ML20087G709
| ML20087G709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1995 |
| From: | Brown W, Reichet P, Scott L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087G707 | List: |
| References | |
| LM-526, NUDOCS 9504140299 | |
| Download: ML20087G709 (23) | |
Text
- - - - - -
- 1. Calculanon No. 1M -SM c Page t ,
sua.ExR. CALCULATION COVER SHEET 2. b I.GS 2
/d GROUP gg O PBWS DOCTYPE 061
. 7 7. O W %W MOO /NCR/ECR No: / 5. Responsible Brancet &: M Page No:[}24 4 O. hec 79 4 b bA h . SY hMWW
& Desenpoon: 04tr,-,y; w o r <t' cn s e r ad io Itp e a j t-/" 62 oT ktin3 soI<At, 9. System / Topic No.: OM{ $ 'o',, Nr " " >
t , kga iraw to oUm g T.ev. sr boss n , Reih%g@b i ml S rMY P w n. N[g Qt> w 9, n s N 'tO Componert- I'[A RECORD OF REVISIONS
- 12. Vend r C 11Assumsions 14. Signatures 10 g* g g.m d Mm Number Rev. Yes No Preparer Rev%wer Appecusr/Date F'ww. Na
"*""3"'""
,O 0, ins ~ J r// 'n o X MW #'}17
- bS W/S,2e J h [5, v ., J . . !, 7/+ i" M[f fl,jj.f*Wf ?
l
- 1 % .tva' turdtom M ys- h *- * " , 9 r 0 4 ~ ' ~^ *
- Nln l K **fA
, #f
- W i a seu,&.
DA OO OPJ G4 XO OO UltA OO Ob UOO O (A D-
'D (A PJ 1& O Manual 15 Prwides Info 10: yg M Computer Reused Cak-Computer program and version GA$thg(m c.ci t) %<. O Nurrbers Receves Info from: yg
- 17. Provides into 10 UFSAR/ g ja w g.
Tech. Spec : (DS use) lL- __ _ -
" <r z = 4 ~ G i
. , , _ . ~.
s . ~ ~ _ .. . .-
~~_, . , , . . - .
., J*> .
. Exhibit NE-C-420-1.' pav. 1 1 Ef feet Ive Dates -- 9/4794..
. Page t of 4-kN
' RAS / k.1vn
'f s .
CALC. # 2N 44 REv. /
'DCD # N DATE: 2 ff
/ ?
CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST -
MANUAL' COMPUTER YES or N/A- t CALC. CALC.
~
X CALCULATION IS THE APPROPRI ATE BASIS FOR THE ACTIVITY d$ r X CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND METHODOLOGY' CONFORM TO YM ,
APPLICABLE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS X' X SOURCES OF DATA AND FORMULAS WERE REVIEWED AND VERIFIED TO BE -[dj F
CCRRECT AND LETE
.X INPUT ISVCORRECT AND USED PROPERLY . [6f '
X THE ANALYTICAL METHOD USED. IN THE CALCULATICN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED - A// '
AND IS PROPER FOR THE I>. TENDED USE
,X l - .. . - MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY HAS BEEN CHECKED AND IS CORRECT (INDICATE /k/A METHOD USED)
A) COMPLETE CHECK CF EACH COMPUTATION // / ,
B) SPOT CHECX OF SELECTED COMPUTATIONS ///
C) PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATE OR APPROXIMATION CALCULATICH //A (ATTECHED)
X X CALCULATION RESULTS WERE CHECKED AGAINST APPLICABLE DESIGN CRITERIA [cf AND WERE FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE .
-X EXISTING CALCULATICNS REQUIRING REVISION AS A RESULT OF THIS /MV CALCULATION HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED & DOCUMENTED THE ANALYTICAL METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPUTER CALCULATION [tS CUMMARY IS PROFER FCR THE INTENDED USE X ALL SYSTEM AND TOPIC NUMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALCULATION ARE kd5 ;
LISTED COMPUTATIONAL ACCURACY HAS BEEN ' CHECKED AND IS CORRECT (INDICATE '
kis
METHOD USED)
A) CHECK SAMPLE CALCULATION USING DATA OTHER THAN THAT USED IN MA THE SAMPLE .
B) PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATE OR APPROXIMATION CALCULATICN Md *
(ATTACHED)
C) DESCRIBE OTHER METHOD USED: S ,
Git 3PMt ^* VMIRro ugee;e g p e r ./>ggd.
X PROGRAM USED IS APPROPRIATE, INPUT IS VALID, AND OUTPUT IS of
/
REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE INPUT X X BASE CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AGAINST CURRENT. DRAWING ' d/M '
REVISIONS AND POSTED DCDS TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES The criteria listed above are the minimum criteria to be considered and are not intended to limit the initiative of the reviewer to consider other criteria.
Attributes applicable to manual and computer calculations are noted by an 'X* in the appropriate column.
List the documents used to support this review. [E#cf2ENG"r 8'- f
- feb d.8 ,
8 REVIEWED BY:
w - A' M [A4Y DATE:i21 i J'
s l
)
,.,w., w .- y . . .-r--, - - . , - , ,,--r - v- ,,
- No$wcioave,i CALCULATION SET NO.
Engineers & Constructors CALCULATION
SUMMARY
LM-526 A conuSeawn d Badger and utR, & CONTROL SHEET PREllM FINAL VOt0 REVISION Page 4-ef-B-A 3g21 I
oisc@UNe MECHANICAL l PROJECT TITLE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 O 7198.600 9I(
STRUCTURE OF SYSTEM 009,011,012,068,102,901 DESIGN CLA!. ,
~. NON-SAFETY RELATED DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS C sSING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM SUBJECT COOLING TOWER BASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY POND, AS FILL COMPLETED BY . . 4 t DATE 1 3 -5 CHECKED BY W $O. 2. /5 ate &A) DATE 2-2/9S~
E B
) i f (f.d DATE f 00 S6E OR MGR OF STAFF GROUP / /'
REASON FOR REVISION. TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEETS
~'
CALCUL TION REUISEd TO: (1) CALCULATE DOSE lhl5ACYS MITg mSWE bf lNCREASkE AMOUNT dF SOI DS TO BE5[ANDLED AND INCREASED AREAS
~' '
SHEETS REVISED, A00EGOR EU~BE COVERED;"(2) R'EVISE AND DEFEND SSUMPTIONS FOR EROSION 3 g ., g q , g n CAUSED DOSES; (3) IDENTIFY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTIVITY LIMITS p g i r,Q AND EFFLUENT LLDs: (4) DELETE ASSESSMENTS FOR ZR-95 & NB 95; AND
~^ ~ -
Att I, (3ep)
ASSESS"GROU5iiWATER TRA55IPORT EFFECTH5R THe SELECTED Sirs? ~ ~ W 7 b ^t e9t) " M PROBLEM STATEMENT: _, _ __,
SEE PAGE 5, SECTION 1.0.
am.P.%4-- .e,4re'W%6w+= e. ===e e wamewa+e e- d'im-44 W m m= 1's e h o AM--+ usew.wwwae-e-e ameau 9 lube =-- m---d*%-.e minr_.-ma . &- '==emmem---%.w=_-er--irae+ w-=ephaisiessme* *M M 6* now w w- -='**@'--- m6=,de==
3 +=w.ws m erew m an.nm .ewwgube tem-e'e rm v r e- . -a-*e4 --NmAm4.amme-+- e e.,
s s.4w'-.e.-- rhams.> m
.--y., - e. A us" e =1eMasew-w dem 2-<- .sw
- AaJ - .u.wme-4.4 , .csesme- == me w .- w =*m,m s e e-su. _-un g,me .g ene. +-
SUMM ARY. CONCLUSIONS. _ _ ___ _ _
SEE PAGE 5, SECTION 2.0. _ __ _ __
O e
e , . ~ n . . . - . ~.., .n.... .g.
