[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40162-40171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11113]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 And 50-412]


FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Generation Corp.; Ohio Edison Company; The Toledo Edison Company; 
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 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).

SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment as part 
of its evaluation of a request by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 
(FENOC), et al., for a license amendment to increase the maximum rated 
thermal power at Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 
and 2) from 2689 megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 2900 MWt. This represents a 
power increase of approximately 8 percent for BVPS-1 and 2. As stated 
in the NRC staff's position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the 
Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate (EPU) 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 BVPS-1 and 2 
or from the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is 
documenting its environmental review in an environmental assessment 
(EA). Also, in accordance with the position paper, this 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 May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26985). No comments were 
received.

Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    The EPU would apply to the facilities at the BVPS-1 and 2 site, 
located on the south bank of the Ohio River in Shippingport Borough, 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The station site consists of 449 acres and 
it lies approximately 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 
one mile southeast of Midland, Pennsylvania, 5 miles east of Liverpool, 
Ohio, 8 miles east of Newell, West Virginia, and 6 miles southwest of 
Beaver, Pennsylvania.
    BVPS-1 and 2 are located within the Pittsburgh Low Plateau Section 
of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province, which is 
characterized by a smooth, upland surface cut by numerous narrow, 
relatively shallow river valleys. The site region encompasses portions 
of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, and the site elevation ranges 
from 660 to 1,700 feet above sea level.
    The major river systems in the region consist of the Monongahela, 
Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, and their tributaries. The Ohio River is 
formed by the juncture of the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers at 
Pittsburgh, and extends 981 river miles to Cairo, Illinois, where it 
joins the Mississippi River. The Ohio River and lower portions of the 
Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers are maintained and controlled by a 
series of locks and dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    BVPS-1 and 2 consist of two light-water cooled, pressurized-water 
reactors (PWRs) with a current authorized maximum reactor core power 
level output of 2689 MWt for each unit. The two units employ a closed-
loop cooling system that includes a natural draft cooling tower (CT) 
(one per unit) to dissipate waste heat to the atmosphere. The BVPS-1 
and BVPS-2 circulating water systems (CWSs) are non-safety related and 
provide cooling water for the main condensers of the turbine-generator 
units. The closed-loop systems consist of CT pumps, pumphouses, CWS 
piping, main condenser vacuum priming systems, mechanical tube cleaning 
system (BVPS-2 only), natural draft, hyperbolic CTs for removal of 
waste heat from the main condensers, and associated hydraulic and 
electrical equipment.

Identification of the Proposed Action

    By letter dated October 4, 2004, FENOC proposed an amendment to the 
operating licenses for BVPS-1 and 2 to increase the maximum rated 
thermal power level by approximately 8 percent, from 2689 MWt to 2900 
MWt. The change is considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor 
core power level more than 7 percent above the original 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 turbine. This would allow the turbine-generator to increase the 
production of power and would increase the amount of waste heat 
delivered to the condenser, resulting in an increase in the circulating 
water condenser discharge temperature, evaporation flow rates, and 
blowdown concentrations. Moreover, the temperature of water discharged 
from the service water systems (SWSs) to the Ohio River would increase 
slightly due to the increased heat load, but flow rates would remain 
unchanged.
    In April 2001, the NRC approved a FENOC request to increase the 
licensing basis core power level of BVPS-1 and 2 by 1.4 percent; no 
other power uprates have been requested or granted for this site.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose and need for the proposed action (EPU) is to increase 
the maximum thermal power level of BVPS-1 and 2, thereby increasing the 
electric power generation. The increase in electric power generation 
would give FENOC the capability to provide lower cost power to its 
customers than can be obtained otherwise in the current and anticipated 
energy market.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    At the time of issuance of the operating license for BVPS-1 and 2, 
the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license would 
be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final 
Environmental Statements (FESs) for the operation of BVPS-1 and 2, 
which were issued in July 1973 for BVPS-1 and September 1985 for BVPS-
2. This EA summarizes the radiological and non-radiological impacts in 
the environment that may result from the proposed action.

[[Page 40163]]

Non-Radiological Impacts

Land Use Impacts

    The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed 
action include impacts from construction and plant modifications. FENOC 
or its subsidiary companies own all land within the BVPS-1 and 2 
exclusion area except the Ohio River proper; onsite property owned by 
Duquesne Light (i.e., the switchyard tract, which is jointly owned by 
Duquesne Light and FENOC); the eastern portion of Phillis Island, owned 
by the U.S. Government and administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS); and 7.4 acres of the Freeport Development Company (now 
Laurel Ventures) tract, located along the southern BVPS-1 and 2 site 
boundary. However, appropriate controls are in place to restrict use of 
these lands. In case of an emergency that threatens persons or the 
environment, FENOC has the authority to enter the switchyard (after 
notifying Duquesne Light) to take action to prevent damage, injury, or 
loss. Limited hunting is permitted on Phillis Island, but no public 
assembly is allowed there. Similarly, the Freeport Development Company 
property restricts use of this land by current and future purchasers or 
leasers.
    The Beaver County Planning Commission estimates that forest land 
accounts for 49.5 percent (140,840 acres) of all land in Beaver County, 
while agricultural lands account for 26.2 percent (73,892 acres). 
Forested lands are prevalent in western Beaver County. Residential 
lands account for 15.5 percent (44,050 acres), while industrial, 
commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses account for only 
4.1 percent of the County's land area. Included in these industrial 
lands are brownfield sites of former steel manufacturing operations, 
including sites along the Ohio River.
    Several public lands in the vicinity of the BVPS-1 and 2 site are 
dedicated to wildlife management and recreation. These public lands 
include a portion of the Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge, 
Raccoon Creek State Park, Beaver Creek, State Forest, Brady Run County 
Park, and several areas of the Pennsylvania Game Lands. Shippingport 
Community Park, a 7.5-acre public recreation facility, is located along 
State Route 3016 in Shippingport. The Shippingport Boat Ramp is located 
approximately 800 feet upstream from the BVPS-1 and 2 site eastern 
boundary on the Ohio River.
    Phillis Island and Georgetown Island are located in the BVPS-1 and 
2 site vicinity and have been designated as part of a National Wildlife 
Refuge. Phillis Island (approximately 39 acres) is situated 
approximately 400 feet offshore of the downstream portion of the BVPS-1 
and 2 site and lies partially within the BVPS-1 and 2 exclusion area. 
The 16.2-acre Georgetown Island is located approximately three river 
miles downstream from the BVPS-1 and 2 site.
    The Municipality of Shippingport Borough has zoned the BVPS-1 and 2 
site as industrial except for the tract on which the Training and 
Simulator Buildings are located, which is zoned business. Some land 
adjacent to the site, south of State Route 168, is zoned residential. 
However, this area is small, consists of steep, wooded slopes, and has 
limited potential for growth. The U.S. Coast Guard has established a 
Restricted Use Zone encompassing all waters extending 200 feet from 
FENOC's BVPS-1 and 2 property line along the southeastern shoreline of 
the Ohio River. Entry of persons or vessels into this Restricted Use 
Zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the 
Port of Pittsburgh or his designated representative.
    The proposed EPU would not require any land disturbance to the 
BVPS-1 and 2 site. The EPU would not significantly affect material 
storage, including chemicals and fuels stored on site. The most 
significant modifications that would take place to support the EPU 
include replacement of the high-pressure turbine rotor, changes to the 
transformer cooler, replacement of the BVPS-1 steam generators (SGs), 
and replacement of the CT fill. None of these modifications would 
result in changes in land use.
    FENOC does not plan to conduct major refurbishment or significant 
land-disturbing activities to implement the EPU. FENOC has stated that 
there would be no refurbishment-related impacts on historic and 
archaeological resources associated with the EPU. The proposed EPU 
would not modify the current land use activities at the site beyond 
that described in the July 1973 or the September 1985 FESs related to 
the operation of BVPS-1 and 2. Therefore, the staff concludes that the 
land use impacts of the proposed EPU are bounded by the impacts 
previously evaluated in the FESs.

Cooling Tower Impacts

    The potential impacts associated with increased CT operation for 
the proposed action include aesthetic impacts due to the increased 
moisture content of the air. Other impacts include fogging, icing, 
thermal, suspended solids, and noise. BVPS-1 and 2 employ a closed-loop 
cooling system including a natural draft CT (one per unit) to dissipate 
waste heat to the atmosphere. The two CTs are natural draft, 
hyperbolic, reinforced concrete shells, approximately 500 feet high.
    There would be roughly a 10-percent increase in the evaporation 
rates from the CTs as a result of the EPU. The wide dispersion and 
elevated CT exhaust plumes of the natural draft CTs at BVPS-1 and 2 
would continue to provide an advantage in mitigating any fogging and 
icing potentials. The fogging potential of the CT plumes would be 
slightly diminished compared to the existing plume trajectories. The 
EPU higher heat load would increase the CT exit velocity and 
temperature. The plumes would be more buoyant and have a slightly 
higher upward velocity. This reduces the potential for fogging. The 
icing potential of the plumes during the EPU operation may increase 
slightly, with a maximum of 8 percent more icing than indicated by the 
original plume studies in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports 
(UFSARs). This results in an additional thickness of 0.002 inches 
compared to the original estimates. However, the original icing 
estimates were based on very high drift rates and depositions that, 
according to FENOC, have not occurred in the past 28 years. Therefore, 
no significant fogging or icing would occur as a result of the EPU.
    The increased plant load due to the EPU would increase the CT 
blowdown discharge temperature to the Ohio River by approximately 3 
degrees Fahrenheit (F). The CT evaporation rate would increase by up to 
an additional 10 percent, which would reduce CT blowdown flow. 
Concentrate solutions and suspensions in the discharged water are 
expected to increase, and yield up to 10 percent more solids deposition 
in the Cts. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit specifies that the discharge may not change the temperature of 
the receiving stream by more than 2 F in any one hour. The data 
evaluated indicate that the post-EPU discharges would not challenge 
this NPDES permit parameter. Based on Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) standards, the water temperature at representative locations in 
the Ohio River shall not exceed the monthly maximum limits by more than 
3 [deg]F. The month of January has the most limiting EPA maximum 
temperature of 50 [deg]F. In addition, the data evaluated indicate that 
the evaporation related to operation at EPU conditions would not cause 
the mass or concentration parameters of the CT blowdown to exceed the 
BVPS-1 and 2

[[Page 40164]]

NPDES permit parameter limits. Furthermore, the additional 10-percent 
increase in suspended solids would not cause significant impacts to the 
Ohio River, and sedimentation from the CTs would be removed during 
refueling outages.
    The aesthetic impacts associated with increased CT operation would 
not change significantly from the aesthetic impacts associated with the 
current CT operation. No significant increase in noise is anticipated 
for CT operation because there would be no change in flowrate and no 
new CT construction. The fogging potential of the CT plumes of the 
natural draft CTs at BVPS-1 and 2 is slightly diminished compared to 
the existing plume trajectories due to higher heat load, which would 
increase the CT exit velocity and temperature, making the elevation of 
the plumes even further from the ground. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that there are no significant impacts associated with 
increased CT operation for the proposed action.

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 
to the transmission lines. FENOC implements a specific program for 
ensuring continued safe and reliable operation of these transmission 
lines, continued compatibility of land uses on the transmission 
corridors, and environmentally sound maintenance of the corridors.
    FENOC conducts transmission line corridor right-of-way maintenance 
through helicopter inspections of transmission lines to determine the 
physical condition of towers, conductors and other equipment; status of 
vegetation communities; land use changes; and any encroachments on the 
line. On-foot inspections are conducted to manage vegetation growth, 
and crews are sent to problem areas to make onsite inspections and 
repairs, as needed. Routine vegetation maintenance of the rural 
transmission line corridors is managed to promote a diversity of 
shrubs, grasses, and other groundcover that provides wildlife food and 
cover. Maintenance efforts prescribed for transmission corridors 
include the removal, pruning, and chemical control of woody vegetation 
as necessary to ensure adequate clearance for safe and reliable 
operation of the line. Management of the corridor edge and beyond 
involves identification and removal of hazardous trees. These 
maintenance procedures are not expected to change as a result of the 
proposed action.
    There would be an increase in current passing through the 
transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the 
proposed EPU. The increased electrical current passing through the 
transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field 
strength. The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design 
criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents induced by 
transmission line electromagnetic fields. The NESC limits the short-
circuit current to ground to less than 5 miliamperes (mA). FENOC 
conducted an independent analysis of each of the transmission lines to 
determine conformance with the current NESC standard. As a result of 
the EPU, FENOC does not expect changes in operating voltage or other 
parameters for these lines that would affect conformance status with 
respect to the NESC 5-mA standard. Currently, all circuits at BVPS-1 
and 2 meet NESC requirements for limiting induced shock.
    The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the 
proposed action would not change significantly from the impacts 
associated with current plant operation. No new transmission lines are 
expected to be constructed as a result of the EPU. There would be no 
physical modifications to the transmission lines, transmission line 
rights-of-way maintenance practices would not change, there would be no 
changes to transmission line rights-of-way or vertical clearances, and 
electric current passing through the transmission lines would increase 
only slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no 
significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the 
proposed action.

Water Use Impacts

    Water used for BVPS-1 and 2 site operations consists of raw water 
from the Ohio River and potable water from the Midland Borough 
Municipal Water Authority (MWA). Water withdrawn from the Ohio River is 
used primarily for cooling, initially as once-through non-contact 
cooling water for primary and secondary heat exchangers in BVPS-1 and 
2. Most of this water is then used as makeup to the CWSs, which provide 
cooling for the main condensers, to replace water lost from evaporation 
and drift from the CTs, and to maintain dissolved solids at design 
equilibrium. A small fraction of water withdrawn from the river is used 
as feedwater for production of demineralized water (for use in nuclear 
steam supply system primary and secondary cooling loops) and other 
purposes. Cooling water not consumed by evaporation and drift losses 
and other treated wastewater streams is ultimately discharged back to 
the Ohio River in accordance with the NPDES permit for the BVPS-1 and 2 
site issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
    Municipal water from MWA supplies the station domestic water 
distribution system. Sanitary wastewater is treated in the BVPS-1 and 2 
sewage treatment plants. Though the BVPS-1 and 2 site originally drew 
water from onsite wells and the Ohio River as supply sources for 
domestic water, no groundwater is currently used at BVPS-1 and 2, and 
no future use of groundwater is anticipated.
    Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include 
hydrological alterations to the Ohio River and changes to plant water 
supply. Water from the BVPS-1 SWS is discharged to the BVPS-1 CWS, and 
water from the BVPS-2 SWS (excluding up to 8,400 gallons per minute 
(gpm) discharged to the emergency outfall structure) is discharged to 
the BVPS-2 CWS. This makeup water replaces consumptive losses due to 
evaporation and drift from the CTs. The excess makeup overflows at the 
CT basin and is directed back to the river as CT blowdown. CT blowdown 
flow also keeps dissolved solids in the CWSs within design limits.
    Makeup flows to the CWSs would be essentially unchanged from pre-
EPU conditions. Since the consumptive loss would increase (due to 
increased evaporation), less water would overflow the basin as CT 
blowdown when operating at the EPU conditions, leading to an increase 
in the maximum dissolved solids concentration of the blowdown by 
approximately 7 percent, with an increase in blowdown temperature of 
less than 3 [deg]F at design conditions noted above, and a decrease in 
blowdown flow amounts approximately equivalent to the increase in 
evaporation rates. With respect to these changes, FENOC determined that 
the combined maximum monthly average blowdown flows for the BVPS-1 and 
2 units operating at the EPU maximum power levels of 2,900 MWt would be 
less than 42,500 gpm. BVPS-1 and 2 operational monitoring data indicate 
that this is likely a conservative upper-bound estimate; for a recent 
2-year period prior to power uprate (2001-2002), actual maximum monthly 
average blowdown discharge flow from BVPS-1 and 2 was approximately 
38,000 gpm.

[[Page 40165]]

    Predicted monthly average temperature differences between the 
blowdown and the ambient river water at current authorized maximum 
power levels range from 2.4 [deg]F in August to 28.6 [deg]F in January. 
During June through August, when ambient river temperatures under this 
prediction are highest (75-80 [deg]F), this temperature differential 
ranges as high as 7.2 [deg]F. BVPS-1 and 2 operational monitoring 
indicates that this range is appropriate for periods of high ambient 
water temperature. For example, average temperature differential 
between BVPS-1 and 2 blowdown and the ambient river was approximately 
5.5 [deg]F for August 2002, a month in which both BVPS-1 and 2 units 
were operated at or near full power and ambient temperature of the Ohio 
River averaged 82 [deg]F, at or near its highest of the year. 
Considering the expected maximum increase of less than 3 [deg]F in 
blowdown temperature at design conditions noted above, FENOC therefore 
expects that this monthly average temperature differential during 
summer months when ambient river temperatures are highest (between 
June-August) would range from approximately 5 [deg]F to 10 [deg]F when 
both units are operating at maximum power levels of 2,900 MWt. As noted 
above, temperature effects would not be expected to challenge NPDES 
permit parameters or EPA standards for the Ohio River.
    The annual average flow of the Ohio River at the BVPS-1 and 2 site 
is 39,503 cubic feet per second (cfs; or 1.25 x 1012 cubic 
feet per year), which meets NRC's annual flow criterion for 
classification as a small river. The results of FENOC's analysis 
indicate that the lowest average flow in the Ohio River at the BVPS 
site is approximately 5,300 cfs, which occurs once in 10 years for 7-
day duration. Based on estimates from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
the minimum expected flow under conditions corresponding to the lowest 
flow of record, which occurred in 1930, is approximately 4,000 cfs. 
Consumptive water losses resulting from BVPS-1 and 2 operation comprise 
a very small fraction of flow in the Ohio River, even under low flow 
conditions. FENOC estimates that the maximum consumptive loss that 
would occur if both BVPS-1 and 2 were operated at their maximum uprated 
power level (2,900 MWt per unit) would be approximately 59 cfs or 1.1 
percent and 1.5 percent of the once-in-10-year low flow rate and the 
lowest flow of record of the Ohio River, respectively.
    The EPU would not involve any configuration change to the intake 
structure. The pump capacity would not change; therefore, there would 
not be an increase in the rate of withdrawal of water from the Ohio 
River. There would be a slight increase in the amount of Ohio River 
water consumed as a result of the EPU under all cooling modes of 
operation due to increased evaporative losses. However the increased 
evaporative loss would be insignificant relative to the flow in the 
Ohio River, even under low flow conditions. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that there would be no significant impact to the hydrological 
pattern of the Ohio River, and there would be no significant impact to 
plant water supply due to the proposed action.

Discharge Impacts

    Once cooling water from the BVPS-1 plant river and raw water system 
has served its plant components, it is discharged to the BVPS-1 CWS to 
make up operational water losses from that system. Similarly, once 
cooling water from the BVPS-2 SWS has served its plant components, most 
of it is discharged to the BVPS-2 CWS downstream from the main 
condenser to replace operational losses from that system. As much as 
8,400 gpm (19 cfs) originating from the BVPS-2 primary (reactor plant) 
heat exchangers and components is discharged to the Ohio River via the 
emergency outfall structure to reduce silt accumulation in that system. 
Under normal plant operations, the temperature of this discharge to the 
emergency outfall structure is approximately 12 [deg]F above ambient 
river temperature. FENOC calculations indicate that operation at the 
EPU power level of 2,900 MWt would increase this temperature by less 
than 1 [deg]F.
    Makeup water is supplied to the BVPS-1 closed-loop CWS by 
discharging the plant river and raw water (service water for BVPS-2) 
into the circulating water condenser discharge lines. In these systems, 
water heated by passage through the main condensers is circulated 
through the CTs, where waste heat is removed primarily by evaporation. 
The cooled water, which accumulates in a basin beneath each CT, is 
recirculated back through the main condensers. CWS system flow would 
remain essentially unchanged following the EPU. The increased levels of 
rejected heat resulting from an increase in turbine exhaust flow would 
increase the CWS condenser outlet temperature by less than 3 [deg]F at 
bounding design condition.
    No additional chemical usage is planned as a result of operation at 
EPU conditions. No additional pumps to increase water usage would be 
added. Therefore, total chemical mass and concentration in the service 
and river water systems would not be changed, and the chemical mass in 
the CWSs would not be changed. BVPS-1 and 2 site operations have had no 
known impact on public health from thermophilic microbial pathogens. 
Risk to human health is low due to poor conditions for supporting 
populations of such organisms in the Ohio River, including areas 
affected by the thermal discharge, and low potential for exposure of 
the public in the thermally affected zone.
    The impacts of continued dredging generally were determined to be 
minor for other resources, including aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish, 
aquatic vegetation, wetlands, and terrestrial biota (e.g., riparian 
zone communities). In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, these dredging 
activities require dredging permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permits and Sand and 
Gravel License Agreements issued by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection, which act to control these activities to 
ensure that adverse environmental impacts are minimized. At BVPS-1 and 
2, most of the cooling water is recirculated and kept at a relatively 
high temperature. The once-through cooling water discharged at the 
emergency outfall structure and the CT blowdown are routinely treated 
with biocides, including calcium hypochlorite. Some residual chlorine, 
within limits prescribed in the NPDES permit, may be discharged. These 
biocide applications significantly reduce the likelihood that microbial 
pathogens would be discharged into the area of concern or pose 
occupational health risks. Limited access by members of the public to 
waters and sediment in the immediate cooling water discharge areas 
further lowers health risks. Access to the BVPS-1 and 2 site by members 
of the public is subject to control, and shore-based recreation (e.g., 
fishing) on the property by the public is not permitted. In addition, 
the U.S. Coast Guard has established a Restricted Use Zone encompassing 
all waters extending 200 feet from FENOC's BVPS property line along the 
southeastern shoreline of the Ohio River. Entry of persons or vessels 
into this Restricted Use Zone is prohibited unless authorized by the 
Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Pittsburgh or his designated 
representative.
    FENOC is not aware of any public health concerns or incidents 
related to the BVPS-1 and 2 site cooling water discharge. In response 
to FENOC's

[[Page 40166]]

general request to agencies for information as part of its new and 
significant information review for the EPU, the Pennsylvania Department 
of Health indicated that it was not aware of any significant health 
issues that might result from the EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that the environmental impacts of the proposed action 
associated with BVPS-1 and 2 discharge would not be significant.

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. BVPS-1 and 2 
has intake and discharge structures on the Ohio River. The aquatic 
species evaluated in this EA are those which occur in the vicinity of 
the intake and discharge structures.
    Closed-cycle cooling reduces potential impacts from impingement, 
entrainment, and thermal discharge. Under normal operating conditions, 
both BVPS-1 and 2 units are not shut down simultaneously, reducing 
potential impacts from cold shock. Considered together with the small 
quantity of river water the BVPS-1 and 2 closed-loop cooling system 
requires, the potential for fish entrainment and impingement is greatly 
reduced by the design and operation of the intake structure.
    Population increases of some fish species have apparently occurred 
since BVPS-1 and 2 initiated operation. Annual monitoring of the fish 
community at BVPS-1 and 2 indicates the presence of special-status fish 
species at both control and non-control stations. Monitoring conducted 
at BVPS-1 and 2 from 1976 through 1995 indicated that impacts from 
entrainment of fish eggs and larvae were not significant, and that 
impingement losses were small and had little impact on fish 
populations. Review of BVPS-1 and 2 annual monitoring reports and the 
BVPS-2 Operating License Stage Environmental Review (ER) indicates that 
none of these special status species were specifically identified in 
egg and larvae samples collected during entrainment monitoring. The 
impacts of impingement of fish and shellfish are negligible, and would 
not be expected to increase as a result of the proposed action. The 
BVPS-1 and 2 NPDES permit specifies that the discharge may not change 
the temperature of the receiving stream by more than 2 [deg]F in any 
one hour. The data evaluated indicate that the post-EPU discharges 
would not challenge this NPDES permit parameter.
    The EPU would not increase the amount of water withdrawn from the 
river, and the increased discharge temperature would not compromise the 
NPDES permit parameters, and therefore, would not result in significant 
environmental impacts. As discussed in the transmission facility 
impacts section of this EA, there are no changes in the transmission 
line right-of-way maintenance practices associated with the proposed 
action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no 
significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota for the proposed action.

Impacts on Terrestrial Biota

    The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action 
include impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. As 
discussed in the transmission facility impacts section of this EA, 
transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices would not change 
for the proposed action. FENOC does not plan to conduct major 
refurbishment or significant land-disturbing activities to implement 
the EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no 
significant impacts to terrestrial biota 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 EA. 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 or 
construction refurbishment activities for terrestrial species.
    There are eleven species listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Federal Endangered Species Act within Beaver County, Pennsylvania. 
These include the following:

                        Table 1.--Threatened and Endangered Species for Beaver County, PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mussels............................................  Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana),
                                                      Clubshell (Pleurobema clava), Dwarf wedgemussel
                                                      (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Fish...............................................  Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Plants.............................................  Small-whorted pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), Northeastern
                                                      bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus)
Reptiles...........................................  Bog turtle (Clemmys mublenbergii), Eastern massasauga
                                                      rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
Birds..............................................  Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Piping plover
                                                      (Charadrius melodus)
Mammals............................................  Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consultations with the FWS have been conducted to verify that this 
list of threatened or endangered species of potential concern to the 
BVPS-1 and 2 EPU is accurate. In a letter dated October 2, 2003, the 
Pennsylvania FWS stated that there are no federally listed or proposed 
threatened or endangered species under its jurisdiction in the vicinity 
of BVPS-1 and 2. FWS indicates that no federally listed or proposed 
threatened and endangered species are known to occur within the project 
impact area. The NRC staff's review and conclusions for each species is 
presented in the following paragraphs.
    The species of concern consist of three mussels, two plants, two 
reptiles, two birds, one fish, and one mammal. The three federally 
listed mussel species were last documented as occurring in the upper 
Ohio River or lower Allegheny River in early 1900s. The Clubshell 
mussel (Pleurobema clava) and Northern riffleshell mussel (Epioblasma 
torulosa rangiana) have been collected in the French Creek and 
Allegheny River watersheds in Clarion, Crawford, Erie, Forest, Mercer, 
Venango, and Warren Counties; no adverse impacts to these mussels are 
known to occur from the proposed actions.
    The two mussel species known to occur in the area are typically 
found in areas with substrates composed of clean gravel or a mix of 
sand and gravel, and which have moderate water current. However, the 
Northern riffleshell mussel has also been collected in quieter waters, 
such as in the Great Lakes at a depth of greater than 35 feet on 
suitable substrate. The Northern riffleshell mussel prefers firmly 
packed gravel or sand. Potential habitats might

[[Page 40167]]

include islands, nearshore areas, and the head ends of pools. The FWS 
has not designated critical habitat for this species. Since there has 
not been extensive dive sampling throughout the study area, it is not 
known with certainty whether this species occurs in other pools of the 
Allegheny and Ohio Rivers.
    The two federally listed plant species of concern, Small-whorted 
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) and Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus 
ancistrochaetus), are endangered nationwide and extremely rare. No 
occurrence records were identified for these species in areas of 
significance to the BVPS-1 and 2 EPU. Only three populations of Small-
whorted pogonia are known to exist in the Commonwealth, none in 
southwestern Pennsylvania. Information from the Pennsylvania Department 
of Conservation and Natural Resources indicates that there are no 
recent historical records of these species in Beaver and Allegheny 
Counties. Some areas in or near the transmission line corridor may be 
consistent with the habitat affinities.
    The two federally listed reptile species of concern, the Bog turtle 
(Clemmys mublenbergii) and Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, have not 
been sighted in Beaver or Allegheny Counties. There is little or no 
suitable wetland habitat on or near the BVPS-1 and 2 site or Beaver 
Valley-Crescent Line 318 transmission corridor for these species.
    The two federally listed bird species, the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus) and the Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), are 
endangered, and there are no records of these species on the BVPS-1 and 
2 site. According to the FWS, the Bald eagle, a federally listed 
threatened species, may possibly be found state-wide in Pennsylvania. 
It is primarily found in riparian areas and is associated with coasts, 
rivers, and lakes. The Bald eagle usually nests near bodies of water 
where it feeds. Bald eagles feed primarily on fish, although they may 
also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not 
readily available. Nesting has been known to occur in Butler County, 
and it is possible that any resident or transient individuals of this 
species may feed along the Allegheny or Ohio River corridors within the 
study area.
    The Bald eagle species has been observed along the Ohio River 
portion at the BVPS-1 and 2 site. To date, no known nesting sites of 
Bald eagles are noted immediately adjacent to areas that may be 
dredged. In addition, critical habitat has not been identified for the 
protection of these species within the Ohio River at or near the BVPS-1 
and 2 site.
    The federally listed fish species, Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 
brevirostrum), is an endangered fish species and has never been known 
to occur in western Pennsylvania; therefore, it is not expected to 
occur in the impact area.
    The federally listed mammal species, the Indiana bat (Myotis 
sodalis), may be found state-wide in suitable habitat in Pennsylvania 
as part of its summer range. Preferred winter hibernation sites include 
limestone caves; abandoned coal, limestone, and iron mines; and 
abandoned tunnels (one colony is currently using an abandoned railroad 
tunnel). As many as four winter hibernation sites have been identified 
in the state to date, including sites in Armstrong County, Blair 
County, and Somerset County. According to the 1983 USFWS recovery plan 
for the Indiana bat, there is no critical habitat for the species in 
Pennsylvania.
    Impacts to the eleven threatened and endangered species described 
above are expected to be small due to one or more of the following: (a) 
Low potential for occurrence in areas affected by plant and 
transmission line operation and associated maintenance; (b) protective 
operation and maintenance practices; and c) lack of observed impacts as 
documented by operational monitoring. The FWS has listed several 
species with ranges that include Pennsylvania as threatened or 
endangered at the Federal level, but has not designated any areas in 
the Commonwealth as critical habitat for listed species (50 CFR 17.95, 
50 CFR 17.96). There is no federally listed threatened and endangered 
species critical habitat which has been identified on or near the BVPS-
1 and 2 site. Therefore, the species described above would not be 
significantly affected as a result of the EPU. The NRC staff therefore 
concludes that there is no effect on threatened and endangered species 
for the proposed action.

Social and Economic Impacts

    Potential social and economic impacts due to the proposed action 
include changes in tax revenue for Beaver County and changes in the 
size of the workforce at BVPS-1 and 2.
    FENOC is now being assessed annual property taxes by Beaver County, 
Shippingport Borough, and the South Side Area School District. Revenues 
received by Beaver County support such programs as engineering, 
recreation, public safety, public works, and emergency services. 
Revenues received by the Shippingport Borough support such programs as 
waste management, public works, and public safety.
    FENOC employs a permanent workforce of approximately 1,000 
employees and approximately 500 contractors at the BVPS-1 and 2 site. 
No additional permanent employees would be expected as a result of the 
EPU. Approximately 55 percent of the permanent workforce live in Beaver 
County and 27 percent live in Allegheny County. The remaining employees 
live in various other locations. FENOC refuels BVPS-1 and 2 at 
intervals of approximately 18 months. During refueling outages, site 
employment increases by as many as 800 workers for temporary (30 to 40 
days) duty, and FENOC expects that similar increases would occur for 
refueling outages as a result of the EPU. The proposed EPU would not 
significantly impact the size of the BVPS-1 and 2 labor force and would 
not have a material effect upon the labor force required for future 
outages.
    FENOC's annual property tax payments for BVPS-1 and 2 averaged less 
than 1 percent of Beaver County's operating budgets for 2000 to 2002. 
Given the area's declining populations and sluggish growth pattern, EPU 
tax-driven land-use changes would generate very little new development 
and minimal changes in the area's land-use patterns. No tax-driven 
land-use impacts are anticipated because no additional full-time 
employees would be expected as a result of the EPU. The amount of 
future property tax payments for BVPS-1 and 2 post-EPU and the 
proportion of those payments to the operating budgets of Beaver County, 
South Side Area School District, and Shippingport Borough are dependent 
on future market value of the units, future valuations of other 
properties in these jurisdictions, and other factors.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by the licensee 
regarding socioeconomic impacts. No significant socioeconomic impacts 
are anticipated because no permanent additional employees are expected 
as a result of the EPU.

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, CT 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 2 
summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed 
EPU at BVPS-1 and 2.

[[Page 40168]]



                           Table 2.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use...........................................  No significant land use modifications; no refurbishment
                                                      activities with land impacts on historic and
                                                      archaeological resources.
Cooling Tower......................................  No significant aesthetic impact, slightly larger plume
                                                      size; no significant increase in noise; no significant
                                                      fogging or icing.
Transmission Facilities............................  No physical modifications to transmission lines; lines meet
                                                      shock safety requirements; no changes to right-of-ways;
                                                      small increase in electrical current would cause small
                                                      increase in electromagnetic field around transmission
                                                      lines.
Water Use..........................................  No configuration change to intake structure; no increased
                                                      rate of withdrawal; slight increase in water consumption
                                                      due to increased evaporation; no water-use conflicts. No
                                                      change in ground water use.
Discharge..........................................  Increase in water temperature discharged to Ohio River;
                                                      will meet thermal discharge limits in current NPDES permit
                                                      at EPU conditions; no additional chemical usage is planned
                                                      as a result of operation at EPU conditions. EPU will not
                                                      change conclusions made in the FES.
Aquatic Biota......................................  No additional impact expected on aquatic biota.
Terrestrial Biota..................................  Pennsylvania FWS found no adverse impact from EPU; no
                                                      additional impact on terrestrial plant or animal species.
Threatened and Endangered Species..................  There are eleven federally listed species in Beaver County;
                                                      EPU will have no effect on these species.
Social and Economic................................  No significant change in size of BVPS-1 and 2 labor force
                                                      required for plant operation or future refueling outages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

    BVPS-1 and 2 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 Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 20 (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 FESs for BVPS-1 and 2.
    The proposed EPU would not result in changes in the operation or 
design of equipment for the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems.

Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses

    During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems 
process and control the release to the environment of gaseous 
radioactive effluents, including small quantities of noble gases, 
halogens, tritium, and particulate material. Gaseous radioactive wastes 
include airborne particulates and gases vented from process equipment 
and the building ventilation exhaust air. The major sources of gaseous 
radioactive waste are filtered using charcoal adsorbers, held up for 
decay using separate pressurized decay tanks, and monitored prior to 
release to ensure that the dose guidelines of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 
I and the limits of 10 CFR part 20 are not exceeded.
    Gaseous releases of Kr-85 would increase by approximately the 
percentage of power increase. Isotopes with shorter half-lives would 
have varying EPU increase percentages up to a maximum of 18 percent. 
The impact of the EPU on iodine releases would be slightly greater than 
the percentage increase in power level. The other components of the 
gaseous release (i.e., particulates via the building ventilation 
systems and water activation gases) would not be impacted by the EPU, 
according to analysis using the methodology outlined in NUREG-0017, 
``Calculation of Release of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous 
Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors.'' Tritium releases in the 
gaseous effluents increase in proportion to their increased production, 
which is directly related to core power. The impact of the increased 
activity in the radwaste systems is primarily in the activity shipped 
offsite as solid waste. Gaseous releases to the environment would not 
increase beyond the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the guidelines of 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix I. Therefore, the increase in offsite dose due to 
gaseous effluent release following implementation of 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 the guidelines of 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.
    To bound the estimated impact of EPU on the annual offsite 
releases, the licensee used the highest percentage change in activity 
levels of isotopes in each chemical grouping found in the primary 
reactor coolant and secondary fluids that characterize each unit. The 
licensee then applied the values to the applicable gaseous and liquid 
effluent pathways. The percentage change was applied to the doses 
reported in the licensee's radioactive effluent reports for 1997 
through 2001 (adjusted to reflect a 100-percent capacity factor) to 
calculate the offsite doses following the EPU. The licensee concluded 
that although the doses increased, they remained below the regulatory 
requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and the guidelines of Appendix I to 10 
CFR part 50.
    The EPU would increase the liquid effluent release concentrations 
by approximately 14 percent, as this activity is based on the long-term 
reactor coolant system (RCS) and secondary side activity and on waste 
volumes. Tritium releases in liquid effluents would increase in 
proportion to their increased production, which is directly related to 
core power and is allocated between the gaseous and liquid releases in 
this analysis in the same proportion as pre-EPU releases. However, 
doses from liquid releases to the environment would not increase beyond 
the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the guidelines of 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I. Therefore, there would not be a significant environmental 
impact from the additional amount of radioactive material generated 
following implementation of the EPU.

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 volume of solid waste is 
not expected to increase proportionally with the EPU increment, since 
the EPU neither would appreciably impact installed equipment

[[Page 40169]]

performance, nor would it require drastic changes in system operation 
or maintenance. Only minor, if any, changes in waste generation volume 
are expected. This would include the small increase in volume of 
condensate polishing resins in BVPS-2. However, it is expected that the 
activity inventories for most of the solid waste would increase 
proportionately to the increase in long half-life coolant activity. 
While the total long-lived activity contained in the waste is expected 
to be bounded by the percentage of the EPU, the increase in the overall 
volume of waste generation resulting from the EPU is expected to be 
minor. Therefore, no significant additional waste would be generated 
due to operation at EPU conditions. Since operation at EPU conditions 
would not increase the SG blowdown, no significant additional solid 
waste resin would be generated.
    Spent fuel from BVPS-1 and 2 is transferred from the reactors and 
stored in the respective spent fuel storage pools. There is sufficient 
capacity in the BVPS-1 fuel storage pool to accommodate that unit, 
including full core discharge, through the end of its current license 
term. FENOC anticipates that the capacity of the BVPS-2 spent fuel pool 
would be exhausted by approximately year 2007, although requests for 
approval of increased capacity may be undertaken. The increased power 
level of the EPU would require additional energy for each cycle. To 
accommodate this extra energy, it is expected that additional fresh 
feed fuel assemblies would be needed in the core designs. The specific 
number of feed fuel assemblies (or discharge assemblies) for each cycle 
will be determined during the core design process, and will take into 
account expected energy carryover from the previous cycle. FENOC has 
determined that four additional fresh fuel assemblies would be needed 
for each refueling under EPU conditions to meet the higher energy 
needs.
    Additional storage capacity would be required beyond the current 
license terms if spent fuel stored in the pools cannot be transferred 
to a permanent repository. Installation of additional onsite spent fuel 
storage capacity, if elected, is an action licensed by the NRC 
separately from EPU. Current ongoing criticality analysis conducted by 
the licensee may free up presently unavailable storage in the upcoming 
months. FENOC plans to request an amendment to increase spent fuel pool 
storage capacity and to seek approval for dry cask storage at BVPS-1 
and 2 by 2014. At this time, the NRC staff concludes that there would 
be no significant environmental impacts resulting from storage of the 
additional fuel assemblies.

Direct Radiation Doses Offsite

    The licensee evaluated the direct radiation dose to the 
unrestricted area and concluded that it is not a significant exposure 
pathway. Since the EPU would only slightly increase the core inventory 
of radionuclides and the amount of radioactive wastes, the NRC staff 
concludes that direct radiation dose would not be significantly 
affected by the EPU and would continue to meet the limits in 10 CFR 
part 20.
    In addition to the dose impact to radioactive gaseous and liquid 
effluents, the licensee evaluated the dose impact of the EPU on the 
direct radiation from plant systems and components containing 
radioactive material to members of the public, as required by 40 CFR 
part 190.
    The licensee's evaluation concluded that the direct radiation doses 
are not expected to increase significantly over current levels and are 
expected to remain within the limit of 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) annual whole-
body dose equivalent as specified in 40 CFR part 190.

Occupational Dose

    Occupational exposures from in-plant radiation primarily occur 
during routine maintenance, special maintenance, and refueling 
operations. An increase in power at BVPS-1 and 2 could increase the 
radiation levels in the RCS. However, plant programs and administrative 
controls such as shielding, plant chemistry, and the radiation 
protection program would help compensate for these potential increases.
    The licensee's assessment takes into consideration that following 
EPU, the operation and layout/arrangement of plant radioactive systems 
would remain consistent with the original design. The EPU assessment 
takes into account that normal operational dose rates and dose to 
members of the public and to plant workers must continue to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and radioactive effluent release license 
conditions.
    The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's plan regarding 
occupational exposure related to the EPU. The licensee has evaluated 
the impact of the EPU on the radiation source terms in the reactor 
core, irradiated fuels/objects, RCS and downstream radioactive systems. 
These source terms are expected to increase by approximately 7.9 
percent after a core power uprate from 2689 MWt to 2900 MWt. The 
radiation exposure received by plant personnel would be expected to 
increase by approximately the same percentage. The above increase in 
radiation levels would not affect the radiation zoning or shielding 
requirements in the various areas of the plant because the increase due 
to EPU would be offset by the conservatism in the pre-EPU ``design-
basis'' source terms used to establish the radiation zones by BVPS-1 
and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) that limit the RCS concentrations 
to levels well below the design-basis source terms, and by conservative 
analytical techniques used to establish shielding requirements. 
Regardless, individual worker exposures would be maintained within 
acceptable limits by the site Radiation Protection Program, which 
controls access to radiation areas. In addition, procedural controls 
and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) techniques are used to 
limit doses in areas having increased radiation levels. Therefore, the 
annual average collective occupational dose after the EPU is 
implemented would still be well below the value expected when the FESs 
were published.

Summary of Dose Impacts

    On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the BVPS-1 and 2 license 
amendment request, the staff concludes that the proposed 8-percent 
power uprate would not have a significant effect on occupational dose 
or members of the public from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent 
releases. The licensee has programs and procedures in place to ensure 
that radiation doses are maintained ALARA in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1101, Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50, and 40 
CFR part 190. Therefore, the staff finds the dose impacts from the 
proposed EPU at the BVPS-1 and 2 to be acceptable from a normal 
operations perspective.

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 FESs. 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 8 percent. The 
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase 
by as much as 8 percent; however, this concentration is limited by the 
BVPS-1 and 2 TSs. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of 
radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. This 
coolant concentration

[[Page 40170]]

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 may 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 FESs. 
As a result of the proposed EPU, plant radioactive source terms would 
be anticipated to increase proportionally to the actual power level 
increase.
    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. The NRC staff's independent 
review of dose calculations under postulated accident conditions 
determined that dose would be within regulatory limits. Therefore, the 
NRC staff concludes that the EPU would not significantly increase the 
consequences of accidents and would not result in a significant 
increase in the radiological environmental impact of BVPS-1 and 2 from 
postulated accidents.

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 cycles 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 (MWd/MTU). Both BVPS-1 and 2 would maintain their nominal 
18-month refueling cycles with the EPU. 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 potential 
radiological consequences of design-basis 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. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action. Table 3 summarizes the radiological environmental 
impacts of the proposed EPU at BVPS-1 and 2.

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, if the EPU were not approved, other 
agencies and electric power organizations may be required to pursue 
other means of providing electric generation capacity to offset future 
demand such as fossil fuel power generation. Construction and operation 
of a fossil-fueled plant would create impacts in air quality, land use, 
and waste management significantly greater than those identified for 
the EPU at BVPS-1 and 2.
    Implementation of the proposed EPU would have less impact on the 
environment than the construction and operation of a new fossil-fueled 
generating facility or the operation of fossil-fueled facilities 
outside the service area.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the FESs.

                             Table 3.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Effluents and Doses........................  Slight increase in dose due to gaseous effluents; doses to
                                                      individuals offsite will remain within NRC limits.
Liquid Effluents and Doses.........................  14-percent increase in liquid effluent release
                                                      concentrations; 14-percent increase for doses due to
                                                      liquid effluent pathway are still well within the 10 CFR
                                                      part 50, Appendix I guidelines, so no significant increase
                                                      in dose to public is expected.
Solid Radioactive Waste............................  Volume of solid waste is not expected to increase; within
                                                      FES estimate; increase in amount of spent fuel assemblies;
                                                      future application for dry cask storage.
In-plant Dose......................................  Occupational dose could increase by 7.9 percent; will
                                                      remain within FES estimate.
Direct Radiation Dose..............................  Dose expected to increase the same percentage as the EPU
                                                      for dose rates offsite; expected annual dose continues to
                                                      meet NRC/EPA limits.
Postulated Accidents...............................  Licensee concluded doses are within NRC limits.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 6, 2006, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Lawrence Ryan, of 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 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 environmental assessment, 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 October 4, 2004, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 23, May 26, June 14, July 8 and 28, August 26, 
September 6, October 7, 28, and 31, November 8, 18, and 21, December 2, 
6, 9, 16, and 30, 2005, and January 25, February 14 and 22, March 10 
and 29, May 12, and July 6, 2006. 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 O1F21, 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

[[Page 40171]]

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 10th day of July, 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-11113 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P