ML19317G397
| ML19317G397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  (DPR-72-A-002, DPR-72-A-2) |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1977 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G396 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003030805 | |
| Download: ML19317G397 (25) | |
Text
'
.. ~
. - ~ ~ _
_ _ ~ - _
~ _. -.
e.
6
^
UCENSE AUIHOR1IY QLF, Q,QE1
~
C b
UNITED STATES p
?'4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION X -)M i $
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ff FIDRIGA POiER COheORATIC'4 CITI UP AfACdUA CIi"f of BUStn4 ELL CITY OF GAINESVILLE CJTI OF KISSIMEE CITY OF LEES 8Uf6 CITf OF (4EW SMYR4A BEACd ANU UTILI2Ir.,8 CuwISSIOti, CITY OF 14Ed SaYMA BEACri CITY OF OCALA CRIMDO UTILITIid Cuelfssfai AND CITY uf OfuMDO SESRING IIIILITIES CuetISeiut4 56NIllOLE ELECTRIC CO.) PERATIVE, INC.
CITY OF TALIAdASSEE DUCKET WO. 50-302 CRYSTAL RIVER Ut4IT 3 WUCLEAR GEt4ERATItJG PIMT Ar4Etlut@4T TO FACILITY OPEPATItG LICf.14SE Amencment tio. 2 License No. OPR-72 1.
Tne duelear Regulatory Comission (tne Comission) having found tnat:
A.
Tne application filea oy Florica Power Corporation, City of Aiacnua, City of Busnnell, City of Gainesville, City of Kissimee, City of Leesourg, City ot dew Smyrna Beach and Utilities Commission, City of New Sayrna Beach, City of Ocala, Crianco Ut.ilities Comission anc City of Orlanco, Searing Utilities Comission, Seminole Electric Coogrative, Inc., ana City of Tallanassee (tne licensees) as supplementea Oy letter dateo Decemoer 9,1976, complies witn tne stancarcs anc require-ments of tne Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenceo (tne Act) anc tne Comission's rules and regulations set fortn in 10 CFR Chapter 1; 8.
Construction of the Crystal River Unit 3 duclear Generating Plant (facility) has ceen suostantially completed in conformity witn Provisional Construction Permit do. CPPR-51 anc the application, as amnceo, the provisions of tne Act anc tne rules anc regulations of the Comission; C.
Tne facility wili operate in contormity witn the application, as amenaea, tne provisions of the Act, and the rules anc regulations of tne Comission; j
I.
8008030
~ _ _...
a e, n - r T.* r, 7
~
nhQhUl:tbiU*l-m D.
There is reasonable assurance:
(i) that the activities authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will.
be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Comission; E.
The licensees are financially qualified and the Florida Power Corporation is technically qualified to engage in the activities authorized by this operating license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Comission; F.
The licensees have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 4
Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements,"
of the Comission's regulations; G.
The issuance of this operating license will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; H.
After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of tne facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 subject to the conditions for protection of the environment set forth herein is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.
(formerly Acpendix D to 10 CFR Part 50), of the Comission's regu-lations cid all applicable requirements have been satisfied; I.
The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 30, 40 and 70, including 10 CFR Sections 30.33, 40.32 and 70.23 and 70.31.
2.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72, issued to the licensees, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
A.
This amended license applies to the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, a pressurized water nuclear reactor and associated equipment (the facility), owned by the licensees and operated by the Florida Power Corporation. '1he facility is located on the Gulf of Mexico, about seven and one-half miles northwest of the town of Crystal River, Citrus County, Florida, and is described in the " Final Safety Analysis Report" as supplemented and amended (Amendment 11 through 50) and the. Environmental Report as supple-mented and amended (Amendments 1 through 3).
p) m pa 6
Amendment No. 3
/
.en.. x.-
/nf.:+p-
i i
g 3
Subject to the conditions and requirements incorpordted herein, B
the Cormaision hereoy licenses:
(1) Florida Powar Corporation, pursuant to Section 1040 of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to possess, use and operate tne facility; (2) Tne licensees to possess the facility at tne designated location in Citrus County, Florida, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license; (3) Florica Power Corporation, pursuant to tne Act and 10 CFR Part 70, to receive, possess and use at any tire special nuclear material as reactor fual, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amu::ts required for reactor operation, as descricea in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and aJendeo; (4) Florida Power Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 ana 70 to receive, possess ano use at any tire any oyproouct, source and special nuclear caterial as sealec neutron sources for reactor startup, sealea sources for reactor instrumentation anc raciation monitoring equiprrent calibration, ana as fission cetectors in anounts as requirec; (5) Florica Power Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess ana use in anounts as required any oyprocuct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to enemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radio-active apparatus or components; (6) Florida Power Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70, to possess, out not separate such cyprocuu ano special nuclear naterials as may oe procuc,ed oy the operation of tne facility.
2.B.(7) Florida Power Company, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR
/i-ed y
j Parts 30 and 70, to receive and possess, but not separate, that by-product and special nuclear materials g.
associated with four (4) fuel assemblies (B&W Ident1fi-OmO, /6 cation Hunters lA-01, 04, 05 and 36 which were previously irradiated in the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) 7'M-77 acquired by Florida Power Corporation from Duke Power Company for use as reactor fuel in the facility.
This license snall ce ceemed to contain arc is subject to the C.
conditions specifieo in tne following Conmission regulations in 10 CFR Cnapter I: Part 20, Section 30.34 of Part 30, Section 40.41 of Part 40, Section 50.54 ana 50.59 of part 50, Section 70.32 of Part 70; and is suoject to all applicable provisions
DO NOTRD.{0ygf t
_4 r,
of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the
{
Comission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
i 2.C.(1) Maximum Power Level Florida Power Corporation is authorized to' operate the
..l facility at a steady state reactor core power level not in excess of 2452 megawatts (100 percent of rated core power level).
2.C.(2) Technical Soecifications t
The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amen 6ent No.944 are hereby incorporated in the license. Flcrida Power Corporation shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
2.C.(3) Florida Power Corporation shall not operate the reactor in operational Modes 1 and 2 with less than three reactor coolant pumps in operation until safety analyses for less l
than three pump operation have been submitted by the i
licensees and approval has been granted by the Commission by amendment to this license.
j M
} - UntTf perm I
ifi,9ationsC9 tted; eh Cy c
' approved the Cqmmission, have n made to the
- e. 'c
\\
addjtive!um thiosulfate add tion t$tk frdm thq, plan,t syst em
' system, Korida er Conporation 1 i olat the sodi l
- 1-y loc' ing closed thw val s (BVS 99 anM BVSi100)'in the y'8 '
1i'o<7k t k ischarge line Wi ' in nine months of ate o is u= ce of this'lipense Florida > PoWPgorpp$e dn,an r
suq:
modifications, i uding po gha plan : Techtfical Specifiaqions,'
ich shalF
'ges
- o i stall priomto' or during the fir W ref lir outag.
i 2.C.(5) Within six months of the date of issuance of this license, Florida Power Corporation shall complete modifications to the level indication of the borated water storage tank, installation and testing of flow indicators in the emergency core cooling system to provide indication of 40 gallons per minute flow for boron dilution, and installation of dual setpoint pilot-operated relief valve on the pressurizer.
A g M Q p a A u M.J.- 2.2 e/- 77 3,,,g,,,,y,,
3
~S--
hq %(
J)C) ~
Y A
m
.<2.C K rior to s up fol g tn* first regu/ar?y lofcaryw9r
. region i
.~M heduied efu ling t
e, ag4 son, snm ins all, o'
e sa is ac 'on or tr e
a Jpng t rm maa.p cff pro bion aga'#nst ;r9 ctor y
V ccrolant ystem o g pressurizati n.
2.C.(7) Prior. to startup following the first regularly scheduled
~
refueling outage, Florida Power Corporati_on snall modify to the satisraction of tne Coraisison, the reactor coolant system flow inoication to aaet the single failure criterion witn regard to pressure sensing lines to the flow differen-tial pressure transmitters.
2.C.(8) dithin three itonths of issuance of this license, Florida Power Corporation snall sub.Tiit to the Contalssion a proposed surveillance prcstam for renitoring the coat ainment for the purpose of determining any future delamination of the
- dome, e
2.C.(9) Fire Protecticn p
hWl'.*q The licensee may proceed with and is required to provide a schedule
% q } ct for and to ecmplete the modifications identified in Paragraphs 3.1.1 i
through 3.1.31 of the NRC's Fire Protection Safety Evaluation (SE),
dated July 27,1979.for the facility.
If any modifications ~
cannot be comoleted on schedule the licensee shall submit a report explaining the circumstances together with a. revised schedule.
j
~
D.
Florida Power Corporation shall maintain in effect and fullp implement all provisions of the Commission-approved physical security plan, including amendmants and chances cad to the authority of 10 CFR 50.54(p).
I,f-M consists of documants withheld frca public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d), collectively titled, " Security Plan for Crystal River Unit Mo.
3," dated February 1,1978, as revised May 17 and November 10, 1978.
iievision cate of FPC Letters Original Cctober 12, 1973 1
Dece5ber 21, I M3 2
February 18, 1976 3
March 19, 1976 Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.790(a), tne security plan is oeing witnheld from puolic disclosure because it is caer.3d to be corr.orcial or financial information within tne meaning of t
10 CFR Section 9.5(a)(4) and suoject to disclosure caly in accordance with 10 CFR Section 9.12 i
~ %.;
n.
l.
e y
=
00 NOT REM 0E -
., E.
This license is JA]ect to the following antitrust conoitions ano applies only to tne Florica Power Corporation (FPC):
(1) FPC will interconnect with ano coordinate reserves Dy means of tne sale anu excnange of etaergency culk power witn any entity or entities in its service area
- engaging in or proposing to engage in electric bulk power supply on terms tnat will provice for FPC cost (including a reasonaole return) in connection therewith ano allow tne other participant (s) full access to the cenefits of reserve coorcination.
ExplanaQrvNotes:**
(a) Interconnections will not be limitea to low voltages wnen higner voltacas are availaole frosa rYC installeo facilities in tne area wnere interconnection is desirea, wnen tne proposed arrangement is found to ce tecnnically and economically feasicle.
(o) EJaergency service agreements will not ce limited to a fixeo amount, out emergency service provicea unoer sucn agreements will ce furnised to tne fullest extent availaole ano cesirea wnere sucn supply does not impair service to the supplier's customers.
(c) An example of tne type of reserve snaring arrangement availaole to any participant and wnich would provide
" full access *o the cenefits of reserve coordination" woula ce one in wnich tne rollowing conoitions would cotain:
(1) FPC ano eacn participant (s)-snail provide to tne otner emergency power if ana wnen available from its own generation, or tnrough its trans-mission from tne generation of otners to the extent it can oo so without aisrupting service to its own customers.
me 'ise of tne ter;t " service area" in no way inaicates an assignment or allocation of wnolesale marxet areas. It is intenced only as a general inoication of an area witnin the State of Floriaa wnere FPC provices some class of electric service.
- In orcer to clarity tne comitments, certain explanatory notes have oeen aaded where necessary.
7i
- j #~
u 00107 R MOVE v
N...
(2) The participant (s) to the reserve snaring arrangement snall, jointly with FPC estaolisn from time to time tne minimum reserves to De installed ana/or purcnased as necessary to maintain in total an acequate reliaoility ot power supply on tne interconnectea system of FPC ana participant (s). Tne reserve responsi-oility tnus determined shall oe calculated as a percentage of peak load. No participant (s) to tne interconnection shall oe requireo to maintain more tnan sucn percentage as a percentage of its peak load; proviaed that if the reserve require-ments of FPC are increaseo over anc aoove tne amunt FPC would be required to maintain witnout sucn interconnection tnen tne other participant (s) snall ce requirea to carry or provice for as its reserve responsioility the full anount in kilowatts of such increase. Unaer no circumstances will minimum spinning or operating reserve requirements exceed me installed reserve requirement.
(d) Interconnection ana coordination agreements will satisfy tnis conoition if they do not emtxxiy restrictive pro-visions pertaining to inter-system coordination.
Inau.stry practice as developea in tnis area from time to time will satisfy tnis conoition if it is non-restrictive.
(2) FeC w111 gurcnase trom or se11 ou1k gower to any other entity or entities in tne aforesaid area engaging in or proposing to engage in the generation of electric power in culk, at its cost (including a reasonaole return) wnen j
such transactions would serve to reouce tne overall costs of new culk power sypply for itself or tne otner participant or participants to tne transaction. Ibis refers specifi-cally to tne opportunity to coorainate in the planning of new generation, transmission ano associated facilities.
Explanatory dotes:
-(a) It is not to oe consicerea tnat tnis conaition requires FPC to purcnase or sell culk power if it finds sucn purchase or sale unfeasicle or its costs in connection with sucn purcnase or sale would exceea its oenefits tnerefrom.
~./
c O O.b r Y k M.. m r t, OW us se sw e (b) If FPC engages in coorainated cevelopment of its culk power supply system with that of any otner culk power supply system, oy selling unit power at tne cost of its new power supply, or engages in joint ventures witn tne same result, FPC snali not refuse proportional participation on a comparaole basis from the same unit to any otner entity in its service area (see Commitment I, supra) engaging in or proposing to engage in bulk power supply to tne extent it is tecnnically feasioly to provice sucn unit power from tne unit or units in question.
(3) FPC will facilitate the exchange or oulk power oy transmission over its system oetween or among two or more entities with wnicn it is interconnectea on terms wnicn will fully compensate it for tne use of its system to tne extent tnat suo]ect arrangements reasonaciy can ce accommoaated from a functional and technical stanopoint.
