ML20237B629
| ML20237B629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1977 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Desiree Davis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712170014 | |
| Download: ML20237B629 (24) | |
Text
- . - - . . . - -
.. . ~ . ,
l f 4, UNITED STATES 7 Y
.y V ,S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 .
% .s p$
AUG 3 1977 Docket Hos. 50-254/265 NEMORANDUM FOR: Don Davis, Acting Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 2, D0R FROM: J. T. Collins, Chief, Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, DSE
SUBJECT:
DSE EVALUATION OF QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2, WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I T0 10 CFR PART 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Quad Cities, Unit Nos.1 and 2, with respect to the requirements of Appendix I. The results of our evaluation are contained in the attached " Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal."
We have also attached a draft " Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses and Negative Declaration."
Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Quad Cities are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and O conforms to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.B, II.C, and II.D of Appendix I.
On March 29, 1977, DSE transmitted to ELD an NRC Staff Report entitled,
" Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 to Nuclear Power Plants Whose Applications Were Docketed Before January 2,1971." This report provides the staff's justifica-tion for using the September 4,1975, amendment to Appendix I rather than performing a detailed cost-benefit Analysis required by Section 11.0 of Appendix 1. In our transmittal memo we requested ELD review and recommen-dation as to the most expeditious way of incorporating the findings of this report into the licensing process. Todate we have not received their comments or recommendations. Following ELD review we will provide you a paragraph to be inserted in the enclosed Safety Evaluation providing justification for using the September 4 option to the cost-benefit analysis.
4 770003 P
hM05000254 PDR S
Don Davis - 2 AUG 3 1977 When the codel effluent rad 1ological Technical Specifications, currently under develepaent, have been approved they will be forwarded to you for transmittal to the licensee. *
- OR'AInL SIG
- RID BY l JOEN T. COLLINS l .
l John T. Collins, Chief i Effluent Treatment Systes Srr.nch i Division of Site Safety and Envirerrental Analysis l
l Enclosuro:
DSC Evaluation cc: H. Denton ==-
V. Stello
- R. Vollmer K. Goller D. Jaffee D. Eisenhut W. Kreger P. O'Connor J. Collins H. Hulnan B. Grir.es E. !!arkee F. Concel F. Caraile _
DISTRIBUTION:
DOCKET FILES ~~~
~ ~
DSE READING NRR READING ETSB READING JTCOLLINS
[// / lWf
,,,,c,, DSE:SA:ETg[ DSE:SA:ETSB D,SE :S'A: ETSB DS [ g r T*gHMS
. . . . . FCardile:do WCBurke6 D 9TCol1 ins WEKreger (' imin _
07_?Q_77 et7,. i _77 n y' ? 77 rG d 77 33,
SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY -
THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. DPR-29 8 AND AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 INTRODUCTION On May 5,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. This decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.II On September 4,1975, the Commission adopted an amendment to Appendix I(2} to provide persons who have filed applications for construction .
permits for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or after January 2,1971, and prior to June 4,1976, the option of dispensing O with the cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I, if the proposed or installed radwaste systems satisfy the guides on design ojectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors proposed by the Regulatory Staff in the rulemaking proceeding on Appendix 1 (Docket RM 50-2), dated February 20, 1974.
l Following ELD review of the Generic Cost / Benefit Analysis, a paragraph will l be added which will provide justification for using the September 4,1975 i amendment to Appendix I for application for construction permits filed prior l to January 2,1971.
l l
l Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license I
authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2,1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976; 1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity 8
9 in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable", and
- 2) plans for proposeu Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences "as low as is reasonably achievable."
In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix 1, the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976(4} , and November 12, 1977(5) , the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Quad Cities fluclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix 1.
In these submittals, CEC 0 provided the necessary information to show con-formance with the Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I rather than perform a detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section I1.0 of Appendix I.
By letter dated , CEC 0 submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for Quad Cities fluclear Power Station, Unit Hos. I and 2. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix I to l
l 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are "as low as is reasonably achiev-able" in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at 8
l
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2; 1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) to meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Sections II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3) to determine if the installed radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives proposed in RM 50-2 rather than an individualized cost-benefit analysis as required by Section II.D of Appendix I.
