ML20237B344
| ML20237B344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1978 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712160204 | |
| Download: ML20237B344 (22) | |
Text
- . _ . - . - _ - . .
M*
-, o a
- w. Y yf M I__
s n s g ,
wam Docket No. 50-272 MEMORANDLH FOR: G. Lear, Chief, Cperating Reactors Branch No. 3, D0R Fret 4: J. T. Collins, Chief, Efflewt Treatment Systens Branch, OSE
SUBJECT:
OSE EVALUATION OF SALElt NUCLEAR GENERATING STATICH, UNIT NO. 1, WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX 1 TO 10 CFR PART 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systens installed at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, with respect to the requirements of Appendix 1. The results of our evaluation are cont 6f ned in the attached " Safety Evaldation and Environmental Impact Appraiss1," Ve have also attached a draft " Notice of Issuance of Anend-frent to Facility Operatino Licenses and Hegative Declaration."
Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treat :ent systuas installed at Salem Station, Unit No.1, are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive naterials in effluents to "as low as is reascnably achievable" levels in confomance with the requirements of 10 CFP. Part 50.34a, and confor n to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, II.C, and II.D of Appendix 1.
When the model ef fluent radiological Technical Specificaticos, currently under developent, have been approved they will be forwardM to ycu for trans.91ttal to the licensee.
CT':nL 5:ZD 3T JCEI?. COLLniS John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Systerns Branch Division cf Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
DISTRIBUTION:
DSE Evaluation Docket File 50-272 DSE Reading File cc: H. Denton ETSB Reading File V. Stello ETSB Docket File 50-272 R. Vollmer JTCollins I X. Goller D. Jaf fee l 0. Vorrelli 8712160200 780123 1 D. Eisenbut PDR ADDcK 05000272 l e PDR-D.S.Ej..}sj.-54 ?.U.g.,y ,k '
or'ic r o- DSEtS .DSELSA:E'TS3 h DSE:SA:8A%' 'D'WhW.S .. .
su mm e *- 3 Nbb O._ . bb I9' 6I. .@k U... .. TCol.l i ns g/U.igr..
JbbCO3].
01/16/ N .
01//y/72 01/,':/ 73... 01/za/78 01/.:/78 01/_ /73 t u. s. acvtaw:=v pa.=Tthe c a ric si t e r,- as sau NRC ICP.X 318 (9 76) ?!AC4 0:4G
.,.1 ,
m . .
i.
G. Lear 2-
JM 2 3 1973 .<
f cc: W. Kreger L. Hulman B. Grimec ,
E. Markee F. Congel R. Bangart W. Burke --
J. Boegli ;
/
/ i
(,
.h 9
/
O 4
p 4
SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-70 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 l DOCKET NO. 50-272 INTRODUCTION On May 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 reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear powe r reac tor e f fl uents. This decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR l- Part 50.(1)
Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 recuires 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 recessary 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 daveloped 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 conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et. al ., (PSE&G) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976,(2) and in subseauent submittals I' the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Salen Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I. In l
this submittal, PSE&G chose to perform the detailed cost benefit analysis re-quired by Section 11.0 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
_2-By letter dated, , PSE&G submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Salem 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 materi-als in liquid and gaseous effluents are "as low as is reasonably achievable" in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.34a and 50.36a.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the resul ts of the NRC staf f's de-tailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Salem 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 reason- - - - -
ably achievable" levels in accordanc? with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) to meet the individuel . hse design objectives set forth in Sec-tions II. A, II.B. 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 perfomed an independent evaluation of the licensee's 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 information provided by the licensee in his June 4,1976, response and subsequent submittals(2, 3, 0;
- 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control l systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)(5); 3) a review of the licensee's response to the staff for additional information
- l 1
- 4) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for tne Salem, Unit No.1, facility; 5) the calculation of airborne relative concentrat:on (X/0) and ceposition (D/0) ,
values for the Salem site region; 6) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 7) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for po-tertial radwaste system augments, using the nethods outlined in " Cost-Benefit _ , . .f Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors."
The staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, have been previously described in Section 11.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated October 11, 1974( } , and in Section 3.4 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated April 1973(8) ,
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gasecus source tems have been generated to detemine conformance with the requirements of Appendix I.
