ML20206K555
Text
- - -
i SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF HUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT N0. TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. OPR-35 BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-293 INTRODUCTION On fiay 5,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in i the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is I
i reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear 1
power reactor effluents. This decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR j Part 50. U I .
Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application 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 amam-n9 in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable", and i 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 reasonably achievable."
l 2
In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Boston Edison Company (BECO) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976, 2) the I
necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix 1. In this submittal, BECO chose to perform the detailed
~
cost-benefit analysis required by Section 11.0 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
4 8606300123 860613 PDR FOIA BURNSTEIS6-58 PDR
- i
,k
By letter dated , BECO submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are "as . low as is reasonably achievable" in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1; l) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in ifquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) to neet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Secticns II. A, II.B, and II.C of gg ., .
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3) to meet the cost-benefit objective .
set forth in Section 1I.0 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
I. Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's pro-posed 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 information l provided by the licensee in his June 4,1976 submittals( ; 2) a review of the l
radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems des-cribed in the licensee's Design And Analysis Report; 3) a review ,
4 L
. .g .
.gf ly9.~c ' b tO
3- .
of the licensee's response to the staff for additional informationI4}; 4) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Pilgrim Station; 5) the calculation of relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values for the Pilgrim site; 6) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 7) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for potential radwaste system augments, using the methods outlined in, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Huclear Power Reactor." 5) The staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Pilgrim Huclear Power Station have been previously described in Section 2.5 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated May 20, 1968,(6) and in Section 3.5 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated December 1974.(7) Since the FES and SER were issued, the licensee has been in the process of
.g 7,4 ,y,; modifying the liquid radwaste system. The low purity waste system evaporator has been removed from service and replaced with a train consisting of a flat-
- bed filter and cartridge filter in parallel and a 20 gpn demineralizer in series with the filters. This nodification was considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Pilgrim Huclear Power Station, and on changes in the staff's calculation nodels, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been
. \
- g ,y ' , '.4 "' b 4e 9 [ , a
{- .: generated to determine confonnance with the requirements of Appendix I. The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in HUREG-0016 In making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liouid and caseous source terms are given in Table 3.
The staff also reviewed the ooerating experience accumulated at Pilarim Huclear Power Station, Unit No.1, in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents Data on licuid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period for January 1974 through June 1977. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.
qwng Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, reached initial criticality on June 16, .
1972, and commercial operation in December 1972. Since the staff does not con-sider data from the first year of operation to be represent'ative of the long term operating life of the plant, only effluent release data from January 1974 through June 1977 were used in comparing actual releases from Pilgrim-1.
In addition, since the modifications to the gaseous and linufd radwaste systems was not completed until late 1974 and 1975, respectively, only the operating data subsequent to these dates can be validly compared with the staff's calculated source term for gaseous and licuid effluents.
\
- i r, 'f.' _ , , , , , .
] For the period from January 1976 through June 1977, the average of the reported releases in liquid effluents is 2.2 Ci/yr for total activity (except tritium) and 34 Ci/yr for tritium. These values are in good agreement with the staff's corresponding calculated values of 2.2 Ci/yr for total activity (except tritium) and 25 Ci/yr for tritium.
For the period January 1975 through June 1977, the average of the reported ;
1 releases in gaseous ef fluents is 250,000 Ci/yr for noble gases,1.1 Ci/yr for l
Iodine-131, 0.46 Ci/yr for particulates, and 64 Ci/yr for tritium. The staff's l corresponding calculated values are 27,000 Ci/yr for noble gases, 0.63 Ci/yr j for Iodine-131, 0.26 C1/yr for particulates, and 25 Ci/yr for tritium. The differences between the reported releases and the staff's calculated values ,
are due to the worse than expected fuel performance to date of the existing fuel in the core. The licensee is replacing all of the existino fuel with !
g,gg new fuel during the current refueling outage. As operatina experience with the new fuel is accumulated, the actual releases are expected to agree more closely with the staff's calculated values.
The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion !
conditions for the Pilgrim site using the atmospheric dispersion model for l long-term releases (Sagendorf and Goll, draft,1976).(9I This model is based upon the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111,
" Methods of Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous i
Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors." The model assumes elevated as I well as a mixture of elevated and ground-level releases, based on the criteria established in Regulatory Guide 1.111. ilon-continuous and intermittant l l
~
___ , , , , , . . .- .- ,n -~ ~ - ~
-- - ~
~
gaseous releases were evaluated separately from 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. Relative con-centration and deposition values used in the dose estimations are summarized in Table 5.
