ML18191A011

Superseded Pages

ML18191A011
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	07/10/2018
From:	Washington Public Power Supply System
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18191A011 (32)

Text

AMENDMENT p /

2. General The Envi ronmental Report should provide the JlEC wi th a general~understandi ng of the ways in whi ch the plant wi interact with the envi ronment. A basic knowledge of the ll oxi sti ng en i ronment at the proposed location and of the important ch racteri s ti cs and val ues of the si te as i t presently exi s is necessary to establish a basis for consi-derati on of'hhenvi ronmental i mpact of the proposed faci li ty.

The need for the~ lant to fulfi region should also be discussed.

ll power needs in the affected The Washington Public Power System proposes to build Hanford No. 2 on a site eased from the Atomic Energy- Com-mission within the Hanford Reservation in the eastern part of the State of Washington.

Hanford No. 2 consists of single cycle, forced circu-lation, boiling water reactor as t e steam supply system for a turbine-generator unit with a nomi 1 net electrical output of 1100 megawatts. Heat dissipation fr m the turbine condensers is provided by an evaporative cooling tow system. Water additions to make up for evaporation losses and blowdo n will come from the Columbia River. Radioactive material gene ated by the reactor will leave the Site almost exclusively either as rradiated fuel elements or as packaged solid wastes. The design o jective for both the liquid and gaseous discharges from the plant will be such that the resultant offsite dose does not exceed, one percent f 10CFR20 or the proposed li'mits of 10CFR50 Appendix I during normal o erations.

The Site for Hanford No. 2 is a barren desert in a spa ely populated region. The Hanford Reservation has served as a nu lear center since 1943. During this period, comprehensive experienc and data concerning environmental and ecological factors in the vicinity of the Site were acquired by the AEC and its contractors and are available to the Supply System. This extensive compilation SECTION 2.1 Page 1

AMENDMENT 3 of baseline information was one of the dominant criteria in the decision to select the Hanford Reservation for the location of Hanford No. 2.

In order to meet forecasted peak and energy reauirements of the Pacific Northwest Hanford No. 2 is scheduled for commercial operation by September 1977. Hanford No. 2 was advanced from the original schedule when voters of Eugene, Oregon, delayed the nuclear power plant being planned by the Eugene Water. and Electric Board.

Delay in completing Hanford No. 2 beyond fiscal year 1978 could have a major adverse economic impact on the region in that a net deficit in peaking capability of 1,748,000 kilowatts and a deficiency of energy capability amounting to 1,150,000 average kilowatts in that year could be encountered (see Table 2.1.4-2 and Reference 2 in Section 2.1).

This discussion is treated in greater detail in the following four subsections.

SECTION 2.1 Page 2

AMENDMENT 3 2.1.4 Electric Power Su l and Demand The specific power needs whi ch this proj ect would meet should be discussed in relation to the present and proposed capacity of the applicant 's system and the relationshi p of the electri cal capacity of the proposed faci li ty to the prospective power supply and demand si tuation of'he system, pool, or region involved at the scheduled in-service date of the proj ect. The report also shoul d include a discussion of the consequences of delays in the proposed project. Other alternatives to the project 'for supplying power should be treated fully under Section 2. 5.

Hanford No. 2 will be constructed and operated by the Supply System in accordance with an 'agreement between the Supply System and the Bonneville Power Administration.

The Project capability will be purchased under "Net Billing Agreements" between the Supply System, Bonneville and 95 statutory preference customers of Bonneville. Under the Net Billing Agreements, each Participant will assign its share of the Project capability to Bonneville. Payments by the Participants to the Supply System will be credited against the billings made by Bonneville to the Participants for power and certain services. The output of the Project will be added to the other power resources of Bonneville.

The major part of the power supply for the Pacific Northwest has traditionally been from hydroelectric generating resources. The remaining hydro developments in the Pacific Northwest will be peaking generation installations and the area must turn to thermal generation for its base load resources in the immediate future. The combination of hydro peaking and large scale thermal generating plants was found SUBSECTION 2.1.4 Page 1

AMENDMENT 3 by the Joint Power Planning Council to be the most economic means of producing power to meet the area's anticipate load growth.

To meet expanding electric needs in the Northwest requires 1)'n increase in peaking generation, 2) an expansion of power plants to provide baseload energy, and 3) an increase in the capacity of transmission lines to carry power from generation sources to load centers. To meet these requirements optimally, four Northwest private utilities, 104 publicly owned agencies, and BPA, acting in concert as the Joint Power Planning Council, conceived the Hydro-Thermal Power Program. This program has been endoxsed by the current and previous Administrations and by the Congress.

The Joint Power Planning Council coordinates the planning of existing and future thermal and hydro resources in the Pacific Northwest.

The utility members of the Joint Power Planning Council have concluded that the "Hydro-Thermal Program" will:

1. Best preserve the environment and natural beauties of the Pacific Northwest.

2. Make efficient and economic use of the Federal Regional Transmission System.

3. Obtain the economies of scale from large thermal generating plants.

4. Coordinate the required large thermal generating plants with existing Pacific Northwest Hydro, both Federal and non-Federal, and the future peaking generation units which will be installed at existing dams, to meet achieve the most the electric economic and reliable power supply to power requirements of the Pacific Northwest.

The first large-scale steam electric generating plant constructed in the Pacific Northwest was the 860,000 kilowatt Hanford No. 1 of the Supply System which was placed in commercial 'operation on SUBSECTION 2.1.4 Page 2

2. 2 Envi ronmental A royal s and Consultation The Envi ronmental Report shoul d i ncl ude a listing of al l relevant licenses, permi ts, or other approvals required; the status thereof; and,copies of all such documents, should be appended to the Report.

if issued, A discussion of relevant licenses, permits, and other approvals which will be required for Hanford No. 2 and the status of efforts directed toward obtaining such approvals is presented in the following two subsections. Appended hereto as Exhibit II is a copy of the State of Washington legislation pertinent to siting of thermal power plants.

SECTION 2.2 Page l

AMENDMENT 2

3. There were no losses in preparation of the fish (cooling or long-term freezer storage).

4 ~ An individual consumes as much as 20 kg of fish per year (Reference 18) .

5. The total edible weight of sport fish harvested from the Columbia River between the Ringold area and Boardman, Oregon, is not over 1.5 x 10 4 kg/yr (Reference 18) .

Based on the above assumptions, the dose to the individual fisherman would be 8 x 10 mrem/yr to his total body. Integrated dose to the population would be 2 x 10 man-rem/yr from fish con-sumption.

Aquatic recreation is a popular pastime in the stretch of the Columbia River below the plant site. Swimming, boating, water skiing and picnicing along the shore or on islands could result in small 2

incremental doses to the local population (Reference 19) . Assuming an individual spent 100 hr/yr swimming, 100 hr/yr water skiingor boating, and 500 hr/yr along the shoreline, all near the plant site

-4 his total body dose from external exposure would total only 5 x 10 mrem/yr.

This dose and others potentially received by such an ardent water sports fan are summarized in Table 2.3.7.3-8.

The population dose received during water recreation activities can be estimated on the basis of the following assumptions.

Hours spent in various water sports are those given by Honstead (Reference 19), viz.

10 hrs/yr swimming (immersion) 5 hrs/yr boating and water skiing (surface' 17 hrs/yr on rivershore SUBSECTION 2.3.7.3 Page 5

AMENDMENT 2

2. The population within 50 miles of the Site in the sectors between the NNE and the SW directions, inclusive, are the persons who travel to the Columbia River for their aquatic recreation. This population totaled approximately 120,000 persons in 1970.

3. The dilution offered by the Snake River below Pasco, and the decay during river travel time to southwest Benton County can be ignored. The majority (over 50%) of the exposed population resides in the vicinity of the Tri-Cities (Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland).

Under these conservative assumptions, the integrated population dose from water sports would be 6 x 10 man-rem/yr, principally from exposure to the contaminated shoreline.

Gaseous Effluents The gaseous effluent of primary importance for this plant is from the main turbine condenser exhaust system. This off-gas system employs a recombiner-charcoal concept with an assumed input source term of 100,000 pCi/second of a diffusion type mixture of noble gases (af ter 30 minute decay) . The design of this system provides for a decay period sufficient to reduce the expected. annual average emission rate to less than 49-59 pCi/second.

In addition to the above release rate of less than 49-59 pCi/second, the following assumptions and associated values were used in defining the environmental effects from this event.

Ground level release

2. Meteorology data collected at the Hanford Meteorological Station from January 1955 to July 1961. (Table 2.3.7.3-2 to 7)

SUBSECTION 2.3.7.3 Page 6

AMENDMENT 2

3. Population Density to 50 miles for the year 1970. (See Figure 2.3.1.1-4)

The basic mathematical model used to calculate the doses from air submersion is given in the equations that follow.

(D) x,e,d ~ 8766 (DF) ~

e d I

Where (D) x,e,d = The annual dose to total body (or skin) of a person located at a point x meters from the source in a direction d, averaged over a sector width of 0 radians.

8766 = hours per year (DF) I = Dose factor for isotope (I) in units of mrem/hr per pCi/m based on a half-infinite cloud geometry and corrected for the fractional penetration of beta and gamma radiations to the appropriate tissue depth (7x10 cm for skin and 5 cm for total body) .

(Re ference 22)

(2)

Where X Annual average concentration (pCi/m ) of isotope (I) at. point (x,e,d). (Reference 23, pp. 113)

Percent of time wind blows in direction d under meteorological conditions J.

12 10 = picocuries per curie SUBSECTION 2.3.7.3 Page 7

AMENDMENT 2 QJ Release rate of Isotope (I) in curies per second Sector width in radians = (29/n) where (n) is the number of sectors Downwind distance in meters UJ Average wind speed for meteorological condition (J) in meters per second.

Travel time of released material to point. (x,8,d) under UJ meteorological conditions (J) in seconds.

Radioactive decay constant for 'isotope (I).

Height of release in meters

( g 2 )JJ = Standard deviation of vertical dispersion under meteor-ological condition (J) is calculated from equations given on pp. 141 and 405 of Reference 23.

Equation (1) yields the yearly off-site dose to a person located at point, (x,6,d).= The man-rem/yr is determined by multiplying the result of equation (1) by the population density located within the sector of concern. Values of the dose at the. point (x,G,d) are assumed to be applicable to all individuals located in that, sector from a distance of X-hX to X+EX. The cumulative man-rem for any radial distance presented in Table 2.3.7.3-9 is determined by summing the dose contributions from all sectors for the additional radial distance and adding this to the previous radial man-rem exposures.

Under normal operation a minor contribution to dose at the plant boundary is from direct radiation from the turbine and associated equipment. Other potential contributors are the reactor building, radwaste building, storage tanks, and the off-gas vent.

Dose rate conputations show the direct and scattered shine are SUBSECTION 2.3.7.3 Page 8

TABLE 2.3.7.3-7 PERCENTAGE FRE UENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION AT 200-FOOT LEVEL VS ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY (JANUARY 1955 THROUGH JULY 1961)

ESE SE SSE S SSN 0 3 VS 0.16 0. 20 0. 14 0. 22 0.24 0 41 0.21 0 24 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.46 0.38 0.53 0 41 0.37 0.15 0.56 5.37 NS 0. 19 0.25 0.19 0.22 0.44 0 48 0.22 0. 22 0. 13 0. 17 0. 16 0.23 0.29 0 40 0.37 0. 41 0 ~ 12 0.67 5. 17 N 0.27 0.38 0.28 0.36 0.40 0.47 0. 22 0. 18 0. 13 0. 14 0. 12 0.23 0.22 0 44 0 50 0.50 0 15 0 50 5.47 M U 0.38 0.65 0.40 0.45 0.36 0.26 0. 11 0. 22 0. 12 0. 18 0. 10 0.14 0.16 0 30 0.40 0.64 0.49 0.02 5.38 C

Cd 4 7 VS 0 18 0. 19 0. 11 0. 15 0. 16 0. 31 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.35 0.44 0.93 1.03 1.04 0.65 0. 35 0.02 0. 6 57 NS 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.40 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.22 0 26 0.46 0.58 0 81 0.49 0. 33 0.01 0. 4,92 14 N 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.25 0 13 0 11 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.18 0. 30 0.66 0 31 0.16 0.02 0. 2.98 8 0.70 0.77 0.43 0.50 0.43 0.56 0.35 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.38 0 39 0 42 1.09 0.97 1.20 0.28 0. 9. 88 H 0. 12 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.23 0.55 1.07 1.88 0.20 0. 7. 28 0 8 12 VS NS 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.07 O.OS 0.07 Oe14 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.33 0.48 0 90 1 80 1.62 1 89 0 55 0 35 0.16 0

0 0. 6 84 R N 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0 05 0.06 0.08 0. 12 0.12 0.36 0+87 0.17 0.09 0. 0 2.26 hJ U 0.47 0.35 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.09 0 ~ 10 0.12 0 28 0. 0 54 0.33 0.49 1.33 0.47 Oo49 Oe00 0. 5.91 4J 13 18 VS 0.04 0 '3 0.02 0.02 0 0.05 0.08 0.02 0+03 0.11 0.15 0.41 1.05 i+64 0.22 0.07 0. 0. 4.04 NS 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.26 0 60 0.84 1.07 2.81 2.71 0.18 0.12 Oe 0. 9 10 N 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.20 0 14 0.28 0 51 0.07 004 0 0. 1.66 U 025 0. 15 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 Oe04 0.19 0 53 0.64 0.26 0.59 100 0 10 0.12 Oo 0. 3.97 4J 19 24 VS 0 0. 0.00 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0 02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0. 20 0.00 0.00 0. 0. 0.37 NS 003 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.09 0 '3 0.56 0.50 0.35 1 37 1 69 0.04 0.01 0 0. 5 00 N 0.01 0.02 0. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0. 12 0. 14 0.05 0.18 0 30 0.01 0.01 0~ 0 0.96 U 0.06 0.05 0 F 01 0.00 0. 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.10 0 '0 0 '4 0.11 0.26 0.60 0.01 0.03 0 0. 2.00 Over 24 VS 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0 00 0 00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0. 0.00 0 0 0 0~ 0 0.04 NS 0.00 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0.01 0.02 0.08 0 33 0.60 0 14 0.08 0.48 0.84 0.01 0 00 0. 0 2.70 N 0.00 0.00 0. 0. 0. 0~ 0 00 0.02 0.06 0 15 0,07 0.02 0.10 0.27 0.00 0.01 0 0. 0.71 U 0 ~ 01 0.01 0~ 0 0. 0. 0 0.01 0.07 0 37 0.27 0.08 0.11 0.48 Oe01 0.00 0. 0 1.41 Totals VS 0. 50 0.52 0.35 0.48 0.45 0.91 0.73 0.59 0.58 0.97 1.52 2 e90 4 ~ 30 5.29 1.83 0.99 0. 17 0.56 23.67 NS 0. 57 0.52 0.36 0.46 0. 75 1. 19 0.85 0.87 1.35 2.48 2.49 3.09 7.15 8.34 1 45 1.03 0. 14 0.67 33 74 N 050 0.59 0 41 0 49 0.59 0.82 0.46 0.43 0 46 0.73 0.77 0.75 1.45 3.06 1.07 0 81 0.17 0 50 14.04 U 1.85 1.97 0.99 1.02 0.86 0 95 0.61 0.87 1.22 2.47 2.37 le32 2.02 4+80 1.96 2.48 0.77 0.02 28.55

TABLE 2.3.7.3-8 PROBABLE MAXIMUM DOSE TO AN INDIVIDUALFROM THE EFFLUENTS RELEASED AT THE HANFORD NO. 2 NUCLEAR PLANT (mrem/ r)*

Annual

~Pathwa E~xoecre Skin T~otal Bod GI Tract ~Th roid Bone Air Submersion 8766 hr 1.2xlO 4xl0 (4xl0 ) (4xl0 ) (4x10 )

Drinking Hater 438 liters 4xlO 2xlo SxlO lx10 Fish 20 kg SxlO .1.7x10 1.5xlO SxlO Swimming 100 hr 7xlO 'xlO 5xlo (5xlO ) (Sxl0 )

Boating 100 hr 3xlO 2x10 (2xl0 ) (2x10 ) (2xl0 -)

Shoreline Silt 500 hr 5x10 4x10 (4xl0 ) (4x10 ) (4xlo )

Total 0.013 0.005 0.17 0.020 0.005

• Assuming releases listed in Tables 2.3.7.2-1 and 2.3.7.2-2.

AMENDMENT 2 TABLE 2. 3. 7. 3- 9 INTEGRATED POPULATION TOTAL BODY DOSE FROM SUBMERSION IN AIR CONTAINING RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED FROM THE HANFORD NO. 2 NUCLEAR PLANT Average Radial Cumulative Dose Rate Distance Total Body Dose Cumulative mrem/yr (Miles) Man-Rem/ r Po ulation-1970 er erson 3.2xlo 20 1.6x10 10 3.3xl0 484 6.9x10 20 6.8x10 50,268 1.4xl0 30 l.lxl0 92,155 1.2xlo 40 l.lxl0 121,751 9.3x10 50 1.2xl0 179,592 6.8x10 SUBSECTION 2.3.7.3 Page 17

AMENDMENT 2 yet even in the unlikely event. that one of them did occur, the effect on the population would be negligible.

From a radiological viewpoint, the nuclear power plant is indeed a good neighbor, one that has a negligible impact on the environment. As indicated earlier, the national average natural background is about 140 mrem/yr, with 100 mrem/yr from the various sources listed in Table 2.3.7.5-1, and the remaining 40 mrem/yr contribution from exposure to building materials. Applying this exposure rate for the 179,600 people residing within 50 miles of the plant in 1970, the calculated integrated population dose from natural background is 25,140 man-rem/yr. In contrast to this dose, the total integrated dose from the liquid and gaseous effluents released from the plant will be only 1.3x10 -2 man-rem/yr to these same 179,600 people.

