22928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of this EA, NRC has 

concluded that there are no significant 

environmental impacts and the issuance 

of a license amendment does not 

warrant the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Accordingly, it has been determined 

that a Finding of No Significant Impact 

is appropriate. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the letter requesting the 

amendment and supporting 

documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS 

accession numbers for the documents 

related to this notice are: 

1. May 21, 2009 Hematite Alternate 

Disposal Request (ML091480071) 

2. July 31, 2009 HDP Environmental 

Report (ML092870403 and 

ML092870405) 

3. Hematite Response to NRC RAIs, 

December 29 2009, (ML100320540) 

4. Response to Additional Information 

Requested for Alternate Waste Disposal 

Authorization, March 31, 2010, 

(ML100950386) 

5. Hematite Soil Contour Data, March 

31, 2010, (ML100950393) 

6. Hematite Additional Information 

and Clarifications Concerning 10 CFR 

20.2002 Alternate Waste Disposal 

Authorization and Exemption for 

Specific Hematite Decommissioning 

Project Waste, May 24, 2010, 

(ML101450240) 

7. Waste Characterization for 

Alternate Disposal Request for 

Decommissioning Soils, December 21, 

2010, (ML103570023) 

If you do not have access to ADAMS 

or if there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O–1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of April 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Keith I. McConnell, 

Deputy Director, Decommissioning and 

Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9828 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301; NRC– 

2010–0380] 

Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC; 

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 

2; Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to the Proposed License 

Amendment To Increase the Maximum 

Reactor Power Level 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an amendment for Renewed 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24 

and DPR–27, issued to NextEra Energy 

Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the licensee) 

for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located 

near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. In 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.21, the 

NRC has prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) documenting its 

finding. The NRC concluded that the 

proposed actions will have no 

significant environmental impact. 

The NRC published a draft EA and 

draft finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI) on the proposed action for 

public comment in the Federal Register 

on December 10, 2010 (75 FR 77010). 

Comments were received on the draft 

EA from: (1) the licensee; (2) members 

of the public; and 3) the Wisconsin 

Public Service Commission. Publicly 

available documents created or received 

at the NRC, including the public 

comments and responses, are available 

online in the NRC Library at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this site, the public can access the 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. The document 

summarizing and addressing the public 

comments is located at ADAMS 

accession number ML110950476. 

Environmental Assessment 

Plant Site and Environs 

The PBNP site is located 

approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) 

east-northeast of the town of Mischot on 

the western shore of Lake Michigan, 

midway along the western shore, near 

the northeastern corner of Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin. The City of Green 

Bay is located approximately 25 miles 

(40 kilometers) northwest of PBNP, and 

the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant is located 

approximately 4 miles (6 kilometers) 

north of PBNP on the shore of Lake 

Michigan. The PBNP site is comprised 

of approximately 1,260 acres (510 

hectares), with 104 acres (42 hectares) 

that includes the two nuclear reactors, 

parking and ancillary facilities. 

Approximately 1,050 acres (425 

hectares) are used for agriculture, and 

the remaining land is a mixture of 

woods, wetlands, and open areas. Each 

of the two units at PBNP use 

Westinghouse pressurized water 

reactors. 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

By application dated April 7, 2009, 

the licensee requested an amendment 

for an extended power uprate (EPU) for 

PBNP to increase the licensed thermal 

power level from 1,540 megawatts 

thermal (MWt) to 1,800 MWt for each 

unit, which represents an increase of 

approximately 17 percent above the 

current licensed thermal power and 

approximately 18 percent over the 

original licensed thermal power level. 

This change in core thermal power level 

requires the NRC to amend the facility’s 

operating license. The operational goal 

of the proposed EPU is a corresponding 

increase in electrical output for each 

unit from 519 megawatts electric (MWe) 

to 607 MWe. The proposed action is 

considered an EPU by NRC because it 

exceeds the typical 7 percent power 

increase that can be accommodated with 

only minor plant changes. EPUs 

typically involve extensive 

modifications to the nuclear steam 

supply system. 

The licensee plans to make extensive 

physical modifications to the plant’s 

secondary side to implement the 

proposed EPU over the course of two 

refueling outages currently scheduled 

for spring 2011 and fall 2011. The actual 

power uprate, if approved by the NRC, 

would occur for each unit following the 

respective refueling outages in 2011. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

NextEra stated in their environmental 

report that the proposed action is 

needed to provide the licensee 

flexibility to increase the electrical 

output of PBNP Units 1 and 2. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

As part of the licensing process for 

PBNP Units 1 and 2, the NRC published 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 22929 

a Final Environmental Statement (FES) 

in October 1970, for PBNP Unit 1, and 

in March 1973 for PBNP Unit 2. The two 

FESs provide an evaluation of the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the operation of PBNP Units 1 and 2 

over their licensed lifetimes. In 

addition, in 2005, the NRC evaluated 

the environmental impacts of operating 

PBNP for an additional 20 years beyond 

its current operating license, and 

determined that the environmental 

impacts of license renewal were small. 

