[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47281-47287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22127]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-263; NRC-2009-0399]


Northern States Power Company, LLC, Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a draft 
Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of its evaluation of a request by 
Northern States Power Company (NSPM) for a license amendment to 
increase the maximum thermal power at the Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant (MNGP) from 1,775 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2,004 MWt. This 
represents a power increase of approximately 13 percent over the 
current licensed thermal power. As stated in the NRC staff's position 
paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended 
Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC staff will prepare an environmental 
impact statement if it believes a power uprate would have a significant 
impact on the human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any 
significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU 
application or during the NRC staff's review of other available 
information; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental 
review in this EA. Also, in accordance with the position paper, the 
draft EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are being published in 
the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period.

Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    The MNGP site is located in Monticello, Minnesota, along the 
southern bank of the Mississippi River at River Mile (RM) 900, 
approximately 30 miles (48 kilometers) northwest of Minneapolis/St. 
Paul, and east of Interstate Highway 94. The 2,150-acre (870-hectare) 
site consists of 2 miles (3 kilometers) of frontage on both banks of 
the Mississippi River, within portions of

[[Page 47282]]

Wright and Sherburne Counties. The plant and its supporting facilities 
occupy approximately 50 acres (20 hectares) in Wright County.
    MNGP is a single unit boiling water reactor that has been designed 
to allow operation using four water circulating modes to cool the 
system, and draws water from and discharges water to the Mississippi 
River. These four water circulating modes include an open-cycle (once-
through) system, a closed cycle system using two mechanical draft 
cooling towers, a helper cycle system, and a partial recirculation of 
the cooling water. The helper cycle cools water using both the open 
cycle to withdraw water from and discharge the water back to the 
Mississippi River, and the cooling towers to cool water prior to 
discharge to the river. The helper cycle is used when the discharge 
canal temperature approaches permit limits and upstream river 
temperatures are consistently at or above 68 [deg]F. MNGP operates in 
open cycle or helper cycle approximately 98 percent of the time. In the 
partial recirculation mode, 75 percent of the Mississippi River flow is 
withdrawn and the cooling towers are operating. A portion of the cooled 
water is recirculated to the intake and the remainder is discharged to 
the river. The partial recirculation mode is used when river flow is 
less than 860 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) but greater than 240 cfs, and 
the river temperature is elevated.

Identification of the Proposed Action

    By application dated November 5, 2008, as supplemented on January 
29, 2009 (on environmental issues only) the licensee requested an 
amendment for EPU for MNGP to increase the licensed thermal power level 
from 1,775 MWt to 2,004 MWt, which is an increase of 13 percent over 
the current licensed thermal power and a 20 percent increase over the 
original licensed thermal power. The Atomic Energy Commission 
(predecessor of the NRC) issued the Final Environmental Statement (FES) 
in November 1972, for the original license for MNGP. The NRC previously 
approved a 6.3 percent stretch power uprate in September 1998, 
increasing the power output from 1,670 MWt to 1,775 MWt. The NRC EA for 
that action resulted in a finding of no significant impact and was 
published in the Federal Register on September 1, 1998 (63 FR 46489). 
In addition, the NRC issued a Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement, NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 (SEIS-26) in August 2006, 
associated with renewing the operating license for MNGP for an 
additional 20 years. This proposed amendment for an EPU would result in 
an increase in production of electricity and the amount of waste heat 
delivered to the condenser, requiring an increase to the amount of 
water withdrawn from the Mississippi River for cooling purposes, and a 
subsequent increase in the temperature of the water discharged back to 
the Mississippi River.
    The licensee plans to implement the proposed EPU in two phases to 
coincide with two refueling outages. The first refueling outage is 
scheduled for late 2009, with a corresponding increase in power of 
approximately 50 MWt to a total of 1,825 MWt. The second refueling 
outage is scheduled for 2011, and the power level will be increased to 
the maximum of 2,004 MWt.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The need for the additional power generation is based upon NSPM's 
15-year Resource Plan that includes a forecast of an average annual 
increase of peak electrical demand of 1.2 percent through NSPM's 2008-
2022 planning period. This forecast for increased energy includes 
NSPM's resource obligations for summer peak net demand, minimum reserve 
requirements, its committed resources, and other contracted 
obligations. This increase in power demand would partially be met by 
the increased amount of power output proposed for MNGP along with other 
energy sources.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    At the time of issuance of the operating license for MNGP in 1972, 
the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license would 
be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the FES for the 
operation of MNGP. In addition, the NRC published the SEIS-26 in 2006, 
which evaluated the environmental impacts of operating MNGP for an 
additional 20 years, and determined that the environmental impacts of 
license renewal were small. The sections below summarize the non-
radiological and radiological impacts in the environment that may 
result from the proposed action of 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 MNGP. 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. No new construction would occur outside of existing 
facilities and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, 
equipment storage areas, or transmission facilities would be required 
to support the proposed EPU, although some transmission and 
distribution equipment may be replaced or modified.
    Existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices, 
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during plant 
modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not change at MNGP. 
Also, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines (no 
new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission 
corridors, switch yards, or substations.
    Since land use conditions would not change at MNGP, and because any 
land disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas, there 
would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources in the vicinity of 
MNGP. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 
significant impact from EPU-related plant modifications on land use and 
aesthetic resources in the vicinity of MNGP.

