ML19290C370
| ML19290C370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0033, NUREG-33, NUDOCS 8001100798 | |
| Download: ML19290C370 (20) | |
Text
l NUREG-0033 y
(Suppl 2 to NUREG-75/080
- Evaluation Itepart Regulatory mi
~ related to construction of
,of1icegf Ngar
- Wolf Creek Generating
! Station, Unit No.1 wet m. s saas2 I
l Kansas Gas & Electric Company February 1976 l Kansas City Power & Light Company j Supplement No. 2 ge
4 Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $3.50 ; Microfiche $2.25
NUREG-0033 (SUPP. NO. 2 TO NUREG 75/080)
FEBRUARY 10. 1976 SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY O!E KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1, DOCKET NO. STN 50-482
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DISCUSSION....
..............1-1 1.1 Introduction....
...................1-1 5.0 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM..........
.. 5-1 5.6 Steam Generator Tubes.....
. 5-1 11.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT...
..................... 11-1 11.1 Summary Description.
.. 11-1
21.0 CONCLUSION
S...
... 21-1 APPENDICES PAGE APPENDIX A - CONTINUATION OF CHRONOLOGY OF RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW OF WOLF CREEK PLANT,..A-1 APPENDIX B - EVALUATION OF LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I 0F 10 CFR PART 50......
.B-1 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DISCUSSION 1.1 Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Cornission) Safety Evaluation P.eport in the matter of the application by the Kansas Gas & Electric Company and the Kansas City Power & Light Company (applicants) to construct and operate the proposed Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit I was issued on September 3,1975. Supplement No. I to the Safety Evaluation Report was issued on January 14, 1976. We indicated in Supplement No. I that there was one outstanding issue, involving our " Appendix I" evaluation of the radioactive waste management systems, which required completion.
The purpose of this Supplement is to update our Safety Evaluation Report (and supple-ment No.1) by providing (1) our evaluation of additional information submitted by the applicants since the issuance of Supplement No.1 and (2) the results of our review of the radioactive waste management systems to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Each of the sections in this Supplement is numbered the same as the section of the Safety Evaluation Report and Supplement No. I that is being updated, and is supplementary to and not in lieu of the discussion in the Safety Evaluation Report and Supplement No. 1.
Appendix A is a continuation of the chronology of our principal actions related to the processing of the application.
1-1
5.0 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM 5.6 Steam Generator Tubes We concluded in Supplement No.1 to the Safety Evaluation Report that the measures to be provided by the applicants for monitoring and controlling steam generator tube integ-rity are adequate and that there is no reason to believe plant safety will be compro-mised by steam generator tube degrad3tfon. The considerations used as a basis for our conclusion are presented in Supplemer.t No.1.
Subsequently the applicants have submitted a design change, in Revision 14 to the SNUPPS PSAR, dated January 14, 1976, which will further enhance steam generator tube integrity.
The design change consists of adding a condensate cleanup system to the secondary cool-ant system to maintain the chemical purity of feedwater to the steam generators. With this design change approximately 68 percent of the feedwater will be processed by six 20-percent capacity demineralizer units (one of which will be on standby) containing deep-bed regenerable mixed strong acid cation / strong base anion resins. The deminer-alizer units will remove condenser impurities by ion exchange. Filtration will also be provided to remove corrosion products. With this design change, the anticipated concentrations of the various corrosion products and fission products in the feedwater to the steam generators will be reduced by about 75 percent or more from the concentra-tions that would be present without this system.
The condensate demineralizer regeneration wastes will be processed (whenever the radio-activity is above a pre-determined level) by the secondary liquid waste system which is discussed in Section 11.1 of this Supplement.
We have evaluated the addition of the condensate cleanup system to the secondary coolant system and conclude that it will improve the chemical purity of feedwater to the steam genera tors. We also conclude that the addition of this system will not adversely affect any safety related systems. On this basis, we find the proposed change acceptable.
Therefore, we reaffirm our conclusion, presented in Supplement No. I to the Safety Evaluation Report, that plant safety will not be compromised by steam generator tube degrada tion.
