ML20037A774

Environ Assessment,Crystal River 3,Fuel Cycle Considerations & Power Operation. Recommends OL Be Granted

ML20037A774
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	11/24/1976
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20037A773	List: ML20037A772 ML20037A774
References
NUDOCS 8004070435
Download: ML20037A774 (14)

Text

El1VIRONMEtlTAL ASSESSMEf1T DOCKET !!0. 50-302 CRYSTAL RIVER UtlIT 3 FUEL CYCLE C0:lSIDEPATIO!1S A'!D POWER OPEPATI0ft On July 21, 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided in flatural Resources Defense Council v. f!RC that the flRC's final fuel cycle rule (39 FR 14188) was inadequately supported by the record ine,far as it treated two aspects of the fuel cycle -- the impacts from reprocessing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management.

The decision generally complimented other aspects of the Commission's survey underlying Table S-3.

In response to the Court decisions, the Commission issued a General Statement of Policy (41 FR 34707, I,ugust 16, 1976).

In that statement, the Correnission announced its intention to reopen rulemaking proceedings on the environmental effects of the fuel cycle to supplement the existing record with regard to reprocessing and waste management, to determine whether the rule should be amended, and if so, in what respect. The Commission directed the staff to prepare a well-documented supplement to WASH-1248 to establish a bcsis for identifying environmental impacts associated with fuel repro-cessing and waste management activities that are attributable to the licensing of a nodel light water reactor (LWR).

The liRC staff issued !!UREG-Oll6, Environmental Survey of the Reorocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LER Fuel Cycle in October 1976 for this purpose.

On i;ovember 5,1976 the Commission issued a Supplemental General Statement of Policy regarding the licensing of nuclear power plants as 8 0 04 0 70 F 3 $-

1

, related to the analysis of fuel cycle environmental impacts. The Commission concluded that licensing of light water reactors may be resumed on a conditional basis using existing Table S-3 values for reprocessing ano' waste management, provided the revised values presented in the

+;

Commission's !!otice of Proposed Rulemaking of October 18, 1976 were also examined to determine the effect on the cost-benefit balance for constru'ct-ing or operating the plant.

The staff has based this assessment of fuel cycle environmental impacts for Crystal River Unit 3 on Table S-3 and has also specifically considered the revised values for reprocessing and waste management in its determina-

=l;]

tion of effects on the cost-benefit balance as presented in the FES for m.

Crystal River Unit 3.

The natural resource uses identified in Table S-3, i.e., land, water, fossil fuel, and radiological and non-radiological effluents, have been evaluated for the plant fuel cycle activities. The attached Table 1 pre-sents a summary of these potential fuel cycle environmental impacts for Crystal River Unit 3 based on Table S-3 and compares them, where appro-priate, with those environmental impacts directly related to the operation of Crystal River Unit 3 as identified in the FES of May 1973.

The approximate total annual fuel cycle land use commitment associated with the operation of Crystal River Unit 3 is 60 acres. This consists of about 56 acres which are temporarily committed and 4 acres which are per-manently committed. The land use commitment for fuel cycle operations over 30 years represents about two fif ths the overall land requirement of 4,738 acres for operation of the power plant during its expecte$ 30 year 1

O

- electrical production lifetime. The annual land requirement of 60 acres for furl cycle operation-is comparable to that used by a small coal-fired power plant of approximately 76 MWe. capacity.

== ~~

. The annual total water usage and thermal output associated with the fuel cycle f'or Crystal River Unit 3 are respectively about 10,000 millions of gallons and 2,980 billions of BTU's. The corresponding annual water use and thermal output at Crystal River Unit 3 assuming an 80% capacity factor are respectively 357,408 millions of gallons and 39,704 billions of BTU's. Thus, the approximate 3% and 8% increases in water use and

' :'. L thermal loading respectively, for fuel cycle operations are. low percentages

,of actual plant values.

Electrical energy is required during various phases of the fuel cycle This electrical energy is usually produced by the consumption of process.

fossil fuel at conventional power plants.

It is estimated that approxi-mately 281,400 MW-hours of energy will be utilized annually in.the fuel cycle for Crystal River Unit 3.

This represents less than 5% of the annual ~

net electrical output of Crystal River Unit 3 at an 80% capacity factor.

It represents an annual consumption of about 101,850 MT of coal, along with the corresponding gaseous and particulate chemical effluents which are equivalent to those produced by a small 40 MWe coal-fired plant operating for a year.

Liquid chemical effluents produced by the fuel cycle process constitute a potential for adverse environmental impacts but such constituents are present in dilute concentrations and need only a small amount of additional dilution by receiving bodies of water to reach levels below' perraissible i'

O g

.'l

- [l.f. '

=

standards. The amount of dilution water needed for various constituents ammonia - 532 cfs, nitrate - 18 cfs, and fluoride - 62 cfs.

Tailings are:

I solutions resulting from the fuel cycle represent an insignificant effluent

[.l..,

to the environment.

y Solids are produced principally during the milling process in the fuel cycle and are not released in significant quartities to create an impact i

upon the environment.

Radioactive effluents released to the environment estimated to result from the reprocessing and waste management activities or other phases of -

the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table 1.

It is estimated that the

]

overall gaseous dose commitment to the U. S. population from the fuel cycle g

i for a 1000 MWe reference reactor would be approximately 250 man-rem per This is approximately.001% of the average natural background dose year.

I of approximately 21,000,000 man-rem to the U. S. population. Based on l

Table S-3 values the additional dose commitment to the U. S. nopulation from radioactive liquid effluents due to fuel cycle operations would be w

The appror.imately 260 man-rem per year for a 1000 MNe reference reactor.

fuel cycle dose commitment for Crystal River Unit 3 would be somewhat less

=

1 than that given for the reference reactor, since it has a net generating 4

capacity of 885 MWe.

+

i The overall estimated involuntary dose conmitment to the U. S.

population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to the fuel This is cycle is approximately 500 man-rem per reference reactor year.

- ^-

higher than the small involuntary dose to the public from operating Crystal j

i 1 Based upon a natural background dose rate of 100 mrem /yr.

1

., _, ~ -, _

~

. River Unit 3, approximately 42 man-rem.

However, the occupational dose from the fuel cycle is comparable to the estimated occupational total dose

=

commitment associated with operation 'and maintenance of the reactor, some The overall effect of such exposure will be extremely small 500 man-rem.

and may not be detectable against natural background radiation exposure levels.

Both high and low level radioactive solid waste produced during fuel cycle operations are to be buried at licensed repositories and are not released to the environment.

In the original fuel cycle rule, the environmental impacts for fuel cycle activities necessary for the support of an LUR were summarized in Table S-3 asshown in 10 CFR 51.20 and presented in the attached Table 2.

As indicated, this environmental assessment is based on fuel cycle para-meters set forth in Table S-3 as well as modifications to it. Table 2 presents a sumary of environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle as originally contained in Table S-3 together with the modifications given in the proposed rulemaking notice of October 18, 1976, and presented in !!UREG-0116.

Principal changes include those in the categories of land use, chemical effluents, iodine releases, Carbon-14 releases, and buried solids.

The following describes the differences between the impacts described in Table S-3 as it was originally promulgated in 10 CFR 50.2' and the change in certain impacts resultirg from the revised assessment of reprocessing and waste nanagenent considerations in !!UREG-Oll6. The land coa.mitment reflected in fuiREG-Oll6 is slightly larger than that presented in the original Table S-3.

5

..,. The original estimates were smaller by some 30 acres per reference reactor year in temporarily committed land and about 3 acres per year in perma-nently committed land for waste disposal. This dces no't constitute a significant change.

=+

Hydrogen chloride has been included in NUREG-0116 as a gaseous chemical effluent, resulting from incineration of plastics in the waste management The amount is a small fraction of other acid gas effluents from systems.

the fuel cycle discussed in both Table S-3 and UUREG-Oll6.

No significant impact is attributable to the change.

There have been increases in MUREG-0116 in the estimated Carbon-14, Iodine and Tritium release rates. However, the principal addition in radioactive gaseous effluents is the dose estimate of 110 man-rem for the release of Carbon-14. These additional releases will add some 150 man-rem to the gaseous U. S. dose commitment of 250 man-rem as determined with

~ Table S-3.

The total gaseous and liquid involuntary dose commitment to the U. S. population utilizing revised source term data presented in RUREG-Cll6 is comparable to the approximate 500 nan-rem dose evaluated with Table S-3.

The substitution of a " throw away" cycle would increase the dose commitment accumulated to the year 2000 for the reprocessing and waste nanagement portions of the fuel cycle. This is due principally to increased These effects amount to some occupational exposure during fuel storage.

12,000 man-rem total to the year 2003 and would have only a small effect on the overall population dose commitment.

Furthermore, they.nay not be O

4~

_7-detectable against the natural background exposure _during this 25 year period of some 2-3 rem for' every member of the general public.2 There is an increase to the transportation dose commitment. presented in Table S-3.

The revised transportation dose value of some 2.5 man-rem

+:

is based upon refined calculational assumptions and modeling techniques.

This dose is not considered significant in comparison to the natural back-ground dose.

There has been an increase in the quantity of buried radioactive waste material (both high level and transuranic). These wastes are placed

t" in the geosphere and are not released to the biosphere and no radiological environmental impact is expected from such disposal. ' Table S-3 did not include either the disposal of high level or transuranic wastes nor low-level vastes from reactors which were buried.

In accordance with the Commission's directive contained in the Supplemental General State of Policy, the staff has also assessed as set forth above, the effect of using the revised chemical processing and waste storage values set forth in the Commission's flotice of Froposed i

Rulemaking of October 18, 1976, on the cost-benefit balance for the Crystal P.iver Unit 3 facility. These changes, as discussed above, are so small that there is no significant change in impact from that associated with the effects presented in Table S-3 and, accordingly, the use of the revised values would not tilt the cost-benefit balance against issuance of the license.

l 2As a result of increased requirements for new source-material due to a l

" throw way" cycle, estimated releases from mining and milling would be i

increassa. This, in turn, would increase the estimated dose comnitment for the tctal fuel cycle by some 600 man-rem per reference reactor year.

Although this is larger than the dose commitment due to other elements of the fuel cycle, it is still small compared to the natural background 3

exposure le.'el of some 21,000,000 man-rem per year.

e

-,,.,.m._

The staff has reviewed the environmental impacts as presented in the FES and has found them to be valid. The fuel cycle effects presented in Table S-3 as discussed above are sufficiently small so that, when they are superimposed upon the other environmental impacts assessed with respect to operation of the reactor, the changes in the overall environ-mental impact frcm operation of the plant are not substantial. After considering the impacts attributable to operation of Crystal River Unit 3, the staff has concluded that the overall cost-benefit balance pre'viously developed in the Crystal River Unit 3 FES remains unaltered and, therefore, on balance, the full power operating license should be granted.

=

0

~

Table 1 Fuel Cycle Environntental Impacts vs.

Plant Operating Environmental Impacts Fuel Cycle Impacts Fuel Cycle Impacts Plant Operating flatural Resource Use per DFRa (WASH-1248 per Year for Impacts per Table S-3) the Plant Year Land (Acres)

Temporarily Cc.Taitted 63 56 4668)*

Undisturbed Area 45 40 2528)*

Disturbed Area 18 16 2140)*

Permanently Committed 4.6 4.1 70)*

Overburden Moved 2.7 2.4 (millions of MT)

Water (millions of cal.)

Discharged to air 156 138 Discharged to water bodies 11,040 9,770 357,408 Discharged to ground 123 109 Total Water 11,319 10,017 357,408 Fossil Fuel Electrical er.ergy 317 281 (thousand in:-hr.)

Equivalent ccal (thousand MT) 115 102

!!atural Gas (aillion scf) 92 81 Effluents Chemical ('.7)

Gases (MT)

S0 4,400 3,894 x

l'0 1,l'i /

1,042 x

Hydrocarb;ns 13.5 11.9 CO 28.7 25.4 Particulates 1,156 1,023 Other G'ses F-0.64 hcl

• 0ver Plant Ch er.:.ir: Lifetire

Table 1 (Continued) 4 Fuel Cycle Impacts Fuel Cycle ~ Impacts Plant Operating

, fiatural Resource Use per DFRa (WASH-1248 per Year for Impacts per Table S-3) the Plant Year

=:

- Effluents (Cor;t'd. )

);7 Liquids

=

S0j 10.3 9.1 NO-26.7 23.6

.=

Fluoride 12.9 11.4 Ca++-

5.4 4.8 Cl-8.6 7.6 11A+

16.9.

15.0 nH 11.5 10.2 3

Tailings Solutions (thousands) 240 212 Fe 0.4 0.35 Solids 91',000 80,535 Radiological (curies)_

Gases (including entrainment)

Approx. total of 3,050 curies /yr of Rn-222 74.5 65.9 floble Gases &

~Ra-226 0.02 0.02 Halogens Th-230 0.02 0.02 Uranium 0.032 0.028 Tritium (thousands) 16.7 14.8 0.7 Kr-85 (thousands) 350

-I-129 0.0024 0.0021 1-131 0.024 0.021 0.125 Fission Products 1.0 0.86 Transuranics 0.034 0.0035 C-14 Liquids.

Approx. total of 5 Ci/yr excluding Uranium & Daughters 2.1 1.6 Tritium Fission &

Activation Products Ra-226 0.0334 0.003 Th-230 0 0315 0.0013 Th-234 0.01 0.01 Tritium (thousands) 2.5 2.2 1

Ru-106 0.15 0.13

Table 1 (Continued)

Fuel Cycle Impacts Fuel Cycle Impacts Plant Operating Natural Resource Use per AFRa (WASH-1248 per Year for Impacts per Table S-3) the Plant Year Effluents (Cont'd)

Radiolooical (curies)_(Cont'd)

Solids (buried onsite)b Other than hich level (siaallow) 601 532 TRU & HLW (deep)

Thermal (billiens of Btu) 3,36 2,974 39,704 Transportation (man-rems)_

Exposure of v.orkers and general public 0.334 0.296 2.52 aAFR is an annual fuel requirement which is equivalent to operating a 1000 :" e reactor at 80% of its maximum capacity for one year.

bFuel cycle impacts r.ormalized to 835 in'e output of Crystal River Unit 3.

cl;ot released to the er.vironment.

t l

Table 2 Summary of Environmental Considerations For Uranium Fuel Cycle !!ormalized to a

liodel LWR Reference Reactor Year

~

!!at! ural Resource Use Total WASil-1248 "

liUREG-0116 c Land (Acres) 63..

94 Temporarily Co. aitted m

45 73-Undisturbed Area

~

18

.'.....' ' J 22 Disturbed Area c;. - ',.

'4.6

~ '

7.1.

. Permanently Co:r:aitted

....,' McH.: 2.8

2. 7..

.1

' Overburden Moved

'. '(.' ; 7. j ;...'.;. : ;

(millionsofMT)

_ ;j;.;;y:;yC.; _.g.y g

.r;.m Mater (millions of cal.),..

' J' '

~- V M'iTf0.:-? r:. F F

~

e

- 159~

156 Discharged to air

...cll,090 Discharged to water bodies 11,040 l' 124.-1<."f 123_.. :'g.;5J;.{.}i,-pg _11,373

. Discharged ta ground.

~ j,.

11,319 n i-

-"p-Total Water Fossil Fuel _

317 321 Electrical energy (thousand M'd-br.)

115 117 Equivalent coal (thousand lit) 92 124

,e Natural Gas (million scf)

Ef fluents

-Che.T.ical (MT)

~.

Gases (fit) 4,400 4,400 50x l l77 1,190 i

N0x 14 13.5 Hydrocarbons 28.7 29.6 CO 1,156 1,154 l'articula tes Other Gac.es 0.72 0.67 F-0.14

!!Cl N

e e.w.

..=

Table 2 (Continized)

.... -==

!!atural Resourc,e Use Total

=

• HASH-1248 liUREG-Oll6

.i Effluents (Cont'd.)

.J

=_

d.

Liquids 10.3 SO~

9.9-

_J.

4 3

.,' I.

25.8 5

~

26.7

-.. :. ~.

I:0-Fluoride 12.9

.s.

.....z.

~

.12. 9., s:.

. u.....:...,.:.;1r. ;;

y

. m.

a.~ a.

2,..s

.e

. 5. 4.

..': ':W.!.7. : v 5. 4. '>-

Ca

.w,. -r..

..t..........<..~:

n.

.8. 6,.F..'... ', "..

4..,#..,.. - 8. 5 Cl-s..c.

k,0.'.T s

.,.216.9 I.37$N-(.i..Yk,. ;...;;12.1 dNk-

'- ^f?

~

~

i.

... !!A+

n.

~ 11.5

+ ' '< =...:. <.t..."o"... 10. 0 liq

. <.. u.:.,....... c. w..-

3

... - ; -.z.

. -: i.. :.

?,..

Tailings Solutions s.

r.. ~.....;

t,240

-240 (thousands)

Q. 0. 4. :.?.W:.U$ce$..g..Epg.h, 9 0

..2

=

r.-Q*Fe

.s

.,6.,...._. :. ' ' L :. ". ' '.: l.':..-

.W t..

j.

.q.

.. c,. -

Solids 91,000 J 'i. 91,000

..c.

Radiological (curies) 1

'. Gases (including entrainment) i Rn-222 74.5

~.... : 74. 5 Ra-226 0.02.

,' 1'ey,. 0.02 q

'. 0.02 Th-230 0.02 0.034 Uranium 0.032 f,

Tritium (thousands)

.718.1 -

16.7 Kr-85 (thousands) 350 400 1-129 0.0024 1.3 I-1 31 0.024

.0.83 Fission Products

.l.0 0.021 Transuranics 0.004 0.024 2/

C-l t, L1 quids Uranium & Daughters 2.1

.. 2.1 Fission & I,ctivation Products 5.9E-6 Ra-226 0.0034 0.0034 Th -230 0.0015 i,,

'O.0015

=

Th-234 0.01

~

0.01 Tritium (thousands) 2.5 Ru-105 0.15

Table 2 (Continued)

.latural Resource Use Total

~

llASH-1248

!!UREG-0016 s

Effluents (Cont'd)

~,

Radiological curies)_ (Cont'd)

.;[,

{.

/

Solids (buried onsit'e)d

~601

. J. J,

5,300

'Other than high level (shallow)

'.p.:.4

.l.lE+7 TRU L HLW (deep)

-... y.;.. -2

.=

e Thermal (billions of Stu) 3,360

,- 'E 3,462., -:

~

~

-; c.~.,. _., : _S.

T. '

J '.'. J ' -

Transportation (man-recs)

.,.,...... s

..s,:.; c;.:. u'.. ::a 3..

~

~ Exposure of workers and general public

. ;::T. ' 0.334 7,'. t ~... :.f L[ ?.73 ;f. 2.46 '

... ;.. #..s

. a..s.

.~ y

,~ y.;

~.

3* 6., _ *.. ~ 2 ~

. y %...

y..

n.

9., ; -..

ujle.~.U.- "'... - v y.g*,.., 0 f..l fb 'S.,l~

b Y.

N g L*.

.~;g,.

.. T ;_-**.. s, 5,-.. l

• '_),.*r.

f. r;. ;.'..

-t

--..x...,_.,;n..,_._

p-e

s,a.Q g.e. *,, 5.

l,

^

.; l

,.g

,[ ;

s,

c.

8.*:...

....c.

. ~..

UReference Reactor Year (RRY) is a 1000 M'..'e rea'ctor operating at 80% of its ranimem capacity for one year.

An RRY is equivalent to an Annual Fuel Requirement as used in 1l ASH-1248 dated April 1974.

bTc51e S-3 values.

cilevised Table S-3 values.

botreleasedtotheenvircr. ment.

l f the Renrocessinq and 1.'aste ilanacement Porti$ns S0':CES:

_En__v. i ronmental St.co v o of the LD'. Fuel Cycle, i;UREG-Oil 6, October 1976.

Environmental Survey of the Uranium fuel Cycle,1 AS!i-1240, April 1974.

i i,

.