Text

Responds to Request for Info Re Liquid Effluents.Actual Unit 2 Liquid Releases Are Much Less than Projected Normal Operation Releases
	ML20244B879
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	02/26/1982
From:	Barrett L; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Dorsey J; PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CTR OF PHILADELPHIA
Shared Package
ML20244A735	List: ML20244A732; ML20244B879; ML20248B870; ML20248B918;
References
	CON-NRC-TMI-82-010, CON-NRC-TMI-82-10, FOIA-89-88 NUDOCS 8203290001
	Download: ML20244B879 (45)
	v • d • e

.,. ;, B

~

1

~

r

(~

-(

s.

, ga 4 fig UNITED STATES

/

'o NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMIS$10N 5

8

,,h WASHINGTON, D, c. 205S5 I

"I February 26, 1982

\\~...[

)

NRC/ THI-82-010 y\\ (g l \\

Hs. Judith A. Dorsey Esquire O

pubite Interest Law Tenter s

j of Philadelphia

/

1315 Walnut Street 16th Floor, Suite 1632 philadelphia, PA 19107 a

Dear Ms. Dorsey:

o I am writing to you at the request of Dr. Bernard J. Snyder to provide the information you verbally requested concerning liquid efilaents from

~

the TMI site.

As you know, 'from my Weekly Status Reports., scell amouats of radioactive materials contamination are sometimes detected in liquid sources within the plant tnat may eventually enter the Susquehanna River. These liquids are not " accident. generated water" as defined in the City of Lancaster, et.al, agreement and our programmatic Environment}

Impact Statement, but are casically non-radioactive liquids, e.g., river l;;

or rain water, which contact very Tow level residual contamination in

?*

normally non-radioactive systems that became slightly contaminated i$

during the accident.

The total amount of radioactive materials in this I water is very low.

The concentrations averaged over the year of cesium d are less than 1 x 10 yquid effluents enteging the river from TMI Unit 2S and tritium in these uCi/ml and 1 x 10' uCi/tri, respectively.

Theses concentrations are negligible when compared to background radioactivity 5 concentrations in the rivar of approximately 1 x 10-9 uCi/m1 of Cs-137, ;;

and approximately 3 x 10 uti/ml of tritium.

The Unit 2 related ifqbidi radioactivity is ' undetectable entering the river but can be calculated based on sensitive measurements made in liquid collection sumps in the turbine building, control and service building and other similiar areas.

Independent continuous analysis ijy the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirms that no detectable Unit 2 radioactivity is~being discharged into the river. is a detailed list of the ' actual concentrations and volumes of liquids transferred from these areas to plant systems that eventually enter the river.

As a point of comparison, Enclos'ure 2 provides relevant sections from the NRC staff's Final Envinnmental Impact Statement for the TMI 2 operating license (published as N'UkEG-0112, dated December 1976) that describe radioactive effluents. Table 3.2 of j

this enclosure projected yearly liquid releases of 0.034 curies of

)

Cs-137 and 550 curies of tritium for the normal operation of TMI Unit 2 l

As 'you can see, the actual Unit 2 liquid releases are many orders of magnitude less than these projected normal operation releases.

Y 0

0 4

gf

. 2,u...,

D 2 ::r,+.= u.. :

o.m.

.. =.~

.n.

v

='

Ms. Judith Dorsey February 26, 1982 s

You also inquired about any liquid affluents dae to Unit 1 steam generator tube degradation. This occurrence has resulted in a small release of approximately one-thousandth of a curie of radioactive material (primarily Cs-137) in ifquid' effluents. This occurred wh6n the leak was first detected and the contaminated water on the secondary side (normally non.

radioactive) was drained and processed.

The systems are now depressurized and no further primary to secondary leakage is occurring and no additional steam generator related liquid releases are expected.

If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me at 717-948-1120.

Sincerely, take H. Barrott Deputy Program Director

{

TMI Program Office j

i l

1 1

1 i

l l

1

ga.,

m.: w '. = x ; v r.:: s w,. n:.2.:, w. * ; :.

, i;~

. a, s-I l

ENCLOSURE - I 4

Concentration Gallons WEEKLY STATUS DATA es at of Llquid

. of' l sotop(uc t /ce) isotopes uCI

at Source.

source Released Released 4

Hons 0

0-Cs-137

< 1 uti Cs-137 1.5 E-7 718 gal.

< 1000 uCi H-3 H-3 5.11. E-5 ~ & Cs-137 4.2 E -7 1346 gal.

Cs-137, H-3

< 3 uCi Cs-137 Cs-137 2.2 E-8 4500 gal.

None 0

0 Cs-137

< 2 uCi Cs-137 1.1 E-7 2500 gal.

None -

0 0

c Cs-137

< 1 uCi Cs-137 1.6 E-7 1346 gal.

]'

SEE NOTE 1

)

Q Cs-137

< 1 uCi Cs-137 3.6 E-7 718 gal.

3 0'

None 0

< 1000 uCi H-3 H-3 2.0 E-5 H-3, Cs-137

< 3 uCi Cs-137 Cs-137 2.7 E-7 2692 gal.

2-

'~

3 gross B-8.87.E-8 8

Beta

< 1 uCi B-8.65 E-8 2692 gal.

,1 il Cs-137

< 1 uCi Cs-137 2.9 E-7 837 gal.

Il ll Beta

< 2 uCi gross B-2.8 E-7 1346 gal.

~

1 LCi=0.00000) Ci

y77- -

n.

.,....w,-

~

i, i

p

~

ENCLOSURE 1 - page 2

'l Concentration Gallons VEEKLY STATUS DATA rt Isotopes uCI of isotopes at of Liquid d

Released Released source (ucl/ce) at Sou,ree.

1 0.

1 None 0

h 1

1 Hone 0

0 81

/01 Cs-137

< 1 uCi Cs-137 9.0 E-8 1346 gal.

SEE NOTE 2

/81

/81 cs-137

< 1 uCi

- o o

/81 81 None 0

0 81

/81 Cs-137

( 1 uCi Cs-137 1.3 E-7 1344 gal.

/81

/81 None 0

0 SEE NOTE.3

/81 81 H-3

< 100 uCi H-3 1.5 E-5 1306 gal.

81

/81 None 0

0

/81

/81 None 0

0 7/81 Cs-137

< 1 uCi Cs-137 1.9 E-8 1345 gal.

~

3/81 H-3

< 100,000 uCi H-3 2.4 -. E-3 5384 gal.

~-

4/81

~' ~

0/81 None 0

0 SEE NOTE 4

~~"

Cs-137 1.3 E-7 1344 gal.

1/81

/81 Cs-13/

- 1 uCi H-3 4.9 E-6 1806. gal.

/81 3/81 None 0

0

em

~

^

-'-------_~_______1_

m.;.. u ;;,..

i; ;. n.,.w...a.

.u-

, i,.. ;c j

i ENCLOSURE 1 - page 0-

{

l i

l

)

Callons j

Concentration WEEKLY STATUS DATA isotopes uCI

' of, Isotopes at of Liquid j

Released Released source (uCI/ce) at Source.

4 H-3

< 25 uCi H-3 4.8 E 1346 gal.

H-3

< 100 uCi 1.18 E-5 H-3 2692 gal.

3 None 0

0 H-3,

< 200 uCi,,

2.6 E-5 H-3 1346 gal.

Cs-137

< 2; uCi 4.2 E-7 1106 gal.

i

)

None 0

0 1

None 0

0 l

i Beta

< 2 uCi B-2.91 E-7 1615 gal.

]

\\

9-None 0

0 3

)

1 H-3

< 100 uti 1.5 E-5 H-3' 1615 gal.

il 11 None 0

0 11 1

Hone 0

0

)

B1 None 0

0 1

B1 l

B1 None 0

0 1

~

l I

i

)

I w._----

-____-_-__:_-___-_-__J

< e

.,. n o...-'>a........

h n

o. :. -,

..+*.. ~. *..,

1

'+

v'

\\

u'.

l

+ s

, s I

(,.,)

1 -

1 s

ENCLOSURE 1 - page 4' l

I Concentration.

Gallons NEKLY' STATUS DATA of Isotopes at of Liquid

(

isotopes uCI P.eleased Released source (vC1/cc) at Source.

\\

I i

g I

t H-3

< 20 uti H-3.4.5 E-6..

1106 gal.

j i.

None 0

0

(

,1 il None O

C 11' 11 None

.0 O

d B1 H-3

< 100 uCi 11-3 2.5 E-5 840 gal.

i None 0

0 f

1 Cs-137

< 1 uCi 2.7.. E-8 Cs-137 '

5000. gal.

8

< 1 uCi Cs-137 1.8 E-7 1344 gal.

8 Cs-137 Cs-137

< 3 uCi Cs-137 4.3 E-/

1344 gal.

0 6

g e

1 I

e p

9 d

4

ee 1

l

f.14E

.D.. s :.c...

, F :..-

.m W:f;~f v2';,3 ; ;;,,,n ",

w,---

3..,

('

(

Q l

l ENCLOSURE 1 - page 5 1

i Note 1.

A medical isotope was detected in the. administration building sewage tank in March. The table below lists the sewage discharge volumes and the concentration of the isotope.

March 18, 1981 - 5000 gal, sewage - 8;7x10~ uCi/ml Tc 99m March 19, 1981 - 5000 gal. sewage - 1.8x10~ uCi/mi Tc 99m March 20, 1981 - 5000 gal. sewage - 2.0x10~ uti/ml Tc 99m l

l Note 2.

The Weekly Status Report which stated a release of

< 1 uCi Cs-137 was in error. No radioactivity was detected in this period.

Note 3.

The Weekly Status Report inadvertently omitted the reporting period 6/28/81 to 7/5/81. During this period < 100 uCi of H-3 were released.

Note 4.

The Weekly Status Report inadvertently omitted the 33 uCi release of tritium for the period of 7/31/81 -

8/6/81.

I l

l

)

. G.

,C8-e.

s.

c

3.-

.. 1 1

W u.

n m.

(

L) m=

ENCLOSURE - 2 i

l 3.

THE PLANT

(

3.1 RESuit i

There were no major changes in the design of the plant since the issuance of the FES 3

in December 1972, consequently there were no modifications in the liquid, gaseous and solid

,, radioactive waste treatment systems. These systems have been reassessed in Section 3.2 using revised parameters and mathematical models for calculating the releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents.

Additional infomation on chemical and biocide shstems, as [ ell as on sanitary amd other waste is presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. respectively. Additional information on changes in the transmission system is presentsd in Section 3.5.

3.2 DESIGN AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 3.2.)

Radioactive Waste Treatment Since the Final Environmental Statement (FES-OL) was issued (December 1972). the applicant has x

not modified the liquid, gaseous and solid radwaste treatment systems as descr%ed in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) ar.d in the Environmental Report (ER).

~

3.2.1.1 Appendix ! Requirements On April 30, 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission announnd its decision in the rulemaking proceeding (RJ4 50-2) concerning numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as practicable" for radioactive material in light-water-tooled nuclear power reactor effluents. This decision is implemented in ttie form of Appen-dix I to 10 CFR Part 50. To effectively implement the requirements of Appendix 1. the NRC staff has reassessed the parameters and mathematical models used in calculating releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents in order to comply with the Comnissica".s guidance.

