[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36040-36046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12834]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-325 AND 50-324]


Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum 
Rated Thermal Power Level

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and 
DPR-62, issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), for operation 
of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), located in 
Brunswick County, North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow CP&L, the operator of BSEP, to 
increase the maximum thermal power level by approximately 15 percent, 
from 2558 Megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 2923 MWt. 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. The original licensed maximum power level was 2436 MWt, 
and the NRC staff approved an increase in the licensed maximum power 
level to 2558 MWt (approximately 5 percent increase) on November 1, 
1996. This increase in power was implemented at BSEP in 1997. 
Therefore, this proposed action would result in an increase of 
approximately 20 percent over the original licensed maximum power 
level. The amendment would allow the heat output of the reactor to 
increase, which would increase the flow of steam to the turbine. This 
would allow the turbine generator to increase the production of power 
and increase the amount of heat dissipated by the condenser. Moreover, 
this would result in an increased temperature in the water being 
released into the Atlantic Ocean.
    The NRC previously published a draft environmental assessment of 
the proposed action in the Federal Register (67 FR 16132, April 4, 
2002) and offered an opportunity for public comment. No comments were 
received.

Need for the Proposed Action

    CP&L forecasts a 40-percent increase in the demand for electrical 
power by 2015 in its service area in North Carolina and South Carolina. 
CP&L can meet this projected increase in power demand by increasing the 
number of natural gas-fired combustion turbines or by purchasing power 
from other sources. The cost of adding the additional generating 
capacity at BSEP is roughly equivalent to the cost of constructing 
several small combustion turbine units, each producing approximately 50 
Megawatts-electrical (MWe). The proposed EPU would increase the 
electrical output for BSEP Unit 1 from 841 MWe to 958 MWe and for BSEP 
Unit 2 from 835 MWe to 951 MWe. However, the cost of nuclear power 
generation is approximately one-third of the cost of natural gas power 
generation. Therefore, the proposed EPU would increase power production 
capacity at a lower economic cost than the fossil fuel alternatives, 
such as natural gas, and would not result in additional land 
disturbances or other environmental impacts that could result from new 
plant construction.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    At the time of issuance of the operating licenses for BSEP, the NRC 
staff noted that any activity authorized by the license for each unit 
would be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final 
Environmental Statement (FES) for the operation of BSEP, which was 
issued in January 1974. The original operating licenses allowed a 
maximum reactor power of 2436 MWt. CP&L was granted amendments to the 
BSEP licenses to increase maximum reactor power level by approximately 
5 percent on November 1, 1996. The NRC staff published an Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA) in support of this 
uprate in the Federal Register on October 28,1996 (61 FR 55673). As 
part of the application dated August 9, 2001, CP&L submitted a 
supplement to the BSEP Environmental Report supporting the proposed EPU 
and providing a summary of its conclusions concerning both the 
radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed 
action. Based on the NRC staff's independent analyses and the 
information provided by CP&L, the NRC staff concludes that the 
environmental impacts of the EPU are bounded by the environmental 
impacts previously

[[Page 36041]]

evaluated in the FES because the EPU would not involve extensive 
changes to plant systems that directly or indirectly interface with the 
environment. This EA summarizes the non-radiological and radiological 
impacts on the environment that may result from the proposed 
amendments.

Non-Radiological Impacts

Land Use Impacts

    The proposed EPU would not modify the current land use at the site 
significantly over that described in the FES. Three small mechanical 
draft cooling towers would be erected on the roof of the radwaste 
building to service the new condensate cooling system. No other 
expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage or 
laydown areas, or onsite transmission and distribution equipment, 
including power line rights-of-way, is anticipated to support this 
action. No new construction outside of the existing facilities would be 
necessary. The EPU would not significantly affect material storage, 
including chemicals, fuels, and other materials stored aboveground or 
underground.

Cooling Tower Impacts

    Each of the three new mechanical draft cooling towers, which would 
service the condensate cooling system, are approximately 7 meters (m) 
by 7 m [24 feet (ft) by 24 ft], with a height of approximately 5 m (16 
ft). They will be installed on the roof of the radwaste building at an 
elevation of approximately 20 m (64 ft). The cooling towers would not 
be readily visible offsite, so there would be no visual or aesthetic 
impact. The towers are modular in design and construction, and a 
similar kind of construction is performed onsite during almost every 
refueling outage without noticeable additional impacts from noise, 
dust, odors, vibration, traffic, or vehicle exhaust. Therefore, there 
would be no significant impact from construction of the cooling towers. 
Each cooling tower would be designed to reject a maximum of 
approximately 15 MWt (51 million BTU/hr). The expected level of noise 
from operation of a cooling tower fan would be 84 dBA at a distance of 
1.5 m (5 ft); however, the towers would be located on a roof top near 
the middle of the protected area. Therefore, no added impact from noise 
is expected offsite. Existing cooling towers, similar in design to the 
condensate cooling towers, have been in operation for years on the roof 
of the turbine building at BSEP. No significant fogging, icing, or 
drifting plumes carrying chemicals or particulate matter have been 
experienced from these existing cooling towers; therefore, no 
significant impact would be expected from operation of the condensate 
cooling towers.

Transmission Facility Impacts

    The proposed EPU would not require any physical modifications to 
the transmission lines. Increased current would be the only change in 
design or operation of the transmission lines needed to support the 
EPU. CP&L's transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices, 
including the management of vegetation growth, would not be affected. 
No new requirements or changes to onsite transmission equipment, 
operating voltages, or transmission line rights-of-way would be 
necessary to support the EPU. The main plant transformers will be 
modified and replaced to support the uprate; however, replacement of 
the transformers would have been required before the end of plant life 
as part of the licensee's ongoing maintenance program; therefore, no 
significant environmental impact beyond that considered in the FES is 
expected from this kind of replacement of onsite equipment.
    The increased electrical current would cause an increased 
electromagnetic field around the transmission lines, and the potential 
for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and no 
scientific consensus has been reached. However, since the increase in 
power level is approximately 15 percent, the impact of exposure to 
electromagnetic fields from the offsite transmission lines would not be 
expected to increase significantly over the current impact.
    The transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance 
with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National 
Electric Safety Code. Therefore, even with the slight increase in 
current attributable to the EPU, adequate protection is provided 
against hazards from electrical shock.

Impacts on Terrestrial Biota

    The proposed EPU would not involve any land disturbance; all 
construction will be on the roof of the pre-existing radwaste building. 
Also, once construction is completed, the uprate would not increase 
noise levels outside the plant site or increase the size of the 
workforce, nor would CP&L's transmission line rights-of-way maintenance 
practices change. Therefore, the uprate would not disturb the habitat 
of any terrestrial plant or animal species. In 1998, CP&L conducted a 
study to update information about the potential existence of sensitive 
plant and animal species in the plant environs. Two endangered 
perennial herbs, rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue, occur 
in the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way. The red-cockaded 
woodpecker, an endangered bird, occurs in the mature pine forests in 
Brunswick County. The uprate would not disturb the habitat of any of 
these species, and CP&L has instituted measures to protect and manage 
the two endangered herbs by agreement with the North Carolina Natural 
Heritage Program. Therefore, no significant impact on terrestrial biota 
would be expected from the uprate.

Water Use Impacts

    BSEP uses a once-through cooling system to remove heat from the 
reactor coolant in the condensers. An intake canal approximately 5 
kilometers (km) (3 miles) in length feeds water from the Cape Fear 
River to the BSEP intake structure. The water passes through tubes in 
the condensers removing heat from the reactor coolant. Then the water 
passes through a discharge canal 10 km (6 miles) in length to Caswell 
Beach. At Caswell Beach, the water is pumped approximately 600m (2000 
ft) offshore and discharged at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
    The proposed EPU would not involve any increase in the rate of 
withdrawal of water from the intake canal or the Cape Fear River. 
Makeup water for the new condensate cooling system would be obtained 
from the Brunswick County water system; the maximum anticipated flow of 
makeup water would be approximately 23.7 liters per second [375 gallons 
per minute (gpm)]. CP&L consulted with Brunswick County water system 
management officials, who indicated that the additional water use would 
be well within the capacity of the County water system. Therefore, the 
uprate would not have a significant impact on water usage by BSEP and 
would not create a water use conflict.

Discharge Impacts

    Surface water and wastewater discharges at BSEP are regulated by 
the State of North Carolina via a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit is periodically reviewed 
and renewed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 
Resources (NCDENR). The EPU would increase the temperature of the water 
discharged to the Atlantic Ocean. Also, the blowdown from the new 
cooling towers would be piped to the existing storm drain system and 
empty into a storm drain basin.

[[Page 36042]]

Water from the storm drain basin is pumped into a stabilization pond; 
discharges from the stabilization pond flow into the BSEP intake canal.
    In 2001, CP&L analyzed the effect of the proposed EPU on the water 
temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean in the area of the BSEP discharge. 
First, historical data, such as intake temperatures, discharge 
temperatures, plant operating conditions, and meteorological 
conditions, were used to develop isothermal distribution maps. Then, 
isothermal distribution maps were projected using the expected heat 
rejection rates for the uprate condition. Based on these analyses, CP&L 
submitted an application to the NCDENR for renewal of the BSEP NPDES 
permit with the following revisions to support the uprate:
    1. Area of surface water temperature increase up to 7 degrees 
Fahrenheit (F) [3.9 degrees Celsius (C)] in the plume extending from 
the discharge point in the Atlantic Ocean shall not exceed 120 acres 
[50 hectares (ha)]. The current limit is approximately 60 acres (24 
ha).
    2. Area of surface water temperature increase up to 1.44 degrees F 
(0.8 degrees C) during June-August [3.96 degrees F (2.2 degrees C) 
during September-May] should not exceed 2000 acres (800 ha). The 
current limit is 1000 acres (400 ha).
    3. Area of bottom water temperature increase up to 7 degrees F (3.9 
degrees C) shall not exceed 4 acres (1.6 ha). The current limit is 2 
acres (0.8 ha).
    4. Bottom water temperature increase shall not exceed 7 degrees F 
(3.9 degrees C) beyond a distance of 1000 ft (300 m) from the discharge 
point. The current limit is 500 ft (150 m).
    BSEP has been operating within the current limits; therefore, these 
limits represent an upper bound of the current impact on ocean water 
temperatures in the vicinity of the discharge. The proposed limits to 
support the uprate similarly represent the expected upper bound of the 
impact on ocean water temperatures if the uprate were fully 
implemented.
    The maximum blowdown flow from all three condensate cooling towers 
into the storm drain system would be approximately 8.2 liters per 
second (130 gpm). Water treatment chemicals would be added to the 
condensate cooling system--approximately 409 liters (108 gallons) per 
year of ChemTreat CL-216 (a biocide) and approximately 1567 liters (414 
gallons) per year of ChemTreat CL-4800 (a dispersant). These chemical 
additions were included in the application to NCDENR for the renewed 
NPDES permit. The volume of the blowdown would be small compared to the 
volume of the storm drain basin, and it would be diluted even further 
in the stabilization pond and the intake canal. The blowdown from the 
existing cooling towers on the roof of the turbine building follows the 
same discharge path. Therefore, no significant additional impact would 
be expected from the blowdown discharged from the condensate cooling 
system.

Impacts on Aquatic Biota

    The flow rate of water being withdrawn from the intake canal at the 
intake structure would not increase, and no change would be made in the 
design of the intake structure screens. Therefore, no increase in the 
entrainment of planktonic organisms or in the impingement of fish, 
shellfish, or sea turtles would be expected.
    CP&L has conducted thermal studies in the Atlantic Ocean in the 
vicinity of the BSEP discharge for over 25 years; no adverse impacts on 
fish and shellfish have been observed. The expected increase in water 
temperature would be expected to be small and limited to a relatively 
small area in the Brunswick County coastline. The increase in water 
temperature would not be expected to exceed 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) 
beyond an area of 50 ha (120 acres) at the surface, and the increase 
would not be expected to exceed 2 degrees C (4 degrees F) beyond an 
area of 800 ha (2000 acres). The affected area would be expected to be 
even smaller near the bottom. There is no critical habitat in the 
vicinity of the ocean discharge; the ocean floor is sandy flats with no 
natural features that would attract fish and invertebrates. Some of the 
more abundant organisms (brown shrimp, white shrimp, and croaker) in 
the vicinity of the discharge point tolerate temperatures of up to 86 
degrees F without experiencing loss of equilibrium, and most organisms 
could avoid the area of higher water temperature. There is a net 
westward drift of the near-shore coastal waters in the vicinity of the 
discharge point; therefore, most larvae would enter the estuary from 
offshore waters to the east and would not be expected to be affected by 
the discharge plume. Therefore, the uprate would not be expected to 
significantly impact aquatic biota in the vicinity of BSEP.
    CP&L's 1998 study indicated that three Federally listed aquatic 
species could be potentially affected by BSEP: loggerhead sea turtle 
(threatened), green sea turtle (threatened), and Kemp's ridley sea 
turtle (endangered). Of the three, the loggerhead sea turtle has been 
most commonly collected in the intake canal, although all three of 
these turtle species have been collected. CP&L employs protective 
measures, such as blocker panels in the diversion structure, to prevent 
turtles from entering the canal and patrols of the intake canal to 
remove turtles. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed 
data from BSEP on incidental takes of sea turtles and the protective 
measures employed at BSEP. In January 2000, NMFS concluded that BSEP 
operation ``is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, or Kemp's ridley sea 
turtles.'' Since the withdrawal rate of water from the intake canal 
would not increase due to the EPU and the sea turtles can easily swim 
around the small higher-temperature discharge plume, no increased 
impact would be expected for the sea turtles beyond that considered in 
the NMFS Biological Opinion of January 2000.

Social and Economic Impacts

    The NRC staff has reviewed information provided by the licensee 
regarding socioeconomic impacts. CP&L is a major employer in the 
community with approximately 750 full-time employees and 235 contract 
employees. CP&L is also a major contributor to the local tax base. CP&L 
personnel also contribute to the tax base by paying sales and property 
taxes. The proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the 
BSEP labor force and would have no material effect upon the labor force 
required for future outages after all stages of the modifications 
needed to support the uprate are completed. Because the plant 
modifications needed to implement the uprate would be minor, any 
increase in sales tax and additional revenue to local and national 
business will be negligible relative to the large tax revenues 
generated by BSEP. The EPU would increase the plant's equalized 
assessed value, which would result in increased tax revenues for 
Brunswick County. It is expected that the proposed uprate will reduce 
incremental operating costs, enhance the value of BSEP as a power-
generating asset, and lower the probability of early plant retirement. 
Early plant retirement would be expected to have a significant negative 
impact on the local economy and the community as a whole by reducing 
tax revenues and limiting local employment opportunities, although 
these effects could be mitigated by decommissioning activities in the 
short term.

[[Page 36043]]

Summary

    In summary, the proposed EPU would not result in a significant 
change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of land use, water use, 
waste discharges, cooling tower operation, terrestrial and aquatic 
biota, transmission facility operation, or social and economic factors. 
No other non-radiological impacts were identified or would be expected. 
Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the 
proposed EPU at BSEP.

Table 1: Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts

    Land Use: No change in land use or aesthetics; three small cooling 
towers on top of radwaste building.
    Cooling Tower: No change in visual or aesthetic impact; no added 
impact on noise level; no significant impact from modular construction 
of the cooling towers; no significant fogging, icing, or drifting 
plumes.
    Transmission Facilities: No physical modifications to the 
transmission lines and facilities; meet shock safety requirements; no 
changes to right-of-ways; small increase in electrical current would 
cause small increase in electromagnetic field around the transmission 
lines.
    Terrestrial Biota: No additional impact on endangered herbs and 
birds or other terrestrial biota.
    Water Use: No increase in the rate of withdrawal of water from the 
Cape Fear River; up to an additional 23.7 liters per second (375 gpm) 
of water from Brunswick County supply system, approved by County.
    Discharge: Increase in area of plume in Atlantic Ocean with 
increased water temperature from 400 to 800 ha (from 1000 to 2000 
acres) [area of 0.8 degrees C (1.44 degrees F) isotherm in Summer]; up 
to an additional 8.2 liters per second (130 gpm) of blowdown water 
discharged to storm drain system with small amount of biocide and 
dispersant chemicals; application for revised NPDES permit under review 
by State of North Carolina.
    Aquatic Biota: No expected increased impact on endangered sea 
turtles or other aquatic biota.
    Social and Economic: No significant change in size of BSEP 
workforce.

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

    BSEP uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and 
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that might contain 
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that 
discharges are in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20, 
``STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION,'' and 10 CFR part 50, 
``DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES,'' 
Appendix I. These radioactive waste streams are discussed in the FES. 
The proposed EPU would not result in changes in the operation or design 
of equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems. The uprate 
would not introduce new or different radiological release pathways and 
does not increase the probability of an operator error or equipment 
malfunction that would result in an uncontrolled release of radioactive 
material. The uprate will not affect the environmental monitoring of 
any of these waste streams or the radiological monitoring requirements 
contained in licensing basis documents.

Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses

    During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems 
process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the 
environs, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens, 
particulates, and tritium, such that the doses to individuals offsite 
are maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the dose design 
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 (10 CFR part 20 includes the 
requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regulation 40 CFR Part 190, ``ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION 
STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS''). The gaseous waste management 
systems include the offgas system and various building ventilation 
systems. CP&L estimates that the resulting increase in gaseous 
radioactive effluents would be bounded in direct proportion to the 
increase in power--15 percent. CP&L indicated that a 15-percent 
increase in the amount of gaseous radioactive material released 
annually from BSEP in the last several years would still be well below 
the estimates presented in the FES. The NRC staff has independently 
reviewed the information presented by the licensee and confirmed the 
licensee's conclusion.
    CP&L also calculated the potential increase in the maximum 
radiation dose to a member of the public in the environs offsite at 
BSEP from the proposed EPU. A 15-percent increase applied to the 
release data for the worst year in the 5-year timeframe from 1996 to 
2000 would still result in doses below 1 percent of the dose design 
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the increased 
impact of the uprate on offsite doses from gaseous effluents would not 
be significant.

Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Dose

    During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment systems 
process and control the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the 
environs, such that the doses to individuals offsite are maintained 
within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the dose design objectives of 
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The liquid radioactive waste systems are 
designed to cleanup and recycle as much water as practicable; the 
liquid effluents that are released are continuously monitored and 
discharges terminated if effluents exceed preset levels of radioactive 
material. CP&L estimates that the amount of radioactive material 
released in liquid effluents would not increase significantly. CP&L 
indicated that the amounts of liquid radioactive material that have 
been released from BSEP in the last several years are well below the 
estimates presented in the FES. CP&L expects little or no increase in 
the quantity of radioactive material released in liquid effluents as a 
result of the uprate. The NRC staff has independently reviewed the 
information presented by the licensee and confirmed the licensee's 
conclusions. In addition, the calculated doses to members of the public 
offsite associated with these levels of release of radioactive liquid 
are below 1 percent of the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10 
CFR part 50. Therefore, the increased impact of the uprate on offsite 
doses from liquid effluents would not be significant.

Solid Radioactive Wastes

    The solid radioactive waste system collects, processes, packages, 
and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to 
shipment offsite and permanent disposal. The largest volume of solid 
radioactive waste at BSEP is low-level radioactive waste; sources of 
this low-level waste include spent resins, filters, charcoal, sludges 
from water processing, oil, and dry active waste, which is essentially 
contaminated trash. During the last several years, CP&L has implemented 
waste handling procedures to reduce the volume of low-level waste 
generated at BSEP. The volume of low-level radioactive waste generated 
in 2000 was approximately 389 cubic meters (13,877 cubic ft). The 
proposed EPU would increase the volume of spent resins, filters, and 
sludges because the uprate would produce more radioactive material that 
would have to be removed by processing systems such as the

[[Page 36044]]

demineralizers in the condensate system. The licensee estimates that 
the volume of such wastes could increase by as much as 15 percent, 
consistent with the EPU. Even with such an increase, the expected 
volume of low-level radioactive waste would be well below the value in 
the FES. No significant increase would be expected in the production of 
the other types of low-level waste.
    In addition to the low-level wastes, the proposed EPU would result 
in replacement of 135 control rod blades at each unit. This replacement 
would occur in stages during the next several refueling outages. The 
removed control rod blades would be stored in the spent fuel pool, as 
is commonly done with irradiated reactor components, until they can be 
prepared for shipping and disposal offsite. These control rod blades 
would not contribute significantly to the overall volume of solid 
radioactive waste handled at BSEP.
    The proposed EPU would also result in a greater percentage of the 
fuel assemblies being removed from the reactor core and replaced with 
new fuel assemblies during each refueling outage. Currently, 212 fuel 
assemblies (approximately 39 percent) are replaced during each 
refueling; 256 fuel assemblies (approximately 47 percent) would be 
replaced each refueling to support the uprated power level. Since CP&L 
limits the amount of spent fuel stored at BSEP and stores the rest of 
the spent fuel from BSEP in the spent fuel storage pools at CP&L's 
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP), no increased volume of 
spent fuel would be expected to be stored at BSEP as a result of the 
uprate. By letter dated December 21, 2000, the NRC granted CP&L an 
amendment to the operating license for SHNPP to allow storage of spent 
fuel in all four spent fuel storage pools at SHNPP. CP&L has stated 
that the pools at SHNPP have sufficient storage capacity to handle the 
additional spent fuel assemblies that would be generated as a result of 
the proposed EPU at BSEP. An EA was published in the Federal Register 
on December 21, 1999 (64 FR 71514), to address the environmental impact 
of fully utilizing the storage capacity of all four spent fuel pools at 
SHNPP. The NRC staff concludes that the 1999 EA bounds the impact of 
storage of the additional spent fuel assemblies that would be generated 
by the BSEP uprate in the SHNPP spent fuel pools.

In-Plant Radiation Doses

    The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive 
material and higher radiation dose rates in some areas at BSEP. 
Potentially, the increase could be as much as 15 percent, consistent 
with the proposed 15-percent increase in reactor power. However, CP&L 
expects that the BSEP radiation protection staff will be able to 
minimize the resultant increase in radiation doses to the plant staff 
to a level well below the 15-percent upper-bound estimate by using 
commonly known methods, such as installation of additional shielding or 
more effective systems to remove more radioactive material from process 
streams such as the condensate system. BSEP has reduced the amount of 
radiation dose received by the plant workers over the last several 
years. The collective occupational dose for year 2000 at BSEP 
(including both units) was approximately 3.22 person-Sieverts (Sv) (322 
person-rem); the average dose for a boiling-water reactor unit in the 
U.S. in year 2000 was 1.74 person-Sv (174 person-rem). The FES did not 
discuss occupational dose; however, other FESs published shortly after 
the BSEP FES estimated the environmental impact from occupational dose 
to be 500 person-rem (Sievert unit did not exist at that time) of 
collective occupational dose per year per reactor unit. Therefore, the 
collective dose at BSEP would not be expected to increase significantly 
as a result of the uprate and would be well within the impact commonly 
estimated in FESs in the 1970s.

Direct Radiation Doses Offsite

    Direct radiation from radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the 
main steam system components in the turbine building is scattered by 
the air above the site and provides another offsite public dose pathway 
(skyshine) from an operating boiling-water reactor. CP&L has routinely 
monitored the whole body dose rate offsite using thermoluminescent 
dosimeters; the licensee has also performed surveys offsite with 
pressurized ion chambers. Data from these monitoring methods indicated 
that the highest annual offsite dose from skyshine at the site boundary 
from 1999 to 2001 was 7 millirem (mrem) (.07 mSv). Nitrogen-16 
production is increased by routine hydrogen gas injection into the 
reactor feedwater (hydrogen water chemistry) in an effort to prevent 
intergranular stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals. The 
annual whole body dose equivalent to a real member of the public 
(beyond the site boundary) is limited to 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) by 40 CFR 
part 190. Assuming a 15-percent increase in the doses from skyshine 
(consistent with a 15-percent EPU), the expected annual dose would be 
expected to increase to approximately 8 mrem (.08 mSv), still well 
below the annual dose limit of 40 CFR part 190. The licensee will 
continue to perform surveys as the proposed EPU is implemented to 
assess the combined impact of hydrogen water chemistry with the uprate 
to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 
190. Therefore, the increased impact of the uprate on offsite doses 
from direct radiation sources would not be significant.

Postulated Accident Doses

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed 
confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the licensee's 
calculated doses under accident conditions. As a result of 
implementation of the proposed EPU, there could be an increase in the 
source term used in the evaluation of some of the postulated accidents 
in the FES. The inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core is 
dependent on power level; therefore, the core inventory of 
radionuclides could increase by as much as 15 percent. The 
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase 
by as much as 15 percent; however, this concentration is limited by the 
BSEP Technical Specifications and is more dependent on the degree of 
leakage occurring through the fuel cladding. The overall quality of 
fuel cladding has improved since the mid-1970s when the FES was 
published, and BSEP has been experiencing very little fuel cladding 
leakage in recent years. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration 
of radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. This 
coolant concentration is part of the source term considered in some of 
the postulated accident analyses. Finally, as previously discussed 
above, some of the radwaste streams and storage systems evaluated for 
postulated accidents may contain slightly higher quantities of 
radionuclides. For those postulated accidents where the source term 
increased, the calculated potential radiation dose to individuals at 
the site boundary (the exclusion area) and in the low population zone 
would be increased over the values presented in the FES. Any such 
increase in calculated accident doses would not be expected to be more 
than 15 percent higher, and the calculated doses would still be below 
the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR part 100, ``Reactor Site Criteria,'' 
and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800). Also, no modifications in 
the plant design or operation would be made that would significantly 
increase

[[Page 36045]]

the probability of an accident. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 
the uprate would not significantly increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents and would not result in a significant 
increase in the radiological environmental impact of BSEP under 
accident conditions.
    After many years of reactor experience and research, the NRC 
approved an alternative radiological source term methodology for power 
reactors. The alternative source term is codified in 10 CFR 50.67 and 
described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source 
Term for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' 
which was published in July 2000. This methodology also uses the Total 
Effective Dose Equivalent methodology, which is recommended by the 
International Commission on Radiation Protection and the National 
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. CP&L submitted a 
proposal to the NRC to implement the alternative source term for the 
BSEP accident analyses; therefore, the application for the proposed EPU 
assessed the postulated accidents discussed in the FES using the new 
methodology. CP&L concluded that the new calculated doses for the 
uprate met all the applicable acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 and 
Regulatory Guide 1.183. The results of the NRC staff's calculations 
will be presented in the safety evaluation to be issued with the 
license amendments.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts

    The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of 
fuels and wastes are described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 
and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An additional NRC generic EA (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 cycle and concluded that there is no significant change in 
environmental impact from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-
4 for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent 
uranium-235 and burnups less than 60,000 megawatt (thermal)-days per 
metric ton of uranium-235 (MWd/MTU). CP&L has concluded that the fuel 
enrichment at BSEP will increase to approximately 4.4 percent as a 
result of the proposed EPU with burnup remaining at approximately 
45,000 MWd/MTU. Because the fuel enrichment for the uprate will not 
exceed 5 weight percent uranium-235 and the rod average discharge 
burnup for the uprate will not exceed 60,000 MWd/MTU, the environmental 
impacts of the uprate will remain bounded by the conclusions in Tables 
S-3 and S-4 and are not significant.

Summary

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

Alternatives to Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action alternative''). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current 
environmental impacts; however, other fossil-fueled generating 
facilities would be built in CP&L's service area in North Carolina and 
South Carolina in order to maintain sufficient power-generating 
capacity. Construction and operation of a fossil-fueled plant would 
create impacts in air quality, land use, and waste management. 
Implementation of the proposed EPU would have less impact on the 
environment than the construction and operation of a new fossil-fueled 
generating facility and does not involve environmental impacts that are 
significantly different from those presented in the 1974 FES and the 
1996 EA for BSEP.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the 1974 FES and the 1996 EA for BSEP.

         Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Effluents & Doses.........  Up to 15-percent increase in amount
                                     of radioactive material in gaseous
                                     effluents; within FES estimate;
                                     offsite doses would continue to be
                                     well within NRC criteria.
Liquid Effluents & Doses..........  No significant increase in amount of
                                     radioactive material in liquid
                                     effluents; within FES estimate;
                                     offsite doses would continue to be
                                     well within NRC criteria.
Solid Radioactive Waste...........  Up to 15-percent increase in volume
                                     of low-level solid radwaste;
                                     increases in amount of spent
                                     control rod blades and spent fuel
                                     assemblies.
In-plant Dose.....................  No significant increase in
                                     collective occupational dose
                                     expected.
Direct Radiation Dose.............  Up to 15-percent increase in dose
                                     rate offsite from skyshine;
                                     expected annual dose continues to
                                     meet NRC/EPA criteria.
Postulated Accidents..............  Up to 15-percent increase in
                                     calculated doses from some
                                     postulated accidents; calculated
                                     doses within NRC criteria.
Fuel Cycle & Transportation.......  Fuel enrichment and burnup would
                                     continue to be within bounding
                                     assumptions for Tables S-3 and S-4
                                     in 10 CFR Part 51, ``Environmental
                                     Protection Regulations for Domestic
                                     Licensing and Related Regulatory
                                     Functions' conclusions of tables
                                     regarding impact would remain
                                     valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with the its stated policy, on March 29, 2002, the 
NRC staff consulted with the North Carolina State official , Mr. J. 
James, of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Commerce and 
Natural Resources, Division of Radiation Protection, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the EA, the Commission concludes that the proposed 
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment. Accordingly, the Commission 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 August 9, 2001, as

[[Page 36046]]

supplemented October 17, November 1, 7, 28, and 30, December 4, 10, 17 
(2 letters), and 20, 2001, January 20, February 1, 4, 13, 14, 21 (2 
letters), and 25 (3 letters), March 4, 5, 7, 14, 20, 22, and 25, and 
April 26 and 29, 2002. Documents may be examined and/or copied for a 
fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 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 PDR Reference staff at (800) 397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-12834 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7950-01-P