[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6758-6765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3505]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[DOCKET NO. 50-461]


Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Draft 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related 
to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Thermal Power 
Level

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) as 
its evaluation of a request by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen or 
the licensee), for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal 
power level at Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), from 2894 megawatts 
thermal (MWt) to 3473 MWt. This represents a power increase of 
approximately 20 percent for CPS. The proposed amendment would also 
change the operating license and the technical specifications appended 
to the operating license to provide for implementing uprated power 
operation. As stated in the NRC staff's February 8, 1996, position 
paper on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate Program, the 
staff has the option of preparing an environmental impact statement if 
it believes a power uprate will have a significant impact. The staff 
did not identify a significant impact from the licensee's proposed 
extended power uprate at CPS; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting 
its environmental review in an EA. Also, in accordance with the 
February 8, 1996, staff position paper, the draft EA and finding of no 
significant impact is being published in the Federal Register with a 
30-day public comment period.

DATES: The comment period expires March 15, 2002. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to assure consideration only of comments received on 
or before March 15, 2002.

ADDRESSEES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-6 D59, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also be delivered to 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 
p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received will be 
available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room 
(PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/Adams.html on the NRC 
Homepage or at the NRC Public Document Room located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 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].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon B. Hopkins, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, at Mail Stop O-7 D3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at (301) 415-3027, 
or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-62, issued to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen, the 
licensee) for the operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), 
located on Clinton Lake in DeWitt County, Illinois. Therefore, pursuant 
to 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.35, 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 AmerGen, the operator of CPS, to 
increase its electrical generating capacity at CPS by raising the 
maximum reactor core power level from 2894 MWt to 3473 MWt. This change 
is approximately 20 percent above the current licensed maximum power 
level for CPS. 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. CPS 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 licensee 
with input from the plant designer, General Electric Company, evaluated 
the proposed EPU from a safety perspective and concluded that 
sufficient safety and design margins exist so that the proposed 
increase in core thermal power level can be achieved without any risk 
to health and safety of the public or impact on the environment.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated June 18, 2001, a letter providing 
initial environmental information dated September 7, 2001, and 
additional environmental information provided in a letter dated 
November 29, 2001. Also, the application was supplemented by letters 
dated September 28, October 17, 23, 26, and 31, November 8 (2 letters), 
20, 21, and 30, and December 5, 6, 7, 13 (2 letters), 20, 21, and 26, 
2001, and January 8, 15, 16, and 24, 2002. The proposed amendment would 
change the operating license and the technical specifications appended 
to the operating license to provide for implementing uprated power 
operation.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    AmerGen evaluated the need for additional electrical generation 
capacity in its service area for the planning period 2000-2009. 
Information provided by the North American

[[Page 6759]]

Electric Reliability Council showed that, in order to meet projected 
demands, generating capacity must be increased by at least 1.6% per 
year for the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) and the Mid-America 
Interconnected Network (MAIN).
    AmerGen determined that a combination of increased power generation 
and purchase of power from the electrical grid would be needed to meet 
the projected demands including an operating margin for reliability. 
Increasing the generating capacity at CPS was estimated to provide 
lower cost power than can be purchased on the current and projected 
energy market. In addition, increasing nuclear generating capacity 
would lessen the need to depend on fossil fuel alternatives that are 
subject to unpredictable cost fluctuations and increasing environmental 
costs.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    At the time of the issuance of the operating license for CPS, the 
NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license would be 
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental 
Statement (FES) for the operation of CPS, which was issued in May 1982. 
The original operating license for CPS allowed a maximum reactor power 
level of 2894 MWt. On September 7, 2001, 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 CPS. Based on the staff's independent analyses and the 
evaluation performed by the licensee, the staff concludes, as described 
further below, 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 CPS.

Non-Radiological Impacts at CPS

    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, noise, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission 
facilities, and social and economic conditions at CPS.

Land Use Impacts

    The EPU at CPS as proposed will require no changes to the current 
use of land. Modification plans as submitted do not include building 
any new structures or materially altering any existing structures to 
implement EPU activities. With the exception of transportation of 
equipment and materials, and routine waste disposal, EPU activities 
will be confined to the area within the plant security fence. Capacity 
of above or below ground storage tanks are not scheduled to be changed 
by the EPU. Areas outside the plant security fence would not be 
affected in any way by the EPU implementation plan as submitted by 
AmerGen.
    The CPS EPU includes replacement of turbine components that will be 
radiologically contaminated. The proposed maintenance plan includes 
decontamination and recycling of replaced turbine parts, or transfer to 
an approved offsite disposal facility. Thus, additional on-site, low-
level radioactive waste storage facilities would not be needed. We 
conclude that the NRC staff's conclusions in the FES on land use would 
remain valid as a result of implementing the proposed EPU.

