ML20137S975

Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Beaver Valley Power Station,Unit 2.Docket No. 50-412. (Duquesne Light Company)

ML20137S975
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/30/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-1094, NUREG-1094-01, NUREG-1094-1, NUDOCS 8509300559
Download: ML20137S975 (300)

Text

.! .

"l ~ .  ;

ij - _.

NUREG-1094 Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-412

. Duquesne Light Company, et al.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation September 1985 lpocu,,h

!%4l.Q&$,

s i '

S, ,7;, o t

}

b0Kb 12

NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013 7082

3. The National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices:

Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers;and applicant and licensee documents and corresponcence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature itdms, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreig'1 reports and translations,and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and stsndards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

l l

l i

L

- . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - ~ . _. _ . _ ._ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I i i

i i' i 1

i i A8STRACT  !

i  !

i i

I This Final Environmental Statement contains the second assessment of the envi- l  !

ronmental impact associated with Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 pursuant to  !

I the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Title 10 of the Code  !

j of Federal Regulations, Part 51, as amended, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion regulations. This statement examines the environment, environmental con- i l

} sequences and mitigating actions, and environmental benefits and costs, and con-l

~

cludes that the action called.for is the issuance of an operating license for i

Beaver Valley Unit 2.  !

i

,i I

i  !

i f l

f t

i  :

I  !

I i

)  !

! l i

1 ,

I

! l i

1 1

,1

! Beaver Valloy 2 FE5 111 l I

a_________'

l SURVRY AND CONCLUSIONS This Final Environmental Statement (FES) was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

(1) This action is administrative.

(2) The proposed action is the issuance of an operating license to Duquesne Light Company, applicant and agent for the owners, for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (NRC Docket No. 50-412). Beaver Valley Unit 2 is adjacent to Beaver Valley Unit 1, which was licensed in January 1976. The site is on the south bank of the Ohio River in Shippingport Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

The unit will employ a three-loop pressurized water reactor with a net calculated electrical output of approximately 836 MW. The circulating water system is a pumped, closed-loop system utilizing an air-cooled, natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower as a heat sink. The Ohio River serves as the ultimate heat sink and provides makeup cooling water.

(3) The informaticn in this statement represents an assessment of the environ-mental impacts of station cperation pursuant to the Commission's regula-tions as set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR 51), which implements the requirements of the National Environmen-tal Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). After docketing, in October 1972, an appli-cation to construct the facility and subsequent amendments thereto, the staff reviewed the impacts that would occur during construction and oper-ation. That evaluation was issued as the Final Environmental Statement-Construction Permit phase (FES-CP) in July 1973. After that environmen- l tal review, a safety review, and an evaluation by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Construction Permit No. CPPR-105 on May 3, 1974 for construction of the facility. The applicant submitted an application for an operating license by letter dated January 26, 1983. The NRC conducted a predocketing a'eceptance review and determined that sufficient information was available to start detailed environmental and safety reviews. The applicant's operating license appli-cation was docketed on May 18, 1983.

(4) The staff has reviewed the activities associated with the proposed opera-tion of the station and the potential impacts, both beneficial and adverse.

The staff's conclusions are summarized as follows:

(a) The total land area of the plant site is approximately 203 ha (501 acres). Unit 2 will occupy about 23 ha (56 acres); construction activities have disturbed about 41 ha (101 acres). This is an increase in the acreage anticipated in the FES-CP, but does not represent a significant land use change. Operational impacts to land use on the site are insicnificant (Sections 4.2.2 and 5.2.1).

Beaver Valley 2 FES v

(b) There are no significant impacts associated with the transmission system because for the most part it will utilize the vacant side of existing towers on existing rights-of-way (Sections 4.2.7 and 5.2.2).

(c) Oti an average annual basis, consumptive use of Ohio River water will be about 0.05% of the flow at the site. This small consumptive use is judged to be a negligible impact on downstream users (Section 5.3.2).

(d) The water quality of the Ohio River in the vicinity of Beaver Valley Unit 2 has improved somewhat over that reported in the FES-CP. How-ever, some constituents are present in the river at concentrations above those specified as acceptable by cpplicable criteria. The con-centrating effect of the Unit 2 cooling system will aggravate these concentrations in the river. However, comparisons of the maximum discharge concentrations with those associated with aquatic organism mortality data indicates that, for most constituents, adverse effects would not be expected. Discharge of residual chlorine, un-lonized ammonia, and manganese at the maximum expected concentrations could produce localized short-term adverse effects on receiving water biota (Sections 5.3.1 and 5.5.2).

(e) The effects of thermal discharges in the cooling system blowdown to the Ohio River are judged to be a small and negligible impact on the riverine community of aquatic biota. Because the Shippingport facility will no longer be operating when Unit 2 becomes operational, the thermal discharges to the river will be less than previously evaluated at the CP stage. Some localized effects may be expected during winter, with attraction of some fish to the thermal mixing zone, and during summer, with avoidance of the mixing zone by some species (Sec-tion 5.5.2).

(f) Entrainment of biota in makeup-water for the closed cycle cooling system is projected to be small and a negligible impact on the river-ine biotic community. Percentage losses are expected to be equal to the ratio of the makeup flow to river flow. Losses of ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) will be very small because of their period of peak occurrence and susceptibility during high river flows in spring and early summer (Section 5.5.2).

(g) Impingement will affect some fish species preferentially, but losses are not expected to impact the populations of these species (Sec-tion 5.5.2).

(h) The Operation of the plant and transmission system will have no impacts on endangered and threatened species (Sections 4.3.5 and 5.6).

(i) The opert.+. ion and maintenance of the plant and associated facilities is not anticipated to have any effect on any sites or prcperties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Sections 4.3.6 and 5.7).

l Beaver Valley 2 FES vi i L

(j) The risks to the general public from the exposure to radioactive effluents and the transportation of fuel and wastes from annual operation of the faci.lity are very small fractions of the estimated normal incidence of cancer fatalities and genetic abnormalities (Section 5.9.3.1).

(k) The risk to the public health and safety from exposure to radio-activity associated with the normal operation of the facility will be small (Section 5.9.3.2).

(1) No measurable radiological impact on the populations of biota is expected as a result of routine operation of the plant (Sec-tion 5.9.3.3).

(m) The environmental impacts that have been considered in the staff's evaluation of the postulated plant accidents include potential radiation exposures to individuals and to the population as a whole, the risk of near and long-term adverse health effects that such ex-posures could entail, and the potential economic and societal-conse-quences of accidental contamination of the environment. These impacts could be severe, but the likelihood of their occurrence is judged to be small. This conclusion is based on (a) tne fact that considerable experience has been gained with the operation of similar facilities without significant degradation of the environment; (b) the fact that, to obtain-a license to operate, Beaver Valley Unit 2 must comply with the applicable Commission regulations and requirements; and (c) a probabilistic assessment of the risk for similar plants based upon the methodology developed in the reactor safety study (RSS) (WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014). Accidents have a potential for early fatalities and economic costs that cannot arise from normal operations; however, the risks of early fatality from potential accidents at the site are small in comparison with risks of early fatality from other human activities in a comparably sized population, and the accident risk will not add significantly to population exposure and cancer risks. Accident risks from Beaver Valley Unit 2 are expected to be a small fraction of the risks the general public incurs from other sources. Further, the

, best estimate calculations show that the risks of potential reactor

accidents at Beaver Valley are within the range of such risks from 4

other nuclear power plants. Based on the foregoing considerations of environmental impacts of accidents, which have not been found to be significant, the staff has concluded that there are no special or unique circumstances about the Beaver Valley site and environs that l would warrant special consideration of alternatives for Beaver Valley j Unit 2 (Section 5.9.4.6).

(n) The environmental impact on the U.S. population from radioactive gase-

ous and liquid releases resulting from the uranium fuel cycle is very small when ccmpared with the impact of natural background radiation j (Section 5.10).

j (o) Radiation doses to the public as a result of end-of-life decommission-ing activities are expected to be small (Section 5.11).

Beaver Valley 2 FES vil i

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

(p) The staff predicts that offsite noise levels consisting of broadband noise from the Unit 2 cooling towers, tonal noise from station trans-formers, and intermittent noise from outdoor loudspeakers (part of

• the plant paging security systems) during unit operation will be equal to or below ambient levels near the site, except for an area

,L near Ferry Road and in the vicinity of a cluster of private residences east of the station boundary. Depending on ambient noise levels, operational phase noise levels could be high enough to cause annoy- ,

ance and complaints. A monitoring program to determine actual noise i

levels, to be followed by an assessment of their impact and the need i

for mitigative actions will be included in the Environmental Protec-j tion Plan for the station (Sections 5.12 and 5.14.4).

i (q) There is little potential for impacts on terrestrial ecosystems as a

result of operation of the cooling tower. However, the applicant will

continue an infrared aerial photography program to assess potential salt drift impacts to vegetation (Section 5.14.1). The threat to bird j populations as a result of collisions are insignificant (Section 5.5.1).

i i

(5) This statement assesses various impacts ' associated with the operation of I the facility in terms of annual impacts and balances these impacts against the anticipated annual energy production benefits. Thus, the

' overall assessment and conclusion would not be dependent on specific operating life. Where appropriate, a specific operating life of 40 years

has been assumed.

(6) The personnel who participated in the preparation of this document are i identified in Section 7.

(7) The Draft Environmental Statement was made available for comment to the public, to the Environmental Protection Agency, and to other agencies as

, specified in Section 8. Comments received are addressed in Section 9, and the comment letters are reproduced in Appendix A.

j

.(8) On the basis of the analysis and evaluations set forth in this statement,

' af ter weighing the environmental, technical, and other benefits against 1

the environmental costs at the operating license stage, the staff concludes that the action called for under NEPA and 10 CFR 51 is the issu~ance of an

operating license for Beaver Valley Unit 2, subject to the following condi-

tions for protection of the environment

(a) Before engaging in additi.onal construction or operation activities 4

that may result in a significant adverse impact that was not eval- l uated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this

, statement, the applicant shall provide written notification of such ,

i j activities to the Directcr of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-  !

tion and shall receive written approval from that office before pro- '

2 ceeding with such activities.

I (b) The applicant shall carry out the environmental monitoring programs

! outlined in Section 5 of this statement, as modified and approved by  !

j the staff, and implemented in the Environmental Protection Plan and l Technical Specifications that will be incorporated in the operating 4

! Beaver Valley 2 FES viii

! L

license for Beaver Valley Unit 2. Monitoring of.the aquatic environ- i ment shall be as specified in the National Pollution Discharge Elimi- '

nation System (NPDES) Permit.

(c) If adverse environmental effects or evidence of impending irrevers-ible environmental damage occurs during the operating life of the

[ plant, the applicant shall provide the staff with an analysis of the

!. problem and a proposed course'of corrective action.

1 1

1 i

i j

a i

i i

i '

1 I

l l

t i

i l

\ .

{

Beaver Valley 2 FES vix-h l <

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

- . _ - _. ._ _._ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ .__ __ . _ _ _.~ . - . _.

t fr 1

4 e

1 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS t

i Page i ABSTRACT ............................................................. iii j '

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................. v i

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................... xiii 3 LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... xv I FOREWORD ............................................................. xvii u i 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1-1 1~

1.1 Administrative History ..................................... 1-1 L

1.2 Permits and Licenses ....................................... 1-2 1

i j 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................................... 2-1 1

2.1 References ................................................. 2-1 4

i 3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. 3-1 i 3.1 References ................................................. 3-1

) 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................... 4-1 t

4

! 4.1 Rdsums ..................................................... 4-1 I i

i 4.2 Facility Description ....................................... 4-1  !

4 t

j 4.2.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout ................ 4-1 j 4.2.2 Land Use ............................................ 4-2 i

4.2.3 Water Use and Treatment ............................. 4-3 4.2.4 Cooling System ...................................... 4-4 4.2.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems ................ 4-6 i

4.2.6 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems ............. 4-6

4.2.7 Power Transmission System ........................... 4-8 i

[ 4.3 Project-Related Environmental Descriptions ................. 4-8 .,

l 4.3.1 Hydrology ........................................... 4-8

, 4.3.2 Wa t e r Q u a l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 4.3.3 Meteorology ......................................... 4-11 i 4.3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources ................... 4-13 l 4.3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species ................... 4-16  !

t. 4.3.6 Historic and Archeological Sites .................... 4-17 i

! 4.3.7 Sociceconcaic' Characteristics ....................... 4-18 l 4.4 References ................................................. 4-18 Beaver Valley 2 FES ix

- . _ , _ , m.r_ . . , - -...,,y - -_-- ----_-,-4--._,,,,-.-----._,.-v.-m4 ..,m--.- .v-- -m--- ---- ~ ~,.---, -,

TABLE OF CONTENTS (co tinued)

. P_ag ,

5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIO S ............... 5-1 1

5.1 Rdsund ................................... ................. 5-1

, 5.2 Land Use ................................. ................. 5-1 l'

5.2.l' Plant Site ........................ ................. 5-1

,, 5.P.2 Transmission Lines ................ ................. 5-2 5.3 Water .................................... ................. 5-2 ,

5.3.1 ' Water Quality ..................... ................. 5-2

5. 3 . 2 ' Wa te r U s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

l. 5.3.3 O the r Hyd ro l o g i c Imp ac t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5.4 A i r Q u a l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5.4.1 Fog and Ice ....................... ................. 5-5 5.4.2 Other Emissions ............... ... ................. 5-5 i 5.5 Ecology .............................. .., ................ 5-6 5.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology ........... ... ................. 5-6 F.5.2 Aquatic Resources ............. ... ................ 5-7 4

5.6 Endangered and Threatened Species .... ... ................ 5-11 5.6.1 Terrestrial Species ........... ... ................. 5-11 l 5.6.2 Aquatic Species ............... ... ................ 5-12 5.7 Historic and Archeological. Impacts ... ... ................ 5-12 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts ................ ... ................ 5-12 5.9 Radiological Impacts ................. ... ................ 5-12 5.9.1 Regulatory Requirements ....... ... ................ 5-12 5.9.2 Operational Overview .......... . .. ................ 5-13 5.9.3 Radiological Impacts from.Routi.e 0 trations ........ 5-15 5.9.4 Environmental Impacts of. Postul.ted \ccidents ....... 5-24 5.10 Impacts from the Uranium Fuel Cycle .. ... ................ 5-52 5.11 Decommissioning ...................... ... ................. 5-53 5.12 Noise Impacts ........................ ... ................ 5-54 i 5.13 Emergency Planning Impacts ........... ... ................ 5-56 5.14 Environmental Monitoring ............. ... ................. 5-57 5.14.1 Terrestrial Monitoring ....... ... ................. 5-57 5.14.2 Aquatic Monitoring ........... ... ................ 5-57 -

{ 5.14.3 Atmospheric Monitoring ....... ... ................. 5-57

! 5.14.4 Noise Monitoring ............. ... ................. 5-58 1

5.15 References ........................... ... ................. 5-58 Beaver Valley 2 FES X

, - , - -,,----n ~,-,.u ,- m y---+ e-- - - - -- - -m vav - -p--,- -e,, -

.- TABLE 0'F CONTENTS (continued)

. Py 6 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACT ON ............................... 6-1 F.1 . Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. ...c............................ 6-1 6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .... 6-1 6.3 Relationship Between Short-Term'Use and Long-Term Productivity ...............................................

6-1 6.4 B e ne f i t- Co s t S umma ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6 . 4.1 '. S umma ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.4.2 Economic Costs ................................'....... 6-2 6.4.3 Socioeconomic. Costs

..........................t...... 6-2 6.5 R'eference .................................................. 6-2

7. CONTRIBUTORS .................................................... 7-1 8 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WERE SENT................... 8-1 9 STAFF RESPONSES TO COPMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ....................................................... 9-1 9.1 Abstract, Summary and Conclusions, Table of Contents, Foreword, and Introduction.................................. 9-2 9.1. 2 Permits and Licenses................................. 9-2 9.4 Project Description and Affected Environment................ 9-2

. 9.4.1 Rdsumd............................................... 9-2 9.4.2 Facility Description................................. 9-2 9.4.3 Project-Related Envi ronmental Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . 9-5 9.5 Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions........... 9-7 9.5.3 Water................................................ 9-7 9.5.4 A i r Q u a l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8 9.5.5 Ecology.............................................. 9-9 9.5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts................................ 9-9 9.5.9 Radiological Impacts................................. 9-10 9.5.11 Decommissioning...................................... 9-13 9.5.14 Environmental Monitoring............................. 9-13 9.6 Evaluation of the Proposed Action........................... 9-14 9.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impact.............'.............. 9-14 9.6.4 Benefit-Cost Summary................................. 9-14 9.10 Appendices.................................................. 9-15 9.10.3 Appendix C.......................................... 9-15 9.10.4 Appendix D.......................................... 9-15 Beaver Valley 2 FES xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

P, age

-9.11 References............... .................................. 9-16 APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT APPENDIX B NEPA POPULATION DOSE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE APPENDIX D EXAMPLES OF SITE-SPECIFIC DOSE ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E REBASELINING OF THE RSS RESULTS FOR PWRs APPENDIX F CONSEQUENCE MODELING CONSIDERATIONS l APPENDIX G NPDES PERMIT APPENDIX H CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES l

l Beaver Valley 2 FES xii

_ ___ _ - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ .. . -. _ _ _ ~ _ _ . . _ - . . _ _ . _

i FIGURES P_ag 4.1 Site layout ..................................................... 4-21 4.2 Exclusion area .................................................. 4-22 j 4.3 Plant water use ................................................. 4-23 4.4 Intake structure details ........................................ 4-24 4.5 Alternate intake structure ...................................... 4-25 4

4.6 Discharge structures ............................................ 4-26 i 4.7 Eme rgency outf al l s tructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 ,

4.8 Impact basin for servi'ce water discharge ........................ 4-28

. 4.9 Principal hydralogic features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29 4

4.10 0hio River drainage area ........................................ 4-30

• t 4.11 Peggs Run ....................................................... 4-31 4

5.1 100 year floodplain ............................................. 5-64 i 5.2 Potentially meaningful exposure pathways to individuals ......... 5-65

5. 3 Schematic outline of consequence model .......................... 5-66

5.4 Probability distributions of individual dose impacts ............ 5-67 i 5.5 Probability distributions of population exposures ............... 5-68 ,

! 5.6 Probability distribution of early fatalities with supportive j medical treatment ............................................... 5-69

5.7 Probabi.lity distributions of cancer fatalities .................. 5-70 5.8 Probability distribution of mitigation measures cost ............ 5-71 5.9 Individual risk of dose as a function of distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-72 5.10 Isopleths of risk of early fatality per reactor year to an individual....................................................... 5-73 5.11 Isopleths of risk of. latent cancer fatality per reactor year

to an individual ................................................ 5-74 5.12 Estimated early fatality risk, with supportive medical treat-ment, from severe reactor accidents, for several nuclear power plants either operating or receiving consideration for issuance

] of a. license to operate ......................................... 5 i 5.13 Estimated latent thyroid cancer fatality risk, from severe

reactor accidents, for several nuclear power plants either opera-l ating or receiving consideration for issuance of a license to operate ......................................................... 5-76 5.14 Estimated latent cancer fatality risk, excluding thyroid, i from severe reactor accidents, for several nuclear' power plants

' either operating or receiving consideration for issuance of a license to operate .............................................. 5-77 i 5.15 Estimated early fatality risk, with supportive medical treat-ment, from severe reactor accidents, for several nuclear power plants either operating or receiving consideration for issuance of a license to operate, for which site-specific applications of NUREG-0773 accident releases have been used to calculate offsite consequences .................................................... 5-78 4

i i

Beaver Valley 2 FES xiii

e 4

j . FIGURES (Continued)

P_ag 5.16 Estimated latent thyroid cancer fatality ~ risk, from severe reactor

, accidents, for several nuclear power plants either operating or receiving consideration for issuance of.a license to operate, for which site-specific applications of NUREG-0773 accident releases have been used to calculate offsite consequences ....... 5-79

5.17 Estimated latent cancer fatality' risk, excluding thyroid, from severe reactor accidents, for several nuclear power plants

either operating or~ receiving consideration for issuance of

license to operate, for which site-specific applications of i NUREG-0773 accident releases have been used to calculate off-i- site consequences .............,................................. 5-80 5.18 Estimated early fatality risk, with supportive medical treatment, from severe reactor accidents, for nuclear power plants having plant specific PRAs, showing estimated range of uncertainties ................................................ 5-81 5.19 Estimated latent cancer fatality risk, excluding thyroid, from severe reactor accidents, for nuclear power plants having plant-

{ specific PRAs, showing estimated range of uncertainties ......... 5-82 5.20 Estimated latent thyroid cancer fatality risk from severe .

reactor accidents for nuclear power plants having plant-specific PRAs, showing estimated range of uncertainties .......... 5-83 5.21 Seven amoient measurement-positions representing sensitive noise areas ..................................................... 5-85 1

5.22 Key noise sources ............................................... 5-86 5.23 Estimated community response versus composite noise rating ...... 5-87 5.24 Location of eight loudspeakers planned for plant operation . . ... . 5-88 I

i i

i

}

l 1

i i  !

i  :

i l

Beaver Valley 2 FES xiv '

i

.- - -. - _ . _ ..__ __. . . -= - .-. ._

t.--.

i l

1 TABLES ,

P_ age i 4.1 Classification of site acreage by vegetation type and land use .. 4-32  ;

4.2 Soil mapping units onsite ....................................... 4-33  !

4.3 Estimated water quality of Unit 2 blowdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34 l 4.4- 0eleted.................................................... ..... 4-35 1 4.5 Deleted.......................................................... 4-36 l 4.6 0eleted.......................................................... 4-37 4.7 Beaver Valley-to-Crescent transmission line right-of-way land use ........................................................ 4-38 6 4.8 Comparison of water quality data in the Ohio River near the

,- station ......................................................... 4-38 i 4.9 Ohio River fishes at Beaver Valley site ......................... 4-39  !

4.10 Ichthyoplankton density ......................................... 4-41 i

, 5.1 Expected avoidance temperatures of selected fishes at the ,

Beaver Valley site .............................................. 5-89 1 5.2 Upstream-downstream comparison of population densities of (

!. organisms at the Beaver Valley site, 1977-1979 .................. 5-90 .i

5. 3 Estimated state taxes to be paid on Beaver Valley Unit 2 ........ 5-90  !

, 5.4 Incidence of job-related mortali ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-91 {

4 5.5 (Summary Table S-4) Environmental impact of transportation 1 of-fuel and waste to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear

~

i  !

power reactor ................................................... 5-92  !

5.6 Preoperational radiological environmental modeling program  !

for Beaver Valley Unit 2 .................... ................... 5-93 5.7 Activity of radionuclides in a Beaver Valley Unit 2 reactor .

1 core at 2766 MWt ................................................ 5-97 i 5.8 Appropriate 2-hour radiation doses from design-basis accidents  !

at the exclusion area boundary using realistic assumptions ...... 5-99 i j 5.9 Summary of atmospheric releases in hypothetical accident l

! sequences in an RSS PWR (rebaselined) ........................... 5-100 j

! 5.10 Environmental irpacts and probabilities ......................... 5-101 F l 5.11 Average values of environmental risks due to accidents . . . . . . . . . . 5-101  !

5.12 Regional economic impacts, output-and employment ................ 5-102  !

j 5.13 (Summary Table S-3) Uranium-fuel-cycle environmental data . . . . .. . 5-103 l 5.14 Noise measurement locations .....................................

5-105 i l 5.15 Residual ambient noise levels assumed for receptors R1-R7 I and RF1-RF3 ..................................................... 5-105 i

, 5.16 Sound pressure levels predicted for R1-R7 and RF1-RF3 as a  !

[ result of the cooling towers and transformers ................... 5-106 [

j 5.17 Loudspeaker characteristics and locations ....................... 5-107 l

\

i 6.1. Benefit cost summary ............................................ 6-3 t

I h i 9.1 Comments on the DES and sections of this report in which i

! they are addressed... ........................................... 9-17 .

[

1 4

i j

Beaver Valley 2 FES xv i

[

FOREWORD This Final Environmental Statement-Operating License Stage (FES-OL) was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation (the staff) in accordance with the Commission's regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 (10 CFR 51), which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

The NEPA states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.

Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

Preserve i.Tportant historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice.

Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Further, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA calls for the preparation of a statement on the environmental impact of the proposed action any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented alternatives to the proposed action the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented Beaver Valley 2 FE5 xvii

An Environmental Report (ER-OL) accompanied the application for an operating license. In conducting the. required NEPA review, the staff met with the appli-cant to discuss items of information in the ER-OL, to seek new information from the applicant that might be needed for an~ adequate assessment, and to ensure that the staff has a thorough understanding of the proposed project. In addi-tion, the staff has obtained information from other sources that have assisted

in this evaluation, and visited the project site and the surrounding vicinity.

Members of the staff met with state and local officials who are charged with protecting state and local interests. On the basis of all the foregoing and other such activities or inquiries as were deemed useful and appropriate, the staff made an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 103(2)(c) of the NEPA and 10 CFR 51.

-The evaluation led to the publication of.the DES, which was circulated to Federal, state, and local government agencies for comment. A notice of the availability of the ER-OL and the DES was published in the Federal Register (January 18, 1985). Interested persons were also invited to comment on the proposed action and on the draft statement.

l 'This Final Environmental Statement (FES) includes a discussion of questions and concerns raised by the commenters and the disposition thereof. This FES

{ also contains the conclusions reached by the staff as to whether--after the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits are weighed against environmental. costs--the action called for, with respect to environmental issues, is the issuance or denial of the proposed license, or its appropriate condition-

.l ing to protect. environmental values. The format used in the DES also is used in the FES to facilitate review.

The information to be found in the various sections of this statement updates the environmental statement issued at the construction permit stage (FES-CP) in four ways: (1) by evaluating changes to facility design and operation that will result in different environmental effects of operation (including those that would enhance as well as degrade the en.vironment) than those projected during the pre-construction. review; (2) by reporting the results of relevant new information that has become available subsequent to the issuance of the FES-CP; (3) by factoring into the statement new environmental policies and statutes that have a bearing on th.e licensing action; and (4) by identifying unresolved environmental issues or' surveillance needs that are to be resolved by means of license conditions.

l Copies of this FES are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Rocm,1717 H Street, tN, Washington, DC 20555 and at the Local Public Document Room at the 8. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Ms. Marilyn Ley is the NRC project manager for the environmental review of Beaver Valley Unit 2. Should there be any questions regarding the content of this statement, Ms. Ley may be contacted by telephone at (301) 492-7000 or by writing to Division of Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 4

Beaver Valley 2 FES xviii

1 INTRODUCTION The proposed action is the issuance of an operating license to Duquesne Light Company, as applicant and agent for the owners, for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (NRC Docket No. 50-412). .The site is on the south bank of the Ohio River in Shippingport Borough, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

It is approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) from Midland, Pennsylvania; 8 km (5 miles) from East Liverpool, Ohio; and 40 km (25 miles) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. '

The unit will employ a three-loop pressurized water reactor (PWR) with a net calculated electrical output of approximately 836 MW. Beaver Valley Unit 1, licensed in January 1976, uses a three-loop PWR with a net electrical output of 810 MW.

Beaver Valley Unit 2 has a pumped, closed-loop circulating water system that uses an air-cooled natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower as a heat sink. The Ohio River provides makeup cooling water and serves as the ultimate heat sink.

1.1 Administrative History Joint ownership of Beaver Valley Unit 2 is-held by the Central Area Power Coordinating Group (CAPCO), which is comprised of Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, the Toledo Edison Company, and Duquesne Light Company. However, Duquesne Light Company retains overall responsibility for the project.

On October 20, 1972, an application for a license to construct and operate the proposed Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 was docketed with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC). In July ,

1973, the AEC issued a Final Environmental Statement, Construction Permit stage (FES-CP) related to Beaver Valley Unit 2, which reported the results of a pre-construction environmental review. Following a public hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Construction Permit No. CPPR-105 was issued  ;

on May 3, 1974.

By letter dated January 26, 1983, the applicant filed an application for an operating license. Following a predocketing acceptance review by the NRC, the application was docketed on May 18, 1983. The applicant's Environmental Report-Operating License stage (ER-OL) and Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) i were also docketed then.* The staff's Draft Safety Evaluation Report was issued in March 1984, and a second Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER) was issued in June 1985. The SER is scheduled for issuance in late 1985.

l "These documents are cited in this report as ER-OL or FSAPs, followed by a section, table, or figure number. They are available for review at the NRC 7 Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC and at the Local ,

Public Dccument Room at the B.F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avanue,  ;

Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001. l Beaver Valley 2 FES 1-1 l

The results of the staff review of the ER-OL were published in the Draft Environmental Statement (DES), issued for public. comment in December 1984.

This statement contained the second assessment of the environmental impact associated with the operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, as amended, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regula-l tions. It examined the environment, environmental consequences and mitigating actions, and environmental.and economic benefits and costs.

• The DES was sent to Federal, state, and local government agencies, as listed in Section 8, and a notice of availability was published in the Federal Register (January 18, 1985). Interested persons also were invited to comment.

After receipt and consideration of these comments, the staff has prepared this Final Environmental Statement (FES), which includes, in Section 9, a discussion of the questions and concerns raised by the commenters and the disposition thereof.

The comment letters are reproduced in Appendix A; they are arranged chronologi-cally in order of the date on the letter. This FES also includes conclusions 1

as to whether--after the environmental, technical, and other benefits are weighed against environmental costs--the action called for with respect to environmental issues is the issuance or denial of the proposed license or its

] appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values.

The FES follows the same format as the DES. To facilitate review, all changes are marked by a bar in the margin next to the change (except in Section 9 and i Appendices A and G, which are entirely new material). In the discussion of the staff response to comments in Section 9, the comments are arranged according to subject matter, following the format of the rest of the statement; for example, comments relating to Section 4.2.4 on the cooling system are addressed in Section 9.4.2.4. Although the FES contains some changes from the DES, the conclusions--supporting issuance of the operating license- remain unchanged.

Appendix B contains the NEPA population dose assessment, Appendix C discusses impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, and Appendix 0 contains examples of site-l specific dose assessment calculations. Appendix E addresses rebaselining of the reactor safety results for pressurized water reactors (PWRs), and Appendix F

l- addresses consequence modeling considerations. Appendix G reproduces the i National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and Appendix H contains correspondence regarding historical and archeological sites.

1.2 Permits and Licenses ER-OL Table 12.1-1 lists the status of environmentally related permits, appro-vals, and licenses required from Federal and state agencies in connection with the proposed project. The staff has reviewed the listing and other information ,

and is not aware of any potential non-NRC licensing difficulties that would significantly delay or preclude the proposed operation of the plant. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the issuance of a water quality certifi- ,

cation, or waiver therefrem, by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental =

Resources (PDER) is a necessary prerequisite to the issuance of an operating license by the NRC. This Section 401 certification was granted on January 23, l, 1974 (ER-OL Section 12.3). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System .

(NPDES) permit for operation of Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2, pursuant to Sec- l tion 402 of the Clean Water Act, was issued by the PDER on November 26, 1984 .

(Appendix G).  ;

Beaver Valley 2 FES 1-2 b l

l _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ __ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._._ _ __ _ __ _ _

f h

2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

't The Commission amended'10 CFR 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Proce-  ;

i dures for Environmental Protection," effective April 26, 1982, to provide that j need-for power. issues will not be considered in ongoing and future operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants unless a showing of "special cir-

, cumstances" is made under 10 CFR 2.758, or the Commission otherwise so requires

(Federal Register, March 1982). Need-for power issues need not be addressed by i operating license applicants in environmental reports to the NRC, nor by the staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection with operating license applications (see 10 CFR 51.53, 51.95(e), and 51.106(c)).

4 This policy has been determined by the Commission to be justified even in situ-ations where, because of reduced capacity requirements on the acplicant's sys-tem, the additional capacity to'be provided by the nuclear racility is not needed to meet the applicant's load responsibility. . The Commission has taken

, this action because the issue of naed for power is correctly considered at the construction permit stage of the regulatory review, where a finding of insuffi-cient need could factor into denial of issuance of a license. At the operating license review stage, the proposed plant is substantially constructed and a finding of insufficient need would not, in itself, result in denial of the

. operating license.

4 The Cc==ission has determined that substantial information exists to support

, .t he content ion that nuclear plants cost less to operate than do conventional 4

fossil-fueled plants. If conservation, or other factors, lowers anticipated demand, utilities remove generating facilities from service according to their costs of operation, and the most expensive facilities are removed first. Thus, i a completed nuclear plant would serve to substitute for less economical gener-ating capacity (Federal Register, August 1981 and March 1982).

l Accordingly, this environmental statement does not consider "need for power."

1 Section 6 does, however, consider the savings associated with the operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2.

i 2.1 References 4

Federal Register, 46 FR 39440, August 3, 1981.

~

-- , 47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982.

1 t

i i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 2-1 1

i i

, _ . . . _ _ . . _ , . _ ~ . . . _ - _ . , _ . ._._.___.__._ . . _ _ _ . ~ , _ _ _ . _

3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The Commission amended its regulations in 10 CFR 51, effective April 26, 1982, l to provide that issues related to alternative energy sources will not be con-sidered in ongoing and future operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants unless a showing of "special circumstances" is made under 10 CFR 2.758, or the Commission otherwise so requires (Federal Register, March 1982). In addition, these issues need not be addressed by operating license applicants in environmental reports to the NRC, nor by the staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection with operating license applications (see 10 CFR 51.53, 51.95, and 51.106(c) and (d)).

The Commission has concluded that alternative energy source issues are resolved at the construction permit stage, and the construction permit is granted only after a finding that, on balance, no superior alternative to the proposed nuclear facility exists. This conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alternative is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison with operation of the nuclear facility because of the economic advantage that operation of the nuclear plant would have over available alternative sources (Federal Register, August 1981 and March 1982). By an earlier amendment (46 FR 28630, May 28, 1981), the Commission also stated that alternative sites will not be considered at the operating license stage, except under special.

circumstances, according to 10 CFR 2.758. Thus, this environmental statement does not consider alternative energy sources or alternative sites.

3.1 References Federal Register, 46 FR 28630, May 28, 1981.

-- , 46 FR 39440, August 3, 1981. ,

-- , 47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982.

Beaver Valley 2 FE5 3-1

4 4

3 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Rssums 2

This section compares the plant design and operating characteristics given in 1

the FES-CP with those given in the ER-OL. This rssums highlights the changes that have occurred.

Changes to the external appearance and station layout are discussed in Sec-tion 4.2.1. Section 4.2.2 identifies changes in both the total site area and 1

total area affected by construction. . Section 4.2.3 discusses four changes in water use and treatment: a decrease in annual' water consumption, a consider-

- able decrease in drift, the use of groundwater for domestic purposes, and the j use of additional chemicals for water treatment. The following changes to the

! cooling system are described in Section 4.2.4: an increase in maximum water l

l velocity across the bar racks in the primary intake structure, the addition of an auxiliary intake structure and emergency outfall structure, a change in blowdown rate, and a decrease in the maximum temperature difference between tr:e 'l ambient and discharge temperatures of the combined blowdown from Units 1 and 2.

Section 4.2.5 discusses the radioactive waste management system. In Sec- -

tion 4.2.6, which addresses the nonradioactive waste management system, the l addition of a separate sewage treatment facility is addressed. - Section 4.2.7  !

j discusses the new circuit to the power transmission system. '

Section 4.3.1 provides supplemental information on hydrology, including material on the construction of a culvert to enclose Peggs Run. Section 4.3.2 discusses the improvements in water quality observed for the Ohio River near the station.

A discussion of some of the severe weather phenomena experienced in the region

of the Beaver Valley plant is included in Section 4.3.3, and Section 4.3.4 con-

. tains additional data on both terrestrial biota and fish species. Both terres-l trial and agt:atic endangered and threatened species are discussed in Sec-

) tion 4.3.5. Historical and archeological sites and socioeconomic character-l istics are discussed in Sections 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, respectively.

1 4.2 Facility Description i 4.2.1. External Appearance and Plant Layout i

j A general description of the external appearance and plant layout is in FES-CP Section 3, and a. sketch of the proposed layout for Beaver Valley Unit 2 is in

! Figure 3.2 of that report.

l i Since the publication of the FES-CP, the major changes that have occurred

. include the addition of the ' south office building and primary access facility.

Other permanent structures that have been added to the combined Unit I and j Unit 2 site area include a north office building, an east parking facility, a sewage treatment facility, a solid waste handling structure, a training center, j an emergency response facilities building, an emergency outfall structure, and

< -an auxiliary. intake structure (see ER-OL Figure 3.1-1 for detailed layout).

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-1

,r,,r- _.,._,,n-- , . , _ . . . , , , ,,.e -.- -,m..- -.--.,,,,,.,...m_.--._,.,.,....m. .,,,_m,. ,_w.~. .-,,,._v, --. ,. . , , , , - _ . . . .

1 4.2.2 Land Use The Beaver Valley site covers approximately 203 ha (501 acres). About 21 ha (52 acres) have been added to the site since the FES-CP was' issued; however the  ;

site boundary is essentially the same, except for the 4.5-ha (ll-acre) addition  ;

shown in Figure 4.1. The remaining acquired acreage was within the site bound-i 'ary shown in ER-CP Figure 2.4-1 and includes (1) a parcel along the railroad ,

right-of-way and other right-of-way areas, and (2) survey differences that have been reconciled. Unit 2 facilities occupy 23 ha (56 acres). Construction affected 41 ha (101 acres)'instead of the 24 ha (58 acres) estimated in the FES-CP (ER-OL Section 5.7.1). On the site, immediately west of Unit 2, are ,

- Beaver Valley Unit 1 and the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, which is being i decommissioned. The secure area for the three facilities is about 44.5 ha (110 acres); 29 ha (71 acres) of this area that is not occupied by permanent

facilities will be planted in grass. Support facilities (the training center i and emergency response facility) occupy 6 ha (15 acres) outside the secure area

[

4 (ER-OL Figure 3.1-1). More than half the site (140 ha, 346 acres) is upland forest and old field habitat, but this natural area is interrupted by transmis- .

sion corridors, roads, pipelines,.and spoil areas, so that the undisturbed area '

is about 113 ha (279 acres) (Table 4.1). i The exclusion area, shown on Figure 4.2, has a 690-m (2000-foot)~ radius centered on the Unit 1 containment building. The nearest distance to the exclusion ,

area boundary is 547 m (1794 feet). [

The 100 year flood elevation in the site area--211.9 m msl (695 feet ms1)--is  !

shown on Figure 5.1 of this FES. The 100 year floodplain at the site ranges  !

from 27.4 m (90 feet) to 106.7 m (350 feet) wide (ER-OL Section 2.1.3.1.4).  ;

i l Major alterations in the onsite floodplain include filling the relocated Peggs  !

Run outlet to provide foundation for the Unit 1 cooling tower and filling on (

,'~

the north side of Unit 2 to provide a parking lot. The total fill area is j approximately 51.8 m (170 feet) wide and 182.9 m (600 feet) long, and is par-  ;

allel to the Ohio River. j i Most of the plant facilities are built on ancient ficodplains and are underlain by fine textured loams, silt loams, or silty clay loams (ER-OL Section 2.2.1.1  ;

i and Figure 2.2-2). These soil-types are rated fair to excellent for woodland i

! productivity, wildlife potential, and crop production (USDA, 1982). Table 4.2 l 1 lists the soil mapping units on the site that qualify as prime farmland and  !

farmland of statewide importance (USDA, 1984). However, much of the site is  !

overlain by fill placed during construction of. Unit 1 and the Shippingport sta-  !

l tion. In addition, during construction of Unit 2, a zone of loose granular

! material was found, and it was subsequently densified (FSAR Sections 2.5.4.1 and 2.5.4.2). Thus, this land is essentially irreversibly committed, because ,

it is unlikely to be suitable for agricultural uses at the end of the project.  ;

The upland soils onsite are mostly Gilpin and Wharton silt loams (USDA,1982) [

that will remain generally undisturbed during operation. The upland Gilpin -!

, soil _ units with 3% to 8% slopes qualify as prime farmland, and the Gilpin and  !

! Wharton soil units with 8% to 15% slopes qualify as farmland of statewide .  !

importance.

l l

t I I l

I:

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-2 i

- .,,,----n-m ----------.-.r-,-,,-,-,-n

. -- ,e-s-~ns---m-- --,r ~ - - . . , , - . . . - , , .m., - , - - , , . - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - -m-----:e, ---

4.2.3 Water Use and Treatment 4.2.3.1 Water Use

~

Figure 4.3 shows the water use now anticipated for the Unit 2 as well for Unit 1. Unit 2 will withdraw a total of about 104,375 L/m (27,570 gpm) from the Ohio River (ER-OL Section 3.3.1), which is similar to the approximately 102,000 L/m (27,000 gpm) anticipated in FES-CP Section 3.4. During temporary shutdowns, water will be withdrawn at a rate of 56,780 L/m (15,000 gpm) (ER-OL Table 3.3-1).

When the FES-CP was prepared, water consumption by Unit 2 as a result of evapo-ration was expected to range from 22,710 to 45,425 L/m (6000 to 12,000 gpm),

depending on weather conditions (FES-CP Section 3.3). A similar range--25,170 to 42,775 L/m (6650 to 11,300 gpm)--is expected now, with the minimum in December and the maximum in July and August (ER-OL Table 3.3-4). The annual average for Unit 2 is now expected to be 32,970 L/m (8710 gpm) (ER-0L Table 3.3-3), similar to the rate of 33,500 L/m (8850 gpm) expected earlier (FES-CP Section 3.3). Unit 2 is now expected to consume 8% less water, on an annual basis, than Unit 1 (ER-OL Table 3.3-3), whereas in FES-CP Section 3.3, consumption by tt;e two units was expected to be equal.

Drift from the Unit 2 cooling tower is now expected to be 245 L/m (65 gpm)

-(ER-OL Table 3.3-3), considerably less than the 945 L/m (250 gpm) anticipated in FES-CP Section 3.3.

No use of groundwater was anticipated in the FES-CP (Section 3.3). However, the support buildings are now expected to use well water for domestic purposes, rather than treated river water from the Unit I domestic water system (ER-OL Section 3.3). This use is expected to average 105 L/m (28 gpm), with a maximum of 415 L/m (110 gpm) (ER-OL Table 3.3-1).

4.2.3.2 Water Treatment Potable water from onsite wells will be softened and chlorinated (ER-OL Section 3.3.2). (A backup system could provide clarified, filtered, and softened river water from Unit 1.) All other high purity water used by Unit 2 will be clarified and filtered in the existing Unit 1 water treatment system (Figure 4.3). (When water use calls for higher quality water, that water will also be demineralized).

Circulating water will be chlorinated (to prevent biofouling) upstream of the condenser to maintain a free available chlorine (FAC) concentration at the dis-charge to the river of no more than 0.5 mg/L. The Unit 1 chlorination system will chlorinate both units, although not simultaneously. .A mechanical cleaning system will assist the chlorination system in preventing biofouling, by injecting and retrieving sponge rubber balls in the condenser tubes (ER-OL Section 3.4.1).

Each half of the condenser will be chlorinated twice a day in two one-half-hour periods (ER-OL Section 3.6.1), for a total chlorination time of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> a day. .

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Appendix G) limits chlorine in the discharge to 0.2 mg/L average and 0.5 mg/L maximum FAC.

Service water is also chlorinated to maintain a maximum of 0.5 mg/L FAC (ER-OL Section 3.6.3).

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-3 l . _-. - _- - . - - - . - - _

?

Although the applicant expects the total residual chlorine (TRC) concentration ,

to be approximately twice the FAC concentration (ER-OL Section 3.6.1), a more  !

detailed analysis of the data underlying this expectation (Duquesne,1978)  ;

reveals considerable variability in this ratio. The chlorination study, which l took place at Unit 1, measured maximum levels of TRC and FAC in the cooling i tower discharge on a daily basis from July 1, 1977 to April 28, 1978. Using a  !

, concentration of 0.10 mg/L as a practicable limit of detectability of all forms j i of chlorine residuals, TRC was detectable in about 84% of the study samples,  ;

1 while FAC was' detectable in about 37% of the samples. FAC concentration was [

] measured at 0.20 mg/L (the current Unit 1 NPDES limit) or above in only 9% of  ;

I the samples. TRC concentrations reached thi's level in about 40% of the samples.

, The calculated average.FAC and TRC concentrations in the study were 0.08 mg/L l .

and 0.20 mg/L, respectively. For samples in which the FAC was at least l 0.20 mg/L (the maximum recorded concentration was 0.32 mg/L), the ratio of.TRC i i to FAC ranged from 1.10:1 to 2.00:1, respectively. However, on the 2 days when j i the highest TRC concentrations were recorded (greater than 0.60 mg/L), the ratio  !

l of TRC to FAC was much greater than 2.00:1. l, l On November 17, 1977, the maximum concentrations of FAC and TRC were 0.07 and l*

l 0.65 mg/L, respectively, yielding a ratio of 9.3:1. On December 9, 1977, when 2

the TRC c.icentration was 0.61 mg/L, no FAC was detected (detection limit not l specifie'). If a detection limit of 0.01 mg/L (equal to the lowest concentra-i tion reported in the study) is assumed, the ratio of TRC to FAC is greater  :

than 61

1. Overall the average ratio of TRC to FAC was 2.5:1. This-ratio was

2.0

1 or less in about 43% of the samples, but 10:1 or more in about 19% of [

the samples. This variability demonstrates the complexity of chlorine chemistry J (Mattice and Zittel, 1976) and the difficulty of predicting TRC from FAC.  !

Although the ratio of 2.00:1 expected by the applicant appears to be reasonable j

- on most occasions, it appears that on some days the ratio may be considerably  !

larger. l l

l' The clarifier will use hydrated lime, ferric sulfate, and (perhaps) a coagulant i j aid and/or clay, followed by sand filtration (ER-OL Section 3.6.5.1), as dis-  !

l cussed in FES-CP Section 3.6.3. Also, as discussed in the FES-CP, a demineral- i j izer train of ion exchange beds will remove dissolved solids to produce high j 4 purity water.  ;

, Hydrazine, morpholine, and ammonium hydroxide will be used to treat condensate; i

potassium chromate will be used to treat primary component cooling water; the -

proprietary substances Corrshield K-8 and Betz DUQ.01 will treat secondary com- i ponent cooling water; and Betz DUQ.01 will treat the cooling tower water (ER-OL  !

Table 3.6-3). Of these, only the use of hydrazine and morpholine was antici- j

{'

pated, when the FES-CP was issued. j i

4.2.4 Cooling System }

}  !

l As described in FES-CP Section 3.4, Unit 2 will use a closed-cycle cooling  !

system with a natural draf t cooling tower, with makeup water from the Ohio l l

River. . j 1 l The primary intake structure, shared with Unit 1, was described in the FES-CP. j l Important features of the structure include subsurface intake openings, coarse t I

bar racks, and vertical traveling screens with 1-cm (3/8-inch) mesh openings  !

) .(Figure 4.4 and ER-OL Section 3.4). A motorized trash rake and a screen wash '

~

j Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-4 l 1 i

_ __. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ________.m_ _ _ _ . _ . . _ - - . _ .

i 5 -

will collect trash for disposal (ER-0L Section 3.4.2.7). Unit 2 will draw water from two of the four intake bays. The maximum velocity across the bar i racks will be 0.10 m/s (0.34 fps) (ER-OL Section 3.4) or slightly higher than  !

l the highest intake velocity mentioned in the FES-CP (Section 3.4), which was l

! 0.07 m/s (0.24 fps). Unit 2 will also have an auxiliary intake structure i (shared with Unit 1) (Figure 4.5) for emergency use, to be equipped with l traveling screens with mesh of a size identical to that of the primary intake

structure. The auxiliary intake structure was not discussed in the FES-CP.

l The location of both structures is shown in Figure 4.9. l t

! The 153-m (502-foot) tall natural-draft cooling tower will operate at a circu-

! lating water flow rate of 1.921 x 108 L/m (507,400 gpm) (ER-OL Table 3.4-2) j which is similar to the 1.913 x 106 L/m (506,600 gpm) flow rate anticipated in FES-CP Figure 3.3.

[ The service water system uses the 104,375 L/m (27,575 gpm) of water withdrawn 7

from the Ohio River to provide once-through cooling of primary and secondary i ,

4 heat exchangers, control room refrigerant condensing units, safeguards area air l ,

. conditioners, main steam valve area cooling coils, motor control center cooling '

units, and charging pump coolers. After this once-through cooling, 7'.580 L/m .

(19,170 gpm) is discharged to the circulating water system as makeup (t.R-OL

Section 3.4.2) and 31,797 L/m (8400 gpm) is discharged via the emergency outfall i

structure (described below) (ER-OL Section 3.4.2.7). An additional 4430 L/m

(1170 gpm) of cooling water is discharged during emergency diesel generator i testing for at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per month (ER-OL Section 3.4.2.7).

1 Unit 2 blowdown is released to the Ohio River via a discharge structure that '

is shared with Unit 1 (Figure 4.6). Discharge velocity will be about 0.3 to l 0.6 m/sec (1 to 2 fps) during normal operation of Units 1 and 2 (ER-OL Sec-i tion 3.4.1), which is similar to the 0.4 m/sec (1.2 fps) velocity given in FES-CP Figure 3.5. An emergency outfall structure (Figures 4.7 and 4.8 will t provide the capability to discharge up to 151,415 L/m (40,000 gpm) during

emergencies (ER-OL Section 3.4.2). The emergency outfall structure was not ,

, descr.ibed in the FES-CP. The location of both discharge structures is shown in j Figure 4.9.  !

, Ordinarily, Unit 2 will release blowdown at a rate ranging from 29,800 to

! 47,405 L/m (7875 to 12,525 gpm), with an average of 43,020 L/m (10,463 gpm), l .

j via the discharge structure, and 31,800 L/m (8400 gpm) via the emergency outfall  !

! structure (to reduce silt accumulation (ER-OL Table 3.3-1). FES-CP Section 3.4  :

j estimated a discharge of about 56,780 L/m (15,000 gpm). During shutdowns, the j station will release a maximum of 56,780 L/m from the discharge structure and

! 946 L/sec from the emergency outfall structure (ER-0L Table 3.3-1).

1 i The temperature difference between ambient and discharge temperatures of the combined blowdown from Units 1 and 2 (AT) will range from 1.3C (2.4F ) in l i August to 15.9C (28.6F ) in January (ER-OL Table 5.1-6). The maximum AT '

discused in the FES-CP (Section 5.2) was 22C (40F ). The chemical consti-

], tuents of the station discharge are discussed in Section 4.2.6 below. .

l 1 ,

! Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-5 I

, l i

I r

, _ _ . , _ _ . , . - - . , . , _ _ , , _ _ . _ - . . - . _ , . . . - - - - _ . - ____._,-_m-_- . _ , , . . . - - . _ . . , , . _ _ - _ _ _ ,

I t

i l 4.2.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems

! Under requirements set by 10 CFR 50.34a, an application for a permit to construct

. a nuclear power reactor must include a preliminary design for equipment to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The term ALARA takes into account the state of technology and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the

! public health and safety and other societal and socioeconomic considerations and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest. '

' Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 provides numerical guidance on radiation dose design

, objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors (LWRs) to meet the  :

! requirement that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept ALARA.

1 ~

To comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a, the applicant provided final designs of radwaste systems and effluent control measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in effluents ALARA within the requirements of j Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. In addition, the applicant provided an estimate of .

j the quantity of each principal radionuclide expected to be released annually l

to unrestricted areas in liquid and gaseous effluents produced during normal l reactor operations, including anticipated operational occurrences.

r

! The NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radwaste systems and the capability [

4 of these systems to meet the requirements of Appendix I will be presented in

! Chapter 11 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which is scheduled to  ;

1 be issued in early 1985. The quantities of radioactive material that the NRC

] staff calculates will be released from the plant during normal operations, e including anticipated operational occurrences, are presented in Appendix 0 of this statement, along with examples of the calculated doses to individual ,

members of the public and to the general population resulting from these

) effluent quantities.

i

} The staff's detailed evaluation of the solid radwaste system and its capability

] to accommodate the solid wastes expected during normal operations, including  :

anticipated operational occurrences, is presented Chapter 11 of the SER. l

{ On the basis of its evaluation, the staff concludes that the designs of the

radwaste systems and effluent control measures are caoable of meeting the i

! design objectives of the annex to Appendix I, RM-50-2. Therefore, no cost- I j benefit' analysis for adding additional treatment systems is required.

. As part of the operating license for this facility, the NRC will require i j Technical Specifications limiting release rates for radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents and requiring routine monitoring and measurement i of all principal release points to ensure that the facility operates-in confor-  !

mance with the radiation-dose-design objectives of the annex, RM-50-2, to l i Appendix I.  :

} 4.2.6 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems .

I 4.2.6.1 Liquid Effluents i

l The only major 'cnange frem the description in the FES-CP is that a separate {

i sewage treatment facility has been built to handle the increased sanitary load l t

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-6 i t i

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

imposed by the support buildings for Units 1 and 2 (ERF, training building, south office shops, and primary access facility). The earlier design (FES-CP

", Section 3.7.1) called for the existing Unit 1 facility to handle the sewage treatment for both units. A summary of important features of nonradioactive waste management is given below. Radioactive waste management is described in Sectior 4.2.5 above.

Wastes from Unit 2 may be divided into two categories: wastes that will be discharged to existing Unit 1 treatment and discharge systems, and wastes that will be discharged to separate Unit 2 waste management systems. The former category includes clarifier blowdown, settling basin overflow, makeup demineral-izer regeneration wastes, water softener regeneration wastes, and trash from the intake structures. The latter category includes cooing tower blowdown; floor, equipment, and roof drainage; service water discharge; auxiliary boiler blowdown; and sanitary wastes (ER-OL Section 3.6). All these discharges are to the Ohio River, except for sanitary wastes and the discharge from the oil /

water separator serving the fuel oil unloading facility (released to Peggs Run, a tributary of the Ohio River) and intake structure trash (disposed off the site). Silt dredged from inside and in front of the intake structures and silt cleaned from the cooling tower basin will be disposed at approved locations off the site (ER-OL Section 3.4.2.7). The. applicant states that during Unit 1 operation silt has been cleaned from inside the main intake structure twice a year, while silt has been removed from in front of the main intake structure only once (ER-OL Response to Question E291.8). Oil will be removed from any l

oil-contaminated drainage by oil separators and disposed off the site; otherwise, nonradioactive floor, equipment, and roof drainage will be discharged to the Ohio River via the storm sewer system (ER-OL Section 3.6.2). Major paths of waste management are shown in Figure 4.3.

The new Unit 2 sewage treatment facility will provide secondary treatment of sanitary wastes from the support buildings of Units 1 and 2, whereas the Unit 1 facility (expanded in capacity from 37,855 L/d (10,000 gpd) to 87,065 L/d (23,000 gpd)) will treat sanitary waste from the permanent plant buildings of Units 1 and 2. The station facility has a design flow of 1.6 x 108 L/d (42,400 gpd), and is expected to handle 84,510 L/d (22,325 gpd) during normal operation. Treatment consists of screening, pre-aeration (equalization), and primary settling, followed by waste oxidation / aeration in a rotating biological contactor, clarification, and chlorination (ER-OL Section 3.7.1). Sewage l treatment sludge will be disposed at approved locations off the site (ER-OL Section 3.7.1).

Table 4.3 give the average and maximum expected concentration of selected water quality constituents in the Unit 2 blowdown stream. Table 4.3 shows constit-uents that will or could be affected by corrosion control or other water treat-ments (Section 4.2.3), rather than those constituents affected only by evapora-tive concentration in the makeup water. Average blowdown concentrations are based on an evaporative concentration factor of 1.8 and maximum concentrations are based on a factor of 2.4 (ER-OL Table 5.3-3). The 1.8 concentration factor is identical to that assumed in FES-CP Section 3.4.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-7

I i

1 The NPDES permit that regulates discharges from Units 1 and 2 is reproduced in i 1 Appendix G.* [

i t 4.2.6.2 Gaseous Effluents  !

! Nonradioactive gaseous emissions from operation of the plant will be negligible.  ;

l The unit has two 68,039 Kg/ hour (150,000-lb/ hour) oil-fired auxiliary boilers l

! that operate alternately. These supplement the two 19,505 Kg/ hour (43,000 lb/  ;

j hour) oil-fired auxiliary boilers installed in Unit 1, which may operate simul- -

, taneously. Additional fossil-fueled auxiliary equipment includes a diesel- t i driven fire pump and a standby diesel generator, both common to Units 1 and 2, I

and foue emergency diesel generators, two 2600-kW generators for Unit 1 and two 4238-kW generators for Unit 2. The boilers are used several days a year for testing purposes, and about 6 to 8 weeks a year for supplying steam during shut-jl down and refueling of Unit 2. The' emergency diesel generators are tested once j a month for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />; the fire pump is tested once a week for about one-half hour. ,

Annual air emissions from these sources are minimal (ER-OL Table 3;7-1), and no '

l Federal, state, or local emission standards are applicable. However, to track i l minor source emissions, the State of Pennsylvania requires an operational permit for auxiliary equipment. '

4.2.7 Power Transmission System ,

The power transmission system is described in ER-OL Section 3.9. The one.new circuit and three new connections identified in the ER-0L for Unit 2 differ from the single Beaver Valley-to-Hanna line proposed in the FES-CP. This change is required to increase power system stability and reduce potential overloads.  ;

l The 25.4-km (15.8-mile), 345-kV Beaver Valley-to-Crescent circuit will be in- I j stalled on the vacant side of (1) the existing 19.3-km (12-mile) Beaver Valley-  !

l to-Collier 345-kV circuit right-of-way, which is 45.7 m (150 feet) wide, and 4 (2) the existing 6.1-km (3.8-mile) Collier-to-Crescent 345-kV circuit right-of.-  !

way, which is 25.9 m (85 feet) wide. The other two circuits will be short seg- t i

ments that will connect .the' Beaver Valley switchyard with the existing Hanna-to-Mansfield 345-kV circuit (ER-OL Figure 3.9-1). These latter two circuits will i require the construction of 853 m (2800 feet) of line and one tower. Land use i j along the Beaver Valley-to-Crescent right-of-way is listed in Table 4.7. The proposed circuits will be installed using' ground vehicles on existing access  !

roads and helicopters in inaccessible areas to minimize damage to the right-of-  ;

.way. No additional rights-of-way are required.

4.3 Proiect-Related Environmental Descriptions l

j 4.3.1 Hydrology j 4.3.1.1 Surface Water l j The surface water descriptions in FES-CP Section 2.6 are still valid, as  !

supplemented by the following discussion. In addition, Section 5.3.3 below l discusses the hydrologic effects of alterations in the floodplain, in compli- ,

i ance with the guidelines for implementing Executive Order 11988 on floodplain

! management (Federal Register, 1978).

i  ;

1 i

• DES Tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 have been deleted from the FES because they are  ;

superseded by the NPDES permit.  ;

! Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-8 i

i . - _ - - - - . _ - _ - . - . - . - - - . - - _ - - - . . . - -

As shown on Figures 4.9 and 4.10, the Beaver Valley station is located on the south side of the Ohio River in southwest Pennsylvania about 40 km (25 miles) northwest of Pittsburgh. The head of the Ohio River is at Pittsburgh, where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers merge. From Pittsburgh, the Ohio River flows in a northwesterly direction for about 40 km (25 miles). Then it flows westerly for another 40 km (25 miles) and finally southerwesterly for about 1456 km (905 miles) to Cairo, Illinois, where it joins the Mississippi River.

The Ohio River is highly regulated by many reservoirs on its tributaries and by numerous locks and dams. The nearest locks and dams to the Beaver Valley site are the New Cumberland Locks and Dam located about 31.7 km (19.7 miles) downstream of and the Montgomery Lock and Dam located about 4.8 km (3.0 miles)

, upstream. The New Cumberland Dam creates a pool in the Ohio River that extends upstream past the station site. Thus the water level in the Ohio River (New Cumberland Pool) at the site is dependent on the New Cumberland Dam, which is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Normally the pool elevation is maintained at elevation 202.5 m (664.5 feet) for river flows up to 566.3 m 3/sec (20,000 cfs). Flows in excess of 566.3 m 3 /sec (20,000 cfs) will cause the level in the New Cumberland Pool to increase as follows:

Elevation 1 Flood stage m (ft) msl l Normal water level 202.5 (664.5)

< 25 year flood 210.3 (690.0) 100 year flood 211.8 (695.0) ,

Standard project flood 214.9 (705.0)  :

Probable maximum flood 222.5 (730.0) i l

! l The major tributary to the'0hio River upstream of the Beaver Valley site, in l addition to the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers, is the Beaver River, which .

flows into the Montgomery Pool about 15.3 km (9.5 miles) from the plant site. I Average flows in the Allegheny, Monongahela and Beaver Rivers are 545 m3 /sec (19,270 cfs), 347 m3/sec (12,260 cfs), and 100 m3/sec (3,530 cfs), respec-tively. For the Ohio River at the site,.the average flow is about 1040 m 3/sec (36,700 cfs). The lowest flow of record occurred during the record drought of 7 1930 when a minimum flow of 35 m3/sec (1250 cfs) flowed past the site. Since that time, however, eight reservoirs with low flow augmentation capability have been constructed. The Corps of Engineers estimates that, based on the '

present system of reservoirs in the Ohio River basin, a minimum flow of about 113 m 3

/sec (4000 cfs) could be expected at the site for hydrologic conditions similar to the record drought of 1930. The once-in-10 year, 7-day-duration ,

low flow is estimated to be about 147 m3/sec (5200 cfs). The river stage for both the drought of record and the 7-day 10 year low flow is 202.5 m (664.5 feet) msl because, as stated above, the New Cumberland Pool is maintained at this i elevation for flows up to 566 m3/sec (20,000 cfs). At elevation 202.5 m .

i (664.5 feet) ms), the river is about 457 m (1500 feet) wide and has an average "

depth of about 6 m (20 feet).

The finished station grade elevation varies from 222.6 m (730.3 feet) msl to 224 m (735 feet) msl except along the river where the intake and outlet l I

, Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-9  ;

l

, structures are located. In this area, tne grade elevation is about 205.7 m

' (675 feet) ms1. The majority of the station is located about 20 m (66 feet) above the normal water level. The intake and outlet structures are by necessity located at the river's. edge.

i Before the start of construction of the station, Peggs Run flowed through the ,

, site from the south. To provide space for the cooling towers, a portion of '

Peggs Run had to be relocated closer to the fill supporting the south approach

' to the Shippingport bridge. As shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.11, a 427-m (1400-foot) portion of Peggs Run is now enclosed in a 4.6-m (15-foot) culvert. This

culvert is being lengthened an additional 122 m (400 feet) at the northern end.

l, The culvert empties into an open channel before it enters the Ohio River.

l 4.3.1.2 Groundwater The groundwater descriptions in FES-CP Section 2.6.2 are still valid with the inclusion of the following discussion. The station is located on a terrace of i

alluvial deposits that were deposited by the higher stage:: of the ancestral i

Ohio River: drainage system during the Pleistocene period. The terrace is .

about 1219 m (4000 feet) long and 549 m (1800 feet) wide at its widest point. '

It is more than 30 m (100 feet) thick and consists predominantly of sands and  !

gravels. The hydraulic conductivity of these alluvial deposits has been  ;

ll estimated to range from 1.7 x 10 3 to 6.1 x 10 3 cm/sec (5.7 10 5 to 2.0 x 10 4 fps).

i I

i '

Underlying the terrace deposits is bedrock of Pennsylvanian age. This bedrock  ;

is a carbonaceous shale, which dips southeastward at about 2.8 to 3.8 m/km (15  !

to 20 feet / mile) and has 3 surface elevation of about 189 m (620 feet) msl at i the site.

j

.1 The sands and gravels in the terrace deposit on which the station is located [

form the only significant aquifer in the site area. Downstream of the station, the terrace pinches out against the steep bedrock valley wall. To the northeast, it is limited by a buried bedrock bench that extends almost to the river's i edge. The bedrock and the upland region south of the station effectively I

isolate the terrace and direct the groundwater flow toward the river.  !

Recharge to the terrace aquifer is primarily from precipitation in the immediate [<

area. Additional recharge occurs during periods of rising river levels because [

the terrace aquifer and the river are hydraulically connected. Groundwater i occurs under hydrostatic conditions with the phreatic surface having a contour  !

, in subdued relief approximating the ground surface. Beneath the station, the i groundwater elevation is normally at about 203 m (665 feet) ms1 and movement I is directed in a northwest direction towards the Ohio River, j 4

i, i

Groundwater wells within the site boundary consist of two construction wells, j two wells which supply water to the Shippingport Atomic Station (which is >

located adjacent to and southwest of the station), and two wells that will sup-il ply domestic water to the support buildings. None of these wells are located downgradient from Unit 2. ~

l 4.3.2 Water Quality r

i Data on water quality in the Ohio River near the station has improved, based on a review of 1976-1980 data presented to update the 1968-1970 data used in the l Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-10 t i I l l t _ _ . _ -- _

mg i FES-CP (see Table 4.8). The increase in alkalinit'y and decreases in sulfate,

! iron, and manganese may be attributed to reduced inputs of acid mine drainage 1 (ER-OL Section 2.4.5.13), which was felt to dominate water quality in the New Cumberland Pool when the FES-CP was prepared (FES-CP Section 2.6.1). Reduced concentrations of ammonia and nitrate nitrogen may be attributed to reduced r discharges of pollutants from sewage treatment (ER-OL Section 2.4.5.11) and

industrial sources (EPA, 1976). It appears that the "further improvements" in

. water quality anticipated by the FES-CP have been realized. Water quality data from river samples collected near the. station site are presented in Table 4.8.

i Data presented by the applicant in the ER-OL on water temperature in the Ohio

, River are similar to those given in the FES-CP. The range of average monthly 4

water temperatures given in the FES-CP was 3.2 C (37.7 F) (January) to 26.2 C t

(79.2'F) (July and August), t ased on 1946-1966 data; more recent data (1964-1977) i produced a range of 2.5 C (36.5 F) (January) to 26.4 C (79.5 F) (August) l (ER-OL Section 2.4.4). Data presented by the applicant for 1964-1977) (ER-OL

Figure 2.4-11) are similar to those given in FES-CP Table 2.2 for the percent of time a given water temperature is equaled or exceeded

for each data set, I the maximum is about 30 C (86 F) with a temperature of 27 C (80 F) equaled or .

exceeded 10% of the time, and a temperature of 10 C (50 F) equaled or exceeded  !

63% of the time.

FES-CP Section 2.6.3 listed Pennsylvania water quality criteria for the Ohio

River as follows

dissolved oxygen to exceed 5.0 mg/L as a daily average, with I a minimum of 4.0 mg/L at any time; pH to be within the range.of 6.0 to 8.5 i standard units, except where higher values result from photosynthesis; . tempera-

! ture not to exceed specified limits that range monthly from 10 C (50 F) in

] January and February to 32 C (89 F) in July and August; and total dissolved' '

solids (TDS) not to exceed 500 mg/L as a monthly average and 750 mg/L at any .

l time. ' Current Pennsylvania and ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation

' Commission) criteria (ER-OL Tables 5.1-4 and 5.1-5) are identical for TDS and dissolved oxygen and slightly more lenient for pH (maximum of 9.0 permitted).

. ORSANC0 monthly temperature maxima are similar to the earlier Pennsylvania criteria, but also allow only a maximum rise of 2.8C (5F ) rise above ambient, i The current Pennsylvania criteria allow no more than a 2.8C (5F ) rise above

ambient (no temperature increase when ambient temperature is at least 31 C ,

(87 F)), with temperature change not tc exceed 1.1C (2F ) per hour. In addi-i tion, the current Pennsylvania and ORSANC0 criteria cover a variety of other

{ variables, including trace elements, nutrients, organics, bacteria.

1 As noted by the' applicant (ER-OL Section 5.3.2 and Table 5.3-4), maximum 1974 ambient river concentrations of aluminum, fecal coliform bacteria, copner, total iron, lead, phenolics, zinc, total cyanide, and mercury exceeded the Pennsylvania criteria. Annual mean concentrations from 1976-1980 of phenolics, j' copper, total f ron, lead, mercury, and zine for some years also exceeded the

state criteria (ER-OL Table 2.4-10).

f 4.3.3 Meteorology

! The discussion of the general climatology of tne site and vicinity in the l FES-CP rec.ains essentially unchanged. However, the FES-CP did not include a

, discussion of scme of the severe weather phenomena experienced in the region of the Beaver Valley plant. A variety of severe weather phenomena--including  ?

l thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes--occurs in the region. About 53

! i t

I Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-11 l l

1 l

thunderstorms can be expected to occur on about 36 days each year. Hail often accompanies severe thunderstorms. During the period 1955 to 1967, eight occurrences of hail with diameters 19 mm (3/4 inch) or greater were reported in the 1-degree latitude-longitude square containing the site. Tornadoes are not uncommon in the region. For a 1-degree latitude-longitude square (9323 km2) containing the site, an average of about 1.04 tornadoes per year were reported for the period 1954 to 1981. Using an average tornado path area of 1.42 km2,.

the computed probability of occurrence for a tornado at the plant site is about ,

1.6 x 10 4 per year. The applicant has computed a lower probability of occur-rence (about 1.4 x 10 4 per year) based on a much smaller tornado path area (1.04 km2) and a higher annual frequency (1.22 tornadoes per year) using the period 1950 to 1981.

High wind speed occurrences in the area are usually associated with severe thunderstorms and extratropical cyclones. The highest " fastest mile" wind speed reported at Greater Pittsburgh Airport was 93.3 km/ hour (58 mph) in February 1967.

1

! Since the issuance of the FES-CP, the applicant has collected additional onsite meteorological data. Wind data taken from the 10.7-m level of the onsite mete-orological tower for a 5 year period (January 1976 to December 1980), as sum-i marized by the applicant, indicate prevailing winds from the southwest (10.5%)

and west-southwest (10.2%), with a secondary peak frequency from the southeast (9.2%). Winds from the north-northeast and north-northwest for this period occurred least frequently; each occurred less than 4% of the time. The mean.

annual wind speed observed at the 10.7-m level. of the onsite meteorological 1

tower for the period 1976 to 1980 was about 1.9 m/sec (4 mph), with calm condi-tions (defined as wind speeds less than the starting threshold of the anemo-meter) occurring almost 0.8% of the time.

Wind data taken from the 152-m level of the onsite tower for the 5 year period (1976 to 1980) indicate prevailing winds from the southwest, west-southwest, and west (totaling 37.7%). Winds from the north-northeast direction occurred least frequently, 2.7% of the time. The mean annual wind speed observed at the 152-m level of the tower for the 1976 to 1980 period of record was about i 4.5 m/sec (10 mph), with calm conditions occurring about 0.2% of the time.

Atmospheric stability assessments based on vertical temperature difference meas-urements for the 5 year period (1976-1980) have been summarized by the appli-cant for a shallow (45.7-m to 10.7-m) layer and a deep (152-m to 10.7-m) layer.

Unstable conditions (indicating rapid diffusion rates) occur 21.6% and 5.0% of the time in the shallow and deep layers, respectively. Neutral and slightly stable conditions predominate and occur 53.2% and 80.1% of the time in the shallow and deep layers, respectively. Moderately stable and extremely stable conditions (indicating slow diffusion rates) occur 25.3% and 14.9% of the time in the shallow and deep layers, respectively.

A complete description of local and meteorological conditions, including summaries of onsite data, is in both the ER-OL and FSAR. .

l l

Beaver Valley 2 FE5 4-12

\

4.3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources

\ 4.3.4.1 Terrestrial Resources

\ s

\ The plant facilities are located mostly on ancient Ohio River floodplains, '

\ surrounded by forested uplands (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The vegetation and wildlife of the site are characteristic of disturbed wooded and shrubby areas

\

in southwestern Pennsylvania. The deciduous upland forest communities (ER-OL

( Table 2.2-5)'are early successional or subclimax forests.The area has been affected by coal mining, maintenance of pipeline and transmission corridors, selective logging and farming on the more level uplands, and natural perturba-tions (fall webworm, locust leaf miner, Dutch elm disease, and ice and wind storms). Nevertheless, the unused areas of the site provide habitat for many species of wildlife (ER-OL Tables 2.2-11 through 2.2-16).

ER-OL Sectian 2.2-1 presents substantially more data on the terrestrial biota of the site than were in FES-CP Section 2.8-1. These data were obtained fror April 1974 to June 1975 (NUS, 1976). The white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) were the most common small mammals sampled on the site. The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is the only big game animal that occurs on the site. During the study period, tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), opossum (Didelphis virainiana), and fox (Urocyron cinereoargenteus) were observed (ibid). The site is not an important waterfowl breeding area, nor is it in a major flyway.

Mallards (Anas olatyrhynchos) were the only waterfowl observed in the Ohio River adjacent to the site during the study period (ibid). ,

Sixty-three species of_ birds were recorded on the Beaver Valley site during the summer of 1974; 48 were presumed to be breeding there (ibid).

Most of the area adjacent to the Beaver Valley-to-Crescent transmission line right-of-way is woodland (Table 4.7). The right-of-way clearing was completed in 1974 (ER-0L response to question E290.3). ER-OL Section 5.5.1 states that the right-of-way is maintained by spraying for broadleaf species with adjustable handguns from trucks on existing access roads. After this treatment, the area will be covered by grasses, herbs, weedy shrubs, and blackberries. In deep wooded valleys where there is adequate clearance between the tops of trees and the electrical lines, vegetation is not cleared. ,

4.3.4.2 Aquatic As shown in Table 4.9, a much greater number of fish species have been collected recently (1980 to 1983) at the Beaver Valley site than were' listed in FES-CP '

Tables 2.8 and 2.10 as having been taken in 1968 and 1971. At least 24 species that were collected in 1980 to 1982 were not taken in the 1968 and 1971 collec-tions discussed in the FES-CP. Of the five species listed in the FES-CP but not collected in 1980-1983, all but one were collected from 1975 to 1979 (Duquesne, 1981).

Tnree factors seem to account for this recorded increase in species diversity over a decade. First, the data reported in the FES-CP were based on relatively limited sampling (1 month in each of 2 years),.while the applicant's opera- t tional monitoring program has involved a much greater effort. Second, the data I reported in the FES-CP were based on rotenone surveys and gill-net sampling, while the more recent data were obtained with gill netting, electrofishing, Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-13

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

1 4

cast seining, baited minnow trapping, plankton netting, and collecting fish impinged on the. traveling screens. Third, many fish populations that had been eliminated in the upper Ohio River by deteriorating water quality have since 1970 begun to return as water quality improves (Pearson and Krumholz, 1984).

(The improved water quality at the Beaver Valley site is discussed in Sec-tion 4.3.2.) This recovery of Ohio River fisheries confirms the relationship between water quality and fish distribution that had been observed during a

,- short-term study in 1957-1959 (Krumholz and Minckley, 1964).

Numerically dominant fish in the 1968 and 1971 collections were channel catfish, t

carp, and yellow and brown bullhead. Fish that dominated the more recent collections may reflect not only actual changes in the species of the fish community,~but also differences in sampling methods. Thus, the electrofishing i collections were numerically dominated by emerald shiner, sand shiner, blunt-i

. nose minnow, and gizzard shad; the gill-netting collections by channel catfish, i carp, walleye, sauger, spotted bass, and gizzard shad; the cast-seining collec-i tions by emerald shiner; and the minnow trap collections by emerald shiner, sand shiner, bluatnose minnow, and spotfin shiner (Duquesne, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984).

The applicant and the staff have developed independent estimates of the fish harvest potential for the Ohio River in the vicinity of the plant site. The i applicant reports that no commercial fishing is allowed in the Pennsylvania portion of the river near the site and that no commercial fishing licenses have been issued in the West Virginia portion within an 80-km (50-mile) radius

of the site (ER-OL Section 2.1.3.2.3.1). The applicant estimates the recrea-

tional (sport) fish harvest for the Pike Island Pool and the West Virginia i portion of the New Cumberland Pool to be about 13,800 kg/yr (30,400 lb/yr). ,

Of the estimated recreational harvest, about 55% is carp, 22% catfishes, and 15% centrarchids (i.e. , sunfishes, crappies, and bass) (ER-OL Table 2.1-14).

For use in liquid pathway dose calculation, the applicant assumes the edible weight of the recreational catch- to be 6200 kg/yr (13,700 lb/yr) (ER-OL 4

Table SC-4).

4 The staff's estimates for commercial and recreational harvests have been r developed for the river segment approximately 80 km (50 miles) from the Beaver

' Valley site (at Ohio River mile 35.0) downstream to Pike Island Dam (t.t Ohio River mile 84.3). The water surface area for this segment is 3408 ha .

(8420 acres), as estimated by the applicant (response to staff question E291.7).

i The staff estimates the potential annual harvest to range from 60,660 kg/yr (133,700 lb/yr) to 927,300 kg/yr (2,044,400 lb/yr). Of the estimated total,

! the range of potential commercial harvest is from 13,290 kg/yr (29,300 lb/yr) l to 766,800 kg/yr (1,690,500 lb/yr), and the range of potential recreational

{ harvest is from 47,370 kg/yr (104,400 lb/yr) to 160,520 kg/yr (353,900 lb/yr).

No harvest of shellfish for human consumption is expected from this river segment.

The lower end of-the- range for the commercial harvest estimate is based on a -

mean value of 3.9.kg/ha for rate of yield reported for reservoirs in the Ohio River basin (Leidy and Jenkins, 1977); the upper end is based on a yield of 225 kg/ha derived by McLean (1983) using lock chamber rotenone data taken between Ohio River miles 500 and 600. The staff gives the range in lieu of site-specific data and believes that the potential for commercial harvest, if Beaver. Valley 2 FES 4-14 I

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

___-u--. -___ _ _

a fishery were allowed to develop as water quality improves, is more likely to be toward the lower end of the range. The upper end of the range can be used in a conservative worst case estimate of the liquid pathway dose.

The range for the recreational harvest estimate is based on potential yields of 13.9 kg/ha reported by Leidy and Jenkins (1977) and the 47.1 kg/ha derived by McLean (1983) from cove rotenone data in the vicinity of the Marble Hill Nuclear Station site. As with the commercial harvest estimate, the actual yield for recreational fishing is expected to be nearer the lower end of the range, but the upper end is provided for a conservative estimate of dose.

The difference between the applicant's and staff's estimates of total fish harvest near the site results from the staff's incitsion of a commercial fishery in the estimate. Although no commercial fishery presently exists, the staff takes the optimistic view that, with improved water quality, and reesta-

~

blishment of native fish stocks, a commercial fishery could develop during the operational life of Unit 2.

In the FES-CP, the staff speculated that the Ohio River fish at.the site " prob-ably spawn primarily in the tributaries or near the mouths of the tributaries where the substrate and water quality are desirable, although some undoubtedly spawn in the slack water afforded by nearby Phillis Island." Pearson and Krumholz (1984) felt that channels behind islands are important areas for speleophils (a group that includes bluntnose minnow, yellow bullhead, and chan-nel and flathead catfish) and phytophils (a group that includes white crappie, largemouth bass,' goldfish, carp, and banded killifish). They also concluded, however, that spawning in the river was more important to the species found there than was spawning in or at the mouths of tributaries.

A comparison of ichthyoplankton densities in the back channel of Phillis Island with those measured along a transect across the Ohio River perpendi-cular to the main intake structure (Table 4.10) shows that densities in the back channel were consistent with those in the main channel. Had the back channel been a particularly productive spawning area, this might have been reflected in higher ichthyoplankton densities relative to the main channel; this does not appear to have beea the case. Cyprinids constituted the majority of the ichthyoplankton collected from 1980 to 1982 both in the back channel (85% to 89%) and in the main channel (79% to 96%) (Duquesne, 1981, 1982, and 1983). This provides further evidence that this back channel is not a unique spawning area in the Ohio Rive .

Corbicula fluminea has been present in the waters of the Ohio River at or near the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site since 1975 (Duquesne, 1981 and 1983). Although most populations of these bivalves are found downstream of the Unit 2 site (Taylor,1980; Counts,1983), other populations are located upstream of the site. Taylor (1980) reported C. fluminea in the Ohio River at Pittsburgh.

However, he did not find these bivalves in significant numbers upstream of Williamstown, West Virginia. Zeto (1982) reported C. fluminea from the Monongahela River in West Virginia. According to personnel at the University ,

of Delaware, an examination of the zoogeographic data base for C. fluminea at the university revealed specimens were also collected at Lock and Dam 8, near New Geneva, Pennsylvania. None of the populations contained high numbers of bivalves.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-15 l

l

. - - . __ _ . ~ _ . -

f i

Although the Ohio River at the Unit 2 site is near the northernmost zoogeo-

graphic limits of Corbicula fluminea,' water temperatures'are sufficiently warm  !

to allow survival and successful reproduction of these bivalves. It is antici- ,

4 pated that two spawning seasons per year are to be expected in the Ohio River l Corbicula fluminea populations near the plant site.

The applicant expects continued contribution of Corbicula to the benthic l community in the Ohio River at the site (ER-OL Section 2.2.2). Although no Corbicula were collected in 1979 and 1980, the applicant reports that Corbicula were found'in 1981 sampling and are unlikely to disappear from the river near the site unless major long-term changes in physical habitat conditions occur (response to staff question E291.6).

t Corbicula fluminea has been found within the Unit 1 cooling system (Duquesne, 1981). Approximately 30 shells were removed from the reactor plant component cooling water heat exchangers in 1981. Although the applicant did not state whether these " shells" were alive or dead, their size (12.7 mm, 0.5 inch) indicate they were relatively young. No other fouling of water systems was

.noted in that report, and no operational problems have been reported as a

-result of biofouling by these bivalves at Unit 1.

1 ,

Plans for.biofoeling control are described in ER-OL Section 3.4.2.7 and are l evaluated by the staff in the SER (scheduled to be published in late 1985).

The primary control scheme for the service water system components utilizes the Unit 1 chlorination system (see Sections 4.2.3, 5.3.2, and 5.5.2.2 of this statement).  ;

1 Peggs Run, the tributary of the Ohio River that receives the effluent from the i Unit 2 sewage treatment plant (Section 4.2.6), is a highly disturbed stream.

At the station, much of Peggs Run is underground in a culvert or is contained in an artificial channel of steel sheet piling (ER-OL Section 2.4.3). Mine drainage from the upper watershed has apparently~ produced a substrate degraded by an oxidized iron floc and supportive of only limited macrobenthic popula-tions, according.to a personal observation during a site visit by an NRC staff member on April 3, 1984. The stream is isolated from its embayment on the Ohio River by an artificial waterfall near the Unit 1 cooling tower.

j 4.3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species j 4.3.5.1 Terrestrial i'

No plant or animal species listed as endangered.or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983a) or the State of Pennsylvania (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, 1984) was found at the site or on the transmission corridor (ER-0L Section 2.2.1.2). The small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), an endangered plant on the Federal list, occurs in mixed second growtn harawood forests; in Pennsylvania it is currently

. reported in Centre County (Kulp, 1983) about 282 km (175 miles) from the site.

~

Three Federally listed endangered birds may be found as transient species in the Beaver Valley area. They are the' bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica kirt-landii). There is no listed critical habitat for these species in u a project-area (ibid). A bald eagle has inhabited the general area (FES-CP Section 2.8.1) i i i Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-16 i

• but was not seen during the 1974-1975 ecological studies. Unit 2 is also within the historic range of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), but there are no populations known to occur in the area.

4.3.5.2 Aquatic No Federally listed endangered or threatened species have been collected at the Beaver Valley site from 1970-1983, nor were any such species listed in the site description portion of the FES-CP (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1983).

Four fish species being considered for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1982) may have been found historically in the area but have not been taken in recent collections: lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) has not been reported from the Ohio River in the last 30 years; paddlefish (Polyodon spathela) has not been reported from above river mile 429 since 1970; eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) has not been reported from above river mile 200 since 1920; and longhead darter (Percina macrocephala) has not been reported from the Ohio River since 1920 (Pearson and Krumholz, 1984).

No fish species considered endangered or threatened by the State (Pennsylvania Fish Commission, 1979) have been taken in recent collections at the site (Table 4.9). Three fish species considered " status indeterminate" (insufficient data to assess status) by the State have been taken in recent sampling at the site: channel darter, sauger, and spotted bass. Skipjack herring, listed in the project area in the FES-CP, had not been collected recently at the site; it-was believed that skipjack herring was not found in the state (as of 1979).

However, DOI (see Appendix A) states that this species has been collected

" upstream from the site." Consequently, it is possible that skipjack herring is now found in the project area. Black bullhead, also listed in the FES-CP but not recently collected at the site, is considered " status indeterminate."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that three Federally listed species of endangered molluscs have historically occurred in the upper Ohio River; these are the orange footed pearly mussel (Plethobasus cooperianus, renamed Plethobasus striatus), pink mucket pearly mussel (Lamosilis orbiculata, renamed Lampsilis abrupta), and the rough pig toe (Pleurobema plenum) (Kulp, 1983).

l The first two species are reported to have included Pennsylvania in their l historic range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983). Although there have been no recent collections of these endangered species from the Ohio River, the Fish and Wildlife Service notes that significant changes have taken place in the river since these molluscs were last collected, resulting in improved water quality and conditions for mussels (Kulp, 1984).

4.3.6 Historic and Archeological Sites FES-CP Section 2.4 discusses historic and archeological sites. At present, in the 15-km (10-mile) area around the plant, there are 12 sites that are included in the National Register of Historic Places. Five of the listings are in Pennsylvania, two in Beaver and one each in Bridgewater, Aliquippa, and Industry, i The six sites in Ohio are all in or near East Liverpool. One site is in New I

Manchester, West Virginia. With the exception of the marker designated as Beginning Point of U.S. Public Land Survey on the Pennsylvania-Ohio boundary (7.68 km west-northwest from~the station), all of_the sites are more than 8-km from the station. The operation and maintenance of the plant is not expected to affect any of the properties.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-17

- _ - - _ - - . ~ . - - . - = - .- . -

i I

4.3.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics The general socioeconomic characteristies of the region, including demography and land use, are in FES-CP Section 2.3. As indicated in the FES-CP, the plant is on the south bank of the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, about 40 km northwest of Pittsburgh.

l The 16-km area surrounding the station site includes portions of Beaver County, Pennsylvania; Columbiana County, Ohio; and Hancock County, West Virginia. The river valley portions of.the area are highly industrialized and include steel mills, zinc smelting, petroleum refining, and plastic, glassware and electrical equipment manufacturing. In the area removed from the river valley, the country side is rural, consisting of scattered farms, small communities, '

forestland, and open space. The nearby major residential areas include East Liverpool, Ohio (1980 population 16,687), which is about 8 km west of the i station, and Aliquippa Borough, Pennsylvania (1980 population 17,094), which

. is about 13 km east of the site. According to U.S. Bureau of Census data, the 1 Beaver County population declined from 208,418 persons in 1970 to 204,441 persons in 1980. The Aliquippa Borough population fell from 22,277 in 1970 to 16,687 during the same decade.

According to the. applicant, the 1980 residential population within.16 km of the site was estimated to be 141,286 persons. More than 124,000 persons are in the 8-16 km area around the plant. Of these, more than three-fourths are in the west, northeast, east-northeast, east, an'd east-southeast sectors (FSAR Table 2.1-3). The residential population in the year 2010 within 16-km is estimated to be. 148-600 (FSAR Table 2.1-7).

The staff has reviewed the applicant's demography data by comparing its estimates with independent sources and has found the applicant's estimates reasonable.

4.4 References

! Counts, C. L., III. " Bivalves in the Genus Corbicula Muhlfeld, 1811 in the United States: Systematics and Zoogeography," Ph. D. dissertation, University of Delaware,1983.

Duquesne Light Company, " Chlorine Trailing-Out Study Result's, Beaver Valley i Power Station Unit No. 1, NPDES Permit No. PA 002615," Pittsburgh, 1978.

i

-- , " Flow Blockage of Cooling Water to Safety System Components by Corbicula sp. at the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1," report submitted in response r to IE Bulletin No. 81-03,. by letter from J. J. Carey, to the NRC, May 26, l 1981.

i

-- , "1980 Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1," 1981.

-- , 1931 Annual nvironmental Report, Nonradiological, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.~1," 1982.

I i

Beaver Valley 2 FES. 4-18 i.

-- , "1982 Annual Environmental Report, Nonradiological, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1," 1983.

-- , "1983 Annual Environmental Report Nonradiological Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1," 1984.

Federal Register, 43 FR 6030, February 10, 1978.

Krumholz, L. A., and W. L. Minckley, " Changes in the Fish Population in the Upper Ohio River Following Temporary Pollution Abatement," in Trans. Am. Fish.

Soc., 93:1-5, 1964.

Kulp, J., U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, letter to George Knighton, NRC, June 30, 1983.

-- , letter to Lorene Sigal, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 11, 1984 (available in.the Beaver Valley Docket File at the NRC Public Document Room).

Leidy, C. M. and R. M. Jenkins, "The Development of Fishery Compartments and Population Rate Coefficients for Use in Reservoir' Ecosystem Modeling." FWS National Reservoir Research Program, Contract Report Y-77-1, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1977.

Mattice, J. S. , and H. E. Zittel, " Site-Specific Evaluation of Power Plant Chlorination," in Journal of Water Pollut. Contr. Fed., 48-2284-2308, 1976.

McLean, R. B. , " Fish Harvest Estimates in the Vicinity of Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket No. 50-546)," Technical Evaluation Report submitted by letter to Charles W. Billups, NRC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 13, 1983.

NUS Corporation, " Annual Report - Terrestrial Ecological Studies at the Beaver Valley Power Station Site," filed with the NRC October 1, 1976.

Pearson, W. D., and L. A. Krumholz, " Distribution and Status of Ohio River Fishes," ORNL/Sub/79-7831/1, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1984.

Pennsylvania Fish Commission, " Pennsylvania's Endangered Fishes, Reptiles, and Amphibians: Reference Information," 1979.

Taylor, R. W. , "A Survey of the Freshwater Mussels of the Ohio River from Greenup Locks and Dam to Pittsburgh, Pa.," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Huntington District), 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), " Soil Survey of Beaver and Lawrence Counties, Pennsylvania," Soil Conservation Service, 1982.

-- , undated letter from J. L.' Council, Soil Conservation Service, Beaver County, to L.L. Sigal, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, confirming April 5, 1984, telephone conversation (available in the Beaver Valley Docket File

at the NRC Public Document Room).

U.S. Department of the Interior (COI), " Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,"_50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, 1983.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-19 l

- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), " Quality Criteria for Water,"

4 EPA-440/9-76-023, 1976.

L U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, " Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species,"

in the Federal Register, December 30, 1982.

O -- , " Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Republication of the Lists of Endangered and Thr eatened Species," in the Federal Register, July 27, 1983.

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, letter from P.G. Wiegman, Director, Natural Areas Program to L.L. Sigal, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 2,1984, l (available in the Beaver' Docket File in the NRC Public Document Room).

,' - Zeto, H. A., " Notes on Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) of the upper Monongahela

River Basin, West Virginia," in Nautilus 96(4)

127-129,.1982.

^

t; t

o ,

\

f i

4  ? g i i e i

l .i

\ ,

.s i)

).

3 l

's i Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-20

A ch" i ness.t h'j 5 p put 6

7 4 e' \

1 0

o N , s

. .I Y p'dik i

P

• a LLis tstamo

. 0

~

I'

.[,,

M

-N. ['h$' ' W w

f Dhf'NhS

./ \ ,

[:I

..:i, :!::g shy: _. w '. . . . 7.#' ' ,..'

. 7,.C ' #.gg . - ." ,, gt u

• s  :::: 083. : \<s-

.,4"Otw t.: .L -

~ .u .. %fe. .  : . .: ..: x .:

.?::

%  :.~ .

x,g9 ._ _'ig. i-/ g. -. - / ' e ~.:js\e s,

su w:::M

.;gx -W.69: ::d:. ::9~ N bn: ' ~- ~ reaus nue

v.  :.: ..., -.: ::.g ....J:::.

.  ;;p $. ,-

, . . . . . . . . N'!!iQ.F i

R

..i~

8 t,-A'.'::," ft "nfar -"- u.c s.e... ...n.. --- ....n ce .n e i 5 ,. . .c. ,c.a. ..

a .u c , q..n..

g ..,..... u.... =n,

".';' * " *' ~ ""*"

a WA:."

, .ce, xo.m -- .eu.a. , o x ....

G . .n .n:.. .c '. o o , ,,,

t.:._j b .u:ca.%'"'" _ m.. .. . .xn

. . -e n us... R .cc.

.o.a R .. .. .eu.c ,,.. :: ..

i i

Figure 4.1 Site layout (to change ft to m, multiply values shown by 0.3048) l tio te: flumbers indicate vegetation study areas shosn in ER-OL Tables 2.2-1, 4, and 5.

Source: ER-OL Figure 2.2-1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-21

hh 3,% - ~

$9

,, ,h:$

.!. n t

/f S

L WQ

'i 9 i g3E7g

' ' 's

~

, , .;!) h

, . g*[-}m

~

% s, v . ' ,

o s. , _ _ ~

x ' lE Y% I/ h_

> \ /- -

, t ... g

'  ; N -

NNte...s s' E

.e

%\ * < g- [

w4 . I

. (

~2 7 ~

h N 8. Q s $ .I k gl N ..

y 3 -

o

( $y-

" x 7 -8 gg

-N Q},sR,A(/'7 f); =

J - e c h RT - -

N' i ,- ': a 3, I

M y\,* c f .

,, , h,, b:g ?A(

y 2 -

\; N e, # na. f e, s' \ 'E g. ,)({ p d.[s 1 h ;' 3 ,h 3

\ r qfrc w*1

• m

? jr ( i :

~

. \ \ j $\S ,, p , g M -

h$,'

r, ..g 4*

./ f}.ii

~

lNAPi 'g #.c4 9

_ p,, ;y

l

.- \~ c ,

h:'j y v-m Q

f '

(3> (l R  ; e ,. ,

t % . .. . .

&~

g8 ,

~

j]} Q"3 E c., [m,

/ ' .-

segg; g 7.w e -

L .L! 6? p , ~- e i~

1. y - wysnysg

. 5 p(y4m swv oe v2

. 'nffh: ,N'( fgl h 9,$y$gw s'l% ^ N. .

hr::' :2iley 2 FE3 V 2:

i

ci a-w s

n N, ,, ..,.m.~,-...

a .

o

- { - ~. ._.J ..7 *

..,....m n .....

N . . . .  : : ........ ...c-.... 1 m _ _ _

,m...<...... .

_..c.,.,...,....

.m.... , . . .

,i .......

n. ~..s,....o.

,' )

u 2:'..I'. - ~"a*

" - ~ "

.. .. q

,g, . . . . . . . . . . .

.s.- .* L_J

,-- *--.e. ,,,'s.*

g----- .n m,,....,,,,

, , , , , . .e . .. ..s.,.e

- .s,s f --- .ee . ew

..x.,,,,

CQ, . f.C.apas

. . . ..e.,

-,e . ei a - --

,..+e...

- , ... .,,.i .,..i BVPS-1 (EXISTING) SYSTE MS p3 -

.n-

. ~ , . . . . s...

. ,.n.;.~ -n i .> ...

j ,

g- 2

- . . . . s_ , - . m , -s.

_ o; o I . . - .

. . . . . . , . . . ... ., .. .. .. .. . . .,s....,

... ...... I I . ..

4. .

,- j- . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , .

t r.

L,

(*_ . . .. . . , , . , , , . . . . . . . .

f

/ . _ . . . . . . .

..m. . . . . . . . .

BVPS-2 SYSTEMS

/ C00, ets ;

s..... .....-..s.

e i .., , . .

, , . . n_,,,,...... ............ ..............

i . . .

t ~ . -. . . . . . _ , . . . . . . i..,,_.....,,, . . . . .

/ . . . . - , - , , , . .,.. . . . . ,

m . . ... - .. . . H. .'

,;,,;',1,

.~......s.....,....1 o

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

....... g . .o. .a .. .

l ..

Figure 4.3 Plant water use (see ER-OL Table 3.3-1 for flow rates and definitions for circled numbers)

Source: ER-OL Figure 3.3-1

cu o

as 4D .. . . . . . . . . ,

t. ?

a c . 1i lx.~I ,l [ l,J' 1 *~***"".;,. _ _ .4 > _ _:- ._ s y_ .

-~- .1,_

z \ .

,N=='N N

N

. . ' / '. '.'I -A/. . .. -

45 _

.am__..

i. ...

..,,,. - .f.mu n .. , _,- _. ,~2 t,_,i y. , - . r o c.

N i* ... .,

p__'f .aaa .-- ~~_ ,

t5 e t1 Cu.ou< ?' esp 71 _ --. . . -. _ . ~

~""'****** **~*

gy 1_ r i,' . . m u .. .".."" ,.o...,,

vi 2 !c 7 F - I. c. 9  :

i

~

rm i

nt.. m.... =a j;q i .- o , g . - - g -

c.. m . . .

x L 1 i J l i -i> %I ) - C NQ n - f '* [_~_]

II11 IIIT , U -

. . . . - - t4U .1_'J ..e.. s till

• ~ * -

• "***'" 2 . . . .

e

.e...

=*,

," f,t' <%rhsf , e' tur ** "

s I::,;,=*{j s.,. y *

,,-.7 3 -

o * ,,,0..

staas(eo r=# s t t Il c /-

q' * . ,1 sN

-b,' y fl ;we

. i s < .

'1 4 I^ 11 r>- '-

_ . . . . . . , . , , , ._ .+7-J

,. g y . v

- - - * ' 4

- ' " " p , . T s..

L. ,

}

l ti li: .*./. n***N.,.

[j

-r e. ~ y g y b *-

n,,, c ,

ll ll i.

i ;

a : - ..e r N..; '

l. 1i l

,I i,

.fw. s ,. .

,j-1 ,,,

.w.=- ~--

T* .gJ g>

=

J } 4 i ' t.

e

,.u,,,,_. _ _ . , f, 't-

• ev4 gi ll ' ' * * * * +

.,46

• e.*v4e=< *._

+'

.- { l l 6 ? Q 6 ech' .m....,.,,t .

3 I' 2 .

p a 8

, p .l.f . g-N i,

.,., e . . .n o m -- _. ,' *i t *' f s.. . . .n < . s-w r# _ _ . ;r, g6 *e,w g-

- .A-,r a.

p . .,f - e ,

• , i: . weve+ - , g l h 1I e ff ,, s e p ' , ,' 'S'

,,mO ##**

ll h**r 2_p {t+ ,, g

• * * " ' ' *' ' ' " I, , , , , , , ,- r. et see e

. If -

u yu , g , ..y f.

[- 1 ,a +

• s a t e ***u e,.r e 3 44 . , g ,

,l 4y ig ; ts **t v -

b ( f] j j n .;

t. u j; .

i

, :l 9 11 V 4 - t to.- p t "I

.n.ta i.^

l I 4 N. g N4 w'

?6 g, 'e.e..a"t

', ')

6 ma t te ,

I Es 6e. (tp+ r+ + [+:)

i

.- , 4eg - - - -

-1, f4, .a y

.#,4 n.nl ne . ,

4 0.,*at a.

s **

p 'i kI N U I g,

.U p

. .,3 o-aff fa -

s

• ta_- -J.. L

.~-

.4 -

,x. , ..,,, _. . , j

'* M *

• f t e .6

-- no es

• t ev== h,es* ,,

s- st aa s t ei hI(I '} k I

$ { f ' 4 .. % T figure 4.4 Intake structure details Source: ER-OL Figure 3.4-1

i i I

e. .

<  ; <d w.

i  : -:,

.- 3e .

r ..;

e. :4, w:

g. 9.:,1 x s.

- ' J. 2l

.. j s ,

i _

.i g5, tI 4 e

O i 4 a e s, w 4

, 'p o a r a" t

.: i ts 3  ;

e i

d 3; l' l. g e. :

+.

, t 4 (' + fl t.

, .H u

4 f..}  : , ,  !

3! < " I I t.. , q p l eg!

n-

p, !

tg=- ,_

t -i - ,

o fin gi '

4 4 l -  !

1, lh,  ! 91 ts, -- i ,- i i 7

i t

+-

.s x ,' I 4 r '

r e- 1-

!=

l e u q.m., v -

i .-

)I ---.L s

- - j, e . - - -w -

y i ~. . . ~

. . g[n <p I g g -+l _i, , y l g. -

I

(& i ,4 p

i .

- s y'

.: i

, '"E..4;. ..

! .f, ib y, . -

2 -J--- !t --* i 5f I: h. 3v  ?:r i .

g; 1 JL _ . . . . . . _ _ _15 . . . _ _ _ . .-~N . . a . . . . . . .. .w_w ...-.

',- " ){ i; I .

6 Y .'I J T

r E

s M

d,, :-) ,.'r' 1

! +

- as _._& _- -

a

,3 m .

u J ..

I" X X X .ag

'J 3 '

4

- -.1, e .. I

.........3'-m=<, ,

- l i n a.., en ,

.  ; --a . -. .....%

w N ., a u.

4

..- t .p I .( _G

.c a d' . _ r_ ___,

1-

. --- ,j _t s.4

• o 2

c. ,

4 V. =

'. T T 1. . L _1 b _ . _ . . m w 3 ,e -

c

~. . , _

J.L.M , .g #, I, - a e

f l Zx_ h.

~~

r &}n;  :.

E a.

r-

., t 1

~

U e s e, . ,

• u, i

j* . ',

3 w"NQ* : ' .~ i) o QlS -. m m S '.l

.; ?___ $,. eqd

b. .gl , ql f , ',

.i o

u i, e *. u

=

- . 3 v., -g

- en

.kt a

• d* g.

p6 f y' s w u.

~

p s we.:

i

- .1 :t y 2

a g. 4 1 ,,s

'_.c"r s_ s - . .

i i

r a.,.: -

-- r-m, ! 9 t

- h H

Y =L g* . j ge y'L; , J , . ? M !~~ n ~

'o i 8 y,  ; -

r ,i og#*- .@s.~ m g~. o a - * . -

N ig (. L e ~a

" I I jg t;fEr E

- I'

% . #j d-O' j l : +-

a

'5 w.--

m )M b

is a _ m p,. p -

G (o w.,,c?Re- wo- x y .

. a w

'T ,

A , _,

m E

w 3 3 3 f I., a_V__4++

, y  :;

l . e _

7 M un 4'1 W ) ;lk } ;fh e; 4 'M,g.at

. ; $ .-_'i a 1

3

'd .

, j i

-l r -

.. 4f*

a mau J at:_- w_1 - - c.x op 4's,, .

4 1 (.. . - s;.  ;

- a ,  ;

a I*  : F i d 2 -f i i

q

+ si e.

1 1

i .

I j ~ Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-25 l

4

o.

a -

au -

1u

? -

.r '

%q l

., .~.4...s .,r a- ..  ; .. . ., n. , , , , .

I//

,w~~" '1

..,r.m s e ? : r . ' ,}\ ,

x Ili -/ - -- co%.sms.=sowin W

~

,i .~ x

,nI_L_.t___ _W d .K .

. F-si g o j , c g<,.n, i s 4,9 y N, N . 22 a 1 I _

NT t At t .

j h

1. ~

A '

l ', j.p i

• l l g ._ _ g."_"

O .',

q y [

f

! t, -.=2s \

.t l ag - -

l I

i .e A P4 gs f - = t

. ..t s .. .m . s ,. e,g..,~..r as 4.

( avosa t. t a % %. j/

{- gg,s, s , , [, }'] 3,{

e.arst=w 2 gi s c'-o" FLAN g V ,

( g_. 994' 7 aa avo u o' i Ji!! '

e at e n t a .t.

~weat.t ;L vamts

'Y . g ja_ .

/d"M p***e. fI sw 4 a ' ' ? '* *?

,,, , 7; 7 b to a r_i ts , [

• " ". _ l.

I v4 LT PiL -h

• to gr5;s' ,

8'4 i4' i  ;

it _.

l8

%I 6-.*** * - - x W _ ___ . #

J- { -

. . . . . . , < f' L. ,,6 4 % .. . _ .

- i. .w. r

~ .... . .. ,,. .-  ;

seniwmuane ,

, cc,,c.,,, , , , , , , , . _

i E'"'* $ SECTich 2 - 2

. . . 1 . "-* ' % . . L _ i .- '

. il .1 . . L i - ' ' - J'

,, ,,, , L' .t .' T ' ._ _'

• t w n es = : : i

__"' 'r,  ; ,

I' k ggy 6 3]

u et .mr

. c , o. -,

figure 4.6 Discharge structures Source: ER-OL Figure 3.4-2

w w

L ')

s u

a m .i -

M ' -..

~ \ -

,. _s.. .. .

.T.

_, U , E -_!i h.e:

7* -e- .. .. .

1+ --

m ;r -1 ;  : . _ .

m ,+ t-

i, -

4 :

q..  : . ... 3. __

, ,.I

rg

...._,7.

w .

~-'* . *. -, ' L. .a

" 'E #

, ., - f

, <---I . .~ J A E ', O. .f Sc 1

- t. - v .

.s.'g a

.-r-'..

.~ . m.m

, 1 u ~1 I

t 1.

.~'

o

- - . S, w.

t., , . . , b;-l .

J i_, _ ~ _ r 7.,,; # =r _ ...

<I1.' '-

. 1

• A... .m' --h l l- i '. .aj.L_ .

L-

., g_:c?1.,

L

,, "' f p /}c: ::. ,

,, ; , m , , . . . - -.. a

d. d , _ _ _ , "..

• _ u -.

o s.um M, jq t - - - "~-

3. w~ .l _.

,. , a.

l N ,$

.T l1

=

.~ ,

~

.s-y , ., . .-

,L,.-~ w ,  ;-

-um, >

i__._

g,- . . . ,%

Jg._,

. . . . . . . _ t ., .,

- o ve - 4

,u, .. u r , r . c- , _ . = - - -

p. ,

u,x,, o ks.

j 6 l P,, .,

f, __ w. . .

l u.; -

i . _ _ ,

.. _ _ . _ _ , , ,a . _ ,,; , . . ,_

n l

+

~.:* ' *., ; *,

- t

!  ; .. .,.fe. , :, ,; ,,J.g - . , , , , -

. . ,, .. , u .

,*"*1^.

r- . -

,J ; .

• yu.. .: n35m.

L,f....

,, q . .~ c

, .  :... _. . o .

. "n-.=> --- . _ . - - a-; % ---

re c t e= rs - 4 M , ' w' t - 4P figure 4.7 Emergency outfall structure Source: ER-OL Figure 3.4-5

O! b G

W

- 675 675 -

680 q EL. 676.0,L -

i 1

/

6 80- -.  ; \

N 4300 8* FILTER POINT f FA8RIFORM OR D , l .

EQUlVALENT C. 3 3 6,, ~~' ^8\

i S'.d* $

N 4275.62 6 8 "-

690 - E6130.68 gi

---

gi

i I --- 6 9 0 695 F ECS i

--- 695 N4250 *~ - l t

N gy  %

PLAN 710 -

H d 700 8" FILTER P0thT FABR;FCRM APPROXIMATE

't EXISTING GRCUND CR EQUIVALENT

= 25 C 630 - LE AN MIX 1

0 CONCRE7E g 27' CMP i

d * ,,,

$oc -

l5"Q_ e ""

2' 0* MIN TCE j(Et6n.o* '

EL672.75' i g%

~

< 3* k 19'-9 . l _6'-4* 16' 3* VIN l' COMPACTED l_ 20'-0* STRUCTUR A'. ? _ .

g g., , ]

3I;T.CN A-A l

Fijure *.3 In;nct ba:in hr servi'.3 wat3r discharga (to change ft to m, multiply by 0.3048) ,

Source: ER-OL Figure 3.4-8

].

Beaver Valley 2 FE5 4-23

4

)oB!

IP 9

g ,b 1%

b w 2

& 11 Z E $

s  ?

/*

ON MONTGOME RY LOCK AND DAM i

,g 4

z 0 1 2 3

/ j .I I I I l DEAVER SCALEMES 5 PO

, STATION Z

w Z PLANT NORTH

\

\ \

\

\

\

\

3_

/

9 ++

tA 30 ALTERNATE gb \ ' ^

o STRUCTURE s# # dx UNIT 2 l PHILLIS ISLAND UNIT 1 OUTLET LEGEND STRUCTURE CULVERT [

4 EMERGENCY

/

IMP,AC],sAsiN OUTFALL STRUCTURE wNif 2>

g STRUCTURES COMVON TO UNITS 1 AND 2 B UNIT 1 STRUCTURES O unit 2 STRuCius ES 0 1C00 N f t ' '

SCALE IN FEET Figur3 1. 3 Principal hydrologic featmi (t') d

• tt to n, multiply.by 0.3048) i l

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-29 i

l

j gEWE \

\

^

f f

<O

/ ,5 i r

/ / (.

f  % '

r f

4

% h,s q, *% ,/

8l MOuroovtRv L/o EAST LIVERPOOL 1 CON E M AUG H

""V '"

stw cuustaLANo uo

$ n QQV,y '"

enrissuncH 4

,$ '??r'Sn ,

b

a

\ E

? )

/ .

J @ [

k i / i 'E 7 E 7 l PA 5 g scAtt m Mitts

) WVA

~

~ d ~ MD

/

LEGEND

) /

/

y LOcxs ANo 04us b caamAct civior

% /

( ) P #s"fa'&'s" *""5 1 .} 39 21%"lN"V b^) )

t .s

\

h)b F i ju n.  ? . '. ; Oio Rin e drainUy2 area (ta cha, ; 3 '

u! to km, uuitiply by 1.609) l i

Beaver Vallej 2 FES 4-30

S8 =

{~T s zm,[ ,,y, ff C GyJ '. ___g_ _\ p; .- %,,- g" t'tggg

~

b, g, . ,

kW' '

s .,u A n' i L'- t'r - %%m Q;l.

(J p- '

JV V im a

a I

). -

jf!

k

(= j

- ~

[ [ s T '

jiy,e ', .[C._g f jhiji/*

fpn. ,

~ as n ,\

m

__ss _...-.nww gg_ c_ a, . ---- - s /x . ./ L ~-'-. .

.'%'*0 =. -

c

,x- =

n , - -

~

- -=

i g i 1/ d@ ) @ l i \# h 2 3__, ii r.1 .-m_ w

wws.

e.

. _ _ _!p + w __,

i .s -

6- -44 e

=

s-m ..

w, \y  !, .N

[p

a. k,

.p- --er

EWN##W

?

m % ,,,/

N 4 t g -.

g

,X v

g k..u,9. .

9 w?l-

.-_.--w__-------

. 12 t

\g r-

~~

$g s

20 2 .- , -

u r ' '

s u x w,,, s# _ .s,.p .s3 => g'-

. - f 9 3i,r - p' 3o

• \ .c.

' N &. r y/,< . . . - S gr. , , /ta 1

. ,,.a G- a. @

soc,.

-- }. '.,g ' +u u.gan

.)

u -- M . 1 I o , yh f . '- ' s

, gf o o q v.. ,' -..

Gl

(( / 21 a' 8 b ~~ ~ ~' -l

.a.ae 3 .a g, - " ,

s.n - ..s i

{

.~s a J h[ Q ,i,g,,

wl.7 ,gc i

sy

~

A~ / p= i(_.\.,h,;','g '

~

-e_ .; 4 .i 3, e, .2 i .,9.__, a -

_. o --

8 (fI ' , ** '

h. ;i '

J i I

h* .0 [ '" h , *V s?,',,

pyf \

a J Fs d'\

< 4 - ,

N -

g, S -

- 0[%-f ,4.7t #(;;).,

ti$ v .;

s

.hX:9Sr

\j u. .i ., e op.,=: n- .. ire = ,\fJ, .,

&s. . .l/[ , 'r =)- Y h h,jih .?.).. l F

$h ,7, f

lig&=@DD/ M$n%i:

? -f..i h.T. ui .

i -

_j, M, M mM

_r W i ci t%7 ;

~ w / y (f. I'?, ..

$5. e , W i;# i .

i

.' j 2 L- . ?'I

,e l b d )$ 6

$)~ $

• Table 4.1 Classification of site acreage by vegetation type and land use Area

• Vegecation Percent study Type Subtype Ha Acres of site arc as**

Deciduous forest Black locust, black cherry 37.7 93.2 18.6 4,16,18 Mixed mesophytic 23.8 58.9 11.7 3 Mixed oak, sugar maple 35.6 87.9 17.5 7,10-14,17 Beech, maple 4.8 11.8 2.4 8,15 Black locust, tree-of-heaven 0.8 1. 9 0.4 2 Moutain laurel, mixed oak 4.6 11.3 2.2 6,9 Silver maple, sycamore 3.4 8.3 1. 7 1 Subtotal 110.6 273.3 54.5 Scrubland Mountain laurel, hawthorn 1.0 2.4 0.5 5 Old field 1.4 3.5 0.7 Subtotal 2.4 5.9 1. 2 Power plant and Transmission corridors 21.8 53.8 10.7 associated Unpaved roads (not on 1.3 3.1 0.6 facilities transmission corridors)

Pipeline 0.8 1.9 0.4 Power plant 43.1 106.6 21.3 Spoil areas 11.7 29.0 5.8 Subtotal 78.7 194.4 38.8 Other disturbed Rights-of-way (paved roads) 10.5 25.9 5.2 areas 011 tank 0.08 0.2 <0.1 Abandoned single-family 0.6 1.5 0.3 duelling (removed)

Subtotal 11.2 27.6 5.5 TOTAL 202.8 501.2 100.0

• Subtotals may not add up to the totals shown because individual numbers have been rounded.

• • Indicated on Figure 4.1.

Source: ER-OL Table 2.2-1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-32

Table 4.2 Soil mapping units onsite that qualify as prime l farmland and farmland of statewide importance as designated by the Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1984)

ER-OL

(Fig. 2.2-2) SCS l mapping mapping SCS mapping Slope 1 unit unit unit name  %

I 02 A1, 2A1 P0 Pope silt loam a 0-3

! 1 45 82 GnB Wellston silt loam a 3-8 l b

i 14 C2 Gnc Gilpin silt loam 8-15 "

45 C2 Gnc Wellston silt loam D 8-15 r 57 C2 WhC Wharton silt loam b 8-15 73 B2 cob Conotton gravelly loam" 3-8 t

340 82 AgB Allegheny silt loam a 2-8 342 B2 mob Monongahela silt loamb 3.g l 342 C2 MoC Monongahela silt loam b 8-15 MS CD Ug0 Urbanland-Gilpin complexb ,c 8-25 l a

j MT AB UfB Urbanland-Conotton complex ,c 0-8 MT CO UfD Urbaniand-Conotton complexb ,c 8-25 3

MA AB Ub Urban and fill land d 0-3  !

j a Prime farmland.

b Farmland of statewide importance.

c

! Soil types upon which the plant facilities are located.

d lf described, this unit with 0-3% slopes would probably include soil types that qualify as prime farmland such as l t Pope, Philo, Monongahela, and Allegheny silt loams and l

Conotton gravelly loam.  ;

i i Source: USDA, 1982, 1984 , ;

f i  !

Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-33 l

6 Table 4.3 Estimated water quality of Unit 2 blowdown,

. average and maximum concentrations

! Blowdown concentration, mg/L  :

! Constituent average maximum

Total dissolved solids 365.0 832.8 I

Total chromium <0.05 0.07 Hexavalent chromium <0.0036 0.0072 Nickel <0.02 0.05 '

Free available chlorine

• 0.2 0.5 i Calcium 49.5 120.0 1

l Total fron 2.7 9.1 l Dissolved iron <0.09 <0.12 l Hardness (as CACO3 ) 180.7 417.6 i

Methyl orange alkalinity 41.6 79.2 (as CACO3 )

Total acidity (as CACO3 ) 9.7 28.8 l

Sulfate 155.9 , 388.8

• Will be released only during the period of chlorination I (see Section 4.2.3).

1 4 Source: ER-OL Table 5.3-3 I

I l

i 1

i I i I

j Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-34

3 i

Table 4.4 Deleted from the FES 4

l l

i

[

i

)

1 I

1 1

1 b

4 I

i Beaver Valley 2 FES 4-35

1 a i Table 4.5 Deleted from the FES l t

1

{

t i

1 1

1l l

.) -

i j

I i .

i i

1 i

l i

i I,

i

(

1

(

8eaver Valley 2 FES 4-36 l

1 I

e 1

4 1

i i

i Table 4.6 Deleted from the FES 1

1 i

f l

i

! i 1  !

i t

i'

l a

4 f

,i

)

i ,

i, l

i t

i t 4 ,

1 1

1 8 .

I  !

J

}

l l i

1 1

4 l

i i

i I

I 5 ,

i I

I t

4 I

l t

i Beavar Valley 2 FES 4-37 i

i

Table 4.7 Beaver Valley-to-Crescent transmission 4

line right-of-way land use Land use Length Area Percent of classification km miles ha acres total area Woodland 17.4 10.84 74.7 184.49 71.72 Pasture 1.3 0.79 4.7 11.66 4.53 Cropland 4.2 2.60 17.3 42.85 16.66 Commercial 0.2 0.13 0.6 1.37 0.53 Residential 0.8 0.50 2.1 5.17 2.01 Water bodies 0.03 0.02 0.1 0.27 0.10 Roads 0.4 0.23 1.4 3.41 1.33 Strip mines ' 1.1 0.69 3.2 8.02 3.12 TOTAL 25.4 15.80 104.1 257.24 100.0 Source: ER-OL Table 3.9-1 l

Table 4.8 Comparison of water quality in the Ohio River near the

, station: 1968-1970 data cited in the FES-CP and 1976-1 1980 data (all data except for pH expressed as mg/L) i 1976-19801 Constituent 1968-1970 RM3 15.2 RM 40.2 l pH 6.76 6.2-8.0 6.1-8,5  !

' Alkalinity 21.80 25.5-28.7 35.3-35.94 Suspended solids 32.00 29.5-56.1 27.4-87.5 i Ammonia nitrogen 0.98 0.32-0.53 0.29-0.60 i Nitrate nitrogen 1.43 0.70-1.03 0.83-1.24 Sulfate 125.00 89.4-99.9 82.1-90.4 I Total iron 14.20 2.01-2.76 1.64-4.13  !

Manganese 5.20 0.36-0.51 0.36-0.57 [

Phenol 0.01 0.0047-0.0090 0.0052-0.0121 [

1Mean value reported in FES-CP Table 2.3 for Rif 40.

l 2 Range of mean values reported in ER-OL Table 2.4-10.

3RM = river mile; Beaver Valley is located at RM 34.7. [

] 40ata reported for only 2 years out of 4.  !

I Beaver Valley 2 FE5 4-38  ;

i i

i l Table 4.9 Ohio River fishes at the Beaver Valley site:

! comparison between the FES-CP and more recent data l

Fish FES-CP* 1980-83** l Minnow family (Cyprinidae) ,

l bluntnose minnow (Pimaphales notatus) X X carp (Cyprinus carpio)

X X l common shiner (N)tropis cornutus) X j emerald shiner {tioTropis atherinoides) X X golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) X goldfish (Carassius auratus) X mimic shiner (Notropis volucellus) X X sand shiner (Notronis stramineus) X X spotfin shiner (Notropis spilepterus) X X

=;

spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) X .

river chub (Nocomis micropogon) X l Sucker family (Catostomidae) northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans) X

recnorse (Moxostoma spp.) X X

! quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus) X X l river carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) X j white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) X X Perch family (Percidae) i fonnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum) X l 1 log perch (Percina caprodes) X f channel darter (Percina copelandi) X sauger (Stizostedian canadense) X

! walleyel$tizostedianvitreum) X X J yellow perch (Perca flavescens) X X

! Silversides family (Atherinidae) i brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus) X i

l Topminnow family (Cyprinodontidae) 1 l l

banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) X l Herring family (Clupeidae) gizzard shad (Dorosoni cenedianum) X X

! skipjack (or " river") herring (Alosa X I

1 chrysochloris) r Beas.er Valley 2 FES 4-39 l

l

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

i i

i Table 4.9 (continued)

Fish FES-CP* 1980-83** l Sunfish family (Centrarchidae) bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) X X 1

green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) X X pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) X rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) X i

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) X X i largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) X X spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) X 1 white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) X black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) X X Catfish family (Ictaluridae) black bullhead (Ictalurus melas) X brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) X channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) X X flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) X white catfish (Ictalurus catus) X yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis) X X l i

j Pike family (Esocidae) muskellunge (Esoc masquinongy) X northern pike (Esox lucius) X tiler t muskellunge (Esox lucius x L,. masquinongy hybrid) X Trout perch family (Percopsidae)

trout perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) X 1 i

j Sea-bass family (Percichthyidae) ,

j i white bass (Morone chrysops) X Orum family (Sciaenidae)

' freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) X

Gar family (Lepisosteidae) longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) X

• FES-CP Table 2.8 (applicant's preoperational gill net sampling,

October 12-14, 1971) and Table 2.10 (data from EPA, Septerber 19, t 1968, based on rotenone sarpling at Montgomery Lock and Dam, Beaver County, Pennsylvania).

• • 0uquosno (1931, 1982, 1983, 1984), Tables V-E-2, V-F-1, V-G 2, and V-H-1.

Beaver Valley 2 FE5 4-40 i

! I I

I i

i Table 4.10 Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) density (number per 100 m2) measured in the channel behind Phillis Island and in the main channel of the Ohio River Behind Main channel of Phillis Island Ohio River Date Surface Bottom Surface

• Bottom **

I April 23, 1980 0.84 0 0 0-1.01 May 21, 1980 0.94 0 0-7.37 1.20-1.27 June 19, 1980 10.73 7.65 9.94-37.62 4.70-13.61 July 22, 1980 131.56 63.11 22.58-400.53 15.57-117.28 April 20, 1981 0.93 1.32 0 0 May 12, 1981 0 0 0-1.32 0-2.25 4

June 17, 1981 36.65 18.58 14.38-80.33 31.10-31.62

} July 22, 1981 19.10 14.08 29.28-64.62 10.00-20.83 i April 19, 1982 0 0 0 0 1 May 18, 1982 0.80 8.04 0-4.42 7.60-17.86

June 21, 1982 3.16 12.12 3.70-6.51 10.09-38.78 i July 20, 1982 37.75 27.16 10.91-56.01 11.98-20.98 April 13, 1983 0 0 0-1.06 1.03-2.26 i Hay 11, 1983 0 0 0 0-0.82 2 June 14, 1983 1.88 6.42 0-2.88 30.84-31.07 July 12, 1983 6.35 79.94 4.72-66.94 32.73-87.37

• Range from Stations 1, 3, and 5.

C* Range from Stations 2 and 4.

l Source: Duquesne (1981, 1982, 1983, 1984), Tables V-F-1 and V-H-1 I ,

I l l

A 1 5 I  !

Beaver Valloy 2 FE5 4-41 i

1 4

4 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS l

5.1 Rssums

This section evaluates changes in environmental impacts that have. developed since the issuance of the FES-CP.

! Section 5.2 discusses changes in impact to land use. The effects of both an

increase in total site acreage and minor alterations to the transmission lines are addressed.

Section 5.3 includes changes in impacts to water use, and water quality, as l well as other hydrologic impacts. The increase in free available chlorine I concentration, and the changes in station water use are identified.

Air quality impacts resulting from nonradioactive atmospheric pollutants that were not addressed in the FES-CP are addressed in Section 5.4 Section 5.5 discusses changes in impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic ecology. Changes in terrestrial impacts are further defined by plant-specific data on cooling tower operation and additional information on ice formation as a result of cooling tower drif t during ice storms. Changes in aquatic impacts include: variations in mortality of various fish species resulting from

, intake structure impingement; a decrease in the effects of thermal releases; 1 the release of chemical discharge to Peggs Run (not anticipated in the FES-CP);

and a decrease in the effects of thermal or chemical discharge on spawning.

i Impacts to endangered and threatened species and to historic and archeological 4 sites are discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, respectively. However, no changes [

are noted in either section. Section 5.8 identifies only minimal socioeconomic >

impacts. l 4

Information in Section 5.9 on radiological impacts has been revised to reflect  !

knowledge gained since the FES-CP was issued. The material on plant accidents i I,

contains information that has been revised and updated, including actual i experience with nuclear power plant accidents beyond design-basis accidents and the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.  ;

Impacts from the envirormental effects from the uranium fuel cycle are discussed i in Section 5.10, and those from decommissioning are discussed in Section 5.11. l The naise impacts from the natural-draft cooling towers, transformers, and loud-  !

speakt.rs are discussed in Section 5.12, and Section 5.13 addresses emergency planning impacts. Environmentil monitoring--including terrestrial, aquatic, -

i atmospheric, and noise--is discussed in Section 5.14. l l

5.2 Land Use l

! 5. 2.1 Plant Site j i The impacts of thit 2 construction on land use at the site were evaluated in l the FES-CP (Sections 4 and 5.1), and the conclusions re min valid, although l l Beaver Valley 2 FE3 5-1 l

i several changes have been made. The Unit 2 plant facilities will occupy 22.7 ha i (56 acres) instead of the 4.1 na (10 acres) to 5.3 ha (13 acres) estimated in

! the FES-CP. Most of the land for Unit 2 was graded during construction of l Unit 1. Of the recently added acreage (Section 4.2.2), land use changes have i

occurred only on the 4.5-ha (ll-acre) parcel. Before the Beaver Valley Training i Center was constructed on this parcel, the vegetation was a combination of old

] fields and mixed mesophytic forest types mostly on Monongahela silt loam soil,

{ which qualifies as farmland of statewide importance. After construction is i completed, unoccupied site areas used for temporary facilities are to be graded and seeded. Trees will be planted to screen low buildings and parking, and the river bank will be planted to effect a natural setting (ER-OL Section 3.1).

Alterations in the floodplain have occurred since the FES-CP was issued, but these alterations will have no significant impact on Ohio River flooding because the river is highly regulated by reservoirs on its tributaries and numerous 3

navigation locks and dams (ER-OL Section 2.1.3.1.4).

Operation of Unit 2 is not expected to affect the land use of the site or the l l Vicinity. However, the size and operation of the natural draft cooling tower j may affect the local environment. These potential-impacts are evaluated in Section 5.5.

i i 5.2.2 Transmission Lines i

Effects of transmission lines on land use as a result of construction are minimal because the Beaver Valley-to-Crescent circuit will be strung mostly on existing towers. Construction of one new tower on the site to connect Beaver  ;

Valley with the existing Hanna-to-Mansfield circuit will disturb a small area <

of old field plant community (ER-OL Figure 3.9.1).  ;

, r Minimal clearing of some mixed oak / sugar maple habitat on the site is required for the connecting circuits leaving the Beaver Valley switchyard (Figure 4.2).

1 Existing land use in the offsite transmission corridor will be unchanged, j Operation of the Unit 2 transmission circuit is not expected to affect the 1 land use of the site or the right-of-way. -

1 5.3 Water l

5.3.1 Water Quality t i

j The proposed chemical releases from the station have not changed significantly I

since the FES-CP was issued (Section 4.2.6). The water quality of the Ohio

) River has improved since the FES-CP was issued (Section 4.3.2), thus allowing i a greater ability to dilute chemical discharges, in general. Nevertheless, i for some water quality variables, there could be concentrations near the

discharge that exceed Pennsylvania water quality criteria. For constituents that may already exceed criteria (e.g., phenolics, copper, iron, lead mercury, i l and zinc) (Section 4.3.2), the concentrating effect of the cooling system

• results in an effluent that, on a localized basis, will aggravate this problem. .

1 Even af ter complete mixing, the resulting concentrations would continue to be above the Pennsylvania criteria, i

t i

l

} I j Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-2 r

i

The applicant has estimated, for the four constituents whose concentration in the mixing zone will be raised above the Pennsylvania criteria by the operation of the station, the area and downstream distance for which the Pennsylvania criteria would be exceeded, under worst case conditions. The approximate area and downstream distance of exceedance at the 7-day,10 year low flow are: for manganese, 42,000 m2 (450,000 feet2) and 660 m (2150 feet); 'for total dissolved solids (TDS), 880 m2 (9500 feet 2) and 90 m (300 feet); for unionized ammonia, 36,000 m2 (385,000 feet 2) and 570 m (1875 feet); and for nitrite nitrogen, 4000 m2 (43,000 feet 2) and 180 m (600 feet) ~(ER-OL Table 5.3-4a). In these four cases, the maximum ambient (without effluent from Beaver Valley)'concen-trations range from 46% (TOS) to 88% (manganese) of the state criteria, and the maximum blowdown concentrations range from 111% (TDS) to 580% (ammonia) of the criteria (ER-OL Table 5.3-4). These exceedances are primarily a function of the concentrating effect of the evaporative cooling system, rather than of any chemical. additions from the station. Note that the POER has not chosen to issue discharge limitations for these four constituents (see NPDES permit, Appendix G). .

Chlorine in the discharge will be regulated on the basis of free available chlorine (FAC), even though combined forms of chlorine, which are contributors to total residual chlorine (TRC), are also toxic (Mattice and Zittel, 1976).

The applicant's study of Unit 1 operation shows TRC concentrations to be low, averaging about 0.2 mg/L. This was about 2.5 times the monitored FAC concen-tration, on average, but was proportionally lower whenever the FAC concentration reached or exceeded the NPDES permitted value of 0.2 mg/L (Section 4.2.3).

FAC concentrations never exceeded the maximum allowable value of 0.5 mg/L or the permitted average of 0.2 mg/L. Unit 2 operation is expected to result in similarly low values in the Unit 2 blowdown. Mixing with unchlorinated Unit 1 blowdown before it is discharged will result in a further reduction in TRC concentration in the station discharge by one-half. FES-CP Section 5.6.2.2 ,

assumed a maximum FAC concentration of 0.1 mg/L. The applicant has appealed the FAC limit imposed in the NPDES permit (Appendix G) for two reasons: (1) the applicant would like to demonstrate that the NPDES limits do not allow for effective control of biofouling, and (2) the applicant contends that the NPDES limit is ambiguous in that it is not clear whether the 2-hour limit refers to the dosing period or the period of discharge to the river.

5.3.2 Water Use Station water use is somewhat different than described in the FES-CP. Cooling water is still obtained from the Ohio River; however, a portion of the service water--31.8 m3/ min (8400 gpm)--will now be discharged to the emergency outfall structure instead of to the blowdown line as was anticipated at the CP stage.

In addition, although FES-CP Section 3.7.1 stated that the Unit 1 sanitary treatment system would treat Unit 2 sanitary waste, now a separate treatment system will handle sanitary wastes from support buildings, as described in Section 4.2.6.1. Sewage from the main Unit 2 plant buildings will be dis-charged to the Unit 1 sewage plant for treatment. FES-CP Section 3.3 stated that groundwater would not be used during routine operation of the station; however, this is no longer the case. Domestic water for the support buildings will now be supplied by wells, rather than by the Unit 1 domestic water system, l-as was anticipated during the CP staga, Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-3

l l

I 5.3.2.1 Surface Water l The cooling water systems consist of the main circulating water system (CWS) i and the service water system (SWS). The CWS is a closed loop system that uses

, a natural draft cooling tower to dissipate heat to the atmosphere. The SWS

takes water from the Ohio River through the intake structure. A portion of the service water is discharged to the circulating water lines and travels from i there to the cooling tower. By this means, the SWS provides the makeup water necessary to replace water losses resulting from evaporation and drift and to

! maintain acceptable water quality in the CWS.

Under normal operating conditions, the SWS withdraws about 104.4 m3/ min (27,570 gpm or 61.4 cfs) from the New Cumberland Pool on the Ohio River. This

, water is pumped by two of three 50% capacity. service water pumps located in the intake structure to cooling equipment in various buildings. A portion of 4

the servic'e water (72.6 m3/ min (19,170 gpm or 42.7 cfs)) is then discharged to the main circulating water lines to be used as makeup water to replace losses and blowdown from the cooling tower. The remaining 31.8 m3/ min (8400 gpm or

18.7 cfs) is discharged to the Ohio River via the emergency outfall structure to prevent silt buildup in the 76.2-cm (30-inch) service water discharge lines.

~

i Beaver Valley Unit 2 will consume water primarily through evaporation from the i cooling tower. Of the 104.4 m3/ min (27,570 gpm or 61.4 cfs) that will be with-

! drawn from the Ohio River, about 33.2 m3/ min (8775 gpm or 19.5 cfs) will be lost to evaporation. This is less than 0.4% of the estimated 7-day 10 year J

low flow of 8830 m3/ min (2.33 x 106 g'pm or 5200 cfs) and less than 0.5% of the i flow of the 1930 record drought of 6780 m3/sec (1.79 x 108 gpm or 4000 cfs).

For two-unit operation, the average consumptive water use will be about

! 69.2 m3/ min (18,275 gpm or 40.7 cfs). This is less than 0.8% of the 7-day 10 year low flow and 1.0% of the flow of the 1930 drought. When compared with the average flow in the Ohio River, the water consumed by both Units 1 and 2 will amount to only 0.11% of the estimated average flow of 1040 m3/ min

] (36,700 cfs). Because the water consumptively used by the station is a small j amount of the flow of the Ohio River, the staff concludes that operation of

Units 1 and 2 will not adversely affect existing and projected water users j downstream.

5.3.2.2 Groundwater Ocmestic water for support buildings will be supplied by two onsite wells; .

average use is estimated to be about 0.11 m3/ min (27.8 gpm or 0.06 cfs). Unit 2

main plant structures will receive their potable water from Unit 1. '

4 As well pumpage in the onsite wells occurs, the groundwater level will be lowered and a cone of depression will result. Locally the groundwater gradient will be directed from the river to the aquifer because, as discussed in Sec-i tion 4.3.1.2, groundwater in the terrace aquifer is hydraulically connected

with the Ohio River. The pumped well water will thus be partly from the river

and partly from the aquifer.

. Intrusion of river water into the terrace aquifer caused by pumping at the site is not expected to affect other surface water users downstream because the amount of water that will intrude is a very small amount of water available j Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-4 l

k

, , , - ,- ,--,-.--.-c - - - - , - - , , - - - - - n,-- , - - = - + . - - - - ~ - - , , -

l 1

in the Ohio River. Use of groundwater at the site will not affect other groundwater users because there are no other users who draw on this terrace aquifer. Additionally, because the river recharges the aquifer and prevents excessive drawdown, it'is not expected that the groundwater supply will be depleted by pumpage for Unit 2 5.3.3 Other Hydrologic Impacts The objective of Executive Order 11988, " Floodplain Management" (May 1977), is

...to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative...." 7 The elevation of the 100 year flood on the Ohio River adjacent to the site, as determined in March 1979 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is 211.8 m (695 feet) msl. As shown in Figure 5.1, structures related to Unit 1 and/or Unit 2 that are located in the floodplain include the impact basin, blowdowa discharge structure, intake structure, and auxiliary intake structure. 'Of these, only the impact basin was constructed for exclusive use by Unit 2. The

! others are existing structures that were constructed for Unit 1 and will be shared by Unit 2.

Unit 1 was constructed and in operation before Executive Order 11988 was signed in May 1977. Therefore, the staff concludes that consideration of alternative locations for the blowdown discharge structure, the intake struc-ture, and the auxiliary intake structure is neither required nor practicable.

The plant itself is located above any conceivable flood on the Ohio River; thus the only plant related structure in the floodplain constructed after the Executive Order was signed is the impact basin. However, this structure is a minor intrusion on the floodplain of the Ohio River that will have no measurable effect on the 100 year Ohio River flood level nor on the aerial extent of flooding. The staff therefore concludes that the objectives of Executive Order 119o8 have been met.

5.4 Air Quality 5.4.1 Fog and Ice The evaluation of the atmospheric impacts due to the operation of the natural draft cooling tower for Beaver Valley Unit 2 is unchanged frcm that in the FES-CP.

5.4.2 Other Emissions Air quality impacts from nonradioactive atmospheric pollutants (particulates,  !

sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) were not addressed in the FES-CP. Serving Units 1 and 2 are four oil-fired auxiliary boilers, three of which may be in use at any one time; four emergency diesel generators one standby diesel generator; and a diesel fire pump. All of these will emit particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides when they are in operation. On the bases of (1) the use of No.'2 fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.5*. by weight and (2) projected operating times, the applicant has estimated that emissions from the auxiliary boilers, diesel generators, and

( Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-5

diesel pump will be less than 250 tons per year for any pollutant governed by EPA criteria. These emissions are less than those stipulated by the EPA require-ment for a prevention-of-significant-deterioration (PSD) analysis (40 CFR 52.21).

Therefore, the staff concludes that operation of the auxiliary boilers, emer-gency diesel generators, and diesel fire pump at Beaver Valley should not have a significant impact on air quality in the vicinity of the plant.

5.5 Ecology 5.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology The effects of operation of Unit 2 on the terrestrial resources are described in ER-OL Chapter 5 and FES-CP Section 5.6.1. The terrestrial ecological data i (including aerial photographs) collected for Unit 1 serve as a preoperational ,

data base for Unit 2. The estimated impacts of operation include minimal effects of cooling tower drift and loss of some birds as a result of collisions with the cooling tower and transmission poles and lines. No additional impacts i to terrestrial resources of the transmission corridor are expected.

5.5.1.1 Cooling Tower Operation Operation of natural draft cooling towers can result in impacts to terrestrial resources. These include deposition of salt drift on soil and vegetation,

! bird impaction, and weather modification. In FES-CP Section 5.3.3, the pro-jected maximum drift from the Unit 2 cooling tower was based on generi:

information and was estimated as 90 kg/ha/ year (80 lb/ acre / year). The staff considered this estimate to be high. Subsequently, a model was developed for ,

the combined drift from the Units 1 and 2 cooling towers based nn (1) manufac- '

turer's guarantees of the amount of drif t leaving the towers, (2) the annual l average total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the blowdown, and l (3) onsite meteorological data for 1976 (ER-OL Appendix 38). According to ,

this model, the maximum salt deposition rate for the combined towers is l predicted to be 11.1 kg/ha/ year (9.9 lb/ acre / year) 1448 m (4750 feet) east of '

the cooling towers (ER-0L Figure 38-4). The maximum monthly salt deposition rate is predicted to be 3.6 kg/ha/ month (3.22 lb/ acre / month). The minimum deposition of salt drift known to injure sensitive species of natural vegeta-tion (e.g. , flowering dogwood) is about 5 kg/ha/ month (4.5 lb/ acre / month)

(Davis, 1979). Thus, no adverse impacts to sensitive native vegetation are  :

expected. In addition, most cropland in the Beaver Valley area is southwest of '

the site where the deposition is one-third of the maximum salt deposition or less; thus it is unlikely that even sensitive species (e.g., onions, carrots, '

and beans) would be affected by operation of the cooling towers. In looking at infrared aerial photographs taken from 1975 to 1983, the staff saw no injury to vegetation from cooling tower drift in the vicinity of Unit 1. -

FES-CP Section 5.6.1 suggested that increased ice formation as a result of cooling tower drift during ice storms might result in additional limbfall in the forested upland. However, information in ER-OL Sections 5.1.4.1.2 and 5.1.4.2 shows that the maximum surface icing accumulation as a result of drift is insignficant, and no damage to local vegetation is expected.  ;

Mixing the plumes frcm Units 1 and 2 with nearby industrial emissions, particu-larly those from the fossil-fueled Bruce Mansfield Plant, could result in  !

increased local acid deposition. On the basis of modeling (ER-OL ,

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-6  ;

l

i Section 5.1.4.1.5), it is estimated that the visible plume from the Beaver Valley cooling tower and the plume from the Bruce Mansfield Plant stack will intersect for approximately 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> per year. Effects cannot be predicted accurately because acid formation and deposition are not well enough understood, but effects would be infrequent and of short duration, as indicated by the short total time estimated for interaction of the plumes.

Bird mortality as a result of collisions with the Unit 1 natural draft cooling

~

tower has not been a problem. During 5 years of seasonal surveys, only 27 birds (26 passerines and 1 rail) were found at the base of the tower (ER-OL Sec-tion 5.1.4.2). Potentional increased losses as a result of the Unit 2 cooling tower are considered insignificant when compared to the number of birds that die from other hazards during migration.

Other possible effects of the operation of natural draft cooling towers--such as ground-level fogging and icing, increased precipitation or humidity, ground-level shading by the plume, and noise--have been shown to be inconsequential (Carson, 1976; Talbot, 1979; and Wilbur and Webb, 1983).

l 5.5.1.2 Transmission System Operation Operation and maintenance of the Hanna-to-Mansfield and Beaver Valley-to-Crescent transmission circuits is not expected to result in ecological impacts because the lines will be mostly located on existing towers and poles in existing rights-of-way. Additional access roads are not anticipated. Maintenance of the trans- l mission system right-of-way includes mechanical cutting of woody species and

.the use of EPA-approved herbicides applied by ' state-licensed operators every 8 to 10 years (ER-OL Section 5.5.1). The chemicals are applied by adjustable

! handguns from trucks. This equipment is similar to the type used in orchard I

spraying. Pellets are used in inaccessible areas. This treatment results in the death of most woody vegetation. Grasses (e.g., Agrostis stolonifera) and common blackberry-(Rubus allegheniensis) are the predominant species found on the treated sections of the transmission corridor (NUS, 1976). Some wildlife populations on the right-of-way may fluctuate with the spraying cycles, but this type of spraying is used widely by utilities and should not have unexpected ,

i or serious impacts if appropriate precautions are used during application. "

Other potential impacts to terrestrial biota from operation of the transmissio'-n  !

lines may result from electric and magnetic fields, electrostatic induction, corona effects, and noise. These potential impacts are fully described in  !

ER-OL Section 3.9.4-7. Most research (Lee et al., 1982) has shown that bio-logical effects from these conditions are not expected from operation of transmission lines, even at 500 kV. The applicant has operated 345-kV trans-mission lines since 1970 with no problems that could not be corrected. Exten- l sive experience with high voltage lines up to 765 kV and the everall results of l I

> numerous studies provide little evidence that transmission lines pose a long- t j term biological hazard. t 5.5.2 Aquatic Resources j l .P tential effects on aquatic resources may be divided into (1) mortality of l <0hio River biota as a result of withdrawal of cooling water at the intake [

structure and (2) effects of thermal and chemical discharges. These will be (

5 Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-7 .

+

, , , . -. ._). --- - -- - - . _ _ - . - - , _ - _ .

l l

I discussed separately. The results of monitoring' at the site d' uring the opera-tion of Unit 1 and the applicant's thermal and chemical models also are discussed.

5.5.2.1 Intake Effects FES-CP Section 5.6.2.1 cited two features of the intake system that would tend to minimize mortality to the biota of the Ohio River: low approach velocity and installation of the intake structure flush with the shoreline (thus elimi-nating any embayment that would attract fish). The design and location o'f the intake structure, which is shared with Unit 1, have not changed since the FES-CP <

was issued. The maximum intake velocity is now anticipated to be 0.10 m/sec  !

(0.34 fps), rather than the 0.07 m/sec (0.24 fps) considered earlier (Sec-l tion 4.2.4); still, this maximum velocity is less than the 0.15 m/s (0.5 fps) recommended limit cited by Boreman (1977).

1 On the other hand, FES-CP Section 5.6.2.1 speculated that the " cave-like i chambers'! of the intake structure could attract fish. Impingement sampling  !

from 1980-1982 demonstrated that certain species (e.g., channel catfish and bluegill) were impinged in numbers greater than expected, based on their abun-dance in the river, while for other species (e.g., carp and bluntnose minnow) ,

the opposite was true (Duquesne, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984). - It would appear that intake mortality should not have a significant effect on Ohio River fishes, ,

based on the small numbers impinged. The mortality that will-occur may affect l some species more than others. [

t

In FES-CP Section 5.6.2.1, the staff' assumed that plankton would be drawn into

! the station approximately in proportion to the fraction of the river flow wi.th-drawn. Densities of phytoplankton and zooplankton collected from the intake structure were similar to densities in the river channel from 1976 through early 1980 (when river sampling was discontinued) (Duquense, 1981). Thus, at the intake rate given in Section 4.2.3, the station may be assumed to destroy, at

~

the 7-day,10 year low flow of 147,000 L/s (5,200 cfs), approximately 1.2% of the plankton, which is identical to the estimate,in FES-CP Section 5.6.2.1.

j 5.5.2.2 Thermal and. Chemical Effects FES-CP Section 5.6.2.3' stated that thermal releases from the station would I have only minor effects on the biota of the Ohio River. Because of the limited

] extent of heated water in terms of area and depth, impacts on adult fish, drift-ing organisms, benthos, and spawning activities were all predicted to be minor.

i i

The thermal effects evaluated in the FES-CP are, in fact, greater than those that are now expected. FES-CP Section 5.2 assumed that the' heat contribution from the Shippingport plant would be added to the contribution from Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2. However, by the time the Unit 2 begins operation, there

-.will be no heat contribution from the Shippingport station.* Because

! Shippingport would have accounted for most of the total thermal discharge.of the combined plants (72% on an annual average, ranging from 60% in-winter to -

87% in summer) ~(ER-OL Section 5.1.2.1), the potential thermal effect's on river biota should be even less than were anticipated in the FES-CP.

