ML20237B444

Forwards Safety Evaluation & Eia Supporting Amend to License DPR-16 Re Installed Radwaste Treatment Sys at Facility Capable of Maintaining Releases of Radioactive Matls in Effluents to ALARA Levels

ML20237B444
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/23/1977
From:	Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8712160268
Download: ML20237B444 (26)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .. .,

t%. A Q c,,4u 7 5 crv. Ad j;rm.! ltul .

I

_f Aya 2 3 <377

}

Cocket No. 50-219 HEMORANDUM FOR: G. Lear, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 3, 00R FROM: J. T. Collins, Chief. Effluent Treatrent Systems Branch, DSE l

SUBJECT:

DSE EVALUATION OF OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, j l

WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 I

! Enclosed is OSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Oyster Creck Nuclear Generating Station v:ith respect to the. requirements of Acpendix 1. The results of our evaluation are contained  !

in the attached " Safety Evaluation and Envirorwaental !!rpact Apprai:al." ile have also attached a draft " Notice of Issuance of /cenchent to Facility Operating Licenses and Mecative Declaration."

Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treat ent systems installed at Oyster Creek are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in effluents to "as icw as is reasonably achievable" levels.,in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and conforms (v}tothereouirementsofSectionsII.A,II.8,II.CandII.DofAppendix1.

When the model effluent radiological Technical Specifications, currently under development, have been approved they will be forwarded to you for transmittal to the licensee.

CEIGI;tiL S1 N J. I. COLL 11IS John T. Collins, Chief 8712160268 770023 Effluent Treatment Systeras Branch DR ADOCK 0500 9 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

Enclosure:

l DSE Evaluation Docket File 50-219 NRR Reading File cc: H. Denton DSE Reading File ETSB Reading File Y. Stello .

ETSB, Docket File 50-219 7 R. Vollmer j K. r,clier JIcolilins

~~

.7

.14 ._ u i

,, DSE:g:ETSB .DSE:M TSB .D A,: "L B. .DS.E ; 1B

{ . 3., " li.nt. WEK;e.ge.;_ DS P.rful [ ban D eva-. . * ._.k .0. WC9pke...

. . . . . As 1-/77 os/ to /77 ._osz.!.'1/ 7.7 s

.o.//E177 ..ostc77 __ ,  ;

m e m u m u>. m n a o m s........,........~....,..... /

' - _- _Q

t t G. Lear AUG 2 31977 cc: Continued D. Jaffee S. Nowicki D. Eisenhut W. Kreger H. Hulman B. Grimes E. Markee F. Congel W. Burke L. Bell 1

s . . . _ . _ - . .

i t SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-16 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COM3 M OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET N0. 50-219 i

INTRODUCTION l

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 Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2,1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976; 1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity

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

2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of ,

keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences "as low as is reasonably achievable."

In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the l Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (JCP&LC) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976,I2 the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Oyster y

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, with respect to the require-

.p ments of Sections II. A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I. In this submittal, JCP&LC chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by

.Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CCR Part 50.

t

t r f} V By letter dated , JCP&LC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are "as low as is reasonably achievable" in

~

accordance with 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the results of the HRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Oyster Creek Huclear Generating Station; 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 meet the cost-benefit objective set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

I. Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's 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)  ; 3) a review rm

.%J i

t i

s

/7 4 1

of the licensee's response to the staff for additional information 4}; 4) a ,

review of the Final Description and Analysis of the Augmented Offgas System (5);

5) a review of Amendment 1 to the Final Description and Analysis of the Augmented Offgas System and the Preliminary Liquid / Solid Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (6{; 6) the calcula-tion of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Oyster Creek facility; 7) the calculation of relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (0/0) values for the Oyster Creek site; 8) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 9) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for potential radwaste system augments, using the methods outlined in, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Huclear Power Reactor.I I The staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Oyster Creek Station have been previously described in Section 11.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated February 3, 1975,0 I and in Section 3.5 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated December 1974.(9)

Since the FES and SER were issued, the licensee has been in the process of modifying the liquid and gaseous radwaste system to include: 1) the addi-tion of two 34,400 gal collection tanks and redundant processing trains, each consisting of a 150 gpm filter and two 150 gpm demineralized (150 f t )

in series to the High Purity Liquid Waste System; 2) the addition of one 15,,000 gal collection tank to the Floor Drain System; 3) upgrading the O\

\ )

1 f3 Chemical Waste System (CWS) with the addition of two 15,000 gal collection /

neutralizer tanks and redundant processing trains, each consisting of a filter, 30 gpm evaporator, and 30 gpm distillate demineralized in series;

4) the modified CWS which will allow processing of all floor drain waste as well as chemical waste; 5) additions to the modified off gas system include a recombiner system, charcoal delay beds, and a HEPA filter down stream of the charcoal delay system. 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 Oyster Creek 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 NUREG-0016.00) In making these determinations, the staff con-sidered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liquid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3.

The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at Oyster Creek Station in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous

'e f fl uents. Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the l

1 m i

. l licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period for July 1970 through December 1976. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4 v Oyster Creek reached initial criticality on May 3,1969, and commercial operation in December 1969. 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 1970 through December 1976 were used in comparing actual releases from Oyster Creek.

The observed range of releases of mixed fission and activation products released from the liquid waste system is 12.1 Ci/yr to 0.22 C1/yr and the calculated release is 0.22 Ci/yr. The observed releases from the gaseous I

radwaste system are as follows; 1) Noble gases 866,000 Ci/yr to 167,000 Ci/yr;

2) Particulate 0.42 Ci/yr to <0.08 Ci/yr; and 3) Iodine 6.7 Ci/yr to 3.3 Ci/yr. The calculated releases are 25,000 Ci/yr, 0.093 Ci/yr and 0.63 Ci/yr for noble gases, particulate, and iodines, respectively.

The differences between the actual and calculated values can be attributed to the lack of full operation of the modified radwaste systems. When both the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems are fully operational, the staff believes that the calculational model will reasonably characterize the actual releases of radioactive material from this system.

The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmosphere dispersion con-ditions for the Oyster Creek Site ysing an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term release.IIII The model used by the staff is based

l n

V ,

upon the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.lli.(I2' This evaluation is different from and replaces the evaluation given in Section j 11.0 of the SER(8) and in Section 3.5 of the FES.I9I Using the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the staff considered that gaseous effluents from the reactor building, through the elevated stack, while radwaste building releases 1 from the turbine building were at ground level. The calculations also include an estimate of maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and temporal variation of the airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model. The contributions of the variations are discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.111.

Three years of meteorological data for 1966 thru 1968, collected at the Oyster r Creek site, were selected by the staff and found to be reasonably representative k of long term conditions expected at the site.

The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate- .

I gories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay, 2) pathways associated '

4 with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere.

The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109.

v

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 Oyster Creek Station into the Oyster Creek and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (10 hr/yr). Since there are no drinking water sources receiving liouid effluents from Oyster Creek Station this pathway was not considered in the staf f's evaluation.

The dose to the population living within fifty miles of the Oyster Creek Station due to the radioactive materials released in liauid effluents was based on the following parameters: 1) at the year 2000, 7.7 million people will consume 46 million Kg of fish taken from Barnegat Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, 2) the year 2000 population within fif ty miles of the Oyster Creek Station was estimated to consume 6.6 million Ka of shellfish harvested from Barnegat Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, and 3) the population within 50 miles will spend about 100 million man-hours along the shoreline for recreation purposes.

The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air dcses 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 0.35 miles SE relative to the Oyster Creek Station. The location of maximum total body and l

I skin doses were 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 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 cow grazing at 0.75 miles SSE of the Oyster Creek Station. The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture equivalent to 6 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 with Section II. A of Appendix I.

Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the appro-priate relative concentration (X/0) value given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad / reactor and 20 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, tritium, and particulate given in Table 2, and the appr.opriate 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 conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I.

