ML20237B324
| ML20237B324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1977 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712160189 | |
| Download: ML20237B324 (30) | |
Text
- _ _ _
~
b j
.J W c /.
. / i
' * '1 ,f &
/ .
3 NOV 141977 ,
Eccket !!c. 50-206 M CRA!CCM FCB: A. Schwencer, Gief Crerating Fencters Tranch flo.1, DOR FECH: J. T. Collins, Chief, Effluent Traatrent Systees Eranch, ESE SQJECT: ESE EVALUATICO W J CMTFE NUGEjd h iERATI!iG STATIC!!,
WIT !!O.1 WITF rr:sm w nitNDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 f
Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation cf the radioactive waste treatrent systec: installed at San Morre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. I with '
respect to the requirements cf Acpendix I. lhe results of cur evaluatien are centained in the attached "Fafety Evaluation and Enviecreental Ir: pact Appraisal."
Ee have also attrched a draft "Motice of Issuance cf Anendrent to Facility Cperating Licenses and thative Declaration."
Eased en cur evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive ',aste tr*strent systccs installed at San Cncfre are cacable of maintaining releases of radioactive raterials in effluents to "as icw as is reasonably achievable" levels in confere:ance with the recuirerents of 10 CFR Part 50.3%, and ccnforse to the recuirenents of Secticos II.A, ILB, II.C, and II.D of Ap;mndix I.
When the codel effluent radiological Technical Specifications, currently urder develogrent, have been antroved they will be feruarded to you fer trarr ittal to the licensee.
UML SIGXEp gy J'T.COLLIy3 JoPn T. Collins, Chief Effluent Trestment Systens Eranch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis alu tion DOCFET EI.E 50-206 NPR READI!G cc- H.gnton DSE READI!G
- v. ~cilo ETSB EEADEG R. Vollmer gory 3:3
- c. Coller E. Eisenhut A. Eur; er
'i. YreF.er H. Hult:en 8712160109 771114
^*W E. Crires D. Jarfee f 0%DQb E. Markce
.,,, . , h*NS5$h. DSE:SA:ETSB DSE:SA:ETSB DSE.SA:JISB DSE[SA) M QSCST:HMS .
. Burn 'pffdo$ art:mi kCYu$e ...JI6a l i n s ..W h e kdb
.m 10/25/77 10/# /77 lill/dl7_.. 10LM/77 10/_ /77 _
- u. m m im- a wac roax na o.m mcx 02.o _ _
.. ~ . - . _ . . _ .
w ===~~wu :=
. = - - =.: - - - - - -
y . .. v . ,
[:
r 9 SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY
- THE 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-13 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-206 i-INTRODUCTION.
6 On May 5,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as i low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. Ihis decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.II)
Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license i 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
, . 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 reasonably achievable."
, In confomance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Southern California Edison Company (SCEC) filed with the Commission on June 7, 1976(2) and on October 7, 1976,(3) the necessary infomation to
permit an evaluation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, with respect to the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I. In these submittals, SCEC chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
By letter dated , SCEC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for San Onofre Nuclear Generating 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 snd 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 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1; (1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in liquid 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 meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Sections II.A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and (3) to meet the cost-benefit objective set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
I. Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's l
l proposed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
l
s The staff's evaluation consisted of the following: (1) a review of the information provided by the licensee in his June 7,1976, and October 7, 1976, submittals;(2,3) (2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) '.
treatment and effluent control systers described in the licensee's final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); ) (3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liauid and gaseous effluents (source terms) for the San Onofre, Unit No.1 facility; (4) the calculation of relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/0) values for the San Onofre site; ,
(5) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and (6) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for potential radwaste system auments using the methods outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.110, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reacters.,,(5) ne staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at San Cnofre Unit No.1, have been previousy described in Section III of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated October 12, 1966,(6) and in Section 3 5 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated October 1973 Since the SEE was issued, however, the gaseous radwaste system has been l
l augmented by adding a cryogenically cooled charcoal bed gas decay system to the original offgas decay system. The cryogenic system consists of a catalytic reccmbiner, condenser, water separator, dryer, and a 300 pound charcoal bed 0
which is cooled by liquid nitrogen to a temperature of -250 F or less. The licensee has stated that operational experience has shown that the syster has G *' '
.m., g
4 the capacity to retain xenon and krypten gases fer approximately 60 days of cperation, after which the charcoal bed cust be generated.
0 In the regeneration peocess, the adscrption bed is heated to about 300 F, which causes the retained gases to be driven off. These gases ray then be collected in steel bottles for up to six months storage, or ray be released to the atresphere. In our evaluation, we assured that this syster provides a taximum holdup tire cf c0 days.
2e charecal adscrber vessel was designed and fabricated to AS?'E Code, Pressure Section III, Class 3, and was also designed to Seistic Categcry I.
piping, valves, and ccepressors were designed to AS!'E Code,Section III, Class 3 Other pressure vessels and process components were designed to ASt'E Code, Secticn VIII, Division 1. Piping was designed to AtISI B31.1.0.
The system design meets er exceeds the guidelines of Eranch Technical Position (ETP) ETSS 11-1, Eevision 1, and therefere, the staff finds the system to te acceptable.
1 i
Based on more recent cperating data at other operating nuclear pcwer reacters, which are applicable to San Onofre, Unit No. 1, and en changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terrs have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix I. The new source teres, shcwn in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated l
l l
1 .
1
using the model and parameters described in NUREG-0017.( ) In making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system and equipment decontamination factors consistenu with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for norce] operation including anticipated operational occurrences.
The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liquid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3 The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at San Onofre, 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 liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period for January 1968 through December 1976. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.
San Onofre, Unit No. 1, reached initial criticality in June 1967, and commercial operation in January 1968. The staff does not consider data from the first two years of operation to be representative of the leng term operating life of the plant due to the small amount of time the plant actually produced power. Therefore, only effluent release data from January 1970 through December 1976 were used in ecmparing actual releases from San Onofre, Unit No. 1.
The observed range of releases of mixed fission and activation products released from the liquid waste system is 0.95 C1/yr to 3C Ci/yr and the calculated release is 15 Ci/yr. The observed releases from the gaseous s
6-radwaste system are as follows: (1) Noble gases 420 C1/yr to 19,000 Ci/yr; (2) Particulate 0.00004 Ci/yr to 1.2 C1/yr; and (3) lodine-131 0.00004 Ci/yr to 0.65 Ci/yr. The staff's calculated releases from the gaseous waste system acc 1,300 C1/yr, 04002 C1/yr, and 0.13 C1/yr for noble gases, particulate, and icdine-131, respectively. Tritium releases from San Onofre, Unic No. 1, ranged from 3,400-Ci/yr to 4,800 ci/yr in liquid effluents and from 11 Ci/yr to 280 Ci/yr in gaseous effluents. Based on experience at San Onofre, Unit - _-
1 l No. 1, and at other plants utilizing stainless steel clad fuel, the staff's calculated release of tritium is 5,000 Ci/yr in liquid effluents and 300 Ci/yr in gaseous effluents.
The reported releases for noble gases include a period from startup through 1973 when minimum holdup cime was available for primary coolant system offgases. An augment, consisting of a cryogenically-cooled charcoal delay bed, was installed in late 1972 and was gradually phased into service in 1973 With the augmented system in service, noble gas releases from 1974 through 1976 averaged 1,340 C1/yr, as compared to the 1970-73 average of 9,000 C1/yr. The staff's calculated release of 1,300 Ci/yr, based on a design capacity of 90-day holdup by the augmented system, is in good agree-ment with the reported releases for 1974-76. Liquid releases of fission and activation products averaged 9 2 Ci/yr, which is within the staff's calculated release of 15 C1/yr.
