ML19343D055
| ML19343D055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1981 |
| From: | Shum E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343D051 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104090181 | |
| Download: ML19343D055 (4) | |
Text
~
o..
s
+
O.
MAR S 1981 u
DOCKET NO.: 70-1151 LICEtiSEE:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation FACILITY:
Connercial Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant (CNFP),
Columbia, South Carolina
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMEtrTAL REVIEW OF WESTINGHOUSE LICENSE AMENDsENT (S!N-1107) TO UPGRADE DRY CONVERSION LINE TO THEIR CHFP IN COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA I
Backcround By letter dated January 9,1981, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) requested a license amendment of their Special Nuclear Material Licente No. SNM-1107 to authorize the installation of a new dry (conversion line to replace their existing Dry Conversion Fluidized Bed DCFB) at their Comercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP) at Columbia, South Carolina. At the same time Westinghouse (the licensee) submitted environmental informa-tion in support of the license amend =ent application.
II Discussion A. General Description of the Procosed Uooraded Dry Conversion Line The proposed upgraded dry conversion line will include an Integrated Dry Route (IDR) line developed and corrercially utilized by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) and will supplement the plant's existing ADU (wet conversion) process production lines. The proposed IDR process line will replace the DCFB experimental dry process line.
- Acco-ding to the licensee, the IDR process line will provide improve-mene in icwering the quantity of liquid wastes generated per kilogram of uranium produced.
~
The IDR process will utilize diy 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 UF6 vapor is reacted with superheated steam,to fem uranyl fluoride (UO 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 l
fluoride, and to reduce the uranium powder to uranium dioxide. The UO2 I
1
,g10.4 0 9 0 $ '
, MAR 9 1931 is discharged into check hoppers, and is then pneumatically conveyed (or othenfise transported) to the powder processing area. Process off-gases [ hydrogen (H ), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen (N ), and 2
2 steam (H O)] are removed continuously through off-gas filters which 2
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 automation project (MAP) are shown in Figure 2.
B. Effluents Released from the Procesed Action The proposed installation and operation of an IDR process line requires minor modifications to the axisting licensed facility and will result in minor incremental releases of radioactivity and chemicals to the environment.
For gaseous effluents, the licensee projects the overall release of radioactivity and fluorides as shown in Table 1.
Table,1_
Estimated Air Effluents Released from Overall Plant Operation Uranium Fluoride (uct/yr}
(kg/yr)
Existing ADU 1,960 21 (700 MTU/yr)
Estimater. IDR 221 68 (500 MTU/yr)
Previous Estimated in 4,742 757 Environmental Report in 1975 (1500 MTU/yr)8 1The 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.
The radioactivity released in liquid effluents does not constitute a significant pathway for cbse to man compared with the air effluents pathway, and the licensee projects only a minor incremental release of radioactisity a'd chemicals with the addition of the IDR process n
~
line.
Hydrofluoric -acid is a ' usable byproduct which will be generated
. MAR 9j[g1 by the process. At the present time, the licensee has no definite 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, C. Environmental Imoact of the proposed Action The proposed action will require minor modtfication of the existing licensed facility such as the removal of the DCFB equipment, building codification and relocation of sone of the existing plant services.
There will be no significant construction impact since the floor 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 scuare feet, or about 6% of the existing roof area. Therefore, the incremental impact-temporarily effected by the dismantling, construction, and installation activities is expected to be relatively minor.
The proposed action will result in minor incremental releases of radio-activity and chemicals to the environment (see Table'1). The overall releases are less than the projected release of effluents up to 1600 MTU/yr, and no significant environmental impact was anticipated even with the projected releases based on 1600 MTU/yr capacity as discussed in fiRC's EIA issued April 1977. In addition, the applicant's license 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 identifies the cause 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 l
limit c'onditioned in license amendment No. 4.
For accidental releases, I
the licensee's proposed action does not change the potential and effects l
- of the spectrums of potential accidents identified and evaluated in l
HRC's EIA issued in April 1977.
l 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 l!
'i ser.amaase=aammacu,me
MAR 9 1931.
from an environmental imapet standpoint. Thus, pursuant to 10 CFR 51,
'Section 515(d)(3), an environmental impact appraisai need not be prepared.
i Approval of the license amendment is reconnended subject to the following condition:
1.
The licensee shall conduct air effluent monitoring on radioactivity and total fluorides as specified in the licensee's application dated January 9,1981.
Orisi:.c cis:: 37:
I.I.rd.=
Edward Y. Shmn Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch l
9 l
~
~S
..