ML20106J844
Text
.
p
/
1 qs 5 J/3 MEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:
Karl Abraham, PA0 RI L
SUBJECT:
RUM)R OF EPA DENIAL OF COOLING TOWERS. FOR FORKED RIVER
-This rumor turns out to be without foundation, although it appeared in the Atlantic City Press and other newspapers.
i I as informed today by Richard Cahill of the Public Affairs Office of EPA Region 11-l in New York City that the State of New Jersey Department of Environ-mental Protection has the permit jurisdiction over particulate discharges from the proposed cooling towers at the Forked River site.
However, because EPA has delegated to the States the enforcement of 1
4 air quality laws, the State of New Jeseyy must file with EPA a State air cuality plan, and any variances granted in that plan must be approvec. by the Federal EPA.
Because the Forked River cooling l
towers would require a variance for emissions at a rate higher than the State limit of 30 pounds of salt per day, when the State of New Jersey submits to the Federal EPA its air quality plan variance, i
EPA will have the right to accept or reject it.
Rejection of the State issued variance would in effect give EPA a veto over the cooling towers, but no such opportunity for exercising the veto has yet materialized as the State has not yet decided whether or i
not to grant the variance.
)
1 Karl Abraham Public Affairs Officer cc:
Director, RI Deputy Director, RI Assistant to the Director, RI Chief, Administrative Bkanch 1
State Liaison Officer Mr. Brunner i
Mr. Carlson j.
Mr. Smith Mr. Martin Mr. Jerry Wilson, LWR 4, HQ Mr. Frank L.
Ingram, PA HQ y
A0
',/ /'f c:
Abraham /dih 2/25/79
/
i d
- ) ' /
e ^ "~ '-
DEKOK95-258 PDR n
t i
l l
..$ d '
p FES 5
- ?
LMEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:~
Karl Abraham, PA0 RI'
SUBJECT:
RUMOR OF EPA DENIAL.0F COOLING TOWERS FOR FORKED RIVER-This. rumor ' turns out - to be without foundation, although it appeared in the Atlantic City Press and other newspapers.
I am informed today by Richard Cahill of the Public Affairs Office. of EPA Region II in New. York City that the State of-New Jerseyf Department laf Environ-
- mental Protection has the' permit jurisdiction over particulate discharges from the proposed cooling towers at the Forked River site.
However, because EPA has delegated to the States the enforcement of air quality laws, the State of New Jersey must file with EPA a State air c uality plan, and any variances granted in that plan -must be approvec by the Federal EPA.
Because the Forked River cooling.
towers would, require a. variance for emissions at a rate higher than the State limit of 30 pounds of salt per day, when the State of New Jersey submits to the. Federal EPA its air quality plan variance, EPA will have -the right to accept or reject it.
Rejection of the
~
State issued variance would in effect give EPA a veto over the cooling towers, but no such opportunity for exercising the veto has yet materialized as the State has not yet decided whether or not to grant the variance.
Karl Abraham Public ' Affairs Officer cc:
Director,:RI f
Deputy Director, RI Assistant to the Director, RI Chief, Administrative Branch State Liaison Officer
!=
Mr. Brunner Mr. Carlson Mr. Smith e
Mr. Martin Mr. Jerry Wilson, LWR 4, HQ Mr.-Frank L. Ingram, PA HQ
f
_. x
~ *s 3:
op, Distribution.
' ~
Docket File bec:
~
D. Vassallo Docket No:
50-303 F. Williams S. Varga R. Naventi JAN 2 91979 M. Service Mr. Ivan n. Finfrock, Jr.
g,n Vice Fresident j_f5f23
. Jersey Central
,3're r.:,,
t tt.
-me-a7 Madis'en Avenue at Punch 2cul Road Morristevn,
!c't Jersey - 07?60 Dear 'r.
Finfroc' :
SUBJ3CT:
FORKE.0 RIVEP NUCLEAR GENERATI:.G STATION 10 CFR "A?T 53 APPENDIX I SAFETY EVALUATION Enclosed is the safety evaluation for the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station with respect to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I.
This report provides our evaluation of the liquid and' gaseous radwaste treatment systems for the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station.
The evaluation is based on the information provided in your submittals of June 4, 1976, August 13, 1976 and March 27, 1978.
The report includes the results of our dose assessment and the cost benefit analysis.. Based on our evaluation, we have concluded that the radioactive waste treatment systems provided at Forked River are capable of maintaining veleases of radio-active materials in effluents to as low a3 is reasonably achievable levels in conformance to the requirements of Section II.A, II.B, II.C and II.D of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.
During the operating licensc review, we will do a con-firmatory evaluation of the liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems to verify that the bases for our conclusions have'not changed.
If you have any questions or comments on the enclosed report please contact us.
f,6 Sincerely,
..;1.I signd by 4
D. 3. 'I'MI.R D. B. 'lassallo, Assistant Direc 2 ag.
for Light Water Reactors
,<ce,c4ev
<v 7
Division of Project Management l
. 4melosure:
DP) 3 %.A.A DPM: LWR /AD
,g fhty Evaluat ion RN v i:.
- adg DVassallo
- 1'
' 7 9..
u/./79.
l
.. e s.:
See next page l..<..19
...,c,,,...,...,
s.
i.;
f..-
1,.
s,-
4
- : i' $.
JAN f41c76-Jersey Central' Power & Light Company.- -
'ecs:
M. Kenneth Pastor, Project ' Manager -
- GPU Service Corporation -
- 260. Cherry Hill-Road Parsippany,'. Hew Jersey 07054 Mr. T. Gary.Brougnton
' Safety & Licensing Manager:
GPU Service Corporation
- 260. Cherry dill Roaa Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
- George F. Troworioge, Esq.
Snaw,- vittaan, Potta & Trowcriage -
1600-M Street, d. W.
Wasnington, D. C.
20036 Joseph W. Ferraro, Jr. Esq.
Deputy. Attorney General State of new Jersey:
DepartJrent of LCW & PUDlic Safety, 1100 Rayraono Boulevard '
Newark, New Jersey 07102 Steven P.: Russo 248 Washington Street
~'P. G. Box 1060 Toms River, New Jersey 08753 j
- e.
v
e
/
,e, JAN a91379 SAFETY EVALUATION FOR FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION WITH RESPECT TO 10 CFR PART 50 APPEhl)IX I AUGUEST 23, 1978 7WM 6 0 0 9 6-
/6pp.
=
.* s
-INTRODUCTION On May 5; =1975, the M'Jclear Regulat.ory Commissier announced its decision'in the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides-for design objec-tives and limiting conditions for. operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents.
This decision is. set forth in.
Appendix.I to 10 CFR Part 50.III Section V.B of Appendix I-to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a permit to construct a reactor for which appiteation was filed prior to January 2, 1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976; 1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable," and
- 2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences "as low as is reason-ably achievable."
In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of. Appendix I, the Jersey Central Power & Light Ccmpany, (JCP&LC) filed with the Commisson on June 4, 1976,I2I and in subsequent submittals
, the necessary information to per-mit an evaluaton of the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1, with respect to the recuirements of Sections II. A II.8, II.C, and II.0 of Appendix I.
In this submittal, JCP&LC chose to pyrform the cetailed cost-
-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Aopencix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
q 47 e
.a i
.2
- The purpose of this' evaluation is to present the results of the NRC staff's F
. detailed evaluation cf the radioactive waste trettent systems provided at
~
Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1; 1) to reduce and main-
~
tain releases of radioactive materials in liquid and-gasecus effluents to j-
"as' low:as. is reasonably. achievable". levels' in accordance_ with the require-ment:1. of'10 CFR Parts 50.34a-and.50.36a, 2) to meet the individual dose
. design objectives. set forth in-Sections II. A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I f
to.13 CFR Part 50, and 3) to meet the cost-benefit cbjective set forth in
-Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part'50.
4 The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's l~
proposed-method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The' staff's evaluation consisted of the following:
- 1) a review of the infor-mation provided by the licensee in his June 4,1976, response and subs'equent
~ submittals(2-4); 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment
[
~
and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR)
- 3)_ a review of the licensee's response to the I'
- 4) the calculation of. expected staff for additionalc information I
releases of. radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source tems) for the Forked River, Unit No.1, facility; 5) the cciculation of airborne relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/0) values for the Forked River site region; 6) the calculation of individual doses in un-j-
restricted areas;.and.7) the. calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for co-tential radwaste system augments, using the methods outlined in Regulatory 1
S
~
=
m t-3 i
m-,
-y,,
-r,,,,.
. Guide 1.110. " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-T'e staff's evaiuation is discussed in Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors."
h detail in the following paragraphs.
