Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, Correction, 17970-17976 [2010-7959]
Download as PDF
17970
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of
April, 2010.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2010–7892 Filed 4–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–410; NRC–2010–0117]
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC;
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 2; Draft Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Related to the
Proposed License Amendment To
Increase the Maximum Reactor Power
Level, Correction
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION: Draft Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact; Correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects a
draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
appearing in the Federal Register on
March 22, 2010 (75 FR 13600). This
action is necessary to state the
expiration date of the 30-day public
comment period and to include
instructions for submitting written
comments to the NRC. The corrected
draft EA is provided as follows: In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
has prepared a draft EA as part of its
evaluation of a request by Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, LLC (the
licensee) for a license amendment to
increase the maximum thermal power at
the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
Unit No. 2 (NMP2) from 3,467
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,988 MWt.
This represents a power increase of
approximately 15 percent over the
current licensed thermal power, and
approximately 20 percent from the
original licensed power level of 3,323
MWt. The NRC staff did not identify any
significant environmental impact
associated with the proposed action
based on its evaluation of the
information provided in the licensee’s
extended power uprate (EPU)
application and other available
information. The draft EA and Finding
of No Significant Impact are being
published in the Federal Register with
a 30-day public comment period ending
May 10, 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
(NMPNS) site is in the town of Scriba,
in the northwest corner of Oswego
County, New York, on the south shore
of Lake Ontario. The site is comprised
of approximately 900 acres that includes
two nuclear reactors and ancillary
facilities. NMP2 uses a boiling-water
reactor and a nuclear steam supply
system designed by General Electric.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By application dated May 27, 2009,
the licensee requested an amendment
for an EPU for NMP2 to increase the
licensed thermal power level from 3,467
MWt to 3,988 MWt, which represents an
increase of approximately 15% above
the current licensed thermal power and
approximately 20% over the original
licensed thermal power level. This
change in core thermal level requires
the NRC to amend the facility’s
operating license. The operational goal
of the proposed EPU is a corresponding
increase in electrical output from 1,211
MWe to 1,369 MWe. The proposed
action is considered an EPU by NRC
because it exceeds the typical 7% power
increase that can be accommodated with
only minor plant changes. EPUs
typically involve extensive
modifications to the nuclear steam
supply system.
The licensee plans to make the
physical changes to plant components
needed to implement the proposed EPU
over the course of two refueling outages
currently scheduled for 2010 and 2012.
The actual power uprate, if approved by
the NRC, would occur in a single
increase following the 2012 refueling
outage.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides
NMPNS with the flexibility to increase
the potential electrical output of NMP2
and to supply low cost, reliable, and
efficient electrical generation to New
York State and the region. The
additional 158 MWe would be enough
to power approximately 174,000 homes.
The proposed EPU at NMP2 would
contribute to meeting the goals and
recommendations of the New York State
Energy Plan for maintaining the reserve
margin and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions with low cost, efficient, and
reliable electrical generation. The
proposed action provides the licensee
with the flexibility to increase the
potential electrical output of NMP2 to
New York State and the region from its
existing power station without building
a new electric power generation station
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or importing energy from outside the
region.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
As part of the licensing process for
NMP2, the NRC published a Final
Environmental Statement (FES) in May
1985. The NRC staff noted that the
impact of any activity authorized by the
license would be encompassed by the
overall action evaluated in the FES for
the operation of NMP2. In addition, the
NRC evaluated the environmental
impacts of operating NMP2 for an
additional 20 years beyond its current
operating license, and determined that
the environmental impacts of license
renewal were small. The NRC staff’s
evaluation is contained in NUREG–
1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plant, Supplement 24,
Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2’’ (SEIS–24) issued
in May 2006 (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No.
ML061290310). The NRC staff used
information from the licensee’s license
amendment request, the FES, and the
SEIS–24 to perform its EA for the
proposed EPU.
The NMP2 EPU is expected to be
implemented without making extensive
changes to buildings or plant systems
that directly or indirectly interface with
the environment. All necessary
modifications would be performed in
existing buildings at NMP2. With the
exception of the high-pressure turbine
rotor replacement, the required
modifications are generally small in
scope. Other modifications include
providing additional cooling for some
plant systems, modifications to
feedwater pumps, modifications to
accommodate greater steam and
condensate flow rates, and
instrumentation upgrades that include
minor items such as replacing parts,
changing setpoints and modifying
software.
The sections below describe the nonradiological and radiological impacts in
the environment that may result from
the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Potential land use and aesthetic
impacts from the proposed EPU include
impacts from plant modifications at
NMP2. While some plant components
would be modified, most plant changes
related to the proposed EPU would
occur within existing structures,
buildings, and fenced equipment yards
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
housing major components within the
developed part of the site. No new
construction would occur outside of
existing facilities and no expansion of
buildings, roads, parking lots,
equipment lay-down areas, or
transmission facilities would be
required to support the proposed EPU.
Existing parking lots, road access,
equipment lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms
would be used during plant
modifications. Therefore, land use
conditions would not change at NMP2.
Also, there would be no land use
changes along transmission lines (no
new lines would be required for the
proposed EPU), transmission corridors,
switch yards, or substations.
Since land use conditions would not
change at NMP2, and because any land
disturbance would occur within
previously disturbed areas, there would
be little or no impact to aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of NMP2.
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact from EPU-related plant
modifications on land use and aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of NMP2.
Air Quality Impacts
Air quality within the Nine Mile Point
area is generally considered good, with
exceptions occurring for designated
ozone nonattainment areas. NMPNS is
located in Oswego County which is part
of the Central Air Quality Control
Region covered by Region 7 of the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. With the
exception of ozone, this region is
designated as being in attainment or
unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants
in Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) 40 CFR 81.333.
There are approximately 1000 people
employed on a full-time basis. This
workforce is typically augmented by an
additional 1,000 persons on average
during regularly scheduled refueling
outages. For the EPU work in 2012, the
workforce numbers would be somewhat
larger than a routine outage, but would
be of short duration. During
implementation of the EPU at NMP2,
some minor and short duration air
quality impacts would occur. The main
source of the air emissions would be
from the vehicles of the additional
outage workers needed for the EPU
work. The majority of the EPU work
would be performed inside existing
buildings and would not impact air
quality. Operation of the reactor at the
increased power level would not result
in increased non-radioactive emissions
that would have a significant impact on
air quality in the region. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
air quality during and following
implementation of the proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Groundwater
NMP2 does not use groundwater in
any of its water systems and has no
plans for direct groundwater use in the
future. There are no production wells on
the site for either domestic-type water
uses or industrial use. Potable water in
the area is supplied to residents either
through the Scriba Water District, which
receives its water from the City of
Oswego, or from private wells.
Because of variations in the
hydrogeological characteristics of the
ground under the reactor building
foundation, a permanent dewatering
system is required for NMP2. The
system consists of perimeter drains and
two sumps located below the NMP2
reactor building. The dewatering system
is designed to maintain the water table
below the reactor building foundation at
a stable level. The licensee asserts that
implementation of the proposed EPU
will not result in a change to the
groundwater use program at NMP2.
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact on groundwater resources
following implementation of the
proposed EPU.
Surface Water
NMP2 uses surface water from Lake
Ontario for the service water system and
for a fish diversion system. As described
in the licensee’s application, the cooling
water system for NMP2 consists of a
circulating water system, which
circulates cooling water through the
main condensers to condense steam
after it passes through the turbine, and
a service water system which circulates
cooling water through heat exchangers
that serve various plant components.
The service water system for NMP2 is a
once-through system withdrawing water
from Lake Ontario. However, the
circulating water system is a closedcycle system that uses a natural draft
cooling tower. A portion of the cooling
water from the service water discharge
is used to replace evaporative and drift
losses from the cooling tower. NMP2
has its own cooling water intake and
discharge structures located offshore in
Lake Ontario. The intake and discharge
structures are located approximately
950 feet and 1,050 feet offshore. The
discharge structure is a two-port diffuser
located 3 feet above the bottom
approximately 1,500 feet offshore.
Because the NMP2 circulating water
system is closed-cycle, flows are
substantially less than for a typical
open-cycle system. During normal
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17971
operation, an average total flow of
53,600 gallons per minute (gpm) is
withdrawn from Lake Ontario, 38,675
gpm for the service water system and
makeup to the circulating water system
to replace evaporation and drift losses
from the cooling tower, and 14,925 gpm
for operation of the fish diversion
system. Discharge flow from NMP2
ranges from 23,055 gpm to 35,040 gpm
during operation.
The licensee estimates that cooling
tower makeup water flow post-EPU
would increase by approximately 2,000–
2,500 gpm; from approximately 18,000
gpm to approximately 20,000 gpm. This
increase represents consumptive use of
water from Lake Ontario (e.g., due to
increased evaporative losses). This loss
is not significant when compared to the
large amount of water that routinely
flows out of Lake Ontario (approximate
long-term average of 107,700,000 gpm).
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact on surface water resources
following implementation of the
proposed EPU.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
The potential impacts to aquatic biota
from the proposed action could include
impingement, entrainment, and thermal
discharge effects. NMP2 has a fish
diversion system at the onshore facility
to reduce potential impingement of fish
on the intake screens. The proposed
EPU is expected to result in a 2000–
2,500 gpm increase in cooling tower
makeup. However, this makeup water is
drawn entirely from the plant’s service
water discharge, and service water
intake flows would remain unchanged
by the EPU. As a result, there would be
no increase in cooling water withdrawn
from the NMP2 intake structure.
Therefore, there would be no increase in
impingement from the proposed EPU
and the increase in entrainment losses,
if any, would be very small, and would
remain consistent with the NRC’s
conclusion in the SEIS–24, that the
aquatic impacts as a result of NMP2
operation during the term of license
renewal would be small.
The issues of discharge water
temperature and chemical discharges
are regulated by the State of New York
with limits specified in the State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit. According to the
licensee, the temperature of the
discharge water is expected to increase
by a maximum of 2 °F as a result of the
EPU. In addition, a modeling study
performed by the licensee in 2007 of the
thermal plume of NMP2 indicated only
a minor increase in thermal discharge
would be expected from the EPU.
Technical reviews and analyses
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
17972
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
performed by the licensee indicate that
the combined service water and
blowdown discharge from NMP2 would
remain compliant with current limits in
the SPDES permit for thermal and
physical parameters during both normal
operation and normal shutdown
conditions.
The circulating water system and
service water system for NMP2 are
treated with biocides to control
biofouling from zebra mussels
(Dreissena polymorpha) and other
organisms, and with other chemical
additives to control scaling and
corrosion of system components. The
licensee’s application notes that several
of the chemicals used for the above
treatments are subject to specific limits
in the NMP2 SPDES permit.
Therefore, there would be no
significant adverse impacts to the
aquatic biota from entrainment,
impingement, and from thermal
discharges for the proposed action.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
The NMPNS site consists of
approximately 900 acres, with over 1
mile of shoreline on Lake Ontario.
Approximately 188 acres are used for
power generation and support facilities.
Much of the remaining area is
undeveloped, consisting largely of
deciduous forest with some old field
and shrub land areas that reflect
continuing succession of old fields to
secondary forest. As previously
discussed in the land use and aesthetic
section, the proposed action would not
affect land use at NMP2. Therefore,
there would be no significant impacts
on terrestrial biota associated with the
proposed action.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Impacts
Animal species found on the NMP2
site are representative of those found
within disturbed landscapes of the
lower Great Lakes region, and include
white-tailed deer and a variety of
smaller mammals, reptiles and
amphibians. Correspondence between
the licensee and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) in connection
with the NMPNS license renewal
environmental review indicated that no
federally endangered, threatened, or
candidate aquatic species are likely to
reside in the vicinity of the NMP2 site.
According to the licensee’s application
and information in the SEIS–24, with
the exception of the Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalis) and occasional transient
individuals of the piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) and the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (now
delisted), no other species listed by the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
FWS as endangered or threatened are
likely to reside on the NMPNS site or
along Nine Mile Point to the Clay
transmission corridor. However, recent
onsite surveys conducted by the
licensee indicate that there is low
likelihood of occurrence for Indiana bat
and piping plover because there is no
suitable habitat on the site or along the
transmission corridor. Regardless,
planned construction-related activities
related to the proposed EPU primarily
involve changes to existing structures,
systems, and components internal to
existing buildings, would not involve
earth disturbance. While traffic and
worker activity in the developed parts of
the plant site during the 2012 refueling
outage would be somewhat greater than
a normal refueling outage, the potential
impact on terrestrial wildlife would be
minor and temporary.
Since there are no planned changes to
the terrestrial wildlife habitat on the
NMPNS site from the proposed EPU and
the potential impacts from worker
activity would be minor and temporary,
there would be no significant impacts to
any threatened or endangered species
for the proposed action.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Impacts
As reported in the SEIS–24, the NRC
reviewed historic and archaeological
site files in New York, and confirmed
that historic and archaeological
resources have been identified in the
vicinity of NMP2, but no archaeological
and historic architectural sites have
been recorded on the licensee’s site. In
addition, the New York State Historic
Preservation Office confirmed that
while there are no known archaeological
sites within the plant site, the
Preservation Office considers Nine Mile
Point to be an area that is sensitive for
cultural resources because of its
environmental setting. However, as
reported in the SEIS–24, a site visit
performed by NRC staff in 2004 found
the presence of archaeological remains
associated with several mapped historic
locations within the plant lands. For the
proposed EPU, the licensee asserts that
there would be no new land disturbance
activities and there are no plans to
construct new facilities or modify
existing access roads, parking areas, or
equipment lay-down areas. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact
from the proposed EPU on historic and
archaeological resources at NMP2.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from
the proposed EPU include temporary
increases in the size of the workforce at
NMP2 and associated increased demand
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for public services and housing in the
region. The proposed EPU could also
increase tax payments due to increased
power generation.
Currently, there are approximately
1,000 full-time workers employed at
NMPNS, residing primarily in Oswego
County and Onondaga County, New
York. During refueling outages
approximately every 12 months at
NMPNS (every 24 months for each unit)
the number of workers at NMPNS
increases by as many as 1,000 workers
for 30 to 40 days.
The proposed EPU is expected to
temporarily increase the size of the
workforce at NMPNS during the spring
2010 and 2012 refueling outages. The
greatest increase would occur during the
spring 2012 outage when the majority of
the EPU-related modifications would
take place. Once completed, the size of
the refueling outage workforce at
NMPNS would return to normal levels
and would remain relatively the same
during future refueling outages. The size
of the regular plant operations
workforce would be unaffected by the
proposed EPU.
Most of the EPU plant modification
workers would be expected to relocate
temporarily to Oswego and Onondaga
counties, resulting in short-term
increases in the local population along
with increased demands for public
services and housing. Because plant
modification work would be short-term,
most workers would stay in available
rental homes, apartments, mobile
homes, and camper-trailers. Therefore, a
temporary increase in plant
employment for a short duration would
have little or no noticeable effect on the
availability of housing in the region.
NMPNS currently pays annual real
estate property taxes to the City of
Oswego School District, Oswego
County, and the Town of Scriba. The
annual amount of property taxes paid by
NMPNS could increase due to
‘‘incentive payments’’ should NMP2
megawatt production exceed negotiated
annual benchmarks as power generation
increases. Future property tax
agreements with Oswego County, the
Town of Scriba, and the City of Oswego
could also take into account the
increased value of NMP2 as a result of
the EPU implementation and increased
power generation.
Due to the short duration of EPUrelated plant modification activities,
there would be little or no noticeable
effect on tax revenues generated by
temporary workers residing in Oswego
County and Onondaga County.
Therefore, there would be no significant
adverse socioeconomic impacts from
EPU-related plant modifications and
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
operations under EPU conditions in the
vicinity of NMP2.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from
activities associated with EPU operation
at NMP2. Environmental effects may
include biological, cultural, economic,
or social impacts. Minority and lowincome populations are subsets of the
general public residing in the vicinity of
NMP2, and all are exposed to the same
health and environmental effects
generated from activities at NMP2.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis
The NRC staff considered the
demographic composition of the area
within a 50-mile (80-km) radius of
NMP2 to determine the location of
minority and low-income populations
and whether they may be affected by the
proposed action.
Minority populations in the vicinity
of NMP2, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2000, indicate that
11.8% of the population (approximately
908,000 individuals) residing within a
50-mile (80-km) radius of NMP2
identified themselves as minority
individuals. The largest minority group
was Black or African American
(approximately 63,000 persons or 7.0%),
followed by Hispanic or Latino
(approximately 22,000 persons or about
2.4%). According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, about 3.5% of the Oswego
County population identified
themselves as minorities, with persons
of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising
the largest minority group (1.3%).
According to census data, the 3-year
average estimate for 2006–2008 for the
minority population of Oswego County,
as a percent of total population,
increased to 4.4%.
According to 2000 census data,
approximately 19,600 families and
105,000 individuals (approximately 8.4
and 11.5%, respectively) residing
within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of NMP2
were identified as living below the
Federal poverty threshold in 1999. The
1999 Federal poverty threshold was
$17,029 for a family of four.
According to census data in the 2006–
2008 American Community Survey 3Year Estimates, the median household
income for New York was $55,401,
while 13.8% of the State population and
10.5% of families were determined to be
living below the Federal poverty
threshold. Oswego County had a lower
median household income average
($43,643) and higher percentages
(16.0%) of individuals and families
(11.2%) living below the poverty level,
respectively.
Potential impacts to minority and
low-income populations would mostly
17973
consist of environmental and
socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust,
traffic, employment, and housing
impacts). However, noise and dust
impacts would be short-term and
limited to onsite activities. Minority and
low-income populations residing along
site access roads could experience
increased commuter vehicle traffic
during shift changes. Increased demand
for inexpensive rental housing during
the refueling outages that include EPUrelated plant modifications could
disproportionately affect low-income
populations, however, due to the short
duration of the EPU-related work and
the expected availability of rental
properties, impacts to minority and lowincome populations would be shortterm and limited.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
EA, there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations residing in the vicinity of
NMP2.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed
EPU would not result in any significant
non-radiological impacts. Table 1
summarizes the non-radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at NMP2.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use .............................................................
Air Quality ............................................................
Water Use ...........................................................
Aquatic Resources ..............................................
Terrestrial Resources ..........................................
Threatened and Endangered Species ................
Historic and Archaeological Resources ..............
Socioeconomics ..................................................
Environmental Justice .........................................
No significant impact on land use conditions and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of NMP2.
Temporary short-term air quality impacts from vehicle emissions related to the workforce. No
significant impacts to air quality.
Water use changes resulting from the EPU would be relatively
minor. No significant impact on groundwater or surface water resources.
No significant impact to aquatic resources due to impingement, entrainment, or thermal discharge.
No significant impact to terrestrial resources.
No significant impact to Federally listed species.
No significant impact to historic and archaeological resources on site or in the vicinity of
NMP2.
No significant socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related temporary increase in workforce.
No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority
and low-income populations in the vicinity of NMP2.
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid
Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and
Solid Waste
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Radiological Impacts
require any physical changes to the
gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
Nuclear power plants use waste
treatment systems to collect, process,
recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid,
and solid wastes that contain
radioactive material in a safe and
controlled manner within NRC and EPA
radiation safety standards. Operation at
the proposed EPU conditions would not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Radioactive gaseous wastes
principally include radioactive gases
extracted from the steam condenser
offgas system and the turbine gland seal.
The radioactive gaseous waste
management system uses holdup (i.e.,
time delay to achieve radioactive decay)
and filtration (i.e., high efficiency
filters) to reduce the gaseous
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
radioactivity that is released into the
environment. The licensee’s evaluation
concluded that the proposed EPU would
not change the radioactive gaseous
waste licensing basis and the system’s
design criteria. In addition, the existing
equipment and plant procedures that
control radioactive releases to the
environment will continue to be used to
maintain radioactive gaseous releases
within the dose limits of 10 CFR
20.1302, Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50,
and 40 CFR part 190.
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
17974
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
Radioactive liquid wastes include
liquids from various equipment drains,
floor drains, containment sumps,
chemistry laboratory, laundry drains,
and other sources. An evaluation
performed by the licensee demonstrates
that implementation of the proposed
EPU would not significantly increase
the inventory of liquid normally
processed by the liquid waste
management system. This conclusion is
based on the fact that the radioactive
liquid waste system functions are not
changing and the volume inputs would
increase less than 10%, which is not an
appreciable increase when compared to
the liquid radioactive waste system
capacity. The proposed EPU would
result in a small increase in the
equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor
coolant which in turn would impact the
concentrations of radionuclides entering
the waste disposal systems.
Since the liquid volume does not
increase appreciably, and the
radiological sources remain bounded by
the existing design basis, the current
design and operation of the radioactive
liquid waste system will accommodate
the effects of EPU with no changes. In
addition, the existing equipment and
plant procedures that control
radioactive releases to the environment
will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive liquid releases within the
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302,
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50, and 40
CFR part 190.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU
Conditions
In-plant radiation levels and
associated occupational doses are
controlled by the NMPNS Radiation
Protection Program to ensure that
internal and external radiation
exposures to station personnel,
contractor personnel, and the general
population will be as low as is
reasonably achievable (ALARA). For
plant workers, the program monitors
radiation levels throughout the plant to
establish work controls, training,
temporary shielding, and protective
equipment requirements so that worker
doses will remain within the dose limits
of 10 CFR part 20 and ALARA.
The licensee’s analysis indicate that
in-plant radiation sources are
anticipated to increase linearly with the
increase in core power level
(approximately 15% greater than the
current licensed thermal power), except
for nitrogen-16 (N–16) which is
expected to increase approximately 30%
due to increased steam flow and
pressure in some components. Shielding
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
is used throughout NMP2 to protect
personnel against radiation emanating
from the reactor and the auxiliary
systems.
For conservatism, many aspects of
NMP2 were originally designed for
higher-than-expected radiation sources.
NMPNS has determined that the current
shielding design is adequate for the
increase in radiation levels that may
occur after the proposed EPU. Thus, the
increase in radiation levels would not
affect radiation zoning or shielding in
the various areas of NMP2 because of
the conservatism in the original design.
Therefore, no changes are planned to
the plant’s shielding design and the
ALARA program would continue in its
current form.
Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of normal
operation offsite dose to members of the
public at NMP2 are airborne releases
from the Offgas System and direct dose
from gamma radiation (skyshine) from
the plant turbines containing
radioactive material. During reactor
operation, the reactor coolant passing
through the core region becomes
radioactive as a result of nuclear
reactions. The dominant radiation
source in the coolant passing through
the turbine is N–16. The activation of
the water in the reactor core is in
approximate proportion to the increase
in thermal power. However, while the
magnitude of the radioactive source
production increases in proportion to
reactor power, the concentration in the
steam remains nearly constant. This is
because the increase in activation
production is balanced by the increase
in steam flow. The implementation of
the proposed EPU could increase
components of offsite dose due to
releases of gaseous and liquid effluents
by up to 20%. The component of offsite
dose due to N–16 radiation emanating
from the turbine could increase by as
much as 30%. The licensee calculated
that the increase in offsite dose from
radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents,
and skyshine from NMP2 under EPU
operating conditions is expected to be
less than 1 mrem (0.01mSv) per year.
The historical (2003–2007) annual doses
to a member of the public located
outside the NMPNS site boundary from
NMP2’s radioactive emissions ranged
from 0.18 mrem (0.0018 mSv) to 2.01
mrem (0.0201 mSv). These doses are
well below the 10 CFR part 20 annual
dose limit of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) for
members of the public and the EPA’s 40
CFR part 190 annual dose standard of 25
mrem (0.25 mSv). Therefore, while the
offsite dose to members of the public
under EPU conditions is expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increase slightly, it is expected to
remain within regulatory limits. Based
on the above, the potential increase in
offsite radiation dose to members of the
public would not be significant.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
The radioactive solid waste system
collects, processes, packages, monitors,
and temporarily stores radioactive dry
and wet solid wastes prior to shipment
offsite for disposal. Solid radioactive
waste streams include filter sludge,
spent ion exchange resin, and dry active
waste (DAW). DAW includes paper,
plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor
sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types
of waste routinely generated during site
maintenance and outages. The EPU does
not generate a new type of waste or
create a new waste stream. Therefore,
the types of radioactive waste that
require shipment are unchanged. The
licensee’s evaluation indicates that the
effect of the EPU on solid waste is
primarily from increased input to the
reactor water cleanup system (WCS) and
condensate demineralizers. The
increased use of the WCS and
condensate demineralizers is expected
to increase the volume of spent ion
exchange resins and filter sludge. The
licensee’s analysis indicates that the
estimated increase in solid radioactive
waste is approximately 7%, and can be
handled by the existing solid waste
management system without
modification. Therefore, the impact
from the increased volume of solid
radioactive waste generated under
conditions of the proposed EPU would
not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from NMP2 is stored in the
plant’s spent fuel pool. The additional
energy requirements for the proposed
EPU would be met by an increase in fuel
enrichment, an increase in the reload
fuel batch size, and/or changes in the
fuel loading pattern to maintain the
desired plant operating cycle length.
NMP2 is currently licensed to use
uranium-dioxide fuel that has a
maximum enrichment of 4.95% by
weight uranium-235. The typical
average enrichment is approximately
4.20% by weight uranium-235. For the
proposed action, the core design would
use a somewhat higher fuel enrichment
(4.36%), which remains within the
licensed maximum enrichment. The
EPU fuel batch size would increase from
276 bundles to 352 bundles. The
licensee’s fuel reload design goals
would maintain the NMP2 fuel cycles
within the limits bounded by the
impacts analyzed in 10 CFR part 51,
Table S–3—Table of Uranium Fuel
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
Cycle Environmental Data and Table S–
4—Environmental Impact of
Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and
from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear
Power Reactor. Therefore, there would
be no significant impact resulting from
spent nuclear fuel.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
Postulated design-basis accidents are
evaluated by both the licensee and the
NRC staff to ensure that NMP2 can
withstand normal and abnormal
transients and a broad spectrum of
postulated accidents, without undue
hazard to the health and safety of the
public. The NRC staff previously
evaluated and approved an amendment
to the NMP2 license (Technical
Specification Amendment No. 125,
dated May 29, 2008, ADAMS Accession
No. ML081230439) which permitted full
implementation of the Alternative
Source Term (AST) as described in NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ‘‘Alternative
Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at
Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ The licensee’s
AST analysis was performed at the
proposed EPU power level of 3,988
MWt so that the design-basis accident
analyses would be applicable to the
proposed EPU being evaluated here. In
its approval of TS Amendment No. 125,
the NRC staff concluded that (1) There
is reasonable assurance that the health
and safety of the public will not be
17975
endangered by operation in the
proposed manner, (2) such activities
will be conducted in compliance with
the Commission’s regulations, and (3)
the issuance of the amendments will not
be inimical to the common defense and
security or to the health and safety of
the public. Therefore, there would be no
significant increase in the impact
resulting from a postulated accident.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed
EPU would not result in any significant
radiological impacts. Table 2
summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at NMP2.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents ...........................
Radioactive Liquid Effluents ................................
Occupational Radiation Doses ............................
Offsite Radiation Doses ......................................
Radioactive Solid Waste .....................................
Spent Nuclear Fuel .............................................
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses ...........
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in the current environmental impacts.
However, if the EPU were not approved
for NMP2, other agencies and electric
power organizations may be required to
pursue other means, such as fossil fuel
or alternative fuel power generation, to
provide electric generation capacity to
offset future demand. Construction and
operation of such a fossil-fueled or
alternative-fueled plant may create
impacts in air quality, land use, and
waste management significantly greater
than those identified for the proposed
EPU at NMP2. Furthermore, the
proposed EPU does not involve
environmental impacts that are
significantly different from those
originally identified in the NMP2 FES
and the SEIS–24.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously
considered in the FES.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on March 2, 2010, the NRC staff
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Amount of additional radioactive gaseous effluents generated would be handled by the existing system.
Amount of additional radioactive liquid effluents generated would be handled by the existing
system.
Occupational doses would continue to be maintained within NRC limits.
Radiation doses to members of the public would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection standards.
Amount of additional radioactive solid waste generated would be handled by the existing system.
Amount of additional spent nuclear fuel would be handled by the existing system.
Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits.
consulted with the State of New York
official 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 NRC
concludes that the proposed action will
not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
application dated May 27, 2009, as
supplemented on August 28 and
December 23, 2009, and February 19,
2010.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the NRC Web site, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr.Resource@nrc.gov.
DATES: The comment period expires
May 10, 2010. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but the Commission
is only able to assure consideration of
comments received on or before May 10,
2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch
(RDB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and should cite the publication
date and page number of this Federal
Register notice. Written comments may
also be faxed to the RDB at 301–492–
3446.
The NRC
is considering issuance of an
amendment to Renewed Facility
Operating License No. NPF–69 issued to
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
for the operation of Nine Mile Point,
Unit No. 2, located in Oswego, New
York.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard V. Guzman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O–8C2A,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, by
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
17976
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Notices
telephone at (301) 415–1030, or by email at Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of April 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I–1,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–7959 Filed 4–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No.
29202; 812–13687]
WNC Tax Credits 38, LLC, WNC Tax
Credits 39, LLC, WNC Housing Tax
Credits Manager, LLC and WNC &
Associates, Inc.; Notice of Application
April 2, 2010.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’).
ACTION: Notice of an application for an
order under sections 6(c) and 6(e) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
‘‘Act’’) granting relief from all provisions
of the Act, except sections 37 through
53 of the Act and the rules and
regulations under those sections other
than rule 38a–1 under the Act.
reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–
1090. Applicants, 17782 Sky Park
Circle, Irvine, CA 92614.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, (202) 551–
6811, or Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief,
(202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment
Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following is a summary of the
application. The complete application
may be obtained via the Commission’s
Web site by searching for the file
number, or an applicant by using the
Company name box, at https://
www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by
calling (202) 551–8090.
Applicants’ Representations
1. Fund 38 and Fund 39 each was
formed as a California limited company
in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Each
Fund will operate as a ‘‘two-tier’’
partnership, i.e., each Fund will invest
as a limited partner or member in other
limited partnerships or limited liability
companies that are characterized as
Applicants: WNC Tax Credits 38, LLC partnerships for Federal income tax
(‘‘Fund 38’’) and WNC Tax Credits 39,
purposes (‘‘Local Limited Partnerships’’).
LLC (‘‘Fund 39’’) (each a ‘‘Fund,’’ and
The Local Limited Partnerships in turn
collectively, the ‘‘Funds’’), WNC
will engage in the ownership and
Housing Tax Credits Manager, LLC (the
operation of Apartment Complexes
‘‘Manager’’) and WNC & Associates, Inc.
expected to be qualified for the low
(‘‘WNC & Associates’’).
income housing tax credit under the
Summary of the Application:
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
Applicants request an order to permit
amended. The Manager is a California
each Fund to invest in limited liability
limited liability company whose sole
companies that engage in the ownership member and manager is WNC &
and operation of apartment complexes
Associates, a California corporation.
for low and moderate income persons
2. The objectives of each Fund are to
(‘‘Apartment Complexes’’).
provide current tax benefits in the form
Filing Date: The application was filed of (a) predictable stream of low income
on August 28, 2009, and amended on
housing credits which investors may
January 11, 2010, March 31, 2010, and
use to offset their Federal income tax
April 1, 2010.
liabilities and (b) tax losses.
3. Each Fund intends to conduct a
Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An
private placement of its units of limited
order granting the application will be
liability company member interest (the
issued unless the Commission orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request ‘‘Units’’) on a commencement date to be
determined by the Manager. Each
a hearing by writing to the
Fund’s placement will be conducted as
Commission’s Secretary and serving
described in, and by means of a private
applicants with a copy of the request,
placement memorandum, to be
personally or by mail. Hearing requests
supplemented periodically with
should be received by the Commission
updated information for each Fund’s
by 5:30 p.m. on April 26, 2010, and
placement (the ‘‘Memorandum’’).
should be accompanied by proof of
Purchasers of Units in a Fund will be
service on applicants, in the form of an
admitted as limited liability company
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of
members (‘‘Members’’) of the issuing
service. Hearing requests should state
Fund. The Units will be offered
the nature of the writer’s interest, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:26 Apr 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
pursuant to the exemption from the
registration requirements of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the ‘‘Securities
Act’’), provided by Rule 506 of
Regulation D under the Securities Act.
Each Member will be required, as
condition to acceptance of a
subscription, to qualify as an
‘‘accredited investor,’’ as that term is
defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D
(an ‘‘Accredited Investor’’). Each Fund
intends to offer its Units at a price to be
determined by the Manager prior to
commencement of the Fund’s
placement. The minimum investment
per Accredited Investor will be
determined prior to commencement of
the offerings. Each Fund will establish
its minimum and maximum
capitalization, and will disclose it by
supplement to its Memorandum and
deliver the supplement to all
prospective Accredited Investors prior
to subscription.
4. Each Fund will not accept any
subscriptions for Units until the
requested exemptive order is granted or
the Fund receives an opinion of counsel
that it is exempt from registration under
the Act. Subscriptions for Units must be
approved by the Manager. The
Accredited Investor will execute
representations confirming suitability
and the basis for such suitability. In
addition, transfers of Units will be
permitted only if the transferee meets
the same suitability standards as had
been imposed on the transferor Member.
5. Although a Fund’s direct control
over the management of each Apartment
Complex will be limited, the Fund’s
ownership of interests in Local Limited
Partnerships will, in an economic sense,
be the substantial equivalent of direct
ownership of the Apartment Complexes
themselves. A Fund normally will
acquire at least a 90% interest in the
profits, losses, and tax credits of the
Local Limited Partnerships. However, in
certain cases, at the discretion of the
Manager, the Fund may acquire a lesser
interest in a Local Limited Partnership.
6. Each Fund will have certain voting
rights with respect to each Local
Limited Partnership. The voting rights
will include the right to dismiss and
replace the local general partner on the
basis of performance, to approve or
disapprove a sale or refinancing of the
Apartment Complex owned by such
Local Limited Partnership, to approve or
disapprove the dissolution of the Local
Limited Partnership, and to approve or
disapprove amendments to the Local
Limited Partnership agreement
materially and adversely affecting the
Fund’s investment.
7. Each Fund will be controlled by the
Manager, pursuant to an operating
E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM
08APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17970-17976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7959]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-410; NRC-2010-0117]
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, Unit No. 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To
Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, Correction
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact; Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects a draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
appearing in the Federal Register on March 22, 2010 (75 FR 13600). This
action is necessary to state the expiration date of the 30-day public
comment period and to include instructions for submitting written
comments to the NRC. The corrected draft EA is provided as follows: In
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has prepared a draft EA as part
of its evaluation of a request by Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC
(the licensee) for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal
power at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP2) from
3,467 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,988 MWt. This represents a power
increase of approximately 15 percent over the current licensed thermal
power, and approximately 20 percent from the original licensed power
level of 3,323 MWt. The NRC staff did not identify any significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action based on its
evaluation of the information provided in the licensee's extended power
uprate (EPU) application and other available information. The draft EA
and Finding of No Significant Impact are being published in the Federal
Register with a 30-day public comment period ending May 10, 2010.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) site is in the town of
Scriba, in the northwest corner of Oswego County, New York, on the
south shore of Lake Ontario. The site is comprised of approximately 900
acres that includes two nuclear reactors and ancillary facilities. NMP2
uses a boiling-water reactor and a nuclear steam supply system designed
by General Electric.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By application dated May 27, 2009, the licensee requested an
amendment for an EPU for NMP2 to increase the licensed thermal power
level from 3,467 MWt to 3,988 MWt, which represents an increase of
approximately 15% above the current licensed thermal power and
approximately 20% over the original licensed thermal power level. This
change in core thermal level requires the NRC to amend the facility's
operating license. The operational goal of the proposed EPU is a
corresponding increase in electrical output from 1,211 MWe to 1,369
MWe. The proposed action is considered an EPU by NRC because it exceeds
the typical 7% power increase that can be accommodated with only minor
plant changes. EPUs typically involve extensive modifications to the
nuclear steam supply system.
The licensee plans to make the physical changes to plant components
needed to implement the proposed EPU over the course of two refueling
outages currently scheduled for 2010 and 2012. The actual power uprate,
if approved by the NRC, would occur in a single increase following the
2012 refueling outage.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides NMPNS with the flexibility to increase
the potential electrical output of NMP2 and to supply low cost,
reliable, and efficient electrical generation to New York State and the
region. The additional 158 MWe would be enough to power approximately
174,000 homes. The proposed EPU at NMP2 would contribute to meeting the
goals and recommendations of the New York State Energy Plan for
maintaining the reserve margin and reducing greenhouse gas emissions
with low cost, efficient, and reliable electrical generation. The
proposed action provides the licensee with the flexibility to increase
the potential electrical output of NMP2 to New York State and the
region from its existing power station without building a new electric
power generation station or importing energy from outside the region.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
As part of the licensing process for NMP2, the NRC published a
Final Environmental Statement (FES) in May 1985. The NRC staff noted
that the impact of any activity authorized by the license would be
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the FES for the
operation of NMP2. In addition, the NRC evaluated the environmental
impacts of operating NMP2 for an additional 20 years beyond its current
operating license, and determined that the environmental impacts of
license renewal were small. The NRC staff's evaluation is contained in
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plant, Supplement 24, Regarding Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2'' (SEIS-24) issued in May 2006
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
No. ML061290310). The NRC staff used information from the licensee's
license amendment request, the FES, and the SEIS-24 to perform its EA
for the proposed EPU.
The NMP2 EPU is expected to be implemented without making extensive
changes to buildings or plant systems that directly or indirectly
interface with the environment. All necessary modifications would be
performed in existing buildings at NMP2. With the exception of the
high-pressure turbine rotor replacement, the required modifications are
generally small in scope. Other modifications include providing
additional cooling for some plant systems, modifications to feedwater
pumps, modifications to accommodate greater steam and condensate flow
rates, and instrumentation upgrades that include minor items such as
replacing parts, changing setpoints and modifying software.
The sections below describe the non-radiological and radiological
impacts in the environment that may result from the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed EPU
include impacts from plant modifications at NMP2. While some plant
components would be modified, most plant changes related to the
proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards
[[Page 17971]]
housing major components within the developed part of the site. No new
construction would occur outside of existing facilities and no
expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment lay-down areas,
or transmission facilities would be required to support the proposed
EPU.
Existing parking lots, road access, equipment lay-down areas,
offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during
plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not change at
NMP2. Also, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines
(no new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission
corridors, switch yards, or substations.
Since land use conditions would not change at NMP2, and because any
land disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas, there
would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources in the vicinity of
NMP2. Therefore, there would be no significant impact from EPU-related
plant modifications on land use and aesthetic resources in the vicinity
of NMP2.
Air Quality Impacts
Air quality within the Nine Mile Point area is generally considered
good, with exceptions occurring for designated ozone nonattainment
areas. NMPNS is located in Oswego County which is part of the Central
Air Quality Control Region covered by Region 7 of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. With the exception of ozone,
this region is designated as being in attainment or unclassifiable for
all criteria pollutants in Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 40
CFR 81.333.
There are approximately 1000 people employed on a full-time basis.
This workforce is typically augmented by an additional 1,000 persons on
average during regularly scheduled refueling outages. For the EPU work
in 2012, the workforce numbers would be somewhat larger than a routine
outage, but would be of short duration. During implementation of the
EPU at NMP2, some minor and short duration air quality impacts would
occur. The main source of the air emissions would be from the vehicles
of the additional outage workers needed for the EPU work. The majority
of the EPU work would be performed inside existing buildings and would
not impact air quality. Operation of the reactor at the increased power
level would not result in increased non-radioactive emissions that
would have a significant impact on air quality in the region.
Therefore, there would be no significant impact on air quality during
and following implementation of the proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Groundwater
NMP2 does not use groundwater in any of its water systems and has
no plans for direct groundwater use in the future. There are no
production wells on the site for either domestic-type water uses or
industrial use. Potable water in the area is supplied to residents
either through the Scriba Water District, which receives its water from
the City of Oswego, or from private wells.
Because of variations in the hydrogeological characteristics of the
ground under the reactor building foundation, a permanent dewatering
system is required for NMP2. The system consists of perimeter drains
and two sumps located below the NMP2 reactor building. The dewatering
system is designed to maintain the water table below the reactor
building foundation at a stable level. The licensee asserts that
implementation of the proposed EPU will not result in a change to the
groundwater use program at NMP2. Therefore, there would be no
significant impact on groundwater resources following implementation of
the proposed EPU.
Surface Water
NMP2 uses surface water from Lake Ontario for the service water
system and for a fish diversion system. As described in the licensee's
application, the cooling water system for NMP2 consists of a
circulating water system, which circulates cooling water through the
main condensers to condense steam after it passes through the turbine,
and a service water system which circulates cooling water through heat
exchangers that serve various plant components. The service water
system for NMP2 is a once-through system withdrawing water from Lake
Ontario. However, the circulating water system is a closed-cycle system
that uses a natural draft cooling tower. A portion of the cooling water
from the service water discharge is used to replace evaporative and
drift losses from the cooling tower. NMP2 has its own cooling water
intake and discharge structures located offshore in Lake Ontario. The
intake and discharge structures are located approximately 950 feet and
1,050 feet offshore. The discharge structure is a two-port diffuser
located 3 feet above the bottom approximately 1,500 feet offshore.
Because the NMP2 circulating water system is closed-cycle, flows are
substantially less than for a typical open-cycle system. During normal
operation, an average total flow of 53,600 gallons per minute (gpm) is
withdrawn from Lake Ontario, 38,675 gpm for the service water system
and makeup to the circulating water system to replace evaporation and
drift losses from the cooling tower, and 14,925 gpm for operation of
the fish diversion system. Discharge flow from NMP2 ranges from 23,055
gpm to 35,040 gpm during operation.
The licensee estimates that cooling tower makeup water flow post-
EPU would increase by approximately 2,000-2,500 gpm; from approximately
18,000 gpm to approximately 20,000 gpm. This increase represents
consumptive use of water from Lake Ontario (e.g., due to increased
evaporative losses). This loss is not significant when compared to the
large amount of water that routinely flows out of Lake Ontario
(approximate long-term average of 107,700,000 gpm). Therefore, there
would be no significant impact on surface water resources following
implementation of the proposed EPU.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action
could include impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharge effects.
NMP2 has a fish diversion system at the onshore facility to reduce
potential impingement of fish on the intake screens. The proposed EPU
is expected to result in a 2000-2,500 gpm increase in cooling tower
makeup. However, this makeup water is drawn entirely from the plant's
service water discharge, and service water intake flows would remain
unchanged by the EPU. As a result, there would be no increase in
cooling water withdrawn from the NMP2 intake structure. Therefore,
there would be no increase in impingement from the proposed EPU and the
increase in entrainment losses, if any, would be very small, and would
remain consistent with the NRC's conclusion in the SEIS-24, that the
aquatic impacts as a result of NMP2 operation during the term of
license renewal would be small.
The issues of discharge water temperature and chemical discharges
are regulated by the State of New York with limits specified in the
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. According
to the licensee, the temperature of the discharge water is expected to
increase by a maximum of 2 [deg]F as a result of the EPU. In addition,
a modeling study performed by the licensee in 2007 of the thermal plume
of NMP2 indicated only a minor increase in thermal discharge would be
expected from the EPU. Technical reviews and analyses
[[Page 17972]]
performed by the licensee indicate that the combined service water and
blowdown discharge from NMP2 would remain compliant with current limits
in the SPDES permit for thermal and physical parameters during both
normal operation and normal shutdown conditions.
The circulating water system and service water system for NMP2 are
treated with biocides to control biofouling from zebra mussels
(Dreissena polymorpha) and other organisms, and with other chemical
additives to control scaling and corrosion of system components. The
licensee's application notes that several of the chemicals used for the
above treatments are subject to specific limits in the NMP2 SPDES
permit.
Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts to the
aquatic biota from entrainment, impingement, and from thermal
discharges for the proposed action.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
The NMPNS site consists of approximately 900 acres, with over 1
mile of shoreline on Lake Ontario. Approximately 188 acres are used for
power generation and support facilities. Much of the remaining area is
undeveloped, consisting largely of deciduous forest with some old field
and shrub land areas that reflect continuing succession of old fields
to secondary forest. As previously discussed in the land use and
aesthetic section, the proposed action would not affect land use at
NMP2. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on terrestrial
biota associated with the proposed action.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Animal species found on the NMP2 site are representative of those
found within disturbed landscapes of the lower Great Lakes region, and
include white-tailed deer and a variety of smaller mammals, reptiles
and amphibians. Correspondence between the licensee and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) in connection with the NMPNS license renewal
environmental review indicated that no federally endangered,
threatened, or candidate aquatic species are likely to reside in the
vicinity of the NMP2 site. According to the licensee's application and
information in the SEIS-24, with the exception of the Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis) and occasional transient individuals of the piping
plover (Charadrius melodus) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) (now delisted), no other species listed by the FWS as
endangered or threatened are likely to reside on the NMPNS site or
along Nine Mile Point to the Clay transmission corridor. However,
recent onsite surveys conducted by the licensee indicate that there is
low likelihood of occurrence for Indiana bat and piping plover because
there is no suitable habitat on the site or along the transmission
corridor. Regardless, planned construction-related activities related
to the proposed EPU primarily involve changes to existing structures,
systems, and components internal to existing buildings, would not
involve earth disturbance. While traffic and worker activity in the
developed parts of the plant site during the 2012 refueling outage
would be somewhat greater than a normal refueling outage, the potential
impact on terrestrial wildlife would be minor and temporary.
Since there are no planned changes to the terrestrial wildlife
habitat on the NMPNS site from the proposed EPU and the potential
impacts from worker activity would be minor and temporary, there would
be no significant impacts to any threatened or endangered species for
the proposed action.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts
As reported in the SEIS-24, the NRC reviewed historic and
archaeological site files in New York, and confirmed that historic and
archaeological resources have been identified in the vicinity of NMP2,
but no archaeological and historic architectural sites have been
recorded on the licensee's site. In addition, the New York State
Historic Preservation Office confirmed that while there are no known
archaeological sites within the plant site, the Preservation Office
considers Nine Mile Point to be an area that is sensitive for cultural
resources because of its environmental setting. However, as reported in
the SEIS-24, a site visit performed by NRC staff in 2004 found the
presence of archaeological remains associated with several mapped
historic locations within the plant lands. For the proposed EPU, the
licensee asserts that there would be no new land disturbance activities
and there are no plans to construct new facilities or modify existing
access roads, parking areas, or equipment lay-down areas. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact from the proposed EPU on historic
and archaeological resources at NMP2.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include
temporary increases in the size of the workforce at NMP2 and associated
increased demand for public services and housing in the region. The
proposed EPU could also increase tax payments due to increased power
generation.
Currently, there are approximately 1,000 full-time workers employed
at NMPNS, residing primarily in Oswego County and Onondaga County, New
York. During refueling outages approximately every 12 months at NMPNS
(every 24 months for each unit) the number of workers at NMPNS
increases by as many as 1,000 workers for 30 to 40 days.
The proposed EPU is expected to temporarily increase the size of
the workforce at NMPNS during the spring 2010 and 2012 refueling
outages. The greatest increase would occur during the spring 2012
outage when the majority of the EPU-related modifications would take
place. Once completed, the size of the refueling outage workforce at
NMPNS would return to normal levels and would remain relatively the
same during future refueling outages. The size of the regular plant
operations workforce would be unaffected by the proposed EPU.
Most of the EPU plant modification workers would be expected to
relocate temporarily to Oswego and Onondaga counties, resulting in
short-term increases in the local population along with increased
demands for public services and housing. Because plant modification
work would be short-term, most workers would stay in available rental
homes, apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. Therefore, a
temporary increase in plant employment for a short duration would have
little or no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in the
region.
NMPNS currently pays annual real estate property taxes to the City
of Oswego School District, Oswego County, and the Town of Scriba. The
annual amount of property taxes paid by NMPNS could increase due to
``incentive payments'' should NMP2 megawatt production exceed
negotiated annual benchmarks as power generation increases. Future
property tax agreements with Oswego County, the Town of Scriba, and the
City of Oswego could also take into account the increased value of NMP2
as a result of the EPU implementation and increased power generation.
Due to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification
activities, there would be little or no noticeable effect on tax
revenues generated by temporary workers residing in Oswego County and
Onondaga County. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse
socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related plant modifications and
[[Page 17973]]
operations under EPU conditions in the vicinity of NMP2.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
activities associated with EPU operation at NMP2. Environmental effects
may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Minority
and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing
in the vicinity of NMP2, and all are exposed to the same health and
environmental effects generated from activities at NMP2.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis
The NRC staff considered the demographic composition of the area
within a 50-mile (80-km) radius of NMP2 to determine the location of
minority and low-income populations and whether they may be affected by
the proposed action.
Minority populations in the vicinity of NMP2, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2000, indicate that 11.8% of the population
(approximately 908,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile (80-km)
radius of NMP2 identified themselves as minority individuals. The
largest minority group was Black or African American (approximately
63,000 persons or 7.0%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (approximately
22,000 persons or about 2.4%). According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
about 3.5% of the Oswego County population identified themselves as
minorities, with persons of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising the
largest minority group (1.3%). According to census data, the 3-year
average estimate for 2006-2008 for the minority population of Oswego
County, as a percent of total population, increased to 4.4%.
According to 2000 census data, approximately 19,600 families and
105,000 individuals (approximately 8.4 and 11.5%, respectively)
residing within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of NMP2 were identified as
living below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal
poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four.
According to census data in the 2006-2008 American Community Survey
3-Year Estimates, the median household income for New York was $55,401,
while 13.8% of the State population and 10.5% of families were
determined to be living below the Federal poverty threshold. Oswego
County had a lower median household income average ($43,643) and higher
percentages (16.0%) of individuals and families (11.2%) living below
the poverty level, respectively.
Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would
mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise,
dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and
dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite activities.
Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads
could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift
changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing during the
refueling outages that include EPU-related plant modifications could
disproportionately affect low-income populations, however, due to the
short duration of the EPU-related work and the expected availability of
rental properties, impacts to minority and low-income populations would
be short-term and limited.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity
of NMP2.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant non-radiological impacts. Table 1 summarizes the non-
radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at NMP2.
Table 1--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use.......................... No significant impact on land use
conditions and aesthetic resources
in the vicinity of NMP2.
Air Quality....................... Temporary short-term air quality
impacts from vehicle emissions
related to the workforce. No
significant impacts to air quality.
Water Use......................... Water use changes resulting from the
EPU would be relatively
minor. No significant impact on
groundwater or surface water
resources.
Aquatic Resources................. No significant impact to aquatic
resources due to impingement,
entrainment, or thermal discharge.
Terrestrial Resources............. No significant impact to terrestrial
resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species. No significant impact to Federally
listed species.
Historic and Archaeological No significant impact to historic
Resources. and archaeological resources on
site or in the vicinity of NMP2.
Socioeconomics.................... No significant socioeconomic impacts
from EPU-related temporary increase
in workforce.
Environmental Justice............. No disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority
and low-income populations in the
vicinity of NMP2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and
Solid Waste
Nuclear power plants use waste treatment systems to collect,
process, recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that
contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC
and EPA radiation safety standards. Operation at the proposed EPU
conditions would not require any physical changes to the gaseous,
liquid, or solid waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
Radioactive gaseous wastes principally include radioactive gases
extracted from the steam condenser offgas system and the turbine gland
seal. The radioactive gaseous waste management system uses holdup
(i.e., time delay to achieve radioactive decay) and filtration (i.e.,
high efficiency filters) to reduce the gaseous radioactivity that is
released into the environment. The licensee's evaluation concluded that
the proposed EPU would not change the radioactive gaseous waste
licensing basis and the system's design criteria. In addition, the
existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive
releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive gaseous releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302,
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50, and 40 CFR part 190.
[[Page 17974]]
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
Radioactive liquid wastes include liquids from various equipment
drains, floor drains, containment sumps, chemistry laboratory, laundry
drains, and other sources. An evaluation performed by the licensee
demonstrates that implementation of the proposed EPU would not
significantly increase the inventory of liquid normally processed by
the liquid waste management system. This conclusion is based on the
fact that the radioactive liquid waste system functions are not
changing and the volume inputs would increase less than 10%, which is
not an appreciable increase when compared to the liquid radioactive
waste system capacity. The proposed EPU would result in a small
increase in the equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor coolant which
in turn would impact the concentrations of radionuclides entering the
waste disposal systems.
Since the liquid volume does not increase appreciably, and the
radiological sources remain bounded by the existing design basis, the
current design and operation of the radioactive liquid waste system
will accommodate the effects of EPU with no changes. In addition, the
existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive
releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302,
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50, and 40 CFR part 190.
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU Conditions
In-plant radiation levels and associated occupational doses are
controlled by the NMPNS Radiation Protection Program to ensure that
internal and external radiation exposures to station personnel,
contractor personnel, and the general population will be as low as is
reasonably achievable (ALARA). For plant workers, the program monitors
radiation levels throughout the plant to establish work controls,
training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so
that worker doses will remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20
and ALARA.
The licensee's analysis indicate that in-plant radiation sources
are anticipated to increase linearly with the increase in core power
level (approximately 15% greater than the current licensed thermal
power), except for nitrogen-16 (N-16) which is expected to increase
approximately 30% due to increased steam flow and pressure in some
components. Shielding is used throughout NMP2 to protect personnel
against radiation emanating from the reactor and the auxiliary systems.
For conservatism, many aspects of NMP2 were originally designed for
higher-than-expected radiation sources. NMPNS has determined that the
current shielding design is adequate for the increase in radiation
levels that may occur after the proposed EPU. Thus, the increase in
radiation levels would not affect radiation zoning or shielding in the
various areas of NMP2 because of the conservatism in the original
design. Therefore, no changes are planned to the plant's shielding
design and the ALARA program would continue in its current form.
Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of normal operation offsite dose to members of
the public at NMP2 are airborne releases from the Offgas System and
direct dose from gamma radiation (skyshine) from the plant turbines
containing radioactive material. During reactor operation, the reactor
coolant passing through the core region becomes radioactive as a result
of nuclear reactions. The dominant radiation source in the coolant
passing through the turbine is N-16. The activation of the water in the
reactor core is in approximate proportion to the increase in thermal
power. However, while the magnitude of the radioactive source
production increases in proportion to reactor power, the concentration
in the steam remains nearly constant. This is because the increase in
activation production is balanced by the increase in steam flow. The
implementation of the proposed EPU could increase components of offsite
dose due to releases of gaseous and liquid effluents by up to 20%. The
component of offsite dose due to N-16 radiation emanating from the
turbine could increase by as much as 30%. The licensee calculated that
the increase in offsite dose from radioactive gaseous and liquid
effluents, and skyshine from NMP2 under EPU operating conditions is
expected to be less than 1 mrem (0.01mSv) per year. The historical
(2003-2007) annual doses to a member of the public located outside the
NMPNS site boundary from NMP2's radioactive emissions ranged from 0.18
mrem (0.0018 mSv) to 2.01 mrem (0.0201 mSv). These doses are well below
the 10 CFR part 20 annual dose limit of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) for members
of the public and the EPA's 40 CFR part 190 annual dose standard of 25
mrem (0.25 mSv). Therefore, while the offsite dose to members of the
public under EPU conditions is expected to increase slightly, it is
expected to remain within regulatory limits. Based on the above, the
potential increase in offsite radiation dose to members of the public
would not be significant.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
The radioactive solid waste system collects, processes, packages,
monitors, and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes
prior to shipment offsite for disposal. Solid radioactive waste streams
include filter sludge, spent ion exchange resin, and dry active waste
(DAW). DAW includes paper, plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor
sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types of waste routinely generated
during site maintenance and outages. The EPU does not generate a new
type of waste or create a new waste stream. Therefore, the types of
radioactive waste that require shipment are unchanged. The licensee's
evaluation indicates that the effect of the EPU on solid waste is
primarily from increased input to the reactor water cleanup system
(WCS) and condensate demineralizers. The increased use of the WCS and
condensate demineralizers is expected to increase the volume of spent
ion exchange resins and filter sludge. The licensee's analysis
indicates that the estimated increase in solid radioactive waste is
approximately 7%, and can be handled by the existing solid waste
management system without modification. Therefore, the impact from the
increased volume of solid radioactive waste generated under conditions
of the proposed EPU would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from NMP2 is stored in the plant's spent fuel pool. The
additional energy requirements for the proposed EPU would be met by an
increase in fuel enrichment, an increase in the reload fuel batch size,
and/or changes in the fuel loading pattern to maintain the desired
plant operating cycle length. NMP2 is currently licensed to use
uranium-dioxide fuel that has a maximum enrichment of 4.95% by weight
uranium-235. The typical average enrichment is approximately 4.20% by
weight uranium-235. For the proposed action, the core design would use
a somewhat higher fuel enrichment (4.36%), which remains within the
licensed maximum enrichment. The EPU fuel batch size would increase
from 276 bundles to 352 bundles. The licensee's fuel reload design
goals would maintain the NMP2 fuel cycles within the limits bounded by
the impacts analyzed in 10 CFR part 51, Table S-3--Table of Uranium
Fuel
[[Page 17975]]
Cycle Environmental Data and Table S-4--Environmental Impact of
Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Reactor. Therefore, there would be no significant impact
resulting from spent nuclear fuel.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
Postulated design-basis accidents are evaluated by both the
licensee and the NRC staff to ensure that NMP2 can withstand normal and
abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents,
without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. The NRC
staff previously evaluated and approved an amendment to the NMP2
license (Technical Specification Amendment No. 125, dated May 29, 2008,
ADAMS Accession No. ML081230439) which permitted full implementation of
the Alternative Source Term (AST) as described in NRC Regulatory Guide
1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.'' The licensee's AST
analysis was performed at the proposed EPU power level of 3,988 MWt so
that the design-basis accident analyses would be applicable to the
proposed EPU being evaluated here. In its approval of TS Amendment No.
125, the NRC staff concluded that (1) There is reasonable assurance
that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by
operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted
in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance
of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and
security or to the health and safety of the public. Therefore, there
would be no significant increase in the impact resulting from a
postulated accident.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at NMP2.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents..... Amount of additional radioactive
gaseous effluents generated would
be handled by the existing system.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents...... Amount of additional radioactive
liquid effluents generated would be
handled by the existing system.
Occupational Radiation Doses...... Occupational doses would continue to
be maintained within NRC limits.
Offsite Radiation Doses........... Radiation doses to members of the
public would remain below NRC and
EPA radiation protection standards.
Radioactive Solid Waste........... Amount of additional radioactive
solid waste generated would be
handled by the existing system.
Spent Nuclear Fuel................ Amount of additional spent nuclear
fuel would be handled by the
existing system.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Calculated doses for postulated
Doses. design-basis accidents would remain
within NRC limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current
environmental impacts. However, if the EPU were not approved for NMP2,
other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to
pursue other means, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power
generation, to provide electric generation capacity to offset future
demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-fueled or
alternative-fueled plant may create impacts in air quality, land use,
and waste management significantly greater than those identified for
the proposed EPU at NMP2. Furthermore, the proposed EPU does not
involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from
those originally identified in the NMP2 FES and the SEIS-24.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the FES.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 2, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the State of New York official 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 NRC concludes that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated May 27, 2009, as supplemented on August 28
and December 23, 2009, and February 19, 2010.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS
Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, 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.Resource@nrc.gov.
DATES: The comment period expires May 10, 2010. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is only able to assure consideration of comments received on
or before May 10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch (RDB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative Services, Office
of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be faxed to the
RDB at 301-492-3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of an
amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69 issued to
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, for the operation of Nine Mile
Point, Unit No. 2, located in Oswego, New York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard V. Guzman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-8C2A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by
[[Page 17976]]
telephone at (301) 415-1030, or by e-mail at Richard.Guzman@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of April 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-7959 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P