ML19354D957
| ML19354D957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19354D958 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001250072 | |
| Download: ML19354D957 (14) | |
Text
',
[
s' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION f
kELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXPIRATION DATE Of FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 V.C. StMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-395
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (Suramer Station, Sumer or the plant) is currently licensed for operation for 40 years commencing with the issuance of the construction permit. The Itcense expires on March 21, 2013.
By letter dated August 2,1985, as supplemented March 30,1988, June 15,1989, and September 1, 1909, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) requested that the license expiration date for Summer be extended to August 6, 2022 or 40 years after the date of issuance of the operating license.
2.0 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The granting of this request would allcw the licensee to operate the l
plant for nine years and four months beyond the current-license expiration date.
This extension would permit the plant to operate for the full 40 year design basis lifetime, consistent with previously issued Commission policy (Memorandum dated August 16, 1982 from William J. Dircks to the Comissioners), as evidenced by issuance of similar extensions to other licensees, e.g. March 17, 1987 License Amendment Nos.107 and 110 issued to Wisconsin ':lectric Power Company for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL !!1 PACTS OF THE FF.0 POSED ACTION i
in br,y 1981, the t'uclear Retvlatory Comission issued the " Final -
Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of the Virgil C.
i Sumer Nuclear Station, Unit No.1," NUREG-0719 (FES).
The staff has
)
reviewed the FES and the edditional information provided by the licensee to determine the environmental impact of operation of the Summer Station l
for an additional nine years.
i i
t P
2 The FES for the Sumer Station projected the impact of the operation of i
the station on the surrounding environment.
Impacts included those associated with radiological and non-radiological areas.
As a result of the request for the extensicn, the licensee had to compare actual impacts of operction of the Summer Station with those projected in the FES.
In addition, the licensee had to project what the impact would be as a result of the additional years of operation.
The staff has evaluated this l
.infornation and the conclusions follow.
j 4.0 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The staff has compared previous estimates of offsite radiological impacts i
for.30 years of operation with the impact of 40 years of operation derived from estimates for similar light water reactors.
The following is the staff's evaluation.
4.1 Radiological Impacts - General Public In the FES, the staff calculated dose comitments to the human population residing around the Sumur Station to assess the impact on nearby residents from radioactive material released to the environwnt. As u sed in the FES, the dose commitment estimated was that dose which would be t
received over a 50-year period following the intake of radioactive reterials for one year, based on the environmental concentrations that would exist i
15 years after the plant began operation.
The 15 year period was chosen as representing the midpoint of plant operation and was incorporated into the dose nodels to allow for buildup of long-lived radienuclides in the environment (e.g., soil and shoreline sediments).
For a plant licensed for 40 yects, increasing the buildup period from 15 to 20 years would increase the dose from long-lived radionuclides via the ingestion l
pathways by about one-third.
It would have much less effect on the projected dose from shorter-lived radionuclides.
Maximum doses projected for a critical receptor were a thymid dose of 0.17 rem per year, via the inhalation pathway, for a child located 1.2 miles east of the plant, and 0.01 mrem per year, via the water irgestion pathway.
The thyroid dose is principally due to I-131, a radionuclide with a relatively short half-life.
The water ingestion dose is due to both long-and short-lived nuclides.
Table 4-1 presents offsite dose calculations based on actual effluent releases for the period January (Reference 1) are typical of each year of operation of 1,1982, thvough Decenter 31, 1988.
The calculated offsite doses Summer and are expected to remain typical of plant operations through the year 2022.
'I
?
I t
.,,w
,,-----s
l t,,-
j l
~ 3*
The staff considered the radiological impacts expected as a result of 1
hypothetical design basis accidents at Sumer and from normal plant l
cperation. The estimated impacts of postulated design basis accidents are related to power level and short-lived radionuclides, rather than to length of operation; thus, the results presented in the FES are not changed.
In the Sumner Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for operation (Reference 2) and the FES, the staff cvaluated the regional demograpiy for Summer and t
found the land area within a 25 mile radius, as indicated by-the population statistics, to be abcut 91 percent woodlands and 7 percent agriculture.
The remaining area is devoted primarily to general farming and small ir.dustry.
The FES projected a 14.5 percent increase in population within 50 miles of the facility from 1970 to 1979, and a 63 percent increase from 1979 to 2010.
Based on 1980 census data, the level of population i
t l
projected in the FES for 1980 is close to the 1980 census data. The i
staff also projected in the FES an upward trend in the population of the.
region for the years 1990 and 2000.
For exanple, FES Table 2.1, projected for the years 1990 and 2000 a population increase from 566,750 to 753 000.
However, based on the 1980 census data, the licensee's projected popu$ations for these years are 523,220 and 587,000, respectively.
The staff, therefore, concludes that projected population distributions, as related to the requested extension of the Sumner operating license, are I
adequately bounded by the FES. The staff further concludes, based upon these population estinates, that the current Exclusion Area Boundary, l
Low Population Zone, and nearest population center distance will likely remain unchanged in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, the conclusion reached in the SER that Sumer meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, remains unchanged.
4.2 Environnental Impets-tfranium Fuel Cycle The impacts of the uranium fuel qycle as considered for the FES were originally based on 30 years of operation of a model light water reactor (LKR).
The fuel requirements for the model LWR were assumed to be one initici core load and 29 annual refuelings (approximately 1/3 core per refuelirg ).
In considering the annual fuel requirement for 40 ytars of operation for the model LWR, fuel use is averaged over a 40-year operating life, which results in a slight reduction compared to the annual fuel requirement averaged for a 30-year operating life. The net result is an a)proxirrately 1.5 percent reduction in the annual fuel requirements for tie rodel LWR, due to averaging of the initial core load over 40 years, instead of 30 years.
This sna11 reduction in fuel requirements would not lead to significant changes in the annual impacts of the uranium fuel cycle.
l The Summer Station switched to 18 months refueling outages following the i
second refueling outage in September 1985, The switch to the longer I
operating cycle does not change the above conclusions.
r
I
' l,, -
4.3 Environnental Intacts - Occupational Exposures The staff has evaluated the licensee's occupational dose assessment for the additicnal years during which Sumner would operate and compared it with current Sunner and overall industry occupational dose experience.
The FES statec that it was impossible to determine in advance a specific year to year or average annual occupational radiation dose for a particular plant over its cperating lifetime.
However, the staf f projected that the occupational doses at Sumner could average as much as 1300 person-rem /yr. when averaged over the life-of-the-plant.
The average occupational collective doce at Sucmer over the recent six year period covering 1982-1988 is 354 person-rem per year (Reference 3).
By comparison, the annual collective dose per reactor unit for other U.S.
pressurized water reactors during this same period averaged 450 person-rem per reactor-year (Reference 3).
The licensee has projected that an average annual collective dose of 400 person-rem will be incurred for each additional year of operation.
The total occupational dose expected over the period of the operating license extension is 3600 person-rem and is based on additional refuelings during this period, with no major unanticipated maintenance.
The licensee expects that increased doses from increased maintenance and corrosion product build-up will be offset by a continually improvirg ALARA (as icw as reasor,eble achievable) program, dose-savir.g plant modifications, reduced requirenents for TMI-required modifications and the use of robotics.
The staff concludes that the licensee's occupational dose assessment is reasonable, and their radiation protection program is adequate to ensure that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained ALARA, in continued compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, and envelcped by the values projected in the FES.
4.4 Environnental Impacts - Transportation of Fuel cnd Waste The staff reviewed the environnental impacts attributable to the transporta-tion of fuel waste to and from the Sumer site. With respect to the normal conditions of transport and possible accidents in transport, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts are adequately bounded by those identified in Table S-4, " Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor," of 10 CFR 51.52.
Table S-4 represents the contribution of such transporta-tion to annual radiation dose per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public.
Table S-4 is based on an annual refueling and an assumption of 60 spent-fuel shipnents per reactor year.
Presently, Sumner is on a 18-month refueling cycle, which would require
]
less than 30 spent fuel shipnents per reactor year.
Reducing the number i
of fuel shipments will reduce the overall impacts related to population exposure and accidents discussed in Table S-4
- ~ ~ - - - ' ' - ~ - ~ ' ' ' - - ' '
l
. l
)
Spent fuel will be stored in the reracked, high density spent fuel pool (previously evaluated by the staff for radiological environmental consequences).
This will reduce offsite exposures since the radioa::tivity in the fuel will decay longer before shiprent than originally stated in the FES. Any further expansion of onsite spent fuel storage capacity (such as through rod. consolidation) will be further evaluated for radiological environnental effects by the NRC staff when and if it is proposed.
The licensee's radioactive waste (radwaste) shipnents g/ year versus ave been only slightig higher than the PWR industry average (278.6 m i
223.9 m / year) (Reference 1).
Moreover, tM recent installation of a
- super compactor" is a connitment by SCE8G to reduce the volume of annual radioactive waste shipments to ALARA levels.
Based on this information, the volume of radioactive waste shipped in the years of the extension should remain significantly lower than the FES predictions and represents a-small percentage of the total volume generated over the life of the plant.
4.5 Decomissioning The staff has evaluated the it: pact of the proposed extension on decomiss-ioning of the unit and concludes that there will be no significant impact.
SCE&G will submit an initial decomissioning report to the llRC by July 26,1990. Also, it will submit its proposed decomissioning plan for review at or about five years before the expected termination of l
opera tions.
The staff will review these at the appropriate time.
4.6 Conclusions Based on the above considerations, the projected annual radiation dose to individuals and populations would not be changed significantly over the proposed extended period of operation.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with extending the operating license duration by about 10 years are not significantly different from I
those previously asessed in the FES and are acceptable.
5.0 HON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIP.0NP. ENTAL If1 PACTS 1
5.1 Lund Use The FES addressed the irpact of operation of the Sumer Station in terms of the an.ount of acreage amitted to the project, the land which would be taken out of production, and population growth resulting from the operation of the Summer Station.
r As a result of the operation of the Sumer Station the amount of land committed to the project has not increased.
Therefore, the amount of land taken out of production remains the same as that projected in the FES.
The estimate in the FES of the population growth resulting from the in-migration of workers both for jobs at the plant itself and for service related industries stimulated by plant operations has been small compared to the related existing population in the Central Midlands region of South Ca rolina.
Land which was utilized for transmission line corridors has
s.
i 6-not resulted in the pernarent loss of farmland since fanning activities have been able to continue during this period. The licensee has evaluated s
the impact of the license extension and has determined that there will not be any additional land use impacts as a result of the extension.
The staff has reviewed the above information and has concluded that the extension of the operating license is not expected to have a significant i
environnental impact on land use.
p 5.2 Hydrological Impacts of Operation i
The FES for Summer addressed the impact of operation on surface water, ground water, with respect to the discharge of sanitary and cheniical wastes, water quality, and thernal effects on the Monticello Reservoir, i
Discharges from the Summer Station are limited by the N'ational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by).the South Carolin Department of Health and Envirunmental Control (DHEC The permit expired in June 1989 and a renewal application was forwarded in Decent >er 1988.
I l
The licensee has confirned in thermal mapping studies that the evaporative losses resulting from operation of the Sumner Station are bounded by the information presented in their Dperating License Environnental Report and the FES. The thernal plume area limits imposed by the Summer NPDES Permit have never been exceeded.
Under the worse meteorological ecnditions the-evaporative water losses would be equal to those presented in the FES.
A study by the licensee indicated that there has not been any significant reduction in water quality as a result of the operation of the Sunmer Station.
Turbidity levels of the Monticello Reservoir are lower than those of the Parr Reservoir which is located adjacent to the Monticello Re servoi r.
The discharge of chemical and sanitary wastes is controlled by the Sumner NPDES permit. The ef fluent levels of this permit are routinely met.
However, there has been some growth of algte and rapid photosynthesis in the treatment ponds which has caused the pH limit to be exceeded during certain times in the summer ponths.
