ML19343C416
| ML19343C416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1981 |
| From: | Shum E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103240118 | |
| Download: ML19343C416 (4) | |
Text
f
~
~=rA
[(psucoq[o.,
UNITED STATES
'V
', )e., ( 3 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
r,.ggCM. C
/
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
4 I'
/g
!P MAR 9 19 s
NAR _z g
~~ p Ngy. '
DOCKET NO.: 70-1151 k,
[
g LICENSEE:
Westinghouse Electric Corpora
)
s fa g
- f..
,'C"i FACILITY:
Comercial Nuclear Fuel Fabrication (CNFP),
~~
Columbia, South Carolina
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF WESTINGHOUSE LICENSE AMENDMENT (SNM-1107) TO UPGRADE DRY CONVERSION LINE TO THEIR CNFP IN COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA I
Background
By letter dated January 9,1981, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) requested a license amendment of their Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1107 to authorize the installation of a new dry conversion line to replace their existing Dry Conversion Fluidized Bed (DCFB) at their Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP) at Columbia, South Carolina. At the same time Westinghouse (the licensee) submitted environmental informa-tion in support of the license amendment application.
j II Discussion I
A. General Description of th'e Proposed Upgraded Dry Conversion Line The proposed upgraded dry conversion line will include an Integrated Dry Route (IDR) line developed and comercially utilized by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) and will supplement the plant's existing ADV (wet conversion) process production lines. The proposed IDR process line will replace the DCFB experimental dry process line.
According to the licensee, the IDR process line will provide improve-ment in lowering the quantity of liquid wastes generated per kilogram of uranium produced.
The IDR process will utilize dry methods to convert solid uranium hexafluoride (UF ) to uranium dioxide (UO ).
UF6 feed material, 6
2 received in' type 30A/30B cylinders, is vaporized within the cylinders by heating with hot spray.
The resulting UFg vapor is reacted with superheated steam to fann uranyl fluoride (U0 F ) powder and hydrogen 22 fluoride (HF) gas.
The UO F22 is further contacted with a countercurrent flow of hydrogen, nitrogen, and superheated steam--to strip residual fluoride, and to reduce the uranium powder to uranium dioxide.
The UO2 8108240 h C
, MAR o gg)
'!d(
is discharged into check hoppers, and is then pneumatically conveyed h
(or otherwise transported) to the powder processing area.
Process 4
off-gases [ hydrogen (H ), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen (N ), and 2
2 2
steam (H O)] are removed continuously through off-gas filters which are periodically reverse-purged to remove uranium-bearing solids prior to recovery of hydrogluoric acid.
The conversion process is shown schematically in Figure 1.
The proposed IDR system and plant changes to accomodate the installation of the total manufacturing autcmation project (MAP) are shown in Figure 2.
B. Effluents Released from the Proposed Action The proposed installation and operation of an IDR process line requires minor modifications to the existing licensed facility and will result in minor incremental releases of radioactivity and chemicals to the f
environment.
k For gaseous effluents, the licensee projects the overall E
release of radioactivity and fluorides as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 b
-[
Estimated Air Effluents Released from Overall Plant Operation b
Uranium Fluoride
{
bCi/yr)
(kg/yr)
I Evisting ADU 1,960 21 y
(700 MTU/yr)
Estimated IDR 221 68 (500MTU/yr)
Previous Estimated in 4,742 757 Environmental Report in i
1975 (1600 MTU/yr)I f
5 1
L The projected release of effluents up to 1600 MTU/yr would not result in significant impact to the environment as assessed by NRC in the Environmental Impact Appraisal issued in April 1977.
E The radioactivity released in liquid effluents does not constitute i
a significant pathway forese to man compared with the air effluents pathway, and the licensee projects only a minor incremental release of radioactivity and chemicals with the addition of the IDR process line.
Hydrofluoric acid is a usable byproduct which will be generated Lun
J 1 MAR 3 1931 by the process. At the present time, the licensee has no definite J
plan for the use of the hydrofluoric acid; therefore, the licensee will be required to submit a detailed plan to NRC for review and approval prior to disposing of this material.
I C. Environmental Imoac'. of the Proposed Action The proposed action will require minor modification of the existing j
licensed facility such as the removal of the DCFB equipment, building modification and relocation of some of the existing plant services.
j There will be no significant construction impact since the floor l
area affected by the IDR systems installation will consist of about 22,000 square feet, or only about 6% of the existing manufacturing
]
building floor area, and the roof superstructure will include about 22,000 square feet, or about 6% of the existing roof area. Therefore, v
]
the incremental impact temporarily effected by the dismantling, construction,
?
and installation activities is expected to be relatively minor, b
k The proposed action will result in minor incremental releases of radio-g activity and chemicals to the environment (see Table 1). The overall releases are less than the projected release of effluents up to 1600 y
MTU/yr, and no significant environmental impact was anticipated even a
d with the projected releases based on 1600 MTU/yr capacity as discussed in NRC's EIA issued April 1977.
In addition, the applicant's license U
amendment No. 4 was conditioned that if the radioactivity in plant gaseous
[
effluents exceeds 1,500 uCi per calendar quarter, the licensee shall, within 30 days, prepare and submit to the Comission a report which i
identifies the caus* for exceeding the limit and the corrective actions to be taken by the licensee to reduce release rate. This condition is to provide reasonable assurance that the licensee is in compliance with the environmental radiation standards as specified in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 190. As shown in Table 1, the projected overall release, including the proposed action, will not exceed the limit conditioned in license amendment No. 4.
For accidental releases, the licensee's proposed action does not change the potential and effects of the spectrums of potential accidents ' identified and evaluated in NRC's EIA issued in April 1977.
III Conclusion The staff has evaluated the environmental impact associated with the proposed plant modifications, effluent releases and accident potentials that may result from the licensee's proposed action. Based on the above evaluation, it is concluded that this proposed action would be non-substantive and insignificant yt
,_ s
' MAR 9 1991 from an environmental imapet standpoint. Thus, pursuant to 10 CFR 51, Section 51.5(d)(3), an environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared.
Approval of the license amendment is recom. ended subject to the following condition:
)
1.
The licensee shall conduct air effluer.. monitoring on j
radioactivity and total fluorides as specified in the licensee's application dated January 9, 1981.
Q tw i
Edward Y. Shuo Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch f
.!~
I i
+
i
'ha t'f l1
\\
l l
1; l'
l t
(2 l
=m
.=---
e.--
, _ _ _,