-4 This guidance directed that current operating data, applicable to' proposed radneste treatment and effluent control systems for a facility, be considered in the assessment of the input parameters.

W The staff has completed its reassessment, and these parameters, models, and their bases are given pyg in NUREG-0017. " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents

==

from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)." April 1976.

E.

L""

3.2.1.2 Appendix ! Evaluation EM Dy letter of February 23. 1976 the applicant was requested to submit additional infomation concerning the means proposed to be employed to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents tar u from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit No. 2. to unrestricted areas "as low as 92.3 reasonably achievable" (formerly "as low as practicable") in accordance with the guidelines of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50 and was given the option of providing either a cost-benefit analysis or demonstrating conformance to the guidelinu given in the Annex to Appendix I.

The applicant's evaluation was contained in a submittal dated June 4.1976, and is supplements to

,p:::

that submittal. In that submittal. Metropolitan Edison Company chose to perform the cost-benefit analysis required by Section 11.0 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

g The staff perfomed an independent evaluation of the applicant's proposed metheds to meet the M

requirements of Appendix I.

The evaluation is given in a supplement to the SER and is stcrarized M

below. The evaluation consisted of: (1) a review of the infomation provided by the applicant.

I;;tg

{2) t review of the applicant's proposed radwaste treatment and effluent control systems. (3) the

~~

calculation of new source tems based on models and parameters as given in NURS-0017 (April 1976).

" Calculation cf Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluenrts from Pressurized W

Water Reacters (PWR-GALE Code)". and (4) the calculations of the cost-benefit ratio for potential r,,

radwaste system additions, using doses based on the source tems calculated in (3) above, and 5-guidance as given in Regulatory Guide 1.110. " Cost-Benefit Ar.alysis for Radwaste systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuf. lear Power Reactors," (March 1976).

S m.

Individual and population doses were calculated using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.109 L

" 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 1." (March 1976).

3.i e

25 i3 M'**

. m..m.vc~.-

-~

w--

wr m -v wn-M ons ?

w.....,.

w

~

w-w ww...

'*a c

-Q-. m.r

- -;~ % 9 f,+ W E.'. C O 2 tL e * : -

.f:s 7'.A i..M (- W E 9 L

w v

1 DC.k%d N t

3-2 et The relative concentration and deposition estimates were based on the straight line fit,w j

method and ceposition curves presented in Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for Estimating

'1 Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from 1.ight.y p,,,

Cooled Reactors." using the open terrain recirculation factors as described in this Guide.

The staff's evaluation considered releases of radioactive traterials in liquid and gaseous eiq "'

for normal cperation including anticipated

operational occurrences based on expected radwaste f' w.-

4 puts over 1.he 30 year operating life of the plant.

1 I

The principal radionuclides expected to be released in liquid and gaseous effluents are given t, Tables 3.2 and 3.3 of this supplement. A list of the parameters used in these determinations 1 f

i

-given in Table 3.1.

Y"F2 Based on the evaluation of the gaseous waste treatment systems, the staff calculated the total i, '

W

-Mg releases of radioactive materials in gaseous wastes to be appseximately 6.700 C1/yr for noble

' ;TG gases and 0.01 Ci/yr for iodine-131. In its evaluation, the applicant estimated the gaseous releases to be approximately 14.000 C1/yr for noble gases and approximately 0.031 C1/yr for

d. [( g'#

iodine-131. Based on the evaluation rif the liquid waste systems, the staff calculated the releases of radioactive materials in liquid wastes, including anticipated operational occurrence.*

a.D The staff calculated the f

to be approximately 0.24 C1/yr, excluding tritium and dissched gases.

P#**

tritium release to be approximately 550 Ci/yr. The applicant estimated the liquid release to be approximately 0.19 Ci/yr excluding tritium and dissolved gases, and 550 C1/yr for tritium.

Using the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents, given in Table 3.2.

f "#'

and the methodology given in Regulatory Guide 1.109, the staff calculates the annual dose or

'..e L dose comitment to any individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure to be o'

less than 3 mrem to the total body or 10 mrem to any organ (see section 5.4. Radiological Iepact).

1 ~ ~ ? ',

Using the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 3.3.

\\.

the staff calculates the annual gama and beta air doses at er beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad and 20 mrad respectively. Using the calculated releases of radiciodine and

n. 4 radioactive material in particulate form given in Table 3.3, the staff calculates the annual NS dose or dese comitment to any individual in an unrestricted area from all pathsays of exposure to be less than 15 mrem to any organ (see Section 5.4. Radiological Impact)

In conformance with Section II.D of Appendix 1. the staff considered the potential effectiveness

.NE of augmenting the propcsed liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems for Unit 2 to reduce the 78' dose to t:ne population reasonably expected within 50 miles of the reactor at a cast of a $1000 per total body man-rem and a $1000 per man-thyroid-rem. Using the calculated san-rems given

'g in Sectice 5.4. the cost factors given in Table 3.4. and the methodology given in Regulatory eur=v DET Guide 1.110, the staff's cost-benefit analysis concludes that there are no items of reasonably) b"%

demonstrated technology that, when added to the system can (for a favorable cost-benefit ratio i

effect re::uctions in dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor.

F12m The applicant's evaluation. contained in the submittal of June 4.1976. concluded that the pro-P@N posed licuid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems meet the requirements of Sections !!.A. B and C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and are in conformance with Section II.D. since there

@ yj are nc. accitional augments of reasonably demonstrated technology which could be added to provide r~-

additional population dose reduction at costs less than $1.000 per total body man-rem or $1,000 L

per man-t.hyroid-rem.

N

~.2 Based on the staff's evaluation, the staff concludes that the liquid and gaseous radwaste treat-be ment systems are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50.34a and meet the requirements of Sections II.A. B. C and D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

PM u mr FLW 3.2.2 Solid Wastes Based on recent studies

of the quantities of solid radioactive wastes produced at operating Mil"

.EEp reactors, the staff estimates that approximately 14.000 cubic feet of solidified wet wastes.

M"C containing approximately 1.600 C1. and approximately 4.100 cubic feet of compacted dry wastes.

containing ess than 5 C1. will be transported offsite each year.

Data extracted from semiannual operating reports on ten PWR units.

gN u

w es i.* '-

, f,$

,;-F.g, r,. f : '": g y;r /,g, g.g...';" y.,3 4 g g g g y g gg,z g g, g-; --

u 3.,

g.,

.g.

g; j,:l :.

.-. : g

...,n..n...,.u_

...........u.n.

. a..

=

C.

%.5_

a.

,.., 4.5 -

T. n C. O

. c.

~ L.i

~

1

^

'3-3

{

i, y.. o eg.

2 l

rc; TABLE 3.1 h

PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES h'

OF RAD 10ACT!YE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM THREE MILE 1:; LAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 2 2800 Reactor Power Level (MWt) 0.80 Plant Capacity Factor 1

8 0.12 Failed Fuet Primary System 5

7.2 x 10 j.

MassofCoolant(1bs)

I 45

g Letdown Rate (gpm) f l'Al w

Shim Bleed Rate (gpd) a 100 LeakagetoSecondarySystem,(1bs/ day)

%g b

Leakage to Containment Building 160 Leakage to Auxiliary ' Building (1bs/ day)

Q 2

Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns ytr year)

F

' W 7

1.2 x 10 Secondary System 3

1.4 x 10 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 4 Mass of Steam / Steam Generator (1bs) 2.7 x 10 6

3.0 x 10 Secondary Coolant Mass (1bs) o 3

Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Building (1bs/hr) 1.7 x 10

{

Fraction of Feedwater Processed through Condensate Demineralizers 0.7 B"h 4

f:

E 6

3 2.1 x 10 rd Containment Building Volume (f t )

4 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 20 F.

Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power)

E lodine Partition Factors (gas / liquid) g.

h 0.0075 Leakage to Auxiliary Building 1.0 h

SteamGenerator(carryover)

W 1.0 s!

Leakage to Turbine Building 0.15 MainCondenser/AirEjector(volatilespecies)

CW E

This value is constant and corresponds to *0.12% of the operating power fission produc.t 5,2 a

source term as given in NUREG 0017 (April 197&)

l%/ day of the primary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.001%/ day of the primary coolant b

y iodine inventory.

W MC 51' FF.

e.Y s-A 7~

, ~-i.!

, i. '. ' Tj,

-.,.,,.....' " * " ~ yM..,M, ;,M

-[d

,h;,

@*{ :*/

p..

.,,.r.;,.,.g

.....-.... s,

.. m...--....

x

_a__

__1

<,w.". ' w:.

w:

...u....;y

n.. ~;r.:.L.,..

u>

>c.

a.

.y.

-, r.~

a.

a;.

r

r: r,.;y-c..:

m---,-,

-3 a,.

z..a e.. : v.

n s

(~~',

3-4

{,

~~

l TABLE 3.1 (CentinuedT.

Floor Drain Wastes.

Laundry and Boron Recover l

System (BRS) y Inorganic Chemical Wastes.

Not Shower Regenerant Solutions Drains 4

4 1

1 x 10 1 x 10 1

4 0

Cs Rb 2 x 10 1 x 10 1

5 5

Others 1 x 10 1 x 10 g

All Nuclides Except f odice lodine i

4 3

Ride.aste Evaporator DF 10 10 3

2 BR$ Evaporator DF 10 10 Anions Cs. Rb Other Nuclides Borem Recycle Feed Demin. DF (H B0 )

10 2

10 i

3 3 Primary Coolant tetdown Demin. DF (L1 80 )

10 2

10 3 3 Evaoorator Condensate Polishing Demineralized (H+0H') DF 10 10 10 Mixed Bed Condensate Demin.

10 2

10 I

Turbine Air Removal System and

~;

Ccetainment Building Internal Recirculation System Charcoal Filter i

DF (lodine Removal) 10 Fuel Handling Building and Auxiliary Building Ventilation System Charcoal Filter DF (Iodine Removal) 10 i

(

y

'O4e.% Se aqs.,,r...-

=

u e.

,,3 e,

4 *

.~

en l

Q

)

......_.._.,,-...e.-~

. ze.

,, ; c.:.; >,..

'a

,t-

m. -

< w.a.

v.--, ;.-;r

-r--

-y f.

'3-5 p,

9 j

i TABLE 3.2 CALCOLATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATER!ALS IN L10VfD EFFli>ENTS FROM THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 Ci/yr/ reactor

=

l Mclide C1/yr Nuclide C1/yr j

o Fission Products Corrosion & Activation Products Cr-51 1.4(-4)"

Te-129 7(-5)

Hn-54 1(-3) 1-130 9(-5) 2 Fe-55

1. 4(-4)

Te-131m 5( 5)

Fe 59 B(-5) 1-131

4. 6(-2 )

Co-58

5. 3(-3)

Te-132 1.1(-3) 1 Co-60 8.9(-3) 1-132

2. 5(-3)

Ir-95 1.4(-3) 1-133 2.3(-2) s Nb-95 2(-3) 1-134 2(-5)

Np-239 6(-5)

Cs-134 2.6(2) j Fission Products 1-135 4.7(-3) l Br-83 3(5)

Cs-136 3(-3) l Rb-86 2(-5)

Cs-137

3. 4 (-2)

Sr-89 3(-5)

Ba-137m 9.3(-3)

Sr-91 1(5)

Ba-140 1(-5)

~ '

Ho-99 3.7(-2)

Ce-144 5.2(-3) 4 t

.Tc 99m 2.3(-2)

All Others 6(-5) l b

Ru 103

1. 4 (-4 )

Total (except H-3) 2.4(-1) l H-3

5. 5(+2)

Ru-106 2.4(.3)

Ag-110m 4.4(4) i 1

Te-127m 2(-5) i f

i Te-127 3(5) j Te-129m 1.1(-4) a Exponential notation; 1.0(-4) = 1.0 x 10~4 a

bNuclides whose release rates are less than 10 5 wi/yr are not listed I$

individually, but are included in the category "All Others."

g I i

'4 tN 1

~

us

!- F

ze 3

\\

5

..... - ~ ~... -... ~. -

- I?

-.3 1:.* i.:. ?.N...m a.;~..

..T *;

% * ^Ur' '. :.'.* ' y?r-Di Ts

ex : rs:.~. i? : :.JC-c.

- u h.a: :.0

- n '_ _ __ _ _ _ _ - - -, -

, L ' ~m J-7 ~ - - -

,r

,1mm-..

' p-a 3-6 7

I b

1 TABLE 3.3 CALCULATED AELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MTERIAL5 IN GASEOUS EFFL*JINTS FROM THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 2 j

Ci/yr/unt*

i l

I Waste Gas Condensar i

j Processing-Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air Nuclide System Blda Blda Bldo Reme*al Vent Total j

Kr-83n a

a a

a Kr-85m a

1 1

a a

2 Kr-85 280 110

.3 a

2 390 l

Kr-87 a

a a

a t

Kr-88 a

2 3

a 2

7

~

Kr-20 a

a a

a-a a

Xe-131m 12 50 2

a a

64 Xe-133m a

35 3

a 2

40 Xe-133 180 5600 250 a

160 6200 Xe-135m a

a a

e Xe-135 a

10 5

a 3

1B Xe-137 a

a a

a Xe-138 a

a a

a I-131 a

1.3(-4) 5.5(-3) 1(-3)

3. 4 (-3) '

1( 2) 1-133 a

1.3(-4) 5.8(-3) 1.1(-3) 3.6(-3) 1.1(-2)

Co-50 7(-5)b

'.2(-6) 2.7(-4) a a

3.4(-4)

Co-58 1.5(-4)

.6(-6) 6.4(-4) a a

7.5(-4)

[

Fe-59 1.5(-5) 6(-7) 6(-5) a a

7.5(-5)

Mn-54 4.5(-5)

' 6(-7) 1.8(-4) a a

2.3(-4)

Cs-137 7.5(-5) 1.3(-6) 3(-4) a a

3.8(-4) j 1

Cs-134 4.5(-5) 7.6(-7) 1.8(-4) a a

2.3(-4) 3 I

3r-90 6(-7) 1(-8)

2. 4 (-6) a a

3(-6)

Sr-e9 3.Jt-6) 5.3(-8)

1. 3 (- 5) a a

1.6(5)

C-14 7

1 a

a a

8 H-3 a

280 280 a

a 560 Ar-41 3

25 a

a a

25

" Negligible compared to overall source term. e.g.. less than 1.0 ti/yr noble gases.

I less than 1(-4) C1/yr iodine. less than 1% of total for particulate.

DExponential notation: 7( 5) = 7 x 10*0 1

I I

i I

n..

e.pa.

= = -

.e

C.

.W

-a*.L.

~,c. ;

g N

l C.

34

j. g I,.

1 t

7ABLE 3.4 g

PR]NCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSl$

i i

Labor Cost Correction Factor. FPC Region 1 1.6 a

Indirect Cost Factor g,73 b

Cost of Money 10%

' Capital Recovery Factor" 0.1061 s

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

bApp 11 cant did not provide his cost of money; the value of lot was l

derived from a recent-annual Report and Prospectus.

CThe applicant provided a value of 16% as his Capital Recovery l

Factor. The value of 161 is not consistent with the applicant's cost of money and a 30-year recovery period, and would be more appropriate as a fixed charge rate; therefore, the staff assmed a value of 0.1061 for the Capital Recovery Factor. This assump-tion does not change the results of the staff's evaluation.

3.3 CCilCAL ANL B10C10E SYSTEMS Chemicals will be used ;t the station for the p*oduction of high purity water in the primary

}

coolant loop and for control of scaling and fouling in the circulating water system. Evaporation till also cause an increase in concentration of chemicals in the circulating water system. The chemicals used in significant ovantities at the station are listed in Table 3.5.

hsa

$p g 3.3.1 Condenser scale Control l

tt?

As water is evaporated from the circulating water system in the cooling towers, the concentration l

of carbonates increases toward the limit 'of its solubility. Concentration is prevented from i k reaching this critical level by a combination of chemical treatment.and blowdown control. For

Q about six months of the year when there is excess alkalinity present in the river, sulfuric e

T$if acid will be added to the circulating water in the condersee cooling water circuits at an i

average rate of 12.200 pounds per day for both units to reduce the possibility of scale femation

{f in the condensers. This additional rate could increase by a maximum factor of 2.5 when cartonate y

alkalinity of the makeup water is highest. The acid, which acts to convert bicarbonates to g

carbonic acid, foms sulfates in equilibrium with the various cations in the makeup water, and WM m

is eventually released with the 7 000 gp blowdown from the two units. The blowdown is mixed with t.he service water before it is returned to the river. Using an average plant discharge of 0

I $$

36.00C gpm the average increment in the sulfate concentration. of it)e release will be about i Mih.

28 mg/1. If the maximum acid use rate should correspcnd to average staticm discherge, increment-g al concentration would be 70.5 mg/1. When mixed in the river with the low flow 5f record (1.700 cis), the concentration increases in the river would be 1.3 and 3.3 ag/l under average

( ~MT maximm acid use ratn. Closer inspection of the water quality data' (see Appendix B of Appen-i dix B) shows the bicarbonate ion concentration is inversely related to river flow although E

Shere is quite a lot of scatter to the data. It should. therefore, be QXPected that maximum N'@

asid use could occur at minimum river flow.

A In actition to the acid intentionally added to the blowdown, the concentration of the natur&1ly M

we occur +ing salts in the river water will be allesed to increase py a factor of about 5 (Appendix Blowdown will

=lll:

B page !!!-25) in the circulating water system as evaporation of water occurs.

Because of dilution with service water flow, the water ME prevent it from increasing'further.

returmed to the river will be at a concentration of only about 1.5 times the river concentration i @p

M due to the evaporation. However, the evaporation of water at a rate of 20,000 gpm from the M

1.700 cfs low flow of record only results in an increase of concentration of dissolved substances i

W22::

in the river of about 24%. This.is the increase that can be expected at the greater distance i M 6 owns. ream from the plant af ter mixing of blowdown with river ficw is complete. Thus, the contemtration effect of the coeling system will only produce measurable concentration changes j g-y in tre imediate vicinity cf the discharge.

i N

< rC=

g.

M

. war

-W n

?

M W :.a,M --. L w;a:x.:~.;:w..:,? a ;.: ; L.m x.g _a. w,,,

L. P.? 'T

' O.LT M ' W ;,:-i & M y y,; v m w.-r

~

, f qf R

<- K T

~

" ~ - -

~

T v.

.u.

i 5-4

/7 I,

=

technology. economically achievable. The effluent limitations for these "techr. ologies" rire

' defined in Title 40 CFR Part 423-Steam Electric Power Generating Point Sorce Category. The only difference in the two technologies applicable to nuclear stattans is the requirement for closed cycle cooling by the later date. Since BilNS will operate on closed cycle cooling the 1983 requirement regarding thermal discharge can be met, The requirements for the 1983 deadline are reproduced in Table 5.2.

F!!PCA (Section 302) also requires that ahy other limitations be placed on the operation of the facility weich are necissary to pec*.ect and propagate a balanced indigenous population and to protect ot'er users. Again, in accordance with the Second Memorendum of Understanding, the issuance by the State of Pennsylvania on December 30.'1974 of a pemit under taction 402 of the EPDES is accepted as a determination that the requirement for effluent limitations will be met.

The efflueet limitations imposed by the NPDES include a value for free available chlorine but do not include a value for total residual chlorine (sie Table 5.7). The toxicity of combined forms 4

of chlorine has been recognized and limitations have been recomended for total residual (Water

{

Quality Cetteria.1972. A report of the Comittee on Water Quality Criteria. National Academy of Sciences, utional Academy of Engineering. Washington D.C.,1972). The recommended limitation for total residual chlorine, applicable to receiving wattr rather than to the effluent, is as follows:

Aquatic life should be protected where the concentration of residual chlorine in the receiving system does nst ;xceed 0.003 mg/l at any time or place. Aquatic organisms will tolerate short term exposure to high levels of chlorine. Until more is known about the short term effects.

it is reccrnended that total residual chlorine should not exceed 0.05 mg/l for a period up to 30 j

minutes in any 24-hour period."

Based on experience with Unit 1 (see Section 3.3.2) a free chlorine concentration of 0.5 mg/l as allowed by the permit might correspond to a total chlorine residual as high as 1.5 mg/1. How-ever, it was noted that experience with Unit 1 har shown the actual total residual to exceed a concentration of 0.2 mg/l only rarely. Dilution with river flow and further chemical reduction of chlorine residuals will reduce the concentrations produced at Unit 2 below the recomended value of 0.05 mg/l within a short distance of the outfall.

I The applicant has not been totally successful at meeting the objective of controlling biological growth wit *in plant systec.s and is likely to change the chlorination program (see Section 3.3.2).

Th1refore, staff recomended that monitoring of total residual chlorine.in the plant discharge be perforced omtil the concentrations required for optimal chlorination can be established and i

evaluated. If it is r.ecessary to operate at the permitted level of chlorination, then the appli-cant shoul: monitor total residuals in the river to determine the extent of the region in which concentration exceeus the value reccmended to protect aquatic life.

Pennsylvania has established a criterion for sulfate concentration of 250 mg/l for some of their water bodies but has not made it apply to the lower Susquehanna River. This is probably because ambient ecmcentrations only rarely approach this level. As development of the river for steam electric pewer production and other uses :entinues it is likely that additional consideration u1* ' % given to the discharge of sulfat. Based on average river conditions, statien operation ui h

rease sulfate concentration by less than 0.4 mg/1. For the conditions which prevailed when the h'ghest ambient sulfate concentration was reported (204.3 mg/1. see Section 2.4.3),

operation cou.d.. ave incretased sulfate (oncentation by as much as 3.3 mg/1. These increases shcx1d not have 90ticeable effect on downstream users under present conditions.

Other proccsed uses of chemicals will have an insignificant effect on water quality.

F.4 RADIC' DOICAL iMFACTS 5.4.1 RaedeMoical Impact on Man The models and considerations for environmental pathways leading to estimates of radiation dose comitr,ents to individuals are discussed in detail in draf t Regulatory Guide 1.109. Similarly use of these models, and additional assumptions, for population dose estimates are described in Appendix C of this statenient.

5.4.1.1 Exposure Pathways The envircmmental pathways which were considered in preparing this section are shown in Figure 5.1.

Estimates were made of radiation doses to man at and beyond the site boundary based on NRC staff estimates f expected effluents as shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 site meteorological and hydro-logical ccmsiderations and exposure pathways at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power station.

l i

y e

e g

p,:ma mm pa w;;.a

.s gg,,

.g

.6 5,5 7

(

[.3,,

t,

~

l e

Effluent 1. imitation hidelines Applicable to TMINS (from Title 40 CFR)

TABLE 5.2 f.Nd$

g an.n.Em ent lindwei.a. svweti e

emen,,

wn, e, repec enune lse eirrees of effluensordeesean setsinalJe he sl e applies.

mare.

4.,.

et.,m g

ass one est e

as em.a n unaas n;en of the i.e.a e..il.lele teelsa. Joey JL' n*,"*b M eeenenassily ockbesaMe.

The teusering 11snitations establish the L'8.;;; p"ist.

tomeA suanutr er evaMLy of pollutants or pe14 gT"E""*=g==

. ce 14 esA tutant properues, eentrolled DF this seC*-is) The eventity of peDutants die. -

Sloa.which mor be discharged br a pointse the previstens of charred la be:ler nieweeva shau not es.

cred the enanutt determined br anulas.

scuree sub>ect this subnart after apphesues of the piring the f4w of baner bloodeern tumum best avaHabla tethealegy etenemnaagy i

be sententrauen usted in the followsms I

oshievsblesta) The pH of all discharges. sseeeg -

L**M once throush seeling water, sham be 4.*.,.,a,w' g, winin the races of a p.0.0.

g,,,,,,,

t g,,,,,

(b) There stad be me dischstre e

. e an mn eessa tiphenes compounaa

,a.,

w polychlettristedsuch hs those commonly used for trano A

The espritity of polistants dis. Tve..,.

SenneA stme former nute.

'j'gE'*f ;-- @= 8* *dOne

' charged from low volurne waste sourcesshaU pot exceed the suaatitr desarmined, f,.s i

u e4 (c)

- TBS The euantRF el pollutanta $>

by muluplying the Dow of 3ew volurneeaste sources times the concentrause charted is suce through tendensas wesersbau hot exceed the q listed la the followtag tabisi or multis'rmt the Dow of s,tne thrensa conderaer water sources tienes the tun.

a.me* West centrsuon Inted in the 1600Mug tae*--

smAYEIe a,IeO Esan..E.=u's-M asses 5

I amas E

c====we==a cea=====-

che,swas tes...L.,.....

so rs se mes muaam rm,-4 une 64 m668J 84 on l,*,,l***

_ (di The evantity of pollutants dis.

charged in bettom ash transtart watershau not erreed the cuantsty determined (if 'The cuantitr of potuta.nta d3 charged in ccour'= tor et blowdown sh:2 ash t>y mul:trifying the flow of baticm not exceed the e.santitr determuuss Er trt::tr. ort teater 4:mes tM contentr: Don snuk.@ng the fiest oflow volurns maan lated m the following tnis and dstiding apurres. times the cohesntrautalastas:n-the product by 12.5:

- we !on wt.is taa a,,., s,., _ ci.u.,.,

c.a c._a

~ -.,

n.i.u.,...r ~ ~ =y o..

au a ' a **

5,;,~.P v

.,., u...&,

Lu............es, s._ _ m a u.au

.eu.

- - - - """"8_

so> nie suanut, of,onstani dis.

g charged la fy as): transport water shallnot escaed the.uantit, determined br e.m~

s o a~d* ", i ~ M

,netems the cow of nr un usu. ort n

T water times the cencentntion usted in

'7."

I'.',*, **

mana'b the following table (J) Neitbar free swallable ghinema ner a =.n et eW be discharged

."'i'".'j,t'".;.% total residual chlortne atyfrom any unit for snare than tue hours a.NEdes D Yra\\#

in any one day and not more than one an u s.....e~

/

tmit la any ptarst may da.eharge free arallable er total resadual ch&sezne at Tre.A.U..

vune4 an=sAe. me man u seeA

~

any one time unless the ut"Er eth demonstrate to the re: tonal adusmestra.

on.

(f) The cuantur of pollutants dis. ter or state, t! the state has NFIES pete smt issuW autherny. that the nuns ist a charged in metal cleanhut nates shatt not exceed the enanuty determined by parucular location carmot eperase at er j

belost this 1ctel of crder:nauen, i

mastsplyin2 the fiow ni metal cleaning 2n the erect that waste streams l

wastes times the cor.ctntration listed la from vartmas sourses are comamies for (t) the fo!!oeing tablet irrst* pent et dttcharge, the asuntity of each poUutant or poputant presorty con.tro!!cd in parstraphs thLs scet:en attributable le each con.

troued waste source shau not exceed the specif.ed 1:.r.11auon ior that wisse sourts.

4L*.

.*.LT 4.;.:*. id"= D *y.~. 3=....p.ya*yee;

, -, ws m wwi=

.. % y.'"..

-e-g,e Aurn g

44 4.ea y e- ;y gy,. vy g,. -.

.s

~[....h.

p s

.,.,,.. ;g,,

e

. t.,s.

ypug g.

g

,..gu *..],..e 4.

mgm

4..e n

y.,,...,

n '

.. w

. a:.

w.;

_w.

a-_ _ _

\\

f t

ES-25f0 CASEOUS' E FFLUENT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 79 3

,g Q

LIQUlO g

I.,

EFFLUENT g( }\\ vi l

s.

fq k=

f, s! $\\ '#g*o; o, rect i

RI y

'd P'

g J }.

g

'"*dinica

! I

/(wp

~~~

E $

FUEL TRANSPORT

i. 4h.....

Li I l

s h.,,%,,***ur,

' 4.ts,,gm t.n n

n

.~

~

ming

,to m

w w-0

\\1

, men-CD6 dbOS

%4

.f.

~

i,W,..t.

'g"

~~

.=2

$e

=

g a

- -, c =a k

f

~g-

.t' sw 4

L_

^

-:-~

h w

Fig. 5.1 E'xposure pathways to man n

p r.. ;.:.

+p_. p r:, ;, m.- -s: m a.ww m.m_ m. m.n,,a,,m_._.m, _ s,,_.,3

, %.*.'.;.-.i 2'r..... ' a...:.-;L'Mr?C-;!W,M.. WMpggg~g

j. %.

......... _.g

.e :-.- _ ame., --, ~_. %

2

s

,- i f w;s

.n 2.

,; O '+

n' 4

l

/

W p.

5-7

'l

. inhalation of air and ingest on of food and water containing tritium. C-14 and radiocesium are h

i e581, mated to account for essentially all of total body radiation dose comitments to the popula.

A tion within 50 miles of the station.

E 5.4.1.2 [kse Comitments" from kodioactive Releases to the Atmosphere e

Radioactive effluents released to the' atmo' sphere from the Three Mile 1sland Unit 2 facility

$}

trill result in small radiation doses to the public. NRC staff estimates of the expected gaseous y

and particulate releases listed in Table 3.3 and the site meteorological considerations discussed in Section 2.5 of this statement and sumarized in Table 5.3 were used to estimate radiation

_ doses to individuals and populations. The results of the calculations are discussed below, h

TABLE,5.3

SUMMARY

OF ATMO5pHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS AND DEPOSITION VALUE5 FOR SELECTED LOCATIONS NEAR THE THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 NUCLEAR POWER STATION

RELATIVE E

3 LOCATION SOURCE X/0 (sec/m )

DEP051 TION (m-2) g e

Nearest Site A

1.4 E-06 2.2 E-08 WE Land Boundary B

6.7 E-06 1.4 E-07 W

(0.37 mi WNW)

C 4.5 E-05 1.1 E-07 e

Nearest Residence A

1.4 E-06 2.2 E-CB and Garden B

6.7 E-06 1.4 E-07 r-(0.37 mi WNW)

C 4.5 E-Of 1.1 E-57 b

The doses presented in the following tables are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud depletion from deposition, where appropriate, in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport

=

and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light Water h

Reactors." March 1976.

y

" Nearest" refers to that type of location where the highest radiation dose is expected to occur from all appropriate pathways.

Source A is reactor Building Vent g

Source B is Reactor Building Vent Purge

-?

Source C is Turbine Building Vent Radiatior Dose Comitments to Individuals r[

W.

The predicted dose comitments to " maximum" individuals at the offsite locations where doses are h

expected to be largest are listed in Table 5.4 A maximum individual is assued to consume well g

above average quantities of the foods. considered (see Table A-2 in Regulatory Eeride 1.109). The b.'

standard KRC models were used in order to realistically model features of the Three Mile Island l

Un12 2 plant design and the site environs.

{.

Radiatfor Dose Comitments to Populations The estiuted annual radiation dose comitment to the population (within 50 miles) for the Three Mile Island Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant from gaseous and articulated releases were besed on the projected site population distribution for the year 2010. Doses beyond the 50-mile radius were

' b@.

based on the average population densities discussed in Appendix 0 of this statement. The annual populattern dose comitments are presented in Table 5.7.

Background radiation doses are pro-E eided for comparison. The doses from atmospheric releases from the Three Mile Island Unit 2

ti 8

facility during normal operation represent an extremely small increase in the normal population i

dose free background radiation sources.

l [g i~

CI' I

eW m

bg C

m~

r.L :...: = '. ". r T. :p c u p w w.1 w. x

,.;.w. -.. :.3 J

N 9004 I

K s

S 0C01 y

a w

h tap G

224 N

3004 e

t U

8 L

0001 a

ir 5

p i

o N

r E

p UL 0

p a

1 0

026 F

U R

3005 l

l Y

E H

0001 a

T T

A

)

m L

r or U

y f

C

/

m I

r T

e R

e u

A mR c

P (E

024 c

V 3004 o

D EI N

SL 0001 o

A O

t D

d S

e U

t O

c E

S E

02 ep 30.*9 A

N x

G O

B 00* 5 e

O s

T i

E e

U s

4 D

o 5

L T

d A

C E

U A

024 n

L D

R 3004 o

i B

I T

A V

0001 t

a T

I I

D G

i d

N a

I r

M t

U s

M e

I h

XA ig M

Y h

A DO e

O B

024 h

3004 t

T L

S A

0001 e

r T

T N

O e

h E

T w

H T

n t

o i

f i

t t0 a

C

?l c

E dd o

ll l

5 ii 00 thh f

i CC o

L s((

A o

e l

pnn p

a eoo y

tN Dii t

A Y

tt A

d aa t

W enl t a

H muae h

r T

uoh g t

y A

l rne

/

P PGI Y o m t

er s m re 1

0 f

e

)

r 0 N

I "t

na nW ee s h N

cdt e

t O

tnra r

I sea a s T

edG7 e s N e 3

A ri l

C asd O

een0 L

NR a(

j;l 7ad f f, S

1 l

f' p

a l

, f. ; t r,'., t.

-.'eW:.j:~

lJ

[g,

. !ii f

i b#1. rd g

f. Om *3 1 ? {

9Y, g d i

,s.

t

.. l.7 4,

i:

). i,...J !i $' n

,t.

f ' * ~

I l

.[ p

!I\\!

W,.

c-a. n u..

,a...: :. n::. m :.

.?

> sw

v. n v

,x..

c..

e.

O b"Il b

5.4.1.3 Dese Commitments from Radioactive Liquid Releases to the Hydrosobere Radioactive effluents released to the hydrosphere from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 fad 11ty during normal operation will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations. NRC staff estimates of the expected liquid releases listed in Table 3.2. and the site hydrological considerations discussed in Section.2.4 of this statement and sumarized in Tabie 5.5 were used to estimate radiation dose comitments to individuals and populations. The results of the cal-culations are discussed below.

ThBLE5.$

SUMMARY

OF HYOROLOGIC TRANSPORT AND 015PER$10N FOR LIQUID RELEASES

+

FROM THE THREE MILE 15pHD UNIT 2 FJCLEAR POWER STATION

LOCATTON TRANSIT TIME (Hours)

DILUTION FACTOR Nearest Drinking Water Intake (16 mi. downstream Columbia,Pa) 3.

20.

Nearest Sport f

Fishing Location (s.1 mi. dewnstream)**

<1.

2.

Nearest Shoreline

(.1 mi. downstream)

<1.

1.

q Nearest Irrigated **

Crops (3.5 mi. downstream) 41, 20.

5ee Regulatory Guide 1.112.

Analytical Models for Estimating Radioisotopes Concentrations in Different Water Bodies" (1976).

" Assumed for purposes of an upper limit estimate--detailed infomation not available.

Radiation Dose Comitments to Individuals The estimated dose comitments to individuals at selected offsite locations where exposures are espected to be largest are listed in Table 5.6.

The standard NRC models given in Regulatory Guide 1.109 were used for these analyses.

Radiation Oose Commitments to Populations The estimated population radiation dose comitments to 50 miles for the Three Mlle Island Unit 2 facility from liquid releases, based on the use of water and biota from the Susquehanna River, are shown in Table 5.7.

Dose commitments beyond 50 miles were based on the assumptions discussed in Appendix D.

Eackground radiation doses are provided for comparison. The dose comitments from liquid releases from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 facility represent small increases in the population dose from background radiation sources.

S.4.1.4 Direct Radiation Radiation from the facility Radiation fieles are produced ir, nuclear plant environs as a result of radioactivity contained within the reactor and its associated components.

Doses from sources within the plant are primarily due to nitrogen-16, a radionuclides produced in the reactor core. Because of variations in equipment lay out, exposure rates are strongly cependent upon overall plant design. Since the primary coolant of pressurized water reactors is

. contained in a heavily shielded area of the plant, dose rates in the vicinity of PWR's are generally undetectable (less than 5 mrem /yr).

i

~

TCAR 4

3 5

T 0

2

,0 I

0 0

~

0 G

e lba l

i G

4 4

4 a

's N

0 2

0 v

a U

0 L

0 0

ton y

t i

S v

T i

N D

t U

O 8

9 c

E I

5 u

0 1

L R

d 0

F Y

o F

)H 0

0 O

r E

rT p

y D

/

d m

n I

U e

a Q

r I

mR 5'

e L

(E 40 1

0 g

V a

0 EI 0

s 1

5L 0

2 u

0 E

0 n

U o

D n

6 S

o T

E i

2 5

N N

t E

O a

1 E

H B

m L

T r

B 1

o 1

f A

t n

T t0 i

C d

E e

S l

O i

D Y

a D

t L

O e

A B

5 d

U 4

D L

0 6

0

-e I

A V

T 0

1 0

ta I

O m

D T

i N

t I

se LA t

U i

N r

)

m N

e a

A t

e t

i a

r l

l W

A nd u s

ood r

g l

t i oA e

Y n

l n

tF(

p A

i a

e a -

p W

k f

m grs u

ep i

H n

ht id rt o n

T i

su P

D F(

S IWC A

r i O e

rar a

f o ry

)

s /

m e m a

)

s e e

r r

)

a o r t

m m

a p p

. Cs a

a e

r

,. an e

e r

u 1

Ww r

r t

p 0 o

t t

s rd s

s n

r 0 e

h n

n

d w

o.

v.

s w

w ee o

f t

il ino o

st sd a

R m F od ed Uap d h i

n go.

e t NO t6 tt.

ti ti rl m

srCm u s I

s1 s c1 sll T

e(

eum eem er s s A

r rd rr rI d5 s e

.A.L C

ae ao1 ao) a o

h.

ef o3

e. S (

NoF(

O es er L

NU HP(

f a

[j d*:jff.,!yigWtudy1.

3

/ j I

li. i: h[ aEb '

"I h

j )sQ h' i '

F;,g N ![, qA!

1 Ah tih }

i

. i l

I r'.$ N,f [j:

.f

'. p ;

'1d

.[ y fIL'N}!'i -

M. s 1

f.g

4 r

N < n?,k'*.

)5E

j.tl f

rs ;_..

b ; ' ??- ";..

<c

'. ~..

^

J.

W

(~

5-11 t

TABLE 5.7 7

ANNUAL POPULATION DOSE C0f4MITMENTS IN THE YEAR 2010

)

Population Dose Comitment (man-rem) 6 50 Miles U.S. Population l)

Category Natur al Radiation Beckground(8}

310,000.ID) 28,000,000.IC) b e

i

_ Three Mile Island Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant Operation 500.

7 Plant Work Force 11, 33.

General E ;<. 'Totai) 2.

2.

I Noble Gases Submersion d.

i 1.

1.

j Inhalation J

Ground Deposition 18.

Terrestrial Foods (including irrigated crops) u 3.

5.

d yi Drinking Water Aquatic Foods g

Recreation p

Transportation of nuclear 7.

1 fuel and radioactive wastes Ei

'Less than 1 man rem /yr

[

" Included in the U.S. population, since some exposure is received by pertens residing (a)" Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

. f outside 50 mile radius.

3 ORP-51D 72-1 (June 1972).

E (b)Using the average Pennsylvania state background dose (97. mrem /yr) in (a), aad year 2010

~;

prof ected population of 3.200,000.

f IC)Usiry; the average U.S. background dose (102 mrem /yr) in (a), and year 2010 projectedfro j

i U.S. population of 280.000,000 U.S. Dept. of Comerce Bureau of the census. Series P-25. No. 541 (Feb.1975).

G I

Low level radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less p.

than C.01 mrem / year at the site boundary.

P 5.

Occupa-ional Radiation Exoosure Based on a review of the applicant's safety analysis report, the staff has determined that the applicant is comitted to design features and operating practices which will assure that indi-5 vidual occupational radiatien doses -(occupational dose is defined in 10 CFR Part 20) and that For individual and total plant population doses will be as low as is reasonably achievable.*

f the purpose of portraying the radiological impact of the plant operation on all onsite personnel, For a plant designed and pro-r it is necessary to estimate a man-rem occupational radiation dose.

E which influence exoosure and make it difficult to determine a quantitative tota t

radiation dose for a specific plant. Therefore, past exposure experience from operating nuclear

[

pcwer stations ** has been used to provide a widely applicable estirate to be used for all light y

This p

water reactor pcwer plants of the type and size for the Three Mile Island Unit 2 plant.

i experience indicates a value of 500 man-rem per year per reactor unit.

?

On this basis, the projected occupational radiation exposure impact of the Three Mile ". land 2

Unit 2 station is estimated to be 500 man-rem per year.

O r

10 ~7R Part 20. Standards for Protection Against Raciation.

1969-1974 "NUR:EG 75/032. Occupational Radiation Fnosure to Light Water Cooled Reactors

{

(June 1975).

b E

i E

b

.... ~

.r.~,w.u;.cc.zc.. e gw. w

~az:3. p;,ug w z..: m

?..:a; w;;m x m: ;;;p, m-; m., m-v-g cw :- x-9

(' '

$ 12 j',s-I l

Transpo_rtatio$ of Radioactive Material The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the rea I

' the scope of the NRC report entitled. " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Rasticactive -

Materials to and from Nut' uar Power Plants." "The emironmental effects of such transportation are summarized in Table 5.8.

I TABLE 5.8 ;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL AND WA$TE TD AND FROM ONE LIGHT-WATER C00 LEO HUCLEAR POWER REACTORa I

Normal conditions of transport 250.000 Btu /hr Heat (per ir adiated fuel task in transit) 73.000 lbs. per tmuck; 100 tons t'eight (governed by Federal or State restrictions) per cask per run car l

<1 per day Traffic density

<3 per month Rail

.I Exposed pcpwlation Estimated Range of doses Ctenulative dose to

{

exposed populat'.am number of to exposed (man-rems per reactor yr)C individuals persons (millirems per reactor yr) n I

b,,

Transportation 0.01 to 300 4

Vorker 200 General Public 0.003 to 1.3 i

Onlookers 1.100 Along Route 600.000 0.0001 to 0.06 3

Accidents in transport d

Sma11 Radiological effects I

i 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; l

Comon (n::r. radiological) causes 1 nonfatal injury in 10 reactor yearn i

l

$475 property damage per reactor year 4

0ata suporting this table are given in the Comission's Environmental Survey j

8 Supp.1. HUREG 75/038, April 1975.

The Federal Radiation Council has recomended that the radiation doses from an sou b

i radiatice. Other than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5.000 millire-s/ year for individuals as a result of occupational exposure and should he limited toThe dose to indiv 500 millirems / year for individuals in the general population.

average natural background radiation is about 102 millirems / year.

Man rem is an expression for the summation of whole-body deses to individuals la a group.

Thus, if each member of a population group of 1.000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem C

(1 millirem). or if 2 people were tm receive a dose of 0.5 rem (500 millirems) each, the total rr.an-rem in each case would be 1 man-rem.

Althousm the environmental risk of radiological effects steming from tra d

less of whether it is being applied to a $1 ogle reactor or a multireactor site.

l

"~

.s.

X. J i ~.2 3 T *s ? '. : C Q i, j 2 : 5 L ;

q.c G

. = _-

- m: =.

x.-

nw m'~

~;'*

~'

(.~.

C.

5-13

'5.4.1.5 Com6arison (# 00se Assessment Models t

The applicant's site and environmental data provided in the F. environmental Report

and in Evalua-tion to Demonstrate Compilance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! was used extensively in the dose calcu-14tions.

5.4.1.6 Evaluation of Radiological Impact The radiological impact of operating the proposed Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power station is presented in terms of individual dose comitments in Table 5.7.

The annual individual dose ccrazitments resulting from routine operation of the plant are a small fraction of the dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20. The population dose comitments are small fractions of the dose froa natural environmental radioactivity. As a results the staff concluded that there will be no ceasurable radiological impact on man from routine operation of this plant.

5.4.1.7 Comparison of Calculated hses with NRC Design Obiectives Tables 5.9 and 5.10 show a comparison of calculated doses from routine releases of liquid and i

gaseous effluents from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 plant with the design objectives of Appen-dix I to 10 CFR 50 and with the proposed :taff design objectives of RM-50-2.

4 TABLE 5.9 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES TO A PAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL FROM THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 OPERATION WITH GUIDES FOR DESIGN OBJECTIVES PROPOSED BY THE STAFFa RM-50-2 CALCULATED CRITER10N DESIGN OBJECTIVE DOSE Liquid Effluents Cose to total body or any organ from all pathways 5 mrem /yr 2.3 mrem /yr Notle Gas Effluents (at site boundary)

Gama dose in air 10 mrad /yr 0.5 mrad /yr l

Seta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 1.5 mrad /yr Dese to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.3 mrem /yr Cose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 1.0 mrem /yr Radiciodine and Particulate Cose to any organ from all pathways (Child) 15 mrem /yr 5.9 mrem /yr aGuides on Design Objectives proposed by the NRC staff on February 20, 1974; considers doses to individuals from all units on site. From " Concluding Statement of Position of the l

Regulatory Staff." Docket No. RM-50-2. Feb. 20.1974, pp. 25-30, U.S. Atomic Energy

)

Cc. mission. Washington. 0.C.

i bCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 Environmental Report. Operating License Stage.

Metropolitan Edison Co.. Docket Number 50-320.

l l

e

= ;.

n.% n. rau.::;-

s. m mz m.

. r::, m,c.;w w:r:-, s n m;

.O, w-

]

C 5-[

.n,

~ v TABLE 5.10

+

C0ftPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES TO A MAXIMUM INDIY10 VAL FROM THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 OPERATION WITH APPENDIX 1 DESIGN OBJECTIVE 5al g

APPENDIX !

CALCULATED CRITER!fN DESIGN OBOICTIVE Dot!

, Liquid Effluents i.

Dese to total body from allpathways(Adult)

., 3 mrom/yr.,.

1.7 mrea/yr Dose to any organ from allpathways(Adult-Liver) 10 mrem /yr 2.3 mesm/yr Noble Gas Effluents (at site bound &ry)

Gar:rna dose in air 10 mrad /yr 0.5 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 1.5 mrad /yr Dose to total' body of an individual.

5:nrem/yr 0.3 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 1.0 mres/yr b

Radiciodines and Particulate Dose to any organ from all pathways (Child-bone) 15 mrem /yr 5.9 mres/yr aAppendix ! Design Objectives from Sect.ons 11.A. !!.B. II.C of Appendix 1.10 CFR Part 50; considers doses to maximum individual per reacter unit. From Federal Register V. 40, p.19442. May 5.1975.

g

.bCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.

l 5.4.2 Radiological Impact on Biota Other Than Man The models and considerations for environmental pathways leading to estimates of radiation doses to biota are discussed in detail in Volume 2. " Analytical Models and Calculations" of WASH-1258.*

5.4.2.1 Ereosure Pathways The environmental pathways which were considered in preparing this section are shown in Figure 5.2.

Dose estimates were made for biota at the nearest land and water boundaries of the site, and in the equatic environment at the point where plant's liquid effluents mix with the Susquehanna River.

i The estimates were based on estimates of expected effluents as sh>m in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. site meteorological and hydrological considerations, and the exposure pathways anticipated at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power station.

5.4.2.2 Deses to Biota from Radioactive Releases to the Biosobere Depending on the pathway (as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.109), terrestrial and aquatic biota Dose estimates will receive doses approximately the same or somewhat higher than man receives. Doses to a greater for some typical biota at the Three Mile Island. site are shown in Table 5.11.

number of similar biota in the offsite environs will generally be much lower.

/ES. Numerical Guides for Design Objrctives and Limiting Conditions for Op'eration to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Pwer Reactor Effluents. WASH-1258. July 1973.

.I I

i h

r-

,._u,,..,--

_. _:x _ __-____--_ _-__ - -

h _,.X -

L: : a c.;;;

4

,,-~ s

>.<.a.

u.. ;

.z; ;,, ;. _

'm

- j,7 l

p j

(~~'

g

)

5-15

, u M

m 3

l $

i ;*

s C

, 4 1

k$

C 1

GASEOUS EFFLUENTS' NUCLEAR FACluTY O3

}

t (I

LIOUID EFFLUENTS

[-

h Foog

/ @ Terr.ve\\s1

$$ h5 T-~

j

E 4,\\<

p a

[

,e s3

.E t A 4

~

s

%e,,,

p..

i

, I s

- - - ~ - -

/

,AY i

i 7.'8m=< ion 4

}

N g

wet f

- 2.-

-g' 6

g_

\\

'g S,,,,

x

%~

\\ % f_*8. e %_ f f

-~

\\

s.o.m.d S

G Exposure pathways, to biota other than man Fig. 5.2

--u__,

A

7

' a:.

s a a

, y, y ec.

z.

i'cTIJ' i

e

' y E.

5-16 e e.

f.,

o~r ";

g Q

' TABLE 5.11 m

I DOSE ESTlf1ATES FOR TYPICAL BIOTA AT THE THRE! MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 SITE BIOTA LOCATION pATWAY DOSE (mrad /yr) 3% Pat Deer Nearest Site Atmosphere j

land Boundary (0.4 mi. WNW)

0. 6 Fox 1.0

)

\\

Terrestrial 0.2 Flora Raccoon Atmosphers 1

Hydrosphere 2

j

)

Muskrat 10 F

Heron 20

.-g/

Duck Plant Outfall 10 dr#

Fiih Hydrosphere 10 l

Invertebrates 8

I Algae

?

Note: K'tdospneric doses include estimates of plume dose, ground

~

deposition dose. ir.halation dose; and ingestion deses where N

appropriate. Hydrospheric doses include estimates of imersion dose, dose from consumption, and sediment dose where appropriate.

ma:".

I K*

j

.5.4.2.3 Mses to Biota from Direct Radiatig 3

g Although 1tany of the terrestrial species may be continuously exposed, and thereby receive higher "M

doses than man, aquatic species and some terrestrial species may receive somewhat lower doses y

depending on shielding Ly water or soil (e.g., burrows). As a result of these uncertainties, it was asstred that the direct radiation doses to biota at the site boundary will be about the same as for man.

S.s shown on Table 5.9, direct radiation doses will generally be less than 5 mrad /yr.

DA 35

5. 4. 2. 4 Evaluation of the Radiological Impact on Biota (a,b) gW Although guidelines have not been established for desirable limits for radiation exposure to g

species cther than man, it is generally agreed thtt the limits established for humans are also N.~

conservative for other species. Experience has shown that it is the maintenance of population stability that is crucial to the survival of a species, and species in most ecosystems suffer Q

rather higt, mortality rates from natural causes. While the existence of extremely radit, sensitive biota is possible and while increased radiosensitivity in oigenisms may result from environmental

$0 interact'ons with other stresses (e.g., heat, biocides, etc.), no biota have yet been discovered that sho. a sensitivity (in terms of increased disease or death) to radiation exposures as low as those expected in the area surrounding the Three Mile Island nuclear power station. The "8EIR" Report ccccluded that the evidence to date indicates that no other living organisms are very

~,cm much more radiosensitive than man. Therefore, no measurable radiological ir.Gact on populations pLE

~

of biota is expected from the radiation and radioactivity released to the bicsphere as a rtsult of the routine operation of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear poner station.

N trr M

p a.1. Asertach. " Ecological Considerations in Siting Nuclear Power Flants. The Long Ter:n Biota W

SEffects Problems " hoc 1. Safety 12: 25 (1971).

b"The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of lonizing Radiation," NAS-NRC,1972 g

("EE!R* Report).

ist m

~

u 9:*.

T;r.. m pm m m c.W n.w = = = = = 1 : n.c::a. 4 ;.

2 c 1 c.

.= x in

r

-n

-v mM.a 5-17 T

w

(

k 0

. 5.4.3 Envir'onmental Effects 01

.e Uranium Fuel Cycle

m The Draf t Environmental Statement for 1141-2. published in early July 197.6. swzaarized the environ-N I

dental effects of uranium mining and milling. the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel f abrication. reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive l

materialso and management of low-and nigh-level wastes. These environmental effects are set out in Table 5-3 of 10 CFR part Sl. which was reproduced as Table 5.5 in the TMI-2 DES.

On July 21. 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colmbia Circuit decided, in Natu-al Reseurces Defense Council v. NRC. that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (Comission) final f uel cycle < ule 09 FR 14168. AprtT72.1974) was inadequately supported by the record insof ar as it treated two aspects of the fuel cycle--the impacts frcm reproc; sing of spent fuel

. and radioactive vaste management. The decision generally complimented other aspects of WASH-1248.

%w M

-the Comission's environmental survey underlying Table 5-3.

e@m iM

~

In response to the Court decision, the Comissten issued a: General Statement of Policy (41 FR 34707 August 16, 1976). In that statement, the Comission announced its intention to reopen rulemaking proceedings on the ens tronmental effects of the fuel cycle to supplement the existing record with f

regard to reprocessing and waste management. to determine whether the rule should be amended, and if so. in what respect. The Comission directed the staff to prepare a well-documented supplement y

to WASN1248 to establish a basis for identifying en*l1ronmental impacts associated with fuel reprocessing and waste management activities that are attributable to the licensing of a model P',"

light water reactor (LWR). The NRC staff issued NUREG Oll6. Environmental Survey of the g

Reprocessing and Waste Manacement Fortions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. In OctoDer 1976 for this l

q%

ovrpose, t

On Nove.ber 5.1976. the Comission issued a Supplemental General Statem'nt of Policy regarding

%W the licensing of nuglear power plants as related to the analysis of fuel cycle environmental i

impacts. The Comission concluded that licensing of light w ter reactors may be resumed on a conditional basis using existing Table S-3 for reprocessing and waste managenent, provided the rg reviset values presented in the Comission's notice of proposed rslemaking of October 18. 1976 g~

were also examined to determine the effett on the cost benefit balance for ccustructing or operating the plant.

In acc rdance with the proposed rule. the staff has cor$1dered the revised Yalpes for reprocessing Q

and waste management in its determination of the effect on the rost benefit balance as presented r.n in Cha:ter 10 of the Draf t Supplement to the "E5 for the Three Mile' Island. Unit 2.

EWE YTC In the original fuel cycle rule. the environmental imoacts for fuel cycle activities were summa.

@R rized in Table 5-3, as shun in 10 CFR i 51.20 and presented as Table 5.5 on page 5-11 of the Draf t Supplement to the Three Milo Island, Unit 2 FES. Table 5.12 of this Final Environmental Statement presents a s.mey of environmental considscations of the uranium fuel cycle as orig-j inally contained in Table 5-3 together with the codifications given in the proposed rulemaking e.:a 1

notice of October 18, 1976, and described in NUREG-0116. Principal changes include those in the categ:-ies of land use. chemir.a1 effluents. iodine releases. Carbon-14 releasen and buried g

solics.

g b

j The fcllowing describes the differences between th( imparts presented in Table S-3, as it was origirally promulgated in 10 CFR 151.20. and the changes in certain impacts resulting from the M

i revised assessment of reprocessing fand waste management considerations described in NUREG 0110 (p.

j The land ccmitment reflected in NUREG-Oll6 is slightly larger than that reflected in the original Table S-3.

The original estimates were smaller by some 30 acres per reference reactor year in g

tem; -arily comitted land and about 3 acres per year in pemanently comitted land for waste Q

These revWons increase the temporary land cer1mitment assmciated with the fuel dispcsal.

cycle supporting the TMINS-2 facility over its projected 30 year optrating life by some 641 of g

the a oroxirately 200 acres temporarily comittej for operation of the facility itself. The he j

total annual land recuired for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000 MWe LWR is approximately ff Q;.4 j

100 a:res (94 acres temporarily comitted and 7.1 acres permanently cemittae.). Over the 3D-year operating life of the plant this amounts to abaxt 2100 acres, which is approximately eleve. times as large as the comitment for the TMINS f acility itself. Considering comen 5

classes of land use in the United States 'he revised vaives do not constitute a significant fE change. Hydrogen chlorida has been included in NUREG-0116 as a gaseous chemical effluent.

$E The amount is a Q

resulting from incineration of plastics in the waste management systems.

small fraction of other acid gas ef fluents from the fuel cycle discussed in both Table E-3 and y

0-NUREi-0116. No significant impact is attributable to the change. Most of the other changes under the heading of chemical effluents have been revised downwardy g

m--

TC' Radic. active effluents released to the env ronment estimated to result from the reprocessing and if i

D:

waste management activities or other phases of the fuel cycle process are presently set forth ia Table 5 3.

Based on these ef fluents, the overall gaseous dose comitment to the U,5. population p.:

from the fuel cycle for a 1000 MWe reference reactor would te approx'mately 250 man-rem peryar.

g H.

ri

?

- 8*

8%,

'e

[

v.

t f-9

".,' -~.;f p f:., 4.. - Q. C @ @. W -f: :.3 @.' "

1.-J.Wi-#,.ty-

-- ;.r.

4Qip+

~

-7 ~,, Mf

a. - -.... ~..

~w_.

~ g.:.~p..

~

c=

. -- y.s

,.. ;r ;.

,,,c,;

,,,. m,

,g,. y g,,,,

y,, -

5 18 w)_".i p

Rf

~~^

TABLE 5.12

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMS!0EeT!0NS FOR URAti!UM FUEL CYCLE g.

NORMALIZED TO MODEL LWR AZFIRENCE REACTOR YEARa

. M TOTAL c.w NATURAL RESOURCE U$E WASH-1243b NURIG-0116C Land (Acres}_

Temporarily Committed 63 94

. *i Undisturbed Area 45 73 Disturbed Area 18 22 Perr.anently Comitted 4.6 7.1 Overburden Moved 2.7 2.8 j

(millions of MT)

Water (milliens of gal.)

i Discharged tc air 156 159 M

Discharged to water bodies 11,040 11.090 m

Discharged to ground 123 124 SPk Total Water 1).319 11,J 7.t 7

Fossil Fuel te;5 mcoeh Electrical energy 317 321 (thousandMW-br.)

Equivalent coal (thousand MT) 115 117 Ph

%uw Natural Gas (million scf) 92 124 H=

s3 Effluents e4 G

Che'mical (MT) uw=r f.G' Gases (MT) 2W:

4,400 4.400 E

50, 6

1,177 1,190 g

NO,

<r:]

W Hydrocarbons 13.5 14 CO 28.7 29.6 W

Particulate 1,156 1.154 Q

FT7 Other Gases g

F' O.72 0.57 O.14 S:f'.

hcl W.

GG Liovids

.o t M

10.3 9.9

$0*4 E

26.7 25.8 35 N0*3 g

Fluoride' 12.'9 12.9 vM Ca*

5.4 5.4 W

9 Cl*

8.6 8.5 7'

Y...!

d.5 I'.'.~.

te ss

r

. ~ - n, -, - A. g - - -- $-..... -.s y,... f.- - - -.. - - - -

m,

.v.esa s.-..;~r m en m -,

,-w,a y y

~a*[,*Y,~.

's. y *

*$ '~

h.., ?h, hey..

~

.$ s

N5f?f ? 's ~' h fjfhha,L

. -.. ~. -.

w..a c.

. s; a ~ c ~.

1

c. :..

w-

?:

y: :...w-

.....;; ;- ;yr; -- z;;, m q - - ----- q m-t i

5-19 I

CO S

$~,*

\\

Lo->.s.

M-

~

TABLE 5.12 (ConBineed)

MR

)

a.

1

- M,"

TOTAL j

NA?J'dll RESOURCE USE WASH-12aB w(mgg.0116 W

Ef fluents (Cont'd) e.

a NA' 16.9 12.1 4

11.5 10.0 H4' Tailings Solutions (thousands) 240 240 Fe

_. 0.4 0.4 r

Solids 91,000 91,000 Rseiological (curies) g Gases (includjnc entrainment)

^!

74.5 74.5 p~

Rn-222 0.02 0.02 Ra-226 M'

0.02 0.02 Th-230 0.032 0.034 k.W Uranium Tritium (thousants) 16.7 18.1 "49 T

Kr SS (thousands) 350 400 0.0024

1. 3 1-129 0.024 0.83 I-131

~ ~

1.0 0.021 Fission Products 1

0.004 0.024 Transuranic 24

{

C-14 Licuids 2.1 2.1 Uranium & Daughters

~

5.9E-6 h

Fission & Activation Products 0.0034 0.0034 Ra-226 0.0015 0.0015 g

Th-230 0.01 0.01 Th-234 M

2.5 Tritium (thousands) m-J 0.15 Ru-106 L':t8.

Sclids (buried onsite)d EM:

Other than high level (shallow) 601 5,300 1.lE+7 h.

TRU & HLW (deep)

Tmermal (biflions of Btu) 3,360 3,462 ts /t M

Transportation (man-rems)

W.

Exposure of workers' (nd general public 0.334 2.46 E.;

C N

' Reference Reactor Year (RRY) is a 1000 MWe reactor operating at 80% of its maximurn capacity for one year. An RRY is equivalent to an Annual Fuel Requirement as used in g@;

" WASH-1248 dated April 1974.

-ac 7able S-3 values, h.:

Sevised Table S-3 values.

g M

botreleasedtotheenvironment.

PA SOURCES: Environmental suoply of the Reprocessing and Waste Manacement Portions of M

j the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-Oll6, October 1976.

g l

l Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. WASH 1248 April 1974.

[

f T *'

I I

w 3

l

.~

'.**e t

n.

7.4 G. ~'*yT=l.MQ y-2yy l'. ' ~ ".;, p: pg.:;;;y:,w.s.wn k,'

)

- - 7..... '.I,;.,y.yj ** *#

....... %.R,-.R.. (...,Q, jgj.,-

~ - ** * * - ' :.i ',~-T ;,**f. ~.;;~5.'$ },,

.~

-_._______.______.____i

( s '.y. x. f. a.

. 1.

i ::

"v.~

.. :.a ;

n L J:

~

.:a..

s ~ ~ ~. :

17

~

~ - '

.. u n.

c N.;

5-20.

{

.. e,

7

,rg 2

.T$1s is. approximately.001% of the average natural background dose of approximately 21.000,000 man rfm* to the U.S. population. The dose comitment to the U.S. population from radioactive N

liovid effluents due to fuel cycle operations would be approximately an additional 260 man-rem"

%=

per year for a 1000 MWe reference reactor. The combined dose comitment, therefore, would be about 510 man-rem annually, w,

As a resuit of the staff's supplemental survey, NURIG-0116, there have been increases in the g

estimated Carbon-14, lodine, and Tritium release rates. Carbon-14 is the principal addition to radioactive gaseous effluents and'results in a dose estimate of 110 man-rem to the U.S. popu-1 1ation. Together, these additional releases will add some 150 man-rem to the gaseous U.S. dose comitment of 250 man-rem as detemined using Table S-3.

The total gaseous and liquid involuntary e

