[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3278-3280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-920]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-387]


Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Allegheny Electric Cooperative, 
Inc., Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1; 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-14, issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L, the 
licensee), for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 
Unit 1, located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    This environmental assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
July 27, 1994, as supplemented September 16, October 27, and November 
17, 1994, to amend the Susquehanna, Unit 1 operating license. The 
letter of February 7, 1994, provided responses to the staff's questions 
regarding this action. The proposed amendment would increase the 
licensed core thermal power from 3293 MWt to 3441 MWt, which represents 
an approximate increase of 4.5% over the current licensed power level.
    The proposed action involves NRC issuance of a license amendment to 
uprate 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 3441 MWt and provide the licensee 
with the flexibility to increase the potential electrical output of 
Susquehanna, Unit 1, providing additional electrical power to service 
domestic and commercial areas of the Pennsylvania Power and Light 
(PP&L) Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. grid.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The ``Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to operation of 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2'' was issued June 
1981 (NUREG-0564). By letter of June 15, 1992, the licensee submitted 
``Licensing Topical Report NE-092-001 for Power Uprate with Increased 
Core Flow'' for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 
2. The report was submitted to support future proposed amendments to 
Units 1 and 2 licenses to permit up to a 4.5-percent increase in 
reactor thermal power and an 8-percent increase in core flow for each 
unit. The NRC approved the topical report by letter of November 30, 
1993. The licensee submitted a proposed amendment to implement power 
uprate for Unit 2 by a letter of November 24, 1993, which was addressed 
in an environmental assessment issued by the staff on March 11, 1994. 
The amendment for power uprate and increased core flow for Unit 2 was 
issued on April 11, 1994. The subject of this assessment is the power 
uprate and increased core flow for Unit 1.
    Section II.4 of the above Topical Report provided an environmental 
assessment of the proposed power uprate, including projected non-
radiological environmental effects and radiological effects from 
postulated accidents.
    Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Topical Report discussed the 
potential effect of power uprate on the liquid, gaseous, and solid 
radwaste systems. Sections 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 discussed the potential 
effect of power uprate on radiation sources within the plant and 
radiation levels from normal and post-accident operation. Section 9.2 
of the Topical Report presented the results of the calculated whole 
body and thyroid doses at uprated power versus current authorized power 
conditions at the exclusion area boundary and the low population zone 
(LPZ) 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)]. Other accidents (non-LOCA) that were 
previously analyzed in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report 
(FSAR) were also reassessed. All off-site radiological doses remain 
well below established regulatory limits for power uprate operation.
    Supplemental information related to the non-radiological 
environmental assessment was also presented in the licensee's letter of 
February 7, 1994.
    The licensee summarized their reassessment of potential 
radiological and non-radiological impacts of station operation at a 
slightly higher power level as follows:

Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment

    Since power uprate will not significantly change the methods of 
generating electricity, nor of handling any influents from the 
environment or effluents to it, no new or different environmental 
impacts are expected. The conservative models and methods used in 
the environmental assessments of the original design, confirmed by 
studies conducted during actual operation, show that more than 
adequate margin exists for the proposed power uprate without 
exceeding the non-radiological environmental effects estimated in 
the original estimates and analyses and cited in the original permit 
applications and impact statements.
    The maximum withdrawal rate from the river will increase from 
the current value of 38,800 gpm to 40,700 gpm after power uprate, an 
increase of 5%. The maximum blowdown rate will increase from the 
current value of 10,300 gpm to 10,800 gpm, an increase of 5%.
    After reviewing the additional water withdrawal requirements and 
increased blowdown rate from the natural draft cooling towers at the 
Susuqehanna SES (SSES) associated with power uprate, PP&L determined 
that there will be no adverse effects to the river flow or river 
biota. This conclusion is based on two factors. First, the 
[[Page 3279]] 
projected number of fish estimated to be impinged per day would 
increase from 20 to 21 and the number of larvae estimated to be 
entrained would increase by only 13,000 to 363,000 per day. 
Biologically, these estimated increases represent a negligible 
impact to the river ecosystem. Second, the maximum cooling tower 
blowdown flow after power uprate is estimated to increase by only 5% 
which amounts to 500 gpm. This amounts to less than .5% of the 
average river flow.
    The cooling blowdown from the cooling tower basin is through a 
diffuser into the river. The characteristics of the cooling tower 
are such that there is greater air flow through the tower caused by 
the higher circulating water return temperature at power uprate 
conditions. This increased air flow removes the additional heat load 
resulting in negligible cooling tower basin temperature changes.
    Estimates, assuming that both SSES cooling towers are operating 
at the original 100% power level for a year, would result in 58,000 
pounds of solids per year as salt drift, spread over a large area. 
Modelling indicated the heaviest localized deposition of solids 
would be 3 pounds/acre/year (SSES Environmental Report Section 
5.3.4). The power uprate should have no impact on these estimates, 
especially with the conservatism built into the model by assuming 
100% capacity factor. Note also that the design cooling tower drift 
is a function of circulating water flow which is not changing for 
power uprate.
    Studies on the possible effects of salt drift have been 
conducted at the SSES since 1977. These studies have included 
monthly examination of natural vegetation during the growing season 
(1977 to date), annual quantitative vegetation studies (1977 to 
date), a two-year study on the effect of simulated salt drfit on 
corn and soybeans (1985-86), and annual forest inspections since 
1982.
    The monthly examinations have utilized several transects (salt 
drift transects) in the vicinity of the power station for possible 
salt damage to natural vegetation and incidence of parasitic plant 
diseases. The annual vegetation studies consider possible long-term 
changes in forest utilized salt spray approximating the composition 
of the cooling tower drift from the SSES at ``worst case'' 
concentration on agricultural crops in two fields.
    None of the studies have found evidence for damage to 
agricultural crops or natural vegetation from salt drift. It should 
be noted that the water used at the SSES (from the Susquehanna 
River) does not contain the same salts as brackish water used at 
estuarine coo[l]ing tower[s]; its effects are more like plant 
micronutrients. The natural vegetation studies over 15 years have 
found no salt drift damage and plant diseases in accordance with 
host presence and location. The simulated salt drift studies 
utilized concentrations estimated at 5 and 10 times maximum salt 
drift concentration in the SSES plume. It is therefore unlikely that 
salt drift damage would occur from an approximate 5% consumptive 
rise in water usage.
    There will be no changes to the cooling tower water chemistry as 
a result of power uprate. The pre-uprate levels of cycles of 
concentration will be maintained. Since there will be a 5% increase 
in blowdown flow, there will be a 5% increase in chemical discharge 
to the river.
    The velocity of the intake water will increase by 5% to .37 ft/
sec with power uprate which is below the recommended intake design 
velocity of 0.5 ft/sec.
    Sound level monitoring was conducted at both near site (less 
than 1 mile) and far site locations (greater than 1 mile) from the 
Susquehanna SES site from 1972 and 1985. This survey was conducted 
prior to and during construction and during one and two unit 
operation. The two Cooling Towers were identified to be one of the 
major site noise sources. The cumulative effects of all noise 
sources associated with station operation were determined to be less 
than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended day-note 
equivalent sound level limit of 55 DBA at all monitoring locations. 
It is not expected that this level will be exceeded at any of the 
locations with the possible exception of an area approximately 2,200 
feed southeast of the Cooling Towers where the measured sound level 
including a nighttime weighting factor of +10 DBA was 54 DBA. Sound 
levels will be monitored at power uprate conditions.
    As indicated previously, water discharge flow from power uprate 
may increase 5% above the design discharge rate to 10,800 gpm. This 
is well below the maximum flow of 16,000 gpm reviewed in the SSES 
Environmental Report (Table 3.3-1 and, therefore, the additional 
flow from power uprate is not considered to be an adverse impact to 
the river.
    At the Susquehanna SES cooling tower blowdown discharges into 
the river through a diffuser pipe located on the river bottom. 
Velocity of this discharge was calculated in Appendix G, Thermal 
Discharge, Response 1, pages THE-1.1 and 1.2 of the Environmental 
Report. Water discharges through 72-4'' ports into the river. The 
velocity associated with a 10,000 gpm discharge was calculated to be 
5.83 fps and rounded to 6 fps. This rounded off value was used when 
preparing [the] SSES Environmental Report. The velocity associated 
with a 10,800 gpm discharge is also approximate 6 fps.
    Thermal plume studies conducted in the fall, winter, and spring 
of 1986-87 indicated a maximum temperature rise of 1 deg. F within 
an 80 foot mixing zone from the diffuser pipe. Present Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Resources water quality criteria states 
that ambient river temperature rise from thermal discharges shall 
not cause the temperature in the receiving water body to rise more 
than 2 deg. F in one hour. The thermal discharges from the cooling 
tower blowdown from power uprate will not exceed this water quality 
criteria.
    Chemical composition of the blowdown after power uprate will not 
exceed the NPDES permit limits.

    The staff reviewed the potential effect of power uprate on plant 
makeup water usage. There will be no significant increase in makeup 
water requirements for any plant systems as a result of power uprate. 
This includes the reactor coolant system, the condensate, feedwater and 
steam systems, the emergency service water system, the reactor and 
turbine building closed cooling water systems or any of the normal 
service water systems. The only effect of power uprate on the component 
cooling water system and turbine plant cooling water system from power 
uprate is an increased heat load. The service water system removes heat 
from the heat exchangers in the turbine, reactor and radwaste buildings 
and transfers this heat to the cooling towers where it is dissipated. 
The increased heat load on intermediate systems is reflected in the 
discussion of potential impacts from increased cooling tower blowdown 
and thermal discharges remain acceptable. Inventory makeup is not 
affected. Makeup requirements for the auxiliary boiler, the fire 
protection system or other auxiliary systems are unaffected by power 
uprate.
    The licensee has stated that there are no changes required to the 
SSES Environmental Protection Plan as a result of operation at uprated 
power. Specifically, the licensee stated:

    Chapter 3, Consistency Requirements, Section 3.1, Plant Design 
Operations, of this plan discusses how proposed changes need to be 
addressed. Through the PP&L Unreviewed Environmental Question 
Program, changes such as that of power uprate will be reviewed.
    An ``Unreviewed Environmental Question'' evaluation was 
conducted in accordance with each unit's ``Environmental Protection 
Plan'' to determine if power uprate could cause any significant 
environmental impacts. This included a review of the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and other 
environmental permits, and indicated that power uprate should not 
contribute to any new noncompliances. No significant increase in 
generation of hazardous or nonhazardous waste is expected, except 
for a 3 to 5% increase in sediment removed from the cooling tower. 
Nor is any change expected in the load on the sewage treatment 
plant. River water use will remain within the existing agreement 
with the Susquehanna River Basi[n] Commission. PP&L has determined 
that power uprate is not an ``unreviewed environmental question.''
    The proposed power uprate therefore requires no changes to the 
``Environmental Protection Plans'' since it does not involve:
    (a) A significant increase in any adverse environmental impact 
previously evaluated in the ``Environmental Report--Operating 
License Stage,'' or the ``Final Environmental Statement,'' or in any 
decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;
    (b) A significant change in effluents or power levels, or
    (c) A matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the 
documents specified in paragraph (a) which might have a significant 
adverse environmental impact. [[Page 3280]] 

Radiological Environmental Assessment

    As discussed previously, the licensee addressed potential 
radiological impacts attributable to operation at uprated power 
conditions in Sections 8, 9, and 11 of the initial Topical Report. The 
licensee concluded:

    Adequate margin also exists for the proposed power uprate 
without exceeding regulatory limits for radiological effects. 
Current operating experience indicates that actual releases and 
waste disposal after power uprate will continue to be significantly 
less than the original estimates. For these reasons, power uprate is 
not expected to have an adverse effect on the routine operation 
``dose commitment'' estimated by previous radiological environmental 
analyses, and no revision of these analyses is required.
    The environmental assessment includes an estimate of potential 
exposure from all accident types combined. Regulatory Guide 1.49 
requires calculation of accident doses at 102% of uprated thermal 
power, or 3510 MWt. Although direct comparison with the original 
analyses is not meaningful because of changes in methodology, a 
comparison on a consistent basis would show that the expected dose 
is approximately proportional to power. The original calculation was 
done at 3439 MWt. The estimated potential exposure from all accident 
types combined will therefore change by about the ratio of 3510/
3439, or about 2 percent, which is not a significant change compared 
to the uncertainty in the probability estimates. No revision of 
these analyses is therefore required.
    [Liquid radwaste throughput may increase up to 5% to a level 
which is within the processing capability of the system.] The 
activity levels of some radwaste streams containing coolant 
activation products may increase up to 10%, due to the 4.5% core 
flux increase and a 5% crud increase to the reactor which are 
assumed to occur.
    Since the power uprate level of 3441 MWt is not significantly 
different from that analyzed previously, it is not anticipated there 
will be a significant increase in radiological effluents. Also, pre-
power uprate technical specification limits will be maintained.

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and the licensee's evaluation of the potential radiological and non-
radiological impacts. The Commission found that the FES (NUREG-0564) is 
valid for operation at the proposed uprated power conditions for SSES 
Unit 1 (the second uprated unit at the site). The Commission 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. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would 
result in no significant radiological environmental impacts.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action will not have a significant impact on the environs located 
outside the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or 
significantly affect non-radiological plant effluent or other 
environmental impacts. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this 
proposed action would result in no significant non-radiological 
environmental impacts.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
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 enhance the protection of the 
environment and would result in preventing the facility from having the 
flexibility to generate the approximately additional 50 megawatts that 
are obtainable from the existing plant.

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 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,'' 
dated June 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and 
consulted with the Bureau of Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Resources. The State Liaison Officer had no 
comment regarding the NRC's proposed action.

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 this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 27, 1994, as supplemented 
September 16, October 27, and November 17, 1994, and letter dated 
February 7, 1994. These documents are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC and at the Osterhout Free Library, 
Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania 18701.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January 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. 95-920 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M