ML20237B381

Forwards Draft Safety Evaluation & Eia Supporting Amend to Licenses DPR-53 & DPR-69 & Concluding That Installed Radwaste Treatment Sys Capable of Maintaining Radioactive Releases Alara.Draft Notice of Issuance Also Encl

ML20237B381
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	07/29/1977
From:	Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Desiree Davis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8712160227
Download: ML20237B381 (24)

Text

-., _ _

_ /* # "%

IA.

I' - -

UNITED STATES t

t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.h'd 'i )

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 C

a,j a yt

%.m.....f JUL 2 91977 Docket Nos. 50-317/318 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Don Davis, Acting Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, D0R l

FR0ft:

J. T. Collins, Chief, Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, DSE

SUBJECT:

DSE EVALUATION OF CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT IJOS.1 AND 2, WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Calvert Cliffs, Unit Nos.1 and 2, with respect to the l

requirements of Appendix I.

The results of our evaluation are contained in the attached " Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal."

We have also attached a draft " Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility l

Operating Licenses and Negative Declaration."

Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Calvert Cliffs are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and conforms to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.B, II.C, and II.D of Appendix 1.

On flaren 29, 1977, DSE transmitted to ELD an NRC Staff Report entitled, j

" Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 to Nuclear Power Plants Whose Applications Were Docketed l

Before January 2,1971." This report provides the staff's justifica-i tion for using the September 4,1975, amendment to Appendix I rather than performing a detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix 1.

In our transmittal nemo we requested ELD review and recommen-dation as to the most expeditious way of incorporating the findings of this report into the licensing process. Todate we have not received their comments or recommendations. Following ELD review we will provide you a paragraph to be inserted in the enclosed Safety Evaluation providing justification for using the September 4 option to the cost-benefit analysis, i

B7121bo227 770723 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P

PDR-e_ _ -

y'~

f

~

s-Don Davis '

When the model effluent radiological Technical Specifications, curre@

under develogsnent, have been approved they will be forwarded to you for.

transmittal to the licensec.

John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatsment Systems Branch Division of Site Safety and Envirorsiental Analysis

Enclosure:

DSE Evaluation cc:

H. Denton Y. Stello R. Yo11mer K. Goller D. Jaffee D. Eisenhut M. Vreger J. Collins H. Hulpian C. Grimes E. Markee F. Congel F. Cardile DISTRIBUTION:

DOCKET FILES DSE READING NRR READING ETSB READING JTCOLLINS

/

'/

.on D _ S ~MB DS A]M4 $;

!,MB IH DSE:SA:kif..DSE:SA:ETff[

. ns reger

' ri JBoegli[rit WCBurkegj JT i

so.m.,,,

i OZ..28-Zh 07.8-77 Oldf-77._

07d$-77_.

07- -77 em,

j NRC PORM $18 (9 76) NRCM m@

W u. s. novsanuse resserssee errects sete -esom e

-SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.

TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-53 AND AMENDMENT NO.

TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.

CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 INTRODUCTION 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 low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. This decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.III On September 4,1975, the Commission adopted an amendment to Appendix I to provide persons who have filed applications for construction permits for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or after January 2,1971, and prior to June 4,1976, the option of dispensing with the cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix 1, if the l

proposed or installed radwaste systems satisfy the guides on design ojectives l

for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors proposed by the Regulatory Staff in the rulemaking proceeding on Appendix I (Docket RM 50-2), dated February 20, 1974.(

~

Following ELD review of the Generic Cost / Benefit Analysis, a paragraph will b added which will provide justification for using the September 4,1975 amend-ment to Appendix I for application for construction permits filed prior to January 2,1971.

l l

Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license l

authorizing operation of a reactor for which appifcation was filed prior to January 2,1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976; 1) information l

necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity I

. (

in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable", and

2) plane 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 conformar c with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGECO) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976 I4) the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, with respect to the require-ments of Sections II. A, II.B. and 11.C of Appendix I.

In this submittal, BGEC0 provided the necessary information to show conformance with the Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than perform a detailed cust-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix 1.

By letter dated

, BGEC0 submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.

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 achiev-able" in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2; 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.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3) to determine if the installed radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives proposed in RM 50-2 rather than an individualized cost-benefit analysis as required by Section II.D of Appendix I.

I.

Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's pro-posed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff's evaluation consisted of the following: 1) a review of the information provided by the licensee in his June 4,1976 submittals; 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems des-cribed in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR);I

3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Calvert Cliffs facilities; 4) the calculation of relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/0) values for the Calvert Cliffs site; 5) the calculation of individual doses in un-restricted areas; and 6) the comparison of the calculated releases and doses with the proposed design objectives of RM 50-2 and the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B, II.C and II.D of Appendix I.

i The radwaste treatment anc effluent control systems installed at Calvert Cliffs Station have been previously described in Section 3.1.7 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated August 28, 1972, and in Section III.D of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated April 1973.I7I Unit Nos.1 and 2 share a common liquid and gaseous radwaste system, however, each unit has a separate steam generator blowdown system.

Since the FES and SER were issued, the licensee has modified these systems to include: 1) all i

volatile chemistry treatment in the secondary system, 2) the addition of filter and non-regenerative demineralized in the blowdown treatment system of each unit with full recycle to the feedwater heater; and 3) the addition of a HEPA filter in the exhaust duct downstream of the shared waste gas storage tanks. The modifications noted above were considered in the staff's evaluation.

Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Calvert Cliffs Station, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix 1.

The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in fiUREG-0017.(8)In making these determinations, the staf f con-sidered 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 operating life of the plant for normal opera-tion 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 Calvert Cliffs Station in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous I

e f fluents. Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period for August 1974 through December 1976.

A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.

Calvert Cliffs, Unit No.1, reached initial criticality in October 1974, and commercial operation in May 1975. Unit 2 reached initial criticality in November 1976 and commercial operation in April 1977.

Since the staff does not consider data from the first year of operation to be representative of the long term operating life of the plant, only effluent release data from July 1975 through December 1976 for Unit 1 were used in comparing actual releases from Calvert Cliffs, Unit No.1, with calculated releases.

The observed liquid releases (1.49 Ci/yr) were somewhat greater than cal-culated releases (0.34 Ci/yr).

However, the staff does not consider this difference to be significant. The actual releases of noble gases (11,000 C1/yr) as shown in Table 4, is in good agreement with our calculated release (9,700 Ci/yr) as shown in Table 2.

The actual releases of radioactive material in particulate form released in gaseous effluents increased during the fourth quarter of 1975 due to a number of equipment failures in the waste gas pro-cessing system. This equipment has been repaired and returned to operation.

The particulate releases for the second half of the period (July 1975-June 1976) were 0.00018 Ci which more closely approximates the staff's calculated i

L l

l release of 0.002 Ci/yr.

The actual releases of iodine-131 (0.06 Ci/yr) are in good agreement with our calculated release (0.16 Ci/yr). Based on the above evaluation of operating data, the staff believes that the calculational model reasonably characterizes the actual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from Calvert Cliffs, Unit Nos.1 and 2.

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 average atmosphere dispersion con-ditions for the Calvert Cliffs Site using an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term releases.

The model used by the staff is based upon the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111. 0 0)

This evaluation is different from and replaces the evaluation given in Section 3.13 of the SER(0 and in Section V.D of the FES.

Using the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the staff considered that gaseous effluents from the reactor building were a mixture of elevated and ground-level releases and that all releases from the turbine building were at ground level. Non-continuous and intermittent gaseous releases were evaluated separately from continuous releases. The calculations also include an estimate of inaximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and tem-poral variation of the airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model. The contributions of the variations are discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.111.

The staff used meteorological data collected onsite between January and December 1975; these data are reasonably representative of long term 1

conditions expected at the site.

1 I

The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate-gories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in i

liquid effluents to the Chesapeake Bay, 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 I

to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109.

The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liquid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.

For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) har-vested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from Calvert Cliffs Station into the Chesapeake Bay and use of the thoreline for recreational purposes (10 hr/yr).

Since there are no drinking water sources receiving liquid effluents from Calvert Cliffs Station this pathway was not considered in the staff's evaluation.

The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence having the highest dose. The maxi-mum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.26 miles N relative to the Calvert Cliffs Station. The location of m3ximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at the same location.

c i

The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the abnosphere 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 j

l milk (3301/yr) from a cow grazing at 4.2 miles SW of the Calvert Cliffs Station. The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture equivalent to 9 months per year total diet.

Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem / reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance witn Section II. A of Appendix !.

Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the appro-priate relative concentration (X/Q) 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-formance with Section II.B of Appendix 1.

J 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/Q) values given in 1

-9_

Table 5, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of the maximum' exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem / reactor in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix 1.

The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Table V-5 of the FES.

Rather than performing an individualized cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I, the licensee elected to show conformance with 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-ted quantity of iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents is less than 1 Ci/yr/

reactor.

The calculated doses combined for Unit Nos.1 and 2 are less than the dose design objectives set forth in RM 50-2, therefore, satisfies the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix 1.

For a comparison with the dose design objectives 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).

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at Calvert Cliffs, Unit Nos.1 and 2, 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 require-ments of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable.

The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Calvert Cliffs, Unit Nos.1 and 2.

This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the individual doses will not exceed the numerical dose design objectives of Section II.A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and therefore, satisfies 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 i

and does not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reason-able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered I

by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be

]

1 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.

]

l

'. II. Environmental Impact Appraisal The licensee is presently. licensed to possess and operate the Calvert' Cliffs Nuclear ' Power Plant, Unit'Nos.1 and 2, located in the State of Maryland, in Calvert County, at power levels up to 2700 megawatts thermal (MWt) for each unit. The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the Units.

Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action; it does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in The Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 317 and 318.

The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total ouantities or tyees of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Calvert Cliffs Station.

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 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 maintained I

at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix 1.

Conclusion and Basis for 11egative Declaration l

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 neaative declaration to this ef fect is appropriate.

Dated:

l l

l 1

TABLE 1 i

CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUEhTS FROM CALVEPT CLIFFS, LNIT NOS. I 6 2 Nuclide Ci/yr/ reactor Nuclide Ci/yr/ reactor i

Corrosion 6 Activation Froducts Fission Froducts Cr-51 2.5(-4)a, b Ag-110m 4.4(-4)

Mn-45 1.1(-3)

Te-127m 4 (-5)

Fe-55 2.7(-4)

Te-127 4 (-5)

Fe-59 1.5(-4)

Te-129m 1.9 (-4)

Co-58 6.5(-3)

Te-129 1.2(-4)

Co-60 9(-3) 1-130 6(-5)

Zr-95 1.4 (-3)

Te-131m 2 (-5)

Nb-95 2(-3)

I-131 2(-1)

Np-239 2(-5)

Te-132 7.5(-4)

(~ )

~

Firsior. Fr:du:t-I-133 2(-2)

Rb-86 4 (-5)

Cs-134 3.1 (-2)

Sr-98 6 (-5) 1-135 2(-3)

Mo-99 2.3(-3)

Cs-136

4. 9 (-3)

Te-99n

1. 7 (-3)

Cs-137 3.7(-2)

Ru-103 1.5(-4)

Ba-137m 1.2(-2)

Ru-306 2.4 (-3)

Ba-140 2 (-5)

La-140 2 (-5)

Ce-141 5.2(-3) 1 All Others 8 (-5)

I Total (except H-3) 3.4 (-1)

H-3 530

)

a = Exponential notation; 1(-4) = 1 x 10"#

b = Nuclides whose release rates are less than 10" Ci/yr/ reactor l

are not listed individually, but are included in the category "All Others".

]

1 i

r i

TABLE-2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IM GAFEnt'S EFrLUENTF FROM CALVERT CLIFFS, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Ci/yr/ reactor Radio d.

Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air Decay Nuclide Building Building Building Ejector Tanks Total Er-83m a

a a

a a

a Kr-85m 1

2 a

1 a

4 Kr-85 260 9

a 6

1600 1900 Kr-87 a

1 a

a a

1 Kr-88 2

4 a

2 a

8 Kr-89 a

a a

a a

a Xe-131m 56 3

a 2

67 130 Xe-133m' 35 5

a 3

a 43 Xe-133 5800 390 a

250 1100 7600 Xe-135m a

a a

a a

a Xe-135 9

7 a

4 a

20 Xe-137 a

.a a

a a

a Xe-138 a

a a

a a

a Tota 1 Noble Gases 9700 I-131 7.4(-4)D 6.1(-2) 2.5(-2)

3. 8 (- 2) a 1.2(-1) 1-133 P.7(-4) 7.4(-2) 6.2(-3) 4.6(-2) a 1.3(-1)

Mn-54 6(-7) 1.8(-4) e c

4. 5 (-5) 2.3(-4)

Fe-59 2.1(-7) 6(-5) e c

1.5(-5) 7.5(-5)

Co-58 2.1(-6) 6(-4) e c

1.5(-4) 7.5(-4)

Co-60 9.3(-7) 2.7(-4) e c

7(-5) 3.4(-4)

Sr-89 4.7(-P) 1.3(-5) c c

3.3(-6) 1.6(-5)

Sr-90 8.2(-9) 2.4(-6) e c

6(-7) 3(-6)

Cs-134 6(-7) 1.8(-4) e c

4.5(-5) 2.3(-4)

Cs-137 1(-6) 3(-4) e c

7.5(-5) 3.8(-4)

Total Particulate 0.002 H-3 540 e

e c

c 540 C-14 3

a a

a 7

8 Ar-141 25 e

e e

c 25 a = less than 1.0 Ci/yr/ reactor for noble gases and carbon-14,

~4 less than 10 C1/yr/ reactor for iodine b = exponential notation; 1.4(-2) = 1.4 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

I l

l L

1

TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM CALVERT CLIFFS, UNIT NOS. 1 AND'2 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 2700 0.80 Plant Capacity Factor Failed Fuel 0.12%a Primary System S

Mass of Coolant (1bs) 4.7 x 10 40 Letdown Rate (gpm)

Shim Bleed Rate (gpm) 0.28 Leakage to Secondary System (Ibs/ day) 100 Leakage.to Containmer : Building b

Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings (Ibs/ day) 160 Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns (per year) 2 Secondary System 7

Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 1.1 x 10 3 Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (1bs) 6.4 x 10 5 Mass of Liquid / Steam Generator (1bs) 2.2 x 10 Secondary Coolant Mass (1bs) 2.2 x 10 3 Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Bldg (1bs/hr) 1.7 x 10 3 Blowdown Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 2.3 x 10 3

Containment Building Volume (ft )

2 x 106 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 4 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) 20 l

Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid)

Leakage to Auxiliary Building 0.0075 Steam Generator (volatile species) 1.0 Steam Generator (nonvolatile species) 0.01 Main Condenser Air Ejector (volatile species) 0.1S Decontamination Factors (liquid wastes)

Shim Bleed 6 Eq. Drain Misc. Wastes Steam Gen. Blowdown 4

2 I

1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 4

Cs, Rb 2 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 5

5 2

Others 1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 All Nuclides Except Iodine Iodine Miscellaneous (Dirty) Waste 4

3 Evaporator DF 10 10 Shim Bleed 6 Equipment Drain 3

2 Evaporator DF 10 10 Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides Letdown Coolant Waste Demineralizers DF 10 2

10 Evaporator Condensate Polishing Demineralizers DF 10 10 10 Steam Generator Blowdown 2

Demineralizers DF 10 10 10 b

TABLE 3 (continued)

Anions Cs, Rb Other Nuclides Evaporator Condensate Polishing 2

2 Demineralizers DF 10 10 10 Radwaste Area Charcoal Adsorber DF and Containment Purge Charcoal Adsorber DF (Iodine Removal) 10 Gaseous Systems HEPA filter DF (Particulate Removal) 100 "This value is constant and corresponds to 0.12% of the operating power fission product source term as given in NUREG-0017, April 1976.

bl%/ day of the primary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.001'5/ day of the primary coolant iodine inventory.

)

TABLE 4 SUIMARY OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 Docket No. 50-317~

Liquid Effluent Release Data August 1974 through July 1975 th ough July 1976 thruI Radioactive June 1975 11 mo.)a June 1976 (12 mo.)b December 1976 Waste curies curies curies Total Fission and Activation Products 4.58(-1)c 1.49 7.1(-1)

Total Iodine-131 5(-2) 2.8(-1) 2.39(-1)

Total Tritium 72.7 359 105 Gaseous Effluent Rele_ase Data July 1975 throug July 1976 thru June 1976(12mo.g)

August 1974 through December 1976f Radioactive June 1975 (11 mo.)a Waste curies curies curies Total Noble Gases 1.73(3)c 1.1(4) 4.1(3)

Total Iodine-131 2.3 (-3) 5.5(-2) 8.7(-2)

Total Halogens 8.7 (2) 1.3(-1) 1.7(-1)

Total Particulate 1.4 (-4) 1.1(-2)*

4.7(-1)

Total Tritium 0.63 2.4 39

• From data in the Semiannual Operating Reports, Docket No. 50-317, 3rd and 4th quarters 1974 and 1st and 2nd quarters 1975, Baltimore Gas and Electric

Company, bFrom data in the Semiannual Operating Reports, Docket No. 50-317, 3rd and 4th quarters 1975 and-1st and 2nd quarters 1976, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

C

-2 Exponential notation; 1.4(-2) = 1.4 x 10 dSteam generator blowdown was released to the circulating water or miscellaneous radwaste systems. The licensee proposes to treat and recycle this waste by a plant design modification to be completed during the first refueling.

" Actual releases in the second half of the period were 1.8(-4) curie.

From data in the Semiannual Operating Reports, Docket No. 50-317, 3rd and 4th quarters 1976, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

i 1

ill1]I ji

jlil, J

0 0

2y 8 8

7 9

8 9

1 9

1

~

0 0

'0 0

0 0

0 0

0 s

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 Qr

/e x

x x

x x

x x

x x

Dt 6

2 5

9 7

2 1

5 1

e m

(

3 5

2 3

1 7

2 2

3

)

3 6

6 4

7 6

6 8

7 7

s

~

r 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

e 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

Qt

/e x

x x

x x

x x

x x

Xm 0

0 3

4 5

6 5

9 5

/ce 7

6 1

7 2

2 6

6 1

s

(

S EUL s

s s

A e

e e

V g

g g

r r

r

)

u u

u Q

.p

.p

.p

/

gs g

gs gs g

gs gs g

gs 2 (D d u d r d u d u d r d u d u d r d u e

l o l u l o l o l u l o l o l u l o s

B u B o B u B u Bo B u Bu B o Bu D N a

n h

n n

h n

n h

n N OS ee ri r-ei ri r-ei ri r-ei A I N l p ot o2 nt ot o2 nt ot o2 nt TO ey t n t

i n t n t

in t n t

in l II RT co c4 b o co c4 bo co c4 bo ST ac a2 rc ac a2 rc ac a2 rc

.OA e

e u

e e

u e

e u

S PL R-R -

T -

R -

R -

T -

R-R-

T-.

O EU N DCL T DA I

NC

)

N A' s

5 U E

e S

l E_,)Q O i

L S/D m

B FX

(

AF(R 6

T I U

e 2

4 2

LNF c

CO n

0 1

4 ID a

TTE t

RAS s

ERU i

VT D

LN AE CCNOC EV n

I o

T i

A t

L c

E e

E W

R r

N S

S iD n

e d

y r

r a

a G

d

/

n e

r u

c o

o n

t B

e p

d ee e

i cp t

s w

ey i

e o

RT S

R C

i 2

n n

t t

t u

u i t i

t i

D r

/ /

ni n

i n

N o

r r

un u

n u

A d

y y

/u

/

u

/

3 e

1

/ /

r/

r

/

r t s m

m yr y

r y

a N

ae e

e

/y

/

y

/

)

1M l s s r

r d/

n

/

m uo o 5

1 m

m ad e

m e

7 L

cDN ra r

e r

9 O

l 1

7 mr m

r m

1 C

a t

0 0

m m

C i

1 6

8 0

0 n

63 3

5 3

H5 U

0 0

T 02 0

1 0

I Y WAM

,f 2

)

C. 5 D

7 c

WI 9 AI 1 s

e e

ee e

e e

e t

t t t t

t t

v i

i ii i

i i

1 D,

N4 i

s s

ss s

s s

.A 2

t

/

/

//

/

/

/

S R

xc r

r rr r

r r

, E N

e e y

y yy y

y y

O W B. B I

nj

/

/

//

/

/

/

nb m

n dd m

m m

R f

TI E L

AO e

e aa e

e e

f I

I I T O

r r

rr r

r r

N P

C n

m m

mm m

m m

6U

, E g

i 5

5 00 5

5 5

, A. (S s

1 2 1

1 ELSI e

B FI X D

AF E

TI S N LNN 5

' COA 7

I 9

TT 1

R C D.

EE s

t t

t t t

t t

i ii i

i i

VSI e

i.

L I

v n

nn n

n n

5 1

i t

u uu u

u u

a C0N l t

/

/

//

/

/

/

y A

5 O N

- c r

r rr r

r r

a xe y

y yy y

y y

M I

F I

I ij

/

/

/ /

/

/

/

R 0TT

. RC L

db m

m dd m

m m

NAE O

nO e

e aa e

e e

2 OPS C

e r

r r r r

r r

4 S

p n m

m mm m

m m

4 9

R' p g RF Ai 3

0 00 5

5 5

1 I

1 AC s

1 1 2 1

P e

p M0 D

O1 C

m 0

O o

4 T

rd r

s s

ee f

V d

yl n h s 1

yy y

X d a na s

r d a a t p n

owaw t

i r ou O g a

r D

bh gh n

aibdf i e g

e I

N n

s t rt e

a i o d er r s t

E o

t l

a oa u

n l v nR e oy s

P i

n ap p

l inainl a

h a

i P

r e

t y

f i t di a sp yw g

A e

u ol nl f

e onk u s es nh e

t l

t l al E

s et isd ed o at R

i f

a a

os i

nim a

r f

o o

s d oonov il t op l

C E

t mt m a

d t ati d cA t

a o

o G

a d

ou

. l r

d erer maef en i ne el e

i sf sf e

mt sosi ooh s a d

u o

o l

a eo o

iit o

e q

D D

b GBD D

dd D

F i

o aao a

b L

N RRt

REFER _E_NCES 1.

Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

Federal Register _, V. 40, p.19442, May 5, 1975.

l l

2.

Title 10, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paragraph II.D of Appendix I, I

Fede_ral Register, V. 40 p. 40816, September 4,1975, and revised as of January 1,1976.

3.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff (and its Attachment) - Public Rulemaking Hearing on:

Numerican Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for l

Operation.to Meet the Criteria "As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Docket No. RM 50-2, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1974.

4.

" Response to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I, Files:

L-037-F and L-054, for Calvert Cliffs, Unit Nos.1 and 2," BG&E Co. Letter of Transmittal, June 4, 1976.

Enclosed " Appendix I Evaluation Report".

5.

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Final Safety Analysis Report - Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 1971.

6.

Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 and 2,"

Docket Nos. 50-317/318, Washington, D.C., August 28, 1972 (Supplement No. 5, August 10,1976).

7.

Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2," BG&E Co., Docket Nos. 50-317/318, Washington, D.C., April 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.

Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll, J. T., 1976: X0QD0Q, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations,(DRAFT 1.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 1

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

10.

Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Regulatory Guide 1.111,

" Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors " March 1976.

11.

Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 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.

r,,

.g T

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION.

DOCKET NOS.

50-317 AND 50-318 BALTIMORE GAS & 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 Nos.

and to Facility Operating License Nos. OPR-53 and DPR-69, respectively, issued to. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, for l

revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, located near Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland.. The amendments are effective as of the date of I

issuance.

These amendments to the Technical Specifications will (1) imple--

ment 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 l

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 Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments. Prior l

public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards considerations.

a

o.

i T.

i

. The Conmission 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 April 1973.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated

, (2) Amendment Nos.

and to License Nos. DPR-33 and DPR-69, 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 at the Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland 20678.

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 Don Davis, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 i

Divisior of Operating Reactors I

o

- - - -