I. Safety Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's pro-posed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff's evaluation consisted of the following: 1) a review of the information provided by the licensee in his June 4,1976 and November 12, 1976, submi ttal s;
- 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR);
- 3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in lig id and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Ouad Cities facilities; 4) the calculation of relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values for the Quad Cities site; 5) the calculation of individual doses in un-restricted areas; and 6) the comparison of the calculated releases and doses with the proposed design objectives of RM 50-2 and the requirements of Sections II. A, II.B. II.C and II.D of Appendix I.
8
The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Quad Cities Station have been previously described in Chapter 11 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated August 28, 1972,I and in Section 111.0 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated September 1972(8) . Unit Nos.
l 1 and 2 have separate but' identical gaseous radwaste systems and share a common liquid radwaste system. Since the FES and SER were issued, the licensee has modified these systems to include: 1) the addition of a charcoal delay system to the main condenser offgas system, 2) the addition of a 200,000 gallon surge tank and 2 mixed bed demineralizers to the low purity liquid waste system. The modifications noted above were considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Quad Cities Station, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix 1. The new source terms, shown in Taoles 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in NUREG-0016. In making these determinations the staff con-sidered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system, and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liauid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3.
O
0 The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at Quad Cities Station in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous e f fl uents. Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period of 1973 through 1976. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4. The actual release data provided by the licensee in his reports are the releases for Unit Nos. -__
1 and 2 combined, as indicated in Table 4, whereas the calculated releases shown in Tables 1 and 2 are on a per reactor basis.
Quad Cities, Unit No.1, reached initial criticality in October 1971, and --
commercial operation in February 1973. Unit 2 reached initial criticality in April 1972 and commercial operation in liarch 1973. In the Quad Cities Station Appendix I submittal, '
the licensee stated that the liquid radwaste treatment system modifications described above were installed in fiay 1975.
Therefore,1976 represents the first full year of use of the modified system. The effect of the addition of the demineralizers in the low purity waste system can be seen in the reduction in activity released in 1976 com-pared to previous years. The 1976 release of approximately 7 Ci/yr/ station or 3.5 Ci/yr/ reactor is in good agreement with our calculated value of 1.7 Ci/yr/ reactor. -
The licensee also indicated in his Appendix I submittal (4, 5)that the gaseous radwaste system modifications described above were made in fiay 1975. Therefore, 8
~
0 1976 represents the first full year of use of the modified off-gas system.
The charcoal adsorbers in the main condenser off-gas system reduce the quantities of xenon, krypton, and iodine released from this system. The effect of the addition of the charcoal adsorbers can be seen in the reduction of noble gas and iodine activity released in 1976 compared to previous years. The values of the actual gaseous releases listed in Table 4 are in good agreement with the calculated releases given in Table 2, except that the actual tritium gaseous releases have been approximately a factor of four higher than our model predicts. We have included this factor in our l estimation of doses resulting from gaseous tritium release.
l l Based on the above evaluation of operating data, the staff believes that the calculational model, with the tritium adjustment indicated, reasonably characterizes the actual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from Quad Cities Station, Unit Hos. I and 2. Therefore, the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 were used in the staff's dose assessment discussed below.
The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion con-ditions for the Quad Cities Station using an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term releases. The model used by the staff is based upon the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111(. I } Releases from the ventilation chimney were considered as elevated, and releases from the reactor stack were considered as partially elevated, in conformance with the criteria recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.111. An estimate of increase in calculated relative concentration (X/Q)
S
~
~7-9 and relative deposition (D/Q) due to recirculating of airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model, was included in the calculations as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.111. The calculations also included considera-tion of intermittent releases during more adverse atmospheric dispersion con-ditions than indicated by an annual average calculation as a function of total duration of release (Sagendorf and Goll, draft,1976).II Radioactive decay of effluents and depletion of the effluent plume were also considered as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111. Calculated values of X/Q and D/Q for specified points of interest for specified release modes are presented in Table 5. Two years (1/74 - 12/75) of onsite meteorological data were . .
used in the analysis.
The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent cate-gories: 1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to the Mississippi River, 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and 3) pathways associated with radio-iodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere.
The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109.(12)
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liquid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual.
