[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8255-8259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3520]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]


Philadelphia Electric Co.; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 
and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-85, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company, (the licensee), for 
operation of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
December 9, 1993, as supplemented July 5, September 9, October 19, 
November 19, 1994, January 6, and January 23, 1995, to amend the 
Limerick Generating [[Page 8256]] Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2 
operating licenses. The proposed amendment would increase the licensed 
thermal power level from 3293 Mwt to 3458 Mwt. This request is in 
accordance with the generic boiling water reactor (BWR) power uprate 
program established by the General Electric Company (GE) and approved 
by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in a letter of 
September 30, 1991.
    The proposed action involves NRC issuance of a license amendment to 
increase the authorized power level by changing the operating license, 
including Appendix A of the license (Technical Specifications). No 
change is needed to Appendix B of the license (Environmental Protection 
Plan--Non-radiological).

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to permit an increase in the licensed 
core thermal power from 3293 Mwt to 3458 Mwt and provide the licensee 
with the flexibility to increase the potential electrical output of 
LGS, Units 1 and 2, providing additional electrical power to service 
domestic and commercial areas.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The ``Final Environmental Statement (FES) Related to Operation of 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2'' was issued April 1984 
(NUREG-0974). The licensee submitted GE Topical Report, NEDC-32225P, 
``Power Rerate Safety Analysis Report for Limerick Generating Station, 
Units 1 and 2,'' Class III, dated September 1993, as Attachment 3 to 
the December 9, 1993 submittal. NEDC-32225P contains the safety 
analysis prepared by GE to support this license change request and the 
implementation of power uprate at LGS, Units 1 and 2. The analyses and 
evaluations supporting these proposed changes were completed using the 
guidelines in GE Topical Report NEDC-31897P-A, ``Generic Guidelines for 
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Class 3, dated 
May 1992, and NEDC-31948P, ``Generic Evaluations of General Electric 
Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Class III, dated July 1991. The 
NRC reviewed and approved GE Topical Reports NEDC-31897P-A and NEPC-
31948P in a September 30, 1991, letter and in a letter from W. Russell, 
NRC, to P. Marriotte, GE, dated July 31, 1992.
    The licensee provided information regarding the nonradiological and 
radiological environmental effects of the proposed action in the 
December 9, 1993 application and supplemental information in the 
January 6, and January 23, 1995 submittal. The staff has reviewed the 
potential radiological and non-radiological effects of the proposed 
action on the environment as described below.

Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment

    Power uprate will not change the method of generating electricity 
nor the method of handling any influents from nor effluents to the 
environment. Therefore, no new or different types of environmental 
impacts are expected.
    The staff reviewed the nonradiological impact of operation at 
uprated power levels on influents from the Perkiomen Creek, Schuylkill 
and Delaware Rivers and effluents to the Schuylkill River. LGS, Units 1 
and 2 each have a closed-loop circulating water system and cooling 
tower for dissipating heat from the main turbine condensers. The 
cooling towers are operated in accordance with the requirements of 
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. 
PA0051926. The current permit was renewed on December 12, 1994 and is 
effective through December 31, 1999. The only increase in LGS water 
intake due to operation at power uprate conditions is due to increased 
evaporation in the hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers. In the 
January 6, 1995 letter, the licensee indicated that the existing 
consumptive flow will conservatively increase from 38,059,065 to 
40,723,200 gallons per day (total for both units), depending on 
atmospheric conditions. The velocity of the intake water will increase 
less than 7 percent. Makeup is drawn from the Schuylkill River, 
Perkiomen Creek, or the Delaware River, depending on flow and 
temperature. When makeup is drawn from the Delaware River through the 
Point Pleasant Pumping Station via the Bradshaw Station, 3 percent 
additional evaporative losses must be considered. The increase makeup 
flow (including evaporative losses), is within the existing water 
diversion consumptive use limit of 42,000,000 gallons per day specified 
in the original permitting evaluations.
    Makeup water requirements for systems and components other than the 
cooling towers are not expected to change due to operation at uprated 
power levels. The licensee indicated that the only potential change is 
due to increased reactor operating pressure which could slightly 
increase leakage through valve packing. System leakage, however, is 
processed through the liquid radwaste system and returned to the 
condensate storage tank for reuse. Based on the above considerations, 
the staff concluded that the effect of makeup requirements at uprated 
power levels on the environment is not significant.
    The licensee does not expect any increase in the cooling tower 
blowdown due to the physical limitation in the blowdown system. 
Likewise, the licensee does not expect any increase in the blowdown 
discharge velocity. However, the licensee indicated that the blowdown 
discharge temperature will increase less than 0.1 deg.F. This 
temperature rise will have an insignificant effect on the thermal 
plume. This increase is within the NPDES permit limit.
    An increase in cooling tower drift is not anticipated for operation 
at uprated conditions. Drift is a function of physical geometry, water 
flow, and wind conditions, none of which are changed by power uprate. 
Therefore, the licensee has indicated that the original evaluation of 
impacts to the terrestrial environment is not altered.
    The only changes to the cooling tower water chemistry are due to 
increased evaporation from the towers. Concentrations of dissolved and 
suspended solids in the blowdown will increase approximately less than 
7 percent, which is within NPDES permit limits. The licensee stated 
that the use of biocides and corrosion inhibitors in the circulating 
water system may change as a result of operation at uprated power 
levels. However, the licensee stated that change in chemical usage 
would not impact existing NPDES permit limitations.
    Nonradiological effluent discharges from other systems were also 
considered. Nonradiological effluent limits for such systems as yard 
drains, sewage treatment plant, and laundry drains are established in 
the NPDES permit. Discharges from these systems are not expected to 
change significantly, if at all, because operation at uprated power 
levels is governed by the limits in the NPDES permit. Thus, the impact 
on the environment from these systems as a result of operation at 
uprated power levels is not significant.
    Operation at uprated power levels will not result in increased 
noise generation from the majority of plant equipment. Some of this 
equipment, such as the main turbine and generator will operate at the 
same speed and thus will not contribute to increased offsite noise. 
Other major plant equipment is located within plant structures and will 
not lead to increased offsite noise levels. The main station 
transformers will operate at an increased kilovolt-ampere level which 
will cause an insignificant increase in the overall noise level. The 
[[Page 8257]] makeup pumps, which are indoors, will operate at the same 
level, however, in some cases cycling on slightly more frequently. The 
pumps at the Bradshaw Station are variable speed and, when used, will 
operate at a slightly higher speed. The pumps are indoors; therefore, 
the outside noise level increase will be insignificant.
    The licensee has stated that there are no changes required to the 
LGS Environmental Protection Plan as a result of operation at uprated 
power levels. Specifically the licensee stated:

    Other non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed 
power rerate were reviewed based on the information submitted in the 
Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, the NRC Final 
Environmental Statement (FES), Operating License Appendix B (i.e., 
Environmental Protection Plan), the requirements of the applicable 
NPDES permits, which include the outfall limits, and the Delaware 
River Basin Commission Water Use permit. We have concluded the 
proposed power rerate will have insignificant impacts on the non-
radiological elements of concern and the plant will be operated in 
an environmentally acceptable manner as established by the FES. 
Existing Federal, State and Local regulatory permits presently in 
effect will accommodate power rerate without modification.

    The FES described the impact of plant operation on fogging in the 
vicinity of the facility. The FES discussed that the increase in 
fogging due to plant operation was expected to blend in with the 
natural fog and be indistinguishable. The staff expects that operation 
of the plant at uprated power levels will result in only a minimal 
increase in fogging over that discussed in the FES. Thus, the impact of 
plant operation on local fogging, including operation at uprated power, 
remains insignificant.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

    The licensee evaluated the impact of the proposed amendment to show 
that the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria continue to be 
satisfied for the uprated power conditions. In conducting this 
evaluation, the licensee considered the effect of the higher power 
level on source terms, onsite and offsite doses, and control room 
habitability during both normal operation and accident conditions. The 
licensee provided information regarding the radiological environmental 
effects of the proposed action in NEDC-32225P and supplemental 
information in the January 6, 1995 submittal. In Sections 8.1 and 8.2 
of NEDC-32225P, the licensee discussed the potential effect of power 
rerate on liquid and gaseous radioactive waste systems. Sections 8.3 
and 8.4 discussed the potential effect of power uprate on radiation 
sources in the reactor coolant resulted from coolant activation 
products, activated corrosion products and fission products. Section 
8.5 of the Topical Report discussed the radiation levels during normal 
operation, normal post-operation, post-accident, and offsite doses 
during normal operation. Finally, Section 9.2 of NEDC-32225P presented 
the results of calculated whole body and thyroid doses at the uprated 
power and current authorized power conditions at the exclusion area 
boundary and the low population zone that might result from the 
postulated design basis radiological accidents [i.e., loss-of-coolant-
accident (LOCA), main steam line break accident (MSLBA) outside 
containment, fuel handling accident (FHA) and control rod drop accident 
(CRDA)].
    In Section 8.1 of NEDC-32225P, the licensee stated that there will 
be only a slight increase in the liquid radwaste collection as a result 
of operation at higher power levels. The liquid waste system collects, 
monitors, processes, stores, and returns processed radioactive waste to 
the plant for reuse or for discharge. The largest contributor to the 
liquid waste results from the backwash of the condensate demineralizers 
and deepbeds. The rate of loading on the demineralizers increases, 
resulting in the average time between backwash precoat being reduced 
slightly; this reduction does not affect plant safety. Similarly, the 
reactor water cleanup (RWCU) filter/demineralizers will require 
slightly more frequent backwashes due to slightly higher levels of 
activation and fission products. The power uprate will increase the 
flow rate through the condensate demineralizers, with a subsequent 
reduction in the average time between backwashing. Additionally, 
neither the floor drain collector subsystem nor the waste collector 
subsystem is expected to experience a significant increase in the total 
volume of liquid waste due to operation at the uprated level.
    The licensee stated that while the activated corrosion products in 
liquid wastes are expected to increase proportionally to the square of 
the power increase, the total volume of processed waste is not expected 
to increase appreciably. Based on its analyses of the liquid radwaste 
system, the licensee has concluded the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 
and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, will be met. Based on the above 
considerations, the staff concluded that the power uprate will have no 
significant adverse effects on liquid effluents.
    The gaseous waste management systems collect, control, process, 
store and dispose of gaseous radioactive waste generated during normal 
operation and abnormal operational occurrences. These systems include 
the standby gas treatment system (SGTS), off-gas recombiner system, the 
ambient temperature charcoal treatment system, and various building 
ventilation systems. Various devices and processes, such as radiation 
monitors, filters, isolation dampers, and fans, are used to control 
airborne radioactive gases. The licensee states that the activity of 
airborne effluents released through building vents is not expected to 
increase significantly with power uprate and the systems are designed 
to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I.
    In its power uprate submittal, the licensee has stated that the 
greatest contributor of radioactive gases is the noncondensible 
radioactive gases from the main condenser, including activation gases 
(principally N-16, O-19, and N-13) and radioactive noble gas parents. 
The increase in production of these gases is expected to be 
approximately proportional to the core power increase. These 
noncondensible radioactive gases, along with nonradioactive air due to 
inleakage to the condenser, are continuously removed from the main 
condensers by the stream jet air ejectors (SJAE). The SJAEs discharge 
into the offgas system. The flow of these gases into the offgas system 
is included with the flow of H<INF>2 and 0<INF>2 to the recombiner, 
which will also increase linearly with core power. Radioactive gases 
and H<INF>2 and 0<INF>2 pass from the recombiner through a holdup pipe, 
cooler condenser, adsorber bed, and high-efficiency particulate air 
(HEPA) filters and exit the facility through the north stack. Gaseous 
activity effluent release rates are monitored down stream of the 
adsorber bed and alarms are provided in the control room. The licensee 
has stated that the operational increases in hydrogen, oxygen, and 
noble gases due to uprate are not significant when compared to the 
current total system flow which also includes air from condenser 
inleakage and steam flows from the air ejector.
    The design basis for the offgas system is for activity release 
rates of 100,000 microcuries per second based on a mixture of 
activation and fission product gases and fuel leakage and a 30-minute 
holdup time. The system is designed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. Performance of the system at 
uprated power levels is expected to remain within the system design 
basis and, thus, to continue to meet the [[Page 8258]] requirements of 
10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.
    The contribution of gases to the gaseous waste management system 
from building ventilation system is not expected to increase 
significantly with power uprate because (1) the amount of fission 
products released into the reactor coolant depends on the number of 
nature of the fuel rod defects and is not dependent on reactor power, 
and (2) the concentration of coolant activation products is expected to 
remain unchanged since the linear increase in the production of these 
products will be offset by the linear increase in steaming rate.
    Based on its review of the gaseous waste management system, the 
staff concluded that there will not be a significant adverse effect on 
airborne effluents as a result of the power rerate.
    The licensee has evaluated the effects of the power uprate on in-
plant radiation levels in the LGS facility during normal and abnormal 
operation as well as from postulated accident conditions. The licensee 
has concluded that radiation levels from both normal and accident 
conditions may increase slightly. However, because many areas of the 
plant were designed for higher than expected radiation sources, the 
small increase in radiation levels expected due to power uprate will 
not affect radiation zoning or shielding in the plant.
    During periods of normal and post-operation conditions, individual 
worker exposures will be maintained within acceptable limits by the 
existing, as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) program, which 
controls access to radiation areas. Procedure controls compensate for 
slightly increased radiation levels.
    The offsite doses associated with normal operation are not 
significantly affected by operation at the uprated power level, and are 
expected to remain below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 
50, appendix I.
    The main control room (MCR) habitability was evaluated. Post-
accident MCR and technical support center doses were confirmed by the 
licensee to be within the limits of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 
or 10 CFR part 50, appendix A.
    The increase in LOCA radiological consequences due to power uprate 
was analyzed by the licensees. The resultant offsite doses were found 
to be within guidelines of 10 CFR part 100. The events evaluated for 
uprate were the LOCA, the MSLBA, the FHA, and the CRDA. The whole body 
and thyroid doses were calculated for the exclusion area boundary 
(EAB), low population zone (LPZ), and the control room. The plant-
specific results for power uprate remain well below established 
regulatory limits. The doses resulting from the accidents analyzed are 
compared below with the applicable dose limits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             LOCA radiological          
                                               consequences             
                                           --------------------         
                                              UFSAR                     
                 Location                     dose      Dose      Limit 
                                              (rem)    (rem) @          
                                              @3458     3527            
                                               MWt     MWt\1\           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion area:                                                         
  Whole body dose.........................     0.67     0.68          25
  Thyroid dose............................     0.15     0.15         300
Low population zone:                                                    
  Whole body dose.........................     1.7      1.7           25
  Thyroid dose............................     0.04     0.04         300
Main control room:                                                      
  Whole body dose.........................     4.6      4.7            5
  Thyroid dose............................    14.0     14.3           30
  Beta....................................     7.6      7.8           30
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      FHA Radiological Consequences                     
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion area:                                                         
  Whole body dose.........................     0.7      0.7            6
  Thyroid dose............................     0.95     0.98          75
                                                                        
                                                                        
Low population zone:                                                    
  Whole body dose.........................     0.099    0.102          6
  Thyroid dose............................     0.13     0.135         75
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CRDA Radiological Consequences                     
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion area:                                                         
  Whole body dose.........................     0.04     0.042          6
  Thyroid dose............................     0.32     0.3           75
Low population zone:                                                    
  Whole body dose.........................     0.014    0.0148         6
  Thyroid dose............................     0.62     0.63          75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This number represents 102% of the power uprate level. Doses based on
  102% are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.49, Revision 1 guidance   
  and are provided to allow for possible instrument errors in           
  determining the power level.                                          

    Based on a review of the licensee's major assumptions and 
methodology used in their reconstituted dose calculations and the 
staff's original safety evaluation, the staff concluded that the 
offsite radiological consequences and control room operator doses at 
uprated power levels still remain below 10 CFR part 100 dose reference 
values and GDC 19 dose limits. Therefore, the staff concludes that no 
significant adverse effect on radiation levels will result onsite or 
offsite from the planned power uprate.
    It is expected that the increased energy requirements associated 
with operation at uprated power will require an increase in the reload 
fuel enrichment and will result in increased burnup. The NRC previously 
evaluated the environmental impacts associated with burnup values of up 
to 60,000 MWd/MT with fuel enrichments up to 5 percent <SUP>235U 
(published in the Federal Register, 53 FR 6040 dated February 29, 
1988). The staff concluded that the environmental impacts associated 
with Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, 
and Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52, Environmental Impact of Transportation 
of Fuel and Waste, are conservative and bound the corresponding impacts 
for burnup levels of up to 60,000 MWd/MtU and <SUP>235U enrichments up 
to 5 percent by weight. In the January 23, 1995 submittal, the licensee 
indicated that while fuel burnup and enrichment levels may increase as 
a result of operation at uprated power, the burnup and enrichment will 
remain within the 5 percent enrichment and 60,000 MWd/MT value 
previously evaluated by the staff. Based on the above cited 
environmental assessment and the licensee's statements regarding 
expected burnup and enrichment values, the staff concludes that the 
environmental effects of increased fuel cycle and transportation 
activity as a result of operation at uprated power levels are not 
significant. [[Page 8259]] 
    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the NRC's FES is valid for operation at the proposed 
uprated power conditions for LGS, Units 1 and 2. The staff also 
concluded that the plant operating parameters impacted by the proposed 
uprate would remain within the bounding conditions on which the 
conclusions of the FES are based.
    The change will not increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that 
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the 
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    The NRC staff finds the radiological and nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed small increase in 
power are very small and do not change the conclusion in the FES that 
the operation of LGS, Units 1 and 2, would cause no significant adverse 
impact upon the quality of the human environment.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated.
    The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the 
request. Such action would not significantly reduce the environmental 
impact of plant operation but would restrict operation of LGS, Units 1 
and 2 to the currently licensed power level and prevent the facility 
from generating approximately 60 MWe (165 MWt) additional that is 
obtainable from the existing plant design.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement related to 
the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated 
April 1984.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the 
Bureau of Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated December 9, 1993, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 5, September 9, October 19, and November 19, 1994, and 
January 6, and January 23, 1995, which are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, 
Pottstown, PA 19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of February 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chester Poslusny,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-3520 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M