The NRC staff’s evaluation is contained 

in NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, 

Supplement 23, Regarding Point Beach 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2’’ (SEIS–23) 

issued in August 2005 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML052230490). The NRC 

staff used information from the 

licensee’s license amendment request, 

the FESs, and the SEIS–23 to perform its 

EA for the proposed EPU. 

There will be extensive changes made 

to the secondary side of the PBNP 

related to the EPU action, but no new 

construction is planned outside of 

existing facilities, and no extensive 

changes are anticipated to buildings or 

plant systems that directly or indirectly 

interface with the environment. All 

necessary modifications would be 

performed in existing buildings at 

PBNP. Modifications to the secondary 

side of each unit include the following: 

replacing the high-pressure side of the 

turbine; replacing all of the feedwater 

heaters, feedwater and condensate 

pumps and motors to operate at higher 

capacity; providing supplemental 

cooling for some plant systems; 

implementing electrical upgrades; other 

modifications to accommodate greater 

steam and condensate flow rates; and 

changing setpoints and modifying 

software. 

The sections below describe the nonradiological and radiological impacts in 

the environment that may result from 

the proposed EPU. 

Non-Radiological Impacts 

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts 

Potential land use and aesthetic 

impacts from the proposed EPU include 

impacts from plant modifications at 

PBNP. While some plant components 

would be modified, most plant changes 

related to the proposed EPU would 

occur within existing structures, 

buildings, and fenced equipment yards 

housing major components within the 

developed part of the site. The licensee 

identified the need for additional EPU 

project and operating plant support 

facilities to provide office space for 

personnel (i.e., 22 trailers located at the 

plant entrance) and two new parking 

facilities at the north side of the PBNP 

facility. The locations of the trailers and 

one parking facility are within the 

industrial facilities, and construction of 

two additional new parking facilities 

has occurred in a previously-disturbed 

field on the north end of the site. For the 

placement of the trailers and 

construction of the parking facilities, 

environmental permitting from the State 

of Wisconsin and Manitowac County 

has been obtained. The environmental 

permits for parking address Manitowac 

County Soils and Erosion and 

Wisconsin Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (WPDES) 

construction storm water requirements. 

Storm water monitoring for the parking 

facilities will continue after EPU 

implementation. There would be no 

land use changes along transmission 

lines (no new lines would be required 

for the proposed EPU), transmission 

corridors, in switch yards, or in 

substations. 

Upgrades are expected within the 

next ten years to the PBNP transmission 

line corridor related to improvements to 

the regional power grid. These upgrades 

include the following work: two new 

substations; conversion of several 

transmission lines from 138 kV to 345 

kV; construction of three new lines to 

connect existing lines to the two new 

substations; and two lien upgrades. 

According to the licensee, these 

upgrades will provide long-term grid 

reliability and stability. 

Land use conditions would not 

change significantly PBNP, and there 

would be no significant impact from 

EPU-related plant modifications on land 

use and aesthetic resources in the 

vicinity of PBNP. 

Air Quality Impacts 

Air quality within the Point Beach 

area is generally considered good, with 

an exception occurring for a designated 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area. PBNP 

is located in Manitowoc County within 

the Lake Michigan Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR). With the 

exception of the 8-hour standard for 

ozone, the Lake Michigan AQCR is 

designated as being in attainment or 

unclassifiable for all air-quality criteria 

pollutants in 40 CFR 81.350. 

There are approximately 650 people 

employed at the PBNP on a full-time 

basis, and 150 long and short-term 

contractors. This workforce is typically 

augmented by an additional 700 persons 

during regularly scheduled refueling 

outages. For the EPU work conducted 

during the spring 2011 outage and the 

fall 2011 outage, there will be 

approximately 1,200 more workers 

supplementing the typical 700 

additional workers scheduled for 

refueling outages. The workforce 

numbers would be somewhat larger 

than for a routine outage and would take 

longer to complete, but would still be of 

a relatively short duration 

(approximately 68 days). A typical 

refueling outage typically requires 35 

days to complete. During 

implementation of the EPU at PBNP, 

some minor and short duration air 

quality impacts would occur. The main 

source of the air emissions would be 

from the vehicles of the additional 

outage workers needed for the EPU 

work. An approximate 727 additional 

truck deliveries will be needed to 

support EPU modifications for the 

spring 2011 outage, and approximately 

888 additional truck deliveries will 

support the EPU modifications for the 

fall 2011 EPU modifications. 

The majority of the EPU work would 

be performed inside existing buildings 

and would not impact air quality. 

