[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68598-68608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]
PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the
Maximum Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment as its
evaluation of a request by PPL Susquehanna, LLC for a license amendment
to increase the maximum thermal power at Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), from 3,489 megawatts-thermal
(MWt) to 3,952 MWt at each unit. This represents a power increase of
approximately 13 percent thermal power. As stated in the NRC staff's
position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC staff (the staff) will
prepare an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate
would have a significant impact on the human environment. The staff did
not identify any significant impact from the information provided in
the licensee's EPU application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2, or the staff's independent review; therefore, the staff
is documenting its environmental review in an Environmental Assessment.
Also, in accordance with the position paper, the Draft Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is being published in
the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
SSES is located just west of the Susquehanna River approximately 5
miles northeast of Berwick, in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In total,
SSES majority owner and licensed operator, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL,
the licensee), owns 2,355 acres of land on both sides of the
Susquehanna River. Generally, this land is characterized by open
deciduous woodlands interspersed with grasslands and orchards.
Approximately 487 acres are used for generation facilities and
associated maintenance facilities, laydown areas, parking lots, and
roads. Approximately 130 acres are leased to local farmers. PPL
maintains a 401-acre nature preserve, referred to as the Susquehanna
Riverlands, which is located between SSES and the river; U.S. Route 11
separates the Susquehanna Riverlands from the plant site. The land on
the west side of the river is about 1,573 acres and Gould Island, a 65-
acre island just north of SSES on the Susquehanna River, is currently
jointly owned between PPL (90%) and Allegheny Electric Cooperative
(10%). Also, PPL currently owns an additional 717 acres of mostly
undeveloped land, which includes natural recreational, and wildlife
areas on the east side of the river (Reference 10).
SSES is a two-unit plant with General Electric boiling-water
reactors and generators. NRC approved the Unit 1 operating license on
July 17, 1982, and commercial operation began June 8, 1983. The Unit 2
operating license was issued on March 3, 1984, and commercial operation
began February 12, 1985. Units 1 and 2 both currently operate at 3,489
MWt (Reference 8). The units share a common control room, refueling
floor, turbine operating deck, radwaste system, and other auxiliary
systems (Reference 9).
SSES uses a closed-cycle heat dissipation system (two natural-draft
cooling towers) to transfer waste heat from the circulating water
system to the atmosphere. The circulating water and the service water
systems draw water from, and discharge to, the Susquehanna River. The
river intake structure is located on the western bank of the river and
consists of two water entrance chambers with 1-inch, on-center vertical
trash bars and \3/8\-inch-mesh traveling screens. A low-pressure
screen-wash system periodically operates to release aquatic organisms
and debris impinged on the traveling screens to a pit with debris
removal equipment that collects material into a dumpster for offsite
disposal. Cooling tower blowdown, spray pond overflow, and other
permitted effluents are discharged to the Susquehanna River through a
buried pipe leading to a submerged discharge diffuser structure,
approximately 600 feet downstream of the river intake structure. The
diffuser pipe is 200-feet long, with the last 120 feet containing 72
four-inch portals that direct the discharge at a 45-degree angle
upwards and downstream. Warm circulating water from the cooling towers
can be diverted to the river intake structure to prevent icing; this
usually occurs from November through March on an as-needed basis
(Reference 10).
[[Page 68599]]
For the specific purpose of connecting SSES to the regional
transmission system, there are approximately 150 miles of transmission
line corridors that occupy 3,341 acres of land. The corridors pass
through land that is primarily agricultural and forested with low
population densities. Two 500-kilovolt (kV) lines and one 230-kV line
connect SSES to the electric grid, with approximately 2.3 miles of
short ties in the immediate plant vicinity to connect SSES to the 230-
kV system. The Stanton-Susquehanna 2 230-kV transmission line
corridor runs northeast from the plant for approximately 30 miles and
ranges from 100-400 feet wide. The Susquehanna-Wescosville-Alburtis
500-kV transmission line corridor ranges from 100 to 350 feet wide and
runs generally southeast from the plant for approximately 76 miles; the
Sunbury-Susquehanna 2 500-kV transmission line corridor is
approximately 325 feet wide and runs 44 miles west-southwest from the
plant. The transmission line corridors cross the following Pennsylvania
counties: Luzerne (the location of SSES), Carbon, Columbia, Lehigh,
Northampton, Northumberland, Montour, and Snyder. These transmission
lines are currently owned by PPL Electric Utilities with the exception
of 42.3 miles of the 44.2 mile Sunbury-Susquehanna 2 500-kV
line which is currently owned by Allegheny Electric Cooperative. All of
these lines however, are integral to the larger transmission system,
and as such PPL Electric Utilities plans to operate and maintain these
lines indefinitely. Except for the short ties on the plant site, the
lines would likely remain a permanent part of the transmission system
even after SSES is decommissioned (Reference 10).
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated October 11, 2006, PPL proposed amendments to the
operating licenses for SSES Units 1 and 2 to increase the maximum
thermal power level of both units by approximately 13 percent thermal
power, from 3,489 MWt to 3,952 MWt (Reference 8). The change is
considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core power level
more than 7 percent above the original licensed maximum power level.
This amendment would allow the heat output of the reactor to increase,
which would increase the flow of steam to the turbine. This would
result in the increase in production of electricity and the amount of
waste heat delivered to the condenser, and an increase in the
temperature of the water being discharged to the Susquehanna River.
PPL plans to implement the proposed EPU in two phases to obtain
optimal fuel utilization and to ensure that manageable core thermal
limits are maintained. The core thermal power level of Unit 2 would be
increased by approximately 13 percent following the spring 2009
refueling outage. Unit 1's core thermal power level would be increased
in two stages of about 7 percent each during the spring 2008 and spring
2010 refueling outages (Reference 8).
The original operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 authorized
operation up to a maximum power level of 3,293 MWt per unit. Since the
units went online, SSES has implemented two power uprates. Stretch
uprates (4.5 percent each) were implemented in 1994 (Unit 2) and 1995
(Unit 1), increasing the licensed thermal power levels of SSES Units 1
and 2 from 3,293 MWt to 3,441 MWt. Two separate NRC environmental
assessments each resulted in a finding of no significant impact and
determined that these actions ``* * * would have no significant impact
on the quality of the human environment.'' These decisions were
published in the Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 53, pp. 12990-12992 and
Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 3278-3280 (Reference 12, 13). In 2001, a
Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR) uprate of 1.4 percent increased
the licensed thermal power levels of SSES Units 1 and 2 to 3,489 MWt.
The NRC environmental assessment for this action also resulted in a
finding of no significant impact and was published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 66, No. 122, pp. 33716-33717 (Reference 14).
The Need for the Proposed Action
SSES is within the transmission area controlled by PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM). PJM operates the largest regional
transmission territory in the U.S., currently serving a 164,260-square-
mile area in all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia,
representing approximately 163,806 megawatts electrical (MWe) of
generating capacity. PJM has forecasted that the summer unrestricted
peak load in the Mid-Atlantic geographic zone where SSES is located
would grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent for the next 10
years. This represents an increase in peak load of almost 6,000 MWe
from 2005 to 2010, when the proposed SSES EPU is scheduled to be
completed. The proposed EPU would add an average of 205 MWe of base
load generation to the grid from both Units 1 and 2. This added
electricity is projected to be enough to meet the power needs of
approximately 195,000 homes and is forecasted to be produced for the
PJM grid at a cost lower than the projected market price (Reference 9).
PJM uses a queue system to manage requests to add or remove
generation from the regional transmission system. SSES submitted an
application to PJM for the EPU additional generation on May 19, 2004.
The PJM Interconnection Service Agreements and Construction Service
Agreements were signed for Unit 2 on July 7, 2005, and for Unit 1 on
January 20, 2006 (Reference 9).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of issuance of the operating licenses for SSES, the
staff noted that any activity authorized by the licenses would be
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) for the operation of SSES, which was issued by the NRC
in June 1981. This Environmental Assessment summarizes the radiological
and non-radiological impacts in the environment that may result from
the proposed action.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Potential land use impacts due to the proposed EPU include impacts
from construction and plant modifications at SSES. While some plant
components would be modified, most plant changes related to the
proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed
part of the site. No new construction would occur outside of existing
facilities, and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots,
equipment storage areas, or transmission facilities would be required
to support the proposed EPU with the following exceptions.
The 230-kV switchyard located on PPL property across the river from
the station, and the 500-kV switchyard located on the plant site would
both be expanded to house additional capacitor banks. The site road
adjacent to the 500-kV switchyard would be moved to accommodate this
expansion. Both switchyard modifications would require no land
disturbance outside the power block area. Relocation of the road
adjacent to the 500-kV switchyard would occur in a previously developed
area of the plant site, resulting in no or little impact to land use.
In addition, the turbine building may be expanded to allow for the
installation of condensate filters, and additional aboveground storage
tanks may be required to support cooling tower basin acid injection. If
[[Page 68600]]
required, storage tank installation and turbine building expansion
would be located in the developed part of the site (Reference 8, 9). An
above ground shielded storage facility will be constructed onsite
within the Protected Area to store the original steam dryers.
Existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during construction
and plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not
change at SSES. Also, there would be no land use changes along
transmission lines (no new lines would be required for the proposed
EPU), transmission corridors, switch yards, or substations. Because
land use conditions would not change at SSES and because any
disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas within the
plant site, there would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources
(except during outside construction) and historic and archeological
resources in the vicinity of SSES.
The impacts of continued operation of SSES Units 1 and 2 combined
with the proposed EPU would be bounded by the scope of the original FES
for operation, ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation
of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated 1981, and
therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no significant
impacts to land use, aesthetics, and historic and archaeological
resources from the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Waste
SSES generates both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, SSES is
classified as a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, including
spent batteries, solvents, corrosives, and paint thinners. According to
the Environmental Protection Agency's Envirofacts Warehouse database,
there are no RCRA violations listed for SSES related to the management
of these hazardous wastes (Reference 11). Non-hazardous waste is
managed by SSES's current program and includes municipal waste,
maintenance waste, wood, and non-friable asbestos. Plant modifications
necessary for the proposed EPU may result in additional hazardous and
non-hazardous waste generation; however, all wastes would continue to
be managed by the waste management program currently in place at SSES,
which is designed to minimize hazardous waste generation and promote
recycling of waste whenever possible (Reference 9) and subject to state
(commonwealth) and Federal oversight. As such, the staff concludes
there would be no impacts from additional non-radiological waste
generated as a result of the proposed EPU.
Cooling Tower Impacts
SSES operates two natural draft cooling towers to transfer waste
heat from the circulating water system (which cools the main
condensers) to the atmosphere. No additional cooling tower capacity is
planned to accommodate the proposed EPU. However, additional
aboveground storage tanks could be required to support cooling tower
basin acid injection. If built, these tanks would be located in the
developed part of the plant site (Reference 9).
Aesthetic impacts associated with cooling tower operation following
implementation of the proposed action would be similar to those
associated with current operating conditions and include noise and
visual impacts from the plume such as fogging and icing.
No significant increase in noise is anticipated for cooling tower
operation following the proposed EPU. The FES for operation evaluated
the potential noise impacts of operation of SSES and determined that
pump and motor noise from the cooling water system would not exceed
ambient (baseline) levels in offsite areas and that cooling tower noise
would be audible for no more than a mile offsite to the west,
southwest, and southeast of the station. PPL conducted an initial noise
survey in 1985 after commercial operation of both units began, and
again in 1995 following the stretch uprate. The 1995 noise measurements
were similar to those recorded in 1985, and PPL received no noise
complaints following implementation of the stretch uprate. The staff
concludes that the proposed EPU, like the stretch uprate, would not
produce measurable changes in the character, sources, or intensity of
noises generated by the station's cooling water system or cooling
towers (Reference 9).
Conclusions reached in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),'' Volumes 1 and
2, dated 1996, apply to the proposed action regarding cooling tower
impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. The GEIS
concluded that natural-draft cooling towers release drift and moisture
high into the atmosphere where they are dispersed over long distances,
and increased fogging, cloud cover, salt drift, and relative humidity
have little potential to affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and
native plants.
Impacts associated with continued cooling tower operation at SSES
following the proposed EPU, including noise, fogging, cloud cover, salt
drift, and icing would not change significantly from current impacts.
Therefore, the staff concludes there would be no significant impacts
associated with cooling tower operation for the proposed action.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for
the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor
maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The
proposed EPU would not require any new transmission lines and would not
require changes in the maintenance and operation of existing
transmission lines or substations. Corridor maintenance practices
(including vegetative management) would not be affected by the proposed
EPU.
The proposed EPU would require the installation of additional
capacitor banks in the 500- and 230-kV switchyards, and PPL plans to
conduct a power delivery environmental risk identification evaluation
prior to these installations. The capacitor bank installations are the
only modification of transmission facilities that would accompany the
proposed EPU. The only operational change to transmission lines
resulting from the proposed EPU would be increased current; voltage
would remain unchanged. As PPL states in its October 11, 2006,
application, page 7-2, ``increased current may cause transmission lines
to sag more, but there would still be adequate clearance between
energized conductors and the ground to prevent electrical shock.''
Additionally, PPL has evaluated all related transmission facilities and
found these facilities to be within acceptable design parameters
(Reference 9).
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the
short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milliamps. As stated
above, there would be an increase in current passing through the
transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the
proposed EPU. The higher electrical current passing through the
transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field
strength. However, with the proposed increase in power level, the
impact of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the offsite
transmission lines would not be expected to increase significantly over
the current impact. The transmission lines meet the applicable
[[Page 68601]]
shock prevention provisions of the NESC. Therefore, even with the small
increase in current attributable to the proposed EPU, adequate
protection is provided against hazards from electric shock.
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action would not change significantly from the impacts
associated with current plant operation. There would be no physical
modifications to the transmission lines, transmission line corridor
maintenance practices would not change, there would be no changes to
transmission line corridors or vertical clearances, electric current
passing through the transmission lines would increase only slightly,
and capacitor bank modifications would occur only within the existing
power blocks. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no
significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action.
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include
hydrological alterations to the Susquehanna River and changes to plant
water supply. SSES uses cooling water from the Susquehanna River and
discharges water back to the river at a point approximately 600 feet
downstream of the intake structure. River water enters the plant
cooling system via cooling tower basins and provides water to the
circulating water and service water systems. SSES uses a closed-cycle,
natural-draft cooling tower heat dissipation system to remove waste
heat from the main condensers; cooling tower blowdown is discharged
back to the Susquehanna River (Reference 9).
No changes to the cooling water intake system are expected during
the proposed action. While the volume of intake embayments would not
change, the intake flow rate would increase from an average of 58.3
million gallons per day (gpd) to an average of 60.9 million gpd, as the
amount of time all four river intake pumps operate would increase. This
represents a 4.5-percent increase in intake water withdrawn from the
Susquehanna River and is not expected to alter the hydrology of the
river significantly (Reference 9). The maximum withdrawal rate possible
as a result of the proposed EPU is 65.4 million gpd, which was
calculated using worst-case meteorological conditions (NRC 2006). This
represents a 12.2-percent increase in intake water withdrawn from the
river and is not expected to alter the hydrology of the river
significantly.
The amount of consumptive water usage due to evaporation and drift
of cooling water through the cooling towers is expected to increase
from a monthly average of 38 million gpd to 44 million gpd. This
represents a 15.7-percent increase over current usage. Based on the
Susquehanna River's average annual flow rate of 9,427 million gpd, the
proposed EPU would result in an average annual loss of 0.5 percent of
river water at that location. During low-flow conditions, which usually
occur in late August, the average evaporative loss at SSES may approach
1 percent of the low-flow river value (Reference 9). The staff
concludes that the amount of water consumed by SSES under the proposed
EPU conditions would not result in significant alterations to
Susquehanna River flow patterns at this location.
Consumptive water usage at SSES is regulated by the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission (SRBC), an independent agency that manages water
usage along the entire length of the Susquehanna River. The current
permit granted for SSES operation by SRBC is for average monthly
consumptive water usage up to 40 million gpd (permit 19950301
EPUL-0578). In December 2006, PPL submitted an application to SRBC to
eliminate the 40 million gpd average monthly limit and to approve a
maximum daily river water withdrawal of 66 million gpd (Reference 15).
SRBC is currently reviewing PPL's application and will make a decision
independent of the NRC whether to allow the increased consumptive water
usage required to implement the proposed EPU. The SRBC permit is
required for plant operation, and PPL must adhere to the prescribed
water usage limits and any applicable mitigative measures.
No changes to the cooling water intake system and the volume of
intake embayment are expected for the proposed EPU, but the average
intake flow would increase by 4.5 percent. The staff concludes this
increase would not alter significantly the hydrology of the Susquehanna
River. The proposed EPU would result in a small increase in the amount
of Susquehanna River consumptive water usage due to evaporative losses.
However, the increased loss would be insignificant relative to the flow
of the Susquehanna River, and SRBC would continue to regulate SSES's
consumptive water usage. With respect to the proposed action, the staff
concludes there would be no significant impact to the hydrological
pattern on the Susquehanna River, and there would be no significant
impact to the plant's consumptive water supply.
Discharge Impacts
Potential impacts to the Susquehanna River from the SSES discharge
include increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation.
These discharge-related impacts apply to the region near the discharge
structure due to the large volume of cooling water released to the
river. However, since the proposed EPU would result in no significant
changes in discharge volume or velocity, there would be no expected
changes in turbidity, scouring, erosion or sedimentation related to the
proposed EPU.
Surface and wastewater discharges at SSES are regulated through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No.
PA0047325), which is issued and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater
Management. The DEP periodically reviews and renews the NPDES permit;
SSES's current NPDES permit was effective beginning September 1, 2005,
and is valid through August 31, 2010. The NPDES permit sets water
quality standards for all plant discharges to the Susquehanna River,
including limits on free available chlorine, total zinc, and total
chromium in cooling tower blowdown. According to Pennsylvania's
Environmental Facility Application Compliance Tracking System (eFACTS),
there are no past or current NPDES violations listed for SSES
(Reference 4).
While the proposed EPU would increase the amount of cooling tower
blowdown to the Susquehanna River, there is no expected increase in
associated biocides, solvents, or dissolved solids entering the river,
and SSES would continue to adhere to the water quality standards set
within the NPDES permit. The NPDES permit does not contain thermal
discharge temperature limits, but SSES must adhere to Susquehanna River
temperature limits prescribed by Pennsylvania Code water quality
standards (Reference 1). Thermal discharge effects and applicable
Pennsylvania Code water quality standards will be discussed further in
the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section.
No expected changes in turbidity, scouring, erosion or
sedimentation are expected as a result of the proposed EPU. Surface and
wastewater discharges to the Susquehanna River would continue to be
regulated by the Pennsylvania DEP. Any discharge-related impacts for
the proposed action would be similar to current impacts from plant
operation, and therefore, the staff concludes the proposed action
[[Page 68602]]
would not result in significant impacts on the Susquehanna River from
cooling water discharge.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed EPU
include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and
impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The aquatic
species evaluated in this draft Environmental Assessment are those in
the vicinity of the SSES cooling water intake and discharge structures
along the Susquehanna River, and those that occur in water bodies
crossed by transmission lines associated with SSES.
The licensee has conducted aquatic biota studies of the Susquehanna
River upstream and downstream of SSES since 1971. The studies assessed
water quality, algae (periphyton and photoplankton),
macroinvertebrates, and fish from 1971 to 1994, with annual fish
studies beginning in 1976. The Susquehanna River in the vicinity of
SSES has both coolwater and warmwater fishes, primarily consisting of
minnows (Cyprinidae), suckers (Catastomidae), catfish (Icaluridae),
sunfish (Centrarchidae), and darters and perch (Percidae). There are
also records of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), walleye (Sander
vitreus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) found in proximity
to SSES. Monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates and biofouling
mollusks was also included in the studies. No zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) have been recorded at SSES or in the vicinity of the North
Branch of the Susquehanna River; however, Asiatic clams (Corbicula
fluminea) have been found in the North Branch of the Susquehanna River
for several years and were collected by scuba divers in the SSES
engineered safeguard service water spray pond in July 2005.
No sensitive aquatic species are known to occur at or near SSES
(Reference 9); however, the 1981 FES for operation indicated that two
endangered and two rare fish listed by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission
(now the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission) have ranges that fall
within SSES transmission line corridors (NRC 1981). PPL has provided
the staff with a vegetative management program for its transmission
line corridors that states no herbicides shall be applied within 50
feet of any water body, except stump treatments and herbicides approved
for watershed/aquatic use. Additionally, the transmission line corridor
maintenance activities in the vicinity of stream and river crossings
employ procedures to minimize erosion and shoreline disturbance while
encouraging vegetative cover (Reference 7).
In addition to setting water quality parameters for surface and
wastewater discharges, the SSES NPDES permit (PA-0047325) also
regulates entrainment and impingement of aquatic species at SSES.
Because SSES uses a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling water system,
entrainment and impingement impacts on aquatic biota resulting from the
proposed EPU are not expected to be significant.
The proposed EPU would require additional water withdrawal from the
Susquehanna River for increased cooling tower evaporative losses and
other plant needs. The average increase in daily water withdrawal from
the Susquehanna River would be approximately 4.4 percent, from 58.3
million gpd to 60.9 million gpd. PPL also reported a maximum daily
water withdrawal estimate of 65.4 million gpd (an 11.2 percent
increase), which would only occur during worst-case meteorological
conditions (Reference 15). Under the proposed EPU conditions, the
average increase in water withdrawal would result in the impingement of
approximately one additional fish per day (from 21 to 22) and
entrainment of approximately 15,972 additional larvae per day (from
363,000 to 378,000) during spawning season. These small increases in
entrainment and impingement related to the proposed EPU would result in
no significant impact to the Susquehanna River aquatic community
(Reference 9).
Effective July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended the Phase II rule (NRC
2007b). As a result, all permits for Phase II facilities should include
conditions under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act that are
developed on a Best Professional Judgment basis, rather than best
technology available. Best Professional Judgment is used by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit writers to
develop technology-based permit conditions on a case-by-case basis
using all reasonably available and relevant data. Any site-specific
mitigation required under the NPDES permitting process would result in
a reduction in the impacts of continued plant operations.
The NPDES permit issued by the Pennsylvania DEP does not specify
thermal discharge limits; however, the amount and temperature of heated
effluent discharged to the Susquehanna River is governed by Section
93.7 of Pennsylvania Code, which places restrictions on waters
designated ``Warm Water Fisheries.'' During the July 1-August 31 time
frame, the highest river water temperature allowable is 87 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F), with lower temperature limits during other parts
of the year (Reference 1). In the 1981 FES for operation, the NRC
performed an analysis of SSES blowdown plume characteristics. The
analysis concluded that blowdown temperatures during all four seasons
were lower than the maximum river temperatures set by Section 93.7. The
location and design of the SSES cooling water discharge structure and
the high flow rate of the Susquehanna River allow for sufficient mixing
and cooling of heated effluent. Using conservative assumptions similar
to those used in the original FES thermal plume analysis, PPL
calculated that after implementation of the proposed EPU, blowdown
temperatures would increase by 2 [deg]F. This would result in a 0.6
[deg]F increase in the maximum expected temperature at the edge of the
thermal plume mixing zone (maximum temperature 86.5 [deg]F). The staff
concludes that the increase in thermal discharge temperature and volume
resulting from the proposed EPU would still fall within the guidelines
prescribed by the original FES for operation (NRC 1981).
Liquid effluents discharged to the Susquehanna River include
cooling tower blowdown, spray pond overflow, liquid rad waste treatment
effluents, and surface and wastewater discharges. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania regulates these discharges through SSES's NPDES permit,
which sets water quality standards for all plant discharges to the
Susquehanna River. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River
conducted for the licensee indicate that river water quality in the
vicinity of SSES continues to improve. From 1973 through 2002, there
was a significant decreasing trend in turbidity, sulfate, total iron,
and total suspended solids; and a significant increasing trend in river
temperature, pH, total alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen. A reduction in
acid-mine drainage pollutants and improvements in upstream waste-water
treatment have likely contributed to the overall-improved river
ecosystem health (Ecology III 2003).
SSES operates a closed-cycle cooling water system, and as such, the
staff concludes that impacts to aquatic biota in the Susquehanna River
from entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge resulting from the
proposed EPU would not be significant. The Pennsylvania DEP will
continue to
[[Page 68603]]
regulate the performance of the SSES cooling water system and surface
and wastewater discharges through the NPDES permit and Pennsylvania
Code designed to protect warm water fisheries. Furthermore, SSES
transmission line corridor maintenance practices would not change upon
implementation of the proposed EPU; thus, the staff concludes there
would be no significant impacts to aquatic species associated with
transmission line corridor maintenance.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
Potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed EPU
include impacts due to transmission line corridor maintenance and any
planned new construction. The natural communities at SSES and in the
surrounding areas consist of river floodplain forest, upland forest,
marshes, and wetlands. The river floodplain forest at SSES is dominated
by silver maple (Acer saccharinum), river birch (Betula nigra), and
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra). The upland forest is dominated by
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), sweet birch (Betula lenta), flowering
dogwood (Cornaceae cornus), white oak (Fagaceae quercus), Northern red
oak, black oak (Q. velutina), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The marshes are dominated by a variety of emergent
vegetation such as sedges (Cyperaceae), bulrush and cattail
(Typhaceae), and cutgrass (Poaceae) (Reference 9). Although wetlands do
occur at the SSES site, none of the wetlands would be affected by the
proposed action.
As stated in the Cooling Tower Impacts section, no significant
increase in noise is anticipated for cooling tower operation following
the proposed EPU, and as such, biota would not be impacted. The staff
agrees with the conclusions reached in the GEIS regarding bird
collisions with cooling towers: Avian mortality due to collisions with
cooling towers is considered to be of small significance if the losses
do not destabilize local populations of any species and there is no
noticeable impairment of its function with the local ecosystem (NRC
1996).
The proposed action would not involve new land disturbance outside
of the existing power block or developed areas, and as discussed in the
Transmission Facilities Impacts section, there would be no changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance practices. Thus, the staff
concludes that there would be no significant impacts to terrestrial
species or their habitat associated with the proposed action, including
transmission line right-of-way maintenance.
Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the
proposed action include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and
terrestrial biota sections of this Environmental Assessment. These
impacts include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects,
and impacts from transmission line right-of-way maintenance for aquatic
and terrestrial species. A review of databases maintained by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage
Program indicate that several animal and plant species that are
Federally or Commonwealth-listed as threatened or endangered occur in
the vicinity of SSES and its associated transmission line corridors.
Informal consultation with FWS Pennsylvania Field Office regarding the
proposed EPU's potential impact on threatened or endangered species is
ongoing.
Four species listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act and 24 species that are listed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as threatened or endangered occur within
the counties where SSES and its associated transmission line corridors
are located. These species are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1.--Endangered and Threatened Species That Could Occur in the
Vicinity of SSES or in Counties Crossed by SSES Transmission Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State
Scientific name Common name status* status*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals:
Neotoma magister............ Allegheny woodrat. -- T
Myotis sodalis.............. Indiana bat....... E E
Myotis leibii............... Small-footed -- T
myotis.
Sciurus niger............... Eastern fox -- T
squirrel.
Birds:
Ardia alba.................. Great egret....... -- E
Asio flammeus............... Short-eared owl... -- E
Bartramia longicauda........ Upland sandpiper.. -- T
Botaurus lentiginosus....... American bittern.. -- E
Chlidonias niger............ Black tern........ -- E
Cistothorus platensis....... Sedge wren........ -- T
Falco peregrinus............ Peregrine falcon.. -- E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus.... Bald eagle........ T E
Ixobrychus exilis........... Least bittern..... -- E
Pandion haliaetus........... Osprey............ -- T
Reptiles:
Clemmys muhlenbergii........ Bog Turtle........ T E
Invertebrates:
Enodia anthedon............. Northern peary-eye -- VS
Euphydryas phaeton.......... Baltimore -- VS
checkerspot.
Poanes massasoit............ Mulberry wing..... -- V
Polites mystic.............. Long dash......... -- V
Speyeria idalia............. Regal fritillary.. -- E
Speyeria aphrodite.......... Aphrodite -- VS
fritillary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*T = Threatened, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, VS = Vulnerable to
Apparently Secure
-- = Not Listed
[[Page 68604]]
(Sources: References 3, 5, 6, 16).
The proposed EPU would involve no new land disturbance, and any
construction necessary would be minimal and would only occur in
previously developed areas of SSES. Additionally, no changes would be
made to the transmission line corridor maintenance program, including
vegetative maintenance. As such, the staff concludes that the proposed
action would have no significant impact on Federally or Commonwealth-
listed species in the vicinity of SSES and its transmission line
corridors.
Social and Economic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts due to the proposed EPU include
changes in the payments in lieu of taxes for Luzerne County and changes
in the size of the workforce at SSES. Currently SSES employs
approximately 1,200 full-time staff, 89 percent of whom live in Luzerne
or Columbia Counties, and approximately 260 contract employees. During
outages, approximately 1,400 personnel provide additional support
(Reference 9).
The proposed EPU is not expected to increase the size of the
permanent SSES workforce, since proposed plant modifications would be
phased in during planned outages when SSES has the support of 1,400
additional workers. In addition, the proposed EPU would not require an
increase in the size of the SSES workforce during future refueling
outages. Accordingly, the proposed EPU would not have any measurable
effect on annual earnings and income in Luzerne and Columbia Counties
or on community services (Reference 9).
According to the 2000 Census, Luzerne and Columbia County
populations were about 2.9 and 2.0 percent minority, respectively,
which is well below the Commonwealth minority population of 13.2
percent. The poverty rates in 1999 for individuals living in Luzerne
and Columbia Counties are 11.1 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively,
which are slightly higher than the Commonwealth's average of 11.0
percent. Due to the lack of significant environmental impacts resulting
from the proposed action, the proposed EPU would not have any
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income
populations (Reference 9).
In the past, PPL paid real estate taxes to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for power generation, transmission, and distribution
facilities. Under authority of the Pennsylvania Utility Realty Tax Act
(PURTA), real estate taxes collected from all utilities (water,
telephone, electric, and railroads) were redistributed to the taxing
jurisdictions within the Commonwealth. In Pennsylvania, these
jurisdictions include counties, cities, townships, boroughs, and school
districts. The distribution of PURTA funds was determined by formula
and was not necessarily based on the individual utility's effect on a
particular government entity (Reference 9).
In 1996, Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act
became law, which allows consumers to choose among competitive
suppliers of electrical power. As a result of utility restructuring,
Act 4 of 1999 revised the tax base assessment methodology for utilities
from the depreciated book value to the market value of utility
property. Additionally, as of January 1, 2000, PPL was required to
begin paying real estate taxes directly to local jurisdictions, ceasing
payments to the Commonwealth's PURTA fund. PPL currently pays annual
real estate taxes to the Berwick Area School District, Luzerne County,
and Salem Township (Reference 9).
The proposed EPU could increase SSES's value, thus resulting in a
larger allocation of the payment to the Berwick Area School District,
Luzerne County, and Salem Township. Because the proposed EPU would
increase the economic viability of SSES, the probability of early plant
retirement would be reduced. Early plant retirement would be expected
to have negative impacts on the local economy and the community by
reducing tax payments and limiting local employment opportunities for
the long term (Reference 9).
Since the proposed EPU would not have any measurable effect on the
annual earnings and income in Luzerne and Columbia Counties or on
community services and due to the lack of significant environmental
impacts on minority or low-income populations, there would be no
significant socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated
with the proposed EPU. Conversely, the proposed EPU could have a
positive effect on the regional economy because of the potential
increase in the tax payments received by the Berwick Area School
District, Luzerne County, and Salem Township, due to the potential
increase in the book value of SSES, and the increased long-term
viability of SSES.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not result in a significant change in non-
radiological impacts in the areas of land use, water use, cooling tower
operation, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facility
operation, or social and economic factors. No other non-radiological
impacts were identified or would be expected. Table 2 summarizes the
non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at SSES.
Table 2.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No significant land-use modifications.
Non-Radiological Waste....... Any additional hazardous and non-
hazardous waste as a result of the
proposed EPU would continue to be
regulated by RCRA and managed by SSES's
waste management program.
Cooling Tower................ Impacts associated with continued cooling
tower operation following the proposed
EPU, including noise, fogging, cloud
cover, salt drift, and icing would not
change significantly from current
impacts.
Transmission Facilities...... No physical modifications to transmission
lines; lines meet electrical shock
safety requirements; no changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance;
small increase in electrical current
would cause small increase in
electromagnetic field around
transmission lines; no changes to
voltage.
Water Use.................... No configuration change to intake
structure; increase in cooling water
flow rate; increase in consumptive use
due to evaporation; SRBC would continue
to regulate consumptive water usage at
SSES.
Discharge.................... Small increase in discharge temperature
and volume; no increases in other
effluents; discharge would remain within
Pennsylvania water quality limits, and
SSES would continue to operate under
NPDES permit regulations.
Aquatic Biota................ Small increases in entrainment and
impingement are not expected to affect
the Susquehanna River aquatic biota;
increase in volume and temperature of
thermal discharge would remain within
original FES guidelines and below
Pennsylvania Code Section 93.7
temperature limits; SSES would continue
to operate under NPDES permit
regulations with regard to entrainment
and impingement.
Terrestrial Biota............ No land disturbance or changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance
are expected; therefore, there would be
no significant effects on terrestrial
species or their habitat.
[[Page 68605]]
Threatened and Endangered As evaluated for aquatic and terrestrial
Species. biota, no significant impacts are
expected on protected species or their
habitat.
Social and Economic.......... No change in size of SSES labor force
required for plant operation or for
planned outages; proposed EPU could
increase payments to Luzerne County and
book value of SSES; there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse
impact on minority and low-income
populations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
SSES uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that might contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that the
discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 20, and the design objectives
of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 (Reference 9).
Minimal changes will be made to the waste treatment systems to
handle the additional waste expected to be generated by the proposed
EPU; the installation of an additional condensate filter and
demineralizer. The gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes are
discussed individually (Reference 9).
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment system
processes and controls the release of small quantities of radioactive
noble gases, halogens, tritium, and particulate materials to the
environment. The gaseous waste management system includes the offgas
system and various building ventilation systems. The single year
highest annual releases of radioactive material, for the time period
2000-2005 were; 2002 for noble gases with 9.68 Curies, 2001 for
particulates and iodines with 0.0074 Curies, and 2004 for tritium with
160 Curies (Reference 9).
The licensee has estimated that the amount of radioactive material
released in gaseous effluents would increase in proportion to the
increase in power level (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience
from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. The offsite dose to a member of the public,
including the additional radioactive material that would be released
from the proposed EPU, is calculated to still be well within the
radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the staff concludes the
increase in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent release following
implementation of the proposed EPU would not be significant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment system
processes and controls the release of radioactive liquid effluents to
the environment, such that the dose to individuals offsite are
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The liquid radioactive
waste system is designed to process and purify the waste and then
recycle it for use within the plant, or to discharge it to the
environment as radioactive liquid waste effluent in accordance with
facility procedures which comply with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
Federal regulations. The single year highest radioactive liquid
releases, for the time period 2000-2005 were: 2005 at 1,470,000
gallons, 2003 with 70.25 Curies of tritium, 2000 with 36.95 Curies of
fission and activation products, and 2002 with 0.0003 Curies of
dissolved and entrained gases (Reference 9).
Even though the EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive
fission and activation products and a larger volume of liquid to be
processed, the licensee performed an evaluation which shows that the
liquid radwaste treatment system would remove all but a small amount of
the increased radioactive material. The licensee estimated that the
volume of radioactive liquid effluents released to the environment and
the amount of radioactive material in the liquid effluents would
increase slightly (less than 1 percent) due to the proposed EPU. Based
on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this
is an acceptable estimate. The dose to a member of the public from the
radioactive releases described above, increased by 1 percent, would
still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the
design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the staff
concludes that there would not be a significant environmental impact
from the additional amount of radioactive material generated following
implementation of the proposed EPU.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
The solid radioactive waste system collects, processes, packages,
and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to
shipment offsite for permanent disposal. The volume of solid
radioactive waste generated varied from about 2500 to almost 8000 cubic
feet (ft\3\) per year in the time period 2000-2005; the largest volume
generated was 7980 ft\3\ in 2003. The annual amount of radioactive
material in the waste generated varied from 2500 to almost 190,000
Curies during that same period. The largest amount of radioactive
material generated in the solid waste was 189,995 Curies in 2000
(Reference 9).
The proposed EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive
fission and activation products which would require more frequent
replacement or regeneration of radwaste treatment system filters and
demineralizer resins. The licensee has estimated that the volume of
solid radioactive waste would increase by approximately 11 percent due
to the proposed EPU (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at
other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate.
The increased volume of the solid waste would still be bounded by the
estimate of 10,400 ft\3\ in the 1981 FES for operation. Therefore, the
staff concludes that the impact from the increased volume of solid
radwaste generated due to the proposed EPU would not be significant.
The licensee did not provide an estimate of the increase in the
amount of radioactive solid waste in terms of Curies. However, for 4 of
the 6 years between 2000 and 2005, the annual amount of radioactive
material in the solid waste generated varied from 2500 to 5779 Curies
(Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff
estimated that the amount of radioactive material in the solid waste
would increase by 20 percent, proportional to the proposed EPU power
increase. In 2000 and 2003, work was done that generated large amounts
of used irradiated components, accounting for 98 percent and 92
percent, respectively, of the radioactive material generated in solid
radwaste. Such work and the solid radwaste generated by that work
occasionally occurs at SSES, but the range of 2500 to 5779 Curies is
more
[[Page 68606]]
typical (Reference 9). The annual average of radioactive material
generated after the proposed EPU would still be bounded by the estimate
of 5500 Curies in the 1981 FES for operation. In addition, the licensee
must continue to meet all NRC and Department of Transportation
regulations for transportation of solid radioactive waste. Therefore,
the staff concludes that the impact from the increased amount of
radioactive material in the solid radwaste due to the proposed EPU
would not be significant.
The licensee estimates that the EPU would require replacement of 10
percent more fuel assemblies at each refueling. This increase in the
amount of spent fuel being generated would require an increase in the
number of dry fuel storage casks used to store spent fuel. The current
dry fuel storage facility at SSES has been evaluated and can
accommodate the increase (Reference 9). Therefore, the staff concludes
that there would be no significant environmental impacts resulting from
storage of the additional fuel assemblies.
In-Plant Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive
material and higher radiation dose rates in the restricted areas at
SSES. SSES's radiation protection staff will continue monitoring dose
rates and would make adjustments in shielding, access requirements,
decontamination methods, and procedures as necessary to minimize the
dose to workers. In addition, occupational dose to individual workers
must be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and as low as
reasonably achievable (Reference 9).
The licensee has estimated that the work necessary to implement the
proposed EPU at the plant would also increase the collective
occupational radiation dose at the plant to approximately 230 person-
rem per year until the implementation is completed in 2009. After the
implementation is completed, the licensee estimates that the annual
collective occupational dose would be in the range of 200 person-rem,
roughly 12 percent higher than the current dose of 182 person-rem in
2005 and 184 person-rem in 2006 (Reference 9). Based on experience from
EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that these estimates are
acceptable. The staff notes that SSES is allowed a maximum of 3,200
person-rem per year as provided in the 1981 Final Environmental
Statement--Operating Stage. Therefore, the staff concludes that the
increase in occupational exposure would not be significant.
Direct Radiation Doses Offsite
Offsite radiation dose consists of three components: Gaseous,
liquid, and direct gamma radiation. As previously discussed under the
Gaseous Radiological Waste and Liquid Radiological Waste sections, the
estimated doses to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous and
liquid effluents after the proposed EPU is implemented, would be well
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
The final component of offsite dose is from direct gamma radiation
from radioactive waste stored temporarily onsite, including spent fuel
in dry cask storage, and radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the
steam from the reactor passing through the turbine system. The high
energy radiation from nitrogen-16 is scattered or reflected by the air
above the facility and represents an additional public radiation dose
pathway known as ``skyshine.'' The licensee estimated that the offsite
radiation dose from skyshine would increase linearly with the increase
in power level from the proposed EPU (20 percent); more nitrogen-16 is
produced at the higher EPU power, and less of the nitrogen-16 decays
before it reaches the turbine system because of the higher rate of
steam flow due to the EPU. The licensee's radiological environmental
monitoring program measures radiation dose at the site boundary and in
the area around the facility with an array of thermoluminescent
dosimeters. The licensee reported doses ranging from 0.2 to 1.3 mrem
per year for the time period 2000-2005. The licensee estimated that the
dose would increase approximately in proportion to the EPU power
increase (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at
other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate.
EPA regulation 40 CFR part 190 and NRC regulation 10 CFR part 20 limit
the annual dose to any member of the public to 25 mrem to the whole
body from the nuclear fuel cycle. The offsite dose from all sources,
including radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and direct
radiation, would still be well within this limit after the proposed EPU
is implemented. Therefore, the staff concludes that the increase in
offsite radiation dose would not be significant.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there would be
an increase in the inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core; the
core inventory of radionuclides would increase as power level
increases. The concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant
may also increase; however, this concentration is limited by the SSES
Technical Specifications. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration
of radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. Some
of the radioactive waste streams and storage systems may also contain
slightly higher quantities of radioactive material. The calculated
doses from design basis postulated accidents for SSES are currently
well below the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67; this was confirmed by the NRC
staff in the Safety Evaluation Report supporting a license amendment
for SSES dated January 31, 2007. The licensee has estimated that the
radiological consequences of postulated accidents would increase
approximately in proportion to the increase in power level from the
proposed EPU (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs
at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable
estimate. The calculated doses from design basis postulated accidents
are based on conservative assumption and would still be well within the
criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 after the increase due to the implementation
of the proposed EPU.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed
confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the licensee's
calculated doses under accident conditions. The staff's independent
review of dose calculations under postulated accident conditions
determined that dose would be within regulatory limits. Therefore, the
staff concludes that the EPU would not significantly increase the
consequences of accidents and would not result in a significant
increase in the radiological environmental impact of SSES 1 and 2 from
postulated accidents.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR part 51 specify the environmental
impacts due to the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and
wastes, respectively. SSES's EPU would increase the power level to 3952
mega-watt thermal (Mwt), which is 3.3 percent above the reference power
level for Table S-4. The increased power level of 3952 Mwt corresponds
to 1300 mega-watt electric (Mwe), which is 30 percent above the
reference power level for Table S-3. Part of the increase is due to a
more efficient turbine design; this increase in efficiency does not
affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of wastes.
However, more fuel will be used in the reactor (more
[[Page 68607]]
fuel assemblies will be replaced at each refueling outage), and that
will potentially affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and
transportation of wastes. The fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria
of Tables S-3 and S-4 will still be met because fuel enrichment will be
maintained no greater than 5 percent, and the fuel burn-up rate will be
maintained within 60 giga-watt-days/metric ton uranium (Gwd/MTU). The
staff concludes that after adjusting for the effects of the more
efficient turbine, the potential increases in the impact due to the
uranium fuel cycle and the transportation of fuel and wastes from the
larger amount of fuel used would be small and would not be significant.
Summary
Based on staff review of licensee submissions and the 1981 FES for
operation, it is concluded that the proposed EPU would not
significantly increase the consequences of accidents, would not result
in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure,
and would not result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental
impacts. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there would be no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action. Table 3 summarizes the radiological environmental
impacts of the proposed EPU at SSES.
Table 3.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Radiological Increased gaseous effluents (20 percent)
Effluents. would remain within NRC limits and dose
design objectives.
Liquid Radiological Effluents Increased liquid effluents (1 percent)
would remain within NRC limits and dose
design objectives.
Solid Radioactive Waste...... Increased amount of solid radioactive
waste generated (11 percent by volume
and 20 percent by radioactivity) would
remain bounded by evaluation in the FES.
Occupational Radiation Doses. Occupational dose would increase by
approximately 20 percent. Doses would be
maintained within NRC limits and as low
as is reasonably achievable.
Offsite Radiation Doses...... Radiation doses to members of the public
would continue to be very small, well
within NRC and EPA regulations.
Postulated Accident Doses.... Calculated doses for postulated design
basis accidents would remain within NRC
limits.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria
Impacts. of Tables S-3 and S-4 are met because
fuel enrichment will be maintained no
greater than 5 percent, and the fuel
burn-up rate will be maintained within
60 Gwd/MTU. After adjusting for the
effects of the more efficient turbine,
the potential increases in impacts due
to the fuel cycle and transportation of
fuel and wastes would not be
significant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the [ballot]no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current
environmental impacts. However, if the proposed EPU were not approved,
other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to
pursue alternative means of providing electric generation capacity to
offset the increased power demand forecasted for the PJM regional
transmission territory.
A reasonable alternative to the proposed EPU would be to purchase
power from other generators in the PJM network. In 2003, generating
capacity in PJM consisted primarily of fossil fuel-fired generators:
coal generated 36.2 percent of PJM capacity, oil 14.3 percent, and
natural gas 6.8 percent (Reference 10). This indicates that purchased
power in the PJM territory would likely be generated by a fossil-fuel-
fired facility. Construction (if new generation is needed) and
operation of a fossil fuel plant would create impacts in air quality,
land use, and waste management significantly greater than those
identified for the proposed EPU at SSES. SSES's nuclear units do not
emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other
atmospheric pollutants that are commonly associated with fossil fuel
plants. Conservation programs such as demand-side management could
feasibly replace the proposed EPU's additional power output. However,
forecasted future energy demand in the PJM territory may exceed
conservation savings and still require additional generating capacity
(Reference 9). The proposed EPU does not involve environmental impacts
that are significantly different from those originally identified in
the 1981 SSES FES for operation.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the original FES for construction.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 2, 2007, the staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Brad Fuller, of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 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 Commission
concludes that the proposed action would 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 application dated October 11, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated October 25, December 4 and 26, 2006, February 13, March
14 and 22, April 13, 17, 23, 26, and 27, May 3, 9, 14, and 21, June 1,
4, 8, 14, 20, and 27, July 6, 12, 13, 30, 31, and August 3, 13, 15, 28,
and October 5, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML062900160, ML062900161, ML062900162,
ML062900306, ML062900361, ML062900401, ML062900405, ML063120119,
ML063460354, ML070040376, ML070610371, ML070860229, ML070890411,
ML071150113, ML071150043, ML071240196, ML071700104, ML071280506,
ML071300266, ML071360026, ML071360036, ML071360041, ML071420064,
ML071420047, ML071500058, ML071500300, ML071620218, ML071620311,
ML071620299, ML071620342, ML071620256, ML071700096, ML071710442,
ML071780629, ML071860142, ML071860421, ML071870449, ML071730404,
ML072010019, ML072060040, ML072060588, ML072200103, ML07220477,
ML072220482, ML072220485, ML072220490, ML072280247, ML072340597,
ML072340603, ML072480182, and ML072900642 respectively). Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint
[[Page 68608]]
North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard V. Guzman,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
References
1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PA). 25 Pa. Code Sec. 93.7
Specific water quality criteria. Accessed at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/025_0093.pdf on March 19, 2007.
(ML070780679)
2. Ecology III, Inc. (Ecology III). Environmental Studies in the
Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 2002--Water
Quality and Fishes. Berwick, PA. (ML071040042)
3. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(DCNR). Wild Resource Conservation Program, Regal Fritillary.
Accessed at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/regal.aspx on April
12, 2007. (ML071040022)
4. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Pennyslvania's Environment Facility Application Compliance Tracking
System. Accessed at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/efacts/default.asp
on March 20, 2007. (ML071040025)
5. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (FBC). Endangered and
Threatened Species of Pennsylvania--Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii.
Accessed at: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/etspecis.htm on April 12, 2007. (ML071040032)
6. Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). Endangered Species.
Accessed at: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=458&q=150321 on April 12, 2007. (ML071040030)
7. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL). Specification For
Initial Clearing and Control Maintenance Of Vegetation On Or
Adjacent To Electric Line Right-of-Way Through Use Of Herbicides,
Mechanical, And Handclearing Techniques. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
(ML071040030)
8. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285 For Unit 1 Operating
License No. NPF-14 and 253 For Unit 2 Operating License No. NPF-22
Constant Pressure Power Uprate PLA-6076. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
(ML062900160)
9. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285 For Unit 1 Operating
License No. NPF-14 and 253 For Unit 2 Operating License No. NPF-22
Constant Power Uprate PLA-6076, Attachment 3, Supplemental
Environmental Report. Allentown, Pennsylvania. (ML062900161)
10. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL). Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station Units 1 and 2 License Renewal Application, Appendix E
Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating Stage. Allentown,
Pennsylvania. (ML062630235)
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts
Warehouse--Facility Registration System--Facility Detail Report.
Accessed at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id in=PAD000765883&pgm--sys--acrnm--
in=RCRAINFO on March 23, 2007. (ML071040026)
12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ``Pennsylvania Power and
Light Company, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.'' Federal Register,
Vol. 59, No. 53, pp. 12990-12992. Washington, DC (April 28, 1994).
(ML071040017)
13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ``Pennsylvania Power &
Light Co., Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact.'' Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 3278-
3280. Washington, DC (January 13, 1995). (ML071040020)
14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ``PPL Susquehanna, LLC;
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.'' Federal Register, Vol. 66, No.
122, pp. 33716-33717. Washington, DC (June 25, 2001). (ML071040021)
15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. E-mail from J. Fields,
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Allentown, Pennsylvania, to A. Mullins, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland. Subject:
``Application to Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC).''
January 8, 2007. (ML070320756)
16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter from R. Bowen,
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to A. Mullins, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Rockville, Maryland. Subject: ``Pennsylvania Natural
Diversity Inventory Review, PNDI Number 19031.'' January 8, 2007.
(ML070190672)
[FR Doc. E7-23537 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P