ML070790567
| ML070790567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1999 |
| From: | Carpenter C Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs |
| To: | Mccollum W Duke Energy Corp |
| References | |
| Download: ML070790567 (6) | |
Text
1 1 owl UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20888-0001 May 10, 1999 Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.Oconee Nuclear Site Duke Energy Corporation P.O. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 27679
SUBJECT:
DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF TRANSMISSION LINES IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR OCONEE LICENSE RENEWAL
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated July 6, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) submitted its application for renewal of the operating licenses for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee).
As part of its application, Duke Energy submitted an environmental report (ER)prepared pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51. On December 29, 1998, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued requests for additional information (RAIs) related to the NRC staff's review of Duke Energy's ER. By letter dated March 4, 1999, Duke Energy submitted its responses to the NRC staff's RAIs. The staff has completed its review of these responses containing Duke Energy's position on the scope of transmission line rights-of-way impacts.The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GElS), NUREG-1437, includes an assessment of the environmental impacts related to license renewal and classifies impacts to threatened or endangered species and acute effects related to electromagnetic fields (electric shock) as plant-specific, or Category 2 issues. The findings of the GElS regarding these two issues are codified in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) and (H); and 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A.Specifically, the GElS states that although the issue of impacts to threatened or endangered species is potentially relevant to all cooling systems and to transmission lines, without site-specific and project-specific information, the magnitude or significance of impacts on threatened or endangered species cannot be assessed.
Thus, 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, recognizes that consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued plart; operation.
As provided in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the scope of the review of transmission lines for the Category 2 issue concerning electric shock is the set of transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system. The NRC staff has determined that the scope of review of transmission lines for the Category 2 issue concerning threatened or endangered species should be identical to the scope of review for electric shock.To identify these lines, NRC staff reviewed Duke Power.Company's original environmental report, Environmental Quality Features of Keowee-Toxaway Project, submitted to the Atomic I ~ G y W. McCollum, Jr.-2-May 10, 1999 Energy Commission (AEC), NRC's predecessor, on July 10, 1970, and supplemented in October 1971. This report was submitted to the AEC to assist with preparation of a final environmental statement related to the proposed action of issuing an operating license (FES-OL) for the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3. In these documents, Duke Power Company states that Oconee Nuclear Station is an "integral part of the Keowee-Toxaway Project being concurrently constructed
[and] the environmental aspects of Oconee are inseparable from those of the entire project." The supplement went on to state that the"transmission lines whose construction is necessitated by the additional electric power to be supplied from the Oconee Nuclear Station to Duke Energy's existing grid or system are listed and described as follows [.J" The transmission lines listed are Oconee to the Tiger, Central, McGuire, Newport, and North Greenville substations for a total of 330 miles of lines. These are the lines used in the NRC staff's evaluation of transmission line impacts in its FES-OL issued in March 1972 and constitute the licensing basis for the plant.In its response to the staff's RAIs, Duke Energy attempted to justify its position that the scope of transmission lines should be limited to those lines that run between the turbine building and the 230 and 525 kV switchyards, totaling approximately 600 feet. First, Duke Energy argued that the 330 miles of transmission lines would remain energized even if Oconee does not continue to operate and, therefore, should not be considered in the scope of the proposed action. Since the basis for determining the scope of transmission lines is defined as those lines originally constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system, the argument that the transmission lines will remain energized irrespective of Oconee operation is irrelevant.
Second, Duke Energy stated that the 330 miles of transmission lines were constructed as part of an overall increase in the capacity of the Duke Energy system and were inappropriately ascribed to Oconee. However, the response to the RAI also indicated that the Keowee-Toxaway Project resulted in the capacity to support 7000 MW of steam generation and that Oconee was the steam generation facility chosen to complete this project.Accordingly, it appears the lines were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting Oconee to the transmission system and the staff has determined that Duke Energy's arguments are not sufficiently convincing to justify deviating from the scope considered in the March 1972 FES-OL.Therefore, the NRC staff will discuss the impacts resulting from maintenance activities associated with the 330 miles of transmission lines cited in the original FES on threatened or endangered species in its supplement to the GELS. In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 51.41, the staff may request that Duke Energy provide such information as may be useful in this endeavor.
If you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Jim Wilson at 301-415-1108.
Sincerely, Cynthia A. Ca rpenter, Chief Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 cc. See next page W. McCollum, Jr.-2-May 10, 1999 Energy Commission (AEC), NRC's predecessor, on July 10, 1970, and supplemented in October 1971. This report was submitted
'he AEC to assist with preparation of a final environmental statement related to the prop, sed action of issuing an operating license (FES-OL) for the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3. In these documents, Duke Power Company states that Oconee Nuclear Station is an "integral part of the Keowee-Toxaway Project being concurrently constructed
[and] the environmental aspects of Oconee are inseparable from those of the entire project." The supplement went on to state that the"transmission lines whose construction is necessitated by the additional electric power to be supplied from the Oconee Nuclear Station to Duke Energy's existing grid or system are listed and described as follows [J" The transmission lines listed are Oconee to the Tiger, Central, McGuire, Newport, and North Greenville substations for a total of 330 miles of lines. These are the lines used in the NRC staff's evaluation of transmission line impacts in its FES-OL isr ,ed in March 1972 and constitute the licensing basis for the plant.In its response to the staff's RAIs, Duke Energy attempted to justify its position that the scope of transmission lines should be limited to those lines that run between the turbine building and the 230 and 525 kV switchyards, totaling approximately 600 feet. First, Duke Energy argued that the 330 miles of transmission lnes would remain energized even if Oconee does not continue to operate and, therefore, should not be considered in the scope of the proposed action. Since the basis for determining the scope of transmission lines is defined as those lines originally constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system, the argument that the transmission lines will remain energized irrespective of Oconee operation is irrelevant.
Second, Duke Energy stated that the 330 miles of transmission lines were constructed as part of an overall increase in the capacity of the Duke Energy system and were inappropriately ascribed to Oconee. However, the response to the RAI also indicated that the Keowee-Toxaway Project resulted in the capacity to support 7000 MW of steam generation and that Oconee was the steam generation facility chosen to complete this project.Accordingly, it appears the lines were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting Oconee to the transmission system and the staff has determined that Duke Energy's arguments are not sufficiently convincing to justify deviating from the scope considered in the March 1972 FES-OL.Therefore, the NRC staff will discuss the impacts resulting from maintenance activities associated with the 330 miles of transmission lines cited in the original FES on threatened or endangered species in its supplement to the GELS. In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 51.41, the staff may request that Duke Energy provide such information as may be useful in this endeavor.
If you have any additional questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Jim Wilson at 301-415-1108.
Sincerely, Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula;,on Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 cc: See next page Distdbution:
seo next pnge 'Sae previous concurrence DOCLA4ENT NAME :G:V\co e\ieierlet TRANSM2.WPD OFFICE RGE SC:RGEB OGC BC:RGEB DDR NAME JHV.on:aw hJ&04 6 CCarponter, DMat DATE 44UF 4/26/99 4/289/ 9 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Oconee Nuclear Station (License Renewal)Cc: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Mail Stop PB-05E Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Anne W. Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Rick N. Edwards Framatome Technologies Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Senior Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7812B Rochester Highway Seneca, South Carolina 29672 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Virgil R. Autry, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land and Waste Management Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 Mr. W R. McCollum, Jr., Vice President Oconee Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679 Mr. J. E. Burchfield Compliance Manager Duke Energy Corporation Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 L. A. Keller Manager -Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Mr. Gregory D. Robison Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R P. 0. Box 1006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Mr. Robert L. Gill, Jr.Duke Energy Corporation Mail Stop EC-12R P. 0. Box 1006 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 RLGILL@DUKE-ENERGY.COM Mr. Douglas J. Walters Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 DJW@NEI.ORG Chattooga River Watershed Coalition P. 0. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525 2 Mr. Heinz Mueller Office of Environmental Assessment EPA Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Mr, Willie J. Morgan SC DHEC 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 Ms. Melinda Vickers SC DHEC 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 Mr, Richard Phillips Interim Director Appalachia District I Oconee County DHEC Appalachia I District 2404 N, Main Street Anderson, SC 29621 Mr. Robert Duncan SC DNR P.O. Box 12559 Charleston, SC 29412 Mr. Steve Gilbert US FWS P.O. Box 12559 Charleston, SC 29412 Mr. Dennis Bauknight District Conservationist NRCS 301 University Ridge, Suite 4500 Greenville, SC 29601 Ms. Nancy Brock SHPO S.C. Dept. of Archives and History 8301 Parklane Road Columbia, SC 29223-4905 Distribution:
Hard copy N. Dudley, ACRS T2E26 R. Zimmerman W. Kane D. Matthews S. Newberry C. Grimes F. Akstulewicz J. Strosnider R. Wessman G. Bagchi H. Brammer T. Hiltz G. Holahan C. Gratton R. Correia R. Latta J. Peralta J. Moore R. Weisman M. Zobler F. Cherny E. Hackett A. Murphy D. Martin W. McDowell S. Droggitis PDLR Staff H, Berkow D. LaBarge L. Plisco C. Ogle R. Trojanowski M. Scott C. Julian R. Architzel J. Wilson C. Sochor