Air Quality Impacts

    During implementation of the EPU at the MNGP site, some minor and 
short duration air quality impacts would likely occur. Emissions from 
the vehicles of workers would be the main sources of these air quality 
impacts. Wright County, where MNGP is located, is designated as a 
maintenance area for carbon monoxide. The NSPM indicated that an 
additional 500 temporary employees would be needed for the duration of 
the project. The majority of the workforce would reside within the 
county where MNGP is located. The screening analysis performed by the 
licensee for the proposed Monticello EPU projects that annual average 
vehicular traffic would increase by approximately 2 percent. The 
majority of the EPU-associated activities would be performed inside 
existing buildings and will not cause additional atmospheric emissions. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant 
impact on air quality during and following implementation of the 
proposed EPU.

Water Use Impacts

Groundwater

    MNGP uses groundwater for domestic-type water uses and limited 
industrial use. Groundwater is obtained

[[Page 47283]]

from six on-site wells, two of which are permitted and regulated by the 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) through the State's 
water appropriation permit program. These two wells produce 100 gallons 
per minute (gpm) each and provide domestic water to restrooms, showers, 
and laundries and industrial use water to the MNGP reverse osmosis 
system, and to pump seals at the plant intake structure. Four 
additional small capacity wells that do not require an MDNR permit are 
used to supply domestic use water to buildings not connected to the 
permitted system. The proposed EPU will not significantly increase the 
use of domestic groundwater, and the volume of additional groundwater 
needed for industrial use is within the limits of the existing 
appropriations permit. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 
would be no significant impact on groundwater resources following 
implementation of the proposed EPU.

