ML19256E671
| ML19256E671 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0385, NUREG-0385-S01, NUREG-385, NUREG-385-S1, NUDOCS 7911140422 | |
| Download: ML19256E671 (32) | |
Text
Supplement No.1 to the suREa-oss5 final environmental statement related to operation of DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 INDIANA Et MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY NOVEMBER 1977 Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 1714 272 5011140 h
[
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e
Rea tor Regulat on
Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $4.50 ; Microfiche $3.00 The price of this document for requesters outside of the North American Continent can be obtained from the National Technical Infonnation Service.
\\1\\4 20
NUREG-0385 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO OPERATION OF DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 Af4D 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316 NOVEf1BER 1977 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f tt11SSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1714 274
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES; LIST OF TABLES.......................
11 INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION !.
INTRODUCTION.......................
1 SECTION II.
THE SITE.........................
2 SECTION !!I.
THE PLANT........................
2 SECTION IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITL PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION.......................
2 SECTION V.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PLANT OH PATION.........
2 SECTION VI.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS.......
21 SECTION VII.
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 21 SECTION VIII.
SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY........
21 SECTION IX.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRtTRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES..
21 SECTION X.
THE NEED FOR POWER....................
22 SECTION XI.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND COST-BENEFIT 22 ANALYSIS OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.........
CONCLUSION 22 REFE.'ENCES 23 APPENDIX A.
NEPA POPULATION-DOSE ASSESSMENT.............
A-1 1714 27e-3 i
LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table V-10.
Sumary of Environmental Considerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle...................
4 Table V-Il Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Ltquid Effluents from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2......................
9 Table T-12 Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Ci/yr/ reactor)..........
11 Table V-13 Summary of Atmospheric Dispersion Factors and Deposition Values for Selected Locations Near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant..............
12 Table V-14 Annual Dose Comitments to a Maximun Individual Near the D. C. Cook Plant Due to Gaseous and Partic11 ate Ef fluents..................
13 Table V-15.
Annual Population-Dose Comitments in the Year 2000...
14 Table V-16 Sumary of Hydrologic Transport and Dispersion for Liquid Releases from the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant 14 Table V-17 Annual Individual-Dose Comitments due to Liquid Effluents from the D. C. Cook Plant...........
15 Table V-18 Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor..................
17 Table V-19 hj g sgn SvibuaI" D "h. C bha $Nn IEkb0s$
d ObjectivesofAppendixIto10CFRPart50,SectionsIkn.A.
II.B and II.C and Section II.D. Annex..........
18 Table V-20 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant..............
19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure V-5 Exposure Pathways to Man 10 1714 276 ii
SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO OPERATION OF DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Statewnt Related to Operation of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2 (FES) was issued in August 1973. At that time, it was believed that Unit No. 2 would go into service about a year after Unit No.1. Unit No. I received an operating license on October 25, 1974. Construction of Unit No. 2 was suspended due to financial considerations, but was resumed on a limited basis on August 1, 1975.
The applicant's estimated fuel load date for Unit No. 2 is November 1977. Due to the time that has elapsed since issuance of the FES, the staff asked the applicant to update the Environmental Report (ER).
In response to our request, the applicant has submitted Supplement 4 to the ER, which contains:
1.
An update of status of pemits, approvals, and licenses.
2.
An analysis of the need for the plant.
3.
An updated description of the operational environmental monitoring program.
4.
A sumary and analysis of environmental data, including the Report on the Impact of Cooling Water Use at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear plant, submitted to the Michigan Water Resources Comission as a demonstration under Section 316(a) of the FWPCA.
5.
A discussion of plant design changes and radioactivity doses.
6.
A discussion of regional demography and land use.
7.
A discussion of socioeconomic impact.
In response to staff requests for additional information, the applicant has also submitted a discussion of effects of the thermal plume on the shore icepack and a discussion of the results of the groundwater monitoring program.
The staff has reviewed the FES in light of the infonnation submitted by the applicant and finds that the FES predictions of impact appear to be accurate or conservative.
There are two subjects that are not discussed in the FES in the depth with which they are normally discussed in environmental statements today: socio-economic impact and the environ-mental effects of the uranium fuel cycle. The staff's assessment of these effects is presented in this supplement.
This suDolement also revises the need-for-power and radiological discussions in the FES.
The numbering of sections, tables, and figures below follows that of the FES.
SECTION !.
INTRODUCTION On page I-1, first paragraph, the completion dates for Units 1 and 2 are estimated in the last two sentences. These estimates are out of date. Unit 1 F received an operating license. The applicant's estimated fuel load date for Unit No. 2 is November 1977{asofJuly1977). The updated status of permits, approvals, and licenses is descr bed in ER-Supplement 4 1714 277 i
SECTION !!. THE SITE The FES discussion of regional demography and land use is updated by ER Supplement 4.
SECTION I't.
THE PLANT (R Supplement 4 contains a discussion of plant design changes.
Section 3.2 of the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS ) updates the FES Scction !!I.D.l.a description of the rip-rap bed in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and pipes.
The FES states that phosphate and morpholine will be in the steam generator blowdown which goes into the main circulating water discharge. However, as a result of a 1977 environ-mental protection inspection, it was found that the applicant uses the all-volatile treatment of the steam generator cycle and, therefore, does not discharge phosphate and morpholine in the steam generator blowdown. The steam generator blowdown rate is thereby increased to about 200 gpm.
5(CT!0N IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION Cook Unit No. I has received an operating license. Construction of Unit No. 2 is largely completed (951 as of August 5,1977); the applicant's estimated fuel load date for Unit No. 2. is November 1977 (as of July 1977). No further significant construction impact is expected.
SECTION V.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PLANT OPERATION ER Supplement 4 provides an updated description of the operational environmental monitoring program, a summary and analysis of environmental data (including the Report on the Impact of Coolinq Water Use at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant), a discussion of socioeconomic impact, and a discussion of radioactivity doses. A letter from Indiana and Michigan Power Company dated June 24, 1977 contains a discussion of effects of the thermal plume on the shore ice-pack and a discussion of the results of the groundwater monitoring program.
Some concern was expressed in the FES over attachment of nuisance algae to rip-rap (p. V-7) and impact of absorption-field wastes on local groundwater resources or local biota (p. V-9).
Monitoring results show that no significant impacts have occurred during Unit No.1 operation.4.5 The rock rip-rap on the bottom around the intake and discharge strucutres is apparently serving as a new habitat and thus a source of entrainable crayfi but the FES conclusion that no majorentrainmentimpactsareexpectedremainsunchaged.ghd The FES states morpholine, a toxic substance will be present in very low concentrations in tne blowdown. However, the treatment of the steam generator cycle does not use this substance and it will not be present in the discharge to Lake Michigan.
The ETS (including amendments to the operating license changing the ETS) and environmental operating reports update the FES description of the monitoring programs.
