ML19345H170
| ML19345H170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000510, 05000511 |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1981 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Little L, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105010150 | |
| Download: ML19345H170 (68) | |
Text
-
~
CJ}
S k
4 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
us %
-]
APR 271981 f
ofg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
% ting ah }
Before Administrative Judges:
arm Marshall E. Miller, Chairman k
Gustave A. Linenberger
<n Dr. Linda W. Little kVQ#
R 2 lS8f 0
)
In the Matter of
)
)
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-510
)
STN 50-511 (Blue H111s Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
April 28, 1981
)
PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Early Site Review)
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Mark J. Wetterbahn, Esq., of Conner, Moore and Corber, Washington, 9. C.
Stanley Plettman, Esq., of Orgain, Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, Texas, For the Applicant, Gulf Ste:es Utilities Company Richard Lcwerre, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, For the State of Texas Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq. and Lawrence Brenner, Esq.,
Office of the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wasnington, D. C.
For the NRC Staff
21. The nature and extent of activities it nearby industr$al, military, and transportation facilities have been evaluated. There are no activities in the vicinity currently going on or presently planned which have the potential for precluding use of this site for a nuclear power plant as outlined in the application (PSAR Section 2.2.3; ER Section 2.2).
B.
Meteorology
- 22. As described below, a sufficient descripticn of the regional meteorological conditions of importance to the safe i
design and siting of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site has been provided (ESR Section 2.3; Tr.177-96).
23. Snowf all is a rarity in the region, averaging less than one inch per year. However, occasional storms in the general vicinity accumulated up to 10 inches of snow on the ground. One or two ice storms, some occasionally severe, may occur each year j
l 51milarly, the mean annual number of days of hail in In the area.
l the region is one or two. A design load for roofs of safety-related structures of 30 pounds per square foot as proposed by the Applicant, is acceptable for loads due to snow at the Blue Hills site (PSAR Section 2.3.1; ESR Section 2.3.1).
l I
i i
, 9
- 24. Between 1953 and 1974,116. tornadoes occurred within a 10,000 square mile area containing the site, resulting in a recurrence interval of 670 years fcr a tornado at the plant site.
The design basis tornado proposed is similar to the design basis tornado parameters for Region I as described in Regulatory Guide 1.76 " Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants," and is acceptable for the site. These parameters include a maximum wind speed of 360 miles per hour consisting of a maximum rotational speed of 290 miles per hour and a maximum translational speed of 70 miles per hour; a minimum translational speed of five miles per hour; a radius of maximum rotational speed of 150 feet; a pressure drop of three pounds per square Inch; and d rate of pressure drop of two pounds per square inch per second. Hurricanes and tropical storms also affect the site area. Because the site is 95 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico, the velocities of wind from these storms are less at the site than at the Gulf Coast. An operating
~
basis wind speed (defined as the " fastest mile" with speed at a height of 30 feet with a return period of 100 years) of 90 miles per hour is acceptable (PSAR Sections 2.3.2.2.1-wind, and 3.3.2.1; ESR Section 2.3.1).
- 25. The meteorological data from the region has been examined to select appropriate meteorolog1 cal conditions in considering the design requirements for an ultimate heat sink as recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.27, " Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Piants." The meteorological data presented is acceptable for analysis of the ultimate heat sink design concept r
.e-
. (i.e., mechanical draft cooling tower and basin) described in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR Section 9.2.5; ESR Section 2.3.1).
- 26. Sufficient
.1 formation has been provided to make an evaluation of the local meteorological conditions of importance to the safe des 1gn and siting of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site. Two years of data collected onsite is available to assess the local meteorological characteristics of the Blue Hills site as well as climatological data from three other locations (ESR Section 2.3.2; Tr. 79).
- 27. The onsite meteorological measurements program conforms to the recommendations and intent of Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs." The meteorological measurements program has produced data which, in turn, have been summarized to provide sufficient meteorological description of the site and its vicinity and serves as an acceptable basis for making atmospheric dispersion estimates for use in determining the radiological l
consequences of accidental and routine airborne releases of f
effluents from a nuclear power piant (ESR Section 2.3.3).
28 The Blue Hills site is located in a forested terrain. A meteorological nodel which considers the " sheltering" effect of f
the trees surrounding the meteorological tower in calculations of atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q's) for the site was originally proposed (PSAR Section 2.3.4.2 and Appendix 2G). These X/Q's are smaller than those calculated which do not consider the " tree sheltering" effect. As a result of the Staff evaluation of the I
I
. Applicant's meteorological model, the Staff found that the quantitative reduction of the X/Q's proposed by the Applicant due to tne " tree sheltering" effect was not warranted based upon the information availa' le on this phenomenon at this time. The Staff o
therefore did not utilize the sheltering effect in its development of acceptable X/Q estimates for the Blue Hills site (ESR Section 2.3.4 ).
If further data become available, and if the Applicant 4t its election proposes it, the Staff will again consider the modifications of its meteorological model to take into account this phenomenon.
29.
In calculations of short-term dispersion estimates, a dispersion model modified' from that described in Regulatory Guide 1.4, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors" was used by the Staff. This modified model has incorporated results from recent field experiments in atmospheric dispersion (ESR Section 2.3.4; Tr. 229-35).
- 30. Using the modified dispersion model, which considers drrectionally variable exclusion boundary distances and site specific directional frequencies of atmospheric dispersion condnions, conservative assessments of post-accident atmospheric dispersion conditions have been made for the Blue Hills site by the Staff. In the model, meteorological data for two years of onsite data collection with wind direction and speed measured at the33-footievelwereused(ESRSection2.3.4;Tr.230-34).
,m-4-.-
e-r~
v-ef=-v-r N
**t-y f ---
i 16 -
- 31. The relative concentration for the 0-2 hour time period which is exceeded no more than five percent of the time is 1.4 x 10-3 seconds per cubic meter at an exclusion distance of 1,369 meters measured from the outside edge of the containment buildings (ESR Section 2.3.4).
- 32. The relative concentration values for various time periods at the outer boundary of a Low Population Zone of 4,800 meters, calculated on a conservative basis, are a X/Q of 3
1.7 x 10-4 sec/m for 0-8 hours, a X/Q of 1.2 x 10~4 sec/m 8-24 hours, a X/Q of 4.8 x 10-5 3
sec/m for 1-4 days, and a X/Q of 1.4 x 10-5 sec/m 3
3 4-30 days (ESR Section 2.'3.4).
- 33. Average atmospheric dispersion conditions for the Blue Hills site were estimated using an atmospheric dispersion model for long-term releases based on the "Straignt-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors."
The model assumed a ground-level release only and considered the effects of airflow recirctlation and stagnation. Neglecting plume depletion and radioactive decay, the highest offsite annual average relative concentration of 4.1 x 10-5 seconds per cubic meter would occur at the east boundary 1,369 meters fron. the reactor complex (ESR Section 2.3.5).
G y
v-e s
fr
i
. )
- 34. Sufficient Information concernir,g those meteorological conditions which are of 1mportance to the safe design and siting
. ~,
of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site has been provided.
The design basis tornado parameters proposed for the site conform to the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.76, " Design Basis Tornado for Nuclear Power Plants." The Applicant's ensite meteorological program conforms to the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Program," and has produce'd two years (October 15, 1973 - October 14,1975) of onsite meteorological data which provide an acceptable basis to determine site atmospheric dispersion conditions and which were used to make both conservative and realistic estimates of atmospheric dispersion characteristics for accidental and routine gaseous releases, respectively, for the Blue Hills site (ESR Section 2.3.6).
35.
In response to a question raised at the hearing, the Board explored the meteorological dispersion characteristics at distances well beyond the low population zone. At a distance of 50 miles, the annual average X/Q is approximately two orders of magnitude lower than at the icw populetion zone, i.e., the dispersion is two orders of magnitude h1gner (Tr. 86). The Board considers that the question was adequately addressed (Tr. 34-5, 75-87,186,228-40). In any event,10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and other NRC requirements are met.
e 9
O' A C.
Hydrolooy
- 36. The Blue Hills site is located in the Mill Creek basin eight miles west southwest of the Toledo Bend Dam. The lower portion of the Toledo Bend Reservoir is between the site and the d am. When the water level is at the top of the spillway gates, the closest point of the reservoir is just over one mile from the site. The site lies on a ridge between two small creeks, Copperas and Mitchell Creeks, which are approximately a mile apart at the site. The proposed plant grade is 270 feet above mean sea level; 97 feet above the top of the dam spillway gates, more than 50 feet above the higher creek bed (Mitchell Creek) near the site (PSAR Section 2.4.1.2; ESR Section 2.4.1).