- -n., .. -. - - - - - - ... . - - -- . . .. - - .,
L
'* ., rodM $410 Otv &91 M
- CALCULATION SET NO
. ~CALCU'LATION
SUMMARY
- Lu.526 j : & CONTROL SHEET , PAEUM RNAL VOID REVISION Page4Ht2 y g
~
N k*bW olSOPUNE MECHANICAL-IPROJECT TITLE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 JO 719R 600 s
DESIGN 'DASIS;
_SEE SECTION 3.0.-_ . _
- . ..__.__ g
-t
-- w
, .igarme%--m-+e+.e.epw=p.-meemme.q-.--..~.~.-=4,... ,
1 _ . _ .. _
UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIO..,NS OPEN ITEMS:
n .___ _ _._ ,
SEE SECTION 4.2.-.- --. . . _ - . . - - . _. -- . ..-----
i
. . . ~ . _ _ . . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . .
_ _~ _ . _ . .._._. - _ . . _ _ , . . _ . . . _ . . . _ _
.*MJ
. .y.- ee w. -.g.h*i.,
t
. . . . _ - . - . . . . . . - ~ . - .
l
~.- .---, .- - - .-..-.. .
REFERENCES:
(SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS, CODES, CALCULATIONS. TEXTS, REPORTS, COMPUTER DATA, FSAR, ETC.) .
_ ~ - . _ . . __ . . _ _ _ . _ __._
_ SEE SECTION 6.0.
.-ei. - - - - - r .eeme+- .5em.fi.heFwMme..*-+O.*M-+'t-s MMt r..mr-
-l.iWm-aT-4?*.P- *m,e.#e.< e.***%4fB.BN'
..w.
a . .W.M_m. peep..,
->.m.iewa Y .6-=
. ve, .apa.s.=, . -
d .pw. ,
i
..._....a.. - -
.w,#-.+,-.
..,s... .
y - - - - ., , pa..:. w
.-a.~e.h'>..e 4. . -.A*A.%kJ.*pe..
v-. e. -. . __,44%4.
-y,4 g,
- l
. > _ . ._ .. .- ~ ,m - . . . . . . ,, ,, m -
-- , . ._ .- r --y y
.. _ , .n.. . - -~ -
b*4 ' FOQu too? pgy'c m
- cAlcVLATioN SET No. REv. COMP. SY CHK*o. sY ;
"E GENERAL COMPUTATION LM 526. pr#g g~
SHEET PnEuu. nNAL volo 1 " 15 tJMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 . .X PROJECT : COOLING TOWER, HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND DE1 ERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS Of SHEET 5 op 22 DATE oAH
. USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT RASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY POND AS Fitt J o. ~ 7198.600 l
1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT / PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVE OF CAI.CULATION This calculation supports the use of flowable solids taken from the LGS holding pond, cooling tower basins, and spray pond as onsite fill. This material will be monitored to confirm that any radioactivity ld concentrations are not greater than Solids Activity Limits that are ten (10) times the Effluent Lower Limits of Detectability (LLD). This calculation determines worst case radiological impacts, if the lA flowable solids radioactivity concentrations were at the Solids Activity Limits.
Radjological impact considered are:
(1) Airborne concentrations and doses due to wind borne erosion of the flowable solids pile. These concentrations will be compared with 10 CFR 20 [Ref.1] limits, and doses compared with '
10CFR50 [Ref. 21 limits. It is desirable that these concentrations and doses should be negligible ld compared with these limits, to support the use of the Solids Activity Limits as screening criteria.
(2) Groundwater transport of activity to the Schuylkill River. No consideration of groundwater transport to well locations is necessary, since all offsite and onsite wells are upgradient from the locations where this flowable solids may be placed.
l4 (3) Evaluation of water caused erosion impacts.
(4) Worst case dose rate to workers directly over the flowable solids, due to direct shine and inhalation.
(5) Worst case dose rate for a hypothetical residential use of the flowable solids placement area.
Q This data will provide an indication of the potential for free release of the areas where these flowable solids are used, after plant decommissioning.
(6) Offsite doses due to airborne releases for pathways other than inhalation.
2.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS This calculation analyzes radiological impacts of a conservatively characterized system for using flowable solids as onsite fill. Radioactivity in solids to be placed onsite will be less than the Solids..
l l Activity Limits, as described in Attachment 1.
I Wind caused airborne releases from the fill area can cause only a negligible contribution to offsite doses.
The calculated inhalation dose commitment to an individual at the site boundary is 1.82E 4 mrem /yr.
lg Doses to other pathways, modeled using GASPAR, are all at or below 0.101 mrem /yr, with a very l
conservative isotopic mix.
t Worst case concentrations in releases from the solids to groundwater will be near (2.93 MPC) the l
l g', regulatory limits for effluents, even if all isotopes are at the Solids Activity Limits. Concentra l, about 0.021 of tic 10CFR20 Maximum Permissable Concentration (MPC) will result at the site
- l boundary when credit for the transit time of 194 years Ibased on Sr-90]is taken. No onsite or offsite wells will be impacted.
l /\ Potential release conmntrations due to erosion will be less than an MPC.
i Dose rates to operators during handling this material will be far below 10CFR2O restricted area limits.
Airborne a,ctivity wi:1 also be negligible.
- p. , , . . . . . . . . ,
Arit sooncev ad CALCULATION SET Zo. REV. COMP, BY CHK' GENERAL COMPUTATION LM-526 y j[g BY i M*""
- SHEET PaEuu. RNAL volo 1 (@T LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 . .X M#
COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND PROJECT DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET O ' oF 22 DATE DATE USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY POND. AS FILL Jo 7198.600 Placement of these conservatively characterized flowable solids as fill should not interfere with plant .
~
' decommissioning and free release. Some decay time may be necessary, depending on actual activity levels. ,
d 3.0 DESIGN BASES / INPUT / CRITERIA 3.1 DESIGN BASES / INPUT
, l - (1) T,he total flowable sohds removal rate is conservatively set at 70,000 ft' per year. A total of 16.
placements are assumed for a total of 1,120,000 ft 8. This total allowance for the remaining 30 years of plant life is approximately 10 times the solids removed over the first.10 years of plant lg j
life. The compressed schedule of placement is used to maximize the calculated groundwater l
ef fects t..id to minimize potential that bases for this calculation could delay solids placement. See l Section 5.1.1 for discussion of historical solids removal.
These solids are unlikely to be spread over more than 70,000 ft2 (1.61 acres). [See' Section lA (2) 5.1.3.]
(3) The flowable solids will be monitored to assure that any radioactivity is at concentrations less ld than the Solids Activity Limits, which are set at ten (10) times the Effluent LLD for potentially expected isotopes. [See Section 5.1.2, and Attachment 1 for Effluent LLD Derivation.]
(4) The area for solids placement will be located down-gradient from any offsite well, or onsite well used for other than groundwater sampling.
3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA (1) Doses to onsite personnel from any radioactivity in the flowable solids shall be within 10CFR20 limits and ALARA.
(2) Offsite airborne concentrations due to dusting from the flowable solids fill area shall be a very small fraction of 10CFR20 unrestricted area concentrations.
(3) Offsite doses due to dusting from the flowable solids area shall be a very small fraction of doses resulting from other sources at LGS.
(4) Groundwater concentrations, due to any radioactivity transport from the flowable solids, shall be less than 10CFR20, Appendix B limits, upon discharge to the Schuylkill River, (5) Activity in stormwater runoff, as discharged from the holding pond, shall have radioactivity concentration levels less than 10CFR20, Appendix B limits, upon discharge to the Schuylkill River.
,, y (6) It is preferable that the flowable solids not require any additional handling upon LGS decommissioning, to allow free retcase of the flowable solids use area. Free release criteria
'g published in the USNRC proposed rule on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning (Ref. 3) shall be used in this determination.
a l
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS / UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS l 4.1 ASSUMPTIONS None.
