ML20237B355
| ML20237B355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1978 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712160211 | |
| Download: ML20237B355 (25) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
- I
_7
./
[
. -Qi. y, ; u-t i Lf3
-)
y u
[,,,n b W 2cket i'o. 30-2SC/201 T'09A'OiN FC? :
C. E. Lear, Chief Operatina 7eactors rarcn 1o. 3, 'TR Fn0":
John T. Collins, Chief, Ef'luent Treatrent Sysws Prarc,
DSC E"BJECT:
OSE E'/ALUaTION OF POINT BEAC!i NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT "05.1 AMD 2, WITil RESPECT TO APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 Enclosed is PSE's detailed evaluatior. of the radioactive waste tre3* rent s." stems installed at Point ?each fluclear Plant, Unit Hos.1 and 2, wi*h revect to the recuirments of Aopendix I.
The results of our waluation are contained e
in the attached " Safety Evaluation and Environmental Incact tooraisal." We have also attached a draft "Motice of Issuance of A;;'endrent to Facility coerating Licenses and Mecative declaration."
9ased on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste traatment systems installed at Point Beach are cacable of maintaining releases of redinactive materials in effluents to "as lew as is reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 60.34a, and con-forms to the reauiranents of Sections II. A. II.8, II.C, and II.D of Appendix I.
On itarch 29, 1977, DSE transmitted to ELD an NRC Staff Report entitled, "Aprification of Cost-Benefit Analysis Pecuirer:ents of Ancendix I to 10 CFD Part 50 to Huclear Power Plants Whose Applications Uere 00cketed Before January 2,1971." This re fort provides the staff's justification for using the Sectember 4,1975 amendnent to Appendix I, rather than rerformina a detailed cost-benefit analysis recuired by Section II.D of Appendix I.
En fecust 17, 1977, wie received ELD cararents on this recort and we are currently preparina a NLUG recort which will docurent our findinns. hen thi s renort is excleted, we will 'Forwara to you a paracraph to be inserted on pace 1 of cz the enclosed Safety Evaluation, providin<! just!fication for the use of the
@E Sentencer 4 option to the cost-benefit analysis, coo When the model ef'luent radiological Technical Specifications, currently 50 under develeptrent, have been aporoved, they will be forwarded to you for g
transmittal to the licensee, coo ao DISTRIBUTION:
CE":3L :m si f
Docket Files 50-256/301
- _L: n 30 DSE Reading File John T. Collins, Chief g ETSB Docket Fil Ef fluent Treatrent Systems Branch cTSo Reading File Division of Site Safety and JTCollins Envirorcental Analysis d d-f
_n : eA m 3 11dA RAL. _.g.gp'7 (+8
. g,55 S:U.15 nc
.u. Tc1 J L
>~$HuTan JTCollins m m e h._
WC30rke WEKrecer s
d)dh78.
. l/ c L78
_02/ ~ /78 02/i../78_
02/ / 7 5..
n m.
NRC FOR)! 318 9.* 6 ) NRCM 0240 2 v. s. a e v e.= m s n.,...=vmo o r aic a, i e re - e a s-.24
.N
.r 1
l
~5 G. E. Lear
Enclosure:
DSE Evaluation cc:
H. Denton V. Stello R. Vollmer K. Goller P. Wagner D. Eisenhut W. Kreger H. Hulman B. Grimes E. Markee F. Congel R. Bangart
{
W. Burke
)
J. Lee J
\\
i l
l l
l I
)
l l
l I
j
SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPoAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUP_P_0RTING AMENDMENT NOS.
AND TO FACILITY LICENSE N05. DPP-24 AND DPR-27 Q
WISCONSIN ELECTPIC POWER C0f*PANY WISCONSIN HICHIGAN POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET tl05. 50-266/301 INTRODUCTION On May 5,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in the rulemakina proceeding concernina the numerical cuides for desion objectives and limitina conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in licht-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. This decision is set forth in Apoendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.III On Seotember 4,1975, the Commission adopted an amendment to Appendix I to provide persons who have filed applications for construction permits for liaht-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or after January 2,1971, and prior to June 4,1976, the option of dispensino with the cost-benefit analysis reauired by Section II.D of Appendix I, if the proposed or installed radwaste systems satisfy the cuides on desion objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors proposed by the Regulatory Staff in the rulemaking proceedina on Appendix I (Docket RN 50-2), dated February 20,
}
1974.
