ML20206L443
| ML20206L443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1986 |
| From: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| To: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608200184 | |
| Download: ML20206L443 (33) | |
Text
r y 3 , ,
Mailir3 Address
> Altbim3 Power Cornpiny 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham. Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 783-6090 R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President Flintridge Building AlabamaPower l'w sa"vr e 9 r August 11, 1986 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Di rector, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. L. S. Rubenstein Gentlemen:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 Extension of Operating License Duration Section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2133.c) authorizes the issuance of facility operating licenses for a period of time up to 40 yea rs . The operating licenses for farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 were issued on June 25, 1977 'and March 31, 1981 respectively. The current licensed term for these units is based on 40 years commencing with issuance of the construction permits. These construction permits were issued on August 16, 1972; thus, both the Unit 1 and 2 operating licenses presently expire on August 16, 2012. Pursuant to 10CFR50 paragraphs 50.51, 50.90 and 50.92, Alabama Power Company requests an amendment to its Operating Licenses Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 for Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, respectively, to extend the duration of both operating licenses to 40 years from the dates of issuance of the operating licenses. Accordingly, Attachment I lists the affected pages and provides the proposed changed pages.
, Alabama Power Company has determined that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. In accordance with 10CFR50.92, a significant hazards evaluation is provided as Attachment 2. A summary report addressing the safety and environmental issues relevant to the license term extension is provided as Attachment 3.
The Plant Operations Review Committee has reviewed these proposed changes and the Nuclear Operations Review Board will review these changes at a future meeting. It is requested that this proposed change be approved by April 3, 1987.
f f D Y
8609200184 860811 8 ,,,
p$ f kI(0 DR ADOCK 0500 L ;
Mr. L. S. Rubenstein August 11, 1986 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 Pursuant to 10CFR170.21, the required License Amendment Application Fee of
$150.00 is enclosed. In accordance with 10CFR50.90, three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies of this proposed change are enclosed. A l copy of this proposed change has also been sent to Mr. Dan Turner, the Alabama State Designee, in accordance with 10CFR50.91(b)(1).
If there are any questions, please advise.
Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA POWER COMP Y
/
4 R. P. Mcdonald RPM / JAR: dst-D-T.S.3 Attachments cc: Mr. L. B. Long SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME Dr. J. N. Grace $
Mr. E. A. Reeves THI f/ DAY OF[ 1Mtaud ,1986 Mr. W. H. Bradford i Mr. Dan Turner s.L d )
Notary ( Public My Chmission Expires: f-M-((
, e m., ,,--- -..,-,.--n, , , . - . . , ,,.7, .- g .--
f .
bc: Mr. W. O. Whitt Mr. W. G. Hai rston, III Mr. K. W. McCracken Mr. J. D. Woodard Mr. J. W. McGowan Mr. C. D. Nesbitt Mr. R. G. Berryhill Mr. D. E. Mansfield Mr. J. A. Ripple Mr. J. K. Osterholtz Mr. J. T. Brantley Mr. D. E. Dutton Mr. J. R. Crane Mr. K. C. Gandhi j
i
, '6 ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Changes to Operating License Revision
~
Unit 1 (NPF-2)
Page 10 Replace Unit 2 (NPF-8) - Revision Page 14 Replace JAR : ds t-D-T.S . 3
{'-
(
(6) The foregoing conditions shall be implemented in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal Power Act and the Alabama Public Utility laws and regulations thereunder and all rates, charges, services or practices in connection therewith are to be subject to the approval of regulatory agencies having juris-diction over them.
G. In accordance with the requirement imposed by the '
October 8, 1976 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Reculatorv
- Commission, No. 74-13a5 and 74-1586, that tne Nuclear Regulatory Comission "shall make any licenses granted betvaen July 21, 1976 and such time when the mandate is icsued subject to the outcome of such proceeding herein,"
this license shall be subject to the outcome of such proceedings.
E. This license is effective as of the date of issuance ard shall expire at midnight, Ma;. 15, 2012. l June 25, 2017 POR ME NOCLEAR REGH.XIORY COMMISSICH
' jj Roger S. 3, Dicrcter Division el Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachments:
- 1. A;pendices A & B - Technical Specifications l' 2. Preoperational Tests, Startup
(
Tests and Other Items htich Must Be Completed Prior to Proceeding to Succeeding Operational Modes l
Date of Issuance: JUN 2 5 E/7
i -
_ _14_
(5) Licensee will enter into appropriate contractual arrangements amending the 1972 Interconnection Agreement as last amended to provide for a
' reserve sharing arrangement between Licensee and AEC under which the reserve obligation of AEC is no greater than the reserve obligation undertaken by Licensee under the terms of the Southern Company Pool Interchange Agreement. It is the intent and purpose of such contract modification to eliminate from the 1972 Interconnection Agreement between Licensee and AEC a provision relating to protective capacity purchased by AEC.
(6) The foregoing conditions shall be implemented in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal Power Act and the Alabama Public Utility laws and regulations thereunder and all rates, charges, services or practices in connection therewith are to be subject to the approval of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over them.
G. The facility requires relief from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) and exemptions from Appendices G, H and J to 10 CFR Part
- 50. The relief and exemptions are described in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 5. They are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
Therefore, the relief and exemptions are hereby granted. With the granting of these the facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission.
H.
The Alabama Power Company shall immediately notify the NRC of any accident at this facility which could result in an unplanned release of quantities of fission products in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission.
I.
The Alabama Power Company shall have and naintain financial protection of such type and in such amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance with Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to cover public liability claims.
