ML20237B505

Forwards Safety Evaluation & Eia Supporting Amend to License DPR-59 & Concluding That Installed Radwaste Treatment Sys Capable of Maintaining Releases of Radioactive Matls in Effluents to ALARA Levels.Notice of Issuance of Amend Encl

ML20237B505
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/14/1977
From:	Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8712160307
Download: ML20237B505 (24)

Text

_ -_ _ __ - _ __ - -

o i; . n ,,

(RETS $TER FILE OCT 141977 0 (Y Docket No. 50-333 MEMORANDUM FOR: R. Reid, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 4. DDR FROM: J. T. Collins, Chief. Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, 4; , DSE N^

SUBJECT:

OSE EVALUATI_ FITZPA1 RICK R POWER PLANT, WITH RESPECT T0'APPE 1T R PART 50 Enclosed is DSE's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, with respect to the requirements of Appendix 1. 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 Fitzpatrick 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 confoms to the requirements of Sections II.A !!.8, II.C, and !!.D of Appendix I.

When the nodel effluent radiological Technical Specifications, currently under development, have been approved they will be forwarded to you for transmittal to the licensee.

OR'7INAL SIGED BY JOHit T. COLLINS John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Systems Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

Enclosure:

OSE Evaluation cc: H. Denton Y. Stello R. Vollmer K. Goller D. Jaffee k.9;<A o,,,c. , .DSE:SA:ETSB DSE:SA:ETSB DSf;S. DSFaST:MiB 08a SAMTSB

.u. au s, RAWeller:do [Cbbr[e' NreIe'r NM \J b ilins A77j7 /77

, , , , , 09/29/77 /$f/ // /77 J//ll77 ~

07/ lt/77 NRCPORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. novs.nusut peuanne oprics. teve -es s4 l 8712160307 771014 PDR ADOCK 05000333 p PDR

s R. Reid OCT 14 377 cc: Continued G. Vissing D. Eisenhut W. Kreger l.' -

H. Hulman B. Grimes E. Markee F. Congel R. Bangart W. Burke R. Weller i

I

- - - _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - . - _ _ 1

9 SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l

SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 l

INTRODUCTION On May 5,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in 4- the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for desLgn 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 ! to 10 CFR Part 50 UI .

Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2,1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976; 1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable", and

2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, "as low as is reasonably achievable".

In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) filed with the Commission on June 3, 1976,(2) the necessary information to permit an evaluation of the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix 1. In this submittal, PASNY chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

2 By letter dated , PASNY submitted proposed changes to Appendix A l - Technical Specifications for Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed changes' implement the . requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and pro-vide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid

'4' and gaseous effluents are "as low as is reasonably achievable" in accordance with.10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a.

DISvUdSION 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 Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Pier 4; 1) to reduce and maintain releases of radio-

. active materials in liauid 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 meet the cost-benefit objective set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

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 3,1976 submittals I  ; 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems des-cribed in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)I  ; 3) a review

+

1 1

y __ _ - - ___

of the licensee's response to the staff for additional information(4); 4) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for the Fitzpatrick facility; 5) the calculation of 4; relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values for the Fitzpatrick site; 6) the calculation of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and 7) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for potential radwaste system augments,-

using the methods outlined in, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor."( } The staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.

The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Fitzpatrick

~

Plant have been previously described in Section 8.2 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated November 20, 1972,(6) and in Section 3.4 of toe Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated March 1973. (7)

Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Fitzpatrick Plant, and on changes in the staff's calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix 1. The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and parameters described in NUREG-0016.(0 In making these determinations, the staff con-sidered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive riiaterials 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 L

1 e

r anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liquid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 3.

The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at Fitzpatrick ,

Plant in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 1 and 2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous ef fluents. Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the .

licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period for July 1976 through July 1977. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4.

Fitzpatrick reached initial criticality on November 17, 1974, and commercial operation in July 1975. Since the staff does not consider data from the l l first year of operation to be representative of the long term operating life l

of the plant, only effluent release data from July 1966 to July 1977 were used in comparing actual releases from Fitzpatrick. The calculated releases are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

i For the one year period from July 1976 to July 1977, the reported releases in liquid effluents are 0.56 Ci of total activity (excluding tritium),

0.11 Ci of I-131, and 2.0 Ci of tritium. In comparison, the corresponding calculated values are 1.0 Ci of total activity (excluding tritium), 0.033 Ci l

of I-131, and 32 Ci of tritium.