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate-gories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to Cape Cod Bay, 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radioiodines, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere. The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109.(10) wmu The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive .
materials in liquid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.
For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 Kg/yr) and shelitish (5 Kg/yr) harvested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from Pilgrim huclear Power Station into the Cape Cod Bay and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr). Since there are no drinking water sources receiving liquid effluents from Pilgrim Huclear Power Station this pathway was not considered in the staff's evaluation.
t l
p '
I *'W"- a , a * "
c . .--
y ,
~
The dose to the population living within fifty miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, due to the radioactive materials released in liquid effluents was based on the following parameters: 1) at the year 2000, 6.0 million people will consume 34 million Kg of fin fish taken from Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay, 2) the year 2000 population within fifty miles of the Pilgrim Station was estimated to consune 5.1 million Kg of shellfish harvested from Cape Cod Bay and the ffassachusetts Bay, and 3) the population, both normal and transient, within 50 miles will spend about 35 million man-hours along the shoreline for recreation purposes.
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin, doses at the residence having the highest dose. The maxi-mum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.54 miles ESE relative
, ,,, to the Pilgrim Station. The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at the same location.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radioi,odine, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based of the naximun exposed individual. For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the consumption of milk (3301/yr) from a cow grazing at 4.6 miles W of the Pilgrim Station.
The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture equivalent to 5 months per year total diet.
~
The calculated dose to the population living within fif ty niles of Pilgrim Station 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 fifty miles of Pilgrim Station is estimated to be 6.0 million people; 2) annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles of Pilgrim Station consists of 78 million liters of milk, 4.8 million kilograms of meat, and 49 nillion kilograms of vegetablesIIII; 3) all of the production estimated in (2) above would be consumed by the population living within 50 miles; and 4) milk cows would receive pasturage [ equivalent to]
five months per year. receiving 45% of their total diet from grazing.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated 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
- "*##l organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem / reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II. A of Appendix 1.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the appro-priate relative concentration (X/0) value given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad / reactor and 20 mead / reactor, respectively, in con-formance with Section II.B of Appendix I.
'I ,
e L.--. :. .-,$ NS L h? A - -- = - -
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases cf radiofodine, carbon-14, tritium, and particulates given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/0) values given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of the maximum exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem / reactor.in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix 1.
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Table 6 of the FES.
l r
Section II.D of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 II requires that liquid and -
gaseous radwaste systems for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors include ,
all items of reasonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the f
system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-b4nefit return, can, ;
\
r.m.~.m>
for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the popula- l tion reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. The staff's l cost-benefit analysis was performed using: 1) the dose parameters stated '
above and in Table 7; 2) the analysis precedures outlined in Regulatory l Guide 1.11n(5); 3) the cost parameters given in Table 8; and 4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110.(5) l l
For the liquid radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from liquid releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when mul tiplied by $1,000 per total bods man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of less than $1000 for -
1 1
y ... - . ~, - ..- ~ , n-
~
the total body man-rem dose and less than $1,000 for the man-thyroid-rem dose.
The most effective augment was the addition of a 20 gpm Cartridge Filter to the low purity waste system. The calculated cost of $16,300 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values for 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 modified liquid radwaste system neets the recuirements of Section II.D of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
For the gaseous radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from gaseous releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by $1000 per total body man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $10,400 for the total body man-rem dose, and $18,700 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most EEI*'"E effective augment was the addition of a 30,000 cfm Charcoal /HEPA filtration system to the reactor building ventilation exhaust system. The calculated cost of $91,000 for this augment exceeded the cos,t-assessment values for the gaseous radwaste system. The staff concludes, therefore, tha_t there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the modified gaseous radwaste system meets the recuirenents of Section !!.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treat-ment systems installed at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, are capable M ' [,' ,T '
&-' 3We= w '-*
~
of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in acccrdance with the require-ments of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable. I In addition, 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.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems ;
installed at Pilgrin iluclear Power Station. This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive ;
materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the calculated individual doses are less than the numerical dose design objectives of Section II. A, II.8, and ,
II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. In accordance with Section II.0 of p.gma Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional augnents can be added to the nodified systems being ;
installed at Pilgrin Station that will effect a reduction in dose to the population within a 50 mile radius of the station for a favorable cost-benefit i ratio.