J. This license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire August 15, 2012.
March 31, 2021 l i
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
- 1. Appendix A - Technical Specifications (NUREG-0697, as revised)
- 2. Appendix B - Environmental Protection Plan Date of Issuance:
March 31,1981
ATTACHMENT 2 Significant Hazards Evaluation Pursuant to 10CFR50.92 For the Proposed Extension of Operating License Duration Proposed Change:
Change the expiration date for the Unit 1 and 2 Operating Licenses from August 16, 2012 to June 25, 2017 for Unit 1 and from August 16, 2012 to March 31, 2021 for Unit 2.
t
Background:
Section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2133.c) authorizes the issuance of facility operating licenses for a period of time up to 40 ,
years. The operating licenses for Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 were issued on June 25, 1977 and March 31, 1981 respectively. The currently licensed term for these units is based on 40 years commencing with issuance of the construction permits. These construction permits were issued on August 16, 1972; thus, the Unii.1 and 2 licenses expire on August 16, 2012. Accounting for the time that was required for plant construction, this represents an effective operating license term of 35 years for Unit 1 and 31 years for Unit 2.
10CFR50.51 states that the Commission will issue an operating license for the term (not to exceed 40 years) requested by the applicant or for the estimated useful life of the facility if the Commission determines that the estimated useful lif e is less than the term requested.
Alabama Power Company expects that the facility will remain useful beyond the current operating license expiration date and will continue to enhance the economic health and well-being of the company's service area. The additional years of plant operation allowed by the proposed change would defer the need to
' install replacement baseload capacity or to purchase supplemental power from outside the Southern Electric System. Therefore, Alabama Power Company proposes i
changes to Operating Licenses NFP-2 and NPF-8 for the Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 respectively to allow operation for 40 years from date of the operating licenses.
I Analysis:
Alabama Power Company reviewed the requirements of 10CFR50.92 as they relate I to the proposed changes to the operating licenses and considers the proposed changes not to involve a significant hazards consideration. In support of this conclusion, the following analysis is provided.
(1) The proposed changes will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because no physical changes to the plant or modifications of plant procedures are requested. The plant was originally designed for a 40-year service life as indicated in Section 2 of Attachment 3. The proposed change only amends the operating licenses l
to allow operation of the plant for the full 40 years. Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated have not been increased.
i I
ATTACHMENT 2 Significant Hazards Evaluation Pursuant to 10CFR50.92 For the Proposed Extension of Operating License Duration R
R Page 2 1
(2) The proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated i because the plant design is not changed and the original plant design
" basis consisted of a 40 year service life. The proposed change only E
amends the operating licenses of the plant for the full 40 years.
Additionally, the qualified lifetimes for equipment within the scope of
? 10CFR50.49 have been incorporated into plant equipment maintenance and replacement practices to ensure that safety-related electrical equipment remains qualified and available to perform its safety function 1
=
regardless of the overall age of the plant. The plant Inservice Inspection Program ensures that the mechanical equipment within the 3 scope of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 is maintained regardless of the age s of the plant. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the i possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
l (3) The proposed changes will not involve a reduction in a margin of safety because the plant design basis of a 40-year service life is not changed, 1 the accident analyses are based upon a 40-year service life, and the 1
safety-related equipment is maintained regardless of the overall age of the plant.
I
Conclusion:
Based upon the analysis provided herewith, Alabana Power Company has determined that the proposed changes to the operating licenses will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, Alabama Power Company has determined that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10CFR50.92(c) and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
JAR : dst -D-T .S .3
e e ATTACHMENT 3 FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT t
FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION REPORT DUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1.2 Need for License Extension 1.3 Description of Report 2.0 SAFETY IMPACT ANALYSIS 2.1 Electrical Equipnent 2.2 Mechanical Equipment 2.3 Structures 2.4 Reactor Vessel 2.5 Safety Upgrades and Special Issues 2.6 Summary of Safety Impacts 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 3.1 Offsite Radiation Exposure 3.2 Onsite Radiation Exposure 3.3 Increase in Plant Radioactivity Inventories 3.4 Radioactive Waste Production 3.5 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Effects 3.6 Non-Radiological Effects 3.7 Summary of Environmental Ef fects 3.8 References 4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO LICENSE EXTENSION 4.1 Need for Power 4.2 Cost-Benefit of Extension 5.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES:
A. ALARA Program Description
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment 1.0 Introduction 1.1 General Section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2133.c) authorizes the issuance of facility operating licenses for a period of time up to 40 years. The operating licenses for Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 were issued on June 25, 1977 and March 31, 1981 respectively. The currently licensed term for Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 is based on 40 years commencing with issuance of the construction permits. The Unit 1 and 2 licenses expire on August 16, 2012. Accounting for the time that was required for plant construction, this represents an effective operating license term of 35 years for Unit 1 and 31 years for Unit 2. This report has been prepared to support the modification of the operating terms of these licenses sucn that the expiration dates are 40 years commencing with the issuance of the operating license. The requested expiration dates for the licenses are:
Unit 1 June 25, 2017 Unit 2 March 31, 2021 1.2 Need for License Amendment The granting of the proposed license amendment will permit the operation of Farley Units 1 and 2 for five and nine years, respectively, beyond the current expiration dates. As demonstrated in Section 4 of this report, the proposed amendment will permit the deferral of additional generating plant construction resulting in a considerable cost benefit.
1.3 Description of Report This report contains three principal areas of analysis. The first analysis area (Section 2) is an assessment of the safety impact of the proposed license amendment. This section sumarizes the assurances that the equipment and structures can safely remain in service for the requested 40-year service life. Section 2.6 contains a statement of the overall safety impact conclusions.
The second analysis area (Section 3) involves the environmental impact associated with the plants operating for additional years. The analyses in Section 3 of the report include assessment of the onsite and offsite radiation exposures, waste production, fuel cycle effects, and non-radiological environmental effects. Section 3.7 contains a statement of the overall environmental impact conclusions.
1-1
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment The final analysis area (Section 4) deals with the cost effectiveness of the proposed license extension. A summary of the report findings and An evaluations under 10CFR50.92 and 10CFR51 are presented in Section 5.
appendix is included to describe the present Farley Nuclear Plant program of radiation protection.
l l
l l
1-2
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ /
l Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment 2.0 Safety Impact Analysis The material in this section of this report has been assembled to demonstrate .
that the public health and safety will not be adversely affected by this !
amendment to the plant operating license. Most of this information summarizes material previously provided to the NRC in the FSAR or other submittals.
t 2.1 Electrical Equipment 4 The safety-related electrical equipment at Farley Nuclear Plant has been reviewed in response to the environmental qualification requirements of IE Bulletin 79-01B, NUREG-0588 and 10CFR50.49. Alabama Power Company submitted comprehensive reports to the NRC on July 30, 1980 for Unit 1 and September 12, 1980 for Unit 2. These reports, as revised, document the life expectancy of certain safety-related electrical equipment and the environmental conditions under which it is required to maintain its operability. As the report indicates, the Farley environmental qualification administrative program will ensure that the safety-related electrical equipment will be qualified for a service life of 40 years in its most severe normal operating environment and design basis accident conditions.
The continuing environmental qualification administrative program in conjunction with the Technical Specification surveillances assures the safety-related electrical equipment will perform their design function regardless of the age of the plant.
2.2 Mechanical Equipment The safety-related mechanical equipment is inspected in accordance with the inservice inspection and testing program as described in FSAR section 5.2.8.6. This section of the FSAR describes the programs for Class 1, 2, and 3 component and piping examinations and for pump and valve surveillance testing.
The inservice inspection and testing in conjunction with the Technical Specification surveillances assure the operability of the safety-related mechanical equipment regardless of the age of the plant.
2.3 Structures The auxiliary building, diesel generator building, turbine building, and river water and service water intake structures are constructed of reinforced concrete and steel. Industrial experience with such materials establishes that a service life of well in excess of forty years can be anticipated.
2-1
u Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment.
The steel lined, concrete containment at Farley Nuclear Plant has been analyzed for a forty year service life while accounting for all loads it will encounter. This analysis is documented in the Farley Nuclear Plant FSAR, section 6.2.1. Based upon the construction of the major buildings and structures of the Farley Nuclear Plant, the public health and safety will not be adversely affected by this amendment to the plant operating license.
2.4 Reactor Vessel The design of the reactor vessel and its internals considered the effects of 40 years of operation at full power with a plant capacity factor of 80%
(32 effective full power years). Westinghouse WCAP-11047 dated January 1986 has demonstrated that expected cumulative neutron fluences will not be a limiting consideration. WCAP-11047 has shown all values of the reference temperature for pressurized thermal shock (RTpTS) for each Farley vessel to remain below the NRC screening criterial values for PTS using the projected fluence values through license expiration and through The most limiting RT 32 effective full power years (EFPY).EFPY for Unit 1 is 191whichF for isthe lower shell pla well within the NRC screening criteria value of 270*F. The most limiting RTPTS value at 32 EFPY for Unit 2 is 223*F for the intermediate shell plate B7212-1, which-is also well within the NRC screening criteria value of 270*F.
This analysis has addressed the expected vessel lifetime and concluded that no vessel annealing will be required before achieving 32 EFPY of operation. This time interval is equivalent to a plant operating with a annual capacity factor of 80% for 40 years. The results of the analysis were submitted to the NRC by Alabama Power Company letter dated January 20, 1986 in accordance with 10CFR50.61.
In addition to the above analyses, surveillance capsules placed inside the reactor vessel provide a means of monitoring the cumula te effects of power operation over the plant life. Surveillance capsu.es for Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, were recently pulled and evaluated to determine the potenti6l for radiation induced embrittlement. The measured fluence levels derived from neutron dosinetry contained in the surveillance capsules have been compared with the fast neutron fluence values from the plant specific calculations for predicting fluence values. The measured values have closely approximated the estimated calculated values and even indicate that the actual fluence levels experienced by the vessels are less than the predicted values.
The surveillance capsule withdrawal schedules for Farley Nuclear Plant are defined in the Technical Specifications and are in compliance with 10CFR50, Appendi x H. Additionally, heatup and cooldown limits for the reactor coolant system and reactor vessel are specified in the Technical Specifications and are in compliance with 10CFR50, Appendix G.
1 2-2
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment Reactor vessel surveillance capsules will be periodically withdrawn and analyzed, and the heatup and cooldown curves updated in accordance with Appendices G and H of 10CFR50 throughout plant life. Thus, this surveillance activity will ensure that pressure / temperature limitations associated with reactor vessel embrittlement will remain in compliance with 10CFR50, Appendix G.
2.5 Safety Upgrades and Special Issues Subsequent to the issuance of the operating licenses for Farley Nuclear Plant, several new licensing issues have emerged. These issues include fire protection, emergency planning, post accident sampling and monitoring capability, and other post-TMI requirements. As these issues have appeared, modifications have been made to both the physical plant and to the plant procedures. This ongoing program of plant improvement has resulted in the continual upgrading of plant equipment and a concomitant increase in plant safety.
2.6 Summary of Safety Impact The request for amendment of the operating licenses is based on the fact that a 40-year service life was considered during the design and construction of the plant. It is expected that some components will wear out during the plant lifetime. However, design features have been incorporated which maximize the ability to test, inspect and perform preventive and corrective maintenance on the plant structures, systems and equipmen t. Additionally, surveillance and maintenance practices have been implemented in accordance with industry codes, regulatory requirements and the facility Technical Specifications for mechanical equipment to provide assurance that any unexpected degradation in plant equipment will be identified and corrected.
! Aging analyses have been performed for safety-related electrical equipment in the scope of 10CFR50.49, " Environmental Qualification of Electrical l Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants", identifying qualified lifetimes for this equipment. These lifetimes have been incorporated into the plant environmental qualification administrative l program to ensure that the required safety-related electrical equipment l
remains qualified and available to perform its safety function regardless l of the overall age of the plant. Mechanical equipment is routinely tested in accordance with industry standards and the Technical Specifications to ensure its operability. In the event of the occurrence of significant wear, the mechanical components will be refurbished or replaced, thereby extending the lifetime of such equipment indefinitely.
2-3
i
. i Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment Based upon the above, it is concluded that extension of the operating licenses to allow a 40-year service life is consistent with the safety analysis in that issues associated with plant aging have already been addressed in the FSAR and other licensing submittals.
2-4
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment 3.0 Environmental Impact Assessment This section deals with the effect of the proposed amendment on the environment. The environmental effects are assessed both onsite and offsite.
Radiological effects are the principal . subject of this section, with the non-radiological effects being addressed in Section 3.5. :
3.1 Offsite Radiation Exposure Offsite radiation exposures from postulated design basis accidents were assessed and documented in the Farley Nuclear Plant FSAR. Offsite radiation exposures for routine plant operation were assessed and documented in Alabama Power Company letter dated June 3,1976 from A. R.
Barton to V. A. Moore and R. C. DeYoung of the NRC. This section of the report provides an analysis of the effect of the proposed 40-year ,
operating lifetime on these offsite radiation exposures.
3.1.1 Normal Operation Exposure The anticipated offsite radiation exposure from all known pathways to the most exposed individual was computed for each unit. The first step in the offsite dose calculation was the determination of the estimated annual ;
releases of each isotope. The releases were then used as a source term ,
for the calculation of the dose to the exposed inoividuals offsite. The analyses show that both units are designed to assure that the design objectives for exposure limitations of 10CFR50, Appendix I are met.
- Since the initial design of the plant, a very high efficiency i demineralizer system has been installed and is used routinely to reduce i the activity of water released from the plant to extremely low levels.
The Farley Nuclear Plant has consistently been operated well within the ,
requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix I for all types of releases. This has been documented in the Alabama Power Company Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the actual offsite doses as reported in the current Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent
- Release Reports. This table compares offsite doses computed using the i Farley Nuclear Plant Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) for recent
- operating history as compared to the 10CFR50, Appendix I design i objectives. Note that the design objectives and limiting conditions for
, operation conforming to the guidelines of Appendix I are deemed by the NRC j as a conclusive showing of compliance with the as low as reasonably
! achieveable ( ALARA) requirements of 10CFR50.34a and 50.36a. As demonstrated by Table 3-1, the Farley Nuclear Plant is in full compliance with the ALARA requirements of 10CFR50.34a and 36a.
l The Farley Nuclear Plant Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications l (RETS) are also in compliance with the NRC ALARA requirements. Thus, the operation of the Farley Nuclear Plant in accordance with the RETS assures the protection of the public health and safety. The offsite environmental l effect of the continued operation of Farley Nuclear Plant will be
! minimized by the plant's compliance with the RETS.
i 3-1
-- _- - - _ - - - _ , _ - _ ~ _ _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - - _ _ - - - _ _ - -
F-Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety and Environmental Assessment 3.1.2 Accident Exposure The proposed amendment to the operating license will have no effect on the potential for the release of radioactivity in an accident. Recent data presented by the NRC in Draf t NUREG-0956 has indicated that the source terms developed for the Farley Nuclear Plant accident analyses are conservative. This data takes into account the actual releases from TMI-2 and shows that the previously predicted releases were high.
Therefore, the offsite doses presented in the FSAR accident analyses remain bounding for the accident exposure expected at the Farley Nuclear Pl ant.
The one analysis factor that will change somewhat is the population in the vicinity of the plant. The predicted population doses are based tpon the forecasted population increases prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1972 for the site area. These population forecasts currently extend through the year 2015 as reflected in FSAR figures 2.1-5 through 2.1-8. These figures will be revised to reflect population forecasts through the year 2025. i 3.2 Onsite Radiation Exposure Onsite radiation exposure involves the exposure of plant workers to nuclear radiation. The amendment to the operational life of Farley Nuclear Plant will not increase the day to day radiation exposures encountered by the plant operators since the general background radiation levels will not change significantly over the life of the plant.
3.2.1 FNP ALARA Program Farley Nuclear P1 ant has developed and implemented a comprehensive ALARA program. The present program is described in Appendix A of this report.
As a result of the ALARA program, Farley Nuclear Plant is minimizing tt:e occupational radiation exposures.
3.2.2 Additional Refueling Outages The license amendment to the operational life of Farley Nuclear Plant could involve three to six additional refueling cutages. Although a significant percentage of the total annual worker radiation exposure is encountered during such outages, relatively little of this exposure is '
associated with refueling operations. Most of the outage related exposure is due to the performance of maintenance, repairs, oc modifications. This work is performed during outages to minimize the effect on plant safety and limit radiation exposures. The additional t 3-2 .
~ ._ , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
r Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety and Environmental Assessment outages will not result in exposures outside the limits of 10CFR20.
Furthermore, any outage related exposure will be minimized by the ALARA program.
3.3 Increase in Plant Radioactivity Inventories Radioactive isotope inventories in certain plant components are expected to increase as the plant ages. Experience has indicated that this buildup results in increased radiation dose rates in the vicinity of these components.
Radiation exposures inside the plant are carefully controlled under the Farley Nuclear Plant ALARA program (see Appendix A). As radioactive material builds up on a component the ALARA program provides for the use of added shielding, engineering controls or reduction of work times to reduce worker exposures. Such measures as discarding demineralizer beds upon reaching radioactivity limits and the use of decontamination techniques are also utilized to minimize worker exposure.
The isotopes of primary concern for environmental assessment are the radiciodines and noble gases. Tnese isotopes are produced in the nuclear fuel as by-products of nuclear fission. If the fuel does not leak, the concentration of these fission products in the reactor coolant will remain relatively low, in the event of fuel leakage, the abundance of the fission products in the reactor coolant increases.
Since the release rate of noble gases and iodines is largely a function of fuel integrity, the environmental effect of radionuclide inventory is minimal. The operating history of the Farley Nuclear Plant has shown that fuel integrity has been good with the exception of the baffle jetting problem during Unit 1, Cycle 3. This problem has been corrected. At no time during Cycle 3 did the Dose Equivalent Iodine-131 levels exceed the technical specification limits. The buildup in primary piping does have an effect on the radiation levels inside the plant; however, this fact is of a lesser concern because the buildup does not affect exposure to the general public and its impact on plant personnel exposures can be minimized through ALARA practices.
3.4 Radioactive Waste Production Continued operation of Farley Nuclear Plant beyond its currently scheduled shutdown date will result in the production of additional quantities of radioa:tive waste. This section addresses the effect of the processing of these wastes.
3-3
T 8
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety and Environmental Assessment 3.4.1 Gaseous Waste Releases The gaseous radwaste treatment systems are designed to assure that the airborne releases are maintained ALARA during normal plant operations.
The RETS ensure that the equipment required to maintain the offsite doses ALARA will be operable and will be operated as required to maintain the releases ALARA. Table 3-1 demonstrates the excellent ALARA record at Farley Nuclear Plant.
3.4.2 Liquid Waste Releases The liquid waste treatment systems are designed to meet the ALARA goals.
These systems are also covered by the RETS to assure system operability.
Table 3-1 demonstrates the excellent ALARA record at Farley Nuclear Plant.
3.4.3 Solid Waste Shipment Operation of the Farley Nuclear Plant beyond the current license expiration dates will necessitate the shipment of additional solid waste from the site. The annual rate of production of dry waste is not expected to change as a function of the age of the plant.
Alabama Power Company has a volume reduction program at Farley Nuclear Plant. This program .ainimizes the volume of waste which will be required to be shipped to an offsite facility. A key element in the reduction of waste volume is the disposable demineralizer system. Use of this system avoids the necessity for solidification of evaporator bottoms, which greatly reduces the solid waste volumes from liquid waste processing.
The State of Alabama is a participant in the Southeast Regional Compact.
As such, Alabama Power Company expects to have burial space available at a compact site for the remaining lifetime of Farley Nuclear Plant regardless of the length of operating life. Alabama Power Company recognizes that certain restrictions on the available burial volume may be encountered. These restrictions will be considered when evaluating the need for future volume reduction modifications.
3.5 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Effects 3.5.1 Production of Additional High-Level Waste The operation of Farley Nuclear Plant beyond its current license expiration date will produce spent fuel during the additional period of operation. No change is anticipated in the annual rate of production of spent fuel.
3-4
. _ _ - _~
Farley Nuclear. Plant Operating License. Extension Safety and Environmental Assessment 4
3.5.2 ~ Onsite Spent Fuel Storage The combined storage capacity of the two spent fuel storage pools at Farley Nuclear Plant is 2814 fuel assemblies. Based upon current projections, this capacity would accommodate discharges to the year 2006 and 2008 for. Units 1 and 2 respectively. The ability to discharge one
. full core into the pool would end in the year 2003 and 2007 for Units 1 and 2 respectively.
Alabama Power Company has a contract with the Department of Energy for.
the removal from the plant site and for disposal of spent fuel. The contract provides for this service to commence in 1998. In the event that fuel removal becomes delayed and additional storage is required, this storage could be provided by on-site storage in casks. One dry storage cask design has been licensed by NRC for such use and it is expected that other licensed casks would be available in the late 1990s, if required.
3.6 Non-Radiological Impacts The'NRC Staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) (Construction Permit and Operating License stages) assessed the non-radiological impacts of
- plant operation as a function of plant design features, relative loss of renewable resources and relative loss of degradation of available habitat. Based on this assessment, the FES indicates adverse non-radiological impact would be minimal. These assessments, and the
! assumptions on which they are based, have been borne out by the actual l
operating history of the plant.
l The sumary of the cost-benefit analysis (reference 3.1, p. XI-19) stated that the amount of land withdrawn from agricultural and forestry uses was relatively small and that tne benefits of the plant outweighed the costs incurred. The FES (reference 3.2) further states that Farley Units 1 and 2 were designed 'to operate for 40 years and that beyond the useful life of the plants the site might continue to be utilized for the generation of electrical energy. Further land use would be dependent upon the type of decommissioning measures employed. The relative amount of land removed from forestry production for transmission corridors was judged to be small when compared with the large areas of remaining forests in surrounding counties. It was noted that agricultural and livestock production would continue essentially unchanged in the right-of-way and that timber lands could be converted to some agricultural production (reference 3.1, p. XI-11). The FES (reference 3.2, p. 5-10) concluded that there were no significant biological effects associated with the electric fields generated under or near the transmission lines.
3-5 l
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety and Environmental Assessment J
Thermal impacts of plant operations on the water quality of the Chattahoochee River were determined to be negligible under anticipated discharge conditions (reference 3.2, p. 5-3). Thermal effluent limits are currently regulated by permits issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Hanagement. Results of the NRC Staff's analysis satisfactorily demonstrated that the computer simulation model of the plant's thermal plume was accurate and that the thermal plume temperatures were well within the EPA and state prescribed mixing zone standards (reference 3.2, p. 5-4).
All industrial chemical waste discharges and sanitary waste discharges to the Chattahoochee River are covered by the permit. All applicable EPA effluent guidelines and limitations are being met in accordance with the conditions of the current permit. The NRC Staff's analysis of the plant chemical discharges indicated that these discharges would have negligible effects on the water quality of the Chattahoochee River (reference 3.2,
- p. 5-5). The NRC Staff also concluded that plant operations would not significantly affect either surface water or groundwater supplies (reference 3.2, p. 5-3).
The FES analyzed the site ecology, both terrestrial and aquatic, in detail (reference 3.2, pp. 2-8 through 2-13). Included in the analysis were summary results from site bit, logical monitoring programs, available literature, and information from State of Alabama surveys. The FES states that the only source of potential significant damage to the terrestrial environment from plant operation would be due to the loss of habitat for designated species. The designated species were: The Southern Bald Eagle, Bachmans Warbler, Red Cockaded Woodpecker, Florida Panther, and American Alligator. In response to the NRC Staff request for more informstion on these five species, a survey conducted by Alabama Power Company concluded that suitable habitat for these species did not exist in the area of the plant site and along the transmission corridors. Therefore, operation of the plant would have little impact on the terrestrial ecology of the site (reference 3.2, p. 2-12).
Impacts on plant operation on the aquatic enviror. ment were discussed at length in the FES (reference 3.1, pp. V-6 through V-11; reference 3.2, pp. 5-5 and 5-6). The conclusion reached in the FES was that plant operations would not have significant effects on the biota of the Chattahoochee River. Environmental monitoring studies were conducted by Alabama Power Company and the results reported in the Annual Surveillance Reports. In addition, a biological survey to determine the effects of the operation of Units 1 and 2 on the planktonic organisms and on the impingement and entrainment (reference 3.3) losses to the fish populationc were conducted by Alabama Power Company. These studies satisfactorily demonstrated that there were no significant effects of combined plant operations on either the planktonic populations or on the fish populations.
3-6
i Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety and Environmental Assessment All non-radiological monitoring and studies conducted as requirements of the FES-CP, FES-OL, Environantal Protection Plan, and State of Alabama NPDES Permit have demonstrated that effects of the operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant on both the terrestrial and aquatic environments are negligible. Since all of these studies were based on factors other than the term of plant operation, it is reasonable to
' conclude that extending the operating life of the plant would not adversely effect any segment of the environment near the plant.
.3.7, Summary of Environmental Effects
+ Sections 3.1 and 3.2 demonstrate that there will be no significant onsite or offsite radiation exposures as a result of the proposed amendment.
Section 3.3 demonstrates that the increase in plant radioactivity inventory will not have a significant effect on either onsite or offsite radiation exposures. Section 3.4 demonstrates that the radioactive waste effects are not significant. Section 3.5 demonstrates that the fuel cycle effects are minimal. Section 3.6 demonstrates that no significant non-radiological environmental effects are likely to be encountered.
e Based upon these analyses, it is Alabama Power Company's conclusion that s there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed amendment. Also based upon these analyses, o* there is no change to the benefit / cost agreement established at the time the Construction Permit and Operating Licenses were issued. The discussion of the benefits due to the electrical generation and the cost of that generation is discussed in Section 4.2. Therefore, the issuance by NRC of the proposed license amendments will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment and an environmental impact statement should not be prepared for this action.
- 3.8 References 3.1 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit
- j/ 2, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, June 1972.
3.2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, December 1974.
3.3 Alabama Power Company "Josee '
Farley Nuclear Plant, Environmental Report-Operating License Stage" Ame. ument 2, April,1974.
3-7
Table 3-1 Farley Nuclear Plant Actual Offsite Dose Projections Versus 10CFR50, Appendix I Design Objectives for the
. Years 1983.through 1985 as reported in Section B.9 of the Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports Unit 1 Dose Appendix I Category Objective Calculated Doses 1983 1984 1985 i
Liquid-Total Body 3 mrem /yr. 0.036 mrem 0.020 mrem 0.009 mrem
~ ~
Liqui d-Organ 10 mrem /yr. 0.399' mrem 0.120 mrem 0.041 mrem
' Gaseous-Total Body 5 mrem /yr. 0.500 mrem 0.213 mrem 0.090 mrem Gaseous-Skin 15 mrem /yr. 0.990 mrem 0.396 mrem 0.197 mrem Airborne Iodine 15 mrem /yr. 0.582 mrem 0.091 mrem 0.096 mrem and Particulate-Organ Unit 2 Dose Appendix I Category Objective Calculated Doses 1983 1984 1985 Liquid-Total Body 3 mrem /yr. 0.012 mrem 0.180 mrem 0.022 mrem Li quid-Organ 10 mrem /yr. 0.124 mrem 0.253 mrem 0.070 mrem Gaseous-Total Body 5 mrem /yr. 0.118 mrem 0.161 mrem 0.039 mrem Gaseous-Skin 15 mrem /yr. 0.127 mrem 0.334 mrem 0.099 mrem Airborne Iodine 15 mrem /yr. 0.174 mrem 0.066 mrem 0.085 mrem and Particulate-Organ 3-8
-, . .. - . - - . - _ - - - . - _ . - - . -- . _ . _ - - . _ - . - - _ - - . ~ . . - .
Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessment 4.0 Alternatives to Life Extension Alabama Power Company has investigated the alternatives to this amendment to the operating license. This investigation has confirmed that the extension of the useful operating life for Farley Nuclear Plant is clearly to the financial benefit of the Alabama Power Company and its electrical power customers.
4.1 Need for Power Analysis of load growth indicates that the peak demand for central station generated electricity will likely be growing through the first quarter of the twenty-first century. Estimates of the peak demand are indicated below.
Forecast of APCo Peak Demand Growth, 1986-2025 (January 1986 Projection)
YEAR MW 1990 8,149 2000 9,163 2005 9,678 2010 10,249 2015 10,825 2020 11,434 l 2025 12,077 l
These data predict that the load will increase during the Farley Nuclear
- Plant extended lifetime. Therefore the retirement of any generating l capacity will necessitate the construction of a similarly sized unit to
( provide the required generation with associated environmental impacts, l
l 4.2 Cost Benefit cf Extension
- Expansion plan studies for Alabama Pmver Company show the need for base l
load (coal or nuclear) operating capacity before and during the 2010-2025 peri ods. The extension of the life of each of the Farley units will therefore delay the required in-service date of a new generating unit of a size similar to Farley Nuclear Plant.
4-1
Farlej Nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety and Environmental Assessnent The accumulated present worth (1985 dollars discounted at 13%) of a five-year delay in the construction of the required replacement power plants (two 750 MW coal units) is $154 million. This assumes there are no capital improvements required for the life extension in excess of those covered by normal operation and maintenance costs. In addition, the lower operating costs (total of fuel, operatirig and maintenance costs) of the nuclear units is a further cost benefit.
Thus the delay of Farley Nuclear Plant retirenent is highly cost beneficial to both Alabama Power Company and its customers.
i I
1 4-2
i 1
1 Farley nuclear Plant Operating License Extension Safety Environmental Assessnent j
)
5.0 Summary and Conclusions 1
5.1 Alabama Power Company Evaluation per 10CFR50.92 The proposed license amendments have been evaluated pursuant to the criteria of 10CFR50.92. Alabama Power Company has determined that these amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration. The basis
'for this determination is provided in Attachment 2.
5.2 Alabama Power Company Review per 10CFR51 Alabama Power Company has reviewed the proposed license amendnents against the criteria of 10CFR51 and has concluded that an environmental impact statement should not be required. The data presented in Sections 3 and 4 of this report were prepared to assist the NRC Staff in the preparation of the environmental assessment. Based upon the environmental evaluations in Section 3 and 4, Alabama Power Company has concluded that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed amendments and that the proposed license amendments will not have a significant effect on the quality of human environment.
5-1
]
I' APPENDIX A ALARA Program A. CORPORATE ALARA PROGRAM
- 1. Philosophy and Commitment The intent of this section is to define a corporate management philosophy for maintaining occupational exposure "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA).
It is Alabama Power Company's intention to ensure that all aspects of ongoing nuclear plant design be conducted in a manner such that occupational exposure will be kept ALARA. If it can be shown in a reasonable fashion that the radiation exposure is "truly unavoidable" or the " cost" of reducing radiation exposure is unreasonable in comparison with the commensurate benefits, then it is by definition ALARA. Maintaining occupational radiation exposures ALARA is a management commitment and designated individuals within the company are charged with the responsibility of implementing it. To be achieved successfully, ALARA must be practiced by employees, contractors and visitors. To fulfill this commitment, a basic management ALARA program has been defined and implemented for nuclear plants. This program recognizes that future plant design, operating plant design modifications and operating plant experience are interrelated. Plant designs, when applicable, are reviewed against radiation exposure information to determine potential impact.
- 2. Obj ectives The objectives of corporate management's program of keeping occupational doses ALARA are:
- b. To maintain the annual integrated dose (man-rem) to all personnel at the plant ALARA.
- 3. Guidelines When evaluating proposed ALARA radiation exposure reduction measures, a cost of $6,000 for each 1 man-rem / year of occupation radiation exposure reduction Nill be considered cost-effective. A higher cost per man-rem / year may be justified in specific cases.
1
APPENDIX A ALARA PROGRAM
- 4. Organization The positions described below are responsible for the principal elements of the Corporate ALARA Program.
- a. Senior Vice President (SVP)
The Alabama Power Company ALARA Program is implemented under the direction of the Senior Vice President responsible for Nuclear Generation. He is responsible for the overall ALARA Program development and implementation.
- b. General Manager - Nuclear Support The General Manager - Nuclear Support provides corporate support in the area of radiological engineering, including radiation protection review and appropriate design changes.
- c. Manager Safety Audit and Engineering Review (MSAER)
The MSAER will ensure that periodic audits of the Corporate Plant ALARA Programs are conducted to ensure regulatory compliance. The '
Supervisor of Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SSAER),
reporting to the MSAER, shall audit the Plant ALARA Program annually.
A. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ALARA PROGRAM
- 1. Organization The positions described below are responsible for the principal elements of the Farley Nuclear Plant ALARA Program.
- a. General Manager - Nuclear Plant The General Manager - Nuclear ?lant is responsible for development and implementation of the Farley Nuclear Plant ALARA Program which i' will comply with the corporate ALARA guidelines and criteria
- issued by the SVP. In fulfilling this responsibility, he shall
i l (1) Ensure support from all plant personnel in reaching ALARA objectives.
l (2) Participate in the selection of specific goals and objectives j for the p1 ant.
(3) Review the integrated dose (man-rem) for the plant approximately monthly.
2
ALARA PROGRAM APPENDIX A (4) Ensure suitable authority is delegated to the appropriate plant personnel to comply with the ALARA Program.
- b. Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC)
The PORC is responsible for reviewing Production Change Notices (PCNs) for ALARA considerations. The Plant Health Physicist, Health Physics Group Supervisor, or a designee will be consulted concerning design modifications with potential ALARA impact.
- c. The ALARA Review Committee will be comprised of 6 or more of the following:
(1) The Plant Health Physicist (Chairman)
(2) A Health Physics Supervisor (Secretary)
(3) A Health Physics Sector Supervisor (4) An Operations Supervisor (5) A Maintenance Supervisor (6) An I&C Supervisor (7) A Plant Modifications Department Engineer (8) A Systems Performance Engineer (9) An Outage Planning Supervisor (10) A Daily Planning Supervisor The ALARA Review Committee is responsible for:
(1) Reviewing identified procedures which have the potential for substantial exposure (submitted by any supervisor to the Plant Health Physicist).
(2) Periodically reviewing radiation exposures and making recommendations to the General Manager - Nuclear Plent.
(3) Meeting three to five weeks prior to a scheduled refueling outage to:
(a) Review potential radiation exposure jobs and goals governing exposure to radiation (total men-rem) 3 l
r APPENDIX A ALARA PROGRAM (b) Provide technical guidance and assistance in programs to keep exposures ALARA.
(4) Review of terminated Radiation Work Permits (RWP) submitted by the Plant Health Physicist on jobs where the difference in the actual vs. estimated exposures is excessive (as determined by HP Supervision).
(5) Review of Radiation Incident Reports submitted by the Plant Health Physicist on excessively high exposures or other incidents (as determined by HP Supervision).
(6) Recommending to the General Manager - Nuclear Plant, the annual exposure goal for the following year based on identified activities.
(7) Reviewing annual exposure summaries and reporting the annual exposure received vs. the projected exposure goal to the General Manager - Nuclear Plant.
- d. Health Physics Supervisor The HP Supervisor is responsible for:
(1) Monitoring implementation of the criteria for ALARA during plant design, construction and operation.
(2) Establishing a suitable occupational exposure accounting system.-
(3) Implementing a radiation protection program for all plant radiation workers that puts emphasis on the ALARA Program.
(4) Ensuring that adequate radiation protection coverage is provided for plant personnel.
(S) Reviewing for health physics concerns Radiation Incident Reports and NRC, SAER, and American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) audit reports that are related to radiation protection.
(6) Assuring that the resources needed to achieve an effective ALARA Program 2.re available and effectively utilized.
(7) Review any changes in regulations and standards in the area of radiological controls to ensure appropriate procedural requirements.
The HP Supervisor has direct recourse to the Assistant General Manager-Plant Operations in order to resolve problems related to the conduct of the radiation protection program.
4
\
APPENDIX A ALARA PROGRAM
- e. Chemistry and Environmental Supervisor The Chemistry and Environmental Supervisor is responsible for the personnel dosimetry program.
- f. Plant Health Physicist The Plant Health Physicist reports to the Health Physics Supervisor. He is responsible for:
(1) Assisting the HP Supervisor by performing periodic ALARA.
reviews in the following areas:
(a) Radiological controls.
(b) Access controls.
(c) Plant shielding.
(d) Plant radiation detection and monitoring systems and equi pment.
(e) Plant radiation protection supplies and equipment.
(f) Fuel handling practices and facilities.
(g) Adequacy of radwaste handling and disposal practices and facilities (work with the Radwaste Supervisor).
(2) Reviewing design changes and work activities for ALARA measures.
(3) Reviewing ALARA Problem Reports and ALARA Evaluation Forms and making necessary recommendations.
(4) Reviewing, commenting on, and recommending changes in job procedures to maintain exposures ALARA.
(5) Prior to a major outage, review the proposed radiation protection coverage for the outage.
(6) Reporting ALARA reviews or evaluation findings to the HP Supervi sor.
(7) Writing implementation procedures for the ALARA Program as necessary.
(8) Reviewing terminated RWPs.
5
I l . .
APPENDIX A ALARA PROGRAM (9) Notifying the HP Supervisor of any RWPs where the difference in the actual vs. estimated exposures is excessive.
(10) Interfacing with the HP Sector Supervisor and the HP Foremen in supervising the collection, analysis and evaluation of data and information obtained from radiclogical surveys and monitoring activities.
(11) Staying abreast of ICRP, NCRP, NIOSH, EPA, NRC Standards, etc. , pertaining to ALARA.
- g. Group Supervisors (1) Group Supervisors shall be responsible for:
(a) Ensu-ing all personnel in their group comply with the ALAF Program guidelines.
(b) Enscring suitable advance planning, notification of health physics personnel, and any special training is done prior to plant jobs involving radiological controls to ensure exposures are ALARA.
(c) Identifying to the Plant Health Physicist work activities which have the potential for resulting in 25 man-rem or greater of exposure or which the supervisor believes merits an ALARA review.
- 2. ALARA Analysis Methods All plant personnel are responsible for identifying radiation exposure problems and measures which may be taken to reduce radiation exposure. The ALARA Problem Report is utilized in identifying such problems or measures and the ALARA Evaluation Form is used for evaluation of designated problems.
I l
\
l l
6 e
. _ _ __.