Water Use Impacts

    No groundwater resources will be affected by the EPU. CPS uses the 
impounded volume of Clinton Lake (surface water) for all cooling water 
requirements. The licensee has stated that the EPU will result in a 
minimal change in the consumptive use of water from the lake. Thus, the 
NRC staff's conclusions in the FES on water use would continue to be 
valid under operating conditions expected after the EPU. Also note that 
in its October 1974 environmental statement for the construction of two 
units at the Clinton site, the NRC evaluated consumptive use of the 
lake water with two units operating.

Discharge Impacts

    The NRC staff evaluated environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed EPU cooling water discharge such as fogging, icing, noise, 
lake water temperature changes, and cold shock.

Cooling Lake Fog and Icing

    Environmental impacts such as fogging and icing could result from 
the increased heat load resulting from discharge of additional cooling 
water into Clinton Lake. However, the CPS Environmental Report 
addressed estimates of ground fog frequency and icing and associated 
environmental impacts for the current power level. These analyses 
included considerable conservatism, well beyond the projected 20% 
increase of release heat. The NRC staff concluded in the FES that the 
operation of the CPS cooling water discharge system was not harmful to 
the lake and surrounding environment. The NRC staff concludes that 
ground fog and icing that might be generated by plant operation at the 
uprated power level is bounded by the conclusions of the FES.

Noise

    No significant changes to facilities are planned that would change 
the character, sources or energy of noise generated at CPS. All new 
equipment or components needed to modifying existing equipment in order 
to effect the EPU will be installed within existing plant facilities. 
No significant increase in ambient noise levels is anticipated in any 
work areas within the plant. The upgraded turbines are designed to 
operate at the same speed as under the existing power level. The 
conclusions regarding noise levels in the Environmental Report remain 
applicable for noise levels expected under EPU conditions.

Lake Water Temperature Changes

    Effluent from the circulating water coolant system is directed back 
to Clinton Lake. The licensee has stated that it does not expect any 
increase in circulating water flow as a result of the EPU. However, 
because more heat must be rejected from the plant, circulating water 
discharge temperatures will be elevated as a result of the EPU. The 
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has established limits 
for this effluent in the plant's National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit in order to protect the resource. The 
licensee has stated that the plant will continue to be operated in 
compliance with established limits in the NPDES permit. Consequently, 
there should not be a thermal impact to the lake as a result of the EPU 
in excess of that already considered by IEPA. If the NPDES limits 
prevent operation at full power under some conditions, the licensee 
will either have to derate the unit during those times or request a 
change to its permit.

Cold Shock

    Cold water shock to aquatic species occurs when the warm water 
discharge from a plant stops due to an unplanned shutdown. The 
probability of an unplanned shutdown is independent of the power 
uprate. In the event of a shutdown the thermal differential will still 
be within the NPDES limits.

[[Page 6760]]

Consequently, the increase in the risk of fish mortality due to cold 
shock will not be significant, and the total impact will continue to be 
bounded by the FES.

Terrestrial Biota

    The FES for CPS published in May 1982 identified two endangered 
species that may occur in the vicinity of the site; the bald eagle 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 
Operation of the CPS under EPU conditions is expected to have no 
adverse effect on land use and will not disturb the habitats of any 
terrestrial plant or animal species as evaluated in the FES. Extended 
power uprate operating conditions will not significantly increase 
previously evaluated environmental impacts on terrestrial biota.

Aquatic Biota

    As discussed previously, the licensee has stated that it does not 
expect to have to increase circulating water flow as a result of the 
EPU. Therefore, there should be no increase in the entrainment and 
impingement of aquatic species at the intake structure. In addition, 
the licensee has indicated that it expects the discharge temperature of 
the water to remain within the limits previously evaluated and approved 
by IEPA. As long as the plant is operated within these limits, impacts 
to aquatic species should not exceed those previously considered.

Human Health

    In response to an NRC staff request for additional information, CPS 
submitted the following information regarding Naegleria fowleri in its 
letter dated November 29, 2001.
    During the final regulatory review of the Final Environmental 
Statement (FES) in 1982, concerns were raised that the elevated 
temperatures in Clinton Lake due to plant operation might increase the 
abundance of pathogenic N. fowleri and constitute a risk for primary 
contact water sports. N. fowleri is the organism that causes a 
potentially fatal disease know as Primary Amoebic Meningoencephalitis 
(PAM). Initially, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) 
responded to concerns raised by the Illinois Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR) and asked for a two-year pre- and post-operational 
monitoring program for N. fowleri and proposed a ban on primary water 
contact water sports once the plant went operational. After further 
review of the initial monitoring studies and projected lake 
temperatures, and a specially funded medical school review of the 
risks, the IDPH issued a letter in 1987 stating that there was no 
reason to restrict primary contact water sports. The IDPH, however 
requested additional Naegleria fowleri monitoring and lake temperature 
data collection by CPS. The monitoring program continued through 1990, 
when it was concluded that no further information was needed and that 
the risk of N. fowleri from Clinton Lake was insignificant relative to 
other public health risks.
    The summary of the monitoring program results listed below 
illustrates two critical findings. The first was N. fowleri did exist 
in Clinton Lake prior to any thermal additions, and second, as 
expected, it was detected more frequently after thermal additions. 
However, even during the operational years, the frequency of N. fowleri 
in Clinton Lake was much lower than that found in ambient temperature 
lakes in Florida. N. fowleri is common in most fresh water lakes in 
Florida.

                                CPS Naegleria fowleri Monitoring Program Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Positive
                                                                                         Total # of      for
            Year                       Researcher                    CPS status           samples     Naegleria
                                                                                                       fowleri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983.......................  Dr. Tyndall (Oak Ridge Nat.     Pre-operational..........           82            0
                              Labs).
1984.......................  Dr. Tyndall (Oak Ridge Nat.     Pre-operational..........          120            0
                              Labs).
1986.......................  Dr. Wellings & Dr. Lewis (Fla.  Pre-operational..........          219            1
                              D.H.&RS).
1987.......................  Dr. Wellings & Dr. Lewis (Fla.  Start-up.................          103            0
                              D.H.&RS).
1986.......................  Dr. Huizinga (IL State          Pre-operational..........          123            1
                              University).
1987.......................  Dr. Huizinga (IL State          Start-up.................          148            2
                              University).
1988.......................  Dr. Huizinga (IL State          Operational..............          400           21
                              University).
1989.......................  Dr. Huizinga (IL State          Operational..............          176            9
                              University).
1990.......................  Dr. Huizinga Operational (IL    Operational..............          400           15
                              State University).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An increase in abundance of Naegleria fowleri does not directly 
correlate with an increase in the number of cases of PAM caused by this 
pathogen. As of 1998, there had only been about 54 documented cases of 
PAM in the entire country. Most of these cases were in Florida and a 
small isolated region of Virginia. The only case associated with a 
cooling lake was in Texas, and the victim contracted PAM from a non-
heated portion of the lake.
    Efforts were made to keep the IDPH informed of the N. fowleri 
monitoring results and operational changes that impacted lake 
temperatures. Each year the IDPH was given the N. fowleri monitoring 
data and temperature data from continuous recorders at key locations in 
Clinton Lake. When Illinois Power filed a petition in 1988 for a Site-
Specific Adjusted Standard for higher thermal discharge limits, the 
IDPH was given a presentation on the modeled lake temperatures that 
would result from this Site-Specific Standard. The Site-Specific 
Standard was granted in 1992 and permitted the maximum daily average 
discharge temperature to be raised from 99 deg.F to 110.7 deg.F. The 
Station NPDES permit currently has two temperature limitations. The 
temperature of discharge water at the second drop structure in the 
discharge flume is limited to a maximum daily average temperature of 
99 deg.F for 90 days in a calendar year, or 110.7 deg.F for any single 
day. The permit and these limits will not be changed for the EPU, 
therefore, the reviewed and approved heat load for Clinton Lake will 
not be changed.
    The original monitoring program and subsequent decisions to stop 
monitoring and permit unrestricted recreational lake use were based on 
compliance with the NPDES permit and the very small risk this issue 
presented. Based on the above discussion, the NRC staff believes that 
the risk to the public associated with the microbial pathogen N. 
fowleri in the reservoir will not increase significantly and no use 
restrictions or additional monitoring are necessary due to power uprate 
operation.

Transmission Facility Impacts

    Environmental impacts, such as the installation of additional 
transmission line equipment, or increased exposure

[[Page 6761]]

to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electrical shock, could result from 
an EPU. The licensee stated that there are no changes in operating 
transmission or power line right of way needed to support the EPU. An 
increase in main transformer capacity will be necessary to deliver the 
additional power to the grid but design safety margins are more than 
adequate to handle this increased electrical power. No new equipment or 
modifications will be necessary for the offsite power system to 
maintain grid stability.
    The probability of shock from primary or secondary current systems 
does not increase from an EPU. Transmission lines and facilities are 
designed in accordance with the applicable shock prevention provisions 
of the National Electric Safety Code, and engineered safety margins are 
deemed adequate to protect against potential electric shock. The 
increased generator output at CPS will cause a proportional increase in 
the intensity of EMFs in the vicinity of the near plant transmission 
lines. There is no scientific consensus regarding the health effects, 
in any, of exposure to electromagnetic fields. No known effects from 
EMF on terrestrial biota have been demonstrated. Exposure to EMFs from 
offsite transmission system power level increases would not be expected 
to increase significantly, and no health or environmental impacts have 
been shown to result from EMF exposure. Thus no significant 
environmental impacts from changes in the transmission design and 
equipment are expected, and the conclusions in the FES remain valid.

Social and Economic Effects

    The NRC staff received information provided by the licensee 
regarding socioeconomic impacts from the planned EPU, including 
potential impacts on the CPS workforce and the local economy. The 
licensee does not anticipate that the EPU will affect the size of the 
CPS permanent workforce, and does not expect any need to expand the 
labor force required for future outages. CPS contributions to the 
local, state and school tax bases are of significant value to the local 
economy. Some fraction of the plant modification costs to accommodate 
the EPU will accrue to the economy. Increased revenue from sale of 
additional power output will expand the local tax revenue, benefitting 
the community directly.
    Benefits to the local community are dependent in part on the 
success of the EPU, and the extend to which the EPU will permit AmerGen 
to remain competitive in the energy market. To the extent that the EPU 
will extend the operating lifetime of CPS by enhancing its economic 
performance, the long term benefits to the local economy will be 
extended. The staff expects that the conclusions in the FES regarding 
social and economic impacts will apply to EPU operating conditions.
    In summary, the proposed EPU at CPS is not expected to cause a 
significant change in non-radiological impacts on land use, water use, 
waste discharges, noise, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission 
facilities or social and economic factors, and would have no non-
radiological environmental impacts in addition to those evaluated in 
the FES. Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental effects 
of the EPU at CPS.

 Table 1.--Summary of Non-radiological Environmental Impacts of the EPU
                                 at CPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Impacts                   Impacts of the EPU at CPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Impacts...............  No changes required to current land
                                  use.
Water Use Impacts..............  Minimal increase in consumptive
                                  water use expected.
Discharge Impacts..............  Any increases in fog formation or
                                  icing are expected to be
                                  insignificant and well within the
                                  acceptable levels determined by
                                  the FES.
                                 No significant increases in ambient
                                  noise levels are expected.
                                 No plans to increase cooling water
                                  flow.
                                 Discharge temperature will remain
                                  within NPDES limits.
                                 Lake water temperature changes both
                                  during normal operations and after
                                  unplanned shutdown will remain
                                  within accepted levels.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts......  No wildlife habitat in the area
                                  will be affected because all
                                  construction will be done inside
                                  existing facilities. Known
                                  endangered species in the area
                                  will continue to be monitored.
Aquatic Biota Impacts..........  Temperature change in Lake Clinton
                                  is expected to remain within NPDES
                                  limits. Risk to the public from
                                  known microbial pathogens will not
                                  increase significantly.
Transmission Facilities Impacts  No changes in operating
                                  transmission voltages, onsite
                                  transmission equipment, or power
                                  line rights-of-way. Transformer
                                  capacity will increase but design
                                  safety margins considered
                                  adequate. EMF will increase
                                  proportionate to the EPU but no
                                  changes in exposure rate is
                                  expected
Social and Economic Impacts....  No change in CPS permanent or part-
                                  time work force is expected. EPU
                                  may expand tax base and enhance
                                  longevity of plant operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts From EPU at CPS

    The NRC staff evaluated radiological environmental impacts on waste 
streams, dose, accident analysis, and fuel cycle and transportation 
factors. The following is a general discussion of these issues and an 
evaluation of their environmental impacts.

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

    CPS uses waste treatment systems that must be designed to collect, 
process and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid and solid waste in a 
controlled and safe manner, and in accordance with the requirements of 
10 CFR part 20 and Appendix I to part 50. The design bases for the CPS 
systems during normal operation limit discharges well within the limits 
specified in 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation,'' and satisfy the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR 
part 50, ``Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting 
Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion, ``As Low as is 
Reasonably Achievable'' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water Cooled 
Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.'' Licensee analysis shows that these 
limits and objectives will continue to be met under EPU operating 
conditions.
    Modifications planned to effect EPU operation do not include nor 
require any changes in the operation or design of facilities or 
equipment in the solid,

[[Page 6762]]

liquid or gaseous waste handling systems. The safety and reliability of 
these systems are designed with sufficient margin so as to be 
unaffected by operating conditions associated with EPU. Neither the 
environmental monitoring procedures for these waste streams, nor any 
radiological monitoring requirements of the CPS Technical 
Specifications and/or Offsite Dose Calculation Manual will be reduced 
or changed in any way by the EPU.
    The EPU will not introduce any new or different radiological 
release pathways. Probability of operator error or equipment 
malfunction that might result in an uncontrolled radioactive release 
are estimated to remain at current levels under EPU conditions. The 
specific effects of EPU on each of the radioactive waste systems are 
discussed below.

Solid Waste

    Solid radioactive wastes include solids recovered from the reactor 
process system, solids in contact with the reactor process system 
liquids or gasses, and solids used in reactor process system operation. 
The largest volume of solid radioactive waste at CPS is low-level 
radioactive waste (LLRW). Sources of LLRW at CPS include resins, filter 
sludge, dry active waste, metals and oils.
    The annual environmental impact of low- and high-level solid wastes 
related to uranium fuel cycle activities was generically evaluated by 
the NRC staff for a 1000 MWe reference reactor. The estimated activity 
content of these wastes is given in Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51 and would 
continue to be bounding for CPS at EPU operating conditions.
    CPS maintains records of the volume of solid waste generated and 
has a documented volume reduction program with the objective to 
continually identify and implement volume reduction techniques. The 
low-level solid waste volume generated at CPS in calendar year 2000 was 
reported to be 111.7 cubic meters. For calendar year 2001, CPS is 
projecting 115 cubic meters of low-level solid waste. With volume 
reduction programs in effect, CPS is estimating far less than a 20 
percent increase in solid waste volume due to the planned EPU.
    The largest volume source of radioactive solid waste is spent 
resins from process wastes. Other major contributors at CPS are 
equipment wastes from operational and maintenance procedures, and 
chemical and reactor system wastes. The EPU is not projected by the 
licensee to significantly change the amount or type of equipment and 
chemical wastes generated.
    CPS projects an increase in the process wastes generated from 
operation of the reactor water cleanup (RWCU) filter/demineralizers, 
and the condensate demineralizers that could be approximately 
proportional to the power uprate. More frequent system backwashes will 
occur due to an increase in the flow rate through the RWCU and 
condensate demineralizer systems.
    The licensee estimates the increased frequency of backwashes to be 
less than 20 percent of current value. The purity of the coolant and 
filter performance will not change. The licensee projects only a small 
increase in solid waste volumes from these processes.
    Another important source of solid waste is spent fuel. CPS reported 
that 188 fresh fuel bundles were loaded in the recent refueling outage, 
to accommodate operation under EPU conditions. The number of irradiated 
fuel assemblies moved to storage during future refueling outages is not 
expected to increase as a result of EPU because of planned and approved 
extended burnup and increased U-235 enrichment of the fuel used. The 
amount of these wastes, therefore, is not expected to increase. The 
spent fuel is currently stored in spent fuel facilities onsite and is 
not shipped offsite.
    The volume and activity of waste predicted by the licensee to be 
generated from spent control blades and in-core ion chambers may 
increase slightly as a result of higher neutron flux conditions 
associated with EPU conditions. The NRC staff does not expect this 
increase to be significant and believes that it can be accommodated 
within existing onsite storage facilities. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that there will not be a significant increase in the amounts, 
or change in the types, of solid wastes produced by the plant as a 
result of EPU.

Liquid Radwaste

    The liquid radwaste system at CPS is designed to process and 
recycle the liquid waste collected so that annual radiation doses to 
individuals are maintained will below the guidelines in 10 CFR part 20 
and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I. CPS has operated since 1992 as a zero 
radioactive liquid release plant, choosing to recycle all liquid 
wastes. CPS does not intend to change this policy as a result of EPU. 
Filter backwashing will increase input to the liquid radwaste system 
due to the 20 percent EPU, but this small increase will be recycled 
rather than discharged, and thus will have no effect on the 
environment.
    CPS does not expect the EPU to result in any significant increase 
in the volume of liquid wastes from other sources into the liquid 
radwaste system. The reactor will continue to operate within present 
fluid pressure control bands under EPU conditions so that leakage 
should not increase. No changes in reactor recirculation pump flow 
rates are needed to accommodate the EPU. Equipment drains, floor drains 
or chemical waste systems will not be changed as a result of the EPU 
because the operating conditions of these facilities are independent of 
power levels.

Gaseous Radwastes

    During normal operation, the gaseous effluent systems control the 
release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environment, 
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 releases at CPS are the 
common station heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) stack 
and the standby gas treatment system (SGTS) vent. Normal gaseous 
releases are through the common station HVAC stack. The radioactive 
gaseous effluents include small quantities of noble gases, halogens, 
particulates and tritium. Based on conservative assumptions of non-
negligible fuel leakage due to defects, it is probable that gaseous 
radioactive release rate from the common station HVAC stack would 
increase in proportion to the 20 percent EPU. Current release 
quantities are very small and the projected radioactive gaseous 
effluents under EPU condition would remain within Appendix I limits.
    The licensee is required to continually monitor radioactive 
releases in this pathway to assure that doses to members of the public 
are maintained within federal limits. The stack effluent alarm setpoint 
for the stack monitoring system is set conservatively at a level 
required to maintain the 10 CFR part 20 limits as specified by CPS 
Technical Specifications. The setpoint is 3.8 E-04  Ci/sec. 
Continuous releases at this level would result in offsite doses well 
below 10 CFR part 20 limits.
    The FES for CPS predicted 6600 curie (ci)/yr noble gas and a 0.46 
Ci/yr Iodine -131 release rates. The actual release quantities measured 
and reported by the licensee for the year 2000 were 5.44E -03 Ci of 
noble gases and 1.73 E-04 Ci

[[Page 6763]]

Iodine -131. Assuming a proportional increase of 20 percent in these 
rates due to the EPU, the new actual release rates would still be well 
below those previously evaluated by the FES.
    Particulate and tritium release rates evaluated for environmental 
impact in the FES were 1.75 Ci/yr and 57 Ci/yr, respectively. The 
actual release quantities measured and reported by CPS for the year 
2000 were 3.32 E -03 Ci and 41.64 Ci respectively. The FES quantities 
are calculated to contribute insignificantly to public dose. Assuming a 
20 percent proportional increase due to the EPU, the resulting 
particulate and tritium release rates will continue to be within the 
quantities evaluated in the FES as contributing little environmental 
impact.
    The staff concludes that, based on information provided by the 
licensee and on evaluations performed in the FES, the gaseous effluent 
levels at EPU operating conditions will remain negligible, and in 
compliance with release limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the guidelines of 
Appendix I of 10 CFR part 50.
    In summary, the NRC staff concludes that the increases projected in 
solid and gaseous radioactive wastes that are released offsite will 
comply with federal guidelines and will be well within the FES 
evaluations.

Radiation Levels and Dose Impacts

    The NRC staff evaluated licensee projected in-plant and offsite 
radiation doses as a part of the review of environmental impacts of the 
proposed EPU at CPS.

In-Plant Radiation Impacts

    On-site radiation levels and associated occupational doses are 
controlled by the licensee's program to maintain doses as low as 
reasonably achievable (ALARA) as required in 10 CFR part 20. The CPS 
ALARA program manages occupational dose by minimizing the time workers 
spend in radiation areas, maximizing distance between workers and 
sources, and using shielding to reduce radiation levels in work areas 
whenever practical. The licensee has determined that current shielding 
designs are adequate to compensate for any increases in dose levels as 
a result of the EPU.
    Data provided by CPS shows that occupational dose to workers 
decreased significantly over the past 10 years. Based on a rolling 
three year average, the 2001 dose is projected to be 32 percent less 
than the 1990 dose. Although the EPU will potentially increase 
radiation levels in some parts of the work area, these increases will 
be compensated by continued ALARA program improvements and a continuing 
downward trend in occupational doses is projected by CPS.
    CPS shielding design was conservative with respect to projected 
radiation source levels. In the original shielding analysis, 
concentrations of fission and corrosion products in reactor coolant 
water were assumed to be 2.5  Ci/g and 0.062  Ci/g, 
respectively. The actual measured combined concentration is 
approximately 0.016  Ci/g. Assuming a proportional increase of 
20 percent in operating radioactivity levels, the shielding design will 
remain bounding with a significant margin at EPU conditions. On the 
basis of this information, the NRC staff concludes that the expected 
in-plant radiation doses at CPS following the proposed EPU will be well 
below regulatory criteria and will not have a significant impact.

Offsite Dose Impacts

    As previously discussed under Gaseous Radiological Wastes, CPS 
expects that the small increase in normal operational gaseous activity 
levels under EPU conditions will not appreciably impact the large 
margin between 10 CFR part 20 limits and actual measured and reported 
releases. Doses from liquid effluents are currently zero and the EPU 
will not result in any changes in liquid radiological waste releases.
    The CPS Technical Specifications implement the release guidelines 
of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, which are well within 10 CFR part 20 
limits. The licensee provided the following table of doses calculated 
under current conditions compared to projected values under the planned 
EPU and to Appendix I dose limits. It is apparent that the offsite 
doses do not change greatly and remain well within the conservative 
Technical Specification dose limits.

                                      Table 2.--Radiological Effluent Doses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      10 CFR 50
                                          Nominal  values  (year 2000)    EPU values  (estimated)     Appendix l
                                                                                                        limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Gas Gamma Air Dose (mrad).........  1.59 E-07                     1.91 E-07                             10
Noble Gas Beta Air Dose (mrad)..........  2.04 E-07                     2.45 E-07                             20
Particulate, Iodine and Tritium           2.93 E-03                     3.52 E-03                             15
 (Thyroid) (mrem).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The planned EPU at CPS should not result in any significant 
increases in offsite doses from gaseous effluents, nor does the planned 
EPU envision the creation of any new sources of offsite dose. 
Radioactive liquid effluents are not routinely discharged from CPS. The 
annual dose contribution from skyshine is based on design basis 
activities. These doses are considered bounding for EPU and are a small 
fraction of the 40 CFR part 190 limit of 25 mrem. The NRC staff 
concludes that offsite doses will remain well within regulatory limits 
under operating conditions associated with the EPU.

Accident Analysis Impacts

    The NRC staff reviewed the assumptions, impacts and methods used by 
CPS to assess the radiological impacts of potential accidents when 
operating under EPU conditions. In Section 5 of the CPS FES, three 
classes of postulated accidents were evaluated to determine the 
associated environmental impact. The licensee provided the following 
information regarding the impact of EPU on the assumptions and 
conclusions for the three environmental accident classes evaluated in 
the FES.

--Class 1: Incidents of Moderate Frequency.

    This class is also referred to as anticipated operational 
occurrences. The FES concluded that any incident of this type would 
cause releases commensurate with the limits on routine effluents. 
Because of facility improvements and maintenance, the actual activity 
concentrations of reactor coolant are considerably less than predicted 
by the FES. Assuming a 20 percent increase as a result of EPU activity, 
concentration levels would still be far below FES predictions.

--Class 2: Infrequent Accidents


[[Page 6764]]


    There are events that might occur once during the lifetime of the 
plant. The licensee asserts reasonably that the planned EPU does not 
increase the probability of occurrence or severity of these type 
events.
    The licensee further evaluated the impact of EPU operating 
conditions on several typical postulated accidents in these two 
classes. These were off-gas system failure, radwaste storage tank 
release, small-break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), and fuel handling 
accident. All of these postulated events under EPU conditions were 
shown to result in doses that were insignificant and well within the 
bounding conditions of the FES, or to be so unlikely under present or 
EPU conditions that they do not contribute significantly to 
environmental impacts.

--Class 3: Limiting Faults
    This class of accidents includes large-break LOCA, main steam-line 
break, and control rod drop accident (CRDA). The licensee modeled and 
analyzed these design basis accidents under EPU conditions for 
comparison to regulatory limits. Radiological consequences of these 
worst case scenarios are limited by 10 CFR part 100 for offsite doses. 
These accidents were conservatively analyzed by the licensee assuming 
an initial power level of 3039 MWt for the LOCA and 2952 MWt for CRDA. 
Postulated power levels in the analysis were 105 percent and 102 
percent respectively of the FES bounding analytical power level of 2894 
MWt. The licensee provided the results of these calculations in the 
following tables. Following a large break LOCA, the SGTS at CPS 
establishes and maintains a negative pressure in the secondary 
containment area. Any primary containment leak will be contained within 
the secondary containment and will be released to the outside only 
after passing through SGTS, which filters and treats the effluent. All 
releases from the SGTS are via the SGTS vent.

                                       Table 3.--Loss of Coolant Accident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Current power
                            Location                               level dose     EPU dose (rem)    Regulatory
                                                                      (rem)                         limit (rem)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAB Whole Body.................................................              11             13.5              25
EAB Thyroid....................................................             225            267               300
LPZ Whole Body.................................................             3.5              4.5              25
LPZ Thyroid....................................................              86            102               300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Table 4.--Rod Drop Accident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Current power level dose                                 Regulatory
                Location                            (rem)                   EPU dose (rem)          limit (rem)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAB Whole Body.........................  1.8E-02                      2.34E-02                              6.25
EAB Thyroid............................  1.6E-01                      1.92E-01                                75
LPZ Whole Body.........................  5.6E-03                      7.28E-03                              6.25
LPZ Thyroid............................  1.8E-01                      2.16E-01                                75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of these analyses indicate that the EPU will not cause 
off-site accident projected doses to exceed regulatory limits. The NRC 
staff agrees that the assumptions used in the licensee's analysis are 
conservative with respect to EPU operating conditions, shielding and 
dose. Thus, the staff concludes that the radiological consequences of a 
design-basis accident under EPU conditions are within the acceptance 
criteria of 10 CFR part 100 and do not involve any significant impact 
to the human environment.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts

    The environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle has been 
generically evaluated by the NRC staff for a 1000 MWe reference reactor 
and is discussed in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. Under EPU conditions CPS 
will be rated at approximately 1100 MWe. Information provided by the 
licensee includes the following. The data presented in tables 5-12 (10 
CFR 51.51 Table S-3) and 5.5 (10 CFR 51.52 Table S-4) of the FES are 
based on an average burnup assumption 33,000 MWd/MtU and a U-235 
enrichment assumption of 4 wt.%. Under EPU conditions, fuel consumption 
is expected to increase such that the batch average burnup of the fuel 
assemblies will be in excess of 33,000 MWd/MtU but less than 62,000 
MWd/MtU. To support extended burnup, the U-235 enrichment levels will 
also increase, but will still be less than 4 wt.%. The NRC has 
previously evaluated the impact of increased burnup to 62,000 MWd/MtU 
with U-235 fuel enrichment to 5 wt.% on the conclusions of Table S-3. 
Although some radionuclide inventory levels and activity levels are 
projected to increase, the NRC noted that little or no increase in the 
amount of radionuclides released to the environment during normal 
operation was expected. The NRC staff determined that the incremental 
environmental effects of increased enrichment and burnup on 
transportation of fuel, spent fuel and waste would not be significant. 
In addition the NRC staff analysis noted environmental benefits of 
extended burnup such as reduced occupational dose, reduced public dose, 
reduced fuel requirements per unit electricity, and reduced shipments. 
The NRC concluded that the environmental impacts described by Table S-3 
would be bounding for an increased burnup rate above that planned for 
the CPS EPU.
    Because the fuel enrichment for the CPS EPU will not exceed 5 
weight percent uranium-235 and the rod average discharge exposure will 
be under the 62,000 MWd/MtU burnup rate previously analyzed by the NRC, 
the environmental impacts of the planned EPU at CPS will continue to be 
bounded by their conclusions and would not be significant.

Summary

    Based on NRC staff review of licensee submittals and the FES, it is 
concluded that the proposed CPS EPU would not significantly increase 
the probability or consequences of accidents, would not introduce new 
radiological release pathways, would not result in a significant 
increase in occupational or

[[Page 6765]]

public radiation exposure, and would not result in significant 
additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly the Commission 
concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action. The following table 
summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the EPU at CPS.

Table 5.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impact of the EPU at CPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Impact                  Staff conclusion regarding impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Waste Stream Impacts.  The increases projected in solid,
                                     liquid, or gaseus radioactive
                                     wastes are either recycled
                                     (liquid), fully contained on site
                                     (solid), or are released (gaseous)
                                     at levels that comply with Federal
                                     guidelines and that are well within
                                     the FES evaluation.
Dose Impacts......................  Both on-site occupational doses and
                                     off-site doses will remain well
                                     within regulatory guidance and will
                                     continue to be bounded by
                                     evaluations performed in the FES.
Accident Analysis Impacts.........  No significant increase in
                                     probability or consequences of
                                     accidents is expected.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation       No significant increase is expected.
 Impacts.                            Impacts remain within the
                                     guidelines of Table S-3 and Table S-
                                     4 of 10 CFR part 51.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives

    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 CPS 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 CPS capacity is an acceptable option 
for increasing power supply. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuel plants, 
CPS does not routinely emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon 
dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that may contribute to 
greenhouse gases or acid rain.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources different 
than those previously considered in the CPS FES, dated May 1982.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 28, 2002, prior to 
issuance of this environmental assessment, the staff consulted with the 
Illinois State official, Frank Nizidlek, 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 this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 18, 2001, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 7 and 28, October 17, 23, 26, and 31, November 
8 (2 letters), 20, 21, 29, and 30, and December 5, 6, 7, 13 (2 
letters), 20, 21, and 26, 2001, and January 8, 15, 16, and 24, 2002, 
which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public 
Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of February 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-3505 Filed 2-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P