5-1
11.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 11.1 Sumary Description We stated in Supplement No. I to the Safety Evaluation Report that we had not completed our review of the radioactive waste management systems to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Prior to completing our review, the applicants revised their radioactive waste management systems as described below. The purpose of this Supplement is to present (1) our review of the revision to the radioactive waste manage-ment systems, and (2) our evaluation of the radioactive waste rnanagement systems, as revised, to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The applicants have revised their radioactive waste management systems, as described in Revision 14 to the SNUPPS PSAR, dated January 14, 1976. This revision added a secondary liquid waste system to process wastes in the regeneration of the demineralizers in the condensate cleanup system. The condensate cleanup system is discussed in Section 5.6 of this Supplement.
The secondary liquid waste system will consist of tanks and pumps, an evaporator, d: min-eralizer, charcoal bed, oil interceptor and filter. There will be no releases to the environment from thi:, system since the effluent will be recycled back to the secondary system and evaporator bottoms will be solidified. The secondary liquid waste system will be housed in the radwaste building.
Additional storage capacity will be provided in the solid radwaste system for holdup of the evaporator bottoms prior to transfer to the solidification holdup tank. The expected volume of wet solid waste will be increased by approximately 6,500 cubic feet per year, with a total activity increase of less than one Curie. This increase will have a negligible effect on the solid radwaste system.
The seismic and quality group designations of the equipment in the secondary liquid waste system, as delineated in Table 3.2-1 of the SNUPPS PSAR, are consistent with our guidelines as presented in staff Technical Position ESTB No.11-1, " Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Plants", included with Standard Review Plan (NUREG-75/087, dated November 24, 1975) Section 11.2, " Liquid Waste Management Systems". Therefore we conclude that the proposed design of the secondary liquid waste system is acceptable.
11-1
We have evaluated the radioactive waste management systems proposed for the Wolf Creek plant, including the above addition of a secondary liquid waste system, to reduce the quantities of radioactive materials released to the environment in liquid and gaseous effluents in accordance with Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50.
These systems have been previously described in Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of the Safety Evaluation Report dated September 3,1975 and in Section 3.5 of the Final Environmental Statement dated October 1975. The secondary liquid waste system is described in this Supplement. Based on more recent infomation applicable to the Wolf Creek plant and changes in our calculational model, we have reviewed the 11guld and gaseous source tems given in Tables 3.6 and 3.7 of the Final Environmental Statement. These changes occurred subsequent to issuing the Final Environmental Statement for the Wolf Creek plant. The revised source tems were calculated using the model and methodology described in Draf t Regulatory Guide 1.BB,
" Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), dated September 9,1Q75.
On September 4,1975 the Commission amended Appendix ! of 10 CFR Part 50 to provide persons who have filed applications for construction pemits for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or af ter January 2,1971 and prior to June 4,1976 the option of dispensing with the cost-benefit analysis required by Paragraph !!.D of Appendix !.
This option permits an applicant to design its radio-active waste management systems to satisfy the Guides on Design Ot-jectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors proposed in the Concluding Statemant of Position of the Regulatory Staff in the rule making hearing on as low as practicable (RM 50-2),
dated February 20, 1974 As indicated in the Statement of Consideration included with this amendment, the Comission noted that it is unlikely that further reductions to radioactive material releases would be warranted on a cost-benefit basis for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors having radwaste systems and equipment determined to be acceptable under the proposed staff design objectives set forth in RM 50-2.
In a letter to the Comission dated October 13, 1975, the applicants chose to comply with the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than submit a cost-benefit analysis as discussed in Paragraph II.D of Appendix !.
Based on our reassessment of the liquid radioactive waste management systems we estimate that the quantity of radioactive materials released in liquid effluents, excluding tritium and dissolved noble gases, will be less than five Curies per year and that the total calculated quantity of radioactive materials released in liquid effluents from the plant will not result in an annual dose or dose comitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area fro.n all pathways of exposure in 11-2
excess of five millirem. Based on our evaluation of the gaseous radioactive waste management systems, we estimate that the total Quantity of radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from the plant will not result in a calculated annual gama air dose in excess of 10 millirad or a beta air dose in excess of 20 millirad at any location near ground level, at or beyond the site boundary, which could be occupied by individuals. We estimate that the annual total quantity of iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents will not exceed one Curie per year and that the calculated annual total quantity of radiciodine and radioactive particulates released in gaseous effluents from the plant will not result in an annual dose or dose commit-ment to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of 15 millirem. Our detailed evaluation, which includes the calculated source terms and doses, is presented in Appendix B to this Supplement.
Our evaluation of the proposed liquid and gaseous radioactive waste management systems for the Wolf Creek plant, shows these systems to be capable of meeting the criteria given in Appendix 1 of 10 CFR Part 50 for keeping releases of radioactive materials to the environment "as low as is reasonably achievable", and therefore we find the proposed systems to be acceptable.
11-3
21.0 CONCLUSION
S Our conclusion that the issuance of a permit for construction of the facility will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, as stated in the Safety Evaluation Report, Section 21.0 was conditioned on the favorable resolution of outstanding matters identified in Section 1.8 of the Safety Evaluation Report. We have discussed each of these outstanding issues in Supplenent No. I and in this Supplement and have indicated a favorable resolution of each matter. Therefore, we can reaffirm our conclusion as set forth in Section 21.0 of the Safety Evaluation Report.
21-1
APPENDIX A CONTINUATION OF CHPONOLOGY OF RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW 0F WOLF CREEK PLANT January 14, 1976 Letter from SNUPPS transmitting Pevision 14 to SNUPPS PSAR, consisting of updated design information January 14, 1976 Issuance of Supplement No. I to Safety Evaluation Pecort January 16, 1976 Letter from applicants incorporating Revision 14 to the SNUPPS PSAR as Amendment No. 29 January 19, 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 30 (Revision 6 to Environtrental Report)
A-1
APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM WOLF CPEEK GENEPATING STATION, UNIT 1 WITH PESKCT TO APPENDIX ! 0F 10 CFR PART 50 Introduction The purpose of this Appendix is to present the results of the detailed assessment perfonned to determine if the proposed Wolf Creek Gererating Station, Unit 1. meets the numerical design objectives specified in Sectiers IIA, B, C and D of Appendix !
of 10 CFR Part 50.
On Septenter 4,1975, the Comission amended Appendix ! of 10 CFR Part 50 to provide persons who have filed applications for construction pemits for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or after January 2,1971, and prior to June 4, 1976, the option of dispensing with the cost-benefit analysis required by Paragraph II.D of Appendix I.
This option pemits an applicant to design its rudwaste management systems to satisfy the Guides on Design Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Peactors proposed in the Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff in the rule making hearing on as low as practicable (PM-50-2), dated February 20, 1974 As ind'cated in the Statement of Considerations included with the Appendix ! amendment, the Comission noted that it is unlikely that further reductions to radioactive material releases would be warranted on a cost-benefit basis for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors having radwaste systems and equipment detemined to be acceptable under the proposed Comission's objectives set forth in RM-50-2.
In a letter to the Comission dated October 13, 1975, the Wolf Creek applicants chose to comply with the Comission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I, eliminating the necessity to perfom a cost-benefit analysis as required by Parayraph II.D of Appendix I.
Evaluation We have evaluated the radioactive waste management systems proposed for the Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1, to reduce the quantities of radioactive materials released to the environment in liquid and gaseous effluents. These systems have been previously described in Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of the Safety Evaluation Report, in Section 11.1 of this Supplement, and in Section 3.5 of the Final Environmental State-ment. Based on infomation provided by the applicants, on more recent operating data applicable to the Wolf Creek Generating Station, and on changes in our calculational models, we have generated new liquid and gaseous source tems to determine conformance B-1
with Appendix !.
These values are different from those given in Tables 3.6 and 3.7 of the Final Environmental Statement.
The new source terms shown in Tables 0-1 and B-2 were calculated using the models and methodology described in Draft Regulatory Guide 1.B8, " Calculation of Releases of Padfoactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWPs)", dated Septenter 9,1975. These source tems were used to calculate the doses as described below. The dispersion of radfor.uclides in and the deposition of radfo-nuclides from the atmosphere were based on analyses performed by the staff for this evaluation.
The mathematical models used to perform the dose calculations are contained in Draft Pegulatory Culde 1./A, " Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man f rom Routine Peleases of Peactor Ef fluents for the Purpose of Implewnting Appendix I", dated September 23, 1975.
Dose evaluations were made for three ef fluent categories: 1) pathways associated with 11guid effluent releases to the Neosho River, 2) noble gases released to the atmosphere, and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulates, carbon-14 and tritium re-leased to the atmosphere. Estimates of the doses were made for the adult individual (19+ years), the teen (12-18 years), the child (1-11 years) and the inf ant (1 year),
with appropriate values of consumption as given in Regulatory Guide 1.AA.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with liquid effluents was based on the assumed maximum exposed individual. The dietary and livir.g habits for an adult individual assunes 1) the consumption of 21 kilograms per year of fish and five kilograms per year of invertebrates harvested in the intnediate vicinity of the discharge from the cooling lake, 2) the consumption of 730 liters per year of water from the !ola, Kansas municipal water supply, and 3) recreational use of the *horeline in the inanedtate vicinity of the discharge of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per year. For an infant, the diet assumes consumption of 51011ters per year of water from the same municipal water supply.
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calrulation of beta and garra air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence having the highest dose. The maximum air doses at the site boundary were determined to occur 1.5 miles north of the facility. The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at a residence located 1.9 :niles north of the site.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radiofodine, particulates, carbon-14 and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the assumed maximum exposed individual. One such individ;al is an infant whose assumed diet includes the consumption of 330 liters per year of milk produced at the location of the dairy farm B-2
having the highest calculated dose form this pathway. This location is 1.5 miles north of the site. Another such individual is a child whose assumed diet includes the consumption of 550 kilograms per year of crops grown at the location of the residence having the highest calculated dose from this pathway. It is assumed that these and all other age groups are also exposed to inhaled radionuclides in this category, as well as those deposited on the ground at each of the locations described above.
for the pathways associated with liquid ef fluents, the adult individual would receive the highest total body dose. The doses from noble gases released to the atmosphere constitute external exposure, and are therefcre not age-dependent. For the pathways associated with radiciodine and the other radionuclides released to the atmosphere, an infent located at the farm would receive the highest dose at this site.
It is necessary to compare the calculated doses from the plcnt with the Design Objectives contained in the Concluding Statement of Position of the Pegulatory Staff (PM 50-2).
Tables B-3, and B-4 provide a comparison of the calculated doses, with the design ob-jectives of Sections !!A, B and C of Appendix ! and the proposed Comission's design objectives set forth in Pf1 50-2.
As shown in Table B-2 the expected quantity of radioactive materials released in liquid effluents from the plant, excluding tritium and dissolved gases.will be 0.19 Curies per year, or less than five Curies per year, which is in conformance with the amendment to Section II.D.
The liquid effluents released from the plant will not result in an annual dose or dose connitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure, in excess of five millirem (Table B-4).
Based on our evaluation of the gaseous radwaste management systems, the expected tctal quantity of radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from the plant will not result in an annual gama air dose in excess of 10 millirad and a beta air dose in excess of 20 millirad at every location near ground level, at or beyond the site boundary, which could be occupied by individuals (Table B-4).
As shown in Table B-1 the annu; total quantity of iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents will be 0.012 a
Curies per year, or less than one Curie per year, which is in confonnance with the amendment to Section !!.D. The annual total quantity of radioiodine and radioactive particulates released in gaseous effluents from the plant will not result in an annual dose or dose cocnitment to any organ of an individual,in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure, in excess of 15 millirem (Table B-4).
Conclusian Our evaluation demonstrates that the expected doses associated with the nonnal operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit I meet the design objectives of Sections II.A.
B-3
!!.B and II.C of Appendix I of 10 CFP Part 50, and that the expected quantity of radioactive materials released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the aggregate doses meet the design objectives set forth in RM-50-2.
Our evaluation shows that the applicants' proposed design of the plant satisfies the criteria specified in the option provided by the Comission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix ! and, therefore, meets the requirerrents of Section !!.D of Appendix ! of 10 CFR part 50.
Based on our evaluation, the proposeo liquid and gaseous radwaste management systems for the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 meet the criteria given in Appendix ! and are therefore, acceptable.
B-4
TABLE B-1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS El'FLUENTS FROM WOLF CREEK CENERATING STATION UNIT 1 (Ci/yr)
Unit Vent.
Turbine 24 Containment Radwaste Building Building lluclides purces per year Vent Fxhaust Kr-S3m a
a a
Kr-85m 5
a a
Kr-85 5
250 a
Kr-87 1
a a
Kr-88 9
a a
Kr-89 a
a a
Xc-131m 9
3 a
Xc-133m 22
.a a
Xc-133 2000 1
a Xc-135m a
a a
Xe-135 21 a
a Xc-137 a
a a
Xc-138 1
a a
1-131 1.1(-2) a 5.2 (-4)
I-133 1.3(-2) a
- 6. 9 (-4)
Co-60 7.5 (-5) b 7.0(-5) e Co-58
- 1. 6(-4) 1.5 (-4) c Fe-59
- 1. 6 (-5) 1.5 (-5) c Mn-54
- 3. 6 (-6) 3.3(-6) c C-14 1
8 11 - 3 1000 Ar-41 25 a = less than 1.0 C1/yr nob.'c gases, Icss than 10" Ci/yr for iodine, b = cxponcutf al notation:
i.s(-5) = 7.5 x 10~
c = Icss than 1% of total for nuclide.
B-5
TABLE B CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM WOLF CREEK CENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 (Ci/yr)
NUCLIDE CI/yg NUCLIDE CI/YR Corrosion & Activation Products Cr-51 1.2(-4) a Cs-134 1(-2)
Mn-54 6 (-5)
I-135 3(-3)
Fe-55 1.2(-4)
Cs-136 3 (-3)
Fe-59 7 (-5)
Cs-l'37
- 7. 8 (-3)
Co-58
- 1. 2 (-3)
Ba-137m
- 6. 6 (-3)
Co-60 4.3 (-4)
Ba-140 1(-5)
Np-239 4 (-5)
La-140 1(-5)
Fission Products Total Except Tritium 1.9 (-1)
Tritium 410 Sr-89 2 (-5)
Mo-99 2.7(-3)
Tc-99m 2.5(-3)
Te-127m 2(-5)
Te-127 2 (-5)
Te-129m 9(-5)
Te-129 6 (-5)
I-130 1(-4)
Te-131m 4 (-5)
I-131 1.1(-1)
Te-132 9.3(-3)
I-132
- 1. 6 (-3)
I-133 4 (-2) a = exponential notation: 1.2 (-4) =1. 2x10'4 B-6
Table B-3 Comparison of Calculated Doses from Wolf Creek Operation with Sections II. A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I, 10 CFR 50a (Doses to Maximum Individual per Reactor Unit)
Appendix I Cal;ulated Criterion Design Objective Doses Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways (adult) 3 mrem /yr
.0074 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from
.d1 pathways (infant) 10 mrem /yr
.028 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents Camma dose in air 10 mrad /yr
.066 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr
.18 mradlyr Dose to total bcdy of an individual (child) 5 mrem /yr 1.0 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual (child) 15 mrem /yr 1.0 mrem /yr Radiciodines and Particulates Dose to any organ from all pathways (infant) 15 mrem /yr 3.7 mrem /yr "As presented in the Federal Register V. 40, p. 19442, May 5, 1975.
bCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
B-7
Table B-4 Comparison of Calculated Doses from Wolf Creek Operation with Guides on Design Objectives Proposed by the Staff on February 20, 1974*
(Doses to Maximum Individual from the one Unit on Site)
RM-50-2 Calculated C1'iterion_
Design Objective Doses Liquid Effluents Dose to total body or any organ from all pathways (infant) 5 mrem /yr
.028 mrem /yr Gaseous Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr
.066 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr
.18 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual (child) 5 mrem /yr 1.0 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 1.0 mrem /yr (child) b Radiciodine and Particulates Dose to any organ from all pathways (infant) 15 mrem /yr 3.7 mrem /yr "From " Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff,"
Docket No. RM-50-2, Feb. 20,1974, pp. 25-30, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C.
Carbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
B-8