Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65759

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE EPU AT DNPS

Impacts Impacts of the EPU at DNPS

Radiological Waste Stream Impacts ........................... The gaseous radioactive release volume would increase proportionally with the power increase. The liquid radioactive release volume is not expected to increase; however,

activity levels would increase proportionally with the power increase. Solid radioactive

waste will increase approximately 8 percent. Releases would be within regulatory limits.

Dose Impacts ............................................................... In-plant radiation levels would increase by 17 percent and dose would be maintained

ALARA. Offsite dose from liquid and gaseous effluents may increase up to 17 percent.

Calculated dose from sky shine will increase up to 17 percent. In-plant and offsite

dose would remain within the regulatory limits.

Accident Analysis Impacts ........................................... No significant increase in probability or consequences of accident.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts ...................... No significant increase. Impacts would remain within the conclusions of Table S–3 and

S–4 of 10 CFR Part 51.

Environmental Impacts of the

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., ‘‘the no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts; however, in the

DNPS vicinity other generating facilities

using nuclear or other alternative energy

sources, such as coal or gas, would be

built in order to supply generating

capacity and power needs. Construction

and operation of a coal plant would

create impacts to air quality, land use

and waste management. Construction

and operation of a gas plant would also

impact air quality and land use.

Implementation of the EPU would have

less of an impact on the environment

than the construction and operation of

a new generating facility and does not

involve new environmental impacts that

are significantly different from those

presented in the FES. Therefore, the

staff concludes that increasing DNPS

capacity is an acceptable option for

increasing power supply. Furthermore,

unlike fossil fuel plants, DNPS does not

routinely emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

oxides, carbon dioxide, or other

atmospheric pollutants that contribute

to greenhouse gases or acid rain.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any different resources than those not

previously considered in the DNPS FES,

dated 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 9, 2001, prior to issuance

of this environmental assessment, the

staff consulted with the Illinois State

official, Frank Niziolek, of the Illinois

Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

application dated December 27, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated February

12, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18, and 29,

June 5, 7, and 15, July 6 and 23, August

7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 (two letters),

29, and 31 (two letters), September 5

(two letters), 14, 19, 25, 26, and 27 (two

letters), November 2, 16, and 30, and

December 10, 2001. Documents may be

examined and/or copied for a fee, at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.

Publicly available records will be

accessible electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Electronic Reading Room). If you do

not have access to ADAMS or if there

are problems in accessing the

documents located in ADAMS, contact

the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, or

301–415–4737, or by e-mail at

pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Anthony J. Mendiola,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31330 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7950–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC,

Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,

Units 1 and 2; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact Related to a

Proposed License Amendment To

Increase the Maximum Thermal Power

Level

The NRC is considering issuance of an

amendment to Facility Operating

Licenses Nos. DPR–29 and DPR–30,

issued to Exelon for the operation of

QCNPS, Units 1 and 2, located on the

Mississippi River in Rock Island

County, Illinois. Therefore, as required

by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow

Exelon, the operator of QCNPS, to

increase its electrical generating

capacity at QCNPS by raising the

maximum reactor core power level from

2511 MWt to 2957 MWt. This change is

approximately 17.8 percent above the

current maximum licensed power level

for QCNPS. The change is considered an

extended power uprate (EPU) because it

would raise the reactor core power level

more than 7 percent above the original

licensed maximum power level. QCNPS

has not submitted a previous power

uprate application. A power uprate

increases the heat output of the reactor

to support increased turbine inlet steam

flow requirements and increases the

heat dissipated by the condenser to

support increased turbine exhaust steam

flow requirements.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendments dated December 27, 2000,

and supplemental information dated

65760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

February 12, March 20, April 6 and 13,

May 3, 18, and 29, June 5, 7, and 15,

July 6 and 23, August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two

letters), 14 (two letters), 29, and 31 (two

letters), September 5, 19, 25, and 27

(two letters), October 17, November 2

(two letters), 16, and 30, and December

10, 2001. The original amendment

request was submitted by

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd), the former licensee. ComEd

subsequently transferred the licenses to

Exelon. By letter dated February 7,

2001, Exelon informed the NRC that it

assumed responsibility for all pending

NRC actions that were requested by

ComEd.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Exelon evaluated its resource needs

for the period 2000–2014 and forecast a

28-percent increase in electrical demand

by 2014 within its Illinois service area.

The proposed EPU would provide

approximately 0.76 percent additional

generating capacity per unit at QCNPS.

Exelon stated that in order to stay

competitive, it must be able to fulfill not

only customer power demands, but it

also must sell power to other providers.

In Illinois, approximately 40 gas turbine

plants of various sizes are proposed to

be built. The proposed additional

generating capacity at QCNPS would

eliminate the need to build

approximately two 100 MWe gas

turbines.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

At the time of the issuance of the

operating licenses for QCNPS, the NRC

staff noted that any activity authorized

by the licenses would be encompassed

by the overall action evaluated in the

Final Environmental Statement (FES)

for the operation of QCNPS, which was

issued in September 1972. The original

operating licenses for QCNPS allowed a

maximum reactor power level of

2511MWt. On December 27, 2000,

Exelon submitted a supplement to its

Environmental Report supporting the

proposed EPU and provided a summary

of its conclusions concerning the

environmental impacts of the EPU at

QCNPS. Based on the staff’s

independent analyses and the

evaluation performed by the licensee,

the staff concludes that the

environmental impacts of the EPU are

bounded by the environmental impacts

previously evaluated in the FES,

because the EPU would involve no

extensive changes to plant systems that

directly or indirectly interface with the

environment. This environmental

assessment first discusses the nonradiological and then the radiological

environmental impacts of the proposed

EPU at QCNPS.

Non-Radiological Impacts at QCNPS

The following is the NRC staff’s

evaluation of the non-radiological

environmental impacts on land use,

water use, waste discharge, terrestrial

and aquatic biota, transmission

facilities, and social and economic

conditions at QCNPS.

Land Use Impacts

The licensee has no plans to construct

any new facilities or alter the land

around existing facilities, including

buildings, access roads, parking

facilities, laydown areas, or onsite

transmission and distribution

equipment, including power line rightsof-way, in conjunction with the uprate

or operation after the EPU. The EPU

would not significantly affect the

storage of materials, including

chemicals, fuels, and other materials

stored above or under ground.

Therefore, the FES conclusions on the

impacts on land use would be valid

under the EPU conditions.

Water Use Impacts

The steam produced by the QCNPS

turbines is condensed in the

condensers, demineralized, and

pumped back to the reactor vessel.

Approximately 2094 cubic feet per

second (cfs) of cooling water used in the

condensers is pumped from the

Mississippi River and does not come in

contact with the steam from the

turbines. The original design called for

a once-through cooling water system in

which the heated water used in the

condensers was combined with other

water discharges and returned to the

river downstream of the intake. Under

this system, the FES stated that full

power operation of both generating

units at a total of 5022 MWt will cause

a 23 °F temperature rise in 2270 cfs

(2100 cfs through the condensers and

170 cfs through the service water) of

Mississippi River water, the maximum

flow through QCNPS. The cooling

system has had several configurations

due to concerns over thermal effects on

the river biota. The original design

called for open-cycle discharge of

heated effluent along a straight wing

dam into the deeper, higher velocity

portion of the river. This system was

replaced with a diffuser system

consisting of 2 diffuser pipes laid across

the bottom of the main river channel

with regularly spaced jets that directed

heated water into the river. A closedcycle condenser cooling system was

installed next, which included a spray

canal with blow-down directed into a

third diffuser pipe in the river. The

spray canal was less efficient than

anticipated and partial open-cycle

operation of the condenser cooling

system was implemented next. Finally,

an extensive study concluded that

QCNPS could operate at full load in the

open-cycle mode while meeting

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

limits under most river flow conditions.

QCNPS presently operates in this opencycle mode.

Cooling water is withdrawn from the

Mississippi River through a canal that is

perpendicular to the river flow. The

canal is 235 feet long, 180 feet wide, and

12 feet deep. Intake velocity at the

mouth of the canal is about one foot per

second. A floating boom extending to a

depth of 33 inches covers the mouth of

the canal to deflect floating material.

Beyond the boom is a series of vertical

metal bars spaced 2.5 inches apart (trash

racks) that screen large pieces of debris

from the intake. Travel screens with a 3⁄8

inch mesh further protect the circulating

water pumps.

The staff evaluated surface water use

and groundwater use as environmental

impacts of water usage at QCNPS.

Current flow conditions, based on

equipment capacity constraints and

operating history, is 2192 cfs. The

licensee stated that the EPU would not

change the hydrodynamics of the

condenser cooling and that surface

water withdrawal rates or the maximum

flow of river water through QCNPS

would not be affected by the proposed

EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the

FES regarding surface water use are

expected to remain valid.

Groundwater is drawn from five wells

at QCNPS and is used for domestic

purposes, for raising fish in the former

spray canals, and for a variety of other

industrial applications. Groundwater is

not used for condenser cooling. The

licensee stated that the proposed EPU

would not involve an increase in the

consumptive use of groundwater. The

EPU would not impact the well water

system flow path and does not require

any additional cooling capacity from the

groundwater in order to shed heat loads.

Therefore, the staff’s conclusions in the

FES relative to groundwater use would

remain valid for the proposed EPU.

Waste Discharge Impacts

The staff considered chemical

discharges to surface water and sanitary

sewer systems, cold shock to an aquatic

biota, and air emission, as waste

discharge impacts.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65761

Surface Water and Sanitary Sewer

System Discharges:

QCNPS operates under a NPDES

permit issued by the State of Illinois

which covers discharges to the opencycle diffusers, wastewater treatment

system, sanitary waste treatment plant,

and radwaste treatment system

blowdown. Special Condition 6 of the

NPDES permit gives thermal limitations

at the downstream boundary of the

mixing zone, including a maximum

temperature rise above natural

temperature of 5 °F and maximum

temperature limits for each month of the

year. The permit also requires that the

mixing zone not exceed 26 acres of the

Mississippi River. To demonstrate

compliance at low river flow conditions

while operating under the open-cycle

mode (the present mode of operation), a

temperature monitoring curve was

developed that allows calculations of

permissible plant load as a function of

river water. The temperature monitoring

curve was modified in 1990, based on

measurements taken during the drought

years of 1988 and 1989. Based on this

temperature monitoring curve, Special

Condition 6 of the NPDES permit states

that compliance is demonstrated when

river flows are greater than 16,000 cfs

and ambient river temperature is 5 °F or

more below the maximum monthly

limit. For river flows between 11,000 cfs

and 16,000 cfs, compliance is

demonstrated by either adjusting plant

load based on the correlation in the

temperature monitoring curve, or by

actual monitoring of river temperatures

at the downstream boundary of the

mixing zone. At river flows less than 11,

000 cfs, the permit requires temperature

monitoring at the downstream boundary

of the mixing zone. The licensee

proposes to modify the temperature

monitoring curve to account for the

increase in temperature of the

discharged river water resulting from

the EPU condition. Under EPU

conditions, the maximum condenserwater temperature rise will be 28 °F; 5

°F higher than the current total

maximum (condenser and service water)

temperature rise of 23 °F. The revised

temperature monitoring curve would

raise the minimum river flows required

for demonstrating compliance using

river temperature monitoring at the

downstream boundary of the mixing

zone or adjusting plant load in

accordance with the temperature

monitoring curve correlation. The flow

at which the actual river temperature

monitoring must be performed or plant

load adjustment must be made increases

from 16,000 cfs to 21,100 cfs under the

proposed revised temperature

monitoring curve. The licensee

discussed the proposed monitoring

curve change on July 28, 2000, with the

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (IEPA). A second meeting was

held on December 15, 2000. The

licensee made a formal request to revise

the NPDES permit by letter dated March

14, 2001. Subsequent discussions

between the licensee and the staff

occurred on March 29, 2001, and

October 17, 2001. The licensee stated

that the IEPA would consult with and

obtain the Iowa Department of Natural

Resources (IDNR) concurrence before

issuing a permit revision, in accordance

with 40 CFR 123.10, ‘‘Public notice of

permit actions and public comment

period.’’ The licensee stated that the

IEPA issued the draft NPDES permit

revision on October 15, 2001, for a 30-

day public comment period. Full

implementation of the EPU will not be

accomplished until the IEPA and IDNR

have given their concurrence to change

the monitoring curve. Contingent on the

concurrence of the IEPA and IDNR, it is

the staff’s conclusion that the FES

would remain bounding under the EPU

conditions.

QCNPS monitors wastewater streams

as required by the NPDES permit, and

only uses approved chemicals for

conditioning water to prevent scaling,

corrosion, and biofouling. Because an

increase in the design capacity to

withdraw water from the Mississippi

River is not proposed for the EPU, the

licensee stated that the current practices

would not be altered.

Cold Shock

Cold shock to aquatic biota results

when the warm water discharge from a

plant abruptly stops due to an

unplanned shutdown, resulting in a

river water temperature drop and the

death of aquatic biota. The increased

temperature of the QCNPS discharge is

not expected to create cold shock to

aquatic biota because of the extended

period of time required to remove heat

from the reactor and the rapid heat

dissipation in the mixing zone from the

diffuser’s outfall. The probability of an

unplanned shutdown is independent of

power uprate. Therefore, the risk of fish

being killed by cold shock would

continue to be bounded by the FES.

Air Emissions

Other waste sources at QCNPS

include emissions from the plant

heating boiler and diesel generators.

Effluents from these pathways are

controlled as required by the Clean Air

Act. The EPU does not have a

significant impact on the quality or

quantity of effluents from these sources,

and operation under power uprate

conditions would not reduce the margin

to the limits established by the

regulations. Therefore, the conclusions

in the FES would remain valid.

Terrestrial Biota Impacts

A relatively small number of

threatened and endangered terrestrial

species have been recorded in Rock

Island County, Illinois, and across the

river in Muscatine and Scott counties,

Iowa. The western prairie fringed orchid

(Platanthera praceclara), eastern prairie

fringed orchid (Platanthaera

leucophaea), Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) are Federally-listed

threatened or endangered terrestrial

species and were identified in 1999 in

either Rock Island, Muscatine, or Scott

counties. The proposed EPU would not

disturb the habitat of these species and

would not affect their distribution. The

FES stated that the operation of QCNPS

is not expected to have any further

adverse effect on the terrestrial flora or

fauna, except to the extent that traffic on

access roads and human activities

related to station operation may force

some wildlife away from the heavily

used areas. Implementation of the EPU

would not alter these conditions.

Therefore, the conclusions reached by

the staff in the FES relative to impact on

terrestrial ecology, including

endangered and threatened plant and

animal species, remain valid for the

proposed EPU.

Aquatic Biota Impacts

The staff evaluated the impingement,

entrapment, and the rise in water

discharge temperature on aquatic biota.

The Mississippi River is a large and

productive ecosystem. Effects on river

biota, such as the phytoplankton,

zooplankton, periphyton, benthic

invertebrate, gizzard shad, freshwater

drum, emerald shiner, river shiner, carp,

bluegill, fish eggs, and larvae, from

QCNPS have been investigated by the

licensee. Local effects on lower trophic

levels were apparent from these studies,

but overall population levels in the

vicinity of the QCNPS were not

adversely affected. Effects on the

abundance of fish eggs and larvae by

QCNPS operation have been minimal.

No verifiable effects on the fish biota

from QCNPS operation have been

found. Exelon, along with Southern

Illinois University, carries out a stocking

program. Fish, such as walleye and

hybrid striped bass, are raised in

QCNPS’s inactive cooling canal and

then released to the Mississippi River.

Increases in the populations of these

species have been found in the vicinity

65762 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

of QCNPS due to the river stocking

program. Additionally, freshwater

drum, channel catfish, flathead catfish,

and white bass have also increased in

abundance, while white and black

crappie (backwater fish) have decreased

in abundance as sedimentation

associated with maintenance of the

navigation channel has degraded

backwater area and sloughs.

The EPU would cause temperature in

the condenser cooling system to be

higher than those associated with

previous studies of thermal effects. The

EPU would raise river water

temperature in the condenser cooling

system to a maximum of 28 °F above

ambient, rather than the current

maximum of 23 °F. The higher

temperature is expected to cause a

higher mortality rate for organisms

entrained in the system. The

entrainment of fish eggs and larvae may

affect more species, with the possible

exception of fish that spawn early in the

year. The fish egg and larva entrainment

rate, which historically is 0.5 to 1

percent of the total drifting by QCNPS,

would not change because water

withdrawals would remain the same.

The overall effect of an increase in

entrained plankton mortality would not

be significant for the local populations

involved.

Higher effluent temperatures at the

EPU conditions may also have an

increased effect on non-motile biota in

the discharge mixing zone. Drifting fish

eggs and larvae mortality may increase

in the mixing zone because fish eggs

and larvae are more likely to succumb

to upper lethal temperatures as opposed

to a particular temperature increase.

This is only expected to affect species

that spawn late, after the peak period of

larval drift, when ambient river

temperatures are high and river flow

may be lower. Fish eggs and larvae

losses at low river flows are expected to

be fairly small in total, and based on an

approximate low river flow return

frequency of once in 10 years, it is

expected that these losses would not

negatively affect recruitment to the fish

community of Pool 14, which is the

body of water directly behind Lock 14

on the Mississippi River.

A preliminary study of Federallylisted aquatic threatened and

endangered species in the vicinity of

QCNPS (within 32 kilometers)

performed in 1996 by the Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory listed

the fanshell (cyprogenia stegaria),

Higgin’s eye pearly mussel (lampsilis

higginsi), and fat pocketbook (potamilus

capax). The Federally-endangered clams

are not expected to be exposed to the

high temperatures associated with the

uprate because its preferred habitat does

not include the main channel of the

Mississippi River at this location. Some

alteration in the timing of life cycles

stages of other mussel species could

occur. Adult and juvenile fish would be

expected to avoid the increased

temperature in the mixing zone and not

be harmed. The FES notes the existence

of the paddlefish (polyodon spathula);

however, the paddlefish has not been

collected near QCNPS recently.

Eight fish species listed by the States

of Illinois and Iowa have been collected

in the general vicinity of the diffusers.

Of these, the grass pickerel (Esox

americanus) and the western sand

darter (Ammocrypta clara) are the most

frequently collected. Grass pickerel is

the only Illinois State-listed species in

Pool 14 that may have a sustainable

population. Individuals collected from

other species appear only as transient in

Pool 14. The grass pickerel is mainly

taken in littoral and backwater areas and

it is not expected to be in the main

channel where elevated temperatures

would occur. The western sand darter is

occasionally collected in the main

channel (10 specimens over a 25 year

period) and could be exposed to high

temperatures in the mixing zone area.

Other than the pearly mussel and the

fish mentioned above, no rare species

are expected to occur in the vicinity of

QCNPS.

Fish may become impinged on the

intake structures protecting the

condenser cooling water pumps because

of water velocities leading into the

structures and the diminished physical

condition of the fish. Impingement has

not had a deleterious effect on fish

populations in the vicinity of QCNPS

because sampling indicated that

impingement affects mostly dead and

moribund fish. There is no change in

cooling water flow proposed for the

EPU. Therefore, no differences in

impingement rates are expected.

Based on the above, the staff expects

that the conclusions in the FES about

aquatic biota, including impingement

and entrainment, and threatened and

endangered species, would remain

bounding under the proposed EPU

conditions.

Transmission Facility Impacts

Environmental impacts, such as the

installation of transmission line

equipment, or exposure to

electromagnetic fields and shock, could

result from a major modification to

transmission line facilities. The licensee

stated that there would be no change in

operating transmission voltages, onsite

transmission equipment, or power line

rights-of-way to support the proposed

EPU conditions. No new equipment or

modification would be necessary for the

offsite power system to maintain grid

stability. However, an increase in onsite

power would be required to support

new equipment associated with the

EPU. Power to service these additional

energy needs would come from QCNPS’’

existing power supplies. Therefore, no

significant environmental impacts from

changes in the transmission design and

equipment are expected, and the

conclusions in the FES would remain

valid.

The electromagnetic field (EMF)

created by the transmission of electricity

would increase linearly as a function of

power. However, exposure to EMFs

from the offsite transmission system

would not be expected to increase

significantly and any such increase

would not be expected to change the

staff’s conclusions in the FES that there

are no significant biological effects

attributable to EMFs from high-voltage

transmission lines.

No changes in transmission facilities

would be needed for the EPU. QCNPS

transmission lines are designed and

constructed in accordance with the

applicable shock prevention provisions

of the National Electric Safety Code.

Therefore, the expected slight increase

in current, attributable to the proposed

EPU, is not expected to change the

staff’s conclusion in the FES that

adequate protection is provided against

hazards from electrical shock.

Social and Economic Impacts

The staff has reviewed information

provided by the licensee regarding

socioeconomic impacts, including

possible impacts to the QCNPS

workforce and local economy. QCNPS

employs more than 800 people and is a

major contributor to the local tax base.

QCNPS personnel also contribute to the

tax base by payment of sales and

property tax. The proposed EPU would

not significantly affect the size of the

QCNPS workforce and would have no

material effect upon the labor force

required for future outages. Because the

plant modifications needed to

implement the EPU would be minor,

any increase in sales tax and additional

revenues to local and national business

would be negligible relative to the large

tax revenues generated by QCNPS. It is

expected that improving the economic

performance of QCNPS through lower

total bus bar costs per kilowatt-hour

would enhance the value of QCNPS as

a generating asset and reduce the

likelihood of early plant retirement.

Early plant retirement could have a

possible negative impact upon the local

economy and the surrounding

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65763

communities by reducing public

services, employment, income, business

revenues, and property values. These

reductions could be mitigated by

decommissioning activities in the short

term. The staff expects that the

conclusions in the FES regarding social

and economic impacts are expected to

remain valid under the EPU conditions.

The staff also considered the potential

for direct physical impacts of the

proposed EPU, such as vibration and

dust from construction activities. The

proposed EPU would be accomplished

primarily by changes in station

operation and a few modifications to the

station facility. These limited

modifications can be accomplished

without physical changes to

transmission corridors, access roads,

other offsite facilities, or additional

projects related to the transportation of

goods or materials. Therefore, no

significant additional construction

disturbances causing noise, odors,

vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration, or

shock from blasting are expected, and

the conclusions in the FES would

remain valid.

Summary

In summary, the proposed EPU at

QCNPS would not result in a significant

change in non-radiological impacts, on

land use, water use, waste discharges,

terrestrial and aquatic biota,

transmission facilities, or

socioeconomic factors, and would not

have other non-radiological

environmental impacts from those

evaluated in the FES. Table 1

summarizes the non-radiological

environmental impacts of the EPU at

QCNPS.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE EPU AT QCNPS

Impacts Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS

Land Use Impacts ............................................... No significant changes to land use or construction of any new facilities that would impact land

use are needed.

Water Use Impacts .............................................. No changes are required to the rate of intake of surface water or groundwater to accomplish

the EPU.

Waste Discharge Impacts ................................... Temperature monitoring curve would be adjusted to reflect higher river flow conditions where

physical measurement or load management occurs. Change to the hydrodynamics of the

cooling system would not be significant. Equipment modifications or changes in operation in

air emissions are insignificant and would not reduce the margin to the limits established in

the regulations. The risk of cold shock to aquatic biota would not increase.

Terrestrial Biota Impacts ..................................... Federally-listed threatened or endangered species are known to exist within the land area, but

no land area disturbance is needed.

Aquatic Biota Impacts ......................................... No changes to intake or outfall structures or flows; no significant impingement or entrainment

impacts on aquatic biota would be expected. Rise in river water temperature could affect

fish larvae and eggs, but impacts would be insignificant. No Federally-listed threatened or

endangered species would be significantly affected.

Transmission Facilities Impacts .......................... No change in operating transmission voltages, onsite transmission equipment or power line

rights-of-way. Slight increase in onsite power would be required to support the additional

EPU equipment which would come from existing power supplies. EMF would increase linearly with the EPU; however, no significant change in exposure rate would be expected.

Social and Economic Impacts ............................. No significant change in size of QCNPS workforce. No significant disturbances from noise,

odor, vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration, or shock would be anticipated.

Radiological Impacts at QCNPS

The staff evaluated radiological

environmental impacts on waste

streams, dose, accident analyses, and

fuel cycle and transportation factors.

The following is a general description of

the waste treatment streams at QCNPS

and an evaluation of the environmental

impacts.

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

QCNPS uses waste treatment systems

designed to collect, process, and dispose

of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid

waste in accordance with the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and

Appendix I to Part 50. These radioactive

waste treatment systems are discussed

in the FES. The proposed EPU would

not affect the environmental monitoring

of these waste streams or the

radiological monitoring requirements

contained in licensing basis documents.

The proposed EPU would not result in

changes in operation or design of

equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or

solid waste systems. The proposed EPU

would not introduce new or different

radiological release pathways and

would not increase the probability of an

operator error or equipment malfunction

that would result in an uncontrolled

radioactive release. The staff evaluated

specific effects of the proposed EPU on

changes in the gaseous, liquid, and solid

waste streams as a radiological

environmental impact to the proposed

EPU.

Gaseous Radioactive Waste

During normal operation, the gaseous

effluent systems control the release of

gaseous radioactive effluents to the site

environs, including small quantities of

activation gases and noble gases, so that

routine offsite releases are below the

limits of 10 CFR part 20 and Appendix

I to Part 50 (10 CFR part 20 includes the

requirements of 40 CFR part 190). The

major sources of gaseous radioactive

wastes at QCNPS are the condenser air

ejector effluent and the steam packing

exhaust system effluent. Based on the

conservative assumption of a nonnegligible amount of fuel leakage due to

defects, the licensee stated that

radioactive release volumes would

increase proportionally with the EPU

conditions. The current and expected

fuel defect rate is extremely small and

the expected radioactive gaseous

effluents under the EPU conditions

would be within the Appendix I limits.

Therefore, the conclusions in the FES

will continue to apply under the EPU

conditions.

The licensee does not expect

increases in gaseous waste from new

fuel designs. The licensee’s contract

with General Electric contains a

warranty section that requires General

Electric to meet a specified level of fuel

performance. This level is at least as

stringent as that imposed on current fuel

designs.

Liquid Radioactive Waste

The liquid radwaste system is

designed to process and recycle, to the

extent practicable, the liquid waste

collected so that annual radiation doses

to individuals are maintained below the

guidelines in 10 CFR part 20 and 10

65764 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

CFR part 50, Appendix I. Liquid

radioactive wastes at QCNPS include

liquids from the reactor process systems

and liquids that have become

contaminated with process system

liquids. Increases in flow rate through

the condensate demineralizer and

increase of fission products and

activated corrosion products are

expected under the EPU conditions.

This would result in additional

backwashes of condensate

demineralizers and reactor water

cleanup filter demineralizers. These

additional backwashes would be

processed through the liquid radioactive

waste treatment system and are

expected to be suitable for reuse.

Therefore, liquid effluent release

volumes are not expected to increase

significantly as a result of the EPU. No

changes in the liquid radioactive waste

treatment system are proposed. Average

treatment efficiency would not change;

however radioactivity level of liquid

effluent releases may increase with the

EPU. These liquid effluents from

QCNPS would be within the regulatory

limits of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I.

Based on information submitted by

the licensee, the staff concludes that no

significant dose increase in the liquid

pathway would result from the

proposed EPU. Therefore, the

conclusions in the FES would remain

valid under the EPU conditions.

Solid Radioactive Waste Impacts

Solid radioactive wastes include

solids recovered from the reactor

process system, solids in contact with

the reactor process system liquids or

gases, and solids used in the reactor

process system operation. The largest

volume of solid radioactive waste at

QCNPS is low-level radioactive waste

(LLRW). Sources of LLRW at QCNPS

include resins, filter sludge, dry active

waste, metals, and oils. The annual

burial volume of LLRW generated in

1998 was 228.61 cubic meters. In 1999,

the burial volume decreased to 82.93

cubic meters, and the projected burial

volume of LLRW for 2000 is

approximately 140 cubic meters. A onetime increase in the burial volume of

LLRW would be associated with the

EPU. The volume of resin is expected to

increase by as much as 18 percent under

the EPU conditions, because of the

increased amount in iron removed by

the condensate system from the

increased feedwater flow. Adding the 18

percent increase in the resin volume to

the projected year 2000 LLRW burial

volume results in a 154-cubic-meter

EPU LLRW burial volume per year (an

increase in approximately 10 percent),

which would be bounded by the FES.

The number of fuel assemblies would

increase in any given core load with the

proposed EPU, reducing the storage

space in the spent fuel pool. At current

off-load rates, four dry storage casks

would be filled during each refueling

outage and a fifth dry storage cask

would be partially filled. QCNPS plans

to fill the fifth cask using the inventory

of assemblies from the spent fuel pool.

At the EPU conditions, each refueling

outage would also fill four casks and

partially fill a fifth. Fewer assemblies

from the spent fuel pool would be

needed to fill the fifth dry storage cask.

The net effect of the EPU would be to

increase the number of dry storage casks

needed by three to four every 5 years.

Summary

In summary, the solid radioactive

waste burial volume is estimated to

increase by approximately 10 percent,

the volume of liquid radioactive releases

would not be expected to increase, and

the volume of gaseous radioactive

effluents would be expected to increase

up to 18 percent as a result of the

proposed EPU. The level of radioactivity

of the liquid effluent releases would

also increase up to 18-percent. The

proposed EPU is not expected to have

a significant impact on the volume or

activity of radioactive solid wastes at

QCNPS.

Dose Impacts

The staff evaluated in-plant and

offsite radiation as part of its review of

environmental impacts of the proposed

EPU.

In-Plant Radiation

Radiation levels and associated doses

are controlled by the as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA)

program, as required by 10 CFR Part 20.

The QCNPS ALARA program manages

exposure by minimizing the time

personnel spend in radiation areas,

maximizing the distance between

personnel and radiation areas, and

maximizing shielding to minimize

radiation levels in routinely occupied

plant areas and in the vicinity of plant

equipment requiring attention. Exelon

has determined that the current

shielding designs are adequate for any

dose increase that may occur due to the

proposed EPU. Normal operation

radiation levels would increase by no

more than the percentage increase of the

EPU. Many aspects of the plant were

originally designed for higher-thanexpected radiation sources. The increase

in radiation level does not affect

radiation zoning or shielding in the

various areas of the plant because it is

offset by conservatism in the original

design, source terms assumptions, and

analytical techniques. The licensee

states that no new dose reduction

programs would be implemented and

the ALARA program would continue in

its current form.

A potential source of increased

occupational radiation is the projected

increase in moisture carryover from the

reactor vessel steam dryer/separator to

the main steam lines. To reduce

moisture content under the EPU

conditions, modifications to the steam

dryer/separator would be required. The

modifications are expected to result in

a negligible increase in occupational

exposure.

On the basis of the above information,

the staff concludes that the occupational

(in-plant) dose for QCNPS following the

proposed EPU would be bounded by the

dose estimates in the FES.

Offsite Dose

The slight increase in normal

operational gaseous activity levels

under the EPU would not affect the

large margin to the offsite dose limits

established by 10 CFR part 20. Offsite

dose from radioactive effluents are

reported in the Annual Radiological

Environmental Operating Reports. For

the period from 1995 to 1999, the

average annual whole body dose was

5.23E–4 millirem and the average

annual dose to the critical organ was

8.17E–4 millirem. The highest

percentage of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix

I, regulatory limits for maximum dose

resulting from liquid releases to an adult

for the 5 year period occurred in 1998

and was 0.005 percent of the critical

organ dose limit. For the 1995–1999

period, the average dose was 0.003

percent of the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix

I, regulatory limits. No significant

change in the volume of water treated

and released is expected. The offsite

dose from liquid effluents is projected to

increase proportionally with the EPU

due to an increase in the concentration

of fission products and activation

products in the reactor coolant. The

licensee states that offsite dose would

remain below the 10 CFR 50, Appendix

I, regulatory limits.

Dose to individuals from gaseous

releases are also reported in the Annual

Radiological Environmental Report. The

average annual total body dose during

the period of 1995 to 1999 was 7.08E–

4 millirem and the average annual dose

to the critical organ was 3.9E–2

millirem. The highest percentage of 10

CFR part 50, Appendix I, regulatory

limits for maximum dose resulting from

airborne releases to an adult during the

period of 1995 to 1999 occurred in 1997

and was 0.23 percent of the critical

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65765

organ dose limit. From the period of

1995 to 1999, the average dose was 0.16

percent of the Appendix I regulatory

limits. Conservatively assuming a nonnegligible amount of fuel leakage due to

defects, gaseous effluents will increase

proportionally to the EPU. However,

offsite dose will remain well below 10

CFR part 50, Appendix I, regulatory

limits.

The calculated offsite dose resulting

from direct radiation due to radiation

levels in plant components, such as sky

shine, will increase up to 18 percent

because the Offsite Dose Calculation

Manual conservatively adjusts offsite

dose to power generation level. Because

sky shine is the dominant contributor to

total offsite dose, the calculated total

offsite dose, based on calculations from

the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual,

will increase up to 18 percent. Actual

offsite dose from sky shine is not

expected to increase significantly

because the decreased transit time is

expected to result in a minimal change

in concentration through reduced decay

time and because expected activity

concentration in the steam will remain

constant due to the dilution effect of a

19 percent increase in steaming rate.

The expected dose at the EPU

conditions would remain below the

limits of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, 10

CFR part 20, and 40 CFR part 190

standards.

The EPU would not create new or

different sources of an offsite dose from

QCNPS operation, and radiation levels

under the proposed EPU conditions

would be within the regulatory limits.

The staff concludes that the estimated

offsite doses under the EPU conditions

would meet the design objectives

specified by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix

I, and be within the limits of 10 CFR

part 20.

Accident Analysis Impacts

The staff reviewed the assumptions,

inputs, and methods used by Exelon to

assess the radiological impacts of the

proposed EPU at QCNPS. In doing this

review, the staff relied upon information

placed on the docket by Exelon, staff

experience in doing similar reviews,

and the staff-accepted licensing topical

reports NEDC–32424P-A (Proprietary),

‘‘Generic Guidelines for General Electric

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Extended

EPU,’’ February 1999 (known as

ELTR1), and NEDC–32523P-A

(Proprietary), ‘‘Generic Evaluation of

General Electric Boiling Water Reactor

Extended EPU,’’ February 2000 (known

as ELTR2). The staff finds that Exelon

used analysis methods and assumptions

consistent with the conservative

guidance of ELTR1 and ELTR2. The staff

compared the doses estimated by Exelon

to the applicable criteria. The staff finds,

with reasonable assurance, that the

licensee’s estimates of the exclusion

area boundary (EAB), low-population

zone (LPZ), and control room doses will

continue to comply with 10 CFR part

100 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A,

GDC–19, as clarified in NUREG–0800,

Sections 6.4 and 15. Therefore, QCNPS

operation at the proposed EPU rated

thermal power is acceptable with regard

to the radiological consequences of

postulated design basis accidents.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts

The environmental impact of the

uranium fuel cycle has been generically

evaluated by the staff for a 1000 MWe

reference reactor and is described in

Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The QCNPS

reactors are proposed to operate at 912

MWe after the implementation of the

EPU and Table S–3 reasonably bounds

the environmental impacts of the

uranium fuel cycle for each QCNPS

reactor. The radiological effects

presented in Table S–3 are small and

would not be expected to change due to

the implementation of the EPU.

The environmental impacts of the

transportation of nuclear fuel and

wastes are described by Table S–4 of 10

CFR 51.52. The table lists heat and

weight per irradiated fuel cask in

transit, traffic density, and individual

and cumulative dose to workers and the

general population under normal

circumstances. The regulations require

that environmental reports contain

either (a) a statement that the reactor

meets specified criteria, in which case

its environmental effects would be

bounded by Table S–4; or (b) further

analysis of the environmental effects of

transportation of fuel and waste to and

from the reactor site.

An NRC assessment (53 FR 30355,

dated August 11, 1988, as corrected by

53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988)

evaluated the applicability of Tables S–

3 and S–4 to higher burnup cycles and

concluded that there would be no

significant change in environmental

impacts for fuel cycles with uranium

enrichments up to 5 weight percent

uranium-235 and burnups less than

60,000 megawatt-day per metric ton of

uranium (MWd/MTU) from the

parameters evaluated in Tables S–3 and

S–4. Because the fuel enrichment for the

EPU would not exceed 5 weight percent

uranium-235 and the rod average

discharge exposure would not exceed

60,000 MWd/MTU, the environmental

impacts of the proposed EPU at QCNPS

would remain bounded by these

conclusions and would not be

significant.

Summary

The proposed EPU would not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, would not

introduce new radiological release

pathways, would not result in a

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposures, and would

not result in significant additional fuel

cycle environmental impacts.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action. Table 2

summarizes the radiological

environmental impacts of the EPU at

QCNPS.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE EPU AT QCNPS

Impacts Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS

Radiological Waste Stream Impacts ........................................................ The gaseous radioactive release volume would increase proportionally

with the power increase. The liquid radioactive release volume is not

expected to increase; however, activity levels would increase proportionally with the power increase. Solid radioactive waste will increase

approximately 8 percent. Releases would be within regulatory limits.

Dose Impacts ............................................................................................ In-plant radiation levels would increase by 18 percent and dose would

be maintained ALARA. Offsite dose from liquid and gaseous

effluents may increase up to 18 percent. Calculated dose from sky

shine will increase up to 18 percent. In-plant and offsite dose would

remain within the regulatory limits.

Accident Analysis Impacts ........................................................................ No significant increase in probability or consequences of accident.

65766 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE EPU AT QCNPS—Continued

Impacts Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts ................................................... No significant increase. Impacts would remain with the conclusions of

Table S–3 and S–4 of 10 CFR Part 51.

Environmental Impacts of the

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., ‘‘the no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts in the QCNPS

vicinity; however, other generating

facilities using nuclear or other

alternative energy sources, such as coal

or gas, would be built in order to supply

generating capacity and power needs.

Construction and operation of a coal

plant would create impacts to air

quality, land use and waste

management. Construction and

operation of a gas plant would also

impact air quality and land use.

Implementation of the EPU would have

less of an impact on the environment

than the construction and operation of

a new generating facility and does not

involve new environmental impacts that

are significantly different from those

presented in the FES. Therefore, the

staff concludes that increasing QCNPS

capacity is an acceptable option for

increasing power supply. Furthermore,

unlike fossil fuel plants, QCNPS does

not routinely emit sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or

other atmospheric pollutants that

contribute to greenhouse gases or acid

rain.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any different resources than those

previously considered in the QCNPS

FES, dated 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on November 9, 2001, prior to issuance

of this environmental assessment, the

staff consulted with the Illinois State

official, Frank Niziolek, of the Illinois

Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

application dated December 27, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated February

12, March 20, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18,

and 29, June 5, 7, and 15, July 6 and 23,

August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 (two

letters), 29, and 31 (two letters),

September 5, 19, 25, and 27 (two

letters), October 17, November 2 (two

letters), 16, and 30, and December 10,

2001. Documents may be examined and/

or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public

Document Room, at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available

records will be accessible electronically

from the ADAMS Public Library

component on the NRC Web site, http:/

/www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading

Room). If you do not have access to

ADAMS or if there are problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff

at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737,

or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Anthony J. Mendiola,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–31331 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7950–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice

of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on ThermalHydraulic Phenomena will hold a

meeting on January 16–18, 2002, Room

T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

Portions of the meeting may be closed

to public attendance to discuss GE

Nuclear Energy and Framatome ANP

Richland proprietary information per 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, January 16, 2002—1 p.m.

until the conclusion of business

Thursday and Friday, January 17–18,

2002—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of

business

The Subcommittee will begin review

of: (1) The GE Nuclear Energy Licensing

Topical Report NEDC–33004P,

‘‘Constant Pressure Power Uprate’’,

Revision 2, and (2) the Framatome ANP

Richland S–RELAP5 realistic thermalhydraulic code version and its

application to large-break LOCA

analyses. The purpose of this meeting is

to gather information, analyze relevant

issues and facts, and formulate

proposed positions and actions, as

appropriate, for deliberation by the full

Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman. Written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may be asked only

by members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

During the initial portion of the

meeting, the Subcommittee, along with

any of its consultants who may be

present, may exchange preliminary

views regarding matters to be

considered during the balance of the

meeting.

The Subcommittee will then hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of GE Nuclear

Energy, Framatome ANP Richland, the

NRC staff, and other interested persons

regarding this review.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, the scheduling of

sessions open to the public, whether the

meeting has been canceled or

rescheduled, and the Chairman’s ruling

on requests for the opportunity to

present oral statements and the time

allotted therefor, can be obtained by

contacting the cognizant ACRS staff

engineer, Mr. Paul A. Boehnert

(telephone 301–415–8065) between 7:30

a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (EST). Persons

planning to attend this meeting are