For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) har-vested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from Quad Cities Station 8
9 into the Mississippi River and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr). The maximum individual was also assumed to ingest 7301/yr of water from the vicinity of the discharge.
The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence having the highest dose. The maxi-mum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.54 miles N relative to the Quad Cities Station. The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at a residence 0.60 miles N of the plant.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radioiodine, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere was also based on the maximum exposed individual. For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the consumption of milk (3301/yr) from a cow grazing at 1.10 niles S of the Quad Cities Station. The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture equivalent to 6 months per year total diet.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents given in Table 1, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem /
reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II. A of Appendix 1.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 2, and the
O appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) value given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad / reactor and 20 mrad / reactor, respectively, in con-formance with Section II.B of Appendix 1.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radiciodine, carbon-14, tritium, and particulate given in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values given in . _ .
Table 5, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of the maximum exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem / reactor in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I. __
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Table V-5 of the FES.
Rather than performing an individualized cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I, the licensee elected to show conformance with the numerical design objectives specified in the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I (RM 50-2). The dose design objectives contained in RM 50-2 are on a site basis rather than a per reactor basis while the curie releases are on a per reactor basis. As shown in Table 1 the calculated release of radioactive material in liquid effluents is less than 5 Ci/yr/ reactor, ex-cluding tritium and dissolved noble gases. As given in Table 2, the calcula-ted quantity of iodine-131 released in gaseous effluents is less than 1 Ci/yr/
reac tor. The calculated doses combined for Unit Nos.1 and 2 are less than the dose design objectives set forth in RM 50-2, therefore, satisfies the 8
requirements of Section II.D of Appendix 1. For a comparison with the dose design objectives given in Table 3, Column 2, the calculated values given in Table 3, Column 3 should be multiplied by two (number of units on the si te) .
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at Quad Cities Station, Unit Hos. I and 2, are capable of reaucing releases of radioactive materials in liouid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Quad Cities Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2. This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the individual doses will not exceed the numerical dose design objectives of Section II. A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the radwaste systems satisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2 and therefore, satisfies the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that: .
(1) because the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered 8
O and does not involve a significant hazard consideration, (2) there is reason-able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
II. Environmental Impact Appraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, located in the State of Illinois, in Rock Island County, at power levels up to 2511 megawatts thermal (MWt) for each unit. The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the Units.
Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action; it does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the captioned facility in The Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Docket Nos. 254 l
, and 265.
The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Quad Cities Station.
The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is S
reasonably achievable." If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives in a quarter, the licensee must: (1) identify the causes, (2) initiate a program to reduce the releases; and (3) report these actions to the NRC. The revised Technical Specifications specify that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I.
i Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is concluded that there would be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated:
9
REFERENCES
- 1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. Federal Register, V. 40, p. 19442, May 5,1975.
- 2. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paragraph II.D of Appendix I, Federal Register, V. 40, p. 40816, September 4,1975, and revised as of January 1,1976.
- 3. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff (and its Attachment) - Public Rulemaking Hearing on: Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criteria "As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, Docket No. RM S0-2, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1974.
- 4. Letter, R. Bolger, Assistant Vice President, Commonwealth Edison, to Mr. Bernard Rusche, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Quad Cities Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Appendix I Report, NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265," June 4, 1976.
- 5. Letter, R. Bolger, Assistant Vice President, Commonwealth Edison, to Mr. Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Amendment 1 to Quad Cities Station, Unit Nos.1 O and 2, Appendix I Report, NRC Docket Hos. 50-254 and 265," November 12, 1976.
- 6. Commonwealth Edison Co, Final Safety Analysis Report - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2,1968.
- 7. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2," Docket Nos. 50-254/265, Washington, D.C. , April 1971.
1
- 8. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2," CEC 0, Docket Nos. 50-254/265, Washington, D.C. ,
April 1973.
- 9. NUREG-0016, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materals in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code),"
April 1976.
- 10. Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll, J.T.,1976: X00D00, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, (DRAFT). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
9
b
_2 O I
- 11. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," March 1976.
- 12. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix 1," March 1976.