_9-The calculated dose to the population living within fifty miles of Oyster Creek Station due to the releases of nuclear gases, radioiodines, particulate {s, I carbon-14, and tritium was based on the following parameters: 1) the year 2000 population within fifty miles of Oyster Creek is estimated to be 7.7 million people; 2) annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles of Oyster Creek consists of 270 million liters of milk, 24 million kilograms of meat, and 74 kilograms of vegetables (I4I; 3) all of the produc-tion estimated in (2) above would be consumed by the population living within 50 miles; and 4) milk animals would receive pasturage equivalent to six months per year of their total diet from grazing.

The summary or calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Table 5.5 of the FES.

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 popula-tion reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. The staff's cost-benefit analysis was performed using: 1) the dose parameters stated above and in Table 7; 2) the analysis procedures outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.110I }; 3) the cost parameters given in Table 8; and 4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110.I }

For the liquid radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from liquid releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by $1,000 per total body man-rem and $1,000 per ----

man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $7.00 for the total body man-rem dose and $77 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 2 gpm Reverse Osmosis unit to the laundry waste system. The calculated cost of $78,600 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values for the liquid radwaste system. The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the modified liquid radwaste system meets the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

For the gaseous radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from gaseous releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by $1,000per total body man-rem and

$1,000 per man-thyroid rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $6,000 and 521,000 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 15,000 cfm Charcoal /HEPA filtration system to the reactor ventilation exhaust system. The calculated cost of $57,300 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values for the gaseous radwaste system. The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective augments to

1. reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and 1

that the modified gaseous radwaste system meets the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

l l

'1 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at Oyster Creek Generating Station 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.

In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems meet the cost-benefit objectives set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Oyster Creek Station. This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the individual doses will not exceed the numerical dose design objectives of Section II. A, II.8, and 1

II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. In accordance with Section II.D of 1

l Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional augments can be added to the modified systems being installed at Oyster Creek that will effect a reduction in dose to the 1

population within a 50 mile radius of the station for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

The- staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a significant l - _ . . . . . _

i increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered 1 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

f 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.

l l

l l II. Environmental Impact Appraisal l The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Oyster Creek l

Nuclear Generating Station, located in the State of New Jersey, in Morris l

l County, at power levels up to 1930 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed l

l changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an 1

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 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-219.

The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Oyster Creek 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 at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Sections II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix 1.

i Conclusion and Basis for Hecative 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 i

environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and 1

l that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.

Dated:

TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM OYSTER CREEK FOR APPENDIX I EVALUATIONS Nuclide Ci/yr Nuclide Ci/yr Corrosion 6 Activation Products Fission Products Na-24 1.0(-3) Ag-110m 4.4(-4)

P-32 7.0(-5) Te-129 2. 0 (-5)

Cr-51 2.0(-3) Te-131m 2.0(-5)

Mn-54 1. 0 (- 3) I-131 1. 2 (- 1)

Mn-56 6.8(-4) I-132 4.9(-4)

Fe-55 4. 6 (-4) I-133 2.1(-2)

Fe-59 1. 0 (- 5) I-134 1.0(-4)

Co-58 4.1(-3) Cs-134 1.3(-2)

( Co-60 8.9(-3) I-135 1.9(-3)

I Cu-64 3.0(-3) Cs-136 1.1(-4) 2n-65 9.0(-5) Cs-137 2.5(-2) l Zn-69m 2.2(-4) Ba-137m 5.3(-4) f Zn-69 2.3(-4) Cs-138 2.0(-5)

Zr-95 1.4(-3) Ba-139 4.0(-5)

Nb-95 2. 0 (-3) Ba-140 1. 4 (-4)

W-187 5.0(-5) La-140 7.0(-5)

Np-239 1.5(-3) La-141 2 . 0 (-5)

Ce-141 1.0(-5)

Fission Products La-142 3. 0 (-5)

Br-83 5.0(-5) Ce-143 1.0(-5)

Sr-89 4.0(-5) Pr-143 1. 0 (- 5)

Sr-91 3.2(-4) Ce-144 5. 2 (-3)

Y-91m 2.0(-4)

Y-91 3. 0 (-5) All Others 5.0(-5)

Sr-92 1.5(-4)

Y-92 4.0 (-4) Total (except ,,

~'~(-1)

Y-93 3.3(-4) Tritium)

Mo-99 4.7 (-4)

Tc-99m 1.3(-3) H3 24 Ru-103 1.5(-4)

Ru-105 6.0(-5)

Rh-105m 6. 0 (-5)

Rh-105 5.0(-5)

Ru-106 2.4(-3)

s  :

TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GEWERATING STATION (Ci/yr/ Reactor)

G S Building V_ntilation e ' r Ej or Nuclide Re'a'c h ThbIne RadwIste Offgases Vent Pump Totals.

a a a 38 25 a 63 f:r-83m 44 a 2900 /

'lKr-85m 6 68 a 2800 Kr-85 a a a 140 a a 140 Kr-87 6 130 a 11 150 a 300 Kr-88 6 230 a 2000 150 a 2400 \

Kr -89 a a a a 650 a 650 Xe-131m a a a 51 a a 51 a a 42 2 a 44 Xe-133m a 14000,v 7

N Xe-133 130 250 10 11000 60 2300 Xe-135 92 650 a a 18 a 760 Xe-137 a a a a 790 a 790 Xe-138 14 1400 a a 600 a 2000 /

Total Noble Gases 25000 I-131 3.4(-1)b 2 (-1) 5(-2) a 1.7(-2) 3(-2) 6.4(-1)

I-133 1.36 8 .1 (- 1) 1.8(-1) a 6.6(-2) a 2.4 l Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) 9 (-5) a c c 1.4(-2) bb-54 6 (-3) 6b4) 3(-4) c e c 6. 9 (-3)

Fe-59 8 (-4) 5(-4) 1. 5 (-4) e e c 1.4(-3)

Co-58 1. 2 (-3) 6(-4) 4.5 (-5) c e c 1.8(-3)

Co-60 2 (-2) 2 (-3) 9 (-4) c e c 2 . 3 (-2)

Zn-65 4(-3) 2(-4) 1.5(-5) e e c 4. 2 (-3)

Sr-89 1.8(-4) 6(-3) 4. 5 (-6) c e c 6.2(-3)

Sr-90 1(-5) 2(-5) 3(-6) e e c 3.3(-5)

Zr-95 8(-4) 1(-4) 5(-7) c e c 9.0(-4)  ;

Sb-124 4 (-4) 3(-4) 5(-7) c e c 7.0(-4)

Cs-134 8 (-3) 3(-4) 4. 5 (-5) e c 3(-6) 8.3(-3)

Cs-136 6(-4) 5(-5) 4. 5 (-6) e c 2(-6) 6. 6 (-4)

Cs-137 1.1(-2) 6(-4) 9 (-5) e c 1(-5) 1. 2 (-2)

Ba-140 8(-4) 1.1 (-2 ) 1(-6) e c 1.1(-5) 1. 2 (-2)

Ca-141 2(-4) 6(-4) 2.6(-5) c e c 8.3(-4)

G'i 5 0 f

/ a - less than 1.0 C1/yr noble gases, less than 10

-4 Ci/yr

[" f_ f - d for iodine GC/ ~

! b - exponential notation; 3.4(-1) = 3.4 x 10 f e - less than 1*6 of total for nuclide 1

t s t ._ _ _ ______________

TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID AND GASEQUS EFFLUENTS FROM OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Reactor Power Level (MWt) 1930 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Offgas Release Rate Noble Gases, uCi/sec after 30 min.

delay 60,000 Iodine-131, Ci/yr, Downstream of Main Condensate Air Ejector S Primary Coolant System

Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 4.2 x 10 S 4

l Mass of Steam in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 1.5 x 10 Cleanup Deminerali::er Flow (1bs/hr) 1.9 x 10 5 6

! Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 7.26 x 10 l Number of Main Condenser Shells 3 Air Inleakage to Main Condenser 10 cfm/shell Building Ventilation System Decontamination Factors HEPA Filter, Particulate 100 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Offgas System (hrs)

• 0.5 Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.029 Other Decontamination Factors (DF) I Cs, Rb Nuclides 3 2 High Purity System 10 10 10 5 4 Low Purity System 10 2 x 10 10 ,

5 4 ' 6' Chemical Waste System 10 2 x 10 10 5 6 Regenerant Solution 10 2 x 10' 10

• Prior to processing by the offgas treatment system.

) ) 0 1

) s k 0 0 . . .

6 e 2 9 6 0, 2 4 8 1 9 9 9

_ 7i 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 9 r 0 8 7 6 6 . 2 2 2 s

_ 0 0 0 6 1 - -

1 u 3 4 -

C 1 4 n t 0 0 0

_ 0 a r 5 5 5

_ h o

_ t p , , ,

e 1 3 5

_ s' 0 r R 1 1 1 s 9 0 2 e

_ 5 8 5 3 9 8 t g G 6 G

_ N 5 e 7i 1

4 0 0, 0 a n O 9 r 7 6 5 1 2 e i 0 2 4

_ I 1 u 0 0 1 0 4 0 r t 1 1 1 T C 2 g a

_ A r . . .

_ T e e s s s S f p o o o i O N N N .

N 2 0 l 6

_ O Ms 4 0 3

6 5 f

- l a

t r

t r

t r

7 9

4 e 7 0, 1 1 .

I 1 1 1 o o T 7i 2 0 . 3 2 4 l u9 o 1 A 9 r 4 9 3 . a n1 p p p e

_ R 3 u 2 0 1 7 3 2 0 0 h n2 e e f E C 2 a - R R R o

_ N < h i0 f

E t m5 l l l a

G i e a a l u u u a w S t n

R ) 0 . e n n h n n es n A 8 s 4 0 2 2 ek E 3 e 5 3 9 0, 7 3 4 3 d y h c a a a t L 7i 1 1 i a t o i i i s C 9 r . . 5 2 6 0 0 0 l d D m m m r U 1 u 4 0 3 1 3 c n e e e i C u8 i , S S S f N < 8

_ n 9 K l a m m m m E sa t G o o o o

_ E9 e u a r r r r

_ R1 0 d q d8 f f f f C2 s 0 3 5 ue a

- 2 e 0 5 6 0, 3 1 2 7 l m .

a a a R0 7i 4 . ce os t t t t

_ 4 E5 9 r 0 1 6 6 9 0 0 nr ro a a a a T 1 u 1 0 6 6 1 I a FN D D D D E

L S

Y o

. C 8 ) )

E g ) )

)

3 k

B ON A

T R t O e Fk ) 0 d c c s 0 d 3 3 9

E o 1 e 1 ) 5 0, 1 0 CD 7i .

a 3 0 1 1 N 9 r 2 ( 1 6 . .

E 1 u 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 I C 5 R

E P g g g X

E n n n i i i G t t t N 1,' . a a .

a .

I t o r r9 r9 T hg m e e1 e1 A p p2 . p2 R u6 9 O .

O - 1 O -

E o 6 9 0 7 0 P r0 s a 4 8 6 l 1 l 5 9 l5 O h7 e 4 5 t 4 ) 7 0 ) a2 a 1 a t 9i 7 ) a 3 a 1 0 a u - ut ut F 1 r a 1 D 8 ( . ( n0 ne f ne O 0 u 2 ( 1 6 0 0 n5 nk o nk 7 rC e a ac ac Y 9 e s i t i o f io R 1 b a me mD e

l a

mD e

A m e ek M ye l ) S c S ,

h S ,

M a l c e o S 7 U t ue R s eD e d e S a JD s e . h hG n hG D t e 1 t d t , t o t n n s 3 a e 3 4 c 6 e no m e a 1 s l i n n e n s oi u u G - n u n f i . i . s i .

e e c u o o s a it i l t i

e e s a 1 t f e n g i i t aN aN m ao l v s v 3 i f l i o t t n t t o tN e i ii s 1 r E b d l r i e as a s r a R t F t t - T o o la a r d d t d t r

f dt r

c cc e s N I P T i r d a l au l n l u l

mo op mo op a mo op i oe a d ai a o l l l l l t r e r e t

re u i t t d o t d t e a a a a at o a FR t

q d s onr o o o s t t t t N FR FR D i a a tap Tl T a o o o o o ) ) ) ) )

O L RW G T T T T T " '

' n d "

- ~

9

) 0 0 0 0 Q2 1 1 1 1 S /-

N D n x x x x O (

I 1 2 4 4 T

A 4 1 1 2 L

I I

C L

A C 6

) - - - -

E 3 0 0 0 0 S Qm 1 1 1 1 O //

_ D X c x x x x

_ e R s 6 8 3 2

_ O (

F 3 3 1 8 D

E s s S u - u -

U o o

_ u t u t

_ S e n n n n E p i es i es U y t Vu t Vu L T n ,ou n ,ou A o o V e c en c en s - ni - ni

) a k it k it Q e c bn c b n K/ l a ro a ro ED e t uc t uc 5 E( R S T S T R .

CN O

RI ET TI e)

SS cs YO ne 5 5 OP al 3 7 E ti D sm i(

0 0 D D N

A

)

Q

/ n X o

( i t

N c E E O e S S I r S T i A D

_ R

_ T N

E C

N y O e C p r y a E T d V n I r u T o o A t p

b L

E e e R c t w e i o R S C

TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM OPERATION WITH SECTIONS II. A, II.B, AND II.C OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 (Dose to Maximum Individual Per Reactor Unit)

Appendix I Dose Calculated Criterion Design Objective Doses Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem /yr 0.022 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 0.39 mrem /yr

~

Noble Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 0.083 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.58 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.055 mrem /yr --

Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 0.10 mrem /yr a

Radioiodine and Particulate Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 8.8 mrem /yr

" Carbon-14 and Tritium have been added to this category.

l l

l l

I

a 3 1

TABLE 7 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN-REM) FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50*

Pa_thway Total Body Thyroid Liquid 0.007 0.077 Gaseous 6.0 21.0

• Based on the population reasonably expected to be within a 50 mile

= = = -

radius of the reactor.

l l

TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN TFE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region I") 1.6 b

Cost of Money ) 16.0%

Capital Recovery Factor") 0.1619

")From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976).

b)From Reference 4.

/

• REFERENCES

1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. Federal Register, V. 40, P.19442, May 5,1975.

2. " Response to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Files: Oyster Creek Nuclear Station. Letter of Transmittal, June 4,1976. Enclosed " Appendix I Evaluation Report."

3. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., Final Safety Analysis Report - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - 1967.

4. " Responses to t.he Staff for Additional Information, Letter of Transmittal, October 4,1976.

6. Final Description and Analysis of Augmented Offgas System, September 9, 1975.

6. Amendment 1 to the Final Description and Analysis of Augmented Offgas System and the Preliminary Description and Analysis of Proposed Liquid /

Solid Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, April 25, 1977.

7. 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.

8. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-219, Washington, D.C. February 3,1975.

9. Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, JCP&L Co., Docket No. 50-219.

10. NUREG-0016, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.

11. Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll J.T.,1976: X00000, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, (DRAFT). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

12. 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," March l 1976.

J .. .'

2-

13. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109,

" Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," March 1976.

14. Census of Agriculture,1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

i l -

\

..' ,~

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-219 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, issued to Jersey Central Power & Light Company, for revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Morris County, New Jersey. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.

This 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 relesse 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 Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior j public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does 1

not involve a significant hazard consideration.

l . . . . . .

> .'.* .a The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ-mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated .

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated , (2) Amendment No. to License No.

DPR-16, 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 (Name of Local Public Document Room). 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 George E. Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch F3 Division of Operating Reactors

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - .