[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36474-36476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14492]



[[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