ML20237B621

Forwards Draft Safety Evaluation & Eia & Notice of Issuance of Amend to OL & Negative Declaration,Supporting Installed Radwaste Treatment Sys in Unit,Per 10CFR50,App I

ML20237B621
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	12/06/1977
From:	Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8712170007
Download: ML20237B621 (23)

Text

.

NUCLEAR RE U T RY COMMISSION "s"*=====

1

[g,j'

..... +

uA

, . Docket No. 50-321 MEMORANDUM FOR: G. Lear, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No.' 3,.

Division of Operating Peactors FROM: John T. Collins, Chief, Effluent Treatment Systems. Branch, Division of edafetycan ronmental Analysis.

SUBJECT:

DSE EVALUAE DN O bEDWINTID.H jATCUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT,.

H0.1, WITH RESPECTD01APPEtm1x'I T010 CFR PART 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Edwin I. Hatch Huclear Plant, with respect to the requirements of Appendix I. .The results of our evaluation are contained -in the attached " Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Apprai sal . " He have also attached a draft " Notice of Issuance of. Amend-ment to Facility Operating Licenses and Negative Declaration."

Based on our. evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste. treatment systems installed at Hatch, Unit No.1, 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 E-Appendix I..

i On March 29, 1977, DSE transmitted to ELO an HRC Staff Report entitled,

" Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements of Appendix I to I 10 CFR Part 50 to Nuclear Power Plants Whose Applications Were Docketed l- Before January 2,1971." This report provides the staff's justification for using the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I, rather than than performing a detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I. 'On August 17, 1977, we received ELD comments on this report and we are currently preparing a HUREG report which will document our findinos. When this report is completed, we will forward to you a paragraph to be inserted on page 1 of the enclosed Safety Evaluation, providing justi-fication for the use of the September 4,1975, option to the cost-benefit analysis.

B712170007 77120b PDR ADOCK 05000321 j P PDR

'[ C. Lear DEC- 6 1977 1

j

- When the inodel effluent radiological Standard Technical Specifications, currently under developr.'ent, have been approved, they will be foniarded {

to you for transt.<ittal to the licensee.

OR'*IEAL SIOED BY J0c! T. CCLLINS y John T. Collins, Chief _

Effluent Treatment Systems Franch Pivision of Site Safety and Envircre. ental Analysis

Enclosure:

DSE Evaluation cc: H. Denton Distribution:

V. Stello Docket File 50-321 R. Vollner DSE Reading File K. Go11er ETSB Reading File D. Jaffee ETSB Docket File S. t'ovicki JTCollins D. Eisenbut U. Krecer H. Hulcan P.-Grines E. Pfarkee F. Connel W. Burke J. P.oenli DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50-321 DSE Reading File ETSB Docket File ETSB Reading File JTCollins 6

J, . nc

• DSE:SA:k. _DSE:SA:ETSB DMN _D R AHMB DEAM:ETSB

)

• 2i.I75 s -

• JSBoealf [dfL _ M [I__ WdKMr idan dO111ns owve * ._1.U22/h .

l1Dj(177 11/h7 _11/1/77 lI/fp/77 NRC PORM 518 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. oovenwuswt raiwrime orncas este - one.es4

K.. SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' APPRAISAL IBY H *' .-THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

, SUPPORTING AMENDl1ENT NO.. 'TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-57

< ..' - GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, OGLETHORPE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION,.

MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA,

.AND THE CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA

-EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-321 INTRODUCTION.

1 . 0n May 5,1975, .the fl uclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision-in the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for. design objectives

' nd' limiting conditions ~ for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is a

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.U } On September 4,1975, the Commission adopted an amemdment' 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'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 Rt150-2), dated February 20, 1974.I A paragraph will be added which will provide justification for using the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I for application for construction permits filed prior to January 2,1971.

Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 reouires 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

4

. 1 5

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 Georgia Power Company (GPC) filed with the Commission on June 4,1976, and on' August'18,'1976( , 5) - the necessary information to-permit an evalua-tion of the Edwin I. Hatch Huclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, (Docket Nos.

50-321 and 50-366) with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.R, and II.C of Appendix 1. In these submittals, Georgia Power Company provided

' the necessaryLinformation to'show conformance with the Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than perform a detailed cost-benefit analysis.reouired by Section II.D of Appendix I.

By letter dated , GPC submitted proposed chances to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and paseous effluents are "as low as is reesonably 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 NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at i .-

I

l l ..

the Edwin I. Hatch Huclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2; l) to reduce and main-

-tain releases of radioactive materials in liauid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the require-ments of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) tc 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 indivi-dualized cost-benefit analysis as required by Section II.D of Appendix 1.

I. Safety Evaluation The HRC 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, and August 18, 1976, submittal s;

2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); 0}

3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liouid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Edwin I Hatch Huclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 4) the calculation of airborne relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/0) values for the Hatch site region r 5) the calculation of. individual doses in unrestricted 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 1.

, 4 <

1 The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at the Hatch Plant, 'Jnit No.1, have been previously evaluated in Section 11 of the staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report dated May 11, 1973, } and have been described and evaluated in Section III.D.2 of the Final Environmental Statement dated October 1972. Since the Final Environmental Statement for Unit Nos.1 and 2, was issued, there have been no modifications to the radwaste treatment i and effluent control systems that were not evaluated in the Final Safety Evaluation Report for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1. j Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new 1 f avid and gaseous source terms have been generated to deternine 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. In making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary and secondary system and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used l in calculating the new liouid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3.

The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at the Edwin I.

Hatch Plant in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous j

I 1

I

l .

4 ef fl uents. Table 4 provides a summary on liquid and gaseous effluents as reported in the licensee's Semi-Annual Effluent and Waste Disposal covering the period for January 1975 through June 1977.

l l

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, reached initial criticality on l September 12, 1974 and commercial operation on December 31, 1975. The staff does not consider the releases for the year 1975 as being representative of current operatino conditions at the Hatch Huclear Plant. Only those releases reported for the period January 1976, through June 1977, were con-sidered for comparison with calculated releases; however, annual average releases for the year 1975, were included in the sunmary shown in Table 4 for compl eteness.

The actual average liquid release of 0.07 Ci/yr is less than the calculated release of 0.32 Ci/yr for fission and activation products, as shown in Table 1. The actual releases of noble gases in gaseous effluents averaged 2,400 Ci/yr, compared to the calculated release of 31,000 Ci/yr, as shown in Table 2. The actual releases of iodine-131 in gaseous effluents averaged 0.0051 Ci/yr, compared to the calculated release of 0.018 Ci/yr, as shown in Table 2. The lower release rates of fission products, radiciodines and noble gases in actual liquid and gaseous effluents from the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, are due to better fuel performance than the staff assumed in its evaluation.

The calculated releases oiven in Tables 1 and 2 were used in the staff's dose assessment discussed below. >

l

1. . .

The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmosphere dispersion con-ditions for the Hatch site region using an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term releases. The model used by the staff is based upon the " Straight-Line Trajectory flodel" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111."I}

This evaluation is different from and replaces the evaluation given 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 th ) 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 maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and temporal varia-tion 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 June 1970 and August 1974; these data are reasonably representative of long term condi-tions expected at the site.

The staff's dose assessment considered the followino three effluent cate-pories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liouid effluents to the Altamaha River, 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.

L I.

.The . mathematical models used by the staff to perform the dose calculations

~

to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory-Guide 1.109.II2I 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 Hatch site into-the Altamaha River and use of- the shoreline for recreational purposes -

(10 hr/yr).

The d'ose 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 ~0.94 miles WSW relative

.to the Hatch site. 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 maximum exposed individual. For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant residing 2.9 miles HHE of the Hatch site and consuming milk (330 liters /yr) from a cow at the same location.

Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liouid 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

s

.: N g -

and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II. A of.

Appendix 1.

.Using' the: dose assessment parameters noted above,'the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the appro-

'priate relative concentration (X/0) value given in Table 5, the staff j celculated 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.