O i
f i
l l
C\
w ;
i A- --- ---- ----_----_ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
j
. e l
i TABLE 1 l
CALCI] LATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFPLUENTS FROM QUAD' CITIES STATION UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 Nuclide Ci/vr/ reactor Nuclide Ci/vr/ reactor Corrosion 5 Activation Products Na-24 8.8(-2)* Mo-99 3.8(-2)
P-32 4 . 5 (- 3) Tc-99m 1(-1) ;
Cr-51 1.2(-1) Tc-101 3.2(-4)
Mn-54 2.4 (-3) Ru-103 6.1(-4)
Mn-56 5.4(-2) Rh-1C3m 4.7(-4)
Fe.55 2.4 (-2) Tc-104 7.5(-4) s Fe-59 7(-4) Ru-105 5.1(-3) l Co-58 8. 7 (-3) Rh-105m 5.1(-3)
Co-60 1.8(-2) RI-105 2.9(-3)
Ni-63 2(-5) Ru-106 2. 5 (-3)
Ni-65 3.2( 4) Rh-106 7 (-5)
Cu-64 2.6(-1) Ag-110 4.6(-4) 2n-65 4.7(-3) Te-129m 9.3(-4) 2n-69m 1.8(-2) Te-129 6 (- 4) 2n-69 1.9(-2) Te-131m 1.5(-3)
(q
/ Zr-95 1. 4 (- 3) Te-131 I-131
- 2. 7 (-4) 1.2(-1)
Mb-95 2(-3)
W-187 4 (-3) Te-132 2 (-4)
Np-239 1.3(-1) I-132 3.4 (-2)
I-133 2.8(-1)
Fission Products 1-134 1.3(-2)
Cs-134 1.5(-2)
Br-83 3.6(-3) I-1 5 1.1(-1)
Br-84 2.9( 4) Cs-136 1.3(-3)
Rb-89 3(-5) Cs-137 2.9(-2)
Sr-89 2.4 (-3) Ba-137m 4. 4 (- 3)
Sr-90 1. 4 (-4 ) Cs-138 5(-4) !
Y-90 3(-5) Ba-139 a.6(-3) J Sr-91 2.7f-2) Ba-140 j Y-91m 1.7(-2) La- 0 .5{t9-})
0)
Y-91 1.3(-3) Ba-141 9(-5)
Sr-92 1.2(-2) La-141 1.3(-3) y,g,~ ~*9(-2)
.)
Ce-141 7.5(-4)
Y-93 . 8(-2) La-142 2.5(-3)
.,r-9s 1.6( 4) Ce-143 4.6(-4) L bb-95 1*7('4) Pr-143 9.3(-4) a.-97 5(-5) Ce-144 5.3(-3)
Nb-97m 5(-5) Pr-144 7(-5) f Nb-97 6(-5) Na-147 7 (-5) {
- ( All Others 1(-5) i Total (except H-3) 1.7 f3 H .3 32 (v )
i
TABLE 2 9 CALCULATED REiFt',iS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EF LU1:.iTS FROM QUAD CITIES STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (C1/yr/ reactor)
Building Ventilation Ej or a c Nuclides Rea ctor Turbine_
Radwaste Offgas Vent Pump Total _
Kr-83 a a a 350 23 a 370 Kr-85m 6 68 a 8500 40 a 8600 Kr-85 a a a 190 a a 190 Kr-87 7 130 a 250 140 a 530 Kr-88 6 130 a 9800 140 a 10000 Kr-89 a a a a 560 a 560 Xe-131m a a a 87 a a 87 Xe-133m a a a 190 2 a 190 Xe-133 130 250 10 26000 55 2300 29000 Xe-135m 92 650 a a 16 a 760 Xe-135 68 630 45 a 150 350 1200 1 Xe-137 a a a a 700 a 700 Xe-138 14 1400 a a ,550 , a 2000 Total Noble Gases 54000
,, I-131 3. 4 (-1) b 1.9(-1) 5 (-2) a 2.3(-2) 3(-2) 6. 3 (-1) 3 I-133 1.4 7. 6 (-1) 1.8(-1) a 9 (-2) a 2.4
\')Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) c c e c 1. 4 (-2)
Mn-54 6(-3) 6(-4) 3(-4) c e c 6. 9 (-3)
Fe-59 8 (-4) 5(-4) 1. 5 (-4) e c c 1. 4 (- 3)
Co-58 1. 2 (- 3) 6(-4) 4.5(-5) c e c 1. 8 (- 3)
Co-60 2 (-2) 2(-3) 9 (-4) e e c 2 . 3 (- 2) 2n-65 4 (-3) 2(-4) c e c c 4. 2 (-3)
Sr-89 1. 8 (-4) 6(-3) c c e c 6. 2 (-3)
Sr-90 1(-5) 2(-5) 3(-6) e e c 3.3(-5)
Zr-95 8 (-4) 1(-4) c e e c 9 (-4)
Sb-124 4(-4) 3(-4) c c e c 7 (-4)
Cs-134 8 (- 3) 3(-4) c c e c 8.3(-3)
Cs-136 6 (-4) 5 (- 5) c c c c 6.6(-4)
Cs-137 1.1(-2) 6(-4) c c c c 1. 2 (- 2)
