ML20236H412

Environ Assessment Supporting Extension of License Expiration Date to 130809 W/O Preparation of EIS

ML20236H412
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	07/29/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20236H398	List: ML20236H396 ML20236H412 ML20236H423
References
NUDOCS 8708050174
Download: ML20236H412 (11)

Text

. .

8' s ....,'o, o

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ 7

$ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXPIRATION DATE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-40

,0MAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-285 1

I 8708050174 870729 yDR ADOCK 05000285 PDR

,s

• $ Rity

' # ' UNITED STATES

1. #g 8 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ ,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

%,...../

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXPIRATION DATE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-40 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-285

\

i

-l i

p TABLE OF CONTENTS. l 1.0- INTP.0 DUCTION

2. 0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 Radiological Impacts - General Public-4.1.1 Environmental Impacts - General Public 4.1.2 Environmental Impacts - Uranium Fuel Cycle 4.1.3 Environmental Impacts - Occupational Exposures 4.1.4 Environmental Impacts - Transportation of Fuel and Wastes 4.1.5 Conclusions 4.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES 7.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT-

,s

1. 0 INTRODUCTION The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or staff), j is considering the issuance of the proposed amendment which would extend I the expiration date of the operating license for Fort Calhoun Station, l Unit 1, from June 7, 2003 to August 9, 2013. The Fort Calhoun Station i is operated by the Omaha Public Power District (licensee) and is located i in Washington County, Nebraska.

2. 0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The currently licensed term for Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, is 40 years commencing with the issuance of the construction permit (June 7, 1968). Ac-counting for the time that was required for plant construction, this represents l an effective operating license term of 35 years. The licensee's application I dated July 17, 1986, as supplemented on April 30 and May 15, 1987, requests )

an extension of the expiration date of the operating license to August 9, l 2013. Therefore, the 40 year operating term would start with the issuance l of the operating license and not the construction permit. j

3. 0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The granting of the proposed license amendment would allow the licensee to operate Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, for approximately an additional five years beyond the currently approved date.

4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION In August 1972, the Atomic Energy Commission issued the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1," (FES).

This document evaluates the environmental impact associated with the f operation of Fort Calhoun, Unit 1. The Commission's staff has reviewed this document to determine if any significant environmental impacts, other than those previously considered, would be associated with the proposed license extension. l 4.1 Radiological Impacts - General Public The staff has considered the radiological impacts expected as a result of a hypothetical design basis accident at Fort Calhoun Station, and from normal plant operation, including the impact of revised population estimates.

In previous documents (Safety Evaluation Report, April 1973 and Final Environmental Statement, August 1972), the staff's evaluation of the regional demography for Fort Calhoun, Unit 1, found the land used primarly for farming. The nearest towns are Blair, with a population of about 6,100 (about three miles northwest of the plant), and Fort Calhoun, with a population of about 650 (about five miles southeast of the plant). For the construction phase, the population within the low population zone (300 square miles) of the plant was projected to be about 25,000 for 1980. Within a 50-mile radius of the plant (7,800 square miles) the 1980 population was projected to be about 800,000 of which about 650,000 would reside in the Omaha metropolitan area.

,s i .

1 Based on the 1980 U.S. Census data, the actual population was approxi-mately three times less than what was projected for that year in 1972.

The 1980 city of Blair population was 6,418; Fort Calhoun, 641; within ,

the low population zone, 16,121; and within 50-mile radius 883,525 (of i which 569,614 reside in the metropolitan area). The U.S. Census data  !

show an increase in population in the Omaha metropolitan area (50-mile I radius) and in most of the nearby cities, but a decrease in the rural i population. The licensee expects the plant site outside of the Omaha j metropolitan area to remain largely agricultural, and that the popula-  ;

I tion will increase slowly. A general decline of the rural population I will continue, reflecting the movement of people into towns and cities.

The licensee estimated a population growth rate of 1.2% or 22,449 for the year 2013. The staff concludes, based upon these population estimates, that the current Exclusion Area Boundary, Low Population l Zone, and nearest population center distances will likely be unchanged in the future. Therefore, the conclusion reached in the staff's Safety Evaluation in 1973, that Fort CL1houn Station meets the requirements of J 10 CFR Part 100, remains unchanged.

In addition, the staff concludes that the higher projected population I for 2013 would not change the overall conclusions of the FES concerning l radiological consequences following accidents. l Finally, the staff has assessed the public risks from reactor accidents per year of operation at other reactors of comparable design and power level (and larger). In all cases, the estimated reactor accident risks of early and latent cancer fatality per year of operation have been small compared to the background cancer fatality risks to which the ,

public is exposed, and did not increase with longer periods of operation.

If similar risks were estimated for Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, we would expect a similar comparison. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed additional years of operation would not increase the annual  !

public risk from reactor accidents.

The principal factors associated with an additional period of operating which could potentially change the probability or consequence of an accident would be due to aging of electric equipment important to safety, and changes in the fracture toughness properties of reactor vessel beltline materials due to neutron irradiation. The Commission has reviewed facture toughness requirements for protection against pressurized thermal shock events and has determined that fort Calhoun, Unit 1, can be operated for 40 calendar years without reaching pres-surized thermal shock screening criterion specified in 10 CFR 50.61.

However, the Commission is in the process of changing the formula for determining the effects of neutron radiation on the beltline material, and is expected that the rule specified in 10 CFR 50.61 will be changed.

Nevertheless, Ft. Calhoun is in compliance with the present ruling and changes contemplated can be mitigated by reconfiguring the core reload.

In addition, the licensee is required to adhere to the forthcoming i

changes to the rule.

l

s The Ccmmission also finds that the licensee has established an environ-mental qualification program for electric equipment important to safety in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49, and that this program has given appro-priate consideration to all significant types of degradation, including aging, which can have an effect on the functional capability of equipment.

Under the licensee's environmental qualification program, equipment i important to safety has either been determined to be qualified for 1

at least 40 years of operation, or is designated for periodic replace- l ment or refurbishment before the end or its predetermined life.

. In addition to the environmental qualification program, numerous other l programs exist at nuclear power plants to assure that the probability and consequence of any accident remains consistently small. Examples )

of such programs include those of Technical Specifications which limit conditions for operation and require periodic surveillance; operating and emergency procedures; administrative procedures; inservice inspec- ]

tion requirements; periodic maintenance; quality control and quality J assurance programs; personnel qualification and training programs; and other programs associated with continued conformance to national codes and standards. Such programs remain in effect throughout the duration of the operating license, including any extended operation authorized by the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the i proposed extension does not increase the probability or the severity of r any accident. Although there does exist an integral exposure to risk by virtue of the additional years of plant operation and some slight ]

increase in population, the additional exposure to risk is not signifi-cant because the probability and consequences of accidents remain small. The proposed extension would not cause a significant increase in the public risks from reactor accidents and would not change any 3 conclusions reached by the Commission in the FES.

The staff has also evaluated the radiological environmental effects associated with normal operation of the facility. This evaluation was conducted to assure that the licensee's "as low as is reasonable ,

achievable" (ALARA) measures and dose projections are applicable for the additional years of plant service and are in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 and the guidance of Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" (Revision 3).

4.1.1 Environmental Impacts - General Public In the FES, the staff also calculated the dose commitment to the human population residing around Fort Calhoun Station, in order to assess the impact on people from radioactive material released as part of the normal operation of the plant. The l annual dose commitment was defined to be the dose that would be received over a 50 year period following the intake of radioactivity for one year under the conditions that would exist 15 years after the plant began operation. I i

l

The 15 year period was chosen as representing the midpoint of plant life and was incorporated into dose model by allowing for buildup of long-life radionuclides in the soil. The buildup factor mainly affects the estimated doses for radio-nuclides with half-lives greater than a few years that are ingested by humans. For a plant licensed for 40 years, increasing the buildup period from 15 to 20 years would ,

increase the dose from long-life radionuclides via the inges-tion pathway by less than one-third It would have much less of an effect on a dose from shorter-lived radionuclides.

The FES indicates that the estimated doses via the ingestion pathways are well below the annual dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

For example, the ingestion dose to the thyroid from (radio-nuclide) releases it Fort Calhoun Station is 2.1 mre:a/yr '

compared to a dose design objective of 15 mrem /yr. Thus, the staff concludes that a dose increase of even as much as one-third in these pathways would remain well below the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and would not be significant.

