ML19331A433
| ML19331A433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1971 |
| From: | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A422 | List: |
| References | |
| EPA-DTA-71-7, NUDOCS 8007160977 | |
| Download: ML19331A433 (11) | |
Text
.
T.PA/ DTA 7T;7^~
y c.1t'hti NUM14 n PROD. & UllL f.AC. Nf' OJ'le d 48
^
1
.. ~..,
3.
x
% /.
-r
\\(*[f I..
s I. '
,/..... '.:._.
ENVIRO:OIE'.TE IMPACT REVII'.!
MIDIR!D PL/JC UNITS 1 /J:D 2 Q
9 4
d
-gattETED gs t#W 19 gg7g,
42 c
h
=*
0$$onw#
trr. 5
/
yacs Q)fD 4
ta Coordinated By Radiation Office ENVIROIC4E:EAL PROTECTION AGEl:CY 5600 Fisher's Lane Rockville, Maryland 20352 April 1971 2325 8007100fk
/
y-
i
^
'i T
PREFACE This report is one of a series designed to su..r.urize the results of evaluations by the Environmental Protection 'A;cncy of the environmental effects of nucicar facilitics.
The evaluation is. based on a detailed technical review cif design infor:ation for the facility as well as the
" Draft Detailed Statencnt on Environmental Considerocions" sub:titcod -
by the Atomic Energy Cc:xnission pursuant to the requi.re: tents of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The reviews are coordinated a
with the operrtir3 offices of the Environnent al Protecticn A;;cncy by the Division of Technology Assessment, Radiation Office.
The Water Quality Office has the major role in developing comments on thermal effcets and general water quality; co:rr. tents by other offices are incivded as approprJ.ar.c.for specific probleu creas.
As part of this review process, several technical docu: rents have bcon developed
'and referenced to support the discussion presented.
The evaluation presented in this report is directly responsive to the requirements placed on Federal agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act and as such is intended to state the position of the Environ-mental Protection Agency on the environmental effects of carrying out the various nucicar activities.
The report is als.c intended te previde information to the State involved for its use in developing und conducting environmental programs that may be related to'the parti 6ular nuclear activity.
b 4
,c
.,y
m v
9 INIT.0DUCTIO:: A::D CO:NL1'SIONS
.This report summarizes an evaluation of the potential environmental
. cffects of the Midland ple:it Units 1 and 2, proposed for construc-tion near Midland, Micifigan.
The plant will he located on the south shore of the Tittabawassce River and will utiliac a large pond for condenser cooling water. A distinguish,ing feature of the faci,11ty is that it is the first plant designed to supply process secan for an industry. About 25 percent (4,050,000 Jb/hr) of the plant's steam encrc,y will be supplied to the Ibu Chemical Conpany for manufacturing cheui.cals and plastics at ir.s Midland Plant.
The secan for both i
units will be produced by a pressurined water.rcactor (PRR) operating at 2,552 MNt or 650 MWe.
Both units 1 and 2 vill be supplied.
by the Ucstingl ouse Elcetric' Corporatio:i; co:nercial service is scheduled for November,1974 and November,1975, respectively.
This evaluation is baced on design information(
and an Environmental Report (
provided by the Consumers Power Company in support of an application for a construction permit and the Atomic Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement. (
This review considered the site suitability, the adequacy of waste treatncnt, the potential radiological impact on the environment, the proposed environme;i ol survnillanen t
program,the documented cecrgency planning activitics, the radiation probicms present ed by the furnishing of process. steam from the plant to the Daw Chemical Co::pany's Hidland operations and water quality effects.
The principal conclusions are:
9 y
,w ee.
~ -
s
- 1) The facility can 'bc operated well within the rer,ulations for un-re::trict ed areas specified in 10CR20, within the guidance of the Federal Radiation Council, cad within applicable water quality standards.
- 2) Tac r.ain factor in, siting the Midland plant appears to be the proxic:ity of the Daw Chemical Company, slant which will utilize process steam produced by the nuc1 car generators.
There appear to be no c:ajor compromises rude on the site to acccmplish this featurt.;
therefore, the site is concluded to be suitable for t!.e facility as planned.
3)
Since the c;)crator has availabic several options for treating both liquid and gascous vastes, he should routinely use the processing route which will result in the lowest prceticable effluent Icvel.
In this context it is suggested that gaseous vastes not be discharged until sufficicat decay has occured for the mixture to be essentially krypton-85 (abnut 957.), a criterion that can ba net by a holdup tinae of approximately 60 days.
4)
Plant operating procedures concerning radioactivity levels in process steam and the cionitoring systems to be used are not sufficiently cociplete at this stage to permit evaluation of potential hazards.
A more 'dctailed operational plan which describes the :aonitoring
~
sys t er.: should I;e developed and included in the final environmental statement.
e e
a e9
l n.-
5)
In order to evaluate the potential environ:.,cntal impact of radio-active wasce discharges frot the Midland Plant, the Atorcic Energy Corce.:is<. ion should include the results of a population do::c assessre:nt ic.r the f.:eili ty in Its Detailed Environmen:.a1 State.nent.
- 6) The proposed environr.cntal surveillance program is ger.crally adequate for assessment of environmental and public health effects from radioactive _ cffluents that will occur as a result of operating the facility.
- 7) Emergency planning for the facility is incor.plete at this stage of the application.
D:. tailed plans need to be developed that c1carly sho.i relation:ihips between the operator and the Michigan Department of 1!calth for all non-routine releases of radioactivity to the environment.
8)
If the conclusions presented in this report are given proper consideration, other alternate actions which would redr_-..nc 1cve u of radioactive effluents do not appear to be necessary since the facility can, in our judgment, be constructed and operated without a
signi,fi cant radiological impact on the environment or the public.
Mguids:
The liquid waste treatcient systen proposed,for the !!idl' nd s
a
} has the capability to reduce disch5rges of radioactivity Plant
.in,t he liquid vaste to the lowest level practicabic.
llowever, the attaint. tent of this objective is directly dependent on the, selection
.~.
n of the specific flovpath through the several availabic t reatment sys tcas. The flowpach routinely used should be the one which'will
-insure that the effluent radioactivity is at the icwest practicable icvel'.
In order to more fully ascertain the water quality effects of the operation of the Mid1'and Plant, it is requested that additional informa-tion be supplied on the impact of the thermal and chemical discharges on the fish population of the Titabawassee River.
Further details are also requested on the amount and types of chemical wastes, other than sulfates, which will be discharges into the river, and on the concentra-tion of dissolved solids in the blowdown wastes discharged from the coolin ; pond, especially those discharges following periods of low river flow.
The ;;ascous waste treatment system described by the applicant (12
Gases:
has available for usa four waste-gas decay tanks.
The description of this sytem includes a statement to the effect that it is possibic to compress the waste gas and store the compressed gas in these tanks to allow for radioactive decay. No mention is rode in the system description, however, of the criteria governing the use of these tanks other than that they can be used i f the activity of the gas is e
too high for immediate dischargo. The applicant states that, under expceted operating conditions, the vaste gas will i>c discharged directly, af ter filtration, from the vaste gas surge tanks.
In our judgment, these discharges should be reduced to as low a level as practicable since they contain nobic gases such as xenon which produce whole body'dosos.
Most holdup periods achievabic with current technology
}
would not appreciably reduce the quantitics of Kr; however, the resulting beta radiation doses from t.he s::all quantities expected would, in our opinica, be negligibic.
It would be prudent to reduce gascous discharges to a point that essentially all the of f-site doses would.
65 be fro::
Si M
aM1
&o rm fu creating gaseous vastes of varying cc:. positions and amounts, we would propose as a general criterion that radioactive noble gascu be dis-charged only uten the total mixture is essentially Kr (about 95%).
We Iccl that a determination should bc :cade of the operat.ing specifica-tions that meet this general criterion and such a requircrent should be placed on the discharge of radioactive gaseous. waste from the Midland Plant.
If the reduction ~is to be achieved by gaseous vaste holdup alone, a holdup time of about 60 days, would norm 11y satisfy this criterion for typical estimates of Pkt fission product p roduc tion.
PROCESS STEAM SYSTDI Most of the steam delivered to the adjacent Daw Chemical Cor.pany plant will be condensed and returned as heated feeduat er af ter use in various chemical processes.
The steam not condensed will be replaced with treated makeup water.
A tertiary water cyt le with a heat exchanger between the secondary and tertiary systems is dit: cussed in Amendments 15-19 of the PSAR This system is designed to prevent f
any radionuclides found in the sceondary systera due to prir.ury to seconda ry 1cak age fror.: being transport ed to the luw plant. The app;icant plans to use an on-1inc continuous garxt: r.:onitor that will
~
r
r, alarm in the control. room if the Icvel of radioactivity exceeds 3 x 10 uC1/ce, in the process secam line to the Dow plant.
There will also be a continuous :aonitor on the secondary steam system.
These r:onitors are to help insure that radioactivity is not released to Dew at concentrations in the seca n sir.nificantly 1;rcater t!.an the background beta-gamma levcis of Lake Huron water.
There is no indication as to whether or not the above course of action is initiated automatically, nor how long it will take to switch fron one heat exchanger to the other, nor how rnuch radioactivity could possible enter the tertiary system during this time period.
More information relating to this monitoring system is needed to permit a full cvaluation of this operation.
EIN1RO:.0! ENTAL IMPACT In our opinion, the most significant radiological effect due to the operation of the Midland Plant will be the population dose which will An estimate of the radiation doses to the population during occur.
normal operation of the plant is essentini for evaluating the potential radiological effcets on the population.
f
- A population dose assessment should be inc Juded for revicu which includes calculations of porcatial total doses. fro.a all critical pathways for 1) individuals residing in the plant's immediate environs; and 2) the exposed population within 50 miles of the plant expressed as nan-rem /yr, taking into consider.ktion environuental and denographic
m m,
c factors.
The resul ts of such an annet.cn ent shool.1 lie. :prie.w.1 in t he
s context of the recomandaticn of the rederal p.idiction Caturell that.
the benefit expecto:1 should out.eigh the risk t. hat rmst be assumed.
The crircricn that thould be satisfied is that the ri.sh is so low that it is obvious the benefit far outweighs it.
Therefore, a dose assesscent should be presanted and cnalyr.ed in this conte::: by the Atomic Energy Cc= mission in its Envirbn:aental Statement for the Midland Plant.
ENVIRO:DR.MTAL SURVEILLA' ICE PROGPJ3 The applicant's enviruncental surveillance pro: ra:a is ne'wrally of sufficient scope to allow an adequate evaluation of the plant's environ:.icata) ircpac t..
One addit.ional iten which should be included, however, is a detailr.d plan for the sampling of non-aquatic foodstuf fs.
Uc believe that the applicant should document the extent t o which he, or some other Federal or State agency, will sampic such itecis as milk and the various crops grown f.n the area.
In addition, uc suggest that the applicant indicate the degree to which he plans to coordinate his propor:cd environmental surveillance programs ulth that of the lif ehigan Department of !!calth.
Such coordination would be helpful,to the Department in gaining ruximum officiency from its surve).tiance of the effects of the operation of the facility on the environment.
9 I
e
e s,
s D.T.RGC*CY PU.'.".;1:;G The emergency planning infor. ation presented by ti e applicant in the PSAR appears to be qu.ite en:.prehennive with rerpcet Lo the
~
coordination vith the 1:mi Chemical Ccapany and the local-police and
~
civil defense authoritics.
The State Department of llealt.h has the renponsibility for eval ating off-site conditions and directing all actions to protect the public in the event of non-routine relcases of radioactivity. The arrangement bett:ct n the company and the StA'te Departt.mnt of 1!ealth h:s not been clearly delinent ed in regard to this aspect of :.hc caergency plad.
0 g.
I 4
m
,v c
y
i a..
-m i
i REFEiE:CES 1.
>!idland Plant--Units 1 and 2,"Prelirdntry Eafety Analysis Report
- vitit ic endrent s.,"
1.oe'.:ct No::. 50-3'J' an.1 ~,0-320, Public Docur. cut. Roont, U.S. Atomic Energy Corr.i.;sion, b'ashin're n, !).C., January 13, 1969.
1:idland Plant--Units.1 cnri 2', "Applic..nt - Envfron entc1 Report, 2.Cont:truction Permit Stage, " Ibid., July. !,,
1970.
1 3.
U.S. Atoalc Enert.y Cor.niscion. " Draft Lttaile! Secteacnr of the Environe.c.ntal' Consideration:, by the Divicica of Reactor Licent, int, U.S. Atonic Encr;y Cor.:ission, kulated to the Pro;,osed Conctru'etion of the >!!diand Plant Uni:s 1 cad 2 by the Cansu:.crr, Po.eer Co pany,
~
Docket I;ns. 50-329 cnd 50-330."
AEC Public bacument Koon, February 5, 1971.
e m
9.
O e
g f
O h
d o
e.
e h
- a S -
<