[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57750-57758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28743]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Dresden Nuclear Power Station,
Units 2 and 3 Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase
the Maximum Thermal Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) in
connection with its evaluation of a request by Exelon Generation
Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) for a license amendment to increase
the maximum thermal power level at Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units
2 and 3 (DNPS), from 2527 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2957 MWt. This
represents a power increase of approximately 17 percent for DNPS. As
stated in the NRC staff's February 8, 1996, position paper on the
Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate Program, the staff has the
option of preparing an environmental impact statement if it believes a
power uprate will have a significant impact. The staff did not identify
a significant impact from the licensee's proposed extended power uprate
at DNPS; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental
review in an EA. Also in accordance with the February 8, 1996, staff
position paper, the draft EA and finding of no significant impact is
being published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment
period.
DATES: The comment period expires December 17, 2001. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration only of comments received on
or before December 17, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules Review and
Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-6
D69, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also be delivered
to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, from 7:45 a.m. to
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received will
be available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room
(PERR) link (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html) on the NRC
homepage or at the NRC Public Document Room located at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. If you
do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Rossback, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, at Mail Stop O-7 D3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at (301) 415-2863,
or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses
Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25, issued to Exelon for the operation of the
[[Page 57751]]
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (DNPS), located on the
Illinois River in Grundy County, Illinois. Therefore, as required by 10
CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow Exelon, the operator of DNPS, to
increase its electrical generating capacity at DNPS by raising the
maximum reactor core power level from 2527 MWt to 2957 MWt. This change
is approximately 17 percent above the current licensed maximum power
level for DNPS. The change is considered an extended power uprate (EPU)
because it would raise the reactor core power level more than 7 percent
above the original licensed maximum power level. DNPS has not submitted
a previous power uprate application. A power uprate increases the heat
output of the reactor to support increased turbine inlet steam flow
requirements and increases the heat dissipated by the condenser to
support increased turbine exhaust steam flow requirements.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendments dated December 27, 2000, and supplemental
information dated February 12, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18, and 29, June
5, 7, and 15, July 6 and 23, August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 (two
letters), 29, and 31 (two letters), September 5 (two letters), 14, 19,
25, 26, and 27 (two letters), and November 2, 2001 (two letters). The
original amendment request was submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company
(ComEd), the former licensee. ComEd subsequently transferred the
licenses to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee). By
letter dated February 7, 2001, Exelon informed the NRC that it assumed
responsibility for all pending NRC actions that were requested by
ComEd.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Exelon evaluated its resource needs for the period 2000-2014 and
forecast a 28-percent increase in electrical demand by 2014 within its
Illinois service area. The proposed EPU would provide approximately
0.66 percent additional generating capacity per unit at DNPS. Exelon
stated that in order to stay competitive, it must be able to fulfill
not only customer power demands, but is also must sell power to other
providers. In Illinois, approximately 40 gas turbine plants of various
sizes are proposed to be built. The proposed additional generating
capacity at DNPS would eliminate the need to build approximately two
100-MWe gas turbines.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of the issuance of the operating licenses for DNPS, the
NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the licenses would be
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) for the operation of DNPS, which was issued in November
1973. The original operating licenses for DNPS allowed a maximum
reactor power level of 2527 MWt. On December 27, 2000, Exelol submitted
a supplement to its Environmental Report supporting the proposed EPU
and provided a summary of its conclusions concerning the environmental
impacts of the EPU at DNPS. Based on the staff's independent analyses
and the evaluation performed by the licensee, the staff concludes that
the environmental impacts of the EPU are bounded by the environmental
impacts previously evaluated in the FES, because the EPU would involve
no extensive changes to plant systems that directly or indirectly
interface with the environment. Additionally, no changes to any State
permit limits would be necessary. This environmental assessment first
discusses the non-radiological and then the radiological environmental
impacts of the proposed EPU at DNPS.
Non-Radiological Impacts at DNPS
The following is the NRC staff's evaluation of the non-radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU on land use, water use, waste
discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facilities, and
social and economic conditions at DNPS.
Land Use Impacts
The proposed EPU at DNPS would result in some modifications to
current land use at DNPS, due to the proposed addition of 6-8 new
cooling tower cells. The proposed addition of new mechanical draft
cooling tower cells to the existing 48 cells would handle the
additional heat load resulting from the EPU. The additional cooling
tower cells would require approximately 0.5 acres of land for siting.
Accessing roads and pipe bridge installations, necessary to support the
proposed cooling tower cells, might cause additional land disturbances;
however, the new cells would be in an area that has been previously
disturbed. The construction impacts would be temporary. Due to the
small area (0.5 acres) disturbed, and the fact that the are has been
previously disturbed, impacts to terrestrial biota will be minimal.
