PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, 68598-68608 [E7-23537]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68598
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–387 and 50–388]
[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499]
STP Nuclear Operating Company;
Notice of Withdrawal of Application for
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) has
granted the request of STP Nuclear
Operating Company (the licensee) to
withdraw its June 7, 2006, application
for proposed amendments to Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–76 and
NPF–80, respectively, for the South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, located in
Matagorda County.
The proposed amendments would
have revised the facility’s Spent Fuel
Pool and In-Containment Storage Area
Criticality Analysis.
The Commission had previously
issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments published in
the Federal Register on September 12,
2006 (71 FR 53721). However, by letter
dated November 28, 2007, the licensee
withdrew the proposed request for
amendments.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendments dated June 7, 2006, and the
licensee’s letter dated November 28,
2007, which withdrew the application
for license amendments. 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 Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day
of November, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–23536 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2;
Draft Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to the Proposed License
Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power Level
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public
Comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Draft
Environmental Assessment as its
evaluation of a request by PPL
Susquehanna, LLC for a license
amendment to increase the maximum
thermal power at Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1
and 2), from 3,489 megawatts-thermal
(MWt) to 3,952 MWt at each unit. This
represents a power increase of
approximately 13 percent thermal
power. As stated in the NRC staff’s
position paper dated February 8, 1996,
on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended
Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC
staff (the staff) will prepare an
environmental impact statement if it
believes a power uprate would have a
significant impact on the human
environment. The staff did not identify
any significant impact from the
information provided in the licensee’s
EPU application for Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, or the
staff’s independent review; therefore,
the staff is documenting its
environmental review in an
Environmental Assessment. Also, in
accordance with the position paper, the
Draft Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact is
being published in the Federal Register
with a 30-day public comment period.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
SSES is located just west of the
Susquehanna River approximately 5
miles northeast of Berwick, in Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania. In total, SSES
majority owner and licensed operator,
PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL, the
licensee), owns 2,355 acres of land on
both sides of the Susquehanna River.
Generally, this land is characterized by
open deciduous woodlands interspersed
with grasslands and orchards.
Approximately 487 acres are used for
generation facilities and associated
maintenance facilities, laydown areas,
parking lots, and roads. Approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
130 acres are leased to local farmers.
PPL maintains a 401-acre nature
preserve, referred to as the Susquehanna
Riverlands, which is located between
SSES and the river; U.S. Route 11
separates the Susquehanna Riverlands
from the plant site. The land on the west
side of the river is about 1,573 acres and
Gould Island, a 65-acre island just north
of SSES on the Susquehanna River, is
currently jointly owned between PPL
(90%) and Allegheny Electric
Cooperative (10%). Also, PPL currently
owns an additional 717 acres of mostly
undeveloped land, which includes
natural recreational, and wildlife areas
on the east side of the river (Reference
10).
SSES is a two-unit plant with General
Electric boiling-water reactors and
generators. NRC approved the Unit 1
operating license on July 17, 1982, and
commercial operation began June 8,
1983. The Unit 2 operating license was
issued on March 3, 1984, and
commercial operation began February
12, 1985. Units 1 and 2 both currently
operate at 3,489 MWt (Reference 8). The
units share a common control room,
refueling floor, turbine operating deck,
radwaste system, and other auxiliary
systems (Reference 9).
SSES uses a closed-cycle heat
dissipation system (two natural-draft
cooling towers) to transfer waste heat
from the circulating water system to the
atmosphere. The circulating water and
the service water systems draw water
from, and discharge to, the
Susquehanna River. The river intake
structure is located on the western bank
of the river and consists of two water
entrance chambers with 1-inch, oncenter vertical trash bars and 3⁄8-inchmesh traveling screens. A low-pressure
screen-wash system periodically
operates to release aquatic organisms
and debris impinged on the traveling
screens to a pit with debris removal
equipment that collects material into a
dumpster for offsite disposal. Cooling
tower blowdown, spray pond overflow,
and other permitted effluents are
discharged to the Susquehanna River
through a buried pipe leading to a
submerged discharge diffuser structure,
approximately 600 feet downstream of
the river intake structure. The diffuser
pipe is 200-feet long, with the last 120
feet containing 72 four-inch portals that
direct the discharge at a 45-degree angle
upwards and downstream. Warm
circulating water from the cooling
towers can be diverted to the river
intake structure to prevent icing; this
usually occurs from November through
March on an as-needed basis (Reference
10).
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
For the specific purpose of connecting
SSES to the regional transmission
system, there are approximately 150
miles of transmission line corridors that
occupy 3,341 acres of land. The
corridors pass through land that is
primarily agricultural and forested with
low population densities. Two 500–
kilovolt (kV) lines and one 230–kV line
connect SSES to the electric grid, with
approximately 2.3 miles of short ties in
the immediate plant vicinity to connect
SSES to the 230–kV system. The
Stanton-Susquehanna #2 230–kV
transmission line corridor runs
northeast from the plant for
approximately 30 miles and ranges from
100–400 feet wide. The SusquehannaWescosville-Alburtis 500–kV
transmission line corridor ranges from
100 to 350 feet wide and runs generally
southeast from the plant for
approximately 76 miles; the SunburySusquehanna #2 500–kV transmission
line corridor is approximately 325 feet
wide and runs 44 miles west-southwest
from the plant. The transmission line
corridors cross the following
Pennsylvania counties: Luzerne (the
location of SSES), Carbon, Columbia,
Lehigh, Northampton, Northumberland,
Montour, and Snyder. These
transmission lines are currently owned
by PPL Electric Utilities with the
exception of 42.3 miles of the 44.2 mile
Sunbury-Susquehanna #2 500–kV line
which is currently owned by Allegheny
Electric Cooperative. All of these lines
however, are integral to the larger
transmission system, and as such PPL
Electric Utilities plans to operate and
maintain these lines indefinitely. Except
for the short ties on the plant site, the
lines would likely remain a permanent
part of the transmission system even
after SSES is decommissioned
(Reference 10).
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated October 11, 2006, PPL
proposed amendments to the operating
licenses for SSES Units 1 and 2 to
increase the maximum thermal power
level of both units by approximately 13
percent thermal power, from 3,489 MWt
to 3,952 MWt (Reference 8). The change
is considered an EPU because it would
raise the reactor core power level more
than 7 percent above the original
licensed maximum power level. This
amendment would allow the heat
output of the reactor to increase, which
would increase the flow of steam to the
turbine. This would result in the
increase in production of electricity and
the amount of waste heat delivered to
the condenser, and an increase in the
temperature of the water being
discharged to the Susquehanna River.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
PPL plans to implement the proposed
EPU in two phases to obtain optimal
fuel utilization and to ensure that
manageable core thermal limits are
maintained. The core thermal power
level of Unit 2 would be increased by
approximately 13 percent following the
spring 2009 refueling outage. Unit 1’s
core thermal power level would be
increased in two stages of about 7
percent each during the spring 2008 and
spring 2010 refueling outages (Reference
8).
The original operating licenses for
Units 1 and 2 authorized operation up
to a maximum power level of 3,293
MWt per unit. Since the units went
online, SSES has implemented two
power uprates. Stretch uprates (4.5
percent each) were implemented in
1994 (Unit 2) and 1995 (Unit 1),
increasing the licensed thermal power
levels of SSES Units 1 and 2 from 3,293
MWt to 3,441 MWt. Two separate NRC
environmental assessments each
resulted in a finding of no significant
impact and determined that these
actions ‘‘* * * would have no
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.’’ These decisions
were published in the Federal Register,
Vol. 59, No. 53, pp. 12990–12992 and
Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 3278–3280
(Reference 12, 13). In 2001, a
Measurement Uncertainty Recapture
(MUR) uprate of 1.4 percent increased
the licensed thermal power levels of
SSES Units 1 and 2 to 3,489 MWt. The
NRC environmental assessment for this
action also resulted in a finding of no
significant impact and was published in
the Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 122,
pp. 33716–33717 (Reference 14).
The Need for the Proposed Action
SSES is within the transmission area
controlled by PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C. (PJM). PJM operates the largest
regional transmission territory in the
U.S., currently serving a 164,260-squaremile area in all or parts of 13 states and
the District of Columbia, representing
approximately 163,806 megawatts
electrical (MWe) of generating capacity.
PJM has forecasted that the summer
unrestricted peak load in the MidAtlantic geographic zone where SSES is
located would grow at an annual
average rate of 1.8 percent for the next
10 years. This represents an increase in
peak load of almost 6,000 MWe from
2005 to 2010, when the proposed SSES
EPU is scheduled to be completed. The
proposed EPU would add an average of
205 MWe of base load generation to the
grid from both Units 1 and 2. This
added electricity is projected to be
enough to meet the power needs of
approximately 195,000 homes and is
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68599
forecasted to be produced for the PJM
grid at a cost lower than the projected
market price (Reference 9).
PJM uses a queue system to manage
requests to add or remove generation
from the regional transmission system.
SSES submitted an application to PJM
for the EPU additional generation on
May 19, 2004. The PJM Interconnection
Service Agreements and Construction
Service Agreements were signed for
Unit 2 on July 7, 2005, and for Unit 1
on January 20, 2006 (Reference 9).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
At the time of issuance of the
operating licenses for SSES, the staff
noted that any activity authorized by the
licenses would be encompassed by the
overall action evaluated in the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) for the
operation of SSES, which was issued by
the NRC in June 1981. This
Environmental Assessment summarizes
the radiological and non-radiological
impacts in the environment that may
result from the proposed action.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Potential land use impacts due to the
proposed EPU include impacts from
construction and plant modifications at
SSES. While some plant components
would be modified, most plant changes
related to the proposed EPU would
occur within existing structures,
buildings, and fenced equipment yards
housing major components within the
developed part of the site. No new
construction would occur outside of
existing facilities, and no expansion of
buildings, roads, parking lots,
equipment storage areas, or
transmission facilities would be
required to support the proposed EPU
with the following exceptions.
The 230–kV switchyard located on
PPL property across the river from the
station, and the 500–kV switchyard
located on the plant site would both be
expanded to house additional capacitor
banks. The site road adjacent to the
500–kV switchyard would be moved to
accommodate this expansion. Both
switchyard modifications would require
no land disturbance outside the power
block area. Relocation of the road
adjacent to the 500–kV switchyard
would occur in a previously developed
area of the plant site, resulting in no or
little impact to land use. In addition, the
turbine building may be expanded to
allow for the installation of condensate
filters, and additional aboveground
storage tanks may be required to support
cooling tower basin acid injection. If
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
68600
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
required, storage tank installation and
turbine building expansion would be
located in the developed part of the site
(Reference 8, 9). An above ground
shielded storage facility will be
constructed onsite within the Protected
Area to store the original steam dryers.
Existing parking lots, road access, laydown areas, offices, workshops,
warehouses, and restrooms would be
used during construction and plant
modifications. Therefore, land use
conditions would not change at SSES.
Also, there would be no land use
changes along transmission lines (no
new lines would be required for the
proposed EPU), transmission corridors,
switch yards, or substations. Because
land use conditions would not change at
SSES and because any disturbance
would occur within previously
disturbed areas within the plant site,
there would be little or no impact to
aesthetic resources (except during
outside construction) and historic and
archeological resources in the vicinity of
SSES.
The impacts of continued operation of
SSES Units 1 and 2 combined with the
proposed EPU would be bounded by the
scope of the original FES for operation,
‘‘Final Environmental Statement Related
to the Operation of Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,’’ dated
1981, and therefore, the staff concludes
that there would be no significant
impacts to land use, aesthetics, and
historic and archaeological resources
from the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Waste
SSES generates both hazardous and
non-hazardous waste. Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, SSES is
classified as a Large Quantity Generator
of hazardous waste, including spent
batteries, solvents, corrosives, and paint
thinners. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Envirofacts Warehouse database, there
are no RCRA violations listed for SSES
related to the management of these
hazardous wastes (Reference 11). Nonhazardous waste is managed by SSES’s
current program and includes municipal
waste, maintenance waste, wood, and
non-friable asbestos. Plant modifications
necessary for the proposed EPU may
result in additional hazardous and nonhazardous waste generation; however,
all wastes would continue to be
managed by the waste management
program currently in place at SSES,
which is designed to minimize
hazardous waste generation and
promote recycling of waste whenever
possible (Reference 9) and subject to
state (commonwealth) and Federal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
oversight. As such, the staff concludes
there would be no impacts from
additional non-radiological waste
generated as a result of the proposed
EPU.
Cooling Tower Impacts
SSES operates two natural draft
cooling towers to transfer waste heat
from the circulating water system
(which cools the main condensers) to
the atmosphere. No additional cooling
tower capacity is planned to
accommodate the proposed EPU.
However, additional aboveground
storage tanks could be required to
support cooling tower basin acid
injection. If built, these tanks would be
located in the developed part of the
plant site (Reference 9).
Aesthetic impacts associated with
cooling tower operation following
implementation of the proposed action
would be similar to those associated
with current operating conditions and
include noise and visual impacts from
the plume such as fogging and icing.
