ML20094N057
| ML20094N057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1995 |
| From: | RAYTHEON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094N024 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1500, RTR-NUREG-CR-5512 LM-526, LM-526-R02, LM-526-R2, NUDOCS 9511270344 | |
| Download: ML20094N057 (22) | |
Text
.
- i. c_o,, no. LM-59 6 ,
j
! Page 1
-- CALCULATION COVER SHEET 2 GROUP 2kN O PBAPS (JNIT(S)
DOCTYPE 061
&WM & Last Page No:13%y
- 7. O WN g MOotNCRIECR Na: y/4 omer- SEA Q ww-a os.cnonon: 04to -,~, wor & uu. m anolap.aJ ,-e-<ts et wu~ soI,Ae, a wironic wo.: 924N'o,?'& 6"-
h kau irow too% to-r b m < N% gb 9. 4 )%rny % n/3 9 9 , a s. % W % u/a RECORD OF REVISIONS e 32. wnoor cene. nAssum zione u. Sinneures
,t %,. Number Rev. Ws No Properor Reviewer Appecner/ Dane Rer. Na u w->3 a, tar O Oriy, J re/n o x Tg 3;",7p Td>
t (jQ' . , c.
4
., AL in , t. ,1,rlri-g s s stuM Imetno~,ta.p- sran,grou~D-Mer yjg e x' a, A a v. c, pyjg l-
[t EE ' _l \\ l$,g ,l,'[!'l- V 1 Aaaru s -pa r.ts e1 % *.m e/cs s s sa teo/S a) Q ma st er. e, s s o-o f. c Oecom messso=,-3 Ce~r Jernt,. s O
- P.-r.//e,J ot (eu,) brWp.
unu "M" b"'M-Sbksdionelr3lC 1
l 11 O Manuel ti Provideo Indo m: g/ g D compuur a.i.e.e caic. compueer proorum end version Numnbers Rocanes lado from: g GA5fAM(inc osi) 'h<. 0
- 17. Proddee Indo to UFSAR/
Tech. Spec :
g tg Total PeGeo-(DS use)
~
9511270344 951115 PDR ADOCK 05000352
- P. .__ fog __ _ ,
1
._. .~ _ _ . - - - . -. . . ..- - .- ~. . ... .- ~.
~
. .~ .
Exhibit NE-Ca410-1. Ray. 1 Effective Cate 9/4/94 Pige 1 of 1 1
1 RAsnuna j
. CEC .
- IM- 3 % aEv. 1 DCD # b DATE:
I CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST l
MANUAL COMPtfrER YES or N/A J CALC. M N #5 X X CECut.ATION 13 THE APPROPRI ATE BASIS FOR THE ACTIVITY X X CALCUtATION AGSUMPTICNG. CCNSIDERATICNS. AND METH000 LOGY CCNFORM To de s' APPLICABLE DE31Q1 REQUIREMENTS X X SOURCE 3 CF DATA AND FCRMULAS WERE REVIEWED AND VERIFIED To BE U es i l
CORRECT AND CCMPLETE X 4(5 l X INPUT DAT$ 13 CCRRECT AND USED PROPERLY X THE ANALYTICAL HETH00 U3E0 IN THE CALCULATICN HAS BEEN CCNSIDERED f
AND 13 PROPER FOR THE IM Dt0E0 U3E l X MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY HAS BEEN CHECKED AND IS CORRECT (INDICATE METHOD USED)
~
A) CCMPLETE CHECK CF EACH COMPUTATICN
~
B) SPOT CHECK CF SELECTED CCMPUTATICNS C) PERFORMANCE CF ALTERNATE CR APPROX 1MATICH CALCULATICN -
(ATTECHEO)
X CECULATICN RESULTS WERE CHECKED AGAINST APPLICABLE DESIci CRITERIA Of f 3 X ~
AND WERE FOUND TO BE IN CCMPLIANCE X X EXISTING CALCULATICNS REOUIRING REVISICN AS A RESULT OF THIS NON6 CALCULATION HAVE BEEN ICENTIFIED & 00CUMDITED X THE ANALYTICAL METH003 CE3CRIBE0 IN THE CCMPUTER CALCULATICN MP3 SUNHARY 13 PROPER FOR THE INTENDED USE X X ALL GY3 TEM AND TCPIC NUMBERS A330CI ATED WITH THE CALCULATICN ARE 4e5 LISTED
~
X COMPUTATICNAL ACCURACY HAS BCDI CHECKED AND 13 CCRRECT (INDICATE 'Q P5 METH00 USED)
A) CHECK SAMPLE CALCULATION U3ING DATA CTHER THAN THAT USED IN THE SAMPLE B) PERFORMANCE CF ALTERNATE CR APPROXIMATICN CALCULATICH l (ATTACHE 0)
C) DESCRIBE OTHER METHOD USED: D
- % 2 site in u t sara * .n tec kt -y,, n h .. i tok<.frih d>
"icw ,,cre w h e* a <* d yi.e- t tc% sC6r a w *r s,p /y stat et>/C- \
l 4 4.,p cau G. & *rc ) .,sts a s .. ,i'g t.
- X PROGRAM USED 13 APPROPRIATE, INPUT 23 VAL 10, AND OUTPUT 2 3 '
Of>
REASCNABLE CONSIDERING THE INPUT X X BASE CALCULATION HAS BED 4 REVIEWED AGAINST CURRENT ORAWING N N REV131CH3 AND POSTED DCDS TO IDDITIFY 31C11FICANT 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 3shA> e:/ cr Wkr' und/wd hvu &d m %.r:.v 2 chwih ,W,v d.,, ,, n) 4 t e,A r &, % v 'u k git cM M( n , .t. m/t u .a c n wi' < Y Ss :
REVIEWED BY: u < -te . DATE: ' ' " ' i I
/ '7 s
SO*u $o07 fYV 4 91 GENERAL CALCULATION SET No. REv. COMP. BY CHK*o. BY COMPUTATION LM-526 y A y pf SHEET PREUM. FINAL volo 2 DATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X Ilflof9S st ne 95 PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 3 cp- 22 USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER DA TE DATE SUBJECT BASINS HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY POND, AS Fill J o. 7198.600 l CALCULATION CHANGES IN REVISION 2 TO LM 526 l
l 1. NUREG/CR 5512, dated Jan.1990 was used in Rev. O and Rev.1 as a basis for:
1 l a. Resuspension rates above the solids fill area.
