65FR36474 Commonwealth Edison Company; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 111, Page 36474
[Federal Register: June 8, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 111)]
[Notices]
[Page 36474-36476]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jn00-125]
[[Page 36474]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-237]
Commonwealth Edison Company; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit
2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-19,
issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), for
operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, located in
Grundy County, Illinois.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
Dresden, Unit 2, is currently licensed to operate 40 years
commencing with the issuance of the construction permit on January 10,
1966. At present, the Facility Operating License for Dresden, Unit 2,
expires on January 10, 2006. The licensee seeks an extension of the
license term for Dresden, Unit 2, to allow it to operate until 40 years
from the issuance of its Provisional Operating License. The Dresden,
Unit 2, Provisional Operating License was issued on December 22, 1969.
The proposed change would extend the license term for Dresden, Unit 2,
to December 22, 2009. This action would extend the period of operation
to the full 40 years, from the date of the Provisional Operating
License, as provided by the Atomic Energy Act and the Code of Federal
Regulations.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for license amendment dated April 30, 1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the licensee to continue to
operate Dresden, Unit 2, for 40 years from the date of issuance of
their Provisional Operating License. This extension would permit the
unit to operate for the full 40-year design-basis lifetime, consistent
with the Commission policy stated in Memorandum dated August 16, 1982,
from William Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, to the
Commissioners, and as evidenced by the issuance of more than 50 such
extensions to other licensees.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that extending the Dresden, Unit 2, Facility Operating
License No. DPR-19 for approximately forty-seven months would not
create any new or unreviewed environmental impacts. This change does
not involve any physical modifications to the facilities, and there are
no new or unreviewed environmental impacts that were not considered as
part of the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (FES), dated November
1973, as supplemented by Environmental Assessment (EA) dated February
26, 1990, to extend the Unit 3 Facility Operating License to 40 years
and EA dated June 7, 1990, to convert the Unit 2 Provisional Operating
License to a 40-year full-term Facility Operating License. Evaluations
for the FES, as supplemented by the EAs, considered a 40-year operating
life. The considerations involved in the NRC staff's determination are
discussed below.
Radiological Impacts of the Hypothetical Design-Basis Accidents
The offsite exposure from releases during postulated accidents was
evaluated and found acceptable during the operating license stage and
subsequent license amendments. This type of evaluation involves four
issues: (1) Type and probability of postulated accidents, (2) the
radioactivity releases calculated for each accident, (3) the assumed
meteorological conditions, and (4) population size and distribution in
the vicinity of the facility. The staff has concluded that neither the
type and probability of postulated accidents nor the radioactivity
releases calculated for each accident would change through the proposed
extended operation. Also, the meteorological conditions are not
expected to change during the proposed extended operation and,
therefore, any further consideration is not warranted. Thus, the
population size and distribution in the vicinity of the facility are
the only time-dependent parameters that require consideration. Dresden
Units 2 and 3 are located on the same site. The February 26, 1990, Unit
3 EA on extending the Unit 3 Facility Operating License to 40 years
evaluated population changes to 2011. The staff used the same
population assessment in the June 7, 1990, EA on converting the Unit 2
Provisional Operating License to a full-term Facility Operating
License. Therefore, this licensing action, which extends the Unit 2
Facility Operating License to December 22, 2009, does not represent a
change from what the staff previously evaluated and found acceptable.
Further, there are no changes to the current exclusion area, low
population zone, and nearest population center distance, and the
licensee will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100.11(a) for
the proposed license term extension. Also, there is no expected change
in land usage during the license terms that would affect offsite dose
calculations. Therefore, cumulative exposure to the general public due
to a design-basis accident would not be adversely affected.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not
significantly change previous conclusions regarding the potential
environmental effects of offsite releases from postulated accident
conditions.
Radiological Impacts of Annual Releases
On an annual basis, the licensee submits an Occupational Radiation
Exposure Report to the NRC. The data show that the collective
occupational exposure at Dresden is in a declining trend. The 3-year
annual average collective occupational exposure per reactor at Dresden,
Units 2 and 3, has dropped from about 614 person-rem/year in 1989 to
about 243 person-rem/year in 1999. Through continued implementation of
``As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)'' and other programs, and by
continuing to apply new techniques as they are developed by the
industry, the licensee expects to minimize occupational exposure for
Dresden, Unit 2, during the period of the license extension. Based on
its review of historical radiation exposure data at Dresden, the
licensee's continued implementation of ALARA, and the licensee's
continued compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, the staff
concludes that the projected occupational exposures through the
proposed extended period will continue to remain significantly below
the exposures experienced during the first half of the plant's
operation.
In accordance with the plant Technical Specifications (TSs), the
licensee has established several radiation monitoring programs
including a program that follows 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I guidelines
to maintain radiation doses to members of the public ``As Low As
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).'' The Appendix I guidelines establish
radioactive design/dose objectives for liquid and gaseous offsite
releases including iodine particulate radionuclides. In addition,
routine releases to the environment are governed by 10 CFR Part 20,
which states that such releases should be ALARA. Each year, the
licensee submits an ``Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report'' that
provides an annual
[[Page 36475]]
assessment of the radiation dose as a result of effluents released from
the facility. These reports show that release of radioactive liquids
and gases have historically been only a small percentage of the
Appendix I guidelines. As a result of the continued implementation of
the ALARA program, offsite exposures can be expected to remain lower
than the Appendix I guidelines and FES estimates.
In accordance with plant TSs, the licensee has an established
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program by which the licensee
monitors the effect of operation of its facilities on the environment.
This is accomplished by continuously measuring radiation levels and
airborne radioactivity levels and periodically measuring amounts of
radioactivity in samples at various locations surrounding the plants.
Continued environmental monitoring and surveillance under the program
ensure early detection of any increase in exposures over the proposed
license term extension.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that the radiological impact on
the public due to the proposed license term extension would not
increase over that previously evaluated in the FES and the occupational
exposures will be consistent with the industry average and in
accordance with 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has reviewed the environmental impacts attributable to
the transportation of spent fuel and waste from the Dresden site. With
respect to the normal conditions of transport and possible accidents in
transport, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts are
bounded by those identified in Table S-4, ``Environmental Impact of
Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Reactor,'' of 10 CFR 51.52 for burnup levels up to 60,000
MWD/MTU and 5 weight percent U-235 enrichment (53 FR 6040 and 53 FR
30355). The staff concludes that the environmental impact related to
the transportation of fuel and waste remains low and is not
significantly increased by the change in the expiration date of the
operating license.
Based on the conservative population estimate in the FES dated
November 1973 and EAs dated February 26, 1990, and June 7, 1990, and
low radiological exposure from plant releases during normal operation
and postulated accidents, and the environmental monitoring program, the
staff concludes that the radiological impact on the public due to the
proposed action would be insignificant and the conclusions of the FES
remain valid.
Environmental Impact of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
At present, Dresden, Unit 2, is licensed to store new fuel with
enrichments up to 5.0 weight percent uranium-235 (U-235). In its EA
dated February 29, 1988 (53 FR 6040), the staff concluded that the
environmental impact of extended fuel irradiation up to 60,000
megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (MWD/MTU) and increased enrichment
up to 5 weight percent are bounded by the impacts reported in Table S-4
of 10 CFR 51.52.
On March 3, 2000, the licensee submitted an application to extend
fuel cycles from eighteen to twenty-four months. Based on twenty-four
month cycle lengths, the total projected number of fuel cycles
remaining at Unit 2 before the current Facility Operating License
expiration date (January 10, 2006) is 3. The proposed extended
operating license term will increase the number of Unit 2 fuel cycles
to a total 5. The licensee has projected that Unit 2 will lose full
core discharge capability in 2001, well before any operation under the
proposed extended license term. The licensee states that it is pursuing
various options including on-site dry cask storage to store additional
fuel assemblies; such matters are beyond the scope of this license
amendment.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that there are no
significant changes in the environmental impact related to the uranium
fuel cycle due to the proposed extended operation of Dresden, Unit 2.
Non-radiological Impacts
The major non-radiological impact of the plant on the environment
is the operation of the plant's cooling water system and discharge to
the Illinois River. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA), Division of Water Pollution Control, has reviewed and
considered the environmental impacts of the Dresden, Unit 2, water
discharge into the Illinois River in its issuance of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and renewals. The
NPDES permit is conditional upon the discharge's complying with
provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and of the
Clean Water Act (as amended or as supplemented by implementing
guidelines and regulations). On August 28, 1995, the Board adopted and
renewed NPDES permits to Dresden, Unit 2, until June 1, 2000. The Board
found that discharges from Dresden, Unit 2, are consistent with its
policy with respect to maintaining high quality waters in Illinois. The
licensee will continue to abide by the NPDES permits and, accordingly,
expects the IEPA to renew and issue NPDES permits every 5 years. Also,
the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. Therefore, the
NRC concludes that there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no action''
alternative). Denial of the proposed action would result in Dresden,
Unit 2, shutting down prematurely upon expiration of the present
operating license.
Chapters 9 and 10 of the Dresden FES present alternatives and a
cost-benefit analysis for Dresden, Units 2 and 3. Operation of Dresden,
Unit 2, in the present plant configuration for approximately 4
additional years would only require incremental yearly costs. The
environmental costs for the extended period of operation would be less
than the cost of replacement power or the installation of new
electrical generating capacity. Continued operation of the facility
would avert potential non-radiological environmental effects of
greenhouse gases and other airborne effluents from non-nuclear plants
that would be required to operate in order to replace the power from
Dresden, Unit 2. Moreover, the overall cost per year of the facility
would decrease under the proposed action because the initial capital
outlay and the decommissioning fund outlay would be averaged over a
greater number of years. In summary, the cost-benefit advantage of
Dresden, Unit 2, compared to alternative electrical generating capacity
improves with the extended plant lifetime.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the FES for Dresden, Unit 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 9, 2000, the staff
consulted with
[[Page 36476]]
the Illinois State official, Mr. Frank Niziolek, of the Illinois
Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated April 30, 1999, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library
Component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic
Reading Room).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of June 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lawrence W. Rossbach,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-14492 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P