ML20237B615
| ML20237B615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1978 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712170004 | |
| Download: ML20237B615 (25) | |
Text
___
c0 E l"'D:k krohd SEP 12 1978 Docket No. 50-298 HEMOPJulDIF FOR:
T. Ippolito, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 3, 00R FR0ft:
J. T. Collins, Chief.
Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, DSE l
SUBJECT:
DSE EVALUATION OF COOPER NUCLEAR STATION WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Cooper Nuclear Station, with respect to the require-ments of Appendix I.. The results of our evaluation are contained in the attached "Sefety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal." We have also attached a draft "Hotice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses and Negative Declaration."
Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Cooper are capable of maintaining releases of radio-active materials in effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in confomance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and confoms to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.B. II.C, and 11.0 of Appendix I.
ORIGINAL SIGED BY JOHN T. COLLINS John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Systems Branch Division of Site Safety ar.d Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
DSE Evaluation DISTRIBUTION:
Focket File 50-298 cc:
R. DeYoung ETSB Reading File D. Huller ETSB Docket File 50-298 Y. Stello JTCollins R. Vollmer B. Grimes P. Wagner Y. Rooney 8712170004 700912 W. Kreger PDR ADOCK 05000D78 f
L. Hulman p
PDR G. Knighton
('
E. Markee
't l
[ ?"9.
Aa u.
i W \\
i
[. Bub '
DSE:SA:ETSB DSE:SA:ETSB f03hSh&TSB.
D WM.3 6,, s..
i RAWeller:do WCB'uNe Y llins WFMrpnpr an 1
..D91Q.5l.26.
. D9l Y118 l.2dlS.
09hl8
.--.09.L)[118.
=*r=*-
NRC PORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240
- u. a. movannusar,ainvias o,ricas este-ese e4
. SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
-TO FACILITY LICENSE NO DPR NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT C00PER' NUCLEAR STATION
. DOCKET NO. 50-298 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
.i adopted'an amendment to Appendix I to provide persons who have filed applications for construction pennits 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 I, if the proposed or installed radwaste systems satisfy the guides on design objectives 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, j
1974.(3I 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) infor-mation necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of J
l
2-9
. radioactivity.in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably
~
achievable", and'2) plans' for propo~ sed' 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 Y.B of Appendix I, the Nebraska Public Power Disrict (NPPD) filed with the Commission on I4) 5, 6, 7, 8)
June 4, 1976
, and in subsequent submittals
, the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Cooper Nuclear Station with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I.
In these submittals, NPPD provided the necessary information to show con-formance with the Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than perform a detailed cost-Denefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I.
Using the information contained in the required June 4,1976, and subse-quent submittals, the staff performed a generic cost-benefit analysis to determine if additional radwaste equipment, above that requried to satisfy the numerical design objectives set forth in the RM 50-2 rulemaking proceed-ing, could be added to the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems of these plants that could, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, reduce the radiation dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor using the interim value of $1,000 per total body man-rem and per man-thyroid-rem.
. Based on the ge'neric cost-benefit analysis ~perfonned by the staff and documented in NUREG-0389* the staff concludes that no items of additional equipment can, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, be added to nuclear power plants provided their radwaste systems include sufficient equipment to satisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and reproduced in the Annex to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
By letter dated
, NPPD submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Cooper Nuclear 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 Part 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 the Cooper Nuclear Station; 1) to reduce and maintain releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a l
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 to obviate the need for an individualized cost-benefit analysis as required by Section II.D of Appendix I.
- NUREG-0389, " Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR January 2,1971,gplication to Certain Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Before Part 50, Their A January 1978.
I i
l '
I.
Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has perfomed an 1ndependent evaluation-of the licensee's l
proposed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff's evaluation consisted of the following: 1) a review of the l
infomation provided by the licensee in his June 4,1976, submittal (4)-
- 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent con-trol systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
- 3) a review of the licensee's response to the staff's request for additional infomation(,
, 8); 4) the calculation of expected releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents (source tems) for the Cooper Nuclear Station; 5) the calculation of airborne relative concentra-tion (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values for the Cooper site region; 6) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 7) the comparison 6f the calculated releases and doses with the proposed design objectives of RM 50-2 and the requirements of Sections II. A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I.
The staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Cooper Nuclear Station have previously been described in Section 11.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated February 1973(10), and in Section III.D of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated February 1973. (1" Since the SER and FES were issued, the licensee has modified the liquid and gaseous systems.
I'
.5-l.
The liquid radwaste system modifications include the addition of a deep.
bed demineralized to the floor drains system that became operational in July 1975, and the addition of an evaporator to the chemical waste system that has been installed but is not yet operational. The gaseous radwaste system modifications include the addition of a recombiner, condenser, dryer, cooler, and low temperature charcoal delay system for the treatment of off-gases from the main condenser. This additional equipment became opera-tional in March 1977. These modifications were considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power i
reactors, which are applicable to Cooper Nuclear 5tation, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source tems have been generated to detennine confonnance with the requirements of Appendix I.
The new source tems are shown in Tables 1 and 2 and were calculated using both the model and parameters described in NUREG-0016.I12I In making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, con-j i
centrations 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 i
in Table 3.
1 I
l l
The: staff also reviewed the operating-experience accumulated at Cooper in
-(
order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents.
Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period of January 1975 through December 1977. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.
Cooper Nuclear Station reached initial criticality on February 21, 1974, and commercial operation in July 1974 Since the staff does not consider data from the first year of operation to be representative of the long-tenn operating life of the plant, only effluent release data from January 1975 through December 1977 were used in comparing actual releases from Cooper Nuclear Station.
The averages of the observed releases of mixed fission and activation pro-ducts and tritium, released from the liquid radwaste system from January 1975 through December 1977, are 1.0 Ci/yr (except tritium) and 8 Ci/yr, respectively. The staff's corresponding calculated values are 2.4 Ci/yr and 31 C1/yr.
I The staff's higher estimates of releases of radioactive material in liquid j
effluents are due to the staff assumption of a higher discharge fraction for processed high purity waste than that experienced during actual operation of the station. As the plant accumulates additional operating experience, the actual releases are expected to agree more closely with the staff's calculated values.
Since the augmented off-gas system did not become operational until March 1977, only observed releases of radioactive material in gaseous effluents for the year 1977 can be validly compared with the staff's estimated values.
The observed releases of radioactive material in gaseous effluents from January 1977 through December 1977, are:
- 1) Noble gases - 1,300 Ci/yr,
- 2) Particulate - 0.0049 C1/yr, 3) Iodine-131 - 0.013 Ci/yr, and
- 4) Tritium - 50 Ci/yr. The staff's calculated releases are 11,000 Ci/yr, 0.077 Ci/yr, 0.64 Ci/yr, and 31 Ci/yr for noble gases, particulate, Iodine-131, and tritium, respectively.
With the exception of the tritium release, the staff's estimates of releases of radioactive material in gaseous effluents are higher than the observed releases. The differences are partly due to the staff's assumed higher plant capacity factor 'than that actually experienced.
In addition, the operating data base using the augmented off-gas system, is limited (1 year). As the plant accumulates additional operating experience, the observed releases are expected to agree more closely with the staff's calculated values.
The staff nas made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion conditions for the Cooper Nuclear Station using the atmospheric dispersion model for long-tenn releases (NUREG-0324).(13) This model is based on the
" Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.(14)
I
. The staff. assumed that gaseous e'ffluents from the reactor building vent were considered as partially elevated releases.
Releases from the plant stack were considered as elevated.
All other releases were considered as ground level. The staff evaluated non-continuous and intermittent gasecus releases separately from continuous releases. Based on the criteria outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the calculations include an estimate of maximum in-crease in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and temporal variation of the airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model. Radioactive decay of effluents and depletion of the effluent plume were also considered as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
In the evaluation, the staff used one year (July 1976 - June 1977) of meteorological data collected onsite.
Ground-level and partially elevated releases were evaluated using joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction measured at the 10.7 m level by atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperature gra-dient between the 10.7 m and 97 m levels). Elevated releases were evaluated using joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction at the 97 m level by atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperature gradient between the 10.7 m and 97 m levels). Table 5 presents the calculated values of relative concentration (X/Q) and relative deposition (D/Q) for specific points of interest.
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent categories:
- 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents
1 9
to the Missouri River, 2)' pathways associated with noble gases released' to the atmosphere, and 3) pathways associated with radiofodines, 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.(15)
.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 the Cooper Nuclear Station into the Missouri River, drinking water (7301/yr) from the vicinity of the discharge, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr).
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 or site boundary having the highest dose.
The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.71 miles N rela-tive to the Cooper Nuclear Station. The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at the same location.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radioiodine, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the
I maximum exposed individual. For this evaluation,.the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant living the entire year at a residence 3.7 miles NW of the Cooper Plant, who drinks milk (3301/yr) from a cow at the same location.
l 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 and 10 mrem, respectively, in confomance with Section II. A of Appendix I.
I Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the ' calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the j
appropriate 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, and 20 mrad, respectively, in conformance with Section II.B of Appendix I.
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/Q) 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 in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I.
Rather than perform 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 amend-ment to Appendix I (RM 50-2). As shown in Table 1, the calculated release of radioactive material in liquid effluents is less than 5 Ci/yr, excluding tritium and dissolved noble gases. As given in Table 2, the calculated quantity of Iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents is less than 1 Ci/yr.
j The calculated doses for Cooper Nuclear Station are less than the dose design objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and therefore, satisfy the require-ments of Section II.D of Appendix 1.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems, installed at the Cooper Ndclear 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 re-quirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable.
d The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems i
installed at Cooper Nuclear 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 I
not exceed the numerical dose design objectives of Section II. A, II.8, and S
i 1 II.C of Appendix I' to 10 CFR Part 50. 'in addition,' the staff's evalua-tion has shown that the radwaste systems staisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and, therefore, satisfy the requirements of Sec-I tion II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed 1bove, that:
(1) because the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a signifi-
.)
cant increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considared and does not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed mannet, 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.
1 II. Environmental Impact Appraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Cooper Nuclear Station, located in the state of Nebraska, in Nemaha County, at power levels up to 2381 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the Unit.
Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action, it does not affect the benefits of alectric power production considered ne the captioned facility in the Commission's Final i
Environmental State.'ent (FE51 for Cooper Nuclear Station, Docket No. 50-298.
r 13 -
The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits wi.ll not significantly 1
change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Cooper Nuclear Station.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is reasonably achievable." If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives in a quarter, the licensee must:
(1) identify the causes, (2) initiate a program to reduce the releases, and (3) report these actions to the NRC. The revised Technical Specifications specify that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Section II. A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be. prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
t Dated:
i
__.___________________________O
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-298-NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT NOTICEOF' ISSUANCE0FNMENDMENTTOFACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amend-ment No.
to Facility Operating License No. DPR-46, issued to Nebraska Public Power District, for revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Cooper Nuclear Station, located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
This amendment to the Technical Specifications will (1) implement the require-ments of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for the quarterly and annual average release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with Commission regulations.
The application for the snendment 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 re-quired by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazard consideration.
I w-________________
- - The ' Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal 'for the' re-vised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment be-j yond that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility, dated February 1973.
For further details, with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments, dated
, (2) Amendment No.
to License No. DPR-46, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and Environ-mental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC, 20555, and at the Auburn Public Library, Auburn, Nebraska.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisson, Washington, DC, 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Operating Reactors 4
a
f.
1 i
REFERENCES 1.
l Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Federal Register, V. 40, p.19942,
- 1.. May 5, 1972.
2.
Title 10 CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paragraph II.D of Appendix I, Federal 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:
Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for 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, DC, February 20, 1974.
4 Response to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Correspondence: Cooper Nuclear Station. Letter of Transmittal, June 4,1976.
Enclosed Evaluation of Cooper Nuclear Station to Demonstrate Conformance to the Design Objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, dated June 1976.
5.
Additional Information for Appendix I Evaluation for Cooper Nuclear Station, Letter of Transmittal, February 14, 1977.
6.
Additional Information for Appendix I Evaluation for Cooper Nuclear Station, Letter of Transmittal, June 27, 1977.
7.
Additional Infonnation for Appendix I Evaluation for Cooper Nuclear Station, Letter of Transmittal, November 14, 1977.
8.
Additional Information for Appendix I Evaluation for Cooper Nuclear Station, Letter of Transmittal, February 8,1977.
9.
Nebraska Public Power District, Final Safety Analysis Report, Cooper Nuclear Station, February 26, 1971, Docket No. 50-298,
- 10. Staff of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, in the Matter of Nebraska Public Power District," Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska. Docket No. 50-298, February 14, 1973.
- 11. Staff of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Cooper Nuclear Station, Nebraska Public Power District." Docket No. 50-298, February 1973.
- 12. NUREG-0016. " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
- 13. NUREG-0324, "X00D0Q, Program for the Meterological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations," (DRAFT).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC, August 1977.
14 Staff of the U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Disper-sion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled 1
Reactors," Revision 1, July 1977.
- 15. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Average Dose to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977.
I L
4
TABLE 1
' "' "C5LCULNTED REliEASES'0F RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM COOPER NUCLEAR STATION Nuclide Ci /Y r_ '
Nuclide Ci/Yr Corrosion and Activation Products Na-24 6.7(-2)a Nb-97 3.0(-5)
P-32 2.5(-3)
Nb-98 8.6(-3)
Cr-51 6.4(-2)
Mo-99 2.2(-2)
Mn-54 1.8(-3)
Tc-99m
- 1. 0( -1 )
Mn-56 1.5(-1 )
Tc-101
- 1. 6 ( -1 )
Fe-55 1.3(-2)
Ru-103-4.0(-4)
Fe-59 3.9(-4)
Rh-103m 2.1(-4)
Co-55 6.6(-3)
Tc-104
- 1. 5 ( -1 )
Co-60 1.4(-2)
Ru-105 7.8(-3)
Ni-63 1.0(-5)
Rh-105m 3.5(-3)
Ni-65 9.1(-4)
Rh-105 1.4(-3)
Cu-64 2.1(-1)
Ru-106 2.4(-3).
In-65 2.6(-3)
Rh-106 3.0(-5)
In-69m.
1.4(-2)
Ag-110m 4.5(-4)
In-63 9.6(-3)
Te-129m 5.1(-4)
Zr-9G-1.4(43)
Te-129 2.7(-4)
Nb-95 2.0(-3)
Te-131m
- 9. 5 ('-4 )
W-187 2.7(-3)
Te-131 1.3(-4)
Np-239 7.7(-2)-
I-131 6.7(-2)
Te-132 1.1(-4)
Fission Products I-132
- 1. 0( -1 )
I-133
- 1. 9 (-1 )
Br-83 1.0(-2)
I-134
- 1. 7 ( -1 )
Br-84 1.1(-2)
'Cs-134 3.0(-2)
Br-85 5.3(-3)
I-135 1.1 (-1 )
Rb-89 1.1(-1)'
Cs-136 -
1.1(-2)
Sr-89 1.3 -3)
Cs-137 6.3(-2)
Sr-90 8.0 -5)
Ba-137m 6.9(-4)
Sr-91 2.4 -2)
Cs-138 2.6(-1)
Y-91m 8.6 -3)
Ba-139 2.4(-2)
Y-91 6.8(-4)
Ba-140 5.0(-3) j Sr-92 3.1 -2)
La-140 9.8(-4)
Y-92 3.1 -2)
Ba-141 1.9(-2)
Y-93 2.5 -2)
La-141 9.5(-4)
Zr-95 9.0(-5)
Ce-141 4.1(-4) i Nb-95 9.0(-5)
Ba-142 1.1(-2) i Zr-97 4.0(-5)
La-142 1.3(-2)
Nb-97m 3.0(-5)
Ce-143
'2.9(-4)
Pr-143 5.1(-4) l
?
I k
e
_.j
[
TABLE 1 (continued)
Nuclide_
Ci/Yr Fission Product cont'd Ce-144
,.5.2(-3)
P r-144 3.0(-5)
Nd-147 4.0(-5) l All Others 1.0(-5) 1 Total (except tritium) 2.4 Tritium 31 a = Exponential notation; 1.5(-3) = 1.5 X 10-3 e
4 a
e
TABLE 2
' CALCULATED' RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE M'TERIALS IN A
GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM COOPER NUCLEAR STATION (C1/yr)
Building Ventilation Ej ctor a
Nuclide Reactor Turbine Radwaste' Offgases Vent Pump Totals Kr-83m a
a a-a 36 a
36 Kr-85m 6
68 a
a 62 a
140 Kr-85 a
a a
190 a
a 190 Kr-87
.6 130 a
a 210 a
350 Kr-88 6
230 a
a 210
'a 450 Kr-89 a
a a
a
.1000 a
1000 Xe-131m a
a a
a a
a a
Xe-133m-a a
a a
3 a
3 Xe-133 130 250 10 a
85 2300 2800 Xe-135m 92 650 a
a 26 a
770 Xe-135 68 630 45 a
230 350 1300 Xe-137 a
a a
a 1200 a
-1200 Xe-138 14 1400 a
a 870 a
2300 Total Noble Gases 11,000 I-131 3.4(- b :1.9 -
5-a 3.4(-2) 3(-2) 6.4(-1)
.I-133 1.4 7.6 -
1.8 -
a 1.3(-1) a 24 Cr-51 6-1.3 -
9-a c
c 1.4 -2)
Mn-54 6-6-4)
.3(-4 e
c c
6.9 -3)
Fe-59 8-5 -4) 1.5(-4 e
c c
1.4 -3)
'Co-58 1.2 -
6-4.5 -
c c
c 1.8 -3)
Co-60' 2-2-
9-c c
c 2.3 -2 '
i Zn-65 4-2-
1.5 -
c c
c 4.2 -
Sr-89 1.8 -
'6-4.5 -
c c
c 6.2 -
Sr-90 1-2-
3-c c
c 3.3 -
Zr-95 8-1 -4) 5 -7) e c
c 9.0 -
1 Sb-124 4-3 -4) 5 -7) c c
c 7.0 -
Cs-134 8-3 -4 4.5 -5) c c
3-8.3 -
f Cs-136 6-5-
4.5 -6) c c
2-6.6 -
Cs-137 1.1 -
6-9 -5) c c
1-1.2 -
Ba-140 8-1.1 -
1 -6) c c
1.1 -
1.2 -
Ce-141 2-6-
2.6 -5) c c-c 8.3 -4)
C-14 1.5 8
9.5 H-3 31 Ar-41 25 25 a - less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 10-4 Ci/yr for iodine.
b - exponential notation; 3.4(-1) = 3.4 x 10-1 c - less than 1% of total for nuclide.
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS'USED IK CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM COOPER NUCLEAR STATION Reactor Power Level (MWt) 2486 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 5
Primary Coolant System 5
Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 4.3 x 105
{
Cleanup Demineralized Flow (1bs/hr) 1.0 x 10 y
Steam Flow Rate (lbs/hr) 1.02 x 10 Number of Main Condenser Shells 2
Air Inleakage to Main Condenser cfm/shell 10 Building Ventilation System Decontamination Factors HEPA Filter,cParticulates 100 Charcoal Adsorber, Iodines 10 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Offgas System (hrs)*
0.0 Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.029 Decontamination Factors (DF)
I Cs, Rb Other Nuclides High Purity System 10f 10l 10 10 Low Purity System 10 2
3 4
4 Chemical Waste System 10 10 10 3
4 4
Regenerant Solution 10 10 10
- Prior to processing by the offgas treatment system.
/
l l
l l
IJ s
Y
t.
p I
TABLE 4
SUMMARY
OF OPERATING DATA FOR COOPER NUCLEAR STATION (Ci/yr) a LIQUID EFFLUENTS 1975 1976 1977 Total Fission and Activation Products 1.7 0.66 0.75 Total Tritium 8
8 9
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS Total Noble Gases 20,000 38,000 1,300 Total Iodine-131 0.022 0.027
.013 Total Particulate 0.031 0.011 0.0049 Total Tritium 43 67 50 g?$h aSource: Semi-Annual Effluent Release Reports e
I
y~
TABLE 5 RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q') AND DEPOSITION VALUES (D/Q)..USED FOR DOSE CALCULATIONS.
Distance X/Q D/Q Receptor Type D_irection (miles)
Release Type (sec/ meters )
(meters-2) 3 Site Boundary N
0.71 Stack - Cont.
1.2 x 10-7 9.7 x 10-9 Reactor Bldg &
1.5 x 10-6 1.8 x 10-8 Turbine Bldg -
(
Continuous Stack - purge 2.3 x 10-7 1.9 x 10-8 Mech. Vac Pump -
4 at 24 hrs each/
year Stack - parge 2.6 x it,'
2.1 x 10-8 Drywell -
24 at 2 hrs each/
year Residence and NW 3.7 Reactor Bldg. &
1.1 x 10-7 4.4 x 10-10 Milk Cow Turbine Bldg. -
k Continuous Stack - purge 4.8 x 10-7 2.3 x 10-9 Mech Vac Pump 4 at 24 hrs each/
year Stack - purge 6.5 x 10-7 3.2 x 10-9 Drywell 24 at 2 hrs each/yr Stack - Cont.
6.1 x 10-8 3.0 x 10-10 b^
S 4
5 I
yrog e
tac s
i h
t o
t s
d es r
r r r r
r r
e D.
o y
y y y y
y y
d I
3 D
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
d m
m d d m
m m
a I
N d
e e
a a e
e e
N M
e r
r r r r
r r
n O
U t
m m
m m m
m m
e I
L a
e OT O
l 2
b TC C
u 6
0 6 1 7
e E
c 0
2 8 5 5
1 7
v IS la 0
0 0 0 0
1 2
a h
XD C
I N m
DA u
N i
g t
P) i P5 r
A7 9 s
e e
e e e
e e
T Hg e
t t
t t t
t t
T
)
v i
i i i i
i i
d I
,5 i
s s
s s s
s s
n W57 t
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
a 9
2 c
r r
r r r
r r
,Y1 b e y
y y y y
y y
4 NA N
xj
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
1 M
eb m
m d d m
m m
OM I(4 U
nO e
e a a e
e e
n T
L n
r r
r r r
r r
o O
An m
m m m m
m m
b A C.R 6
r T
C g
E SIE i
5 5
0 0 5
5 5
a L
I B s
1 2 1
1 C
B R
M e
d A
ADE D
T ENT LAP 5
C E
7 U
,S 9
N 8. (
1 RI X s
t t
t t t
t t
EIE e
i i
i i i
i i
v n
n n n n
n n
5 4
,N P
N i
u u
u u u
u u
7 O
a t
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
9 r
O A.A C
l c r
r r r r
r r
1 e
I 1
e y
y y y y
y y
bm FI xj
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
O N
ib m
m d d m
m m
5 e
S M
dO e
e a a e
e e
t NN U
n r
r r r r
r r
y p
OO L
en m
m m m m
m m
a e
SI O
pg M
S IT C
pi 3
0 0 0 5
5 5
RC As 1
1 2 1
1 AE e
2 6
l PS D
4 1
4 8
M 9
0 O,
1 4
C0 5
y o
l i
l p
p l
T R
d a
n o
A m
ae P
o m
Rh m
0 0
r o
f t
o 4
4 s
R f
r o
r r
e F
f eo f
s C
y y
n ht V
V a
d n
s r
d a
t n
g 0
o a
t i r o Od a
b f
e g
r r
e 1
b g
n a
i n
s r
e a
l o
d s r
e e
l o
t l s os u
n l a na o
t t
b i
n ay y
l i n au n ae s
s o
r e
t a ya f
i td il l
y i
i n
e u
ow nw f
e oi k a sg n
g g
t l
th ah E
s e t v su eRe as e
e o
i f
t t
o s i
d n
r
.y R
R t
r f
oa oa s
d o od oi i se oa C
E t p t p a
d t n t v d eh t w l
l d
od p h
a a
e G
a i
i d
el el m a e ed ii s et r
r t
i sl sl e
m t
sn sn ol o sa e
e i
cm op d
d m
u oa oa l
a e oa oi i
q D
D b
C B D D
d ut D
e e
i i
o anA F
F L
L N
R a
b c
.