Based on a previous archaeological and history survey, the licensee has
determined that the proposed cooling tower cells would not disturb
lands with historic or archaeological significance. There would be
minor changes to visual and aesthetic resources; however, the proposed
cooling tower cells would not be visible from any major highway or
block the view of any historic site or picture scape. The cooling tower
cells would be built in accordance with the appropriate safety
standards and any deviation from the standards would be evaluated in
the staff's safety evaluation report.
Apart from the proposed change detailed above, the licensee
indicated that it has no plans to construct new facilities or alter the
land around existing facilities, including buildings, access roads,
parking facilities, laydown areas, or onsite transmission and
distribution equipment, including power line rights-of-way, in
conjunction with the uprate or operation after uprate. The EPU would
not significantly affect the storage of materials, including chemicals,
fuels, and other materials stored above or under the ground. Therefore,
the staff's conclusions in the FES on land use would remain valid under
the proposed EPU conditions.
Water Use Impacts
The steam produced by the DNPS turbines is condensed in the
condensers, demineralized, and pumped back to the reactor vessel.
Cooling water used in the condensers is pumped from the Kankakee and
Des Plaines Rivers and does not come in contact with the steam from the
turbines. The original design called for a once-through cooling water
system in which all the heated water used in the condensers was
returned to the Illinois River downstream of the intake. A number of
configuration changes have been made in the cooling system at DNPS
since the original design. These include the construction of a cooling
pond and associated cooling canals, installation of spray modules in
the cooling canals, installation of temporary mechanical draft cooling
towers, and the construction of mechanical draft cooling towers.
DNPS operates in the indirect open-cycle mode from June 15 through
September 30. In this operating mode, a maximum of 940,000 gallons per
minute (gpm) may be withdrawn from the Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers
for condenser cooling water. After the water circulates through the
condensers, the
[[Page 57752]]
water is discharged into a 2-mile-long cooling canal, called the hot
canal. As water travels through the hot canal, it may be withdrawn and
circulated through a bank of 36 mechanical draft cooling tower cells
and then discharged back into the hot canal at a lower temperature. The
cooling towers operate, as needed, to maintain water temperatures
within the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit limits and have a maximum water withdrawal capacity of 630,000
gpm. From the hot canal, a lift station pumps the water into a 1275-
acre cooling pond. The cooling pond consists of 5 areas through which
the water is circulated for approximately 2.5 days. After circulating
through the cooling pond, the water is discharged via a spillway into
another 2-mile-long canal, called the cold canal. The water may then be
circulated through a bank of 12 mechanical draft cooling tower cells at
a maximum rate of approximately 213,000 gpm, as needed, to maintain
water temperature within the NPDES permit limits. The water is returned
to the cold canal at a lower temperature and the water is then
discharged to the Illinois River.
DNPS normally operates in the closed-cycle mode from October 1 to
June 14. Typically, the mechanical draft cooling tower cells are
utilized during this period. Water is drawn into the intake structure,
circulated through the condensers for Units 2 and 3, passed through the
hot canal, the cooling pond, the cold canal, then routed back to the
intake structure via the flow regulating station gates. A small amount
of condenser cooling water (70,000 gpm) is withdrawn from the Kankakee
and Des Plaines Rivers to make up evaporative and seepage losses in the
cooling pond. Additionally, approximately 50,000 gpm of the cooling
water is permitted to be discharged to the Illinois River to prevent an
increase in the dissolved solids concentrations in the cooling pond.
DNPS has approval from the Grundy County Emergency Management
Agency to operate a de-icing project on the Kankakee River using heated
water from the DNPS cooling pond. Heated water from the cooling pond is
transported through a permanent pipe by siphon to the Kankakee River,
where it is used to prevent river ice from damaging docks and other
structures.
The Staff evaluated surface water use and groundwater use as
environmental impacts of water usage at DNPS. The licensee stated that
the surface water intake amounts would not be changed by the proposed
EPU. The licensee also stated that it would not seek to change permit
requirements for thermal or flow limits or conditions for the proposed
EPU. Therefore, the staff's conclusions in the FES on water use would
remain valid under the proposed EPU conditions.
Groundwater is withdrawn from two wells at DNPS and is used for
domestic and industrial purposes. Groundwater is not used for condenser
cooling. The proposed EPU would not affect the groundwater use at DNPS;
therefore, the staff's conclusions in the FES on groundwater would
remain valid under the proposed EPU conditions.
Discharge Impacts
The staff evaluated environmental impacts such as cooling tower
emissions, drift, icing, fog, noise, chemical and wastewater discharge,
cold shock to an aquatic biota, and air emissions.
Cooling Tower Emission, Drift, Icing, Fog, and Noise
Environmental impacts such as air quality, fogging, icing, cooling
tower drift, and noise could result from the increased heat load on the
cooling towers under the EPU conditions. The FES did not include a
discussion of cooling towers, but did discuss 98 spray modules, which
are no longer operated, in the cooling canal. The staff concluded in
the FES that the operation of the DNPS cooling system was not harmful
to the surrounding environment. No substantial changes from the
conditions reported in the FES are anticipated.
The cooling tower cells are regulated by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) through a Federally Enforceable State
Operating Permit (FESOP). The cooling towers emit particulate matter
with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) in the form of
drift with river water sediment entrained in the droplets. The existing
48 cooling tower cells have a potential to emit 67.2 tons of
PM10 per year. Eight additional cooling tower cells could
potentially emit an additional 11.2 tons of PM10 per year,
resulting in a total discharge of 78.4 tons of PM10 per
year. DNPS is in an attainment area for PM10 in which the
major source threshold is 100 tons per year. The total emissions from
DNPS under the EPU conditions would be below the major threshold for
PM10. Emissions from all other sources governed by the FESOP
are expected to remain the same.
The licensee stated that removal of the 98 spray modules mitigated
some icing effects and that the cooling tower cells currently in
operation at DNPS were sited in their present locations to reduce
potential fogging impacts on local roads. The cooling towers minimize
drift and maximize efficiency by limiting the loss of water droplets
from the cells to not more than 0.008 percent of the circulating water
flow, corresponding to a drift factor of 0.00008. Fog typically forms
in the cold season when the cooling tower cells are not likely to be in
operation. The proposed EPU would increase the temperature of the water
in the hot canal by approximately 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F). The
proposed temperatures increase would not cause an observable increase
in the intensity of fog, but because the EPU increases the temperature
differential between the cooling water and ambient air, fog may form at
slightly higher ambient air temperatures. However, the impacts from
fogging, icing, and cooling tower drift from the proposed EPU would be
bounded by the conclusions of the FES.
As stated previously, the cooling system discussed in the FES did
not have cooling towers cells, but the FES did include an analysis of
elevated noise levels from the presently inactive 98 spray modules.
Operation of the new cooling tower cells under the proposed EPU
conditions and the potential extended of the existing cooling towers
would result in intermittent increases in noise levels during periods
of high ambient air temperatures. The licensee stated that noise from
the cooling tower operations would be in compliance with the applicable
noise requirements. The EPU would not be expected to significantly
raise the noise levels above the levels assumed in the FES; therefore,
the staff's conclusions in the FES on noise impacts would remain valid
under the EPU conditions.
Surface Water and Wastewater Discharge
Surface water and wastewater discharge is regulated by the State of
Illinois. The NPDES permit for DNPS covers the following discharges:
1. Unit 1 housing service water (inactive)
2. Unit 1 intake screen backwash (inactive)
3. Cooling pond blowdown
4. Unit 2 and 3 intake screen backwash
5. Wastewater treatment system effluent
6. Radiological waste treatment system effluent
7. Demineralizer regenerant waste
8. Northwest material access runoff
9. Sewage treatment plant effluent
10. Cooling pond discharge
11. Southeast area runoff
12. Northeast area runoff
All of the discharges are to the Illinois River except for the
sewage treatment
[[Page 57753]]
plant effluent, cooling pond discharge, Southeast area runoff, and
Northeast area runoff, which discharge to the Kankakee River. As stated
previously, DNPS must operate in closed-cycle mode from October 1 to
June 15 and may operate in indirect open-cycle mode from June 15
through September 30. During the indirect open-cycle operation, the
NPDES permit limits the temperature of the discharges not to exceed
90 deg.F more than 10 percent of the time and is not permitted to
exceed 93 deg.F. DNPS may also operate in accordance with the DNPS
Variable Blowdown Plan, as governed by the original July 6, 1977,
Thermal Compliance Plan calculations, from June 1 to June 15, as deemed
necessary by management. Under the DNPS Variable Blowdown Plan, cooling
water from the condenser must be circulated through the cooling system
before being discharged to the Illinois River. DNPS is allowed to
discharge augmented blowdown at rates between 111 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and 1115 cfs. Discharge flow rates are varied to prevent power
deratings, which can be caused by heated cooling water recirculating to
the condensers. Operation of the cooling towers is implicitly covered
by the thermal requirements of Special Condition 4 of the NPDES permit.
Special Condition 7 of the NPDES permit states that DNPS has
complied with 35 Illinois Administrative Code, subpart B, ``General Use
Water Quality Standards,'' section 302.211(f), ``Temperature,'' and
section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act in demonstrating that the thermal
discharge from the station has not caused, and cannot cause, and cannot
be reasonably expected to cause, significant ecological damage to the
receiving water. The special condition further states that no
additional monitoring or modification is required for re-issuance of
the NPDES permit.
DNPS monitors wastewater streams, as required by the NPDES permit,
and only uses approved chemicals for conditioning water to prevent
scaling, corrosion, and biofouling. The current NPDES permit limits
discharge of chlorine to the receiving waters. The licensee may also
use a dispersant to limit fouling of the cooling tower fill. Exelon is
not seeking to change the NPDES permit requirements for thermal or flow
conditions, flow rates, or water sources, of for chemical or thermal
discharges and would be subject to existing NPDES requirements.
Instead, additional cooling tower cells would be installed to assure
compliance with current thermal limits without derating the units
during the summer. The use of chemicals and their subsequent discharge
to the environment would not be expected to change significantly as a
result of the proposed EPU. Furthermore, discharges to receiving waters
from plant operation will be in compliance with NPDES permit
requirements.
Cold Shock
Cold shock to aquatic biota occurs when the warm water discharge
from a plant abruptly stops because of an unplanned shutdown, resulting
in a temperature drop of the river water and a possible adverse impact
on aquatic biota. The probability of an unplanned shutdown is
independent of the EPU. The FES stated that cold kill (cold shock) of
fish is not expected from the shutdown of DNPS during the winter
because of the large heat sink in the cooling lake. Additionally, the
licensee is not proposing to change permit levels to river water.
Therefore, the risk of an aquatic biota being killed by cold shock
would be bounded by the conclusions in the FES.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts
A study performed during the first years of indirect open-cycle
operation found no adverse impacts on waterfowl or wildlife. The FES
stated that the DNPS cooling pond provides additional foraging and
resting area for waterfowl and provides nesting grounds in an area of
the State where natural lakes are less abundant. Implementation of the
proposed EPU would not alter these conditions.
The licensee stated that no known threatened or endangered species
live within the construction area of the proposed cooling tower cells.
The species, Mead's milkweed (Asciepias meadii), lakeside daisy
(Hymenopsis herbacea), leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa), eastern
prairie fringed orchid (Platanthaera leucophaea), Hines emerald
dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) are Federally-listed
as threatened or endangered species and have been identified in Grundy
and Will counties. The operation of the current 48 mechanical draft
cooling towers have had no observed detrimental impact on the
terrestrial community. The licensee stated that the additional 6-8
cooling tower cells would not be expected to impact this resource.
Therefore, the staff's conclusions in the FES on terrestrial
ecology, including endangered and threatened plant or animal species,
remain valid under the proposed EPU conditions.
Aquatic Biota Impacts
The ecology of the area surrounding the DNPS cooling pond and the
intake and discharge structures has been studied extensively since the
late 1960s. Studies of the lower trophic levels (phytoplankton,
zooplankton, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates), and the fish
community, indicated that operation of the DNPS has not had a
measurable detrimental impact on the ecology of the Illinois River
system. Surveys of the fish community in the vicinity of the DNPS have
been conducted annually since 1971. These studies have monitored the
fish population near the confluence of the Kankakee and Des Plaines
Rivers and in the waters directly behind the Dresden Island Lock and
Dam, called the Dresden Island Pool. The Dresden Island Pool area
includes sampling stations near the intake and discharge areas of DNPS.
These studies have concluded that the fish community in the area of
DNPS has improved since the study began. The number of species
collected by the various collection methods increased from the 1970s
through the early to mid-1980s and leveled off in the early 1990s. The
increase in species numbers that occurred during the 1980s was
primarily the result of improvements in water quality due to the
implementation of the Clean Water Act, most notably, the removal of
sewage discharge from the city of Chicago.
The licensee conducted impingement sampling at the traveling intake
screens at DNPS from 1977 to 1997. The study concluded that the number
of fish impinged at DNPS was low and that the fish in the adjacent
river system were not being adversely impacted by DNPS operations. In
April 1987, the Illinois Department of Conservation agreed to eliminate
impingement sampling from the DNPS Aquatic Monitoring Program. No
Federally-listed fish or aquatic plant species has been collected in
the vicinity of DNPS. However, three Illinois endangered or threatened
listed species, the pallid shiner (Notropis amnis), the greater
redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi), and the river redhorse (Moxostoma
carinatum), have been collected near DNPS. The pallid shiner has only
been collected downstream of Dresden Island Lock and Dam and both
redhorse species prefer a more complex channel substrate than is found
near DNPS.
The licensee submitted information on the DNPS intake structure to
the IEPA pursuant to section 316(b) of Clean Water Act. IEPA determined
that additional monitoring was not required,
[[Page 57754]]
but further monitoring might be necessary at the time of any
modification or re-issuance of the NPDES permit. Impacts on an aquatic
biota from the proposed EPU conditions are not expected to change
because implementation of the EPU would not alter the intake structure
of significantly change intake flows at DNPS. Therefore, the staff's
conclusions in the FES about impingement and entrapment, along with
aquatic threatened and endangered species, would remain bounding.