- 37. Toledo Bend Reservoir is located on the Sabine River at river mile 156.5, where the drainage area is 7,178 square miles.
The top of the dam is 185 feet above mean sea level, the top of the power pool (that portion of the reservoir used for r
hydroelectric power generation) 1s l~2 feet above mean sea level, and the tops of the gates are 173 feet above mean sea level. At elevation 172 feet above mean sea level, the reservoir covers l
182,000 acres and contains almost 4.7 million acre-feet of water.
Water from the reservoir is used for 1rrigation, municipal and industrial water supplies, hydroelectric power generation and recreation. The water supply for normal plant operation would be obtained from the Toledo Bend Reservoir (PSAR Section 2.4.1.2; ESR Section 2.4.1).
In view of the uncertainty of the probability, l
i l
I
a
.. timing, and manner of implementation of the Texas Water Plan (5, supra) '(Board Order at 5-6 and Staff's Response at 10-11), the Board finds that prior to issuance of any limited work authorization or construction permit, the current status of this Plan in regard to the Toledo Bend Water Reservoir must be examined.
- 38. The probable maximum flood elevation calculated by the Applicant for the Mill Creek basin using a conservative methodology is estimated to be 243 feet above mean sea level near the site; this is well below plant grade of 270 feet above mean sea level. Because of this large freeboard, the probable maximum flood does not constitute a threat to the Blue ' Hills site. Since no dams exist in the Mill Creek basin, the Blue Hills site is not susceptible to a dam f ailure flood. Surges and seiches on Toledo Bend Reservoir w111 not affect the site because it is more than a mile away and almost 100 feet above the normal reservoir water level. There is no other large water body near the site. Due to its inland location, the Blue Hills site is not susceptible to tsunami flooding. Relatively mild winters in the site area preclude the possib111ty of ice flooding and associated damage to l
safety-related facilities (PSAR Sections 2.4.3, 2.'4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6 and 2.4.7; ESR Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3).
l
- 39. An ultimate heat sink of the general type proposed by l
the Applicant (mechanical draft cooling towers and basins) could be designed to safely shut down and to maintain a nuclear power plant in safe shutdown for at least 30 days in the event of the loss of
. water to the plant from the Toledo Bend Reservoir (PSAR Sections 2.4.11.8,9.2.5.3; ESR Section 2.4.4; Tr.119). A specific ultimate heat sink design will be reviewed at the construction permit stage.
~
system holdup tank releasing approximately 124,000 gallons to the groundwater was evaluated. The analysis showed that all radionuclides will be below the maximum permissible concentration listed in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B at the point where Mitchell Creek leaves the site exclusion area.
In addition, there is no present or projected future use of any of the surface waters in the Mill Creek basin. There is little likelihood of contamination of potable water supplies outside the site exclusion area from an accidental release of 11guld effluents (PSAR Section 2.4.12; ESR Section 2.4.7).
- 42. The site is located in sediments of the Gulf Coastal Plain, which contain large quantities of water commonly occurring under confined conditions. The permeable sands containing the grounowater are interbedded with,less permeable clays, silts and silty clays wnich act to confine tne water in the sands.
e Groundwater beneath the site occurs in two zones. A perthed water
~
- table, 1 thin 20 feet of the surf ace, is present above localized lenticular clay interbeds. The main water zone is at a depth of 70 to 80 feet below the site. Recharge is by percolation of water flowing around the overlying lenticular clay bodies and by infiltration from Copperas Creek. Groundwater movement is to the northeast apparently toward Toledo Bend Reservoir (PSAR Sections 2.4.13.1.2, 2.4.12.2; ESR Section 2.4.8).
- 43. Nearly all the wells within 10 miles of the site extract less tnan 10 gallons per minute. There are no wells downgradient of the plant between the site and Toledo Bend Reservoir. The Applicant' states that there are no present plans to use groundwater for plar.t operation; all the water used will come from Toledo Bend Reservoir. Groundwater levels at the site are at elevations ranging from 190 to 210 feet above mean sea level, excluding the perched water tables. There is little likelihood of contanination of potable water supplies outside of the site exclusion area from an accidental release of radioactive 11guld effluents (PSAR Section 2.4.12.5; ESR Sections 2.4.8, 2.4.9).
- 44. Based on evaluation of the present groundwater levels, topography at the site and the removal of the higher perched water table during construction, the proposed design basis groundwater level of 215 feet above mean sea level is conservative and acceptable for use in the design of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site (ESR Section 2.4.8).
m w
-2,--
-y m-w.
.. 45. The flood analysis for the Blue Hills site meets the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants," and flooding does not constitute a threat to the site (ESR Section 2.4.9).
D.
Seismology and Geology
- 46. The seismology and geology review of this site addressed the geologic history of the region including physlographic, 11thologic, stratigraphic and tectonic settings as well as the subregional and site-specific geology and seismology.
Investigations have been sufficient to adequately assess site i
geologic conditions in accordance with " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," Appendix A, to 10 CFR Part 100.
- 47. The tectonic province approach, as described in 10 CFR Part 100 Appendix A, was followed to determine the vibratory ground motion corresponding to the safe shutdown earthquake. The selected safe shutdown earthquake acceleration of 0.139 represents an app opriate and conservative reference acceleration for seismic design of structures at the Blue Hills site (PSAR Section 2.5.2.10; ESR Section 2.5).
- 48. The site is located within the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province which is the onshore portion of the Gulf Coast Geosyncline which extends ynder the Gulf of Mexico to the edge of the continental snelf. The seolmentary deposits in the 4
.. region range in age from Jurassic to Recent and consist mainly of unconsolidated sands, 511ts, clays, limestone and chalk with minor amounts of salt. The sediments form a wedge that diverges seaward, exceeding 50,000 feet in total thickness. At least 20,000 feet of sediments underlie the Blue Hills site. Due to consolidation of the thick sedimentary section, the general dip of the strata increases gulfward at slightly greater angles than the present land surface. Differences in resistance to erosion of the sediments resulted in a series of linear topographic belts which are parallel to the Gulf Coastline. The more resistant formations form landward f acing cuestas with relief up to 400 feet or more.
Salt domes which are comm'on to the east Texas region are not known to occur closer than approximately 55 miles from the site (PSAR Sections 2.5.1.1.4.3.5 and 2.5.1.1.6.6; ESR 2.5.1).
49 In the site vicinity, there may be taults (none is known to exist within a five mile radius of the site) of nontectonic origin characterized by steep, near surf ace dips which become less steep with depth and eventually pass into bedding planes. Another characteristic of these faults is tne thicker strata on the downthrown side, where accumulation occurred simultaneously with fault movement. They are referred to as growth f aults and are predominantly of low stress, since they are shallow rooted. They typically do not develop large strain and sudden stress releases which are characteristic of damaging earthquakes, and therefore, are not considered to present a. hazard to the proposed site (PSAR Section 2.5, 2.5.1.1.4.3.3; ESR Section 2.5.2).
-em-
. 50. There are no geologic f aults or other tectonic structures that present a potential hazard to the proposed site (PSAR Sections 2.5.2.2, 2.5.2.8; ESR Section 2.5.2).
- 51. The Blue H111s site is located in the eastern part of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. The Mississippi Alluvial Plain divides the Gulf Coastal Plain nrovince into east and west segments. As a result of a comprehensive investigatory program, it was concluded that no deformational zones, such as folds, f15sures, slips, f aults and shears, have been found at the site and the nearest known salt dome is approximately 55 miles south of the site.
In addition, no oil, gas, or other mineral extraction has been or 1s presently 'being conducted with a five-mile radius of the site, and groundwater extraction in the vicinity of the site is not sufficient to cause subsurf ace subsidence. Also, there is no record of suosurf ace mining or other similar underground workings in the area which might create a subsidence problem at the site. All lineaments recognized in a ten-mile radius of the site on snall-scale infrared and large-scale panchromatic photography were invest 1 gated In the field and no indication of fault offset was observed (PSAR Section 2.5.2.1, 2.5.3).