1 A paragraph will be added which will provide justification for usina the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I for application for construction permits filed prior to January 2,1971.
Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFP Part 50 reouires the holder nf a license J
authorigina operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to 1
January 2,1971, to file with the Connission by June 4, 1976; 1) informa tion necessary to evaluate the means employed for keepina levels of radioactivity l
I
.. /
(
\\
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 l
reasonably achievable."
In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPC) and Wisconsin fiichioan Power Company (WtiPC) filed with the Commission on June 4,1976
, and on October 7, 1976(5),
and October 14, 1977(6) the necessary information to pemit an evaluation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, with respect to the recuirenents of Sections II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I.
In these submittals, WEPC and WriPC provided the necessary information to show confomance with the Commission's September 4, 1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than perfom a detailed cost-benefit analysis reauired by Section II.D of Aopendix I.
By letter dated
, WEPC and Wt!PC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Point Beach fluclear Plant. The pro-posed changes implement the requirements of Apnendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid i
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 NPC staff's I
detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at j
O
! l the Point Beach Huclear Plant; 1) to reduce and naintain releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the reovirements of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) to meet the individual dose desion obiectives set forth in Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3) to determine if the installed radwaste systems satisfy the desian objectives proposed in RM 50-2 rather than an individualized cost-benefit analysis as recuired by Section II.D of Appendix I.
I.
Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's pro-n posed method to neet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The IV staff's evaluation consisted of the following:
- 1) a review of the informa-tion provided by the licensee in his June 4, 1976, October 7,1976, and October 14, 1977, submittals; 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report (FFDSAR)' };
- 3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in licuid and caseous effluent (source tenns) for the Point Beach facilities; 4) the calculation of relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/0) values for the Point Peach site renion:
- 5) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 6) the comparison of the calculated releases and doses with the proposed desion objec-tives of RM 50-2 and the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, II.C and II.D of Appendix 1.
/V
4_
The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at the Point Beach tjuclear Plant have been previously evaluated in Section 2.6 of the staff's Safety Evaluation, dated June 15, 1970, and have been described and evaluated in Section II.D.2 of the Final Environmental Statement (FESl dated May 1972.I9I Since the FES was issued, the licensee has converted the steam generator chemical treatment to all-volatile treatment and increased steam generator blowdown rates. To accommodate the increased blowdown rates, beat recovery exchancers are being provided on each steam generator blow-down line and the blowdown treatment system is being modified to process the blowdown through existina waste condensate denineralizers. These modifica-tions were included in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operatino data at other operatina nuclear nower reactors, which are applicable to the Point Beach fluclear Plant, and on changes in the V
staff's calculation models, new liauid and caseous source tems have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix I.
The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated usino the model and parameters described in tJUREG-0017.(10)
In makina these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary and secondary system and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operatino life of the plant for nomal operation includina anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liauid and gaseous source terms are civen in Table 3.
O U
.. OU The staff also reviewed the operatina experience accumulated at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in licuid and gaseous effluents. Data on liauid and caseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operatino Deports coverina the period for January 1971 through December 1976.
Point Beach, Unit flo.1, reached initial criticality on November 2,1970, and commercial operation in December 1970.
Point Beach, Unit No. 2, reached cri-ticality on fiay 30, 1972 and commercial operation on Anril 20, 1973.
The staff does not consider the releases for the period from November 1970 to December 1972 as being representative of current operating conditions at the Point Beach Plant, therefore those releases reported for the period
[V January 1973 through December 1976, were considered for comparison with calculated releases.
The actual average release of radioactive material in liouid effluents was 0.83 Ci/yr/ unit.
The staff calculated 0.5 Ci/yr/ unit for this release.
The actual average release of noble cases for this period was 7,800 Ci/vr/ unit as compared to the staff's calculated value of 1500 Ci/yr/ unit. The actual averaae release of iodine-131 for this period was 0.02 Ci/yr/ unit as connared to the staff's calculated value of 0.06 Ci/yr/ unit.
The differences between the actual release values and the staff's calculated values can be attributed to the occurrence of a steam cenerator tube leak that recuired repair and the staff's assumption that all radwaste system
l i
I
' V auqnents and modi fications were functional. Gas strippers and a cryonenic l
separation systens were put into oneration in nid-1975.
The effect of these modifications are apparent for the gaseous effluent releases for 1976 shown in
)
Table 4 The modified steam cenerator blowdown system has not yet become l
l opera tional. When all radwaste systems become operational, the staff expects
)
I closer agreement between its calculated releases and actual releases.
The calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 were used in the staff's dose assessment discussed below.
The staff has made reasonable estimates of averaae atmospheric dispersion con-ditions for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant usino an atmospheric dispersion model for long-term releases. II This model is based on the " Straight-Line O Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111." 1 In confomance g
with the criteria recomr ended in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the staff considered that releases from the Unit No.1 and 2 purge vents and from the auxiliary building vent were partially elevated; the staff considered that all releases from the turbine buildina were ground-level. The calculations also included consideration of intermittent releases durino more adverse atmospheric dispersion conditions than indicated by an annual averaae calculation as a function of total duration of release. Based on the criteria outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the calculations include an estinate of maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and dispersion due to the spatial and temporal variation of the airflow not considered in the straiaht-line tra,iectory model. Radio-active decay of effluents and depletion of the effluent clune were also considered as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
b t
m In the evaluation, the staff used meteorological data collected onsite, bet-ween April 19, 1967 and April 18, 1969. All releases were evaluated usina joint freovency distributions of wind speed and direction neasured at the 150-foot level by atmospheric stability (defined by the standard deviation of wind direction at the 150-foot level). Table 5 oresents the calculated values of relative concentration (X/0) and relative deposition (D/0) for soecific points of interest.
The staf f's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate-gories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liauid effluents to Lake Michigan, 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atnosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritiun released to the atmosphere. The mathematical models used by the staff to perfom the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Pegulatory Guide 1.109.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liouid ef fluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.
For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum evnosed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 ka/yr) har-vested in the immediate vicinity of the discharae from Point Peach, Unit Nos.1 and 2, into Lake Michiaan drinkina water at Two Rivers, Wisconsin (7301/yr), consumption of irriaated food, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (10 hr/yr).
.. The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphare included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence havina the highest dose. The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.12 miles NME relative to the Point Beach Plant. The location of maximum total body and skin doses were detemined 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 maximum 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 goat grazing at 0.81 miles SSE of the Point Beach (O
Pl ant.
V)
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liauid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calculated 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 mrem / reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II. A of Appendix I.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of i
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 mrad / reactor, respectively, in con-fomance with Section II.B of Appendix 1.
g
O Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioiodine, carbon-14, tritium, and particulate given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/0) 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 confonnance with Section II.C of Appendix 1.
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those giver, in Table 5.13 of the FES.
Rather than perfonning an individualized cost-benefit analysis recuired by Section II.D of Appendix 1, the licensee elected to show conformance with s
the numerical design objectives specified in the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I (RM 50-2).
The dose design objectives contained in RM 50-2 are on a site basis rather than a per reactor basis while the curie releases are on a per reactor basis.
As shown in Table 1 the calculated release of radioactive material in liquid effluents is less than 5 Ci/yr/ reactor, ex-cluding tritium and dissolved noble gases. As given in Table 2, the calcula-i ted quantity of iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents is less than 1 Ci/yr/
reactor. The calculated doses for Unit Nos.1 and 2 are less than the dose design objectives set forth in RM 50-2, therefore, satisfy the reauirenents of Section II.D of Appendix 1.
For a comparison with the dose design objec-tives given in Table 3, Column 2, the calculated values given in Table 3, Column 3 should be multiplied by two (number of units on the site).
(A) v 1
. /m[V
\\
CONCLUSI0H Based on the foregoina evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatnent systems installed at the Point Beach Huclear Plant, are capable of 1
reducing releases of radioactive materials in liauid and caseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the reouire-ments of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable.
The staff has perfomed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Point Beach Nuclear Plant. This evaluation has shown
.that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and caseous effluents durino nomal operation includina anticipated operational occurrences such that the calculated individual doses are less than the numerical dose desion objectives of Section II. A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 In addition, the staff's euluation has shown that the radwaste systems satisfy the desian objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and, therefore, satisfy the requirements of Section 11.0 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because 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 reason-able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endancered by operation in the proposed nanner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conmission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be ininical to the common defense and security b
(v/ or to the health and safety of the public.
.. G II. Environmental Imoact Appraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Point Beach 1
Nuclear Plant, located in the State of Wisconsin, in Manitowac County, at power levels up to 1518 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed changes to the liauid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in tne power level of the reactor. Since neither power level nor i
fuel burnup is affected by the action; it does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in The Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-266/301.
The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFP, 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 cases, (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 naintained at less than twice the design objective cuantities set forth in Sections II. A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I.
(
12 -
e 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 environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated:
.O\\
{/
REFEREMCES i
1.
Ti tle 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Federal Reaister, V. 40; p.19442, tiay 5,1975.
2.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paraaraph II.D of Appendix I, Federal Reaister, V.40 p. 40816, September 4,1975, and revised as of January 1,1976.
3.
U. S. Atomic Eneray Commission Concluding Statement of Position of the J
Regulatory Staff (and its Attachment)
Public Rulemakino Hearino on:
Hunerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limitino Conditions for Operation to tieet the Criteria " As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive fiaterial in Light-Water-Cooled Huclear Power Reactors, Docket No. Rf t 50-2, Washinoton, D. C., February 20, 1974 4
10 CFR 50, Appendix I Evaluation of Radioactive Releases from Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-266/301, June 4, 1976.
S.
Response to Request for Additional Infomation, Point Beach Huclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-266/301, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, October 7,1976.
6 b. Amendment flo. 23 to Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, October 14, 1977.
7.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin tiichigan Power Company, Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Peport for Point Beach Huclear Plant,1969.
8.
Staff of the U. S. Atomic Eneray Conmission, " Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U. S. Atomic Eneroy Commission, In the l
tlatter of Wisconsin Electric Power Co. and Wisconsin tiichioan Power Company, Point Beach Huclear Plant, Unit Mos.1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301", June 15,1970.
{
9.
Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, " Final Environmental
)
Statement Related to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant", Wisconsin Electric j
Power Company and Wi sconsin fdichican Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-266
{
and 50-301, May 1972.
- 10. NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive riaterials in Gaseous and Liouid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PHP-GALE Code)", April 1976.
L
(
l( 11. Sagendorf, J. F. and Goll, J. T.,1976:
X00D00, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, (0 RAFT). U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D. C.
- 12. Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reculatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimatina Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases fron Light-Water-Cooled Reactors", March 1976.
- 13. Staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pegulatory Guide 1.109,
" Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Ef fluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I, March 1976.
IV 1
l
TABLE 1 l
CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0ACTI'/E MATERIALS IN 1-.[w LIOUID EFFLUENTS FROM POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS 1 AND 2 Nuclide Ci/Yr/ Reactor Nuclide Ci/Yr/ Reactor Corrosion & Activation Products Fission Products Cr-51 3.8( 4)a Te-131 1.8(-3)
Mn-54 1(-a) 1-131 7.4(-2) 1 Fe-55 3.3( 4)
Te-132 4.9(-3)
Fe-59 2.3(-4)
I-132 3(-2)
Co-58 3.3(-3)
I-133 7.2(-2)
Co-60 4.7(-4) 1-134 1.9(-3)
Np-239 2(-4)
Cs-134 6.4(-2) 1 I-135 2.6(-2)
Fission Products Cs-136 2.7(-2)
Cs-137 4.4(-4)
Br-83 4.1(-4)
Ba-137m 3.8(-2)
Br-84 7(-5)
Ba-140 4(-5)
Rb-86 2.1( 4)
La-140 6(-5)
Rb-88 3(-2)
Ce-141 1(-5)
SR-89 9(-5)
Ce-144 3(-5)
S r-91 9(-5)
Pr-144 7(-5) f Y-91m 1(-4)
\\,
Y - 91 1(-5)
All Others 4(-5)
Zr-95 1(-5)
Nb-95 1(-5)
Total, except Mo-99 1.9(-2)
Tritium 5(-1)
Ic-99m 5.6(-2)
Rh-103 7(-5)
Tritium 300 Ru-106 1(-5)
Rh-106 2(-5)
Te-127m 4(-5)
Te-127 3(-4)
Tel29m 2.9(-4)
Te-129 1.9(-3)
I-130 3.5(-4)
Te-131m 4.2(-4) f 3.5(-4) = 3.0 X 10-4 Nuclides not shown are O a - Exponential notation:
less than 1 X 10-0 Ci/yr.
j
f TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN O
GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM POINT BEACH -NUCLEAR PLANT
{
UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (Ci/Yr/ Reactor)
Radio-Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air Gas Nuclide Building Building Building Ejector Stripping Total Kr-83m
.a a
a a
a a
Kr-85m a
2 a
a a
2 Kr-85 a
a a
a 110 110 Kr-87 a
1 a
a a
1 Kr-88 a
3 a
2 5
Kr-89 a
a a
a a
a Xe-131m a
a a
a 40 40 Xe-133m' 2
a a
a a
2 l
Xe-133 160 28 a
18 1100 1300 Xe-135m a
a a
a a
a Xe-135 2
4 a
2 a
8 Xe-137 a
a a
a a
a Xe-138-a a
a a
a a
TOTAL NOBLE GASES 1500 I-131 3.7(-3)b 3.6(-2) 2.1(-3) 2.2(-2) a 6.5(-2)
I-133 8.2(-4) 5.3(-2) 2.4(-3) 3.3(-2) a 8.9(-2)
Mn-54 2.2 -4) 1.8(-4) c c
4.5(-3) 4.9(-3)
Fe-59 7.5 -5) 6(-5) c c
1.5(-3) 1.6(-3)
Co-58 7.5 -4) 6(-4) c c
1.5 -2) 1.6(-2)
Co-60 3.4(-4) 2.7(-4) c c
7 -3) 7.6(-3)
Sr-89 1.7(-5) 1.3(-5) c c
3.3 -4) 3.6(-4)
Sr-90 3(-6) 2.4(-6) c c
6(-5) 6.5(-5)
Cs-134 2.2(-4) 1.8(-4) c c
4.5(-3) 4.9(-3)
Cs-137 3.8(-4) 3(-4) c c
7.5(-3) 8.2(-3)
TOTAL PARTICULATE 4.4(-2)
H-3 150 50 c
c c
300 C-14 1
a a
a 7
8 Ar-41 25 e
c c
c 25 a = lesg than 1.0 Ci/yr for noble gases and carbon-14, less than 10- Ci/yr/ reactor for iodine.
b = exponential notation; 3.7(-3) = 3.7 x 10-3 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.
U
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDIIIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENTS FRO:1 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 1519 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Failed Fuel 0.12%a Primary System 5
MassofCoolant(lbs) 2.47 X 10 Letdown Rate (gpm) 40 Shim Bleed Rate (gpd) 1.75 X 103 Leakage to Secondary System (1bs/ day) 100 Leakage to Containment Building b
Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (1bs/ day) 160 Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns (per year) 2 Secondary System Steam Flow Rate (lbs/hr) 6.62 X 106 Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (lbs) 5.23 X 103 Mass of Liquid / Steam Generator (1bs) 8.0 X 104 Secondary Coolant Mass (1bs) 1.97 X 105 Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg. (lbs/hr) 1.7 X 103 Blowdown Flow Rate (lbs/hr)
- 2. 5 X 104 3
(N Containment Building Volume (ft )
1.07 X 106 (U) Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 14 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) nont Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid)
Leakage to Auxiliary Building 0.0075 Steam Generator
- 0. 01 Main Condenser Air Ejector (volatile species) 0.15 Decontamination Factors (liquid wastes)
Shim Bleed Clean Waste Steam Gen. Slowdown I
1 X 103 1 X 104 1 X 102 Cs, Rb 2 X 103 1 X 105 1 X 10I Others 1 X 104 1 X 105 1 X 102 All Nuclides Except Iodine Iodine 4
Miscellaneous (Dirty) Waste 10 103 Evaporator DF 2
Shim Bleed & Equipment Drain 103 10 Evaporator DF
TABLE 3 (Contined)
Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides Letdown Coolant Waste Demineralizers DF 10 2
10 Evaporator Condensate Polishing Demineralizers Df 10 10 10 Steam Ger,erator Blowdown Polishing 2
2 10 (10) 10(10) 10 (10)
Demineralizers DF
' Main Vent Charcoal Adsorber DF and Containment Recirculating Cleanup System 10 Charcoal Adsorber DF Main Vent HEPA Filter DF and Containment Recirculating Cleanup System HEPA Filter DF 100 4
O TABLE 4 SUtiMARY OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES FROM POINT BF.ACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT N05, 1 A O 2 Liquid Effluent Releases Annual b
d Radioactive Waste 1973a 1974 1975c 1976 Average Total Fission and Activation Products, Ci/Yr 0.80 0.20 2.34 3.24 1.65 Total Tritium, Ci/Yr 556 833 885 694 742 Gaseous Effluent Releases Radioactive Waste Total Noble Gases, Ci/Yr 5/50 9.740 44.500 1,91 0 15J00 Total I-131, Ci/Yr
- 0. 01 0.09 0.'02 0.002 0.03 Total Particulate, Ci/Yr 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.06 Total Tritium, Ci/Yr 25.5 42.8 177 395 160 s
I a - From " Summary of Radioactivity Released In Effluents From Nuclear Power j
Plants During 1973", NUREG-75/001, January 1975.
b - From " Radioactive Materials Released From Nuclear Power Plants",
NUREG-077, June 1976.
c - From " Radioactive Materials Released From Nuclear Power Plants (1975)",
NUREG-0218, March 1977.
d - From data in the Semi-Annual Operating Reports for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters 1976, Wisconsin
(.
Electric Power Company.
4 77 8
38 9
)
00 0
00 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
s Qr XX X
XX X
/ e Dt S8 3
88 7
e i
82 6
n 1 1 6
(
)
3 4b 6
G6 7
s r
00 0
00 0
e 1 1 1
1 1 1
Qt
/ e XX X
XX X
X ni 73 2
79 9
/c e
24 9
31 4
s
(
suou t
n n
S it e
E t n t
U neh -
th -
2L e
ot c i c A
p ct ag mag DV y
ien ren N
T gn i
g e
i Af nnsd n
t sd t
0 e
i erl nrl i
1I s
dthi d
ihi
.T a
l n us l s us I S e
ii8Bu iu 8B u SSN l
u -
o uo o
. 0OO e
Bt0yu B ut0yu PI R
n rn nn rn l
f ET eerai eierai TDA n V yi t n t V yi t I
L i
/l n i n
/l n 0U bt4i o bot 4io l
tUfl C ri1 xc rci1 xc
,AL un u
u n
u S
A TU A
T U
A T)C h
NQ c.
A/E LXS n
P(O D
e)
. Rt cs f
A0R ne 2
1 EI O al 1
8 LTF ti
. CA sM 0
0 li RD i(
NTE D
l S
l t i EU CC Af l
E E
l V
t l
S f
t l I c
S i
t 0T e
PA r
L i
E D
R lan i
in A
k l
y il r
Ma n a
i d
,i n
en r _
u cA o
o n
t e B
et pp d a ey e
ie t
sM IcT_
i e
e i
S t
t
=
!l.
e t
i s
e h
D.
t I
t a
I tl s
0 t
1 i
T n
C t t t
t u
E 2
t t
ii i
i t
i i
nn n
n i
o S
r n
n uu u
u n
t 0
1 d
o u
u
// /
/
u 1
3 e
/
/
rr r
r
/
y liA
{
l t s1 r
r yy y
y r
l i ae y
y
//
/
/
y p
1 Ml s.
/
/
dd m
m
/
p n
m aa e
e m
a U)
U uos i
e rr r
r e
5 L cD o e
,7 Ol l
r r
mm m
m r
s t
29 C a i
m m
e n
C t
00 8
9 v
1 0
6 i
5 37 1
4 i
1 t
tt n
00 0
0 4
c A5 U
1 1
e 1 Y j
1 b
A
.t o
S(
O n
c i,
g s
i t
C.
e T
v e
e ee e
e e
s i
t t
t t t
t t
e l I t
Ib t
i i
ii i
i i
d i
U
)
2 c
s s
ss s
s s
D5 TA9 t
b e
/
/
//
/
/
/
e
,N7 i
eb y
y yy y
y y
e xj r
r rr r
r r
s M
tl 1
i
/
//
/
/
/
h U
nO
/
L n
n m
dd n
m m
t y
A O
A n e
e aa ie e
e r
L B. 4 6
C g
r r
rr r
r r
o P
im m
m m
5 e g
I i
m n
i n
RI R 7 r e
s A
,E e
S 5
00 5
5 5
9 o t
1 2 1
1 1 f a
B D
E lL A.E
., r M
e c
C I T 54 e s
li I P 7
h i
t l
E 9 rT h
i SS 1 e t
s Cfl (
e t
t t t t
t t
bm An v
i i
ii i
i i
o EI n
n nn n
n n
5 es t
i BT t
u u
uu u
u u
ti 1
I c
/
/
//
/
/
/
yps d
C l
r e
r r
rr r
r r
aea e
TE i
f S t
xj y
y yy y
y y
MSb d
l f
i b
/
/
// /
/
/
d u
L dO m
n dd m
m m
e a
0 PO O
n e
ie aa e
e e
26t S
n C
en r
r rr r
r r
41 i pi i
m ii m
m m
48 s e
F j
n n n p!
90 e
0T A s 3
0 00 5
5 S
1 4 a
.b R
A y
ti e
1 1 2 1
1 nl e 0P D
S pponv I
R oa n
h RF AC 00 es 4 4.i em P
v M0 m
su O1 o
VV gai C
rd r
gt O
s s
ee f
,, s i
rreer T
yy y
yl n h s
)
d ana s
r d a a t a n
d eevl T Yt ib owaw t
irou O ce a
I i
e g
o s st od bh gh) n aibdf l
X s
t rt r e
a io d er rsr ii c nn l
v nR e oyy gge a
I aoae u
n t
l D
tt iiai nl a
h ah eejo n
ap pv l
i i
N o
e t
y i
f i tdi a sp ywt l
Rb t 4 l
f e
onk u s es nh -
o E
1 u
ol nl i
P r
l tl al -
L s eti sd ed o at t
'l l
d -
P e
f a
at os nim an
'a a n en i
A t
f o
o i u a
dt at i d cA t
t Feiib l
s d oonov iI t
opa rrgt o E
t mt n i
C d
er era i a ef en i n e el i il d s mr d
ou 1
n r
o od G
it
~eeeia n
~fFDL C
i sf sf(
e iit s osi ooh s a(
i i t o
u o
o l
a eo o
q D
D b
GBD D
dd D
i o
aa o L
N RRt
'ab cd e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET HO. 50-266/301 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY WISCONSIN MICHIGAN POWED COMPANY MOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S Nuclear Repulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendnent Hos.-
and to Facility Operatino License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, i ssued to Wi sconsin Electric Power Company, and Wi sconsin Michiaan Power Company, for revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, located near the city of Greenbay, Manitowoc County, Wi sconsin. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
p These amendments to the Technical Specifications will (1) implement the
\\\\ - requirements of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limitino conditions for operation (LCO) for the cuarterly and annual averace release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring procrams to assure conformance with Commission regulations.
The application for the anendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Enercy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Conmission's rules and regulations. The Connission has made appropriate findings as reauired by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments.
Prior public notice of these amendments was not recuired since the amendnents do not involve a significant hazards considerations.
OO
I p
\\
t
\\ 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 October 1973.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated
, (2) Amendment Nos.
and to License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation I
and Environmental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public
~,O inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.
W.,
\\.
Washington, D. C., and at the University of Wi sconsin-Stevens Point Library, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481. 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, !1aryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 tit 11SSION G. E. Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 43 Division of Operating Reactors s
iY 3
_ _ _