The reported releases in gaseous effluents are 50,000 Ci of noble gases.

0.43 Ci of I-131, 0.035 Ci of particulate, and 18 Ci of tritium. The

__7_____-_________

corresponding calculated values are 28,000 Ci of noble gases, 0.64 Ci of I-131, j

0.090 Ci of particulate, and 32 Ci of tritium. Except for the tritium value in. liquid releases and noble gas releases, the calculated and actual radio-active release values are in good agreement. As. additional plant operation {

61 .

is accumulated, the actual tritium in liquid releases is expected to agree more closely with the calculated value.. The actual release of noble gases is higher than the calculated value because of moisture problems experienced in the off-gas. treatment system and subsequent bypassing of portions of that system. When the system becomes fully operational, the actual releases should agree more closely with the staff's calculated values.

The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric dispersion conditions for the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant using an atmospheric dispersion model for long-term releases (Sagendorf and Goll, draft,1976).I9 This model is based on the " Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors." Based on the criteria established in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the staff assumed that gaseous effluent!, from the reactor, turbine, and radwaste building vents were a mixture of elevated and ground-level releases, and that all releases from the 385-foot stack were elevated. The staff evaluated non-continuous and intermittent gaseous releases separately from continuous rel eases. Also based on the criteria outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the calculations include an estimate of the maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and temporal varia-tion of the airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model.

i J

In the evaluation, the staff used meteorological data collected at the l adjacent Nine Mile Pt. Nuclear Station site. For annual average calculations, the staff used data ' collected during 1974 and 1975; for grazing season

! di .

calculations, the staff used data collected for April through September 1974 and 1975.

Table 5 presents calculated values of relative concentration (X/0) and relative deposition (D/Q) for specific points of interest. The summary of calculated doses given in Table 6 are different from and replace those given in Table 5.5 of the FES.

The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent categories:

1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents  ;

to Lake Ontario, 2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmos-phere; and 3) pathways associated with radiciodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere. The mathematical models used-by the staff to perform the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are j described in Regulatory Guide 1.109.IIII 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) harvested in the inmediate vicinity of the discharge from Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant into Lake Ontario, drinking water (7301/yr) from the nearest drinking water intake at Oswego, and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr).

i -l 4

i ,

The dose to the population living within fifty miles of the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant due to the radioactive materials released in liquid effluents was based on the following parameters: 1) at the year 2000, 1.3 million people will

, 4 :. consume 6 million Kg of fish taken from Lake Ontario and, 2) 240,000 people will l consume 80 million liter; of drinking water from Lake Ontario.

The dose evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included a cal-culation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary sector having the highest dose and total body and skin doses at the site boundary sector having the highest dose. The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.61 mi. E relative to the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The location of maximum total body and skin doses was determined to be at the same location.

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 1.25 miles SE of the Fitzpatrick Plant.

The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture equivalent to 5 months per year total diet.

The calculated dose to the population living within fifty miles of Fitzpatrick due to the releases of noble gases, radioiodines, particulate, carbon-14, j and tritium was based on the following parameters: 1) the year 2000 population within 50 miles of Fitzpatrick is estimated to be 1.3 million people; 2) annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles of Fitzpatrick consists 5

7 ,

s I

of 620 million liters of milk, 23 million kilograms of meat, and 480 million kilograms of vegetables (12) ,

ii . 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 appro-priate relative concentration (X/Q) value given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad / 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 con-formance with Section II.C of Appendix I.

l I

4 Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 II requires that liquid and gaseous radwaste systems for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors include all items of reasonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, ii .

for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the popula-i tion reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. The staff's-cost-benefit analysis was performed using: 1) the dose parameters stated above and in Table 7; 2) the analysis procedures outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.110(5); 3) the cost parameters given in Table 8; and 4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110,

