[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65752-65759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31330]


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

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 non-radiological and then the radiological environmental 
impacts of the proposed EPU at DNPS.

[[Page 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 open-cycle 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

[[Page 65754]]

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 ( deg.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 open-cycle 
operation, the NPDES permit limits the temperature of the discharges 
not to exceed 90  deg.F more than 10 percent of the time and is not 
permitted to exceed 93  deg.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

[[Page 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

[[Page 65756]]

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 non-radiological 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 non-
negligible amount of fuel leakage due to defects, the licensee stated 
that radioactive release volume would increase proportionally with the 
17

[[Page 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 one-time 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-than-expected 
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 in-plant 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

[[Page 65758]]

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.

[[Page 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 [email protected].

    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