ML20237B632
| ML20237B632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1977 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712170015 | |
| Download: ML20237B632 (24) | |
Text
I' fy /m 3
- n.a.
w a
+ -
DISTDT UTION:
OCT 2 01977 Docket Files-.
NRR Reading File DSE Reading File-Docket No. 50-259/260/296 ETSB Reading File ETSB Docket Files-MEMORANDUM FCR:' A. Schwencer, Chief Cperating Reactors Branch No.1. DDR FROM:
J. T. Collins, Chief. Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, DSE
SUBJECT:
OSE EVALVATION OF BP.0h'NS FERRY HUCLEAR PLANT,. UNIT HOS.1, 2, AND 3, WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50
' Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment
. systems installed at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, with respect to the requirements of. Appendix I.
The results of our evaluation are contained in
' the attached " Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal." We have also attached a draft " Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 0perating Licenses 'and Hegative Declaration."
Dased on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treatment systems installed 'at Browns Ferry are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and conforms
.to the requirements of Sections II.A. II.B. II.C. and II.D of Appendix I.
On Parch 29, 1977, DSE transmitted to ELD an NRC Staff Report entitled,
" Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 to Nuclear Power Plants hse Applications Were Docketed Before January 2,1971." This report provides the staff's justification for using the September 4,1975 amendirent to Appendix I, rather than performing a detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Anpendix !.
On August 17, 1977, we received ELD ccr.1tnents on this report and we are currently
. preparing a NUREG report which will document our findings. When this report-is completed, we will forward to you a paragraph to be inserted on page 1 of the enclosed Safety Evaluation, providing justification for the use of the September 4 option to the cost-benefit analysis.
When the model effluent radiological Technical Specifications, currently under development, have been approved they will be forwarded to you for transmf ttal to the licensee.
J
%Bi hA John T.
in, Chief P
Effluent Treatment Systems Branch
' (/j, Division of Site Safety and Fnwienrenantal Ansluef e
,DSEb:ETSB DSE:SA;EISS. DSEfSh DS&gr HMB_...DS'Ep-lIS.B ome.,
_) Tao.tlins.-
x 2.? E L PS.roddart.1.do..._ wcffuftfe?__...wtxcager
...t man _.
..10mn -
1.ota...n 101Dm-1amm-
-.1 a u 1 m -
('
OCT 2 01977 A. Schwencer ;
l
Enclosure:
DSE Evaluation cc:
H. Denton V. Stello R. Vollmer K. Goller D. Jaffee T. Wambach D. Eisenhut W. Kreger
'H.
Hulman B. Grimes E. Markee F. Congel R. Bangart W. Burke P. Stoddart 1
3
\\
. SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS.
, AND TO FACILITY LICENSE NOS. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259/260/296
_I_TRODUCTION N
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 j
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.(I) On September 4, 1975, the Commission adopted an amendment to Appendix I(2) 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 RM 50-2), dated February 20,1974.(3) l 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 requires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971, to file with the Commission by June 4,1976;1) information necessary to evaluate the mea s 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 l
reasonably achievable."
1 In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the l
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed with the Commission on February 13, 1976,I4) and December 21,1976,(5) the necessary information to permit an i
evaluation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, with respect to the require-ments of Sections II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix 1.
In these submittals, TVA provided the necessary information to show conformance with the Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than perform a detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I.
By letter dated
, TVA submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and pro-i vide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are "as low as is reasonably achievable" in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.
)
DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at L
., the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant;
- 1) to reduce and maintain releases of ' radioactive materials'in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) to meet the individual dose design objectives
. set forth in Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3)' to' determine if the installed radwaste systems satisfy the. design objectives proposed in RM 50-2 rather than an individualized cost-benefit analysis as required by Section 11.0 of Appendix 1.
I.
Safety Evaluation The flRC 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 informa -
tion provided by the licensee in his February 13, 1976, and December 21, 1976, submittals; 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) tree.tment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR);IO
- 3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Browns Ferry f acili ty;
- 4) the calculation of relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values for the Browns Ferry site; 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 11.0 of Appendix 1.
l l
____________________.______.__._________________J
. The 'r'adwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at the Browns Ferry Plant'have been previously described in Section 8.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated June 26, 1972,(7) and in Section 2.4 of the licensee's Environmental' Statement (ES) dated September 1972(8),
Since the ES and SER were issued, the licensee has completed modifications to the gaseous radwaste systems to include hydrogen-oxygen recombiners
.and ambient' temperature charcoal delay beds, which process radioactive gases from the main condenser air ejectors and has modified the floor drain liquid radwaste system to include a 30 gpm evaporator.
These modifications were considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Browns Ferry Plant, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix I.
The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters
-described in NUREG-0016.I9} In making these determinations the staff con-sidered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system, and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences.
The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liauid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3.
The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at the Browns Ferry plant in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous
l
. l effluents.
Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period of 1973 through 1976.
Browns Ferry Unit Hos.1, 2, and 3, reached initial criticality in August 1973, July 1974, and August 1976, respectively, and commercial operation in August 1974, March 1975, and March 1977, respectively.
Since the staff does not consider data from the first year of operation to be representative of the long term operating life of the plant, only effluent release data from July 1975, through June 1977, were used in comparing actual releases from the Browns Ferry Plant with calculated releases. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.
Liquid releases over a 24-month period averaged approximately 1.4 Ci/yr/ unit, which is higher than the 0.27 Ci/yr/ unit release calculated by the staff.
The staff does not consider the difference to be significant because the period includes the startup and first year of commercial operation of Unit No. 2 and the startup and initial commercial operation of Unit No. 3.
Releases during such periods are not representative of the levels of releases which can be achieved sLbsequent to the first full year of operation of each unit.
Actual noble gas releases from the Browns Ferry Plant averaged approximately 50,000 Ci/yr/ unit, which is lower than tPE staff's calculated value of 94,000 Ci/yr/ unit.
The lower value of actual noble gas releases can be attributed to better fuel performance than assumed in the staff's calculation of releases. Actual releases of iodine-131 in gaseous effluents from the Browns Ferry Plant averaged approximately 0.011 Ci/yr/ unit, which is lower
. than the staff's calculated release of 0.31 Ci/yr/ unit. The lower value for actual releases of iodine-131 is also attributed to better fuel per-formance than assumed in the staff's calculations.
Actual tritium releases from the Browns Ferry Plant averaged approximately 4.6 Ci/yr/ unit in liquid effluents and approximately 3.1 Ci/yr/ unit in gaseous effluents.
The staff's calculated tritium releases were 11 Ci/yr/ unit in liquid effluents and 71 Ci/yr/ unit in gaseous effluents. The staff's assumptions used in calculating releases are based on operatina data from nine olants. The licensee's data on releases does not provide sufficient information to enable the staff to evaluate the differer.ces between the reported actual releases and the releses calculated by the staff; it is noted, however, that the release data for the first six months of 1977 shows an increase in the amount of tritium released in both liquid and gaseous effluents.
Based on the above evaluation of operating data, the staff believes that 1
the calculational model reasonably characterizes the actual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from the Browns Ferry Plant.
The calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 were used in the staff's dose assessment discussed below.
The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmosphere dispersion con-ditions for the Browns Ferry Site using an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term releases.(10)
The model used by the staff is based i
. upon the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide III}
1.lll This evaluation is different from and replaces the evaluation given in the environmental statement (ES)
Using the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the releases of gaseous effluents from the plant stack were considered as elevated release and that the part of release from the turbine building were considered as ground level.
flon-continuous and inter-mittent gaseous releases were evaluated separately from continuous releases.
The straight-line model was adjusted to consider spatial and temporal variations in airflow using Figure 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.111.
The two years of meteorological data used in the calculations, for the years 1974 and 1975, and collected from Browns Ferry Site, was selected by the staff and found to be reasonably representative of long term conditions sxpected at the site.
Elevated releases were evaluated using joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction measured at the 91m level by atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperature gradient between the 46m and 91m levels). Ground level releases were evaluated using joint frequency distributions for wind speed and direction measured at the 10m level by atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperatures gradient between the 10m and 46m levels).
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate-gories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to Wheeler Lake and the Tennessee River, 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere.
The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the l
. ' dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide l.109.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liquid-effluents was based on the maximum exposed. individual.
For;the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual
' to be an adult whose diet included-the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) har-
-vested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from' the. Browns Ferry Plant into Wheeler Lake and the Tennessee River, drinking 7301/yr of water taken from the river approximately 19 miles downstream, and use of the shore-line for. recreational purposes (10 hr/yr).
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a cal-culation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence having the highest dose.
The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.96 miles N relative to the Browns Ferry Pl an t.
The. location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at the same location.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the maximum exposed individual.
For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be a child residing at a residence 1.08 miles N of the Browns Ferry Station and consuming vegetables (520 kg/yr) from a garden at the same location.
9_
U' sing the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases
.of radioactive materials in liquid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem / reactor
,and'10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II. A of 1
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/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 /ree.ctor 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 radiciodine, 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 mreu/ reactor in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I.
Rather than performing an individualized cost-benefit analysis required by Section 11.0 of Appendix I, the licensee elected to show conformance with the numerical design objectives specified in the September 4,1975 amendment j
to Appendix I (RM 50-2).
As shown in Table 1 the calculated release of radioactive material in liquid effluents is less than 5 C1/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.
The calculated doses are less than the dose design objectives set forth in RM 50-2, therefore, satisfies 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 Browns Ferry are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" '.avels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Browns Ferry.
This evaluatfon has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated opera-tional occurrences such that the individual doses will not exceed the numerical dose design objectives of Section II.A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and therefore, satisfies the requirements of Section 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 increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered I
i 1
. and does not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reason-l 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 compliance with the Conmission'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 Aopraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, located in the State of Alabama, in Limestone County, at I
power levels up to 3293 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 Units.
Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action, it does not af'ect the cenefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Docket Hos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296.
The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total auantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is
.. reasonably achievable."
If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives in a quarter, the licensee must: (1) identify the cases, (2) initiate a program to reduce the releases; and (3) report these actions to the NRC.
The revised Technical Specifications specify that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Sections II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendi; I.
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:
l l
l l
REFERENCES 1.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appenuix 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 2
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, D.C., February 20, 1974.
4.
Response to Request for Appendix I Information for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3, Tennessee Valley Authority, letter of transmittal dated February 13, 1976, with Enclosures 1 and 2.
5.
Response to Request for Additional Appendix I Information for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Hos.1, 2, and 3.
Tennessee Valley Authority, letter of transmittal dated December 21, 1976, with enclosure.
6.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Final Safety Analysis Report - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3.
September 1970.
7.
Staff of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nucear Plant, Unit Los.1, 2, and 3, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, Washington, D.C.,
June 26,1972.
8.
Staff of the Tennessee Valley Authority, " Environmental Statement -
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Hos.1, 2, and 3," Volume 1.
(TVA)
Docket Nos. 50-259/260/296, Chattanooga, TN, September 1972.
9.
NUREG-0016, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents fram Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code),"
April 1976, 10.
Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll, J.T.,1976:
X00D00, 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.
. 11.
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 Rtactors," March 1976.
12.
Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," March 1976.
l l
I
- _ _ _ _ = _
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS.
50-259, 50-260, 50-296 TENHESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND HEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No.
to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, 52, and 68, issued to Tennessee Valley Authority, for revised Technical Specifica-tions for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3, located near Decatur, Limestone County, Alabama.
The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
These amendments to the Technical Specifications will (1) implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for the quarterly and annual average release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with Comnission regulations.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Ac t), 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 required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards considerations.
. The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ-mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated July 1972.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated
, (2) Amendment Nos.
, and to License No. DPR-33, 52, and 68, 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 Sti*eet, N.
W., Washington, D.C., and at the Athens Public Library, South and Forrest Streets, Athens, Alabama.
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 A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 Ci/yr/ unit Nuclide Ci/yr/ unit Nuclide Ci/yr/ unit Cor osion & Activation Products Fission Products Na-24 1(-2)
Tc-101 7(-5)
P-32 3.5(-4)
Ru-103 1.8(-4)
Cr-51 8.9(-3)
Rh-103m 4(-5)
Mn-54 1.l(-3)
Tc-104 1.9(-4)
Mn-56 1.3(-2)
Ru-105 1(-3)
.l.8(-3)
Rh-105m 1(-3)
Fe-59 5(-5)
Rh-105 2.3(-4)
Co-58 4.4(-3)
Ru-106 2.4(-3)
Co-60 9.4(-3)
Ag-110m 4.4(-4)
Ni-65 8(-5)
Te-129m 7(-5)
Cu-64 3.3(-2)
Te-129 5(-5)
Zn-65 3.6(-4)
Te-131m 1.4(-4)
Zn-69m 2.2(-3)
Te-131 3(-5)
Zn-69 2.3(-3) 1-1 31 1.1(-2)
Sr-95 1.4(-3)
Te-132 2(-5)
Nb-95 2(-3)
I-132 8(-3)
W-187 4.l(-4)
I-133 3.2(-2)
Np-239 1.l(-2)
I-134 3.6(-3)
C Fission Products Br-83 8.6(-4)
Cs-136 3.5(-4)
Br-84 8(-5)
Cs-137 2.5(-2)
Rb-89 6(-5)
Ba-137m 1.2(-3)
Sr-89 1.8(-4)
Cs-138 1.4(-3)
Sr-90 1(-5)
Ba-139 1(-3)
S r-91 3.8(-3)
Ba-140 7.l(-4)
Y-91m 2.3(-3)
La-140 1(-4)
Y-91 9(-5)
Ba-141 2(-5)
Sr-92 2.8(-3)
La-141 3(-4)
Y-92 5.7(-3)
Ce-141 6(-5)
Y-93 3.9(-3)
La-142 7(-4)
Zr-95 1(-5)
Ce-143 4(-5)
Nb-95 1(-5)
Pr-143 7(-5)
Nb-98 1.7(-4)
Ce-144 5.2(-3)
Mo-99 3.3(-3)
All Others 4(-5)
Tc-99m 1.5(-2)
Total, except 2.7(-1)
___J
TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 (Ci/yr/ unit)
Mechanical Reactor Turbine Radwaste Gland Air Vacuum Nuclide Zone Building Building Seal Ejector Pump Total Kr-83m a
a a
a 540 a
540 Kr-85m 6
68 a
5 12,000 a
12,000 Kr-85 a
a a
a 250 a
250 Kr-87 6
130 a
16 410 a
560 Kr-88 6
230 a
16 14,000 a
14,000 Kr-89 a
a a
69 a
a 69 Xe-131m a
a a
a 150 a
150 Xe-133m a
a a
a 900 a'
900 Xe-133 130 250 10 6
59,000 2'300 62,000 Xe-135m 92 650 a
2 a
a 740 Xe-135 68 630 46 18 71 350 1,200 Xe-137 a
a e
84 a
a 84 Xe-138 14 1,400 a
65 a
aa 1,500 TOTAL NOBLE GASES 94,000 I-1 31 3.4(-2)b 1.9(-1) 5(-2) 2.6(-3) a 3(-2) 3.1(-1]
I-133 1.4(-1 )
7.6(-1) 1.8(-1) 1(-2) a a
1.1 2.2(-2)
Cr-51 6(-6) 1.3(-2) 9(-3) c c
c Mn-54 6(-5) 6(-4) 3(-2) c c
c 3.1(-2 Fe-59 8(-6) 5(-4) 1.5(-2) c c
c 1.6(-2 Co-58 1.2(-5) 6(-4) 4.5(-3) c c
c 5.l(-3 Co-60 2(-4) 2(-3) 9(-2) c c
c 9,2(-2 6.5(-3 1.7(-3 Zn-65 4(-5) 2(-4) 1.5(-3) e c
c Sr-89 1.8(-6) 6(-3) 4.5(-4) c c
c 4
Sr-90 1(-7) 2(-5) 3(-4) c c
c 3.2(-4 j Zr-95 8(-6) 1(-4) 5(-5) c c
,c 1.6(-4j Sb-124 4(-6) 3(-4) 5(-5) c c
c.
3.5(-4l Cs-134 8(-5) 3(-4) 4.5(-3) c c
3(-6) 4.9(-3)
Cs-136 6(-6) 5(-5) 4.5(-4) c c
2(-6) 5.1(-4l Cs-137 1.l(-4) 6(-4) 9(-3) c c
1(-5) 9.7(-3l Ba-140 8(-6) 1.1(-2) 1(-4) c c
1.1(-5) 1.1(-2 3.2(-3l Ce-141 2(-6) 6(-4) 2.6(-3) c c
c TOTAL PARTICULATE 2(-l, H-3 35 36 71 C-14 a
a a
a 9.5 a
9.5 Ar-41 25 a
a a
a a
25 a = less than 1 Ci/yr/ reactor for noble gases and carbon-14, less than 10-'+ Ci/yr/
reactor for iodine.
b = exponential notation; 3.4(-2) = 3.4 x 10-2 c = less than 1% of total for this nuclide
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITI0'NS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.1, 2, AND 3 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 3293 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 l
Offgas Release Rate Noble Gases, Ci/sec After 30-min. Decay 60,000 Iodine-131, Ci/yr,' Downstream of Main Condenser Air Ejectors 5
Primary Coolant System 5
Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (lbs) 5.6 x 104 Mass of Steam in Reactor Vessel (lbs) 2 x 10 5 Cleanup Demineralized Flow (1bs/hr)
- 1. 3 x 10 Steam Flow Rate (lbs/hr) 1.3 x 107 Condensate Demineralized Flow (lbs/hr) 1.3 x 10 Number of Main Condenser Shells 3
Air Inleakage to Main Condenser, cfm/shell 10 Building Ventilation' System Decontamination Factors HEPA Filter, Particulate 100 2" Charcoal Adsorbers, Iodines 10 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Krypton (days) 0.24 Xenon (days) 4.4 Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.03 Decontamination Factors (DF)
I Cs, Rb Other Nuclides 2
Equipment Drain System 10 10 10 3
4 Floor Drain System 10 10 10
___m__
1 TABLE 4 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NUMBERS 50-259/260/296 1975,b 1976,b 1977,b a
a a
Liquid Effluent Release Data July December January-December January-June (Ci/yr/ site)
Total Fission & Activation Products 1.3 3.9 0.3 Total Tritium 3.4 4
11 Gaseous Effluent Release Data (Ci/yr/ site)
Total Noble Gases 1,000 80,000 120,000 Total Iodine-131 0.002 0.017 0.025 Total Particulate 0.031 0.06 0.019 Total Tritium 0.3 0.58 11.6 a - From data in the Effluent and Waste Disposal Quarterly Report, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 1975, 1976, and 1977, Tennessee Valley Authority, b - Unit 1 reached commercial operation in August 1974, Unit 2 in March 1975, and Unit 3 in March 1977; therefore, the values given include releases from Unit 3 only during a portion of the first two quarters of 1977.
l L
i
De x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x t
9 9
9 9
4 4
4 4
6 5
e 1
1 M
(
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
9 9
)
S 3
N s 6 6
6 6
9 9
6 6
6 0
9 8
O r -
~
I e
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
T Qt 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 A
/e L
XM x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x U
/
4 4
4 4
4 4
6 6
6 6
3 3
C c
L e
A S
7 7
7 7
2 2
5 5
5 5
2 2
C
(
E S
O s
s s
s D
u u
u u
o o
o o
R u
u u
u O
n n
s n
n s
F i
i u
i i
u t
t o
s t
t o
s D
n n
u s
e n
n u
s e
TE o
o n
u g
o o
n u
g NS C
C i
o r
C C
i o
r AU t
u u
t u
u L
t t
n n
s p
t t
n n
s p
PS n
n o
i u
n n
o i
u e
e C
t o
E e
e C
t o
RU V
V n
u r
V V
n u
r EL o
n h
o n
h WA n
f C
i n
f C
i OV i
o t
t 2
i o
t t
2 P
a o
n n
a o
n n
N M
R e
o 4
M R
e o
4 C
2 5 RO e
V C
2 V
g g
AI p
E ET y
g g
e d
g g
e d
L LI T
d d
n l
d d
n l
B CS l
l o
B k
k l
l o
B k
k A UO e
B B
Z c
c B
B Z
c c
T NP s
e a
a e
a a
E a
e e
r t
t t
e e
r t
t t
YD e
n n
o s
S S
n n
o s
S S
R l
i i
t a
i i
t a
RD e
b b
c w
n n
b b
c w
n n
EN R
r r
a d
i i
r r
a d
i i
FA u
u e
a a
a u
u e
a a
a T
T R
R M
M T
T R
R M
M S)
NQ W/
OX e)
R(
cs B
ne 6
9 N
al 1
O ti I
sm 0
1 T
i(
A D
R T
N E
C N
n O
o C
i t
E c
N N
V e
I r
T i
A D
L E
R n
e d
y r
r a
a G
d
/
n e
r u
c o
o n
t e B
e pp d
ey e
i cT t
s e
i e
R S
R l
1l f
5 7
9 1
4 re bme tpe L
3 t
t t t t
t t
S i
i i i i
i i
n n
n n n
n n
D u
u u u u
u u
6 N
d 2
/
/
//
/
/
/
1 A
3 e r
r r r r
r r
8 y
y y y y
y y
0 t s,
a N ae1
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
4
)
M l s m
m d d m
m m
,y 5
U uo.
e e
a a e
e e
7 L cDs r
r r r r
r r
p l
9 O
l o
m m
m m m
m m
n o
1 C a N
3 3
5 3
0 C
7 4
s 4
8 2
H,
t 2
4 e
1 1
T5 i
s I
n 0
0 V
a WY U
g
,A M
r e
3(
e l
t b
D C.b s
o i
n N
)
AI 5 g
,I 7 e
o 9
2D1 e
e e e e
e e
R t
N t
t t t t
t t
,A c
i i
i i i
i i
l d
s s
s s s s
s s
a e
,4 1
2 e
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
r t
R b nv r
r r r r
r r
e i
- 8. E N
x gi y
y y y y
y y
d m
SOIB eit
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
e i
1 NIM u nsc m
m d d m
m m
F L
f E
L nee e
e a a e
e e
d T
.T O ADj r
r r r r
r r
P C
b m
m m m m
m m
I A. E O
6 N
E UI S 5
5 0 0 5
5 5
1 2
1 1
L
,I(
BA YSX T
RNE y
RON r
EIB
,e o
FTA et g
C ri e
SE,
t t
t t t
t t
os t
i S D.
l i
i i i i
i i
f a
W ee c
O
,I n
n n n n
n n
R0I I
s u
u u u u
u u
5 rh B5 1
e
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
7 et s
xnv r
r r r r
r r
9 h
i t
FT0 i gi y
y y y y
y y
1 Tt h
f l
ORI M dit
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
a t
P AT U nsc m
m d d m
m m
NPC L eee e
e a a e
e e
5
.s o
O E
O pDj r
r r r r
r r
st t
SRS C p b
m m
m m m
m m
y ii a
sn d
IF A
O RC 3
0 0 0 5
5 5
M au e
A 1
1 2
1 1
b d
3 d
P0 2
e a
M1 4
t o O
4 it n
CO 9
s e
T 1
y e
al b
I o
p i
p np e
X m
d oa v
I a
D o
ae N
r m
Rh m
0 ns h
E f
o f
t o
4 ee P
r o
r r
vv m
P y
f eo f
ii u
A d
d y
n ht V
gt i
o n
s r d
a t
n c
t b
a t i r o Od a
se i
b f
e g
r ej r
g n a i s
l r
e a
l o
ds r
e vb T
t as os u n l a na os t
io n t y y
l i n au n ae y
s t
d i
cn n
ya e oa ya f
i td il l
u t w nw f
e oi ka s ee nw g
eg a
l h ah E s e t v su eR e ah e
ji f
ot t
o s i
d n
r t
R b s 4
f t a oa s d o od oi ise oa oe 1
E p t p a
d t n tv d eh t p l
d s
G a i
i od p a
n n
d el el n a e ed iis el r
ge o
i sl sl e n t
sn sn ol o sl e
is b
i cm oa d
se r
u oa oa l
a e oa oi i
q D D
b G B D D
dut D e
eh a
i o
anA F
Dt C
L N
R a
C
\\
lllll(i