The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a sionificant increase in the probability of consecuences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reason- ,
able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered i
e l f,[ .s
] t((.'. V4 _ ' '-" F* Y-
l
~
by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
II. Environmental Impact Anpraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, located in the State of Massachusetts, in Plymouth ,
County, at power levels up to 1998 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the Units. Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action; it does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in The Comnission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Pilgrim Nuclear W.9, Power Station, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-293.
The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix !
to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-dCtive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is reasonably achievable." If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives in a quarter, the licensee must: (1) identify the cases, (2) initiate a program .
? om - &
l f{w _
__ A = '
^#
~ *
. I 13 -
i to reduce the releases; and (3) report these actions to the NRC. The revised ;
l Technical Specifications specify that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Da ted:
y , :ci; 0
. = 'e. , /*
REFERENCES
- 1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. Federal Register, V. 40, P.19442, May 5,1975.
- 2. " Response to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Files: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Letter of Transmittal, June 4,1976. Enclosed " Appendix I Evaluation Report."
- 3. Boston Edison Company, Design and Analysis Report - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 - 1967.
- 4. " Responses to the Staff for Additional Information, Letter of Transmittal, March 31,1977.
- 5. 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.
- 6. Staff of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-293, Washington, D.C. May 20,1968.
- 7. Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station BECO, Docket No. 50-293.
- 8. NUREG-0016. " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In
"~'"* Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code)," April 1976. .
- 9. Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll J.T.,1976: X00000, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, (DRAFT). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
- 10. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, . Regulatory Guide 1.109,
" Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," March 1976.
- 11. Census of Agriculture,1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
e
. m.. .. m . .. # _ ._
_ . .m
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-293 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES
~
AND NEGATIVE DECLARhTION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-35, issued to Boston Ecison Company, for revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, located in Plymouth County, Ma ssachusetts. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
This amendoents to the Technical Specifications will (1) imple-nent the recuirenents of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for the cuarterly and annual average release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs
,g, to assure conformance with Commission regulations.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations '
in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazard consideration.
l
- wa .
a
The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ-mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated May 1972.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated , (2) Amendment No. to License No.
DPR-35, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, p L ?w ru M v <- u u n r, pt.m u.-w, m .,v.< w.?, r ; 1 D. C. , and at the 4eai..c vi uusa. ruv..s u v u u...m . , s a vv .. i . A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear pp.%
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division ,
of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
i Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors
~
e l
a >
. TABLE 1 -
CALCULATED RELEASES OF PADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS Iti LIQUID EFFLUEtiTS FROM PILGRIM STATI0ti, UtlIT f10. 1 tiuclide Ci/Yr fluclide Ci/Yr Corrosion and Activation Products fla-24 3.3(-2)3 fib-97 2.0(-5)
P-32 3.5(-3) fib-98 1.6(-3)
Cr-51 1.2(-1) No-99 1.3 -2)
Mn-54 3.l(-3) Tc-99m 5.6 -2)
Mn-56 6.5(-2) Tc-101 9.4 -3)
Fe-55 3.7(-2) Ru-103 6.8 -
Fe-59 8.4(-4) Rh-103m 5.4 -
Co-58 1.0(-2) Tc-104 1.1 -
Co-60 2.3(-2) Ru-105 4.0 -
fl i-63 4.0(-5) Rh-105m 4.0-h fli-65 3.9(-4) Rh-105 6.7 -4)
Cu-64 1.0(-1) Ru-106 2.5 -
Zn-65 7.0(-3) Rh-105 1.1 -
Zn-69m 7.l(-3) Ag-110m 4.8 -
Zn-69 7.2(-3) Te-129m 1.0 -
, Zr-95 1.4(-3) Te-129 6.4 -
fib-95 2.0(-3) Te-131m 4.7(-4 W-187 1.3(-3) Te-131 8.0(-5 ftp-239 4.3(-2) 1-131 9.4 -1
- " Te-132 7.0 -5 Fission Products I-132 4.7 -
I-133 1.9 -
Br-83 4.9(-3) I-134 3.7 -
Br-84 1.5(-3)
- Cs-134 4.2 -2)
Br-85 7.0(-5) 1-135 7.0 -2)
Rb-89 5.6 -3) Cs-136 7.9 -
Sr-89 2.9 -3) Cs-137 9.2 -
Sr-90 2.2 -4) Ba-137m 6.1 -
Y-90 1.9(-4) Cs-138 2.4 -2)
Sr-91 1.2(-2) Ba-139 7.0 -3)
Y-91m 7.3(-3) Ba-140 6.6 -3) l Y-91 1.9 -3) La-140 5.1 -3) ;
Sr-92 1.4 -2) Ba-141 1.4 -
Y-92 2.0 - La-141 1.1 -
Y-93 1.3 - Ce-141 8.2 -
Zr-95 2.1 -< Ba-142 4.9 -
lib-95 2.5(-4) La-142 4.4(-3)
Zr-97 2.0 - Ce-143 1.5 -4 fib-97m 2.0 - Pr-143 7.2 -4 l
\
i
- J
i l .