. For the liquid radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from liquid releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by $1,000 per total body man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of less than $1,000 for the total body man-rem dose and $1,000 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 170 gpm demineralized to the clean waste system. The calculated cost of S37,000 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values calculated for the population doses. . The staff concludes therefore, that there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the j liquid radwaste system meets the requirements of Section 11.0 of Appendix !

to 10 CFR Part 50.

o

For the gaseous radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from gaseous. releases to the projected population within a 50 mile radius-of the station, when multiplied by $1000 per total body man-rem and -

. (i . 51000 per man-thyroid rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $1,300 for the total body man-rem dose, and $14,700 for the man-thyroid-rem dose. The' most effective augment was the addition of a 15,000 cfm charcoal /HEPA filtra-tion system to the. reactor building ventilation exhaust system. The calculated cost of $57,300 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values calculated for the population doses. The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulctive population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the gaseous radwaste system meets the requirements of Section 11.D of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the require-ments of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable. l k

In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems meet the cost-benefit objectives set forth in Section !!.D }

of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Fitzpatrick. This evaluation has shown that the installed i

l l

I

- 11'-

systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in i 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 4.

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. In accordance with Section II.D of Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional augments can be added to the modified systems being installed at Fitzpatrick that will effect a reduction in dose to the population within a 50 mile radius .

of the station for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

1 The staff concludes, based on the considerations discussed above, that: q (1) because the revised Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability of consequences of accidents previously considered 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 ir.imical to the common defense and security 4

or to the health and safety of the public.

II. Environmental Impact Appraisal The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the Fitzpatrick Huclear Power Plant, located in the State of New York, in Oswego County, at power levels up to 2436 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or I

! . decrease in the power level of the Units. Since neither power level nor

I 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 Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333.

ii .

The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from Fitzpatrick P1 ant.

The revised Technical Specifications implement the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radio-active materials in liquid and gaseous effluents will be "as low as is

. reasonably achievable." If the plant exceeds one-half the design objectives i 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.B. and II.C of Appendix 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 1 environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.

l Dated:

.1

.(

TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT j (C1/yr) '

l Nuclide Ci/yr Nuclide. Ci[Er Corrosion and Activation Fission Products Products Rh-103m 0,00L.'

Na-24 0.044 Tc-104 0.015-P-32 0.0013 Ru-105 0.0056 Cr-51 0.032 Rh-105m 0.0056 Mn-54 0.0004 Rh-105, 0.0006 Mn-56 0.091 Ru-106 0.00004 Fe-55 0.0065 Rh-106 0.00002  !

Fe-59 0.00019 Ag-110m 0.00001 Co-SS 0.0013 0.00026 0.0027 Te-129m Co-60 Te-129 0.00014 Ni-65 0.00054 0.00056 0.14 Te-131m

- Cu-64 Te-131 0.0001 Zn-65 0.0013 I-131 0.033 Zn-69m 0.0095 0.00006 0.0095 Te-132 Zn-69 ,

.I-132 0.057 Zr-95 0.00001 0.11 0.00002 I-133 Nb-95 I-134 0.048

• 0.0016 W-187 0.0021 0.042 Cs-134 Np-239 I-135 0.08 Cs-136 0.0012 Fission Products Cs-137 0.0046 1 Ba-137m 0.00042 Br-83 0.0059 0.034 0.0019 Cs-138 Br-84 Ba-139 0.0097 Br-85 0.00009 0.0026 0.0078 Ba-140 ,

Rb-89 La-140 0.0002 l Sr-89 0.00065 0.001E Ba-141 Sr-90 0.00004 0.001E 0.017 La-141 Sr-91 Ce-141 0.0002 Y-91m 0.0) 0.00068 Ba-142 Y-91 0.0002 0.0061 0.019 La-142 Sr-92 Ce-143 0.00017 Y-92 0.027 0.00026 Pr-143 Y-93 0.017 0.00007 Ce-144 Zr-95 0.00004 0.00002 Pr-144 Nb-95 0.00004 0.00002  ;

Nd-147 Zr-97 0.00002 Nb-97m 0.00002 All Others 0.00001 Nb-97 0.00002 0.0023 Total Nb-98 except tritium 1.0 Mo-99 0.012 Tritium 32 i

Tc-99m 0.072 '

Tc-131 0.013 Ru-103 0.00013

_7 TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Ci/yr)

Building Ventilation

^ " ~

Ej c or Sa a Nuclide Reactor Turbine Radwaste Offgases Vent Pump Totals Kr-83m a a a 23 38 a 61

'. Kr-85m 6 68 a 2900 66 a 3000 Kr-85 a a a 210 a a 210 Kr-87 6 130 a 4 230 a 370 Kr-88 6 230 a 1700 230 a 2200 Kr-89 a a a a 980 a 980 Xe-131m a a a 70 a a 70 Xe-133m a a a 36 3 a 39 Xe-133 130 250 10 13000 91 2300 16000 Xe-135m 92 650 a a 27 a 770 Xe-135 68 630 45 a 250 350 1300 Xe-137 a a a a 1200 a 1200 Xe-138 14 1400 a a 910 a 2300 Total Noble Gases 28,000 I-131 3.4(-1)b 1. 9 (- 1) 5(-2) a 3. 5 (-2) 3(-2) 6. 4 (- 1)

I-133 1.36 7. 6 (-1) 1.8(-1) a 1. 4 (- 1) a 2.4 Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) 9 (-5) a e c ' 1. 4 (-2)

Mn-54 6(-3) 6(-4) 3(-4) e 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)

Zn-65 4 (-3) 2(-4) 1.5(-5) e e c 4. 2 (-3)

Sr-89 1.8(-4) 6(-3) 4. 5 (- 6) e c c 6.2(-3)

Sr-90 1(-5) 2(-5) 3(-6) c c c 3.3(-5)

Ir-95 8(-4) 1(-4) 5(-7) c e c 9. 0 (-4)

Sb-124 4 (-4) 3(-4) 5(-7) c e c 7. 0 (-4)

Cs-134 8(-3) 3(-4) 4.5(-5) c c 3(-6) 8.3(-3)

Cs-136 6(-4) 5(-5) 4.5(-6) e c 2 (-6) 6.6(-4)

Cs-137 1.1(-2) 6(-4) 9(-5) e c 1 (-5 ) 1.2(-2)

Ba-140 8 (-4) 1.1(-2) 1(-6) e c 1.1(-5) 1. 2 (- 2)

Ce-141 2(-4) 6(-4) 2.6(-5) c e c 8. 3 (-4)

C-14 1.5 - - 8 - -

9.5 H-3 - - - - - -

3.2 Ar-41 25 - - - - -

25

-4 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 for nuclide.

s TME 3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PIANT Reactor Power Level (MWt) 2436 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Offgas Release Rate 0- Noble Gases, uCi/sec after 30 min. delay 60,000 Iodine-131, Ci/yr, Downstream of Main Condenser Air Ejector 5 Primary Coolant System Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 4.8 x 10 Mass of Steam in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 1 x 10 0 Cleanup Demineralized Flow (1bs/hr) 1 x 10 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 1.1 x 10 Number of Main Condenser Shells 2

. Air Inleakage to Main Condenser, cfm/shell 10 Building Ventilation System Decontamination Factors HEPA Filter, Particulate 100

]

Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Offgas System (hrs)* 0.0 Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.029 Other I Cs, Rb Nuclides Decontamination Factors 2

High Purity System 10 10 10 5

Low Purity System 10 10 10 4 5 5 Chemical Waste System 10 10 10 4 5 5 Regenerant Solution 10 10 10

• Prior to processing by the offgas treatment system.

4 TABLE 4 SUNNARY OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE FOR FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1976(") 1977( )

Liquid Effluent Release Data Curies Curies Total Fission and Activation 0.32 0.24 4, Products Total Iodine-131 0.085 0.025 )

Total Tritium 0.61 1.4 Gaseous Effluent Release Data Total Noble Gases 35,300 14,500 i

Total Iodine-131 0.34 0 085 Total Particulate 0.013 0.085 Total Tritium 13.6 4.7

(*) Data from Semi-Annual Report for Second Half of 1976.

(b) Data from Semi-Annual Report for First Half of 1977.

4 I

i I

.)ii

,\

8 8

~ - - - - - ~ - ~ - ~ -

) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

/-

Dm (

x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 0 0 6 0 5 8 6 5 2 8 0 S

N 8 4 5 3 6 3 1 5 6 5 6 2 O

I T

A L 6 6 6 U ) - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -

C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 L m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Q/ x C /c x x x x x x x x x x x _

X e E s 2 1 2 7 4 0 6 0 3 7 2 3 S (

O 4 2 3 1 3 2 9 3 5 2 4 1 D

R - - t - - - t -

O t t n t t t n t F n n e n s n n e n s e e V e u e e V e u _

S e V V V o V V V o E p g u g u U

L T y

d g g d s d g l s d s i e n

d g g d s d g l s d s i e n _

A l l u B u l u t g l l u B u l u t g V e B B o o B o n r B B o o B o n r s u eu u o u u eu u o u

) a r rn t n en C P - - r rn tsi n en C P -

, Q e oe oi si ni oe oi ni - _

K / l t g t t at it k k t g t t at it k k C D e cr cn wn b n c c cr cn wn bn c c 5 I ( R au ao d o ro a a au ao do ro a a R eP eC aC uC t t eP eC aC uC t t E T N R R R T S S R R R T S S L A O I

a. P

. Z T

. T I e I S c)

F O ns 1 5 P ae 6 2 E tl D si 0 1 im _

D D(

N A

)

• Q

/ n X o

( i t E

- N c E S O e I r T i A D R

T l N a -

E u C d N i -

O e y v C p r i y a d E T d n V n I I r u T o o m A t B u L p m -

E e e i R c t x e i a R S M i! 1l ll lI,

.e-TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM OPERATION WITH SECTIONS II.A, II.B, AND II.C OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 (Dose to Maximum Individual):

Appendix I Dose Calculated Criterion Design Objective Doses 11 .

Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem /yr 0.013 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 0.14 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 1.3 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.66 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.91 mrem /yr-Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 1.4 mrem /yr.

Radioiodine and Particulate" Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 14 mrem /yr

" Carbon-14 ar.d Tritium have been added to this category.

(

TABLE 7 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES (MAN-REM) FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50*

Pathway Total Body Thyroid g; , Liquid <1 1.0 Gaseous 1.3 14.7

• Based on the population reasonably expected to be within a 50 mile radius of the reactor.

TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region 1" 1.6 Cost of Money b 7g Capital Recovery Factor" 0.0806 "From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976).

b From Reference 4 e

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. . _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ = - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _

.e REFERENCES

1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix ~I. Federal Register, V. 40, P. 19442, May 5,1975.

l 2. " Response to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Files: Fitzpatrick Nuclear l

Power Plant. Letter of Transmittal, June 3,1976. Enclosed " Appendix 1 Evaluation Report."

ld,

3. Power Authority of the State of New York, Final Safety Analysis Report -

Fitzpatric Nuclear Power Plant - 1971

.4. " Responses to the Staff for Additional Information, Letter of Transmittal, October 6,1976.

5. Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Regulatory Guide 1.110,

" Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors", March 1976.

6. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, " Safety Evaluation of the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-333, Washington, D.C.

November 20, 1972.

4

7. Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power' Plant, PASNY, Docket No. 50-333.

8. NUREG-0016, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.

9. Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll J.T.,1976: X00000, Program for the

. Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Statioils, (DRAFT). U.S. Nucl' ear Regulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

10. Staff of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Regulatory Guide 1.111

" Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," March 1976.

11. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Regulatory Guide 1.109,

" Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," March 1976.

12. Census of Agriculture,1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

4

--_-_Ll_-__-_-___-__

e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. DOCKET NO. 50-333 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ti .

1 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, issued to Power Authority of the State of New York, for revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Fitzpatrick Huclear Power Plant, located in Oswego County, New York. The amendments are effective as of the date of issuance.

This amendments to the Technical Specifications will (1) imple-ment the requirements of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 60, (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 amendment 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 in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazard consideration.

9

. v.

The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environ-mental impact statement for the particular action is not warranted because g, 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 .

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendments dated , (2) Amendment No, to License No.

DPR-59, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public inspection

~

at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., and at the (Name of Local Public Document Room). 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 Robert Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors i

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _