Chemical Discharges from Nuclear Power Stations: Historical Releases and Implications for Best Available Techniques
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chemical discharges from nuclear power stations: historical releases and implications for Best Available Techniques Report – SC090012/R1 Title here in 8pt Arial (change text colour to black) i The Environment Agency is the leading public body protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. It’s our job to make sure that air, land and water are looked after by everyone in today’s society, so that tomorrow’s generations inherit a cleaner, healthier world. Our work includes tackling flooding and pollution incidents, reducing industry’s impacts on the environment, cleaning up rivers, coastal waters and contaminated land, and improving wildlife habitats. This report is the result of research commissioned and funded by the Environment Agency. Author(s): Published by: Nigel Pacey Environment Agency, Horizon House, Deanery Road, Ian Beadle Bristol, BS1 5AH Anna Heaton www.environment-agency.gov.uk Laura Newsome (Environment Agency) ISBN: 978-1-84911-239-0 Dissemination Status: Publicly available © Environment Agency – September, 2011 Keywords: All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced Nuclear power stations, chemical discharges, historical with prior permission of the Environment Agency. data, best available techniques, BAT The views and statements expressed in this report are Research Contractor: those of the author alone. The views or statements AMEC expressed in this publication do not necessarily Consulting and Engineering represent the views of the Environment Agency and the The Renaissance Centre, 601 Faraday Street, Environment Agency cannot accept any responsibility for Birchwood Park, Birchwood, Warrington WA3 6GN such views or statements. Environment Agency’s Project Manager: Further copies of this report are available from: Laura Newsome The Environment Agency’s National Customer Contact Environment Agency Centre by emailing: Richard Fairclough House, Knutsford Road, [email protected] Warrington WA4 1HT or by telephoning 08708 506506. Science Project Number: SC090012 Product Code: SCHO0911BUBZ-E-E ii Chemical discharges from nuclear power stations Evidence at the Environment Agency Evidence underpins the work of the Environment Agency. It provides an up-to-date understanding of the world about us, helps us to develop tools and techniques to monitor and manage our environment as efficiently and effectively as possible. It also helps us to understand how the environment is changing and to identify what the future pressures may be. The work of the Environment Agency’s Evidence Directorate is a key ingredient in the partnership between research, guidance and operations that enables the Environment Agency to protect and restore our environment. This report was produced by the Research, Monitoring and Innovation team within Evidence. The team focuses on four main areas of activity: • Setting the agenda, by providing the evidence for decisions; • Maintaining scientific credibility, by ensuring that our programmes and projects are fit for purpose and executed according to international standards; • Carrying out research, either by contracting it out to research organisations and consultancies or by doing it ourselves; • Delivering information, advice, tools and techniques, by making appropriate products available. Miranda Kavanagh Director of Evidence Chemical discharges from nuclear power stations iii Executive summary This report presents the findings of a survey of non-radioactive chemical discharges from nuclear power stations in the UK, USA, France, and Germany. Plants were selected to represent the two candidate designs for the new nuclear build programme for England and Wales, and also to include plants located on the coast. The candidate designs are the UK EPR™ supplied by AREVA (joint submission with EDF) and the AP1000™ supplied by Westinghouse. Both are based on pressurised water reactor (PWR) technology. This main interpretative report is supplemented by a separate Annex report which contains information on the sites surveyed and their chemical discharge data. A PWR power plant consists of a water-filled reactor system (the primary circuit) that generates useful heat which is transferred to a secondary circuit via steam generators. Steam in the secondary circuit is used to drive a turbine generator and then condensed using an external source of cooling water, in the same way as in a fossil fuel power station. The chemicals used in the primary circuit are boric acid (used to adjust nuclear reactivity) and lithium hydroxide (used to control pH). Those used in the secondary steam circuit are usually hydrazine (to remove oxygen from the water) and ammonia/amines (to control pH). The final main external water cooling circuit may require dosing with biocides, usually chlorine. There are also other smaller plant systems such as water and waste water treatment plants, all of which use and potentially discharge a range of chemicals, predominantly to water. Sizewell B is the UK’s only current operating PWR power station. Discharge data show that only residual chlorine is present in the outlet of the main cooling water flow at concentrations consistently above those of the inlet, but within the limits of the discharge permit. Permits for PWR power stations in the USA specify separate limits for discharges from individual plant systems (internal plant outfalls, such as those from waste treatment systems) and for final discharges of cooling water to the environment. Limits for internal outfalls are based on generic US federal regulations that specify concentrations which should be achievable at the ‘end-of-pipe’ using the Best Available Technology. Those for external outfalls ensure that the final discharges do not cause a breach of federal or state water quality criteria. Some trends can be observed in the data for US plants. Discharges of chlorine vary seasonally, with lower discharges occurring in winter when biofouling is less of an issue. Suspended solids, oil and grease vary depending on plant age or operational factors. Zinc discharges fluctuate due to corrosion of galvanised water systems; in one plant this has required such systems to be replaced by ones made of stainless steel. Operators of several US plants describe regulatory requirements to minimise the use and discharge of hydrazine. Permits for the French PWR power stations include a common suite of parameters. There are limits for discharges from the main hold-up tanks serving the nuclear reactor systems and allowances for discharges due to shutdown of the reactors for refuelling. All chemical discharges are below these permitted limits; those coming close to exceeding them are nitrogen/ammonium and phosphates. Historical discharge data illustrate that the quantity of chemicals discharged has reduced over time (hydrazine in particular). Site-specific and individual plant factors determine the type of chemicals discharged; for example, the methods used to control the chemistry of the secondary steam plant or the corrosion of plant during maintenance outages and the type of raw water that needs to be treated and purified in order for it to be used in the reactor and steam circuits. There was no clear relationship between discharges of chemicals and reactor output, or between reactors of the same design at different locations. iv Chemical discharges from nuclear power stations The regulatory limits in French permits can be used to illustrate differences between chemicals discharged from coastal and inland sites. Limits for chemicals associated with chlorination of once-through seawater cooling systems are specified at coastal sites; these are mainly for total and residual chlorine and by-products of the chlorination process such as bromoform. At the inland sites, there are separate limits for discharges of biocides (mostly monochloramine) and anti-scaling chemicals from cooling towers. There are only limited data available for chemical discharges from the German PWRs covered in the survey. One plant uses a stripping system to reduce discharges of ammonia to an especially sensitive surface watercourse. Because of the different regulatory regimes, differences in reporting results and a complex interplay between discharges, plant-specific factors and operational issues, it is not possible to directly compare chemical discharges from the English, US, French and German PWR power stations. It is only possible to state that the main discharges to water are from the steam/secondary systems and the once-through cooling water systems. These are broadly similar to those to water from fossil fuel power stations. Additional chemical discharges related specifically to the nuclear reactor in a PWR power station are of relatively minor importance, although these will be the main source of radioactive discharges. These were the subject of a separate, earlier review (Environment Agency Science Report SC070015/SR1). The predicted discharges published for the AP1000™ and UK EPR™ designs are all generally consistent with the permit limits currently in force for the current operating PWRs covered in this study. Across the earlier PWR power stations covered in the survey, the greatest emphasis on applying Best Available Techniques (BAT) for minimising discharges of chemicals is for biocides used in the main external water cooling systems (especially chlorine). Aspects of power plant cooling water systems were the subject of a separate review (Environment Agency Science Report SC070015/SR3). Other areas where use of BAT is emphasised include