[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8255-8259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3520]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]
Philadelphia Electric Co.; Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-85, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company, (the licensee), for
operation of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of
December 9, 1993, as supplemented July 5, September 9, October 19,
November 19, 1994, January 6, and January 23, 1995, to amend the
Limerick Generating [[Page 8256]] Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2
operating licenses. The proposed amendment would increase the licensed
thermal power level from 3293 Mwt to 3458 Mwt. This request is in
accordance with the generic boiling water reactor (BWR) power uprate
program established by the General Electric Company (GE) and approved
by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in a letter of
September 30, 1991.
The proposed action involves NRC issuance of a license amendment to
increase the authorized power level by changing the operating license,
including Appendix A of the license (Technical Specifications). No
change is needed to Appendix B of the license (Environmental Protection
Plan--Non-radiological).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to permit an increase in the licensed
core thermal power from 3293 Mwt to 3458 Mwt and provide the licensee
with the flexibility to increase the potential electrical output of
LGS, Units 1 and 2, providing additional electrical power to service
domestic and commercial areas.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The ``Final Environmental Statement (FES) Related to Operation of
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2'' was issued April 1984
(NUREG-0974). The licensee submitted GE Topical Report, NEDC-32225P,
``Power Rerate Safety Analysis Report for Limerick Generating Station,
Units 1 and 2,'' Class III, dated September 1993, as Attachment 3 to
the December 9, 1993 submittal. NEDC-32225P contains the safety
analysis prepared by GE to support this license change request and the
implementation of power uprate at LGS, Units 1 and 2. The analyses and
evaluations supporting these proposed changes were completed using the
guidelines in GE Topical Report NEDC-31897P-A, ``Generic Guidelines for
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Class 3, dated
May 1992, and NEDC-31948P, ``Generic Evaluations of General Electric
Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Class III, dated July 1991. The
NRC reviewed and approved GE Topical Reports NEDC-31897P-A and NEPC-
31948P in a September 30, 1991, letter and in a letter from W. Russell,
NRC, to P. Marriotte, GE, dated July 31, 1992.
The licensee provided information regarding the nonradiological and
radiological environmental effects of the proposed action in the
December 9, 1993 application and supplemental information in the
January 6, and January 23, 1995 submittal. The staff has reviewed the
potential radiological and non-radiological effects of the proposed
action on the environment as described below.
Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment
Power uprate will not change the method of generating electricity
nor the method of handling any influents from nor effluents to the
environment. Therefore, no new or different types of environmental
impacts are expected.
The staff reviewed the nonradiological impact of operation at
uprated power levels on influents from the Perkiomen Creek, Schuylkill
and Delaware Rivers and effluents to the Schuylkill River. LGS, Units 1
and 2 each have a closed-loop circulating water system and cooling
tower for dissipating heat from the main turbine condensers. The
cooling towers are operated in accordance with the requirements of
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.
PA0051926. The current permit was renewed on December 12, 1994 and is
effective through December 31, 1999. The only increase in LGS water
intake due to operation at power uprate conditions is due to increased
evaporation in the hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers. In the
January 6, 1995 letter, the licensee indicated that the existing
consumptive flow will conservatively increase from 38,059,065 to
40,723,200 gallons per day (total for both units), depending on
atmospheric conditions. The velocity of the intake water will increase
less than 7 percent. Makeup is drawn from the Schuylkill River,
Perkiomen Creek, or the Delaware River, depending on flow and
temperature. When makeup is drawn from the Delaware River through the
Point Pleasant Pumping Station via the Bradshaw Station, 3 percent
additional evaporative losses must be considered. The increase makeup
flow (including evaporative losses), is within the existing water
diversion consumptive use limit of 42,000,000 gallons per day specified
in the original permitting evaluations.
Makeup water requirements for systems and components other than the
cooling towers are not expected to change due to operation at uprated
power levels. The licensee indicated that the only potential change is
due to increased reactor operating pressure which could slightly
increase leakage through valve packing. System leakage, however, is
processed through the liquid radwaste system and returned to the
condensate storage tank for reuse. Based on the above considerations,
the staff concluded that the effect of makeup requirements at uprated
power levels on the environment is not significant.
The licensee does not expect any increase in the cooling tower
blowdown due to the physical limitation in the blowdown system.
Likewise, the licensee does not expect any increase in the blowdown
discharge velocity. However, the licensee indicated that the blowdown
discharge temperature will increase less than 0.1 deg.F. This
temperature rise will have an insignificant effect on the thermal
plume. This increase is within the NPDES permit limit.
An increase in cooling tower drift is not anticipated for operation
at uprated conditions. Drift is a function of physical geometry, water
flow, and wind conditions, none of which are changed by power uprate.
Therefore, the licensee has indicated that the original evaluation of
impacts to the terrestrial environment is not altered.
The only changes to the cooling tower water chemistry are due to
increased evaporation from the towers. Concentrations of dissolved and
suspended solids in the blowdown will increase approximately less than
7 percent, which is within NPDES permit limits. The licensee stated
that the use of biocides and corrosion inhibitors in the circulating
water system may change as a result of operation at uprated power
levels. However, the licensee stated that change in chemical usage
would not impact existing NPDES permit limitations.
Nonradiological effluent discharges from other systems were also
considered. Nonradiological effluent limits for such systems as yard
drains, sewage treatment plant, and laundry drains are established in
the NPDES permit. Discharges from these systems are not expected to
change significantly, if at all, because operation at uprated power
levels is governed by the limits in the NPDES permit. Thus, the impact
on the environment from these systems as a result of operation at
uprated power levels is not significant.
Operation at uprated power levels will not result in increased
noise generation from the majority of plant equipment. Some of this
equipment, such as the main turbine and generator will operate at the
same speed and thus will not contribute to increased offsite noise.
Other major plant equipment is located within plant structures and will
not lead to increased offsite noise levels. The main station
transformers will operate at an increased kilovolt-ampere level which
will cause an insignificant increase in the overall noise level. The
[[Page 8257]] makeup pumps, which are indoors, will operate at the same
level, however, in some cases cycling on slightly more frequently. The
pumps at the Bradshaw Station are variable speed and, when used, will
operate at a slightly higher speed. The pumps are indoors; therefore,
the outside noise level increase will be insignificant.
The licensee has stated that there are no changes required to the
LGS Environmental Protection Plan as a result of operation at uprated
power levels. Specifically the licensee stated:
Other non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed
power rerate were reviewed based on the information submitted in the
Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, the NRC Final
Environmental Statement (FES), Operating License Appendix B (i.e.,
Environmental Protection Plan), the requirements of the applicable
NPDES permits, which include the outfall limits, and the Delaware
River Basin Commission Water Use permit. We have concluded the
proposed power rerate will have insignificant impacts on the non-
radiological elements of concern and the plant will be operated in
an environmentally acceptable manner as established by the FES.
Existing Federal, State and Local regulatory permits presently in
effect will accommodate power rerate without modification.
The FES described the impact of plant operation on fogging in the
vicinity of the facility. The FES discussed that the increase in
fogging due to plant operation was expected to blend in with the
natural fog and be indistinguishable. The staff expects that operation
of the plant at uprated power levels will result in only a minimal
increase in fogging over that discussed in the FES. Thus, the impact of
plant operation on local fogging, including operation at uprated power,
remains insignificant.
Radiological Environmental Assessment
The licensee evaluated the impact of the proposed amendment to show
that the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria continue to be
satisfied for the uprated power conditions. In conducting this
evaluation, the licensee considered the effect of the higher power
level on source terms, onsite and offsite doses, and control room
habitability during both normal operation and accident conditions. The
licensee provided information regarding the radiological environmental
effects of the proposed action in NEDC-32225P and supplemental
information in the January 6, 1995 submittal. In Sections 8.1 and 8.2
of NEDC-32225P, the licensee discussed the potential effect of power
rerate on liquid and gaseous radioactive waste systems. Sections 8.3
and 8.4 discussed the potential effect of power uprate on radiation
sources in the reactor coolant resulted from coolant activation
products, activated corrosion products and fission products. Section
8.5 of the Topical Report discussed the radiation levels during normal
operation, normal post-operation, post-accident, and offsite doses
during normal operation. Finally, Section 9.2 of NEDC-32225P presented
the results of calculated whole body and thyroid doses at the uprated
power and current authorized power conditions at the exclusion area
boundary and the low population zone that might result from the
postulated design basis radiological accidents [i.e., loss-of-coolant-
accident (LOCA), main steam line break accident (MSLBA) outside
containment, fuel handling accident (FHA) and control rod drop accident
(CRDA)].
In Section 8.1 of NEDC-32225P, the licensee stated that there will
be only a slight increase in the liquid radwaste collection as a result
of operation at higher power levels. The liquid waste system collects,
monitors, processes, stores, and returns processed radioactive waste to
the plant for reuse or for discharge. The largest contributor to the
liquid waste results from the backwash of the condensate demineralizers
and deepbeds. The rate of loading on the demineralizers increases,
resulting in the average time between backwash precoat being reduced
slightly; this reduction does not affect plant safety. Similarly, the
reactor water cleanup (RWCU) filter/demineralizers will require
slightly more frequent backwashes due to slightly higher levels of
activation and fission products. The power uprate will increase the
flow rate through the condensate demineralizers, with a subsequent
reduction in the average time between backwashing. Additionally,
neither the floor drain collector subsystem nor the waste collector
subsystem is expected to experience a significant increase in the total
volume of liquid waste due to operation at the uprated level.
The licensee stated that while the activated corrosion products in
liquid wastes are expected to increase proportionally to the square of
the power increase, the total volume of processed waste is not expected
to increase appreciably. Based on its analyses of the liquid radwaste
system, the licensee has concluded the requirements of 10 CFR part 20
and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, will be met. Based on the above
considerations, the staff concluded that the power uprate will have no
significant adverse effects on liquid effluents.
The gaseous waste management systems collect, control, process,
store and dispose of gaseous radioactive waste generated during normal
operation and abnormal operational occurrences. These systems include
the standby gas treatment system (SGTS), off-gas recombiner system, the
ambient temperature charcoal treatment system, and various building
ventilation systems. Various devices and processes, such as radiation
monitors, filters, isolation dampers, and fans, are used to control
airborne radioactive gases. The licensee states that the activity of
airborne effluents released through building vents is not expected to
increase significantly with power uprate and the systems are designed
to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix
I.
In its power uprate submittal, the licensee has stated that the
greatest contributor of radioactive gases is the noncondensible
radioactive gases from the main condenser, including activation gases
(principally N-16, O-19, and N-13) and radioactive noble gas parents.
The increase in production of these gases is expected to be
approximately proportional to the core power increase. These
noncondensible radioactive gases, along with nonradioactive air due to
inleakage to the condenser, are continuously removed from the main
condensers by the stream jet air ejectors (SJAE). The SJAEs discharge
into the offgas system. The flow of these gases into the offgas system
is included with the flow of H2 and 02 to the recombiner,
which will also increase linearly with core power. Radioactive gases
and H2 and 02 pass from the recombiner through a holdup pipe,
cooler condenser, adsorber bed, and high-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters and exit the facility through the north stack. Gaseous
activity effluent release rates are monitored down stream of the
adsorber bed and alarms are provided in the control room. The licensee
has stated that the operational increases in hydrogen, oxygen, and
noble gases due to uprate are not significant when compared to the
current total system flow which also includes air from condenser
inleakage and steam flows from the air ejector.
The design basis for the offgas system is for activity release
rates of 100,000 microcuries per second based on a mixture of
activation and fission product gases and fuel leakage and a 30-minute
holdup time. The system is designed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR
part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. Performance of the system at
uprated power levels is expected to remain within the system design
basis and, thus, to continue to meet the [[Page 8258]] requirements of
10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.
The contribution of gases to the gaseous waste management system
from building ventilation system is not expected to increase
significantly with power uprate because (1) the amount of fission
products released into the reactor coolant depends on the number of
nature of the fuel rod defects and is not dependent on reactor power,
and (2) the concentration of coolant activation products is expected to
remain unchanged since the linear increase in the production of these
products will be offset by the linear increase in steaming rate.
Based on its review of the gaseous waste management system, the
staff concluded that there will not be a significant adverse effect on
airborne effluents as a result of the power rerate.
The licensee has evaluated the effects of the power uprate on in-
plant radiation levels in the LGS facility during normal and abnormal
operation as well as from postulated accident conditions. The licensee
has concluded that radiation levels from both normal and accident
conditions may increase slightly. However, because many areas of the
plant were designed for higher than expected radiation sources, the
small increase in radiation levels expected due to power uprate will
not affect radiation zoning or shielding in the plant.
During periods of normal and post-operation conditions, individual
worker exposures will be maintained within acceptable limits by the
existing, as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) program, which
controls access to radiation areas. Procedure controls compensate for
slightly increased radiation levels.
The offsite doses associated with normal operation are not
significantly affected by operation at the uprated power level, and are
expected to remain below the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part
50, appendix I.
The main control room (MCR) habitability was evaluated. Post-
accident MCR and technical support center doses were confirmed by the
licensee to be within the limits of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19
or 10 CFR part 50, appendix A.
The increase in LOCA radiological consequences due to power uprate
was analyzed by the licensees. The resultant offsite doses were found
to be within guidelines of 10 CFR part 100. The events evaluated for
uprate were the LOCA, the MSLBA, the FHA, and the CRDA. The whole body
and thyroid doses were calculated for the exclusion area boundary
(EAB), low population zone (LPZ), and the control room. The plant-
specific results for power uprate remain well below established
regulatory limits. The doses resulting from the accidents analyzed are
compared below with the applicable dose limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCA radiological
consequences
--------------------
UFSAR
Location dose Dose Limit
(rem) (rem) @
@3458 3527
MWt MWt\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion area:
Whole body dose......................... 0.67 0.68 25
Thyroid dose............................ 0.15 0.15 300
Low population zone:
Whole body dose......................... 1.7 1.7 25
Thyroid dose............................ 0.04 0.04 300
Main control room:
Whole body dose......................... 4.6 4.7 5
Thyroid dose............................ 14.0 14.3 30
Beta.................................... 7.6 7.8 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA Radiological Consequences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion area:
Whole body dose......................... 0.7 0.7 6
Thyroid dose............................ 0.95 0.98 75
Low population zone:
Whole body dose......................... 0.099 0.102 6
Thyroid dose............................ 0.13 0.135 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRDA Radiological Consequences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion area:
Whole body dose......................... 0.04 0.042 6
Thyroid dose............................ 0.32 0.3 75
Low population zone:
Whole body dose......................... 0.014 0.0148 6
Thyroid dose............................ 0.62 0.63 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This number represents 102% of the power uprate level. Doses based on
102% are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.49, Revision 1 guidance
and are provided to allow for possible instrument errors in
determining the power level.
Based on a review of the licensee's major assumptions and
methodology used in their reconstituted dose calculations and the
staff's original safety evaluation, the staff concluded that the
offsite radiological consequences and control room operator doses at
uprated power levels still remain below 10 CFR part 100 dose reference
values and GDC 19 dose limits. Therefore, the staff concludes that no
significant adverse effect on radiation levels will result onsite or
offsite from the planned power uprate.
It is expected that the increased energy requirements associated
with operation at uprated power will require an increase in the reload
fuel enrichment and will result in increased burnup. The NRC previously
evaluated the environmental impacts associated with burnup values of up
to 60,000 MWd/MT with fuel enrichments up to 5 percent 235U
(published in the Federal Register, 53 FR 6040 dated February 29,
1988). The staff concluded that the environmental impacts associated
with Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,
and Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52, Environmental Impact of Transportation
of Fuel and Waste, are conservative and bound the corresponding impacts
for burnup levels of up to 60,000 MWd/MtU and 235U enrichments up
to 5 percent by weight. In the January 23, 1995 submittal, the licensee
indicated that while fuel burnup and enrichment levels may increase as
a result of operation at uprated power, the burnup and enrichment will
remain within the 5 percent enrichment and 60,000 MWd/MT value
previously evaluated by the staff. Based on the above cited
environmental assessment and the licensee's statements regarding
expected burnup and enrichment values, the staff concludes that the
environmental effects of increased fuel cycle and transportation
activity as a result of operation at uprated power levels are not
significant. [[Page 8259]]
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the NRC's FES is valid for operation at the proposed
uprated power conditions for LGS, Units 1 and 2. The staff also
concluded that the plant operating parameters impacted by the proposed
uprate would remain within the bounding conditions on which the
conclusions of the FES are based.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The NRC staff finds the radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed small increase in
power are very small and do not change the conclusion in the FES that
the operation of LGS, Units 1 and 2, would cause no significant adverse
impact upon the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated.
The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the
request. Such action would not significantly reduce the environmental
impact of plant operation but would restrict operation of LGS, Units 1
and 2 to the currently licensed power level and prevent the facility
from generating approximately 60 MWe (165 MWt) additional that is
obtainable from the existing plant design.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement related to
the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated
April 1984.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the
Bureau of Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will 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 letter dated December 9, 1993, as supplemented by letters
dated July 5, September 9, October 19, and November 19, 1994, and
January 6, and January 23, 1995, which are available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street,
Pottstown, PA 19464.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of February 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chester Poslusny,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-3520 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