• The Shippingport station is being decommissioned.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-8 l

L _ - -_ _ _ ,_ _-- _..__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l l

FES-CP Section 5.6.2.2 stated that effects of chemical releases on Ohio River biota would be slight, considering the dilution of the low-volume discharges by the river. Even though some river water quality constituents are at levels above the applicable criteria (Section 5.3.2), the discharge of these consti-tuents at the concentration factor resulting from Unit 2 operation will not necessarily result in adverse effects on river biota. Comparison of the ex-pected maximum discharge concentration, based on a not-necessarily coincident maximum river concentration of these constituents, with maximum concentrations.

known to be not harmful to aquatic biota indicates that mortality would not be expected. Additionally, biological surveys of the river in the station vicinity show that organisms are surviving the ambient water quality, even when it is in excess of applicable standards. Because the chemical releases from Unit 2 have not changed significantly since the FES-CP was issued (Section 4.2.6) and

.the water cuality of the Ohio River has improved in recent years (Section 4.3.2),

the assessment.in the FES-CP remains valid.

l The Onio River concentrations of manganese, TDS, un-ionized ammonia, and nitrite nitrogen in the vicinity of the station discharge will be elevated to above state water quality criteria by the Unit 2-discharge (Section 5.3.2). Manganese will be discharged at a maximum concentration of 2.11 mg/L (ER-OL Table 5.3.4).

According to EPA (1976), concentrations of 1.5 mg/L to over 1000 mg/L are toler-ated by freshwater life, so the Ohio River would be expected to rapidly dilute even the maximum discharge concentration to a nontoxic level. TDS will be dis-charged at a maximum concentration of 832.8 m/L (ER-OL Table 5.3-4), whereas the lowest concentration of TOS reported toxic by EPA (1976) is 10,000 mg/L; thus, no significant toxicity would be expected. The maximum concentration of nitrite nitrogen to be discharged is 5.93 mg/L (ER-OL Table 5.3-4). According to EPA (1976), most warm water fish should not be adversely affected by concen- l trations belcw 5 mg/L. The maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia to be discharged is 0.29 mg/L (ER-OL Table 5.3-4), which is in the range of toxic 4 concentrations (0.2 to 2.0 mg/L) cited by EPA (1976). Dilution by the river will be necessary t_o reduce this discharged concentration to a nontoxic level.

One point of uncertainty concerns chlorine in the discharge. Concentrations of TRC in the Unit 2 blowdown are not expected to normally exceed about 0.45 mg/L, on the basis of a statistical evaluation of the Unit 1 operational study (Sec-tion 4.2.3). When the Unit 2 discharge is mixed with the unchlorinated blowdown from Unit 1, the TRC concentration of the station discharge would be reduced by a factor of 2 or more (Unit 1 blowdown is greater than Unit 2 blowdown). Accord-ing to studies by Dickson et al. (1974) and Brooks and Seegart (1978), inter-mittenti exposures of up to about 0.2 mg/L TRC for up to a total of 2 to 2.5' hours a day do not result in mortality to warm water fish such as common shiner, spotfin shiner, bluegill, carp, white bass, channel catfish, white sucker, sauger, and freshwater drum. Discharge concentrations of TRC could be expected to be at or below the cited safe concentration for two-unit operation. The duration of TRC presence in the combined discharge cannot be predicted for

-two unit operation with the data available. Operational experience from Unit 1 indicates that detectable TRC presence in the discharge has occurred for longer than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 63% of the time-(TRC concentrations were not specified for the persistence interval.) Mixing the dischar;e in the river will reduce TRC time /

concentration exposures by dilution and chemical reaction. Because the cross-sectional area and volume of the river that is affected by the Beaver Valley l discharga are predicted to be relatively small, adverse impacts (from either toxic effects or habitat reduction through avoidance reactions by resident biota) {

)

l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-9

are likely to be localized and minor. .0n the basis of Unit 1 experience, opera-tion of Unit 2 alone potentially could be more severe in terms of toxic effects (although affecting a smaller area of the river). These effects are not expec- "

ted to be significantly different than those experienced with Unit 1 operation. ,

l The release of a chemical discharge to Peggs Run was not anticipated in the FES-CP. That stream is now expected to receive the treated effluent from the Unit 2 sewage plant (Section 4.2.6) and from the oil / water separator located at the-_ fuel oil unloading facility. The design flow of the sewage plant con-

~

stitutes more than 1% of the creek's mean flow (estimated by the applicant at 140 L/sec or 5 cfs (ER-OL Section 2.4.3). The discharge from the separator is low volume and intermittent. A discharge of no more than 1900 to 3800.L (500 to 1000 gallons) is expected weekly for about 6 weeks, approximately once.every 18 months (during refueling outages, when the auxiliary boiler is in use). The discharge is expected to meet the limitations for the oil / water separator regu-lated as Outfall 303 by the NPOES permit (Appendix G), although, according to j the applicant, the permit has not yet been revised to control this source.

i Because Peggs Run is already a highly degraded stream (Section 4.3.4.2), the i potential effects of the sewage discharge (e.g. , high oxygen demand and sus-pended solids) and separator discharge (e.g., oil / grease and suspended solids) on Peggs- Run would be limited.

The possibility.was raised in FES-CP Section 5.6.2.2 that the channel behind Phillis ~ Island might be a particularly productive spawning area. If that were the case, then this might be an area where thermal or chemical discharges would affect sensitive-life stages of fish (such as larvae), as the discharge will largely be confined to the channel. However, the applicant's monitoring data do not indicate that the channel is a particularly productive spawning ,

area relative to the main channel of the Ohio Ri.ver (Section 4.3.4.2). l 1

Exposure of Ohio River fishes to the potential-toxic effects of chemicals in [

I.

I the discharge could be affected by their attraction to or avoidance of the i heated effluent. 'During August (when the mean river temperature is 26.4 C),-

for example, many of the species that are found at the site are expected to t avoid waters more than SC to 9C warmer than amtiient (Table 5.1), a greater differential than the discharge AT.

For species such as~ bluegill, walleye, and largemouth bass, the avoidance tem-perature differential in January (when tt.e mean river temperature is 2.5 C) is expected to be greater than the discharge AT. In these cases, avoidance of the effluent would not be expected; in fact, there may.be some. attraction of fish to the effluent (Goodyear et al., 1974). On the other hand, for species such as bluntnose minnow, channel catfish, white crappie, pumpkinseed, and spotfin shiner, the avoidance temperature differential at an acclimation temperature of ,

2.5 C is less than the discharge AT and avoidance behavior could reduce their exposure to maximum discharge concentrations of chemicals such' as residual

~

chlorine. t i

FES-CP Section'5.6.2.3 stated there was little likelihood for cold shock . :

(thermal stress to fish acclimated to warmer discharge temperatures,- in the event of an abrupt plant shutdown during winter months), because the operation of three units (Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2, Shippingport) would reduce.the ,

probability of a simultaneous shutdown of all the plants. Although Shippingport  !

is no longer in operation, this event would still require the simultaneous  ;

i Eeaver Valley 2 FES 5-10 l 1

~ __ ._ _ . __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ .

shutdown of both Beaver Valley units. In February 1983, following a shutdown i of Unit 1, a number of dead fish at the site were reported. The observed dead fish were almost entirely gizzard shad. Their death has been attributed to their congregation in shallow, warmer water after the shutdown, in addition to any thermal stress (Duquesne, 1984). At the time of that shutdown, the Ship-

.pingport station was no longer operational, so Unit 1 was the only thermal source at the site. Unit 2 has two major features that, according to information presented by Coutant (1977), would tend to reduce the likelihood of cold shock:

(1) because Unit 2 has a closed-cycle, rather than a once-through cooling sys-tem, the volume of heated water is relatively small, and (2) the discharge ,

area is not confined (as in a dischar ge canal) and does not have restricted mixing (as in a cove).

5.5.2.3 Results of Unit 1 Monitoring The discussions in Sections 5.5.2.1 and 5.5.2.~2 suggest that effects of two-unit operation on aquatic biota should be minor and localized. Because

• of the similarity between Units 1 and 2, the results of ecological monitoring ,

conducted by the applicant to evaluate changes caused by Unit 1 are applicable

'to Unit 2.

L The applicant compared population densities of benthos, phytoplankton, zooplank-ton, and ichthyoplankton upstream and downstream of the Beaver Valley station.

t (This analysis would be conservative because changes that were a result of opera-tion of the Shippingport station could not always be distinguished.) If the ratio of densities observed at the two transects exceeded the highest ratio observed at the two transects during preoperational studies, any effect on the population may be tentatively ascribed to Unit 1. The applicant also used a i

second test: whether the density in an operational sample differed significantly from the corresponding density in preoperational samples. However, in light of the known changes in water quality and fish populations in recent years (Sec-tions 4.3.2 and 4.3.4), simultaneous exceedance of this second criterion is not  ;

required to indicate an effect of Unit.l. Table 5.2 summarizes these upstream-downstream comparisons. Of the 388 upstream-downstream comparisons made in 1977 through'1979 (Unit 1 began operation in 1976, and'the sampling required

~

for the comparisons was discontinued in early 1980), only 16 (or 4%) of the  ;

i comparisons suggested a possible effect from operation of Unit 1; even this low '

percentage of upstream-downstream differenc_es could.be attributed to natural  ;

j variability. '

These data confirm that, at worst, Ohio River biota experienced minor and i localized impacts _ from operation of Unit 1 and Shippingport. A similar range i of effects would also be expected from the combined operation of Units 1 and  ;

2, without Shippingport.

5.6 Endancered and Threatened Soecies [

5.6.1 Terrestrial Species I No endangered or threatened species of plants or animals listed by the U.S. Fish i and Wildlife Service or the State of Pensylvania are known to be present within i the plant site or transmission corridor. Protected transient species poten-  !

tially occurring in the region are discussed in Section 4.3.5.1 above. Because t i

these spec ~ies do not regularly occur on the site or along the R0W, no impacts l are expected.

I Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-11 [

5.6.2 Aquatic Species Because no threatened or endangered species have been collected at the site (Section 4.3.5), the station is not expected to affect any such species.

5.7 Historic and Archeological Impacts As noted in Section 4.3.6 above, the operation and maintenance of the plant and associated facilities is not anticipated to have any effect on any sites or properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. See Appendix H for letters from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia state historic preservation offices.

5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts The socioeconomic impacts of the operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2 are discussed l in ER-OL Section 8.1. It is estimated that 465 employees, which includes 25 contractor security workers, will'be required for the operation of Unit 2. In addition, about 1000 contract workers' will be required every 18 months for approximately 10 weeks for outage-related work. The'residental locations of Unit 2 operating workers are likely to be similar to those of Unit 1 plant employees. Thus, about 51% of the workers are expected to reside in Beaver County, Pennsylvania; 37% in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; 4% in Columbiana County, Ohio; 1% in Hancock County, West Virginia; and the rest in surrounding counties. Because of the relatively small number of workers required to operate Unit 2, the impacts on the communities in which they will reside and on traffic are expected to be minimal. The annual payroll for the operating workers is projected to be $18 million (in 1987 dollars). Local purchases of materials and supplies resulting from the optration of Beaver Valley Unit 2 for the first full year of operations are estimated to total about $11.6 million (in 1987 dollars). The local purchases are expected to be made in the Pittsburgh stan-dard metropolitan statistical area, which includes Allegheny, Beaver, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties. Table 5.3 shows the estimated state taxes that will result from the plant. The projected dollar amounts are provided for the first five full years of operation.

5.9 Radiological Imoacts 5.9.1 Regulatory Requirements Nuclear power reactors in the United States must comply with certain regulatory requirements in order to operate. The permissible levels of radiation in unre-stricted areas and'of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas are re-corded in 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation. These regula-tions specify limits on levels of radiation and limits on concentrations of radionuclides in the facility's effluent releases to the air and water (above natural background). The radiation protection standards of 10 CFR 20 specify limitations on whole body radiation doses to members of the general public in unrestricted areas at three levels: 500 millirems in any calendar year, .

100 millirems in any 7 consecutive days, and 2 millirems in any 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. These limits are cor.sistent with national and international standards, in terms of protecting public health and safety.

Appendix I~ of 10 CFR 50 provides numerical guidance on dose-design objectives for LWRs to meet this ALARA requirement. Applicants for permits to construct Beaver Valley 2 FE5 5-12

and for licenses to operate an LWR shall provide rea:,onable assurance that the following calculated dose-design objectives will % met for all unrestricted

• areas: 3 mrems/ year to the total body or 10 mrems/ year to any organ from all pathways of exposure from liquid effluents; 10 mrads/ year gamma radiation or  !

20 mrads/ year beta radiation air dose from gaseous effluents near ground level

--and/or 5 mrems/ year to the total body or 15 mrems/ year to the skin from  !

gaseous effluents; and 15 mrems/yr to any organ from all pathways of exposure from airborne effluents that include the radiciodines, carbon-14, tritium, and  ;

the particulates, i i Experience with the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors

, indicates that compliance with these design objectives will keep average annual ,

2 releases of radioactive material in effluents at'small percentages of the. limits  !

specified in 10 CFR 20 and, in fact, will result in doses generally below the dose-design objective values of Appendix I. At the same. time, the licensee is  ;

permitted the flexibility of operation', compatible with considerations of health i and safety, to ensure that the public is provided a dependable source of power,  ;

even under unusual operating conditions that may temporarily result in releases i higher than such small percentages but still well within the limits specified i i in 10 CFR-20.  !

j In addition to the impact created by facility radioactive effluents as discussed l above, within the NRC policy and procedures for environmental protection de- }

~

scribed in 10 CFR 51 there are generic treatments of environmental effects of all  ;

aspects of the uranium fuel cycle. These environmental data have been summarized

~

I in Table S-3 and are discussed later in this report in Section 5.10. In the

~

I same manner the environmental impact of transportation of fuel and waste to  !

and from an LWR is summarized in Table S-4 and presented in Section 5.9.3 of  :

l this report.

1 Recently an-additional operational requirement for Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities l 1

including nuclear power plants was established by the Environmental Protection  ;

i Agency in 40 CFR 190. This regulation limits annual doses (excluding radon l

, and daughters) for members of the public to 25 mrems total body, 75 mrems j thyroid, and 25 mrems other organs from all fuel-cycle facility contributions -

that may impact a specific individual in the public. l

[

5.9.2 Operational Overview [

4 During normal operations of Beaver Valley Unit 2, small quantities of radio- l l

activity (fission, corrosion, and activation products) will be released to the  ;

environment. As required by NEPA, the staff has determined the estimated dose l to members of the public outside of the plant boundaries as a result of the t i radiation from these radioisotope releases and relative to natural-background-i radiation dose levels.

These facility generated environmental dose levels are estimated to be very i small because of both the plant design and the development of a program that i will be implemented at the facility to contain and control all radioactive ~ -

L

. emissions and effluents. Radioactive-waste management systems are incorporated into the plant and are designed to remove most of the fission product radio-activity-that is assumed to leak from the fuel, as well as most of the activa- f tion and corrosion product radioactivity produced by neutrons in the reactor-  ;

I core vicinity. The effectiveness of these systems will be measured by process  !

I f t

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-13 i I

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

i and effluent radiological monitoring systems that permanently record the amounts of radioactive constituents remaining in the various airborne and waterborne i process.and effluent streams. The amounts of radioactivity released through i vents and discharge points to areas outside the plant boundaries are to be

recorded and published semiannually in the Radioactive Effluent Release Reports ,

for the facility.  !

Airborne effluents will diffuse in the atmosphere in a fashion determined by the meteorological ~ conditions. existing at the time of release and are generally ,

dispersed and diluted by the time they reach unrestricted areas that are open j to the public. Similarly, waterborne effluents will be diluted with plant

waste water and then further diluted as they mix with the Ohio River beyond

the plant boundaries.

Radioisotopes in the facility's effluents that enter unrestricted areas will~

i produce doses through their radiations to members of the general public in a ,

manner similar to the way doses are produced from background radiations (that is, cosmic,. terrestrial, and internal radiations), which also include radiation

]

from nuclear-weapons fallout. These radiation doses can be calculated for the 7 l many potential radiological-exposure pathways specific to the environment around the facility, such as direct-radiation doses from the gaseous plume or liquid effluent stream outside of the plant boundaries, or internal-radiation-dose commitments from radioactive contaminants.that might have been deposited j on vegetation, or in neat and fish products eaten by people, or that might be j present in drinking water outside the plant or incorporated into milk fro.n cows '

p at nearby farms.

i These doses, calculated for the " maximally exposed" individual (that is, the i hypothetical individual potentially subject to maximum exposure), form the ,

l basis of the NRC staff's evaluation of impacts. Actually,.these estimates are

. for a fictitious person because assumptions are made that tend.to overestimate the dose that would accrue to members of the public outside the plant boundaries.

For example, if this " maximally exposed" individual were to receive the total body dose calculated at the plant boundary as a result of external exposure to

! the gaseous plume, he/she is assumed to be physically exposed to gamma radia-  !

j tion at that boundary for 70% of the year, an unlikely occurrence. I Site-specific. values for various parameters involved in ~each dose pathway are j used in the calculations. These include calculated or observed values for the

amounts of radioisotopes released in the gasecus_and liquid effluents, mete-

! orological information (for example, wind speed and direction) specific to the r l s_ite topography and effluent release points, and hydrological information per- '

taining to dilution of the liquid effluents as they are discharged.

i

. An annual land census will identify. changes in the use of unrestricted areas -

to permit modifications in the programs for evaluating doses to individuals '

l. from principal pathways of exposure. This census. specification will be

incorporated into the Radiological Technical Specifications and_ satisfies the

. requirements of Section'IV.B.3 of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. As use of the land .

surrounding the site boundary changes,- revised calculations will be.made to 1 ensure that the dose estimate for gaseous effluents always represents the 'l

! highest dose that might possibly occur for any individual member of the public for each applicable foodcnain pathway. The estimate considers, for example, 4

where people live, where vegetable gardens are located, and where cows are pastured.

Beaver Valley 2 FES S'-14 i

i

,---y.,, .-,,m,- -.---,,--m .--,-c-__ r_- ,~ . - - - ,.. ---, , - - -

,,,--..-__~-r+. .,_-

4

, An extensive radiological environmental monitoring program, designed specifically for the environs of Beaver Valley Unit 2, provides measurements of radiation and radioactive contamination levels that exist outside of the facility boundaries both before and after operations begin. In this progra'm , offsite radiation levels are continuously monitored with thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs). In addition, measurements are made on a number of types of samples

-from the surrounding area to determine the possible presence of radioactive contaminants that, for example, might be deposited on vegetation, be present in drinking water outside the plant, or be incorporated into cow's milk from nearby farms. The results for all radiological environmental samples measured i during a calendar year of operation are recorded and published in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report for the facility. The specifics of the final operational-monitoring program and the requirement for annual publication of the monitoring results will be incorporated into.the operating license Radiological Technical Specifications for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

I l 5.9.3 Radiological Impacts from Routine Operations 5.9.3.1 Radiation Exposure Pathways: Dose Commitments .

The potential environmental pathways through which persons may be exposed to radiation originating in a nuclear power reactor are shown schematically in -

Figure 5.2. When an individual is exposed through one of these pathways, the i dose is determined in part by the amount of time he/she is in the vicinity of [

t he source, or the amount of time the radioactivity inhaled or ingested is etained in his/her body. The actual effect of the radiation or radioactivity '

is~ determined by calculating the dose commitment. The annual dose commitment is calculated to be the total dose that would be received over a 50 year period, r a following the intake of radioactivity for 1 year under the conditions existing  !

l 20 years after the station begins operation. (Calculation for the 20th year, l or midpoint of station operation, represents an average. exposure over the life '

l of the plant.) However, with few exceptions, most of the internal dose commit-ment for each nuclide is given duririg the _first few years after exposure because of the turnover of.the nuclide by physiological processes and radioactive decay. +

3 There are a number of possible exposure pathways to humans that are appropriate to be studied to determine the impact of routine releases from the Beaver Valley Unit 2 facility on members of the general public living and working outside of ,

the site boundaries, and whether the releases projected at this point in the i licensing process will in fact meet regulatory requirements. A detailed listing i i

of these exposure pathways would include external radiation exposure from the  !

gaseous effluents, inhalation of iodines and particulate contaminants in the l air, drinking milk from a cow or eating meat from an animal that feeds on open  ;

pasture near the site on which iodines or particulates may have deposited,  !

eating vegetables from a garden near the site that may be contaminated by  ;

similar. deposits, and drinking water or eating fish caught near the point. of  !

discharge of liquid effluents.

{

Other less imp'ortant pathways include: external irradiation from. radionuclides -

deposited on the ground surface, eating animals and food crops raised near the site using irrigation water that may contain liquid effluents, shoreline, i boating ~and swimming activities near lakes or streams that may be contaminated 1 by effluents, drinking potentially contaminated water, and direct radiation. l from within the plant itself.

l i  ?

4 Beaver Valley 2.FES 5-15 i 8

- ~ ~ - - ,- , - - , -- -____

i' . Calculations of the effects for most pathways are limited to a radius of 80 km

~

l (50 miles). This limitation is based on several facts. Experience, as demon-strated by calculations, has shown that all individual dose commitments -

(>0.1 mrem / year) for radioactive effluents are accounted for within a radius of 80 km from the plant. Beyond 80 km the doses to individuals are smaller than 0.1 mrem / year, which. is far below natural-background doses, and the doses are subject to substantial uncertainty because of limitations of predictive mathematical models.

The NRC staff has made a detailed study of all of the above important pathways and has evaluated the radiation-dose-commitments both to the plant workers and the general public for these pathways resulting from routine operation of the facility. A discussion of these evaluations follows.

5.9.3.1.1 Occupational Radiation Exposure for Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)

Most of the dose to nuclear plant workers res'ults from external exposure to radiation coming from radioactive materials outside of the body rather than from internal exposure from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Experi-ence shows that the dose to nuclear plant workers varies from reactor to reactor and from year to year. For environmental-impact purposes, it can be projected by using the experience to date with modern PWRs. Recently licensed 1000-MWe PWRs are operated in accordance with the post-1975 regulatory requirements and guidance that place increased emphasis on maintaining occupational expnsure at nuclear power plants ALARA. These requirements and guidance are outlined

primarily in 10 CFR 20, Standard Review Plan Chapter 12 (NUREG-0800), and RG 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as Low a's Is Reasonably Achievable."

i The applicant's proposed implementation of these requirements and guidelines L is reviewed by the NRC staff during the licensing process, and the results of l that review are reported in the staff's SERs. The-license is granted only after the review indicates that an ALARA program can be implemented. In addition, regular reviews of operating plants are performed to determine whether the ALARA j requirements are being met.

Average collective occupational dose information for 270 PWR reactor years of operation is available for those plants operating between 1974 and 1981.~ (The year 1974 was chosen as a starting date bacause the dose data for years prior

to 1974 are primarily from reactors with average rated capacities below 500 MWe.)

These data indicate that the average reactor annual collective dose at PWRs

has been about 500 person rems, although some plants have experienced annual collective doses averaging as high as about 1400 person-rems / year over their operating lifetime (NUREG-0713, Vol 3). These dose averages are based on widely varying yearly doses at PWRs. For example, for the period mentioned l

above, annual collective doses for PWRs have ranged from 18.to 3223 person-rems per reactor. However, the average annual dose per nuclear plant worker of about 0.8 rem (ibid) has not varied significantly during this period. The' .

worker dose limit, established by 10 CFR 20, is 3 rems / quarter, if the average dose over the worker lifetime is being controlled to 5 rems / year, or 1.25 rems /

quarter if it is not.

Beaver Valley 2.FES' 5-16

The wide range of annual collective doses experienced at PWRs in the United States results from a number of factors such as the amount of required maint-enance and the amount of reactor operations and inplant surveillance. Because these factors can vary widely and unpredictably, it is impossible to determine in advance a specific year-to year annual occupational radiation dose for a particular plant over its operating lifetime. There may on occasion be a need

~

for relatively high collective occupational doses, even at plants with radiation protection programs designed to ensure that occupational radiation doses will be kept ALARA.

In recognition of the factors mentioned above, staff occupational dose estimates for environmental impact purposes fo- Beaver Valley Unit 2 are based on the assumption that the facility will experience the annual avera~ge occupational dose for PWRs to date. Thus the staff has projected that the collective occupa-tional doses at Beaver Valley Unit 2 will be 500 person rems, but annual collective doses could average as much as 3 times this value over the life of the plant.

In addition to the occupational radiation exposures discussed above, during the period between the initial power operation of Unit 1 and the similar startup of Unit 2, construction personnel working on Unit 2 will potentially be exposed to sources of radiation from the operation of Unit 1. The applicant has estimated that the integrated dose to construction personnel, over a period of 5.5 years, will be about 34 person-rems. This radiation exposure will result predominantly from radioactive components and gaseous effluents from Unit 1. Based on exper-

.ience with other PWRs, the staff finds that the applicant's estimate is reason-able. A detailed breakdown of the integrated dose to the construction workers by the location of their work and its duration is given in Table 12.4-8 of the FSAR.

The average anneal dose of about 0.8 rem per nuclear plant worker at operating BWRs and PWRs has been well within the limits of 10 CFR 20. However, for impact evaluation, the NRC staff has estimated the risk to nuclear power plant workers and compared it in Table 5.4 to published risks for other occupations. Based on these comparisons, the staff concludes that the risk to nuclear plant workers from plant operation is comparable to the risks associated with other occupations.

In estimating the health effects resulting from both offsite (see Section 5.9.3.2) and occupational radiation exposures as a result of normal operation of this facility, the NRC staff used somatic (cancer) and genetic risk estimators that are based on widely accepted scientific information. Specifically, the staff's estimates are based on information compiled by the National Academy of Sciences' Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR I,1972 and BEIR III, 1980). The estimates of the risks to workers and the general pub-lic are based on conservative assumptions (that is, the estimates are probably higher than the actual number). The following risk estimators were used to estimate health effects: 135 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rems and 220 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per mil-lion person-rems.

The cancer-mortality risk estimates are based on the " absolute risk" model described in BEIR I. Higher estimates can be developed by use of the " relative risk" model along with the assumption that risk prevails for the duration of life. Use of. the " relative risk" model would produce risk values uk to about four times greater than those used in this report. The staff regards the use l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-17

l of the " relative risk" model values as a reasonable upper limit of the range of uncertainty. The lower limit of the range would be zero because there may be biological mechanisms that can repair damage caused by radiation at low doses- ,

and/or dose rates. The number of potential nonfatal cancers would be approxi-matel y the same as the number of potential fatal cancers , according to the 1980 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III).

Values for genetic risk estimators. range from 60 to 1100 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rems (BEIR III). The value of 220 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders is equal to the sum of the geometric means of the risk of specific genetic defects and the risk of defects with complex etiology.

The preceding values for risk estimators are consistent with the recommendations

~

of a number of recognized radiation protection organizations, such as the Inter-national Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1977), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP, 1975), the National Academy of Sciences (BEIR III), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR, 1982).

The risk of potential fatal cancers in the exposed work-force population at Beaver Valley Unit 2 is estimated as follows: multiplying the annt.11 plant-worker population dose (about 500 person-rems) by the somatic risk estimator, the staff. estimates that about 0.06 cancer death may_ occur in the total exposed population. The value of 0.06 cancer death means that the probability of one cancer death over the lifetime of the entire work force as a result of 1 year of facility operation is about 6 chances in 100. Th'e risk of potential genetic disorders attributable to exposure of the work force is a risk borne by the progeny of the entire population and is thus properly considered as part of the risk to the general public.

5.9.3.1.2 Public Radiation Exposure.

Transportation of Radioactive Materials The transportation of " cold" (unirradiated) nuclear- fuel to the reactor, of spent irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to waste buri.al grounds is considered in 10 CFR 51.52. The contribution of the envi~ronmental effects of such trans-portation to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor is set forth in Summary Table S-4 from 10 CFR 51.52, reproduced herein as Table 5.5.

The cumulative dose to the exposed population as summarized in Table S-4 is very small when compared to the annual collective dose of about 60,000 person-rems to this same population or 28,000,000 person-rems to the U.S. population from background radiation.

Direct-Radiation for PWRs Radiation fields are produced around nuclear plants as a result of radicactivity within the reactor and its associated components, as well as ~a result of radio-active-effluent releases. Direct radiation from sources within the plant ars

-due primarily to nitrogen-16, a_radionuclide produced in the reactor core.

t

- Beaver Valley 2 FE3- 5-13 f 4

m - -- --.-m---<.,----r-.,y - < - -- , , ,----.---,--ry--m-y 7 r,-- , y y w-.- -

--+.---9

}

(

}

i. ' '.

Because the primary coolant of a PWR is contained in a heavily shielded area, .

, dose rates in the vicinity of PWRs are generally undetectable (less than 5 mrems/

year).

{

! Low-level radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to

! make a dose. contribution at the site boundary of less than 1% of that due to the direct radiation from the plant.

Radioactive-Effluent Releases: Air and Water 4 Limited quantities of radioactive effluents will be released to the atmosphere ,

, and to the hydrosphere during normal operations. Plant-specific radioisotope-1 release rates were developed on the basis of estimates regarding fuel performance and descriptions of the operation of radwaste systems in the applicant's FSAR, l

and by using the calculative models and parameters described in-NUREG-0017.

t These radioactive effluents are then diluted by the air and water into which they are released before they reach areas accessible to the general public.

Radioactive effluents can be divided into several groups. - Among the airborne -!

effluents, the radioisotopes of the fission product noble gases, krypton and .

xenon, as well as the radioactivated gas argon, do not deposit on the ground i nor are they absorbed and accumulated within living organisms; therefore, the noble gas effluents act primarily as a source of direct external radiation

emanating from the effluent plume. Dose calculations are performed for the site boundary where the highest _ external-radiation doses to a member of the general public as a result of gaseous effluents have been estimated to occur; ,

these include the total body and skin' doses as well as the annual beta and gamma

] air doses from the plume at that boundary location.

Another group of airborne radioactive eff!uents--the fission product radioiodines, j as well as carbon-14 and tritium--are also gasecus but these tend to be deposited  ;

on the ground and/or inhaled into the. body during breathing. For this class l of effluents, estimates of direct external-radiation doses from deposits on l the ground, and of internal radiation doses to total body, thyroid, bone, and

! other organs from inhalation and from vegetable, milk, and meat consumption  !

are made. Concentrations of iodine in the thyroid and of carbon-14 in bone  !

l are of particular significance here.

i A third group of airborne effluents, consisting of particulates that remain after filtration of airborne effluents in the plant prior to release, includes fission products such as cesium and strontium and activated corrosion products

! such as cobalt and chromium. The calculational model determines the direct i external radiation dose and the. internal radiation doses for these contaminants i

through'the same pathways as-described above for the radioiodines, carbon-14, .

and tritium. Doses from the particulates are combined with those of the radio-iodines, carbon-14, and tritium for comparison to one of the design objectives of Appendix-I to 10 CFR 50.

The waterborne radioactive-effluent constituents could include fission products  ;

such as nuclides of strontium and iodine; activation and corrosion products,

.such as nuclides of sodium, iron, and cobalt; and tritium as tritiated water.

Calculations estimate the internal doses (if any) from fish consumption, from l i l

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-19 l

. _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _.,_._._;_.___,_._____ _ _,,,.._.m._.__ _____.!

water ingestion (as drinking water), and from eating of meat or vegetables raised near the site on irrigation water, as well as any direct external radia-tion from recreational use of the water near the point of discharge.

The release rates for each group of effluents, along with site-specific mete-orological and hydrological data, serve as input to computerized radiation-dose models that estimate the maximum radiation dose that would be received outside the facility via a number of pathways for individual members of the public, and for the general public as a whole. These models and the radiation-dose calculations are discussed in the October 1977 Revision 1 of RG 1.109,

" Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," and in Appendix B of this statement.

Examples of site-specific dose assessment calculationa and discussions cf param-eters involved are given in Appendix D. Doses from all airborne effluents ex-cept the noble gases are calculated for individuals at the location (for example, the site boundary, garden, residence, milk cow, and meat animal) where the high-est radiation dose to a member of the public has been established from all

~

applicable pathways (such as ground deposition, inhalation, vegetable consump-tion, cow milk consumption, or meat consumption.) Only those pathways asso-ciated with airborne effluents that are known to exist at a single location are combined to calculate the total maximum exposure to an exposed individual.

Pathway doses associated with liquid effluents are combined without regard to any single location, but they are assumed to be associated with maximum exposure of an individual through other than gaseous-effluent pathways.

5.9.3.2 Radiological Impact on Humans -

Although the doses calculated in Appendix D are based primarily on radioactive-waste treatment system capability and are below the Appendix I design objective values, the actual radiological impact associated with the operation of the facility will depend, in part, on the manner in which the radioactive-waste treatment system is operated. Based on its evaluation of the potential perfor-mance of the ventilation and. radwaste treatment systems, the NRC staff ha:,

concluded that the systems as now proposed are capable of controlling effluent releases to meet the dose-design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. The staff also concludes that the combined site doses for both Units 1 and 2 sat-isfy the requirement of the RM-50-2 Annex to Appendix I, and, therefore, no cost-benefit analysis is required for additional radwaste processing equipment.

Operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2 will be governed by operating license Techni-t cal Specifications that will be based on the dose-design objectives of Appendix I, i Annex RM-50-2, to 10 CFR 50. Because these design-objective values were chosen to permit flexibility of operation while still ensuring that plant operations are ALARA, the actual radiological impact of plant operation may result in doses close to the dose-design object.ives. Even if this situation exists, the indi-vidual doses for the member of the public subject to maximum exposure will still be very small when compared to natural background doses (*100 mrems/ year) or the dose limits (500 mrems/ year, total body) specified in 10 CFR 20.as consistent with considerations of the health and safety of the public. As a result, the staff concludes that there will be no measurable radiological impact on any member of the public from routine operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-20

1 Operating standards of 40 CFR 190, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environ-mental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, specify that the annual dose equivalent must not exceed 25 mrems to the whole body,

75 mrems to the thyroid, and 25 mrems to any other organ.of any member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials

, (radon and its daughters-excepted) to the general environment from all uranium-

fuel-cycle operations and radiation from.these operations that can be expected

• to affect a given individual. The staff's position as stated in NUREG-0543 is

! that as long as a nuclear plant site operates at a level below the relatively 1 more conservative Appendix I dose-design objectives and reporting requirements, it is operating in compliance with 40 CFR 190. Therefore, the NRC staff con- ,

cludes that under normal operations the Beaver Valley facility is capable of operating within these EPA standards. 7 i The radiological doses and dose commitments resulting from a nuclear power plant .

l are well known and documented. Accurate measurements of radiation and radio-

active contaminants can be made with very high sensitivity so that much smaller amounts of radioisotopes can be recorded than can be associated with any possible i observable ill effects. Furthermore, the effects of radiation on living systems have for decades been subject to intensive investigation and consideration by l individual scientists as well as by select committees that have occasionally j been constituted to objectively and independently assess radiation dose effects.

Although, as in the. case of chemical contaminants, there is debate about the exact extent of the effects of very low levels of radiation that result from nuclear power plant effluents, upper bound limits of deleterious effects are

- well established and amenable to standard methods of risk analysis. Thus the risks'to the maximally exposed member of the public outside of the site boundaries or to the total population outside of the boundaries can be readily

calculated and recorded. These risk estimates for Beaver Valley Unit 2 are presented below.

i l The risk tn the maximally exposed individual is estimated by~ multiplying the i'

risk estimators presented in Section.5.9.3.1.1 by the annual dose-design objec- 6 tives for total-body radiation in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. This calculation results in a risk of potential premature death from cancer to that individual from expo-sure to radioactive effluents (gaseous or liquid) from 1 year of reactor opera-tions of less than one chance in one million.* The risk of potential premature

. death from cancer to the average individual within 80 km (50 miles) of the

! reactors from exposure to. radioactive effluents from the reactors is much less ,

than the risk to the maximally exposed individual. These risks are very small l in comparison to total cancer incidence from causes unrelated to the operation '

of Beaver Valley Unit 2.

Multiplying the annual U.S. general public population dose from exposure to i radioactive effluents and transportation of fuel and waste from the operation of-this facility (that is, 39 person-rems) by the preceding. somatic risk estimator, the staff estimates that about 0.006 cancer death may occur in the

+

i *The risk of potential premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed l individual from exposure to radiciodines and particulates would be in the l

same range as the risk from exposure to the other types.of effluents. e i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-21

exposed population. The significance of this risk can be determined by com-

~

paring it to the total incidence of cancer death in the U.S. population.

Multiplying the estimated U.S. population for the year 2010 (s280 million persons) by the current incidence of actual cancer fatalities (*20%), about 56 million cancer deaths are expected (American Cancer Society, 1978).

For purposes of evaluating the potential genetic risks, the progeny of workers are considered members of the general public. However, according to ICRP Publication 26 (1977), paragraph 80, it is assumed that only about one-third of the occupational radiation dose is received by workers who have offspring subsequent to the radiation exposure. Multiplying the sum of the U.S. popula-tion dose from exposure to radioactivity attributable to the normal annual operation of the plant (that is, 39 person-rems), and one '.hird of the estimated dose from occupational exposure (that is, one-third of 500 person-rems) by the preceding genetic risk estimator, the staff estimates that about 0.05 potential genetic disorder may occur in all future generations of the exposed population.

Because BEIR III indicates that the mean persistence of the two major types of genetic disorders is about 5 generations and 10 generations, in the following analysis the risk.of potential genetic disorders from the normal annual opera-tion of the plant is conservatively compared with the risk of actual genetic ill health in the first 5 generations, rather than the first 10 generations.

Multiplying the estimated population within 80 km of the plant (s4 million per-sons in the year 2010) by the current incidence of actual genetic ill health in each generation (s11%), about 2 million genetic abnormalities are expected in the first 5 generations of the 80-km population (BEIR III).

The risks to the general public from exposure to radioactive effluents and transportation of fuel and wastes from the arinual operation of the- facility are very small fractions of the estimated normal incidence of cancer fatalities and genetic abnormalities. On the basis of the preceding comparison, the staff concludes that the risk to the pubi'c halth and safety from exposure to radio-activity associated with the normal operation of the facility will be very small.

5.9.3.3 Radiological Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans Depending on the pathway and the radiation source, terrestrial and aquatic biota will receive doses that are approximately the same or somewhat higher than humans receive. Although guidelines have not been established for acceptable limits for radiation exposure to species other than humans, it is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are sufficiently protective for other species.

Although the existence of extremely radiosensitive biota is possible and increased radiosensitivity in organisms may result from environmental inter-actions with other stresses (for example, heat or biocides), no biota have yet been discovered that show a sensitivity (in terms of increased morbidity or mortality) to radiation exposures as low as those expected in the area sur-rounding the facility. Furthermore,.at all nuclear plants for which radiation l exposure to biota other than humans has been analyzed (Blaylock, 1976), there have been no cases of exposure that can be considered significant in terms of

~

harm to the species, or that approach the limits for exposure to members of

the public that are permitted by 10 CFR 20. Inasmuch as the 1972 BEIR Report l (BEIR I) concluded that evidence to date indicated that no other living organisms l

l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-22 i

are very much more radiosensitive than humans, no measurable radiological impact on populations of. biota is expected as a result of the routine operation of this facility.

, 5.9.3.4 Radiological Monitoring

Radiological environmental monitoring programs are established to provide data l , where there are measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs and to show that in many cases no detectable levels exist.

4 Such monitoring programs are conducted to verify the effectiveness of inplant j systems used to control the release of radioactive materials and to ensure that unanticipated buildups of radioactivity will not occur in the environment.

Secondarily, the environmental monitoring programs could identify the highly

unlikely existence of releases of radioactivity from unanticipated release i points that are not monitored. An annual surveillance (land census) program will be established to identify changes in the use of unrestricted areas to provide a basis for modifications of the monitoring programs or of the Technical 4

Specifications conditions that relate to the control of doses to individuals.

These programs are discussed generically in greater detail in RG 4.1, Revision 1, j " Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants,'.'

and in the Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position, Revision 1, November -1979, "An Acceptable Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program."*

5.9.3.4.1 Preoperational The preoperational phase of the monitoring program should provide for the

, measurement of background levels of radioactivity and radiation and their

variations along the antic'ipated important pathways in the areas surrounding the facility, the training of personnel, and the evaluation of procedures, equipment, and techniques. The applicant proposed a radiological environmental-

, monitoring program to meet these objectives in the ER-CP, and it was discussed

in the FES-CP. This early program has been updated and expanded; it is pre-l sented in Section 6.1.5 of -the applicant's ER-OL. - ER-0L Section 6.1.5 states that the ongoing operational radiological monitoring program for Beaver Valley Unit 1 serves as the preoperational program for Beaver Valley Unit 2. The 4

specifics of the current environmental radiological monitoring program for Unit 1 are described in Section 3, Table 3.01 of the Beaver Valley Unit 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM) and are reproduced in this report in Table 5.6.

The applicant states that 'the preoperational program is documenting background levels of direct radiation and concentrations of radionuclides that exist in

~ the environment. The'preoperational program will continue up to initial crit-7 icality of Unit 2 when the operational radiological monitoring program will l

begin. ,.

The staff has reviewed the preoperational environmental monitoring progran of the applicant and finds that it is generally acceptable as presented. The -

staff review of this area will continue until the time of implementation of the operational monitoring program.

, *Available from the ' Radiological Assessment Branch, Office of Nuclear. Reactor j Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-23 l

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

.. . .. . -. - -. . _ _ _ - ~ _ ~ _ ._- . - - = . . . .

,i 5.9.3.4.2 Operational The operational, offsite radiological-monitoring program is conducted to provide data on measurable levels'of radiation and radioactive materials in the site i environs in accordance with 10 CFR 20 and 50. It assists and provides backup support to the effluent monitoring program recommended in RG .1.21, " Measuring, 4 Evaluating and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radio-l active Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water Cooled Nuclear

! Power Plants."

The applicant states that the operational program will in essence be a continu-

ation of the preoperational program described above, with some periodic adjust-i ment of sampling frequencies in expected critical exposure pathways--such as increasing milk sampling frequency and deletion of fruit, vegetable, soil, and gamma radiation survey samples. The proposed operational program will be

, reviewed before plant operation. Modification will be based upon anomalies and/or exposure pathway variations observed during the preoperational program.

The final. operational monitoring program proposed by-the applicant will be

, reviewed in detail by the staff, and the specifics of the required monitoring program will be incorporated into the operating license Radiological Technical Specifications. -i I 5.9.4 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents i

] 5.9.4.1 Plant Accidents i

l The. staff has considered the potential radiological impacts on the environment

of possible accidents at the Beaver Valley plant site in accordance with the 9 NRC's June 13, 1980 Statement of Interim Policy. The discussion below reflects

{ the staff's considerations and conclusions.

i Section 5.9.4.2 deals with general characteristics of nuclear power plant acci-dents,. including a brief summary of safety measures incorporated into the design

, that tend to minimize the probability of their occurrence and to mitigate the

consequences should accidents occur. Also described are the important proper-  !

ties of radioactive materials and the pathways by which they could be trans-

ported to become environmental hazards. Pctential adverse health effects and societal' impacts associated with actions to avoid such health effects as a result of air, water, and ground contaminatio'n from accidents are also identified.

Next, actual experience with nuclear power plant accidents and their observed health effects and other societal impacts are described. This is followed by l a summary review of safety features of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 facilities and

~

of the site that act to mitigate the' consequences of accider.ts.

The results of calculations of the potential consequences of accidents .that have been postulated within the design basis are then given. Also described -

are the results of calculations for the Beaver Valley site using probabilistic methods to estimate the possible impacts and the risks associated with severe accident sequences of exceedingly low probability of occurrence.

l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-24 l

._. _ .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ i

.- - __ - _ - - - _ ~ . - - . _ - - . _ - - _ . - - _ . - -

l t l l

5.9.4.2 General Characteristics of Accidents The term " accident," as used in this section, refers to any unintentional

event not-addressed in Section 5.9.3 that results in a release of radioactive i materials into the environment. The predominant focus, therefore, is on

{ events that can lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits  ;

for normal-operation. Normal release limits are specified in the Commission's  !

regulations in 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.

I l Several features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at

nuclear power plants. Safety features in design, construction, and operation,

comprising the first line of defense, are to a very large extent devoted to

! the prevention of the release of these radioactive materials from their normal

places of confinement within the plant. A number of additional lines of

defense a're designed to mitigate the consequences of failures in the first i

line. Descriptions of these features for Beaver Valley Unit 2 are in the

FSAR. The most important mitigative features are described in Section

5.9.4.4(1) below.

l Inese safety features are designed taking into consideration the specific i j locations of radioactive materials within the plant; their amounts; their nuclear, physical, and chemical properties; and their relative tendency to be transoorted into and for creating biological hazards in the environment. ,

(1) Fission Product Characteristics l

By far the largest inventory of radioactive material .in a nuclear power plant.

is a byproduct of the fission process.and is located in the ura'nium oxide fuel

{ pellets in the reactor core in the form of fission products. During periodic j

refueling shutdowns,'the assemblies containing these fuel pellets are trans-ferred to a spent-fuel storage pool so that the second largest inventory of

radioactive material is located in this storage area. f!uch smaller inventories

! of radioactive materials are also normally present in the water that circulates i l in the reactor coolant system and in the systems used to process gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes in the plant. Table 5.7 lists the inventories of radionuclides that could be expected in a Beaver Valley Unit 2 reactor core.

i These radioactive materials exist in a variety of physical and chemical forms.

Their potential for dispersion into the environment depends not only on mechanical forces that might physically transport then, but also on their '

l, inherent properties, particularly their volatility. .The majority of these

materials exist as nonvolatile solids over a wide range of temperatures. Some, however, are relatively volatile solids, and a few are gaseous in nature. These

! characteristics have a significant bearing on the assessment of the environ-l mental radiological impact of accidents.

~

, l The gaseous materials include _ radioactive forms of the chemically inert noble

gases. krypton and xenon. These have the highest potential for release into

! the atmosphere. If a reactor accident were to occur involving degradation of-  !

j the fuel cladding, the release of substantial quantities of these radioactive gases from the fuel is a virtual certainty. Such accidents are low frequency but credible events-(see Section 5.9.4.3). For this reason the safety analysis of each nuclear power plant incorporates a hypothetical design-basis accident ,

that postulates the release of the entire contained inventory of radioac_tive i i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-25

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

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

i noble gases from the~ fuel into the containment structure. If these gases were

, further released to the environment as a possible result of failure of safety features, the hazard to individuals from these noble gases would arise predom-inantly through the external gamma radiation from the airborne plume. The reactor containment structure is designed to minimize this type of release.

Radioactive forms of iodine are produced in substantial quantities in the fuel i by the fission process, and in some chemical forms they may be quite volatile.

'i For these reasons, iodine has traditionally been regarded as having a relatively high potential for release from the fuel. If.the radionuclides are released to the environment, the principal radiological hazard associated with the radio-

iodines is ingestion into the human body and subsequent concentration in the i thyroid gland. Because of this, the potential for release of radioiodines to the atmosphere is reduced by the use of special systems designed to retain the i

iodine. l The chemical forms in which the fission product radioiodines are found are

generally solid materials at room temperatures, so they have a strong tendency  :

to condense (or " plate out").on cooler surfaces. In addition, most of the  !

iodine compounds are quite soluble in, or chemically reactive with, water.

Although these properties do not inhibit the release of radioiodines from  ;

j degraded fuel, they would act to mitigate the release from the contain. ment structure, which has large internal surface areas and contains large quantities of water as a result of an accident. The same properties affect the behavior of radioiodines that may " escape" into'the atmosphere. Thus, if rainfall occurs during a release, or if there is moisture on exposed surfaces (for example, dew), the radioiodines will show a strong tendency to be absorbed by the moisture.

t l, Other radioactive materials formed during the operation of a nuclear power I l plant have lower volatilities and, therefore, by comparison with the noble gases and fodines, have a much smaller. tendency to escape from degraded fuel

! unless the temperature of the fuel becomes very high. By the same token, such materials, if they escape by volatilization from the fuel, tend to condense quite rapidly to solid form again when they are transported to a lcwer tempera-

ture region and/or dissolve in water when it is present. The former mechanism i can result in production of some solid particles of sufficiently small size to be carried some distance by a moving stream of gas or air. If such particulate materials are dispersed into the atmosphere as a result of failure of the' con-tainment barrier, they will tend to be carried downwind and deposit on surface features by gravitational settling (fallout) or by precipitation (washout or rainout), where they will become " contamination" hazards in the environment.

All of these radioactive materials exhibit the property of radioactive decay i- with characteristic half-lives ranging from fractions of a second to many days or years. f4any of them decay through a sequence or chain of decay processes, .

and all eventually become stable (nonradioactive) materials. The radiation i

emitted during these decay processes renders the radioactive materials hazardous.

(2) fleteorolocical Considerations I

Two separate analyses of accident sequences are performed by the staff. One

( analysis, the determination of the consequences of certain accidents (referred +

1  !

! Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-26 l

.-n. , , - . , , . - , . ,.__-.t.-. --r. n,,.,. ,.-- -- , - - -.,--g-_,-y, p , , - - , , , , , ,,-,----,,-,g---,..,~ ,-,m .--

to as design-basis accidents) is performed for the staff's safety evaluation report. This analysis is performed to assure that the doses to any individual at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) over a period of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, or at the outer boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) during the entire period of plume passage,* will not exceed the siting dose guidelines given in 10 CFR 100 of i 25 rems to the whole body or 300 rems to the thyroid. This analysis is used i

to examine site suitability (10 CFR 100) and the mitigative capability of cer-tain plant safety features (10 CFR 50). The atmospheric dispersion model for this evaluation, as described in Regulatory Guide 1.145, 'uses onsite meteo- J rological data (typically, a multiyear period of record) considered represen-tative of the site and vicinity to calculate relative concentrations (k/Q) that will be exceeded no more than 0.5% of the time in any one sector (22 *) and no  ;

more than 5% of the time for all sectors (360 ) at the EAB and LPZ.  !

The second analysis of accident, consequences is addressed in this report and considers a spectrum of release categories (including severe accidents) and actual meteorological conditions from a representative 1 year period of record of onsite data. From this 1 year period (8670 consecutive hours) meteorological l  ;

i observations (wind speed, atmospheric stability, and precipitation), for each -

hour are averaged, and 91 time sequences are used to estimate the dispersion

and deposition of radioactive material from each release category into each of i 16 sectors corresponding ~to the 22

• sectors used to report wind direction.

3 The sampling of meteorological data is performed in a way that (1) all hourly l data appear at some time during at least one of the time sequences, and (2) favorable, unfavorable, and. typical atmospheric dispersion conditions are 4 considered. Using 91 time sequences for 16 directions produces 1456 sets of computed consequences for each release category. The probability associated with each set is the product of the probability of the release categories multiplied by the annual probability of the wind blowing into a given sector, i divided by 91 to represent the equal likelihood of the meteorological samples.

The diversity of meteorological conditions sampled is principally responsible for the general shape of the probability distributions given below (see 1 Figures 5.4 through 5.9). Combinations of the worst severe accident release '

category and the most unfavorable meteorological conditions sampled are repre- l sented by the extreme of the distribution on the bottom right of each of the plots presented. A detailed description of the atmospheric dispersion model is in WASH-1400, Appendix VI (NUREG-75/014).

! (3) Exposure Pathways The radiation exposure (hazard) to individuals is determined by their proximity to the radioactive materials, the duration of exposure, and factors that act t to shield the individual from the radiation. Pathways for radiation and the j transport of radioactive materials that lead to radiation exposure hazards to

, humans are generally the same for accidental as for " normal" releases. These

! are depicted in Figure 5.2. There are two additional possible pathways that could be significant for accident releases that are not shown in Figure 5.2.

One of these is the fallout of radioactivity initially carried in the air onto

" Plume passage can be defined as the time period associated with the passage of l the radioactive cloud created by the release of fission products following an l accident.

i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-27  ;

i l

' . _ _ - m._. _ , , . _ _ _ . _ , _ , , . . . _ . _ . _ , _ , _ . - = - _ . _ , m.__ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ,

l open bodies of water or onto land and eventual runoff into open water bodies.

The second would be unique to an accident that results in temperatures inside '

!. the reactor core sufficiently high to cause melting and subsequent penetration l of the basemat underlying the reactor by the molten core debris. This creates j the potential for the release of radioactive material into the hydrosphere via groundwater. These pathways may lead to external exposure to radiation and to l internal exposure if radioactive material is contacted, inhaled, or ingested l from contaminated food or water.

It is characteristic of these pathways that during the transport of radioactive

material by wind or by water the material tends to spread and disperse,-like a I

plume of smoke from a smokestack, b.ecoming less concentrated in larger volumes of air or water. The result of these natural processes is to lessen the

intensity of exposure to individuals downwind or downstream of the point of 1 release, but they also tend to-increase the number who may be exposed. For a l release into the atmosphere, the degree to which dispersion reduces the concen-1 tration in the plume at any downwind point is governed by the turbulence i

characteristics of the atmosphere, which vary considerably with time and from '

j place to place. This fact, taken in conjunction with the variability of wind i direction and the presence or absence of precipitation, means that accident

< consequences are very much dependent upon the weather conditions existing at l the time. .

l [

(4) Health Effects

! The cause-and-effect relationships between radiation exposure and adverse health effects are quite complex (CONAES, 1979; Land, 1980).

i j Whole-body ridiation exposure resulting in a 6se greater than about 10 rems r for a few persons and about 25 rems for nearly all people over a short period j

! of time (hours) is necessary before any physiological effects to an individual are clinically detectable shortly thereafter. Doses about 10 to 20 times larger, also received over a relatively short period of time (hours to a few 1 days), can be expected to cause some fatal injuries. At the severe but extremely low probability end of the accident spectrum, exposures of these ,

j magnitudes are theoretically possible for persons in the proximity of the

plant if measures are not or cannot be taken to provide protection, such as by sheltering or evacuation. j l

Lower levels of exposures may also constitute a health risk, but the ability .

to define a cause-and-effect relationship between any given health effect and

a known exposure to radiation is difficult given the backdrop of the many other ,

l possible reasons why a particular effect is observed in a specific individual. l j For this reason, it is necessary to assess such effects on a statistical basis.

Such effects include randomly occurring cancer in the exposed population and

,j genetic changes in future generations after exposure of a prospective parent. [

Occurrences of cancer in the exposed population may begin to develop only after i a lapse of 2 to 15 years (latent period) from the time of exposure, and continue i over a period of about 30 years (plateau period). However, in the case of ex- .

j posure of fetuses (in utero), occurrences of cancer may begin to develop at i birth (no latent period) and end at age 10 (that is, the plateau period is  ;

i 10 years). The occurrence of cancer itself is not necessarily-indicative of l fatality. The somatic health consequences model used in this assessment is based on the 1972 BEIR Report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (BEIR I).

i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-28 ,

1 i 1 l 1  :

I l

Most authorities agree that a reasonable--and probably conservative--estimate of the randomly occurring number of health effects of low levels of radiation ex-posure to a large number of people is within the range of about 10 to 500 poten-tial cancer deaths per million person-rems (although zero is not excluded by the data). The range comes from the NAS BEIR III Report (1980), which also indicates a probable value of about 150. This value is virtually identical to the value of about 140 used in the current NRC health-effects models. In addi-tion, the model in BEIR III projects approximately 220 genetic changes per aillion person-rems over succeeding generations. This is'the estimate currently used by the NRC staff. (This value was computed as the sum of the risk of spe-cific genetic defects and risk of defects with complex etiology (causes)).

(5) Health Effects Avoidance Radiation hazards in the environment tend to disappear by the natu'ral process of radioactive decay. Where the decay process is slow, however, and where the material becomes relatively fixed in its location as an environmental contami-nant (such as in soil), the hazard can continue to exist for a relatively long period of time--months, years, or even decades. Thus, a possible environmental societal impact of severe accidents is the avoidance of the health hazard rather than the health hazard itself, by restrictions on the use of the contaminated property or contaminated foodstuffs, milk, and drinking water. The potential economic impacts that this can cause are discussed below.

5.9.4.3 Accident Experience and Observed Impacts The evidence of accident frequency and impacts in the past is a useful indi-

cator of future probabilities and impacts. As of April 1984, there were 79 commercial nuclear power reactor units licensed for operation in the United States (at 52 sites) with power generating caoacities ranging from 50 to 1180 megawatts electric (Rde). (Beaver Valley Unit 2 is designed for an electric power output to 870 Rde (stretch power).) The combined experience with these operating units represents approximately 700 reactor years of operation over an elapsed time of about 23 years. Accidents have occurred at several of these facilities (Bertini,1980; NUREG-0651; Thompson and Beckerley,1964).

Some of these accidents have resulted in releases of radioactive material to the environment, ranging from very small fractions of a curie to a few million curies. None is known to have caused any radiation injury or fatality to any member of the public, nor any significant contamination of the environment.

This experience base is not large enough to permit reliable statistical predic-tion of accident probabilities. It does, however, suggest that significant environmental impacts caused by accidents are very unlikely to occur over time periods of a few decades.

Melting or severe degradation of reactor fuel occurred during the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) on March 28, 1979. It has been estimated that about 2.5 million curies of noble gases (about 0.9% of the core inventory) and 15 curies of radioiodine (about 0.00003% of the core inventory) were released to the environment at THI-2 (NUREG/CR-1250). No other radioactive fission products were released in measurable quantity. It has been estimated that the maximum cumulative offsite radiation dose to an individual was less than 100 millfrems (Rogovin, 1930; President's Commission, 1979). The total population exposure has been estimated to be in the range frcm about 1000 to I

l Beaver Valley 2 FE5- 5-29

5000 person-rems (this range is discussed on page 2 of NUREG-0558). This exposure could produce between zero and one additional fatal cancer over the lifetime of the population. The same population receives each year from natural background radiation about 240,000 person-rems, and approximately a half-million cancers are expected to develop in this group over its lifetime (Rogovin, 1980; President's Commission, 1979), primarily from causes other than radiation. Trace quantities (barely above the limit of detectability) of radiciodine were found in a few samples of milk produced in the area. No other food or water supplies' were affected.

Accidents at nuclear power plants in the United States have also caused occupational injuries and a few fatalities, but none attributed to radiation exposure. Individual worker exposures have ranged up to about 4 rems as a direct consequence of reactor accidents (although there have been higher exposures to individual workers as a result of other unusual occurrences).

However, the collective worker exposure levels (person-rems) are a small fraction of the exposures experienced during normal routine operations; these exposures average about 440 to 1300 person-rems in a PWR and 740 to 1650 person-rems in a BWR per reactor year.

Accidents have also occurred at other nuclear facilities in the United States and in other countries (Bertini, 1980; Thompson and Beckerley, 1964). Because of inherent differences in design, construction, operation, and purpose of most of these other facilities, their accident record has only indirect rele-vance to current nuclear power plants. Melting of reactor fuel occurred in at least seven of these accidents, including the one in 1966 at Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 1. Fermi Unit I was a sodium-cooled fast breeder

. demonstration reactor designed to generate 61 MWe. The damages were repaired and the reactor reached full power 4 years after the accident. It operated successfully and completed its mission in 1973. Tne Fermi accident did not release any radioactivity to the environment.

A reactor accident in 1957 at Windscale, England, released a significant quantity of radioiodine, approximately 20,000 curies, to the environment (United Kingdom, 1957). This reactor, which was not operated to generate electricity, used air rather than water to cool the uranium fuel. During a special operation to heat the large amount of graphite in this reactor (characteristic of graphite-moderated reactor), the fuel overheated and radiciodine and noble gases were released directly to the atmosphere from a 123-m (405-foot) stack. Milk produced in a 518-km2 (200 mi2) area around the facility was impounded for up to 44 days. The United Kingdom National Radio-logical Protection Board (Crick, 1982) estimated that the releases may have caused as many as 260 cases of thyroid cancer, about 13 of them fatal, and as many as seven deaths from other cancers or hereditary diseases. This kind of accident cannot occur in a water-moderated-and-cooled reactor like Beaver Valley Unit 2, however.

5.9.4.4 Mitigation of Accident Consequences Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the staff is conducting a safety evaluation of the application to operate Beaver Valley Unit 2.

Although the SER will contain more detailed information on plant design, the principal design features are presented in the following section.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-30

(1) Design Features Beaver Valley Unit 2 contains features designed to prevent accidental release of radioactive fission products from the fuel and to lessen the consequences should such a release occur. Many of the design and operating specifications of these features are design-basis accidents. derived from the analysis of postulated events known as collectively referred to as engineered safety features (ESFs).These accid ities or probabilities of failure of these systems are incorporated in theThe possibil-assessments discussed in Section 5.9.4.5.

The steel-lined concrete containment building is a passive mitigating system that is designed to minimize accidental radioactivity releases to the environ-ment by maintaining a subatmospheric pressure in the containment structure.

Safety injection systems are incorporated to provide cooling water to the reactor core during an accident 'to prevent or minimize fuel damage. Cooling fans provide the capability steam release in acciden to remove heat inside the containment following result of overpressure. ts and thus help to prevent containment failure as a to spray cool water into the containment atmosphere.Similarly, The spray water also the containment s airborne radioiodine to help remove it from the containment atm minimize its release to the environment.

All the mechanical systems mentioned above are supplied with emergency power from onsite diesel generators if normal offsite station power is interrupted.

The fuel handling building also has accident mitigating systems. The safety-grade filters.ventilation system contains both charcoal and high efficiency particulate This ventilation system is also designed to keep the area around the operations so there will be no leakage through building openings If radio-activity were to be released into the building, it would be drawn through the ventilation system, and most of the radioactive iodine and particulate fission products would be removed from the flow stream before it is exhausted to the outdoor atmosphere.

There are features of the plant that are necessary for its power generation For example, although the main condenser is not classified as act to mitigate the consequences of accidents involving leakage from the primary to the secondary side of the steam generators (such as steam generator tube ruptures). If normal offsite power is maintained, the ability of the plant to send contaminated steam to the condenser instead of releasing it through the safety valves or atmospheric dump valves can significantly reduce the amount of water-soluble radionuclides released to the environment.

Much more extensive discussions of the safety features and characteristics of Beaver is in theValley BeaverUnit 2 are Valley in 2the Unit FSAR; the staff evaluation of these features SER.

In addition to the benefits to be gained from these features, Beaver Valley Unit 2 will benefit frca the implementation of the lessons learned from the TMI-2 training. accident--in the form of improvements in design, procedures, and operator These lessons learned will significantly reduce the likelihood of a

, Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-31 l

l 1

degraded core accident that could result in large releases of fission products 1

to the containment. Specifically, the applicant will be required to meet those THI-2 related requirements clarified in NUREG-0737. -

(2) Site Features i

The NRC's reactor site criteria, 10 CFR 100, require that the site for every 1 power reactor'have certain characteristics that tend to reduce the risk ar.d the potential impact of accidents. The discussion that follows briefly describes the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site characteristics and how they meet

these requirements.

First, the site has an exclusion area, as required by 10 CFR 100. The total site area is about 206 ha (501 acres). The exclusion area, located with_in the site boundary, has a 609-m (2000-foot) radius centered on the Unit 1 containment building. .There are no residents within the. exclusion area. The applicant owns all surface and minerals rights in the exclusion area, and has the author- -

ity, as required by 10 CFR 100, to determine all activities in this area. One state road traverses the area, allowing access to the plant. The exclusion area is also traversed by a railroad line, which is controlled by the applicant, and the Ohio River, which is used for barge transportation. i Second, beyond and surrounding the exclusion area, there is a low population

zone (LPZ), also required by 10 CFR 100. The LPZ for the. Beaver Valley Unit 2 site is a circular area with a 5.8-km (3.6-mile) radius. Within this zone,

. the applicant must ensure that there is a reasonable probability that appro-1 priate protective measures could.be taken on behalf of the~ residents in the event of a serious accident. The applicant has indicated that 10,600 persons lived within the 5.8-km (3.6-mile) radius in 1980 and projects that the population will increase to 10,900 in the year 2010. The major sources of transients within the 5.8-km radius of the site are nearby industrie's, schools, and recreational areas. They comprise a total of approximately 4600 persons j within the LPZ. In case of a radiological emergency, the applicant has made arrangements to carry out protective actions, including evacuation of personnel in the vicinity of the plant (see also the following section on emergency preparedness).

Third, 10 CFR 100 also requires that the distance from the reactor to the near-est boundary of a densely populated area containing more than about 25,000 resi-

. dents should be at-least one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ. This distance requirement provides protec- .

< tion against excessive doses to people in large centers. The city of McCandless, '

! Pennsylvania, with a 1980 population of 26,250, which is about 27 km (17 miles) i east of the site, is the nearest population center. The population center dis-

~

, tance is.at least one and one-third times the LPZ distance. The resident popu- '

i lation density within a 48-km (30-mile) radius of the site was 214 people /km2 (549 people /mi2) in 1980 and is projected to increase to about 242 people /km2 (619 people /mi2) by the year 2010.

The safety evaluation of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site has also included a re- i view of potential external hazards, that is, activities offsite that might

adversely affect the operation of the nuclear plant and cause an accident. The review encompassed nearby industrial and transportation facilities that might create explosive, fire, missile, or toxic gas hazards. The risk to Beaver

~

l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-32

- . . . , , . _ _ . . _ , , , , _ . - . . . _ . _ _ , ,v...

Valley Unit 2 from such hazards has been found to be negligible. A more detailed discussion of the compliance with the NRC siting criteria and the consideration of external hazards is in the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Safety Evaluation Report.

(3) Emergency Preparedness Emergency preparedness plans including protective action measures for Beaver Valley Unit 2 and environs are in an advanced, but not yet fully completed, stage. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.47, effective November 3,1980, no operat-ing license will be issued to the applicant unless a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides rea-sonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Among the standards that must be mat by these plans are provisions for two emergency planning zones (EPZs). A plume exposure pathway EPZ of about 16 km (10 miles) in radius and an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ of about 80 km (50 miles) in radius are required. Other standards include appropriate ranges of protective actions for each of these zones, provisions for dissemination to the public of basic emergency planning information, provisions for rapid notification of the public during a serious reactor emergency, and methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite consequences in the EPZs of a radio-logical emergency condition.

NRC and the Federal Management Agency (FEMA) have agreed that FEMA will make a finding and determination as to the adequacy of state and local government emergency response plans. NRC will determine.the adequacy of the applicant's emergency response plans with respect to the standards listed in 10 CFR 50.47(b),

the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and the guidance in NUREG-0654.

After NRC and FEMA make the above determinations, the NRC will make a finding in the licensing process as to the overall and integrated state of preparedness.

The NRC staff findings will be in the SER. Further, if those findings indicate that the risk to the public from severe accidents, discussed in the following sections, is significantly larger because of the details of the final plans, a supplement to the Final Environmental Statement will be issued. Although the presence of adequate and tested emergency plans cannot prevent an accident, it is the staff's judgment that such plans can and will substantially mitigate the consequences to the public if an accident should occur.

5.9.4.5 Accident Risk and Impact Assessment (1) Design-Basis Accidents As a means of ensuring that certain features of Beaver Valley Unit 2 meet acceptable design and performance criteria, both the applicant and the staff have analyzed the potential consequences of a number of postulated accidents.

Some of these could lead to significant releases of radioactive materials to the environment, and calculations have been performed to estimate the potential -

radiological consequences to persons ~off the site. For each postulated initi-ating event, the potential radiological consequences cover a considerable range of values depending upon the particular course taken by the accident and the conditions, including wind direction and weather, prevalent during the accident.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-33

x.

1 Three categories of accidents have been considered, based on their probability '

of occurrence. These categories are (1) incidents of moderate frequency (events that can reasonably be expected to occur during any year of operation),

(2) infrequent accidents (events that might occur once during the lifetime of the plant), and (3) limiting faults (accidents not expected to occur but that have the potential for significant releases of radioactivity). The radiological consequences of incidents in the first category, also called anticipated >

. operational occurrences, are similar to the consequences from normal operation that are discussed in Section 5.9.3.

Some of the initiating events postulated in the second and third categories for Beaver Valley Unit 2 are shown in Table 5.8. To evaluate the potential environmental impacts inherent in the operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2, the applicant has analyzed a variety of accidents, in a more realistic manner, using the guidance of Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants." The types of accident ana-lyzed in . Table 5.8 are similar to some events evaluated in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report. The applicant's estimates of the radiation doses to indivi-duals at the nearest boundary of the plant during the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> are also shown in Table 5.8.

The results shown in Table 5.8 reflect the expectation that certain engineered

, safety features designed to mitigate the consequences of the postulated acci-i dents would function as intended. An important assumption in these evaluations i

is that the releases considered are limited to noble gases and radiciodines and that other radioactive meterials are not released in significant quantities.

The staff does not perform an independent assessment of the potential offsite consequences using realistic assumptions. Instead, the staff estimates poten-tial upper bound exposures to individuals for the same types of accidents con-tained in Table 5.8 for the purpose of implementing the provisions of 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 100. For the staff evaluations, much more pessimistic assumptions are made as to-the course taken by the accident and the prevailing plant condi-tions; the accidents are referred to as design-basis accidents. .The.assump-tions used for the design-basis accidents include much larger amounts of radio-active material released, additional single failures in equipment, operation of ESFs in a degraded mode

• and poor meterological dispersion conditions. Again, the results of the staff's evaluation are described in more detail in the SER.

For comparison with the dose values in Table 5.8, the results taken from the

. SER-CP show that the limiting whole body exposures are act expected to exceed 16 rems to any individual at the exclusion area coundary. They also show that radiciodine releases have the potential for offsite exposures ranging up to about 280 rems to the thyroid. For such an exposure to occur, an individual

- would have to be located at a point on the site boundary where the radioiodine

~

concentration in the plume has its highest value and inhale at a breathing rate characteristic of a person jogging for a period of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The health risk to an individual receiving such an exposure to the thyroid is the potential appearance of benign or malignant thyroid nodules in about 9 out of 100 cases, .

and the development of a fatal thyroid cancer in about 4 out of 1000 cases.

"The containment structure, however, is assumed to prevent leakage in excess of that which can be demonstrated by-testing, as provided in 10 CFR 100.11(a).

Beaver Valley-2 FES 5-34 i . - - _ - - . _ . _ _ _ . - . . _ .__ _ _ . . __

N <

None of the calculations of the impacts of design-basis accidents described in

.this section takes into consideration possible reduction in individual or population exposure as a result of any protective actions.

(2) Probabilistic Assessment of Severe Accidents This section and the following-three sections provide a discussion of the probabilities and consequences of accidents of greater severity than the design-basis accidents discussed in-the previous section. As a class, these

' accidents are considered less likely to occur, but their consequences could be more severe, both for the plant itself and for the environment. These severe 7 accidents, heretofore frequently called Class 9 accidents, can be distinguished (i from design-basis accidents in two primary respects: they involve substantial

.: physical deterior'ation of the fuel in the reactor core, including overheating 4

to the point of melting, and they involve deterioration of .the capability of the containment structure to perform its intended function of limiting the release of radioactive materials to the environment.

The assessment methodology employed is that described in'the RSS, which was

. published in 1975. .A less comprehensive but more up-to-date treatment is in NUREG/CR-2300, which was published in 1983. A discussion of the uncertainties j surrounding the RSS methodology is provided in Section 5.9.4.5(7).

4 4

However, the sets of accident sequer.ces that were found in the RSS to be the dominant contributors to the risk in the prototype PWR (Westinghouse-designed Surry Unit 1) have recently been updated (rebaselined). The rebaselining has been'done largely to incorporate peer group comments, as well as'better. data and analytical techniques resulting from research and development after the

, publication of the RSS (see NUREG-0773). Entailed in the rebaselining effort was the re evaluation of the individual dominant accident sequences. The ear- l 1

lier technique of grouping a number of diverse accident sequences into encom-

passing " Release Categories," as was done in the RSS, has been largely (but not completely) eliminated.

Beaver Valley Unit 2 is a Westinghouse-designed PWR having similar design and operating characteristics to Surry. Therefore, the present assessment for

, Beaver Valley Unit 2 has used as its starting point the rebaselined accident sequences and release categories referred to above and more fully described in Appendix F. Characteristics of the sequences (and release categories) used 4

(all of which involve partial to complete melting of the reactor core) are shown in Table 5.9.

Sequences initiated by external phenomena--such as tornadoes, floods, or seismic events--and those'that could be initiated by humans, including deliberate

! acts of sabotage--are not included in the event sequences corresponding to the listed release categories. The only plants for which external events have been assessed in detail in a probabilistic sense are Zion, Indian Point, Limerick, and Milfstone Unit 3. In these cases, no estimates of risk from sabotage were made, be:ause these estimates are considered beyond the state of the art. The staff notes,' however, that the consequences of large releases caused by sabo-tage.should not be different in kind frca the releases estimated for severe interhally initiated accidents. For Zion and Limerick, the licensees submitted probabilistic risk assessments that indicate external events can be significant Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-35

contributors to risk. For Indian Point, the staff's evaluations also indicate significant* risks as a result of. external events other than sabotage.

Although the staff made no numerical assessment of externally initiated accident risks for Beaver Valley Unit 2, the staff did draw on information from the Zion, Limerick, Hillstone Unit 3, and Indian Point studies. Thus, the staff concludes the actual risks from internal and external causes (exclusive' of sabotage) could be higher than those presented here, but are unlikely to exceed those determined from risk multipliers computed for Zion, Limerick, and Indian Point. These multipliers would not result in risks at Beaver Valley Unit 2 outside an uncer-tainty range of a factor of 100 times the risks from internal events, as dis-cussed in Section 5.9.4.5(7).

Calculated probability per reactor year associated with each accident sequence (or release category) used is shown in the second column in Table 5.9. As in the RSS, there are substantial uncertainties in these probabilities. This is due, in part, to difficulties associated with the quantification of human error and to inadequacies in the data base on failure rates of individual plant com-ponents that were used to calculate the probabilities. The probability of acci-dent sequences from the Surry plant were used to give a perspective of societal and individual risk at Beaver Valley Unit 2 because, although the probabilities of particular accident sequences may be substantially different and even improved for Beaver Valley Unit 2, the overall effect of all sequences taken together is likely to be within the uncertainties (see Section 5.7.2.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimators).

The magnitudes (curies) of radioactivity postulated to be released for each release category are obtained by multiplying the release fractions shown in Table 5.9 by the amounts that would be present in the core at the time of the hypothetical accident. These are shown in Table 5.7 for Beaver Valley Unit 2 at a core thermal power level of 2766 MWt, the power level used in the safety evaluation. Of the hundreds of radionuclides present in the core, the 54 listed in the table were selected as significant contributors to the health and economic risks of severe accidents. The core radionuclides were selected on the basis of (1) half-life, (2) approximate relative offsite dose contribu-tion, and (3) health effects of the radionuclides and their daughter products.

The potential radiological consequences of these releases have been calculated by the consequence model (NUREG/CR-2300) used in the RSS, adapted and modified as described below to apply to a specific site. The essential elements are shown in schematic form in Figure 5.3. Environmental parameters specific to the Beaver Valley site have been used and include the following:

meteorological data for the site representing a full year of consecutive hourly measurements and seasonal variations projected population.for the year 2010 extending to a 563-km (350-mile) radius from the plant

• "Significant," as used herein, means that the best estimate of the additional risk from external events other than sabotage were calculated to be as much as a factor of 30 higher than the best estimate risks from internal events at Indian Point, but about 2 to 10 times the best estimate risk from internal events at Zion.

l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-36

I I

l the habitable land fraction within a 563-km (350-mile) radius land-use statistics, on a statewide basis, including farm land values, '

farm. product values including dairy production, and. growing season infor-mation for the State of Pennsylvania and each surrounding state within

, the'563-km (350-mile) region (land-use statistics for Canada were assumed l to be the same as for adjacent states) i To obtain a probability distribution of consequences, the calculations are performed assuming the releases, as defined by the release categories, at each of 91 different start times throughout a 1 year period. Each calculation used (1) the site-specific hourly meteorological data, (2) the population projections for the. year 2010 for a distance of 563 km (350 miles) around the Beaver Valley site, and (3) seasonal information for the time period following each start i time. The consequence model also.contains provisions for incorporating the con-sequence reduction benefits of evacuation, relocation, and other protective ac-tions. Early evacuation and relocation of people would considerably reduce the

exposure from the radioactive cloud and the contaminated ground in the wake of-the cloud passage from severe releases. The evacuation model used (see Appen-dix F) has been revised from that in the RSS for better site-specific applica-tion. The quantitative characteristics of the evacuation model used for the Beaver Valley site are estimates made by the. staff. There normally would be

, some facilities near a plant, such as schools or hospitals, where special equip-ment or personnel may be required to effect evacuation, and there may be some people near a site who fall to evacuate. Therefore, actual evacuation effec-tiveness could be greater or less than that characterized, but it would not be expected to be very m'uch less, because special consideration will be given in emergency pl.anning for the unit to any unique aspects of dealing with special facilities.

The other protective actions include: (1) either complete denial of use, or

! limited use, or permitting use only at a sufficiently later time af ter appro-

, priate decontamination of food stuffs such as crops and milk, (2) decontamina-tion of severely contaminated envircnment (land and property) when it is con-

, sidered .to be economically feasible to lower the. levels of contamination to protective action guide'(PAG) levels, and (3) denial of use of severely con- .

taminated land and property for varying periods of time until the contamination

levels are reduced by radioactive decay and weathering to such values that j property can be economically decontaminated as in (2) above. These actions

would reduce the. radiological exposure to the people from immediate and/or

! subsequent use of or living in the contaminated environment.

Evacuation'within and relocation of people from outside the plume exposure path-way: Zone and other protective actions as mentioned above are considered as essential sequels to serious nuclear reactor accidents involving significant

~

release of radioactivity to the atmosphere. Therefore, the results shown for

! Beaver Valley Unit 2 include some benefits of these protective actions.

1

There are also uncertainties in each facet of the estimates of consequences, -

and the erro.r bounds may be as large as they are for the probabilities.

.The results of the calculations using this consequence model are radiological doses to individuals and to populations, health effects that-might result from i these exposures, costs of implementing protective actions, and costs associ-ated with property damage by radioactive contamination.

! Bea/er Valley 2 FES 5-37

. . . - - .~ . - . . - - --

(3) Dose and Health Impacts of Atmospheric Releases The results of the atmospheric pathway calculations of dose and health impacts performed for the Beaver Valley facility and site are presented in the form of

^

probability distributions in Figures 5.4 through 5.8* and.are -included in the impact summary table, Table 5.10. All of the release categories shown in Table 5.9 contribute to the results, and each is weighted by its associated i probability.

Figure 5.4 shows the probability distribution for the number of persons who might receive bone marrow doses equal to or greater than 200 rems, whole body doses equal to or greater than 25 rems, and thyroid doses equal to or greater than 300 rems from early exposure,** all ~on a per-reactor year basis. The 200-rem bone marrow dose figure corresponds approximately to a threshold value for which hospitalization would be indicated for the treatment of radition injury. The 25-rem whole-body dose and 300 rem thyroid dose figures corres-pond to the. Commission's guideline values for reactor siting in 10 CFR 100.

Figure 5.4 shows in the left-hand portion that there are approximately 3 chances in 100,000 (2.5 x 10.s) per reactor year that one or more persons may receive i doses equal to or greater than any of the doses specified. The fact that the I

three curves initially run almost parallel in horizontal lines shows that if one person were to receive.such doses, the chances are about the same that ten to hundreds wuuld be so exposed. The chances of larger numbers of persons being exposed at those levels are seen to be consideraby smaller. .For example, the chances are about 1 in 25,000,000 (4 x 10 8) that 10,000 or more people might receive bone marrow doses of 200 rems or greater. Virtually all'of the exposures reflected in this figure would occur within an 80-km (50-mile) radius.

• Figures 5.4 through 5.8 are called complementary cumulative distribution

, functions (CCDF). They are intended to show the' relationship between the probability of a particular type of consequence being equalled or exceeded 4

and the magnitude of the consequence. Probability per reactor year (r y) is the chance that a given event will occur in 1 year of operation for one reactor. Because the different accident releases, atmospheric dispersion conditions, and changes of a health effect (for example, early fatalities) result in a wide range of calculated consequences, they are presented on a i logarithmic plot in which numbers varying over a very large range can be conveniently illustrated by a grid indicated by powers of 10. For instance, 106 means one million or 1,000,000 (1 followed by 6 zeros). The cumulative probabilities of equalling or exceeding a given consequence are also calcu-lated to vary.over a large range (because of the varying probabilities of acc.idents and atmospheric dispersion conditions)g so the probabilities are also plotted logarithmically. For instance, 10- means one millionth or 0.000001.

• • Early exposure to an individual includes external doses from the radioactive '

cloud and the contaminated ground, and the dose from internally deposited radionuclides'from inhalation of contaminated air during cloud passage.

4 Other pathways of exposure are excluded.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-38 i

Figure 5.5 shows the probability distribution for the total population exposed in person-rems; that is, the probability per reactor year that the total popula-tion exposure will equal or exceed the values given. Most of the population exposure up to 1,000,000 person-rems would be expected to occur within 80 km (50 miles), but the more severe releases (as in the first two release categories in Table 5.9) could result in exposure to persons beyond the 80-km range as shown.

For perspective, population doses shown in Figure 5.5 may be. compared with the annual average dose to the population within 80 km of the Beaver Valley site resulting from background radiation of 420,000 person-rems, and to the antic-ipated annual population dose to the general public (total United States) from normal plant operation of 41 person-rems (excluding plant workers) (see Appen-dix 0, Tables D-7 and D-8.)

Figure 5.6 shows the probability distributions for early fatalities, repre-senting radiation injuries that would produce fatalities within about 1~ year after exposure. All of the early fatalities would be expected to occur within a 28-km (18-mile) radius and the majority within an 8-km (5-mile) radius. The results of the calculations shown in Figure 5.5 and in Table 5.10 reflect the effect of evacuation within the 16-km (10-mile) plume exposure pathway zone.

Figure 5.7 represents the statistical relationship between population exposure and the induction of fatal cancers that might appear over a period of many years following exposure. The impacts on the total population and the popu-lation within 80 km are shown separately. Further, the fatal latent cancers have been subdivided into those attributable to exposures of the thyroid and all other organs. These estimates may be compared to the cancer fatality risk per individual per year from all causes of 1.9 x 10 3 (American Cancer Society, 1981).

An additional potential pathway for doses resulting from atmospheric release is from fallout onto open bodies of water. This pathway was investigated in the NRC analysis of the Fermi Unit 2 plant, which is located adjacent to Lake Erie and for which appreciable fractions of radionuclides in the plume could be deposited in the Great Lakes (NUREG-0769). For the Fermi site, the indi-cated individual and societal doses from this pathway were on the same order of magnitude as the interdicted doses from other pathways. Further, the indivi-dual and societal liquid pathway doses could be substantially eliminated by the interdiction of the aquatic food pathway in a manner comparable to interdiction of the terrestrial food pathway in the present analysis.

Because Beaver Valley is not adjacent to a large surface water body, the frac-tion of radioactive material that could fall in nearby rivers, streams, or lakes would be correspondingly reduced.

The staff has also considered fallout onto and runoff and leaching into water bodies in connection with a study of severe accidents at the Indian Point l reactors in southeastern New York (Codell,1983). In this study, empirical models were developed based upon considerations of radionuclide data collected in the New York City water supply system as a result of fallout from atmospheric Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-39

. _ _ _ _ - . __-_. -- - - ~ - _ _ -

i i

i

! weapons tests. As with the Fermi study, the Indian Point evaluation indicated that the uninterdicted risks from this pathway were fractions of the interdicted risks from other pathways. Further, if interdicted in a manner similar to.

interdiction assumed for other pathways, the 1.iquid pathway risks from fallout

~

would be a very small fraction of the risks from other pathways. Considering the regional meteorology r.nd hydrology for the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site, the staff sees nothing to indicate that.the liquid pathway contribution to the total [t accident risk at Beaver Valley Unit 2 would be significantly greater than found for Fermi 2 and Indian Point. This water pathway would be of small importance

compared to the results presented here for fallout onto land.

(4) Additional Possible Releases to Groundwater A pathway through the groundwater for radiation exposure to the public and envi-i ronmental contamination that would be unique for severe reactor accidents was identified above. Consideration has been given to the potential environmental impacts of this pathway for Beaver Valley Unit 2. -The principal contributors i to the risk are the core melt accidents. The penetration of the basemat of the i containment building can release molten core debris to the strata beneath the

plant. The soluble radionuclides in the debris can be leached and transported with groundwater to downgradient domestic wells used for drinking water or to -

{ surface water bodies used for drinking water, aquatic food, and recreation.

j Releases of radioactivity to the groundwater underlying the site could also i occur through the failed basemat thro'J9h depressurization of the containment

atmcsphere, or the release of radioactive water from the emergency core cooling j system.

An analysis of the potential consequences of a liquid pathway release of radio-activity for generic sites was presented in the " Liquid Pathway Generic Study" (LPGS,NUREG-0440). The LPGS compared the risk of accidents involving the liq-l uid pathway (drinking water, irrigation, aquatic food, swimming, and shoreline

usage) for five conventional, generic, land-based nuclear plant sites and a

floating nuclear plant (for which the nuclear reactor would be mountad on a barge and moored in a water body). Parameters for each generic land-based site were chosen to represent averages for a wide range of real sites and were thus

" typical," but they reoresented no real sites in particular. The study conclu-i ded that the individual and population doses from the liquid pathway range from l fractions to very small fractions of those that can arise from the airborne pathway.

. Doses to individuals and populations were calculated in the LPGS without consi-i deration of interdiction methods such as isolating the contaminated groundwater, restricting aquatic food consumption, or prohibiting use of the water. In the event .of surface water contamination, alternative sources of water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial uses would be expected to be found, if necessary.

Commercial and sports fishing, as well as many other water-related activities, might be restricted. The consequences would, therefore, be largely economic or social, rather than radiological.

The present analysis considers only the case of " prompt" release of highly contaminated sump water released through a failed basemat, which was the PWR-7

!- scenario in the LPGS. This release was chosen because, of those studied in the LPGS that could contribute to the groundwater pathway, this release would result in the highest population dose. In the LPGS case, 25% of the Sr-90 and i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-40 t

100% of the Cs-134 and Cs-137 isotopes in the core inventory were conservatively considered to be released to the ground in the sump water. Transport in the groundwater was found to be relatively slow because of " retardation" caused by interaction of the radionuclides with the rock or soil. In addition, decay of many radionuclides.was found to be appreciable. Only 87% of the Sr-90 and 31%

of the Cs-137 were estimated to enter the river. Dose contributions from radionuclides other than Sr-90 and Cs-137 were considered negligible.

The discussion in the remainder of this section is a summary of an analysis performed to determine whether or not the liquid pathway consequences of a postulated accident at the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site would be unusual when-compared with the generic "small river" land-based site considered in the LPGS.

The LPGS presented analyses for four-loop Westinghouse PWRs located at a number of land sites, one of which is similar to the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site. The LPGS "small river" site is on the Clinch River, about 34 km (21 miles) upstream of the Tennessee River. The balance of this river system consists of the Tennessee River (912 km, 567 miles), the Ohio River (74 km, 46 miles), and 1535 km (954 miles) of the Mississippi River. Beaver Valley Unit 2 is a three-loop Westinghouse PWR located adjacent to the Ohio River (as described in Section 4.3.1.1). The river system is similar to the LPGS site, consisting of 1522 km (946 miles) of the Ohio River and the same 1535 km (954 miles) of the Mississippi River.

Beaver Valley Unit 2 is located on a terrace of alluvial deposits on the south side of the Ohio River. In the general site region, the south bank of the river is characterized by bedrock bluffs that rise abruptly from the water's edge to elevations as much as several hundred feet above the river. About 3660 m (12,000 feet) upstream of the station, the bedrock bluff begins to deviate inland from the river bank. At its maximum point, the bluff is about 762 m (2500 feet) inland (south) of the river bank. At a point about 610 m (2000 feet) downstream of the station, the bedrock bluff again joins the river's edge. Thus, a saddle-like bedrock formation exists at the site. The bedrock underneath the containment building is about 107 m (350 feet) thick.

The back (south side) and sides of the saddle are formed by upswings in the bedrock surface which reach elevations in excess of 234 m (800 feet) msl. The bedrock saddle is filled with alluvial deposits that form the terraces on which the unit is located. These terraces are comprised mainly of sand and gravel and have a hydraulic conductivity ranging between 1.7 x 10 3 to 6.1 x 10 3 m/sec (5.7 x 10 5 to 2.0 x 10 4 ft/sec). The alluvial soils make up the only significant aquifier in the site vicinity. However, there are no wells located in this aquifier between the reactor building and the river.

At the site, the surface of the alluvial soils is at elevation 223 m (730 feet) msl and the foundation mat of the containment building extends about 15 m (50 feet) below the surface to elevation 207 m (680 feet) msl. The normal groundwater level is 4.4 m (14.5 feet) lower than the foundation mat at elevation 202.8 m (665.5 feet) MSL and about 13.9 m (45.5 feet) higher than '

the top of the bedrock which is elevation 189 m (620 feet) msl.

In the event of a core-melt accident, there could be a release of radioactivity to the terrace alluvial aquifier beneath the reactor. Radionuclides that would enter the aquifar would be entrained in the natural groundwater flow to Seaver Valley 2 FES 5-41

the Ohio River. Using, for conservatism, the highest value of hydraulic conductivity (1.7 x 10 3 m/sec, 2.0 x 10 4 ft/sec) determined by the applicant, an effective porosity of 0.23, and a hydraulic gradient of 0.0013, the staff estimated that it would take about 22 years for contaminated groundwater to migrate to the river through the alluvium. The movement of most of the radio-activity dissolved in the groundwater would be much slower than the groundwater itself because of the process of sorption.

In the LPGS, it was demonstrated that for groundwater travel times on the order of years, the only significant contributors to population dose are Sr-90 and Cs-137. Retardation factors for these radionuclides are difficult to estimate; however, Parsons (1962) estimated distribution coefficients (Kds) of 13 to 43 mL/g for Sr and 100 mL/g for Cs for sands. Niemczyk (NUREG/CR-1596) used Kd's of 20 and 200 for Sr-90 and Cs-137, respectively. Isherwood (1977) suggested that Kd's for sand range from 1.7 to 43 for Sr and 22 to 314 for Cs.

For Beaver Valley Unit 2 the staff conservatively estimated nuclide travel time using the distribution coefficients used in the LPGS: 2 mL/g for Sr and 20 mL/g for Cs. This resulted in retardation factors of 9.2 for Sr-90 and 83 for Cs-137, respectively. Using these values the travel time would be about 200 years for Sr-90 and 1800 years for Cs-137. When these times are compared to 5.7 years for Sr-90 and 51 years for Cs-137 in the LPGS case, the longer travel times at Beaver Valley Unit 2 would allow a smaller portion of the radioactivity to enter the Ohio River. In the LPGS, 87% of the Sr-90 and 31%

of the Cs-137 entered the river. For Beaver Valley Unit 2, less than 1% of the Sr-90 would enter the river. Virtually all of the Cs-137 would have decayed before reaching the river.

In the case of the LPGS small river site, approximately 80% of the total population dose would be from Sr-90 and 20% from Cs-137. Because virtually all the Cs-137 would decay before reaching the Ohio River, essentially all of the population dose would be from Sr-90 alone. The percent of Sr-90 entering the Ohio River is more than 87 times smaller than that in the LPGS. The staff, therefore, concludes that the population dose for Beaver Valley Unit 2 would l also be less than that for the LPGS case, and that the liquid pathway at Beaver Valley Unit 2 does not pose an unusual contribution to risk when compared to other land-based sites and is thus small in comparison to the risk posed by airborne pathways.

Finally, there are measures that could be taken to further minimize the impact of the liquid pathway. As described above, the staff estimated that the ground-water travel time from the reactor building to the Ohio River would be about 22 years and that the most significant nuclides would be retarded by sorption.

This would allow ample time for engineering measures such as slurry walls and well point dewatering to isolate the radioactive contamination near the source and to establish a groundwater monitoring program that would ensurc aarly de-tection if any contaminants should escape the isolated area. A comprehensive discussion of these and other mitigation methods potentially applicable to Beaver Valley Unit 2 is in Harris, Yang, Bynoc, and Warkentien (1982) and Harris, Winters, and Yang (1982).

(5) Economic and Societal Imoacts As noted in Section 5.9.4.2, the various measures for avoidance of adverse health effects, including thosa resulting from residual radioactive contamina-tion in the environment, are possible consequential impacts of severe accidents.

2eavar Valley 2 FES 5-42

Calculations of the probabilities and magnitudes of such impacts for Beaver Valley Unit 2 and its environs have also been made. Unlike the radiation exposure and health effect impacts discussed above, impacts associated with adverse health effects avoidance are more readily transformed into economic impacts.

The results are shown as the probability distribution for costs of offsite mitigating actions in Figure 5.8 and are included in Table 5.10. The factors contributing to these estimated costs include the following:

evacuation costs value of milk contaminated and condemned cost of decontamination of property where practical indirect costs attributable to. loss of use of property and income derived therefrom The last-named costs would derive from the necessity for interdiction to prevent the use of property until it is either free of contamination or can be

~

economically decontaminated.

Figure 5.8 shows that, at the extreme end of the accident spectrum, these i costs could exceed several billion dollars, but that the probability that this i would occur is small (about one chance in one hundred thousand per reactor year).

Additional economic impacts that can be monetized by the RSS consequence model include costs of decontamination of the facility itself. Another impact is the cost of replacement power. Probability distributions for these impacts have not been calculated, but they are included in the discussion of risk considerations in Section 5.9.4.5(6) below.

(6) Risk Considerations ,

The foregoing discussions have dealt with both the frequency (or likelihood of occurrence)_ of accidents and their impacts (or consequences). Because the ranges of both factors are quite broad, it is also useful to combine them to obtain average measures of environmental risk. Such averages provide a useful perspective, and can be particularly instructive as an aid to the comparison of radiological risks associated with accident releases and with normal opera-tional releases.

A common way in which this canbination of factors is used to estimate risk is to multiply the probabiM ties by the consequences. The resultant risk is then expressed as a numbcr of consequences expected per unit of time. Such a quan-tification of risk does not at all mean that there is universal agreement that the pecolw attitudes about risks, .or what constitutes an acceptable risk,

. car or.should be governed solely by such a measure. At best, it can be a .

contributing factor to a risk judgment, but not'necessarily a decisive factor.

Table 5.11 shows average values of risk associated with population dose, early fatalities, latent fatalities, and costs for evacuation and other protective actions. These average values are obtained by summing the probabilities Baaver Valley 2 FES 5-42

i

. multiplied by-the consequences over the entire range of the distributions.

! Because the probabilities are on a per-reactor year basis, the averages shown are also on a per-reactor year basis.

The population exposures and latent cancer fatality risks may be compared with t

those for normal operation shown in Appendix D. The comparison (excluding exposure to the plant personnel) shows that the accident dose risks (expressed

, in person rems per reactor year) to the total population are similar to the

anticipated doses from normal operation, but the accident dose risks within

80 km (50 miles) are about 10 times higher than the anticipated normal opera-  !

, tion doses within 80 km.

The latent cancer fatality. risks from potential accidents can also be compared to the cancer risk from all other sources. For accidents, this risk, avera over those within 80.km' (50 miles) of the Beaver Valley plant, is 1.7 x 10 ged per year per person, compared with the cancer fatality risk from all other sources of 1.9 x 10 3 per year.

a There are no early fatality or economic risks associated with protective actions and decontamination for normal releases; therefore, these risks are

unique for accidents. For perpective and understanding of the meaning of the early fatality risk of 2 x 10 3 per reactor year, however, the staff notes i that to a good approximation the population at risk is that within about-16 km (10 miles) of the plant, which is estimated to be about 166,200 persons in the j year 2010. Accidental fatalities per year for a population of this size,

based upon overall averages for.the United States,-are approximately 36 from motor vehicle accidents, 13 from falls, 5 from drowning, 5 from burns, and 2 from firearms. The average early fatality risk from reactor accidents is thus an extremely small fraction of the total risk. embodied in the combined accident  ;

! modes.

i ,

Figure 5.9 shows the calculated risk expressed as whole-body dose to an indi-vidual from early ' exposure as a function of the downwind distance from the plant within the plume exposures pathway zone. The values are on a per-reactor-year basis, and all accident sequences and release categories in Table 5.11 i contributed to the dose, weighted by their associated probabilities. -

i Evacuation and other protective actions can reduce the risks to an individual

.of such impacts as early fatality or of latent cancer fatality. Figure 5.10 '

shows lines' of constant risk of early fatality per reactor year to an individual

~

! living within the emergency planning. zone ~of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 site, of early fatality as a function of ~ location resulting from potentia.1 accidents

! in the reactor. Figure 5.11 shows similar curves of constant risk of latent  !

l cancer fatality. Directional variations in these plots reflects the variation [

i in the average fraction of the year the wind would be blowing in different t

! directions from the plant. For comparison, the following are the risks of fatality per year to an individual living in the United States (CONAES, i

t page 577): automobile accident 2.2 x 10 4, falls 7.7 x 10 s, drowning  ;

i 3.1 x 10 5, burning 2.9 x 10 5, and firearms 1.2 x 10 5 .

l j The economic risk associated with evacuation and other protective actions  ;

could be compared with property damage costs associated with' alternative  !

energy generation technologies. The use of fossil fuels--coal.or oil, for

• example- would cause substantial quantities of-sulfur dioxide and nitrogen  :

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-44

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

oxides to be emitted into the atmosphere and, among other things, lead tn environmental and ecological damage through the phenomenon of acid rain (CONAES pages 559-560). This effect has not, however, been sufficiently quantified for a useful comparison to be drawn at this time.

Other Economic Ricks There are other risks that can be monetized but that are not included in the cost calculation discussed above. These are accident impacts to the facility itself that result in added costs to the public. These costs would derive from decontamination ~and repair of the facility as well as from increased expenditures for replacement power while the unit is out of service. Experi-ence with such costs is currently being accumulated as a result of the Three Mile Island accident. If an accident occurs during the first full year of operation of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 (beginning in~1986), the associated economic penalty is estimated to total approximately $1650 million (1986 dollars) for decontamination and repair of the facility. This estimate is based on a conservative (high cost) 10% annual escalation of the $950 million (1980 dollars) repair cost estimate for the Three Mile Island facility (Comp-troller General,1981). Although, insurance would cover $300 million or more of the repair costs, the insurance is not credited against this cost because the $300 million times the risk probability should theoretically balance the insurance premium.

In addition to repair costs, the staff estimates there will be additional annual production expenses of approximately $76 million (1986 dollars) for replacement. power while the unit is out of service. This estimate assumes that energy that would have been generated by the unit (assuming a 70% average annual capacity factor, a conservatively high estimate) will be replared pri- l marily by coal-fueled generating facilities. Assuming the nuclear unit is out of service for an 8 year period, replacement power costs during restoration will total $608 million (constant 1986 dollars).

The probability of a core melt of severe reactor damage is assumed to be as high as 10 4 per reactor year (this accident probability is intended to account for all severe core damage accidents leading to large economic consequences for the owner, not just those leading to significant offsite consequences).

Multiplying the sum of the previously estimated repair and replacement power costs of approximately $2258 million for an accident to the unit during the initial year of its operation by the above 10 4 probability, results in an economic risk of approximately $225,800 during the first year (1986 dollars, or for the purpose of comparison with other costs presented in this section,

$127,500 in 1980 dollars). This is also the approximate economic risk (in 1986 dollars) to Beaver Valley Unit 2 during each subsequent year of opera-tion, although this amount will gradually decrease as the nuclear unit depre-ciates in value and operates at a reduced annual capacity factor.

Regional Industrial Imoacts A severe accident that requires the interdiction and/or decontamination of land areas will force numerous businesses to temporarily or permanently close.

, These closures would have additional economic ef fects beyond the contaminated l areas through the disruption of regional markets and sources of supplies. This Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-45 l

4 1

section provides estimates of these impacts which were made using: (1) the RSS consequence model discussed elsewhere-in this section, and (2) the Regional i Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), developed by the Bureau of Economic j Analysis (BEA) (NUREG/CR-2591).

The' industrial impact model developed by BEA takes into account contamination levels of a physically affected area defined by the RSS consequence model.

Contamination levels define an interdicted area immediately surrounding the plant, followed by an area of decontamination, an' area of crop interdiction, and finally-an area of milk interdiction. (The industry-specific impacts are estimated for the four accident sequences listed in Table 5.9.)

Assumptions used in the analysis include the following: '

2 -- In the interdicted area, all industries would lose total production for more than a year.

4 In the decontamination zone, there would be a 3-month loss,in nonagricul-tural output; a 1 year ~ loss in all crop output, except there would be.no-i loss in greenhouse, nursery, and forestry output; a 3-month loss in dairy t

. output; and a 6-month loss in livestock and poultry output.

j -

In the crop interdicted area, there would be no loss in nonagricultural

output; a 1 year loss in agricultural output, except no loss in green-i house, nursery, and forestry output; no loss in livestock and poultry

• J output; and a.2-month loss of dairy output.

In the milk interdiction zone, there would be only a 2-month loss in dairy output.

The estimates of industrial impacts are made for an economic study area that -

consists of a physically affected area and a physically unaffected area. An accident that causes an adverse impact in the physically affected area (for example, the loss of agricultural output) could also adversely affect output

in 'the physically unaffected area (for example, food processing). In addition f

to the direct impacts in'the physically affected area, the following additional

impacts would occur in the physically unaffected area

i decreased demand (in the physically affected area) for output produced in l .the physically unaffected area decreased availability of production inputs purchased from the physically affected area Only the impacts occurring during the first year following an accident are considered. The longer term consequences are not considered because they will ,

vary widely, depending on the level and nature of efforts to mitigate the l accident consequences and to decontaminate the physically affected areas. .The  !

estimates assume no compensating effects such as the use of unused capacity in the physically unaffected area to offset the' initial lost production in the physically affected area, or income payments to individuals displaced from their jobs that would enable them to maintain their spending habits. These compensating effects would occur over a lengthy pericd. The estimates using no compensating effects are the best measures of first year economic impacts.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-46 l i

, , _ . , , . . ~ - , . _ _ _ _ _ . .-_---.c. .._-.-....-_.,.._..m..,_,.,__._,...,_,.7, . , . . . . , , . - . , _ _ . . . , _ _ , -

__ . _ __. . m _ _ . _ _ . . . __.__ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _

l

, Table 5.12 presents the regional economic output and empicyment impacts and corresponding expected risks associated with the different release categories.

! The estimated overall risk value using output losses as the measure of accident I consequences, expressed in a per-reactor year basis, is $23,627. This number i is composed of direct impacts of $19,902 in the nonagricultural sector and

! $1138 in the agricultural sector, and indirect impacts of $2587 from decreased i export and supply constraints. The corresponding expected employment loss per i reactor year is about 0.9 job. It should be noted that 34% of the expected i losses, or $8073, results from releases occurring toward the east southeast.

i On an absolute basis, the impacts from the Event V and TMLB' releases to the

east southeast are the greatest and would result in a loss of $7.1 billion and

264,000 jobs. Releases from the PWR 7 scenarios, on the other hand, contribute i nothing to the total economic risk.

The staff has also. considered the health care costs resulting from hypothetical accidents in a generic model developed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory.

Based upon this.' generic model, the staff concludes that such costs may be a fraction of the offsite costs evaluated herein, but that the model is not i sufficiently constituted for application to a specific reactor site (Nieves,

1983).

l (7) Uncertainties .

, The probabilistic risk assessment discussed abov'e has been based mostly upon the methodology presented in the RSS,.which was published in 1975. Although substantial improvements have been made in various facets of the RSS method-

! ology since the RSS was published, there are still large uncertainties in the results of the analysis presented in the preceeding sections, including uncer-

tainties associated with the likelihoods of the accident sequences and contain-

ment failure modes leading to the release categories, the source terms for the

! release categories, and the estimates of environmental consequences. The rela-j tively more important contributors to uncertainties in the results presented in this environmental statement are as follows:

Probability of Occurrence of Accident 4

l If the probability of a release category would change by a certain factor, i the probabilities of various types of consequences from that release cate-gory would also change by exactly the same factor. Thus, an order of mag-

! nitude uncertainty in the probability of a release category would result l in an order of magnitude uncertainty in both societal and individual risks

stemming from the release category. As in the RSS, there are substantial l uncertainties in the probabilities of the release categories. This is due, in part, to difficulties associated with the quantification of the human error and to inadequacies in the data base on failure rates of individual

! pla'nt components and in the data base on external events and their effects on plant systems components that are used to calculate the probabilities.

Another related area of uncertainty involves risks from externally caused accidents (such as earthquakes, floads and events caused by people, includ-ing sabotage). Although such risks have not been evaluated for Beaver Valley Unit 2, some of these types of risks have been evaluated for Indian

~

i Point, Millstone Unit 3, Limerick, and' Zion. In those evaluations, such i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-47

- - . , , . -' . , - . - . , _ . _ _ . . _ , _ _ . , _ . _ . . _ , . , _ _ _ . , _ _ . . _ _ _ ___._.-__._.,-._,__,...,_c-_, . , , , _

f l

t l

, risks were found to be within a factor of less than 100. times greater than 4

risks from internally initiated accidents at the corresponding plants.

Such experiences in plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments cannot be extended directly to Beaver Valley Unit 2 because of site and plant design characteristics. However, the staff judges such risks to be within the uncertainty bounds discussed below.

l -

Quantity and Chemical Form of Radioactivity Released This relates to the quantity of each radionuclide species, and its chemical form, that would be released from a reactor unit during a particular acci-dent sequence. Such releases would originate in the fuel and would be attenuated by physical and chemical processes in route to being released tc the environment. Depending on the accident sequence, attenuation in the reactor vessel, the primary cooling system, the containment, and adja-cent buildings would influence both the magnitude and chemical form of radioactive releases. The source terms used in the staff analysis were determined using the RSS methodology applied to a PWR of the same design as the Surry plant. Therefore, the RSS methodology may not have been fully appropriate for Beaver Valley Unit 2. Information available in NUREG-0772 indicates that best estimate source terms cannot be much worse than the larger source terms used in the analysis, but could be substan-tially lower than the source terms used here for the same types of initiat-ing accident sequences. 'Ine impact of smaller source terms would~be lower estimates of health effects, particularly early fatalities and injuries.

• Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling for the Radioactive Plume Transport, Including the Physical and Chemical Behavior of Radionuclides in Particu-i late Form in the Atmosphere This uncertainty relates to the differences in modeling the atmospheric transport of radioactivity in gaseous and particulate states, and the actual transport, diffusion, and deposition or fallout that would occur during an accident (including the effects of condensation and precipita-tion). The phenomenon of plume rise as a result of the heat associated with the atmospheric release, the effects of precipitation.on the plume, and fallout of particulate matter from the plume all have considerable impact on the magnitudes of early health consequences and on the distance from the reactor to which these consequences would occur. The staff judg-ment is that these factors can result in substantial overestimates or underestimates of both early and later effects (both health and economic).

Other areas that have substantial but relatively less effect on uncertainty than the preceding items are Release Duration and Energy of Release, Warning Time, and Inplant Radionuclide Decay Time These areas relate to the differences between assumed release duration, -

energy of release, and the warning and the inplant radioactivity decay times compared with those that would actually occur during a real accident.

For an atmospheric release of a relatively long duration (greater than a half-hour), the actual cross-wind spread (the width) of the radioactive Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-43

_m . ___ __ ___ _ _ _ _. _ _ . _ .__ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . __ _ -

i l,

i

plume that would develop would likely be larger than the width calculated  !

i by the dispersion model in the code used by the staff (CRAC). However, the effective width of the plume is calculated in the code using a plume expansion factor that is determined by the release duration. For a given i quantity of radionuclides in a release, the plume and, therefore,- the area

! that would come under its cover would become wider if the release duration j were made longer. In effect, this would result in lower air and ground concentrations of radioactivity, but a greater area of contamination.

I The thermal energy associated with the release affects the plume rise I phenomenon, which results in relatively' lower air and ground concentra-tions in the closer regions and relatively higher concentrations as a 4- result of fallout in the more distant regions. Therefore, if a large i thermal energy were associated with a release containing large fractions-of the core-inventory of radionuclidei,' the distance from the reactor over which early health effects may occur could increase. If, on the i , other hand, the release behavior were dominated by the presence of large i -

amounts of condensing steam, very much the reverse could occur, because 7 j of the close-in deposition of radionuclides induced by the falling water l condensed from the steam, i

The warning time before evacuation has considerable impact on the effec-

! tiveness of offsite emergency response. Longer warning times would

, improve the effectiveness of the response, j The time from reactor shutdown until the beginning of the release to the 3

environment (atmosphere), known as the time of release, is used to calcu-l late the depletion of radionuclides by radioactive decay within the plant before release. The depletion factor for each radionuclide (determined by the radioactive decay constant and the time of release) multiplied by the release fraction of the radionuclide and its core inventory deter-mines the actual quantity of the ra.dionuclide released to the environment.

Later releases would result in the release of fewer curies to the environ-i ment for given values of release fractions.

i

The first three of the above parameters (duration and energy of release j and warning time) can have significant impacts on accident consequences,

! particularly on early consequences. The staff judgment is that the early 1 consequences and risks calculated for this review could be substantial

! underestimates or overestimates, because of uncertainties in the first I three parameters.

Meteorological Sampling Scheme Used This relates to the possibility that the meteorological sequences used

, with the selected 91 start times (sampling) in the CRAC code may not adequately represent all meteorological variations during the year, or

. that the year of meteorological data may not represent all possible con-

! ditions. This factor is judged to produce greater uncertainties for

! early effects and less for latent effects.

1 i

l

! Beaver Valley 2 FE3 5-49 i

4

,~,- _ . - - - - , - - , - - . - - , . - - _ -_ - ,. ,,.-, m ,..-,,- -- - . -.,.-~ ~.mm.,_ - --

_m..,.- - , _ , _ - -

l l

i i

! - Emergency Response Effectiveness This relates to the differences between modeling assumptions regarding the emergency response of the people residing near the Beaver Valley site compared to what would happen during an actual severe reactor accident.

Included in these considerations are such subjects as the effectiveness of evacuation under different circumstances, the effectiveness of possible sheltering, and the effectiveness of population relocation. The staff judgment is that the uncertainties associated with emergency response effectiveness could cause large uncertainties in early health conse-quences. The uncertainties in latent health consequences and costs are considered to be smaller than those for early health consequences.

Dose Conversion Factors and Dose Response Relationships for Early Health Consequences, Including Benefits of Medical Treatment This relates to the uncertainties associated with estimates of dose and early health effects on individuals exposed to high levels of radiation.

Included are the uncertainties associated with the conversion of contam-ination levels to doses, relationships of doses to health effects, and considerations of the availability of what was described in the RSS as supportive medical treatment (a specialized medical treatment program of limited availability that would minimize the early health effect conse-quences of high levels of radiation exposure following a severe reactor accident). Previous staff analysis indicates that uncertainty for this last source is less than a factor of 3.

Dose-Conversion Factors and Dose-Response Relationships for Latent Health Consequences This relates to the uncertainties associated with dose estimates and latent (delayed and long-term) health effects on individuals exposed to lower levels of radiation and on their succeeding generations. Included are the uncertainties associated with conversion of contamination levels to doses and doses to health effects. The staff judgment is that this category has a large uncertainty. The uncertainty could result in rela-tively small underestimates of consequences, but also in substantial overestimates of consequences. (Note: radiobiological evidence on this subject could indicate zero consequences.)

Chronic Exposure Pathways, including Environmental Decontamination and the Fate of Deposited Radionuclides This relates to uncertainties associated with chronic exposure pathways to humans from long-term use of the contaminated environment. Uncertainty arises from the possibility of different protective action guide levels that may actually be used for interdiction or decontamination of the ex-posure pathways from those assumed in the staff analysis. Further, uncer-tainty arises because there is a lack of precise knowledge about the fate of the radionuclides in the environment as influenced by natural processes such as runoff, weathering, etc. The staff's qualitative judgment is that 1

the uncertainty from these considerations is substantial.

1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-50

l l

l Economic Data and Modeling This relates to uncertainties in the economic parameters and economic model- i j ing, such as costs of evacuation, relocation, medical treatment, cost of decontamination of properties, and other costs of property damage.Uncer-tainty in.this area could be substantial.

l The state of the art for quantitative evaluation of the uncertainties in the l probabilistic risk analysis such as the type presented here is not well developed. Therefore, although the staff has made a reasonable analysis of the 3

risks presented herein consistent with current data and methodology, there are large uncertainties associated with the results shown. It is the qualitative 4 judgment of the staff that the uncertainty bounds could be well over a factor of 10, but not as large as a factor of 100. Within these uncertainty bounds, however, the uncertainties associated with the probability-integrated values consequences (the risks) are likely to be less (although still large) than uncertainties in the curves in the figures showing probability distribution of  ;

consequences because of the partial cancellation of uncertainties by integration.

When the accident at Three Mile Island occurred in March 1979, the accumulated I

record of experience with operating reactors was about 400 reactor years. It is of interest to note that this implied accident frequency was within the range of frequencies estimated by the RSS for an accident of this severity (CONAES, page 553).

The Three Mile Island accident has resulted in a very comprehensive evaluation

-of reactor accidents by a significant number of investigative groups. Actions

to improve the safety of nuclear power plants have come out of these investiga-4 tions, including those from the President's Commission on the Accident at Three

Mile Island (1979), and NRC staff investigations and task forces. A comprehen-

sive "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident" (NUREG-0660, Vol I) contains the various recommendations of these groups and describes them under the subject areas of

Operational Safety; Siting and Design; Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Effects; Practices and Procedures; and NRC Policy, Organization, and Management. The action plan presents a sequence of actions,

! some already taken, that results in a gradually increasing improvement in

! safety as individual actions are completed. Beaver Valley Unit 2 is receiving 4

and will receive the benefit of these actions.

(8) Comparison of Beaver Valley Unit 2 Risks with Other Plants To provide a perspective as to how Beaver Valley Unit 2 compares in terms of [

risks from severe accidents with some of the other nuclear. power plants that  !

3 are either operating or that are being reviewed by the staff for possible [

issuance of a-license to operate, the estimated risks from severe accidents

~

for several nuclear power plants (including those for Beaver Valley Unit 2) t 4 are shown in Figures 5.12 through 5.20 for three important categories of risk.  !

The values for individual plants are based upon three types of' estimates: from l the RSS (-labeled WASH-1400 Average Plant), from independent staff reviews of contemporary probabilistic risk assessments (Indian Point 2 and 3, Zion,-

i  ;

l Limerick, and Millstone 3), and from generic applications of RSS methodology to ,

reactor sites for environmental statements by the staff (for 27 nuclear power ,

plants). Figure- 5.12 indicates that the calculated risk of early fatality at

! the Beaver Valley site is higher than the median of the plants evaluated.  !

Beaver '! alley 2 FES 5-51 i [

i Figures 5.13 and 5.14 show that the calculated risk of latent cancer fatali-ties are slightly higher than the median of the plants evaluated. Figures 5.15 through 5.20 show the range of estimated uncertainties for the three measures of risk.

5.9.4.6 Conclusions The foregoing sections consider the potential environmental impacts from acci-dents at Beaver Valley Unit 2, covering a broad spectrum of possible' accidental releases of radioactive materials into the environment by atmospheric and ground-

! water pathways. Included in the considerations are postulated design-basis acci-l dents and more severe accident sequences that lead to a core melt. The environ-mental impacts that have been considered include potential releases of radioac-i tivity to the environment with resulting radiation exposures to individuals and l to the population as a whole, the risk of near- and long-term adverse health j effects that such exposures could entail, and the potential economic and socie-i tal consequences of accidental contamination of the environment. These impacts could be. severe, but the likelihood of their occurrence is judged to be small.

This conclusion is based on (1) the fact that considerable experience has been gained with the operation of similar facilities without significant degradation i

.of the environment; (2) the fact that, in order to obtain a license to operate the Beaver Valley facility, the applicant must comply with the applicable Com-mission regulations and requirements; and (3) the fact that a probabilistic assessment of the risk based upon the methodology developed in the RSS.

The overall assessment of environmental risk of accidents, assuming protective actions, shows that it is on the same order as the risks from normal operation, although accidents have a potential for early fatalities and economic costs that cannot arise from normal operations. The risks of early fatality .from a potential accident at the site are small in comparison with risks of accidental deaths from other human activities. The risks of latent cancer fatalities from

! potential accidents at the site are small when compared with the background can-

cer risk (see Section 5.9.4.5(6)).

On the basis of the above considerations, the' staff concluded that the~re are

no special or unique circumstances about the Beaver Valley site and environs

that would warrant consideration of alternatives for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

i

5.10 Impacts from the Uranium Fuel Cycle The uranium fuel cycle rule, 10 CFR 51.51 (49 FR 9388), reflects the latest information relative to the reprocessing of spent fuel and to radioactive waste management as discussed in NUREG-0116, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Was+e' Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," and in'NUREG-0216, which presents staff responses to comments on NUREG-0116. The rule also considers other environmental factors of the uranium fuel cycle, including aspects of t I mining and milling, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, and management of j low- and high-level wastes. These are described in the AEC report WASH-1248,

" Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle." The NRC staff was also .

directed to develop an explanatory narrative that would convey in unde.rstand-able terms the significance of releases in Table S-3 of the rule. The narrative l

i was also to address such .important fuel cycle impacts as environmental dose com-mitments and health effects, socioeconomic impacts, and cumulative impacts, where these are appropriate for generic treatment. This explanatory narrative Beaver Valley 2 FES~ 5-52 l_

i s

was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154-15175). ,

Appendix C to this report contains a number of sections that address those i

impacts-of the LWR-supporting fuel cycle that reasonably appear to have signi-  ;

ficance for individual reactor licensing sufficient to warrant attention for l NEPA purposes.  !

Table S-3 of the final rule is reproduced in its entirety as Table 5.13*

herein. Specific categories of natural resource use included in the table relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive  ;

, releases, burial of transuranic and high- and low-level wastes, and radiation .

. doses from transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in  !

I the table for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are t 2

maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle);

j that is, the cycle that results in the greater impact is used. l Appendix C to this repor.t contains a description of the environmental impact l assessment of the uranium fuel cycle as related to the operation of Beaver i Valley Unit 2. The environmental impacts are based on the values given in l

) Table S-3, and on an analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and  ;

i technetium-99 releases. The NRC staff has determined that the environmental  !

I impact of this facility on the U.S. population fiom radioactive gaseous and liquid releases (including radon and technetium) dae to the uranium fuel cycle

, ~is very small when compared with the impact of natural background radiation. l j In addition, the nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been  :

found to be acceptable.  ;

f 5.11 Decommissioning i 1  :

The purposes of decommissioning are (1) to safely remove nuclear facilities i from service and (2) to remove or isolate the associated radioactivity from the f

environment so that the part of the facility site that is not permanently com- i 1 mitted can be released for other uses. Alternative methods of accomplishing  ;

these purposes and the environmental impacts of each method are discussed in )

NUREG-0586.

i Since 1960, 68 nuclear reactors--including 5 licensed reactors that had been i used for the generation of electricity--have been or are in the process of being ,

1 decommissioned. Although, to date, no large commercial reactor has undergone I decommissioning, the broad base of experience gained from smaller facilities is generally relevant to the decommissioning of any type of nuclear facility. '

Section 4.3 of NUREG-0586 presents estimates of radiation doses to members  :

of the public and to plant workers for decommissioning of a reference pres- -

I sur.ized water reactor. ,

, 1 Radiation doses to the public as a result of end-of-life decommissioning activ- ,[

ities should be small; they will come primarily from the transportation of l f

i j *The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the S-3 rule in Baltimore  ;

l Gas & Electric Co., et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., j l No.82-524, issued June 6, 1983, 51 U.S. Law week, 4678.  ;

[

i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-53 I

J t 4

waste to appropriate repositories. Radiation doses to decommissioning workers should be well within the occupational exposure limits imposed by regulatory requirements.

The NRC is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings that will develop a more explicit overall policy for decommissioning commmercial nuclear facilities.

Specific licensing requirements are being considered that include the develop-ment of decommissioning plans and financial arrangements for decommissioning nuclear facilities.

5.12 Noise Imoacts Sound pressure levels expected to nccur from the operation of Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 have been calculated for (1) seven ambient noise survey positions (R1 to R7) in the vicinity of the site (see Figure 5.21), as chosen by the applicant (2) the three nearest residences (RF1 to RF3) representative of the residential area just east of the site (see Figure 5.22).

Locations R1 to R7 were used in both 1977 and 1983 to measure octave band sound pressure levels and A-weighted sound pressure levels. The exact locations of R1 to R7 are given in Table 5.14. All are potential noise-sensitive locations in the community. During the 1977 survey, two units of the Bruce Mansfield Power Station were in operation and a third unit was under construction. During the 1983 survey, Beaver Valley Unit 1 and three units of the Bruce Mansfield Plant were in operation. Daytime and nighttime measurements were made in both the 1977 and the 1983 surveys.

Further details on these measurements are in ER-OL Section 2.7 and the responses to staff questions E290.5 through E290.9. These data provide the most represen-tative information on ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the plant. For the purposes of its calculations, the staff assumed that the residual ambient at each receptor location R1 to R7 could be best represented by the lowest sound pressure level measured during the 1977 and 1983 surveys. A minimum sound pres-sure level was therefore chosen for each octave band from the four measured values: daytime 1977, nighttime 1977, daytime 1983, and nighttime 1983.

Ambient noise data from R2 was assumed to be representative of receptors RF1 to RF3.

It should be noted that the ambient naise levels at the plant site vicinity is high in comparison to other nuclear plants located in rural communities. In fact, the noise-sensitive areas adjacent to the site reveal an average day / night sound level (Ldn) exceeding 55 dBA (ER-OL Table 5.6-1). The EPA (1974) has identified an L dn f 55 dBA as the maximum level for residential areas above ,

'which interference with speech, sleep, relaxation, privacy, and other activi-ties may occur.

The major noise sources at the site are (1) the two natural draft cooling towers i Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-54

(2) 10 transformers (Each unit has one main transformer (945 MVA), two unit station service transformers (32 MVA each), and two system station service transformers (32 MVA).)

The natural draft cooling towers emit noise of a broadband nature and the transformers emit noise of a tonal nature at the discrete frequencies 120, 240, 360, and 480 Hz.

Staff calculations were made based on a University of Illinois /Argonne National Laboratory (UI/ANL) computer model by Dunn et al. (1982). That model is based largely on the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Environmental Noise Guide (E0it, Beranek and Newman,1978) and was used to predict the effect of the above plant noisa sources on the 10 community receptors. Calculations were made using only the significant noise sources listed above. Other noise sources at the site lead to insignificant contributions to community noise levels because of their location inside buildings, the intermittent nature of some sources, or the low sound power level of other sources. The relatively large distances from these

sources to the nearby sensitive areas is further responsible for the negligible

, contribution from those sources. The two natural draft cooling towers and 10 transformers were assumed to be in operation continuously and throughout the day and night. Standard day conditions (15 C ambient temperature and 70%

relative humidity) were also assumed. Source data on natural draft cooling tower noise came from the EEI Noise Guide. Data on the noise level of the transformers came from Gordon et al. (1978).

Data on transformers of similar MVA rating were examined, and the staff chose the data that' represented the strongest source of noise for each transformer, i

A conservative assumption was also made in neglecting attenuation as a result of intervening trees and barriers between the sources and receptors. .

Model predictions were carried out in two steps. First, the increase in ambient noise at all 10 receptor points was computed on the bases to the two natural draft cooling towers alone. The community impact of the increased

, broadband noise was then determined (details are presented below).

The second step involved a rerun of the VI/ANL noise computer model employing the "new" ambient represented by the increased broadband noise in the community because of the cooling towers. In this second run, only the transformer core tones at 120, 240, 360, and 480 Hz were modeled. The cooling tower noise was found to increase the masking level of the ambient and thereby assisted in making the transformer tones inaudible. The results of step 2 showed that only the 120-Hz tone would be audible and then only at R2, RF1, RF2, and RF3.

Even then, the tone sound level is less than 5 dB above masking level, the threshold for an expectation of individual complaints from transformer tonal noise (Ver and Anderson,1977). Even the "old" ambient level at each receptor

was high and provided significant masking. The increase in the ambient because of the cooling tower noise provided considerable incremental masking of the transformer tones at the core tone frequencies.

Tables 5.15 and 5.16 summarize the noise predictions from the two natural draf t cooling towers (part of the first step, above).

Table 5.16 gives the expected comnunity reaction at each of these receptor locations in terms of the modified composite noise rating (CNR) (Bolt, Beranek i

Beaver Valley 2 FE5 5-55 L_-___________-________-_-__-_--_-__.

and Newman, 1978). Tables 5.15 and 5.16 and Figure 5.23 show that the reactions j at each receptor R1 to R7 and RF1 to RF3 range from "no reaction" to " widespread complaints." At RF1 to RF3 and R2 the increase in noise resulting from the cooling towers may, therefore, lead to complaints from persons at those

residences.

The above calculations were made employing two important assumptions. First, the sound power levels for the cooling towers and transformers were taken from the literature, because no data were available from the manufacturer in each case. There is some uncertainty in that the noise levels for the natural draft cooling towers purchased by the applicant may differ from that provided for an " average" natural draf t cooling tower in the EEI Noise Guide. If noise levels are made available from the manufacturer, they might provide the basis for more accurate noise predictions. The same applies to the transformer noise for which sound power data were taken from the literature from transformers of

} similar MVA rating and other transformer characteristics. A complete match

could not be made, however, because of the limited quantity of manufacturer's l data that have been published.

Second, noise attenuation from intervening trees, vegetation, and barriers between the residences and noise sources has been neglected. For instance, no offsite receptor is believed to have an unblocked direct line of sight to the two main transformers because of the intervening turbine buildings. This barrier effect has been neglected in the calculations. Some barrier effects are also present that may reduce cooling tower noise. Some of the conservatism

. built into the neglect of barrier effects may be counterbalanced in part by

! the uncertainty as to the true residual ambient since ambient measurements were made only over short periods of time (few days).

l The issue of the impact of loudspeaker noise on the receptor points was also evaluated. Figure 5.24 shows the locations of the eight loudspeakers to be present during plant operation. Table 5.17 lists the loudspeaker locations, axial directions, and other pertinent data. The potential for loudspeaker annoyance in the community during plant operation was identified as a potential problem by a resident in the RF1 to RF3 area. This resident had been complaining i

of the noise resulting from a different and more extensive loudspeaker system

, present during plant construction. The sound power level of the loudspeakers l were taken from the EEI Noise Guide. The directional effects of the loudspeaker noise were included in the staff's calculations. Because of the orientation of the axis of the loudspeakers away from the critical residences (R2, and RF1 to RF3), the increase in sound level at those residences is calculated to be less than 1 dB, a value not sufficient for audibility at those residences.

! 5.13 Emergency Planning impacts In connection with the promulgation of the Commission's upgraded emergency planning requirements, the NRC staff issued NUREG-0658, " Environmental Assess-ment for Effective Changes to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50; l Emergency Planning Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants." The staff believes

! the only noteworthy potential source of impacts to the public from emergency planning would be associated with the testing of the early notification system.

Beaver Valley 2 FE5 5-06

The test requirements and noise levels will be consistent with those used for existing systems; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the noise impacts from the system will be infrequent and insignificant.

5.14 Environmental Monitoring 5.14.1 Terrestrial Monitoring Preoperational monitoring studies for Unit 2 are based primarily on the Unit 1 operational monitoring programs, which are described in the 1974 baseline study and the annual environmental reports (NUS, 1976; Duquesne, 1977, 1979, and 1981). These studies showed that there were no Unit 1 operational impacts on flora and that the number of birds killed at the cooling tower was insigni-ficant. Thus, the only terrestrial monitoring p,lanned for Unit 2 is continued .

infrared aerial photography every other year. The photographs will be compared with preoperational photographs of the Unit 2 area, and any signs of injury as a result of salt drif t and other sources will be checked (ER-OL Section 6.2.4.3).

The details of this program will be specified in the Environmental Protection Plan that will be included as Appendix B of the operating license. Monitoring the possible effects of power ifnes on terrestrial ecology is not considered necessary.

5.14.2 Aquatic Monitoring Nonradiological aquatic monitoring of potantial Unit 2 effects has been estab!

lished by the state through the NPDES permit (see Appendix G). The NRC will rely on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the authority of the Clean Water Act, for the protection of water quality and aquatic biological resources, and for any associated monitoring that may be required during statien operation.

5.14.3 Atmospheric Monitoring The FES-CP did not describe the onsite meteorological measurements program.

The present onsite meteorological measurements program was initiated in January 1976. Measurements are made on a tower extending 152 m (500 feet) above a grade of 223 m (730 feet) ms1. The tower is about 1100 m northeast of the Beaver Valley Unit I reactor structure and about 800 m northeast of the natural draft cooling tower locations for both units.

The following meteorological measurements are made on the tower: wind speed and direction at the 10.7-m, 45.7-m and 152-m levels; vertical temperature gradient between the 45.7-m and 10.7-m levels and between the 152-m and 10.7-m levels; and temperature and dewpoint at the 10.7-m level. Precipitation is measured at an elevation of about 1 m above grade near the tower.

The joint data recovery for sind speed and wind direction at the 10.7-m level

! and atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperature difference between the 45.7-m and 10.7-m levels) for the 5 year period January 1976 to December 1980 presented in the FSAR was 90%, with yearly data recovery ranging .

from 85% to 93%. The joint data recovery for wind speed and wind direction at the 152-m level and atmospheric stability (defined by vertical temperature difference between the 152-m and 10.7-m levels) for the 5 year period was 88%,

with yearly data recovery ranging from 79% to 93%.

r I

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-57

The meteorological measurements systems complies with the accuracy specifica-tions in Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs." However, the ER-OL states that changes in the meteorological tower location in January 1976' produced a shift in the prevailing wind direction data and that this shift resulted from the channeling effect of the valley. Therefore, the staff. asked the applicant to provide additional information to demonstrate that data from the current tower location was adequate for the determination of atmospheric dispersion. The applicant's response demonstrated that adequate l estimates of dispersion could be made using these data.

Whether the onsite data for the 5 year period is representative of long-term i conditions was determined by comparing data from the concurrent 5 year period for Pittsburgh with data from a 28 year period for Pittsburgh. These comparisons indicate that reasonable long-term estimates of atmospheric dispersion for accidental and routine releases of radioactive effluents can be made from the 5 year record of onsite data.

5.14.4 Noise Monitoring Because of the uncertainty in the staff's assumptions regarding the exact cool-

ing tower and transformer sound power levels and in the variation in background

}

levels during the year, the staff will require that the applicant conduct a short-term noise monitoring program during the first year of plant operation.

i The purpose of this program is to quantify operational phase noise levels and the mitigative measures necessary, if any, to reduce adverse impacts on the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Station. An evaluation of noise impacts at R2 and in the area of RF1 to RF3 is to be made in terms of broadband and tonal noises and noise related complaints, including the effects of the nearest loudspeakers. Noise measurements are to be made on a one-third octave band basis along with A-weighted and statistical indicators L90' '50, L,q (L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time; L" is the energy-based sound level integrated over a specified time period).

Measurements are to be made twice a year (for 1 year), once in the wintertime and once in the summertime. Data are to be acquired during both daytime and nighttime (12 midnight to 4 a.m.) periods. A comparison of measured noise levels compared to the 1977 and 1983 ambients is to be made. The details of this short term monitoring program will be included in the Environmental Pro-tection Plan (EPP) for the site. The measurement of one-third octave band I

spectra (rather than octave band) should provide sufficient data to isolate i

the transformer tones and enable a more precise assessment of their impacts j (if any).

Corr.munity impacts are to be evaluated by the applicant from these measurements, in terms of incremental broadband and tonal noise and from any plant noise-related complaints. The audibility of the loudspeaker system at offsite resi-dential locations is also to be evaluated as an intermittent source during day-time and nighttime,

, 5.15 References

Advisory Committee on the Biological Ef fects of Ionizing Radiations, BEIR 1, i "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,"

flational Academy of Sciences / National Research Council,flovember 1972.

Bea/er Valley 2 FE5 5-58 l

t

1

-- , BEIR III, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council, July 1980.

American Cancer Society, " Cancer Facts and Figures 1979," 1978.

-- , " Cancer Facts and Figures," 1981.

Bertini, H. W., et al., " Descriptions of Selected Accidents that Have Occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities," Nuclear Safety Information Center, Oak Ridge 1

National Laboratory, ORNL/NSI-176, April 1980.

Blaylock, B. G. , and J. P. Witherspoon, " Radiation Doses and Effects Estimated for Aquatic Biota Exposed to Radioactive Releases from LWR Fuel-Cycle Facil-ities," in Nuclear Safety, 17:351, 1976.

, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. , " Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide, Volumes 1 and 2", Report No. 3637, prepared for Edison Electric

Institute, Washington, DC, 1978.

Boreman, J., " Impacts of Power Plant Intake Velocities on Fish," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/0BS-76/20.1, Ann Arbor, 1977.

Brooks, A. S., and G. L. Seigert, "Special Report No. 35: The Effect of Intermittent Chlorination on Ten Species of Warm Water Fish." Center for Great Lakes Studies, the University of Wisconsin, January 1978 (revised March 1978).

Carson, J.E. , " Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Coo. ling Systems," Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/ES-53, Argonne, Illinois, 1976.

l Cartwright, J. V., et al., " Estimating the Potential Industrial Impacts of a Nuclear Reactor Accident: Methodology and Case Studies," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2591, April 1982.

Codell, R., NRC, written testimony on Commission Question 1,Section III.D.,

on liquid pathway considerations for the special hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the matter of Indian Point, June 1982 to April 1983.

Committee on Nuclear Alternative Energy Systems, CONAES, National Research Council, " Energy in Transition 1985 - 2010," final report, 1979.*

Comptroller General of the U.S., " Report to the Congress," EMD-81-106, August 26, 1981.

1 Coutant, C. C., " Cold Shock to Aquatic Organisms: Guidance for Power-Plant Siting, Design, and Operation," in Nuclear Safety, 18:329-342, 1977.

Crick, M. J. and G. S. Linsley, "An Assessment of the Radiological Impact of the Windscale Reactor Fire," National Radiological Protection Board, 1982.

• This report was also published in 1980 by W. H. Freeman and Company. Pages cited will differ.

l Bewer Valley 2 FES 5-53

- --~--

Davis, E. A. , " Environmental Assessment of Chalk Point Cooling Tower Drif t and Vapor Emissions," prepared by the Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, for the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program,1979.

Dickson, K. L. , et al. , " Effects of Intermittently Chlorinated Cooling Tower Blowdown ~on Fish and Invertebrates," in Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 8, No. 9, September, 1974.

Dunn, W. E., A. J. Policastro, and M. Wastag, " User's Guide for Mathematical Model to Predict Nose Impacts in the Community," Division of Environmental Impact Studies, Argonne National Laboratory, draft report, September 1982.

Duquesne Light Company, " Annual Environmental Report - Nonradiological, Vol.1,"

for 1977-1983, published annually 1978-1984.

Goodyear, C. P. , C. C. Coutant, and J. R. Trabalka, " Sources of Potential Biological Damage from Once-Through Cooling Systems of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-TM-4180, 1974.

Gordon, C. G., A. G. Piersol, and E. G. Wilby, "The Development of Procedures for the Prediction of the Core Noise of Power Transformers," Report No. 3697, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. , Canoga Park, California, submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, January 1978.

Harris, V. A., D. Y. Yang,.M. C. Bynoc, and J. S. Warkentien, " Accident Mitigation: Slurry Wall Barriers," Argonne National Laboratory, May 1982.

Harris, V. A., M. C. B. Winters, and J. Y. Yang, " Accident Mitigation: Methods for Isolating Contaminated Groundwater," Argonne National Laboratory, September 1982.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP, " Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection," ICRP Publication 26, January 1977.

Isherwood, D. , " Preliminary Report on Retardation Factors and Radionuclide Migration," Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, August 1977.

Land, C. E., in Science 209, 1197, September 1980.

Lee, J. M. , Jr. , J. H. Brunke, G. E. Lee, G. L. Reiner, and F. L. Shon,

" Electrical ar,d Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review," U.S.

Department of Energy, Portland, Oregon,1982.

Mathur, D. , R. M. Schutsky, E. J. Purdy, Jr. , and C. A. Silver, " Similarities in Avoidance Temperatures of Freshwater Fishes," in Can. Journal of Fish Aquat.

Sci., 40:2144-2152, 1983.

Mattice, J. S., and H. E. Zittel, " Site-Specific Evaluation of Power Plant Chlorination," in Journal of Water Pollut. Contr. Fed., 48:2284-2308, 1976.

National Council on Radiatica Protection and Measurements, NCRP, " Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy," NCRP Report 43, January 1975.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-60

l I

Nieves, L. A., et al., " Estimating the Economic Costs of Radiation-Induced Health Effects," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-4664, November 1983.

NUS Corporation, " Annual Report - Terrestrial Ecological Studies at the Beaver Valley Power Station Site," filed with the NRC, October 1, 1976.

Parsons, P., " Underground Movement of Radioactive Wastes at Chalk River," in Proceedings 2nd Conference on Groundwater Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Chalk River, Canada, J. Morgan, D. Jamison, and J. Stevenson, eds., U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, TID-7628, 1962.

President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, final report, October 1979.

Rogovin, Mitchell, Director, "Three Mile Island - A Report to the Commissioners and the Public," Vol I, NRC Special Inquiry Group, January 1980.

Talbot, J. J. , "A Review of Potential Biological Impacts of Cooling Tower Salt Drift," in Atmospheric Environment, 13:395-405, 1979.

Thompson, T. J., and J. G. Beckerley, The Technology of Nuclear Reactor Safety, Vol 1, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1964.

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Office, " Accident at Windscale," 1957.

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR,

" Ionizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects," 1982.

U.S. Atomic Emergy Commission, WASH-1248, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," April 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," Report 550/9-74-004, 1974.

-- , " Quality Criteria for Water," EPA-440/9-76/023, 1976.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considera-tions Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," statement of interim policy, in the Federal Register, 45 FR 40101-40104, June 13, 1980.

-- , NUREG-75/014, " Reactor Safety Study--An Assessment" October 1975 (formerly l WASH-1400).

i

-- , NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.

-- , NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," October

! 1976.

-- , NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), "Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," March 1977.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-61

l l

-- , NUREG-0340, " Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequences Model," ,

October 1977. j

-- , NUREG-0440, " Liquid Pathway Generic Study," February 1978.

-- , NUREG-0543, " Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance with the' EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standards (40 CFR 190)," February 1980.

-- , NUREG-0558, " Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station," May 1979.

NUREG-0586, " Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Oecommission-ing of Nuclear Facilities," January 1981.

-- , NUREG-0651, " Evaluation of Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accidents," March

• 1980.

-- , NUREG-0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiclogical Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,"

Revision 1, November 1980 (also published as FEMA-REP-1).

-- , NUREG-0660, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of 1.he THI-2 Accident,"

Vol 1, May 1980.

-- , NUREG-0713, B. G. Brooks, " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors 1981," Vol 3, November 1982.

-- , NUREG-0773, "The Development of Severe Reactor Accident Source Terms:

1957-1981," November 1982.

-- , NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," November 1980.

-- , NUREG-0769," Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit No. 2," Addendum No. 1, March 1982.

-- , NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan," July 1981 (formerly issued as NUREG-75/087).

-- , NUREG/CR-0400, " Risk Ass'essment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," H. W. Lewis et al., September 1978.

-- , NUREG/CR-1596, "The Consequences from Liquid Pathways After a Reactor Meltdown Accident," 5. J. Niemezyk et al. ,. Sandia National Laboratory, June 1981.

-- , NUREG/CR-2300, "PRA Procedures Guide," January 1983.

-- , NUREG/CR-2591: see Cartwright.

-- , RG 1.21, " Measuring, Evaluating and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gasecus Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Pcwer Plants," Revision 1, June 1974.

-- , RG 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man frco Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, l Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-62

2 m

/,# i, , .

N

~

4

[

~ *

(( ,

/ , f .. All -

g ,

'I l g ,. gg,

' . '? ',gg /4. =9E J,r.W&. i iHi Q;M"L; i ll fy 6

y -, .. -- : nh*s s.1 ,, . . . . \ g---

IEl ^:=3 :-::

.4w.4

,4; % ; y.i ,

7 y } "

% l 7\ \

,(

y n

,GQl. A

.o V

. , 9s 8n_ : 4 7 Li p p Q Q+ % g @f'T pig)g R'y#key Q j lp fg g

< l li L~ b . k 3

" 4lj a

H . Aa _ , / ~1 t r- ._ T~ ' _;_- ],

+

• . '7 U a t, . 'm .  %, ., j[-

m ,

g

/ .

' * * ** ,I l ...~ gy

^~~---s ,n

' 4 \,; :

\, 9 ' 1' C '3' )'-,$.0 :

v

,'~'~qt.N((N

> ' 4:, p . _ __n_ _ _ ,,,

g

)j m. g( )

$ %y O 'kkfhl 'f

.u

(

,~

?l ,, '}-Q

~

r %Q j _ ~ G ,'Q \

\ \\ l &; -;.

u~ Ws 24?; . . . QN {p:Q.=8W~ :3 s -

' p m f ,\ ,

t,0.$1RUCTURE ' ' '

} l#-

L.h.,[

1[ 6hact Basin O,ecg> 3 f 'I{ t.e ' TIN,[g ,/, /, \. J -/

3 - -

r/ - 1

2. Llowdown Discharge Structure

3. Intake Structure j 8 O'

. m

/ 'A$ N, ' ,1 *

, ,' k i [?~i M[

1. Alternate Intake Structure

_ [] z, f ji, y J. (

r ,.. - ? '

,V

. j;g~ -

/

(- ' , /_1 sp i, *.r{ ,f f fl00-Year Flood Elevation g< . " ,,

-- q' g

o .-+ g y_ ,.-

-;; +-.

Figure 5.1 100 year floodplain

=.=r  % NUCLEAR POWER PLANT i

O LtOUID 6 5 EFFLUENT

$ 5.4  ?

t: i

%= D s

l[' t \,\ ..= g:ssapur--

a s

/i FUEL TRANSPORT b %I*'

d'iM; r. :5%'*'m t"Q -- --

~ .

• A*4DGacood A,%

5 1'- c36 ces ,. %g ' *, , ,

l

)% ~

. ,m j \

"4 -.e 2% #*

I / ' ;y g ,

.34pr ,j: _

- - =-__

W D @ 45 t -

f =>

i Figure 5.2 Potentially meaningful exposure pathways to individuals Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-65

. _____l

E' R

,} WEATilEli DATA

=

dE ro rr I w

itEL E ASE CATEGORIES ATMOSPilERIC _

DISPERSION

+ DOSIMETRY -

HEALTH EFFECTS i r T

m CLOUD DEPLETION @

, PROPERTY DAMAGE p p 1

r J L GROUND _

CONTAMINATION EVACUATION Figure 5.3 Schematic outline of consequence model

LJ 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 fl 1 10,0 10 10' 10 10 10 10 10 10

. -a 10 r -- r r r ro n r r rnn -- r rii on rrrinn riiiroi i i iiun > i i iiiii iisini 10 >

[-'

y ,

.., m ~

i. .

s s c: r".

o 10 . - - - - - ' t---

=

10' $

~

s ~~. -

2

( ',

% a I^ N 'r ,

s o

10 e. ___ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ___ 1 i , _ s. . . . .

.~. 10

i. . .

L. I S m

• n.4 , .

',' 8 . ',

e' .

O .._._..\ ~

ig' 7 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . ._ .- -

10 '

i .

' ~

b b

!. \.', .

x i

.t g ,, ;-_,_..._...___L - \,. .

10 ila

~

Whole Body Dose > 25 rem -

._ Thyr 6iFDose > 300 rem -

., ~ ~ ffori5 i~Mb~r~rb~vFD6he" 1 nii 1 1 1 1 nii

~ TGO re~ih~ "

i 1 1 IT111.. .: _ ! . l .. I l.1 U

'. ' s

_. . . I nl ! 6-4 411___ l._ l . t i i 1 ll __ g l t l l p li

.I J l l'"' 10' ,

i 2  % 4 4 1 a 1 10 10 10 10 10's 10 10 10 x = number of affected persons Figure 5.4 Probability distributions of individual dose impacts (see Section 5.9.4.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates)

, LC N C P s O. e g O

O-O "O

O ,

O _

'O -- ~O

- g. .. .i 1

.~ , i ~. L i o

, e A C i C N O

- = _= ~O - y

!  : 47

-

• O

_ _ C

. i o e -O O -, ,O tjS W

en

! i ga

_ .. x

_ i -

r mo Um l  ;

~

C O

~

f I m i '

on Q f a Qh $= m

- - / , .... - - = - o

! < __ -  : - oe l ,,-

e

o. e x-

= -

. G9 r I 6 - m

? .,,,-

t E C =

_1 , _. o

,' j , O -M o  ; e 5 L 4J

_- i

_ o ;-

e m .m -

o1-C

-s

< = 3 O

- , - C oe.C

, e i- i I M a i

~ )# * . , L m r #i ,

l s

7 O *O o-s j i 9 4 1 - @C C .o C *-

O i oe e-- 2 g . - *O

• e -Q O

• e W f 4J L t-P-

l  !

h L

h 3 0 4 U t l

_ t i C 07L ll - C c ci- 5- =

• ~-- X  %

c I

i f

_c7 i

i e

- o C

O '

"O

' ~t >> o r- -

CD m ,-. 4J -

P 0 ""

V

- e ,C_r~ -

-3 ,

Y

\ 4 .-

c.,

L

s. ,-

>L oV g

i O i

c. m

, j ,

O a, X Ci ot O r- ,- -,s" i .

L,-- ya r- m D

_ e' g C-L y

1. l i

.L

.e._

CL

.~

o s.

3 2 I CO C

,' l l W1 E .

Cm 8 i '

C

~, ,e. e n e e "

r- - e- - - - ,

( e .- : S *

• 9 [ .= y .e i e t./

p

%' ~ s~w ~* as : ~ ,. Jf ss- a 9

.,o - a f. f * .s

• DsG

• b

~,.: ~

g' ,

'D

( L*

a i 2 3 s 10,

~

10 10 10 10 10' 10 10' 10' ~

10 ' -

r vrnur r r crn o r, crint r, n on -- r i i i iin r iiiini --i :iinn i iron 10 '

E  : i

,m. .

i, -

,3

. . . . _ . _ . _ . .?

p .

i.

10,

~

10 '

s.

s.

10 '

~

- - - - \ - - -- - - - -

1 W' c.. L

~

10 " - -- ---

10 *

~ .

$4

'- ' 2 ' " " -- - - 2 '" " " ""' - - - ' ' > ' " " - ' ' ' ' " " ' ' ' ' " " - ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' "" 10 "

i O" I -

lu' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10 10' 16 X = Early Fatalities Figure 5.6 Probability distribution of early fatalities with supportive medical treatment (see Section 5.9.4.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimate)

O i  ?  % 4 $ .6 7 n n' lu 10 10' 10 10 10 10 10 10

-4 -4 on

g 10 v rrrim 1 iicmi i rm rni- , rr u ni - r rrrno - iisini i i i ino , r r o ny 10 s ~

% a ,

=. .

t. ~~

- ~ .

• <, # . . " s g ,,

o c . ', ~s s

,, . e 10 - , s'+. y -

- 10

.n m, :

v -

s .

o ,

/! ,

\, ,

~

10 ' k- --- - - --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

- 10 *

--i, s c .

a .,.

o -

o .

tn .

." -7 5 -7 a' i 10 =- - - -

- ',-- -1 - - - - -

10 t- ,

t  %

O .  ;

(L ,

s -

T' - - 10

• 10' "

() -

i; _Fntire Pop. - Excl. Ihyroid . _,

i~ [ _ En f irp. _ Pop._ -- Ilhy_r_oid O nly_ _ , . . ' ,

.. V!ithin 50 mi - Excl. Ihy_r_oi.d -_' .

Within 50 mi ~Ih 2'"

' ' " """t ' ' " '"" '""y r oid O nly" ' ' ' ' "" - ' '"" ' ' ' '"" ' ' ' ' " "

10' ,', ' ' ' "" -

10 '

10* 10' 10' 16 16 16 16 10' 16 X = Latent Concer Falatifies Figure 5.7 P.robability distributions of cancer fatalities (see Section 5.9.4.5(7) for'a discussion of uncertainties in risk estirnate) e

',, s. s r. 7 n in ii IU 10.. 10 10 10 10 10, 10 10

- 3

10 ,, cr'u n ,, cru n r, crr ni - i . r r i u n r r i rn o i i ion ,iiiun , vivin, 10".3

i  :

4 -

",; 10 ' -_

---

10 i: i

c. -

(( M, -

g ie

-s - _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . . N _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _

jg -s I -

s. .

Lh1 'll

' ~

r 10 ' - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - -

10' '

3. i o .

.o o

d: ~

10 ' .

10 '

~

10 " t 2t11"1- ' ' ' 11 " t 1 '- ""'-t""---"" 2"-- "" -- ' "" 10 "

10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 1d 1d' X = Tolol Cosi in 1980 Dollars Figure 5.8 Probability distribution of mitigation measures cost (see Section 5.9.4.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates)

E

'1

<v

' O.0 2.0 4.0 G.0 8.0 10.0 ~

10'cF -

~

10 '

=

4 .

~ ..

m  !

rg i.

i

~

' f' 39-2l l 10 '

inI t-

u. f io ic )

l. I th if u

p ._

i 1

~~~~,._  ;

~_s ,

I

. , ~~ ~

i 8  ! .

10" I

10 '

n.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 1

Distance in miles Figure 5.9 Individual risk of dose as a function of distance (see Section 5.9.4.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates) (to. convert mi to km multiply values shown by 1.6093)

I ) ,

W I D D L E T 0f( S, ( s - """ E " U W (U

l 500T6 l h h,. ,5 '

$ . DEAvtR $' / , ate saiowtoes j

l rN , l CHIPPt WA/g ,

'h, , , I_l g

s p----- --- \s

, soao,ar,c it,,

l g

, .g N ,( / . .)_3,-

CHESTe r-]n

$ O - u - --]

tattsto sono accnnu n m l anicca .ag g n. -r 3._.

k l OHlovlLLC e +g o+ * "*

.,..,..,H,.

b

• g ) *

i g

ST CLAla rl8 Don

, n, f,

{ ,,,, ,,g,,,,,,

m 1 l \ t. ._ .2 u

'P/2 e /

vr.

f.

l

'8 RT [

---~~ng. ss p \

l Liv t 'grf'oot G. i,, { t \ i

- .' CEN'E"

-l i

ll ..]

,1 .a.,

8 L c ,_ yt,-u 80"'

. , , , )h <-

P

'"] /

,f ,w

' ( ,

l uwtarcot 8

] $1TE j;, f . / -

,, 7 ^\ /

N[ 2L 8

s . ,, '

sT ! 10 i eouse r a

'O 4 5-a c'O, ,, ;e n .sto.

nna

\y/ - y auno ,,

o

(' g u --10, a l se CCoon # '

T u

g ,/ \

\

l W

. .c s Ontt -1 , g si et*tLL OHANT -I 0 y

-12

\. .E ]-- 4- 10 g

/

\ \ ,

'l \

/

6- I inotecnotnCc

's ,,

y' nanoven g eu.ernt. ." \

. . ,_,#' \ a w .

e n

' - (., . ,,,,,,,,,,,

I , stain - . si s , .. 6 DOnu p

/

CtAv _ _  ?! _ _

h, 8 , 10-mile EPZ^

Figure 5.10 Isopleths of risk of early fatality per reactor year to an individual (to convert mi to km, multiply values shown by 1.6093)

• Note: The actual EPZ boundary has a radius of about 10 miles, but is shown here as a circle for illustrative purposes only.

\

l I i

l

}

i_...--

@'- , i k'3,'."ci

, t ,, ,,,, l '7 j e OfAVER l ClitPPEwa fl .g ,,

l k_j 7

~g-------  %- % /

\ N l/)

,r,'[4f %

• 3_. ] ,

N-  !

. / ,a r icpano

<  : I b Gb

\ Caf E S ig ri LL y

e af -] pat s 9 tt>N anno ,

g nioc s .a r e n - t ' q_ motterseen.

~

CHiovlLLC [ """ M g N

j """" .

ST CL AI Bono 4 , f, ,  ? V,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,

m p 4_ e,on u. eoao

'^

l in / \ r w //,,1 fte

/ \'rt l 1 ,2

,z c,I n

'-_.s iny f

5 l l

---

. y __,

g,j p B O ft c I(L  %,

i v t'f rf,oot (L r' \ )

H ,

e s *- '

offre / c ris tl

// [

g

-ast t $- ~ ) , ,f_r _,[< e u ;y,olTo aI / .h

/. *

,,s i t *.,,

af')- , g ),)

a tevaaroo 8

% / .

l

-v.  % 3 +y' *gj -'

/ .J Io L n

.Qv: ~e_

m_

+M ,, .f 10

-7 z/N / ..

\~si .o.,

o ,/ i l .y ae o s to.,,

T,;

j N,y/ < o-

c. l{

tp l' [} r Ccoon

/

/ ^ V 'l

\

C o j,, \ Stort* tit

, cnant 2: } j

-9

• g _,._.____.________ _ -

Y.) $x 1o

\

je s I \

/ '

'- I innretnocnet /, ,

a u io ,

,,, n o o t ,,

i ., , , , .

! '\ _ ju'asr'at a,-#'

\

l '-- i . , ; ,, ,, ,',

' \y' c t ' /

\

ct,,

a 5-'-- - h ,

10-mile EPZ*

Figure 5.11 Isopleths of risk of latent cancer fatality per reactor year .

to an individual (to convert mi to km, multiply values shown by 1.6093) i

^ Note: The actual EPZ boundary has a radius of about 10 miles, but is-shown here as a circle for illustrative purposes only.

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

h 10 ' tr-- -

p. -

~

t

• C LEGEND: t

~

~'

• a Plant. specific PRA ,

- e RSS methodology. NUREG 0773, -

- f- Average of surrogate plants -

2 -

10 _

- e 4

~

- e b '

e -

l 3-

• 10 _

• 7

= - * *

< _ ee . . -

w - e 1 > _ _

= _ . . -

o .

, n e -

u -

e . . ,

i w

=

108- _ e w -

e * -

2 _ . . . - i m _ _

z.

e _ ). e_

m *

= _ . _

t . .

5 * -

10  :- .

i 10 ' --

i - -

3g 7 i i 1 i t 8 i I I ! I i i I i I I I i t i I 4 I I I I t I " i I E. l,l 1 ,1 i.l I.l i.l il il 11 1  :

[ &

2 4 N . m

- ""  ;- 2 . a . *

} "

• E.

i . .s. .s. =c . > = . _2 . , . .

a =. 1 . ,. ,

c _e , ~ . = e.

A & d j 5 . O o .2

&ey .-3 !4 .: u 3

t -

= e e  ! 2

• 3 e e se  ! w: "cl ., u5. t $ s >

-t

=

3

= ~a z . :. 2 EI=m.e t..~_*.

2i15 i ai i  ?

= i.n 2 % k:}

=

s =.=i. ==c ]. e E.u 2 i E3i C u= .u

.: . 2 .=.

= = ;e .

2. . m > ccac Figure 5.12 Estimated early fatality risk (persons), with supoortive medical treatment, from severe reactor accidents, for several ^

i . nuclear power plants either operating or receiving consid-i eration-for issuance of a license to operate. See footnotes following Figure.5.20.

nv --a

~-

.,. e ., J l . i r. . : n.

. .. .=,.-,

?

I .

k. y - - - - - - , . , _ . . . , , , , , , , ,, , _ , _ . . _ _ , . _ , _ , . _ , _ , _ _ __ .,

t l !i. ' , : j 6 3 ;I! ' t, .t lt t;ilI

- e. o'I I

I I  !

I 3

emOmZo  !

3 Tg3 Eengg'3>

3 g  !

3 g mtm s

r g.a2Og Oo7 2C3m9oM" t

+

3

><*=jo*E*O$e*- gC -

eo - l  !

• l  !

i  !

l I _

I I _

e

. I I

I =. = I e l I

• e 4o ~ l 3e l

. l l

l i

l

+ .

I I

I

. A I

-3 E I Y I i I E * '

l O *

• I T I . * '

. C

• A

- E e 0 .

l f 4o ~ l 3 * ,

l l

l l

8 1

• l

- l E i l

l' I e l S I N I l

_ O S

l 1

l l

E -

P _

n ao l I

l l

I I *

• l l

I l

I l

3 l

3

_ l l

ao. l 1

3 l

l l

1 -

l i

l i

l i

l 3

l i

o. --.------*---------------"*------ '

o ._ _. _ : . .. .

a. a . a . C.

- c

. D

-. e

. 6 .

3 4 2 3 2, g e 2

l e t n 3 o , .e. . n 3 s.

e t

s e t k

e P d e e e 2 n a d e k

o eo io o lu e n de k

.in c e le fo n o eo e e g y a o e e h h n v n o a b C r d i e e o e e r s C n MB lC w wa on 2

._ it o e. lo v

v n n. imnde ive pe !a!.. oc e O e a muq legg e C 2 3 f e

s a n. ee -

n ev is t

te de o im t

n v

e

v. y n

i

t. L

n. s ta f

lo FW w.iil . o nu t. m ey t

a ne . ee e

e a i i i. e n. e u u ie te M N R c c 5 S 5 S S Vo 'W W wW

. s l v 8 e e e i

l M n 'l la l k C C C C F olB l 2' .nc,m e D

(* H%

3

^

m m +r ** Um r( tLa "m+c$ " +,y<,OdR '

• OC3OD3 J (~ 'o,eD" a .

+<

c*

5 MW ^VG7m$M . .

e,O3 m@<(s@

- p- a ,

1 c p. O 5 oO0 *- Q(3&M D

=% ( 3CO"(D7 Da s1 -

u. ,m D3 2

(

Da.t"m* c3 1 O g ,p*r 3.0 O $

+cm a . - 1

- * . MG<D1m". aD14 M8n'*~5 3a nO3m4 D

- ( ~0r o'.t

• O3

. .ucn3Oca a O% D - ;.amm  ; tr0 OV()1m"W* tn '

' (Co Oo,g3O +D r(M %0[e43C n

r_Cc,V. u.tO-i o

j, ua' e' ;.c,..ys .O 3i

. , .y sns O

- 4i1 1) \: ,3 4' * .i! j4" ,i4'  ; ,1ij'jif' }l:4

• 4 <lii;  !

,1

'~

10 -- 7  ;

- t

- LEGEND. -

[ s Plant specific PR A -

[

_

• RSS metnodology, NUREG-0773 -  !

_ + Average of surrogate plants -

1 1.0 _- C

~

l;

_ g t -

j e

. t 4

- i

, 10'i :" ee - l 1

m w -

3

> _ a -

e _ e - 5 0 s

• i O

_+ e e

e 4 e w a c 10-2 =.

I e

e e e e e e ' .c: '

l

- w _ -

.I c- _ e e e e -

e *  !

m _ , -

- z ~

e -

v

(

C t m - ,

=

w w

i 10 4 - s

- - . t.

[

t _ - I L

t iP d --

10 r

- [

_ - .P i ,

4 _ t i

s i i i i i t- e t ! t i t i t t t t i_! # ! I i ! i ! !

a 10

7. i.l 11 !.! I.l ll.

r

a. .

. t a, . .

n,

.< ~. a

- . a.

= a- . ,e s .

e ,

_ =

g .s s

.=.

.. , .. ,. =

= . . ,. e .

, e s  : : t 40~a 4

5II

< 1;e ;e: eia i !$ 'e i E i-i ! i i E s & E a a 6 0 1 6 2 i i i 2 e

~l es7s 1 i s ~! ! E5..ss2

• Ei.$..!i2 E

O i 3:5 2 1i5ilEcc,ii e i

!i-E I5

• cs Figure 5.14 Es:inat2d latent cancer fatality risk (persons.), excluding  !

thyroia, from severe react' ro accidents, fo'r several nuclear [

power plants either operating or recaiving consideration for [

issuance of a licar:1 to cp rat'. E m Tcotnotes follcuing i Ci m.:r? J. 20. -[

i v

i Eaaver Valley 2 FES 5-77 ,

'I J i

i t-( f r

l _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ - _ .

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

4 1 ,._ _ _ . . . - - . - . . --. . _. . . . _

10 .- -

- ~

10 2

7 ..

... ,, = -

- ~

l -

q

==

-p i' ,i 3 ,,._,

10 = .. ,,

3 s i'

_O _ ,,

U ..

ii  !

E 10 '  :- "

= = '>

<> C

, p. _

i' -.

.x _ _

E - ,,

i'

{

C <>

i' I

5 ""

10 -- o o

.. _ i

.- , , _ i,

~~ ""

10 ' 7 _

3 _

(

t

_ .. _ t

.. r e o m m -- l 10 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' i

- ' ' =

11 t

llt 11 t

i

[

l

~ i. a i

n. .

a . >

i

, >  ! l

s. ,:

. . "v 3 ~u i. . -

2 >

4, i. S, .,

• e 2 y g I 3

- o a n I,, ,

3 E t i ! .

4==a1. e2 2 2 s ; ! ,!

t. -g r 2, :

, m, 2 == '

E,

e. i. _ s i. s. = -E

= u u v u . e 2 , .

==a

=

z :. .x 2 a a w w w w 2

> c- ccn Figure 5.15 Estimated early fatality risk (persons), with supportive medical treatment, from severe reactor-accidents, for several nuclear power  ;

i plants either operating or receiving consideration for issuance  !

I of a . license to operate, for which site-specific applications of [

flUREG-0773 accident releases have been used to calculate offsite i consequences. Bars are drawn to illustrate effect of uncertainty i range. discussed in text. See footnotes following Figure 5.20. j Beaver Valley 2 FES' 5-78 j i

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

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

1.0 o a n I -

~"

t 10 ' -

C - l 8"'I P o -  !

3 _

o }

o _ .

10 , --

= c

- 0

= . . . .

w -

I o

.,, o o _

o

{< _ o o o o

o

,, - I r

$ 10 3

o 7 f 9

= -

- n -  !

- . - i a

o -

i e

-- ~

r -

}

= -

e _

i

= -

-- t

.Y i

' ~"

i 10 ' D--

~~

o o  :  !

l

~

- .. .. .. ) ,

.. .. t 3 _. r 4

5 3o .. ..

=- .-

i 4

i

. - t.

j _

_ l 4 -

i- >

o o  !

I i e i e i i i t ! t i i i i t I t- I ! I I I i

10 F

l ~ i n  !

E;,: i = 1 r,

E .

4 ?

, S n  ! .s O i- l 5~e ms2c e j  ; - . .s = .

- s ,

i i ! !a! ;e

= v e :E e.j. w c ! . : u ac. a }

l 1 i E 1 3 6 v';15Eiii?EiaE5

a i ! e s i3 3 g ;3m = a: ,

l i a3i i 5i l i

t I

Figure 5.16 Estimated latent thyroid cancer fatality risk (persons), from severe reactor accidents, for several nuclear power plants either operating or receiving consideration for issuance of a license to -

operate, for which site-specific applications of MUREG-0773 acci-  :

dent releases have been used to calculate offsite consequences.  ;

Bars are drawn to illustrate effect of uncertainty range discussed i in text. Saa footnotes folTcuing Figure 5.20.

=ar ,

---

,, - -a ::: ..

t I >

l V

10 -

~~

~

1.0 -- ..

.. -- - w 10' "' -

= -

=

~

= - <> _

4>

.O. - o <> "

o _

- o

< o w

C 10 --

o o o <>

o o o o r y

o o ,,

o o o _

e ,,

o o 2 -

t>

m -

103 -- -

w

_m

- .. ~~

10 ' --

10 5 l ' ! ' ' ' l I ! ' I I  ! ! ! ! l i !  ! ! l I f f I I n a. m

? I "' E "

= . -- = *- . , a c .

3 4 s . . 2 e ~, s 5 *

• . j,!. . l. i.

. a .. =. _. .:

_g

!_ ".:: 5.0

: : ; -.  : - 3: $* .

. _t 5

2 . . -

- !.e

i.. !. = l. 2 4. .:

2 s

-2 2

5 --~..; a 1 2 = = = s a v v .  : : .: z s : = .- o o o o > :. c :. s

ure 5.17 Estimated latent cancer fatality risk, excluding thyroid (persons),

from severe reactor accidents, for several nuclear power plants either operating or receiving consideration for issuance of a license to operate, for which site-specific applications of tiUREG-0773 accid y.t m'rins na/e been used to calculate offsite

,  ; 3nces. Bars .3re der..n to illustrate affect of uncertainty 0 :ussad :n : .3 . *  : v3 r]otnc 3 f l'

'li M Fim a 5.2-

~ c.

'

to^' _

~~ -

o .

i 10-2 o _-

o l

[

4 10'8 --

7

= o  :

- o o o

m. _-

g _ o -

O, _ o -

o

$ 10 4

~: -

C o -

u -

z _

O y _

+

4 =- --

~

, 10 _

8 -- "

10 -

I l I" l I II 11 1.1. 1.1 l[

n

. n.

, $ $ ^ E i

= =  ! sa i s , o i

a a i i s

2 5c

?igure 5.18 Estimated early fatality risk, with supportive medical treat. 2nt (persons), frca severe reactor accidents, for nuclear power piants l

, having plant-specific PRAs, showing estimated range of uncertain-

! ties. See footnotes followi~; Figure 5.20.

I j

] Sea /er Valley 2 FES 5-81

l 10

= ='

-~

1.0 -

I o 4 -- 7 10 " o

! = o n m

> _ o -

o s _

o n _

o U

m o

=_ ,02 --

_ =_

C -

c. _ _

m - -

z _

a _

g _ _

w O.

10~3 -- C

= = -

j .. ,

d "

10 _-

=_

l I I I I 3g-s ll .

ll . l} l{ I.I M M

.5 =

a ein L 4 n.

C

=

. =.

1 2 i

a i

= .i.

~ -

! 5 a

i .;ure 5.19 Esti.~ated latent cancer fatality risk, excluding tnyrcid (persa,.3),

from severe reactor accidents, for nuclear power plants .having plant-spe ific PRAs, showing estimated range of uncartainties.

See %ctoctas following Figure 5.2";.

i i

U 2 ^_ /2l } { 2 $33 3 O]

i 1.0 _

o.. ,

_ i 4 "

10 --

- o -

. o a o n 10-2 __ n n _:

= = -

,4 _ o y _ _-

e _

o -

O w _ -

U m 10-3 _- _

=

w _

c. _ _-

m _ _

z o - -

m e _ _

w Q.

d --

10 =- _

=

4 10 =-

i - _

jo 4 l l l l l 1.I I.I I.I I.I I.I N H

a

, i i A s a 2

= = m a

=

= i

~ =

! l 2

Figure 5.20 Estimated latent thyroid cancer fatality risk (persons) from severe reactor accidents for nuclear power plants having l plant-specific PRAs, showing estimated range.cf uncertainties.

l See footnotes following this figure.

l e

??n /111ey 2 FES 5-33 i

(. +

t

Notes for Figures 5.12 through 5.20 Except for Indian Point, Zion, Limerick, Braidwood, Hope Creek, NMP-2, and WNP-3, risk analyses for other plants in these figures are based on WASH-1400 generic source terms and probabilities for severe accidents and do not include external event analyses. The staff and the applicants extensively reviewed Indian Point 2 and 3, Zion, Limerick, and Millstone 3, including externally initiated accidents. The staff briefly reviewed Braidwood, Hope Creek, NMP-2, and WNP-3 to determine the plant-specific release category probabilities considering internal events only. On the basis of these reviews, the staff concludes that any or all of the values could be under- or over-estimates of the true risks.

1-01 = 1 x 10 1 ttWith evacuation within 16 km (10 miles) and relocation from 16 to 40 km (10 to 25 miles),

a Excluding severe earthquakes and hurricanes.

NOTE: Please see section 5.9.4.5(7) for discussic,n of uncertainties.

Beaver Valley 2 FE3 a-84 l

m %ss a e r 3,<. r

/ 3 sm ~

ano j, q P 2

% 4 .' .f e y\.x s. 5 jf 6 x ,

. 3, y sy s . .

. . . j.i,

\ Q. f ..

4 yk'-Q  %

M&M k

im' ' l' ig).t. ,, .

e %f

1. A:(  :

%,, .s . e'

, j A .'

, .g%eaa - ~

,. /*

k g ', . ,$ - ."

a. = %'Tl- . 1 n.. -

n. , 2 a.y, , ...

m \- .;

f ~ ~,,,,4y aves.t - -

\,..

),. e _ , ,

" . ~.' ;

m 's -

=

%N,i . ,oE.' - ..,,o""W /'/

.o., .....e .f 4

4.N . M

.m . .

• v lf, ,,

)

{~*,,'-  % ,_ _-

MM

p. .

( p o* % , 3 i <

/

d' "' l . \;

1/ [. Qbqw3-[ g %"765 2 s^*g.p{%2 e:

c r

k ,a k:'

S y) VA. \  %

3U W\

,M . ,, d'.

s Q}'.s o 2000 40c,c soco hEASWEMN LOCATIONS i ,

i SCALE - F Eg r Jigure 5.21 Seven ambient measurement positions representing sensitive noise areas (to convert ft to m,

.ultiply by C.304Sl

02. . .; Fl 3-25

~

co llinit 1 Main Tran.fonner and Unitl - lffcyptor"2#1 g

Rinit Station Service* Transtonners 6 f

f ,, .* ' - .~, Nt ' . U, ni,t w1 L,ooling Tower

,,,,o t. t m </-g -.

qI -s\ b

+l' 'l ,^f _ ,,

y s

}

. ]s}dlJo>i tD x -

.._ rnwrsistsstitlW u '.. g Q @" L y. x ~W ;q_U_

xjp - -76 n ,,

mo=rn N --.* . !:.

. h1 .A ',j ,' ,,M JTT; I g

.?.QL k f s*I sc

., g,, ,.';, ,'%.~ service - 'W~ Transforiner

[ gg L mn gi '!

' M g ;'~/! ~ ; _D If li N q' '

U p[m_9-)f. '_ I nr.O-_.1([l1 1 - g. ' # dt

( ,Q Q

                                                          - m y
                                                                     # ' h,
                                                                                    ,.--z-                          .2-t.,

g e

                                                                                                                                                                                         .u .    -W: e = m "1Nr-NOnit 2 System Stat on                                                 ;--. Q q

1,. ' l ' [ 1 g.- d _J . *'6 s

..; .* g' .

                                                                                              $ht                -

p 8 s ., V service Transformer 28 (h , j-g Q g = .... " 'IN QV nystpF $tation ri n g \ ;,p g i_, . N'

                                                            ,R ' . ,

4ght b@y .D,b_; .

                                                                                                                                                                      --         I      ,e        -         -

Service Transforner 2A ' ,, J \ ^f,'{ Init L , d Q N . _ s

                                                                                                                                                                                       ,# a !          l.' ,

(dsiQj

                                                                         " '! l LJnIt'l System Station                                 "I                   =        ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                 -c s!w i

IIW'I )( O V,'S'Y;X:',N '85 [ .~~ C( 9 -IdiQ' I. ' h bU ,,M ' -' Service Transfonner 1B a - -

                                                                                                                                                                               "                                                        .x               }     i I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         'y )               Tjl
                                                                         '* ,          i            b                                      o e                 '.

h/lNceptor "Rf3'l on w*M , x e, 4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ,., ]
                                                                                                         ~.    -w            ,,

lll ( qh: lUW2~ Main Transfonner and Unit 21 , z'Vfi {

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \;g,,,v,l f ~ ghe ;lUnit Station Service Transformers x                                                    ,                                   Y$                          yT'                    i/
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ") Unit                             2Coolinh{                              Tower 4      ,       2       G' Xy **i.
                                                                                                                                           ,.a
                                                                                                                                                                           \' "h . . _ ,

s ll Y i \ l

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~ ' ceptor RF2 1 Q

NQQlk':qakig-WWMM-T w'~ \ ;p . hhib t 'eQ .\ f a L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,g o \' \         jReceptor       m"l F1

_,[,,, "

                                                                                                                                               ' '. {h@[s.gi'
                                                                                                                                 % f A ';* .          .
                                                                                                                                                                                        . Q.x
                                                                                                                                                                                                   , [* ,tib.' e:h ,/
                                                                                                                                                                                                      .                     !)it              #

r

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,jy'                                            (

o

                                                                                                                                                    -.                     ., y , n .            ? -'            ,-                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                          -~.
                                                                                                                                                                                      - . . p, .. /(fp                                                      ,f;
                                                                                                                                                                'R p gc%,
                                                                                                                                                                                     '.RT; M f*-                          tjb.-

Figure 5.22 Key noise sources (to change ft to m, multiply by 0.3048)

4 LE N h v) CO9A*AlfNITY H E ACTION VIGOROUS ACTION gx , SEVER AL THREATS OF LEGAL \ ACTION OR STRONG APPEALS _ TO LOCAL OFFICIALS TO STOP NOISE k UT WlDESPREAD COMPLAINTS AVER AGE EXPECTED OR S4NGLE THRE AT OF LEGAL ACTION LPOR ADic COMPLAINTS - - RANGE of EXPECTED RESPONSES fforn NORMAL COMMUNITIES NO RE ACTION ALTHOUGH NOISE IS GENER ALLY NOTIC EABLE A B C D E F G H I COMPOSITE NOISE RATING f Figure 5.23 Estimated community response versus composite noise rating e c

S' 2 q g = '-% 'N Feceptor~2'] ij/:, .3_g 5 v~e mna 5 1 u, 1 o q p$ \' II[p F ;- ;b, g [ Q Qj;l M_ 5'

                                         'URw -                     rc;-"            cy- _               MN-                          -            .l_oudspeakers343                         f. t 4          ' p .,_.- ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     'N."                '

r3 7 et , w d (ou- e e (3 1 I N f 5 tY[.... M w"?:P.h"'*;',h 'f M[ !

                                           . s.,                                                     ~                                                                                                                                        /
                                                                                              -                                                                                                                                            g

[ [ 'D .....,

                                                           'h        S ;.1   '

_o peaker s2r [  ; -l 0 o 3 ,, Nf% ] [ -- (* w elj l , , glk. g &y, w aQ 'NWC s% t, 3 ;;gy A ' w'. A: b eq s

                                                                                        .                ilodspeaker               -pr, n_x . _s2D1;,:f 8 _ . L_Z'-,    ,

_ - {g > hudspeaker i j

                                                                                                                                                                                                       .g a 3

1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         --+,

g469] Im f, f 'g~ m, gj (+y%W@:p;

                                                           . gh SN                      Rgg ;g:M m7p-                  .= y ~ U ~=4ep         '
                                                                                                                                                   -:.,,,i          ,, f         3            ,

i g vu % j o fa 1 88 y g e '.% M . a EubpeakersCD1 ' \Peceptor "RO'] NM/Q T { - ltoudspeaker s W g(q f ( N

                                                                                                       }        *~ ?'

Y __l}}' (,~M,/1 "'

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        \

2' Yk ,k, m a's ' N im. b.m.  % -

                                                                                                                                                                                                 \

p *'*$,*2.' ' q3h x

                                                                                                                                                             . rg%g                2 SF o 7
                                                                               % h J'_ 1 s',,2 $ D S o A 1                                  x                                            .,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           \ %f<
                                                                          %,@4$0;jiS$skenh2A.udspe_akerrall)wW\@
                                                                                                 - 6'duwRys o

1 \ ,' J .,

                                                                                                        . - :;Q % a Q : q v,                                 .&                          .

p

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ?     no.      .oo
                                                                                                           ?
                                                                                                                 ' Yh $]6' 3

O.

                                                                                                                                                     ?)

p _Vf} r '! ungg.,yg,

                                                                                                                         .>Y                $, }f'}s
                                                                                                                %           w- - ~. n ; n-                    - 39 9'                              ;,
                                                                                                                     \[\VL        ,;', . .f. N
                                                                                                                                         ~
                                                                                                                                    . v ,g o. > .-;;/
                                                                                                                                                                            .c.

f[ M 01 .A; - , Figure 5.24 Location of eight loudspeakers planned for plant operation (to change ft to m, multiply by 0.3048)

l i 1 Table 5.1 Expected avoidance temperatures of selected l fishes at the Beaver Valley site, C l Species Avoidance Temperaturet Spottail shiner

• 31.7 ,

Spotfin shiner 16.3 31.1 Bluntnose minnow ** 16.9 * , ** i Bluntnose minnow *** 14.1 32.5 t Brown bullhead

• 33.3 i Channel catfish 16.2 33.8  !

Pumpkinseed 18.1 35.1 Bluegill 24.7 33.8 l Smallmouth bass

• 33.6 t j Largemouth bass 19.2 34.1 White crappie 16.8 31.6 J Walleye 21.6 31.7 Yellow perch
• 32.1

l RANGE OF AVOIDANCE AT 11.6 to 22.2 4.7 to 8.7

, tThe values in the left hand column represent avoidance in tempera-tures starting from a typical winter acclimation temperature of i 2.5'C. The values in the right hand column represent avoidance temperatures starting from a typical summer acclimation temperature . of 26.4*C.

• Acclimation temperature outside range of accifmation temperatures

, tested.

             **For rising ambient temperatures.

i ***For falling ambient temperatures. Source: Regression coefficients for avoidance temperature and acclimation temperature reported.in Mathur et al, , (1983), Table 1. l l e i l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-89

Table 5.2 Upstream-downstream comparison of population densities of organisms at the Beaver Valley site, 1977-1979* Year Organisms 1977 1978 1979 Benthos 01igochaetes 0/4 0/4 0/4 Chironomids 0/4 0/4 0/4 Mollusks 0/4 0/4 0/2 Total 0/4 0/4 0/4 Phytoplankton Chlorophytes 0/12 1/12 1/12 Chrysophytes 0/12 0/12 0/12 Cyanophytes 0/12 0/12 0/12 Cryptophytes 0/12 1/12 2/12 Microflagellates 0/12 0/12 0/12 Total 0/12 0/12 0/12 Zooplankton Protozoans 0/12 1/12 0/12 Rotifers 3/12 0/12 4/12 Total 0/12 0/12 1/12 Ichthyoplankton Larvae 1/6 0/6 0/6

        *The first number in each column represents the number of comparisons in which the upstream-downstream difference exceeded the criterion, based on preoperational variability; the second represents the total number of comparisons in the year.

Source: Duquesne, 1978, 1979, and 1980, Tables III-2, -3, -4, and -5 Table 5.3 Estimated state taxe- t- paid on l- Beaver Valley Unit'2 () thousands)* Pennsylvania Ohio l Public Gross C]rporate Public Year utility realty receipts income utility excise 1987 18,487 2,401 9,118 12,911 1988 18,025 1,939 9,765 9,876 1989 17,533 2,651 10,603 13,844 1990 17,041 2,280 9,749 11,500 1991 16,549 2,393 8,870 12,082

• Dollars are valued in year stated.

Source: ER-OL Table E310.6 Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-90 1

                                          ..  -        . - -         -- - _ = -

t Table 5.4 Incidence of job-related mortalities f Mortality rates Occupational group (premature deaths per 10s person years) l Underground metal miners * ~1300 Uranium miners

• 420 Smelter workers
• 190 Mining ** 61 Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries ** 35 Contract construction **- 33 Transportation and public utilities ** 24 l Nuclear plant worker *** 23 Manufacturing ** 7 Wholesale and retail trade ** 6 Finance, insurance, and real estate ** 3 Services ** 3 Total private sector ** 10

           *The President's Report on Occucational Safety and Health, " Report on 0ccupational Safety and Health by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, 1

and Welfare," E. L. Richardson, Secretary, May 1972.'

          **U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, " Occupational Injuries and Illness in the United States by Industry,1975," Bulletin 1981, 1978.

! Q**The nuclear plant workers' risk is equal to the sum of-the' radiation-related j risk and the nonradiation-related risk. The estimated occupational risk associated with the industry-wide average radiation dose'of 0.8 rem is about 11 potential premature deaths per 105 person years due to cancer, based on the risk estimators described in the following text. The average non-radiation-related risk for seven U.S. electrical utilities over the period 1970-1979 is about 12 actual premature deaths per 105 person years as.shown in Figure 5 of the paper by R. Wilson and E. S. Koehl, " Occupational Risks-of Ontario Hydro's Atomic Radiation Workers in Perspective," presented at Nucitar Radiation Risks, A Utility-Medical Dialog, sponsored by the Inter-national Institute of Safety and Health in Washington, D.C., September 22-23,- ! -1980. (Note that the estimate of 11 radiation-related premature cancer )

            ' deaths describes a potential risk rather than an observed statistic.)

I l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-91 L

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

                                  .i Table 5.5 (Summary Table'S-4) Environmentzi impact of transportation of fuel and waste to and from of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor 1
                                          -                                                                                                                                                                   l e            s e.
                                                                                                          .. o.e_                     = .

• Eri wimems esact e .or,,s w .es e., ~ 2 0o00 -

w (ggwynod by Feoeral or State - 73.000 esa > vuis.100 toris per caen per red em Teams' optedy Truca tseachan 1 p say Aes toes then 3 p w Esamesed Cumideinse com to

                                                                          .* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

• ye**- uc ",w ,eyj #
• ogoted Tryesoneman momer= 200 0 On to 300 prier 9 4 arerwem OW'eral gndsec C>uccees 1.100 0.003 to 1.3 we = 3 man <sm Adorig Am,se 800.000 0 C001 to 0 06 r som acopeses se Tutaasspont Enevonmeate run W=* eW* $ men *.

1 teias aqury a O reactor yeert t nordesas resy a to Cenwren encrv.*a.apr=4 *- 8eeciar foert 4FS Fooerty camage per reactor year.

                                                        'Oeia assoarene m taase me pren ei .is Commenon s 1,=vronmentas Sisw as Trarieoortat.on at me.cacere naesene,s to arul som peacear Perser PlantL' Wm A$r*-1234. Decenter 1972. and $ise 1                        , REG 75/CM Acre 1975 Som docurneries se mayawedetee D              tar rispecean and coeving at the Commenon s piaise Documers 1             AW  s t717 M St.Nw ASH-1          . wannavon.

e eveneene eram O C .as NTIS ene a emer ,essestaned es tamoron Dtre teatones Tecnrecs ardormaton Service. $srvigt.wie. We 22 tmscroect.23 . 52 25t sThe Feder. Ra.ene. s22si ano NumEG-75/038 e ereneese a a com $3;as sources of raeason osser then stesaas e essayouns wwl nis.neen Conset sos egomsee we recomraended enound be enesee to S.000thatmovem tr. resseon per yerdoses Orc ms es a resus s eoccusaeones

                                                                                                                                                     'or eneven
                                     - -            emansare trul artmAf De bmee t.o 500 peaurem per year ear sievumaos a me ge el popuistort Tfte eone to rusweaa,s ese te overego maass techgroung             ior re  .eeon eonamo.us 130 .e muerernto. per year.
                                                                               , i e.n          i. .arnree                                            .e,a            Tnu .eacnme e,n.

war<sa0 or. . e.se o00 s = io ore 0 00., cor., i.,en,i.m r ees e, esca case wou .ie,no io rece e . no.

                                                                                                 .                    e i ,,.o 2 - . i. race e a .e ur                                 en            -
                                                           ~ .4 .                         = ,ee , re.e             e. sci.              earn ..r or. seeon         ecoes, e.e.
                                                                                                                                                        .e.r,, ame           . e. ,.,ee,ce re .e .e a, e.n ~,s.-.ay e,'ene.                          e.e - e,.i.e - ,nn
                                                     'ehdereacter ese

{ l t I l - 9 4 Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-92

i

   !             Table 5.6 Pre 0p: rational radiol 0gical environmental monitoring pr:gra for 8: aver Valley Unit 2 en

i to on

[ DLC Sampling and [ Exposure Pathway Site Collection Type, and Frequency to and/or Sample No. SectorI Miles 2 Sample Point Description 3 Frequency

     '<                                                                                                                              of Analyses
   '  N      1.                                                                        *'

AIHilORNE ." n -

      $         Radiciodisms and    13.0   !!       1.6   Hookstown (Meyer's Fare)            Continuous' sampler        Radiciodine Cartridge P.a r t icul at es  30.0     4     0.6    Shippingport (Cooke's-              operation with             I-131 analysis weekly.

Ferry Substation) collection' at least 32.0 15 0.8 Midland (Midland Substation) weekly. Parties. late Sampler: 1 46.1 6 2.0 Industry (Tire Company) Cross beta analysis fol-t 48.0 to 16.5 Weirton, W% (Weirton Water ' lowing filter changels Storage Tank) ~ Camuna isotopic analysis on co.sposite (by loca-

                                                                                                             .         +* tion) quarterly.

m 2. DIRter RADIATION 10.0 4 t 0.8 Shippingport Boro (Post Office) Continuous measure- Caama dose quarterly. 4 ca 13.0 14.0 11 1.6 Meyer's Fare ment with quarterly 11 2.6 Hookstown collection. 15.0 14 3.3 Georgetown 27.0 7 6.2 Brunton's Fars 28.0 1 8.7 Sherman's Form 298 3 8.1 Beaver Cou ty Hospital ." 30.0 4 0.6 Shippingport Boro (Cooke's Ferry ) .. 32.0 ', 15 0.8 Midland Boro (Midland Substation) ". 45.0 5 2.2 Raccoon Township (Mt. Pleasant n urch) . .j 45.1 6 2.0 Raccoon Township (Kennedy's Corner) 4 46.0 3 2.5 Industry (Church) , 46.1 3 2.1 Industry (Tire Company) 47.0 14 4.8 East Liverpool, Oil (Water Com'pany) 48.0 10 16.5 Weirton, W (Water Company) 51.0 5 8.0 Aliquippa 59.0 7 1.1 Iron's Fara 60.0 13 3.7 Haney's Fara o

 .

• Adapted from Beaver Valley Unit 1 D0se Calculation Manual.

                                                                                                                             . . . . ~ . .

Table 5.6 (Continued)

                  -co to                                                                                                                                                                         -

W' co

                       -s w
                 ,Q                     - . . . . . - . _ _ .               ._                          -

g 121E Sampting and ty.o use Pathway Site Collection Type and Frequency M u% a n.J /o r Sample No. SectorI Hiles2 Sample Point Description 3 Frequency of Analyses

2. DIHECT HADIATION 70.0 1 3.0 Western Heaver High School Continuous measure- Comma Jose quarterly.

(Continued) 71.0 2- 5.6 Brighton Township School ame nt with quarterly 72.0 3 3.2 Logan School collection, i 73.0 4 2.2 Potter. Township School 74.0 4 6.8 Center Township (Coassunity College) 75.0 5 4.3 Raccoon Township (Holt Road) [ 76.0 6 3.8 Raccoon Township School 77.0 6 5.8 kaccoon Township (Green Carden Road)  ; 78.0 7 2.3 Raccoon Township Municipal Building

                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~

79.0 8 4.6 Raccoon Township (Routed 18 & 151) I T c 80.0 9 8.4 Raccoon Park. 81.0 9 3.9 Southside School

82.0 9 7.1 Hanover Township Municipal Building 83.0 10 4.5 Creene Township (Mill Creek Road) 84.0 11 8.5 Hancock County, W (Children's Home) 85.0 12 5.5 Hancock County, W (Routes ' 8 & 30) 86.0 13 6.5 East Liverpool, OH (Cahill's) 87.0 14 7.0 Calcutta, Oil 88.0 15 3.1 Midland Heights 89.0 15 4.7 Uhioville <

i 90.0 16 5.2 Fairview School

• 91.0 2 3.7 Brighton Township (Pine Grove & poyle Roads) 92.0 12 3.0 Greene Township (Georgetown Ro.4)

93.0 16 1.3 Midland (Sunset llills)

                                                                      'J4.0      8      2.4         kaccoon Township (McCleary HaaJ) 95.0      10     2.4          Creene Township (McCleary Road)                                                               ,

1

                                                                                                                                                                                                  )

t 1 i , I 1 e

4 Table 5.6 (continued) cu m as co s os m tal e Samplang and

• tapo.ure Pathway Site Collection Type and Frequency N ._n_d /._o u Sample No. Sector I Hiles2 Sample Point Description I Fr equenc y of Analyses

          $                          $. WAItHOHNE

a. Surface 49.1 4 5.0 Upstream - in vicinity of composite sample Gamma isotopic analysis (Wiver) Hontgomery Dam" with sample monthly; tritium analysis (ARLO Chemical Company, collection at least on composite (by formerly ARCO Polymers) mont hly . 6 location) quarterly.

2.1 14 1.3 Downst ream - Midland

b. Drinking 4.0 14 1.3 Hidland (Hidland Water Treatment composite sample 1-131 analysis bi weekly; u.st e r Plant) with sample- gamma isotopic analysis m 5.0 14 4.8 East Liverpcal, Oil (East I.iver- collection at least on composite (by loca-4 pool Water Treatment Plant ) bi-weekly 6 tion) monthly; tritium u analysis on composite (by location) quarterly.

c. Ground Water None requireJ 7

                                        .l . Shoreline                            2A                  13              0.2   Vicinity of BVPS Discharge                 Semi-annually.         Camma isotopic analysis Sediment                                                                   Structure                                                       semi-annually.

4 lHGtSriON

                                          . Hilk                             25.0                    10               2.1   Searight's Dairy                           At least bi-weekly     Camraa isotopic and 1-131          i
                                                                           '55.0a                      -               -

when animals are on analysis on each sample. 56.0 8 - - pasture; at least 57.0 0 - - saonthly at other

                                                                          -96.0                      10              10.3   Windshimer's Dairy"                        times.        <

4 I 4 4

      ,- ,-m-r.,,,m,-vs       ,,,-.e.e      .wmr,--,,-,.,e--v               - - , - - , - - _    ,m..              -            -               ,-                                        -                             e

 ._ __ _ _- _ - .                         - -                  .     .     ..-      .-           .            -     . .-        .    - - = .. .__        -          ._                    -

t Table.5.6 (continued) en to os (D s o* . . . - DI.C Sampling and 4 F a pn u r e Pathway Site Collection Type and Pregaency m .i nJ /o r Sample No. Sector I Hiles2 Saisple Point Description I Frequency of Analyses "T1 rri 4. INGESTION . ( Coat i smed ) l

h. Fish 2A 13 0.2 . Downstream - in vicinity of BVPS Semi-annually Gammas isotopic analysss Discharge Structure on edible portion 49.0 3 4.7 Upstream - in vicinity of

                                   .                                                   Montgomery Dam

c. Food 10.0 :4 0.8 Three (3) locations within 5 Annually at harvest Gaansa isotopic and I-131 Products 15.0 14 3.3 miles of BVPS time analysis on edible

( I.e a f y 46.0 3 2.5 portion Vegetables) 48.0 10 16.5 One (1) location % (Weirton, W T to _ _ _ _ _- area) I sector anembers 1-16 correspond to the 16 compass direction sectors N - NNW. Jo i n t a nt e (in miles) is as measured from the BVPS Containment Building. 8 All S .aple Points, unless otherwise noted, are in the Conusonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ha p.; .howing the approximate locations of the Sample Points are provided as Figures.3.0-1 through 3.0-9.

                            **th i s is a Cont rol St at ion and is presumed to be outside the influence of BVPS e f fluent s.

5 A gauuna isotopic analysis is to be performed on each sample when the gross beta activity is found to be greater than 10 s in.a the u. an of the Cont rol Stat ion sample. i

                            't. u po , i t e samples are obtained by collecting an aliquot at intervals not exceeding 2 hours.
                             # collection of Ground Water samples is not required as the hydraulic gradient or recharge properties are directed toward

L.- civer t.ecause of the high terrain in the river valley at the BVPS; thus. station effluents do not affect local wells

                                 .a ge o..ud water sour ces in the area.
                             "s h e s e Suple Points will vary aut are chosen based upon calculated annual deposition factors (highest).

3

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

i Table 5.7 Activity of radionuclides in a Beaver Valley L it 2 reactor core at 2766 MWt Radioactive inventory,

• Group /radionuclide millions of curies Hal f- ife, days' A. N0BLE GASES 3 Krypton-85 .' O.48 ,950 Krypton-85m 21 .183 Krypton-87 40 .0528 Krypton-88 59 .117 i Xenon-133 147 .28 Xenon-135 -

30 .384 B. 10 DINES Iodine-131 74 . .05

!      Iodine-132                                       101                          .0958 Iodine-133                                       147                          .875

, Iodine-134 163 .0366

Iodine-135 132 .280 a

C. ~ ALKALI METALS ' ! Rubidium-86 0.023 3. 7 Cesium-134 6.5 50 Cesium-136 2.6 3. 0 Cesium-137 4.0 1,000 D. TELLURIUM-ANTIMONY Tellurium-127 5.1 .391 ' Tellurium-127m 0.9 39 Tellurium-129 27 .048 ' Tellurium-129m 4.6 4.0 Tellurium-131m 10.9 .25 Tellurium-132' 101 .25 Antimony-127 5.3 .88 Antimony-129 29 .179 . s E. ALKALINE EARTHS , Strontium-89 78 2.1 Strontium-90 3.2 1,030 ' Strontium-91 93' .403 i Barium-140 140 ' 2. .8 . F. COBALT AND NOBLE METALS Cobalt-58 0.68 1. 0 t Cobalt-60 0.25 ,920 l

Moly'odenum-99 140 .8 i

. Technetium-99m- 124 .25 4-l Ruthenium-103 93 9.5 ' t Ruthenium-105 62 .185  ; , Ruthenium-106 22 66 i Rhodium-105 43 .50 , t t Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-97 -: i

- m 2-. n,- : - . , . - . .. -- - - ~ - - - -

a

                                       , Table 5.7 (continued)

I Radioactive inventory, l Group /radionuclide millions of curies Half-life, days G. RARE EARTHS, REFRACTORY OXIDES AND TRANSURANTC3 Yttrium-90 3.3 2.67 i Yttrium-91 101 59.0 Zirconium-95' 132 65.2 Zirconium-97 132 0.71 . Niobium-95 132 35.0 Lanthanum-140 140 1.67 Cerium-141 132 32.3 1 Cerium-143 109 1.38 Cerium-144 74 284 Praseodynium-143 109 13.7

       ' Neodymium-147                                     52                                 11.1

Neptunium-239 1397 2.35 Plutonium-238 0.049 32,500 Plutonium-239 0.018 8.9 x 106

       ' Plutonium-240'                                    O.018                              2.4 x 106 Plutonium-241                                     2. 9                               5,350 Americium-241                                     0.0015                             1.5 x 105 Curium-242                                        0.43                               163 l       Curium-244                                        0.02                               6,630

' Note: The above grouping of radionuclides corresponds t- that in Table 5.9. l l l I . l I

                                                                                                                        )

i l I l l i Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-98 m r- . - - - - _ . _ .. _. . - . _ . . . . _ _ . .- , __

Table 5.8 Approximate 2-hour radiation doses from design-basis accidents at the exclusion area boundary using realistic assumptions ' Dose (rems) at.547 meters

• l Thyroid Whole body Infrequent Accident Steam generator tube rupture ** 0.0046 0.021 Fuel handling accident 0.0007 0.0097 Limiting Faults Control rod ejection 0.12 0.0064 Large-break LOCA 1. 2 0.064
• Plant exclusion area boundary distance /

                          **See NUREG-0651 for descriptions of three steam generator tube. rupture accidents that have i                             occurred in the United States.

Source: ER-OL Table 7.1-1 (modified by updated meteorology) l 'l l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-99 i

_ _ - _ _ - _ - . _ , . _ . . --. -. - . . - - . ,- . _ . . . - - . _ _ = _ - _ . . . - .__ - - - - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ -

                                                                                                                                                 ~

m Table 5.9 Summary of atmospheric releases in hypothetica1 accident y sequences in an RSS PWR (rebaselined)* . N sf Proba- Fraction of core inventory released

  ,                             ::     Accident         bility               Time,       Duration,                                                                           .

SE sequence ** per r y hr hr Xe-Kr I Cs-Rb Te-Sb .Ba-Sr Ru*** Lat ,

m

                                ,,     1.      Event V  1x10 6                1.0            1.0     1.0                  0.6     0.8        0.4            0.1         0.04     .006 Cl
.o

2. TMLB'-o 2x10 5 2.5 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.04 0.02 2x10 3

                                      -3.      PWR   3x10 6                5.0            1.5    0.8                   0.2     0.2        0.3            0.02        0.03   3x1ba D

4. PWR-7 8x10 5tt 10.0 10.0 6x10 3 2x10 5 1x10 5 2x10 5 1x10 8 1x10 8 2x10 7 6

• Background on the isotope groups and release mechanisms is in NUREG-0773. -

i h **SeeAppendixFforadescriptionoftheaccidentsequen'cIsandreleasecategories. e i Es *** Includes Ru,1Rh, Co, Mo, Tc. o tIncludes Y, La, Zr, Nb, Ce, Pr, Nd, Np, Pu, Am, Cm. ftProbability value is the sum of core melt probabilities for basemat melt through and for core melt accidents in which the containment does not fail. Core melt with no containment failure sequences are expected.to be about 5x10 5 per reactor year. Note: See Section 5.9.4.5(7) for a discussion of uncertainties in risk estimates. t W 9 _ . . , m ._

                                                                    .m   ,,_                                                                                               ,

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

f Table 5.10 Environmental impacts and probabilities i i Population Latent Offsite Persons Persons exposure, cancer mitigating Probability exposed exposed Early millions of fatalities actions of impact over ever fatal- person rems, 80 km/ cost, per r y 200 rems 25 roms ities 80 km/ total total $ millions

          ~

10 4 , 0 0 0 0/0.003 0/0 0 10 5 130 18,000 7 3/5 310/470 940 5 x 10 8 380 32,000, 88 6/13 540/1000 1,700 10 8 3,100 92,000 400 20/43 1700/3100 3,400 10 7 7,300 470,000 1,600 47/140 4500/7700 8,900 3 10 8 19,000 760,000 4,700 69/440 5700/29,000 19,000 Related 4 figure 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.8 4 Table 5.11 Average values of environmental risks due to accidents, per reactor year Environmental risk Average value Population exposure Person-rems within 80 km 110 Total persons rems 230 I Early fatalities 0.002 i Early injuries 0.0005 Latent cancer fatalities I All organs excluding tyroid 0.02 Thyroid only -0.002 Cost of protective actions and decontamination $29,000*

                            *1980 $.

i l Beaver ~ Valley 2 FES 5-101 t

  ..,-.z-   - _
                       ,      ,4-   - . ,       g                     '??',          .mc. ,   ,e      , - . - . - -       - - . . - ,---.-my    . . . . - . . -   .v--+r  -rr-   ..w, r,,r,-.-

  ..(     .

Table 5.12 Regional economic impacts, output and employment Direct losses Loss in Expected R lease Vind, employment loss 1 specifi- direc- Nonagricul- Agricul- Indirect Total (annual- in output catien . tion tural tural losses losses ized jobs) per r y** Event V' ESE 6236* 56* 774* 7066* 264000 383 i TMLB' ESE 6236* 56* 774* 7066* 264000 7660 PWR 3 SW 313* 10* 40* 363* 13000 63 PWR 7 NW 16* 0* 2* 18* 1000 ,0 Minimum losses Event.V S 39* 6* 5* 50* 1000 2 TMLB '- S 39* 6* 5* 50* 1000 41 PWR 3- S 11* 0* 1* 12* 1000 1 PWR 7 10 direc- 0* 0* '0* 0* 0 0 i tions l i Expected losses per reactor year, 1980 Event V ALL' 933** 51** 121** 1105** 1 *** TMLB' ALL 18655** 1016** 2419** 22090** 1 PWR3 ALL 314** 71** 47** 432** 1 PWR7 ALL 0** 0** 0** 0** 0 ALL ALL . 19902 1138 2587 23627 0.9

• millions of 1980$.

    **1980$.
   ***Not applicable, because the expected loss is already expressed in the " Total" column for this portion of the table.*

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce with assumptions supplied by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-102

Table 5.13 (Summary Table S-3) Uranium-fuel-cycle environmental data 2 (Der *4hreG to nwnded LWst er'utel ham remmewens (w ASM-1244) or reseence veector year (NUREG 41161) - Waannum enact per anrbs has remaremone y Enusorw'irital Cor'esturettine Total re'erence reec9er year of moons 1000 W*a LWM featumas flEscumcs5 yeE Laut lam Tengorwwy cosme'ed

• 100 uneensees wee 79 Donatee ssee. 22 Ees.a. ore to a ISO edwe coeures po ,

Pant. Py= tanoney carnered 13 0 "tmsosa mo es inmoat or WTi 2e tema.ene e es Wwe coeures oo.or Pm

                *me peone at gassmer Dec%rgse to er                                                   too        2 pe cent of moons t 000 wwe Lwe =na C00"Ag DI **'

Oncewged lJ weser tesman If090 Decrwged to grewd 127 Tous i t.3 ?F <a perceg or mass t.000 wwe Lwn em once entougre coonag poemd het tecruel owgy (mm saruss of www . 323 < $ percoat ao moose t 000 edwe (*eoco Eemeent com tmovaanos at WD fte Emneaere to trw consunwoon or a el ha*e coe+weG acow ment henam ges temone of ac0 135 I <04 percent of moom 1.000 Wee.onegy cuput Eseuses-Ce=sisicas NB Gates sancheg swerweerw)

• 50, a800 PsO.* 9.190 femeem to emessens som 45 Wee coe fred parit tar e year MC -- 14 CO 29 6 Pamcuse 1.154 Cmer gases.'es P

67 P'wuocady cryn UF grooweton om ano reprocesag Conceaestea mana range ce swa stancares-oeca Neves met NCI nee enects on 9% men nemm. 014 Lamass-50 % 99 Frem onecmmene aus faerwenon, aree 'ecew-W. 25 8 esmag sisco Consorisats mas conswe Fboree 12 9 Ca" e soientim tar somerte emnroemems eneet

                                                                                      $4       are present e owe corm:ewswas aas re.

C1* e5 ce==e acuamaal ckwica tre recem twes

                . ha' 121         of mater to esves beow perms +e s aae.
                   *sH.                        .
                                                                            .      10 0 se                                                                   .      arcsm. The no.cons.prueras o, a,ien .a.e,star.e*ee se cNeen i
                                                                                            @fM  o  M C's.

O.-20 cs

              %s -- o, un ._                                                                rw.te-m c.s 20      arer -s % ,nncent            eso
                  ,s                                                                           envverwaene.

s 1 . 000 ~.a,., + - e.ca,, ~ s

                                                                            ;                  io -,ne.e i

r i Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-103 l

Table 5.13 (continued) (Nepnameet to pues LW4 arewas has roonepusre (WAsrs.1243) e reamerum reassu year (NUfDEG-0114}] l Me

                                   - ~          a,co e maan                               %                  eenc ,eecw ,e.

J. ,r simum.onect LWR moo i. coo uwe per ervba.l his.reeerentene or Epeusessw;- "Pe (Cumesa Geees Ordah"6 enemenwnQ Peeene, weer escxy* euraien 0, me Cp ma 222 freement AW 02 T4230 02 I Lterman .03a fresa teowmanent to 1 C*ta 24 8tr4S (mmmen.s) a00 lbt06 ._ .Ia Precomey Warn sued repocesseg pants 4120 tJ

                                                                                                 .83 6T2t                                                                               Preeeney inicar coamsaracca e, me Connma J                      Te se                                                                                emps Fasema paikcts ard 'e L.P                                                 M Laman                                                                            2.1    Prmeceay from A &M taenge noww Urarman and onwgreers and reewaed to youn e=*e erNeats. Pere-tore an ef'oct on SMweenmeas
                                                                                              .003a     Front UF. prossesson
                      # 4 239 .

TW2D . - , 0099

                                                                         - - -                    Of    F,om Nes tatsacamon osaats-conceasramon to
                      ? % 234 percoat of t0 CFA 20 tw totas pecesseg 26 arwwas twel remasemeros ser amnes (WN Fison arte acewawyn prosbeta .                               S 9 = 10

• Sees towed on edet Camer esen regn neve Ismanoel 11.300 9100 Cs emnes kom noe newee veactor easies ano s.500 C. comes som reacto oeconiaam menoa and osc - ; -m r-: as .ane them tacetes 600 Ce comes eom awe-sictuced e '.amegs eetumed to youre as-promenasesy 60 Ce comes eom conversea and scene fws storage neo esgasadant eame
• oat to me eaweentaeat l.. I t m 10 ' Bured at Feowei mooese sory TAV arW MW toeooe . vetNas hceaseg paceesags

                                                              -~

Ca.a swcoos%ng tres taese me yvea e me Es'veonmea's or tme Var =um Fwe s C,c e wa5M.f 2a4 Agni t$1a Pe

                 'Ea rorwaeatai Survey of ee Recrocesseg and was'e Waeagement Porten of tne LWA Fuer C,c'e NyngG.ot se $ op t

to sw A$pe.12att the

• W Conwnents are fase e arte 8esopases Regero ng the Eaweoa*earal $wrwee of ete Sepocesteg are wasre Waragemere w o moas or t*e twa s wee C,c4 * *suSEG-C2te is'.co 2 to W AS*t24s> are a tae escord os tre war twmateg per'anwng to urarwum 8ve C,cie sagac+t rora t $cese pues Reprocesseg and Madeactree easte Usasaemeat Oceses au-SC 3 Tre cratenutoes Ivora recrecesseg eeste raaaagerneas sad reasconstaca of eastes Fe T&aM2eo 87 e.Pe of re hoo twam evews twaanam erw, aad no reeyc'el The copereween kom waasoonahoa esc %ces weasocaratea or coed u 's a reacier ans et seamated Os* are roooacewe easees kom a reactor eacn are cc.essoeres e Taoe 6-4 et 4 512Cici Tw werewtoas hora es omer stees of the tuas cyce se geven e coeuraas e.E of Taine $-24 or ea5M t2a#

                     e corte, hoes to temocraasy corretMed land Wom reprotesteg are not crora'ed ove 30 yews sece ire compe e w<arv ev,act acmes regareest of ohemse me plaat servces are reacter 'er one year at SF reacias ty 30 yes's
                     '!. Net ea%ee s useo e cosac%s'en of erusa. ore coes er ocee ,ewsama
                     *

• 2 .ws:see frem as:we gas inte and p asess 4

I Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-104

Table 5.14 Noise measurement locations Distance, direction Location Description from site, ft R1 Bethelem Church parking lot 7,000 NE* j R2 Adjacent to Ferry Road 2,000 NE R3 Town of Industry adjacent to river 9,000 NE R4 Virginia and 13th Streets, Midland 4,500 NW R5 Ohio Street and Park Place, Midland 7,000 NW R6 Hillcrest Manor Apartments 5,000 NW R7 Midland Heights houses (used only in 13,000 NW 1971 survey) RF1-RF3 Additional receptors just east of plant site in cluster of private houses Note: To change feet to meters, multiply the values shown by 0.3048. Source: ER-0L Table 2.7-1 Table 5.15 Residual ambient noise levels assumed for receptors R1-R7 and RF1-RF3 Sound pressure level, dB A-weighted sound pressure Receptors 31 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 level, dBA R1 - 75 74 61 59 58 54 44 35 64 R2 - 50 45 42 37 30 27 13 13 39 R3 - 60 58 51 46 43 38 31 18 49 R4 - 48 46 4G 32 31 31 28 21 38 R5 - 52 53 49 46 38 33 26 17 47 R6 - 52 52 48 43 40 32 13 13 45 R7 - 52 53 49 46 38 33 26 17 47 RF1 - 50 45 42 37 30 27 13 13 39 RF2 - 50 45 42 37 30 27 13 13 39 RF3 - 50 45 42 37 30 27 13 13 39 Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-105 l

Table 5.16 Sound pressure levels predicted for R1-R7 and RF1-RF3 as a result of the cooling towers and transformers

                                ~

120-Hz tone, Recep-S und pressure levels, dB1 A-weigh- m sk ng NR tors 31 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 ted level 3 level rating 2 R -

              +0   +0   +0        +0  +0     +0  +0   +0  64(+0)       0       A R2      -
              +0   +4   +5        +10 +17 +18 +27 +11     51(+12)      3       F R3      -
              +0   +0   +0        +0  +0     +0  +0   +0  49(+0)       0       A R4      -
              +0   +0   +0        +2  +1     +0  +0   +0  39(+1)       1       B R5      -
              +0   +0   +0        +0  +0     +0  +0   +0  47(+0)      0        A~

R6 -

               +0  +0   +0        +0  +0     +0  +0   +0  45(+0)      0        A R7      -
               +0  +0   +0        +0  +0     +0  +0   +0  47(+0)      0        A RF1     -
              +0   +4   +5        +10 +17 +18 +27 +11     51(+12)     2        F RF2     -
              +0   +4   +5        +10 +17 +18 +27 +11     51(+12)     2        F RF3     -
              +0   +4   +5        +10 +17 +18 +27 +11     51(+12)     2        F 1 Values in parentheses represent the increase in decibels over the assumed ambient values given in Table 5.15.

2CNR = composite noise rating; for estimated community response, see Figure 5.24. 3 Values represent predicted operational phase overall A-weighted level with increases over assumed ambient values shown in parentheses. i i Beaver Valley 2 FES 6-105 t \

1 1 1 Table 5.17 Loudspeaker characteristics and locations Speaker Plant Direction number coordinates Elevation Watts of aim Location 5217 N3612 740'-3" 29 south . Turbine bldg E8005 5258 N3830 745'-3" 29 west Auxiliary bldg E7875 5343 N3974 777'-7" 29 north Reactor bldg E8167 5363 N3978 745'-3" 29 north Decontamina-E8028 tion b1dg 5408 N3258 809'-4" 29 east-southeast Inside cool-E8370 ing tower 5409 N3339 809'-4" 29 south-southwest Inside cool-E8642 ing tower 5410 N3042 809'-4" 29 west-northwest Inside cool-E8730 ing tower 5411 N2961 809'-4" 29 north-northeast Inside cool-E8458 ing tower Note: Loudspeaker sound power level taken from EEI Noise Guide (p. 4-36 and 4-37) (Bolt, Beranek and Newman). i l r L Beaver Valley 2 FES 5-107 , r

6 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The staff has reassessed the physical, social, biological, and economic impacts that can be attributed to the operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2. These impacts are summarized in Table 6.1. The applicant is required to adhere to the following conditions for the pro-tection of the environment: (1) Before engaging in any additional. construction or operational activities that may result in any significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this statement, the applicant will provide written notification of such activities to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and will receive written approval from that office before proceeding with such activities. (2) The applicant will carry out the environmental monitoring programs outlined ' in Section 5 of this statement, as modified and approved by the staff and implemented in the Environmental Protection Plan and Technical Specifica-tions that will be incorporated in the operating license. (3) If an adverse environmental effect or evidence of irreversible environ ' l mental damage is detected during the operating life of the plant, the  !

       . applicant will provide the staff with an analysis of the problem and a proposed course of action to alleviate it.

t 6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources t There has been no change in the staff's assessment of this impact since the earlier review except that the continuing escalation of costs has increased the dollar values of the materials used for constructing and fueling the plant.  ! I 6.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity [ There have been no significant changes in the staff's evaluation for Beaver  ! Valley Unit 2 since the CP stage environmental review. ' i 6.4 Benefit-Cost Summary i 6.4.1 Sum ary A major benefit to be derived from Beaver Valley Unit 2 is the lower produc- ' tion cost for approximately 4.0 billion kWh of baseload electrical energy that will be produced annually. (This projection assumes, conservatively, that the unit will operate at an annual average capacity factor of 551) Produ: tion  ; Beaver Valley 2 FES 6-1 l

f 1 costs avoided on 4.0 billion kWh of electrical energy will be approximately ! 26 mills /kWh, resulting in a total annual cost avoided on existing generation i of $102 million (constant 1986 dollars). The addition of each unit will also improve the applicant's ability to supply 2 system load requirements by contributing 833 MW of capacity (maximum dependable  ! capacity, net) to the applicant's bulk power supply system. i  : 6.4.2 Economic Costs The economic. costs associated with station operation include fuel costs and  ; j operation and maintenance (0&M) costs, which are expected to average approxi-

j. mately 10.6 mills per kWh and 7.4 mills per kWh, respectively (1986 dollars), t

> This cost estimate for fuel is derived from applicant's response to staff

!              question 320.1. The estimate of O&M cost is based on a 5% annual escalation i               of the 1982 average cost for nuclear plants in the east-north-central region of the U.S. (DOE, 1983).

i l The applicant estimates decommissioning costs will range from $36 million to , f $48 million (1982 dollars). 6.4.3 Socioeconomic Costs , i No significant socioeconomic costs are expected from either the operation of j Beaver Valley Unit 2 or from the number of station personnel and their families

living in the area. The socioeconomic impacts of a severe accident could be large; however, the possibility of such an accident is small.

j 6.5 Reference j U.S. Department of Energy, "00E Update, April-June 1983: Nuclear Power Plant j Program Information and Data," DOE /NE0048/3, August 1983. l i l i i I i i i l I i i i l Beaver Valley 2 FE5 6-2

i' f Table 6.1 Benefit-cost summary i i Primary impact and effect  ! on population or resources Quantity Impacts

• BENEFITS Capacity.
• Additional generating capacity

               .                                                     833 MWe                    Large              ,

Economic

! Reduction in existing system 4.0 billion kWh/yr Moderate

 ;               production costs                                    @ 26.0 mills /kWh or
                                                                     $102 million/yr COSTS Economic -

Fuel 10.6 mills /kWh** Small l Operation and maintenance 7.4 mills /kWh** Moderate Total $72 nillion/yr. Small

  !              Decommissioning                                      $36-48 million            Small (1982 dollars)

Environmental Damages suffered by other water {4 users j: Surface water consumption (Section 5.3.2) Small

Surface water contamination (Section 5.3.1) Small Groundwater consumption ~(Section 5.3.2) Small l l Damage to aquatic resources Impingement and entrainment (Section 5.5.2) Small

Thermal effects (Section 5.5.2) Small Chemical discharges .(Section 5.5.2) Small Damage to terrestrial resources i Station operation ~s (Section 5.5.1) Small Transmission line maintenance (Section 5.5.1) Small Adverse socioeconomic effects l

l Loss of hisotric or. archeological resources (Section 5.7) None j Increased demands on public facilities and services (Section 5.8) Small Increased demands on private l facilities and services (Section 5.8) Small I Noise (Section 5.12) Small-Moderate l Footnote on next page. .- f Beaver Valley 2 FES 6-3

                      ~
    '~T~'      _.        1 _ .. _ . , _.._. _ __._ _ .._. _             _ . - _ .                       .

l l i Table 6.1 (Continued) Primary impact and effect on population or resources Quantity Impacts

• Adverse nonradiological health effects Water quality changes (Section 5.3.1) None Air quality changes (Section 5.4) None Adverse radiological health effects Routine operation (Section 5.9.3) Small Postulated accidents (Section 5.9.4) Small Uranium fuel cycle (Section 5.10) Small

  *A subjective measure of costs and benefits is assigned by a reviewer where quantification is not possible:     "Small" = impacts that, in the reviewer's judgment, are of such minor nature, based on currently available information, they do not warrant detailed investigation or consideration of mitigative actions; " Moderate" = impacts that, in the reviewer's judgment, are likely to be clearly evident (mitigation alternatives are usually considered for moderate impacts); "Large" =

impacts, that, in the reviewer's judgment, represent either a severe penalty or a major benefit. Acceptance requires that large negative impacts be more than offset by other overriding project considerations.

 **1986 dollars. The net reduced generating cost is the difference between $102 million/yr and $72 million/yr, or $30 million/yr.

Beaver Valley 2 FES. 6-4

    -=                -     . , .-     _.  - . _ .         _-

7 CONTRIBUTORS The following personnel of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, participated in the preparation of this document: a Francis M. Akstulewicz, Jr. Nuclear Engineer; B.S. (Nuclear Engineering), 4 1974; 10 years' experience. Charles W. Billups Aquatic Scientist; Ph.D. (Marine Science), 1974; 14 years' experience. Louis Bykoski Regional Environmental Economist; Ph.D. (Economics), 1965; 19 years' experience.  ! Charles M. Ferrell Site Analyst; B.S. (Physics), 1950; 33 years' experience. Erastace N. Fields Electrical Engineer; B.S. (Electrical Engineering), 1969; 15 years' experience. Raymond Gonzales Hydraulic Enginear; B.S. (Civil Engineer), 1965; 19 years' experience. Germain LaRoche Senior Land Use. Analyst; Ph.D. (Botany-Ecology), 1969; 29 years' experience, t I. Jean Lee Licensing Assistant; B.S. (Business); 12 i years' licensing experience.

John Lehr Environmental Engineer; M.S. (Environmental Engineering), 1972; 12 years' experience. -

i

Marilyn C. Ley Project Manager; B.S. (Chemical Engineering),

1983; 2 years' experience. l f . Earl Markee Senior Meteorologist; M.S. (Meteorology), 1967; 32 years' experience. Tin Mo Health Physicist; Ph.D. (Nuclear and Radiochemistry), 1971; 13 years' experience. ! .Millard Wohl Nuclear Engineer; M.S. (Physics), 1958; 27 years' experience. l l The following contractor personnel participated in the preparation of this j document: - Clement L. Counts III Post-doctorate fellow; University of Delaware; Ph.D. (Marine Studies), 1983; 14 years' experience.  ; Beaver Valley 2 FES 7-1 _ -- -. . - . . ~ _ . _ . - . .. __ . . _ - _

'f I Robert Cushman Aquatic Ecologist; Oak Ridge National

Laboratory; M.S. (Ecology), 1975; 9 years'

} experience. 'I

Lorene Sigal Terrestrial Ecologist; Oak Ridge National

! Laboratory; Ph.D. (Botany-Microbiology),

1979; 9 years' experience.

A. Policastro Noise Analyst; Argonne National Laboratory; j Ph.D. (Civil Engineering-Applied Mathematics) A. Sjoreen Computer Analyst; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; M.S. (Geophysics),1977; M.S. (Geological Sciences), 1971; 11 years' experience. 1 I. ] J i i ,l i l 1 I i i j i l 1 l i i 1 i i Beaver Valley 2 FES 7-2 1 L

                                                                            +

8 8 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WERE SENT Advisory' Council on Historic Preservation Federal , Emergency Management Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Mayor of the Borough of Shippingport, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission Beaver Valley 2 FES 8-1 L -

                       'E 9 STAFF RESPONSES TO COPNENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Pursuant to 10.CFR 50, the." Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Opera-tion of Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2" (DES), was transmitted, with a request for comments, to the agencies and organizations listed in Section 8.

In addition, the NRC requested comments on the DES from interested persons by a notice published in the Federal Register on January 18, 1985. The organizations and individuals who responded to the requests for comments are listed.bilow in chronological order, according to the dates on the comment letters. The comment. letters are reproduced in the same order in Appendix A. In parentheses after the name of each commentor are the initials used to iden-

     ' tify the commentor later in this section and the page in Appendix A on which the comment letter begins. The commentors were U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA,1)

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (COE, 2) Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Council (PIC, 3) Duquesne Light (the applicant) (DLC, 4) U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI,10) John F. Doherty (JFD, 12) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, 13) U.S. Department of the Interior (001, 10) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 14) The letters from USDA, COE, PIC, and HUD did not require a staff response, be-cause those commentors had no comments at this time. The remaining comment letters did require a staff response. The staff's consideration of these commants and the disposition of the issues involved are reflected, in part, by text revisions in the pertinent sections I of this FES (and indicated by lines in the margin next to the revised lines of text) and, in part, by the discussion in the subsections below. (In cases where commentors merely noted minor typographical or editorial errors, the corrections have been made but the comments are not addressed in this."section.) The section numbers in this section correspond to the section numbers in the FES and DES except that.each is preceded by the digit "9". The comments are referenced by the use of the abbreviations indicated above and by the individ-ual comment nwhers noted in the margins of the comment letters in Appendix A. l Comments on a jer. dices are in Section 9.10, and references cited in Section 9

are listed in h etion 9.11.

Table 9.1 is a cross-reference list of comments and the section(s) of this report in which they are addressed. l l Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-1

i 9.1. Abstract, Summary and Conclusions, Table of Contents, Foreword, and Introduction 9.1.2 Permits and Licenses i

DLC-1 1

'         The applicant states that the NPDES permit was issued on November 26, 1984, and was submitted to the staff in March 1985.

s

           -  Staff Response
 ,        A copy of the effective NPDES permit . received in March 1985 is provided as                                            !

j Appendix G of this FES. < 9.4 Project Description and Affected Environment I 9.4.1 Resumd I l DLC-2 4 The applicant states that the maximum water velocity has increased across the j bar racks in the main intake structure, as discussed in Section 4.2.4. l

          -   Staff Response l         Section 4.1 has been revised to agree with Section 4.2.4.

r . I 9.4.2 Facility Description l 9.4.2.2 Land Use i DLC-3  !

I

 !       The applicant states that the exclusion area boundary (EAB) for Unit 2 has been changed to a 2000-foot radius centered on the Unit 1 containment build-l         ing. This change is docketed in letter no. 2 NRC-5-015, dated February 1, 1985.                                          '

! i

         -    Staff Response f

1 I After receiving the applicant's February 1, 1985 letter (from E.J. Woolever to G.W. Knighton), the staff determined that the approximate nearest EAB i distance is 547 m (1794 feet). The second paragraph of Section 4.2.2 has been [ revised to reflect this change. j i f DLC-13 ! The applicant notes that Figure 4.2 should be revised to reflect the EAB  ; l change addressed in DLC-3. l - Staff Response i Figure 4.2 has been revised to reflect this comment. The text in Section 4.2.2 l also has been restated to be consistent with the FSAR. l l Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-2 i

l I 9.4.2.3 Water Use and Treatment  ! l 9.4.2.3.2 Water Treatment l OLC-4 The applicant states that the free available chlorine (FAC) concentration "at the condenser outlet" should be changed to "at the discharge to the river," in accordance with the final NPDES permit (outfall 001). Staff Response Section 4.2.3.2.2 has been revised to reflect this change in the point of efflu-ent discharge. OLC-5. The applicant states that the proprietary substance Calgon CL-4000 used to treat the secondary component cooling water and cooling tower water has been changed to Betz DUQ.01. Staff Response Section 4.2.3.2.2 has been revised to indicate the applicant's planned use of Betz DUQ.01 rather then Calgon CL-4000. 9.4.2.4 Cooling System OLC-6 The applicant states that the service water system provides once-through cool-ing of primary and secondary heat exchangers, control room refrigerant cooling units, safeguards area air conditione ~rs, main steam valve area cooling coils, auxiliary building motor control center cooling units, and charging pump cool-ers. The ccntrol~ room air conditioners are cooled by the chilled water system. - Staff Response , Section 4.2.4 has been revised to indicate the corrected list of components cooled by the service water system. 001-1 00I notes that the DES indicates, on page 4-5, that there would be an increase in the discharge water temperature during the operation of both Units 1 and 2. The discharge temperature differential above ambient of 1.3 C to 15.9 C and maximum change of 22 C would seasonally exceed the Pennsylvania State Water Quality Standards for water temperature of discharges into warm water fishery areas. This standard was set to protect indigenous fishes and aquatic re-sources against thermal shock. The final statement should discuss the alter-natives that were considered to reduce the temperature differential in the heated discharge and present the rationale for choosing the selected method of discharge. Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-3

 -  Staff Response 1

At the CP stage, a m'aximum temperature differential of 22 C (40*F) was discussed. The maximum expected temperature differential has been revised downward, to 15.9*C (in January). As discussed in Section 5.5.2.2, the thermal effects now expected are less than those evaluated in the FES-CP. The question of cold shock is also addressed in Section 5.5.2.2. 9.4.2.6 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems 9.4.2.6.1 Liquid Effluents DLC-7 The applicant notes that a separate sewage treatment facility has been built to handle the increased sanitary load of the support builings for Units 1 and 2 (the emergency response facility, training building south office shops, primary access facility).

-  Staff Response Section 4.2.6.1 has been revised ta reflect this comment.

DLC-8 The applicant states that Section 4.2.6.1 should be revised to note that all discharges are to the Ohio River, except the sanitary wastes and the discharge from the oil / water separator serving the fuel . oil unloading facility (which are released to Peggs Run, a tributary of the Chio River). - Staff Response The text in Section 4.2.6.1 has been revised to include a description of the oil / water separator serving the fuel oil unloading facility. DLC-14 The applicant states that Tables 4.4 (Current affluent limitations for Unit 1) and 4.5 (Anticipated effluent limitations for Unit 2) should be revised in accordance with the final NPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 issued on November 26, 1984. - Staff Response Tables 4.4 and 4.5 have been deleted. The final NPDES permit is reproduced as Appendix G to this FES. DLC-15 The applicant states that Table 4.6 should be revised in accordance with the final NPDES permit. The Pennsylvania DES Permit Number noted at the bottem' of the table should specify the permit that applies to each specific sewage treatment plant: for example, 0479403 (Unit 1), 0482404 (Unit 2). I Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-4

  -  Staff Response l

Table 4.6 has been deleted. A copy of the final NPDES permit has been included in Appendix G. 9.4.2.6.2 Gaseous Effluents DLC-9 The applicant states that Section 4.2.6.2 should be revised to note that the emergency diesel generators are tested once a month for an hour. Staff Response Section 4.2.6.2 has been revised to reflect this comment. 9.4.3 Project-Related Environmental Descriptions 9.4.3.2 Water Quality EPA-1 EPA states that although it finds most of the information presented in the DES adequate, EPA has reservations regarding the effluent water quality. The water quality description on pages 4-10 and following indicates that improve-ment in water quality has been made since 1974, appearing to indicate an up-ward trend. The text on pages 5-3 and 5-9, on the other hand, details loadings of criteria pollutants that will add to the pollution load levels already existing in the receiving waters. Even though the DES states that these loadings and levels will "...not necessarily result in adverse effects...," EPA feels that using mortality and survival as the measures of water quality begs the issue of maintaining and improving water quality. EPA suggests that the applicant should make an effort to lower or eliminate these pollutant levels through treatment so that water quality in the receiving waters may continue its current upward trend in quality, ft is EPA policy to adhere to the antidegradation clause of the Clean Water Act. EPA expresses concern that the practice of incremental addition of these and other pollutants at this plant appears to set an unwise precedent that may be repeated elsewhere. Moreover, EPA is concerned that such incremental addi-tions can result in long-term cumulative effects throughout receiving streams, whiuh appears to be contrary to the principles of the Clean Water Act. ptaff Resconse The concentrations of several constituents will exceed criteria in the discharge area, mostly because of the concentrating effect of the evaporative cooling system, rather than as a result of chemical additions from the station, as pointed out in the revision to Section 5.3.1. The pollution load itself is primarily a result of other sources in the Ohio River basin. The Pennsylvania DER has chosen to not impose discharge limitations for manganese, ammonia, to-tal dissolved solids, and nitrite, the four constituents discussed on pages 5-3 and 5-9. A copy of the NPDES permit appears in Appendix G of this FES.

                                            ~

Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-5

9.4.3.3 Meteorology DLC-10 The applicant states that no " hurricanes" have been recorded for the Beaver Valley site area (FSAR 2.3.1.2.1). Any hurricanes that have approached the region have been downgraded before they have reached the site.

    -  Staff Response The staff agrees with the comment that hurricanes that have approached the re- !

gion have been downgraded before they have reached the site. However, remnants ' of tropical storms and hurricanes, which can be classified as severe weather l phenomena, do affect the region in which the site is located. l 9.4.3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources 9.4.3.4.2 Aquatic i DLC-11 The applicant states that it is overly conservative to indicate that there is i any significant commercial fish harvest for the Ohio River near the Beaver ' Valley site.

   -   Staff Response f

The text suggests that the staff is generally in agreement with the ' applicant's comments regarding the present status of the commercial fishery resource. 'The harvest estimates may represent overly optimistic values, but i not overly conservative values for the purpose stated in the text. ' DLC-12 , The applicant noted that the SER has not yet been published.

   -   Staff Response The text has been changed to indicate that the SER will be published in late   i 1985.

9.4.3.5 Endangered and Threatened Species 9.4.3.5.2 Aquatic 00I-2 The applicant states that biologists of the State College, Pennsylvania, Field i Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service have collected two skirjack herrings upstream from the Beaver Valley plant site. Up until this time, the skipjack herring was thought to have been extirpated from the area. Therefore, the final statement-should be revised to reflect the occurrence of the skipjack herring within the proposed project area. Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-6

                                                                                  . =
 -   Staff Response Section 4.3.5.2 has been revised to note the recent collection of skipjack herring upstream from the site.

9.5 Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 9.5.3 Water I 9.5.3.1 Water Quality OLC-16 The applicant states that text should be revised to state that, after a review of Ohio River water quality and discharge from Units 1 and 2, the Pennsylvania OER elected not to impose any water quality-based limits in the NPDES permit.

 -  Staff Response The text has been revised to note that the state-issued NPDES permit will not regulate discharges of the four constitutents discussed in Section 5.3.1.

DLC-17 The applicant states that Section 5.3.1 should be revised to note that the applicant has appealed the FAC limits on the cooling tower blowdown from Units 1 and 2. The appeal is based on the fact that, because of severs condenser tube corrosion on Unit 1, the Unit 1 condenser was completely re-tubed in 1984. The applicant is proposing to conduct a chlorine minimization study to allow for either increased FAC discharge times (greater than 2 hours per day per unit) and/or higher FAC effluent limitations. The applicant has also appealed the NPDES permit FAC chlorination limits on the grounds that they are ambiguous as to whether they apply to the dosing period, or to the period of discharge into the river.

 -  Staff Response The text in Section 5.3.1 has Deen revised to note the applicant's appeal of the NPDES permit limit on chlorination.

EPA-1 See com. ment EPA-1 in Section 9.4.3.2 above. Staff Resoonse The text has been revised to reflect this comment. 1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-7

!                                                                                                                                         L

]  ! 9.5.3.2 Water Use DLC-18 i The applicant states that the sewa'ge from the main plant buildings of Unit 2 ' is discharged to the Unit 1 sewage plant. The Unit 2 sewage plant is used

only for support buildings (emergency response facility, training building, etc.).

t l - Staff Response

Section 5.3.2 has been revised to note that the Unit 2 sewage plant is used for l 1

support buildings only. 9.5.3.2.2 Groundwater 4 DLC-19 1 The applicant states that the main plant structures of Unit 2 receive tn*ir potable water from Unit 1; only the support buildings use well water.

- Staff Response l

,       The text has been revised to reflect this comment.

4 l r

 !      9.5.4 Air Quality

[ 9.5.4.2 Other Emissions l EPA-2 EPA states that Section 5.4.2 presumes that, because the total annual emission does not exceed 250 tons and no air pollution standard will be~ violated, no j further analyses are needed. However, EPA states that this presumption is not

;       necessarily correct because (1) 250 tons a year is a cutoff below which no pre-1 vention of significant deterioration permit is required and (2) the fact that emissions will be below the cutoff does not ensure that the ambient standards will be met. EPA comments that the DES air quality analyses are deficient because no calculations of expected air quality have been performed, nor are emission estimates stated.
        -     Staff Response J

}. As required by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality Control, the. applicant will obtain operating permits for the auxiliary boilers and the diesel genera-tors. Acquisition of these permits requires that the applicant first demonstrate that ambient air quality standards have not been exceeded. There.are no require-ments imposed by.the NRC, provided the annual emission does not exceed 250 tons. I l i l Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-8 '

9.5.5 Ecology

9. 5. 5.1 Terrestrial Ecology 9.5.5.1.2 Transmission System Operation DLC-20 The applicant states that the word " serious" sh'ould be deleted from the text in Section 5.5.1.2 because the applicant has never had any " serious"' problems with 345-Kv lines.

     -     Staff Response The suggested change has been made.

9.5.5.2 Aquatic Resources 9.5.5.2.2 Thermal and Chemical Effects DLC-21 The applicant states that the text (paragraph 6, Section 5.5.2.2) should be revised to state that Peggs Run now is expected to receive the treated efflu-

;   ents from the Unit 2 sewage treatment plant and from the oil / water separator j

l located at the fuel oil unloading facility, The design flow of the sewage treatment plant constitutes more than 1% of the creek's mean flow (estimated by the applicant at 140 L/sec or 5 cfs, ER-OL Sec-tion 2.4.3). The discharge from the oil / water separator is low in volume and l intermittent. Because Pegg's Run is already a highly degraded stream (Sec-i tion 4.3.3.2), the potential effects of the sewage discharge (e.g., high oxygen demand and suspended solids) and oil / water separator discharge (e.g., oil / grease and suspended solids) on Pegg's Run would be limited.

- Staff Response The text has been revised to include a discussion of the discharge from the oil / water separator at the fuel oil unloading facility.  ;

9.5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts DLC-22 The applicant notes that socioeconomic impacts are discussed in ER-OL Sec-tion 8.1.

    -     -Staff Response The text has been changed to reflect this comment.                                               )

i 1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-9 l

9.5.9 Radiological Impacts 9.5.9.3 Radiological Impacts from Routine Operations 9.5.9.3.2 Radiological Impacts on Humans DLC-23 The applicant states that Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 will be operated in accordance with the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50, as described in NUREG-0133, and the most current version of the " Standard Radio-logical Ef fluent Technical Specifications for Pressurized Water Reactors" (NUREG-0472).

 . Staff Resconse The comment has been noted; no text changes are necessary.

EPA-4 EPA states that the discussion on radiation protection standards " leaves EPA and the public with inadequate assurances that the standards of 40 CFR 190 will be met."

 -  Staff Response EPA does not offer any specific basis to support this assertion. Site-specific dose estimates are given in Appendix 0, as well as in Section 5.9.3.2.

The estimated doses in Appendix D are below the NRC dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. These objectives, in turn, are more stringent than the EPA 40 CFR 190 standards for radiation protection. Therefore, these estimated doses are far below the EPA 40 CFR 190 standards. The NRC staff is aware that the standards in 40 CFR 190 apply to the entire uranium fuel cycle, not just to normal operation. However, because of the re-moteness of the other operations of the uranium fuel cycle from the area sur-rounding the Unit 2 site, the contrioution from these other fuel cycle operations to the public radiation doses near Unit 2 will be small. Additional information on this topic is in NUREG-0543. 9.5.9.4 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 9.5.9.4.1 Plant Accidents EPA-3 EPA expresses concern about the " continuum of NRC documentation of small component failures." Staff Resconse The small component failure data of.the Reactor Safety Study (NUREG-75/014) were used to generate accident sequence probabilities (per reactor year) for Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-10 l l

the accident consequence / risk calculations performed for the DES /FES. The staff maintains failure data on a continuous basis, also. The staff feels that, although the major accident sequence probabilities may change somewhat as a function of small component failure / unavailability, these changes are not likely to lead to changes in risks exceeding fractions of factors of 10 to 100. i 9.5.9.4.4 Mitigation of Accident Consequences i (2) Site Features  ! DLC-24 k The applicant notes that the Unit 2 EAB has a 2000-foot radius centered on the > Unit 1 containment building. Staff Response  ! As discussed in the response to DLC-3 (Section 9.4.2.2 above), the EAB has been

                                     ~

changed. The EAB description has been revised to be consistent with the FSAR.  ! 9.5.9.4.5 Accident Risk and Impact Assessment > (1) Design-Basis Accidents 1 l* OLC-28 The applicant states that the EAB distance for the values given in Table 5.8 , is 547 m northwest (ER-OL Table 7.1-1). The x/Q values associated with this j distance are being revised and will be included in Table 2.3-38A in the next  ! FSAR amendment. The applicant states that the values may change slightly.

    -     Staff Response i

The doses given in DES Table 5.8 correspond to x/Q values for an EAB distance I 1 of 457 m (1500 feet). The table and doses herein have been revised to corre-  ! spond to an EAB of 547 m (1794 feet).  ! 1 s (4) Additional Possible Releases to Groundwater t { 00I-3 l l DOI states that Note 7 of Table 5.6 indicates that there will be no radiolo- l gical monitoring of groundwater on the site, because the current hydraulic  ; gradient is northwest toward the river. 00I suggests that during operation,  ! pcmping from the onsite wells will cause changes in the gradient direction i that would make radiological monitoring as well as chemical and biological j monitoring advisable at the site. DOI adds that application of aquifer char- l acteristics given in the DES on pages 5-41 and 5-42 indicates that the rever- + sal of gradient will be appreciable and groundwater travel within the cone of  ! depression will be accelerated. LOI suggests that this issue be reevaluated. l l I t i Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-11 l l

              .-                 = ,           _                         ._.            .

   -   Staff Response The two wells that will supply domestic water to the support buildings are located about 427 m (1400 feet) east of the plant.       The actual location is east of the highway 168 approach, adjacent to the emergency response facilities-building (ERFB). Figure 4.11 shows the location of the ERFB.

The applicant conducted pumping tests on the two wells to determine drawdown. Both wells were pumped for 48 hours; then the drawdowns were measured. For well No. 1 the drawdown was 2.1 m (6.9 feet), for a pumpage rate of 0.79 m 3/ min (210 gpm). For well No. 2, the drawdown was about 3.4 m (11 feet), for a pump-age rate of 0.44 m 3/sec (115 gpm). The applicant notes that because ground-water pumpage rate during operation will be less than the rates used during the pumping tests, the corresponding drawdown will also be less. As stated in Section 5.3.2.2, groundwater requirements for Unit 2 will average about 0.11 m3 /sec (27.8 gpm or 0.06 cfs). When a well is pumped, the groundwater level is lowered for some radial distance away from the well. This lowering, or cone of depression as it is called, is greatest at the well and decreases with increasing distance from the pumped well. At some distance from the well, pumpage will have no effect on the groundwater. level. The distance from the well to the point at which the groundwater table is not affected is commonly referred to as the radius of influence. The staff estimated the radius of influence for both wells using the drawdown values provided by the applicant and a conservative value of 6.1 x 10 3 cm/sec (2.0 x 10 4 ft/sec) for the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer material. The staff's drawdown estimates were 48.8 m (160 feet) for well No.1 and 79.3 m (260 feet) for well No. 2. Because the wells are located 427 m (1400 feet) from the plant, the staff concludes that the. cone of depression formed by pumping groundwater from two onsite wells will not affect the direction of groundwater flow beneath the plant. Therefore, radiological monitoring of the groundwater is not required. T.he onsite wells are routinely monitored for chemical and biological contaminants. (6) Risk Considerations DLC-27 The applicant notes that although a "10-mile EPZ" is used, the actual EPZ boundary folicws various natural and political boundaries located approxi-mately 10 miles from the site. The Beaver Valley Emergency Preparedness Plan contains detailed information on the EPZ. Staff Resoonse The staff acknowledges the actual EPZ b'oundaries. The 10-mile circular EPZ boundaries shown on Figures 5.10 and 5.11 are for illustrative purposes. They are intended to allow the reader a better visualization of the _ risk isopleths for early fatality and latent cancer fatality, as indicated by the footnotes on revised Figures 5.10 and 5.11. Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-12

   .(7)- Uncertainties DLC-25                     -

The applicant states that although uncertainties associated with emergency response do exist, the Beaver Valley Emergency Preparedness Plan and asso-ciated equipment and facilities, combined with an extensive training program for local residents, have attempted to minimize these uncertainties. The applicant has (1) conducted extensive evacuation studies, (2) used state-of-the art equipment to aid in making the evacuation-versus-shelter decision, (3) held training programs for EPZ residents, and (4) cooperated and coordinated actions with state and local agencies. These efforts, the applicant states, have resulted in " exceptional emergency drills which, in turn, reflect the adequacy of the Emergency Plan and the minimization of the uncertainties in early health consequences." Staff Response The staff agrees that the applicant's efforts in the area of emergency pre-paredness have generally been thorough and complete. The intended thrust of the staff's statement regarding emergency response effectiveness'was directed toward the differences between emergency response modeling assumptions in the CRAC computer code and the actual emergency response activities during reactor accidents at the site. The staff acknowledges that these differences constitute

                        ~
 'a source of uncertainty in the staff's early health consequence analyses.

9.5.11 Decommissioning l EPA-6 EPA comments that the DES is not self contained regarding radiation dose estimates for the different decommissioning alternatives. EPA also mentions that NRC is developing information on decommissioning that. is more explicit than that currently available and suggests that the FES include information more detailed than that in the DES. Staff Response It is the staff's position that it is not necessary to include-detailed information on dose estimates for the decommissioning alternatives in the DES /FES. Moreover, it would make the DES /FES too voluminous. Detailed dose estimates for the decommissioning alternatives are on pages 4-3 to 13 of Section 4.3 of NUREG-0586. 9.5.14 Environmental Monitoring 9.5.14.2 Aquatic Monitoring DLC-26 The applicant notes that the NPDES permit was issued on November 26, 1984. Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-13

      -    Staff Response The text has been revised to reflect the issuance of the NPDES permit.

l 9.6 Evaluation of the Proposed Action 9.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts  ; DLC-30

!    The applicant states that the noise impact for the operation of Unit 2 listed in Table 6.1 should be "small".
      -   Staff Response This determination is som'ewhat subjective.              Because of (1) the high ambient sound levels and existing concern over noise in the site environs and (2) un-certainties in the analyses, the staff concluded that the ultimate evaluation of the significance of noise would be made during station operation (see Section 5.14.4).

9.6.4 Benefit-Cost Summary 9.6.4.1 Summary DLC-29 The applicant states that production costs should be 28 mills / kwhr, resulting in a total-annual cost avoided of $112 million. -In addition, based on recent experience at Unit 1, the applicant states that the 55% average capacity figure is conservative and-that the higher capacity figures would result in even greater savings.

     -   Staff Response In performing the analysis at issue, the staff intended to determine the po-tential impact of operation of the Beaver Valley facility on the applicant's annual production (operating) costs. . The analysis indicates that substantial savings will accrue as a result of the plant's operation. These savings were derived even though the staff employed considerable conservatism in its assump-l     tions regarding capacity factor and sources of replacment energy. Although the staff agrees with the-applicant that the estimate provided in the DES may be low, the staff considers that the applicant's calculation of savings is in error.

The applicant's analysis fails to include, as part of the operating cost for the Beaver Valley unit, the total operating and maintenance (0&M) cost. Recent information indicates that more than 90% of the C&M cost for a nuclear facility is fixed; that is, this cost will be incurred regardless of the amount of energy generated. However, these fixed costs will be incurred only after an' operating license is granted. If the unit is not licensed (the issue - under consideration), neither fixed or variable 0&M cost will result. To ex-clude O&M costs in performing a comparative analysis of this type develops

j. extremely biased results. This is particularly true in light of the recent trend in the rate of. increase'of OEM costs for commercial nuclear facilities.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-14 l

l i l 1 2 In summary, the staff feels that although the estimate of savings provided in

• the DES is conservative, it also is reasonable and serves to illustrate that there will be considerable economic benefit from the operation of the plant.

I 9.10 Appendices 9.10.3 Appendix C ' l JFD comments that Appendix C does not mention other serious cancer and infant i mortality impacts on people from tailings piles that must be created to l provide the fuel for the plant. I

                         -          Staff Response j'                       Appendix C contains estimates of the population dose commitments due to the release of radon-222 from stabilized-tailings piles at uranium mills for each 5

year of operation of the model 1000-MWe light water reactor (LWR) and the esti-mated risk of. cancer deaths to humans as a result of exposure. The basis for j the health risk estimates is given in Section 5 of Appendix' C. .This section,

in turn,' refers to OES/FES Section 5.9.3.1, which describes in more detail the l health effects models and risk estimators used by the staff, which consider ncnfatal, genetic, and fatal health effects for all age groups, including infants. '

EPA-5 4 EPA expresses concern about the evaluation of potential' radiation doses and health effects that~may result from the exposure to background levels of radon-222. EPA notes that the estimated dose of 450 milliems to the bronchial " epithelium from exposure to radon-222 from natural sources has been reevalu-ated in a more recent report by_the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). 4

                        -         Staff Response 9

i The staff is ' aware of the NCRP . report cited by EPA (" Exposure from the Uranium Series with Emphasis on Radon and its Daughters," NCRP No. 77), as well as NCRP

                                                                                                               ~

i Report No. 78, " Evaluation of Occupational and Environmental Exposures to Radon and Radon Daughters in the United States." According to NCRP No. 77, the annual dose to the bronchial epithelium from exposure to inhaled radon-222 and its short-lived daughters in indoor air is estimated to be about 3000 mrems/yr. As l noted in NCRP No. 77, the estimated dose is based on the median value of radon ~ ]~ daughter concentrations measured in 26 dwellings in New York and New Jersey over

+                      a 2 year. period. The concentrations vary considerably, depending on type of building and location in building,'as well as on other factors. Because it is                                                                                                                 '

difficult to predict indoor radon daughter concentrations far.into the future, 4 the staff has relied on comparisons with-background radon daughter concentrations

in outdoor air, rather than indoor air. In summary, the use of data in NCRP .

Reports Nos. 77 and 78 in.the comparison in Appendix C'of this report does not change the staff's conclusion that both the dose commitments and health effects ,

,                     of the LWR supporting uranium fuel cycle are very small when compared with dose commitments and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from
                                                                                                                                                                              ~

all natural-background sources. Minor changes to the' text in Appendix C have been made accordingly. Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-15 i 1

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

9.10.4 Appendix D

    -JFD comments that the staff's discussion of radiation dose calculations in Appendix D should indicate whether radiation exposures of rapidly multiplying breast tissue cells of females at puberty and women in the early stages of pregnancy are accounted for in the calculations.
      -  Staff Response The staff interpreted this comment as being basically concerned with the in-creased sensitivity of the female breast tissues to radiation-induced can-cers if irradiation occurs when breast tissue cells are multiplying rapidly.

The staff is aware of the evidence from human studies that suggest that female breast tissue may be more sensitive to radiation carcinogenesis if irradiation occurs at times of breast tissue proliferation (Boice and Stone, 1978; McGregor et al., 1977). As stated in Section 5.9.3.2, the staff has concluded. that the risks to the general public from exposure to radioactive effluents and transportation of fuel and wastes from the annual operation of the Beaver Valley facility are very small fractions of the estimated normal incidence of. cancer

    ' fatalities and genetic abnormalities from causes unrelated to the operation of the Beaver Valley facility in the year 2010 population.

On the basis of the preceding comparison, the NRC staff concludes that the risk to the public health and safety from exposure to radioactivity asso-ciated with the normal operation of the Beaver Valley facility will be very small. DLC-31 The applicant states that'the dilutions factors given in Table D.5 do not agree with the ER Table SC-3 (Amendment 6). The applicant believes that the staff's dilution factors are overly conservative, especially for Chester, West Virginia. Staff Resoonse The footnotes to Table 0.5 state that dilution factors were assumed for purposes of an upper limit estimate. Thus the staff agrees that the dilution factors given in Table 0.5 are conservative. The rationale for using conserva-tive diluti... factors is described more fully in Chapter 4. of NUREG-0133. The staff's . initial evaluation of the drinking water exposure pathway at Chester estimated the annual dose commitment using the conservative dilution factor presented in Table 0.5. The resultant dose, shown in Table 0.6, turned out to be below the design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. Because this initial evaluation, performed using a conservative dilution factor, showed that the' dose would be below the NRC dose design objectives, there was no reason for the staff to perform a more rigorous dose assessment using a more realistic dilution

                 ~
                                                                                               -l' factor.

9.11 References Boice, J.D. Jr. and B.J. Stone, " Interaction between Radiation and Other Breast Cancer Risk Factors," in Late Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Vol 1, International Atomic Energy, 1978. Seaver Valley 2 FE5 9-16

     ._       .. _       .     -._--.___ _                    __            _ - _ _ _ _ _ .                       _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _                                       . _._.__.. m ..

1 l 4 McGregor, D.H..-et al., " Breast Cancer Incidence Among Atomic Bomb Survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950-69," in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol 59, 1977. l

~

National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP), " Exposure from the Uianium t Series with Emphasis on Radon and its Daughters," NCRP No. 77, March 1984.

         -- , " Evaluation of Occupational and Environmental Exposures to Radon and Radon

Daughters in the United States," NCRP No. 78, May 1984.

U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission, NUREG-75/014, " Reactor Safety Study," 1975 ,

(formerly published by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission as WASH-1400). [

i

         -- , NUREG-0133, " Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants," 1978.

1 1 -- , NUREG-0543, " Methods for Demonstrating LWR Compliance with the' EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard (40 CFR Part 190)," February 1980.

        -- , NUREG-0586, " Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities," January 1981.

i J l l-i i i 4 f i i , {  ! k l }' i i I t Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-17 o

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

Table 9.1 Comments on the DES and sections of this report where each comment is addressed l Comment Section Comment Section  :

USDA no response DLC 21 9.5.5.2.2 4 needed 22 9.5.8 23 9.5.9.3.2 COE no response 24 9.5.9.4.4(2)

.                                                                            needed                                                      25                                                       9.5.9.4.5(7)

! 26 9.5.1.4.2 ! PIC no response 27 9.5.9.4.5(6) needed 28 9.5.9.4.5(1) 29 9.6.4.1

                          'DLC 1                                             9.1.' 2                                                     30                                                       9.6.1 2                                         9.4.1                                                      31                                                        9.10.4 3                                         9.4.2.2                                                                                                                                              '

4 9.4.2.3.2 DOI 1 9.4.2.4 5 9.4.2.3.2 2 9.4.3.5.2 6 9.4.2.4 3 9.5.9.4.5(4) 7 9.4.2.6.1 8 9.4.2.6.1 JFD 1- 9.10.4 9 9.4.2.'6.2 2 9.10.3 '; 10 9.4.3.3 11 9.4.3.4.2 HUD no response 12 9.4.3.4.2 needed 13 9.4.2.2 14 9.4.6.1 EPA 1 9.4.3.2, 9.5.3.1 I 15 9.4.6.1 2. 9.5.4.2 4 16 9.5.3.1 3 9.5.9.4.1 3 17 9.5.3.1 4 9.5.9.3.2

 .                                18                                         9.5.3.2                                                       5                                                     9.10.3 19                                         9.5.3.2.2                                                     6                                                     9.5.11

! 20 9.5.5.1.2 i a 1 A 1 I l Beaver Valley 2 FES 9-18

APPENDIX A COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT l Beaver Valley 2 FES Appendix A ,

USDA i i United States Scil 228 Walnut Street, Room 850 Department of Conservation Box 985 Federal Square Station fg Agriculture g Service Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0985 February 13, 1985 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Director, Division of Licensing. Washington, DC 20555 N

Dear Sir:

Our agency has received a copy of the Draf t Environmental Statement related to the proposed operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, , Unit 2. This document has been reviewed and we have no comments on the operational impacts detailed in this assessment. Our primary concerns on this project related to the construction permit phase and were previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement prepared in October 1973. Sincerely, .

                             ,}          -

Job Mank Assistant State Conservationist

                    /for Natural Resource Projects 4

cc: Thomas N. Shiflat, Director of Ecological Sciences, SCS, Washington, DC I 4 8502200286 850213 DR ADOCK 0:000412 PDR a .uon s.,*. gg1

      .W(w.,,n.v.1.. su: c , .co v
         - , .,. ,wey e .
                           .c.             w.,          V                .m    -_

i

  -Beaver Valley 2 FES                                1                                             Appendix A 4

m ,--,,r,.,_. , - . - - - - - - - , _ - <

10E DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PITTS8URGH OISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

               ,[ h                             wtLLIAM S. MOORHEAD FEDERAL OUILDING i

k ' 1000 LIBERTY AVENUE. PtTTSBURGH, PA 15222 4186 February 19, 1985 t 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Director, Division of Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

f We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statersent for the opera

• tion of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unic 2, and have no comments to offer relative to our mission responsibility.

Sincerely,- George ingle, Jr .E. Chie ,PlanningD[.ision i i i 1 l Beaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix A 1

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

PIC ennS Van $a niergovernmentak bouncif . P. O. BOX 11890 HARR!sBL;RG. PA.171081580 * (71D 783-3700 P FebrJary 27, 1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i Attention: Director, Division of Licensing

Dear Sir or Madam:

Subject:

Draft Environmental Stater.ent - Beaver Valley

!                                                           Power Station, Unit 2 i

Pennsylvania's Single Point of Contact under Executive Order 12372 i (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) has received copies of the Draft Environmental Statement for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2. We distributed copies to several of our reviewing agencies; these agencies do not wish to comment on the Statement. We appreciate the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, i .91 s (l I6 '~[ j .,0.# p - c . , . .c. .. J , Barbara J.'Gontz - Project Coordinator-Intergovernmental Review Process 3JG/sik i

                                                                         , . u-- v u.              s:                  .,
                                                                                                                . . , . . _ . ..   ,.         7, . ., s ., ; .

i Eeaver vetiiey 2 FES .i appendix A l

__m ._....m.--.i~.-m-. _- _. -.-.m-.. _. - . ~ . . . . . _ - . .. . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . - . _ DLC

                                      ?sts ouquesne uc3t Teiecroy le t 21787 2629 aux le t 219231960 I                                          MWClear ConStroCttoa oms.on

' noe.ason mara. Sveid*ag 2. Swte 210 ' ettinorga. pA t s20s March 1, 1985 i  ! United States Nuclear Regalatory Comission l

Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION

Ms. Marilyn Ley l Divison of Licensing J

i 1

SUBJECT:

Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 ' BVPS-2 Draft Enviromental Statement Comments 1 l Gentlemen: 4 Please find enclosed OLC comments on the BY-2 Oraft Environmental Statement. These comments are divided into two parts: the editorial (Attach- . ment 1) and those that are substantial in nature ( Attachment 2). 4 If there are any . questions, please contact T. J. Zoginann at (412) 787-5141. 1 h, i 00QUESNELIGHTCpMPANY (//g. By ./

• j E.Jf.,W7alever f/ "

Vice President l 1 P I TJZ/wjs Attachmen t l j cc: Mr. B. K. Singh, Project Manager (w/a) Mr. G. Val ton, t2C Resident inspector (w/a) . l l l' l Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix A I ?. .-, .- ~,.-,- - ,----- - - -- , , ,- - - . ,--,--

DLC i f ATTACHMENT 1 Editorial Consents on BV-2 DES -

;.                      Pg. No.               Section                                Line No.                                                                                                                          ,
 !                        V                 Item 3                           9                           FE5 CP is dated July 1913 3-1               3                               2                            Spelling: " ongoing" 4-5               4.2.4                           9, 34                        Figure 4-3 should be 4 9                                                                                      !

4-5 4.2.4 36 (11,365 gpm) should be (10,463 gpm)  :

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~
;                         4-5               4.2.4                           43                           (3.4*F) should be (2.4*F)                                                                                     .

4-7 4.2.6.1 28 87065 1./M should be 87065 L/d f

,                                                                           34                           Spelling: " con tac to r" 4-S               4.2.7                           9                            "three" should be "two"                                                                                       .

11 Spelling: "Hanna"  !

                                                                                                         "three" should be "two" 12                                                                                                                                         [

i 4-18 4.3.7 15 Spelling: " declined" j 4-21 F4.1 Title Spelling: " values"  ; 4-29 Fig. 4-9 not found in ER-OL-FSAR or FES-CP t 4-30 Fig. 4-10 not found in ER-OL-FSAR or FES-CP although i similar to ER0t Fig. 2.4-1 4-32 T4.1 19 percent of site should be "< or less than 0.1" for oil tank , 1 4-33 T4-2 1 Spelling: " qual i fy"  ! 45B2 We11ston 'sil t loam 'i 45C2 We11ston. silt loam  ! MS-CD 8-25 l

;                                                                           MA-AB                       Urban & Fill land                                                                                              i d                            Spelling: " qual i fy"                                                                                        f 4-38              T4.5                            Source                       ER-OL Table 5.4-1                                                                                             !

i 4-39 T4.7 Ti tle delete second "line"  ! Area Co. 1 " miles" should be " Acres" j T4.8 1968-1970 data is not in ER-OL Table 2.4-10 ' 4-4't T4.10 June 14,1983 1.28 is 1.88

                            .                                              July 12, 1983 79.44 is 79.94;                              27.37 is 87.37                                                                   i 5              5. 3.1                          13                           ER-OL Table 5.3.4                                                                                             l 5-5               5.5.1                           3.                           Spelling: "preoperational"                                                                                    r

5-6 5. 5 .1.1 18 Spelling

" Valley"  !

1 5-7 5.5.1.2 1 Spelling: " Crescent"  ;

 ;                                                                          2                            Spelling: "expec ted"                                                                                         !

4 Spelling: " anticipated" l 5-9 5.5.2.2 24 change 1.59 mg/l to 5.93 mg/L  :

5-27 5.9.4.2 16, 21, 32 Spelling: "me teorol ogy" .

5-32 5.9.4.4 21 (3.6 mile)  !

i 5-34 5.9.4.5 42 Spelling: "concentra tion" [ 5-39 5.9.4.5 5, 6, 7 delete lines 5, 6, and 7 ' 5-39 5.9.4.5 45 Indian " Point" [ 5-56 5.12 35 Spelling: " loudspeaker"

5-86 Fig. 5-22 North Cooling Tower is BV-1 Cooling Tower l South Cooling Tower is BV-2 Cooling Tower 3 5-89 T5.1 species name missing from first line of  ;

i table l 5-90 T5.3 Titl e ($ Thousands) 1989 . change 18533 to 17,533 [ l 5-91 T5.4 heading'& *** shouldn't 105 person years be 105 person i i' years? - i 0-5 TD-2 Nearest milk goat is 21Km (F3*R-T-2.3-471 l 0-5 . TD-3  :!earest milk gaat is 21Xm (FSAR-T-2.3-41)  !

         . Be ver Valley 2 FES                                                                                5                                                           Appendix A                                   .

I

                                                                                                                                          ,         m,--,.m,       -mm.-,,ew,-_.-.-.x,....,w        , . , , . ,,,.,,m

(LC ATTACHMENT 2 Coments on BV-2 OES Pg. No. Section l Line No. l All Sections: General' comment on the Draf t Environmental Statement: Although the staf f's assumptions are generally more conservative than the applicants, the overall conclusions arrived at in the DES indi-cates that the benefits associated with the operation of DVPS-2 far outweigh the environmental costs. 1-2 1.2 13 The NPDES permit for SVP5 was issued on ULC-1 November 25, 1984, and will be submitted as information to the staff in March,1985. 4-1 4.1 90 The maximum water velocity has increased DLC-2 across the bar racks in the main intake struc-ture as discussed in Section 4.2.4. 4-2 4.2.2 19 The BVP5-2 EAS has been changed to a 2,000 ft. DLC-3 radius centered on the BVPS-1 containment building. This' change has been discussed with the staf f and is docketed under letter No. 2NRC-5-015 on February 1,1985. 4-3 4.2.3.2 6 Ine free available chlorine (FAC) concentra-DLC-4 gjen at the condenser outlet" should be changed to "at the discharge to the river" per the BVPS NPDES permit (octfall 001). 4-4 4.2.3.2 3/, 36 The proprietary substance Calgon CL-4000 used DLC-5 to treat the secondary component cooling water and cooling tower water has been changed to Betz DUO.01.

               *-3      4.2.4        l o_              Ine service water system provides once-tnrough

$LC-6 cooling of primary and secondary heat exchangers, control room refrigerant condens-ing units, saf'eguards area air conditioners, main steam valve area cooling coils, auxil-1ary building motor control center cooling units, and charging pump coolers. The control roo't air conditioners are cooled ~ by the chilled water system. 77 4.2.6.1 1 The separate sewage treatment facility was DLC-7 built to handle the increased sanitary load of the BVPS-1 4 -2 sup' port buildings (ERF, Training Bldg., South Of fice Shops, Primary Access Facility). l 4-i 4.2.6.1 13 Revise the line as follows: All of these dis-charges are to the Ohio River except the sani-fLC-8 tary wastes and the discharge froin the oil water seperator serving the Fuel Oil 'Jnloading Facility (released to Peggs Run, a tributary of the Ohio River)... 4-6 4.2.6.2 10 change tne sentence to read: ine miergency DLC-9 diesel generators are tested once a month for l one hour; ... I 4-11 4.3.3 5 OLC does not know of any " hurricanes" being DLC-10 recorded for the Peaver Valley site area (FSAR 2.3.1.2.1) . Any hurricanes that have approached the region have been downgraded befcre they have resched the site. l 1

       ~ Beaver Valley 2 FES                                    6                                   Appendix A          l
           .~       ._ - -                _,   -~           __     _ _.           _               _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _. -

l OLC J Coments on BV-2 DES' (page 2) P g. No. Section Line No. 4-14 4.3.4.2 DLC believes that it is overly conservative to DLC-11 indicate any signiffcant comercial fish har-vest for the Ohio River near the BV site. 4-16 4.3.4.2 15 The BVPS-2 SER has not been published, it is DLC-12 anticipated that the SER will be issued by 1 March 30. 1985. 4-22 Fig. 4-2 Ine'EAB has been changed to a 2,000 f t. radius centered on the BV-1 containment building as DLC-13 discussed 'in letter No. 2NRC-5-015, dated February 1,1985. [ 4-36 T4.4 Table 4.4 (current Ef fluent Limitations for and Unit 1) and Table 4.5 ( Anticipated Effluent OLC-14 4-37 T4.5 Limitations for Unit 2) should be revised in accordance with the NPDES pennit for BV-1 and BV-2 i ssued on November 26, 1984, since the oermit is final. 4-38 T4.o TaDie 4.6 should be revised in accordance with OLC-15 the NPDES permit issued on November 26, 1984

'                                             The Pennsylvania DES Permit Number noted at the bottom of the table should spect fy the l

permit that applies to each specific sewage treatment pl ant, i .e., 0479403 (Unit 1) and 0482404 (Unit 2). 5-3 5.3.1- 13 Add: Ine DER af ter reviewing the Ohio River water quality and discharges from the BV-1 and DLC-16 BV-2 power stations elected not to impose any water quality based limits in the NPDES oermits. 5-3 5.3.1 26 Ado: The NPDES permi t nas been appealed wi tn DLC-17

                                -             respect to FAC limits imposed'on the Unit 1 and Unit 2 cooling tower blowdown due to
                                       .      severe condenser tube corrosion on Unit 1
                                             -resulting in the complete retubing of the Unit-1 condenser in 1984. In this regard, DLC is proposing to conduct a chlorine minimiza-

> tion study to allow for either increased FAC discharge times (greater than 2 hours per day per unit) and/or higher FAC effluent limita-l tions. . The permittee has also appealed the FAC l chlorination limits imposed in the NPDES per-

;                                             mit, in that, they are ambiguous as to whether they apply to the dosing period or to the period of discharge into the river.

5-3 5.3.2 6 The main SV-2 plant buildings sewage is dis-charged to the BVPS-1 sewage plant. The BV-2 OlC~10 i sewage plant is used only for support build-

ings (ERF, Training Building, etc.)...

5-4 5.3.2.2 3 5V-2 main plant structures receives its potable water from BV-1, only the support OLC-19 buildings use well water. 5-7 5.5.1.2 22 DLG has never had any " serious" problems wi tn its 345 Kv lines. Therefore, delete the word. DLC-20 l " serious." l Beaver Valley 2 FES 7 Appendix A

YLC Coments on BV-2 DES (page 3) Pg. No. Section Line No. 5-10 5.5.2.2 The second through fourth sentences should be. RLC-21 anended as follows: The stream is nod expec ted to receive the treated effluents from the Unit 2 Sewage Treatment Plant (Section 4.2.6) and from the Oil Water Separator located at the Fuel Oil Unloading Facility. The design flow of the sewage treatment plant constitutes more than 17 of the creek's mean flow (estimated by the applicant at 140 L/sec or Scfs ER-OL Sec-tion 2.4.3). The discharge froi the oil water separator is low volume in nature and inter-mittent. Because Pegg's Run is already a highly degraded stream (Section 4.3.3.2), the' potential ef fects of the sewage discharge (e.g., high oxygen demand and suspended solids) and oil water separator discharge (e.g., oil / grease and suspended solids) on Pegg's Run would be limited. 5-12 5.8 2 Ine socioeconomic impacts are discussed in DLC-22 ER-OL Section 8.1. 5-20 5.9.3.2 Altnough BVPS-2 meets RM-50-2 criteria, the OLC-23 applicant will follow Appendix I operational criteria per NUREG 0133 and Standard Radio-logical Tech. Specs. < gg_g4 5-32 5.9.4.4(2) S The BV-2 EAB is a 2,000 f t radius , centered on the BV-1 containment building. 5-50 Para. 1 Emergency Response Ef fectiveness: Al though QLC-25 uncertainties associated with emergency response do exist, the BY-Emergency Prepared-ness Plan and associated equipment and facilities combined with an extensive training program for local residents, has attempted to minimize the impact of these uncertainties. The applicant has perfonned a number of actions to address these uncertainties: a) extensive evacuation studies; b) state of the' art equipment to aid in the evacuation vs. shelter decision; c) complete training pro-grams for residents within the EPZ; d) com-plete cooperation and coordination with State and Local agencies. The above- ef forts have realized exceptional emergency drills which in turn reflect the adequacy of the Emergency Plan and the minimization of the uncertainties in early health consecuences. 5-57 5.14.2 Ine NPDES permit was issued on Novemoer Zo, JLC-25 1984-5-73 Fi 9 . 5-10 Althougn BVPS uses a "10 mile EPZ,' the actual DLC-27 and EPZ boundary follows various natural and poli-5-74 Fig. 5-11 tical boundaries located approximately 10 miles from the site. The BVPS Emergency Preparedness Plan contains the ' detailed infor-mation on the EPZ. t l Beaver Valley 2 FES 8 Appendix A

OLC Coments on BV-2 OES (page 4) Pg. No. Section Line No. 5-99 T5.8 The EAB distance for these values is 547 DLC-28 meters N.W. The source is ER-OL Tabl e 7.1-1. The x/q values associated with this distance are being revised and will be included in the next FSAR amendment (FSAR Table 2.3-38A). The values may change slightly. , o-1 o.4.1 Production costs should be 28 mills /kwnr re-sulting in a total annual cost avoided of 5112 DLC-29 and 6-2 6.4.1 million; ER-OL responses to question 320.01. Also based on recent BV-1 capacity factors (1983-64.91.; 1984-67.4%), the applicant believes that the 551 average capacity factor is. conservative and that the higher capacity f actors would result in even greater savings. o -3 To.1 Noise Ine applicant believes that tne noise hapact OLC-30 for the operation of BV-2 should be "small". 0-/ 10-5 Ine dilution factors do not agree with ER Table SC-3 Amendnent 6. The applicant believes DLC-31 that the staff's dilution factors are overly conservative, esoecially for Chester, W. Beaver valley 2 FES , . 9 nppendix A F I

001 s .g [ ^% United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                 ~~#
                     , 3                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 5/139                                                          g George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Knighton:

Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1985, transmitting copies of the draft environmental impact statement (OLS) for Beaver Vaney Power Station, Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Our comments are presented according to the format of the statement or by subject. Cooling Syste m 00I-1 The draft statement indicates on page 4-5 that there would be an increase in the e discharge water temperature during the opergtion of bgth Units 1 and 2. The dischargC temperature differential above ambient of1.3 C to 15.9 C and maximum change of 22 would seasonauy exceed the Pennsylvania State Water Quality Standards for water temperature of discharges into warmwater fishery areas. This standard was set to protect indigenous fishes and aquatic resources against thermal shock. The final statement should discuss the alternatives that were considered to reduce the temperature differential in the heated discharge and present the rationale for choosing the selected method of discharge. Acuatic 00I-2 Biologists of the State Couege, Pennsylvania, Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service have collected two skipjack herrings upstream from the Beaver Vaney plant site. Up until this time, the skipjack herring was thought to have been extirpated from the area. Therefore, the final statement should be revised to reflect the occurrence of the skipjack herring within the proposed project area. Groundwater Monitoring l 001-3 Note 7 of Table 5.6, Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program for Beaver Vaney, i Unit 2, indicates that there will be no radiological monitoring of ground water on the site, because the current hydraulic gradient is northwest toward the river. We suggest that during operation, pumping from the ensite wens will cause changes in the gradient di ecticn that would make radiological monitoring as well as chemical and biological ,

!                  menitoring advinble at the site. Application of the aquifer characteristics given in t.".a i

5 i i L Beaver Valley 2 FES 10 Appendix A [ r

001 j 1 l l statement on pages 5-41 and 5-42 indicates that the reversal of gradient will be appreciable and ground-water travel within the cone of depression will be accelerated. This issue should be reevaluated. We hope these comments will be helpful to you. Sincerely,

                                                        /
                                                   ,,gy           ((M!&.'IA
                                             -    Bruce Blan, chard, Director Environmental Project Review 4

Beaver Valley 2 FES 11 Appendix A l l

j.JFD L I

                                                      'Hu'ech 4, 1989 318 Summit Ave. #3 Bri dhton, Mass. 02135 Orrice af Nu: lear derictor darulatico U. S. Nuclese Regulatory Commission Washincton'D. C. 20555                                                                                                 [

! RE: CO..11ENTS ON THE DRdf r,UV1 hun.sielfAL dfAf 6Mr Nt RELATED TO FEE OPERATION Oc' .Tild BEAVdd V ALla.Y FO.J6R STATION , UNIT 2 (NUREG-1094) (Docket 50-412) ! John F. Doherty, a1 tress above, comments as below '. on the DEIS of the Commission with regard to the Beaver Valley plant. 1 Co= ment 1 JFD-1 Page D-1 of the DES states, "For younger persons, changes in organ mass and metabolic parameters.with a6e after the initial uotake of radioactivity are accounted fo r. " This would seem to-indicate an' accounting for i the age, but not the sex of the individual. While there , are certainly changes with age in adolescense for both ' sexes, the DES should in dicate if its assessment of

dose takes into account Ikpocure to radiation from the

!                     plant for females at puberty and women in the early stages of pregnancy when there is rapid proliferation of breast tissue cells with increased risk of one of the forms of breast cancer.                                                                                           ,

Comment 2 JFD-2 The DES fails to mention other serious cancer and , infant =ortality impacts on human beines from tailings l piles which must be created to orovide the fuel for s the Beaver Vallev - 2 plant. Thus, at ocres 4 and 5 of Apnendix C, in ne section titled "Ra.lon-222" the DES should mention both non-fatal cancers and deaths

                       *o infants due to radiation induced birth defects.
                                  -Thank you for this coportunity.

I Respectfully, w 55 ;g Jor.n F. Doherty I c.c. Ms. Marilyn Le7, Pr).14ct .knager i Beavec Valley 2 FES 12 Appendix A

                                                                    . . _ _ _ _ _ _       _m . __

HUD

           /****                                         U.S. Departrnent of Housing and Urt>an Development

. .& Ph;ladelphia Regional Omce, Region m 5 ' Uberty Square Building

           \ ..j                                          105 South Seventn Sweet Philadelphia, PennsyNania 19106 3392 IrtAR 3 1985 Director Division of Licensing       .

U. S.' Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

We have completed our review of the Draf t Environmental Statement for' the Beaver Valley Power. Station, Unit 2,' and have no coc:ments to offer. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, 1 j o Kenneth J. Finlayson Regional Administrator l 9 b k Beaver Valley 2 FES 13 Appenriix A

,     EPA i

I 9

                                                  /%, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY .

!  ! O *i REGION ill 841 Cnestnut Building

                                                                  ]                    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 i                                   Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief I.icensing Branch No.3                                                                     m 111985 Division of 1,1 censing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. */nighton:

Region III of EPA has completed its review of the Draf t EIS related to the operation of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station. Our comments presented below center around the issues of, water quality, air quality, radiation, and decommissioning. These conderns have led us to the con-clusion that the Draft EIS deserves a Jating of EC-2, meanirg that we have environmental concerns relating to the issues above, and that the the document includes insuf ficient information for these areas of con-cern. Our technical comments are presented here for your consideration in preparing the Final EIS. Water Issues: i. EPA-1 Although most of the information presented in the Draft EIS is adequate, we have reservations regarding the effluent water quality. The water quality description on pages 4-10 and following indicates that improvement , in water quality has been saade since 1974, appearing to indicate an upward trend. The text on pages 5-3 and 5-9, on the other hand, detail l loadings of criteria pollutants that will add to the pollution load t levels already existing in the receiving waters. Even though it is stated j chat these loadings and levels will "... not necessarily result in adverse ' effects...", we fed that using mortality and survival as the measures of water quality begs the issue of maintaining and improving water quality. I ! .The operator should make an effort to lower or eliminate these pollutant i i levels through treatment so that water quality in the receiving waters i may continue its current upward trend in quality, f . It is EPA's policy to adhere to the antidegradation clause of the Clean i Water Act. The practice of incremental addition of these and other pollu-

tants at this plant appears to set an unwise precedent that say be

repeated elsewhere. Such incremental additions can result in the long term cumulative effects throughout receiving streams that appears to be ,

j contrary to the principles of the Clean Water Act. Ap Issues: tPA-2 The description of airborne releases'on page 5-5 presuaes that, since the total annual emission does not exceed 250 tons and no air pollution standard will be violated, no further analyses are needed. This presump-l tion is not necessarily correct. The 250 tons per year is a cutoff below which n'o PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) permit .is required. The fact that plant's emissions will be below the cutoff does not assure that the ambient standards will be cet. The document is deficient in the area of air quality analyses since no calculation of the expacted air ~ s s quality is performed, nor are the emission estimatas stated. This is a Beaver Valley 2 FES 14 k yndix A f l l' i t r- . . _ . , _ - - - . - - . . __,._-m._ c . . - - - , --_-__-..,,v.- _

                                                                                                                                                      -,,e.,.,,.e_,,-y

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

4 EPA 4 serious deficiency and should be cleared up prior to publication of the Final EIS so that it is assured that air quality standards will not be i exceeded. I l. Radiation Issues: It is acknowledged that most of the airborne radiological releases are EPA-3 a result of normal operation and it is our opinion that this issue is . 4 adequately treated in the document. It is also our opinion that acciden-tal rele.ases are probably adequately . treated, we are concerned with the i the continuum of NRC documention of small component f ailures. The' likeli-hood of a major accident is probably not ratsrepresented, however. In another matter, EPA has set standards for radiation releases from EPA-4 f the uranium fuel cycle. Page 5-21 states that Unit 2 will be in com-l pliance with the standard, using the statement, "the NRC staff concludes

that under normal operations the Beaver Valley facility is capable of operating within these EPA standards." The *Ldentical statement has appeared in previous EIS's and leaves EPA and the public with inadequate assurances that the standards of 40 CFR 190 vill be met. These standards apply to the entire uranium fuel cycle, not just operation of the power plant.

Furthermore, page 6 of Appendix C quotes a 1975 NCRP (National Council EPA-5

on Radiation Protection). report regarding impacts of radon 222 dose to bronchial epithelium. The national average yielding a dose of 450 milli-rems has been revised to 3000 by NCRP, representing a substantial increase.

1 - Since mining and milling contribute substantially to the dose from the uranium cycle the use of obsolete information is improper in this document. The Final EIS and other future NRC and applicant documents should reflect the revised limits. , Decommissioning: . Page 5-53 and following presents too little information regarding dose -EPA-6 i estimates and reviewers had to look elsewhere in NRC documents. In addi-tion, one reviewer was informed that NitC is developing more explicit information than is currently available on decommissioning. The Final i EIS should include more detailed information than is detailed in this document. , l I

Conclusion:

5 Improved analytical work and updated information is important to your Final EIS. In addition, further work on the possibilities of treating ' the effluent from the various water-using operations should be carried

      ,,                    out. If you have any questions on any of these issues please call Bob
      '~

Davis on (215) 597-8327 (Comm. and FTS). i  : Si cerely. m ,#  ! M Pom[oni i i i , t s r Beaver Valley 2 FES ' <- 15 Appendix A  ; i

i i i l i s 1 i l i l i APPENDIX B NEPA POPULATION DOSE ASSESSMENT j 4 .

                                                                                                                .                                                                                      L l

I 1 I 1

     ~

4-I . i Beaver Valley 2 FES nppendix B

i, i APPENDIX B NEPA POPULATION DOSE ASSESSMENT Population-dose commitments are calculated for all individuals living within 80 km (50 miles) of Beaver Valley Unit 2 employing the same dose calculation models used for individual doses (see RG 1.109, Revision 1), for the purpose of meeting the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. In addition, dose commitments to the population residing beyond the 80-km region, associated with the export of food crops produced within the 80-km' region and with the atmospheric and hydrospheric transport of the more mobile effluent species, such as noble gases,' tritium, and' carbon-14, are taken into consideration for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 (NEPA). This appendix describes the methods used to make these NEPA population dose estimates.

1. Iodines and Particulates Released to the Atmosphere Effluent nuclides in this category deposit onto the ground as the effluent moves downwind; thus the concentration of these nuclides remaining in the plume is continuously being reduced. Within 80 km of the facility, the deposition model in RG 1.111, Revision 1, is used in conjunction with the dose models in RG 1.109, Revision 1. Site-specific data concerning production and consumption of foods within 80 km of the reactor are used. For estimates of population doses beyond 80 km, it is assumed that excess food not consumed within the'.

80-km area wo'uld be consumed by the population beyond 80 km. It is further assumed that none, or very few, of the particulates released from the -facility will be transported beyond the 80-km distance; thus, they will make no signifi-cant contribution to the population dose outside the 80-km region, except by export of food crops. This assumption was tested and found to be reasonable for Bea*ver Valley Unit 2.

2. Noble Gases, Carbon-14, and Tritium Released to the Atmosphere For locations within 80 km of the reactor facility, exposures to these efflu-ents are calculated with a constant'mean wind-direction model according to the guidance provided in RG 1.111, Revision 1, and the dose models described in RG 1.109, Revision 1. For estimating the dose commitment from these radio-nuclides to the U.S. population residing beyond the 80-km region, two dispersion

, regimes are considered. These are referred to as the first pass-dispersion regimef and the world-wide-dispersion regime. The model for the first pass-dispersion regime estimates the' dose commitment to the population from the

  ~ radioactive plume as it leaves the facility and drifts across the continental U.S. toward the northeastern corner of the U.S. The model for the world-wide-dispersion regime estimates the dose commitment to the U.S. population after          ,

the released radionuclides mix uniformly in the world's atmosphere or oceans. Beaver Valley 2 FES 1 Appendix 8 l

(a) First-Pass Dispersion For estimating the dose commitment to the U.S. population residing beyond the 80-km region as a result of the first pass of radioactive pollutants, it is assumed that the pollutants disperse in the lateral and vertical directions along the plume path. The direction of movement of the plume is assumed to be from the facility toward the northeast corner of the U.S. The extent of vertical dispersion is assumed to be limited by the ground plane and the stable atmospheric layer aloft, the height of which deter-mines the mixing depth. The shape of such a plume geometry can be visual-ized as a right cylindrical wedge whose height is equal to the mixing depth. Under the assumption of constant population density, the popula-tion dose associated with such a plume geometry is independent of the extent of lateral dispersion, and is only dependent upon the mixing depth and other nongeometrical related factors (NUREG-0597). The mixing depth is estimated to be 1000 m, and a uniform population density of 62 persons / km2 is assumed'along the plume path, with an average plume-transport velocity of 2 m/s. The total-body population-dose commitment from the first pass of radio-active effluents is due principally to external exposure from gamma-emitting noble gases, and to internal exposure from inhalation of air containing tritium and from ingestion of food containing carbon-14 and tritium. (b) World-Wide Dispersion For estimating the dose commitment to the U.S. population after the first-pass, world-wide dispersion is assumed. Nondepositing radionuclides with half-lives greater than 1 year are considered. Noble gases and carbon-14 are assumed to mix uniformly in the world's atmosphere (3.8 x 1018 m3 ), and radioactive decay is taken into consideration. The world-wide-dispersion model estimates the activity of each nuclide at the end of a 20 year release period (midpoint of reactor life) and estimates the annual population-dose commitment at that time, taking into consideration radio-active decay and physical removal mechanisms (for example, carbon-14 is gradually removed to the world's oceans). The total-body population-dose commitment from the noble gases is due mainly to external exposure from gamma emitting nuclides, whereas from carbon-14 it is due mainly to internal exposure from ingestio.n of food containing carbon-14. The population-dose commitment as a result of tritiua releases is estimated in a manner similar to that for carbon-14, -except that after the first pass, all the tritium is assumed to be immediately distributed in the world's circulating water volume (2.7 x 1016 m3 ) including the top 75 m of the seas and oceans, as well as the rivers and atmospheric moisture. The concentration of tritium in the world's circulating water is estimated at the time after 20 years of releases have occurred, taking into considera-tion radioactive decay; the population-dose commitment estimates are based , on the incremental concentration at that time. The total-body population-dose commitment from tritium is due mainly to internal exposure from the consumption of food. Beaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix B

3. Liquid Effluents Population-dose commitments due to effluents in the receiving water within 80 km of the facility are calculated as described in RG 1.109, Revision 1. It is assumed that no depletion by sedimentation of the nuclides present in the receiving water occurs within 80 km. It also is assumed that aquatic biota concentrate radioactivity in the same manner as was assumed for the ALARA eval-uation for the maximally exposed individual. However, food-consumption values appropriate for the average, rather than the maximum, individual are used. It is further assumed that all the sport and commercial fish and shellfish caught within the 80-km area are eaten by the U.S. population.

Beyond 80 km, it is assumed that all the liquid-effluent nuclides except tritium have deposited on the sediments so that they make no further contribution to population exposures. The tritium is assumed to mix uniformly in the world's circulating water volume and to result in an exposure to the U.S. population in the same manner as discussed for tritium in gaseous effluents.

4. References U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0597, K. F. Eckerman, et al., " User's Guide to GASPAR Code," June 1980.

 -- , RG 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses.to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Revision 1, October 1977.
 -- , RG 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Reactors," Revision 1, July 1977.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 3- Appendix B

APPENDIX C IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE Beaver Valley 2 FES Appendix C l

i APPENDIX C IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the LWR-supporting fuel cy.cle as related to the operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50) (see Section 5.10 of the main body of this report) and the NRC staff's estimates of radon-222 and technetium-99 releases. For the sake of consistency, the analysis of fuel-cycle impacts has been cast in terms of a model 1000-MWe light-water-cooled reactor (LWR) operating at an annual capacity factor of 80%. In the following review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff's analysis and conclusions would not be altered if the analysis were to be based on the net electrical power output of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2.

1. Land Use l

The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe LWR is about 460,000 m2 (113 acres). Approximately 53,000 m2 (13 acres) per year are permanently committed land, and 405,000.m2 (100 acres) per year are temporarily committed. (A " temporary" land commitment is a commitment for the life of the specific fuel-cycle plant, such as a mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding plants. On abandoment or decommissioning, such land can be used for ~ any purpose. " Permanent" commitments represent land that may not'be released for use after plant shutdown and/or decommissioning.) Of the 405,000 m2 per . year of temporarily committed land, 320,000 m2 are undisturbed and 90,000 mz are disturbed. Considering common classes of land use in the United States,* fuel-cycle land-use requirements to support the model 1000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.

2. Water Use The principal water-use requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe LWR 'is that required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of this cycle. Of the total annual requirement of 43 x 108 3m (11.4 x 109 gal), about 42 x 108 m3 are.

required for this purpose, assuming that these plants use once-through cooling. Other water uses involve the discharge to air (for example, evaporation losses in process cooling) of about 0.6 x 106 m3 (16 x 107 gal) per year and water discharged to the ground (for example, mine drainage) of about 0.5 x 106 ma per year. On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4% of those from the model 1000-MWe LWR using once-through cooling. The

 *A coal-fired plant of 1000-MWe capacity using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 810,000 m2 (200 acres) per year for fuel alone.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 1 Appendix C

consumptive water use of 0.6 x 108 3m per year is about 2% of that from the model 1000-MWe LWR using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle used cooling towers) would be about 6% of the model 1000-MWe LWR using cooling towers. -Under this condition, thermal effluents would be negligible. The staff finds that these combinations of thermal loadings and water consumption are acceptable relative to the water use and thermal discharges of the proposed project.

3. Fossil Fuel Consumption Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process. The electrical energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. Electrical energy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5% of the annual electrical power production of the model 1000-MWe LWR. Process heat is primarily generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate electricity, would be less than 0.3% of the electrical output from the model plant. The staff finds that the direct and indirect consumptions of electrical energy for fuel-cycle operations are small and acceptable relative to the net power production of the proposed project.

4. Chemical Effluents The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents associated with fuel-cycle processes are given in Table S-3. The principal species are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. On the basis of data-in-a: Council, on Environmental Quality report (CEQ, 1976), the staff finds that theit emis-sions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading iT. comparison with the same emissions from the stationary fuel-combustion and trans;!crtation sectors in the United States; that is, about 0.02% of the annual national releases for each of these species. The staff believes that such small increases in releases of these pollutants are acceptable.

Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel-onchrichment, -fabrication, and -reprocessing operations and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels of concentration that are within established standards. The flow of dilution water required for specific constituents.is specified in Table S-3. Additionally, all liquid discharges into the navigable waters of the U.S. from plants associated with the fuel-cycle operations will be subject to requirements and limitations set forth in the NPDES permit. Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions and solids are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the enviror, ment. Beaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix C

5. Radioactive Effluents Radioactive effluents estimated to-be released to the environment from repro-cessing and waste-management activities and certain other phases of the fuel-cycle process are set forth in Table S-3. Using these data, the staff has calculated for 1 year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR, the 100 year environmental dose commitment

• to the U.S population from~the LWR-supporting fuel cycle. Dose commitments are provided in this section for exposure to four categories of radioactive releases: (1) airborne effluents that are quantified in Table S-3 (that is, all radionuclides except radon-222 and technetium-99);

(2) liquid effluents that are quantified in Table S-3 (that is, all radionuclides except technetium-99); (3) the staff's estimates of radon-222 releases; and (4) the staff's estimate of technetium-99 releases. Dose commitments from the first two categories .are also described in a proposed explanatory narrative for Table S-3, which was published in the Federal Register on March 4,1981 (46 FR 15154-15175). Airborne Effluents Population dose estimates for exposure to airborne effluents are based on the annual releases listed in Table S-3, using an environmental dose commitment (EOC) time of 100 years.** The computational code used for these estimates is the RABGAD code originally developed for use in the " Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Use of Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," GESMO (NUREG-0002, Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix A). Two generic sites are postulated for the points of_ release of the airborne efflu-ents: (1) a site in the midwestern United States for releases from a fuel reprocessing plant and other facilities, and (2) a site in the western' United States for releases from milling and a geological repository. The following environmental pathways were considered in estimating doses: (1) inhalation and submersion in the plume during its initial passage; (2) ingestion of food; (3) external exposure from radionuclides desposited on soil; and (4) atmospheric resuspension of radionuclides deposited on soil. Radionuclides released to the atmosphere from the midwestern site are assumed to be transported with a mean wind speed of 2 m/sec over a 2413-km (1500-mile)** pathway from the midwestern United States to the northeast corner of the United States, and deposited on vegetation (deposition velocity of 1.0 cm/sec) with subsequent uptake by milk- and meat producing animals. No removal mechanisms are assumed during the first 100 years, except normal weathering from crops to soil (weathering half-life of 13 days). Dose from exposure to carbon-14 were estimated using the GESMO model to estimate the dose to the population of the United States from the initial passage of carbon-14 before it mixed in the world's carbon pool. The model developed by Killough (1977) was used to esti-mate doses from exposure to carbon-14 after it mixed in the world's carbon pool.

   *The 100 year environmental dose commitment is the integrated population dose for 100 years; that is, it represents the sum of the annual population doses for a total of 100 years.
 **Here and elsewhere in this narrative insignificant. digits are retained for purposes of internal consistency in the model.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 3 Appendix C

In a similar manner, radionuclides released from the western site were assumed to be transported over a 3218-km (2000-mile) pathway to the northeast corner of the United States. The agricultural characteristics that were used in computing doses from exposure to airborne effluents from the two generic sites are described in GESM0 (NUREG-0002, page IV JCA)-19). To allow for an increase in population, the population densities used in this analysis were 50% greater than the values used in GESMO (NUREG-0002, page IV J(A)-19). Liquid Effluents Population dose estimates for exposure to liquid effluents are based on the annual releases listed in Table S-3 and the hydrological model described in GESMO (NUREG-0002, pages IV J(A)-20, -21, and -22). The following environmental pathways were considered in estimating doses: (1) ingestion of water and fish; (2) ingestion of food (vegetation, milk, and beef) that had been produced though irrigation; and (3) exposure from shoreline, swimming, and boating activites. It is estimated from these calculations that the overall total body dose com-mitment to the U.S. population from exposure to gaseous releases from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor releases and the dose commitment due to radon-222 and technetium-99) would be approximately 450 person-rems to the total body for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR (reference reactor year, or RRY). Based on Table S-3 values, the additional total body dose commitments to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid effluents (excluding technetium-99) as a result of all fuel-cycle operations other than reactor operation would be about 100 person-rems per year of operation. Thus, the estimated 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle is about 550 person-rems.to the total body (whole body) per RRY. Because there are higher dose commitments to certain organs (for example, lung, bone, and thyroid) than to the total body, the total risk of radiogenic cancer is not addressed by the total body dose commitment alone. Using risk estimators of 135, 6.9, 22, and 13.4 cancer deaths per million person-rems for total body, bone, lung, and thyroid exposures, respectively, it is possible to estimate the total body risk equivalent dose for certain organs (NUREG-0002, Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix B). The sum of the total body risk equivalent dose from those organs is estimated to be about 100 person-rems. When added to the above value, the total 100 year environmental dose commitment would be about 650 person-rems (total body risk equivalent dose) per RRY. (Section 5.9.3.1.1 describes the health effects models in more detail.) Radon-222 At this time the quantities of radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are not listed in Table S-3.. Principal randon releases occur during mining and milling operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. The staff has determined that radon-222 releases per RRY frcm these operations are as given in Table C-1. The staff has calculated population-dose commitments for these sources of radon-222 using the RABGAD computer code described in Volume 3 of HUREG-0002 (Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix A). The results of thesa calcula-tions for mining and milling activities prior to tailings stabilization are j listed in Table C-2. l l Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix C

The staff has considered the health effects associated with the releases of radon-222, including both the short-term effects of mining and milling and  ! active tailings, and the potential long-term effects from unreclaimed open pit mines and stablized tailings. The staff has assumed that after completion of , active mining, underground mines will be sealed, returning releases of radon-222  : to background levels. For purposes of providing an upper bound impact assess-ment, the staff has assumed that open pit mines will be unreclaimed and has  ; , calculated that if all ore were produced from open pit mines, releases from t l them would be 110 Ci per RRY. However, because the distribution of uranium-tre  ! reserves available by conventional mining methods is 66% underground and 34%  ! open pit (Department of Energy, 1978), the staff has further assumed that i' uranium to fuel LWRs will be produced by conventional mining methods in these proportions. This means that long-term releases from unreclaimed open pit mines will be 0.34 x 110 or 34 Ci per year per RRY. , l Based on a value of 37 Ci per year per RRY for long-term releases from unre-  ! i claimed open pit mines, the radon released from unreclaimed open pit mines over l 1 100- and 1000 year periods would be about 3700 Ci and 37,000 Ci per RRY, respec- f

!          tively. The environmental dose commitmeats for a 100- to 1000 year period would              j be as shown in Table C-3.                                                                      i r

These commitments represent a worst case situation in that no mitigating cir - I cumstances are assumed. However, state and Federal laws currently require re-  ! clamation of strip and open pit coal mines, and it is very probable that similar i reclamation will be required for open pit uranium mines. If so, long-term [ releases from such mines should approach background levels. j 1 j For long-term radon releases from stabilized tailings piles, the staff has  ; assumed that these tailings would emit, per RRY,1 Ci per year for 100 years, i j 10 Ci per year for the next 400 years, and 100 Ci per year for periods beyond l 1 500 years. With these assumptions, the cumulative radon-222 release from

                                                ~                                                       !
.         stabilized-tail'ings piles per RRY would be 100 Ci in 100 years, 4090 Ci in                    i
+

500 years, and 53,800 Ci in 1000 years (Gotchy, 1978). The total-body, bone, i j and bronchial epithelium dose commitments for these periods are as shown in " ,' Table C-4. i Using risk estimators of 135, 6.9, and 22 cancer deaths per million person-rems  ! I for total-body, bone, and lung exposures, respectively, the estimated risk of  ! I cancer mortality resulting from mining, milling, and active-tailings emissions [ of radon-222 (that is, Table C-2) is about 0.11 cancer fatality per RRY. When  ; the risks from radon-222 emissions from stabilized tailings and from reclaimed f 4 and unreclaimed open pit mines are added to.the value of 0.11 cancer fatality, l the overall risks of radon-induced cancer fatalities per RRY are as follows:  ! , 0.19 fatality for a 100 year period > 2.0 fatalities for a 1000 year period These doses and predicted health effects have been compared with those that can be expected from natural-background emissions of radon-222. The National Coun- , , cil on Rzdiation Protection and Measurement (NCEP,1975) estimates that the av- l  ! q erage outdoor radon-222 concentration in air in the contiguous United States is t about 150 pCi/m 3 , and that exposures to this concentration will result in an

                                                                                                        }

l I i Beaver Valley 2 FES 5 Appendix C f i i _- . _ _h

annual dose to the bronchial epithelium of 450 millirems. For a stabilized future U.S. population of 300 million, this represents a total lung-dose commit-ment of 135 million person rems per year from outdoor inhalation exposure to radon-222 and its daughter products. Using the same risk estimator of 22 lung-cancer fatalities per million person-lung-rems used to predict cancer fatalities for.the model 1000-MWe LWR, the staff estimates that lung-cancer fatalities alone from background radon-222 in outdoor air can be calculated to be about 3000 per year, or 300,000 to 3,000,000 lung-cancer deaths over periods of 100 to 1000 years, respectively. Current NRC regulations (10 CFR 40, Appendix A)' require that an earth cover not less than 3 meters in depth be placed over tailings to reduce the Rn-222 emana-

    . tion from the disposed tailings to less than 2 pCi/m2-sec, on a calculated basis, above background. In October 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection -                      ,

Agency (EPA) published environmental standards for the~ disposal of uranium and ' thorium mill tailings at licensed commercial processing sites (EPA, 1983). The ', EPA regulations (40 CFR 192) require that disposal be designed to limit Rn-222 emanation to less than 20 pCi/m2-sec, averaged over the surface of the disposed tailings. The NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards is reviewing its regulations for tailings disposal to ensure that they conform with the EPA regulations. Although a few of the dose estimates in this appendix would change if NRC adopts EPA's higher Rn-222 flux limit for disposal of tailings, the basic conclusion of this appendix should still be valid. That conclusion is: "The staff concludes that both the dose commitments and health effects of the LWR-supporting uranium fuel cycle are very small when compared with dose commitments and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural-background sources." Technetium-99 ' " l The staff has calculated the potential 100 year environmental dose commitment' to the U.S. population from the release of technetium-99. These calculations are based on the gaseous and the hydrological pathway model systems described in Volume 3 of NUREG-0002 (Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix A) and are described ' in more detail in the staff's testimony at the operating license hearing for the Susquehanna Station (Branagan and Struckmeyer, 1981). The gastrointestinal tract and the kidney are the body organs that receive the highest doses from , exposure to technetium-99. The total body dose is estimated at less than 1 person-rem per RRY and the total body risk equivalent dose is estimated at less than 10 person-rems per RRY.  ! i Summary of Impacts The potential radiological impacts of the supporting fuel cycle are summarized in Table C-5 for an environmental dose commitment time of 100 years. For an envirnmental dose commitment time of 100 years, the total body dose to the U.S. ,2cpulation is about 790 person-rems per RRY, and the corresponding total 7 boc' sisk equivalent dose is about 2000 person-rems per RRY. In a similar me iner, the total body dose to the U.S. population is about 3000 person-rems , per RRY, and the corresponding total body risk equivalent dose is about 15,000 person rems per RRY using a 1000 year environmental dose commitment time. ' Multiplying the total body risk equivalent dose of 2000 person-rems per RRY by  ! the preceding risk estimator of 135 potential cancer deaths per million person- j rems, the staff estimates that about 0.27 cancer death per RRY may occur in the  ; t Beaver Valley 2 FES 6 Appendix C i i

U.S. population as a result of exposure to effluents from the fuel cycle. .Mul-tiplying the total body dose of 790 person-rems per RRY by the genetic risk estimator of 220 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million person-rems, the staff estimates that about 0.17 potential genetic disorder per RRY may occur in all future generations of the population exposed during the 100 year environmental dose commitment time. In a similar manner, the staff estimates that about 2 potential cancer deaths per RRY and about 0.8 potential genetic disorder per RRY may occur using a 1000 year environmental dose commit-ment time. Some perspective can be gained by comparing the preceding estimates with those from naturally occurring terrestrial and cosmic-ray sources. These average about 100 millirems. Therefore, for a stable future population of 300 million persons, the whole-body dose commitment would be about 30 million person-rems per year, or 3 billion person-rems and 30 billion person rems for periods of 100 and 1000 years, respectively. These natural-background dose commitments could produce about 400,000 and 4,000,000 cancer deaths and about 770,000 and 7,700,000 genetic disorders, during the same time periods. From the above analysis, the staff concludes that both the-dose commitments and health effects of the LWR-supporting uranium fuel cycle are very small when compared with dose commitments and potential hoalth effects to the U.S. population resulting from

  -all natural-background sources.

6. Radioactive Wastes .

The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes) associated with the uranium fuel cycle are specified in Table S-3. For low-level waste disposal at-land-burial facilities, the Commis-sion notes in Table S-3 that there will be significant radioactive releases to the environment. The Commission notes that high-level and transuranic wastes i are to be buried at a Federal repository and that no release to the environment is associated with such disposal. NUREG-0116, which provides background and contkxt for the high-level and transuranic waste values in Table S-3 established by the Commission, indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will ! be buried and will not be released to the biosphere. No radiological environ-mental impact is anticipated from such disposal.

7. Occupational Dose The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MWe LWR is about 200 person-rems. The staff concludes that this occupational dose will have a small environmental impact.

8. Transportation The transportation dose to workers and the public is specified in Table S-3.

4 This dose is small in comparison with the natural-background dose.

9. Fuel Cycle The staff's analysis of the uranium fuel cycle did not depend on the selected fuel cycle (no recycle or uranium-only recycle), because the data provided in Table S-3 include the maximum recycle-option impact for each element of the Beaver Valley 2 FES 7 Appendix C

l l fuel cycle. Thus the staff's conclusions as to acceptability of the environ-mental impacts of the fuel cycle are not affected by the specific fuel cycle , selected. t i 10. References i Branagan, E. , and R. Struckmeyer, testimony from "In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Allegheny Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, presented on October 14, 1981, in the transcript following page 1894.

Council on Environmental Quality, "The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality," Figures 11-27 and 11-28, pages 238-239, September 1976. Gotchy, R. , testimony from "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-488, filed April 17, 1978. Killough, G.G., "A Diffusion-Type Model of the Global Carbon Cycle for the Estimation of Dose to the World Population from Releases of Carbon-14 to the Atmosphere," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-5269, May 1977.

,      National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), " Natural Background Radiation in the United States," NCRP Report No. 45, November 1975.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), " Environmental Standards for Uranium and i Thorium' Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites (40 CFR 192)," Federal Register, Vol 48, No.196, pp. 45926-45947, October 7,.1983. - U.S. Department of Energy, " Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry," GJ0-100(8-78), January 1978. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0002, " Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycled Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," August 1976.

       -- , NUREG-0116, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle" (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.

i i Beaver Valley 2 FES 8 Appendix C l

1 Table C-1 Radon releases from mining and milling operations and mili tailings for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR

• Radon source Quantity released Mining ** 4060 Ci Milling and tailings *** (during active mining) 780 Ci Inactive tailings *** (before stabilization) 350 Ci Stabilized tailings *** (several hundred years) 1 to 10 Ci/ year Stabilized tailings *** (after several hundred years) 110 Ci/ year

    *After 3 days of hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLB) using the Perkins record in a " lead case" approach, the ASLAB issued a decision on May 13, 1981 (ALAB-640) on the radon-222 release source term for the uranium fuel cycle. The decision, among other matters, produced new source term numbers based on the record developed at the hearings. These new numbers did not differ significantly from those in the Perkins record, which are the values set forth in this table.      Any health effects relative to radon-222 are still under consideration before the ASLAB.

Because the source term numbers in ALA.B-640 do not differ significantly from those in the Perkins record, the staff cont.inues to conclude that both the dose commitments and health effects of the uranium fuel cycle are insignifi-cant when compared to dose commitments and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural background sources. Subsequent to ALAB-640, a second ASLAB decision (ALAB-654, issued September.11,1981) permits intervenors a. 60-day period to challenge the Perkins record. on the , potential heath effects of radon-222 emissions

  **R. Wilde, NRC transcript of direct testimony given "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station)," Docket No. 50-488, April 17, 1978.

C**P. Magno, NRC transcript of direct testimony given "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station)," Docket No. 50-488, April 17, 1978. l Beaver Valley 2 FES 9 Appendix C

l i 't Table C-2 Estimated 100 year environmental dose commitments i per year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR i-4 Environmental dose commitments Total body Lung - risk Total (bronchial equivalent , body Bone- epithelium) dose

,_                      Radon-222                      (person-   (person- (person-                      (person-                   ;

3 Radon source releases,(Ci) rems) rems) rems) rems)

                                                                                                                                    ~

1 Mining 4100 110 2800 2300 630 Milling and active tailings 1100 29 750 620 170 Total 5200 140 3600 2900 800 Table C-3 Estimated 100 year environmental dose commitments from unreclaimed open pit mines for each year of operation of the model 1000 MWe LWR Environmental dose commitments Total body Lung risk Total (bronchial equivalent body Bone epithelium) dose Time span Radon-222 (person- (person- (person- (person-(years) releases (Ci) rems) rems) rems) rems) 100 3,700 96 2,500 2,000 550 500 19,000 480 13,000 11,000 3,000 1,000 37,000 960 25,000 20,000 5,500 Beaver Valley 2 FES 10 ApjendfxC

4 Table C-4 Estimated 100 year environmental dose commitments from stabilized-tailings pi.les for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR 1 j Environmental dose commitments Total body

Lung risk ,

Total (bronchial equivalent ' body Bone epithelium) dose l Time span Radon-222 (person- (person- (person- (person-(years) releases (Ci)' rems) rems) rems) rems) 100 100 2.6 68 56 15 1 500 4,090 110 2,800 2,300 630 } 1,000 53,800 1,400 37,000 30,000 8,200 s l i i r t l i I i Table C-5 Summary of 100 year environmental dose commitments per year  ! of operation of the model 1000-MWe light-water reactor [ i 4 Total body I risk l Total body equivalent i j Source (person rems) (person-rems) l ) All nuclides in Table S-3 except radon-222 4 and technetium-99 550 l: 650 i I l Radon-222 I i  ! I Mining, milling, and' active tailings, ( 5200 Ci 140 800  ! l Unreclaime.1 open pit mines, 3700 Ci 96 550 [ \ .. I StaMffzed tailings,100 C1 3 15 i r l Technetium-99, 1.3 Ci* <1 <10 i i i TOTAL 790 2000  ! .i  ! ' I

• Dose cccmitments are based on the " prompt" release of 1.3 Ci/RRY. Additional releases of technetium-99 are estimated to occur at a rate of 0.0039 Ci/yr/RRY i after 2000 years of placing wastes in a high-level-waste repository.  !

I i i Beaver Valley 2 FES 11 Appendix C )i

                                                                                                                                                        .- - _ , - - .. L

APPENDIX 0 EXAMPLES OF SITE-SPECIFIC DOSE ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS i t l I Beaver Valley 2 FE5 Appendix 0

APPENDIX D EXAMPLES OF SITE-SPECIFIC DOSE ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS

1. Calculational Approach As mentioned in the main body of this report, the quantities of radioactive material that may be released annually from Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 are estimated on the basis of the description of the design and operation of the radwaste systems as contained in.the applicant's FSAR and by using the calcula-tive models and parameters described in NUREG-0017. These estimated effluent release values for normal operation, including anticipated operational occur-rences, along with the applicant's site and environmental data in the ER and in subsequent answers to NRC staff questions, are used in the calculation of radiation doses and dose commitments.

j The models and considerations for environmental pathways that lead to estimates

                                                   ~

of radiation doses and dose commitments to individual members of the public near the plant and of cumulative doses and dose commitments to the entire population within an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the plant as a result of plant operations are discussed in detail in RG 1.109, Revision 1. Use of these models with additional assumptions for environmental pathways that lead to exposure to the general population outside the 80-km radius is described in Appendix B of this statement. The calculations performed by the staff for the releases to. the atmosphere and hydrosphere provide total integrated dose commitments' to.the entire population within 80 km of this facility based on the projected population distribution in the year 2010. The dose commitments represent the total dose that would be received over a 50 year period, following the intake of radioactivity for 1 year under the conditions existing 20 years after the station begins operation (that ! is, the mid point of station operation). For younger persons, changes in organ j ' mass and metabolic parameters with age after the initial intake of radioactivity are accounted for.

2. Dose Commitments from Radioactive Effluent Releases The NRC staff's estimates of the expected gaseous and particulate releases (listed in Table 0-1) along with_the site meteorological considerations (sum-marized in Table D-2) were used to estimate radiation doses and doca caamitments for airborne effluents. Individual receptor locations and pathway locations considered for the maximally exposed individual in these calculations are listed

in. Table 0-3.

Annual average relative concentration (x/Q) and relative deposition (0/Q) values were calculated using the straight-line Gaussian atmospheric dispersion model described in RG 1.111, modified to reflect potential spatial and temporal vari-ations in airflow, using site-specific correction factors developed by the applicant. Releases through the process vent (at the top of the cooling tower) Beaver Valley 2 FES 1 Appendix 0 l n e nn - -

                                                                     , -   -          , , --w.

were assumed to be elevated, and releases from the turbine building were assumed to be at ground level, with mixing in the turbulent wake of plant structures. Releases through the containment vent were assumed to be partially elevated, except for the transport directions (affected sectors) of north-nor.theast, northeast, east-southeast, and southeast. Dispersion in these transport direc-tions is affected by the large natural draft cooling towers, and, for these transport directions, releases from the containment vent were assumed to be at ground level with mixing in the turbulent wake of plant structures. Intermit-tent releases through the containment vent were evaluated using the methodology in NUREG/CR-2919. A 5 year period of record (January 1977-December 1981) of onsite meterological data was used for this evaluation. For releases from the containment and tur-bine building vents, wind speed and direction data were based on measurements made at the 10.7-m (35-foot) level, and atmospheric stability was defined by the vertical temperature difference between the 45.7-m (150-foot) and 10.7-m levels. For releases through the process vent at the top of the cooling tower, wind speed and direction data were based on measurements made at the 152-m (499-foot) level, and atm6 spheric stability was defined by the vertical temperature difference between the 152-m and 10.7-m levels. In addition, the NRC staff estimates of the expected liquid releases (listed in Table D-4), along with the site hydrological considerations (summarized in Table D-5), were used to estimate radiation doses and dose commitments from liquid releases. (a) Radiation Dose Commitments to Individual Members of the Public

                                                                            ~'

As explained in the text, calculations are made for a hypothetical ~ individual member of the public (that is, the maximally exposed individual) who would be expected to receive the highest radiation dose from all pathways that contri-bute. This method tends to overestimate the doses because assumptions are made that would be difficult for a real individual to fulfill. The estimated dose commitments to the individual who is subject to maximum exposure at selected offsite locations from airborne releases of radioiodine and particulates, and waterborne releases are listed in Tables D-6, D-7, and D-8. The maximum annual total body and skin dose to a hypothetical individual and the maximum beta and gamma air dose at the site boundary also are presented in Tables D-6, D-7, and D-8. The maximally exposed individual is assumed to consume well above average quantities of the potentially affected foods and to spend more time at poten-tially affected locations than the average person, as indicated in Tables E-4 and E-5 of Revision 1 of RG 1.109. (b) Cumulative Dose Ccemitments to the General Population Annual radiation dose cctmitments from airborne and waterborne radioactive releases from Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 are estimated for two popula-tions in the year 2010: (1) all members of the general public within 80 km j (50 miles) of the station (Table D-7) and (2) the entire U.S. population Seaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix D l

(Table D-9). Dose commitments beyond 80 km are based on the assumptions dis-

               -cussed in Appendix B. . For perspective, annual background radiation doses are given in the tables for both populations.

3. References U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.

                -- , .NUREG/CR-2919, " User's Guide for X0QD0Q:                                                          Evaluating Routine Effluent Releases at Commmercial Nuclear Power Stations," J.F. Sagendorf, S.T. Goll, t               and W.F. Sandusky, September 1982.                                                                                                                                             '
                -- , RG 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of                                                                                                   '

Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,". Revision 1, October 1977.

                -- , RG 1.111, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water Reactors," Revision 1,                                                                                                  ,

1977. '

 .                                                                                                                                                                                             1 I
 )

I I  ! d i i

!                                                                                                                                                                                              l 1

4 i 1 l  ! ! i I l l -! I I i [ l l I i l Beavar Valley 2 FES 3 Appendix 0 j t

                                                                                                                                                       ...,..-.---4_
                                                                                                                                                                        , m.., . . - _ __. -

i Table D-1 Calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents from Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (Ci/yr per reactor)- l Sum of reactor contain-ment vacuum, waste Reactor Turbine gas processing, and Auxiliary building building air ejector exhausts

• building stack *** vent ****

4 Nuclides (Cont)t (Cont)t (Interm't)t (Cont)t Total l Ar-41 a a a a a j Kr-83m a a a a a

Kr-85m- 1 2 a 1 3 Kr-85 200 a b a 201 Kr-87 a 1 a a 1

Kr-88 2 4 a a 6 j Kr-89 a a a a a

Xe-131m 36 a a a 36 l Xe-133m 2 4 1 a 7 i Xe-133 520 34 140 a 694 Xe-135m a a a a a

Xe-135 5 4 a a 9 Xe-137 a a a a a

!  Xe-138                                 a                    a                             a                         a          a Total Noble Gases                                                          960

! Mn-54 0.000045 0.00018 0.0011 b 0.0011

'                                                       ~

Fe-59 0.000015 0.000060 0.00037 b 0.00039 i Co-58 0.00015 0.00060 0.0037 b 0.0039

Co-60 0.000070 0.00027 0.0017 b 0.0020

;  Sr-89                       0.0000033             0.000013                                0.000085                 b           0.00010 1   Sr-90                       0.00000070            0.0000024                               0.000015                 b           0.000018 Cs-134                      0.000045               0.00018                                 0.0011                   b           0.0013 Cs-137                      0.000075               0.00030                                 0.0019                   b           0.0023

) Total Particulates 0.011 I-131 0.038* 0.0043 a 0.00052 0.043 I-133 0.013* 0.0062 a 0.00069 0.020 i H-3 - 770 - - 770 C-14 8 a a a 8

• Continuous, elevated release through cooling tower of Unit 1. The I-131 and I-133 release values consist of I-131 and I-133 release values of 0.035 Ci/yr j and 0.009 Ci/yr, respectively, from the present containment vacuum exhaust system, which is not modified to properly filter 90% of the effluent iodine.

) ** Continuous mixed mode release, the staff assumes that the exhaust fans will be operated continuously during normal plant operations.

*** Intermittent release, one 400-hr mixed-mode release per year from the reactor

building (containment).

I **** Continuous, ground level release. l tInterm't = intermittent; cont = continuous. l a = Less than 1.0 C1/yr for noble gases and C-14; less than 10 4 Ci/yr for iodine. j b = Less than 1% of total for this nuclide. Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix 0 l

Table 0-2 Summary of atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q) and relative deposition values for maximum site boundary and receptor locations near Beaver Valley Unit 2 Relative Location

• Source ** X/Q (sec/m3 ) deposition (m.2)

Nearest effluent- A 3.8 x 10 10 1.1 x 10 9 control boundary 8 1.3 x 10 5 8.0 x 10 s (0.34 km NE of C 2.9 x 10 5 1.8 x 10 7 Unit 2) D 1.4 x 10 s 8.0 x 10 s Nearest residence A 6.2 x 10 9 1.5 x 10 9 and garden (0.61 km B 5.1 x 10 8 3.3 x 10 8 NE of Unit 2) C 1.2 x 10 5 7.7 x 10.s D 5.7 x 10 8 3.3 x 10.s Nearest milk cow A 2.2 x 10 8 1.7 x 10 10 (4.4 km WNW of 8 1.1 x 10 8 1.7 x 10 10 Unit 2) C 2.4 x 10 s 3.6 x 10 10 0 4.8 x 10 8 1.8 x 10 9 Nearest milk goat A 3.3 x 10.s 8.3 x 10 10 (2.8 km ESE of B 3.1 x 10 7 1.5 x 10 9 Unit 2) C 9.4 x 10 7 4.5 x 10 9 0 3.2 x 10 7 1.5 x 10 9 Nearest meat animal A 1.8 x 10 8 1.5 x 10 10 (4.5 km NW of- B 1.3 x 10 8 1.8 x 10 10 Unit 2) C 2.6 x 10 8 3.7 x 10 10 0 4.8 x 10 8 1.8 x 10 9

 *" Nearest" refers to that type of location where the highest radiation dose is expected to occur from all appropriate pathways.

C* Sources: A - Reactor containment vacuum exhaust, waste gas processing or air ejector ' exhaust, Unit 2, continuous and elevated release. B - Auxiliary building Unit 2, continuous and mixed mode release; the staff assumes that the exhaust fans will be operated continuously during normal plant operation. C - Reactor containment purge Unit 2, intermittent and mixed release, 400 hours per year. D - Turbine building ventilation exhaust, Unit 2, continuous, ground level release. Beaver Valley 2 FES 5 Appendix D

Table 0-3 Niartst pathway locations used for maximally exposed individual dose commitments for Beaver Valley Unit 2 Location Sector Distance (km) J Nearest effluent- NE of Unit 2 0.34 control boundary

• Residence and garden ** 'NE 0.61 Milk cow WNW 4.4 l Milk goat ESE 2.8 Meat animal NW 4.5 1
• Beta and gamma air doses, total body doses, and skin doses from noble gases i

are determined at the effluent-control boundaries in the sector where the maximum potential value is likely to occur.

           ** Dose pathways including inhalation of atmospheric radioactivity, exposure to deposited . radionuclides, and submersion in gaseous radioactivity are evaluated at residences; this location includes vegetable consumption doses.

4 Table D-4 Calculated release of radioactive materials in liquid effluents from Beaver Valley Unit 2 i Nuclide Ci/yr per rea~ctor

• Nuclide Ci/yr per reactor

 }'

Corrosion and Activation Products Fission Products (cont'd) , Cr-51 0.000080 Te-127 0.000020 Mn-54 0.0010 Te-129m 0.000060 FE-55 0.000080 Te-129 0.000040

.          Fe-59              0.000050                                    I-130             0.00028 Co-58              0.0047                                      I-131             0.14 Co-60              0.0088                                     Te-131m            0.000060 i

Te-131m 0.00006 I-132 0.0038 ', Te-131 0.00001 I-133 0.076 Np-239 0.000040 I-134 0.000020 Te-131 0.000010 Fission Products B r-83 0.000050 Cs-134 0.015 I-135 0.013 Sr-89 0.00002 Cs-136 0.00069 Zr-95 0.0014 Cs-137 0.025 Nb-95 0.0020 Ba-137m 0.0012 l Mo-99 0.0029 i Ce-144 0.0052 l Tc-99m 0.0025 Ru-103 0.00014 All Others 0.000050 g- 10m 0. 04 Total (except H-3) 0.31 i

         'Te-127m             0.00001                                      H-3            340 i
          *Nuclides whose ralease rates are less than 10 f Ci/yr per reactor are not listed individually but are included in "all others."

Beaver Valley 2 FES 6 Appendix 0 l

   . .              .                                  -    .      ._ _.   . - = _     - _ ..                    .

Table D-5 Summary of hydrologic transport and dispersion for liquid releases from Beaver Vs11ey Unit 2* Transit time Dilution Location (hours) factor ALARA dose calculations ** Nearest drinking-water intake 7.7 250 j (Chester, WV)

                                    ~

Nearest sport-fishing location 0.1 20 i (discharge area) l Nearest shoreline (bank of 0.1 - 20 Ohio River near discharge area) Nearest residential river bank well 4.4 823 (Georgetown and Glasgow Boroughs and

Green Township)

Population Oose Calculations *** Sport and commercial fishing, shoreline use, swimming, and 7 boating along the following segments of the Ohio River 3 downstream from the Beaver i Valley Unit 2 discharge area: 0-18 km 6 489 18-35 km 18 515 l 35-53 km 30 550 53-70 km 42 550 - 70-88 km 54 550 i Drinking water intakes from Ohio River within 80 km radius of the plant 4 at the following distances (km) downstream from the

j. plant:

l 2.1, Midland, PA 1.4 623

8.4, East Liverpool, OH 5.7 623 11.4, Chester, WV** 7.7 250

, 38.8, Toronto, OH 26.2 550 43.4, Wierton, WV 29.3 550

48.6, Steubenville, OH 32.8 550 i

57.9, Mingo Junction, OH 39.1 550 83.4, Wheeling, WV 56.3 550 86.2, Martin's Ferry, OH 58.2- 550 94.9, Bellaire, OH 64.1 550 1

                    *See RG 1.113, " Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of Effluent from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I."
               ** Assumed for an upper limit estimate; detailed information not available.
            ***The dilution factors are NRC staff estimates based on downstream distances and transit times given in ER-OL Amendment 6, Table SC-3.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 7 Appendix 0

Tcblo D-6 Annual dose commitments to a maximally exposed individual near Beaver Valley Unit 2 Location Pathway Doses (mrems/yr per unit, except as noted) Noble gases in gaseous e1fluents Total Gamma air dose Beta air dose body Skin (mrads/yr/ unit) (mrads/yr/ unit) N:arest* site Direct radiation a 0.12 a 0.17 boundary (0.34 km NE) from plume Iodine and particulates in gaseous effluents ** Total body Organ Mar:st*** site Ground deposition 0.46 (T) 0.46 (C) (thyroid) 1:oundary (0.34 km NE) Inhalation 0.40 (T) 0.50 (C) (thyroid) Marast residence Ground deposition 0.19 (C) 0.19 (C) (thyroid) gnd gtrden (0.61 km Inhalation 0.14 (C) 0.19 (C) (thyroid) NE) Vegetable consumption 2.4 (C) 2.4 (C) (thyroid) Nearest milk cow Ground deposition a (C) a (I) (thyroid) {4.4 km WNW) Inhalation a (C) a (I) (thyroid) Vegetable consumption 0.49 (C) 0.49 (C) (thyroid)** Cow milk consumption 0.20 (C) 0.23 (C) (thyroid) Nearcst milk goat Ground deposition a (I) a (I) (thyroid) (2.8 km ESE) Inhalation a (I) a (I) (thyroid) Goat milk consumption 0.19 (C) 0.73 (I) (thyroid) N:cr:st meat animal Meat consumption a (A) a (A) (thyroid) (4.5 km NW)

                                                                  ~ Liquid effluents **
                                          .                 Total body           Organ tarest drinking            Water ingestion                   a      (I)     0.13 (I) (thyroid) watcr Chester, WV tarcst fish at             Fish consumption                  0.37 (A)       0.51 (A) (liver) lant-discharge area p:arestshoreaccess Shoreline recreation                      a     (A)      a     (A) (liver) par plant-discharge arsa a=Less than 0.1 mrem / year.
   *" Nearest" refers to that site boundary location where the highest radiation doses as a result of gaseous effluents have been estimated to occur.
  **0oses are for the age group and organ that results in the highest cumulative dose for the location: A= adult, T= teen, C= child, I= infant. Calculations were made for these age groups and for the following organs:     gastrointestinal tract, bone, liver, kidney, b**" thyroid, Nearest"lung,andskin.

refers to the location where the highest radiation dose to an individu31 from I all applicable pathways has been estimated. l l Baavec Valley 2 FES 8 Apcendix 0

Table D-7 Calculated Appendix I dose commitments to a maximally exposed individual and to the population from operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2 Annual dose per reactor unit Individual Appendix I Calculated design objectives

• doses **

Liquid effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrems 0.37 mrem Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrems 0.51 mrem (liver) Noble gas effluents (at site boundary) Gamma dose in air 10 mrads a Beta dose in air 20 mrads 0.17 mrad Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrems b Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrems 0.12 mrem Radioiodines and particulates*** Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrems 2.8 mrems (child [ thyroid) Population dose within 80 km, person-rems Total body Thyroid Natural-background radiation. 420,000 Liquid effluents 0.91 2.6 Noble gas effluents 0.12 0.12 Radiciodine and particulates [ 14 17 '

• Design objectives from Sections II.A, II.8, II.C, and II.D of Appendix I, 10 CFR Part 50, consider doses to maximally exposed individual and to population per reactor unit.

 ** Numerical values in this column were obtained by summing appropriate                       ;

values in Table D-6. Locations resulting in maximum doses are represented here.

• • • Carbon-14 and tritium have.been added to this category.

tNatural Radiation Exposure in the United States," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP-SID-72-1, June 1972; using the average background dose for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia of 106 mrems/yr, and year 2010 projected population of 3,950,000. a=Less than 0.1 mrad / year. b=Less than 0.1 mrem / year. i Beaver Valley 2 FES 9 Appendix 0

i a ' . Table D-8 Calculated RM-50-2 dose commitments to a maximally exposed individual from operation of the Beaver Valley nuclear facility

• Annual dose per site RM-50-2 design Calculated objectives ** doses

{ Liquid effluents

!                            Dose to total body or any organ from l                            all pathways                                                                                   5 mrems              1.0 mrem I                             Activity-release estimate, excluding

tritium (Ci) 10 0.62 Noble gas effluents (at site boundary)

Gamma dose in air 10 mrads 0.17 mrad Beta dose in air . 20 mrads 0.34 mrad Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrems 0.1 mrem Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrems 0.24 mrem i Radiciodines and particulates*** Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrems 5.6 mrems ', (child thyroid) , I-131 activity release (Ci) 2 0.1 4 I

                          *An optional method of demonstrating compliance with the cost-benefit

. Section (II.D) of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

     .                  ** Annex to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
                      *** Carbon-14 and-tritium have been added to this category.

1 I _ 4 l 1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 10 Appendix 0 l

Table D-9 Annual total-body population dose commitments year 2010 U.S. population dose commitment, Category person-rems /yr Natural background radiation

• 28,000,000*

Beaver Valley Unit 2 operation Plant workers 500 General public Liquid effluents ** 0.91 Gaseous effluents 35 Transportation of fuel and waste 3

        *Using the average U.S. background dose (100 mrems/yr) and year 2010 projected U.S. population from " Projections of the Popula-tion of the U.S. 1982-2050," Advance Report, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, " Current Population Reports,"

Series P-25, No. 922, October 1982.

      **80-km (50-mile) population dose i

Beaver Valley 2 FES 11 Appandix 0 1 F

APPENDIX E REBASELINING OF THE RSS RESULTS FOR PWRs Beaver Valley 2 FES Appendix E

APPENDIX E 4 REBASELINING OF THE RSS RESULTS FOR PWRs The results of the Reactor Safety Study (RSS) (WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014) have been updated. The update was done largely to incorporate results of research and development conducted since the October 1975 publication of the RSS and to provide a baseline against which the risk associated with various light-water i reactors (LWRs) could be consistently compared. Primarily, the rebaselined RSS results reflect use of advanced modeling of the processes involved in meltdown accidents; i.e. , the MARCH computer cude model-ing for sequences initiated by transients and loss-of-coclant accidents (LOCAs)

                            ~

and the CORRAL code used for calculating the magnitudes of release accompanying various accident sequences. These codes

• have led to a capability to predict the transient- and small LOCA-initiated sequences that is considerably advanced beyond that which existed at the time the RSS was completed. The MARCH and CORRAL advanced accident process models resulted in some changes in the staff's estimates of the release magnitudes from various accident sequences in WASH-1400.

These changes primarily involved release magnitudes for the iodine, cesium, and tellurium families of isotopes. In general, a decrease in the iodines was pre-dicted for many of the dominant accident sequences, although some increases in the release magnitudes for the cesium and tellurium isotopes were predicted. Entailed in this rebaselining effort was the evaluation of individual dominant accident sequences as we understand them to evolve (rather than the grouping of large numbers of accident sequences into encompassing release categories, as was done in WASH-1400). The rebaselining of the RSS also eliminated the

  " smoothing technique" used in WASH-1400 that was criticized by the Risk Assess-ment Review Group (NUREG/CR-0400; sometimes known as the Lewis Report).

In both the RSS designs (pressurized water reactors-(PWRs) and boiling-water reactors (BWRs)), the likelihood of an accident sequence leading to a steam explosion (a) in the reactor vessel was decreased. Results of both experiments and calculations to date have shown that, given certain accident sequences, small steam explosions are likely, but it is very unlikely that an explosion of as much energy as was postulated in WASH-1400 would occur. This large amount of energy would be necessary to cause a massive breach of containment as

 ' described for the BWR 1 release category of WASH-1400.

For rebaselining of the RSS PWR design, the release magnitudes for the risk-dominating sequences (Ever.t V, TMLB'-6, y, and S2 C-6, described below) were explicitly calculated and used-in the consequence modelling, rather than being lumped into release categories as was done in WASH-1400. The rebaselining led I

   *It should be noted that the MARCH code was used for a number of scenarios in connection with the recovery efforts at Three-Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) and for post-THI-2 investigations to explore possible alternative scenarios that TMI-2 could have experienced.

Beavar Valley 2 'FES 1 Appendix E

l l 1 to a small decrease in the predicted risk to an individual of early fatality or i latent cancer fatality as compared to the original RSS PWR predictions. This result is believed to be largely attributable _to the decreased likelihood o.f occurrence for sequences involving severe steam explosions (a) that breached containment. (In WASH-1400, the sequences involving severe steam explosions , (a) were~artifically elevated in their risk significance (i.e.,'made more likely) by use of the " smoothing technique.") In summary, the rebaselining of the RSS results-led to small overall differ-ences from the predictions in WASH-1400. However, it should be recognized that these small differences as a result of the rebaselining efforts are likely to be far outweighed by the uncertainties associated with such analyses. The accident sequences that are expected to dominate risk from the RSS PWR design are described below. Accident sequences are designated by strings of identification characters in the same manner as in the RSS (Table E.1 lists these symbols). Each of the characters represents a failure in one or more of the important plant systems or features that ultimately would result in melting of the reactor core and a significant release of radioactive materials from

 ,  containment."

Event V (Interfacing System LOCA) During the RSS, a potentially large risk contributor was identified that was the result of the configuration of the multiple check valve barriers used to sepa-rate the high pressure reactor coolant system from the low design pressure por-tions of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). (This was the low pressure injection subsystem, LPIS.) If these valve barriers were to fail in various

modes (such as leak-rupture or rupture-rupture) and suddenly exposed the LPIS 3 to high overpressures and dynamic loadings, the RSS judged that a high proba-bility of LPIS rupture would exist. Because the LPIS is located largely outside the containment, the Event V scenario would be a LOCA that bypassed the con- '

tainment and those mitigating features (e.g., sprays) within the containment. The RSS assumed that if the rupture of LPIS ~did not cause the complete failure of the LPIS makeup function (which would ultimately be needed to prevent core damage), the LOCA environment (flooding, steam) would. Predictions of the release magnitude and consequences associated with Event V have indicated that this scenario represents one of the largest risk contributors from the RSS PWR

   . design. The NRC has recognized this RSS finding, and has taken steps to reduce the probability of occurrence of' Event V scenarios in both existing and future                                        '

LWR designs by requiring periodic surveillance testing of the interfacing valves 4 to ensure that these valves are properly functioning as pressure boundary isolation barriers during plant operations.- TMLB'-6, y t' This sequence essentially considers the-loss and nonrestoration of all ac power sources available to the plant, along with an independent failure of the steam-turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater train (which would be required to operate to remove shutdown heat from the reactor core). This transient is initiated by , loss of offsite ac power sources, which would result in plant trip (scram) and

     *For additional information detail, see Appendix V of WASH-1400.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix E _ _ . . -. . _ _ . _ _~ ._ . - - . . _ _ , _ _ '__._ _ ._ _ . _ - __

the loss of the normal way that the plant removes heat from the reactor core (via the power conversion system, which consists of the turbine, condenser, the condenser cooling system, and the main feedwater and condensate delivery system that supplies water to the steam generators). This initiating event would then demand operation of the standby onsite emergency ac power supplies (two diesel generators) and the standby auxiliary feedwater system, two trains of which are electrically driven by either onsite or offsite ac power. With failure and non-restoration of ac power and the failure of the steam-turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater train to remove shutdown heat, the core would ultimately uncover and melt. If restoration of ac power was not successful during (or following) melt, the containment heat removal and fission product mitigating systems would not be operational to prevent the ultimate overpressure (6, y) failure of contain-ment and a rather large, energetic release of activity from tne containment. Next to the Event V sequence, TMLB'-6, y is predicted to dominate the overall accident risks in the RSS PWR design. 52C-6 (PWR 3) In the RSS, the S2C-6 sequence was placed in PWR release category 3, and it actually dominated all other sequences in Category 3 in terms of probability and release magnitudes. The rebaselining entailed explicit calculations of the consequences from2 S C-6, and the results indicated that it was next in overall risk importance after Event V and TMLB'-6, y. The S2 C-6 sequence included a rather complex series of dependencies and inter-actions that are believed to be somewhat unique to the containment systems (subatmospheric) employed in the RSS PWR design. Zn essence, the S2 C-6 sequence included a small LOCA in a specific region of the plant (reactor vessel cavity); failure of the recirculating containment heat removal systems (CSRS-F) because of a dependence on water draining to the recir-culation sump from the LOCA; and a resulting dependence imposed on the quench spray injection system (CSIS-C) to provide water to the sump. The failure of the CSIS-C resulted in eventual overpressure failure of containment (6) as a result of the the loss of CSRS-F. Given the overpressure failure of contain-ment, the RSS assumed that the ECCS functions would be lost, because of either the cavitation of ECCS pumps or the rather severe machanical loads that could result from the overpressure fr.ilure of containment. The core was then assumed to melt in a breached containment, which would lead to a significant release of radioactive materials. Most of the release would occur over a period of about 1.5 hours. The release of radioactive material from containment would be caused by the sweeping action of gases generated by the reaction of the molten fuel with concrete. Because these gases would be heated initially by contact with the melt, the rate of sensible energy release to the atmosphere would be moderately high. PWR 7 This is the same as the PWR release category 7 of the original RSS, which was made up of several sequences such as2S 0-c (the dominant contributor to the risk in this category), 5 0-c , 5 H-c, 1 2 S H-c1 , AD-c , AH-c, TML-c , and TKQ-c. All of these sequences involved a containment base mat melt-through as the contain-cent failure mode. With exception of TML c and TKQ-c, all involve the potential Beaver Valley 2 FES 3 Appendix E

failure of the ECCS after a LOCA, with the containment engineered safety fea-tures (ESFs) continuing to operate as designed until the base mat was pene-trated. Containment sprays would operate to reduce the containment temperature and. pressure as well as the amount of airborne radioactivity. The containment barrier would retain its integrity until the molten core proceeded to melt through the concrete containment base mat. The radioactive materials would be released into the ground. Most of the release would occur continuously over a period of about 10 hours. Because leakage from containment to the atmosphere would be low and gases escaping through the ground would be cooled by contact with the soil, the energy release rate would be very low. Reference U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, NUREG-75/014, " Reactor Safety Study," i October 1975 (formerly WASH-1400). l l l c l i' 1 l l i I Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix E l I l

Table E.1 Key to PWR accident sequence symbols Sequence

 ,   designator    Definition A             Intermediate to large LOCA B             Failure of electric power to ESFs B'            Failure to recover'either onsite or offsite electric power within about 1 to 3 hours following an initiating transient that is a loss of offsite AC power C             Failure of the containment spray injection system 0             Failure of the emergency core cooling injection system Failure of the containment spray recirculation system F

G Failure of the containment heat removal system H Failure of the emergency core cooling recirculation system  ; K Failure of the reactor protection system L Failure of the secondary system relief valves and the auxiliary [ feedwater system M Failure of the secondary system steam relief valves and the powar conversion system Q Failure of the primary system safety relief valves to reclose I after opening R~ Massive rupture of the reactor vessel [ St A small LOCA with an equivalent diameter of about 2 to 6 inches f t S2 A small LOCA with an equivalent diameter of about 1/2 to 2 inches [ t T Transient event , l V LPIS check valve failure i a Containment rupture as a result of a reactor vessel steam . explosion [ i p Containment failure resulting from inadequate isolation of containment openings and penetrations [ y Containment failure as a result of hydrogen buraing . I 6 Containment failure as a result of overpressure [ i e Containment vessel melt-through ! i

                                                                                         )

Beaver Valley 2 FES 5 Appendix E

APPENDIX F CONSEQUENCE MODELING CONSIDERATIONS f Beaver Valley 2 FES Appendix F l

.                                                                                                   i 1                                                                                                    l 6

APPENDIX F  ! CONSEQUENCE MODELING CONSIDERATIONS Evacuation Model

         " Evacuation," used ir, the context of offsite emergency response in ~ the event of j         substantial amount of radioactivity release to the atmosphere in a reactor acci-dent, denotes an early and expeditious movement of people to a' void exposure to the passing radioactive cloud and/or to acute ground contamination in the wake of the cloud passage. It should be distinguished from " relocation," which denotes a post-accident response to reduce exposure from long-term ground con-tamination after plume passage. The Reactor Safety Study (RSS) (NUREG-75/014, i       WASH-1400)' consequence model contains provision for incorporating the radio-l        logical consequence reduction benefits of public evacuation. The benefits of a properly planned and expeditiously carried out public evacuation would be a i        reduction of early health effects associated with early exposure; namely, in the' number of cases of early fatality and acute radiation sickness that would require hospitalization. The evacuation model ' originally used in the RSS con-sequence model is described in WASH-1400 as well as in NUREG-0340 and
                                                                         ~

NUREG/CR-2300. The evacuation model which has been used herein is a modified version of the RSS model and is, to a certain extent, site emargency planning oriented (Sandia, 1978). The modified version is briefly. outlined below. P The model utilizes a circular area with a specified radius (the 16-km (10-mile) plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)), with the reactor at the center. It is assumed that people living within portions of this area would evacuate if an accident should occur involving imminent or actual release of significant quantities of radioactivity to the atmosphere. 2 Significant atmospheric releases of radioactivity would in general be preceded by one or.more hours of warning time (postulated as the time interval between the awareness of impending core melt and the beginning of the release of radio-activity from the containment building). For the purpose of calculation of radiological exposure, the model assumes that all people who live in a fan-shaped area (fanning out from the reactor), within the circular zone, with the downwind-direction as.its median (that is, those people who would potentially be under the. radioactive cloud that would develop-following the release) would leave their residences after lapse of a.specified amount of delay time

• and

             ~

then evacuate. The delay time is reckoned from the beginning of the warning time and is recognized as the sum of: the time required by the reactor opera-tors to notify the responsible authorities; the time required by the authorities to interpret-the data, decide to evacuate, and direct the people to evacuate; and the time required for the people to mobilize and get under way.

• Assumed to be of a constant value, 2 hours,'that would be the same for all evacuees.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 1 Appendix F I

The model assumes that each evacuee would move radially outward

• from the reac-tor with an average effective speed ** (obtained by dividing the zone radius by the average time taken to clear the zone after the delay time) over a fixed distance from the evacuee's starting point. This distance is-selected to be 24 km (15 miles) (which is 8 km or 5 miles more than the 16-km (10-mile) plume exposure pathway EPZ radius). After reaching the end of the travel distance, the evacuee is. assumed to receive no further radiation exposure.

The model incorporates a finite length of the radioactive cloud in.the downwind direction that would be determined by the product of the duration over which the atmospheric release would take place and the average wind speed during the release. It is assumed that the front and the back of the cloud would move with an equal speed, which would be the same as the prevailing wind speed; therefore, its length would remain constant at its initial value. At any time after the release, the concentration of radioactivity is assumed to be uniform over the length of the cloud. If the delay time were less than the warning time, all evacuees would have a head start; that is, the cloud would be trailing behind the evacuees initially. On the other hand, if the delay time were more than the warning time, then, depending on initial locations of the evacuees there are possibilities that (1) an evacuee will still have a head start, or (2) the cloud would be already overhead when an evacuee starts to leave, or (3) an evacuee would be initially trailing behind the cloud. However, this initial picture of cloud / people disposition would change as the evacuees travel, depending on the relative speed and positions between the cloud and people. The cloud and an evacuee might overtake one another.one or more times before the evacuee would reach his/her destination. In the model, the radial position of an evacuating person, either stationary or in transit, is compared to the front and the back of the cloud as a function of time to determine a realistic period of exposure to airborne radionuclides. The model calculates the time periods during which people are exposed to radionuclides on the ground both while they are stationary and while they are evacuating. Because radionuclides would be deposited con-tinually from the cloud as it passed a given location, a person who is under the cloud would be exposed to ground contamination less concentrated than if the cloud had completely passed. To account for this, at least in part, the revised .model assumes that persons are: (1) exposed to the total ground contami~ nation concentration that is calculated to exist after complete passage of the cloud, after they are completely passed by the cloud; (2) exposed to one-half the cal-culated concentration when anywhere under the cloud; and (3) not exposed when they are in front of the cloud. Different values of the shielding protection factors for exposures from airborne radioactivity and ground contamination have been used.  : Results shown in Section 5.9.4.5 of the main body of this environmental state-ment for accidents involving significant release of radioactivity to the atmos-phere were based. upon the assumption that all people within'the 16-km (10-mile) plume exposure pathway EPZ would evacuate according to the evacuation scenario described above. Because sheltering can be a mitigative feature, it is not

  *In the RSS consequence model, the radioactive cloud is assumed to travel
  ' radially outward only, spreading out as it moves away.
** Assumed to be a constant value, 4 km (2.5 miles) per hour, that would be the same for all evacuees.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix F

I i expected that detailed inclusion of any facility (see Section 5.9.4.5(2)) near a specific plant site, where not all persons would be quickly evacuated, would significantly alter the conclusions. For the delay time before evacuation, a r value of 2 hours was used. The staff believes that such a value appropriately reflects the Commission's emergency planning requirements. The. applicant has - provided estimates of the time required to clear the 16-km (10-mile) zone. . From these estimates, the. staff has conservatively estimated the effective  ! evacuation speed to be 1.12 m per second (2.5 mph). It is realistic to expect i 1 that the authorities would aid and encourage evacuation at distances from the  : site where exposures above the threshold for causing early fatalities could be  ! reached regardless of the EPZ distance. As an additional emergency measure for  ! the Beaver Valley site, it was also assumed that all people beyond the evacua-  ; tion distance who would be exposed to the contaminated ground would be relocated  ! 12 hours after passage of the plume. j - A modification of the RSS consequence model was used that incorporates the l assumption that, if the calculated ground dose to the total bone marrow over a l 7-day period were to exceed 200 rems, this h'igh dose rate would be detected by l' i actual field measurements following plume passage, and people from these regions would be relocated immediately. For this situation, the model limits the period , of ground dose calculation to 12 hours; otherwise, for calculation of early dose, the period of ground exposure is limited to 7 days. The model has the same provision for calculation of the economic cost associ-ated with implementation of evacuation as does the original RSS model. For this purpose, the model assumes that for atmospheric releases of durations 3 hours or i less, all people living within a circular area of 8-km (5-mile) radius centered at the reactor plus all people within a 90 angular sector within the plume  : exposure pathway EPZ and centered on the downwind direction will be evacuated  ; and temporarily relocated. However, if the duration of release would exceed  ; 3 hours, the cost of evacuation is based on the assumption that all people , within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ would be evacuated and temporarily  ! relocated. For either of these situations, the cost of evacuation and-reloca-tion is* assumed to be $225 (1980 dollars) per person, which includes cost of  ! food and temporary sheltering for a period of 1 week.  !

                                                                                                  ?

Early Health Effects Model l 4 The medical advisors to the Reactor Safety Study (Section 9.2.2 of Appendix IV, 4 and Appendix F) proposed three alternative dose-mortality relationships that  ; can be used to estimate the number of early fatalities in an exposed population. l These alternatives characterize different degrees of post-exposure medical  : treatment from " minimal," to supportive," to " heroic"; they are more fully ' described in NUREG-0340. There is uncertainty associated with the mortality relationships (NUREG/CR-3185), and the availability and effectiveness of different classes of medical treatment (Andrulis,1982). The calculated estimates of the early fatality risks presented in Sec-tion 5.9.4.5(3) of the main body of this report used the dose-mortality rela- l tionship that is based upon the supportive treatment alternative. This implies  ; the availability of medical care facilities and services that are designed for - radiation victims exposed in excess of about 170 rems, the approximate level  ! above which the medical advisors to the Reactor Safety Study recommended more  ! Beaver Valley 2 FES 3 Appendix F ,

than minimal medical care to reduce early fatality risks. At the extreme low probability end of the spectrum (at the level of three chances in one hundred million per reactor year), the number of persons involved might. exceed the capacity of facilities that provide the best such services; in this case, the number of early fatalities might have been underestimated. However, this number may not have been greatly underestimated because hospitals now in the United States are likely to be able to supply considerably better care to radiation victims than the medical care upon which the assumed minimal medical treatment relationship is based. Further, a major reactor accident at Beaver Valley Unit 2 would certainly cause a mobilization of the best available medical services with a high national priority to save the lives of radiation victims. Therefore, the staff expect that the mortality risks would be less than those indicated by the-RSS description of minimal treatment (and much less, of course, for those who will be given the type of treatment defined as " supportive"). For these reasons, the staff has concluded that the early fatality risk estimates are bounded by the range of uncertainties discussed in Section 5.9.4.5(7). References Andrulis; Task 5 letter report from Dr. D. A. Elliot, Andrulis Research Corp. , to A. Chu, NRC, on Technical Assistance Contract No. NRC-03-82-128; December 13,- 1982. Sandia Laboratories, "A Model of Public Evacuation for Atmospheric Radiological Releases," SAND 78-0092, June 1978. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/014, " Reactor Safety Study," October 1975 (formerly WASH-1400).

 -- , NUREG-0340, " Overview of the Reactor Safety Study Consequences Model,"

H. Lewis et al., October 1977.-

 -- , NUREG/CR-3185, " Critical Review of the Reactor Safety Study Radiological Health Effects Model," March 1983.

I f Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix F I i i

D

                                                       +

4 APPENDIX G NPDES' PERMIT l l

                                                                               ?

i l r 5 5 I I Beaver Valley 2 FES Appendix G f

     , - . - _     -,.-..w ,     ,    ,_   .                   w.- - . , i-y 7

      'Af Dumesne uct Nuclear CoestrwCten Dmsoon mee (4121923.t 96o Te6ecocy 1412) Ts? 2629 Roo neon Paza. Bue @ng 2. Suite 210 en.ouren. n is2cs                                                     March 4, 1985 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash *.ngton, D: 20555 ATTENTION:         Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch 3 Cf fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SU5 JECT:          Beaver Valley Power Station - Unic No. 2 Doc ket No. 50-412 NPDES Permit Centlemen:

As irdicated in ER-OL Appendix 5A, please find enclosed a copy of the SVPS-2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pe rmit PA 0025615 issued on November 26, 19 84 Also enclosed is a notice of ap pe al dacea .9ecember 28, 1984. It is the intention of Duquesne Light Company that the ER-OL will not be an cded tc include the NPDES Permit. If you have any questions, please contact T. J. Zog1mann at (412) 787-5141. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY By _ E. / yoolever V-it! Pkesident T2J/wjs En, closure cc: Dr. 3. K. Singh, Project Manager (w/e) Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident Inspector (w/e) SUBSCRIBED AND S*='ORN TO BEFORE MZ THIS Mf4 DAY OF ');'7/ M / _ , 1985. uk - ej ~. t > d L2. h t Notary Public ANITA ELAihE RE;TER, NOTARY PUGUC RCENSCN TCv;NSHr' ALLEGHE*4Y COUN~Y MY CCMMISSICN EGRES CCT:3E9 20,1925 Beaver Valley 2 FES 1 Appendix G

United States Nuclear Regulatory Coxif ssion Mr. George Knighton Page 2 . AFFIDAVIT l0fHONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 i SS: COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY h The Vite President, Nuclear Group, J. J. Carey, being first duly swo rn , deposes, and says: that he ' is Vice President, Nuclear Group, of Duquesne Light Co.npany; with legal authority to sign official correspondence on behalf of the Vice President - Nuclear Construction Division, Earl J. Woolever, in relation to licensing for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 and therefore authorized to submit the foregoing on behalf of the applicant.

                                                                   ,,*'            l'
              ?-Y- $$

Date Vic r dent, Nu er Group Sworn and subscribed before me, this -hday of %mI ,19Jg. hYa. & / 1A rz Notary Public ANITA ELAINE REITER. NOTAay PUBUC l RCBtf4SCN TOWN 3 HIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY MY COMMISS:CN EXP:RES CCTCSER 20.1936 4 Beaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix G

l l g(),s ef,D 4 it l COStMONWEALTH OF PENNSVLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT , "i Highland Sullding 121 South Highland Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206-3988 (412) 665-2900 Ouquesne Light Company One Oxford Centre NOV 2 19s 301 Grant Street Pittscurgh, P A 15279 . RE: NPOES Pemit PA0025615 Duqsesne Light Company Beaver Valley Power Station Shippingport Borough Seaver County Gentlemn: Your NPCES pemit is enclosed. Please note that we have made several modifications to the draft pemit sent to you via letter of April 20,1984 These changes are in response to your connent letters of June 4,1984 and October 30, 1984 The most significant modifications wre in response to your com-ments that:

1. A continuous chlorine monitor currently exists and is being used at the discharge weir (Outfall 001) and nct at the unit #1 con-denser outlet as previously supposed and

2. That you are now proposing to route several sources:

009-unit #2 cooling tower blewdown and treated rad waste 110 - the auxiliary boi'ier b*owdown and 210 - the chemical feed area drains to Outfall 001. Based on those corrents, the following changes have been made: A. Those sources labeled as 110 (auxiliary boiler blowdown) and 210 (chemical feed area crains) by the draft gemit, will new be labeled 301 and 401 respectively. Identical effluent limitations as the draf t permit 3:: ply, with those exceptions as explained below. .

3. Outf all 009 has been deleted froc' the permit. Monitoring and .

limitations for free availaole enlorine on the Unit *2 cooling tower blowdown are new scecified at the disenarge eir for Outfall 001. Beaver '/ alley 2 FES 3 Appendix G

hauesne Lignt Company That being stated, tne following concents address your conwents in the order presented in your letter: Part A', Outfall 101, Page 2(a) of 14 The sample type for total suspended solids has been changed from a 24-hour composite to a 2-hour composite. Part A, Outfall 201. Page 2(b) of 14 The sample point for' free available chlorine has been changed from the discharge of the condenser to the discharge weir (Outfall 001) as requested. All limitations, monitoring require-ments, and prohibition initially placed on 201 have been imposed on Outfall 001 and I.M.P. 201 has been eliminated. Part A,' Outfall 301, Page 2(c) of 14 The pH monitoring requirement has been deleted. As above I .M.P. 201 has been eliminated, I.M.P. 301 is now relabeled as 201. Part A, Outfall 001, Page 2(d) of 14 See response to coninents (B), and above Outfall 201. Part A, Outfall 103, Page 2(g) of 14 . The 24-hour composite sample type for total suspended solids has been maintained. However, as requested in your letter of 10/30/84, the sample type has been changed fran " measured" to "es*1 mated." Part A, Outfall 007, Page 2(m) of 14 1 The pH moitoring and reporting requirement has been deleted as requested. The permiit already conta'ns wording which requires monitoring for chlorine only during dis:harges from the reactor plant river water system. Part A. Outfall 009, Page 2(n) of 14 As stated previously, Unit #2 cooling tower blowdown and treated rad waste is new controlled by the effluent limitations and moni-toring requirements at 001; Outfall 009 has been eliminated. Part A, Outf all 110. P age 2(o) of 14 As explained previously, I.M.P.110 is redesignated as 301 as this sour a is now tributary to Outfall 001. The ;H limit has teen deleted. i Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix G l . _ . - . . - _. - - -_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

l Duquesne Lignt Company  ; Part A. Outfall 210, Page 2(g) of 14 As explained previously, I.M.P. 210 ts redesignatad as 401 as this source is now tributary to Outf all 001. The upper pH limit has been deleted. Part A, Outfall 010, Page 2(r) of 14 The monitoring requirements for free available chlorine have been changed from continuous / recorded to a grab . sample once per week. The pH monitoring requirement has been deleted. part C, Recuirement h, Page 14(b) of 14 As you are aware, requirement (h) is a standard condition taken from the Federal Guidelines and reads as follows: "Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more'than two hours in any one day....unless the utility can demonstrate to the Regional Aministrator or Statt, if the State has NPDES issuing authority, that the unit (s) in a particular location cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination." What you seem to have concluded fron your 1977 study was that during your normal power operations, the discharge of free available chlorine occurs beyond the 2-hour limit 36% of the time and further, that the discharge of total residual chlorine exceeded the 2-hour limit 63% of the time (page 1 of 3). You also appear to be saying that this discharge of chlorine over the 2-hour limit is a result of a " trail-out" effect, that is, that the discharge of chlorine occurs long after the dosing period has been cecoleted. However, the study does not say what the dosing period is, and therefore does not really demongtrate a

                    " trail-out" efft.ct since the duration of chlorine discharge may correspond to tt e dosing period.

Assuming however, that the dosing period was and is limited to two hours (as you say it will be in your letter) and that a l trail-out effect does occur, my feeling is that this situation is not what EPA intended to allow for when considering the granting - of exclusions frem the 2-hour discharge requirement. Indeed, I do not believe based on y review of past development documents and guidelines, that EPA ever censidered the possibility of a trail-out effect. Rather, the exclusion appears to be specific to only a very few plants with unusual needs for crustacean control. l Beaver Valley 2 FES 5 Appendix G

Duquesne Lignt Ccmpany It is my opinion that the 2-hour limit was and is intended to ce a limit of " dosing time" rather than trail-out time. See EPA 1974 Development Document, page 409 " free available chlorine discharges in both recirculating and non-recirculating cooling water systems are to be limited to average quantities reflecting concentrations of 0.2 mg/l during a maximum of two hours a cay (aggregate)..." and "gsnerally chlorination is not required at higner chlorine levels or for more than two hours each day for each unit." ,

                                             ~

None of the information I have indicates that this particular sta-tion has an excessive need for chlorine. Therefore because this has not beer. demonstrated, I have not deleted the 2-hour require-cent. Furthemcre, I would suggest that rather than being a site specific problem, this may be an industry wide problem and should

• be addressed at the Federal Effluent Guidelines division level of EPA.

You also noted in your letter that the revised flow diagrams reflecting the current situation would be following. Please see that these are submitted as soon as possible so that we may have a complete. copy of this application for our files.

,                  Finally b'tcause the permit or acendment authorizes a sewage discharge, it does not become operative until it is recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds in the county where the sewage discharge is                             l l ocai.ed. Please take the enclosed pemit or amendment plus the enclosed notary form and certificate to the Recorder. After the Recorder fills out-                       '

the certificate, please return the certificate only to our Harrisburg  ! office in the enclosed envelope. ' Please study.your permit carefully, and if you have any l ouestions, please contact me. Sincerely, L DJ-U mod - l l Deborah L. Mcdonald [ Sanitary Engineer  ! OLN/ld: crt f Enclosur. l cc: EPA [ Operations Section ORSANCO l t Beaver Valley 2 FES 6 Appendix G l f

i g.a.gq.t3 COMMON *JEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OEPARTMENT OF LNVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES - SUREAU OF VATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AUTHORIZATION TO DISCM,RCE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTAN DISCRARCE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT PA0025o15 a compliance wt:h :he provisions of the Clean 'Jacer Act. 33 U- S.C. Section 1251 et seq. ths "Act") and Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law, as amended, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq., Duquesne Lt:;ht Company One Oxford Centre 301 Grant screet . Pittsburgh, PA 15279 s tuthorized to discharge from a. facility located at . Seaver Valley Power Station Shippingport Borough 5eaver County o escoiving waters named Ohio River and Peggs Run a recordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions. set forth 4 n Parts A, 5, and .C of this permit.

 'his parsit and the authoriza: ton to discharge shall expire at midnight b 26 @                        .

r

 'ha tuthority granted by this persit is subject to the following further qualifications:                      1 i
 .. If there is a conflict between the application, its supporting documents and/or amendments end the terms and conditions of this permit, the terms and conditions shall apply.
 !. Failure to comply with any of the terms or. conditions of this permit is grounds for                    ;

cnforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or i for denial of persi renewal. I

1. If this persi: aitthorizes a sewage discharge, the permit will not become operative until it l

, is recorded in c'ie office of the Recorder of Deeds in the county where the sewage discharge is located.  ;

 .. Application for cenewal~ of this permit, or notification of intent to cease discharging by              I tha expiration date, must be submitted to the Department at least 180 days prior to the                 s expiration date (unless permission has been granted by the DQartment for submission at a                ,

4 Later date), using the appropriate NPDES persi application form. In the event : hat a einely and complete application for renewal has been submitted and the Department is l unable, through no faul: of the permittee, to reissue the permit before the expiration i date, the terms and conditions of this permit will be automatically continued and will i emain fully eff ec:ive and enforceable pending the grant or dental of permi: renewal. l I 1 This persi: does not consti:ute authori:stion *o const c or make modifications to  ; wastewater creatmen: facilities necessary to ' meet tW 'e ss nd conditions of this per . [

 'ERMITISSp         , , .

d '. ,b Sh ./  ! Mtran W '- .. r, Ph.D., P.E. [ 1ATC

• nal *Jace r Quality Mana ge r [

i

                                                                                                               ?

i Beaver Valley 2 FES 7 Accendix G i ( t l

d r e ut . t a lo i r r c. oe c S - pd3 i I 4 en _ d N 2RUA . _ n E p  : _ I M d n n

                  )

e a _ n g E r c o w t ne R t i o ii s I e a t d mri J l e m . a 4 w r ow @ E pp my i r h l a b a o c 1 o et r pie R at t s - r r l f t

l. nh S e 2 g g o eot 1

                                                     #                                                                            g r           ,

h m o t n a e e t i i 2 l t d s R w i a nns 0 t ny o e o d iae 1 l g b l 1 ec l a n d sn N n n o l' r y o enu O H ue ru h i it h h f a l t ib ir o uq t n n t n t n e i a rt e se o o o o h l r cat ar m

                                                                                  / / /

m m . m t

st e ef /

Hxi i p eim H 2 2 2 2 t 0 u m d ma a t i a e ir f sl a . n 1 h g w p s e E# ot t k I u l nh n a St o f ec ) . u t Ai r ua d t o Wn J h dl e ) d e n . ax m a e I t nf t b S af r e a t a s E , e eo t c sM t e l V e t s f a i n i c l I g a cg c d I n a a E a d i nd i n u r hr C n e d I

• t set El a d ts iwl n s . ly d I e i oi I ne r n ea r u rl p os aa xi 0 0 a a vw l

i d s el m e ii 0 2 d h o s t oi s t w MD 1 n t br Cl k i cf ' a i ar a ae l in s w re t r h Wi m r ei r t h e s e dt s o ah e nt gy h eo 1 r ht ) c n h eo al 0 t i A 0b a f

                                         ,o t

o ns c rk ee o f y 1 9 i n l d rsi s Ce os ve n ca I L o et t AW n i e R s a L , l t nc l ph A A s r aea e n h m st P Ft e p wmr l n u ey t a i I n a edf t n u gl ah o sw BJ e l r f t Or s ed / rt 0 S e ng e h ame s g en 3 I t e 'emin Rn t wad s m vb a l O e g n 'o ( Al e b ex F g d re r r i ri e n eop g g s im S r I t/ s i i u T r ad u r v qo Nr u pns S o et E e d i a N y n r r Mz c s O ) .l o Ei e i su I w xl 0 go r Rl D t tl T o aa s ni l a nnp A l MD 6 d i r l ae .

        @re               o. r ue md i

l s f e n i l rp o [ in ocv H t t gy a o t p m s' t ip h l

l. i m

G e m n u

                                /ol               l      ne         al                                      -

t nu dd o Uc rk g os INd n ags s E x ee s n m i us G se ve s i e R ni R s AW e t et Om aid A ay l a h s I e d e t t( ll Ha o t a  ; l t z ar C d ey t l w H s d ol S / gl o f h 0 y l pa I b ah n t l Hs r iwca npt D i rt f _ o ouo l en o . Dt h i sT vo N n A e t u t cs . AM e emi m a ut y g ce S t dil r nh N a s o p a ac e h i OI r i rd p pna - c l e T t e a s ph i n t A e e s r d v r T e t h nt e c nu I Hs t i t on t > w r i ie e s t nr l a m nt m m d ii L w r oae cr a i e I l e, dii r a l h ne N a g o e eg el u

• S s l k r

[ l c e s pq f l a l aa l i n h iape e d d e a t h i i f c l l ar g g e r h c

i. r i a d G s ss l

I e 4 a l n ei b h e & e l d c w p r p s o s i e a e.

              $       <S,              mm                                                            m        wE$O

• c)

y PARI A Pasje 2h ul 14

     @                      if flEllll l lHil Allot 45 ANil HONIIORING HEQlllREMENIS FOR OllIF ALL 201 WillC11 HECl'lVLS WASIL llH24:

sof tener regenerants f lormerly 103) [ a. Ihu permi s s ee is authorizeit to discharge during the period f rom issued date through empirat ion date,

b. Hased m .the production' data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit application and les support lAg documents and/or amendments, the following effluent limitations ano monitoring

     }

r requirements apply. Total idissolved plus suspended fraction) is implied for each giarameter unless otherwise Ind6cated. DISCilARCE LlHilAllotl5 (gross unless otherwise Indicated) HONIT0HING REQUIREMENIS Hass linits Concentrat ions 24-Ilour (Ib/ day except flowl (aq/l unless otherwise indicated) Report Average Average Hax. Average Average Max, instant. Measurement Sample under sc ha[ y l'ar .une t er Hanthly Weekly Dally Honthig Weekly Daily Max. frequency Type A.3.c. ou (mod) 2/ month est6 mated espended Solids 30 100 2/ month gr ah

     *-                   1 & Grease                                                        l$                20                   2/ month          grals
  ?

A . EL E .er e shal l be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. c) sm ples taken in cannpliance wi th the monitoring requirem(nts spe'cIf fed above shall be taken at the following location: sstewater f rom the softener unit prior to mixlog with any other water.

L d r e ut . t a l i o- pd3r r c. oe c S

• i T 4 en d N 2RUA  :

n E d n i M o g E e i _ t ne R t a _ t i i s I r a _ mri U i e m c row et r Q pp my I t b a b a o pi e nh M .T aT s e r g r g l g eri t G n

                     . h      mo        N                                                        i e     t               I w

t - ds R o a nns O t ny d i ae T ec l l n d sn l I N mn o o enu O ee h h h f i b o M r u t t t n e t i i r uq n n a rt e se o o o h r cat ar m m m t

i st e eF / / / t p M 2 2 2 N x eim d ma a O e R i r . n F

h sl a w p s e g t k E u ot nh . n a T l u t S o f ec ua

                                                   )

d o A r ) e t n . m e W h t dl e nf d t ax a b S af r e a t a e l E e eo t c sM t V t s f a i n a l a I a cg c d I r h E d i nd i n t s C ti e d I E d swl n s y n e R e i oi I ne .l a v u rl p e os aa xi 0 0 0 2 h o H s el a l i t b C s t ol s t w MD 1 a l I cf i ar r l i a s w re e e d W m rei r t h h er o ah e nt gy l e 1 r ht) c h eo rk c al t o f t

 ,   0           f
                                  ,no     t o ns            ee                                       i a
 ,   3 d         rsi                  os ve                                      l a        cw e

, . L o et t s Ce s AW pr L i t nc l m se A r aea e n a

 . F             e p

wmr l n e ey gl o st h T edf f t o u t n u l ah n O e sed / rt 0 5 e ey h ame s s q a vo en 3 1 l mn R t wad b ea O g n o f AM i r F dre r s ih n eop g i ut S i t/ s ( v qi T r ad u ew N u pns S r r E d i a N y o g M c s 0 l . l gn E e i su l w xl s nl R g t t l i o ao d i x I r nnp A l MD ri U a ae T f l om Q h md I s l o c roe H t t e s t o N s

                         /)

ocv l l L lne p gy al g i nt G i d d4o Uc x rk o N n s E ee n mr I n o ags G se ve i o AW t ei R w t ni R s ay a h r O o aid A T d d t t f t i Ma o t p I I w e ar C d ey l z d ol S / gl f h n N o pa b ah t w Ol i I f i o Mb r npt D i rt o wd o ouo i sT f on vo w Dr h e eo N e t t AM g cl Al u cs . r nb l a ut y a a S o dil h ir Nb s o rd p p c l e OI y i pna s pl mi T r i i a i d oo A a e e s r cb T i t h nt e o I Hi l i t t on ie t e s n nf l x m nt m m d io L u r oae a e a e cr r i l b ne eg T p dii a o e k r N2 el u P S s l aa E # e s pq ~) a l a t h U h ape o d d e h c L t T B ar g g e r s ss fi r m d G ei f n . . a i n a d E U a b h e & r l p _ c w s sp I e n e g ' <1IM N y y $C}, x ) c s 1

                  ?                                                                           PARI A                                     l'aqu 2d of 14 E

o illt uf fel l IHil AI10:45 AND HONIIDHING HEQUIREs(HIS FOR OUlf ALL 401 WillCal fl[CElviS WASIL IHUH; drains f rame trae chemical f eed area of t he aux i l l ar y bol l er s f or Uni t #2 5 . [ 4. Iho giermi t tere is authorized to discharge during the period from issued date through capirat ion date. 4 b. llased on liie production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit 4lip1 icat ton and iis supporting documents and/or amendments, the followlng elIluent 1imitatlons and mr)rdfor'og vi requirement s apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended traction) is lapiled for each parameter unless otiterwises indicated. DIScalARCE LlHlIATIONS (gross unless" otherwise indicated) HONIIORING RfQUIREHfills Hass Units Concentrations 24-llour lib / day except flow) (mg/l unless otherwise Indicated) Repor.t Average Average Max. Average Average flax . Instant. Measurement Sample Under scharqu l'or amoter Honin..y Week ly DalIy Honth1y Week ly _ Dal1y Max. Irequency Iype A.3.c. ow (mgdh 2/ month estimated

                     .spended Solids                                                     30                   100              2/ month            grota e'

r I & Grease l$ 20 2/ month gr ah . 1 i e not less than 6.0 2/nuanth Orab

                  <t
                     .ere shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

ora ance ithtothe m9nitor imples token e n cm.p l the following location; c3 .cmi c a l feest area os prior mixing wi[pg in requiremonts any owner waveppecilled above shall be taken at

                @                                                                                          PARI A                                       l' age 7e of I4
        'I                            fi f t ut tal L 4 HIT Allot 45 Aid) HONilOHlNG HlQtilHEHENIS FOR Ollif ALL 001 WillCel HECLIVES WASIL fitOM:

C Onst El and Unit #2 cooling tower blowdown, sources previously sonitored at 101, 201, 301 and 401, treated rad waste, and Q occasional clar i t ied water overilow, to

a. the permi t tee is authorlJed to discharge during the period from issued date through 'atapiration date.

b. liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit application and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following effluent limitations and innitosing require nents apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended fraction) is implied for each parameter unless otherwise Indicated.

DISCIAHGE LlHilATIONS Igross uni,ess otherwise Indicatwdl HONITORING HEQulRIMENIS tlass Units Concentr a t ions 24-ilour lib / day except flowl Im.,/l unless otherwise Indicatedl Heport Average Average Max. Average Average Max. Instant. Measur emen t Sarnple under charge l'arimneter Honthly Weekly Dally Ibathly Weekly Dally Max. Frequency Iype A.3.c. g w (mgdl continuous r ecorde.d to e Available Chlorine 'O.2 0.5 continuous retocded omium it is the Department's understanding that the permittee does not add chromium or zinc compounds to the cooling water. c Therefore, no limitation or monitoring requirement has been placed on chromium or zinc, and the permittee is prohibited from adding chromium or 2 lac compounds to the coollag water unless the permittee obtains an annendment to this permit. Refer to Part C for restric-tions on the discharge of the 126 pr.lority pollutants, free available and total residual Chlorino, and the net addition of pollutants to non-contact rooling water. d tre shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam 19 other than trace amounts. E g aples taken in cumpliance with the monitoring requirements specif led above shall be taken at the following location:

              "-                    Outfall 00l.

X c1

w PART A Page 28 of 14

    <                  [f fl uf tli t IHil Allot 45 AND HONITOHING lif QUIRCHENIS FOR Ouif ALL 102 WHICH HECEIVLS WAsit IHOH:

{ intake screenhouse Ipump bearing cooling water leakage) formerly 201

a. Ihe permi t tee is authorized to discharge during the piirlod from issued date itirough expir at ion date, tv n h. Hased on the production t.ta and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit

    'S                       application and i ts ' supporting documents and/or amendments, the followl.ag ef f luent limitations and monitoring r equ ir emen t s app l y. Total (dissolved plus suspended traction) is lapiled for each parameter unless otherwise Indicated.

DISCilARfi LlHiTATIONS igross unless otherwise Indicated) HONiiORING HEQUsRfMENIS ' Mass Un(ts Concentrations 24-ilour I.b/ day except flow) (og/l unless otherwise indicated) Report Average Average flax . Average Average Hex. Instant. Heasuc ee.en t Sampl- untler

                 . charge Parameter                    Monthly Week 1L Daily               Monthly Weekly. Dally                Max.            frequency       J pe       A.5.c.

sw imgdl 2/ month estimated

g. . pended Solids 30 100 2/ month gr ab

                      & Grease                                                                15                       20                     2/ month           grab not less than 6.0 r.or greater than 9.0 standard units                         2/ month           grab er e shall be in2 descharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

g. spies t a n a:n in compliance with the moni toring requirements specif ied above shall be taken at the following location:

x

• discharge of collected pump bearing leakage prior to combination ,wlth any other water o

                                            <                                                                                                 I'AH I A                                                l' age 29 of I4 g             ifit uttII LlHil AllONS AND HONIIOlllHG HCQUlHEMNIS FOR OUIF ALL 002 WillCII h[Cl IVES WASIL IHOH; M                Intake screen backwash, asnd pump bearing leakage from 102 ru                                                                                                                                                         '

n a. lhe permitteo is authorized to discharge during the ,asrlod frtun issued date through empiration date.

b. Itased on the production date and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the 3.ermi t application and its supporting doc,uments and/or asnandments, the, following el f luent limitations and m)nitoring requirements apply. Total f dissolved plus suspended fraction) is impiled for each parameter unless otherwise indicated.

DIScilARCE LlHITAIIGHS (gross unless otherwise indicated) HONI TOHildi RfQUIREWHIS Hass Units Concentrations ' 24-ilour (Ib/ day except flowl' (ag/l unless otherwise indicated) Report Average Average Max. Average Awarage llax. Instant. Heasurennt Sample. Under. uharge l'aranoter Monthly Weekly Dally Monthly Weekly Daily Hax. Irequency J A.3.c. e

• Debris collected on the intake trash racks shall not be returned to the waterway.

u ere shall t,e no discharge of floatia* W ids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. o 9. X C7 , _ , - . -...-g-- p--,_,..g,m.-7, r--,, - -, , -. ,, ,, ..m o-- - - - -+~.n .,-e ,,y,, , ,n. ~ - . . , s. ,p , . . . - , . - , ~ -.

ro PAlti A 8 l' age 2n of 14

                               "$                   if f tlif HI L lHlI All0NS AND HONiiOHlHG REQUlllEHLHIS FOR Glif ALL 105 WtilCH RECEIVES WASTE fHOM:
                                <                   settlir.9 basin handling sludge from the intake clarifier (fo merly 301) g                   a. The permi t tee is aathorized to discharge during ene period from issued date through expiration date.                                                           ..

x 89 h. flased on the production data and/or anticipatet wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit n application and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following ef f luent limi t at ion; and smni tor

• ng C requirements apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended fraction) is impiled for each paremeter unless otherwise Indicated.

DISCilARGE LIMITAil0HS (gross unless otherwise Indicated) HON 110HING REQUIREMEHIS Hass Uniis Ccacentratlon3 24-Ilour (Ib/ day except flowl (mg/l unless otherwise Indicated) Repor t Average Average Max. Average Average Max. Instant. Measurement Sample Under Schare]e Parameter Monthly Weekin Dally Monthly Weekly Dally Max. Frequency Type A.3.c. w (mgd) 2/ month estimated

pended Solids 30 100 2/ month 24-hr. comp..

not less then 6.0 por greater than 9.0 standard units 2/ month grab w ere shall be no discharge of floating sollds or visible foam in other then trace amounts. E

• mples taken in compilance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location:

c3- erflow from the basin prior to mixing with any other water x C

co" GJ PARI A Page 21 of 14 to f f fluf HI LlHil All0NS Af40 HON 110 RING itf QUIR[HfHIS FOR Oulf ALL 203 WillCil RECElVES WASIE fil0Hz sewago tr eatment system at the main plant ( former y 302)

4. Ihe permi t tee is authorl2ed to discharge duf1pg the period from Issued date through empiration date.

N b. liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewstter characterlsflc5 and flows described in the permit

                     ]                      application and its suppor t ing documents and/or acendme..its, toie following effluent Ili.sitatic.x and monitoring m                      requiremonts apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended traction) is ,lmpiled for each paremeter unless otherwise indicate 1.

DISCilARM LlHil All0NS (gross unsess otherwise indicated) H0HIIOlllNG ftEQtilRfHf HIS Hass Units Concentra t ions 24-liour (Ib/ day except flowl lag /l unless otherwise Indicated) llepert Average Average Hax. Average Average Hax. Instant. Heasur enica t Sample Under scharge Paramder, Nothly Weekly Dally Monthly WeeklL Dally Max. frequency type A.3.c. ow imgdl 9.023 2/ month measured 41-S Day 30 60 2/ month gr ab

                     $                                                                                                    60                              gr ab espended Solids                                                    30                                        2/ month Itemoval 11100-$ Day,& SS)               refer to Part C tcal Coll f orm Organisms                 refer to Part C for effective disinfection                         2/ month          gr ab

not less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units 2/ month gr ab g iere shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

v

                     $      unp:=$ token in ctmpliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location:

S ,erliow inun the chlorine contact tank prior to mixing with any other water x CD f

w 5, PAHI A Page ?j of 14 p If fluf HI LlHli AllONS NJD HONIIORING HEQUlHEHENTS FOR Ouif All 303 WillCal HECEIVES WASIL flMM4: [ oil / water separator handling Unit # 1 t ur b ine room f loor di a a nage k 4. lhe persni t tee is authorl2ed to discharge during the period from issued date through empirat ion date. ,1 h. liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit " agiplication and i t s suppor t i ng documen t s and/or amendmen t s , t he f o l lowi r.g e f f l uen t limitations and snonttoring requirements apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended fractioni is lapiled for each parameter unless otherwise Indicated. DISCilARM LlHliATIONS (gross unless otherwise Indicated) MONiiORlHG HfQUlHEMENIS Hass Units Concentrattens 24-ilour lib / day except flow) (mg/l unless otherwise indicated) Report Average Average Max. Average Average itax . Instant. Heasur emen t Sample under ischarge Par.uneter Monthly Weekly Daily Minthly Weekly Daily Hax. frequency type A.S.c. Iow imgd) 2/ month estimated tj ispended Solids 30 -100 2/ month gr ah il & Grease 15 20 2/ month grab le not less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units 2/ month ' grab N u here shall be no dischargo of floating solids or visible foam in other then trece amounts.

  . a.nples taken in cunpliance with the monitoring requirements specifled above shall be taken at the following locatioi:

wer f low from stie oil separator prior to mixlog with any other water o

d r e ut . t a lorr i oe c. S - pd 3 ic I 4 en d N 2RuA n [ g i H E t ne R ii s I e mri U l e _ 4 row Q pp my I et r pi e E H aT _ f nh S _ o eot G

                      . h mo           N k            e    t              I 2            t         d s        R a                   O              t e         d    inns   ae       T                ny g                         l      I ec a           n    d sn            N               rn ee
      'l            o      enu          O H                ruq u i

o t ib i r a rt e s e r cat ar

i st e ef N p eim M 0 m d ma p e ir .

f sl a h w p s g t E n I u lot nh S o f ec l . u A r ua d t o W h dl e l e n . m a t nf d t am S af r e a t a E e ao t c sH e V t s f a i n c a I a cg c d I E d i nd i n dt r C ti e d I ea t E d swl n s y t n R e i oi i ne .l ad a u rl p os wi ns l s el m e ii aa r h a Cl s t oi s t w HD ar imo at t i cf i l a s w re ti r Wi m rei r t h e nn e o ah e nt gy oo cm h 3 r ht i c h eo c al n t o A 0 0 f

                                ,no     t o ns rk ee                us d     rsi                   os       ve                     e        n T     L       o     et t           s  C e        AW               f c           i R

A A L i r t nc aea s e l n oru m l f l e p wmr edf l n u ey gl yo l s a o U t n u l ah e f O e sed / rt e R h t ame wad s s g en m vo los so l e O g n o ( AM h b F d re r t t i n eop g s s S i t/ s ( i d i I r ad u sn v H u pns S na [ d i a N y o r H c s l . l cf o E e i su OI w xl f H g t t l T o aa 8 o s 1 r nnp A l HD 1 n d U a ae I f = u . i Q h md s f i l C s rue ocv I Hl t t ip e gy 9r3 r3 0 l o s l

                        /ol             L      ne        al              - e            g G      d      dd o                Uc         rk               3t d l

4 n ags s E x ee Ean n l o G se ve t wa i R t ni R s AW t m t O aid A ay er , a T d t t ( l e Ha isot 03 o I e ar C d ey l N l d ol S / gl d s2 f O i pa b ah . H r npt DI l rt sd , f o ouo I en i r3 o D h i sT vo h a0 e a r t t AH T y1 g A u cs . _ a ut y r _ S dil a _ N s o p h _ 0 i rd p c _ s l pna . l e a i A e e s r d _ e T h nt t o l i i t t

                              !one                            t e                         n om t

i m n! m L r e a e I o w e p dii cr M b Hl

• el u 1 l

l ea e s pq ) l ul h ta pe e d a t I I ar g g h f e r a s f e . . a ' ( s 4 b h e c w r s o c a E$m s <t N s*

                                                                   -                N3S7;o

O) co PARI A Page 24 of 14 $ if fl uf t4T t. lHII AT IONS AND ltONIIOHlNG llEQUlHEHENTS F0H Oulf ALL 004 WillCil HECEIVES WASit' I H0H; e Unl: #I cooling tower overilow 1 7 a. Ihu permitteu is authorized to discharDe during the period from issued date through empir at ion state. N to b. Ilasert on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit' n application and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following effluent limitations and monitoring reqatrement s apply. Total Idissolved plus suspended fraction) is implied for each, parameter unless otherwise indicated. DISC 11ARCE LlHITAll0NS (gross unless otherwise Indicated) HONIICHING HfQUIREHENTS Hass Units Concentratlons 24-itour (Ib/ day except flowl Img/l unless otherwise Indicated) Report Average Average Hax. Aver age Average ,llas. Instant. Heasur emen t Sample Dryder i s.. ar qe l'ar.uneier HonIhly WeekIy DalIy HonthIy Weekly DalIy Max. Irequency Iype A.5.c. Iow Imod) I/ week estlaaled rge Available Chlorine 0.2 0.5 Io tirun t urn inc This over flow at Outf all 004 normally takes place' during the months July thru October when the water level in the cooling tower basin is raised to increase pumping efficiency. The blowdown at Outfall 201 comes from the same basin, and the Ilmitations and restrictions placed on 201 apply also- to this 004. The only monitoring requirement at 004 is flow; monitoring results for other parameters at 201 will be considered applicable to 004 and must be shown on the OHR for 004 whenever there is a discharge at 004. et not less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units c_ iere shall t> e no discharge of floating sollds or visible foam in other than trace amounts. maples taken in co.npliance wi th the monitoring requiremes.is speci f ied above shall be taken at the following location

• i the stisrhar qe pipe

PARI A l'agu 7 og 14 lifl uf HI LlHil AllONS AND HL)tilIGilNG lt[QUIREMENIS f(il OUlf AI). 006 WillCil it[CLIVES WA$it fR(#4;

            $,    auxiliary intake screen backwash Y
           '<           Ihe permittee is authorized to discharge durin0 the period from issued date through expiration date.

a.

b. liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit G application and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following elliuent limitations and m nitoring requirements apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended traction) is impiled for each parameter unless otherwise Indicated.

DISCllARGE LlHITATIONS Igross unless otherwise Indicated) MONITGilNG REQUIREMENIS H4ss Units Concentrations 24-ilour lib / day erceat flow) Img/l unless otherwise Indicated) fleport Average Average Max. Average Average Max. Instant. Heasur ement Sample Under

charge Parameter Monthly Weekly' Dally Monthly Weekly Daily Max. Frequency Type A.3.c.

ro Debris collected on the intake trash racks shall not be returned to the waterways. N I d :re shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

            ~

x' c,

CD

g PART A Page 2n of 14

                @      [Ff tutill LlHil AllONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTf ALL 007 WillCil RECEIVES WASTE FH0H:

duxilidfy intake system Iesting Water and periodlC discharge from the reactor plant river water system

a. Ilne permi t tee is authorl2ed to discharge during the period from Issued date through empiraf lon date.

M m b. Hased on the production. data and/or anticipated wastawater characteristics and flows described in the permit n application and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following effluent limitations and monitoring p requirements apply. Total idimso wwd plus suspended traction) is'impiled for each parameter useless otherwise indicated. DISCilARGE LlHITATIONS f gross unless otherwise Indicated) MON 110HING fifQUIREMENIS Hass units Concentratlons 24-ilour lib / day except flowl (ag/l unless otherwise Indicatedl Repor.1 Avera0e Average Max. Average Average Hex. Instant. Heasur emen t Sample Under scharqe Parinne1er MonthIy Week 1y flaliy Honih1y WeekIy Dal1y Max. frequency Iype A.i.c. ow isagdl I/ week estimated ce available Chlorine 0.2 0.5 1/ week grab Honitoring for flow and free available chlorine are required only during those periods of discharge from the alternate flow path of the reactor plant river water system. Also refer to Part C for additional restrictions on free available and total residual chlorine, and the not addition of pollutants to non-contact cooling water. 1 3 era shall he no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. 5. p mples taken en c(anpa iance wi th the monitoring requirements specilled above shall be taken at the followlqq location-the discharge pipe

cu (D PART A Page 2o of 14 f ff tufill LlHIT AllONS AND HONIIORING I4EQUIRf MENTS FOR 00!f ALL 008 WillCol HECE lvES WASIE fit 0H: 7 Unit #1 cooling sower pumphouse (pump seal leakage, strainer backwash, root ralnf aill fos ~merly 401

d. the lIUrmi t ice is authorlied' to.dlsCharge during the p'e riod from issued date through empiration*date.

0 b. liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows descrlhed in the permit N oppilcation and its supporting documents and/or amendments. the following effluent limitations and monitoring e equircinents apply. Total Idtssolved pitis suspended fr ac t ion) is impiled for each parameter unless otherwise indica,ted. filSCllARCE I.lHITATIONS (gross unless otherwise indicated) HDNiiURING R[QUIRfH[HIS flass Units Concen tr at ions 24-ilour lib / day except flowl ing/l unless otherwise Indicated) Heoort Average Average Max. ~ Average Average Max. Instant. Heas ur esnen t Sample Under scharsie Paraneter Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily flax . Frequency Type A.l.c. w imudi 2/ month estimated spended Solids 30 100 2/ month gr ab y I A Grease 15 20 30 2/ month prab w not less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units 2/ month gr ab E ere shall be no discharge <>f floating sollds or visible foam in other than trace amounts. 2 mples taken in cumpliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location: o e discharge pipe and waitored so as to e=clude stormwater 6

T PART A Page 2p of 14 E q Ef fluffel LlHli ATIONS AND HONIIGHING HEQUIREMEllis FOR OuiFAt.L 010 WillCil P.ECElvE5 WASIL FHOM: once-thru cooling water f rom Uni t #2 heat exchangers, and sources monitored at 110 and 210 as . [ a. Iho permittee is authorized to discharge during the period from issued date through expiration date. 4E

t. Hased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in the permit applicotton'and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following effluent limitations sad monitoring m

requirements apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended fraction) is implied for each parameter unless otherwise indicated. DISCalARGE LlHliAll0NS (gross unless otherwise indicated) HONITURING REQUIREMEt4IS Mass Units Concentrations 24-Hour lib / day except flowl (mg/l unless otherwise Indicatedl H'epor t Average Average Max. Average Average Max. Instant. Huasurement Sample Under t scharge l'araneter Monthly Weekly Dally Monthly Weekly Daily Max. Frequency Type A.3.c. Iow lagdl I/ week estimated ee Available Chlorine 0.2 0.5 1/ week grab during y chlorination w Heter to Part C for additional restrictions on free available and total residual chlorine, and the net addition of pollutants to non-contact cooling water. ti y iere shall t,e no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. 5

^

vnples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location: the uner gency over f low structure c)

cu PAHf A Page 2q of 14 f f fLUfHI LlHITATioti$ AND HONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTFALL Ol t WillCH RECElvES WASIE FRON: three oll/ water separators serving the Unit #2 furbine building and diesel generator building Ga [ o. The permit tee is authorized to discharge during the period from issued date through empirat ion date. N h,liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater r.heracteristics and flows described in the permit opplicotton and its supporting documents and/or amendments, the following effluent limi to ions and monitoring requirements apply. Iotal Idtssolved plus suspended fraction) is impiled for each parameter unless otherwise indicated. (115CilARGE L lHIT ATiot!S (gross unless otherwise Indicated) MONIIORING RfQUIRfMENIS Hass Units Concentrations 24-ilour Iib / day except flowl (mg/l unless otherwise indicatedl Repori Average Average Max. Average Average , Haw. Instant. Heasurement Sample Under ischarqu Paraneter p ihly Weekly. Daily Monthly WeeklL Daily Hax. Frequency Type A.5.c. Iow (agdl 2/ month estimated uspended Solids 30 100 2/ month grab Z ii & Greose 15 20 .50 2/monih grab The three oll/ water separators discharge into a common pipe, and the pipe also handles yard drainage. The overflow from each oll/ water separator must meet the limitations shown on this page, but at this time, the Department is requiring the permittee to only monitor the combined flow of the separators. is not less than 6.0 nor greater then .9.0 standard units 2Imonth grob nere shall be no discharge'of floating sollds or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

                                       $   a.nples taken in ccmapilance with the monitoring requirements specifled above shall be taken at the following location:

9. i she discharge pipu and moni f ored so as to exclude stormwater x

C)

t? su j PAHI A Page 2r of 14 s

                           <            Ef f tUf N1 LlHII All0NS A!40 HONITORING REQutREMENIS FOR OulF ALL 012 WillCH HECEIVLS WASil IROM:
                           $            blowdown from the ilVAC cooling tower serving the emergency response f acility and stormwater runoti A

M o. The permittee is authorlied to discharge during the period from issued date through empiration date. N n b. liased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics bnd flows described in the permit C application and its supporting documents and/or amendments,'the.following effluent,Ilmitations and monitoring requirements apply. Total (dissolved plus suspended fractioni is impiled for each parameter unless otherwise indicated. DISCalARGE LIMITATIONS (gross unless otherwise Indicatedl HONITOHlNG REQUIREMENIS Hass Units Concentr at lons 24-ilour lib / day except flown (mg/l unless otherwise Indicated) Report Average Average Hax. Average Average Max. Instant. Haasur ement Sample Under scharge Parameter Monthly, Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Dally Max. frequency JE A .L c . I/ month estimated ow imgdl N ee Avalloble Chlorine it is the Department's understanding that the permittee

• does not add chlorine or chromium and zinc compounds to

                                                                                                                            ~

remium the cooling water. Therefore, no limitation or monitoring requirement has been placed on chlorine, chromium, or zinc, oc and the permittee is prohlbeted from adding. chlorine, or chromium and zinc compounds to the cooling water unless the permittee obtains an amendment to this permit. Refer to Part C for restrictions on the discharge of the 126 priority pollutants, and the net addition of pollutants to non-contact cooling water. i not less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units 1/ month grab w 5 .

                              .cr e st.al l be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

N pies taker. in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified aliove shall be taken of the following location: c3 the discharge pipe t

to

         $                                                                    PARI A                                   Page 25 of 14 5

7 EffluENI LlHII All0NS AND HONIIORING llEQulHEMENIS f(W Oulf ALL 113 WHICil RECEIVES WAsil' IHOM: sewaine treatment system serving Unit #2 and handling sanitary wastes and sof tener regeneration wastes 7 N

a. The permittee is authorized to discharge during the period from issued date through expiration date.

N

b. Hased on the production data and/or anticipated wastewater characteristics and flows described in tre permit

         'n          application and its supporting documents and/or amendments, tt.e following offluent limitations and monitoring C           requirements apply. Total idissolved plus suspended fraction) is 'impiled for each parameter unless otherwise Indicated.

DISCilARGE LlHITATIONS f qross unless otherwise Indicated) HGN110R'.tG HEQUIREMENIS Mass Units Concentrations 24-ilour lib / day except flow) (og/l unless otherwise indicated) Report Average Average Max. Average Average Max. Instant. Measur einen t Sample Under

              . charge Parameter          lbothly Weekly        Dally   mathly Weekly      Dally      Max.      Fre3uency          Type    A.5.c.

w (mgdl 0.043 2/ month measur ed F5 Day 30 60 2/monih grab

         $    . pended Solids                                             30                          60       2/monih           grab temoval 1800-5 Day 1.55)          ref er to Part C

al Coll f orm Organisms refer to P4rt C for effective disinfection 2/ month Drab not less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units 2/ month grab d

         @    tre shall be sn> discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Q iples taken in crepilance with the monitoring requirements specilled above shall be taken at the following' location: X :r f low f run the chlorine contact tank and prior to mixing with any other water o

d r e ut . t a S l i o- pd3r r c. oe c i I 4 en d N 2RUA n E  : I M d n g E e o t ne R t i i i s l e a t mri l l l e m a 4 row E Q pp my I t b a b a b a c o 1 .et r s r r pi i a R aT r g g l f nh S e g g G o . hentao N n t e s I i w 2 t d s H o a inns O t g e d ae l T I ny ec l l a n d sn N mn s o o enu O ee h h h h f P i b o M ru uq t n t n t n t n e t i i r o o a rt e se o o h r cat ar m

                                                                    / / /

m m

                                                                                     /

m t i st e ef 2 H p eim H 2 2 2 t a 0 m d ma H e i r . n I sl a s e h w p g t k E a I u lotnh n S o f ec l . u t A r ua d t o W h dl e ) e n . m e t nf d t ax a b S af r e a t a s E e eo t c sM t e l V t s f a i n i c l l a icg c d I n a a [ d nd i n u r h C ti e d I t s E d swi n s y d e R e i ol i ne .l r n u rl p os aa xi 0 0 a a v

          't s      el m           e  ii                          0    2     d   h         o i

s t oi s t w MD 1 n t b Cl i cf i ar a a, l a s w re t r i W m rei r t h gy e _ s e d e o ah e nt h 3 r ht i h eo al 0 t i 1 f c n t c rk o f A 2 ,o o ns ee 9 n i d rsi os ve cr i L o et t s C e AW n i ee l L i t nc s l a pt l A A s r aea e n ey h m sa P f n e wmr l u t a w Ti p edf n gl o s U a t n u l ah 'r f t r Or e sed / rt 0 S e ne d h ame s y ea 3 I t e eh R t wad s a a l mt Ot F n g dre n o r l A vN r e b i eo r e n eop g g s i y S m i t/ s (

• i un T p r ad u r v qa Ni u pns S o e E u d i a N y n r rh Mq c s 0l l . l o t E e e i s u w xi 0 gi g t t l l 0 4aa s nw RI d r nnp A 8 t D 6 d i U n a ae T 1 l r n Qa h md 1 s n l on E c rue H t t e. a o t i Pr s ocv l ip ne gy h s t w o i / ol L al t irl Go d dd o n s E Uc x

rk ee s g n oa a lHl f o ags G se v e s i o H t ni R s AW e t et 0 e aid A ay l a h 1 s d t t( la Ha o t r 1 u e ar C d ey t l o N o z d ol S / gl o f hi Oh i pa I b ah n t r p Hp r npt D I rt f i m o ouo ( en o w D u h i sT vo e N p t t AH e es A u cs . g cu r a ut y r no S e di l a ah N w s o p h i p 0 o i rd p c l m l t pna s p u l e a mp A g e e s r la o I n t h nt e c e l i t t ione t o h Hl i e s n nt l o m nt m m d i L o r oae a i e m c e p ' diicr r l b no er T N2 a o o el u P S s l k f E # e spq ) a l a u h 4 p e e d d e a t g e l t T 0ar n i g u r h fi r m d G s sr _ f n . . a ( n ea E U a h h e i e ih c w p re sp c.

        $ l'       I $ m yrn                                                                   c{p u          c)

_ j 1

i , d r e ut . t a l i o- pd3 r r c. oe c S i I 4 en d N 2RuA n E g l M E t ne 9 i i s f e' mri U l e 4 row et r Q E pp my 1 pi e R aT f nh S o era t G

                                      . h mo           N u                e     t 2                  t           d s       RI a                    O nL t

e d inns ae T g l I ec a n d sn mn P o en u 0" ee i b o M ru uq t i ir a rt e se r cat ar

i st e eF M p eim M O x d ma R e ir .

F sl a s h w p g t L ot n I u l. nh u S o 1 ec ) . o A r ua d t

 .                         W        h     dl e           )

d t e n . ax 3

                                                                                              .               m a

t nf S af r e a t a 1 e E V t e s eo f t a i c sM n 2 c I a cg c d I d a E d i nd i n d n r C ti e d I ea t E d swl n s y t n R e i oi I ne .l a3 a l u s rl p el m e os xl ii aa i1 n8 h Ci s t oi s t w MD m t

  .                        l       i cf           i      ar                      at a

_. l a s w re t r i W m rei r t h e n , e o ah e nt gy od h 3 r ht ) c n h eo al ce nr t o l f t c rk A O d rsi

                                                  ,o       o ns os ve ee              uot                  a T         L,        o      et t           s Ce         AW            f i                   l I                 i       t nc            s       l                    ono e

l M A r aea n ey ym m a P F e p wmr l n u gl o _ T edf l . U t n u l ah es f O e sed / rt l e h e s g en oc e R t e wLn. d s a v o s e l O g n o l AM u b F d re r t o i n eop g ss s S i t/ s I i i I r ad u se v N u pns S nh E d i a N y ot r H c s O l . l c o E e i su I w xi d H g t t l T o aa l n s l r nnp A l MD l a d U a ae T f a i Q h md I s hf l E c rue H t t e sf o H i s ocv

                                          /ol l

L ip ne gy al en o s G d dd o Uc x rk gu g N n s E ee rr n I o ags C se ve a i R t ni R s AW h r t O aid A ay ce a I d t t( H Ha st o l e ar C d ey a l H z d ol pa S / gl id w f O i I b ah m M r npt D i rt sr f D h o ouo i sl l en v> i ht o o N t u t cs . AR T s e g _. A a ut y r S dil a N s o p h 0 i rd p c l pna s l e a i A e e s r d I t h nt e l t t on t o i ie e n Hl m nt m n L r e oae a e w p cr r b I o dii a Hl el u P l C e spq l ut o. h lope u a l f e I I ar q h s r f e . . a [ s a b h e c r s c.

                      <c jq                                                                             e
                                                                                                              > year o
            $$D'         a               mm                                           M                            i
       ,I              l
                               ;                                                   i,              ;!

i , j

PART A , Page 3 of 14

2. CEFfNITICNS

a. The " average menthly" mass discharge treans the total discharge by weight during a calendar month divided by the number of days in the month that the production ce cor'rer'clal f aci l i ty or sewage f aci l i ty was cperating. Where less than daily samoling Is required by this';ermit, the average acnthly mass discharge shall be determined by the survtation of all the reasured daily discharges by weight divided by the numcer of days during the calendar rrcath when the treasurements =ere made.

b. - The " average weekly" mass discharge means the total discharge by weight during a ca'endar week divided by the number of days in the week that the f acility was ocerating. Where less than daily saragling is recuired by this permit, the aver' age weekly mass discharge shall be determinec by the summation of all the esasured daily discharges by weight divided by the number of days during the calendar week enen the measurements were made.

c. The "eaximum dally" mess discharge treans the total discharge by weight during any calendar day.

d. The " average acnthly" concentration rneans the arithmetic average of all the dally determinattens of c=ncentrafico mode. during a calendar eenth.

e. The " average =*ekly" concentration means the arithmetic average of all the daily dsterminations of cencontration trede during a calendar' =eek.

f. The "maxicaum daily" c=ncentration means the daily determination of concentraticn for ,any calendar day. '

g. The " daily determination of c=nesntratien" means either the con-centration of a comocsite sarapie taken during a calendar day or the arithmetic average of all grab sarnples taken during a calendar day.-

h. The " Instantaneous treximuma c=ncentraticn r'eans the concentration not to be exceeded at any time in any grab sar ole.

i. The term "ccmoosite sample" means a cetabinaticn of in lividual samp les catained at regular Intervals over a time pericd. Ei *her *me volume of each Individuai sarrole is Or ccerticnal to discharge fice rates, ce *he sacoling interval (fer c=nstant volume samples) is ;r2;cettenal to *h e ficw rates over the tirao pericd used to produce the cor cesite. The maxirnum tirne ;eriod between individual samoles shall not exceed '2 Mcurs except that fer wastes of a uni f er:n nature the samoles eay be col f ected en a frequency of at least telce per werking snift and shalf te equally-scaced ever a 24-Mcur perice (cr over the coerating cay if flows are of a sherter curatien).

j. The term "grac samcle" eens an individual samp le col leC*cb in less tnan 15 minutes.

I

k. The " average enthly fic=" means the arithr etic *ean cf daily etcw  !

             .easure ents taaen during a calendar -enth.

i l l Beaver Valley 2 FES 29 Appendix G i

PART A Pag 3,4 of 14

f. The term " measured f l ow" means any method of liculd volure reasure ent t*e accuracy of which has been previcusly demonstrated in engineering practice or for which a relationship to absolute volume nas been cotained,

m. The term " estimated flow" means any method of licuid volume measure-ent based en a technical evaluaticn of .the sources contributing to tne discharge including, but not limited to, pumo capabilities, water meters, and batch discharge volumes. i

n. The "avertsgo ecntnIy" Teecerature neans the arItnmetic mean of tem-cerature ~easurement made ca an hourly basis, or tne mean value plot of the recced of a continucus autcmated temperature recording instrument, ,

either during a calendar month or during the operating month if ffc s I are of a shor?se duratl'on.

c. The "*4ximum daily" temperature means the highest arithmetic mean of ,

the neurly temcoratures cbserved for any 2 consecutive hours during a 24-Mcur day or curing the coerating day if ficws are of a shceter duratien.

                       ~

p. The term "I-s" means intnersion stabill:ation in which a calibrated  !

cevice is invaersed in the ef fluent stream,until the reading is s*abilized.

q. Thw term "non-conta:t cooling water" shalI, nean water which is used in ,

a cooling system designed so as to maintain constant separation of the cooling mecium from all contact witts process chemicals but which any on , cc:asion, as a result of corresien, cooling system leakage or similar 4 cooling system failures, contair small amounts of process chemicals: crovided. Saat 'all reesonable mesures have been taken to ;revent, reduce, eliminate and centrol to the neximum extent feasible such contamination:  ; and crevided fur *ner, tnat all reasonable measures have been taken that

       =iii mifigate tne erfects of such centaminatIcn once it has occurred.
                                                                                            ?

r. The term "at outf all XXX" means a samoling location in oattall >ine XXX j downstream from the last point at unich wastes are added to outtsil 7 line XXX ce ctherwise sDecified. '

                                                                        .                   I

s. The term " bypass" means the Intenticnal diversion of wastes. from any  ;

       =cetien of a treat ent facility.                                                     l

f. The term " severe pregerty damage" rwans substantial ysical damage to f peccerty, damage to the treatment faciiitles =nich causes them to becer e [

inoperable, ce subtantial and per-anent Icss of natural resources =nicn can

• reascnably to expected to eccur in the absence of a bypass. Severe se::erty damage does not ewan occacmic loss caused by delays in - production.

i

u. The term " Industrial user" trwans an establishment =hich disenarges er f intecduces Industrial wastes into a cublicly cwned treatment =crks (POTa1. j i'

v. Tne term " uOlicly Owned treat. ent = crus" ce "COTa" m ens a facility as defined ey Sectica 212 of tne C;ean Water Act =nich is coned bY a state Or munici:ality, as defined by Section SC2(4) of the Clean water Act, including i any sewers tnar cenvey waste.ater to such a treatment =ce=s, :vt ret including cices, sewers ce ciner cenveyancas net connected to a f acility Or:viding treet ent. Tne term also eans *ne municipality as defised in Secticn 5C2(4) i of ens Clean safer Act wnien mas jurisdiction over *me indirect di scNarres *o  !

adC *me disanargas f*:m sucn a ?rsarment =crks. i Beaver '/ alley 2 FES 30 Appendix G [

i AART A -- Page 5 of 14

3. SE!.F-WNITORING, RE8CRTING, ANO RECCRCS KEEPING

a. Reeresentative Sa-eline Samoles and measurenwnts taAen as required.nerein shall be ra:resen-tative of fne volume and nature of the monitored discharge.

3. Reeertine of Moniterino Results (I) Monitoring results cetained during each month shall be surrari zed for tnat month and recorted on a tischarge monitoring recce? (CMR)

ostmarked mo' later than ene 28th day of tne following month.

Signed cooles of these and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Geoartment and the EPA Regicnal Of fice at the addresses listed in Part C of this permit. (2) If fne permittee monitors any pollutant using analytical methods described in Part A.3.e below more frequently than the permit requires, the results of tnis monitoring shall be incerporated as accrocriate into.the calculations used to report self-monitoring i data on the CMR.

c. Non-CceoiIance Recce?1nc (1) 24deur Recertinq - The permittee shall . orally recort to the Cecartment within 2& nours of becoming aw'are of the following:

(a) Actual or anticlDated non-compilance with any term or c=nditlen

                                                                                       ~

of tnis permit which may endanger health or the environment. (b) Actual or anticipated non-comollance with any " maximum daily" disenarge limitation =hich IS Identified in Part A.1 of tnis permit as being: - (I) A toxic pollutant ef fluent standard established by O'A pursuant to Section 30'(a) of the Clean Water Act, er (ii) For a toxic.or hazardC Js Dollutant uniCn, if act adequately treated, cc Jid constitute a threat to "uman healta, sel f are, er tne environment, er (Ill) Any pollutant identiflad as the method to cent ci a ?cric collutant or hazardcus substance (i.e. Indicater Dollutant). (c) Any unanticloated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitaficns

                                                                                         ~

in the permit. (d) where the :ermittee'erally roccets inis Infer-afico =i?nin ** e above mentioned 24-mcur time pericd, a written submissicn cu?llning the accve inforeation must be sutmi tted fc ?*e Cesar? rent =ltnin 5 days of teccming a=are of suen a cceditien unless tnis recuirement is waived by tne Ce: art ent u:en recal:t ct tne cral reccet. i Beaver Valley 2 FES 31 Appendix G

PART A Page 6 cf 14 (2) Other Ncn-Come ll ance Recer?lnc (a) The permittee shall give advance notice to tne Ceoartment of any planned enanges to tne permitted activity or facility which may result In nCM-ComDilance with permit requirements. (b) Where tne cermittee knows in advance of the need for a bycass unich .III exceed effluent limitaticns, it shall submit price notice to the Cecartment at least 10 days, if possible, before the date of the bypass. (c) the germittee shall report all instances of ncn-ccmpliance unich are not reported abcve at the time of CNR submission. (3) Tne roccets and notifications required above shall contain the felic ing infcemation: (a) A description of the discharge and cause of non-compliance; (b) The period of non-comollance, including exact dates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge will return to cercilance; and (c) Stecs being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of tne non-complying discharge.

d. Scocific foxic S cstance NotificStlen levels - Where the permittee is a manuf acturing, c mmercial, mining, or silvicultural discharger, the permittee shall notify tne Cecertment as soon as it knows or has reason to believe the felicting: .

(1) That any activity has occurred er will occur which would result in the dis-charge of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit if that discharge will exceed the highest of the folle=Ing " notification levels": (a) Cne nundred micrograms per liter (b) Two hundred micrograms per liter'for acrolein and acrylonitri f e (c) Five mundred mieregrams pe, liter for 2,4-dinitremnenol and 2-metny l-4,6-d i n i tregneno l (d) One milllgesm per liter for antimony (e) Five times the maximum cencontration value rocceted for tnat

ollutant in tne permit applicatten l

(f) Any otner notification level estaclisned by the Ce:artment (2) Ina* 17 nas begun, cc exoscts to beg!n, to use er manuf acture as an in?ertediate er final ;reduct ce bycreduct any toxic ;ollutan' anich was not recceted in the permit acclicatien. i l Beaver Valley 2 FES 32 Appendix G 1

1 l PART A page 7 of I4

e. Test Precedures Unless otherwise specified in this permit, the test :Pocedures for t e analysis of scitutants shall be these centained in 40 C.R Part 136, er alternate test procedures accreved cursuant to that car:.

f. Recordinc of Resul?s For each esasurement ce samole taken pursuant to the recuirements of this germit, the _ permittee shall rec 0rd the folicwing infcema?lcn:

(I) The exact place, date, and time of sampling or measurements; (2) The perscas who performed the sa'mpling or measurements; (3) The dates the analyses were perfermed; (4) The persens who performed the analyses; (5) The analytical tec'aniques or motheds used; and (6) The results of such' analyses.

g. Receeds Retention All recceds cf monitoring activities and results (including all celginr1 strip chart rec:rdings for centinucus trenitoring lastrumentatica and calibration and treintenance recceds), c=ples of all reports recuired by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the acclicatien for this permit shall be retained by the permittee fer 3 years. The 3 year ceriod shall be extended as requested by the Department or the EPA Reglenal Administrator.

4 SCHECULE CF COH8LI ANCE

 ,    a. If Part C of this permit c=ntains a schedule of comollance, the ;er9ittee shall achieve comp l lance with the of f luent iImitations spect fled for discharges in acccedance with that schedule.

b. No later than I4 calender days folic =Ing a date Identlfled in the schedule of ccacilance,. the permittee shall submit to the Decartment a ritten notice of ccegliance ce ncn-cceoliance with the s ecific schedule r equ i rement. In the case of ncn-cer pilance, the notice shall include the cause of non-ccepliance, any remedial actions taken, the estiraated T date . hen c=r-c liance wi th the ela: Sed date shall occur, and the ;rc acility l cf meeting the next scheduled requirement.

l i l Beaver Valley 2 rES 33 Appendix G

DART 9 Page 8 of i4 1, .uasAGEuENT REQUIREuENTS

a. Dermit Mcdi f ication, terminatien, cc Revocatien and Reissuance

(!) Th i s permi t may be mod i f ied, terminated, or revoked.and reissued during its term .for any of the causes scoci f ied in 25 Pa. Cede, Chapter 92. (2) The filing of a request by the permittee fer a cermit modi fication, revccation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned cnanges cc anticipated non-ccmoliance, cces not stay any permit c=ndition. (3) Texic Dollutants - Notwithstanding the above, if a toxic effluent standard or prenibition (including any schedule of compliance sce-cified in such ef fluent standard or prohibition) is estabilshed under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for a toxic pollutant

                  =hien is present in the disenarge, and such standard or prohibi-tion is more stringent then any limitation for such pollutant in this permit, then this permit shall be nodified er revoked and f

reissued by the Department to conform witn the tcxic ef fluent standard or pronibition and ttie permittee so notified. In tne abse'nce of a Departmental action to medify cr to revoke and reissue inis permit, any toxic ef fluent standard or prohibition established under Section 307(a) of.fte Ciean Water-Act is cen-sidered to be of fective and enforceable against the permittee.

b. Outv to Arevide Information (1) The permittee shall furnish to the Department within a reescnable time any information which tne Department may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine ecmollance with this permit.

(2) The germittee small furnish to the Department, ucon request, ccoles of recorjs required to be kept by this permit. (3) Otnee Intermatin - where the permittee becens aware that it tailed to summit any relevant facts in a germit acclica?Icn, or su bmi tted inecreect infermeticn in a permit acolication or in any recort to the Decartment, it snal t promotly submit suen . facts or Informatien to tne Department.

(4) The cermittee shall give advance notice to the Oe

artsgnt of any l

planned ;nysical alterations er addificns to the permitted f ac i l i ty . I i i i Beaver Valley 2 FES 34 Appendix G l

PART B Page 9 of 14

c. wnere the Permittee is a Pueliciv Owned T. eat ent Weeks (DOT )

(1) The permittee small =covide adequate notice as discussed in subcaragraph c(2) below to tne Departtront of the following: (a) Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW f rom an incustrial user =nich would be subject to Sections 301 and 306 of tne Clean Water Act if it were otherwise discnarging directly into waters of .?ne United States. (b) Any substantial change in the volume er character of cellu? ants being introduced into the ACTW by an Industrial user =nlen was discharging into the POTW at tne time of issuance of tnis erm.t. (c)* Any change in the quality and quantity of ef fluent introduced Into the POTW. - (d) The Identity of significant industrial users served by the POTW wnich are subject to pretreatment standards accoted under Section 307(b) of tr.e Clean Water Act: the POTW sha l I ~ also identify the character and wlume of pollutants discharged into tne POTW by the. Industrial user. (2) The submission of tne above information in the POTd's annual Westeload Management Roccet, recuired under fne provisions cf 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 94, will aormaliy be considered as providing adequate noti.co to the Copertment. However, If the a x3ve changes . in industrial pollutant Icadings to the Pord are significant enough to = errant either tredl fication ce revocation and elssuance of tnis permit, then the permittee is required to freet the prsvi-sions of Part 8.1.a above. , (3) The PCTW snall . coquire all Industrial users to comply with tne repncting requirements of Sections 204(b), 307, and 308 of tne Clean Water Act and any regulations adopted tnereunder, and tne Cle,n Streams Law and any regulations adopted thorounder. (4) Thl t permit shall be modi fied, or alternatively, esvoked and reissued, to incorporate an accreved PCTd protreatment program or a corollance schedule for the develocreent of such program as required under Section 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and re.,Jiations adcoted thereunder er under tne Departant's acoroved cretreatment Or:gra . i Beaver Valley 2 FES. 35 Appendix G

PART B Page 10 of 14

d. Eveassinq (1) 8veassinc not Exceecine Permit Limitatiens - The permittee rey allco any bypass to occur =nica cows not cause ef fluent limita-tions to be exceeded, but en i v if ;h3 bypass is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. this type of bypassing I , not subject to the reporting and noti fication requirements of Par. A.3.c aeove.

(2) Ot'or Sveassinc - In all other situat,lons bypassing is pronibited unless *ne tolIc.ing concitions are met: l (a) A bypass Is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or " severe property damage"; (b) There are no feasible alternatives to a bypass, such as tne , use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated  ! wastes, or enintenance during normal periods of sculpment down-time. (This condition i s not sati s f ied I f tne permi ttee  ; could have Installed adequate backup oculpment to prever.t a l bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment  ; downtime c. preventive saintenance); and [ (c) The permittee submitted the necessary reports required under  ! Part A.3.c aDove.

                                                                                                          '[

(3) The Cepartment emy approve an anticipated bypass, af ter en- I sidering its adverse ef fects, if the Depart ont determines that. It , will emot tne 3 conditions ' listed above. r i i I f l " t i l i Beaver Valley 2 FES 36 Appendix G

1 DART S Page 11 of'!4

e. Adverse imcact The permittee shall take 9li reasonable stecs'to minimize er correct any adverse imDact on the environment resulting from non-ccmoliance with this permit,

f. Faelllfies Ceeration The cermittee small a? all ti-ws maintain in good working ceder and geccerly ccerate all facilities and systems (and related accurtenances) for collection and treatment wnich are Installed er used by +Me ;er9it-too for water pollution centrol and abatement to acnieve compliance witn tne terms and conditions of this permit. Pecoor coeration and maintenance includes but is not limited to of f ective performance based on designed facility removals, adequate funding, ef f ective management, adequate coerator staf fing and training, and adequate laboratory and processing controls including accccoriate quality assurance procedures.

This provision includes the coeration and backup of auxillarv f ac I I Itl es or similar systems when necessary to achieve compilance with this permit.

g. Aeductlen, l. css, er Fallure of tne Treatment Facilities where tne permittee is a trenuf acturing, conmercial, mining, cc silvi-cultural discharger, teen ucon reduction, loss, er failure of the treatment facilities, and in ceder to treintain compliance wl*h its permit, the permittee shall centrol pecduction and all discharges until eitner tne f acility is restored er an alternative method 'of treatment is provided.

This requirement acclies in the situation where, nng other things, tne primary source of pcwor of tne treatment facility is reduced, lost, ce fails.

n. Removed Suestaneos Solids, sludges, filter backwasn,.or other pollutants rect [ved in the course of treatment er centrol of wastewaters small be discesad of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from adversely af f ecting the envircnment.

1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 37 Appendix G

PART 8 Page 12 of 14

2. RESPCNSIBILITIES

a. AIChi Of OiN Pursuant to Sections 5(b) and 30: of tne Clean Streams Law and 25 Pa.

Code, Chapter 92, tne permi ttee shall allow the head of tne Departmnt, tne E?A Regional Administrator, and/or their autnnelzed re:iresentatives, upon *ne presentation of credentials and other documents al Puy be required by law: (1) To enter upon the permittee's cremises where an of fitent source is located or in which any records are reculred to be kept under tne terms and conditlens of this permit; and (2) At reasonaile tirees to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; to inspect acy monitoring equipment or trenitering method required in this perml *; to inspect any col lection, treatment, pollution management, or discharge facilities required under this permit; and to sample any tubstances or parameters at any location.

b. transfer'of Ownershit or Centrol (1) No permit tray be transferred unless aoproved by fee Department.

(2) In tne event of any pending change in control or ownership of f acilities from walen the authorized discharges enanate, t3e germittee shall noti f y the Department by letter of such.pending change at least 30 days pelor to the change in ownership er centrol. (3) The letter shall be accomoanled by tne aopecorlate Department forms fcr transfer of this permit and a written agreement between the existing permittee and the new cwner or controller stating that the existing permittee shall be liable for violaticns of this permit us to and until the date of cermit transf er and that the new owner or centroller shall be liable for permit violations fecm-that date on. (4) Af ter receipt of the documentation recuired above, the Decartment shall notify tne existing cor-It*ee and the new owner ce controller of its decision concerning aopreval of the transf er. In acoroving the transf er tne Department may modi fy or revoke and reissue this permit. (5) In tne event tne Decartment dees not acoreve transf er of this germit, the new owner or controller nust submit a new cermif 4331Ication. 1 Beaver Valley 2 FES 38 Appendix G

A ART 3 Page 13 of 14 I

c. Cenfldent ialliv of Recorts E xceo't for data determined to be ecnfidential under 25 Pa. Cede, Cnacter 92, all renects crepared in acccedance witn toe terms of this permit small be available for public inspection at the of fices of the Cecartment and tne EPA Reglenal Administrater. Effluent data small not be censidered confidential.

d. Penal ties and Liabi l ity ,

(I) No'tning in this germit small be censtrued to relieve the ermittee from civil ce criminal penalties for non-comoliance cursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Water Act or Sections 602 cc 605 of tne Clean Streams Law. (2) Netning in this permit shall be construed to creclude tne institu-tion of any legal action or relieve tne permittee from any respon . sibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which tne permittee is er may be subject under Section 311 of the Clean water Act. .

e. P eeec+v Ricnts The issuance of this permit'coes not convey any crecerty rights in eitner real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges; nor Joes it aufscelze any injury to private _ property or any invasion of persi nel rignts.

f. Ctmer Laws Netning nergin Contained small be :castrued to be an intent en too part of *ne Ce artment to accrove any cct made o- to be rede by too permittee x-- ,

incenststent with fne permittee's lawful powers er with existing laws of the Commonwealth regulating industrial and sewage wastes and the practice of professional engineering, nce shall tMis permit be construed to sanctlen any act otherwise forbidden by federal ce state law ce regulations, ce by local ordinanc,s. Nor does it cre-erot any duty to obtain state or Iccal assent reduired by law fer tne discharges.

g. Seversbifftv The ;rovisicns of ?M 1 permit are severable, and if any :revisten of this :ermit or the acclication of any provision of this :ermit to any circumstances is nold invalid, tne aoplication of such rovisica to other circumstances and the remainder of inis :ermit snail not be a f f ected thereby.

Beavar Valley 2 FES 39 Appendix G

l l PART C Pags 14e of 14 02MER RIQUIREMINTS l

a. In accordance with Part A.3.b of this permit, the permittee shall submit a copy of the reports to each of the following:

Department of Environmental Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Quality Management Region III, Pennsylvania Section (3WM32) 600 Highland Building . Water Permits Branch 121 South Highland Avenue Water Management Division Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15:06-3988 Sixth and Valnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

b. For outf all 203, effective disinfection to control disease producing organisas shall be the production of an ef fluent which will contain a concentration of focal colifors organisms not greater than

1. 200/100 al as a monthly geometric mean, nor exceed 400/100 al in acre than ten percent of the samples examined during any month from May through October inclusive. .

2. 1000/100 31 as a monthly geometric anan, nor exceed 2000/100 al in more than ten percent of the samples examined during any month from Nevesber through April inclusivd.

c. For Outf all 113, effective disinfection to control disease producing organisms shall be the production of an af fluent which will contain a cencontration of focal coliform organisms not greater than

1. 200/100 al as a monthly geometric mean, nor greater than 1000/100 al in more than tan percent of the samples examined during any month from May through September inclusive.

2. 2000/100 31 as a monthly geometric mean based on five consecutive samples collected on different days during any month free October through April inclusive.

d. In no case shall the arichsatic means of the ef fluent values of the biochemical oxygen demand (3cD-5 Cay) and suspended solids discharged during a period of 30 consecutive days exe ed 15 percent of respective arithmetic means of the influent values for those para =ecers during the same time period except as specifically authorized by the Capartment.

e. There shall be no net addition of pollutants to non-contact cooling water over intake values except for hast, water conditioners (when used in accordance with the requirenents of the Federal Insecticide , Fungicida, and Rodenticide Act), and as provided in Part A.2.q of this permit.

Beaver Valley 2 FES 40 Appendix G l

l l Page 14b of 14 i i

s. There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated byphenyl (PC3) compounds such as chose co nce.ly used for transformer fluid'.

3 In cooling tower blowdown chare shall be no detectable amount of the 126 priority pollutants from chemicals added for c)oling tower maintenance. The 126 priority pollutants are listed at 40 CFR 423 - Appendix A, and "no detectable amount

• seans that the pollutants are not detectable by the analytical methods at 40 CyR 136.

J. Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged from any unit for mee than two hours in any one day and not more than one unit in any plant say discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one time unless the permittee can dersonstrate to the Department that the units in a par-ticular location cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination.

1. Waterborne releases of radioactive asterial to unrestricted areas shall conform to criteria set forth in Title 10 Code of yederal Regulations part 50 Appendix I

      - Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions For Operation To Meet The Criterion ' Aa Low As Is Reasonably Achievable' For Radioactive Material In Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear teactor Effluents, as implemented, through the Environmental Technical Specificatioes for the Facility. The facility operator shall provide the Department with copies of reports specifying the quantities of radioactive materials released to unrestricted areas in liquid / gaseous ef fluents.

The facility operator shall provide che Department with copf es of reports of the results of environmental surveillance activities and other such reports as necessary for the estination of the dose consequential to facility operation. The above reports are to be forvarded to the following addressa: Pennsylvania uepartment of Environmental Resources Bureau of Radiation Protection and Toxicology P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 i ( l I Beaver Valley 2 FES al Appendix G  ! i [

1

                                                                                                                                      \

l t as-' 8a 3/88 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA EAVIRONMENTA!. HEARING BOARD 221 North Second Stmt Third Floor Herrisburg Pennsylvanie 17J01 (717)787 3443 NOTICE OF APPEAL Any certy easiring tc, acceal any action of the Department of Environmental Resources must file its Accesi meth # tis Board er the above adreet within 30 days from cete of recator of notification of the Acton.

1. Comodete Name, Address and Telephone Number of Acceitant:

DUQUESNE LICHT CCMPANY One Oxford Centre 301 Crant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15279 412/393-6055

2. (al Speafy the acdon for which review is iciught, the Ceoartment officiais wno took said accons, and the locaton of the procesed project induding the micipality and azurity. Also, attach a copy of the letter. order or nonfication from which you are espeeling. (b) Sosafy the date when the order or noece of the action accessed was received.

(a) NPDES Permit PA0025615 (topy attached as Exhibit A) issued by Hugh 7. Archer, Regional Water Quality Manager. Said Permit applies to the Beaver Valley Power Statier., a nuclear power plant located ir. Shippingport Borough, Beaver County. (b) Permit received on November 29, 1984

3. We aposal for the following reasons: (Sonofy objectone to the action of the Decertmer Cbiectione not raiwd herein may be deemed weind pursuant to Rude 21.5sie ). If the objectons are not sufficiently soa:ific, the apositee may me.e for a more sonafic pireding gwsuant to Rule 21.84 or Appeff ant may be required to file the first prehering memorandum.

(Attaca additional .hoetz se may be required.) See attached sheets.

d. We hereby certfy that we how serwd or meiled a ecoy of this sopeal to

( XI (al the Bureeu of Legenon. P.O. Box 2357, 514 Ezecutin House,101 South Second Screet. Harriscurg, PA 17120. ( x) (b) the Officer of the Cecertreent of Emnronmental Resources responsible for the action ao maled, and ( ) (c) if the acosal is from the grant of a portrat, license, soproval or certification, a cocy to tP' recipent thereof. The information submitted is true and corrwt to the boet of my in ~ sd tief:

                                                                                               ,     w      u-   -

SGNATue6 meAter i. a4caal sal - vice Preside 's;eseure of Aommisas or Aesat or Ctecer of Acos,tsat if Asom> .e not an inewoms. re everdr @ aa Narke T,r"MAe ,038 o e ca erace eae i eare me soere. en e socorv me reno as ineoraws.a: Gene C. Bertsch. Esc. & Carard F. Hickel, Esc (N Aad e) (Tyos or # mag) CUQUESNE LICHT COMPANY ene %r ! c.- r. - 'n' c.,-- < -.. Pictsburgh, PA 15279 ptR/191 Ante _ _ thM5A %wust vmWNs M&. NOTICE: FAILURE TO SUPPLY ANY OF THE A30VE INFORMATION MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL , OF YOUR APPEAL, Beaver Villey 2 FES 42 Appendix G

ATTACHMENT - NOTICE OF APPEAL 3(a). Part C, requirement (h), of said Permit provides that:

               "Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be disc'harged from any unit for acre than two hours in any one day and not more than one unit in any plant may discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one time unless the permittee can demonstrate to the Department that the units in a particular location cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination.

(b).

        ~

Appellant objects to Part C, require ment (h) in that it imposes an i'amediately-effective standard upon Appellant *s facility. Appellant has recently become aware that the chlorination limits specified by requirement (h) are inadequate to control biofouling at its unit. Appellant cannot operate its unit at or below the prescribed level of chlorination and desires to make a demonstration of this fact to the Department, as permitted by requirement (h). Promptly upcn discovery of the inadequacy of the prescribed chlorination limits, Appellant advised tae Detartment thereof by letter of December 24, 1984) copy attached as Exhibit 3), and also advised the Depart =ent of its desire to perform the ' demonstration authorized by requirement (h). In order to ccnduct such a de=cnstration, levels of chlorination exceeding these levels specified by requirement (h) will be necessary. If requirement (h) remains in force during the demonstration period, Appellant will te sub jec- to Beaver Valley 2 FE5 43 Appendix G

sanctions for exceedances of the chlorination level specified by requirement (h), thereby effectively denying Appellant the right to make its demonstration to the Department. Therefore, Appellant requests that the ef fectiveness of the chlorination limits specified - by requirement (h) be suspended until Appellant has coeducted its demonstration and the Department's ruling thereon has become final. (c). Appellant further objects to requirement (h) in that the chlorination limits prescribed therein are ambiguous as to whether they apply to the dosing period or to the period of discharge into the river. The Department has by permit transmittal letter of November 26, 1984 (copy attached as Exhibit C) stated that it agrees with Appellant that the chlorination limits apply only to the dosing period, but such interpretation has not been reflected in the Permit, thereby exposing Appellant to possible actions by third parties, or by the Department, arising from a contrary interpretation of requirement (h). Therefore, Appellant requests that requirement (h) be amended by adding the following provision at the end thereof:

               "This limitation shall apply to the dosing period only."                     .

(d). Part A, pages 2e and 21 of said Permit establish the following effluent limitations for fret available chlorine:

               " Maximum Daily Concentration          -- 0.2 ag/1"
               " Instantaneous Maximum Concentration -- 0.5 mg/1" These numerical limitations were taken by the Department from United S tated Environmental Protection 2

l Beaver Valley 2 FES 44 Appendix G

Agency standards published at 40 CFR 125 and 423. The Environmental Protection Agency standards, however, clearly apply to daily average concentrations and to daily maximum concentrations, respectively, while the limitations of the Permit are ambiguous. The Department has verbally agreed with Appellant that the proper interpretation of the " maximum daily" limitation specified in the Permit is to apply the same to average daily discharge concentrations, in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency standards. This interpretation, however, is not reflected in the Permit, thereby exposing Appellant to possible actions arising from a contrary interpretation of the limitations. Therefore, Appellant requests that the free available chlorine effluent limitations specified at pages 2e and 21 of the Permit be amended to read as followet

                       " Daily Average -- 0.2 ag/1"
                       " Daily Maximus -- 0.5 mg/1" i

i t l I l Seaver Valley 2 FES 45 Appendix G j

APPENDIX H , CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Beaver Valley 2 FES Appendix H

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

2NRC-4-009 .

                           .                                                                 (412) 787 - 5141 Telecopy           8-69 Nuclear Comstruction Division                                               February 9, 1984 Roeinson Plaza. Budding 2. Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Pr. Harold R. Denton                                                                                         -

Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation s United States Nuclear Pegulatory Ormission Washipton, DC 20555 ATTEhTION: Pr. George Knighton

SUBJECT:

Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Ibcket No. 50-412 ER Acceptance Review Questions - Additional Information Gentlemen: Please find enclosed copies of the information discussed below that were reouested in Enclosures 1 and 2 to Pr. G. W. Knighton's letter to Pr . E. J. tbolever dated October 20, 1983, titled " Beaver Environmental Peview Pequests for Additional Information." . Valley Unit 2

                                                                                                'Ihe enclosed information is as follows:                   ,

E310.10 Pennsylvania His.orical and Museum Cc:: mission 1983. Sicned concurrence by Ms. Brenda Barrett, Director, tbvember 14, 1983, on letter from E. G. Nelson, SWEC, dated October 25, 1983. f 4

• Chio Hisf.oric Society 1983. Sioned concurrence by W. Pay Luce, State Historic Preservation . Officer, Septer.ber 12, 1983, on letter from E. G. Nelson, S'GC, dated August 30, 1983.

test Virginia department of Culture and History 1983. Iatter from'Podney S. Collins, Director, Historic Preservation Unit, dated August 23, 1983.  ! E451.6- Che complete year (1979) of consecutive hourly meteorological data on one 9-track computer tape in NBC format collected at the BVPS site. The data on the tape consists of low-level (35 ft.) wind speed and wind direction, and precipitation for use by the NPC in their CPAC code. DUCUESNE LIGHT CCMPANY _ By . r( [ i E. Uy ro.never Vice President TJ::/n:-l Attachments , SUBSCRIEED AND S;rJN 70 BEMPE ME DiIS h'l U.Y OP 6; //s u oi

                                                       , 1984.

h._,4 E l k 2 . totary ucac Ati:TA E'.A NI RE!TER, ?!OTAR'I PUBUC RCE:!:007: TCY, :3M:?, A'.L: HItu C;'.;.*;TV i 1.'Y CC .".;:E3:CN .XARIC CCTC2E3 00, D;3 1 S aaver '! alley 2 FES 1 4;;3ndix h l l 1

  -.   - - - .                . . - . - _ . _ _ _    . _=_ _ .             - -     _ _                 _ . _ _

i United States Nuclear Pegulatory ConTnission i Mr. Harold R..Denton Page 2

] i j CO.MTtALUi OF PENNSYLVANIA ) j ) 5: COIN 1Y OF ALLEGHEhY ) j 'Cn this _ #f[ day of _[<uw ,

                                                                                                                      /u!,beforeme,a Notary Public in and for said Connonwealb1 'and County, personally appeared E. J. blever, who being duly sworn, deposec and said that (1) he is Vice President of Duquesne Light, (2) he is culy autnorized to execute anc tile the

, foregoing Subnittal on behalt or said Corpany, and (3) tne statements set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, i i o i

                                                                                                                                               !        ldb w j                                                                                                                                                  tbtary Puclic I                                                                                          All:T.i ?     .; . . 2T.. i:CT.T .:U2L'O

' RO3:t:EN TCr!.!0M!P, /1LCCH;NY C:U.'r"Y MY CCMM!!!:0!i CXPiP.E3 OCTOEIT: 20,1925 I 4 r t t I

                                                                                                                                                                                    . t i                                                                                                                                                                            .

2eaver Valley 2 FES 2 Appendix H 1

re i I i United States Nuclear Regulatory Or=1ssion 3 Mr. Harold R. Denton

Page 3 l 1 .

ETE/nml Attachments 1

          ~.

l bec: G. L. Beatty (w/o attachments)

             \R.D.

C. R.Beck Bishop " l " J. J. Carey i i E. T. Eilmann 4 C. E. Ewing. " 4 H. G. Frus l l K. M. Ibicomb i T. D. Jones E. F. Kurtz, Jr. ]; J. Iee, Esq. " T. J. Iex W. G. Irgal

                                                   "                                               l R. E. Martin                    ~

NCD File i S. L. 'Pernick, Jr. J. A. Ibeco H. M. Siegel " R. J. Swiderskii " i E. J. ibolever

J. F. Zagorski "

!                T. J. Zoglmann D. R. Davidson (CEI)               "

D. H. Hauser (CEI) " L. Iazo (NRC) " l G. Walton (NRC) p

B. M. Miller (2) (OK) " 1 P. Faysircar (3) " -

[ J. Sutton (S&W) t ! J. Silberg (SPPT) " P. M. Smart (2) (TEC)

i. ,

1 - j s-1 I Beaver Valley 2 FES 3 Appendix H [ l  !

STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMER STR r rT. BC sTo N. MAssAcHustvis ADD R ES S ALL C 04 4ES POM O ENCE TO P.O. SOX 2.329. SOSTON. h84SS.02107 w, W.TELtx: 94 0003

';;.. =4 0 77 S.....

                                                                                       ;u...
                                                                                          *: *."..:,c"*"

...e , ,... y,g.".4.,3.j. *i"'Or.".*..

      \ -

Dr. lar:7 E. Tise October 25, 1983 Executive Director Pennsylvania Eistorical & Museu:s Cc= mission J.O .No. 12241.0 9 P.O.Bez 1026 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Atta: Donna Williams: HISTORIC AND ARCEAE0 LOGICAL RESCCRCES DCQUESNZ LIGHT CCMPANT 3EAVER VALLET PO*ER STATION UNIT NO. 2 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SVEC) is preparing amendnents to the Operating License Environmental Report (OLER) for Beaver Valley Power Statics, Unit No. 2 (37PS-2) . The OLER requires an identification of the historic and archaeological features within the 10 mile area around 37PS-2 and the effects, if any, of the operation of BVPS-2 on thes e features. Given the location of 3VPS-2 in Shippingport, Pennsylvania and the fact that no new off-site power trans ission lines frem the station extend into Beaver County, it is expected that the operation and raintet:ance of BVPS-2 and the associated trans=1ssion lines vill have no adverse effect on cultural resources that are on or eligible to be on, the National Register in that portion of Pennsylvania within the 10 =ile area around 37PS-2. With reference to the two attached letters dated August.14, 1978 and _ Sep te=ber 29, 1983 between NUS Corporation and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and your office, respectively, I would like to reques t your concurrence with the above state::ent. If you concur with the assess =ent that the operation and =aintenance of 37PS-2 and its associated trans=ission lines vill have no effect on these historic sites, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below and return it to ne. If you disagree vith this assess ent pleess so indi-nta belov by specifyint tha differences. Beaver Valley 2 FES 4 Appendix H

k u, . 2 October 25, 1983 Thank you for your attention in this =atter'. Please contact Mr. Joel Brown , at 617-589-2674 if you have a=y questions. - Nd Th EGelsca Lead-Enviro = mental Engineer EG:I2. I have reviewed the i=for=ation and concur with the assess =ent above. Nz=e: 4.'s - '.. V ' -N Date: k 5 1 a '- i - [h'.%CM'\' ' ~

Title:

Representing: ' Beaver Valley 2 FES 5 Appendix H

                                                                                                                                              ?EP         2.bd STONE S WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMen STREEr. ScsroN. M Ass ACHUsETr3 Accesss Au. ccantspoNoamer to e.o. sex :sas. sosfew. wass. caso?

w W.Ttt.gx. 94 0001

                           .eevoes                                                    94 0977                       ..           o t ss e ss setw veas                                                                                            CoastewCT104 tu ssev =% *e J.                                                                                      ptreets a tmv tm                                                                                              ga a mina me=

Castaae , conswktim. s po u st.o.=. . . . . . . sneingssime

                           .e.m. .. .. .e.
                           .            .r.   . c.
                                     \  -

Mr. W. Ray Luce August 30, 1983 State Eistoric Preservation Officer The Ohio Eistoric Society J.O. No. I'2241.09 Interstate 71 at 17th Avenue Colu= bus,'OE 43211 Att : Catherine Stroup: HISTORIC AND ARCEAE0 LOGICAL RESOURCES DUQCISNE LIGE CCMPAhT BEA7ER VAT T.'"T PCLTR STATICN. UNIT NO. 2 Ste:e & Webster Engineer 1:3 Corporation (SWEC) is preparing a=e=d=ents to the Operating Licende Enviromental Report (OLEE) for Beaver Va.lley Power Statics, Unit No. 2 (37PS-2) . The. OLER requires an identifica:ics of the historic and archaeological features within the 10 mile area around 37PS-2 and the effects, if any, of the operation of BVPS-2 on these f eatures . Given the locatics of 37PS-2 in Shippingport, Pennsylva:La and the fact tha: so power trans=1ssics lines frem the station extend into Ohio, it is ex-pected that the operation and =aintenance of 37PS-2 and the associated trans=1ssion lines vill have =o effec: on cultural rescurces that are o=, or eligible to be on, the National Register in that portion of Chio within the 10 =11e area around 37?S-2. Based c infor=atice provided by C. Cc klin of the Ohio His toric Preservation Office is a le: er dated 20 August 1983, the folleving sites have been identified as being with1: the - 10 =ile area of SVPS-2:

1. Beg 1= ing Point of U.S. Public Land Survey.

2. East Liverpcol Pes Office.

3. Eas Liverpool Pottery.

4. Cassius Clark Thc=psca Ecuse.

• l S. Carnegie Public Library.

6. Ikir. E:use.

Caste 's " 1 1, Leck No. 36, a National Register 51:e, and Willi =spe r: - Chapel, 0hich is listed c: :he Chic Eisteri: Inve:: cry, are located be c d the 10 =11e area. l

                               ?las:e r2tiev th a abovs lis: cf 21::s and their app:0 '-'a                                                 10:::10-3 as shev: c: the a::1: sed =ap.                                                                                                         i Beavar W itj 2 Fi3                                            5                                       A 7mdix H r

P 5

   - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-                                    -_                                           _               __n. . ,              . . , .

                          '                                       ~
   %T.,                                  2                          August 30. 1983 1

If you concur with the assess =ent that the operation and =aintenance of 37?S-2 a d its associated trans=1ssion lines vill hhve no effec: c= these historic sites, please sign and date this letter in the space provided belev and retur: it to =e. 7.f you disagree with this assessment please so indi- ,

 , care belev by specifying the differences.
        \~
   "ha=k you for your attention in this =atter.       Please contact Mr. Joel 3 ove at 617-589-2574 if you have a=y questions.
     /* W/

9 2. P,g'- i IGNelse: - i Lead Envirec= ental Engines: EGN:K1 i i-l I have reviewed thc. infor=ation and concur with the assess =ent above.

            ,      Cg
                  *!b'                              Date:

SEP i 21953 Na=e: ,

                         'I                                                                                   !

~ ~ ~

Title:

. lepresenting: , P 1

                                                                                                               ?

1 t i , i i I t k h i l i I Beaver Valley 2 FES 7 Appendix H l l

NAE E ~ WEST VIRGINIA ggf p$.Ql .- DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE AND HISTORY JOHN D. ROCKE.:ELLER IV, GOVERNOR A* _c[m- 66 r_. -

                                                               ' NORMAN L. FAGAN, COMMISSIONER
           \

Augusi 23, 1983 Mr. Joel Brown Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. P.O. Box 232S Scsten, MA 02107

Dear Mr. Brown:

RE: Seaver Valley Power Station, Unit #2 Hancock County, West Virginia We have reviewed your request for a general assessment of August 3,1983, in which you bring to, cur attention the preparation of amendments to the Operating License Envirentnental Repcrt for the Beaver Valley Power Statien, Unit #2 and its impact upon portions of t ancock h County, West Virginia. The information we currently possess in our inventory indicates that the project should at affect any historic or archaeclegical prcperties now known to us. This reflects an in-cffice review and not a systematic field survey and evalua-Blon of the subject area. I have e'nclosed a list of all National Register sites Iccated in Hancock Ccunty.

• Thank you for the cpportunity to respond on this matter. If we may be of turther assistance, please contact cur office.

Sincerely, b - h f Redney S es Director Y Historic Preservation Unit , RSO: kts;cew t Beaver Valley 2 FES 8 Appendix H , i

fANCOCK COUhTl , W 4

• d6. '

iOld Cour: Housa (July 2,1973) f/

• J/ ' fo - to a 7( ' ff

High and Zim Streets Fev Manchester .. ,

    -Peter Tarr.Furr. ace Site (Ja=uary 1, 1976)

County Route'11 (Kings Creek Road) IlQirton' vie #*dty 4 774

                                'l7lh4.216 997:.2co 1

P Beaver Valley 2 FES 9 Appendix H

                        '                                                                                                                              ,,o       . . ~ . . . . ,
                                                                                                                      . . .c a , - . . a . . .

a o;. = o s ~oc < . . a . ..<. . .. . co... s.o.

 ,,c NUREG-1094 FE
 ?A',"idi'                        BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET see i~struer.oss o~ r-e aavia 2 TsTLE .NO svg TnTLE                                                                                                3 LE AV E SL'%"

Final Environmenta Statement Related to the Operation of Beaver Valley P "er Station, Unit 2 f , o , , , ,, , ,,,, , c o,,, , , , ve.a f oo~r- j 1985 s tur.%s, Sefember g . o.re ainoa r .ssueo

                                                                                                                                  .o~,-                                 ...a g

eptember 1985 1 . ... >.. ~ a a a s ~. z . , io, ~ ... . so .. u sa .a oa . , ,,,,,, e, c ,

                                                                                                                      . , mon ct,1.s.      o . w~.,   w . a Division of Licensing
                                                                                                                      . .,% oa ca.~ r ~vesia Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu tion                                                                        .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss n Washington, D.C. 20555

                                                                            .,,,                                       sie t vpt C# atPon t to sNNsc u SNG oaG.%il.Yaose %.vt .so v.iuNG .00* tss i,ac~,, g Same as 7. above                                                                                                       Environmental Statement D Pta:Go COV E a t.) e,acews e     **d 12 sva*tt wis,.a NCT ts Docket No. 50-412 13 ..iT a.cT ,1 M w.res er 'em The Final Environmental Statement rel ed to the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 by Duquesne Light Co. any, et al                                                    ocket No. 50-412), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, has be                                         prepared by               e Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the U.S. Nuclear Reg atory Commissiot                                                           This statement reports on the staff's review of the impact of op ration of the pla.                                                       . Also incluced are comments of state and federal governments, local agencies and m mbers of the public on the Draft Environmental Statement fo this project and stat responses to these comments.

The NRC staff has concluded, ba ,d en a weighing on envi onmental, technical and other factors, that an operati . license could be granted - l 1 a x :.vis .s.es s . .. .. css :n .u s s ,7, .;,*,g , - l Unlimited l

                                                                                                                                                             , st : _. - . .ss . , :s
                                                                                                                                                                  -,n...
  , w.r oeas aan est e s rea ,

Unclassified

                                                                                                                                                                  ...o Unclassified sw. .os 4 #4   ,C e    se.}}