No significant increase in noise is
anticipated for cooling tower operation
following the proposed EPU. The FES
for operation evaluated the potential
noise impacts of operation of SSES and
determined that pump and motor noise
from the cooling water system would
not exceed ambient (baseline) levels in
offsite areas and that cooling tower
noise would be audible for no more than
a mile offsite to the west, southwest,
and southeast of the station. PPL
conducted an initial noise survey in
1985 after commercial operation of both
units began, and again in 1995 following
the stretch uprate. The 1995 noise
measurements were similar to those
recorded in 1985, and PPL received no
noise complaints following
implementation of the stretch uprate.
The staff concludes that the proposed
EPU, like the stretch uprate, would not
produce measurable changes in the
character, sources, or intensity of noises
generated by the station’s cooling water
system or cooling towers (Reference 9).
Conclusions reached in NUREG–1437,
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants (GEIS),’’ Volumes 1 and
2, dated 1996, apply to the proposed
action regarding cooling tower impacts
on crops, ornamental vegetation, and
native plants. The GEIS concluded that
natural-draft cooling towers release drift
and moisture high into the atmosphere
where they are dispersed over long
distances, and increased fogging, cloud
cover, salt drift, and relative humidity
have little potential to affect crops,
ornamental vegetation, and native
plants.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Impacts associated with continued
cooling tower operation at SSES
following the proposed EPU, including
noise, fogging, cloud cover, salt drift,
and icing would not change
significantly from current impacts.
Therefore, the staff concludes there
would be no significant impacts
associated with cooling tower operation
for the proposed action.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with
transmission facilities for the proposed
action include changes in transmission
line corridor maintenance and electric
shock hazards due to increased current.
The proposed EPU would not require
any new transmission lines and would
not require changes in the maintenance
and operation of existing transmission
lines or substations. Corridor
maintenance practices (including
vegetative management) would not be
affected by the proposed EPU.
The proposed EPU would require the
installation of additional capacitor
banks in the 500– and 230–kV
switchyards, and PPL plans to conduct
a power delivery environmental risk
identification evaluation prior to these
installations. The capacitor bank
installations are the only modification
of transmission facilities that would
accompany the proposed EPU. The only
operational change to transmission lines
resulting from the proposed EPU would
be increased current; voltage would
remain unchanged. As PPL states in its
October 11, 2006, application, page 7–
2, ‘‘increased current may cause
transmission lines to sag more, but there
would still be adequate clearance
between energized conductors and the
ground to prevent electrical shock.’’
Additionally, PPL has evaluated all
related transmission facilities and found
these facilities to be within acceptable
design parameters (Reference 9).
The National Electric Safety Code
(NESC) provides design criteria that
limit hazards from steady-state currents.
The NESC limits the short-circuit
current to ground to less than 5
milliamps. As stated above, there would
be an increase in current passing
through the transmission lines
associated with the increased power
level of the proposed EPU. The higher
electrical current passing through the
transmission lines would cause an
increase in electromagnetic field
strength. However, with the proposed
increase in power level, the impact of
exposure to electromagnetic fields from
the offsite transmission lines would not
be expected to increase significantly
over the current impact. The
transmission lines meet the applicable
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
shock prevention provisions of the
NESC. Therefore, even with the small
increase in current attributable to the
proposed EPU, adequate protection is
provided against hazards from electric
shock.
The impacts associated with
transmission facilities for the proposed
action would not change significantly
from the impacts associated with
current plant operation. There would be
no physical modifications to the
transmission lines, transmission line
corridor maintenance practices would
not change, there would be no changes
to transmission line corridors or vertical
clearances, electric current passing
through the transmission lines would
increase only slightly, and capacitor
bank modifications would occur only
within the existing power blocks.
Therefore, the staff concludes that there
would be no significant impacts
associated with transmission facilities
for the proposed action.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the
proposed action include hydrological
alterations to the Susquehanna River
and changes to plant water supply.
SSES uses cooling water from the
Susquehanna River and discharges
water back to the river at a point
approximately 600 feet downstream of
the intake structure. River water enters
the plant cooling system via cooling
tower basins and provides water to the
circulating water and service water
systems. SSES uses a closed-cycle,
natural-draft cooling tower heat
dissipation system to remove waste heat
from the main condensers; cooling
tower blowdown is discharged back to
the Susquehanna River (Reference 9).
No changes to the cooling water
intake system are expected during the
proposed action. While the volume of
intake embayments would not change,
the intake flow rate would increase from
an average of 58.3 million gallons per
day (gpd) to an average of 60.9 million
gpd, as the amount of time all four river
intake pumps operate would increase.
This represents a 4.5-percent increase in
intake water withdrawn from the
Susquehanna River and is not expected
to alter the hydrology of the river
significantly (Reference 9). The
maximum withdrawal rate possible as a
result of the proposed EPU is 65.4
million gpd, which was calculated using
worst-case meteorological conditions
(NRC 2006). This represents a 12.2percent increase in intake water
withdrawn from the river and is not
expected to alter the hydrology of the
river significantly.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
The amount of consumptive water
usage due to evaporation and drift of
cooling water through the cooling
towers is expected to increase from a
monthly average of 38 million gpd to 44
million gpd. This represents a 15.7percent increase over current usage.
Based on the Susquehanna River’s
average annual flow rate of 9,427
million gpd, the proposed EPU would
result in an average annual loss of 0.5
percent of river water at that location.
During low-flow conditions, which
usually occur in late August, the average
evaporative loss at SSES may approach
1 percent of the low-flow river value
(Reference 9). The staff concludes that
the amount of water consumed by SSES
under the proposed EPU conditions
would not result in significant
alterations to Susquehanna River flow
patterns at this location.
Consumptive water usage at SSES is
regulated by the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission (SRBC), an
independent agency that manages water
usage along the entire length of the
Susquehanna River. The current permit
granted for SSES operation by SRBC is
for average monthly consumptive water
usage up to 40 million gpd (permit
#19950301 EPUL–0578). In December
2006, PPL submitted an application to
SRBC to eliminate the 40 million gpd
average monthly limit and to approve a
maximum daily river water withdrawal
of 66 million gpd (Reference 15). SRBC
is currently reviewing PPL’s application
and will make a decision independent
of the NRC whether to allow the
increased consumptive water usage
required to implement the proposed
EPU. The SRBC permit is required for
plant operation, and PPL must adhere to
the prescribed water usage limits and
any applicable mitigative measures.
No changes to the cooling water
intake system and the volume of intake
embayment are expected for the
proposed EPU, but the average intake
flow would increase by 4.5 percent. The
staff concludes this increase would not
alter significantly the hydrology of the
Susquehanna River. The proposed EPU
would result in a small increase in the
amount of Susquehanna River
consumptive water usage due to
evaporative losses. However, the
increased loss would be insignificant
relative to the flow of the Susquehanna
River, and SRBC would continue to
regulate SSES’s consumptive water
usage. With respect to the proposed
action, the staff concludes there would
be no significant impact to the
hydrological pattern on the
Susquehanna River, and there would be
no significant impact to the plant’s
consumptive water supply.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68601
Discharge Impacts
Potential impacts to the Susquehanna
River from the SSES discharge include
increased turbidity, scouring, erosion,
and sedimentation. These dischargerelated impacts apply to the region near
the discharge structure due to the large
volume of cooling water released to the
river. However, since the proposed EPU
would result in no significant changes
in discharge volume or velocity, there
would be no expected changes in
turbidity, scouring, erosion or
sedimentation related to the proposed
EPU.
Surface and wastewater discharges at
SSES are regulated through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit (No. PA0047325),
which is issued and enforced by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau
of Water Supply and Wastewater
Management. The DEP periodically
reviews and renews the NPDES permit;
SSES’s current NPDES permit was
effective beginning September 1, 2005,
and is valid through August 31, 2010.
The NPDES permit sets water quality
standards for all plant discharges to the
Susquehanna River, including limits on
free available chlorine, total zinc, and
total chromium in cooling tower
blowdown. According to Pennsylvania’s
Environmental Facility Application
Compliance Tracking System (eFACTS),
there are no past or current NPDES
violations listed for SSES (Reference 4).
While the proposed EPU would
increase the amount of cooling tower
blowdown to the Susquehanna River,
there is no expected increase in
associated biocides, solvents, or
dissolved solids entering the river, and
SSES would continue to adhere to the
water quality standards set within the
NPDES permit. The NPDES permit does
not contain thermal discharge
temperature limits, but SSES must
adhere to Susquehanna River
temperature limits prescribed by
Pennsylvania Code water quality
standards (Reference 1). Thermal
discharge effects and applicable
Pennsylvania Code water quality
standards will be discussed further in
the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section.
No expected changes in turbidity,
scouring, erosion or sedimentation are
expected as a result of the proposed
EPU. Surface and wastewater discharges
to the Susquehanna River would
continue to be regulated by the
Pennsylvania DEP. Any dischargerelated impacts for the proposed action
would be similar to current impacts
from plant operation, and therefore, the
staff concludes the proposed action
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
68602
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
vicinity of stream and river crossings
employ procedures to minimize erosion
and shoreline disturbance while
encouraging vegetative cover (Reference
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
7).
The potential impacts to aquatic biota
In addition to setting water quality
from the proposed EPU include
parameters for surface and wastewater
impingement, entrainment, thermal
discharges, the SSES NPDES permit
discharge effects, and impacts due to
(PA–0047325) also regulates
transmission line right-of-way
entrainment and impingement of
maintenance. The aquatic species
aquatic species at SSES. Because SSES
evaluated in this draft Environmental
uses a closed-cycle, recirculating
Assessment are those in the vicinity of
cooling water system, entrainment and
the SSES cooling water intake and
impingement impacts on aquatic biota
discharge structures along the
resulting from the proposed EPU are not
Susquehanna River, and those that
expected to be significant.
occur in water bodies crossed by
The proposed EPU would require
transmission lines associated with
additional water withdrawal from the
SSES.
Susquehanna River for increased
The licensee has conducted aquatic
cooling tower evaporative losses and
biota studies of the Susquehanna River
other plant needs. The average increase
upstream and downstream of SSES
in daily water withdrawal from the
since 1971. The studies assessed water
Susquehanna River would be
quality, algae (periphyton and
approximately 4.4 percent, from 58.3
photoplankton), macroinvertebrates,
million gpd to 60.9 million gpd. PPL
and fish from 1971 to 1994, with annual also reported a maximum daily water
fish studies beginning in 1976. The
withdrawal estimate of 65.4 million gpd
Susquehanna River in the vicinity of
(an 11.2 percent increase), which would
SSES has both coolwater and
only occur during worst-case
warmwater fishes, primarily consisting
meteorological conditions (Reference
of minnows (Cyprinidae), suckers
15). Under the proposed EPU
(Catastomidae), catfish (Icaluridae),
conditions, the average increase in
sunfish (Centrarchidae), and darters and water withdrawal would result in the
perch (Percidae). There are also records impingement of approximately one
of smallmouth bass (Micropterus
additional fish per day (from 21 to 22)
dolomieu), walleye (Sander vitreus), and and entrainment of approximately
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
15,972 additional larvae per day (from
found in proximity to SSES. Monitoring 363,000 to 378,000) during spawning
of benthic macroinvertebrates and
season. These small increases in
biofouling mollusks was also included
entrainment and impingement related to
in the studies. No zebra mussels
the proposed EPU would result in no
(Dreissena polymorpha) have been
significant impact to the Susquehanna
recorded at SSES or in the vicinity of
River aquatic community (Reference 9).
the North Branch of the Susquehanna
Effective July 9, 2007, the EPA
River; however, Asiatic clams
suspended the Phase II rule (NRC
(Corbicula fluminea) have been found in 2007b). As a result, all permits for Phase
the North Branch of the Susquehanna
II facilities should include conditions
River for several years and were
under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water
collected by scuba divers in the SSES
Act that are developed on a Best
engineered safeguard service water
Professional Judgment basis, rather than
spray pond in July 2005.
best technology available. Best
No sensitive aquatic species are
Professional Judgment is used by
known to occur at or near SSES
National Pollutant Discharge
(Reference 9); however, the 1981 FES for Elimination System (NPDES) permit
operation indicated that two endangered writers to develop technology-based
and two rare fish listed by the
permit conditions on a case-by-case
Pennsylvania Fish Commission (now
basis using all reasonably available and
the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat
relevant data. Any site-specific
Commission) have ranges that fall
mitigation required under the NPDES
within SSES transmission line corridors permitting process would result in a
(NRC 1981). PPL has provided the staff
reduction in the impacts of continued
with a vegetative management program
plant operations.
The NPDES permit issued by the
for its transmission line corridors that
Pennsylvania DEP does not specify
states no herbicides shall be applied
within 50 feet of any water body, except thermal discharge limits; however, the
amount and temperature of heated
stump treatments and herbicides
effluent discharged to the Susquehanna
approved for watershed/aquatic use.
