ML19340A298
| ML19340A298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1972 |
| From: | Malsch M US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050698 | |
| Download: ML19340A298 (18) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
Tile TOLIDO LDISON COMI'ANY AND Till'
)
Docket. No. 50-J46 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station)
)
AEC REGULATORY STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The AEC regulatory staff proposes the following findings of fact and con-clusions of law in the captioned matter:
I.
P[t0POSEDFINDINGSOFFACT 1.
The NEPA review period.for this proceeding is the seven-month period from June through December,1972 (Tr. 24).
A.
Environmental Impact of Continued Construction.
The Davis-Besse' site consists of 954 acres on the shore of Lake Erie 2.
in Carroll Township,. 0ttawa County, Ohio, with a lake frontage of 7,250 feet.
The site includes 524 acres called the Navarre Tract acquired from the U. S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife under an exchange agreement which provided for continuation of 447 acres of marshland in the Tract as a wildlife f
In addition, the Bureau will manage another 33 acres of marshland refuge.
within the site. The main station area consists of'almost 56 acres located f
almost entirely on an original upland portion of the site (Permittees' 8003050 [ 9 [
I m
- Prepared Testimony following Tr.101 (PT) at 3-4).
During the NEPA review period, the following significant construction
'3.
activities will be conducted in or near the Davis-Besse main station erection of the hemispherical top of the steel containment vessel, com-pletion of the turbine building and office building structural steel, con--
tinuation of work on the cooling tower, water intake structure and water treatment building, and'insta' lation of some demineralizers and evaporators l
associated with the radwaste Lsystem (PT at 67; Tr.171, 246, 458-459).
4.These construction activities do not appear to have any off-site environ-mental effects,or effects on the marsh areas (except possibly as noted below with respect to drainage ditch discharges) (PT at 4-7; Tr.168,171)
No additional land on the site will be' cleared and most of the place in already erected structures -(Tr. 168, 171).
In addition, there will
~
(Tr.
be no effects on the marsh areas from construction noise or dust.
172, 455-456, 459. ) ~
Intervenors presented some testimony concerning possible impact of 5.
birds on station structures (Tr. 462-487). At the present' time, the tallest structures are the 220-foot high shield building (already at full height), a 280-foot high crane on top of the shield building, a completed 300-foot high meteorology tower, and the cooling tower which is expected to progress duri the NEPA review period from its present height of 90 feet to the completed height of 500 feet (PT'at 6-7; Tr.143).
L:.-
6.
Intervenors' testimony on bird impacts conceded that significant bird kills as a result of impacts on station structures would occur only at night-time under special weather conditions during the Spring migration periods (Tr. 476-478).
In addition, intervenors testimony conceded that the endangered species in the area are not night migrants.
(Tr. 481-482).
7.
In addition, permittees offered convincing rebuttal testimony to the i
effect that the loss of the few birds that might impact on station structures would not be significant considering bird population dynamics ( (Tr. 487-498, 499-500). Thus, it does not appear that effects from bird impacts on sta-tion structures will be significantly adverse.
8.
Construction activities during the NEPA review period will involve continuation of dewatering operations i'n the excavated areas (PT at 5-6; Tr. 169, 179, 180). These dewatering operations involve pumping of aquifer water which flows into the excavated areas at a rate of about 300 gpm, into an aeration pond (PT at 5-6; Tr.179,181).
From there the water flows down a 7,000-foot long drainage ditch isolated from the marsh areas and thence
~
through a check valve into the Toussaint River near its mouth into take Erie (PT at 5-6; Tr.181-182,185).
9.
This aquifer wat2r is rich in dissolved hydrogen sulfides and has a high t
(2,500 - 3,500 ppm) concentration of. solids, including sulfates, chlorides, and calcium (Tr. 180-181). The aeration pond removes almost all of the
'l
-_j 1
. hydrogen sulfides before 'they reach the River (Tr.180). However, the high
. concentration of solids remains about the same in the water in the ditch as. it enters the River (Tr.183).
Run-off 'from the construction areas is also routed to the drainage ditch and thence into the River (Tr.183).
No studies of the nature of the fish species or other aquatic organisms in the River near the drainage ditch appear to have been made, although there is some t
s general' information about this area (Tr.184). Thus, the record is somewhat unclear as to the environmental effects of the discharge from the ditch.
ii i
- 10. Operations in two of three borrow pits located on-site along with rock 5
crushing operations will continue during the NEPA review period (PT at 4-5; Tr. 458). One borrow pit is being used as a dump site for construction solid waste materials (Tr. 458).
However, these activities do not appear to have any significant effect on the marsh areas (PT at 5).
i i
- 11. 'A-650-foot temporary channel for barge delivery of the reactor pressure vessel will be both dredged and restored during the NEPA review period (PT 5
at 8; Tr. 360). This dredging of the barge channel will have some degree of adverse environmental impact (Tr. 355,357). However, for several reasons, only a minimal disruption is expected.
First, the dredging depth will average i
'only 1.8 feet into the Lake bottom, with a maximum depth of only 3.6 feet.
(Tr.356.) Turbidity will be minimal because of the nature of the dredged material.
(Herdendorf testimony following Tr. 295 (H) at 9.) _ The material that will be dredged consists of clay and sand, both of which can be, and are b
- J
. planned to be, replaced large'ay in their original conditions (Tr. 356).
Introduction of dissolved pollutants into the water is expected to be minimal (H at 12). While some uncertainty as to environmental effects arises from the fact that permittees' witness testified that no chemical analysis had been performed on sediment samples at the dredging site, there was testi-mony that chemical analysis had been performed on sediments in nearby areas and that no wide variation in sediment content is expected (Tr. 365).
12.
There are three transmission lines that will be leaving the plant site -
one connecting the plant switchyard with that of the Bay Shore Station approximately 20 miles to the west, another extending westerly approximately 21 miles to the Lemoyne Substation, and a third extending easterly to the Beaver Substation.
(PT at 9.)
13.
A six-mile section of the Bay Shore line has already been completed and the continuation of this line follows adjacent to an existing transmission line on already cleared right-of-way. All towers have already been erected an'd the only construction or other off-site activities associated with this line during the review period involve installation of conductors on existing towers (PT at 9).
14.
Tower bases have been installed on 7-1/2 miles of the-Lemoyne line and 75% of the right-of-way (all the right-of-way thus far acquired) has been cleared (PT at 9; Tr.170). About 25% of the right-of-way remains to be
_. i I
\\
"W
_ __ - _ - _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ acquired, but this right-of-way acquisition will involve no displacement of people (Tr. 188). However, there has not been any clearing of the as-yet unacquired right-of-way (Tr.188).
Twenty-four acres of wooded areas, representing a distance of about 1.3 miles in length, will be cleared during the NEPA review period (Tr.189).
15.
While the permittees did testify that the majority of the land parcels included in the Lemoyne clearing operations are scattered along the 21 miles, several of the parcels do have a fair length (Tr. 170-171).
Further-more, while permittees testified that the timber involved is not virgin timber but second growth (Tr.189), it was admitted that they had no knowledge as to the nature of the wildlife that may be present in the wooded areas to be cleared (Tr.190).
1
- 16. About 40% of the right-of-way for the Beav er line has been acquired, with the remaining 60% to be acquired during the review period (Tr. 201-208).
The land acquisition involves no displacement of people or buildings but will involve 54 acres of wooded areas (Tr. 208).
There will be no land clearing or other construction work in any of the off-site right-of-way (Tr.
208; PT at 9).
17.
In conclusion, while the environmental effects of activities during i
the NEPA review period associated with the Bay Shore and Beaver transmission lines appear negligible, the environmental effects of clearing of right-of-way
}
.. J for the Lemoyne line are unclear. However, considering the small area to be cleared for the Lemoyne line, it does not appear likely that large adverse environmental effects will occur.
B.
Economic and Technical Foreclosure of Alternatives.
(1) Radwaste Systems.
Possible alternatives to the present liquid radwaste system design include 18.
additions to the present system in the form of more evaporators and de-mineralizers (PT at 15;.Tr.152,164, 300).
- 19. Alternative liquid radwaste systems include ultrasonic use in de-mineralizers, flocculation and precipitation, the use of additional chemi-cals to remove more ions in solution, cbnversion of some filters to Powdex units, and boron control (Tr. 301-302). A "zero-release" liquid radwaste system is impossible (Tr. 304).
- 20. Alternatives to the present gaseous radwaste system design include installation of cryogenic charcoal systems, additional hold-up of radio-active gases, the addition of charcoal absorbers and high-efficiency filters, the addition of cryogenic distillation systems, absorption by solvents, mem-brane separation and foam encapsulation, and the replacement of nitrogen cover gas with hydrogen.
(PT at 15; Tr.152, 300, 301).
J.
i 21. Construction activities during the NEPA review period would not render adoption of any of these alternatives technically infeasible (Tr. 303).
- 22. There presently exists no reasonable alternative to the nornal' solid radwaste system that is used in most nuclear facilities, including the Davis-Besse plant-(Tr. 302).
- 23. During the NEPA review period, approximately $556,000 will be spent on the radwaste systems (Tr.167). The commitment to date in these systems consists of $5 77,000 (PT at 25).
2 24.
The effect of the money to be invested during the NEPA review period on adoption of alternatives as a result of the full NEPA review is unclear, since the record does not indicate whether the full NEPA review is likely to recommend adoption of any such alternatives. AEC regulatory staff testimony to the effect that radiological effects from normal releases with the presant design would be extremely small compared to the benefits of plant operation was ruled inadmissible (Tr. 450).
(2)
Systems for Control of Thermal Effects.
- 25. Possible supplements to the wet cooling tower as now envisioned include a mechanical forced draft cooling tower for use during periods when the cooling tower blowdown temperature is too far above lake temperature, or using cooling ponds (with or without spray modules) for handling cooling tower d
_g.
-blowdown (PT at 19, 24; Tr.151,158,160).
26 Possible alternativm; to the use of the cooling tower now under con-struction include use of a.once-through, lake water, cooling system, or cooling ponds, with or without spray modules (Tr. 151-159). No dry cooling towers are available for a plant of the type of Davis-Besse (Tr. 159-160).
- 27. Construction activities during the NEPA review period would not render L
adoption of any of these supplements or alternatives technically infeasible
~
(Tr.157-160).
l 28 The supplemental systems would be no more costly to add 4
at the end of the review period without suspension than with suspension (PT at 19).
Cooling ponds would involve acquisitions of marshland areas that may not be possible considering present lease arrangements (Tr.159), and would involve a' delay in construction schedules of from 1-2 years (Tr.159).
Use of once-thrgugh cooling would also delay completion of the poject (Tr.157).
- 29. However, $1,914,000 will be invested on the cooling tower as presently designed during the NEPA review period (PT at 26; Tr.158). The effect this money may have on adoption of alternatives as a result of the full NEPA review is unclear, since the record does not indicate whether the full NEPA review 4
is likely to recommend adoption of alternative systems.
Testimony tending to
... -) -
. show that full NEPA review is not likely to recommend adoption of these alternatives was ruled inadmissible by the Board (Tr. 73, 450).
(3) Systems for the Prevention or Mitigation of Accidents.
30.
Numerous alternatives were identified which would further mitigate the consequences of accidents (Tr. 279-288). These include:
increasing the purification rate in the primary system, the ese of additional filters, (including charcoal filters), the use of a closec sampling system to detect radioactive waste, additional tritium detectors, the use of a higher stack, the reduction of radioactive gas inventory in a given tank, the addition of zenon and krypton absorber systems, increasing turbine by-pass capacity, use of the turbine within a load following mode, and installing an N-16 monitor on the steam line (Tr. 279-263).
- 31. Continued construction activities during the NEPA review period would not foreclose subsequent adoption of any of these alternatives from the stand-point of technical fasibility (Tr. 288). However, the record does not indicate whether adoption of any of these alternatives would be rendered more expen-sive by continuing construction activities during the NEPA review period.
(4)
Transmissio., lines.
- 32. The total investment in the Bay. Shore line to date is $2,120,000, and irretrievable financial commitments during the NEPA review period will amount 4
j
_c l
+
n,
~ to. $276,000 (PT at 25. Table Iy.3), The' total investment in the-Lemoyne line tsidate Lis $2,011,000, and irretrievable financial commitments during 1.
the NEPA review period will amount to $727,000 (PT at 25, Table IV-1).
4
)
Land acquisitions for the Beaver line during tne NEPA review period -~
represent-an irretrievable commitment of financial resources of $144,000
-(PT at Table IV-1) compared to an investment to date of $625,000 (PT at 25).
3 33.
The record contains no identification of possible alternatives to the 6
present: transmission line routes or tower designs, although the record does indic3te that different routings for the Beaver and Lemoyne lines are at i
least potsible (Tr. 152).
Furthermore, testimony including _ the relative costs and benefits of alternatives in these areas was ruled inadmissible L
i by the Board-.(Tr. -125).
Thus, while the record does indicate that continued' construction on the Lemoyne.line durins the NEPA review period would not render adoption of an alternative route te
- cally_ infeasible (Tr.170),
4 the record is' unclear whether the additional investment in the lines would i
foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives in the fiC7 EPA review.
f i
(5) Abandonment.
- 34. _The economic costs of _ abandonment at the end of the NEPA review period i
. were calculated by_ two methods - the first, assuming suspension of activities during the review period and the'second assuming continuation of the project along 'its. present~ schedule (PT at 26a - 27).
If the project were to be abandoned with construction continuing during the review period, the irre-
.trievable costs. to applicants _ would be -$118,211,000.
The comparable figure,-
--y l
1
(.
assuming suspension during the review period, is $89,572,000 (PT at 26c).
The difference between the two amounts $28,639,000) represents the amount by which irretrievable commitments of financial resources during the NEPA re-view period might "tip the scales" in favor of abandonment in the full-NEPA review. -This represents 27% of the total investment in the plant as of May 31,1972 (PT at 25).
However, it is clear that the costs of abandoning the facility are already substantial.
Nevertheless, since the record con-tains no information as to the likelihood that the full NEPA review will recommend abandonment, it is unclear what effect this $28,639,000 will have on the full NEPA decision.
Testimony by the staff tending to indicate that it was unlikely that the full NEPA review would recommend abandonment was ruled inadmissible by the Board (Tr. 450).
4 4
=,
- 13 '-
C.
Effect of Delay in Facility Construction on the Public Interest 35.
If all activities under the construction permit were suspended during the 7 month review period and the full NEPA review were to recomend continuation of the project, the seven month suspension would delay completion of the plant by 10 months. The additional three months delay would be incurred because of the time needed to restart the construction and reassemble a trained construction force (PT at 41).
This ten month delay would add an estimated $21,200,000 to the plant's initial cost (PT at 45-46).
36.
Permittees expect that if construction continues, during the NEPA review period, the plant will be completed in early 1974. Based upon this estimated completion date, the expected date for commercial operation is December,1974 (TR.196, 203).
However, this expected completion date is based upon no delays in delivery of major components or delays resulting from contract negotiations (TR. 701-702). There has already been some delays in meeting construction schedules for the project, and delays in construction projects such as this are common (TR. 118-201). Therefore, there is some reason to question the estimated commercial operation date of December 1974.
37.
In view of the above, the critical period in terms of effects of any suspension of wort: on reliability of power supply would appear to be the sumer (June) 1975 peak (PT at 49). '
~
__j
, 38. Mr. A. -L. Toalston of the Federal Power Commission testified on behalf of the AEC Regulatory staff regarding the impact of a delay of the Davis-
- Besse: Nuclear Plant on the reliability of power supply (TR. 375-414).
- 39. This testimony indicates that projected generation reserves of about 20% are required for a pool such as the Central Area Power Coordination Group (CAPC0) of which the permittees, Toledo Edison Company (TE) and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) form a part (TR. 388).
This 20% generation reserve is required to provide for contingencies that are almost certain to occur, such as forced unscheduled outages, scheduled maintenance outages, generator deratings due to both seasonal factors and.
equipment limitations, slippage of scheduled generator additions, and output restrictions due to possible fuel shortages or pollution limitations (TR. 386-387).
- 40. As indicated above, June of -1975 appears to be the critical period.
A broad picture of the overall reserve situation within the Eastern half of the United States for this period was presented, considering first the l
electric groups surrounding the East Central Area Reliability Coordination l-Group _(ECAR). The focus was then narrowed to ECAR, to CAPC0 and finally.
It was pointed out that the areas having the higher projected reserve margins are those which are most distant from the permittees' l
system (TR 391-398).
i e L._M~
'1
. 41. lThe.p ojected reserve margins for CAPC0 and the permittees' systems
~
p for this period of time are as follows~ (TR. 394-396):
Projected June 1975 Generation Reserves Davis-Besse In Commercial Operation?
Company or pool YES NO Cleveland Electric.
21.3%
9.4%
Illuminating Co.
Toledo Edison Co.
7.7%
-24.7%
17.0%
9;6%
CAPC0 Group The minus 24.7% reserve figure for Toledo Edison indicates that its 42.
projected load would be greater than its projected generation even before contingencies, and that, sone form of additional power would have to be obtained or load would have to be curtailed (TR. 396).
Thus a delay in the commercial operation of.the Davis-Besse plant beyond June 1975 would result in cubpar reserves for the CAPC0 pool in general and specifically for the permittees' systems, with a resulting decrease in power supply reliability for the area (TR. 382).
.The only possible alternative supplemental sources of power that 43.
permittees could call upon to relieve the situation in summer 1975 are
. installation of gas turbines and purchase of power from elsewhere (TR. 403).
However, there-is no assurance that. gas turbines could be installed in time (TR. 400).
Furthermore gas turbines are far less reliable than nuclear plants (TR. 400-401), have higher outage rates (TR. 401) and are much more expensive to operate than nuclear-plants (TR. 401-403).
1
. 44..It is also not. definite that permittees will be able to purchase power, because the excess reserves are remote and the surrounding areas may face the same reserve problems in summer of 1975 that permittees would be facing (TR 399).
- 45..The consequences of permittees' subpar reserves could be major.
If emergency. power could not be obtained from surrounding areas, a load curtail-ment program may have to be initiated (TR. 389).
While this may only inconvenience some, others who depend on electricity for their well being I
may be seriously or critically affected (TR. 390).
It is not possible to curtail electricity only to those who will be merely inconvenienced (TR. 390-391).
In addition, when the excess reserves are remote, and an emergency occurs, power rushes in from all the interconnected companies.
If load curtailment is not rapid enough, that will be a shortage of reserves throughout, and a widespread interruption, such as the one experienced during the 1965 northeast blackout, could occur (TR. 400).
t l
i 1
l
}
d-4 l
=t
II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l.
With the possible exception of discharges into the Toussaint River and land clearing for the Lemoyne transmission line, continued construction activities during the NEPA review period will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The environmental effects of the discharges into the River and the land clearing are somewhat unclear, although it appears likely that any adverse impact will be minimal..
2.
Continued constructi,on during the NEPA review period will not foreclose adoption of alternatives from the standpoint of technical feasibility.
However, the foreclosure effects of irretrievable commitments of financial resources during the review period are unclear, since evidence as to en-vironmental effects of construction activities beyond the review period.
as well as environmental effects of operation were ruled inadmissible by the Board. The ruling by the Board was the basis for the rejection of the testimony described. in paragraphs 24, 29, 33, and 34 of the Proposed Findings of Fact.
This ruling was erroneous.
3.
A suspension of cohstruction 'during the NEPA review period would seriously decrease electric power supply reliability in the area to be served by the proposed plant, with possibly major adverse effects on the public interest.
i i
r
III.
PROPOSED ORDER In view of the position of the AEC regulatory staff that certain offered evidence was improperly ruled inadmissible by the Board, and that the hearing record is therefore presently incomplete, the AEC regulatory staff does not at this time propose any order relating to suspension of activities under CPPR-80.
Respectfully submitted,
[$2(.5+1 b'[
Martin G. Malsch Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of May,1972.
E i
i s
4
.-+b n
. {
' k -a
......,.-_m
,