ML20097A084
| ML20097A084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1992 |
| From: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20097A075 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9206020164 | |
| Download: ML20097A084 (33) | |
Text
.
ATTACliMENT 2 s
i
' PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 Docket Nos.
50-277-50-278
_ License Nos.
DPR-44 DPR-56 LICENSE AMENDMENT CHANGES List of Attached Pages Unit 2 Unit _1 8
8 L
i 9206020164 920521 PDR ADOCK O$000277 P
PDR I
= 3::==:
.:.; ~
=:== =;a -
v:,. n,-
Unit-2 cost-benefit balance for facility operation set.forth in the Final EnvironmentalTStatement and al request for an amendment to the operating license, 'T required by the Comission's regulations. As used in this Condition 3.(d),' final Environmental Statement means the NRC Staff Final Environmental Statement related to Operation of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station tinits Nos. 2 and 3 dated April 1973, as modified by (1) the Initial.
Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated September 14, 1973, (2) the Supplemental Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated June 14,1974,(3) the Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board dated July 5,1974 (4)theMemorandumandOrdarof the Commission dated August 8,1974,(5) any further modification resulting from f urther review by'the Appeal Board and by the Comission, if any, and (6) any Environmental Impact Appraisal which has been or may be issued by
- the NRC since the FES was published in April 1973.
L
. 4. : This license:is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight H
on' August 8, 2013.
L FOR THE-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIGH Signed by:-
A. Giambusso, Deputy Director.
l for Reactor Proje.ts Directorate-of Licensing Attachments:
Appendices A&B.-
L TTechnical Specifications Date of Issuance: October 25, 1973 l
i Page 8 p
t
.~ _
_ _... ~
Unit-3 d:
Decision of the Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board dated September 14, 1973, (2) the' Supplemental Initial Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing U
Board dated Jur.e 14,1974, (3) the Decision of the Atomic Safety and-Licensing Appeal Board dated July 5,1974,.(4) the Memorandum and Order of the Commission dated August P,1974, (5) any further modification resulting from hurther. review by the Appeal Board and by the Comission, if any, and
'(6) any Environmental _ Impact Appraisal which has been or may be issued by the NRC since the FES was puialished in April 1973.
- 4.
This license is ef factive as of. the date of issuance and shall, expire at midnight on' July 2, 2014.'
l FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION s.
Signed by:
A. Giambusso, Deputy Director for Reactor Projects Directorate of licensing f.ttechments:
Amended pages to Appendices A-& B
-.0PR-44 &:DPR-56 Technical
~
i Specifications
- Date of. Issuance:
July 2, 1974 1
E
'Page 8
. - =.
+
ee.
ATTACHMENT 3-
~,
PM CH BOTTOM ATOMIC-POWER STATION Uti!TS 2 - AND 3 4
Locket Nos.
50-277~
.50-278 License Nos.
LICENSE TMENDMENT CHANGE' REQUEST 90-06'
' SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A
'(
l F -a I
i l
l p
-5
Docket Nos. 50-277-50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 TABLE OF CONTENTS Enge Noz 1.0 License Extension Assessment 1
1.1 Introduction 1
2.0 -Safety Assessment 1
2.1 Introduction 1
2.2 Plant Design and Programs Review 2
2.2.1-Reactor Vessel and Internals 2
2.2.2 Mechanical Components 4
2.2.3 Electrical Components 7
z2.2.4 Structural Components 8
3.0 Environmental Assessment-9 3.1 Introduction 9
-3.2' Radiological-Impact Review 9
'3.2.1 Occupational Exposures 9
3.2.2 Population. Estimates 11 Radiological Effluents 13
- 3. 2. 3._
-Radiological Monitoring Program 14 3.2.4 3.2.5 Fuel Cycle 16 3 ~. 2. 6 -
Spent 1 Fuel Storage Impact
-16 3.2.7_
Solid Waste' Generation 17-3.3 Non. Radiological Impact la Tables and Figures-Table 3.1-Occupational Exposure - Annual 20 Table 3.2 Population _ Data by Counties 21 Figure 3.1' PBAPS Occupational Exposure 24
~
Figure 3'2 Total Population Within 60 Mile 2S Radius Figure:3.3 Total Population.for 10 Mile EPZ 26 Counties Figure 3.4
-Radiological Effluent - Dose 27 o
Figure 3.5 Solid Waste Generated-28 t
l l.
l !'.
a
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 1.O LICENSE-EXTENSION ASSESSMENT 1.1 Introduqt;.ipn t
Section~ 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the issuance of_ facility operating licenses for a period of time up to 40 years.
The current license term for Peach Bottom Atomic Power -Station (PBAPS) Units 2 and 3 began with thc date of issuance of construction permits on-January 31, 1968 and ends forty years later on January 31, 2008.
Accounting for the 5, years 6 months required for Unit 2 construction and the 6 years 5 months for Unit 3 construction,.this represents an effective operating
. license _ term of only _ 34 years 6 months and 33 years 7 months respectively.
Current Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy is to issue operating _ licenses for a 4 0-year period, commencing with the-date-of' issuance of the operating license, not the= construction permit.
For PBAPS Unit 2 this date was August 8,-1973 and for Unit 3 July 2, 1974.
Accordingly, it is. : proposed ' that the PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 operating licenses be ' amended to change the expiration date to August 8, 2013 for. Unit 2'and July 2, 2014 for Unit 3.
This_-is consistant with current NRC policy as described above and as applied to Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 vintage plants.