Operation of the reactor at the increased 

power level would not result in 

increased non-radioactive emissions 

that would have a significant impact on 

air quality in the region. Therefore, 

there would be no significant impact on 

air quality during and following 

implementation of the proposed EPU. 

Water Use Impacts 

Groundwater 

The PBNP is not connected to a 

municipal water system, and utilizes 

groundwater from the Silurian aquifer 

for potable and sanitary purposes 

withdrawn from five wells located 

within the plant yard. PBNP has 

approval from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

through the State’s water appropriation 

permit program for groundwater 

withdrawal from wells with a combined 

withdrawal for over 10,000 gallons per 

day (gpd). Groundwater withdrawals 

from these five wells at PBNP have 

historically averaged about 6.5 gallons 

per minute (gpm) (9,300 gpd). While 

potable water in the vicinity of PBNP is 

drawn primarily from Lake Michigan, 

groundwater does provide potable water 

for smaller towns and rural residences 

in the plant region. 

Groundwater samples taken from 

PBNP’s supply wells as part of the 

PBNP site environmental monitoring 

program have shown no contamination. 

There are no discharges to groundwater 

from PBNP requiring permits by 

regulatory agencies, and discharge of 

wastewater to onsite retention ponds 

ended in 2002. 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

The EPU is not projected to increase 

groundwater use or liquid effluent 

discharges by PBNP during the 

operating life of the plant. As a result, 

local and regional groundwater users 

would not be affected by the proposed 

EPU. While potable water use would be 

expected to increase over the short term 

in association with the influx of the 

1,200 additional workers supporting 

EPU implementation activities, this 

potential increase would be within the 

capacity of PBNP’s wells and would be 

unlikely to have any effect on other 

groundwater users. Therefore, there 

would be no significant impact on 

groundwater resources following 

implementation of the proposed EPU. 

Surface Water 

The PBNP uses surface water from 

Lake Michigan for its once-through 

cooling system for both units for its 

plant condenser cooling, auxiliary water 

systems, the service water system, and 

for fire protection. The cooling system 

removes waste heat from the condensers 

and other plant equipment, and 

discharges the water through separate 

flumes for each unit back into Lake 

Michigan. As described in the licensee’s 

application and SEIS–23, cooling water 

is circulated through PBNP at 680,000 

gpm, and will remain unchanged under 

EPU conditions. Thus, no change in 

PBNP’s water use or on the availability 

of water for other Lake Michigan users 

is expected. 

Main condenser cooling water is 

withdrawn from Lake Michigan at a 

depth of approximately 22 feet (7 

meters) from an offshore intake located 

approximately 1,750 feet (533 meters) 

east of the shoreline. The plant has two 

discharges located about 200 feet (60 

meters) from the shoreline. Nonradioactive chemical effluent discharges 

into Lake Michigan are regulated in 

accordance with a WPDES permit (WI– 

0000957–07). The licensee submitted an 

application for renewal to the State in 

December 2008. The current WPDES 

permit is valid until the new WPDES 

permit is issued. The licensee’s 

evaluation stated that no significant 

changes in WPDES permit-regulated 

discharges to outfalls are expected from 

EPU operations. Therefore, there would 

be no significant impact on surface 

water resources following 

implementation of the proposed EPU. 

Aquatic Resources Impacts 

The potential impacts to aquatic biota 

from the proposed action could include 

impingement, entrainment, and 

chemical and thermal discharge effects. 

A permanent acoustic fish-deterrent 

system was installed around the intake 

structure at PBNP in 2002, to help 

reduce the influx of fish into the intake 

structure and to reduce potential 

impingement. The intake structure was 

originally constructed in an area of the 

lake devoid of fish spawning habitat or 

nursery grounds, which reduces the rate 

of entrainment. The proposed EPU will 

not result in an increase in water being 

withdrawn from Lake Michigan, nor 

will it result in an increase in the 

amount of water discharged to Lake 

Michigan. Therefore, there would be no 

additional impact to aquatic biota from 

entrainment and impingement from the 

proposed EPU. 

While the proposed EPU would not 

result in an increase in the amount of 

water discharged into Lake Michigan, it 

would result in an approximate 17 

percent increase in the amount of waste 

heat discharged into Lake Michigan. 

According to a modeling study 

performed by the licensee in 2008, the 

temperature of the discharge water is 

expected to increase by a maximum of 

3.6 °F (2.0 °C) as a result of the proposed 

EPU. Although the cooling water 

thermal plume of PBNP is expected to 

be somewhat larger as a result of the 

proposed EPU, it is not expected to 

disrupt the balanced indigenous 

community of aquatic resources, and 

will have a negligible impact on 

representative important species of Lake 

Michigan. The current WPDES permit 

for PBNP does not contain thermal 

effluent limitations. 

The circulating water system and 

service water system for PBNP are 

treated with biocides, sodium 

hypochlorite, and an electrolytic system 

adding copper to control biofouling 

from zebra mussels (Dreissena 

polymorpha) and to control algal 

growth. The NRC staff concluded in the 

SEIS–23 that there are no significant 

impacts of discharge of chlorine or other 

biocides during the license renewal 

term. The chemicals used for the above 

treatments at PBNP are regulated 

through the PBNP WPDES permit. The 

State of Wisconsin Coastal Management 

Program (WCMP) informed the licensee 

on March 16, 2010, that the WCMP has 

no comments on the project and will not 

conduct a Federal consistency review 

for PBNP as part of their WPDES permit. 

The licensee has noted that they will 

maintain compliance with the WPDES 

permit and all other licenses, permits, 

approvals or other requirements 

currently held by the plant as a function 

of the proposed EPU. Therefore, there 

would be no significant adverse impacts 

to the aquatic biota from entrainment, 

impingement, thermal discharges, or 

from biocides for the proposed action. 

Terrestrial Resources Impacts 

As discussed in the Plant Site and 

Environs section, the PBNP site consists 

of approximately 1,260 acres, with over 

2 miles (3 kilometers) of shoreline on 

Lake Michigan. Approximately 104 

acres are used for power generation and 

support facilities. Much of the 

remaining area (1,050 acres) is farmed, 

and approximately 100 acres consists 

largely of woods, wetlands, and open 

areas. As previously discussed in the 

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts section, 

the proposed action would not affect 

land use at PBNP. Therefore, there 

would be no significant impacts on 

terrestrial biota associated with the 

proposed action. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Impacts 

Correspondence between the licensee 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) in connection with the PBNP 

license renewal environmental review 

indicated that no Federally-listed 

endangered, threatened, or candidate 

terrestrial or aquatic species are likely to 

occur in the vicinity of the PBNP site. 

However, two species that are Federallylisted, the endangered piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) and the 

threatened dune or Pitcher’s thistle 

(Cirsium pitchen) have been recorded in 

Manitowoc County. In addition, the 

dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris) has been 

documented in Brown County, which is 

traversed by the PBNP transmission 

line. The USFWS determined that 

portions of the PBNP shoreline may be 

suitable nesting habitat for the piping 

plover. And there is critical breeding 

habitat designated for the piping plover 

at Point Beach State Forest, which is 

approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) 

southeast of PBNP, although no piping 

plovers have been recorded as breeding 

at this location. The bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (now 

delisted, but still protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) 

has not been observed foraging on or 

near the plant area, but bald eagles have 

been observed foraging on smaller, 

interior water bodies that may be found 

near the transmission lines. Regardless, 

the planned construction-related 

activities related to the proposed EPU 

primarily involve changes to existing 

structures, systems, and components 

internal to existing buildings within the 

plant, and would not involve earth 

disturbance. While traffic and worker 

activity in the developed parts of the 

plant site during the spring 2011 and 

fall 2011 refueling outages would be 

somewhat greater and of longer duration 

than for a normal refueling outage, the 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 22931 

potential impact on terrestrial wildlife 

would be minor and temporary. 

Since there are no planned changes to 

the terrestrial wildlife habitat on the 

PBNP site from the proposed EPU, and 

the potential impacts from worker 

activity would be minor and temporary, 

there would be no significant impacts to 

any threatened or endangered species 

for the proposed action. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Impacts 

Records at the Wisconsin Historical 

Society identify several historic and 

archaeological sites in the vicinity of 

PBNP and three sites on PBNP property. 

None of these sites have been 

determined eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). There are a number of historic 

properties in Manitowoc County listed 

on the NRHP and the nearest, the 

Rawley Point Light Station, is within 6 

miles (10 kilometers) of PBNP. 

As previously discussed, all EPUrelated plant modifications, except for 

construction of the two parking facilities 

in the fallow farm field, would take 

place within existing buildings and 

facilities at PBNP, including replacing 

two electrical transformers on an 

existing pad. Since no ground 

disturbance or construction-related 

activities would occur outside of 

previously disturbed areas and existing 

electrical transmission facilities, there 

would be no significant impact from 

EPU-related plant modifications on 

historic sites and to archaeological 

resources located on and within the 

vicinity of the PBNP. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Potential socioeconomic impacts from 

the proposed EPU include temporary 

increases in the size of the workforce at 

the PBNP and associated increased 

demand for public services, housing, 

and increased traffic in the region. The 

proposed EPU could also increase tax 

payments due to increased power 

generation. 

Currently, there are approximately 

650 people employed at the PBNP on a 

full-time basis, and 150 long- and shortterm contractors, residing primarily in 

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. During 

regularly scheduled refueling outages 

the number of workers at PBNP 

increases by as many as 700 workers for 

35 days. 

The proposed EPU is expected to 

temporarily increase the size of the 

refueling outage workforce by 

approximately 1,200 additional workers. 