Additionally, the annual total-body population doses from effluent releases have been well below projected values (NUREG/CR-2850, Volume 4, June 1986). The Fort Calhoun Station annual offsite dose calculation values are well below Pressure Water Reactor (PWR) averages, and have typically been so for each year of operation. These lower values are expected to remain typical for Fort Calhoun operations through the year 2013. Thus, an increase of even as much as 10 percent in these pathways would remain well below the Appendix I guidelines and would not be significant.

4.1.2 Environmental Impacts - Uranium Fuel Cycle The impacts on the uranium fuel cycle considered for the FES were originally based on 30 years of operation of a model  !

light water reactor (LWR). The fuel requirements for the I model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 l annual refueling (approximately 1/3 core per refueling). In )

considering the annual fuel requirements for 40 years for the model LWR, fuel use is averaged over a 40 year operating life (one initial core and 39 refuelings of approximately 1/3 core each) which results in a slight reduction, compared to the annual fuel requirement averaged over a 30 year operating life. The net result is an approximately 1.5 percent re- I duction in the annual fuel requirements for the model LWR due l to averaging the initial core load over 40 years, instead of 30 years. This small reduction in fuel requirements would not lead to significant changes in the annual impacts on the uranium fuel cycle.

1 l

i I

4

\l l- j

)

For Fort Calhoun, the licensee projects three additional refueling cycle years and two noa-refueling cycle years. The staff concludes that there is no need for any changes to the  ;

FES with regard to uranium fuel cycle impact in order to  !

consider 40 years of operation. If anything, the values in i the FES become more conservative when a 40 year period of operation is considered, particularly since the licensee is extending the refueling cycle intervals to 18 months. ]

I 4.1.3 Environmental Impacts - Occupational Exposures  !

The staff has evaluated the licensee's dose assessment for the years 2008 to 2013 (the additional years during which Fort Calhoun would operate), and compared it with current Fort Calhoun and overall industry occupational dose experience.

The average cumulative occupational dose for Fort Calhoun Station over the recent five year period covering 1980-1984 has been 468 person-rem per year, which is below average compared to the current five year average of 569 person-rem dose per unit per year for operating PWRs in the United States. The total occupational dose projected over the period of the operating license extension is approximately 1543.2 person-rem. The licensee has estimated 106.3 person-rem for a non-outage year and 443.7 person-rem for a refueling outage year, which averages to 309 person year for the additional years (2008-2013) of operation. This is only a sira11 fraction of the 271,183 person-rem accumulated by all operating reactors over a similar five year period (1980-1984).

The staff expects that increased doses from maintenance and corrosion product buildup will be offset by a continually improving ALARA program, dose-saving plant modifications, and fewer major modifications. Fort Calhoun Station has been below average in numbers of workers (818) receiving measurable doses, compared to other U.S. PWRs (1,089 average number of workers receiving measurable dose for 1980-1984). Overall, annual occupational radiation exposures can be expected to remain about as estimated in the FES and as experienced during the initial operation period.

Spent fuel will be stored in the spent fuel pool (previously evaluated by the staff for radiological environmental conse-quences) in lieu of shipment offsite as stated in the FES, and in accordance with current national policy. Any further i expansion of on-site spent fuel storage capability (such as j through rod consolidation) will be further evaluated for J radiological environmental effects by the NRC staff at the time it is proposed.

The staff concludes that the licensee's occupational dose assessment is acceptable, and their radiation protection program is adequate to ensure that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained ALARA and in continued com- i pliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.

i j

4.1.4 Environmental Impacts - Transportation of Fuel and Waste The staff reviewed the environmental. impacts attributable to the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the Fort Calhoun 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 Transporta-tion of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light Water-Cooled  ;

Nuclear Power Reactor," of 10 CFR 51.52. There are bases for this conclusion: (1) Table S-4 is based on an annual refueling  ;

and an assumption of 60 spent-fuel shipments per reactor.

year. Presently, Fort Calhoun is on an 18 month refueling ,

cycle which would require less than 30 spent fuel shipments per reactor year. Reducing the number of fuel shipments will reduce the overall impacts.related to population exposure -

and accidents discussed in Table S-4; (2) Table S-4 represents the contribution of such transportation to annual radiation dose per reactor year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public. Currently, fuel enrichment and average fuel irradiation levels slightly exceed those speci-fied in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2) and (3) as the bases for Table S-4. The radiation levels of the transport fuel casks are limited by the Department of Transportation and are not dependent on fuel enrichment and/or irradiation levels.

Therefore, the estimated doses to exposed individuals per reactor year will not increase over that specified in Table S-4.

Fort Calhoun has averaged less than half the volume of solid I radwaste shipped by the average PWR over the period 1980-1984, j and ranks below average in overall volume of radwaste shipped <

during this same period. Occupational doses and population doses from radwaste processing and shipping are well within the estimates made in the FES. Radioactive waste shipments are expected to remain at about the present level for the remaining life of the plant. i 4.1.5 Conclusions  ;

l Based on the above, the annual radiation dose to individuals would not be changed by the extended period of operation.

Although some integral risk with respect to normal conditions of transportation and possible accidents in transport would J be attributed to the additional years of operation, the integral risk would not be significant because the annual  ;

risk for such transportation is small. Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with a 40 year operating license duration are not significantly different from those associated with a 30 year operating license duration and those previously assessed in the Fort Calhoun FES.

l' L________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.2 Non-Radiological Impacts Re-examination of the staff's FES of August 1972 reveals that the assessments of non-radiological impacts were based on several consider-ations depending on the type of impact being addressed. For some types of impact, the assessments were based on a fixed life-of plant; for other types, the assessments were based on plant design features, on relative loss _of renewable resources, or on relative loss or degradation of available habitat.

Economic assumptions made in the cost evaluation of alternative actions include 30 years as the useful life of the plant (FES, p. XI-10). Land use of actual plant operation is approximately 20 acres. Entrainment and impingement impacts were assessed as small losses since that portion of the Missouri River, where the plant is located, has high current velocities. Thermal and chemical discharges were assessed on a spatial basis; i.e., as an acceptable mixing zone or degraded habitat relative to the available suitable habitat in the plant vicinity (FES pp. V-9 to V-17).

Amendment No. 69 issued by letter dated March 11, 1983, deleted the water quality monitoring requirements (Appendix B) from the Technical Specifications since these requirements are administered by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, the permitting agency designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Control issued the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits No. NE 0000418 covering the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1. Water quality requirements covered in the NPDES would be extended to cover the requested extension.. All other issues addressed in our safety evaluation associated with this amend-ment were reviewed, and it was determined that the conclusion would not be impacted by the requested extension.

A number of plant modifications have been made since the FES was issued. These modifications tend to improve plant reliability, and the environment-1 impact has been minimal. The plant modifications are described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, which is revised an' ally. Components associated with the modifications that are i expected to wear out during plant life are subjected to a surveillance and maintenance program so that component degradation will be identified and corrected. Extending the operating life as proposed by the licensee will have no detectable environmental impair resulting from the plant modifications.

All potential impacts have been identified, described, and evaluated in previously issued environmental impact statements and/or appraisals by the Commission and reviews by the NPDES permitting authority under the 'l Clean Water Act. All operational non-radiological impacts on biological  !

resources have been assessed by the staff on bases other than a life-of plant basis. The staff concludes that the proposed extension would not cause a significant increase in the impacts to the environment and would not change any conclusions reached by the Commission in the FES.

,' ,~

5. 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The principal alternative to issuance of the proposed license extension would be to deny the application. In this case, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, would shutdown upon expiration of the present operating license.

In Chapter XI of the FES, a cost-benefit analysis is presented for Fort Cahoun Station. Included in the analysis is comparison among various options for producing an equivalent electrical power capacity. Even con-sidering significant changes in the economics of the alternatives, operation of Fort Calhoun plant for an additional five years would only require an incremental yearly cost. This cost would be substantially less than the purchase of replacement power or the installation of new electrical generat-ing capacity. Moreover, the overall cost per year of the facility would decrease since the large initial capital outlay would be averaged over a greater number of years. In summary, the cost-benefit advantage of Fort Calhoun compared to alternative electrical power generating capacity improves with the extended plant lifetime.

6.0 ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESOURCES This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1" dated August 1972.

7. 0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult I

other agencies or persons.

8.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR NOT PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact state-  !

ment for the proposed action. The staff has reviewed the proposed license 1 amendment 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 will not change any conclusions reached by the Commission in the FES.

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action. Based upon this environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Principal Contributor: J. Minns Dated:

July 29, 1987

,