Dose Assessment The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems provided at Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, have been previously des-cribed in Section 3.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated II July 1972
, and in Section 3.0.2 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated February 1973(8)
Since the SER and FES were issued, there have been no modifications to the systems.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power re-actors, which are applicable to Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, and on changes in the staf.f's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source tenus have been generated to detennine confornance with the requirements of Appendix 1.
The new source terms, shown in Tab;es 1 and I9I 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in NUREG-0017 In making these deterninations, the staff considered waste ficw rates, con-centrations of radioactive materials in the primary system and ecuipment de-contamination factors censistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for nonnal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new licuid and gaseous source tenns are given 19 Table 3.
j._
_4
)
The staff has made reasonable estimates of average at;nospheric dispersion
- conditions for Forked River Station, Unit No.1, using our atmospheric dispersion model for long-tenn releases 00) and onsite d:ta collected frem February 15, 1966 through December 3,1968, at approximately the 10 meter level.
The model used by the staff is based on the Straight-Line Traject-i ory Model described in Regulatory Guide 1.111(11).
The model adjusts the measured winds to represent winds at the heights of releases and assumes a j
mixture of elevated and ground-level releases, based on the criteria estab-j lished in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
The station vent releases include
- releases from the waste gas processing system, the reactor building and the j
auxiliary building.
Releases from the station vent were considered as mixed -
mode releases.
Releases from the turbine building vents were considered as ground level releases.
Non-continuous gaseous releases frem.the reactor building vent were evaluated separately frem continuous releases.
The calculations also include an estimate of' maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to open terrain recirculation of airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model.
Table 4 presents calculated values of relative concentntion (X/Q) and re-lative deposition (D/Q) for specific points of interest.
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 5 are different from and replace those given in Table V-5 of the FES.
The staff's dose assessment considered the folicwing three effluent categories:
- 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials releasac 3
T
- l r
f.
a 4
in liquid effluents to the Barnegat Bay; 2) pathways associated with nobla' gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radionuclides, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmos-phere.
The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the dose calcu-J lations to the maximum exposed individual are describid in Regulatory Guide 1.109(12),
e The dose calculation of pathways associated with the-release of radioactive i
materials in -liquid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.
For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed indivi-dual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) and invertebrates (5 kg/yr) harvested in the immediate vicinity of the dis-
, charge from the Forked River Station, Unit No.1, into the Barnegat Bay, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr).
t.
The dose to the population living within fifty miles of the Forked River Station, Unit No.1, due to the radioactive materials released in liquid effluents was based on the following parameter; 7.7 million people will l
consume 21 million Kg of fish and invertebrates taken frcm Barnegat Bay and vicinity.
The dose evaluation of ncble gases released to the atmosphere included a 4
calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary sector heving the highest dose and total body and skin doses at the site boundary sector l
having the highest dose.
The maximum air doses at the site buundary were four.d at 0.38 miles N relative to the Forked River Station, Unit No.1.
^
The location of maximum total body and skin doses was determined to be at the same location..
g n
n
- ~.
e
a.
+ ~....
The dose evaluation of pathway, associated with radiciodine, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the maximum exposed individual. For this evalcation, the staff considered the e
maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the con-sumption of milk (3301/yr) from a goat grazing at 1.0 miles SSE of the
. Forked River Station, Unit No.1.
The evaluation further considered that
~
the goat grazing at this location received pasture ecuivalent to 6 months per year total diet.
The calculated dose to the population living within fifty miles of the Forked River Station, Unit No.1, due to the releases of noble gases, radiciodines, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium was based on the following parameters;
- 1) the year 2000 population within 50 miles of Forked River Station, Unit No.1, is estimated to be 7.7 million people; and 2) annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles of Forked River Station consists of 269 millien liters of milk, 24 million kilograms of meat, and 74 million kilograms of vegetation crops.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the :alculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any crgan of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem /
reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section *I. A of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
r i
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the. calculated-releases i
of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents gi',en in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/0) given in Table 4, the staff F
calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site-
. boundary to be less than 10 mrad / reactor and.20 mrad /raactor, respectively, j
in conformance with Section II.B of ' Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radiof odine, carbon-14, tritium and particulates given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/0) values given in Table 4, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commit-i ment to any organ of_the maximum _ exposed individual to-be less than 15 mrem / reactor in confomance with Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Cost-Benefit Analysis I
Section II.D of Apendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that liquid,and l
gaseous racwaste systems for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors include all items of reasonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, f
for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the
. population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor.
The staff's cost-benefit anaslysis was perfomed using: 1) the dose parameters stated above and ir Table 6; 2) the analysis procedures cutlined in Regula-tory Guide 1.110
- 3) the cost parameters given in Table 7; and 4)' tne capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guice 1.110.
>w e
r y
y
-,m
. a. _
i*J' s
8
~
For.the liquid radwaste system, the calculated-total body and thyroid doses fran 11, aid releases to the projected populatfor witain a 50 mile radius of
-the ~ station, when multiplied by $1,000 per total body man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of less than 3100 for L the total body man-ren dose and $750 for the man-thyroid-rem cose.
The most effective augment was to add a demineralizer to the miscellaneous waste treatment system to effect a new reduction in activated and fission products relative to the 1.iquid pathway dose.
The calculated cost of $50,000 for this augment exceeded the cost assessment values fer the liquid radwaste system.
The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the liquid radwaste system meets the requirements of-Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
For the gaseous radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses j
from gaseous releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by 31,000 per total body man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of 54,200 for the total body man-rem dose and 58,100 for the man-thyroid-dose.
The most effective I
augment was the addition of a charcoal /HEPA filtration system to the main condenser vacuum pump condenser air removal exhaust system.
The augment re-sulted in a calculated dose reduction of 3.0 man-thyroid-rem by decreasing
- releases'of radiciodines.
The cost-assessment value of the cose reduction, based on $1,000 'per man-thyroid-rem, was 53,000.
Since the total annuali:ed cost' of. the augment was $16,400, the cost-benefit ratio exceeded unity and
y
~
4,
the augment cannot be cost-beneficial.
The calculated cost of all other augments considered exceeded the cost assessment values for the gaseous radwaste system.
The staff concludes, therefere, that there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the gaseous radwaste system meets the re-quirements of Section II.D of Appendix ! to 10 CFR part 50.
Conclusion The staff has performed an independent evaluation-of the radwaste systems provided at Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1.
This evaluation has shown that the systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the cal-culated individual doses are less than the numerical dose design objectives of Section II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
In j
accordance'with Section II.D of Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no augments can be added to the systems now installed at Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, that will effect a reduction in dose to the population within a 50 mile radius of the station for a favorable cost-benefit ratio. The staff's evaluation has shown that the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems meet the cost-benefit objectives set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Based on the. foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems provided at Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liouic and gasecus effluents to "as icw as is reasonably achievasle" levels in accordance with the requirements 'of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and tnerefere are acceptable.
l i
-l
.'e REFERENCES 1.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Federal Recister, V. 40, P. 19442, May 5,1975.
2.
Infonnation Required for Appendix I Implementation, Forked River Nuclear
. Generating Station, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-363. Letter of Transmittal, June 4, 1976.
3.
Additional Information Required for Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Letter of Transmittal August 13, 1976.
4 Responses to Additional Infonnation Request'for Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1 Letter of Transmittal, March 27, 1978.
i 5.
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, June 1,1970.
6.
Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.110,
" Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors", March 1976.
7.
Directorate of Licensing, Safety Evaluation of the Jersey Central Power and Light Ccmpany, Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, July 25, 1972.
Supplement 1, September 29, 1972.
8.
Directorate of Licensing, Final Environmental Statement Related to the Forked River Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Oceket No. 50-363, February 1973.
9.
NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
j i
10.
NUREG-0324, "X00000, Program for the Meteorologica! Evaluation of Reutine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Pcwer Stations," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC, September 1977.
11.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111, i
" Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport anc Oiscersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases frem Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," Rev.1, July 1977 12.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien, Regulatory Guide 1.109, j
" Calculation of Annual Average 00ses to Man fr:m Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purcose of Evaluating Compliance with IC CFR Part 50, Appencix I," Rev.1, Octooer 1977.
l l
i l
e TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR' GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1, FOR APPENDIX I EVALUA7 IONS Nuclides Ci/yr Nuclides Ci/yr Corrosion & Activation Products Fission Products Cr-51 1.0(-2)a Y-93 1.0(-5)
Mn-54 2.9(-3)
Rh-106 6.0(-5)
Fe-55 1.0(-2)
I-131 1.1-Fe-59 5.8(-3)
Te-132 6.1(-2)
Co-68 9.9(-2)
I-132 6.9(-2)
Co 2.1 -2)
I-133 2.5(-1)
Zr-95 1.4 -3)
I-134 1.3(-3)
Nb-95 2.0 -3)
Cs-134 1.7(-1)
Np-239 2.1(-3)
I-135 4.1(-2)
Cs-136 6.1(-2 Fission Products Cs-137 1.4(-1 Ba-137m 1.1(-1 Br-83 3.7(-4 Ba-140 1.0(-3 Br-84 4.0(-5 La-140 1.0(-3 Rb-86 4.3(-4 Ce-141 3.9(-4)
Rb-88 1.9(-3)
Ce-143 4.0(-5 Sr-89
~.0(-3)
Pr-143 2.5(-4 Sr-90 6.0(-5)
Ce-144 5.4(-3 Y-90 5.0 -5)
Pr-144 2.1(-4)
Sr-91 2.0 -4 Total except Tritium 2.5 Y-91m 1.3 -4 Tritium 420 Y-91 4.0(-4 Zr-95 3.6(-4 h
Nb-95 3.2(-4)
Mo-99 1.7(-1)
Tc-99m 1.6(-1)
Ru-103 4.0(-4)
Rh-103m 2.6(-4)
Ru-106 2.5(-3)
Ag-110m 4.4(-4)
Te-125m 1.7( 4)
=Te-127m 1.7 -3)
Te-127 1.9 -3)
Te-129m 7.8 -3)
Te-129 5.1 -3)
I-130 8.3 -4)
Te-131m 2.4(-3)
Te-131 4.4(-4) a = expenential r.ctation 1.0(-2) = 1.0 x 10-2
~
t TABLE 2 CALC'ULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1 Release (C1/yr/ reactor)
Waste Gas-
. Turbine-Air Ejector Main Condenser Processing
. Reactor Auxiliary Nuclides System Building Building Building Exhaust Totals
' Kr-83m.
a a
a a-a.
a Kr-85m~
a 1
2 a
1 4
Kr-85 240 2
.a a
a 240 Kr-87 a
a 1
a a
1 Kr-88 a
2 3
a 2
7 Kr-89 a
a-a a
a a
Xe-131m a
3 a
a a
3 Xe-133m a
8 a
a a
8
^ Xe-133-a 640 36 a
23 700 Xe-135m a
a a
a a
a Xe-135
.a 7
4 a
3 14 Xe-137--
a a
a a
a a
Xe-138 a
a a
a a
a Total Noble Gases 980 b
I-131 a
1.4(-2 4.6(-3) 5.8(-4) 2.9(-2) 4.8(-2).
I-133 a
3.1(-3 6.3 -3) 7.3( 4) 3.9(-2) 4.9(-2)
Mn-54 4.5(-5) 2.2(-4 1.8 -4) c c
4.5(-4)
Fe-59 1.5(-5) 7.5(-5) 6.0 -5) c c
1.5(-4)
Co 1.5(-4
-7.5(-4) 6.0 -4) c c
1.5(-3)
Co-60 7.0(-5 3.4 -4) 2.7 4) c c
6.8(-4)
. Sr-89 3.3(-6 1.7 -5) 1.3 -5) e c
3.3(-5)
Sr-90 6.0(-7 3.0 -6) 2.4 -6) e c
6.0(-6)
Cs-134 4.5(-5 2.2 -4) 1.8(-4) c c
4.5(-4)
Cs-137 7.5(-5) 3.8 -4) 3.0(-4) c c
7.5(-4)
Total Particulates
-4.0(-3)
C 7 1
a a
a 8
A-41 a
25 a
a a
25 H-3 a
a 940 a
a 940 b=exponentialnotation1.4(-2)=1.3x10gthan10#
a = less than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble 9ases, les C1/yr for iodine.
c = less than 17. of total.
.~..
?,**,~
TABLE 3 PRNfCIPAL'PARAMETERSANDCONDITIONS'USEDINCALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS
+
FROM FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR' GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 Reactor Power Level (MWt)
.3400
)
P1 ant Capacity Factor.
Failed Fuel 0.80 "
0.12%
' Primary System.
3 MassofCoolant(lbs)
S.7 x 10*
LetdownRate'(gpm) 68 Shim Bleed Rate (gpd).
1.8 x 103 LeakagetoSecondarySystem(lbs/ day)
-100 i
Leakage to Containment Building' b
i LeakagetoAuxiliaryBuilding(lbs/ day) 160..
Frequency of Degassing'for Cold Shutdowns.(per year) 2 Secondary System i
1 SteamFlowRate(lbs/hr).
1.58 x IQ 7
Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (lbs) 1.6 x 10
' Mass of. Liquid / Steam Generator.(lbs)-
1.67 x 10 6
Secondary Coolant Mass (lbs)
.: Rate'of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg (lbs/hr) 2.7x10]
1.7 x 10 i'
Containment Building Volume. ft )
2.0 x 10 3
6
~ Annual Frequency of Containme(nt Purges (shutdcwn) 4 Annual Frequency'of Containment Purges (at power) 20 Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid) 1 Leakage to Auxiliary Buildin 0.0075 Steam Generator-(carryover) g 1.0 Main Condenser Air Ejector (volatile species) 0.15
' Decontamination Facters (liquid wastes)
. Shim Bleed Miscellaneous Steam Gen.
Laundry And
~..
And Ec. Drain Waste Chain Blowdown Hot Shower Drain 4
3 3
I-1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 1
4 4
2
'Cs, Rb 2 x-10 1 x 10 1 x 10 i
5 4
3 Others 1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 1
All Nuclides Except Iodine Iodine Miscellaneous (Dirty) Waste Evap. DF 10j 10f Shim Bleed & Equip. Drain Evap. DF 10 10 Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides.
Boric Acid Evaporator Feed
,Demineralizers CF 10 2
10 Evaporator Distillate Polishing
-Demineralizer DFL 10 10 10 Steam Generator Blowdown Polishing.
- Demineralizer DF 10 10-10 l
a f
so.
+
q
1 1..s.
- ~
TABLE 4 FORKED RIVER STATION, UNIT NO. 1.
RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND DE?CSITION (0/Q) VAL"ES USED FCR DDSE CALCULATIONS Distance-X/Q 0/0 Receotor Tyce Direction
'(ciles)
Release Ty e (sec/ceters#)
(meters-2) i Site Scuncary N
0.38 Unit Vent - cent.
1.5x10~!
8.3 x 10-8 i
Unit Vent - purge 7.1 x 10-*
4.2 x 10~7 Turbine Bldg 4
i Vent - cent.
2.0 x ',0-*
8.3 x 10-6 Maximum Indi--
SSE 1.0 Unit Vent >- cent.
8.7x10'$
4.2 x 10 0 9'
vidual.
Unit Vent - purge 2.5 x 10' 1.5 x 10-Turbine Sidg Vent - cont.
a.5 x 10-6 1.2 x110 c 1
1 TABLE 5 CCM?ARISCN OF CALCULATED DOSES FRCM C?ERATION.WITH SECTIONS II.A, II.3, AND II.C'0F APPENDIX I TO 10CFR ? ART 50 o
(Oose to Maximum Individual) i Appendix I Ocse Calculated Criterien Design Cbjective Coses
]
' Liquid Effluen s Cose to total body frca all pathways 3 mrem /yr C.39 mre:/yr.
Dose to any crgan.frcm j
all pathways 10 mrem /yr 3.3 cree /yr Neble Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 = rad /yr 0.75 mrad /yr Eeta dose in air 20 = rad /yr 1.7 crad/yr i
Cose to total body of an individual 5 mree/yr 0.?7 =ree/yr Ocse to skin of an individual 15 mree/yr 1.5 mree/yr
'Radioicdine and ?articula:es*
- se totany :rgan frce all :a-hways ~
15 cre:/yr 2,- cre-/yr J
4-j Car:cn-la anc Tritium have :een added :: :nis :3 s; cry.
- Wg
-i4
+
- + -
- + - - + - - -
p a
- i 3.,4 TABLE 6 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN-REM) FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OR APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART CO*
Pathway Total Body Thyroid Liquid 0.093 0.75 Noble Gas Effluents 0.60 0.60 Radiciodines & Particulates 4.2 8.1 "easeo on tne population reasonably expected to be within a 60 mile radius of the reactor.
1 TABLE 7 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 8
Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region 1 1.6 b
Cost of Money 16%
a Capital Recovery Factor 0.1619 "Frem Regulatory, Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976).
bThe licensee provided a value for his cost of money at 10%.
4 Y
9