ML19344A060
| ML19344A060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1978 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003160035 | |
| Download: ML19344A060 (4) | |
Text
,....__~~.,.._,-~..m...~_
m.,,-_
r_..
o n ww.-
wb s% < ' f. Jn
'm
~.... ~
.e
= *?...,y n
' ~
.i
' y
- j % ;., **"w
- * ^ ^ ~ ~ ~-> k~
s
' A ye y
,e e.-
,.o>.. sr -.
ry '
?q*
.5 j'3 h
^
,, -s e' ;f~ w y y +' ; 1:l, m,:.z.'. ',.;r; m-U -e p;;;$;WQ x,y.j, p:
.. ;. v.ly;,,
0 n p,,";'7 p - 9;. 9 % Q-1 ^
- .e,'
- 4,;,
w
- ,.% m :,n a<.y w,
~w au w
- s. w w.. u -a w a. w
. x., :
. ~. Wy'yl., q u ?-
e **
A.
- *t
~'w t-1
-/,
- -Q '}. k ' 7; ;,
77g r4 9
~ r...;,,,b. v#
. r,g ' * -
..*.- ?
,e.--
C*
} ~~
..g-v y
- u.,
a g
r.4
- _s
.-r c
..m o,,.-
~ ;. _
._.s 2
9 r
c.
- .e.,
e c~ [ ;_
'y
~
y 7,
'y.*,
.+
A ""
.* po, "2
- i
"'t* k-l -' u '
[g 3 g
_m ;,. ;
~: -.
t a '.: - +.
- y....
. -, ~
<.a
,n
~ _
e
..z.
s..
ME N NDUM FOR:_
.-R. ReidEChiefc pperating Reactors Branch (4, DDR
>16. Knightoh/ Chiefs Environmental; Evaluation Branch. -
FROM::
~ 1'
-+ -
- +
2
-0
,.' DOR' 2 5
j J - -
m-
- ,.K,.
- y + 3. m 6, &., p.
- m~. ~ s(. s ; _
- +.m :,..
n-n s
> SHIPMENTS ~0F;SFENT. FUEL FROP! OCONEC TO C,RY,S.TAL RIVER 3'
. /
SUBJECT:
... w.
.s
~
s
/.
(t s
i s
~,..
r.
.Pt. ANT NAME: CrystaliRiver' Unit -3J
' r
'~
- DOC'/.ET FO : E0-302 RESPONSIEl.E BRANCH: ORD N ' '
PROJECT FANAGER: C..Helson x.
~ "
g REVIEW STATUS:..E.EB + Ccepletc T,
The Environantal-Evaluatioi kr.ch has =plotM it': ravid and etalu-ation of-tha ship.:nat of1fedr gent faci usi!cs frcm Oconc to iCrystalf River 3' proposed by Florida Powe Corporation 'in-their letter cf June 28,1973. ; Enclosed is our environmental detemination for the proposelshiments of spent-fuel.
51:imi &ne by G c:c e 7,. *M ts;ht.0
J' Environmental Evaluation' Branch Cecrge W. inighton, CMef :.
~ ' Division of Operating Reactors
- E. M,. *
-~ _
r
- d., "y.
Enclosure:
~ ~~ '
Asstste(
Q q.
~
-DISTRIBUTION
- ^
DMN[o
[y h[t[13a[- m. % ([N ~
.v
,j
- w _..,f
~
l
- l. ce
.8. Grimes i.m
,7 B Rdg
-%... - *. x l a c.... <-
"a-
- m. - w-4 c.m 5.GKn0ihtan w t'. s. w%r-^ ' ' *%% *: L.
n '
- 0. Eisenhut w,p[y ' + -. (.FM$. D @@ ' Ml,,- ffy%w@h.:
w ns
- .:,,~
q.p..
u n m
n.
OUdrJ@ 2 i t.4_',;l }
sj, 4%,p. g
'EX.k.uk[E;l}(?[;
c.
c
~E.:Adensan M ? ~. % W :. W, Q b
Uhd. G Q N G 2
- ~
gs'..
.'j,
- L gappett;
J V J
~
n. w. _~ ;
c, yq}gcn,
a x~
..m as x
n 2
_. ~.
e.
~
,.7~'
,_j G y. 2)$4.l.4 J
+
3 w
L-
- ),Mx p.f% _ ',
j ~A.j
',!," p:,
M~x:
,4., p p.
_.m.
+'
-,-m-
+ s; 5_-
'p
.+
..,pwrw a,
&w rp.% 1 ugg pg'
- m,c' m;cy;y.c;ss_;w y.n.w n b a.n,, A*fy&-N,
.,,,_ m
.z.
u y'. w~.,.
" /_er. mm,s.,.,.w&&'
,, ~ ~
- 4:
- n.2:.X m y= p rg r
x.
y m
~
m a%
.g 7g 3m.
, _, g y.,
a m 3
-,. con dCt > 0.~DonOhet-
+ -
~=
nax
- ~
x.d s
..: M ':
~~r - t
+2 :pa a k' '.
~
-;. Q n m.c orrm s p.
EE$$,a$9 )TiOt&Y
~.'5
'Y+:
. 7 g,,e
~
/ - a
~- -
,b:1of -}. a_'reitW
.GKriibht6nN %%CC U TH +- A ugg acmm gggo
~
, '.w
, llf. k '
a*'.'.. ~,, '
^ *..., ~ ~...
.. N 1.. D ',). Q}Jk...
c j.Q
.j. &hh... n,'T:
- 3.. { i% f + N w
2 *,
- f. 'Al *
/.,.
..f*s'
.. Y'
~
,y>
l.
'9 u,
wo H=._
h
9 e
e i
D i
0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BY THE 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
~
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
TO LICENSE NO.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION h
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3
' DOCKET NO. 50-302 Introduction I
1 By letter dated June 28, 1978, Florida Power Corporation (the licensee)
.j 1
proposed shipping four spent fuel as:emblies from Oconee Nuclear Power l
r Station to Crystal River Unit 3.
The licensee has stated that there will 4
i be 4 shipments of a single fuel assembly each, the Oconee spent fuel has I
decayed at least 1300 days and the shipments will be by truck, a distance.
a of about 480 miles.
Evaluation 1
' Shipment of spent fuel from Crystal' River Unit 3 to the reprocessing fa--
cility in-Barnwell, South Carolina 1was considered in the Crystal River D
-Unit 3 Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated May 1973. The thermal-q
. power. level per fuel assembly for Oconee fuel is about the same as that q.
for Crystal. River 3; therefore, with equal irradiation and decay, the activityL of an -Oconee spent fuel assembly is about the same as that for a Crystal, River 3 sper.t fuel assembly. The staff estimated 10 shipment:.
t
._._._._.___1 m
7
.) per year to transport.the irradiated fuel from. Crystal River.3 with 6 fuel assemblies per cask and one cask per shipment. The shipments were to be made by rail, a distance of about 350 miles. The irradiated fuel would be shipped after a 120 to 150 day cooling period. The Oconee spent fuel assemblies to be shipped have decayed more than 150 days and have been irradiated for only one operating cycle.
l The staff estimated in the FES that-there might be.a cumulative dose of 0.16 man rem from each shipment by rail to the general public along the route and to the workers transporting the spent fuel. We have reviewed the basis for this estimate and conclude it is a conservative estimate of I
)
the man' rem exposure for a shipment of a single fuel assembly from Oconee i
to Crystal River 3.
Therefore, we estimate that the radiation exposure from the four shipments from Oconee.to Crystal River should be less than l
0.7 man rem to the. general population and workers transporting the fuel.
j This is a small fraction of the fluctuations in the annual dose this popu-j i
lation would receive from natural background radiation.
i li We have also estimated the exposure to the workers removing the spent i
h fuel from the Oconee spent fuel pool and placing the spent fuel in the y
4 Crystal River 3 pool. This exposure should be'less than 1 man rem.
This i
1
' is based on -relevant assumptions for occupancy times and for dose rates in
.l the spent fuel pool area from radionuclide concentrations in the water.
i Titis additional exposure is less than 0.2% of the total annual occupa-3 3
tional radiation burden 'at' either facility.
W )w o qqd 1D g
~
s ws s
k
.1,
4
- u
- o n
,1 Thus, we conclude that the shipment of four assemblies from Oconee ~ to Crystal River 3 will-not result in any significant increase in doses received by the public or by occupational workers.
l The 'four sti;ments of spent fuel from Oconee to Crystal River 3 are esti-mated to be 1% of the total number of shipments of spent fuel associated with the operation of Crystal River 3 durin5 its 40-year lifetime con-sidered in the FES. This small increase in the number of shipments: of spent fuel: will not change the conclusions of the FES and will not have any significant environmental impact.
We have also detemined that the amendments do not authorize a change in i
effluent types, an increase in total amounts of effluents or an increase j_
in power level and therefore will not result in any significant environ-l
. mental impact.
l Conclusion We have concluded, based on the above, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and en-vironmental-impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of-this amendment.
l i
i L