ML20081B054
| ML20081B054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081B052 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403070144 | |
| Download: ML20081B054 (10) | |
Text
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS.92 AND 94 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 AND DPR-56
-PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 I.
Description of the Proposed Acticn Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) has requested changes to the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for its Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (PECo, 1983).
The licensee proposes the dele-tion of the sections of the ETS that require the performance of environmental noise measurements in the site vicinity.
The basis for the licensee's requests are that the required measurements have been conducted and that examination of the results indicates that no unacceptable environmental impacts have occurred due to noise from the units during their operation.
Those Unit 2 and Unit 3 ETS sections covered by this appraisal are Environ-mental Protaction Limit 2.3 Noise and Monitoring Requirement 3.3 Noise.
Sections 2.3 require that noise levels at the southeast land site boundary e
not exceed 45dBA while three cooling towers are in operation and that the noise level at the northwest site boundary not exceed 60dBA due to the operation of the transformers in the north substation.
Sections 3.3 require the licensee to conduct noise measurements four times a year during the first year of one' unit operation and twice a year for the first year of two unit operation.
Noise measurements are to be taken at locations on the land site boundary specified in the licensee's noise impact assessment in the ER-OL
.(PECo,1972).
I 4
2-II.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action ER-OL and FES Assessment of Impacts In the licensee's Environmental Report, Operating License stage (PEC0,1972) noise levels from the station transformers and the station cooling towers at the site boundaries and at locations across the Susquehanna River were estimated, based on their manufacturer's specified noise rating (Section 4.2.1).
These noise levels were compared with the acceptability criteria contained in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Criteria i
Guideline for Non-Aircraft Noise (HUD,1971).
The estimated noise levels were all found to be vdthin the range specified by HUD to be " Clearly. Acceptable" or "Normally Acceptable".
The noise sensitive lar.d uses identified by the licensee near the site consisted of private and company owned residences.- No schools or. hospitals were identified in the site vicinity.
The Final Environmental Statement related to operation (FES-OL) of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (USAEC,1973]
discussed the potential impacts offsite due to noise generated by the station during operation (Section V.A).
In addition to 4
summarizing the relationship between the HUD criteria and the licensee's predicted offsite noise levels, it was concluded that:
4
... -. -. ~.
,.--__r---,..~
,,--,m,,
ry.,,,_,.-,..,..,,_y,
...<___._,.-_,,,,,,_.m..w--,w.___,--,__,_
. a.
Noise levels from the station transformers and the three cooling, towers are typically on the order of 65dBA to 75dBA at a distance of 30m (100 ft) from the tower base or. transformer location.
b.
These noise levels may affect the enjoyment of fishing near the plant site.
Noise from the cooling towers during their operation may be c.
objectionable to people in nearby boats (PBAPS FES-OL Concluston 3).
Evaluation of Observed Impacts The licensee has conducted six surveys to determine the noise levels from operation of the station cooling towers and transformers.
These surveys, designated Surveillance Test ST 7.8.1 Noise Level Measurements, were conducted quarterly beginning on July 25, 1974 and concluding on October 27,1975 (PEco,1983a).
In all, six j
surveys were conducted.
Each survey involved the measurement and recording of the "A" weighted noise level at each of three specified locations; the comparison of the measured levels with limits given in the ETS; and the reporting of the results to the licensee's l
Shift Supervisor.
Prerequisites for the conduct all of the tests included the following:
a.
calibration of the sound level meter, b.
notation of which cooling towers are in service, and c.
notation that the north substation (with transformers) is operating normally.
1 l
. The surveys were conducted using a sound level meter that meets the requirements, of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Standard S.14-1971 " Sound Level Meters".
The noise level measurement locations in the surveys were as follows:
Al - 1800 feet south of "C" cooling tower, between the discharge structure and "C" cooling tower.
A2 - South of "C" cooling tower, near the discharge structure.
B - North-west of North substation, 500 feet west of #3 startup transformer.
Examination of the noise level survey data sheets indicates that three station cooling towers were in operation for all but the last survey (only one tower was in service during the last survey) and the north substation was in operation during all of the six of the surveys. Station power level varied from survey to survey, but this factor would not be expected to influence the results because the cooling towers and the transformer at the north substation constitute the major noise generators from the standpoint of offsite audibility.
The noise survey results are shown on the attached table.
The values shown present the broadland noise at the locatiors.
shown.
The measured noise levels at points Al and A2 did not exceed the maximum allowable value set by the ETS.
The values recorded also did not vary significantly between surveys when three cooling I
I l
l
- - towers were in service.
This would be expected for measurement locations where the cooling tower noise represent the major component of the noise measured, because of the constant nature of the noise generated by continually operating power plant cooling towers.
Measurenent of broadband noise (as done by.the licensee for the cooling tower noise monitoring locations)is acceptable because cooling towers typically lack tonal components in their noise s pectra.
Subsequent to the establishe.ent of these ETS, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published " identified levels" of environmental noise that would not cause hann to public health and welfare, which would not cause speech, sleep or activity interference and which would be expected to cause little if any annoyance (EPA,1974).
270r outside residential and farm space, this identified level has been established it 55dBA, expressed as a day-night equivalent sound level Ldn.*
(Subsequent to the publication of these identified noise levels, HUD revised its criteria for exterior environmental noise levels at Federally funded residential projects to adopt the.YA sponsored values as a goal (24 CFR Part 51)).
The day-night equivalent sound level is the value of constant and continuous noise that would deliver the same sound energy to a specified receptor location over a twenty four hour period that the actually experienced time varying noise would deliver to that location, with a ten decibel penalty added to the noise level for the 10pm to 7am time period.
Assuming constant and continuous operation of the station cooling towers at the ' highest recorded noise level of the licensee's surveys (i.e., 45dBA), the Ldn for receptor location Al or A2 wauld be about 51.4 dBA. Adverse impacts offsite in the vicinity of these receptor.. locations due to this level of cooling tower noise would, therefore, not be expected, using the EPA identified level as a criterion.
The results of broadband noise measurement surt
- t location B, near the transformer in the north substation, show..sise levels consistently below the ETS limit of 60dBA.
However, conversion of the recorded broadband data to day-night equivalent sound levels on bases similar to that used for the cooling towers provided mixed results with respect to the EPA identified level of 55dBA; three of the survey readings yield values above this level, with the remaining three survey readings yielding values at or below the identified level.
The higher noise levels at location B were
(
recorded during the late autumn and winter time periods, when tree foliage is at a minimum.
Offsite outdoor activity at residences near this portion of the site could also be expected to be at a minimum during these times as well.
l
-g
-m
,-.r,-,,--r,.
e--
--e~->
v
.,------,--------,------r-
. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Noise Level Survey Results Measurement Measured Noise Level, dBA during Surveys dated:
ETS Pt.
, 7/24 10/74 2/75 4/75 7/75 10/75 Limit, dBA Al 45
<45 45 44 43 40 45 A2 43 (45 45 42 45 37 45 8
45 56.6 52 49 41 53 60 Source:
PEco,1983 l
l l
' Conclusion The noise s~urveys conducted by the licensee met the specifications of the ETS.
Th'e noise levels recorded indicate that cooling tower noise would not be expected to cause activity interference or annoyance and that noise levels near the site boundary in the vicinity of the north substation and transformer similarly indicate no adysrse effect during the time of year when foliage is present.
Other analyses useful in assessing the likelihood for noise related adverse impacts on the offsite environment include measurement of ambient broadband..offsite noise levels for comp -ison with the operational noise levels and measurement of octave band noise levels for the ambient and operational offsite environment in the vicinity of the switchyard and transformer (these latter measurements would permit the identification of tonal components of transformer noise which have a greater potential for annoyance). While these specific measurements wert not required by the ETS and, therefore, l
were not perfonned, the effects on the nearby offsite environment of the noise from operation of the station are indicated in the licensee's statement that there have been no complaints made to the station by members of the public since Units 2 and 3 have begun commercial operation (PECo,1983a).
III. Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the staff concludes that l
l there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
The changes assessed herein are to the environmental m
J W
monitoring programs and do not involve any change in station design or operation or involve an increase in effluent types or quanti ties.
The impact of the overall station operation has already been predicted and described in the Commission's FES for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3.
This environmental l
impact appraisal has not revealed impacts greater than those previously anticipated.
On this basis and in accordance with CFR Title 10, Part 51.5, the Commission concludes' that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
I Dated: February 24, 1984 The following NRC personnel contributed to this Environmental Impact f
Appraisal:
John Lehr.
l r
l l
l
References Letter dated February 14, 1983 from E. J. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Company; to H. R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 3
USNRC; 1 page plus application for ammendment of Facility Operating
]
Philadelphia Electric Company; Applicant's Environmental Report -
Operating License State Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 Supplement No. 3; June,1972.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Circular 139Q.2; Nsise Abatement and Control:
Department Policy, Implew.entation Responsibilities and Standards Change 1; August,1971.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission; Final Environmental Statement related to operation of Peach Bettom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278; April,1973.
Letter dated July 8,1983a frcm W. M. Alden, Engineer-in-Charge ' Licensing Section Nuclear Generation Division, Philadelphia Electric Company; to Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; T page plus data sheets from Six noise Level Measurement Survie11ance Tests, dated July 25, 1974, October 29,1974, February 24,1975, April 30, 1975, July 22,1975 and October 27, 1975.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Information On Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety; Report No. 550/9-74; March,1974.
i l
1 l
l
..