- l. .
f
. 2- -
i Nuclide -Ci/Yr 1
Fission Product cont'd.
Ce-144 5.3(-3)
Pr-144 1.l(-4)
Nd-147 4.0(-5)
All Others 1.0(-5)
Total (except tritium 2.2 Tritium 25 r
l l
l l a = Exponential notation; 1.5(-3) = 1.5 x 10-3 f
1 i
1 i
' ,: -, 3; ,
...in. _
e '
, '~_L _ _
, *O Table 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASE0US EFFLUENTS FR011 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO.1 lY' J .)^ QAS Building Ventilation Ej or ac Nuclide Reactor Turbine Radwaste Offgases Vent Pump Totals Kr-83m a a a 32 28 a 60 Kr-85m 6 68 a 2800 48 a 2900 Kr-85 a a a 150 a a 150 Kr-87 6 130 a 8 170 a 310 Kr-88 6 230 a 1900 170 a 2300 Kr-89 a a a a 710 a 710 Xe-131m a a a 55 a a 55 Xe-133m a a a 41 2 a 43 Xe-133 130 250 10 12000 66 2300 15000 Xe-135m 92 650 a a 20 a 760 Xe-135 68 630 45 a 180 350 1300 Xe-137 a a a a 870 a 870 Xe-138 14 1400 a a 660 a 2100 Total Noble Gases 27,000 I-131 3.4(-1)D 1.9(-1) 5(-2) a 2.4(-2) 3(-2) 6.3(-1)
I-133 1.4 2.6(-1) 1.8(-1) a 9.2(-2) a 2.4 Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) 9(-3) c c c 2.3(-2)
Mn-54 6(-3) 6(-4) 3(-2 c c c 3.7(-2)
Fe-59 8(-4) 5(-4) 1.5(-2 c c c 1.6(-2)
Co-58 1.2(-3) 6(-4) 4.5(-3 c c c 6.3(-3)
Co-60 2(-2) 2(-3) 9(-2) c c c 1.l(-1)
Zn-65 4(-3) 2(-4) 1.5(-3) c c c 5.7(-3)
Sr-89 1.8(-4) 6(-3) 4.5(-4) c c c 6.6(-3)
, Sr-90 1 -5) 2(-5) 3(-4 c c c 3.3(-4)
Zr-95 8 -4) 1(-4) 5(-5 c c c 9.5(-4)
Sb-124 4 -4) 3(-4) 5(-5 c c c 7.5(-4)
Cs-134 8(-3) 3(-4) 4.5(-3) c c 3(-6) 1.3(-2)
Cs-136 6(-4) 5(-5) 4.5(-4) c c 2(-6) 1.1 -3)
Cs-137 1.l(-2) 6(-4) '
9 -3) c. c 1(-5) 2.1 -2)
Ba-140 8(-4) 1.l(-2) 1 -4) c c 1.l(-5) 1.2 -2)
Ce-141 2(-4) 6(-4) 2.6 -3) ~
c c c 3.4 -3) h-3 - - - - - -
25 C-14 1.5 - -
8 - -
9.5 Ar-41 25 - - - - -
25 a - less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 10~4 Ci/yr for iodine.
b - exponential notation; 3.4(-1) = 3.4 x 10-I c - less than 1% of total for nuclide.
