[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25590]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 17, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Philadelphia Electric Co., Public Service Electric & Gas Co.,
Delmarva Power & Light Co., and Atlantic City Electric Co.; Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; 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 Nos.
DPR-44 and DPR-56, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
(PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, located in York County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address the
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application to
amend the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3
operating licenses. The proposed action would increase the licensed
thermal power level of the reactors from the current limit of 3293
megawatts thermal (MWt) to a revised limit of 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 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in a letter from
W. Russell, NRC, to P. Marriotte, General Electric, dated September 30,
1991.
The proposed action involves NRC issuance of a license amendment to
uprate the authorized power level by changing the Operating License,
Appendices A (``Technical Specifications'') and B (``Environmental
Technical Specifications'') to the Operating License. The proposed
action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment
dated June 23, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated April 5, May 2,
June 6, June 8, June 29, July 6 (two letters), July 7, July 20, July 28
(two letters), September 16 and September 30, 1994.
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
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, providing additional electrical power to the
licensees' domestic and commercial service areas.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The ``Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to operation of
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3'' was issued in April
1973. The licensee submitted General Electric (GE) Topical Report,
NEDC-32183P, ``Power Rerate Safety Analysis Report for Peach Bottom 2 &
3,'' Class III, dated May 1993, as Attachment 3 to the June 23, 1993
submittal. NEDC-32183P contains the safety analysis prepared by GE to
support this license change request and the implementation of power
uprate at PBAPS Units 2 and 3. The analyses and evaluations supporting
the proposed license changes were completed using the guidelines in GE
Topical Report NEDC-31897P-A, ``Generic Guidelines for General Electric
Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Class III, dated May 1992, and
NEDC-31984P, ``Generic Evaluations of General Electric Boiling Water
Reactor Power Update,'' Class III, dated July 1991. The staff reviewed
and approved these Topical Reports in the September 30, 1991 letter
described above and in a letter from W. Russell, NRC, to P. Marriotte,
General Electric, dated July 31, 1992.
The licensee provided information regarding the non-radiological
environmental effects of the proposed action in the June 23,
application and supplemental information in the September 30, 1994
submittal. The licensee provided information regarding the radiological
environmental effects of the proposed action in NEDC-3183P and
supplemental information in the September 30, 1994 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 non-radiological impact of operation at
uprated power levels on influents from and effluents to the Conowingo
Pond. Peach Bottom has a once-through circulating water system and five
mechanical draft cooling towers for dissipating heat from the main
turbine condensers. The cooling towers reject heat from the circulating
water prior to discharge back to the Conowingo Pond. The cooling towers
are operated in accordance with the requirements of the facility's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Permit
No. PA0009733. The NPDES permit includes a matrix which specifies the
number of cooling towers that must be in operation as a function of
total station thermal power production, circulating water pumps and
average inlet water temperature.
By letters dated February 24 and March 31, 1994, the licensee
provided information to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PA DER) regarding the impact of power uprate on cooling
tower performance. In the February 24, 1994 letter, the licensee
indicated that the uprated power levels would increase the temperature
of the circulating water leaving the main condensers by approximately
one degree Fahrenheit. Operation at uprated power will cause additional
heat to be rejected to the circulating water through the main
condensers. The additional heat rejection would occur as a result of
operation at slightly higher condenser pressures and discharge of
circulating water from the main condenser with slightly higher
temperatures as described above. The licensee provided a revised
cooling tower matrix to the PA DER which addressed cooling tower
operation at uprated power levels. The licensee noted that the lowest
7-day moving river temperature average for which cooling tower
operation is required dropped from 53 deg.F to 51 deg.F. In general,
the effect of operation at uprated power would be to increase the duty
cycle of the cooling towers. By letter dated September 27, 1994, the PA
DER recommended extension of the thermal variance (Section 316(a) of
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-
500, as amended) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. The state
concluded that an increase in the plant's rated power level will not
change the relative abundance, distribution and species composition of
fish in the Conowingo Pond provided the station is operated in
accordance with the revised matrix. The PA DER indicated that the NPDES
permit will be renewed in the near future to include the revised
matrix.
The operating speed and characteristics of the circulating pumps
will not be changed for power uprate. Thus, the volumetric flow rate
and velocity of intake and outfall from the circulating water system
would not be expected to change because of operation at uprated power
levels. As stated above, the temperature of the water discharged from
the condensers is expected to increase slightly; however, the licensee
has determined that the increased heat load is within the capacity of
the existing cooling towers. The operating matrix for the cooling
towers was revised to maintain the temperature characteristics of the
plant discharge plume equivalent to those of the existing plume.
Because the flow rate, velocity and temperature of the plume are all
not expected to change, no change to the overall thermal plume is
expected.
The licensee does inject sodium hypochlorite into the circulating
water system to retard growth of microorganisms with system components.
The sodium hypochlorite injection rate is determined by the flow rate
through the circulating water system, which will not change as a result
of operation at uprated power levels. The licensee indicated the
increased heat rejection rate from the cooling towers may lead to an
increase in concentration of chemicals and contaminants in the cooling
tower. However, the licensee is required by the NPDES permit to sample
for residual chlorine in the outfall of the cooling towers on a daily
basis and to maintain residual chlorine concentrations within the
limits of the permit. The concentrations of residual chlorine are not
expected to exceed the existing permit limits. Based on the expected
minimal effect of uprated power operation on cooling tower chemical
concentrations and the monitoring requirements of the NPDES permit, the
staff concludes the impact of any potential increase in cooling tower
chemical effluent concentration on the environment is not significant.
Effluent discharges from other systems were also considered.
Effluent limits for systems such as roof drains and yard drains, the
auxiliary boiler and the sewage treatment plant are established in the
NPDES permit. Discharges from these systems are not changed by
operation at uprated power. Thus, the impact on the environment from
these systems as a result of operation at uprated power levels is not
significant.
Because the flow rate and velocity of influent to and effluent from
the circulating water and service water systems will remain unchanged
by operation at uprated power levels, no increased entrainment of
planktonic organisms and or impingement of fish is expected. As part of
the request to update the NPDES permit, the licensee submitted a report
of aquatic sampling that was performed in the Conowingo Pond in October
and November 1993. The report was provided to the NRC in the June 29,
1994 letter. The objective of the study was to ``determine the relative
abundance and distribution of fishes in Conowingo Pond, particularly
the thermal effluent, and compare the results with the historic
record.'' The report concluded that ``No obvious changes in the species
abundance, except for the gizzard shad in recent years, were observed
between 1993 and the historic record. Changes in the abundance of a
particular species has historically been associated with year class
strength. Strong year classes are associated with increased abundance
of a species.'' Samples of the gizzard shad were generally stronger
than the historic record for the various sample locations and methods.
Operation at uprated power levels will not result in increased
noise generation for 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 equipment, such as reactor feed pumps, will operate at increased
speeds; however, the majority of this type of equipment is located
within plant structures and will not lead to increased offsite noise
levels. The impact of a potential increase in noise from the cooling
towers was considered. As described previously, operation of the
cooling towers is controlled by the requirements of the NPDES permit.
Operation of the facility at uprated power levels is not expected to
result in operation of more cooling towers than are operated under
current power limits. Thus the existing cooling tower noise levels
would not be expected to change. However, the existing cooling towers
may be operated for an increased number of days per year. The licensee
qualitatively estimated that the cooling tower duty cycle would
increase by a small amount (in terms of cooling tower-days per year).
Thus, the current cooling tower noise levels would exist for a slightly
increased number of days per year and the environmental effect of
increased noise would be insignificant.
The FES described the impact of plant operation on fogging in the
vicinity of the facility. Fogging estimates were made for a number of
locations near the plant. The FES discussed that the increase in
fogging due to plant operation over the natural occurrence of fogging
was expected to be minimal and not significant. 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.
Makeup water requirements are not expected to change significantly,
if at all, due to operation at uprated power levels. The circulating
water system, service water systems and cooling towers are once-through
systems and, as such, do not have makeup requirements. The licensee
indicated that operation of the reactor at slightly (< 30 psig) higher
operating pressures may lead to slightly higher valve packing leak
rates. 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.
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 on-site 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-32183P and supplemental
information in the September 30, 1994 submittal. In Sections 8.1 and
8.2 of NEDC-32183P, the licensee discussed the potential effect of
power uprate 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 core during operation and post-operation, and
radiation sources in the 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-32183P 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 stream line break accident (MSLBA) outside
containment, fuel handling accident (FHA) and control rod drop accident
(CRDA].
In Section 8.1 of NEDC-32183P, 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 largest contributor to the
liquid waste results from the backwash of the condensate
demineralizers. 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 condition.
The licensee stated that while the activated corrosion products in
liquid wastes are expected to increase proportionally to the power
uprate, the total volume of processed waste is not expected to increase
appreciably since the only significant increase in processed waste is
due to the more frequent backwashes of condensate and reactor water
cleanup (RWCU) system demineralizers. The licensee noted that
backwashing is normally initiated as a result of high differential
pressure rather than activity content and that this is expected to
remain the case for operation under uprated power conditions. 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
effect on the environment of operation of the liquid radiological waste
stream at uprated power levels is not significant.
The gaseous waste management systems, collect, control, process,
store and dispose of gaseous radioactive waste generated during normal
operation and abnormal operational occurrences. The gaseous waste
management systems include the offgas system, standby gas treatment
system (SGTS), and various building ventilation systems. 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 are the non-condensible
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 non-
condensible radioactive gases, along with nonradioactive air due to in-
leakage to the condenser, are continuously removed by the stream jet
air ejector from the main condensers, and discharge into the offgas
system. The flow of these gases into the offgas system are included
with the flow of H2 and O2 from the recombiner which will
also increase linearly with core power. Radioactive gases and H2
and O2 pass from the recombiner through an adsorber bed, holdup
pipe, HEPA filters and exit the facility through the main 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 gases are not
significant when compared to the current total system flow.
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 met 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 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 systems 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 and
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 the effect on the environment of operating the
gaseous radiological waste stream at uprated power is not significant.
The licensee has evaluated the effects of the power rerate on in-
plant radiation levels in the Peach Bottom 2 and 3 facility during
normal conditions. The radiation levels during periods of normal
operation and post-operation are expected to increase by no more than
the percentage increase in power level. 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 rerate 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-reasonably-achievable'' (ALARA) program, which
controls access to radiation areas. The ALARA program at Peach Bottom
has been instrumental in the lowering of annual collective doses at the
plant over the past several years. Since 1985, the three-year average
dose at Peach Bottom 2 and 3 has decreased by approximately 70 percent.
The licensee stated that the original accident radiological
consequence analyses could not be exactly reconstituted and, therefore,
the reconstituted analyses were performed using methodology described
in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) with the original
licensing basis assumptions at 3528 MWt (102 percent of the uprated
power level). The licensee's reconstituted analyses indicate the
calculated offsite radiological consequence doses are within the dose
reference values given in 10 CFR Part 100 and also meet the control
room operator dose limit given in 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design
Criteria (GDC) 19.
In the Peach Bottom operating license safety evaluation report
issued in August 1972 (Safety Evaluation of the Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station Units 2 & 3, Docket Nos: 50-277, 50-278'' issued by the
Atomic Energy Commission, dated August 11, 1972), the staff performed
an independent radiological consequence analyses at 3440 MWt (105
percent of current power level). The staff believes that, in general,
offsite and control room operator doses will increase proportionally to
the increase in power level. Therefore, the staff did not recalculate
the offsite and control room operator doses resulting from a postulated
design basis loss of coolant accident (which is the controlling design
basis accident (DBA)). Instead, the staff proportionally increased the
doses based on power levels using the same licensing basis assumptions
used in 1972 and compared them with the licensee's reconstituted
calculation (See Table 1 below). Neither the staff nor the licensee
included radiation doses resulting from (1) main steam line isolation
valve leakages and (2) SGTS fission-product bypass during the reactor
building pressure drawdown time following a DBA, since they were not
included in the original licensing basis assumptions.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EABthyroid whole body(rem) LPZthyroid whole body(rem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SER3440 MWt14.01................... 1053(note 1)
3528 MWt14.41...................... 1083(note 2)
UFSAR 3440MWt12.5 0.4.............. 2011.3
3528 MWt14.8 0.6................... 2393.9
Part 100 Limits300 25.............. 30025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1 Safety Evaluation for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
Units 2 and 3 (August 1972)
Note 2 Uprated based on power ratio
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 finds that the offsite
radiological consequences and control room operator doses at uprated
3528 MWt still remain below 10 CFR Part 100 dose reference values and
GDC 19 dose limit and the increase in radiological consequences is very
minor.
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% 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 Effects of Transportation of Fuel and
Waste,'' are conservative and bound the corresponding impacts for
burnup levels of up to 60,000 MWd/MtU and 235U enrichments up to 5
percent by weight. In the September 30, 1994 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% 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.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's re-evaluation of the
potential radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts for
the proposed action. On the basis of the review described above, the
NRC staff finds that the radiological and non-radiological
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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,
would cause no significant adverse impact upon the quality of the human
environment.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action
would result in no significant radiological or non-radiological
environmental impact.
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 Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 to the currently licensed power
level and prevent the facility from generating the additional 60 MWe
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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,''
dated April 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request and 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 regarding 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 the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated June 23, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated
April 5, May 2, June 6, June 8, June 29, July 6 (two letters), July 7,
July 20, July 28 (two letters), September 16, 1994 and September 30,
1994, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room located at
the State Library of Pennsylvania, Government Publications Section,
(REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education Building, Walnut Street and
Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-25590 Filed 10-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M