ML20044A980
| ML20044A980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1990 |
| From: | Dudley R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A978 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007170116 | |
| Download: ML20044A980 (4) | |
Text
.
l
+
f, 7590-01
)
. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-313 AND 50-368 NOTICEOFISSUANCEOFENVIRONMENTALASSET*~
AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMP, The U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comissio' ansidering the issuance of proposed amendments to facility Operating Licee
- s. DPR-51 and '
NPF-6, issued to Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L), for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 (ANO-182), located in Pope County, Arkansas.
Identification of Proposed Action:
i The amendments would consist of changing-the license for each unit to L:
extend.the expiration date of the operating license. Specifically, for ANO-1, the expirat' ion date for Operating. License -(OL) No. DPR-51 would be changed from-December 6, 2008 to May 20,-2014 and for ANO-2 the expiration date for Operating License No. NPF-6 would-be changed from December 6, 2012 to July 18, 2018.
Sumary of Environmental Assessment:
The Comission's staff has reviewed the potential environmental' impact of j
the proposed change in the expiration date of the OL for'ANO-1 and the OL for
-ANO-2. This evaluation considered the previous environmental studies, including
+
the Final Environmenta' Statement (FES) for each unit dated February 1973 (ANO-1) and June 1977 (ANO-2), and more recent NRC policy.
Radiological Impacts:
Based on 1980 U.S. Census date, the revised estimate of the population I
within 50 milec of the ANO site by the year 2018 was projected to increase to 422,529 while the FES projected a population of about 255,529 in 2016. Even 9007170116 900706 I
PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
4 1
considering this increase in population, the estimated population dose from the operation of the two units will remain very small compared to the population dose from natural backoround, estimated to be 18,000 person-REM.
The additional period of operation for each unit will not significantly affect the probability or consequences of any reactor accident.
. Thus, the conclusion reached in the FES for each unit remains unchanged.
The staff stated in their proposed no significant hazards consideration determination dated February 8,1989, that the change in the expiration date of the operating license for each unit is consistent with the orignially engineered design life of each plant, i.e. 40-years of operation. The potential effects of the full 40 year operational life for each unit have been previously considered in the Safety Analyses.
In addition considering design. conservatism, surveillance,_
inspection, testing, and maintenance programs in place to sustain the condition of the plants throughout their service life, the probability or consequences of previcesly evaluated accidents has not been significantly increased for the units.
Further, continued plant operation in accordance with the Technical Specifications assure that an adequate margin of safety will be preserved on a continuing -
- basis through the new expiration date of each operating license.
Regarding the environmental impacts of the uraniu'n fuel cycle, the' additional years of operation at each unit wil1~ proportionally increase the total fissile uranium required. However the annual environmental effects of the fuel cycle activities including that of transportation of the fuel and associated wastes e
will be essentially unchanged from that noted in the two FESS. This is based i
on the f act that each plant has extended its fuel cycle from 12 to 18 months f
l3 3
i 3
resulting in a reduction in the annual fuel requirements and the number of required shipnents.
With regard to normal plant operation, AP&L complies with Comission l
guidance and requirements for keeping radiation exposures to ALARA for L
occupational exposures, and for radioactivity in effluents. AP&L would continue to comply with these requirements during any additional years of facility operation and also would apply advanced technology when anilable to and appropriate. Accordingly, radiological impacts on man, both onsite and offsite, are not significantly more severe that previously estimated in the FES for each unit.
Non-Radiological Impacts:
The Comission has concluded that the proposed extension will not cause a o
L significant increase in the impacts to the environment and will not change any conclusions reached by the Comirsion in the FES for each unit.
-FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS:
[.
Thb Comission has~ determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. The staff has reviewed the proposed license amendments relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the
. proposed action will not change any conclusions reached by the Comission in a
6 the FES. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement ned not be prepared for this action.
Based upon this environmental assessment,
(
the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
l
=
m,
1 A.
Forfurtherdetailswithrespecttothisaction,see(1)theapplications f or amendments dated October 20, 1987 as supplemented on September 27, 1989 for Units 1 and 2 and-January 29, 1990 for Unit 1 only,-(2) the Final Environmental.
Statements related to operation of ANO-1&2 issued February 1973 and June 1977 respectively, and (3) the Environmental Assessment dated _ July 6, 1990,
These ' documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,'the_Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and at the Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.
th Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6 day of July 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 44 Richard-F. Dudley, Acting Director-Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'