SUBSECTION 2.3.7.5 Page 13

AMENDMENT 2 TABLE 2.3.7.5-1 DOSE RATES DUE TO EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL IRRADIATION FROM NATURAL SOURCES IN NORMAL AREAS Re erence 21 Source Dose Rates mrad yr

• External Irradiation Cosmic rays at sea level 0 Ionizing component 28 Neutrons 0.7 Terrestrial radiation 50 Cosmic rays at 20,000 feet 1500 Internal Irradiation Potassium-40 20 Rubidium-87 0.3 Carbon-14 1 Radium-226, -228 1 Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) 2 Average total dose to body 100

• Rad is an acronym for radiation absorbed dose. It is the basic unit of absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. A dose of 1 rad means the absorption of 100 ergs of radiation energy per gram of absorbing material. 1 millirad = 0. 001 rad. (A roentgen of gamma rays will deposit almost 1 rad in tissue.)

SUBSECTION 2.3.7.5 Page 14

AMENDMENT 1 2.5.5 Alternative Radwaste Systems The radioactive waste treatment systems are designed to process and dispose of wastes generated during power operation. These radio-active wastes can be either liquid, solid or gaseous. The normal offgas discharge rate will be such that the off-site dose does not exceed one percent of 10CFR20. As much of the water processed through the liquid radwaste system will be retained in the plant as is possible. Occasionally surplus processed water will be discharged from the plant with the blowdown from the cooling towers. The, environ-mental radiation dose due to radioactive material in this discharge will be less than one percent of 10CFR20 limits during normal opera-tion. The overall exposure due to release of radioactivity in both the liquid and gaseous discharges is as low as practicable, as pro-posed in the guidelines of 10CFR50 Appendix I. Radioactive discharges during accident conditions are limited to those permitted by 10CFR100.

Solid wastes are packaged in 55 gallon drums or other suitable containers for off-site shipment and disposal.

2.5.5.1 Present Gaseous Radwaste S stem The system being provided for treatment of the gases that are formed inside the fuel elements and in the cooling medium during reactor operation include a building vented release, 30-minute holdup piping, catalytic recombiner and eight low temperature (O') charcoal bed adsorbers, as discussed in Subsection c.3.7. These gases, some of which are radioactive, are carried in a direct cycle boiling water reactor with the steam from the reactor through the turbine into the condenser.

The gases mix with inleaking air in the condensers and this gas-air mixture is continuously removed from the condensers by the SUBSECTION 2.5.5 Page 1

AMENDMENT 1 air ejector offgas system to maintain vacuum. In this way, radio-active gases are removed continuously from the reactor coolant system.

A high temperature catalytic recombiner is used to recombine radio-lytically dissociated hydrogen and oxygen from the air ejector system.

After chilling to strip the noncondensibles, a period of decay is provided to reduce the radioactivity content of the gas-air mixture prior to reaching the adsorption bed. This decay period is provided by a long length of large diameter pipe.

.The charcoal adsorption bed, operating in a constant-temperature vault, will selectively adsorb and delay iodine, xenon and krypton from the bulk carrier gas (principally air). This delay on the charcoal permits essentially all of these gases to decay in place before being released.

A. Alternative Treatment of Gaseous Radwaste There are several alternative ways to reduce radioactive gaseous discharges from the Hanford No. 2 plant.'he estimated releases with various alternative systems were considered and the resultant doses compared wi:th the proposed Appendix I to lOCFR50. This Appendix provides numerical guidance for keeping radioactive effluents to I

unrestricted areas as low as practicable. A summary description of each alternative system considered and its environmental impact is discussed below. The incremental costs for these various sytems are given in Section 3.1.

No Gaseous Radwaste System The first alternative system assumes no expenditure to remove radioactivity from the gaseous releases. Based on a General Electric "design basis" fuel leak rate, a total of 75 million curies would be released from the plant each year. This would result in a Site SUBSECTION 2.5.5 Page 2

AMENDMENT 1 boundary dose of 40,000 mrem/year.

Elevated Release With the addition of an elevated release this 75 million curies would result in a dose at the Site boundary of 7,000 mrem/year.

30-Minute .Holdu Pi in Alone The short-lived radioactive isotopes contained in the gas-air mixture removed from the condensers by the air ejector offgas systems will, with sufficient holdup time, decay to very low activity levels prior to being released through the building vent. The holdup piping consists of a long length of pipe which physically provides a length of time for the radioactive fission products to decay before being released to the environment. The gaseous release from the plant would be 3 x 106 curies/year and the dose at the Site boundary would 1,200 mrem/year when only the 30-minute holdup piping is provided.

This system is shown in Figure 2.5.5.1-1.

Catal tic Recombiners Addition of hydrogen recombiners upstream of the 30-minute holdup piping effectively increases the time for decay of short-lived isotopes by recombining the radiolytic hydrogen and oxygen into water using a catalyst bed. Removal of this radiolytic hydrogen and oxygen reduces the gas volume in the offgas system by about 90 percent, which makes any sub'sequeht holdup system more effective. A factor of approximately six in d'ose reduction to an individual at the Site boundary is achieved by the addition of hydrogen recombiners.

The hydrogen recombiner system would be installed downstream of the condenser offgas ejector and would exhaust to the holdup pipe.

This system is shown schematically in Figure 2.5.5.1-2. This system has been used in similar application at other nuclear plants and is SUBSECTION 2.5.5 Page 3

AMENDMENT 1 of proven design. However, the resultant off-site dose for design fuel failure conditions would still not meet 10CFR50 Appendix I for this plant.

Charcoal Adsorber S stem The hydrogen recombiner system can be augmented by the instal-lation of charcoal adsorbers. The charcoal adsorber system would be installed at the downstream end of the 30-minute holdup pipe and would consist of filters, cooler-condensers, moisture separators, preheaters, and vessels containing the-charcoal adsorber material.

This system is shown .schematically in Figure 2.5.5.1-3.