Explanatory tiotes:
(a) m is conaition applies to entities witn wnica FPC may oe interconnected in tne future as well as tnose to whicn it is now interconnectea.
(c) FPC is coligated uncer this condition to transmit bulk power for otner entities on tne terms statec aoove, and to include in its planning and construction progruas sufficient transmission capacity as requirea tnerefor, provided tnat such otner entities give FPC sufficient auvance notice as may oe requirea to accomT.x: ate tne arrangement from a functional ano tecnnical standpoint ana that tne otner entities will be collgated to compensate FPC fully for the use of its system.
(4) FPC will sell power in Dulk to any entity in tne aforesaia area now engaging in or proposing to engage in the retail districution of electric power.
(5) It is recognized that the foregoing conditions are to ce implementea in a manner consistent witn tne provisions of tne feceral Power Act ano all rates, cnarges or practices in connection tnerewitn are to oe suoject to the approval of regulatory agencies having jurisaiction over tnem.
r-r."
~
~ ' - '
L, j $. ; :) ht',WL' * '-- F.
In accorcance with tne requiremnt imposed oy the October d,1976, orcer of tne United States Court Appeals for tne District of Columoia Circuit in isatural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear regulatory.Comission, No. 74-1385 and 74-1506, inat tne duclear Regulatory Comission "shall maxe any licenses granted between July 21, 1976 and such time when the mandate is issued subject to the outcome of the proceecings herein," the license issued herein shall oe subject to the outcome of such proceedings.
G.
'Ihis amended license is effective as of the date of issuance.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72, as amenced, shall expire at micnignt, September 25, 2006.
FOR TdE NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY CGHISSION OngnalSigned by Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attacnnents:
Changes to Technical Specifications, Appendix A Date of Issuance:
jgg, g g7 j
,/
- 1 L6 OCENSE A g GM N El.
00 NOT RBs0VE o
. C.
Prior to exceeoing tne regulating roo group insertion limits for 4 pu.~.p operation ano axial power imcalance as specifieo in Figures 3.1 A ano.3.4-1 of cne Tecnnical specifications as reviseo of Menoment do.1, the following iteras snail ce completed:
1.
An anaAysis of tne ecuergency core cooling system snall ce ccrapieceo wnicn snall not use the nucleate ooiling heat transfer corcelations after crit.'. cal neat flux is first predicted at an axial fuel rod location during olowoown in conformance witn Appenuix K to 10 CFR Part 30.
2.
An analysis of tne emergency core cooling system snall be complateo for une roilowing creax sizes (a) a u.04 square foot creax asing tne small creak cocel, (c) a transition crean using tne large creax mocel sno the small creak eccel, ana (c) a core flooaing tanx line creak using tne small creax nocal.
Florica Power Corporation tuay proceeu to full power operation upon acceptance oy tne cornission of taese analyses, ana.
1 revision or tne limitations in the reviseo Tecnnical 5pecifica-ticas ano amenacent of tais license oy the C==insion.
w e'
e
. em 4
4 4
/
- - - - ~
.~ww-,
.e,
- - -,,.- +
o,
-r
8O -
4
'a.
- W=
4WMe MW basDy..
_%.p,4.,
LTCENSE AUTHORITY FILE COPX
~ 0 NO-hMOVE.
)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT g,
h<ae
[ N DOCKET NO. 50-302
?ywo-S#
p CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 Iy FUEL CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS AND POWER OPERATION On' July 21, 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided in Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC l
that the NRC's final fuel cycle rule (39 FR 14188) was inadequately supported by the record insofar as it treated two aspects of the fuel cycle -- the impacts from reprocessing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management.
The decision generally complemented other aspects of the Comission's survey underlying Table S-3.
In response to the Court decisions, the Commission issued a General 1
Statement of Policy (41 FR 34707, August 16, 1976).
In that statement, the Commission announced its intention to reopen rulemaking proceedings on the environmental effects of the fuel cycle to supplement the existing record with regard to reprocessing and waste management, to detennine whether the rule should be amended, and if so, in what respect. The Commission directed the staff to prepare a well-documented supplement to WASH-1248 to establish a basis for identifying environmental impacts associated with fuel repro-cessing and waste management activities that are attributable to the licensing of a model light watar reactor (LWR). The NRC staff issued NUREG-Oll6, Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle in October 1976 for this purpose.
On November 5, 1976 the Commission issued a Supplemental General Statement of Policy regarding the licensing of nuclear power plants as w
p e.
f G
.w
.e eu.w--w%.em ewe.
m e.
,y.,,,.
_o a
UCENSE AuntOREX M M w
./
DEC 3 0197b D0tiOIREMOVt.
