ML071040020

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 60 FRN 3278

ML071040020
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/13/1995
From:	Poslusny C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
60 FRN 3278
Download: ML071040020 (3)

Text

3278 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices Alternate Use of Resources license. The letter of February 7, 1994, Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the This action does not involve the use provided responses to the staffs Topical Report discussed the potential of any resources not considered questions regarding this action. The effect of power uprate on the liquid, previously in the Final Environmental proposed amendment would increase gaseous, and solid radwaste systems.

Statements for Dresden, Units 2 and 3, the licensed core thermal power from Sections 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 discussed the dated November 1973. 3293 MWt to 3441 MWt, which potential effect of power uprate on represents an approximate increase of radiation sources within the plant and Agencies and Persons Consulted 4.5% over the current licensed power radiation levels from normal and post-The staff consulted with the State of level. accident operation. Section 9.2 of the Illinois regarding the environmental The proposed action involves NRC Topical Report presented the results of impact of the proposed action. The State issuance of a license amendment to the calculated whole body and thyroid had no comments. uprate the authorized power level by doses at uprated power versus current changing the operating license, authorized power conditions at the Finding of No Significant Impact including Appendix A of the license exclusion area boundary and the low The Commission has determined not (Technical Specifications). No change is population zone (LPZ) that might result to prepare an environmental impact needed to Appendix B of the license from the postulated design basis statement for the proposed exemption. (Environmental Protection PlanNon- radiological accidents [i.e., loss-of-Based upon the foregoing radiological). coolant accident (LOCA), main steam environmental assessment, the NRC The Need for the Proposed Action line break accident (MSLBA) outside staff concludes that the proposed action containment, fuel handling accident will not have a significant effect on the The proposed action is needed to (FHA) and control rod drop accident quality of the human environment. permit an increase in the licensed core (CRDA)]. Other accidents (non-LOCA)

For further details with respect to this thermal power from 3293 MWt to 3441 that were previously analyzed in the Action, see the Licensees request for MWt and provide the licensee with the licensees Final Safety Analysis Report exemption dated November 23, 1994, flexibility to increase the potential (FSAR) were also reassessed. All off-site which is available for public inspection electrical output of Susquehanna, Unit radiological doses remain well below at the Commissions Public Document 1, providing additional electrical power established regulatory limits for power Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L to service domestic and commercial uprate operation.

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at areas of the Pennsylvania Power and the Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty Light (PP&L) Company and Allegheny Supplemental information related to Street, Morris, Illinois 60451. Electric Cooperative, Inc. grid. the non-radiological environmental assessment was also presented in the Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day Environmental Impacts of the Proposed licensees letter of February 7, 1994.

of January 1995. Action For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensee summarized their The Final Environmental Statement reassessment of potential radiological John F. Stang, (FES) related to operation of and non-radiological impacts of station Acting Director, Project Directorate III-2, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Division of Reactor ProjectsIII/IV Office of operation at a slightly higher power Units 1 and 2 was issued June 1981 level as follows:

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. (NUREG-0564). By letter of June 15,

[FR Doc.95-919 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am] 1992, the licensee submitted Licensing Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment BILLING CODE 7590-01-M Topical Report NE-092-001 for Power Since power uprate will not significantly Uprate with Increased Core Flow for change the methods of generating electricity, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station nor of handling any influents from the

[Docket No. 50-387]

(SSES), Units 1 and 2. The report was environment or effluents to it, no new or Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., submitted to support future proposed different environmental impacts are amendments to Units 1 and 2 licenses expected. The conservative models and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.,

to permit up to a 4.5-percent increase in methods used in the environmental Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, assessments of the original design, confirmed Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and reactor thermal power and an 8-percent by studies conducted during actual Finding of No Significant Impact increase in core flow for each unit. The operation, show that more than adequate NRC approved the topical report by margin exists for the proposed power uprate The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory letter of November 30, 1993. The Commission (the Commission) is without exceeding the non-radiological licensee submitted a proposed environmental effects estimated in the considering issuance of an amendment amendment to implement power uprate original estimates and analyses and cited in to Facility Operating License No. NPF- for Unit 2 by a letter of November 24, the original permit applications and impact 14, issued to Pennsylvania Power and 1993, which was addressed in an statements.

Light Company (PP&L, the licensee), for environmental assessment issued by the The maximum withdrawal rate from the operation of the Susquehanna Steam staff on March 11, 1994. The river will increase from the current value of Electric Station, Unit 1, located in amendment for power uprate and 38,800 gpm to 40,700 gpm after power Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. increased core flow for Unit 2 was uprate, an increase of 5%. The maximum issued on April 11, 1994. The subject of blowdown rate will increase from the current Environmental Assessment value of 10,300 gpm to 10,800 gpm, an this assessment is the power uprate and Identification of Proposed Action increase of 5%.

increased core flow for Unit 1. After reviewing the additional water This environmental assessment has Section II.4 of the above Topical withdrawal requirements and increased been prepared to address potential Report provided an environmental blowdown rate from the natural draft cooling environmental issues related to the assessment of the proposed power towers at the Susuqehanna SES (SSES) licensees application of July 27, 1994, uprate, including projected non- associated with power uprate, PP&L as supplemented September 16, October radiological environmental effects and determined that there will be no adverse 27, and November 17, 1994, to amend radiological effects from postulated effects to the river flow or river biota. This the Susquehanna, Unit 1 operating accidents. conclusion is based on two factors. First, the

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3279 projected number of fish estimated to be uprate. The pre-uprate levels of cycles of power uprate. This includes the reactor impinged per day would increase from 20 to concentration will be maintained. Since there coolant system, the condensate, 21 and the number of larvae estimated to be will be a 5% increase in blowdown flow, feedwater and steam systems, the entrained would increase by only 13,000 to there will be a 5% increase in chemical 363,000 per day. Biologically, these emergency service water system, the discharge to the river.

estimated increases represent a negligible The velocity of the intake water will reactor and turbine building closed impact to the river ecosystem. Second, the increase by 5% to .37 ft/sec with power cooling water systems or any of the maximum cooling tower blowdown flow uprate which is below the recommended normal service water systems. The only after power uprate is estimated to increase by intake design velocity of 0.5 ft/sec. effect of power uprate on the component only 5% which amounts to 500 gpm. This Sound level monitoring was conducted at cooling water system and turbine plant amounts to less than .5% of the average river both near site (less than 1 mile) and far site cooling water system from power uprate flow. locations (greater than 1 mile) from the is an increased heat load. The service The cooling blowdown from the cooling Susquehanna SES site from 1972 and 1985.

tower basin is through a diffuser into the water system removes heat from the This survey was conducted prior to and river. The characteristics of the cooling tower during construction and during one and two heat exchangers in the turbine, reactor are such that there is greater air flow through unit operation. The two Cooling Towers were and radwaste buildings and transfers the tower caused by the higher circulating identified to be one of the major site noise this heat to the cooling towers where it water return temperature at power uprate sources. The cumulative effects of all noise is dissipated. The increased heat load conditions. This increased air flow removes sources associated with station operation on intermediate systems is reflected in the additional heat load resulting in were determined to be less than the U.S. the discussion of potential impacts from negligible cooling tower basin temperature Environmental Protection Agency changes. increased cooling tower blowdown and recommended day-note equivalent sound thermal discharges remain acceptable.

Estimates, assuming that both SSES level limit of 55 DBA at all monitoring cooling towers are operating at the original Inventory makeup is not affected.

locations. It is not expected that this level 100% power level for a year, would result in will be exceeded at any of the locations with Makeup requirements for the auxiliary 58,000 pounds of solids per year as salt drift, the possible exception of an area boiler, the fire protection system or spread over a large area. Modelling indicated other auxiliary systems are unaffected approximately 2,200 feed southeast of the the heaviest localized deposition of solids by power uprate.

Cooling Towers where the measured sound would be 3 pounds/acre/year (SSES The licensee has stated that there are level including a nighttime weighting factor Environmental Report Section 5.3.4). The power uprate should have no impact on these of +10 DBA was 54 DBA. Sound levels will no changes required to the SSES estimates, especially with the conservatism be monitored at power uprate conditions. Environmental Protection Plan as a built into the model by assuming 100% As indicated previously, water discharge result of operation at uprated power.

capacity factor. Note also that the design flow from power uprate may increase 5% Specifically, the licensee stated:

cooling tower drift is a function of circulating above the design discharge rate to 10,800 gpm. This is well below the maximum flow Chapter 3, Consistency Requirements, water flow which is not changing for power Section 3.1, Plant Design Operations, of this uprate. of 16,000 gpm reviewed in the SSES Environmental Report (Table 3.3-1 and, plan discusses how proposed changes need Studies on the possible effects of salt drift to be addressed. Through the PP&L have been conducted at the SSES since 1977. therefore, the additional flow from power uprate is not considered to be an adverse Unreviewed Environmental Question These studies have included monthly Program, changes such as that of power examination of natural vegetation during the impact to the river.

At the Susquehanna SES cooling tower uprate will be reviewed.

growing season (1977 to date), annual An Unreviewed Environmental Question quantitative vegetation studies (1977 to date), blowdown discharges into the river through a diffuser pipe located on the river bottom. evaluation was conducted in accordance a two-year study on the effect of simulated with each units Environmental Protection salt drfit on corn and soybeans (1985-86), Velocity of this discharge was calculated in Appendix G, Thermal Discharge, Response 1, Plan to determine if power uprate could and annual forest inspections since 1982. cause any significant environmental impacts.

The monthly examinations have utilized pages THE-1.1 and 1.2 of the Environmental This included a review of the National several transects (salt drift transects) in the Report. Water discharges through 72-4 ports Pollutant Discharge Elimination System vicinity of the power station for possible salt into the river. The velocity associated with a (NPDES) Permit and other environmental damage to natural vegetation and incidence 10,000 gpm discharge was calculated to be permits, and indicated that power uprate of parasitic plant diseases. The annual 5.83 fps and rounded to 6 fps. This rounded should not contribute to any new vegetation studies consider possible long- off value was used when preparing [the] noncompliances. No significant increase in term changes in forest utilized salt spray SSES Environmental Report. The velocity generation of hazardous or nonhazardous approximating the composition of the cooling associated with a 10,800 gpm discharge is waste is expected, except for a 3 to 5%

tower drift from the SSES at worst case also approximate 6 fps. increase in sediment removed from the concentration on agricultural crops in two Thermal plume studies conducted in the cooling tower. Nor is any change expected in fields. fall, winter, and spring of 1986-87 indicated the load on the sewage treatment plant. River None of the studies have found evidence a maximum temperature rise of 1° F within water use will remain within the existing for damage to agricultural crops or natural an 80 foot mixing zone from the diffuser agreement with the Susquehanna River vegetation from salt drift. It should be noted pipe. Present Pennsylvania Department of Basi[n] Commission. PP&L has determined that the water used at the SSES (from the Environmental Resources water quality that power uprate is not an unreviewed Susquehanna River) does not contain the criteria states that ambient river temperature environmental question.

same salts as brackish water used at estuarine rise from thermal discharges shall not cause The proposed power uprate therefore coo[l]ing tower[s]; its effects are more like the temperature in the receiving water body requires no changes to the Environmental plant micronutrients. The natural vegetation to rise more than 2° F in one hour. The Protection Plans since it does not involve:

studies over 15 years have found no salt drift thermal discharges from the cooling tower (a) A significant increase in any adverse damage and plant diseases in accordance blowdown from power uprate will not environmental impact previously evaluated with host presence and location. The exceed this water quality criteria. in the Environmental ReportOperating simulated salt drift studies utilized Chemical composition of the blowdown License Stage, or the Final Environmental concentrations estimated at 5 and 10 times after power uprate will not exceed the Statement, or in any decision of the Atomic maximum salt drift concentration in the NPDES permit limits. Safety and Licensing Board; SSES plume. It is therefore unlikely that salt (b) A significant change in effluents or drift damage would occur from an The staff reviewed the potential effect power levels, or approximate 5% consumptive rise in water of power uprate on plant makeup water (c) A matter not previously reviewed and usage. usage. There will be no significant evaluated in the documents specified in There will be no changes to the cooling increase in makeup water requirements paragraph (a) which might have a significant tower water chemistry as a result of power for any plant systems as a result of adverse environmental impact.

3280 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices Radiological Environmental Assessment the types of any effluents that may be dated February 7, 1994. These As discussed previously, the licensee released offsite, and there is no documents are available for public addressed potential radiological impacts significant increase in the allowable inspection at the Commissions Public attributable to operation at uprated individual or cumulative occupational Document Room, The Gelman Building, power conditions in Sections 8, 9, and radiation exposure. Accordingly, the 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and 11 of the initial Topical Report. The Commission concludes that this at the Osterhout Free Library, Reference licensee concluded: proposed action would result in no Department, 71 South Franklin Street, significant radiological environmental Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.

Adequate margin also exists for the impacts.

proposed power uprate without exceeding Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day With regard to potential non- of January 1995.

regulatory limits for radiological effects.

Current operating experience indicates that radiological impacts, the proposed For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

actual releases and waste disposal after action will not have a significant impact Chester Poslusny, power uprate will continue to be on the environs located outside the Acting Director, Project Directorate I-2, significantly less than the original estimates. restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part Division of Reactor ProjectsI/II, Office of For these reasons, power uprate is not 20 or significantly affect non- Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

expected to have an adverse effect on the radiological plant effluent or other [FR Doc.95-920 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]

routine operation dose commitment environmental impacts. Therefore, the estimated by previous radiological BILLING CODE 7590-01-M Commission concludes that this environmental analyses, and no revision of these analyses is required.

proposed action would result in no The environmental assessment includes an significant non-radiological Regulatory Guide; Issuance, estimate of potential exposure from all environmental impacts. Availability accident types combined. Regulatory Guide Alternatives to the Proposed Action 1.49 requires calculation of accident doses at The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 102% of uprated thermal power, or 3510 Since the Commission has concluded has issued for public comment a MWt. Although direct comparison with the there is no significant environmental proposed revision to a guide in its original analyses is not meaningful because impact associated with the proposed Regulatory Guide Series. This series has of changes in methodology, a comparison on action, any alternatives with equal or been developed to describe and make a consistent basis would show that the greater environmental impact need not available to the public such information expected dose is approximately proportional as methods acceptable to the NRC staff be evaluated.

to power. The original calculation was done for implementing specific parts of the at 3439 MWt. The estimated potential The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the request. Such Commissions regulations, techniques exposure from all accident types combined will therefore change by about the ratio of action would not enhance the protection used by the staff in evaluating specific 3510/3439, or about 2 percent, which is not of the environment and would result in problems or postulated accidents, and a significant change compared to the preventing the facility from having the data needed by the staff in its review of uncertainty in the probability estimates. No flexibility to generate the approximately applications for permits and licenses.

revision of these analyses is therefore additional 50 megawatts that are The draft guide, temporarily required. obtainable from the existing plant. identified by its task number, DG-8012

[Liquid radwaste throughput may increase (which should be mentioned in all up to 5% to a level which is within the Alternative Use of Resources correspondence concerning this draft processing capability of the system.] The This action does not involve the use guide), is a proposed Revision 1 to activity levels of some radwaste streams Regulatory Guide 8.29, Instruction containing coolant activation products may of any resources not previously increase up to 10%, due to the 4.5% core flux considered in the Final Environmental Concerning Risks from Occupational increase and a 5% crud increase to the Statement related to the operation of Radiation Exposure. This guide is reactor which are assumed to occur. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, being revised to provide guidance on Since the power uprate level of 3441 MWt Units 1 and 2, dated June 1981. the instructions and information that is not significantly different from that should be provided to workers by analyzed previously, it is not anticipated Agencies and Persons Consulted licensees about health risks from there will be a significant increase in The Commissions staff reviewed the occupational radiation exposure.

radiological effluents. Also, pre-power uprate licensees request and consulted with This draft guide is being issued to technical specification limits will be the Bureau of Radiation Protection, involve the public in the early stages of maintained. the development of a regulatory position Pennsylvania Department of The Commission has completed its Environmental Resources. The State in this area. It has not received complete evaluation of the proposed action and Liaison Officer had no comment staff review and does not represent an the licensees evaluation of the potential regarding the NRCs proposed action. official NRC staff position.

radiological and non-radiological Public comments are being solicited impacts. The Commission found that Finding of No Significant Impact on the draft guide. Comments should be the FES (NUREG-0564) is valid for Based upon the environmental accompanied by supporting data.

operation at the proposed uprated assessment, the Commission concludes Written comments may be submitted to power conditions for SSES Unit 1 (the that the proposed action will not have the Rules Review and Directives Branch, second uprated unit at the site). The a significant effect on the quality of the Division of Freedom of Information and Commission also concluded that the human environment. Accordingly, the Publications Services, Office of plant operating parameters impacted by Commission has determined not to Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the proposed uprate would remain prepare an environmental impact Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

within the bounding conditions on statement for the proposed action. Comments will be most helpful if which the conclusions of the FES are For further details with respect to this received by March 15, 1995.

based. action, see the application for Comments may be submitted The change will not increase the amendment dated July 27, 1994, as electronically, in either ASCII text or probability or consequences of supplemented September 16, October Wordperfect format (version 5.1 or accidents, no changes are being made in 27, and November 17, 1994, and letter later), by calling the NRC Electronic