ML20215H962

Package Consisting of NRR Presentation to ACRS Re 870115 Technical Meeting to Consider Generic Implications of Facility Feedwater Line Failure & J Rosenthal Failure of Main Feedwater Pipe 861209 Outline

ML20215H962
Person / Time
Site:	Surry, 05000000
Issue date:	02/05/1987
From:	Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20215H426	List: ML20215H423 ML20215H509 ML20215H606 ML20215H640 ML20215H698 ML20215H885 ML20215H962
References
FOIA-87-20 NUDOCS 8706240276
Download: ML20215H962 (19)

Text

, ,

L i 1

NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE ACRS l l

l i

SUBJECT:

REPORT ON 1/15/87 TECHfilCAL MEETING TG C0hSIDEk i GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF SURRY FEEDWATER LitiE FAILURE DATE: FEBRUARY 5,1987 PRESEf4TER: R. BOSliAK PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV:

CHIEF, ENGINEERING ISSUES BRANCH, DSR0 PRESEliTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492-4336 l

J i

F014 97-20 1

D hop {6870619 g ZWELLING87-20 PDR ,

l

g l

BACKGROUND o PIPE RUPTURE ON DECEMBER 9, 1986 SURRY - 2 DUE TO EROSION-- CORROSION o CONDENSATE /FEEDWATER SYSTEM LOCAT10f1' PRESSURE: 367 PSl; TEMPERATURE: 380'F o 8' PLANT WORKERS INJURED (4 FATALLY) o PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY NOT IN JEOPARDY i

E L

1 .

' T i

. 1 i l* l  !

( .

}{c l( l h

l

,, 9 e--

l .'

i I!! 111

- i ,

+l + 13 a

" 3

, l lr ,All x-, .

s ll l(

i l (

1! Ii 11 j! !j i j !11j 3  ; i. ) .

e

___.________m.___.___._____.________.___._______..____________________________.___.___.________._.._._______________.___________.___________________________._________a

1 l

l 1

j NRR TECHNICAL MEETING - ON JANUARY 15, 1987 TO DISCUSS  :

GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF FAILURE o DISCIPLINES ON PANEL PlPING DESIGN, FLUID MECHANICS, METALLURGY, NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION WATER CHEMISTRY, CORROSION ,

o SURRY-2 FAILURE DUE TO WALL THINNING FROM EROS 10N-CORROS'10N (CAVITATION-EROSION ALSO POSSIBLE) o ACTUAL FAILURE PRODUCED BY SYSTEM PRESSURE TRANSIENT, NOT CLASSICAL WATER HAMMER l

1

i

l l

l o EROSION-CORROSION IS FLOW ASSISTED CORROSION,

. CORROSIVE ACTION IS INITIATED BY EROSION OF PROTECTIVE. METAL OX1DE. WITHOUT IT CARBON STEEL IS VULNERABLE TO CORROSION / DISSOLUTION

.. i i

i l

l I

l 1

l

~~

.a  !

y i

i

~!

PANEL OBSERVATIONS t

o PIPlilG' DESIGN --(0#1)

LITTLE GUIDANCE - SOME AE'S LIMIT BULK FLOW VELOCITY AND USE CONFIGURATIONS WHICH REDUCE TURBULENCE t :- l 0 AFFECT ON REVISION TO GDC 4 AND LEAK BEFORE BREAK - (0#2)

EVALUATION FOR LEAK BEFORE BREAK'NOT PERMITTED UNDER MANY CONDIT10hs 1

o. VARIABLES AFFECTING RATE OF EROSION-CORROSION DAMAGE - (0#3, 0#4)

I

..o COMPLEX SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIP l l )

~

o THREE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLES o' LOCAL FLUID VELOCITY / TURBULENCE l 0 WATER CHEMISTRY /PH o MATERIAL COMPOSITION (CR, CU, Mo) 4 l

l

• ~

SYNERGlSTIC RELATIONSHIP OF INFLUENCING VARIABLES ON EROSION CORROS10N: AT SURRY o ELBOW-SPLITTING TEE CONFIGURATION o PH LEVELS OF SYSTEM (8.8 - 9.2) i o WATER CHEMISTRY CONTROL DURING OPERATlHG YEARS o MATERIAL COMPOSITON (LOW TRACE CR 0.02%)

o SYSTEM TEMPERATURE (IN PEAK RANGE) l 0 BULK FLUID VELOCITY 17 FT/SEC 18" BRANCH l 0 OXYGEN CONTENT OF SYSTEM 1 PPB  !

l i

t TEE ASTM A-106 GRADE B ELB0W ASTM A-234 GRADE WPB i PIPE ASTM A-106 GRADE B l

i REFERENCES FOR FOLLOWING FIGURES HEITMAN AND KASTNER: EROS 10N-CORROS10N IN WATER-STEAM CIRCUlTS - CAUSES AND COUNTERMEASURES, VGB KRAFTWERKSTECHNIK, VOL. 57, NO. 6, P211, 1982 i

C

i

, .a ;

1. Wear rate of var- ' '

lous materials from g ,

,~

erosion / corrosion ,

in 356F waist mov > t Ing at 65.6 ft/sec, l -

580 psig, is shown Carbon steel' l .- '

for three typical pH/ oxygen combl.

nauons rMn stMP l

+ 500pm l Meteo 33 , t Carbon steel I

+5% A Mel I .

N

, pH 0, conten! --

18Cr stainless M7 m ug/kg 3 m 9.5 <5p:/kg -

y m it 7 <5pg/kg 13C( sialtiless '

I -

ASTM des,'.gnations I

{

2 1/4Ct. 'A161 Grade T1 IMO sleep I #

E 8A414 Grade B 8A213 Grade T22 -

I .

• A213 Grade T12 1Cr-1/2Mo steeF I )

m l J

. I Ct Mo NhV steel I .

M -

I Ni C(-Mo V steel I unums .

l , )

Nicf-Mo Nb steel I l .

i I

i i ea 1 0 10 60

150 i

i Speciric materlahwear rate, g/cm2-hr

)

)

3000 .

Carbon steel 1000 -

q 1

1/2Mo (A 161 300 ~ '

. Grade T1) y Ni-Cu-D Y100 o

steel s

I N

. g 30 -

l

2. Temperature ef- E fCr-f/2Mo l

1ect on e ro- to _ (A213 Grade T12) sion/ corrosion ja ?

greatest in 266- g S66F range. Condi g 3 -

2 f/4Cr-Mo tions: 580 psig,115 E .

(A213 Grade T22) f t/sec, pH=7, #

0 <40 pg/kg, ex-

{

l '

posure time =200 v3 3

. I hr 4

0.3

. 0.1, , , , ,

'50 100 150 200 250 C 122 212 302 392 482 F Temperature, C or F l l

l

5000 1000 - .

500- .. g\

o o 3 G [0 lib 06No[6 .

" 100 - 90 5 AI 9 E .50 - Nr,0'go'g -

lii 13 Grade TI2)

~

10

} 5 ~

21/4Cr-1Mo (A213 Grade T22)

L1 v>

O.5 i i i i 10 20 30 40 m/sec 32.8 65.6 98.4 131.2 ft/sec

. Flow velocity, m/sec or ft/sec

3. Rowing water increases material-loss rate exponentially with flow velocity.

Conditions: 680 psig,356F, pH = 7,0,< 5  !

pg/kg, exposure time = 200 hr ,

3 i

i 1000 1/2Mo 500 -

(A 161 Grade T1) p= 580 psi T = 356 '

100- - V= 128 ft/sec h ~

O'5 M9/k9 s 1Cr-1/2Mo

• h 00 (A213 Grade

- - ~ ~ ~ ~ l, (' T22)

? i

. ( 19 ,

i, 2 S -

\

e g  :

s Carbon steel = =\

• s

{1 I

PamtsieM T= 167F v= 5.25 ft/see i

i l

O '5 - g g 0,= 20 pg/k9 g

{

v>

l

\

i O.1 - '

i 1 e 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 pH  !

i

4. Decreasing pH increcy material wear, l particularly below pH = 9.2 l

1 J

'h 9

i

- - - ~ - - ~ . . . . , _ . , _,,

=rade T1)

.r.1/pyo ,

213 Grade

2) l l

e l

i l

l 10 11  ;

ja! wear,

. . - . . . .. I

1000 Steel Yemp. Water V. P, 1 500 -

type F ft/sec psi Carbon. 167 5.25 Amb l 1Cr-1/2Mo 248 115 580 y 100- -

.1/2Mo 248 *115 $80 f

s 60 -

E .

er . ~

Ze 10 -

iii 5 _

Carbon steel ha

\ - -

?e \ -

j. .i E \ 1Cr1/2Mo j E 0.6 - *% __(A213_ _ _ _ .Grade

_ _ _ _T22) _ _ _

g .

m \

1/2Mo (A161 Grade T1)

I l 0.1 -

i i e i I O 100 200 300 400 S00 Oxygen coritent, g /kg

5. Oxygen content above 100 ppb gives maximum steel protection in neutral water I

I. ..

I t AWARENESS OF EROS 10N AND EROSION-CORROSION - 0#5 l

l o TWO PHASE SYSTEMS (WET STEAM) AND SINGLE PHASE WITH SUSPENDED S0LlDS -

IE NOTICES, AEOD MEMO, EPRI AND INP0 DOCUMENTS, UTILITY VOLUNTARY. PROGRAMS, AWARENESS DUE TO FAILURES I

o SINGLE ~ PHASE (SURRY TYPE) - LOW LEVEL OF AWARENESS DUE T0 i LACK OF RECORDED FAILURES q

IE NOTICE 86-106 - FOLLOW-UP IN PREPARATION. l LICENSEES DETERMINING FALL THICKl4ESS t i

o WORK UNDERWAY AT EPRI AND INP0 i.

i

-) !

I l

o

)

l PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ARBITRARY CHANGES TO WATER CHEMISTRY SHOULD NOT BE fiADE (PH AND OXYGEN CONTENT) o LONG TERM RESEARCH EFFECTS OF PH AND OX1DlZING/ REDUCING ENVIRONMENT ON' MATERIALS ,

o INVESTIGATE LOCAL FLUID DYNAMICS IN TYPICAL PIPE CONFIGURATIONS AND EFFECT ON EROSION RATE

2. PRESENT AVAILABLE INFORMATION TO UTILITIES S0 THAT THEY.

CAN UNDERTAKE PlFE WALL MEASUREMENTS AT SUSCEPTBLE LOCATIONS AND DETERMINE NEED FOR PERIODIC MONITORING l AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 3, CORRELATE AND PROCESS AVAILABLE DATA FROM PIPE THINiilNG MEASUREMENTS, REFINE GUICANCE. REVIEW EUROPEAN WORK.

i

4. ASME o GUIDANCE TO DESIGNERS VIA CONVENTIONAL PRESSURE PlPING AND NUCLEAR CODES AND STANDARDS ON EROS 10ft, EROS 10N-CORROS10N AfiD CAVITATION IN SINGLE AND TWO PHASE SYSTEMS  ;

o S/C XI AND CROUPS ACTIVE IN AGING AND LIFE EXTEffSION - 4 l

NEED TO DETERMINE PIPE WALL THICKNESS I

I NRC SURRY ACllVN PLAN - BRIAN SHt.RUN

I 4 . 1 4 c e.s s ee n SURRY 2 - FAILURE OF MAIN FEEDWATER PIPE DE,CEMBER 9, 1986 - J. ROSENTHAL PROBLEM: 1 1

• AN 18-INCH MAIN FEEDWATER PIPE ON THE SUCTION SIDE OF FEEDWATER PUMP "A" FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY PROBABLE CAUSE:  !

l

• PIPE WALL THINNING AND SYSTEM PRESSURE TRANSIENT I I

, SIGNIFICANCE:

• 5 WORKERS INJURED .

DISCUSSION:

• l

• AT 2:40 PM ON 12/9/86, THE REACTOR WAS OPERATING AT 100% OF l FULL POWER

• MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE "C" CLOSED

• REACTOR TRIPPED ON LOW LOW LEVEL IN STEAM GENERATOR "C" ,

• PRESSURE TRANSIENT IN MAIN FEEDWATER SYSTEM RESULTED IN BREAK  !

QF SUCTION PIPING TO FEEDWATER PUMP "A"

• OPERATORS CLOSED VALVES IN ALL LINES SUPPLYING HIGH ENERGY i FLUIDS TO THE INUNDATED AREA l

• STEAM GENERATOR LEVELS WERE MAINTAINED WITH AUXILIARY FEEDWATER AND STEAM WAS DUMPED TO ATMOSPHERE l

• AT 2 AM, THE RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM WAS PUT IN SERVICE

• UNIT REACHED COLD SHUTDOWN DURING THE MORNING OF 12/10/86 FOLLOWUP:

• THE LICENSEE DECLARED AN ALERT ..,,,;. .'____.

, .., . - _ ..'*j pj !

i v': ,

. a- , : .. . - : _

j

• THE REGION DISPATCHED AN AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM -

l .

• y,-

.. , ,,_ h & l

• THE LICENSEE SHUT DOWN UNIT 1 FOR EXAMINATION I

• PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ATTRIBUTES CAUSE OF PIPING FAILURE TO EROSION OF PIPE WALL AND A PRESSURE TRANSIENT WHICH OVERLOADED THE THINNED WALL SECTIION l

~ -

F0.re-??~k 1

Y l

. .. .-- . - . . . - . - - . . . . - . - _ . . . . . . - . . . ~ - - . . - . . .. - . - . . .

G- 5

],  !!!'!I})' " '

si

' b j

l l tlgI , , . #

lj l I n 8 i, l IE  !

k I

.Il ,ik l I "

\ i I 1[, .i p -

3.llC ,

!ll L[  ! . .

j l0 p4 t ,i Ili{A % %l e-i 1 l '

i l i

}8 b l l0 li c aj m fli

/  !

- _ l{.

e w -)m --

h3dt;,I)l

!.,11 -

l'

_.;j

{

il i _4 llfljd #;,.r: .! I" f:1! l 1

g , - --

n j

< l.  : e . ,

1

, 11'  ; 1 L

. l i ,

, i;, p. . . . . . , . l l,o s.Ikw  !  !: $ ,t

!!i'  :,

j 3.%~J 4,  ! '.. .: . . . . . i {pk u ,, , , o I! )I: ea__ll d. , O _

gI,y:: 1 q;gh.i; Iij

.iikif h .

1,"r!'

C_- l4 s O;;t s :i ! dg -h g

.. af DJ ip: d; -

4

{Mtw! _

> .6tgr n C m y..c.T,.r.

% tt p ..

i{Mu _ . .

3

,l i ) l d li gj if:l2.e i. d,,f l 4l

)- { ' Il ri w ,

y '

p p! j n, gyg

);  ;

4.

)

I I

I

!{ !  !! i

.I _)i  !

.{ _ . ,

{

<dam e y 4 i n' ';;;;-E >: , , , !s

,  ! . t l

!  ! r

!y[I,L .t_ . ij i

'i ll

[  !  !  ! ; 4s-]_I :;!jj

, , , L"o (4+.f '4?ijp [I' :

h g b lh }i df l) .

W. d dhdt&&b:: . c..

\ - L.: : :-333 .

,  %- - J

\  % ."4;, g;F9 - .

... ...- -- u. n: e

- M .:

3 m # 'i- a f l Q_,nk my [& \_p r v:

_l., i pr, sc,p ) rk i .

Jg

',j f j i 1 i j l . 3 i 7

! . n '

i -

lll l c'  ;

inj. f t: Mj' bp '

11 l

-- _ .. , es. . esse.s.e e,s e summeme.pnges*=* e e 9 84 ******-****N* * * * * * * ' * * * **

-_---___-_m.m.-__m.__am __ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - . _ ____m-____.__.___ _ . - - -

l l

A e s e

~ t

' i n  ; e

{

I a IiEU l s.,o lilif$I i U

s 0

.)jit

% s 1, < i.: i1 j

m t i f1 g I

.i )

. , i tg ( m, I

' x 'J as I [-~L '

r lL-49 Qy_ ;[? ," $ 3 h; Nil @9fif  !

%his '

s, a me m =II/

)y q k3Iin

. h m$h x h ,m v

i M U; u __ 3.

[4) i Iiu! y0 ij di f$

4 4

i k . (H (

' <f"fv.3 Md4 4

," ~  !

o ~pt\!; 1 i j l 4, $ si q' -

2 3

wa- h. -[I7 &'6 c.n, -

j! h

,. x$

'\ g i t Nh? E$a' .J

\ h h; "

f Vll{Q{ _ _

1 1

1

&,n e

1

,i t i

.k.f; n #au$.nl p,.-4 r.

U bf\i8fY &

t t - -

i / [ (( _ ),

f ##tli;d, (I,}yW[7 f q j! 'S j h

%gy

.s !g& yJ p n -

1 Q

3

' ~

} f ke_riss w1' tn Y=Wm jf gye air W q

g q g a &* as M-f , _ . . _ . . . . - - ' -

f- ~ ,

• N a 4 - .

l { "( 'k o-

"V 9 !! / ',,2. e N  !

o

'd ,p 3

i , n.\ cu I in, r  : '

14"'

~~

se e ri 3 if , $

t ic i i' f p- g i a  ;

• s Q -

l,x i

-=

&tb.24 8-

• I e e

E, 3,

4 i 5,<

k? *(

ji

.k-.

f ;i t 8 ~. a 2"

s EY h o Y V ~

l l' ' '

o gj ,? f ,Y G $ 4 II^ ]

k< ' --

M il8,I s < ,

[ea !1 !~ jf, !,.8I

- 5 i cil W

W,

'O 8\t .- 6 X A5 / f %j 5  ?! i

@l4*1M .!

i "Y p.ji -[S!1 d

i l ')s / \j: al

~3 g( thew.teht # jr .

j/ s , .

(a!!*

1 7.,

e -

5 m

t.

e

• t

~

q, q,ihyv ..

a.. <!y nr ;l 2 ,1 a,, E : . .e f -oe d ec s W9;5 n ti

( . 5

!$y

- M( i i

'a - : 'L'It'1 1 If Q' k 4@; %J. lV i C d ~

etif r/;7 k_lf!Il dll

\ #l c s c an i si Ir e

i g ;7 c s)

'M4i$ ,!f g Ef hI

• k g

,$ i Ij '

.N _y .

E3 9. _ $ -i, -- , l t , , j " ,4., # s < g- u gr >

NE!I sk! l I hg 'l 7 ')

- 1

'n 4 l., n 1 ,

d + %' h, 1

I . " i E3, ,.

s .

, s

.b n 1 n' 9 'Q

( *\ I E 4

(A /$/ i

.Y as<, n 4 I

. ._ z, p $ <I!: , .

/

t .- 4 e

g .- ,

l 1.g$.1,[_

e 3

fni .e -

s ....w.x

...g g

) .t*b6 H M Sd M d 1 '

g wMu \ &,,moMe . \

~

< i

..I '

w

\

l

. i i

l ENVfRnNSENTAL ASSESSMENT RY THE OFFICE OF NIICLEAD DEACTOR REGULATION  !

RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXDIRATinN OATES OF

.-l FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE fl05. OPD-30 AND OPP 37 l VIPPINTA ELECTDIC AN'.1 POWED COMDANY SilRRY POWER STATION, llNT TS NO.1 AND NO. 2 DnCKET NOS. 50 780 AND 50 2A1 1

1 l

.i 1

., . .bly!Ai- ; ,

, . _ . r. _ '..

.. ..,.... h f.

'l

. I

- Fo14-87-w &

e > t 4 *) f, 3 _ . i 5I W-! f a))

l 1

i I

.2-TABLE Or CONTENTS

. i q

... j 1.0 fet.roduction' 2.0 The Need for the proposed Action '

q

's . O Environmental impacts of the Proposed Action 3.1 Radiological Impacts  !

1 3.1.1 Population Estimates 3.1.2 Postulated Accidents -

3.1.3 Environmental imoacts - General .Public 3.1.4 Environmental impacts - Occupational Exposure. -

f 3.1.5 Environmental impacts - liranium Fuel Cycle / Transportation I of Fuel 3.1.6 Conclusions - Radiological impacts f 3.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 3.2.1 Design Features 3.2.2 Environmental Studies Since issuance of the i Operatiny' Licenses -

i 3.2.3 Desion Change Review 3.2.4 Conclusions - Non Radiological impacts 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action  ;

.. 5.0 Alte.rnative .

Use of Pesources k 6.0 Agencies and Persons Contacted  ;

i 7.0 Rasis and Conclusions for Not Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement

'.~

.ia.ky: ..... ... c -:- ;.: i

' ....w4. .

... , __ -g p 1

1

l

~j 1.0 Introduction

• The currently licensed period for Surry finits 1 and 2 is 4C ;dars commencino with the issuance'of the construction permits (June 25, 1968). Accounting {

for the tire that was required for plant construction, this represents an 1 effective operatino ifcense period of 36 and 351 years for Surry Urrits 1 and 2, f respectively. The licensee's apolication dated Auoust ??,1986, a s supplemented  !

December 5, and December 10, 1986, reouests a 40-year operatino license period I from the date of issuance of the Surry finits 1 and 2 operatine licenses. This reouest would extend the present operatino licenses by 4 and 41 years for Surry finits 1 and 2, respectively, to provide for 40 years full Dower operations. In j sumary, the present and requested expiration dates are as follows: j ISSUANCE OF PRESFNT OL DE0 VESTED OL UNIT. FUU. POWED OL EXPfRATION DATE EXPIRATInN OATE -

1 May 25,1972 iune T 25, 2008 May 25, 2012 j January 29, 1973 June ?5, 2008

? January ?9, 2013 2.0 The Need for the Proposed Action The granting of the proposed license amendments would allow the operation of Surry. Units 1 and 2 for 40 vears of full po.wer operation. It would benefit both the licensee and the licensee's restdential, comercial and industrial customers. The additional 4 and 4} years of full power operations allowed by i the' proposed change would defer the need to install replacement base load i capacity and defer the need for substantial additional capital expenditures. 1 Continued operation for an additional 4 and 4} years would also be beneficial l to the tax base and to the economy of the surrounding areas of the Commonwealth  !

of Virginia.  !

. 1

~

3.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action l l

In May and . lune 1717, the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC1 issued the Final )

Environmental Statements (FES1 related to operation of the Surry Power Station, I Units No.1 and No. 2 respectively. Also, in May 1074, AEC issued the FES i related to operation of the Surry Power Station, Units No. 3 and 4. These documents provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with operation of Surry Units 1,2,384. It is noted that since the issuance of the FES, the licensee has cancelled the construction of Su . The.NRC. .

2 staff has reviewed the Surry FES to deteflinne ff a'nfii b' Units.3&d.raht enViretw impacts, other than those previously considered, would be asso.cjated with ,

. . _ pa.,

the proposed liceme extensions.

"' ~

1." '-

c. J ~%.-e-4 3.1 Radiolocical imoacts 3

The NRC staff has considered the radiological impacts of revised population l estimates and the impacts of a hypothetical, desion basis accident at Surry '

Units 1A2 for the requested additional 4 and 41 years of operation.

~ .

+

C9 v- 4m-e. .>q' =g

• a.me4 ed $sg.,e,e -m

• a

?

' [y i

, 7 f l

, .4 .

v

. . i f.

~

The NRC staff h'as al'so evaluated the' radiolocical environmental effects

im ' associated with nomal operation of the facility. This evaluation was

~

1- c6nducted to hswre that the licensee's "as low as is reasonably achievable" "IL E(ALARAI measures and dose oroiections are applicable for the additional years

' of < plant serv,1ce and are in accordance with 10 CFD Part 20,10 CFR Part 50,-

and the guidance of Reculatory Guide 8.8, "information Relevant to Ensurino a that Occupational Radiation ~ Exposures at Nuclear Dower Stations Will de as

~

Low as is Rearenably Achievable" (Devision 31.. E 3.1.1' Po2u,1, o 3 tion Estima tes

.i The Fxdiesion Area consists of the licensee-owned property in approximately ~_

.a 7650!ft. radius of the Surry station. There is currently no expectation that the/h*xclusion Area boundary would be affected as a result of the l licenser 's; initiatives during the additional years of operation. . M{

I The Emergency Planning Zone (FDZi consists of the area within a 10 mile radius

. + ,

of the station for mich there is reasonable assurMce that appropriate  :

protective measures could be taken on behalf of the population in the event  !

6 "J 'i

(# a serious ucidC, Based on 1980 census data, the p.stmanent-1980 population-tin the EPZ ws A6,617 (278 persons per square mile). This actual population .j

' figure is approximately 35% lower than the NDC's pro.iected 108010 mile i population of.134,000 presente.d in Table 5. 9 of the Surry Units 3 and 4 FES.  !

Based on genemboooulation trends discussed below, we would expect 'no  !

unanticipated change in the Ep2 during the additional years of operation, in the 1972' Final Environmental Statements for Surry Power Station Units 1 I and ?, NRC roted that the rural character of the land around the station is evident in all directions from the Surry site, especially south of the .1ames l

~

River where the population density remains low for at least 20 miles. Rased s

, on a review of 1980 population data and population proiectinns until the year 2000 provided by the Comonwealth of Virginia's Department of Planning and Budget (October 1986), this characterization should remain valid through the additional years of operation.

The Surry Low Populatica Zone (t.PZ1 has an outer radius of three miles. As  ;

^

stated in the Surry Units 1 and ? Safety Evaluation Report ISER), dated l February P3,1972, the 1966 population in the LPZ was I?2. Although no current  !

population data is available specificall predominantly rural and is expected toremajn ' y for the LPZ, the . area so dur'14F4he remains extended.11cente

_r _ .17 i j

~

period. Relevant information is ava11able'.(Comm5nwealth ofTirginia dafai - " < .e j

' October 19861 for two counties in which the LP.Z .ts located. The annua.1.. . , .

i population growth rate for these counties in the period from 1970 to'2000 ' ' ' ~ ~

ranges from 0.3 to 1.71. It is reasonable to assume that this modest growth v rate would continue during the additional licue period (years 2008-2013).

Based on this modest growth rate, we would expect no sionificant increase s

in LPZ population during the extended license period.

L' Ma.ior population centers are discussed in Section 3.1.2 of the Surrv Units 1 ~

and 2 SER. The current nearest ma.ior populatia center as de vined in.10 CFD -

t 1 Part 100 (containing more than 25,000 residents), is Newport News, VA, L -located approximately 4.7 miles southeast of the site. .This is considered as j , . the nearest mafor s population center distance although significant population i

f . a. aew = = $**-** a==>-** 9- * * * * ' ' - ' * * ' - * ~ ' ' ' ~ ~

l 1

5- ~,

I density does not occu"r for several more miles from the site. Thus, the nearest population center remains the .same as that identified in Section 3.1.?

of the Surry SFR enif the nearest population center distance continues to be greater than one and one-third times: the distance'from the reactor to the 1 outer boundary of the LPZ. Rased on the Comonwealth of Virginia's population I greiwth rate estimates (October 1986),' Newport News is expected to r'emain the nearest population center throuohout the extended license period for Surrv.. ,

1 Certain evaluations in the Surry FES were conducted on the basis of populations . j

. within a 50 mile radius of the station. Population trends within this area are 1 discernable by reviewing the populations of ma.ior population centers and j counties within the area. To be comprehensive. -cities or counties which were -j only partially inside the 50 mile radius have been included within the envelope of the 50 mile radius. In general, from 1970 to 19AO- the poptriations of these i cities and counties increased by 4.5% (annual rate of less than it1 The ,

Connonwealth of Virginia pro.iects this population to increase 21.55 from 1980 through the year 2000. Ian annual rate of less than 1%1 j

Specifically, the nearest ma.ior population centers within 50 miles of the 1 station are the cities of Newport News and Hampton which are southeast of the- l station. The combined population of these cities increased approximately J 3.3%, from 258,956 in 1970 to 267,520 in 1980 During the same period, the 1 populations of Richmond, Norfq]k and _Portsmouth actually decreased 77,575 I while the city of Virginia Beach had"the Ifroest increase, from 177,106 to 1 262,199. The table below shows the actual and pro.iected populatinns'for the ma,ior population centers near Surry.

Major Population Centers Near Surry Power Station Historical Proiected i

1970 1980 1000 Newport News 138,177 144,903 176,600 Hamoton 1?O,779 I??,617 132,500 Norfolk 307,051 266,979 280,000 Portsmouth 110.463 104,577 117,100 i Chesapeake 89,580 114,486, 163,000 1 Virginia Beach 172,106 426.~200 ._ " ,,. _. _ 2< ..*~ :.- I P.ichmond 249,431 '. _' 262,199 719:214 3'.. p _212,700 ' " -

' ' _' . :.r*

- v.:

... 1 Totals 1,188,987 1,234,975 1,508,100  !

l From this in#ormation, it is clear that the total population in these cities I increased approximately 3.9% from 1970 through 1980 (an annual increase of l 1ess than 0.4%) and is expected to increase approximately 22% from 1980 throuch j the year 2000 (an annual pro.iected increase of about 151 In Section V of the Surry Units 1 and ? FES, the staff concluded that. -

)

operation o' the Surry Station will add only an extremely small increment to i the dose that results from natural background radiation.. A population of 1,550,000 persons within a 50 mile radius was considered in the evaluation.

l l

1

_ . . - . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ - . . .. i

The NRC staff has co'ncluded that, based upon the above population estimates, the current Exclusion Area Boundary, Low Population Zone and nearest population .

center distances wjl1 likely remain. unchanged from those used for licensino l the units and that Surry Units 1 and 7'will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 -

Based on the above-described population increases and these conclusions, the staff has detemined that the conclusions in the Surry Units 1 and ? FES concerning the population-based evaluations remain valid for the additional years of operation.

3.1.2 postulated Accidents Since the request does not involve any change in power level.or the desion o' Surry Units, the magnitude of accident releases and doses to individuals -

would not chance as a result of an increase in the years of plant operation.

The total inteorated dose to the public would be expected to increase if the total population cantinued to grow during the period covered by the requested license extension.

However, Table 6.2 of the Surry Units 1 and ?. TES shows that the estimated total exposure o# the population within 50 miles of the station from each postulated accident would be orders.of magnitude smaller than that from naturally occurring radioactivity, which correspo'n'ds' to'about"190,000 man-rems / year based on a natural background of 100 mrem / year. As discussed previously, the population is increasing roughly 1% annually within the 50 mile radius of Surry. This growth is a small fraction of the orders of magnitude change necessary to significantly af*ect the previously evaluated radiolooical consequences as stated in the Sorry FES.

~

As part df the evaluation of postulated accidents sumarized in Table 6.? of the FES, the staff estimated the radiological consequences of pipe hreak accidents.

The pipe break accident which occurred in Surry Unit ? on December 9,1986, is an accident of the type considered in the prior assessment, and its consecuences are bounded by that evaluation. As a result, the risk of accidents of the type which recently occurred at Surry were previously considered, and the applicability of the previous assessment of reactor accident risks remains unchanced.

In addition, the staff has assessed the public risks from reactor accidents per year of operation at other reactors of comparab.1.e; d.eston .and . power leve.l. . -

. f_ ,

In all per fatality cases, year ofthe estimated operation have beu reactor accidentto Ti'sk"s'diseaely small compared the. background aEc{1atent-cinT; accident and cancer fatality risks'to which the public is exposed and~do not n * +"

increase with longer periods of operation. If similar risks were estimated for Surry Units 1 ad 2, we would expect a similar result. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed additional years of operation for Surry Units I and 2 would not increase the annual public risk from reactor accidents.

The principal factars associated with an additional period of operation which could potentially dange the probability or consequences of an accide.nt would _ <

be due to aging of electric equipment important to safety, and chances in the fracture toughness properties of reactor vessel beltline caterials due to neutron irradiatics. The Comission has reviewed fracture toughness requirements for protection agalest pressurized thennal shock events and has determined that I

_ -___ __ _ _ . '2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___

{

each Surry unit can be operated for 40 calendar years without re' aching pressurized I thermal shock screening criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.61. The Cormnission also finds thit'-the licensee has established an environmental qualification ,

program for electric eouipment important to safetv in accordance with 10 CFP 50.49, I and that this progre has given appropriate consideration to all significant types of degradatim, including aging, which can have an effect on the functional capability of eouisment, ikder the licensee's environmental cualification program, equipment important to safety has either been detennined to be qualified for at least 40 years of operation, or is designated for periodic replacement or refurbishment prior to the end of its predetermined life.

In addition to the environental cualification procram, numerous other prograrrs __-

exist at nuclear psuer plants to assure that the probability and consecuences of any accident ressins consistently small. Examples of sucT1 programs include .

thos'e of Technica15pecifications which limit conditions for operation and "I

require periodic surveillams; operating and emergency procedures; administrative l procedures; inservice inspection requirements; periodic maintenance; quality control and quality assurance programs; personnel qualification and training procrams; and other programs associated with continued conformance to national codes and standards. Such programs remain in effect throughout the duration of the operating license, includin.g any extended operation authorized by the l

Commission. The fanact of the December 9,1986 pipe break accident at Surry (

Unit 2 on surveillance requirements- is currently under both licensee and j staff review, and any recomended changes will be incorporateri as appropriate. l Accordingly, the Canission concludes that the proposed extension does not increase the probaM11tv or the severity of any accident. Although there does {

i exist an integral essosure to risk by virtue of the additional years of plant j operation and increased population cound the site, the additional exposure to i risk is not signifiant because the probability and consequences of accident i

_ remain small. Accordingly, the proposed extension would not cause a significant increase in the public risks from reactor accidents.

3.1.3 Environertal Impacts - General public The FES for Surry trits 1 and 2 provided NRC estimates for annual releases )

and yearly doses r3miting from the operation of the station. The estimated 1 annual releases remin unchanged regardless of the lifetime of the facility, i and as shown below the actual releases have remained small fractions of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appredix I requirements.

W; EN$ .: ' : ' s.% . _ _ _ _

^ , 3 For consideration of enviromental radiation, the most significant change ~ -

'" v -

since licensing of $stry is the promulgation.of Appendix I to '1D CFR Part fN __.-h-M and the subsequent revision of the technical'si)ecifications of Surry. 'The '

licensee is now regrired by the technical specifications to keep releases under normal conditions below the guideline levels. This provides assurance the releases will cantinue to be as low as are reasonably achievable.

The dose estimates are for annual doses and annual doses are only slightly affected by a change in the operating life of the plant. This is true because ,

the doses are almost entirely produced by short lived nuclides such as -

~

iodine-131 and by suc11 des dich are rapidly dispersed in the environment such l as cesium-137 in wter. The only pathways where buildup of long lived nuclides

(

is significant are external radiation from shoreline contamination as internal

8 radiation from food' stuff grown on land irrigated with plant effluent water.

For these pathways the assumed buildup period is 15 years, corresponding to the nominal midlife.of a plant. Cesturn-137 is the only significant nuclide that does not reach secular ecuilibrium in 15 years. . Therefore an increase in operating life and the buildup period would only increase the doses from cesium-137 by the shoreline and the irricated foodstuff pathwavs. 'Neither of i these pathways is an important contributor to the doses from Surry. Furthermore, {

cesium 137 is not the dominant nuclide in either pathway. Therefore increasino i the operating life to 40 years increases the calculated doses no more than a l few percent. (Actual doses are expected to continue to t,e too small to measure).

{

This theoretical increase is considered mir.7r because (11 all doses will' continue  ;

to be well below the guidelines of 10 CFR 50 Appendix I and (M the cuidelines I are a small fraction of the doses from natural background radiation. # '

1 There are no significant land use changes within a 50 mile radius of Surry -

Power Station that have affected offsite dose calculations. One onsite land use chance which did not significantly affect of' site. dose calculations, however, was the establishment of a dry cask storage installation at the Surry site. The radiolocical and environmental impacts'of this facility were reviewed and found to be acceptable by the NRC prior to issuance of Special Nuclear Materials License Number SNP-2501 for the Surry Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation on July 2,1986.

We have also conducted a geneTal' comoaris6n of the radiological impacts on ,

man as assessed in the Surry FES with those actually experienced during  !

plant operations. The following table gives a summary o' liquid and gaseous effluent dose informatfor during the period from January 1,1985, through  !

December 31, 1985. These annual doses compare favorably with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix ! limits.

~

. Surry Data 10 CFR 50, App. I For 1985 Limits (2 uniti A. Gaseous Releases

1. Maximum Site Roundary Gamma Air Dose (nradi 1.11 PO

2. Maximum Site '~ ' ~ ~

' ' ' M .~

Bounda ry

~ '.. ., ..

..^

__ . y_%

t Beta Air -- --P*

Dose (mrad) 3.02 40  :

, 3. Total Maximum

)

offsite Dose to Any Organ (mrem) 0.23 30

'. l l

.o. .!

i

~

Surry Data 10 CFR 50, App. i For 1985 Limits (2 uniti B. Liouid Reliiases j

1. Total Maimum

• j Offsite tole  ;

Rody Dose (mremi 0.00305 6

2. Total Mavimum Offsite koan ) 4 Dose forum) 0.203 20 '

The liquid and gaseous effluent doses reported in le85 are. consistent with the estimated efflaunt doses in Section V of the Surry FES, and they are '

significantly less than the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I limits.

. Based on the'contimied operation of Surry Station using existing liquid and caseous radwaste t7eatment systems coupled with the current radiolooical monitoring program, the staff anticipates licuid and gaseous effluent doses '

during the period cavered by the requested amendments will remain a fraction of the 10 CFR Part 50,' Appendix I timits and will not adversely impact upon  !

the environment. ~. , ,,.

3.1.4 Environmartal Impacts - Occupational Exposure The staff has evalmted the licensee's dose assessment based on the reouested l extension for 4 and di years and compared it with current Surry Units 1 and 2 1 and overall industry occupational dose experience, l The averne dose egended over the recent five year period for Surry Units 1  !

and 2, which covers 1981-1985 has been 1213 person-rem per year per unit.

The occupational essesures at Surry have historically been above the industry q average. Factors dich have contributed to the higher than anticipated i exposures include me degradation and subsequent removal and replacement of the i steam generators in 1979-1981, coupled with the fuel failure problems experienced l in the early 1980's l In the recent five year period covering 1981-1085, Surry has realized a L 1actorL-trL fluencing -

downward trend ieaescupational this trend . include fuel sipping program radiationforn.posure.

ident ,ificatlori'and remov'aT<o~f-.:-,..2_

':3 .

defective fuel and strict primary is expected to' continue with agorei'ive chemistry 49ntrols. This downward ALARA-efforts bv the licensee. '

tfend ^ -_ ":.; ". -rra-s ALARA modifications performed during the two refueling outages in 1986 include ,

the installation of a permanent reactor head shield in Unit 1 (Unit 2 head  !

shield installed during the 1985 refueling), permanent removal of non-essential large bore snubbers, the safety in,iection leakage monitering system modification which reduces testing time, installation of a remote testing connection for the transfer canal tube type "C" test, installation of bottom mounted thermocouples -

which facilitates land removal and the computerized photo documentati'on of the plant for ALAPA preplanning.

4

.........m,_. . . , _ _ - - - - - . . - - - -

i i

Other ALARA improm'ents perfonned during 1906 include the chemical decontamination  !

of a portion of tie boron recovery system, and the spent resin catch tank  !

modification and bric acid transfer pump replacement pro.4ect to substantially  !

reduce maintenance efforts. In addition, fuel is being switched from fuel with '

inconel grids to %el with zircaloy grids to . reduce out-of-core source terms.

The use of B-10 enriched boron and chemical decontamination of other radioactive. i systems are other potential improvements beino investicated which may further i reduce occupational exposure.

]

A formal ALARA Program was implemented by the licensee on January 1,1983. A Corporate ALARA Paual and Station ALARA Manuals were developed to provide the guidelines and procedures to execute the program. In addition, the licensee approved a Radiation Protection Plan (RPP) in early 1984 which also addresses the ALAPA Procram. The Corporate ALAPA Manual and Station ALARA Mnuals are being incorporated into. procedures implementino the ALARA program Ipecified in the RPP. The precedures will enhance personnel training reouirements, l '

direct management sorticipation on the station and corporate ALARA committees, and increase emphasis to the ALARA concept.

The licensee has csnmitted to Institute of Nuclear power Operation (INP01 to .

reduce Surry's annes1 ' occupational ' exposure to the estimated industry average '

(currently estimated at 600 person-rem in 1990 for a 2 unit sitel. ' Rased on the current downwafd trend anij the Ticensee's aggressive ALADA program, the licensee believes this goal is attainable. Rased on that goal, the occupatieral i dose during the years 7008-7013 would be 1000 person-rem for Unit I and 1350 1 person-rem for Unit 2. This is based on 3 additional refuelinos per unit and no major unanticipsted maintenance.

' Surry currently maks approximately 40 radioactive waste shipments per year with a range of 40 to 60 shipsnts in any given year.Section V of the Surry FE$ estimates the number of yearly shipments at 60 for two operating units. At the present time, 90% of Surry Power Station's radioactive waste is dry active wasta IDAW) . Over the next several years daw generation is expected to decrease due to volume reduction efforts, such as supercompaction, j and a sorting / segregation program. Liquid waste is also expected to decline I due to improvements in radwaste processing. Based on the radwaste reduction j efforts described above and the licensee's connitment to reduce waste, it is "

anticipated that rakaste shipments would continue to remain well below the FES estimates enring the additional'_ yea _rs_of, plact?.opeiatim.y .. j ,-

. . _r. [._. .~;:'

)1 Spent fuel will be stored in a reracked'spe'nt, fuel pool and in a-dry c)sk .:.fra - I storage facilit:y (neth previously e7aluated by the NRC sta#f for radioloijical' environmental consmuences) in lieu of offsite shipment as envisioned in "W1 Section V of the FB. Hence, onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel will be available through te year 2008. Any further expansion of onsite spent fuel storage capacity weeld be evaluated by the NRC staff for radiological and environmental effects at that time. Environmental impacts of shipment of spent fuel is discused later.

e n

>+4 -e* m. +. - en . .. . ..e . .y. < e.e

i

-l j

i i

The licensee's ALAR 5 program, dose-saving plant modifications and management commitment should ensure that the occupational dose received durino the additional years 6f operation is maintained as low as reasonable achievable.

and would be consistent with industry standards.

The staff concludes that the licensee's dose assessment is accepta'ble, and the {'

licensee's radiation protection progran is adequate to ensure that occupational radiation exposures for the additlonal vears of plant operation will be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and the cuidance of Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exoosures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" (Revi: ion 31 3.1.5 Environmental impacts - Uranium Fuel Cvele/ Transportation of Fuel The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as considered for the FES were originally "

based on 30 years of operation of'a model light water reactor (LWRI. The fuel I requirements for the model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 annual refuelings (approximately 1/3 core per refueling). In considering f l

the annual fuel requirement for the model LWR, fuel use-is averaged out over '

a 40-year operating life (1 initial core and 30 refuelings of approximately j 1/3 core) and results in a slight reduction compared to the annual fuel '

requirement averaged for a 30-year' operating li#e. The net result is an approximately 0.8 percent and-1.1 percent.for Surry Units 1 and 2, respectively, reduction in the annual fuel requirements for the model LWR, due to averaging out of the initial core load over 40 years, instead of 30 years. This small reduction in fuel reouirements would not lead to significant changes in the annual impacts of the uranium fuel cycle.

The staff projects that 3 additional refuelings per unit will be reouired during ]

~

the additional operating period. This represents an extended period of operation I of 4 and.*41 years for Surry Units 1 and ? considering the transition to extended cycles from the refueling cycle of 12 months originally considered in the Surry Units 1 and 2 FES. This extended plant life entails a longer production run for l i

the fuel cycle and, therefore, increased environmental costs related to mining, enrichment and other fuel cycle impacts. However, the net annual effects which forin the basis of Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51, " Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data." remain essentially unchanged from those discussed in the Surry FES. l The environmental impacts (both radiological and non-radio.1ocical) attributable .

to transportation of fuel and waste toind fran theMbriniteCwtth-respfct-t'e_ -17 s  !

normal conditions of transport and possible accidents 'in transport, woeid b'a in ,'% e accordance with the impacts evaluated' frthe-Surry FES. The FES represents. tht contribution of such transportation to annual e'nvironmental costs including dos 1

per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general oublic (both onlookers and individuals located alona the routei, and the estimated numbers of such persons exposed each year. These annual environmental costs would not be changed by the extended period of operation. Although some incremental' risk with respect to normal conditions of transportation and possible accidents la transport would be attributed to the additional years of operation, the incremental risk would not be significant beca~use the annual - ,>

risk for such transport is small.

i f j

.1 i>

The request to extend the operating license to 40 years does not involve any ,

power level change not already evaluated in the Surry FES. Con 3equently, there  !

is essentia11y'.no. change in the amount of U-235 needed annually by Surry Units 1 and ?. and no annual change ir, the scope Icore mined, fuel enriched, etc.) of I

the associated fuel cycle. Therefore, the staff judges that no chpnges to-the  !

environmental conclusions in the FES relatino to uranium fuel cycle and fuel transportation impacts are necessary as a result of the proposed extension to authorize a0 years of power operations.

3.1.6 Conclusions - Radiolooical impacts Based on the above. the NRC staff has determined that arv environmental related radiological impacts from the proposed extension in time for the Operatino .

I.icenses for Surre Ifnits 1 and 2 are insf onificant and enveloped by the NoC .

staff findinos as stated in the Final Environmental Statement related to

Operation of the Sorry Power Station, Unit Nos. -1 and ?.

In summary, this statement is supported bv the following NRC staff findings:

(11 Rased on population estimates, the conclusions reached in the Staff's Safety Evaluation for Surry Unit I and ? meet the requirements of .

10 CFR Part 100 and remain un' changed, and the population-related evaluation in FES remain valid. -- . ..

(?) Any projected population increases over the requested extension in time would not chaege the overall conclusions in the Surry FES regardino radiological consequencos following accidents.

(3) The staff concludes that the prooosed additional years of operation would

, not,significastly increase the annual public risk from reactor accidents.

~

(4)- The staff concludes that liquid and caseous effluent doses for the period covered by the requested amendment should remain a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I limits and, therefore, will not adversely impact upon the environment.

(5) The staff concludes that the Surry Units 1 and 2 radiation protection is adequate to ensure that occupational radiation exposures will be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 90 and there would.not be any significant . . . _

changes to the FES that would be necessary._inisSr'rhEconsideo 40..y6dre m-of operation. -

,'. - ~

-c

- T

~'

.. ...C (6) The staff' concludes that occupation exposures for the additional' years .._ .&

of plant operation will conform to Reoulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Re As i.ow As Is Reasonably Achievabler (Revision 31

( 7) The staff concludes that radioactive waste shipments will decline due to radweste reduction efforts and that radwaste shipments will continue to I be well withis the Surry FES values during the additional years .cf -

i operation.

,, l

~

. j

{

(8) The staff .iudus that any impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportat4n l of fuel for.# years of operation would not recuire any changes to the conclusions le the Surrv FES. The values in the Surry FES change insigniff-cantly when Gyears of operation is considered. 1 l

3.2 Non-Radiological impacts l The environmental impacts o' the Surry Power Station are discussed in Section V '

of the FES. Non-raMological impacts, as discussed in Section V, were based on plant design featmes, relative loss of renewable resources, or relative loss or degradat. ion of available habitat. l Original design festeres that are in place to assure no advetse environmental effect, environmental studies which have tssessed actual imoacts of plant ~ '.

operation, and the review preoram which atsures that no changes will be made to the plant that ranid adverselv effect the environment are discussed below.

1 3.2.1 Design Features The design of the structures provides for additional environmental protection ,

with regard to intde and thermal discharge effects on aouatic organisms. ,

These include: 1) specifically desioned vertical'travelino screens ("Ristroph" l screens) at the costing waterintake' structures. *These are continuously rotatino vertical traveling screens which have been shown to return 94.4% of all sampled impinged fish alive to the receiving water body; M a discharge structure desioned  :

to facilitate mixies of cooling water and receiving water, and therebv reduce  ;

extreme themocline femation; 3) a discharge structure constructed upstream f of the intake struc2cre in order to provide a greater distance between the l cooling water discharge and downstream oyster beds, and thus allow greater i

_ themal dissipaticslefore the discharge water reaches the oyster beds; and 41 4 relatively low delts-T of 15 degrees Fahrenheit designed into the cooling  !

water system.  !

For aesthetic considerations, the reactor containment foundations were constructed 50 feet telow grade to lower the tops of the concrete containment dovres and minimize Geir effect on the skyline from across the river. Also, l the discharge canalues constructed at an offset angle to the river, and a  ;

tuffar of trees is unintained along the shore to minimize visual impact from ths river. i g m. q ..: .c. - :- .-_

._ f..

e . . , ,___. : -

T .' _

These environmental protection conditions will continue to be irt place 3n&y J. f'o'r the~J'l affects on aquatic amanisms.

3.2.2 Environmetal Studies Since issuance of Operating Licenses f In 1977, the licensar submitted a study entitled "Section 316(a) Demonstration, Surry Power Station tif ts 1 and ?," to the Virginia State Water Control Board.

As part of this stu%, the licensee personnel and the Virginia Institute of .

Marine Science had jurformed assessments o# the thermal effects of Surry Power ~;

Station on finfish,lenthic organisms, fouling organisms, rooplankton, phytoplankton, and sther vertibrates. The study demonstrated that no appreciable ~ i i

1 l

l n

1

• k i

)

harm resulted from the' thermal component of the Surry Power Station discharge l to the balanced indigenous communitv of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the James'fiv,er into which the -discharge was ir.ade. The Coninonwealth of Viroiria reviewed this report and. found it acceptable, j

~

in 1980, the results of another study completed under Section 316/b1 of the Clean Water Act were also submitted to the Virginia State Water Control i Board. As part of this study, the licensee personnel and the Pirainia .

Institute of Marine Science had performed assessments of the environmental impact o# the Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Structures /CWIS) on shelf zone fish, shore zene fish, and ichthyoplankton. Special continuous 1v i rotating nrtical traveling screens (Ristroph screens) had been installed for -,

the CWIS to promote survival of impinaed organisms. PesultL from the study showed that the traveling screens returned alive to the .1ames River an average -

of 9a.4% of all sampled fishes. The study. demonstrated that the CWIS bad no detectable impact upon shore zone fishes,' shelf zone #ishes, or l ichthoplankton. The Corwonwealth of Virginia reviewed this report and found ]

it acceptable.  !

These studies show that actual and anticipated impact on the environment from the operation of Surry Power . Station is less than the potential impact '

discussed in the FES. We expect the impact to remain negligible during the additional years of operation. . .-

l 3.2.3 .Desian thaeoe Review .

i A nunber of plant modifications have been made since the rinal Environmental I Statements were issued. These modifications tend to ' improve plant reliability l' and it has been shown that the environmental impact has been mininal. The-plant modifications are described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report which is revised annually. Components associated with the modifications that are expected to wear out during plant life are subiected to a surveillance and maintenance program 50 that component degradation will be identified and I corrected. Extending the operating life as proposed will have no detectable  ;

environmental impact resulting from the plant modification.

Design changes with the potential for impacting the aouatic environment are j reviewed by the licensee. Discharges to the James River are regulated by the 1 Virginia Strte Water Control Board under authority,of t t National Pollutant , . - ,

Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) and geve.rned.!byV h,h :t fW0ES

~

i to Surry Power Station. The Roard issued NPDES Permit No. VA0004090 coverinq ~

the Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and ?. Any design chance whic.h-may J.

alter a discharoe to the river is reviewed an'd' evaluated by the Board at the

--+

j request of the licensee during the Roard's periodic review of operating conditions or at the time of reapplication and reissuance (every 5 years 1 Such reviews in con,iunction with the NPOES permit limitations ensure that the j

1 consequences of any potential environmental iinpact should be maintained within accepted standards.  !

i

_ . _ . ~

l

i Amendment Nos. 85.uind 86 issued March 11, 1983, for Surry Units 1 and 2, respectively, deleted the water cuality monitoring recuirements from the i Technical Spectffcations since these requirements would be administered by the Virginia State Water Control Board. The existing permit expires on April ?6,1990. The requested extension of the operating licenses would 1 require at least are additional reissuance of the NPDES permit. '

3.2.4 Conclusies Non-Radiolooical imoacts Based on all of the above, the NRC sta## has determined that non-radiological l environmental impacts, as discussed in Section V o' the Surry FES for the i requested extensics in time will not alter previous staff findings and ~j conclusions stated in the FES. in addition, the NRC approved the Surry Power _j Station for four uutt operation after considering non-radioltoical impacts. 1 Thus, the staff concludes that the Surry FES and findings therein will I

significantly envelope any.non-radiological environrental impacts associated with the requested extension of 4 and 41 years operating time for Surry )

Units 1 and 2, respectively.

l 1

4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action The principle alternative to issua'nce of the proposed license extensions would be to deny the apo11 cation. ._In this ca.<ea Surry Units 1 and ? would shutdown upon expiration of the pre,sent operating licenses. 1 In Chapter XI of tie FES, a cost benefit analysis is presented for Surry Units. l The analysis is based upon 30 years of operation and includes a comparison with various other estions for producino an ecuivalent electrical power capacity. Even considerino significant changes in the economics of alternatives, the continued operation of Surry Units 1 and 2 for another 4 and 43 years.

respectively, remains the most economical alternative.

Nuclear generated efectricity is the least expensive power generated and sold by the licensee. The annualized cost of the facility will decrease with additional years of operation since the large initial capital outlay would be averaged over a larger period of time. Continued plant operation would require little capital expsoditures compared to the construction of new units. The Ifeensee currently projects the cost of a new 750 Megawatt (MW) fossil unit to be about $1300 ser KiloVatt (KW). In comparison, th .

was approximately $40 per KW. O a replacement nuclear. unit at this Intime additi.on, thewltcens.e based on the

~

cost of ancertMnfv' of'present c'~Surry costs. Also, purchased replacement p'ower cos.ts .are higher then the ' costs - Jwh associated with continued operation of the existing units for an additionaf. i^ ".-

and di years. Environmental impacts related to extending the operating life of the Surry units, including the fuel cycle and transportation impacts, continue l to remain small who compared to impacts related to alternative sources of l power described in te Surry FES. In summary, the cost / benefit advantage of '

Surry Station, compared to alternative electrical power generating capacity, improves with the artended plant lifetime.

~ -

t i I

. ., . . . . - . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . - . . . ~

l

1 5.0 Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the FES related to the operation of the Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2. -

6.0 Acencies a-1 Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and consulted with the Virginia State Department of Health. The Virginia State Department of Health did not indicate a concern in grantina the prooosed extensino. As indicated above, the water quality requirements will be extended in the NPOES to cover the period of the license extension. _

7.0 Basis and Cenclusion for not PreDarino an Environmental Treact Statement --+i The staff has reviewed the proposed license amendments relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Rased on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no sianificant radiolooical or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and tha' the issuance of the I

proposed license amendments will have no sionificsat impact on the cuality of the human environment. Therefore, pursuant to le CCR 51.31, and environmental impact statement need not be,prepar,ed.for,,this action.

Dated:

Principal Contributor:

Chandu P. Pate1 i

_ .; .$$41-::

• s. . r , ..*L, 3 zy

... ,.,,- .l-l 1

i i

l 1

i

._ . .- - -