=
l FOW' $007 MV 4 91 cALCMATioN SET No. REV. COMP. BY CHK'o. BY l GENERAL RayHieorn COMPUTATION LM-526 9 f Engiocers & Constructors SHEET PRELIM. FINAL volo 1 AT [T LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X '
COOUNG TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND PROJECT DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS Of SHEET 7 oF 22 oATE oATE
)
USING SOUDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPR AY POND, AS All Jo 7198.600 4.2 UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS ,
The design inputs (in Section 3.1) and certain other conclusions of this calc. will become design criteria for the flowable solids fill area, or this calculation should be revised. Particularly included are:
l4 (a) The 70,000 sq. ft. fill area size upper bound; (b) The commitment to control radioactivity concentrations to the proposed Solids Activity
}g ,, . Limits; l
l (c) The groundwater transport calculation basis assumes that the solids are l placed in one (1) foot thick layers covering 70,000 sq. f t. Solids place in l thicker layers over smaller areas would reduce the diluting infiltering l
water. Therefore, placements should be evaluated to assure that:
l l FRACTION OF THE LIMIT FOR THE WORST CASE ISOTOPE
- l VOLUME OF SOLIDS PLACEMENT (ft') /
l PLACEMENT AREA (ft')
l l is less than one (1).
l (d) Total placement of less than 1,120,000 cu. ft, and individual placements are equal to or less than 70,000 cu. f t.
l4 i
I I
5.0 DETAILS OF CALCULATIONS 5,1 MATERIALS HANDLED 5.1.1 FLOWABLE SOLIDS REMOVAL RATES Flowable solids may be taken from the cooling tower basins, the holding pond, and the spray pond.
Discussion with PECO personnel provided historical solids generation data, as discussed below.
The most recent operation (1994) on the holding pond yielded 7,900 cu. ft. of material This operation is expected on perhaps an every three year basis.
The cooling tower basins are expected to be the dominant source of material. The only historical ld operation on a cooling tower basin (Unit 1,1991) yielded 68,000 cubic feet of dewatered sludge.
Another cleaning may be required in 1996. The Unit 2 cooling tower appears less prone to flowable solids buildup and has never required cleaning.
The spray pond has not yet required flowable solids removal. The spray pond has a design margin of 3 inches of flowable solids, displacing 0.68 million gallons of water (UFSAR, Section 9.2.6.4.2.5].
Thus, if cleaning were ever required, and the entire margin were to be restored, approximately 91,000 cu. f t. of material would be removed.
j For this analysis an enveloping assumption of 70,000 cubic feet of total material in each placement.
l To minimile the potential that the calculation could cause a delay in material placement, this amount
, .. . . . -- - . . . . - ~ . . . n - ~ .. ~ ._ .w . ~
d r 4 e F0se. 5007 CYv or9i
- cAtcVLATloN SET No. REv. COMP. 8Y CHK g Y GENERAL "E N COMPUTATION LM-526 g gj SHEET PREUM. RNAL Voto - 11~ oT 6
^ ' . vX LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 ' '
PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND 4
DETERMANE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL tMPACTS OF SHEET ^O oF 22 oATE oATE USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLOING POND. AND SPRAY FOND, AS FILL Jo 7198.600 i
is assumed to be deposited each year, for 16 years. This compressed schedule maximizes calculated '
~
d concentrations in groundwater. The total assumed placement would be 1,120,000 cubic feet, which
' is more than 10 times that historically observed over the first 10 years of plant life. These values are l_
expected to envelope any cooling tower and holding pond requirements. -This is also a more realistic amount for a spray pond cleaning operation. 1 5.1.2 WORST CASE RADIOACTIVITY CONTENT i
. ,Littly or, no radioactivity has been found in these flowable solids in the past, and they have been 4 disposed of as non-rsdioactive, non-hazardous wastes. . To establish a conservative estimate of the amounts and isotopic breakdowns of the postulated radioactive material dispersed within the flowable solids, Table 1 was developed. This table shows (1) Solids Activity Limits which would be used as a l[ screening criteria, for a range of isotopes which have been found in various plant process fluids and waste streams; and (2) the 10CFR20, Appendix B limits on effluent concentrations in air and water.
5.1.3 LOCATION AND LAYOUT FOR MATERIAL PLACEMENT
- The location for the placement of this material has been selected to be in an ares to the northwest of ;
the spray pond and south of the meteorology tower No.1. A finallayout for this material has not been lA determined. Therefore, for this analysis, the material is assumed to be spread over an area of not l4u l greater than 70,000 sq. ft. (6503 sq. meters).
5.2 POTENTIAL AIRBORNE RELEASES TO OFFSITE AREAS
.- 5.2.1 AIRBORNE RELEASE MECHANISMS FROM FLOWABLE SOLIDS FILL AREA Any airborne releases from the flowable solids fill area are expected to be due to wind caused dusting of this material. Attachment 2, taken from Reference 6, describes the physical processes involved, and the methods of assessment performed by the USNRC for uranium milling tailing piles.
Additionally, Ref. 7 indicates that an air dust loading of 10" gm/cu. meter can be used for airborne activity above the contaminated soil under normal dusty conditions. A loading of 5x10" gm/cu. meter can be used for soil being worked, such as might be the case for grading, or residential use gardening. ,
5.2.2 OFFSITE AIRBORNE CONCENTRATIONS ANO INHALATION DOSES
- Table 1 A shows the resulting inhalation dose rate to an individual at the nearest site boundarv to the l 4 solids fill, to be 1.82x10 mrem /yr, based on the above normal dust loading.
l.
ll l
1
< The inhalation dose rate above the fillis low enough to be considered a negligibfe contribution to offsite doses rates resulting from other LGS activities.
! 5.2.3 OFFSITE DOSES DUE TO INGESTION PATHWAYS Attachment 7 is a GASPAR run output, calculating doses due to various ingestion pathways. X/O values are based on several f actors. Releases are assumed to be 370 gm/yr/sq. meter, conservatively based on uranium mill tailing analyses from Reference 6, and shown in Attachment 2, page 6. This jd _
yields a re[ ease of 2.406x10' gm/yr, or 0.07625 gm/sec. [See Table 18.1
,, u ,n . ~ ~~ ,ws- . _ . s. . . _ .
. , w FORM W)? #fV oC1 CALCULATION SET Mo. REv. COMP. BY CH%'D. eY GENERAL s Emkh 1 COMPUTATION SHEET. PREuM.
LM-526 RNAL volo 1 g
A l'
[
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNITS 1 & 2 .*X PROJECT : COOLING TOWER, HOLOING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 9 oF 22 DATE DATE USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING POND. AND SPRAY POND, AS FILL J.o 7198.600 l Using the 10 4gm/cu. meter normal dust loading, a X/O of 1.312x10-5 sec/cu. meter is calculated. As
- j. shown in Table 1 A, additional credit can be taken for wind direction frequency toward a location on the l
nearest site boundary, and for the additionallateral dispersion. No credit is taken for vertical dispersion l
or for any deposition effects in route to the site boundary. The X/O is therefore adjusted by 0.103 to l
account for wind frequency and 0.68 for lateral dispersion, yielding an net X/q of 9.189x 10 5 Default pathway parameters are used and are conservative for the LGS site.
d Dosps fro.m the GASPAR analysis in no case exceed 0.101 mrem /yr, and are extremely conservative.
5.3 RELEASES THROUGH GROUNDWATER 5.3.1 BEHAVIOR OF GROUNDWATER RELEASES No consideration of groundwater transport to well locations is necessary, since all offsite and onsite .
jd wells are up-gradient from the locations where this flowable solids may be placed. Only consideration of groundwater transport to the Schuylkill River is needed. ;)
Removal of any radioactivity from the flowable solids fi:1 to groundwater is the result of radionuclide' leaching from the contaminated zone. The leached radioactivity is assumed to be carried by the infiltered water. Attachment 3 [Ref. 81, Equation E.4, is used to determine the infiltration rate. The e annual average precipitation rate [P,] used is from UFSAR Table 2.3.1.4, and is 43.9 inches of water. ,
This would be 1.12 m/yr. The standard evapotranspiration and runoff coefficients [C, and C,1 were 2
j used. No irrigation was assumed.' The resulting infiltration rate is 0.448 m/yr. Over the 70,000 ft g;;;
l_
surface, this provided a water flow of 2.91E +09 ml/yr.
J.ttachment 3, taken from Ref. 8, also provides a basis for assessing this leaching phenomena; Table 2A shows the derivation of teach rates from the solids.
Table 2B shows the ratio of the resulting concentration to 10CFR20, Appendix B Effluent Limits.
l Assuming that all material placements, for allisotopes, are at the Solids Activity Limits, the calculated l releases to underlying groundwater is 2.93 MPC.
l To determine the groundwater transport time the same methodology was used as was applied to ll radwaste tank spillages in UFSAR Section 2.4.13. The information below shows the application for
. l both the radwaste tank and the solids area.
l DETERMINATION OF ISOTOPE TRANSPORT TIME TO SCHUYLKILL RIVER FOR GROUNDWATER.
l BORNE ACTIVITY:
I l
130 Groundwater Elevation below Tank (f t) [UFSAR Analysis]
l- ,
' 240 Graundwater Elevation below Solids Placement Area (ft) (UFSAR Fig. 2.4-15]
800 Tank Distance to River (ft.) [UFSAR Analysis]
lg ' 1000 Solids Placement Area Distance to River (ft.) (UFSAR Figure 2.411
}LJ l 105 Averege River Elevation (UFSAR Analysis]
l 390 Permeability of underlying material (f tlyr) (UFSAR Analysis!
I ,
I I
i .
-- _____w__L.---__-__-____]
% 1 o,.- .
. $QQM 0001 Rfv 4/91
~
CALCULATION SET Wo. REv. COMP. 8Y CHK'oj BY GENERAL COMPUTATION E LM-526 - q / [ )
Ei .m z. Econstructors SHEET PaEuu. nNAL VotD 1 AT T !
OMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 ' . .X MN dM ' '
I PNOJECT COOLING tower, HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 10 or 22- DATE DATE i
USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS. HOLDING POND, AND SPR AY POND. AS FILL Jo 7198.600 J ground-l l
ground- water - ' Sr-90 water travel travel l
gradient velocity time time .
l (ft/yr) (yrs) (yrs)-
l Tank- 'O.03125 243.75 3.28 671 l
Solids 0.135 1053 0.950 194 l
As .shown in, Table 2B, it is ' expected that the additional decay in transit from below the fill area to the Schuylkill River will be sufficient to assure that discharges of groundwater would meet these limits.
l4 It should also be noted that this groundwater flow of 2.91E+09 ml/yr will be diluted by an average of 1
2.4-2,1793 cfs
- 3.16E+ 07 sec/yr *2.83E +04 ml/f t8), for an.60E + concentration 15 ml/yr of reduction river flow of (UFSAR 1.8E-06. Pg.
lk average For the above reasons, the Groundwater pathway from the flowable solids is considered neg!Igible.
5.4 RELEASES THROUGH EROSION 5.4.1 NORMAL RAINFALL CONDITIONS l
The fill area is expected to be graded and seeded to minimize erosion. Erosion control fencing will also l be used as appropriate.
For worst case evaluation purposes, erosion by way of runoff will contain one (1) percent by weight l[
solids. A runoff coefficient of 0.2 is used, consistent with the groundwater assessment above. With l
the 1.12 m/yr precipitation rate, and a 6503 sq. m. area, the total water runoff would be 1.46E+09 l
ml/yr. Using the worst case 1 percent solid as a conservative upper bound,1.46E+07 gm/yr of the fill material would be eroded. Note that this solids loading (10,000 ppm)is on the order of 100 times l
l that typically in estuaries such as the Deleware (Ref 9].
For further illustration purposes, this erosion rate would yield a loss of about 0.38 percent of the nominal 70,000 ft fillload 8 each year, or about 1.2 mm average surf ace loss Reference 9 estimates of soilloss for the Deleware River basin averages approximately 50 metric tonnes /sq. km,'or only about 0.025 mm. The Schuylkill River Basin would be expected to be comparable.
l A 1 percent slurry will yield a combined radionuclide concentration within 10CFR20, Appendix B limits, l as shown in Table 6.
l /
Given the demonstrated conservatism of runoff loading assumptions, and the resulting acceptability of l
calculated doses, the standard erosion control measures described above should be ample to assure that l
l regulatory limits are not exceeded.
.5.4.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP) CONDITIONS UFSAR Table 2.4-7 indicates that the initial 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> PMP is 26.8 inches of rainfall. Under PMP conditions, virtually all of this rainf all will run off.
The PMP rainf all 3 times the normal 8.8 inches (1.12 meters /yr
- 0.2 runoff coef.
- 39.4 in./ meter) of l
rainfall rutioff that was calculated to "run off with 1 percent" of the nominal fillload over a three year 7
som m myam
- cAlculATloN s!T No REv. COMP. 8Y CHX'D. BY GENERAL.
COMPUTATION SHEET LM-526 PREuM. FINAL volo 1 pyg A
[
. LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UN!TS 1 & 2 .X
COOUNG TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND
/ '
PROJECT DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL LMPACTS OF $HEET Il oF 22 oATE DATE USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER 7198.600 SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING PONO, AND SPRAY POND AS Fill J o.
period as described in Section 5.4.1 above. Thus, concentrations leaving the fill area would be no
~
worse than the condition shown in Table 6, unless significantly more erosion occured. Additionally, this conclusion considers dilution only by rainfall falling directly on the 1,61 acre fill area. Runoff can lk be expected to actually mix with and be diluted by runoff from surrounding areas before discharging 4 '
beyond the site boundary. The total site area is 595 acres. Therefore, for this severe event, average discharge concentrations, even with severe erosion, would be unlikely to exceed 10CFR20 Effluent Limits.
5.5 OCC,1)PA,TIONAL DOSE RATES DURING MATERIAL HANDLING V
Table 3 shows external exposure dose rates for contact with the flowable solids fill, modeled as a semi-infinite slab. Also shown are calculated doses due to inhalation, based on suspended airborne activity commensurate with this material being worked.
The worst case external exposure dose rate is less than 0.05 mrem /hr, and therefore this would not be -
considered a radiation area. The inhalation dose rates are such that respiratory protection would not q.
be required.
5.6 RESIDENTIAL USE DOSE ASSESSMENTS l . An additional concern with the use of flowable solids,is whether this material might' require additional handling during plant decommissioning and eventual site free release.
J In order to quantify this, a residential use assessment is performed. The methodology is as Documented in NUREG/CR 5512_" Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning -Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Dose" [Ref. 7]. Relevant portions of this reference are in Attachment 7.
Two . standardized exposure scenarios are considered, as follows:
(1) The Residential Use (Surface Soil) Scenario, which includes:
(o) External gamma shine to resident, both inside and outside of the residence; (b) Inhalation doses; (c) Food ingestion from garden grown in this soil.
- 82) The Drinking Water Scenario.
The doses from the surface soil scenario are given in Table 4, and are controlled by the last material deposit. The design criteria for free release is taken from Ref. 3, and requires that doses be less that
,- 15 mrem /yr and ALARA below that level. It is likely that several decades may be required for .
- decommissioning, including an allowance for decay of radioactivity in plant equipment. Table 4 shows that, even for this worst case isotopic mix, that annual doses under this scenario would be below 15 mrem within 20 years.
Table 5 shows doses in the Drinking Water Scenario. The total deposited activity is assumed to be 16 l
70,000 cu f t. loads, each deposited one year apart. The dose conversion f actors from NUREG/CR-5512 require, as input, the total activity in the contaminated material at free release. Therefore, that
osu n m v es, cALCMHoM SET No. REv. COMP. BY - Cf D,,LBY GENERAL.
D EhdN8* -
COMPUTATION SHEET LM 526 PRELIM. FINAL volo 1 y
A
((
'T
.S OA UMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 . .X , ,
COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND PROJECT DETERMINE WOHST CASE HAOlOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 12 of 22 DATE DATE USING SOUDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER SUBJECT ' BASINS, HOLDING PONO, AND SPR AY POND, AS Fill. J o. 7198.600 activity over each load is summed, with credit for decay but no other release mechanism. As can be lk. scen, the drinking water scenario doses are less that 1 mrern/yr at 20 years.
Use of this material as onsite fillis not expected to interfere with free release of the site, after plant decommissioning.' This is because:
i j'l (1) Even with very conservative activity assumptions, the dose rates would be 'within decommissioning criteria within 20 years; (2) The residual radioactivity is likely to be substantially less; (3) The material in its final configuration will be easily surveyed and evaluated to confirm its acceptability for free release.
6.0 REFERENCES
(1) 10CFR20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation", Appendix B.
(2) 10CFR50, Appendix 1.
(3) USNRC Proposed Rule on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning (Federal Register, Vol 59, pages 43200-43232, August 22,1994.
(4) PECO supplied estimates of material taken from holding pond and cooling tower.-
(5) LGS UFSAR, Current as of 11/01/94, as indicated in calculation text.
(6) NUREG-0706, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling", Volume 111, Appendix G, Pages G-7 to G-11, Sept,1980 (7) NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning'- Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Dose."
Draft Report for Comment, Jan 1990.
(8) ANL/EAD/LD-2, " Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using RESRAD, Version 5.0", September 1993.
(9) Ecolony and Restoration of the Deleware River Basin. Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, 1988
/ 7.0 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (1) PECO Provided Effluent LLD and Solids Activity Limits Derivations l
(2) Reference 6.
(3) Appendix E, " Water Pathway Factors", of Reference 8.
(4) Portions of Reference 7 used in this calculation.
(5) Portions of 10CFR20, Appendix B.
(6) Computer Disclosure Sheet and Spreadsheet Verification (7) GASPAR Run Output 4
I toau Scos cry om - ._
mCeoN SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'DyBY GENERAL COMPUTATION LM-526 g /g SHEET rnsuu. nnAt voto 1 oaTE <
l
- fY/y3 o f LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2
- X PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERM6NE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 13 or 22 DATE DATE USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING POND. AND SPRAY POND. AS FILL J o. 7198.600 TABLE 1A - ASSESSMENT OF INHALATION DOSE RATE ABOVE-SOIL TAKEN FROM COOLING TOWER BASINS, SPRAY POND, & SETTLING POND, ASSUMING All ISOTOPES ARE AT THE SOLIDS ' /ITY LIMIT 1
Solide 10CFR20 i
' Activity App. B Limits t 9 Air Fraction of Annual Dose j
Nuclide Limite
' ~
uCi/ml Air Limit mrem I uC1/g(dry) 3E-09 3.3E-07 1.7E-05 Fe-55 1E-05 1E-09 5.0E-07 2.5E-05 Mn-54 5E-06 lE-09 5.0E-07 2.5E-05 Co-58 SE-06 3E-10 1.0E-06 5.0E-05 Fe-59 5E-06 SE-11 1.0E-05 5.0E-04 Co-60 5E-06 4E-10 1.3E-06 6.3E-05 Zn-65 5E-06 Sr-89 5E-07 lE-09 5.0E-08 2.5E-06 g 6E-12 8.3E-06 4.2E-04 Sr-90 5E-07 2E-09 2.5E-07 1.3E-05 Ho-99 5E-06 2E-10 2.5E-06 1.3E-04 Cs-134 5E-06 2E-10 2.5E-06 1.3E-04 Cs-137 SE-06 BE-10 6.3E-07 3.1E-05 Ce-141 5E-06 2E-11 2.5E-05 1.3E-03 Ce-144 5E-06 5.3E-05 2.6E-03 i Assuming airborne dust loading of 1.0E-04 g/cu. meter, for dusty outside conditions, per NUREG/CR-5512.
Q Given that the 10CFR20 concentration limits are those projected to yield 50 mrem /yr, the air total should correspond to an annual done commitment of 2.6E-03 mrem /yr. A To credit dispersion to the site boundary the placement area is treated as having a lateral extent of no greater than 100 meters.
A virtual source is then determined such that a single 22.5 degree sector would encompass the source. This v.rtual source would be i
at 250 meters back from the distributed source. The nearest site boundary to the placement area is approximately 400 ft, (120 M) from the placement area in between the ENE and UNE directions. At this distance winds from the SW and 1/2 of the SSW & WSW Sectors could cross the placement area and impact a receiver at the boundary.
Based on UFSAR Table 2.3.2-2, the total wind frequency would be 0.047+0.5*(0.060+0.051) = 0.103. Therefore the dose above the placement area can be adjusted to account for wind frequency and also, additional lateral dispersion [250 / (120 + 250) = 0.68]. Id The resulting calculated dose rate is 2.6E-03
- 0.103
- 0.68 = 1.82E-04.
e
80AM 5007 CTV 031 C4twLATOf4 SET NO. REV. COMP. SY CHK'D. BY GENERAL O COMPUTATION LM 526 g N ws & nstmetws SHEET FREUM. FINAL VOIO l AE ( AT I /CS A c.).T $~
X LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 COOLING TOWER, HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY PONO PROJECT DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET I4 OF 22 DATE DATE USING SOLIOS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWEh SUBJECT BASIN (HO'.O!NG PONO, AND SPRAY PONO, AS Fitt Jo 7198.600 TABLE IB - IDENTIFIECTION OF AIRBORNE RELEASES 370 = (gm/m^2-yr) MASS AREAL RELEASE RATE 6503.2128 = AREA OF STORAGE (m*2) 2.41E+06 = MASS RELEASE RATE (GM/YR) N Solids Activity Annual Nuclide Limits Release uCi/g(dry) (Ci)
Fe-55 1E-05 2.4E-05 Mn-54 SE-06 1.2E-05 Co-58 SE-06 1.2E-05 Fe-59 SE-06 1.2E-05 Co-60 SE-06 1.2E-05 Zn-65 SE-06 1.2E-05 l
f Sr-89 SE-07 1.2E-06 Sr-90 SE-07 1.2E-06 Mo-99 SE-06 1.2E-05 Cs-134 SE-06 1.2E-05 Cs-137 SE-06 1.2E-05 Ce-141 SE-06 1.2E-05 Ce-144 SE-06 1.2E-05 Areal release rate is that calculated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling.
[NUREG-0706) and is considered conservative compared to this application.
4 O
80AM 81007 8t9 4 9 9 cAtcutsfioN SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'O. BY
. GENERAL COMPUTATION LM-526 @ .-g
- Enghwers & Constructors SHEET PREuM. FNAL VOC 0 AT DATE X ' !, I
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 COOLING TOWER, HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND PROJECT DETERMINE WJRST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS O' SHEET 15 or 22 DATE D A Ts.
USING SOUDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS. HOLDING FOND. AND SPR AY POND. AS FILL Jo 7198.600 ,
TABLE 2A s APPLICATION OF ATTACHMENT 3, EQUATIONS E.3 - E.8 TO DETERMINE WORST CASE LEACH RATES 0.448 = Infiltration Rate (m/yr) 0.3048 = initial thickness of contamination zone (m) 2.25 = contaminated material nominal bulk density (gm/ml)
- ' Tbl. E.2 Tbl. E.2 Eq. E.7 Eq. E.6
' Tbl. E.2 K sat THETA sat b R sat Theta (c2) 0.395 4.05 0.428 0.169 used below Sand 5.55E+03 0.410 4.38 0.453 0.186 Loamy sand 4.93E+03 '
0.435 4.90 0.544 0.237 Sandy loam 1.09E+03 0.485 5.30 0.633 0.307 Silty loam 2.27E+02 0.451 5.39 0.638 0.288 Loam 2.19E+02 0.420 7.12 0.702 0.295 .
Sandy clay loam 1.99E+02 0.477 7.75 0.772 0.368 Silty clay loam 5.36E+01 0.476 8.52 0.773 0.368 Clay loam 7.73E+01 0.426 10.40 0.810 0.345 Sandy clay 6.84E+01 0.492 10.40 0.835 0.411 Silty clay 3.26E+01 0.482 11.40 0.840 0.405 used below Clay 4.0$E+01 Retardation Factor Determination for Elements of Interest Eq. E.3 Eq. E.3 .;
Table E.3 Eq. E.8 Eq. E. >
Table E.3 Li Li K d (clay) R di R di (sand) (clay)
K d (sand) (yr*-1)
(clay) (yr"-1)
Element (ml/g) (ml/g) (sand) 1332 5559 6.5E-03 6.5E-04 Fe 100 1000 267 1113 3.3E-02 3.3E-03 Mn 20 200 1332 5559 6.5E-03 6.5E-04 Co 100 1000 28 112 3.1E-01 3.2E-02 2n 2 20
.I 30 41 168 2.1E-01 2.2E-02 Sc 3 1000 1332 5559 6.5E-03 6.5E-04 Er 100 500 1066 2780 8.2E-03 1.3E-03 Cs 80 1332 5559 5.5E-03 6.5E-04 Ce 100 1000 I
,LR'e arding flowable solide densities, the ground below the site is described in the UFSAR, Table 2.4-20, as having a bulk density of 2.65 gm/ml and a 0.05 porosity. The flowable solids are assumed to be similar material, except with a porosity of 0.3. This porosity is identified in Ref. 7, Page B.12, as a value applicable te only partially compacted soils. This value is used for the Ref. 7 waste / soil mixtures in drinking water scenario assessments.
The resulting, bulk densities for the flowable solids would be 1.95 gm/mi I
__ 1%e%qHay drytyg and 2.25 gm/ml (saturated). w
m m O .
C 2 5" .
m O e L L m m 3 n o H
' H 3 2
TCO OC
- Dmm Og b 3
% M9" Om ~
EOS CT z6
- ems OM
,. o y 3 OCm O HO $
- c-O oN 'm
- - O $ $"'i TARLE 28 ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER IWGESTION DCSE RATE. ASSUMING ACTIVITY IS RELEASED FROM THE CCNTAMINATED ICHE TO GROUNDWATER BASED ON APPLICABLE LEACR RATES, WITE CREDIT FOR DECAY, AND MIXED I'A THE EXPECTED PRECIPITATION bj -.e ,2 f -
I T M 2d f urII.TR ATION . SIXTEEN LCADS ARE ASSUMED. WITH CREDIT FCR LOSSES BY DECAY AED LEACHING, UNTTL TWE LAST LOAD 75 PLACED.
1.95 - Nostnel floweblo solide deceity (gn /ce ) ,O m m O g 70.000 = Volume and Area of solide depoeited every year ( ets . ft. E eq. ft.) yhm Z -4 O
- Volume of solido deposited every year (at) ,$xp O> O 1.98E+09 a-y ~.g 6.50E+07 - Area of solide deposit ed (eg. cm.) 4C OO O zz v1 o m 0.448 2.9tr+09 Infiltration Rate (entore/yr)
Total Infiltration (ml/yr) _~
mrh m
- y. n o c.
ye "I." C 2 fri -( m Activaty IRolesse from Solide Fraction of Decay + Activity i E2 Solade -4 Activsty Activity Loos Retee Leech et After 16 to Groundwater Water Limit On o -- e>
Leech Rete Rolf Life cometent Plecement Plecomente Fraction of Percent of with 194 yr OCD m ~I Inue l a de Limite ucs /cr(dry) tyr-1) F fyr) (-yr-1) (ecil (uci) wCs a Water Limit MPC Total of decay Z { os
-O g s yog 1.65E+05 1E-C4 3.67 E-0 3 0.134 3.4E-25 2.1 -2.63E-01 3.9E+C4 re-55 I E -c 5 6.5E-03 3E-05 1.25E-02 0.444 7.EE-71 D O p' -< fo Mn-54 5E-06 3.3E-02 0.856 -8.43E-01 1.9E+04 3.39E+04 kn O 7 1.9E+04 1.99E+04 2E-05 2.22E-03 0.08t 2.3E-304 'i m Co-59 SE-06 6.5E-03 0.194 -3.58E+00 F- m m Z 1.94E+04 1E-05 4.33E-S3 0.154 0.0E+00 l
Fe-59 5E-04 4.5E.03 0.122 ~5.69E+00 1.9E+04 9.92E-02 3.384 e.2E-13 O O SE-06 6.5E-03 5.27 -1.30E-01 1.9E+04 1.33E+05 3E-06
- co-60 5.62E-01 19.15% 7.3E-86 3.1E-01 0.408 -1.32E+00 1.9E+04 2.44E+04 SE-06 to -6 5 5E-04 0.0E+00 0.138 5.23E+00 1.9E+03 1.94E+03 3E-06 1.75E-02 0.60%
3r-99 3E-07 2.1E-01 1.3E-02 29.12 -2.34E-01 1.9E+03 9.05E+03 5E-07 1.30E+00 44.494 fr-90 SE-07 2.1E-01 7.04% 9.22 30 2.06 -3.45E-01 1.9E+04 6.40E+04 9E-07 2.06E-01 y ,
Co-134 SE-06 s.2E-03 1.9E*04 2.47E+05 1E-06 6.95E-01 23.71% 7.9E-03 0 % 3 co-137 SE-06 9.2E-03 30 -3.13E-02 1.37E-03 0.054 0.0E+00 m p n 0.099 -7.79t+00 1.9E+04 1.93E+04 3E-05 C -141 SE-06 6.2E-03 3E-06 2.31E-02 0.794 2.0E-17 Q E g [nC f""
5E-04 4.2E-03 0.778 -0.97E-01 1.9E+04 3.24E+04 . -
Co-144
- D a TOTAL MPC 2.93 0.021 (g) g , Q
-s
. weret case send leech rete from Tonle 2A. g ,
O r- Z O w ,
sumtAR Y or RESULTS Even with no credit for decoy in trenett to the site boundary, the activity level 1= ewing the accumulated C solide will only be 2.93 MPC. 3-45, Sr-90, and Co-137 dominated at thie point in time. M Z f Essed on the calculated tremeit time t.,the Schuylkill River of 194 years, the eetivity at rolesse <
l M O 9 l would be 0.021 MPCs. U Ce-137, theegh shown above es making a At thke point in time the activity would be dominated by Sr-90.
- 9cb*eble contribution et 0%e Inver, weH hkely have a mucft lor %ger bonest tme then Sr-90. and thus a lower empact.
