[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77010-77017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31085]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301; NRC-2010-0380]
Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2, Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To
Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) Section 51.21, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) as part of its evaluation of a request by
Florida Power & Light (FPL) Energy (the licensee) (now NextEra Energy
Point Beach, LLC (NextEra)) for a license amendment to increase the
maximum thermal power at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1
and 2 from 1,540 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1,800 MWt for each unit.
This represents a power increase of approximately 17 percent over the
current licensed thermal power, with a net increase of electrical
output from 519 megawatts-electric (MWe) to 607 MWe for each unit, and
approximately an 18 percent increase from the original licensed power
level of 1,518 MWt. In 2003, PBNP received approval from the NRC to
increase their power by 1.4 percent, to the current power level of
1,540 MWt. The NRC staff did not identify any significant environmental
impact associated with the proposed action based on its evaluation of
the information provided in the licensee's extended power uprate (EPU)
application and other available information. The draft EA and draft
FONSI are being published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public
comment period ending January 8, 2011.
Draft Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The PBNP site is located approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers)
east-northeast of the town of Mischot on the western shore of Lake
Michigan, midway along the western shore, near the northeastern corner
of Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The City of Green Bay is located
approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of PBNP, and the
Kewaunee Nuclear Plant is located approximately 4 miles (6 kilometers)
north of PBNP on the shore of Lake Michigan. The PBNP site is comprised
of approximately 1,260 acres (510 hectares), with 104 acres (42
hectares) that includes the two nuclear reactors, parking and ancillary
facilities. Approximately 1,050 acres (425 hectares) are used for
agriculture, and the remaining land is a mixture of woods, wetlands,
and open areas. Each of the two units at PBNP use Westinghouse
pressurized water reactors.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By application dated April 7, 2009, the licensee requested an
amendment for an EPU for PBNP to increase the licensed thermal power
level from 1,540 MWt to 1,800 MWt for each unit, which represents an
increase of approximately 17 percent above the current licensed thermal
power and approximately 18 percent over the original licensed thermal
power level. This change in core thermal level requires the NRC to
amend the facility's operating license. The operational goal of the
proposed EPU is a corresponding increase in electrical output for each
unit from 519 MWe to 607 MWe. The proposed action is considered an EPU
by NRC because it exceeds the typical 7 percent power increase that can
be accommodated with only minor plant changes. EPUs typically involve
extensive modifications to the nuclear steam supply system.
The licensee plans to make extensive physical modifications to the
plant's secondary side to implement the proposed EPU over the course of
two refueling outages currently scheduled for the Spring 2011 and the
Fall 2011. The actual power uprate, if approved by the NRC, would occur
in two stages following the 2011 refueling outages.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The need for the additional power generation is based upon the
goals and recommendations of Wisconsin's 2007 Final Report on
``Strategic Energy Assessment Energy 2012'' for maintaining a robust
energy planning reserve margin of 18 percent. In this report, the State
of Wisconsin, Public Service Commission, forecasted an annual growth
rate of over 2 percent in demand for electricity. The proposed action
provides the licensee with the flexibility to increase the potential
electrical output of PBNP Units 1 and 2 from its existing power
station, and to reduce Wisconsin's dependence on obtaining power from
Illinois via a congested transmission grid connection. The additional
90 MWe provided by each unit would contribute to meeting the goals of
the State of Wisconsin to provide efficient and stable nuclear
electrical generation.
[[Page 77011]]
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
As part of the licensing process for PBNP Units 1 & 2, the NRC
published a Final Environmental Statement (FES) in October 1970, for
PBNP Unit 1, and in March 1973 for PBNP Unit 2. The two FESs provide an
evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the operation
of PBNP Units 1 & 2 over their licensed lifetimes. In addition, in
2005, the NRC evaluated the environmental impacts of operating PBNP for
an additional 20 years beyond its current operating license, and
determined that the environmental impacts of license renewal were
small. The NRC staff's evaluation is contained in NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant,
Supplement 23, Regarding Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2''
(SEIS-23) issued in August 2005 (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML052230490). The NRC staff
used information from the licensee's license amendment request, the
FESs, and the SEIS-23 to perform its EA for the proposed EPU.
There will be extensive changes made to the secondary side of the
PBNP related to the EPU action, but no new construction is planned
outside of existing facilities, and no extensive changes are
anticipated to buildings or plant systems that directly or indirectly
interface with the environment. All necessary modifications would be
performed in existing buildings at PBNP. Modifications to the secondary
side of each unit include the following: Replacing the high-pressure
side of the turbine; replacing all of the feedwater heaters, feedwater
and condensate pumps and motors to operate at higher capacity;
providing supplemental cooling for some plant systems; implementing
electrical upgrades; other modifications to accommodate greater steam
and condensate flow rates; and changing setpoints and modifying
software.
The sections below describe the non-radiological and radiological
impacts in the environment that may result from 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 PBNP. 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 lay-down areas, or transmission facilities would be required
to directly support the proposed EPU.
Existing parking lots, road access, equipment lay-down areas,
offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during
plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not change at
PBNP. Also, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines
(no new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission
corridors, in switch yards, or in substations.
Since land use conditions would not change at PBNP, there would be
no significant impact from EPU-related plant modifications on land use
and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of PBNP.
Air Quality Impacts
Air quality within the Point Beach area is generally considered
good, with an exception occurring for a designated ozone nonattainment
area. PBNP is located in Manitowoc County within the Lake Michigan
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). With the exception of the
8-hour standard for ozone, the Lake Michigan AQCR is designated as
being in attainment or unclassifiable for all air-quality criteria
pollutants in the Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR 81.350.
There are approximately 650 people employed at the PBNP on a full-
time basis, and 150 long and short-term contractors. This workforce is
typically augmented by an additional 700 persons during regularly
scheduled refueling outages. For the EPU work conducted during the
Spring 2011 outage and the Fall 2011 outage, there will be
approximately 1,200 more workers supplementing the typical 700
additional workers scheduled for refueling outages. The workforce
numbers would be somewhat larger than for a routine outage and would
take longer to complete, but would still be of a relatively short
duration (approximately 68 days). A typical refueling outage typically
requires 35 days to complete. During implementation of the EPU at PBNP,
some minor and short duration air quality impacts would occur. The main
source of the air emissions would be from the vehicles of the
additional outage workers needed for the EPU work. An approximate 727
additional truck deliveries will be needed to support EPU modifications
for the Spring 2011 outage, and approximately 774 additional truck
deliveries will support the EPU modifications for the Fall 2011 EPU
modifications.
The majority of the EPU work would be performed inside existing
buildings and would not impact air quality. Operation of the reactor at
the increased power level would not result in increased non-radioactive
emissions that would have a significant impact on air quality in the
region. Therefore, there would be no significant impact on air quality
during and following implementation of the proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Groundwater
The PBNP is not connected to a municipal water system, and utilizes
groundwater from the Silurian aquifer for potable and sanitary purposes
withdrawn from five wells located within the plant yard. PBNP has
approval from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources through the
State's water appropriation permit program for groundwater withdrawal
from wells with a combined withdrawal for over 10,000 gallons per day
(gpd). Groundwater withdrawals from these five wells at PBNP have
historically averaged about 6.5 gallons per minute (gpm) (9,300 gpd).
While potable water in the vicinity of PBNP is drawn primarily from
Lake Michigan, groundwater does provide potable water for smaller towns
and rural residences in the plant region.
Groundwater samples taken from PBNP's supply wells as part of the
PBNP site environmental monitoring program have shown no contamination.
There are no discharges to groundwater from PBNP requiring permits by
regulatory agencies, and discharge of wastewater to onsite retention
ponds ended in 2002.
The EPU is not projected to increase groundwater use or liquid
effluent discharges by PBNP during the operating life of the plant. As
a result, local and regional groundwater users would not be affected by
the proposed EPU. While potable water use would be expected to increase
over the short term in association with the influx of the 1,200
additional workers supporting EPU implementation activities, this
potential increase would be within the capacity of PBNP's wells and
would be unlikely to have any effect on other groundwater users.
Therefore, there would be no significant impact on groundwater
resources following implementation of the proposed EPU.
[[Page 77012]]
Surface Water
The PBNP uses surface water from Lake Michigan for its once-through
cooling system for both units for its plant condenser cooling,
auxiliary water systems, the service water system, and for fire
protection. The cooling system removes waste heat from the condensers
and other plant equipment, and discharges the water through separate
flumes for each unit back into Lake Michigan. As described in the
licensee's application and SEIS-23, cooling water is circulated through
PBNP at 680,000 gpm, and will remain unchanged under EPU conditions.
Thus, no change in PBNP's water use or on the availability of water for
other Lake Michigan users is expected.
Main condenser cooling water is withdrawn from Lake Michigan at a
depth of approximately 22 feet (7 meters) from an offshore intake
located approximately 1,750 feet (533 meters) east of the shoreline.
The plant has two discharges located about 200 feet (60 meters) from
the shoreline. Non-radioactive chemical effluent discharges into Lake
Michigan are regulated in accordance with a Wisconsin Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit (WI-0000957-07). The
applicant submitted an application for renewal to the State in December
2008. The current WPDES permit is valid until the new WPDES permit is
issued. The licensee's evaluation stated that no significant changes in
WPDES permit-regulated discharges to outfalls are expected from EPU-
operations. Therefore, 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
could include impingement, entrainment, and chemical and thermal
discharge effects. A permanent acoustic fish-deterrent system was
installed around the intake structures at PBNP in 2002, to help reduce
the influx of fish into the intake structure and to reduce potential
impingement. The intake structures were originally constructed in areas
of the lake devoid of fish spawning habitat or nursery grounds, which
reduces the rate of entrainment. The proposed EPU will not result in an
increase in water being withdrawn from Lake Michigan, nor will it
result in an increase in the amount of water discharged to Lake
Michigan. Therefore, there would be no potential increase in aquatic
impacts from entrainment and impingement as a result of the proposed
licensing action. The potential impacts at PBNP would remain consistent
with the NRC's conclusion in the SEIS-23, that the aquatic impacts as a
result of PBNP operation during the term of license renewal would
continue to be small.
However, the proposed EPU will result in an approximate 17 percent
increase in the amount of waste heat discharged into Lake Michigan.
According to a modeling study performed by the licensee in 2008, the
temperature of the discharge water is expected to increase by a maximum
of 3.6 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]C) as a result of the proposed EPU. While the
cooling water thermal plume of PBNP is expected to be somewhat larger
as a result of the proposed EPU, it is not expected to disrupt the
balanced indigenous community of aquatic resources, and will have a
negligible impact on Representative Important Species of Lake Michigan.
The current WPDES permit for PBNP does not contain thermal effluent
limitations. In addition, the NRC staff concluded in the SEIS-23 that
PBNP was in compliance with its current WPDES permit, and was using the
best available technology for the minimization of adverse environmental
impacts from entrainment, impingement, and heat shock, and further
mitigation measures would not be warranted.
The circulating water system and service water system for PBNP are
treated with biocides, sodium hypochlorite, and an electrolytic system
adding copper to control biofouling from zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) and to control algal growth. The NRC staff concluded in the
SEIS-23 that there are no significant impacts of discharge of chlorine
or other biocides during the license renewal term. The chemicals used
for the above treatments at PBNP are regulated through the PBNP WPDES
permit. The licensee has noted that they will maintain compliance with
the WPDES permit and all other licenses, permits, approvals or other
requirements currently held by the plant as a function of the proposed
EPU.
The State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) informed
the licensee on March 16, 2010, that the WCMP has no comments on the
project and will not conduct a Federal consistency review for PBNP as
part of their WPDES permit. Therefore, there would be no significant
adverse impacts to the aquatic biota from entrainment, impingement,
thermal discharges, or from biocides for the proposed action.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
As discussed in the Plant Site and Environs section, the PBNP site
consists of approximately 1,260 acres, with over 2 miles (3 kilometers)
of shoreline on Lake Michigan. Approximately 104 acres are used for
power generation and support facilities. Much of the remaining area
(1,050 acres) is farmed, and approximately 100 acres consists largely
of woods, wetlands, and open areas. As previously discussed in the Land
Use and Aesthetic Impacts section, the proposed action would not affect
land use at PBNP. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on
terrestrial biota associated with the proposed action.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Correspondence between the licensee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in connection with the PBNP license renewal
environmental review indicated that no Federally-listed endangered,
threatened, or candidate terrestrial or aquatic species are likely to
occur in the vicinity of the PBNP site. However, two species that are
Federally-listed, the endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and
the threatened dune or Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitchen) have been
recorded in Manitowoc County. In addition, the dwarf lake iris (Iris
lacustris) has been documented in Brown County, which is traversed by
the PBNP transmission line. The USFWS determined that portions of the
PBNP shoreline may be suitable nesting habitat for the piping plover.
And there is critical breeding habitat designated for the piping plover
at Point Beach State Forest, which is approximately 3 miles (5
kilometers) southeast of PBNP, although no piping plovers have been
recorded as breeding at this location. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) (now delisted, but still protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act) has not been observed foraging on or near
the plant area, but bald eagles have been observed foraging on smaller,
interior water bodies that may be found near the transmission lines.
Regardless, the planned construction-related activities related to the
proposed EPU primarily involve changes to existing structures, systems,
and components internal to existing buildings within the plant, and
would not involve earth disturbance. While traffic and worker activity
in the developed parts of the plant site during the Spring 2011 and
Fall 2011 refueling outages would be somewhat greater than a normal
refueling outage, the potential impact on terrestrial wildlife would be
minor and temporary.
Since there are no planned changes to the terrestrial wildlife
habitat on the
[[Page 77013]]
PBNP site from the proposed EPU, and the potential impacts from worker
activity would be minor and temporary, there would be no significant
impacts to any threatened or endangered species for the proposed
action.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts
Records at the Wisconsin Historical Society identify several
historic and archaeological sites in the vicinity of PBNP and three
sites on PBNP property. None of these sites have been determined
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). There are a number of historic properties in Manitowoc County
listed on the NRHP and the nearest, the Rawley Point Light Station, is
within 6 miles (10 kilometers) of PBNP.
As previously discussed, all EPU-related plant modifications would
take place within existing buildings and facilities at PBNP, including
replacing two electrical transformers on an existing pad. Since no
ground disturbance or construction-related activities would occur
outside of previously disturbed areas and existing electrical
transmission facilities, there would be no significant impact from EPU-
related plant modifications on historic sites and to archaeological
resources located on and within the vicinity of the PBNP.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include
temporary increases in the size of the workforce at the PBNP and
associated increased demand for public services, housing, and increased
traffic in the region. The proposed EPU could also increase tax
payments due to increased power generation.
Currently, there are approximately 800 workers employed at the
PBNP, residing primarily in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. During
regularly scheduled refueling outages the number of workers at PBNP
increases by as many as 700 workers for 35 days.
The proposed EPU is expected to temporarily increase the size of
the refueling outage workforce by approximately 1,200 additional
workers. The refueling outage would last approximately 68 days during
two refueling outages (one for each unit). The majority of the EPU-
related modifications would take place during the Spring 2011 and Fall
2011 refueling outages. Once completed, the size of the refueling
outage workforce at the PBNP would return to approximately 700 workers,
with no significant increases during future refueling outages. After
EPU-related plant modifications, the number of plant operations workers
would return to approximately 800 workers.
Most of the EPU-related plant modification workers would relocate
temporarily to Manitowoc County, 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 would stay in available rental homes, apartments, mobile homes,
and camper-trailers. According to the 3-year average estimate (2006-
2008) for census housing data, there were nearly 3,200 vacant housing
units in Manitowoc County that could potentially ease the demand for
local rental housing. Therefore, a temporary increase in plant
employment for a short duration would have little or no noticeable
effect on the availability of housing in the region.
The additional number of refueling outage workers and truck
material and equipment deliveries needed to support EPU-related plant
modifications would cause short-term level of service impacts on access
roads in the immediate vicinity of PBNP. Due to the short duration of
the outages, increased traffic volumes during normal refueling outages
typically have not degraded the level of service capacity on local
roads. However, an additional 727 truck deliveries are anticipated to
support implementation of the EPU modifications during the Spring 2011
outage, and an additional 774 deliveries are anticipated to support the
Fall 2011 outage. Based on this information and given that EPU-related
plant modifications would occur during a normal refueling outage, there
could be noticeable short term (during certain hours of the day) level-
of-service traffic impacts beyond what is experienced during normal
outages. During periods of high traffic volume (i.e., morning and
afternoon shift changes), work schedules could be staggered and
employees and/or local police officials could be used to direct traffic
entering and leaving PBNP to minimize level of service impacts on State
Route 42.
NextEra pays a lump sum ``gross revenue'' tax to the State of
Wisconsin in lieu of property taxes. Portions of this tax are based on
the ``net book value'' of the PBNP and the amount of megawatts
generated. The annual amount of taxes paid by NextEra would increase
due to increased power generation. Future tax payments would also take
into account the increased net book value of the PBNP as a result of
the EPU implementation and ``incentive payments,'' should megawatt
production exceed negotiated annual benchmarks as power generation
increases.
The proposed EPU would also increase local tax revenues generated
by sales taxes and State and Federal income taxes paid by temporary
workers residing in Manitowoc County. However, due to the short
duration of EPU-related plant modification activities, there would be
little or no noticeable effect on tax revenue streams in Manitowoc
County. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse socioeconomic
impacts from EPU-related plant modifications and operations under EPU
conditions in the vicinity of the PBNP.
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 the proposed EPU at the PBNP. Such effects
may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general
public residing in the vicinity of the PBNP, and all are exposed to the
same health and environmental effects generated from activities at the
PBNP.
The NRC staff considered the demographic composition of the area
within a 50-mile (80-km) radius of the PBNP to determine the location
of minority and low-income populations and whether they may be affected
by the proposed action.
Minority populations in the vicinity of PBNP, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2000, comprise 7.6 percent of the population
(approximately 722,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile (80-
kilometer) radius of PBNP. The largest minority group was Hispanic or
Latino (approximately 19,000 persons or 2.7 percent), followed by Asian
(approximately 17,000 persons or about 2.4 percent). According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, about 5.0 percent of the Manitowoc County
population identified themselves as minorities, with persons of Asian
origin comprising the largest minority group (2.0 percent). According
to census data, the 3-year average estimate for 2006-2008 for the
minority population of Manitowoc County, as a percent of total
population, increased to 6.4 percent, with persons of Hispanic or
Latino origin comprising the largest minority group (2.5 percent).
Low-income populations in the vicinity of PBNP, according to 2000
census data, comprise approximately
[[Page 77014]]
7,300 families and 40,900 individuals (approximately 3.8 and 5.7
percent, respectively) residing within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius
of the PBNP. These individuals and families were identified as living
below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal poverty
threshold was $17,029 for a family of four.
According to census data in the 2006-2008 American Community Survey
3-Year Estimates, the median household income for Wisconsin was
$52,249, with 10.7 percent of the State population and 7.0 percent of
families determined to be living below the Federal poverty threshold.
Manitowoc County had a lower median household income average ($49,867)
than the State of Wisconsin, but had lower percentages of county
individuals (7.9 percent) and families (4.8 percent), respectively,
living below the poverty level.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis
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). Radiation doses from
plant operations after the EPU are expected to continue to remain well
below regulatory limits.
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 rental housing during the refueling
outages that would include EPU-related plant modifications could
disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, due to the
short duration of the EPU-related work and the availability of rental
housing, impacts to minority and low-income populations would be short-
term and limited. According to census information, there were
approximately 3,200 vacant housing units in Manitowoc County.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the
proposed EPU would not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations
residing in the vicinity of the PBNP.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant non-radiological impacts. Table 1 summarizes the non-
radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at PBNP.
Table 1--Summary of Non-radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No significant impact on land use
conditions and aesthetic resources in
the vicinity of the PBNP.
Air Quality.................. Temporary short-term air quality impacts
from vehicle emissions related to the
workforce. No significant impacts to air
quality.
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,
entrainment, and chemical or thermal
discharges.
Terrestrial Resources........ No significant impact to terrestrial
resources.
Threatened and Endangered No significant impact to federally-listed
Species. species.
Historic and Archaeological No significant impact to historic and
Resources. archaeological resources on site or in
the vicinity of the PBNP.
Socioeconomics............... No significant socioeconomic impacts from
EPU-related temporary increase in
workforce.
Environmental Justice........ No disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income populations
in the vicinity of the PBNP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and
Solid Waste
PBNP uses 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. The licensee's evaluation of plant operation at the
proposed EPU conditions shows that no physical changes would be needed
to the radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
The gaseous waste management systems include the radioactive
gaseous system, which manages radioactive gases generated during the
nuclear fission process. Radioactive gaseous wastes are principally
activation gases and fission product radioactive noble gases resulting
from process operations, including continuous degasification of
systems, gases collected during system venting, and gases generated in
the radiochemistry laboratory. The licensee's evaluation determined
that implementation of the proposed EPU would not significantly
increase the inventory of carrier gases normally processed in the
gaseous waste management system, since plant system functions are not
changing and the volume inputs remain the same. The analysis also
showed that the proposed EPU would result in an increase (approximately
17.6 percent for noble gases, particulates, radioiodines, and tritium)
in the equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor coolant, which in turn
increases the radioactivity in the waste disposal systems and
radioactive gases released from the plant.
The licensee's evaluation concluded that the proposed EPU would not
change the radioactive gaseous waste system's design function and
reliability to safely control and process the waste. The existing
equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the
environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous
releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the as low as is
reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR
Part 50.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
The liquid waste management system collects, processes, and
prepares radioactive liquid waste for disposal. Radioactive liquid
wastes include liquids from various equipment drains, floor drains, the
chemical and volume control system, steam generator blowdown, chemistry
laboratory drains, laundry drains, decontamination area drains and
liquids used to transfer solid radioactive waste. The licensee's
evaluation shows that the proposed EPU implementation would not
significantly increase the inventory of liquid normally processed by
the liquid waste
[[Page 77015]]
management system. This is because the system functions are not
changing and the volume inputs remain the same. The proposed EPU would
result in an increase (approximately 17.6 percent) in the equilibrium
radioactivity in the reactor coolant which in turn would impact the
concentrations of radioactive nuclides in the waste disposal systems.
Since the composition of the radioactive material in the waste and
the volume of radioactive material processed through the system are not
expected to significantly change, the current design and operation of
the radioactive liquid waste system will accommodate the effects of the
proposed EPU. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control
radioactive releases to the environment will continue to be used to
maintain radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR
20.1302 and ALARA dose standards in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU Conditions
The licensee stated that the in-plant radiation sources are
expected to increase approximately linearly with the proposed increase
in core power level. To protect the workers, the plant's radiation
protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the plant to
establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain
within the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and ALARA.
In addition to the work controls implemented by the radiation
protection program, permanent and temporary shielding is used
throughout the PBNP to protect plant personnel against radiation from
the reactor and auxiliary systems containing radioactive material. The
licensee determined that the current shielding design, which uses
conservative analytical techniques to establish the shielding
requirements, is adequate to offset the increased radiation levels that
are expected to occur from the proposed EPU. The proposed EPU is not
expected to significantly affect radiation levels within the plant and
therefore there would not be a significant radiological impact to the
workers.
Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from
the PBNP are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. As discussed
above, operation at the proposed EPU conditions will not change the
radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management systems' abilities to
perform their intended functions. Also, there would be no change to the
radiation monitoring system and procedures used to control the release
of radioactive effluents in accordance with NRC radiation protection
standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Based on the above, the offsite radiation dose to members of the
public would continue to be within regulatory limits and therefore,
would not be significant.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
Radioactive solid wastes include solids recovered from the reactor
coolant systems, solids that come into contact with the radioactive
liquids or gases, and solids used in the reactor coolant system
operation. The licensee evaluated the potential effects of the proposed
EPU on the solid waste management system. The largest volume of
radioactive solid waste is low-level radioactive waste which includes
sludge, oily waste, bead resin, spent filters, and dry active waste
(DAW) that result from routine plant operation, refueling outages, and
routine maintenance. DAW includes paper, plastic, wood, rubber, glass,
floor sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types of waste generated
during routine maintenance and outages.
As stated by the licensee, the proposed EPU would not have a
significant effect on the generation of radioactive solid waste volume
from the primary reactor coolant and secondary side systems since the
systems functions are not changing and the volume inputs remain
consistent with historical generation rates. The waste can be handled
by the solid waste management system without modification. The
equipment is designed and operated to process the waste into a form
that minimizes potential harm to the workers and the environment. Waste
processing areas are monitored for radiation and there are safety
features to ensure worker doses are maintained within regulatory
limits. The proposed EPU would not generate a new type of waste or
create a new waste stream. Therefore, the impact from the proposed EPU
on radioactive solid waste would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from the PBNP is stored in the plant's spent fuel pool
and in dry casks in the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
The PBNP is licensed to use uranium-dioxide fuel that has a maximum
enrichment of 5 percent by weight uranium-235. The typical average
enrichment is approximately 4.8 percent by weight of uranium-235. The
average fuel assembly discharge burnup for the proposed EPU is expected
to be approximately 52,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWd/
MTU) with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum fuel rod burnup limit of
62,000 MWd/MTU. The licensee's fuel reload design goals will maintain
the PBNP fuel cycles within the limits bounded by the impacts analyzed
in 10 CFR Part 51, Table S-3--Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental
Data, and Table S-4--Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and
Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor.
Therefore, there would be no significant impacts resulting from spent
nuclear fuel.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
Postulated design-basis accidents are evaluated by both the
licensee and the NRC staff to ensure that PBNP can withstand normal and
abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents
without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
On December 8, 2008, the licensee submitted License Amendment
Request (LAR) number 241 (LAR 241) to the NRC, to update its design
basis accident analysis. LAR 241 requests NRC approval to use a set of
revised radiological consequence analyses using the guidance in NRC's
Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors. The
analyses for LAR 241 are applicable for the power level in the proposed
EPU. The NRC staff is evaluating LAR 241 separately from the EPU to
determine if it is acceptable to approve. The results of the NRC's
evaluation and conclusion will be documented in a Safety Evaluation
Report that will be publically available on the NRC's Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
In LAR 241, the licensee reviewed the various design-basis accident
(DBA) analyses performed in support of the proposed EPU for their
potential radiological consequences and concludes that the analyses
adequately account for the effects of the proposed EPU. The licensee
states that the plant site and its dose-mitigating engineered safety
features remain acceptable with respect to the radiological
consequences of postulated DBAs, since the calculated doses meet the
exposure guideline values specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and General Design
Criteria 19 in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.
[[Page 77016]]
The amendment is a change to a requirement with respect to
installation or use of a facility component located within the
restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The Commission previously
issued a proposed finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 17230) that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there
has been no public comment on such finding. The NRC staff must
determine that the amendment involves no significant increase in the
amounts, and no significant changes in the types, of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly,
the amendment will then meet the eligibility criteria for categorical
exclusion as set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment
need be prepared in connection with issuance of the amendment.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at the PBNP.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents Amount of additional radioactive gaseous
effluents generated would be handled by
the existing system.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents. Amount of additional radioactive liquid
effluents generated would be handled by
the existing system.
Occupational Radiation Doses. Occupational doses would continue to be
maintained within NRC limits.
Offsite Radiation Doses...... Radiation doses to members of the public
would remain below NRC and EPA radiation
protection standards.
Radioactive Solid Waste...... Amount of additional radioactive solid
waste generated would be handled by the
existing system.
Spent Nuclear Fuel........... Amount of additional spent nuclear fuel
would be handled by the existing system.
Postulated Design-Basis Calculated doses for postulated design-
Accident Doses. 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 the
PBNP, other agencies and electric power organizations may be required
to pursue other means, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power
generation, to provide electric generation capacity to offset future
demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-fueled or
alternative-fueled plant may create impacts in air quality, land use,
and waste management significantly greater than those identified for
the proposed EPU at the PBNP. Furthermore, the proposed EPU does not
involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from
those originally identified in the PBNP FES and the SEIS-23.
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 November 19, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the State of Wisconsin official regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the details provided in the draft EA, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action of implementing the PBNP EPU will
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment
because no permanent changes are involved and the temporary impacts are
within the capacity of the plant systems. Accordingly, the NRC has
preliminarily determined not to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action. A final determination to prepare an
environmental impact statement or a final finding of no significant
impact will not be made until the public comment period expires.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated April 7, 2009, and supplements dated May
13, 2010, and July 15, 2010 (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 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].
DATES: The comment period expires January 8, 2011. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is only able to assure consideration of comments received on
or before January 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch (RDB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative Services, Office
of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be faxed to the
RDB at 301-492-3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of an
amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27,
issued to NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, for operation of the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry A. Beltz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-8H4A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-3049, or
by e-mail at [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of December 2010.
[[Page 77017]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Pascarelli,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-31085 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P