FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 7525-7527 [05-2783]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices
Radiological Environmental Assessment
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–443]
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook
Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) Section 50.90 for Facility
Operating License No. NPF–86, issued
to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPLE
Seabrook or the licensee), for operation
of the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1
(Seabrook), located in Seabrook
Township, Rockingham County, New
Hampshire. Therefore, as required by 10
CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this
environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow
FPLE Seabrook to increase the
maximum reactor core power level from
3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3587
MWt, which is an increase of
approximately 5.2 percent of the rated
core thermal power for Seabrook.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
March 17, 2004, as supplemented by a
second letter dated March 17, 2004, and
letters dated April 1, May 26, September
13 (two letters), and October 12, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action permits an
increase in the licensed core thermal
power from 3411 MWt to 3587 MWt for
Seabrook and provides the flexibility to
increase the potential electrical output
of Seabrook.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This assessment summarizes the nonradiological and radiological impacts on
the environment that may result from
the proposed action. The NRC staff
based its conclusions on an analyzed
core power level of 3659 MWt (3678
MWt Nuclear Steam Supply System
(NSSS) power level). A power level of
3659 MWt is used based on the
guaranteed core thermal output of 3587
MWt plus a 2-percent uncertainty
allowance for calorimetric
measurements.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:28 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Radwaste Systems
Seabrook uses waste treatment
systems designed to maintain normal
operation offsite releases and doses
within the requirements of 10 CFR Part
20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
Regulatory guidance relative to the
methodology used to determine if the
radwaste effluent releases from a
pressurized-water reactor meet the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I is provided in
NUREG–0017, Revision 1, ‘‘Calculation
of Releases of Radioactive Materials in
Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from
Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR–GALE
Code).’’ The proposed power uprate will
not change existing radioactive waste
system design, plant operating
procedures, or waste inputs as defined
by NUREG–0017. As a result, the impact
of the proposed power uprate on
radwaste releases and Appendix I doses
can be estimated using the methodology
and equations found in NUREG–0017,
Revision 1.
The reactor coolant contains activated
corrosion products, which are the result
of metallic materials entering the water
and being activated in the reactor
region. Under power uprate conditions,
the feedwater flow increases with power
and the activation rate in the reactor
region increases with power.
Additionally, non-condensible
radioactive gas from the main
condenser, along with air in-leakage,
normally contains activation gases
(principally N–16, O–19 and N–13) and
fission product radioactive noble gases.
This is the major source of radioactive
gas. The proposed power uprate will
increase the activity level of radioactive
isotopes in the primary and secondary
coolant. Due to leakage or process
operations, fractions of these fluids are
transported to the liquid and gaseous
waste systems where they are processed
prior to discharge. As the activity levels
in the primary and secondary coolant
are increased, the activity level of inputs
into the waste systems are
proportionately increased.
The methodology used for the
processing of radioactive waste at
Seabrook will not be impacted by
operation at the proposed uprated
power level, and the slight increase in
activity discharged would continue to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR part
20, 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I, and the
annual doses projected in the Seabrook
Final Environmental Statement (FES),
NUREG–0895, dated December 1982.
The NRC staff concludes that the
proposed power uprate will not affect
the ability to process liquid or gaseous
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7525
radioactive effluents and the
environmental impacts of the proposed
power uprate are bounded by the
impacts previously evaluated in the
FES.
Occupational Dose
Occupational exposure from in-plant
radiation primarily occurs during
routine maintenance, special
maintenance, and refueling operations.
An increase in power at Seabrook will
increase the activity inventory of fission
products in the core by approximately
the percentage of the power uprate. As
a result, the radioactivity levels in the
primary coolant, secondary coolant, and
other radioactive process systems and
components will also be impacted.
Based on an uprate from the current
licensed core power of 3411 MWt to the
analyzed core power level of 3659 MWt
(3678 MWt NSSS power level), normal
operation radiation levels in areas near
the reactor vessel are expected to
increase but the annual average
collective occupational dose after the
power uprate is implemented would
still be well below the value expected
when the FES was published and as set
in 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, plant
programs and administrative controls
such as shielding, plant chemistry, and
the radiation protection program will
help compensate for the potential
increase in occupational dose. The
proposed actions does not involve
significant increases in the offsite doses
to the public from noble gases, airborne
particulates, iodine, tritium, or liquid
effluents.
The NRC staff concludes that doses
offsite will continue to be within the
limits of 10 CFR Part 20, and the slight
potential increase in occupational
exposure are bounded by the impacts
previously evaluated in the FES.
Postulated Accident Doses
The licensee’s uprate analysis
program included a reanalysis or
evaluation of all aspects of large-break
loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), smallbreak LOCA, non-LOCA accidents, and
NSSS and balance-of-plant (BOP)
structures, systems, and components.
Major NSSS components (e.g., reactor
pressure vessel, pressurizer, reactor
coolant pumps, and steam generators);
BOP components (e.g., turbine,
generator, and condensate and
feedwater pumps); and major systems
and sub-systems (e.g., safety injection,
auxiliary feedwater, residual heat
removal, electrical distribution,
emergency diesel generators,
containment cooling, and the ultimate
heat sink) have been assessed with
respect to the bounding conditions
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
7526
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices
expected for operation at the uprated
power level. Control systems (e.g., rod
control, pressurizer pressure and level,
turbine overspeed, steam generator
level, and steam dump) have been
evaluated for operation at uprated
power conditions. The results of all of
the above analyses and evaluations have
yielded acceptable results and
demonstrate that all design basis
acceptance criteria will continue to be
met during uprated power operations.
For post-accident conditions, the
existing post-accident dose rate maps
are adequate for power uprate
conditions. The resulting radiation
levels were determined to be within
current regulatory limits, and there
would be no effect on the plant
equipment, access to vital areas, or
habitability of the control room. The
licensee has determined that access to
areas requiring post-accident occupancy
will not be significantly affected by the
power uprate. The calculated whole
body and thyroid doses at the exclusion
area boundary that might result from a
postulated design-basis LOCA at
uprated power conditions were
determined to remain below established
regulatory limits. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that, for the proposed
action, potential increased doses from
postulated accidents are not significant.
Non-Radiological Environmental
Assessment
In support of the proposed action, the
licensee reviewed the non-radiological
environmental impacts of the power
uprate based on information submitted
in the Seabrook Environmental Report—
Operating License Stage (ER–OL), dated
June 29, 1981, the Seabrook FES, and
the requirements of the Environmental
Protection Plan. Based on this review,
the licensee concluded that the
proposed power uprate has no
significant effect on the non-radiological
elements of concern and the plant will
be operated within the bounds of
impacts previously evaluated in the
FES. In addition, the licensee states that
existing Federal, State, and local
regulatory permits presently in effect
accommodate the power uprate without
modification.
Water Use Impacts
The Atlantic Ocean serves as the
normal supply of cooling water and as
the ultimate heat sink for Seabrook. The
cooling water is withdrawn from the
Atlantic Ocean via a 17,000-foot long
intake tunnel in the underlying bedrock,
and is returned to the ocean through a
similar discharge tunnel, approximately
16,500 feet long. The Circulating Water
System (CWS) delivers cooling water
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:28 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
from the Atlantic Ocean to the main
condenser to remove the heat rejected
by the turbine cycle and auxiliary
systems and conveys the heated
discharge water back to the Atlantic
Ocean. CWS flow rate does not change
for the power uprate. Additionally,
groundwater is not used in current plant
operations; therefore, there will be no
additional impacts to onsite
groundwater use as a result of the
proposed action. The NRC staff
concludes that the power uprate will
not have a significant impact on water
usage at Seabrook.
Thermal Discharge
The licensee indicates that, at uprated
power conditions, with normal CWS
flow, the circulating water outlet
temperature will increase approximately
2.2 degrees Fahrenheit from the
temperature associated with the current
power level. However, the maximum
CWS outlet temperature associated with
the proposed action will continue to be
within system design parameters.
The licensee evaluated the thermal
impact associated with the power uprate
relative to the Seabrook National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The New Hampshire
Office of Ecosystem Protection issued
NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 to the
licensee for operation of Seabrook. The
permit was last renewed on April 1,
2002. The NPDES permit specifies that
Seabrook shall not cause a monthly
mean temperature rise of more than 5
degrees Fahrenheit within 300 feet of
the submerged diffuser in the direction
of discharge. Historical data indicates
that maximum monthly mean
temperatures have been within all
NPDES permit parameters. Projected
maximum monthly mean temperatures
predicted to occur in uprated conditions
will continue to be below specified
permit limits and bounded by the
impacts previously evaluated in the
FES. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes
that there are no significant impacts
from the increased thermal discharge to
the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the
proposed action.
Noise Evaluation
The noise effects due to operation of
Seabrook at uprated power conditions
were reviewed. The power uprate does
not require any new motors or pumps.
In addition, the turbine and the reactor
building supply and exhaust fans will
continue to operate at current speeds,
and the associated noise levels will also
be unaffected by uprated power
operations. Consideration of other
features affected by the power uprate
did not reveal any new and significant
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sources of noise that would be expected
to be noticeable at the site boundary.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
the noise impacts of the proposed action
are bounded by the impacts previously
analyzed in the FES.
The non-radiological environmental
impacts related to the proposed power
uprate at Seabrook have been reviewed
and there are no adverse impacts or
significant changes required to the
current NPDES Permit or other plant
administrative limits. No changes to
land use would result from the
proposed action, and the proposed
action does not involve any historic
sites. Therefore, no new or different
types of non-radiological environmental
impacts are expected than those
previously considered in the FES.
Summary
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The details of the staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided in the
license amendment that will be issued
as part of the letter to the licensee
approving the license amendment.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. It has a small affect on
non-radiological plant effluents and has
no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Notices
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resource than those
previously considered in the FES for
Seabrook, NUREG–0895, dated
December 1982.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Darrell J. Roberts,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division
of Licensing Project Management, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05–2783 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am]
50.68(b)(1) is not necessary for handling
the 10 CFR Part 72 licensed contents of
the cask system, which is designed to
preclude conditions for accidental
criticality events, to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the exemption described above
would continue to satisfy the
underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.68(b)(1). The details of the NRC
staff’s safety evaluation will be provided
in the exemption that will be issued as
part of the letter to the licensee
approving the exemption to the
regulation.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent release off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore,
there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On October 18, 2004, the staff
consulted with the New Hampshire
State official, Michael Nawoj of the New
Hampshire Office of Emergency
Management, and with the
Massachusetts State official, James
Muckerheide of the Massachusetts
Emergency Management Agency,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State officials
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated March 17, 2004, as supplemented
by a second letter dated March 17, 2004,
and letters dated April 1, May 26,
September 13 (two letters), and October
12, 2004. 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 O1 F21, 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 Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://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 by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
(Note: Public access to ADAMS has
been temporarily suspended so that
security reviews of publicly available
documents may be performed and
potentially sensitive information
removed. Please check the NRC Web
site for updates on the resumption of
ADAMS access.)
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day
of December 2004.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:28 Feb 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
7527
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–336]
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuance of an exemption
from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, section 68,
‘‘Criticality Accident Requirements,’’
subsection (b)(1) for Facility Operating
License No. DPR–65, issued to
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (the
licensee), for operation of the Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MP2),
located in New London County,
Connecticut. Therefore, as required by
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this
environmental assessment and finding
of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
the licensee from the requirements of 10
CFR 50.68, ‘‘Criticality Accident
Requirements,’’ subsection (b)(1) during
the handling and storage of spent
nuclear fuel in a 10 CFR part 72
licensed spent fuel storage container
that is in the MP2 spent fuel pool. The
proposed action is in accordance with
the licensee’s application dated
November 5, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Under 10 CFR 50.68(b)(1), the
Commission sets forth the following
requirement that must be met, in lieu of
a monitoring system capable of
detecting criticality events:
Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling
and storage at any one time of more fuel
assemblies than have been determined to be
safely subcritical under the most adverse
moderation conditions feasible by unborated
water.
Section 50.12(a) allows licensees to
apply for an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 if the
regulation is not necessary to achieve
the underlying purpose of the rule and
other conditions are met. The licensee
stated that compliance with 10 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for the MP2
dated June 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On December 23, 2004, the staff
consulted with the Connecticut State
official, Michael Firsick, of the
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 29 (Monday, February 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7525-7527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2783]
[[Page 7525]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-443]
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Section 50.90 for Facility Operating License No. NPF-86,
issued to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPLE Seabrook or the licensee), for
operation of the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), located in
Seabrook Township, Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow FPLE Seabrook to increase the
maximum reactor core power level from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
3587 MWt, which is an increase of approximately 5.2 percent of the
rated core thermal power for Seabrook.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated March 17, 2004, as supplemented by a second letter
dated March 17, 2004, and letters dated April 1, May 26, September 13
(two letters), and October 12, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action permits an increase in the licensed core
thermal power from 3411 MWt to 3587 MWt for Seabrook and provides the
flexibility to increase the potential electrical output of Seabrook.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This assessment summarizes the non-radiological and radiological
impacts on the environment that may result from the proposed action.
The NRC staff based its conclusions on an analyzed core power level of
3659 MWt (3678 MWt Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) power level). A
power level of 3659 MWt is used based on the guaranteed core thermal
output of 3587 MWt plus a 2-percent uncertainty allowance for
calorimetric measurements.
Radiological Environmental Assessment
Radwaste Systems
Seabrook uses waste treatment systems designed to maintain normal
operation offsite releases and doses within the requirements of 10 CFR
Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory guidance relative to
the methodology used to determine if the radwaste effluent releases
from a pressurized-water reactor meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part
20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I is provided in NUREG-0017, Revision
1, ``Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and
Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code).'' The
proposed power uprate will not change existing radioactive waste system
design, plant operating procedures, or waste inputs as defined by
NUREG-0017. As a result, the impact of the proposed power uprate on
radwaste releases and Appendix I doses can be estimated using the
methodology and equations found in NUREG-0017, Revision 1.
The reactor coolant contains activated corrosion products, which
are the result of metallic materials entering the water and being
activated in the reactor region. Under power uprate conditions, the
feedwater flow increases with power and the activation rate in the
reactor region increases with power. Additionally, non-condensible
radioactive gas from the main condenser, along with air in-leakage,
normally contains activation gases (principally N-16, O-19 and N-13)
and fission product radioactive noble gases. This is the major source
of radioactive gas. The proposed power uprate will increase the
activity level of radioactive isotopes in the primary and secondary
coolant. Due to leakage or process operations, fractions of these
fluids are transported to the liquid and gaseous waste systems where
they are processed prior to discharge. As the activity levels in the
primary and secondary coolant are increased, the activity level of
inputs into the waste systems are proportionately increased.
The methodology used for the processing of radioactive waste at
Seabrook will not be impacted by operation at the proposed uprated
power level, and the slight increase in activity discharged would
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 20, 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, and the annual doses projected in the Seabrook Final
Environmental Statement (FES), NUREG-0895, dated December 1982. The NRC
staff concludes that the proposed power uprate will not affect the
ability to process liquid or gaseous radioactive effluents and the
environmental impacts of the proposed power uprate are bounded by the
impacts previously evaluated in the FES.
Occupational Dose
Occupational exposure from in-plant radiation primarily occurs
during routine maintenance, special maintenance, and refueling
operations. An increase in power at Seabrook will increase the activity
inventory of fission products in the core by approximately the
percentage of the power uprate. As a result, the radioactivity levels
in the primary coolant, secondary coolant, and other radioactive
process systems and components will also be impacted. Based on an
uprate from the current licensed core power of 3411 MWt to the analyzed
core power level of 3659 MWt (3678 MWt NSSS power level), normal
operation radiation levels in areas near the reactor vessel are
expected to increase but the annual average collective occupational
dose after the power uprate is implemented would still be well below
the value expected when the FES was published and as set in 10 CFR Part
20. In addition, plant programs and administrative controls such as
shielding, plant chemistry, and the radiation protection program will
help compensate for the potential increase in occupational dose. The
proposed actions does not involve significant increases in the offsite
doses to the public from noble gases, airborne particulates, iodine,
tritium, or liquid effluents.
The NRC staff concludes that doses offsite will continue to be
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, and the slight potential increase
in occupational exposure are bounded by the impacts previously
evaluated in the FES.
Postulated Accident Doses
The licensee's uprate analysis program included a reanalysis or
evaluation of all aspects of large-break loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA), small-break LOCA, non-LOCA accidents, and NSSS and balance-of-
plant (BOP) structures, systems, and components. Major NSSS components
(e.g., reactor pressure vessel, pressurizer, reactor coolant pumps, and
steam generators); BOP components (e.g., turbine, generator, and
condensate and feedwater pumps); and major systems and sub-systems
(e.g., safety injection, auxiliary feedwater, residual heat removal,
electrical distribution, emergency diesel generators, containment
cooling, and the ultimate heat sink) have been assessed with respect to
the bounding conditions
[[Page 7526]]
expected for operation at the uprated power level. Control systems
(e.g., rod control, pressurizer pressure and level, turbine overspeed,
steam generator level, and steam dump) have been evaluated for
operation at uprated power conditions. The results of all of the above
analyses and evaluations have yielded acceptable results and
demonstrate that all design basis acceptance criteria will continue to
be met during uprated power operations.
For post-accident conditions, the existing post-accident dose rate
maps are adequate for power uprate conditions. The resulting radiation
levels were determined to be within current regulatory limits, and
there would be no effect on the plant equipment, access to vital areas,
or habitability of the control room. The licensee has determined that
access to areas requiring post-accident occupancy will not be
significantly affected by the power uprate. The calculated whole body
and thyroid doses at the exclusion area boundary that might result from
a postulated design-basis LOCA at uprated power conditions were
determined to remain below established regulatory limits. Therefore,
the NRC staff concludes that, for the proposed action, potential
increased doses from postulated accidents are not significant.
Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment
In support of the proposed action, the licensee reviewed the non-
radiological environmental impacts of the power uprate based on
information submitted in the Seabrook Environmental Report--Operating
License Stage (ER-OL), dated June 29, 1981, the Seabrook FES, and the
requirements of the Environmental Protection Plan. Based on this
review, the licensee concluded that the proposed power uprate has no
significant effect on the non-radiological elements of concern and the
plant will be operated within the bounds of impacts previously
evaluated in the FES. In addition, the licensee states that existing
Federal, State, and local regulatory permits presently in effect
accommodate the power uprate without modification.
Water Use Impacts
The Atlantic Ocean serves as the normal supply of cooling water and
as the ultimate heat sink for Seabrook. The cooling water is withdrawn
from the Atlantic Ocean via a 17,000-foot long intake tunnel in the
underlying bedrock, and is returned to the ocean through a similar
discharge tunnel, approximately 16,500 feet long. The Circulating Water
System (CWS) delivers cooling water from the Atlantic Ocean to the main
condenser to remove the heat rejected by the turbine cycle and
auxiliary systems and conveys the heated discharge water back to the
Atlantic Ocean. CWS flow rate does not change for the power uprate.
Additionally, groundwater is not used in current plant operations;
therefore, there will be no additional impacts to onsite groundwater
use as a result of the proposed action. The NRC staff concludes that
the power uprate will not have a significant impact on water usage at
Seabrook.
Thermal Discharge
The licensee indicates that, at uprated power conditions, with
normal CWS flow, the circulating water outlet temperature will increase
approximately 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit from the temperature associated
with the current power level. However, the maximum CWS outlet
temperature associated with the proposed action will continue to be
within system design parameters.
The licensee evaluated the thermal impact associated with the power
uprate relative to the Seabrook National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The New Hampshire Office of
Ecosystem Protection issued NPDES Permit No. NH0020338 to the licensee
for operation of Seabrook. The permit was last renewed on April 1,
2002. The NPDES permit specifies that Seabrook shall not cause a
monthly mean temperature rise of more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit within
300 feet of the submerged diffuser in the direction of discharge.
Historical data indicates that maximum monthly mean temperatures have
been within all NPDES permit parameters. Projected maximum monthly mean
temperatures predicted to occur in uprated conditions will continue to
be below specified permit limits and bounded by the impacts previously
evaluated in the FES. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are
no significant impacts from the increased thermal discharge to the
Atlantic Ocean as a result of the proposed action.
Noise Evaluation
The noise effects due to operation of Seabrook at uprated power
conditions were reviewed. The power uprate does not require any new
motors or pumps. In addition, the turbine and the reactor building
supply and exhaust fans will continue to operate at current speeds, and
the associated noise levels will also be unaffected by uprated power
operations. Consideration of other features affected by the power
uprate did not reveal any new and significant sources of noise that
would be expected to be noticeable at the site boundary. Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that the noise impacts of the proposed action are
bounded by the impacts previously analyzed in the FES.
The non-radiological environmental impacts related to the proposed
power uprate at Seabrook have been reviewed and there are no adverse
impacts or significant changes required to the current NPDES Permit or
other plant administrative limits. No changes to land use would result
from the proposed action, and the proposed action does not involve any
historic sites. Therefore, no new or different types of non-
radiological environmental impacts are expected than those previously
considered in the FES.
Summary
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in
the license amendment that will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the license amendment.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It has a
small affect on non-radiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
[[Page 7527]]
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resource than
those previously considered in the FES for Seabrook, NUREG-0895, dated
December 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On October 18, 2004, the staff consulted with the New Hampshire
State official, Michael Nawoj of the New Hampshire Office of Emergency
Management, and with the Massachusetts State official, James
Muckerheide of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, regarding
the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State officials
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated March 17, 2004, as supplemented by a second
letter dated March 17, 2004, and letters dated April 1, May 26,
September 13 (two letters), and October 12, 2004. 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 O1 F21, 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 Internet at the NRC Web site, https://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 by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-
4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. (Note: Public access to ADAMS has
been temporarily suspended so that security reviews of publicly
available documents may be performed and potentially sensitive
information removed. Please check the NRC Web site for updates on the
resumption of ADAMS access.)
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of December 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Darrell J. Roberts,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-2783 Filed 2-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