The below discussion supplementsSection V with respect to environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle, socioeconomic impact, and radiological impacts from routine operation.
In other respects, the FES Section V assessment of impacts does not require revision.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE URAN!UM FUEL CYCLE On March 14, 1977, the Commission,sresented in the FEDERAL REGISTER (42 FR 13803) an interim rule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle. It is effective through September 13, 1978 and revises Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part Sl. r:nal rulemaking proceedings will be conducted so as to allow for additional public comment and specific details with respect to time. place, and format of such proceedings shall be presented in a sub';equent FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
The interim rule reflects new and updated information relative to reprocessing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management as discussed in NUREG-Oll6, Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle and NUREG-0216 which presents staf f responses to cornnents on NUREG-Oll6. The rule also considers other environmental factors of the uranium fuel cycle including mining and milling, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, and management of low and high level wastes. These are described in the AEC report WASH 1248. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle.
2 1714 278
Specific categories of retural resource use are included in Table S-3 of the interim rule and are reproduced n fable V-10.
These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, electrical energy use, fossil fuel combustion, chemical and radio-active effluents, burial of transuranic and high/ low level wastes, and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in Table V-10 for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle); that is, the cycle which resulted in the greater impact was used.
In accordance with the interim rule, the assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, is based upon the values given in Table V-10.
For the sake of consistency, the analyses of fuel cycle impacts have been based on a comparison of each Cook Unit with one model 1000 MWe LWR. Our conclusions regarding the effects of these impacts would not be altered if the analysis was based on the net 1054 MWe elec'rical power capacity of each Cook Unit.
The total annual land requirements for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000 MWe LWR is approximately 100 acres (94 acres temporarily committed and 7.1 acres permanently com-mitted). Over the 30-year operating life of Units 1 and 2, this amounts to about 4200 acres.* which is about equal to the total land comitnent for the entire Cook Station.
Considering comon classes of land use in the United States, the fuel cycle land require-ment related to the opet ation of the Station does not constitute a significant impact.
The annual total water usage and thernal ef fluents associated with fuel cycle operations to support a 1000 MWE LWR are giver. in Table V-10.
Since the Cook units wMl utilize a once-thru cooling system, they can be compared to model 1000 MWe plants with once-through cooling referenced in Table V-10.
The water use associated with fuel cycle operations of each Cook Unit is less than 4% of the water consumed in the operation of a model 1000 MWe plant with once-through coolinq. Similarly, the cuantity of heat discharned in fuel cycle operations associated with each Cook Unit is less than M of the thermal output from a model 1000 MWe LWR. The staff finds these quantities of indirect water consumption and thermal loadings to be acceptable relative to the use of water and thermal discharges associated with operation of the Station.
Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel cycle process. The electrical energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. As indicated in Table V-10, electrical energy associated with the fuel cycle represents less than 5% of the annual electrical power production of a typical 1000 MWe nuclear plant. Process heat is primarily generated by the combustion of na+ ural gas. As noted in Table V-10, this gas consumption,if used to generate electricity, would be less than 0.3% of the electrical output from a 1000 We plant. The staff finds, therefore, that both the direct and indirect consumption of electrical energy for fuel cycle operations are small and acceptable relative to the net power production of the power plant.
- The temporarily comitted land at the reprocessing plant is not prorated over 30 years, since the coglete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years. (See footnote "2" to Table V-10).
1714 279 3
I TABLE V-10.
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR URANIUM FUEL CYCLE Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Require-ments Or Reference Reactor Year of
- Natural Resource Use Total Model 1,000 ffWe LWR Land (acres) 2 Tempora ril y corni tted.................
94 Undisturbed area....................
73 Equivalent to 110 MWe coal-fired power.
D i s turbed a rea......................
22 plant Pennanen tly coeni t ted.................
7.1 Overburden moved (millions of MT)......
2.8 Equivalent to 95 tNe coal-fired power-plant Water (millions of gallons)
Discharged to air.....................
159
=2 pct of model 1,000 tNe LWR with cooling Di scha rged to water bodies............ 11.090 tower Discharged to ground..................
124 Total.............................
11,373
<4 pct of model 1,000 MWe LWR with once-through cooling Fossil Fuel Electrical energy (thousands of 321
<5 pct of model 1,000 MWe LWR output megawatt hours)
Equivalent coal (thousands 117 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45 of MT)
MWe coal-fired powerplant Natural gas (millions of scf)......
124
<0.3 pct of model 1,000 MWe energy output.
Effluents-Chemical (MT)
Gases (including entrainment)3 S0x.......................
4,400 N04 1.190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MWe coal-Hybr...............................
ocarbons.......................
14 fired plant for a year.
C0......
29.6 Pa r t i cu l a te s.......................
1,154 Other Gases F....................................
0.67 Principally from UFs production, enrich-ment, and reprocessing. Concentration within range of state standards - below level that has effects on human health.
HC1..................................
0.014 Liquids 50 =.................................
9.9 from enrichment, fuel fabrication, and NO.................................
25.8 reprocessing steps. Components that 3
Fluoride............................
12.9 constitute a potential for adverse CA++.................................
5.4 environmental effect are present in dilute concentratinns and receive additional dilution by receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible standards. The constituents that require dilution and the flow of dilu-NA,................................
12.1 tion water are:
C1'..................................
8.5 3
NH -600 ft /s.
3 NH.................................
10 3
3 N0 -20ft /s.
3 Fe...................................
0.4 Flouride-70 ft /s.
3 Tailings Solutions (thousands of MT).
240 From mills only-no significant effluents to environnent.
So11ds...............................
91,000 Principally from mills-no significant effluents to environment 1714 280
TABLE V-10 (Continued)
Maximum Effect Per Annual Fuel Require-ments or Reference Reactor Year of Natural Resource Use Total Model 1,000 MWe LWR Effluents-Radiological (curies)S....
Gases (including entrainment)
Rn-222.........
74.5 Principally from milling operations and Ra 226.......
0.02 excludes contributions from mining.
Th 230...............
0.02 Uranium.........................
0.034 Tritium (thuusands)........
18.1 C-14..
24 Kr-85 (thousands)...............
400 RU-106.........................
0.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants.
1-129.........................
1.3 I-131.........................
0.83 Fission Products and Transuranics...
0.203 6
Liquids Uranium and Daughters....
7.1 Principally from milling-included in tailings liquor to ground = no effluents; therefore, no effect on environment.
Ra-226..............
.0034 From UFs production Th-230.........................
.0015 Th-234......
.01 From fuel fabrication plants-concentration 10 pct of 10 CFR 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel requirements for model LWR.
Fission and activation products. 5.9x10 6 Solids (buried on site)
Other than high level (shallow). 11,300 9,100 Ci comes tram low-level and 1,500 C1 comes from reactor decontamination and decorrissioning-buried at land burial facilities. 600 Ci comes from mills-included in tailings returned to ground; 60 C1 comes from conversion and spent fuel storage. No significant effluent to the environment.
