ML20043H555

Environ Assessment Supporting Amend 5 to License DPR-28

ML20043H555
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	06/21/1990
From:	Wessman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20043H556	List: ML20043H555
References
NUDOCS 9006260103
Download: ML20043H555 (17)

Text

- _ _.. -

l

,e 1

i 1

7590-01 ENVIRCNMENTAL ASSESSMENT i

BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXPIRATION DATE OF j

FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE ttVCLEAR PCWER CORPORATION FOR THE VFPMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR PNER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 INTRODUCTION TheVermontYankeeNuclearPowerStation(VYNPSortheplant)iscurrently licensed for. operation for 40 years connencing with the issuance of the J

construction parmit. The license expires on December 11, 2007. By [[letter::05000271/LER-1989-017, :on 890330,svc Water Check Valves Inoperable Due to Corrosion of Internal Parts.Check Valve Cleaned & Returned to Svc.Review of All Svc Water Sys Check Valve Performance Conducted|letter dated April 27, 1989]], and as supplemented on June 23, 1989, Vermont Yankee i

Nuclear Power Corporation (VYNPC or the licensee) requested that the license expiration date for the plant be extended to fiarch 21, 2012 or 40 years af ter the date of the issuance of the " low-power" operating license. The currently effectiveFacilityOperatingLicense(DPR-28AmendmentNo.5)wasissuedon February 28, 1973 and authorizes operation at full power, not to exceed 1593.

I megawatts thermal.

NEED FOR THE PROP 0!;ED ACTION, L

The granting of this request would allow the licensee to operate the plant for approximately four years and three months beyond the current license expiration date, thus recapttring the construction period. This extension would also permit the plant to operate for the full forty year design basis lifetime.

90062601o1 900621 f.'DR ADOCh 05000271 PDC

2 consistent with previously stated Commission policy (Memorandum dated August 16, 1982, from William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, to the Commissioners) and as evidenced by the issuance of over 30 similar extensions I

to other licensees.

ENVIRONMENTAt. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The anticipated impact of the plant on the environment was evaluated in the Staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated July 1972. Since that time its impact on the environment has been observed and recorded.

In order to arrive at a finding on the acceptability of the plant's impact on the environment the following considerations will be evaluated in this assessment:

1.

Radiological Impacts of the Hypothetict.1 Pesign Basis Accident 2.

Radiological Irpacts of Annual Releases 3.

Environmental Impact of Uranium Fuel Cycle 4

Non-Radiological Impacts 5.

Plant Modifications 6.

Conclusion on Environmental Impacts l

1 Each of these considerations is sequentially discussed be'ow.

1.

Radiological Impacts of the Hypothetical Design Basis Accident (DBA)

The offsite exposure from releases due to postulated accidents has been analyzed by the licensee in the VYNPS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The results of these analyses were within the bounds of 10 CFR Part 100 and thur acceptable. This type of analysis is a function of feur parameters:

(1) the types of accidents postulated, (2) the radioactivity release calculated foreachaccident,(3)theassumedmeteorologicalconditions,and(4)

. r population distribution versus distance from the plant. The staff has concluded that neither the types of accidents nor the calculated radioactivity releases will change through the proposed amendmuc term.

turthermore, the site meteorology as defined in the FSAR is essentially a constant and I

consideration herein is therefore unwarranted. Thus, the one parameter that is dependent on the proposed license amendment is the population size and distribution, as it could vary with time. The population size and distribution within a 50-mile radius of the plant has been studied four times between 1969 and 1986. The 1986 study projected pepulation changes through the year 2012.

There are no significant land use changes expected during the amendment term that could affect offsite dose calculations. The results of the 1986 study and those of the other studies are presented in Figure 1, Sumary of Population Projections fg Vermont Yankee derived from the licensee's [[letter::05000271/LER-1989-017, :on 890330,svc Water Check Valves Inoperable Due to Corrosion of Internal Parts.Check Valve Cleaned & Returned to Svc.Review of All Svc Water Sys Check Valve Performance Conducted|April 27, 1989 letter]].

None of the pr acted changes in population between the years 2007 and 2012, the addeo term of the proposed license amendment, will significantly impact any accident analysis previously calculated.

Furthermore, the current exclusion area boundary, low population zone and nearest population center distance are not likely to be significantly changed through the amendrent term L

from those originally and currently used by the VYNPS. Accordingly,we conclude that the proposed license amendment will not significantly change 1revious conclusions on the potential environmental effects of offsite releases from postulated accidents.

The staff stated in their proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (54 FR 31120) dated July 26. 1989, that the change in expiration

o

. date to March 21, 2012 is consistent with current NRC policy and the originally engineered design life of the plant, i.e. 40-years of operation.

Age related degradation was the only mechanism we identified in the above mentioned determination that could impact the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.

However, sue to design conservatism, maintenance and surveillance programs, inspection programs and the Plant Technical Specifications, the proposed additional four years and three months of operation will have no significant impact on safety. That is, regardless of the age of the facility, the above mentioned programs and Technical Specifications ensure that components, systems and structures will be refurbished or replaced *' maintain their requisite safety function.

2.

Radiological Impacts of Annual Releases a.

Onsite Doses The VYNpS occupational (onsite) exposure trend and comparative magnitude with the industry's average boiling water reactor (BWR) site, based on average annual exposures in terms of person-rem per five-year period, is shown in Figure 2, Vermont Yankee vs. BWR Industry - Five-Year Occupational Exposure Averages, taken from the licensee's [[letter::05000271/LER-1989-017, :on 890330,svc Water Check Valves Inoperable Due to Corrosion of Internal Parts.Check Valve Cleaned & Returned to Svc.Review of All Svc Water Sys Check Valve Performance Conducted|April 27, 1989 letter]]. The data in Figure 2, in regards to both total dose and average dose per worker, indicate that the licensee has implemented a very successful

-)

program under 10 CFR 50, Appendix I "As low as Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) guidelines.

Given the licensee's continued implementation of its ALARA program and the plant's historically stable occupational exposure, we conclude that the average of the 1987 and 1988 exposures of about 220 person-rem, cumulative, will serve as an upper limit in future years of normal operation, i.e. non-reload years and years without major e

- - ~, -

r 1

! i maintenance such as fuel pool modifications. During the proposed amendment term, it is assumed that the YYNPS will continue to operate with an approximately 18-month long fuel cycle. This would result in a maximum of four refueling outages during the proposed amendment term.

Using annual exposures of 700 and 220 person-rem for years with and without typical refueling outages, respectively, it is estimated that the total occupational exposure during the proposed amendment term will be about 3,000 person-rem. This averages to about 600 person-rem per year.

This projection is consistent with the pit.nt's recent five-year average occupational exposure level of 534 person-rem per year. All other BlR plants had a five-year average of 691 person-rem per year in this same time period. The expected exposures for the plant are in accordance with 10 CfR 20 and Regulatory Guide 8.8.

I b.

Offsite Doses Appendix I guidelines on Al. ARA were briefly discussed above in regard to on-site doses; however, these guidelines also apply to releases that could cause offsite doses.

In addition, routine releases w the environment are governed by 10 CFR 20.1(c), which states that such i

releases should be as low as reasonably achievable. Appendix ! is more explicit in that it establishes radioactive design / dose objectives for l

l

' liquid and gaseous offsite releases including iodine / particulate radionuclides. Figure 3, Sumary of Offsite Appendix I Radiation Exposure L

j p.

l l

L.

. Limits and Actual Perfonnance Data (as millirem) provides a comparison of Appendix I limits with consolidated plant operating data. This figure is derived from the licensee's letter of April 27, 1989. A review of the values in Figure 3 indicates that the actual performance of the plant to control and limit liquid gaseous radioactive releases has been well within l

the % pendix ! radiation exposure limit objectives. There have been no radieective liquid releases in nine of the past twelve years and none in I

the past seven years. The plant has demonstrated its ability to hold up, l

process and reuse waste water to a degree that has not necessitated the i

routine release of significant radioactive liquid wastes.

QR l

The licensee has demnstrated, see Figure 3, that the gaseous Radwaste System is capable of limiting releases associated with both routine operations and special occurrences, such as reloads, to a fraction of ALARA design objectives.

f Based on the continued operation of the plant's er.isting liquid and

(

gaseous radwaste systems, we conclude that the anticipated offsite doses 4

i during the period covered by the proposed l cense amendment would remain l

i a fraction of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 limits, i

The volume of solid waste at the VYNPS has been below that generated at the average BWR.

In addition, the licensee has committed to further reduce the amount generated in future years.

~*-

t t-

? i l

The staff concludes that the releases from the plant, both onsite and offsite, have remained within the bourds of the FES and have complied with 'the applicable portions of 10 CFR 20 and 50 as discussed above. As e

a consequence, we would expeci. releases during the proposed license extension period to remain wit.hin these bounds.

l l

3.

Environmental Impact of the Uranium Fuel Cycle The VYNPS reactor contains 368 fuel bundles. Until recently, the plant has operated in a twelve to fourteen month fuel cycle. However, due to impreved fuel designs, the plant is currently in an eighteen month fuel cycle.

This has reduced the demand for fissile uranium.

The additional period of reactor operation requested by the licensee will increase the need for fissile uranium over the plant's operating lifetime.

The licensee assumes that operation will continue utilizing an' eighteen month I

fuel cycle. There will be a cumulative increase in the use of uranium due to the lengthened period of operation. This cumulative increase will have an L

insignificant environmental impact. The total number of fuel asembilies that will be used and that will need to be stored if the amendment recuest is granted is 3,545. The number predicted in the FES in 1972 for 40 years of operation was 3,500 fuel assemblies. Thus, the prediction made in the FES and the current prediction are substantially similar as regards uranium use and the need for storage or disposal of spent fuel, i

l' l

! ]

l The environmental impacts, both radiological and non-radiological, attributable to transportation of fuel and waste to and from plant sites, with respect to normal conditions of transport and possible accidents in transport have been assessed in several generic enviromental impact i

statements. These assessments represent the contribution of such transportation to annual environmental costs including dose per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public. These annual envirormental costs, which are displayed in Table S-4 of the Commission's regulations,10 CFR $51.52, would not be changed by the extended period of operation, l

' Based on the above, the staff concludes that there are no significant changes in the environmental impact related to the uranium fuel cycle due to j

the proposed extended operation cf the VYNPS.

j 4.

Non-Radiological Impacts The major non radiological impact of the plant on the environment is 1

through the operation of the plant's cooling systems. There are three modes of operation of the Condenser Cooling System. This is the system that transports waste heat from the condensers to the heat sink. There are two i

heat sink paths at VYNPS, first to the Connecticut River then indirectly to the atmosphere or directly to the atmosphere. The three modes of operation are: open, closed and hybrid cycle. The open cycle uses the river for waste 1

i

.g.

heat discharge, the closed cycle uses mechanical draft ecoling towers and transports heat directly to the atmosphere and the hybrid cyr.le is a combination of the open and closed cycles. The use of the open cycle is the normal mode of operation. However, occasionally, the requirements of the NationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)permitenforceuseof the other two modes in order to reduce thermal effects on the Connecticut River. This permit it issued by the State of Vermont and is renewed on a five-year cycle.

The NPDES permit requirements serve to protect fish, organisms in the river and migratory wildlife that use the river from the impacts of plant operations.

In addition, the parmit insures satisfaction of the pertinent requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the State of Vermont water quality standards. The impacts of the plant on the river and the environment l

have been within the predictions of the FES, r.

2mained stable during plant operation and the licensee is required to continue so monitor the non-radiological impacts by the terms of the Operating License requirements and

.the NPDES permit.

Other non-radiological impacts of the proposed license extension involve the following factors:

l L

Li j

. a.

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity The plant has maintained an average capacity factor of about 70% since

]

start of comercial operation. The average for all U. S. nuclear plants is 60%. The plant has maintaired an excellent safety record during this period and the NRC systematic assessment of licensee performance (! ALP) 1 gave the VYNPS a high rating. We stated in our March 7, 1990 Final SALP Report, covering the most current interval, in regards to licensee i

performance, "During the assessment period, few challenges to personnel j

and safety systems occurred, and the plant experienced a low transient rate. Overall performance was indicative of a management involvement in

)

plant operations that was comprehensive and strongly oriented toward nuclear safety. Technical competence and management strengths were most i

notable in the functional areas of plant operations, maintenance and surveillance, engineering and technical support, and emergency preparedness."

The staff expects that the level of performance noted above will continue during the remaining license period and during the requested extension

period, l

b.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Comitment of Resources e

The FES stated in its discussion of this factor, in regard to the initial plant construction as well as projected operation, "These comitments are small compe. red with the need for production of essential electrical energy l

1 j

k

for this area." While the population in the immediate plant vicinity has not experienced growth, the service area demand has increased since issuance of the operating license. While there have been modifications to the plant since the original license was issued, these have involved only readily available construction materials, not materials in short supply.

The staff has not determined the need for any significant resource commitments neces:ary as a result of the preposed license extension, c.

Historic Preservation Through the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the staff has an obligation to make a determination as to the impact of the proposed license extension on any significant nearby historical or archeological sites. The FES contained a Section entitled, Historic significance that dealt with this issue in depth. The Governor Hunt house, located at the site boundary, is the only nearby identified

' historical site. The Vermont Archeological Society and excavations for site construction did not identify any archeological materials nor fossils of any significance. The licensee in their letter of April 27, 1989-identified the Governor Hunt house as the only nearby historic property.

The licensee has restored this property and has pledged to maintain it.

In addition, the licensee investigated other historic sites iA the three state area for any signs of deterioration caused by plant operation; no evidence of such deterioration was discovered.

Based on the above, the staff has determined that the proposed license extension would have no

. adverse affect on any historic property.

l

, l l

5.

Plant P.odifications t

i Many modifications and design changes have taken place at the plant since i

original construction. Those that involve an unreviewed safety question or require a change to the Technical Specifications are submitted to the NRC for prior review and approval.

This review includes a determination of the environmental offects of the proposed change. As provided by our regulations, other changes may be implemented by the licensee without prior NRC approval.

The licensee must first perform a safety evaluation for any such changes, subject 1

to flRC inspection and audit. The licensee also submits such changes to the staff in an Annual Report, which is reviewed by the staff. A complete detailed description of all the changes including a sumary of the safety evaluation is included in the annual update of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The staff reviews the FSAR updates to verify that the changes did not require prior i

NRC review and approval.

In general, these changes improve plant reliability and do not adversely impact the environment. While it is recognized that the requested license extension will possibly result in further routine design changes and modifications similar in nature to those alracy conducted, it is not anticipated that these would have any adverse impact on the environment.

6.

Conclusion on Environmental Impacts Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed extension will not have any significant impact on the environment.

I

~

.-~

. -. - - - - - - _ + - -.

s.

l e-l l

• r ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION One alternative to the proposed license extension would be to deny the application. This would require the plant to shut down upon expiration of the current operating license. Another alternative, presented by the licensee in their April 27, 1989 submittal and derived from a study performed by the Amos Tuck Business School at Dartmouth College, would be the construction of an oil-fired plant to replace the electrical generation of the VYNPS. The licensee performed an analysis of the costs of power generation and the environmental impacts of such an oil-fired plant. During the period of the license extension, the licensee stated that VYNPS would provide power to the public for about $443 million less than the alternative. The alternate plant would have many, real, adverse environmental impacts that would contribute to the amount of acid rain in the Northeast region of the United States and to global warming. The staff examined the licensee's cost analysis and concluded that it is reasonable. Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that continued operation of the plant for the license extension period remains i

l the most economical and environmentally attractive alternative.

t ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the FES in relation to the operation of the plant.

l.

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register s

(54 FR 31120) on July 26, 1989. The State of Vermont has intervened in the issuance of this proposed license amendment; this action has resulted in ongoing contacts between the staff and the State.

BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The conclusions of the July 1972 Final Environmental Statement remain valid and operation of the plant has demonstrated that its impact on the environment has been within the bounds predicted by the FES. The staff has reviewed the proposed license amendment relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the issuance of the proposed license amendment will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this

,greyof k w 1990.

I FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

m ThvA~

Richard H. Wessman, Director Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 s

hhM S= - ry of Pooulation Proiections for Ver-a-t Y== N Difference Between (as 1) i Current Current Current Original Revised 2012 2012 2012 Current FSAR FSAR ER and and and 2012 Area (1969)

(1982)

Current (1971)

Current Orig. FSAR Rev. FSAR ER and (Mile) 2000 2000 2007 2010 2012 2000 2000 2010 2007 0 - 5*

12,566 10,076 11,112 11,770 11,823

-5.9

+17.3

+0.4

+6.3 5 - 10 35,311 33,164 27,704 22,130 28,556

-20.2

-13.8

+29.0

+3.0 0 - 10 48,377 43,240 38,816 33,900 40,379

-16.5

-6.6

+19.1

+4.0 10 - 50 N/A 1,761,410 1,440,243 1,672,200 1,467,232 N/A-

-12.2

-16.8

+1.9 0 - 50 N/A 1,804,650 1,479,059 1,706,100 1,507,611 N/A

-11.6

-16.4

+1.9

• Reflects Low Population Zone e

i i

1

6 j

e, Figure:2 Va rman t Yankaa va. RWR f ndus tr y Fiva-Year occunational Enneaura Averaman l

Total Dose Average Dose Five-Year (Person Ram)

Par Workar (Ram)

Interval Vermont Yankee BWRs Vermont Yankea BWRa i

1974-1978 275 690 0.45 1.05 1975-1979 466 687 0.60

0. 9'.

1976-1980 703 815 0.70 0.87 1977-1981 767 891 0.70 0.85 1978-1982 756 896 0.71 0.80 i

1979-1983 994 969 0.76 0.80 i

1980-1984 880 1,067 0.76 0.80 I

1981-1985 823 936 0.59 (b)

(c) 1982-1986 914 915 (a) 0.57 (b)

(c) 1983-1987 934 817 (a) 0.51 (b)

(c) 1984-1988 534 691 (a) 0.36 (b)

(c)

Source:

" Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors," NUREG-0713 Volume 6, 1984.

(a) INPO performance indicators for the U.S. Nuclear Utility Industry.

(b)

Plant records.

(c) Not available..

I m6

~

6 4

e hfgyf*Q$

.1 -

Si-ev of of f-Eita Anp= dix I Radinth hnomura Lisalta and Actual Perfo maaea Data (as area)

A i,

1976 Vermont-Yankee Maximum Dose Appendix I Radwaste System

-Received From Parameter-Limits Design Review-Limit Plant Since 1976 Liquid 13 2.2 x 10-2 5.0 x 10-4 Gaseous 15 1.2-0.32-Iodine and 115 3.8-0.32

-Particulates i

i i

0.

i

'l

.5 e

f

\\

.g i

1

~

7

'