The refueling outage would last 

approximately 68 days during two 

refueling outages (one for each unit). 

The majority of the EPU-related 

modifications would take place during 

the Spring 2011 and Fall 2011 refueling 

outages. Once completed, the size of the 

refueling outage workforce at the PBNP 

would return to approximately 700 

workers, with no significant increases 

during future refueling outages. After 

EPU-related plant modifications, the 

number of plant operations workers 

would return to approximately 800 

workers. 

Most of the EPU-related plant 

modification workers would relocate 

temporarily to Manitowoc County, 

resulting in short-term increases in the 

local population along with increased 

demands for public services and 

housing. Because plant modification 

work would be short-term, most workers 

would stay in available rental homes, 

apartments, mobile homes, and campertrailers. According to the 3-year average 

estimate (2006–2008) for census housing 

data, there were nearly 3,200 vacant 

housing units in Manitowoc County that 

could potentially ease the demand for 

local rental housing. Therefore, a 

temporary increase in plant 

employment for a short duration would 

have little or no noticeable effect on the 

availability of housing in the region. 

The additional number of refueling 

outage workers and truck material and 

equipment deliveries needed to support 

EPU-related plant modifications would 

cause short-term level of service impacts 

on access roads in the immediate 

vicinity of PBNP. Due to the short 

duration of the outages, increased traffic 

volumes during normal refueling 

outages typically have not degraded the 

level of service capacity on local roads. 

However, an additional 727 truck 

deliveries are anticipated to support 

implementation of the EPU 

modifications during the spring 2011 

outage, and an additional 888 deliveries 

are anticipated to support the fall 2011 

outage. Based on this information and 

given that EPU-related plant 

modifications would occur during a 

normal refueling outage, there could be 

noticeable short term (during certain 

hours of the day) level-of-service traffic 

impacts beyond what is experienced 

during normal outages. During periods 

of high traffic volume (i.e., morning and 

afternoon shift changes), work 

schedules could be staggered and 

employees and/or local police officials 

could be used to direct traffic entering 

and leaving PBNP to minimize level of 

service impacts on State Route 42. 

NextEra pays a lump sum gross 

revenue tax to the State of Wisconsin in 

lieu of property taxes. Portions of this 

tax are based on the ‘‘net book value’’ of 

the PBNP and the amount of megawatts 

generated. The annual amount of taxes 

paid by NextEra would increase due to 

increased power generation. Future tax 

payments would also take into account 

the increased net book value of the 

PBNP as a result of the EPU 

implementation and incentive 

payments, should megawatt production 

exceed negotiated annual benchmarks 

as power generation increases. 

The proposed EPU would also 

increase local tax revenues generated by 

sales taxes and State and Federal 

income taxes paid by temporary workers 

residing in Manitowoc County. 

However, due to the short duration of 

EPU-related plant modification 

activities, there would be little or no 

noticeable effect on tax revenue streams 

in Manitowoc County. Therefore, there 

would be no significant adverse 

socioeconomic impacts from EPUrelated plant modifications and 

operations under EPU conditions in the 

vicinity of the PBNP. 

Environmental Justice Impacts 

The environmental justice impact 

analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority and low-income 

populations that could result from 

activities associated with the proposed 

EPU at the PBNP. Such effects may 

include human health, biological, 

cultural, economic, or social impacts. 

Minority and low-income populations 

are subsets of the general public 

residing in the vicinity of the PBNP, and 

all are exposed to the same health and 

environmental effects generated from 

activities at the PBNP. 

The NRC staff considered the 

demographic composition of the area 

within a 50-mile (80-km) radius of the 

PBNP to determine the location of 

minority and low-income populations 

and whether they may be affected by the 

proposed action. 

Minority populations in the vicinity 

of PBNP, according to the U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2000, comprise 7.6 

percent of the population 

(approximately 722,000 individuals) 

residing within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) 

radius of PBNP. The largest minority 

group was Hispanic or Latino 

(approximately 19,000 persons or 2.7 

percent), followed by Asian 

(approximately 17,000 persons or about 

2.4 percent). According to the U.S. 

Census Bureau, about 5.0 percent of the 

Manitowoc County population 

identified themselves as minorities, 

with persons of Asian origin comprising 

the largest minority group (2.0 percent). 

According to census data, the 3-year 

average estimate for 2006–2008 for the 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

minority population of Manitowoc 

County, as a percent of total population, 

increased to 6.4 percent, with persons of 

Hispanic or Latino origin comprising 

the largest minority group (2.5 percent). 

Low-income populations in the 

vicinity of PBNP, according to 2000 

census data, comprise approximately 

7,300 families and 40,900 individuals 

(approximately 3.8 and 5.7 percent, 

respectively) residing within a 50-mile 

(80-kilometer) radius of the PBNP. 

