[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26985-26994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6999]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Draft 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).
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Draft 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 Draft
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is being
published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period.
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
[[Page 26986]]
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.
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,
[[Page 26987]]
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 ([deg]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 [deg]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 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
[[Page 26988]]
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.
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
and 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 10 12 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.
[[Page 26989]]
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 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.
[[Page 26990]]
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 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
[[Page 26991]]
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.
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 There are eleven federally listed species
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
[[Page 26992]]
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
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.
[[Page 26993]]
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 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
[[Page 26994]]
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 May 3, 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 letter
dated July 28, 2005. 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
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 June 8, 2006. 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 June 8, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-6D59, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Written comments may also be delivered to 11545 Rockville
Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland 20852 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15
p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received will be
electronically available at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room
(PERR) link, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, on the NRC Web
site or at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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 by e-mail to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73 issued
to FENOC for operation of BVPS-1 and 2 located in Beaver County,
Pennsylvania.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy G. Colburn, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O8-C4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-1402, or
by e-mail at [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 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. E6-6999 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P