![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Rated Thermal Power Level
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 36040-36046]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my02-89]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 AND 50-324]
Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Rated Thermal Power Level
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and
DPR-62, issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), for operation
of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), located in
Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow CP&L, the operator of BSEP, to
increase the maximum thermal power level by approximately 15 percent,
from 2558 Megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 2923 MWt. The change is considered
an extended power uprate (EPU) because it would raise the reactor core
power level more than 7 percent above the original licensed maximum
power level. The original licensed maximum power level was 2436 MWt,
and the NRC staff approved an increase in the licensed maximum power
level to 2558 MWt (approximately 5 percent increase) on November 1,
1996. This increase in power was implemented at BSEP in 1997.
Therefore, this proposed action would result in an increase of
approximately 20 percent over the original licensed maximum power
level. The amendment 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 increase the amount of heat dissipated by the condenser. Moreover,
this would result in an increased temperature in the water being
released into the Atlantic Ocean.
The NRC previously published a draft environmental assessment of
the proposed action in the Federal Register (67 FR 16132, April 4,
2002) and offered an opportunity for public comment. No comments were
received.
Need for the Proposed Action
CP&L forecasts a 40-percent increase in the demand for electrical
power by 2015 in its service area in North Carolina and South Carolina.
CP&L can meet this projected increase in power demand by increasing the
number of natural gas-fired combustion turbines or by purchasing power
from other sources. The cost of adding the additional generating
capacity at BSEP is roughly equivalent to the cost of constructing
several small combustion turbine units, each producing approximately 50
Megawatts-electrical (MWe). The proposed EPU would increase the
electrical output for BSEP Unit 1 from 841 MWe to 958 MWe and for BSEP
Unit 2 from 835 MWe to 951 MWe. However, the cost of nuclear power
generation is approximately one-third of the cost of natural gas power
generation. Therefore, the proposed EPU would increase power production
capacity at a lower economic cost than the fossil fuel alternatives,
such as natural gas, and would not result in additional land
disturbances or other environmental impacts that could result from new
plant construction.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of issuance of the operating licenses for BSEP, the NRC
staff noted that any activity authorized by the license for each unit
would be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) for the operation of BSEP, which was
issued in January 1974. The original operating licenses allowed a
maximum reactor power of 2436 MWt. CP&L was granted amendments to the
BSEP licenses to increase maximum reactor power level by approximately
5 percent on November 1, 1996. The NRC staff published an Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA) in support of this
uprate in the Federal Register on October 28,1996 (61 FR 55673). As
part of the application dated August 9, 2001, CP&L submitted a
supplement to the BSEP Environmental Report supporting the proposed EPU
and providing a summary of its conclusions concerning both the
radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed
action. Based on the NRC staff's independent analyses and the
information provided by CP&L, the NRC staff concludes that the
environmental impacts of the EPU are bounded by the environmental
impacts previously
[[Page 36041]]
evaluated in the FES because the EPU would not involve extensive
changes to plant systems that directly or indirectly interface with the
environment. This EA summarizes the non-radiological and radiological
impacts on the environment that may result from the proposed
amendments.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
The proposed EPU would not modify the current land use at the site
significantly over that described in the FES. Three small mechanical
draft cooling towers would be erected on the roof of the radwaste
building to service the new condensate cooling system. No other
expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage or
laydown areas, or onsite transmission and distribution equipment,
including power line rights-of-way, is anticipated to support this
action. No new construction outside of the existing facilities would be
necessary. The EPU would not significantly affect material storage,
including chemicals, fuels, and other materials stored aboveground or
underground.
Cooling Tower Impacts
Each of the three new mechanical draft cooling towers, which would
service the condensate cooling system, are approximately 7 meters (m)
by 7 m [24 feet (ft) by 24 ft], with a height of approximately 5 m (16
ft). They will be installed on the roof of the radwaste building at an
elevation of approximately 20 m (64 ft). The cooling towers would not
be readily visible offsite, so there would be no visual or aesthetic
impact. The towers are modular in design and construction, and a
similar kind of construction is performed onsite during almost every
refueling outage without noticeable additional impacts from noise,
dust, odors, vibration, traffic, or vehicle exhaust. Therefore, there
would be no significant impact from construction of the cooling towers.
Each cooling tower would be designed to reject a maximum of
approximately 15 MWt (51 million BTU/hr). The expected level of noise
from operation of a cooling tower fan would be 84 dBA at a distance of
1.5 m (5 ft); however, the towers would be located on a roof top near
the middle of the protected area. Therefore, no added impact from noise
is expected offsite. Existing cooling towers, similar in design to the
condensate cooling towers, have been in operation for years on the roof
of the turbine building at BSEP. No significant fogging, icing, or
drifting plumes carrying chemicals or particulate matter have been
experienced from these existing cooling towers; therefore, no
significant impact would be expected from operation of the condensate
cooling towers.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The proposed EPU would not require any physical modifications to
the transmission lines. Increased current would be the only change in
design or operation of the transmission lines needed to support the
EPU. CP&L's transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices,
including the management of vegetation growth, would not be affected.
No new requirements or changes to onsite transmission equipment,
operating voltages, or transmission line rights-of-way would be
necessary to support the EPU. The main plant transformers will be
modified and replaced to support the uprate; however, replacement of
the transformers would have been required before the end of plant life
as part of the licensee's ongoing maintenance program; therefore, no
significant environmental impact beyond that considered in the FES is
expected from this kind of replacement of onsite equipment.
The increased electrical current would cause an increased
electromagnetic field around the transmission lines, and the potential
for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and no
scientific consensus has been reached. However, since the increase in
power level is approximately 15 percent, the impact of exposure to
electromagnetic fields from the offsite transmission lines would not be
expected to increase significantly over the current impact.
The transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance
with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National
Electric Safety Code. Therefore, even with the slight increase in
current attributable to the EPU, adequate protection is provided
against hazards from electrical shock.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
The proposed EPU would not involve any land disturbance; all
construction will be on the roof of the pre-existing radwaste building.
Also, once construction is completed, the uprate would not increase
noise levels outside the plant site or increase the size of the
workforce, nor would CP&L's transmission line rights-of-way maintenance
practices change. Therefore, the uprate would not disturb the habitat
of any terrestrial plant or animal species. In 1998, CP&L conducted a
study to update information about the potential existence of sensitive
plant and animal species in the plant environs. Two endangered
perennial herbs, rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue, occur
in the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way. The red-cockaded
woodpecker, an endangered bird, occurs in the mature pine forests in
Brunswick County. The uprate would not disturb the habitat of any of
these species, and CP&L has instituted measures to protect and manage
the two endangered herbs by agreement with the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program. Therefore, no significant impact on terrestrial biota
would be expected from the uprate.
Water Use Impacts
BSEP uses a once-through cooling system to remove heat from the
reactor coolant in the condensers. An intake canal approximately 5
kilometers (km) (3 miles) in length feeds water from the Cape Fear
River to the BSEP intake structure. The water passes through tubes in
the condensers removing heat from the reactor coolant. Then the water
passes through a discharge canal 10 km (6 miles) in length to Caswell
Beach. At Caswell Beach, the water is pumped approximately 600m (2000
ft) offshore and discharged at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
The proposed EPU would not involve any increase in the rate of
withdrawal of water from the intake canal or the Cape Fear River.
Makeup water for the new condensate cooling system would be obtained
from the Brunswick County water system; the maximum anticipated flow of
makeup water would be approximately 23.7 liters per second [375 gallons
per minute (gpm)]. CP&L consulted with Brunswick County water system
management officials, who indicated that the additional water use would
be well within the capacity of the County water system. Therefore, the
uprate would not have a significant impact on water usage by BSEP and
would not create a water use conflict.
Discharge Impacts
Surface water and wastewater discharges at BSEP are regulated by
the State of North Carolina via a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit is periodically reviewed
and renewed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). The EPU would increase the temperature of the water
discharged to the Atlantic Ocean. Also, the blowdown from the new
cooling towers would be piped to the existing storm drain system and
empty into a storm drain basin.
[[Page 36042]]
Water from the storm drain basin is pumped into a stabilization pond;
discharges from the stabilization pond flow into the BSEP intake canal.
In 2001, CP&L analyzed the effect of the proposed EPU on the water
temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean in the area of the BSEP discharge.
First, historical data, such as intake temperatures, discharge
temperatures, plant operating conditions, and meteorological
conditions, were used to develop isothermal distribution maps. Then,
isothermal distribution maps were projected using the expected heat
rejection rates for the uprate condition. Based on these analyses, CP&L
submitted an application to the NCDENR for renewal of the BSEP NPDES
permit with the following revisions to support the uprate:
1. Area of surface water temperature increase up to 7 degrees
Fahrenheit (F) [3.9 degrees Celsius (C)]
in the plume extending from
the discharge point in the Atlantic Ocean shall not exceed 120 acres
[50 hectares (ha)]. The current limit is approximately 60 acres (24
ha).
2. Area of surface water temperature increase up to 1.44 degrees F
(0.8 degrees C) during June-August [3.96 degrees F (2.2 degrees C)
during September-May]
should not exceed 2000 acres (800 ha). The
current limit is 1000 acres (400 ha).
3. Area of bottom water temperature increase up to 7 degrees F (3.9
degrees C) shall not exceed 4 acres (1.6 ha). The current limit is 2
acres (0.8 ha).
4. Bottom water temperature increase shall not exceed 7 degrees F
(3.9 degrees C) beyond a distance of 1000 ft (300 m) from the discharge
point. The current limit is 500 ft (150 m).
BSEP has been operating within the current limits; therefore, these
limits represent an upper bound of the current impact on ocean water
temperatures in the vicinity of the discharge. The proposed limits to
support the uprate similarly represent the expected upper bound of the
impact on ocean water temperatures if the uprate were fully
implemented.
The maximum blowdown flow from all three condensate cooling towers
into the storm drain system would be approximately 8.2 liters per
second (130 gpm). Water treatment chemicals would be added to the
condensate cooling system--approximately 409 liters (108 gallons) per
year of ChemTreat CL-216 (a biocide) and approximately 1567 liters (414
gallons) per year of ChemTreat CL-4800 (a dispersant). These chemical
additions were included in the application to NCDENR for the renewed
NPDES permit. The volume of the blowdown would be small compared to the
volume of the storm drain basin, and it would be diluted even further
in the stabilization pond and the intake canal. The blowdown from the
existing cooling towers on the roof of the turbine building follows the
same discharge path. Therefore, no significant additional impact would
be expected from the blowdown discharged from the condensate cooling
system.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The flow rate of water being withdrawn from the intake canal at the
intake structure would not increase, and no change would be made in the
design of the intake structure screens. Therefore, no increase in the
entrainment of planktonic organisms or in the impingement of fish,
shellfish, or sea turtles would be expected.
CP&L has conducted thermal studies in the Atlantic Ocean in the
vicinity of the BSEP discharge for over 25 years; no adverse impacts on
fish and shellfish have been observed. The expected increase in water
temperature would be expected to be small and limited to a relatively
small area in the Brunswick County coastline. The increase in water
temperature would not be expected to exceed 4 degrees C (7 degrees F)
beyond an area of 50 ha (120 acres) at the surface, and the increase
would not be expected to exceed 2 degrees C (4 degrees F) beyond an
area of 800 ha (2000 acres). The affected area would be expected to be
even smaller near the bottom. There is no critical habitat in the
vicinity of the ocean discharge; the ocean floor is sandy flats with no
natural features that would attract fish and invertebrates. Some of the
more abundant organisms (brown shrimp, white shrimp, and croaker) in
the vicinity of the discharge point tolerate temperatures of up to 86
degrees F without experiencing loss of equilibrium, and most organisms
could avoid the area of higher water temperature. There is a net
westward drift of the near-shore coastal waters in the vicinity of the
discharge point; therefore, most larvae would enter the estuary from
offshore waters to the east and would not be expected to be affected by
the discharge plume. Therefore, the uprate would not be expected to
significantly impact aquatic biota in the vicinity of BSEP.
CP&L's 1998 study indicated that three Federally listed aquatic
species could be potentially affected by BSEP: loggerhead sea turtle
(threatened), green sea turtle (threatened), and Kemp's ridley sea
turtle (endangered). Of the three, the loggerhead sea turtle has been
most commonly collected in the intake canal, although all three of
these turtle species have been collected. CP&L employs protective
measures, such as blocker panels in the diversion structure, to prevent
turtles from entering the canal and patrols of the intake canal to
remove turtles. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed
data from BSEP on incidental takes of sea turtles and the protective
measures employed at BSEP. In January 2000, NMFS concluded that BSEP
operation ``is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, or Kemp's ridley sea
turtles.'' Since the withdrawal rate of water from the intake canal
would not increase due to the EPU and the sea turtles can easily swim
around the small higher-temperature discharge plume, no increased
impact would be expected for the sea turtles beyond that considered in
the NMFS Biological Opinion of January 2000.
Social and Economic Impacts
The NRC staff has reviewed information provided by the licensee
regarding socioeconomic impacts. CP&L is a major employer in the
community with approximately 750 full-time employees and 235 contract
employees. CP&L is also a major contributor to the local tax base. CP&L
personnel also contribute to the tax base by paying sales and property
taxes. The proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the
BSEP labor force and would have no material effect upon the labor force
required for future outages after all stages of the modifications
needed to support the uprate are completed. Because the plant
modifications needed to implement the uprate would be minor, any
increase in sales tax and additional revenue to local and national
business will be negligible relative to the large tax revenues
generated by BSEP. The EPU would increase the plant's equalized
assessed value, which would result in increased tax revenues for
Brunswick County. It is expected that the proposed uprate will reduce
incremental operating costs, enhance the value of BSEP as a power-
generating asset, and lower the probability of early plant retirement.
Early plant retirement would be expected to have a significant negative
impact on the local economy and the community as a whole by reducing
tax revenues and limiting local employment opportunities, although
these effects could be mitigated by decommissioning activities in the
short term.
[[Page 36043]]
Summary
In 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, cooling tower 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 1 summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU at BSEP.
Table 1: Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
Land Use: No change in land use or aesthetics; three small cooling
towers on top of radwaste building.
Cooling Tower: No change in visual or aesthetic impact; no added
impact on noise level; no significant impact from modular construction
of the cooling towers; no significant fogging, icing, or drifting
plumes.
Transmission Facilities: No physical modifications to the
transmission lines and facilities; meet shock safety requirements; no
changes to right-of-ways; small increase in electrical current would
cause small increase in electromagnetic field around the transmission
lines.
Terrestrial Biota: No additional impact on endangered herbs and
birds or other terrestrial biota.
Water Use: No increase in the rate of withdrawal of water from the
Cape Fear River; up to an additional 23.7 liters per second (375 gpm)
of water from Brunswick County supply system, approved by County.
Discharge: Increase in area of plume in Atlantic Ocean with
increased water temperature from 400 to 800 ha (from 1000 to 2000
acres) [area of 0.8 degrees C (1.44 degrees F) isotherm in Summer]; up
to an additional 8.2 liters per second (130 gpm) of blowdown water
discharged to storm drain system with small amount of biocide and
dispersant chemicals; application for revised NPDES permit under review
by State of North Carolina.
Aquatic Biota: No expected increased impact on endangered sea
turtles or other aquatic biota.
Social and Economic: No significant change in size of BSEP
workforce.
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
BSEP 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 10 CFR part 20,
``STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION,'' and 10 CFR part 50,
``DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES,''
Appendix I. These radioactive waste streams are discussed in the FES.
The proposed EPU would not result in changes in the operation or design
of equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems. The uprate
would not introduce new or different radiological release pathways and
does not increase the probability of an operator error or equipment
malfunction that would result in an uncontrolled release of radioactive
material. The uprate will not affect the environmental monitoring of
any of these waste streams or the radiological monitoring requirements
contained in licensing basis documents.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems
process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the
environs, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens,
particulates, and tritium, such that the doses to individuals offsite
are maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the dose design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 (10 CFR part 20 includes the
requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulation 40 CFR Part 190, ``ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION
STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS''). The gaseous waste management
systems include the offgas system and various building ventilation
systems. CP&L estimates that the resulting increase in gaseous
radioactive effluents would be bounded in direct proportion to the
increase in power--15 percent. CP&L indicated that a 15-percent
increase in the amount of gaseous radioactive material released
annually from BSEP in the last several years would still be well below
the estimates presented in the FES. The NRC staff has independently
reviewed the information presented by the licensee and confirmed the
licensee's conclusion.
CP&L also calculated the potential increase in the maximum
radiation dose to a member of the public in the environs offsite at
BSEP from the proposed EPU. A 15-percent increase applied to the
release data for the worst year in the 5-year timeframe from 1996 to
2000 would still result in doses below 1 percent of the dose design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the increased
impact of the uprate on offsite doses from gaseous effluents would not
be significant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Dose
During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment systems
process and control the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the
environs, such that the doses to individuals offsite are maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the dose design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The liquid radioactive waste systems are
designed to cleanup and recycle as much water as practicable; the
liquid effluents that are released are continuously monitored and
discharges terminated if effluents exceed preset levels of radioactive
material. CP&L estimates that the amount of radioactive material
released in liquid effluents would not increase significantly. CP&L
indicated that the amounts of liquid radioactive material that have
been released from BSEP in the last several years are well below the
estimates presented in the FES. CP&L expects little or no increase in
the quantity of radioactive material released in liquid effluents as a
result of the uprate. The NRC staff has independently reviewed the
information presented by the licensee and confirmed the licensee's
conclusions. In addition, the calculated doses to members of the public
offsite associated with these levels of release of radioactive liquid
are below 1 percent of the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10
CFR part 50. Therefore, the increased impact of the uprate on offsite
doses from liquid effluents would not be significant.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
The solid radioactive waste system collects, processes, packages,
and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to
shipment offsite and permanent disposal. The largest volume of solid
radioactive waste at BSEP is low-level radioactive waste; sources of
this low-level waste include spent resins, filters, charcoal, sludges
from water processing, oil, and dry active waste, which is essentially
contaminated trash. During the last several years, CP&L has implemented
waste handling procedures to reduce the volume of low-level waste
generated at BSEP. The volume of low-level radioactive waste generated
in 2000 was approximately 389 cubic meters (13,877 cubic ft). The
proposed EPU would increase the volume of spent resins, filters, and
sludges because the uprate would produce more radioactive material that
would have to be removed by processing systems such as the
[[Page 36044]]
demineralizers in the condensate system. The licensee estimates that
the volume of such wastes could increase by as much as 15 percent,
consistent with the EPU. Even with such an increase, the expected
volume of low-level radioactive waste would be well below the value in
the FES. No significant increase would be expected in the production of
the other types of low-level waste.
In addition to the low-level wastes, the proposed EPU would result
in replacement of 135 control rod blades at each unit. This replacement
would occur in stages during the next several refueling outages. The
removed control rod blades would be stored in the spent fuel pool, as
is commonly done with irradiated reactor components, until they can be
prepared for shipping and disposal offsite. These control rod blades
would not contribute significantly to the overall volume of solid
radioactive waste handled at BSEP.
The proposed EPU would also result in a greater percentage of the
fuel assemblies being removed from the reactor core and replaced with
new fuel assemblies during each refueling outage. Currently, 212 fuel
assemblies (approximately 39 percent) are replaced during each
refueling; 256 fuel assemblies (approximately 47 percent) would be
replaced each refueling to support the uprated power level. Since CP&L
limits the amount of spent fuel stored at BSEP and stores the rest of
the spent fuel from BSEP in the spent fuel storage pools at CP&L's
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP), no increased volume of
spent fuel would be expected to be stored at BSEP as a result of the
uprate. By letter dated December 21, 2000, the NRC granted CP&L an
amendment to the operating license for SHNPP to allow storage of spent
fuel in all four spent fuel storage pools at SHNPP. CP&L has stated
that the pools at SHNPP have sufficient storage capacity to handle the
additional spent fuel assemblies that would be generated as a result of
the proposed EPU at BSEP. An EA was published in the Federal Register
on December 21, 1999 (64 FR 71514), to address the environmental impact
of fully utilizing the storage capacity of all four spent fuel pools at
SHNPP. The NRC staff concludes that the 1999 EA bounds the impact of
storage of the additional spent fuel assemblies that would be generated
by the BSEP uprate in the SHNPP spent fuel pools.
In-Plant Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive
material and higher radiation dose rates in some areas at BSEP.
Potentially, the increase could be as much as 15 percent, consistent
with the proposed 15-percent increase in reactor power. However, CP&L
expects that the BSEP radiation protection staff will be able to
minimize the resultant increase in radiation doses to the plant staff
to a level well below the 15-percent upper-bound estimate by using
commonly known methods, such as installation of additional shielding or
more effective systems to remove more radioactive material from process
streams such as the condensate system. BSEP has reduced the amount of
radiation dose received by the plant workers over the last several
years. The collective occupational dose for year 2000 at BSEP
(including both units) was approximately 3.22 person-Sieverts (Sv) (322
person-rem); the average dose for a boiling-water reactor unit in the
U.S. in year 2000 was 1.74 person-Sv (174 person-rem). The FES did not
discuss occupational dose; however, other FESs published shortly after
the BSEP FES estimated the environmental impact from occupational dose
to be 500 person-rem (Sievert unit did not exist at that time) of
collective occupational dose per year per reactor unit. Therefore, the
collective dose at BSEP would not be expected to increase significantly
as a result of the uprate and would be well within the impact commonly
estimated in FESs in the 1970s.
Direct Radiation Doses Offsite
Direct radiation from radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the
main steam system components in the turbine building is scattered by
the air above the site and provides another offsite public dose pathway
(skyshine) from an operating boiling-water reactor. CP&L has routinely
monitored the whole body dose rate offsite using thermoluminescent
dosimeters; the licensee has also performed surveys offsite with
pressurized ion chambers. Data from these monitoring methods indicated
that the highest annual offsite dose from skyshine at the site boundary
from 1999 to 2001 was 7 millirem (mrem) (.07 mSv). Nitrogen-16
production is increased by routine hydrogen gas injection into the
reactor feedwater (hydrogen water chemistry) in an effort to prevent
intergranular stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals. The
annual whole body dose equivalent to a real member of the public
(beyond the site boundary) is limited to 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) by 40 CFR
part 190. Assuming a 15-percent increase in the doses from skyshine
(consistent with a 15-percent EPU), the expected annual dose would be
expected to increase to approximately 8 mrem (.08 mSv), still well
below the annual dose limit of 40 CFR part 190. The licensee will
continue to perform surveys as the proposed EPU is implemented to
assess the combined impact of hydrogen water chemistry with the uprate
to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part
190. Therefore, the increased impact of the uprate on offsite doses
from direct radiation sources would not be significant.
Postulated Accident Doses
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. As a result of
implementation of the proposed EPU, there could be an increase in the
source term used in the evaluation of some of the postulated accidents
in the FES. The inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core is
dependent on power level; therefore, the core inventory of
radionuclides could increase by as much as 15 percent. The
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase
by as much as 15 percent; however, this concentration is limited by the
BSEP Technical Specifications and is more dependent on the degree of
leakage occurring through the fuel cladding. The overall quality of
fuel cladding has improved since the mid-1970s when the FES was
published, and BSEP has been experiencing very little fuel cladding
leakage in recent years. 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. Finally, as previously discussed
above, some of the radwaste streams and storage systems evaluated for
postulated accidents may contain slightly higher quantities of
radionuclides. For those postulated accidents where the source term
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 the values presented in the FES. Any such
increase in calculated accident doses would not be expected to be more
than 15 percent higher, and the calculated doses would still be below
the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR part 100, ``Reactor Site Criteria,''
and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800). Also, no modifications in
the plant design or operation would be made that would significantly
increase
[[Page 36045]]
the probability of an accident. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
the uprate would not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents and would not result in a significant
increase in the radiological environmental impact of BSEP under
accident conditions.
After many years of reactor experience and research, the NRC
approved an alternative radiological source term methodology for power
reactors. The alternative source term is codified in 10 CFR 50.67 and
described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source
Term for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,''
which was published in July 2000. This methodology also uses the Total
Effective Dose Equivalent methodology, which is recommended by the
International Commission on Radiation Protection and the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. CP&L submitted a
proposal to the NRC to implement the alternative source term for the
BSEP accident analyses; therefore, the application for the proposed EPU
assessed the postulated accidents discussed in the FES using the new
methodology. CP&L concluded that the new calculated doses for the
uprate met all the applicable acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 and
Regulatory Guide 1.183. The results of the NRC staff's calculations
will be presented in the safety evaluation to be issued with the
license amendments.
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 cycle and concluded that there is no significant change in
environmental impact from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-
4 for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent
uranium-235 and burnups less than 60,000 megawatt (thermal)-days per
metric ton of uranium-235 (MWd/MTU). CP&L has concluded that the fuel
enrichment at BSEP will increase to approximately 4.4 percent as a
result of the proposed EPU with burnup remaining at approximately
45,000 MWd/MTU. Because the fuel enrichment for the uprate will not
exceed 5 weight percent uranium-235 and the rod average discharge
burnup for the uprate will not exceed 60,000 MWd/MTU, the environmental
impacts of the uprate will remain bounded by the conclusions in Tables
S-3 and S-4 and are not significant.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, would not introduce any new radiological
release pathways, would not result in a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Table 2
summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU
at BSEP.
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, other fossil-fueled generating
facilities would be built in CP&L's service area in North Carolina and
South Carolina in order to maintain sufficient power-generating
capacity. Construction and operation of a fossil-fueled plant would
create impacts in air quality, land use, and waste management.
Implementation of the proposed EPU would have less impact on the
environment than the construction and operation of a new fossil-fueled
generating facility and does not involve environmental impacts that are
significantly different from those presented in the 1974 FES and the
1996 EA for BSEP.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the 1974 FES and the 1996 EA for BSEP.
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Effluents & Doses......... Up to 15-percent increase in amount
of radioactive material in gaseous
effluents; within FES estimate;
offsite doses would continue to be
well within NRC criteria.
Liquid Effluents & Doses.......... No significant increase in amount of
radioactive material in liquid
effluents; within FES estimate;
offsite doses would continue to be
well within NRC criteria.
Solid Radioactive Waste........... Up to 15-percent increase in volume
of low-level solid radwaste;
increases in amount of spent
control rod blades and spent fuel
assemblies.
In-plant Dose..................... No significant increase in
collective occupational dose
expected.
Direct Radiation Dose............. Up to 15-percent increase in dose
rate offsite from skyshine;
expected annual dose continues to
meet NRC/EPA criteria.
Postulated Accidents.............. Up to 15-percent increase in
calculated doses from some
postulated accidents; calculated
doses within NRC criteria.
Fuel Cycle & Transportation....... Fuel enrichment and burnup would
continue to be within bounding
assumptions for Tables S-3 and S-4
in 10 CFR Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions' conclusions of tables
regarding impact would remain
valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the its stated policy, on March 29, 2002, the
NRC staff consulted with the North Carolina State official , Mr. J.
James, of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Commerce and
Natural Resources, Division of Radiation 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 EA, 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 August 9, 2001, as
[[Page 36046]]
supplemented October 17, November 1, 7, 28, and 30, December 4, 10, 17
(2 letters), and 20, 2001, January 20, February 1, 4, 13, 14, 21 (2
letters), and 25 (3 letters), March 4, 5, 7, 14, 20, 22, and 25, and
April 26 and 29, 2002. Documents may be examined and/or copied for a
fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS
Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov 
(the
Electronic Reading Room). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if
there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC PDR Reference staff at (800) 397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by
e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 2002.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-12834 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7950-01-P