3278 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

Alternate Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not considered

previously in the Final Environmental

Statements for Dresden, Units 2 and 3,

dated November 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The staff consulted with the State of

Illinois regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

Based upon the foregoing

environmental assessment, the NRC

staff concludes that the proposed action

will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment.

For further details with respect to this

Action, see the Licensee’s request for

exemption dated November 23, 1994,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at

the Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty

Street, Morris, Illinois 60451.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stang,

Acting Director, Project Directorate III–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–919 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[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—Nonradiological).

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 nonradiological 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 postaccident 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-ofcoolant 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 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 longterm 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° 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° 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.
3280 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

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 nonradiological 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 nonradiological 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

Regulatory Guide; Issuance,

Availability

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued for public comment a

proposed revision to a guide in its

Regulatory Guide Series. This series has

been developed to describe and make

available to the public such information

as methods acceptable to the NRC staff

for implementing specific parts of the

Commission’s regulations, techniques

used by the staff in evaluating specific

problems or postulated accidents, and

data needed by the staff in its review of

applications for permits and licenses.

The draft guide, temporarily

identified by its task number, DG–8012

(which should be mentioned in all

correspondence concerning this draft

guide), is a proposed Revision 1 to

Regulatory Guide 8.29, ‘‘Instruction

Concerning Risks from Occupational

Radiation Exposure.’’ This guide is

being revised to provide guidance on

the instructions and information that

should be provided to workers by

licensees about health risks from

occupational radiation exposure.

This draft guide is being issued to

involve the public in the early stages of

the development of a regulatory position

in this area. It has not received complete

staff review and does not represent an

official NRC staff position.

Public comments are being solicited

on the draft guide. Comments should be

accompanied by supporting data.

Written comments may be submitted to

the Rules Review and Directives Branch,

Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Comments will be most helpful if

received by March 15, 1995.

Comments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text or

Wordperfect format (version 5.1 or

later), by calling the NRC Electronic