ML20207K167
| ML20207K167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1986 |
| From: | Mroczka E, Sears C NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | Charemagne Grimes Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| B12369, NUDOCS 8701090335 | |
| Download: ML20207K167 (39) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- ~. .m e O General Offices
- Selden Street, Berkn, Connecticut THE cordCficut Lacael Ase90 eta C0wasev 9
.isiv= =ssu: usens sisc'ac cowaar P.O. box 270 e vo=8 "t**** co*" HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 k L J ["' [,7,2, $~.,~,, (203) 665-5000 December 22,1986 Docket No. 50-245 B12369 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr. Christopher 1. Grimes, Director Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of PWR Licensing - B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Proposed Amendment to Facility Operating License Extension of Facility Operating License Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51,50.90 and 50.92, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby requests an amendment to Operating License DPR-21 to extend the duration of the license to forty (40) years from the date of issuance of the operating license. Operating License DPR-21 presently expires May IS, 2006, forty years from the j date of is*,uance of the construction permit for Millstone Unit No.1. NNECO requests that DPR-21 be amended to expire at midnight October 6, 2010, forty years from its October 7,1970 issuance, as shown in Attachment 1. DISCUSSION ] Regulatory Recuirements Section 103(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, provides that the Commission shall issue licenses for a specified period, "but not exceeding forty years" (42 USC 2133(c)). The Commission implemented this statutory provision in 10 CFR 50.51, similarly providing that a license be issued for a fixed period, not exceeding 40 years. The Commission originally considered that, for operating licenses, the period commenced with the issuance of the construction permit. Accordingly, the full-term operating license for Millstone Unit No. I presently expires May 18, 2006, forty (40) years after issuance of the construction permit for the plant. However, the Commission has since determined that the forty (40) year license term may commence with the issuance of the operating license. Accordingly, the Commission has accepted and approved requests to amend existing operating licenses to extend their expiration dates. NNECO requests herein an amendment for the Millstone Unit No. I operating license consistent with previous Commission practice regarding other plant operating license dockets. l k$h I 0\\ 46 0 8701090335 861222 r3 (D ggh PDR ADOOK 05000245 m P PDR t
-=- l l l ! Safety and EnvironmentalImpacts l l Millstone Unit No. I systems, structures and components are designed so as to l permit operation for a full forty (40) year license term. NNECO's analysis of the safety impacts associated with this extension demonstrates that no adverse safety consequences will result from this extension. NNECO also addressed the environmental impacts of the requested extension and found that the impacts associated with an additional period of operation have either previously been evaluated or are insignificant. In any event, these impacts are far outweighed by the incremental benefits which accrue as a consequence of the additional period of operation, a Safety Evaluation The safety evaluation conducted by NNECO in conjunction with this request is described in Attachment 2 hereto. The evaluation addresses, potential impacts on both electrical and mechanical equipment, concluding that bot,h classes of equipment are qualified for, operation i duriag the term of the extension. This does not mean, of course, that some equipment may not wear out during normal operation. However, appropriate inspection, maintenance and surveillance practices,, facilitated by design features. provided for such purposes, provide assurance that any unexpected degradation,in plant equipment will be detected and timely corrected. NNECO also evaluated potential implications for the facility structures, the reactor pressure vessel and J plant systems resulting from the additional period of operation and found no adverse consequences, in short, this extension has no significant impact on the Millstone Unit No. I safety analyses, including those evaluated by the Commission Staff in their Safety Evaluation Report, as supplemented. Environmental Assessment NNECO's evaluation of environmental impacts, also described in, demonstrates that no significant environmental impacts, either radiological or otherwise, result from the extended period of operation. NNECO considered radiological implications resulting from plant operation both for the general public and as a result of occupational exposures. Fuel cycle impacts were also considered. As demonstrated therein, such impacts as will result have already been considered in prior licensing reviews or are insignificant, and are, in any event, far outweighed by the benefits which accrue to the consumers as a result of the extended period of operation. The benefits associated with the extended period of operation include direct benefits in the form of deferred costs from extended baseload generating capacity and benefits of tax revenues and community employment. Unreviewed Safety Question This proposed amendment has been reviewed by the NNECO Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board. These groups have concluded
. that the proposed change does not constitute an unreviewed safety question under 10 CFR 50.59 because the amendment simply provides for operation in the same manner presently authorized over an additional period of time. There will be no changes to operating parameters, reactor structures, systems, components, or Technical Specifications. In addition, the potential effects of the proposed license extension are already within the original design considerations for the facility. Further, current surveillance, inspection, testing and maintenance practices provide assurance that unforeseen degradation in plant equipment will be identified and corrected throughout the lifetime of the facility. Consequently, NNECO concludes as follows: 1. Neither the probability of occurrence (l) nor the consequences of an accident or i..lfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated would be increased by this amendment. 2. The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a type'different than previously evaluated will not be created. 3. No margin of safety as defined in the basis for Technical Specifications will be reduced. In summary, no unreviewed safety question is presented by this amendment in that neither the reactor nor its op eration need be modified. No Sigfict.nt Hazards Consideration lhe proposed revision also does r.ot constitute a significant hazards consideration l as defined by 10 CFR 50.92. Rather, the pro' posed revision to the Millstone Unit No.1 operating license only contemplates an extension to expiration dates for tne current license. it does not involve any changes in the design or operation of the station. In particular, the proposed change does not: 1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because no changes to the design or operation of the unit are involved. Thus, no changes to the facility or operating conditions will be made that could alter postulated scenarios l regarding accident initiation or response. Further, the amendment does l not require any changes to safety analyses (although an evaluation was performed to confirm that existing evaluations bound the potential effects of 40-year operation). Also, no modificat! >ns to facility procedures or Technical Specifications are necessary. Finally, existing surveillance, inspection, testing and maintenance practices provide assurance that degradation in plant equipment, structures or components l will be identified and corrected as necessary throughout the lifetime of l the facility. In summary, the potential effects of the extended period of operation are encompassed within original design considerations. (1) The probability of occurrence for this evaluation is defined as the probability per reactor-year of operation. i
_4 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because no changes are necessary to the design or operation of the facility (see discussion in item 1). 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because no changes to the design and operation of the facility and no changes to existing safety analyses are necessary. Further, no revisions to procedures or l Technical Specifications are required. And, as noted, assurance that degradation of equipment, structures or components will be identified and corrected throughout the lifetime of the facility is provided by l existing surveillance, inspection, testing and maintenance practices. l In summary, the proposed amendment does not constitute a significant hazards consideration. NNECO's evaluation has shown that structures, systems and components at Millstone Unit No. I will continue to perform within the limits of existing design and operational criteria throughout the requested additional period of operation. Further, existing measures provide assurance that l unexpected degradation of structures, systems and components will be detected and corrected in a timely manner. Thus, no new safety implications are presented by the requested amendment. Existing measures to assure the l protection of the public health and safety will contipue to provide such assurance during the extended period of operation. No Significant Environmental Impact As noted above and described in Attachment 2, there are no new significant radio'.egical or nonradiologicalimpacts associated with the proposed action. The issuance of the requested amendment will have no significant adverse impact on the quality of the human environment and will, in fact, provide a benefit to consumers. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the NRC is requested to approve this application to amend the Millstone Unit No. I facility operating license for the full 40-year license term. NNECO is, of course, prepared to meet with the Staff at its convenience to discuss this application, if necessary. Application Fee Pursuant to 10CFR170.12(c) and 170.21, NNECO encloses herewith a check for $150.00 to cover the fee for processing this request. l l i l l J
5 In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), we are providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this proposed amendment. Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY-5.d.b E. J. Mroczka 4 Senior Vice President b j By: C. F. Sears Vice President cc: Mr. Kevin McCarthy l Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, CT 06116 I STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) Then personally appeared before me C. F. Sears, who being duly sworn, did state that he is a Vice President of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, a Licensee herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the I name and on behalf of the Licensees herein and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of his knowled nd belief. N Oh di u as
- ry Pubfc f f Ccmmeran Ex;: ires March 31, 1989
Docket No. 50-336 B12369 Millstone Unit No.1 Extension of Facility Operating License Proposed License Change i 1 l December,1986
3. This amended license is effective as of its date of issuance and shall expire at midnight October 6,2010. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' Frank 3. Miraglia, Director Division of PWR-B
Enclosures:
1. Order Modifying License . 2. Appendix A: Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: l
Docket No. 50-245 B12369 Millstone Unit No.1 Extension of Facility Operating License Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment i December,1986
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT EXTENSION OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. INTRODUCTION The Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) proposes to amend the Operating License for Millstone Unit No.1. The proposed amendment would change the expiration date for Operating License, DPR-21, from May 18, 2006 to October 6,2010. Section 103(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides that a license is to be issued for a specified period not exceeding forty (40) years. It is specified by 10 CFR50.51 that each license will be issued for a fixed period of time not to exceed 40 years from the date of issuance. The current license term for the operating license commences with issuance of the construction permit (May 13, 1966), expiring May 13,2006. The requested amendment represents an extension of the current operating license term of four (4) years four (4) months and nineteen (19) days. Consistent with Section 103(c) of the Atomic Energy Act and Section 50.51 of the Commission's regulations, NNECO proposes to extend the Operating License term for Millstone Unit No. I such that the fixed period of the j license would be forty (40) years from the date of Provisional Operating License issuance. A Full Term Operating License was issued on October 31,1986. A comprehensive review of potential safety implications for plant design features and environmentalimpacts associated with this extended period of operation was conducted to support the proposed amendment request. The results of that review, set forth below, demonstrate that extending the period of operation presents no safety issues or environmental impacts which significantly impact the safety analysis or environmental reviews. 11. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPACTS 1 i NNECO reviewed the safety analyses set forth in both the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and Facility Technical Specifications and the Commission's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), as supplemented (includi.)g the supplement for the full term operating license), for Millstone Unit No.
- 1. This review indicated that, in some areas, prior safety evaluations may potentially be affected by the period of facility operation. Accordingly, additional assessments were completed to confirm that original design and operational considerations encompassed the proposed extended period of operation. As discussed herein, structures, systems and components either are designed and maintained to perform at least for the full 40-year term, or are subject to detailed inspection, surveillance and maintenance requirements which provide assurance that abnormal degradation will be detected and corrective action taken. Only the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is considered an essentially non-replaceable plant component.
NNECO has determined that the RPV, censistent with its original design, will maintain its functional capability at least for the full 40-year operating term herein requested.
. A. Plant Design 1. Electrical Equipment NNECO has established extensive programs to identify electrical equipment requiring environmental qualification pursuant to 10 CFR 50.49. Programs are in place to assure that environmentally qualified equipment is maintained in a qualified state at all times during plant operation, regardless of the length of operation. These programs include aging analyses to determine qualified life, scheduled replacements at end of equipment qualified life, maintenance designed to preserve qualification, surveillance in accordance with plant procedures, and qualification of affected portions of plant modifications. These programs provide assurance that this equipment will remain qualified to perform i+= intended safety function for the duration of plant life. In summary, the above-described programs are designed to identify, refurbish or replace components subject to aging throughout plant life. These programs provide assurance that such equipment will respond as required if called upon to mitigate design basis events, regardless of the term of the license. 2. Mechanical Equipment a. Inservice inspection and Testing Mechanical equipment at Millstone Unit No.1 is subject to the inservice inspection (ISI) requirements established for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components. Inservice testing (IST) of ASME Code Class 1,2 and 3 pumps and valves is performed in accordance with ASME Section XI and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g), except where written relief has been granted by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i). The specific " Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance (ISI and IST) Requirements" are contained in the Unit No.1 Technical Specifications, Sections 3.13 and 4.13. These provisions provide assurance that mechanical equipment will be properly maintained throughout the operating life of the plant, regardless of the term thereof. No change to the Millstone Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications in these areas is required to accommodate the requested additional period of operation.
b. Surveillance and Maintenance The Technical Specifications for Millstone Unit No. I provide assurance that unexpected degradation of equipment will be detected regardless of the overall age of the plant. These provisions are set forth in Sections 3 and 4 thereof. If a limiting condition for operation is
- exceeded, administrative action would be taken, to assure corrective measures are instituted, as necessary, in accordance with Section 6.0 of the Technical Specifications. Surveillance requirements provide for testing, calibration and inspection of those systems or components which are required to assure that operation of the plant will be as prescribed in the limiting conditions for operation.
These specifications provide assurance that the necessary corrective measures are promptly implemented, in the event unexpected degradation were to occur. 3. Reactor Pressure Vessel The original design of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and associated internals considered the effects of 40 years of operation within the cyclic limits given in the Millstone Unit No. 1 FSAR (Section 4.2). Those cyclic limits equate to 40 years of operation at full power (2011 MW thermal) with a plant capacity factor of 80% (i.e., 32 EFPY), including expected operational and thermal transients. Further, the design of the RPV meets the intent of 10CFR50, Appendix A, GDC 31 " Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure. This original NNECO analyses regarding reactor pressure vessel integrity accepted by the NRC demonstrate the ability of the RPV to operate safely throughout the requested period of operation. In addition, the FSAR provides that the reactor vessel shall not be exposed to more than 1019 nyt of neutrons with energies exceeding 1 mey (FSAR Section 4.2.1). NNECO has confirmed that ) expected neutron fluences over 32 EFPY (40-year service life) will not be a limiting consideration. Specifically, NNECO has determined, applying data provided by General Electric (Millstone Unit 1 NSSS vendor), that total neutron fluence over 40 years of operation (32 EFPY) will be no greater than 16 percent of the design limit for neutron 1 2 ner wall fluence (1.6 x 10 3 (n/cm ) at the reactor vessel ip!) and 1.2 x 1018 (n/cm2) at 1/4 wall thickness).t This (1) NNECO submitted General Electric Report NEDC-30833, " Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance Materials Testing and Fracture Toughness Analysis," (December 1984) to the NRC by W. G. Counsil letter to the Document Control Desk, dated April 12,1985.
-q. confirms that the reactor pressure vessel will not exceed its design basis limitation regarding neutron fluence.
- Further, NNECO also regularly evaluates the shift in nil-ductility reference temperature (32 EFPY) for Millstone Unit 1,
consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. These evaluations are also consistent with the proposed draft guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 (draf t)) for end-of-life fluence. In addition, Millstone Unit 1 Technical Specifications establish a reactor pressure vessel surveillance program to monitor the radiation-induced changes in the mechanical and impact properties of pressure vessel materials in accordance with 10CFR Part 50, Appendix H. Changes in the impact properties of the material contained in surveillance capsules placed inside the reactor vessel are evaluated at prescribed times using pre-and post-irradiation Charpy impact test specimens. Changes in mechanical properties are evaluated by a similar comparison from tensile test specimens. Three (3) representative RPV i materials are evaluated: base metal; weld metal; and heat-affected zone. A complete record of the chemical analyses, fabrication history, and impact and mechanical properties of all surveillance test materials is maintained. This program provides additional assurance that adverse cumulative effects of power operation can be monitored and detected throughout the additional requested period of operation. 1 In summary, the RPV vessel stress analyses includes appropriate consideration of thermal transient and fatigue effects which may be expected during the extended period of operation. Thus the i RPV will not be adversely affected by the requested extension. 4. Structures and Systems Millstone Unit No. I structures and systems are adequately designed to accommodate a forty year operating life. NNECO has reviewed relevant design documentation, and evaluated applicable surveillance and maintenance procedures to confirm that there is assurance that any potential degradation of functional capabilities of facility structures and systems will be detected in a timely manner, without regard to the period of authorized operation, a. Structures The original design basis for structures at Millstone Unit No. I cor.sidered normal, operating dead and live loads, as well as accident loads due to design basis accidents and extreme external phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. The evaluations of abnormal
. conditions have been and continue to be upgraded as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), and as a result of NRC IE Bulletins; i.e., 79-02,79-14, and 30-11. The original design and reanalysis of structures as part of the SEP and in response to IE Bulletins do not employ time as an input to the design basis. The reason for this is that reinforced concrete and steel building structures that are properly maintained do not degrade significantly with time. The structures at Millstone Unit I are well maintained to prevent against problems associated with corrosion. In addition, surveillance and maintenance measures provide assurance that any unexpected degradation of structures will be identified and corrected. Thus, the additional period of operation poses no safety concern which has not already been adequately addressed. in addition, the containment structure has a formal inspection program that is structured to satisfy the intent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3. The inspection program calls for three integrated leak rate tests (ILRT) in every ten year cycle. These tests include visual examination of both the interior and exterior surfaces for signs of deterioration which could affect structural integrity. The containment is 1 j also pressurized and leakage is measured to insure the design functions of the containment are maintained. These inspections are well documented and are at closely spaced intervals such that any deterioration affecting structural integrity will be noted and repaired. Settlement of structures during the term of the operating license was also considered. The majority of structures at Millstone Unit No. I are founded on bedrock, with the l remaining portions founded on a shallow overburden of stiff soil. The turbine building and gas turbine building are pile supported structures. Evaluations performed for the SEP demonstrated that these piles are not susceptible to adverse c corrosion effects.(21 None of these foundation conditions is susceptible to settlement. Yet, normal maintenance and surveillance will continue through the life of the plant such that if any settlement were to occur, it would be reported and monitored to insure there are no adverse effects to I structures or equipment. (2) NNECO's evaluation was submitted by W. G. Counsil letter to D. M. Crutchfield, dated March 16, 1986,
Subject:
SEP Topic II-4.F, Settlement l of Foundation and Buried Equipment. This topic has been included in the Integrated Safety Assessment Program (see 3. F. Opeka letter to C.1. 1 Grimes, dated January 6,1986,
Subject:
ISAP Topic 1.19, Integrated Structural Analysis). l l l l
..5-Finally, corrosion of structures exposed to the outside environment is also monitored. Certain structures (e.g., trash racks on the intake structure) are exposed to more harsh environments than ordinary buildings. Routine inspection of such structures is performed. In the case of the five trash racks, all are visually inspected every outage. If any signs of deterioration are identified, appropriate repairs would be made at that time. Based on the above considerations, it is apparent that the extension of the operating license for Millstone Unit No. I has no adverse impact on the safety of structures. b. Systems in addition, NNECO reviewed reactor plant systems to assess the potential impact of the requested additional period of operation. As discussed below, numerous programs and procedures provide assurance that degradation of those systems can be detected and corrected to assure necessary performance and availability throughout plant life. In particular, those systems are subject to inspection, surveillance and maintenance provisions which regularly check system performance and availability. In particular, Technical Specifications set forth limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements concerning the prevention of equipment degradation, including equipment and components within the reactor pressure boundary (Measures applicable to the RPV are discussed above). In accordance with Technical Specifications, transient and operational cycles for equipment designed for a limited number of transient and operating cycles are recorded, maintained and evaluated over the duration of the operating license. Also in-service testing and in-service inspection (IST/ISI, respectively) programs are conducted in accordance with ASME Code Section XI, as well as performance of periodic surveillance (tests, visual inspections, etc.) of safety related equipment normally in standby, programmed periodic maintenance, and trending of periodic test results. Continuation of these provisions provide assurance that potential fatigue of those components will be detected and corrected in a timely manner. B. No Significant Hazards Considerations The proposed revision also does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92. Rather, the proposed
l l . revision. to the Millstone Unit No. 1 operating license only contemplates an extension to the license expiration date. It does not involve any changes in the design or operation of the facility. In particular, the proposed change does not: 1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because no changes to the design or operation of the station are involved. Thus, no changes l to the facility or operating conditions will be made that could alter postulated scenarios regarding accident initiation or j response. Further, the amendment does not require any changes j to safety analyses (although additional evaluation was required l to confirm that existing evaluations bound the potential effects of 40-year operation). Also, no modifications to facility proced-ures or Technical Specifications are necessary. Finally, existing surveillance, inspection, testing and maintenance practices pro-vide assurance that degradation in plant equipment, structures or components will be identified and corrected as necessary l throughout the lifetime of the facility. In summary, the potential effects of the extended period of operation are encom-l passed within current design considerations. l 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because no changes are necessary to the design or operation of the facility (see discus-sion in item 1). 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because no changes to the design and operation of the facility and no changes to existing safety analyses are necessary. Further, no revisions to procedures or Technical Specifications are required. And, as noted, assurance that degradation of equipment, struc-tures or components will be identified and corrected throughout the lifetime of the facility is provided by existing surveillance, inspection, testing and maintenance practices. In summary, the proposed amendment does not constitute a signifi-cant hazards consideration because NNECO's evaluation has shown that structures, systems and components at Millstone Unit No. I will continue to perform within the limits of existing design and operational criteria throughout the requested additional period of operation. Further, existing measures provide assurance that unexpected degradation of structures, systems and components will be detected and corrected in a timely manner throughout the requested period of operation. Thus, no new safety implications are presented by the requested amendment in that existing measures I assure the protection of the public health and safety. k.
. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NNECO reviewed both the Millstone Unit No.1 Environmental Report, dated November 15,1971 prepared by NNECO, and the Commission's " Final Environmental Statement (FES) Related to the Millstone Unit No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant," dated June,1973. As discussed below, the proposed extension of the period of facility operation poses no significant environmental effects that have not already been considered. A. Radiolonical Impacts 1. General Public a. Population Estimates In order to assess radiological impacts on the general public as a consequence of the proposed extended period of operation of Millstone Unit No.1, NNECO reexamined the population estimates on which those figures were based. As discussed below, the original population estimates set forth in the FES significantly overestimated population growth surrounding the facility. Consequently, initial estimates regarding the radiological impacts on the general public bound the impacts that would now be predicted using updated population data. The Millstone Unit No.1 FES predicted a 22% increase in population within 50 miles of the facility from 1970 to 1980 and a 47% increase from 1970 to 1990. Population data and estimates for the same geographical area (based on 1980 census data) show an actual population increase from 1970 to 1980 of 7%, and then an estimated population increase of 17% from 1970 to 1990. The population estimates for Millstone Unit No. I were, obviously, highly conservative. The relatively short additional period of operation does not, therefore, give ri*e to an incremental dose to the general public resulting from population changes that are not bounded by original predictions on which the operating license was predicted. NNECO also considered the projected population dose. In a report prepared by Northeast Utilities and issued in July, 1981, regarding the low-level radiation health effects for the Haddam Neck and Millstone Nuclear Power Facilities, the estimated 50-mile whole body population exposure was 4400 person-rem for an assumed operational life of 35-years for the Millstone Unit No. I facility. Review of the effluent reports and calculated whole-body population doses attributable to the combined operation of Millstone Unit
. Nos. I and 2 for the time period 1979 to the present showed a general decrease in whow-oody population exposure compared to the period prior to 1979. This trend is generally attributable to the installation in late 1978 of an off-gas treatment system at Millstone Unit No.1 in late 1973 which resulted in a noticeable decrease in airborne effluent doses. Combined facility population doses since 1979 have remained essentially steady. Assuming this trend continues, the extension (even using the slightly longer period of the requested Millstone Unit 2 license extension) would increase the total whole-body population exposure by 29 person-rems for liquid effluents, and 23 person-rems for airborne effluents. This would increase the total whole-body population exposure to 4450 person-rems over forty (40) years. This increase is insignificant compared to the total population dose attributable to natural background and medical use exposures of 2,823,960 person-rems over the period of the extension.(3) The associated annual population doses from radioactive effluents for the site from 1971 to 1984 are given in Table 1. In summary, as a consequence of both the obvious original conservatism in estimates of population growth and the insignificant impact of plant operation on population exposure in any event, it is apparent that such impacts are l not only encompassed by previous evaluations, but would be l affected only insignificant!y by the extended period of operation. l l b. Dose Consequences From Effluents Appendix 1 Dose Limits: Since the improvements to the liquid radwaste treatment system in 1976 and the off gas system in 1978, annual maximum offsite individual doses have been well below 10CFR50 Appendix 1 limits. Maximum (3) From the report titled " Low Level Radiation Health Effects Study for the Haddam Neck and Millstone Power Facilities" (July 1981), NNECO determined that 6,060,000 person-rem whole-body exposure is attributable j to average natural background and medical-use radiation for 10 years of l available data. Therefore, for the period of the extension, the total l population person-rem is calculated by the ratio: i 4.66 years X person-rems X = 2,823,960 person-rem = 10 yrs 6,060,000 person-rems l
individual doses are summarized in Table 2. Thus, simply maintaining current practices in this area provides assurance that continued operation beyond the currently authorized period of operation will maintain effluent pathway doses well below Appendix I limits. NNECO also trended the radiological impacts on the environment since operation began. Offsite dose consequences of the station's radioactive liquid and airborne effluents were reviewed for the years spanning 1971 to l 1984. The maximum dose rates per year to the whole body he thyroid were no greater than 0.55 and 4.7 and to mrems,(4(1 respectively (Table 2).This trend, which may reasonably be assumed to continue, and in any event is not I l affected by the proposed extension, indicates that the dose contribution from liquid or airborne effluents will remain insignificant compared to the natural background annual dose of 125 mrems. Further, the annual direct radiation doses with respect to Millstone Unit No.1, attributable to the N-16 turbine shine and transportation of irradiated fuel l and solid waste would not differ from those predicted in the ) FES and would remain insignificant compared o background annual dose of 125 mrem / year.}5)the natural t Exposures ( associated with the transportation of irradiated fuel, and solid radioactive waste, to the general public are given in Table 3. The N-16 Turbine shine dose is approximately 2 l mrem / year to the maximum individual. NNECO also evaluated potential radiological effects (i.e., i dose rates per year) on species other than man. These doses l were originally projected in the Environmental Report (FES l Section 5.5.2) based on generic bloaccumulation and dose conversion factors. Actual data since obtained, reflected in the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports for the years 1979-1984 from operational sampling of fish, lobsters, oysters, scallops, mussels and aquatic flora show no I increase in bioaccumulation trends in the samples of any plant or site-related radionuclides. Based on this actual operational data obtained from environmental monitoring, no significant radiological impacts are projected to occur over the approximately 25 years of remaining plant life. (4) These doses represent the effluents from the site post-installation of the Millstone Unit I augmented radwaste system. Prior to the new radwaste system, maximum doses were 33 mrems and 75 mrems to the whole body and thyroid, respectively. These doses were not used as they do not reflect the current trend of effluents from the site. (5) The transportation of irradiated fuel has not occurred recently and is not I anticipated to occur in the near future. The retention of irradiated fuel on l site for longer periods than originally contemplated allows for significantly l greater decay times than first predicted and, thus, lower direct dose l Ntributions than first predicted. 1
- Finally, NNECO evaluated the potential-for an environmental buildup of long half-life radionuclides such as Sr-90 and Cs-137. Regular soil sampling was initiated for the Millstone Power Station in 1973. Analysis of samples was initiated in May 1974. These samples show varying levels of Sr-90 and Cs-137 which are attributable to nuclear weapons testing. No plant-related activity has been detected and no buildup of radionuclides in the soil has been detected which could be attributed to plant operation. NNECO has utilized the GASPAR code since 1975 to calculate dose contributions via soit pathways from the deposition of airborne effluents. Results of those calculations show zero to minimal dose contributions from long-lived radionuclides. In summary, the requested extension will not give rise to any additional contribution to dose consequences from an assumed buildup of long-lived radionuclides. Part 100 Siting Criteria: NNECO also assessed the impact of extended operation on dose estimates from postulated accidents, routine releases and other occurrences to assure continued satisfaction of 10 CFR Part 100 limits during the additional years of operation. First, the requested 40-year plant operating life is consistent with the period during which postulated plant and transportation accidents were originally considered in Chapter 7 of the FES. Further, the requested extension does not alter the nature of the postulated accidents originally considered. Thus, the radiologicalimpacts of such accidents will not be affected by the extension. In particular, NNECO notes that 10 CFR Part 100 requires that maximum individual doses resulting from a postulated fission product release be limited to 25 rems /2 hours for the whole body (WB) and 300 rems /2 hours to the thyroid at the exclusion area boundary and 25 rem WB and 300 rem thyroid for the duration of the release at the low population zone (LPZ) boundary. The worst case postulated accident for Millstone Unit No. 1 is the small line break outside containment. The individual doses for that accident were calculated to be 0.40 rems WB and 34.0 rems to the thyroid at the site boundary and 1.4 rems WB and 11.0 rems to the thyroid at the LPZ. The assumptions made in these determinations are unaffected by the requested exemption. Thus, the postulated dose consequences during the period of the requested extension would be the same as reported above. With respect to routine releases, data regarding routine releases accumulated since 1971, and through 1934 for the site show a maximum individual total dose from airborne i and liquid effluents of 100 mrem whole body and 200 mrem thyroid. Conservatively assuming future exposures will 1
- duplicate those of the past few years, the resulting dose for l the license extension period is approximately 27 mrem WB 1 (6 mrem / year) and 23 mrem thyroid (5 mrem / year). Assuming future releases duplicate those of the past, doses will remain well below Part 100 limits. Further, NNECO's radiological monitoring program for the Millstone site provides further assuranceremain well below Part 100 limits.(6pe such ex that t l l Finally, NNECO assessed the potentialimpacts of unplanned releases from the Millstone Station during the period of the extension. Historically, unplanned releases from December 1975 to December 1934, have resulted in a total maximum individual whole body dose of 1.2 mrem and 1.6 E-3 mrem to the thyroid. Assuming the dose history of. unplanned releases remains the same, the doses attributable to unplanned releases during the extension period would be a total individual whole body dose of approximately 0.62 mrem. Thus, based on currently available data premised on actual operation,10 CFR Part 100 dose limits will continue to be satisfied during the period of the extension. 2. Occupational Exposure l NNECO also evaluated the impact of the proposed extension on predicted radiological occupational exposures, on individual worker as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) measures, and on 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits. Tables 6 and 7 (attached) provide data regarding occupational exposures at Millstone Unit No.1. a. ALARA Considerations In 1973, NNECO instituted an ALARA program at Millstone Unit. No. I which includes a number of significant measures intended to minimize occupational exposures consistent with ALARA considerations. These measures include system decontaminations (eg BWR recirculation piping), mockup training, remote tooling and inspection techniques, extensive use of shielding, and special tooling such as multi-stud tensioners. All of these measures will continue to the end of plant life, l (6) NNECO conducts an extensive environmental monitoring program to track the impact of radiological effluents, which are attributable to Millstone i operations, in the environment surrounding the Millstone site. This program will remain in place during the period of the proposed extension. The only impact associated with the program itself !s the man hours required to keep it operational for the license extension period. However, the prograrn will be kept operational during the extension period in any event because it coincides with the period of operation of Millstone Unit 3, for which the program is also conducted. The current sampling locations, types, frequencies and required analyses are given in Tables 4 and 5. l l c
-13. including the period of extension. These measures provide assurance, therefore, that occupational exposures will satisfy ALARA considerations throughout the term of the license. In addition, anticipated improvements in ALARA measures will provide additional assurance in that regard. For instance, full system decontaminations, including fuel, may become feasible, advanced robotic techniques may be developed, and improved chemistry controls should both lower dose rates and minimize the need for repairs. Table 6 provides the annual occupational manrem data from plant startup through 1985. Table 7 provides a breakdown of exposure by plant systems for the years 1980 through 1984 for Millstone Unit No.1. NNECO expects that manrem/ year levels will decrease with time. Northeast Utilities is actively seeking methods to reduce total person-rem exposures. As discussed above, more extensive use. of system decontaminations, plus improved chemistry controls at BWRs, should lower dose. rates. Hydrogen injection gnay reduce pipe replacement at BWRs. Advanced ALARA techniques such as robotics should minimize worker time in radiation areas. Finally, NNECO recognizes that additional occupational expo-sures will result from decommissioning. However, decommis-sioning is a one time dose commitment that will be incurred with or without the extension. Any increase in corrosion product buildup during the period of the extension will be compensated for by improved chemistry controls which will lower dose rates with time. The inventory of activation products and the resultant radioactivity in the reactor vessel and internals will not increase significantly in the period of extended operation (per NUREG/CR-0672-V2, Figure E.1-5). Consequently, the extended operating time should have no measurable adverse effect on decommissioning dose requirements. b. Personnel Dose Limits The above-described ALARA measures provide assurance that occupational exposures will satisfy 10 CFR Part 20 limits during the additional years of service. Further, assurance that those j limits will be satisfied throughout the life of the facility is provided by existing Technical Specifications which require com-pliance with 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, one of the primary focuses of the existing Health Physics program is to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 20. Each of these measures will continue through the remaining plant life.
i l l Finally, NNECO notes that since implementation of the ALARA program in 1973 and establishment of administrative limits more restrictive than those in 10 CFR Part 20, no individual has exceeded the administrative limit of 5 rem per year at any Northeast Utilities' nuclear plant. NNECO foresees no dif ficulty in continuing this record throughout the end of plant life. B. Uranium Fuel Cycle Based upon current data regarding the length of operational cycles for Millstone Unit No.1, extending operation by approximately four years would result in two additional refuelings from the requested extension (approximately 1.5 million pounds of U 0 ). However, the 33 proposed extension actually will have a negligible impact on the previously predicted uranium fuel cycle impacts. As discussed below, the total lifetime fuel requirement for Millstone Unit No.1, even with the license extension, will actually be less than originally predicted, o The original estimate of uranium fuel cycle impacts j attributable to Millstone Unit No. I were based on thirty (30) years of operation, assuming one initial core-load and twenty-nine (29) annual refuelings. Operating cycles of I approximately 10 months were assumed. However, past operating history and future projections indicate that the operating cycles of Millstone Unit No. I have been 15 to 13 months in duration and will be approximately 18 to 22 months in the future. As such,22 such cycles are currently projected over the present license expiration date of May 2006. An extension of the license expiration date to October 2010 will only add two more cycles of fuel requirements, totaling 24 cycles over the plant lifetime. This is six cycles less than the base assumption. Hence, the actual fuel requirements are l likely to be less than originally assumed and, thus, associated l fuel cycle impacts will also be less. l l o Cancellation of planned construction of numerous reactors since the TMI accident has created a large surplus of uranium available for operating reactors. The uranium fuel cycle impacts originally considered by the NRC are based on the cumulative lifetimes of 30 years for 236 reactors. Currently, there are presently about 100 operating reactors, with a total of approximately 125 reactors projected for operation in the U.S. within the time frame of the Millstone Unit No.1 license. This is significantly less than the projected 236 i reactors. Thus, the overall fuel cycle impacts associated with mining, fabrication and transportation of uranium fuel ) will be much less than originally assumed. At a minimum, the impacts per year of operation at Millstone Unit No. I will be no greater than originally assumed. L
. C. Nonradiological Impacts Nonradiological impacts associated with the operation of Millstone Unit No. I have previously been accounted for in the environmental assessments for the facility. NNECO reexamined the Environmental Report and the Final Environmental Statement for the facility to assess whether such impacts would be significantly affected by the proposed extension. That reexamination revealed that, overall, nonradiological environmental impacts would not be directly affected by the extension and, in any event, will continue to be offset by the benefits from plant operation which will continue to accrue to the neighboring population, including consumers. In conjunction with their review of Millstone Unit No.1 impacts, NNECO reviewed the Environmental Report for Millstone Unit No. 3. Included therein were projections of impacts for the Millstone Station beyond the projections made in connection with the Unit No.1 evaluations. In particular, the Millstone Unit No. 3 environmental report considered the power station as a single entity, and the effects of three unit operation were projected for the life of Unit No. 3, which received its 40-year operating license in January 1986, expiring on November 25, 2025. In addition, environmental license conditions set forth in the Unit No. 3 operating license (Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan) will also address impacts attributable to all three units at the station. Thus, additional measures of protection not contemplated in the original environmental review for Unit No. I will apply throughout the period of the requested extension. In summary, NNECO's review indicated that no significant new l environmental impacts or significant changes in those previously I identified in the Environmental Report for Unit No. I will result from the extended period of operation. In addition, more recent and more l extensive information concerning identified environmental impacts resulting from operations at the Millstone Station (including impacts beyond the period of the proposed extension) was presented in the Environmental Report for Unit No. 3 and evaluated by the NRC in an FES issued in April 1984. Thus, known environmental impacts of operations at the Millstone Station beyond the extension requested I here have already been assessed. NNECO summarizes below their assessment of the effect of the proposed extension on nonradiological (land and aquatic) impacts, as well as the benefits attributable to extended operation that will continue to be provided to consumers. It is apparent that balancing these impacts clearly favors extending the period of operation. 1. Economic Benefits NNECO examined the economics of the Millstone Unit No.1 license extension. NNECO estimates that the approximately l l four year extension of the operating life for the facility would l l
. lower nominal revenue requirements by about $1.4 billion, or about $122 million in present worth terms (to January,1937). The principal reason for such savings is that the New England region prefers base load capacity as a replacement for Millstone Unit No. I upon its retirement. Extending the unit's life would thus delay the timing of such replacement capacity by the length of the extension period. The estimated costs of such an extension are far lower than the costs associated with delaying an equivalent amount of new base load capacity. Additional economic effects not directly considered in this esti-mate include the desirability of continuing the plant's contribution to the local property tax base and the effect of payroll and other expenditures for goods and services on communities surrounding the existing plant site. Another quantified benefit is the continued use of an existing generating site, deferring the need to site a new facility in a new location. Further, new transmission-related expenditures associated with a new facility would be avoided during the period of the extension. Further, current planning assumptions for the costs and operat-ing characteristics of new generation facilities, applying long-i term projections of nuclear and fossil fuel prices, indicate that the most cost effective choice for base load generation in the years beyond 2000 include the so-called " clean" coal technologies (e.g., fluidized bed combustion or a coal gasification facility fueling a combined cycle plant). Both nuclear and " clean" coal generation are projected to have j substantially similar total costs if built in New England. Accordingly, NNECO's estimate utilizes " clean" coal generating costs in determining savings associated with the capacity deferral. Costs considered in connection with the Unit No.1 l extension include operation and maintenance expenses (including fuel), at well as an assumed amount of necessary capital expenditures made for the unit. The estimate assumes identical system fue' wings associated with the displacement of relatively high cost oil-fired generation, whether by extending Millstone Unit No. I's operating life or by the operation of its replacement. The principal cost elements of the estimate are tabulated by major category in Table 8. Dollar amounts are in millions; numbers in parentheses are negative, denoting a lowering of revenue requirements (i.e., a benefit). The principal economic assumptions of the cost analysis are presented in Table 9. As is apparent, substantial cost savings for the Millstone Unit No.1 sponsor's consumers will result from displacement of existing or other potential l generation resources by extending Millstone Unit No. I operation, t l l
. 2. Land Use The use of the Millstone site was considered in the FES for Millstone Unit Nos. I and 2. The total area of land dedicated to the operation of the two units remains the same as originally contemplated (approximately 22 acres), although the proportions used for parking, temporary storage, construction, permanent buildings, and fill areas have changed. In addition, the 375 acres of the Millstone site lef t in a natural state or available for public use in 1973 has been reduced to 250 acres because of the construction of Millstone Unit No. 3 and other permanent buildings onsite, with associated parking lots and landscaping. However, such impacts would have been assessed, as appropriate, in conjunction with the Unit No. 3 license review. In any event, the proposed extension does not create new or alter previously established land uses. Thus, no new land use impacts result from the proposed extension. 3. Aquatic Impacts No significant aquatic impacts have been observed as a result of thermal or chemical discharges attributable to Millstone Unit No. I or from the withdrawal of cooling water. In addition, study methodologies have changed over the years to provide improved sampling programs (some having been ongoing for as long as fif teen (15) years) in order to better quantify aquatic impacts from operations at the Millstone Station. The results of many of these programs were considered in the Environmental Report for Unit No. 3. Again, however, there is no evidence of significant aquatic impacts resulting from operations at the Millstone Station.
- Finally, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit now in effect for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station and has set conditions and limits expressly designed to protect indigenous fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
The proposed extension will not alter those conditions and limits. D. Environmental Assessment The above information demonstrates that there are no significant adverse impacts on the quality of the human environment which result from the proposed extension. Although some additional impacts will occur as a result of normal plant operations, none of these effects are significant. For example, additional radioactive o
. releases associated with normal operation obviously will occur. However, the proposed extension does not alter the fact that such releases are negligible compared to natural background.egardless of l the period of operation. In addition, any adverse impacts have previously been found and continue to be outweighed by the benefits attributable to extending operation. l l f l
/ TABLE 1 l 9 i ANNUAL OFFSITE POPULATION DOSES FROM MILLSTONE SITE EFFLUENTS Airborne Effluents. Person-ree Lieutd Effluents. Person-rem Total Units 1 & 2. Person-rem. Year Unit h ie Body Skin Thyroid h ie Body Maximum Organgal Thyroid h ie 80dy Sk in Maximum OrganLal Thyroid I 1971 1 9.4 (+1) 2.1 (+2) 2.1 (+2) 8.7 (-1) 1.0 (+1) 1.0 (+1) 9.5(+1) 2.1 (+1) 1.0 (+1) 2.2 (+2) 1972 1 5.1 (+2) 1.2 (+3) 5.5 (+2) 1.0 (+1) 1.6 (+1) 1.6 (+1) 5.2 (+2) 1.2 (+3) 1.6(+1) 5.7 (+2) l 1973 1 4.6 (+1) 1.0(+2) 5.1(+1) 7.6 (0) 5.2 (0) 4.8 (0) 5.4 (+1) 1.0 (+2) 5.2 (0) 5.6 (+1) 1974 1 5.0 (+2) 1.1 (+3) 5.5 (+2) 3.6(+1) 2.7 (+1) 3.0 (+1) 5.4 (+2) 1.1 (+3) 2.7 (+1) 5.8 (+2) 1975 1 1.8 (+3) 3.8 (+3) 2.0 (+3) 2.8 (+1) 2.2 (+1) 2.7 (*1) 1.8 (+3) 3.8 (+3) 2.2 (+1) 2.0 (+3) 1976 1 3.6 (+2) 8.2(+2) 4.2(+2) 4.4(-1) 9.2 (-1) 5.1 (-1) 3.6 (+2) 8.2(+2) 9.6(-1) 4.2(+2) 2 2.9 (-1) 1.0 (0) 8.6 (-1) 7.1 (-3) 3.9 (-2) 1.8(-2) 1977 1 4.2 +2) 9.5(+2) 5.2 I;+2) 4.8 -2 2.9 -{ l 3.1 1-4.2 (+2) 9.5(+2) 3.0 (-1) 5.2 (+2) l 2 2.6 -1) 7.9(-1) 5.3 L-1) 7.6 -2 2.7 J 5.3 l l 1978 l' 2.8 (+2) 6.6(+2) 3.7(+2) 1.6 I;-2) 8.9(-2) 1.6 i;-2) 2.8 (+2) 6.6 (+2) 8.3 (-1) 3.7 (+2) l 2 4.8 (-1) 1.6 (0) 9.7 (-1) 1.6 L-1) 7.4 (-1) 1.1 L-1) 1979 1 6.3 (0) 3.0 (0) 1.4(+1) 1.9 (-2) 5.5 (-2) 1.5 (-2) 7.7 (0) 5.1 (0) 1.3 (0) 1.6 (+1) 2 1.0 (0) 2.1 (0) 1.5 (0) 3.8 (-1) 1.2 (0) 2.9 (-1) 1980 1 9.6 (0) 2.5 (+1) 1.4 (+1) 1.0 (-1) 7.7 (-2) 8.1 (-2) 1.1 (+1) 2.7(+1) 8.2 (-1) 1.6 (+1), 2 9.8 (-1) 1.5 (0) 1.4 (0) 2.2 (-1) 7.4 (-1) 1.7(-1) 1981 1 1.5 (*1) 3.4(+1) 2.1 (0) 1.9(-2) 6.5(-2) 2.5 (-4) 1.6 (+1) 3.6 (+1) 4.2 (-1) 3.3 (0) 2 5.8 (-1) 1.6 (0) 1.0 (0) 7.7(-2) 3.5 (-1) 1.8 (-1) 1982 1 3.4 (0) 1.2(+1) 2.1 (0) 1.1 c-1) 1.0 (-1) 1.1 (-1) 5.7 (0) 1.8 (+1) 8.3 (-1) 8.5 (0) 2 1.9 (0) 5.5 (0) 4.6 (0) 3.2 L-1) 7.3 (-1) 1.7 (0) 1983 1 1.8 0) 4.7 0;I 5.3 (-1;l 8.1[L- -{J 6.0 (-{, 3.6 5.9 3.6 (0) 8.1 (0) 9.3 (-1) 2.4 (0) 2 1.0 0) 3.4 0;I 1.2 (01 8.7 5.8 L-1984 1 9.1 (-1) 3.7 (0) 6.4 (-1) 3.8(-3) 5.4 (-3 2 1.2 (0) 3.5 (0) 2.3 (0) 2.7 (-1) 2.4(-1) 3.1(-3) 2.4 (0) 7.2 (0) 2.4 (-1) 3.2 (0) ) 2.6 (-1) l Grand Total 4.1 (+3) 8.8 (+3) 8.7 (+1) 4.8 (+3) (3I he manimum nrqan for 11guld effluents is typicaly the liver or gastrointestinal track lower large intestine. The dose to these organs from T
- "h'ene ef fluents is insignificant compared to the liquid pathway dose.
/
\\ TABLE 2 i AhMUAL MRIINUpl 0FFSITE INDIVIDUAL DOSES FRapt MILLSTONE SITE EFFLUEllTS Airt;orne Effluents, eren Liquid Effluents, aren Total Units 1 & 2. eree.. Y, c ar_ Unit W ie Body Skin Thyroid h ie Body Manteum OrgantDJ Thyroid leiole Body Skin Manteum Organtal Thyroid 1911 1 2.3 (0) 2.3 (0) 3.2 (+1) 1.0 (-1) 2.6 (0) 2.6 (0) 2.4 (0) 2.3 (0) 2.6 (0) 3.5 (+1) ' 1972 1 1.5 (+1) 1.5 (+1) 1.2 (+1) 1.3 (0) 4.2 (0) 3.1 (0) 1.6 (+1) 1.5 (+1) 4.2 (0) 1.6 (+1) i 1973 1 1.3 (0) 1.3 (0) 9.8 (-1) 9.5 (-1) 1.5 (0) 5.1 (-1) 2.3 (0) 1.3 (0) 1.5 (0) 1.5 (0) 1974 1 9.9 (0) 9.9 (0) 1.4 (1) 4.8 (0) 9.6 (0) 4.7 (0) 1.5 (+1) 9.9 (0) 9.6 (0) 1.9 (+1) 1975 1 3.4 (+1) 3.4 (+1) 7.0 (+1) 3.8 (0) 6.7 (0) 4.5 (0) 3.8 (+1) 3.4 (+1) 6.7 (0) 7.5 (+1) 2 0 0 2.6 (-5) 3.5 (-4) 5.0 (-3) 6.0 (-4) i 1976 1 9.8 (0) 9.9 (0) 9.9 (0) 8.4(-2) 1.2 (-1) 7.4 (-2) 1.0 (+1) 1.0 (+1) 1.3(-1) 1.0 (+1) 2 1.1 (-1) 2.7(-1) 1.9 (-1) 4.1 (-4) 1.0 (-2) 2.0 (-3) 1977 1 9.8 (0) 9.8 (0) 1.2 (+1) 6.0(-3) 7.2 (-3) 1.3 (-4) 9.9 (0) 1.0 (+1) 6.8 (-2) 1.2 (+1) 2 5.9 (-2) 1.6 (-1) 1.6(-1) 8.9 (-3) 6.1 (-2) 6.1 (-3) 1978 1 7.6 (0) 7.6 (0) 1.3 (+1) 1.9(-3) 2.7(-2) 2.2 (-3) 7.8 (0) 8.1 (0) 2.5 (-1) 1.4 (+1) 2 1.6 (-1) 4.5 (-1) 6.1 (-1) 1.8(-2) 2.2(-1) 1.2 (-2) 1979 1 1.4 (-1) 1.4 ll-1) 1.1 (0) 2.1 (-3) 1.2 (-2) 1.9 (-3) 2.1 (-1) 2.1 (-1) 3.3 (-1) 1.4 (0) 2 2.7 (-2) 7.3f-2) 2.2 (-1) 4.3(-2) 3.2 (-1) 3.7(-2) 1980 1 2.4 (-1) 2.4 (-1) 9.2 (-1) 1.2 (-2) 1.8 (-2) 1.0 (-2) 3.8(-1) 4.5(-1) 2.1(-1) 1.6 (+0) 2 9.7 (-2) 2.1 (-1) 6.1 (-1) 2.6 (-2) 1.9 (-1) 2.1 (-2) 1981 1 2.1 (-1) 2.1 (-1) 5.1 (-1) 7.0 (-3) 1.3 (-2) 4.6 (-3) 3.6 (-1) 5.4 (-1) 9.5 (-2) 8.5 (-1) l 2 1.2 (-1) 3.3 (-1) 2.7 (-1) 2.4 (-2) 8.2 (-2) 6.2 (-2) 1982 1 9.9 (-2) 1.0 (-1) 7.5 (-l? 1.4 (-2) 1.4 (-2) 5.1 (-2) 5.5 (-1) 1.1 (0) 2.1 (-1) 4.7 (0) 2 4.0 (-1) 1.0 (0) 3.5 (Os 4.0 (-2) 2.0(-1) 4.2(-1) l 1983 1 3.1 (-2) 3.1(-2) 1.5 (-1) 4.3 (-3) 1.4 (-2) 1.1 (-2) 4.0(-1) 7.7(-1) 1.8 (-1) 1.2 (0) 2 2.7(-1) 7.4 (-1) 1.0 (0) 9.9 (-2) 1.7(-1) 6.6 (-2) l 1994 1 5.1 (-2) 5.1 (-2) 2.5 (-1) 4.4 (-4) 1.0 (-3) 3.6 (-4) 5.0 (-1) 5.5 (-1) 5.5 (-2) 2.9 (0) 2 4.2 (-1) 5.0 (-1) 2.6 (0) 3.2 (-2) 5.4 (-2) 2.6(-2) Grand Total 1.0 (+2) 9.4 (+1) 2.6 (+0) 2.0 (+2) ! ' ' ' * * -.. a pe en ar e the summation of quarterly values; for airborne effluents the quarterly values can be different locations and for liquid effluents
- 4. s- ?
.I, e s'un c ten t.c dif f erent organs. ( Ih 8 t'i-me sara nrepn f or liquid ef fluents is typically the liver or gastrointestional tract looser large intestine. The dose to these organs from airborne ef fluents is insignificant compared to the liquid pathesay dose.
l TABLE 3 ANNUAL POPULATION DOSES ALONG RADWASTE SHIDPING ROUTES FROM THE PLANT TO THE FINAL DESTINATION (a) Millstone Site Year (Person-rem) 1968 f 1969 1970 1971 0.5 ~ 1972 0.8 l 1973 1.4 1974 2.0 1975 2.8 1976 2.9 l 1977 3.6 (b) 1978 3.1 (b) 1979 3.1 (b) 1980 2.9 (b) TOTAL 23.1 (a) Distance from plant to final destination averages approximately 900 miles per shipment. (b) Doses are from shipments from both Unit I and Unit II. REF: Low Level Radiation Health Effects Study for the Haddam Neck and Millstone Nuclear Power Facilities, July 1981. l I l
TABLE 4 (1 of 2) ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS The following lists the environmental sampling locations and the types of samples obtained at each location. Location Number Name Release Point ** Sample Types 1-I* Onsite - Old Millstone 0.6 Mi. - NNW TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine, Road Vegetation 2-I Onsite - Weather Shack 0.3 Mi. - SSE TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine 3-I Onsite - Bird Sanctuary 0.3 Mi. - NE TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine 4-I - Onsite - Albacore Drive 1.0 Mi. - N TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine 5-I Floating Barge 0.2 Mi. - SSE TLD 6-I Quarry Discharge 0.3 Mt. - SSE TLD 7-I Fox Island 0.3 Mi. - ESE TLD 8-I Environmental Lab 0.3 Mi. - SE TLD 9-I Bay Point Beach 0.4 Mt. - W TLD 10-1 Peasure Beach 1.4 Mi. - E TLD, Air Particulate. Iodine 11-I New London Country Club 1.6 Mi. - ENE TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine 12-C Fisher's Island, NY 8.7 Mi. - ESE TLD 13-C Mystic, CT 12.0 Mi. - ENE TLD 14-C Ledyard, CT 12.0 Mi - NE TLD 15-C Montville, CT 14.0 Mt. - N TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine 16-C Old Lyme, CT 8.5 Mt. - W TLD 17-I Site Boundary 0.5 Mi. - NE Vegetation 18-I New London Country Club 1.6 Mi. - ENE Vegetation 19-I Cow Location #1 6.0 Mi. - N Mi'k 20-I Cow Location #2 9.5 Mi. - NW Milk 21-I Cow Location #3 11.5 Mi. - NE Milk 22-C Cow Location #4 16.0 Mi. - NNW Milk 23-I Goat Location #1 2.0 Mi. - ENE Milk 24-C Goat Location #2 14.0 Mi. - NE Milk 25-I Fruits & Vegetables Within 10 Miles Vegetation 26-I Fruits & Vegetables Beyond 10 Miles Vegetation 27-I Niantic 1.7 Mt. - WNW TLD, Air Particulate, Iodine 28-I Two Tree Island 0.8 Mi. - SSE Mussels 29-I Jordan Cove 0.4 Mi. - NNE Clams 30-C Golden Spur 4.7 Mi. - NNW Bottom Sediment' 31-1 Niantic Shoals 1.8 Mi. - NW Bottom Sediment, Oysters 1.5 Mi. - NNW Mussels 32-1 Vicinity of Discharge Bottom Sediment Oysters, Lobster, Fish, Seawater 33-1 Seaside Point 1.8 Mi. - ESE Bottom Sediment 34-I Thames River Yacht Club 4.0 Mi. - ENE Bottom Sediment 35-! Niantic Bay 0.3 Mt. - W Lobster, Fish 36-I Black Point 3.0 Mi. - WSW Bottom Sediment Oysters
S TABLE 4 (2 of 2) location Number Name Release Point ** Sample Types 37-I Giant's Neck 3.5 Mi. - WSW Bottom Sediment, Oysters 1 Lobster, Seawater 38-1 Waterford Shellfish 1.5 Mi. - NNW Clams [
- I= Indicator
- For terrestial locations, this is the MP1 stack, for aquatic it is the quarry cut.
9 t t i i i I I i i I i f 9 i 1 l l i f
A J:-----m b m n ~~ TABLE 5' (1 of 2) MILLSTONE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Sampling and Exposure Pathway Number of Collection and/or Sample Locations Frecuency Tvoe and Frecuency of Analysis !a. Gamma Dose - 17 Monthly Gamma Dose - Monthly Environmetal TLD 15. Gamma Dose - 22 Quarterly (a) N/A(a) Accident TLD 2. Airborne 8 Continuous Gross Beta - Weekly, Particulate sampler - Gamma Spectrum - Monthly on weekly filter composite (by location), and change on Individual sample if gross beta is greater than 10 times the mean of the weekly control station's gross bata results. 3. Airborne 3 Continuous 1-131 - Weekly Iodine sampler - weekly canister change 4 Vegetation 5 One sample Gamma isotopic on each near middle sample and one near end of growing season 5. Milk 6 Monthly for Gamma isotopic, I-131, Sr-89 all animals and Sr-90 on each sample except semi-monthly for goats when on pasture 6. Sea Water 2 Quarterly - Quarterly - Fractional Beta, Composite of Gamma Isotopic and Tritium 6 Weekly Grab on each composite samples 7. Bottom 7 Semlannual Gamma Isotopic on Each Sediment Sample i
TABLI: 5 (2 of 2) MILLSTONE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PR'OGRAM Sampling and Exposure Pathway Number of Collection and/or Sample Locations Freauency Type and Freauency of Analysis 8. Fin Fish-Flounder 2 Quarterly Gamma Isotopic on Each and one other type Sample of edible fin fish 9. Mussles 2 Quarterly Gamma Isotopic on Each .J Sample 10. Oysters 4 Quarterly Gamma Isotopic on Each Sample 11. Clams 2 Quarterly Gamma Isotopic on Each i Sample 12. Lobster 3 Quarterly Gamma Isotopic on Each Sample j (a) Accident monitoring TLDs to be dedosed at least quarterly. i ~,, -s ..r.. ,e..
Table 6 Northeast Utilities occupational Exposures Man-fam Haddam Millstone Millstone % par Neok Unit 1 Unit 2 1968 50 1969 106 1970 689 1971 342 40 1972 325 596 1973 697 663 1974 201'*' 1430 '~ 1975 703 2022 1976 449 1194 168 1977 641 392 242 1978 117 1239 1621 1979 1161 .1793 472 i. 1980 1353 f2158 636 1981 1036 1496 531 1982 126 929 1413 1983 1384 244 1881 1984 1206 849 121 ( 1985 113 651 1728 0 48 \\\\ \\\\ l 4
ij. TABLE 7 (1 of 3) MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT SYSTEM ANNUAL PERSON-REM
System Description
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Ileating Ventilation and Air Conditioning 10.813 50.250 9.465 4.910 7.205 Communications 1.470 0.710 0.725 0.045 0.190 Fire Protection 15.942 3.260 0.115 0.450 0.045 Radiation Monitoring 5.465 1.220 1.005 0.035 0.030 Aerated of Floor Drain Liquid Radioactive Waste 5.010 .7.665 19.725 4.753 4.010 Clean Liquid Radioactive Waste 0.605 2.505 5.255 0.375 1.225 Gaseous Radioactive Waste 0.872 4.415 2.784 0.420 1.630 Liquid Radioactive Waste 58.741 49.582 31.306 64.302 29.195 Solid Radioactive Waste 44.059 49.608 28.950 20.167 27.690 Reactivity Control 64.750 33.814 73.223 3.055 33.516 Reactor Vessel Internals 39.072 19.826 21.364 1.150 19.932 Reactor Vessel & Appurtenances 77.841 36.985 37.059 0.240 20.030 Coolant Recirculation 90.551 85.435 120.916 3.210 240.715 Feedwater 375.838 82.712 25.611 4.640 1.685 Main Steam 113.996 47.480 35.190 3.195 7.505 Reactor Isolation Cooling 78.374 235.178 33.697 0.480 15.194
TABLE T (2 of 3) I MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT SYSTEM ANNUAL PERSON-REM
===. System Description=== 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Residual lleat Removal 24.245 93.088 9.452 3.205 3.283 Reactor Water Clean Up 1.530 0.000 1.885 4.300 84.046 Process Sampling 0.970 11.960 15.587 0.085 1.540 Other Auxiliary Process 12.040 4.025 10.826 0.255 0.050 Cooling Water; Reaccor Auxiliary 18.950 15.990 9.615 2.268 3.315 Other Auxiliary Water 6.855 0.815 0.425 0.630 3.470 All Electric Power Systems 9.700 33.603 5.392 1.655 2.340 Containment Auxiliary 0.315 0.090 0.250 14.175 4.850 CTMT Heat Removal 1.798 18.151 1.145 3.947 7.140 Emergency Core Cooling 265.998 124.241 36.809 7.010 31.020 Reactor Containment 34.067 89.975 36.313 3.325 21.150 Auxiliary Building 3.525 0.095 0.259 6.410 15.265 Torus (BWR) 345.748 39.288 87.718 0.519 3.710 Fuel Handling 8.675 1.400 12.388 1.860 4.365 New Fuel Storage 0.420 0.450 0.005 0.055 0.335 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 10.520 9.575 2.435 0.355 2.635 Spent Fuel Storage 1.590 0.060 0.130 2.295 2.785 Reactor Trip Systems 0.620 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.000
TABLE E (3 of 3) MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT SYSTEM ANNUAL PERSON-REM
===. System Description=== 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 9 Safety Related Display Instrumentation 16.525 31.115 21.311 1.375 14.580 Steam Generator 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.202 0.240 Plant Personnel Blanket 96.398 88.339 87.989 66.752 158.074 System Code N/A 198.100 104.941 119.973 17.17 -27.949 Extraction & Auxiliary Steam 11.429 3.615 10.722 10.22 10.045 Main Condenser 6.392 6.720 4.045 8.125 11.550 Turbine Generator 15.450 9.515 17.393 1.883 3.845 1
l TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF MILLSTONE UNIT No.1 LICENSE EXTENSION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS). Cumulative Cumulative (l) Nominal Present Worth Dollars Dollars A. Cost of Millstone Unit No.1 Extension .i Carrying charges for o Capital Additions 484 45.1 o O&M Expense 397 77.7 o Property Tax (incremental) 18 1.5 o Fue! 361 31.3 Subtotal 1,760 155.6 B. Cost of Deferral Base Load Replacement Carrying Charges (2) 1,522 131.7 o o O&M Expense 473 40.9 o Property Tax 101 8.7 o Fuel 1.115 96.5 Subtotal 3,211 277.8 C. Differences (A-B) for Millstone Unit (1,451) (122.2) No. I's Consumers Notes 1. Present worth to January,1987 using a 11.74 percent discount rate. 2. Estimate uses " economic carrying charges", which correctly capture the long-term costs of deferrals. The specific results displayed above depend upon numerous estimates with respect to future costs, fuel prices, tax laws, etc. Principal assumptions used in this analysis are shown in Table 9.
a TABLE 9 PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Deferred Base Load Capacity Millstone Unit No.1 Composite Cost of Capital (pct.) 11.74 11.74 AFUDC (pct.) 9.00 9.00 Discount Rate (pct.) 11.74 11.74 Fixed O&M Expense ($/kW-yr in 2006) 33.6 272.7 Variable O&M Expense (Mills /kWh in 2006) 8.9 Cost of Fuel (Mills /kWh in 2006) 55.1 18.2 Annual Capacity Factor (pct.) 70.0 70.0 Installed Capital Cost ($/kW in 2006) 5988* Capital Additions ($/kW) 2006 51.2* 2007 43.6* 2008 34.9* 2009 24.S* 2010 13.2* Property Tax Note 1 Note 2
- Includes AFUDC.
Note 1 - 1% of the installed cost, unescalated Note 2 - A 2006-2010 extension is estimated to result in increased property taxes of about $13 million for Millstone Unit No.1. .}}