MTACuiMr 1 IO ME.Gidir.* s.1 or LIC& hie OPR-72 Tnis attacament (centifies certain tests whicn must ce completea to tne Comiss: M's satisfaction prior to proceecing to Operational doca 2 (starte certain analyses waich must be completea to tne Camissic.
isfaction prior to ojeracion oefono o2 percent of rateo p:)wer.
A.
Prior to proceecing to operatioaal noce 2 (startup) Florica rower Corporation snaAl corplete tne following items:
1.
W lau rost Accident u2 Purge Test - Retest for correct IAow rate.
4.
TP 160-3 anc cou 6eactor Builaing Cooling - Resolve fan calance uericiency.
Ir 100-7 neactor Cavity Cooling - Retest for acaitional data.
a.
4.
TP 2ti7-s - Cs0 Cooling functional - Flow oatancing requirea j
to resolvec 10w uelta P on original test.
)
- i.
TP 302-2 and 3 - Incore System - Resolve caole deficiencies.
f Suosequent to tne verification oy the Office of Inspection ana Enforcement of tne acceptacle canpletion of tnese items, and upon written authorization uy tne Conuission, Florica Power Corpora-tion may proceeo to Operational noce 2 (startup).
8.
Prior to proceeaing to Operational Mcde 1 (power operation) tne Co.dission snail confirma its evaluation of tne containment structurai integrity test ano florica Power Corporation snall provice any accicional inforiaation that may be needed to complete ene Evaluation of tne CoMission.
F.or?.0a feder Cor) oration saay proceeQ to Operational iioCG 1 Wower 0;eration) upon aaeno.aent of tnis license oy cae wo.r.41431on.
I V
..=..
- w. =. -
~
- -.... a 2-related to the analysis of fuel cycle environmental impacts. The Comission concluded that licensing of light water reactors may be resumed on a conditional basis using existing Table S-3 values for reprocessing and waste management, provided the revised values presented in the Comission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of October 18, 1976 were'also examined to determine the effect on the cost-benefit balance for construct-ing or operating the plant.
The staff has based this assessment of fuel cycle environmental impacts for Crystal River Unit 3 on Table S-3 and has also specifically considered the revised values for reprocessing and waste management in its determina-tion of effects on the cost-benefit balance as presented in the FES for Crystal River Unit 3.
The natural resource uses identified ir. Table S-3,'
i.e'.,
land, water, fossil fuel, and radiological and non-radiological effluents, have been evaluated for the plant fuel cycle activities. The attached Table 1 pre-sents a sumary of these potential fuel cycle environmental impacts for Crystal River Unit 3 based on Table S-3 and compares them, where approw priate, with those environmental impacts directly related to the operation of Crystal River Unit 3 as identified in the FES of May 1973.
The approximate total annual fuel cycle land use comitment associated with the operation of Crystal River Unit 3 is-60 acres. This consists of about 56 acres which are temporarily comitted.and 4 acres which are pe-'-
manently comitted. The land use comitment for fuel cycle operations over 30 years represents about two fifths the overall land requirement of 4,738 acres for operation of the power plant during its expected 30 year J
'vv
+-
w-n
^
3 electrical production lifetime. The annual-lan* equirement of 60 acres for fuel cycle coeration is comparable to that used by a small coal-fired power plant of approximately 76 MWe capacity.
The annual total water usage and thermal cutput associated with the fuel cycle for Crystal River Unit 3 are respectively about 10,000 millions of gallons and 2,980 billions of BTU's, The corresponding annual water
-use and thermal output at Crystal River Unit 3 assuming an 80% capaci'v factor are respectively 357,408 millions of gallons and 39,704 billions of BTU 's. Thus, the approximate 3% and 8% increases in water use and thermal loading respectively, for fuel cycle operations are low percentages of actual plarlt values.
f Electrical energy is required during various phases of the fuel cycle
(
process. This electrical energy is usually produced by the consumption of fossil fuel at conventional power plants.
It is estimated that approxi-mately 281,400 MW-hours of energy will be utilized annually in the fuel cycle for Crystal River Unit 3.
This represents less than 5% of the annual net electrical outpct of Crystal River Unit 3 at an 80% capacity factor.
It represents an annual consumption of about 101,850 MT of coal, along with the corresponding gaseous and particulate chemical effluents which are equivalent to those produced by a small 40 MWe coal-fired plant operating for a year.
!.iquid chemical effluents produced by the fuel cycle process constitute a potential for adverse environmental impacts but such constituents are present in dilute concentrations and need only a small amount of additional dilution by receiving bodies of water to reach levels below pemissible
,-,v 1
T
1
-=
q standards. The amount of dilution water needed for various constituents are:
amonia - 532 cfs, nitrate - 18 cfs, and fluoride - 62 cfs. Tailings solutions resulting from the fuel cycle represent an insignificant effluent to the environment.
Solids are produced principally during the milling process in the fuel cycle and are not released in significant quantities.to create an impact upon the environment.
Radioactive effluents released to the environment estimated to result from the reprocessing and waste management activities or other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table 1.
It is estimated that the overall gaseous dose comitment to the U. S. populatian from the fuel cycle for a 1000 MWe reference reactor would be approximately 250 man-rem per p
year. This is approximately.001% of +he average natural background dose 1
of approximately 21,000,000 man-rem to the U. S. population.
Based on 4
Table S-3 values the additilnal dose comitment to the U. S. population from radioactive liquid effluents due to fuel cycle operations would be approximately 260 man-rem per year for a 1000 MWe reference reactor. The fuel cycle dose comitment for Crystal River Unit 3 would be somewhat less than that given for the reference reactor, since it has a net generating capacity of 885 MWe.
The overall estimated involuntary dose comitment to the U. S.
j population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to the fuel cycle is approximately 500 man-rem per reference reactor year. This is higher than the small involuntary dose to the public from operating Crystal I
1]
Based upon a natural background dose rate of 100 mrem /yr.
r
. m River Unit 3, approximately 42 man-rem. However, the occupational dose
~
from the fuel cycle is comparable to the estimated occupational tota 1 dose commitment associated with operation and maintenance of the reactor, some 500 man-rem. The overall effect of such exposure will be extremely small and may not be detectable against natural background radiation exposure levels.
Both high and low level radioactive solid waste produced during fuel cycle operations are to be buried at licensed repositories and are not released to the environment.
In the original fuel cycle rule, the environmental impacts for fuel cycle activities necessary for the support of an LWR were summarized in Table S-3 asshown in 10 CFR 51.20 and presented in the attached Table 2.
As indicated, this environmental assassment is based on fuel cycle para-i meters set forth in Table S-3 as well as odifications to it. Table 2 presents a summary of environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle as originally contained in Table S-3 together with the modifications given in the proposed rulemaking notice of October 18,1C76, and presented in NUREG-0116.
Principal changes include those in the categories of land use, chemical effluents, iodine releases, Carbon-14 releases, and buried solids.
The following describes the differences between the impacts described in Table S-3 as it was originally promulgated in 10 CFR 50.21 and the change in certain impacts resulting from the revised assessment of reprocessing and waste management considerations in PJREG-Oll6. The land commitment reflected in NUREG-0116 is slightly larger than that presented in the original Table S-3.
G l
6 A
~
The original estimates were smaller by some 30 acres per reference reactor year in temporarily committed land and about 3 acres per year in perma-nently cannitted land for waste disposal. This does not constitute a significant change.
Hydrogen chloride has beer. included in NUREG-Oll6 as a gaseous chemical' effluent, resulting from incineration of plastics in the waste management systems. The amount is a small fraction of other acid gas effluents from the fuel cycle discussed in both Table S-3 and NUREG-0116.
No significant impact is attributable to the change.
~
There have been increases in NUREG-0116 in the estimated Carbon-14, Iodine and Tritium release rates. However, the principal addition in radioactive gaseous effluents is the dose estimate of 110 man-rem for the release of Carbon-14. These additional releases will add some 150 man-rem to the gaseous U. S. dose cannitment of 250 man-rem as determined with Table S-3.
The total gaseous and liquid involuntary dose cannitment to the U. S. population utilizing revised source term data presented in NUREG-Oll6 is comparable to the approximate 500 man-rem dose evaluated with Table S-3.
The substitution of a " throw away" cycle would increase the dose commitment accumulated Eto tne year 2000 for the reprocessing and waste management portions of the fuel cycle.
This is due principally to increased i
occupational exposure during fuel storage. These effects amount to some J
,m
~ -
. q
~
12,000 man-rem total to the year 2000 and would have only a small effect on the overall population dose commitment.2 There is an increase to the transportation dose commitment presented in Table S-3.
The revised transportation dose value of some 2.5 man-rem is based upon refined calculational assumptions and modeling techniques.
This dose. is not considered significant in comparison to the natural back-ground dose.
There has been an increase in the quantity of buried radioactive waste material (both high level and transuranic). These wastes are placed in the geosphere and are not released to the biosphere and no radiological environmental impact is expected from such disposal. Table S-3 did not include either the disposal of high level or transuranic wastes nor low-leyc1 wastes from reactors which were buried.
In accordance with the Comission's directive contained in the Supplemental General State of Policy, the staf f has also assessed as set forth above, the effect of using the revised chemical processing and waste storage values set forth in the Commission's Notice of Proposed j
Rulc 1aking of October 18, 1976, on the cost-benefit balance for the Crystal i
River Unit 3 facility. These changes, as discussed above, are so small that there is no significant change in impact from that associated with the effects presented in Table S-3 and, accordingly, the use of the revised values would not tilt the cost-benefit balance against issuance of the license.
2As a result of increased requirements for new source material due to.a
" throw away" cycle, estimated releases from mining and milling would be increased. This, in turn, would increase the estimated dose comitment for the total fuel cycle by some 600 man-rem per reference reactor year.
Although this is larger than the dose commitment due to other elements of the fuel cycle, it is still small compared to the natural background V
exposure level of some 21,000,000 man-rem per year.
4
. _:__.. _ c
'. The staff has reviewed the environmental impacts as presented in the
'FES and has found them to be valid. The fuel cycle effects presented in Table S-3 as discussed above are sufficiently small so that, when they are superimposed upon the other environmental impacts assessed with respect to operation of the reactor, the changes in the overall environ-mental impact from operation of the plant are not substantial. After considering the impacts attributable to operation of Crystal River Unit 3, the staff has concluded that the overall cost-benefit balance previously developed in the Crystal River Unit 3 FES remains unaltered and, therefore, on balance, the full power operating license should be granted.
(.
i
.._< 2 - ~
~
...,o 7
Table 1 Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts vs.
Plant Operating Environmental Impacts Fuel Cycle Impacts Fuel Cycle Impacts Plant Operating Natural Resource Use per AFRa (WASH-1248 per Year for Impacts per Table S-3) the Plant Year Land (Acres)
Temporarily Committed 63 56 4668)*
Undisturbed Area 45 40 2528)*
Disturbed Area 18 16 2140)*
Permanently Committed 4.6 4.1 70)*
Overburden Moved 2.7 2.4 (millions of MT)
Water (millions of gal.)
Discharged to air 156 138 Discharged to water bodies 11,040 9,770 357,408 Discharged to ground 123 109 Total Water 11,319 10,017 357,408 Fossil Fuel Electrical energy 317 281 (thousand MW-hr.)
Equivalent coal (thousand MT) 115 102 Natural Gas (million scf) 92 81 Effluents
]
Chemical (MT)
Gases (MT)
S0.
4,400 3,894 x
N0 -
1,177 1,042 x
Hydrocarbons 13.5 11.9 C0 28.7 25.4 Particulata
.1,156 1,023
(]
Other Gases F-0.64
. HC1
- 0ver Plant.0perating Lifetime i
-n-_.
q Table 1_(Continued)-
Fuel Cycle Impacts Fuel: Cycle Impacts Plant Operating Natural Resource Use per AFRa (WASH-1248 per Year for Impacts per Table S-3) the Plant Year Effluents (Cont'd.)
Liquids S0";
10.3 9.1 26.7 23.6 NO3 Fluoride 12.9 11.4 Ca++
5.4 4.8 Cl-8.6 7.6 NA+
16.9 15.0 NH 11.5 10.2 3
Tailings Solutions (thousands) 240 212 Fe 0.4 0.35 Solids 91,000 80,535 Radiological (curies)
Gases (including entrainment)
Approx. total of 3,050 curies /yr of Rn-222 74.5 65.9 Noble Gases &
Ra-226 0.02 0.02 Halogens Th-230 0.02 0.02 Uranium 0.032 0.028 Tritium (thousands) 16.7 14.8 0.7
~
Kr-85 (thousands) 350 I-129 0.0024 0.0021 I-131 0.024 0.021 0.125 Fission Products 1.0 0.86 Transuranics 0.004 0.0035 C-14 Liquids Approx. total of 5 Ci/yr excluding Uranium & Daughters 2.1 1.6 Tritium Fission &
Activation Products Ra-226 0.0034 0.003 Th-230 0.0015 0.0013 Th-234 0.01 0.01 Tritium (thousands) 2.5 2.2 1
Ru-106 0.15 0.13
(.
Table 1 (Continued)
Fuel Cycle Impacts Fuel Cycle Impacts Plant Operating Natural Resource Use per AFRa (WASH-1248 per Year for Impacts per Table S-3) the Plant Year Effluents (Cont'd)
Radiological (curies)'(Cont'd)
Solids (buried onsite)b Other than high level (shallow) 601 532 TRU & HLW (deep)
Thermal (billions of Btu) 3,36 2,974 39,704 Transportation (man-rems)
Exposure of workers and general public 0.334 0.296 2.52
\\
f 1
aAFR is an annual fuel requirement which is equivalent to operating a 1000 MWe reactor at 80% of its maximum capacity for one year.
bFuel cycle impacts normalized to 885 MWe output of Crystal River Unit 3.
cNot released to the environment.
/
J
Table 2.
O Summary _of Environmental Considerations For Uranium Fuel Cycle Normalized to a
Model LWR Reference Reactor Year Natural Resource Use Total WASH-1248u NUREG-0116 c.
1.and (Acres)
Temporarily Comitted 63' 94 73 Undisturbed Area 45-22 Disturbed Area 18 Permanently Comitted 4.6 7.1
~
Overburden Moved 2.7.
2.8 (millionsofMT)
Water (millions of gal.)
'. ;w:v... :..
.a r.
"'FC '
Discharged to air 156
~ 159 Discharged to water bodies 11,040 111,090-Discharged to ground.
123.
g,'g;.-s.,-; i,.-
124..fn 11,373
~
Total Water 11,319
( Fossil Fuel Electrical energy 317 321 (thousandMW-hr.)
Equivalent coal (thousand MT) 115 117-124 Natural Gas (million scf) 92 Effluents Chemical (MT)
Gases (MT)
~
S0 -
4,400 4,400 x
N0 1,177
_1,190 x
l'4 Hydrocarbons 13.5 CO 28.7 -
29.6 Particulates 1,156 1,154 Other Gases 0.72 0.67 F~
0.14 hcl
c 4
o '\\?+t$1'9 ~ 9
////p d
l\\%////
$ '%k/
/g,\\\\'YN
\\
4&
MY
/4 V,,s # g y 4,,,,,NE l
,3 V
IMAGE EVALUATION N
TEST TARGET (MT-3) l 1.0 l$ m lLu
- 5. 58. EE i
~
i.i s m lli!E
"~
I.8 l
l.25 1.4 1.6 6"
=
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART y#
%p:@.
5 y,,
4
k
'e
?
p
'k'$f
$thf*
k IMAGE EVALUATION NNNN TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 gm nu lll9O!E l
l,l lllM I
l.8 1.25 IA 1.6 I
4 gn y
ML:P.'KXWY RESOLUTION TESY CH ART 4%
+4 4,4/ Ar//I#
- )#>a4 s m+
4 o
+
e, Table 2(Contin'ed) u m
natural Resource Use Total WASH-1248 NUREG-Oll6 Effluents (Cont'd.)
Liquids S0" 10.3 9.9 4
26.7 25.8 NO-3 Fluoride 12.9 12.9 Ca*
5.4
~ '
5.4 Cl-8.6 8.5
'16.9
'd' - J' - 12.1 *- '
NA+
NH 11.5 10.0 3
Tailings Solutions (thousands)
.240 240 ys
..x.
O4
.~.W'QQ;:.;, 0. 4 k
(
Solids 91,000 91,000 Radiological (curies)
Gases (including entrainment)
Rn-222 74.5 74.5 Ra-226 0.02 0.02 Th-230 0.02 0.02 Uranium 0.032.
0.034 Tritium (thousands) 16.7 18.1 Kr-85 (thousands) 350 400 I-129 0.0024 1.3 I-131 0.024 0.83 Fission Products 1.0 0.021 Transuranics 0.004 0.024 24 C-14,
Liquids Uranium & Daughters 2.1 2.1 5.9E-6 Fission & Activation Products Ra-226 0.0034 0.0034 Th-230 0.0015
'0.0015 Th-234 0.01 0.01
^
k ~'
Tritium (thousands) 2.5 Ru-106
-0.15
+
~
Table 2 (Continued)
- s...
Natural Resource Usc Total WASH-1248 NUREG-0016 Effluents (Cont'd)
Radiological curies)_(Cont'd)
Solids (buriedonsit'e)d bther than high level (shallow) 601 5,300 TRU & HLW (deep) 1.lE+3 Thermal (billions of Btu) 3,360 3,462 Transportation (man-rems)
Exposure of workers and general public 0.334
' ~~
- 2.46
.. ; ;k :. :-[f.yj jyq;p.V:.
- ~
~
aReference Reactor Year (RRY) is a 1000 MWe reat: tor operating at 80% of its
~
~'
maximum capacity for one year.
An RRY is equivalent to an Annual Fuel Requirement as used in WASH-1248 dated April 1974.
bTable S-3 values.
c,2 vised Table S-3 values.
a dHot released to the environment.
SOURCES:
Environmental Supply of the Reprocessing and Naste hanagement Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-Oll6, October 1976.
Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH'-1248, April 1974.
d i.
(
.