[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