The charcoal adsorber system increases the effective holdup time for xenon and krypton and thus further reduces the amount of radioactivity which is released from the building vent. Hanford No. 2 studies indicate that the addition of eight, charcoal beds (oper-ated at 77'F) to the hydrogen recombiner system would result in a Site boundary dose of 23 mrem/year, and sixteen beds operated at. 77'F would result in a Site boundary dose of 1.7 mrem/year.

Charcoal beds have been used in similar applications for nuclear power plants and in other plants in the nuclear industry. Their design performance and reliability have been demonstrated for the type of service that would be required at Hanford No. 2. The following items represent a summary of advantages for the charcoal adsorption system:

demonstrated performance on other reactors delay of short-lived isotopes until activity is minimal delay of xenon and krypton for long periods iv) cleans qas by filtration SUBSECTION 2.5.5 Page 4

AMENDMENT 1 v) adsorbed gas is released slowly in event of system failure vi) passive system Low-Tem erature Charcoal Adsorber S stem This is the system selected by the Supply System for Hanford No.

2. It incorporates the most desirable features to minimize the off-site dose by increasing the holdup time using refrigeration of eight charcoal beds to about O'. Because the adsorption process is a function of temperature, the holdup time is increased on the charcoal beds allowing the xenon and krypton more decay time. The off-site dose is reduced to approximately '0.006 mrem/year for this system.

Absor tion b Solvent (ORGDP)

This alternative system removes krypton and xenon from a gas stream by selective absorption in a fluorocarbon solvent. Its main features, when compared to the charcoal adsorption system are:

i) compactness ii) efficiency better than 99.9 percent for removal of noble gas radioisotopes (which is comparable to a low temperature charcoal system) I The performance and reliability of this type system has not been proven nor applied to nuclear plant service. The only experience to date with the absorption by solvent system has been with bench and pilot plant size systems.

Cr o enic Distillation This system works by liauifying radioactive gases at low temper-atures and storing them while their radioactivity decays. It would be installed downstream of the 30-minute holdup pipe. This scheme is shown schematically in Figure 2.5.5.1-4. Its main features, when compared to the charcoal adsorption system, are:

SUBSECTION 2.5.5 Page 5

AMENDMENT 1 i) high radioactivity reduction factors achievable ( << 1000)

~ E which is comparable to the low temperature charcoal system ii) system relatively insensitive to flow change.

Cryogenic systems for producing industrial oxygen were developed 30 to 40 years ago. The application of a cryogenic system to a nuclear plant could have performance problems unrelated to those encountered in other industries.

While the future potential of the cryogenic system may offer advantages, it has not. been used for the treatment of radioactive gaseous wastes in large commercial nuclear power plants. As compared to charcoal adsorption systems, the cryogenic system is a rather complicated mechanical system utilizing pumps, compressors, refriger-ation systems, piping, and tanks. The Supply System has concluded that, because of the lack of proven reliability with this type of equipment in this type of service and the complex mechanical systems utilized, the reliability of the cryogenic system would not be as high as that of the charcoal adsorption system. The charcoal adsorption system is essentially a passive system and has been used in radioactive gas treatment for nuclear plants similar in design to Hanford No. 2.

Charcoal Beds with Cryo enic Tail A combination system utilizing charcoal beds followed by a small cryogenic processing system is a possible alternate to the selected system, but the lack of nuclear industry experience with such a system led to its rejection. The new guides to "as low as practicable" can be met with the simpler and more reliable charcoal bed system alone, and in fact, the release from the low-temperature SUBSECTION 2.5.5 Page 6

AMENDMENT 2 Appendix I of 10CFR50. During normal operation the additional radiation doses received by people as a result of the presence of

Hanford No'. 2 plant is insignificant and there would be no perceptible V

effect on fish in the Columbia River.

There are also radioactive releases from coal-fired plants which depend on amount of heavy element impurities in the coal and the treatment of stack gases. The coal plant, however, would not have an

.internal inventory of radioisotopes approaching that of a nuclear

'plant.

I Significant expenditures have. been made for the Hanford No. 2

.-offgas system to remove radioactivity from the gaseous releases.

Based on the General Electric design criteria, a total of 75 million curies would be released each year which would result in a dose at

.the Site boundary of 40,000 mrem/year, if design basis fuel failures were experienced and no money was spent for offgas treatment. With

'the'addition of an elevated release, this 75 million curies would result, in a dose at the Site boundary of 7,000 mrem/year.

Capital expenditures which the Supply System has made to reduce off-site-doses are shown in Table 3.1.2.12-1. The addition of 30

minute holdup piping with the gas released at the building roof would

'reduce the release per year to 3 x 10 curies/year and the dose at Site boundary to 1,200 mrem/year. The addition of G.E. Offgas System

,at 77'F with ei'ght charcoal beds, 30 minute holdup piping, and the gas released at the building roof would reduce the release rate to 94,000 curies/year and the dose at Site boundary to 23 mrem/year.

.The use of 16 charcoal beds at, 77'F would reduce the release to 16,700 curies per year maximum (with about 4000 curies per year

.expected), with the dose at the Site boundary of 1.7 mrem per year.

SUBSECTION 3.1.2 Page 13

AMENDMENT 2 TABLE 3.1.2.12-1 Alternate Radwaste S stems It,em Re/ease/Year Site Boundar Dose Direct Cost*

1. No Gaseous Radwaste 75 x 106 40,000 mrem/year System curies/year

2. Elevated Release 75 x 106 7,000 mrem/year 350,000 curies/year

3. 30-Minute Holdup 3 x 106 1,200 mrem/year 200,000 Piping Released curies/year at Building Roof

4. With GE Offgas System 94,000 23 mrem/year 1,560,000 8 Charcoal Beds at curies/year 77'F 30-Minute Holdup Piping Released at Building Roof

5. With GE Offgas System 16,700 1.7 mrem/year 1,720,000 16 Charcoal Beds at curies/year 77'F 30-Minute Holdup Piping Released at Building Roof

6. With GE Offgas System 1545-1860 ~0.004 mrem/year lg850,000 8 Charcoal Beds at curies/year O'F 10-Minute Holdup Piping Released at Building Roof

• This is direct cost and does not include:

Contingencies and Escalation Engineering and Construction Management Owner's Direct Cost l SUBSECTION 3.1.2 Page 14

AMENDMENT 2 The present design utilizes the G.E. Offgas System at O'F with 8 charcoal beds and 10-minute holdup piping. Gas release at the building roof is reduced, to 1545-1860 curies/year which reduces the whole body dose rate at "Site Boundary" to about 0.004 mrem/year.

