[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71450-71461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24283]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]


PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 
and 2 Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the 
Maximum Reactor Power Level; Correction

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an Environmental Assessment appearing 
in the Federal Register on December 5, 2007 (72 FR 68598). This action 
is necessary to correctly declare the Environmental Assessment as a 
final document (in lieu of a draft) with no action for noticing for 
public comment. The corrected Environmental Assessment is provided as 
follows:
    The NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment as part of 
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 final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
is being published in the Federal Register.
    The NRC published a draft Environmental Assessment and finding of 
no significant impact on the proposed action for public comment in the 
Federal Register on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46670). One set of comments 
were received on the draft Environmental Assessment from PPL 
Susquehanna, LLC by letter dated September 19, 2007 (Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 
ML072820283). These comments were clarifications and editorial 
corrections to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on these 
comments, the NRC staff revised the appropriate sections of the final 
Environmental Assessment.

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,

[[Page 71451]]

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).
    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

[[Page 71452]]

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 
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

[[Page 71453]]

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 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

[[Page 71454]]

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 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 final 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), 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

[[Page 71455]]

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 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.

[[Page 71456]]



   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                --            T
                                woodrat.
    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                   --            T
                                sandpiper.
    Botaurus lentiginosus....  American                 --            E
                                bittern.
    Chlidonias niger.........  Black tern.....          --            E
    Cistothorus platensis....  Sedge wren.....          --            T
    Falco peregrinus.........  Peregrine                --            E
                                falcon.
    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-          --           VS
                                eye.
    Euphydryas phaeton.......  Baltimore                --           VS
                                checkerspot.
    Poanes massasoit.........  Mulberry wing..          --            V
    Polites mystic...........  Long dash......          --            V
    Speyeria idalia..........  Regal                    --            E
                                fritillary.
    Speyeria aphrodite.......  Aphrodite                --           VS
                                fritillary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ T = Threatened, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, VS = Vulnerable to
  Apparently Secure -- = Not Listed.
(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

[[Page 71457]]

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.
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

[[Page 71458]]

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 amount annual 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 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

[[Page 71459]]

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 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71460]]

Alternatives to Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``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 (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 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 7th day of December 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:

[[Page 71461]]

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ fii--query--dtl.disp--program--
facility?pgm--sys--idin=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, D.C. (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, D.C. (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, D.C. (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. E7-24283 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P