Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/04/05/02-8240/amergen-energy-company-llc-clinton-power-station-unit-1-environmental-assessment-and-finding-of-no
Timestamp: 2018-08-17 19:41:19
Document Index: 570683016

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 20', 'art 50', 'art 20', 'art 50', 'art 10', 'art 100']

Federal Register :: AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Thermal Power Level
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Thermal Power Level
16459-16467 (9 pages)
Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-8240 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-8240
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated June 18, 2001, a letter providing initial environmental information dated September 7, 2001, and additional environmental information provided in a letter dated November 29, 2001. Also, the application was supplemented by letters dated September 28, October 17, 23, 26, and 31, November 8 (2 letters), 20, 21, and 30, and December 5, 6, 7, 13 (2 letters), 20, 21, and 26, 2001, January 8, 15, 16, and 24, and March 15, 22, and 29, 2002. The proposed amendment would change the operating license and the technical specifications appended to the operating license to provide for implementing uprated power operation.
AmerGen evaluated the need for additional electrical generation capacity in its service area for the planning period 2000-2009. Information provided by the North American Electric Reliability Council showed that, in order to meet projected demands, generating capacity must be increased by at least 1.6 percent per year for the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and the Mid-America Interconnected Network.
AmerGen determined that a combination of increased power generation and purchase of power from the electrical grid would be needed to meet the projected demands including an operating margin for reliability. Increasing the generating capacity at CPS was estimated to provide lower cost power than can be purchased on the current and projected energy market.
In addition, increasing nuclear generating capacity would lessen the need to depend on fossil fuel alternatives that are subject to unpredictable cost fluctuations and increasing environmental costs.
The EPU at CPS as proposed will require no changes to the current use of land. Modification plans as submitted do not include building any new Start Printed Page 16460structures or materially altering any existing structures to implement EPU activities. With the exception of transportation of equipment and materials, and routine waste disposal, EPU activities will be confined to the area within the plant security fence. Capacity of above or below ground storage tanks is not scheduled to be changed by the EPU. Areas outside the plant security fence would not be affected in any way by the EPU implementation plan as submitted by AmerGen.
Environmental impacts such as fogging and icing could result from the increased heat load resulting from discharge of additional cooling water into Clinton Lake. However, the CPS Environmental Report addressed estimates of ground fog frequency and icing and associated environmental impacts for the current power level. These analyses included considerable conservatism, well beyond the projected 20 percent increase of release heat. The NRC staff concluded in the FES that the operation of the CPS cooling water discharge system was not harmful to the lake and surrounding environment. The NRC staff concludes that ground fog and icing that might be generated by plant operation at the uprated power level is bounded by the conclusions of the FES.
No significant changes to facilities are planned that would change the character, sources or energy of noise generated at CPS. All new equipment or components needed to modify existing equipment in order to effect the EPU will be installed within existing plant facilities. No significant increase in ambient noise levels is anticipated in any work areas within the plant. The upgraded turbines are designed to operate at the same speed as under the existing power level. The conclusions regarding noise levels in the Environmental Report remain applicable for noise levels expected under EPU conditions.
Cold water shock to aquatic species occurs when the warm water discharged from the plant stops due to an unplanned shutdown. On December 18, 2000, CPS experienced a reactor trip with closure of the main steam-line isolation valves. As a result, warm water that would have entered the Clinton Lake through the discharge channel was abruptly stopped. The resulting cold shock event resulted in the loss of approximately 7,000 fish according to a shoreline survey conducted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
Information submitted by the licensee suggests that the impact of the event did not significantly affect the biological health of the lake. It was stated that the number of fish lost in the cold shock event was small in comparison to the total population of fish of the lake. Additionally, there have been no reports of a noticeable decline in angler success during the subsequent fishing period.
The proposed EPU does not increase the probability of an unplanned reactor shutdown or the likelihood of occurrence of a cold shock event. Nevertheless, a cold shock event at a higher heat rejection rate than the December 18, 2000, event could result in a greater fish mortality rate if the same conditions exist. Significant heat exchange is expected to occur in the 3.1 mile discharge channel leading to the actual point of discharge. Since the increase in the heat rejection would neither significantly raise the temperature of the lake over a large area nor dramatically increase the size of the affected area, we believe that the increased number of fish that would be adversely affected by the infrequent cold shock event would be a small increase and would still not result in a long-term adverse impact to the lake fishery.
Additionally, the licensee will monitor for cold shock impact to the fish population following a plant trip scenario similar to the one experienced on December 18, 2000.
As discussed previously, the licensee has stated that it does not expect to have to increase circulating water flow as a result of the EPU. Therefore, there should be no increase in the entrainment and impingement of aquatic species at the intake structure. In addition, the licensee has indicated that it expects the discharge temperature of the water to remain within the limits Start Printed Page 16461previously evaluated and approved by IEPA. As long as the plant is operated within these limits, impacts to aquatic species should not exceed those previously considered.
During the final regulatory review of the FES in 1982, concerns were raised that the elevated temperatures in Clinton Lake due to plant operation might increase the abundance of pathogenic N. fowleri and constitute a risk for primary contact water sports. N. fowleri is the organism that causes a potentially fatal disease known as Primary Amoebic Meningoencephalitis (PAM). Initially, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) responded to concerns raised by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and asked for a two-year pre- and post-operational monitoring program for N. fowleri and proposed a ban on primary water contact water sports once the plant went operational. After further review of the initial monitoring studies and projected lake temperatures, and a specially funded medical school review of the risks, the IDPH issued a letter in 1987 stating that there was no reason to restrict primary contact water sports. The IDPH, however, requested additional Naegleria fowleri monitoring and lake temperature data collection by CPS. The monitoring program continued through 1990, when it was concluded that no further information was needed and that the risk of N. fowleri from Clinton Lake was insignificant relative to other public health risks.
1983 Dr. Tyndall (Oak Ridge Nat. Labs) Pre-operational
1984 Dr. Tyndall (Oak Ridge Nat. Labs) Pre-operational
1986 Dr. Wellings & Dr. Lewis (Fla. D.H&RS) Pre-operational
1987 Dr. Wellings & Dr. Lewis (Fla. D.H&RS) Start-up
1986 Dr. Huizinga (IL State University) Pre-operational
1987 Dr. Huizinga (IL State University) Start-up
1988 Dr. Huizinga (IL State University) Operational
1989 Dr. Huizinga (IL State University) Operational
1990 Dr. Huizinga (IL State University) Operational
Efforts were made to keep the IDPH informed of the N. fowleri monitoring results and operational changes that impacted lake temperatures. Each year the IDPH was given the N. fowleri monitoring data and temperature data from continuous recorders at key locations in Clinton Lake. When Illinois Power filed a petition in 1988 for a Site-Specific Adjusted Standard for higher thermal discharge limits, the IDPH was given a presentation on the modeled lake temperatures that would result from this Site-Specific Standard. The Site-Specific Standard was granted in 1992 and permitted the maximum daily average discharge temperature to be raised from 99 °F to 110.7 °F. The Station NPDES permit currently has two temperature limitations. The temperature of discharge water at the second drop structure in the discharge flume is limited to a maximum daily average temperature of 99 °F for 90 days in a calendar year, or 110.7 °F for any single day. The permit and these limits will not be changed for the EPU; therefore, the reviewed and approved heat load for Clinton Lake will not be changed.
Environmental impacts, such as the installation of additional transmission line equipment, or increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electrical shock, could result from an EPU. The licensee stated that there are no changes in operating transmission or power line right of way needed to support the EPU. An increase in main transformer capacity will be necessary to deliver the additional power to the grid but design safety margins are more than adequate to handle this increased electrical power. No new equipment or modifications will be necessary for the offsite power system to maintain grid stability.
The probability of shock from primary or secondary current systems does not increase from an EPU. Transmission lines and facilities are designed in accordance with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National Electric Safety Code, and engineered safety margins are deemed adequate to protect against potential electric shock. The increased generator output at CPS will cause a proportional increase in the Start Printed Page 16462intensity of EMFs in the vicinity of the near plant transmission lines. There is no scientific consensus regarding the health effects, if any, of exposure to electromagnetic fields. No known effects from EMF on terrestrial biota have been demonstrated. Exposure to EMFs from offsite transmission system power level increases would not be expected to increase significantly, and no health or environmental impacts have been shown to result from EMF exposure. Thus, no significant environmental impacts from changes in the transmission design and equipment are expected, and the conclusions in the FES remain valid.
The NRC staff received information provided by the licensee regarding socioeconomic impacts from the planned EPU, including potential impacts on the CPS workforce and the local economy. The licensee does not anticipate that the EPU will affect the size of the CPS permanent workforce, and does not expect any need to expand the labor force required for future outages. CPS contributions to the local, state and school tax bases are of significant value to the local economy. Some fraction of the plant modification costs to accommodate the EPU will accrue to the economy.
Benefits to the local community are dependent in part on the success of the EPU, and the extent to which the EPU will permit AmerGen to remain competitive in the energy market. To the extent that the EPU will extend the operating lifetime of CPS by enhancing its economic performance, the long-term benefits to the local economy will be extended. The staff expects that the conclusions in the FES regarding social and economic impacts will apply to EPU operating conditions.
Transmission Facilities Impacts No changes in operating transmission voltages, onsite transmission equipment, or power line rights-of-way. Transformer capacity will increase but design safety margins considered adequate. EMF will increase proportionate to the EPU but no changes in exposure rate is expected.
CPS uses waste treatment systems that must be designed to collect, process and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid and solid waste in a controlled and safe manner, and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and appendix I to part 50. The design bases for the CPS systems during normal operation limit discharges well within the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and satisfy the design objectives of appendix I to 10 CFR part 50, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion, ‘As Low as is Reasonably Achievable’ for Radioactive Material in Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.” Licensee analysis shows that these limits and objectives will continue to be met under EPU operating conditions.
Modifications planned to effect EPU operation do not include nor require any changes in the operation or design of facilities or equipment in the solid, liquid or gaseous waste handling systems. The safety and reliability of these systems are designed with sufficient margin so as to be unaffected by operating conditions associated with EPU. Neither the environmental monitoring procedures for these waste streams nor any radiological monitoring requirements of the CPS Technical Specifications and/or Offsite Dose Calculation Manual will be reduced or changed in any way by the EPU.
Solid radioactive wastes include solids recovered from the reactor process system, solids in contact with the reactor process system liquids or gasses, and solids used in reactor process system operation. The largest volume of solid radioactive waste at CPS is low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Sources of LLRW at CPS Start Printed Page 16463include resins, filter sludge, dry active waste, metals and oils.
The FES for CPS predicted 6600 curie (ci)/yr noble gas and a 0.46 Ci/yr Iodine -131 release rates. The actual release quantities measured and reported by the licensee for the year 2000 were 5.44E-03 Ci of noble gases and 1.73 E-04 Ci Iodine -131. Assuming a proportional increase of 20 percent in these rates due to the EPU, the new actual release rates would still be well below those previously evaluated by the FES.
Particulate and tritium release rates evaluated for environmental impact in the FES were 1.75 Ci/yr and 57 Ci/yr, respectively. The actual release quantities measured and reported by CPS for the year 2000 were 3.32 E-03 Ci and 41.64 Ci respectively. The FES quantities are calculated to contribute insignificantly to public dose. Assuming a 20 percent proportional increase due to the EPU, the resulting particulate and tritium release rates will continue to be within the quantities evaluated in the FES as contributing little environmental impact.
In summary, the NRC staff concludes that the increases projected in solid and gaseous radioactive wastes that are released offsite will comply with federal Start Printed Page 16464guidelines and will be well within the FES evaluations.
Data provided by CPS shows that occupational dose to workers decreased significantly over the part 10 years. Based on a rolling three year average, the 2001 dose is projected to be 32 percent less than the 1990 dose. Although the EPU will potentially increase radiation levels in some parts of the work area, these increases will be compensated by continued ALARA program improvements and a continuing downward trend in occupational doses is projected by CPS.
CPS shielding design was conservative with respect to projected radiation source levels. In the original shielding analysis, concentrations of fission and corrosion products in reactor coolant water were assumed to be 2.5μ Ci/g and 0.062μ Ci/g, respectively. The actual measured combined concentration is approximately 0.016μ Ci/g. Assuming a proportional increase of 20 percent in operating radioactivity levels, the shielding design will remain bounding with a significant margin at EPU conditions. On the basis of this information, the NRC staff concludes that the expected in-plant radiation doses at CPS following the proposed EPU will be well below regulatory criteria and will not have a significant impact.
10 CFR 50 appendix I limit
—Class 1: Incidents of Moderate Frequency. This class is also referred to as anticipated operational occurrences. The FES concluded that any incident of this type would cause releases commensurate with the limits on routine effluents. Because of facility improvements and maintenance, the actual activity concentrations of reactor coolant are considerably less than predicted by the FES. Assuming a 20 percent increase as a result of EPU activity, concentration levels would still be far below FES predictions.
—Class 2: Infrequent Accidents. There are events that might occur once during the lifetime of the plant. The licensee asserts reasonably that the planned EPU does not increase the probability of occurrence or severity of these type events. The licensee further evaluated the impact of EPU operating conditions on several typical postulated accidents in these two classes. These were off-gas system failure, radwaste storage tank release, small-break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), and fuel handling accident. All of these postulated events under EPU conditions were shown to result in doses that were insignificant and well within the bounding conditions of the FES, or to be so unlikely under present or EPU conditions that they do not contribute significantly to environmental impacts.
—Class 3: Limiting Faults. This class of accidents includes large-break LOCA, main steam-line break, and control rod drop accident (CRDA). The licensee modeled and analyzed these design basis accidents under EPU conditions for comparison to regulatory limits. Radiological consequences of these worst case scenarios are limited by 10 CFR part 100 for offsite doses. These accidents were conservatively analyzed by the licensee assuming an initial power level of 3039 MWt for the LOCA and 2952 MWt for CRDA. Postulated Start Printed Page 16465power levels in the analysis were 105 percent and 102 percent respectively of the FES bounding analytical power level of 2894 MWt. The licensee provided the results of these calculations in the following tables. Following a large break LOCA, the SGTS at CPS establishes and maintains a negative pressure in the secondary containment area. Any primary containment leak will be contained within the secondary containment and will be released to the outside only after passing through SGTS, which filters and treats the effluent. All releases from the SGTS are via the SGTS vent.
The environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle has been generically evaluated by the NRC staff for a 1000 MWe reference reactor and is discussed in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. Under EPU conditions CPS will be rated at approximately 1100 MWe. Information provided by the licensee includes the following. The data presented in Tables 5-12 (10 CFR 51.51 Table S-3) and 5.5 (10 CFR 51.52 Table S-4) of the FES are based on an average burnup assumption of 33,000 MWd/MtU and a U-235 enrichment assumption of 4 wt.percent. Under EPU conditions, fuel consumption is expected to increase such that the batch average burnup of the fuel assemblies will be in excess of 33,000 MWd/MtU but less than 62,000 MWd/MtU. To support extended burnup, the U-235 enrichment levels will also increase, but will still be less than 4 wt.percent. The NRC has previously evaluated the impact of increased burnup to 62,000 MWd/MtU with U-235 fuel enrichment to 5 wt.percent on the conclusions of Table S-3. Although some radionuclide inventory levels and activity levels are projected to increase, the NRC noted that little or no increase in the amount of radionuclides released to the environment during normal operation was expected. The NRC staff determined that the incremental environmental effects of increased enrichment and burnup on transportation of fuel, spent fuel and waste would not be significant. In addition the NRC staff analysis noted environmental benefits of extended burnup such as reduced occupational dose, reduced public dose, reduced fuel requirements per unit electricity, and reduced shipments. The NRC concluded that the environmental impacts described by Table S-3 would be bounding for an increased burnup rate above that planned for the CPS EPU.
Based on NRC staff review of licensee submittals and the FES, it is concluded that the proposed CPS 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 exposure, 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. The following table summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the EPU at CPS. Start Printed Page 16466
Radiological Waste Stream Impacts The increases projected in solid, liquid, or gaseous radioactive wastes are either recycled (liquid), fully contained on site (solid), or are released (gaseous) at levels that comply with Federal guidelines and that are well within the FES evaluation.
A draft environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact was prepared and published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2002. The draft EA provided a 30-day opportunity for public comment. A member of the public submitted three comments by letter dated March 2, 2002. These comments are addressed below.
The first comment concerned cold shock of fish and referenced a cold shock event at CPS in December, 2000. The commenter stated opposition to the contention in the EA that “* * * the increase in fish mortality due to cold shock would not be significant. * * *” The commenter states that higher temperatures can be expected to increase both the area over which a cold shock effect can occur and the fish mortality rate. The commenter maintains that no effort has been made to mitigate the increased impact of cold shock resulting from the elevated discharge temperatures and the larger affected area generated by the proposed EPU.
The commenter is correct in stating that the 20 percent EPU will result in a localized increase in the lake water temperature over a larger area of the lake. Fish mortality due to cold shock has been an extremely infrequent event on Lake Clinton; the only recorded case of a cold shock fish mortality occurred on December 18, 2000. A combination of usually cold weather coupled with the reduction in heat rejected to the lake resulted in rapidly changing conditions in and around the mouth of the discharge canal. The December 2000 event was evaluated by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (INDR). Based on the information obtained through a shoreline survey conducted thereafter, it was concluded that the event did not result in a long-term adverse impact to the Clinton Lake fishery.
An increase in the heat rejection could increase the mortality of fish in the vicinity of the lake around the plant discharge if there are cold shock events similar to the one that occurred in December 2000. An increase in the heat rejection from the facility due to the EPU would also result in a increase in water temperature in the affected portions of the lake. Significant heat exchange is expected to occur in the 3.1 mile discharge channel leading to the actual point of discharge. Since the increase in the heat rejection would neither significantly raise the temperature of the lake over a large area nor dramatically increase the size of the affected area, we believe that the increased number of fish that would be adversely affected by the infrequent cold shock event would be a small increase and would still not result in a long-term adverse impact to the lake fishery.
The licensee will monitor for potential cold shock impact following a plant trip scenario similar to the one experienced on December 18, 2000. Additionally, the licensee has agreements in place with the IDNR that provide for notification and investigation when a cold shock event has been identified. As a result of this comment, the EA has been revised, however, the conclusion of the EA has not been changed.
The second comment concerned the socioeconomic effects of the EPU. The commenter questioned the basis for the statement in the EA that increased revenue from the sale of additional power would result in additional tax revenue thus benefit the local community. The commenter states that “* * * the plant owners are not located in the area and the increase in taxes associated with revenue would not occur locally.” The commenter asked that the EA identify the increased tax revenue associated with the EPU.
The staff finds that the commenter's statement is correct. While there is no direct increase in tax revenue that would be realized by the local community as a direct result of the increased revenue from the sale of additional power, it is anticipated that the assessed value of the facility may increase. The EA will be revised by deletion of the incorrect sentence. However, the staff finds that this deletion does not change the socioeconomic evaluation conclusion that the FES conclusions for pre-EPU operation will apply to EPU operation.
In his third comment, the commenter stated that the EA failed to discuss the effects of the increased steam flow on the erosion rate of the piping walls (flow-accelerated corrosion). The commenter asked if the current steam pipe monitoring program was reviewed and determined adequate for the higher Start Printed Page 16467steam flow velocities and moisture conditions.
The staff finds that the commenter's statement is correct in that the draft EA did not address flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC). However, that is because FAC is a safety issue which the staff addresses in its safety evaluations. FAC has been reviewed by the staff for the CPS EPU. Based on its review, the staff concludes that the licensee has adequately demonstrated that the changes in FAC caused by the EPU will be accounted for by the licensee making modifications to its FAC program. A summary of the staff's review will be contained in the CPS EPU safety evaluation. Additionally, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards commented that the licensee's program for monitoring FAC should be rigorously conducted. Also, this issue will be followed by the staff as part of its oversight of plants that receive power uprate approvals. In conclusion, while FAC is a consideration for the CPS EPU, this comment is not within the scope of the EA and no change to the EA was necessary as a result of this comment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 18, 2001, as supplemented by letters dated September 7 and 28, October 17, 23, 26, and 31, November 8 (2 letters), 20, 21, 29, and 30, and December 5, 6, 7, 13 (2 letters), 20, 21, and 26, 2001, January 8, 15, 16, and 24, and March 15, 22, and 29, 2002, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/​NRC/​ADAMS/​index.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
[FR Doc. 02-8240 Filed 4-2-02; 2:02 pm]