Reported releases of particulate in gaseous effluents for the period 1972-75 averaged 0.4 Ci/yr. However, the staff believes, based on information from the licensee, that the reported values are conservative estimates since sampling
-, s l
y .
- 7-l '-
I was done upstream of the final HEPA filters. Actual releases, therefore, would be lower than reported.
Based on the above evaluation of operating data, the staff believes that the calculational model reasonably characterizes the actual releases of radio-l A . .
I active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1. Therefore, the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 were used in the staff's dose assessment discussed below.
Southern Califernia Edison Company has provided joint frequency distributions ..
of wind speed and direction by atmospheric stability class, based on the vertical temperature gradient, collected onsite during the period January 25, 1973 to January 25, 1976. The distributions were for wind speed and direction ,
4 measured at both the 10- and 40-meter (33- and 131-foot) levels with the vertical temperature difference between the 6.1- and 36.6-meter (20- and 120-foot) levels.
6, SCEC also conducted an onshore tracer test program at the San Onofre site.
Among the objectives of the program were (1) to evaluate the appropriateness of using data measured on the existing site meteorological tower located on the coastal bluff for making disperion estimates for onshore flows, ,
and (2) to characterize dispersion representative of meteorlegical conditions during routine plant releases. (Septoff, et al. , describes the test program and data.)
Eased on our analysis of the test data, we conclude that the wind and vertical temperature data measured on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station onsite (bluff) tower is acceptable for use in calculating atmospheric dispersion -
J estimates for the site vicinity using the staff's model described below.
s -
4
t + -
9
- 8-We lave made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion >
conditions for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, using our atmospheric dispersion model for long-term releases (Sagendorf , -
and Goll, draft, 1976).(10) This model is based on the " Straight-Line
)
Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111. i The onsite tracer tests showed that ground-level relative concentrations normalized for windspeed were similar whether the source of release was elevated or ground-level; thus, we assumed that all plant releases -
were from ground-level. The calculations also include considerations of J (
intermittent releases during more adverse atmospheric dispersion conditions <
than indicated by an annual average calculation as a function of total duration of release. Based en the criteria outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the calculations include an estimate of maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and temporal varia-tion of the airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model. ,
Radioactive decay of effluents and depletion of the effluent plume were also considered as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
In the evaluation, the staff used the 1973-76 meteorological data collected onsite. All releases were evaluated using joint frequency distributions ,
of wind speed and direction measured at the 10-meter (33-foot level) by .
atmospheric stability (defined by the temperature difference between the 36.6- and 6.1-meter (120-20 foot) levels) . Data recovery for this time ,
period and data was 88 percent. p i
P S
b h
- 9 ..
Table 5 presents the calculated values of relative concentration (X/0) and relative deposition (D/Q) for specific points cf interest.
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate-gories: (1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to the Pacific Ocean, (2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and (3) pathways associated with radio-iodines, particulate, 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.(12)
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 and organ doses, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) and invertebrates (5 kg/yr) G2) ha? vested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from San Onofre, Unit No. 1, into the Pacific Ocean, use of the shoreline for recreational purpcses (36 hr/yr), for boating (52 hr/yr), and for swimming (20 hr/yr).(1 Since there are no drinking water sources receiving liquid effluents from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, this pathway was not considered in the staff's evaluation. ,,
The dose to the population living within 50 miles of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, due to radioactive materials released in liquid effluents was based on the assumptions that at the year 2000
approximate]y 7 2 million people within 50 miles of the plant will consume 17 million kg of fish and 2,000 kg of shellfish taken from the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of San Onofre Generating Station; spend 30,000 man-hours along the shoreline for recreational purposes; spend 290 million man-hours swimming; and spend 340 million man-hours boating.(12)
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calcu-lation of beta and gamma air doses, total body dose and skin dose at the site boundary. The maximum noble gas doses at the site boundary were found at 0.17 m.les WNW relative to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. I vent.
The dose e-valuation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere, was also based on the maximum exposed individual. For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be a child whose diet includes the consumption of leafy vegetables (26 kg/yr) while living at a residence 1.0 miles NNW of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, dnit No. 1 vent.
The calculated dose to the population living within fifty miles of San Onofre Unit No. 1, due to the release of noble gases, radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium was based on the following parameters: (1) at the year 2000 the population within fifty miles of San Onofre, Unit No.1 is l estimated to be 7 2 million people; (2) 78 million liters of milk, 28 million kilograms of meat, and 28 million kilograms of vegetables will be produced l
l l
1
d tion within 50 miles of San Onofre, Unit No.1; (3) all of the pro uc f
estimated in (2) above would be consumed by the population within fi ty miles; and (4) milk animals would receive pasturage equivalent to twelve months per year of total diet from grazing.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, and 1, the the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents given in Table to staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or l 6, any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, as shown in Tab e to be less than 3 mrem / reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in .
conformance with Section II. A of Appendix I.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted abcve, the calculated releases d the of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents ginn in Table 2, an h t ff appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) value given in Table boundary, 5, t e s a i
calculated the a-nual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the s te
/ tr as shown in Table 6, to be less than 10 mead / reactor and 20 mrad reac o ,
Using the respectively, in conformance with Section II.B of Appendix I.
dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radio-iodine, carbon-14, tritium, and particulate given in Table 2, and in the i
appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values g ven Table 5, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ in of the maximum exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem / reactor conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I.
12 -
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Table 5.1 of the FES.
Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 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 system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, for a favorable co'st-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. The staff's cost-benefit analysis was performed using: (1) the dose parameters stated above and in Table 7; (2) the analysis procedures outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.110; (3) the cost parameters given in Table 8; and (4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110.
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 multiplied by $1,000 per total body man-rem and
$1,000 per man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $1,000 for the total body man-rem dose and $1,500 for the man-thyroid-rem dose.
The most effective augment was the addition of a 400 gpm demineralized treatment system for the steam generator blowdown stream. The calculated annual cost of $61,000 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 meets the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
1 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 $1,000 per total body man-rem and
$1,000 per man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $1,800 for the total body man-rem dose and $9,600 for the man-thyroid-rem dese.
The most effective augment was the routing of the steam generator blowdown flashtank vent to the main condenser. The total annual cost of this augment was calculated to be $9,300. However, the calculated dose reduction of this l augment is 2.2 man-thyroid-rem, and the corresponding cost-assessnent value l
1s $2,200, for a cost to benefit ratio of 4.2:1. Therefore, the augment is not cost-beneficial. The staff concludes, therefor?, 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 require-ments of Section II.D of Apoendix I to 10 CFR Eart 50.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 3ha, and, therefore, are acceptable.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1. This
... s
s evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining -
releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during i
normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that ,
the calculated individual doses are less than the numerical dose design objectives in Section II. A, !I.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. ,
In accordance with Section II.D of Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional augments can be added
- ~
to the systems installed at San Onofre, Unit No.1, that can effect a reduction in dose to the population within a 50 mile radius of the station for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a significant
~
increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reasonable ,
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted e 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 Aroraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the San Onofre 4 Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in the State of California, in San Diego County, at power levels up to 1347 megawatts thermal (MWt).
The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not resul. .
(
b . ,
. v 9 3
1 l in an increase or decrease in the powcr level of the units. Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the acticn, the action does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in The Cocnission's Final Environmental Statement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-206.
The revised liquid and gaseous eff]uent limits will not significantly change . .. -
the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from San Oncfre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-active 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 causes, (2) initiate a program to reduce the releases; and (3) report these actions to the NRC.
The revised 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.B, and II.C of Appendix I.
l l
Conclusion and Pasis 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
\
/
e I .. . _ .. . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _
environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
1 m
i ,
m Dated:
l l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-206 SOUTHERN CALFIORNIA EDISON COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-13, issued to Southern California Edison Company, for revised Technical Specifica-tions for opert. tion of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1 located in San Diego County, California. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance. . .
These amendments to the Technical Specifications will (i) implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for the quarterly and annual average release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with Commission regulations.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissicn's rules and regulations. The Commission has made approp-riate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and l regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license l amendments. Prior public notice of these amendments was not required l
since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
I
l ll l
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 i because there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human l
! environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described l
in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated December 1973 l
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the appli-cation for amendment dated , (2) Amendment No. License No. DPR-13, 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, D.C., and Mission Viejo Branch Library, 2481 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, California. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors l
l l
REFERENCES
- 1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Federal Register, V.40, P. 19442, May 5, 1975
- 2. " Supplementary Information Concerning Compliance With 10 CFR Part 50, Appenoix I, San Onofre Nuclear Gendrating Station, Unit No. 1."
Letter of Transmittal, June 8,1976.
Enclosure:
" Final Report on the Study of Liquid Radwaste System Backfitting Requirements for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1."
, 3 " Supplementary Information Concerning Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, l Appendix I, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1."
l Letter of Transmittal, October 7,1976.
Enclosure:
" Evaluation of l
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975."
- 4. Southern California Edison Ccepany, Final Safety Analysis Report, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, July 28,1970.
i
- 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. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission, " Safety Evaluation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-206, Washington, D. C., October 12, 1966.
- 7. Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-206, Washington, D. C., October 1973
- 8. NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
9 Septoff, M., Mitchell, A. E., and L. H. Teuscher, 1977: NUS-1927, Final Report of the Onshore Tracer Tests Conducted December 1976 through March 1977 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. NUS Corporation, Rockville, Md.
- 10. Sagendorf, J. F., and Coll, J. T., 1976: X00D0Q, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, (DRAFT), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
- 11. Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled i
Reactors," March 1976.
- 12. 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.
.. s
r o
tt cs eu aa -
ja a1 2a2 a1 20a3aa 42 cccccccc Eh 8 1 2 x 1 00 rE i 00 A
n w
S ot T d n N we aaaaaaaaaaaaa 4 cccccccc aa - ,
E oV 91 s U l 01 e L1 B . n F 00 i F . d EO o i
N S r UT o OI f EN SU eg A nn r G , ii y N bd aaaaaaaaaaaaa 38cccccccc aa - /
NO rl 22 i I I ui 00 C T Tu 00 SA B 4 LT 00 -
AS 0 I 1 RG EN n TI y a AT rg )))))))) h
_ 1 MA an 45445644 t R r ii - - - - - - - -
aa - s s
_ E EE y l d a23 a3 a240a6aa 25((((((((
L VN/ i l 9 2386673483 e
B A
I Ei TGC xi uu 2
0 00 0.1 21 21 l T C AB ,
AR 4 0A 1
_ I E -
DL
_ AC n
_ RU
_ N r-
_ F
_ OE a0
_ R c1 SF rg )))))))) e
_ EO on 78778977 d xd SN ti - - - - - - - - n i AO cd as0aaa830aaaa aa( (((((( 51 - a5l E
LN al ei 5 7 5
88394582 1 6621 21 3 2
s4 u e
.c n
_ EA R u s=
B
_ RS a s DM 5h i
AF b5 r L ee o o U Bl C m t n4f L eyt r;l A t ao b C sl B )))))))) ona ye 55456755 f ot SDe - - - - - - - - i o g aa0 aaaaaaaaaa aa(((((((( a7 - rtt ya sca 7 55573655
/tf air 1 . . .
gno a 411 3 47 s i oo f et s e C n f gS e t %
Oo s a 1 l 1 yd a l a rn G u nin Ca c at a e i t
h nh t et l
b r n o a sos N P sps exe e mm m l l L eL d mm 1 335578a1 3 47 a
=
i 3557893333333t3349809033t1 4 l 8888881 1 11 1 1 1 o1 1 5556891 1 o41 3 c - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - T - - - abc u rrrrrreeeeeee 1 I neoorrss rC1 1 N KKKKKKXXXXXXX MFCCS5CC A
TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 Nuclide C1/yr/ unit Nuclide C1/yr/ unit Cr-51 'I.6(-2)" Te-131 8.8(-2 )
Mn-54 3.7(-3) I-131 2.4 Fe-55 1.3 -2) Te-132 2.1 (-1 )
Fe-59 9.5 -3) I-132 1.4 Co-58 1.3 -1) I-133 2.9 Co-60 1.7 -2) I-134 9.2(-2)
Np-239 8.7(-3) Cs-134 5.9(-1)
I-135 1.2 Fission Prod. Cs-136 Br-83 2. 2 (-1 )
1.9(-2 Br-84 3.5(-5 Cs-137 4.2(-1)
Ba-137m 1.8 b- 6 1.
Ba-140 1.8(-3)
La-140 2.6(-3)
Rb-88 1.5(-1) Ce-141 5.8(-4)
Sr-89 3.8(-3 Sr-90 9(-5 Ce-143 3.2(-4)
Pr-143 4.1(-4)
_Y-90 6(-5) Ce-144 3.7(-4) dr-91 . 4.1 -3) Pr-144 3.6(-3)
~
y_g ,( All Others 0 Total, Except
[r ". -
Tritium 15 Nb-95 5.8(-4)
Mo-99 8. 2 (-1 ) Tritium 5,000 b Tc-99m 2.6 Ru-103 3.8(-4)
Rh-103m 3.2(-3)
Ru-106 9(-5) l Rh-106 9.6(-4)
Te-125m 1.7 -4)
Te-127m 1.7 -3)
Te-127 1.4 -2)
Te-129m 1.2(-2)
Te-129 9.3(-2)
I-130 1.5 -2)
Te-131m 1.9 -2) a = Exponentic' Notation,1.6(-2) = 1.6 x 10 -2 b = Based on weighted averages of releases reported for the period 1970-1976.
s
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT N0. 1 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 1347 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Failed Fuel 0.12%a Primary System Mass of Coolant (lbs) 3 x 10 5 LetdownRate(gpm) 60 Shim Bleed Rate (gpd) 700 l Leakage to Secondary System (lbs/ day) 100 Leakage to Containment Building b Leakage to Auxiliary Building (lbs/ day) 160 Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns (per year) 2 Secondary System Steam Flow Rate (lbs/yr) 5.7 x 10 6 Mass of Liquid / Steam Generator (1bs) 3.3 x 10 Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (lbs) 2.5 x 10 53 Secondary Coolant Mass (lbs) 2.2 x 10 Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Building (lbs/hr) 1.7 x 10 3 Containment Building Volume (ft3 ) 1.2 x 10 6 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 4 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) Oc Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid)
Leakage to Auxiliary Building 0.0075 Leakage to Turbine Building 1.0 Main Conderser/ Air Ejector (volatilespecies) 0.15 aThis value is constant and corresponds to 0.12% of the operating power fission product source term as given in NUREG-0017 (April 1976).
b l%/ day of the primary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.001%/ day of the primary coolant iodine inventory.
c Based on operating experience at San Onofre, Unit 1.
l .._. ... ..... ......._ . _ _ _
t TABLE 3 (continued)
Liquid Radwaste System DF's Boron Recovery Miscellaneous System (BRS) Liquid Waste System l .,
4 3 I 1 x 10 1 x 10 .
Cs, Rb 4 x 10 1 2 x 10 1
3 Others 1 x 10 4 1 x 10 a
Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides Baron Recycle Feed Demin. DF (Y3B03 ) 10 2 10 i Primary Coolant Letdown Demin. DF (Li3B03 ) 10 2 10 Mixed Bed Radwaste 2 2 Demineralized 10 (10) 2(10) 10 (10)
Containment Bldg. ..
Internal Recirc.
System Charcoal Filter DF (Iodine Removal) 10 .
1
./
1 .
c , .