Using ~the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of i

radiciodine, carbon-14, tritiun, and pa'rticulates given.in Table 2,'and the i appropriate relative concentration-(X/0) and deposition (D/0) values given:in

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

The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and

. modify those given in Table V-2 of the FES.

Rather than performing an individualized cost-benefit analysis reouired by Section II.D of Appendix 1, 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,

_9_

f excluding 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/

reac tor. . The calculated doses for the Edwin I. Hatch Plant, Unit No.1, are less than the-dose design objectives set forth in Rt150-2, therefore, satisfy the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix 1.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at the Edwin I. Hatch tluclear Plant, Unit No.1, are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accord-ance.with the requirements of 10 CFP, Part 50.34a, and therefore, are  !

. acceptabl e.

i I

The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Edwin I. Hatch t!uclear Plant, Unit No.1. 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 calculated individual doses are less than the numerical dose design objectives of Section II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

I In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the radwaste systems

(

!. satisfy the design objectives set forth in Ri150-2 and, therefore, satisfy I the requirements of Section II.D 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

. . _ e

Kln .c ,

U, - . '

1

. increase in the. probability of consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there 1.s reason ,

able. assurance that the' health _and safety of the public will 'not be endangered

- by operation 'in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compli'a nce with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

II. Environmental Impact Appraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, located in the State of Georgia, in Appling County, at power levels up to 2436 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 reactor. 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 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-321.

The revised liouid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1.

The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is

l &

l 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 HRC. The revised Technical Specifications specify that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective avantities set forth in Sections II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix 1.

Conclusion and Basis for Heaative 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 eifect is appropriate.

Dated:

i i

1

)

l t i

V

, REFERENCES

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

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 Dr. sign 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, D.C., . February 20, 1974.

4. " Dose Calculations to Conform with Appendix I Requirements, Edwin I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1," Docket No. 50-321, Georgia Power Company, June 4,1976. Supplement by Letter of Transmittal, dated August 18, 1976.

5. " Dose Calculations to Conform with Appendix I Requirements, Edwin I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2," Docket No. 50-366, Georgia Power Company, June 4, 1976. Supplement by Lett;r of Transmittal, dated August 18, 1976.

6. Georgia Power Company, "Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, Final . Safety Analysis Report," through Amendment No. 55, dated January 9,1976.

7. U.S Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, " Safety Evalua-tion Report for the Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1," Docket No. 50-?21 Washington, D.C., May 11, 1973. Supplement No.1, dated December 10, 1973, Supplement No. 2, dated tiay 9,1974, and Supplement No. 3, dated August 5, 1974.

8. U.S. Atomic Ene gy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, " Final Environmental Statement for the Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1 (OL) and Unit No. 2 (CP), Georgia Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-321/366," Washington, D.C., October .- 7 2 . ,

i

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

10. NUREG-0324, "X00D0Q, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, (DRAFT)." U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., September 1977.

l

1 i

• l

_2

11. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111, j

" Methods' for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous 1 Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," Rev.1, l July 1977.

{

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

" Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR-Part 50, Appendix I," Rev.1, October 1977.

l

TABLE 1

(. CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN

• - LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 Nuclide Ci/yr/ reactor Nuclide Ci/yr/ reactor Corrosion & Activation Fission Products Products (continued)

Na-24' 1.2(-2)a,b Ru-103 1.9(-4)

P-32 4.7(-4) Rh-103m 5(-5)

Cr-51 1.2(-2) Ru-105 9.5(-4)

Mn-54 1.1(-3) Rh-105m 9.6(-4)

Mn-56 9.6(-3) Rh-105 3.3(-4)

Fe-55 2.4(-3) Ru-106 2.4(-3)

Fe-59 7(-5) Ag-110m 4.4(-4)

Co-58 4.5(-3) Te-129m 1(-4)

Co-60 9.7(-3) Te-129 6(-5)

Ni-65 6(-5) Te-131m 1.8(-2)

, Cu-64 3.8(-2) Te-131 3(-5)

Zn-65 4.8(-4) 1-131 1.8(-2)

