[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18073-18083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07132]
[[Page 18073]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278; NRC-2013-0232]
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-
44 and DPR-56, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the
licensee), for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
(PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, located in York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania. The proposed amendments would authorize an increase in
the maximum reactor power level from 3514 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
3951 MWt. The NRC staff is issuing a final Environmental Assessment
(EA) and final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) associated with
the proposed license amendments.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0232 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may access publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0232. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this document (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced. The application for amendments is dated September 28, 2012,
and is supplemented by letters dated February 15, 2013, May 7, 2013,
May 24, 2013, June 4, 2013, June 27, 2013, July 30, 2013, July 31,
2013, August 5, 2013, August 22, 2013, August 29, 2013, September 13,
2013, October 11, 2013, October 15, 2013, October 31, 2013, December 6,
2013, December 20, 2013, January 17, 2014, January 31, 2014 (two
letters), February 20, 2014, February 28, 2014, March 10, 2014, and
March 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML122860201, ML13051A032,
ML13129A143, ML13149A145, ML13156A368, ML13182A025, ML13211A457,
ML13213A285, ML13217A431, ML13240A002, ML13241A418, ML13260A076,
ML13289A191, ML13289A300, ML13308A331, ML13345A687, ML13358A083,
ML14023A659, ML14031A422, ML14035A158, ML14051A629, ML14070A141,
ML14072A016, and ML14076A082, respectively). The application and some
of the supplements contain Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (proprietary information) and, accordingly, the proprietary
information has been withheld from public disclosure. Redacted versions
of the documents containing proprietary information have been made
publicly available and can be accessed via the applicable ADAMS
accession numbers listed above.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard B. Ennis, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-001, telephone: 301-415-1420, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
In accordance with Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC is considering issuance of amendments to
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, issued to
Exelon, for operation of PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, located in York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. The proposed amendments would
increase the maximum licensed thermal power level, for each reactor,
from 3,514 MWt to 3,951 MWt. This change, referred to as an extended
power uprate (EPU), represents an increase of approximately 12.4
percent above the current licensed thermal power level.
Consistent with the NRC guidance for this type of license
amendment, RS-001, ``Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates,''
dated December 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML033640024), the NRC staff
prepared a draft EA and a draft FONSI. The draft EA and draft FONSI
were published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2013 (78 FR
63506) with a 30-day period for public comment.
Two sets of comments were received by the NRC staff in response to
the Federal Register notice dated October 24, 2013. The NRC staff has
reviewed and resolved the comments as discussed below. Based on
resolution of the comments, the NRC staff has prepared a final EA and a
final FONSI for publication in the Federal Register, as shown below,
pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR 51.21, 10 CFR 51.32, and 10 CFR
51.35.
In response to the Federal Register notice dated October 24, 2013,
comments were submitted by: (1) Exelon, in a letter dated November 22,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13339A807); and (2) the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), in a letter dated
November 22, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13343A150).
Exelon's letter dated November 22, 2013, provided suggested wording
changes to clarify the draft EA. The NRC staff incorporated each of
these comments into the final EA using the words proposed in Exelon's
letter.
PADEP's letter dated November 22, 2013, stated, in part, that
``PADEP does not have specific detailed comments at this time because
Exelon just recently submitted a water quality certification request
for this project. Under the Clean Water Act, water quality
certification is required prior to the issuance of the license
amendment. Pennsylvania has detailed regulations concerning water
quality certification and it would be premature to comment on this
project prior to having an opportunity to review the environmental
assessment required by those regulations.'' On January 28, 2014, the
NRC staff held a conference call with the PADEP staff to discuss
PADEP's letter. The NRC confirmed that PADEP has no comments on the
draft EA and draft FONSI and that it has no objections to the NRC staff
issuing a final EA and final FONSI.
Based on the results of the EA that follows, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
amendments, and is issuing a final FONSI.
[[Page 18074]]
II. Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
PBAPS consists of Units 1, 2, and 3 located on approximately 620
acres of land in Peach Bottom Township, York County, Pennsylvania on
the west bank of the Susquehanna River. The site is approximately 38
miles north of Baltimore, Maryland; 19 miles southwest of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania; and 30 miles southeast of York, Pennsylvania. The area
within 6 miles of the site includes parts of York and Lancaster
Counties in Pennsylvania and parts of Harford and Cecil Counties in
Maryland. The property around the site is predominantly rural,
characterized by farmland and woods.
Units 2 and 3 are General Electric Type 4, Mark I boiling-water
reactors. In addition to Units 2 and 3, the site contains turbine
buildings, intake and discharge canals, auxiliary buildings,
switchyards, an interim spent fuel storage installation, a training
center, a public boat ramp, a picnic area, and the retired Unit 1
reactor. Unit 1 is located adjacent to Units 2 and 3. It was a
prototype, high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor which operated from
1966 to 1974. Unit 1 is permanently shut down, defueled, and is
maintained in a safe storage, surveillance, security, and maintenance
condition. It is not part of this application and will be
decommissioned in the future.
Units 2 and 3 at PBAPS have a common once-through heat dissipation
system that draws water from and discharges to the Conowingo Pond. The
Conowingo Pond is a reservoir on the Susquehanna River formed by the
Conowingo Dam (located approximately 8.5 miles downstream of the PBAPS
site) and the Holtwood Dam (located approximately 6 miles upstream of
the PBAPS site). The Conowingo and Holtwood Dams each provide
hydroelectric generation.
The Conowingo Pond has a surface area of approximately 9,000 acres
with 35 miles of shoreline. It has a width that varies from 0.5 to 1.3
miles and a maximum depth of 98 feet (ft). In addition to providing
cooling water for PBAPS, Conowingo Pond is used as a fish and wildlife
resource, for recreation, and as a source of public water.
Units 2 and 3 use six circulating water pumps (three per unit),
each rated at 250,000 gallons per minute (gpm), which draw water from
Conowingo Pond at a rate of 1.5 million gpm when all six pumps are
running. Water drawn from Conowingo Pond passes through a series of
intake structures before it is circulated through two main condensers.
From these condensers, water passes through a series of discharge
structures and then flows to Conowingo Pond where the heat is
dissipated to the environment. Exelon also maintains three mechanical
draft helper cooling towers that have the capacity to handle
approximately 60 percent of the cooling water circulating through Units
2 and 3. Water drawn from Conowingo Pond flows into a 487 ft long outer
intake structure along the west bank of Conowingo Pond. Trash racks
protect 32 outer intake openings and prevent large floating debris and
ice floes from reaching 24 traveling screens. This cooling water intake
structure is designed to reduce impingement by preventing fish and
small debris from entering the system. The intake structure allows fish
to avoid the screens by having a low approach velocity. The screens are
made of 3/8-inch square mesh and are placed approximately 40 ft. behind
the outer trash racks in the outer intake structure. From the outer
intake structure, water enters two, 700 ft-long and 200 ft-wide, intake
basins. The cooling water for the condensers is drawn from these two
intake basins.
Cooling water discharges from the condensers into a 700 ft-long and
400 ft-wide discharge basin where the heated cooling water then flows
through a 4,700 ft-long discharge canal. Three discharge gates at the
end of the discharge canal control the flow to Conowingo Pond and
maintain a discharge velocity between 5 and 8 ft/second.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is the issuance of amendments to the licenses
for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, which would increase the maximum licensed
thermal power level, for each reactor, from 3,514 MWt to 3,951 MWt.
This change, referred to as an extended power uprate (EPU), represents
an increase of approximately 12.4 percent above the current licensed
thermal power level. This change is considered an EPU by the NRC
because it exceeds the typical 7 percent power increase that can be
accommodated with only minor plant changes. An EPU usually requires
significant modifications to major plant equipment. The proposed EPU
for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, will require significant modifications as
discussed in Attachment 9 to the licensee's application dated September
28, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A011).
If approved, these amendments would allow the heat output of each
reactor to increase, which would increase the flow of steam to the
turbines. This would increase the production of electricity, increase
the amount of waste heat delivered to the condensers, and slightly
raise the temperature of the water discharged into Conowingo Pond.
Plant modifications to implement the EPU are expected to occur
during normal refueling outages that occur for each reactor once every
24 months and typically last for 30 to 40 days. If the EPU is approved,
Units 2 and 3 are expected to begin operating at the EPU core power
level of 3,951 MWt in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
Need for the Proposed Action
The current licenses for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, contain a maximum
authorized thermal power level for each reactor. The licensee desires
to increase this power level in order to increase the electrical output
of the plant without the need to site and construct new facilities. To
allow this to occur, the NRC must amend the licenses for each unit to
authorize the proposed new maximum thermal power level.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of issuance of the operating license for PBAPS, Units 2
and 3, the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license
would be encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the operation of the PBAPS
reactors. This FEIS was issued in 1973, by the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission (predecessor agency to the NRC). The NRC revisited and
updated the FEIS in January 2003, when the NRC published Supplement 10
to NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' that addressed the license renewal
of PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030270059).
The radiological and non-radiological impacts on the environment
that may result from the proposed EPU are summarized below.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Potential land use and aesthetic impacts for the proposed action
include impacts from construction and plant modifications. All plant
modifications will be implemented within existing buildings. No new
permanent expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment
storage areas, or transmission facilities on site will be required to
either complete the proposed EPU modifications or operate
[[Page 18075]]
PBAPS at EPU conditions. Exelon will use existing parking lots, road
access, equipment lay-down areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and
restrooms during plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions
and visual aesthetics would not change significantly at PBAPS from EPU
plant modifications. The EPU plant modifications are discussed in
Attachment 9 to the licensee's application dated September 28, 2012
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A011).
The plant cooling towers are not ``routinely used'' (see ``Aquatic
Resource Impacts'') and are not planned to be ``routinely used'' during
and after implementation of the EPU. Therefore, consistent with the
discussion in NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section 2.2.8.4, ``Visual
Aesthetics and Noise,'' there should not be any significant impacts
from the EPU, such as icing, fogging, plume, or noise impacts from the
operation of cooling towers. No significant impacts should occur to
land use and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of PBAPS from EPU
plant modifications.
Non-Radioactive Waste Impacts
As described in NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section 2.1.5,
``Nonradioactive Waste Systems,'' the principal non-radioactive
effluents from PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, consists of hazardous (chemical)
wastes, lubrication oil wastes, and sanitary wastes. The PBAPS site is
a small quantity generator of hazardous waste. Lubrication oils are
normally injected into the auxiliary boiler fuel feed with a small
quantity sent offsite for disposal. Spent batteries and discarded
fluorescent lights are recycled. Sanitary waste is sent to the onsite
sewage treatment plant. Implementation of the EPU will likely result in
a short-term temporary increase in construction related solid waste and
sanitary waste. The proposed EPU is not expected to cause a significant
impact from the generation of nonradioactive waste.
Air Quality Impacts
Major air pollution emission sources at the PBAPS site are
regulated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP). Nonradioactive emission sources at PBAPS result primarily from
diesel generators that are routinely tested and used when needed to
supply backup power. The other major source is from boilers used for
space heating and to help with unit startups. Emissions from these
sources are regulated by Pennsylvania's Permit Operating Program State
Only Permit number 67-05020. There will be no changes to the emissions
from these sources as a result of the EPU. However, some minor and
short duration air quality impacts would occur during implementation of
the EPU. The main source of air emissions would come from the vehicles
driven by outage workers needed to implement the EPU. This source will
be short-term and temporary. Therefore, the proposed EPU is not
expected to cause a significant impact on air quality.
Water Use Impacts
The facility is authorized by the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission to draw up to 2,363.62 million gallons/day of water from
Conowingo Pond and to consume up to 49 million gallons/day. Consumptive
water use at PBAPS consists of two key components: Evaporation and
drift in the helper cooling towers when the towers are in operation;
and in-stream evaporation from Conowingo Pond due to the additional
thermal loading from the plant. The PADEP National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to PBAPS (PA 0009733) requires
that cooling towers must be available to prevent unwanted discharges of
high-temperature water. If the three helper cooling towers are
operated, water would be lost by evaporation at an approximate rate 5.5
to 22 ft\3\/sec. This evaporative loss represents less than 2 percent
of the minimum monthly average river flow. Once the EPU has been
implemented, water consumption for plant cooling will not significantly
change from pre-EPU operation.
The PBAPS site also uses Conowingo Pond as a source of potable
water for the PBAPS site. During the planned outages and modifications,
the consumption of potable water will increase to support the temporary
workforce. After the EPU has been implemented, there should not be any
significant increase in the consumption of potable water. Since
groundwater is not used as a source of water, there should not be any
consumptive use of groundwater as a result of the EPU.
The proposed EPU would not significantly increase water
consumption. Therefore, the proposed EPU is not expected to cause a
significant impact on water use.
Water Quality Impacts
Since plant modifications will take place inside of existing
buildings, construction activities should not result in groundwater or
surface water pollution. The intake of water from Conowingo Pond for
cooling will not increase as a result of the proposed EPU. Therefore,
the discharge rates to Conowingo Pond should not increase. In turn,
there should not be any changes to Conowingo Pond from increased
turbidity, scouring, erosion, or sedimentation as a result of cooling
water discharge. All plant wastewaters are managed in accordance with
the NPDES permit issued by the PADEP. Plant wastewaters include
discharges from the water treatment wastewater settling basin,
auxiliary boiler blowdown, dredging/rehandling basin, and sewage
treatment plant. The volume of discharge from the sewage treatment
plant may temporarily increase during construction, but will remain
within permitted levels. Implementation of the proposed EPU will not
alter the quality or quantity of plant waste water discharges. The
proposed EPU would not increase the impacts to Conowingo Pond water
quality. Therefore, the proposed EPU is not expected to cause a
significant impact to water quality.
Aquatic Resource Impacts
The potential impacts to aquatic resources from the proposed action
could include impingement of aquatic life on barrier nets, trash racks,
and traveling screens; entrainment of aquatic life through the cooling
water intake structures and into the cooling water systems; and effects
from the discharge of chemicals and heated water. However, the proposed
EPU would not affect aquatic resources in a manner or to a degree that
exceeds the analysis of effects in NUREG-1437, Supplement 10.
The NRC staff concluded in NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section
4.1.3, ``Impingement of Fish and Shellfish,'' that, during the
continued operation of PBAPS, the potential impacts caused by the
impingement of fish and shellfish on the debris screens of the cooling
water intake system would be small (i.e., not detectable or so minor
that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important
attribute of the resource) and that impingement losses would not be
great enough to adversely affect Susquehanna River aquatic populations.
The NRC staff also concluded in NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section
4.1.3, that, in the early life stages in the cooling water system, the
potential impacts of entrainment of fish and shellfish would be small,
and that there are no demonstrated, significant effects to the aquatic
environment related to entrainment. Regarding the potential impacts of
thermal discharges, in NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section 4.1.4, ``Heat
Shock,'' the NRC staff concluded that the impacts are small and that
the heated water discharged to Conowingo Pond does not change the
[[Page 18076]]
temperature enough to adversely impact balanced, indigenous populations
of fish and wildlife. Additionally, the NRC has generically determined
that the effects from discharge of chlorine or other biocides, as well
as accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota, would be small
for continued operations during a renewed license period at all plants
as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1, ``Surface Water Resources, Discharge
of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills,'' of the
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants,'' NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Revision 1, dated June 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13106A241).
The proposed EPU would not increase the volume or rate of water
that is drawn from Conowingo Pond, and water withdrawals and
consumptive use would continue to be regulated by the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission with no changes to the current withdrawal
authorizations. PBAPS's cooling water intake structure (described
previously under ``Plant Site and Environs'') is designed to reduce
impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms, and the proposed EPU
would not require any modifications to the current cooling system
design. Thus, NRC staff concludes that compared to current operations,
the proposed EPU would not change the impingement or entrainment rate
of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms.
Chemical effluents discharged from PBAPS would not change in type
or quantity under EPU conditions, and effluent discharges to Conowingo
Pond will continue to be regulated by PADEP under the site's NPDES
permit. Thus, NRC staff concludes that compared to current operations,
the proposed EPU would not change the type or concentration of chemical
effluents that could impact aquatic resources.
The proposed EPU would increase the temperature of discharged
water. Under current operating conditions, cooling water passing
through the condensers can increase by as much as 22[deg]F. Under the
proposed EPU conditions, Exelon estimates that cooling water
temperatures would increase by approximately 3[deg]F, which would
result in an increase of up to 25[deg]F as water passes through the
condensers. The NPDES permit for PBAPS limits the instantaneous maximum
effluent temperature in the discharge canal (Outfall 001) to 110[deg]F.
Heated effluent water released into the discharge canal travels 4,700
ft south to a spillway, at which point it enters Conowingo Pond. A
thermal study at PBAPS, conducted from June through October of 1999
under zero cooling tower operation conditions, reported the daily
average water temperatures at the discharge canal outfall ranged from
66.7[emsp14][deg]F to 106.5[emsp14][deg]F.
Prior to the current NPDES permit (effective January 1, 2011),
helper cooling towers at PBAPS were used only during extreme low flow
and high temperature conditions in Conowingo Pond. The current NPDES
permit requires PBAPS to operate one to three of its cooling towers
from June 15 to September 15 as part of the permit's thermal and
biological study. Exelon began the required sampling in 2010 and
continued the sampling through 2013. The study will, among other
things, evaluate the changes in the thermal plume during helper cooling
tower operation and create a model of these changes that takes into
account proposed EPU conditions and other environmental influences to
Conowingo Pond.
In NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section 4.1.4, ``Heat Shock,'' the
NRC staff concluded that for the continued operation of Units 2 and 3,
the impacts from thermal effluents would be small. However, this
conclusion was made assuming station conditions under the previous
NPDES permit. As discussed on page 4 of Attachment 1 to the licensee's
letter dated February 17, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110490533), which
transmitted the current NPDES permit and an evaluation of the
modifications to the permit to the NRC, the previous permit did not
require an instantaneous maximum effluent temperature action level.
However, the current technical specifications in the NRC operating
licenses for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, require that plants be shut down
when the instantaneous intake temperature exceeds 92[emsp14][deg]F. As
discussed in Attachment 1 to the licensee's letter, in this
circumstance, and based on the condenser maximum temperature rise of
21.66[emsp14][deg]F, the discharge canal should not exceed a maximum of
113.66[emsp14][deg]F. Thus, the current NPDES permit, which stipulates
an instantaneous maximum effluent temperature action level of
110[emsp14][deg]F, is inherently more protective of the environment.
The previous NPDES permit did not require the operation of helper
cooling towers. Use of helper cooling towers in the summer months has
likely reduced this already small impact. Once completed, the thermal
and biological studies will determine to what degree the helper cooling
towers mitigate effluent temperatures and the character of the thermal
plume. After the study is completed and based on the study results,
Exelon will submit to PADEP an application to modify the NPDES permit.
These modifications may include actions to manage the thermal discharge
under EPU conditions. For any such future modifications, the PADEP
must, in accordance with Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act, ensure
thermal effluent limitations assure the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and
on Conowingo Pond.
In NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Section 4.1.5, ``Microbiological
Organisms (Public Health),'' the NRC staff concluded that the potential
effects of microbiological organisms on human health from the operation
of the plant's cooling water discharge to the aquatic environment on or
in the vicinity of the site are small. As discussed in NUREG-1437,
Supplement 10, Section 4.1.5, discharge temperatures from Units 2 and 3
do not exceed 110[emsp14][deg]F in late summer. This is below the
temperatures known to be conducive to growth and survival of
thermophilic pathogens. The ongoing disinfection of the sewage effluent
from PBAPS reduces the likelihood that a seed source or inoculants
would be introduced to the station's heated discharge or to Conowingo
Pond. As previously discussed, the current NPDES permit will continue
to assure that there will not be any significant impacts on human
health from microbiological organisms.
The current NPDES permit includes thermal limitations and operating
conditions that are more protective than the previous NPDES permit
(considered in Section 4.1.4. ``Heat Shock,'' of NUREG-1437, Supplement
10). The PADEP will continue to regulate and enforce PBAPS thermal
discharges in a manner that will assure the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in
and on Conowingo Pond. Therefore, the increase in thermal effluent
under proposed EPU conditions would not result in a significant impact
to aquatic resources.
Terrestrial Resource Impacts
During EPU-related upgrades and plant modifications, impacts that
could potentially affect terrestrial resources could come from noise,
lighting, and other disturbances to wildlife. However, noise and
lighting would not impact terrestrial species beyond what would be
experienced during normal operations. This is because EPU-related
upgrades and plant modifications would take place during normally
planned
[[Page 18077]]
outage periods, which are already periods of heightened activity.
Habitat loss or fragmentation would not occur, because the proposed EPU
would not involve any new construction outside of the existing facility
footprint (discussed previously under ``Land Use and Aesthetic
Impacts'') and would not require transmission system upgrades or
modifications. No changes in transmission line maintenance and
vegetation removal are anticipated. The EPU will increase electric
current flowing through the transmission system. This will increase the
strength of the electromagnetic field around the transmission lines.
However, as discussed on pages 4-21 and 4-24 of Supplement 10 NUREG-
1437, the NRC has determined that a scientific consensus has not been
reached on the chronic effects of the electromagnetic field on humans,
and that significant impacts to the terrestrial biota have not been
identified. Sediment transport and erosion is not a concern because
EPU-related activities would only take place on previously developed
land. Therefore, the proposed EPU is not expected to cause a
significant impact on terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ESA), Federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (as
appropriate), must ensure that actions the agency authorizes, funds, or
carries out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
The NRC staff has identified two federally listed species that
occur in York County, Pennsylvania: the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which are discussed
below. The NRC staff also considered the possibility of the shortnose
(Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)
sturgeons to occur above Conowingo Dam in Conowingo Pond because,
historically, sturgeon likely inhabited the Susquehanna River upstream
of the location of the Conowingo Dam prior to its construction.
Currently, sturgeons are known to occur in the lower Susquehanna River
and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources has noted the
occurrence of sturgeon at Conowingo Dam. However, given the size of the
dam and the fact that shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon typically do not
use fish lifts that were designed for other species (Conowingo Dam's
fish lift was designed for the passage of American shad (Alosa
sapidissima)), the NRC reasonably concludes that neither the shortnose
nor Atlantic sturgeon occur in Conowingo Pond.
The FWS listed the northern population of the bog turtle as
threatened under the ESA in 1997 (62 FR 59605). The FWS has not
designated critical habitat for this species. Bog turtles inhabit early
to mid-successional wetlands fed by groundwater or associated with the
headwaters of streams and dominated by emergent vegetation.
Pennsylvania counties identified by the FWS as containing extant bog
turtle populations occur in the southeastern part of the state, and
many occur within the Delaware River and Susquehanna River watersheds.
In 2000, Exelon commissioned bog turtle habitat (Phase 1) surveys in
the vicinity of PBAPS, but no areas of suitable habitat were identified
during the surveys. The potential for adverse effects at the PBAPS site
and along transmission line corridors to bog turtles was evaluated in
Section 2.2.6, ``Terrestrial Resources,'' of NUREG-1437, Supplement 10.
The NRC staff concluded in Section 4.6.2, ``Terrestrial Species,'' that
continued operations during the license renewal term would have no
effect on bog turtles due to the lack of suitable habitat. The NRC
staff requested the FWS's concurrence with this determination in a
letter, dated January 17, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML020180445). The
FWS concurred with this determination in a letter, dated April 17, 2002
(ADAMS Accession No. ML021510200). The PBAPS site continues to lack
suitable habitat for bog turtles, and the proposed EPU would not
involve any habitat loss or fragmentation or any other significant
impacts to the terrestrial environment. Therefore, the proposed EPU
would have no effect on the bog turtle.
The FWS listed the Indiana bat as endangered wherever found in 1967
under the ESA's predecessor, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of
1966 (32 FR 4001). The FWS has not designated critical habitat for the
species in Pennsylvania (41 FR 41914). Areas of the PBAPS site that
could serve as potential Indiana bat habitat include forested areas,
forest edges, and riparian areas. The Pennsylvania Game Commission
(PGC) reports that Indiana bats use habitat within York County during
the summer. However, no hibernation or maternity sites occur in the
county. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement did not
consider the effects of continued operation of PBAPS during the license
renewal term on Indiana bats. The proposed EPU would not disturb or
alter any natural habitats on the PBAPS site or along any transmission
line corridors, and other impacts such as noise and lighting during
EPU-related upgrades. Furthermore, plant modifications would not result
in a significant impact on the terrestrial environment. Therefore, the
proposed EPU would have no effect on the Indiana bat.
The NRC did not identify any designated critical habitat that could
be affected by the proposed EPU, nor has the FWS proposed the listing
or designation of any new species or critical habitat that could be
affected by the proposed EPU. Therefore, the proposed EPU would have no
effect on designated critical habitat, proposed species, or proposed
critical habitat.
Essential Fish Habitat
Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act includes requirements for Federal agencies to consider
the impact of Federal actions on essential fish habitat (EFH) and to
consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if any
activities may adversely affect EFH. According to the EFH Mapper and
the NMFS's ``Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the
Northeastern United States,'' NMFS has not designated any EFH under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act within the
affected water bodies. Thus, the proposed EPU would have no effect on
designated essential fish habitat.
Species Protected by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the PGC, the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and the Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (PDCNR) oversee the protection of
Commonwealth-listed species under the Pennsylvania Endangered Species
Program. The PGC, PFBC, and PDCNR manage the recovery efforts for wild
birds and mammals (34 Pa. Code 133); fish, amphibians, reptiles, and
aquatic organisms (30 Pa. Code 75); and native plants (17 Pa. Code 45),
respectively.
As part of preparing its EPU application, Exelon performed a
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Environmental Review
through the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program's Web site. The
survey results indicated no known impacts to species of concern within
the oversight
[[Page 18078]]
of the PGC and FWS. No further review by these two agencies was
required. Exelon also directly contacted some of the Pennsylvania
agencies listed above to determine potential impacts to Commonwealth-
listed species that could result from the proposed EPU. Exelon's PNDI
Environmental Review indicated that there would be no impact to species
under the PDCNR's jurisdiction and that no further project review from
this agency was required. The PNDI Environmental Review indicated three
terrestrial plant species under the PDCNR's purview could occur in the
vicinity of PBAPS: the lobed spleenwort (Asplenia pinnatifidum), the
harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa), and the American holly (Ilex
opaca). The PNDI Environmental Review also included recommended
conservation measures from the PDCNR, which included practices that
could avoid the introduction of invasive species. Exelon contacted the
PDCNR directly via a letter dated January 23, 2012, requesting that the
PDCNR confirm Exelon's conclusion that the proposed EPU would not
adversely affect any Commonwealth-listed threatened or endangered
species. In their response, dated February 21, 2012, the PDCNR
indicated that the proposed EPU would not result in impacts to species
under its jurisdiction. For species under the PFBC's purview, the PNDI
Environmental Review indicated that further review was required to
determine potential impacts. Exelon contacted the PFBC in a letter,
dated January 23, 2012. Subsequently, the PFBC indicated in a letter,
dated February 24, 2012, that no adverse impacts are expected to
species under its jurisdiction from the proposed EPU. Each of the
letters referenced in this paragraph are included in Exelon's
supplemental environmental report, which was submitted as Attachment 8
to the EPU application.
The NRC staff reviewed the information discussed above in Exelon's
EPU application concerning Commonwealth-listed species. The appropriate
Pennsylvania agencies have confirmed the proposed EPU would not affect
any species under their purview and NRC staff has not identified any
impacts to the terrestrial or aquatic environment beyond those
previously considered by each Pennsylvania agency in their reviews.
Therefore, the proposed EPU would have no significant impacts to
Commonwealth-listed species.
Socioeconomics
Currently, approximately 900 permanent workers and 200 contract
workers are employed at PBAPS. Exelon's EPU-related plant modifications
would occur during the regularly scheduled refueling outages. During
normal refueling outages, approximately 800 temporary workers are added
to the normal workforce of 1,100 permanent and contract workers. The
first phase of EPU modifications is planned to be implemented during
the 2014 outage. During that outage, approximately 1,300 additional
temporary workers will be added to the normal outage workforce, with
the total workforce at PBAPS peaking at approximately 3,200 workers
over the modification period. Once EPU-related plant modifications have
been completed, the size of workforce at PBAPS would return to normal
levels. The PBAPS workforce will remain similar to pre-EPU levels, as
will the temporary workforce needed for future refueling outages. The
size of the workforce will be unaffected by implementation of the
proposed EPU.
The NRC expects most outage and EPU plant modification workers to
relocate temporarily to communities in Lancaster or York County,
resulting in short-term increases in the local population along with
increased demands for public services and housing. As modification work
would be temporary, most workers would likely stay in rental homes,
apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. The 2011 American
Community Survey 1-year estimate for vacant housing units reported
11,509 units in Lancaster County and 12,192 units in York County that
could potentially ease the demand for local rental housing. Therefore,
while a short duration temporary increase in plant employment would
occur, this increase would have little or no noticeable effect on the
availability of housing in the region.
The additional number of workers, truck material, and equipment
deliveries needed to support EPU-related plant modifications would
likely cause short-term level of service impacts (restricted traffic
flow and higher incident rates) on secondary roads in the immediate
vicinity of PBAPS. Increased traffic volumes would be necessary to
support implementation of EPU-related modifications during the
refueling outage. As EPU-related plant modifications would occur during
a normal refueling outage, there could be noticeable short-term (during
certain hours of the day), level-of-service traffic impacts beyond what
is experienced during normal outages. During periods of high traffic
volume (i.e., morning and afternoon shift changes), work schedules
could be staggered and employees and/or local police officials could be
used to direct traffic entering and leaving PBAPS to minimize level-of-
service impacts.
PBAPS currently pays property taxes and payments in lieu of
property taxes to York County, Peach Bottom Township, and the South
Eastern School District. The amount of future property taxes and
payments in lieu of property taxes paid by PBAPS could be affected by
the increased value of PBAPS as a result of the EPU and increased power
generation. Due to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification
activities, there would be little or no noticeable effect on local tax
revenues generated by temporary workers residing in Lancaster and York
counties.
Therefore, based on the information presented above, no significant
socioeconomic impacts are expected from EPU-related plant modifications
and operations under EPU conditions in the vicinity of PBAPS.
Environmental Justice Impacts
An environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
activities associated with the proposed EPU at PBAPS. Such effects may
include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Minority and
low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing in
the vicinity of PBAPS, and all are exposed to the same health and
environmental effects generated from activities at PBPAS.
The NRC considered the demographic composition of the area within a
50-mile radius of PBAPS to determine whether minority populations may
be affected by the proposed action. The NRC examined the distribution
of minority populations within 50 miles of PBAPS using the U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2010.
According to the 2010 Census data, approximately 5 million people
live within a 50-mile radius of PBPAS. Minority populations within 50
miles compose 35.6 percent (approximately 1.8 million persons) of the
total population. The largest minority group was Black or African-
American (approximately, 1.2 million persons or 23.1 percent), followed
by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (approximately 315,000 persons or
6.3 percent). According to 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates,
[[Page 18079]]
minority populations within Lancaster County comprise 10.2 percent of
the total population with the largest minority group being Hispanic or
Latino (of any race) at 8.9 percent. Minority populations within York
County comprise 12.2 percent of the total population with the largest
minority group being Black or African-American at 6 percent.
According to 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates census
data for Lancaster and York counties, approximately 10.9 percent of the
population residing within Lancaster County and 11.0 percent of the
population residing in York County were determined to be living below
the 2011 federal poverty threshold. In addition, approximately 7.9
percent of families residing within Lancaster County and 8.2 percent of
the families in York County were determined to be living below the
Federal poverty threshold. The 2011 Federal poverty threshold was
$22,350 for a family of four and $10,890 for an individual. The median
household income for Lancaster County was approximately $64,566 and for
York County was approximately $66,053. Lancaster County median
household income is 28.5 percent higher than the median household
income (approximately $50,228) for Pennsylvania, while York County is
31 percent higher.
Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would
mostly consist of human health, environmental, and socioeconomic
effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts).
Radiation doses from plant operations after the EPU are expected to
continue to remain well below regulatory limits.
Noise and dust impacts would be temporary and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during
outage shift changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing
during the EPU-related plant modifications could disproportionately
affect low-income populations; however, due to the availability of
housing, impacts would be of short duration (approximately 30 to 40
days) and limited. Furthermore, according to the 2011 American
Community Survey 1-year estimate, there were 11,509 vacant housing
units in Lancaster County and 12,192 vacant housing units in York
County available to help alleviate any short-term increased demand.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the
proposed EPU would not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations
residing in the PBAPS vicinity.
Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts
There are no records of historic and cultural resources being found
on PBAPS property. However, there is the potential to find historic and
cultural resources at the PBAPS site as the majority of recorded
archaeological sites in the region are found within the first terraces
above the Susquehanna River. The likelihood of these resources being
present at PBAPS has diminished as the terraces near PBAPS were flooded
by the formation of Conowingo Pond. Nevertheless, there are nine
historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places
within 6 miles of PBAPS.
As previously discussed, all EPU-related plant modifications would
take place within existing buildings and facilities at PBAPS, including
the replacement of two electrical transformers on the existing pads.
Since no ground disturbance or construction-related activities would
occur outside of previously disturbed areas and existing electrical
transmission facilities, there would be no significant impact from EPU-
related plant modifications on historic and archaeological resources,
should they be found on or in the vicinity of PBAPS.
Non-Radiological Cumulative Impacts
The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts on the
environment resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed EPU
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions in the vicinity of PBAPS. For the purposes of this analysis,
past actions are related to the construction and licensing of PBAPS,
present actions are related to current operations, and future actions
are those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of station
operations including operations under the EPU.
There will not be significant cumulative impacts to the resource
areas of air quality, groundwater, threatened and endangered species,
or historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of PBAPS, because
the contributory effect of ongoing actions within a region are
regulated and monitored through a permitting process under State or
Federal authority (e.g. NPDES and 401/404 permits under the Clean Water
Act). In these cases, impacts are managed as long as these actions are
in compliance with their respective permits and conditions of
certification.
Surface water and aquatic resources were examined for potential
cumulative impacts. The geographic boundary for potential cumulative
impacts is the area of the post-EPU thermal mixing zone in Conowingo
Pond. If the proposed EPU is approved and is implemented, PBAPS is
predicted to have a slightly larger and hotter mixing zone than pre-
uprate conditions during full flow and capacity. The NRC staff
anticipates that PBAPS will continue to operate post-EPU in full
compliance with the requirements of the PADEP. The PADEP would evaluate
PBAPS compliance with its individual wastewater facility permit.
Land use, and aesthetics impacts from the EPU are not expected to
contribute to cumulative impacts as there will be no construction of
new transmission facilities on site, transmission maintenance and
vegetation practices will not change, and all plant modifications will
be implemented within existing buildings
As discussed in the aquatic biology section, the abundance of
aquatic organisms as a source of food for terrestrial organisms should
not change. During the construction of the EPU, only minor temporary
changes in air emissions from additional workers and construction
equipment are expected. No changes to air emission from implementation
of the EPU are expected. There will not be any increases to surface
water or air that would increase the impact to terrestrial biota as a
result of the EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to
terrestrial biota are not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts
to terrestrial resources as a result of the proposed action.
The greatest socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU and
continued operation of PBAPS would occur during the 2014 outage. The
increase in EPU-related construction workforces would have a temporary
effect on socioeconomic conditions in local communities from the
increased demand for temporary housing, public services (e.g., public
schools), and increased traffic, but would not contribute to cumulative
impacts. No significant cumulative impacts are expected as a result of
the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
As previously discussed, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant non-radiological impacts. Table 1 summarizes the non-
[[Page 18080]]
radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at PBAPS.
Table 1--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact on land
Land use and aesthetic use conditions and aesthetic
resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Radioactive Waste............. The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact from the
generation of nonradioactive waste.
Air Quality....................... The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact on air
quality.
Water Use......................... The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact on water
use.
Water Quality..................... The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact on water
quality.
Aquatic Resources................. The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact on
aquatic resources.
Terrestrial Resources............. The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause a significant impact on
terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species. The proposed EPU would have no
effect on any species or habitats
protected under the Endangered
Species Act or on designated
essential fish habitat protected
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Additionally, the proposed EPU
would have no significant impacts
on any Pennsylvania-listed species.
Socioeconomics.................... No significant socioeconomic impacts
are expected as a result of the
proposed EPU.
Environmental Justice............. The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause any disproportionately high
and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority
and low-income populations residing
in the PBAPS vicinity.
Historic and Cultural Resources... The proposed EPU is not expected to
cause any significant impact to
historic and cultural resources.
Non-Radiological Cumulative....... No significant non-radiological
cumulative impacts are expected as
a result of the proposed EPU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous, Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste
Units 2 and 3 use waste treatment systems to collect, process,
recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radiation safety standards. The
licensee's evaluation of plant operation at the proposed EPU conditions
shows that no physical changes would be needed to the radioactive
gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
The gaseous waste management system manages radioactive gases
generated during the nuclear fission process. Radioactive gaseous
wastes are composed of activation gases and radioactive noble gases
from the reactor coolant system, gases from the charcoal treatment
system, and gases collected during venting of plant piping. The
licensee's evaluation determined that implementation of the proposed
EPU would not significantly increase the volume of gases processed in
the gaseous waste management system, since plant system functions are
not changing and the volume of gases from the plant systems are not
expected to change. The analysis also showed the proposed increase in
power level would increase the total amount of radioactivity in the
gaseous waste management system. However, the licensee's evaluation
concluded that the increased radioactivity would not require any
changes to the gaseous waste management system. The system would
continue to safely control and process the waste in accordance with
plant procedures to maintain radioactive gaseous releases within the
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and the as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 and
EPA's 40 CFR part 190.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
The liquid waste management system collects, processes, and
prepares radioactive liquid waste for disposal. Radioactive liquid
wastes include liquids from plant systems containing reactor coolant
and liquids that became contaminated from contact with plant systems
containing radioactive liquids. The licensee's evaluation shows that
the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the inventory of
liquid normally processed by the liquid waste management system. This
is because the system functions are not changing and the volume inputs
remain approximately the same. The licensee's evaluation showed the
proposed EPU would increase the total amount of radioactivity in the
liquid waste management system. However, since the composition of the
radioactive material in the waste and the volume of radioactive
material processed through the system are not expected to significantly
change, the licensee's evaluation concluded that no changes are needed
to the system's design or operation. The existing equipment and plant
procedures will continue to control radioactive liquid releases to the
environment within the NRC's dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301 and ALARA
dose standards in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 and EPA's 40 CFR part
190.
Public Radiation Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from
Units 2 and 3 are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. As
discussed in the radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent sections
above, operation at the proposed EPU conditions will not change the
radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management systems' abilities to
perform its intended functions to safely control and process the waste.
There would be no change to the radiation monitoring system and
procedures used to control the release of radioactive effluents in
accordance with NRC radiation protection standards for the public in 10
CFR 20.1301 and Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 and EPA's 40 CFR part 190.
The licensee evaluated the projected dose to members of the public
from radioactive effluents at the proposed EPU by using actual dose
data reported for the period from 2005 through 2008 and recalculated
the dose based on the proposed EPU. The following bullets summarize the
projected maximum dose to a member of the public located outside the
PBAPS site boundary from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents from
the proposed EPU:
The maximum whole body dose to an offsite member of the
public from the combined radioactive liquid effluents from Units 2 and
3 is 1.52 x 10-\2\ millirem (mrem)/year, which is well below
the 6 mrem/year dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 for two
reactor units.
[[Page 18081]]
The maximum organ dose to an offsite member of the public
from the combined radioactive liquid effluents from Units 2 and 3 is
1.98 x 10-\2\ mrem/year, which is well below the 20 mrem/
year dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 for two reactor
units.
The maximum air dose at the site boundary from gamma
radiation from the combined gaseous effluents from Units 2 and 3 is
7.27 x 10-\1\ millirad (mrad)/year, which is well below the
20 mrad/year dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 for two
reactor units.
The maximum air dose at the site boundary from beta
radiation in the combined gaseous effluents from Units 2 and 3 is 1.42
x 10-\1\ mrad/year, which is well below the 40 mrad/year
dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 for two reactor units.
The maximum organ (thyroid) dose to an offsite member of
the public from radioactive iodine and radioactive material in
particulate form from Units 2 and 3 is 5.12 mrem/year, which is well
below the 30 mrem/year dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50
for two reactor units.
Based on the projected annual EPU doses from radioactive
gaseous and liquid effluents from Units 2 and 3 being well within the
dose criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 and the projected
negligible direct shine dose contribution from components within the
facilities, including the independent spent fuel storage installation,
the total dose will be well within the 40 CFR 190 annual whole body
dose standard of 25 mrem/year.
Based on the above, the projected radiation doses to members of the
public from the proposed EPU are expected to be within Federal
regulatory limits and therefore, would not be significant.
Occupational Radiation Doses at EPU Conditions
The licensee's evaluation determined that the radioactivity levels
in plant systems are expected to increase with the proposed EPU.
Permanent shielding to reduce radiation levels is used throughout the
two reactor units to protect workers. The licensee's evaluation of the
current shielding design determined that it is adequate to continue to
protect the workers from the projected increased radiation levels. In
addition to the permanent shielding, the licensee's radiation
protection program, through the use of training, protective clothing
and equipment, temporary shielding, monitoring radiation levels, and
direct oversight by radiation protection personnel at individual job
sites, will ensure that radiation exposures to workers will be ALARA,
as required by 10 CFR 20.1101. Based on the above information, the NRC
staff concludes that the proposed EPU is not expected to significantly
affect radiation levels within the plant and would not be a significant
radiological impact to the workers.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
Radioactive solid wastes include solids recovered from the reactor
coolant systems, solids that come into contact with the radioactive
liquids or gases, and solids used in the reactor coolant process
system. The licensee evaluated the potential effects of the proposed
EPU on the solid waste management system. The results of the evaluation
indicate that the proposed EPU will increase the volume and activity of
radioactive solid waste by approximately 14 percent. The largest volume
of radioactive solid waste generated at Units 2 and 3 is low-level
radioactive waste which includes used resins, filters, dry compressible
waste, irradiated components, and waste oil and ash.
As stated by the licensee, the proposed EPU would not have a
significant effect on the radioactive solid waste system. The proposed
EPU would not generate a new type of waste or create a new waste
stream. No changes are needed to the system to accommodate the
projected additional volume and activity. The equipment used to process
the solid waste is designed and operated to ensure that hazards to the
workers and the environment are minimized. Waste processing areas are
monitored for radiation as part of the radiation protection program to
ensure that radiation exposure to workers is maintained within NRC dose
limits in 10 CFR 20.1201.
Based on the above, the licensee is expected to continue to safely
control and process radioactive solid waste from the proposed EPU in
accordance with NRC requirements. Therefore, the impacts from solid
waste would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from Units 2 and 3 is stored in the plant's spent fuel
pool and in dry casks in the independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI). Spent fuel generated after implementation of the
proposed EPU will also be stored in the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI.
Units 2 and 3 are licensed to use uranium-dioxide fuel up to a maximum
enrichment of 5 percent by weight uranium-235. The typical average
enrichment is approximately 4.2 percent by weight of uranium-235. The
average fuel assembly discharge burnup for the proposed EPU is expected
to be approximately 51,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWd/
MTU) with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum fuel rod burnup limit of
62,000 MWd/MTU. The licensee will maintain these fuel characteristics
during the proposed EPU. There will be no change to the fuel design or
the current 24-month refueling cycle. The fuel characteristics for
enrichment and burnup presented above, will ensure that environmental
impacts associated with the spent fuel will remain within the impact
values contained in: (1) 10 CFR 51.51, Table S-3, ``Table of Uranium
Fuel Cycle Environmental Data''; (2) 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4,
``Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from
One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor''; as supplemented by (3)
NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section
6.3--Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA [National
Environmental Policy Act] issues for license renewal of nuclear power
plants'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML040690720).
Therefore, there would be no significant impacts resulting from
spent nuclear fuel.
Design-Basis Accidents
Design-basis accidents (DBAs) are evaluated by both the licensee
and the NRC staff to ensure that Units 2 and 3 can withstand a spectrum
of postulated accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety
of the public.
Separate from the NRC staff's environmental assessment in this
document, the NRC staff is evaluating the licensee's DBA analyses of
the potential radiological consequences that may result from the
proposed EPU. The results of the NRC staff's evaluation and conclusion
will be documented in a Safety Evaluation (SE) that will be made
publically available. If the NRC staff concludes in the SE that the
radiological consequences of DBAs at the proposed EPU power levels are
within NRC requirements, then the proposed EPU will not have a
significant impact with respect to the radiological consequences of
DBAs.
Radiological Cumulative Impacts
The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and plant
workers have been developed by the NRC and EPA to address the
cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure
[[Page 18082]]
to radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified
in 10 CFR part 20 and 40 CFR part 190.
The cumulative radiation doses are required to be within the limits
set forth in the regulations cited previously. The public dose limit of
25 mrem/year in 40 CFR part 190 applies to all reactors that may be on
a site and also includes any other nearby nuclear facilities.
Currently, there are no other operating nuclear power reactors located
near Units 2 and 3. As discussed in the public radiation dose section,
the NRC staff reviewed the licensee's projected post-EPU radiation dose
data and concluded that the projected dose to members of the public
would be well within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 40 CFR part 190.
The NRC staff expects continued compliance with NRC's and EPA's public
dose limits during operation at the proposed EPU power level.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would not be a
significant cumulative radiological impact to members of the public
from radioactive effluents from Units 2 and 3 at the proposed EPU
operating conditions.
As previously discussed, the licensee has a radiation protection
program that maintains worker doses within the dose limits in 10 CFR
20.1201. The NRC staff expects continued compliance with the agency's
occupational dose limits during operation at the proposed EPU power
level.
Radiological Impacts Summary
Based on the radiological evaluations discussed previously, with
the exception of the impacts associated with DBAs which the NRC staff
is evaluating separately from this EA, the proposed EPU would not
result in any significant radiological impacts. If the NRC staff
concludes in its SE that the DBAs associated with the proposed EPU meet
NRC requirements, then the environmental impacts will not be
significant. Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts
of the proposed EPU at PBAPS.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents..... Radioactive gaseous effluents are
expected to be adequately handled
by the existing radwaste system.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents...... Radioactive liquid effluents are
expected to be adequately handled
by the existing radwaste system.
Public Radiation Doses at EPU Radiation doses to members of the
Conditions. public from radioactive effluents
are expected to remain below NRC
(10 CFR 20.1301 and Appendix I) and
EPA radiation protection standards
(40 CFR part 190).
Occupational Radiation Doses at Radiation doses to workers are
EPU Conditions. expected to remain within NRC dose
limits (10 CFR 20.1201).
Radioactive Solid Wastes.......... Radioactive solid waste is expected
to be adequately handled by the
existing radwaste system.
Spent Nuclear Fuel................ The spent fuel characteristics will
remain within the bounding criteria
used in the impact analysis in 10
CFR part 51, Table S-3.
Design-Basis Accidents............ If the NRC staff concludes in the SE
that the radiological consequences
of DBAs at the proposed EPU power
levels are within NRC requirements,
then DBAs will not have a
significant radiological
consequence.
Radiological Cumulative Impacts... Radiation doses to the public and
plant workers would remain below
NRC (10 CFR part 20) and EPA (40
CFR part 190) radiation protection
standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative) for
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. Denial of the application would result in no
change in the current environmental impacts. However, if the EPU were
not approved, other agencies and electric power organizations might be
required to pursue other means of providing electric generation
capacity, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power generation, to
offset future demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-
fueled or alternative-fueled plant may create impacts in air quality,
land use, and waste management significantly greater than those
identified for the proposed EPU.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any different resources
(water, air, land, nuclear fuel) not previously considered in NUREG-
1437, Supplement 10.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 6, 2013, the
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Brad Fuller
of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, regarding
the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had
no comments.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC is proposing to amend Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed
amendments would authorize an increase in the maximum reactor power
level from 3514 MWt to 3951 MWt.
The NRC has determined not to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed action. The proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment because,
amending the licenses with the higher maximum reactor power level, will
not result in any significant radiological or non-radiological impacts.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The NRC's Environmental Assessment (EA),
included in Section II above, is incorporated by reference into this
finding.
The NRC's FONSI and the related environmental documents listed
below are available for public inspection and may be inspected online
through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. You may also
inspect these documents at the NRC's Public Document Room as described
previously.
The NRC's FONSI and the associated EA are available in ADAMS at
Accession No. ML14042A397. Related environmental documents supporting
the NRC's FONSI are as follows: (1) Attachment 8, ``Supplemental
Environmental Report,'' to Exelon's EPU amendment request dated
September 28, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A011); (2) NUREG-1437,
Volume 1, Addendum 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3--
Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for
license renewal of nuclear power plants,'' dated August 1999 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML040690720); (3) Supplement 10 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the License
[[Page 18083]]
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Regarding Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station, Units 2 and 3,'' dated January 2003 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML030270059); and (4) ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Revision 1,
dated June 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A241).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of March 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Meena K. Khanna,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-07132 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P