[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65759-65766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Quad Cities Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase
the Maximum Thermal Power Level
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility
Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30, issued to Exelon for the
operation of QCNPS, Units 1 and 2, located on the Mississippi River in
Rock Island 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 QCNPS, to
increase its electrical generating capacity at QCNPS by raising the
maximum reactor core power level from 2511 MWt to 2957 MWt. This change
is approximately 17.8 percent above the current maximum licensed power
level for QCNPS. 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. QCNPS 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
[[Page 65760]]
February 12, March 20, 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, 19, 25, and 27 (two
letters), October 17, November 2 (two letters), 16, and 30, and
December 10, 2001. The original amendment request was submitted by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), the former licensee. ComEd
subsequently transferred the licenses to Exelon. 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
0.76 percent additional generating capacity per unit at QCNPS. Exelon
stated that in order to stay competitive, it must be able to fulfill
not only customer power demands, but it 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 QCNPS 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 QCNPS,
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 QCNPS, which was
issued in September 1972. The original operating licenses for QCNPS
allowed a maximum reactor power level of 2511MWt. On December 27, 2000,
Exelon 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 QCNPS. 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. This
environmental assessment first discusses the non-radiological and then
the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at QCNPS.
Non-Radiological Impacts at QCNPS
The following is the NRC staff's evaluation of the non-radiological
environmental impacts on land use, water use, waste discharge,
terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facilities, and social and
economic conditions at QCNPS.
Land Use Impacts
The licensee has no plans to construct any 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 the EPU. The EPU would
not significantly affect the storage of materials, including chemicals,
fuels, and other materials stored above or under ground. Therefore, the
FES conclusions on the impacts on land use would be valid under the EPU
conditions.
Water Use Impacts
The steam produced by the QCNPS turbines is condensed in the
condensers, demineralized, and pumped back to the reactor vessel.
Approximately 2094 cubic feet per second (cfs) of cooling water used in
the condensers is pumped from the Mississippi River 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 the heated water used
in the condensers was combined with other water discharges and returned
to the river downstream of the intake. Under this system, the FES
stated that full power operation of both generating units at a total of
5022 MWt will cause a 23 deg.F temperature rise in 2270 cfs (2100 cfs
through the condensers and 170 cfs through the service water) of
Mississippi River water, the maximum flow through QCNPS. The cooling
system has had several configurations due to concerns over thermal
effects on the river biota. The original design called for open-cycle
discharge of heated effluent along a straight wing dam into the deeper,
higher velocity portion of the river. This system was replaced with a
diffuser system consisting of 2 diffuser pipes laid across the bottom
of the main river channel with regularly spaced jets that directed
heated water into the river. A closed-cycle condenser cooling system
was installed next, which included a spray canal with blow-down
directed into a third diffuser pipe in the river. The spray canal was
less efficient than anticipated and partial open-cycle operation of the
condenser cooling system was implemented next. Finally, an extensive
study concluded that QCNPS could operate at full load in the open-cycle
mode while meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit limits under most river flow conditions. QCNPS presently
operates in this open-cycle mode.
Cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River through a
canal that is perpendicular to the river flow. The canal is 235 feet
long, 180 feet wide, and 12 feet deep. Intake velocity at the mouth of
the canal is about one foot per second. A floating boom extending to a
depth of 33 inches covers the mouth of the canal to deflect floating
material.
Beyond the boom is a series of vertical metal bars spaced 2.5
inches apart (trash racks) that screen large pieces of debris from the
intake. Travel screens with a \3/8\ inch mesh further protect the
circulating water pumps.
The staff evaluated surface water use and groundwater use as
environmental impacts of water usage at QCNPS. Current flow conditions,
based on equipment capacity constraints and operating history, is 2192
cfs. The licensee stated that the EPU would not change the
hydrodynamics of the condenser cooling and that surface water
withdrawal rates or the maximum flow of river water through QCNPS would
not be affected by the proposed EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the
FES regarding surface water use are expected to remain valid.
Groundwater is drawn from five wells at QCNPS and is used for
domestic purposes, for raising fish in the former spray canals, and for
a variety of other industrial applications. Groundwater is not used for
condenser cooling. The licensee stated that the proposed EPU would not
involve an increase in the consumptive use of groundwater. The EPU
would not impact the well water system flow path and does not require
any additional cooling capacity from the groundwater in order to shed
heat loads. Therefore, the staff's conclusions in the FES relative to
groundwater use would remain valid for the proposed EPU.
