ML20092N350
| ML20092N350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1984 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092N337 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407030063 | |
| Download: ML20092N350 (8) | |
Text
.
7590-01 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. STN 50-483 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Notice is hereby given that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Ccv.ission or NRC), has issued Facility Operating License No. NPF-25 to Union Electric Company (the licensee) which authorizes operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit No.1 (the facility), at reactor core power levels nt>t in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal in accordance with the provisions of the License, the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan with a
~
condition currently limiting operation to five percent of full power (170 megawatts thermal). Authorization to operate beyond five percent of full power will require specific Commission approval.
Callaway Plant, Unit No.1 is a pressurized water reactor located in
'ballawayCounty, Missouri,approximately25mileseast-northeastofJefferson City, Missouri. The application was submitted and accepted for review under the.
Ccmmission's standardization policy statement of March 5,1973.
The Union Elec.tric Company was one of five utilities who joined together under the acronym SNUPPS (Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System) to subnit applications for Construction Permits for a standard plant design for review-under the Commission's standardization policy, using the duplicate plant option described in Appendix N to the Commission's regulations in Part 50 8407030063 840611 i
PDR ADOCK 05000483 P-PDR
7590-01
, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50), " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." This option allows for a sinul-taneous review of the' safety-related parameters of a limited number of duplicate plants which are to be constructed within a limited time span at a multiplicity cf sites.
The license is effective as of the date of issuance.
The application for the license complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissicn's regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I which are set forth in the License.
Prior public notice of the overall action involving the pro-
~
~
posed issuance of an eperating license was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 1980 (45 FR 77208).
The Commission has determined that the issuance of this license will not result in any environmental impacts other than those evaluated in the Final
~
Environmental Statement since the activity authorized by the license is en-ccmpassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
- For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Facility Operating License No. NPF-25, with Technical Specifications (NUREG-1058) and the Environ-mental Protection Plan; (2) the report of the-Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, dated November 17, 1981; (3) the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report, dated October 1981 (NUREG-0830), and Supplements 1 through 3; (4)-
the Final Safety Analysis Report and Amendments thereto; (5) the Environmental Report and supplements thereto; (6) and the Final Environmental Statenent, dated January 1982.
e r
I
o
~
7590-01,
These items are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20555 and at the Fulton City Library, 709 Market Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251 and at the Olin Library of Washington University, Skinker and Lindell Boulevards, St. Louis, Missouri 63130. A copy of Facility Operating License NPF-25 may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of. Licensing. Copies of the Safety Evaluation Report and Supplements 1 through 3 (NUREG-0830) and the Final Environ-mental Statement (NUREG-0813) may be purchased at current rates from the National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, and through the NRC GP0 sales program by writing to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Attention: Sales Manager, Washington, D. C. 20555. GP0 deposit account holders may' call 301-492-9530.
h Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this fgdayofJune1984.
FOR THE NUC EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
Is B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
- SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE
-(RETYPED 6/4/84 kab) l kh).
LB#1:DL LB#1:DL DEL J
LBJ
- MRushbrook:kab
- JHolonich BJ u
od 05/23/84 05/23/84 06/ /84-06s 4/ 8 I V
4 i
?
,g' * %g'c UNITED STATES
-4 I $,, V W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM;SSION
{j E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
= 3....,. j
' Docket No. 50-483 AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT NO. B-93 AMENDMENT NO. 1 M 11 Effective Indemnity Agreement No. B-93, between Union Electric Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission, dated October 4, 1982, is hereby amended as follows:
Item 2a. of the Attachment to the indemnity agreement is del ted in its entirety and the following substituted therefor:
Item 2 - Amount of financial protection a.
51,000,000 (From 12:01 a.m., October 4, 1982, to 12 midnight JUN 10 684 incl usive.)
$160,000,000*
(From'12:01 a.m.,'IUN II 1384.
)
Item 3 of the Attachment to the indemnity agreement is deleted in
~
.its entirety and the following substituted therefor:
Item 3 - License number or numbers SNM-1901 (From 12:01 a.m, Octcber 4, 1982, to 12 midnight -JUN 101934 inclusive)
NPF-25 (From 12:01 a.m.,
J'dN 11 IS54
).
Item 4 of the Attachnent to the indemnity agreement is deleted j
in i.ts er.tirety and the following substituted therefor:
Item 4 - Location All of the premises including the land and all buildings and structures known as the Callaway Plant described as being (1) located within the Owner "anc, as of August 1,.1977, the amount available as secondary financial.
protection.
e g
n
~3-
+
sb-F-4&
A
.a C
2-Controlled fence plus the corridor areas, (2) located within the intake structure, discharge pipe and barge docking facility areas, and (3) the intake and discharge pipes connecting the foregoing areas (1) and (2) all
. located approximately ten (10) miles southeast of Fulton.
in Callaway Cou'nty, Missouri.
Item 5 of the Attachment to the indemnity agreement is amended by adding the following:
Nuclear Energy Liability Policy (Facility Form) No. MF-111 issued by Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters.
4 FOR THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
- h..?V f
- f 7
Jerome Saltzman, Assistant Director State and Licensee R(lations Office of State.Pr6 grams
- 1. _
Accepted
, 1984-By UNION ELECTRIC-COMPANY
+
G e
k 8
e
+
6 e
- 4
+e e
3 v
=
ywi y
m I
l ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF LICENSE DURATION ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR THE CALLAWAY PLANT UNIT 1 (Dated JANUARY 1982)
INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit I was _ published in January 1982. At that time it was staff practice to issue operating licenses for a period of 40 years from the date of the construction permit.
For Callaway, the CP was issued in April 1976, thus, approxinately'30 years of operating life would be available.'
Ey letters dated December 2,1983'and March 23, 1984, Union Electric Company requested that the operating license for, the Callaway Plant, Unit I have a duration of 40 years from the date of issuance.
DISCUSSION The staff has reviewed the Callaway FES to determine.which aspects considered in the FES are affected by the duration of the operating license.
In general, the FES assesses various impacts associated with operation of the facility in terms of annual impacts and balances these.against the anticipated annual energy production benefits.
Thus, the overall assessment and conclusions would not be dependent on specific operating life.
There are, however, three areas in which a specific operating life was assumed:
1.
Radiological assessments are based on a 15-year plant midlife.
2.
Uranium fuel cycle impacts are based on one initial core load and annual refuelings.
3.
Uranium availability is evaluated through 30 years of operation.
These were assessed to determine whether the use of a 40-year operating period rather than a 30-year operating period would significantly affect our assessment -
concerning these areas.
4 1
1 4
)
7--
h 2-I
[
EVALUATION:
-The staff's appraisal of the significance of the use of 40 years of operation rather than 30 as it affects these three areas is presented in the following discussions:
1.
Radiolooical Assessments - The NRC staff calculates dose commitments to the human population residing around nuclear power reactors to assess the impact on people from radioactive material released from these reacters.
The annual dose commitment is calculated to be the dose that would be received over a 50-year period following the intake of radioactivity for 1 year under-the conditions that would exist 15 years after the plant began operation.
The 15 year period is chosen as representing the midpoint of plant operation and factors into the dose models by allowine for buildup of long life radionuclides in the soil.
It affects the estimated doses only for radionuclides ingested by humans that have half-lives greater than a few years.
For a plant licensed for 40 years, increasing the i
buildup-period from 15 to 20 years would increase the dose from long term life radionuclides via the ingestion pathways by 33% at most.
It would have much less effect on dose from shocter life radionuclides.
Table C 6 and C.7 of Appendix C1to the FES indicate that the' estimated doses via the ingestion pathways are only a fraction of the regulatory design objectives.
For example, the ingestion dose to the thyroid of an infant is 0.6 mrem /yr compared to an Appendix I design objective of 15. mrem /yr.
Thus, for 0.6, an increase of even as much as 33% in these pathways, the dose would remain within the Appendix I guidelines and would still not be significant.
2.
Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts - The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are based on 30 years of operation of.a model LWR.
The fuel require-ments for the model LWR were assumed to.be one initial core load and 29 annual refuelings (approximately 1/3 core).
The annual fuel s eguirement for the model LWR averaged out over a 40-year operating life (1Linitial core and 39 refuelings of approximately 1/3 core) would be. reduced slightly as compared to the annual fuel requirement everaced for.a 30-year operating life.
9 1
a 5
a a
n.
a
--... ---a.
_..-_.__.__.,---_a--
--.-----.a.--_.--,---x_----
-n-,,._
--a._--.___-.__.-_.---.-_--,--------------n.--
O The net result would be an approximately 1.5% reduction in the arnual fuel requirement for the model LWR.
This small reduction in fuel requirements would not lead to significant changes in the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle.
The staff does not believe that there would be any changes to Callaway FES Table 5.10 (S-3) that would be necessary in order to consider 40 years of operation.
If anything, the values in Table 5.10 become more conservative when a 40-year period of operatico is considered.
3.
Uranium Resources - In Section 6.2 of the Callaway FES, the uranium resource commitment was estimated at 30 metric tons of U-235.
Uranium availability is based on the cumulative lifetime of 30 years. A 33%
increase in operating life (to 40 years) would still be within the pro-jetted uranium resources.
Cancellation of many reactors since the Callaway FES was issued will result in an off-setting reduction in demand.
Furthermore, the increase in operating life assumption to 40-years will reduce the need for replacement generating capacity, including nuclear, at the end of 30 years.
CONCLUSION The staff has reviewed the Callaway FES and determined that only three of the areas related to its NEPA analysis discussed in the statement were tied directly, to a 30-year operating period.
We have concluded, based on the reasons discussed-in the sections above, that the impacts associated with a 40-year. operating license duration are not significantly different from those associated with a 30-year operating license duration and are not significantly different from those assessed in the Callaway FES.
p 9
9 L
-. _