These individuals and families were 

identified as living below the Federal 

poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 

Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 

for a family of four. 

According to census data in the 2006– 

2008 American Community Survey 3– 

Year Estimates, the median household 

income for Wisconsin was $52,249, with 

10.7 percent of the State population and 

7.0 percent of families determined to be 

living below the Federal poverty 

threshold. Manitowoc County had a 

lower median household income 

average ($49,867) than the State of 

Wisconsin, but had lower percentages of 

county individuals (7.9 percent) and 

families (4.8 percent), respectively, 

living below the poverty level. 

Environmental Justice Impact Analysis 

Potential impacts to minority and 

low-income populations would mostly 

consist of environmental and 

socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, 

traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). Radiation doses from plant 

operations after the EPU are expected to 

continue to remain well below 

regulatory limits. 

Noise and dust impacts would be 

short-term and limited to onsite 

activities. Minority and low-income 

populations residing along site access 

roads could experience increased 

commuter vehicle traffic during shift 

changes. Increased demand for rental 

housing during the refueling outages 

that would include EPU-related plant 

modifications could disproportionately 

affect low-income populations. 

However, due to the short duration of 

the EPU-related work and the 

availability of rental housing, impacts to 

minority and low-income populations 

would be short-term and limited. 

According to census information, there 

were approximately 3,200 vacant 

housing units in Manitowoc County. 

Based on this information and the 

analysis of human health and 

environmental impacts presented in this 

environmental assessment, the proposed 

EPU would not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations residing in the 

vicinity of the PBNP. 

Non-Radiological Impacts Summary 

As discussed above, the proposed 

EPU would not result in any significant 

non-radiological impacts. Table 1 

summarizes the non-radiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

EPU at PBNP. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Land Use ..................................................................... No significant impact on land use conditions and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the 

PBNP. 

Air Quality .................................................................... Temporary short-term air quality impacts from vehicle emissions related to the workforce. 

No significant impacts to air quality. 

Water Use .................................................................... Water use changes resulting from the EPU would be relatively minor. No significant impact on groundwater or surface water resources. 

Aquatic Resources ....................................................... No significant impact to aquatic resources due to impingement, entrainment, and chemical or thermal discharges. 

Terrestrial Resources .................................................. No significant impact to terrestrial resources. 

Threatened and Endangered Species ......................... No significant impact to Federally-listed species. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources ....................... No significant impact to historic and archaeological resources on site or in the vicinity of 

the PBNP. 

Socioeconomics ........................................................... No significant socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related temporary increase in workforce. 

Environmental Justice .................................................. No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the PBNP. 

Radiological Impacts 

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid 

Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and 

Solid Waste 

PBNP uses waste treatment systems to 

collect, process, recycle, and dispose of 

gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that 

contain radioactive material in a safe 

and controlled manner within NRC and 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

radiation safety standards. The 

licensee’s evaluation of plant operation 

at the proposed EPU conditions shows 

that no physical changes would be 

needed to the radioactive gaseous, 

liquid, or solid waste systems. 

Radioactive Gaseous Effluents 

The gaseous waste management 

systems include the radioactive gaseous 

system, which manages radioactive 

gases generated during the nuclear 

fission process. Radioactive gaseous 

wastes are principally activation gases 

and fission product radioactive noble 

gases resulting from process operations, 

including continuous degasification of 

systems, gases collected during system 

venting, and gases generated in the 

radiochemistry laboratory. The 

licensee’s evaluation determined that 

implementation of the proposed EPU 

would not significantly increase the 

inventory of carrier gases normally 

processed in the gaseous waste 

management system, since plant system 

functions are not changing and the 

volume inputs remain the same. The 

analysis also showed that the proposed 

EPU would result in an increase 

(approximately 17.6 percent for noble 

gases, particulates, radioiodines, and 

tritium) in the equilibrium radioactivity 

in the reactor coolant, which in turn 

increases the radioactivity in the waste 

disposal systems and radioactive gases 

released from the plant. 

The licensee’s evaluation concluded 

that the proposed EPU would not 

change the radioactive gaseous waste 

system’s design function and reliability 

to safely control and process the waste. 

The existing equipment and plant 

procedures that control radioactive 

releases to the environment will 

continue to be used to maintain 

radioactive gaseous releases within the 

dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the 

as low as is reasonably achievable 

(ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I 

to 10 CFR part 50. 

Radioactive Liquid Effluents 

The liquid waste management system 

collects, processes, and prepares 

radioactive liquid waste for disposal. 

Radioactive liquid wastes include 

liquids from various equipment drains, 

floor drains, the chemical and volume 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 22933 

control system, steam generator 

blowdown, chemistry laboratory drains, 

laundry drains, decontamination area 

drains and liquids used to transfer solid 

radioactive waste. The licensee’s 

evaluation shows that the proposed EPU 

implementation would not significantly 

increase the inventory of liquid 

normally processed by the liquid waste 

management system. This is because the 

system functions are not changing and 

the volume inputs remain the same. The 

proposed EPU would result in an 

increase (approximately 17.6 percent) in 

the equilibrium radioactivity in the 

reactor coolant which in turn would 

impact the concentrations of radioactive 

nuclides in the waste disposal systems. 

Since the composition of the 

radioactive material in the waste and 

the volume of radioactive material 

processed through the system are not 

expected to significantly change, the 

current design and operation of the 

radioactive liquid waste system will 

accommodate the effects of the 

proposed EPU. The existing equipment 

and plant procedures that control 

radioactive releases to the environment 

will continue to be used to maintain 

radioactive liquid releases within the 

dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and 

ALARA dose standards in Appendix I to 

10 CFR part 50. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU 

Conditions 

The licensee stated that the in-plant 

radiation sources are expected to 

increase approximately linearly with the 

proposed increase in core power level. 

To protect the workers, the plant’s 

radiation protection program monitors 

radiation levels throughout the plant to 

establish appropriate work controls, 

training, temporary shielding, and 

protective equipment requirements so 

that worker doses will remain within 

the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and 

ALARA. 

In addition to the work controls 

implemented by the radiation protection 

program, permanent and temporary 

shielding is used throughout the PBNP 

to protect plant personnel against 

radiation from the reactor and auxiliary 

systems containing radioactive material. 

The licensee determined that the 

current shielding design, which uses 

conservative analytical techniques to 

establish the shielding requirements, is 

adequate to offset the increased 

radiation levels that are expected to 

occur from the proposed EPU. The 

proposed EPU is not expected to 

significantly affect radiation levels 

within the plant and therefore there 

would not be a significant radiological 

impact to the workers. 

Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions 

The primary sources of offsite dose to 

members of the public from the PBNP 

are radioactive gaseous and liquid 

effluents. As discussed above, operation 

at the proposed EPU conditions will not 

change the radioactive gaseous and 

liquid waste management systems’ 

abilities to perform their intended 

functions. Also, there would be no 

change to the radiation monitoring 

system and procedures used to control 

the release of radioactive effluents in 

accordance with NRC radiation 

protection standards in 10 CFR part 20 

and Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. 

Based on the above, the offsite 

radiation dose to members of the public 

would continue to be within regulatory 

limits and therefore, would not be 

significant. 

Radioactive Solid Wastes 

Radioactive solid wastes include 

solids recovered from the reactor 

coolant systems, solids that come into 

contact with the radioactive liquids or 

gases, and solids used in the reactor 

coolant system operation. The licensee 

evaluated the potential effects of the 

proposed EPU on the solid waste 

management system. The largest volume 

of radioactive solid waste is low-level 

radioactive waste which includes 

sludge, oily waste, bead resin, spent 

filters, and dry active waste (DAW) that 

result from routine plant operation, 

refueling outages, and routine 

maintenance. DAW includes paper, 

plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor 

sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types 

of waste generated during routine 

maintenance and outages. 

As stated by the licensee, the 

proposed EPU would not have a 

significant effect on the generation of 

radioactive solid waste volume from the 

primary reactor coolant and secondary 

side systems since the systems functions 

are not changing and the volume inputs 

remain consistent with historical 

generation rates. The waste can be 

handled by the solid waste management 

system without modification. The 

equipment is designed and operated to 

process the waste into a form that 

minimizes potential harm to the 

workers and the environment. Waste 

processing areas are monitored for 

radiation and there are safety features to 

ensure worker doses are maintained 

within regulatory limits. The proposed 

EPU would not generate a new type of 

waste or create a new waste stream. 

Therefore, the impact from the proposed 

EPU on radioactive solid waste would 

not be significant. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Spent fuel from the PBNP is stored in 

the plant’s spent fuel pool and in dry 

casks in the Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation. The PBNP is 

licensed to use uranium-dioxide fuel 

that has a maximum enrichment of 5 

percent by weight uranium-235. The 

typical average enrichment is 

approximately 4.8 percent by weight of 

uranium-235. The average fuel assembly 

discharge burnup for the proposed EPU 

is expected to be approximately 52,000 

megawatt days per metric ton uranium 

(MWd/MTU) with no fuel pins 

exceeding the maximum fuel rod 

burnup limit of 62,000 MWd/MTU. The 

licensee’s fuel reload design goals will 

maintain the PBNP fuel cycles within 

the limits bounded by the impacts 

analyzed in 10 CFR Part 51, Table S–3— 

Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Environmental Data, and Table S–4— 

Environmental Impact of Transportation 

of Fuel and Waste to and from One 

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power 

Reactor. Therefore, there would be no 

significant impacts resulting from spent 

nuclear fuel. 

Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses 

Postulated design-basis accidents are 

evaluated by both the licensee and the 

NRC staff to ensure that PBNP can 

withstand normal and abnormal 

transients and a broad spectrum of 

postulated accidents without undue 

hazard to the health and safety of the 

public. 

On December 8, 2008, the licensee 

submitted License Amendment Request 

(LAR) number 241 (LAR 241) to the 

NRC, to update its design basis accident 

analysis. In LAR 241, the licensee 

requests NRC approval to use a set of 

revised radiological consequence 

analyses using the guidance in NRC’s 

Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative 

Radiological Source Terms [AST] for 

Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at 

Nuclear Power Reactors. The analyses 

for LAR 241 are applicable for the 

power level in the proposed EPU. The 

NRC staff is evaluating LAR 241 

separately from the EPU to determine if 

it is acceptable to approve. The results 

of the NRC’s evaluation and conclusion 

will be documented in a Safety 

Evaluation Report that will be 

publically available in ADAMS. 

In LAR 241, the licensee reviewed the 

various design-basis accident (DBA) 

analyses performed in support of the 

proposed EPU for their potential 

radiological consequences and 

concludes that the analyses adequately 

account for the effects of the proposed 

EPU. The licensee states that the plant 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

site and its dose-mitigating engineered 

safety features remain acceptable with 

respect to the radiological consequences 

of postulated DBAs, since the calculated 

doses to members of the public meet the 

exposure guideline values specified in 

10 CFR 50.67 and General Design 

Criteria 19 in Appendix A of 10 CFR 

Part 50. If the NRC should approve LAR 

241, then the proposed EPU will not 

have a significant human health impact 

with respect to radiological 

consequences of DBAs. 

Radiological Impacts Summary 

As discussed above, the proposed 

EPU would not result in any significant 

radiological impacts. Table 2 

summarizes the radiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

EPU at the PBNP. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Radioactive Gaseous Effluents .......................... Amount of additional radioactive gaseous effluents generated would be handled by the existing 

system. 

Radioactive Liquid Effluents ............................... Amount of additional radioactive liquid effluents generated would be handled by the existing 

system. 

Occupational Radiation Doses ........................... Occupational doses would continue to be maintained within NRC limits. 

Offsite Radiation Doses ...................................... Radiation doses to members of the public would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection standards. 

Radioactive Solid Waste ..................................... Amount of additional radioactive solid waste generated would be handled by the existing system. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel ............................................. Amount of additional spent nuclear fuel would be handled by the existing system. 

Postulated Design- Basis Accident Doses ......... Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in the current environmental impacts. 

However, if the EPU were not approved 

for the PBNP, other agencies and 

electric power organizations may be 

required to pursue other means, such as 

fossil fuel or alternative fuel power 

generation, to provide electric 

generation capacity to offset future 

demand. Construction and operation of 

such a fossil-fueled or alternative-fueled 

plant may create impacts in air quality, 

land use, and waste management 

significantly greater than those 

identified for the proposed EPU at the 

PBNP. Furthermore, the proposed EPU 

does not involve environmental impacts 

that are significantly different from 

those originally identified in the PBNP 

Unit 1 or Unit 2 FESs, and the SEIS–23. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any resources than those previously 

considered in the FES. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on April 6, 2011, the NRC staff 

consulted with the State of Wisconsin 

official regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

official had no comments. Comments 

were received from the Wisconsin PSC 

and incorporated into the EA. The 

Wisconsin PSC has no objections to the 

projects as proposed. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the details provided in 

the EA, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action of implementing the 

PBNP EPU 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 April 7, 2009, and 

supplements dated May 13, 2010, and 

July 15, 2010 (on environmental issues). 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Publicly available records are available 

online in the NRC Library at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this page, the public can gain 

entry into ADAMS, which provides text 

and image files of the NRC’s public 

documents. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS should contact the 

NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, or 301–415–4737, or send an email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 

of April 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Terry A. Beltz, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9835 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the 

ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice 

of Meeting 

The ACRS Subcommittee on 

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment (PRA) will hold a meeting 

on May 11, 2011, Room T–2B3, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Monday, May 11, 2011—1 p.m. until 5 

p.m. 

The Subcommittee will hear a briefing 

on the plan and schedule for developing 

a level 3 PRA. The Subcommittee will 

hear presentations by and hold 

discussions with the NRC staff and 

other interested persons regarding this 

matter. The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the Full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 

Federal Official (DFO), John Lai 

(Telephone 301–415–5197 or E-mail: 

John.Lai@nrc.gov) five days prior to the 

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 

arrangements can be made. Thirty-five 

hard copies of each presentation or 

handout should be provided to the DFO 

thirty minutes before the meeting. In 

addition, one electronic copy of each 

presentation should be emailed to the 

DFO one day before the meeting. If an 

electronic copy cannot be provided 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES