ML19206B213
| ML19206B213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1976 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905080066 | |
| Download: ML19206B213 (14) | |
Text
-
- c0 V g >.
OG 2, e recret Pc. 60-38 "E"I'P A"Ct.? FO*' :
- 0. S. Vassallo, f.ssistant Directer f0r Lic*t %t?'-
Reactors, D?"
FW:
D. Voll er, Assistant Di ector for Site 3nalysis, "r SUNECT:
SUCPLE"ENT TO TFE Sro FOR THCEE "ILE ISLw0 *H.'CLEA0 ET9 T!'",
U"IT NO. 2, REG'J. DING CC"PLI ANCE '41TM APPE'mIY I PL VT NA?'E: Three vile Island "uclear Station, Unit No. ?
LICENSING STAGE: OL OCCXET SUMBE0: 50-320 MILESTCHE ELUBEP: N/A DESPCMSIBLE ESM!CH: LWR !.'o. 2 P?NECT "ANAGE*':
- 9. Silver SE00ESTTD CCMPLETICH CATE: Sectenber 10,1976 DESCP,IPTION OF RESP 0MSE: Supolerent to SER 2EVIEW STATUS: Comiete Enclosed is a Sucoleaent to the SER for Three "ile Islanc Nuclear Station, Unit '4c. 2, addressinc conformance with the raquira'"ents of Apcen(*1x I tc 10 CR Part 50.
Based on our evaltiation, the radwaste system are caeable of reducim releases of rarticactive sterials in effluents to "as icw as reasorablv acMeyanic" levels which :eet the individual dose desien cbjectives set forth in 9ctim II.A. 3 and C of Accendix I.
In conformance with Secticn II.E of a wrix 7,
c our cost-Denf. fit analysis corcludes that tsere are no ite s of roisorn%lv de-onstrated technology that,'a>*n added to the system secuentially,can (for a faver3ble cost-Denefit ratic) e#fect reductions in dcse to tre r. cat:le-tien reasonably excected to be within 50 a.iles of the reactor.
Orizmal <:rned by:
Richard 7 Voll=er Ric+1ard it. '!oll-er,.'s si stant Si racter for Site analysis Division of Site Safety and Enviremental Analysir.
e) /, '
Enclosure:
2,i L"g Supole 'ent to SE2 cc:
S. danauer 790SCg(46 H. nenten
/
F. "i ra :lic C
a.
, s.:.
eine s
- _l. "MCY OP summaans e f
un>
Fann AEC 313 (Rav. M3) AICM 0240 TT u. s aovanneisnt womvine orncan i,74.sae. nee
~
e.
y
- ~~--
C. n. "a:salle
?-
cc:
(cont'c)
- 9. Peyrt D. Yuller K. Kniel H. Silver Y. Voora V. Recan J. Norris J. Collins V. Kreger L. Ful an F. Connel W. UcDonald (w/o encl)
J. Danzarella (w/o encl)
- 4. Shuttleworth (w/o encl)
- 9. Eurte P. Stoddart Distribution:
Docket File 50-320 NRR Reading File DSE Reading File ETSB Reading File R. H. Vollmer 9 $ /,
9 *\\
t.-
t-DSE:ETSB % k DSE:ETSB SSE<ETSB DSE Sh /
PGStoddart:lw WC" Burke 4,' Coll i ns
_.RMsJlmer x27775 7
10/20/76 10/.//76 IO/21/76 1.0[d/76 Foam AEC 313 (Esv. b33) AECM 0240 W u. s. novsasenes=7.aiwtime orrects is74.sae see
N SUPPLEMENT TO SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THREE MILr. ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N0. 2 REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIX I 0F 10 CFR PART 50 11.0 Radioactive Waste Manacement By letter of February 23, 1976, the acolicant was recuested to submit additional information concernina the means croposed to be employed to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents from the Three Mile Island Station, Unit No. 2 to unrestricted areas "as lcw as reasonably achievable" in accordance with the guidelines of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and was given the option of providing either a cost-benefit analysis or demonstrating con-formance to the guidelines given in the Annex to Appendix I.
