Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47281 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 251–7404 or email to Richard.Jervey@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment a draft guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public such information 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the NRC’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

The draft regulatory guide (DG), 

entitled, ‘‘Quality Assurance Program 

Requirements for Research and Test 

Reactors,’’ is temporarily identified by 

its task number, DG–2001, which 

should be mentioned in all related 

correspondence. DG–2001 is proposed 

Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 2.5, 

dated May 1977. 

This guide describes a method 

acceptable to the staff of the NRC in 

complying with the Commission’s 

regulations with regard to the overall 

quality assurance program requirements 

for research and test reactors. 

Title 10, Section 50.34(a)(7), of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

50.34(a)(7)), requires each applicant for 

a construction permit to build a 

production or utilization facility to 

include, in its preliminary safety 

analysis report, a description of the 

quality assurance program to be applied 

to the design and construction of the 

structures, systems, and components of 

the facility. Furthermore, 10 CFR 

50.34(b)(6)(ii) requires that each 

applicant for a license to operate a 

facility include, in the final safety 

analysis report, a description of the 

managerial and administrative controls 

to be used to ensure safe operation. 

II. Further Information 

The NRC staff is soliciting comments 

on DG–2001. Comments may be 

accompanied by relevant information or 

supporting data and should mention 

DG–2001 in the subject line. Comments 

submitted in writing or in electronic 

form will be made available to the 

public’ in their entirety through the 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS). 

Because your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information, the NRC cautions 

you against including any information 

in your submission that you do not want 

to be publicly disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. You may submit 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

1. Mail comments to: Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, Mail Stop: TWB–05– 

B01M, Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2009–0396]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

3. Fax comments to: Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission at (301) 492–3446. 

Requests for technical information 

about DG–2001 may be directed to the 

NRC contact, R.A. Jervey at (301) 251– 

7404 or e-mail to 

Richard.Jervey@nrc.gov. 

Comments would be most helpful if 

received by November 13, 2009. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Although a time limit is given, 

comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

Electronic copies of DG–2001 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under Draft Regulatory Guides in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. Electronic copies are also 

available in ADAMS (http:// 

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

under Accession No. ML091460620. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR) located at 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR’s mailing address is 

USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. The PDR can also be reached by 

telephone at (301) 415–4737 or (800) 

397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–3548, and 

by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of September 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrea D. Valentin, 

Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, 

Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E9–22184 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47282 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

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 °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 cubicfeet-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, laydown 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 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 oncethrough 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 °F over the current 

discharge canal temperature, which 

ranges from 66 °F to 95 °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 °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 Federallylisted 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, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47284 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

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 EPUrelated 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 EPUrelated 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 nonradiological 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47285 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued 

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 Species ................ No significant impact to Federal- or State-listed species. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources .............. No significant impact to historic and 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 

ft3 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 

ft3 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 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/readingrm/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 pdr.Resource@nrc.gov. 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–36; NRC–2009–0278] 

Notice Extending the Deadline for 

Requesting a Hearing and Correcting 

Information Regarding the Procedure 

for Requesting a Hearing on a License 

Amendment Application Filed by 

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 

for the Hematite Decommissioning 

Project, Festus, MO 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice extending the deadline 

for requesting a hearing and correcting 

information regarding the procedure for 

requesting a hearing. 

DATES: Any request for a hearing must 

be filed by October 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Hayes, Project Manager, Materials 

Decommissioning Branch, Division of 

Waste Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Two White 

Flint North, Mail Stop T8F5, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852–2738; Telephone: (301) 415– 

5928; fax number: (301) 415–5928; email: john.hayes@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On July 6, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC or 

Commission) provided notice in the 

Federal Register of the opportunity to 

request a hearing on Westinghouse 

Electric Company LLC’s application for 

a license amendment that would allow 

it to dispose of NRC-licensed material at 

a U.S. Ecology facility near Grand View, 

Idaho. The deadline for requesting a 

hearing stated in the Federal Register 

notice was September 4, 2009. 

The NRC is extending the deadline for 

requesting a hearing on Westinghouse’s 

application until October 5, 2009. The 

NRC is also providing corrected 

information regarding the procedure for 

requesting a hearing. As explained 

below, any hearing request must be 

served in accordance with the NRC’s EFiling rules in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 

2. Finally, the NRC is providing a 

corrected reference number for one 

document listed in the July 6, 2009 

Federal Notice. 

II. Background 

By letter dated May 21, 2009, the NRC 

received a license amendment 

application from Westinghouse Electric 

Company LLC (WEC or the licensee), 

pertaining to its planned disposal of 

NRC-licensed source, byproduct and 

special nuclear material. Regarding this 

material, WEC seeks approval, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 20.2002, of proposed disposal 

procedures which are not otherwise 

authorized by NRC regulations. WEC 

holds NRC License No. SNM–00033, 

which authorizes the licensee to 

conduct decommissioning activities at 

its former fuel cycle facility located in 

Festus, Missouri. The amendment 

request seeks authorization allowing 

WEC to transfer decommissioning waste 

to U.S. Ecology Idaho, Inc., a Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Subtitle C disposal facility located near 

Grand View, Idaho. This facility is 

regulated by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality, and is not an 

NRC-licensed facility. Pursuant to 10 

CFR 30.11 and 70.17, WEC’s application 

also requested exemptions from the 

licensing requirements of 10 CFR 30.3 

and 70.3 for the byproduct and special 

nuclear material it seeks to transfer. 

These exemptions are necessary because 

the disposal of byproduct and special 

nuclear material must occur at a facility 

licensed to possess such material, and 

the U.S. Ecology Idaho facility has no 

NRC license. 

An NRC administrative review, 

documented in a letter to Westinghouse 

dated June 19, 2009, found the alternate 

disposal application acceptable to begin 

a technical review. If the NRC approves 

the Westinghouse request, the approval 

will be documented in an amendment to 

NRC License No. SNM–00033. However, 

before approving the proposed 

amendment, the NRC will need to make 

the findings required by the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

These findings will be documented, 

respectively, in a Safety Evaluation 

Report (SER), and in a separate 

environmental assessment performed by 

the NRC. 

III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

On July 6, 2009, the NRC provided 

notice of Westinghouse’s application for 

the license amendment described above. 

In accordance with the general 

requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR 

Part 2, any person whose interest may 

be affected by this proceeding and who 

desires to participate as a party must file 

a written request for a hearing and a 

specification of the contentions which 

the person seeks to have litigated in the 

hearing. Any person filing a hearing 

request must do so by October 5, 2009. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

hearing request or petition for leave to 

intervene shall set forth with 

particularity the interest of the 

requestor/petitioner in the proceeding 

and how that interest may be affected by 

the results of the proceeding. The 

request should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements: (1) 

The name, address and telephone 

number of the requestor or petitioner; 

(2) the nature of the requestor’s/ 

petitioner’s right under the Act to be 

made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 

nature and extent of the requestor’s/ 

petitioner’s property, financial, or other 

interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 

possible effect of any decision or order 

which may be entered in the proceeding 

on the requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. 

The petition must also identify the 

specific contentions that the requestor/ 

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the 

proceeding. 

Each contention must consist of a 

specific statement of the issue of law or 

fact to be raised or controverted. In 

addition, the person submitting the 

hearing request or petition to intervene 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion that support the contention and 

on which the requester intends to rely 

in proving the contention at the hearing. 

The requestor must also provide 

references to those specific sources and 

documents of which the requester is 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES