ML19343B765

Amend 2 to Environ Rept

ML19343B765
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/22/1980
From:	TEXAS UTILITIES CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19343B764	List: ML19343B763 ML19343B765
References
ENVR-801222, NUDOCS 8012300344
Download: ML19343B765 (16)

Text

--

CPSES/ER (0'S)

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

'O ENvzRONmNTit REe0aT OeERATINc 'ICeNSE STacE DECEMBER 1980 AMENDMENT

~ INSTRUCTION SHEET Please remove the old sheets and insert the new sheets.

Remove Insert Front /Back Front /Back CHAPTER 3 T3.6-1 T3.6-1 CHAPTER 5 5.8-3/4 '5.8-3/4 '

O CHAPTER 6 6.2-1/2 6.2-1/2 6.2-3/4 6.2-3/4

CHAPTER 8 i

i i T8.1-21 (Sheet 1 of 2) T8.1-21(Sheet 1 of 2) 8.2-3/4 8.2-3/4 l QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

'Q/R-68a Q/R-68b t Q/R-68c ,

Q/R-70 Q/R-70

<-n ~ -

Q/R-70a {

_V

! A2-1 TU12300Mf

i CPSES/ER (OLS) l TABLE 3.6-1

. ([)

CHEMICALS CONSUMPTION DURING i

CPSES OPERATION - UNITS 1 AND 2 1-1 i

Average-Chemical- (lb/ day)

Sulfuric acid - 630 j Sodium hydroxide 270 Morpholine 160 Hydrazine -16 Boric acid Variable Potassium chromate 0.062 Chlorine, circulating water 1650 Chlorine, service water 1400 Sodium hypochlorite 50 Sodium sulfite 8*

j_ Lithium hydroxide - ' Va riabl e 1

Sodium hexametaphosphate (Reverse osmosis system) 10 Polymer (Waterclarifier) 7 Calgon corrosior, inhibitor - CS (72% sodium ~nitr' te, 28% borax) 0.032 Formaldehyde (Res arse osmosis system) 0.2 .t Powdex resin (Condensate polishers) 180 r

• Used for auxiliary boiler chemical treatment only 20 days per year at 8 lb/ day

• • This is a proprietary chemical supplied by halco as' their product No. 8101. Information concerning its chemical composition is unavailable.

• • • This is supplied by Ecodyne-Graver and is a styrene divinylbenzene polymer.

()'

AMENDMENT 2' DECEMBER 1980

,F' _,g,v 9ws- y 4TW--'%- '7ht'WW"F-* > g 7 - en+1-2+7 EP-p-m++-1+'s+-g -+e + g -

-1 CPSES/ER (OLS) l unlikely that it would ?.a used for this purpose after CPSES has been i O dec - issioned. l I

5.8.1.2 C3 NUREG/fR-0130 estimates the cost to dismantle the reference PWR to be

$4.':,1 million (1978 dollars). The table below is from reference [1].

it is printed here to show how the study allocated cost among various categories.

TABLE 10.1-1. Summary of Estimated [1] i Disnantlement Costs for the Reference PWR Facility Cost of Millions Percent 1

Category of 1978 Dollars of Total Spent Fuel Disposal 2.467 7.3 O Activated Materials Disposal 2.734 ,

Containment Internals Disposal 0.961 Other Building Internals Disposal 4.222 25.6 Waste Disposal 0.693 Staff Labor 8.986- 26.7 Electrical Power 3.500 10.4 Special Equipnent 0.822 2.4 Miscellaneous Supplies 1.559 4.6 Facility Demolition (non-radioactive) 6.410 19.0 Specialty Contractors 0.390 1.2 Nuclear Insurance 0.800 2.4 Environnental Surveillance 0.154 0.5 SUBTOTAL 33.698 25% Contingency 8.425 TOTAL DISMANTLING COSTS 42.1 (ROUNDED)

O 5.8-3 DECEMBER 1980 '

I

CPSES/ER (OLS) l For the purpose of estimating decomissioning cost for CPSES, the $42.1 mil' ion (1978 dollars) is escalated at ten percent per year for two h years to give approximately $50 million (1980 dollars). The cost estimate for decomissioning CPSES is $50 million per unit (1980 dollars).

1 5.

8.2 REFERENCES

[1] Technology, Safety and Cost of Decomissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0130, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978.

[2] Technology, Safety and Cost of Decor:nissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0130 ADDENDUM, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, August 1979.

