ML19310A836
| ML19310A836 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19310A828 | List: |
| References | |
| NUREG-0191, NUREG-0191-R01, NUREG-191, NUREG-191-R1, NUDOCS 8006300573 | |
| Download: ML19310A836 (4) | |
Text
'
5-11 (2) Radiation Dose Commitments to Populations The estimated annual radiation dose coenitments to the population within 80 km of the La Crosse nuclear plant from gaseous and particulate releases are shown in Table 5.5-4.
Beyond 80 km, the doses were evaluated using everage population densities and food production values discussed in Appendia E.
Estimated dose commitments to the U.s. population are shown in Table 5.5-5.
Background radiation doses are provided for comparison. The dose commitments from atmospheric releases f rom the La Crosse f acility during normal operation represent a small increase in the normal population dose due to background radiation sources.
Oose Coenitments free Radioactive Liquid Releases to the Hydrosphere Radioactive effluents released to the hydrosphere from the La Crosse facility during normal operation will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations. NRC staff estimates of the expected liquid releases listed in Table 3.6-2 and the site hydrological considerations discussed in Section 2.5 of this statement and summarized in Table 5.5-6 were used to estimate radiation dose commitments to individuals and populations. The results of the calculations are discussed below.
(1) Radiation Dose Coenitments to Individuals The estimated dose commitments to the maximum individual from liquid relsases at selected off-site locations are listed in Tables 5.5-3 and 5.5-4.
The maximum individual is assumed to consume well above average quantities of the foods considered and spend more time at the shoreline than the average person (see Table E-5 in Regulatory Guide 1.109).
(2) Radiation Dose Commitments to Populations lhe estimated annual radiation dose commitments to the population within 80 km of the La Crosse nuclear plant from liquid releases, based on the use of water and biota from the Mississippi River, are shown in Table 5.5-4 Dose commitments beyond 80 km were based on the assumptions discussed in 4ppendix E.
Estimated dose commitments to the U.S. population are shown in Table 5.5-5.
Background radiation doses are provided for comparison. The dose commitments from liquid releases from the La Crosse facility during normal operation represent a small increase in the normal population dose due to background radiation sources.
Direct Radiation (1) 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. Although these componsnts are shielded, dose rates around the plants have been observed to vary from undetectable levels to values of the order of I rem / year.
Doses from sources within the plant are primarily due to nitrogen 16, a radionuclide produced in the reactor core. For boiling water reactors, nitrogen-16 is transported with the primary coolant to the turbine building.
The orientation of piping and turbine components in the turbine building determines, in part, the exposure rates outside the plant. Because of variations in equipment lay-out, exposure rates are strongly dependent upon everall plant design.
Based on the radiation surveys which have been performed around several operating BWRs, it appears to be very difficult to develop a reasonable model to predict direct shine doses. Thus, older plants should have actual measurements performed if information regarding direct radiation and sky-shine rates is needed.
Low level radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 aren/ year at the site boundary.
(2) Occupational Radiation Exposure For the purpose of projecting the radiological impact of plant operation on all on-site personnel, it is possible to estimate an average annual man-rem occupational radiation dose.
For a 1000 MWe plant designed and operated in a manner consistent with 10 CFR Part 20, there will be many variables which influence exposure and make it impossible to determine in advance a specific quantitative total occupati;nal radiation dose for a particular plant.
Therefore, past exposure experience from cperating nuclear power stations has been used as the basis for an estimate to be used for 1000 MWe plants.
This experience indicates a projected average annual value of 600 man-rems per reactor unit, with individual plant annual occupational doses from approximately 50 to 5000 man-rems depending on specific plant operations.
Correction: June 1980 8006300 33 5
5-12 However, in the case of LACBWR, operating data are available on actual occupational Annual average worker doses at LACBWR doses incurred during the life of the plant.
1972-1978 varied from a high of 1.59 rem per worker to a low of 0.72 reported from rem per worker with the average being 1.17 rem per worker.
The average dose per 1970-1978 is 170 man-rems. Reported average year reported for LACBWR for the periodworker doses and annual average man-re other small plants are 0.78 rem / worker and 223 man-rem /yr (Big Rock Point-64 MWe);
1.5 rem / worker and 476 man-rem /yr (Humboldt Bay-63 MWe); and 0.67 rem / worker and 193 man-rem /yr (Yankee Rowe-175 MWe).*
On the basis of this operating experience at LACBWR and at other plants of comparable size, we would not expect occupational radiation doses to be as large as the 600 man-For purposes of estimating rems per year per reactor unit experienced at larger plants.the environmenta an average annual value of 200 man-rems.
(3) Transportation of Radioactive Material The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, tnd of solid radioactive waste from the reactor to burist grounds is within the scope of the NRC report entitled, " Environmental survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants."
The estimated population dose coamittments associated with transportation of fuels and wastes are listed in icbles 5.5-5 and 5.5-7.
5.5.3 Radiological lupact on Man t
Thi actual radiological impact associated with the operation of the proposed La Crosse nuclear power station d
Based on the will depend, in part, on the manner in which the radioactive waste treatment system is operate.
NRC staff's evaluation of the potential performance of the radwaste system, it is concluded that the system as pecposed is capable of meeting the dose design objectivet of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1.
Table 5.5-4 compares th? calculated maximum individual doses to the dose design objectives. However, since the facility's operation will be governed by operating license technical specifications and since the techn Even the actual radiological impact of plant operation may result in doses close to the dose design objectives.
if this situation exists, the individual Joses will 5t111 be very small when compared to natural background As a result, the staff concluded that dosis (* 100 arem/yr) or of the dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20.
thire will be no measurable radiological impact on man from routine operation of the plant.
ONUREG-0594, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors 1978, published November 1979.
Correction: June 1980
5-17 Table 5.5-5
' ANNUAL TOTAL BODY POPULATION DOSE ComITMENTS IN THE YEAR 1970 CATEGORY U.S. POPULATION DOSE Com!Ti4ENT Natural Background Radiation" 21,000,000 (man rea/yr)
La Crosse Nuclear Plant Operation (man-rem /yr/ site)
Plant Workers 200 General Public:
Radiolodine and Particulates 27 Liquid Effluents 7
Noble Gas Effluents 1.6 Transportation of Fuel 7
and Waste
- sing the average U.S. background dose (100 mrea/yr) in (a), and year 1970 U.S. population from " Population U
Estimates and Projections," Series II, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25, No. 541 (Fsb. 1975).
Table 5.5-6 SUMARY OF HYDROLOGIC TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION FOR L{ QUID RELEASES FROM THE LA CROSSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LOCATION TRANSIT TIME (Hours)
DILUTION FACTOR Nearest Drinking Water Intake (Pool No. 9) 22 356 e
Nearest Sport 1.1 107 Fishing Location (South end of Thief
)
Slough)
)
i
- See Regulatory Guide 1.113, " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Relzses for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix 1," April 1977.
l Correction: June 1980
O o
6-31 S.8.6 Radioactive Wastes The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes) are specified in Table S-3.
For low-level waste disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission notes in Table S-3 that there will be no significant radioactive releases to the environment. For high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that these are to be buried at a Federal repository, and that g release to the environment is associated with such disposal. It is indicated in NUREG-Oll6, which provides background and context for the high-level and transuranic Table S-3 values established by the Comission, that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to the biosphere. No radiological environmental impact is anticipated from such disposal.
5.8.7 Occupational Dose The average annual occupational radiation dose to workers at LACBWR has been less The annual occupational dose attributable to the rest of the than 200 man-rems.
The comparable value fuel cycle for the model 1000 MWe LWR is about 200 man-rems.
for LACBWR is unlikely to exceed 200 man-rems. The staff concludes that this occupational dose will not have a significant environmental impact.
5.8.8 Transportation This dose is small The transportation dose to workers and the public is specified in Table S-3.
and is not considered significant in comparison to the natural background dose.
5.8.9 Fuel Cycle The staff's analysis of the uranium fuel cycle did not depend on the telected fuel cycle (no recycle or uranium-only recycle), since the data provided in Table S-3 include maximum recycle Thus, the staff's conclusions as to accept-option impact for each element of the fuel cycle.
ability of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle are not affected by the specific fuel cycle selected.
l i
i l
Correction: June 1980