Waste Discharge Impacts
The staff considered chemical discharges to surface water and
sanitary sewer systems, cold shock to an aquatic biota, and air
emission, as waste discharge impacts.
[[Page 65761]]
Surface Water and Sanitary Sewer System Discharges:
QCNPS operates under a NPDES permit issued by the State of Illinois
which covers discharges to the open-cycle diffusers, wastewater
treatment system, sanitary waste treatment plant, and radwaste
treatment system blowdown. Special Condition 6 of the NPDES permit
gives thermal limitations at the downstream boundary of the mixing
zone, including a maximum temperature rise above natural temperature of
5 deg.F and maximum temperature limits for each month of the year. The
permit also requires that the mixing zone not exceed 26 acres of the
Mississippi River. To demonstrate compliance at low river flow
conditions while operating under the open-cycle mode (the present mode
of operation), a temperature monitoring curve was developed that allows
calculations of permissible plant load as a function of river water.
The temperature monitoring curve was modified in 1990, based on
measurements taken during the drought years of 1988 and 1989. Based on
this temperature monitoring curve, Special Condition 6 of the NPDES
permit states that compliance is demonstrated when river flows are
greater than 16,000 cfs and ambient river temperature is 5 deg.F or
more below the maximum monthly limit. For river flows between 11,000
cfs and 16,000 cfs, compliance is demonstrated by either adjusting
plant load based on the correlation in the temperature monitoring
curve, or by actual monitoring of river temperatures at the downstream
boundary of the mixing zone. At river flows less than 11, 000 cfs, the
permit requires temperature monitoring at the downstream boundary of
the mixing zone. The licensee proposes to modify the temperature
monitoring curve to account for the increase in temperature of the
discharged river water resulting from the EPU condition. Under EPU
conditions, the maximum condenser-water temperature rise will be 28
deg.F; 5 deg.F higher than the current total maximum (condenser and
service water) temperature rise of 23 deg.F. The revised temperature
monitoring curve would raise the minimum river flows required for
demonstrating compliance using river temperature monitoring at the
downstream boundary of the mixing zone or adjusting plant load in
accordance with the temperature monitoring curve correlation. The flow
at which the actual river temperature monitoring must be performed or
plant load adjustment must be made increases from 16,000 cfs to 21,100
cfs under the proposed revised temperature monitoring curve. The
licensee discussed the proposed monitoring curve change on July 28,
2000, with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). A
second meeting was held on December 15, 2000. The licensee made a
formal request to revise the NPDES permit by letter dated March 14,
2001. Subsequent discussions between the licensee and the staff
occurred on March 29, 2001, and October 17, 2001. The licensee stated
that the IEPA would consult with and obtain the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (IDNR) concurrence before issuing a permit revision,
in accordance with 40 CFR 123.10, ``Public notice of permit actions and
public comment period.'' The licensee stated that the IEPA issued the
draft NPDES permit revision on October 15, 2001, for a 30-day public
comment period. Full implementation of the EPU will not be accomplished
until the IEPA and IDNR have given their concurrence to change the
monitoring curve. Contingent on the concurrence of the IEPA and IDNR,
it is the staff's conclusion that the FES would remain bounding under
the EPU conditions.
QCNPS monitors wastewater streams as required by the NPDES permit,
and only uses approved chemicals for conditioning water to prevent
scaling, corrosion, and biofouling. Because an increase in the design
capacity to withdraw water from the Mississippi River is not proposed
for the EPU, the licensee stated that the current practices would not
be altered.
Cold Shock
Cold shock to aquatic biota results when the warm water discharge
from a plant abruptly stops due to an unplanned shutdown, resulting in
a river water temperature drop and the death of aquatic biota. The
increased temperature of the QCNPS discharge is not expected to create
cold shock to aquatic biota because of the extended period of time
required to remove heat from the reactor and the rapid heat dissipation
in the mixing zone from the diffuser's outfall. The probability of an
unplanned shutdown is independent of power uprate. Therefore, the risk
of fish being killed by cold shock would continue to be bounded by the
FES.
Air Emissions
Other waste sources at QCNPS include emissions from the plant
heating boiler and diesel generators. Effluents from these pathways are
controlled as required by the Clean Air Act. The EPU does not have a
significant impact on the quality or quantity of effluents from these
sources, and operation under power uprate conditions would not reduce
the margin to the limits established by the regulations. Therefore, the
conclusions in the FES would remain valid.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts
A relatively small number of threatened and endangered terrestrial
species have been recorded in Rock Island County, Illinois, and across
the river in Muscatine and Scott counties, Iowa. The western prairie
fringed orchid (Platanthera praceclara), eastern prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthaera leucophaea), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are Federally-listed threatened or
endangered terrestrial species and were identified in 1999 in either
Rock Island, Muscatine, or Scott counties. The proposed EPU would not
disturb the habitat of these species and would not affect their
distribution. The FES stated that the operation of QCNPS is not
expected to have any further adverse effect on the terrestrial flora or
fauna, except to the extent that traffic on access roads and human
activities related to station operation may force some wildlife away
from the heavily used areas. Implementation of the EPU would not alter
these conditions.
Therefore, the conclusions reached by the staff in the FES relative
to impact on terrestrial ecology, including endangered and threatened
plant and animal species, remain valid for the proposed EPU.
Aquatic Biota Impacts
The staff evaluated the impingement, entrapment, and the rise in
water discharge temperature on aquatic biota. The Mississippi River is
a large and productive ecosystem. Effects on river biota, such as the
phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, benthic invertebrate, gizzard
shad, freshwater drum, emerald shiner, river shiner, carp, bluegill,
fish eggs, and larvae, from QCNPS have been investigated by the
licensee. Local effects on lower trophic levels were apparent from
these studies, but overall population levels in the vicinity of the
QCNPS were not adversely affected. Effects on the abundance of fish
eggs and larvae by QCNPS operation have been minimal. No verifiable
effects on the fish biota from QCNPS operation have been found. Exelon,
along with Southern Illinois University, carries out a stocking
program. Fish, such as walleye and hybrid striped bass, are raised in
QCNPS's inactive cooling canal and then released to the Mississippi
River. Increases in the populations of these species have been found in
the vicinity
[[Page 65762]]
of QCNPS due to the river stocking program. Additionally, freshwater
drum, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and white bass have also
increased in abundance, while white and black crappie (backwater fish)
have decreased in abundance as sedimentation associated with
maintenance of the navigation channel has degraded backwater area and
sloughs.
The EPU would cause temperature in the condenser cooling system to
be higher than those associated with previous studies of thermal
effects. The EPU would raise river water temperature in the condenser
cooling system to a maximum of 28 deg.F above ambient, rather than the
current maximum of 23 deg.F. The higher temperature is expected to
cause a higher mortality rate for organisms entrained in the system.
The entrainment of fish eggs and larvae may affect more species, with
the possible exception of fish that spawn early in the year. The fish
egg and larva entrainment rate, which historically is 0.5 to 1 percent
of the total drifting by QCNPS, would not change because water
withdrawals would remain the same. The overall effect of an increase in
entrained plankton mortality would not be significant for the local
populations involved.
Higher effluent temperatures at the EPU conditions may also have an
increased effect on non-motile biota in the discharge mixing zone.
Drifting fish eggs and larvae mortality may increase in the mixing zone
because fish eggs and larvae are more likely to succumb to upper lethal
temperatures as opposed to a particular temperature increase. This is
only expected to affect species that spawn late, after the peak period
of larval drift, when ambient river temperatures are high and river
flow may be lower. Fish eggs and larvae losses at low river flows are
expected to be fairly small in total, and based on an approximate low
river flow return frequency of once in 10 years, it is expected that
these losses would not negatively affect recruitment to the fish
community of Pool 14, which is the body of water directly behind Lock
14 on the Mississippi River.
A preliminary study of Federally-listed aquatic threatened and
endangered species in the vicinity of QCNPS (within 32 kilometers)
performed in 1996 by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory listed
the fanshell (cyprogenia stegaria), Higgin's eye pearly mussel
(lampsilis higginsi), and fat pocketbook (potamilus capax). The
Federally-endangered clams are not expected to be exposed to the high
temperatures associated with the uprate because its preferred habitat
does not include the main channel of the Mississippi River at this
location. Some alteration in the timing of life cycles stages of other
mussel species could occur. Adult and juvenile fish would be expected
to avoid the increased temperature in the mixing zone and not be
harmed. The FES notes the existence of the paddlefish (polyodon
spathula); however, the paddlefish has not been collected near QCNPS
recently.