I l b. Dose conversion factors to determine whether the planned plan: ment of these solids is compatable with eventual plant decommissioning.
lA i
l NUREG/CR 5512 (1/90) has been superceded by NUREG/CR 5512 (10/92). The newer version still j provides a basis for resuspension rate assumptions. Dose conversion factors are now obtained from l NUREG-1500 (8/94), which is the " Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for l Decommissioning: NRC Staff's Draft for Comment", and from Federal Guidance Reports 11 and 12.
l l 2. This calculation provides a conservative " Level 1" Screening, as described in NUREG-1500, of the l proposed limits on solids activities. This is done to confirm that these solids, as placed, will not l interfere with plant decommissioning. Only the worst case " Residential Use Scenario" is evaluated. l 1
l 3. Revise design criteria to delete reference to the holding pond, which does not collect runoff from the l placement area.
I l l 4. An intruder dose is calculated, l
l 5. Raytheon Cover Sheets, no longer required by procedure, are deleted.
I l 6. The Action Request (A/R) to assure that solids placement operations are within the calculation bases l is identified. This A/R also requires confirmation of results when the final regulatory guide on release l criteria for decommissioning is issued.
l l 7. The following pages are added, revised, or deleted in Rev. 2.
l l A E
.P_.AS CHANGE l 1-14 Revised. Renumbered, or Reformatted l 17 19 Revised l 21-22 Revised l Attachment 4, pgs 1-23 Replaced l Attachment 4, pgs 24-41 Deleted l Attachment 5, pgs 1-13 Replaced l Attachment 5, pgs 14-16 Deleted
. I FON W7 CfV 491 GENERAL cALCMATioN SET No. REE COMP, 87 CHK'o. 87 A
COMPUTATION LM 526 y g SHEET PREUM. FINAL volo 2 i ATE i
UMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 X I' ' 'l*/ ' #
I PROJECT COOUNG TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 4 oF 22 USING SOUDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER oATE oATE SUBJECT BASINS. HOLDING PONO, AND SPRAY PONO. AS Filt Jo 7198.600 l
1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT / PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVE OF CALCULATION This calculation supports the use of flowable solids taken from the LGS holding pond, cooling tower l basins and spray pond as onsite fill. This material will be monitored to confirm that any radioactivity ld concen,trations are not greater than PECO defined Solids Activity Limits that are on the order times the Effluent Lower Limits of Detectability (LLD). This calculation determines worst case '
radiologicalimpacts, if the flowable solids radioactivity concentrations were at the Solids Activity Limits.
Radiological impact considered are:
(1) Airborne concentrations and doses due to wind borne erosion of the flowable solids pile. These i concentrations will be compared with 10CFR2O [Ref.1] limits, and doses compared with 10CFR50 (Ref. 21 limits, it is desirable that these concentrations and doses should be negligible 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 welllocations is necessary, since all offsite and onsite wells are upgradient from the locations where this flowable solids may be placed.
(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.
ld (5) Dose to an unauthorized intruder onto the solids fill area.
l (6) Worst case dose rate for a hypothetical residential use of the flowable solids placement area.
l
' This data will provide an indication of the potential for free release of the areas where these flowable solids are used, after plant decommissioning.
[ (7) Offsito doses due to airborne releases for pathways other than inhalation.
2.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 1
This calculation analyzes radiological impacts of a conservatively characterized system for using i
' flowable solids as onsite fill. Radioactivity in solids to be placed onsite will be less than the Solids Activity Limits, as described in Attachment 1.
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.
Doses to other pathways, modeled using GASPAR, are all at or below 0.101 mrem /yr, with a very conservative isotopic mix.
Worst case concentrations in releases from the solids to groundwater will be near (2.93 MPC) the regulatory limits for effluents, even if allisotopes are at the Solids Activity Limits. Concentrations of about 0.021 of the 10CFR20 Maximum Permissable Concentration (MPC) will result at the site boundary when credit for the transit time of 194 years (based on St-901is taken. No onsite or offsite wells will be impacted.
Potential release concentrations due to erosion will be less than an MPC.
. - ro u w c,v o, l
GENERA CALC %ATioN SET No. REU. COMP. 87 CHK'o. BY A COMPUTAT ON LM 526 g ""2 W SHEET PREUM. FINAL volo 2 T DA E LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X // 5 "U W PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RAOLOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 6 oF 22 uSING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER DATE DATE SUBJECT BASINS. HOLDING POND. AND SPRAY POND, AS FILL J o. 7198.600 j Dose rates to operators during handling this material will be far below 10CFR20 restricted area limits. l Airborne activity will also be negligible, j
lg The dose to a postulated unauthorized intruder with 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> /yr occupancy on the solids fill area would be 0.75 mrem.
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.
3.0 DESIGN BASES / INPUT / CRITERIA '
3.1 DESIGN BASES / INPUT l The design bases for this calculation are:
l l (1) The fill area size upper bound is 70,000 sq. ft., and 1,120,000 cu. ft.:
1 1
[ (2) Radioactivity concentrations will be controlled to the proposed Solids Activity Limits. [See Section l 5.1.2, and Attachment 1 for limit derivation.] '
I l (3) The groundwater transport calculation basis assumes that the solids are placed in one l (1) foot thick layers covering 70,000 sq. ft. Solids place in thicker layers over l1 smaller areas would reduce the diluting infiltering water. Therefore, placements l should be evaluated to assure that:
l l FRACTION OF THE LIMIT FOR THE WORST CASE ISOTOPE '
l VOLUME OF SOLIDS PLACEMENT (ft2 ) /
l PLACEMENT AREA (ft2) l l is less than one (1).
l l (4) I The area for solids placement will be located down-gradient from any offsite well, or onsite well l used for other than groundwater sampling. l t
l A/R A0970339 has been initiated to ensure that the above design bases are incorporated into l appropriate PECO's programs and/or procedures.
3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA (1) Doses to onsite personnel from any radioactivity in the flowable solids shall be within 10CFR20 limits and ALARA. l i
i (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.
I
. ' FORM 9007 CfV 4 >91 GENERAL cAtculATioN sEmo. GEE CoME BV CHK'o. 87 COMPUTATION LM 526 A
SHEET M TTd PREUM. FINAL voto 2 A cATE uMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X '"
PROJECT COOUNG TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND OETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 6 op 22 USING SOLIOS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER oATE oArE SUBJECT B ASINS. HOLDING PONO, AND SPRAY POND, AS FILL Jo 7198.600 l 15) Activity in stormwater runoff shall have radioactivity concentration levels less than 10CFR20, l Appendix B limits, upon discharge to the Schuylkill River.
(6) It is preferable that the flowable solids not require any additional handling upon LGS decommissioning, to allow free release of the flowable solids use area. Free release criteria published in the USNRC proposed rule on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning [Ref,31 shall be used in this determination.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS / UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS 4.1 ASSUMPTIONS l (1) The total flowable solids removal rate is conservatively set at 70,000 f t per year. A total of 16 ,
l placements are assumed for a total of 1,120,000 f t2 This total allowance for the remaining 30 l years of plant life is approximately 10 times the solids removed over the first 10 years of plant l l life. The compressed schedule of placement is used to maximize the calculated groundwater I effects and to minimize potential that bases for this calculation could delay solids placement. See l Section 5.1.1 for discussion of historical solids removal.
I l (2) These solids are unlikely to be spread over more than 70,000 ft2 (1.61 acres). (See Section l
I l
5.1.3.1 g ,g c4 i,/, Ar 4.2 U VERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS l
l The Dose Conversion Factors taken from NUREG-1500 should be verified as still accurate once the final
} regulatory guide on release criteria for decommissioning is issued. A/R A0970339 has been initiated to ensure that this verification is done, l j
l 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. f t. of material. This operation l is expected to occur every three years.
The cooling tower basins are expected to be the dominant source of material. The only historical operation on a cooling tower basin (Unit 1,1991) yielded 68,000 cubic feet of dewatered sludge.
l Another cleaning may be required in 1998. 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 rnillion gallons of water (UFSAR, Section 9.2.6.4.2.51.
Thus,it cleaning were ever required, and the entire margin were to be restored, approximately 91,000 cu. ft. of material would be removed.
80MA 9007 CfV O 91 G CALCULATION SET No. P.EE COMP. BY CHK'D. BY COMPUTAT ON LM 526 q y SHEET PREuM. FINAL Volo 2 OAT LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X U $ IH PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 7 oF 22 g,7, o,7, USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY POND, AS Fill. Jo 7198.600 ;
1 For this analysis an enveloping assumption of 70,000 cubic feet of total material in each placement. l To minimize the potential that the calculation could cause a delay in material placement, this amount ;
is assumed to be deposited each year, for 16 years. This compressed schedule maximizes calculated concentrations in groundwater. The total assumed placement would be 1,120,000 cubic feet, which l
is more than 10 times that historically observed over the first 10 years of plant life. These values are '
expected to envelope any cooling tower and holding pond requirements. This is also a more realistic amount for a spray pond cleaning operation.
5.1.2 WORST CASE RADIOACTIVITY CONTENT l
Little or no radioactivity has been found in these flowable solids in the past, and they have been l disposed of as non-radioactive, non hazardous wastes. To establish a conservative estimate of the l
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 screening criteria, for a range of isotopes which have been found in various plant process fluids and waste streams; and (2) the 10CFR20, Appendix 8 limits on effluent concentrations in air and water.
5.1.3 LOCATION AND LAYOUT FOR MATERIAL PLACEMENT l
[ The location for the placement of this material has been selected to be in an area of approximately 1.5 l acres in size and is to the northwest of the spray pond and southeast of the meteorology tower No.1.
For this analysis, the materialis assumed to be spread over an area of not greater than 70,000 sq. ft.
l (1.61 acres).
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 AND INHALATION DOSES Table 1 A shows the resulting inhalation dose rate to an individual at the nearest site boundary to the solids fill, to be 1.82x10* mrem /yr, based on the above normal dust loading.
The inhalation dose rate above the fillis low enough to be considered a negligible contribution to offsite l dose 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/Q values are based on several factors. 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 yields a release of 2.406x10' gm/yr, or 0.07625 gm/sec. [See Table 18.1
. ' e w orv . v _
GENERA cALCulATloN SET No. GEV. COMP 8Y CHK'D. BY COMPUTAT ON LM.526 y A f:w SHEET PRELIM, FINAL Volo 2 oATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X / T3 "' d 4Y ,
PROJECT COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET O of 22 USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER oATE oATE l
SUBJECT 8ASINS, HOLDING POND. AND SPRAY POND, AS Fill J o. 7198.600 l l
\
4 Using the 10 gm/cu. meter normal dust loading, a X/Q of 1.312x10sec/cu. meter is calculated. As l 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 or for any deposition effects in route to the site boundary. The X/Q 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.
Default pathway parameters are used and are conservative for the LGS site.
l Doses from 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 wells are up gradient from the location where these flowable solids may be placed. Only consideration I of groundwater transport to the Schuylkill River is needed.
I Removal of any radioactivity from the flowable solids fill 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 i annual average precipitation rate (P,1 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 (0, and C,1 were used. No irrigation was assumed. The resulting infiltration rate is 0.448 m/yr. Over the 70,000 fta fjii surface, this provided a water flow of 2.91E+09 ml/yr.
l Attachment 3, taken from Ref. 8, also provides a basis for assessing this leaching phenomena. Table 2A shows the derivation of leach rates from the solids. l l
Tabie 28 shows the ratio of the resulting concentration to 10CFR20, Appendix B Effluent Limits.
Assuming that all material placements, for all isotopes, are at the Solids Activity Limits, the calculated releases to underlying groundwater is 2.93 MPC. t To determine the groundwater transport time the same methodology was used as was applied to radwaste tank spillages in UFSAR Section 2.4.13. The information below shows the application for both the radwaste tank and the solids area. !
DETERMINATION OF ISOTOPE TRANSPORT TIME TO SCHUYLKILL RIVER FOR GROUNDWATER BORNE ACTIVITY:
130 Groundwater Elevation below Tank (ft) [UFSAR Analysis) 240 Groundwater Elevation below Solids Placement Area (ft) (UFSAR Fig. 2.4-151 800 Tank Distance to River (ft.) [UFSAR Analysis) 1000 Solids Placement Area Distance to River (ft.) [UFSAR Figure 2.4-11 l 105 Average River Elevation (ft.) (UFSAR Analysis) 390 Permeability of underlying material (ft/yr) [UFSAR Analysis)
F0 pea 6001 CP/ 4 9 9 GENERAL cALCEAfloN SET No. CEE CM BY CHCD. e7 COMPUTATION LM 526
& Conh SHEET g g ,;
PREUM. FINAL Voto 2 OAT QA LIMERICX GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 X I'll0 3 '8' PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RAO!OLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 9 op 22 USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER oATE DATE SUBJECT _8ASINS HOLDING POND, ANO SPA AY PONO AS FILL > o. 7198.600 ground-ground- water Sr-90 I water travel travel gradient velocity time time (ftlyr) (yrs) (yrs)
Tank O.03125 243.75 3.28 671 l Solids 0.135 1053 0.950 194 As shown in Table 28, 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 grouridwater would meet these limits.
I It should also be noted that this groundwater flow of 2.91E +09 ml/yr will be diluted by an average of l 1.60E+ 15 milyr of river flow (UFSAR Pg. 2.4-2.1793 cf s
- 3.16E + 07 sec/yr *2.83E + 04 ml/ft2), for an average concentration reduction of 1.8E-06. !
For the above reasons, the Groundwater pathway from the flowable solids is considered negligible.
5.4 RELEASES THROUGH EROSION 5.4.1 NORMAL RAINFALL CONDITIONS The fill area is expected to be graded and seeded to minimize erosion. Erosion control fencing will also be used as appropriate.
For worst case evaluation purposes, erosion by way of runoff will contain one (1) percent by weight solids. A runoff coefficient of 0.2 is used, consistent with the groundwater assessment above. With the 1.12 m/yr precipitation rate, and a 6503 sq. m. area, the total water runoff would be 1.46E+09 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 that typically in estuaries such as the Delaware [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 each year, or about 1.2 mm average surface loss. Reference 9 estimates of soilloss for the Delaware 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.
A 1 percent slurry will yield a combined radionuclide concentration within 10CFR20, Appendix Blimits, as shown in Table 6.
Given the demonstrated conservatism of runoff loading assumptions, and the resulting acceptability of calculated doses, the standard erosion control measures described above should be ample to assure that 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 rainfall will run off.
The PMP rainfall 3 times the normal 8.8 inches (1.12 meters /yr
- 0.2 runoff coef.
- 39.4 in./ meter) of rainfall runoff that was calculated to "run off with 1 percent" of the nominal fillload over a three year period as described in Section 5.4.1 above. Thus, concentrations leaving the fill area would be no
rom wom v w CALCULATION SET No. R E*f. COMP. BY CHK'o. BY CO PUTAT ON LM-526 g g A
- SHEET PREUM. FINAL Volo 2 T oATE UMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X h o t,$ sj *tO *W PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMtNE WORST CASE RAOiOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 10 o, 22 g,y ,,,
USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS. HOLDING PONO, AND SPRAY POND, AS FILL J o. 7198.600 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 be expected to actually mix with and be diluted by runoff from surrounding areas before discharging 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.L OCCUPATIONAL DOSE RATES DURING MATERIAL HANDLING 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.
l The worst case external exposure dose rate is less than 0.031 mrem /hr, and therefore this would not be considered a radiation area. The inhalation dose rates are such that respiratory protection would not be required.
l 5.6 DOSES TO AN INTRUDER I
l For the duration of the LGS license, the property containing tne solids will remain under PECO control, l and will be posted. This location is not in a frequently traveled area and an intruder is likely to be l noticed in routine security patrols that cover the site. The dose to an intruder is conservatively
[3 determined by assuming that 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> is spent directly on the solids placement area, on three occasions in a year. The resulting dose would be 0.75 mrem.
I l Radiological impact to an intruder, after the LGS decommissioning is enveloped by consideration of the l residential use as described below.
{ 5.7 RESIDENTIAL USE DOSE ASSESSMENTS l An additional concern with the use of flowable solids,is whether this material might require additional l handling during plant decommissioning and eventual site free release. In order to determine this a l " Level 1" screening of the activity limits is performed, as defined in NUREG-1500 [Ref.101. The worst l case assumption is a residential use of the solids placement area. The evaluation determines dose rates as a function of time after shutdown and compares them with the 15 mrem /yr criterion for decommissioning. Dose conversion factors are from NUREG-1500, which implements the methodology l described in NUREG/CR-5512 " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning" [Ref. 71 l Relevant portions of these references are in Attachment 7.
l The limiting exposure scenario of residential use includes doses from:
I l (1) External gamma shine to resident, both inside and outside of the residence; I
l (2) Inhalation doses; I
l (3) Food ingestion from garden grown in this soil.
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 l 15 mrem /yr and ALARA below that level. Table 4 shows that, within 10 years of the last placement l of material, the solids placement area would meet the residential use screening criterion.
- . . ~. . . - . . . -- . . -
FeaM 9007 CfV 4 91 GENERA cAtcEAUoN SET No. REE COMP. eV CHCo. eV COMPUTAT ON LM-526 g tu A
SHEET paEuu. FINAL voio 2 AE oATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 X U D "
PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RAOlOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET ll oF 22 USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER oATE oATE SUBJECT B ASINS, HOLDING PONO. AND SPR AY PONO, AS Fill J o. 7198.600 l
Use of this material as onsite fillis not expected to interfere with free release of the site, efter plant decommissioning. This is because.
l (1) Even with very conservative activity assumptions, the dose rates would be within l decommissioning criteria within 10 years:
(2) The residual radioactivity is likely to be substantially less; l
(3) The material in its final configuration will be easily surveyed and evaluated to confirm its acceptability for free release.
l l (4) Free release of this site within 10 years of shutdown is unlikely, given reasonably expected l decommissioning schedules.
l l (5) This property is likely to have considerable value to PECO, even after shacaown, given available l l transmission and other facilities. Transfer of this property for residential use in any time frame l of concern is unlikely.
l l The more likely scenario would be that the site would remain PECO property, in a free-release l configuration, and requiring little or no maintenance. Doses to PECO employee would likely be on the l order of the doses assessed for an intruder (< 1 mrem /yr), particularly with consideration of ddcay in l place.
I l Impacts of PECO use of the free released site for a structure would be enveloped by the residential use l scenario, since occupancy would be less than for a residence.
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 Ill, Appendix G, Pages G-7 to G 11, Sept,1980 l (7) NUREG/CR 5512 " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning" l Vol.1, Oct.1992.
(8) ANL/EAD/LD-2, " Manual for implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using RESRAD, Version 5.0", September 1993.
(9) Ecoloov and Restoration of the Delaware River Basin, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, 1988
FORM 500 7 tFV 4 91 GENERAL CALCULATION SET No. r.EV. COMP. BY CHK'o. SY A
COMPUTATION LM 526 pg W SHEET enEuu. nnAL voto 2 oATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X N N d' PROJECT COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY PONO DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 12 op 22 USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER oATE oATE SU8 JECT B ASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY PONO. AS Fill J o. 7198.600 l (10) NUREG 1500, " Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning:
l NRC Staff's Draft for Comment", August 1994.
I l (11) Federal Guidance Report No.11. " Limiting Values of Radionuclide intake and Air Concentration l and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion",1988.
l
[ (12) Federal Guidance Report No.12. " External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil",
l 1993.
7.0 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (1) PECO Provided Effluent LLD and Solids Activity Limits Derivations (2) Reference 6.
(3) Appendix E, " Water Pathway Factors", of Reference 8.
d (4) Portions of References 7 and 10 used in this calculation.
(5) Portions of 10CFR20, Appendix 8.
(6) Computer Disclosure Sheet and Spreadsheet Verification (7) GASPAR Run Output
l l
S&M W7 F8V 4 91 GENERAL CALCmON set NO. 7.EV l COMP. 8Y CHK'O. BY COMPUTATION LM 526 y g A
SHEET PR EUM. FINAL VOIO 2 OATE CjAK LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X ///f/95 fr to M 1 PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY PONO DETERMINE WORST CASE RA060 LOGICAL 6MPACTS OF SHEET 13 er 22 OATE OAM USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT B ASINS HOLDING PONO AND SPR AY PONO AS Fill Jo 7198,600 TABLE 1A- ASSESSMENT OF INEALATION DOSE RATE ABOVE SOIL TAREN FROH COOLING TOWER BASINS, SPRAY POND, 6 SETTLING POND, ASSUMING ALL ISOTOPES ARE AT THE SOLIDS ACTIVITY LIMIT l l
Solids 10CFR20 Activity App. B Limits t f Nuclide Limite Air Fraction of Annual Cose uci/q(dry) uci/mi Air Limit (TEDE) mrem Fe-55 1E-05 3E-09 3.3E-07 1.7E-05 Mn-54 SE-06 IE-09 5.0E-07 2.5E-05 l
Co-58 SE-06 1E-09 5.0E-07 2.5E-05 re-59 SE-06 SE-10 1.0E-06 5.0E-05 Co-60 SE-06 SE-11 1.0E-05 5.0E-04 2n-65 SE-06 4E-10 1.3E-06 6.3E-05 Sr-89 5E-07 2E-10 2.5E-07 1.3E-05 Sr-90 SE-07 6E-12 8.3E-06 4.2E-04 Mo-99 SE-06 2E-09 2.5E-07 1.3E-05 Cs-134 SE-06 2E-10 2.5E-06 1.3E-04 Cs-137 SE-06 2E-10 2.5E-06 1.3E-04 Co-141 SE-06 8E-10 6.3E-07 3.1E-05 Co-144 SE-06 2E-11 2.5E-05 1.3E-03 5.3E-05 2.7E-03 6 Assuming airborne dust loading of 1.0E-04 g/cu. meter, for dusty outside conditions, per NUREC/CR-5512.
t Given that the 10CFR20 concentration limits are those projected to yield 50 mres/yr effective dose equivalent, the air total should j
correspond to en annual dose commitment of 2.7E-03 mrem /yr.
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 virtual source would be at 250 meters back from the distributed source. The nearest site boundary to the placement area is approximately 400 ft, (120 H) from the placement area in between the ENE and NNE 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). The resulting calculated annual dose (TEDE) is 2.6E-03
- 0.103
- 0.68 = 1.82E-04 mrem.
l 4
CALCULATION SET NO, REV.
GENERAL COMP. BY CHK'D. BY Engineers & Constructors COMPUTATION LM-526 SHEET pnEtiu. FinAt ' votD 2 b0 DAW O gA E j LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X NU 'M0Y PROJECT COOLING TOWER HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND l
DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET I4 OF 22 DATE DATE USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT BASINS. HOLD!NG POND AND SPRAY POND AS Fill Jo 7198.600
- l l
l l
TABLE IB - IDENTIFICATION 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)
Solids Activity Annual Nuclide Limits Release uci/g(dry) (C1)
Fe-55 1E-05 2.4E-05 Mn-54 SE-06 1.2E-05 Co-58 SE-06 1.2E 05 Fe-59 5E-06 1.LE-05 Co-60 5E-06 1.iE-05 Zn-65 SE-06 1.2E-05 Sr-89 SE-07 1.2E-06 Sr-90 5E-07 1.2E-06 Mo-99 SE-06 1.2E-05 Cs-124 SE-06 1.2E-05 Cs-137 3E-06 1.2E-05 Ce-141 50-06 1.2E-05 Ce-144 SE-Of 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.
l
- l 80sw goo 7 CYv 4 g t GENE ALCMTION SET NO. REV. Co W.8Y CHCO.BY
~~ COMPUT ON LM 526
~ rg SHEET enEtu. rmAt voo O AT oATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X / /3 3 d,hk PROJECT COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF USING SOLIDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SHEET 15 or 22 DA TE DATE SUBJECT B A$lNS. HOLDING POND, AND SPR AY POND AS Fill J0 7198.600 1
1 TABLE 2A ,
APPLICATION OF ATTACHMENT 3, EQUATIONS E.3 - E.8 TO DETERMINE WORST CASE LEACH RATES i
0.448 - Infiltration Rate (m/yr) 0.3048 = initial thickness of contamination zone (m) l 2.25 = contaminated material nominal bulk density (gm/ml)
! Tbl. E.2 t
Tbl. E.2 Tbl. E.2 Eq. E.7 Eq. E.6 l
l K sat THETA sat b R sat Theta (cz) I j Sand 5.55E+03 0.395 4.05 0.428 used below 0.169 l Loamy sand 4.93E+03 0.410 4.38 0.453 0.186 Sandy loam 1.09E+03 0.435 4.90 0.544 0.237 Silty loam 2.27E+02 0.485 5.30 0.633 0.307 Loam 2.19E+02 0.451 5.39 0.638 0.288 Sandy clay loam 1.99E+02 0.420 7.12 0.702 0.295 l Silty clay loam 5.36E+01 0.477 7.75 0.772 0.368 Clay loam 7.73E+01 0.476 8.52 0.773 0.368 Sandy clay 6.84E+01 0.426 10.40 0.810 0.345 Silty clay 3.26E+01 0.492 10.40 0.835 0.411 Clay 4.05E+01 0.482 11.40 0.840 0.405 used below Retardation Factor Determination for Elements of Interest Eq. E.3 Eq. E.3 Table E.3 Table E.3 Eq. E.8 Eq. E.8 Li Li K d (sand) K d (clay) R di R di (sand) (clay)
Element (ml/q) (al/q) (sand) (clay) (yr"-1) (yr"-1)
Fe 100 1000 1332 5559 6.5E-03 6.5E-04 Mn 20 200 267 1113 3.3E-02 3.3E-03 Co 100 1000 1332 6.5E-03 5559 6.5E-04 In 2 20 28 112 3.1E-01 3.2E-02 Sr 3 30 41 168 2.1E-01 2.2E-02 Ir 100 1000 1332 5559 6.5E-03 6.5E-04 Cs 80 500 1066 2780 8.2E-03 1.3E-03 Co 100 1000 1332 5559 6.5E-03 6.5E-04 Regarding flowable solida 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 solida 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 to 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 qu/ml (totally dry), and 2.25 gm/ml (saturated).
t m 7 0 C 2 m O E L L e m m 3 o n ,
M H e k
CD C O OC *
>mm Og E
- EM ZQm C2 Om $
.d.mg z5 102 On OCm eO
-40 Om Om:E :Ez TABLE 23 ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER IWGESTION DOSE RATE. ASSUM150 ACTIVITY 15 RELEASED FRon TEE CcuTAMINATED sone To p- O m m GROUNDWATER BASED 09 APPLICABLE LEACE RATES WITE CREDIT FOR DECAY, AND NINED IN THE EEPECTED PRECIPITATION INFILTRATION. SIMTEEE LOADS A*E ASSUMED, WITN CRLDIT FOR LOSSES SY DECAT AED LEACHING, UNTIL THE LAST LOAD IS PLACED.
Q(( 2f
! 7 M -4 Id 1.95 = Nominal floweble solido domeity (Tm/ce) 70,000 = volame and Area of solido deposited every year tea. ft. & eq. ft.) h$Q
,O m m O g i...E.0, = voi... of .eu d. d.,0.ited .v.r, .., i.1, - z -4 c)
,OD O 4.50E+07 = Area of solido deposited (eq. em.) ZEy Og.F.g 0.448 = Infiltration Rate (meters /yr) -4 0 06 EO 2.91E+09 = Total Infiltration tut / fr) mx5 jm-r O,zz v3 IC2 o m Solide Decay + Activity Activity 10CFR20 Release from Solide Fraction of 300 ye mHm Activity Activity Lose Rates Leach at After 16 APP. B to Groemdwater Water Limit <O9 zz ]>
Noelide Limite Leech Rate Belf Life Cometent Placement Fisceneste Water Fraction of Percoat of with 194 yr 3Cy $ O t-eCi/q(dry) (yr-1) 0 (yr) (-yr 1) geC1) (uC1) uCi/m1 Water Limit MPC Total of dee.y zzr y, Fe-55 IE-05 6.5E-03 2.7 -2.63E-01 3.9E*04 1.65E+05 1E-04 3.47E-03 0.13t S.6E-25 -
k ge na-54 SE-06 3.3E-02 0.856 -0.43E-01 1.9E+04 3.39E+04 3E-05 1.20E-02 0.444 7.6E-11 D O y" < [m.s co-50 5E-06 6.5E-03 0.194 -3.5OE+00 1.9E+04 1.99E*04 2E-05 2.22E-03 0.084 2.1E-304 O Fe-59 1.94E+04
]
5E-04 6.5E-03 0.122 -5.69E+00 1.9E+04 IE-05 4.33E-03 0.154 0.0E+00 r- 2 m z Co-40 SE-06 6.5E-03 5.27 -1.38E-01 1.9E+04 1.33E*05 3E-06 9.92E-02 3.384 0.2E 13 O O la-65 SE-06 3.1E-01 0.688 -1.32E+00 1.93+04 2.64E+04 SE-04 5.62E-01 19.154 7.3E-04 Sr-89 5E-07 2.1E-01 0.130 5.23E*00 1.9E+03 1.94E*03 GE-06 1.75E-02 0.604 0.0E+00 er-90 SE-07 2.1E-01 29.12 -2.34E-01 1.9E+03 9.05E+03 53-07 1.30E+00 44.494 1.3E-02 Co-134 SE-06 B.2E-03 2.06 -3.45E-01 1.9E+04 6.6SE+04 9E-07 2.04E-01 7.049 9.23-30 ,
Co 137 SE-06 9.2E-03 30 -3.13E-02 1.9E*04 2.47E*05 1E-06 6.95E-01 23.71% 7.9E-03 O ]
M Co-141 SE-06 6.2E-03 0.099 -7.79E+00 1.9E*04 1.93E+04 3E-05 1.37E-03 0.054 0.0E+00 Q E n co-144 SE-04 6.2E-03 0.770 -0.91E-01 1.9E*04 3.26E+04 3E-06 2.31E-02 0.79% 2.0E 77 4 F
- -E gn cM I <o ,
TOTAL MPC '
U.
e Wor.t ca.e ..ad le.ch ret. from Tamle 2A.
2.9) 0.021 g g {
g , ,-s r- 2
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS Even with no credit for decay in treasit to the site boundary, the activity level leewsag the accumulated O O, ,,
solide will only be 2.9) MFC. 3-65, Sr-90, and Co-137 dominated at this point in time. $
Based on the calculated transit time to the Sebuylkill River of 194 years, the activity at reloese M < Z weeld be 0.021 MPCs. M O_ 9 At this point in time the activity would be doulasted by St-90. Co-137, though shown above as making a no0ceblo contnbution et sie her. unu idiely have a much longer trennt hme inen Sr-so, and two a touwer empact
-.a M n
O O
> g M> ;.
, g "I k
' '~ mm w mv m, CALC %ADOW SET NO. CEV. COMP BV CHK'D, BY I GENERAL COMPUTATION LM-526 g EA9bt##rs & C00tetructors SHEET PREUM. FINAL VOID 2 9ATf DATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X #//D/73
- H*W PROJECT COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND l DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF $HEET 17 OF 22 DAM USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER DATE l
SUBJECT BASINc. HOLDING POND, AND SPA AY POND. AS Fill J O. 7198.600 ;
l l
TABLE 3 - ASSESSMENT OF DOSE RATE ABOVE SOIL TAKEN FROM THE l LGS COOLING TOWER BASIN, SPRAY POND, & HOLDING POND, l ASSUMING THAT ALL ISOTOPES ARE AT SOLIDS ACTIVITY LIMIT Y-/-
[ OCCUPATIONAL DOSE ASSESSMENT 1 Solids Activity External Inhalation Nuclide Limits
- Dose Rate # Dose Rate uCi/q(dry) mrom/hr mrom/hr Fe-55 1E-05 0.00E+00 0.0E+00 7.26E-10 1.6E-08 Mn-54 SE-06 2.76E-17 3.0E-03 1.81E-09 2.0E-08 Co-58 SE-06 3.19E-17 3.5E-03 2.94E-09 3.3E-08 Fe-59 5E-06 4.09E-17 4.4E-03 4.00E-09 4.4E-08 Co-60 5E-06 8.68E-17 9.4E-03 5.91E-08 6.6E-07 Zn-65 5E-06 1.98E-17 2.1E-03 5.51E-09 6.1E-08 Sr-89 5E-07 4.86E-20 5.3E-07 1.12E-08 1.2E-08 Sr-90 5E-07 3.77E-21 4.1E-08 3.51E-07 3.9E-07 Mo-99 5E-06 4.75E-18 5.1E-04 1.07E-09 1.2E-08 Cs-134 5E-06 5.07E-17 5.5E-03 1.25E-08 1.4E-07 Cs-137 SE-06 1.83E-17 b 2.0E-03 8.63E-09 9.6E-08 Co-141 5E-06 1.70E-18 1.8E-04 2.42E-09 2.7E-08
}
Ce-144 SE-06 3.84E-19 4.2E-05 1.01E-07 1.1E-06 Total = 3.1E-02 Total = 2.6E-06
- :nhalation Committed Ef fective Dose Conversion Factors from FGR Report 11 (Ref. 11], Table 2.1. (Sv/Bq inhaled)
(use highest effective value (from D,W,Y class)
Dose assumes dust loading over pile of SE-4 gm/cu. meter.
This corresponds to conditions where soil is being worked.
Soil Volume Source External Dose Rate Conversion Factors from FCR Report 12 (Ref. 12] Table III.7 for soil contaminated to an infinite depth. (Sv/see per Bq/m*3) 0 Uses daughter product Ba-137m (95% yield) conversion factor.
h m<f49 (L,. A.A k M e- '#- -
0 o)'; 9
KOTM 9007 FFV 449 CALCULATION SET NO. KEV. COMP. BY CHK'D. BY I Engineers & Constructors CO PbTAT ON LM 526 fg,j eHEET
. pneum. FINAL VOID 2 AT- DATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X // TS s t ro 'l$
PROJECT COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY PONO i j
DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET lO OF 22 USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER DA TE DATE SUBJECT BASINS HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND AS Fill JO 7198.600 I
l l
TABLE 4 - RESIDENTIAL (SURFACE SOIL) SCENARIO WITH CREDIT FOR DECAY 8 Solids Soil conc. (pC1/g)
Activity Residential Use Doses (mrem /5r) 4 9 15 mesm/yr Decay Time _
Nuclide Limits T 1/2 Residential 0 10 20
)
30 !
uCi/g(dry) fyrs) Scenario # (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) l Fe-55 1E-05 2.7 1.11E+04 1.4E-02 1.0E-03. 8.0E-05, 6.1E-06 Mn-54 SE-06 0.856 1.22E+01 l 6.1E+00 1.9E-03 5.7E-07 1.7E-10 '
Co-58 5E-06 0.194 2.57E+01 2.9E+00 8.9E-16 2.7E-31 8.2E-47 re-59 5E-06 0.122 3.20E+01 2.3E+00 5.0E-25 1.0E-49 2.2E-74 Co-60 5E-06 5.27 2.97E+00' 2.5E+01 6.8E+00 1 8E+00 4.9E-01
- n-65 5E-06 0.688 1.22E+01 6.1E+00 2.6E-04 1.1E-08 4.6E-13 Sr-89 5E-07 0.138 2.54E+03 3.0E-03 4.5E-25 7.0E-47 1.1E-68 Sr-90 SE-07 29.12 1.14E+01 6.6E-01 5.2E-01 4.lE-01 3.2E-01 Mo/Tc-99 1.8E-13 2.13E+05 5.24E+01 5.2E-08 5.2E-08 5.2E-08 5.2E-08 Cs-134 SE-06 2.06 4.90E+00 1.5E+01 5.3E-01 1.8E-02 6.3E-04 Cs-137 SE-06 30 1.07E+01 7.0E+00 5.6E+00 4.4E+00 3.5E+00 Ce-141 SE-06 0.089 8.81E+02 8.5E-02 1.3E-35 1.9E-69 2.9E-103 Co-144 SE-06 0.778 1.52E+02 l
4.9E-01 6.7E-05 9.0E-09 1.2E-12 '
Totals = 66 13 6.7 4.3 i
Based on Dose Equivalence Factors for Residential Use (Surface Soil) Scenario supplied in NUREG-1500, Table B-2.
For this scenario, the Mo-99 (messured to LLD) is assumed to have been cotapletely converted to Tc-99 for dose purposes.
M LJLt. M m.. b a U qg M f aje. A Pt'R n/n/95
i F0ftM 6001Cyv O 91 CALCULATION SET NO. REV. COMP B7 CHK'D. 6Y GENERAL A
COMPUTATION LM 526 g g SHEET PRELIM. FINAL Volo 2 DA TE 4 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 X // 3 d'"'
PROJECT COOLING TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 19 OF 22 USING SOLIOS TAKEN FROM THE COOLIMG TOWER DAM DAR SUBJECT B ASINS, HOLDING POND, AND SPRAY POND, AS FILL J o. 7198.600
)
l l
TABLE 5 is Deleted in Rev. 2, since Residential Use Scenario is more limiting than a Drinking Water Scenario 1
l i
1 I
l I
l i
i
sonu s w am a ,,
cALCRADON SE7 NO. CW.
GENERAL COMP. SY CQ8Y A
COMPUTATION SHEET LM 526 y g/
PRELIM. FINAL VOl0 1 A LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X / W PROJECT COOLING TOWER. HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 20 Op 22 USING SOLIDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER DATE DAM SUBJECT BASINS. HOLDING PONO, AND SPRAY POND, AS Fill J o. 7198.600 l
TABLE 6 - RUNOFF BORNE RADIOACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS 1.46E+07 = SOLIDS IN RUNOFF (gm/yr) 1.46E+09 = RUNOFF (ml/yr)
Solids 10CFR20 Runoff Activity APP. B Activity Nuclide Limits Water Conc. Fraction uCi/g(dry) uCi/ml uCi/ml of Limit Fe-55 1E-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 5E-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 SE-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 SE-06 3E-06 5.0E-08 1.7E-02 Total = 1.7E-01
somu 6007 CW m9 CALCULATION SET NO. CEV. COMP. 8Y CHK'D. BY CO PUTAT ON SHEET LM 526 % -($4 PREUM. FINAL VolD 2 DATE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 X
// 93 ,,,,a 4I.
PROJECT COOUNG TOWER, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY POND DETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 21 op 22 DATE DATE USING SOUDS. TAKEN FROM THE COOUNG TOWER SUBJECT B ASINS HOLDING POND, AND SPR AY POND, AS Fill Jo 7198.600 EQUATIONS FOR TABLES (SPREADSHEETS) 14 6 h bl.R
$t%, 's , s.I,1, M. Lt[41] + A,du~< / x'I D
- 10 .- I nic C a:t-(catr)[~w}
Table 16] ~
CJ-~ v. satJ s Ae tmtcMi}. + e.nNo PO} + / o y%e w -
2^*"; W A l l Cl a h y J q u 3 t e , c u rd are nr r h e<~ u d to AthLm,~ p 1 T%m_ us l calm-~ r. -t-L Me [M - Q (yck .
Colm L'. seh (kt . L.,t[*4ip r l .95 *A eq S /.9t+/o' % 2-Ch 7, r 01.5 gu- gynl<fQ. >J4 m
~jM Q u.% cf '. Cola-~ 7} dl + L4~ Rate (CI bLN G(m~ to - oL61 . ,,3 , c.c al
\ \ ', OkW w 3 (webts *O A
. .- l sonM 9007 QFv Oct '
CALCU'.Afl0N SET No. RE% COMP. 8Y CHWD.8Y GENERAL A
COMPUTATION LM-526 y 4 4
SHEET PREUM. FINAL VOl0 2 DATE X
I/ S a'lo-45 UMERICK GENERATING STATION . UNITS 1 & 2 l PROJECT COOUNG TOWER, HOLDING PONO AND SPRAY POND
.l OETERMINE WORST CASE RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF SHEET 22 or 22 oAre o4Te i
USING SOUDS, TAKEN FROM THE COOLING TOWER SUBJECT B ASINS, HOLDING POND. AND SPRAY PONO, AS Fitt J. O . 7198.600 I
EQUATIONS FOR TABLES (SPREADSHEETS) 1 A-6, cont'd
[Tal.c.y l
CsIvm C - r v.
solusehe(
- G r 3 Yan* u.w F/ "W '" QcC' %
- [. s o s uO' D. ~d b L J% a, T ""t-" ~ec9,. 1e%3 u
kost e b in w rv~- x ,-
ch t , y s.
s.Lai u.14@j4 +C,l.5Ql + 54 5, d 3 *y y kp 10 T e,. h ,~
- 'e .= aose 9 -
o._u, u. w ae, raun ,
Q 1 m e + w t 6 q .a.my couwt-cot- s . sou s Aci. 4+.{d - w jo'>%
/[(Nitt) jw
. /rM h
- . - m l A e L - e q A
Cdm~ ggi; Colu% 5 % * .e,' bbyb. ,
9.s , cot w a v. 6 4 a %
t5
( su une) Ao vdA
% w .A 4.,s im e.
D '3 " - 5 d</d.J),y %.a.
N am.6\ A t- >%63 m,3t,~cd,Jt, k fl.e ru & w,mYy
% a.,
wod 6 \% ci O Lhb Ack,dy L,d .
Co b,- n Sde Iy N couA Mnh cCoM e/ N/0*1, um. .
~
..