Transmission Facility Impacts
Environmental impacts, such as the installation of transmission
line equipment, or exposure to electromagnetic fields and shock, could
result from a major modification to transmission line facilities. The
licensee stated that there would be no change in operating transmission
voltages, onsite transmission equipment, or power line rights-of-way to
support the proposed EPU conditions. No new equipment or modification
would be necessary for the offsite power system to maintain grid
stability. However, an increase in onsite power would be required to
support the 6-8 new cooling tower cells and other new equipment
associated with the EPU. Power to service these additional energy needs
would come from DNPS's existing power supplies. Therefore, no
significant environmental impacts from changes in the transmission
design and equipment are expected, and the conclusions in the FES would
remain valid.
The electromagnetic field (EMF) created by transmission of
electricity would increase linearly as a function of power; however,
exposure to EMFs from the offsite transmission system would not be
expected to increase significantly and any such increase would not be
expected to change the staff's conclusion in the FES that there are no
significant biological effects attributable to EMFs from high-voltage
transmission lines.
No changes in transmission facilities would be needed for the EPU.
DNPS transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance with
the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National Electric
Safety Code. Therefore, the expected slight increase in current,
attributable to the proposed EPU, is not expected to change the staff's
conclusion in the FES that adequate protection is provided against
hazards from electrical shock.
Social and Economic Impacts
The staff reviewed information provided by the licensee regarding
socioeconomic impacts, including possible impacts on the DNPS workforce
and the local economy. DNPS employs more than 800 people and is a major
contributor to the local tax base. DNPS personnel also contribute to
the tax base by paying sales and property taxes. The proposed EPU would
not significantly affect the size of the DNPS workforce and would have
no material effect upon the labor force required for future outages.
Plant modifications needed to implement the EPU would cost
approximately $26 million. Local taxing authorities would collect more
property taxes and local and national businesses would receive
additional revenue from EPU-related activities. The increased direct
revenue from the EPU would be a one-time benefit. The increase would
not be sustained once the modification are completed. It is expected
that improving the economic performance of DNPS through lower total bus
bar costs per kilowatt-hour would enhance the value of DNPS as a
generating asset and reduce the likelihood of early plant retirement.
Early plan retirement could have a possible negative impact upon the
local economy and surrounding communities by reducing public services,
employment, income, business revenues, and property values; these
reductions could be mitigated by decommissioning activities in the
short term. The staff expects that the conclusion in the FES regarding
social and economic impacts are expected to remain valid under the EPU
conditions.
The staff also considered the potential for direct physical impacts
of the proposed EPU, such as vibration and dust from construction
activities. The construction of the 6-8 cooling tower cells may
temporarily produce dust, vibration, noise, and vehicle exhaust.
However, the licensee stated that construction traffic will not be
routed through residential areas and no blasting will occur. In the
year 2000, 36 cooling tower cells were constructed in the same general
area in which the 6-8 new cooling tower cells are proposed to be
located. The licensee stated that residents did not express concerns
about construction noise. The distance between the proposed location of
the 6-8 new cooling tower cells and the nearest residence is at least
1000 feet. Other than the construction of the proposed 6-8 cooling
tower cells, the EPU would involve only limited changes in station
operation and a few modifications to the station facility. These
limited modifications would be accomplished without physical changes to
transmission corridors, or other offsite facilities, and without
significant changes to access roads or additional project-related
transportation of goods or materials. Therefore, no significant
construction disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust,
vibration, or shock from blasting are anticipated, and the conclusions
in the FES would remain valid.
Summary
In summary, the proposed EPU at DNPS would not result in a
significant change in non-radiological impacts on land use, water use,
waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission
facilities, or social and economic factors, and would not have other
non-radiological environmental impacts from those evaluated in the FES.
Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental effects of the
EPU at DNPS.
Table 1.--Summary of Non-radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU
at DNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Impacts of the EPU at DNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Impacts.................. Construction of 6-8 additional
cooling tower cells on 0.5 acre on
previously disturbed land. Minor
aesthetic changes. No changes to
lands with historic or
archaeological significance.
Water Use Impacts................. No changes to the intake of surface
water or groundwater use.
Waste Discharge Impacts........... No significant increase in fog
formation; however, fog may form at
higher air temperatures. Air
emission of PM10 would increase,
but would remain within the
regulatory limits. No significant
change to icing or cooling tower
drift. Noise levels may increase
due to operation of the 6-8 new
cooling tower cells, but would be
within regulatory limits. No
changes to the hydrodynamics of the
condenser cooling water system
intake or discharge amounts. No
changes to permit requirements for
thermal or flow limits or
conditions. No changes to flow
rates, water sources, and thermal
discharges. The risk of cold shock
to aquatic biota would not
increase.
[[Page 57755]]
Terrestrial Biota Impacts......... Small number of wildlife would be
displaced by the construction of
the cooling tower cells. No
Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species are known to
exist within the area of
construction.
Aquatic Biota Impacts............. No change to intake or outfall
structures or flows; therefore, no
change in aquatic impact biota
would be expected. No Federally-
listed threatened or endangered
species have been collected in the
area of surface water intake or
discharge.
Transmission Facilities Impacts... No change in operating transmission
voltages, onsite transmission
equipment, or power line rights-of-
way. Slight increase in onsite
power to support the 6-8 cooling
tower cells would come from
existing power supplies. EMF would
increase linearly with the EPU;
however, no change in exposure rate
would be expected.
Social and Economic Impacts....... No significant change in size of
DNPS workforce. The construction of
the 6-8 cooling tower cells may
temporarily produce dust,
vibration, noise, and vehicle
exhaust; however, it is not
expected to be significant. No
shock from blasting is expected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts at DNPS
The staff evaluated radiological environmental impacts on waste
streams, dose, accident analyses, and fuel cycle and transportation
factors. The following is a general description of the waste treatment
at DNPS and an evaluation of the environmental impacts.
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
DNPS uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and
dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid waste in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and Appendix 1 to part 50.
These radioactive waste treatment systems are discussed in the FES. The
proposed EPU would not affect the environmental monitoring of these
waste streams or the radiological monitoring requirements contained in
licensing basis documents. The proposed EPU would not result in changes
in operation or design of equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid
waste systems. The proposed EPU would not introduce new or different
radiological release pathways and would not increase the probability of
an operator error or equipment malfunction that would result in an
uncontrolled radioactive release. The staff evaluated specific effects
of the proposed EPU on changes in the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste
streams as a radiological environmental impact on the proposed EPU.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent systems control the
release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environs,
including small qualities of activated gases and noble gases, so that
routine offsite releases are below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and
Appendix 1 to part 50 (10 CFR part 20 includes the requirements of 40
CFR part 190). The major sources of gaseous radioactive wastes at DNPS
are the condenser air ejector effluent and the steam packing exhaust
system effluent. Based on the conservative assumption of a non-
negligible amount of fuel leakage due to defects, the licensee stated
that radioactive release volume would increase proportionally with the
17 percent EPU conditions. The current and expected fuel defect rate is
extremely small and the expected radionuclide gaseous effluents under
the EPU conditions would be within Appendix 1 limits. Therefore, the
conclusions in the FES will continue to apply under the EPU conditions.
The licensee does not exceed increases in gaseous waste from new
fuel designs. The licensee stated that its contract with General
Electronics contains a warranty section that requires General Electric
to meet a specific level of fuel performance. This level is at least as
stringent as that imposed on current fuel designs.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
The liquid radwaste system is designed to process, and recycle, to
the extent practicable, the liquid waste collected so that annual
radiation doses to individuals are maintained below the guidelines in
10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 1. Liquid radioactive
wastes at DNPS include liquids from the reactor process systems and
liquids that have become contaminated with process system liquids.
Increases in flow rate through the condensate demineralizer and
increases of fission products and activated corrosion products are
expected under the EPU conditions. This would result in additional
backwashes of condensate demineralizers and reactor water cleanup
filter demineralizers. These additional backwashes would be processed
through the liquid radioactivate waste treatment system and are
expected to be suitable for reuse. Therefore, liquid effluent release
volumes are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the
EPU. No changes in the liquid radioactive waste treatment systems are
proposed. Average treatment efficiency would not change; however,
radioactive levels of liquid effluent releases may increase linearly
with the 17 percent EPU. These liquid effluents from ENPS would be
within the regulatory limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1.
Based on information submitted by the licensee, the staff concludes
that no significant dose increase in the liquid pathway would result
from the proposed EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the FES would
remain valid under the EPU conditions.
Solid Radioactive Waste
Solid radioactive wastes include solids recovered from the reactor
process system, solids in contact with the reactor process system
liquids or gases, and solids used in the reactor process system
operation. The largest volume of solid radioactive waste at DNPS in
low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Sources of LLRW at DNPS include
resins, filter sludge, dry active waste, metals, and oils. The annual
burial volume of LLRW generated in 1998 was 208.40 cubic meters; in
1999, the burial volume decreased to 98.44 cubic meters, and the
projected burial volume of LLRW for 2000 is approximately 144 cubic
meters. A one-time increase in the burial volume of LLRW would be
associated with the EPU. The volume of resin is expected to increase by
as much as 17 percent under the EPU conditions because of the increased
amount of iron removed by the condensate system from the increased
feedwater flow. Adding the 17 percent increase in resin volume to the
projected year 2000 LLRW burial volume rate results in a 156-cubic-
meter post-EPU LLRW burial volume per year (an increase of
approximately 8 percent), which would be bounded by the FES.
[[Page 57756]]
The number of fuel assemblies would increase in any given core
loads with the proposed EPU, reducing the storage space in the spent
fuel pool. At current off-load rates, four dry storage casks would be
filled during each refueling outage and a fifth dry storage cask would
be partially filled. DNPS plans to fill the fifth cask using the
inventory of assemblies from the spent fuel pool. At the EPU
conditions, each refueling outage would also fill four casks and
partially fill a fifth. Fewer assemblies from the spent fuel pool would
be need to complete the fifth dry storage cask. The net effect of the
EPU would be to increase the number of dry storage casks needed by
three to four every 5 years.
In summary, the solid radioactive waste burial volume is estimated
to increase by approximately 8 percent, the volume of radioactive
liquid release would not be expected to increase, and the volume of
gaseous radioactive effluent releases would be expected to increase up
to 17 percent as a result of the proposed EPU. The level of
radioactivity of the liquid effluent releases would also be expected to
increase up to 17 percent. The proposed EPU is not expected to have a
significant impact on the volume or activity of radioactive solid
wastes at DNPS.
Dose Impacts
The staff evaluated in-plant and offsite radiation as part of its
review of environmental impacts of the proposed EPU.
In-Plant Radiation
Radiation levels and associated doses are controlled by the as low
as reasonably achievable (ALARA) program, as required by 10 CFR part
20. The DNPS ALARA program manages exposure by minimizing the time
personnel spend in radiation areas, maximizing the distance between
personnel and radiation areas, and maximizing shielding to minimize
radiation levels in routinely occupied plant areas and in the vicinity
of plant equipment requiring attention. Exelon has determined that the
current shielding designs are adequate for any dose increase that may
occur due to the proposed EPU. Normal operation radiation levels would
increase by no more than the percentage increase of the EPU. Many
aspects of the plant were originally designed for higher-than-expected
radiation sources. The increase in radiation level would not affect
radiation zoning or shielding in the various areas of the plant because
it is offset by conservatism in the original design, source term
assumptions, and analytical techniques. The licensee states that no new
dose reduction programs would be implemented and the ALARA program
would continue in its current form.
A potential source of increased occupational radiation is the
projected increase in moisture carryover from the reactor vessel steam
dryer/separator to the main steam lines. To reduce moisture content
under the EPU conditions, modifications to the steam dryer/separator
would be required. The modifications are expected to result in a
negligible increase in occupational exposure.
On the basis of the above information, the staff concludes that the
expected in-plant radiation dose at DNPS following the proposed EPU
would be bounded by the dose estimates in the FES.
Offsite Dose
The slight increase in normal operational gaseous activity levels
under the EPU would not affect the large margin to the offsite dose
limits established by 10 CFR part 20. Offsite dose from radioactive
effluents are reported in the Annual Radiological Environmental
Operating Reports. For the period from 1995 to 1999, the average annual
whole body dose was 4.25E-3 millirem and the average annual dose to the
critical organ was 6.16E-3 millirem. The highest percentage of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix I, regulatory limits for maximum dose resulting from
liquid releases to an adult for the 5 year period from 1995 to 1999,
the average dose was 0.02 percent of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,
regulatory limits. No significant change in the volume of water treated
and released is expected. The offsite dose from liquid effluents is
projected to increase proportionally with the EPU due to an increase in
the concentration of fission products and activation products in the
reactor coolant. THe licensee states that offsite dose would remain
below the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, regulatory limits.
Dose to individuals from gaseous releases are also reported in the
Annual Radiological Environmental Report. The average annual total body
dose during the period from 1995 to 1999 was 2.9E-3 millirem and the
average annual dose to the critical organ was 2.23E-2 millirem. The
highest percentage of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, regulatory limits for
maximum dose resulting from airborne releases to an adult during the
period form 1995 to 1999 occurred in 1995 and was 0.14 percent of the
critical organ dose limit. For the period from 1995 to 1999, the
average dose was 0.09 percent of the Appendix I regulatory limits.
Conservatively assuming a non-negligible amount of fuel leakage due to
defects, gaseous effluents will increase proportionally to the 17
percent EPU; however, offsite dose will remain well below 10 CFR part
50, Appendix I, regulatory limits.
The calculated offsite dose resulting from direct radiation due to
radiation levels in plant components, such as sky shine, will increase
up to 17 percent because the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
conservatively adjusts offsite dose to power generation level. Because
sky shine is the dominant contributor to total offsite dose, the
calculated total offsite dose, based on calculations from the Offsite
Dose Calculation Manual, will increase up to 17 percent. Actual offsite
dose from sky shine is not expected to increase significantly because
the decreased transit time is expected to result in a minimal change in
concentration through reduced decay time and because expected activity
concentration in the steam will remain constant due to the dilution
effect of a 19 percent increase in steaming rate. The expected dose at
the EPU conditions will remain below the limits of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, 10 CFR part 20, and 40 CFR part 190 standards.
The EPU would not create new or different sources of offsite dose
from DNPS operation, and radiation levels under the proposed EPU
conditions would be within the regulatory limits. The staff concludes
that the estimated offsite doses under the EPU conditions would meet
the design objectives specified by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, and be
within the limits of 10 CFR part 20.
Accident Analysis Impacts
The staff reviewed the assumptions, inputs, and methods used by
Exelon to assess the radiological impacts of the proposed EPU at DNPS.
In doing this review, the staff relied upon information placed on the
docket by Exelon, staff experience in doing similar reviews, and the
staff-accepted ELTR1 and ETR2 topical reports. The staff finds that
Exelon used analysis methods and assumptions consistent with the
conservative guidance of ELTR1 and ELTR2. The staff compared the doses
estimated by Exelon to the applicable criteria. The staff finds, with
reasonable assurance, that the licensee's estimates of the EAB, LPZ,
and control room doses will continue to comply with 10 CFR part 100 and
10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, GDC-19, as clarified in NUREG-0800 sections
6.4 and 15. Therefore, DNPS operation at the proposed EPU rated thermal
power is acceptable with regard to the
[[Page 57757]]
radiological consequences of postulated design basis accidents.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
The environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle has been
generically evaluated by the staff for a 100 MWe reference reactor and
is described by Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The DNPS reactors are 912
MWe and Table S-3 reasonably bounds the environmental impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle for each DNPS reactor. The radiological effects
presented in Table S-3 are small and would not be expected to change
due to the implementation of the EPU.
The environmental impacts of the transportation of nuclear fuel and
wastes are described in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The table lists heat
and weight per irradiated fuel cask in transit, traffic density, and
individual and cumulative dose to workers and the general population
under normal circumstances. The regulations require that environmental
reports contain either (a) a statement that the reactor meets specified
criteria, in which case its environmental effects would be bounded by
Table S-4; or (b) further analysis of the environmental effects of
transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor site.
NRC published an environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact (65 FR 56604) regarding an increase in fuel
enrichment at DNPS from 4 to 5 weight percent uranium-235 and an
increase in burnup to 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium.
The staff concluded that the extended burnup would slightly change the
mix of radionuclides that might be released in the event of an
accident; however, no significant adverse environmental impacts were
expected. An NRC assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as
corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the
applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycles and
concluded that there would be no significant change in environmental
impacts for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent
uranium-235 and burnups less than 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton
of uranium (MWd/MTU) from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-
4. Because the fuel enrichment for the EPU would not exceed 5 weight
percent uranium-235 and the rod average discharge exposure would not
exceed 60,000 MWd/MTU, the environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at
DNPS would remain bounded by these conclusions and would not be
significant.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, would not introduce new radiological
release pathways, would not result in a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposures, and would not result in
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 2
summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the EPU at DNPS.
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU at
DNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Impacts of the EPU at DNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Waste Stream Impacts. The gaseous radioactive release
volume would increase
proportionally with the power
increase. The liquid radioactive
release volume is not expected to
increase; however, activity levels
would increase proportionally with
the power increase. Solid
radioactive waste will increase
approximately 8 percent. Releases
would be within regulatory limits.
Dose Impacts...................... In-plant radiation levels would
increase by 17 percent and dose
would be maintained ALARA. Offsite
does from liquid and gaseous
effluents may increase up to 17
percent. Calculated dose from sky
shine will increase up to 17
percent. In-plant and offsite does
would remain within the regulatory
limits.
Accident Analysis Impacts......... No significant increase in
probability or consequences of
accident.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation No significant increase. Impacts
Impacts. would remain within the conclusions
of Table S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR Part
51.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., ``the no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts; however, in the DNPS vicinity other generating
facilities using nuclear or other alternative energy sources, such as
coal or gas, would be built in order to supply generating capacity and
power needs. Construction and operation of a coal plant would create
impacts to air quality, land use and waste management. Construction and
operation of a gas plant would also impact air quality and land use.
Implementation of the EPU would have less of an impact on the
environment than the construction and operation of a new generating
facility and does not involve new environmental impacts that are
significantly different from those presented in the FES. Therefore, the
staff concludes that increasing DNPS capacity is an acceptable option
for increasing power supply. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuel plants,
DNPS does not routinely emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that contribute to greenhouse
gases or acid rain.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any different resources
than those not previously considered in the DNPS FES, dated 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 9, 2001, prior to
issuance of this environmental assessment, the staff consulted with the
Illinois State official, 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 application dated December 27, 2000, as supplemented by
letters dated February 12, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18, and 29, June 5,
7, and 15, July 6 and 23, August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 (two
letters), 29, and 31 (two letters), September 5 (two letters), 14, 19,
25, 26, and 27 (two letters), and November 2, 2001 (two letters).
Documents may be examined
[[Page 57758]]
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. 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). If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Acting Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-28743 Filed 11-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7950-01-M