct and operate the plant was filed with the Commission on March 28, 1966.
On June 4, 1976, Florida Power and Light Company provided the necessary infor-mation to permit an evaluation with respect 'to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The applicant elected to show conformance with the Commission's September 4,
1975 amendment to Appendix I in lieu of performing a detailed cost-benefit analysis as required by Section II.O of Appendix I.
However the licensee has submitted a detailed cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of radioactive waste management systems design.
We have evaluated the design of the radioactive waste management systems for the Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos.
3 and 4, to reduce the quantities of radio-active materials released to the environment in liquid and gaseous effluents from normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences.
The original systems have been previously descr ibedin Section
- 8. 0 of the Safety Evaluation Report dated March 15, 1972 and in Section III.D.2 of the Final Environmental Statement dated July 1972.
In late 1974 the licensee changed secondary coolant chemistry from phosphate chemistry to all volatile treatment to control the corrosion in the steam generators.
On September 14, 1979 the licensee announced that a condensate polishing demineralizer system would be installed in the Turkey Point Plant Unit Nos.
3 and 4.
Based on more recent operating data applicable to the Turkey Point Plant, and on c'.,anges in our calculation model, we have generated new liquid and gaseous source terms to determine conformance with Appendix I.
Our evaluation includes the -changes which were made after the issuance of Safety EvaIuation, Report and Final Environmental Statement in 1972.
l
The estimated releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents were calculated using the models and methodology described in NUREG-0017, "Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Mater Reactors (PMR Gale Code)", April l976.
The principal parameters used in these calculations are given in Table II-1.
The liquid and gaseous source terms are given in Tables II-2 and II"3, respectively.
The source terms given in Tables II-2 and II-3 were used to calculate the individual and,population doses in accordance with the mathematical models and guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Average Doses to man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluations Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I" Rev. 1, November 1977.
Meteorological factors in the dose calculations were determined using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.111," Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents from Routine Releases from Light-Mater-Cooled Reactors", July 1977.
The calculated doses are given in Table II-4.
In our evaluation, we have considered releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents fo~
normal operation including anticipated operational occurrence based on expected ratwaste inputs over the life of the plant for each reactor on the Turkey Point Plant Site.
Me have determined that the liquid radwaste treatment systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluent such that the calculated individual doses in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure are less than 3 millirems to the total body and 10 millirems to any organ.
These doses satisfy the numerical design objsectives of Section II.A of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
We have also determined that the gaseous radwaste treatment systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents such that the ca,culated individual doses in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure
.are less than 5 millirems to the total body or 15 millirems to the skin and that releases of radioiodine and radioactive materials in particulate form are less than 15 millirems to any organ.
These doses satisfy the numerical design objectives of Sections II.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
We have calculated the annual quantity of radioactive materials releases in liquid effluents from Unit Nos.
3 and 4 to be less than 5 curies per reactor, excluding tritium and dissolved noble gases.
Using the calculated releases we aetermined that the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any o"gan of an individual in an unrestricted area to be less than 5 millirem per si.te as shown in Table 1l-4.
Using the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents from Unit Nos.
3 and 4 given in Table 11-3, we calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less thar. '0 and 20 mrad
'er site respec-.ively as shown in the Table 11-4.
Corresponaing annual doses
-.o an indiviaual in an unrestricted area are determined to be less than 5 millirem
=o the total body o~ 15 millirems to the skin.
Me have calculated the annual release of iodine-131in gaseous effluents to be less than one curie per reactor.
Me calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of an individual in our unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure to be less than 15
~ ! llirems due to release of radioactive iodine and radioactive materials in articulate form from all light,-water cooled nuclear powers reactors at the
II 4
(/
=ased on our evaluation we conclude that 'the'adioactive waste treatment system
=or tne Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos.
3 and 4, are capable of maintaining releases
-f radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation,
=-nc anticipated operational occurrences such that the doses will not exceed
=ne numerical design objectives of Section II.A, B and C of Appendix I of 10 CFT,Part 50.
Gur evaluation also shows that the licensee's design of the liquid and gaseous
~aste treatment systems for the Turkey Point Plant,,Unit Nos.
3 and 4 satisfies
=he design objectives-of RM-50-2* specified in the option provided by the Cormission's September 4, 1975 amendment to 'Appendix I and, therefore, meets
-he requirements of Section II.D-of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.
- ~e "onclude that the liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems are capable cf maintaining.releases of radioactive materia]s in effluents to "as low as is
. easonably achievable" levels in accordance with 10 CFR art.34a, and Appendix I to.10 CFR Part 50 and, therefore are acceptable..
'- '"= or Design Objectives proposed by the NRC Staff on February 20, l974.
"Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff," Docket No.
RN
=.::,
=eb.
20,
- 1974, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Mashington, D.
C.
3
0
TABLE 11-1 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LI UID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM TURKEY POINT UNIT Nos 3 AND 4 5.8 x 10s 60 600 100 b
160 Decontainment Factors Li uid Wastes)
- Reactor Power Level (Thermal Megawatts) 2300 Plant 'Capacity Factor
- 0. 80 Failed Fuel (percent) 0.12 Primary System Mass of Coolant (pounds)
Let Down Rate (gallons per minute)
, Shim Bleed Rate (gallons per day)
Leakage to Secondary System (pounds per day)
Leakage to Containment Building Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (pounds per day)
Secondary System
- Stean Flow Rate (pounds per hour) 9.6 x 10'ass of Steam/Steam Generator (pounds) 6.6 x 10'ass of Liquid/Steam Generator (pounds) 7.7 x 104 Number of Steam Generators 3
Secondary Coolant Mass (pounds) 1.1 x 10'ate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg. (pounds per hour) 1.7 x 10~
Fraction of Feedwater Processed Through Condensate Demineralizers 0.65 Containment Building Volume (cubic feet) 1.55 x 10' Annual Frequency of Containment Purges
'0 This value is constant and corresponds to 0. 12 percent of the operating power fission product source term as given in NUREG-0017, April 1976.
b1 percent per day of the p'rimary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.001 per day of the primary coolant iodine inventory.
10'team Generator Blowdown 1 x. 10' x 10~
1 x 10'aundry Haste
0
~II
TABLE 11-2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM TURKEY POINT, UNIT NOS.
3 AND 4 Nucl ide Ci/Yr/reactor Nuclide Ci/ r/reactor Corrosion 8 Activation Products Fission Product Cr-51 Mn-54 Fe-55 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Np-239 Zr-95 Nb-95 Fission Products Br-83 Rb Rb Sr-89 Sr-91 Y-91m Y-91 Zr-95 Nb-95 Mo-99 Tc-99m Ru-103 Rh-103m Ru"106 Ag-110m 4.7(-4) 1.1(-3) 4.2(-4) 2.5(-4) 8.1(-3) 9.2(-3) 1.9(-4) 1.4(-3) 2.0(-3) 2(-5) 1(-3) 2(-5) 9(-5) 2(-5) 1(-5) 2(-5) 1(-5) 1(.-5)
- l. 4(-2)
- 1. 4(-2) 1.5("4) 1(-5) 2.4("3) 4.4(-4)
Te-127m Te-127 Te-129m Te-129 I-130 Te-131m Te-131 I-131 TE-131 I-132 I-133 I-134 Cs-134 I-135 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-137m Ba-140 La-140 Ce-141 Pr-143 Ce-144 All Others Total, except Tritium Tritium 7(-5) 9(-5) 3'(-4) 2.3("4) 1(-4) 2.7(-4) 5(-5) 7.7(-2) 4.8(-:3)
- 5. 5(-3) 3 2(-2) 2(-5) 3.4(-l) 4.5(-3) 1.5(-1) 2.6(-1) 2.2(-1) 5("5) 4(-5) 2(-5) l(-5) 5.2(-3) 3(-5) 1.2 450 a = Exponential notation; 4.7(-4) = 4.7 x 10-~.
Nuclides not shown are less than 1 x 10-Ci/yr.
These are included in the category "all others".
0
~ P
e 0
TABLE 11-3 CALCULATED RELEASES OF. RADIOACTIVE hATERIAL IN AWTOKITPlllii~i RELEAS CURIES PER YEAR PER REACTOR RADIO-
~UCLIDE Kr-83m Kr-85m Kr-85 Kr-87 Kr-88 Kr-89 Xe-131m Xe-133m Xe-133 Xe-135m Xe-135 Xe-137 Xe-138 REACTOR BUILDING a
1 190 a
46 31 4800 a
1 5
a 3:-
a 2
3 270 a
a" a
a.
340 a
69 15 5600 a
2 a
1 2
170 AUXILIARY'URBINE DECAY AIR EJECTOR BUILDING 'UILDING 'ANKS OFF-GAS STEAM GENERATOR BLOWDOWN VENT a
a TOTAL a
2 538 a'17 51 101840 a
17 I-131 I-133 1.0(-1)
. 3.5(-2) 8-5{-4) b 2.5(-2) 4.6(-2) 9.3(-4) 2.2(-2) 2.8(-2) 1.5(-1) 1.6(-1) 3.1(-1) 2.6(-1)
Hn-54 Fe-59 Co-58 Co-60 Sr-89 Sr-90 Cs-134 Cs-137 2.2(-2) 7.5(-3) 7.5(-2) 3.4(-2) 1.7(-3) 3(-4) 2.2(-2) 3.8(-2) 1.8(-4) 6.0(-5) 6.0(-4) 2.7(-4) 1.3(-5) 2.4(-6) 1.8(-4) 3.0(-4) 4.5(-5) 1.5(-5) 1.5(-4) 7.0(-5) 3.3(-6) 6.0(-7) 4.5{-5) 7.5(-5) c 2.2(-2) 7.6(-3) 7.6(-2) 3.4(-2) 1.7(-3) 3.0(-4) 2.2(-2) 3.8(-2)
C-14 1
a a
Ar-41 25 a
a Tritium Gaseous Release 460 Cur ies/year a
=
ess than 1.0 curie per year for noble gases and carbon-14; less than 10 Ci/yr
-4 for iodine.
0 b
= exponential notation; 1.0(.-1)
= 1.0 x 10 c
= less than 1~ of total for this nuclide.
8 25
II id
'J
TABLE 1-4 COMPARISON OF TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4'ITH APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 SECTIONS II.A-II.B AND II.C (MAY 5 1975 AND SECTION II..D
. ANNEX SEPTEMBER 4 1975 Cri
-=r=-on Appendix I Annex Calculated Calculated Desi n Ob ectives Desi n Ob ectives Doses Doses Liq~" ~
=ff1 uent (per unit)
(per site)
(per unit)
(per site)
Dose 'c total body fr:m all pathways Dose:-c any organ fr:m.all pathways Tote
=-=tivity release es:-..-...ate, excluding tritium 3 mrem/yr 10 mrem/yr 5 mrem/yr 0.25 mrem/yr 0.3 mrem/yr 5 mrem/yr 0.46 mrem/yr 0.5 mrem/yr 5 curies/yr/
- l. 2 Ci/yr unit Nob;-:
.as Effluents Ga.".n;a Dose in air Be== iose in air Do:-e
=o total body
- =
=n individual Dc:--. =o skin of an
-."-'vidual Radar:'" "ines and Other Rad;:- =lides Released to z
.= -'tmosphere Oc:--.
=o any organ from pathways l-::
activity release 10 mrad/yr 20 mrad/yr 5 mrem/yr 15 mrem/yr 15 mrem/yr 15 mrem/yr 10 mrad/yr 20 mrad/yr 5 mrem/yr 15 mrem/yr 15 mrem/yr 1 Ci/yr/Unit
'0.16 mr ad/yr 0.43 mrad/yr
.3 mrad/yr 0.9 mrad/yr 0.10 mrem/yr 0.2 mrem/yr 0.28 mrem/yr 0.6 mrem/yr 2.8 mrem/yr 5.6 mrem/yr
.3 Ci/yr Feo-:-=-
- Register, V. 40, p.
- 19442, May 5, 1975.
Feo=-a,
- Register, V. 40, p. 40816, September 4, 1975.
cLiz.== = to nobl e gases only.
Car=:--
4 and Tritium have been added to this category.
0
EVALUATION OF DECOMMISSIONING THE TURKEY POINT METEOROLOGICAL TOWER METEOROLOGY SECTION
. In November 1976 Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) proposed to de-.
commission the Turkey Point meteorological instrumentation system because (1) not all of the instrumentation in.the Turkey Point meteorological system conforms to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23; (2).temperature sensors located on the water tower are. shielded from the sun by the surround-ing buildings as well as. possible influences attributable to the water tower and the ground; and (3) lower level wind. speed/direction instrumentation is obstructed from the flow of air by surrounding growth which is higher than the instrument level.
In its place the atmospheric stability for Turkey Point would be determined from telemetered South Dade data, and low level wino conditions would be determined from a new meteorological instrumentation system that would be located on the Turkey Point site..
