ML20245E054
| ML20245E054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1986 |
| From: | Julie Ward SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245E058 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-2, FOIA-89-A-7 86-08, 86-8, JEW-86-07, JEW-86-7, NUDOCS 8811110132 | |
| Download: ML20245E054 (79) | |
Text
_
{
1 S f'
\\
s
$ SMUD-SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT C 6201 S st'eet P o Boa 15830.sacermemo CA 958 AN ELE CT RIC SYST EM SERVING THE HE ART OF CP ' M '-
i m
JEW 86-07 e 7;. W e.
E > 0%
May 9, 1986 4
c3 J B MARTIN REGIONAL ADMIN]STRATOR v
REGION V 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT us U S NUCLEAR REGULATOU COMMISSION 1450 MARI A LANE SUITE 210 WA.LNUT CREEK CA 94596
/
DOCKET NO. 50-312 LICENSE NO. DPR-54 SPECIAL REPORT NO. 86-08 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED DOSE TO THE PUBLIC EXCEEDING THE NUMERICAL DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX 1 The Sacramento Municipal Utility District hereby submits an interim Special Re-port 86-08 in accordance with Action a. of Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specification 3.17.2.
This interim report is being provided in accordance with a conversation held between Mr. R. Fauikenberry of Region V, and the District's Mr. J. Ward on May 7, 1966. The District requested that the formal'Special Report be delayed for 30 days to permit a second level review of the technical material which has been developed and to permit adequate time for managerial review of the final Special Report. A final report will be submitted within 30 days documenting the results of this review.
ln the course of the District's efforts to resolve the apparent ambiguities be-tween the Controls for Environmental Pollution, Inc. (CEP) composite sample results for liquid effluents during 1985 (Attachment I), and the results reported in the " Environmental Radiological Studies Downstream From the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Generating Station - 1985," developed by Lawrence Livermore National Labora-tory, and the quantities of gross beta gbma activities reported in the Rancho Seco Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports of 1985, it became evident, from a preliminary evaluation, that the quarterly numerical design objectives may have been exceeded in the third quarter of 1985 and the annual numerical design objectives may have been exceeded in 1985. An internal Occurrence Description Report was generated on April 10, 1986 documenting this preliminary finding.
If there are any questions concerning this response, please contact Mr. Ron W.
Colombo at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1.
~
//
1
/
. WARD ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, NUCLEAR s
s(
EXHIB T -
S
^" ""**"'
cc:
I&E, Wash DC l
-of Y
Pages page 3 % _44 jy/
h EY U ~~ S M /U [$73 b WT
~ ~ " "
l ATTACHMENT I k
(
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRJCT OFFICE MEMORANDUM oATE: April 24, 1986 To: E. Pradley FRoM: D. Kahn REVIEW LAWRENCE LIVERMORE ANALYSIS OF RETENTION BASIN SAPPLES
SUBJECT:
Reference:
1.
UCIO - 20641 Environmental Radiological Studies Downstream from the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Generating Station.
2.
Letter from Controls for Environmental Pollution, Inc. to Steve Manofsky dated April 8, 1986 As per your request, a review has been performed of the effluent release
' data for October of 1985 in an effort to draw a correlation beiween the information reported in the liquid Waste Release Permits, the Effluent Release Permits, the results of the Lawrence Livennore (LLNL) Environmental Study (Reference 1) and the results of the gamn spectral analysis per-forr.ed cn the monthly composite sample (Reference 2).
Thetesultsofthis review indicate that each of the data sets are consistent with the other and that there are po anomalies present.
The following paragraphs are intended to provide an explanation of these conclusions.
Since it has previously been concluded that the major contributors to the estimated dose to individuals are Cesium 134 (Cs-134) and Cesium 137 (Cs-137) only these two isotopes are considered in the discussion.
l The Lawrence Livermore study (Reference 1) analyzed two retention basP samples which were collected on October 17, 1985.
The reported Cs134 and Cs137 levels were 11.3 and 7.2 picocurie, per liter (pC1/1) and 51.2 and For the purpose of this comparison these 26.3 pCi/1, respectively.
values are converted to microCuries per milliliter (uCi/ml) (see attached table) by multiplying the values by 10-g The lower limits of detection for the in-house gama spectral analysis system are 3.87E-08 and 5.92E-08 for Cs-134 and Csr137, respectively.
As can readily be seen the level reported by LLNL would be below the detectable levels of the in-house system, and thus be reported as below LLD or no peaks on the Effluent and Liquid Waste release permits.
The CEP Inc. data consisted of a gama spectral analysis of a composite sample of all Regenerant Holdup Tank (RHl1T) effluent for the month of The reported level of Cs-134 was less than the detection level October.
Here of the CEP system (1.0E-08) while that of Cs-137 was 59.0 pCi/1.
again, the levels were at or below the detection limits of the in-house system (see Table).
I EX1B" S
1 - of_
Jam Page-
( L The next step.in the review consists of a review of the various RHUT discha#;es
~
~
to the retention basins.
Since the in-house gama analyses performed on the L
RHUT discharges shows all activities below LLD, it becomes necessary to employ another means to perform this assessment.
The chosen method is to make an assumption of the Cs-137 activity based on the Gross Beta measurement performed.
This assumption yields an' estimate that the Cs-137 activity would have an approximately one to one correlation to the Gross Beta activity.
This correlation will be used in the following discussion.
Two RHUT discharges to the South retention basin occurred oo 10/15, each with a measured activity less than 2.76E-08 uti/mi bross Beta). The contents of the south retention basin were subsequently released on 10/16 with a measured activity of 5.51 t 2.97E-08 uti/ml (gross Beta).
The contents of the retention basin when the LLNL sample was taken would be sludge and residual liquid.
Given these conditions, a grab sample activity of 2.63 10.20E-08 uCi/ml Cs-137 1s considered reasonable.
A discharge.to the north retention basin occurred on 10/17 (early(morning).
The measured activity of the discharge was 6.08 t2.99E-08 uti/ml gross Beta) which correlates well with the LLNL grab sample (taken 10/17) results of 5.12 0.20E-08 uCi/mi'Cs-137.
The north retention basin had previously bean discharged.
The mean activity for all the detectable releases in October was 6.19 14.99E-08 yCi/ml (gross Bete).
This result correlates well with the EP composite result of 5.9 t1.6E-08 uti/mi for Cs 137.
Taken toghether the above results show an excellent correlation which is well within the bounds of statistical error.
This therefore supports the con-clusions of no observable anomalies among the various sets of data.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
DK:sw cc:
F. Kellie
- a. smce gg EXHIBIT -
S Page.
3 -of.
4 Pages
p
.~
g 4
(
COMPARISON OF DATA i'
i 5
Activity Concentration (uCi/ml)-
Source of Data Cs 134 Cs 137 1.13 0.30E-08 and 5.12 1.020E-08 anc LLNL 7.20 10.30E-09 2.43 10.20E-08 Study (grab' sample. 10/17/83)
Less than 1.0E-08 CEP, Inc.
5.9 11.6E-08 Composite Results Lower Limit of--' Detection 3.87E-08 5.92E-08 in-house gamma spectral analysis System for 10/17/86 Cs-137 Correlation To: North Basin 6.D8 1 2.99E-08 from Gross' Beta Results (assume 1:1 ratio)
None-(LWR 85-190)
From South Basin for Release Permits 5.61 i 2.97E-08 (ERP 85-074) t EXnlBIT 3
Page -
N - of N--Pages
^
6 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO:
Fred Kellie (through G. Coward)
DATE:. December 31, 1985 RogerPowersk FROM:
SUBJECT:
CEP COUNTING OF COMPOSITE MONTHLY SAMPLES-4 In October,1985, LLNL drew 1 gallon samples from both regenerate holdup tanks and both retention basins. The LLNL analysis with their lower limits of detection gave a preliminary indication with the very limited
. amount of data that is available, that water released from the plant with'.
concentrations below our limits of detection may still lead to a calculated dose that is an appreciable fraction of the Appendix I f.
guideline.
When Ron Rodrigue7 became aware of this preliminary finding, he asked me
- i to have you request CEP count the available rnonthly composite samples on a priority basis.
CEP's normal environmental limits of detection of 1.1 -
E-8 for Cs-137 and 1.6 E-8 for Cs-134 should be suf ficient as thes' are e
lower than our existing limits by factors of 5 and 3, respectively.
cc:
R. J. Rodriguez L. R. Keilman E. W. Bradley Plaza 50 files x
\\\\.\\
\\.
c :.. o EXHLBIT 9
L
<._ 8 6 _ o 1 0 o
y 1
e e
g 3
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY ~ DISTRICT i OFFICE MEMORANDUM 3
cet h T W p
TO:
R.. L. Powers' DATE:
Dec ember.16, 1985 '
FROM:
E. W. Bradley sus.!ECT:
10 CTR 50 APPENDIX I - SOURCE TERM DEf!NITION During the week of October 14, 1985, one gallon samples were drawn'from.
both regenerate holdup tanks (RHUTs) and both retention basins (basins),
L and given to LLNL for radionuclides analysis. The LLNL analysis-(results attached) indicate that quantities of Mn-54, Co-60, Cs-134, and Cs-137 are still being discharged from Rancho Seco in the liquid effluents in concentrations less than the current detection capabilities of the Chem / Rad counting equipment and procedures.
The radionuclides concentration ~1evels were as follows:
yC1/ml Mn-fa Co-60 Cs-134 Cs 137 Basins 6.0 E-11 f. 2 E-10 1.13 E-8 5.12 E-8 S.0 E-11 5.2 E-10 7.2 E-9 2.63 E-B RHuis 4.0 E-10 9.0 E-10 8.5 E-9 2.39.E-8 5.0 E-10 1.3 E-9 8.6 E-9 2,17 E-8 Chem / Rad LLD 3.6 E-8 6.0 E-8 4.5 E-9 5.3 E-8 fraction of LLO 0.0017-0.014 0.0087-0.022 0.16-0.25 0.41-0.97 (from Draft LLD Study) 1 When the average value of the radionuclides concentrations of the four samples is entered into the District's current Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) anf the liquid ef fluent data from the District's 1985 semiannual ef fluent release report for the first quarter of 1985 is used, the calculations indicate a value of 0.5 mrem to the maximum hypothetical adult whole body and 0.7 mrem to the maximum hypothetical adult liver.
If this is indicative of the entire year, a value of 2.0 mrem could be projected for the maximum hypothetical adult whole body and 7.8 mrem for the maximum hypothetical adult liver. Cesium is still the dominant radionuclides in these calculations.
EXElBIT, I2
</-
A b>.
- 7) _.- Pages 5 c. 8 6 - 010
Althcugh these preliminary calculations indicate that the District is
]%
still operating Rancho Seco withia the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I (3 mrem whole bcdy, 10 mrem organ), the margin is small. The 5 draf.t LLD sturiy of July,1985, that is currently out for review, also indicates that tha> design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I may be approached using the current Chem / Rad detection capabilit'y. Many questions come to mind that should be addressed before any firne conclusions can be draw.
Some of the questions and possible investigations includ,e:
Question 1:
What quantities of radionuclides have been released in liquid ef fluents during 1985?
Investigat'.on:
Direct Controls for Enviror. mental Pollution Incorporated (CEP) to perform a gama spectral nalysis on the rnonthly RHUT composite samples.
Question 2:
Is there a relationship between H-3 concentration levels and other radionuclides (i.e., Cs-137) in the RHUTs or basins such that a better estimate can be made of the radionuclides source term for those situations where a monthly composite does not exist?
(CEP has informed me that two monthly composites are no longer available for gama spectral analysis).
Investigation:
Compare the CEP gama 5 ectral analysis with the month y H-3 discharge values.
Imediately begin to take one' gallon samples from the REUTs and basins for both H-3 analysis and CEP gama spectral analysis.
Question 3:
Why did one of the basin samples indicate cesium concentration levels twice as high as those observed in both the RHul samples?
Investigation:
Review the H-3 analysis results for all the RMUT discharges to the basin to determine if the particular basin sample was influenced by a particular RHUT discharge.
Imediately begin to take one gallon samples from the RiiUTs and basins for both H-3 analysis and CEP gama spectral analysis.
Reevaluate the potential of basin sediments or leaching frem basin liner.
Question 4:
Are there other possible sources of radionuclides to the basins, other than the RHUTs, that now need to be quantified and controlled?
Investigation:
Begin to take liquid samples from all flow paths to the basins that have the potential for containing radi::nuclides, and send to CEP for aralysis.
l Verify all flow paths to the basins.
n s
L __ - _______- _ _ _ _ _._
i I
The samples analy2ed were obtained in October 1985.
Were Question 5:
higher concentrations of radionuclides discharged in early i
1985 than were observed in Dr.taber (seven months af ter Would these results then indicate a potential shutdown)?
Technical Specification compliance exceedence and require various reports to the NRC?
Investigations identified above would answer these Investigation:
questions.
It is my professional opinion that the NRC will take a very keen interest in this entire issue of Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) and 10 CfR 50 Appendix I, and it is in the District's best interest to take aggressive actions in this investigation.
It is necessary to be aggressive because of the implications of 10 CFR 2 Appendix C, V.A.:
- Because the NRC wants to encourage and support licenste initiative for self-identification and correction of problems, NRC will not generally issue a notice of violation for a violation that meets all of the following tests:
(1) It was identified by the licensee; (2) It fits in Severity Level IV or V; (3) It was reported, if Jequired; (4) It was or will be cor rected, including measures to prevent recurrence, within a reasonable time; and (5) It was not a violation that could reasonably be expected t,o have been prevented by the licensee's corrective action for a previous violation.'
In the long run, an aggressive acticn plan may save the District considerable expense.
