ML19338E003
| ML19338E003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1980 |
| From: | Spaeth M SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| To: | Shum E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| 16878, NUDOCS 8009240312 | |
| Download: ML19338E003 (12) | |
Text
A F
7b M3 f,-m 7
+
y
[9 ocCKETO T
E USNRC f-f D
AUG 01 1980 > g-tr July 21, 1980 w
c, M^llSECifCTI DQCKE CLER.4
//
S
\\@
3 Dr. E.Y. Shum Office of Nuclear Material Safety T9
[=
r and Safeguards o
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Q}
9 Washington, D.C.
20555 3
I E
G u
a Subj ect:
Environmental Impact Assessment for General ElMctf*ic Nuclear Facility Modifications, Wilmington, North Caro 6na
References:
(1) General Electric Amendment N-2 to License SNM-1097, Docket Number 70-1113, 21 December 1979.
(2) General Electric Amendment N-4/S-15 to License SNM-109,7 Docket Number 70-1113, 27 December 1979, (3) Environmental Report, General Electric Nuclear Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina, NED0-20l97, January 1974.
Dear Dr. Shum:
Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) is to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for two modifications proposed by General El ectric for the fuel fabrication pl ant in Wilmington, North Carolina.
The first of these modifications is the addition of two process lines which would increase the plant UF-to UO conversion capaci ty by about 407..
The second is the c8nstructi$n of a waste incinerator of modern design to replace the incinerator facility previously approved by NRC on May 14, 1971. We propose to prepare a single EIA document for the two plant modi fications.
The detail ed environmental changes associated with the plant modifications will be clearly specified such that the environmental effects of each of the modifications can be assessed separately.
General El ectric has applied for authorization to expand the conversion facility in Reference 1 and to replace the incinerator facility in Reference 2.
Each of these referenced applications was supported by information contained in an appropriate appendix.
M b bN l
8009240 3il 3
Science Applications, inC. 7946 Ivanhoe Av e, P.O. Box b4. La N'a b 92038,914) 454-3811 Other SAI Othces: Albuquerque, Ann Arbor, Arlington, Affanta, So, ton.CNcago. Huntsvi.
eles, McLean. Palo Alto. San Otego. Sunnyvale, and Tucson.
Dr. E.Y. Shum July 21,1980 Page 2 I
We have reviewed the referenced Amendments submitted by General Electric in detail, and have found several areas that require further
~
cl ari fication.
The underlying da ta concerning the environmental impacts for the Wilmington Plant were contained in Reference 3.
Since this document was prepared, several of the criteria and environmental concerns necessary to support an environmental report have been altered, and consequently we have found that addi tional information is necessary.
We have. prepared questions for your office to forward to General Electric, Wilmington. The first series of 20 questions refer to the conversion facility amendment M-2 and Attachment 1.
These questions are noted as 1.1 to 1.20 in Enclosure 1.
The second series of 10 questions refer to the incinerator f acili ty N 4/S-15 and i ts attac hment. These questions are noted as 2.1 to 2.10 in Enclosure 2.
The third series of 13 questions refer to document NED0-20197, January,1974 and are designated 3.1 to 3.13 in Enclosure 3.
In each series of questions, the section and the page number are given for reference. You, of course, may elect to edit these questions before submitting them to General Electric.
As discussed on July 11, 1980 and confirmed with you on July 15, 1980, Mr.. S.E. Donel son and myself will visit the General Electric Wilmington Plant August 11 and 12,1980.
The objective of the visit will be to gain additional insight into planned pl ant modifications and to obtain first hand knowledge of the plant operations that will assist us in preparing the EIA. We al so tentatively plan to visit the regional offices of the EPA, and the office of the North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources as these are the primary Agencies with responsibilities for the environmental effects that may arise from the Wilmington Plant operations. Al though several-other i
agencies are and may become concerned with the environment in the i
j
Dr. E.Y. Shum July 21,.1980 Page 3.
s plant area relative to these plant modifications, we do not feel it i s - necessa ry to vi si t these agencies in person.
We may request i nformation from additional agencies as the work preceeds either by letter or by telephone.
If thi s should become necessary, we will keep both you and G.E. informed prior to any contacts.
Sincerely,
k
//
M.E. Spaeth Principal Investigator MES/idd-cc:
S.E. Donel son i
i R.W. Starostecki, SAI McLean
Enclosures:
(1) Questions on Conversion Plant Expansion (Reference 1)
(2) Questions on Incinerator Replacement (Reference 2)
(3) Questions on Environ,r. ental Report (Reference 3) i I.
)
L
)
ENCLOSURE 1 QUESTIONS ON CONVERSION PLANT EXPANSION (Reference 1) s 1.1 AMEN 0 MENT LETTER, PAGE 1 To make a statement of negative declaration in the EIA, the proposed' action must be necessary and no other action more attractive.
The letter states that the addition "would increase the conversion capacity by 40%".
In NEDO-20197 (page 4-42), it is stated that the "Wilmington plant can supply the annual feed requirements for more than a hundred 1000/MWe light-water reac tors".
Can an additional statement be provided that clearly demonstrates the present need for the plant expansion?
1.2 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGES 2 AND 3 In NRC NUREG-1.109 it is stated that the radiological effects of plant operations be assessed for the population residing in an area within a 50 mile radius of the plant. Can a population distribution be provided for thi s area? Can the analysis presented in NE00-20917 for the population within a 5 mile radius (page 4-2-1) be extended to the population within a 50 mile radius?
1.3 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGES 2 AND 3 Can the population figures for the plant environs be updated to the late 1970's (or 1980) and expected growth extended to 1985-1990?
1.4 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 12 It is mentioned that a cooling tower and 200-ton ' water chiller will be installed.. Will these units occupy any of the previous open land on the si te or will they be located in areas in which construction has already occurred?
~
t l
1.6 ATTACHMEllT 1, PAGE 13 Hydrogen for the conversion reactor and the defluorinator is supplied from a dissociated amonia (DA) system. Where is this unit located and what provisions are made t'o avoid hydrogen fires or explosions in the production unit and the hydrogen distribution system?
1 1.6 ATTACHME!!T 1, PAGE 16 What provisions are made to ensure that hydrogen cannot pass through.
the convertor reactor, particularly under upset conditions?
1.7 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 16 and UO F What is the fate of the small amount (0.001".) of the U 038 22 powders that pass through the primary filter?
1.8 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGES 16 AND 17 Is the UF introduced to the conversion reactor ccmpletely reacted 6
under upset conditions? Is uranium carried on occasion into the vacuum system scrubber?
1.9 ATTACHMENT, PAGES 16 AND 17 What provisions are made to ensure that unreacted hydrogen from dissociated ammonia is not discharged to the offgas from the defluorinator?
l'.10 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 17 Are the gas streams from the defluorinator, the primary fil ter and the vacuum system combined into a single stream?
4 t
- i
v s-
- 1. 7.1 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGES 13, 16, 17 Can a block flow diagram showing the flow of uranium and other che.1(c al reac tants be provided? A diagram would be of great benefit in clarifying the routing of process streams.
1.12
. ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 18 The enrichment stated in Section 3.3.1 is phrased awkwardly.
Can this statement be clarified?
1.13 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 24 The statement that " the dry conversion process does offer an environmental advantage due to the lower volume of liquid wastes generated per unit weight of uranium hexafluoride converted" does not seem to be substantiated by the data given in the table in Section 6.5.
The proj ected volume in the tabl e is 50% greater than the initial volume (1.8 MGPO vs 1.2 MGPO) and the pl ant throughput increase is given as 40%.
Can thi s be clarified?
1.14 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 27 Is the data given in the table in Section 6.5 for fluoride and nitrogen correct? With the plant throughput increased by 40%, why are the releases of fluorides increased by a factor of 2.7 and nitrogen releases by a
- factor of two?
1.15 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGES 29 and 30 In relation to the data given in Section 5.7, with a 50% increase in pl ant releases to the river, it would be expected that the concentrations of copper, nickel and chremium, would be affected to some degree as the-total
. quanti ties of these materials is expected to remain constant.
Can this point be clarified?
's/-
i 1.16 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGES 29 AND 30 Are the "present" values given in the table in Section 6.7 based on the measurements made for these contaminants?
s 1.17 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 30 What are the.' units for the activi ty concentration at the site boundary for discharges to the atmosphere?
1.18 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 31 The pH of the discharge is apparently corrected frca a pH greater than 10 to a pH in the 6-9 range. What is the agent used for pH adjustment and what is its concentration (Table, Section 6.7) when it enters the river?
1.19 ATTACHMENT 1, PAGE 32 Calculations have been made regarding the radiation exposure of an infant living in the vicini ty of the facil i ty.
Can the details of the calculational methods used and the assumptions made for the exposure estimates be provided?
1.20 GENERAL Will the addition to the conversion facilities cause any change in the number of. personnel at the Wilmington plant?
N N. 9 O E JEI-
v ENCLOSURE 2 QUESTIONS OM INCINERATCR REPLACEME:iT (Reference 2) 2.1 ATTACHMENT, PAGE 1 Over what period is the quantity of ccmbustible waste generated?
2.2 ATTACHMENT, PAGES 1 AND 2 The dimensions for the wastes boxes are given as 4 x 4 x 4 ft., or 64 cubic feet. The volume of a box is given in the table as 50 cubic feet. Which value is correct?
2.3
..iMENT, PAGE 2, ITEM 8 The quantity of boxes indicated to have been accumulated in one year is 600.
The production data on page 1 is based on 400 boxes.
Can this point be clarified?
2.4 ATTACHMENT, PAGE 8 It is stated in Section 3.1 that "no organics" will be incinerated, however " paper, wood, plastics" are organics. Can this point be clarified?
2.5 ATTACHMENT, PAGE 8 AND FIGURE 3 The process flow diagram shows a heat recovery unit in the offgas stream, however, no mention of this unit is made in the process description on page 8.
Can this point be clarified?
m
2.6 ATTACHMENT, FIGURE 3 There are no flame sensors or flame control devices for the incinerator or the afterburner indicated on the diagram. What provisions are made to insure that unburned natural gas or propane will not enter the remainder of the system?
2.7 ATTACHMENT, PAGE 8 i
It is stated in Section 3.2 that "The scrubbing efficiency will be 99.5% of the entering HC1, NH F and HNO ".
Wi th the wide variability in 4
3 contaminants in "as is" waste (page 2), how can this criteria be satisfied?
2.8 ATTACHMENT, PAGE 8 It is stated in Section 3.2 that " stack emissions level will be continuously monitored to measure activity levels in the gaseous e ffl uent".
How will the levels of other contaminants, F, C1, and N0 in the of fgas stream x
be determined?
2.9 ATTACHMENT, PAGE 14 Are the air emission quantities given in Section 6.2 to be added to those given on page 28 of Attachment 1 for the Wilmington plant?
2.10 GENERAL Will_ the operation of the incinerator cause any change in the staffing levels for the Wilmington plant?
l
y ENCLOSURE 3 QUESTIONS Ott ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (Reference 3) s NOTE: These questions arise primarily because of the changes, in environmental concerns that have occurred and by the necessity to update the-data since the report was prepared in 1974.
l 3.1 PAGE l-23 Will the new incinerator stack be visible from off-site locations?
l l
3.2 PAGE 1-24, TABLE 1-2 Have the energy requirements differed from che projecticas for years 1973 - 19787 3.3 PAGES 1-24 AND l-25 Will -the expansion of the conversion facility and the replacement of the incinerator'cause a change in energy or water requi rements per unit of production?
l 3.4 PAGE 1-25 Has the plant continued to operate in a safe manner since 1974?
3.5 PAGE 2-1 (1st Paragraph)
Has there been any significant change in the land use patterns in the region around the site since 1974?
m--
a w& 4m 42 e
s
m 3.6-PAGE 2-17 Have there been any significant changes in the North Car 311na Water Quality Standards or in the designation for the Northeast Cape Fear R. er since 1974?
s 3.7 PAGE 2-17 Have there bee'n any significant changes in the EPA requirements' or standards that. may affect the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permit NC 0001228?
3.8 PAGE 4-3 Ground water samples are taken from the vicini ty of the calcium fluoride pits on a periodic basis.
Do the analytical results continue to show no increase in fluoride?
l l
1 3.9 PAGE 4-5 AND TABLES 4-1 AND 4-2 Will the planned modifications to the conversion process or the incinerator cause any significant changes in the storage quanti ties or locations of chemicals used on-site?
3.10 PAGE 4-5 AND TABLE.4-3 Are the quantities of contaminants listed in Table 4-3 based on measured or calculated values?
3.11 PAGE 4-40 AND TABLE 4-41 Will the planned -modifications to the conversion process or the incinerator cause any significant changes in the resource ccmmitments listed in
' Table 4-25?
e
3.12 PAGE 5-16 The analysis of the amount of radioactivity during a criticali ty 18 excursion was based on 10 fissions with the accident lasting one second.
The regulatory position as given in NUREG 3.34 is that an excursion is assumed to occ'Jr in a vented vessel and multiple excursions occur with bursts lasting 0.5 seconds at intervals of 10 minutes for a period of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
A total of 1 x 1019' fissions occur during the excu,.lons. Can the criticality analysis 7
given on pages 5-16 to 5-18 be extended to cover the conditions set fo rth. in.
NUREG 3.34?
3.13 PAGE 6-3 AND TA3LE 6-1 Can the information given in Table 5-1 be extended to include the latest available data on water impurities?
-e i
r 1
.