36474 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices 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 onsite 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

36476 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–37]

Commonwealth Edison Company,

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1;

Issuance of Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact Regarding the

Proposed Exemption From Certain

Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption,

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the

provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),

72.212(b)(2)(i), and 72.214 to

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd). The requested exemption

would allow ComEd to deviate from the

requirements of Certificate of

Compliance 1008 (the Certificate),

Appendix B, Items 1.4.6.b and 1.4.6.c

and place HI-STAR 100 Cask Systems,

loaded with spent nuclear fuel, on a

concrete storage pad with a concrete

compressive strength of less than or

equal to 4,200 psi at 28 days and

concrete reinforcement of 60 ksi yield

strength ASTM material at the Dresden

Nuclear Power Station (Dresden)

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation (ISFSI).

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: By

letter dated April 24, 2000, ComEd

requested an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2),

72.212(b)(2)(i), and 72.214 to deviate

from the requirements of Certificate of

Compliance 1008, Appendix B, Items

1.4.6.b and 1.4.6.c. ComEd is a general

licensee, authorized by NRC to use

spent fuel storage casks approved under

10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K.

ComEd plans to use the HI-STAR 100

Cask System to store spent nuclear fuel,

generated at Dresden Unit 1, at an ISFSI

located in Morris, Illinois, on the

Dresden Nuclear Power Station site. The

Dresden ISFSI has been constructed for

interim dry storage of spent nuclear

fuel.

By exempting ComEd from 10 CFR

72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i), and 72.214,

ComEd will be authorized to place

loaded HI–STAR 100 Casks Systems on

cask storage pads that include the

following characteristics:

(1) Compressive Strength: ≤ 4,200 psi

at 28 days.

(2) Reinforcement top and bottom

(both directions): Reinforcement area

and spacing determined by analysis

Reinforcement shall be 60 ksi yield

strength ASTM material.

The storage pad characteristics

specified above would be in lieu of

those specified in Certificate of

Compliance 1008, Appendix B, Items

1.4.6.b and 1.4.6.c, respectively. The

proposed action before the Commission

is whether to grant this exemption

under 10 CFR 72.7.

On November 24, 1999, as

supplemented February 4, 18 and 28,

and March 2, 16 and 31, 2000, the cask

designer, Holtec International (Holtec),

submitted to NRC an application to

amend Certificate of Compliance 1008.

The requested amendment includes

revisions to the storage pad

specifications in Items 1.4.6.b and

1.4.6.c in Appendix B to the Certificate.

Item 1.4.6.b requires a concrete

compressive strength of less than or

equal to 4,200 psi; Holtec is requesting

that this requirement be revised to

specify a concrete compressive strength

of less than or equal to 4,200 psi at 28

days. Item 1.4.6.c includes the

requirement that the reinforcement

yield strength be less than or equal to

60,000 psi; Holtec is requesting that this

requirement be revised to specify that

reinforcement shall be 60 ksi yield

strength ASTM material. The NRC staff

has reviewed the application and

determined that placement of HI–STAR

100 Cask Systems on storage pads with

the revised characteristics would have

minimal impact on the design basis and

would not be inimical to public health

and safety.

Need for the Proposed Action: There

are a number of Dresden Unit 1 spent

fuel assemblies in the Dresden Unit 2

spent fuel pool. To maintain full core

offload capability in the Dresden Unit 2

spent fuel pool once new fuel arrives for

the Fall 2001 refueling outage, ComEd

needs to begin loading Dresden Unit 1

spent fuel into storage casks in June

2000. Unless the exemption is granted

or the Certificate is amended, the

storage pads at the Dresden ISFSI will

not be in full conformance with the

Certificate. Because the 10 CFR Part 72

rulemaking to amend the Certificate will

not be completed prior to the date that

ComEd plans to begin loading HI–STAR

100 Cask Systems, the NRC is granting

this exemption based on the staff’s

technical review of information

submitted by ComEd and Holtec.

Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action: The potential

environmental impact of using the HI–

STAR 100 Cask System was initially

presented in the Environmental

Assessment (EA) for the Final Rule to

add the HI–STAR 100 Cask System to

the list of approved spent fuel storage

casks in 10 CFR 72.214 (64 FR 171, 09/

03/99). Furthermore, each general

licensee must assess the environmental

impacts of the specific ISFSI in

accordance with the requirements of 10

CFR 72.212(b)(2). This section also

requires the general licensee to perform

written evaluations to demonstrate

compliance with the environmental

requirements of 10 CFR 72.104,

‘‘Criteria for radioactive materials in

effluents and direct radiation from an

ISFSI or MRS [Monitored Retrievable

Storage Installation].’’

The HI–STAR 100 Cask System is

designed to mitigate the effects of design

basis accidents that could occur during

storage. Design basis accidents account

for human-induced events and the most

severe natural phenomena reported for

the site and surrounding area.

Postulated accidents analyzed for an

ISFSI include tornado winds and

tornado generated missiles, design basis

earthquake, design basis flood,

accidental cask drop, lightning effects,

fire, explosions, and other incidents.

The HI–STAR 100 Cask System

consists of a stainless steel multipurpose canister and a steel overpack.

The welded MPC provides confinement

and criticality control for the storage