- 52. There are no geologic structures or conditions resulting from man's activities, such as mining or oil extraction, that present a hazard to the site.
In addition, the problem of subsidence is not a f actor at th.e Blue Hiils site (ESR Section 2.5.3).
. 53. A conservative value of 0.13g is proposed for the safe shutdown earthquake acceleration level. The intensity corresponding to a mean acceleration of 0.13g is VII (MH). Based on a detailed review of the tectonic province, earthquake aclinity and geologic structures surrounding the site, earthquakes as large as this have not been observed in the historical record of seismicity for the Gulf Coastal Plain, except in the area of 'the 4
Southern Cordilleran Froat, the complex region at the intersection of the Ouachita Tectonic Belt, the Wichita Structural System, and the northern Mississippi Embayment.
Neither the high seismicity nor the structural complexity found in these areas where large earthquakes have occurred is present in the vicinity of the Blue Hills site. For the safe shutdown earthquake, 0.139 represents an appropriate and conservative reference acceleration for seismic design of structures at the Blue Hills site. Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," response spectra scaled to this maximum acceleration for the design of a nuclear power plant will be used at the Blue Hills site 4nd this is acceptable (PSAR Sections 2.5.2.10, 3.7.1.1; ESR Sections 2.5.4,2.5.5,2.5.6).
54.
It is proposed to use 0.079 for the acceleration level corresponding to the operating basis earthquake, which is representative of intensity VI (MM). Considering the low seismicity of the Gulf Coast Seismic Zone, the proposed operating basis earthquake is conservative. Regulatory Guide 1.60, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,"
(
.. response spectra scaled to this maximun acceleration of 0.079 for the operating basis earthquake will be used for the design of a nuclear power plant at the Blue Hills site and this is acceptable (PSAR Sections 2.5.2.11, 3.7.1.1; ESR Section 2.5.7).
- 55. The geologic investigations and the laboratory analyses performed on the soil specimens, including determinations of shear strength, consolidation, dynamic properties, and seismic resistance to earthquake effects are adequate to serve as the basis for the design of safety-related plant structures (ESR Section 2.5.8).
- 56. The plan for the support of safety-related sturetures is uncomplicated and accepta'ble. Upper clay and upper sand strata will be excavated. Deep plant foundations will rest directly on or in the middle sand stratum, i.e., the third sequence.
Shallower plant foundations will rest on compacted granular backf t ll supported by the middle sand stratum. The proposed foundation design is based on an envelope of dimensions, structure depths, loadings, and stated assumptions. Therefore, at the 1
construction permit application stage, the Applicant will validate the applicability of the foundation design to the specific nuclear power plant design proposed as follows:
The Applicant will submit for NRC review and approval of its criteria for construction control during (a) excavation and backfilling of the foundations, (b) remedial foundation treatment, (c) proofrolling of the foundation, and (d) removal of unsuitable materia's from the middle sand stratum. Standard Penetration Test data in the middle k
.. sand strata will be provided for review as comparative plots of blowcount and effective pressure (ESR Section 2.5.9).
- 57. The large mat foundations supporting plant structures impose relatively low net bearing pressures on the structural-fill and soils of the middle sand stratum. Table 2C-3 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report indicates that net dynamic bearing pressures due to the safe shutdown earthquake are also relatively low, and that the site soils have adequate bearing capacity (ESR Section 2.5.10).
59 The liquef action potential of the middle sand stratum was analytically evaluated by comparing the computed dynamic stresses induced in the site soils by the safe shutdown earthquake to the resistance of these same soils to cyclic stresses during tests in the laboratory. The assumptions used in the analysis are conservative, the margins of safety for the various conditions are adequate, and risk of liquef action due to seismic effects is remote at the Blue Hills site (PSAR Section 2.5.4.8.4; ESR Section 2.5.12). Based on the field and laboratory tests conducted, tne dynamic properties of the soils used in the analysis are reasonable for tnis site and are acceptable (ESR Section 2.5.13).
E 4
v r---
s
. 60. Stability analyses for permanent slopes surrounding tne proposed plant area have been performed. None of the slopes is, Itself, seismic Category I.
All slopes will be constructed at two norizontal to one vertical. The location of these slopes with respect to the proposed location of the safety-related structures is such that slope failures would not endanger these structures.
Slope stability considerations at the site are acceptable (PSAR Section 2.5.5; ESR Section 2.5.14).
E.
Review by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeauards
~
- 61. The Advisory Comittee en Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) completed its review of the request of. the Gulf States Utilities Company to determine the suitability of the Blue Hills site for a nuclear power plant at its 203rd meeting on March 10-12, 1977, in Washington, D. C.
Members of the ACRS Subcomittee visited the site on January 28, 1977, and a Subcommittee meeting was held the same day in Jasper, Texas. The ACRS report fnr the Blue Hills l
l Early Site Review 1s dated March 16, 1977. The report conc!udes that subject to the coments and recommendations referenced in the report, the ACRS believes that adequate information 15 available to conclude that the Blue Hills site is suitable for a light water reactor nuclear power plant of the general type and size currently being proposed for other sites in the United States (Early Site Review, NUREG-0131, Supplement 1, Section 18.0, June, 1977).
l l
i
. F.
Common Defense and Security
- 62. The activities to be conducted under the construction permit will be within the jurisdiction of the United States. All of tne Applicant's directors and principal officers are cit 1zens of the United States, and the Applicant is not owned, dominated or controlled by any alien, foreign corporation, or a foreign e activities to be conducted do not involve any government.
restricted data, but tne Applicant has agreed to safeguard any such data which might become involved in accordance w.th the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50. The Applicant will rely upon obtaining fuel as it is needed from sources of supply available for civilian purposes, so that no diversion of special nuclear material for military purposes is lavolved (Applicant's Exhibit 2 at 4-7).
Issuance of construction permits for the Blue Hills Units Nos.1 and 2 will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
G.
National Environmental Policy Act Requirements and the Environmental Impact Statement i
I
- 63. As required by 10 CFR Part 51, the Applicant submitted an Environmental Report. The Environmental Report, as amended, was received into evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 3.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and based on the environmental lnformation submitted by the i
e n,
me e,
--,wm o
w rw v
=
y-e----
y
. Applicant in the Environmental Report, as supplemented, (Applic' ant's Exhibit 3) and on its independent analysis and review, the Staff prepared a Draft Environmental Statement (DES) which was issued in June,1977. By a Notice of Availability published June 9,1977, the public was invited to comment on the DES (42 Fed Reg. 29571). Copies of the DES were also provided to appropriate Federal, Texas and Louisiana and local agencies for their ccuments (FSES, at iv; Tr. 249-51).
In July,1978, the Staff published its Final Site Environmental Statement (FSES) (43 Fed. Reg. 31997 (July 24,1978)) which includes, among other things, the full text of all commants received with respect to the DES (Appendix A) as well as the Staff's responses to those connents (Chapter 11). The FSES was received into evidence as Staff Exhibit 7, 7A and 78.
In the preparation o' its environmental 1mmpact statement, the Staff had discussions wich a number of Loutstana and Texas state, local and regional officials (FSES Section 1.2).
- 64. The FSES, as amended by the record of this proceeding, fully describes, as necessary to the Applicant's requested findings, the plant site, certain major systems of the propo;ed f acility, the environmental effects of site preparation, plant and transmission line construction, certain of the environmental effects of plant operation, the Applicant's preconstruction environmental monitoring program, alternative site and subsystem Considerations.
i
. 65. The Staff concluded on the basis of its analysis and evaluat on, set forth in the FSES, including the consideration of alternatives that, subject to certain conditions for the protection of the environment, site G (Blue Hills) is a suitable location for a nuclear station of the general size and type described in the Applicant's environmental report and the environmental statement (FSES at v). The Applicant has agreed to supply the additional information and abide by the environmental conditions contained in Paragraph 7 of the Summary and Conclusions and Sections 4.5.1, 4.5.2 and 10.5 of the FSES. The Board, on the basis of its consideration of the entire record, concurs that these are appropriate enn'ditions to be imposed in the Partial Initial Decision. Further, the Board finds that the FSES as supplemented and corrected by the testimony and ev1dence presented in this proceeding, is a comprehensive and adequate review and evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the Applicant's proposed findings relating to plant construction and operation.
- 66. The site has been adequately investigated and described, including current geology, hydrology, meteorology, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, water use, regional demography, community characteristics, its economy and historical and archaeological sites, and national landmarks and land use of the site of the Blue Hills Station and the surrounding area, including road, rail, transmission and wat,er supply corridors (ER).
l l
i
--+e
-y,y
+
w 9
. 67. The plant cooling systems will operate on a closed cycle basis, " utilizing round mechanical-draft cooling towers. Through buried ploellnes, the Toledo Bend Reservoir will provide the source of makeup water and other water usage for plant operation.
Similarly, buried pipelines will be used to discharge all plant effluents to the Toledo Bend Reservoir (ER Section 3.4.2.1).
- 68. The nuclear serv 1ce water system will consist of a water storage reservoir, cooling towers, and other equipment necessary to dissipate all residual and excess heat from the reactor and associated equipment. A circulating water blowdown will be maintained to prevent excessive salt buildup and scaling in the circulated water systems '(ER Section 3.4.1.1; FSES Sections 3.4.2, 3.4.3).
- 69. The proposed intake site is on a point of sparsely vegetated land extending into the Texas side of the reservoir approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) upstream of the Toledo Bend Reservoir Dam (Tr. 94-7,222). Makeup water will be pumped from this location to the plant site (approximately 11.9 km or 7.4 miles) through underground pipes. Cooling tower blowdown from the i
circulating water system and other plant systems will be l
discharged into a discharge system collection sump and then pumped to the Toledo Bend Reservoir through underground pipelines. To the extent possible, the discharge pipelines will share the same right-of-way as the intake water pipes (ER Sections 3.4.3.2, 3.4.3.5, 5.4.4; FSES Sections 3.4.4,3.4.5).
r a
4 l
~
o.
33 -
- 70. State of-the-art technology exists and equipment is available such that light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors of the general types being proposed and licensed, can be designed to provide effluents which meet the dose design objectives set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.
Compliance with Appendix I will be considered at the construction permit stage (FSES Section 3.5).
- 71. The construction and operation of the Blue Hills Station will result in the discharge of chemical wastes to the Toledo Bend Reservoir. The chemical wastes result from (1) the concentrating effect on the dissolved solids in the intake water because of cooling tower evaporat:en and subsequent blowdown, (2) the addition of chemicals to 'the various systems during operation, which are eventually released at a controlled rate into the effluent stream, and (3) construction wastes. During operation, all waste water from the station, including cooling tower blowdown, will be directed to the discharge system collection
~
s ump. After being monitored for pH, conductivity, temperature, and chlorine level, the waste water will be discharged to Toledo Bend Reservoir (ER, Fig. 3.6-1).
The discharge from the facility can be carried out by the proposed system in compliance with all applicable state and Federal regulations on the discharge of chemicals, oil and other wastes (ER Section 3.6.2.1; FSES Section 3.6.1; Tr. 100-3).
- 72. Makeup water for tne cooling towers will be supplied from the Toledo Bend Reservoir and the blowdown will be discharged to the Reservoir.
Sulfuric acid will be added to the circulating t
-e w-
-=-
w y
. water to control bicarbonate alkalinity and prevent scale formation. To control biological growth in the circulating water system, chlorine will be added periodically. Total residual chlorine will be monitored and the system designed so that discharge to Toledo Basin Reservoir can be limited to 0.2 mg/ liter total residual chlorine; actual limits will be set by the cognizant regulatory authority having jurisdiction over such releases (ER Sections 3.6.2.2, 3.6.2.3 ; FSES Section 3.6.1.2; Tr.
100-3).
- 73. A sewage treatment plant will be installed in the early construction stage. The basic treatment plant will be supplemented with temporary facilities to handle any excess flow.
The treated effluent from the plant will be discharged into a leach field during construction and startup of the Blue H111s Station Unit 1.
During operation, the treated effluent will be discharged into the plant outf all. The treated effluent from this
~
plant will comply with applicable discharge standards (ER Section 3.7.1; FSES Section 3.6.2.1).
74.
The two diesel generators will provide a standby power source for each unit and will be tested at least monthly. The pollutant levels resulting from this source will meet the applicable standards. Solid waste, other than radioactive, will be disposed of offsite by a commercial contractor or onsite by metnods that meet all local and state standards (ER Sections 3.7.5, 3.7.6; FSES Sections 3.6.2.2,3.6.2.3).
i
- 75. The electrical transmission system proposed for the Blue Hills Station includes approximately 200 miles of 500-kv lines (ER, Section 3.9; Tr. 91). To provide power for construction, about 11 km (6.7 miles) of the 500-kv line will have underbuilt provisions for two 138/230-kv lines. Three individual routes are proposed by the Applicant to incorporate the Blue Hills Station power into the existing electrical network. The routes are fully described in the ER. Two of the routes will terminate at substations and the third will tie in with an existing 500-kv transmission system. Most of the land (i.e., approximately 90%)
traversed by the transmission routes is currently commerical forest, and approximately 52% of the proposed lines parallel existing rights-of-way. All lines will originate at the station switchyard within the property boundaries (ER Section 3.9.1; FSES Section 3.7).
- 76. An approximately 20-mile railroad spur to connect the Blue Hills Station with the nearby Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe l
railroad (ER, Fig. 2.1-3) is proposed. This spur extends north i
then west from the site, across generally undulating terrain that is primarily forest with only a small amount of pasture (ER Section 10.10.1.1; FSES Section 3.8.1).
- 77. The proposed makeup and discharge p1peline runs easterly from the site for approximately 8.5 miles to the intake and discharge locations on the Toledo Bend Reservoir (ER, Appendix F, Fig. 11.4:1). The corridor requ,1res approximately 170 acres of I
land, including approximately 15 acres within the property l
t
\\
.. boundary.
Forests are primarily upland types with a variable mixture cf pines and hardwoods. Most of tne area has been or is scheduled for logging (ER Section 10.2.6.26; FSES Section 3.8.2).
- 78. The proposed two-lane asphalt concrete access road extends north from FM 255 for approximately three miles to the site (ER, Appendix F, Fig. II.3:2). About one-third of the road is within Gulf States' property. Construction of the right-of-way will require approximately 40 acres of land, but only about 37 acres of construction clearing because of the overlap with the existing road (ER Section 10.10.2.1; FSES Sectica 3.8.3).
- 79. Site preparation will involve clearing of the land.
Marketable timber will be remcved and the remaining trees and brush will be used for erosion control or will be burned in accordance with state and local regulations. That which cannot be burned will be buried in designated areas. During construction, soil will be excavated and used for site fill. Dust resulting from construction activities will be controlled by water trucks, l
sprinkler systems or chemicals and these measures will adequately f
minimize this impact. Herbicides will be used to restrict the regrowth of vegetation on shelled and paved roads. Pesticides, if used, will meet appropriate state requirements. Noise resulting from site preparation and construction will be within acceptable I
-anges and noise impacts will not be significant. Because of the densely fore,sted characteristics of the site area and the remoteness of the site, visual impact will be negligible.
4
~
. Construction of the railroad spur, access roads and water intake and discharge structures and pipelines.and transmission lines will likewise require permanent commitments of land, and require clearing of the rights-of-way (ER Section 4.1; FSES Section 4.1).
- 80. No natural landmarks listed in the Federal Register are within five miles of the proposed site. The proposed plant site has no known major archaeological significance; however, four archaeological localities were identified by the Applicant. The Applicant has stated that an archaeologist will be available for consultation through the construction period should any additional archaeological discoveries be made. Conditions for preservation of the four localttles and any future archaeological sites are presented in FSES Section 4.5.2 (ER Section 2.3, FSES Sections 2.9.1,2.9.2,2.9.3,4.5.2).
- 81. The transmission system proposed for the Blue Hills Station includes approximately 200 miles of 500-kv transmission I
lines connecting the power plant with the Nona and Rivtrin substations and with the Gulf States Line 559. R1ghts-of-way for these transmission lines will require about 4,300 acres of land.
About 90% of the total length 1s through forested land, 7% is through pasture land, and the remainder includes transportation and water crossings and resident.al and recreational land. L'and l
currently used for grazing, farming and recreation will only be temporarily affected by construction activities and will remain available for such use af ter construction.
No herbicides or pesticides will be used,1n clearing vegetation.
Cleared forest i
. will represent a loss in annual timber production of approximately 3
400,000 ft / year of pine wood. Approximately 52% of the total length of proposed routes parallel existing railroad, pipeline or transmission line routes. Because of existing rural roads, no new access roads will be required. The Blue Hills-Nona transmission route crosses about 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the Big Thicket National Preserve near the Jack Gore Baygall Unit.
However, by paralleling an existing pipeline right-of-way, the impact will be minimal. No historical or archaeological sites will be significantly affected by the proposed rights-of-way (ER Sections 3.9.1, 4.2, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.3.3; FSES Section 4.1.3).
At the time of the construction permit application, results obtained from the surveys of the proposed transmission line routes to determine the presence of any proposed or nominated endangered species or threatened plant species or habitat critical to their existence will be submitted (FSES Sections 4.3.1.2,10.5).
~
- 82. The principal construction impacts on surf ace water and groundwater will be those associated with construction of the intake and discharge structures and with relocation of an unnamed tributary of Mitchell Creek. Construction of the proposed makeup and discnarge structures will necessitate the disturbance of approximately 1,000 ft. of shoreline and the removal of an 3
estimated 50,000 yd of material, of which approximately 82%
will be dredgings. The Applicant has stated that water used for construction of the main power plant will be provided by a well field consisting of three wells, each with a 200 gpm capacity.
i
a 4
- The Applicant has stated that only one well will be used to meet normal honstruction requirements, and the three will be available for the emergency fire protection supply. Dewatering of groundwater seepage during excavation will be minimal because the deepest point of the proposed excavation will be approximately 15 feet above the water table. Construction of the plant and associated onsite f acilities (excluding. transmission corridors) will involve clearing about 366 acres of forested land and some erosion will be unavoidable. Because of past land-use practices, the nature of the soils, rough topography and the drainage pattern, strict control procedures will be necessary to minimize The Applicant h'as stated that a detalled erosion control erosion.
program will be submitted for Staff approval prior to or at the time that application for construction permits is made (ER Sections 4.1.1.2, 4.1.2.2; FSES Sections 4.2,4.3.1.1,4.5.2).
83. The transmission lines will have the greatest visual
~
intrusion where they cross residential or recreational areas; however, these effects and others, e.g., those due to noise and avian mortality, are expected to be small and acceptable (ER Section 3.9.8; FSES Section 5.5.1.2).
- 84. Tne range of socioeconomic impacts of construction has been identified (Tr. 60-2,98-100,196-214,218-9) and is adequate to permit anticipatory planning by the affected areas. The Applicant has agreed to begin early planning discussions with local officials and regional planners to discuss methods of limiting the adverse impacts that may occur as a result of plant w
.. construction. The Applicant shall submit for NRC review a report of the results of these discussions at least six months prior to the time that application for construction permits is made and at that time transmit copies of such report to the affected governmental agencies and regional planning agencies. This report shall contain a statement of the Applicant's position with respect to the following:
planning and mitigation funds, provisions for 1
planning expertise, mobile home zoning ordinances, prepayment of taxes and as to making portions of the site available for public use (E.R Sections 8.1, 8.2, Append 1x E; FSES Sections 4.4, 4.5.2).
- 85. Present land use on the site is primarily forest production (FSES 4-1).
About 148 ha (366 acres), or 12% of the 1220 ha (3,016 acres) site will be altered from their present use (i.e., timber management) by site preparation and onsite corridor construction (excluding transr11ssion corridors). Of this, approximately 50 ha (123 acres) will be permanently committed
~
during the lifetime of the plant (FSES 4-1).
Since this acreage represents only a minute fraction of the available forest land in this region, removal of the designated land will not have a significant impact on local or regional land-use patterns (ER Tacle 4.1-1; FSES Section 5.1.1).
- 86. Orif t resulting from operation of the mechanical-draft cooling towers contains dissolved and suspended materials that will be deposited on the landscape in a pattern dependent upon the prevailing meteorological condit1ons. Land-use impacts from this drif t deposition on vegetation are expected to be minimal. No i
i
1,
additional ground-level fogging or icing will result from the cooling tower operation (FSES Sections 5.1.1, 5.3.1.2 and 5.5.1.1).
During certain weather conditions, the cooling tower plume will be visible for several kilometers. The nearest airports, located 17 miles south and 10 miles west southwest of the site, are not expected to be adversely affected by the plumes (ER Section 5.1.7; FSE3 Section 5.1.1).
- 87. Operation of the proposed electrical transmission system will require the periodic maintenance of approximately 200 miles of 500-ky transmission line rights-of-way.
Existing rig'.its-of-way will be paralleled for 52% of the total length. The approx 1mately 4,300 acres of new land required is presently about 91% forested and will be replaced and maintained in a grass, herbaceous and woody shrub stage by a three-to five-year mowing cycle. The amount and use of land is not expected to significantly affect overall land-use in the area. Grazing, farming and recreational land crossed by the transmission lines will remain available for their respective uses (ER Section 3.9.8, 5.6; FSES Section 5.1.2).
- 88. All rare and endangered species are available externally to the site and their populations are not expected to be significantly affected by construction and operation (Tr. 64-6).
A comprehensive forest management program including consideration l
of the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat will be furnished for the site at or prior to the time that application for construction permits is made (Tr. 93). Construction activity on the I
transmission lines, access road, railroad spur and water pipelines will be monitored to ensure that the affects of construction on the red-cockaded woodpecker are considered. The route of the railroad spur will be adjusted to minimize, to the exteat practicable, impact to bog areas. Overall, the impacts on species populations from the reduction in forest habitat caused by construction are expe:ted to be minimal (FSES Sections 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2).
- 89. Loss of reservoir water resulting from evaporation and drift losses from the proposed mechanical-draft towers is not expected to affect any other reservoir-water usage. Although there will be chemical discharges, the discharges from the station to the reservoir will not significantly affect any present or known future recreational or consumptive uses of the Toledo Bend Reservoir or lower Sabine River Basin (ER Responses 5.8 (p. R-108!
and 8.2, (p. R-112); FSES Section 5.2.1).
- 90. Since the proposed Blue Hills Station is located in a remote area and there are no major groundwater users near the site, changes in groundwater quality and availability due to plant operation are not ' anticipated. The Applicant has stated that wells used for construction water supply will be capped. However, these wells would not be used for potable water consumption, demineralized water makeup and fire emergency.
If so, the use of these wells not be expected to signficantly affect other groundwater usage in the area (FSES Section 5.2.2).
='
- 91. The heat dissipation system presently proposed by the Applicant for the Blue Hills Station will consist of a closed-loop cooling system with mechanical-draft cooling towers. At full rated load, a small anount of heat will be released to the Toledo Bend Reservoir as cooling tower blowdown, and substantially all of the waste heG will be dissipated to the atmosphere. The environmental effects of operation of this system will be those associated with cooling tower blowdown (thermal and chem 1 cal effluents discharged to the reservoir) and cooling tower effcts (such as drift deposition and ground-level fogging and icing) (FES Section 5.3). A potential exists for background total dissolved solids buildup above required levels during periods when the reservoir is stratified because of insufficient reservoir circulation and mixing between the hypolimnion and epillmnion.
The Applicant should analyze breaching the Cofferdam No. 3 to reduce the stratification potential (FSES Sections 5.3.3,5.3.4).
~
- 92. The proposed discharge system consists of a multiport submerged diffuser. The plant effluents will have to be discharged in such a manner as,to comply with all applicable Federal and state requirements. While the discharge from tne facility will take place in the State of Texas, inasmuch as the discharge structure will be located near the old Sabine River channel, the boundary between Texas and Louisiana, it is possible that waters within Louisiana may be affected (Tr. 252-4). Because the present water quality requirements of the two states in the Toledo Bend Reservoir are nearly identical, there would appear to i
/
-M-be no conflict. Secondly, both the Staff and Applicant have shown that effluents discharged into the Toledo Bend Reservoir will be diluted to required levels within a mixing zone which extenas relatively short distances,1.e., less than one hundred feet, from the discharge port. Thus, a relatively small volume and/:r area of the reservoir would be affected. Lastly, at the appropriate time, both Texas and Loutstana would have an opportunity to participate in the standards setting for discharges from the Station. See Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Sections 401(a)(1) and (2), and 402. The discharge of chlorine in compliance with governing regulations will not result in any adverse impacts on the aquatic organisms in the Toledo Bend Reservoir and downstream of the Toledo Bend Dam. Sanitary discharges will also be in compliance with appropriate requirements. The impact of discharges is expected to be minimal (FSES Sections 5.3.3,5.5.2.2).
- 93. The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, o' trradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the NRC report entitled, " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants." The environmental effects of such transportation as contained in Table S-4 to 10 CFR Part 51 have been taken into l
account in the environmental impact analysis of the Blue Hills Station (FSES Sections 5.4.4 and 7.2).
l
s
?
- 94. The environmental 1mpact of the uranium foal cycle has been taken into account in the environmental impact analysis of the Blue Hills Station (FSES Section 5.6).
- 95. The population in the Blue 11111s region will increase by approximately 700 persons when operations begin. Of these, approximately 200 will be enployed in plant operations, while the remainder will compose the secondary labor fecce and f amily members of the work force. Regional income 'elli be increased by,
the presence of the primary &nd secondary labor force employed in the Blue Hills region. Retail sales are also expected to increase as a result of the new population doing business in the region (ER Appendix E; FSES Section 5.7.2).
- 96. An adequate monitoring program tc determine the circulation process in the lower basin of the Toledo Bend Reservoir was conducted to serve as a baseline to assess the physical effects of '.ne proposed cooling system. The program provided:
(1) ( etal:3d data on the bathymetry and physiographic I
features c-J the lower basin; (2) detailed current profiles at selected stations; (3) temperature structure during the late summer and early stages of fall mixing; and (4) seasonal variation of temperature structures. In addition, a special field study was implemented to determine the dispersion characteristics of the lower reservoir basin by a long-term fluorescent dye release at the site of the proposed blowdown discharge (ER Appendix 0; FSES Section 6.1.1).
i
_q.
97.
Subject to the conduct of a Preconstruction Supplemental Monitoring Program recomended by the Staff in the FSES, the baseline aquatic monitoring program is adequa' a (ER Appendix F,Section IV; FSES Section 6.1.5.2).
An offsite preoperational radiological monitoring program to provide for measurement of background radiation levels ud radioactivity in the plant environs will be reviewd at the construction permit stage. The preoperational program, which provides a necessary basis for the operational radiologia1 monitoring program, will also permit the ~
Applicant to train personnel, and to evaluate procedures, equipment and techniques. The program will be initiated two years prior to operation of the facility (FSES Section 6.1.2).
- 98. Adequate baseline studies of surface waters and groundwater have been performed and an adequate onsite preoperational meteorougical program has been conducted. This baseline terrestrial monitoring program is deemed to be I
satisfactory. Tne preoperational terrestrial monitoring program will be evaluated at the construction permit stage (ER Section 2.5, 2.6, Appendix F, Sections II and III; FSES Sections 6.1.3, 6.1.5).
- 99. The Applicant plans essentially to continue the preoperational offsite radiological monitoring program during the operating period. However, refinements may be made in the program to reflect changes in land-use or preoperational monitoring experience. Detailed information on the thermal, meteorological, i'
i
.- 1 nydrological, ecolog1 cal and chemical operational monitoring programs will be provided in the operating license application (ER Section 6.2.1.2; FSES Section 6.2).
100. The t:nvironmental impacts of postulated accidents involving radioactive material during operation and during transportation have been adequately considered in the environmental impact analysis (FSES Sections 7.1 and 7.2).
101. The need for power from any units proposed for construction at the Blue Hills site will be evaluated at the construction permit phase (Foreword to ER Section 1.0).
102. The review of alternative energy sources will be made at the construction permit phase (FSES Section 9.1; Tr. 67-68).
103. The Applicant's service area extends 400 miles across Louisiana and into East Texas, and is subdivided into three j
divisions of major power demand:
the Baton Rouge area, the Lake
~
Charles area and the East Texas area (ER Fig. 9.2-4).
The Applicant stated that a comparison of the three areas showed that each area has conditions suitable for nuclear plants (ER 9.2.1.5.7).
The Applicant noted that, since the Louisiana power demands are expected to be met by the River Bend Nuclear Power Station near Baton Rouge and two additional coal units near Lake Charles, and since further load demand is anticipated in the East Texas-West Louisiana area, s1 ting a plant elsewhere to serve the East Texas-West Louisiana area could lead to economic and reliability problems generated by longer transmission lines (ER t
42, p. R-19; Tr. 173). The Applicant conducted a comprehensive well-i
i
)
. documented site selection process within the East Texas-West Loutstana part of its service area. This process considered, among other f actors, site area characteristics, geology, tectonics, seismology, population, power transmission, land use, water availability, transportation and air quality.
It identified the Blue Hills site (Site G) as the optimal location for a nuclear power station, with proper mitigation measures, among 49 sites considered in the East Texas and Western Louisiana (Western region), that area being selected on the basis of load demand.
(Sites outside the Applicant's service territory were among those examined (Tr. 220).) At least two specific sites, among these 49 sites, in the Central and Lake Charles region of Applicant's service area, i.e., outside the Western region, were considered (ER at Fig. 9.2-9 and 9.2-4).
Moreover, the Atchafalya River on the eastern portion of the Gulf States service area region was considered and rejected as a result of safety and environmental considerations (ER at R-57-R-58). Transmitting power from the eastern or central portion to the projected power demand in East Texas would necessitate the construction of many additional miles of transmission lines, increasing environmental impacts and capital expenditures (Id. and ER 9.2.1.5.2).
As a result of the initial review by the Applicant, 35 of the 49 sites were eliminated from further consideration. The second phase of the 1
site analysis eliminated eight additional sites based upon the distance from existing transmission lines and in-depth geological and environmental analysis. The third phase of the site analysis i
m
. consisted of-a detailed investigation of six remaining sites, one of which was examined at the request of the Staff. The sites were evaluated with respect to their ability to utilize nuclear, oil and coal generating facilities. Review of the site selection process employed by the Applicant within this area did not reveal any sites there that are obviously superior to the one selected by the Applicant (ER Section 9.3.4; FSES Section 9.2.5; Tr.173-7).
The Staff rev1ewed the information provided by the Applicant as provided in 10 CFR Section 2.101(a-1)(1) and the Staff personally visited the six candidate sites selected for in-depth analysis (FSES Section 9.2.5).
No major flaw was found in the site, and the site appears to be a good site for a nuclear facility if appropriate mitigation action, particularly in regard to socio-economic 1mpacts, is taken before a construction permit is issued (Tr. 173). Thus, we find that the site selection process for the East Texas-West Louisiana area included nethods, criteria and considerations given to alternative sites that are acceptable and in full compitance with NEPA and NRC requ1rements.
Alternatives to the heat dissipation system selected were also considered and it was concluded that the circular mechanical-draft towers were optimal. Among the alternative heat dissipation
- I systems considered by the Staff, no system is superior to the ii
- I mechanical-draft circular cooling towers selected for use by the Applicant (ER Section 10.1; FSES Section 9.3.1.9).
i k
.
- 104. The Applicant carefully considered alternatives with regaro to railroad right-of-way, access road, makeup and discharge water lines and transmission line corridors prior to selecting the propose.d routes and on an overall basis, no superior routes to those selected by the Applicant have been identified (ER Sections 10.3, 10.9, 10.10.1, 10.10.2; FSES Section 9.3).
105. Among the alternatives considered, the proposed intake (site E), from the,tandpoint of overall suitability and the physical location and design of the discharge system in relationship to the Toledo Bend Re.servoir is such as to min.imize environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the facility and are acceptable (ER Section 10.2.7; FSES Sections 5.5.2, 9.3.2; Tr. 94-7, 222).
106.
Inasmuch as the final design of the intake structure has not been completed, review of the actual design and its impact on the Toledo Bend Reservoir will be deferred to the construction permit review phase. The Applicant will submit a report assessing entrainment and impingement associated with the intake structere l
as well as tha feasibility of an intake structure located offshore in a deeper region of the reservoir at or prior to the time that application for construction permits is made (FSES Section 5.5.2.1).
l 107.
Irreversible and irretrievable comitments of resources have been adequately discussed and analyzed in the environmental impact analysis. The ultimate cost benefit balancing process will be deferred until the construction permit phase. However, the i
I
4 e
. comprehensive analyses conducted by the Staff and Applicant have revealed nothing that would preclude use of the Blue Hills site for a nuclear power station. Neither have the Staff's analyses identified on an overal'. basis alternatives to the site or proposed plant features, including transmission lines, railroad and road access, intake and discharge pipelines, discharge system and proposed intake site E that are superior to those selected by the Applicant.
108. When the actual design of the Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2 is developed and the Applicant desires to proceed with his application for construction permits, the Applicant will provide, among other items, the following to the Staff:
(1) An evaluation, with necessary supporting information, of the similarities and differences between the actual station design and the station design evaluated in the Final Site Environmental Statement. This evaluation will permit a deter-mination of whether the impact of the actual station design will o will not be significantly greater than or different t.'om the impacts described in the Final Site Environmental Statement.
(2)
If the actual plant design will produce an impact or an activity not previously or adequately eval-uated in the Final Site Environmental Statement, i
y m
.e e
r-w,
the Applicant will prepare an environmental evaluation of the design change or new activity.
When the evaluation indicates that such design change or activity may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not previously or adequately evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in the Final Site. Environmental Statement, the Applicant shall provide a wr1tten evaluation of such design change or activity to the Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis for review.
(3) Sufficient information to permit evaluation of the need-for-station and consideration of alternative energy sources, based on a specific date for com-mencement of commercial operation and revised time sensitive information (e.g., population growth load forecasts, cost estimates, etc.). Unless significant new information is obtained that substantially affects the conclusions reached on alternate sites, no new evaluation of this subject will be required.
(4) A comprehensive evaluation of the multilevel siphon intake system (See Final Site Environmental State-ment Section 9.3.2) with fish-return f acility, unless the state-of-tho-art is such that it is appropriate to review this alternative.
i i
1
. (5) An evaluation of the possibility of making a brea::h in Coffer Dam No. 3 to reduce the potential for total dissolved solids (TDS) buildup in Toledo Bend Reservoir.
(5) ' Data on the distribution and seasonal abundance of ichthyoplankton, adult fish, and the Asiatic clam (Corbicula sp.) in the open-water regions of Toledo Be.nd Reservoir, and a proposed method for control of the latter.
(7)
Data on the occurrence of striped bass spawning in Toledo Band Reservoir.
(8)
Quantitative data on the suspended solids, bed load sediments, and periphyton cm.:nities in Copperas, Mitchell, and Mill Creeks.
(9) A detailed erosion control plan as discussed in Final Site Environmental Statement Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.2.
(10) A complete deccription of the pcsticide and l
herbicide treatment progra should the Applicant decide that these chemicals are to be used for 1
rightss-way maintenance as discussed in FSES Section 5.5.1.2.
i (11) A det411ed description of all preoperational moni-toring programs (those which will be implemented after the Construction Permit is issued, but before an Operating License is granted) and the preconstruc-tion supplemental aquatic monitoring program. These
. -- ~ ;
$* 45
%+
//g,
? '~ R k'WY y
/////
t e
,'%'+'$
9
, _.... < e 1,.
TEST TARGET (MT-3) e 1
1.0 l# E4 EM y @ IE l.l\\{" Ele
.q
/
M l.25 1.4 1.6
/
6~
h I@4
- '/
'b 'b 4;{hk 4
x
. programs should incorporate those suggestions offered by the Staff in Final Site Environmental Statement Section 6.1.5.1.
(12.)
Detailed information and appropriate. maps of any significant new changes in the ensfronmental status (e.g., land use, habitats of rare, threatened or endangered species) of the proposed transmission itne, pipeline, and railroad access routes.
(13)
If the construction schedule described in Final Site Environmental Statement Section 4.4 that pro-vided the basis for the Staff's assessment of comunity impacts is not achieved, then updated information should be provided on the socioeconomic parameters discussed in this section.
(14) Result:; of planning negotiations among the Applicant, local officials, and regional planners (Final Site Environmental Statement Section 4.4: 4.4.12).
The Applicant should begin early planning negotia-tions with local officials and regional planners to discuss methods of limiting the adverse impacts that are likely to occur as a result of plant con-struction. Local items for discussion could include, for example, planning expertise, development of mobile home zoning ordinances, prepayment of ' taxes, and incentives for workers to comute greater distances.
In addition, these negotiations should consider public i
.. -. - ~ ~.. -.
- , use, where possible, of the open space used for this project. The Applicant will submit a discussion of its activities carried out under this item and the mitiga-tive activities it will undertake for Staff review at the time a Construction Permit applicatton is filed (supra, par. 84).(15).
(15) Results obtained from surveys of the proposed trans-mission corridor routes to determine the presance of any proposed or nominated endangered species or existence (Final Site Environmental Statement Section4.3.1.2).
(16) A forest management plan for the site that includes consideration of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
(17) Final plans for minimizino construction impacts or for avoiding the bog comunities along the proposed corridor for the railroad spur and transmission line C.
(18) Final designs for both the temporary and per-manent sewage treatment facilities (Final Site l
Environmental Statement Secton 11.1.4.6) and revised estimates of water requirements (Final Site Environmental Statement Section 11.1.3.1).
(19)
Information on the specific methods to be employed to control particulate emissions from the onsite concrete batch plant (Final Site Environmental Statement Section 11.1.3.9).
109. The Applicant will be required to honor the following comitments to limit adverse effects during construction:
j t
l l
. (1) Marketable timber will be removed from the site, and remaining trees and brush will be cleared and either used for erosion control or burned. All burning will be in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Tree stumps and other organics not burned will be buried under adjacent waste areas.
(2) Soll excavation from borrow areas that is unsuitable for fill will be deposited in designated waste areas, and some topsoil will be set aside for restoration of the borrow areas after construction is completed. Tops of borrow areas will be covered with stored topsoll and then planted with slash and loblolly pines (Final Site Environmental Statement Section 4.1.1)
(3) Fordable streams will have shell or gravel placed in the stream bed; other streams will have temporary bridges or culverts installed during construction.
(4) The amount of spoil drif ting from the dredging for the makeup intake and discharge structures will be limited to approximately 1% of the total spoil dug from the bottom. Shoreline vegetation will not be disturbed except where it is necessary to gain access to the reservoir.
l (5) To minimize disturbence to the reservoir, excavation l
and construction of the makeup intake structure will take place behind a sheet piling wall. Excavated i
and dredged material from construction of the makeup l
__,__r
' ' ' * " " * ~ ' " ~
- ~ ~
. intake and makeup channel will be removed to a spoil area on the peninsula; mater'ial dredged for the dis-charge pipe will be deposited adjacent to the discharge pipe.
(6)
No explosives will be used in site excavati;ns.
(7) Temporary construction f ac11 ties will be removed when construction is completed and these areas will be paved, seeded, sodded, and/or planted according to a prescribed plan.
When no longer in use, tenporary construction roads will be disked, scarified, and seeded, and the slope intersectons will be rounded to minimize erosion and provide a natural appearance (side slopes in borrow and waste areas will re-
-ceive similar treatment). All restored areas will be graded to prevent accumulation of standing water.
(8) Permanent lawn areas will be planted as soon as feasible.
(9) A natural border along the periphery of the cleared plant site will be encouraged by allowing natural reseeding and by planting indigenous vegetation.
(10) Oust will be controlled during site preparation and construction through the use of water trucks, sprinkler systems, and chemicals such as Soil Penetrant 400, EARTH-PAK, and COHEREX.
(11) Erosion control will include grading, placement of slash in draws and water courses adjacent to cleared i
areas, and protection of slopes using peripheral
. interception ditches, catch basins, and drop pipes equipped with energy dissipators. Additionally, slopes will be treatad using chemical soil binders (e.g., Aerospray S2 Binder or Curasol AE) and then mulched and seeded.
(12)
During construction, wastes from portable chemical toilets will be transported offsite for proper disposal. Wastes from permanent toilet and wash f acilit'es will be processed in a sewage treatment plant; all treatment plant discharges will meet applicable State and Federal standards.
(13) Floor drain effluent from shop facilities will be discharged into the storm drain system.
(14) Petroleum product wastes will be collected and removed from the site. Waste interceptors will be provided to remove construction wastes (e.g., oils, greases, paints, or solvents) and minimize the impact on neighboring surface waters.
l l
(15) Wash water from the batch plant and from concrete trucks will be discharced into a specially con-structed ditch, where cement particles can settle out before the water spills into a berm-enclosed waste area that serves as an evaporation-absorption field. After completion of the power plant, the earth berm will be graded to the elevation of the l
waste area. Waste loads of concrete will be dumped l
at a designated waste area.
l i
l I
I
-i 59 -
(16) Controlled spray of herbicides (e.g., Bromacil or Monuron) will be used to inhibit regrowth of vegetation on shelled and paved areas onsite.
Application rates of herbicides and pesticides will be such that concentrations in the stream systems will not exceed Texas Water Quality Board requirements; aquatic concentrations will be monitored at the U. S. Geological Survey Gauging Station on Mill Creek.
Pest control, when necessary, will include localized controlled application of a short-lived malathlon class of compound (malathion, parathion, EPN) for insects and may include poison batts (e.g.,
Pyralin or Fumasol) for rats and mice. However, the use of traps for problem rodents is preferred.
(17) Combustible construction wastes will be burned, and noncombustible wastes will be disposed of within the borrow area by landfill methods; both operations will meet applicable State and Federal regulations.
Outdoor burning, construction activity, and appli-cation for permits shall be accomplished in accordance with the Texas Clean Air Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Texas Air Control Board.
(18) Noise educing apparatus for construction equip-
~
ment will comply with Federal and industrial standards.
e -
-4.
.e==.
-===-=*he= = =me m== = = = = - - eu
J'.
(19) During construction, effluent from the sewage treatment plant will be discharged.into a leaching field to prevent as many of the nutrients as possible from reaching the streams.
(20)
Effects of siltation upon the creek systems, will bi minimized through extensive erosion control efforts.
(21) No historical landmarks or archaeological sites within an 8-km (Senile) radius of the plant site will be disturbed by construction of the station.
Any archaeological site that is endangered by transmission line construction will be reexamined and tested.
The Applicant shall not disturb any archaeological site or locality or any historical site without prior approval from the Staff. Shculd any additional archaeological discover 1es be made either on the plant site or within the rights-of-way, the Appl 1-cant shall notify the Staff immediately. The four localities identified in F3ES Section 2.9.2 shall be posted and an onsite archaeologist shall be available when these sites are in danger of being disturbed unless the State Historic Preservation Officer determines that these localities do not meet the criteria in the National Register of Historic Places ( Addendum 2) for inclusion in the Register.
(22) Where a residential or recreational area is serviced by a single road and this road is obstructed by
61 -
construction activities, an alternate access route will be provided.
(23)
Existing roads will be used for access to the transtaission corridors.
(24)
A' forest management plan that will include con-sideration of the red-cockaded woodpecker wil? 'e submitted with the Construction Permit application.
Construction activity on the right-of-way for the proposed transmission line A should be carefully monitored by a biologist to ensure that areas with red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or roosting trees
~,
are not destroyed. Likewise, on proposed routes B and C, careful investigation should be made for nest and roost trees and areas with active red-cockaded woodpecker colony use, and these areas should be avoided.
(25) An effort will be made to minimize or avoid disturbance of bog communities within the proposed corridor for the ra11 road spur and transmission line C.
(26)
To ensure continued and adequate protection of endangered species during additional development phases of the proposed facility, the Appitcant should maintain consultations with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
i t
e
- - - --~,
e
.,e w
mv v
v
.-w----
w III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 110. Following completion of Comission and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board review, this Partial Initial Decision shall remain in effect for a period of five years or, where the Applicant for the construction permit has made timely submittal of the information required to support the application, as provided in Section 2.101(a-1), until the proceeding for a permit to construct a facility on the site identified in this Partial Initial Decision has been concluded, unless the Comission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, or Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, sua sponte or upon motion by a party to the proceeding, finds that there exists significant new information that substantially affects the earlier conclusions and reopens the learing record on site suitability issues.
111. Upon good cause shown, the Comission may extend the five-year period during which this Partial Initial Decision shall remain in effect for a reasonable period of time not to exceed one year.
112.
Based upon our review of the entire record in this proceeding, which are reflected in the foregoing findings, the Board has concluded, to the extent of its review, that the Blue Hills site (Site G) is a suitabl~e location for nuclear power reactors of the general size and type proposed under the l
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
{
Comission regulations promulgated thereunder.
113.
Based upon our review of the entire record in this proceeding and the foregoing findings and in accordance with 10 I
i
?
r
, CFR Part 51 of the Consnission's regulations, the Board has concluded that the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information and that the review of the application by the Staff has been adequate to support the foregoing findings and the following conclusions and order.
114. We conclude that:
A.
The environmental review conducted by the Staff pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been ajequate to sup-port 1ssuance of this Partia - Initial Decision; B.
The requirements of Sections 102(2)(A)(C) and (E) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 10 CFR Part 51, to the extent applicable, have been complied with in this proceeding; C.
The Board has independently considered the final balance among conflicting factors con-
~
tained in the record of this proceeding.
After weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environ-mental and other costs, and considering as 111able alternatives, the Board has deter-mined that the Blue Hills site (Site G) is suitable with respect to the factors reviewed, and the Partial Initial Decision should be issued subject to the conditions for the protection of the environment discussed in paragraph 65 and set forth in paragraphs i
108 ard 109, suora, as vall as the following:
I
? -
(1) When the actual design of Blue Hills Station Units 1 and 2 is developed and the Applicant desires to proceed with its application for Construction Permits, the Applicant shall provide to the Staff the information specified in Findings 37, 91 and 108.
(2) The Applicanc shall take the neces-sary actions set forth in Finding #109 to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities.
(3) The Applicant shall establish a control program that shall include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as pre-scribed in Finding 109 and shall provide for periodic management audits to determine the adequacy of implemen-tation of environmental conditions.
The Applicant shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compli-ance with all the environmental conditions herein.
(4)
Before engaging in additional construc-tion activities which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is signi-ficantly greater than that evaluated by
.-i l
, -.,,... ~ - - - - ~
.. s
. the Staff, the Applicant shall provide written notification to the Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, and obtain approval to proceed.
(5)
If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected during facility con-struction, the Applicant shall provide to the Staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage.
(6) The Applicant shall monitor the total residual chlorine concentration in the discharges to Toledo Bend Reservoir and shall design its system so that the concentrations can be limited to the value established by the Environ-mental Protection Agency in the NPDES permit for the Blue Hills Station.
(7) The Applicant shall submit a plan to the Department of the Interior accept-able to the National Park Service that describes the methods for mitigating the environmental impact in crossing the Big Thicket National Preserve along proposed transmission line B.
s
Q
+
. D.
The issuance of permits for construction of the facilities, if built, insofar as they are based upon the findings and conditions herein, will not be inimical to the comon defense and security.
IV. ORDER IT IS ORDERED, in accordance with 10 CFR Sections 2.760, 2.762, 2.785, and 2.786, that this Partial Initial Decision shall constitute, with respect to the matters covered therein, the final action of the Comission thirty (30) days after the date of issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice. Exceptions to this Partial Initial Decision may be filed by any party within ten (10) days after service of this Partial Initial Decision.
Within thirty (30) days thereafter (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any party filing such exceptions shall file a l
l brief in support thereof. Within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the brief of the Appellant (forty (40) days in the i
l
[
> case of the Staff),any other party rnay file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the exceptions.
IT IS 50 ORDERED.
i THE ATO C SAFETY AND ING BOARD h
f d
% A GAA--
Justhve A. Lin c(rger ADMIN TRATIVE JU GP Dr. Linaa W. Little ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
'ikl Of f.
' Marstfail c. 7111ler ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of April,1981.
l t
[
l
4' l APPENDIX A Exhibits Applicant's Exhibit 1, A-E Professional Qualifications of Applicant Panel (Tr. 47)
Applicant's Exhibit IF Professional Qualifications of Robert E. Cox (at Tr. 78)
Applicant's Exhibit 2 Application document Applicant's Exhibit 3 Environmental Report (5 Volumes)
Applicant's Exhibit 4 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (5 Volumes) (PSAR)
Board Exhibit 1 Sketch of air currents in area Staff Exhibits 1-6 Professional Qualifications of Staff (at Tr.166)
Staff Exhibits 7, 7A, 7B Final Site Environmental State-ment for Site G for Eventual Construction of the Blue Hills Station, NUREG-0449, July 1978, (FSES) and Errata Sheets Staff Exhibit 8 Early Site Review for the Blue Hills Site, NUREG-0131, January 1977 (ESR)
Staff Exhibit 9 Supplement 1 to the Early Site Review, June 1977 (ESR Suppl.)
l I
i L