The licensee has requested and has received a of algae. pproval from DHEC to utilize chemicals to control the growth The licensee has also received permission from DHEC to use boric acid on the secondary side of the plant to control corrosion.
The discharge of the boren is monitored.
The licensee indicated that there was a rise in the groundwater level
- f onsite as a result of the tilling of Monticello Reservoir.
They have assuned that similar increases in level have been experienced in ground-water of adjacent properties which are not owned by the licensee.
Howev er, l
as noted in the FES, the main hydrological impact of the site is a result of the operation of the Fairfield Pump Storage Facility.
Therefore, irrespective of the extension of the operating license, reservoir icvels necessary to support the operation of the Fairfield Pump Storage Facility i
t
,o w. -
._-.=---.e-...-..--,,,,--_*.m.
j 7
l would still affect grounckater levels and wells adjacent to the reservoir.
l Measurement of radioactivity from two onsite and offsite wells has not shown any radiological contamination of groundwater.
However, one onsite well has shown low level contamination due to surface run-off of rain water containing airborne emissions.
l The licensee has projected that the hydrologict.1 impact as a result of the extension would be no different than that which has cccurred as a result of the present operation of the Summer Station.
In addition, discharges are limited by the requirements of DHEC.
The staff has reviewed the information and analyses provided by th'e ' licensee and has concluded that the extension of the operating license is not l
expected to have a significant environnental impact.
5.3.
Impact on Biota
(
5.3.1 Terrestial t
L The FES discussed the impact of operation on the terrestrial biota.
This impact assessment included the impact of the Summer Station and the transmission lines.
The licensee indicated that infrared photography had revealed no loss l
of plant vigor around the station.
Bird surveys revealed no differences l
between the preoperational and operational data with the exception of the composition and nurbers of waterfowl and wading birds due to the creation of the Monticello Reservoir.
The licensee has altered their transmission line corridor maintenance to. limit the use of broadcast herbicides to those areas where it is impractical to row. The effects of operation have been determined to be mininal, as was predicted by the FES.
The licensee has determired that the extension is not likely to result in a change in the impact on terrestrial biota from that which has occurred during past operation.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and analyses and has concluded that the extension of the operating licensee is not likely to result in a significant environmental impact.
5.3.2 Aouatic Biota The FES addressed the impact of discharges from the Summer Station on phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish.
In addition, the impact of the thermal discharges on the Broad /Congaree River were projected.
The impact of cooling water system impingement and entrainment were projected as were the icvels of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the Monticello Reservoir.
l L
o.
., l i
t The licensee conducted preoperatior.a1 and operational studies of the aquatic biota in the Parr and Monticello Reservoirs.
Operational data indicate that the effects of the thermal discharge are limited to the southeast portion of the Monticello Reservoir and away from the discharge j
into the Parr Reservoir and the Broad River. Thermal limits, as stated in the fiPCES permit, have never been exceeded in the discharge temperature, the plume measured at the Fairfield Pupp Storage Facility, or in the plume temperature rise. A theral )1ume stu4y indicated that the thermal discharge into the Parr Reservoir siould not affect the striped bass spawning downstream in the Congaree River.
However, the thermal discharge may result in a general trend of earlier fish spawning in the Monticello Reservoir.
Benthic organism densities are lower in the vicinity of the i
thermal discharge.
Hot weather fish kills. have occurred in the discharge t
I canal and when the plant has experienced a reactor trip with the kill nunt>er ranging from several up to several hundred. Discussions hne been held wit 1.DHEC and the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department on possible mitigative actions.
l The thermal discharges have had no apparent effect on the D0 level in the fionticello Reservoir although icw D0 levels were found in deep, stratified areas of the reservoir, but this is unrelated to the operation of the l
Summer Station.
Chemical discharges have been as projected in the FES.
The licensee has received approval from DHEC to use a biocide to treat the Summer Station's service water system for Asiatic clams, i
The licensee conducted impingenent and entrainnent studies of their circulating water system.
As a result of these studies, they determined that, although fish were being removed through impingenent, the everall effect on the adult fish population was minimal.