Ba-140 8(-4) 1.1(-2) e e e c 1.2(-2)
Ce-141 2(-4) 6(-4) 2.6(-5) c e c 8.3(-4)
Total Particulate - c 0.1 C-14 a a- a 9.5 a a 9.5 H-3 32 - - - - -
32 Ar-41 25 e e c e c 25 a - less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 10'# Ci/yr for iodine.
-1 b - exponential notation; 3.4 (-1) = 3.4 x 10 c - less than 1% of total fer nuclide 9
l ..
l l
TABLE 3 0 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM QUAD CITIES STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (Per Unit)
Reactor Power Level (MWt) 2560 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Offgas Release Rate Noble Gases, Ci/see After 30-min Decay 60,000 Iodine-131, Ci/yr, Downstream of Main Condencer Air Ejectors 5 Primary Coolant System Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel 5 (1bs) 5.5 x 10 5 Cleanup Demineralized Flow (1bs/hr) 1.0 x 10 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 9. 8 x 106 Condensate Demineralized Flow 6 (1bs/hr) 9.8 x 10 si Number of Main Condenser Shells 3 i
(_) Air Inleakage to Main Condenser, cfm/shell 10 Building Ventilation System Decontamination Factors HEPA Filter, Particulate 100 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times .
Offgas System (days) )
Xenon 8.74 {
Krypton 0.49 l Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.03 l Decontamination Factors (DF) I Cs,Rb Other Nuclides 1
Equipment Drain System 10~
10 , 10 Floor Drain System 10 2 x 10~ 10 l l
l 8 l i
I
]
TABLE 4 8
SUMMARY
OF LIQUID AND GASEOUS RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS FOR QUAD CITIES STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (Releases for 1973-1976, Units 1 6 2 Combined) 197_3( ) 1974( ) 1975() 1976 (Ci/yr) (Ci/yr) (Ci/yr) (Ci/yr)
Liquid Relea_ses Total Activity (Except Tritium) 21 39 17 7 Tritium 25 34 54 49 Gaseous Releases Noble Gases 900,000 950,000 110,000 31,500 Iodine-131 5.5 8.8 0.98 0.66 Tritium 34 58 274 290 Particulate 0.12 0.21 0.42 0.54
( )From " Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Section II: Radioactive Waste and Environmental Monitoring," January through June 1973; and from
" Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Radioactive Waste and Environmental Monitoring," July through December 1973.
( )From " Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Radioactive Waste and Environ-mental Monitoring," January through June 1974; and from " Quad Cities Power Station, Radioactive Waste, Environmental Monitoring and Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposure," July through December 1974.
( )From " Quad Cities Power Station, Radioactive Waste, Environmental Monitor-ing and Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposure," January through June ;
1975; and from " Quad Cities Power Station, Radioactive Waste, Environmental Monitoring and Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposure," July through December 1975.
( )From " Quad Cities Power Station, Radioactive Waste, Environmental Monitor- )
ing and Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposure," January through June i 1976; and from " Quad Cities Power Station, Radioactive Waste, Environmental 0 Monitoring and Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposure," July through Duember 1976.
i 1
--_____ L
l l
l 9 TABLE S I
CONTROLLING RELATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND RELATIVE DEPOSITION (D/Q) RESULTING FROM ROUTINE RELEASES 1 QUAD CITIES STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND '
{
Direction Distance X/Q (sec/m3) D/Q (m-2)*
Site Boundary A N 0.54 mi 1.8 x 10-6 _________
B N 0.54 mi 4.9 x 10-8 _________
C N 0.54 mi 8.3 x 10-7 ---------
l Milk Cow A S 1.10 mi 1.6 x 10-6 2.6 x 10-8 B S 1.10 mi 1.8 x 10-8 1.5 x 10-9 C S 1.10 mi 8.7 x 10-8 7.2 x 10-9
,i
'N d A = Reactor Stack (continuous B = Ventilation Chimney (continuous) /
C = Ventilation Chimney (4 purges year, for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> each)
- No D/Q values are presented at the site boundary because deposition is considered only through ingestion pathways.
f 9
e y y y y y y y i t s / / / / / / / s ae m m d d m m m l s e e a r e e e e uo r r r a r r r h l
cD m m mm m m m t a 4 6 1 1 5 1 9 t C . . .
a D 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N t A i n
" u
)
5 1 7
9 o l
1 t i
T, y I 5 s l W e e e e e e e e p Y v t t t t t t t p 2A i i i i i i i i a M t s s s s s s s D( c / / / / / / s N xe r r r r r r r e A C.b) ej y y y y y y y v nb / / / / / / / i 1 I 5 nO m m d d m m m t I 7 A e e a a e e e c 9 n r r r r r r r e SD1 ON i g m m mm m m m j b
NA , s 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 o 4 e 1 2 1 1 D n T B.R I g NI E i UI B a M e
, ,E d 6 N O A.PT c I I E s E TI S e t t t t t t t m L A ( v i i i i i i i b B TS " i n n n n n n n t A SNX I t u u u u u u u .
T OE c / / / / / / / 5 ,
SI N xe r r r r r r r 7 e ETN ij y y y y y y y 9 r I CA db / / / / / / / 1 o TE nO m m d d m m m f I S , e e e a a e e e . , e C , D. pn r r r r r r r 5 4 r D0I Ai pg m m mm m m m 7 9 r h e
A5I s 3 0 0 0 5 5 5 1 e T U e 1 1 2 1 1 b QTN D ,
m RO 5 e .
FAI t s OPT y p i C a e s NRE M S a OF S b SC , ,
I - 2 6 e R0 l o l 4 1 t A1 l i l ) 4 8 i P a n d ad 9 0 s MO m a a i 1 4 OT o m) R e mo a C r or f h or . .
I f) r e o rt ry p p n t f v e fh o X yl id y n h o t , ,
1 d u nl s r d a t t n - 0 0 n D n ed a - t i r o O at 4 4 e N o b a gt n a i b f d gn v E i s ( rl e a o d e ra .
. i s P r t l o u u n l ns of V V g a P e n a s d l i n a n a a n A t e t y ya f i t i e yi , , s i u oa n( f e ol kl sl n( r r e e r l t w a E s e t a s a eec a e e v C f h s o s u u nR e s t t i b f ot oy s d o od od i r oy s s t E t a t a a d t i t i d s e t a i i c n n p w G a v v oeh w g g e d e eh m a ei ei ld p eh e e j o i sl s t e m t sd sd ois st R R b u
q ol oa l a e on on il o oa O D a D p b G B Di Di d c m D p l l i o a ut a a n eg L N R nA r r e e i i b d d s e e e i F F D L C
" c I
G The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for 1
the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ- i mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment beyond that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility dated April 1973.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application ,
for amendments dated , (2) Amendment Hos. and to License Hos. DPR-29 and DPR-30, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, t
1717 H Street, H. W., Washington, D. C., and at the Moline County L
Library, Moline, Illinois 61265. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Don Davis, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors G
k.)
-7 e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment Nos. and to Facility Operating License hos. DPR-29 and DPR-30, respectively, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company, for revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.
7 These amendments to the Technical Specifications will (1) implement the d requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, (2) establish new limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for the quarterly and annual average release rates, and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with Commission regulations.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and {
the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations l
in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments. Prior l l
public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do l not involve a significant hazards considerations.
I 1
l 8
l
\ \
!