TRU and HLW (deep)...
........ 1.1x107 Buried at Federal repository Effluents-themal (billions of 3,462
<4 pct of model 1,000 MWe LWR.
British themal units)
Transportation (person-rem);
2.5 Exposure of workers and general public.
Occupational exposure (person-rem)..
22.6 From reprocessing and waste management I 0ata supoorting this table are given in the "Environrental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,"
WASH-1248, April 1974; the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-Oll6 (Supp.1 to WASH-1248); and the " Discussion of Coments Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste flanagement Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248). Tht contributions from reprocessing, waste management and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel to a reacto' and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor which are considered in Table S-4 ofsec. 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A-E of Table S-3A of WASH-1248.
1714 281
TABLE V-10 (Continued) 2The contributions te temporarily committed land from processing are not prorated over 30 years since the complete temporary impact accrues regardless of wnether the plant services I reactor for 1 yr or 57 reactors for 30 yr.
Estimated effluents based upor, combustion of equivalent coal for power generation.
4 1.2 pct from natural gas use and process.
5Gaseous effluents from waste management contribute about 9 person-rem (total body to offsite U.S. population per annual fuel requirement or reference reactor year for the uranium only recycle option. This contribution for the no recycle option is 170 person-rem. For comparison, all radiological gaseous effluents from fuel cycle operations contribute about 370 person-rem (total body) to offsite U.S. population per annual fuel requirement or reference reactor year.
This dose is <0.002 pct of the average natural background radiation dose to this population.
Fuel reprocessing contributes about 330 person-rem (total body) of the total of 370 person-rem to offsite U.S. population: Person-rem is an expression for the summation of whole body doses to individual in a group. Thus, if each member of a population group of 1,000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem)", or if 2 people were to receive a dose of 0.5 rem (500 milirem) each, the total person-rem dose in each case would be 1 person-rem.
The dose to the offsite U.S. population due to average natural background radiation is about 2 x 107 person-rem per year. The Comission's final environmental statement on use of mixed-oxide fuel in LWR's (NUREG-002) indicates a maximum release of about 4800 Ci of Rn-222 when contribution from mining are included. NUREG-002 also indicates that mining contributes about 500 person-rem (total body) and that milling contributes about 100 person-rem (total body) of a total of about 610 person-rem (total body) to offsite U.S. population per manual fuel requirement.
6Liquid radiological effluents from reprocessing and waste management activities in the fuel cycle contribute 1.4x10% person-rem (total body) to offsite U.S. population per annual fuel requirement or reference reactor year. For comparison all radiological liquid effluents from fuel cycle operations contribute about 100 person-rem (total body) of offsite U.S. population per annual fuel requirement or reference reactor year. This dose is <0.0005 pct of the average natural background radiation dose to this population.
e d
6 1714 282
The quantities of chemical gaseous and particulate effluents associated with fuel cycle processes are given in Table V-10.
The principal species are 50, N0x and particulates.
x Based upon data in a CEQ Report,* the staff finds that thest. emissions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading in comparison to the the same emissions from the stationary fuel combustion and transportation sectors in the U.S., i.e., approx-imately.02% of the annual (1974 tase) rational releases for each of these species. The staff believes such small increases in releases of these pollutants are acceptable.
Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing operations and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in dilute concentrations such that onl.v small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels of concentration that are within established standards. Table V-10 specifies the flow of dilution water required for specific constit-uents. Additionally, all liquid discharges into the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the fuel cycle operations will be subject to requirements and limitations set forth in an NPDES permit issued by an appropriate State or Federal regulatory agency.
Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions are solids and are not released in significant quantities to create an impact upon the environ-ment.
v Radioactive effluents released to the environment estimated to result from reprocessing and waste management activities and other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table V-10.
It is estimated that the overall gaseous dose cc mitment to the U.S.
population from fuel cycle operations for a 1000 MWe referenc. reactor would be approxi-mately 370 man-rem per year. This dose is less than 0.002%
- the average natural back-ground dose of approximately 20,000,000 man-rem to the U.S. population. Based on Table V-10 values, the additional dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid effluents due to these fuel cycle operations would be approximately 100 man-rem per year for a 1000 MWe reference reactor. Thus, the overall estimated annual involuntary dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle for a 1000 MWe LWR is approximately 470 man-rem. This is higher than the small involuntary annual dose to the public from operating the Statior.
The occupational dose from the fuel cycle is 22.6 man-rem per reference reactor year.
This represents approximately 5% of the occupational dose associated with operation and maintenance of each unit of the Station.
The quantities of buried radioactive material (including low level, high level and transuranic wastes) are specified in Table V-10.
For low level wastes, which are buried at land burial facilities, the Commission notes in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20 that there will be no significant effluent to the environment. For high level and transuranic wastes, the Comission notes that these are to be buried at a Federal Repository and, in accord-ance with Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20, no release to the environment is associated with such disposal. NUREG-Oll6 which provides background and context for the new values established by the Comission, indicates that these buried wastes, which are placed in the geosphere, ara not released to the biosphere and no radiclogical environmental impact is anticipated from them.
The transportation dose to workers and the public is specified in Table V-10.
This dose is small and is not considered significant in comparison to the natural background dose.
The use of a fuel cycle entailing no recycle (neither plutonium nor uranium) would not affect the discussion above, since as described in footnote 1 of Table V-10, the Commission has considered such a cycle in developing the values given in Table V-10 with respect to reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes.**
- "The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality," September 1976, Figures 11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-239.
- As noted in Table V-10 the entry for Randon-222 excludes the contributions from mining.
Footnote 5 to Table V-10 indicates a maximum release of about 4800 Ci of Radon-222 when contributions from mining are considered. This,in turn, would increase the estimated dose comitment for the total fuel cycle by some 600 man-rem per reference reactor year, maximized for the no recycle case. Although this is larger than the dose commitment due to other elements of the fuel cycle, it is still small compared to the natural background exposure leve' of some 20,000,000 man-rem per year.
1714 283
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT The operation of the station will provide employment for about 350 people, according to Supple-ment 4 to the Environment Report, and the estimated annual local property taxes are $6.5 million.
Any adverse socio-economic impact of the station, such as increased school enrollment and use of service facilities, will be more than offset by these tax revenues.
RADI0 ACTIVE-WASTE SYSTEMS Part 50.34a of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires an applicant for a construc-tion permit for a nuclear power reactor to include a preliminary description of the design of equipuent that will be installed to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents to unre-stricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable." That phrase takes into account the state of technology and the economics of improvement in relation to benefits to the public health and safety and other societal and socioeconomic considerations and in relatior. to the utilization of nuclear energy in the public interest. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance on design objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents caleased to unrestricted areas be kept as low as is reason-ably achievable.
To meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a. the applicant has provided preliminary designs of radwaste systems and effluent-control measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable within the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and the requirements of the Annex to Appendix I dated September 4, 1975, elected in lieu of performing a cost-benefit analysis as required by Section !!.D of Appendix I.
In addition, the applicant has provided an estimate of the quantity of each principal radionuclide expected to be released annually to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents produced from normal operation, including anticipated operation occurrences.
The staff's detailed evaluation uf the radwaste systems and the capability of these systems to meet the requiremetns of Appendix ! are presented in Chapter 11 of the Safety Evaluation Report. The quantities of radioactive material calculated by the staff to be released from the plant are also presented in Chapter 11 of the Safety Evaluation Report and in this supplement with the calculated doses to individuals and the population that will result from these effluent quantities.
RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM ROUTINE OPERATION Radiological Impact on Man The impact on man associated with the routine release of radioactive effluents from the D.C.
Cook facility has been calculated. The quantities of radioactive material that may be released annually from the plant are calculated based on the description of the radwaste system given in the D.C. Cook environmental report and using the calculated models described in NUREG-0017.
Using these quantities and site environs infomation, the dose comitments to individuals are calculated using models and considerations discussed in detail in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
Additional assumptions and models described in Appendix A of this supplement were used to estimate integrated population doses.
Exposure Pathways The environmental pathways that were considered are shown in Figure V-5.
Calculations of radia-tion doses to man at and beyond the site boundary were based cn NRC staff estimates of expected effluents as shown in Tables V-11 and V-12, site meteorological and hydrological considerations, and exposure pathways at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
Inhalation of air and ingestion of food (and water) containing tritium, carbon-14, radiocesium, and radiocobalt are estimated to account for essentially all of total-body radiation-dose comitments to individuals and the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant.
Dose Comitments from Radioactive Releases to the Atmosphere Radioactive effluents released to the atmosphere from the D.C. Cook plant will result in small radiation doses to the public. Gaseous and particulate release quantities listed in Table V-12 and the site meteorological ca.isiderations sumarized in Table V-13 were used to calculate radiation doses *o individuals and populations. The results of the calculations are discussed below.
1714 284
Radiation-Dose Commitments to Individuals The calculated dose commitments to " maximum individuals at the offsite locations where doses are expected to be largest are listed in Table V-14.
A maximum individual is assumed to consume well-above-average quantities of the foods considered (see Table A-2 in Pegulatory Guide 1.109).
The standard NRC models were used in order to model features of the D.C. Cook plant design and the site envirans realistically.
Radiation-Dose Cocnitments to PopLlations The calculated annual radiation-dose cormitments to the population [(within 80 km (50 mi.)] of the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant from gaseous and particulate releases were based on the projected population distribution for the yea: 2000. Doses beyond the 80 km radius were based on the average population densities discussed in Appendix A.
The annual population-dose commitments are presented in Table V-15.
Background-radiation doses are provided for comparison. The doses from atmospheric releases from the D.C. Cook plant during normal operation represent an extremely small increase in the normal population dose from background-radiation sources.
Dose Cemitments from Radioactive Liquid Releases to the Hydrosphere Radioactive effluents released to the hydrosphere from the D.C. Cook plant during nonr.al opera-tion will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations. The quantities of liquid releases listed in Table V-Il and the site hydrological considerations sunnarized in Table V-16 were used to estimate radiation dose coccitments to individuals and populations. The results of the calculations ara discussed below.
TABLE V-il.
CALCULATED PELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM THE D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Nuclide C1/yr/ reactor Nuclide Ci/yr/ reactor Corrosion and Activation Products Fission Products Cr-51 1.2(-4)a I-130 1.l(-4)
Mn-54 1(-3)
Te-131m 7(-5)
Fe-55 1.l(-4)
Te-131 1(-4)
Fe-59 7(-5)
I-131 2(-1)
Co-58 5.1(-3)
Te-132 1.2(-3)
Co-60 8.8(-3) 1-132 3(-3)
Zr-95 1.4(-3)
I-133 4.7(-2)
Nb-95 2(-3)
I-134 1.2(-4)
Np-239 4(-5)
Cs-134-2.2(-2)
I-135 4(-3)
Fission Produce Cs-136 4(-3)
Cs-137 3(-2)
Br-83 3 -5)
Ba-137m 5(-3)
Rb-86 3 -5)
Ba-140 1(-5)
Rb-88 1.Si-3)
La-140 1(-5)
Sr-89 3(-5)
Ce-144 5.2(-3)
Mo-99 4(-3)
Tc-99m 6.6(-3)
All Others 6(-5)
Ru-10?
1.4(-4)
Total Ru -10t, 2.4(-3) except tritium 0.36 Ag-110m 4.4(-4)
Te-127m 2(-5)
Tritium 670 Te-127 4(-5)
Te-129m 9(-5)
Te-129 1.6(-4)
-4 a = exponential notation,1.2(-4) = 1.2 x 10 1714 285 9
GASEOUS E FFLUENT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 5
E LIQUID 3
EFFLUENT s
g s
[
s g
- d y
g
- o.,-,
g
(
o, irra<iiation k
~
g FUEL TRANSPORT
~
- Is horeline g Nr?lh,,.04r,,o
~~
kI gho
/
',Atp& &4h8GQ&O c'**
%g %, -
cD i, A,igae
- s
~
[e
{
'e p
^
9
\\
l_
. ~
e~...
skv A
= ;[
/
=
o r
~--
a D
~
~
I-
,
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN FIGURE V-5 10 1714 286
TABLE V-12.
CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM THE D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (CI/YR/ REACTOR)
Unit Vent Auxiliary Building Containment Waste Gas Decay Turbine Building Nuclide Ventilation Purge Tank Purge ~
Air Ejector Vent Vents Total Kr-85m 2
3 a
1 a
6 a
10 260 a
a 270 Kr-85 Kr-87 1
a a
a a
l Kr-88 4
3 a
2 a
9 a
17 18 a
a 35 Xe-131m Xe-133m 3
37 a
2 a
42 Xe-133 150 3400 83 96 a
3700 Xe-135 6
16 a
4 a
26 I-131 4.2(-2)c 2.1(-3) a 2.6(-2) 1.6(-3) 7.2(-2)
I-135 5.9(-2) 2.8(-3) a 3.7(-2) 1.5(-3) 1(-1)
Mn-54 1.8(-4) b 4.5(-5) b b
2.3(-4)
Fe-59 6(-5) b 1.5(-5) b b
7.6(-5)
Co-58 6(-4) b 1.5(-4) b b
7.6(-4)
Co-60 2.7(-4) b 7(-5) b b
3.4(-4)
Sr-89 1.3(-5) b 3.3(-6) b b
1.6(-5)
Sr-90 2.4(-6) b 6(-7) b b
3(-6)
Cs-134 1.8(-4) b 4.5(-5) b b
2.3(-4)
Cs-137 3(-4) b 7.5(-5) b b
3.8(-4)
C-14 a
8 a
a a
8 A -41 a
25 a
a a
25 Tritium 340 340 680 N
a = less than CD Ci/yr for noble gases and carbon-14, less than 10-4 Ci/yr for iodine
~
b = less than 1% of total for this nuclide A
c = exponential notation; 8.1(-4) = 8.1 x 10~4 N
CD N
TABLE V-13.