River is governed by Section 93.7 of
Additionally, the transmission line
Pennsylvania Code, which places
corridor maintenance activities in the
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
would not result in significant impacts
on the Susquehanna River from cooling
water discharge.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
restrictions on waters designated
‘‘Warm Water Fisheries.’’ During the
July 1–August 31 time frame, the
highest river water temperature
allowable is 87 degrees Fahrenheit (°F),
with lower temperature limits during
other parts of the year (Reference 1). In
the 1981 FES for operation, the NRC
performed an analysis of SSES
blowdown plume characteristics. The
analysis concluded that blowdown
temperatures during all four seasons
were lower than the maximum river
temperatures set by Section 93.7. The
location and design of the SSES cooling
water discharge structure and the high
flow rate of the Susquehanna River
allow for sufficient mixing and cooling
of heated effluent. Using conservative
assumptions similar to those used in the
original FES thermal plume analysis,
PPL calculated that after
implementation of the proposed EPU,
blowdown temperatures would increase
by 2 °F. This would result in a 0.6 °F
increase in the maximum expected
temperature at the edge of the thermal
plume mixing zone (maximum
temperature 86.5 °F). The staff
concludes that the increase in thermal
discharge temperature and volume
resulting from the proposed EPU would
still fall within the guidelines
prescribed by the original FES for
operation (NRC 1981).
Liquid effluents discharged to the
Susquehanna River include cooling
tower blowdown, spray pond overflow,
liquid rad waste treatment effluents, and
surface and wastewater discharges. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
regulates these discharges through
SSES’s NPDES permit, which sets water
quality standards for all plant
discharges to the Susquehanna River.
Ecological studies of the Susquehanna
River conducted for the licensee
indicate that river water quality in the
vicinity of SSES continues to improve.
From 1973 through 2002, there was a
significant decreasing trend in turbidity,
sulfate, total iron, and total suspended
solids; and a significant increasing trend
in river temperature, pH, total
alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen. A
reduction in acid-mine drainage
pollutants and improvements in
upstream waste-water treatment have
likely contributed to the overallimproved river ecosystem health
(Ecology III 2003).
SSES operates a closed-cycle cooling
water system, and as such, the staff
concludes that impacts to aquatic biota
in the Susquehanna River from
entrainment, impingement, and thermal
discharge resulting from the proposed
EPU would not be significant. The
Pennsylvania DEP will continue to
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
68603
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
regulate the performance of the SSES
cooling water system and surface and
wastewater discharges through the
NPDES permit and Pennsylvania Code
designed to protect warm water
fisheries. Furthermore, SSES
transmission line corridor maintenance
practices would not change upon
implementation of the proposed EPU;
thus, the staff concludes there would be
no significant impacts to aquatic species
associated with transmission line
corridor maintenance.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
Potential impacts to terrestrial biota
from the proposed EPU include impacts
due to transmission line corridor
maintenance and any planned new
construction. The natural communities
at SSES and in the surrounding areas
consist of river floodplain forest, upland
forest, marshes, and wetlands. The river
floodplain forest at SSES is dominated
by silver maple (Acer saccharinum),
river birch (Betula nigra), and Northern
red oak (Quercus rubra). The upland
forest is dominated by Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), sweet birch (Betula
lenta), flowering dogwood (Cornaceae
cornus), white oak (Fagaceae quercus),
Northern red oak, black oak (Q.
velutina), and yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). The marshes
are dominated by a variety of emergent
vegetation such as sedges (Cyperaceae),
bulrush and cattail (Typhaceae), and
cutgrass (Poaceae) (Reference 9).
Although wetlands do occur at the SSES
site, none of the wetlands would be
affected by the proposed action.
As stated in the Cooling Tower
Impacts section, no significant increase
in noise is anticipated for cooling tower
operation following the proposed EPU,
and as such, biota would not be
impacted. The staff agrees with the
conclusions reached in the GEIS
regarding bird collisions with cooling
towers: Avian mortality due to
collisions with cooling towers is
considered to be of small significance if
the losses do not destabilize local
populations of any species and there is
no noticeable impairment of its function
with the local ecosystem (NRC 1996).
The proposed action would not
involve new land disturbance outside of
the existing power block or developed
areas, and as discussed in the
Transmission Facilities Impacts section,
there would be no changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance
practices. Thus, the staff concludes that
there would be no significant impacts to
terrestrial species or their habitat
associated with the proposed action,
including transmission line right-of-way
maintenance.
Impacts on Threatened and Endangered
Species
Potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species from the proposed
action include the impacts assessed in
the aquatic and terrestrial biota sections
of this Environmental Assessment.
These impacts include impingement,
entrainment, thermal discharge effects,
and impacts from transmission line
right-of-way maintenance for aquatic
and terrestrial species. A review of
databases maintained by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program
indicate that several animal and plant
species that are Federally or
Commonwealth-listed as threatened or
endangered occur in the vicinity of
SSES and its associated transmission
line corridors. Informal consultation
with FWS Pennsylvania Field Office
regarding the proposed EPU’s potential
impact on threatened or endangered
species is ongoing.
Four species listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act and 24 species that are
listed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as threatened or
endangered occur within the counties
where SSES and its associated
transmission line corridors are located.
These species are listed below in Table
1.
TABLE 1.—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF SSES OR IN COUNTIES
CROSSED BY SSES TRANSMISSION LINES
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Scientific name
Federal
status*
Common name
Mammals:
Neotoma magister ...........................................................
Myotis sodalis ..................................................................
Myotis leibii ......................................................................
Sciurus niger ....................................................................
Birds:
Ardia alba ........................................................................
Asio flammeus .................................................................
Bartramia longicauda .......................................................
Botaurus lentiginosus ......................................................
Chlidonias niger ...............................................................
Cistothorus platensis .......................................................
Falco peregrinus ..............................................................
Haliaeetus leucocephalus ................................................
Ixobrychus exilis ..............................................................
Pandion haliaetus ............................................................
Reptiles:
Clemmys muhlenbergii ....................................................
Invertebrates:
Enodia anthedon .............................................................
Euphydryas phaeton ........................................................
Poanes massasoit ...........................................................
Polites mystic ...................................................................
Speyeria idalia .................................................................
Speyeria aphrodite ..........................................................
Allegheny woodrat ..................................................................
Indiana bat ..............................................................................
Small-footed myotis ................................................................
Eastern fox squirrel ................................................................
—
E
—
—
T
E
T
T
Great egret .............................................................................
Short-eared owl ......................................................................
Upland sandpiper ...................................................................
American bittern .....................................................................
Black tern ...............................................................................
Sedge wren ............................................................................
Peregrine falcon .....................................................................
Bald eagle ..............................................................................
Least bittern ............................................................................
Osprey ....................................................................................
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
T
—
—
E
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
E
T
Bog Turtle ...............................................................................
T
E
Northern peary-eye ................................................................
Baltimore checkerspot ............................................................
Mulberry wing .........................................................................
Long dash ...............................................................................
Regal fritillary ..........................................................................
Aphrodite fritillary ....................................................................
—
—
—
—
—
—
VS
VS
V
V
E
VS
*T = Threatened, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, VS = Vulnerable to Apparently Secure
— = Not Listed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
State
status*
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
68604
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
(Sources: References 3, 5, 6, 16).
The proposed EPU would involve no
new land disturbance, and any
construction necessary would be
minimal and would only occur in
previously developed areas of SSES.
Additionally, no changes would be
made to the transmission line corridor
maintenance program, including
vegetative maintenance. As such, the
staff concludes that the proposed action
would have no significant impact on
Federally or Commonwealth-listed
species in the vicinity of SSES and its
transmission line corridors.
Social and Economic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts due
to the proposed EPU include changes in
the payments in lieu of taxes for
Luzerne County and changes in the size
of the workforce at SSES. Currently
SSES employs approximately 1,200 fulltime staff, 89 percent of whom live in
Luzerne or Columbia Counties, and
approximately 260 contract employees.
During outages, approximately 1,400
personnel provide additional support
(Reference 9).
The proposed EPU is not expected to
increase the size of the permanent SSES
workforce, since proposed plant
modifications would be phased in
during planned outages when SSES has
the support of 1,400 additional workers.
In addition, the proposed EPU would
not require an increase in the size of the
SSES workforce during future refueling
outages. Accordingly, the proposed EPU
would not have any measurable effect
on annual earnings and income in
Luzerne and Columbia Counties or on
community services (Reference 9).
According to the 2000 Census,
Luzerne and Columbia County
populations were about 2.9 and 2.0
percent minority, respectively, which is
well below the Commonwealth minority
population of 13.2 percent. The poverty
rates in 1999 for individuals living in
Luzerne and Columbia Counties are 11.1
percent and 13.1 percent, respectively,
which are slightly higher than the
Commonwealth’s average of 11.0
percent. Due to the lack of significant
environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed action, the proposed EPU
would not have any disproportionately
high and adverse impacts to minority or
low-income populations (Reference 9).
In the past, PPL paid real estate taxes
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
for power generation, transmission, and
distribution facilities. Under authority
of the Pennsylvania Utility Realty Tax
Act (PURTA), real estate taxes collected
from all utilities (water, telephone,
electric, and railroads) were
redistributed to the taxing jurisdictions
within the Commonwealth. In
Pennsylvania, these jurisdictions
include counties, cities, townships,
boroughs, and school districts. The
distribution of PURTA funds was
determined by formula and was not
necessarily based on the individual
utility’s effect on a particular
government entity (Reference 9).
In 1996, Electricity Generation
Customer Choice and Competition Act
became law, which allows consumers to
choose among competitive suppliers of
electrical power. As a result of utility
restructuring, Act 4 of 1999 revised the
tax base assessment methodology for
utilities from the depreciated book value
to the market value of utility property.
Additionally, as of January 1, 2000, PPL
was required to begin paying real estate
taxes directly to local jurisdictions,
ceasing payments to the
Commonwealth’s PURTA fund. PPL
currently pays annual real estate taxes
to the Berwick Area School District,
Luzerne County, and Salem Township
(Reference 9).
The proposed EPU could increase
SSES’s value, thus resulting in a larger
allocation of the payment to the Berwick
Area School District, Luzerne County,
and Salem Township. Because the
proposed EPU would increase the
economic viability of SSES, the
probability of early plant retirement
would be reduced. Early plant
retirement would be expected to have
negative impacts on the local economy
and the community by reducing tax
payments and limiting local
employment opportunities for the long
term (Reference 9).
Since the proposed EPU would not
have any measurable effect on the
annual earnings and income in Luzerne
and Columbia Counties or on
community services and due to the lack
of significant environmental impacts on
minority or low-income populations,
there would be no significant
socioeconomic or environmental justice
impacts associated with the proposed
EPU. Conversely, the proposed EPU
could have a positive effect on the
regional economy because of the
potential increase in the tax payments
received by the Berwick Area School
District, Luzerne County, and Salem
Township, due to the potential increase
in the book value of SSES, and the
increased long-term viability of SSES.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not result
in a significant change in nonradiological impacts in the areas of land
use, water use, cooling tower operation,
terrestrial and aquatic biota,
transmission facility operation, or social
and economic factors. No other nonradiological impacts were identified or
would be expected. Table 2 summarizes
the non-radiological environmental
impacts of the proposed EPU at SSES.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use ..............................................
Non-Radiological Waste .......................
Cooling Tower ......................................
Transmission Facilities .........................
Water Use ............................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Discharge .............................................
Aquatic Biota ........................................
Terrestrial Biota ....................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
No significant land-use modifications.
Any additional hazardous and non-hazardous waste as a result of the proposed EPU would continue to
be regulated by RCRA and managed by SSES’s waste management program.
Impacts associated with continued cooling tower operation following the proposed EPU, including noise,
fogging, cloud cover, salt drift, and icing would not change significantly from current impacts.
No physical modifications to transmission lines; lines meet electrical shock safety requirements; no
changes to transmission line corridor maintenance; small increase in electrical current would cause
small increase in electromagnetic field around transmission lines; no changes to voltage.
No configuration change to intake structure; increase in cooling water flow rate; increase in consumptive use due to evaporation; SRBC would continue to regulate consumptive water usage at SSES.
Small increase in discharge temperature and volume; no increases in other effluents; discharge would
remain within Pennsylvania water quality limits, and SSES would continue to operate under NPDES
permit regulations.
Small increases in entrainment and impingement are not expected to affect the Susquehanna River
aquatic biota; increase in volume and temperature of thermal discharge would remain within original
FES guidelines and below Pennsylvania Code Section 93.7 temperature limits; SSES would continue
to operate under NPDES permit regulations with regard to entrainment and impingement.
No land disturbance or changes to transmission line corridor maintenance are expected; therefore,
there would be no significant effects on terrestrial species or their habitat.
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
68605
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued
Threatened and Endangered Species
Social and Economic ............................
As evaluated for aquatic and terrestrial biota, no significant impacts are expected on protected species
or their habitat.
