[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37614-37621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5897]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-244]
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power
Plant Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the
Maximum Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission).
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as part
of its evaluation of a request by R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC
(Ginna LLC) for a license amendment to increase the maximum steady
state power level at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) from
1520 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1775 MWt. This represents a power
increase of approximately 16.8 percent, which is considered an extended
power uprate (EPU). As stated in the NRC staff's position paper dated
February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate
Program, the NRC staff will prepare an environmental impact statement
if it believes a power uprate will have a significant impact on the
human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any significant
impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU application
for Ginna Station or the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the
NRC staff is documenting its environmental review in an environmental
assessment. Also, in accordance with the position paper, the final
Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact is being
published in the Federal Register.
The NRC published a draft Environmental Assessment and finding of
no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment in the
Federal Register on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18779). One set of comments
was received on the draft Environmental Assessment from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by letter dated
May 12, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML061370627). The comments are discussed in the
paragraphs below.
Some of the comments provided by the NYSDEC were clarifications and
corrections to the draft Environmental Assessment (see comment a, b, c,
d, and e in the NYSDEC letter). Based on these comments, the NRC
revised the appropriate sections of the final Environmental Assessment.
In comment ``f,'' NYSDEC indicated ``based on review of historical
data, staff would not characterize impingement and entrainment rates as
`minimal,' but would describe them as `lower than most similar sized
electrical generating facilities in New York State.' '' The NRC only
evaluates environmental impacts at the site and surrounding area that
could be affected by the proposed EPU at the facility. Rather than
comparing the impacts with other perhaps similar facilities, the NRC
staff looks at the overall impact of the affected resource, i.e.,
aquatic species in Lake Ontario. Our conclusion of ``minimal'' should
be interpreted as not having a noticeable impact on the long-term
sustainment of aquatic species in Lake Ontario due to entrainment and
impingement. This action may have no impact to aquatic species in other
parts of New York State; therefore, our analysis does not make such
comparison. The comment is noted, but no changes were made to the
Environmental Assessment based on this comment.
The NYSDEC comments ``g and h'' raised concerns regarding possible
unknown synergistic effects of physical and thermal stresses to the
cold water species alewife and three-spine stickleback impinged in the
Ginna fish return system under the proposed EPU conditions. In
addition, NYSDEC recommended the discussion on the fish return system
include references to the 316(b) Phase II rule developed by the
Environment Protection Agency (EPA). This regulation established
Federal requirements applicable to the location, design, construction,
and capacity of cooling-water intake structures at existing facilities
that exceed a threshold value for water withdrawals. The draft
Environmental Assessment did include a discussion on how the new
performance standards are designed to significantly reduce impingement
and entrainment losses resulting from plant operation, and any site-
specific mitigation would result in less impact due to continued plant
operation. Currently, the Ginna State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permit modification application is under technical
review by NYSDEC. The SPDES permit modification application
incorporated the requirements listed in Subpart J of the EPA 316(b)
Phase II rule. Also, Ginna LLC has begun some studies required for
compliance with the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule. The NRC staff agrees that
implementation of technologies and/or operational procedures required
by the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule, with authority delegated
[[Page 37615]]
to NYSDEC, would further minimize impingement and entrainment losses of
all aquatic species (including alewife and three-spine stickleback) at
Ginna, under proposed EPU conditions. The comment did not provide any
new information; therefore, no changes were made to the Environmental
Assessment.
NYSDEC comment ``I'' stated that the draft Environmental Assessment
did not address ``potential impacts to early life stages of fish
entrained into the discharge plume.'' Entrainment applies specifically
to aquatic organisms (i.e. early life stage fish and shellfish) that
are small enough to pass through a plant's intake debris screens,
travel through the cooling system, and be exposed to heat, mechanical
and pressure stresses, and possibly biocidal chemicals before being
discharged back to the body of water. Early life stage fish (eggs and
larvae) not entrained by the plant, but in the nearby water column of
Lake Ontario within or near the discharge plume under the proposed
conditions, would not be significantly impacted. Ginna is not adjacent
to or near habitat features or spawning/nursery areas preferred by or
important to local fish. As indicated by NYSDEC, the temperatures
injurious to alewife eggs are limited to a small area of the thermal
plume (at the mouth of the discharge canal).
Comment ``j'' states NYSDEC has received reports of bald eagle
sightings in the Wayne County area over the past 3 to 4 years. The
reports include observations of first-year immature birds, which
indicate bald eagle nesting sites could be closer to the Ginna site
than originally analyzed. In addition, NYSDEC states the closest
verified nest is located in the Northern Montezuma Wildlife Management
Area, approximately 30 miles away from the Ginna site. The NRC staff
spoke with the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montezuma
National Wildlife Refuge office, who verified there are nesting sites
in the southern area of the refuge and possibly in the northern area.
Based on this new information, the NRC staff believes bald eagle
nesting sites are closer (30 miles) to the Ginna site than originally
analyzed (55 miles). However, the staff believes the conclusion that
the bald eagle will not likely be impacted by the proposed EPU, is
still valid, and no changes to the Environmental Assessment are
warranted.
NYSDEC also expressed concerns on possible radiological impacts to
threatened and endangered species due to the proposed EPU. EPA
standards (40 CFR Part 190, 40 FR 23420) concluded that environmental
radiation standards developed by the nuclear power industry are
adequate to protect the overall ecosystem. At this time, there is no
evidence that there is any biological species sensitive enough to
warrant a greater level of protection than that which is determined to
be adequate for man. As a result of the proposed EPU, the radiation
levels in many plant areas are expected to increase up to approximately
17%. The radiological impacts section of the Environmental Assessment
provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts related to radiation.
The NRC staff concluded all radiological doses were below regulatory
limits and found no significant impact due to the proposed EPU.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
Ginna is located 6 km (4 mi) north of Ontario, New York, in the
northwest corner of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake
Ontario. The immediate area around Ginna is rural, with the city of
Rochester approximately 32 km (20 mi) to the west and Oswego, New York,
64 km (40 mi) to the east-northeast. The plant consists of one unit
equipped with a nuclear steam supply system supplied by Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, which uses a pressurized-water reactor (PWR) and
a once-through cooling system for turbine exhaust condensor cooling and
as the ultimate heat sink.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated July 7, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051950123),
Ginna LLC proposed an amendment to the operating license for Ginna to
increase the maximum steady state power level by approximately 16.8
percent, from 1520 MWt to 1775 MWt. The change is considered an EPU
because it would raise the reactor core power level by more than 7
percent above the currently licensed maximum power level. This proposed
action would allow the heat output of the reactor to increase, which
would increase the flow of steam to the main turbine-generator. This
would result in the increase in production of electricity and the
amount of waste heat delivered to the condenser, resulting in an
increase in the temperature of the water being discharged into Lake
Ontario.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Ginna LLC estimates the proposed action would result in
approximately 85 additional megawatts-electric (MWe) being generated.
This additional electricity generation could power approximately 95,000
homes and would contribute to meeting the goals and recommendations of
the New York State Energy Plan. The EPU could be implemented for
approximately one-fifth of the cost to construct two small (50-MWe)
natural gas combustion turbine units, as recommended by the New York
State Energy Planning Board, and would not cause the environmental
impacts that would occur from construction of new power generation
facilities to meet the region's electricity needs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of issuance of the operating license for Ginna, 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 Ginna, which was issued March
1973. In addition, in February 2004, the NRC published its Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), NUREG-1437 Supplement 14,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants, Supplement 14, Regarding R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant--Final
Report,'' which evaluated the environmental impacts of operating Ginna
for an additional 20 years. In the SEIS, the NRC determined that the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal would not be so great
that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning
decision makers would be unreasonable. This Environmental Assessment
summarizes the radiological and non-radiological impacts in the
environment that may result from the EPU.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed
action include impacts from construction and plant modifications. The
impacts from construction due to the proposed EPU are minimal. No
expansion of roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, or
transmission facilities and no new building construction is anticipated
to support the proposed EPU. Volumes of industrial chemicals, fuels, or
lubricants are not expected to increase substantially, and would not
require additional onsite storage space.
Some plant modifications would be required to implement the
proposed action. The modifications are listed in Table 4-1 of Ginna
EPU, Supplemental Environmental Report (ER), submitted by Ginna LLC on
July 7, 2005. The most significant modification to be conducted
[[Page 37616]]
would be replacement of the high-pressure turbine rotor. Major
modifications completed in the last 10 years that contribute to the
increased power opportunities at Ginna are the re-tubing of the main
condenser (1995), the replacement of the steam generators with an
increased size design (1996), and replacement of the reactor vessel
head (2003). None of the plant modifications listed above or in Table
4-1 of the ER will result in any changes in land use.
Historic and archeological resources should not be affected by the
proposed EPU, because there are no modifications to land use. The
proposed EPU would not modify land use at the site significantly over
that described in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14. Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that the land use impacts of the proposed EPU are
bounded by the impacts previously evaluated in the FES and NUREG-1437
Supplement 14.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for
the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor
right-of-way maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased
current. The proposed EPU would not require any physical modifications
or changes in the maintenance and operation of existing transmission
lines, switchyards, or substations. Ginna LLC's transmission lines
right-of-way vegetation management would not change. There would be no
change in voltage, but there would be an increase in the current
flowing through the transmission facilities.
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the
short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milliamperes. The
increase in current passing through the transmission lines is directly
associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. In
addition, the increased electrical current passing through the
transmission lines would cause an increase in the electromagnetic field
strength.
Based on information provided in the ER, the transmission lines at
Ginna would continue to meet the applicable NESC recommendations for
electric-field induced shock under the proposed EPU. Therefore, the
risk of shock from the offsite transmission lines would not be expected
to increase significantly over the current impact.
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action would not change significantly over the impacts
associated with current plant operations. There would be no changes to
current transmission line right-of-way operation and maintenance
practices; no physical modifications to the transmission lines,
switchyards, or substations; and electric current passing through the
transmission lines would increase slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no significant impacts associated with
transmission facilities for the proposed action.
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from implementation of the proposed
action would include hydrological alterations to Lake Ontario. Ginna
uses a once-through condenser cooling system drawing water from Lake
Ontario through a submerged offshore intake. Water used to cool the
turbine condenser is discharged into the discharge canal. The heated
water enters Lake Ontario at the shoreline. Total nominal flow of water
for turbine condenser cooling and most secondary systems (i.e. service
water and fire protection) is approximately 354,600 gallons per minute
(gpm).
Lake Ontario serves as a principal water source for several local
water supply systems in New York State's Monroe and Wayne Counties. All
water required for plant operation, except potable water, is withdrawn
from Lake Ontario. The rate of withdrawal would not increase as a
result of the EPU. Therefore, operation of Ginna would not affect the
availability of surface water. Groundwater is not used in plant
operations; therefore, there are no impacts from onsite groundwater
use. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not have a
significant impact on water use.
Discharge Impacts
Surface water and wastewater discharges to Lake Ontario from the
plant are regulated by the State of New York via a SPDES Permit (Number
NY-0000493), effective February 1, 2003--February 1, 2008. This permit
is reviewed and renewed by the NYSDEC. It is expected that the EPU
would increase the temperature of the water discharged to Lake Ontario
as well as the thermal discharge plume, which would require
modifications to the current SPDES permit.
The current SPDES permit allows a 28 ``F rise in temperature of the
discharge water over the ambient temperature of the lake water, and a
maximum 320-acre mixing zone. The current permit also limits the
discharge temperature to 102 [deg]F. During current operating
conditions, the difference between plant discharge temperature and
ambient lake temperature is approximately 20 [deg]F in the summer
months, and 28 [deg]F during the winter months. The larger temperature
difference, which occurs in the winter months, is due to recirculation
of heated water from the discharge canal to the screenhouse inlet
forebay to assist in maintaining inlet water temperature and
eliminating ice that may form in the inlet forebay. Under proposed EPU
operating conditions, the difference in temperature would be
approximately 25 [deg]F and 35 [deg]F in summer (i.e., intake temp > 45
[deg]F) and winter (i.e., intake temp <= 45 [deg]F) months,
respectively. In addition, the discharge temperature would at times
exceed the current SPDES permit limits (102 [deg]F) to an upper limit
of 106 [deg]F.
The current SPDES permit limit for the Ginna thermal discharge
plume mixing area is 320 acres. In 2004, Ginna LLC commissioned studies
to determine the effect of the proposed EPU on water temperatures,
temperature distribution in near-field and far-field areas associated
with the discharge, and to assess the impacts on aquatic species.
According to the information calculated by the near-field plume model
(CORMIX) and far-field hydrodynamic and thermal model (ECOM), under
existing plant operating conditions, the thermal plume mixing area is
less than 300 acres in summer and winter months. An increased mixing
zone of 360 acres from the point of discharge on a daily basis (24
hours) would be needed to support operation under the proposed EPU
operating conditions. The discharge environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU conditions are described in the ``Impacts to Aquatic
Biota'' section of the ER.
By letters dated March 8, April 2, July 29, October 18, November
18, 2005, January 12, and March 15, 2006, Ginna LLC submitted a permit
modification request to NYSDEC regarding an increase in the Ginna
Station Outfall 001 discharge temperature limit, intake-discharge
[Delta]T, and the size of the mixing zone to accommodate the proposed
EPU conditions described above. The NYSDEC sets limits on and regulates
the amount of heat discharged to Lake Ontario. Approval from the NYSDEC
for these SPDES Permit modifications is currently pending.
Based on information provided in the ER and NUREG-1437 Supplement
14, the NRC staff has determined the thermal discharge environmental
impacts to Lake Ontario under the proposed EPU conditions would not be
significant.
[[Page 37617]]
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action
include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and
impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. Aquatic
organisms that are caught on a plant's intake debris screens made of
mesh are considered impinged. The term entrainment applies to aquatic
organisms ( i.e. fish and shellfish) that are small enough to pass
through a plant's intake debris screens and travel through the cooling
system and be exposed to heat, mechanical, and pressure stresses and
possibly biocidal chemicals, before being discharged back to the body
of water. Ginna has intake and discharge structures on Lake Ontario.
The aquatic species evaluated in this Environmental Assessment are in
the vicinity of the Ginna intake and discharge structures.
Ginna LLC monitors entrained and impinged species as required by
the current NYSDEC SPDES Permit. In 2004, Ginna LLC commissioned a
biological assessment to analyze the effects of increased water
temperature and mixing zone associated with the proposed EPU on Lake
Ontario. The assessment included potential impacts to impingement and
entrainment rates associated with the proposed EPU.
The most prominent fish species located in the shoreline area of
Lake Ontario near Ginna are smallmouth bass, spottail shiner, American
eel, alewife, yellow perch, threespine stickleback, brown trout,
rainbow smelt, lake trout and rainbow trout. Ginna LLC reviewed these
ten fish populations, which were identified by the NYSDEC as the
``Representative Identified Species,'' (RIS) occurring in the vicinity
of Ginna. For the purpose of this Environmental Assessment, the
identical ten fish species were reviewed.
Impingement and entrainment monitoring at Ginna has been
investigated since the 1970's. Based on this historical data and
requirements of the SPDES Permit, impingement and entrainment rates at
Ginna are minimal, and according to the ER no significant adverse
impact on the RIS populations would result due to the increased
discharge temperatures. These conclusions are based on the following:
(1) Ginna is not adjacent to or near habitat features or spawning/
nursery areas preferred by or important to local fish populations; (2)
cooler areas for refuge are readily available to fish that enter the
cooling water discharge; (3) the thermal plume under proposed EPU
conditions would generally extend no more than 1 to 3 feet below the
surface, providing a zone of passage for fish; (4) Ginna does not have
any known incidents of cold shock to aquatic biota and cold shock
incidents for the RIS would be minimized due to gradual shutdown and
reduction procedures in cooling water temperature; (5) fish will avoid
portions of the lake that exceed their thermal preferenda; and (6) any
impinged fish exposed to elevated temperatures (above their thermal
preferenda) in the fish return system will be exposed only for a short
duration (20-50 seconds). After reviewing the information presented in
the ER, the NYSDEC SPDES permit modification demonstration submittal,
and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14, the NRC staff concludes that the impact
of the proposed EPU on aquatic biota would not be significant.
As discussed in the transmission facility impacts section of this
Environmental Assessment, transmission line right-of-way maintenance
practices would not change. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the
impact of the proposed action to aquatic biota would not be
significant.
On July 9, 2004, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register
(69 FR 41575) addressing cooling water intake structures at existing
power plants whose flow levels exceed a minimum threshold value of 50
million gallons per day (gpd). The rule is Phase II in the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) development of 316(b)
regulations that establish national requirements applicable to the
location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake
structures at existing facilities that exceed the threshold value for
water withdrawals. The national requirements, which are implemented
through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits, minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with the
continued use of the intake systems. In the case of Ginna, the SPDES
permit is equivalent to the NPDES permit. Licensees are required to
demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance standards at the
time of renewal of their NPDES permit. Licensees may be required as
part of the NPDES renewal to alter the intake structure, redesign the
cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative
measures as a result of this regulation. The new performance standards
are designed to reduce significantly impingement and entrainment losses
due to plant operation. Any site-specific mitigation would result in
less impact due to continued plant operation.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action
would be due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. As
discussed in the transmission facility impacts section of this
Environmental Assessment, transmission line right-of-way maintenance
practices would not change for the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that there are no significant impacts to terrestrial
plant or animal species associated with transmission line right-of-way
maintenance for the proposed action.
Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the
proposed action include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and
terrestrial biota sections of this Environmental Assessment. These
impacts include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects,
and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance for
aquatic species, and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way
maintenance for terrestrial species.
There are four animal and two plant species listed as threatened or
endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act within Wayne
County, New York. These species are the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), piping plover
(Charadrius melodus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), small-whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera
leucophaea). There are no records of any of these species on the Ginna
site. The nearest designated critical habitat is for piping plover (C.
melodus), which lies 90 miles from the Ginna site on the eastern shore
of Lake Ontario. No critical habitat or known occurrences of bog turtle
(C. muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (M. sodalis), small-whorled pogonia (I.
medeoloides), and prairie fringed orchid (P. leucophaea) have been
reported within the Ginna site vicinity or within the transmission
lines right-of-way. However, bald eagles (H. leucocephalus) are
occasionally observed in the vicinity, usually during spring migration.
The nearest known bald eagle nesting site is approximately 30 miles
southeast of the Ginna site, near Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge.
It is not likely that the bald eagles would be impacted by the EPU
because the birds are transient and do not nest at the Ginna site.
There are no Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic
[[Page 37618]]
species listed under the Endangered Species Act in the vicinity of
Ginna or Wayne County, New York. There are two State-listed aquatic
species known to occur in Wayne County: Pugnose shiner (Notropis
anogenus) and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). However, neither
species has been reported in the vicinity of Ginna. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that there is no effect to threatened and endangered
species associated with the proposed EPU based on the information
provided in the ER, NUREG-1437 Supplement 14, and the staff's own
independent review.
Social and Economic Impacts
Potential social and economic impacts due to the proposed EPU
relate to potential changes to the size of the workforce at Ginna. The
NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by Ginna LLC regarding
socioeconomic impacts. Ginna LLC is a major employer in the community
with approximately 436 people employed on a full-time basis and 167
long- and short-term contractors employed on a regular basis.
In January 2005, Ginna LLC, which acquired the plant in June 2004,
entered into a payment agreement with the Town of Ontario, the Wayne
County School District, and Wayne County as opposed to paying sales and
property taxes. The agreement in place is a Payment In-Lieu of Taxes
Agreement (PILOT). Under this agreement, Ginna's assessed value is set
at $260,000,000. Annual payments in equal amounts will be paid to tax
jurisdictions in an amount equal to the assessed value multiplied by
the real property tax rate established by each tax jurisdiction for the
applicable tax year. Estimates of what amounts are to be paid through
2009 can be found in Chapter 5 of the Ginna EPU ER.
Ginna LLC and its personnel contribute directly and indirectly to
the surrounding communities of the plant. Taxes collected under the
PILOT agreement are used to fund schools, police and fire protection,
road maintenance, and other municipal services. In addition, Ginna LLC
personnel and contractors contribute indirectly to the tax base by
paying sales and property taxes, state income tax, and hotel and meal
taxes.
The proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the
Ginna workforce. Most EPU modifications were performed during the
Spring 2005 Refueling Outage, with the remaining modifications
scheduled to be completed during the 2006 Refueling Outage. During a
regularly scheduled refueling outage, the workforce at Ginna increases
by approximately 534 persons on average. The workforce needed for the
2006 Refueling outage will require additional workers above the usual
534 persons average. The supplemental workers are not expected to
adversely affect area housing availability, transportation services, or
the public water supply due to the short period of the demand.
The NRC staff expects that granting the EPU as proposed would
improve the economic viability of Ginna, ensuring that it would
continue to contribute positively to the surrounding communities.
As discussed above, granting the EPU as proposed would have little
direct socioeconomic impact to the local and regional economies.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant social
or economic impacts for the proposed action based on information in the
ER and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.
Summary
The EPU, if implemented as proposed, would not result in a
significant change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of land
use, water use, thermal discharges, 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 Ginna.
Table 1.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No significant land use modifications are
expected.
Transmission Facilities...... No physical modifications to the
transmission lines; lines meet shock
safety requirements; no changes to right-
of-ways including vegetation management;
small increase in electrical current and
magnetic field.
Water Use.................... No physical modifications to intake
structure; no increased rate of
withdrawal; no water use conflicts.
Discharge.................... Increase in water temperature and mixing
zone to Lake Ontario; application to
increase SPDES permit discharge
temperature and plume acreage submitted
to New York State, decision pending.
Aquatic Biota................ No adverse impact will occur to the RIS
populations due to the following: Ginna
Station is not near preferred/important
spawning areas; cooler areas for refuge
are readily available; thermal plume
under proposed conditions would extend
approximately 1 to 3 feet below the
surface; cold shock incidents would be
minimal due to gradual shutdown and
reduction procedures; fish avoid areas
that exceed their thermal preferenda;
impinged species exposed to elevated
temperatures (above thermal preferenda)
will be exposed only for a short
duration (20-50 seconds); EPU would have
no additional impact on entrained
species.
Terrestrial Biota............ No change in transmission line
maintenance; EPU would have no
additional impact on terrestrial plant
or animal species.
Threatened and Endangered Six Federally listed species in Wayne
Species. County; No species have been identified
on the Ginna site; EPU would have no
effect on species.
Social and Economic.......... No significant change in size of Ginna
Station work force required for plant
operation; small increase in work force
required for spring 2006 refueling
outage to implement remaining plant
modifications. EPU would have no effect
on socioeconomics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
Ginna 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 Part 20,
``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' and Part 50, ``Domestic
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' Appendix I, of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). These radioactive
waste streams are discussed in the FES. The methodology used in scaling
the increase of radioactive content under the proposed EPU conditions
were based on techniques in NRC's Calculations of Releases of
Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized
Water Reactors (PWR-GALE code), NUREG-0017, Revision 1. The proposed
EPU would not result in any physical changes to the gaseous, liquid, or
solid waste systems.
[[Page 37619]]
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
environment, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens,
tritium, and particulate material. The gaseous waste management systems
include the offgas system and various building ventilation systems. The
Ginna Base Case Average Dose, an annual average dose from 1999 through
2003 to extrapolated 100-percent plant operating capacity, was less
than 1 millirem (mrem) per year. Ginna LLC predicts that gaseous
radioactive effluents would linearly increase as a result of the
proposed EPU, approximately 17 percent. Even with a 17-percent increase
from the peak dose of less than 1 mrem per year, the dose would still
remain well below the regulatory standards in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
I. Therefore, the increase in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent
release following the EPU would not be significant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment systems
process and control the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the
environment such that the doses to individuals offsite are maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The
liquid radioactive waste systems are designed to process the waste and
then recycle it within the plant as condensate, reprocess it through
the radioactive waste system for further purification, or discharge it
to the environment as liquid radioactive waste effluent in accordance
with State and Federal regulations. Ginna LLC predicts the offsite dose
from liquid effluents would increase linearly, approximately 17
percent. The increase would not increase the volume of liquid
radioactive waste, but the radioactivity levels in the reactor coolant.
Even with an increase, the maximum annual total body and organ doses
(all pathways) would be well below the regulatory standards contained
in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as well as the doses bounded by the FES.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that the increase in offsite dose due to
liquid effluent release following the EPU 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. Ginna produces dry active
waste (paper, plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor sweepings, cloth,
metal), sludge, oily waste, bead resin and filters. The increase in
volume of solid waste would not be linear, because the proposed EPU
would neither alter installed equipment performance nor require drastic
changes in system operation or maintenance. In recent years (2003-
2004), the solid waste volume generated by Ginna has been significantly
above the 9-year non-outage average of 2,500 cubic feet, and outage
year average of 5,000 cubic feet. This increase in volume is a result
of the roof and reactor head replacement projects and mandated security
upgrades.
Under the proposed EPU conditions, any increase in volume of solid
waste would be due to increases in disposal of bead resins and filters.
This increase would not be significant, although the amount of
radioactivity in the waste would linearly increase. Even with such
increases, Ginna LLC expects the results would remain below the
generation volumes and doses in the FES. Therefore, the NRC concludes
that there would be no significant impact to offsite dose due to solid
waste disposal following the EPU.
In-Plant Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would increase in-plant radiation dose rates
linearly with the increase in core power level, by approximately 17
percent. These higher doses rates would not be expected to increase the
annual average collective occupational doses more than 17 percent.
Ginna LLC performed an analysis of the expected increased levels of
radiation in the following four areas at Ginna: Areas near Reactor
Vessel, In-Containment Areas Adjacent to the Reactor Coolant System,
Areas near Irradiated Fuels and Other Irradiated Objects, and Areas
outside Containment where the Radiation Source Is Derived from the
Primary Coolant. Plant programs and administrative controls, such as
conservatism used in the original design basis reactor coolant system
source terms, conservatism used in designing plant shielding
requirements, and the Ginna Station Radiation Protection Program would
ensure that occupational doses would be maintained within regulatory
limits of 10 CFR Part 20, with the expected 17-percent increase.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that there would be no significant impact
to in-plant radiation doses.
Direct Radiation Doses Offsite
Under the proposed EPU conditions, Ginna LLC predicted the increase
to direct radiation doses offsite would be proportional to the uprate
percentage increase, approximately 17 percent, from liquid and gaseous
releases. Potential offsite doses were calculated using plant core
power operating history, 1999-2003, reported gaseous and liquid
effluent and dose data from 1999-2003, NUREG-0017 equations and
assumptions, and a conservative methodology. The extrapolated and
increased offsite dose calculations for the liquid and gaseous
effluents were found to be well below the regulatory standards in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 40 CFR Part 190 and the FES. Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant impact of
offsite direct radiation doses.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there would 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 upon power level; therefore, the core
inventory of radionuclides could increase by as much as 17 percent. The
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant might also
increase by as much as 17 percent; however, this concentration is
limited by the Ginna Technical Specifications. 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.
Some of the radioactive waste streams and storage systems evaluated for
postulated accidents might contain slightly higher quantities of
radionuclides. For those postulated accidents where the source term has
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 values presented in the FES.
The NRC's acceptance criteria for radiological consequences
analysis using an alternative source term are based on 10 CFR 50.67.
Ginna LLC's assessment of new calculated doses following the EPU are
well below the NRC regulatory standard described in Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants.'' The NRC staff is
reviewing the licensee's analyses and
[[Page 37620]]
performing confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the
licensee's calculated doses under accident conditions. The results of
the NRC staff's calculations will be presented in the safety evaluation
to be issued with the license amendment, and the EPU will not be
approved by NRC unless the NRC staff's independent review of dose
calculations under postulated accident conditions determines that dose
is within regulatory limits. Therefore, the staff concludes if the
doses from postulated accidents remained within the NRC regulatory
limits of 10 CFR Part 50 and RG 1.183, the impacts would be small.
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 environmental
assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as corrected by 53 FR
32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3
and S-4 to a higher burnup fuel 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).
Ginna LLC has concluded that the fuel enrichment at Ginna would be
increased up to 4.95 percent as a result of the proposed EPU. In
addition, the expected core average exposure for the EPU would be
approximately 52,000 MWd/MTU, with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum
fuel rods limits. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the EPU would
remain bounded by the impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4 and would not be
significant.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the consequences
of accidents, would not result in a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts based on
information provided in the ER and the NRC staff's independent review.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed EPU.
Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU at Ginna.
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Effluents and Doses.. Small dose increase due to gaseous
effluents; doses to individuals offsite
would remain below NRC limits.
Liquid Effluents and Doses... No significant volume increase in liquid
effluent generated would be expected;
small increase of radioactive materials
in liquid effluent; doses to individuals
offsite would remain below NRC limits.
Solid Radioactive Waste...... Volume of solid waste increased due to
equipment replacement projects and
security upgrades; increase in
radioactive material would be expected;
all increases (volume and dose) within
NRC limits.
In-plant Dose................ Occupational dose expected to increase by
17 percent overall; would remain within
all NRC limits.
Direct Radiation Dose........ Increase of 17 percent would be expected;
doses would remain below NRC regulatory
standards and those in the FES.
Postulated Accidents......... Increase in the source term used in the
evaluation of postulated accidents. New
calculated doses must meet NRC
regulations (10 CFR 50.67), which will
be confirmed and presented in NRC safety
evaluation.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR
Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions,'' are
bounding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The plant would continue to operate under its
current licensing basis, possibly up to an additional 20 years.
However, if the EPU were not approved, other agencies and electric
power organizations might be required to pursue other means of
providing electric generation capacity to offset future demand. The
additional power not supplied by the Ginna site would likely be
replaced by demand-side management and energy conservation, purchased
power from other electricity providers, other alternative energy
sources, or a combination of these options. The environmental impacts
associated with the no-action alternative would also have positive
impacts at Ginna (for example, increase in solid waste generation)
would be eliminated.
The environmental impacts of alternative sources of producing
electrical power are described in the FES and Chapter 8 of NUREG-1437
Supplement 14. Non-nuclear power generation technologies considered
were coal-fired and natural-gas fired generation at the Ginna or at an
alternative site. The construction and operation of a coal or natural-
gas fired plant would create greater negative environmental impacts in
areas such as air quality, land use, and waste management, than those
identified for the proposed Ginna EPU. Implementation of the proposed
EPU would have less impact on the environment than the construction and
operation of a new coal or natural-gas fired plant at an alternative
site. In addition, the EPU does not involve environmental impacts that
are significantly different from those presented in the 1973 FES for
Ginna. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the no-
action alternative would be greater than the impacts of the proposed
action based on information in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 26, 2006, the NRC
staff consulted with the State of New York official, John Spath, of the
Energy Research and Development Authority, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no additional
comments other than those provided in the NYSDEC letter of May 12,
2006.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that implementation of the action as proposed would 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.
[[Page 37621]]
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated July 7, 2005, as supplemented by letters
dated August 15, September 30, December 6, 9, and 22, 2005, and January
11 and 25, and February 16, March 3 and 24, and May 9 and 19, 2006
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
Nos. ML051950123, ML052310155, ML052800223, ML053480388, ML053480362,
ML053640080, ML060180262, ML060960416, ML060540349, ML060810218,
ML060940312, ML061350375, and ML061450381, respectively). Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who
do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 06-5897 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P