ML20023C320

Summary of 830322 Meeting W/Util & S&W in Bethesda,Md Re Environ Rept OL Stage

ML20023C320
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	05/10/1983
From:	Lazo L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8305170199
Download: ML20023C320 (24)

Text

e C

+

y,AY 101983 Docket No.: 50-412 APPLICANT:. Duquesne Light Company FACILITY:

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2

SUBJECT:

SUINARY OF MEETING WITH DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE A meeting was held with Duquesne Light Company (DLC) on March 22, 1983 at NRC Headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. DLC was accompanied by members of Stone & Webster Engineering Ccmoration. The NRC was represented by members of the Division of Licensing, Division of Engineering, Division of Systems Integration, and the Office of the Executive Legal Director. An attendance list is attached as Enclosure 1.

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss several issues concerning the Environmental Report - Operat'ing License Stage (ER-OL). The items discussed were:

Social Economics The meeting began with discussions on several social economic questions posed to the applicant on an earlier date by the Siting Analysis Branch l

(SAB), Divisionof Engineering. The staff has shown interest in the methodology used by the applicant for calculating the population within 0-10 miles of the

)

site. The applicant reviewed the demographic analysis and informed the staff at the meeting that the population data between 0-10 miles was inadvertently l

underestimated by a small percentage. DLC will revise this data in an amendment. Justification was given for the appropriateness of the methodology used in the recalculation.

The staff had also noted that the site has increased approximately 60 acres in the ER-OL stage and requested infonnation on this additional acreage. The i

applicant accounted for the increase at the meeting. An agenda, provided by the applicant, discusses this and several other issues. This agenda is included is Enclosure 2.

PRA and " Class 9" Accident Analysis l

l At an earlier meeting with the staff (August 31,1982.),.the applicant indicated that they were considering performing a PRA for Beaver Valley, Unit 2.

DLC has since concluded that they cannot justify performing a full scope PRA at this time. They do, however, intend to perfonn a severe accident analysis (Class 9).

8305170199 830510 PDR ADOCK 05000412 PM C

orricep I

suname >

onep Nac ronu sia co-an Nacu cao OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usoeo: msnm

r 4

. The applicant presented the staff with an outline of the information that will be incorporated into Section 7.1 of the ER-OL, Station Accidents Involving Radioactivity. This outline can be found in Enclosure 2.

DLC's analysis is scheduled to be completed by August 1,1983, and will be submitted to the NRC at that time.

H_ydrology The Environmental and Hydrologic Engineering Branch (EHEB), Division of Engineering, drafted several questions in the area oflydrology. The applicant took the opportunity at the meeting to discuss and clearify some of the issues raised by the staff.

The applicant informed the staff that the Liquid Pathway Release Analysis will be presented as part of the Severe Accident Impact. Evaluation by August 1983. It is the intent of the applicant to compare the results of l

this analysis to NUREG/CR-1596 (The Consequences from Liquid Pathways After a Reactor Heltdown Accident 1981).

NUREG/CR-1596 was chosen as the reference document because DLC feels it represents newer, more detailed material.

In the past the staff has used the Liquid Pathway Generic Study NUREG-0440, 1978. Enclosure 2 contains EHEB's questions and the applicant's responce l

to each.

f Miscellaneous Items The applicant infomed the staff that the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)PermitApplicationwassubmittedtothePennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources on March 16,1983. DLC anticipates that the permit will be approved by October 1983. The fomal transmittal of this permit will l

occur as a part of an amendment to the ER-OL.

Finally, the applicant requested any additional information the NRC may have concerning the Nuclear Waste Rolicy Act of 1982. The staff agreed to try to provide the applicant with information on this Act in the near future.

/s Lisamarie Lazo, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page n_

m

...D..L..:.L..B..#. 3...

.D..(. 3!.......

crricap sunsme >

Lla z o/.yt........

....t..o..n.....

DATE)

Nac ronu sis co+n nacu ouc OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usammi-sw o t

m Mr. Earl J. Woolever Vice President, Nuclear Construction Duquesne Light Company Robinson Plaza Bldg. No. 2, Suite 210 PA Route 60 Pittsbu'rgh, Pennsylvania 15205

~

cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Mr. H. M. Sie, gel, Manager Engineering Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Beaver Valley Two Project Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Duquesne Light Company 1800 M Street, N. W.

Robinson Plaza Building No. 2 Washington, D. C.

20036 Suite #120 PA Route 60 Karin Carter, Esq.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205

~ Special Assistant Attorney General Bureau of Administrative Enforcement Mr. C. E. Ewing, Quality Assurance Executive House - 5th Floor Manager Harrisburg, Per.nsylvania 17120 Quality Assurance Department Duquesne Light Company Mr..R. J. Washabaugh P. O. Box 186 BV-2 Project, Manager Shippingport, PA 15077 Duquesne Light Company'

' Robinson Plaza Building No. 2 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency

^

Suite 210 Management Agency PA Route 60 Room B-151 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. M. H. Judkins Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mr. Thomas Gerusky Power Systems -

Bureau of Radiation Protection P. O. Box 355 PA Department of Environmental Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Resources P. O. Box 2063 Mr. P, Raysircar Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation P. O. Sox 2325 BVPS-2 Records Management Supervisor Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4 Mr. Glenn Walton Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077-U. S. NRC P. O. Box 181 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 i

Mr. R. Haynes, Regional Administrator U. S. NRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19405 Mr. E. F. Kurtz, Jr., Manager Regulatory Affairs Beaver Valley Two Project Duquesne Light Company Robins.on Plaza Building No. 2 Suite.#120 PA Route 60 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205

ENCLOSURE 1.

LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC L. Lazo A. Sinisgalli -:

C. Ferrell L. Bykeski-J. Mitchell i

R. Gonzales R. Perlis Applicant E. Kurtz K. Troxler T. Zog1mann E. Eilmann J.'Jacobson-B. Mohrman E. Nelson I

I l

1 op ae eefW+

ENCLOSURE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NRC MEETING MARCH 22, 1983 AGENDA I.

SOCIAL ECONOMIC QUESTIONS

- Population Data

^

- Historic Preservation Office Communication

- Transmission Tower

- Canadian Population Data

- Site Acreage Change II.

SITE ACCIDENTS - (SECTION 7.1)

- PRA

- Class 9 Analysis III. HYDROLOGY OUESTIONS

- Liquid Pathways

- 100 Year Flood

- Groundwater Gradient

- Erosion Protection

- Station Water Consumption IV.

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

- NPDES Permit

- ER Amendments

- Nuclear Waste License

I.

Social Economics

91. QUESTION:

The NRC had.some co'ncern about - our methodology for calculating the population within 0-10 miles of the site.

In reviewing the documents. they implied that we used topographic maps and did In researching topo. maps house, counts, _ applying 'some factor.. latest map was too old to the NRC found that in many l cases the use (1968, 1969, 1979, 1974, etc.)

.This creates a probiken in

'that they. feel we have not used the latest information. The NRC.

also indicated that they do not believe that house counting of topo maps is c very accurate method.

They suggested for 0-5 miles an electrical meter count or a ground survey shoud be used for 5-10 miles

• they suggisted using the census enumerating district data base.

The NRC has come up with a 15% dif ference

, between ' our. population da t a' and theirs (NRC.was higher).

The NRC requests some explanation on how we arrived at our popula-tion values.,

. P05i1 TION:

1 A review of the demographic analysis for BVPS-2 has been performed and it has been determined that the population between 0-10 miles was inadvertantly underestimated by approximately 15%.

The population inside 12.5 miles will be revised in an amendment.

The same methodology as described in ER Section 2.1 was used in the recalculation and we feel it is appropriate with the following clarifications.

A.

Topographic maps used for demographic analysis were all I

photo revised in 1979 or 1980.

B.

Regarding house counts:

the methodology is perfectly

- suitable depending on cross checks and final tally of town populations.

A meter count is not considered any more accurate within the 0-5 mile area.

l C.

Census enumeration district maps were not originally avail-l able when the study began, and therefore not used.

By combining house counts with urban area distributions, however, a realistic estimate is achieved and is suitable.

l D.

Growth rates used for our projections were county specific and unique for each county.

The text will be changed to reflect this.

i l

.n

--e.

2. QUESTION:

.Does DLC have ~ an 'of ficiai communication from the Office of

- Historic Preservation referenced in Section 2.6 of the ER-OL?

POSITION:

An official, communication ~ from Mr. Vance Packard, Office of

' Historic Preservation', is attached.

h e

4 e

4 O

I f

i I

r

- N-m,.-

~ - -..

~

h D

gp n j'7p CCPPCPATCN 6i -

;. I ENv'=cN

vsN e : sA;:EGt.;A;m:s ::vfSiCN

: 14 '973 4 mEsg Asc>- m.A:s N ' _ * * '

=ce,o. a v2=vs..= a:sse jig &'I U bi L

see-7:::

v Lan'd Use August. 14, 1978 ESD-18-2 3'4 (EP&CD) 3 Mr. Tance Packard State Historic Preservation Officer William Penn Museum Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Box 1026 Harnsburg, PA 17120

Dear Mr. Packard:

Pursuant to our conversation of August -11, I am sending this letter for your review and approval.

I understand that you have seen the Beaver Valley Power Station and that you are familiar with the region surrounding the plant and its cultural resources. To the best of your knowledge, the station will have no adverse impact on these resources.

I would appreciate a listing of State Historic Sites in the area and a comment regarding the impact on these sites and any other information that you may have.

Sincerely, 9

Stuar: L. Miner Environmental Planner l

/vbc N

N.,

,,., Ih, N.

CONCTnRENCE:

C t

n l.a....., !J 1

I AUG171978 * -?

~

l{

'j msnne si~ $-wr

,,,/ 5 Pt' s W s

}

Vance Packard, Office of Historic Preservatich;,

, - y.

l

j "A

A p q

t Mb_J8llllD

~ -

c c c u r c.~

E N'v'=CN.vEN.:.s SA EGi/=Cs 0:v'siCN a =essaa:- a.acs

=c,e<.,u.a vaavsae.= acase

c ue-n August 14, 1978 ESD-78-234 (EP SCD) '

Mr. Lance Packard State Histenc Preservation Officer William Penn Museum Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission *

. Sox 102S Hanisburg, PA 17120

Dear Mr. Packard:

Pursuant to our conversation of August 11, I.am sending this letter for your review and approval.

I understand that you'have seen the Beaver Valley Power Station and that you are hm414mr with the region surrounding the plant and its cultural resources. To the best of your knowledge, the station will have no adverse impact on these resources.

I would appreciate a listing of State Historic Sites in the area and a comment regarding the impact on these sites and any other information that you may have.

Sincerely,

/

Stuart L. Miner Environmental Planner

/vbc i

l

+

- 3.' QUESTION:

Has~ che' 'new transmission ' tower',. discussed - in. Environmental' Re@rt-Section 3.9, been built?

.. POSITION :

+

'No. The transmission tower 'will be built.: during- 'the first -

quarter:of 1985.

4 i

f.

f j.

i -

i I

~

(.

I i

I

'-e'

.-=2

,s.

__-E

. 4. QUESTION:

They were. very complimentary on our population data out to 350 miles.

Howev e r ', they had. a question 'on how we arrived at the Cana'dian population data (source).

POSITION:

All Canadian ' data was.obtained from Statistics Canada',. the

-Canadian equivalent to,the U.S. Bureau of the. Census.

b

]

A y

4 e

i e

f e

h 4

i l

l-

{<

i A;.

r r

+

,e v

..n.-

..,-r

,ve.

v-e r

.e-._.

,.,, ~, -. -

.,-~~,--s.n,-~,w-,.~,,.rs

.. -e e,

-ow,

~.m~,,,-s n

• +-w.,

.e

5. QUESTION:

The site has increased 60 acres to a total of 509 acres in the ER-OL stage. %ere is this additional acreage located, what was its land-use, and what changes have occured to the additional acreage?

POSITION:

The increase of 60 acres can be attributed to:

1.

Resurveying of the' original 449 acres for an ' increase of 3.3 acres.

~2.

Purchase of.11.065 acres in' March 1975 from National ha' ' been cleared and a Training Transit (this area s

Building with parking lots have been built).

3.

Purchase of 12.2107 acres in Au' gust 1975 from Penndell Co.

(this area was and still is a railroad siding).

4.

An additional 33.415 acres were purchased in December 1971 and June 1972 (this acreage was adjacent to the. site and is part of the right-of-way for the transmission system that is in existance; no land-use changes have occured to this area).

These areas are shown on the attached drawing.

. The 33.415 acres are considered by DLC as not part of the BVPS l

site.

The - total site acreage is, therefore, 475 acres.

This change will effect four sections of the ER.

DLC is concerned about-modifying these sections and would like to address this change in a response to a question.

I l

l l

l l

--..,..-.,e.

.v.

..,,,w-

.e E

i * 9 -.s...c. w,, w 1Q fig:.V,Q *W ' g n >.,i 'f,f,=..m.. w ierN y)l

QQf, j;f l

('

fM ss

^

2,r +Jg~?,W hu.',,~?t..@@:~ '. h w~@<bn,. !,a.\\

'*4<K%'. F...w"

$ e m

w v.

1

,. T.

n. ~ i. dL

'Q

. D=

{ %*.- Gt.

~

tkM, QW}k' **Y.&@y&'.R. 'it'\\g.

a.

n.

w

..s' Q ** Q\\\\

• _i c

j'x /.W,\\ fE, h V%

"7 W %., ;

d E~,' OWE': '@'.2 G. :,-

W'

u...

3 = 5 *;

A ~

'5kh Y,=p-V%

2. '\\ h ' Y b f I ses#.ie -

W 95 _

6 %. @.1 '.'i T @-.E. s

$ h b,..

. zi.ij!

b

(& T# w$[:

' ~'~ h.Jh.w. 'f.,w$w%S%{e e

8

&,s. n' n

~-

yd ' _

E ~$i

%q r. ys l%,h j ~ E I ;

s'.CF!

nh e nu

ll

"" M,,'#'m y a,;' f "{

.g.

j '\\ *E 4(s%N 4dsr%' ' $R %,.J. Rep @.Y d?E%f5T MPP+4$$ I d M P. f i t_' E..

ti!E%p63.yD.

\\

. n. w X.,, w,

. % ~g.y..-r... : g g p g e -t2.s y

,g.. s

[l p

[ "

' ',e;y f

9 ~...

gm.

y;', s

g. e4

,h,? m'1 g.c h n'

?.

e

%w

,. ;%* m s

.:arW &"'h b

\\

e3 hh..

lh /\\

f?! W T '(

qw>fk+7s

? ~'rii s. O n $ %(( i C

. y p q.j p_ "q 6e

%8%%$

b'l

.?il f:x

& L..

kW M9%n%s 2%i.W.l.'Q MQ &.(?f,, 3 C'lm.:%..W-

.g,./',n,.a - Q l'V

.,e ~ ii q,.

.c -

n,.

n.

m.

n l%li.:_j..l?}?j

9. yy bs%se..

.~

.n

h. ?.

• M 'ffpV IEh: v e.

i [

-i y

i pfh M ^

f '?

-=dy.;f$),(;'..y /,p.;. \\ l

&,sN b if l,&h 1

j, g

.k. YdQ,;,j) yo

[

I fl k W

m &r.~

,/

,e

7....

.; \\.

r t

+m.

/

'1 0-M f y Q%:.* -s/

O

/

r

~~

[

4%

l

'-~

~ n,te4 4 % % ? 6 5 M;

/i 1

(

,. 3. b -

II.' Site Accidents (SECTION 7.1)

l. PROBABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT At our :neet ing with you on August 31, 1982, we. dindicated we were considering pe rforming a PRA for BVPS-2.

Attached is a copy of the meeting summary issued by the NRC.

POSITION:

DLC cannot justify at this; time performing a full scope.PRA due to the uncertainty ~ involved in NRC Nuclear. Safety issues Additionally, the NRC has indicated that they are planning to prepare a generic type PRA.

Due to the fact that cliere is no ' specific NRC rsquirement for utilities to conduct PRA's, the cost, roughtly $2 million, to do a.PRA cannot be justified to the companies' rate payers.

How-ever, DLC intends to perform a severe ' accident analysis (Class 9).

(See Section II, Item 2.)

e

=A w

s e

..me_

.e.-

U

~1T

,,.. n., i umTs: sr.: ss Is.

wc.zs =zcuuraav cow.us::cM

?

L, +.= s." y

.,j

-q us-: :a :. :. ::ns

, 4

\\ -..; y

'.... e m 1: m

1. g, u._.. 3 &

l-H M,

SEP171382*

g Joc4 e: 'io.~:

_0 - +.12 Q og.:.c..:e tw.t Co.

I N

..;.x U.

nst.