, . /
3 4 0 0 - 3 6 0 2 (
7 4 4, 4 1 9 l. .
1 7 3 4 1
) )
3 2 4 0 0 - - 3 5 0 0 ( (
7 9
2 0, 8, 5 6 1 1 4 1 4 3
) )
4 5 0 0 0 - - 1 4 5 0 0 ( ( 1 7 8, 8, 9 7 s 9 t 1 3 1 1 8 r o
p e
r e
0 0 s 0 0 7 a 3 6 0 0, 2 2 e 7 1 1, 4 2 l N 9 1 e RO 1 4 1 0 1 r OI FT t A n ET e CS a u N ) ) l EG 0 5 4 0 f I N 0 0 - - 8 s f RI 2 3 0 0, ( ( 2 e ET 7 5, 4 3 PA 9 0 9 l XR 1 3 3 1 4 4 a EE1 u 4 N n GE .r n E NGOy a L I N/ -
B TR i i A AATC m T REI e ELN 0 0 3 s PCU 1 5 0 0 5 OU 7 9 6, 0, - - d N 9 n F 1 0 3 6 5 a OE -
R 0 s YF 1 t R0 r AN x op NO P 4 e UN r SA 4 S 0 0 1 g 0 0 0 1 - n 7
9 7 8, 6, - -
)
i t
1 3 4 1 5 a
- r
( ep 4
o 4
l l a a u n n o n i a s t -
t s a i d c S s e N m S nu T e 1 t e T ad N s 3 a l s N o E a 1 l a E nr m U G - u m i m U oP u F e c u t o L i i L e n i i n r F sn t F l i t t e f F so i E b d r i n E i i r o o a r o a Ft T S N I P T p t D a U x a I l v l O l l l l E D U ai a E a a a a Q tt t S t t t t = =
I oc o A o o c o L TA T G T T T T a b
TABLE 5
SUMMARY
OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION tACTORS AND DEPOSITION VALUES FOR SELECTED LOCATIONS NEAR THE SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
- 3 Relative Location Source X/Q (sec/m ) Deposition (M-2)
Nearest Site A 6.0E-5 9.2E-8 Land Boundary B 3.0E-4 4.7E-7 (0.17 mi WNW) C 3.3E-4 5.lE-7 Nearest Residence A 3.2E-6 1.3E-8 and garden B 9.lE-6 3.9E-8 (1.0 mi NNW) C 9.7E-6 4.lE-8 Source A is Stack and Turbine Building Vent Continuous Releases Source B is Containment Purge Source C is Gas Decay Tank Releases
- The dose presented in the following tables are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud depletion from deposition, where appropriate, in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev.1, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water Reactors," July 1977.
M
.. g TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO.1, WITH SECTIONS II. A. II.B. AND II.C 0F APPENDIX I i T0 10 CFR PART 50 .
(Doses to Maximum Individual)
Appendix I Dose Design Objective Calculated Doses Pathway (Unit No. 1) (Unit No. 1)
Liquid Effluents Dose to total body 3 mrem /yr 0.19 mrem /yr fran all pathways ,.
1 l
Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 1.5 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 4.7 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 12 mrad /yr ,
Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 2.9 mren/yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 9,4 mrem /yr Radiciodines and Parti-culatesigGaseous Effluents Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 1.8 mrem /yr s
e -
Carbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category t
e
. 6 m -
l TABLE 7 CALCULATED DOSES TO POPULATION' FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS I FOR SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT N0. 1 Total Body Thyroid Pathways (man-rem) han-thyroid-rem)
Liquid 1.1 1.5 Gaseous Effluents 1.8 9.6
)
i l
l l
a Based on the year 2000 population expected to be within a 50 mile radius of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1
TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT N0.1 Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region VII a 1.2 b
Cost of Money 13%
a CapiP.al Recovery Factor 0.1334 Indirect Cost Factor a 1.75 a
From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors (March 1976).
b From Reference 8.
I