ML20237B625

Forwards Draft Safety Evaluation & Eia Supporting Amend to License DPR-63 & Concluding That Installed Radwaste Treatment Sys Capable of Maintaining Releases of Radioactive Matls in Effluents Alara.Draft Issuance Notice Also Encl

ML20237B625
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	11/03/1977
From:	Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8712170010
Download: ML20237B625 (24)

Text

_ __

gr 4 g.

, j '

. w y j y g /M 7 -l NOV 3 1977 Docket No. 50-220 MEMORANDUM FOR: G. Lear, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 3, DDR FRDM:' J. T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, DSE l 1

SUBJECT:

DSE EVALUATION OF NINE MILE POINT, UNIT NO.1, WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I T0.10 CFR PART 50

\ .

Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Nine Mile Point Unit No.1 with respect to the require-ments of Appendix !. The results of our evaluation are contained in the attached " Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal." We have also attached a draft "Hotice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating h Licenses and Negative Declaration."

L Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Nine Mile Point are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in confomance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and conforms.

to the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B. II.C, and II.D of Appendix I. ,.

When the model effluent radiological Technical Specifications, currently

, under development, have been approved they will be forwarded to you for transmittal to the licensee.

OR 0INAL SIGNED BY -

JOHN T. COLLINS John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Systems Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

~

Enclosure:

DSE Evaluation DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 50-220 cc: H. Denton NRR Reading File Y. Stello '

DSE Reading File R. Vollmer -

ETSB Docket File 50-2.20 K. Go11er ETSB Reading File 8712170010 771103 JTCollins PDR ADOCK 0500 2 0 ,

P .

R d kl ~

arric= * ..DSE; sad.ISB_. ..DS.E;h HMB .. . ;.5 - .SR...

.DSE;.Sg

.va a = * . RW. ell.er_:.do . WCBut.e WEKreger ._ L an._ ..._ allins.. .

. omvs > . .}M/32[.7.2... ..].M/2h /lb _}O[26212... 10/3lR7... _.1 IJ..../LL..

SM GTE3 MO (%903 SSM3 @H0 @coacscoeocrooca paum s orricae is?.-.a s4 ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___j_

,- r.

G. Lear NOV 3 1977 cc: Continued S. Nowicki D. Eisenhut W. Kreger H. Hulman B. Grimes E. Markeo

F. Congel >

W. Burke R. Weller 9

e k

i w_---.____

SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY

' THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-63 NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 l

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 l 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 Comission by June 4, 1976; 1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity 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 Niagara Mohawk Pcwer Corporation (NMPC) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976,(2) the necessary information to permit an evaluation of Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, with respect to the requirements of Section II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix 1. In this submittal, HMPC chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

t

'? i

.. . o By letter dated , NMPC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1. The proposed

< changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and pro- ,

vide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid p

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 kRC staff's k detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1; 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 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 7 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); 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems des- . /

, cribed in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)I I; 3) a review

=

~\ -

e.

\

1 of the licensee's response to the staff for additional information 4); 4) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents (source terms) for Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1; 5) the calculation of relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/Q) values for the Nine Mile Point site; 6) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and

7) 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 Nuclear Power Reactors."(5) The staff's evalua-

~

tion is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Nine Mile

/

Point, Unit No.1, have been previously described in Section 6.1 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated July 3, 1974,6)I and in Section 3.5 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated January 1974.( }

Since the FES and SER were issued, the licensee has been in the process of modifying the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems to include: 1) the addi- 'y

. >5 tion of a 20 gpm evaporator to the floor drain system; 2) the addition of an ul trasonic resin cleaner for processing condensate demineralized resins;

3) and the addition of a recombiner system, charcoal delay system, and a .

i downstream HEPA filter to the off-gas treatment system. The modifications l noted above were considered in the staff's evaluation.

i l

Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, and on changes in the .

staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been .'

.,'}

{

,, ,(

e l

k" ~

l' .; 1s.

i

_4 ..

. generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix 1. The j new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters describ'ed in NUREG-0016. ' In making these determinations, J the staff considered 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 Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, 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 for January 1971, through June 1977. A summary of these releases is given in .

Table 4.

Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, reached initial criticality on September 5, 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 January 1971, through June 1977, were used in comparing actual releases from Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1.

i

. .y e, 1 -

In addition, the modifications to the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems were not completed until the end 'of.1976. . Only the operating data from the first half of 1977,- therefore can be validly compared.with the staff's calculated-1 releases. The reporte'd releases in liquid effluents for' the- first half of 1977,  !

l extrapolated to. the end of 1977, are 0.46 Gi/yr of total activity (except '

tritium), 0.0062 C1/yr of . iodine-131, and 1 Ci/yr of tritium. In comparison, the corresponding calculated values are 1.0 Ci/yr of total activity (except tritium), 0.042 Ci/yr of iodine-131, and 23 Ci/yr of tritium. The reported releases in gaseous effluents' for the first half of 1977, extrapolated to the end of 1977, are 4,400 Ci/yr of noble gases, 0.17 Ci/yr of iodine-131, 0.054 Ci/yr -

of. particulate, and 31 Ci/yr of tritium. The corresponding calculated values are 9,700 Ci/yr of noble gases, 0.63 Ci/yr of iodine-131, 0.090 Ci/yr of particulate, and 23 Ci/yr of tritium. Except for the liquid tritium release,

, the calculated values for both liquid and gaseous effluents are in fairly good agreement with the reported releases. As additional plant operation with the ,

modified liquid and gaseous radwaste systems is accumulated, the actual releases are expected 'to agree more. closely with the staff's calculated values.

. The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion conditions for the Nine Mile Pt. Nuclear Station using an atmospheric dispersion model for long-term releases (Sagendorf and Goll, draft,1976).(

This model is based on the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors."

\

l

e

i 1 .. -

Based on the criteria established in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the staff assumed l that all gaseous effluents from the plant were elevated releases. The staff ,

evaluated non-continuous and intermittent gaseous releases separately from  !

continuous releases. Also based on the criteria outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the calculations 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 tra,iectory model.

In the evaluation the staff used meteorological data collected onsite. For annual average calculations, the staff used data collected durina 1974 and 1975; for grazing season calculations, the staff used data collected for April through September 1974 and 1975.

Table 5 presents calculated annual-average values of relative concentration (X/Q) and relative deposition (0/0) for specific points of interest. The seasonal values were examined and found not to affect our final conclusions.

The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent categories: -

1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to Lake Ontario, 2) pathways associated with noble pases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere. The mathematical moaels used by the staff j to perform the dose calculations to the maximun exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109.IIII ,

The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liouid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual. For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be

e 1 4*" t <

)

1 an adult whose diet' included the consumption of. fish (21 kg/yr) harvested

'in the immediate:

n vicinity of the discharge from Nine Mile Point One Nuclear Station into the. Lake Ontario, drinking water (7301/yr) from the nearest drinking l water intake at Oswego, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes -(12 hr/yr) .

The dose to the~ population living within fifty miles of the Nine Mile Point One Nuclear Station due to the radioactive materials released in liquid effluents was based on the following parameters: 1) at the year 2000, 1.3

'million people will consume 10 million Kg of fish taken from Lake Ontario, and 2) consume 80 million liters of drinking water from Lake Ontario.

The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses, total body and skin doses, at tne site boundary having the highest dose. The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 1.25 miles E relative to the Nine Mile Point One Nuclear .

Station. ,

l ,

l- The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulate, l

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 1.7 miles ESE of the Nine Mile Point One~ Nuclear Station. The calculated dose to the population living within fifty miles of Nine Mile Point One Nuclear Station due to the releases of t  !

L___ ___

.1 ,-

t on the:following parameters:' 1_) the year 2000 population within fifty miles of Nine Mile Point'0ne Nuclear Station is' estimated to be 1.3 million people;

2); annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles of the station L consists of 620 million liters of milk, 23 million kilograms of meat, and 480 million kilograms;of vegetables (12) ,.. ,

Using th'e 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 mren/ 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 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 / reactor in ,

conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I.

i

l j

_g. .. -

The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Tables 5.4 through 5.7. of the FES.

Section'II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 509I requires that liquid and gaseous-l radwaste systems for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors include all items l of,' reasonably demonstrated technology that', when added to the system sequen- l tially and'in order.of diminishing cost-benefit return, can for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the population 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 1.110(5); 3) the cost parameters -given in Table 8; and 4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110.

For the liquid radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from liauid 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 $1,000 for the total

. body man-rem dose and $2,200 for~ the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 300 gpm demineralized unit to the clean waste system. The calculated cost of $50,300 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values for the liquid radwaste system. The staff con-cludes, 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.

k. 1

.. _. 1

i.  ;

' 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 'mul tiplied by $1,000 per total body! man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid . rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $1,000 and S12,000 for the man-thyr'oid-rem dose.

1 The.most effective augment' was the addition of. a 30,000 cfm Charcoal /HEPA filtration system to the reactor.-

building ventilation exhaust system. The calculated cost of $72,000 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 reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable' cost-benefit ratio, and that the modified gaseous radwaste system meets the requirements of Section II.D~of. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

C0HCLUSION

' Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems' installed at fline title Point, Unit No.1, are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as ' low as is reasonably r.chievable" levels in accordance with the require-ments of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable. l In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the liouid 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 j installed at Nine title Point, Unit No.1. This evaluation has shown

. :: c

.. a' L , -

'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 lessLthan the nmnerical dose l design objectives, of Section II. A, II.B and II.C of. Appendix I: to 10 CFR Part 50. 'In accordance with Section II.D of Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no _ additional augments can be added to the modified systems installed

-at Hine-Mile Point, Unit No.1, that will effect a reduction in dose to the l 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 '

increase.in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered ~

and does not involve a significant hazrrd consideration, (2) there is reason-

'able- assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation' in the propo' sed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance i 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 LThe licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, located in the State of New York, in Oswego County, at power levels up to 1850 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed changes to the

.t= 1 l liquid and ga' s eousLrelease limits will not result in an increase or decrease Lin the oower 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 Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-220.

The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total' quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Nine Mile Point, Unit-No.1.

t The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix ! j

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 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 Sections II. A, '

II.B, and II.C of Appendix I.

j 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 effect is appropriate.

Dated:

C_ _____

l

, ... .- . TABLE 1

~

CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE' MATERIALS IN LIQUIO EFFLUENTS FROM NINE MILE POINT, UNIT NO. 1 Huclide_ Ci/Yr Nuclide Ci/Yr Corrosion and Activation Fission Prouucts Products (cont'd.)

Na-24 0.026 i Ru-105 0.0047 P-32 0.00062 Rh-105m 0.0047

.Cr-51 0.015 .Rh-10 5 0.00021

'Mn-54 0.0012 Ru-106 0.0024  !

Mn-56 0.099 Ag-110m 0.00044 i Fe-55 0.0031 Te-129m 0.00012 Fe-59 0.00009 Te-129 0.00005 Co-58 0.0046 Te-131m 0.0003 Co-60 0.099 Te-131 0.00005 Ni-65 0.00059 I-131 0.042 Cu-64 0.084 Te-132 0.00003 Zn-65 0.00067 I-132 0.081 ,

Zn-69m 0.0056 I-133 0.1 .

Zn-69 0.004 I-134 0.89 Zr-95 0.0014 Cs-134 0.014 Nb-95 0.002 I-135 0.081 W-187 0.00088 Cs-135 0.00061 Np-239 0.021 Cs-137 0.026 Ba-137m 0.00022

, . Fission Products Cs-138 0.066 Ba-139 0.014 Br-83 0.0083 Ba-140 0.0012 Br-84 -

0.0038 La-140 0.00007 .

Br-85 0.00019 Ba-141 0.0037 '

Rb-89 0.016 La-141 0.002 Sr-89 0.00033 Ce-141 0.0001 Sr-90 0.00002 Ba-142 0.0014 Sr-91 0.011 La-142 n.0087 Y-91m 0.0048 Ce-143 . 0.00009 Y-91 0.00014 Pr-143 0.00012 Sr-92 0.02 Ce-144 0.0052 Y-92 0.021 All others 0.00005 Y-93 0.011 Zr-95 0.00002 Total, Nb-95 0.00002 except Tritium 1.0 Zr-97 0.00001 Nb-97m 0.00001 Tritium 23 Nb-98 0.0039 Mo-99 0.006 Tc-99m 0.052 Tc-101 0.026 Ru-103 0.0002 Rh-103m 0.00004 Tc-104 0.03

^

.~. *- TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM NINE MILE POINT, UNIT NO. 1 (Ci/yr)

Building Ventilation Ej or S Nuclide Reactor Turbine. Radwaste Offgases Vent Fumo Totals.

Kr-83m a a a a 25 a 25 Kr-85m 6 68 a 13 44 a 130 Kr-85

~

a a a 140 a a 140 Kr-87 ~ 6 130 a ,a 150 a 290 Kr-88 6 230 a a 150 a 390 Kr-89 a ,

a a a 650 a 650

.Xe-131m a a a 12 a a 12 Xe-133m a a a a 2 a 2 Xe-133 130 250 10 420 60 2300 3200 Xe-135m 92 650 a a 18 a 760 Xe-135 68 630 45 a 170 350 1300 Xe-137 a a a a 790 a 790 Xe-138 14 1400 a a 600 a 2000 Total Noble Gases 9700 I-131 3. 4 (-1) b 1.9(-1) 5(-2) a 1. 7 (-2) 3(-2) 6.3(-1)

I-133 1.36 7.6(-1) 1.8(-1) a 6.6(-2) a 2,4 Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) 9 (-5) a c c 1.4(-2)

Mn-54 6(-3) . 6 (, 4) 3(-4) c c c 6. 9 (-3)

Fe-59 8(-4) 5(-4) 1.5 (-4) c c c 1.4(-3)

Co-58 1. 2 (-3) 6(-4) 4.5(-5) c c 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) c e c 3.3(-5)

Ir-95 8(-4) 1(-4) 5 (-7) c c c 9.0(-4) .

Sb-124 4(-4) 3(-4) 5 (-7) c c c 7. 0 (-4)

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

Ce-141 2 (-4) 6(-4) 2. 6 (-5) c c c S.3(-4)

C-14 1.5 - -

8 - -

9.5 H-3 - - - - - -

23 Ar-41 25 - - - - -

25

~4 a - less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 10 Ci/yr for iodine

-1 b - exponential notation; 3.4(-1) = 3.4 x 10 c - less than 1% of total for nuclide l

l

l TABLE 3 t

PRINCIPAL PARr@ AS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RA T \CTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FRCS 6fE MILE POINT, UNIT N0.1 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 1850~

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 Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (lbs) 3.9 x 105 l Cleanup Demineralized Flow (ltis/hr) 1.8 x 105 Steam Flow Rate (lbs/hr)~ 7.29 x 106 Number of Main Condenser Shells 1 Air Inleakage to Main Condenser efm/shell 10 l Building Ventilation System Decontamination Factors .

HEPA Filter, Particulate 100 o l

Gaseous Waste Holdup Times l

Offgas System (hrs)* 0.0 -

Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.029 Other l Decontamination Factors (DF) I. Cs, Rb Nuclides High Purity System 102 10 102 Low Purity System 104 105 105 Chemical Waste System 104 105 105 l Regenerant Solution 104 105 105

• Prior to processing by the offgas treatment system.

l I

}

'., ' (

7 e s

3 1

3 0 8 2 7 7 5

7i 2 0 3 0 0 0 9 r 1 u 0 0

0 2, 0 0 6 1

C 0 2 .

t r

o e e p s s e a a

)

g R e e 0 l l

( s 6 0 g e e 6 e 9 1 5 0, 1 0 n R R _

7i 1 0 1 1 9 i ._

9 r . 2 6 . . 1 t t t 1 u 2 0 7 2 0 a n n e

C 1 r e e

p u u l l _

O f f

- f f l E E .

0 a 7 0 s 0 u n

l a

l a

7 1 f 5 e 0 1 0, 5 3 n u u 9

1

. 7i 5 8 4 3 4 2 A n n O 9 r 1 2 0 9 n n f N 1 u 2 0 3, 2 0 t a a o C s i i T 1 r m m f I i e e l N F S S a U . .

h e e5 e6

, h h7 h7 t T 0 t t9 t9 s N ( s 0 1 1 r I 4 e 8 1 0, 5 4 n n n i O 7i 0 9 7 1 7 i i r i r f P 9 r 5 1 7 . 2 o o .

1 u 2 1 1 0 0 a af af m E C 6 t t t o L a as as r I d dt dt f M r r mo mo a m

E0 o op op t N2 ) r re re a _

I 2 0 F FR FR D _

N - ( s 0 ) ) ) ) _

0 3 e 8 0 0, 6 8

• 8 h __

4R5 7i 5 7 9 1 7 f ( ( ( _

O . 9 r 0 4 2 . 2 -

EF 1 u 4 2 7 1 0 _

L o C 8 _

BEN _

AC _

tnt E e I k Rc )

E o 0 PD ( s 0 7 X 2 e 6 4 0, 4 7 E 7i 4 8 9 0 8 9 r 4 2 7 1 G 1 u 3 3 1 0 0 g g g N C 5 n n n .

I i i i T t t t A a a a R r r r E c e e p

P ) p O 0 O O

( s 0 F 1 e 2 4 0, ) 0 ) l l l O 7i 3 9 a 8 a a a a -

9 r 2 1 a 3 ( ( u u u Y 1 u 3 1 t 5 0 n n n R C a 2 n n n A D a a a _

i . i i N

h e m5 m . m .

U s e e7 e9 S a Sd S S e n d d l ea en en a e s . h h a ha t 9 s e d t4 t t a e 1 t e 6 8 D t s 3 a i n . n n ~

n n a 1 l f i s i . i .

e cu um e no m e G - i o s s s oi u u t aN ao ao a it i l e n i i n t tN t N e e sa 1 t f l i t t e a a a l v sv 3 i f b d r i d dt dt r

dt e i ii s 1 r E o oI a r i r r R t Ft t e

- T N P T mo op mo op mo op c cc s t d a l Au l u l l l l o re re re i oe a d a o a a a a N FR FR FR u it td o t e t t t t ) ) ) )

q d s onr o s o o o o " b ' d i aa tap I T a T T T T f ( I (

L RW G v

l l .ll ;ilIJl)i1 \1

.' m 3

1 9 9 9 9 9 9 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 O Q2 I / - x x x x x x T Dm(

A 2 5 7 9 1 4,

L U 6 5 2 4 4 1 C

L A -

C

• E 8- . 8 8 7 7 . 8 S - - - - -

O ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Qm R. // x x x x x x O Xc F e 3 6 2 3 1 7

_ s D - ( 7 6 3 1 1 3 E

S U

_ ) )

S p s p s.

1E m u m u U u o u o

.L P u P u OA e n n NV p e e .

gc i e g

e .

gc i

y g t t T) T r) ra n r) ra n IQ ul uV o ul uV o N/ e Pl P C Pl P C UD s - e - . - - e - . -

5 ( .a kw kh k kw kh k _

e cy cc c cy cc c

.E TN .l ar ae a ar ae a L NO e tD tM t tD tM t B II R S( S( S S( S( S A OT T. PI S

EO LP IE e)

MD cs ne 5 .

ED_ al 2 7 NN ti IA N

sm i(

1 1

) D Q

/ _

X .

(

N n O o .

I i T t A c E R e E S T r E N i E D C

N O _

C l

E a V u I d T i -

A e y v L p r i E y a d _

R T d n _

n I r u o o m t b u p m e e i c t x .

e i a R S M

! lll

3

~~ '

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 P4r Reactor Unit)

Appendix I Dose Calculated Criterion Design Objective Doses Licuid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem /yr 0.068 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 crem/yr 0.15 mrem /yr -

Noble' Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 0.16 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.03 mrad /yr

' Dose to total body of an individual- 5 mrem /yr 0.10 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 0.05 mrem /yr

~

Radiciodine and' Particulate" Dose to any organ from all -

pathways 15 mrem /yr 3.9 mrem /yr

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

~l l

i i

~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '- '- '-

T ~' .

)I d . a. l TABLE 7 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN-REM) FOR 1 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF -

APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50* j Pathway Total Body Thyroid .

I Liquid < 1.0 2.2-

-Gaseous < 1.0 12.0 I

'* Based on the population reasonably expected to be within a 50 mile radius of the reactor.

TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL FARA.'ETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region I") 1.6

~

Cost of Moneyb ) 11.5%

Capital Recovery Factor") 0.1196

")From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems

~for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976) .

b)From Reference 4.

lL :. 6 ,

REFERENCES o

,1. . Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. Federal Register, V. 40, P.19442, i

May 5,1975.

2. " Response to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Files: Nine Mile Point, . Unit No. > l . Letter. of Transmittal, June 4,1976. Enclosed " Appendix I Evaluation Report."

3. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Final Safety Analysis Report - Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1 - 1967.

i,

4. " Responses to the Staff for Additional Information, Letter of Transmittal, October 1,1976.

5. 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.

6. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-220, Washington, D.C.

July 3,1974. ,

7.. Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, NMPC, Docket No. 50-220.

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

9. 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, Office of Nuclear Reactor- Regulation, Washington, D.C.

10. 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 1976.

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

Rev.1, " Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of j Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," October 1977.

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

l 1

;, x  ;

4 -

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET N0. 50-220 NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION l NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY j OPERATING LICENSES .J AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION

]

The U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission (the Commission) has issued

-]

l Amendment.No. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-63, issued to Niagara -

J l' Mohawk Power Corporation, for revised Technical Specifications for operation

. of Nine Mile Point, Unit No.1, located in Oswego County, New York. The amend-ments are effective as' of the date of issuance.

This' amendment to the Technical Specifications will (1) .imple-ment the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish r 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 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 public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazard consideration.

i

E ,. *r 1

The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for ]

l the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ- q mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because j k

there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment j 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-63, 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 Oswego Public Library, Oswego, New York. A copy of items (2) and (3) m'ay 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 COMt11SSION George E. Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operatina Reactors