[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2565-2570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-667]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0399; Docket No. 50-263]
Northern States Power Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a final
Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of its evaluation of a request by
Northern States Power Company (NSPM) for a license amendment to
increase the maximum thermal power at the Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant (MNGP) from 1,775 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2,004 MWt. This
represents a power increase of approximately 13 percent over the
current licensed thermal power. 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 would have a significant
impact on the human environment. The NRC published a draft EA and
finding of no significant impact on the proposed action for public
comment in the Federal Register on September 15, 2009 (74 FR 47281). No
comments were received on the draft EA. The NRC staff did not identify
any significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's
EPU application for MNGP or during the NRC staff's review of other
available information; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its
environmental review in this final EA.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The MNGP site is located in Monticello, Minnesota, along the
southern bank of the Mississippi River at River Mile (RM) 900,
approximately 30 miles (48 kilometers) northwest of Minneapolis/St.
Paul, and east of Interstate Highway 94. The 2,150-acre (870-hectare)
site consists of 2 miles (3 kilometers) of frontage on both banks of
the Mississippi River, within portions of Wright and Sherburne
Counties. The plant and its supporting facilities occupy approximately
50 acres (20 hectares) in Wright County.
MNGP is a single-unit boiling water reactor that has been designed
to allow operation using four water circulating modes to cool the
system, and draws water from and discharges water to the Mississippi
River. These four water circulating modes include an open-cycle (once-
through) system, a closed cycle system using two mechanical draft
cooling towers, a helper cycle system, and a partial recirculation of
the cooling water. The helper cycle cools water using both the open
cycle to withdraw water from and discharge the water back to the
Mississippi River, and the cooling towers to cool water prior to
discharge to the river. The helper cycle is used when the discharge
canal temperature approaches permit limits and upstream river
temperatures are consistently at or above 68 [deg]F. MNGP operates in
open cycle or helper cycle approximately 98 percent of the time. In the
partial recirculation mode, 75 percent of the Mississippi River flow is
withdrawn and the cooling towers are operating. A portion of the cooled
water is recirculated to the intake and the remainder is discharged to
the river. The partial recirculation mode is used when river flow is
less than 860 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) but greater than 240 cfs, and
the river temperature is elevated.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By application dated November 5, 2008, as supplemented on January
29, 2009 (on environmental issues only) the licensee requested an
amendment for an EPU for MNGP to increase the licensed thermal power
level from 1,775 MWt to 2,004 MWt, which is an increase of 13 percent
over the current licensed thermal power and a 20 percent increase over
the original licensed thermal power. The Atomic Energy Commission
(predecessor of the NRC) issued the Final Environmental Statement (FES)
in November 1972, for the original license for MNGP. The NRC previously
approved a 6.3 percent stretch power uprate in September 1998,
increasing the power output from 1,670 MWt to 1,775 MWt. The NRC EA for
that action resulted in a finding of no significant impact and was
published in the Federal Register on September 1, 1998 (63 FR 46489).
In addition, the NRC issued a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 (SEIS-26) in August 2006,
associated with renewing the operating license for MNGP for an
additional 20 years. This proposed amendment for an EPU would result in
an increase in production of electricity and the amount of waste heat
delivered to the condenser, requiring an increase to the amount of
water withdrawn from the Mississippi River for cooling purposes, and a
subsequent increase in the temperature of the water discharged back to
the Mississippi River.
The licensee plans to implement the proposed EPU in two phases to
coincide with two refueling outages. The first
[[Page 2566]]
refueling outage is scheduled for late 2009, with a corresponding
increase in power of approximately 50 MWt to a total of 1,825 MWt. The
second refueling outage is scheduled for 2011, and the power level will
be increased to the maximum of 2,004 MWt.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The need for the additional power generation is based upon NSPM's
15-year Resource Plan that includes a forecast of an average annual
increase of peak electrical demand of 1.2 percent through NSPM's 2008-
2022 planning period. This forecast for increased energy includes
NSPM's resource obligations for summer peak net demand, minimum reserve
requirements, its committed resources, and other contracted
obligations. This increase in power demand would partially be met by
the increased amount of power output proposed for MNGP along with other
energy sources.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of issuance of the operating license for MNGP in 1972,
the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license would
be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the FES for the
operation of MNGP. In addition, the NRC published the SEIS-26 in 2006,
which evaluated the environmental impacts of operating MNGP for an
additional 20 years, and determined that the environmental impacts of
license renewal were small. The sections below summarize the non-
radiological and radiological impacts in the environment that may
result from the proposed action of the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed EPU
include impacts from plant modifications at MNGP. While some plant
components would be modified, most plant changes related to the
proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed
part of the site. No new construction would occur outside of existing
facilities and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots,
equipment storage areas, or transmission facilities would be required
to support the proposed EPU, although some transmission and
distribution equipment may be replaced or modified.
Existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during plant
modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not change at MNGP.
Also, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines (no
new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission
corridors, switch yards, or substations.
Since land use conditions would not change at MNGP, and because any
land disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas, there
would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources in the vicinity of
MNGP. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no
significant impact from EPU-related plant modifications on land use and
aesthetic resources in the vicinity of MNGP.
Air Quality Impacts
During implementation of the EPU at the MNGP site, some minor and
short duration air quality impacts would likely occur. Emissions from
the vehicles of workers would be the main sources of these air quality
impacts. Wright County, where MNGP is located, is designated as a
maintenance area for carbon monoxide. The licensee indicated that an
additional 500 temporary employees would be needed for the duration of
the project. The majority of the workforce would reside within the
county where MNGP is located. The screening analysis performed by the
licensee for the proposed Monticello EPU projects that annual average
vehicular traffic would increase by approximately 2 percent. The
majority of the EPU-associated activities would be performed inside
existing buildings and will not cause additional atmospheric emissions.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant
impact on air quality during and following implementation of the
proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Groundwater
MNGP uses groundwater for domestic-type water uses and limited
industrial use. Groundwater is obtained from six on-site wells, two of
which are permitted and regulated by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) through the State's water appropriation permit
program. These two wells produce 100 gallons per minute each and
provide domestic water to restrooms, showers, and laundries and
industrial use water to the MNGP reverse osmosis system, and to pump
seals at the plant intake structure. Four additional small capacity
wells that do not require an MDNR permit are used to supply domestic
use water to buildings not connected to the permitted system. The
proposed EPU will not significantly increase the use of domestic
groundwater, and the volume of additional groundwater needed for
industrial use is within the limits of the existing appropriations
permit. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no
significant impact on groundwater resources following implementation of
the proposed EPU.
Surface Water
MNGP uses surface water for plant condenser cooling, auxiliary
water systems, service water cooling, intake screen wash, and fire
protection. Under MDNR water appropriation permit number PA 66-1172-S,
MNGP may withdraw up to 645 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the
Mississippi River. Surface water consumption under EPU conditions is
expected to be maintained within permitted limits. The upper limit of
the permit is 8,700 ac-ft per year, which would not be reached because
the cooling towers are typically operated in combination with the once-
through cooling system. As part of its environmental review for license
renewal, the NRC staff stated in SEIS-26 that ``the consumptive loss
due to evaporation from the cooling towers represent 4 percent of the
river flow, which is not considered significant.'' The increased volume
of circulation water will continue to have an insignificant effect on
the total consumptive use of surface water at MNGP. The issue of
discharge temperatures is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit discussed in the following section.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant
impact on surface water resources following implementation of the
proposed EPU.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action
include impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharge effects.
Since MNGP operates most of the time in open-cycle mode, an
increase in river water appropriation for the EPU from the current
consumptive rate of 509 cfs to 645 cfs may increase impacts from
entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish in their early life
stages. However, in a Section 316(a) Clean Water Act (CWA)
Demonstration project in 1975, for MNGP that included an evaluation of
plant impacts on aquatic organisms, the evidence
[[Page 2567]]
indicated that operations of MNGP had not produced appreciable harm to
the aquatic organisms in the Mississippi River in the vicinity of MNGP.
In addition, in the SEIS-26, the NRC staff concluded in its assessment
of the relicensing activities of MNGP that MNGP was in compliance with
its current State of Minnesota NPDES permit, and in compliance with
Section 316(b) of the CWA regarding the use of best available
technology for the minimization of adverse environmental impacts from
entrainment and impingement, and further mitigation measures would not
be warranted. Further, river water appropriation under EPU operation
will not increase beyond the current maximum MNGP NPDES Permit limit of
645 cfs. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no
significant adverse impacts from entrainment or impingement for the
proposed action.
According to the licensee, at the proposed EPU conditions, the
temperature of the water entering the discharge canal is expected to
increase by a maximum of 4.5 [deg]F over the current discharge canal
temperature, which ranges from 66 [deg]F to 95 [deg]F depending upon
the season. This can lead to changes to the length, width, and duration
of the thermal plume across the Mississippi River. However, the
licensee states in the application that when canal discharge
temperatures have approached the limits of the NPDES permit, MNGP will
reduce power in order to comply with NPDES thermal discharge
requirements. The NRC staff previously noted in its SEIS-26 and review
of MNGP's license renewal application that, despite several periods of
non-compliance with the NPDES permit, there have been no indications of
adverse impacts to the aquatic biota within the vicinity of the
discharge plume. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be
no significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota from thermal discharges
for the proposed action.
The licensee stated in the application that an increase of up to
4.5 [deg]F for the effluent at the discharge canal over the current
temperature would not result in a significant increase in the
production of harmful thermophilic organisms in the discharge canal.
The maximum temperature at the discharge canal would remain within the
limits of the NPDES permit, and this temperature is also well below the
temperature for maximum growth rate of thermophilic organisms. The NRC
staff determined, in SEIS-26, that thermophilic organisms are not
likely to occur as a result of discharges by MNGP into the Mississippi
River. No further mitigation was deemed necessary by the NRC staff in
SEIS-26. Based upon the information provided in the application for EPU
and SEIS-26, the NPDES permit requirements for water temperature, and
the Section 316(b) requirements of the CWA, the NRC staff concludes
that the impact of thermophilic microbiological organisms from the
proposed EPU would not be significant.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
According to the application and the previous discussion regarding
land use, the proposed action will not affect any lands located outside
of the inner security fence at MNGP. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes
that there would be no significant impacts on terrestrial biota
associated with the proposed action.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Few Federal- or State-listed aquatic species are known to exist in
the four counties (Wright, Sherburne, Hennepin, and Anoka counties) in
which MNGP and the related transmission lines are located, and no
Federal- or State-listed aquatic species have been identified near
MNGP. Similarly, no Federal-listed terrestrial species occur within the
subject four counties. There are six State-listed species that occur or
potentially occur in the vicinity of MNGP. However, because no changes
are proposed to terrestrial wildlife habitat on the MNGP site or its
vicinity from the proposed EPU, the NRC staff concludes that there
would be no significant impacts to any threatened or endangered species
for the proposed action.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts
Historic and archaeological resources have been identified in the
vicinity of MNGP, but not at MNGP. The licensee has no plans to
construct new facilities or modify existing access roads, parking
areas, or laydown areas for EPU operation. The licensee stated that
onsite transmission and distribution equipment could be replaced or
modified to support EPU activities, however, these activities would be
limited to previously disturbed areas. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no significant impact from the proposed
EPU on historic and archaeological resources at MNGP. However, should
ground-disturbing activities occur on undisturbed portions of the plant
site or in transmission line rights-of-way, an archaeological
investigation would be conducted by a qualified archaeologist in
consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include
temporary increases in the size of the workforce at MNGP and associated
increased demand for public services and housing in the region. The
proposed EPU could also increase tax payments due to increased power
generation.
Currently, there are approximately 327 full-time workers employed
at MNGP, residing primarily in Wright County and Sherburne County,
Minnesota. During refueling outages (approximately every 24 months) the
number of workers at MNGP increases by as many as 600 workers for 30 to
40 days.
The proposed EPU is expected to temporarily increase the size of
the workforce at MNGP during two refueling outages. Approximately 250
additional workers would be needed during the 2009 refueling outage,
and up to 500 additional workers would be needed during the 2011
refueling outage to support EPU-related activities at MNGP. Once
completed, the proposed EPU would not increase the size of the MNGP
workforce during future refueling outages.
Most of the EPU plant modification workers would likely relocate
temporarily to Wright and Sherburne counties, resulting in short-term
increases in the local population along with increased demands for
public services and housing. Because plant modification work would be
short-term, most workers could stay in available rental homes,
apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. Since MNGP is located in
a high population area and the number of available housing units
exceeds demand, any temporary changes in plant employment would have
little or no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in the
region. Due to the short duration of plant outages and the availability
of housing, there would be no significant employment-related housing
impacts.
NSPM currently pays annual real estate taxes to Public School
District 882, Wright County, and the City of Monticello. The proposed
EPU could increase property tax payments because the total amount of
tax money paid would increase as power generation increases and because
the proposed EPU could increase the assessed market value of MNGP. Due
to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification activities,
there would be little or no noticeable effect on tax
[[Page 2568]]
revenue streams from the temporary MNGP workers residing in Wright
County and Sherburne County. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
there would be no significant adverse socioeconomic impacts from EPU-
related plant modifications and operations under EPU conditions in the
vicinity of MNGP.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
activities associated with EPU operation at MNGP. Such effects may
include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social
impacts. Some of these potential effects have been identified in
resource areas discussed in this EA. For example, increased demand for
rental housing during plant modifications for the EPU could
disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-
income populations are subsets of the general public residing around
MNGP, and all are exposed to the same health and environmental effects
generated from activities at MNGP.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis
The NRC staff considered the demographic composition of the area
within a 50-mile radius of MNGP to determine the location of minority
and low-income populations and whether they may be affected by the
proposed action. According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000, the
largest minority group was Black or African American (178,000 persons
or 6.5 percent), followed by Asian (132,000 or about 4.8 percent). Low-
income populations in the vicinity of MNGP were identified as living
below the 1999 Federal poverty threshold of $17,029 for a family of
four. According to census data, Wright County and Sherburne County had
higher median household income averages ($67,391 and $67,634) and lower
percentages (both 5.0 percent) of individuals living below the poverty
level, respectively.
Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would
mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise,
dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts).
Noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during
shift changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing during
EPU-related plant modifications could disproportionately affect low-
income populations, but there are a sufficient number of rental housing
units available to accommodate the increase of workers at MNGP during
the outages. Due to the short duration of the EPU-related work and the
availability of rental properties, impacts to minorities and low-income
populations would be short-term and limited.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed EPU operation would not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-
income populations residing in the vicinity of MNGP.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant non-radiological impacts. The NRC staff also anticipates
that there would be no significant non-radiological cumulative impacts
related to the proposed EPU. Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at MNGP.
Table 1--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No significant impact on land use
conditions and aesthetic resources in
the vicinity of MNGP.
Air Quality.................. Temporary short-term air quality impacts
from construction activities and vehicle
emissions related to travelling of the
workforce required to complete EPU
modifications; no significant air
quality impacts from such temporary
increase in workforce.
Water Use.................... Water use changes resulting from the EPU
would be relatively minor. No
significant impact on groundwater or
surface water resources.
Aquatic Resources............ No significant impact to aquatic
resources due to impingement and
entrainment or thermal discharge.
Terrestrial Resources........ No significant impact to terrestrial
resources.
Threatened and Endangered No significant impact to Federal- or
Species. State-listed species.
Historic and Archaeological No significant impact to historic and
Resources. archaeological resources on site or in
the vicinity of MNGP.
Socioeconomics............... No significant socioeconomic impacts from
EPU-related temporary increase in
workforce or EPU operation.
Environmental Justice........ No disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income populations
in the vicinity of MNGP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and
Solid Waste
Nuclear power plants use waste treatment systems to collect,
process, recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that
contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC
and EPA radiation safety standards.
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents
During normal power plant operation, the gaseous effluent treatment
system processes and controls the release of radioactive gaseous
effluents into the environment.
Implementation of the proposed EPU would increase the production
and activity of gaseous effluents by approximately 13 percent, which is
in proportion to the proposed increase in power level. As reported by
the licensee for the 2001-2006 period, the average annual calculated
maximum total body dose to an offsite member of the general public from
gaseous effluents was 1.62E-02 mrem (1.62E-04 mSv). This dose is well
below the 5 mrem (0.05 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 10
CFR part 50, Section II.B.2. Using the average annual maximum total
body dose (provided by the licensee) to an offsite member of the
general public from gaseous effluents, and assuming that the 13-percent
EPU will result in a corresponding increase in dose, the NRC staff
projects that the average annual
[[Page 2569]]
calculated maximum total body dose to an offsite member of the general
public from gaseous effluents would be 1.83E-02 mrem (1.83E-04 mSv).
Thus, the maximum offsite dose to a member of the public under the
conditions of the EPU would remain well within the radiation standards
of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR
part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential increase
in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent release following
implementation of the EPU would not be significant.
MNGP is authorized by the NRC to release a qualified amount of
radioactive liquid effluent into the environment; however, by its own
policy the licensee operates the plant as a zero radioactive liquid
release plant. Therefore, there are no routine periodic releases of
liquid radioactive effluents from the plant. MNGP's liquid radioactive
waste management system collects and processes the liquid waste, and
then either recycles the clean liquid within the plant or solidifies
the waste for off-site disposal. The proposed EPU operation will not
change the zero radioactive release policy at MNGP. No modifications to
the liquid radioactive waste system would be needed to handle the
increased liquid waste following implementation of the proposed EPU.
In the EPU application, the licensee estimated that the proposed
EPU would slightly increase the volume of radioactive liquid waste
generated from 11,000 gals/day to 11,250 gals/day. This is a small
increase in volume and can be accommodated by the radioactive liquid
waste system capacity. Although the licensee strives to operate the
plant as a zero liquid release plant, there were some radioactive
liquid discharges in 2001, 2003, and 2004. As reported by the licensee
for the 2001-2006 period, the average annual calculated maximum total
body dose to an offsite member of the general public from liquid
effluents was 2.72E-06 mrem (2.72E-08 mSv). This annual dose is well
below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 10
CFR part 50, Section II.A. Based on the licensee's ability to maintain
a near zero liquid discharge status for several years, and because the
resulting dose from the few releases was well within NRC dose
standards, there is reasonable assurance that the proposed EPU will not
have a significant impact on future liquid discharges.
In addition to the dose impact from gaseous and liquid radioactive
effluents, the licensee evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the
direct radiation (gamma radiation) from plant systems, liquid storage
tanks, the turbine, and components containing radioactive materials.
Based on the licensee's evaluation, the annual offsite dose to
members of the public from direct radiation under EPU conditions would
be approximately 6 mrem. Thus, the annual cumulative average calculated
maximum total body dose to an offsite member of the general public from
all sources of radiation from the facility (i.e., gaseous and liquid
effluents, and direct radiation) following implementation of the
proposed EPU would be less than 7 mrem. This dose is well below the
radiation dose limits and standards set forth in 10 CFR part 20, and 40
CFR part 190. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential
increase in offsite radiation dose to members of the public would not
be significant.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
The radioactive solid waste system collects, processes, packages,
monitors, and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes
prior to shipment offsite for disposal. The licensee reported in its
environmental assessment that MNGP shipped annually, on average,
approximately 706 ft\3\ of solid radioactive waste consisting of spent
resin, filter sludge, evaporator bottoms, etc., during the 2001-2006
time period. The licensee projects that implementation of the proposed
EPU would cause an annual increase of 106 ft\3\ in the volume of the
resins and result in one additional annual shipment. No modifications
to the solid radioactive waste system would be needed to handle the
increase in liquid waste following implementation of the proposed EPU.
The total long-lived activity contained in the waste is expected to be
bounded by the percentage of the EPU, and the increase in the overall
volume of waste generated during operation under EPU conditions is
expected to be minor. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the
impact from the increased volume of solid radwaste generated under
conditions of the proposed EPU would not be significant.
Spent fuel from MNGP is stored in the spent fuel pool and the newly
constructed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The
licensee estimates that the number of discharged assemblies would
increase from 150 assemblies per cycle to approximately 170 assemblies
per cycle following implementation of the proposed EPU. The storage
capacity of the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI is sufficient to
accommodate the expected small increase in discharged fuel assemblies.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant
impact resulting from storage of the additional fuel assemblies.
Occupational Doses
Implementation of the proposed EPU would result in the production
of more radioactive material and higher radiation dose rates in the
restricted areas at MNGP. Occupational exposures from in-plant
radiation primarily occur during maintenance and refueling operations.
Implementation of the proposed EPU is not expected to significantly
change the amount of radiation exposure received by plant personnel, as
the licensee has a radiation protection program that monitors radiation
levels throughout the plant to establish work controls, shielding, and
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and as low as is reasonably
achievable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no
significant increase in the radiation exposure received by plant
personnel due to implementation of the proposed EPU.
Postulated Accident Doses
Implementation of the proposed EPU would increase the core
inventory of radionuclides, which is dependent on power level. The
concentration of the radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also
increase in proportion to power level increase; however, this
concentration is limited by the MNGP Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of radionuclides would not
be expected to increase significantly. 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 exclusion
area boundary, at the low population zone, and in the main control
room, as well as in the technical support center for the loss-of-
coolant accident, remain below the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67.
The licensee has submitted analyses of calculated doses under
accident conditions for the EPU amendment application. These analyses
show that the proposed EPU will not have significant radiological
impacts under accident conditions. The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee's analyses to independently verify the licensee's calculated
doses under accident
[[Page 2570]]
conditions, and has concluded that the radiological consequences of
design-basis accidents will meet applicable acceptance criteria. The
NRC staff's evaluation results will be presented in the safety
evaluation that will be issued concurrently with the proposed EPU
amendment, if approved by the NRC staff. However, for the purpose of
this EA, the NRC staff concludes that, based on the information
provided by the licensee, the proposed EPU would not significantly
increase the radiological consequences of postulated accidents.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant radiological impacts. Because of existing regulatory
requirements regarding limits to exposure, the NRC staff also
anticipates that there would be no significant radiological cumulative
impacts related to the proposed EPU, as the licensee is required to
continue to comply with such regulatory requirements. Table 2
summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU
at MNGP.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents Doses from increased gaseous effluents
would remain within NRC limits and dose
design objectives.
Offsite Radiation Doses...... Radiation doses to members of the public
would remain small, well below NRC and
EPA Federal radiation protection
standards.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents. EPU would not change routine liquid
radioactive effluent releases from MNGP;
the doses from discharges, if any, would
remain within NRC limits and dose design
objectives.
Radioactive Solid Wastes..... Amount of solid waste generated would
increase by approximately 15 percent
(i.e., approximately 1 additional truck
shipment per year).
Occupational Doses........... Occupational doses would continue to be
maintained within regulatory limits.
Postulated Accident Doses.... Calculated doses for postulated design-
basis accidents would remain within NRC
limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to the 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 for MNGP,
other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to
pursue other means, such as fossil fuel power generation, of providing
electric generation capacity to offset future demand. Construction and
operation of such a fossil-fueled plant may create impacts in air
quality, land use, and waste management significantly greater than
those identified for the proposed EPU at MNGP. Conservation programs
such as demand-side management could possibly replace the proposed
EPU's additional power output. However, the regional forecasted future
energy demand calculated by the licensee may exceed conservation
savings and still require additional generating capacity. Alternative
energy sources such as wind energy have been incorporated into NSPM's
regional energy forecast.
Furthermore, the proposed EPU does not involve environmental
impacts that are significantly different from those originally
identified in the MNGP FES.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the FES.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 7, 2009, the NRC
staff consulted with the State of Minnesota official regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The Minnesota State
official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated November 5, 2008, and its supplement dated
January 29, 2009 (on environmental issues).
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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 11th day of January 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-667 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P