SUMMARY
OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS AND DFTOSIIION VALUES FOR SELECTED LOCATIONS NEAR THE D.C. COOK NUCLEAP PLANT" Relative b
Location Source y/Q(sec/m*[
Deposition (m-2) c Nearest site boundary A
2.3 E-5 7.9 E-8 (0.38 Mi N)
B 5.8 E-5 2.0 E-7 C
4.9 E-5 1.7 E-7 0
2.3 E-5 7.9 E-8 E
2.3 E-5 7.9 E-8 e
Nearest residence A
9.2 E-7 4.8 E-9 garden and milk cow B
2.7 E-6 1.4 E-8 (1.8 Mi ENE)
C 2.3 E-6 1.2 E-8 0
9.2 E-7 4.8 E-9 E
9.2 E-7 4.8 E-9 "The doses presented in subsequent tables are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud deple-tion from deposition, where appropriate, in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors," March 1976.
bSources:
A - Unit vent, continuous release.
B - Unit vent, intermittent releases, 24 containment purges / year, two hours each purge.
C - Unit vent, intermittent releases, 15 waste gas decay tank purges / year, eight hours each purge.
D - Steam Jet Air Ejector Vent, continuous release.
E - Turbine Building roof exhausters, continuous release.
C" Nearest" refers to that type of location where t5c highest radiation dose is expected to occur from all appropriate pathways.
1714 288
TABLE V-14.
ANNUAL DOSE COMMITMENTS TO A MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL NEAR THE D.C. COOK PLANT DUE TO GASE0US AND PARTICULATE EFFLUENTS Dose (mrem /yr) location Pathway Total Body Gi Tract Bone Liver Thyroid Lung Skin a
Nearest Plume 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.48 residence, garden Ground deposit b
b b
b b
b b
and milk cow Inhalation (teen) 0.10 0.10 b
0.10 0.18 0.10 0.10 (1.8 mi ENE)
Vegetation (child) 0.32 0.32 0.060 0.33 0.62 0.32 0.32 Milk (infant) 0.21 0.20 0.070 0.23 5.8 0.20 0.20 a
Nearest Plume 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 10.0 site Ground deposit 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.10 boundary Inhalation (teen) 2.2 2.2 b
2.2 4.2 (child) 2.2 2.2 (0.38 mi N) a" Nearest" refers to that type of location where the highest radiation dose is expected to occur from all appropriate pathways.
bless than 0.01 mrem /yr.
N CO
TABLE V-15.
ANNUAL POPULATION-DOSE COMMITMENTS IN THE YEAR 2000 Population-Dose Commitment (man-rem)
Category 80 km U. S. Population a
D c
Natural radiation background 140,000 27,000,000 D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant operation Plant work force d
1,000 General public total Noble-gases submersion e
1.6 Inhalation e
2.0 Ground deposition e
e Terrestrial foods e
48 Drinking water e
e Aquatic foods e
e Recreation e
e Transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes d
7 a" Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States," U. S. Environmenta rotection Agency, ORP-SID 72-1, June 1972.
b a
using the average Michigan State background dose (107 mrem /yr) in, and year 2000 projected population of 1,388,000.
c a
Using the average U. S. background dose (102/ mrem /yr) in, and year-2000 projected U. S.
population from " Population Estimates and Projections," Series II, U.S. Dept. of Comerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 541, February 1975.
d!ncluded in the U. S. population, because some exposure is received by persons residing outside the 80 km (50 mi) radius.
'Less than 1 man-rem /yr.
TABLE V-16.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROLOGIC TRANSPORT AND DISPERgION FOR LIQUID RELEASES FROM THE D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT Location Transit Time (hours)
Dilution Factor Nearest drinking - water intake 12 2.6 (Lake Township,.5 mi SW) fishing location 24 1.0 Nearest sport (outfall area)5 Nearest shoreline 0
2.5 (Rosemary Beach,.5 mi N)
See Regulatory Guide 1.112. " Analytical Models for Estimating Radioisotope Concentrations in a
Different Water Bodies," 1976.
bAssumed for purposes of an upper-limit estimate.
1714 290 14
Radiation-Dose Comitments to Individuals The calculated dose comitments to individuals at selected offsite locations where exposure are expected to be largest are listed in Table V-17.
The standard NRC dose models given in Regula-tory Guide 1.109 were used for these analyses.
Radiation-Dose Commitments to Populations The calculated radiation-dose cocinitments to the population out to 80 km (50 mi) from the D.C.
Cook plant from liquid' releases, based on the use of water and biota from Lake Michigan are shown in Table V-15.
Dose comitments beyond 80 km were based on th2 assumptions discussed in Appendix A.
Background-radiation doses are provided for comparison. The dose comitments from liquid re-leases from the D.C. Cook plant represent small increases in the population doses from back-ground radiation sources.
Direct Radiation Radiation from the Facility Radiation fields are produced in nuclear-plant environs as a result of radioactivity contained within the reactor and its associated components. Doses from sources within the plant are pri-marily due to nitrogen-16, a radionuclide produced in the reactor core. Inasmuch as the pri-mary coolant of a PWR is contained in a heavily shielded area of the plant, dose rates in the vicinity of PWRs are generally undetectable (less than 5 mrem /yr).
Low-level-radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 mrem / year at the site boundary.
Occupational Radiation Exposure Based on a review of the PSAR, the staff has determined that the applicant is comitted to design features and operating practices that will assure that individual occupational radiation doses can be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and thpt individual and total plant-population doses will be as low as is reasonably achievable TABLE V-17.
ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL-DOSE COMMITMENTS DUE TO LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM THE D.C. COOK PLANT Dose (mrem /yr) location Pa thway Total Body Bone Liver Thyroid W Gi Tract Nearest lake Drinking water 0.051 a
0.061 0.68 0.050 0.050 Water use (Lake Township)
(infan!.)
Nearest fish Fish (adult) 0.25 0.24 0.34 0.14 0.044 0.042 production (child)
(teen)
(outfall area)b Nearest shoreline Sediments a
a a
a a
a (Rosemary Beach)
(teen)
"Less than 0.01 mrem /yr.
bAssumed for purposes of an upper-limit estimate.
1714 20 15
For the purpose of portraying the radiological impact of the plant operation on all onsite per-sonnel, it is necessary to estimate a man-rem occupational radiation dose. For a plant designed and proposed to be operated in a manner consistent with 10 CFR Part 20, there will be many variables that influence exposure and make it difficult to determine a quantitative total occu-pational radiation dose for a specific plant. Therefore, past exposure experience with operat-ing nuclear power plants has been used to provide a widely applicable estimate to be used for all light-water-reactor power plants of the type and size proposed for D.C. Cook.2 This experi-ence indicates a value of 500 man-rem per year per reactor unit.
On this basis, the projected occupational radiation-exposure impact of two-unit D.C. Cook plant is estimated to be 1000 man-rem per year.
Transportation of Radioactive Material The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel-reorocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to burial grocnds is with-in the scope of the NRC report entitled, " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plant." The environmental effects of such transportation are surinarized in Table V-18.
Comparison of Dose-Assessment Models The applicant's site and environmental data provided in the ER and in subsequent answe.s to NRC staff questions was used extensively in the dose calculations. Any additional data received that could significantly affect the conclusions reached in this supplement will be used in any later calculation.
Evaluation of Radiological Impact The actual radiological impact associated with the operation of the proposed D.C. Cook nuclear plant will depend, in part, on the manner in which the radioactive waste treatment system is operated. Based on the NRC staf f's evaluation of the potential performance of the radwaste system, it is concluded that the system as proposed is capable of meeting the curie-release and the dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
Table V-19 compares the calculated curie-releases and maximum individual doses to the design objective values. However, since the facility's operation will be governed by operating license technical specifications, and since the technical specifications will be based on the design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, as shown in Table V-19, the actual radiological impact of plant operation may result in releases and doses close to the design objective values. Even if this situation exists, however, the indivi-dual doses will still be very small when compared to natural background doses (s100 mrem /yr) or of the dose limits specified in 10 CFR 20 (500 mrem /yr). As a result, the staff has concluded that there will be no measurable radiological impact on man from routine operation of the D. C. Cook plant.
OH 292 16
TABLE V-18.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL AND WASTEa TO AND FROM ONE LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR Normal Conditions of Transport Heat (per irradi;ted fuel cask in transit) 260 MJ/hr Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions) 33,000 kg per truck; 90 tonnes per cask per rail car.
Traffic density Truck less than 1 per day Rail Less than 3 per month Estimated Range of Doses Number of to Exposed Cumuladve Dose to b
Exposed Persons Individuals Exposed Population Population Exposed (per reactor year)
(per reactor year)c Transportation 200 0.01 to 300 millirems 4-man-rem workers General public Onlookers 1,100 0.003 to 1.3 millirems 3 man-rems Along route 600,000 0.0001 to 0.06 millirem Accidents in Transport Environmental Risk d
Radiological effects Smali Cormon (nonradiological) causes 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; 1 nonfatal injury in 10 react 3r years; $475 property damage per reactor year.
aData supporting this table are given in the Commission's Environmental Survey of Transporta-tion of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1238, December 1972 and Supp. I, NUREG 75/038, April 1975.
bThe Federal Rad;ation Council has recomended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other thcn natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5000 mil-lirems per year for individuals as a result of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirems per year for individuals in the general population. The dose to individuals due to average natural background radiation is about 102 millrems per year.
CMan-rem is an expression for the sumation of whole-body doses to individuals in a group.
Thus, if each member of a population group of 1000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if two people were to receive a dose of 0.5 rem (500 millirems) each, the total cumulative dose in each case would be 1 man-rem.
dAlthough the environmental risk of radiological effects steming from transportation accidents cannot currently be numerically quantified, the risk remains small regardless of whether it is being applied to a single-reactor or multireactor site.
1714 293 17
TABLE V-19.
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED CURIE-RELEASES AND DOSES TO A MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL FROM D. C. COOK OPERATION WITH DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF (MAY 5,1975)Q 10 CFR PART 50, SECTIONS II.A. !!.B AND II.CAND SEC APPENDIX I T b
Annex to a
Appendix l Appendix I Calculated Releases c
Design Objective Design Objectives and Dosesd Liquid effluents 5 Ci/yr/ reactor 0.36 Ci/yr/ reactor (excluding tritium and dissolved gases)
Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem /yr/ unit 5 mrem /yr/ site 0.28 mrem /yr/ site Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr/ unit 5 mrem /yr/ site 0.68 mrem /yr/ site Noblems effluents (at site boundary)
Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr/ unit 10 mrad /yr/ site 5.9 mrad /yr/ site Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr/ unit 20 mrad /yr/ site 16 mrad /yr/ site Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr/ unit 5 mrem /yr/ site 3.6 mrem /yr/ site Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr/ unit 15 mrem /yr/ site 10 mrem /yr/ site Radioiodines and Particulates' 1 Ci/yr/ reactor 0.072 Ci/yr/ reactor I-131 Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr/ unit 15 mrem /yr/ site 6 mrem /yr/ site (at a residence with a garden and milk cow) a
~
federal Register, V. 40, p.19442, May 5,1975.
Federal Register, V. 40, p. 40816. September 4, 1975.
cDose Design Objectives are on a site basis. Therefore, these design objectives apply to the 2 units at the site.
dPer site basis
' Carbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
Radiological Impact on Biota Other Than Man Dapending on the pathway and the radiation source, terrestrial and aquatic biott will receive doses about the same or somewhat higher than man receives. Although guidelines have not been established for acceptance limits for radiation exposure to species other than man, it is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are also conservative for other species.
Eyperience has shown that it is the maintenance of population stability that is crucial to the survival of a species,and species in most ecosystems suffer rather high mortality rates from natural causes. Although the existence of extremely radiosensitive biota is possible, and where-as increased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environmental interactions with other stresses (e.g., heat, biocides, etc.), no biota have yet been discovered that show a sensitivity (in terms of increased morbidity or mortality) to radiation-exposure as low as those expected in the area surrounding the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Furthermore, at all the plants for which an analysis of radiation exposure to biota other than man has been made, there have been no cases of exposures that can be considered significant in terms of harm to the sDecies 9r that approach the exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20 to members of the public. The BEIR Report con-cludes that the evidence indicates that no other living organisms are very much more radiosen-sitive than man; thus, no measurable radiological impact on populations of biota is expected from the radiation and radioactivity released to the biosphere as a result of the routine operation of' the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant.
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS: RADIOLOGICAL Radiological Environnental Monitoring Radiological environmental monitoring programs are established to provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluent during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, and resultant radioactive doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure be evaluatec Monitoring programs are conducted to verify the effectiveness of in-plant controls used for reoxing the release of radioactive materials and to provide public reassurance that undetected radioactivity will not build up in the environment. A surveillance program is established to identify changes in the use of unrestricted areas to provide a basis for modifications of the monitoring programs.
18 I714 294
fo t
h snt seou nr o
oass s.
s tnkd iee s
s e
e e
e a
an dl dl dl dl t et a np np np np sh n am am am am tih a
a a
a r
t rs rs rs rs oerr o
o o
o tdeo td td td td aut n an an an an cl a t
cu cu cu cu cwen s
io io i o o
idn k a k
d r dr d r idr nical r
ng ng ng ng i
il p a
ik ik ik ik ll m
c c
c c
ol b ee e
ya ya ya ya wi u h h R
Bb Bb Bb Bb T wptt T
NAL
)
)
P 0
s s
9 e
e R
)
l l
A l
s l
l p
l o
E af e a
a 9f m af m L
rol 0) r r
0 8oa roa C
t p
9 e t
t) 9)
s t
s U
a cem
- t c
ce
- e re ce N
t eta ri e
et rt Std etd s
e pi s Ss p
pi Si ie pi e K
i B
Ss o
S Ss
,s mst Sst O
es oy
,p o
o uoc oc O
py s
a pl 9 m a
ap 9p i pe ape C
yl s
moe mk 8o m
mm 8m t ml mol ml Ta o
C m
mo
- o iol n
r ace r(
a aC rC rCo aCo C
A G
G( w S
G G(
S(
T( c G( c D
LA NO y
D l
s l
s M
k a
k A
y w
y u
y w
R sc l
n l
G i n 4
r y
n r
4 O
se y
e y
l a
e R
yu l
y t
l h
t y
P l q k
r r
k t
i r
r ae e
e a
e n
m a
e G
nr e
v u
e o
e u
v N
AF W
E Q
W M
S Q
E I
R OT I
NOM h
L s.
c sst A
n k
k ra T
oy w
wub N
i c o
- E t n 4
4hae M
ce y
y s
N eu l
l y
y4 r a O
l q k
k r
r2ee R
l e e
e e
e tl I
or e
e v
vrf e V
CF W
W E
Eoar N
E L
AC I
GO L
O I
D A
s R
n.
og ik tB 4
4 4
2 0
a 2
t -
S V
.d E
on L
NI 6
6 6
5 BAT gn i
t e
t t
1 i
a 3
m l
1 c
e u
i e
p c
I t
r p
y i
a e
T t
e t
t r
r n
i a
e e
a r
p W
h l
P o
i t
p b
c e
a m
r r
e k
e a
i r
a w
S A
Ai P
L T
sy
> N@J g
(
y l
e n
r o
a n
t o
n i
e t
m r
e o
r p
i s
u k
e q
r l
e a
b r
m i
e d
s R
E i
h t
gn i
t e
l l
l l
l l
e a
a a
a a
a m
r r
r r0 r0 r
t t
t t9 t9 t
s c
c c
c-c-
e c
n e
e0 e0 er er s
e o
s p
p9 p9 pS pS o
p i
m S
S S
S S
D S
t i
es u
a py i
a a9 a9 1
a9 a9 l
a c
m m-m8 m8 m8 m8 m
3 a
o yl t
Ta i
1 t
l n
r a
ar ar ar ar o
a A
T G
GS GS I
GS GS T
G ruo f
n a
s h
k t
w y
y r
sc 8
l y
e i n 1
y y
r l
w
)
se r
r l
l r
e l
e d
yu y
a a
h h
a t
a f
e l q r
e e
t t
e r
u u
ae e
y y
n n
y a
n f
n nr v
/
/
o o
/
u n
I i
AF E
2 2
M M
2 Q
A tno t
C n
(
a l
0 p
2 e
s V
k h
n w
t E
oy y
d y
f e L
ic 8
l y
r l
oc B
t n 1
A ce r
r l
r e
l u
T eu y
a a
h a
t a
sd l q r
e e
t e
r u
ee l e e
y y
n y
a n
l r or v
/
/
o
/
u n
i CF E
2 2
M 2
Q A
me b
evy ia f m ns in ho ti i t wa t
s es n.
b og r
ik 0
2 2
3 2
4 l o tB l t a
aa t -
h c S
si d
.d sn on ni NI 7
2 2
4 2
6 o
if to a
t r seb rm ou t n ace
)
ih ne dt ol n
e i b i,
p r
ta d
e y
e sal o
rl T
t mti t
o ub a
csea n
F oa e
W iigv e
fl l
tnea m
ns i
p l
h aaV k
i ap ea m
l s
ug s
l d
D mo h v i
e L
ur Ta a
e i
qrra S
W F
AOo(
M S
T HC s
.N.
N@O E
The preoperational phase of the monitoring program provides the measurement of background levels and their variations along the anticipated important pathways in the area surrounding the plant, the training of personnel, and the evaluation of procedures, equipment and techniques.
This is discussed in greater detail in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev. 1, " Programs for Moni-toring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," and the Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, August 1977, " Standard Technical Specification for Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program."
Preoperational Programs The preoperational phase of the applicant's radiological environmental monitoring program was initiated in July 1971 and is discussed in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) issued in August 1973. Sample collection and analyses were performed according to the schedule outlined in Table V-9 of the FES.
Operational Programs The operational radiological environmental monitoring program for Unit I was begun shortly aft 6r the issuance (in October 1974) of the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental Technical Specifica-tions. Sample collection and analyses have been performed according to the schedule outlined in Table 4.2-1 of the Environmental Technical Specifications. This schedule is reproduced in Table V-20.
The ongoing operational radiological environmental monitoring program as shown in Table V-20 is acceptable for Unit 2's operational program. However, the program will be modified later to update it in accordance with the Radiological Assessment Branch's Technical Position referred to previously.
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Although the applicant's ongoing operational program for radiological environmental monitoring is generally acceptable, it should be updated to reflect the recommendations described in the Radiological Assessment Branch's Technical Position at some future time..
This updating should be performed at the time when the applicant provides the NRC staff with the revised technical specifications to implement Appendix ! to 10 CFR 50.
SECTION VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS The assessment of the environmental impact of postulated accidents remains unchanged from the FES.
SECTION VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE tVOIDED The assessment of adverse environmental effects which cantot be avoided remains unchanged from the FES.
SECTION VIII. SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The assessment of the relationship between short-term uses and long-tern productivity remains unchanged from the FES.
SECTION IX.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE C0tfilTMENT OF RESOURCES The assessment of resources that will be irreversibly or irretrievably comitted by the plant remains unchanged from the FES.
1714 297 2i
SECTION X.
THE NEED FOR POWER The following discussion updates and supplements the FES Section X discussion of need for power.
A.
CAPACITY RESERVE As stated in the FES, I&M (Indiana and Michigan Electrir. Company) is an operating sub-sidiary of AEP (American Electric Power Company) and its generating capacity is fully integrated with the AEP system. Because the planning and construction of new gener-Sting capacity is done by AEP on a system-wide basis, the discussion of the need for the stat' a is done in this context.
The most recent forecast of AEP System peak loads and generating capacity is shown in Table 2-2 of Supplement 4 to the Environmental Report. The staff agrees with the appli-cant's forecast. The goal of 20% reserves will be achieved in 1978 if Cook Unit No. 2 comes on line as scheduled. If other generating unit additions are placed in service as presently scheduled AEP System reserves will be marginally adequate through the sumer of 1983. However, if Cook Unit No. 2 is not placed in service as currently scheduled, reserves will be inadequate during and af ter the 1978/79 winter period, dropping to 11.7% in winter 1978/79.
B.
COST CONSIDERATIONS The only expenses that can be avoided by not operating Cook Unit No. 2 (Unit No. 1 is already licensed to operate) are operation and maintenance cost and fuel cost.
There is no significant difference in operation and maintenance (0&M) cost between nuclear units and fossil fueled units in the AEP System. In 1976, O&M costs for Cook Unit No. I were 1.03 mills /KWH while average O&M costs for all fossil-fueled Thus, system energy production costs will be lower with units were 1.02 mills /KWH.
Cook Unit No. 2 in operation if its fuel costs are less than other costs on the AEP System.
Fuel costs for Cook Unit No. 2 are estimated at 3.58 mills /KWH in 1978. Except for the oil-fired Twin Branch Plant (240 MW), all of the fossil-fueled units on the AEP System are coal-fired. In 1976, the average AEP System fossil-fuel cost was 8.88 mills /KWH; by 1978, this cost is expected to escalate to about 10 mills /KWH, If Cook Unit No. 2 is not available for operation and it is necessary to or more.
obtain replacement energy from fossil-fueled units on the AEP System which have higher than average fuel costs or from other systems on a short-term or emergency basis (when available), it is conservatively estimated that the fuel costs associated with this replacement energy would be at least 10.0 mills /KWH.
SECTION XI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THEIR ENVIR6NMENTAL EFFECTS The preceding supplementary discussion of cost-considerations supplements and updatesSection XI. Otherwise, the FES discussion of alternatives remains unchanged.
CONCLUSION Based upon its review, the staff finds that the overall cost-benefit balance previously developed in the FES remains unaltered and, therefore, on balance, the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act is issuance of the full-power operating license subject to the Environ-mental Technical Specifications and the license conditions specified in the FES Sumary and Conclusions.
22 1714 298
REFERENCES 1.
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation." 10 CFR Part 20.
2.
" Occupational Radiation Exposure to Light Water Cooled Reactors 1959-1974." NUREG 75/032, June 1975.
3.
"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation." (BEIR),
National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council, November 1972.
4.
Indiana & Michigan Power Company, Environmental Operating Report, Cook Unit No. 1, July-December 1976.
5.
Indiana & Michigan Power Company, Environmental Operating Report, Cook Unit No.1 January-June 1976.
1714 299 23
APPENDIX A
A.
NEPA POPULATION-DOSE ASSESSMENT Population-dose comitments were calculated for all individuals living within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant employing the same models used for individual doses (see Regulatory Guide 1.109). In addition, population doses associated with the export of food crops produced with the 80-km (50 mi) region and the atmospheric and hydrospheric transport of the more mobile effluent species such as noble gases, tritium, and carbon-14 have been considered.
A.1 NOBLE-GAS EFFLUENTS For locations within 80 km (50 mi) of the reactor facility, exposures to these effluents were calculated using the atmospheric dispersion models in Regulatory Guide 1.111 and the dose models described in Section 5.4 and Regulatory Guide 1.109. Beyond 80 km (50 mi) and until the efflu-ent reaches the northeastern corner of the United States, it was assumed that all the noble gases are dispersed unifomly in the lowest 1000 meters of the atmosphere. Decay in transit was also considered. Beyond this point, noble gases having a half-life greater than one year (e.g., Kr-85) were assumed to mix completely in the troposphere of the world with no removal mechanisms operating.
Transfer of tropospheric air between the northern and southern henispheres, although inhibited by wind patterns in the equatorial region, was considered to yield a hemisphere average tropo-spheric residence time of about two years with respect to hemispheric mixing. Because this time constant is quite short with respect to the expected mid-point of plant life (15 yr),
mixing in both hemispheres can be assumed for evaluations over the life of the nuclear facility.
This additional population dose commitment to the U.S. population was also evaluated.
A.2 10 DINES AND PARTICULATES RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE Effluent nuclides in this category deposit onto the ground as the effluent moves downwind, which continuously reduces the concentration remaining in the plume. Within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant, the deposition model in Regulatory Guide 1.111 was used in conjunction with the dose models in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Site-specific data concerning production, transport, and consumption of foods within 50 miles of the reactor were used. Beyond 80 km (50 mi), the deposition model was extended until no effluent remained in the plume. Excess food not consumed with the 80 km (50 mi) distance was accounted for, and additional food production and consump-tion representative of the eastern half of the country was assumed. Doses obtained in this manner were then assumed to be received by the number of individuals living within the direction sector and distance described above. The population density in this sector was taken to be representative of the Eastern United States, about 62 people /km2 (160 people /mi2),
A.3 CARBON-14 AND TRITIUM RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE Carbon-14 and tritium were assumed to disperse without deposition in the same manner as krypton-85 over land. However, they do interact with the oceans. This causes the carbon-14 to be removed with an atmospheric residence time of four to six years with the oceans being the major sink. From this, the equilibrium ratio of the carbon-14 to natural carbon in the atmosphere was determined. This same ratio was then assumed to exist in a man so that the dose received by the entire population of the U.S. could be estimated. Tritium was assumed to mix uniformly in the world's hydrosphere, which was assumed to include all the water in the atmosphere and in the upper 70 meters of the oceans. With this model, the equilibrium ratio of tritium to hydrogen in the environment can be calculated. The same ratio was assumed to exist in man, and was used to calculate the population dose in the same manner as was done with carbon-14 A.4 LIQUID EFFLUENTS Concentrations of effluents in the receiving water within 80 km (50 mi) of the facility were calculated in the same manner as described above for the Appendix I calculations. No depletion of the nuclides present in the receiving water by deposition on the bottom of Lake Michigan was assumed. It also assumed aquatic biota concentrate radioactivity in the same manner as was assumed for the Appendix I evaluation. However, food-consumption values appropriate for the average, rather than the maximum, individual were used. It was assumed that all the sport and comercial fish and shell fish caught within the 80 km (50 mi) area were eaten by the U.S.
population.
1714 T00 A-1
Beyond 80 km (50 mi), it was assumed that all the liquid-effluent nuclides except tritium have deposited on the sediments so that they make no further contribution to population exposures.
The tritium was assumed to mix uniformly in the hydrosphere and to result in an exposure to the U. S. population in the sarre manner as discussed for tritium in gaseous effluents.
1714 301 A-2
UNITED STATES I
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C.
20555 POSTAGE AND FEES PAgo u"' iso stavas mut ta an m
OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 5300 L
J
\\] \\ $
N