Zn-69m 2.7(-3) Te-132 2(-5)

Zn-69 2.8(-3) I-132 6.6(-3)

Zr-95 1.4(-3) 1-133 5.l(-2)

Nb-95 2(-3) I-134 5.9(-4)

W-187 5.1(-4) Cs-134 1.5(-2)

Np-239 1.4(-2) I-135 2.4(-2)

Cs-136 1.3(-3)

Fission Products Cs-137 2.9(-2)

Ba-137m 4.4(-3)

Br-83 7.3(-4) Cs-138 5(-5)

Sr-89 2.4(-4) Ba-139 3.7(-4)

Sr-90 .l(-5) Ba-140 9.4(-4)

Sr-91 4.2(-3) La-140 1.6(-4)

Y-91m 2.7(-3) La-141 2.7(-4)

Y-91 1.3(-4) Ce-141 8(-5)

Sr-92 2.l(-3) La-142 3(-4)

Y-92 5.9(-3) Ce-143 6(-5)

Y-93 4.4(-3) Pr-143 9(-5)

Zr-95 2(-5) Ce-144 5.2(-3) .l All Others 5(-5)

Mo-99 4.2(-3) Total (except 3.2(-1)

Tc-99m 1.6(-2) H-3)

H-3 32 a = exponential notation; 1.2(-2) = 1.2 x 10-2

-5 Ci/yr/ reactor are b = nuclides whose release rates are less than 10 not listed individually but are included in the category "All Others" t

I TABLE 2 ]

l 4 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN i I

GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NO. 1 (Ci/yr/ reactor)

Air Ejector Mech 1 Reactor Turbine Radwaste Gland Waste Vac Nuclides, Bldg. Bldg. Bldg. Seal Gas Pump Total Kr-83m a a a 37 36 a 73 Kr-85m 6 68 a 63 3400 a 3500 Kr-85 a a a a 200 a 200 Kr-87 6 130 a 220 8 a 360 Kr-88 6 230 a 220 2200 a 2700 Kr-89 a a a 930 a- a 930 Xe-131m a a a a 71 a 71 Xe-133m a a a 3 48 a 51 Xe-133 130 250 10 87 15,000 2300 18,000 Xe-135m 92 650 a 26 a a 770 '

Xe-135 68 630 45 240 a 350 1300 Xe-137 a a a 1100 a a 1100 Xe-138 14 1400 a 870 a a 2300 I-131 3.4(-2)b 1.9(-2) 5(-3) 3.5(-2) a 3(-2) 1.2(-1)

I-133 1.4(-1) 7.6(-2) 1.8(-2) 1.5(-1) a a 3.7(-1)

Cr-51 6(-6) 1.3(-4) 9(-5) c c c 2.3(-4)

Mn-54 6(-5) 6(-6) 3(-4) c c c 3.7(-4)

Fe-59 8(-6) 5(-6) 1.5(-4) c c c 1.6(-4)

C0-58 1.2(-5) 6(-5) 4.5(-5) c c c 6.3(-5)

Co-60 2(-4) 2(-5) 9(-4) c c c 1.1(-3)

Zn-65 4(-5) 2(-6) 1.5(-5) c c c 5.7(-5)

Sr-89 1.8(-6) 6(-5) 4.5(-6) c c c 6.6(-5)

Sr-90 1(-7) 2(-7) 3(-6) c c c 3.3(-6)

Zr-95 8(-6) 1(-6) 5(-7) c c c 9.5(-6)

Sb-124 8(-6) 3(-6) 5(-7) ,

c c c 7.5(-6)

Cs-134 8(-5) 3(-6) 4.5(-5) c 3(-6) c 1.3(-4)

Cs-136 6(-6) 5(-7) 4.5(-6) c 2(-6) c 1.3(-5 Cs-137 1.1(-4) 6(-6) 9(-5) c 1(-5) c 2.2(-4 Ba-140 8(-6) 1.l(-4) 1(-6) c 1.l(-5) c 1.3(-4 Ce-14i 2(-6) 6(-6) 2.6(-5) c c c 3.4(-5)

C-14 1.5 a a a 8 a 9.5 H-3 - - - - - -

32 Ar-41 25 c c c c c 25 a = less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases and carbon-14; less than 10-4 Ci/yr/ reactor for iodine, b = exponential notation; 3.4(-2) = 3.4 x 10-2 c = less than 1% of total for nuclide

__ ____________-__-____Q

~.

TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS

'FROM HATCH, UNIT NO. 1 (PER REACTOR)

Reactor Power Level (MWt) 2537 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Fraction of Fuel Releasing Radioactivity to the Primary Coolant Noble Gases 60,000 uCi/sec for 3,400 MWt after 30 mins.

Iodine-131 (independent of power level) 5 x 10 -3 uCi/gm Primary Coolant System Weight of liquid in reactor vessel (1b) 4.57 x 10 5 Cleanup demineralized flow (lb/hr) 1.0 x 105 Steam. flow rate (lb/hr) 1.05 x 107 Condenserairinleakage(scfm) 20 Condensate demineralized flow-(lb/hr) 1.05 x 107 Dilution Flow (gal / min) 12,000 Iodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid)

Steam / liquid in the reactor vessel 0.02 Fraction of Iodine Getting Through Condensate demineralized 0.01 Cleanup demineralized 0.1 Holdup Times Holdup pipe 30 min Charcoal delay krypton 0.76 days Charcoal delay xenon 13.5 days Decontamination Factors I Cs Others Waste collection system (high 2 2

purity) 10 10 10 Floor drain neutralizer system 2 2 (low purity) 10 2 10 Chemical waste system 103 104 104 l All Nuclides Except Iodine Iodine Waste Evaporator DF 104 104 Demineralized Type ~(ion Ca ~

Anion ~Cs, Rb Mixed-Bed-Deep-Bed on Clean Waste 2

(H + OH) DFa 10 (10) 102(10') 10(10)

Mixed-Bed-Deep-Bed on Floor Drain 2

102 (10)

(H + OH) DFa 10 (10) 2(10) l Mixed Bed (Powdex) DF 10 10 2 j

• TABLE 3 (continued)

Dynamic Adsorption Coefficients Cm3 /gm Kr(operatingtemperature77F, dewpoint 45F) 18.5 Xe (operating' temperature 77 F, dew point 45 F) 330 aFor two demineralizers in series, the DF for the second demineralized is given in parentheses, i

l l

l I

I _ - - - - - - - -

TABLE 4

SUMMARY

OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES

• - FROM EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N0. 1 Docket No. 50-321 Ci/Yr a

1975 1977c Annual Averagel Radioactive Waste JNon-Com. Power) 1976 (6 months) (1/2 yr period)!

Liquid Effluent Release Data Total Fission & Activation 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.07 l Products Total Tritium 6.1 9.0 7.0 11.5 Gaseous Effluent Release Data Total floble Gases 270 3100 860 2400 Total Iodine-131 2.3(-4)d 3.l(-3) 3.5(-3) 5.1(-3)

Total Particulate 1.8(-4) 4.5(-4) 5.4(-4) 7.7(-4)

Total Tritium 1.8 1.4 0.6 1.3 a

NUREG-0218 " Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants (1975)"

NRC, Washington D.C., March 1977, compiled from data in the Effluent and Waste Disposal Semi-Annual Reports for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1,1st and 2nd quarters 1975, and 3rd and 4th quarters 1975, Georgia Power Company.

b From data in the Effluent and Waste Disposal Semi-Annual Reports for Edwin I.

Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, 1st and 2nd quarters 1976, and 3rd and 4th quarters 1976, Georgia Power Company, c Data from Effluent and Waste Disposal Semi-Annual Report for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1, 1st and 2nd quarters 1977, Georgia Power Company.

d Exponential notation; 2.3(-4) = 2.3 x 10-4 TABLE 5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND (D/Q)

DEPOSITION VALUES USED FOR DOSE CALCULATIONS Distance X/Q 3

D/Q

~2 Receptor Type _ pirection (miles) Release Type (sec/ meters )_ (meters Site Boundary WSW 0.94 Plant Vent - continuous 1.8 x 10~0 2.2 x 10 Plant Vent - 4 24-hr prgs 4.5 x 10 ~7 4.6 x 10~

Stack - continuous 1.2 x 10 ~7 1.4 x 10~

flNE 2.9 Plant Vent - continuous 2.6 x 10-7 1.5 x 10]

e ik ~7 Plant Vent - 4 24-hr prgs 2.9 x 10 6.1 x 10]

Stack - continuous 4.5 x 10-8 1.1 x 10^

_ t t tt t t t i i ii i i i

. s n n nn n ir n

. e u u uu u u u s / / // / / /

D. o r r rr r r r I 3 D y y yy y y y O I / / // / / /

T N d m m dd m m m N M e e e aa e e e I

O U t r r rr r r r X

I L a m m mm m m m I T O l D C C u 6 2 1 N E c 1 0 45 9 8 .

E S l 3

P a 1 2 01 0 1 P D C A NA H

Ta I )

W57

, 9 s e e ee e e e 1 1 e t t tt t t t v i i ii i i i s

. , i s s ss s s Og t / / // / / /

N ) 2 c r r rr r r r Y5 b e y y yy y y y T A7 N xj / / // / / /

I M9 M eb m m dd m m m N(1 U nO e e aa e e e U L n r r rr r r r C ,

O An g

m m mm m m m 4 C 6 T I i ' 5 5 00 5 5 5 1

N I R s 1 2 1 E A E e L L DB D B P NM A R AE T A T

,P E

L 8. S E s .

C I( 5 U I s t t tt t t t 7 N X e i i ii i i i 9

,E v n n nn n n n 1 l

u u uu u u u A. N1 ^ i l

C I t / // / / / ,

T I A f

1 c r r rr r r r 5 A I xe y y yy y y y H N ij / / // / / / y S M db m m dd m m m a N U nO e e aa e e e M I

O L e r r rr r r r N I O pn m m mm m m m 2

I T C pg 0 00 5 5 5 4 WC Ai s

3 1 2 1 1 4 D E 1 9

E S e 1 D

F O 0 o p i

5 N d O T a ,

S R R e m 0 I A h o 4 R P rt r A e f .

P R ys s y n h o V M F d yny s r dl a tt n O C caaa t i roa O a g r C b wgw n aib uf d 0 n s h rh e a d o d e r e 1 o t l t ot u n li ns os t i n aa a l i navn aa y s r e t pyp f itiil e ya i e u o n f e odk a sl nw g e

t l tl al E set nsu eg ah i f l l os i d nR e t R r f oaoa s d oo oi i r oa C E t t a dt nt v d se t p l m m G a a i oeh a d eoeo mae ed i d p el r i srs r e mt sf s n ois sl e

_ il o oa d u of of l aeoooi e

_ q D D b GBD D d cm D i o aut F

- R nA "

_ L N

w.

, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t1 MISSION 00CKET NO. 50-321 1

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO.'1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, OGLETHORPE ELECTRIC met 1BERSHIP CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, AND-THE CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA-X NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATIt1G LICENSES

'AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment'No. to Facility. Operating License No. DPR-57, issued to Georgia Power Conpany, Oglethorpe Electric tiembership' Corporation, Municipal Electric Association.of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia for revised l

Technical -Specifications for operaticfi of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, located near Baxley, Appling County, Georgia. The amendments-are effective as of. the date of 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 ouarterly and' annual ,

average release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs  ;

to assure conformance with Conmission regulations.

4 The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atonic 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

. public notice of' these amendments was not reouired since the amendments do i not involve a significant hazards considerations, i

1

)

b

[6 ]

1 1

The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ- f mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the cuality of the human environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described in the Connission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated October 1972.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated , (2) Amendment No. to License No. DPR-57, and (3) the Comission'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 Appling County Public Library, Parker Street, Baxley, Georgia, 31513. 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 Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors

._ - -