This would permit an additional five years six months of plant operation for Unit 2 and 6 years 5 months for Unit - 3.
Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of ' this Attachment describe the l.
hssessments that have been made to determine the potential impact of an additional. period of operation for PBAPS Unit 2 Land Unit 3.
The remainder of'this section provides a summary of those assessments.
2.O SAFETY ASSESSMENT'
/
2.1 Introduction
. nt is to demonstrate that the The purpose of this asses L
proposed license amendment co permit an additional 5 years and 6 months o f-plant operation for Unit 2 and an additional 6 years and 5 months of operation for Unit 3, will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
1 N
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR :4 DPR-56 The following sections provide a review of PBAPS plant design and programs implemented at PBAPS to assure continued operation intended by its 6esign, through the full 40 year operating life.
This discussion is in addition to the det~.ils provided in the FSAR which document the initial plant design and safety analyses, as well as the plant Technical Specifications which provide surveillance and testing requirements to assure early detection of unexpected degradation or failure of plant equipment.
1 2.2 EJyt Design a_I)G_Eroarams Review 2.2.1 Reactqr Vessel and Internals The original desigroof the reactor pressure vessel (RFVi and associated internals considered the effects of 40 years of operation within the cyclic limits given in the PBAPS FSAR.
Those cyclic limits equate to 40 years of operation at full power (stretch power limit of 3,440 MW thermal) with a plant capacity factor of 80%
(i.e.,
32 EFPY), inc3ading expected operational and thermal transients.
The original analyses regarding Peach Bottom reactor vessel integrity accepted by the NRC demonstrate the ability of the RPV to operate safely throughout the expected period of operation.
The FSAR states that the reactor vmsel shall not 19 be exposed to more than 10 nyt of neutrons with energies exceeding 1 Mev.
This is a very conservative limit since when using assumptions of plant operation at 3,440'Mwt, 100 percent plant capacity factor, and a 40 -year plant life, the maximum calculated neutron flux at the inner surface of the vessel will not c.xceed 3.8 x 10'7 nyt.
Although the reactor ve el design _was based on conservative assumptions, operating limits for the reactor vessel with respect to reactor pressure and temperature were developed after consideration of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50.
These considerations involved the reactor vessel l
beltline and certain areas of discontinuity (e.g.
2
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 feedwater nozzle and vessel head flange).
The reactor pressure and temperature operating limits (Figures 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 of the Technical Specifications) assure that a postulated surface flaw can be safely accommodated.
Technical Specifications Figure 3.6.3 includes an additional 40' F margin required by 10 CFR SC Appendix G.
In addition to the operating limits discussed above, a reactor pressure vessel surveillance program is in place to monitor the radiation-induced changes in the mechanical and impact properties of RPV. materials in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H.
This program requires that selected surveillance specimens be removed and tested'_to experimentally verify or adjust the calculated values of integrated neutron flux and irradiation embrittlement that are used to
. determine the_resulting shift in-reference temperature of. nilductility -(RT NDT).
The first of three. surveillance specimen capsules was removed at the end of cycle 7 and tested in 1988 for Unit 2 and in 1989 for Unit 3.
The results of the testing are documented in GE reports SASR 88-24'of-DRF B13-01445 for Unit 2 and SASR-90-50 of DRF B11-00494 for Unit 3.
_ Utilizing the surveillance specimen test results and the shift pred1.cted by-Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 1 methods, new Technical Specification react r vessel pressure-temperature limit curves were developed.
Amendment numbers 150 for Unit 2 and 162/164 for Unit 3,
to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A) of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 respectively, provided the modified pressure and temperature limit curves for Unit 2 and 3.
These curves are valid for 32 EFPY and provide sufficient margin to prevent brittle fracture of reactor coolant pressure boundary materials.
Continued evaluation of surveillance specimens and the resulting effect on reactor vessel. pressure and temperature limits provides additional assurance that adverse cumulative effects of power operation will be detected and addressud.
3
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 The current energy utilization plan for PBAPS indicates that Unit 2 used 8.74 EFPY and Unit 3 used 8.98 EFPY through the end of Cycle 8.
This corresponds to operation through January 12, 1991 and September 13, 1991 respectively.
Based on cumulative plant capacity factors through 1991 of less than 55 percent and a conservative capacity factor projection of eighty percent through the period of extension, the design fluence equivalent to 32 EFPY is a very conservative design assumption.
A_ record of the chemical analyses, fabrication history, and impact and mechanical properties of all surveillance test materials is maintained by PECo.
The design of the reactor vessel internals is in accordance with the intent of Section III of the ASME Boiler and-Pressure Vessel Code.
The design provides adequate working -space for repairs and access for inspections.
Evaluations performed prior to plant startup document the ability of the reactcr vessel internals to perform their intended functions when subjected to loads imposed curing normal operation, abnormal transients and accidents.
Periodic iaspections performed under the In-Service Inspe_ction and Maintenance Program each refueling outage since plant startup ensure that'any degradation of reactor vessel internals will be detected and repaired in a timely-manner.
g-2.2.2 Mechanical Com_pongitt;s PBAPS has programs and procedures in place to l-assure the performance and availability of I
mechanical equipment and plant systems.. Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST)
Programs, implemented at PBAPS:and maintained in accordance with 10CFR50.55a, ASME Section XI and L_
plant Technical - Specifications, assure that the L
performance and availability of safety related L
mechanical equipment and plant ~ systems is specifically addressed throughout the life of the plant.
Surveillance Requirements for these programs are contained in the PBAPS Technical Speci11 cations and conform to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Where specific relief is required, PECo has prcvided 4
I
Docket Nos. 50-27/
50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 written relief requeste to the NRC for review and approval in accordance with
.p 10CFR50. 55 (a) (g) (6) (i).
j l
In June 1988, PECo submitted a revised second 10-year interval Inservice Testing Program to the NRC for review.
This revised program was submitted as a result of an upgrade to the entire scope of pump and valve testing at PBAPS.
Program enhancements reflected NRC questions and comments on the l
initial second 10-year submittal and incorporated L
the' guidance provided by the NRC as identified in l
NRC Inspection Reports 50-277/87-32 and 50-278/87-32.
The NRC issued their evaluation of tce PBAPS
-IST Progre.m January 17, 1991.
NRC recommendations identified -in the Evaluation were incorporated
~
into the current IST Program which was submitted to the NRC as Revision 2 on October 8, 1991.
The second 10-year interval ISI program, which began in 1986 for Unit 2 and 1985 for Unit 3, was submitted to the NRC for review on June 28, 1984.
The NRC has reviewed the PBAPS ISI Program and various relief requests and-issued a report documenting their evaluation on April 8,
1986.
RecoIBIaendations contained in the report have been addressed and. factored into the. program where appropriate.
On November 15, 1990 an updated l-second interval ISI program was submitted to the NRC._ The program was revised to reflect the requirements of the 1980 Edition of ASME Section XI with' addenda through Winter 1981.
Records _of inspection completed under the ISI Program are L
kept in accordance with the_ requirements of ANSI l
N45.2.9 and ASME Section'XI, and transmitted to the NRC..
~
Currently, both the IST and~ISI Programs ensure that, regardless of the overall age of the facility, mechanical components will be inspected, I
tested,: refurbished and/or replaced as necessary ll to maintain the margins of safety required by the Technical Specifications.
No changes. to these
'~
programs are necessary to assure that PBAPS will be operated as intended by its design and in accordance with plant Technical Specifications L
5
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 during the additional period of operation proposed by this amendment request.
Two other programs in place at PBAPS further ensure-the continued operability and integrity of plant systems by addressing the offects of 1
intergranular-stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) and erosion / corrosion.
L IGSCC detection in the early 1980's resultad in the implementation of an IGSCC mitigation program at PBAPS.
This program led to the replacement of piping susceptible to IGSCC with resistant material and the implementation of additional mitigation measures to ensure-the structural integrity of piping systems that comprise the primary system pressure boundary.
Additional mitigation measures included improvements in water chemistry control, inspections and leakage detection.
Details of PBAPS IGSCC mitigation program were submitted to-the NRC on August 2,
1988 in response to NRC Generic Letter 88-01, "NRC Position on. IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping."
The NRC _ subsequently reviewed PBAPS ISGCC mitigation - program, including supplemental submittals and, based on a March 27, 1990 Technical Evaluation Report and April 24, 1991 followup letter, have found PECo's program adequate to address IGSCC concerns.
An erosion / corrosion program _has also been implemented at PBAPS to identify and monitor pipe and fittings for potential-wall thinning due to erosion / corrosion so that timely and appropriate corrective action may be taken to mitigate the possibility of pipe failures.
This program, implemented in accordance with the guidance provided in NRC Bulletin 87-01, " Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear Power Plants", _ includes both L
-single' phase and two-phase piping susceptible to erosion / corrosion damage.
Inspection results, as part of program inspection requirements, are evaluated to determine the erosion rate and estimated remaining life of inspected components.
These results are then factored into existing maintenance and replacement practices to provide additional assurance that plant systems are l>.
6
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Mos. DPR-44
}
DPR-56 available regardless af the overall age of the plant.
In~ addition to the progrcms discussed above,
[
Technical Specifications surveillance,
[
J.
maintenance, and testing requirements exist at Q
PBAPS to verify mechanical equipment and plant "y
systen operability.
These requirements are also hjh' sufficient to detect potential degradation and to p
ensure corrective action.
In addition, 4[ - 6 subcomponents such as non-metallics (e.g. gaskets, o-rings) are inspected and periodically replaced as part of routine maintenance to ensure that the a
design life of the equipment will be achieved.
In summary, the programs and practices identified above will provide the necessary assurance that mechanical components will be adequately maintained throughout the operating life of the plar.c regardless of the term of the license.
a 2.2.3 Electrical Components Electrical components important to plant safety, are covered by the PBAPS Environmental Qualification (EQ)
Program.
This program is described in and controlled by Nuclear Engineering Department and PBAPS Procedures.
This program ensures that EQ is maintained for electrical equipment necessary to ensure reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity, to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in offsite exposures comparable to the 10CFR100 guidelines.
Non-safety-related electrical equipment whose failure under postulated harsh environmental conditions could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions by safety-related equipment is also included in the program.
The EQ Program includes the considerat' ion of a
" qualified life" for each item of electrical equipment within its scope.
Aging analyses, performance in accordance with 10CFR50.49, are used in identifying this " qualified life".
These 7
l i
Docket Nos. 50-277 i
50-278 j
License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 1
i qualified lifetimes are then incorporated into i
plant equipment maintenance and replacement j
practices to ensure that safety related electrical equipment remains qualified and available to perform its safety function.
Therefore, the EQ program ensures that electrical equipment important to safety will perform its safety function regardless of the term of the license.
)
The PBAPS EQ Program has been evaluated by the NRC and verified to be in compliance with 10CFR50.49.
This is based on NRC evaluation results contained in the October 18, 1984 Safety Evaluation Report and those contained in NRC Inspection Report Nos.
50-277/87-18 and 50-278/87-18 dated October 28, 1987.
2.2.4 Structural Components Seismic Category I structures at PBAPS are adequately designed to accommodate. a forty year operating life.
These structures were designed for dead loads, live loads, missiles, large break loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCA),
small break LOCA, seismic events, hurricanes, floods and tornados in accordance with' applicable codes.
Surveillance and maintenance practices. at PBAPS assure that any potential degradation of functional capabilities - of Seismic Category I
~ tructures_will be detected-in a timely manner, s
without regard to _the period of authorized operation.
Industry experience has demonstrated that reinforced concrete and steel building structures do not degrade significantly with time.
The structures at PBAPS are maintained to minimize and prevent - age-related degradation, including problems associated with corrosion, to ensure that design margins remain adequate.
Thus, no new safety concerns are expected to result from the additional period of operation proposed by this amendment.
l i
The containment structure has a formal inspection and testing program that satisfies 10CFR50, Appendix J requirements.
This program calls for 8
e
Docket Nos. SC-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 three integrated leak rate tests in every ten year cycle.
These tests include visual examination of both the intet'or and extericr surfaces for signs of deterioration which could affect structural integrity.
The containment is also pressurized and leakage is measured to ensure the design functions of the containment are maintained.
Inspection and test results are documented and are at closely placed intervals such that any deterioration affecting structural integrity will be noted and repaired.
Inspection and testing results have not indicated any deterioration in the structural integrity of the containment structure over the first 19 years of plant operation.
Usiig good maintenance practices such as corrosion prevention, concrete surface repair, and protective coating upkeep, the structural
..tegrity of the containment can be assured well beyond a full 40-year operating life.
Based on the above considerations, the extension of the operating license for PBAPS will have no adverse impact on the safety of seismic Category I structures.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Introduction This assessment is primarily focused on a radiological impact review,- however a non-radiological impact review was also completed, The scope of the environmental assessment is consistent with the reviews that have provided the basis for similar applications and NRC approval by other licensees, in demonstrating that the environment will not be adversely affected by a proposed license extension to recapture the full 40-year operating design life.
3.2 Radiological Impact Review 3.2.1 Occunt.tional Exposures Improvements in ALARA practices, and modification and maintenance planning activities have had a positive impact on reducing occupational radiation exposure rates at PBAPS.
The aggressive l
9
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 implementation of the plant's ALARA program over the past several years has resulted in establishing a positive trend of decreasing cumulative exposure.
This trend is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Occupational exposure data based on a three year rolling average was used in the illustration to provide a more accurate representation of the positive trend in reducing occupational exposures at PBAPS.
A three year rolling average is used in lieu of annual data since not all years include refueling outages.
Refueling outage ysars typically result in higher rates of occupational exposure than non-outage years.
For example, the occupational dose of 377 person-rem _ for PBAPS Units 2 and 3 in 1990 was significantly lower than the 934 person-rem in 1991 because there were no refueling outages at PBAPS in 1990.
Annual exposure rates for PBAPS are provided for each year since 1980 in Table 3.1.
Several significant actions taken that have been a factor in achieving this positive trend in reducing occupational exposures at PBAPS include:
o Increased management attention o
Enhanced chemistry control o
Increased site awareness and utilization of ALARA practices o
Establishment of a " hot spot" reduction program PECo senior management continues to emphasize the need to further reduce the occupational radiation exposure at PBAPS.
This is evidenced by aggressive exposure goals established through 1995 that are significantly less than the current BWR industry average of 406 person-rem per unit.
Further improvement in maintenance practices and additional dose reductions planned through future plant modifications (i.e.
Cobalt Reduction Program, Zinc injection, replacement of stellite on new control rod blades and " hot spot" removal) will ensure that these goals are attainable.
10 l
Docket Nos.-50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 Tne ongoing process of evaluating existing ALARA practices at PBAPS based on industry experience and lessons learned, is expected to extend the downward trend in_ occupational exposure rates.
Continuing technological advancements with respect to -improved tooling and robotics should ensure that yearly dose results for PBAPS through the proposed extension period are significantly less than current exposure rates.
.The inventory of activation products and associated radioactivity levels are not expected
- to increase significantly as a result of the short period of extended operation.
Although it is expected that additional exposure may result from decommissioning, -decommissioning is a one-time dose commitment which will be incurred with or without the ' extension.
In fact, technological
- advances - and additional experience obtained in decommissioning as a result of the extended period of operation may actually result in lower occupational exposures.
Therefore, the proposed license extension with regard to decommissioning should result in little or no additional occupational exposure.
3.2.2 Population Estima'tes Actual and' projected population size-and distribution data surrounding PBAPS were initially provided'and evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES), Environmental Report (ER), and the FSAR.. The data presented in these documents were from the U.S. Government Census for 1960 and 1970 and State projections for 1980.
This early population. data provided the basis for favorable evaluations regarding the expected 'of faite exposure.due.to normal plant releases and releases postulated to occur following accidents described in the FSAR.
The FES, ER and FSAR population data o
provided the basis for NRC issuance of the PBAPS 40 year operating licenses.
As part of the assessment to evaluate the potential radiological impact on the general public as a result at operating during the proposed amendment period, PECo has re-examined 11
l Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 the initial population estimates documented in the FES, ER and FSAR.
The discussion that follows demonstrates that original population projections were conservatively estimated and that they bound actual census data through 1990 and updated projections through the proposed amendment period.
Early population size and distribution data in the vicinity of the plant (60 mile radius as evaluated in the FES, ER and FSAR) was based on actual census data from 1950,
- 1960, and 1970, and projections for 1980.
Projections for 1980 and beyond assumed a conservative growth rate of twenty percent per decade based on a high growth rate experienced by several counties from 1950 to 1960.
To demonstrate that these initial projections bound the assumed population growth thrcugh the proposed amendment period, recent 1990 census data was obtained from government and state agencies for comparison purposes.
This data was obtained for each of the states that fall within the 60 mile radius from the plant.
State projections for Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey were obtained through the year 2000 and were extrapolated through the proposed amendment period to show that population estimates are bounded by the early projections.
Table 3.2, Figure 3.2, and Figure 3.3 provide a comparison of FES, ER and FSAR population projections against current projections within a sixty mile radius of PBAPS for 1960 through the year 2020.
This comparison relys on actual census data through 1990 for the current projections.
As noted above, actual census data in the FES, ER and FSAR was only provided through 1970.
For current projection, the table and figures utilized government census data for 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and state projections for the year 2000.
A conservative assumption was made during this comparison to include 100% of a county's population even when the county was only partially included in the affected area.
This assumption is consistent with the way the data is providad in the FES, ER and the FSAR.
Table 3.2 lists the population data for each county by state by decade.
Figure 3.2 presents population data for 12
)
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 the 60 mile radius evaluated in the FES, ER and FSAR, and Figure 3.3 presents population data for counties that fall within the 10 mile EPZ.
Both Figures provide illustrattons of conservative population growth through the prouoced amendment
-period, based on actual censun data and past pro 3ections for population growth.
rigures 3.2 and 3.3 clearly indicate that the early FES, ER and FSAR projections were conservative.
Actual population data within the 60 mile radius of the PBAPS site and the counties that fall within the 10 mile EPZ is below initial projections.
Since the current population and the updated projections of the area are well within the initial estimates, population projections for the proposed amendment period baned on 1990 census data will be bounded by the original studies.
As indicated above, population projections for the proposed amendment period are bounded by earlier projections.
In addition to those earlier estimates being conservative, PECo has implemented a comprehensive Emergency Preparednews Program to further mitigate the potential i:q;act to the public during a potential radiological release at PBAPS.
This program considers population changes surrounding the plant within the 10 mile Lwergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and is comprised of contingency plans in the event area evacuations are required.
PECo recently updated its evacuation time estimates for the EPZ using recent census. township, and borough population data, and documented the revised figures in an internal report dated January 1990.
In summary, the radiological impact due to normal plant operation and postulated accidents described in the FSAR to the general public, for the additional period of operation proposed by this amendment, is expected to remain within the estimates on which the original license was based.
3.2.3 Radiolocrical Ef fluents PBAPS Technical Specifications require that the release of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents be kept at small fractions of the limits 13 l
l
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 specified in Section 10.106 of 10CFR50 Part 20.
'Ihey also require that the levels of radioactive material in effluents be kept as low as reasonably achievable.
This is to ensure that radiation doses to the public as a result of effluent releases is minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Each year PECo submits to the NRC a Radiation Dose Assessment Report.
This report provides an annual assessment of the radiation dose due to the release of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents from PBAPS.
As indicated by a review of these annual reports, radiation dose due to the release of radioactive effluents from PPU?S is well within 10CFR50 Appendix I design or
.ives.
The maximum calculated dose to an indiviu a since 1985, due to the release of radioactive eff]uents, is also significantly less than 10CFR50 Aprendix I design objectives.
F gure 3.4 shown the calculated offsite dose to an individual since 1985 for both liquid and gaseous effluents as a percentage of Appendix I design objectives.
PECo is committed to maintaining radioactive effluent releases as low as reasonably achievable.
u Therefore, it is expected that radiation dose due to radioactive liquid and gaseous etfluents from PBAPS, will continue to be a small fraction of 10CFR50, Appendix I design objectives.
- Finally, the radiological impact due to the additional period of operation proposed by this license extension is expected to be minimal and in comparison with the dose expected from background radiation, insignificant.
3.2.4 Radiolocical Monitorina Procram PECo has comprehensive radiological environmental monitoring and sampling program in place to evaluate the potential impact of the operation of PBAPS on the environment.
Each year, in accordance with plant Technical Specification requirements, PECo submits to the NRC an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.
This report typically contains the results of several thousand analyses performed on approximately two 14
[
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 thousand samples.
Annual results reviewed since 1985 indichte thct operation M PBAPS has had no significant impact on the environment.
Specific areas evaluated and analysis results include the following:
Surface water and drinking (potable) water samples are analyzed for concentrations of gross beta, gamma spectrometry, and tritium.
Additionally, drinking water samples are analyzed for concentrations of Iodine-131.
Results of these analyses showed no significant differences between control locations and potentially-affected sample stations.
The remaining sample media representing the aquatic environment includes fish and sediment samples.
These media are analyzed for concentrations of gamma emitters.
Results froia these analyses are generally consistent on an annual basis.
In all cases thc-resulting doses =to the maximum exposed individual was-calculated to be less than 1%
of 10CFR50 Appendix I objectives.
The atmospheric environment was divided into two parts for examination:
airborne and terrestrial.
Sample media for determining airborne effects include air particulates and air iodina samples.
Analyses performed on air particui te samples include gross beta and gamma spectrometry.
The results from both analyses were generally consistent on a annual basis.
Furthermore, no notable differences antong results from on-site, intermediate, and distant locations in either analysis were observed.
These findings indicate no measurable effects from the operation of PBAPS.
High sensitivity Iodine-131 _ analyses were performed on weekly air samples.
All results l-were less than the minimum detectable level.
!l' l
l 15 I
1 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 Examination of che terrestrial environment was accomplished by analyzing 'egation, soil, well water and milk samples for concentrations of Iodine-131 and gamma emitters.
Results from all analyses were consistent on an annual basis and show no indication of PBAPS offect.
Ambient gamma radiation levels were measured monthly and quarterly throughout the year.
Most monthly and quarterly measurements were below 10 mR/std. month.
These results were consistent for each year reviewed and are well within acceptable limits.
In summary, the many analyses completed on samples from the environment surrounding PBAPS show that operation of PBAPS has no measurable effect on the environs surrounding PBAPS.
Based on results to
- date, it is also expected that the additional period of operation proposed by this proposed license extension will have no significant impact.
3.2.5 Fuel Cycle Improved fuel designs and longer fuel cycles have resulted in a more efficient utilization of k
fissile uranium than projected prior to issuance of the PBAPS operating licenses.
Also, initial assumptions regarding plant capacity factors have proven to be conservative.
Therefore, it is expected that the fissile uranium requirements initially projected for a full 40-year operating life, will bound the actual fissile uranium used even when considering plant operation during the proposed amendment period.
3.2.6 SDent Fuel Storace ImDact Improvements in fuel design have resulted in extending the fuel cycle length at PBAPS from 12-month to 18-month and currently to 24-month fuel cycles.
Unit 3 recently completed its transition from an 18-month to a 24-month cycle and Unit 2 is scheduled to complete its transition later this year.
Increasing the fuel cycle length has resulted in current fuel assembly usage projections at PBAPS, including the additional 16 l
.-.-.~ -
o.
Docket tios. 50-277 50-278 License Hos. OPR-44 DPR-56 1
fuel required through the proposed amendment period, to be less than the total fuel assemblies projected prior to receipt of the initial operating license.
PEco has increased the spent fuel storage capacity at PBAPS to a maxitaum capacity of 3759 storage cello per unit by reracking each spent fuel pool with maximum-density poison racks.
Assuming that PEco continues plant operation with the current f ' 31 cycle energy plan, full core offload capability will exist until 1997 for Unit 2 and
-1998 for Unit 3.
Current opent fuel inventory at PDAPS is 1896 bundles for Unit 2 and 19+5 bundles
- j for Unit 3.
Evaluations to increase onsite spent fuel storage capacity beyond 1997 for Unit 2 and 1998 for Unit 3.are underway.
The two most likely options under consideration are dry storage and fuel rod 4
consolidat.nn.
Even though it appears that the dry storage - option will be se.lected to ensure
-sufficient capacity through the proposed amendment
- period, fuel rod consolidation is considered a viable option since the design of the spent fuel pools will accept fuel. rod consolidation to the maximum' extent possible.
b l-In summary, current fuel assembly usage i
projections are-less than initially projected.
j
- Alco, the onsite spent fuel storage capaci'<,y will be' increased to accommodate the additionat spent L
fuel. assemblies that will:be-generated after 1997 l-for! Unit 2 and 1998 for ' Unit 13,-
includ3ag the proposed amendment period.
- 3.2.7 Eo_Li_cl daqLe_ Genqration y,
The; volume of solid.' waste generated at PBAPS has
~
been significantly reduced since the early 1980s.
- i Thir. Is illustrated in Figure 3-5_which provides data for the volume of solid waste. generated at l.
PBAPS since 1980.
The recent trend, although-relatively constant the past few years, is expected to improve significantly as a result of modifications in 1991 to both the Unit 2 and Unit 3 condensors.- 'These modifications (i.e. condenser 17 ae a ww w,o-~-r+--
-g~.
,v, c-a
,r,-w-..
v.w g-y.
,m.,--
m.e,,
,-4,
-mww-w
~>,w
-r 9
er
...._..~._ _ _
.a Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 tube replacement) are anticipatnd to roault in an additional 10-50% reduction in resin genert'. ion whict. currently comprises approximately 40% of the tott ' solid waste generated at PBAPS.
Therefore, continued emphasis on lower solid waste generation is expected to ensuri. that solid waste generation at PBAPS will contJhue to decrease and will remain
=below current values during the proposed amendment
- term, 3.3 }Lon-Radiologiggi 1mnact Discharces to the Susquenanna River from PBAPS are governed by NPDE3 Permi t No. - PA0009733 as now in effect and as hereafter amended.
In the event of any modification of the NPDES Permit related to thermal dischargos or alternative ef fluent limits established pursuant to Section 316 of the Federal Water. Pollution Control Act, PEC9 is required by
~
the PBAPS operating 1.icense to inform the-NRC and analyze any. associated changes.
Such a D wlew, in conjunction with the NPDES permit limits,. ensure tnat the consequences of-any potentionaln environmental impact will be maintained 3
within recepted standards.
The. NPDES Permit for PBAPS Unit 2 and Unit 3 is currently reviewed and renewed bar:ed on a five year operating period It is expected that the justification for periodic renew &1 of the NPDES permit will continue _throughout the present license term as well as the proposect license extension-period.
This is based on _ existing monitoring. programs continuing to show no' decernable effects due to the operation of PBAPS.
In addition;to concluding no non-radiological impact as a result of discharges to the Susquehanna Riveri no. changes in land use -or pc,tential impacts to histerical' sites are expected asla. result of this' proposed-license extension.-
Currently, no items listed _in_the National Register af Historical Places exist within or near the site boundary.
The nearest such place'as noted in the'UFSAR is the Fulton L
Hou3e -(birthplace of Robert - Fulton). 'on US 222,=about 6. 6 '
miles cast-northeast of Unit 3.
i' lt 18
!I Dochet Nos. 50-277 50-278 Licenso Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 Finally, substantial environmental benefits will result from extending the operatirig period for PBAPS Units 2 and 3.
This is because the burden on the environment from an oil or other' fossil-fired replacement power source would be much greater than from PBAPS.
Sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions -from f ossil-fi red generation are of continuing concern because of acid rain and global warming
. consequences.--PBAPS does not contr bute to these problems.
i 4
h t;
hIl c
5 l
L 19 E'I-
. - ~.... ~ _, - - -.,., - _ _... _. -. _. _... - _ _. - _.. _.. _ _ _
,I t
\\
1i lfll1ll l
E* _
6 00 64 927 9 50 t
3 8 4 0,0.0 5 2 2 1 99 7 655 M
1 1 1 A
R ML T
I N
U
/.
55 5
5 5
1 3
! 5 79 457 1 3 8 G
558 S2 36 686 V
1, 2, 9 4270 6, 5 01, 31 4 A
1 1 1 l 1 1 1
N O
IT E
A G
T A
S R
R E
E V
W
)
S A
O M
E P
1 E
T 25' 6452 6 0
4
- - 61 95740 0 4 5 3
C R
I I
S
- - 2 4,3,8,2,1, 8, 7,1, 6 E
M R
- - 2222221 1
1 L
O N
A B
T O
E A
A S
Y T
R M
E 3
O P
(
T T
O B
HC A
E E
P R
U SO P
0 X
1 E
26 3 05827 87 4 00 0551 62 L
3, 5 9,4,3,0,0,3,2 7 3 m
739 u
A 27
. 2231 22 lo U
V N
i 3
1
]3 70 G
E R
U N
mo r
f R
a t
A 01 234 567890i a
888 8 88888399 999999999990 D
E Y
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll l!
lII
l f
Table 3.2 Population Data by Ctunties within a 60 mile radius of the Peach Bottcm Site i
1960-2000f 1970 1960 1990 2000 i
Total Percent
'1btal Percent' Total Perce_nt Pucuct i
1960 Total Total rercent State / county irbmber Number Charge Nnber Change Itamber Change hh Charge Chmge 7
7-110993 13 123250 11 87 19h Dslavar_e Kent 65651 81892 24 98219 25 393115 3(
441946 11 489100 10 i 59 New Castle 307446 385856 p
1 i
Sub_ total 373097 467748 25.4 496334 6.1 552939 11.4 612350 10.7 64.1 Delerary; 1970 9.980 1990 2000 l 1960-2000
=
f PercentfPercent k 1960 Total Total Percent l 7btal l Percent Total Percent htal Ntxaber Change l Charge r2mber Change 1AI Nar ChMye g State / County l1Aznber 1 Amber Change.j g
H 9 {c-138053 3
151800 9
42
['
Ec3'__!_ersey Cumbsrland
- 106850h, 121374 13 132866 lf l
G1cucester 134840 172681 28 199917 15 230082 15 244100 6
81 Salca 58711:
60346 2
6-1676 7
65294 0
58300 4
16 J l
Subtotal 303401 354401 18.0 397459 12.1 433429 9.0 464200 7.1 54.5 l = sersu i
21
Table 3.2 (continued)
Population Data Irf Counties within a 60 mile radius of the Peach Dotte Site 1970 19G0-1990 2000
! 1960-2000 1960 l Total Total Percent Total Pa m t
'1btal Percent Total Percent Percent State / County INumber Number Change NLanber Change Nunter Change Ntanbar Change Charge I
Maryland Anne Arundel 206634 297539 43 370775 24 427239 15 467100 9
126 Baltimore 492428 621077 26 655615 5
692134 5
726400 4
41 Baltimore City 939024 905759
-3 786775
-13 736014
-6 729100 0
-22 Caroline 19462 19781 1
23143 16 27035,
16 29700 9
52 Carroll 52785 69006 30 96356 39 123372 '
28 154300 25 192 Cecil 48408 53291 10 60430 13 71347 18 90200 26 j
86 FreGrick 71930 84927 18 114792 35 150208 30 384700 22 156 Harford 76722 115378 50 145930 26 i 182132 24 208200 14 171 d
Howard
{
36152 61911 71 118572 91 4 187328 57 228400 21 531 b
3l 17842 6
17600
-1 13 16695
-Kent 15481 16146 4
l Montgomery 340928 522809 53 579053 10 757027 30 807B00 6
136 PrirK:e Georges 357395 660567 84 665071 0
729268 9
772400 5
116 Queen Annes 16569 18422 11 25508 38 33933 33 40900 20 146 2
Talbot 21578 23682 9
25604 8
30540 3
31500 3
45 j
Maryland Subtotal 2695496 3470295 28.8 3684319 6.2 4165448 13.0 4488300 7.8 66.6 22
2 Table 3.2 (continued)
Population D ta by Counties within a 60 mile radius of the Peach Bottcm Site 1970 I
1980 l
1990 l
2000 1960-2000 I
I 1960 Total 7btal Percent Total
'mt Total Percent Total Percent! Percent I I
State / County Ntanber Pe.ber Charge Nanber Change Number Chang i Ntalber Change Change Pennsylvania Wm 51906 56937 9h 68292 19 78274 14 77357
-1 49 Berks 275414 296382 7
312509 5
336523 7
345813 2
25 ChestGr 210608 278311 32 316660 13 376396 18 395958 5
88 Cluberland 124816 158177 26 178541 12 195257 9
209325 7
67 Dauphin 220255 223834 1
232317 3
237813 2
245553 3
11 Dalaware 553154 600035 8
555007
-7 0 547651
-1 531068
-3
-3 r=-ter 278359 319693 14 362346 13 422822 16 462918 9
66 8
TAwnon 90853 99635 9
108582 8
113744 4
120323 5
32 lic ^.f.unery 516682 623799 20 643621 3
678111 5
698281 2
35 Perry 26582 28615 7
35718 24 41172 15 46342 12 74 g
Pb ' %1phia 2002512 1948609
-2 1688210
-13 1585577
-6 1513674
-4
-74 2
Sc.
1 173027 160089
-7 160630 C
152585
-5 141306
-7
-18 272603l 14 312963 14 339574 8
368979 8
51 i York 238336 Penngylvgnia EP.Ibtotal 4762504 5066719 6.4 4975396
-1.8 5105499 2.6 5156897 1.C 8.28 1
i GranG Total
- 8131498 9359163 15.1 9553508 2.1 10257315 7.4 10722 47 4.5 31.9 IR Data **
8131498 9546301 17.4 11450283 19.9 13740340 20.0 16488408 20.0 102.8 I
i.
Grand Total includes populations of all states included in Table 3.2.
l Fote:
ER Data frta the Peach Potten Enviaviairantal Report 6ated Jtme 4,1971.
23 g
i ll!i!
,l l
1 3
E R
E U
G R
I F
U 1
S 9
9 O
1 P
0 E
9 XG 9
1 EA 59 9
R 8
L E 1
AAV K8 8
NG 9
1 OI N
4 7
2 L
.8 I
9 R TL 1 A AO E
6 Y PR
.8 9
UR 1
A 3,
CE 5
.8 CY 0
9 0
1 O3
.8 0
1 4
x 9
S s
1 m
P e
3 R
.8 A
9 n
1
=
B o
s 2
P
.8 re 9
P 1
L f
4 3
2 ll l
i{1ll 1l ll l
lll
v Total Popu ation w'ithin 60 Vile Radius People (Millions) 25
~
l FES/FSAR PROJECTIONS I
,i liel ACTUAL CENSUS DATA 20 q l
i l
r i
J
' ~ ~
'~
l f
15 1
9 fh 10 -
~~~
' ~ '
b I
l
_T i
,f[I l
I.@
u g
4;J NOTES FOR ACTUAL CENSUS t
I 9
Hi
- Ej e
DATA (YEAR 2000 - 2020)
N g'
i u
y h
g iIh Censns dcta for year 2000 l
f h
si fj based on state projections.
0' I b b
- =
based on FSAR 20% per year
+
1960197019801990200020102020 growth projection.
l Census Year FIGURE 3-2 i
as I
h
~
r Total Population for 10 Mile EPZ Counties People (Milliosis) l 3'
r FES/FSAR PROJECTIONS f
i lE2dj ACTUAL CENSUS DATA l
F l
A l
2 -]
gI I
~
f$
l 31 r
- P5
$l 1-
~,
~
m 12 i
a
- wa lI
[S
' ?!)
NOTES FOR ACTUAL CENSUS 3[i] hl
- f!j DATA (YEAR 2000 - 2020) f a
[
j g
K lj Census data for year 2000 I
E 8
i d(3 based on state piojections.
)
hj h
g_
h.-
't e L te._ig; cata for 2010 and 2020 g
based on FSAR 20% per year i
19601970 19801990200020102020 growth projection.
[
Census Year j
l FIGURE 3-3 l
l i
26
i RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUEN-~
- JOSE
% OF APPENDIX l DESIGN OBJECTIVES I
PERCENT OF 10CFR50 !.IMIT 20-f' E LIQUID (Total Body) l EBei G ASEOUS (Total Body) l 15-l
,g_
~
5-i
,bc l, ~f q=it E'
=-
o.
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 YEAR FIGURE 3-4 27 1
n
!f!lf !l!!
l!lll ll i!l!
!J 5
3 E
R U
G I
F 1
,9 D
9 1
E 0
.9 T
9 A
1 9
,.8 R
9 1
E 8
,8 N
9 1
E 7
,8 G
9 1
6 E
,8 R 8
2 T
9 A 15 E S
,8Y 9
A 1
4 W
,8 9
0 1
0 3
0
,8 D
1 9
1 I
x L
2 T
,8 O
E 9
1 E
1 S
F
,8 C
9 1
I B
0 U
,8 9
C 1
f 1I 0
0 g
0 g
0 2
0 g
6 1
1
.li!
l!
l t
lll i
l l!