O AMENDMENT 1 5.8-4 O

SEPTEMBER 1980

CPSES/ER (0LS) 6.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS O

This section supercedes the presentation contained in Section 6.2 of the original ER, and discusses the environmental monitoring programs that will be conducted during CPSES operation. ~Some aspects of the prograra will be developed in more detail in the Environmental Technical 1

Specifications (ETS) which will be established in accordance with applicable NRC Regulations. In addition, the terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pemit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) form the basis for some portions of the themal and chemical monitoring requirements. In general, those facets of the program covered directly by the NPDES 1

permit are not described in detail witFin this section.

6.2.1 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING The radiological monitoring program, operational stage, will be a 4

continuation of the preoperational program previou' sly described in O Section 6 1.s end Pere 9rePh 3/4.12.1 of the Stenderdiized Redioio9icei 1 Effluent Technical Specification, NUREG 0472. The operational phase i will be continued for the first three full years of commercial operation to verify the adequacy of source control. If data from the program and effluent calculations indicate that doses and concentrations associated with a particular pathway are sufficiently small, the number of media sampled in the pathway and the frequency of

~

sampling may be appropriately reduced.

i 6.2.2 CHEMICAL EFFLUENT MONITORING i

Under normal operating conditions, chemicals (other than chlorine) will not be discharged from the plant into Squaw Creek Reservoir (SCR), but will be routed-to an onsite evaporative storage pond. This pond has an ,

impermeable clay liner to prevent contamination of the local surface and groundwater rer orces, and has been designed to accommodate the AMENDMENT 1 SEPTEMBER 1980

, ,wa ----n +,-, .x, -,,,n, -

r,,,4e- - , ,

.,e -

CPSES/ER (OLS) non-radioactive che7ical wastes accu,ulated during the expected operating life of the plant. h A chlorine mininization study will be conducted during the first year of operation of each unit to develcp a sound, scientifically based 1

chlorination progran to maintain condenser efficiency using a mininu1 o' ' rine. This study has been cpproved and will be perfonned under conditions in the NPDES permit.

6.2.3 THERMAL EFFLUENT MONITORING The nooitoring of themal effluents will be perfomed as specifie1 within the NPDES pemit. Under the tcms of the pemit, telperatures will be measured where the circulating water discharge canal meets SCR.

Additionally, two SCR noni+.oring prograns will be undertaken to assess the thernal efficiency of SCR and themally characterized biological collecting stations (see Section 6.2.6.1.1).

6.2.4 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING h Prior to fuel load of Unit One, the neteorological measurenents prograa of the Co,anche Peak Stean Electric Station shal! consist of the following:

1. A primary neteorological measurements program.

2 A b ickup meteorological measure 1ents systen.

2.

3. A system for making near real-time predictions of the atmospheric effluent transport and diffusion.

4. A capability for remote interrogation, on dunand, of the atmospheric measurenents and prediction systeas by the licensee, energency response organizations, and the NRC Staff.

O AMENDMENT 2 6.2-2 DECEMBER 1980

f CPSES/ER (0LS)

To accomplish these goals, the preoperational meteorological instruaent

O syste, wm be modified to trensmt meteor %im per-eters to the Meteorological instrunent Panel in the Control Room and the Radiation-Monitoring Systen computer.

The parameters, which are wind speed and wind direction at 10 and 6f meters and delta-tenperature between 10 and 30 meters and 10 to 60

+

meters, will be 1) continuously recorded at the Meteorological Instruaent Panel and 2) scanned once per minute by the radiation' monitoring systen canputer where they will be averaged each hour and stored. A time-history of the meteorological data will be available in .

analog fona (strip charts) and from the hourly averaged digital data

provided by the computer. .

The ambient teaperature at 10m level will also be displayed on strip chart recorders on the Meteorological Instrunent Panel in the Control 2

. Room.

O rne computer wiii keep treck of current evereges of diffesion meteorology, measured effluent release rates, and the inventor / for fission products released. The system will include the required l software which will pennit plant operators to make real-time, site-specific estimates and predictions of atmospheric effluent ,

l transport and diffusion during and inrediately following an accidental airborne radioactivity release from the plant, t

. A viable backup system to pro,.ue measurenents respresentative of site j conditions of wind speed and direction and delta-temperature for substi'. ', ion of lost or invalid primary data will be available before fuel load of Unit One.

r The operational 'prcgram will be conducted ~in accordance with the requireaents speciff ed in Regulatory Guide 1.21 and 4.1, proposed revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.23, and revision 1 to NUREG-0654.

l

-Q 6.2 AMENDMENT 2-DECEMBER 1980

O&

4 CPSES/ER (0LS)

O l

l l

l l

I l

"This page intentionally left blank." $

I l

i DECEMBER 1980 6.2-4 h

l

CPSES/ER (OLS)

(,

\~/ TABLE 8.1-21 (Sheet 1 of 2)

PRINCTPAL BENEFITS OF COMANCliE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (1983)

Direct Benefits Expected average annual power generation (million kwh) 9,300 Capacity of p lant , kilowatts (Unit 1) 2,300,000 Proportional distribution of electrical energy Expected Annual Delivery (in millions of kwh)

Customer Group TOTAL PERCENT Indus trial 1,120 32 Commercial 700 20 Residential 1,400 40

( ,)

Public 105 3 Other _17_5 5 Total 3,500 100 Total Annual Revenues $211.036 million(a)

Indirect Benefits czes: Average Annual ($000)

Local operty) (b) $628,551.56 State 19,743.17 Federal (c) 0.00

$ 648,394. 73 Regional Product:

Value added in value of output of businesses in project area corresponding to direct annual wages of employees , plus induced consumption and investment as result of multiplier effect.

(See Section 8.1.4) .

(-

(,y l DECEf!BER 1980

CPSES/ER (0LS)

) The major component of operating and maintenance expense (0&M) is fuel cost. Using 1980 Dollars and a 70 percent annual load factor, the annual fuel cost and other representative 0&M costs are as follows:

1 (Thousands)

Q33 Fuel cost $69,956 All other O&M cost $20,972, j Total $90,928 ,

Fuel cost is based upon 1980 market values of the various fuel cycle

onponents. The 0&M costs are based current estimates in 1930 dollars.

The major cost eieraents included in the non-fuel portion of 0&M costs are operating and maintenance labor, other maintenance expense, quality assurance, home office technical support, license fees and directly related taxes. Ad valorem taxes and insurance are not included here, but are included in the fixed charges shown in Section 8.2.1.4.

8.2.1.3 Pacomni<sioning Cost Decommissioning of CPSES is projected to comence in the year 2022. 2 The cost is estimated to be'$50 million per Unit (1980 dollars). See Q33 Section 5.8 for details of this estimate.

8.2.1.4 Power Generating Cost On the basis of the foregoing estimates of capital, direct operating and decomissioning costs, it is estimated that the 1980 present value of power generating cost over the first 30 years of useful life is 2

$5,350 million. This estimate is comprised of the following components:

/~'s

%)

8.2-3 AMENDMENT 2 DECEMBER 1980 l

-. -_ _ . _ . _. . _ . . _ _ . - ~ . . . _ _. . . . _ _ . , _ _ _ . . -

CPSES/ER (OLS)

(Millions)

Fixed Charges $ 3,172 $

Operating, Maintenance and Fuel Costs $ 2,078 2 Allovance for Deccanissioning $ 100 Total (lifetime cost) $5,350 The fixed charges were determined by using a levelized fixed charge rate of 20% of the capital cost of the facility. This annual cost, when multiplied by the present worth factor for a 30-year econaaic life at a 10% discount rate (9.4269) is equal to:

(0.20) X ($2,239,417,000) X (9.4269) = $4,222,152,000 This $4,222 million value is representative of the 1983 (mean c.o. date of the two units) present value. When this value is present worthed to 1980 at 10% (a factor of 0.7513) the 1980 present value is:

1

($4,222 uillion) X (0.7513) = $3,172 million Q37 g The canbined ope, ations maintenance and fuel cost was developed from the annual cost shown in 8.2.1.2 ($90,928,000) by assuming an 8%

escalation factor in these costs over the 30 year economic life of the plant. When discounted at 10%, the equivalent present value for any year is detemined by multiplying the 1980 annual cost by the compound sum factor for 8% escalation for that year and then multiplying this product by the present worth Factor for that year.

Or:

Annual Cost = (Base Cost) (8% Compound Sum Factor) (10% Present Worth Factor)

= (Basa Cost) X '(' i)" -l' X ~(l+i)" -11 i -i (1+i)n j 8% 10%

AMENDMENT 2 8.2-4 9ECEMBER 1980

l-CPSES/ER (0LS)

Using the above cupper release rate a copper concentration can be inferred as follows: The copper going into the solution will be in the fom of elemental copper, Cu+2, and-copper oxice., Cu0.

, In lakes, copper in solution is in (1) ionic fom (Cu+2);

(2) complexed in organic materials; (3) absorbed and q precipitated on solids; and (4) incorporated in other crystalline structures. Most copper is tied up in the crystalline structure of sedimentary materials, less is in organic complexes and dead seston, and very little is in 4 solution. In natural waters, the concentration of Cu+2

^

ranges from 1 to 50 pg/1.1 The ionic form, Cu+2, has a bionagnification factor of about 30 - 60x103 and is the 2 fom of copper most related to aquatic life toxicity.2 t

The copper entering the lake with the cooling water will rapioly reach equilibriun with a complex chemical species leaving 7.ittle in solution as toxic ionic copper. The anount can be quantified once the ionic equilibrium is identified and then perturbated by the rates of loss at the Pagenkopf 3 , among others,-suggests that the low condenser.

copper concentrations in water can be des.ribed by a carbonate equilibriua of:

i

+

CuC0 3 + -Cu+t + -C 30 _ 2-, K = 2.34x10 10.M (1) 3q _ ,, , ,

where C0 3

-2 represents the carbonate balance. Carbonate concentrations in natural waters range from 50 mg/l to 150 mg/l (8.3x10-4 to 2.5x10-3 g),

The above equilibrium is perturbated by the Cu+2 addition.

If'C 1is the total addition in a year, and 'x is the amount that ends up as Cu+2 in solution with (Cy - x) added to the Q/R-68a AMENDMENT 2 DECEMBER 1980' ,

~

, , , . . , , , - , n. ._ . , ,. - . , . , , -, . - - . . ~ - -- . - - - , , , -

+ . - - ,

CPSES/ER (OLS)

[CuC0 3 ]aq sink, then the new equilibriua is: _

2 _ 2'

-Cu# +x C03

=K '

_ (2)

. CuC03+ (Ci - x)_

Using Equation (1) for the natural equilibriun, the increase in Cu+2 per addition C 1 is:

K (3) x/Ci=_-C0 L3 +K-

_t which is controlled by the carbonate slance. . The anount of copper remaining in solution is, therefore, 2.7x10-7 times the anount added.

After the first month, there is 3.29x106 gm/yr added to 140,000 Acre-Ft. (1.72x108 m3) of lake. It is assuaed that over a year, the added copper will go into solution uniformly throughout the lake due to plant pumping; uptake '2 O settling, decay and resolution by organic material; and, general lake seasonal circulation. The addition, C1 , over the lake volume is equivalent to a concentration. addition of 0.20 mg/l per year. The addition to Cu+2 in solution becomes, from Equation (3), 0.54x10-7 mg/l per year, or 0.54 x10-4 pg/l per year. Even over a large number of years, this is an insignificant addition to natural background levels of 1 to 50 ug/l.

References

1. Wetzel, R.G. , Limnology, W.B. Sauders Co. Phila.,

1975, pages 263-265.

n

2. EPA, Quality Criteria for Water, Environmental Pritection Agency; Washingtoh, DC, July 1976, pages 54-64.-

Q/R-68b AMENDMENT 2 DECEMBER 1980

- -= . .-.

CPSES/ER (OLS)

3. Pagenkopf, G.K. , Introduction to Natural Water Clie aistry, Marcel Dekker, Inc. , New York, pages 2 197-200.

O O  ;

AMENDMENT 2 Q/R-68c DECEMBER 1980 j 1

. _ ~ . - _ _ .. . . .-. ._. _- - .

~

CPSES/ER (0LS) 1 O areR ouaurv Q64. (ER Section 3.7)-Provide an . updated description of the sanitary waste treatment system. Estimate flow rate during nomal operation and during refueling. Describe the planned use of the package units during operation (eg.

split stream treatment, or complete shutdown of one or more 4

units). Estimate the BOD5and total suspended solids concentrations in the total effluent, and the amount of sanitary waste sludge produced per ' year. Provide a copy of the certification of the design and operation of the sewage treatment facility for both the contruction and operational phases of CPSES from the State of Texas.

)

R64. No records exist to estimate the amount of sludge produced per year at CPSES. It is known that the frequency of O siudge removei during the constrection phese wes approximately twice per year.

The applicant, after discussion with the wastewater treatant facility's manufacturing representative, projects the following:

i l In operating the 30,000 gallon per day Extended Aeration Process system, the maximum amount of sludge ancicipated 2 would be 2200 gallons per quarter with a solids concentration of 10,000 to 30,000 mg/ liter. This amount and the frequency of sludge removal will vary depending upon the nuraber of ' people on site and day to day operating techniques. During the operational phase,'when sludge removal is required, TUGC0 will contract with an approved l commercial firm to remove this sludge and dispose it at a permitted disposal area.-

O~

Q/R-70' AMENDMENT 2

, DECEMBER 1980

. . ~ . . . . _ . ._ _ .. . ._. _ _. _

CPSES/ER (OLS)

O The state of Texas did not certify the design of the CPSES LJ sanitary waste treatment systea. The operator of the system is certified and the system is penaitted by the Texas Department of Water Resources and the Environnental Protection Agency to operata, contingent upon demonstrating that certain operating and effluent conditions can be maintained. A copy of the Texas Department of Water Resources pennit No 01885 was provided by letter dated September 12, 1980.

See revised Section 3.7.1.1 for the updated systen description.

p G]

Q/R-70a DECEMBER 1980 0