dose comitment to the U.S. population utilizing revised source tem data presented in NUREG-Oll6 1

is comparable to the 510 man-rem dose calculated using Table S-3.

3 The substitution of a " threw away" cycle would incr' ease the des'e comitment accumulated to the appr year 2000 for the reprocessing and waste management portions of the fuel cycle. This is due principally to increased occupational exposure during fuel f,torage. These effects amount to some 12,000 man-rem total to the year 2000 and would have only a small effect on overall population dose comitment. Furthermore, they may not be detectable against natural background exposure during this 25 year period of some 2-3 rem for every member of the general public.***

nra.,

%w$

There is an increase to the transportation dose comitment presented in Table S-3.

The revised transportation dose value of some 2.5 man-rem is based upon refined calculational assumptions and M

modeling techniques. This dose is not considered significant in comparison to the natural w

backs'ound.

St M

There has been an increase in the quantity of buried radioactive waste material (both high level and transuranic). These wastes are placed in the geosphere and are not released to the biosphere ga and no radiological environmental impact is expected from such disposal. Table S-3 did not CN-include either the disposal of high level or transurar.ic wastes or low-level wastes which are buried.

g EZA In accordance with the Commission's directive contained in the Supplemental General Statement of av Policy, the staff has assessed, as set forth above, the effect of using the revised chemical E

processing and waste storage values set forth in the Comission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking M@'-

of October 18, 1976, on the cost-benefit balance for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

These impacts, as discussed above, are so small that there is no significant change in impact from that associated with the' effects presented in Table S-3, M'-

M%

5.5 NONRAD10 LOGICAL EFFECTS W

l@

5.5.1 Terrestrial m

W The only potential source of significant environmental damage to the terrestrial etaironment g"l.

from the operation of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 is the drif t from the natural draft cooling t0wers. The FES-OL, December 1972 (see Appendix B), addressed the question of h-drift with simple conservative arguments and concluded that no damage should result from the W

operation of the THINS towers. Nevertheless both crop and natural vegetatiot, monitoring programs

?&

were recommended by the staff and incorporated in the license for Unit 1.

C-3 At this time more advanced n.odels could be applied to the problem, but since THINS Unit 1 bas been in operation since June 1974 it is possible to address the results of the monitoring pro-E grams. 50 far the applicant has only made available the results of the studies from June 5 to M

November 30, 1974 Since this period coincides with plant startup, the plant factor for this E

period is low compared to full power operation.

4m Based on the limited infomation from 1974, no vegetative effects attributable to cooling tower

$id drift were reported. Detailed plant pathology investigations and analyses of species composition W-failed to show any salt stress or shif ts in species composition not due to normal succession.

h w.

Baseo upon a natural background dose rate of 100 mrem /yr.

- This nuder is substantially reduced by NUREG-Oll6, since the liquid source tems, 6-Jg particularly for. tritium, have been revised downward, t -@

M.

- - As a resvit of increased requirements for new source material due to a " throw away" cycle, estimated releases from mining and milling would be increased. This, in turn, would increase the estimated dose comitment for the total fuel cycle by some 600 man-rem per reference A(;

reactor year, Although this is larger than the dose connitment due to other elements of fuel cycle, it is still small compared to the natural background exposure level of some 21,000,000 C...

man rem per year.

g;-

e p

.h

~ ' '..

?. f~.[., Q.)

QJ-.

- ll.

~

= - -

---. 3 r) lh f

, r--

i a

v

":::2 E

Ef'N-dr 5s E

s E ;j s

_., a 5 *k E

%:f

['.

5 Gsem

'g g>

~

E Q p; W m _.g s!

s 5mJ C'

c zw E

W g

a e

mes >.

@C

E: :d E

5 h

h,'~E a

e d

i

58 Et g

g EEo E'

E"$g 5

g

$$rg 5

e e

g4 d 5

EndE w

6seE d'

e N 'h

.Y

- a e.~.

gi h2E $

d v 5..,

w E

.= = c e e

N

'N s

p p/-4 69 p il

i

~..T y _,

l 0 1 1lf); 8 7 r

i o

a v

c:==:::

g b

h._'W' d

a2 m

@$m el

~

gS u

Q t

a:::-i +e\\

t si:

c.

g 5 A '&}

N

'I G

t E w~

E c

d5 >-

1 i

~d FJ

= a: s E' F E'

l J

E$

d i

Q 5

si M

39o h C,=

Enge w w cs 5 g

g GFQ P

.a g a m

gMm d 5'

~ ~N

.-S y

r

$ < 3.I sM e

b E5h

~.. A g g

2..?

r::

W s

E

.= = c e

=

k

,\\

l

~

f

$ts/

0'/,

~ - - -

F/W l

c.

r

/

BASES FOR RECOMMENDATION REACTOR BUILDING ATMOSPHERE NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP SAFELY AND PROMPTLY PustIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF 181 ALTERNATIVE EXAMINED ARE NEGLIGIBLE THE SLOW, CONTROLLED METHOD IS AVAILABLE NOW PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACTS MAY INCREASE WITH FURTHER DELAYS IN INITI ATING CLEANUP OF THE REACTOR BUILDING CONTROLLED PURGING IS THE QUICKEST AND SAFEST FOR THE WORKERS AT TMI l

1 1

l l

4 I

i

\\

l l

)

l j

ES-IN A"ED GAM M A JOSE RATES l

1.N SIDE REACTOR BU LDll\\ G

[R,r 85 Beta Do-se To Bare Skin is 150 rad /hr) 3/4 From K?S q/4 From \\Nalls

& Sump i

1.3 rem /hr Total Sody l

'$3 From Kg5 Personnel Airlock 2.3 R/ hr < $

From

( Walls & Sump

\\

305' Level _

120 R/ hr 0.1 R/ nr l' From Sur' ace,

inside

_ _ L = = :_ :::

Airtack 290' Level-A 7

Water

__.--_____.____-__-_0

1 COMMENTS RECEIVED 1

500 - OPPOSED CONTROLLED PURGE 195 - GENERALLY SUPPORTED CONTROLLED PURGE 103. - NO POSITION OR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 800 TOTAL (APPROXIMATELY)

ALL SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS TO BE PUBLISHED AS VOLLUME 2 TO NUREG-0662 AND MADE PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE t

l h

6 M

\\

t g

(

x NRC STAFF CONCLUSION:

CNTROLLED PURGING IS THE PRE: ERRED ALTERNATIVE TO MINIMIZE LONG-TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS.

I I

l i

o j

z NRCSTAFFCONCLUSION:

J CONTROLLED PURGING WILL HAVE NO PHYSICAL HEALTH EFFECTS INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY A NUMBER OF GROUPS., REACHING SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS NCRP

. EPA HER UCS

?!RDC

0 5

1S M

)

R

/

E 1

C G

1 E

A S

S R

IE E

6 V

L A

A 0

C 1

L I

G A

O x

UN tO 7

N R

A O

E 6

(

Y Y

D D

b O

O t

B B

L L

A A N

)

T T

I O N O K L

T T S I

S K

M S M M I

E E E Y

R M R R E

E M M L

N R N

L O -

2 I'

O E

S N H

R O 00 I

T S

E S 1 1 P

P R O

F E

xx O

6 P E

H 7

55 G

D E

3 R

06 3 2 R

I U

T 0

P A

l i

C S

W O

L N

T L

W S

S E

E M

S S

O O

0 L

D 0

C 6

(

LAU E

D)

S I

E O

V L D

I P

D O N

N E O

I P

I T

E N A

L O Y

L I

I E

D U

M L s

O P

L o

B O

0 I

l P

5 M l

L t

A E

E2 a

T N

L GA 2 u

O I

I n

T K

M H(

S E

u M

0 V

l E

M 5

A u

n E

u M

R l_

M m

2 1

x 0

1 a

M

S LA 0 3

5 6

1 5

T 0 9

0 9

3 3

O 3 1

1 1

1 T

YT I

L S

A R

T" O

R M T

O E A

MR M

I R N S

S S

T E O SR S

S R

R R

R S

C S AE SR SR SE SE S

E E

H AE AE AH AH A

H C

E N R I

T I T I

T N

A E MT H

H I

I I

K CP EO MT MT MO MO M

O A

S K

EO EO E

E E

C L6 UL K

K KL K L_

KNL I

R A0 EL UL UL UL Ua UI L L

I 1 LA EL EL

{A Ll EKA A

Y T

(A LA l L

(J T

T N R 00 1

8 6

A l

E E 55 05 S7 30 8 0 F

55 21 7 1 0 l

T P 1

A O

T P

0 0 R

0 0 O

0 0 M

0 0 R

U E

O C

R N

G )

A C

E G

C A

I F

T A

I C

H E

T PS FO E

Y 6

Y D

A L

O N

B F

O

'0 L

D A

Y E

T R

S O

A O

T M

P M

M M

P O

E l

iS U

C R

O R

S N

N G

R S

S O

O I

S A

S R

R E

R A

A T

R E

O Y

A E

E S

A E

G R

E Y

Y E

L P

A E

9 Y

G U

T 9

0 0

A P 6 0

2 7

O 7 U

0 1

L P

N 1

0 L

0 6 0

1 1

2 A

A I

RO F

(-

NEED FOR DECONTAMINATION OF THE REACTOR BUILDING ATMOSPHERE

- PERMIT LESS RESTRICTED AND PROLONGED ACCESS

GATHER INFORMATION

MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT (E.G., AIR COOLERS, NEUTRON MONITORS)

' DETAILED RADI ATION MAPPING 7

' LOCAL SHIELDING PLACEMENT

PRELIMINARY DECONTAMINATION WORK

' ASSIST WATER PROCESSING WITH AREA WASH DOWNS

' PROCEED TOWARD TOTAL DECONTAMINATION OF FACILITY, INCLUDING DEFUELING

j

p 9

1 0

I

.'IEE; ?OR DECONTAMINATION (CON'T)

- PRECLUDE FUTURE, UNCONTROLLED LEAXAGE (NO HEALTH EF.~ECT, BUT CAUSES ANXIETY IN AREA)

- PROMPT DECONTAMINATION OF ATMCSPHERE SHOULD'HELF REDUCE LONG-i TERM ? PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS SY MAXING A ?OSITIVE MOVE TOWARD CLEANUP OF I.M.1-2. AND SHCRTENING CVERALL T!ME FCR CLEANUP C____________

1

'!EED FOR DECONTAMINATION (CCN'7)

- ?RESENCE OF KR-83 LIMITS ENTRY TO CNLY 15-30 MINUTES; oNLY PRELIMINARY RADIAT!CN SURVEYS POSS!3LE 1

- REDUCES RISKS TO WCRKERS REauCES TOTAL SoDY GANMA CCSES 3Y 73% AT UPPER LEVELS 30% AT LCWER LEVEL REDUCES RISX CF FALLING CR. TEAR:NG SUIT WHICH COULJ RESULT IN SETA EX?OSURE l

l

\\

PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT (APPROX:MATELY SE POUNDS) l

/M' t

CRANIAL-CLOTH HCCD

{ }b TRANSCEN ER l'

t

?LASTIC HOOD l

FECENER

.(#

~,

1.h 3REATHING MASK

r../

I 'k '

il

/

SREATHING CHEST TLD'S EQUl? MENTON SACK I

I CNG UNDERWEAR l'l y

FAFER PROTEQVE j

L-- /

d t i l

CLOTHING s

TLC CN

'/

/

\\

LCWEREACX l

,4 i,

RUBBER SUIT J {%

Ng

))

E 7 ~A PLASTIC JACXET CCSiM E~ERS p

i EACX-UP UGHT y

T\\}

'f~ r

~ :[ / <ff,!-

h EACX-UP

c_.--- EA C t NG-J i

(.) Ajg gyppty CCS;MFER 1

l

\\

CN FCPEARM Id

<I (iy n

t' COTTON i

s, I

/*

'/

i GLOVES

[/

WALX!E TALXlE f,.

I

'f

(.

f

//

I

.i wd[

RUSSER SUIT ss j'!

\\

u \\\\ J, y

i GLOVES

\\

hl Dh

/

l TWO RNGER I'O) i \\

SURGECNS RING TLD'S

\\\\

I" GLOVES

I

\\\\

h

?LASTC FAN 3 ik SCCXS Y

1 o W/

1Y STIC ECOTES it ANKLE -

\\

/

N RUSSERS g[

Q ERACEL T TLO'S

1 ALTERNATI'/ES CONSEERED 30 Il0 THING

CONTROLLED PURGE SL0w 160 FT. STACK FAST - 160 FT. STACK ELEVATED RELEASES 250 FT. STACKS HEATED EFFLUENT

400 FT. STACK

1000 FT.-STACK

2000 FT.. TETHERED 3ALLOON

SELECTIVE AsSORPTION CRYOGENIC CHARCOAL ADSORPTION GAS COMPRESSION COMBINATION PROCESS / PURGE

EVALUATED FOR FIRST TIME IN FINAL EA

\\

S N

)A

)

O C

P R

E S

I N

T i

E y

A S a

n c

i Z

in o

n A

e y

i a

s g

n I

NE v

s

?

A E

a l

i m

O p

L y

A s

D m

n E

n m

o G

o

(

R n

i o

R C

c y

C t

e P

e gr n

OG y

t e

o f

r o

o N

o r

n s

t P

E i

DI h

a d

f E

t l

l NR la u

a o

t e

g n

AO n

t a

e T

wR e

n t

e i

n m

l SI m

o o

ra n

p EN m

e o

r t

o I

r a

r C O ml i

c v

p t

o u

n e

e NM C

N E

D M

E 4

e e

9 O

GA

,

ML20244B879

Contents

Text

Dear Ms. Dorsey:

==

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20244B879

Text

Dear Ms. Dorsey:

==

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search