I became aware of a potential LLO and 10 CfR 50 Appendix I problem while attending the Midyear Topical Sympocium of the Health Physics Society on i
Environmental Radiation, January 6 10, 1985, during some informal discussions with NRC staf f related to the LLNL and ORNL enviro The discussions led to an awareness studies downstream f rom Rancho Seco.
a very unique that the Rancho Seco liquid ef fivent pathway was
't.
environmental setting a.d that because of that uriquaness, many of the X-
" standard plant
- assumptions used by both the NRC and the nc longer justified.
I felt that it as ene assumption that warranted f urther investigation.
was Ly professional responsibility to initiate the LLD study on the District's behalf to demonstrate to the NRC that the District was taking the initiative in investigation of this issue, and to reduce or negate _
any civil penalty if any enforcement action were later imposedjI recall that you were less than enthusiastic when I told you that I was performing this study, but as long as it did not interfere with al other work, I could continue.
could allocate resources for an excess of 100 individuals for issue related to 10 CTR 50 Appendix R. yet I could not be provided the resources for one individual to address issues related to 10 C Appendix I.
EXHBIT 6
2 9
J t
j
-4, 7
As'a result of time;and resource constraints, the draf t LLO study was not complete-until July 1985 at which time I provided you a copy for review..
that I would withhold issuing the final study until such time that Ran Af te'r. subsequent discussions with you and R. J; Rodriguer I indicated 71 3
]d n:
SEcv was bad ooiine. When startup became so prolonged. I' felt that..it t
.A g was.no. longer in the District's best interest to hold up the study any
- 5
'f[.
longer, so I distributed the draft LLD study.for review and comment on October:29, 1985..
Prior to distributing the draf t LLD study, I asked the Chim/ Rad group to.
collect samples from the RHUTs and basins for later analysis by LLNL'.
f N Dr. Victor Noshkin telephoned to inform me of the results on Novmeber 21, 1985, and delivered a hard copy of the results to me on November 26, 1985. My initial calculations resulted in values less.than the design objectives of 10 CFR' 50 Appendix I, but the. District has' a very long way to go before it can demonstrate to the NRC that Rancho Seco is in full compliance with its Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50. Appendix I.
I am also very concerned about. the District's ability to demonstrate to the NRC that we have taken prompt corrective actions and investigations, and that the District is truly committed, not only in word but also in actions, in complying with both our Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50 Appendix I.
From my perspective, the District's track record on taking prompt corrective actions and investigations has not been very good.
I feel that because our track record has not been as good as it could have been, that the District now has to do more than would norr.ully be expected if we had taken actions earlier.
The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), althcugh supplemented by the LLNL studies, should have been reevaluated and upcateo to current industry standards at the end of 1984.
Only minor band-aid changes have been made.to date. The revision to the Land Use Census procedure was initiated on November 19, 1985, to include the-liquid effluent pathway. The revision is still not approved and the 1985 cc.nsus has not yet begun.
It should be obvious to all that Fred Kellie has all he can handle with trying to maintain the Rancho Seco Radiation Protection Program, and that the decisten to move the year end reports, the DOCM codate, the REMF apdate, and the Lamy Use Cinus to Nuc1T Engineering was a sound nonagement decisica.
I was given the green light to dt this work cae week prior to the ANI inspection in October and had two certified Health' Phyticists working on the project on ilovember 4,1985. The contractors have identified specific information needs and a schedule necessary for their ccmpletion of the year end reports, but it is nos becomir.g apparent to me that these schedules will be very dif ficult to meet.
EXl BlT
{
<a
.n.
It is my professional opinion that the revision to the land Use Census must be in place prior to performing the census. The land Use Census must ba. accomplished quickly.. The census dat! taust be evaluated such
~
that the 00CM can be revised and that the revision be in place before the.
1985 ef fluent release calculations be' performed. The LLD issue must also be resolved and the 1985 liquid ef fluent source term be reevaluated. And all this must be done 'such that the 1985 Radioactive Effluent Pelease Report be reviewed and issued to the NRC by March 3,1986, unless the District asks the NRC for an extension.
It is highly unlikely that the.
NRC will give the District an extension.
So. I think you can understand'why I am concerned about the delays I have been given in initiating the CEP analysis of the monthly composite RHUT samples. What three years ago could have been done with a simple telephone call between myself and Jim Reese is now requiring a memo. I had requested the CEP analysis by a telephone call to Jim Reese on-November 21, immediately after receiving the telephone results from LLNL, and three weeks have now passed and the analysis has not begun. Only eleven weeks are remaining before the report is due to the NRC.
I am now asking you as my supervisor to initiate the necessary administrative actions such that the following can be accomplished in a timely manner:
Y 1.
That CEP be given the authorization to I,erform gama spectral analysis on the 1985 monthly comoosite RHUT samples.
2 That adequate licuid samples be drawn from the RHUTs and the basins
-A.
as is currently required by procedure, but that these samples be split for analysis by both the Chem / Rad group and CEP. The analysis should include H-3, beta, and gam.a spectral analysis.
3.
That I be provided copies of all the release permits from the RHUTs and the basins for 1985 for review and analysis, p 4.
That the REMP be reviewed, evaluated, and revi:ed, to bring it up to industry standards.
The {EP contract stauld then be reviewed and M
,k"'
NM revi;ed as necessary.
g.g 4, o, ga f..
. 0 5.
That actions be taken, either by procedure changes and/or etjulpment purchases, to improve the detection capabilities of the Chem / Red licuid effinnt gamma spectral analysis by at least a factor cf five.
[6.
That resources be made available to study all the possible sources of radionuclides to the retention basins and that these sources be quantified.
We have had many, many discussions in the past on issues related to the ODCM, REMP, and the Land Use Census and we continue to agree to disagree on many of those issues.
But, may I remind you that what used to be acceptable in the mid-1970's is no longer acceptable in the 1980's. What used to be a very static regulatory and compliance environment is now a i
P EXHIBIT 4
s
,s.
o...
s
very dynamic environment now requiring annual updates to the USAR and the Land Use Census.
These annual updates now require annual evaluations and Updates to the.ODCM and the REtiP. The very ur.ique enviren:t. ental setting of the liquid ef fluent pathway also indicates that the District must do more than the ' standard plant" in the areas of the land Use Census and the REMP.
It should also be recognized that it is no longer acceptable to maintain a program that just complies with the minimum regulatory requirements.
It has been cor:rnunicated to me that if it were observcd,that a program barely met the minimum regulatory requirements, that regulatory actions 2
would most likely be initiated to force imediate improvement in the program.
So I do not feel that anything I have been striving for'over the past few years, or even now, is in any way agold plated'. I feel it is merely the minimum that would be required of any licensee placed in a similar situation.
It has been extremely difficult for me at times to keep the District out of " hot water' in matters of radiological and environmental compliance given the resource constraints I have been forced to operate under. Although I have heard all the right words, I have observed little or no actions.
It is therefore in the District's best interest that the LLD issue be investigated adequately and quickly.
Your prompt actions would be appreciated.
Attachment EWS/ch cc: Engr. Files - Plaza 50 EXroBi l -
1w t
l i
w____-__
a
- 4. _,
?-
Concentrations of radionuclides in. unfilter water samples from the regenerate l.
' hold-up~ tanks at Rancho Seco collected on 10/14-15/85.
i.
i i
pCi/la
- Sample ID Date Collected 54p,n 60 o 134Cs 137Cs C
K49 (NRSS5-73) 10-14-85 0.4(25) 0.9(15) 8.5(t) 23.9(3)
K50 (RHvi-8) 10-15-85 0.5(22) 1.3(8) 8.6(4) 21.7(2) a
'Value in parenthesis is the le counting error expressed as the % of listed value.
2 EXEBIT --
b- @
U d
Page~.
2016t 69 11/20/85
.--_______-__________-____-_________---______-________D
.-?,'.
.-j ! ). t ^
' concentrations of radionuclides in retection bas'.n water samples collected on j
10-17-85.
}
i pCi/la 10 #
Fractionb 54l4n; b0co 134Cs 137Cs K42-RB-1 particulate 0.08(11) l'.20(2).
0.25(3) 0.75(2).
K51-RS water 0.06(15) 0.52(3) 11.3(3)
,51.?(2)
K43-RB particulate 0.02(11).
0.31(3)'
0.17(3) 0.50(2) a K52-RB-2 water 0.08(7) 0.52(3) 7.2(3) 26.3(2)-
Value in parenthesis is the le counting error expressed as the % of a
listed value.
b Water' samples filtered through a.1 micron filter cartridge to remove particulate.
1 C'A' Lll 0 l" 6 --
L.
F.,J.
Page.__
6 O L 6 Pages 2016t 69 11/20/85 L_ -_- _ -
~
g
+-
1 e
(
. ; (:
SACRAMEN'IO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
. t,[ y.
orFICE MEMORANDUM l
'To:
D. Kaplan, R. L. Powers, F. Kellie DATE:
October 29, 1985 M. Braun, R. Colombo l
~
M FROM:
E. W. Bradley
SUBJECT:
DRAFT LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION Silj0Y l~
1 Please review the attached draft of the Rancho Seco 10 CFR 50 Appendix I l
Lower Limits of Detection Study.
l Realizing the sensitivity of this topic in light of the Akins vs. SMUD claim, pleae maintain control of these copies and return them to me along with your comments.
Attachment EWB/bp 0 8 O
i
\\
1*:
(
~. '.
l, l
RANCHO SECO 10 CFR 50. APPENDIX I LOWER LIMITS Of DETECTION STUDY-l L
l-2 I'
- s. ".
e
.,, i
.,7*
E. W. Bradley 3
July 1385 f-) t % '
i
%, R*
.v.
e
p RANCHO SECO 10'CFR 50 APPENDIX I Lower Limit' of Detection Study f_an
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Observations 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 2
1.3 Technical Approach 2
2.0 IDENTIFICATION Of KEY PARAMETERS 3
2.1 Discharge flow Rate 3
2.2 Radiological Liquid Effluent Volume 3
2.3 Lower Limit of Detection 4-2.4 10 CFR 50 Appendix I 5
2.5 Offsite cose Calculation Manual 6
2.6 Scaling factors 6
3.0 CALCULATIONS 6
3.1 Technical Specification 4.21 7
3.2 Chem / Rad Laboratory 7
3.3 Technical Specification 4.26 8
3.4 Quarterly Environmental Report (CEP) 8 3.5 Dif ficult-to-Measure Nuclides 8
4.0 DISCUSSION 8
4.1 Discharge flow Rate 6
4.2 Lower Limit of Detection 9
5.0 RECOMMENDA110NS 9
APPENDIX 11 A
Calculation Sunrnary Sheets g
DO 0.t.'.
si.
. 4..
1.0T INTRODUCTION v.
f
.This study was initiated because of' the uniqueness of the environmental settin'g.of. Rancho;Seco as-it relates to the 11guld ef fluent pathway' and--
concerns by corporate health' physics that all' details had been
~
adequately evaluated such that the District.would have reasonable assurance that the design objectives of.10 CfR 50 Appendix..I'are met.
1.1 Observations Standard' Technical-Specifications use the value of.1000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (448,830 gallons per minute) for the average stream flow rate.in their.10 CFR 50 Appendix ! calculations (reference 1). This assumption is then carried forward into the-generation of the lower limit of detection (LLO) for the Radioactive Liquid Waste Sampling and Analysis' Program.(reference 2 Table.4.11-1). This table was incorporated into the Rancho Seco Technical Specifications (Table 4.21-1) with the deletion.of P-32 and re-55.
The highest monthly average liquid discharge flow rate from Rancho seco occurred in October 1984 with a value of 21.3 cfs-(9554 gpm)-
and the. highest annual average liquid discharge flow rate. occurred '
in 1984 with a value of 15.6 cfs (7017 gpm).- The annual average-value is the value important to 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! calculations.
and is 64' times less than the standard plant assur,+tions.
The EPRI report $(reference 3) also uses the standard plant assumption of'1000 cf s for their liquid discharge flow rate. 'This report studied 65 dif ficult-to-measure (DTM) nuclides and ranked their importance as they would relate.in~ a typical 10 CfR 50~
Appendix I calculation.. A DTM nut.lide was termed to be "Important" if the ' dose' estimate war greater than 0.5 arem/ year "Possibly -
Important" if the dose estimate was' greater than 0,05 mrem / year,:
and ' Unimportant' if the dose estimate was less than-0.05 mrem / year. Of thC 65 DTM nuclides C-14, Pu-238, and Cu-244 were classified as 'Important* and:P-32, fc-55, and Cu-242 were classified 'as "Possibly important'.
For Rancho Seco where the maximum annual average-liquid discharge flow rate is 64 times less than the standard plant assumptions, these six DTM nuclides could conceivably exceed the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1.
The District letter of September 9,1985-(Reference 10) also discussed liquid discharge water for Rancho Seco relative to a standard plant. The NRC letter quotes an effluent water volume for plants with cooling towers of 0.1 GL/W, (giga 11ters per megawatt electric).
For the years 1980 through 1984, the Rancho Seco value varied from 0.0015 GL/MW, to 0.005 GL/MW. This is a factor of e
20 to 67 times less than the standard plant.
e s _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
i The LLNL report of March 22, 1985 (Reference 9) makes the 4
observation that Sb-125 (2.77 year half life) has been detected in j
the retention basins and in downstream sediments but has not been j
reported in the District's Radiological Effluent Release Reports.
i Additional congnunications with Dr. Victor Noshkin has indicated that there is an incons?stency in the mass balance of the 3
radionuclides in solution, i.e., there appears to be greater quantity of radionuclides passing a given point in the stream than i
is available in the upstream inventory and lack of aeditional discharges.
In addition, a water hyacinth sampled on 7/12/85 contained quantities of Mn-54 Co-58, Co-60, Ag-110, Cs-134, Cs-137, and Sb-125.
I have also reviewed some past NRC Inspection Reports (50-312/84-03, 50-312/84-30, and 50-312/85-24) and observed that althot,gh there have been no items of non compliance, there are statements that would indicate that the District spend additional attention to detail in ganna spectrum analysis.