The new source tems, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in NUREG-0017I9I. In making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary systen and eauipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for nomal operation in- '
cluding anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liquid and gaseous source tems ,
are given in Table 3. -
4
1 9 %
\
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, reached initial criticality on \
December 11, 1976, and commercial operation on June 30, 1977. Since the staff \
does not consider data from the first year of operation to be representative of the long tenn operating life of the plant, a comparison between the cal-culated liquid and gaseous releases and the observed releases was not considered.
A sunmary of the operating experience for Salem Station, Unit No.1, prior to commercial operation is provided in Table 4, and is based on the Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period January 1,1976, through June 30, 1977, , _ , _
for information only. The staff believes that the calculational nodel reasonably ,
characterizes the actual releases of radioactive material during normal operation, including anticipated occurrences, averaged over the life of the plant.
l The staf f has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion con- . s: l ditions for Salem Station, Unit No.1, using our atmospheric dispersion nodel for long-tenn releases I and onsite data collected from June 1970, through "
May 1971, at approximately 10 meter and 60 meter levels. The model used by the >
staff is based on the Straight-Line Trajectory Model described in Regulatory II}
Guide 1.111 . The model adjusts the measured winds to represent winds at the heights of releases and assumes a mixture of elevated and ground-level
):
releases, based on the criteria established in Regulatory Guide 1.111. The
/
reactor building vent releases were considered to be mixed mode (elevated part of the time and ground level the remaining time) and the turbine building re-lease was considered to be completely ground level . Non-continuous and inter-mittent gaseous releases from the reactor building vent 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 traj ectory model .
.p.
5-Table 5 presents calculated values of relative concentration (X/0) and rela-tive deposition (D/Q) for specific points of interest. The summary of -
calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given
/
in Table 14 of the FES.
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent categories:
- 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to the Delaware River; 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the abnosphere. 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 ef fluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.
For the total body dose, the staff considered the naximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the conswnption of fish (21 kg/yr) and in-vertebrates (5 kg/yr) harvested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from the Salem Station, Unit No.1, into the Delaware River, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr).
The dcse to the population living within fifty miles of the Salem Station, Unit No.1, due to the radioactive naterials released in licuid effluents was
/
based on the following parameters; 1) 5.4 nillion people will consume l 36 million Kg of fish and invertebrates taken from the Delaware River, and
- 2) 3.5 million man hours of swimming in Delaware Piver.
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a cal-cuiation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary sector having the si 's '
k4 i 1 . .
highest dose and total body end skin doses at the site boundary sector having the highest dose. The maxinm air doses at the site boundary were found at l 0.83 miles N relative to the Salem Station, Unit No.1. The location of maximum total body and skin doses was determined to be at the same location.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the maxi-mum exposed individual. For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the consumption of milk (330 1/yr) from a cow grazing at 4.8 miles NNE of the Salem Station, Unit No.1.
The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received i
pasture equivalent to 6 months per year total diet. - - - - -
l The calculated dose to the population 1iving within fifty miles of the Salem Station, Unit No.1, to the releases of noble cases, radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium was based on the following paraneters; 1) the year 2000 population within 50 miles of Salem Station, Unit No.1, is estimated to be 6.9 million people; 2) annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles of Salem Station consists of 480 million liters of milk, 210 million l
kilograms of meat, and 880 million kilograms of vegetation crops.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liouid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calcula-ted the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mren/ 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 naterials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the
/
U-appropriate 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 mead / reactor and 20 mrad / reactor, respectively, in con-formance with Section II.B of Appendix I.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radiciodine, carbon-14, tritiun and particulate given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/Q) 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 nrem/ reactor in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix 1.
Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 III 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 cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. The staf f's cost-benefit analysis was performed using: 1) the dose parameters stated above and in Table 7; 2) the analysis pra:.edures outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.110(6); 3) the cost paraneters given in Table 8; and 4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110(6) ,
For the liquid radwaste system, the caiculated total body and thyroid doses from liquid releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of l
the station, when mul tiplied by 51,000 per total body man-rem and $1,000 per
' l 1, _
n man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of less than $100 for the '
total body man-rem dose and less than $100 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most effective augment was to add a second demineralized to the steam generator blowdown treatment system to effect a new reduction in activated and fission pro-ducts relative to the liquid pathway dose. The calculated cost of $20,000 for this augment exceeded the cost assessment values for the 1iquid radwaste system.
The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective auaments 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 from gaseous releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by 51000 per total body man-ren and $1000 per man-thyroid rem, resul ted in cost-assessment values of $5200 for the total body man-rem dose and S17,000 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 4" deep bed charcoal adsorber and HEPA fil tra-tion systen to the condenser air removal exhaust system. The augment resul ted in a calculated dose reduction of 3.8 man-thyroid-rem by decreasing releases of radioiodines. The cost-assessnent value of the dose reduction, based on $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem, was $3800. Since the total annualized cost of the auament was $10,500, the cost benefit ratio exceeded unity and the augnent cannot be cos t-benefici al . The calculated cost of all other auaments considered exceeded -
the cost assessment values for the gaseous radwaste system. The staff con- c, cludes, therefore, 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 requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. ,
a 'l
9-CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treat-ment systems installed at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liauid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore are acceptable.
In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the liquid and caseous radwaste systems meet the cost-benefit objectives set forth in Section 11.0 of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwate systems in- _.
l stalled at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1. This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation in-cluding anticipated operational occurrences such that the calculated indivioual 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 accordance with Section II.D of Appendix 1, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional augments can be added to the systems now installed at Salem 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 ra ti o .
The staff concluoes, based on the considerations discussed above, that: 1) be-cause the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant hazard consideration; 2) there is reasonable assurance
' . . . . -.-..-i.i..--........-..--.-...
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 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 Appraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, located in the State of New Jersey, in Sal em County, at power levels up to 3494 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed changes to the licuid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the Unit. Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action, it does not affect the benefits of electric power producticn considered for the captioned facility in The Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-272.
The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Salen 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 radioactive materials in liauid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is reasonably ac hi ev abl e. " If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives in a quarter the licensee must: (1) identi fy the causes, (2) initiate a program to reduce the releases, and (3) report these actions to the NRC. The revised Technical
1 4
a 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 1.
Conclusion and Basis for Hegative 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
-- --2__
environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated:
9
's.
TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE SIATERIALS IN IN LIQUID EFFLUENT 3 FRO >t SALE'l NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1, FOR APPENDIX I EVALUATIONS Nuclide Ci/yr uc
. li de Ci/yr Corrosion 5 Activation Products Fission Product Cr-51 ,b 3.3(-3) Ag-110m 4.4(-4) 3fn-54 1.S(-3) Te- 12 7m ,
4 (- 5)
Fe-55 3(-3) Te-127m Fe-59 2.1 (- 3) 3.S(-4) [
Te - l 7 5.4f-4)
Co-58 3.3(-2) Te-129m 2.5(-3)
Co-60 1.3(-2) Te-129 1.S(-3)
~r-95 1.4(-3) I-130 5.8(-4)
Nb-95 2(-3) Te-131m L. 5 (- 3)
Np-239 1(-3) I-131 3.2(-4)
I-131 4.6(-1)
Fission Products Te-132 2.S(-2)
I-132 3(-2)
Br-83 1(-4) I-133 1.S(-1)
Rb-86 1. 3 (-4) I-134 1.4(-4)
Rb-88 7(-5) Cs-134 6(-2)
Sr-89 8.4 (-4) I-135 2. 3 (- 2)
Sr-90 2(-5) Cs-136 1.9(-2)
Sr-91 1.2(-4) Cs-137 5. 6 (- 2)
Y-91m S(-5) Ba-13 m 3(-2)
Y-91 1. 3 (-4 ) Ba-140 3.6(-4) =
'r-95 1.3('4) La-140 3(-4)
Nb-95 1.3(-4) Ce-141 1. 2 (-4)
Bio-99 1(-1) Co-143 3(-5)
Tc-99m 9. 5 (- 2) Pr-143 8(-5) /
Ru-103 2.2(-4) Ce-144 5. 3 (-3)
Rh-103m 9 (-5) Pr-144 9 (-5) "
Ru-106 2.4(-3) All Others 2(-5)
Rh-106 2 (-5) Total (except H-3) 1.2 H-3 710 e.
o a - Exponential notation; 3.3(-3) = 3.3 x 10'
- b - Nuclides whose release rates are less than 10 Ci/yr/ reactor are not listed individually, but are included in the category "All Others".
l T
TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.1 Ci/Yr eactor Audliary hrMne Ah Decay Radio d Nuclide Building Building Building Ejector Tanks Total l
Ar-41 25 e e e c , 25 Kr-83m a a a a a a Kr-85m a 2 a 1 a 3 Kr-85 1 a a a 250 250 Kr-87 a 1 a a a 1 Kr-88 a 4 a 2 a 6 Kr-89 a a a a a a Xe-131m 1 a a a 47 48 Xe-133m 2 a a a a 2 Xe-133 210 35 a 22 530 800 Xe-135m a a a a a a Xe-135 2 4 a 3 a 9 Xe-137 a a a a a a Xe-138 a a a a a a TOTAL NOBLE GASES 1,100 Mn-54 3(-5)b 1.8(-4) e c 4. 5 (-3) 4.7(-3)
Fe-59 1(-5) 6(-5) e c 1. 5 (- 3) 1.6(-3)
Cc-58 1(-4) 6(-4) e c 1.5(-2) 1.6(-2)
Co-60 4.6(-5) 2.7(-4) e c 7 (- 3) 7. 3 (-3)
Sr-89 2.3(-6) 1.3(-5) e c 3.3(-4) 3.5(-4)
Sr-90 4 .1 (- 7) 2.4(-6) e c 6(-5) 6.3(-5)
Cs-134 3(-5) 1,8(-4) e c 4. 5 (-3) 4 . 7 (- 3)
Cs-137 5.2(-5) 3(-4) e c 7. 5 (-3) 7. 9 (-3)
TOTAL PARTICULATE 4.3(-2)
I-131 9.3(-3) 4.4(-2) 1(-2) 2.7 (-2) a 9(-2)
I-133 2.5 (-3) 6.3/-2) 5 . 3 (- 3) 3.9(-2) a 1.1(-1)
H-3 - - - - - 710 C-14 1 e e c 7 8 a = less than 1.0 Ci/yr/ reactor for noble gases and carbon-14, less than 10-4 Ci/yr/ reactor for iodine.
-5 b = exponential notation; 3(-5) = 3 x 10 c = less than 1% of total for this nuclide, d = radionuclides not listed are released in quantities less than those specified in notes a and c from all sources.
-- i..........--..--.,,-
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUEhTS FROM SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 3558 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Failed Fuel 0.12%
Primary System 5 Mass of Coolant (1bs) 5.3 x 10 Letdown Rato (gpm) 75 Shim Bleed Rate (gpd) 1.6 x 10 4 --
Leakage to Secondary System (Ibs/da6) 100 Leakage to Containment Building b Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (1bs/ day) 160 Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns (per year) 2 Secondary System 7 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 1.4 x 10 #
Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (1bs) 6.8 x 10 Mass of Liquid / Steam Generator (1bs) 8.8 x 10 6 Secondary Coolant Mass (1bs) 2.7 x 10 #
Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg (1bs/hr) 1.7 x 10 Containment Building Volume (ft 3) 2.6 x 10 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdowm) 4 l Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) 3 l Iodine Particion Factors (gas / liquid)
Leakage to Auxiliary Building 0.0075 Steam Generator (carryover) 1.0 Main Condenser Air Ejector (volatile species) 0.15 Decontamination Factors (liquid wastes)
Chim Bleed Miscellaneous Laundry And And Eo. Drain Waste Chain Hot Shower Drain I 1x10j 1x10f 1 Cs, Rb 2 x 10. 1 x 10 1 Others 1 x 10" 1 x 10 1 All Nuclides 3 Except Iodine Iodine Miscellaneous (Dirty) Waste Evaporator DF 10 10 Shim Bleed 6 Equipment Drain .
Evaporator DF 10 10' Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides Boric Acid Evaporator Feed Demineral-1:ers DF 10 2 10 Evaporator Distill. ate Polishing De-mineralized DF 10 10 10 Steam Generator Blowdowm Polishing Demineralized DF 10 10 10 Containment Recirculating Cleanup System Charcoal p Adsorber DF (Iodine Removal) 10 IIEPA filter DF and Containment Recirculating Cleanup System IEPA Filter DF 100 e
s
TABLE 4 SUhNARY OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO.1, DOCKET NO. 50-272 (PRE-COMMERCIAL POWER OPERATION) 1976 Curies
- 1977 Curies * *
(12 months) (6 months)
Liquid Release Data Total Fission 6 Activation Products ND*** 0.43 Total Iodine-131 ND 0.0009 Total Tritium 1.05 112 Gaseous Effluent Release Data _ _
Total Noble Gases 8.9 x 10-5 17 Total Iodine-131 ND ND Total Halogens ND ND Total Particulate 1.46 x 10~ 2.3 x 10~
Total Tritium 0 0.35
- Source: " Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants (1976),"
(DRAFT), Office of Management Information and Program Control, NRC, Wachington, D.C., 20555.
- Source: Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report for Salem Nuclear Generation Station, Unit No.1, for period January 1,1977 through June 31, 1977. PSE6G Report No. RERR-2.
- Not Detected.
TABLE 5 SALEM STATION, UNIT NO. 1 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND DEPOSITION VALUES (D/Q)
USED FOR DOSE CALCULATIONS Distance X/Q . D/Q,,
Receptor T)?e Direction (miles) Release T>Te (sec/ meters #) (meters ')
Site Boundary N 0.83 Unit Vent - continuous 2.2x10j 1.7 x 10j Unit Vent - purge 6.4 x 10 4.8 x 10 Turbine -6 -8 Bldg. Vent- continuous 6.1 x 10 2.5 x 10 Maximum Indiv. NNE 4.8 Unit Vent - continuous 5.4 x 10,7
~
2.1x10j0 Unit Vent - purge 3.1 x 10 1.2 x 10 ~
Turbine -8 -10 Bldg. Vent- continuous 9.8 x 10 2,6 x 10
TABLE 6 ,
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM OPERATION WITH SECTIONS II.A, II.B, AND II.C OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART SO (Dose to Maximum Individual)
Appendix I Dose Calculated Criterion Design Objective Doses Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all Pathways 3 mrem /yr 0.013 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 0.15 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 0.057 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.14 mrad /fr Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.036 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 0.11 mrem /yr Radiciodine 5 Particulate" Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 0.24 mrem /yr l
l "Carcon-14 and Tritium have been added to this category.
TABLE 7 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN-REM) FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50*
Pathway Total Body Thyroid Liquid 0.014 0.07 l
l Gaseous 5.2 17
- 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, FPC Region I" 1.6 Cost of Moneyb 10'6 l Capital Recovery Factor" 0.1061 l
"From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976) .
b The licensee provided a value for his cost of money at 10'6.
l l
6 REFERENCES
- 1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Federal Register, V. 40, P.19442, May 5, 1975.
- 2. Additional Information Required for Appendix I Implementation, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311. Letter of Transmittal, June 4,1976, Revision 1, June 21,1976.
- 3. Responses to Additional Information Request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Letter of Transmittal, October 26, 1976.
- 4. Responses to Additional Information Request for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Letter of Transmittal, December 1,1976.
- 5. Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Final Safety Analysis Report, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, August 1971.
- 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. Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Washington, D.C. , October 11, 1974. Suppl anent 1, June 1976. Suppl ement 2, August 1976.
- 8. Staf f of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Hos.1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Washington, D.C. ,
April 1973.
- 9. NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code),"
April 1976.
l 10. NUREG-0324, "X00000, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.,
Septener 1977.
- 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 Reactors,"
Revision 1, July 1977.
- 12. Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109,
" Calculation of Annual Aver 6ge Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-272 i PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ,
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment Wo. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70, issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al, for revised Technical Specifications for cperation of the Salem Nuclear Generation Station, l
Unit No.1, located in Salem County, New Jersey, The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
l This amendment to the Technical Specifications will (1) 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 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 Conmission has made appro-priate 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 amend-ment. Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazard consideration.
l 9
)'
) 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 be-cause 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 s
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the applica-tion for amendments dated, ,(2)AmendmentNo. to License No. DPR-70, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and Environ-a mental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H. Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at the Salem Free Library,112 West Beradway, Salem,
~
New Jersey, 08079. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon re-quest 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 George E. Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
%