i
__w
~
., .a TABLE 3 -
PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITI0f45 USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 1 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 1998 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Offgas Release Rate Noble Gases, uCi/sec after 30 min delay 60,000 Iodine-131, Ci/yr, Downstream of Main Condensate Air Ejector 5 Primary Coolant System Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (lbs) 5.0 x 10 5 Mass of Steam in Reactor Vessel (lbs) 1.4 x 10 4 Cleanup Demineralizer Flow (lbs/hr) 1.1 x 10 5 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 8.0 x 10 6 Number of Main Condenser Shells 2 Air Inleakage to Main Condenser cfm/shell 10 ;
Building Ventilation System Decontamination l Factors HEPA Filter, Particulates 100 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Offgas System (hrs)* 0.5 m,pg Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.029 Other Decontamination Factors (DF) I Cs, Rb fluclides High Purity System 2 I 2 10 10 10 Low Purity System 2 2 10 2 10 Regenerant Solution 10 2 10 2 ;
- Prior to processing by the offgas treatment system .
l
- 'WS er '**, ,
.R O*, ?#* N&
, . - - . .-.- .__ . ..- i
.: .. . o TABLE 4 l
SUMMARY
OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 Docket No. 50-293 i l
8 D c jg77d )
1974 ) 1975 ) 1976 ) l Curies Curies Curies Curies Liquid Release Data I l
Radioactive Waste Total Fission &
activation products 4.2 2.1 2.3 1.0 l
Total Tritium 10 18 47 4.6 Gaseous Effluent Release Data Total Noble Gases 550,000 110,000 180,000 339,000
, 1 Total Iodine-131 1.4 2.2 0.34 0.34 Total Particulates 0.019 0.66 0.33 0.16 Total Tritium 8.0 75 37 47 l
P"
- o ^)From data in the Semi-annual Operating Reports for 1974.
b)From data in the Semi-annual Operating Reports for 1975.
c)From data in the Semi-annual Operating Reports for 1976.
d) Data from first half of 1977.
.\
l i
l
,s ,5
- + 6 Aj
c . . . . -
~ -
.,.e-
- TABLE 5 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO 1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND DEPOSITION (D/Q) VALUES USED FOR DOSE CALCULATIONS Distance X/Q D/
Receptor Type Direction - (Miles)
Release Tyoe 3 (sec/m ) (mg)
Site boundary ESE 0.54 Stack - continuous 'l.0 x 10-7 7.9 x 10-9 Stack Purge-drywell 4.6 x 10-7 3.5 x 10 -8
.41 Bldg. Vent - cont. 1.3 x 10-6 1.2 x 10-8
.54 Stack Purge-vacuum 3.7 x 10-7 2.9 x 10 oump Cow W 4.6 Stack-centinuous 3.2 x 10-8 9.9 x 10-Stack Purge-drywell 4.0 x 10-7 1.3'x 10-9 Bldg. Vent - cont. 3.2 x 10-8 1.5 x 10-10
-7 Stack Purge-vacuum 2.9 x 10 9.0 x 10 -10 pump TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM OPERATION WITH SECTIONS II.A, II.8, AND II.C 0F APPENDIX I T010 CFR PART 50 (Dose to Maximum Individual Per Reactor Unit) ggg Appendix I Dose Calculated Critorien Desian Obiectives Doses
~
Liquid Effluefits Dose to total body from all pathways . 3 mrem /yr 0.15 mrem'""
Dose to any organ from all ".thways 10 m~ rem /yr 1.3 mrem /yr Noble uas Effluents ;
Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 1.1 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.69 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.74 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 1.4 mrem /yr a
Radiofodine and Particulates .
Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 8.1 mrem /yr a
Carbon-14 and Tritium have been added to this category.
5 ] 'W
- [. 'M e '4) A ks48m> _ap YE .I
., . .. .e TABLE 7 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN-REM) FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX I T0 10 CFR PART 50*
Pathway Total Body Thyroid Liquid <1 <l Gaseous 10.4 18.7
- Based on the population reasonably expected to be within a 50 mile radius of the reactor.
TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Labor Cost Correction Factor, r E Region Ia ) 1.6 Cost of Moneyb ) 15.4%
Capital Recovery Factora ) 0.154 a)From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976).
b)From Reference 4.
l l
l l
l l
~
'g,_ q y f hg ,M