Inspection report 50-312/84-03 mentioned a possible gamma peak analysis software anomaly.
Inspection report 50-312/84-30 again mentioned the ganrna peak analysis anomaly and suggested a higher efficiency detector to improve the counter sensitivity.
Inspection report 50-312/85-24 states:
' Apparent anomalies were detected in several earlier measurements (Report Nos. 50-M 2/84-03 and 50-312/84-30) which pointed to the peak analysis software, and in particular the user designated parameters, as a potential source of the problem. Although the above results indicate adequate agreement for this particular sample, the peak program must continue to be scrutinized by the licensee until the issue is more fully understood or until it has been established that the problems encountered earlier are not recurring problems.*
1.2 Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to perform a sensitivity analysis of l
key parameters that enter into the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) liquid effluent pathway compliance calculations for 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, and to make reconsnendations if the analysis,.4 indicates areas that need i.nprovement to provide management
(,T 0
reasenable assurance that the design objectives of 10 CfR 50 Appendix ! are met.
(~~.'
(~;-
l.3 Technical A_pproach g
The annual volume of radiological liquid effluent released from Rancho Seco from 1980 to the present was reviewed and a fraction of that volume was assumed to be released with radionuclides concentrations equal to various lower limits of detection (LLD).
This radionuclides source term was then entered into the Rancho Seco Offsite Dose Calculation Manual liquid effluent pathway calculation and a comparison was made to the design objectives of 10 CfR 50 Appendix I. _
k
~
Var 1ous LLD values were evaluated.
These included:
-1.
Rancho Seco Technical Specifications 4.21
" Radioactive Liquid Waste Sampling And Analysis Program' 2.
Rancho Seco Technical Specifications 4.26
' Maximum Values for The Lower timits Of Detection" 3.-
Rancho Seco Chem / Rad Counting Laboratory Liquid Sample Analysis 4.
Quarterly Environmental Report Controls for Environmental Pollution. Inc.
Scaling factors are an acceptable method used for 10 CFR 61 compliance and were also used in this study. Scaling was done to Cs-137 and Co-60 with the source terms described in references 4, 5.'and 6.
2.0 IDENTIFICATION Of KEY PARAMETERS This section describes the key parameters that entered into the evaluations.
2.L Discharge Flow RMe The discharge flow rate (Table 1 and figure 1) is a measure of the total volume of 11gulds that leaves the site and is inversely proportional to the annual average radionuclides concentrations released to the general environment and is therefore inversely proportional to the calculated dose.to hypothetical individuals in the ODCM calculations.
The basis calculation in this study uses a l-value of 3000 gpm which appears reasonable when compared to the historical data for Ranche Secc.
design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I can be mad Various estimations of minimum discharge flow rates to reach the inverse proportion of calculated dose tc the 3000 gpm.
2.2 Radiolootcal Liouid Ef fluent Volume Q s#
The radiological liquid ef fluent volume (Table 2 and figurI 2) is a i
measure of the quantity of fluids that is analysed for radionuclides activity.
The quantity of radionuclides released or source term is dependent upon the volume of liquid discharged and the counting sensitivity of the radionuclides counting equipment.
In the past, there has been adequate radionuclides activity in the majority of I
liquid batch releases to accurately determine the source ters.
However, there is a possibility that a few batch releases occurred in which no radionuclides activity was detected but that small j
quantities of radionuclides could have been present but were below the limits of detection of the counting equipment.
u l
A value of 1.0 E*07 liters of liquid ' effluent that contains-
- 8!
JJ' radionuclides in concentrations' equal-to the LLO was. chosen.for the basts' calculation.
This volume is 6% of the total radiological liquid of fluent discharged in 1984 and 11% of 'the; total. for 1980.
q The estimate of.the' volume of liquid that-is. released with quantities of radionuclides equal'to the LLD is directly~
proportional to the calculated dose.to the hypothetical individuals.
in the 00CM calculation.: Various' estimates of, the, liquid ef fluent '
H volume containing.LLD quantities of; radionuclides can.be made'by H
taking the direct _ proportion of the calculated dose-to the 1.0 E+07-l
. liters.
?
2.3 Lower Limit of Detection (LLO)
A definition of the lower limit of detection (LLD) is provided in the Rancho.Seco 00CM Section 5.0.
The LLD is directly proportional-
-to the standard deviation of the background count (generally equal.
to the square root of the total number of counts in the back-ground), and-inversely proportional to-the counter efficiency and sample size. An'LLO'can be lowered by placing the counting.
equipment in a lower background area, increasing the shielding m
around the detector.' increasing the sample sire. or. increasing the counter efficiency.
Four' dif ferent LLD values were used in this study. They included:
- 1.. Rancho Seco Technical Specifications 4.21 Liquid Effluents Table 4.21-1. Radioactive Liquid Waste Sampling And Analysis Program 2.
Rancho Seco Technic 41 Specifiestions.4.26
, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Table 4.26-1 Maximum values for The Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) (for water)'
- 3. : Chemistry and Radiation Protection Counting Lcboratory' Canberra Spectran F output listing 2/8/85 3 liter sample, 2000 second count, no nuclides identified
- 4. -Quarterly Environmental Report for October, November, December, 1984 Controls for Environmental Pollution, Inc.
Table V (Runoff Water)
Only those nuclides where a LLD was identified were used in the respective ODCM calculations.
/
hb b.)
g)Q's:
m._.__________________._.______._________________________________.___________._______...________._____________________.___________.________.._.______.____________i
p 4
f g'f 2.4 10 CfR 50' Append 1x 1 e
a Section II
'The applicant.shall provide reasonable assurance that the following design objectives will be met."
. "2 Section II.A.
The calculated annual. total quantity of, all:
^
radioactive material above background to be' released from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor. to unrestricted areas will. not result:in' an estimated ' annual dose or dose connitment from liquid effluents for any.
a' individual'in an unrestricted area from all L
pathways of_ exposure in excess of-3 millirems to the_ total body or:10 milltress to'any organ.'
Section III.A.1-
" Conformity with the guides on design objectives of Section,II shall be.' demonstrated by' l
calculational procedures based upon models and data such that the actual exposure of an-
. individual through appropriate pathways.'is unlikely<to be substantially underestimated _all uncertainties being considered together.
Rancho Seco Technical ~ Specifications'4.21 and-4.22.
Section IV.A
'If the quantity'of radioactive material actually released in. effluents to unrestricted areas from a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor during:
any calendar quarter is such that the.resulting radiation exposure, calculated'on the same basis as the' respective design, objective-exposure,.
would. exceed one-half the design objective annual exposure derived pursuant to Sections II and III,
~
the licensee-shall:
1.
Make an investigation to identify the causes for such release rates; q
2.
Define and initiate a program of corrective actien; and
- 3. - Report these actions to the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in Appendix 0~of Part 20 of this Chapter with a copy to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington 0.C. 20555, within 30 days frp-the end of the quarter during which the '
release occurred.
a
a V
p:
.Section IV.S.
'The licensee shall establish an appropriate 4-surveillance and monitoring program to:
'v 1.
Provide data' on quantitles of radioactive material released in 1iquid and gaseous effluents to assure that the provisions of
-paragraph A of this section are met.
L The goal used in this report 'was to have the 00CM dose calculations?
based upon the LLD result in a value equal to 10% of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I design objective. - This value is a factor of 5 lower than the level required under ID CFR 50 Appendix I Section IV.A
- that initiates a.30 day report to the NRC.
'2.5 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual The calculations used in this study are defined in the Rancho Seco Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
The key.11guld effluent pathway:
parameters used in this study are identified in Table 4.
2.6 Scaline Factors-A scaling factor is an acceptable method of estimating the quantity of a non measured nuclide in proportion to its abundance to a
- measured nuclide. Three sets of scaling factors were calculated from the following sources:
- 1. ; final Environmental Statement (reference 4) Table III-3 2.
Appendix I Evaluation Report. (reference 5) Table 3.4-1 3.
Historical Rancho Seco releases (reference 6 and 8)
The relative abundances were then raticed to C5-137 for the fission products and to Co-60 to the corrosion and activation products to generate the respective scaling factor. The estimated source terms were then calculated using the LLO for ts-137 and Co-60 and the-respective scaling factor.
If the scaling fu. tor calculated a A
source term greater than the LLD the LLO value was used.
(f Y.
The scaling factor cata is included in Tables 5.' 6, and 76,.)*
A 3.0 CALCULATIONS Calculations wele made in accordance with the ODCM with the key liquid effluent parameters identified in Table 4.
Additional baseline parameters included:
a) 3,000 gpm discharge flow rate b) 1.0 C+07 liters 11guld ef fluent containing LLD concentrations of radionuclides.* _ _
c) Tech. Spec. 4.21 LLO values (Table 8) source term t-
)
Tech. Spec. 4.21 LLD using final Environmental Statenent scaling factors.
{
l Tech. Spec. 4.21 LLD using Appendix I Evaluation Report scaling factors.
4 Tech. Spec. 4.21 LLD using historical Rancho Seco releases' scaling factors.
d) Rancho Seco Chem / Rad Counting Laboratory LLO source ters (Table 9) e) Tech. Spec. 4.26 LLO source term (Table 9) f) Quarterly Environmental Report (CEP) LLO source ters (Table 9).
The LADTAP computer code with the new bioaccumulation factor for cesium uptake in freshwater fish (1,400 rather than 2,000) was used for all ODCM calculations.
The results are included in Appendix A.
The goal off all the calculations was 10% of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1.
3.1 Technical Specification 4.21 four sets of calculations were performed using the LLO salue in Technical Specification 4.21 as the basis. Three of these calculations used the scaling factors previously discussed.
c.'
A summary of the interpretation of these calculations are included
/'
in Tables 10 and 11, and figures 3 and 5.
It is observed that the n
[
application of scaling factors does not significantly change the".
results.
(
If one assumes that 1.0 E+07 liters of ef fluent are releasedi /
containing Tech. 59ec. 4.21 LLD quantities of radionuclides.. then the plant would need to discharge from 25.100 gpm to 101,000 gpm to meet the goal of 10% of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! design objectives.
l If one assumes that the plant discharges at a constant rate of 3,000 gpm, then a volume of 2.97 E+05 liters to 1.19 E+06 liters of effluent containing Tech. Spec. 4.21 LLO quantitles of radionuclides will exceed the goal of 10% of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1.
These values are all less than 1% of the total of all radiological liquid effluent released during 1983 or 1984.
3.2 Chemistry and Radiation Protection Countino Laboratory A sunnary of the interpretation of these calculations are included in Table 12 and figure 4.
If one assumes that 1.0 E+07 liters of ef fluent are released containing Chem / Rad LLD quantities of radionuclides, then the plant would need to discharge from 4,020 gpm to 23,200 gpm to neet the goal of 10% of the 10 CFR 50 j
Appendix I design objectives.
~
l 1
I 3.3 Technical Specification 4.26
{
i e
A summary of the interpretation of these calculations are included j
in Table 12 and figure 4.
If one assumes that 1.0 E*07 liters of j
effluent are released contain:ng Tec. Spec. 4.26 LLD quantities of 1
radionuclides, then the plant would only need to discharge from 1,340 gpm to 3,120 gpm to meet the goal of 10% of the 10 CFR 50 q
Appendix I design objectives.
3.4 Ouarterly Environmental Report (CEP)
A sur:rnary of the interpretation of these calculations are included in Table 12 and figure 4.
If one assumes that 1.0 E+07 liters'of ef fluent are released containing CEP Report LLO quantities of radionuclides, then the plant would only need to discharge from 1,140 gpm to 2,450 gpm-to meet the goal of 10% of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! design objectives.
3.5 Dif ficult t:-Measure Nuclides further investigation into the EPRI report indicates that their estimate of liquid ef fluent source ters assumes discharges from the primary water clean-up systems. At Rancho Seco, the radiological wastes from the primary water clean-up systerns are processed and packaged for burial.
The source of radiological liquid effluent is from the secondary water clean-up systems. Rancho Seco is a "zero release plant" as it relates to the primary side only. A direct interpretation of the difficult-to-measure (DTM) nuclides was therefore not possible at this time for this study.
I have ordered the PWR-GALE computer code from the NRC and plan to perform a DTM liquid source term analysis for Rancho Seco some timef in the future.
J' s 5 p.
r 4.0 DISCUSSION
/*. [.
\\"3 '
4.1 pjischarge flow y h The basis calculations indicate that Rancho Seco would need to J
discharge an unreasonable quantity of water (25,000 to 101,000 gpm) if the liquid effluent detection capability were equal to the LLO in Tec. Spec. 4.21.
However., the current detection capabilities of the Chem / Rad group are much lower than this but would still indicate a minimal discharge rate of 4,000 to 23,000 gpm to give the District reasonable assurance that the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I are being met.
The ' environmental' detection limits (Tec. Spec. 4.26 and the CEP report) would provide reasonable assurance that the design objectives of 10 CfR 50 Appendix I are being met even if the discharge rates fell below 3,000 gpm. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r k
4.2 Lower Limits of Detection-a The LLO of Tec. Spec. 4.21 1s clearly inadequate to. demonstrate that the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! are being net.
Even if the basis' calculation assumption of-1.0 E+07 liters of radiological liquid ef fluent volume 1s reduced by a factor of ten, the results still exceed the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I or suggest an unreasonable quantity of discharge flow.
The current Chem / Rad LLD's offer a tremendous improvement in the District's capability af attaining assurance that the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1 are being net. However, this-LLO may be artificially low because no radionuclides were observed in this particular sample analysis.
If the basis calculation assumption of 1.0 C+07 liters of radiological liquid ef fluent.
volume is reduced by a factor of ten, the results would indicate that the 3,000 gpm discharge rate would be adequate to peet the design objectives of 10 CfR 50 Appendix !.
The ' environmental
- detection limits clearly provide reasonable assurance that the design objectives of 10 CFR 50 Appendix ! are net.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the above analysis and discussion, I ac recommending the following:
1.
That Nuclear Operations establish a policy to maintain the discharge flow rate such that the quarterly average and annual average rate not fall below 3,000 gpm.
2.
That the Chem / Rad group be provided with detection equipment in a lower background counting area to lower their current detection capability LLD's by a f actor of five.
3.
That the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory environmental studies program be expanded to include samples f rom the regenerate hold-up tanks and the retention basins to monitor potential effluent source terms that are below our current detection capab111ttes.
a
_g_
l REFERENCES l
1.
' Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical I
Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants' October 1978 4
2.
' Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWR's Revision 2 July 1979
{
3.
EPRI NP-3840
' Environmental Radiation Doses from Difficult-to-Measure Nuclides*
January 1985-4.
Final Environmental Statement related to operation of Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 March 1973 5.
Appendix ! Evaluation Report Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station June 1, 1976 6.
District Correspondence RJR 85-9 January 30, 1985 7.
District Correspondence RJR 85-127 March 15, 1985 8.
District Correspondence RJR 85-242 May 20, 1985 9.
UCID-20367
' Environmental Radiological Studies Downstream from Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Generating Station' March 22,1985
- 10. District Correspondence RJR 85-412. September 9,1985
\\
o : 2..,
t, w
/
(;
TABLE 1 TOTAL LIQUID DISCHAPGE foallons per minute) 1980 1981 198?
1983 1984 1985 January' 1,882 3,315 3,443 3,569 3,483 7,587 february 1,849 2,257 3,304 3,299 4,820 6.932" March 1.577 1,866 2,968 2,643 4,104 7.953 April 2,046 3.264 3,012 2,109 5.539 3,822 May 1,998 4,391 3,058 2,321 7,368 3,042 June 2.269 6,667 3,951 2.850 7,736 2,7 G G -
July 3,875 5,824 2,249 2,585 8,056-S,592 August 2,397 5,668 3,333 3,311 8.11.2 1,927 September 2,824 4,792 2,903 4,631 8,718 t,snt October 2,643 4,749 2.950 4,630 9.554 5.252' November 2,407 4,468 3,338 4,500 9.377 December 2.912 3,808 3.432 3,495 7.307 Steam Generator Tube Leaks 5/17/81 11/20/82 9/17/83
' p-h.
7/3/84 8/31/84 g-- L' 10/11/84 A '$. 's *
\\,I Refueling Oui. ge 1/32/80-5/16/80 1/30/81-4/25/80 2/17/83-8/6/83
\\
l a
TABLE 2 RANCHO SECO UNIT NO.1 Volume _of Waste Liquid Released Year (liters) 1980
'1.76 E+06 1981 9.11 E+07 1982 1.06 C+08 1983 1.26 E408 1984 1.70 E+08 R SS Lt? E.
s.M EsoT
/\\
v pi.g b G,.
J 4
l l
)
f j !j 1
1.L
TABLE 3 LOWER t!MIT OF ' 'TECTION'(f.LD) e g
fu21/ml) l NUREG-0472 Rev. 2 Technical Specifications Chem / Rad CEP g_uclide
' July. 1979 4.21 4.26 Lab ReDort H-3 1.0 E-05 1.0 E-05 2.0 E-06 2.5 E-07 5 G-T C-14 Na-24 3.7 E-08 P-32 1.0 E-06 Cr-51 2.8 E-07 4.9 E-08 Mn-54 5.0 E-07 1.5 E-08 3.6 E-08 4.0 E-09 Fe-55 1.0 E-06
-59 5.0 E-07 3.0 E-08 7.5 E 1.1 E-08
.Co-57 2.8 E-08 2.0 E-09 5.0 E-07 1.5 E-08 7.3 E-08 3.0 E-09 g C - /D
-60 5.0 E-07 1.5 E-08 6.0 E-08 1.2-E-08 4 &-/ D
k Zn-65 5.0 E-07 3.0 E-08 1.2 E-08 Rb-86 h.g ggs)
Sr-89 5.0 E-08 5.0 E-08
-90 5.0 E-08 5.0 E Zr-95 1.5 E-08 5.2 E-08 8.0 E-09
-97 3.1 E-08 Nb-95 1.5 E-08 3.7 E-08 7.0 E-09 Mo-99 5.0 E-07 Tc-99m 3.3 E-08 Ru-103 3.8 E-08
-106 3.2 E-07 2.0 E-08
, Rh~-103m
-106 2.0 E-08 Ag-110m 4.9 E-08 l
l 1 _
TABLE 4 i
'l RANCHO SECO SITE USAGE PARAMETERS LIQUID EFFLUENT PATHWAY Maximum Exposed Individual Pathway
-Units Infant Child Teenacer Mult Fruits, vegetables, grain kg/yr-0 520 630 520 Leafy vegetables kg/yr 0
0 0
0 Milk 1/yr 330 330 400 310 Heat, poultry kg/yr 0
41 65 110 Fish kg/yr 0
6.9 16 21 Other seafood kg/yr 0
1 1
1 Drinking water 1/yr 0
0 0
0 Shoreline recreation hr/yr 0
14 100 1000 Swinning br/yr 0
100 100 100 Boating hr/yr 0
0 0
0 s.
d/
l g$li l
f -
TABLE 4-contd.
RANCHO SECO SITE LIQUID LFFLUENT PAYHWAY Dilution Parameters Quarterj harter2 Quarter 3 Quarterj Maximum Exposed. Individual 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 Average Exposed Individual
-(General Public) 1000.0 100.0 100.0 1000.0 Irrigated Food Pathway (Average Individual) 1000.0 100.0 100.0 1000.0 Irrigated food Pathway
'(Maximum Individual).
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Decay Parameters Maximum Average General Individual Individual Public (hours)
(hou r_sL, (hours)
Pathway _
Fruits, vegetables, grain 336 144G 1140 Leafy vegetables N/A 48 48 Milk 48 96 96 Meat, poultry 480 480 490 fish 24 24 168 Other seafood 24 24 240 Drinking water N/A 12 24
. Shoreline recreation 0
0 0
Swiming 0
0 0
9 6,, ( <(%,
0 Botting N/A 0
Release Holdup Time 72 96 p%>h,5 5
Irriaated Foods Parameters Irrigation Growing Rate Crop Yield Period feed Water 2
2 (1/m / month) kg/1t )
(days)
Fraction fraction fruits, vegetables, grain 263 2.0 60 l-Leafy vegetables 263 2.0 90 1
Milk 263 1.4 30 1.0 0.0 263 1.4 30 1.0 1.0 Meat, poultry TABLE 5 j
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MARCH 1973 Estimated Annual ~ Radiological Liauid Effluents Fission Products Nuclide Ci/ Year Normalized te 4s-137 H-3 1.00 E+02 3.15 E+04 Rb-86 5.9 E-06 1.86 E-03 Sr-89 3.7 E-05 1.17 E-02
-90 1.6 E-06 5.05 E-04 Y-90 1.5 E-06 4.73 E-04 91 5.0 E-06 1.58 E-03 Zr-95 6.5 E-06 2.05 E-03 Nb-95 7.6 E-06 2.40 E-03 Mo-99 2.2 E-05 6.94 E Tc-99m 2.0 E-05
'6.31 E-03 Ru-103 4.3 E-06 1.36 E-03
-106 1.5 E-06 4.73 E-04 Rh-103m 4.3 E-06 1.36'E-03
-106 1.5 E-06 4.73 E-04 Ye-125m 3.7 E-06 1.17 E-03
-127m 3.4 E-05 1.07 E-02
-127 3.4 E-05 1.07 E-02
-129m 2.7 E-04 8.52 E-02 f(b
-129 1.75 'E-04 5.52 E-02 c. 'Y s e. V.
-131m' 2.3 E-05 7.26 E-03
\\/,,3 *
,'~
-131 4.0 E-07 1.26 E-
-132 2.3 E-04 7.26 E-02 1-130 1.3 E-06 4.10 E-04
-131 8.5 E-02 2.68 E+01
-132 2.3 E-04 7.26 E-02
-133 1.3 E-03 4.10 E-01 L
-135 3.92 E-05 1.24 E-02 J
i L_1____________._____________
TABLE 5-contd.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT o
e.
MARCH 1973 -
I
[stimated Annual Radiological Liouid-Ef fluents fission Products Nuclide C1/ year
. Normalized t6 Cs-137 '
Cs-134 3.92 E-03 1.24
-136 7.55 E-04 2.38 E-01
-137 3.17 E-03 1.00
- Ba-137m 2.95 E-03 9.31 E-01
-140 2.3 E-05 7.26 E-03 La-140 2.5 E-05 7.89 E-03 Ce-141 5.9 E-06 1.86 E-03
-144 4.7 E-06 1.48 E-03 Pr-143 3.3 E-06 1.04 E-03
-144 4.7 E-06 1.48 E-03 Nd-147 1.1 t-06 3.47 E-04 Pm-147 5.0 E-07 1.58 E-04 s
q n\\
t _ - _ _ _ _
TABLE 5-contd.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL'STATENENT-j MARCH 1973 Estimated Annual Radiological Liouid Ef fluents, Corrosion and Activation Products Nuclide G1/ year gormaltred to Co-60 Cr-51 6.8 E-05 6.48 E'01 Mn-54 3.4 E-05 3.24 E Fe-55 1.05 E-04 1.00
-59 2.3 E-05 2.19 E-01 Co-58 8.1 E-04 7.71
-60 1.05 E-04 1.00 Mp-239 2.6 E-06 2.48 E-02 sy Qf' j
p b'
T TA8LE 6 he
- APPENDIX'I EVALUATION REPORT JUNE l'.
1976 Estimated'An'nual Radiological 1.iouid Effluents fission Products-Nuclide Ci/vear-Normalized Jo Cs-137 y
H-3 3.0 E+01 1.2 [+05:
Rb-86 Sr-89 Y-91m
-91 1.0 E-05 4.0 E-02 Mo-99 2.65 E-03 1.1 E+01, Tc-99m 2.29 E-03.
9.2
-Te-127m
-127-
-129ni 1.0 E-05 4.0 E-02
-129 1.0 E-05 4.0 E-02
-131m' 1.0 E.05 4.0 E-02
-131
-132 1.4 E-04 5.6 E-01 1-130 1.0 E-05 4.0 E-02 f,
(,, k
-131 1.88 E-03 7.5 7.6E-01g5*
-132
-1.9 E-04 7.4 g
-133 1 86 E-03
-135 5.4 E-04 2.2 V
Cs-134 3.3 E-04 1.3
-136 I.6 E-04 6.4 E-01
-137 2.5 E-04 1.0 Ba-137m 2.3 E-04 9.2 E-01
-140 La-140 '
' TABLE 6-contd.
APPENDIX I EVALUATION REPORT F
' JUNE 1. 1976' Estimated Annual Radioloolcal Licuid Effluents Corrosion and Activation Products Nuclide Ci/vear Normalized to Co-60 Cr-51 1.0 E-05 1.0
-59 1.0 E-05 1.0 Co-58 1.2 E-04 1.2 C+01
-60 1.0 E-05 1.0-NP-239 1.0 E-05 1.0
}Qf'}h l
r i
I l
I a
[
L TABLE 7 i-RANCHO SECO HISTORICAL j
RADIOLOGICAL LIOUID EFFLUENTS fission Products (Curies)
Nuclide 1980 1981-1982 1983 1984 H-3 1.47 E-02 7.89 E+01 6.48 E+01 7.41 C+01 2.97 C+02 4.04 E-05 Sr-89 Mb-95 4.36 E-03 1.83 E-03 8.37 E-05 Zr-95 2.99 E-04 6.12 E-04 1.26 E-04
-97 3.05 E-04 Ag-110m 8.63 E-03 1.2S E-05 1.45 E-03 I-131 3.45 E-02 1.71 E-02 3.61 E-02 1.23 E-01
-133 4.90 E 2.13 E-03 6.89 E-04
-1.71 E-02 1.27 E-04 1.76 E-04 1.87 E-03
-135 Cs-134 1.34 E-03 4.92 E-02 9.47 E-03 6.10 E-02 1.53 E-01
-136 4.18 E-04 3.42 E-04 1.70 E-03 4.28 E-03
-137 2.43 E-03 9.06 E-02 1.74 E-02 1.07 E-01 3.01 E-01.
Ba-140 1.85 E-d3 O h>I$.,c h
La-140 3.49 E-03 1.26 E-04 y,.
.I t. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I TABLE'7-contd.
. RANCHO SECO HISTORICAL-RADIOLOGICAL LIQUID EfrLUENTS fission Products Norne11 red to Cs-137 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Sverade H-3 6.05 8.71 E+02 3.72 E+03 6.93 E+02 9.87 E+02 1.34 E-04 1.34 E-04 Sr-89 Nb-95 4.81 E-02 1.05 E-01 7.8? E-08 5.13 E-02 Zr-95 3.30 E-03 3.52 E-02 4.19 E-04 1.30 E-02 3.37 E-05
-97 3.37 E-03 Ag-110m.
9.53 E-02 7.18 E-04 4.82 E-03 3.36 E-02 I-131 3.8) E-01 9.83 E-01 3.37 E 4.09 E-01 5.28 E-01
-133 5.41 E-02 1.22 E-01 6.44 E-03 5.68 E-02 5.98 E-02
-135 7.30 E-03 1.64 E-03 6.21 E-03 5.05 E-03 Cs-134 5.51 E-01 5.43 E-01 5.44 E-01 5.70 E-01 5.08 E-01 5.43 E-01
-136 4.61 E-03 1.97 E-02 1.59 E-02 1.42 E-02 1.36 E-02
-137 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.04 E-02 Ba-140 2.04 E-02 La-140 3.85 E-02 7.24 E-03 2.29 E-02
/
p, v i c v.
(% !
9
r..
g y m.-
?!,
[.
]
TABLE 7-centd.
L RANCHO SECO HISTORICAL RADIOLOGICAL LIOUTO EFFLUENTS Corrosion and Activation ~ Products (Curies)'
Nuclide 1980 1981
-1982 1983 1984 1.39 E-04 6.23 E-04 5.95 E-04 Na-?4 5.59 E -
Cr-51 Mn-54' 3.55 E-02 9.98 E-03 5.17 E-03
.2.45 E-03 fe-59 3.91 E-04 3.01 E-03
.Co-57 1.97 E-04 2.75 E-01 1.22 E-01 3.25 E-02 1.13 E-02
-58
-60 5.72 E-02 2.27 E-02 1.49 E-02 1.94 E-02 g&
i l
t 1
e
'l I
r.
o I
i I. _ _ _--
TABLE 7-centd..
RANCHO $ECO HISTORICAL 1
-1 RADIOLOGICAL LIOU_]O EFFLUENTS Corrosion and Activation Products Normalized to Co 1
-1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
-Average 6.12 E-03 4.18 E-02 3.07 E-02 2.62 E-02 Na-24 2.46 E-01 2.46 E-01 Cr-51 Mn-54 6.21 E-01 4.40 E-01 3.47 E-01 1.26 E-01 3.84 E-01 Fe-59 6.84 E-03 1.33 E-01
-6.99 E-02 3.44 E-03 Co-57 3.44 E-03
-58 4.81-5.37 2.18 5.82 E-01 3.24'
-60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 p.y g Vr \\
hIA.g%
gc a
O f _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
TABLE 8 LLO STUDY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 SOURCE TERM (Curtes)
LLO Tech. Spec.
1.0 E+10 4.21 al. water Scaling factors Applied Nuclide (UCi/ml) 9 LLO EIS APP. I History H-3 1.0 E-05 1.0 E-01 10 3
10 C-14 Na-24 1.3 E-04 P-32 Cr-51 3.2 E-03 5.0 E-03 1.2 E-03 Mn-54 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 1.6 E-03 1.9 E-03 fe-55 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03
-59 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 1.1 E-03 5.0 E-03 3.5 E-04 Co-57 1.7 E-05
-58 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03
-60 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 Zn-65 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 Rb-86 9.3 E-06 Sr-89 5.0 E-08 5.0 E-04 5.9 E-05 6.7 E-07
-90 5.0 E-08 5.0 E-04 2.5 E-06 Zr-95 1.0 E-05 6.5 E-05
-97 1.7 E-05 Nb-95 1.2 E-05 2.6 E-04 Mo-99 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 3.5 E-05 5.0 E-03 Tc-99m 3.2 E-05 4.6 E-02 y'
)3.,, S(
Ru-103 6.8 E-06 y.wi
-106 2.4 E-06 Rh-103m 6.8 E-06
-106 2.4 E-06 Ag-110m 1.7 E-04 (Zr-Nb-95) i (Ba-La-140)
?6-
l TABLE 8-centd.
Lt0 STUDY TECHNICAL SPEC!r! CATION 4.21 SOURCE TERM (Curies)
LLD Tech. Spec.
1.0 E+10 4.21 m1, water Scaling factors Applied Nuclide futi/ml) 9 LLD LI_S_
APP. I History Te-125m 5.9 E-06
-127m 5.4 E-05
-127 5.4 E-05
-129m 4.3 E-04 2.0 E-04
-129 2.8 E-04 2.0 E-04
-131m 3.6 E-05 2.0 E-04
-131 6.3 E-07
-132 3.6 E-04 2.8 E-03 I-130 2.1 E-06 2.0 E-04 2.6 E-03
-131 1.0 E-06 1.0 E-02 1.0 E-02 1.0 E-02
-132 3.6 E-04 3.8 E-03
-133 2.1 E-03 3.7 E-02 3.0 E-04
-135 6.2 E-05 1.1 E-02 2.5 E-05 Cs-134 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 2.7 E-03
-136 1.2 E-03 3.2 E-03 6.8 E-05
-137 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 Ba-137m 4.7 E-03 4.6 Em03
-140 3.6 E-05 1.0 E-04 La-140 3.9 E-05 1.1 E-04 q
Ce-141 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 9.3 E-06 y
l
-144 5.0 E-07 5.0 E-03 7.4 E-06 Pr-143 5.2 E-06 g
-144 7.4 E-06 3'/ '
i k
Nd-147 1.7 E-06
)
Pm-147 7.9 E-07 Np-239 1.2 E-04 5.0 E-03 Cm-242
-244 Pu-238 i
1 1 !
.--- _ - _ _ -----_-- _ ____-- _.__ _ J
TABLE 9 l
r-LLD STUDY o
SOURCE TERM (Curies)
Tech. Spec.
Chem / Rad
.CEP Nuclide 4.26 Lab
- Report H-3 2.0.E-02
.2.5 E-03' C-14 Na-24 P-32 Cr-51 2.8 E-03 4.9 E-04 Mn-54 1.5 E-04 3.6 E-04 4.0 E-05 fe-55
-59 3.0 E-04 7.5 E-04 1.0 E-04 Co-57 2.8 E-04 2.0 E-05
-58 1.5 E-04 7.3 E-04 3.0 E-05
-60 1.5 E-04 6.0 E-04 1.2 E-04
-Zn-65 3.0 E-04 1.2 E-04 Rb-86 Sr-89
-90 Zr-95 1.5 E-04 5.2 E-04 8.0 E-05
\\b 'I
-97 3.1 E-04
'f, s
Nb-95 g,i~i.e Mo-99 f h p.8 Tc 99m 3.3 E-04 D'
Ru-103 3.8 E-04
-106 3.2 E-03 2.0 E-04 Rh-103m
-106 2.0 E-04 Ag-110m 4.9 E-04 k _ _ - - _ _ - - - _
J
TABLE 9-contd.
LLO STUDY-SOURCE TERM (Curies)
Tech. Spec.
Chem / Rad CEP
.Nuclide 4.26 Lab Report Te-125m
-127m
-127
-129m 1
1
-129
-131m
-131
-132 3.0 E-04 I-130
-131 1.0 E-05 5.5 E-04 5.0 E-06
-132 5.0 E-04
-133 3.2 E-04
-135 1.4 E-03 Cs-134 1.6 E-04 4.5 E-04 1.6 E-04
-136 3.8 E-04
-137 1.8 E-04 5.3 E-04 1.1 E-04 Ba-137m
-140 1.5 E-04 1.3 E-03 1.5 E-04 La-140 Ce-141 4.9 E-04
-144 2.3 E-03 2.4 E-04 Pr-143
(~Y I h,V f.
-144 Nd-147 2.0 E-03
)t Pm-147 Np-239 Cm-242
-244 Pu-230 I
TABLE 10 CALCULATED MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE c.
o TO EQUAL =10% OF 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX !
(gallons per minute)-
Technical Specification 4.21 Tech. Spec.
. Scaling Factors Applied 4.21
[11 ADD. I History Adult Total Body.
1.01 E+05 8.58 C+04-8.69 E+04 6.27 E+04 Organ 3.72 [+04 3.36 E+04 3.42 C+04 2.51 E+04 Teenager Total Body 7.65 E+04 5.60 E+04 5.71 E+04 3.97'E+04 Organ 4.32 E+04 3.90 E+04 3.93 E+04
.2.87'E+04 Child Total Body 7.71 E+04 3.57 E+04 3.63.E+04 2.52'E+04 Organ 7.83 E*04 5.16 E+04 5.16 E+04 3.63 E+04 qM y
~
7..,
l.
e j'
\\;.J l
, )
TABLE 11 CALCULATED VOLUME Of LIOUID EFFLUENT TO COUAL 10% OF 10 CFR 50 APPEND M (liters)
Technical Specification 4.21 Tech. Spec.
Sealing Factors Applied 4.21 EIS Apo. I History i
Adult Total Body 2.97 C+05 3.50 E*05 3.45 E+05 4.78 E+05.
Organ 8.06 E+05 8.93 E+05 8.77 E+05 1.19 E+06 Teenager Total Body 3.92 C+05 5.36 E+05 5.25 E+05 7.56 [+05 Organ-6.94'E+05 7.69 E+05
,7.63 E+05 1.05 E+06 Child Total Body 3.89 C+05 8.40 E+05 8.26 E+05 1.19 E+06 Organ-3.83 E+05 5.81 E+05 5.81 E+05 8.26 E+05 i
sCr p{%h4'5 i
i
+
4 l
J -
I' h
TABLE 12 CALCULATED MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE
~*'
TO EQUAL 10% OF 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX !
(gallons per minute)
Chem / Rad Tech. Spec.
Lab 4.26 gg h
Adult Total Body 8.90 E+03 3.12 E+03 2.45 E+03 Organ 2.32 C+04 1.34 E+03 1.63 E+03 Teenager L
Total Body 5.79 E+03 2.20 E+03 1.65 C+03 Organ 1.85 E404 1.57 E+03 1.30 E+03 Child Total Body 4.02 E+03 1.77 C+03 1.14 E+03
-Organ 1.27 C+04-1.98 E+03 1.41 E+03 n*s f>..%
, 2..!
t _
i r
FIGURE NOTES ATB Adult Total Body A0 Adult Organ TT8 Teenager Total Body TO Teenage' Organ CT8 Chi 1d-Total Body C0 Child Organ 9V6 O
9 t - = _. _.... - - _ _ _ _ _
, - ~ _. _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _,.......
i i
i, W
- 9m M-N 53 s
- w 84e wl
- w g9 g
yg g
eE
~g 2*
N, x
~
^ m
_ m
- w 9
4 W
e 6
O 29 m:
l
..w e
(, ',,
w p
- f 1
,6 e
(spunsnotti) 7-
-l*
'NIN/SNO77VD I
l.-
9 t
i!
mi mg p* @
. = t>
a 4
9 k
w y
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
00$k$$000$00$$$$2*
7_s s s s s cy;;g>
i
~
l i
y ro ts iH e
ta R
e I
g r
.p a
3h p
c A
s i.
ED E
Rum Um i
Gin I M' Fd S
I e
E t
a l
u 7i I
c l
a C
^
cep S
hceT h
(l 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 9
8 6
5 4
3 2
1 1
1 gg e'
g a$$
l ll]
l ll
e ta R
egra 4h cs i
ED Rum Um i
G n
i I M F
d 9
e t
a l
uc laC M$
,I
?
- f f
f' 1"=
4 0
8 6
4 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
0]
e" 54
,l
L.y ~
- cl.l
.o E
f F-
- p.
t-E N-m t
C kk l
N bi I
. r3.y q $1 k
_N-k e
N 6
k
$?WS 1
l l
ll d
h, E
l
'e E
N w
w 0)
N 10 4
03 N
O W
4 d
6 6
6 d
d d
d d
X (MMDJV)
S2131I7 3ND70A JN3D7dd3 m
'. -_I; RANCHO SECO. UNIT NO[ 1 TECHNICAL.SPECIFICAT10N 4.21 1~.0 E+07 f.ITERS LIOUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM. DISCHARGE' RATE MAXIMUM ADULT DOSE (MREM) 1 PATHWAY:
BONE LIVER-T.
BODY THYROID-KIONEY' LUNG ~
GI-LLI FISH 1 3.88
-6.90 5.04 7.28E-01 2.46 6.97E-01 6.73E-01
. INVERTEBRATE 9.78E-02 5.17E-01 1.58E-01 1.16E-02 1.94E-01 9.53E 1.38-DRINKING O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
- 0. 0.
0.0 SHORELINE '
8.92E-01' 8.92E-01 8.92E-01 8.92E-01 '8.92E-01 8.92E-01.:8.92E-01 SWIMMING 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1'.37E-03 VEGETATION 5.49 2.66 2.98 3.11 9.19E-01 2.77E-01 2.65
~ LEAFY ~VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0
.O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK.
7.39E-01 1.22 8.73E-01 2.20-4.86E-01 1.10E-01
?.2GE-01 MEAT 1-28E-01 2.12E-01 1.44E-01 8.72E-02. 7.96E-02 2.12E-02 2.36E-01 TOTAL' 1.12C+01 1.24E+01 1.01E+01 7.03 5.03
.2.01 6'.06
. MI'NIMfjM ~ DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10'% OF 10CFR50 APPF.NDIX !
..A
. k,. i; TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 1.01E+05 GPM r,
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.72E+04 GPM g-j a,
i10VID EFFLUENT e'LLD TO EOUAL 10%.0F 10CFR50 APPEND'IX I
. TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 2.97 E+05 LITERS 8.06 E+05 LITERS
% OF ANNUAL RELEASE 1981 0.36 0.89 1982.
0.28 0.76
-1983 0.24 0.64 1984 0.18 0.47 I
L-_-_________________..._
4-RANCHO SECO UNIT,NO.
1' l
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 1
1.0 E+07 LITERS LIQUID' EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM TEENAGER DOSE (MREM) l 1
j.
PATHWAY
' BONE LIVER T.
BODY THYROID KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI F I sid.
4.02 7.06 3.00 6.80E-01 2.47 8.21E-01 4.63E-01 INVERTEBRATE 1.20E-01 6.70E-01 2.01E-01 1.42E-02 2.47E-01 1.45E-02 1.23 DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.
0.0 0.0
' SHORELINE 8.92E-02 8.92E-02 8.92E-02 8.92E-02 8.92E-02 8.92E-02 8.92E-02 SWIMMING 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1-37E-03
.VFGETATION 8.17 4.32 3.34 4.62 1,47 5.17E-01 3.23 LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
. MILK 1.27 2.11.
9.35E-01 3.48 8.21E-01 2.19E-01 2.70E-01' MEAT 9.89E-02 1.67E-01 8.19E-02 6.31E-02 ~6.07E-02 1.92E-02 1.30E-01
' TOTAL 1.38E+01 1.44E+01 7.65 8.95 5.16 1.68 5.41 MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE.TO EOUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 7.65E+04 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 4.32E+04 GPM
/
xTg LIOUID EFFLUENT s LLD TO E00AL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !
A,4 TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.92 E+05 LITERS 6.94 E+05 LITERS
% OF ANNUAL RELEASE
'1981 0.43 0.76 1982 0.37 0.66 1983 0.31 0.55 1984 0.23 0.41
q 4
Y 4
- p RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 i
TECHNICAL $ SPECIFICATION 4.21 l
1.O'E+07 LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT l
- 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE j
MAXIMUM CHILD DOSEI(MREM)
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.
BODY THYROID KIONEY LUNG' GI-LLI FISH 4.91 6.08 1.36 7.02E-01 2.06 6.45E-01 1.59E-01 INVERTEBRATE 3.09E-01 1.23 4.74E-01 3.39E-02 4.33E-01 2.61E-02 9.63E-01 ORINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0
- SHORELINE 1.25E-02 1.25E-02 1.25E-02. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.25E-02 1.25E-02 1.25E-02 1.25E-02
, $*.*JIMMING
'1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03 1.37E-03' 1.37E-03 1.37E-03
.. VEGETATION
.1.78E+01 7.14 4.80 9.13 2.35 7.78E-01 2.46 LEAFY VEG. -
0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 2.92-3.45' 9.75E-01 6.87 1.29
~ 3.29E-01 1.83E-01
' MEAT 1.70E-01 2.05E-01 8.79E-02 9.52E-02 7.19E-02 2.20E-02 6.89E-02 TOTAL 2.61E+01 1.81E+01 7.71 1.68G+01 6.22 1.81 3.85 MINIMUfA DISCHARGE RATE TO_E00AL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX 1 TOTAL BOOY (0.3 MREM) 7.71E+04 GPM' BONE.
(1.0 MREM) 7.83E+04 GPM a
. LIQUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !.
- e. ' - k.
c. i.*.
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
BONE (1.C MREM)
("$ l'. -
3.89 E+05 LITERS 3.83 E+05 LITERS
% OF-ANNUAL RELEASE
- 1981 0.43 0.42 1982 0.37 0.36 1983 0.31 0.30 1984 0.23 0.23 1
f'
[
RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 I'
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION'4.21 SCALING FACTOR TO EIS REPORT
't.O E+07 LITERS LIOUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM AOULT DOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.
800Y THYROID KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI FISH 3.54 6.46
. 4.83 7.36E-01 2.20' 7.08E-01 2.80E-01 INVERTEBRATE 1.11E-01 1.77E-01 5.87E-02 4.43E-02 4.24E-01 6.96E-03 9.76E-01
- DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHORELINE 8.50E-01 8.50E-01 8.50E-01 8.50E 8.50E-01 S.50E-01: 8.50E-01 SWIMMING 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03
-VEGETATION 1.41 2.55 1.94 3.20 9.24E-01 3.63E-01 7.34E-01 LEAFY VEG.
Oc0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 dlLK 5.62E-01 1.03 7.77E-01 2.23 3.70E-01 1.34E-01 6.73E-02 NEAT.
8.86E-02 1.61E-01 1.24E-01 1.08E-01 8.31E-02 3.88E-02 1.57E-01 TOTAL 6.56 1.12E+01 8.58 7.17 4.85
.2.10 3.07 MINIMUM OISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 8.58E+04 GPM
(" <3 LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.36E+04 GPM
{A,,
LIOUID EFFLUENT e LLO TO EQUAL 10% OF'10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 4 i
3.50 E+05 LITERS 8.93 E+05 LITERS
% OF ANNUAL RELEASE 1981 0.38 0.98 1982 0.33 0.84 1983' O.28 0.71 1984 0.21 0.53 I'
Lx
__-w---------:-.------
---_..--u-
F
.n RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 SCALING' FACTOR TO EIS REPORT 1.0 E+07 LITERS.LIOUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM TEENAGER DOSE (MREM)
~~
PATHWAY 80NEL LIVER T.
BODY THYROID KIONEY LUNG GI-LL'I FISH 3.71 6.63 2.78 6.87E-01 2.23 8.32E-01 2.03E-01 INVERTE8 RATE 1.57E-01.2.35E-01 7.02E-02 5.75E-02 5.94E-01 1.08E-02 9.35E-01 DRINKING 0.0L 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHORELINE 8.50E-02 8.50E-02 8.50E-02 8.50E-02 8.50E-02 8.50E-02 8.50E-02
-SWIMMING 1.12E-03. 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 VEGETATION 2.35 4.12 1.84 4.74 1,46 6.24E-01 8.30E-01 LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CILK 1.00 1.79 7.64E-01 3.51 6.28E-01 2.52E-01 8.43E-02 MEAT 7.23E-02 1.25E-01 6.27E-02 7.S8E-02 6.31E-02 2.95E-02 0.91E-02 TOTAL 7.38 1.30E+01 5.60 9.16 5.06 1.83 2.23
-MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EOUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 5.60E+04 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.90E+04 GPM LIOUIO EFFLUENT. e LLD TO EDUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !
,g #
g.,
l'. t
's r
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) h$
5.36 E+05 LITERS 7.69 E+05 LITERS 4 **
% OF ANNUAL RELEASE 1081 0.59 0.84 1982 0.51 0.73 1983 0.43 0.61 1984 0.32 0.45
- i-
.i 4-1 RANCHO SECO' UNIT NO. 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 SCALING FACTOR TO EIS REPORT 1.0.'E+07 LITERS' LIQUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM' CHILD DOSE (MREM)-
PATHWAY SONE LIVER
~T.
BODY THYROIO K!ONEY LUNG GI-LLI FISH 4.59-5.75 1.11L 7.10E-01 1.88 6.54E-01 7.57E-02 INVERTEBRATE 4.65E-01 4.57E-01 1.63E-01 1.62E-01 1.22 2.05E-02 7.79E-01 DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHORELINF.
1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02
_1.19E-02 1.19E-02
' SWIMMING 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 1.12E-03 VEGETATION 5.57 6.85 1.62 9.31 2.36 9.49E-01 6.60E-01 LEAFY'VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 2.37 2.97 6.10E-01 6.92 1.01 3.81E-01 8.71E-02 NEAT 1.32E-01 1.59E-01 5.50E-02 1.12E-01 7.92E-02 3.52E-02 5.58E-02 TOTAL 1.31E+01 1.62E+01 3.57 1.72E+01 6.56 2.05 1.67 MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 3.57E+04 GPM THYRDID
'(1.0 MREM) 5.16E+04 GPM LIOUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO E00AL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPEN0!X I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
THYROIO (1.0 MREM) 8.40 E+05 LITERS 5.81 E+05' LITERS L
% OF ANNUAL RELEASE 1981 0.92 0.64
\\
1982 0.79 0.55 1983 0.67 0.46 1984 0.49 0.34
f- -
g
=.,..
' RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 SCALING. FACTOR TO APPENDIX I REPORT 1.0 E+07 LITERS LIQUIO EFFLUENT l
3000 GPM OISCHARGE RATE-MAXIMUM ADULT DOSE (MREM) l PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.
BODY THYROIO KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI FISH 3.59 6.67 4.98 7.62E-01 2.31 7.25E-01 ~4.12E-01 INVERTEBRATE 1 17E-01 1.00E-01 6.55E-02 6.08E-02 4.73E-01 1.25E-02.
1.86-
.ORINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
~ SHORELINE-8.47E-01 8.47E-01 8.d?E-01 8.47E-01 8.47E-01 8.47E-01 8.47E-01 SWIMMING 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 VEGETATION 1.39 2.53 1.90 3.14 8.54E-01 3.14E-01 7.57E-01 1.EAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 5.66E-01 1.04 7.74E-01 2.21 3.64E-01 1.19E-01 6.12E-02 MEAT 9.44E-02 1.69E-01.
1.19E-01 9.35E-02 5.65E-02 3.16E 1.96E-01 TOTAL 6.61.
- 1. * ** d + 01 8.69 7.11 4.91 2.05 4.13 MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX 1 TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 8.69E+04 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.42E+04 GPM-LIQUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.45 E+05 LITERS 8.77 E+05 LITERS
% OF ANNUAL RELEASE 1981 O.38 0.96 1982 0.33 0.83 19.83 0.-27 0.70 1984 0.20 0.52
k y
1,.
RANCHO.SECO UNIT'NO. 1
. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.4.21' 4
SCALING FACTOR TO APPENDIX ! REPORT.
1.0 E+07 LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT-
- 3000"GPM DISCHARGE' RATE MAXIMUM TEENAGER DOSE (MREM)'
HF+A T H W A Y BONE
' LIVER T. BODY'
' THYR 0!D KIDNEY LUNG
'GI-LLI:
f!SH 3.77 6.83 2.92.
7.14E-01 2.35-
'8.52E-01.2.96E-01
- 1 INVERTEBRATE I'.63E-01.
1.36E-01 7.94E-02 7.84E-02 6.50E-01 1.92E-02 1.72-DRINKING 0.01 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0' O.0
'0.0
. SHORELINE 8.47E-02 '8.47E-02.8.47E-02 8.47E 8.47E-02 8 '. 47 E-0 2 8.47E-02 P'E.SOIMMING 1.40E-03: 1.40E-03. 1.40E-03 1.40E-03: 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1 VEGETATION' 2.32-L4.12 1.80 4.66 1.37 5.72E-01: ~ 8.53E. LEAFV:VEG.;
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 MILK-1.01 1.80.
7.63E-01 3.50.
6.24E-01 2.33E-01
.7.56E-02
.WEAT 7.68E-02 1.34E-01' 6.15E-02 6.70E-02 4.39E-02 2.71E-02 1.10E-01 TOTAL
- 7.43 1.31E+01 5.71' 9.11 5.12 1.79 3.14'
-MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EOUAL'10% OF 10CFR50~ APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) : 5.71E+04 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 3.93E+04 GPM
. LIQUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO EOUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX 1
. TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM)
/
5.25 E+05 LITERS 7.63 E+05 LITERS
~
%-OF ANNUAL RELEASE 2;. %
-1981 0.58 0.84 o
1982 0.50 0.72 1983' O.42 0.61 1984 0.31 0.45 l.'
1
l b
h 1
RANCHO SECO UNIT NO.
1-TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21
~ SCALING FACTOR TO APPENDIX I REPORT' 1.0 E+07' LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT
'3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM CHILD DOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T. BODY THYROID MIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI FISH
'4.65 5.92 1.22 7.43E-01 1.97 6.69E-01' 1.02E-01 INVERTEBRATE 4.75E-01 2.78E-01 1.87E-01 2.16E-01 1.30 3.57E-D2 1.21 DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHORELINE 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 1.19E-02 SWIMMING 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 _1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 VEGETATION 5.50 6.86 1.55 9.19 2.21 8.65E-01 6.10E LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M1LM 2.38 2.99 6.08E-01 6.91 1.00 3.51E-01 6.15E-02
' MEAT 1.40E-01 1.70E-01 5.57E-02.
1.00E-01 5.48E-02 3.18E-02 6.07E-02 TOTAL 1.32E+01 1.62E+01 3.63 1.72E+01 6.55 1.97 2.06 CIINIMUM DISCHARGE RAT'E TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 3.63E+04 GPM THYROID (1.0. MREM) 5.16E+04 GPM L!0UID EFFLUENT e LLO TO E00AL 10% OF 10CFR50. APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
THYROID (1.0 MREM) 8.26 E+05 LITERS 5.81 E+05 LITERS
- & OF ANNUAL RELEASE b
')
1981 0.91 0.64 1982 0.78 0.55 1983 0.66 0.46
%[.g...,,,
%'p 4.
1984 0.49 0.34
i 1
i s
.;4 i
RANCHO SECO UNIT'NO. 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 j
SCALING FACTOR TO RANCHO SECO HISTORY
{
1.0 E+07 LITERS LIOUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM TEENAGER DOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY 80NE LIVER T.
80DY THYROID K!ONEY LUNG GI-LLI-FISH 2.95 4.81 1.91 2.91E 1.59 6.14E-01 1.28E-01 INVERTE8 RATE 1.43E-02 1.92E-01 4.42E-02 1.68E-04 5.72E-02 3.65E-03 3.59E-01 D3 INKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.
0.0
. SHORELINE 7.85E-02 7.85E 7.85E-02 7.85E-02 7.85E-02 7.85E-02 7.85E-02
-$WIMMING 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 VEGETATION 1.80 3.07 1.35 1.10E-01 1.08 4.81E-01 ' 7. 5 2 E-01.
LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 7.97E-01 1.32 5.42E-01 3.18E-02 4.57E-01
<1.96E-01 1.09E-01 CEAT 4.53E-02 8.79E-02 4.74E-02 1.13E-02 3.51E-02 2.10E-02 6.06E TOTAL 5.69 9.56 3.97 2.36E-01 3.30-1.39 1.49-MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL 80DY (0.3 MREM) 3.97E+04 GPM LIVER (1.0. MREM) 2.87E+04 GPM t.IOUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO EOUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 7.56 E+05 LITERS 1.05 E+06 LITERS
% OF' ANNUAL RELEASE 1981 0.83 1.15 1982 0.71 0.99
(
l h"*
1983 0.60 0.83 E
1984 0.45 0.62 1
4 R.___.mm_______________m
____m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
h J
'.i-RANCHO'SECO UNIT'NO. 1
.. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21
- SCALING FACTOR TO RANCHO SECO HISTORY ti.0 E+07 LITERS LIOUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM. DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM ADULT DOSE-(MREM)
JPATHWAY.
BONE.
LIVER T.'80DY THYROIO KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI-
~ FISH-2.79 4.67 3.38 3.68E-03 1,56 5.17E-01 1.80E INVERTEBRATE 1.03E-02 1.48E-01.3.81E-02 1.64E-04 4.40E-02 2.41E-03 4.15E-01 DRINKING-0.0
'O.0-0.0-0.0 0.0
- 0. 0.
0;0 SHORELINE 7.85E-01 7.85E-01 7.85E-01 7.85E-Oi 7.85E-01 7.85E-01 7.85E-01.
. SWIMMING 8.30E 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04
-VEGETATION 1.07 1.90
't.42 8.96E 6.82E 2.86E-01 6.73E-01J
- LEAFY VEG.
-0.0 0.0~
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.0 MILK 4.45E 7.61E-01 5.57E-01 2.44E-02 2.70E-01 1.06E-01 8.94E-02 U MEAT 5.52E-02 1.15E-01 9.35E-02 1.90E-02 4.89E-02 2.95E-02 1.10E-01
-. TOTAL 5.16 8.38' 6.27 9.23E-01
.3.39-1.73 2.25 MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO E' QUAL 10%.0F 10CFR50 APPENDIX I-TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 6.27E+04 GPM LIVER-(1.0 MREM) 2.51E+04 GPM LIQUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO EQUAL.10% OF 10CFR50' APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM) 4.78 E+05 LITERS 1.19 E+06 LITERS
. % OF. ANNUAL RELEASE
- 1981L 0.53 1.31 1982 0.45 1.13 1983 0.38 0.95 1984 0.28 0.70 l.
~
l l
f
_.-.-___----_..--...___-_-.____--------__--_---_____-----_--__._---_-._.-___-____...-._.--_._-__-__--__-___._---.__-___-_.--____.__---_._____----_-____-___a
t.
liO'
_I t g~ '
.s RANCHO SECO UNIT NO.
1.
I'
' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.21 H
SCALING-FACTOR TO RANCHO SECO HISTORY 1.0lE+07 LITERS LIQUID' EFFLUENT 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE-MAXIMUM CHILD DOSE (MREM)_
L t
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.' BODY-THYR 0!D KIONEY
' LUNG GI-LLI FISH 3.66
! INVERTEBRATE. '4.11E-02.
4.22 7.41E-01
-2.53E-03 1.35 4.85E 4. 76 E-0 2 :'
3.53E 9.46E-02 3.28E-04 9.94E-02, 6.67E-03 2.68E-01 DRINKING _
0.0 0.0 0.0,
, SHORELINE' 1.10E-02 1,10E-02; - 1.10E -02.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.10E-02 '1.10E-02 1.10E-02.1.10E-02.
' SWIMMING 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04 8.30E-04
' VEGETATION 4.30 5.15 1.20 1.73E-01 1.74 7.36E-01 5.98E LEAFY VEG.-
~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
'OILK 1.90 2.21 4.30E-01 5.04E-02.7.42E-01 2.98E-01 1.02E-01 NEATE 8.23E-02.1.12E-01 4.16E-02 1.37E-02 4.33E 2.48E-023.87E ' TOTAL 1.00E+01 1.21E+01 2.52 2.- 5 2E-01 3.99 1.56 1.07 MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF-10CFR50 APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3, MREM)
-LIVER
- (1.0 MREM). 2.52E+04-GPM 3.63E+04 GPM LIQUID EFFLUENT e LLD TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM)
LIVER (1.0 MREM)-
1.19 E+06 LITERS 8.26 E+05 LITERS
% OF-ANNUAL; RELEASE
- 1981, 1.31 0.91
'1982 1.12 0.78 1983 0.95 0.66 d
.1984 0.70 0.49 r ~g\\
e-6 p
48 g y,. '
t
_ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - --
?
kI-
- O
- i; RANCHO SECO-UNIT NO. 1 CHEM / RAD LABORATORY-LLD l
1.0~E+07 LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT l
3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM ADULT DOSE (MREM)
FATHWAY.
BONE LIVER T.
BODY THYROID.
KIONEY-LUNG GI-LLI FISH 3.57E-01 6.55E-01 4.84E-01 4.06E-02 2.28E-01 7.08E-02 7.98E-02 l
INVERTEBRATE ~ 9.61E-03 3.43E-02 1.13E-02 4.50E-03 4.27E-02 1.32E-03 3.63E-01 DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
_ SHORELINE 1.13E-01 1.13E-01 1.13E-01 1.13E-01 1.13E-01 1.13E-01 1.13E-01 SWIMMING 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.325-04 VEGETATION 1.63E-01 2.49E-01 1.86E-01 1.57E-01 1.11E-01 2.79E-02 1.86 LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILM 5.65E-02 1 '. 00 E- 01 7.41E-02 1.11E-01 3.47E-02 1.09E-02
?.1SE-01 MEAT 8.81E-02 1.66E-02 2.17E-02 4.39E-03 1.58E-01 2.45E-03 5.20 TOTAL 7.87E-01 1.17 8.90E-01 4.31E-01 6.88E-01 2.27E-02 7,73 MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TG EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 8.90E+0S GPM-GI-LLI (1 0 MREM) 2.32E+04 GPM
., t F.
t';
6.
.n,.6
- g Y,1 1*,
- m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _
t
'A RANCHO SECO UNIT.NO. 1 CHEM / RAD. LABORATORY LLO 1.0 E+07 LITERS LIOUID EFFLUENT' 3000 GPM OISCHARGE. RATE
' MAXIMUM TEE' NAGER 00SE (MREM) l PATHWAY.
BONE
. LIVER-T. 800Y THYROIO KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI FISH 3.76E-01.6.72E-01 2.86E-01 3.30E-02 2.32E-01 8.35E-02 5.90E-02 INVERTEBRATE 1.33E-02 4.48E-02' 1.44E-02 5.79E-03 5.73E-02 2.01E-03 -3.'43E-01 ORINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.0 0.0 1
SHORELINE-1.13E-02 1.13E-02 1.13E-02 1.13E-02 1.13E-02 1.13E-02 1.13E-02 H
SWIMMING--
2.32E 2.32E-04' 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E - VEGETATION 2.73E-01 4.06E-01 1.79E-01 2.33E 1.83E-01 5.23E-02 2.36 LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0-
'O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 d!LK 1.01E-01 1.74E-01 -7.31E-02 1.76E-01 5.97E-02 2.19E-02 1.38E-01 MEAT 7.39E 1.326 02 1.46E-02 3.18E-03 1.32E-01 2.22E-03 3.24-
- TOTAL 8.49E-01 1.32 5.79E-01 4.68E-01 6.76E-01 1.74E-01 6.15 MI NIMUM O1 SCHARGE.RATf, TO EOUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPEN0!X I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) -5.79E+03-GPM GI-LLI (1.0 MREM)' 1.85E+04 GPM
- *
- h
.y,",, y\\.1
.c u ; O d9 l
s 1
F s
/+'.
V.
RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 CHEM / RAD LABORATORY.LLD 1.0:E*07' LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM CHILD DOSE (MREM)
' PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.
800Y THYROID
.KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI
. FISH 4.64E-01 5.83E-01 1.22E-01 3.93E-02 1.95E-01 6.56E-02 -2.16E-02 i
. INVERTEBRATE 3.83E-02 8.36E-02 3.41E-02 1.59E-02 1.10E-01 3.60E-03' 2.66E-01 03!NKING
- 0. 0 0.0
.0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
,~ SHORELINE 1.58E-03 1.58E-03 1.58E-03 1.58E-03 1.58E-03 1.58E 1.58E-03 SWIMMING-2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 2.32E-04 VEGETATION
- 6. 5 2 E 6.76E-01 1.65E-01.
4.61E-01 3.00E-01 7.87E-02 1.86 LEAFY.VEG.
0.0 0.0' O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CILK 2.39E-01 2.91E-01 5.81E-02 3.47E-01 S.62E-02 3.29E-02 9.39E-02 CEAT 1.39E-01 1.66E-02 2.15C-02 4.80E-03 1.74E-01 2.54E-03 1.98 TOTAL 1.53 1.65 4.02E-01 8.70E-01 8.77E-01
-1.85E-01 4.22 WINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX 1 TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 4.02E+03 GPM GI-LLI
-(1.0 MREM) 1.27E+04 GPM e
g i
i
i.
i RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1
-TECHNICAL SPEC 1FICATION 4.26 1.0 E+07 LITERS LIQUIO EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE. RATE MAXIMUM MAN OOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY.
BONE:
LIVER T.
800Y THYROIO MIONEY LUNG GI-LLI-FISH 1.30E 2.47E 1.73E-01 7.35E-04 9.21E-02 2.37E-02 3.20E-02 INVERTEBRATE 3.55E-03 2.02E-02 6.58E-03 1.19E-05 8.40E-03 5.10E-04 4.18E-02 U-ORINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.0.0 SHORELINE 2.91E-02 2.91E-02 2.91E 2.91E-02 2.91E-02 2.91E-02' 2.91E-02 SWIMMING 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 VEGETATION 5.08E-02 9.48E-02 6.68E-02 3.04E-03 3.33E-02 9.89E-03 4.40E LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 2.31E-02 4.67E-02 '3.0BE-02 2.07E-03 1.98E-02 3.77E-03 1.00E-02 MEAT-4.15E-03 9.38E-03 5.54E-03 1.18E-04 3.72E-03 9.47E-04 1.28E-02 TOTAL 2.41E-01 4.47E-01 3.12E-01.
3.51E-02 1.86E-01 6.80E-02 1.70E-01
' MINIMUM OISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPEHOIX 1' TOTAL 800Y (0.3 MREM) 3.12E+03 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 1.34E+03 GPM f
s
1
,(s
,.3,
,r*
l ' '. '
,e... :;. s.-
l
[.
v e
RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1
' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.26 1.0 E+07 LITERS LIOUIO EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM TEENAGER OOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T. 800Y THYROIO KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI
. FISH 1.35E-01 2.52E-01 1.05E-01
'6.85E-04 9.23E-02 2.79E-02 2.18E-02 INVERTEBRATE 4.42E-03 2.62E 8.50E-03 1.45E-05 1.06E-02 7.76E-04 3.665-02 1
ORINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 SHORELINE-2.91E-03 2.91E-03 2.91E-03 2.91E-03 2.91E-03 2.91E-03 2.91E-03 SWIMM;NG
-5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 VEGETATION 8.44E-02 1.54E-01 6.56E-02 4.46E-03 5.32E-02 1.84E-02 4.95E-02 LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CILK 4.02E-02 8.03E-02 3.42E-02 3.26E-03 3.31E-02 7.51E-03 1.15E-02 CEAT 3.25E-03 7.36E-03 3.32E-03 8.04E-05 2.80E-03 8.46E-04 7.04E-03 TOTAL 2.70E-01 5.23E-01 2.20E-01 1.15E-02 1.95E-01 5.84E-02 1.29E-01 MINIMUM OISCHARGE RATE TO EOUAL 10% Dr 10CFR50 APPENDIX-I TOTAL B00Y (0.3 MREM) 2.20E+03 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 1.57E+03 GPM a
N 4
t
s.
4 RANCH 0'SECO UNIT.NO. 1
. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 4.26 1.0.E+07 LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM CHILD DOSE (MREM)
~~
~. PATHWAY BONE' LIVER T.
BODY' THYROIC KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI FISH.
1.65E-01 2.17E-01 5.07E-02 7.06E-04 7.63E-02 2.19E-02 7.40E-03
' INVERTEBRATE-1.126-02 4.81E-02 2.01E-02 3.45E-05 1.88E-02 1.39E-03 2.79E-02.
DRINKING 0.0.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHORELINE 4.08E-04 4.08E-04 4.08E-04 4.08E-04 4.08E-04 4.08E-04 4.08E-04
-SWIMMING S.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 5.12E-05 VEGETATION 1.98E-01 2.54E-01 6.40E-02 8.72E-03 8.45E-02 2.77E-02' 3.40E-02 LEAFY.VEG' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 9.27E-02 1.30E-01 3.84E-02 6.40E-03 5.16E-02 1.13E-02 7.42E-03 MEAT.
5.63E-03 8.98E-03 3.83E-03 1.15E-04 3.29E-03 9.67E-04 3.74E-03 TOTAL 4.73E-01 6.59E-01 1.77E-01 1.64E-02 2.35E-01 6.37E-02 8.09E-02 MINIMUM OISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENO!X I TOTAL BODY.(0.3 MREM)- 1.77E+03 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 1.98E+03 GPM e
,,f %
I
.A
~
- . 7
..t v
i
.ges s
RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 CEP REPORT LLD' 1.0 E+07 LITERS LIQUID EFFLUENT 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM ADULT DOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.
BODY THYR 010 KIDNEY LUNG GI-LLI
. FISH 9.62E-02 1.89E-01 1.40E-01 3.6GE-04 6.63E-02 1.92E-02 1.59E - INVERTEBRATE 1.64E-03 6.97E-03 2.61E 5.06E-06 3.11E-03 2.24E-04 2.10E-02 DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHORELINE 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02 2.21E-02'
- SWIMMING 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E 3.06E-05
- VEGETATIOtt 3.85E-02 7.1SE-02 5.31E-02 1.45E-03 2.60E-02 7.49E-03 1.52E-01
- LEAFY VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Os0 0.0 MILK-1.62E-02 3.26E-02 2.32E-02 1.02E-03 1.2SE-02 3.01E-03 5.86E-03 MEAT 7.43E-03 5.42E-03 4.~0E-03 4.47E-05 1.16E-02 _5.37E-04 3.26E-Or TOTAL 1.82E-01 3.27E-01
- 2. 4 5 E-01 2.50E-02 1.42E-01 5.26E-02 S.43E-01 1
MINIMUM DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX I TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 2<,45E+03 GPM GI-LLI (1.0 MREM) 1.63E+03 GPM
.. (
a e
a
?.,.i t
C.m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
, i 1
3;<.e p.
- R ANCHO-SECO. UNI T ' NO.. '1.
/CEP. REPORT.LLOt
- r.
1.0 E+07 LITERS LIQUIO EFFLUENT 3000 GPM DISCHARGE RATE MAXIMUM TEENAGER 00SE (MREM)
. PATHWAY BONE LIVER-
'T. 800Y-THYROIO
.KIONEY-LUNG GI-LLI
- FISH 1.00E-01.
1.93E-01 '8.23E 3.41E-04~-6.66E-02 2.25E-02 1.11E -INVERTEBRATE 2.08E-03.9.08E-03 3.23E-03 7.42E-06 3.94E-03 3.40E-04 2.00E DRINKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-
-0.0-SHORELINE 2.21E-03 2.21E-03 :2.21E-03 '2.21E-03 2.21E-03. 2.21E-03 2.21E SWIMMING.
3.06E 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 VEGETATION 6.40E-02 1.16E-01' 5.06E-02 2.15E-03 4.19E-02 1.39E-02 1.91E-01 LEAFY.VEG.
0.0 0.0
'O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 2.83E-02 5.62E 2.42E-02 1.60E-03 2.10E-02 5.97E-03 7~.07E-03; MEAT-6.13E 4.26E-03'- 2.47E-03 3.17E-05 9.56E-03. 4.85E-04
2.0 3E-01
TOTAL-2.03E-01 3.' 81 E- 01 1.65E-01 6.37E-03 1.45E-01 4.54E-02 4.J4E-01 MI'NIMUM. DISCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 1.65E+03 GPM GI-LLI (1.0 MREM) 1.30E+03 GPM t
~
I l'.
' W Jo ' ; i RANCHO:SECO UNIT NO. 1 CEP REPORT LLD 1.0 E+07-LITERS LIQUIO EFFLUENT 3000 GPM OISCHARGE: RATE MAXIMUM CHII., DOSE (MREM)
PATHWAY BONE LIVER T.
BODY
-THYROIO KIONEY
' LUNG GI-LLI l
FISH:
1.23E-01 1.65E-01 3.57E-02 3.52E-04 5.52E-02 -1.76E-02 3.90E-03 INVERTEBRATE 5.40E-03 1.68E-02 7.36E-03 1.78E-05 7.04E 6.12E 1.71E-02
.ORINKING O.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' O.0 0.0 SHORELINE.
3.09E-04 3.09E-04 3.09E-04 3.09E-04 3.09E-04 3.09E-04 3.09E-04 SWIMMING 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 3.06E-05 ~3.06E-05 3.06E 3.06E-05 VEGETATION
.1.51E-01 1.90E-01 4.47E-02 4.23E-03 6.71E-02 2.09E-02 1.50E-01 LEAFY _VEG.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0 0.0 MILK 6.56E-02 9.16E-02 2.31E-02 3.16E-03 3.30E-02 8.94E-03 4.88E-03 MEAT.
1.13E-02~ 5.24E-03 2.90E-03 4.71E-05 1.24E-02 5.53E-04 1.24E-01 TOTAL 3.57E-01 4.69E-01 1.14E-01 8.15E-03 1.75E-01 4.89E-02 3.00E-01 MINIMUM O!SCHARGE RATE TO EQUAL 10% OF 10CFR50' APPENDIX !
TOTAL BODY (0.3 MREM) 1.14E+03 GPM LIVER (1.0 MREM) 1.41E+03 GPM
y s..t; y
- . f'; 3.
f 9
s),p# e,, y lS, p
s m
SMUD g SACRAMENTC MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Stmt. Bo 95813; (916) 452 3211 4
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERAThG STATION UNIT NO.1 PROCEDURE APPROVAL. FORM l
Pmcedurs Number - ' AP306V-13 (ORIGINAL)
Title LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION C0'JST TIME DETERMINATION
.Y NV Or..iginator R. Bowser/G. CampbelT' Date
- June 27. 1984 Approved h
_ Date 6
2 $'4 i
,n. - -
Recommend Approval by Plant Review Committee:
Yes [%
No [ ]
Approved Date b.9 - 84 i
retn e.mmm Recommend Review by knogament Sofsty Review Committso:
Yes [ ]
No K}
Approved Dett 7-. h e f'
Plant se.p.rwrtunoont
[
m
- Committse:
Yes [ ]
Nr [)Q.
Forward to Enerment Safety r Rr/wwod ~
Date ~
u.- sem m. w commm S & Y"P" '""'"'""""' M
'*g NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL JULY 21, 1984 5g:
g e
g*-
(
+a
\\
' Vi
(
\\
3,
- f ' '
,fl v
~
,. 7
- . Q);
s
. s i
O
- 4
[,$, /,'
h
.R
~
2.- Ji'.*u,,;;gs s y +,.,f4
- t <rT~". 7m*g.
~
~.
s-E.
vs.= -
f n_ in n n
....-..,...,.n
-, s oi n.
=
.e:
06-26-84' 4
' Original WP1393P-il D-0061P' AP.306 V-13~
LOWERLIMITOFDETECTIOk COUNT TIME DETERMINATION 4
1.0 GENERAL < DESCRIPTION.
The Lower Limit of Detectica is the smallest concentration of ra'dioac'tive material in a sample which will-be detected and ' reported asia positive ~
value approximately 95 percent of the time. Convers1y, a sample with no real net activity above background will be reported As a positive value
- about 5 percent of the time.
The L'ower Limits of Detection (LLD) are specified in Technical-Specifications for liquid and gaseous release samples. This pmcedure provides instructions to calculate the count times necessary to meet the.
LLD's specified by RETS based on a particular counter, sample size, genoetry, and assocf ated efficienc/.. LLD count times should be detemined or verified when counter efficiencies are. calculated.
~ PPARATUS A
2.0 None 3.0 REAGENTS None' l,
' 4.0 PROCEDURE
.1 Fomula For a particular measurement for LLC in pCi per unit volume or mass b
LLD 6
- 2.22 x 10 ) E Y Ye-Aat Where Lower Limit of Detection in microcuries per milliliter LLD
=
t AP.306 Y-13/1 l-
3 PROCEDURE (Continued) i 4.3
.5 Substitute the values for A through F into the LLD equation which has-been solved for T and perforn.the calculation.
T ($ in minutes.
(If
- the count time on:the counter / detector is normally set in seconds, E '
convert by multiplying by 60.)
.6 When LLD reconnended counting times have been determined for all of
-the isotopes in a sample set, summarize the results per Section 5.0 on Enclosure 7.3.
I 5.0 DATA REDUCTION
.1 For each sample set of LLD's for a given geometry on a specific counter / detector, review the count times dttermined in Enclosure 7.2.
Identify the isotope which requires the longest count time to meet it's associated LLD value for that sample set.
If this count time is not an even count time or standard machine setting, or upon the. recommendaf on of the.SCRA, it may be increased.
(Example: 8.63 minutes say be rounded to 10 minutes).
.2 Enter the isotope detersined in Step 5.1 on Enclosure 7.3 along with the associated counting data.
.3 Repeat Steps 5.1 and 5.2 for each set of LLD count times detersined for the different dettctors/ counters and geometries used for effluent counting.
.4 After Enclosure 7.3 has been reviewed by the Senior Chem-Rad Assistant assigned to 4)C/ Environmental, post a current copy in the Radiochemistry Laboratory.
.5 When counting an effluent release sample, use the recommended counting times for the detector / counter and geometry of interest.
6.0 REFERENCES
.1 RETS, Appendix A Sections 4.21 and 4.22
.2 AP.310, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Section 5.0
.3 EG and G Ortec Systems Applications Studies PSD No.14 7.0 ENCLOSURES
.1 LLD Requirements.
.2 LLD Count Time Calculation Sheet NOTE:
Computer equivalents of inclosures are j
acceptable.
\\,
AP.306 Y-13/3
}
+
i.
?
[.' a ENCLOSURE '- 7.1. (Conti nued)
LLD REQUIREMENTS (Continued)-
.2-Gases (RETS Table 4.22-1)
.1 Gama Scan-Gas Isotope-LLD'(uCf/ml)
Gaseous Principal 1 x 10-4 i
Gamma Emitters.
Kr 88, Xe-133 Xe-133m, Xe-135' Xe-135m
.2 Liquid Scintillation Isotope _
LLD (aCf/ml)
H-3 1 x 10-6 s
.3 Gamma Scan-Cartridge Isotope-LLD (uCf/ml)
Charcoal / Silver Zeolite 1-131-1 x 10-12
.4
.Gama Stan-Particulate Isotope LLD (uCf/ml)
Particulate.
1 x 10-11 I-131, Mn-54 Fe-59, Co 58 Co-60, Mo-99 Cs-134, Cs-137 Ce-141, Ce-144
.5 Proportional Counter Isotope LLD fuCf/ml)'
Gross a 1 x 10-11 Sr-89, Sr-90 1 x 10-11 n
's.
AP.306 Y-13/5
-~--l_______
l '.
1 ENCLOSURE 7.3 LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENT RELEASE RECOINENDED LLD COUNIING TIMES Most Counter /
Restrictive Re quired Sample Sample Recomme nded-Detector Isotope LLD Volume Geometry
. Efficiency Count Time
~
Prepared By:
CRA Date:
Reviewed By:
SCRA/QC Date:
END
\\
AP.306 Y-13/7
.______.____E.m__.__._
_..m_
IC ArGL ke AI Di16e_1 c 2
[
~7lx co -
^
~~
$' L L O Sk. m y tl 3 63 D4.
rt *:
c.a.
I ',-~~ -
J
~'.l
- J.,,, ' ( tori se,.)
( sore seh ( i,,.<,3 ( g e e Q( re c e ud ( i e r a SJ
,. -. u
- - y.,l u, o t
1 m
S.
Ce9l-1 1 3_. G. q;_._g' &p s ! _1_
&-2'>
ci ( - 9' C.2 01- \\'
f,3yt-f
. _.. 'C yy..*_'ef;9.ytl T
&_ =
l
- q. n_ _; i l
~
&i'hD CI. tan b
- .ga Q
.in
. y t'_ _.1
._.l.u. 374. Y : 6.iT 4-Y.. J. e t -f
?.r55-Y 4 375 Y
.f,r7t-p
. ',. (.s l
- 1.
- 9..f..T_. -
S.% C Y 9.1e L-1' L,19 E - Y 1.Te f-T ^ Y.!3:~ Y I
k
. J.,. l *. 0,i If,5Yi
- 1' l'.lci T _f3)f-1
}.Tc f - 1' 3.%0i Y folif V:
}
'?
3-I (t /3 7 i
' !f.1.4..t..9_'
_T. 12/ 1. _ _?W 7 5-T V. y [..?.
1[./?.(e. T.j f.3 t r f j
..j,_
?: _ M..$.
3,t 9 5 %.',.l c &._f.h.
l. t &.f ' [_l.c b E-1
%. 5 3Eg_9, s/.n. l. Y..
1
...s,
~
i m a '.i.I
,' S, p e t.1... _1 3._/._i.'.%.. _
.S1C i 9 3 13 E..T.
y _.W Y C 1 l W G. Y l 1
/ # $ 5'
! ?.4
- I-T' bfMI[Gf.
_J ;3f. T p.M b 5' ' 3K. c"5 -Y 9.!
,!d M.Jt T
- 3. yc t _T.a_2.,5 G T..T.
.'*(
7.
- l. 5tE-7 )
.i. _._.
f,U T -1
~
s i
l
. I i
i 1
__...._J
..{
1. 5.:t t. g l
T I3 /. l / y1: ' ' 9.1'l6-7 f.c46-7 5,(,,9?i-g p,9er-7 5.13 /. 7 3
i-i
.. _.e.._
I a..
l j
- +
.J I
.w g.--
g,
..Y ic.
- 1.13 I I
- 1. s/r ! -QI.11 i-Q).,.c_!(.[. Qf 'C <'l. 5 ? !. s*T ll
. f,.T' b.
.h % '
'3.4ct r,3 > rr *r 13 45 f-T' J.6/f-T 3./Y!-T I 43 5 -T'
,&. 5]
. {,5 Yf - T' T.9a f.1..? C.5 c 1 f.pt. [._- T 9. _6 9. 1..T. )! $,9.4E. %.
. A~ v.?1.,
, /. / / f ';'
')..'i t - ?. a' /. r> < t
')
?,ilt T i.cil-T'it,7!E 1 l......_....
f r tri 4,r'it.7) 3.6.et.?..!
.y.et-9 C3 n - ?
y.jp...7-..
1 y
k _j 5 i._re..
.;.11y!- L. t.53 f C 1.19 E-4' 9MI 9 LySc t,
- l. 3. 91-l p I3 3 i T.c 7 t-S' 3. rS.t-x-7 2P E-9
- 6. ic_t - 7_ _%.,o_g r 1.,.?. 4 9 t - Y..
I
.v. e /.3.3 x
./,u t - ?,2,ypt ?
d.S~f-?
1.11/-7
- 2. ire-9'P.5ct-9 4
Yf 13. *f'
' 7.T{f f 2.90f-T M.i$ f *I..S.J/T E
- T M.T i t T h.Ti f ~i f.7y!. T.l'/.cyg.;
Y f 135 % l l l,. N Y 4.(f r -!
515 f!. T J.9 9f. 9 l L w!'
l
-!: l37
\\
I ist-7 1.o c r. - 9
- 1. 4? E - y
.a g
a.
- d.
i In h.'
- e
. c. l a v.C/;.-; 6 n.ew.caj.,t,,_,,
l
. _.. i..
j i
)
i l
.l f"
I i
s 3
l I
j
.,i
~
i i
i j....
1 I
I i
_ ___