The aoplicant's evaluation was contained in a submittal from R. C.
Arnold, Vice President of Metropolitan Edison Company, to K. Kniel, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2, dated June 4,1976.
In that submittal, Metropolitan Edison Cocoany chose to perform the cost-benefit analysis reouired by Section II.D of Aenendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
We have performed an independent evaluation of the applicant's proposed methods to meet the reouirements of Accendix I.
Our evaluation consisted of:
(1) a review of the inform 7. tion or0vided by the applicant in response to the letter of Febrt.ary 23, 1976; (2) a review of the aoplicant's proposed radwaste treatment and effluent control systems as described in the FSAR, as amended through Amencrent 44 (Sectember 1976) and in the ER, as amended throuch 7 *t 953 c
- t. v
h-
~
. 11.0 Supplement 2 (February 1975); (3) the calculation of new source terms based on models and parameters as given in NUREG-0017
( April 1976), " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)"; and (4) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for potential radwaste systen additions, using doses based on the source terns calculated in (3) abcve and cuidance as civen in Regulatory Guide 1.110, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Dacwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors" (March 1976).
The individual and population doses were calculated using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Averace Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Apperdix I" (March 1976). Meteorologic factors in the dose calculations were determined using the guidance in Reculatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atnoscheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents frcm Routine Releases from Licht-Water-Cooled Reactors" (March 1976).
We have determined the cuantities of radioactive materials that will be released in the liquid and caseous effluent streams durino normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences.
The principal radionuclides expected to be released in licuid and m
gaseous effluents are civen in Tables 1 and 2 of this supplement.
2 $
?.
% 11.0 In making these determinations, we have considered waste ficw rates, concentrations of radioactive materials, and ecuipment decontamination factors, which are consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant, considering normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. A list of the carameters used in these determinations is given in Table 3.
In our evaluation, we considered releases of radioactive naterials in licu 3 and caseous effluents for normal operation includinc anticipated operational occurrences based on expected racwaste inputs over the 30 year operating life of the plant and have determined that:
(1) the release of all radioactive naterials above background in liquid effluents will not result in an annual dose or dose commitment to any individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of 3 millirems to the total body or 10 millirems to any organ; (2) the release of all radioactive materials above backcround in caseous effluents will not result in an estimated annual air dose at any location near cround level which could be occupied by individuals in unrestricted areas in excess of 10 millirads for gamma radiation or 20 m: 111 rads for beta radiation; and (3) the release of all radioactive iodine and radio-active material in particulate form above backcround will not result in an annual dose or dose connitment to any individual in an unrestricted area from all cathways of exposure in excess of 15 millirems to any organ.
e) +
[) < 5-cs as
s
- 11.0 We have also considered the potential effectiveness of augmenting the proposed liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systens using items of reasonably demonstrated technology and have determined that additional augmentation will not effect reductions in the cumulative populati)n dose reasonably expected within an 50 mile radius of the reactJr at a Cost of less than $1,000 per total body man-rem or $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem.
We evaluated potential radwaste systen auaments based on a study of the applicant's system designs, on the dose information pr.vided in Tables 4 and 5 of this supplement, on the basis of an interin value of $1,000 oer total body man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem for reductions in dose by the application cf auoments, and on the cost of potential radwaste system augments as presented in Regulatory Guide 1.110 (March 1976).
Potential radwaste system aucnents were selected fror the list given in Regulatory Guide 1.110. We found that the Tctal Annualized Cost (TAC) for each augment exceeoed the S1,000 per total body man-ren or 31,000 per man-thyroid-rem cost-benefit ratio. We concluded, therefore, that there were no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative cooulation dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the licuid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems are cacable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in licuid and caseous effluents to "as icw
')'
9 'k b ci
s.
5 11.0 as reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50.34a and which meet the recuirements of Aapendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and therefore are acceptable.
-) /s,]
4 9
t.
ci
TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LI0ilID EFFLUENTS FRCM THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 Ci/yr/ reactor Corresion/ Activation Products Fission Products (continued)
C r-51 1.4(-4)
Te-129 7(-5)
Mn-54 1(-3)
I-130 9(-5)
Fe-55 1.4(-4)
Te-131m 5(-5)
Fe-59 8(-5)
I-1 31 4.6(-2)
Co-58 5.3(-3)
Te-132 1.l(-3)
Co-60 8.9(-3)
I-132 2.5(-3)
Zr-95 1.4(-3)
I-133 2.3(-2)
Nb-95 2(-3)
I-134 2(-5)
Np-239 6(-5)
Cs-134 2.6(-2)
Fission Products I-135 4.7(-3)
Br-83 3(-5)
Cs-136 3(-3)
Rb-86 2(-5)
Cs-137 3.4(-2)
Sr-89 3(-5)
Ba-137m 9.3(-3)
Sr-91 1(-5)
Ba-140 1(-5)
Mo-99 3.7(-2)
Ce-144 5.2(-3)
Tc-99m 2.3(-2)
All Others 6(-5)
Ru-103 1.4(-4)
Total (exceot H-3) 2.4(-1)
Ru-106 2.4(-3)
H-3 5.5(+2)
Ag-llCm 4.4(-4)
Te-127m 2(-5)
Te-127 3(-5)
Te-129m 1.1(-4) qa 9 'I 'b us
TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASED OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM TF.REE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N0. 2 Ci/yr/ uni t Waste Gas Condenser Processing Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air Nuclide System Bido Bldg Bldo Removal Vent Total Kr-83m a
a a
a a
a Kr-85m a
1 1
a a
2 Kr-65 280 110 3
a 2
390 Kr-87 a
a a
a a
a Kr-88 a
2 3
a 2
7 Kr-89 a
a a
a a
a Xe-131 m 12 50 2
a a
64 Xe-133m a
35 3
a 2
40 Xe-133 180 5600 250 a
160 6200 Xe-135m a
a a
a a
a Xe-135 a
10 5
a 3
16 Xe-137 a
a a
a a
a Xe-138 a
a a
a a
a I-1 31 a
1.3(-4) 5.5(-3) 1(-3) 3.4(-3) 1(-2) 1-133 a
1.3(-4) 5.8(-3) 1.1',3) 3.6(-3) 1.l(-2)
Co-60 7(-5)D 1.2(-6) 2.7(-4) a a
3.4(-4)
Co-58 1.5(-4) 2.6(-6) 6.4(-4) a a
7.5(-4)
Fe-59 1.5(-5) 2.6(-7) 5(-5) a a
7.5(-5) u -54 4.5(-5) 7.6(-7) 1.8(-4) a a
2.3(-4) n Cs-137 7.5(-5) 1.3(-6) 3(-4) a a
3.8( 4)
Cs-134 4.5(-5) 7.6(-7) 1.8(-4) a a
2.3(-4)
Sr-90 6(-7) 1(-8) 2.4(-6) a a
3(-6)
Sr-89 3.3(-6) 5.9(-8) 1.3(-5) a a
1.6(-5)
C-14 7
1 a
a a
8 H-3 a
280 280 a
a 560 A r-41 a
25 a
a a
25 a - negligible comoared to overall source term, e.g., less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 1( 4) Ci/yr iodine, less than 1*,
of total or particulates b - exponent 1a1 notation: 7(-5) = 7 ( 10-5 Lt
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CCNDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEQUS EFFLUENTS FRCM THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 2800 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Failed Fuel 0.12" (a)
Primary System 5
Mass of Coolant (1bs) 7.2 x 10 Letdcwn Rate (gpm) 45 3
Shim Bleed Rate (god) 1.5 x 10 Leakage to Secondary System (lbs/ day) 100
- Leakage to Containnant Building b
Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (lbs/ day) 160 Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdcwns 2
(per year)
Secondary System 7
Steam Flow Rate (lbs/hr) 1.2 x 10 3 Mass of Steam /Stean Generator (lbs) 1.4 x 104 Mass of Liquid / Steam Generator (lbs) 2.7xg0 Secondary Coolant Mass (lbs) 3 x 10 3
Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg (lbs/hr) 1.7 x 10 Fraction of Feedwater Processed Through Condensate Demineralizers 0.7 3
D Containment Building Volume (ft )
2.1 x 10 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 4 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) 20 Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid)
Leakage to Auxiliary Suilding 0.0075 Steam Generator 1.0 Leakage to Turbine Building 1.0 Main Condenser / Air Ejector (voletile species) 0.15 aThis value is constant and corresponds to 0.12" of the coerating power fission product source term as given in NUREG-0017, Acril 1976.
1*/ day of the primary coolant noble cas inventory and 0.001"/ day of the primary coolant iodine inventory.
L. I L-
Table 3 (cont'd) Decontamination Factors (licuid wastes)
Floor Drain Wastes, Laurdry and Sc on Recovery Inoraanic Chemical Wastes, Hot Shower Systen (PRS)
Recenerant Solutions Drains I
1 x loi 1x10l 1
Cs, Rb 2 x 102 1 x 10 I
5 Others 1 x 10~
l x 10 1
All Nuclides Exceot Iodine Iodine 10l 10f Radwaste Evaporator DF BRS Evaporator DF 10 10 Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides Baron Recycle Feed Demin. DF (H 80 )
10 2
10 3 3 Primary Coolant Letdown Demin.
DF (L130 )
10 2
10 3 3 Evaporator Condensate Polishina Demineralizer (H'0H ) DF 10 10 10
~
Mixed Bed Condensate Demin.
10 2
10 Turbine Air Remov31 System and Containment Buildina Internal Recirculation System Charcoal Filter DF (Iodine Removal) 10 Fuel Handlino Buildinc and Auxiliary Buildino Ventilation Systen Cnarcoal rilter DP (Iodine Removal) 10
- 2. k i'
s
q' TABLE 4 CCPPARISCN OF CALCULATED DOSES FRCM OPERATION WITH SECTI0 tis II.A, II.B AND II.C Or APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 (Doses to Maximum Individual Per Reactor Unit)
Appendix I Dose Calculated Criterion Desian Objective Doses Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mren/yr 1.7 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 2.3 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents bania.: cose in air 10 mead /yr 0.51 mrad /yr Beta dose ir air 20 mead /yr 1.5 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual 5 nren/vr 0.30 mrad /yr Dose to skin of an indiv i dual 15 mrer/yr 1.0 mrem /yr a
Radiciodines and Particulates Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 5.9 mrem /yr aCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
Ls t..
TABLE 5 CALCl! LATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN REM) FOR COST-SENEF:T ANAlfSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50*
Pathway Total Body Thyroid Liouid 7.4 12.0 Gaseous 3.5 4.4
- Based on the copulation reasonably expected to be within a 50 mile radius of the reactor.
e a\\
TABLE 6 PRINCIPAL PARAPETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region I 1.6 a
Indirect Cost Factor 1.75 b
Cost of Money 10%
c Capital Recovery Factor 0.1061 aFrom Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors (Marcn 1976).
bA licant did not provide his cost of money; we used the value of 10% as derived frem a recent Annual Report and Prospectus.
cThe applicant provided a value of 16% as his Capital Recovery Factor. The value of 16% is not consistent with the applicant's cost of money and a 30-year reccvery oeriod and would be nore appropriate as a fixed charce rate; therefore, we have assumed a value of 0.1061 for the Capital Recovery Factor. This assumption does not change the results of our evaluation.
d 9
i.
u\\