On December 7, 1976, DOR requested that the Hydrology-Meteorology Branch review Fpl 's request and determine whether the South Dade data is adequately representative of the Turkey Point site from the standpoint of assessing accidental and routine effluent releases and whether the telemetry of the South Dade data is adequate.
Both Turkey.Point and South Dade. are located in areas of relatively flat, marshy terrain with the terrain between.the two also being flat.
Turkey Point is about 0.5 mile west of the Atlantic Ocean while South Dade, which is approximately 7 miles southwest of Turkey.Point, is about 2 mi1es from Biscayne Bay.
Because of similar surface characteristics
.at and between both sites and their close proximity to one. another, the air mass characteristics are essentially the same at either location.
The general. wind flow for both South Dade and Turkey Point is from.ESE and SE directions.
.The effects.of the sea breeze are.to produce generally.higher wind speeds and.to moderate extreme air temperatures at the more coastal Turkey Point site.
When the wind direction is onshore (55K),
a lag of one or two hours is sometimes observed (0.95) in the early.morning.for Turkey Point stable conditions to become in phase with 'South Dade unstable conditions.
By memo dated March 22, 1977, we provided our preliminary evaluation of FPL's decoomissioning plan to DOR.
Me agreed with FPL's analysis that the wind speed and wind direction from upper level wind. measurements at.South Dade is representative of. the Turkey Point site.
We further agreed that the low level wind conditions are distorted at the Turkey.Point site due to the obstruction of the air flow and that there are significant differences between. the South Dade low level.wind conditions and those of 'a supplemental unobstructed Turkey Point site location.
These concerns warrant that measurement of. low.level wind conditions not be assessed from the South Dade instrumentatioa but rather be measured "in the Turkey Point plant site area in flat, open, unobstructed terrain."
However, FPL's comparison did not adequately address the representativeness of.
the South Dade vertical temperature gradient (measured between 11.7m and 58m).as a real time indicator. of atmospheric stability at the Turkey Point site (measured between 5m and 35m) and did not completely describe what information would be transmitted from the meteorological tower at South Dade tb the control room at Turkey Point.
0 II
Our concerns regarding the decommissioning plan were sent to FPL by letters dated, April 13, 1977 and February 17, 1978.
They also were discussed with FPL staff and consultants during a site visit on January 26, 1978.
FPL adequately addressed.our concerns in the subsequent correspondence dated May 27, 1977, and Hay 15,'978.
To minimize any wina field disturbances or heat island. effects which could influence the atmospheric.stability at the Turkey Point site, FPL compared the periods when upper and lower level winds at.both sites blow onshore.
There were 43 cases of concern.in which one station is. extremely unstable (Category A) and the,other is stable (Categories E and F).
Of these, 21 case+.were attributable to meteorological'effects, 21 to equipment failure, and l.to analysis error.
Me. agree with FPL that Turkey Point temperature instru-mentation on the water tower which.is surrounded by sandy soil cauld contribute to the rapid evening stabilization due to building sh,adows and the rapid low-level. cooling due to showers at the. Turkey Point.ate.
- Also, when ocean temperatures modify Turkey Point s stabilities, inlanc5 transport of emissions from Turkey Point would be directed towards a regime. more closely resembling South Dade conditions.
Stabilities between.South Dade and Turkey Point were in phase within 1 or 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for those cases in which
.he ocean influences affected Turkey Point stability.
In conclusion, we support the decommissioning of the Turkey Pointf: tower and the establishment of a program which reasonably represents real-~ime meteoro-logical measurements at the Turkey Point site.
Since South Dade will be used to determine meteorological conditions at the Turkey Point.site, FPL must assure that the South Dade meteorological facility is operational).during the life-time of the Turkey Point plant.
The meteorological program used must:
l.
Transmit the high. level (60m) wind speed/direction sensors an.d the vertical temperature gradient (60m-10m) recordings on the South Dade meteorological tower by telephone lines to the Turkey Point Plant.
'ransmittals wH1 be in analog form and then recorded on strip charts which are continuously displayed in the reactor control room..
2; Low level. wind condi.ions wil,l be measured from a tower located in flat,
- open, unobstructed terrain at the Turkey Point site.
We feel that this program vill adequately represent the real-time meteorological condi.ions at Turkey Point.
0
~\\
I P
4)~
~i'~