R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, 37614-37621 [06-5897]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37614-37621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5897]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-244]


R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
Plant Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the 
Maximum Reactor Power Level

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission).

SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as part 
of its evaluation of a request by R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC 
(Ginna LLC) for a license amendment to increase the maximum steady 
state power level at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna) from 
1520 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1775 MWt. This represents a power 
increase of approximately 16.8 percent, which is considered an extended 
power uprate (EPU). As stated in the NRC staff's position paper dated 
February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate 
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 Ginna Station or the NRC staff's independent review; therefore, the 
NRC staff is documenting its environmental review in an environmental 
assessment. Also, in accordance with the position paper, the final 
Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact is being 
published in the Federal Register.
    The NRC published a draft Environmental Assessment and finding of 
no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment in the 
Federal Register on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18779). One set of comments 
was received on the draft Environmental Assessment from the New York 
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by letter dated 
May 12, 2006 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Accession No. ML061370627). The comments are discussed in the 
paragraphs below.
    Some of the comments provided by the NYSDEC were clarifications and 
corrections to the draft Environmental Assessment (see comment a, b, c, 
d, and e in the NYSDEC letter). Based on these comments, the NRC 
revised the appropriate sections of the final Environmental Assessment. 
In comment ``f,'' NYSDEC indicated ``based on review of historical 
data, staff would not characterize impingement and entrainment rates as 
`minimal,' but would describe them as `lower than most similar sized 
electrical generating facilities in New York State.' '' The NRC only 
evaluates environmental impacts at the site and surrounding area that 
could be affected by the proposed EPU at the facility. Rather than 
comparing the impacts with other perhaps similar facilities, the NRC 
staff looks at the overall impact of the affected resource, i.e., 
aquatic species in Lake Ontario. Our conclusion of ``minimal'' should 
be interpreted as not having a noticeable impact on the long-term 
sustainment of aquatic species in Lake Ontario due to entrainment and 
impingement. This action may have no impact to aquatic species in other 
parts of New York State; therefore, our analysis does not make such 
comparison. The comment is noted, but no changes were made to the 
Environmental Assessment based on this comment.
    The NYSDEC comments ``g and h'' raised concerns regarding possible 
unknown synergistic effects of physical and thermal stresses to the 
cold water species alewife and three-spine stickleback impinged in the 
Ginna fish return system under the proposed EPU conditions. In 
addition, NYSDEC recommended the discussion on the fish return system 
include references to the 316(b) Phase II rule developed by the 
Environment Protection Agency (EPA). This regulation established 
Federal requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, 
and capacity of cooling-water intake structures at existing facilities 
that exceed a threshold value for water withdrawals. The draft 
Environmental Assessment did include a discussion on how the new 
performance standards are designed to significantly reduce impingement 
and entrainment losses resulting from plant operation, and any site-
specific mitigation would result in less impact due to continued plant 
operation. Currently, the Ginna State Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (SPDES) permit modification application is under technical 
review by NYSDEC. The SPDES permit modification application 
incorporated the requirements listed in Subpart J of the EPA 316(b) 
Phase II rule. Also, Ginna LLC has begun some studies required for 
compliance with the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule. The NRC staff agrees that 
implementation of technologies and/or operational procedures required 
by the EPA 316(b) Phase II rule, with authority delegated

[[Page 37615]]

to NYSDEC, would further minimize impingement and entrainment losses of 
all aquatic species (including alewife and three-spine stickleback) at 
Ginna, under proposed EPU conditions. The comment did not provide any 
new information; therefore, no changes were made to the Environmental 
Assessment.
    NYSDEC comment ``I'' stated that the draft Environmental Assessment 
did not address ``potential impacts to early life stages of fish 
entrained into the discharge plume.'' Entrainment applies specifically 
to aquatic organisms (i.e. early life stage fish and shellfish) that 
are small enough to pass through a plant's intake debris screens, 
travel through the cooling system, and be exposed to heat, mechanical 
and pressure stresses, and possibly biocidal chemicals before being 
discharged back to the body of water. Early life stage fish (eggs and 
larvae) not entrained by the plant, but in the nearby water column of 
Lake Ontario within or near the discharge plume under the proposed 
conditions, would not be significantly impacted. Ginna is not adjacent 
to or near habitat features or spawning/nursery areas preferred by or 
important to local fish. As indicated by NYSDEC, the temperatures 
injurious to alewife eggs are limited to a small area of the thermal 
plume (at the mouth of the discharge canal).
    Comment ``j'' states NYSDEC has received reports of bald eagle 
sightings in the Wayne County area over the past 3 to 4 years. The 
reports include observations of first-year immature birds, which 
indicate bald eagle nesting sites could be closer to the Ginna site 
than originally analyzed. In addition, NYSDEC states the closest 
verified nest is located in the Northern Montezuma Wildlife Management 
Area, approximately 30 miles away from the Ginna site. The NRC staff 
spoke with the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montezuma 
National Wildlife Refuge office, who verified there are nesting sites 
in the southern area of the refuge and possibly in the northern area. 
Based on this new information, the NRC staff believes bald eagle 
nesting sites are closer (30 miles) to the Ginna site than originally 
analyzed (55 miles). However, the staff believes the conclusion that 
the bald eagle will not likely be impacted by the proposed EPU, is 
still valid, and no changes to the Environmental Assessment are 
warranted.
    NYSDEC also expressed concerns on possible radiological impacts to 
threatened and endangered species due to the proposed EPU. EPA 
standards (40 CFR Part 190, 40 FR 23420) concluded that environmental 
radiation standards developed by the nuclear power industry are 
adequate to protect the overall ecosystem. At this time, there is no 
evidence that there is any biological species sensitive enough to 
warrant a greater level of protection than that which is determined to 
be adequate for man. As a result of the proposed EPU, the radiation 
levels in many plant areas are expected to increase up to approximately 
17%. The radiological impacts section of the Environmental Assessment 
provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts related to radiation. 
The NRC staff concluded all radiological doses were below regulatory 
limits and found no significant impact due to the proposed EPU.

Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    Ginna is located 6 km (4 mi) north of Ontario, New York, in the 
northwest corner of Wayne County and on the south shore of Lake 
Ontario. The immediate area around Ginna is rural, with the city of 
Rochester approximately 32 km (20 mi) to the west and Oswego, New York, 
64 km (40 mi) to the east-northeast. The plant consists of one unit 
equipped with a nuclear steam supply system supplied by Westinghouse 
Electric Corporation, which uses a pressurized-water reactor (PWR) and 
a once-through cooling system for turbine exhaust condensor cooling and 
as the ultimate heat sink.

Identification of the Proposed Action

    By letter dated July 7, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051950123), 
Ginna LLC proposed an amendment to the operating license for Ginna to 
increase the maximum steady state power level by approximately 16.8 
percent, from 1520 MWt to 1775 MWt. The change is considered an EPU 
because it would raise the reactor core power level by more than 7 
percent above the currently 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 main turbine-generator. This 
would result in the increase in production of electricity and the 
amount of waste heat delivered to the condenser, resulting in an 
increase in the temperature of the water being discharged into Lake 
Ontario.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Ginna LLC estimates the proposed action would result in 
approximately 85 additional megawatts-electric (MWe) being generated. 
This additional electricity generation could power approximately 95,000 
homes and would contribute to meeting the goals and recommendations of 
the New York State Energy Plan. The EPU could be implemented for 
approximately one-fifth of the cost to construct two small (50-MWe) 
natural gas combustion turbine units, as recommended by the New York 
State Energy Planning Board, and would not cause the environmental 
impacts that would occur from construction of new power generation 
facilities to meet the region's electricity needs.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    At the time of issuance of the operating license for Ginna, the NRC 
staff noted that any activity authorized by the license would be 
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental 
Statement (FES) for the operation of Ginna, which was issued March 
1973. In addition, in February 2004, the NRC published its Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), NUREG-1437 Supplement 14, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Plants, Supplement 14, Regarding R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant--Final 
Report,'' which evaluated the environmental impacts of operating Ginna 
for an additional 20 years. In the SEIS, the NRC determined that the 
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal would not be so great 
that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning 
decision makers would be unreasonable. This Environmental Assessment 
summarizes the radiological and non-radiological impacts in the 
environment that may result from the EPU.

Non-Radiological Impacts

Land Use Impacts

    The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed 
action include impacts from construction and plant modifications. The 
impacts from construction due to the proposed EPU are minimal. No 
expansion of roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, or 
transmission facilities and no new building construction is anticipated 
to support the proposed EPU. Volumes of industrial chemicals, fuels, or 
lubricants are not expected to increase substantially, and would not 
require additional onsite storage space.
    Some plant modifications would be required to implement the 
proposed action. The modifications are listed in Table 4-1 of Ginna 
EPU, Supplemental Environmental Report (ER), submitted by Ginna LLC on 
July 7, 2005. The most significant modification to be conducted

[[Page 37616]]

would be replacement of the high-pressure turbine rotor. Major 
modifications completed in the last 10 years that contribute to the 
increased power opportunities at Ginna are the re-tubing of the main 
condenser (1995), the replacement of the steam generators with an 
increased size design (1996), and replacement of the reactor vessel 
head (2003). None of the plant modifications listed above or in Table 
4-1 of the ER will result in any changes in land use.
    Historic and archeological resources should not be affected by the 
proposed EPU, because there are no modifications to land use. The 
proposed EPU would not modify land use at the site significantly over 
that described in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14. Therefore, the 
NRC staff concludes that the land use impacts of the proposed EPU are 
bounded by the impacts previously evaluated in the FES and NUREG-1437 
Supplement 14.

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 
or changes in the maintenance and operation of existing transmission 
lines, switchyards, or substations. Ginna LLC's transmission lines 
right-of-way vegetation management would not change. There would be no 
change in voltage, but there would be an increase in the current 
flowing through the transmission facilities.
    The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria 
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the 
short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milliamperes. The 
increase in current passing through the transmission lines is directly 
associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. In 
addition, the increased electrical current passing through the 
transmission lines would cause an increase in the electromagnetic field 
strength.
    Based on information provided in the ER, the transmission lines at 
Ginna would continue to meet the applicable NESC recommendations for 
electric-field induced shock under the proposed EPU. Therefore, the 
risk of shock from the offsite transmission lines would not be expected 
to increase significantly over the current impact.
    The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the 
proposed action would not change significantly over the impacts 
associated with current plant operations. There would be no changes to 
current transmission line right-of-way operation and maintenance 
practices; no physical modifications to the transmission lines, 
switchyards, or substations; and electric current passing through the 
transmission lines would increase slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that there would be no significant impacts associated with 
transmission facilities for the proposed action.

Water Use Impacts

    Potential water use impacts from implementation of the proposed 
action would include hydrological alterations to Lake Ontario. Ginna 
uses a once-through condenser cooling system drawing water from Lake 
Ontario through a submerged offshore intake. Water used to cool the 
turbine condenser is discharged into the discharge canal. The heated 
water enters Lake Ontario at the shoreline. Total nominal flow of water 
for turbine condenser cooling and most secondary systems (i.e. service 
water and fire protection) is approximately 354,600 gallons per minute 
(gpm).
    Lake Ontario serves as a principal water source for several local 
water supply systems in New York State's Monroe and Wayne Counties. All 
water required for plant operation, except potable water, is withdrawn 
from Lake Ontario. The rate of withdrawal would not increase as a 
result of the EPU. Therefore, operation of Ginna would not affect the 
availability of surface water. Groundwater is not used in plant 
operations; therefore, there are no impacts from onsite groundwater 
use. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not have a 
significant impact on water use.

Discharge Impacts

    Surface water and wastewater discharges to Lake Ontario from the 
plant are regulated by the State of New York via a SPDES Permit (Number 
NY-0000493), effective February 1, 2003--February 1, 2008. This permit 
is reviewed and renewed by the NYSDEC. It is expected that the EPU 
would increase the temperature of the water discharged to Lake Ontario 
as well as the thermal discharge plume, which would require 
modifications to the current SPDES permit.
    The current SPDES permit allows a 28 ``F rise in temperature of the 
discharge water over the ambient temperature of the lake water, and a 
maximum 320-acre mixing zone. The current permit also limits the 
discharge temperature to 102 [deg]F. During current operating 
conditions, the difference between plant discharge temperature and 
ambient lake temperature is approximately 20 [deg]F in the summer 
months, and 28 [deg]F during the winter months. The larger temperature 
difference, which occurs in the winter months, is due to recirculation 
of heated water from the discharge canal to the screenhouse inlet 
forebay to assist in maintaining inlet water temperature and 
eliminating ice that may form in the inlet forebay. Under proposed EPU 
operating conditions, the difference in temperature would be 
approximately 25 [deg]F and 35 [deg]F in summer (i.e., intake temp > 45 
[deg]F) and winter (i.e., intake temp <= 45 [deg]F) months, 
respectively. In addition, the discharge temperature would at times 
exceed the current SPDES permit limits (102 [deg]F) to an upper limit 
of 106 [deg]F.
    The current SPDES permit limit for the Ginna thermal discharge 
plume mixing area is 320 acres. In 2004, Ginna LLC commissioned studies 
to determine the effect of the proposed EPU on water temperatures, 
temperature distribution in near-field and far-field areas associated 
with the discharge, and to assess the impacts on aquatic species. 
According to the information calculated by the near-field plume model 
(CORMIX) and far-field hydrodynamic and thermal model (ECOM), under 
existing plant operating conditions, the thermal plume mixing area is 
less than 300 acres in summer and winter months. An increased mixing 
zone of 360 acres from the point of discharge on a daily basis (24 
hours) would be needed to support operation under the proposed EPU 
operating conditions. The discharge environmental impacts of the 
proposed EPU conditions are described in the ``Impacts to Aquatic 
Biota'' section of the ER.
    By letters dated March 8, April 2, July 29, October 18, November 
18, 2005, January 12, and March 15, 2006, Ginna LLC submitted a permit 
modification request to NYSDEC regarding an increase in the Ginna 
Station Outfall 001 discharge temperature limit, intake-discharge 
[Delta]T, and the size of the mixing zone to accommodate the proposed 
EPU conditions described above. The NYSDEC sets limits on and regulates 
the amount of heat discharged to Lake Ontario. Approval from the NYSDEC 
for these SPDES Permit modifications is currently pending.
    Based on information provided in the ER and NUREG-1437 Supplement 
14, the NRC staff has determined the thermal discharge environmental 
impacts to Lake Ontario under the proposed EPU conditions would not be 
significant.

[[Page 37617]]

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. Aquatic 
organisms that are caught on a plant's intake debris screens made of 
mesh are considered impinged. The term entrainment applies to aquatic 
organisms ( i.e. fish and shellfish) that are small enough to pass 
through a plant's intake debris screens and travel through the cooling 
system and be exposed to heat, mechanical, and pressure stresses and 
possibly biocidal chemicals, before being discharged back to the body 
of water. Ginna has intake and discharge structures on Lake Ontario. 
The aquatic species evaluated in this Environmental Assessment are in 
the vicinity of the Ginna intake and discharge structures.
    Ginna LLC monitors entrained and impinged species as required by 
the current NYSDEC SPDES Permit. In 2004, Ginna LLC commissioned a 
biological assessment to analyze the effects of increased water 
temperature and mixing zone associated with the proposed EPU on Lake 
Ontario. The assessment included potential impacts to impingement and 
entrainment rates associated with the proposed EPU.
    The most prominent fish species located in the shoreline area of 
Lake Ontario near Ginna are smallmouth bass, spottail shiner, American 
eel, alewife, yellow perch, threespine stickleback, brown trout, 
rainbow smelt, lake trout and rainbow trout. Ginna LLC reviewed these 
ten fish populations, which were identified by the NYSDEC as the 
``Representative Identified Species,'' (RIS) occurring in the vicinity 
of Ginna. For the purpose of this Environmental Assessment, the 
identical ten fish species were reviewed.
    Impingement and entrainment monitoring at Ginna has been 
investigated since the 1970's. Based on this historical data and 
requirements of the SPDES Permit, impingement and entrainment rates at 
Ginna are minimal, and according to the ER no significant adverse 
impact on the RIS populations would result due to the increased 
discharge temperatures. These conclusions are based on the following: 
(1) Ginna is not adjacent to or near habitat features or spawning/
nursery areas preferred by or important to local fish populations; (2) 
cooler areas for refuge are readily available to fish that enter the 
cooling water discharge; (3) the thermal plume under proposed EPU 
conditions would generally extend no more than 1 to 3 feet below the 
surface, providing a zone of passage for fish; (4) Ginna does not have 
any known incidents of cold shock to aquatic biota and cold shock 
incidents for the RIS would be minimized due to gradual shutdown and 
reduction procedures in cooling water temperature; (5) fish will avoid 
portions of the lake that exceed their thermal preferenda; and (6) any 
impinged fish exposed to elevated temperatures (above their thermal 
preferenda) in the fish return system will be exposed only for a short 
duration (20-50 seconds). After reviewing the information presented in 
the ER, the NYSDEC SPDES permit modification demonstration submittal, 
and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14, the NRC staff concludes that the impact 
of the proposed EPU on aquatic biota would not be significant.
    As discussed in the transmission facility impacts section of this 
Environmental Assessment, transmission line right-of-way maintenance 
practices would not change. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 
impact of the proposed action to aquatic biota would not be 
significant.
    On July 9, 2004, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register 
(69 FR 41575) addressing cooling water intake structures at existing 
power plants whose flow levels exceed a minimum threshold value of 50 
million gallons per day (gpd). The rule is Phase II in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) development of 316(b) 
regulations that establish national requirements applicable to the 
location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake 
structures at existing facilities that exceed the threshold value for 
water withdrawals. The national requirements, which are implemented 
through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permits, minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with the 
continued use of the intake systems. In the case of Ginna, the SPDES 
permit is equivalent to the NPDES permit. Licensees are required to 
demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance standards at the 
time of renewal of their NPDES permit. Licensees may be required as 
part of the NPDES renewal to alter the intake structure, redesign the 
cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative 
measures as a result of this regulation. The new performance standards 
are designed to reduce significantly impingement and entrainment losses 
due to plant operation. Any site-specific mitigation would result in 
less impact due to continued plant operation.

Impacts on Terrestrial Biota

    The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action 
would be due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. As 
discussed in the transmission facility impacts section of this 
Environmental Assessment, transmission line right-of-way maintenance 
practices would not change for the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC 
staff concludes that there are no significant impacts to terrestrial 
plant or animal species 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 Environmental Assessment. 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 for terrestrial species.
    There are four animal and two plant species listed as threatened or 
endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act within Wayne 
County, New York. These species are the bog turtle (Clemmys 
muhlenbergii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), piping plover 
(Charadrius melodus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), small-whorled 
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera 
leucophaea). There are no records of any of these species on the Ginna 
site. The nearest designated critical habitat is for piping plover (C. 
melodus), which lies 90 miles from the Ginna site on the eastern shore 
of Lake Ontario. No critical habitat or known occurrences of bog turtle 
(C. muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (M. sodalis), small-whorled pogonia (I. 
medeoloides), and prairie fringed orchid (P. leucophaea) have been 
reported within the Ginna site vicinity or within the transmission 
lines right-of-way. However, bald eagles (H. leucocephalus) are 
occasionally observed in the vicinity, usually during spring migration. 
The nearest known bald eagle nesting site is approximately 30 miles 
southeast of the Ginna site, near Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge. 
It is not likely that the bald eagles would be impacted by the EPU 
because the birds are transient and do not nest at the Ginna site.
    There are no Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic

[[Page 37618]]

species listed under the Endangered Species Act in the vicinity of 
Ginna or Wayne County, New York. There are two State-listed aquatic 
species known to occur in Wayne County: Pugnose shiner (Notropis 
anogenus) and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). However, neither 
species has been reported in the vicinity of Ginna. Therefore, the NRC 
staff concludes that there is no effect to threatened and endangered 
species associated with the proposed EPU based on the information 
provided in the ER, NUREG-1437 Supplement 14, and the staff's own 
independent review.

Social and Economic Impacts

    Potential social and economic impacts due to the proposed EPU 
relate to potential changes to the size of the workforce at Ginna. The 
NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by Ginna LLC regarding 
socioeconomic impacts. Ginna LLC is a major employer in the community 
with approximately 436 people employed on a full-time basis and 167 
long- and short-term contractors employed on a regular basis.
    In January 2005, Ginna LLC, which acquired the plant in June 2004, 
entered into a payment agreement with the Town of Ontario, the Wayne 
County School District, and Wayne County as opposed to paying sales and 
property taxes. The agreement in place is a Payment In-Lieu of Taxes 
Agreement (PILOT). Under this agreement, Ginna's assessed value is set 
at $260,000,000. Annual payments in equal amounts will be paid to tax 
jurisdictions in an amount equal to the assessed value multiplied by 
the real property tax rate established by each tax jurisdiction for the 
applicable tax year. Estimates of what amounts are to be paid through 
2009 can be found in Chapter 5 of the Ginna EPU ER.
    Ginna LLC and its personnel contribute directly and indirectly to 
the surrounding communities of the plant. Taxes collected under the 
PILOT agreement are used to fund schools, police and fire protection, 
road maintenance, and other municipal services. In addition, Ginna LLC 
personnel and contractors contribute indirectly to the tax base by 
paying sales and property taxes, state income tax, and hotel and meal 
taxes.
    The proposed EPU would not significantly affect the size of the 
Ginna workforce. Most EPU modifications were performed during the 
Spring 2005 Refueling Outage, with the remaining modifications 
scheduled to be completed during the 2006 Refueling Outage. During a 
regularly scheduled refueling outage, the workforce at Ginna increases 
by approximately 534 persons on average. The workforce needed for the 
2006 Refueling outage will require additional workers above the usual 
534 persons average. The supplemental workers are not expected to 
adversely affect area housing availability, transportation services, or 
the public water supply due to the short period of the demand.
    The NRC staff expects that granting the EPU as proposed would 
improve the economic viability of Ginna, ensuring that it would 
continue to contribute positively to the surrounding communities.
    As discussed above, granting the EPU as proposed would have little 
direct socioeconomic impact to the local and regional economies. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant social 
or economic impacts for the proposed action based on information in the 
ER and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.

Summary

    The EPU, if implemented as proposed, would not result in a 
significant change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of land 
use, water use, thermal discharges, 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 Ginna.

       Table 1.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use.....................  No significant land use modifications are
                                expected.
Transmission Facilities......  No physical modifications to the
                                transmission lines; lines meet shock
                                safety requirements; no changes to right-
                                of-ways including vegetation management;
                                small increase in electrical current and
                                magnetic field.
Water Use....................  No physical modifications to intake
                                structure; no increased rate of
                                withdrawal; no water use conflicts.
Discharge....................  Increase in water temperature and mixing
                                zone to Lake Ontario; application to
                                increase SPDES permit discharge
                                temperature and plume acreage submitted
                                to New York State, decision pending.
Aquatic Biota................  No adverse impact will occur to the RIS
                                populations due to the following: Ginna
                                Station is not near preferred/important
                                spawning areas; cooler areas for refuge
                                are readily available; thermal plume
                                under proposed conditions would extend
                                approximately 1 to 3 feet below the
                                surface; cold shock incidents would be
                                minimal due to gradual shutdown and
                                reduction procedures; fish avoid areas
                                that exceed their thermal preferenda;
                                impinged species exposed to elevated
                                temperatures (above thermal preferenda)
                                will be exposed only for a short
                                duration (20-50 seconds); EPU would have
                                no additional impact on entrained
                                species.
Terrestrial Biota............  No change in transmission line
                                maintenance; EPU would have no
                                additional impact on terrestrial plant
                                or animal species.
Threatened and Endangered      Six Federally listed species in Wayne
 Species.                       County; No species have been identified
                                on the Ginna site; EPU would have no
                                effect on species.
Social and Economic..........  No significant change in size of Ginna
                                Station work force required for plant
                                operation; small increase in work force
                                required for spring 2006 refueling
                                outage to implement remaining plant
                                modifications. EPU would have no effect
                                on socioeconomics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts

    Ginna 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 Part 20, 
``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' and Part 50, ``Domestic 
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' Appendix I, of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). These radioactive 
waste streams are discussed in the FES. The methodology used in scaling 
the increase of radioactive content under the proposed EPU conditions 
were based on techniques in NRC's Calculations of Releases of 
Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized 
Water Reactors (PWR-GALE code), NUREG-0017, Revision 1. The proposed 
EPU would not result in any physical changes to the gaseous, liquid, or 
solid waste systems.

[[Page 37619]]

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 
environment, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens, 
tritium, and particulate material. The gaseous waste management systems 
include the offgas system and various building ventilation systems. The 
Ginna Base Case Average Dose, an annual average dose from 1999 through 
2003 to extrapolated 100-percent plant operating capacity, was less 
than 1 millirem (mrem) per year. Ginna LLC predicts that gaseous 
radioactive effluents would linearly increase as a result of the 
proposed EPU, approximately 17 percent. Even with a 17-percent increase 
from the peak dose of less than 1 mrem per year, the dose would still 
remain well below the regulatory standards in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 
I. Therefore, the increase in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent 
release following 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 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. Ginna LLC predicts the offsite dose 
from liquid effluents would increase linearly, approximately 17 
percent. The increase would not increase the volume of liquid 
radioactive waste, but the radioactivity levels in the reactor coolant. 
Even with an increase, the maximum annual total body and organ doses 
(all pathways) would be well below the regulatory standards contained 
in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as well as the doses bounded by the FES. 
Therefore, the NRC concludes that the increase in offsite dose due to 
liquid effluent release following the EPU 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. Ginna produces dry active 
waste (paper, plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor sweepings, cloth, 
metal), sludge, oily waste, bead resin and filters. The increase in 
volume of solid waste would not be linear, because the proposed EPU 
would neither alter installed equipment performance nor require drastic 
changes in system operation or maintenance. In recent years (2003-
2004), the solid waste volume generated by Ginna has been significantly 
above the 9-year non-outage average of 2,500 cubic feet, and outage 
year average of 5,000 cubic feet. This increase in volume is a result 
of the roof and reactor head replacement projects and mandated security 
upgrades.
    Under the proposed EPU conditions, any increase in volume of solid 
waste would be due to increases in disposal of bead resins and filters. 
This increase would not be significant, although the amount of 
radioactivity in the waste would linearly increase. Even with such 
increases, Ginna LLC expects the results would remain below the 
generation volumes and doses in the FES. Therefore, the NRC concludes 
that there would be no significant impact to offsite dose due to solid 
waste disposal following the EPU.

In-Plant Radiation Doses

    The proposed EPU would increase in-plant radiation dose rates 
linearly with the increase in core power level, by approximately 17 
percent. These higher doses rates would not be expected to increase the 
annual average collective occupational doses more than 17 percent. 
Ginna LLC performed an analysis of the expected increased levels of 
radiation in the following four areas at Ginna: Areas near Reactor 
Vessel, In-Containment Areas Adjacent to the Reactor Coolant System, 
Areas near Irradiated Fuels and Other Irradiated Objects, and Areas 
outside Containment where the Radiation Source Is Derived from the 
Primary Coolant. Plant programs and administrative controls, such as 
conservatism used in the original design basis reactor coolant system 
source terms, conservatism used in designing plant shielding 
requirements, and the Ginna Station Radiation Protection Program would 
ensure that occupational doses would be maintained within regulatory 
limits of 10 CFR Part 20, with the expected 17-percent increase. 
Therefore, the NRC concludes that there would be no significant impact 
to in-plant radiation doses.

Direct Radiation Doses Offsite

    Under the proposed EPU conditions, Ginna LLC predicted the increase 
to direct radiation doses offsite would be proportional to the uprate 
percentage increase, approximately 17 percent, from liquid and gaseous 
releases. Potential offsite doses were calculated using plant core 
power operating history, 1999-2003, reported gaseous and liquid 
effluent and dose data from 1999-2003, NUREG-0017 equations and 
assumptions, and a conservative methodology. The extrapolated and 
increased offsite dose calculations for the liquid and gaseous 
effluents were found to be well below the regulatory standards in 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 40 CFR Part 190 and the FES. Therefore, the 
NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant impact of 
offsite direct radiation doses.

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 FES. 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 17 percent. The 
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant might also 
increase by as much as 17 percent; however, this concentration is 
limited by the Ginna Technical Specifications. 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 might 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 FES.
    The NRC's acceptance criteria for radiological consequences 
analysis using an alternative source term are based on 10 CFR 50.67. 
Ginna LLC's assessment of new calculated doses following the EPU are 
well below the NRC regulatory standard described in Regulatory Guide 
(RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating 
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants.'' The NRC staff is 
reviewing the licensee's analyses and

[[Page 37620]]

performing confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the 
licensee's calculated doses under accident conditions. The results of 
the NRC staff's calculations will be presented in the safety evaluation 
to be issued with the license amendment, and the EPU will not be 
approved by NRC unless the NRC staff's independent review of dose 
calculations under postulated accident conditions determines that dose 
is within regulatory limits. Therefore, the staff concludes if the 
doses from postulated accidents remained within the NRC regulatory 
limits of 10 CFR Part 50 and RG 1.183, the impacts would be small.

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 environmental 
assessment (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 a higher burnup fuel 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). 
Ginna LLC has concluded that the fuel enrichment at Ginna would be 
increased up to 4.95 percent as a result of the proposed EPU. In 
addition, the expected core average exposure for the EPU would be 
approximately 52,000 MWd/MTU, with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum 
fuel rods limits. 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 consequences 
of 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 based on 
information provided in the ER and the NRC staff's independent review. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed EPU. 
Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the 
proposed EPU at Ginna.

         Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Effluents and Doses..  Small dose increase due to gaseous
                                effluents; doses to individuals offsite
                                would remain below NRC limits.
Liquid Effluents and Doses...  No significant volume increase in liquid
                                effluent generated would be expected;
                                small increase of radioactive materials
                                in liquid effluent; doses to individuals
                                offsite would remain below NRC limits.
Solid Radioactive Waste......  Volume of solid waste increased due to
                                equipment replacement projects and
                                security upgrades; increase in
                                radioactive material would be expected;
                                all increases (volume and dose) within
                                NRC limits.
In-plant Dose................  Occupational dose expected to increase by
                                17 percent overall; would remain within
                                all NRC limits.
Direct Radiation Dose........  Increase of 17 percent would be expected;
                                doses would remain below NRC regulatory
                                standards and those in the FES.
Postulated Accidents.........  Increase in the source term used in the
                                evaluation of postulated accidents. New
                                calculated doses must meet NRC
                                regulations (10 CFR 50.67), which will
                                be confirmed and presented in NRC safety
                                evaluation.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The plant would continue to operate under its 
current licensing basis, possibly up to an additional 20 years. 
However, if the EPU were not approved, other agencies and electric 
power organizations might be required to pursue other means of 
providing electric generation capacity to offset future demand. The 
additional power not supplied by the Ginna site would likely be 
replaced by demand-side management and energy conservation, purchased 
power from other electricity providers, other alternative energy 
sources, or a combination of these options. The environmental impacts 
associated with the no-action alternative would also have positive 
impacts at Ginna (for example, increase in solid waste generation) 
would be eliminated.
    The environmental impacts of alternative sources of producing 
electrical power are described in the FES and Chapter 8 of NUREG-1437 
Supplement 14. Non-nuclear power generation technologies considered 
were coal-fired and natural-gas fired generation at the Ginna or at an 
alternative site. The construction and operation of a coal or natural-
gas fired plant would create greater negative environmental impacts in 
areas such as air quality, land use, and waste management, than those 
identified for the proposed Ginna EPU. Implementation of the proposed 
EPU would have less impact on the environment than the construction and 
operation of a new coal or natural-gas fired plant at an alternative 
site. In addition, the EPU does not involve environmental impacts that 
are significantly different from those presented in the 1973 FES for 
Ginna. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the no-
action alternative would be greater than the impacts of the proposed 
action based on information in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the FES and NUREG-1437 Supplement 14.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 26, 2006, the NRC 
staff consulted with the State of New York official, John Spath, of the 
Energy Research and Development Authority, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no additional 
comments other than those provided in the NYSDEC letter of May 12, 
2006.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that implementation of the action as proposed would 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.

[[Page 37621]]

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated July 7, 2005, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 15, September 30, December 6, 9, and 22, 2005, and January 
11 and 25, and February 16, March 3 and 24, and May 9 and 19, 2006 
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 
Nos. ML051950123, ML052310155, ML052800223, ML053480388, ML053480362, 
ML053640080, ML060180262, ML060960416, ML060540349, ML060810218, 
ML060940312, ML061350375, and ML061450381, respectively). 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 O-1F21, 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, https://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 pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 06-5897 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P