ML19319D402
| ML19319D402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D398 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003170535 | |
| Download: ML19319D402 (10) | |
Text
-
\\-
m r'T kJ SUPPLE!1ENT N0. 2 TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE CRYSTAL RIVER, UNIT N0. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATION PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 11.0 Introduction On May 28, 1976,I4I Florida Power Corporation provided the necessary information to permit an evaluation with respect to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The applicant elected to shcw conformance with the Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I in lieu of performing a detailed cost-benefit analysis as recuired by Section II.D of Appendix I.
Evaluation The staff has evaluated the radioactive waste management systems proposed for Crystal River, Unit No. 3, to reduce the cuantities of radioactive materials released to the environment in liquid and gaseous effluents.
These systems have been previously described in Section 3.4 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES), dated May 1973(5), and in Chapter 11 of the SER, dated July 5,1974(6),
Based on more recent operating data applicable to the Crystal River, Unit No. 3, and on changes in our calculational model, we have generated new licuid and gaseous source terms to determine conformance with Appendix I.
These values are different from those given in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 of the FES.
l 8003170 5 3 5
-s 4
. The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the models and methodology described in NUREG-0017, " Cal-culation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code),"
April 1976.
These source terms were used to calculate the doses as described below. The dispersion of radienuclides in and the disposition of radionuclides from the atmosphere were based on analyses performed by the staff for this evaluation using the methodology provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
The mathematical models used to cerform the dcse calculations are contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109(7)
Included in our analysis are dose evaluations of three effluent categories:
- 1) pathways associated with liquid effluent releases to the Gulf of i'exico, 2) noble gases released to the atmosphere, and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulates, carbon-14 and tritium released to the atmosphere.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with liquid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual. The dietary and living habits for an adul L individual included the consumption of 21 kg/yr of fish harvested in the immediate vicinity of the dis-charge from tbs Gulf of Mexico, and recreational use of its shore-line for 10 hr/yr.
There are no drinking water sources receiving
~
. Crystal River liquid effluents. The maximum dose commitment re-sulting from exposure to water from the Gulf of Mexico was esti-mated to be 0.0027 mrem /yr (total body) and 0.0026 mrem /yr (GI tract) for an adult.
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site bounda.y and total body and skin doses at the residence having the highest dose.
The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 1 mile NW relative to Crystal River, Unit No. 3.
The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at a residence at 3 miles NE of the station.
The case evaluation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulates, carbon-14 and tritium released to the atmeschere was also based on the maximum exposed individc31.
This individual is a child whose diet included the consumption of 520 kg/yr of crops assumed to be produced at the location of the above mentioned residence, for lack of more detailed crop production information.
The assumption that all of the vegetables ingested by this child are produced at his residence is conservative.
Thus, the actual radiological dose to the thyroid of this individual will be lower.
e y
er e,~
ww ---
y
,we
]
. As shown in Table 1, the expected cuantity of radioactive materials released in liquid effluents from Crystal River, Unit No. 3, will be less than 5 Ci/yr/ reactor (0.25 Ci/yr), excluding tritium and dissolved gases, in conformance with the amendment to Section II.D.
The liquid effluents released from Crystal River, Unit No. 3, will not result in an annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unristricted area fron all pathways of exposure, in excess of 5 nrem (Table 3).
Based on the staff's evaluation of the gaseous radwaste management systems, the total quantity of radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from Crystal River, Unit Ho. 3, will not result in an annual gamma air dose in excess of 10 mrads and a beta ai-dose in excess of 20 nrads at every location near ground level, at or beyond the site boundary, which could be occupied by individuals (Table 3).
As shown in Table 2, the annual total cuantity o' iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents will be less than 1 Ci/ reactor (0.043 Cf/yr) in conformance with the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I.
The annual tota. 4dantity of radiciodine and radioactive particulates released in gaseous effluents from Unit No. 3 will not result in an annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of an individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of 15 mrem (Table 3).
e v--
+ - - -,
n J'
n, 5-Conclusion Based on the staff's evaluation, the radwaste treatment systems proposed for Crystal River, Unit No. 3, are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive :naterials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation such that the doses will not exceed the design objectives of Sections II. A, 8 and C of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff's evaluation also shows that the applicant's proposed design of Crystal River, Unit No. 3, satisfies the design objectives L
set forth in R!1-50-2 specified ia the option provided by the Comission's September 4,1975 anendment to Appendix I and, therefore, i
satisfiesSection II.D of Appendix I of 10 CFQ Part 50.
The staff concludes that the licuid and gaseous radwaste treatlent systems will reduce radioactive materials in effluents to "as low as is reasoraHy achievable levels" in accordance with 10 CFR Part 30.34a and, therefore, are acceptable.
i a
1 4
i j
4 w
e r
4 y
w--+
-s
-s REFERENCES 1
i 1.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Federal Register, V. 40, p. 19442, May 5, 1975.
2.
Title 109, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paragraph II.0 of Appendix I, Federal Register, V. 40, p. 40918, September 4, 1975.
3.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff (and its Attachment) - Public Rulemaking Hearing on:
Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criteria "As low As Practicable" for Radio-
~
active Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuc1 ear Power Reactors, Docket Number RM-50-2, Washington, D.C.,
February 20, 1974 4.
" Appendix I Analysis for Crystal River Nuclear Unit", NUS-1721 (Rev. 1),
NUS Corporation, May 1976. Letter of Transmittal, May 28, 1976.
j 5.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to'the Proposed Crystal River Unit 3",
Florida Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-302, Washington, D.C., hay 1973.
6.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Crystal River Unit 3", Docket No. 50-302, Washington, D.C.,
July 5, 1974.
t 7.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Ef fluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I", March 1976.
I L
1 9
m o m m-
---y
- w a
p q
TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS r
IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM. CRYSTAL RIVER, UNIT NO. 3 Nuclide Ci/yr Nuclide Ci/yr
. Corrosion & Activation Products Fission Products (cont'd)
Cr-51 1(-4)
Te-127 5(-5)
Mn-54 1(-3)
Te-129m 8(-5)
Fe-55 1.1(-4)*
Te-129 6(-5)
J Fe-59 6(-5)
I-130 1(-4)
.Co-58 5(-3)
Te-131m 5(-5)
.Co-60 8.8(-3)
I-131 7.5(-2)
Z r-95 1.4(-3)
Te-132 9.5(-4)
.i Nb-95 2(-3)
I-132 3(-3)
Np-239 5(-5)
I-133 1.8(-2) l Fission Products I-134 8(-5)
Br 1.1(-4)
Cs-134 1.6(-2)
Sr 2(-5)
I-135 8.3(-3)
Sr-91 3(-5)
Cs-136 1.1(-3)
Y-91m 2(-5)
Cs-137 2.6(-2)
Tc-99m 3.4(-2)
.Ce-144 5.2(-3)
Ru-103 1.4(-4)
All Others 6(-3)
Ru-105 2.4(-3)
Total (e:: cept H-3) 2.5(-1)
Ag-110m 4.4(-4)
H-3 500 Te-127m 1(-5) a - Exponential notation; 1(-4) = 1 x 10-
-5 b - Nuclides whose release rates are less than 10 Ci/*g ne not listed individually but are included in the category "All-Others."
5 1
IL 1
,~
TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL f
IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM
. CRYSTAL RIVER, UNIT NO. 3
.Ci/yr i
Radio d Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air Decay nuclide Building Building _
Building Ejector Tanks Total Kr-83m a
4 a
2 a
6 Kr-85m 1
2(+1) a 1.2(+1) a 3.3(+1)
Kr-85 9
3 a
2 2(+2) 2.1(+2)
Kr-87 a
1.1(+1) a 7
a 1.8(+1)
Kr-88 1
3.6(+1) a 2.3(+1) a 6(+1)
Kr-89 a
a a
a a
a Xe-131r.
1.3(+1) 6 a
4 a
2.4(+1)
Xe-13?m 2(+1) 2.6(+1) a 1.7(+1) a 6.3(+1)
Xe-133 2.2(+3) 1.5(+3) a 9.5(+2) a 4.7(+3)
Xe-135m a
2 a
2 a
4 Xe-135 8
6(+1) a 3.7(+1) a 1(+2) l Xe-137 a
2 a
1 a
3 Xe-133 a
8 a
5 a
1.3(+1)
I-131 1.3(-3) 5.5(-3) 1.1(-3) 3.5(-2) a 4.3(-2)
I-133 4.3(-4) 1.1(-2) 2.1(-3) 6.7(-2) a 8.1(-2)
Mn-54 2.2(-4) 1.8(-4) c c
4.5(-5) 4.4(-4)
Fe-59 7.3(-5) 6(-3) e c
1.5(-5) 1.5(-4)
.Co-53 7.5(-4) 6(-4) c c
1.5(-4) 1.5(-3)
Co-60 3.4(-4) 2.7(-4) e c
7(-5) 6.8(-4)
Sr-89 1.7(-5) 1.3(-5) e c
3.3(-6) 3.3(-5)
Sr-90 3(-6) 2.4(-6) c
.c 6(-7) 6(-6)
- Cs-134 2.2(-4) 1.8(-4) e c
4.5(-5) 4.4(-4)
.Cs-137 3.8(-4) 3(-4) e c
7.5(-5) 7.5(-4)
F.-3 5.1(+2) e e
e c
5.1(+2)
C-14 1
a a
a 7
8 Ar-41 2.5(+1) e e
e c
2.5(+1) 4' a = less than 1.0 Ci/yr/ reactor for noble gases and carbon-14, less than 10" Ci/yr/ reactor for iodine n
b = exponential notation; 1.4(-2) = 1.4 x 10 ~
c = less than 1% of total for this nuclide j
d = radionuclides not listed are released in quantities less than those specified in notes a and c from all sources l
l l
-4 TA11LE-3
~
COMPARISON OF CRYSTAI, RIVER, IfNIT NO. 3 WITil -
APPENDIXITO10CFRPART50,SECTIONSII.A,11.11ANDII.{(MAY5,1975)"AND SECTION II.D, ANNEX (SEPTEMB ER 4,1975) calculated Appendix I" Annex Doses criterion Design objectives
- Design objectives Unit No. 3 Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from alI pathways (infant) 3 mrem /yr/ unit 5 mrem /yr/ site 0.0027 mrem /yr/ unit Dose te any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr/ unit 5 mrem /yr/ site 0.0026 mrem /yr/ unit Nable Gas Ef fluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr/ unit 10 mrad /yr/ site 0.38 mrad /yr/ unit 11 eta dose in air 20 mrad /yr/ unit 20 mrad /yr/ site 0.84 mead /yr/ unit 4
Dose to total body t..
an individual 5 mrem /yr/ unit 5 mrem /yr/ site 0.45 mrem /yr/ unit
')
{
Dose to skin of an
~
individual
!'. mrem /yr/ unit 15 mrem /yr/ site 0.95 mrem /yr/ unit Radioiodines and Other Radio-nuclides Released to the
]
Atmosphere "
Dose to any organ from all pathways (child-thyroid) 15 mrem /yr/ unit 15 mrem /yr/ site 0.069 mrem /yr/ unit i
~,
Table 3 (cont'd) aFederal Register, V. 40, p. 19442, May 5, 1975.
bFederal Register, V. 40, p. 40816, September 4, 1975.
CDesign Objectives given on a site basis.
Therefore, there desi6n objectives apply to 1 unit at the site.
d Limited to noble gases only.