ML20073J262
| ML20073J262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1994 |
| From: | Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410060272 | |
| Download: ML20073J262 (8) | |
Text
(
Statiin Support Dipsrtmsnt
- 1. -
t m
PECO ENERGY af c=L 965 Chestertacok Bouievard Wayne. PA 19087-5691 l
l September 30,1994 l
l Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Power Rerate Program (RAl-9)
Dear Sir:
Attached is our response to your request for additiona! information (RAl-9) dated September 29,1994 regarding our planned implementation of the Power Rerate Program at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3.
The Power Rerate Program was the subject of Technical Specifications Change Request (TSCR) No. 93-12 which was forwarded to you by letter dated June 23, 1993.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
. [!.
G. A. Hunger, J.
Director - Ucensing Attachment cc:
T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC W. L. Schmidt, USNRC Senior Resident inspector, PBAPS R. R. Janati, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania e c.
- (
g[i 9410060272 940930 I l PDR ADoCK 050oo277 P
PDR 1
, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
- ss.
t COUNTY OF CHESTER i
W. H. Smith, Ill, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
i That he is Vice President of PECO Energy Company; the Applicant herein; that he has read the enclosed response to the request for additional information concerning Technical Specifications Change Request (Number 93-12) for Peach Bottom Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, and knows the contents l
thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
l l
// L H
~ TN Vice President f/
l Subscribed and sworn to i
<f before me this Y day of h J
^UL4p94.
9 N' %
//
l Notary Public l
l NatanalSeal
~
l Eb A Saran Nutyy Puule MY
[ O E'S g
1
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl-9)
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 1.
Is additional water to be withdrawn from the Conowingo Pond, Susquehanna River, or other water sources, such as ground water, in order to support the power uprate? If so, what are the effects of additional water withdrawa!?
Resoonse No. The flow rates of the circulating water and service water systems are not changed due to power rerate, as discussed in Section 6.4.2 of the Safety Analysis Report. PBAPS has once-through circulating water and service water systems. The circulating water and service water are directed through mechanical cooling towers (five are provided) on an as-needed basis prior to the water being released to the discharge canal and into the river. Other plant water requirements, such as, demineralized make-up water and domestic water are also unaffected.
2.
If Peach Bottom has an environmental protection plan, are any changes needed to it?
Resoonse The only change required to the Environmental Technical Specifications and Bases is to revise the definition of " rated thermal power" from 3293 MW, to 3458 MW,, and is included in the license amendment request for power rerate.
3.
What are the reasons for needing a new NPDES permit? What are the effects of the power uprate on the NPDES permit? What is the status of the permit? If the permit is not available in time to support startup, what contingency plans does the licensee have?
Resoonse As stated in Section 111 (page 21) of the license amendment request, the NPDES permit includes a table which indicates how many functioning cooling towers are required at various power levels and other relevant variables. This permit must be revised to reflect the higher power levels that will be achieved due to rerated power operation.
The revision to the NPDES permit cooling tower operation table has been technically reviewed and approved by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the attached latter.
4.
What are the effects of any increased noise levels attributed to the power uprate, including the noise from the cooling towers?
Resoonse There are no new or revised noise contributors due to operation at rerate power level. Major plant equipment is housed within structures located on the plant site and are not major contributo"t to surrounding noise levels. Even so, most equ!pment such as the main turbines and generators will operate at the same speed as before. Equipment not housed in buildings, such as the cooling towers, will operate at the same speed and noise level as at the original plant conditions.
The main station transformer is the only exception, and will operate at an increased kva level; however, the overall noise level increase due to this is not significant.
Dock:t Nos. 50-277 50-278 i
4 License Nos. DPR-44 j
DPR-56 i
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl 9)
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 5.
Will there be an increase in the amount of fuel used for the power uprate? If so, what are the potential environmental effects (e.g., waste volume, curie content, radiation exposure)? The Final Environmental Statement (FES) states that the licensee estimates that 60,000 kg of 235U will be consumed during operation of the plant. Is this estimate still valid?
Resoonse it is expected that the increased energy requirements associated with power rerate will be accommodated by an increase in the reload fuel enrichment.
Ti us, the number of fuel assemblies requiring ultimate disposal should not be
' significantly impacted by power rerate. Furthermore, the improvements in reload fuel nuclear efficiency since the FES was issued should offset the increased U-235 requirements associated with power rerate and result in approximately the same overall U-235 consumption.
Due to the higher steady state operating power associated with power rerate, the curie content of the reactor fuel will increase; however, the change in environmental impact of radioactive material releases due to operation at rerate power levels has been reviewed, and is not significant. These relea.ses will remain well within the regulatory limits. More detailed discussions on changes j
in radiation levels are discussed in Sections 8.5 (Radiation Levels) and 9.2 (Design Basis Accidents) of the Safety Analysis Report.
6.
If there are any, what are the changes and the effects from the changes to the river water (Susquehanna River or Conowingo Pond) discharge flow rate, velocity, temperature and thermal plume, or chemical composition of the discharge? What are the effects to the various aquatic plant and fish species (e.g., Will there be an increase in entralnment of planktonic organisms?
Will there be an increase in impingement of fish?)
Resoonse The discharge flow from the plant cooling towers to the discharge canal, and from the discharge canal to the river is not changed by operation at power rerate conditions. The discharge velocity is likewise, unchanged. Operating at power rerate will result in slightly higher heat loads being rejected by the cooling towers. The resulting contaminant concentration in the towers will increase because of evaporation; however, concentration changes in the cooling tower
]
are not significant, so no significant change to the discharge composition will result.
The therrnal plume characteristics are not expected to change as a result of power rerate since there are no changes in the circulating water and service water flow rates. The discharge temperature to the cooling towers may increase by no more than 2*F due to operation at power rerate conditions. The cooling towers have sufficient capacity to remove this increased heat load, and return the water to the Conowingo Pond within FES accepted limits.
}
There will be no change in the intake canal veloc'ty, and only insignificant changes in the temperature and contaminant concentrations, thus there will be no effect on aquatic plant and fish species, i.e., there will be no change in i
entralnment of planktonic organisms or impingement of fish.
Dock t Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl-9)
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 7.
Is the temperature at the point of discharge to the Conowingo Pond expected to rise as a result of the power uprate? The FES states that the heated effluent will not exceed 98 degrees F, is it still correct?
Resoonse The combined circulating water and service water flow to the cooling towers will be increased by no more than 2*F due to operation at power rerate conditions.
The number of cooling towers in operation is governed by the NPDES permit based on plant power level, number of circulating pumps running, and intake water temperature. The cooling towers have been evaluated and have adequate capacity so that the discharge water will not exceed these environmental limits.
8.
Will there be an increase in the amount or activity level of gaseous, liquid, and solid radwaste produced as a result of the power uprate? If so, what are the environmental effects?
Resoonse The amount of liquid radwaste generated increases very s!Ightly due to operation at rerate power level, as discussed in Section 8.1 (Uquid Waste Management) of the Safety Analysis Report. The change in liquid radwaste activity levels is also small, as discussed in Section 8.4 (Radiation Sources in the Coolant) of the Safety Analysis Report.
Similarly, gaseous radwaste activity levels will increase very slightly due to operation at rerate power level; however, offsite doses for both liquid and gaseous radwaste will be a small fraction of 10 CFR 50 Appendix l design objectives. Solid radwaste activities will also increase very slightly due to operation at rerate power levels.
There are no significant environmental effects associated with the very slight increase in the amount and activity levels of gaseous, liquid, and solid radwaste produced due to operating at rerate power levels.
9.
What are the effects on the terrestrial environment (vegetation and soils) due to the additional emissions from the cooling towers? What is the expected increase in the amount of cooling drift fog due to the power uprate and what are the environmental effects?
l Resoonse The circulating water and service water flow through the cooling towers is not changed due to power rerate. The cooling towers' duty cycle wl!! increase due j
to power rerate, resulting in slightly increased evaporation, but no increase in the drift emissions per tower. The number of cooling towers and the total time of cooling tower operation raay increase slightly; however, due to the conservatism in the original cooling tower design, power rerate should have no impact on the deposition of solids. In addition, most of the drift is carried over t
Conowingo Pond due to prevailing wind conditions (Final Environmental Statement Section Ill.C.2.d). The amount of cooling drift fog will also increase very slightly due to the increased duty cycle of the cooling towers. The slight increase in drift fog and the slight increase in cooling tower operation time will i
I have no significant environmental effects. I
. ~
i Dock:t Nos. 50-277 i
50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl-9)
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 10.
Are there any increases in the makeup requirements for various plant systems (condensate system, feedwater system, component cooling water, recirculation syste n, etc.) and if so what are the environmental effects?
Resoonse Makeup water requirements do not change due to operation at rerate power levels for any of the systems listed.
The only potential change is due to increased reactor operating pressure, which could si;ghtly increase leakage through valve packing, etc. This higher leakage f
increases the liquid radwaste processing load slightly, which is then processed for recycle to the condensate storage system for reuse.
11.
What is the basis for the need for the additional power?
}
2 Resoonse The additional power will be added at modest capital expenditure; thus, the cost of generating this additional power will be low and will reduce the unit cost of generation, i.e., cents per kilowa:t hour. This lower unit cost of generation will provide economic benefit to the region, will cause less use of fossil fuel, and may delay the need for additional generating capacity in the future.
i 12.
Is there an increase in the fuel burnup? If so, what are the effects in relation to Table S-3 and S-47 Resoonse Power Rerate is expected to result in an increase in fuel burnup. However, the fuel burnup will remain within the licensed burnup limits of the fuel designs in operation. Furthormore, an assessment was performed by the NRC (Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting From Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation) which concluded that the environmental impacts sumrnarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 for a burnup level of 33 GWD/MT are conservative and bound the corresponding impacts for bumup levels up to 60 GWD/MT and uranium enrichments up to 5 percent by weight. Fuel enrichment and burnup at PBAPS will continue to be below these limits. The impact of Power Rerate relative to Table S-3 is discussed in the responses to questions 1, 6 and 8.
4 i
4
-k i
SEP 30 '94 14: 15 FROM ENV AFFAIRS TO 96406773 PAGE.001/002 -
e 9
j COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PE N N 5YLVANI A SOUniCENTRAL REGION - FIELD OPERATIONS Water Management Program One AnuatBoulevard Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 657 4590 Mr. Robert M. Matty, Jr., Engineer t
PECO Energy Company Ems.) aal Affairs 2301 Market Street PhilWiphia PA 19101 I
Re:
Industrial Waste l
Peach Bottom Atomic Station Peach Bonom Township d
York County l
Dear Mr. Marty:
i After resiew of our central and regional office biological staff and the Pennsyhunia Fish and Boat Commission, a remmmmMon has been made to extend the 316(a) thermal nriance for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
4 The review of this variance inwhtd imtstigating the effect that an increase in the generating plant's rated power levels will have on the relative fish ahmMM. distribution and species composition in Conowingo Pond. It.was concluded that no change will occur as long as the station is operated according to the resised matrix that is attached.
The NPDES pernut will be renewed in the near future to include the redsed matrix, llowntr, considering the cost to the public of any delay of the project, we see no reason why the power rerating project can not proceed under the conditions of the redsed matrix. This matrix assures that the discharge temperances approved in the original 316(a) uriance are mmmained. These discharge temperatures levels were established to conservatively protect the most sensitive species in the Cononingo Pond.
If there are any questions in this regard, please contact Paul Yarncil of our Perants Section.
S ry, pk
-u n M. Oberdick k
ogram Managen
+
n m
TABLE I - HlNBER OF 0001.1NO TOWERS REQUIRED DASED ON THE NUMBER OF CIRCULATHC WATER PUMPS OPERATING MID INLET WATER TEMPmATURE 17-DAY MOVING AVERAGE) i p
COMBINED 2 UNIT REACTOR POWER LEVEL REQUIRED 650-1339 MWTH 1340 -1989 MWTH 1990 - 2649 MWTH 2650 -2979 MWTH 2980 - 3309 MWTH PUMPS NUMBER PUPPS P1JWS PUMPS PUMPS i
OF TOWERS 2
3 4
2 3
4 2
3 4
2 3
4 2
3 4
5 6
7 - _.._ -
0 32-80 32-82 32-85 32-69 32-77 32-83 32-51 32-68 32-80 32-46 32-59 32-78 g 32-45 32-53 32-76 32-78 32-80 g
1 80+
82+
85+
69-81 77-83 83-86 51-72 68-78 80-83 46-60 59-75 78-81 45-49 53-68 76-80 78-BI 80-82 y
81+
85+
86+
72+
78+
B3+
60+
75-85 81-85*
49-81 68-81. 80-84 81-84 82-83 2
3 85+
B5+ lI 81+
81+
I 4+
84+
85+
8 I.
. _ l.
e l-
. _ g_ _
_{ _
3 L----
A CORRECTED VALUES RERATED 1 UMTFULL POWER REQUIRED
- - -, 3310 -3639 MWTH 3640 - 3969 MWTH 3970 - 4299 MWTH 4300 -4629 MWTH 4630 - 4959 MWTH wuusm l l
PUPS PUMPS PUMPS
-l PUMPS PUMPS 2
3 4
5 6
4 5
6 4
5 6
4 5
6 4
5 6
OF TOWERS g I
32-62 32-73 32-78 32-79 32-69 32-75 32-77 32-65 32-72 32-76' 32-65 32-71 32-69 32-73 0
_ ~
1 32-47 52-64I 73-78 78-80 79-81 69-76 75-79 77-80 65-73 72-77 76-79 32-69 69-74 73-77 32-64 65-72 71-76 I
l 2
147-00 64-801 78-82 80-83 81-84 76-81 79-82 80-83 73-79 77-81 79-82 69-76 74-79 77-81 64-75 72-78 76-79 3
l 80+
80+
[ 82+
B3+
-84+
81+
82+
83-87 79-85 81-85 82-85 76-64 l79-83 81-84 75-82 78-83 79-83 87+
B5+
B5+
85+
84+
83+
84+
82+
83+
83+
4 g_ -
g-3 4
I I
RERATED 2 UNITFULL POWER
/
i 5810 - 5939 MWTH 5940 - 6269 MWTH 6270 -6599 MWTH I
6600-$916 MWTH g
5290 k5609 MWTH REQUIRED 4960 - 5289 MWTH
'o NLMBER PUMPS PU@S PUMPS PU WS PUMPS I
PUW$
g OF TOWERS 4
5 6
4. 5 6
4 5
6 4
5 6
4 5
6 1
4 5
6 g
r-f g.
g I
I 61 32-32-53 32-51 U
0 32-60 32-68 32-65 1
32 56 40-68 68-74 32-53. 32-64 65-71 32.49 32-59 61-68 32-47 32-54 56-64 32-46 32-51 53-59 32-45 32-49
$1-65 I I
f" 2
68--76 74-78 53-68 73 71-76 49-60 59-71 68-75 47-53.54-66 64-7) 46-49 51-60 59-69 45-47 49-52 55-84 l
' o 3
72-81 76-82 78-82 68-80 73-80 76-81 60-78 71-79 75-80 53-73 66-77 72-f8 49-71 60-14 69-77 I 47-53 52-72 64-73 $
81+
78+
79+
B0+
75+
77+
78+
71+
74+
77+
[ 53+
724 73+
_ _ { 80+
B2+
82t 80+
ru 4
81+
g-3 CORRECTED VALUE Y
4 l