65752 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

participants. The environmental

impacts of the proposed action and the

alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

The proposed action does not involve

the use of any resources beyond those

already necessary to conduct the EP

exercise during 2001, and would merely

delay the exercise.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the

following officials regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action: William Brandes, Chair, Local

Emergency Planning Committee, St.

Louis, Missouri; Nick Granani, Deputy

Director, Office of Emergency

Management, Chesterfield, Missouri;

Keith Henke, State Emergency

Management Agency, Jefferson City,

Missouri; Charles Hooper, Missouri

Department of Health, Jefferson City,

Missouri; and Tom Lange, Sr. Planner,

Office of the Director, Missouri

Department of Natural Resources. No

objections were received.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based on the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant affect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

List of Preparers

This document was prepared by

Kevin G. Null, Senior Health Physicist,

Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch,

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Region III, Lisle, Illinois. Mr. Null is the

Licensing Project Manager for the

Nuclear Materials License issued to

Mallinckrodt, Inc.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the Mallinckrodt

letter dated November 26, 2001,

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web Site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W. Hickey,

Chief, Materials Safety and Inspection

Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–31332 Filed 12–19;–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC,

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units

2 and 3; Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact

Related to a Proposed License

Amendment to Increase the Maximum

Thermal Power Level

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–19 and

DPR–25, issued to Exelon for the

operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power

Station, Units 2 and 3 (DNPS), located

on the Illinois River in Grundy 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 DNPS, to

increase its electrical generating

capacity at DNPS by raising the

maximum reactor core power level from

2527 MWt to 2957 MWt. This change is

approximately 17 percent above the

current licensed maximum power level

for DNPS. 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. DNPS

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

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. The

original amendment request was

submitted by Commonwealth Edison

Company (ComEd), the former licensee.

ComEd subsequently transferred the

licenses to Exelon Generation Company,

LLC (Exelon, the licensee). 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 0.66 percent additional

generating capacity per unit at DNPS.

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 DNPS 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 DNPS, 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 DNPS, which was

issued in November 1973. The original

operating licenses for DNPS allowed a

maximum reactor power level of 2527

MWt. 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

DNPS. 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. Additionally, no changes

to any State permit limits would be

necessary. This environmental

assessment first discusses the nonradiological and then the radiological

environmental impacts of the proposed

EPU at DNPS.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65753

Non-Radiological Impacts at DNPS

The following is the NRC staff’s

evaluation of the non-radiological

environmental impacts of the proposed

EPU on land use, water use, waste

discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota,

transmission facilities, and social and

economic conditions at DNPS.

Land Use Impacts

The proposed EPU at DNPS would

result in some modifications to current

land use at DNPS, due to the proposed

addition of 6–8 new cooling tower cells.

The proposed addition of new

mechanical draft cooling tower cells to

the existing 48 cells would handle the

additional heat load resulting from the

EPU. The additional cooling tower cells

would require approximately 0.5 acres

of land for siting. Access roads and pipe

bridge installations, necessary to

support the proposed cooling tower

cells, might cause additional land

disturbances; however, the new cells

would be in an area that has been

previously disturbed. The construction

impacts would be temporary. Due to the

small area (0.5 acres) disturbed, and the

fact that the area has been previously

disturbed, impacts to terrestrial biota

will be minimal. Based on a previous

archeological and history survey, the

licensee has determined that the

proposed cooling tower cells would not

disturb lands with historic or

archaeological significance. There

would be minor changes to visual and

aesthetic resources; however, the

proposed cooling tower cells would not

be visible from any major highway or

block the view of any historic site or

picture scape. The cooling tower cells

would be built in accordance with the

appropriate safety standards and any

deviation from the standards would be

evaluated in the staff’s safety evaluation

report.

Apart from the proposed change

detailed above, the licensee indicated

that it has no plans to construct new

facilities or alter the land around

existing facilities, including buildings,

access roads, parking facilities, laydown

areas, or onsite transmission and

distribution equipment, including

power line rights-of-way, in conjunction

with the uprate or operation after

uprate. The EPU would not significantly

affect the storage of materials, including

chemicals, fuels, and other materials

stored above or under the ground.

Therefore, the staff’s conclusions in the

FES on land use would remain valid

under the proposed EPU conditions.

Water Use Impacts

The steam produced by the DNPS

turbines is condensed in the

condensers, demineralized, and

pumped back to the reactor vessel.

Cooling water used in the condensers is

pumped from the Kankakee and Des

Plaines Rivers 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 all the heated water used in the

condensers was returned to the Illinois

River downstream of the intake. A

number of configuration changes have

been made in the cooling system at

DNPS since the original design. These

include the construction of a cooling

pond and associated cooling canals,

installation of spray modules in the

cooling canals, installation of temporary

mechanical draft cooling towers, and

the construction of mechanical draft

cooling towers.

DNPS operates in the indirect opencycle mode from June 15 through

September 30. In this operating mode, a

maximum of 940,000 gallons per minute

(gpm) may be withdrawn from the

Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers for

condenser cooling water. After the water

circulates through the condensers, the

water is discharged into a 2-mile-long

cooling canal, called the hot canal. As

water travels through the hot canal, it

may be withdrawn and circulated

through a bank of 36 mechanical draft

cooling tower cells and then discharged

back into the hot canal at a lower

temperature. The cooling towers

operate, as needed, to maintain water

temperatures within the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit limits and have a

maximum water withdrawal capacity of

630,000 gpm. From the hot canal, a lift

station pumps the water into a 1275-

acre cooling pond. The cooling pond

consists of 5 areas through which the

water is circulated for approximately 2.5

days. After circulating through the

cooling pond, the water is discharged

via a spillway into another 2-mile-long

canal, called the cold canal. The water

may then be circulated through a bank

of 12 mechanical draft cooling tower

cells at a maximum rate of

approximately 213,000 gpm, as needed,

to maintain water temperature within

the NPDES permit limits. The water is

returned to the cold canal at a lower

temperature and is then discharged into

the Illinois River.

DNPS normally operates in the

closed-cycle mode from October 1 to

June 14. Typically, the mechanical draft

cooling tower cells are utilized during

this period. Water is drawn into the

intake structure, circulated through the

condensers for Units 2 and 3, passed

through the hot canal, the cooling pond,

the cold canal, and is then routed back

to the intake structure via the flow

regulating station gates. A small amount

of condenser cooling water (70,000 gpm)

is withdrawn from the Kankakee and

Des Plaines Rivers to make up

evaporative and seepage losses in the

cooling pond. Additionally,

approximately 50,000 gpm of the

cooling water is permitted to be

discharged into the Illinois River to

prevent an increase in the dissolved

solids concentrations in the cooling

pond.

DNPS has approval from the Grundy

County Emergency Management Agency

to operate a de-icing project on the

Kankakee River using heated water from

the DNPS cooling pond. Heated water

from the cooling pond is transported

through a permanent pipe by siphon to

the Kankakee River, where it is used to

prevent river ice from damaging docks

and other structures.

The staff evaluated surface water use

and groundwater use as environmental

impacts of water usage at DNPS. The

licensee stated that the surface water

intake amounts would not be changed

by the proposed EPU. The licensee also

stated that it would not seek to change

permit requirements for thermal or flow

limits or conditions for the proposed

EPU. Therefore, the staff’s conclusions

in the FES on water use would remain

valid under the proposed EPU

conditions.

Groundwater is withdrawn from two

wells at DNPS and is used for domestic

and industrial purposes. Groundwater is

not used for condenser cooling. The

proposed EPU would not affect the

groundwater use at DNPS; therefore, the

staff’s conclusions in the FES on

groundwater would remain valid under

the proposed EPU conditions.

Discharge Impacts

The staff evaluated environmental

impacts such as cooling tower

emissions, drift, icing, fog, noise,

chemical and wastewater discharge,

cold shock to an aquatic biota, and air

emissions.

Cooling Tower Emission, Drift, Icing,

Fog, and Noise

Environmental impacts such as air

quality, fogging, icing, cooling tower

drift, and noise could result from the

increased heat load on the cooling

towers under the EPU conditions. The

FES did not include a discussion of

cooling towers, but did discuss 98 spray

modules, which are no longer operated,

in the cooling canal. The staff

65754 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

concluded in the FES that the operation

of the DNPS cooling system was not

harmful to the surrounding

environment. No substantial changes

from the conditions reported in the FES

are anticipated.

The cooling tower cells are regulated

by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (IEPA) through a Federally

Enforceable State Operating Permit

(FESOP). The cooling towers emit

particulate matter with a diameter of 10

microns or less (PM10) in the form of

drift with river water sediment

entrained in the droplets. The existing

48 cooling tower cells have a potential

to emit 67.2 tons of PM10 per year. Eight

additional cooling tower cells could

potentially emit an additional 11.2 tons

of PM10 per year, resulting in a total

discharge of 78.4 tons of PM10 per year.

DNPS is in an attainment area for PM10

in which the major source threshold is

100 tons per year. The total emissions

from DNPS under the EPU conditions

would be below the major threshold for

PM10. Emissions from all other sources

governed by the FESOP are expected to

remain the same.

The licensee stated that removal of

the 98 spray modules mitigated some

icing effects and that the cooling tower

cells currently in operation at DNPS

were sited in their present locations to

reduce potential fogging impacts on

local roads. The cooling towers

minimize drift and maximize efficiency

by limiting the loss of water droplets

from the cells to not more than 0.008

percent of the circulating water flow,

corresponding to a drift factor of

0.00008. Fog typically forms in the cold

season when the cooling tower cells are

not likely to be in operation. The

proposed EPU would increase the

temperature of the water in the hot

canal by approximately 4.2 degrees

Fahrenheit (°F). The proposed

temperature increase would not cause

an observable increase in the intensity

of fog, but because the EPU increases

the temperature differential between the

cooling water and ambient air, fog may

form at slightly higher ambient air

temperatures. However, the impacts

from fogging, icing, and cooling tower

drift from the proposed EPU would be

bounded by the conclusions of the FES.

As stated previously, the cooling

system discussed in the FES did not

have cooling towers cells, but the FES

did include an analysis of elevated

noise levels from the presently inactive

98 spray modules. Operation of the new

cooling tower cells under the proposed

EPU conditions and the potential

extended operation of the existing

cooling towers would result in

intermittent increases in noise levels

during periods of high ambient air

temperatures. The licensee stated that

noise from the cooling tower operations

would be in compliance with the

applicable noise requirements. The EPU

would not be expected to significantly

raise the noise levels above the levels

assumed in the FES; therefore, the staff’s

conclusions in the FES on noise impacts

would remain valid under the EPU

conditions.

Surface Water and Wastewater

Discharge

Surface water and wastewater

discharge is regulated by the State of

Illinois. The NPDES permit for DNPS

covers the following discharges:

1. Unit 1 housing service water

(inactive)

2. Unit 1 intake screen backwash

(inactive)

3. Cooling pond blowdown

4. Unit 2 and 3 intake screen backwash

5. Wastewater treatment system effluent

6. Radiological waste treatment system

effluent

7. Demineralizer regenerant waste

8. Northwest material access runoff

9. Sewage treatment plant effluent

10. Cooling pond discharge

11. Southeast area runoff

12. Northeast area runoff

All of the discharges are into the

Illinois River except for the sewage

treatment plant effluent, cooling pond

discharge, Southeast area runoff, and

Northeast area runoff, which discharge

to the Kankakee River. As stated

previously, DNPS must operate in

closed-cycle mode from October 1 to

June 15 and may operate in indirect

open-cycle mode from June 15 through

September 30. During the indirect opencycle operation, the NPDES permit

limits the temperature of the discharges

not to exceed 90 °F more than 10

percent of the time and is not permitted

to exceed 93 °F. DNPS may also operate

in accordance with the DNPS Variable

Blowdown Plan, as governed by the

original July 6, 1977, Thermal

Compliance Plan calculations, from

June 1 to June 15, as deemed necessary

by management. Under the DNPS

Variable Blowdown Plan, cooling water

from the condenser must be circulated

through the cooling system before being

discharged into the Illinois River. DNPS

is allowed to discharge augmented

blowdown at rates between 111 cubic

feet per second (cfs) and 1115 cfs.

Discharge flow rates are varied to

prevent power deratings, which can be

caused by heated cooling water

recirculating to the condensers.

Operation of the cooling towers is

implicitly covered by the thermal

requirements of Special Condition 4 of

the NPDES permit.

Special Condition 7 of the NPDES

permit states that DNPS has complied

with 35 Illinois Administrative Code,

Subpart B, ‘‘General Use Water Quality

Standards,’’ Section 302.211(f),

‘‘Temperature,’’ and Section 316(a) of

the Clean Water Act in demonstrating

that the thermal discharge from the

station has not caused, cannot cause,

and cannot be reasonably expected to

cause, significant ecological damage to

the receiving water. The special

condition further states that no

additional monitoring or modification is

required for re-issuance of the NPDES

permit.

DNPS monitors wastewater streams,

as required by the NPDES permit, and

only uses approved chemicals for

conditioning water to prevent scaling,

corrosion, and biofouling. The current

NPDES permit limits discharge of

chlorine to the receiving waters. The

licensee may also use a dispersant to

limit fouling of the cooling tower fill.

Exelon is not seeking to change the

NPDES permit requirements for thermal

or flow conditions, flow rates, water

sources, or for chemical or thermal

discharges, and would be subject to

existing NPDES requirements. Instead,

additional cooling tower cells would be

installed to assure compliance with

current thermal limits without derating

the units during the summer. The use of

chemicals and their subsequent

discharge to the environment would not

be expected to change significantly as a

result of the proposed EPU.

Furthermore, discharges into receiving

waters from plant operation will be in

compliance with NPDES permit

requirements.

Cold Shock

Cold shock to aquatic biota occurs

when the warm water discharge from a

plant abruptly stops because of an

unplanned shutdown, resulting in a

temperature drop of the river water and

a possible adverse impact on aquatic

biota. The probability of an unplanned

shutdown is independent of the EPU.

The FES stated that cold kill (cold

shock) of fish is not expected from the

shutdown of DNPS during the winter

because of the large heat sink in the

cooling lake. Additionally, the licensee

is not proposing to change permit levels

to river water. Therefore, the risk of an

aquatic biota being killed by cold shock

would be bounded by the conclusions

in the FES.

Terrestrial Biota Impacts

A study performed during the first

years of indirect open-cycle operation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65755

found no adverse impacts on waterfowl

or wildlife. The FES stated that the

DNPS cooling pond provides additional

foraging and resting area for waterfowl

and provides nesting grounds in an area

of the State where natural lakes are less

abundant. Implementation of the

proposed EPU would not alter these

conditions.

The licensee stated that no known

threatened or endangered species live

within the construction area of the

proposed cooling tower cells. The

species, Mead’s milkweed (Asciepias

meadii), lakeside daisy (Hymenopsis

herbacea), leafy prairie clover (Dalea

foliosa), eastern prairie fringed orchid

(Platanthaera leucophaea), Hines

emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora

hineana), bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), and Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis) are Federally-listed as

threatened or endangered species and

have been identified in Grundy and Will

counties. The operation of the current

48 mechanical draft cooling towers have

had no observed detrimental impact on

the terrestrial community. The licensee

stated that the additional 6–8 cooling

tower cells would not be expected to

impact this resource.

Therefore, the staff’s conclusions in

the FES on terrestrial ecology, including

endangered and threatened plant or

animal species, remain valid under the

proposed EPU conditions.

Aquatic Biota Impacts

The ecology of the area surrounding

the DNPS cooling pond and the intake

and discharge structures has been

studied extensively since the late 1960s.

Studies of the lower trophic levels

(phytoplankton, zooplankton,

periphyton, and benthic invertebrates),

and the fish community, indicated that

operation of the DNPS has not had a

measurable detrimental impact on the

ecology of the Illinois River system.

Surveys of the fish community in the

vicinity of the DNPS have been

conducted annually since 1971. These

studies have monitored the fish

population near the confluence of the

Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers and in

the waters directly behind the Dresden

Island Lock and Dam, called the

Dresden Island Pool. The Dresden

Island Pool area includes sampling

stations near the intake and discharge

areas of DNPS. These studies have

concluded that the fish community in

the area of DNPS has improved since

the study began. The number of species

collected by the various collection

methods increased from the 1970s

through the early to mid-1980s and

leveled off in the early 1990s. The

increase in species numbers that

occurred during the 1980s was

primarily the result of improvements in

water quality due to the implementation

of the Clean Water Act, most notably,

the removal of sewage discharge from

the city of Chicago.

The licensee conducted impingement

sampling at the traveling intake screens

at DNPS from 1977 to 1987. The study

concluded that the number of fish

impinged at DNPS was low and that the

fish in the adjacent river system were

not being adversely impacted by DNPS

operations. In April 1987, the Illinois

Department of Conservation agreed to

eliminate impingement sampling from

the DNPS Aquatic Monitoring Program.

No Federally-listed fish or aquatic plant

species has been collected in the

vicinity of DNPS. However, three

Illinois endangered or threatened listed

species, the pallid shiner (Notropis

amnis), the greater redhorse

(Moxostoma valenciennesi), and the

river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum),

have been collected near DNPS. The

pallid shiner has only been collected

downstream of Dresden Island Lock and

Dam and both redhorse species prefer a

more complex channel substrate than is

found near DNPS.

The licensee submitted information

on the DNPS intake structure to the

IEPA pursuant to section 316(b) of the

Clean Water Act. IEPA determined that

additional monitoring was not required,

but further monitoring might be

necessary at the time of any

modification or re-issuance of the

NPDES permit. Impacts on an aquatic

biota from the proposed EPU conditions

are not expected to change because

implementation of the EPU would not

alter the intake structure or significantly

change intake flows at DNPS. Therefore,

the staff’s conclusions in the FES about

impingement and entrapment, along

with aquatic threatened and endangered

species, would remain bounding.

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 the

6–8 new cooling tower cells and other

new equipment associated with the

EPU. Power to service these additional

energy needs would come from DNPS’s

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 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

conclusion 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. DNPS

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 reviewed information

provided by the licensee regarding

socioeconomic impacts, including

possible impacts on the DNPS

workforce and the local economy. DNPS

employs more than 800 people and is a

major contributor to the local tax base.

DNPS personnel also contribute to the

tax base by paying sales and property

taxes. The proposed EPU would not

significantly affect the size of the DNPS

workforce and would have no material

effect upon the labor force required for

future outages. Plant modifications

needed to implement the EPU would

cost approximately $26 million. Local

taxing authorities would collect more

property taxes and local and national

businesses would receive additional

revenue from EPU-related activities. The

increased direct revenue from the EPU

would be a one-time benefit. The

increase would not be sustained once

the modifications are completed. It is

expected that improving the economic

performance of DNPS through lower

total bus bar costs per kilowatt-hour

would enhance the value of DNPS 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 surrounding communities

by reducing public services,

employment, income, business

revenues, and property values. These

65756 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

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

construction of the 6–8 cooling tower

cells may temporarily produce dust,

vibration, noise, and vehicle exhaust.

However, the licensee stated that

construction traffic will not be routed

through residential areas and no

blasting will occur. In the year 2000, 36

cooling tower cells were constructed in

the same general area in which the 6–

8 new cooling tower cells are proposed

to be located. The licensee stated that

residents did not express concerns

about construction noise. The distance

between the proposed location of the 6–

8 new cooling tower cells and the

nearest residence is at least 1000 feet.

Other than the construction of the

proposed 6–8 cooling tower cells, the

EPU would involve only limited

changes in station operation and a few

modifications to the station facility.

These limited modifications would be

accomplished without physical changes

to transmission corridors, or other

offsite facilities, and without significant

changes to access roads or additional

project-related transportation of goods

or materials. Therefore, no significant

construction disturbances causing noise,

odors, vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration,

or shock from blasting are anticipated,

and the conclusions in the FES would

remain valid.

Summary

In summary, the proposed EPU at

DNPS 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 social and

economic factors, and would not have

other non-radiological environmental

impacts from those evaluated in the

FES. Table 1 summarizes the nonradiological environmental effects of the

EPU at DNPS.

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

Impacts Impacts of the EPU at DNPS

Land Use Impacts ........................................................ Construction of 6–8 additional cooling tower cells on 0.5 acre on previously disturbed

land. Minor aesthetic changes. No changes to lands with historic or archeological significance.

Water Use Impacts ...................................................... No changes to the intake of surface water or groundwater use.

Waste Discharge Impacts ............................................ No significant increase in fog formation; however, fog may form at higher air temperatures. Air emission of PM10 would increase, but would remain within the regulatory limits. No significant change to icing or cooling tower drift. Noise levels may increase due

to operation of the 6–8 new cooling tower cells, but would be within regulatory limits.

No changes to the hydrodynamics of the condenser cooling water system intake or

discharge amounts. No changes to permit requirements for thermal or flow limits or

conditions. No changes to flow rates, water sources, and thermal discharges. The risk

of cold shock to aquatic biota would not increase.

Terrestrial Biota Impacts .............................................. Small numbers of wildlife would be displaced by the construction of the cooling tower

cells. No federally-listed threatened or endangered species are known to exist within

the area of construction.

Aquatic Biota Impacts .................................................. No change to intake or outfall structures or flows; therefore, no change in aquatic impact

biota would be expected. No federally-listed threatened or endangered species have

been collected in the area of surface water intake or discharge.

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

line rights-of-way. Slight increase in onsite power to support the 6–8 cooling tower

cells would come from existing power supplies. EMF would increase linearly with the

EPU; however, no change in exposure rate would be expected.

Social and Economic Impacts ..................................... No significant change in size of DNPS workforce. The construction of the 6–8 cooling

tower cells may temporarily produce dust, vibration, noise, and vehicle exhaust; however, it is not expected to be significant. No shock from blasting is expected.

Radiological Impacts at DNPS

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 DNPS

and an evaluation of the environmental

impacts.

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

DNPS 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 of 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

activated 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 DNPS 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 volume would

increase proportionally with the 17

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65757

percent EPU conditions. The current

and expected fuel defect rate is

extremely small and the expected

radionuclide gaseous effluents under

the EPU conditions would be within

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 stated that its

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

CFR part 50, Appendix I. Liquid

radioactive wastes at DNPS 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

increases 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 levels of liquid

effluent releases may increase linearly

with the 17 percent EPU. These liquid

effluents from DNPS 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

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

DNPS is low-level radioactive waste

(LLRW). Sources of LLRW at DNPS

include resins, filter sludge, dry active

waste, metals, and oils. The annual

burial volume of LLRW generated in

1998 was 208.40 cubic meters. In 1999,

the burial volume decreased to 98.44

cubic meters, and the projected burial

volume of LLRW for 2000 is

approximately 144 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 17 percent under

the EPU conditions because of the

increased amount of iron removed by

the condensate system from the

increased feedwater flow. Adding the 17

percent increase in resin volume to the

projected year 2000 LLRW burial

volume rate results in a 156-cubic-meter

post-EPU LLRW burial volume per year

(an increase of approximately 8

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. DNPS 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 complete 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.

In summary, the solid radioactive

waste burial volume is estimated to

increase by approximately 8 percent, the

volume of radioactive liquid release

would not be expected to increase, and

the volume of gaseous radioactive

effluent releases would be expected to

increase up to 17 percent as a result of

the proposed EPU. The level of

radioactivity of the liquid effluent

releases would also be expected to

increase up to 17 percent. The proposed

EPU is not expected to have a

significant impact on the volume or

activity of radioactive solid wastes at

DNPS.

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 DNPS 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 would not affect

radiation zoning or shielding in the

various areas of the plant because it is

offset by conservatism in the original

design, source term 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 expected inplant radiation dose at DNPS 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

4.25E–3 millirem and the average

annual dose to the critical organ was

6.16E–3 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 1999

65758 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

and was 0.07 percent of the critical

organ dose limit. For the period from

1995 to 1999, the average dose was 0.02

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 from 1995 to 1999 was 2.9E–

3 millirem and the average annual dose

to the critical organ was 2.23E–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 from 1995 to 1999 occurred in

1995 and was 0.14 percent of the critical

organ dose limit. For the period from

1995 to 1999, the average dose was 0.09

percent of the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix

I regulatory limits. Conservatively

assuming a non-negligible amount of

fuel leakage due to defects, gaseous

effluents will increase proportionally to

the 17 percent 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 17 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 17 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 will 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 offsite dose from

DNPS 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 DNPS. 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 ELTR1 and

ELTR2 topical reports. 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 EAB, 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, DNPS 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 by

Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The DNPS

reactors are 912 MWe and Table S–3

reasonably bounds the environmental

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle for

each DNPS 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 in 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.

The NRC published an environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact (65 FR 56604) regarding an

increase in fuel enrichment at DNPS

from 4 to 5 weight percent uranium-235

and an increase in burnup to 60,000

megawatt-days per metric ton of

uranium. The staff concluded that the

extended burnup would slightly change

the mix of radionuclides that might be

released in the event of an accident;

however, no significant adverse

environmental impacts were expected.

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-days 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 DNPS

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

DNPS.

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