ML17219A615
| ML17219A615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17219A614 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706120109 | |
| Download: ML17219A615 (12) | |
Text
~ gaS RECIj Cl C
0 VQ
~O
+**++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXPIRATION DATE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-67 FLORIDA POMER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-335 8706120109 870ggcy PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 Radiological Impacts 4.1.1 Environmental Impacts -. General Public 4.1.2 Environmental Impacts - Occupational Exposures 4.1.3 Environmental Impacts - Uranium Fuel Cycle 4.1.4 Environmental Impacts - Transportation of Fuel and Haste 4.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES 7.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8 0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
c s
.V I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (the Comnission or staff) is considering the issuance of an amendment which would extend the expiration date of the operating license for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, from July I, 2010 to March I, 2016.
The St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, is operated by Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) and is located in St. Lucie County, Florida.
,2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The current licensed term for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, is 40 years comnencing with issuance of the construction permit.
Accounting for the time that was required for plant construction, this represents an effective operating license term of approximately 34 years.
The licensee's application dated February 28,
- 1986, as supplemented by letters dated November 14, 1986 and April 15, 1987, requests a 40-year operating license term for Unit No. 1.
Therefore, the 40-year operating term would start with the issuance of the operating license and not the construction permit.
3.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Issuance of the license amendment would allow the licensee to operate the St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, for approximately 6 years beyond the currently approved date.
This is consistent with the originally designed lifetime of the plant.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION In June 1973, the Atomic Energy Commission issued the "Final Environmental Statement Related to the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I" (FES).
This document provided an evaluation of the environmental impact associated with the operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1.
The NRC staff has reviewed this document to determine if any significant environmental impacts, other than those previously considered, would be associated with the proposed license extension.
The staff has compared the 30-year assessment of offsfte radiological impacts performed for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, in the FES with the impact of 40 years of operation derived from estimates of 40 years of operation of a model light water reactor similar to St. Lucie Unit No. I.
The environmental radiological assessments performed for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, in the FES dated April 1982 and the Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Report were also utilized, since they consider 40 years of operation and contain 1980 population statistics and projections through the year 2020.
4.1 Radiological Im acts The staff considered the radiological impacts expected as a result of a hypothetical design basis accident at St. Lucie Unit 1 and from normal plant operation, including the impact of revised population estimates.
In 1982
the staff evaluated the regional demography and found the land area within a 25-mile radius, as indicated by the population statistics, to be flat with dense vegetation, including pine tree and fresh water marshes, typical of Florida Coastal swamps.
The population within 50 miles of the plant was 310,000 in 1970; 573,048 'in 1981; with 1,006,452 projected for the year 2000 and 1,710,139 projected for the year 2030.
The entire area is experiencing a
large,population growth which is expected to continue until limited either by physical constraints such as traffic congestion and the availability of potable water, or by zoning restrictions.
The outer boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) is at a nominal distance of 1 mile from 'the plant.
Based on the 1968 census, the LPZ population was about 1,980; 10,326 in 1981; 12,506 (estimated) in 1983, and the projected resident population for the LPZ for 2030 is 83,599.
The nearest population center with more than 25,000 people is the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, whose nearest boundary is about 4 miles northwest of the site.
The staff concludes that, based upon these population estimates, the current Exclusion Area Boundary, Low Population
- Zone, and the nearest population center distances will likely be unchanged from those used for licensing the unit.
Therefore, the conclusion reached in the staff's Safety Evaluation in 1973, that St. Lucie Unit 1 meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, remains unchanged.
The staff has assessed the public risks from reactor accidents per year of operation at other reactors of comparable design and power level (and larger).
In all cases, the estimated reactor accident risks of early and latent cancer fatality per year of operation have been small compared to the background cancer fatality risks to which the public is exposed and did not increase with longer periods of operation.
If similar risks were estimated for St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, we would expect a similar comparison.-
Therefore, we conclude that the proposed additional years of operation would not increase the annual public risk from reactor accidents.
The NRC staff has also evaluated the radiological environmental effects associated with normal operation of the facility.
This evaluation was conducted to assure that the licensee's "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) measures and dose projections are applicable for the additional years of plant service and are in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as Low as is Reasonably Achievable" (Revision 3).
The staff's findings are in the following subsections.
4.1.1 Environmental Im acts - General Public In the FES, the staff calculated the dose commitment to the human population residing around St. Lucie Unit 1 in order to assess the impact on people from radioactive material r eleased as part of the normal operation of the plant.
The annual dose commitment was calculated to be the dose that would be received over a 50-year period following the intake of'adioactivity for 1 year under the conditions that would exist 15 years after the plant began operation.
The 15-year period was chosen as representing the midpoint of plant life and was incorporated into the dose model by allowing for build-up of long life radionuclides in the soil.
The build-up factor mainly affects the estimated doses for radionuclides with half-lives greater than a few years that are ingested by humans.
For a plant licensed for 40 years, increasing the build-up period from 15 to,20 years would increase the dose from lorig life radionvclides
via the ingestion pathways by less than one-third. It would have much less of an effect on a dose from shorter lived radionuclides.
Table Y-5 of the FES indicates that the estimated doses via the ingestion pathways are well below the annual dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50,'ppendix I.
For example, the ingestion dose to the thyroid from St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2 is 1.5 mrem/yr compared to a dose design objective of 15 mrem/yr.
Thus, the staff concludes that an increase of even as much as one-third in these pathways would remain well below the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and'ill not be significant.
Additionally, the total-body population doses from effluent releases have been well below projected values (NUREG/CR-2850, Volume 4, June 1986; Annual Environmental
- Report, 1985).
The St. Lucie Unit I annual offsite dose calculation values are well below PMR averages, and have typically been so for each year of operation.
These values are expected to remain typical for
.plant operations through the year 2016.
- Thus, an increase of even as much as 105 in these pathways would remain well below the Appendix I guidelines and would not be significant.
The staff expects some changes in calculational methodology and reported values as a result of St. Lucie Unit 2 operations; however, these have been previously evaluated for radiological impact in accordance with staff criteria, and found acceptable.
4.1.2 Environmental Im acts - Occu ational Ex osures The staff has evaluated the licensee's dose assessment for the years 2010 to 2016 (the additional years during which St. Lucie, Unit I would operate),
and compared it with current St. Lucie Unit 1 and overall industry occupational dose experience.
The average dose for St. Lucie Unit 1 over the recent 5-year period covering 1980-1985 has been 578 person-rem per year, which is comparable to the current 5-year average of 569 person-rem dose per-unit-per-year for operating pressurized water reactors in the United States.
The staff expects that St. Lucie Unit 1 will incur an average annual dose of about 560 person-rem for each additional year of operation.
The total occupational dose projected over the period of the operating license extension is approximately 3360 person-rem, and considers three to four additional refuelings during this period, with no major unanticipated maintenance.
This is only a small fraction of the 271,183 person-rem accumulated by all operating reactors over a similar 5-year period (1980-1984).
The staff expects that increased doses from maintenance and corrosion product build-up will be offset by a continually improving ALARA program, dose-saving plant modifications, and fewer major modifications, but that overall, average annual doses could increase by about 10%.
St. Lucie Unit 1 has been average in the numbers of workers receiving measurable
- doses, but well below average in dose-per-worker during this same period, compared to other'U.S.
PMR's.
Overall, occupational radiation exposures can be expected to remain about as estimated in the FES and as experienced during the initial operation period.
St. Lucie Unit 1 has averaged less than half the volume of solid radwaste shipped by the average PMR over the period 1980-1985, and ranks mid-range in overall volume of radwaste shipped during this same period.
Occupational doses and population doses from radwaste processing and shipping are well within the estimates made in the FES.
Radioactive waste shipments are expected to remain at about the present level for the remaining life of the plant.
Spent fuel will be stored in the reracked spent fuel pool (previously
,evaluated by the staff for radiological environmental consequences) in lieu of shipment offsite as stated in the
- FES, and in accordance with current national policy.
Any further expansion of on-site spent fuel storage capacity (such as through rod consolidation) will be further evaluated for radiological environ-mental effects by the NRC staff at the time it is proposed.
The staff concludes that the licensee's occupational dose assessment fs acceptable, and their radiation protection program is adequate to ensure that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained ALARA and 'in continued compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
4.1.3 Environmental Im acts - Uranium Fuel C cle The impacts on the uranium fuel cycle considered for the FES were originally based on 30 years of operation of a model light water reactor (LWR).
The fuel requirements for the model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 annual refuelings (approximately one-third core per refueling).
In considering thc annual fuel requirement for 40 years for the model LWR, fuel use fs averaged over a 40-year operating lffe (1 initial core and 39 refuelfngs of approximately one-third core) which results in a slight reduction compared to the annual fuel requirement averaged over a 30-year operating life.
The net result is an approximately 1.5% reduction in the annual fuel requirements for the model LWR due to averaging the initial core load over 40 years, instead of 30 years.
This small reduction in fuel requfrements would not lead to significant changes fn the annual impacts on the uranium fuel cycle.
For St. Lucfe Unit 1 the licensee projects 4 additional,refueling cycle years and 2 non-refueling cycle years over the extended plant life for Unit 1.
The staff concludes that there will not be any changes to the FES with regard to uranium fuel cycle fmpact fn order to consfder 40 years of operation.
If anything, the values in the FES become more conservative when a 40-year period of operation fs considered, particularly since the licensee is extending the refueling cycle intervals from 12 months to 18 months.
This section fs discussed fn more detail in NUREG-0842, "Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of St. Lucfe Plant, Unit No. 2," USNRC, April 1982.
4.1.4 Environmental Im acts - Trans ortatfon of Fuel and Waste The staff reviewed the envfronmental impacts attributable to the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the St. Lucfe site.
With respect to the normal conditions of transport and possible a'ccidcnts in transport.
the staff concludes that the environmental impacts are bounded by those identified in Table S-4, "Environmental Impact of Transportatfon of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor" of 10 CFR Part 51.52.
There are bases for this conclusion:
first, Table S-4 is based on an annual refueling and an assumption of 60 spent-fuel shipments per reactor year.
Presently, St. Lucfe Unit 1 fs on a 18-month refueling cycle which would require less than 30 spent fuel shipments per reactor year.
Reducing the number of fuel shipments will reduce the overall impacts related to population exposure and accidents discussed in Table S-4; second, Table S-4 represents the contribution of such transportation to annual radiation dose per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public.
Currently, fuel enrichment and average fuel irradiation levels slightly exceed those specified fn 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2) and (3) as the bases for Table S-4.
The radiation levels of thc transport fuel casks are limited by thc Department of Transportation and are not dependent on fuel enrichment and/or irradiation levels.
Therefore, thc estimated doses to exposed individuals per reactor year will not increase over that specified fn Table S-4.
St. Lucie Unit 1 has averaged less than half the volume of solid radwaste shipped by the average PWR over the period 1980-1985, and ranks mid-range fn overall volume of,radwaste shipped during this same period.
Occupational
~
doses and population doses from radwaste processing and shippfng are well within the estimates made in the FES.
Radioactive waste shipments are expected to remain at about the present level for the remaining life of the plant.
Based on the above, the annual radiation dose to individuals would not be changed by the extended period of operation.
Although some integral risk with respect to normal conditions of transportation and possible accidents in transport would be attributed to the additional years of opet ation, the integral risk would not be significant because the annual rfsk for such transportation fs small.
Therefore, thc staff concludes that the environmental
, fmpacts associated with a 40-year operating lfcense duration are not significantly different from those associated with a 30-year operating license duration and those previously assessed fn the FES.
- 4. 2 NON-RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS Re-examination of the staff's FES of Dune 1973 reveals that the assessments of non-radiological impacts were based on several considerations, depending on the type of impact being addressed.
For some types of impact, thc assessments werc based on a fixed life-of-plant; for other types, the assessments were based on plant design features, on relative loss of renewable resources, or on relative loss or degradation of avaflablc habitat.
A time scale reaching far into the future was considered fn thc relationship between short-term uses of the environment and maintenance of the site for the 30- to 40.- year life of the plant (FES P. YIII-I). The biota of the region were studied for probable fmpact by the plant for significant short-or long-term effects, including the use of the environment (f.e., air, water, and land).
In essence, no significant short-or long-term damage or loss of biota of the regfon has occurred or fs anticipated.
Should an unanticipated significant deterimental effect to any of the biota comnunfties or the environment occur, the monitoring programs are in place or designed to detect anomalies and corrective measures could be taken by the licensee.
Amendment No. 50 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-67, issued May 21, 1982, made substantial changes to the Environmental Technical Specffications (Appendix B
to <h.. Facility Operating License).
An environmental impact assessment was issued to support the amendment.
The major change was that ft divided the Environmental Tcchnical Specifications into two parts:
Part I - Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications and Part II - Environmental Protection Plan (Non-Radiological Technfcal Specifications).
The Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications were subsequently made part of Appendix A to the Facility Operating License by Amendment No. 59 issued August 18, 1983, thus
~
~ permitting the Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications to be deleted from Appendix B of the license on May l6, 1984 (Amendment No. 67.
The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)
(Non-Radiological Technical Specifications remain in effect..
The current EPP (Non-Radiological) contains a synopsis of environmental'rotection issues.
Certain environmental issues were identified in the Unit No.
1 FES which required study or license conditions for resolution of environmental concerns and to assure adequate environmental protection.
These issues were addressed in environmental technical specifications and included discharge restrictions and monitoring programs.
The issues can be subdivided into aquatic and terrestrial.
Aquatic monitoring programs were put in place to ensure (1) protection of the local aquatic communities by limiting stress to aquatic organisms, (2) minimization of cooling system organism entrainment and impingement leaks, (3) protection of local aquatic biota by minimizing the release of chlorine used to control cooling system biofouling, and (4) protection of the local aquatic environment from potential discharges of heavy metals, discharge of. water with unacceptable pH from the plant and ensuring that no significant dissolved oxygen alteration due to plant operation occurred.
With the assumption of aquatic monitoring programs by EPA through the NPDES program, as delineated in NPDES Permit FL 0002208 effective January 29, 1982, NRC relies on EPA for resolution of issues involving the monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota.
Aquatic monitoring programs will remain in effect and a license term extension will not have a,
significant environmental effect.
Terrestrial programs which related to sea turtles were put in place to (1) document the nesting at the site and vicinity, determine effects of the discharge thermal plume on nesting patterns and hatchling migration, and investigate thermal stress on hatching and rearing factors by using turtle eggs from displaced nests; and (2) to minimize turtle hatchling disorientation by planting a light screen along the beach.
The above programs have been completed and the requirements have been satisfied as discussed in the amendment and associated EIA as stated in the EPP.
However, the light screen requirement to minimize turtle disorientation has been kept.
Since the terrestrial programs were satisfied by issuance of Amendment 50 and the light screen requirement to minimize turtle disorientation is still in place, the license term extension will not have a significant environmental impact on these issues.
The staff also reviewed non-radiological environmental impacts for Unit No. 2.
An environmental protection program dated April 1983 is also in effect for Unit No. 2.
Like Unit No. 1, the Unit No.
2 EPP relies on EPA for resolution of issues involving the monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota with the exception of aquatic and terrestrial marine turtle programs, which are in effect.
A number of plant modifications have been made since the FES was issued.
These modifications tend to improve plant reliability, and it has been shown that the environmental impact has been minimal.
The plant modifications are described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, which is revised annually.
In addition, the 40-year plant operating life is considered part of the design and construction of the modifications.
Components associated with the modifications that are expected to wear out during plant life are subjected to a surveillance and
maintenance program so that component degradation will be identified and corrected.
Extending the operating life as proposed by the licensee will have no detectable environmental impact resulting from the plant modifications.
All potential impacts have been identified, described, and evaluated in previously issued environmental impact statements and/or appraisals by the NRC and reviewed by the NPDES permitting authority under the Clean Water Act.
All operational non-radiological impacts on biological resources have been assessed by the staff on bases other than a life-of-plant'asis.
The staff concludes that the proposed extension would not cause a significant increase in the impacts to the environment and would not change any conclusions reached by the Commission in the FES.
5.0 ALTERNATTYES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The principal alternative to issuance of the proposed license extension would be to deny the application.
In this case, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, would shut down upon expiration of the present operating license.
In Chapter XI of the FES, a cost-benefit analysis is presented for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1.
Included in the analysis is comparison,among various options for producing an equivalent electrical power capacity.
Even considering significant changes in the economics of the alternatives, operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. I, for an additional 6 years would require only incremental yearly costs.
These costs would be substantially
~ less than the purchase of replacement power or the installation of new electrical
'enerating capacity.
Moreover, the overall cost per year of the facility would decrease since the large initial capital outlay would be averaged over a greater number of years.
In su@nary, the cost-benefit advantage of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1, compared to alternative electrical power generating
- capacity, improves with the extended plant lifetime.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the "Final Environmental Statement Related to the.St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No. I," dated Dune 1973.
7.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
8.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The staff has reviewed the.proposed license amendment relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.
Based on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological
e 0'
iI
\\ impacts associated with the proposed action and that the issuance of the proposed license amendment will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.