ML19317H231
| ML19317H231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1972 |
| From: | Phillips J ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005010885 | |
| Download: ML19317H231 (7) | |
Text
-_
8e s
9ftY/h h 8005010 E
{
H EL PIN G BUILD ARKANSAB 4.
y iG ARKANS AS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY D'
D sixrs avii;;..;e ano pine ernest. pise stune angassas 750o5.
7
'O Z'$7 Regulatory Ylle Cyl May 17, 1972 9
d' Mr. R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director d8/gg Pressurized Water Reactors Division of Reactor Licensing Ql,-
United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 i
SUBJECT:
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANN ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50-313
Dear Mr. DeYoung:
In response to your letter of May 1 to Mr. J. D. Phillips, we are enclosing forty-five (45) copies of the basic data requested for source term cal-culations and for gaseous and liquid effluent analyses specifically relating to Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1.
Although much of this information is already available in the FSAR and Environmental Report for Unit 1, we have tabulated the data in the form requested to expedite your review.
Any data that is inconsistent with information in the FSAR or Environmental Report is identified.
Yours very truly, y
5 f
f'd
'J. D. PHILLIPS Vice President & Chief Engineer JDP:mr Enclosures SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for the County of Pulaski and State of Arkansas, this //,
day of May 1972.
bE O -
eM MbCommissionExpires:
a s-
/9ja Notary Public rA#,4v,~o..~v..'ron ow~.o g u.u..a u,oot..ours uriur....v"'2716 fj
(
('
Reguttofy Q%
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS Basic Data for Source Term Calculation
_ _.f-p ~)Q
. ~. ~.
.' 1.
Operatirig power ~ (Wt) at which impact is to be analyzed.
i The rated power of the nuclear steam supply system is 2584 W t, of which 2568 Wt is generated by the. reactor and 16 Wt by the reactor coolant pumps. (FSAR, Section 4.1.1.1, ER Sec. F.4.12, Sec. F.5) 2.
Weight of U loaded (first loading and equilibrium cycle).
Both initial and equilibrium loadings include 93.1 metric tons UO -
2 (FSAR, Table 3-2) 3.' Isotopic ratio in fresh fuel (first loading and equilibrium cycle).
235 content of 2.62% by The initial fuel loading will contain 'an average U weight (Table 3-2, FSAR).
The fresh fuel in the equilibrium cycles will contain an average U 35 content of 3 02% by weight.
2 4.
Ixpected percentage of leaking fuel.
As explained in Section 3.g (1) of the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 2nvironmental Report,1% leaking fuel is the basis for the mainn design and maximum expected releases, and 0.1% leaking fuel is the basis for expected releases. Appendix F of the Enviro 2 mental Report contains detailed information on expected Unit 1 reles.ses.
5 Escape rate coefficients used (or reference).
As listed in Table E-4 of the Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 Environmental Report, the escape rate coefficients for fission product releases are as follows:
Elements Escape Rate Coefficients, Sec. ~1
~7 Noble Gases 1 x 10 Halogens, Cesium 2 x 10-0 Tellurium, Molybdenum 4 x 10-9 All others 1 x 10-11 6.
Plant factor.
It is estimated that Arkansas Nuclear One rlait 1 will operate with a plan, load factor of 85%.
7 Number of steam generators.
Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 has two steam generators.
o
(
(
3 15 What is the containment volume (ft )7 Containment volume is listed below:
Gross Internal Volume
- 2.08 x 10 ft33 Occupied Volume
- 0.22 x ft Net Free Volume
- 1.86 x ft (FSAR, Table 14-39)
- 16. What _is the expected leak rate of prtmnry coolant to the containment (1b/hr)?
Leakage of reactor coolant to the containment is expected to be less than 100 gpd. (24.5 lb/hr at 2155 psia and 578 0F).
See ER, Table F.5-3, Page F.5-9
- 17. How often is the containment purged? Is it filtered prior to release?
Are iodine absorbers provided? What decontamination factor is expected _?
The number of times the containment is purged is dependent on the fuel failure and coolant leakage (if any), and the frequency of personnel entry into the containment. For the purpose of evaluating environmental impact, it was assumed that the containment will be purged four (4) times per year at approximately 90-day intervals. The discharge is routed through a pre-filter, an absolute filter, and a charcoal filter prior to release.
The charcoal filters are iodine absorbers, having an expected DF or 1000.
(ER, Pg. F.5-4; FSAR, Pg. 5-47, Fig. 5-7).
18.
Is there a continuous air cleanup for iodine in the containment? If so, what volume per unit time is circulated through it? What decontamination factor is expected? At what concentration will purging be initiated?
'Ibere is no continuous air cleanup for iodine in the containment during normal operation. Initiation of purging during normal cperation is not governed by the concentration of any radioisotope in the containment.
