1CAN108704, Application for Amend to License DPR-51,extending Term of License to 40 Yrs.Fee Paid
| ML20236G765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1987 |
| From: | Tison Campbell ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Calvo J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 1CAN108704, NUDOCS 8711030265 | |
| Download: ML20236G765 (30) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- e 4 9 F I l ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMF ANY CAPIT0L TOWER BUILDING /P. O. BOX 551/LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203/(501) 377 3525 T. GENE CAMPBELL . October 30, 1987 Vice President Nuclear Operations 1CAN108704 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC _20555 Attn: Mr. Jose A. Calvo, Director l Project Directorate IV-Division of Reactor Projects , III, IV, V and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 Application for License Amendment
Dear Mr. Calvo:
l Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L) hereby requests an amendment to Facilit/ Operating License No. DPR-51 for Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit l' l (ANO-1) to extend the term of the license to forty years. Specifically, it i is requested that the expiration date of the license'be changed from December 6, 2008 to May 20, 2014. Attachment 1 describes the requested , change to the Facility Operating License. l The current ANO-1 operating license was issue'd on May 21', 1974,'and expires on December 6, 2008; a term of approximately 34-h years. However, the plant is designed for at least forty years of operation and an. operating license l term of forty years is permitted by 10CFR50.51. I l AP&L has evaluated the safety, radiological, and environmental issues ! associated with the requested license amendment. These evaluations are ; described in Attachment 2. AP&L has concluded that extension of the . l operating license to the full 40 year term is consistent with the design of the plant and within the bounds of the applicable-safety and environmental I requirements. AP&L has addressed the subject of elevated reactor building temperatures and has concluded that this does not adversely affect plant safety. This is documented in AP&L's Justification for Continued Operation (JCO) dated k 8711030265 871030 PDR P ADOCK 05000313 \ ' pyg l ususen uioote sours uriuries sysreu I ke c c MC N O
r? ,
~
o ^ l' . tMr.-Jose A. Calvo.., ,
! .0ctober 30,' 1987i ' '
' August 28, 1987,'and the related NRC Safety Evaluatica Report dated . O October. 15,'1987. AP&L has, committed.to.~ develop a long-term plan with respect to reactor building l temperatures. ANO-1-isLcurrently'in a'mid-cycleL outage during which initiatives are being taken to provide input lfor that .
, plan. The long'-term plan will be submitted to'the' NRC in -ac'cordance with : 1
- the scheduled provided in the the'JCO. '!.
In accordance;with 10CFR50.91(a)(1)', AP&L has evaluated the proposed change; .-
" )
using the criteria in 10CFR50.92(c) anc' has determined that this change ' involves no significant hazards. considerations. h Approval'of the proposed amendme.n.t is'permitt'ed by NRC regulations, justified by the attached evaluations, and consistent with current NRC l practice. I A copy.of-this application has been submitted to the NRC. Regio'nal:0ffice, I Region IV, and;to the.AN0 Resident' Inspector, in accordance.with
~
l 10CFR50.4.b(1). Also, in accordance with 10CFR50.91(b)(1), a. copy oflthis amendment-request-has been sent to Ms. Greta Dicus', Director, DivisionfofiRadiation' Control
~
- J and Emergency Management, Arkansas; Department = of Health. , A check in the.
amount of $150 is' included as an application' fee in'accordance with 10CFR170.12(c). . Very truly yours, j d84 92 1 l T. Gene Campbell TGC:JL: 1w j i Attachments <t cc: Ms. Greta Dicus, Director Division of Environmental Protection State Department of Health ! 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 l 1 I l l 1 e [,) '
q c .7
- n. S <
~1 3: ,
J: t 1 [,' $
.)
-STATE OFl ARKANSAS :-) d
.. J COUNTY.OF.PULASKI- . )' SS' , ') y
'l
- ) ~. J
. .- j I,--T.~ Gene Campbell, being duly sworn,~ subscribe to and.say.that I am Vice-
]
President, Nuclearf0perations for. Arkansas Power &~ Light Company;;that I- .
. . Ej have fullJauthority-to execute.this oath; that'I have-read the document q
~
numbered ICAN108704 and know thel contents thereof; and that to-the best.'of ,1 my knowledge,-information and-belief the. statements in-it are,true.- O
'i 1
)
.T.GeneCampbellf
.J
-{
.j Pu 1 c in and:for the County.and
~
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 bef e me, a Nota : State above named, this day of 1987.
'l
~
1
' Notary Public /
i
..l I
My Commission Expires: t l fI i
.i l
l 1 i.- l' l ____i_._.__i__._'_ill__E__i__.
ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed License Amendment Docket No. 50-313 Facility.0perating License No. DPR Amendment No. Revised page 3, subarticle 2.d to be:
- d. ~This license.is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire
-at midnight, May 20, 2014.
This change is shown on the attached marked-up page.
qmr .-- c- :. r -
. e ;- . - wy c. x s -t e,, , - , yvg,3 , , ; ;g. 3
- c. <- -
a j o . 1
-3
.. , i
'. -'c) . j (1) Maximum Power Level l
The licensee is authorized to operate the facility'at' steady
~
.j stat'e reactor. core power levels not.in excess of 2568 megawatts j thermal. 1 (2) Technical Specifications
.The Technical Specifications contained .in. Appendices A and. B )
O' attached hereto are hereby incorporated in this. license. .The j
.y licensee shall operate.the facility in'accordance with the' !
Technica1' Specifications. l Nm8**I I d. This license'is effective as of the'date of issuance and'sha11' expire N ( Deta,") .i at midnight, Mav @, %g4.
.; .I
~;i9' FOR~ THE. ATOMI,: ENERGY COMMISSION
; r. , ,!
"' ~~
. Original Signed by q s A.Giambusso j s 1 O A. Giambusso, Deputy Director O r Reactor Proj ec ts.
Directorate. of Licensing
,- m# ~
" I-
Attachment:
" O
- u; a Appendices A and B - Technical Specifications Date of Iosuance: UAY J 1 t974 -
m.,s,
'.. C.G.s
.~ m y * .pp.1 J-~,
.52
_ _ _ , . . _ . _ _ _ -m_ _m---
i l ATTACHMENT 2
)
i I
)
EVALUATIONS SUPPORTING ! l APPLICATION FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT I IN lHE MATTER 0F AMENDING
-1 l i LICENSE NO. DPR-51 1 l ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT. COMPANY-l ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 ,
! .k 1-l e l 1
1, .. TABLE.OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE
-1. INTRODUCTION 4 Objective 4 Scope 4
- 2. SAFETY EVALUATION 6 Mechanical Systems and Equipment 6 Electrical Equipment 6 Reactor' Vessel Integrity- < 7 Structures- '7 Elevated Reactor Building Temperatures 8 Conclusion 8 1
- 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9 Population and Offsite Dose Assessment 9 1 Environmental Monitoring Program 10 Waste Disposal 10 Uranium Fuel Cycle 13 Transportation. 13 :j
- 4. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE (ALARA) EVALUATION 15 Goals Program 15 l Specific ALARA Measures 16 l l Occupational Dose Assessment 17 i Future ALARA Program Enhancements 19
- 5. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 21 1 Consideration of Alternatives 21' -
! Economic Benefit 23
- 6. NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS 24 l Proposed Change 24 Discussion and Background .
24 Significant Hazards Consideration 24 1 l l 2
LIST OF FIGURES. FIGURE TITLE - PAGE 1 Low Level Waste Generation, ANO and PWR Average' 12 2 Collective 0 occupational Exposure 18 3 ANO Exposure Distribution 20 4 AP&L Projected Capability and Load 1988-2018 22 5 MSU Projected Capability and Load 1988-2018 22 ( LIST OF TABLES 1 TABLE TITLE =PAGE 1 Population Data 9 I f M 3 s c_m____.-___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _a
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides for a license to be issueu for a specified period not exceeding 40 years. As stated in 10CFR50.51, the U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commission (NRC) will issue an operating license for the term (not exceeding 40 years) requested by the applicant or for the estimated useful life of the facility if the Commission determines that the useful life is less than the term requested. In April 1985, the NRC issued a memorandum that establishes staff policy for extending the operating life of nuclear power plants licensed prior to 1982. The policy is to permit recapture of the Construction Permit (CP) term;. i.e. , commencement of the Operating License (OL) at the date of OL issuance, thus enabling a nuclear power plant to operate for a full 40 years providing that this license correction poses no undue risk to the public health and safety. Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 (ANO-1) is a pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plant located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately six miles northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. The nuclear steam supply steam (NSSS) was supplied by Babcock and Wilcox Company and has a design power level of 2,568 megawatts thermal (MWt). The plant's design gross electrical output is 883 megawatts electric (MWe). The CP for ANO-1 was issued on December 6, 1968. The OL was issued on May 21, 1974, and expires on December 6, 2008, forty years from the date of the CP. The term of the current OL is, thus, approximately 34-1/2 years. OBJECTIVE This license amendment application seeks to change the expiration date of the ANO-1 Operating License from December 6,2008, to May 20, 2014; i.e., 40 years from the date of issuance. SCOPE The evaluation presented herein addresses five principal areas of analysis: o The adequacy of electrical and mechanical equipment and structures relative to the extended service life. The ability to operate the electrical and mechanical equipment safely, and maintain reactor vessel integrity, throughout the extended term. (Section 2) o The environmental impact of extending the service life relative to population growth and radiological and non-radiological effects of plant operation. (Section 3) 4 1 4
j o- The_ occupational radiation exposure associated with plant operation. ' (Section 4) 'l o- The need for the generating capacity _ represented by the plant, the alternatives, and the financial value of the extended service life of , the plant. (Section 5) i o The significant hazards considerations', as.specified by 10CFR50.92. (Section 6) 1
-1 J
)
l i i i l j i l \ i l i i 1 l i i l 1 i 5
...A.
, .. ' l 1
SECTION 2 SAFETY EVALUATION This safety evaluation confirms that the public health and safety will not g be adversely affected by this amendment to the ANO-1 plant operating license. Most of this information~ summarizes material provided to the NRC-in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) or other previous submittals. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT ! The original SAR has evaluated the adequacy of safety-related mechanical systems, equipment, and components for 40 years of plant operation. It is clear that the design of the plant considered a 40 year service l life. Where j a specific design lifetime is specified in the Safety Analysis Report, it is i at least 40 years (i.e., 32 EFPY at 80% capacity factor). Examples include I the Reactor Pressure Vessel (SAR Section 4.1.2.8) and. Major Reactor Coolant System Components (SAR Section 4.1.2.6). In other cases, performance requirements govern the design and no specific design lifetime is stated. , i l l ' Although some mechanical equipment and components might wear out or need replacement during the plant operating lifetime, existing surveillance and j! maintenance programs are sufficient to maintain or determine replacement of l safety-related components. Periodic inservice inspection and testing requirements have been incorporated into, procedures to provide the_added j assurance that any unanticipated degradation in systems or equipment will be 1 identified and corrected in a timely manner. Therefore, AP&L concludes that safety-related mechanical systems, equipment, and components' considered will not be impacted by a 40 year operating lifetime. l l ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AP&L has evaluated the safety implications of extending the ANO Unit 1 operating license on safety-related electrical systems and equipment. This evaluation included a review of extended service life impacts' ou equipment' integrated dose qualifications and environmental qualifications in response to 10CFR50.49. For safety-related electrical equipment within the scope of 10CFR50.49, aging reviews have been conducted so as t:o establish a qualified life for the equipment. For this equipment, controls are in place to ensure that required surveillance and maintenance are performed. These are described in the Environmental Qualification Program Manual and ANO procedures. The current AP&L Equipment Qualification (EQ) Program is in compliance with 10CFR50.49. , There are currently no known open EQ issues which are affected by the extension of the operating license. 6
~l
, e I Based on this evaluation, AP&L concludes that electrical systems design, electrical equipment selection and application, and environmental i qualification of electrical equipment either considered the effects of a l 40 year operational lifetime or will not be affected by a 40 year ' operational lifetime. REACTOR VESSEL INTEGRITY The ANO-1 reactor vessel was designed considering the effects of 40 years of - operation with a plant capacity factor of 80% (32 EFPY). The B&W Owners ! Group (BWOG) Integrated Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program and the Cavity Dosimetry. Program provide the means to continuously monitor the cumulative effects of neutron exposure on reactor vessel materials through l 32 EFPY. The analyses of three ANO-1 plant-specific surveillance capsules, j which were irradiated at Davis Besse, are documented in the following .j reports: BAW-1440 (April 1977); BAW-1698 (November 1981); and BAW-1836 (July 1984). These reports conclude that the current analytical techniques used for predicting the change in both the increase in RT I a i decreaseinuppershelftoughnesspropertiesareconservabve.ndthe In addition, I the results indicate that the reactor vessel materials exhibited normal changes in tensile strength from exposure to neutron fluence. These analyses show that the expected cumulative neutron fluence on the ANO-1 reactor vessel will not be a. limiting consideration for 32 EFPY of plant operation. Completion of the BWOG Integrated Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program will ensure compliance with 10CFR50, Appendices G and H, through 32 EFPY. 4 As required by 10CFR50.61, AP&L submitted (letter #1CAN018606) to the NRC the projected values of RT p for ANO-1 reactor vessel materials through the i endofthecurrentlicenseIbdthrough32EFPY. This submittal included j results derived from the B&W Owner's Group Report BAW-1895, " Pressurized 1 Thermal Shock Evaluations in Accordance With 10CFR50.61 for BWOG Reactor. ! Pressure Vessels," dated January 1986. Table 4-6 of the referenced report shows that the RT for all ANO-1 reactor vessel materials is well within theNRCscreening@iteriathroughboththecurrentlicensetermand32
)
EFPY. The most limiting materigi is middle circumferential weld WR-112, which will have gan RT of 251 F upon expiration of the current license and , an RT of 264 F at bh end of 32 EFPY. Thesevaluesgreacceptablesince they Nh below the 10CFR50.61 screening criteria of 300 F for l circumferential welds. As required by the NRC Safety Eval :ation Report for l the ANO-1 PTS evaluation, AP&L will submit a reevaluation of RT and comparison with the predicted values with the future Pressure-Therature submittals required by 10CFR50, Appendix G. t STRUCTURES The auxiliary building and turbine building are constructed of reinforced concrete and steel. The reactor building is a steel-lined post-tensioned and reinforced concrete structure. Industrial experience with such materials establishes that a service life well in excess of. forty (40) years can be anticipated. Surveillance, inspection, and testing programs are in place to monitor the condition of important structures so that any 7 1
- =
I . . i degradation can be identified and corrected. In particular the reactor building integrated leak rate test (ILRT) performed at least three times every 10 years, verifies the leak tightness of the reactor building throughout its service life. Surveillance of the post-tensioning system I are also provided which further verify reactor building integrity. l ELEVATED REACTOR BUILDING TEMPERATURES i The reactor building air temperature has been higher than expected , throughout the operating history of ANO-1. Since 1974, this has been, and I continues to be, the subject of investigative and corrective actions. .The Justification for Continued Operation (JCO), submitted to NRC on August 27, i 1987 describes the results of a comprehensive evaluation of safety-implications of the elevated reactor building temperature. The evaluation included a detailed review of the plant's design basis, accident analysis, structural performance, system and equipment performance, and equipment qualification. The JC0 concluded that operation with elevated reactor building temperatures has no significant adverse effects on plant ; components, systems, and structures, nor on overall safety or the plant's i response to postulated accidents and transients. j l Furthermore, AP&L has committed to develop a long term action plan. Actions will be oriented toward two areas: further evaluation of elevated l temperature effects; reduction of reactor building bulk average temperature. Long term inspections, preventative maintenance, and replacement intervals for structures and systems adversely affected by past and future reactor building temperatures will be modified as necessary to provide assurance that their performance during normal and transient conditions is as required to ensure safe operation of ANO-1. Extension of the operating license does not affect the results of the JC0 i evaluations. Plant operation is based on an ongoing process of monitoring, I inspection, evaluations, and maintenance to assure acceptable operability, reliability, and safety. Programs such as Technical Specification surveillance, i.' service inspection, and equipment qualification provide this assurance regardless of the duration of the operating license. CONCLUSION Based on these programs and the evaluations of the potential impacts associated with this request, Arkansas Power & Light Company has determined that the proposed Operating License amendment does not pose significant safety risks during the additional six years of operation. 8
. . 1 j
l ! SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The ANO Unit 1 Environmental Report was issued in June 1971. Supplements ; were issued in November 1971, and June, July, October 1972, and January I 1973. The Atomic Energy Commission issued a Final Environmental Statement (FES) in February 1973. AP&L has reviewed these reports and concluded that the overall assessment and conclusions would not be dependent on specific operating life. There are, however,.five areas in which a specific l operating life was'either assumed or discussed: I o Population and Dose' Assessment o Environmental Monitoring Program l o Waste Disposal o Uranium Fuel Cycle o Transportation i Each of these issues has been reevaluated as part of this license amendment l request. The results are presented below. i POPULATION AND OFFSITE DOSE ASSESSMENT l l Comparison of current population within 50 miles of ANO based upon 1980 census data and original projections of 1980 populations made in the FES are given in Table 1. The original projections are generally comparable to the census results, but underestimated the 1980 population between.0-5 miles and 40-90 miles from the facility. TABLE 1 POPULATION DATA 1970-1980 Radial Distance Census FES Proj. Census Annual FSAR Current from ANO (miles) 1970 1980 1980 % Growth Proj. 2012 Proj. 2014 l 0-5 7,149 4,508 11,689 5.0 6,501 62,207 ! 5-20 37,824 51,048 50,101 2.9 66,428 130,298 20-30 25,629 29,176 33,486 2.7 43,781 83,146 1 30-40 28,340 29,808 29,851 0.5 39,907 35,692 l 40-50 65,746 57,960 67,041 0.2 81,249 71,632 164,688 172,500 192,168 237,866 382,975 Revised population estimates were obtained by determining the Annual Percentage Growth rate for each radial ring in Table 1 from 1970 to 1980. That Annual Percentage Growth rate was applied to the 1980 census data to determine a projected 2014 population. -The revised estimate (382,975 in 2014) is greater than the end of unit lifetime estimates given in the FES (256,000 in 2015) and FSAR (237,866 in 2012). The revised population estimate is approximately 60% greater than the original e'stimates. The 9 L.__m_ ._.______..
)
1 estimated population dose per year of unit operation given in FES (Table l 5.6) for the year 2015 is 1.1 man-rem. -Considering the increase in population estimates, the population dose will remain very small compared to the population dose from natural background, which is estimated at 24,150 man-rem. The increase in population associated with the proposed license extension will not change the conclusion reached in Section.5.6.3 of the FES that no measurable radiological impact on the local population is expected from the normal operation of ANO Unit 1. ] I ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM e
. . i The Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) for ANO is based on the'ANO Unit 1 Environmental Technical Specifications, Section 4.3 and on the Unit 2 ;
Technical Specifications, Section 3/4.12. The EMP for ANO would be expected to continue essentially unchanged during the extended operating life. ;
'1 Measurements to date, as reported in the 1986 Radiological Environmental i Report for ANO-1 and ANO-2, show no statistically significant difference in i total dose between the average dose for the TLD. indicator locations in the i AN0 EMP and marginal background radiation (control station-Danville, 1 Arkansas). The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) conducts an independent- 1 environmental monitoring program similar to the AP&L program. The results #
of the ADH progra.. are comparable to the AP&L program's and support its conclusions. ' Extension of the operating life of the unit by six years _is not expected to e affect previous estimates of annual releases of gaseous and liquid effluents. No build-up of long life radionuclides in the soil has been ! detected by the ANO Environmental Monitoring Program, therefore, the j six year extension of unit operation will not increase ingestion doses via i an airborne-soil-food product pathway. u With respect to non-radiological effects, a general characterization of the fishery in the Dardanelle Reservior is that it is highly variable. However, .l s there does not appear to be a major shift in species diversity or relative { density over the eight year sample period, 1974-1981, and thus no major i shifts would'be expected in the future. i WASTE DISPOSAL Low-Level Radioactive Waste Generation History 1 1 Arkansas Power & Light Company has generated an average of 11,477 cubic feet l of low-level radioactive waste per unit per year since December 1974. Waste volumes generated for each year of operation are shown in Figure 1. Note i that ANO waste generation after 1980 are shown for the average of both units. Between 1980-1986, the industry PWR average waste generation was 15,452 cubic feet per unit per year. AP&L generated an average of 14,777 cubic i feet per unit per year during the same time period. l 10 1 1
'l ,
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ J
AP&L has shown a continual decrease in waste generation since 1981 except for 1984. The higher than-industry-average waste generation in 1981 was due to a backlog of waste accumulated during previous years and that in 1984 was due to disposal of greater that 16,000 cubic feet of waste during the Unit 1 spent fuel rerack modification. AP&L initiated a waste volume reduction (VR) program in 1986. A senior management directive was issued in January 1986 that addressed the plant's VR program and assigned responsibilities to individuals and management. This management directive is reviewed annually and updated, if necessary, to reflect changes in the Company's VR program. During the last 18 months (January 1986 through June 1987), AP&L has made a significant effort to reduce waste volumes. Programs aimed at reducing waste volumes have proven successful, and waste generation rates are the lowest since 1977. Waste Compact Arkansas joined the Central Interstate Compact (CIC) in 1983. Other member states include Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The CIC was ratified by the U.S. Congress in 1985. The CIC Commission issued a Phase I Site Exclusionary Screening Study in June 1985 and a Phase II Site Exclusionary Screening Study in August 1987. These studies identified geographic areas where the Compact's waste management facility could not be located. The CIC Commission also issued a Management Plan in August 1987. This plan evaluated the regional waste. characteristics, alternative waste disposal technologies, and outlined an implementation plan for meeting the milestones in the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. In June 1987, the CIC Commission selected U.S. Ecology to develop, construct, and operate the region's waste management facility. U.S. Ecology has issued draft host-state selection criteria and a volunteer state incentives program to the CIC Commission, which will choose a host state and issue a siting plan by January 1, 1988. AP&L anticipates that these arrangements will satisfy the low-level waste disposal needs of ANO-1 through the year 2023. 1
\
11
-J.. T, : ,,
,i'
, i '
.g .
a
'I
. t. ,
.) TL k .
, : . i f 1
, .8 l
, y. j
. . . Fidure1' . . . .
j
' Low L'evel Waste Generation,' ANO and PWR Average
-}; ^:{
30000 -- 5, < c p . 25000'- - g , f
'20000 -
' k"" ..
+g N.! %,.
Cubic Feet 15000 - -
$ d -:l fh /
l
~l 9 'y 10000 - - l [j f. !
1 0 l 1 1 i ! i + + + -l , 75' 76 -77f '78 79 801 81- '. 8 2 f ' 8 3 -' 8 4 ' ' 8 5 . 18 6 I Unit 1 Only - ' Avg Both Ur1its ,* J .PWR Avg _Un_it! [ Note: Data' for ANO generation 1975;1983 is shipped volumei Data for 1984-198S ls final processed. volume. T , n
,i l 12 -.;.
+
4
.4 I ) 6
s e l I URANIUM FUEL CYCLE The Final Environmental Statement (FES) for ANO Unit 1 (February 1973) was based on the initial fuel management scheme of annual refuelings. .; l Since that time, the maximum reload enrichment has been increased fioc. 2.99 to 4.1 weight percent U-235, thus allowing longer fuel cycles than thoce l assumed in the original FES. As a result of higher enrichments and longer l fuel cycles, fewer total fuel assemblies will be discharged to the spent fuel pool (i.e., an average of approximately 64 assemblies per 18 month ; cycle versus 59 assemblies per annual cycle). i i In assessing the environmental impact of-increasing the operating life from- ) approximately 34-1/2 years to 40 years, the original ~FES has been reviewed along with-the environmental analysis of the change in enrichment. .The. ) additional years of reactor operation would almost proportionally increase l the total fissile uranium required. . However, the annual environmental effects of the uranium fuel. cycle activities remain essentially unchanged. The longer fuel cycles will result in.a lower cummulative total. of spent fuel assemblies discharged (i.e.,'with the longer cycles, approximately 1592 assemblies versus approximately 2420 assemblies with' annual cycles over-the o' assumed 40 year plant operating lifetime). TRANSPORTATION The environmental effects of transportation accidents were evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement for ANO Unit 1. That evaluation is not ., affected by extension of the plant's operating term. 1 10CFR51.52, " Environmental ef fects of transportation of fuel and waste - Table S-4" provides the criteria for acceptable transportation of fuel and. waste. The following information pertains to ANO Unit 1 as required by 10CFR51.52:
- 1. The reactor core thermal power is 2,568 megawatts.
\
l 2. The reactor fuel is in the form of sintered uranium dioxide pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding'4.1% by weight, and the pellets are encapsulated in zircaloy rods. Although the maximum enrichment of ANO Unit 1 may exceed the criteria (4.0%) stated in 10CFR51.52 (a)(2), the environmental effect is negligible since average initial enrichment levels are below the 10CFR51.52 value. , 3. With the exception of several high-burnup demonstration assemblies, the l average burnup of ANO-1 discharged fuel assemblies is less than 33,000 MWD /MTV. Current cycle plans will achieve a batch average burnup of-42,000 MWD /MTV, with peak bundles approaching 43,000 MWD /MTV. 13
While the average discharge may exceed the value (33,000 MWD /MTU)' reported in 10CFR51.52(a)(3), the environmental effect is not significant due to additional decay time beyond the 90 days.specified in the regulation. Furthermore, as stated in a study prepared for the National Environmental Studies Project of the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF/NESP-032), ". . . extending' fuel bui'n-up even to 60,000 MWD /MTU results in environmental consequences which .are-either less than or virtually the same as those' assumed in the current regulations."
- 4. All radioactive waste shipped from the ANO site is in a solid form,
- 5. Unirradiated fuel.is shipped to the ANO site by truck. Current plans are to ship irradiated fuel by truck or rail. Radioactive waste other-than irradiated fuel is shipped by truck.
l 6. The transportation of radioactive material is regulated by the ! Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The regulations specify that the public and transport workers are to be ! protected from radiation. This protection is achieved by a combination of standards and requirements applicable to packaging, limitation'on. the chemical (material) contents and radiation concentrations in waste j packages, and handling procedures to limit the exposure of persons j under normal and accident conditions. Primary reliance for safety in transport of radioactive material is. placed on the packaging. The packaging must meet regulatory standards (10CFR71 and 49CFR173 and 178) that apply according to the type and form of material.for containment, shieldin'g, nuclear criticality safety, and heat dissipation. The standards provide that the packaging shall: prevent the loss or dispersal of the radioactive contents; retain shielding efficiency; assure nuclear criticality safety; and provide adequate heat dissipation under normal conditions of transport and under specified accident damage test conditions. The contents of packages not designed to withstand accidents are limited,.thereby limiting the risk from releases which could occur in an accident.. The contents of the package also must be limited so.that the standards for external radiation levels, temperature, pressure, and containment are met. l Based on the above, AP&L concludes that the environmental impacts attributable to transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste to and from the ANO site, with respect to normal conditions of transport and. possible accidents in transport, is and will remain in accordance with the impacts set forth in Table S-4 of 10CFR51.52 regardless of the term of the operating license. 14
SECTION 4 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE (ALARA) EVALUATION I l AP&L is committed to operate Arkansas Nuclear One i'n 'a manner that will not jeopardize Arkansas Power and Light personnel or.the public health and safety. Included in the AND Operating' Licenses, is the obligation to-maintain the radiation exposure to occupationally exposed personnel at levels which are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and which are in compliance with the USNRC Regulations, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20. To fulfill this obligation, Arkansas Power and Light Company conducts a Radiation Protection Program that insures compliance with - 4 regulatory requirements and the ALARA objective. The primary goal of the Radiation Protection Program is to maintain individual and collective radiation doses to AP&L and contractor employees at ALARA levels through improved operational practices, procedures, and equipment. As a supplement to the corporate ALARA pr'ogram, Generation Engineering , initiates a peer review and corporate Hoalth Physics conducts a review of l changes or modifications to nuclear equipment and facilities for ALARA. As l part of the corporate ALARA efforts, periodic training has been provided for l engineering and ALARA review personnel. State-of-the-art ALARA design techniques that emphasize crud volume reductions and minimize dose accrual during plant modifications are introduced at the training sessions. The corporate Health Physics group reviews the ALARA portion of each Design Change Package (DCP) as part of the approval process. The corporate and AN0 ALARA programs have been implemented and audited, both internally and externally, with favorable results. A corporate oversight ! program is in place to review radwaste, volume reduction, ALARA, and dose ' reduction techniques. GOALS PROGRAM A Radiation Exposure Goals Program was started in 1987 to achieve personnel exposure reduction through improved performance of radiological work. The goals are to be established annually. AP&L anticipates the continuation of this program as long as it remains effective or unless a more effective methodology is developed. The following actions are, initially being taken to implement this program. As with any dynamic program, these actions will be modified as more experience is gained. (A) Radiation exposure goals for 1987 were developed by work groups that received significant radiation exposures. . Work groups which used or were responsible for contractor support were also responsible for developing exposure goals for those contractors. Managers select personnel from within these work groups to be responsible for developing radiation exposure goals and action plans to achieve these goals. l l 15
l3 \ l l l The ANO ALARA Coordinator works with these assigned individuals'to provide data and assistance in the development of. goals. Work group exposure is tracked by the assigned individuals, and deviations from the goals are reported to the AN0 ALARA Coordinator. These goals and plans of action were developed and reviewed with ( Departmental ~ Managers to obtain their direction, ownership and approval. The work group goals were compiled to develop the ANO 1987 ] Total Radiation Exposure Goal. AP&L.will be assessing.the annual exposure goal effort to determine its effectiveness as an ALARA tool. (B) Supervisory / management involvement in work activities in radiologically controlled areas has been increased.
'(C) Exposure reduction . techniques and good radiation work practices are emphasized during radiation worker training.
(D) AP&L has implemented a decontamination and contamination control program for the ANO 1 and 2 Auxiliary Buildings, emphasizing the control of leaks and spills. (E) ANO management are working to improve communications.between Health Physics and other work groups on radiological considerations during work activities, routine operations, and outages. SPECIFIC ALARA MEASURES l Arkansas Power & Light Company has evaluated and. implemented numerous l ALARA-related changes that have or are expected to reduce occupational ~ exposures. The following are examples of specific measures that have been j or are being taken at ANO: ) (A) By increasing the use of remote equipment and flexible stabilizers for steam generator tube plugging operations, significant exposure reductions have been achieved. For example, the average exposure per steam generator tube repaired was reduced from 3.2 rem / tube during 1983 (Cycle 5 refueling outage) to 1.3 rem / tube during 1985 (Cycle 6 refueling outage). l l (B) Equipment mock-ups are frequently used to train , personnel prior to actual repair work being done. l
-)
- j. (C) ANO subscribes.to the NSSS vendor-specified lithium-borate chemical -l l control programs for each unit to minimize activity buildup in the j reactor coolant systems. {
(D) Periodic cleaning of tanks and sumps has been implemented to evaluate . ' its potential to reduce the quantity of spent resin that must be j handled as radwaste, which would reduce the associated worker exposures. .; l 16 _A
'l 1
i
)
1 (E) The installation of a Duratek filtration system on Unit 1 has greatly ) reduced the number of radwaste . filter changes and the associated 1 exposure. .i (F) The Unit 1 and 2 Auxiliary Buildings are being decontaminated so that . most areas will not require anti-c clothing for entry. Over the ? long-term, this is expected to reduce personnel exposures and the volume of low -level radioactive waste. (G) ANO is implementing the use of glove bags to evaluate their effectiveness in helping maintain much of the Auxilary Buildings as uncontaminated areas. (H) A dedicated decontamination crew has been added to the ANO staff. ! l I (I) A computerized health physics record system has been installed. The ! system tracks personnel exposures, produces ALARA reports, and generates radiation work permits.
. j1 i
OCCUPATIONAL DOSE ASSESSMENT The proposed additional years of reactor operation are not expected to increase annual collective occupational exposures to radiation workers. l Arkansas Power & Light Company will continue to comply with NRC guidance and l requirements for keeping radiation exposures as low as is reasonably ! achievable. Figure 2 presents information on past annual collective exposures at ANO I compared to the industry average exposure per reactor. Industry data for .i l the years 1975 through 1982 are from NUREG 0713. The industry data for 1983 ! through 1986 are from INP0 documents. ANO data reflects operation of both units after 1980. l ANO exposures have consistently been below the industry average with the exception of 1983 and 1986, In 1983, approximately 100 man-rem was incurred during the installation of extensive modifications and 440 man-rem was due to Unit 1 steam generator tube repair. An additional 30 man-rem was attributed to one-time evolutions such as fire barrier work and service water piping replacement. The higher than average exposure in 1986 resulted from refueling outages for both units being extended, which permitted additional jobs to be performed during that year. ' Arkansas Power & Light Company has tentatively set a long-term exposure goal for 1990 of less than 250 man-rem / unit based on a three year. average. Arkansas Power & Light Company will continue to comply with the established ALARA program and will incorporate on gcing improvements into that program as appropriate throughout the duration of the operating license. The ALARA > program is constantly evolving as techniques are perfected, technology is-improved, and the work force becomes incmsingly proficient in radiation protection practices. l 17
.i; + .
_ ; ,. o- . ; <
~ 1;
.7 1
- 1. . -
J i Figure 2 ' 1
. g' Collective Occupational Exposure '
700 r , 600 -- - 500 --
~. . .
3 d !. O e $ - Exposure 400 - - eN :~. 300 -
- h }f "
k- , f! , 200 -- i s 4d 100 - O "1 111,1 1 J ! [ t l j$
' -t .5" " -1 75 76 77 78. 79- 80 .81- '82 83 l84 85~ 86 E Unit 1 Only B Avg Both Units *- PWR Avg Unit -
L 1 l 18. l t ,
.D
Arkansas Power & Light Company does not expect any increase in the annual collective occupational exposure for-the years 2008 - 2014 for Unit 1. ~In. fact, meeting the aggressive long-term expssure goals-will result'in annual exposure reductions. AP&L does not anticipate that the relative distribution of-exposures'among work groups will change significantly. Figure 3 provides an overview of-man-rem exposure by job functions, listed by major work group. Data is for-the entire site and reflects two-unit operation after 1980. FUTURE ALARA PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS Arkansas Power & Light Company is cc:nmitted to evaluating and implementing (as appropriate) new ALARA measures as they are developed. The company is staying abreast of emergiag ALARA concepts through its membership in suon organizations as INPO, EPRI, NUMARC, and others. Management attention has been focused on ALARA by the AN0 ALARA Committee and the Generation, Transmission, and-Engineering corporate ALARA program, which focuses on increased management attention on ALARA. _ Technological developments in fields such as the use of remotely operated tools and surveillance equipment, enhanced training of radiation workers, new shielding techniques, advanced computer sofotare programs for waste management applications, and others are Deing monitored to evaluate their applicability for improvement of the AP&L ALARA Program. 19
- t- ., -
h Figure 3' ANO Occupational Exposure Distribution ;) 6.73 % 10.20% = 4,0 JY.
- kk ,
. SbL . k<
' 9.2 5% L. 64.61 % <f . 68.72 %
1977' 1978 ' 1
- 1.56% .71%
1 13.44 % ; -] 2.44 % *
- s 4
'12.92% ;4Ik. .I k '
- 6.95%
4.24% 6f g M [ < 76.35 % - 73.c37. 4 1980. 1979 1.01 % 4.56% gg . f,74g 4.15% ] 13.83% . --sh;
'A 15.07% . s N 3.93 %
( E3 HP-
< q q;
Super. ! [ { {F s 74.46 % 78.77 % 1981- 1982 1 y i I 0.10*/3 agy. 0.03% #' 7.15% ' 15.02% g [ . s 2.60 % 7 .04 % 1983.-
' * .1984 ;
o,4gg 7 *U* . 0.12% C d 18.11% fg;g)g, 22.97% ji@Jks'
% [(' ' s i
b ', $ .' ..d?
'l
.Y :
3.50 % x A
'^ '/
7.29 % ,, 64.32% ( , 19861 j 19BSc i -i . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
SECTION 5 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AP&L is a'part of the Middle South U ilities (MSU) System, which operates as a single entity, with a highly integ ated system consisting of hydro, fossil-fired, and nuclear. fueled generating plants. AP&L serves approximately 500,000 retail customers in 65 of Arkansas' 75 counties and 13 1 of Missouri's 114 counties with a current net. generating capability of-5,694 MW. Middle South Utilities System serves more-than 1.7 million customers in a 92,000 square mile area of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Southeast Missouri with a current net generating capability of 15,461 MW. During the period 1976-1966, AP&L's peak load grew from 3,000 MW to 3,804 MW, an average annual increase of 2.4% per year. MSU's peak load l grew during the same period from 9,345 MW to 12,351 MW, an average annual l increase of 2.8%. The projected peak-load generating capability and margin during the period 1988 to 2018 for AP&L and Middle South Utilities System are shown in Figures 4 and 5. These figures reflect current plant retirement dates and assumed load growth rates of about 1.5% per year for AP&L and up to 2.0% per year -1 for MSU System. However, they do not include the current planning criteria, which require a 20% capacity margin. Evaluation of the current projections shows that capacity margin is expected to drop below the planning criteria for margin in 2000 for AP&L and in 1996 l for the MSU System. By the current ANO-1 license expiration' year, 2008, projected load exceeds projected capability by 48 MW for AP&L and by 3689 MW ) for the MSU System. The capacity deficit (capability deficit plus planned margin) totals 1272 MW for AP&L and 7519 MW for the MSU System in the year 2008.
'Ihe capacity deficits are significant and will need to be made up through an appropriate combination of load management, cogeneration. purchases, j conservation, life extension, power purchases, or capacity udditions.
l It is clear, in any case, that the loss of the generating capability represented by ANO-1 in 2008 would place additional strain on an already burdened system. AP&L considers the requested extension of the license term 1 necessary in order to meet future electrical energy demand and to defer the j need to construct replacement baseload capacity and the attendant i environment.1 impacts. ' i l CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The alternatives to extension of the operating term of ANO-1 consist of load management, cogeneration purchases, conservation; power purchases, or capacity additions. However,-considering the magiiitude of the projected ! capacity deficit, even with extension of operation of ANO-1, and the capacity of ANO-1, itself, the only realistic, long-term alternative te ! l continued operation of ANO-1 would be the construction of: replacement- i capacity. ) l 1 21 4
,j
_i I Figure 4 l AP&L Projected Capability and Load i 1988-2018 '" l. 6000 ' 1
* ***~e-e-O=e-e.e e=e-o 5000.Ze* ~*~ =0~O O e-o ~*~ ~ ~
- O O-O o 8*8:6 0g\ ' 1 O-O-O-0 0-Ozo-O.O e-O - 1 l
u.,,,,,,, (MW) 3000 e-o%**'* i ANO-1 Current Ucense Expiration 2000 .-..O-0.e.s ANO-2 Current License Expiration 1000 .I i o : : . . . . . . : : . . ; ;, . . : , : : . . : ; j 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 l Year f e- Capability 0- Load 1 Figure 5 MSU Projected Capability and Load 1988-2018 20000 18000 16000 , Omo.0@ omO*0 0-0 0%o.Omo.O.O , e=e-e=8-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e*eme=6 Megawatts 0-0-0-0-0 0 0-O=O"@ o.0 0 0-w-e-e.b e (MW) 10000 e,, 8000 % 6000 O***e= _ 4000 %etene 2000 0, : : : . . . . 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2018 2018 Year e- Capability .O- Load 22
.a e e
" , l
- /
}
l xq Extension: of 'the- operating term of: ANO-1 Lisi the _more appropriate f and desirable alternative.because; (1)-AN07 1.'is a. valuable generating asset with
~
a safe, useful lifetime cf at least"40 years,'(2) extensionsof ANO-1 will. 1 postpone the. financial and environmental 11mpactsLassociated;with any new construction project,Eand (3) continued use ofEthis-nuclear-fueled power .,
. plant will reduce'the consumption-of valuable. imported or_ domestic! fossil 9
' fuels, and thus' minimize the environmental, impacts' that; result from burning' -c those fuels. j
'1 ECONOMIC BENEFIT.
s Arkansas Power & Light Company.and its customers will ' experience, substantial cost' savings due to the license extension of ANO-1, Savings result'from> j
-extending the depreciation and decommissioning' costs of the plant. (Also, !
customers benefit from the lower revenue requirements .for the . investment:in j the existing plant as opposed to the cost of ' constructing and. licensing-a d new plant during the extension period. j j Extending the license of ANO-1 by,5.5 ejars will result:in an estimated net-present worth savings in total revenue requirement of over $300.million. l This estimate is based on a comparisonLofLthe revenue, requirements of the; i extended ANO-1 plant-to the revenue requirements of a new base' loa ~d plant' ! during the extension period. The cost of the'new plant is based on an ' estimated' current cost of $1300 per kW installed cap'acity. Fuel and 1 operating costs are based on the projected costs:at Arkansas Power & Light- l Company's coal-fired plants.
'1 I
l- , El , q y , j
'i
._ _.._....___i._.i_l_' -
i
c a. w SECTION 6 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS PROPOSED CHANGE This license amendment application seeks to change the expiration date of Facility Operating License No. DPR-51, for ANO-1 from December 6, 2008 to May 20, 2014, i.e. , 40 years from the date of issuance. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND Section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides for a license to be issued for a specified period not exceeding 40 years. 10CFR50.51 states 4 that the Commission will issue an operating license for the term (not exceeding 40 years) requested by the applicant or for the ertimated useful life of the facility if the Commission determines that the useful life is less than the term requested. The Construction Permit for ANO-1 was issued on December 6,1968. The Operating License was issued on May 21, 1974, and expires on December 6, 2008, forty years from the date of the Construction Permit. The term of'the current Operating License is, thus, approximately 34-1/2 years. The proposed change would allow operation.of ANO-1 for 40 years from the date of the Operating License. Granting of a 40 year license term is permitted by regulations, specifically 10CFR50.51, and consistent with Commission action on other applications of this nature. SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS This proposed change has been evaluated against the criteria of 10CFR50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant-hazards considerations. The following evaluation is presented in support of this conclusion. Criterion 1 - Operating of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. , The proposed change does not involve any changes in plant design, physical changes to plant systems, equipment or structures, or modifications to Technical Specifications or plant procedures. The original plant design provides for 40 years of operation and postulated accidents have been evaluated accordingly. Surveillance, inspection, testing, and maintenance. programs are in place to sustain the condition of the plant throughout its. service life. In concit.sion, the potential effects of 40 years of. operation have been considered in the existing design, analyses and operation of 2e plant and, tharefore, the probability or consequences of previously evaluated accidents has not been significantly increased. I 24
w j ,. ,
' Criterion 2 - Operation of'the-facility'in;accordance with the' proposed;-
~
-amendment would not create the' possibility ofLa new or different type.ofs accident from any accident previously-evaluated.
~
Since't'eh proposed' change does not'affectithe? design or operation ofLthe , plant and programs are in places to' maintain the' plant throughout its service! , life, the. change does not; increase'the possibility of-a new or differentL ;4 accident from those previously evaluated. Criterion 3 - Operation of the facility in accordanceiwith the proposed' .t amendment- would: not ' involve' a significant reducthn in a margin .of. safety. ! lThe proposed. change does-'not involve any changes in plant design, pilysical . changes to plant systems,Lequipment or structures, or modifications to' Technical Specifications or plant procedures. Existing surveillance', ! inspection, testing,.and maintenance programs sustain the condition of the .i plant-throughout its service life. These. measures, together with continued }{ operation in accordance with the. Technical Specifications assure that an adequate margin of safety is preserved on a continuous' basis. Therefore, .. the extension of'the operating license term'does:not result in a.significant-reduction.in a margin of safety. I 1 l= l l-i l I g ! J s l q a L
-25
!.. .m
'~
2
,l a}}