Entrainment losses were determined to have no apparent ill effects en the fish population of the Monticello Reservoir.
The licensee has assessed the impact of the additional years of operation associated with the license extension.
They have concluded that the impact of the additional years of operation should be no different than that associated with the present operation of the Summer Station.
The staff has evaluated the licensee's assessment and has concluded that the impact on aquatic biota as a result of the extension of the operating license does not impose a significant environmental impact.
6.0 OTHER N0ll-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 6.1 Socioeconomic Impacts The FES projected the impact of the operation of the Sumer Station on the labor force and the economics of the area.
In addition, the impact on recreational activities was also assessed, as well as the impact on historic and archaeological sites.
-,e-ge
.-v e
w e
4
7 The number of employees at the Summer Station was 660 as of June 1989.
This compares to a figure of 213 as projected by the FES.
Sone of the increase can be attributed to the relocation of nanagement, licensing, and engineering staff from the company headquarters in Columbia to the i
site.
The operation of the plent has not resulted in an influx of people into the area attund the plant.
by the F ES. -
The growth has been moderate as predicted i
The amount of taxes paid to Fairfield County as a result of the operation of the Summer Station is almost $8 million which represents almost 70% of the total property taxes collected by the county, in addition, the amount paid is expected to increase by $2 million due to the expiration of the manufacturers' five year exemption.
The existing contribution is significantly more than that projected in the FES.
The FES indicated that the operation of the Sunner Station created a 300 acre sub-impoundnent for a fishing la ke and switaming, boating, and picnic a ctivities. however, the FES predicted that this area would only have mininal use.
The licensee has confirned that utilization has been mininal.
The licensee indicated that there were no new historical or archaeological sites identified since the issuance of the FES.
In addition, they indicated that the license extension will not affect the historic character or the public use of the three sites located near the Summer Station.
l
[
The licensee has indicated that the extension of the operating license for the Summer Station is not anticipated to change the socioeconomic impact on the area.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's evaluation and has concluded that the impact on the sociceconomics of the area will not be a significant inpact as a result of the extension.
6.2 Short Term Uses Versus Long Term Productivity The FES indicated that the evt.luation of short term uses would be that associated with the period of construction and operation of the station and that long term productivity would be that period beyond the service l
life of the facility.
The FES stated that short term uses would involve forest land and agricultural productivity with no serious impacts.
The FES also indicated for the long-term approximately 200 acres would be affected with the remaining portion of the land restored to its natural vegetation.
The licensee determined that the impact of the extension was already covered by the FES.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's determination and has concluded that the short-term uses versus long-term productivity remain virtually unchanged and will r.ot result in a significant impact as a result of the extension.
6.3 Irreversible and irretrievable Commitnent of Resources Thv. FES indicated that the resources that may be irreversibly committed by) operation are: (1) biological species or species populations destroyed, (2 unreceverable construction materials, (3) materials rendered radioactive that cannot be deccntaminated or uranium fuel consumed, (4) air and water resources lost, and (5) land areas rendered permanently unfit for other u se s.
The licensee determined that the proposed extension in the operating license will not result in any significant irreversible impact on biotic resources or on water and air rescurces, nor will it require additional construction materials. Most of the radioactive contamination of structures, systems, and components occurred relatively early in the facility life so that the extended aeriod of operation should not cause significant additional niaterial to secome perenently contaminated.
With respect to land resourcts, the land utilized for the site, as well as transmission corridors, is not generally considered irreversible or irretrievably committed in the long-term.
The only irreversible and irretrievcble comitment of resources that would result from the extended period of operation is the additional uranium fuel that would be consumed or reduced to unrecoverable waste.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's determination and has concluded that the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources as a result of the extension will not result in a significant impact.
7.0 PLANT MODIFICATIONS The Summer Station has procedures which govern the manner in which modifications are made to the facility under 10 CFR 50.59.
This procedure calls for the determination of whether the proposed modifica-tion will result in an increase in radf 6 tion doses or will alter chemical or thermal releases to the environnent. Where necessary environmental t
approvals or peruits are required, DHEC is the typical agency from which approval is requested.
If the proposed modification involves an "unreviewed safety question" or a charge in the Technical Specifications, then NRC approval is required.
The NRC is annually updated with respect to the changes nede under 10 CFR 50.59.
Those rodifications which have been made and are environmental in nature include:
1) change of the water supply to the circulating water pump motor bearing coolers from raw water to filtered water; 2) addition of a 5,000 gallon collection tank for collection and holdup of water from the refueling water storage tank; 3) addition of two buildings within the protected area for computer office space and maintenance activities; and
.A
3.
7 s
. l l
4) a monitoring system to detect water accumulation in underground i
tanks as well as leakage.
Other rodifications which are being considered include:
1) steam generators replacement dJe to their continually degrading condition; t
2) instc11ation of a biocide treatment system to the service water system to prevent Asiatic clam growth; j
3) installation of an oil incinerator to reduce the anount of I
radioactive waste required-to be disposed; and i
4) renoval of the RTD manifold system with replacement using wall-mcunted RTD's to reduce occupational doses.
While it is recognized that the requested license extension could possibly cause further routine design changes and modificaticns similar in nature to those already conducted, it is not anticipated that these would have an adverse effect on the envimnment.
Those that possibly could, would be reviewed by the llRC or the appropriate state, local, or Federal agency prior to implementation.
8.0 CONCLUSIO!! ON ENVIRONf! ENTAL Ilf ACTS Based on the above, the staff concludes that the proposed extension would not have any significant impact. on the envimnment.
9.0 ALTERNAT!YES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION r
One alten.ative to issuance of the proposed license extension would be to deny the application.
This would require the plant to shut down upon expiration of the current operating license. Another alternative, is the construction of a fluidized bed coal plant to replace the Summer j
Stati on.
Extension of the operating license would involve little or i
no additional-capital costs for the period of the extension, whereas capital costs associated with new fossil fuel replacement generating i
stations would be sianificant.- Environnental-impacts related to extending the operating life of the plant, inclucing the fuel cycle and transporation impacts, remain small when compared to impacts L
related to fossil plant electrical generation.
10.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES This acticn does not involve the use of resources not previously related to the operation of the plant.
E f
F
r, 11.0 AGENCIES AND PER50!G CONSULTED In the course of our review of licensee's request, the staff contacted the South Carolina Department of Health and Environnental Control.
12.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENY:RONMENTAL llPACT STATEMENT The staff has reviewed the proposed license amendnent relative to the requirenents set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the issuance of the proposed license anendnent will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environnent. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environnental impact staterent need not be prepared for this action.
Principal Contributors:
J. Minns J. Fayes, Jr.
Dated: December 28, 1989
(
J$
j' l
REFERENCES i
1.
Semiannual Effluent and Waste Disposal Feport for Operating Period January 1981 to December 1988, V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina Electric & Gas company 2.
Safety Evaluation Report Relt.ted to the Operation of Summer Unit 1 U.S. Nuclear Reg (ulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Reactor P.egulation, February 1981.
NUREC-0717).
3.
1UREG/CR-1850, Volume 6. " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Facilities," January 1988.
4.
NRC's Decommissioning Rule,10 CFR Part 50.33(k), 'and 10 CFR Part 50.75,
" Reporting and Recordkecping for Decommissioning Planning."
I
c---
)
e l
Table 4-1 l
Comparison Between Sumer Average Annual Offsite Individual Doses l
l and TES Projections and 10 0FR 50 Appendix 1 Dose Design Objectives Doses (erw/ year or mrad / year)
Sumer TES 10 CFR 50 Gaseous Effluents Aver {g TabTe 4.8 Appendix I ibble Cases _
B Gansna Air Dose 0.019 0.23 10 Beta Air Dose 0.063 0.57 20 fodines and Purticulates Organ 0.0074 0.75 15 Liquid Effluent Totalgody 0.064 0.05 3
Organ 0.15 0.06 10 1.
Includes thyroid, liver and bone; by water and-fish ingestion pathways.