Rather, the containment is purged whenever personnel entry is required in order to guarantee a habitable en'iironment.
19 Give the total expected continuous letdown rate (1b/hr),
What fraction is returned through the demineralizer to the primary a.
system? What is the expected demineralizer efficiency for removal of principal isotopes?
b.
What fract' ion of this goes to boron control system? How is this treated, demineralization, evaporation, filtration?
Is th. re a separate cation demineralizer to control Li and Cs?
c.
(
(
23 How frequently is the system shut down and devassed? How many volumes of the primary coolant system are decass'ed in this way each year _?
What fraction of the cases present are removed? What fraction of other prin-cipal nuclides are removed, and by vb t means? What decay time is provided?
It was assumed that the reactor coolant system will be degassed completely through the Reactor Coolant Makeup Tank at the end of a typical operating cycle. Due to the manner by which Environmental Report Expected Gaseous Waste Releases (Table F.5-2, Page F.5-8) were evaluated, the number of times the reactor coolant system is shutdown and degassed would not signif-icantly affect the annual releases list $d in the table.
These releases assumed removal of all radioactive gases leaking into the reactor coolant from the core over the entire 31o day equilibrium cycle, taking credit for decay during the period between exit from the core and removal by degasifi-cation in the vacuum degasifier and the Reactor Coolant Makeup Tank. The gases removed by 1sactor coolant degasification are routed to the Waste Gas Decay Tanks for minimum average dec-tr e (after filling) of 30 days as discussed in the response to Questic.
Other coluble nuclides will be removed in the feed and bleed operations priortoshutdowntoincreasethgBoronconcentrationofthereactorcoolant, j
and from the draining of 6100 ft of coolant from the system prior to re-moving the reactor vessel head.
It is anticipated that approximate 4 72%
of the reactor coolant inventory at day 310 of operation will'be removed by these modes in getting the reactor coolant system to the refueling con-dition. A 20 day decay is assumed for the processing and holdup time of these wastes in the Clean Liquid Radioactive Waste System, and for the activity remaining in the reactor coolant system.(due to an estimated 3 weeks for refueling).
- 24. Are there any other methods of degassing (i.e., through pressurizer, etc.)?
If so describe.
To remove fission product gases and other noncondensable gases from the pressurizer steam space, two paths are used. In the first, the pressurizer is vented to the vaste disposal system via the reactor coolant 3 rain tank connection,to the pressurizer vent line. The preferred method for degassing the pressurizer is from the pressurizer vent line, through the pressurizer steam space sample lines in the chemical addition and sampling system where it returns to the makeup system upstream of the purification filters. By controlling the makeup tank pressure, the removed gases are discharged to the vaste disposal system until a reactor coolant gas sample indicated the desired conditions have been met.
25 If gas is removed throusth the pressurizer or by other means, how is it j
treated?
Gas removed from the pressurizer through the sampling system is routed through the Vacuum Degasifier to the Gaseous Radioactive Waste Systri ter-
.minated in the Waste Gas Decay Tanks.
There they are held up as described in the response to Question 21.
4
~-
r
f
(
e Gland seal steam is obtained from the main steam system.
Seal effluent is directed without treatnent to the condensate system, to be returned,to the steam generator as feedwater.
- 31. What is the expected leak iate of primary coolant to the auxiliary building?
What is the ventilation air flow through the auxiliary building (CFM)? Where is it discharged? Is the air filtered or otherwise treated before dis-charged? If so, provide expected uerformance.
As indicated in the discussion of the Class 2 accident (Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 Environmental Report, P. F.4-3), it is expected that the leakage of cooled and depressurized reactor water to the auxiliary building will be less than 10 gpd. Ventilation of potentially contaminated areas in the aux-iliary building consists of a 56,000 scfm flow from the radwaste equipment areas, and a 39,000 sefm flow from the fuel handling area for a total flow of 95,000 scfm. The air is discharged through filter units containing pre-filters, high efficiency particulate filters and charcoal filttrs and, thence, The hi h efficiency particulate through the plant vent to the atmosphere.
S
~
filters are designed to remove 99 97% of the particu wte matter.
The char-coalfiltersaredesignedtoremoveatleasg999%ofmoleculariodine-2 131) in the presence of 50 mg per m of nonradioactive molecular 131 (I iodine (I ) plus 5 mg per m3 of nonradioactive methyl iodide (CH I)-
2 3
32.
Provide average gallons / day and uCi/cc for the following categories of liquid effluents. Use currently observed data in the industry where dif-ferent from the SAR or Environmental Report (indicate which is used).
High-level wastes (for example, primary coolant letdown, " clean" or a.
low conductivity waste, cauipment drains and deaerated wastes);.
b.
" Dirty" war,tes (for example, floor drain vastes, high-conductivity
' wastes, ae4 ;ed wastes, and laboratory vactes);
- p., Laundry, decontamination, and wash-down wastes;
.d.
Steam generator blowdown - give average flow rate and maximum short-
+erm flows and their duration; e.
Drains from turbine building.
For these wastes (a-e) provide:
1~.
Number of capacity of collector tanks.
2.
Fraction of water to be recycled or factors controlling decision.
3 Treatment steps - include number, cauacity, and process D.F. for each principal nuclide for each step.
If step is optional, state factors controlling decision.
4.
Cooling time from primary loon to discharge.
5.
How is waste concentrate (filter cake, demineralizer resin, evaporater bottoms) handled? Give total volume or weight and curies per day or year.
~
/
(
('
3 Treatment Steps - For a detailed discussion of proceassity; " clean" and " dirty" wastes, please see Appendix E and pages IF.5-1 through F.5-3 of the Environmental Report.
4.
Cooling Time Prior to Discharge - There is no direett discharge of wastes from the primary loop to the environment.
Deecause of the very small discharge flow rates of liquid ' wastes c=mared to the circulating water flow rate of Unit 1, and the minir. mum processing times required for all wastes, it is expected that th.he heating ef-feet of liquid wastes discharge on the environment its negligible and insignificant.
5.
Treatment of Bottoms and Resins -
s of this time, thhe Unit 1 liquid radwaste systems do not include concentrators, and thhus will have no bottoms to dispose of.
But as stated in the FSAR Ressponses to Specific Items of Interest on Page 11.6e, Unit 2 liquid waste t processing sys-tems (cone'entrators and downstream tankage in partice.nlar) have been designed with sufficient capacity to enable the addittional treatment of Unit 1 waste effluents and will be installed for UUnit 1 use as l
soon as scheduling allows.
Resins will be collected in the Spent Resin Tank and vill be solid-
\\
ified in the Solid Waste Handling Facility for offsitze disposal.
The annual unsolidified. volume of sgent resins to bet_ disposed of is 3
expected to be approximately 200 ft.
33.
Dilution flow rate for liquid effluents, ncrmal gom and teotal gallons per year.
The dilution flow used for evaluating the isotope goncent= rations in the discharge canal of Unit 1 is 766,000 gpm (402 x 100 gal. pper year).
This is the circulating water flow with all four Unit 1 circniriating water pumps in operation.
It is expected that a minimum of 2 pumps wM11 be used for a dilution flow of approximately 383,000 gpm to meet the c current limits for liquid releases.
e d
b m.
AEC DISTRIBUTION. FOR_
PART.__JO.. ;.DQCKET MATERIAL
{
G'f2iPClaRY-FORM:)
(
2716
.ggVIRO,A-CONTROL NO:
FROMt Arkansas Power & Light Co.
DATE OF DOC:.
DATE REC'D LTR MEMO RPT OTHER Pice Bluf f, Ark.
71601
...J,D. Phillips 5-17-72 5-18-72 X
TO:
Y Mr. R.C. DeYounB 3 signed 42' SENT LOCAL PITR; yl CLASS: Q/ PRO? INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:
45 50-313 DESCRIPTION: Ltr notarized 5-16-72 re our ENCLOSUR2S PWR Basic Data for Source Term 1
5-1-72 1tr...trans the following:
Calculation for Ark. Power & Light Co. Unit I.....
D0'NOT TFi M (45 cys enci rec'd) -
. PLANT NAME. Ark. Power Co. Unit I vnn. uvrTnn/rnvnnmTTnN DL 5-18-72 BUTLER (DRL)
- DICKER (DREP)
SCHEMEL(DRL)
ZIEMANN(DRL)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ Copics CHITWOOD(DML)
GOLLER(DRL)
SCHWENCER(DRL)
BENAROYA W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/4 Copies W/ Copics CLARK (DRL)
KNIEL(DRL)
STOLZ(DRL)
W/ Copics W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies U/ Copics H. DENTON KNIGHTON(DREP)
VASSALLO(DRL)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copics i rfl%HN AT. DTATRTPTITTnN
~~
Fy Q Vollmer(DRL)
%Kasener(DR2?)O M. Fit Schwencer AEC PDR O sliter(DRL) son Compliance (2)$
O Lons(DRL)
QLic. Asst (DR3?)
%Gamertsfelder 0 0cC, Rn P 506A KCollins(DRL)
O McCrcless(DR3P)
CJ
%Muntzing& Staff C Thor::pson(DRL)
O c. 01cnc(on:P)
O O Morris /Dubc/tliison(DRL)
M D. E. Nur.n(n'M n n~ : - -
v--2-'-~~
-