No change in size of SSES labor force required for plant operation or for planned outages; proposed
EPU could increase payments to Luzerne County and book value of SSES; there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite
Doses
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
SSES uses waste treatment systems
designed to collect, process, and dispose
of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that
might contain radioactive material in a
safe and controlled manner such that
the discharges are in accordance with
the requirements of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 20,
and the design objectives of Appendix
I to 10 CFR part 50 (Reference 9).
Minimal changes will be made to the
waste treatment systems to handle the
additional waste expected to be
generated by the proposed EPU; the
installation of an additional condensate
filter and demineralizer. The gaseous,
liquid, and solid radioactive wastes are
discussed individually (Reference 9).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite
Doses
During normal operation, the gaseous
effluent treatment system processes and
controls the release of small quantities
of radioactive noble gases, halogens,
tritium, and particulate materials to the
environment. The gaseous waste
management system includes the offgas
system and various building ventilation
systems. The single year highest annual
releases of radioactive material, for the
time period 2000–2005 were; 2002 for
noble gases with 9.68 Curies, 2001 for
particulates and iodines with 0.0074
Curies, and 2004 for tritium with 160
Curies (Reference 9).
The licensee has estimated that the
amount of radioactive material released
in gaseous effluents would increase in
proportion to the increase in power
level (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based
on experience from EPUs at other
plants, the staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. The offsite dose to
a member of the public, including the
additional radioactive material that
would be released from the proposed
EPU, is calculated to still be well within
the radiation standards of 10 CFR part
20 and the design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
Therefore, the staff concludes the
increase in offsite dose due to gaseous
effluent release following
implementation of the proposed EPU
would not be significant.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
During normal operation, the liquid
effluent treatment system processes and
controls the release of radioactive liquid
effluents to the environment, such that
the dose to individuals offsite are
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR
part 20 and the design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The
liquid radioactive waste system is
designed to process and purify the
waste and then recycle it for use within
the plant, or to discharge it to the
environment as radioactive liquid waste
effluent in accordance with facility
procedures which comply with
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
Federal regulations. The single year
highest radioactive liquid releases, for
the time period 2000–2005 were: 2005
at 1,470,000 gallons, 2003 with 70.25
Curies of tritium, 2000 with 36.95
Curies of fission and activation
products, and 2002 with 0.0003 Curies
of dissolved and entrained gases
(Reference 9).
Even though the EPU would produce
a larger amount of radioactive fission
and activation products and a larger
volume of liquid to be processed, the
licensee performed an evaluation which
shows that the liquid radwaste
treatment system would remove all but
a small amount of the increased
radioactive material. The licensee
estimated that the volume of radioactive
liquid effluents released to the
environment and the amount of
radioactive material in the liquid
effluents would increase slightly (less
than 1 percent) due to the proposed
EPU. Based on experience from EPUs at
other plants, the staff concludes that
this is an acceptable estimate. The dose
to a member of the public from the
radioactive releases described above,
increased by 1 percent, would still be
well within the radiation standards of
10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives
of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
Therefore, the staff concludes that there
would not be a significant
environmental impact from the
additional amount of radioactive
material generated following
implementation of the proposed EPU.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Solid Radioactive Wastes
The solid radioactive waste system
collects, processes, packages, and
temporarily stores radioactive dry and
wet solid wastes prior to shipment
offsite for permanent disposal. The
volume of solid radioactive waste
generated varied from about 2500 to
almost 8000 cubic feet (ft3) per year in
the time period 2000–2005; the largest
volume generated was 7980 ft3 in 2003.
The annual amount of radioactive
material in the waste generated varied
from 2500 to almost 190,000 Curies
during that same period. The largest
amount of radioactive material
generated in the solid waste was
189,995 Curies in 2000 (Reference 9).
The proposed EPU would produce a
larger amount of radioactive fission and
activation products which would
require more frequent replacement or
regeneration of radwaste treatment
system filters and demineralizer resins.
The licensee has estimated that the
volume of solid radioactive waste would
increase by approximately 11 percent
due to the proposed EPU (Reference 9).
Based on experience from EPUs at other
plants, the staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. The increased
volume of the solid waste would still be
bounded by the estimate of 10,400 ft3 in
the 1981 FES for operation. Therefore,
the staff concludes that the impact from
the increased volume of solid radwaste
generated due to the proposed EPU
would not be significant.
The licensee did not provide an
estimate of the increase in the amount
of radioactive solid waste in terms of
Curies. However, for 4 of the 6 years
between 2000 and 2005, the annual
amount of radioactive material in the
solid waste generated varied from 2500
to 5779 Curies (Reference 9). Based on
experience from EPUs at other plants,
the staff estimated that the amount of
radioactive material in the solid waste
would increase by 20 percent,
proportional to the proposed EPU power
increase. In 2000 and 2003, work was
done that generated large amounts of
used irradiated components, accounting
for 98 percent and 92 percent,
respectively, of the radioactive material
generated in solid radwaste. Such work
and the solid radwaste generated by that
work occasionally occurs at SSES, but
the range of 2500 to 5779 Curies is more
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
68606
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
typical (Reference 9). The annual
average of radioactive material
generated after the proposed EPU would
still be bounded by the estimate of 5500
Curies in the 1981 FES for operation. In
addition, the licensee must continue to
meet all NRC and Department of
Transportation regulations for
transportation of solid radioactive
waste. Therefore, the staff concludes
that the impact from the increased
amount of radioactive material in the
solid radwaste due to the proposed EPU
would not be significant.
The licensee estimates that the EPU
would require replacement of 10
percent more fuel assemblies at each
refueling. This increase in the amount of
spent fuel being generated would
require an increase in the number of dry
fuel storage casks used to store spent
fuel. The current dry fuel storage facility
at SSES has been evaluated and can
accommodate the increase (Reference 9).
Therefore, the staff concludes that there
would be no significant environmental
impacts resulting from storage of the
additional fuel assemblies.
In-Plant Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would result in the
production of more radioactive material
and higher radiation dose rates in the
restricted areas at SSES. SSES’s
radiation protection staff will continue
monitoring dose rates and would make
adjustments in shielding, access
requirements, decontamination
methods, and procedures as necessary
to minimize the dose to workers. In
addition, occupational dose to
individual workers must be maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and
as low as reasonably achievable
(Reference 9).
The licensee has estimated that the
work necessary to implement the
proposed EPU at the plant would also
increase the collective occupational
radiation dose at the plant to
approximately 230 person-rem per year
until the implementation is completed
in 2009. After the implementation is
completed, the licensee estimates that
the annual collective occupational dose
would be in the range of 200 personrem, roughly 12 percent higher than the
current dose of 182 person-rem in 2005
and 184 person-rem in 2006 (Reference
9). Based on experience from EPUs at
other plants, the staff concludes that
these estimates are acceptable. The staff
notes that SSES is allowed a maximum
of 3,200 person-rem per year as
provided in the 1981 Final
Environmental Statement—Operating
Stage. Therefore, the staff concludes that
the increase in occupational exposure
would not be significant.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
Direct Radiation Doses Offsite
Offsite radiation dose consists of three
components: Gaseous, liquid, and direct
gamma radiation. As previously
discussed under the Gaseous
Radiological Waste and Liquid
Radiological Waste sections, the
estimated doses to a member of the
public from radioactive gaseous and
liquid effluents after the proposed EPU
is implemented, would be well within
the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and
the design objectives of Appendix I to
10 CFR part 50.
The final component of offsite dose is
from direct gamma radiation from
radioactive waste stored temporarily
onsite, including spent fuel in dry cask
storage, and radionuclides (mainly
nitrogen-16) in the steam from the
reactor passing through the turbine
system. The high energy radiation from
nitrogen-16 is scattered or reflected by
the air above the facility and represents
an additional public radiation dose
pathway known as ‘‘skyshine.’’ The
licensee estimated that the offsite
radiation dose from skyshine would
increase linearly with the increase in
power level from the proposed EPU (20
percent); more nitrogen-16 is produced
at the higher EPU power, and less of the
nitrogen-16 decays before it reaches the
turbine system because of the higher
rate of steam flow due to the EPU. The
licensee’s radiological environmental
monitoring program measures radiation
dose at the site boundary and in the area
around the facility with an array of
thermoluminescent dosimeters. The
licensee reported doses ranging from 0.2
to 1.3 mrem per year for the time period
2000–2005. The licensee estimated that
the dose would increase approximately
in proportion to the EPU power increase
(20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on
experience from EPUs at other plants,
the staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. EPA regulation 40
CFR part 190 and NRC regulation 10
CFR part 20 limit the annual dose to any
member of the public to 25 mrem to the
whole body from the nuclear fuel cycle.
The offsite dose from all sources,
including radioactive gaseous and
liquid effluents and direct radiation,
would still be well within this limit
after the proposed EPU is implemented.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the
increase in offsite radiation dose would
not be significant.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the
proposed EPU, there would be an
increase in the inventory of
radionuclides in the reactor core; the
core inventory of radionuclides would
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increase as power level increases. The
concentration of radionuclides in the
reactor coolant may also increase;
however, this concentration is limited
by the SSES Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the reactor coolant
concentration of radionuclides would
not be expected to increase
significantly. Some of the radioactive
waste streams and storage systems may
also contain slightly higher quantities of
radioactive material. The calculated
doses from design basis postulated
accidents for SSES are currently well
below the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67; this
was confirmed by the NRC staff in the
Safety Evaluation Report supporting a
license amendment for SSES dated
January 31, 2007. The licensee has
estimated that the radiological
consequences of postulated accidents
would increase approximately in
proportion to the increase in power
level from the proposed EPU (20
percent) (Reference 9). Based on
experience from EPUs at other plants,
the NRC staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. The calculated
doses from design basis postulated
accidents are based on conservative
assumption and would still be well
within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 after
the increase due to the implementation
of the proposed EPU.
The staff has reviewed the licensee’s
analyses and performed confirmatory
calculations to verify the acceptability
of the licensee’s calculated doses under
accident conditions. The staff’s
independent review of dose calculations
under postulated accident conditions
determined that dose would be within
regulatory limits. Therefore, the staff
concludes that the EPU would not
significantly increase the consequences
of accidents and would not result in a
significant increase in the radiological
environmental impact of SSES 1 and 2
from postulated accidents.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Tables S–3 and S–4 in 10 CFR part 51
specify the environmental impacts due
to the uranium fuel cycle and
transportation of fuel and wastes,
respectively. SSES’s EPU would
increase the power level to 3952 megawatt thermal (Mwt), which is 3.3
percent above the reference power level
for Table S–4. The increased power
level of 3952 Mwt corresponds to 1300
mega-watt electric (Mwe), which is 30
percent above the reference power level
for Table S–3. Part of the increase is due
to a more efficient turbine design; this
increase in efficiency does not affect the
impacts of the fuel cycle and
transportation of wastes. However, more
fuel will be used in the reactor (more
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
fuel assemblies will be replaced at each
refueling outage), and that will
potentially affect the impacts of the fuel
cycle and transportation of wastes. The
fuel enrichment and burn-up rate
criteria of Tables S–3 and S–4 will still
be met because fuel enrichment will be
maintained no greater than 5 percent,
and the fuel burn-up rate will be
maintained within 60 giga-watt-days/
metric ton uranium (Gwd/MTU). The
staff concludes that after adjusting for
the effects of the more efficient turbine,
the potential increases in the impact
due to the uranium fuel cycle and the
transportation of fuel and wastes from
the larger amount of fuel used would be
small and would not be significant.
Summary
Based on staff review of licensee
submissions and the 1981 FES for
operation, it is concluded that the
proposed EPU would not significantly
increase the consequences of accidents,
68607
would not result in a significant
increase in occupational or public
radiation exposure, and would not
result in significant additional fuel cycle
environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the staff concludes that there would be
no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action. Table 3
summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at SSES.
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Gaseous Radiological Effluents ...........
Liquid Radiological Effluents ................
Solid Radioactive Waste ......................
Occupational Radiation Doses .............
Offsite Radiation Doses .......................
Postulated Accident Doses ..................
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Increased gaseous effluents (20 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives.
Increased liquid effluents (1 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives.
Increased amount of solid radioactive waste generated (11 percent by volume and 20 percent by radioactivity) would remain bounded by evaluation in the FES.
Occupational dose would increase by approximately 20 percent. Doses would be maintained within
NRC limits and as low as is reasonably achievable.
Radiation doses to members of the public would continue to be very small, well within NRC and EPA
regulations.
Calculated doses for postulated design basis accidents would remain within NRC limits.
Fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria of Tables S–3 and S–4 are met because fuel enrichment will
be maintained no greater than 5 percent, and the fuel burn-up rate will be maintained within 60 Gwd/
MTU. After adjusting for the effects of the more efficient turbine, the potential increases in impacts
due to the fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and wastes would not be significant.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Alternatives to Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed EPU (i.e., the bno-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in the current
environmental impacts. However, if the
proposed EPU were not approved, other
agencies and electric power
organizations may be required to pursue
alternative means of providing electric
generation capacity to offset the
increased power demand forecasted for
the PJM regional transmission territory.
A reasonable alternative to the
proposed EPU would be to purchase
power from other generators in the PJM
network. In 2003, generating capacity in
PJM consisted primarily of fossil fuelfired generators: coal generated 36.2
percent of PJM capacity, oil 14.3
percent, and natural gas 6.8 percent
(Reference 10). This indicates that
purchased power in the PJM territory
would likely be generated by a fossilfuel-fired facility. Construction (if new
generation is needed) and operation of
a fossil fuel plant would create impacts
in air quality, land use, and waste
management significantly greater than
those identified for the proposed EPU at
SSES. SSES’s nuclear units do not emit
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants
that are commonly associated with
fossil fuel plants. Conservation
programs such as demand-side
management could feasibly replace the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
proposed EPU’s additional power
output. However, forecasted future
energy demand in the PJM territory may
exceed conservation savings and still
require additional generating capacity
(Reference 9). The proposed EPU does
not involve environmental impacts that
are significantly different from those
originally identified in the 1981 SSES
FES for operation.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously
considered in the original FES for
construction.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on July 2, 2007, the staff consulted with
the Pennsylvania State official, Brad
Fuller, of the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection, regarding
the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had
no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the Environmental
Assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action would not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
application dated October 11, 2006, as
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
supplemented by letters dated October
25, December 4 and 26, 2006, February
13, March 14 and 22, April 13, 17, 23,
26, and 27, May 3, 9, 14, and 21, June
1, 4, 8, 14, 20, and 27, July 6, 12, 13,
30, 31, and August 3, 13, 15, 28, and
October 5, 2007 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession Nos.
ML062900160, ML062900161,
ML062900162, ML062900306,
ML062900361, ML062900401,
ML062900405, ML063120119,
ML063460354, ML070040376,
ML070610371, ML070860229,
ML070890411, ML071150113,
ML071150043, ML071240196,
ML071700104, ML071280506,
ML071300266, ML071360026,
ML071360036, ML071360041,
ML071420064, ML071420047,
ML071500058, ML071500300,
ML071620218, ML071620311,
ML071620299, ML071620342,
ML071620256, ML071700096,
ML071710442, ML071780629,
ML071860142, ML071860421,
ML071870449, ML071730404,
ML072010019, ML072060040,
ML072060588, ML072200103,
ML07220477, ML072220482,
ML072220485, ML072220490,
ML072280247, ML072340597,
ML072340603, ML072480182, and
ML072900642 respectively). Documents
may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
68608
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices
North, Public File Area O–1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC
Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. Persons who do not
have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of August 2007.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard V. Guzman,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
References
1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PA). 25
Pa. Code § 93.7 Specific water quality
criteria. Accessed at https://www.pacode.com/
secure/data/025/chapter93/025_0093.pdf on
March 19, 2007. (ML070780679)
2. Ecology III, Inc. (Ecology III).
Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 2002—
Water Quality and Fishes. Berwick, PA.
(ML071040042)
3. Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).
Wild Resource Conservation Program, Regal
Fritillary. Accessed at: https://
www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/regal.aspx on
April 12, 2007. (ML071040022)
4. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP).
Pennyslvania’s Environment Facility
Application Compliance Tracking System.
Accessed at: https://www.dep.state.pa.us/
efacts/default.asp on March 20, 2007.
(ML071040025)
5. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
(FBC). Endangered and Threatened Species
of Pennsylvania—Bog Turtle Clemmys
muhlenbergii. Accessed at: https://sites.state.
pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/etspecis.htm on
April 12, 2007. (ML071040032)
6. Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC).
Endangered Species. Accessed at: https://
www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a
=458&q=150321 on April 12, 2007.
(ML071040030)
7. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL).
Specification For Initial Clearing and Control
Maintenance Of Vegetation On Or Adjacent
To Electric Line Right-of-Way Through Use
Of Herbicides, Mechanical, And
Handclearing Techniques. Allentown,
Pennsylvania. (ML071040030)
8. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL).
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station
Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285
For Unit 1 Operating License No. NPF–14
and 253 For Unit 2 Operating License No.
NPF–22 Constant Pressure Power Uprate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:05 Dec 04, 2007
Jkt 214001
PLA–6076. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
(ML062900160)
9. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL).
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station
Proposed License Amendment Numbers 285
For Unit 1 Operating License No. NPF–14
and 253 For Unit 2 Operating License No.
NPF–22 Constant Power Uprate PLA–6076,
Attachment 3, Supplemental Environmental
Report. Allentown, Pennsylvania.
(ML062900161)
10. PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL).
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1
and 2 License Renewal Application,
Appendix E Applicant’s Environmental
Report—Operating Stage. Allentown,
Pennsylvania. (ML062630235)
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Envirofacts Warehouse—Facility Registration
System—Facility Detail Report. Accessed at:
https://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_
query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id
in=PAD000765883&pgm_sys_acrnm
_in=RCRAINFO on March 23, 2007.
(ML071040026)
12. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
‘‘Pennsylvania Power and Light Company,
Docket No. 50–388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania.’’ Federal Register, Vol. 59, No.
53, pp. 12990–12992. Washington, DC (April
28, 1994). (ML071040017)
13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
‘‘Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., Allegheny
Electric Cooperative, Inc., Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Unit 1; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact.’’ Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 9, pp.
3278–3280. Washington, DC (January 13,
1995). (ML071040020)
14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
‘‘PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact.’’ Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 122,
pp. 33716–33717. Washington, DC (June 25,
2001). (ML071040021)
15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
E-mail from J. Fields, PPL Susquehanna, LLC,
Allentown, Pennsylvania, to A. Mullins, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville,
Maryland. Subject: ‘‘Application to
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
(SRBC).’’ January 8, 2007. (ML070320756)
16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Letter from R. Bowen, Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to A.
Mullins, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Rockville, Maryland. Subject:
‘‘Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory
Review, PNDI Number 19031.’’ January 8,
2007. (ML070190672)
[FR Doc. E7–23537 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Information Collection; Request for
Public Comments
Office of Management and
Budget, Executive Office of the
President.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) invites
the general public and Federal agencies
to comment on a renewal of an
information collection with revisions
that would affect two types of entities:
(1) The reports of auditors to auditees
concerning audit results, audit findings,
and questioned costs, and (2) reports
from auditees to the Federal
Government providing information
about the auditees, the awards they
administer, and the audit results. These
collection efforts are required by the
Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996
(31 U.S.C. 7501, et seq.) and OMB
Circular A–133, ‘‘Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations.’’
Included as part of this information
collection is the Data Collection Form
(SF–SAC). The changes being proposed
are to modify the data elements
collected on the SF–SAC to update the
internal control terminology and related
definitions used in OMB Circular A–
133, ‘‘Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations,’’ the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants and the
Government Accountability Office. The
current Form SF–SAC is being used for
audit periods ending in 2004, 2005,
2006 and 2007. A revised Form SF–SAC
will be used for audit periods ending in
2008, 2009, and 2010.
Additionally, OMB is interested in
receiving comments on the requirement
to submit the Data Collection Form (SF–
SAC) and the single audit reporting
packages electronically. Currently, more
than 87% of the SF–SAC are filed
electronically. Electronic submission
would streamline the submission
process, reduce the administrative
burden and satisfy the Bureau of Census
to fully comply with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L.
105–277).
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 4, 2008. Late comments will be
considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in
OMB’s receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68598-68608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]
PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the
Maximum Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment as its
evaluation of a request by PPL Susquehanna, LLC for a license amendment
to increase the maximum thermal power at Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), from 3,489 megawatts-thermal
(MWt) to 3,952 MWt at each unit. This represents a power increase of
approximately 13 percent thermal power. As stated in the NRC staff's
position paper dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC staff (the staff) will
prepare an environmental impact statement if it believes a power uprate
would have a significant impact on the human environment. The staff did
not identify any significant impact from the information provided in
the licensee's EPU application for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2, or the staff's independent review; therefore, the staff
is documenting its environmental review in an Environmental Assessment.
Also, in accordance with the position paper, the Draft Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is being published in
the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
SSES is located just west of the Susquehanna River approximately 5
miles northeast of Berwick, in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In total,
SSES majority owner and licensed operator, PPL Susquehanna, LLC (PPL,
the licensee), owns 2,355 acres of land on both sides of the
Susquehanna River. Generally, this land is characterized by open
deciduous woodlands interspersed with grasslands and orchards.
Approximately 487 acres are used for generation facilities and
associated maintenance facilities, laydown areas, parking lots, and
roads. Approximately 130 acres are leased to local farmers. PPL
maintains a 401-acre nature preserve, referred to as the Susquehanna
Riverlands, which is located between SSES and the river; U.S. Route 11
separates the Susquehanna Riverlands from the plant site. The land on
the west side of the river is about 1,573 acres and Gould Island, a 65-
acre island just north of SSES on the Susquehanna River, is currently
jointly owned between PPL (90%) and Allegheny Electric Cooperative
(10%). Also, PPL currently owns an additional 717 acres of mostly
undeveloped land, which includes natural recreational, and wildlife
areas on the east side of the river (Reference 10).
SSES is a two-unit plant with General Electric boiling-water
reactors and generators. NRC approved the Unit 1 operating license on
July 17, 1982, and commercial operation began June 8, 1983. The Unit 2
operating license was issued on March 3, 1984, and commercial operation
began February 12, 1985. Units 1 and 2 both currently operate at 3,489
MWt (Reference 8). The units share a common control room, refueling
floor, turbine operating deck, radwaste system, and other auxiliary
systems (Reference 9).
SSES uses a closed-cycle heat dissipation system (two natural-draft
cooling towers) to transfer waste heat from the circulating water
system to the atmosphere. The circulating water and the service water
systems draw water from, and discharge to, the Susquehanna River. The
river intake structure is located on the western bank of the river and
consists of two water entrance chambers with 1-inch, on-center vertical
trash bars and \3/8\-inch-mesh traveling screens. A low-pressure
screen-wash system periodically operates to release aquatic organisms
and debris impinged on the traveling screens to a pit with debris
removal equipment that collects material into a dumpster for offsite
disposal. Cooling tower blowdown, spray pond overflow, and other
permitted effluents are discharged to the Susquehanna River through a
buried pipe leading to a submerged discharge diffuser structure,
approximately 600 feet downstream of the river intake structure. The
diffuser pipe is 200-feet long, with the last 120 feet containing 72
four-inch portals that direct the discharge at a 45-degree angle
upwards and downstream. Warm circulating water from the cooling towers
can be diverted to the river intake structure to prevent icing; this
usually occurs from November through March on an as-needed basis
(Reference 10).
[[Page 68599]]
For the specific purpose of connecting SSES to the regional
transmission system, there are approximately 150 miles of transmission
line corridors that occupy 3,341 acres of land. The corridors pass
through land that is primarily agricultural and forested with low
population densities. Two 500-kilovolt (kV) lines and one 230-kV line
connect SSES to the electric grid, with approximately 2.3 miles of
short ties in the immediate plant vicinity to connect SSES to the 230-
kV system. The Stanton-Susquehanna 2 230-kV transmission line
corridor runs northeast from the plant for approximately 30 miles and
ranges from 100-400 feet wide. The Susquehanna-Wescosville-Alburtis
500-kV transmission line corridor ranges from 100 to 350 feet wide and
runs generally southeast from the plant for approximately 76 miles; the
Sunbury-Susquehanna 2 500-kV transmission line corridor is
approximately 325 feet wide and runs 44 miles west-southwest from the
plant. The transmission line corridors cross the following Pennsylvania
counties: Luzerne (the location of SSES), Carbon, Columbia, Lehigh,
Northampton, Northumberland, Montour, and Snyder. These transmission
lines are currently owned by PPL Electric Utilities with the exception
of 42.3 miles of the 44.2 mile Sunbury-Susquehanna 2 500-kV
line which is currently owned by Allegheny Electric Cooperative. All of
these lines however, are integral to the larger transmission system,
and as such PPL Electric Utilities plans to operate and maintain these
lines indefinitely. Except for the short ties on the plant site, the
lines would likely remain a permanent part of the transmission system
even after SSES is decommissioned (Reference 10).
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated October 11, 2006, PPL proposed amendments to the
operating licenses for SSES Units 1 and 2 to increase the maximum
thermal power level of both units by approximately 13 percent thermal
power, from 3,489 MWt to 3,952 MWt (Reference 8). The change is
considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core power level
more than 7 percent above the original licensed maximum power level.
This amendment would allow the heat output of the reactor to increase,
which would increase the flow of steam to the turbine. This would
result in the increase in production of electricity and the amount of
waste heat delivered to the condenser, and an increase in the
temperature of the water being discharged to the Susquehanna River.
PPL plans to implement the proposed EPU in two phases to obtain
optimal fuel utilization and to ensure that manageable core thermal
limits are maintained. The core thermal power level of Unit 2 would be
increased by approximately 13 percent following the spring 2009
refueling outage. Unit 1's core thermal power level would be increased
in two stages of about 7 percent each during the spring 2008 and spring
2010 refueling outages (Reference 8).
The original operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 authorized
operation up to a maximum power level of 3,293 MWt per unit. Since the
units went online, SSES has implemented two power uprates. Stretch
uprates (4.5 percent each) were implemented in 1994 (Unit 2) and 1995
(Unit 1), increasing the licensed thermal power levels of SSES Units 1
and 2 from 3,293 MWt to 3,441 MWt. Two separate NRC environmental
assessments each resulted in a finding of no significant impact and
determined that these actions ``* * * would have no significant impact
on the quality of the human environment.'' These decisions were
published in the Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 53, pp. 12990-12992 and
Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 3278-3280 (Reference 12, 13). In 2001, a
Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR) uprate of 1.4 percent increased
the licensed thermal power levels of SSES Units 1 and 2 to 3,489 MWt.
The NRC environmental assessment for this action also resulted in a
finding of no significant impact and was published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 66, No. 122, pp. 33716-33717 (Reference 14).
The Need for the Proposed Action
SSES is within the transmission area controlled by PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM). PJM operates the largest regional
transmission territory in the U.S., currently serving a 164,260-square-
mile area in all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia,
representing approximately 163,806 megawatts electrical (MWe) of
generating capacity. PJM has forecasted that the summer unrestricted
peak load in the Mid-Atlantic geographic zone where SSES is located
would grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent for the next 10
years. This represents an increase in peak load of almost 6,000 MWe
from 2005 to 2010, when the proposed SSES EPU is scheduled to be
completed. The proposed EPU would add an average of 205 MWe of base
load generation to the grid from both Units 1 and 2. This added
electricity is projected to be enough to meet the power needs of
approximately 195,000 homes and is forecasted to be produced for the
PJM grid at a cost lower than the projected market price (Reference 9).
PJM uses a queue system to manage requests to add or remove
generation from the regional transmission system. SSES submitted an
application to PJM for the EPU additional generation on May 19, 2004.
The PJM Interconnection Service Agreements and Construction Service
Agreements were signed for Unit 2 on July 7, 2005, and for Unit 1 on
January 20, 2006 (Reference 9).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of issuance of the operating licenses for SSES, the
staff noted that any activity authorized by the licenses would be
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) for the operation of SSES, which was issued by the NRC
in June 1981. This Environmental Assessment summarizes the radiological
and non-radiological impacts in the environment that may result from
the proposed action.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Potential land use impacts due to the proposed EPU include impacts
from construction and plant modifications at SSES. While some plant
components would be modified, most plant changes related to the
proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed
part of the site. No new construction would occur outside of existing
facilities, and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots,
equipment storage areas, or transmission facilities would be required
to support the proposed EPU with the following exceptions.
The 230-kV switchyard located on PPL property across the river from
the station, and the 500-kV switchyard located on the plant site would
both be expanded to house additional capacitor banks. The site road
adjacent to the 500-kV switchyard would be moved to accommodate this
expansion. Both switchyard modifications would require no land
disturbance outside the power block area. Relocation of the road
adjacent to the 500-kV switchyard would occur in a previously developed
area of the plant site, resulting in no or little impact to land use.
In addition, the turbine building may be expanded to allow for the
installation of condensate filters, and additional aboveground storage
tanks may be required to support cooling tower basin acid injection. If
[[Page 68600]]
required, storage tank installation and turbine building expansion
would be located in the developed part of the site (Reference 8, 9). An
above ground shielded storage facility will be constructed onsite
within the Protected Area to store the original steam dryers.
Existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during construction
and plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not
change at SSES. Also, there would be no land use changes along
transmission lines (no new lines would be required for the proposed
EPU), transmission corridors, switch yards, or substations. Because
land use conditions would not change at SSES and because any
disturbance would occur within previously disturbed areas within the
plant site, there would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources
(except during outside construction) and historic and archeological
resources in the vicinity of SSES.
The impacts of continued operation of SSES Units 1 and 2 combined
with the proposed EPU would be bounded by the scope of the original FES
for operation, ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation
of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated 1981, and
therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no significant
impacts to land use, aesthetics, and historic and archaeological
resources from the proposed EPU.
Non-Radiological Waste
SSES generates both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, SSES is
classified as a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, including
spent batteries, solvents, corrosives, and paint thinners. According to
the Environmental Protection Agency's Envirofacts Warehouse database,
there are no RCRA violations listed for SSES related to the management
of these hazardous wastes (Reference 11). Non-hazardous waste is
managed by SSES's current program and includes municipal waste,
maintenance waste, wood, and non-friable asbestos. Plant modifications
necessary for the proposed EPU may result in additional hazardous and
non-hazardous waste generation; however, all wastes would continue to
be managed by the waste management program currently in place at SSES,
which is designed to minimize hazardous waste generation and promote
recycling of waste whenever possible (Reference 9) and subject to state
(commonwealth) and Federal oversight. As such, the staff concludes
there would be no impacts from additional non-radiological waste
generated as a result of the proposed EPU.
Cooling Tower Impacts
SSES operates two natural draft cooling towers to transfer waste
heat from the circulating water system (which cools the main
condensers) to the atmosphere. No additional cooling tower capacity is
planned to accommodate the proposed EPU. However, additional
aboveground storage tanks could be required to support cooling tower
basin acid injection. If built, these tanks would be located in the
developed part of the plant site (Reference 9).
Aesthetic impacts associated with cooling tower operation following
implementation of the proposed action would be similar to those
associated with current operating conditions and include noise and
visual impacts from the plume such as fogging and icing.
No significant increase in noise is anticipated for cooling tower
operation following the proposed EPU. The FES for operation evaluated
the potential noise impacts of operation of SSES and determined that
pump and motor noise from the cooling water system would not exceed
ambient (baseline) levels in offsite areas and that cooling tower noise
would be audible for no more than a mile offsite to the west,
southwest, and southeast of the station. PPL conducted an initial noise
survey in 1985 after commercial operation of both units began, and
again in 1995 following the stretch uprate. The 1995 noise measurements
were similar to those recorded in 1985, and PPL received no noise
complaints following implementation of the stretch uprate. The staff
concludes that the proposed EPU, like the stretch uprate, would not
produce measurable changes in the character, sources, or intensity of
noises generated by the station's cooling water system or cooling
towers (Reference 9).
Conclusions reached in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),'' Volumes 1 and
2, dated 1996, apply to the proposed action regarding cooling tower
impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. The GEIS
concluded that natural-draft cooling towers release drift and moisture
high into the atmosphere where they are dispersed over long distances,
and increased fogging, cloud cover, salt drift, and relative humidity
have little potential to affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and
native plants.
Impacts associated with continued cooling tower operation at SSES
following the proposed EPU, including noise, fogging, cloud cover, salt
drift, and icing would not change significantly from current impacts.
Therefore, the staff concludes there would be no significant impacts
associated with cooling tower operation for the proposed action.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for
the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor
maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased current. The
proposed EPU would not require any new transmission lines and would not
require changes in the maintenance and operation of existing
transmission lines or substations. Corridor maintenance practices
(including vegetative management) would not be affected by the proposed
EPU.
The proposed EPU would require the installation of additional
capacitor banks in the 500- and 230-kV switchyards, and PPL plans to
conduct a power delivery environmental risk identification evaluation
prior to these installations. The capacitor bank installations are the
only modification of transmission facilities that would accompany the
proposed EPU. The only operational change to transmission lines
resulting from the proposed EPU would be increased current; voltage
would remain unchanged. As PPL states in its October 11, 2006,
application, page 7-2, ``increased current may cause transmission lines
to sag more, but there would still be adequate clearance between
energized conductors and the ground to prevent electrical shock.''
Additionally, PPL has evaluated all related transmission facilities and
found these facilities to be within acceptable design parameters
(Reference 9).
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the
short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milliamps. As stated
above, there would be an increase in current passing through the
transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the
proposed EPU. The higher electrical current passing through the
transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field
strength. However, with the proposed increase in power level, the
impact of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the offsite
transmission lines would not be expected to increase significantly over
the current impact. The transmission lines meet the applicable
[[Page 68601]]
shock prevention provisions of the NESC. Therefore, even with the small
increase in current attributable to the proposed EPU, adequate
protection is provided against hazards from electric shock.
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action would not change significantly from the impacts
associated with current plant operation. There would be no physical
modifications to the transmission lines, transmission line corridor
maintenance practices would not change, there would be no changes to
transmission line corridors or vertical clearances, electric current
passing through the transmission lines would increase only slightly,
and capacitor bank modifications would occur only within the existing
power blocks. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no
significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action.
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include
hydrological alterations to the Susquehanna River and changes to plant
water supply. SSES uses cooling water from the Susquehanna River and
discharges water back to the river at a point approximately 600 feet
downstream of the intake structure. River water enters the plant
cooling system via cooling tower basins and provides water to the
circulating water and service water systems. SSES uses a closed-cycle,
natural-draft cooling tower heat dissipation system to remove waste
heat from the main condensers; cooling tower blowdown is discharged
back to the Susquehanna River (Reference 9).
No changes to the cooling water intake system are expected during
the proposed action. While the volume of intake embayments would not
change, the intake flow rate would increase from an average of 58.3
million gallons per day (gpd) to an average of 60.9 million gpd, as the
amount of time all four river intake pumps operate would increase. This
represents a 4.5-percent increase in intake water withdrawn from the
Susquehanna River and is not expected to alter the hydrology of the
river significantly (Reference 9). The maximum withdrawal rate possible
as a result of the proposed EPU is 65.4 million gpd, which was
calculated using worst-case meteorological conditions (NRC 2006). This
represents a 12.2-percent increase in intake water withdrawn from the
river and is not expected to alter the hydrology of the river
significantly.
The amount of consumptive water usage due to evaporation and drift
of cooling water through the cooling towers is expected to increase
from a monthly average of 38 million gpd to 44 million gpd. This
represents a 15.7-percent increase over current usage. Based on the
Susquehanna River's average annual flow rate of 9,427 million gpd, the
proposed EPU would result in an average annual loss of 0.5 percent of
river water at that location. During low-flow conditions, which usually
occur in late August, the average evaporative loss at SSES may approach
1 percent of the low-flow river value (Reference 9). The staff
concludes that the amount of water consumed by SSES under the proposed
EPU conditions would not result in significant alterations to
Susquehanna River flow patterns at this location.
Consumptive water usage at SSES is regulated by the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission (SRBC), an independent agency that manages water
usage along the entire length of the Susquehanna River. The current
permit granted for SSES operation by SRBC is for average monthly
consumptive water usage up to 40 million gpd (permit 19950301
EPUL-0578). In December 2006, PPL submitted an application to SRBC to
eliminate the 40 million gpd average monthly limit and to approve a
maximum daily river water withdrawal of 66 million gpd (Reference 15).
SRBC is currently reviewing PPL's application and will make a decision
independent of the NRC whether to allow the increased consumptive water
usage required to implement the proposed EPU. The SRBC permit is
required for plant operation, and PPL must adhere to the prescribed
water usage limits and any applicable mitigative measures.
No changes to the cooling water intake system and the volume of
intake embayment are expected for the proposed EPU, but the average
intake flow would increase by 4.5 percent. The staff concludes this
increase would not alter significantly the hydrology of the Susquehanna
River. The proposed EPU would result in a small increase in the amount
of Susquehanna River consumptive water usage due to evaporative losses.
However, the increased loss would be insignificant relative to the flow
of the Susquehanna River, and SRBC would continue to regulate SSES's
consumptive water usage. With respect to the proposed action, the staff
concludes there would be no significant impact to the hydrological
pattern on the Susquehanna River, and there would be no significant
impact to the plant's consumptive water supply.
Discharge Impacts
Potential impacts to the Susquehanna River from the SSES discharge
include increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation.
These discharge-related impacts apply to the region near the discharge
structure due to the large volume of cooling water released to the
river. However, since the proposed EPU would result in no significant
changes in discharge volume or velocity, there would be no expected
changes in turbidity, scouring, erosion or sedimentation related to the
proposed EPU.
Surface and wastewater discharges at SSES are regulated through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No.
PA0047325), which is issued and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater
Management. The DEP periodically reviews and renews the NPDES permit;
SSES's current NPDES permit was effective beginning September 1, 2005,
and is valid through August 31, 2010. The NPDES permit sets water
quality standards for all plant discharges to the Susquehanna River,
including limits on free available chlorine, total zinc, and total
chromium in cooling tower blowdown. According to Pennsylvania's
Environmental Facility Application Compliance Tracking System (eFACTS),
there are no past or current NPDES violations listed for SSES
(Reference 4).
While the proposed EPU would increase the amount of cooling tower
blowdown to the Susquehanna River, there is no expected increase in
associated biocides, solvents, or dissolved solids entering the river,
and SSES would continue to adhere to the water quality standards set
within the NPDES permit. The NPDES permit does not contain thermal
discharge temperature limits, but SSES must adhere to Susquehanna River
temperature limits prescribed by Pennsylvania Code water quality
standards (Reference 1). Thermal discharge effects and applicable
Pennsylvania Code water quality standards will be discussed further in
the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section.
No expected changes in turbidity, scouring, erosion or
sedimentation are expected as a result of the proposed EPU. Surface and
wastewater discharges to the Susquehanna River would continue to be
regulated by the Pennsylvania DEP. Any discharge-related impacts for
the proposed action would be similar to current impacts from plant
operation, and therefore, the staff concludes the proposed action
[[Page 68602]]
would not result in significant impacts on the Susquehanna River from
cooling water discharge.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed EPU
include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and
impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The aquatic
species evaluated in this draft Environmental Assessment are those in
the vicinity of the SSES cooling water intake and discharge structures
along the Susquehanna River, and those that occur in water bodies
crossed by transmission lines associated with SSES.
The licensee has conducted aquatic biota studies of the Susquehanna
River upstream and downstream of SSES since 1971. The studies assessed
water quality, algae (periphyton and photoplankton),
macroinvertebrates, and fish from 1971 to 1994, with annual fish
studies beginning in 1976. The Susquehanna River in the vicinity of
SSES has both coolwater and warmwater fishes, primarily consisting of
minnows (Cyprinidae), suckers (Catastomidae), catfish (Icaluridae),
sunfish (Centrarchidae), and darters and perch (Percidae). There are
also records of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), walleye (Sander
vitreus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) found in proximity
to SSES. Monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates and biofouling
mollusks was also included in the studies. No zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) have been recorded at SSES or in the vicinity of the North
Branch of the Susquehanna River; however, Asiatic clams (Corbicula
fluminea) have been found in the North Branch of the Susquehanna River
for several years and were collected by scuba divers in the SSES
engineered safeguard service water spray pond in July 2005.
No sensitive aquatic species are known to occur at or near SSES
(Reference 9); however, the 1981 FES for operation indicated that two
endangered and two rare fish listed by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission
(now the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission) have ranges that fall
within SSES transmission line corridors (NRC 1981). PPL has provided
the staff with a vegetative management program for its transmission
line corridors that states no herbicides shall be applied within 50
feet of any water body, except stump treatments and herbicides approved
for watershed/aquatic use. Additionally, the transmission line corridor
maintenance activities in the vicinity of stream and river crossings
employ procedures to minimize erosion and shoreline disturbance while
encouraging vegetative cover (Reference 7).
In addition to setting water quality parameters for surface and
wastewater discharges, the SSES NPDES permit (PA-0047325) also
regulates entrainment and impingement of aquatic species at SSES.
Because SSES uses a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling water system,
entrainment and impingement impacts on aquatic biota resulting from the
proposed EPU are not expected to be significant.
The proposed EPU would require additional water withdrawal from the
Susquehanna River for increased cooling tower evaporative losses and
other plant needs. The average increase in daily water withdrawal from
the Susquehanna River would be approximately 4.4 percent, from 58.3
million gpd to 60.9 million gpd. PPL also reported a maximum daily
water withdrawal estimate of 65.4 million gpd (an 11.2 percent
increase), which would only occur during worst-case meteorological
conditions (Reference 15). Under the proposed EPU conditions, the
average increase in water withdrawal would result in the impingement of
approximately one additional fish per day (from 21 to 22) and
entrainment of approximately 15,972 additional larvae per day (from
363,000 to 378,000) during spawning season. These small increases in
entrainment and impingement related to the proposed EPU would result in
no significant impact to the Susquehanna River aquatic community
(Reference 9).
Effective July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended the Phase II rule (NRC
2007b). As a result, all permits for Phase II facilities should include
conditions under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act that are
developed on a Best Professional Judgment basis, rather than best
technology available. Best Professional Judgment is used by National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit writers to
develop technology-based permit conditions on a case-by-case basis
using all reasonably available and relevant data. Any site-specific
mitigation required under the NPDES permitting process would result in
a reduction in the impacts of continued plant operations.
The NPDES permit issued by the Pennsylvania DEP does not specify
thermal discharge limits; however, the amount and temperature of heated
effluent discharged to the Susquehanna River is governed by Section
93.7 of Pennsylvania Code, which places restrictions on waters
designated ``Warm Water Fisheries.'' During the July 1-August 31 time
frame, the highest river water temperature allowable is 87 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F), with lower temperature limits during other parts
of the year (Reference 1). In the 1981 FES for operation, the NRC
performed an analysis of SSES blowdown plume characteristics. The
analysis concluded that blowdown temperatures during all four seasons
were lower than the maximum river temperatures set by Section 93.7. The
location and design of the SSES cooling water discharge structure and
the high flow rate of the Susquehanna River allow for sufficient mixing
and cooling of heated effluent. Using conservative assumptions similar
to those used in the original FES thermal plume analysis, PPL
calculated that after implementation of the proposed EPU, blowdown
temperatures would increase by 2 [deg]F. This would result in a 0.6
[deg]F increase in the maximum expected temperature at the edge of the
thermal plume mixing zone (maximum temperature 86.5 [deg]F). The staff
concludes that the increase in thermal discharge temperature and volume
resulting from the proposed EPU would still fall within the guidelines
prescribed by the original FES for operation (NRC 1981).
Liquid effluents discharged to the Susquehanna River include
cooling tower blowdown, spray pond overflow, liquid rad waste treatment
effluents, and surface and wastewater discharges. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania regulates these discharges through SSES's NPDES permit,
which sets water quality standards for all plant discharges to the
Susquehanna River. Ecological studies of the Susquehanna River
conducted for the licensee indicate that river water quality in the
vicinity of SSES continues to improve. From 1973 through 2002, there
was a significant decreasing trend in turbidity, sulfate, total iron,
and total suspended solids; and a significant increasing trend in river
temperature, pH, total alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen. A reduction in
acid-mine drainage pollutants and improvements in upstream waste-water
treatment have likely contributed to the overall-improved river
ecosystem health (Ecology III 2003).
SSES operates a closed-cycle cooling water system, and as such, the
staff concludes that impacts to aquatic biota in the Susquehanna River
from entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge resulting from the
proposed EPU would not be significant. The Pennsylvania DEP will
continue to
[[Page 68603]]
regulate the performance of the SSES cooling water system and surface
and wastewater discharges through the NPDES permit and Pennsylvania
Code designed to protect warm water fisheries. Furthermore, SSES
transmission line corridor maintenance practices would not change upon
implementation of the proposed EPU; thus, the staff concludes there
would be no significant impacts to aquatic species associated with
transmission line corridor maintenance.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
Potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed EPU
include impacts due to transmission line corridor maintenance and any
planned new construction. The natural communities at SSES and in the
surrounding areas consist of river floodplain forest, upland forest,
marshes, and wetlands. The river floodplain forest at SSES is dominated
by silver maple (Acer saccharinum), river birch (Betula nigra), and
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra). The upland forest is dominated by
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), sweet birch (Betula lenta), flowering
dogwood (Cornaceae cornus), white oak (Fagaceae quercus), Northern red
oak, black oak (Q. velutina), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The marshes are dominated by a variety of emergent
vegetation such as sedges (Cyperaceae), bulrush and cattail
(Typhaceae), and cutgrass (Poaceae) (Reference 9). Although wetlands do
occur at the SSES site, none of the wetlands would be affected by the
proposed action.
As stated in the Cooling Tower Impacts section, no significant
increase in noise is anticipated for cooling tower operation following
the proposed EPU, and as such, biota would not be impacted. The staff
agrees with the conclusions reached in the GEIS regarding bird
collisions with cooling towers: Avian mortality due to collisions with
cooling towers is considered to be of small significance if the losses
do not destabilize local populations of any species and there is no
noticeable impairment of its function with the local ecosystem (NRC
1996).
The proposed action would not involve new land disturbance outside
of the existing power block or developed areas, and as discussed in the
Transmission Facilities Impacts section, there would be no changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance practices. Thus, the staff
concludes that there would be no significant impacts to terrestrial
species or their habitat associated with the proposed action, including
transmission line right-of-way maintenance.
Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the
proposed action include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and
terrestrial biota sections of this Environmental Assessment. These
impacts include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects,
and impacts from transmission line right-of-way maintenance for aquatic
and terrestrial species. A review of databases maintained by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage
Program indicate that several animal and plant species that are
Federally or Commonwealth-listed as threatened or endangered occur in
the vicinity of SSES and its associated transmission line corridors.
Informal consultation with FWS Pennsylvania Field Office regarding the
proposed EPU's potential impact on threatened or endangered species is
ongoing.
Four species listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act and 24 species that are listed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as threatened or endangered occur within
the counties where SSES and its associated transmission line corridors
are located. These species are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1.--Endangered and Threatened Species That Could Occur in the
Vicinity of SSES or in Counties Crossed by SSES Transmission Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State
Scientific name Common name status* status*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals:
Neotoma magister............ Allegheny woodrat. -- T
Myotis sodalis.............. Indiana bat....... E E
Myotis leibii............... Small-footed -- T
myotis.
Sciurus niger............... Eastern fox -- T
squirrel.
Birds:
Ardia alba.................. Great egret....... -- E
Asio flammeus............... Short-eared owl... -- E
Bartramia longicauda........ Upland sandpiper.. -- T
Botaurus lentiginosus....... American bittern.. -- E
Chlidonias niger............ Black tern........ -- E
Cistothorus platensis....... Sedge wren........ -- T
Falco peregrinus............ Peregrine falcon.. -- E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus.... Bald eagle........ T E
Ixobrychus exilis........... Least bittern..... -- E
Pandion haliaetus........... Osprey............ -- T
Reptiles:
Clemmys muhlenbergii........ Bog Turtle........ T E
Invertebrates:
Enodia anthedon............. Northern peary-eye -- VS
Euphydryas phaeton.......... Baltimore -- VS
checkerspot.
Poanes massasoit............ Mulberry wing..... -- V
Polites mystic.............. Long dash......... -- V
Speyeria idalia............. Regal fritillary.. -- E
Speyeria aphrodite.......... Aphrodite -- VS
fritillary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*T = Threatened, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, VS = Vulnerable to
Apparently Secure
-- = Not Listed
[[Page 68604]]
(Sources: References 3, 5, 6, 16).
The proposed EPU would involve no new land disturbance, and any
construction necessary would be minimal and would only occur in
previously developed areas of SSES. Additionally, no changes would be
made to the transmission line corridor maintenance program, including
vegetative maintenance. As such, the staff concludes that the proposed
action would have no significant impact on Federally or Commonwealth-
listed species in the vicinity of SSES and its transmission line
corridors.
Social and Economic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts due to the proposed EPU include
changes in the payments in lieu of taxes for Luzerne County and changes
in the size of the workforce at SSES. Currently SSES employs
approximately 1,200 full-time staff, 89 percent of whom live in Luzerne
or Columbia Counties, and approximately 260 contract employees. During
outages, approximately 1,400 personnel provide additional support
(Reference 9).
The proposed EPU is not expected to increase the size of the
permanent SSES workforce, since proposed plant modifications would be
phased in during planned outages when SSES has the support of 1,400
additional workers. In addition, the proposed EPU would not require an
increase in the size of the SSES workforce during future refueling
outages. Accordingly, the proposed EPU would not have any measurable
effect on annual earnings and income in Luzerne and Columbia Counties
or on community services (Reference 9).
According to the 2000 Census, Luzerne and Columbia County
populations were about 2.9 and 2.0 percent minority, respectively,
which is well below the Commonwealth minority population of 13.2
percent. The poverty rates in 1999 for individuals living in Luzerne
and Columbia Counties are 11.1 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively,
which are slightly higher than the Commonwealth's average of 11.0
percent. Due to the lack of significant environmental impacts resulting
from the proposed action, the proposed EPU would not have any
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income
populations (Reference 9).
In the past, PPL paid real estate taxes to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for power generation, transmission, and distribution
facilities. Under authority of the Pennsylvania Utility Realty Tax Act
(PURTA), real estate taxes collected from all utilities (water,
telephone, electric, and railroads) were redistributed to the taxing
jurisdictions within the Commonwealth. In Pennsylvania, these
jurisdictions include counties, cities, townships, boroughs, and school
districts. The distribution of PURTA funds was determined by formula
and was not necessarily based on the individual utility's effect on a
particular government entity (Reference 9).
In 1996, Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act
became law, which allows consumers to choose among competitive
suppliers of electrical power. As a result of utility restructuring,
Act 4 of 1999 revised the tax base assessment methodology for utilities
from the depreciated book value to the market value of utility
property. Additionally, as of January 1, 2000, PPL was required to
begin paying real estate taxes directly to local jurisdictions, ceasing
payments to the Commonwealth's PURTA fund. PPL currently pays annual
real estate taxes to the Berwick Area School District, Luzerne County,
and Salem Township (Reference 9).
The proposed EPU could increase SSES's value, thus resulting in a
larger allocation of the payment to the Berwick Area School District,
Luzerne County, and Salem Township. Because the proposed EPU would
increase the economic viability of SSES, the probability of early plant
retirement would be reduced. Early plant retirement would be expected
to have negative impacts on the local economy and the community by
reducing tax payments and limiting local employment opportunities for
the long term (Reference 9).
Since the proposed EPU would not have any measurable effect on the
annual earnings and income in Luzerne and Columbia Counties or on
community services and due to the lack of significant environmental
impacts on minority or low-income populations, there would be no
significant socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated
with the proposed EPU. Conversely, the proposed EPU could have a
positive effect on the regional economy because of the potential
increase in the tax payments received by the Berwick Area School
District, Luzerne County, and Salem Township, due to the potential
increase in the book value of SSES, and the increased long-term
viability of SSES.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not result in a significant change in non-
radiological impacts in the areas of land use, water use, cooling tower
operation, terrestrial and aquatic biota, transmission facility
operation, or social and economic factors. No other non-radiological
impacts were identified or would be expected. Table 2 summarizes the
non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at SSES.
Table 2.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No significant land-use modifications.
Non-Radiological Waste....... Any additional hazardous and non-
hazardous waste as a result of the
proposed EPU would continue to be
regulated by RCRA and managed by SSES's
waste management program.
Cooling Tower................ Impacts associated with continued cooling
tower operation following the proposed
EPU, including noise, fogging, cloud
cover, salt drift, and icing would not
change significantly from current
impacts.
Transmission Facilities...... No physical modifications to transmission
lines; lines meet electrical shock
safety requirements; no changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance;
small increase in electrical current
would cause small increase in
electromagnetic field around
transmission lines; no changes to
voltage.
Water Use.................... No configuration change to intake
structure; increase in cooling water
flow rate; increase in consumptive use
due to evaporation; SRBC would continue
to regulate consumptive water usage at
SSES.
Discharge.................... Small increase in discharge temperature
and volume; no increases in other
effluents; discharge would remain within
Pennsylvania water quality limits, and
SSES would continue to operate under
NPDES permit regulations.
Aquatic Biota................ Small increases in entrainment and
impingement are not expected to affect
the Susquehanna River aquatic biota;
increase in volume and temperature of
thermal discharge would remain within
original FES guidelines and below
Pennsylvania Code Section 93.7
temperature limits; SSES would continue
to operate under NPDES permit
regulations with regard to entrainment
and impingement.
Terrestrial Biota............ No land disturbance or changes to
transmission line corridor maintenance
are expected; therefore, there would be
no significant effects on terrestrial
species or their habitat.
[[Page 68605]]
Threatened and Endangered As evaluated for aquatic and terrestrial
Species. biota, no significant impacts are
expected on protected species or their
habitat.
Social and Economic.......... No change in size of SSES labor force
required for plant operation or for
planned outages; proposed EPU could
increase payments to Luzerne County and
book value of SSES; there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse
impact on minority and low-income
populations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
SSES uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that might contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that the
discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 20, and the design objectives
of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 (Reference 9).
Minimal changes will be made to the waste treatment systems to
handle the additional waste expected to be generated by the proposed
EPU; the installation of an additional condensate filter and
demineralizer. The gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes are
discussed individually (Reference 9).
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment system
processes and controls the release of small quantities of radioactive
noble gases, halogens, tritium, and particulate materials to the
environment. The gaseous waste management system includes the offgas
system and various building ventilation systems. The single year
highest annual releases of radioactive material, for the time period
2000-2005 were; 2002 for noble gases with 9.68 Curies, 2001 for
particulates and iodines with 0.0074 Curies, and 2004 for tritium with
160 Curies (Reference 9).
The licensee has estimated that the amount of radioactive material
released in gaseous effluents would increase in proportion to the
increase in power level (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience
from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. The offsite dose to a member of the public,
including the additional radioactive material that would be released
from the proposed EPU, is calculated to still be well within the
radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the staff concludes the
increase in offsite dose due to gaseous effluent release following
implementation of the proposed EPU would not be significant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment system
processes and controls the release of radioactive liquid effluents to
the environment, such that the dose to individuals offsite are
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The liquid radioactive
waste system is designed to process and purify the waste and then
recycle it for use within the plant, or to discharge it to the
environment as radioactive liquid waste effluent in accordance with
facility procedures which comply with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
Federal regulations. The single year highest radioactive liquid
releases, for the time period 2000-2005 were: 2005 at 1,470,000
gallons, 2003 with 70.25 Curies of tritium, 2000 with 36.95 Curies of
fission and activation products, and 2002 with 0.0003 Curies of
dissolved and entrained gases (Reference 9).
Even though the EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive
fission and activation products and a larger volume of liquid to be
processed, the licensee performed an evaluation which shows that the
liquid radwaste treatment system would remove all but a small amount of
the increased radioactive material. The licensee estimated that the
volume of radioactive liquid effluents released to the environment and
the amount of radioactive material in the liquid effluents would
increase slightly (less than 1 percent) due to the proposed EPU. Based
on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that this
is an acceptable estimate. The dose to a member of the public from the
radioactive releases described above, increased by 1 percent, would
still be well within the radiation standards of 10 CFR part 20 and the
design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the staff
concludes that there would not be a significant environmental impact
from the additional amount of radioactive material generated following
implementation of the proposed EPU.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
The solid radioactive waste system collects, processes, packages,
and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to
shipment offsite for permanent disposal. The volume of solid
radioactive waste generated varied from about 2500 to almost 8000 cubic
feet (ft\3\) per year in the time period 2000-2005; the largest volume
generated was 7980 ft\3\ in 2003. The annual amount of radioactive
material in the waste generated varied from 2500 to almost 190,000
Curies during that same period. The largest amount of radioactive
material generated in the solid waste was 189,995 Curies in 2000
(Reference 9).
The proposed EPU would produce a larger amount of radioactive
fission and activation products which would require more frequent
replacement or regeneration of radwaste treatment system filters and
demineralizer resins. The licensee has estimated that the volume of
solid radioactive waste would increase by approximately 11 percent due
to the proposed EPU (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at
other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate.
The increased volume of the solid waste would still be bounded by the
estimate of 10,400 ft\3\ in the 1981 FES for operation. Therefore, the
staff concludes that the impact from the increased volume of solid
radwaste generated due to the proposed EPU would not be significant.
The licensee did not provide an estimate of the increase in the
amount of radioactive solid waste in terms of Curies. However, for 4 of
the 6 years between 2000 and 2005, the annual amount of radioactive
material in the solid waste generated varied from 2500 to 5779 Curies
(Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the staff
estimated that the amount of radioactive material in the solid waste
would increase by 20 percent, proportional to the proposed EPU power
increase. In 2000 and 2003, work was done that generated large amounts
of used irradiated components, accounting for 98 percent and 92
percent, respectively, of the radioactive material generated in solid
radwaste. Such work and the solid radwaste generated by that work
occasionally occurs at SSES, but the range of 2500 to 5779 Curies is
more
[[Page 68606]]
typical (Reference 9). The annual average of radioactive material
generated after the proposed EPU would still be bounded by the estimate
of 5500 Curies in the 1981 FES for operation. In addition, the licensee
must continue to meet all NRC and Department of Transportation
regulations for transportation of solid radioactive waste. Therefore,
the staff concludes that the impact from the increased amount of
radioactive material in the solid radwaste due to the proposed EPU
would not be significant.
The licensee estimates that the EPU would require replacement of 10
percent more fuel assemblies at each refueling. This increase in the
amount of spent fuel being generated would require an increase in the
number of dry fuel storage casks used to store spent fuel. The current
dry fuel storage facility at SSES has been evaluated and can
accommodate the increase (Reference 9). Therefore, the staff concludes
that there would be no significant environmental impacts resulting from
storage of the additional fuel assemblies.
In-Plant Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive
material and higher radiation dose rates in the restricted areas at
SSES. SSES's radiation protection staff will continue monitoring dose
rates and would make adjustments in shielding, access requirements,
decontamination methods, and procedures as necessary to minimize the
dose to workers. In addition, occupational dose to individual workers
must be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and as low as
reasonably achievable (Reference 9).
The licensee has estimated that the work necessary to implement the
proposed EPU at the plant would also increase the collective
occupational radiation dose at the plant to approximately 230 person-
rem per year until the implementation is completed in 2009. After the
implementation is completed, the licensee estimates that the annual
collective occupational dose would be in the range of 200 person-rem,
roughly 12 percent higher than the current dose of 182 person-rem in
2005 and 184 person-rem in 2006 (Reference 9). Based on experience from
EPUs at other plants, the staff concludes that these estimates are
acceptable. The staff notes that SSES is allowed a maximum of 3,200
person-rem per year as provided in the 1981 Final Environmental
Statement--Operating Stage. Therefore, the staff concludes that the
increase in occupational exposure would not be significant.
Direct Radiation Doses Offsite
Offsite radiation dose consists of three components: Gaseous,
liquid, and direct gamma radiation. As previously discussed under the
Gaseous Radiological Waste and Liquid Radiological Waste sections, the
estimated doses to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous and
liquid effluents after the proposed EPU is implemented, would be well
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
The final component of offsite dose is from direct gamma radiation
from radioactive waste stored temporarily onsite, including spent fuel
in dry cask storage, and radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the
steam from the reactor passing through the turbine system. The high
energy radiation from nitrogen-16 is scattered or reflected by the air
above the facility and represents an additional public radiation dose
pathway known as ``skyshine.'' The licensee estimated that the offsite
radiation dose from skyshine would increase linearly with the increase
in power level from the proposed EPU (20 percent); more nitrogen-16 is
produced at the higher EPU power, and less of the nitrogen-16 decays
before it reaches the turbine system because of the higher rate of
steam flow due to the EPU. The licensee's radiological environmental
monitoring program measures radiation dose at the site boundary and in
the area around the facility with an array of thermoluminescent
dosimeters. The licensee reported doses ranging from 0.2 to 1.3 mrem
per year for the time period 2000-2005. The licensee estimated that the
dose would increase approximately in proportion to the EPU power
increase (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs at
other plants, the staff concludes that this is an acceptable estimate.
EPA regulation 40 CFR part 190 and NRC regulation 10 CFR part 20 limit
the annual dose to any member of the public to 25 mrem to the whole
body from the nuclear fuel cycle. The offsite dose from all sources,
including radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and direct
radiation, would still be well within this limit after the proposed EPU
is implemented. Therefore, the staff concludes that the increase in
offsite radiation dose would not be significant.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there would be
an increase in the inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core; the
core inventory of radionuclides would increase as power level
increases. The concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant
may also increase; however, this concentration is limited by the SSES
Technical Specifications. Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration
of radionuclides would not be expected to increase significantly. Some
of the radioactive waste streams and storage systems may also contain
slightly higher quantities of radioactive material. The calculated
doses from design basis postulated accidents for SSES are currently
well below the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67; this was confirmed by the NRC
staff in the Safety Evaluation Report supporting a license amendment
for SSES dated January 31, 2007. The licensee has estimated that the
radiological consequences of postulated accidents would increase
approximately in proportion to the increase in power level from the
proposed EPU (20 percent) (Reference 9). Based on experience from EPUs
at other plants, the NRC staff concludes that this is an acceptable
estimate. The calculated doses from design basis postulated accidents
are based on conservative assumption and would still be well within the
criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 after the increase due to the implementation
of the proposed EPU.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed
confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the licensee's
calculated doses under accident conditions. The staff's independent
review of dose calculations under postulated accident conditions
determined that dose would be within regulatory limits. Therefore, the
staff concludes that the EPU would not significantly increase the
consequences of accidents and would not result in a significant
increase in the radiological environmental impact of SSES 1 and 2 from
postulated accidents.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR part 51 specify the environmental
impacts due to the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of fuel and
wastes, respectively. SSES's EPU would increase the power level to 3952
mega-watt thermal (Mwt), which is 3.3 percent above the reference power
level for Table S-4. The increased power level of 3952 Mwt corresponds
to 1300 mega-watt electric (Mwe), which is 30 percent above the
reference power level for Table S-3. Part of the increase is due to a
more efficient turbine design; this increase in efficiency does not
affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of wastes.
However, more fuel will be used in the reactor (more
[[Page 68607]]
fuel assemblies will be replaced at each refueling outage), and that
will potentially affect the impacts of the fuel cycle and
transportation of wastes. The fuel enrichment and burn-up rate criteria
of Tables S-3 and S-4 will still be met because fuel enrichment will be
maintained no greater than 5 percent, and the fuel burn-up rate will be
maintained within 60 giga-watt-days/metric ton uranium (Gwd/MTU). The
staff concludes that after adjusting for the effects of the more
efficient turbine, the potential increases in the impact due to the
uranium fuel cycle and the transportation of fuel and wastes from the
larger amount of fuel used would be small and would not be significant.
Summary
Based on staff review of licensee submissions and the 1981 FES for
operation, it is concluded that the proposed EPU would not
significantly increase the consequences of accidents, would not result
in a significant increase in occupational or public rad
