ML20034B774
| ML20034B774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1990 |
| From: | Hannon J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B775 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004300359 | |
| Download: ML20034B774 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _...
'i 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
10WA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY-CENTRAL 10WA POWER COOPERATIVE-l CORN BELT POWER COOPERATIVE i
DOCKET NO. 50-331
?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF N0'SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the-staff) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License No. DPR-49, issued I
to Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, et al.
(thelicensee),for l-operationoftheDuaneArnoldEnergyCenter(DAEC), located _inLinnCounty, Iowa.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l
l Identification of Proposed Action The proposed amendment wnuld extend the expiration date of the Facility Operating License No. OPR-49 for DAEC. The' current expiration date of June 21, 2010 would be changed to February 21, 2014. This action.
is in response to the licensee's application dated June 10, 1988.
'i The Need for the_ Proposed Action The proposed change to the Facility Operating License is required in j
order to provide the licensee with approximately 3 years and 8 months (3.6 1
years) of additional operating' life for DAEC. 'This would allow 40 years of operation from the issuance date of the operating license rather than from j
the issuance date of the construction. permit.
c~
SS$5E 8%gga nav
L J
]
- )
.g.-
Environmental Impacts'of the Proposed Action The staff has reviewed the potential environmental impact of the proposed change in the expiration date of the DAEC Facility Operating License. This. eval-untion considered the'" Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of l
Duane Arnold Energy Center" (FES) issued during March 1973, and recent staff.
l policy. The staff's FES assessed the potential environmental impacts of opera-ting DAEC for 40 years. The staff's assessment has considered the effects of operatirg experience and ' environmental changes upon the staff's conclusions set forth in the FES. The staff finds there are no environmental effects not bounded by and assessed in the FES issued in March 1973.
No significent adverse environ-mental effects would result from extending the Facility Operating License for-an additional 3 years and 8 months.'
The staff reviewed the proposed license extension with regard to the radio-logical impacts. The population in the vicinity of the DAEC has increased slightly, buc far less than originally projected. The actual population within L
50 miles of the DAEC site in 1980 was 575,806, based on data obtained from the
(
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. This represents an actual 4.7% increase from 1970, much lower than the 12.7% increase predicted in the FES over that period.
In addition, the FES predicted that the 2010 population within
~
50 miles of the site would be 952,106. More recent projections by the U. S,.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; based on the actual 1980 population and revised growth rate assumptions, predict that the population'in that area will only-reach 712,000 by the year 2030. Therefore, the expected population increase and any resulting impact during the period of the license
o.
3-extension are conservatively bounded by the original FES projections. The site requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 are now and would still be met with regard to Exclusion Area Boundary, Low Population Zone, and nearest population l-center distances.
l The environmental impacts attributable to the uranium. fuel cycle would l
be bounded as set forth in Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51. The environmental impacts attributable to transportation of fuel and waste to and from DAEC would continue to be as described in the FES and are bounded by Table S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51.
S The additional period of plant operation would not significantly affect the probability or consequences of any reactor accident.
Station radiological effluents to unrestricted areas during normal. operation'have been typically lower than estimated in the FES and have been within the staff'sregulationsregardingas-low-as-reasonably-achieveable(ALARA) limits, and are indicative of future releases. The proposed additional years of facility operation would not increase the annual public risk from reactor operation.
The licensee complies with staff guidance and requirements for: keeping occupational radiation exposure ALARA. According to NUREG-0713, the average dose equivalent has been lower at DAEC than the U.S. boiling water reactor (BWR) plant average for 8 of 10 yearts in the period 1976 through i
2 1985. Moreover, the average annual. dose for this 10-year period is approximately 25% lower than the comparable average for all U.S. BWRs.
The DAEC collective dose per megatwatt-year has been lower than'the U.S.
i V
w w
n
+v,-
.e
I
- -o
- i
. 3 1
BWR average 6 of 10 years for the same reporting period. The' licensee is striving for further dose reductions in accordance with ALARA principles.
the staff concludes that DAEC can be operated for an additional 3.6 years l
within the staff's regulatory requirements and guidance for occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
. ith regard to the nonradiological impacts, the proposed extension of W
the Facility Operating License will not cause a significant increase in the 1
nonradiological impacts and will not change any conclusions reached by the staff in the FES. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with'the proposed amendment.
The " Notice c' Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration i
Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on August 9,1989(54FR32712).
No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action The principal alternative would be to deny the proposed license extension, requiring that DAEC shut down upon expiration of the present operating license.
However, since the staff concludes that no significant-environmental effects would result from the proposed action, and the alternative energy acquisition and cost / benefit analysis found in the FES
I s.
L remain valid, there is no need to further evaluate alternatives to the-proposed action.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the DAEC FES issued in March 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted The staff reviewed ~the licensee's request and consulted with a state technical representative on August-7, 1989 regarding the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination made with respect to the
. requested license extension.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The staff has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed extension of Facility Operating License No.
DPR-49. Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the staff' concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's-application for license extension dated June 10, 1988 and the " Final Environmental Assessment Related to the Operation of Duane Arnold Energy Center" issued in March 1973. The documents are available for public inspection at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document-1 1
- a'
~
g,- Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Cedar Rapids
' Public Library, 500 First Street, S.E., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mr~
John N. Hannon, Director Project Directorate III-3 Division-of Reactor Projects - III IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-1 1