Eight fish species listed by the States of Illinois and Iowa have
been collected in the general vicinity of the diffusers. Of these, the
grass pickerel (Esox americanus) and the western sand darter
(Ammocrypta clara) are the most frequently collected. Grass pickerel is
the only Illinois State-listed species in Pool 14 that may have a
sustainable population. Individuals collected from other species appear
only as transient in Pool 14. The grass pickerel is mainly taken in
littoral and backwater areas and it is not expected to be in the main
channel where elevated temperatures would occur. The western sand
darter is occasionally collected in the main channel (10 specimens over
a 25 year period) and could be exposed to high temperatures in the
mixing zone area. Other than the pearly mussel and the fish mentioned
above, no rare species are expected to occur in the vicinity of QCNPS.
Fish may become impinged on the intake structures protecting the
condenser cooling water pumps because of water velocities leading into
the structures and the diminished physical condition of the fish.
Impingement has not had a deleterious effect on fish populations in the
vicinity of QCNPS because sampling indicated that impingement affects
mostly dead and moribund fish. There is no change in cooling water flow
proposed for the EPU. Therefore, no differences in impingement rates
are expected.
Based on the above, the staff expects that the conclusions in the
FES about aquatic biota, including impingement and entrainment, and
threatened and endangered species, would remain bounding under the
proposed EPU conditions.
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 new equipment associated with the EPU. Power to service these
additional energy needs would come from QCNPS'' 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 the 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 conclusions 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.
QCNPS 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 has reviewed information provided by the licensee
regarding socioeconomic impacts, including possible impacts to the
QCNPS workforce and local economy. QCNPS employs more than 800 people
and is a major contributor to the local tax base. QCNPS personnel also
contribute to the tax base by payment of sales and property tax. The
proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the QCNPS
workforce and would have no material effect upon the labor force
required for future outages. Because the plant modifications needed to
implement the EPU would be minor, any increase in sales tax and
additional revenues to local and national business would be negligible
relative to the large tax revenues generated by QCNPS. It is expected
that improving the economic performance of QCNPS through lower total
bus bar costs per kilowatt-hour would enhance the value of QCNPS as a
generating asset and reduce the likelihood of early plant retirement.
Early plant retirement could have a possible negative impact upon the
local economy and the surrounding
[[Page 65763]]
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 conclusions 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 proposed EPU would be accomplished primarily by changes
in station operation and a few modifications to the station facility.
These limited modifications can be accomplished without physical
changes to transmission corridors, access roads, other offsite
facilities, or additional projects related to the transportation of
goods or materials. Therefore, no significant additional construction
disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration, or
shock from blasting are expected, and the conclusions in the FES would
remain valid.
Summary
In summary, the proposed EPU at QCNPS 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 socioeconomic factors, and would not have other non-
radiological environmental impacts from those evaluated in the FES.
Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the
EPU at QCNPS.
Table 1.--Summary of Non-radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU
at QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Impacts.................. No significant changes to land use
or construction of any new
facilities that would impact land
use are needed.
Water Use Impacts................. No changes are required to the rate
of intake of surface water or
groundwater to accomplish the EPU.
Waste Discharge Impacts........... Temperature monitoring curve would
be adjusted to reflect higher river
flow conditions where physical
measurement or load management
occurs. Change to the hydrodynamics
of the cooling system would not be
significant. Equipment
modifications or changes in
operation in air emissions are
insignificant and would not reduce
the margin to the limits
established in the regulations. The
risk of cold shock to aquatic biota
would not increase.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts......... Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species are known to
exist within the land area, but no
land area disturbance is needed.
Aquatic Biota Impacts............. No changes to intake or outfall
structures or flows; no significant
impingement or entrainment impacts
on aquatic biota would be expected.
Rise in river water temperature
could affect fish larvae and eggs,
but impacts would be insignificant.
No Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species would be
significantly affected.
Transmission Facilities Impacts... No change in operating transmission
voltages, onsite transmission
equipment or power line rights-of-
way. Slight increase in onsite
power would be required to support
the additional EPU equipment which
would come from existing power
supplies. EMF would increase
linearly with the EPU; however, no
significant change in exposure rate
would be expected.
Social and Economic Impacts....... No significant change in size of
QCNPS workforce. No significant
disturbances from noise, odor,
vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration,
or shock would be anticipated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts at QCNPS
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
streams at QCNPS and an evaluation of the environmental impacts.
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
QCNPS 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 I 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 to 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 quantities of activation gases and noble gases, so that
routine offsite releases are below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and
Appendix I to Part 50 (10 CFR part 20 includes the requirements of 40
CFR part 190). The major sources of gaseous radioactive wastes at QCNPS
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 volumes would increase proportionally with the
EPU conditions. The current and expected fuel defect rate is extremely
small and the expected radioactive gaseous effluents under the EPU
conditions would be within the Appendix I limits. Therefore, the
conclusions in the FES will continue to apply under the EPU conditions.
The licensee does not expect increases in gaseous waste from new
fuel designs. The licensee's contract with General Electric contains a
warranty section that requires General Electric to meet a specified
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
[[Page 65764]]
CFR part 50, Appendix I. Liquid radioactive wastes at QCNPS 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 increase 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 radioactive 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 system are proposed. Average treatment
efficiency would not change; however radioactivity level of liquid
effluent releases may increase with the EPU. These liquid effluents
from QCNPS would be within the regulatory limits of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix I.
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 Impacts
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 QCNPS is
low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Sources of LLRW at QCNPS include
resins, filter sludge, dry active waste, metals, and oils. The annual
burial volume of LLRW generated in 1998 was 228.61 cubic meters. In
1999, the burial volume decreased to 82.93 cubic meters, and the
projected burial volume of LLRW for 2000 is approximately 140 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 18 percent under the EPU conditions, because of the
increased amount in iron removed by the condensate system from the
increased feedwater flow. Adding the 18 percent increase in the resin
volume to the projected year 2000 LLRW burial volume results in a 154-
cubic-meter EPU LLRW burial volume per year (an increase in
approximately 10 percent), which would be bounded by the FES.
The number of fuel assemblies would increase in any given core load
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. QCNPS 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 needed to fill 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.
Summary
In summary, the solid radioactive waste burial volume is estimated
to increase by approximately 10 percent, the volume of liquid
radioactive releases would not be expected to increase, and the volume
of gaseous radioactive effluents would be expected to increase up to 18
percent as a result of the proposed EPU. The level of radioactivity of
the liquid effluent releases would also increase up to 18-percent. The
proposed EPU is not expected to have a significant impact on the volume
or activity of radioactive solid wastes at QCNPS.
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 QCNPS 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 does not affect
radiation zoning or shielding in the various areas of the plant because
it is offset by conservatism in the original design, source terms
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
occupational (in-plant) dose for QCNPS 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 5.23E-4 millirem and the average annual dose to the
critical organ was 8.17E-4 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 occurred in 1998 and
was 0.005 percent of the critical organ dose limit. For the 1995-1999
period, the average dose was 0.003 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 of 1995 to 1999 was 7.08E-4 millirem and the
average annual dose to the critical organ was 3.9E-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 of 1995 to 1999 occurred in 1997 and was 0.23 percent of the
critical
[[Page 65765]]
organ dose limit. From the period of 1995 to 1999, the average dose was
0.16 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 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 18 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 18 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 would 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 an offsite
dose from QCNPS 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 QCNPS.
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 licensing topical reports NEDC-32424P-A (Proprietary),
``Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)
Extended EPU,'' February 1999 (known as ELTR1), and NEDC-32523P-A
(Proprietary), ``Generic Evaluation of General Electric Boiling Water
Reactor Extended EPU,'' February 2000 (known as ELTR2). 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 exclusion
area boundary (EAB), low-population zone (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, QCNPS operation at the proposed EPU rated thermal power is
acceptable with regard to the 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 1000 MWe reference reactor and
is described in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The QCNPS reactors are
proposed to operate at 912 MWe after the implementation of the EPU and
Table S-3 reasonably bounds the environmental impacts of the uranium
fuel cycle for each QCNPS 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 by 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.
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-day 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 QCNPS 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 QCNPS.
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU at
QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18 percent and
dose would be maintained
ALARA. Offsite dose from
liquid and gaseous effluents
may increase up to 18 percent.
Calculated dose from sky shine
will increase up to 18
percent. In-plant and offsite
dose would remain within the
regulatory limits.
Accident Analysis Impacts.............. No significant increase in
probability or consequences of
accident.
[[Page 65766]]
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts.. No significant increase.
Impacts would remain with 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 in the QCNPS vicinity; however, 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 QCNPS capacity is an acceptable option
for increasing power supply. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuel plants,
QCNPS does not routinely emit 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 previously considered in the QCNPS FES, dated 1972.
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, March 20, 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, 19, 25, and 27
(two letters), October 17, November 2 (two letters), 16, and 30, and
December 10, 2001. Documents may be examined 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 17th day of December 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Anthony J. Mendiola,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-31331 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7950-01-P