The Supply System has spent $ 1,850,000 for the direct cost of equipment, with installation on the Offgas System to reduce the off-site dose to 0.004,mrem/year as shown in Figure 3.1.2.12-1.

Liquid effluents may be occasionally discharged into the Columbia River with the blowdown from the Hanford No. 2 plant. Radiation doses to an individual drinking this water in the Tri-Cities, eating Columbia River fish, and participating in water sports immediately downstream of the Hanford No. 2 effluent discharge point. were estimated to total only 0.001 mrem/year. These low doses are far below the guidelines of 5 mrem/year proposed in 10CFR50, Appendix I and the 140 mrem/year normally received by an average individual at sea level. In addition, the annual tritium concentration of 0.16 pCi/1 is 5000 times less than the normal natural concentration of 800 pCi/1 measured in the Columbia River during 1970. The Supply System has allocated a capital expenditure of approximately gl million to the liquid radwaste system in order to reduce the total dose to the population within 50 miles to 0.001 man-rem/year from all

.pathways associated with the liquid effluents.

Solid wastes from the plant will be packaged in 55 gallon drums or similar suitable containers and when necessary cemented for off-site shipment and disposal. The additional capital cost for cementing and storage of the solid waste handling system is approximately

$ 200 thousand.

Building space for the above equipment is estimated to cost SUBSECTION 3.1.2 Page 15

AMENDMENT 2 approximately $ 2.5 million. The total expenditure that the Supply System has budgeted to reduce off-site doses is $ 5.5 million.

3.1.2.13 Particulate Releases Burning a ton of coal. or a barrel of oil releases a small amount of particulates up the stack. A fossil-fired plant of 1100 MWe

. would eject about, 9 tons of fine particulates per full-load day.

Solid waste residue from a 'coal-fired plant would also require trans-portation and disposal of about seven hundred tons of ash each day.

3.1.2.14 Atmos heric Effects The primary impact of large thermal power plants on the atmos-phere is the heat and water rejected. The Hanford No. 2 plant will reject about 2200 MW to the atmosphere at full load. The mechanical draft cooling tower is'ot expected to produce ground level fog or in the basin area where the Tri-Cities are located and will not 'ce restrict air traffic at the Pasco Airport due to ceiling height limitations. At higher ground elevations the tower would be expected'o have an effect on roads, railways and transmission lines.

Estimated annual incremental occurrences of fog and ice are:

Highway 5240 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (18 miles northwest of Site)

Transmission Lines 70 hours Pasco-Spokane Highway (5395) 19 hours and Northern Pacific Railway A (15 miles south of Site)

Richland-Benton City Highway (4410) 26 hours (15 miles south of Site)

Hanford Project Highway 21 hours (ll miles northwest of Site)

The increase in humidity in the summertime downwind from the plant will be insignificant. Evaporation from irrigated lands in the Yakima River Valley is about. two million gpm in the summertime, SUBSECTION 3.1.2 Page 16

TABLE 3.1.3-1 Continued)

Current Nuclear Plant Hanford No. 2 Alternative Plants'x With Once-Benefit & Cost Factors Plant Coa -Fared -Fare Throu h Coolin Impact on Bird Life Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Radioactive Releases to lx10 None None lx10 Columbia River (man-rems/yr)

Based on the 1970 population out to 50 miles.

Radioactive Releases to the Air lx10 Nearly Zero Nearly Zero ~ lxlo (man-rems/yr) . Based on 1970 population out to 50 miles.

Particulate Releases (MT/day) None None Atmospheric Effects Visible Plume Visible Plume Visible Plume None Fogging & Icing Fogging & Icing Fogging & Icing Potential Potential Potential New Transmission Lines (Miles) 31 31 31 31 Fuel Transportation New Fuel 1 Train/day 1 Barge/day New Fuel 15 trucks/yr 15 Trucks/yr Spent Fuel Spent Fuel 10 casks/yr 10 Casks/yr Objectionable Aesthetic Value Cooling Tower Cooling Tower, Cooling Tower, None tall stack, short stack, coal storage, tank farm, conveyer pipe line, systems oil spills Noise Quiet Moderate Noise Moderate Noise Quietest Recreation Benefits Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Scientific Benefits Significant Moderate Moderate Significant Education Benefits Significant Small Small Significant

Iv Maximum site Boandary Dose (mrem year)

~4 44 a 44 O V41VP

~

I' 4

I

~ I I ~

~ 00 o

Ol 0

O

't4 41 11

AMENDMENT 2 Cloud Gamma Dose Calculation The following 'assumptions and associated values were used in defining the environmental effects from this event.

1. Release Height (above grade), 71 meters.

2. Meteorology data collected at the Hanford Meteorological Station from January 1955 to July 1961 (Table 2.3.7.3-2 to 7)

3. Population Density to 50 miles as extrapolated to the year 2015. (See Figure 2.3.1.1-5)

The basic mathematical model used to calculate the whole body exposures is defined in Reference 4 and modified as follows:

.13 Dg C1Cif iXJGidYdZdf Stabile.ty Isotope Y Z 4 J=l I~1 Where D = Cloud gamma dose (rem) g Cl = Conversion factor (3.7x10 4 Dis/sec-uCi)

CD 3.

= Flux to dose conversion factor for the .th isotope i (rem/sec- 7/cc)

Number of photons of the i.th isotope emitted per disinte-gration (Y's/dis)

G 1

~ Dose attenuation kernel for the i isotope (dimensionless) f'Qi exp Z2 Y2 dY (2)

XJ 2vrug ~Z GZ ~aY X

SUBSECTION 3.3.1 Page 5

AMENDMENT 2 Where X

J

= Average annual isotopic airborne concentration of the ith

~

isotope (pCi/cc)

= Accumulative frequency for wind speed, stability and sector (dimensionless)

= i Plant release rate of the .th isotope (pCi/sec)

<y<z

= Horizontal and vertical diffusion coefficients (cm) u = Wind speed (cm/sec)

Y,Z = Horizontal and vertical distances from plume centerline (cm)

= Sector angle over which plume is averaged (radians)

R = Distance from release point to detector position (cm)

Equation (1) provides the yearly off-site dose to a detector located a distance of R(cm) from the release point and within a sector angle of ) radians. The'man-rem/yr is determined by multiplying the result of equation (1) by the population density located within the sector of concern as well as by a factor of 0.5 to account for occupancy and shielding effects. Values of sector dose at a distance of R(cm) are assumed to be applicable to all individuals located in that sector from a distance of R hR to R + hR. The cumulative man-rem for any radial distance is determined by summing the dose contri-butions from all sectors for the additional radial distance and adding this to the previous radial man-rem exposures.

SUBSECTXON 3.3.1 Page 6

AMENDMENT 2 QUESTXON 6 (March 1, 1972)

What is the expected dose from atmospheric releases to the individual (mrem/yr) and to the population (man-rem/yr) for the various sectors and radial distances (O-l, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10, 10-20,20-30A 30-40, and 40-50 miles) from normal operation of the plant? What is the "site boundary" and/or "maximum boundary? (what location) expected dose to an individual? What is the dose to the -individual and the population from drinking water, fish consumption, etc.?

ANSWER The expected air-submersion doses to the skin and total body versus distance and direction were calculated as previously explained in the answer to Question 2. The results are tabulated in Table II-A and II-B below. Appioximately 85% of the total-body dose is from

+e133 ~

The dose to an individual from the consumption of fish, water, etc.,

is presented in Section 2.3.7.3-Page 16 of Amendment 2. The cumulative dose is tabulated in Table II-C below.

Table XI-A sKIN oosf To INAIvlouate MREM/YEAR RANGE ~ 5 MI I SMI 2ee MI 3 ~ 5 VI 4 ' 7~5 +I 15 ~ 0 Ml 2S ~ 0 MI 35 ~ 0 MI 45 ~ 0 MI TOTAL.5 SECTOR I.AIK-UI bof 02 6eiRE-03 3 '7E 03 2 '74-03 9 '6K 04 3e20E 04 I 42F A4 8 '5E 05 SeeiE 05 I ~ 30E-01 N

lnef I ~ U4t ui I.eut-ul I eb7a 02 2 ~ 74$ 02 e.ubF.-o3 I ~ 15E-02 3e8RC 03 be42E 03 2eblF 03 4 ~ 12E 03 I ~ 04F.

I ~ 64E 03 03 3 'lF 5 '3E-04 04

~

I 464-04 8 61E 05

~ ~

2 '1K-A4 le36E-04 5 '9E-05 9 ~ I RE-05 le36E-01 2>>'l2E-01 NK ENK 1.89E-OI 3 'bE 02 I e41E-02 7 '0E-03 4,9RF 03 2102K-n3 6.39C 04 2.8ef-n4 le69E"04 I ~ 14K 04 2e53E 01 F. Se02t-ul bo4UE 02 2 '6E-02 I ~ 25E AR 7 9RK O3 3 '9E 03 I ~ 07E 03 4.83E-n4 2 '5E-04 I ~ 92E 04 4 '4K 01 ESE 4 '3E 01 8 ~ 89E-02 3e 77K"02 2 '8E-0? I 32E

~ 02 5 '4F-03 I ~ 64E 03 7 ~ 39f-04 4 'RE 04 2e95E 04 6 ~ 32E Ol SE beb9t 01 1.07t-oi 4eb4E 02 2~ bif 02 I ~ 59E-02 6 '4F, 03 I ~ 97K 03 R.OSF-n4 5 '5K-04 3 ~ 54K 04 7e72E 01 bbE 2 ~ 20t Ul 3 ~ 45t 02 I 4IK 02

~ 7e86E-03 Se04E 03 2.17E A3 7 '0K-04 3.23f-n4 1.90E"04 I 2RE-04~ 2 RSK 01 b le63t-ul 2 '8F. 02 9e2RE-03 be20E-03 3 ~ 41F 03 I ~ 47E-OS 4.RRE-04 2 '7K-04 I 27E"04 Re55E 05

~ 2 ~ 06E 01 SSw 8~ 9lt 02 1,2bf-02 5 ~ U&E 03 2e82E 03 le84E"03 7 ~ RRE 04 2 'RC 04 I ISE"04 6 '4K-05 4 '2E-05

~ le13K 01 5w 9e746-u2 I 3uf

~ 02 be 26K 03 2 '5K 03 le94F.-03 8 '8F 04 2 '6K 04 I 22w

~ 7 16E-0'5 4 ROE 05

~ ~ 22E-01 wbw be86t U2 9e098 03 3 'AE 03 2.09E-n3 I 3RE'-03 6 OOE A4 I 9RE 04 8.80E-n5 5 15E 05 34 '6E-05

~ ~ ~ ~ Re5RE 02 w be79t-02 I 18t

~ 02 4 ~ RRE 03 2 '4E 03 I 81F."03 7 '9E 04 2 '2E 04 I.lef-o4 6eolf 05 '7K-05

~ I ~ IOE 01 wh'N I ~ 04t Ol I ~ 36E 02 Seb2E"03 3e14E 0'3 2 ORF. 03 9e 19K-04 3 '6E 04 le35f-n4 7 '2E 05 5 '2E 05

~ 1.30K 01 Nw 1.59E-OI 2 ~ 25K 02 9e2AE 03 5 ~ 20E 03 3e42C-03 I 49E-03 4 '6E 04 2e 21K" A4 I 30E-04 RE 70E 05

~ ~ 2 ~ OIE 01 Will I ~ 04t 01 le6UE"02 6eb2E-03 3e71E 03 2 '2K 03 Ie03K-03 3 '9E-04 I SIE-04 8e91E 05 5 '9E 05

~ I ~ 34K-01 TOTaL.S 2.98K>00 4.98E-oi 2.0RE-OI 1.16f-ol 7.43E<<o2 3.07E n2 9.84E-03 4.40f-n5 2.60K-03 1.75E-03 3e93E+00 Q.6-1

AMENDlIENT 2 Table II-B TOTAL SODY DOSE TO INDIVIAVALp NREM/YEAR RANGE ~ 5 MI 1 ~ 5 HI 2 ~ fi NI 3e5 VI 4 ~ 5 NI 7 ~ 5 NI 15 ~ 0 NI 25 ~ 0 eel 35 ~ 0 HI 45 ~ 0 MI TOTALS SEC TOR N 4eb9E 02 5 ~ 46E 03 1 ~ 95E 03 9 '6E-04 6e04K 04 Re24F, 04 6 ~ 30f 05 2 '7F AS 1 ~ 44E 05 9 '2K 06 5 ~ SRE 02 NNE 4 '3E-02 eob9E 03 2 ~ 46E 03 1 ~ 26E 03 7 '3K 04 2 '5E 04 e.sef-os 2.76E-nS leSSE-05 1 ~ OOE 05 5 '7E-02 7eb3K 02 1 ~ 14F. 02 4e34E 03 Re23E 03 Ie33f 03 4 '2F. 04 1 ~ 12K 04 4.50f-nS Reb3f"05 1 ~ 65E"05 9 'REw02 ENK 8 99L 02 I.'42K-02 S' 4IK~U3 Re74K 03 1eelfw03 5e41E A4 1 ~ 37E 04 So63E"Afi 3elhf OS 2 'TK"0$ lelbK 01 E le43E 01 ARSE-02 Se41E-03 4 ~ 21E 03 2 ~ 47K-03 So4nf 04 2 'AE 04 9 '0K 85 5 ~ 31E 05 3 '5E 05 le 82E-01 KSE 2 '4K 01 91K 02 1 SAE 02 7,69f-n3 4 ~ SOE 03 46E 03 3e63E 04 1.50f-n4 8 '9E 05 5 '4E 05 2e93E"01 Sf SSK 2

1

'4E

~

01 Olf Ul 4

1

'8)

~

02 33E"02 1

4

~

~ 83E 02

'7E 03 9 '0E-03 2 '8K-03 5,4TK 03 1 ~ 416-03 1 ~

1.79f-n3 5 '7E A4 4 '8K 04 1 ~ 45E 04 1 ~ 79E 84 6e04E 85 1 ~ 02K-04 3 '9E 05 ee64E 2 '0E 05 05 3 ~ 56E Ol I ~ 24E 01 5 7 '4E-02 8 '8E 03 2eSSf 03 1 ~ 4'4E-03 8 ~ 68E 04 3e26E 04 9e4TE 05 3e89E AS 2 ~ lTE"05 1 ~ 41K 05 8 '2E-02 SSr 4 '4F. 02 4 'TE 03 I.enf-03 8 ~ Olf-04 4. SIE-04 1 ~ 78F, 04 5e06E-05 2 '8E-nfi 1 ~ 16E 05 7 ~ SRE Ae 4 '2K-02 4 '6K 02 4ob3c.-03 1 ~ STE 03 7 '5E 04 4 ~ 84K 04 1 ~ 83F-04 Se'31K 05 2.17f-nfi 1 ~ 21E-05 7 '3E 06 So 12K 02 r&r 3enbb 02 3 '9E-03 1 ~ OTE 03 5 '9E-04 3 '7K 04 1.3nE-n4 3e78E-05 leSSE-n5 8 '2E-06 5 '8E-06 3 '8E 02 r 3 ~ 91E 02 4 '2K 03 1 ~ 39E 03 7 ~ 14E 04 4 39K-04 1 ~ 70E 04 4 '8E 05 2.04E-AS 1 ~ 14E 05 7 ~ STE-06 4 '9E-02 rNr 4ebnf 02' 4 'bE 03 Iobtf 03 7 '2K 04 4 '6K-04 le93E A4 SeTRE 05 2 '3E 05 1 ~ 30E 05 8 ~ 41E 06 5 '4E-02

~ 12K"02 7 87E"03 2 '5E 03 1 ~ 40E 03 8.54F.-04 3 ~ 27E 04 9e54f-05 3 '2E nfi 2 ~ 19E 05 1 ~ 42E 05 8 '6E-02 Nrr 4 ~ 75E VR 6e03E 03 2e18E 03 1 ~ 10E-03 6e63K 04 2 ~ 41K~04 6e76E OS 2 '9E 05 1 ~ 56E 05 lenlf 05 Se78E 02 TOTALS 1.39K+00 2.02K>>01 7.57E<<OR 3.84E-OR 2.27E-02 7.83E-03 2.06E-03 8.46E-n4 4.76E-04 3elOE 04 1 ~ 74K+00 Table II-C

~Pahhwa Drinking Hater POPULATION DOSE

~/

1.04x10 Fish 1.88xlo Swimming 6e7x10 Boating 3.3xl0 Shoreline 5.45xl0 Total Liquids 1.04xlo Air Submersion 1.22xl0 GRAND TOTAL 1.32x10 Q.6-2

AMENDMENT 2 QUESTION 8 (March 1, 1972)

The predicted noise level of 60-80 dB at 50 feet from the mechanical draft cooling towers would appear to be low, considering that there will be 40 to 48 cells (each with a 200 hp, 28-foots diameter fan) .

What is the basis for your estimate?

ANSWER The predicted noise level of 60-80 dB at 50 feet from the mechanical draft cooling towers was a preliminary estimate. Current (draft) tower specifications have noise level limits determined from comparable towers. They are:

With all fans running at rated load, the combined sound pressure levels, measured at a distance of 50 feet away from any point on the outer casing (measured horizontally) in any direction shall not exceed the following values:

Octave Band Center frequency, Hz 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Sound Pressure Level decibels2re 0.0002 dynes/cm 83 77 73 69 66 64 67 70 Responses from tower manufacturers on predicted noise levels are comparable to the preliminary specifications, with one manufacturer below the above values, and another with a maximum dB level of 90.

Q.8-1