4 m i
O o h O
> 'A C
- M>
6
?
to n
O I
> *5 a
m
.o y
v 8<0 i
FOCW $60 F CTV 0:01 CALCMION SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHKgBY
- GENERAL E COMPUTATION LM 526 y g{
D E D"IN"M SHEET PREUM. FINAL Vol0 1 A AT X I I i.S LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 /
COOLING TOWER, HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND PROJECT DETERMINE WORST CASE HADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 17 OF 22 DATE DATE USING SOUDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLOING POND, AND SPRAY POND, AS Flll JO 7198.600 TABLE 3 - ASSESSMENT OF DOSE RATE ABOVE SOIL TAKEN FROM THE LGS COOLING TOWER BASIN, SPRAY POND, & HOLDING POND, ASSUMING THAT ALL ISOTOPES ARE AT SOLIDS ACTIVITY LIMIT
~ ~
[ OCCUPATIONAL DOSE ASSESSMENT]
Solids Activity External Inhalation Nuclide Limits
- Dose Rate # Dose Rate uCi/g(dry) mrem /hr 1.2E-06 mrem /hr g Fe-55 1E-05 3.3E-08 3.3E-07 6.0E-09 Mn-54 SE-06 7.9E-04 4.0E-03 6.lE-06 1.5E-08 Co-58 SE-06 9.6E-04 4.8E-03 1.0E-05 2.5E-08 Fe-59 5E-06 1.1E-03 5.5E-03 1.2E-05 3.0E-08 Co-60 SE-06 2.4E-03 1.2E-02 1.9E-04 4.8E-07 Zn-65 5E-06 6.2E-04 3.1E-03 1.7E-05 4.3E-08 Sr-89 5E-07 2.1E-06 1.1E-06 5.3E-06 1.3E-09 Sr-90 SE-07 3.0E-06 1.5E-06 2.0E-04 5.0E-08 Mo-99 SE-06 1.4E-04 7.0E-04 1.9E-06 4.8E-09 Cs-134 SE-06 1.6E-03 8.0E-03 4.0E-05 1.0E-07 Cs-137 SE-06 5.7E-04 2.9E-03 1.3E-05 3.3E-08 Ce-141 SE-06 3.8E-05 1.9E-04 8.4E-06 2.~1E-08 Ce-144 SE-06 2.5E-05 1.3E-04 3.6E-04 9.0E-07 Total = 4.1E-02 Total = 1.7E-06
- Inhalation Committed Effective Dose Conversion Factors from NUREG/CR-5512, Table 2.2. (mrem /hr per pCi/cu. meter)
Assumes dust loading over pile of SE-4 gm/cu. meter.
This corresponds to conditions where soil is being worked.
- Soil Volume Source External Dose Rate Conversion Factors from NUREG/CR-5512, Table 2.1. (mrem /hr per pCi/g:n) 6
m m 5 '
E $ f E -
N N $
O O
-2 I
CD C O nC '
1 Ok N ZOT C2 I "h h 3 bbe r- o g O
"O m 1
'O TABLE 4 - RESIDENTIAL (SURPACE SOIL) SCENARIO WI7H CREDIT FOR DECAY 3$$
m yc -4 h
Annual TEDE $ Residential Use Doses (mrem /yr) i OCn zuy eo 62 Solids Omm Activity rector for Decay Time m rn 52 zam o Limits T 1/2 Residential Use 0 10 20 30 yO r O> c)
Nuclide O uti/q(dry) (yrs) (mrem /yr/pci/gm) (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) g g $
1.4E-03 1.1E-04 8.2E-06 6.3E-07 3 r- O. IC2 re-55 IE-05 2.7 1.4E-04 yno pc mHm -
2.6E+00 1.3E+01 4.0E-03 1.2E-06 3.7E-10 <o0 og zz m H -4y >D Mn-54 5E-06 0.856 y On - r-SE-06 0.194 3.1E+00 1.6E+01 4.7E-15 1.4E-30 4.4E-46 oC> z r- gm O Co-58 Z 0.122 3.6E+00 1.8E+01 3.8E-24 8.1E-49 1.7E-73 bO5 $"
re-59 5E-06 -4 > 0*
5E-06 5.27 7.7E+00 3.9E+01 1.0E+01 2.8E+00 7.4E-01 >OJ <u Co-60 Zn-65 SE-06 0.688 3.0E+00 1.5E+01 6.3E-04 2.7E-08 1.1E-12 hC O cmm z 5E-07 0.138 1.4E-01 7.0E-02 1.1E-23 1.7E-45 2.5E-67 g F o o Sr-89 1.9E+00 9.5E-01 7.5E-01 5.9E-01 4.7E-01 Sr-90 SE-07 29.12 2.13E+05 3.0E-01 1.9E-15 1.9E-15 1.9E-15 1.9E-15 Mo/Tc-99 1.8E-13 5.4E+00 2.7E+01 9.3E-01 3.2E-02 1.1E-03 m n Cs-134 SE-06 2.06 0 30 1.9E+00 9.5E+00 7.5E+00 6.0E+00 4.8E+00 h $
Ca-137 5E-06 "
0.089 1.2E-01 6.0E-01 9.0E-35 1.4E-68 2.0E-102 y h r- h Ce-141 5E-06 SE-06 0.778 8.2E-02 4.1E-01 5.5E-05 7.5E-09 1.0E-12
$ _, h&
Ce-144 = m ., Sk 6.0 X'
Totals = 139 20 9.4 g
- Based on Dose Equivalence Factors for Residential Use (Surface Soil) Scenario -<
z y <
aupplied in NUREG/CR-5512, Table 3.3. (See Reference 2 and Attachment 1.] "
For this scenario, the Mo-99 (measured to LLD) is assumed to have been completely h converted to Tc-99 for dose purposes.
- A !
s
~ n N
u
- ?
w g
%% n E k p;
a
u -
w tn M 0:*
=
.C 3 E e-m O-u
- u o m m -
s n n S w 4 3
- 2 c2 C C nC
> th m O ~~
1 W E m* Oh $' ^.
i 202 meg OZ5 c> o 0
yop *K .3
'. OCm OmO $ ,
4 e r-Omo S tz- ,
TABLE 5 - DRINKING WATER USE SCENARIO WITH CREDIT FOR DECAY 2 'y @ g$ ,.
70.000 = ca. rt. of meterial de,o.ited esery ree, Qt j g 1.95 = 9m/mi nominal dry both density Omn Oz =
= grene of meterial deposited with each fill operation o
3.t?E+09 O~
16 = nenber of solide **yposite over remaining plant life p[m 2 -4 j
Solide Anniaat TEDE $ comm. Act. et Drinking water Use Doses (aren/yr) 9 zgg O Leet Deposit Decay Time -10 rector for Initiet weelide Activity Limite T 1/2 Drinking water Use Deposit with Decay 0 10 20 30 7kh n ',* .T. C Z (pci) (pet) tyre) (yre) (yre) (yre)
(areatyr/pci) ocs/gedry) 1E-05 tyrol 2.7 2.3E-13 3.s7E*10 1.5st+11 3.6E-02 2.st-03 2.1E-04 1.6E-05 og gg - i ._g >
I Fe-55 Me-54 SE-06 0.956 6.8E-14 1.93E+10 1.51E*11 1.0t-02 3.1E-06 9.5E-10 2.9E-13 Og[ mM 6 1.36E+11 2.6E-02 7.8E-18 2.4E-33 7.3E-49 gO- $ ** Z
', g (
, co-54 SE-06 0.194 1.9E-13 1.93E*10 0.122 1.9E-13 1.93E+10 1.35E+11 2.6E-02 5.4E-27 1.2E-51 2.4E 76 Fe-59 SE-06 4.4E-12 1.93E+10 2.31E+11 1.0E+00 2.7E-01 7.3E-02 2.0E-02 (A g g ty co-60 SE-06 5.27 2e-65 SE-06 0.608 3.2E-12 1.93E+10 1.46E*ll 4.7E-01 2.0E-05 8.3E-10 3.5E-14 3]y h 4.4E 6.7E-47 1.0E-60 r*
o O Sr 09 SE-07 0.138 2.1E-13 1.93E+09 1.35E+10 2.tE-03 3.5E-11 1.93E*09 2.90E+10 1.1T-23 0.7E-01 6.8E-01 5.4E-01 St-90 SE-07 29.12 1.2E-11 6.96E+02 1.11E+04 1.3E-37 1.3E-07 1.3E-07 1.1E-07 Me/Te-99 1.sE-13 2.13E*05 2.8E-13 1.93E+10 1 81E+11 5.1E-02 1.8E-03 6.1E-05 2.1E-06 co-134 SE-06 2.06 30 1.2E-13 1.93E+10 2.91E+11 3.5E-02 2.SE-02 2.2E-02 1.7E-02 6. un ca.137 SE-06 3 0.089 1 4E-15 1.93E*10 1 35E+11 1.9E-04 2.tE-38 4.3E 72 s.4E-106 O $
SE-06 co-141 1.495+11 2.7E-02 3.6E-06 4.9E-10 6.6E 4 h n co-144 5E-06 0.179 1.SE-13 1.93E+10 ad
-c I gn N e
5.9E-01 @ . C Totale = 2.9E+00 1.2E+00 7.9E-01 ,
8 Based on Deee Equivalence Factore for mesid44tiet Use (Drinking water) Scenario 9 @ e y eeprised i. u Ea/c=-55 2, Tabi. 3.4. isee meter.nce : .nd Atteess.nt 11 @ X" 5" G o For this scenario, the Mo-99 (measured to LLD) is esenmed to have been completely O Q [
m g
convert ed to Tc-99 for does purposes.
M < j M o O
a $
n O D'~~ O O
> . ~ > c m
% 5
' = t= t<
w
pe;au:conv m .
cAtcVLATION SET NO. HEV. COMP. DY C BY GENERAL Raytheon COMPUTATION LM-526 y gg((
W m & Constmetm SHEET Pneuu. nNAL VOID 1 A
\
k l I ?.5 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 COOLING TOWER, HOLOING PONO AND SPRAY POND PROJE CT
$ HEFT 20 Op 22 DATE YLIERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF DATE USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING PONO, AND SPR AY POND, AS Fill JO 7198.600 ,
TABLE 6 - RUNOFF BORNE RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS
- 1.46E+07 = SOLIDS IN RUNOFF (gm/yr) 4.46E+09 = RUNOFF (ml/yr)
Solids 10CFR20 Runoff Activity APP. B Activity Nuclide Limits Water Conc. Fraction uCi/g(dry) uCi/ml uti/ml of Limit Fe-55 lE-05 1E-04 1.0E-07 1.0E-03 Mn-54 SE-06 3E-05 5.0E-08 1.7E-03 Co-58 SE-06 2E-05 5.0E-08 2.5E-03 Fe-59 SE-06 1E-05 5.0E-08 5.0E-03 Co-60 SE-06 3E-06 5.0E-08 1.7E-02 Zn-65 SE-06 SE-06 5.0E-08 1.0E-02 Sr-89 SE-07 8E-06 5.0E-09 6.3E-04 Sr-90 SE-07 SE-07 5.0E-09 1.0E-02 Mo-99 5E-06 2E-05 5.0E-08 2.5E-03 Cs-134 SE-06 9E-07 5.0E-08 5.6E-02 Cs-137 SE-06 1E-06 5.0E-08 5.0E-02 Ce-141 SE-06 3E-05 5.0E-08 1.7E-03 Ce-144 5E-06 3E-06 5.0E-08 1.7E-02 Total = 1.7E-01
'A
- t . , ,
i ncausmaev om
- CALCULATIO,0 SET NO. REV. COMP. BY CHK'yY GENERAL.
R hetmetws COMPUTATION LM-526 g- gg b SHEET PRELIM. FINAL VOID 1 A TE
- 'X I i5 ff LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 , ,
COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND e PROJECT DETERMANE WORST CASE HAOIOLOGICAL IMPAC1S OF SHEET 21 OF 22 DATE .DATE USING SOUDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER SUBJECT BASINS hot. DING PONO, AND SPR AY POND. AS File Jo 7198.600 EQUATIONS FOR TABLES (SPREADSHEETS) 1 A-6
% bl.g. {
Col 5 *, Sal'the Ae$. W{h % hlrN'"4 h*N <- I alc 1,~;f- (cs . 3) P:Cr ,
II Lble 18 J.. 1 - ,% ,
" Glu-~ y, LI,A A4 tst[Q v e.%o' @ + li(, g _
D A F, 'J A [ gj g
] ] ,
Ahkm~t1 .
l c h s- -umL ue[tf1-j g ($1 ,
bokum b*. 5 afds Ad . Li-i( 4 /.95 ' 4 /.9f+ lb 15 blass b V A ly ~p [
w [ -
Sh "gM bu% 9 i Column '7
- box & E # --
i bb w Au l D ~ O > l' t c 3 .
~ p4 y $ l/w
.0 hM h u fJ , UJ e
Cck s p-
, , . . . . - ~ - . _ , ,
bd r
Gu .g ^ ID i_ mWu' L,.1[Qm r (clswa3 3 }s,~
ixm u N, . S clIbs n e
[j c.A,_,, u ss.h M . M [@ cA,., s '- 'g,ggg L#. -
l-l-
I l'
. I i .
gj wiarv 4$i cAtcmATioN SET NO. REV. COMP, BY CHKg^BY GENERAL Raytheon COMPUTATION LM-526 y / "
Engineers A Constructors SHEET PREtiM. FINAL VOID 1 OAT T LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 ..X /b d O
/ '
PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DE TERMINf; WORST CASE HADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF $HEET 22 OF 22 DATE DATE USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER SUBJECT BASINS. HOL DING POND, AND SPR AY POND, AS FILL Jo 7198.600 t EQUATIONS FOR TABLES (SPREADSHEETS) 1 A-6. cont'd fngLg 4 ), (wok Lbw ':
ray C04 tvf CA 5 L mh M L*EO U 'l 6*" A'Y" [7~'eId* IB d!!
_ b b ><~7 %
bb! km 5CQ8 4 t
- *\ a .n , 30 y-449 . nmWh u(tbnay$
C.h s- ( tad D,e int /Wdd =
,s lo '*
G L M.LA $ w3. thio s +
u _ u1 .+,a m n.e.i, s t,u n2x r,atedm *6 , uu. t b'" g t-o r w r%
(
- j "* O ,,'
C.I. (, nd,;l5 [(Q v f% \ TF.0% (^<jnr ji, ,[
_ x a <,3 w C h u % S,10 '. Cd,'? b r&s{TQQ +t l
)] ' A f' ] Na h 'y Wtty sN Cdobs,YherMhhA(,gyg y
(
wed 6 \9. d O htik Ada;f, LQ.
/0 's Colm w 5'. S oIgy l %, r uuM $1) cC<icI+9 5'/ U'<
e --^ . - . _
^
Comparison of Environmental and Effluent LLD Levels and Dose Calculation Activity Levels for Flowable Solids
, 1.0E-05 .. .. .. . .. . . ..... ....... .. .... ....... ........
l .: :..:- : :.::- :....::.. ::.:::- :.:.:::: : :::::::: .:::: :
l
- - - Activity -Assumed-for Dose Calculation- - - - - - - - - - - - 5E-06 uCi/g -
l ........ . ... ........ ..... ........ ......... ..... ....
l More Conservative
! 1.0E-06 : :::. :. :.- : :::::
. . . . . Effluent tLD ' - - - - - - - - --------
- - - - 5E- 07 uCi/ml (1.E; 81-07)- -
~ '
' ' ~ ~ ~ 5nvironmentai ilD for Soil'dnd 'S'ediment'~~~~ ~ ~ ~ '1'.5 ~0V udi/q ~
1.0E : ::::-- : :.:: :.:::::::.:::::::. : :::::::.::.:::. :..:::: :: n.i....
Criterla
. [.'.. $$.'[~[5. . $'.5$$$.
. . $[$2.. 5' .((' (($'.' : :[' for Soll
~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5nvironnidntai illi forliquids ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1.55~08 udi/mi ~ p Fr..
1.0E-08 Reie==.
Crit.rla for Figure 1 "*
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -