ML20043D571
| ML20043D571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1990 |
| From: | Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043D570 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006080242 | |
| Download: ML20043D571 (15) | |
Text
.s-
'n Docket Nu1bar 50-346-
~Lic:nsa Nuhb3r NPF-3 Serial Number 1753
.. c E'nclosure Page 1-APPLICATION FOR' AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NUMBER NPF-3 DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POVER STATION UNIT NUMBER 1 Attached is a requested change to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit Number 1 Facility Operating License Number NPF-3. Also included are the Safety Assessment'and Significant Hazards Consideration and supplemental information regarding' environmental considerations.
The proposed change (submitted under cover letter Serial Number 1753) concerns:
' Operating License NPF-3, Section 2.H regarding the Operating License expiration date.
By s' D. Cl-Shelton, Vice President Nuclear
..Svorn and subscribed before me this 31st day of May , 1990.
8djjfjA) /
Notary PublW , State of Ohio EVELYNL DRESS 4
NOTARYPUBUC, STATE 0FOH10 MyCommissionSpiresM/23,1694 t
6080242 900531 r p, ADOCK 05000346 PDC
, Docket' Numb 2r 50-346 Licenso' Numb 3r NPP-3
-F JSerial Number 1753
' .. Enclosure' Page 2--
The'following information is provided to support issuance of the requested-
' change to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit Number 1 Operating License, Number NTF-3.
A.- Time required to implement: This change is to be implemented within:45 days following issuance of the amendment by the NRC. .
B. Reason for. change (License Amendment-Request Number 90-0004): The-proposed extension of the Operating License term vill allow plant
. operation-to continue for approximately'six years beyond the current m OL expiration date. Continued plant operation vill enhance the economic security of.the region by providing a stable block.of power-production and by contributions made to the. tax base, employment'and
- expenditures for goods and services to operate the plant. Extension of the Operating License vill provide the further benefit of deferring the costs of replacement generating capacity.
C._ Safety Assessment and Significant Hazards Considerations. See Attachment 1.
D. Supplemental Information: Environmental Considerations Relative to Extension of the Operating License to 40 years (Attachment 2),
t
pc ,
b, ,
LDock;t Numb]r'50-346 LLic;ns3 Numb 3r NPF-3
~
y ,.
S2ri31 Mn=b;rJ1753 E
Attachment i V Par,e- 1 SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NUMBER 90-0004.
i Title j
'40-year Operating License - License Section 2.H.
Description The proposed change would revise the Davic-Besse Nuclear Power Station.(DBNPS)
Unit 1 Operating License (OL) Number NPF-3, changing the. expiration date from ;
March 24, 2011 to April 22, 2017. The current expiration date is 40 years from
- the date of issuance of the Construction Permit (March 24, 1971). The proposed expiration date is 40 years from the date of issuance of the OL (April 22, 1977) ,
and would permit plant operation to continue for approximstely six years beyond !
the current OL expiratinn date.
Section 103.c of The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides that a license is to be issued for a specified period not exceeding 40 years. 10CFR50.51 specifies that
' 'each license will be issued for a fixed period, to be specified in the license, not to exceed 40-years from the date of iscuance. Since 1982. NRC practice has
.been to issue Operating Licenses with 40-year terms beginnin a o the date of OL issuance. This practice has been extended to licenses iv y-u_r to 1982 and several licensees have been granted amendments extending the Operating License term to recover the construction period.
Systems, Components, and Activities Affected The proposed extension of the-operating License indirectly affects the entire r
. facility by extending the period of operation. No hardware or procedure changes
_are involved.
Safety Functions of the Affected Systems, Components and Activities !
The function of the facility is to generate electricity in a1 safe and reliable manner. Safe operation of the facility is provided by incorporatien of the defense-in-depth concept in design, engineered safety features capable of mitigating postulated events, and high quality standards in design,
' construction, and operation of the facility.
' Effects on Safety e
The. proposed extension of the Operating License to permit a service life of 40-
' years does not' involve any changes to the configuration of the plant, its operation and maintenance, or administrative controls governing plant i
due o ag re a ed c mpon nt grada on t is no d e ed and rr c e during the extension period.
WP KB A/2
Docket hudyar 50-346 Lic ns] Numb;r NPF.3 Serial Numb;r 1753 Attachment 1 Page 2 The proposed extension is based on the fact that the plant was designed for a 40-year service lif e. This does not mean that some components will not wear out '
during the plant lifetime, but rather the integrated ef fects of radiation damage and cyclic loadings which could reasonably be expected to occur in a 40-year service lifetime were considered in the design. Surveillance and inspection programs implemented in accordance with regulations, codes and standards, technical specifications, and programmatic commitmenta provide assurance that unexpected degradation would be detected and corrected.
The USAR and original FSAR, submitted in support of the Operating License .
Application, reflects the anticipated 40 year design service life. USAR Section 3.7.3.1 ' Earthquake-Induced Cycles,' states that a 40-year lifetime was used to determine the number of earthquake cycles used in the structural analyses of Class I systems, structures, and components. USAR Section 3.9.2.9, which describes the analytical methods and criteria used to evaluate stresses in ptmps and valves, states the number of design startup/ shutdown and design operating cycles are evaluated on the basis of alternating stresses to conform to the minimum design life of 40 years. USAR Appendix 3D, Section 3D.1.27, in discussing compliance with General Design Criteria 31, ' Fracture Prevention of Reactor coolant Pressure Boundary', states that the service life of the reactor toolant system components has been established in accordance with ASHE Section i 1r. involving the application of loads and thermal conditions for a 40-year '
design life. A 40-year design service life is also nnted in several locations in USAP Section 5.0, ' Reactor Coolant System." USAR Table 7.2-3, relating to environmental qualification for instruments and controls, notes that a 40-year period was used for determining the radiatien environmental conditions for instrumentation and controls. Similarly, USAR Table 8.3 4, ' Environmental Requirements for Class 1E Cable ' indicates that 40 years of operation was anticipated in determining radiation exposure for safety reinted cable.
USAR Appendix Section 11 A.3.2, ' External Exposure f rom Gaseous Ef fluents,'
indicater that a plant operating lifetime of 40 years was censidered in the y calculation of ground concentrations of long lived radionuclides. As evidenced by these USAR/ FEAR references, a 40-year service life was anticipated when the Operating License application was made.
Surveillance and inspection programs have been implemented in accordance with the ASKE Code for Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves and Technical Specifications requirements. These requirements provide assurance
, that any unexpected degradation in plant equipment will be identified and corrected. In addition. Technical Specifications Section 5.7 ' Component Cyclic or Transient Limits,' establishes limits on the number and severity of thermal and pressure cycles to which reactor coolant system components and steam generators may be subjected.
A comprehensive reactor vessel material surveillance program is maintained in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix H. The schedule for reactor vessel surveillance capsule removal is contained in Babcock and Wilcox Topical Report, BAW-1543, ' Integrated Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Program.' which the NRC staff approved in 1985. The reactor vessel materials surveillance program ensures that the fracture toughness requirements of Appendix G to 10CFR50 are met.
. WP KB A/2
,. Dock;t Number 50-346 Lic:nse Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1753 Attachment 1 Page 3 In addition, 10CFR$0.61 specifiee fracture toughness requirements for protection against pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events. 10CFR50.61 definas screening criteria which establishes a threshold where actions to reduce susceptibility to i PTS events must be taken. Toledo Edison's letter to the NRC dated January 20, 1986 (Serial Number 1236) assesses DBNPS relative to 10CFR50.61 and demonstrates that the RT PTS screening criteria vill not be reached during the proposed license extension. This letter estimated that the plant could operate for 111 effective full powers years (140 calendar years assuming an 802 capacity factor) before reaching the screening criteria. The NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) "
related to this assessment was issued by letter dated January 9, 1987 (Log Number 2176). The SER concludes that the screening criteria would not be reached at 32 effective full power years (40 years of operation'with an 802 capacity factor). Based on the vessel exposuro to date, it will not be possible :
to accumulate a total of 32 effective full power years of exposure before the proposed expiration date. Considerable margin to the PTS screening criteria vill still exist at the proposed expire.tlon date.
The qualified lifetimes for safety-related electrical equipment which would be required to operate in a harsh environment in performing their safety function, have been determined in accordance with 10CFR50.49
- Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equip-..nt 7mportant to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants." These lifetimes have been incorporated into plant equipment maintenance and replacement practices to ensure that safety-related electrical equipment which would be required to operate in a harsh environment remains qualified to perform t its safety related function, regardless of the overall age of the plant. An NRC Region III inspection (Inspection Number 50-346/86-024) of the Davis-Besse environmental qualification program in 1986 concluded that the program meets the requirements of 10CFR50.49. The results of the inspection are documented in en NRC Region III ietter to Toledo Edison dated December 19, 1986 (bog 1-1530).
Programs have also been implemented to address erosion / corrosion inducsi pipe wall thinning and boric acid corrosion of carbon steel piping in response to NRC Generic better 89-08, " Erosion / Corrosion - Induced Pipe Wall Thinning,' (Log '
Number 2940 dated May 2, 1989) and NRC Generic Letter 88-05, ' Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon Steel Roactor Pressure Boundary Components in PWR Plants,'
(bog Number 2532 dated March 17, 1988). In both of these cases industry i
operating experience indicated degradation of piping components could occur at l rates greater than anticipated. Programs implemented for DBNPS in response to the generic letters are described in Toledo Edison's letters to the NRC dated July 14, 1989 (Serial Number 1679) and May 27, 1988 (Serial Number 1527). These programs identify areas of susceptibility, periodic inspections and corrective actions as necessary to maintain the integrity of piping components for the service life of the plant. It is anticipated that any new mechanisms of age-related degradation identified as a result of industry experience during the remainder of plant life would be addressed similarly. NRC and industry mechanisms to monitor and assess generic implications of industry experience are currently in place.
WP KB A/2-
- -Dock:t Number 50-346
. Licen:o Number NPF-3 S: rial Number 1753 Attachment 1 Page 4 Significant Hazards Consideration The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazard exists due to a proposed amendment to an Operating License for a facility. A proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed changes would: (1) Not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated: (2) Not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated or (3) Not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Toledo Edison has reviewed the proposed change and determined that the proposed change involves no significant hazards consideration because operation of the Da.ts-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, in accordance with this change would la. Not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed change does not involve any changes to the configuration of the plant, its operation and maintenance, or administrative processes governing plant activities. Any effect of the proposed extension on the probability of accident initiation would be due to age related component degradation that is not detected and corrected during the extension period. The ptoposed extension is based on the fact that a 40 year service life was considered in the design and construction of the plant. This does not mean that some components will not wear out during the plant lifetime, but rather the integrated effects of radiation damage and cycle loadings were considered in the design. Surveillance and inspection programs implemented in accordance with regulations, codes and standards. Technical Spreifications and programmatic commitments provide -
assurance that any unexpected component degradation would be detected and corrected. Therefore, the proposed change will ret involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Ib. Not involve a.significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed change does not involve any changes to the configuration of the plant, its operation and maintenance, or administrative processes governing plant activities. The radiological consequences of previously postulated accidents are not affected by this proposed change. Any effect of the prorosed extension on the plant's ability to mitigate accidents would be due to age related component degradation that is not detected and corrected during the extension period.
The proposed extension is based on the fact that a-40-year service life was considered in the design and construction of *he plant. This does not mean that some components will not wear out during the plant lifetime, but rather the integrated effects of radiation damage and cycle loadings were considered in the design. Surveillance and inspection programs implemented in accordance with regulations, cod"c and standards, Technical ,
Specifications and programmatic cce. 'ments provide assurance that any unexpected component degradation woula be detected and corrected.
As a result, the proposed change will not affect any previously evaluated accident radiological consequences.
WP KB A/2
I Dockbt Number 50-346'-
bicense Number NPF-3 .
Ser101 Number 1753 i I 4 Attachment l' l
- Page 5 h ;
Not' create the possibility of a new kind of accident from any accident 2a. ,
previously evaluated because the proposed change does not involve changes '
to the configuration of the plant, its operation and maintenance, or j, administrative processes governing plant civities. Therefore, the ,
possibility of a new kind'of accident can.. be created by the proposed *
, change.-
i 2b, Not create the possibility of a different kind of accident from any accident-previously evaluated because the proposed change does not involve changes to the configuration of the plant, its operation and maintenance. l or administrative processer governing plant activities. -therefore, the possibility'of a different kind of accident cannot be created by the- i proposed change.
R' 3. Not involve.a significant reduction in a margin of safety because any i potential reduction in a margin of safety could only be.due to age related r
, component degradation beyond acceptable levels that is not detected and corrected during the proposed license extension. Surveillance and inspection programs provide assurance that unexpected degradation would be detected and corrected. Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Conclusion On the basis of the above. Toledo Edison has determined that the License
- 2 ' Amendment Request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attachment Attached le the proposed marked-up change to the Operating bicense.
I i
)
e ,
WP KB A/2 i
i
m $
+
D'o,cket Nuc.S;r S0-346 4 .' pic:n:q Numb:r NPF-3 -
Sertl 1753
Attachment:
1' 34 j Tage 6 G. In accordance with the requirement imposed by the October 8, 3976, order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Natura) Resources Defense Council v. Noclear Regulatorv'Co=ission, .40, 74-),$65 una 74-1566, tnat the 14acJear Regulatory wmmission "sha)) make any 3 icenses gr anted between July 21,1976 and suen time when tha mandate is issued subject to the outcome of such proceedings herein," this J icense shall be subject to the outcome of such proceedings.
H. This Jicense is effective as of the date .f,1,s,su,ang,e,and shall expire at midn3ght , 44aren-241-2&H ." e,y2z,zoi7l3 uw FOR THE NUCtIAR REOJIATORY CO.'t!ISSION
, / 95' 'N * " . J *b Roger S. yd, Dire,c o Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachments:
J. Appencices A & B - Technical Specifications 2; Preoperational Wsts, Startup Tests and.Other Items Unich Hast De Completed Pr for to Proceeding to Succeeding Operational i~,ades Date of Issuance: APR'2 21977
, $9 '
- 4 O
~
r i+ ,
D:ck;t Numb;r 50-346 Lic:ns] Numb;r NPF-3 ;
S; rial Number 1753 i
Attachment 2 Page 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Environmental Considerations Relative to Extension of the Operating License to 40 Years The Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) Unit 1 (NUREG-75/097) dated October 1975, was :
reviewed to determine if any significant environmental impacts, other than those previously considered, would be associated with the proposed extension of the Operating License (OL) from March 24, 2011, to April 22, 2017 or 40 years from the date of losuance.
In general, the FES assessed the environmental effects related to site preparation and construction, station operation and accidents, and assessed the need for power, the adverse effects which cannot be avoided, the alternatives to the facility and cost-benefit, the relationship between short-term local uses of man's environment and long term productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. These topics relate to the construction and original licensing of the facility with the exception of the effects of station operation and accidents, and consideration of alternatives to the proposed extension of the Operating License. The following information regarding populatio, projections, radioactive effluents, occupational exposure, transportation of radioactive material and the uranium fuel cycle, and i alternatives to the proposed OL extension is provided to assist in a determination that the FES conclusion of no significant environmental impact remains valid for the proposed OL extension.
Population Proicctions In the FES related to the operation of DBNPS, the regional demography was evaluated. DBNPS is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio, approximately six miles northeast of Oak Harbor, Ohio. The site encompasses 954 acres of which more than 700 acres is marsh land leased to the U.S. Government as a natural wildlife refuge. The land area around the site is generally agricultural, with no major industry in the vicinity of the site. The FES evaluated population distributions within a fifty mile radius of the site.
Population was projected to the year 2000 based on 1970 census data.
The area within a 50-mile radiue is comprised primarily of northwest Ohiu, southeast Michigan, and southwestern Ontario, Canada. Based on the 1980 census, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census projects decreases in population in Ohio and Michigan in the 1990-2000 period of 3.82 and 2.02 respectively. The Ohio County Profile - 1988 published by the Ohio Data Users Center and the Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Of fice of Rever.ue and Tax Analysis, Population Projection 1980-2010, both project significantly ,
lower population growth through 2010 for counties within the .50-mile radius. l Table 1. Population by Counties within 50 miles, provides a comparison of USAR !
projections based on 1970 data, for the period from 1980 to 2010, with actual WP KB A/2 !
)
L Dock;t Number 50-346
. Lic:nsa Number NPF-3 S: rial Number 1753 s
Attachment 2 Page 2 1980 populations and projections for 2010 based on 1980 census data.
Projections beyond 2010 are not available. A source of comparable population data for Essex County, Ontario. Canada was not located. The proposed Operating License extension is to 2017. Although the FES presented projections to 2000, these projections were based on 1970 census data as were the USAR projections to 2010. Therefore for the purposes of assessing the environmental impact of the license extension, it is valid to make comparisons with the USAR 2010 projections.
As illustrated in Table 1 the total population of Michigan and Ohio counties within a 50-mile radius is projected to decrease through 2010. Based on these current population projections for the year 2010, the total population in this region could grow by 952 during the proposed OL extension period and still be bounded by the FES. The recent population projections have at least 101 margin to the USAR 2010 projections for all counties except for Huron and Wyandot cor ties which have St and 72 margins, respectively. Significant population grc-th could occur during the proposed OL extension period and still be bounded by the FES. Huron and Wyandot counties collectively account for less than 1.8%
of the total population within a 50 mile radius and even extraordinary growth in these counties would have little impact on the overall conclusions for the population within a 50-mile radius of DBNPS and would be insignificant compared to the overall decrease in population projected in the 50 mile radius.
The 10 mile radius emergency planning zone (EPZ) is almost entirely contr41ned in Ottawa County. The Ohio Data Users Center predicts a 12.32 reduction in {
population for Ottawa County between 1980 and 2010. While overall Ottawa County l population is decreasing and the decline is projected to continue, within the EPZ there have been increases in permanent and transient populations primarily as a result of increased recreational usage of the Lake Erie waterfront in the vicinity of the plant. A new campsite (approximately 400 spaces) and a new condominium development are located approximately one mile northwest of the ,
site. It is estimated that 1930 persons will be using these facilities. !
However, population changes within the EPZ are periodically evaluated to update l the evacuation time estimates for the DBNPS Emergency Plan, and appropriate changes to the emergency plan are made if necessary. These local population changes have not resulted in a reduction in effectiveness or modification of the Emergency Plan.
In summary, the FES overestimates the population within a 50 mile radius of DBNPS, and population growth within the region for the duration of the proposed Operating License extension will likely be bounded by the FES. The county population trends discussed above also reflect the population trends for -
population centers within a fifty mile radius of the plant. Consequently, the l 10CFR100 siting criteria will continue to be satisfied for the duration of the proposed OL extension.
I VP KB A/2
j ,
' Dock:t Number 50-346 Lic;ns] Numb:r NPF-3 S; rial Numb;r 1753 Attachment 2 Fage 3 I
Radioactive Effluents At the time of the FE3 the NRC was reassessing assumptions and evaluating models for projected radioactive effluent releases and calculated doses consistent with .
Commission guidance related to rulemaking which was ongoing at the time in 1975.
Revised specific models for detailed assessment of individual and populatio.
doses had not been completed at the time of the FES. The FES in the interim, ,
and ultimately the long term, relied on the requirements of 10CFR50 Appendix I as a basis for acceptance. The FES stated that no final design would be approved for DBNPS vhich would result in individual doses in excess of Appendix 1 requirements. The DBNPS Technical Specifications include dose limits consistent with 10CFR50 Appendix I and which represent a small fra-tion of doses received from natural background radiation, i
Nonetheless, the FES provided an assessment of the annual radiological impact of DBNPS Unit 1 operation on the entire U.S. population. This assessment is based on assumed annual radioactive effluent release rates presented in the FES in l Table 3.2, " Calculated Release of Radioactive Material for Liquid Effluent from '
DBNPS Unit 1,* and Table 3.3.b. ' Revised Gaseous Radioactive Source Term Ci/yr'.
The Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports quantify actual releases -
from the plant since initiation of operation and assess the associated offsite dose for comparison with the Technical Specifications limits. Dose assessments presented in the Semlannual Radioactive Release Reports are for individuals and population within a fifty mile radius of the plant. No direct comparison can be ,
made between doses reported in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports and the U.S. population doses presented in FES. However, a comparison can be made between actual releases as reported in the Semiannual Effluent Release Reports and the release rates assumed in the FES. Table 2 ' Comparison of FES and Actual Release Rates,' provides a comparison of the release rates assumed in the FES with the actual average release rates reported in the Semlannual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for the period since operation began through June 1989. As shown in Table 2, actual annual release rates are significantly less than assumed in the FES.
The FES assessment of U.S. population dose presented in FES Appendix D.
considered the effects of a gradual buildup of radionuclides in the environment over an assumed 30-year-period of plant operation. FES Appendix D concluded that Carbon-14 (C-14) and Iodine-131 (I-131) are the principal contributors to g population dose, with all other radionuclides contributing relatively L insignificantly. 1-131, the principal contributor to population dose, has a L half life of 8.07 days. Consequently the concentration of I-131 in the L environment reaches an equilibrium rapidly and is independent of the overall l period of plant operation. Thus, the proposed OL extension to a 40-year period does r.ot af fect FES conclusions regarding annual population dose f rom I-131.
The FES assumes 8 C1 of C-14 is released annually from the platt. C-14 has half-life of 5730 years and would not reach an equilibrium concentration during a 30-year period. An increase in the operating life to 40-years would result in corresponding increases in environmental C-14 concentration and attributable WP KB A/2
r _
, ' D:ckat- Numbe r 50-346 Liccns) Haniber NPF.3 Serial Number 1753
- . Attachment 2 Page 4 population dose. Based on the relative contribution of C-14 to the total annual dose provided in FES Table 5.2. ' Annual Integrated Dose to the U.S. Population.'
the increase in annual dose due to additional C-14 release associated with the proposed OL extension would be less than 102. The total annual dose received by the U.S. population would still be or.ly a small f raction of the dose received from naturally occurring radiation sources.
Occupational Exposure i The FES estimated an annual occupational exposure of 450 man-rems associated with the operation of DBNPS. The most recent em. tion of NUREG-0713 Vol. 8.
' Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Otner Facilities - 1986 - Nineteenth Annual Report.' identifies DBNPS as consistently being one of pressurized water reactor (PWR) sites vith the lowest collective annual dose. During the period of 1982 through 1986 the collective annual dose ranged between 71 and 164 man-rems, as compared with a PWR industry average of approximately 500 man-rems for the same period.
Transportation of Radioactive Material and The Uranium Fuel Cvele The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as considered in the FES for DBNPS were based on 30 years of operation of a model light water reactor (LVR). The fuel )
requirements for the model LVR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 i annual refuelings of approximately one-third core each. Reprocessing of spent i fuel was included in the assumed fuel cycle. A 40-year operating life would be expected.to increase fuel use by approximately 302 which would entail increased environmental costs related to mining, enrichment, and other fuel cycle impacts.
The net annualized ef't ts would remain essentially unchanged from those considered in the FES.
j Davis-Besse will complete its sixth refueling during the first half of 1990. I
, Based on an annual cycle, 26 refuelings would be required for operation through ;
l- the proposed extension, a total of 32 over the life of the plant. This l represents approximately a 102 increase for the model LVR assumed in the FES.
l' DBNPS now projects 18 month refueling intervals. .This may have the effect of reducing the total number of fuel assemblies used over the life of the plant as compared to annual cycles.. However, higher enrichments are required and the overall effect on the environment due to mining and uranium processing for a 40-year operating lifetime with 18 month cycles is likely to be about the same .
as for annual cycles. The reduced number of spent fuel assemblies discharged !
i with 1 a r cycles would tend to reduce any effect of the Operating i' cense extens un the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel since the total n her of shipments over a 40-year service life to a spent fuel repository j may be less than assumed in the FES. '
i-1 I
l l
WP KB A/2
_._.---------_--__-._--___--__.__-_____-_____a
- Dock;t Number 50-346
, License Numb r NPF-3 S:rjal Numbar 1753 Attachment 2
- - Page 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Operating License Extension The principle alternative to extension of the Operating License would be to shutdown DBNPS Unit 1 at its current expiration date. This would necessitate replacement of DBNPS Unit i generating capacity at that time which otherwise could be deferred to the proposed expiration date. Currently, the most viable options for replacing generating capacity are demand side management and fossil generation. Demand side management involves implementing measures to more efficiently utilire existing capacity to reduce load growth. This has the effect of deferring the need for additional capacity. Although demand side management is likely to forestall the need for new generating capacity in the
- Centerior system until after the year 2000, it is unlikely that it would eliminate the need for replacen.ent generating capacity for DBNPS Unit 1.
Replacement fossil generation would involve significant capital cost and environmental impact. Extension of the Operating License would involve little or no additional capital cost and the environmental impacts associated with continued operation of DBNPS remain small. Since 1986. DBNPS reliability continues to improve. as is evidenced by its 1989 performance in the top 10% of U.S. nuclear plants. Improving reliability enhances the economic attractiveness of continued operation over other alternatives. Continued operation of DBNPS Unit 1 for an additional six years remains the most economical and environmentally attractive alternative.
1
[
i WP KB A!2
]
~_
, Dockst Number 50 356 f,1censo Numb r NPF.3 e terial Number 1753
- - Attachment 2 Page 5 l
TABLE 1 Population by Counties within 50 Miles FSAR/USAR FSAR/USAR Recent 2010 2017 Projected Actual Projected Projection 1 Growth County 1980 1980 2010 of 2010 Bounded by Population Population Population Populations FES (FSAR/USAR)
- Crawford $4040 50075 65400 42810 53 Erie 84260 79655 111733 68110 64 Fulton 37140 37753 50826 41940 21 Hancock 69360 64581 97257 65740 4P Henry 28760 28383 33864 27420 i' '.
Huron 51870 54608 58512 55860 $
Lorain 301790 274909 466892 253740 84 Lucas 512000 471741 594950 426930 39 Ottawa 38880 40076 44075 35150 25 Richland 142870 1M P.05 184409 116250 59 Sandusky 65620 63267 80077 57130 40 Seneca 62030 61901 65702 56390 17 Wood 109820 107372 190484 107400 77 Wyandot 22000 22651 22444 20950 7 1839440 1488175 2066625 '375820
. 50 ;
Michigan **
Lenawee 85500 89970 232916 96100 142 Honroe 340800 134694 1067211 156600 581 Vashtenaw 416100 264677 1099870 330800 232 W6yne 2743000 2337257 3390675 2069700 64 3585400 2826598 5790672 2653200 118 i
TOTAL' 5424840 4314765 7857297 4029020 95
- Michigan Department of Management and Budget. Office of kevenue and Tax Analysis. Population Projection 1980-2010.
l WP KB A/2
4
., Dockot Numb 3r 50 346 Licens3 Numb 3r NPF-3 e Serial Number 1753 Attachment 2 Page 7 TABLE 2 Comparison of FES and Actual Release Rates FES1 DSNPS Average (Ci/yr) (Cilvr)
Gaseous. Effluents Fission Gases 9000 856 Radiciodines 0.54 0.02 Tritium 690 17.3 Particulates 0.06 0.000273 Carbon 14 8 Not Monitored or Reported I.iquid Effluents Fission and Activation Products 0.3 0.23 Tritium 350 124 1FES Table 3.3.b and FES Table 3.2 2 Prior to June 1985. Af ter June 1985. Particulates were aggregated with l Radioiodines and Tritium in the Semiannual Radiosettve Effluent Release Rcports.
( ,
'WP KB Al2 )
_ _