. me.Q" -

O APELIG IT: Juquesne Li.;nt Occoany N

6 FAO:LITY:

Beaver Valley 2:wer Stiation, Unit :lo. 2

~

SU3 JECT:

SU$1ARY JF :4EIT!iG '4ITH 0000ESME LIGHT COMPANY TO 3:SCUSS I'

00NTI.4TI 0F 3I.WIR lALLEY U: LIT 2 OL APPL:0AT;;N A meeting.vas held at NRC deaccuarters, 7920 Norfol'< Avenue, 3etnesda, '4aryland on hascay morni'ng, August 31, 1982. The apolicant was represented by nec::ers 1

Of Juquesne Li;ht Ocapany and:St:ne 3 'Jebstar Ingineering :orocration. The HRC nas representad by Secoers of the Jivision of Licensing, 0ivision of Safety Technology, Oivision of Human ~ actors Safety, Division of Systems Integration and Reactor Projects Section 2A of Region I.

An attendanca list is attached as Enclosure I.

This testing,vas requested oy Juquesne Light Comoany to introduca 3VPS-2

?r: Ject 'lanagement Parsonnel and to discuss submittal of licensing documents.

The applicant informed the staff that its time wincow for construction completion is January 1,1985 to. larch 31, 1985 and that as of August 1,1982 Unit 2 was approximately 59% c:moleta. Consistent with its construction comoletion schedule, the aop31 cant plans to submit the SVPS-2 FSAR and ER in the time window of January 1,1983 to March 31, 1983. The staff indicatad that this schedule would be acceptsole.

The saplicant continued the meeting with reouests for deferral of four items ahien are required as part of the techn.ical infor':ation included in the CL applic::icn.

The items discussed were:

PRA and Class 9 Accident Analysis l

The applicant proposed a deferment of the class 9 Accident Analysis from l

the initial ER submittal in order to perform a Probabilistic Safety Study.

.-lt das agreed that the 0135s 9 Accident Analysis would not ce included in the ER at the time Of suorr.ittal, out instead would ' a suo.nitted to the c

staff in Octcoer,1983. See:1on 7.1 of the initial IR suemittai will cansis-of a statement of intent to perform a ?RA. Addicicnally :ne staff r2;uestad that the applicant include a statement abcut the reason for :elay of c: epi ttien of the : lass 9 Ac:ident Analysis, and a r?f.1renca to sectims c0ntaining meteorclogical data necessary for the staf f to prapare its JES.

O D D ?';

\\

,A. 2 i l. i ' : i

/

i

,w C) g p..i. i. s,j gb 2

iV v

e

-w mms

~

2 Human Factics In;ineering the a;pifcan: proposed a deferaen: of.:nastar '6,

-uman Fac: ors Ingineering, fr)1-:aa initial issue of ?.ha F5AR antil af:er finali:ation of :ne 3dicalines in 4JRI3-3530.

It was agreed that ;hapter 13 would not ce 'inclucad in the 73AR at the time of sucait:al, and :nat ne Human Fac: ors Engineering Analjsis aculd be su:=1tted

.to the staf# in See:emoer 1933. The aoplicant informed the staff :na it is as:solisning a proiras to review current guidanca and onitor -he-regulatory environ. ent.cf numan Factors Engineering, and indica:ad tha: i t wculo li'<e to discuss this ;rogram and its Chapter 13 suomitta,1 -a: a suosequent netting.

3A7 (NCRI3-0500) Conformance Review The applicant proposed a deferment of Section L.9, SRP Conformanca Review, from sne initial issue of the FSAR, due to the scope of effort required to comply with the rule. 'The applicant requested that it be allowed to submit

~

this information ninety days after F5AR submittal.

The staf f requested that the applicant provide a table in the initial submittal listing those sections which conform to : LURE 3-08CO, while tne evaluations of those nonconforming sections could be delayed for ninety days. The applicant agreed to meet this schedule.

Technical Scecifications The applicant proposed a caferment of Chaptar 15, Tecnnical 5 pacifica:fons, from the initial issue of the FSAR. The delay was requested to allow finali:stion of plant design as.nuch as possible in orter to achieve maximua consistency j

sith :ne Tecnnical 5pecifications for SVPS-1.

The staf f informed the applicant that Chaptr-15 should be submitted no more t

than twelve months before fuel load and no less than nine conths befora fuel load. The staff requestad talt the applicant include a section in 'the initial FSAR suomittal stating that the date of submittal of Chaoter 15 will be consistant with the 3chedula for fuel load, acw projactac to be within a

. hree conth window.

Finally, the staff concurred with the a;piteants ? las to suncit the Anti-7ru:

l

?.epor 'Jpaata in :iovemoer or Deca:ncer of 1982, and :he ieneral *nforma ion l

Section Jpdate of the Application for Licensa in January or Feoruary of 1933.

l CLdb /

Ls r

s 1

Ili:aaeth L. 2c014 14,?rnject iana;er Licensing Ira::ca

.].

Sivision c?.i:enstig cc: 3ee next ; age l

l

- = -

-,p r

y-w--

g

+,., -,

_.,m ar-

.-+~vm

s

' ' - Ear:.

4::: ever

.ics : 3;i:an:,'.;;:aar ::ns rue:i:n

.:.es.a.;- : :: :any.

i 4:- :'i:a BI:3. *;;. 2, Sufie 210 ei.- 3:.r;n, ethnsy,.vania. 1:,20,:

G a'.c bnarnor, -34.

Mr. R. Haynes, Ad=inistratien c:c'. Jay E. Siiter;, Esc. '

U. 5. NRC, Region !

Shaw, Pi;t an, Pot s 1 Trew:ridga 531 ? ark Avenue 1500 M Stree, 3. W.

King of ? russia, 7ennsylvania

• ? C5 Wasaington, D. C.

20036 Mr. I. F. Xur :, :r., "anager,

3.egula: ry Affairs Karin 'Carr.er, Esq.

Seavar Valley Two Projec:

5;acial Assis an-A: rney Deneral Bureau :f Ac= ins rative Enfor:acent Ouquesne Lign: C:cpany Executive Meuse - 5th Flcor Robinsen ?laza Suiloing :lo. 2 Harris:urg, Pennsyl'vania 17120 Suite !I20 T'

PA Ra'ute 50

~

Mr. Joseph A. Fricker, Jr.

Pittsburgh, PA 1.5205 Utility Ccunsel City of Pittsburgh Mr. H. M. Siegel,' Manager Engineering 313 City-County Suilding Pittseurgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Seaver Valley Two Project Duquesne Light C mcany Mr. R. J. Washabaugh Robinson Plaza Building.'!o.

2 BV-2 Project Manager Suite #120 Ou;uesne Light Company PA Route 50 Robinson Plaza Suilding No. 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Suite #210 PA Route 50 Mr. C. E.' Ewing, Quality Assurance Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205 Manager Quality Assuranct aecartment Mr. M. H. Judkins Cuquesne Lignt Company Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 136 Pcwer Systens Shippingport, PA' 15077 P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Director, Pennsylvania Emergency

,r. P. RaySiccar Management Agency A

Recm 3-151 St:ne & Webster Engineering Corporation Transportation & Safety Building P. O. 3cx 2325 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Zes::n, "assachusetts 02107 Mr. Thomas Geruskv Mr. Giann Walton Bureau of P.aciation Pro action U. S. SRC PA Ceoartrent of Envir:nmental P. O. Box 131 Resources Shi;;in port, Pennsylvania 15077 Post Office Box 2C53 Harrisburg, ?sr.nsylvania 17*.20 t

2-

2. CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS ANALYSIS

-STATEMENTS:

Section 7.1 of the' ER stated that the analysis of severe - accidents involving radioactivity at Beaver Valley Power Unit -Two (BV-2) would be ' completed August 1983 and Station submitted for inclusion in the Environmental Report.

?

POSITION:

BV-2 is being compared with plant s for which PRA's have - been performed.

Based on this comparison, an, assessment. of the probability and characteristic's of radioactive' releases will be made.

The CRAC 2 Computer, Code will be used to evaluate the o f f-sit e impac t from these postulated releases.

The results of

.this analysis will be presented in the format shown on. the attached outl-ine.

It is Duquesne Light's ~ position that this. Class' 9 analysis is sufficient to meet the intent of the requirements of Chapter 7.1.

i M yl 'P f A ? "_

w

Environmental Report Section 7.1

- Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents 1.

Plant Accidents t

This general introduction will mentian th'e Statement of Interim Policy and briefly describes the' following subsections:

1.1 General Characteristics of Accidents This will define what is meant by " accident" and'will mention the features that serve to reduce the risk from accidents.

Fission

+

as will possible exposure products of concern will be ' discussed pathways and potential health effects..

,1.2 Mitigation of Accident Consequences This will briefly discuss the following subsections.

1.2.1 Design Features This will discuss in general terms the design features utilized to prevent accidental radioactive releases.

1.2.2 Site Features A short discu'ssion of the site features will be provided.

1.2.3 Emergency Prepyredness The energency preparedness plan purpose and status will be described.

4 1.3 Accident Risk and Impact Assessment 1.3.1 Probabilistic Assessment of Severe Accidents This will introduce the following sections which describe the severe accident impact evaluation and will describe the methodology involved in the work. Accidents of lesser l

impact will not be discussed as the RSS showed that risk is dominated by the severe accidents. A schematic diagram of the consequence model will be provided as will a summary table of atmo s pheric release fraction and probabilities.

Mi '.igat ing action which could be taken will be discussed, as will the uncertainties.

I

1. 3.2 Methodology l

A discussion of 'the methodology used in determining,the release categories and' probabilities will be provided.

l.3.3 ' Dose and Health Impacts of Atmospheric Releases Probability distribution will be. provided for the

'following types of impact:

a.

Total person rem b.

Number of affected persons c.

Accute fatalities d.

Latent, cancer' fatalities These will be discussed and a summary table of env, iron-

' mental risks will be provided.

1.3.4 Economic and Social Impacts A discussion of economic impact will be provided along with an economic probability distribution.

1.3.5 Releases to Groundwater The Beaver Valley site groundwater situation will be evaluated and compared with the results of the liquid pathway generic study.

1.3.6 Risk Considerations A cable displaying the average value of environmental risk will be provided and discussed.

This risk will be discussed in a relationship to the risk from the other hazards in the U.S.

Curves of constant risk. for latent cancer fatalities will be plotted on a map of the site.

1.3.7 Uncertanties A discussion of uncertainties will be presented.

1.4 References A list of referenced documents will be provided.

O III. Hydrology

1. QUESTION:

You state that ' the analyses of accidents involving radioactivity is being1 performed and will be completed by August 1, 1983. As part of these analyses, you should, calculate the radiological consequ'nces of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core-e melt accident.

The analysis should ' assume, unless otherwise

' justified, that there h_as been a penetr at ion of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminat'ed sump wa'er has been released to t

the ground. Doses should be compar,ed to those calculated in the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, ' 19 78).

(Provide a summary of. your analysis, _ procedures, and the values of par a-

/ meters used; such as ', permeabilit ies, gradients, populations affected, water use, etc.)

POSITIUN:

The Liquid Pathway Release Analysis will be presented as part of the Severe Accident Impact Evaluation by August 1983.

The groundwater transport characteristics at the Beaver Valley Site will be used to determine the time required for postulated base-mat melt-through contamination to reach the Ohio River.

These results and the site description will be used to compare the impact of a postulated liquid exposure pathway with that presented in NUREG/CR-1596 (The Consequences from Liquid Path-ways After a Reactor Meltdown Accident 1981).

NUREG/CR-1596 will be used as the reference document because of the newer material and more detailed description.

l I

I t

l l

l l

l

2. QUESTION:

You state that the elevation of the 100 year. flood as determined by the Corps of Engineers is 695 f t msl adjacent to the' station.

You also state that major fopographic alterations at the site will ahve no significant impac t on this flood level.

Since the-100 year flood level may now be higher than elevation 695 ft msl.

Please provide a discussion on the, impact of construction on the 100 year. flood level and/or excent of inundation has been affected.

POSITION:

The 100 year flood flow and elevation was published in March 1979 in the flood insurance study of the Boro.of Industry, Pennsylv.ania.

Because, BVPS-1 was in operation pr i'o r to this

study, the effect of BVPS-2 construction 'would have been reflected in the flood level.

Since BVPS-2 has had only minor alterations to the flood plain, the area altered is very small compared to the river cross sectional area, the effect'of BVPS-2 construction on the 100 year flood plain is expected. to be-insignificant.

t i

I t

e

• M Weremie

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY '

/;

y, PITTSBURGH DISTRICT, CCRPS CF ENGINEERS WILLIAM S. MCORHEAD FEDERAL SUILDING k

1000 USERTY AVENUE, PtTTSSURGH. PA 18222 ORPED-R' 3 March 1982

SUBJECT:

100 Tear Flood' Level at Mile 34.7 of the Ohio River, Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania Mr. E. G. Nelson Lead. Environmental Engineer Stona and Webster Engineering Corporation P.O.. Box 2325 Boston, Massachusetts 02107

Dear Mr. Nelson:

In your latter of 17 February 1982 you requested the discharge and eleva-tion of the 100 year flood at Mile 34.7 of the Ohio River. The flow is 424,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the elevation is 695 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), formerly feet above mean sea level (MSL).

This flow and elevation was published in March 1979 in the flood insurance study for the Borough of Industry, Pennsylvania, opposite the Borough of Shippingport. No flood insurance study was published for Shippingport.

The 10, 50,100 and 500 flood profiles for the Ohio River were published in j'

January 1981 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. This profile also shows the low unter profile and the actual highest recorded flood on the Ohio River. I have inclosed a copy of this profile with this letter.

Sincerely, s-1 Inci

. LARD I

As stated f

Assi nt Chi Engineering Division

3. QUESTION:

Figure 2.4-2 shows that the groundwater gradient is toward the-Ohio River.

Section 2.4.1.2 states, "Use of ground water at the site is not expected to deplete regional or local supplies because the alluvium is hydrostatically connected with the Ohio River 'which recharges the aquifer and prevents excessive draw-down due to well pumping." There appears to be a contradiction

~

in terms.here. Does the river recharge the groundwater or is it the other way around?

POSITION:

As discussed in detail in FSAR Section 2.5.4.6, piezometers installed within the terrace sands and gravels indicate that groundwater elevations within the - main plant ' area ' reflect very closely the elevation of the Ohio River with little apparent time lag.

FSAR Figures 2.5.4-23 through 26 illustrate that under relatively s table Ohio River elevations, groundwater

'slightly (approximately 1 elevation beneath the site will be

. foot) higher than the ' river.

During periods of tising river level groundwater will also rise with a lag time on the order of days.

As the river elevation falls, the groundwater elevation will quickly adjust groundwater flow direction and thus recharge depends on the elevation dif ferenca between the river and groundwater.

This hydraulic connection between the river and groundwater will contribute to preventing excessive drawdown due to well pumping.

2.,._.

--e

-m,. - -., - -,-

~

4. QUESTION -

Discuss, the effects of plant featares -(enannel modifications, soil fill etc.) on erosion and discuss any erosion pr ot ect ion incorporated in plant design and construction.

POSITION:

Design and construction 'of BVPS-2 has been performed in a manner minimizing the potential for erosion. An erosion and sedimenta-tion control plan was developed in November'1974 which addresed all site work associated with BVPS-2.

Subsequent earth work on the BVPS site not considered in the original plan was addressed in a number of supplementary plans and approved by the District

~

Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service.

These plans have been part of the ' standard project procedures in the, design and construction of BVPS-2.

Erosion protection has included the use of sedimentation basins, temporary seeding of exposed construction areas, early installa-tion of storm sewers, use of straw bales as sedimentation barriers, etc.

The final landscaping specification for BVPS-2, which has not yet been developed, will address long-term erosion and sediment-ation control.

.e

~

5. QUESTION:

You state that when both BVPS-1 and SVPS-2 are operational, a total of 121.6 gpm will be withdrawn from the Ohio River for plant use.

Of this amount, how much will be consumptively used?

Describe the effects of station consumptive water use on existing and projected water users under low flow conditions.

POSITION:

It is anticipated that when BV"S-1 and SVPS-2 are. operational.,

approximately 42CFS of the 121.6CFS withdrawn from the Ohio.

River will be consumptively used.

Consumptive use consists primarily of cooling tower evaporation and drift.

A plant' consumptive use of 42CFS is only 1.0% of the estimated 4000 CFS historic drought of 1930 (taking into consideration the das system), 0.8% 'of the once in 10 years 7 diy low flow.

current of 5200CFS, and 0.4% of the monthly average flow for September (10,900CFS), fhe month with the lowest average flow.

As indicated in ER Section 2.1.3.2.2.1, a report by the Ohio River Basin Commission (1978) indicates that there appears to be suf ficient water in the river to meet current and projected demands through the year 2000 and beyond.

4 The effects of station consumptive water use on existing and projected water users under low flow conditions is considered insignificant.

IV. Miscellaneous Items

1. NATIONAL POLLUTION. DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT TO THE-PENNSYLVANIA DEPAR? MENT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POSITION:

At tenderingfof the ER, the NPDES Permii: (Appendix 5A) was not included in the Application. The SVPS 1-2 NPDES Permit Applica-tion was submitted to' the PDER on March 16, 1983.

It is antici-paced that the permit will be approved by ' October 1983.

The application consisted of revised BV-1 information, the new discharges and outfall locations for BV-2 and a permit for the sewage treatment facility that was approved by the PDER in December, 1982.

The-formal. transmittal of. this pe rmit will

' occur as a.part of an Amendment to the ER.

4 m

l e

9 0

I l

l l

.=m, s

w

-q a

ea

..~

~_

. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AMENDMENTS

~

POSITION:

Amend,ments to ttie ' ER will' include any changes, to the text resulting from site, plant 'or equipment modifications and address any NRC questions.

The questions will be contained separately at the end of the ER and any modification to the text will occer if at all possible in' the same 'ame ndme nt.

The response to 'the question will identify where the text is

' changed.

.f 4*

e e

9 A /. "'%*,

4-

' 1_

3.-NUCLEAR, WASTE LICENSE - (GENERIC LETTER NO. 33-07)

POSITION:

DLC has received a copy of a let'ter from Darrell -Eisenhut concerning the. Nuclear Waste Policy. Act. of 1982, at t ached.

Since licensirig of BVPS-2 is contingent 'on. the 'er.istence of "a contract with' the Secretary of Energy, DLC is, requesting any additional information that the NRC may have in this area'.

0 9

6 e

f B

gg-a_

faurg Q

/

jg UNITED STATES y

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

]

FEB 1e p~

TO ALL POWER AND NON-POWER REACTOR LICENSEES, APPLICANTS FOR AN OPERATING gLICENSEANDHOLDERSOFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982 (Generic Letter No. 83-07)

~

On January 7, 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted. The purpose of this letter is to ensure that you are aware of a provision of the Act (Section 302(b)) (copy enclosed) that requires licensed owners or generators of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste to have a contract with the Secretary of Energy, by June 30, 1983, for the disposal of such waste.

This mandate applies to all facilities licensed under Sections 103 an~d 104 of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954.

If a facility is to be licensed or have its license renewed before June 30, 1983, licensing is contingent on the existence of either a contract with the Secretary or a written affirmation by the Secretary that the owner / generator is actively and in good faith negotiating with the Secretary.

For facilities to be licensed or have a license renewed after June 30, 1983, licensing is contingent on the existence of a contract.

On February 4, 1983, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a draft contract in the Federal Reaister (48 FR 5458).

If you have any questions regarding the contracts, please contact Mr. Robert M. Roselli of 00E (301-353-4808).

Sincerely, l-N

[h a

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated g

h S.

c 8302170082 I

f e

f FEB221993, 5 D

% t;gg, to' y

Neckr tonst.

Division

{

Eb i

O$3$bb

i il O

i 3'

'l o

H.R.3809-57 be accepting high-level rahactive warte or spent nuclear fuel for disposal:

(10) an esti= ate, on an annual bas s, of the costs required (A)

. to' ccustruct and operate the repositories anticipated to-be needed under paragraph (9) based en each of the assumptions referred to in such parag:sph: (B) to construe: and operate a or any other facilities, other than test and evaluation facility,bparagraph (A), deter:nined to be r

repositories described in su necessary; and (C) to carry out any other activities under this

~

I Act:and (11) an identiEcstion o'f the possible adverse economic and other impacts to the State or Indian tribe involved that may -

arise frem the development of a test and evaluatics M"ty or repository at a site.

(b) Scaulssrow or Mzsstow Pr.ax.-G) Not later than 15 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the S.weuy shall submit a draft mission plan to the States, the affected Indian trikes, the Cam =Mion, and other Government agencies as the Secretary l

deems appropriate for their comments.

(2) In preparmg any, comments on the mission plan, such agencies shall specify with precision any objections that they may have. Upon submission of the mission plan to such agencias, the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of the submission of the mission plan and of its availability for public inspection, and, upon receipt of any comments of such agenc:es respectmg the mission plan, the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of the receipt of comments and of the availability 'of the comments for public.nspectr'on. If the Secretary does not verse the mission plan i

to meet objections spec:fied in such comments, the Secretary aball l

publish in the Federal Register a detailed statement for not so revising the mission plan.

(3) The Secretary,.after reviewing any other comments made by such agencies and revising the mission plan to the extent that the Secre ary may consider to be appropriate, shall submit the aussion plan to the appropriate committees of the Congress net later than 17.

months after the date of the enactment of this Act. The mission plan shall be used by the Secretary at the end of the first period of 30 calendar days (not including any day on which either House of Congress is not in session because of adjournment of more th.m 3 calendar days to a day certain) following receipt of the nnssion plan' by the Congrees.

wut:.zam WAfrE FUND Szc. 302. (a) CorrrRACTS.-0) In the performance of his functions under this Act, the Sury is authorized to enter into. contracts with any person who generates or holds title to high-level radioso-l tive wasta, or t nuclear fuel, of domestic origin for the accept-ance of title, ent transportation, and disposal of such waste or spent fuel. 5 contracts shall provide for payment to the Secretary of fees pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) sufficient to ofIset expenditures described in subsection (d).

(2) For electricity generated by a civilian nuclear power reactor and sold on or after the date 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the fee under paragraph (1) shs11 be equal to 1.0 mil per kilowatt. hour.

• QNm-

~,.. _ -,,. - _.

Q.

H.R.3309-58 (3) For spent nuclear fuel or solidified high. level radioactive waste derived from spent nuclear fuel, which. fuel was used to generste electricity in a civinan nuclear pcwer reactor prior to the appucation of the fee under paragraph (2) to-such reacto k

this Act, establish a 1 time fee per kilo ram of heavy metalin spent nuclear fuel, or in soEdified high-leveI radioactive waste. Such fee shan be in an amount equivalent to an average charge of 1.0 mil per kilowatt.bour for electricity generated by such spent nuclear fuel or such solidified high. level waste derived therefrom, to be conected from any person delivering such spent nuclear. fuel or high-level waste, pursuant to sectica 123, to the Federal Government. Such fee shan be paid to the Treasury of the' United States and shall be

~

deposited in the separate fund established by subsection (c) 126(b). In na,ymg such a fee, the person delivering spent fuel, or solidified lugh level radioactive wastes derived therefrom, to the Federal Gov-ernment shall have no further financial obligation to the Federal Government for the long term forage and permanent d:sposal of such spent fuel or the solidi 5ed h 4h-level radioactive waste derived therefrom.

(4) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish procedures for the collection and pay-1 ment of the fees established by paragn ph (2) and paragraph (3). The Lui shall annually review the amount of the fees established by paragraphs (2) and (3) above to evaluate whether collection of the fee will provide sufficient revenues to offset the costs as defined in subsection (d) herein. In the event the Secretary determmes that i

either insufncient or excess revenues are being conected, in order to l

recover the costs incurred by the Federal Government that are sp-N in subsection (d), the Secretary shall propose an adjust-l ment to the fee to msure full cost recovery. The Secretary shall

~

immediately transmit this proposal for such an adjustment to Con-i gress. The adjusted fee proposed by the Secretary shall be effective after a period of 90 days of conti=uous session have elapsed I

following the receipt of such transmittal unless during such 90-I day period either House of Congress adopts a resolution disapprov-i r+wd adjustment in accordance with the ing the Secretary's procedures set forth for cory;ressional review of an energy action-1 under section 551 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

i (5) Contracts entered into under this section shall provide that-f (A) fonowing commencement of operation of a repository, the Secretary shall take title to the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as expeditiously as pracucable upon g

l the request of the generator or owner of such waste or spent

]

fuel: and (B) in return for the payment of fees established by this e

1 section, the Secretary, beginning not later than January 31, i

1998, will dispose of the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this subtitle.

r (6) The Secretary shall establish in writing criteria setting forth the terms and conditions under which such disposal services shall be made available.

(b) Anvecz CowrxActrNo RtemtwrxT.-(1XA)The Commission T

shall not issue or renew a license to any person to use a utslization or production facility under the authority of section 103 or 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133,2134) unless-e

,w-,.m--,,--

,,,v,nmm,---

,c,,,,-,---_-n,-

---m,-r-,--

vw,---

e-----w-,

--.-e-r --- - - - -----

g o

H.R.3509-59 (i) such person has entered into a contract with the Secretary under this section; or (ii) the Secretary afinns in writing that such person is actively and in good faith negotiating with the Secretary for a contract under this section.

(3) The Commission. as it deems nar*=u,7 or appropriate, may require as a preecedition to the issuance or renewal of a licensa under section 103 or 104 of the Ato=ie Ener:;y Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.

into an agreement withpplicant for such license shall have entered.

2133, 2134) that the a the Seentary for the disposal of high-level radiamive wasta and spent nuclear fuel that may result from the use of such license.

(2) Except as provided in parairaph (1), no spent nuclear fuel or high level radioactive waste generated or owned by rny person (other than a de ent of the United States referred to in saction u

101 or 102 of tit.e 5, United Scates Code) may be disposed of by the Secretary in any repository constructed uncer this Act unless the generator or owner of such spent fuel or wasta has entered into a contract with the Secretary under this section by not later than-(A) June 30,1983; or (B) the date on which such generator or owner commences eeneration of or takes title to, such spent fuel or waste;.

j whichever occurs,later.

(3) The rights and duties of a party to a contract entered into under this section may be assignable with transfer of title to the spent nuclear fuel or high-level r=6=Mye waste involved.

(4) No high level r=6a=Mvs waste or rpent nuclear fuel ;

Jed -

or owned by any department of the United States aferred to in section 101 or 102 of title 5, United States Code, may be disposed of by the Secretary in any repository constructed under this Act unless such department transfers to the Secretary, for deposit in the Nuclear Waste Fund, amounts equivalent to the fees that would be l

paid to the Secretary under the contracts referred to in this section if such waste or spent fuel were generated by any other (c) EarAnusmerT or NUCt.zA2 WArrz Ftmn.-There is established in the Treasury of the United States a separate fun to be known as the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Wasta Fund shall consist of-(1) all receipta, proceeds, and recoveries realized by the Secre.

tary under subsections (a), (b), and (e), which shall be deposited in the Waste Fund immediately upon their r==NHan:

(2) any appropriations made by the Congress to the Waste Fund;and (3) any un dad W=== available on the date af the,.

enactment of Act for functions or activities necessazy or incident to the dLW of civilian high-level radioactive waste or civilian spent nuclear fuel, which shall automatically be transferred to the Waste Fund on such data..

(d) Usz or WAsTz Fuxn.-The Secretary may make expendltures from the Wasta Fund, su 'ect to subsection (e), only for purposes of radioactive waste activities under titles I and II, includ-ing-(1) the identification, development, licensing., construction, operation, decommissioning, and post decommissioning mainte-nance and monitoring of any repository, monitored, retrievable storage facility or test and evaluation facility constructed under this Act; e

,-p,*e----.e----

+. - -

ywi-y,.

+

g-

,p.,..,.-y,wyw.-,payy www,,w,m-,-,gy

.,y,,,,_.,.,m.m ww

_.%-qe,w.

m.e

,.eer,

--e eg s-e w.