[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65759-65766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31331]


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

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

[[Page 65760]]

February 12, March 20, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18, and 29, June 5, 7, 
and 15, July 6 and 23, August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 (two 
letters), 29, and 31 (two letters), September 5, 19, 25, and 27 (two 
letters), October 17, November 2 (two letters), 16, and 30, and 
December 10, 2001. The original amendment request was submitted by 
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), the former licensee. ComEd 
subsequently transferred the licenses to Exelon. By letter dated 
February 7, 2001, Exelon informed the NRC that it assumed 
responsibility for all pending NRC actions that were requested by 
ComEd.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Exelon evaluated its resource needs for the period 2000-2014 and 
forecast a 28-percent increase in electrical demand by 2014 within its 
Illinois service area. The proposed EPU would provide approximately 
0.76 percent additional generating capacity per unit at QCNPS. Exelon 
stated that in order to stay competitive, it must be able to fulfill 
not only customer power demands, but it also must sell power to other 
providers. In Illinois, approximately 40 gas turbine plants of various 
sizes are proposed to be built. The proposed additional generating 
capacity at QCNPS would eliminate the need to build approximately two 
100 MWe gas turbines.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    At the time of the issuance of the operating licenses for QCNPS, 
the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the licenses would 
be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final 
Environmental Statement (FES) for the operation of QCNPS, which was 
issued in September 1972. The original operating licenses for QCNPS 
allowed a maximum reactor power level of 2511MWt. On December 27, 2000, 
Exelon submitted a supplement to its Environmental Report supporting 
the proposed EPU and provided a summary of its conclusions concerning 
the environmental impacts of the EPU at QCNPS. Based on the staff's 
independent analyses and the evaluation performed by the licensee, the 
staff concludes that the environmental impacts of the EPU are bounded 
by the environmental impacts previously evaluated in the FES, because 
the EPU would involve no extensive changes to plant systems that 
directly or indirectly interface with the environment. This 
environmental assessment first discusses the non-radiological and then 
the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at QCNPS.

Non-Radiological Impacts at QCNPS

    The following is the NRC staff's evaluation of the non-radiological 
environmental impacts on land use, water use, waste discharge, 
terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facilities, and social and 
economic conditions at QCNPS.

Land Use Impacts

    The licensee has no plans to construct any new facilities or alter 
the land around existing facilities, including buildings, access roads, 
parking facilities, laydown areas, or onsite transmission and 
distribution equipment, including power line rights-of-way, in 
conjunction with the uprate or operation after the EPU. The EPU would 
not significantly affect the storage of materials, including chemicals, 
fuels, and other materials stored above or under ground. Therefore, the 
FES conclusions on the impacts on land use would be valid under the EPU 
conditions.

Water Use Impacts

    The steam produced by the QCNPS turbines is condensed in the 
condensers, demineralized, and pumped back to the reactor vessel. 
Approximately 2094 cubic feet per second (cfs) of cooling water used in 
the condensers is pumped from the Mississippi River and does not come 
in contact with the steam from the turbines. The original design called 
for a once-through cooling water system in which the heated water used 
in the condensers was combined with other water discharges and returned 
to the river downstream of the intake. Under this system, the FES 
stated that full power operation of both generating units at a total of 
5022 MWt will cause a 23  deg.F temperature rise in 2270 cfs (2100 cfs 
through the condensers and 170 cfs through the service water) of 
Mississippi River water, the maximum flow through QCNPS. The cooling 
system has had several configurations due to concerns over thermal 
effects on the river biota. The original design called for open-cycle 
discharge of heated effluent along a straight wing dam into the deeper, 
higher velocity portion of the river. This system was replaced with a 
diffuser system consisting of 2 diffuser pipes laid across the bottom 
of the main river channel with regularly spaced jets that directed 
heated water into the river. A closed-cycle condenser cooling system 
was installed next, which included a spray canal with blow-down 
directed into a third diffuser pipe in the river. The spray canal was 
less efficient than anticipated and partial open-cycle operation of the 
condenser cooling system was implemented next. Finally, an extensive 
study concluded that QCNPS could operate at full load in the open-cycle 
mode while meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit limits under most river flow conditions. QCNPS presently 
operates in this open-cycle mode.
    Cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River through a 
canal that is perpendicular to the river flow. The canal is 235 feet 
long, 180 feet wide, and 12 feet deep. Intake velocity at the mouth of 
the canal is about one foot per second. A floating boom extending to a 
depth of 33 inches covers the mouth of the canal to deflect floating 
material.
    Beyond the boom is a series of vertical metal bars spaced 2.5 
inches apart (trash racks) that screen large pieces of debris from the 
intake. Travel screens with a \3/8\ inch mesh further protect the 
circulating water pumps.
    The staff evaluated surface water use and groundwater use as 
environmental impacts of water usage at QCNPS. Current flow conditions, 
based on equipment capacity constraints and operating history, is 2192 
cfs. The licensee stated that the EPU would not change the 
hydrodynamics of the condenser cooling and that surface water 
withdrawal rates or the maximum flow of river water through QCNPS would 
not be affected by the proposed EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the 
FES regarding surface water use are expected to remain valid.
    Groundwater is drawn from five wells at QCNPS and is used for 
domestic purposes, for raising fish in the former spray canals, and for 
a variety of other industrial applications. Groundwater is not used for 
condenser cooling. The licensee stated that the proposed EPU would not 
involve an increase in the consumptive use of groundwater. The EPU 
would not impact the well water system flow path and does not require 
any additional cooling capacity from the groundwater in order to shed 
heat loads. Therefore, the staff's conclusions in the FES relative to 
groundwater use would remain valid for the proposed EPU.

Waste Discharge Impacts

    The staff considered chemical discharges to surface water and 
sanitary sewer systems, cold shock to an aquatic biota, and air 
emission, as waste discharge impacts.

[[Page 65761]]

Surface Water and Sanitary Sewer System Discharges:
    QCNPS operates under a NPDES permit issued by the State of Illinois 
which covers discharges to the open-cycle diffusers, wastewater 
treatment system, sanitary waste treatment plant, and radwaste 
treatment system blowdown. Special Condition 6 of the NPDES permit 
gives thermal limitations at the downstream boundary of the mixing 
zone, including a maximum temperature rise above natural temperature of 
5  deg.F and maximum temperature limits for each month of the year. The 
permit also requires that the mixing zone not exceed 26 acres of the 
Mississippi River. To demonstrate compliance at low river flow 
conditions while operating under the open-cycle mode (the present mode 
of operation), a temperature monitoring curve was developed that allows 
calculations of permissible plant load as a function of river water. 
The temperature monitoring curve was modified in 1990, based on 
measurements taken during the drought years of 1988 and 1989. Based on 
this temperature monitoring curve, Special Condition 6 of the NPDES 
permit states that compliance is demonstrated when river flows are 
greater than 16,000 cfs and ambient river temperature is 5  deg.F or 
more below the maximum monthly limit. For river flows between 11,000 
cfs and 16,000 cfs, compliance is demonstrated by either adjusting 
plant load based on the correlation in the temperature monitoring 
curve, or by actual monitoring of river temperatures at the downstream 
boundary of the mixing zone. At river flows less than 11, 000 cfs, the 
permit requires temperature monitoring at the downstream boundary of 
the mixing zone. The licensee proposes to modify the temperature 
monitoring curve to account for the increase in temperature of the 
discharged river water resulting from the EPU condition. Under EPU 
conditions, the maximum condenser-water temperature rise will be 28 
deg.F; 5  deg.F higher than the current total maximum (condenser and 
service water) temperature rise of 23  deg.F. The revised temperature 
monitoring curve would raise the minimum river flows required for 
demonstrating compliance using river temperature monitoring at the 
downstream boundary of the mixing zone or adjusting plant load in 
accordance with the temperature monitoring curve correlation. The flow 
at which the actual river temperature monitoring must be performed or 
plant load adjustment must be made increases from 16,000 cfs to 21,100 
cfs under the proposed revised temperature monitoring curve. The 
licensee discussed the proposed monitoring curve change on July 28, 
2000, with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). A 
second meeting was held on December 15, 2000. The licensee made a 
formal request to revise the NPDES permit by letter dated March 14, 
2001. Subsequent discussions between the licensee and the staff 
occurred on March 29, 2001, and October 17, 2001. The licensee stated 
that the IEPA would consult with and obtain the Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources (IDNR) concurrence before issuing a permit revision, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 123.10, ``Public notice of permit actions and 
public comment period.'' The licensee stated that the IEPA issued the 
draft NPDES permit revision on October 15, 2001, for a 30-day public 
comment period. Full implementation of the EPU will not be accomplished 
until the IEPA and IDNR have given their concurrence to change the 
monitoring curve. Contingent on the concurrence of the IEPA and IDNR, 
it is the staff's conclusion that the FES would remain bounding under 
the EPU conditions.
    QCNPS monitors wastewater streams as required by the NPDES permit, 
and only uses approved chemicals for conditioning water to prevent 
scaling, corrosion, and biofouling. Because an increase in the design 
capacity to withdraw water from the Mississippi River is not proposed 
for the EPU, the licensee stated that the current practices would not 
be altered.

Cold Shock

    Cold shock to aquatic biota results when the warm water discharge 
from a plant abruptly stops due to an unplanned shutdown, resulting in 
a river water temperature drop and the death of aquatic biota. The 
increased temperature of the QCNPS discharge is not expected to create 
cold shock to aquatic biota because of the extended period of time 
required to remove heat from the reactor and the rapid heat dissipation 
in the mixing zone from the diffuser's outfall. The probability of an 
unplanned shutdown is independent of power uprate. Therefore, the risk 
of fish being killed by cold shock would continue to be bounded by the 
FES.

Air Emissions

    Other waste sources at QCNPS include emissions from the plant 
heating boiler and diesel generators. Effluents from these pathways are 
controlled as required by the Clean Air Act. The EPU does not have a 
significant impact on the quality or quantity of effluents from these 
sources, and operation under power uprate conditions would not reduce 
the margin to the limits established by the regulations. Therefore, the 
conclusions in the FES would remain valid.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts
    A relatively small number of threatened and endangered terrestrial 
species have been recorded in Rock Island County, Illinois, and across 
the river in Muscatine and Scott counties, Iowa. The western prairie 
fringed orchid (Platanthera praceclara), eastern prairie fringed orchid 
(Platanthaera leucophaea), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and bald eagle 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are Federally-listed threatened or 
endangered terrestrial species and were identified in 1999 in either 
Rock Island, Muscatine, or Scott counties. The proposed EPU would not 
disturb the habitat of these species and would not affect their 
distribution. The FES stated that the operation of QCNPS is not 
expected to have any further adverse effect on the terrestrial flora or 
fauna, except to the extent that traffic on access roads and human 
activities related to station operation may force some wildlife away 
from the heavily used areas. Implementation of the EPU would not alter 
these conditions.
    Therefore, the conclusions reached by the staff in the FES relative 
to impact on terrestrial ecology, including endangered and threatened 
plant and animal species, remain valid for the proposed EPU.
Aquatic Biota Impacts
    The staff evaluated the impingement, entrapment, and the rise in 
water discharge temperature on aquatic biota. The Mississippi River is 
a large and productive ecosystem. Effects on river biota, such as the 
phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, benthic invertebrate, gizzard 
shad, freshwater drum, emerald shiner, river shiner, carp, bluegill, 
fish eggs, and larvae, from QCNPS have been investigated by the 
licensee. Local effects on lower trophic levels were apparent from 
these studies, but overall population levels in the vicinity of the 
QCNPS were not adversely affected. Effects on the abundance of fish 
eggs and larvae by QCNPS operation have been minimal. No verifiable 
effects on the fish biota from QCNPS operation have been found. Exelon, 
along with Southern Illinois University, carries out a stocking 
program. Fish, such as walleye and hybrid striped bass, are raised in 
QCNPS's inactive cooling canal and then released to the Mississippi 
River. Increases in the populations of these species have been found in 
the vicinity

[[Page 65762]]

of QCNPS due to the river stocking program. Additionally, freshwater 
drum, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and white bass have also 
increased in abundance, while white and black crappie (backwater fish) 
have decreased in abundance as sedimentation associated with 
maintenance of the navigation channel has degraded backwater area and 
sloughs.
    The EPU would cause temperature in the condenser cooling system to 
be higher than those associated with previous studies of thermal 
effects. The EPU would raise river water temperature in the condenser 
cooling system to a maximum of 28  deg.F above ambient, rather than the 
current maximum of 23  deg.F. The higher temperature is expected to 
cause a higher mortality rate for organisms entrained in the system. 
The entrainment of fish eggs and larvae may affect more species, with 
the possible exception of fish that spawn early in the year. The fish 
egg and larva entrainment rate, which historically is 0.5 to 1 percent 
of the total drifting by QCNPS, would not change because water 
withdrawals would remain the same. The overall effect of an increase in 
entrained plankton mortality would not be significant for the local 
populations involved.
    Higher effluent temperatures at the EPU conditions may also have an 
increased effect on non-motile biota in the discharge mixing zone. 
Drifting fish eggs and larvae mortality may increase in the mixing zone 
because fish eggs and larvae are more likely to succumb to upper lethal 
temperatures as opposed to a particular temperature increase. This is 
only expected to affect species that spawn late, after the peak period 
of larval drift, when ambient river temperatures are high and river 
flow may be lower. Fish eggs and larvae losses at low river flows are 
expected to be fairly small in total, and based on an approximate low 
river flow return frequency of once in 10 years, it is expected that 
these losses would not negatively affect recruitment to the fish 
community of Pool 14, which is the body of water directly behind Lock 
14 on the Mississippi River.
    A preliminary study of Federally-listed aquatic threatened and 
endangered species in the vicinity of QCNPS (within 32 kilometers) 
performed in 1996 by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory listed 
the fanshell (cyprogenia stegaria), Higgin's eye pearly mussel 
(lampsilis higginsi), and fat pocketbook (potamilus capax). The 
Federally-endangered clams are not expected to be exposed to the high 
temperatures associated with the uprate because its preferred habitat 
does not include the main channel of the Mississippi River at this 
location. Some alteration in the timing of life cycles stages of other 
mussel species could occur. Adult and juvenile fish would be expected 
to avoid the increased temperature in the mixing zone and not be 
harmed. The FES notes the existence of the paddlefish (polyodon 
spathula); however, the paddlefish has not been collected near QCNPS 
recently.
    Eight fish species listed by the States of Illinois and Iowa have 
been collected in the general vicinity of the diffusers. Of these, the 
grass pickerel (Esox americanus) and the western sand darter 
(Ammocrypta clara) are the most frequently collected. Grass pickerel is 
the only Illinois State-listed species in Pool 14 that may have a 
sustainable population. Individuals collected from other species appear 
only as transient in Pool 14. The grass pickerel is mainly taken in 
littoral and backwater areas and it is not expected to be in the main 
channel where elevated temperatures would occur. The western sand 
darter is occasionally collected in the main channel (10 specimens over 
a 25 year period) and could be exposed to high temperatures in the 
mixing zone area. Other than the pearly mussel and the fish mentioned 
above, no rare species are expected to occur in the vicinity of QCNPS.
    Fish may become impinged on the intake structures protecting the 
condenser cooling water pumps because of water velocities leading into 
the structures and the diminished physical condition of the fish. 
Impingement has not had a deleterious effect on fish populations in the 
vicinity of QCNPS because sampling indicated that impingement affects 
mostly dead and moribund fish. There is no change in cooling water flow 
proposed for the EPU. Therefore, no differences in impingement rates 
are expected.
    Based on the above, the staff expects that the conclusions in the 
FES about aquatic biota, including impingement and entrainment, and 
threatened and endangered species, would remain bounding under the 
proposed EPU conditions.

Transmission Facility Impacts

    Environmental impacts, such as the installation of transmission 
line equipment, or exposure to electromagnetic fields and shock, could 
result from a major modification to transmission line facilities. The 
licensee stated that there would be no change in operating transmission 
voltages, onsite transmission equipment, or power line rights-of-way to 
support the proposed EPU conditions. No new equipment or modification 
would be necessary for the offsite power system to maintain grid 
stability. However, an increase in onsite power would be required to 
support new equipment associated with the EPU. Power to service these 
additional energy needs would come from QCNPS'' existing power 
supplies. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts from changes 
in the transmission design and equipment are expected, and the 
conclusions in the FES would remain valid.
    The electromagnetic field (EMF) created by the transmission of 
electricity would increase linearly as a function of power. However, 
exposure to EMFs from the offsite transmission system would not be 
expected to increase significantly and any such increase would not be 
expected to change the staff's conclusions in the FES that there are no 
significant biological effects attributable to EMFs from high-voltage 
transmission lines.
    No changes in transmission facilities would be needed for the EPU. 
QCNPS transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance 
with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National 
Electric Safety Code. Therefore, the expected slight increase in 
current, attributable to the proposed EPU, is not expected to change 
the staff's conclusion in the FES that adequate protection is provided 
against hazards from electrical shock.

Social and Economic Impacts

    The staff has reviewed information provided by the licensee 
regarding socioeconomic impacts, including possible impacts to the 
QCNPS workforce and local economy. QCNPS employs more than 800 people 
and is a major contributor to the local tax base. QCNPS personnel also 
contribute to the tax base by payment of sales and property tax. The 
proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the QCNPS 
workforce and would have no material effect upon the labor force 
required for future outages. Because the plant modifications needed to 
implement the EPU would be minor, any increase in sales tax and 
additional revenues to local and national business would be negligible 
relative to the large tax revenues generated by QCNPS. It is expected 
that improving the economic performance of QCNPS through lower total 
bus bar costs per kilowatt-hour would enhance the value of QCNPS as a 
generating asset and reduce the likelihood of early plant retirement. 
Early plant retirement could have a possible negative impact upon the 
local economy and the surrounding

[[Page 65763]]

communities by reducing public services, employment, income, business 
revenues, and property values. These reductions could be mitigated by 
decommissioning activities in the short term. The staff expects that 
the conclusions in the FES regarding social and economic impacts are 
expected to remain valid under the EPU conditions.
    The staff also considered the potential for direct physical impacts 
of the proposed EPU, such as vibration and dust from construction 
activities. The proposed EPU would be accomplished primarily by changes 
in station operation and a few modifications to the station facility. 
These limited modifications can be accomplished without physical 
changes to transmission corridors, access roads, other offsite 
facilities, or additional projects related to the transportation of 
goods or materials. Therefore, no significant additional construction 
disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration, or 
shock from blasting are expected, and the conclusions in the FES would 
remain valid.

Summary

    In summary, the proposed EPU at QCNPS would not result in a 
significant change in non-radiological impacts, on land use, water use, 
waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission 
facilities, or socioeconomic factors, and would not have other non-
radiological environmental impacts from those evaluated in the FES. 
Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the 
EPU at QCNPS.

 Table 1.--Summary of Non-radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU
                                at QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Impacts                    Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Impacts..................  No significant changes to land use
                                     or construction of any new
                                     facilities that would impact land
                                     use are needed.
Water Use Impacts.................  No changes are required to the rate
                                     of intake of surface water or
                                     groundwater to accomplish the EPU.
Waste Discharge Impacts...........  Temperature monitoring curve would
                                     be adjusted to reflect higher river
                                     flow conditions where physical
                                     measurement or load management
                                     occurs. Change to the hydrodynamics
                                     of the cooling system would not be
                                     significant. Equipment
                                     modifications or changes in
                                     operation in air emissions are
                                     insignificant and would not reduce
                                     the margin to the limits
                                     established in the regulations. The
                                     risk of cold shock to aquatic biota
                                     would not increase.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts.........  Federally-listed threatened or
                                     endangered species are known to
                                     exist within the land area, but no
                                     land area disturbance is needed.
Aquatic Biota Impacts.............  No changes to intake or outfall
                                     structures or flows; no significant
                                     impingement or entrainment impacts
                                     on aquatic biota would be expected.
                                     Rise in river water temperature
                                     could affect fish larvae and eggs,
                                     but impacts would be insignificant.
                                     No Federally-listed threatened or
                                     endangered species would be
                                     significantly affected.
Transmission Facilities Impacts...  No change in operating transmission
                                     voltages, onsite transmission
                                     equipment or power line rights-of-
                                     way. Slight increase in onsite
                                     power would be required to support
                                     the additional EPU equipment which
                                     would come from existing power
                                     supplies. EMF would increase
                                     linearly with the EPU; however, no
                                     significant change in exposure rate
                                     would be expected.
Social and Economic Impacts.......  No significant change in size of
                                     QCNPS workforce. No significant
                                     disturbances from noise, odor,
                                     vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration,
                                     or shock would be anticipated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts at QCNPS

    The staff evaluated radiological environmental impacts on waste 
streams, dose, accident analyses, and fuel cycle and transportation 
factors. The following is a general description of the waste treatment 
streams at QCNPS and an evaluation of the environmental impacts.

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

    QCNPS uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, 
and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid waste in 
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 
Part 50. These radioactive waste treatment systems are discussed in the 
FES. The proposed EPU would not affect the environmental monitoring of 
these waste streams or the radiological monitoring requirements 
contained in licensing basis documents. The proposed EPU would not 
result in changes in operation or design of equipment in the gaseous, 
liquid, or solid waste systems. The proposed EPU would not introduce 
new or different radiological release pathways and would not increase 
the probability of an operator error or equipment malfunction that 
would result in an uncontrolled radioactive release. The staff 
evaluated specific effects of the proposed EPU on changes in the 
gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams as a radiological 
environmental impact to the proposed EPU.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste
    During normal operation, the gaseous effluent systems control the 
release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environs, 
including small quantities of activation gases and noble gases, so that 
routine offsite releases are below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 
Appendix I to Part 50 (10 CFR part 20 includes the requirements of 40 
CFR part 190). The major sources of gaseous radioactive wastes at QCNPS 
are the condenser air ejector effluent and the steam packing exhaust 
system effluent. Based on the conservative assumption of a non-
negligible amount of fuel leakage due to defects, the licensee stated 
that radioactive release volumes would increase proportionally with the 
EPU conditions. The current and expected fuel defect rate is extremely 
small and the expected radioactive gaseous effluents under the EPU 
conditions would be within the Appendix I limits. Therefore, the 
conclusions in the FES will continue to apply under the EPU conditions.
    The licensee does not expect increases in gaseous waste from new 
fuel designs. The licensee's contract with General Electric contains a 
warranty section that requires General Electric to meet a specified 
level of fuel performance. This level is at least as stringent as that 
imposed on current fuel designs.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
    The liquid radwaste system is designed to process and recycle, to 
the extent practicable, the liquid waste collected so that annual 
radiation doses to individuals are maintained below the guidelines in 
10 CFR part 20 and 10

[[Page 65764]]

CFR part 50, Appendix I. Liquid radioactive wastes at QCNPS include 
liquids from the reactor process systems and liquids that have become 
contaminated with process system liquids. Increases in flow rate 
through the condensate demineralizer and increase of fission products 
and activated corrosion products are expected under the EPU conditions. 
This would result in additional backwashes of condensate demineralizers 
and reactor water cleanup filter demineralizers. These additional 
backwashes would be processed through the liquid radioactive waste 
treatment system and are expected to be suitable for reuse. Therefore, 
liquid effluent release volumes are not expected to increase 
significantly as a result of the EPU. No changes in the liquid 
radioactive waste treatment system are proposed. Average treatment 
efficiency would not change; however radioactivity level of liquid 
effluent releases may increase with the EPU. These liquid effluents 
from QCNPS would be within the regulatory limits of 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I.
    Based on information submitted by the licensee, the staff concludes 
that no significant dose increase in the liquid pathway would result 
from the proposed EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the FES would 
remain valid under the EPU conditions.
Solid Radioactive Waste Impacts
    Solid radioactive wastes include solids recovered from the reactor 
process system, solids in contact with the reactor process system 
liquids or gases, and solids used in the reactor process system 
operation. The largest volume of solid radioactive waste at QCNPS is 
low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Sources of LLRW at QCNPS include 
resins, filter sludge, dry active waste, metals, and oils. The annual 
burial volume of LLRW generated in 1998 was 228.61 cubic meters. In 
1999, the burial volume decreased to 82.93 cubic meters, and the 
projected burial volume of LLRW for 2000 is approximately 140 cubic 
meters. A 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 18 percent under the EPU conditions, because of the 
increased amount in iron removed by the condensate system from the 
increased feedwater flow. Adding the 18 percent increase in the resin 
volume to the projected year 2000 LLRW burial volume results in a 154-
cubic-meter EPU LLRW burial volume per year (an increase in 
approximately 10 percent), which would be bounded by the FES.
    The number of fuel assemblies would increase in any given core load 
with the proposed EPU, reducing the storage space in the spent fuel 
pool. At current off-load rates, four dry storage casks would be filled 
during each refueling outage and a fifth dry storage cask would be 
partially filled. QCNPS plans to fill the fifth cask using the 
inventory of assemblies from the spent fuel pool. At the EPU 
conditions, each refueling outage would also fill four casks and 
partially fill a fifth. Fewer assemblies from the spent fuel pool would 
be needed to fill the fifth dry storage cask. The net effect of the EPU 
would be to increase the number of dry storage casks needed by three to 
four every 5 years.
Summary
    In summary, the solid radioactive waste burial volume is estimated 
to increase by approximately 10 percent, the volume of liquid 
radioactive releases would not be expected to increase, and the volume 
of gaseous radioactive effluents would be expected to increase up to 18 
percent as a result of the proposed EPU. The level of radioactivity of 
the liquid effluent releases would also increase up to 18-percent. The 
proposed EPU is not expected to have a significant impact on the volume 
or activity of radioactive solid wastes at QCNPS.

Dose Impacts

    The staff evaluated in-plant and offsite radiation as part of its 
review of environmental impacts of the proposed EPU.
In-Plant Radiation
    Radiation levels and associated doses are controlled by the as low 
as reasonably achievable (ALARA) program, as required by 10 CFR Part 
20. The QCNPS ALARA program manages exposure by minimizing the time 
personnel spend in radiation areas, maximizing the distance between 
personnel and radiation areas, and maximizing shielding to minimize 
radiation levels in routinely occupied plant areas and in the vicinity 
of plant equipment requiring attention. Exelon has determined that the 
current shielding designs are adequate for any dose increase that may 
occur due to the proposed EPU. Normal operation radiation levels would 
increase by no more than the percentage increase of the EPU. Many 
aspects of the plant were originally designed for higher-than-expected 
radiation sources. The increase in radiation level does not affect 
radiation zoning or shielding in the various areas of the plant because 
it is offset by conservatism in the original design, source terms 
assumptions, and analytical techniques. The licensee states that no new 
dose reduction programs would be implemented and the ALARA program 
would continue in its current form.
    A potential source of increased occupational radiation is the 
projected increase in moisture carryover from the reactor vessel steam 
dryer/separator to the main steam lines. To reduce moisture content 
under the EPU conditions, modifications to the steam dryer/separator 
would be required. The modifications are expected to result in a 
negligible increase in occupational exposure.
    On the basis of the above information, the staff concludes that the 
occupational (in-plant) dose for QCNPS following the proposed EPU would 
be bounded by the dose estimates in the FES.
Offsite Dose
    The slight increase in normal operational gaseous activity levels 
under the EPU would not affect the large margin to the offsite dose 
limits established by 10 CFR part 20. Offsite dose from radioactive 
effluents are reported in the Annual Radiological Environmental 
Operating Reports. For the period from 1995 to 1999, the average annual 
whole body dose was 5.23E-4 millirem and the average annual dose to the 
critical organ was 8.17E-4 millirem. The highest percentage of 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix I, regulatory limits for maximum dose resulting from 
liquid releases to an adult for the 5 year period occurred in 1998 and 
was 0.005 percent of the critical organ dose limit. For the 1995-1999 
period, the average dose was 0.003 percent of the 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I, regulatory limits. No significant change in the volume of 
water treated and released is expected. The offsite dose from liquid 
effluents is projected to increase proportionally with the EPU due to 
an increase in the concentration of fission products and activation 
products in the reactor coolant. The licensee states that offsite dose 
would remain below the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, regulatory limits.
    Dose to individuals from gaseous releases are also reported in the 
Annual Radiological Environmental Report. The average annual total body 
dose during the period of 1995 to 1999 was 7.08E-4 millirem and the 
average annual dose to the critical organ was 3.9E-2 millirem. The 
highest percentage of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, regulatory limits for 
maximum dose resulting from airborne releases to an adult during the 
period of 1995 to 1999 occurred in 1997 and was 0.23 percent of the 
critical

[[Page 65765]]

organ dose limit. From the period of 1995 to 1999, the average dose was 
0.16 percent of the Appendix I regulatory limits. Conservatively 
assuming a non-negligible amount of fuel leakage due to defects, 
gaseous effluents will increase proportionally to the EPU. However, 
offsite dose will remain well below 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, 
regulatory limits.
    The calculated offsite dose resulting from direct radiation due to 
radiation levels in plant components, such as sky shine, will increase 
up to 18 percent because the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 
conservatively adjusts offsite dose to power generation level. Because 
sky shine is the dominant contributor to total offsite dose, the 
calculated total offsite dose, based on calculations from the Offsite 
Dose Calculation Manual, will increase up to 18 percent. Actual offsite 
dose from sky shine is not expected to increase significantly because 
the decreased transit time is expected to result in a minimal change in 
concentration through reduced decay time and because expected activity 
concentration in the steam will remain constant due to the dilution 
effect of a 19 percent increase in steaming rate. The expected dose at 
the EPU conditions would remain below the limits of 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I, 10 CFR part 20, and 40 CFR part 190 standards.
    The EPU would not create new or different sources of an offsite 
dose from QCNPS operation, and radiation levels under the proposed EPU 
conditions would be within the regulatory limits. The staff concludes 
that the estimated offsite doses under the EPU conditions would meet 
the design objectives specified by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, and be 
within the limits of 10 CFR part 20.

Accident Analysis Impacts

    The staff reviewed the assumptions, inputs, and methods used by 
Exelon to assess the radiological impacts of the proposed EPU at QCNPS. 
In doing this review, the staff relied upon information placed on the 
docket by Exelon, staff experience in doing similar reviews, and the 
staff-accepted licensing topical reports NEDC-32424P-A (Proprietary), 
``Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) 
Extended EPU,'' February 1999 (known as ELTR1), and NEDC-32523P-A 
(Proprietary), ``Generic Evaluation of General Electric Boiling Water 
Reactor Extended EPU,'' February 2000 (known as ELTR2). The staff finds 
that Exelon used analysis methods and assumptions consistent with the 
conservative guidance of ELTR1 and ELTR2. The staff compared the doses 
estimated by Exelon to the applicable criteria. The staff finds, with 
reasonable assurance, that the licensee's estimates of the exclusion 
area boundary (EAB), low-population zone (LPZ), and control room doses 
will continue to comply with 10 CFR part 100 and 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix A, GDC-19, as clarified in NUREG-0800, Sections 6.4 and 15. 
Therefore, QCNPS operation at the proposed EPU rated thermal power is 
acceptable with regard to the radiological consequences of postulated 
design basis accidents.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts

    The environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle has been 
generically evaluated by the staff for a 1000 MWe reference reactor and 
is described in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The QCNPS reactors are 
proposed to operate at 912 MWe after the implementation of the EPU and 
Table S-3 reasonably bounds the environmental impacts of the uranium 
fuel cycle for each QCNPS reactor. The radiological effects presented 
in Table S-3 are small and would not be expected to change due to the 
implementation of the EPU.
    The environmental impacts of the transportation of nuclear fuel and 
wastes are described by Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The table lists heat 
and weight per irradiated fuel cask in transit, traffic density, and 
individual and cumulative dose to workers and the general population 
under normal circumstances. The regulations require that environmental 
reports contain either (a) a statement that the reactor meets specified 
criteria, in which case its environmental effects would be bounded by 
Table S-4; or (b) further analysis of the environmental effects of 
transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor site.
    An NRC assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as corrected 
by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of 
Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycles and concluded that there 
would be no significant change in environmental impacts for fuel cycles 
with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent uranium-235 and burnups 
less than 60,000 megawatt-day per metric ton of uranium (MWd/MTU) from 
the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-4. Because the fuel 
enrichment for the EPU would not exceed 5 weight percent uranium-235 
and the rod average discharge exposure would not exceed 60,000 MWd/MTU, 
the environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at QCNPS would remain 
bounded by these conclusions and would not be significant.

Summary

    The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, would not introduce new radiological 
release pathways, would not result in a significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposures, and would not result in 
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly, 
the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 2 
summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the EPU at QCNPS.

  Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU at
                                  QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Impacts                    Impacts of the EPU at QCNPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Waste Stream Impacts......  The gaseous radioactive release
                                          volume would increase
                                          proportionally with the power
                                          increase. The liquid
                                          radioactive release volume is
                                          not expected to increase;
                                          however, activity levels would
                                          increase proportionally with
                                          the power increase. Solid
                                          radioactive waste will
                                          increase approximately 8
                                          percent. Releases would be
                                          within regulatory limits.
Dose Impacts...........................  In-plant radiation levels would
                                          increase by 18 percent and
                                          dose would be maintained
                                          ALARA. Offsite dose from
                                          liquid and gaseous effluents
                                          may increase up to 18 percent.
                                          Calculated dose from sky shine
                                          will increase up to 18
                                          percent. In-plant and offsite
                                          dose would remain within the
                                          regulatory limits.
Accident Analysis Impacts..............  No significant increase in
                                          probability or consequences of
                                          accident.

[[Page 65766]]

 
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts..  No significant increase.
                                          Impacts would remain with the
                                          conclusions of Table S-3 and S-
                                          4 of 10 CFR Part 51.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., ``the no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts in the QCNPS vicinity; however, other generating 
facilities using nuclear or other alternative energy sources, such as 
coal or gas, would be built in order to supply generating capacity and 
power needs. Construction and operation of a coal plant would create 
impacts to air quality, land use and waste management. Construction and 
operation of a gas plant would also impact air quality and land use. 
Implementation of the EPU would have less of an impact on the 
environment than the construction and operation of a new generating 
facility and does not involve new environmental impacts that are 
significantly different from those presented in the FES. Therefore, the 
staff concludes that increasing QCNPS capacity is an acceptable option 
for increasing power supply. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuel plants, 
QCNPS does not routinely emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon 
dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that contribute to greenhouse 
gases or acid rain.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any different resources 
than those previously considered in the QCNPS FES, dated 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on November 9, 2001, prior to 
issuance of this environmental assessment, the staff consulted with the 
Illinois State official, Frank Niziolek, of the Illinois Department of 
Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated December 27, 2000, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 12, March 20, April 6 and 13, May 3, 18, and 29, 
June 5, 7, and 15, July 6 and 23, August 7, 8, 9, 13 (two letters), 14 
(two letters), 29, and 31 (two letters), September 5, 19, 25, and 27 
(two letters), October 17, November 2 (two letters), 16, and 30, and 
December 10, 2001. Documents may be examined and/or copied for a fee, 
at the NRC's Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-
415-4737, or by e-mail at [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. 01-31331 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7950-01-P