Surface Water

    MNGP uses surface water for plant condenser cooling, auxiliary 
water systems, service water cooling, intake screen wash, and fire 
protection. Under MDNR water appropriation permit number PA 66-1172-S, 
MNGP may withdraw up to 645 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the 
Mississippi River. Surface water consumption under EPU conditions is 
expected to be maintained within permitted limits. The upper limit of 
the permit is 8,700 ac-ft per year, which would not be reached because 
the cooling towers are typically operated in combination with the once-
through cooling system. As part of its environmental review for license 
renewal, the NRC staff stated in SEIS-26 that ``the consumptive loss 
due to evaporation from the cooling towers represent 4 percent of the 
river flow, which is not considered significant.'' The increased volume 
of circulation water will continue to have an insignificant effect on 
the total consumptive use of surface water at MNGP. The issue of 
discharge temperatures is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit discussed in the following section. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 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 
include impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharge effects.
    Since MNGP operates most of the time in open-cycle mode, an 
increase in river water appropriation for the EPU from the current 
consumptive rate of 509 cfs to 645 cfs may increase impacts from 
entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish in their early life 
stages. However, in a Section 316(a) Clean Water Act (CWA) 
Demonstration project in 1975, for MNGP that included an evaluation of 
plant impacts on aquatic organisms, the evidence indicated that 
operations of MNGP had not produced appreciable harm to the aquatic 
organisms in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of MNGP. In 
addition, in the SEIS-26, the NRC staff concluded in its assessment of 
the relicensing activities of MNGP that MNGP was in compliance with its 
current State of Minnesota NPDES permit, and in compliance with Section 
316(b) of the CWA regarding the use of best available technology for 
the minimization of adverse environmental impacts from entrainment and 
impingement, and further mitigation measures would not be warranted. 
Further, river water appropriation under EPU operation will not 
increase beyond the current maximum MNGP NPDES Permit limit of 645 cfs. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant 
adverse impacts from entrainment or impingement for the proposed 
action.
    According to the licensee, at the proposed EPU conditions, the 
temperature of the water entering the discharge canal is expected to 
increase by a maximum of 4.5 [deg]F over the current discharge canal 
temperature, which ranges from 66 [deg]F to 95 [deg]F depending upon 
the season. This can lead to changes to the length, width, and duration 
of the thermal plume across the Mississippi River. However, the 
licensee states in the application that when canal discharge 
temperatures have approached the limits of the NPDES permit, MNGP will 
reduce power in order to comply with NPDES thermal discharge 
requirements. The NRC staff previously noted in its SEIS-26 and review 
of MNGP's license renewal that, despite a few periods of non-compliance 
with the NPDES permit, there have been no indications of adverse 
impacts to the aquatic biota within the vicinity of the discharge 
plume. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 
significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota from thermal discharges 
for the proposed action.
    The licensee stated in the application that an increase of up to 
4.5 [deg]F for the effluent at the discharge canal over the current 
temperature would not result in a significant increase in the 
production of harmful thermophilic organisms in the discharge canal. 
The maximum temperature at the discharge canal would remain within the 
limits of the NPDES permit, and this temperature is also well below the 
temperature for maximum growth rate of thermophilic organisms. The NRC 
staff determined, in SEIS-26, that thermophilic organisms are not 
likely to occur as a result of discharges by MNGP into the Mississippi 
River. No further mitigation was necessary according to the NRC staff. 
Based upon the information provided in the application for EPU and the 
SEIS-26, the NPDES permit requirements for water temperature, and the 
Section 316(b) requirements of the CWA, the NRC staff concludes that 
the impact of thermophilic microbiological organisms from the proposed 
EPU would not be significant.

Terrestrial Resources Impacts

    According to the application and the previous discussion regarding 
land use, the proposed action will not affect any lands located outside 
of the inner security fence at MNGP. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 
that there would be no significant impacts on terrestrial biota 
associated with the proposed action.

Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts

    Few Federal- or State-listed aquatic species are known to exist in 
the four counties (Wright, Sherburne, Hennepin, and Anoka counties) in 
which MNGP and the related transmission lines are located, and no 
Federal- or State-listed aquatic species have been identified near 
MNGP. Similarly, no Federally-listed terrestrial species occur within 
the subject four counties. There are six State-listed species that 
occur or potentially occur in the vicinity of MNGP. However, because no 
changes are proposed to terrestrial wildlife habitat on the MNGP site 
or its vicinity from the proposed EPU, the NRC staff concludes that 
there would be no significant impacts to any threatened or endangered 
species for the proposed action.

Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts

    Historic and archaeological resources have been identified in the 
vicinity of MNGP, but not at MNGP. The licensee has no plans to 
construct new facilities or modify existing access roads, parking 
areas, or laydown areas for EPU operation. The licensee stated that 
onsite transmission and distribution equipment could be replaced or 
modified to support EPU activities,

[[Page 47284]]

however, these activities would be limited to previously disturbed 
areas. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 
significant impact from the proposed EPU on historic and archaeological 
resources at MNGP.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include 
temporary increases in the size of the workforce at MNGP and associated 
increased demand for public services and housing in the region. The 
proposed EPU could also increase tax payments due to increased power 
generation.
    Currently, there are approximately 327 full-time workers employed 
at MNGP, residing primarily in Wright County and Sherburne County, 
Minnesota. During refueling outages (approximately every 24 months) the 
number of workers at MNGP increases by as many as 600 workers for 30 to 
40 days.
    The proposed EPU is expected to temporarily increase the size of 
the workforce at MNGP during two refueling outages. Approximately 250 
additional workers would be needed during the 2009, refueling outage, 
and up to 500 additional workers would be needed during the 2011, 
refueling outage to support EPU-related activities at MNGP. Once 
completed, the proposed EPU would not increase the size of the MNGP 
workforce during future refueling outages.
    Most of the EPU plant modification workers would likely relocate 
temporarily to Wright and Sherburne counties, 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 could stay in available rental homes, 
apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. Since MNGP is located in 
a high population area and the number of available housing units 
exceeds demand, any temporary changes in plant employment would have 
little or no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in the 
region. Due to the short duration of plant outages and the availability 
of housing, there would be no significant employment-related housing 
impacts.
    NSPM currently pays annual real estate taxes to public School 
District 882, Wright County, and the City of Monticello. The proposed 
EPU could increase property tax payments because the total amount of 
tax money paid would increase as power generation increases and because 
the proposed EPU could increase the assessed market value of MNGP. Due 
to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification activities, 
there would be little or no noticeable effect on tax revenue streams 
from the temporary MNGP workers residing in Wright County and Sherburne 
County. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 
significant socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related plant modifications 
and operations under EPU conditions in the vicinity of MNGP.

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 EPU operation at MNGP. Such effects may 
include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 
impacts. Some of these potential effects have been identified in 
resource areas discussed in this EA. For example, increased demand for 
rental housing during plant modifications for the EPU could 
disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-
income populations are subsets of the general public residing around 
MNGP, and all are exposed to the same health and environmental effects 
generated from activities at MNGP.

Environmental Justice Impact Analysis

    The staff considered the demographic composition of the area within 
a 50-mile radius of MNGP to determine the location of minority and low-
income populations and whether they may be affected by the proposed 
action. According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000, the largest 
minority group was Black or African American (178,000 persons or 6.5 
percent), followed by Asian (132,000 or about 4.8 percent). Low-Income 
Populations in the Vicinity of MNGP were identified as living below the 
1999 Federal poverty threshold of $17,029 for a family of four. 
According to census data, Wright County and Sherburne County had higher 
median household income averages ($67,391 and $67,634) and lower 
percentages (both 5.0 percent) of individuals living below the poverty 
level, respectively.
    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).
    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 inexpensive rental housing during 
EPU-related plant modifications could disproportionately affect low-
income populations, but there are a sufficient number of rental housing 
units available to accommodate the increase of workers at MNGP during 
the outages. Due to the short duration of the EPU-related work and the 
availability of rental properties, impacts to minorities and low-income 
populations would be short-term and limited.
    Based on this information and the analysis of human health and 
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the NRC staff concludes 
that the proposed EPU operation would not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-
income populations residing in the vicinity of MNGP.

Non-Radiological Impacts Summary

    As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant non-radiological impacts. The NRC staff also anticipates 
that there would be no significant non-radiological cumulative impacts 
related to the proposed EPU. Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological 
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at MNGP.

       Table 1--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use.....................  No significant impact on land use
                                conditions and aesthetic resources in
                                the vicinity of MNGP.
Air Quality..................  Temporary short-term air quality impacts
                                from construction activities and vehicle
                                emissions related to travelling of the
                                workforce required to complete EPU
                                modifications; no significant air
                                quality impacts from such temporary
                                increase in workforce.
Water Use....................  Water use changes resulting from the EPU
                                would be relatively minor. No
                                significant impact on groundwater or
                                surface water resources.

[[Page 47285]]

 
Aquatic Resources............  No significant impact to aquatic
                                resources due to impingement and
                                entrainment or thermal discharge.
Terrestrial Resources........  No significant impact to terrestrial
                                resources.
Threatened and Endangered      No significant impact to Federal- or
 Species.                       State-listed species.
Historic and Archaeological    No significant impact to historic and
 Resources.                     archaeological resources on site or in
                                the vicinity of MNGP.
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 MNGP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and 
Solid Waste

    Nuclear power plants use 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 EPA radiation safety standards.

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents

    During normal power plant operation, the gaseous effluent treatment 
system processes and controls the release of radioactive gaseous 
effluents into the environment.
    Implementation of the proposed EPU would increase the production 
and activity of gaseous effluents by approximately 13 percent, which is 
in proportion to the proposed increase in power level. As reported by 
the licensee for the 2001-2006 time period, the average annual 
calculated maximum total body dose to an offsite member of the general 
public from gaseous effluents was 1.62E-02 mrem (1.62E-04 mSv). This 
dose is well below the 5 mrem (0.05 mSv) dose design objective in 
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Using the average annual maximum total 
body dose (provided by the licensee) to an offsite member of the 
general public from gaseous effluents, and assuming that the 13-percent 
EPU will result in a corresponding increase in dose, the NRC staff 
projects that the average annual calculated maximum total body dose to 
an offsite member of the general public from gaseous effluents would be 
1.83E-02 mrem (1.83E-04 mSv). Thus, the maximum offsite dose to the 
member of the public under the conditions of the EPU would remain well 
within the radiation standards of 10 CFR Part 20 and the design 
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that the potential increase in offsite dose due to gaseous 
effluent release following implementation of the EPU would not be 
significant.
    MNGP is authorized by the NRC to release a qualified amount of 
radioactive liquid effluent into the environment; however, by its own 
policy the licensee operates the plant as a zero radioactive liquid 
release plant. Therefore, there are no routine periodic releases of 
liquid radioactive effluents from the plant. MNGP's liquid radioactive 
waste management system collects and processes the liquid waste, and 
then either recycles the clean liquid within the plant or solidifies it 
for off-site disposal. The proposed EPU operation will not change the 
zero radioactive release policy at MNGP. No modifications to the liquid 
radioactive waste system would be needed to handle the increased liquid 
waste following implementation of the proposed EPU.
    In the EPU application, the licensee estimated that the proposed 
EPU would slightly increase the volume of radioactive liquid waste 
generated from 11,000 gals/day to 11,250 gals/day. This is a small 
increase in volume and can be accommodated by the radioactive liquid 
waste system capacity. Although the licensee strives to operate the 
plant as a zero liquid release plant, there were some radioactive 
liquid discharges in 2001, 2003, and 2004. As reported by the licensee 
for the 2001-2006 time period, the average annual calculated maximum 
total body dose to an offsite member of the general public from liquid 
effluents was 2.72E-06 mrem (2.72E-08 mSv). This annual dose is well 
below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 10 
CFR Part 50. Based on the licensee's ability to maintain a near zero 
liquid discharge status for several years, and the resulting dose from 
the few releases being well within NRC dose standards, there is 
reasonable assurance that the proposed EPU will not have a significant 
impact on future liquid discharges.
    In addition to the dose impact from gaseous and liquid radioactive 
effluents, the licensee evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the 
direct radiation (gamma radiation) from plant systems, liquid storage 
tanks, the turbine, and components containing radioactive materials.
    Based on the licensee's evaluation, the annual offsite dose to 
members of the public from direct radiation under EPU conditions would 
be approximately 6 mrem. Thus, the annual cumulative average calculated 
maximum total body dose to an offsite member of the general public from 
all sources of radiation from the facility (i.e., gaseous and liquid 
effluents, and direct radiation) following implementation of the 
proposed EPU would be approximately 7 mrem. This dose is well below the 
radiation dose limits and standards in 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR Part 
190. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential increase in 
offsite radiation dose to members of the public would not be 
significant.

Radioactive Solid Wastes

    The radioactive solid waste system collects, processes, packages, 
monitors, and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes 
prior to shipment offsite for disposal. The licensee reported in its 
environmental assessment that MNGP shipped annually, on average, 
approximately 706 ft\3\ of solid radioactive waste consisting of spent 
resin, filter sludge, evaporator bottoms, etc., during the 2001-2006 
time period. The licensee projects that implementation of the proposed 
EPU would cause an annual increase of 106 ft\3\ in the volume of the 
resins and result in one additional annual shipment. No modifications 
to the solid radioactive waste system would be needed to handle the 
increase in liquid waste following implementation of the proposed EPU. 
The total long-lived activity contained in the waste is expected to be 
bounded by the percentage of the EPU, and the increase in the overall 
volume of waste generated during operation under EPU conditions is 
expected to be minor. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 
impact from the increased volume of solid radwaste generated under 
conditions of the proposed EPU would not be significant.

[[Page 47286]]

    Spent fuel from MNGP is stored in the spent fuel pool and the newly 
constructed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The 
licensee estimates that the number of discharged assemblies would 
increase from 150 assemblies per cycle to approximately 170 assemblies 
per cycle following implementation of the proposed EPU. The storage 
capacity of the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI is sufficient to 
accommodate the expected small increase in discharged fuel assemblies. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant 
impact resulting from storage of the additional fuel assemblies.

Occupational Doses

    Implementation of the proposed EPU would result in the production 
of more radioactive material and higher radiation dose rates in the 
restricted areas at MNGP. Occupational exposures from in-plant 
radiation primarily occur during maintenance and refueling operations. 
Implementation of the proposed EPU is not expected to significantly 
change the amount of radiation exposure received by plant personnel, as 
the licensee has a radiation protection program that monitors radiation 
levels throughout the plant to establish work controls, shielding, and 
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain 
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and as low as is reasonably 
achievable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 
significant increase in the radiation exposure received by plant 
personnel due to implementation of the proposed EPU.

Postulated Accident Doses

    Implementation of the proposed EPU would increase the core 
inventory of radionuclides, which is dependent on power level. The 
concentration of the radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also 
increase in proportion to power level increase; however, this 
concentration is limited by the MNGP Technical Specifications. 
Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of radionuclides would not 
be expected to increase significantly. Some of the radioactive waste 
streams and storage systems evaluated for postulated accidents may 
contain slightly higher quantities of radionuclides. For those 
postulated accidents where the source term has increased, the 
calculated potential radiation dose to individuals at the exclusion 
area boundary, at the low population zone, and in the main control 
room, as well as in the technical support center for the loss-of-
coolant accident, remain below the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67.
    The NRC staff is reviewing the applicant's analyses to 
independently verify the applicant's calculated doses under accident 
conditions. The NRC staff's evaluation results will be contained in the 
safety evaluation that will be issued concurrently with the proposed 
EPU amendment, if so approved by the NRC staff. However, for the 
purpose of this EA, the NRC staff concludes that, based on the 
information provided by the licensee, the proposed EPU would not 
significantly increase the radiological consequences of postulated 
accidents.

Radiological Impacts Summary

    As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant radiological impacts. Because of existing regulatory 
requirements regarding limits to exposure, the NRC staff also 
anticipates that there would be no significant radiological cumulative 
impacts related to the proposed EPU, as the licensee is required to 
continue to comply with such regulatory requirements. Table 2 
summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU 
at MNGP.

         Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents  Doses from increased gaseous effluents
                                would remain within NRC limits and dose
                                design objectives.
Offsite Radiation Doses......  Radiation doses to members of the public
                                would remain small, well below NRC and
                                EPA Federal radiation protection
                                standards.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents.  EPU would not change routine liquid
                                radioactive effluent releases from MNGP;
                                the doses from discharges, if any, would
                                remain within NRC limits and dose design
                                objectives.
Radioactive Solid Wastes.....  Amount of solid waste generated would
                                increase by approximately 15 percent
                                (i.e., approximately 1 additional truck
                                shipment per year.
Occupational Doses...........  Occupational doses would continue to be
                                maintained within regulatory limits.
Postulated 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 ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current 
environmental impacts. However, if the EPU were not approved for MNGP, 
other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to 
pursue other means, such as fossil fuel power generation, of providing 
electric generation capacity to offset future demand. Construction and 
operation of such a fossil-fueled plant may create impacts in air 
quality, land use, and waste management significantly greater than 
those identified for the proposed EPU at MNGP. Conservation programs 
such as demand-side management could possibly replace the proposed 
EPU's additional power output. However, the regional forecasted future 
energy demand calculated by the licensee may exceed conservation 
savings and still require additional generating capacity. Alternative 
energy sources such as wind energy have been incorporated into NSPM's 
regional energy forecast.
    Furthermore, the proposed EPU does not involve environmental 
impacts that are significantly different from those originally 
identified in the MNGP FES.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the FES.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 7, 2009, the NRC 
staff consulted with the State of Minnesota official regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The Minnesota State 
official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the EA, the Commission concludes that the proposed 
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment. Accordingly, the Commission 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

[[Page 47287]]

application dated November 5, 2008, and its supplement dated January 
29, 2009 (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 will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 
e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c2c382e720e392f33292e3f391c322e3f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3c3d7c19de1d6c0dcc6c1d0d6f3ddc1d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of August 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lois James,
Branch Chief, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-22127 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>