[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51982-51985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25570]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-400]


Carolina Power & Light Company; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) Sec. 50.90 for Facility Operating License No. NPF-63, issued 
to Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L, the licensee) for operation 
of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (HNP), located in 
Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina. As required by 10 CFR 51.21, 
the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow CP&L to increase the maximum 
reactor core power level from 2775 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2900 MWt, 
which is an increase of 4.5 percent of rated core thermal power for 
HNP. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated October 4, 2000, and December 14, 2000, 
as supplemented on March 8, March 27, April 26, May 14, May 18, June 4, 
June 11, June 26, June 29, July 3, July 16 (2 letters), July 17, August 
17, and September 20, 2001, to revise HNP Facility Operating License 
and Technical Specifications to support steam generator replacement and 
to allow operation at an uprated reactor core power level of 2900 MWt.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action permits an increase in the licensed core 
thermal power from 2775 MWt to 2900 MWt for HNP and provides the 
flexibility to increase the potential electrical output of HNP.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    CP&L has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting the 
proposed power uprate and provided a summary of its conclusions 
concerning the radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts 
of the proposed action.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

Radwaste Systems
    The reactor coolant contains activated corrosion products, which 
are the result of metallic materials entering the water and being 
activated in the reactor region. Under power uprate conditions, the 
feedwater flow increases with power and the activation rate in the 
reactor region increases with power. The net result may be an increase 
in the activated corrosion product production. However, the evaluation 
has shown that the power uprate will not cause a significant change in 
the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any radiological 
effluent that may be released offsite.
    Non-condensible radioactive gas from the main condenser, along with 
air in-leakage, normally contains activation gases (principally N-16, 
O-19 and N-13) and fission product radioactive noble gases. This is the 
major source of radioactive gas (greater than all other sources 
combined). These non-condensible gases, along with non-radioactive air, 
are continuously

[[Page 51983]]

removed from the main condensers, which discharge into the offgas 
system. The changes in gaseous effluents are small and are well within 
the uncertainty of the calculation of the original limits following 
implementation of the power uprate.
    CP&L has concluded that there will be no significant change in the 
level of controls or methodology used for the processing of radioactive 
effluents; or handling of solid radioactive waste at HNP will not be 
impacted by operation at uprated power conditions, and the slight 
increase in effluents discharged would continue to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. 
Therefore, the power uprate will not appreciably affect the ability to 
process liquid or gaseous radioactive effluents and there are no 
significant environmental effects from radiological releases.
Dose Consideration
    CP&L evaluated the potential effects of power uprate conditions on 
the radiation sources within the plant and the radiation levels during 
normal and post-accident conditions. The original calculations for 
determining the normal operational doses and radiation shielding 
requirements were very conservative and had additional margin assumed 
in the calculations. It was determined that these margins are 
sufficient to accommodate any increases attributed to the 4.5 percent 
increase in rated thermal power. The power uprate has no significant 
effect on plant normal operation radiation zones and shielding 
requirements. In addition, the normal operation component of the total 
integrated dose used for radiological equipment qualification is not 
affected by the power uprate.
    The power uprate does not involve significant increases in the 
offsite doses to the public from noble gases, airborne particulates, 
iodine, tritium, or liquid effluents. An upper bound analysis for the 
potential impact of the power uprate indicates that the increase in 
radiological releases and resultant dose impact is bounded by the 
percentage increase in the reactor core power. Therefore, the normal 
offsite doses are not significantly affected by operation at the 
uprated power level and remain below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
    The uprate program included a reanalysis or evaluation of all other 
aspects of large-break loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA), small-break 
loss-of-coolant accidents (SBLOCA), non-LOCA accidents, and Nuclear 
Steam Supply System (NSSS) and balance-of-plant (BOP) structures, 
systems, and components. Major NSSS components (e.g., reactor pressure 
vessel, pressurizer, reactor coolant pumps, and steam generators); BOP 
components (e.g., turbine, generator, and condensate and feedwater 
pumps); and major systems and sub-systems (e.g., safety injection, 
auxiliary feedwater, residual heat removal, electrical distribution, 
emergency diesel generators, containment cooling, and the ultimate heat 
sink) have been assessed with respect to the bounding conditions 
expected for operation at the uprated power level. Control systems 
(e.g., rod control, pressurizer pressure and level, turbine overspeed, 
steam generator level, and steam dump) have been evaluated for 
operation at uprated power conditions. Reactor trip and Engineered 
Safety Feature actuation setpoints have been assessed and no needed 
changes were identified as a result of uprated power operations. The 
results of all of the above analyses and evaluations have yielded 
acceptable results and demonstrate that all design basis acceptance 
criteria will continue to be met during uprated power operations.
    For post-accident conditions, the existing post-accident dose rate 
maps are adequate for power uprate conditions, and variances from 
existing calculated values are insignificant. The resulting radiation 
levels were determined to be within current regulatory limits, and 
there would be no effect on the plant equipment, access to vital areas, 
or habitability of the control room envelope and the Technical Support 
Center. The licensee has determined that access to areas requiring 
post-accident occupancy will not be significantly affected by the power 
uprate.
    The calculated whole body and thyroid doses at the exclusion area 
boundary that might result from a postulated design basis LOCA were 
evaluated. All offsite doses evaluated at uprated power conditions 
remain below established regulatory limits. Therefore, the results of 
the radiological analyses remain below the 10 CFR part 100 guidelines 
and all radiological safety margins are maintained.

Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment

    The licensee reviewed the non-radiological environmental impacts of 
the power uprate based on information submitted in the Environmental 
Report (ER), Operating License Stage (OL), the NRC Final Environmental 
Statement (FES), and the requirements of the Environmental Protection 
Plan. Based on this review, the licensee concluded that the proposed 
power uprate has no significant effect on the non-radiological elements 
of concern and the plant will be operated in an environmentally 
acceptable manner as established by the FES. In addition, the licensee 
states that existing Federal, State, and local regulatory permits 
presently in effect accommodate the power uprate without modification.
Effluent Analysis and Evaluation
    According to the licensee, the proposed power uprate will result in 
cooling tower duty of approximately 4.2E+08 BTU/hr over the current 
operating condition, with a corresponding increase in evaporation, 
makeup, and cooling tower blowdown temperature. This heat duty includes 
a component from the normal service water system, which is not expected 
to change as a result of the power uprate, according to the licensee. 
However, the increase in cooling tower duty from 6.67E+09 BTU/hr 
evaluated in the ER-OL (for a single unit) is 2.4E+08 BTU/hr or 3.6 
percent.
    Cooling tower flowrate does not change as a result of the power 
uprate. However, the licensee has a concurrent project to retube the 
main condenser, which will result in an increase in the circulating 
water system flow by approximately 4,600 gpm. Cooling tower drift, 
which is a small fraction (0.002%) of the total cooling tower flowrate 
(circulating water system plus normal service water system), will 
increase slightly. However, the impact on the production of cooling 
tower drift is negligible.
    The average temperature of the cooling tower blowdown is predicted 
by the licensee to increase by 0.4 deg.F in the winter and 0.1 deg.F in 
the summer. These values are based on the average January and July wet 
bulb temperatures presented in the ER-OL Table 3.4.2-2.
    CP&L's original analyses predicted the mixing zone for the cooling 
tower blowdown to be 120 acres in the winter and 20 acres in the 
summer. The FES (Section 5.3.1.2.1) concluded that CP&L's original 
analysis conducted under extreme temperature conditions was 
conservative and protective of water quality standards. The analyses 
were done assuming two units in operation. The FES reported independent 
analyses that predicted that the mixing zone would remain less than 0.7 
acres under all conditions.
    The additional heat load to the Harris Lake associated with the 
power uprate of a single unit does not significantly impact the 
conclusions of the FES relative to the thermal impact, according to the 
licensee. The minimal increase in

[[Page 51984]]

blowdown temperature associated with the power uprate is conservative 
and protective of water quality standards. As discussed in the FES, 
adequate mixing occurs such that the size of the thermal plume is 
acceptably small. This remains valid in view of the fact that the 
original analyses were done assuming two units in operation.
    The licensee had the thermal impact associated with the power 
uprate evaluated relative to the HNP National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. North Carolina Department of 
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources issued NPDES Permit No. 
NC0039586 to HNP. The permit was last renewed on July 31, 1996. The 
NPDES permit specifies a mixing zone of an area no greater than 200 
acres. The original NPDES permit contained a requirement to monitor the 
cooling tower blowdown to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
the mixing zone. However, the monitoring results subsequently led to 
the deletion of the requirement blowdown temperature in the NPDES. In 
view of the conservatism in the original CP&L analyses, the deletion of 
Unit 2, and the small change in cooling tower blowdown temperature, the 
licensee states that there will be no difficulty in meeting the 200 
acre limitation on the size of the mixing zone.
    The amount of water required to make up for forced evaporation from 
the cooling tower is expected to increase. The ER-OL predicted the 
annual average, forced evaporation at a power level of 100% to be 22.1 
cubic feet per second (cfs). The revised comparable value for the power 
uprate is 22.8 cfs. The increase in the average forced evaporation loss 
is 0.7 cfs assuming 95% capacity factor and annual average meteorology 
according to the licensee.
    The increase (0.7 cfs) is small relative to the total water demand 
from the operation of Unit 1 and the flow available from the inputs to 
the main reservoir. The total water consumption of 32.2 cfs includes 
forced evaporation (assuming a capacity factor of 95%), natural 
evaporation from the reservoirs, seepage, and miscellaneous plant 
consumption. The total inputs to the main reservoir averages 67.6 cfs. 
The licensee states that there is no significant impact on the main 
reservoir.
    With regard to downstream water uses, the change is small compared 
to the total Cape Fear River flow (downstream of the main dam) of 3,125 
cfs. The NRC, in FES Section 5.3.2.1 stated, ``* * * less than 1% of 
the average flow of the Cape Fear River (3,125 cfs) will be used by the 
plant. Thus, the staff's conclusion in the RFES-CP that the consumptive 
water use by a four-unit plant would not adversely affect other 
downstream water users is valid for a two-unit plant.'' The revised 
water consumption by HNP is approximately 1.03% of the average Cape 
Fear River flow.
Noise Evaluation
    The noise effects due to operation of HNP at uprated power 
conditions were reviewed. No increase in noise from the turbine or 
reactor building will result due to uprated power operations. In 
addition, the turbine and the reactor building supply and exhaust fans 
will continue to operate at current speeds, and the associated noise 
levels will also be unaffected by uprated power operations. In summary, 
the overall noise levels at HNP will not increase due to the power 
uprate.
    The non-radiological environmental impacts related to the proposed 
power uprate at HNP have been reviewed and there are no adverse impacts 
or significant changes required to the current NPDES Permits or other 
plant administrative limits. No changes to land use would result and 
the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. Therefore, no 
new or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are 
expected.
Summary
    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts, but would reduce the operational flexibility 
that would be afforded by the proposed change. The environmental 
impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any different resources 
than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement 
for HNP.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On October 3, 2001, the NRC staff consulted with the North Carolina 
State official, Mr. Johnny James, of the Division of Radiation 
Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. 
The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 letters dated October 4, 2000, and December 14, 2000, as 
supplemented by letters dated March 8, March 27, April 26, May 14, May 
18, June 4, June 11, June 26, June 29, July 3, July 16 (2 letters), 
July 17, August 17, and September 20, 2001. Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you 
do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2001.


[[Page 51985]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Richard P. Correia,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-25570 Filed 10-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P