ML20137W109
| ML20137W109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1997 |
| From: | Craig C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9704180035 | |
| Download: ML20137W109 (100) | |
Text
e REe 3'
t UNITED STATES l
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001-April 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Claudia M. Craig, Senior Project-Manager dg Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of' Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH BALTIM0RE GAS & ELECTRIC (BGE) TO DISCUSS LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (ER) TEMPLATE PROCESS The subject meeting was held at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offices in Rockville, Maryland on April 8,1997, between representatives of BGE and the NRC staff. The purpose of the meeting was for BGE to provide the revised ER template, four examples of the level of detail of the ER, and responses to staff comments / questions. Selected issues were also discussed. is a list of meeting participants. Attachment 2 is a copy of the material provided by BGE.
BGE proposed the ER template process in order to develop a format and content guide for the ER to be submitted in support of a license renewal application.
Existing NRC guidance is currently being updated to reflect the revised 10 CFR Part 51, which includes the environmental requirements of a license renewal _ application.
BGE anticipates completing their ER prior to final guidance being issued by the Commission, thus, the effort on the template to determine an acceptable format and content.
It is the staff and BGE's objective that the completed environmental report template outline a format and content such that if an ER is submitted which follows the template and contains sufficient information, it is likely the report would be accepted for review.
BGE provided the staff with its responses to the staff comments / questions.
One change to the template in the area of threatened and endangered species resulted from the comments. The staff and BGE discussed each issue to further understand BGE's position. As a result of the discussions, the staff committed to further discuss the following issues and provide the staff's current position on:
the need for BGE to look at the impacts at the plant, in addition to looking at the impacts of alternative energy sources, if license
(
- renewal does not occur; the need for BGE to consider mitigative measures for l
i Category 2 issues that will not cause any significant impact (i.e. where yC \\ ' i impacts are de minimis, no need to discuss mitigation measures); and BGE's treatment of Category 1 and new and significant information.
9704180035 970414 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P.
PDR c
f s
4 D. Matthews
-2_
April 14, 1997 i
i
~
Additionally, the staff will review and comment on the responses to the comments / questions, the revised template, the examples, and the clarification paper on selected topics, including the treatment of electric shock hazard.
The examples will be reviewed for format and content only and will not be reviewed for technical merit.
BGE stated that for severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), a line by line comparison with the Watts Bar severe accident mitigation design alternatives review is being performed and that a work scope is being developed. After the werk scope is developed, BGE will determine whether further interaction with the staff is needed for clarification purposes.
The participants agreed to set up a meeting in early May to discuss the staff comments on the revised template, the examples, and selected topics.
The participants also agreed to set a date in late May for a senior management meeting between BGE and NRR.
The senior management meeting would inform upper levels of management of the progress of the ER template effort and, if issues j
still remain, identify those to management.
l Docket Nos. 50-317, 50-318 Attachments: As stated cc w/atts:
See next page 4
i I
l 3
9 e
i a
l s
j
~-
l l
I DISTRIBUTION:w/atts: Mtg. Summary With BGE Dated April 14,1997 Hard Cooy Central File PUBLIC PGEB R/F RArchitzel l
CCraig ACRS E-Mail
- SCollins/FMiraglia RZimmerman AThadani TMartin SNewberry SFlanders DMatthews l
BZalcman LChandler, 0GC JMoore, OGC GHoller, OGC DCleary, RES JWilson SBajwa ADromerick i
DScaletti PKadambi
)
i I
l-I 1
1 l'
l l
l BGE / NRC MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TEMPLATE PROCESS APRIL 8, 1997 MEETING PARTICIPANTS l
l
!LAliE ORGANI'lATION C1audia Craig NRC/NRR/PGEB Gene Holler NRC/0GC l
Don Cleary NRC/RESfDRA Lance H. McCold ORNL Scott Flanders NRC/NRR/POLR Rich McLean MD Dept. Natural Resources Jim Bennett BGE David Lewis Shaw Pittman Barth W. Doroshuk BGE Robert Tucker BGE Jon Cudworth Halliburton NUS Tricia Heroux EPRI James T. Weber American Electric Power Kathryn M. Sutton Winston & Strawn Thomas W. Yocum Duke Power Co.
N.P. Kadambi NRC/RES/DRA Diane H. Richardson Comed Ralph Architzel NRC/NRR/PGEB-l t
ATTACHMENT 1 l
1 I,
D. Matthews
-2_
April 14, 1997 Additionally, the staff will review and comment on the responses to the comments / questions, the revised template, the examples, and the clarification paper on selected topics, including the treatment of electric shock hazard.
The examples will be reviewed for format and content only and will not be reviewed for technical merit.
BGE stated that for severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), a line by line comparison with the Watts Bar severe accident mitigation design alternatives review is being performed and that a i
work scope is being developed. After the work scope is developed, BGE will determine whether further interaction with the staff is needed for clarification purposes.
The participants agreed to set up a meeting in early May to discuss the staff comments on the revised template, the examples, and selected topics.
The participants also agreed to set a date in late May for a senior management meeting between BGE and NRR. The senior management meeting would inform upper levels of management of the progress of the ER template effort and, if issues still remain, identify those to management.
Docket Nos. 50-317, 50-318 Attachments: As stated cc w/atts:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
See attached page DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\ CMC 1\\4 8 97. MIN f,
To seceive a copy of this document, indicate EtG box: "C" = Copy witho atfs p ent/ enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy
[/
OFFICE PGEB A l/l PGEB:SC
!MGEB:8C[
NAME CCraib b h RArchitzel DMattkeWs '
DATE 4/ M /97 4/jo/97 4/S /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
Life Cycle Management Unit 1
i i
License Renewal Discussions t
April 8,1997 f
i Robert L. Tucker i
f i
6 Life Cycle Management Unit j
Purpose of Meetina Provide BGE responses to staff comments on 2/5/97 Template
{
t Submit revised Template t
Provide further input regarding BGE positions on several issues 1
Submit examples exercising the Template 1
Establish agenda, schedule for future interactions Slide 2 97-017 i
g Life Cycle Management Unit BGE Responses to NRC Comments Only one Template change made (@4.1.7)
Further clarification on use of the Template provided in the responses Revised input provided on BGE positions i
regarding Electric Shock, SAMAs, treatment of Category 1 GEIS issues, and consideration of mitigation for N/A Category 2 GEIS issues and Category 2 issues with insignificant or negligible impact Slide 3 97-017
Life Cycle Management Unit i
i Examples 3
Being provided for format and content only i
Complete vertical slice of Template sections Based on information produced in 2/17/97 rough draft of BGE ER (written to 2/5/97 Template) i Examples provided for groundwater use conflicts, public services - transportation, transportation (SNF and HLW) Table S-4 only, impingement, and one alternative (coal fired replacement at Calvert Cliffs site) j i
Slide 4 97-017
I Life Cycle Management Unit Path Forward NRC develop comments on the BGE examples and position paper Set up final staff meeting for BGE to submit revised examples and any other final deliverables Schedule Senior Management meeting l
L Slide 5
Template for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Environmental Report Introduction This template provides an outline of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) environmental report (ER) for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) license renewal. The Template is annotated to describe the contents of each section and to identify the regulatory requirement being addressed.
BGE has based the contents of the outline on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory requirements found at Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, Section 53, Paragraph (c) Operating license renewal stage
[10 CFR S t.53(c)].' Attachment 1 provides cross-references from regulatory requirements to ER sections that this Template identifies.
Regulation 10 CFR 51.53 does not specify a format for an ER. However, NRC would use the ER as ic.put when preparing a CCNPP license renewal environmental impact statement in accordance with National Environmeval Policy Act requirements. To expedite NRC usage of the ER, BGE has formatted it to follow NRC format for presentation of materials in an environmental impact statement.'
Environmental Report Template Summary [ format from 10 CFR 51.70(b) and 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix A, Section 3]
Summarize ER, stressing major issues; identify any unresolved issues; and present major conclusions and recommendations.
- 1. Purpose of and need for action [ required by 10 CFR 51.45(b) as incorporated by 10 CFR S t.53(c)(2)]
Describe the purpose of the proposed action as that of providing an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the plant's current operating license to meet future system generating needs (input from 61 FR 109,6/5/96, p 28472)
- 2. Alternatives including the proposed action 2.1 Proposed action (required by 10 CFR S t.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 51.45(b) as referenced in 10 CFR S t.53(c)(2)]
Q 2.1 would provide sufficient information about CCNPP to facilitate an understanding of the
=
applicable Q 4.1 issues and mitigation alternatives To facilitate NRC review, references to background information provided in previous CCNPP e
documents (e.g., Final Environmental Statement) would be provided 2.1.1 General plant information Describe CCNPP location, site, plant. Use figures to illustrate e
Identify FES. Use table to list post-FES National Environmental Policy Act documentation e
' Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 244, December 18,1996, pages 66537-66554; Federal Register, Vol. 61, No.109, June 5,1996, pp. 28467-28496; and Federal Register, Vol. 61, No.147, July 30,1996, pp. 39555-39556.
2 10 CFR 51.70(b) and 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix A, Section 1(a).
1 4/8/97
2.1.2 Nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (input to ER Q 4.1.18)
Describe unirradiated fuel shipments to CCNPP Describe fuel form and enrichment Describe reactor core thermal power level Describe irradiated fuel burnup rate, handling e
Describe irradiated fuel and other radioactive solid waste shipments from CCNPP j
e 2.13 Ileat dissipation system (input to ER 69 4.1.2,4.1.3, and 4.1.4) l Describe CCNPP cooling system (e.g., once-through heat dissipation system) j e
2.1.4 Groundwater use (input to ER f 4.1.5)
Describe CCNPP wells. Use table to summarize characteristics (e.g., depth, aquifer, capacity) and
=
figure to illustrate locations relative to site boundary Identify historical pumping rates (show greater than 100 gallons per minute). Use table to summarize data. Discuss any trend and use figure to illustrate 2.1.5 Transmission facilities (input to ER f 4.1.9)
Describe CCNPP transmission facilities and changes since original licensing. Use figure to e
illustrate locations Describe change in use of the lines since original licensing 2.1.6 Modifications [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)] (input to ER (( 2.1.7,4.1.6,4.1.7, and 4.1.16)
Summarize CCNPP physical modifications as result ofintegrated plant assessment (IPA)
Summarize changes to (or addition of) administrative control procedures from IPA 2.1.7 Employment (input to ER (( 4.1.8,4.1.10,4.1.11,4.1.12,4.1.13,4.1.14,4.1.15)
Describe number of CCNPP workers during routine operations and during refueling outages and e
the portion estimated living in Calvert County Predict total refurbishment manpower requirements Describe any projected increase in staffing number during license renewal term e
Explain ditTerences in CCNPP employment projections versus GEIS estimates o
2.2 Alternatives [ required by 10 CFR S t.53(c)(2)]
If the CCNPP licenses were not renewed, the plant would be decommissioned and an alternative power supply would be considered to meet the demand for power. This section will present various power supply alternatives to meet the demand. Feasible alternatives con sidered will be presented. For each feasible alternative, a general description would be provided with manpower estimates, emission discussion, description of cooling water system, delivery systems, anJ technology alternatives within the alternatives.
Impacts will be summarized in i 2.3.
2 4/8/97
l l
1 2.2.1 Feasible Altematives 2.2.1.1 Example - Coal-fired plant construction at Calvert Cliffs site j
Provide general description of plant, including acreage and manpower needed i
e Describe construction, manpower e
Describe coal delivery system (barge dock, coal pile), maintenance dredging Describe cooling water system including potential use existing system.
a Describe air emissions Describe ash handling e
2.2.2 Other Alternatives Briefly discuss non-feasible attematives e
For each alternative, provide basis for concluding non-feasible e
2.3 Proposed action / Alternatives summary comparison Discuss differences in environmental impacts from proposed action (ER { 4.1) and alternatives (ER {
e 4.2)
Provide tabular comparison between proposed action and alternatives for each Category 2 issue applicable to CCNPP and any other Category 2 or 1 issue applicable to an alternative (s) for which impact is moderate or large
- 3. Affected environment Provide sufficient information to support each of the below i 4.1 analyses of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information, if any.
3.1 Biologicalresources 3.1.1 Aquatic ecology (input to ER f 4.1.2,4.1.3, and 4.1.4) e Describe CCNPP aquatic ecology
- Describe any Maryland Department of Natural Resources efTorts to restore or increase fish and shellfish populations or habitat in CCNPP vicinity 3.1.2 Terrestrial Ecology (input to ER { 4.1.6) e Describe CCNPP terrestrial ecology (if affected by refurbishment activities) i 3.1.3 Special Status Species (input to ER Q 4.1.7)
- Describe CCNPP special status (threatened and endangered) aquatic species e Describe CCNPP specia! status (threatened and endangered) terrestrial species 3.2 Geology and groundwater hydrology (input to ER 6 4.1.5)
Describe CCNPP and area geology as it applies to groundwater aquifers affected by CCNPP. Use a figure to graphically illustrate the geolog,y Describe CCNPP and area groundwater hydrology. Use a table to summarize information about aquifers and a figure to illustrate potentiometric surface trending identify offsite wells and groundwater usage. Use a table to summarize data and a figure to illustrate e
location of nearest well finished in the aquifer that CCNPP uses 3
4/8/97 l
j
i l
3.3 Air quality (input to ER { 4.1.8) j Describe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) status of CCNPP area e
Identify closest nonattainment and maintenance area for vehicle emissions l
e 3.4 Housing (input to ER g 4.1.10)
Describe historical growth rate and the percent attributable to the CCNPP work force Describe current CCNPP-area housing availability (permanent and temporary) e 3.5 Public services (input to ER li 4.1.11,4.1.12, and 4.1.15)
Identify CCNPP-area public water supply systems (input to ER 4.1.11) e Describe any systems having problems meeting base or peak demand e
For any system having supply problems, estimate percent of demand attributable to CCNPP staff and indirect multiplier j
Describe the adequacy of the County's educational system (input to ER 6 4.1.12) e Describe adequacy oflocal level of services for transportation (input to ER { 4.1.15).
3.6 Offsite land use (input to ER fi 4.1.13 and 4.1.14) l l
l Describe trends in land use j
e Describe land use with regard to residential and commercial development in Calvert County e
Use figures to illustrate location and general features l
e I
1 3.7 Cultural resources (input to ER Q 4.1.16)
For plant site and transmission line right-of-way:
Describe past cultural resource investigations Describe prehistoric and historic resources e
Describe current cultural resource protection activities a
l 3.8 Demography (input to ER (( 4.1.10,4.1.11,4.1.12,4.1.13,4.1.14,4.1.15, and 4.1.17 )
1 Describe population size and distribution around CCNPP
=
l Use figure to identify sectors and tables to summarize data e
- 4. Environmental consequences and mitigating actions 4.1 Proposed action For each issue in (( 4.1.2 through 4.1.18 (except as specifically noted), dis;uss the bulleted items below plus the issue specific information listed within each section.
State the issue Identify GEIS reason for not making Category 1 and discuss bw reason applies in case of CCNPP Identify and discuss altemative mitigation measures [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii)]
e Identify whether impact, after intended mitigation, is small, moderate, or large, as defined below (10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, footnote 3):
Small-for the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource l
4 4/8/97 l
1
Moderate-for the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource Large-for the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource 4.1.1 Introduction Adopt by reference NRC GEIS conclusions for Category 1 issues e
Indicate the Category 2 issues that are not applicable to CCNPP and provide basis for conclusion Reference Appendix A for identification of ER sections that address specific Category 2 issues e
4.1.2 Entrainment [ required by 10 CFR S 1.53(cX3)(iiXB); Table B-1 Issue Number 25]
In addition to the general information called for above in Q 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER { 2.1.3 for description of the heat dissipation system Reference ER Q 3.1.1 to support discussion of mitigation alternatives o
Ds scribe 316(b) requirement and history of CCNPP compliance e
La Appendix B to provide copy of pages from CCNPP 1982 discharge permit that references e
316(b) study 4.1.3 Impingement [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iiXB); Table B-1 1ssue Number 26]
In addition to the general information called for above in f 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER g 2.l.3 for description of the heat dissipation system Reference ER $ 4.1.2 for discussion of CCNPP 316(b) study Reference ER i 3.1.1 to support discussion of mitigation alternatives 4.1.4 Heat shock [ required by 10 CFR S t.53(cX3XiiXB); Table B-1 Issue Number 27]
In addition to the general information called for above in { 4.1 include the following:
Describe 316(a) requirement and applicability to CCNPP Use Appendix B to provide copy of pages from CCNPP 1982 discharge permit that document e
compliance 4.1.5 Groundwater use [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3Xii)(C); Table B-1 Issue Number 33]
In addition to the general information called for above in g 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER { 3.2 discussion of geology and groundwater hydrology Calculate current drawdown at CCNPP site boundary attributable to CCNPP withdrawal e
Project drawdown attributable to withdrawal during license renewal period. Include e
calculations as Appendix C Provide basis for conclusions regarding impacts to a hypothetical site boundary well e
4.1.6 Refurbishment impacts (to terrestrial resources) [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3XiiXE); Table B-1 Issue 40]
l In addition to the general information called for above in i 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER 6 3.1.2 discussion of terrestrial ecology and { 2.1.6 for discussion of refurbishment scope Describe effect of refurbishment activities on plant operations and the outside environment or effluents 5
4/8/97
4.1.7 Threatened and endangered species (required by 10 CFR S t.53(cX3)(ii)(E); Table B-1 Issue 49]
In addition to the general information called for above in i 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER g 3.1.3 discussion of special status species and ER Q 2.1.6 for discussion of plant modifications Describe efTect of refurbishment activities and license renewal term operations on important e
plant and animal habitats Describe effect of plant modifications on threatened and endangered species Describe status of consulwion with Maryland Heritage Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife e
Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Include as Appendix D copies of BGE request for consultation nnd agencies' responses 4.1.8 Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3)(ii)(F); Table B-1 1ssue 50]
In addition to the general information called for above in { 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER g 3.3 discussion of air quality and ER { 2.1.7 for refurbishment work force Provide basis for calculation ofincreased staff vehicles' emissions 4.1.9 Electric shock (required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3)(iiXH); Table B-1 Issue 59]
s Present issue statement and categorization as described above in f 4.1 (exclude discussion of e
mitigation alternatives and impact extent)
Reference ER i 2.1.5 discussion of transmission lines e
Explain inapplicability of this issue to the proposed action due to changes in transmission line use since originallicensing 4.1.10 Housing impacts [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3XiiXI); Table B-1 :ssue 63]
In addition to the general information called for above in i 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER Q 3.4 discussion of housing, ER Q 3.8 discussion of demography, and ER Q 2.1.7 discussion of refurbishment and license renewal term work force Compare increase in staff to normal operations and refueling outage staff numbers Project impacts to housing from increased number of staff during refurbishment and license renewal tenn 4.1.11 Public services: public utilities [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3Xii)(1); Table B-1 Issue 65]
In addition to the general information called for above in Q 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER Q 3.5 discussion of public services, ER g 3.8 discussion of demography, and ER Q 2.1.7 discussion of refurbishment and license renewal term work force Compare increases in staff to normal operations and refueling outage staff numbers e
Project impacts to public water supply from increased number of staff during refurbishment e
and license renewal term 4.1.12 Public services, education (refurbishment) [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3Xii)(I); Table B-1 1ssue 66]
In addition to the general information called for above in g 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER Q 3.5 discussion of public services, ER Q 3.8 discussion of demography, and ER 2.1.7 discussion of refurbishment work force Compare increase in staff number from refurbishment to normal operations and refueling e
outage staff numbers Project impacts to education system from increased number of stsff during refurbishment e
6 4/8/97
i l
1 I
4.1.13 Offsite land use (refurbishment)[ required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3XiiXI); Table B-1 Issue 68]
l In addition to the general information called for above in 0 4.1 include the followmg:
Reference ER Q 3.6 discussion of offsite land use, ER { 3.8 diset:ssion of demography, and ER
{ 2.1.7 discussion of refurbishment work force Compare increase in staff number from refurbishment to normal operations and refueling outage staff numbers Project impacts to offsite land use from increased number of staff during refurbishment 4.1.14 Offsite land use (license renewal term) (required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3XiiXI); Table B-1 Issue j
69]
In addition to the general information called for above in $ 4.1 include the following:
Reference ER g 3.6 discussion of offsite land use, ER 6 3.8 discussion of demography, and ER 6 2.1.7 discussion oflicense renewal term work force Compare increase in staff number during license renewal term to normal operations staff l
e numbers l
Project impacts to offsite land use from increased number of staff during license renewal term I
4.1.15 Public services, transportation (required by 10 CFR S t.53(cX3)(ii)(J); Table B-1 Issue 70]
In addition to the general information called for above in Q 4.1 include the following:
l Reference ER 0 3.5 discussion of offsite land use, ER 9 3.8 discussion of demography, and ER
{
e Q 2.1.7 discussion of refurbishment work force Compare increase in staff number during refurbishment to normal operations and refueling e
outage staff numbers Project impacts to transportation from increased number of staff during tefurbishment e
4.1.16 Historic and archaeological resources [ required by 10 CFR S t.53(c)(3XiiXK); Table B-1 issue 71]
In addition to the general information called for above in Q 4.1 include the following:
)
Reference ER 6 3.7 discussion of cultural resources and ER { 2.1.6 discussion of e
refurbishment scope Describe refurbishment and license renewal term impact to cultural resources Describe status of consultation with Maryland Historic Trust (State Ilistoric Preservation e
Officer). Include as Appendix E copies of BGE request for consultation and agency response I
4.1.17 Severe accident mitigation alternatives (required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3Xii)(L); Table B-1 j
Issue 76)
Approach TBD e
i 4.1.18 Transportation [ uranium fuel cycle and waste management] [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3Xii)(M); Table B 1 Issue 85]
In addition to the general information called for above in Q 4.1 include the following:
1 Reference ER Q 2.1.2 for discussion of CCNPP fuel enrichment and burnup e
Discuss how CCNPP fuel characteristics differ from Table S-4 criteria e
Describe NRC generic and CCNPP-specific analyses for higher enrichment and burnup rates e
Provide bounding analysis of Table S-4 generic impacts and NRC sensitivity analysis in the
=
GEIS Include Federal Register notices of NRC transportation assessments in Appendix G Approach to cumulative and synergistic impacts at Yucca Mountain [TBD]
=
7 4/8/97
1 i
p 4.1.19 New and significant information [ required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX3Xiv)]
1 j
If new and significant information exists, the following would be presented:
Describe any CCNPP-specific information that would make a GEIS analysis or conclusion e
j for a Category 1 issue not applicable for CCNPP (none known now) j
. 4.2 Alternatives (required by 10 CFR 51.53(cX2))
2 For each of the fea:ible Alternatives to meet the power demands (ER { 2.2), discuss the following:
j Reference applicable discussion of Alternatives in the GEIS Chapter 8, Alternatives to License i
e Renewal
)
Describe significant issues addressed in 6 4.1 plus any other applicable Category 2 or 1 issue for e
which impact would be moderate or large Provide sufficient detail for NRC to determine whether or not environmental impacts oflicense j
e renewal are so great, compared to the Alternatives, that preserving the option oflicense renewal i
for future decision makers would be unreasonable [10 CFR 51.95(cX4)l.
v i
4.3 Committed resources L.
{.
4.3.1 Unavoidable adverse impacts (required by 10 CFR 51.45(bX2) as referenced in 10 CFR S t.53(cX2)]
i Summarize adverse impacts that i 4.1 identifies for the proposed action (i.e., license renewal) as unavoidable after minimization by proposed mitigative measures j
j Note that Category I adverse impacts covered by GEIS e
l 4.3.2 Irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments (required by 10 CFR 51.45 (bX5) as referenced in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)]
v i
Identify subset of Q 4.3.1 impacts that are permanent or of such long-term impact as to be j
e
~
considered permanent.
[
Note that discussion does not include Category I commitments covered by GEIS j
j_
4.4 Short-term use versus long-term productivity [ required by 10 CFR 51.45 (b)(4) as referenced in 10 CFR t
S t.53(cX2))
i Describe GEIS Category 1 impacts and i 4.1 Category 2 impacts as local short-term uses of man's i
environmem (or identify any that are not short-term).
Identify any ways that these short-term uses affect the maintenance and enhancement oflong-term t
productivity of man's environment, i
- 5. Compliance status [ required by 10 CFR 51.45(d) as referenced in 10 CFR 51.53(cX2)]
j 5.1 Proposed action -
List approvals Federally required for license renewal. Identify compliance status
=
include, as Appendix H, copy of any approvals received and applicable State regulations e
Discuss status of compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental protection requirements.
- 1 Use table to illustrate compliance status 4
5 4
i 8
4/8/97 f
i 1
5.2 Alternatives t
Identify whether the feasible Alternatives would comply with Federal, State, and local environmental e.
protection requirements
- 6. References i
Appendix A NRC NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 1
4 List and number each issue from 10 CFR 51 Table B-1 e
For each issue, identify where in the ER the issue is discussed Identify issues not applicable to CCNPP (e.g., due to physical characteristics of the plant) e Note: Referred to in ER { 4.1.1 Appendix B - 316(a)and 316(b) documentation i
3 l
Provide copy of pages from CCNPP 1982 discharge permit that mention 316(b) study and that documents e
316(a) compliance Note: Referred to in ER $ 4.1.2 and 4.1.4 i
i Appendix C Offsite wellimpact calculation -
Include well impact calculation -
Note: Referred to in ER f 4.1.5
' Appendix D Special status species consultation
- Include copies of BGE request for consultation and agencies' responses Note: Referred to in ER Q 4.1.7 6
Appendix E Cultural resources consultation include copies of BGE request for consultation and agency response e
Note: Referred to in ER Q 4.1.16 Appendix F Severe accidents e include detailed severe accidents discussion Note: Referred to in ER Q 4.1.17 Appendix G NRC Transportation Assessments include copies of relevant NRC Transportation Assessments published in the Federal Register e
Note: Referred to in ER { 4.1.18 Appendix H Approvals 9
4/8/97 l
Provide copies of any other agency approvals Note: Referred to in ER i 5.1 10 4/8/97
Baltim:re G:s cnd Electric Comprny i
Response to NRC General Comments / Questions 3
On the Template for the CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Report i
Section 2.1.1, second bullet l
'Use table to list post-FES NEPA documentation"- does this mean post-NEPA legislation / rules that have been passed or documentation specific to CCNPP with I
regard to post-NEPA requirements?
l
Response
This table will list all post-FES licensing actions taken at Calvert Cliffs on which NRC performed some level of environmental review (e.g., EIS, EA/FONSI, categorical exclusion, etc.). It is BGE'n intention with this table to compile for NRC all environmental reviews pertormed for the Calvert Cliffs plant. These reviews will be referred to in the ER when necessary to support analysis and conclusions on various topics.
Section 2.2. - Altematives Scope of attematives review is in Chapter 8 of GEIS and 61 FR 28483 and should include: 1) environmentalimpacts of termination of operation and decommissioning CCNPP,2) construction of feasible attemative generating capacity to replace CCNPP, 3) power imports, 4) additional energy conservation measures in the service area (demand-side management and conservation), 5) mix of the above attematives.
I
Response
BGE agrees with this scope of review for attematives with one exception and one clarification. First, BGE does not intend to look at environmentalimpacts of decommissioning CCNPP, as suggested in item one above, because A) these impacts will still occur regardless if license renewal occurs (i.e., license renewal will only delay these eventual impacts) and B) NRC has already evaluated generically the environmental impacts of decommissioning in NUREG-0586. Secondly, BGE will look at an energy / technology mixture attemative but will not evaluate an exhaustive list of
. potential energy / technology combinations. The mixture attemative that will be evaluated will be based on energy / technology combinations reasonable for BGE's service area and that our State agencies agree are reasonable combinations. A Template change in this area is not necessary because specific altomatives are not listed in the Template.
Section 2.3 What is the purpose of putting the summary comparison of environmental impacts here rather than under 4.2 where the impacts are identified and evaluated?
Response
This is the standard convention specified in NEPA regulations and in NRC guidance in 10 CFR 51.71(b) and Subpart A, Appendix A, Section 1(a). BGE simply deferred to this guidance and made no attempt to reorganize this NRC format since it was consistent with standard NEPA guidelines.
4/8/g7 Page1
J C;ltim:re G:s end Electric Ccmpany j
Response to NRC General Comments / Questions j-On the Template for the CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Report i
Sections 3 and 4 - Does BGE plan to include in the ER the type of information similar to that in RG 4.2 for the details of Sections 3 and 47 (the words
' describe" lack level of detail)
Response
The level of detail in the ER will not be equivalent to that in RG 4.2 in most cases. This is primarily because RG 4.2 was written to address construction and initial operation i
types of impacts which can be large impacts. At the license renewal stage for a plant with little or no refurbishment activities (such as CCNPP), environmental issues are well understood and impacts are not as severe. As such, less information regarding the i
environment is needed to characterize impacts. BGE acknowledges that NRC can not determine level of detail from statements in the Template such as ' Describe CCNPP cooling system." Clarification regarding such statements will be realized as examples exercising the Template are reviewed by NRC. Therefore, at this time, BGE does not a
plan to modify the Template. If upon reviewing the examples NRC determines that j
more clarification is still needed, BGE will consider a Template change.
Sections 3.1 - Does BGE plan to only describe [the) environment if affected by j
[the) proposed action or describe it and then say it is not affected?
4 i.
Response
1 in writing Chapter 3, as stated by the Template, BGE intends to provide *... sufficient information to support each of the...section 4.1 analyses of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information, if any." Thus, in accordance with standard NRC and 1
NEPA practice, BGE only intends to describe the environment at CCNPP affected by
{
the proposed action.
Sections 4.1 - Need to address environmental impacts from the proposed l
action - then look at attematives and at the impact after mitigation - (Issue, identify impact, discuss attemative mitigation measures, identify after mitigation j
what impact is) j
Response
i The basic flow path for analysis of Category 2 issues in sections 4.1.2 - 4.1.18 is as indicated in the parenthetical portion of NRC's comment. However, the Part 51 i
regulation does allow for some exceptions to this level of analysis and BGE would
]
invoke these exceptions where applicable to do so. For example, BGE does not plan to discuss attemative mitigation measures for Category 2 issues that are not applicable to j
CCNPP. These issues will simply be listed in section 4.1.1 with a basis statement for
~
why they are not applicable. Likewise, for the Category 2 issues of impingement, i
entrainment, and heat shock (Template sections 4.1.2 - 4.1.4) Part 51 instructs the I
applicant to only assess impacts if it can not provide appropriate Clean Water Act 316 j
documentation. Since BGE can provide this documentation, no assessment of impacts 4/8/97 Page 2
l i
Ccitimare G:s cnd El:ctric Company On the Template for the CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Report Response to NRC General Comments / Questions l
l would be provided for these issues. Consequently, lacking an impact assessment, BGE does not feel it is necessary to then discuss mitigation attematives for these issues.
{
Finally, in assessing the impacts of the remaining applicable Category 2 issues in sections 4.1.5 - 4.1.18, BGE may discover that the proposed action will not cause any significant impact. BGE feels that since 10 CFR 51.51(c)(3)(iii) only requires i
consideration of attematives for reducing " adverse impacts", there should be no need to discuss mitigation where the impacts are de minimis, l
i More detailjustifying BGE's position regarding these topics can be found in the attached
]
position paper, i
\\
Sections 4.1.1 j
How does BGE plan to adopt by reference NRC GEIS conclusion (s] for Category 1 issues? How does BGE ensure GEIS applies to CCNPP? Affirmation statement? Any systematic effort to become aware of any new and significant f
information should be explained briefly in the ER, but the analysis need not be included. New information is any factor resulting in an environmental impact i
which either was not considered in the GEIS or the magnitude exceeds that l
described in the GEIS. Significant information must be shown to change the i
findings for a Category 1 issue to cause a substantial environmental impact that l
is not identified in the GEIS.
Response
1 l
BGE plans in section 4.1.1 to include a sentence stating that BGE adopts by reference the conclusions of the GEIS analysis for all Category 1 issues. BGE feels that, pursuant-l to Part 51, applicants are not required to analyze Category 1 issues in the ER nor are j
they required to demonstrate that they are bounded by the Category 1 determinations.
l BGE feels that any requirement to perform such an analysis would be inconsistent with both the literallanguage and the purpose of the rule.
i Similarly, regarding new and significant information, BGE plans in section 4.1.19 to provide new and significant information of which we are aware. BGE interprets this requirement in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) as an obligation to identify significant new information when we know of such information but not as an obligation to perform j
further studies or reviews to develop such information.
l l
More detail justifying BGE's position regarding these topics can be found in the attached j-position paper.
J The ER should present a sufficiently broad picture of refurbishment and i
operating activities / changes to allow the NRC reviewers (and the public) to make j
the judgment that it is unlikely that there is new and significant information not reported in the ER that may bring any Category i GEIS finding into question.
1 1
j 4/8/97 Page 3
C:ltim:re Gas cnd El:ctric Ccmp:ny Response to NRC General Comments / Questions l
On the Template for the CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Report i
Response
i j
According to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), BGE is only required to describe its "... plans to modify i
the facility or its administrative control proceduc es described in accordance with i
section 54.21..." Additionally, this discussion should be limited to "... modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents." BGE can not, and does 4
not intend to, provide detailed descriptions of proposed CCNPP refurbishment activities such as to allow a reader to ascertain, beyond any doubt, that there could be no new i
and significant information regarding these modifications. Additionally, BGE does not intend to describe operating activities / changes associated with license renewal if those j
changes do not, either directly or indirectly, affect the environment or plant effluents. If during preparing this description BGE finds new and significant information regarding i
i the environmental impacts of license renewal, this information will be clearly discussed j
in section 4.1.19.
i Section 4.1.7, Threatened and Endangered Species
. Need to look at both refurbishment period and continued operation - both Category 2 (see Table B 1 and see pages 3-48,3-51, and 4-122 of GEIS)
Response
i BGE agrees with this comment and the Template will be changed to better reflect the requirement to look at the potentialimpacts on Threatened and Endangered species l
from both refurbishment activities and license renewal term operations.
i i
Does BGE have an environmental protection plan? What is the status, any need to update?
i
Response
BGE does have an Environmental Protection Plan developed pursuant to 10 CFR j
50.36(b). This plan was not altered during BGE's recent tech spec update project and l
BGE has not identified anything during development of the license renewal ER to
}
suggest that the Environmental Protection Plan needs updating.
(
i Section 4.1.15 l
Only addresses public services, transportation during refurbishment term - what about impacts of operation during renewal term? See pg. 4-106 of GEIS.
4
{
Response
i BGE defers response to this question pending NRC clarification of apparent discrepancy
}
between 10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and GEIS.
I 4/8/97 Page 4 1
4
~..
~
5 l
Cdtimsre G:s cnd Electric Ccmprny j
Response to NRC General Comments / Questions
'~
On the Template for the CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Report I
Section 4.2 l
Explain what is meant by ' reference applicable discussion" (first bullet) and 1-
" provide sufficient detail" (third bullet). Again, starting point should be State studies and interaction l
Response
l Chapter 8 of the GEIS contains generic discussion of the environmentalimpacts from j
altamative forms of electric power generation as, for example, coal (Section 8.3.9). If the applicant has chosen coal-fired generation as a feasible attemstive, Section 4.2 could include reference to the GEIS discussion of coal-fired generation environmental impacts. Depending on the applicability of the GEIS discussion to the applicant's attemative, the reference could take the form of an adoption by reference, a comparison, or an explanation of differences.
The level of inforrnation on the environmentalimpacts of alternatives should reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix A, Section 7). The decisionmaking required of the NRC is whether or not the adverse environmentalimpacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal would be unreasonable [10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)). BGE interprets this to mean that the Environmental Report Section 4.2, combined with GEIS Chapter 8, must i
contain sufficient detail to enable NRC to make that decision. Adding detail beyond this threshold is unnecessary; for example, once sufficient detail is presented to 3
demonstrate that impacts from the altemative would be greater than license renewal, J
providing additional detail about the attemative would simply demonstrate a more l
disparate balance. For this reason, Section 4.2 will not provide the level of detailed analysis for attematives that the combination of the GEIS and Section 4.1 does for the proposed action (i.e., license renewal).
BGE agrees that State studies are a good starting point for data regarding altematives.
However, the NRC might find that the amount of information available from the State of
]
Maryland is atypically lerge compared to other states.
Appendix A, second bullet - for each issue, identify where in the ER the issue is discussed - are there plans to address each issue in the ER or only the Category 2s?
Response
The ER will only address applicable Category 2 issues from 10 CFR 51 Table B-1.
Category 2 issues that are not applicable to CCNPP will be listed in section 4.1.1 with a very brief basis for why the issue is not applicable. No further analysis will be provided 1
for these issues. Likewise, Category 1 issues will not be discussed in the ER. BGE will adopt by reference the GEIS conclusions for Category 1 issues in section 4.1.1.
)
4/8/97 Page 5
i Baltim::re Ga3 cnd Electri: Company 1
i Response to NRC General Comments / Questions On the Template for the CCNPP License Renewal Environmental Report i
J Appendix A is tabular in form and serves as an accounting tool of where in the ER all of the Table B-1 issues are addressed. For Category 1 issues and non-applicable Category 2 issues, Appendix A refers the reader to section 4.1.1. For applicable Category 2 issues, Appendix A refers the reader to sections 4.1.2 - 4.1.18.
i j
How are past commitments in the environmental arena addressed (will anything j
in license renewal cause the commitment to change)?
s Responsa j
The license renewal rule acknowledges that current Part 50 licensing commitments (the 1
current licensing basis) *...must be maintained during the renewal term in the same
]-
manner and to the same extent as during the originallicensing term."
More specifically,54.33 (c) states "Each renewed license will include those conditions to protect the environment that were imposed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36b and that are part j
of the CLB for the facility at the time of issuance of the renewed license. These conditionc may be supplemented or amended as necessary to protect the environment during the term of the renewed license and will be derived from information contained in j
the.@,T,u4 to the environmental report submitted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC record of decision. The conditions will identify the obligations of the licensee in the environmental area, including, as appropriate, j
requirements for reporting and recordkeeping of environmental data and any conditions j
and monitoring requirements for the protection of the non-aquatic environment."
c Based on work to date, BGE has not identified any information that would cause any of j
our Part 50 environmental commitments to change. As such, it would be BGE's
{
intention to carry all applicable environmental commitments forward through the renewal i
term. Since, neither Part 54 nor Part 51 require a license renewal applicant to list or describe current Part 50 commitments (environmental or otherwise), BGE does not intend to list environmental commitments in the ER and no change to the Template is needed.
4 From Table B-1 does BGE need to address:
Water use conflicts?
Ground water degradation - cooling ponds?
Microbiological organisms?
Responsa j
BGE does not have to address these issues. These issues are not applicable to CCNPP because the plant does not have cooling ponds or use make-up water from a small river with low flow (water use conflicts, groundwater degradation - cooling ponds),
i and does not use lakes or canals, or cooling towers or cooling ponds that discharge to a j
small river (microbiological organisms).
4/8/97 Page 6
)
-e i
Furth:r Clrrificsti:n R:gtrding BGE Psiti:n en Sivtrzl Technic il Iscurs J
l.
Introduction
(
4 During the last BGE/NRC Template discussion meeting on 3/7/97, NRC submitted their 4
j
. regard to several technical topics related to the form and content of an Environmental Report initial comments / questions on the Template and their initial responses to BGE positions with i
(ER) for the renewal of the Calvert Cliffs operating licenses. As a result of the discussion from i
i that day and BGE's review of the Staff's comments, BGE has prepared this paper to clarify our i
position on the following issues: (1) to what extent must Category 1 lasues be addressed in the i
ER; (2) to what extent must mitigation be addressed in the ER; and (3) whether the shock j
hazard of transmission lines must be addressed where the hazard is unaffected by license i
renewal.
I.
II.
Treatment of Category i Issues in a License Renewal ER The first topic regards a question conceming the extent to which Category 1 issues must 3
be addressed in an Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage. The issues are whether a license renewal applicant is required to show that its plant is bounded by the analyses of Category 1 issues in the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS),
NUREG-1437, or whether the provision in the rule requiring the ER to contain significant new
'information of which the applicant is aware requires such analysis or some other validation of
. the generic conclusions in the GEIS.
As discussed below, it is BGE's position that a license-renewal applicant is not required j
' to analyze Category 1 issues, absent a suspension or waiver of the NRC's rule. The Category 1 issues have been addressed generically in order to promote an efficient and stable renewal process, and any requirement to perform further analyses would be inconsistent with both the literal language and the purpose of the rule.
On its face, the NRC rules governing the environmental review of license renewal applications do not require an applicant to provide any analysis of Category 1 issues.10 C.F.R. 4 9 51.53(c)(3)(1) provides:
[
The environmental report for the operating license renewal stage i
is not required to contain analyses of the environmental impacts -
4' of the license renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in i
Appendix B to subpart A of this part.
l The supplementary information published with the rule indicates that, absent new and significant information, the NRC's generic analyses of Category 1 issues need only be j
incorporated by reference in an applicant's ER. 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467,28,483 (1996).
t In undertaking this rulemaking, the Commission made clear that its intent was to resolve
{
issues generically so that they would not need to be addressed in individual license renewal proceedings. "The purpose of this rulemaking is to resolve as many National Environmental i
Policy Act (NEPA) issues as possible before beginning plant-by-plant license renewal reviews."
i 56 Fed. Reg. 47,016,47,023 (1991).
I Those impacts that cannot be evaluated generically will have to be evaluated for each plant before its license is renewed.
4/8/97
~.
y-
---,.y
l t
However, the environmentalimpacts that can be evaluated generically will not have to be evaluated for each plant.
l Id. at 47,016.
By assessing and codifying certain potential impacts on a generic basis, no need exists to address there impacts for each future i
Id. at 47,017.
The Commission did include procedural safeguards in its rule to accommodate new.
developments or information. In consultation with the EPA and CEO, the NRC agreed to consider all comments that might be submitted on a renewal application; and, if the NRC Staff j
determines that information fumished is significant and new, the NRC Staff will seek Commission approval either to suspend the rule (if the significant new information is generic) or waive the rule (if the significant new information is plant specific). SECY-93-032 at 3-4.' in the same vein, the Commission included in its rule the provision that "[t]he environmental report must contain any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware." 10 C.F.R. 5 51.53(c)(3)(iv).
These procedural safeguards do not require an applicant to provide or prepare j
additional analyses. The requirement in section 51.53(c)(3)(iv) is carefully worded to require no i
more than the provision of information "of which the applicant is aware " This implies that an applicant has an obligation to identify significant new information when it knows of such information, but has no obligation to perform further studies or reviews to develop such information.
l The NRC's response to comments when it finalized the rule makes this position clear.
The Department of Interior commented that even if a GEIS is used for license renewal, each applicant should be required to confirm these conclusions with documentatio1. The NRC responded:
i The NRC believes that its analysis is sufficiently broad so as to apply to all plants considering license renewal. Based on the NRC's confidence in the applicability of its generic review, it does not see any reason to require that an applicant perform a site-specific validation of GEIS conclusions. The NRC believes that j
'The Commission indicated that litigation of environmental issues in a hearing will be limited to unbounded category 2 and category 3 issues (now combined] unless the rule is suspended or waived. SECY !
.032 at 4.
2This provision is analogous to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.9, which requires licensees to report significant information to the NRC but does not require new studbs or analyses to develop such information. An analogy may also be drawn to the obligation developed in lice ising proceedings to report material information. Sgg Virginia Electric &
Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 76-22,4 N.R.C. 480 (1976). Here too, the obligation is to report information that is discover d, not to regnira the creation or generation of new information.
4/8/97 Page 2
such a requirement eliminates the efficiency and stability sought by the Part 51 rulemaking NUREG-1529 at p. C9-14. Thus, the Commission has explicitly stated that an applicant need not attempt to validate the generic conclusions in the GEIS.
The manner in which the categories of issues were developed also shows that an applicant is under no obligation to demonstrate that it is bounded by the Category 1 determinations. The proposed rule p aced issues into three categories. Category 1 issues were those where the NRC had reacned a generic impact that applies to all affected plants.
Category 2 issues were those where the NRC had reached a conclusion that applies to all affected plants within certain bounds. Category 3 issues were those where the NRC had concluded that a plant-specific evaluation was required. 56 Fed. Reg. at 47,019. This is significant because it indicates the NRC's intent only to require bounding analysis for the original Category 2 issues. Further, the Commission explicitly stated that it was " proposing to limit the scope of environmental review for each plant license renewal to only those issues for which no generic conclusion could be reached (i.e., Categories 2 and 3)." Id, at 47,020. While the final rule subsequently combined all Category 2 and 3 issues (61 Fed. Reg. at 28,474), it I
made no change that would alter the treatment of Category 1 issues. The explicit requirements in 10 C.F.R. S 51.53(c)(3) to assess certain Category 2 issues if a plant does not fall within stated bounds belies any requirement for an applicant to provide or perform bounding analyses of other issues.
l For all of these reasons, BGE cannot read the NRC as either requiring or implying any need for evaluation of Category 1 issues (absent a waiver of the rules). As a practical matter, any such requirement would seriously threaten the benefits of the rules, potentially opening all of the Category 1 issues to litigation trough challenges that the applicant has not demonstrated its plant is bounde e-has not performed a sufficient evaluation to demonstrate the absence of significant new hitormation that might change the conclusions. Such a possibility is contrary to the NRC's intent.
4/8/97 Page 3
--.-..- - -. ~. - -
1 i
111.
Consideration of Mitigation in a License Renewal ER During the meeting it was generally agreed that 10 C.F.R. $ 51.53(c)(3)(iii) requires an Environmental Report - License Renewal Stage to "contain a consideration of alternatives for i
reducing adverse impacts, as required by 6 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part (51]" and that,"No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues..."
r it is BGE's position that while this provision calls for consideration of mitigation
. alternatives for all Category 2 issues, what constitutes appropriate " consideration" will depend on the specific issue and impact. In practice, this provision must be applied in a sufficiently flexible and sensible manner to accommodate three distinct situations: (1) Category 2 issues that are not applicable to the plant; (2) Category 2 issues that do not require assessment of impacts if certain bounding conditions are met; and (3) Category 2 issues where the impacts may range from large to insignificant.
There are a number of Category 2 issues that only apply to certain types of plants. For -
example,10 C.F.R. 9 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires an assessment of certain impacts for plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds withdrawing water from a small river; and 10 C.F.R.
$ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) requires an assessment of certain impacts for plants with Ranney wells or pumping more than 100 gallons of groundwater per minute. Where such Category 2 lasues do i
not apply to a particular plant, the applicant is not required to assess the impacts associated with the issue and likewise should not be required to address mitigation. It would make no sense requiring an applicant to evaluate mitigation of an issue that does not apply to its plant.
There are also several Category 2 issues (in the case of Calvert Cliffs, entrainment, impingement, and heat shock) that require an assessment of impacts only if the applicant's plant utilizes once through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems and certain Clean i
Water Act documentation cannot be provided. Saa 10 C.F.R. $ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). For these issues, no assessment ofimpacts is required if the applicant provides a copy of the current Clean Water Act documentation. Again, in cases where this rule would not require the I
applicant to assess any impacts, the applicant should not be required to evaluate mitigation alternatives. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how an applicant could evaluate mitigation alternatives without assessing the impacts. Consequently, the requirement to assess impacts only where Clean Water Act documentation is unavailable should similarly be construed as a requirement to consider mitigation only under the same circumstances.8 Finally, ir, assessing the impacts for the remaining Category 2 issues, an applicant may determine for some such issues that the proposed action will not cause any significant impact.
Since 10 C.F.R. 9 51.53(c)(3)(iii) only requires consideration of alternatives for reducing
" adverse impacts," thsre should be no need to discuss mitigation where the impacts are de minimis.
'To the extent that sections S t.53(cX3XiiXB) and 51.53(cX3Xiii) might be viewed as conflicting, under the
)
principles of statutory construction, the specinc provision - section $1.53(cX3XiiXB) - would take precedence i
over the more general requirement in section 51.53(cX3Xiii).
4/8/97 Page 4
i i
IV.
Treatment of Shock Hazard from Transmission Lines j
In the 3/7/97 meeting, NRC indicated its initial position that the 10 CFR 51 rule requices an assessment of the electric shock hazard from transmission lines even if those lines wil!.
i remain energized if the license is not renewed. As discussed below, BGE's position remains that neither the NRC regulations nor NEPA requires such an assessment under these circumstances, because the proposed action (license renewal) will have no impact on the potential shock hazard.
l
[
10 C.F.R. 9 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H) states:
If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the l
specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission j
system do not meet the recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced currents, 4
i an assessment of the imoact of the orooosed action on the potential shock hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, the NRC rule only requires assessment of"the impact of the proposed action" on potential shock hazard. It does not require assessment of the potential shock hazard if such hazard is unaffected by the proposed action. Consequently, where i
transmission lines to the plant will remain energized in any event (as is the case for Calvert Cliffs where the lines that were constructed to connect the plant to ihe grid are now part of a f
regional loop), it should be a sufficient assessment under the rule for an applicant to state that
{
potential shock hazard is unaffected by the proposed action.
i This approach is consistent with NEPA, which only requires analysis of impacts causally i
related to the proposed action. NEPA requires consideration of "the environmental impact of the proposed action"(42 U.S.C. 9 4322(C)(i)), and this provision has been interpreied as requiring a close causal connection between the proposed action and an alleged effect befcre that effect need be considered. Metrooolitan Edison Comoany v. Peoole Against Nuclear Energy. 460 U.S. 766, 773-74 (1983). The CEQ regulations also define the effects tMt must l
be considered in an EIS as those "which are caused by the proposed action." 40 C.F.R. $
+
1 1508.8. Consequently, NEPA does not require evaluation of effects that will be unaffected by the proposal. Burbank Anti-Noise Groun v. Goldschmidt,623 F.2d 115,116-17 (9th Cir.1980),
l carl denied,450 U.S. 965 (1981).
i i
1 1
4/8/97 Page 5 3
1
ROUGH DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS February 17.1997 1
I I
In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101 et seq.), DOE is preparing an 2
environmental impact statement (EIS) for a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at j
3 Yucca Mountain, Nevada.6 DOE anticipates that it will complete the EIS in the year 2000 and that the 4
EIS will cover transportation impacts.7 DOE will submit the EIS to the NRC as part ofits construction 5
permit and license application. The Act directs NRC to adopt the EIS, to the extent practicable, in 6
connection with issuance of the construction authorization and license and that this adoption shall satisfy 7
NRC iesponsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.8 S
The CCNPP Unit I license expires July 31,2014, which would be the earliest that BGE could ship 9
license renewal term spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and 14 years after DOE publication of the repository 10 EIS. Therefore, BGE defers to the DOE EIS discussion of generic and cumulative transportation impacts 11 in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain.
12 4.1.19 NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION
)
13 NRC 14 "The environmental report must contain any new and significant information regarding the 15 environmental impacts oflicense renewal which the applicant is aware... " 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) 16
" absent new and significant information, the analyses for certain impacts codified by this rulemaking 17 need only be incorporated by reference in an applicant's environmental report for license renewal..."
18 Discussion of Regulatory Requirements,61 FR 109, June 5,1996, page 28483
~19 BGE is not aware of new and significant information regarding the plans environment or plant j
20 operations that would make a generic conclusion codified by the NRC for Category 1 issues not 21 applicable for CCNPP that would alter regulatory or GEIS statements regarding Category 2 issues, or j
22 suggest any other measure oflicense renewal environmental i.npact.
6 60 FR 40164 - 40170, August 7,1995.
7 lbid. at page 40168.
8 42 USC 10134(f)(4).
' 26
)
PlEshifts fr6%iFetnrsuiy 17!1997 R&48{DfaftASirshkishint Rhpsti?D&sii NEdiihilSrijECalver(Calgty
]ij@$les/PsyPle@poydudidF;NRC%ff ffNnatisdjohtense@{enlyh uddy 2
1 Issue: Transportation, Uranium Fuel Cyde and Waste Management 2
i 3
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 4
2.1 Proposed Action S
6 2.1.2 NUCLEAR FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE 7
The two CCNPP reactors are light-water-cooled reactors operated at a maximum core thermal power 8
output level of 2,700 megawatts-thermall. CCNPP fuel is uranium dioxide in the form of pellets 9
contained in zircaloy fuel rods, tubes fitted with welded end caps, shipped by truck from Missouri, 10 Although CCNPP was originally licensed to use pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding
)
11 4 percent by weight,2 NRC has subsequently authorized CCNPP fuel enrichment increases to 4.1 percent 12 and, currently,5 percent uranium-235 (Table 2.1-1, items 7 and 16). At the same time, NRC has 13 authorized increases in level of CCNPP spent fuel burnup,3 from the original 33,000 megawatt-days per 14 metric ton of uranium (mwd /MTU) to the current limit of 60,000 mwd /MTU.
15 CCNPP operates on a 24-month refueling cycle (Table 2.1-1, Item 25) and currently stores all its spent 16 nuclear fuel onsite in a spent fuel pool or in dry storage.4 CCNPP also stores mized wast:5 onsite, 17 consistent with NRC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and in accordance vith an 18 agreement with the Maryland Department of the Environment. CCNPP radioactive waste shipments 19 offsite are currently limited to the following shipments by truck:
CCNPP to disposal site (Barnwell, South Carolina) 20 e
1 See Table 2.1 1, item 4, for reference to NRC environmental assessment of CCNPP power level increase to 2,700 megawatts-thermal.
2 Naturally occurring uranium contains several forms of uranium including approximately 3 percent uranium-235, the form that a nuclear reactor uses. He nuclear fuel manufacturing process removes some of the other forms, resulting in a slightly higher percentage (" enrichment") of uranium-235.
3 "Burnup" is the length of use of, or total energy generated by, the nuclear fuel, and is measured as megawatt-days per metric ton. The longer the burnup, or the higher the burnup level, the greater the radiation levels in the spent fuel.
4 See Table 2.1-1, item 17 for reference to NRC environmental assessment of Calvert CI:ffs Independent Spent j
Fuel Storage Installation.
5 Mixed waste is waste that is govemed by the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2011 - 2259) as radioactive material and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 6901 et seq.) as hazardous waste.
J 4/8/97 1
i l
l WEhirp6fidsie[Fetiristy[if t997 pidgnyis/t'EsufrisiiinhilRephitlLliefgRisiiVQ&ajf GhwiCitysf; m
s gjgebleahPoperPldnt provWedfor NRC staff format aad content review onlylag, inj
~~
i 1
e CCNPP to an offsite processing facility for segregation, recycling, compaction, and incineration Offsite processing facility to disposal site 2
e t
I Offsite processing facility to CCNPP for reuse or storage 3
l l
4 All CCNPP solid radwaste shipments are packaged in accordance with NRC and U.S. Department of j
5 Transportation requirements. CCNPP does not ship radwaste in other than a solid form.
6 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 7
AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 8
4.1 Proposed Action 9
4.1.18 TRANSPORTATION 10 NRC 11 The environmental report must contain an assessment of transportation of fuel and waste "...in 12 accordance with @ 51.52. The review ofimpacts shall also discuss the generic and cumulative impacts 13 associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste repository site. The 14 candidate site at Yucca Mountain should be used for the purpose ofimpact analysis as long as that site is 15 under consideration for licensing..." 10 CFR S t.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) 16
"... Table S-4 of this Part contains an assessment ofimpact parameters to be used in evaluating 17 transportation effects in each case..." 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 85 18
"..The values shown in Table...S-4...are conservative estimates developed on the basis of an average fuel 19 irradiation (burnup) of 33,000 mwd /MTU. Discussions and analyses show that the burnun level of fuel 20 up to 60,000 mwd /MTU will not result in environmental impacts that are greater than the values 21 currently in Table...S-4..." GEIS Section 6.2.3 22 51.52 and Table S-4 23 NRC regulation 10 CFR 51.52 presents Table S-4 and indicates that, for a reactor that meets specified 24 criteria, Table S-4 summarizes the environmental effects of transporting fuel (new and spent) and l
25 radioactive waste to and from the reactor site on a per-year basis. The table identifies heat and weight 26 per irradiated fuel cask in transit, traffic density, and individual and cumulative dose for workers and the 27 general population under normal conditions. The table also identifies environmental risks from i
4/8/97 2
A f EGeibti'tMQYebhii:ki17Q997$6fiWiQnifrA@%5fiksial Repik LlefsifResek m'
hamhMW8"'#fII88fProyided.forJRC staff formatised conte'at reyledon_ly3 i EQ 1
radiological and non-radiological effects under accident conditions. See Table 4.1.18-1 for a reprint of 2
Table S 4.
i 3
The criteria in Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.52 are not likely to be met by many plants now using higher j
4 burnup fuel. In such cases, applicants may incorporate in their analyses the discussion presented in the 5
GEIS in Section 6.2.3," Sensitivity to Recent Changes in Fuel Cycle," and Section 6.3," Transportation" 6
(61 FR 66538).
7 CCNPP meets all the { 51.52(a) criteria but the following two (see Section 2.1.2 for discussion of 8
CCNPP nuclear fuel and radioactive waste):
Plant Parameter 10 CFR 51.52(a)
Current CNPP Criteria Authorization Uranium-235 fuel enrichment, percent not to exceed 4.0 5.0 Spent fuel average level ofirradiation or bumup, megawatt-not to exceed 33,000 60,000 days per metric ton of uranium (mwd /MTU) 9 10 in authorizing BGE to increase CCNPP fuel enrichment to 5 percent uranium-235 and burnup to 60,000 11 mwd /MTU, NRC also published an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.6 12 NRC analyzed environmental impacts that the increased fuel enrichment and burnup and a 24-month 13 refueling cycle would have, and decided that the findings of two earlier NRC environmental assessments 14 are applicable to CCNPP.7 NRC observed that whatever increased environmental effects are attributable 15 to increases in fuel enrichment and burnup are more than offset by the resultant longer refueling cycle, 16 which results in less-frequent spent fuel handling and fewer shipments. NRC concluded that CCNPP 17 transportation impacts are either unchanged or reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 and, in 18 satisfaction of 10 CFR S t.52(b), BGE adopts by reference the NRC analysis and conclusion.
19 The NRC's CCNPP-specific analysis and conclusion is consistent with the NRC's generic analyses and 20 conclusions found in GEIS Sections 6.2.3 " Sensitivity to Recent Changes in the Fuel Cycle" and 6.3 21
" Transportation." BGE incorporates these GEIS sections into this analysis.
22 In GEIS Section 6.2.3, NRC analyzes the sensitivity of Table S-4's conclusions to increases in fuel 23 enrichment, burnup, and refueling cycle. NRC noted that while enrichment impacts increase about 5 6 54 FR 4352 - 4353, January 30,1989. Copy included in Appendix G.
7 53 FR 30355 - 30358, August i1,1988, which references 53 FR 6040 - 6043, February 29,1988. Copies included in Appendix G.
4/8/97 3
m J Eicirpislfr&is Febharf 17; 1997 Rsskin Mkft Ehlebimiktal Report;LlishiERen5kSengs:CalMClifsy I,,in (gycles) Pen'ekPtaht prdvided.for NRC sta.fiformstjdd sontidrevis{6slyf,, g 2
~
1 percent with each 6-month extension of the refueling cycle, the higher burnup of fuel achieved in the 2
longer refueling cycles reduces the average annual output of spent fuel by as much as 45 percent.
3 Analyses show that no revision to Table S-4 would be required as a result ofextended burnup up to 4
60,000 mwd /MTU.
5 In GEIS Section 6.3, based on Table S-4, NRC discussed the effects oflicense renewal on low-level 6
waste, mixed waste, and spent fuel transportation. NRC determined that rail and truck transport 7
c)rridors should easily accommodate the increase in low-level and mixed waste shipments from license 8
n newal and that license renewal would result in an additional 2 to 3 days of shipments for each reactor's 9
spent fuel under Table S-4 conditions (Table S-4 impacts are presented on the basis of a reference reactor 10 year. so additional years of operation from license renewal do not affect the table's estimates). The 11 enviromnental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste attributable to license renewal, based on 12 Table S-4, are found to be small. As NRC provides for in the preamble to its final license renewal 13 environmeatal report rulemaking,8 BGE incorporates the GEIS discussion into this environmental report.
14 In conclusion, NRC and BGE have determined that the NRC regulation 10 CFR 51.52 Table S-4 15 description of environmental impact of transportation of fuel and radioactive waste to and from one 16 light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor bounds the environmental impact from such transportation for 17 CCNPP (CCNPP having two reactors, Table S-4 impacts must be doubled). NRC and BGE conclusions 18 agree that environmental impacts from CCNPP transportation of fuel and radioactive waste attributable 19 to license renewal (Issue 85) would be small.
20 Generie and Cumulative Impacts 21 Table S-4 presents bounding estimates of fuel and radioactive waste transportation environmental 22 impacts for a single reactor. NRC indicated in the preamble to its final license renewal environmental 9
report rulemaking that there could be additional generic and cumulative impacts of transportation, 23 24 infrastructure, construction, and operation in the vicinity of a repository site.
i 25 BGE has not identified any significant generic cumulative environmental impacts of transportation, I
26 infrastructure, construction, or operation causally related to license renewal. Further, the possibility of 27 such impacts are being addressed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
8 61 FR 66537 - 66554, December 18,1996, at page 66538, column 3.
9 lbid.
4/8/97 4
- Eshirjts ffoiiFelirkeri17j/f1991 ReuilfDik/t EhirdnisihiilRejort?LiciisiREskisalStanickink sdgu;clearfo=>< lant giroyided for NRCjtaff formst:srid iio;njesheilei6nlyjg;, %,lj 1
In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 USC 10101 et seq.), DOE is preparing an 2
environmental impact statement (EIS) for a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at 3
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.10 DOE anticipates that it will complete the EIS in the year 2000 and that the 4
EIS will cover transportation impacts.ll DOE will submit the EIS to the NRC as part ofits construction 5
permit and license application. The Act directs NRC to adopt the EIS, to the extent practicable, in 6
connection with issuance of the construction authorization and license and that this adoption shall satisfy 7
NRC responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.12 8
The CCNPP Unit I license expires July 31,2014, which would be the earliest that BGE could ship 9
license renewal term spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and 14 years after DOE publication of the repository 10 EIS. Therefore, BGE defers to the DOE EIS discussion of generic and cumulative transportation impacts 11 in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, i
)
1 i
1 1
A 1
2 4
d 1060 FR 40164 40170, August 7,1995.
I1 lbid. at page 40168.
12 42 USC 10134(f)(4).
4/8/97 5
0 Exh&ytd frohiFebkUsj[17l1997 R5sWDis/t'Esi66hi&dkl RspintlLissisRhenalStsgilCalur{CIWsf i NIujphQPO'WNipsided fdNRCjtsff fdsmpshdlcondes@sjii@slyj$hausd{
l Table 2.1-1. National Environmental Policy Act documentation for Calved Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
No.
Date Topic BGE submittal to NRC NRC NEPA documentation 1.
1970 Operation Environmental Repon; Calvert See No. 2 below Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, f
November 16,1970 2.
1973 Operation Supplement to Environmental Final Environmental Report; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Statement, April 1973 Power Plant, November 8, 1971 3.
1976 Discharge temperature Request for operating license Environmental Assessment (temporary suspension of amendment (Letter, Lundvall and Finding of No 100 hour0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> maximum limit to Rusche,6/21/76)
Significant Impact (38 FR for temperature rise over 8759)(Letter, Ziemann to 10*F and discinrge Lundvall,8/5/76) temperature over 90*F) 4.
1977 Power level (increase to Request for operating license Environmental Impact 2,700 megawatts-amendments; Unit 1 (3/24/77)
Assessment and Negative i
thermal) and Unit 2 (7/13/77)
Declaration; Unit 1 (Letter, Davis to Lundvall,9/9/77) and Unit 2 (Letter, Davis to i
Lundvall,10/19/77) 5.
1979 Discharge temperature Request for operating license Environmental Impact (2-year increase from 10' change and plan for studying Appraisal and Negative to 12*F delta across environmental impact of Declaration, February 1979 condenser) increased delta (Letter, (Letter, Reid to Lundvall, Lundvall to Denton,1/15/79) 2/23/79) 6.
1981 Refueling cycle Amendment to Environmental (extended to 18 months)
Report (Letter, Lundvall to Clark,3/23/81) 7.
1981 Fuel enrichment Criticality Technical Conclusion that (increase from 4.0 to 4.1 Specification Amendment environmental impact percent U-235) request (Letter, Lundvall to statement or negative Clark,10/6/81) declaration and environmental impact appraisal not needed (Letter, Jaffe to Lundvall,12/21/81) 8.
1982 Discharge requirements Request for operating license Conclusion that (delete non-radiological amendments (Letter, Lundvall environmental impact 4
limits and monitoring) to Clark,4/8/82) statement or negative declaration and Supplementary Information (Letter, Lundvall to Clark, environmental,mpact i
4/16/82) appraisal not needed (Letter, Clark to Lundvall,5/26/82) 4/&97 6
[ Eienikiifrbei Fitirdirf_1.7,'1991RosjEDraft Enstron5ntal RepoFIRikisiksnisalhinjiCalvikClifsh I,, Sim Maclearfsykf/enbrevidsd fo(NRCjtaff foisst aad contun(reviseinlyj e sig 1
Table 2.1-1. (continued).
No.
Date Topic BGE submittal to NRC NRC NEPA documentation 9.
1984 Auxiliary feedwater Request for operating license Environmental Assessment system (increase period amendment (Letter, Lundvall and Finding of No ofinoperability) to Miller,4/9/84)
Significant Impact (49 FR 30145,7/20/84)(Letter, Miller to Lundvall,7/20/84) 10.
1984 In-service inspection Request for exemption from Environmental Assessment (extended interval) in-service inspection and Finding ofNo requirement (Letter, Lundvall Significant Impact (49 FR to Miller,3/6/84) 33764,8/24/84)(Letter, Miller to Lundvall,8/30/84) 12.
1985 In-service inspection Request for exemption from Environmental Assessment (common Unit Nos. I and in-service inspection and Finding of No 2 start date) requirement (Letter, Lundvall Significant Impact (50 FR to Miller,3/6/84) 13893,4/8/85)(Letter, Request for exemption from Miller to Lundvall,4/18/85) in-service inspection requirement (Letter, Lundvall to Miller,1/28/85) 13.
1985 Containment ventilation Request for operating license Environmental Assessment (use of hydrogen purge amendment (Letter, Lundvall and Finding ofNo line) to Miller,12/22/83)
Significant Impact (51 FR Request for operating license 791,1/8/86)(Letter, amendment (Letter, Lundvall Thadani to Lundvall, to Miller,3/26/84) Additional 12/31/85) information (Letter, Lundvall to Miller,8/9/85) 14.
1988 Property insurance None (action initiated by NRC Environmental Assessment (18-month exemption for each licensee) and Finding of No from schedular Significant Impact (53 FR requirements) 38807,10/3/88)(Letter, McNeil to Tiernan,9/26/88) 15.
1988 Senior reactor operator Request for operating license Environmental Assessment J
license (line amendment (Letter, Tiernan to and Finding of No 1989 management holding NRC,3/15/88)
Significant Impact (54 FR requirements)
Modifications (Letter, 4351,1/30/89)(Letter, (illegible signature) to NRC, McNeil to Tiernan,1/25/89) 12/2/88] Additional j
information (Letter, Tiernan to i
NRC, !!!3/89) 16.
1988 Fuel enrichment (increase Request for Operating License Environmental Assessment from 4.1 to 5.0 percent Amendment (Letter, Tiernan and Finding of No 1989 U-235) to NRC,6/9/88)
Significant impact (54 FR 4352,1/30/89)(Letter, McNeil to Tiernan,1/25/89) j 4/8/97 7
i
M Exieihiii frbui Febifiiinti 1N1997 RagifpriftAns&eshiinks! Ak#0EY1.lssisEkeh t
k 1
Table 2.1-1. (continued).
No.
Date Topic BGE submittal to NRC NRC NEPA documentation 17.
1989 Independent Spent Fuel Calvert Cliffs Independent Environmental Assessment Storage Installation Spent Fuel Storage Installation and Finding of No Environmental Report (BGE Significant Impact (56 FR to NRC,12/21/89) 13196,3/29/91)(Letter, Haughney to Creel,3/22/91)
I 8.
1989 Containment local leak Request for operating license Environmental Assessment rate test (schedular amendment (Letter, Tiernan to and Finding of No extension)
NRC,12/14/88)
Significant Impact (54 FR Request for Exemption 10757,3/15/89)(Letter, (Letter, Tiernan to NRC, McNeil to Creel,3/9/89) 12/21/88) Response to NRC Request for Additional 2
Information (Letter, Lippold to NRC,2/17/89) 19.
1990 Final Safety Analysis Schedular Exemption Request Environmental Assessment Report (schedular (Letter, Creel to NRC,6/8/90) and Finding of No extension for update)
Significant Impact (55 FR 29920,7/23/90)(Letter, Mcdonald to Creel,7/16/90) 20.
1990 Containment emergency Request for Exemption (Letter, Environmental Assessment lighting (exemption from Creel to NRC,6/29/90) and Finding ofNo permanent installation Significant Impact (55 FR requirement) 33390,8/15/90)(Letter, Mcdonald to Creel,8/8/90) 21.
1991 Containment local leak Request for License Environmental Assessment rate test (schedular Amendment (Letter, Creel to and Finding of No extension)
NRC,1/18/91)
Significant Impact (56 FR 7420,2/22/9l)(Letter, Mcdonald to Creel,2/14/91) 22.
1991 Containment local leak Request for License Environmental Assessment rate test (schedular Amendment and Exemption and Finding of No 1992 extension)
(Letter, Creel to NRC, Significant Impact (57 FR 11/27/91) 4894,2/10/92)(Letter, Mcdonald to Creel,1/15/92)
(Letter of Correction, Mcdonald to Creel,1/22/92) 23.
1992 Independent Spent Fuel Calvert Cliffs Independent None (10 CFR 50.59 Storage Installation Spent Fuel Storage Installation changes)
Environmental Report, Revision 1 24.
1993 Site boundary changes Supplement to the Environmental Assessment Environmental Report (Letter, and Finding of No Denton to NRC,10/22/93)
Significant Impact (59 FR 25129,5/13/94) 4/8/97 8
((Eihifis~frbs Vebrhasii1[t991lReagk*DiaftEn50sossishGRejiiQLkisiiReisiint&n
]fs?1" ?;j fCalveNCli L ed[,, $NNAl*NMMEN//AS Prpiidsd fShNRC AtmN fdanaiMdjaktes(Myk$
1 Table 2.1-1. (continued).
No.
Date Topic BGE submittal to NRC NRC NEPA documentation 25.
1995 Refueling cycle Request for operating license Categorical Exclusion (60 (extended to 24 months) amendments (Letter, Denton to FR 35061)
NRC,6/6/95) 2 3
BGE = Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.
4 FR = Federal Register.
5 NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.
6 NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4597 9
QEsjspts froniTVetiifd* i~i1;1997 RokkliDis/fEhlHiluidskiRH[ucENERisiselSkisfilved$lijfEQ
]
I
[b L dN#cl85tf*EE5P/8At Proiiddd forjRC sisff foematjad cont $ntMiikoiilyjjji, 6 Jd i
Table 4.1.18-1. Summary Table S Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and 2
from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor.a Normal Conditions of Transport Environmental impact Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit)....
250,000 Btu /hr.
Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions)....
73,000 lbs. per truck; 100 tons per cask per rail car Traffic density:
Truck..
Less than I per day Rail:
Less than 3 per month I
Range of doses to Cumulative does to Estimated number of lexposed individualsb exposed population Exposed population persons exposed (per reactor year)
(per reactor year)c
)
Transportation workers.....
200 0.01 to 300 millirem..
4 man-rem General public Onlookers...-.......
1,100 0.003 to 1.3 millirem..
3 man-rem Along route.=
600,000 0.0001 to 0.06 millirem.....
Accidents in Transport Environmentalrisk Radiologicaleffects..
Smalid Common (nonradiological) causes.
I fatal injury in 100 reactor years; I nonfatal injury in 10 reactor years; $475 property damage per reactor year 3
i Data supporting this table are given in the Commission's " Environmental Survey of Transportation of 4
a.
5 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants," WASH-1238, December 1972, and Supp. I 6
NUREG-75/038 April 1975. Both documents are available for inspection and copying at the Commission's 7
Public Document Room. 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC and may be obtained from National Technical 8
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. WASH-1238 is available from NTIS at a cost of $5.45 9
(microfiche, $2.25) and NUREG-75/038 is available at a cost of $3.25 (microfiche, $2.25).
10 b.
The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other 11 than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5,000 millirem per year for individuals as 12 a result of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirem per year for individuals in the general 13 population. The dose to individuals due to average natural radiation is about 130 millirem per year.
Man-rem is an expression for the summation of whole body doses to individuals in a group. Thus, if each 14 c.
15 member of a population group of 1,000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if 2 people 16 were to receive a does of 0.5 rem (500 millirem), the total man-rem in each case would be 1 man-rem.
17 d.
Although the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming from transportation accidents is currently 18 incapable of being numerically quantified, the risk remains sma'l regardless of whether it is being applied to a 19 single reactor or a multi-reactor site.
4/8/97 10 1
- T Esisb"6 fidii VetsuGf;17[i997 RosiG'DhytENilisiinienikiRejidi[?LiisnsERiiEWh[$tajiCilsiipilfG8
~ ~ ~ ; gg gjyys..,.,..;' p ;;ji. -...Pldd./ ps...Ws..d..,f5.FN.. k. C...s,t.i...ff...f.d..r. i,n. s,i~d., s,.d.9 iss idi n d C'. t,... re.n
.,..ve.o,.., lye, f 3~ 2: J.N
... p,'M I-' j'.3 i !.$Q.:6f f.<...r
...m.
g,.
f.
- si - -,
s g
1 APPENDIX G. NRC TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENTS 2
1 4/8/97 11
f 4352 Federd Retilster / Vcl. 54. No.18 / Mondry. Irnuary 30. 1989 / Notices 1
i Cction tre negligible, any citarntives Dated at Rockv6Be. Maryland. thia 25th day assemblies la support full 24-month with equal or greater environmend of January tese.
operating cycles.The first Unit 124-
}
impacts need not be evaluated.
For the Nuchar Regulatory Commission.
month cycle commenced in Spring 1988.
he principal alternative would be to Negib D. Neighbors, with a reload planned for April 1990.
1 deny the requested action.This would Actins pirecsor. Projec4 Disciorate l-t while the first Unit 2 24-month cycle is not significantly reduce the Division ofJteactorPm/ects #11.
nearing its March 1989 completion date.
j cnvironmentalimpacts of plant lFR Doc. as-aore Filed 1-27-09 8:45 am]
These first 24-month cycle cores were i
operation and would result in reduced aums ones rs n.m transitional designs provided to I
cperational flexibility.
economicall utilize the lower l
Alternative Use of Assources looekst Nos. 50-317 and so-stel p e 235)I ted sie thad This action does not involve the use of tread irradiation and resources not previously considered by Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Caken the Commission in the " Final Cliffs Nuoleer Power Plant, Unit NosJ burnup du the Previous 18-month
]c;" *,, this$ owe"r enrichm nt fuel,the Environmental Statement Relating to and t Eswironmental Assesesnont and j
Operation of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Finding of No SignWicantimpact licensee intends to utilize cores with up Power Plant. Units 1 and 2" dated April
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory to 5.0 weight percent U-235 enrichment 1
1973.
Commission (NRC or the Commission) is levels to better support 24 months of Environmenfallmpact of the Pmposed considering issuance of amendments to continuous power operation without i
Amendments Facility Operating LJcense Nos. DPR-53 refueling. Consequently. the licensee has and DPR-09. Issued to the Baltimore Gas proposed changes to increase the U-235 These proposed changes are basically and Electric Company. (the licensee) for enrichment limits in TS 5s6.1.
administrative in nature and are operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
" Criticality. Spent Fuel." and TS 5.6.2. '
, provided to facilitate the splitting of the Power plant. Unit Nos.1 and 2
" Criticality-New Fuel." from 4.1 to 5.0 C
roles between the GS-NO and respectively, which are located in weight percent.
Conseq'uently, these proposed Calvert County, Maryland.The In addition, the licensee has proposed proposed amendments, submitted via to restrict the maximum value of 4 to a changes pose neither radiological nor the license application dated June 9.
limit of 0.95. vice the current limit of non.radiologicalimpacts upon the 1988, as supplemented on October 25 0.98 and add the full flood condition to environment.The day.to-day operation and November 17.1988 would change the various densities of unborated water of the plant shall continue to be directly the Units 1 and 2 Technical conditions that are assumed in supervised by a manager who holds an Specifications (TS) 5.6.1. " Criticality-determining K,n.De ' reduction of the -
SRO license.This constitutes no change Spent Fuel." and 5.6.2. " Criticality.New maximum limit for K,. for full flooded conditions was proposed solefy to place in the level of safety exercised in plant Fuel." to increase the maximum U-235 operations. Furthermore, the Plant fuel enrichment limit from 4.1 to 5.0 the Calvert Cliffs TS limits on new fuel Operations and Safety Review weight percent and also, reduce the TS criticality in full accord with the NRC '
Committee shall continue to include a 5.6.2 maxissum limit on the effective guidance provided in Section 9.1.1.
member with an SRO license which multiplication factor (4) from 0.98 to "New Fuel Storage." of the Standard ensures that all nuclear safety matters 0.95. Additionalinformation concerning Review Plan (NUREG-0000).This will continue to be reviewed by a expected core burnup levels was restrictive change would p: ovide more member who has a current detailed provided in a December 28.1988 letter, conservative criticality determinations level of knowledge of plant operation.
This assessment shall also apply lo for new fuel storage than those currently Therefore, the Commission has any changes proposed in the reactor required by TS.
determined that these proposed core U-235 enrichment limit, up to and amendments pose no significant including 5.0 weight percent, and to Needfor the PmposedAmendments environmentalimpact.
proposed increases in the average level The proposed changes are needed to Agencies andPersons Consulted of irrediation of fuel discharged from the allow the licensee to support future 24 reactors UP to a batch average discharge month full power operating cycles.
None' burnup limit of so.000 MWD /MT.
Envimnmentalimpociof theProposed Finding of No Significant impact Need for Environmental Impact Amendments Based on the aforementioned Statement environmental assessment, the The Commission has completed its The Commission has found that the evaluation of the proposed revisions to Commission has determined that the proposed amendments will not have a proposed amendments constitute no the TS and the proposed increase in the additional significant environmental burnup limits for the fuel.The staff has significant effect on the quality of the Impact and as has. therefore.
concluded that such changes would not human environment.
For further details with respect to his determined not to prepare an adversely affect plant safety.%e action see:(1)The applications for environmentalimpact statement.
proposed changes have no significant license amendments dated March 15.
Environmental Assessraent adverse effects upon the probability of any analyzed accident.The increased 1988 and December 2.1988, and (2) the licensee's supplementalletters dated
/dentificotton of Proposed Amendments burnup may alter slightly the mix of June 3.1988 and January 13.1989.These Currently, the maximum permitted fission products that could be released documents'are available for public enrichment limit for (1) stored new and in the event of a senous accident but inspection at the Commission's Public spent fuel and (2) fuel in the reactor core such small changes would not Document Room. 2120 L Street NW.,
at Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 is 4.1 significantly affect the consequences of
. Washington, DC. and at the Calvert weight percent U-235. The licensee is in said serious accidents. In addition, no County Library. Prince Frederick, the process of shifting its core design to changes would result in the types or Maryland.
incorporate higher enrichment fuel amounts of any radiological effluents m -
,_7
i i
Federal Regist:r / Vol. 54. No.18 / Mondry.lanurry 30, 1989 / Nstices 4353 1
i that may be released offsite. Finally.
Agencies andPersons Consulted established by NWPA attd the Nuclear these changes would not contribute to any significant increase in individual or The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's Waste Policy Amendments Act of1987 request and did not consult with other (NWPAA). the NRC is required to cumulative ocenpational radiation agencies or persons.
review and comment upon DOE's SCP.
exposure.
and in accord with to CFR 60.16. " DOE Regarding the potentialnon.
Finding of No Significant Impact
- shall defer the sinking of such shafts radiologicalimpact of reactor operation Based upon the foregoing until such time as there has been an with higher enrichment fuel and environmental assessment, we conclude opportunity for Commission comments increased levels of irradiation, the that the proposed amendments will not thereon to have been solicited and i
proposed changes involve systems have a significant effect ori the quality considered by DOE." NRC anticipates j
located within the restricted area, as of the human environment.
completion of the review in a seven-defined in 10 CFR Part 20.They do not For further details with respect to this month timeframe, culminating in effect non-radiological plant effluents action, see (1) the application for license issuance to DOE of a Site 4
i and have no othernon rediological.
amendments dated june 9,1988, as Characterization Analysis (SCA) with anvironmentalimpact.
supplemented on October 25 and respect to the SCP. as well as such
'Ihe potential environmental impact November 17.1988 and (2) the licensee's additional comments as may be resulting from the transportation of letter of December 28.1988. which are warrated.
higher fuel enrichment and burnup available for public inspection at the Durin,y its review of the SCP. the NRC 1Ivels is dlocussed in the staff Commission's Public Document Room.
w.ll prov de an opportunity for the Stele l
tssessment entitled,"NRC Assessment 2120 L Street. NW., Washington, DC and
';f Nevada and for affected local of the Environmental Effects of at the Calvert County Library. Prince governments and Indian Tribes to Extended Fuel Enrichment and Frederick, Maryland.
Pmsent their views on the SCP and their Irradiation." which was published in the Dated at Rockville. Maryland. this 25th day suggestions with respect to comments l
Federal Register on August 11.1988 (53 g I * ""* 'I * ***'
thereon which may be made by the NRC. In addition. NRC ataff will be FR 30355)in connection with the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiselon.
made available to consult with the
. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Joseph D. Neighbors.
affected parties upon their written Unit 1. Environmental Assessment and A cting Director; Project Directorate I-L request pursuant to Subpart C of to CFR Finding of No Significant impact. As Division o/ Reactor Projects Ull. Office of Part 60 indicated therein the environmental NuclearReactorRegulation.
At the time ofissuance of the SCA e cost contribution of the transportation.
[FR Doc. s9-2077 Filed 1-27-89. 8A5 amj notice of availability of the SCA and a due to the increases in the fuel suam cops resse-m request for public comment will be enrichment up to 5% and irradiation published in the Federal Register.
limits up to 60.000 MWD /MT are either Copies of the SCA and of the comments nchanged or may,in fact, be reduced Receipt of U.S. Department of received will be made available at from those summarized in Table S-4 as Energy's Site Ctiaracterization Plan NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).These for Yucca Mountain, Nevada Sita located at 2120 L Street. NW Lower findings are applicable to these AoEucy:U.S. Nuclear Reg' latory Level. Washington. DC 20555 and local u
amendments for the Calvert Cliffs Commission.
Public Document Rooms (LPDRs).
Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos.1 and 2.
acy,0w: Notice of receipt of the I cated at th James R. Mnson ary. S ecW hhs Depenment.
I-Therefore, the Commission concludes Department of Energy's Site P
ry nd er w s ev a sg n rad ogi 1 o nor untain N v d te.
radiological environmental impact.
sumwany The Nuclear Regulatory Government Publications Department.
Alternatives to the Proposed Commission (NRC) has received for University of Nevada-Reno. Reno, Amendments review and comment the Department of Nevada 89557 I
Since the Commission concluded that Energy's (DOE) Site Characterization Copies of the SCP may be obtained effe ts at ou d r a m the a can se ae anent g
s e
nt, proposed changes, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts radioactive waste (HLW). Section 113(b) Office of Civilian Radioactive Weste need not be evaluated.
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982 Management. U.S. Department of (NWPA) requires that the SCP provide Energy RW-20.1000 Independence The principal ahernative would be to "a general plan for site characterization Avenue. SW., Washington. DC 20585 or diny the requested fuel enrichment and activities" to be conducted.The purpose Carl P. Gertz. Project Manager. Yucca burnup increases.This would not reduce of site characterizaton is to collect Mountain Project Office. U.S.
environmentalimpact of plant operation pertinent geological and other Department of Energy. Box 98518, Las and would result in reduced operational information necessary to evaluate Vegas. Nevada 89193-8518.
flexibility, whether the site is suitable for a NRC has made copies of the SCP Alternative Use ofResources permanent geologic repository and,if ava lab e ublic inspection in its found suitable, to provide DOE with PD an s.
This action does not involve the use of data adequate to pmpare and support a FoM FURTHER INFOMasATION CostfAcT:
any resources not previously considered license application seeking from the John J. Linehan. Director. Repository in the " Final Environmental Statement NRC authorization to construct such a Licensing and Quality Assurance Project
'.alated to the Operation of Calvert repository Directorate. Division of High Level
.liffs Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and As part of the pre-license application Waste Management. Office of Nuclear 2." dated April 1973, phase of the repository licensing process Material Safety and Safeguards. U.S.
\\
~ - - - - - - - - -
- -. - - - - - - -, _ ~ -. - - - - ~,
t ust A86 / Notices 30355 b
"*"' Applicalia En vironmentallmpocas of the Proposed proposed cetion. cny ahernatives with g,
g Action equal or greater environmental impacts l
need not be evaluated.
W8WCo ahtime.
The Commission has completed its Re8Poaderris: State orlocal evaluationof theproposed revisionsto The principal ahernative would be to pvernments: Non9eofit institutions.
the Technical Specihcations.The deny the requested staandment.This l
Uss Guidelineinstructions and proposed revisions would permit use of would not reduce environmental i
applications elicit relevant information fuel enriched with Uranium 235 in impacts of plant operationand would j
from non-proht organlastions and State-excess of 4 weight percent and up to 4.2 result in reduced operationalflexibility.
l cnd local arts agencies thet apply for weight percent and the license would Alternative theofResourcer funding under spectSc Challenge nr expect the fuel to be irradiated to levels This action does not involve the use of i
j program categories. This information is above 33 gigwatt days permetric ton 1
nicessary for the accurate, fair and (GWD/bfr) but notto exceed 60 GWD/
any resources not previously considered in the " Final Envimenectal Statement i
thoraugh consideration of competing MT.De safety considerations i
proposals in the peer review process, associated with reactor operation with related to the t peration o' the Shearon Harris Nu.!.ar Power Plant. Units 1 and l
EstimatedNbmberofRaspondents:
higher enrichment and extended Irradiation have been evaluated by the
- 2. dated October 1983.
i 150.
NRC staff.%e staff has concluded that Agencies andAmrons Consulted l
Average Bualen Hoursper Response _
such changes would not adversely affect an.
The NRC staff reviewed the ht=name's plant safety.%e proposed changes have Nath.entedBuruim12m0-no adverse effect on the probabihty of request and did not consult other l
Murrey R. Welsh.
any accident. The increased burnup rnay agencias or persona.
j Director. AdministrutiveSerrices DirirJon.
slightly change the mix of fission Finding of No Significant impact j
Nat/onalrah montforthe Ares products that might be released in the
[FR Doc. as-18137 Piled 8-to-se:8 45 am) event of a serious accident but such The Cournission hasdeterminednot small changes would not significantly io prepara an sonron==mtat impact affect the consequences of serious statement for the proposedlicanae.
sume casa tser.ew amendment.
accidents. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological Based upon the foregoing Nm MLAm.
effluents that may be released offsite.
enviremnantalma===== mar we CMSSON There is no significant incesse in the cormlmiad that the proposed action will allowable individualorcumulative not have a signiru:ana effect on the quality of the human eartroament.
N '"'* 8 M 803 occupational rediation ure.
Ngar topoten hr furMetaus we mopect to this Carolina Power & Ught Co., et l'nt, n nradiologicalimpacts of reactor action. see the applicationfor Shearon Hetria Nuclear Power Pla operation with higherenrichment and amendment dated February 1.and Unn h Environmental Assessment and extended irradiation. the proposed February 8.1988. and submittels May 26 Andngof NoSignincentimpact changes to the TS involve systems and November 2.1987, which are I cated within the restricted area, as available for public inspection at the The U.S. Nuclear Regulato defined in to CFR Part 20.%er do not Commission's Public Decament Room.
Commission (NRC or the Commission) is affect nonradiological plant effluents 1717 H Street NW Washington, DC and considering issuance of an amendment and have no other environmental at the Richard B. Harrison ubrary.1313 to Facility Operating Ucense No. NpF-impact.
New Bern Avenue. Raleigh. North 63 to the Carolina Power & Ught e environrnentalimpacts of Carolina 27610.
ampany (CPa!.or the licensee). for the transportation resulting from the use of Dated at Rockvilla. Maryland. this 3rd day Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant higher enrichment fuel and extended of August 19ss.
Unit 1. located in Wake and Chatham
- disc e attached
,,,", "nt nbe in For the Nuclear Regulatory Conuniulon.
Counties. North Carolina.
""I A' "****
Environmental Assessment Assessment of the Environmental Acting Dimcior.Pmiser Direciate #-2.
Effects of Transportation Resulting from Identification ofProposedAction Extended Fuel Enrichment and f
'h*l'[* #' @I De proposed amendment would Irradiation." dated July 7,1988. As indicated therein. the environruental NRC Assessment of the Enviremmental revise the provisions in the Technical cost contribution of the proposed Effects of Transportation Resulting From Specifications ('lli) relating to fuel increase in the fuel enrichment and Extended Fuel Enriaamat and enrichment.
"8" The posed action is in accordance r may in fact be reduced from those Introduedon with the$icensee's applicatione dated summarized in Table S-4 asset forth in February 1 and February 8.19es and 10 CFR 51.52(c).
Several Ucensees oflight water Previous subadttala dated May 28. and Therefore the Commission concludes reactors (LWRs) have submitted November 2.1987.
that there are no significant radiological Proposed license amendments to permit The Needfor the Proposed Action or nonradiological environmental use of enriched fuel in excess of four (4) impacts associated with the proposed weight-percent uranium.235 and to extend fuellerediation from the current The proposed changes are needed so amendment.
limit of 33 Gigawett Days / Metric Ton that the licensee can use higher Alternative to the Pmposed Action
,(GWD/h(T) up to ao GWD/h(T. It is enrichment fuel, and provides the flexibility of extending the fuel Since the Commission concluded that anticipated that. in time, almost all irradiation and pasudsting operation of there are no significant environmental licensees oflight water reactors will longer fuel cycles.
effects that would result from the request approval to adopt increases in
}
30356
' Fed:r:1 Register / Vol. 53. No.155 / Thursday. August 11, 1988 / Notic:s
)
Irradiation levels and fuel enrichment.
significantly affect the quality of the Survey of Tran7from Nuclear Power ortation of Radioactive Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.52 states.
human environment. Moreover, pursuant Materials to an
]
cmong other things, that the reactors to to CFR 51.31 the Commission Plants, dated December 1972; using fuel enrich;nent greater than 4 determined that an environmental (3) Envirosphere Company Report weight percent uIanicm.235 or where impact statement need not be prepared AIF/NE SP-032."The Environmental fuel irradiation excee,ls 33 GWD/MT.
for this action.
Consequences of Higher Fuel Burnup."
the licensee shall prov!<le a full The Staffis in the process of revising dated June 1985, prepared for National description and detailed analysis of the the regulations at to CFR 51.52 to reflect Environmental Studies Project (NESP) 1 l,
environmental effects to transportation the findings published in the above cited and the AtomicIndustrialForum.Inc a of fuel and wastes to and from the Federal Register Notice. In the interim, with the participation of the reactor, including values for the In connection with its review of Commission's staff; and environmentalimpact under normal proposed license amendments to permit (4) Sandia National Laboratories conditions of transport and for the use of fuel enriched with uranium 235 in (SNL) Draft Report NUREG/CR-2325.
i environmental risk from accidents in excess of 4 percent and up to 5 percent "The Transportation of Radiactive i
transport.The Statement shallindicate by weight and irradiated to levels above Material (RAM) To and From U.S.
that the values determined by the 33 GWD/MT and up to 80 GWD/MT, Nuclear Power Plants." dated December analysis represent the contribution of and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.52(b) the 1983.
such effects to the environmental costs staff proposes to accept the following All four studies present the results of oflicensing the reactor.
analysis of the environmental effects of evaluation of transportation impacts for With respect to the issue, the staff the transportatio of such fuel and waste postulated traffic models. The results i
published a Notice of Environmental until such time as the revision to the rule are presented for traffic density.
Assessment and Finding of No is issued.
radiological occupational risks.
Significant Impact for extended burnup radiologicalpublic risks of normal fuel use in Commercial LWRs in the EnvironmentalImpacts of transpodaHon, and risks of Federal Register (53 FR 8040), dated Transportation transportation accidents.The Pacific February 29.1988. In the above cited in evaluating the environmental Northwest Laboratories (PNL) report notice. the staff concluded that the impacts of the use of extended and the Envirosphere Company report environmental impacts summarized in irradiation of high enrichment, fuel, the present the environmentalimpacts for Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 for the burnup Commission has relied upon the fuel irradiation levels extending up to 80 level of 33 GWD/MT are conservative following four studies dealing with the GWD/MT and enrichments up to 5 and bound the corresponding impacts transportation impacts:
weight percent uranium-235.The PNL for burnup level up to 80 GWD/MT and (1) Pacific Northwest Laboratories' results appear to have been derived i
uranium.235 enrichments up to five report NUREG/CR-5009. " Assessment from the analysis presented in the NESP l
percent by weight.The staff also of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuelin report.
concluded that there are no significant Light Water Power Reactors." dated Table I summarizes the results of '
adverse radiological or non-radiological February 1988, prepared for the Nuclear traffic densities for transportation of i
impacts associated with the use of Regulatory Commission; fresh fuel, spent fuel, and other solid
)
extended fuel burnup and/or increased (2) Nuclear Regulatory Commission's waste by truck, rail and barge used in -
enrichment, and that this use will not report WASH-1238. " Environmental the four studies.'
TABLE l.-TRAFFIC DENSITIES SHIPMENTS PER REACTOR YEAR SNL8 Wg NUREG/CR-So09 (PNy NESP-o32 Transportston mode 33 GWD/
so GWD/
33 GWD/
00 GWD/
33 GWO/
33 GWD/MT MT MT MT MT MT TRUCK 112 s2 112 32 112 122 RAll 10 s
to 6
to 2.3 8ARGE 5
3 5
3 8 The report does not cleerty state the eseumptone regardmg fuel ennchment and irrecsetion towels However, emco Tehte S-4 bi to CFR 51.52 is bened on 33 GWD/MT. the staff hee soeumed that SNL anetygst must be bened on the eseumphone Contemed m 10 CFR 51.52. Table S-4.
The comparison of the results of traffic percent. The reduction in the shipments in number of shipments, there should be density analysis shows that there is a is due to the fact that there will be fewer. some reduction in the estimated number reasonable good correlation between outages for fuel reloads resulting in of persons exposed.There should also the total number of shipments shown in reduced fuel shipments to the reactor be no significant change in best SNL results and that shown in other and reduced spent fuel shipments from generated per irradiated fuel cask and reports for 33 GWD/hrr. Both the PNL the reactor. However, there will be an the weight restriction for transporting study and the NESP study show that increase in the shipment of low level vehicle.
there will be a reduction in the total solid wastes. Even when this increase in The discharged spent fuel at higher number of shipments (fresh fuel, spent low level waste shipment is included irradiation (60 GWD/MT) will have fuel, and low level wastes) when higher with the shipment of fresh fuel and
.nore long lived radionuclides per unit levels of irradiation (60 GWD/MT) are spent fuel, the total shipments for higher mass compared with the spent fuel, assumed. Such high irradiation levels irradiation (60 GWD/MT) are still irradiated at 30 GWD/MT, However, may require that fuel enrichment be somewhat reduced from those at 33 there is a smaller amount of annual increased up to a maximum of 5 weight GWD/MT. As a result of the reduction spent fuel discharged. Since each spent -
E i
Federal Register / Vel. 53, Ns.155 '/ Thursday, August 11.19es / Nstices 30357 i
fuel package will meet the surf:ce is the f:ct that slight increases in conservatively assume a 20% increase in 4
radiation level limits imposed by the cooling water activity could occur solid wasta at so GWD/MT irradiation.
- transportation regulations and there are through increased inventory and gap Table 11summarises the combined fewerpackages being shipped, there will i
be an overall reduction in the impacts of release fraction. Because this activity environmentalimpacts of normal would need to be removed to keep transportation of spent fuel, low level j
nonnal transportation of spent fuel at cooling water activity within licensed waste and new fuel activities at 33
)
higher irridiation levels. However, the technical specification limits, a small GWD/MT and so GWD/W as j
normal transportation impacts oflow increase in the quantity oflow level presented in NUREC/CR-5000 and level wastes willincreese with wastes le estimated to occur. Both NESP-032, increased irradiation level. This is due NUREG/CR-5009 and NESP-0032 TABLE ft.-NORMAL TRANSPORTATION RAoiOt.OGCAL EXPOSURE NISK PERSON REM / REA I
NUREG/CR-800s (PUG NESP-ost 33 [
to GWD/WT 88 MT to GWQ/WT Occupseenal l
General Putac 4.2 e il 4.2 3
3.25 23 1.2 2.o j
Total (Normai Transporteson Exposures) 7.4
$3 7.4 6.0 esonacent eersru enwonmenisi especia os transporieman or suas and westee to and srom nucseer resc, o no The above results show that there is equal to the ratio of irradiatforrlevels.
Irradiation (60 GWD/MT) would result
{
in fact an overall reduction in the The overall effect of the increasein in a 50 percent increase in radiological radiologicalimpacts of normal irradiation toen GWD/Wwould be to risks due to transportation of all kinds i
1 transportation (the calculated impacts increase the radiological risk of spent of radioactive waste (even though for are lower than the values reported in fuel transportation accidents by about low level waste the increase in expected Table S-4).
50%.
to be 20s orlese and for new fuel the Environmentalimpacts also result As atstad earlier, the amount oflow risk would decrease with tha from transportation accidents.The level waste is conservatively assumed assumption). SNL calculated risk of 1.8 extended irradiation of fuel will result in to increase by about 20s.when an increase in the actinide and fission irradiation levels are increased to 40 person-rem /reactoryearcould increase product inventory in the fuel. Since the GWD/E.No signincani changain to 2.7 person-rem /reactory' ear at 60 spent fuelin transported after an composition oflowlevel wastas la GWD/MT isradiationlevelWhen extended storage at the site {5 years),
expected.Therefore, the transportation accident risks at 33 GWD/MT(SNL only the long lived fission products and accident risks oflow level waste value) and e GWD/MT(Scaled SNL antinides would remain to contribute to shipment wouldiscremes by sosLThe valua} are added innansarlmpacts the risk. The PNI. analysis shows that trans onrisk associatad with new (PNL and NESp-032 value in Table II) the overall effect of a higherimrentory fuel e ipments wouhldecrease as theoveralf ediologicobrisks at bisher
~
of antinides and long lived. fission shipments decrossed due to setended I'
i' y 111**'hth'$h' products would be to increase the bumup.
g projected dosein the event of an Altheagh Table S-4 Indicatee that the This is shown on Tabje 111.
accident hwolvingspent fuel by a factor radiologicalrisit of accidents fe small The analyses presentedin NESP-432 of about 2.7. when irradiation te and not cepable of quantiWeetten, the show that the radiological lacreased from 33 GWD/Mr to 60
. radiotogicelrisksof transportaffen, environmentalimpacts of transpo-tstion -
GWD/MT. However, because the er,cidents were calculated in NUREG/
da* are smatist31GWD/MT and increased irrastiation will CR-2325.Far the 1985transportanon remais,omd at en GWD/MT.The correspondingly decrease the amountof model, the SNL calculated radiological NESP-032 fmding is consistent witit the spent feet discharged, the.
risk of 1.8 person-semheector yea r. The finding in WASH-12 Rand the results probabiltty of a o...ymiation accident staff has conservativety assumed frost summarizedin Tables-4 of to CFR wff! be reduced byan amount roughly thePNL anelysee that the frigher 51.52.
TABLE ilic-TRANSPORTATION RADIOLOWCat EXPOSURE Rrsx PERSON REM / REACTOR YEAA.
NUREG/CR-500e(pHLP NE5No32 33 GWD/ ~
00 OwD/
se GWD/
a0 5 MT MT M1 MT Normat Transporteson E- -
D 5.5 7.s sD r
[
Accident Esposures (from SNtJ.
ts U
M 2.7 h2.
L1 7.7 4
6 eer-
30358 Fedical Regist:r / Vol. 53. No.155 / Thursdry. August 11, 1988 / Noticss The n n.radisligicalimpacts of Table S-4.10 CFR part 51. The values the potential for allowin transportation accidents are presented set forth in this detailed analysis releases of noble gases.g unmonitored In addition, the in Table S-4 as follows:
represent the contribution of the proposed amendment would (1) revise (a)1 fatality in 100 reactor years.
environmental effects of transportation the associated Action Statement sl in of fuel enriched with uranium 235 above Table 3.3.7.5-1 for the SGTS Radiation (b)1 non fatalinjury in to reactor 4 weight percent and up to 5 weight Monitors and Containment High Range Y8-percent, and irradiated to levels above Radiation Monitor to extend the time (c) $475 property damage per reactor 33 GWD/MT and up to 60 GWD/hfr to period before the licensees are required year.
the environmental costs of operating the to submit a Special Report to the As seen in Table 1. the overall reactors. As shown above, the Commission (pursuant to 6.9.2 of the shipments of fresh fuel, spent fuel, and environmental cost contributions of the TSs) as recommended by NRC Generic low level waste are slightly reduced.
stated increases in fuel enrichment and Letter 83-36: and (2) make appropriate Therefore the likelihood of an accident irradiation limits are either unchanged changes in the TS Bases for Accident would decrease with the decreased or may in fact be reduced from those Monitoring lastrumentation as a result number of shipments, while the non, sum:narized in Table S-4 asset out in -
of the changes.Therefore the proposed radiological consequences of 10 CFR 51.52(c).
changes do not increase the probability transportation accidents would remain Dated:J dy 7.19e8.
or consequences of any accidents, no unchanged
- changes are being made in the types of
[FR Doc. 81-18175 Filed 6-10-88: 8:45 am) any effluents that may be released in summary. the environmental 88mc Coot 7888**t-88 impacts of extended irradiation up to 60 offsite and thereis no significant CWD/MT and increased enrichment up increase in the allowable individua! or ut ti ' #""p l radisti to 5 weight percent are bounded by the
[ Docket No.50-3411 o
Amr impacts reproted in Table S.-4 of to CFR part 51. Table IV shows the summary of Detroit Edison Co, Wolverine Power conciudes that this proposed action the comparison ofimpacts. Table IV Supply Cooperative,Inc.t would result in no significant also supports the staffs conclusions Environmental Assessment and raMogM Mad anM eb concerning transportation impacts in the Finding of No Significant impact the reduction of the radiologica Federal Register Notice 53 FR 6040.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
gard to potential Commission (the Commission)is nonradiological impacts. the proposed TAsLE IV.-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF considering issuance of an amendment changes to the TSs involve systems TRANSPORTATION lMPACTs to Facility Operating 1.icense No. NpF-located within the restricted area as 43, issued to the Detroit Edison defined in to CFR Part 20.They do not Company (DECO) and the Wolverine affect nonradiological plant effluents power Supply Cooperative. Incorporated and have no other environmental 7
ena up to s -
perceu (the licensees)for the operation of impact.newfore the Commission Fermi.2 located in Monroe County, concludes 'nat there are no significant i
nonradiological environmental impacts Yruck Lees then 1 No increcee.
Environmental Assessment associated with the proposed per any.
amendment.
Red Lees then 3 No incrum.
Identification ofPmposedAction The Notice of Consideration of -
he Proposed amendment would lesuance of Amendment and PN' revise provisions in the Fermi.2 Opportunity for Hearing in connection Technical Specifications (TSs) relating with this action was published in the Reh-Pwoon REM po'
- 5"'
to the Standby Gas Treatment System Federal Register on March 10.1988 (53 "T"e*'e,e,a (SCTS) Radiation Monitors and the FR 7819). No request for hearing or n
tien.
Containment High Range Radiation petition for leave to intervene was filed Acceenu.
ia 2.7
- Monttor, following this notice.
- ^
- TheNeedforthe PmposedAction Alternatives to the PmposedAction The' proposed changes to the TSs are Because the Commission has
. Non-Radiological 1 Fatahtyr100 No incrases.
""e"'
required in order to remove the potential concluded that there is no significant i dew for an unmonitored release for fission environmentalimpact associated with No incruu.
inwryrto products from the plant and to revise the proposed amendment, any Reactor Action Statement 81 to make it altemative would have either no or consistent with NRC Generic letter 63-greater environmentalimpact.The 8d CP*ty No incruee.
3g, principal allemative would b4 to deny
- Reacto, the requested amendrnent.This may veer.
Envimnmentalimpacts of the Pmposed increase the environmentr+1 impacts Action attributed to the facility due to allowing The Commission has completedits the potential for unmonitored releases The above evaluation sets forth the evaluation of the proposed revision to from the facility, changes resulting from increased the TSa.The proposed revision would Alternative Use o/ Resources enrichment (up to 5 weight percenti and require a minimum of two channels.
This action involves no use of-extended irradiation-(up to so GWD/
instead of one, of the SGTSRadiation MT). In the environmentalimpacts of Monitors to.be. operable toensure that resources not previously considered.in 4 transportation of fuel and wastes to and appropriate compensatory actions are connection with the Final from the light water ractors set forth in taken to preclude conditions which have Environmental Statement Related to
1 6040 Federal Regi:ter / Vol. 53. No. 39 / Manday, Februtry 29, 1988 / Nstices j
Assistant Attorney General. Land and Management. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory in to CFR 80.113.To conform with the Natural Resources Division. Department Commission. Mall Stop IWFN 4-H-3.
applicable environmental standards as 3
{
of justice. Washington. DC 20530, and Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) expected to be set forth by the
. should refer to UnitedStates v. B & R 492-3455.
Environmental Protection Agency in 40
)
Insulation.Inc ondFMCCorporot/on.
Pon Pusmean wronesATION CONTACT:
CFR Part 191 and implemented in to D.J. Ref. 90-6-2-1-1113.
John Trapp. Technical Review Branch.
CFR 80.112, consideration must be given The proposed consent decree may be Division of High-level Waste to both " anticipated" and l
examined at the office of thaunited Management. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
" unanticipated" processes and events.
States Attorney. District of Kansas 412 Commission. Washington. DC 20555, including potential human intrusion to j
Federal Building. 812 North Seventh Mail Stop IWFN 4-H-3. Telephone (301) assure that the likelihood of exceeding Street. Kansas City. Kansas 66601, and 492-0509 the EPA environmental standards under 3
at the Region VIIoffice of the suppt.sessNTAny wronesAvioN:The
, these circumstances is low. in arriving EnvironmentalProtection Agency.
Office of Regional Counsel. Attention:
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub.
at a determination of reasonable Becky ingrum Dolph.726 Minnesota 1 97-425) and the Commission assurance that overall performance Avenue. Kansas City Kansas 86101. A regulation to CFR Part 80 provide for objectives can be met. additional l
copy of the proposedconsent decree interactions between the Department of regulatory requirements may be found to may also be examined at the Energy (DOE)and NRC prior to be necessary as they relate to Environmental Enforcement Section, submittal of a license application for a unanticipated processes and events.
Land and Natural Resources Division.
geologic repository. These interactions in this GTP, the staff provides a basis serve toinform DOE about the for categorizing natural processes and Department of Justice. Room 1521. Ninth information that the NRC staff considers events that could occur in the post-Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC20530. A copy of the to be necessary in such a license closure periodinto anticipated proposed consent decree may be application.
processes and events and unanticipated obtamed in person or by mail from the An important mechanism for processes and events. In addition, the Environmental Enforcement Section.
providing guidance to the DOE is the staf!provides its view on how human NRC comments on DOE's Site processes and events and repository.
Land and Natural Resources Divis.lon.
Department of Justice.
Characterization Plan. as required by induced modifications should be the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Under to includedin the evaluation.
Rose 1.MarauHa.
CFR Part 60, this takes the form of a Site The staffis interested in receiving Acting Assistant Attorney Generottondond Characterization Analysis (SCA).Other comments on the utility and practicality Naturo/ Resources Division. U.S. Department of/ustice.10th andPennsylvanio Avenue means of providing guidance to of the categorization procedures and
- ~ Washinston.DC2053a supplement the SCA are staff technical potentialimpacts this draft position would have on the desisn and analysis
[FR Doc. 884223 Filed 2-26-48: 8:45 am) positions on both generic and site.
specific issues. Generic Technical required for a high-level waste geologic
'"2"*******"
Positions (C'IT) establish the staffa repository.
position on broad technicalissues that Dated at Rockville. Maryland this 22nd day li are APP cable to any site: Technical of February.1988.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Positions establish the staff's position on For the Nuctur Regulatory Comminion.
a site-specific technicalissue. A number Ronald L BaBand.
Avaltabinty of Draft Generic Technical of technical positions will be developed Chief. Technico1 Aavlew aionch. Division of Position on " Guidance for by the staff on both generic and site-NishhelWesteMesqsement.Ogiorof Determination of Anticipated specific issues.This announcement Nuclear Materia / Sofety and Sefaguards.
Processes and Events and.
notices availability and solicits
[FR Doc. as-4230 Filed 2-a6 48; a:45 am]
Unanticipated Processes and Eventa*'
comments on the " Draft Generic
,m,,,,,, ma Technical Position on Guidance for Aaseecv: Nuclear Regulatory Determination of Anticipated Processes Commission.
and Events and Unanticipated Processes Extended Burnup FuelUsein AcTloN: Notice of availability.
and Events."
CommercialLWRst Environmental The purpose of this GTPis to provide Assessment and Finding of No sunsasany:The Nuclear Regulatory guidance concerning the methodologies Significantimpact Commission (NRC)is announcing the the NRC staff proposes to utilize in availability of the " Draft Generic evaluating processes and events which The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Technical Position on Guidance for could occur after closure of a higMevel Commission is considering whether or Determination of Anticipated Pro"'
radioactive waste repository so that, not a generic environmentalimpact and Events and Unanticipated Processes after significant processes and events statement (CEIS) is necessary in regard and Events."
have been determined, they can be to the anticipated widespread use of cats:The comment period expires April categorized into anticipated processes extended burnup fuel 8 in commercial 29.1988.
and events and unanticipated processe, light water power reactors (LWRs).,
acosasses: Send comments to Ronald and events.The significance of L Ballard. Chief. Technical Review differentiating between anticipated iThe i.csih d or meet enerer seaweisd. or Branch. Division of High-Level Waste processes and events and unanticipated
-turnup W twiin a meer w --d in inn d Management. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory processes and events relates to the post. @ p ' g g $ %'d/E "$"* M b Commission. Mall Stop 1WFN 4-H-3 closure performance requirements situ. Typiceur, reet tes been removed from Washington.DC 20555. Copies of this imponed by the regulations. In ructors afier tr, a ye ers with bane, Imk etas document may be obtained free of particular, for those processes and cwdinsiusorb.ities ierve csereend3 c.dl
' charge upon written request to Cathy events categorized as " anticipated." the
$ $ bane ~u'En for Jensen. Technical Review Branch.
engineered barrier system must meet the the pwpo.e g tha
- so betaluietw kn Division of High-Level Waste numerical design requirements set forth c===4
Fed:ral Registir / Vol. 53. No. 39 / Monday. Februtry 29, 1988 / Noticts-6041 Environmental Aaeossame t Environmental Consequences of Higher population would actually be reduced
/dentification ofpmposedAction Fuel Bum up." (AIF/NESp-032), the because at higher burnups, outages for NRC staff concludes that the No specific licensing action is being fuel changes will be less frequent. and entified regarding use of extended environmental impacts summarized in urnup uelinLWRs;however,there Table S-3 of to CFR 51.51 and inTable fuel shipments to and from the reactor ve been various requests for the use S-4 of to CFR 51.52 for a burnup level of sites would be reduced, thus reducing cf extended burnup fuel that have been 33 Gwd/MtU are conservative and exposure. Although the inventory of bound the corresponding im long-lived radionuclides in the spent fuel burnup levels up to 60 Gwdhcts for will increase, the amount of spent fuel treated by the Commission on a case-tU and hg i[ red yEe*nvir uranium-removed from reactors each year will nental 5 enrichments up to 5 percent ssessment (EA)is the wides read by weight.
decrease. In summary, for all aspects considered, except those involving low-icensing for use of extended umup Extensive studies of extended bumup level wastes, the radiological impacts nuclear fuelin commercial LWRs.
fuels have been conducted under the were either unchanged or reduced when-direction of the U.S. Department of
' changing from normal to extended The Needforthe Af4sedAction Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power burnup fuel.The low level wastes There has been anincreasing number Research Institute (EPRI) with the include various solids collected from the cf applications from licensees in the participation of the fuel vendors spent fuel storage pool circulating water nuclear industry for license amendments nationwide and with the cooperation of and reactor cooling water. There would permitting incremental increases in the several nuclear reactor utilities (see pgs. be an increase in the radioactivity of the burnup of fuel.The usage has been 1-7 to 1-10 of above mentioned solids collected from the reactor cooling cautious at first, but if the fuel continues NUREG/CR-5000).These studies have water as a result ofincreased. fission to perform satisfactorily and if the shown that there is no loss in fuel product inventory and gap-release current economic parameters remain integrity for md me tiumups fraction.The greater activity resulting constant. the use of extended bumup reaching 80 Gwd/MtU fuel is expected to continue. Within the leveltested) as long as(ths maximumfrom the increases in fission product powerlevels inventory and gap release fraction. as next 10 to 12 years most licensees will (rate of heat generation) and operating much as a factor of two, would need to probably plan for bumups of 45 Gwd/
temperatures for the fuel rods remain be removed from the reactor cooling MtU or more, with refueling cycles of 1.5 n rmal. Activityinventory mayincrease water to meet the technical to two years instead of the current one for long-lived radionuclides of concern; spr.ifications. Overall, there would be year cycle.In view of this trend it is however forshort lived fission less than a 20 percent increase in the prudent and timely to evaluate the products, the inventories will essentially radioactivity of the low-level waste.
snvironmental significance of the remain the same. Of the longer lived Accidents that involve the damage or potential widespread use of extended II881on Products of concern. only cesium-melting of the fuelin the reactor core burnup fuel and to determine whether a 134, cesium 137, and strontium-90 and spent fuel handling accidents were detailed environmentalimpact increase significantly with extended also reviewed. it should be noted that itstement (EIS)is warranted.The bumup (by factors of 2.5.1.9, and 1.8.
since the fuel rod integrity has been anvironmental evaluation will also and respectively). The neutron emission shown to be unaffected by the extended.
i consider the impact on Tables S-3 and rate from transuranic isotopes will burnups considered. the probability of S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52.
Increase with extended burnup by a an accident will not be affected. For respectively, to determine their factor of 5.8. At current powerlevels, the accidents in which the core remains applicability for extended bumup fuel.
fractions of volatile fission products intact the release would involve only released into the gap between the fuel volatile fission products, and no Env/mnmentoHmpacts of the Pmposed and the fuel cladding may increase by a increase in impacts will occur since the Action factor of two but win remain below radionuclides contributing most to the in evdniing the environmental NRC accident analysis assumptions for dose are short lived and thus do not impacts of the use of extended burnup noble gases and lodines.
increase with bumup. For larger (severe) fuel, the Commission relied upon the During the study, all aspects of the accidents,i.e., those in which an results of a study conducted for it by fuel-cycle were considered; from mining, appreciable amount or all of the fuel has Pacific Northwest laboratories (PNL).
milling, conversion, enrichment and melted and fission products and The results of the study have been fabrication through normal reactor aerosols have been released from the documented in detailin the report operation, transportation, containment system into the biosphere.
'a titl d " Assessment of the Use of decommissioning, waste disposal and only a few fission products and the n
e.
Extended Burntp Fuels in 1.ight Weter reprocessing. Ifleakage of radionuclides actinides will increase in inventory with power Reactors."(NUREG/CR-5009 from a fuel element occurs during extended burnup. The fission products PNIA25a).The overall findings of this Operation. the radioactivity is expected would increase by no more than a factor study are that no significant adverse to be removed by the plant cooling-of two, and the actinides by no more effects will be generated by increasing water cleanup system. No change in the than a factor of six (of those the present batch-everage burnup level licensed technical specifications contributing to the dose). However.
cf 33 Gwd/MtU to 50 Gwd/MtU or Pertaining to allowed cooling-water since these actinides have very small above as long as the maximum rod activity concentrations would be release fractions and biotransfer factors.
average burnup level of any fuel rod is necessary.Thus, with extended burnup, the risks associated with the actinides no greater than to Gwd/MtU.
little or no increase in the release of would be insignificant compared to Furthermore. based on the above study radionuclides to the environment is those associated with fissionproducts and the report entitled "The expected during normal operation. Other such as cesium 137 and strontium-90.
' parts of the fuel cycle would also not be Therefore. the overall accident risk is adversely affected by changing to an increased by only a factor of two when.
N7thenYc.
Ep t m extended burnup fuel utilization plan.
changing from 33 Gwd/MtU to 80 Gwd/
eu o
se bom so cwdmu e,, besas con wer.A The impacts on workers and the general MtU.
~
m m_._,,
n m
3 r,
6042 Federal Register / Vcl. 53. Ms. 39 / Mandly. Fabruary 29. 1988 / Neticts For the fuel-handling accident.' only shows that these accidents contribute radiation dose to the public or the noble gases and lodines escaping the much less than 1 percent to the overall occupational workers during normal damaged cladding are of significance in transportation risk.nerefore, a 50 operations:in fact, as the study the essessment of dose impacts to the percent increase in such a small indicated, these doses would actually be i
Population. For a peak rod of an contribution will have a negligible effect reduced. While there is an increase in extended burnup fuel design at a burnup on overall risk. On balance. the doses resulting from some postulated level of 80 Gwd/MtU. the release approximatley 45 percent reduction in accidents, these accidents are extremely fractions increase by factors of three to nonnal transportation impacts, due to low probability events and contribute four for these reilonuclides; however, the need for fewer fuel shipments, far little to overall risk. Furthermore, though they remain below those assumed in outweighs the less than one percent there is an inc ease,it is generally Regulatory Guide 't.25. " Assumptions increase inimpacts associated with below what has been assumed in Used for Evaluatir g the potential transportation accidents. (e.g Assume evaluating power plant safety.In RadiologicalConsoquences 6f a Fuel the normal transportation impact is X summary, the increased accident doses Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and the transportation accident impact do not significaatly affect the risk of any and Storage Facility for Boiling and is 0.01 X. Then for extended bumup, the dominant accident scenario and the Pressurized Water Reactors." with the transportation accident impact would be effect on the overall risk is insignificant.
J exception of iodine-131. Note that there increased to 0.015 X while the normal is not expected to be anyincreasein transportation impact would be reduced AhernoWe to WposedAcuan
<i fuel clad perforations.Because the de 155 X giving i. total impact of 0.565 X:
The Commission has concluded that calculated iodine-131 gap-release a s'gnificant not reduction in overall there is no significant increase in the fraction is 20 percent greater than the tratst*.. bon impact.)
environmentalimpact associated with Regulatory Guide 1.25 assumed value of Tne t.se of extended burnup fuel the proposed action.The principal 0.10. the calculated thyroid doses would reduce fuel requirements per unit alternative would be to retain a batch-resulting from a fuel-handling accident of electricity. This translates directly average bumup level of 33 Gwd/MtU with extended burnup fuel could be 20 into reduced requirements for the and deny licensee requests to extend the percent higher than estimated using the various materials and operations linked allowed burnup to higher levels. Such guide. To put this into perspective. It to fuel production (uranium mining, action would not reduce environmental should be noted that Section 15.7.4.
milling, conversion, separation and fuel impacts and, as indicated above could Revision 1. " Radiological Consequences fabrication).The result of these reduced resultinincreased overall of Fuel Handling Accidents." of the production requirements willbe a environmental impact. in addition, it NRC's Standard Review Plan indicates significant reduction in cost, as well as a would deny to thelicensees and the that the acceptable dose to an individual reduction in environmental impacts from public the cost benefits resulting from "should be well within the to CFR Part fuel cycle operations required to support the use of extended burnup fuel.
100 exposure guidelines of 25 rem." Itis one year of reactor operation.
Agencies andPersons Consuhed indicated that "well within means 25 Although the discha fuelat percent or less than the to CFR Part too extended burnup is s ' tly thermally The NRC staff was assisted by Pacific exposure guideline values." Therefore.
hotter. has increased neutron emission.
Northwest Laboratories in developing.
the 20 percent possible increase in and has more long-lived nuclides per the information needed to perform the environmental risk of a fuel handling unit mass compared to fuel that has not environmental assessment. Staff of the accident is insignificant in view of the undergone extended burnup, the volume - Department of Energy (DOE) and the staff's conservative interpretation of the of fuel discharged per unit time will be National Environmental Studies Project 1
dose guidelines.
. reduced.Thus, although the waste of the Atomic Industrial Forum were Spent fuel transportation accidents contains a greater actinide and long.
also consulted with regard to results of were also reviewed. Activit inventory lived fission-product activity, there will applicable experimental and analytical may increase by an overallfactor of beJess 6 fit.These.oppgsing studies.The NRC staff did not consult
)
about three for long-lived radionuclides characteristics of the waste have an with any other agencies or persons.
of concern (assuming a 5 year cooling effect on all the back-end stages of the Mnding ofNo Significantimpoet period) when changing to extended fuel cycle (at reactor storage, burnup fuel.This increase would be transportation, and repository storage).
The NRC staff has reviewed the offset by a decrease in the number of The net result of these changes would be anticipated widespread use of extended shipments, so that the overall change an increase in transportation shielding burnup fuel in commercial LWRs. Based related to spent fuel transportation requirements, a reduction in the number upon the foregoing environmental
{
accidents would be a 80 percent of fuel shipments, smaller repository assessment tne staff concluded that j
increase in risk by changing to eo Gwd/. waste packages or increased spacing in there are no significant adverse j
MtU burnup. However, the contribution the underground repository, and a radiological or non-radiological impacts of the spent fuel transportation reduction in future at-reactor storage associated with the use of extended accidents to overall transportation risk requirements.
burnup fuel and that this use will not is very small.The draft environmental As indicated previously, no significant significantly affect the quality of the assessment on "The Transportation of adverse effects were uncovered in the human environment.Therefore.
Radioactive Material (RAM) to and from study. On balance, provided that pursuant to to CFR 51J1. the U.S. Nuclear Power Plants"(NUREG/
applicable technical specifications and Commission has determined that an CR-2325 prepared by Sandia National engineering and shielding requirements environmentalimpact statement need Laboratories for the NRC in December are adhered to, the study indicated that not be prepared for this action.
199) summarizes the normal there should be no net increase in the Copies of NUREG/CR-5000 and transportation and transportation environmental risk when changing from NUREG/CR-2325 may be purchased accident risks. For spent fuel 33 to 55 Gwd/MtU batch. average through the U.S. Government Printing r
transportation during sample years 1965 burnup level. Likewise there is no Office by calling (202) 252000 or by l
'and 1990, the Summary (Table S-2) increase in the individual and collective writing to the Superintendent of i
1 l
t Federal Resist:r / Vol. S3. No. 39 / hionday. February 29. 1988 / N:ticIs 6043 Documents. U.S. Government Printing
{-
Office. P.O. Box 37082. Washington. DC as far in advance as practicable so that OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND appropriate arrangements can be made.
TECHNOLOGY POLICY '
i 2E3-7082. Copies may also be j
purchased from the NationalTechnical During the initial portion of the Information Service. U.S. Department of meeting the Subcommittee, along with White House Science CouncM (WHSC)
)
{
""Qd Road any ofits consultants who may be '
present. may exchange preliminary The White House Science Council, the
$r et r.
c n id r og i e a n e of the se i the b
umen oom, of an 1717 H Street. NW. Washington. DC.
meeting.
Technology Policy (OSTP), will meet on Regulatory Guide 1.25 and Section The Subcommittee w,ll then hear March to and 11.1988 in Room 5104.
i 15.7.4 of the NRC's Standard Revieiv presentations by and hold discussions j
Plan are svallable forinspection or with representatives of the NRC Staff.
- New Executive Office Building.
Washington. DC.no meeting will begin copying for a feein the NRC Public its consultants, and other interested at 8:00 p.m. on March to, recess and Document Room.1717 H Street. NW.
Persons agarding this review, reconvene at 8:00 a.m. on March 11.
Washington DC. Copies of the Further information regarding topics 1988. Following la the proposed agenda j
Regulatory Guide may be purchased by to be discue' sed, whether the meeting for the meeting:
calling (202) 275-2080 or by writing to has been cancelled or rescheduled. the the Superintendent of Documents. U.S.
Chairman's ruling on requests for the I1I Briefing of the council, by the Covemment Printing Office. P.O. Box opportunity to present oral statements Assistant Directors of OSTP on the 1
37082. Washington. DC 20013-7082.
and the time allotted therefor can be cumnt acHviHu of OSW.
Copies of AIF/NESP-032 may be obtained by a prepaid telephone call to (2) Briefing of the Council by OSTP j
purchased from the USCEA.
the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr.
personnel and personnel of other 1
Publications Office. 7101 Wisconsin
}
Ave Bethesda. MD 20814, telephone Elpidio Igne (telephone 202/634-1414) agencies on proposed, ongoing, and number (301) 854-0280.
between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Persons completed panel studies. -
planning to attend this meeting are Dated at Betheads. Maryland this 23rd day urged to contact the above named (3) Discussion of composition of af February 1988.
Individual one or two days before the panels to conduct studies.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiselon.
scheduled meeting to be advised of any The March to session and a portion of
}
Eric S.Beckjord, changes in schedule. etc.. which may.
the March 11 session will be closed to l
Director. Office ofNuclear Regulatory have occurred the public:
R'8"CA-q IFR Doc. 86-4229 Filed 2-26-68: 8.45 am)
Dated: February 24.1988.
De briefing on some of the current i
amo caos rma Morton W.IJberkin' activities of OS'IP necessarily will involve discussion of material thet is j
Assistant Executive Dinctorfor Project formally classified in the interest of Advisory Committee on Reactor as.42s2 Filed 2-26-as: 8:45 am)
I 8'
e ns.
I e o tr e r po of
"
- I suo coes teams ts, Ung the briefing on panel studies. As we!!. a The ACRS Subcommittee on Metal
, portion of both of these briefings will I
Components will hold a meeting on (Docket No.30-13435, ASLN No. 88-856-require discussion ofinternal personnel March 15.1988. EPRI NDE Center.1300 01-8C) procedures of the Executive Office of i
Harris Blvd., Charlotte. NC.
the President and information which, if
}
public attendance. g will be open to Atomic Safety and Licenaang Board prematurely disclosed. would He entire meetin Panet Hearing;Finlay Testing significantly frustrate the The agenda for subject meeting shall Laboratories,Inc.
implementation of decisions made i
be as follows:
requiring agency action. Thue prtions of the meeting will be closed to the T' esday, March 23, Ja98-d30 a.m. until public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (1).
v A
tretive judges: Robert M.
the conclus/an of business Laao. Chairman, Glenn O. Bright Richard F.
(2). and (9)(B).
1 The Subcommittee will review the Cole.
A portion of the discussion of panel I
status of the NDE of cast stainless steel piping and other topics related to Order (Postponing Hearing) c mpwWMnecesshale h disclosure ofinformation of a personal i
Subcommittee activities.
Please toke notice that the evidentiary nature the disclosure of which would i
Oral statements may be presented by hearing in this proceeding. scheduled to constitute a clearly unwarvanted members of the public with the commence on March 9,1988,is invasion of personal privacy.
t concurrence of the Subcommittee postponed until further notice.
Accordingly, this portion of the meeting j
Chairman: written statements will be cceepted and made available to the Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. this 22nd will also be closed to the public.
Committee. Recordings will be permitted day of February tosa, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8).
it is so orderd Beca'se of the security in the New tr nac[p is fagkept.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Executive Office Building. persons u
tir h
cnd questions may be asked only by Robert M. lase.
m et sho d act rb a i
con ul n s.
t.Pe ns string Chairman. AdrninistrativeJudge.
Diering, at (202) 456 7740, prior to 3:00 1
io make oral elatements should notify
[nt Doc.84 428 Eled 2-26-es; 8.45 am]
p.m. on March 9,1988. Mrs. Diering is the ACRS staff member identified below e m ocootree. m,
also available to provide specific 1
i J
1 r-m.
? Eserpts frhan Febriirf iTl1997 Rongh Draft Enknmihtal Repos:UcensiRenisielnegTCainrt Ciljfsy!
E 2.agNacieerfoweeflant provided for NRCstaff, format and content rlevieRonlyi g af j i
Issue: Impingement of fish and shellfish for plants with once-through and cooling pond 2
heat dissipation systems 3
4 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 5
2.1 Proposed Action a
6 2.1.3 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 7
CCNPP is equipped with a once-through heat dissipation system. This circulating water system removes 8
heat energy rejected from the plant cycle in the condensers and transfers this energy to the Chesapeake 1
9 Bay via the heated effluent. As described in FES Section III.D.1, the principal components of the 10 circulating water system are the curtain wall, intake structure, circulating water pumps, condensers, and 11 discharge conduits.
1 l
12 The intake, use, and discharge of water associated with once-through cceiing systems are regulated by 13 the Clean Water Act through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge 14 permit process (33 USC 1342 Section 404). The NPDES permit specifies the discharge standards and 15 monitoring requirements that the facility must achieve at the point of discharge or outfall to protect water 16 quality. Also associated with the NPDES process are Clean Water Act Section 316(a) and (b) 17 determinations that consider the effects on aquatic biota.
I8 State-established thermal effluent limitations in the NPDES permit may be modified under Section 19 316(a) to a less stringent level ifit can be shown that the less stringent level (i.e., higher temperatures) is 20 sufficient to " ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish.
21 fish, and wildlife." The FES stated that the temperature of CCNPP cooling water discharged to the Bay 22 would be 10* F higher than the intake water temperature. CCNPP now operates at a 12 F delta between 23 intake and discharge temperatures.1 In accordance with the CCNPP operating licenses and state 24 discharge permit, BGE performed a 316(a) study for CCNPP (ANSP 1981). In issuing the CCNPP 1982
- 3 discharge permit, the State authorized an increased temperature delta of 12* F, acknowledging the results I in 1977 and 1979, NRC authorized temporary increases to 12* F (Table 2.1-1, items 3 and 4). In 1982, as part of j
an industry-wide change, NRC dropped the limit.
4/8/97 1
G Excerptii frisi Yebifusi[17Q991 R6sWDyafttsirbuihiat Rejisrt ?LicsiskseiistStagECahiriCiWi)
,, ; f jNucten/ PowerPlan/piovMed for NRCstaff formailand content review irmlyd jh, id 1
of the 316(a) study but concluding that a variance was unnecessary because the CCNPP discharge met 2
water quality standards.
3 Section 316(b) requires that "the location, design, construction,and capacity of cooling water intake 4
structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." BGE 5
submitted studies conducted to assess the CCNPP cooling water system's entrainment and impingement 6
impacts on the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of CCNPP in accordance with COMAR 7
08.05.0413C(2)(b).2 The 1982 NPDES discharge permit (Appendix B) is evidence of an approved 8
316(b) demonstration. Included in this permit was the Maryland Department of Natural Resources 9
conclusion that CCNPP was found not to affect spawning or nursery areas of consequence. Subsequent 10 studies and modeling conducted by the Maryland Power Plant Research Program also concluded that 11 entrainment losses have not resulted in depletion oflocal populations of fish and shellfish (MDNR 12 1988). Although BGE completed studies of environmental impacts of the CCNPP cooling water intake 13 structure in 1981, BGE has continued to perform impingement studies in accordance with BGE 14 environmental policy and submits annual reports to the State. The fact that the current discharge permit 15 does not require additional studies is evidence of continued State approval.
16 1
17 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 18 AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 4
t
\\
19 4.1 Proposed Action l
1 20 4.1.3 IMPINGEMENT 21 NRC 22
. If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the 23 applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinations.. or equivalent State 24 permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess j
25 the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from.. impingement..."
26 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) 2 1982 NPDES discharge permit issued pursuant to the 1974 edition of COMAR. Copies of the COMAR Section eited in the text are included in Appendix B.
4/8/97 2
QEs N, srblifro%Februstj}7;I991RougirDraftFAhronakitalReport;DcenseRenese/Stige[Ca
~ Y. lfNcleayonverPlant providEd tofNRC shtt16rmat and ebatent rekikw saly;p',,
" jdj 1
... The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few 2
plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems..." 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, 3
Table B-1, Issue 26
)
4 NRC made impact on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement a Category 2 issue j
5 because it could not assign a single significance level to the issue; impingement impacts are small at i
6 many plants but might be moderate or large at a few plants. Information needed to be ascertained 7
includes (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or cooling pond) and (2) current Clean Water 8
Act 316(b) determination or equivalent State documentation.
9 As indicated in Section 2.1.3, CCNPP has a once-through heat dissipation system and documentation of 10 Clean Water Act 316(b) compliance, which means that the existing intake structure reflects the best 11 technology available for minimizing adverse impact at CCNPP.
12 The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has concluded that Maryland power plants do not cause 13 measurable depletion in fish and crab species numbers due to the large size and wide distribution of their 14 populations (MDNR 1993). BGE has identified no mechanism that would alter this conclusion during 15 license renewal.
4/8/97 3
iEnejps froni Vebru')f 1711991'Rsugle D afitnitronniEMalReportlLiceiiss RhisaalSaligi Calvirt Cllgirl4
,, ajNuclearMpplant provided for NRC s aff format sad co' tent re new[onlyf g3 u
i REFERENCES 2
ANSP (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia),1981, Assessment of Thermal, Entrainment, and 3
Impingement Studies on the Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity ofCalvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, 4
April 8.
3 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1988, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 6
Impact Reportfor Afaryland, Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, Maryland, 7
Maryland, March.
8 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1993, Afaryland Power Plants and the 9
Environment, A Review ofPower Plants and Transmission Lines On Afaryland's Natural Resources, 10 PPRP-CEIR-8/2, Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
4/8/97 4
Een.#friarcyrs.Wmsmasukyarkpremk airiscayogueuisaanuqatsuyucupesyi a ' ?si, l## clear P *tt Pl*At Provided for NRC staff format'and content review only2 ga,;ccugd P
1 APPENDIX B. 316(A) AND 316(B) DOCUMENTATION i
?f f
I i
4/8/97 5
N Permn av.
Page No.
12 1.
S pecial Conditions C.
REMOVED SUBSTANCES 1.
Within 90 days of the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall subnit to OHHH on a form provided, the fo)1owing infonnation:
a)
Locate, on a suitable map, all areas used for the disgosal of any Removed Substances as defined by II. General Conditions B.7; b)
The physical, chemical and biological characteristics and quantities of any Removed Substances handled, and the method of disposal; c)
If disposai is handled by other than the permittee identify the contractor or subcontractor, their mailing address, and the information specified in a and b above.
2.
Prior to the use of new or additional disposal areas or contractors or subcontractors the permittee shall notify, in writing DHMH.
D.
WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERTIFICATION -
Within six months from the date of issuance of this permit, the permittee's facility shall be operated by an industrial wastewater operator duly certified by the Maryland Board of Certification.
At no time during the effect of this permit shall the treatment facilities be operated for more than six months without a certified operator.
E.
THERMAt. COMPLIANCE The Permittee has conducted studies in accordance with COMAR 08.05.04~.13C(2) to determine compliance with thermal discharge mixing zone criteria, to determine whether entrainment affects a spawning or nursery area of consequence, and to estimate impingement losses. The Plant was found to meet thermal mixing zone reestrments; not to affect spawning or nursery areas of consequence, and to have a modest impingement loss. The present once-through cooling s)ttem is' in comoliance with COMAR 08.05.04.13 and continued use of the system will be permitted. Therefore, alternate effluent limitations as pat forth in Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act are not necessary.
4 4/8/97 0
4
i N*
I WAvsa Resouac AnnamersAT8oM 08.06.0d.180 (s) " Net electrical energy sensrated" means gross electrieel.out.
put of the unit measured at the output terminals of the tartdne gener-ator during the reporting period, minus the normal station service electrical energy utillsation.
(9) " Maximum dependable espacity not (MDC not) (MWe)"
means the dependable main-unit groes capacity less normal station service loads, winter or siimmar, which everis smaller.
(10) "fidal water" means water below a point where the tide obbs and flows.
B. Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to specify procedures for determining:
(1) Compliance with Maryland Water Quality Standards for thermal discharges; (2) Best available technology for intake structurm to minimize environmental impacts. to be approved in accordance with 6816(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments ofl972(FWP.
CAA of1972);and (3) Alternate elDuent limitations' pursuant to 8816(a) of the FWPCAA of1972.
C. Requirements.
(1) For discharges of heat equal to or less than a manimum monthly average of 20 x 10' BTITs/ day, the mixing zone shall be 50 feet, measured radially from the point of Al=A-ge.
(2) Within 180 days of the effective date of these regulations, permittees for dischargw of heat greater than 20 x 10'.BTtTs/ day, and other thennal discharges pursuant to the requirements ofindi-vidual State Discharge Permits
- excluding steam electric generating stations not sufHelently loaded #, new sources', and sys,tems using j
closed cycle cooling, shall submit a comprehensive plan for:
(a) Studies to determine whether according to the criteria in IE, their facilities' thermal discharge mtving zone complies with State Water Quality Standards; (b) Studice to determine whether plant cooling water entrain-ments # affects a spawning or nursery area ofconsequence for Repre-sentative Important Species, (RIS) ID; and (c) Studies to ' estimate impingement # loss punnant to IF(for facilities having surface water insake structures).
351 4/8/97 7
. - ~ - -.
j
(*
Mr 9--
^
i J
i-06.05.04.18D Daraaruawr or NAruaAL nw=5 (3) Within 2 years of the effecdve date of these regntaHa==
, 'a sammary of the results of the studies in 90 (2) willbe'subadtted, and if the Administration deterndnes that a famility meets the aritaria specified in IE, best technology available for intake structures wi!! he determined and a new perndt isoned aner notice and hearing. Upon failure to meet these standards the permittee may:
(a) By January 1,1988 meet the water quellir crit $ria and install best tedinology available for intake structures; (b) By January 1,1983 install closed cycle cooling in sooord-ance with plans approved by the Adadaistration; (c) Request an opportunity to desnonstrate, pursuant to IG,
~
that existing conditions or alternate ediment llantations will assure the protection and propagation of a bataarad, ind' 2 population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on b receiving water.
(4) 'Itese studies shall be conducted in accordance with b fol-lowing generalrequirements:
,(a) The Administration or its representatives shall be allowed reasonable access to facilities for the purpose of-h
- or con-ducting parallalstudies.
(b) Permittees cond'ucting studies shall submit annual progress reports for review by the Adadnistration. Tha ' reports will summarize work completed in the year entding July 80, and will be submitted by October 30. Persons conducting studies also shall sub.
mit semi-annualdataandearnpilag
.. - es to the AAm=*In*,gg{on for review. The Administration may order that a comprehensive plan be modified as a result ofits reviews.
(c) Nothing in this regulation may be construed to prevent per-sons from presenting the results of additional studies resantling im-pacta. 'lhe information requireinent of this regulation may be satis-fled entirely from existing data provided,in thejudgement of the Ad.
minis tration, it is scientifically valid and clearly relevant.
D. Representstive Important Species (RIS).
(1) Persons conducting studies shall use selected species from ID(2), below, whenever possible, as a bests for assessing impacts of a discharge on natural water quality. he warranted, b Adminis-tration may approve or require additional species not on this list for study at a particular site.
(2) Representative Important Species of Maryland Tidal and Non. Tidal Wetars.
352 4/8/97
l Ehbrph{fiins Vebsaiy 11(1997 RisgWDraffEnvir6nmhntalCipoil?LkensiRendalStage[ Calved Clifsp AU ', Actear PJsr Plant provided for NRC staff fematfa'ad cont'ent review only!;,.
A I
2 Issue: Groundwater Use Conflicts (potable, service water, and dewatering; plants that use 3
greater than 100 gallons per minute) 4 5
6 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 7
8 2.1.4 GROUNDWATER USE 9
FES Section V.B.1 discussed a CCNPP maximum permitted withdrawal rate of 600,000 gallons per day.
10 CCNPP has five production wells that supply process and domestic water within the protected area 1I vicinity and nine wells that supply water for domestic use in outlying areas. The production wells are 12 finished in the Aquia Aquifer (Section 3.2.2). Table 2.1.4-1 identifies these wells, and Figure 2.1.4-1 13 indicates their locations. CCNPP does not use dewatering pumps. A gravity drain system was installed 14 during original Plant construction to dewater plant areas.
15 The Maryland Department of Natural Resources requires BGE to monitor and report withdrawal only 16 from the five production wells.1 Table 2.1.4-2 lists the average daily withdrawal volumes and rates from 17 these wells since 1975. As shown in Table 2.1.4-2 and Figure 2.1.4-2, these production withdrawals are 18 approximately 220,000 gallons per day (153 gallons per minute) and have never approached the current 19 permit limit of 450,000 gallons per day or the previous permit limit of 600,000 gallons per day that the 20 FES analyzed, in addition, CCNPP groundwater withdrawal quantities have followed a downward trend.
21 This trend is primarily the result of improved water chemistry control technology in the CCNPP primary 22 (reactor coolant) and secondary (steam generator) makeup water systems. The improvements have 23 enabled BGE to recirculate water longer before discharge, resulting in less makeup demand.
24 25 26 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 27 28 3.2 Geology and Groundwater Hydrology 29 3.2.1 GEOLOGY 30 CCNPP regional and site geology is Coastal Plain Physiological Province underlain by approximately 31 2,500 feet of sedimentary strata underlain by metamorphic basement rock, with no evidence of faulting I Condition imposed by CCNPP Groundwater Appropriation and Use Permit.
4/8/97 1
f Eiiisptiiltroni Fetirhii t7; 1997 Rouirk Dre)ltfikrokkiestalRegitjucEisi Jtesusal$1sigECa& Clifsff
?
5, yaclearfe=erflant provided for NRC staff format _and content revlekonlyhg " h 1
in the site vicinity. As shown in Figure 3.2.1-1, the strata range from nearly horizontal to gently dipping 2
to the southeast, reflecting the influence of the basement rock slope. Areas above Elevation +702 are 3
Pliocene and Pleistocene sitt and sand and are underlain by approximately 270 feet (Elevations +70 to 4
-200) of the relatively impervious sediments of the Chesapeake group of Miocene age (the CCNPP 5
power block area is Elevation +45). The Miocene-age sediments consist of horizontally stratified sandy 6
and clayey sitt with occasional interbeds of sands and shells. Approximately 350 feet of dense, relatively 7
pervious glauconitic sand and silt of the Eocene and Paleocene age underlie the Miocene sediments 8
(Elevations -200 to -550). This infcrmation remains unchanged from FES Section H.E.1. More detailed 9
geologic information is available in Sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the CCNPP Updated Final Safety Analysis 10 Report (BGE 1995a) and Section 2.5 of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Environmental iI Report (BGE 1992).
12 3.2.2 GROUNDWATER IIYDROLOGY 13 The site water-table occurs generally within 30 feet of the surface in Pleistocene-age deposits (above 14 Elevation +70 at CCNPP). Groundwater flow within approximately 1,000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay at 15 CCNPP is towards the Bay; flow west of the divide is towards surface stream valleys. Surficial soil grain 16 size analysis suggests a maximum permeability coefficient of about 400 gallons per day per square foot.
17 Use of the water-table aquifer is limited to a few domestic wells in the area. CCNPP does not withdraw 18 from this aquifer.
19 Surficial deposits are underlain by approximately 250 feet of relatively impermeable deposits, the 20 Chesapeake Group, which effectively confine the underlying artesian aquifers. The vertical component 21 of groundwater movement through the Chesapeake Group is upward. Underlying aquifers are composed 22 of glauconitic sand and sitt of the Piney Point, Nanjemoy, and Aquia formations, which extend to 23 650 feet below the surface (to Elevation -550 at CCNPP). The Piney Point and Nanjemoy Aquifers act 24 as a single unit but are separated from the underlying Aquia Aquifer by a layer of clay and silt called the 25 Nanjemoy-Marlboro confining unit. Table 3.2.2-1 provides a brief summary of these aquifers.
26 Formations below the Aquia are either not known to be aquifers in Southern Maryland or are not utilized 27 in Calvert County because of their depth. Section 2.4 of the CCNPP Updated Final Safety Analysis 28 Report (BGE 1995a) provides descriptive information about the formations.
29 CCNPP withdraws groundwater from the Aquia Aquifer for production and domestic uses 30 (Section 2.1.4). This aquifer underlies much of southern Maryland, with a recharge zone extending from 2 Elevations are in feet above (+) or below (-) mean sea level.
4/8/97 2
i
)
@ EGnrptfti6ai Ve6n'if 17l 1997 ResgWDrap EnkronNiehtslRejok:Ucisie Res&stSkge'CalveriClifs
}
U, M $w @sclearfsn'erfles[propided fkNRC stsff_ format andjostestlrevliw only{, ' ggl]
j i
1 Washington, D.C. to Annapolis, Maryland and a downward trend to the southeast ending approximately j
2 where the Potomac River discharges to the Chesapeake Bay. Figure 3.2.2-1 presents the Aquia Aquifer 3
regional potentiometric 3 surface levels.
]
4 BGE has performed an aquifer test at one well completed in the Aquia Aquifer at the site (BGE 1969).
5 Three observation wells located at different distances from the pumping well were used in the test.
6 11ydraulic properties obtained from this test include the transmissivity and storage coefficient of the j
7 Aquia Aquifer at each well location. Transmissivity values obtained from this test ranged from 8
5,640 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) to 7,400 gpd/fl. Storage coefHcient values ranged from 0.000108 9
to 0.000251, indicating that the aquifer is confined beneath the site.
10 The U.S. Geological Survey and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland Power Plant 11 Research Program and Maryland Geological Survey) maintain ajoint monitoring program of the Aquia 12 Aquifer. This program has included monitoring the potentiometric surface at CCNPP continuously since 13 the start of operation in 1974. The potentiometric surface at CCNPP is approximately 60 feet below sea 14 level. Hydraulic gradients range from 2 feet per mile (0.0004 feet per foot) northwest of the plant to 15 4 feet per mile (0.0008 feet per foot) south and southwest of the plant. As shown in Figure 3.2.2-2, the 16 Aquia Aquifer potentiometric surface at CCNPP has declined approximately 60 feet since the start of 17 operation.
18 in its most recent (1996) biennial report, the Maryland Power Plant Research Program indicates that, 19 between 1982 to 1993, a decline in the Aquia potentiometric surface was less than 40 feet in most of the 20 aquifer and greater than 40 feet in the Lexington Park and Solomons Island areas (MDNR 1996). During 21 the Orst ten years of operation water level fluctuation in the Aquia Aquifer measured near the CCNPP 22 correlated with pumping rates at the plant. Since 1989, monitoring indicates that pumping at CCNPP has 23 not directly affected the water level in the Aquia Aquifer. CCNPP groundwater withdrawals in 1989 and 24 1990 were significantly lower due to the reactors not operating, and withdrawals since have remained 25 low. During the shutdown when withdrawals were the lowest, water levels dropped sharply by 26 approximately 25 feet, and then rose 4 feet in early 1992 only to drop an additional 12 feet by the end of 27 1993 (MDNR 1996). During this time, groundwater withdrawals at CCNPP remained consistent with 28 1991 pumping rates. This data suggests that water levels at CCNPP are affected by pumping elsewhere.
29 The study concludes that groundwater withdrawals in the Lexington Park and Solomons Island areas are 3 he " potentiometric surface" is the elevation of groundwater in an open, un-pumped well. Due to the effect of T
confining layers above the Aquia Aquifer,the Aquia potentiometric surface is higher than the aquifer itself. This results in an artesian condition.
4/8/97 3
? Edeigits iros VetiFiierj]7[1997R64tr DEnft$5ErinmentalRepoit ylJcifiie'ReiieifalStagi[Calvert $llfsp g gj] ;## lear Pontef Plant pro {lded for NRC staff formail aed content'rejiew'~enlyyg. g y[jg y
I responsible for the recent declines in the water levels at CCNPP, but that these declines are small compared to the approximately 370 feet of available drawdown that remains in the Aquia Aquifer.4 2
3 4
5 CIIAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6
AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 7
8 4.1.5 GROUNDWATER USE 9
NRC 10 The environmental report must contain an "... assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground-11 water use must be provided, if the applicant's plant uses Ranney wells or pumps more than 100 gallons of 12 ground water per minute." 10 CFR S t.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) 13
"... Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater 14 users impacts from groundwater conflicts could be small, moderate, or large..." 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, 15 Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 33 16 NRC made this a Category 2 issue because it could not assign a single significance level (small, 17 moderate, or large) and because, if there were moderate or large impacts, mitigation might be warranted.
18 The effect of groundwater usage on neighboring groundwater users would depend on the rate of usage 19 and the distance to the neighboring well(GEIS Section 4.8.1.1). Therefore, information to be 20 ascertained includes (1) CCNPP groundwater usage rate (whether greater than 100 gallons per minute),
21 (2) distance to neighboring well(s), and (3) impact on the neighboring well(s).
22 As discussed in Section 2.1.4, CCNPP groundwater usage rate averages approximately 150 gallons per 23 minute, making this groundwater issue applicable to CCNPP. As indicated in Section 3.2.2, CCNPP 24 withdraws its groundwater from the Aquia Aquifer, which is located between 450 and 550 feet below the 25 surface, and the nearest neighboring well that withdraws from this level is located at Southern Middle 26 School, approximately 2 miles away from CCNPP wells. Ilowever, as shown on Figure 2.1-3, there is 27 private property located closer to the CCNPP wells. It is possible for the owner of such property to 28 install a well in the Aquia Aquifer at any time. For this reason, BGE has evaluated the potential impact 29 that CCNPP groundwater usage could have on a hypothetical well located at the nearest site boundary in 30 addition to the impact on the nearest existing well (i.e., at Southern Middle School).
4 he study is referring to the fact that the Aquia Aquifer potentiometric surface is approximately 370 feet above the T
aquifer's base.
4/8/97 4
Q E55 Nfris FkbiriilsiI17kl991 RohafDraft EnsinnhiintalQeportfLicenfRelieiistStagEq)GiClifsji t
F didguclear Peper Plant provided for NRC_ staff foratat andfcontent review onlyhm,2, '
4 1
In performing this evaluation, BGE considered whether particular area geological features could make it 2
likely that other offsite well locations could be impacted to a greater degree than these two well 3
locations. However, as indicated in Section 3.2.1, CCNPP-area geology is well known, relatively 4
homogeneous, and has no folding, faulting, or other irregularities to suggest directed or atypical 5
groundwater flow patterns. Therefore, BCE is confident that impact at the hypothetical well location at 6
the nearest site boundary would be representative of the greatest impacts attributable to CCNPP 7
groundwater usage to any offsite well location.
8-Groundwater use conflicts can arise if withdrawals by one user cause offsite well water levels to decrease 9
sufficiently to increase pumping costs or, in the extreme, to cause the well to pump dry. BGE has 10 calculated the drawdown that CCNPP pumpage could have on the water level in a hypothetical well 11 located at the site boundary closest to the CCNPP well locations and screened deeper than approximately 12 550 feet in the Aquia Aquifer (below -450 feet). The results of these calculations are listed below (see 13 Appendix C for calculations):
Drawdown increment (feet)
Cumulative Year (feet) 1972 0
0 1975 13.4 13.4 1984 6.1 19.5 1994 1.8 21.3 2004 1.1 22.4 2014 0.7 23.1 2024 0.6 23.7 2034 0.5 24.2 14 15 As this calculation illustrates, the greatest amount of incremental drawdown would have occurred when 16 the plant first began operation. During the past 10 years (1984 through 1994), when the potentiometric 17 surface of the Aquia Aquifer dropped by more than 30 feet (Section 3.2.2 and Figure 3.2.2-1), BGE 18 could have contributed 1.8 fet of dra vdown. Drawdown currently would be a few inches (less than 19 1 foot) per year; the cumulative impact for the period of CCNPP license renewal (e.g., years 2014 20 through 2034) would be approximately 1.1 feet. At the Southern Middle School, the cumulative impact 21 for the CCNPP license renewal period would be approximately the same as for a well on the site 22 boundary,1.1 feet.
4/S/97 5
- Encerfts troin Yebni91
- 17,1997 R6uSWDigft Endiinkinial Ripoff UcenisRekissiSraji ConsitlCIWsy
'es QVsciemD'envr Mant,provided for NRC staff format and conteat retlew onlyj ' am, f 4
1 These indications oflittle offsite impact are consistent with the Maryland Department of Natural 2
Resources conclusion that water levels in the Aquia Aquifer in the CCNPP area are most strongly 3
influenced by withdrawals at Lexington Park, Patuxent Naval Air Station, and Solomons Island 4
(combined pumpage approximately 2 million gallons per day; Table 4.1.5-1). Furthermore, the 5
availability of approximately 370 feet of available drawdown should lessen usage conflicts. Based on 6
the evaluation presented above and available drawdown in the Aquia Aquifer, BGE expects impacts to 7
groundwater use through the license renewal term to be small.
8 As indicated in Section 2.1.4, CCNPP has a system installed in the water table to gravity-drain the power 9
block area. Because the water-table flow within 1,000 feet of the Chesapeake Bay is towards the Bay 10 (Section 3.2.2) and there is no private property located within this area at CCNPP, this CCNPP 11 groundwater usage would have no impact on offsite groundwater usage of the water table aquifer.
12 Groundwater usage impact mitigative measures include compensating for lost groundwater access or 13 deeping offsite wells to facilitate recovery. However, projected CCNPP impacts are so minor that BGE 14 has concluded that they would not noticeably alter offsite groundwater usage and that, therefore, the 15 impacts are small and do not warrant mitigation.
4/8/97 6
fE55pQfibid FelirCS 17d 991fauff Dieft Anbir6isnicistalRe5rt[Liceniie RenkwalStaVCalveriCl a
iggiNs clear Edwer Plant provided for NRC, staff forma ( sad content reviewLonlyi,
I References 2
BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company),1969, Ground Water Supply Investigationfor the Calvert 3
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant near Prince Frederick, Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, January.
4 BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company),1992, Calvert Chffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) UpdatedEnvironmental hoort, Volume 11l, Lusby, Maryland, December 22.
6 BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company),1995a. Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report, Calvert 7
Chffs Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 and Amendments, Revision 17, Lusby, Maryland.
8 CCDPZ (Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning),1994, Calvert County Land Preservation 9
& Recreation Plan, June 7.
10 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1975, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 11 Impact Report. PPSP-CEIR-1, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, 12 September.
13 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1978, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 14 Impact Report, PPSP-CEIR-2, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, 15 November.
16 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1982, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 17 Impact Report, PPSP-CElR-3, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, January.
18 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1984, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 19 Impact Report, PPSP-CEIR-4, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, January.
20 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1986, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 21 Impact Reportfor Maryland, PPER-CEIR-5, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, 22 Maryland, March.
23 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1988, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 24 Impact Reportfor Maryland, PPER-CEIR-6, Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, 25 Maryland, November.
4/8/97 7
E Excerpts lfr6d;Fetirusiy11771997 Rough Dispt Ensirsssiws/al AsjiidrtyLkissRRes h $15h 4Naclear Pgwer Plant provided forJRC stm2 format:and content review ony6ag WM l
MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1991, Power Plant Cumulative Environmental 2
Impact Reportfor Maryland, PPER-CEIR-7 Power Plant and Environmental Review, Annapolis, 3
4 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1993, Afaryland Power Plants and the 5
Environment, A Review ofPower Plants and Transmission Lines On Maryland's Natural Resources, 6
PPRP-CEIR-8/2, Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, Maryland, March, f
7 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1996, Maryland Power Plants and the 8
Environment: A review of the impacts ofpowerplant and transmission lines on Maryland's natural 9
resources, Supporting Materials, PPRP-CElR-9/2, Maryland Power Plant Research Program, 10 Annapolis, Maryland, May.
1I USGS (U.S. Geological Survey),1991, Hydrogeological Framework ofthe Coastal Plain ofMaryland, 12 Delaware, and the District ofColumbia, PB92-146745, U.S. Department of Corcurce, National 13 Technical Information Service, Reston, Virginia.
14 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), Aquia Aquifer Wells,1995.
15 4/8/97 8
iEs^eerpt(fena Febrassy'17dM97 A5iiisferaig N AdiiiiF{# MRiusiiiidJaiisFdifiissWNiiiideisF)%iiiiFPasiiFisiifvided'folFNRC^sistfi
^
MEAbsensi56b$bd$bNbabbdNAbbN$m OMeantent M@ddgjgd((Ajddfh;g;adyjf2$jddispd[glhE1df Table 2.1.4-1. CCNPP water supply wells.a.b WellTag Date Depth Appropriation Permit Appropriation Limit Number Number installed Well Location (feet)
Aquifer Use Number (Daily Average) 1.
Unknown c1970 Protected Area vicinity 585 Aquia Domestic and industrialin CA69G010(04) 450,000 gallons protected area per day (gpd) 2.
CA-70-0063 1970 Protected Areavicinity 637 Aquia Domestic and industrialin CA69G010(04) 450,000 gpd protected area 3.
CA-72-0041 1971 Protected Areavicinity 607 Aquia Domestic and industrialin CA69G010(04) 450,000 gpd protected area 4.
CA-73-4435 1982 Protected Areavicinity 608 Aquia Domestic in office area CA69G010(04) 450,000 gpd 5.
CA-73-4436 1982 Protected Area vicinity 621 Aquia Domestic in office area CA69G010(04) 45,000 gpd 6.
CA-73-0369 1974 Old Bay Farm 620 Aquia Domestic in farms buildings NAc NA 7.
CA-88-1068 1989 Firearms Range 430 Piney Point Domestic at firearms range CA89G007(01) 500gpd 8.
CA-81-0527 1983 Visitors Center 385 Piney Point Domestic at visitors and CA83G008(02) 300 gpd educational areas d
370 Nanjemoy Domestic at pool CA63G003(06) 400 gpd 9.
CA-73-3895 1980 Camp Conoy 10.
CA-73-38%
1980 Camp Conoy 390 Nanjemoy Domestic at pool CA63G003(06) 400 gpd i 1.
CA-81-2152 1986 Camp Conoy 560 Aquia Domestic at pool CA63G003(06) 400 gpd 12.
CA-73-3897 1980 Camp Conoy 415 Nanjemoy Domestic at ball field 13.
CA-8l-l%7 1984 Camp Conoy 405 Nanjemoy Domestic at conference center 14.
CA-88-1636 1990 Procedure Upgrade 420 Nanjemoy Domestic at Procedure NA NA Project Facility Upgrade Project Facility
- a. Source: CCNPP Groundwater Appropriation Permits and well completion reports,
- b. Does not include monitoring wells.
- c. NA = not applicable because withdrawal rate is below regulatory threshold.
- d. Camp Conoy is employee recreation area.
4/8/97 9
i
R EUiiptifrialFet6ri*iiT17;l997 kniidbi&W ENHichiniekiaiR5itiLidkiiRidiiin)$tisi'C g 3did j#sciserfowsflestprovided for,NRC siaff format andjontcyt revie(onlyh; j/3.d Table 2.1.4-2. CCNPP groundwater withdrawals.a Daily Average Year Total gallons Gallons per minute 1975 230,000 160 1976 200,000 139 1977 250,000 174 1978 230,000 160 1979 250,000 174 1980 250,000 174 1981 270,000 188 1982 270,000 188 1983 250,000 174 1984 280,000 194 1985 260,000 181 1986 260,000 181 1987 380,000 264 1988 250,000 174 1989 70,000b 49 1990 90,000b 63 1991 150,000 104 1992 150,000 104 1993 180,000 125 1994 170,000 118 Average 220,000 153 a.
Source: CCNPP groundwater withdrawal reports for indicated years.
- b. Reactors shut down.
I r
1 i
6 l
4/8/97 10 i
ll! Eiii&G from Vebruii611j 1997$okgh Dis /t FAvironmeikfNW LisiniiRenhalStagiCah&iCipf su aAA g.424kel88dfekerMont provided fop NRC staff format and co.a. tent revlesjalyj.(
- &ilt Table 3.2.2-1. Calvert County aquifers.a Geologic Physical Water-bearing Thickness in Approximate elevation age Description description properties region (feet) at CCNPPb Pleistocene Surficial Silt, sand, and Small quantities 0 - 150 Above +70 deposits some clay of water to shallow wells.
Miocene Chesapeake Sandy and Yields small 30 -325 -
Between +70 and 200 Group clayey silt amounts of water in a few dug wells.
Eocene Piney Point Glauconitic Yields up to 200 0 - 60 Between -200 and -240 Formation sand gallons per minute (gpm).
Important aquifer in Calvert County.
Nanjemoy Glauconitic Yields up to 60 gpm 40 -240 Between -240 and -300 Formation sand with reported. Important clayey layers aquifer in Calvert County.
Nanjemoy.
Clay, silt Confining unit.
0 - 700 Between -300 and -450 l
Marlboro Paleocene Aquia Green to brown Yicids up to 300 30 -200 Between -450 and -550 Formation glauconitic gpm. Important sand aquifer in Southern Maryland.
a.
Sources: (BGE 1995a; USGS 1991),
b.
Elevations are in feet above (+) or below (-) mean 1
4/8/97 11 i
i
VEiceip6 fins Febliiisj'17;1991 Mbijk briffEiivlisisMnkt RipseffDcikWRinssaiSh^gICENiiiCIQJ b s.MgM#seliskPswer Ptem/prokaded for NRC staff formit and costent reWew;onlyh, we 4
1 Table 4.1.5-1. Public supply wells in Calvert County in 1992.a Population Average output Depth Location served (gallons per day)
(feet)
Beaches Water 2,000 126,000 262-585 Calvert Beach 222 17,000 262-323 Cavalier County 402 45,000 542-552 Chesapeake Beach 2,500 199,000 373-550 Chesapeake licights 612 55,000 475-595 Chesapeake Ranch Estates 3,000 225,000 355-678 Dares Beach 501 38,000 272-530 11unting Ilills 150 14,000 365-504 Kenwood Beach 255 21,000 365 Lakewood 260 23,000 335-425 Lexington Park NAc 1,203,000 550-600 b
Mason Road 50 5,000 542 Paris Oaks 147 13,000 413 Parkers Creek Knolls 30 2,000 340 Patuxent Naval Air Stationb NA 616,000 450-550 i
Prince Frederick 600 114,000 540-605 1
Pandle Cliffs 150 1,000 NA St. Leonard 100 12,000 603 j
Scienthts Cliffs 500 45,000 227-633 Shores cf Calvert 414 30,000 473 Solomons Island 2,000 225,000 330-430 Summit 500 40,000 480-548 Wallville Acres 21 2,000 NA Western Shores 175 22,000 NA White Sands 120 7,000 389 a.
Source: (CCDPZ 1994), except as noted.
b.
Source: (USGS 1995). Located in St. Mary's County but included due to significance of output and proximity to CCNPP.
c.
NA = not available.
4/8/97 12
BEEinijdG5hiiYitiFGifj]dkdfijyprpjMid,1MRC s@((nrmdt[Ndhyeft hylishplyj 1lH97 kbiliiiniijfE51Idilirii%ibl RefilI:lliiMEk55&l3Gis't&Niiftlyys?i IbaAddN3Eh40Ak6P, I
/
t:
l<i'l a
i it i
A h:
e
's f
- l a
I't 4*
11 1:
}
i
[01 -
WL.
$g4%
y
?
- $f%
,. I [
s we
/
,i
, e 94.
),
l' )
}
y Q..e/ _]
}I
. j:'h$@
f
~\\l Qi
)ly Nn A Q,{% & :';#fs'>
bi I
3 a$4:,-
- y' Z ",
/,,
'l ~ ~
' :.. =y t
i.a=g=s..lV j
s 6
.ars 4
4 lij g,3 l
o{} }
I
- ? e Q~~
' j\\ s '
$pSjt',}'ef[z/
j j 8
/
e' 4ie 11
.>4rsg 1,.
f
,i p
.i.
a;
\\
1 l,
d s/
1.s q
f if')
I{.jl! h h
e A)','/ '
hl\\
s.
s lll 1 4/8/97 13
I:r aIy 2
em e
WM e?
M Mt cm 4
4{
p*x WORKING DRAFT MRc
- hw!
$w:
i M;gs; 1
I F
SITE PU0CENE & PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS i
M
\\
\\
i h
swa h e w CM1APEast saw~~
_ 0 42$L h
N EOCENE DEPosryg e ;., hh%fjMyy *A,h'j; kh I
);n-f8
~
.a g
.;.;6,7 P 4 DEPOSiis e
~
g*c=:2,5
?j
^
80
" C, m M.. %_ _ " -
[.;
8 J s*sJ s
5f,,.
di'.Q >
f$ f i
ft,
~
= ',4[
Y tJ
..M g.
N8s*,s'
.;,i..,.,4--;.-.g.,.
. j g3_.
78 5
b[y -~g)f3f}t'ir;;g:,y..,_2 m'-
-,amwqGhm m a.y g,2 i
- h
~ -.
.- - era
.mt.
- e. m
,t h 7, 1
Eiq/C~EhTMy ~e
,~< _h
[$j'l r%x! p "
I
~-
i %.
-; E U:
"i2 'f 17
~
.--Y t
c - h 73
'Mj$$
ikg,gg O
E
- #y g r % jrg,9,,,
rg5i a
4 f
% E[ 7 t -r i#h%hi#M a
(
E fi A-
%p ###4 ^
$wt u
45p n.w,:
.m ~e r,;:,
(
.-wwwmm:p N ri
=
~
IN
,,\\
1 m
< ssp',pLSb,udfE..s v.egere ~
lf3 e s t3 J
- q-w%f ft'4%e et
- . 4 M ;ews 7.
s g
4 000 t
v bb r
c-u s
s, ',jQftM I.
,/
J
{
g7..
. tm.ES.
I*
SECTION LOCATION MAP Q j poses wsan myneas. scam aesamme h?6i a
P_
fM Figure 3.2.1-1. Regional geologic section - Coastal Plain pi[# 4
- s.,. 3 ISI EW1 1
1
.m.
s
p WORKING DRAFT Q5 4
1 u
fl.
600.000
! 1 1
. aer tsm RM 500 0UO ~
f Withdrawal amount allowed by permit g-
.- 4 1
f 1
400.000 -
g R
W g
i - 3 g 300.000 -
Actual withdrawals 3,
j f
Q.
kee J. ?
E
! E-J' I
e i4 1 6
Trend RW 200.000 -
ij :
ir j Tia:I
!%.'M. z:g s :i
- $ig; I00.000 -
f h d-
- .5 1
gs o
l..,
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1993 1992 1993 1994
{
- % 4
' Year I@(N 'i
~-4 Source: CCNPP groundwater appropriation repons to the state.
5
?.a PXOb1 N >
t!
Figure 2.1.4-2. CCNPP groundwater withdrawals.
g.j. hist.q 2 I i:
f Exiiihiil fibs.Feli&[rf17[1991ks*jiibioft}:itili&it@iritkl NQA[ENiisfnih05ilSikfCN15st tlN)
~
j
!b $adh, S8"##kDWfMqpppyld@fpt@Q$taffformat and content revityjnlyjagh;g,,,,
3 i
_d-z-l I
IL; i
}t e
a 0
}
j gf h
4 3
I ir i
.o i
g N
I b
ll g d
.i t
i i
l l
I f
9 a' \\
2 i
~~..,,
' " ' " - ~ ~.,,
/,
f
\\
l
\\
i
)
- ~.
h I
,,s, 4-
- / h }, _ b~,,,,
./
~
s' i
I 5
\\
9 A'
.I
- j
! N,V E
g 11 l
\\
i I$
b
.o.
il llj ll l1
)8l
' f
- i
)
t 4/8/97 16 l
3.-
i.
1-kb; A
3 WORKING DRAFT i
i N$. as $
hh.h hk t 4
...k.
~
g("'
+_.;
e 0
0
^
-so --
N g
r; f
T -100 --
h-- l 5
s
- i. !
a ilt f 2
s m
W -150 --
51 3
2 4 2?
j -200
[S[g!
i
- 9... g' y
e
~
-2 5 0 --
g; p
8 13 g
- p.4 2 300 --
'o
!E i lk!l
-350 --
h
- <' 3 lW? 4 jTti; !
- g;ph 400,
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 EsN 5;;:7 4
bh?b
[(.
}
Source: MONR (1975,1978,1982.1984.1995.1988,1991.1993. and 1996) and BGE (1969).
Note: 400 feet equais appeonimate amount of water avadable for drawdown.
4 -
{(,.,hj M01W w ew Figure 3.2.2-2. Aquia Aquifer potentiometric surface Icvels at CCNPP.
{} Esiiniikiff6RViiiibliW11lt991)A@rbj! fed iptbyC sfafffamafind sante in 1 5; '(j N acl g f $ m Q Pfa
, Q;;
i k
}
i
)
i 1
o i
b i,
O
! 'l
- t
-o lI si j
g g
10 i
1
?.
k ';
f J
s W
4
'd* l ' '
- s
/
l
\\i
.i ;l
/
I'!
d$
Jl g y.>g.q-Sh fI e-I, d{,hed;+.
i*'
g i
v1
- p.,'?
'r' y' Y"6~g, g ~'
y' s
igfAbJy 3,
l Q
$d! p
-~
( $.
,, Wg ii
,\\
r&
!!.:;j$$hn d$y @
m\\n, f
.W
- s P"
/
/
iI 3 ln
- =
m m
glgi a.
Q I)4,.,
11 1
ikh."yV@Q'j' 2 3 i
14
\\
\\
m
.f I
qM
-f g.1 1
j
'pil.
7, 1
- jl 1
f kIII 4/8/97 18
i
'[ Eice5E'fridi Febnarp I 7/1997 Jthgtr Thieft$54M&ist R$5hylldss/Mrks/Ssy?Cs/wdCI((fire i ix jucteef ps,ir syns provided for NRC Omff forma (and conteAbefikj'AlyL ua j[
l APPENDIX C. OFFSITE WELL IMPACT CALCULATION i
i C.1 Background Assumptions This appendix shows how the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) has calculated the potential impact that the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) groundwater withdrawal could have on a hypothetical well located on the site boundary closest to the CCNPP point of withdrawal. Although CCNPP has numerous wells, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources requires BGE to monitor withdrawals only from wells that withdraw the most water, the five located in the Protected Area.5 These monitoring records show that, since beginning operation in 1974, CCNPP has withdrawn an average of approximately 150 gallons per day of groundwater. For the sake of simplicity of calculation, it is assumed that all withdrawals are from a single point. Drawdown may be expressed as:
1.
s = (114.6Q / T]W(u), where:
s = drawdown in feet Q = well discharge in gallons per minute T = transmissivity in gallons per day per foot W(u) = exponential integral termed "well function." The argument is given by:
2 u = 1.87r S/Tt, where:
S = storage coefficient 2r = the square of the distance in feet from the pumped well time in days since pumping started For CC vf r.
Q = 150 gallons per minute T = 6,500 gallons per day per foot (Bechtel 1969) r = 5,000 feet S = 1.8E-04 (Bechtel 1969) 5 equirement in groundwater appropriation permit.
R 4/8/97 19 l
y EGiepiifr6 Eve 6ieGW17Q991RuifSDiWeLieutenniustit nupirigiuh2Mikisat saijil"itisiitsigsf ig, Jg d/Muclear Power Plew provided for#RC staff format a_ad content review onlyy*ijg;
,- 3 C.2 First-Year Calculation The calculation for drawdown expected after the first year (365 days) of CCNPP operation is as follows:
(1.87)(5,000)2(0.00018)
= 0.00354 = 3.54 x 10
(6,500)(365)
From the table of W(u) and u (Abramowitz and Stegan 1972), if u = 3.54 x 10-3, W(u) = 5.07 (114.6)(150)(5.07),3jpg 6,500 C.3 10-Year Calculation The calculation for drawdown expected after ten years (3650 days) of CCNPP operation is as follows:
(l.87)(5,000)2(0.00018)
= 0.000355 = 3.55 x 10" (6,500)(3,650) 4 From the table of W(u) and u, if u = 3.55 x 10, W(u) = 7.37 (114.6)(150)(7.37)
= 19.5 feet 6,500 4/8/97
? ExiiriiGliff Fsbifaif11l1997 kidikhhiffkiWib^iGibillQ&fliOEinsikiiniialstikital5ECliffsh Iib I./Abt adMIAhF8NEPf8NMm!ded fdf.N.RCitaff f6rmat.apa con ltsnyrev(ew)nlyj[nu;3
^$
References for Appendix C i
Bechtcl Corporation,1969, Ground Water Supply Investigationfor the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Near Prince Frederick, Maryland, Gaithersburg, Maryland, January. Transmissivity and the storage coefficient values are averages generated from the aquifer pump test published in this report.
Abramowitz, M. and Stegan, I. A.,1972, Handbook ofMathematica! Functions, National Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathematics Series 55,10th edition, Table W(u) and u.
1 J
2 4
i 4/8/97 21
Q EsenbQfrsniiFebidefj)7l1997Q@ irk'Dieft KnidrohnkktilRe5rtjLIEihiiRedskulStigEChi&QMgs kg6 ; ; JNuclear Pedptflant proyided for NRC staff formaQnd content reylewynlybudjg;3 1
2 Issue: Public Services, Transportation 3
4 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 5
2.1 Proposed Action 6
7 2.1.7 EMPLOYMENT 4
8 Section 2.1,7 identifies the size of the current CCNPP workforce, explains the basis for predicting 9
changes that would be attributable to license renewal, and compares GEIS and CCNPP estimates to
]
10 provide a basis for determining whether GEIS assumptions bound the CCNPP case.
11 Current Workforce 12 The CCNPP employs a permanent workforce of approximately 1,970 (1995), a number that is slightly 13 higher than the range of 600 to 800 personnel per reactor unit that GEIS Section 2.3.8.1 estimates.
14 Approximately 60 percent of CCNPP employees (1,104) live in Calvert County,16 percent live in 15 adjacent St. Mary's County, and the remaining 24 percent live in various other locations (Tucker 1995).
16 Approximately once a year, site employment increases by as many as 700 workers for temporary l
17 (1-3 rnonths) duty during refueling outages.1 This number is within the GEIS range of 200 and 900 18 additional workers per reactor outage.
19
. License RenewalIncrement 20 Performing the license renewal SMITTR and refurbishmer.t activities that Section 2.1.6 describes would 21 necessitate increasing the size of the CCNPP workforce by some increment. The size of this increment is 22 a function of the schedule within which the work must be accomplished and the workload.
23 The GEIS assumes that NRC would renew a nuclear power plant license for a 20-year period plus the 24 remaining duration of the current license and that it would issue the renewal approximately 10 years 25 prior to license expiration. In other words, the renewed license would be good for 30 years. The GEIS 26 determined that the utility.nould initiate SMITTR activities at the time ofissuance and would conduct 27 license tenewal SMITTR activities throughout the remaining 30-year life of the plant, sometimes during
~
28 full power operation (GEIS Section B.3.1.3) but mostly during normal refueling, and 5-year and 10-year I CCNPP units are on 2-year refueling intervals, and BGE generally schedules outages on staggered schedules.
4/8/97 1
Ewahd#ai*hMW!
We rotwa@rr.rormat as4.m.:a igiyh,Je 1
3 r
1 in-service refueling outages (GEIS Table B.4). The GEIS also assumes that major refurbishment 2
activities would be scheduled for completion during the 5 outages leading up to the expiration of the 3
current license period (i.e., during years 1-10 of the renewed license).
4 BGE has determined that the GEIS scheduling assumptions are reasonably representative of CCNPP 5
incremental license renewal workload scheduling. Most CCNPP license renewal SMITTR activities that 6
Section 2.1.6 describes would have to be performed during outages. Although some CCNPP license 7
renewal SMITTR activities would be one-time efforts, others would be recurring, periodic activities that 8
would continue for the life of the plant. As noted in Section 2.1.6, however, BGE does not anticipate the 9
level of refurbishment assumed by thWNS. The minor CCNPP refurbishment activity currently
)
10 proposed (cable replacement) woulJ take place during routine refueling outages.
I1 Table 2.1.7-1 and Figure 2.1.7-1 compare GEIS and CCNPP identification oflicense renewal outages, 12 outage durations, license renewal labor hours, and additional personnel needed. The differences between 13 the GEIS and CCNPP estimates are attributable to the difference in anticipated refurbishment activities; 14 CCNPP would not have refurbishment outages but, instead would have normal refueling and 5-and 15 16 year in-service inspections. As shown, the GEIS and CCNPP estimate that most of the additional 16 prsonnel needed to perform license renewal SMITTR activities would typically be 60 persons during i
17 the 3 month duration of a 10-year in-service refueling. Having established this upper value for what 18 would be a single event in 20 years, the GEIS uses this number as the expected number of additional 19 permanent workers needed per unit attributable to license renewal. GEIS Section C.3.1.2 uses this l
20 approach in order to "... provide a realistic upper bound to potential population-driven impacts...." For 21 the purpose of performing its own analyses in this environmental report, BGE is adopting the GEIS l
22 approach with one alteration. CCNPP license renewal plant modifications would be SMITTR activities
)
23 that would be performed mostly during outages and CCNPP Unit 1 and Unit 2 outage schedules are 24 generally staggered so as to not coincide. Therefore, BGE believes that it is unreasonable to assume that 25 each unit would need an additional 60 workers. Instead, as a reasonably conservative high estimate, 26 BGE is assuming that CCNPP would require a total of 60 additional permanent workers to perform 27 license renewal SMITER activities.
28 Conclusion 29 BGE estimates that CCNPP license renewal would necessitate the addition of a maximum of 60 workers 30 to perform license renewal SMITTR activities during four 3-month long 10-year in-service inspections 31 (2 per reector). In order to provide a realistic upper bound to potential population-driven impacts, the 4/8/97 2
1
~
o GExceiffiti frbiiiilFeliniafi 11l1997Qoukk DrkfYEfManistelpepshylO@Qf5&s/SiegChinN[Cliffsf k h A Eguclear PewdPlant provided forpRC staff format alad content revien onlyham %d
~
i environmental report assumes that the permanent full time CCNPP workforce would increase by 60, an 2
increase of 3 percent, from 1,970 to 2,030 workers.
3 4
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5
6 3.5 Public Services 7
1 1
8 3.5.3 TRANSPORTATION 9
Calve t County has one main four-lane road (Maryland State Highway 2-4) bisecting the county north to 10 south with smaller roads running like veins from the main road to the water on each side. Very few of 4
11 the smaller roads off Maryland 2-4 connect with each other; therefore, this highway services the bulk of 12 the trame for the length of the county. This highway runs adjacent to the CCNPP site and provides the 13 only access to the site (Figure 2.1-3). The U.S. Transportation Research Board has developed a 14 commonly used indicator (level of service) for measuring how well a roadway handles traffic volume.
15 Level of service is a qualitative measure of how ef6ciently an intersection or roadway services trafHc j
j 16 volume and the amount of vehicle delay that may be encountered by the average vehicle during peak 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br />. The level of service definitions used by local and state agencies, as well as the NRC in the GEIS 18 analysis, are provided in Table 3.5.3-1. Transportation studies performed by the State liighway 19 Administration indicate Maryland 2-4 generally operates at a level of service of A with free flowing 20 traf6c (Parrot 1996). Specincally in the area of CCNPP, County transportation studies indicate that the 21 segment of Maryland 2-4 approximately 2 miles north of CCNPP operates at an LOS of C with no 22 congestion, and Maryland 2-4 south of the plant to the County line operates at an LOS of A/B (Jakubiak 23 1996). The lower LOS reported for the section north of the plant is probably attributable to the continued 24 growth of the area. This ryowth has resulted in an ongoing demand for trame controls such as lights that 25 are currer.tly being added in the Prince Frederick area.
26 Based on 1995 trame data in the vicinity of CCNPP, daily northbound traffic averaged 17,250 vehicles 27 and daily southbound trame averaged 12,650 vehicles (Parrot 1996). A transportation study conducted 28 by BGE in 1992 (Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl 1992) reports traffic counts at the intersection of Maryland 29 2-4 and Calvert Cliffs Parkway that form the entrance to CCNPP for the morning and afternoon peak 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. Results indicate that trafGc flow in and out of the plant account for approximately half of the 31 vehicles traveling through the intersection during the hours observed. Rummel, Klepper and Kahl also 32 report that the intersection operates at an LOS of A in both the morning and afternoon peak hours.
4/8/97 3
( ticiipbifrohn Febr&if 11f199fRidgkDraftystrsikiestalRejiit%ifenji RenksalMujECalsert Clifs]
^
Maclearfewerflant proyided ftir NRCstaff format and. content revie(bnlyf Qn, ]6 aa x
1 BGE has made several improvements to the intersection of Maryland 2-4 and Calvert Cliffs Parkway.
2 Between 1989 and 1990, BGE underwrote the costs ($42,000) ofinstalling four street lights just inside 3
the State Highway Administration right-of-way at the entrance to improve visibility for the intersection.
4 In 1992 to reduce congestion at the entrance, BGE added an acceleration lane southbound at a cost of 5
approximately $125,000 (BGE 1993b).
6 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 7
AND MITIGATJNU ACTIONS 8
9 4.1.15 PUBLIC SERVICEF TRANSPORTATION 10 NRC I
11 The environmental report must contain an "...an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on local 12 transportation during periods oflicense renewal refurbishment activities." 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) 13
" Transportation impacts are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in 14 traffic with the additional workers and local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of 15 moderate or large significance at some sites..." 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 70 16 Small impacts would be associated with a free flowing traffic stream where users are unaffected by the 17 presence of other users (level of service A) m stat >le flow in which the freedom to select speed is 18 unaffected but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished (level of service B). GEIS Section 3.7.4.2 19 NRC made impacts to transportation a Category 2 issue because impact significance is determined 20 primarily by road conditions existing at the time of the project that NRC could not forecast for all plants 21 (GEIS Section 3.7.4.2). Local road conditions to be ascertained are (1) level of service conditions and 22 (2) incremental increase in traffic associated with license renewal SMITTR and refurbishment staff.
23 The GEIS relates the significance of transportation impacts to the Transportation Research Board's level 24 of service definitions. Level of service A and B are associated with small impacts because the operation 25 ofindividual users is not substantially affected by the presence of other users, and at this level no delays 26 occur and no improvements are needed (GEIS Section 3.7.4.2). Section 3.5.3 describes the road 27 conditions in the CCNPP area. Maryland 2-4 that provides access to the plant is generally characterized 28 as free flowing with a level of service A/B, except for a section north of the plant that has a level of 29 service C. Based on the level of service ratings alone, BGE expects impacts to transportation to be 30 "small," with possible " moderate" impacts through the one area north of the plant.
1 4/8/97 4
Q EicyijuifisiifetifiiiiidIQ997 AsiiKDiijftlirviishMsiset AspsFifLpysigJtus@Jsiii AshrA$#8cMM*W ProyidedptMC ste%rinat andlcostentjreyMonlys{Cstwrt CitT a
m I
However, the low number of additional staff needed for SMITfR activ ties through the renewal term 2
would limit potential impacts. As described in Section 2.1.7, a staffincrease of 60 additional full time 3
employees could result from license renewal SMITER and refurbishment activities. Average traffic flow 4
is given in Section 3.5.3 for both northbound and southbound directions. Assuming half of these 5
additional employees would travel north on Maryland 2-4 and half would travel south, the traffic impact 6
resulting from 60 additional vehicles represents an increase ofless than 1 percent (0.002 percent) of the 7
average daily traffic. Based on the minor increase in traflic flow and the general LOS rating of A/B for 8
Maryland 2-4, CCNPP license renewal impacts on transportation (Issue 70) would be expected to be 9
"small."
10 Sectio 13.5.3 describes measures BGE has taken to increase motorist safety at the entrance. The only iI effective measure to improve the level of service of Maryland 2-4 would be to expand the highway to 12 three lanes. The rninor increase in CCNPP staff as a result of license renewal SMITTR and 13 refurbishment activities would not warrant such an expenditure. However, BGE would continue 14 programs currently in place to reduce impacts to the local transportation system. CCNPP encourages its 15 employees to participate in carpools by offering preferred parking at the plant. In addition, continued 16 BGE tax payments through the license renewal term would support transportation improvements spurred 17 by rapid growth of the Tri-County area.
i 4/8/97 5
R Escerbis trbaiVeb^riaWINI991 RbsihpfsgE&lrbskikntilRibbh]Diehsk RikeskiStigi?alsiitpilfs?
i %d jyudedP#esiPlantkovid.ed forNRCithff f6rma(andjoutent.reviM6slybgma ! ;
I References 2
4 3
BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company),1993b, Intersection ofRoute 4 and Calvert Cli[fs Parkway, 4
Nuclear Security Memorandum, Lusby, Maryland, January 18.
1 5
Jakubiak. C. N.,1996, Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, Prince Frederick, Maryland 6
personal communication with T. Hudson, Halliburton NUS, Aiken, South Carolina," MD 2/4 LOS 7
near BGE plant," November 13.
8 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission),1996, Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor 9
License Renewal ofNuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C., May.
10 Parrott, N.,1996, Maryland Department of Transportation, Annapolis, Maryland personal 11 communication with T. Hudson, Halliburton NUS, Aiken, South Carolina, "LOS data for Maryland 12 Highway 2/4 and the vicinity of CCNPP," November 13.
4 13 Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl,1992, Calvert Clifp Nuclear Power Facility Transportation Study, 14 Baltimore, Maryland, July 6.
i 15 Tucker, R. L.,1995, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Lusby, Maryland, personal communication 16 with J. F. Bradley, Halliburton NUS Corporation, Aiken, South Carolina," Employment Level at 17 CCNPP," June 26.
I 4/8/97 6
Q ExEeij[tii frfhiVetifukii 17l1997 RiitgliDraftXiulroshiesdal Rnj&i(?lliikiiRiiiksklSskiCa Y D $d!
Jh[p%learPyc[#tantproyidfd forMRCMaff foimatlaaMntst rev%%hlyg,,12 1
Table 2.1.7-1. Comparison of GEIS to CCNPP license renewal personnel estimates.a Outage type GEIS estimatesb CCNPP estimates SMITTR activities None (full power operation) 0 labor hours 0 labor hours 0 additional personnel 0 additional personnel Normal refueling 8 occurrences, each requiring:
12 occurrences, each requiring:
2-month duration 2-month duration 3,488 labor hours 3,488 labor hours 8 additional personnel 8 additional personnel 5-year in-service refueling 2 occurrences, each requiring:
3 occurrences, each requiring:
3-month duration 3-month duration 20,935 labor hours 20,935 labor hours 33 additional personnel 33 additional personnel 10-year in-service refueling 1 occurrence, requiring:
2 occurrences, each requiring:
3-month duration 3-month duration 37,482 labor hours 37,482 labor hours 60 additional personnel 60 additional personnel Major refurbishment activities Current term refurbishment 4 occurrences, each requiring:
0 occurrences 3-month duration each 45,924 labor hours 72 additional personnel Major refurbishment outage 1 occurrence, requiring:
0 occurrences 4-month duration 219,018 labor hours 264 additional personnel 2
3 a.
Estimates are per reactor.
4 b.
Source: Modified from NRC (1996), Table B.4.
5 4/8/97 7
IfEneeip6kbQYNbriaifJ7{1997 R60gGDriftAsstrisniienialRa{pikfQkissIReuli5bthenigCkinrtfRfsff
((
jfj@fsleMPepppsahawiideyfjRC[ staff fsimst. And cdstentlevidayly[ua M*s) 1 Table 3.5.3-1. Level of Service definitions.a Level of service Conditions A
Free flow of the traffic stream; users are unaffected by the presence of others.
B Stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is unaffected but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished.
C Stable flow that marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users is significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream.
D High-density, stable flow in which speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted; small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems.
E Operating conditions at or near capacity level causing low but uniform speeds and extremely difficult maneuvering that is accomplished by forcing another vehicle to give way; small increases in flow or minor perturbations will cause breakdowns.
F Defines forced or breakdown flow that occurs wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. This situation causes the formation of queues characterized by stop-and-go waves and extreme instability.
2 3
a.
L urce: (NRC 1996).
4 4/8/97 8
- Enterpts from Febru'sy 17,1997 Rougir Draft Environnkn%IRepo'rt - License ReisewalStage Calvert Clifs
- NuclearPowerPlant provided for NRC staff format and content review only, _ _ _ f 1
Issue: Alternatives 2
3 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 4
2.2 Alternatives 5
NRC 6
"The environmental report shall discuss alternatives to the proposed action." 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), as adopted by reference at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) 7 7
8 "While many methods are available for generating electricity, and a huge number of combinations or 9
mixes can be assimilated to meet a defined generating requirement, such expansive consideration would 10 be too unwieldy to perform given the purposes of this analysis. Therefore, NRC has determined that a 11 reasonable set of alternatives should be limited to analysis of single, discrete electric generation sources 12 and only electric generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially available..." GEIS 13 Section 8.1.
14
"..the consideration of alternative energy sources in individual license renewal reviews will consider 15 those alternatives that are reasonable for the region, including power purchases from outside the 16 applicant's service area...." Supplementary information to final rule,61 FR 66537 - 66554, December 17 18,1996, at Section ll.H. page 66541, column 3.
18 The determination of what is a reasonable form of electric power generation within Maryland is 19 effectively made by three entities: utilities, the Maryland Public Service Commission, and the Maryland 20 Power Plant Research Program. Like many states, Maryland has a Public Service Commission that 21 regulates electric power companies such as BGE. Perhaps unique among the states, Maryland has also 22 established, within the Department of Natural Resources, the Maryland Power Plant Research Program.
23 This state agency is required by Maryland law to review and evaluate the impacts to Maryland's 24 environment from the construction and operation of electric power generating and transmission systems.
25 The Power Plant Research Program summarizes these evaluations biennially and advises the Public 26 Service Commission on environmental impacts of utility proposals. This environmental report makes 27 extensive reference to Maryland Power Plant Research Program publications.
28 The principal fuel burned in Maryland's power plants is coal, which in 1993 accounted for roughly 29 57 percent of the generation in Maryland. Nuclear generation, represented by CCNPP, accounted for 30 28 percent of the total, and oil and gas combined to produce approximately 10 percent (MDNR 1996).
4/8/97 1
{ Eicethis fiosliFeliruary 17 1997 Rough pfbft E31sonmenst Rejoh F Licslid RennalShkECalveH Cilffsy 7
gucleadoperPlant provided for NRC staff format and content review onlyj 1
This mixture is consistent with BGE experience with the cost of power generation. As shown in Table 2
2.2-1, coal and nuclear operating costs, measured as expenses per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, 3
are comparable and are significantly less expensive than oil-and gas-Gred generation. As was the case 4
when CCNPP was first licensed, coal-fired generation represents a feasible alternative to nuclear 5
generation. For this reason, Section 2.2.1.1 presents coal as a feasible alternative to CCNPP license 6
renewal. Although BGE gas-fired generation unit costs are not competitive with BGE coal and nuclear 7
operating costs, new gas-fired technology (combined cycle) offers significant efficiency improvements 8
and operating cost reduction. For this reason, Section 2.2.1.2 presents gas-fired generation as a feasible 9
alternative to CCNPP license renewal.
10 2.2.1 FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES 11 The goal of Section 2.2.1 and the related environmental analyses in Section 4.2, is to provide NRC with 12 sufficient information about feasible alternatives to CCNPP license renewal for NRC to be able to 13 consider the environmental consequences of renewal relative to environmental consequences of the 14 alternatives. For the purpose of this environmental report, the alternatives are presented as construction 15 at the existing CCNPP site. This was done primarily in recognition of siting constraints imposed by the 16 cooling water needs for a fossil-fuel-fired facility large enough to replace the CCNPP capacity. Use of a 17 once-through cooling system is feasible only by siting on a water body the size of the Chesapeake Bay; 18 assuming such siting facilitates inclusion of comparison between once-through and closed-cycle cooling 19 technologies. However, although the alternatives are presented as defined construction at a defmed site, 20 the sections also discuss ho v design and site variations could affect the alternative definition and the 21 resulting environmental consequences.
22 2.3.1.1 Coal-Fired Generation 23 For the purposes of this environmental report, it is assumed that it would take 1,800 megawatts electric 24 coal-fuel-fired generation to replace the 1,730 megawatts electric CCNPP nuclear plant. Some increase 25 in size would be necessary to offset increased internal electrical usage for pollution control and for 26 pumping water or transporting coal or ash up-gradient, for example. Actual equivalency, however, could 27 not be determined absent engineering design studies that have not been performed.
28 The CCNPP coal-fired alternative would consist of three 600-megawatt-electric units that would burn 29 pulverized coal. Each unit would have low nitrogen oxide burners and low excess air firing, fabric filters 30 or electrostatic precipitators. a lime / limestone flue gas desulfurization system (90 percent scrubber 31 removal efficiency), and an approximately 600-foot high stack. A maxim im of 5,400 tons of coal and 4/8/97 2
9ExceYpts tioin Febidisj:17l1997 Rbugfbfaft E510bnsientalRepodfLik E %d " e slNsclpar PdnffPtintjrovided for NRC haff forma.t an;d;conten(reilsf6nlyf,,, ' j; 1
300 tons oflime/ limestone per day per unit would be delivered by barge (assuming coal heating value of 2
13,000 British thermal units per pound, ash content 10 percent, sulfur content 1.6 percent). The power 3
block and coal pile would occupy approximately 300 acres. Particulate, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide 4
emissions would be [TBD] tons per year, respectively.
5 The plant would use the existing CCNPP intake and discharge structures as part of a once-through 6
cooling system. Although coal. fired plants require less cooling water than nuclear plants per megawatt, 7
due to the slightly increased size of the coal-fired alternative it is assumed that the coal-fired alternative 8
cooling water volume and temperature rise would be approximately the same as for the current nuclear 9
plant (2,600 million gallons per day with 12 degree Fahrenheit temperature rise). The alternative 10 closed-cycle system would also use the existing intake and discharge structures but would also have a 11 675-to 700-foot high natural draft cooling tower for each unit, with a cooling water consumption of 12 approximately 26 million gallons per day at a minimum of two concentrations for cooling tower 13 blowdown.
14 Approximately 1.6 million tons per year of waste (ash and scrubber sludge) would disposed of onsite, 15 requiring a plant lifetime (40 years) total of approximately 600 acres. The existing switchyard and 16 transmission system would be used. The workforce during the 8-year construction period is expected to 17 average 1,500, with a peak of 2,000, and during operations to average 400, 18 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 19 AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 20 4.2 No-Action Alternative 21 NRC 22
" the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives..." 10 CFR 23 Sl.53(c)(2) 24
" GEIS contains a discussion of the environmental impacts of alternative energy sources... The 25 information in the GEIS is available for use by the NRC and the licensee in performing the site-specific 26 analysis of alternatives..." Supplementary information to the final rule,61 FR 28467 - 28497, June 5, 27 1996, at Section III.B.3, page 28472, column 3.
4/8/97 3
y EiN@' ahs i]Nuplear: Power Plant provided,for NRC st.aff format'a;nd k
l 4.2.1 COAL-FIRED GENERATION 2
Land Use 3
The coal fired generation alternative would necessitate converting roughly an additional 900 acres of the 4
CCNPP site to industrial use. Currently, some of this land is farmed and the rest is a revegetated dredged 5
spoils disposal area. Additional land use would be attributable to mining necessary to supply 40 years 6
worth of coal. These changes would noticeably alter current CCNPP land use patterns and would be a 7
moderate impact.
8 The closed-cycle cooling system alternative would impact another 25 acres for cooling tower 9
construction. Construction at a new site would impact roughly another 150 acres for offices, roads, 10 parking areas, and a switchyard. Another 1,200 acres for transmission lines (assuming plant is sited 11 10 miles from nearest inter-tie connection). Depending particularly on transmission line routing, these 12 alternatives could result in moderate to large land use impacts.
13 Ecology i
14 Siting at the existing CCNPP site would have little ecological impact due to the use of farmland and a j
15 dredged spoils disposal area and use an existing intake and discharge system to which the area aquatic 16 ecology has become acclimated. Twenty years of CCNPP operational monitoring have demonstrated 17 that ecological impacts would be small.
18 The closed-cycle cooling system alternative would further reduce operational aquatic ecology impacts 19 but would introduce risk to vegetation, particularly tobacco crops, from salt drift Construction at 20 another site could significantly increase ecological impacts and would have to be reviewed for potential 21 impact to threatened and endangered species. Even at an existing power plant site, adding the CCNPP 22 alternative coal-fired generation would introduce construction impacts and new, albeit incremental, 23 operational impacts. At a greenfield site, in an undisturbed area, the impacts would certainly alter the 24 ecology. These ecological impacts could be moderate to large.
25 Aesthetics 26 The three power plant structures, which could be as much as 200 feet tall, would be visible over 27 intervening trees for miles around, particularly in both directions along the reach of the Chesapeake Bay.
28 The three 600-foot tall stacks could be visible as far away as Annapolis, at a distance of 40 miles. This 4/8/97 4
- l ExeeifjitiffrQ FebYGiiiil1l1997'RnkgWDrsft Ehlrihisiskal Rejinet ?LicensiRedi&alhijiXalvirilliffk?
b SNbddNNI8kfNkkMlikhrolidEdfo@RChafffirina(Indj$stisjreviewonlyj($dhd g i
view would contrast strongly with what is otherwise a natural-appearing rural area, with woods and 2
farming areas, and would be a large visual aesthetic impact. Coal-fired generation would also introduce 3
additional mechanical sources of noise (e.g., induced-draft fans and coal handling equipment) that would 4
be audible offsite.
5 The closed-cycle cooling system alternative would further increase aesthetic impacts by adding three 6
700-foot cooling towers and associated plumes. Alternative locations could reduce the aesthetic impact 7
of coal-fired generation if siting was in an area that was already industrialized. In such a case, however, 8
the introduction of such tall stacks and cooling towers would probably still have a moderate incremental 9
impact. Although the environmental report is assuming use of natural draft towers as an alternative 10 technology, mechanical draft towers are also available. Such devices, being only 50 to 100 feet tall, i1 would reduce the visual impact of natural draft towers. Mechanical draft towers, however, introduce 12 another noise source.
13 Water Quality 14 Because the coal-fired generation alternative is assumed to use the existing CCNPP intake and discharge 15 structures and share water flow and temperature characteristics, water quality impacts would continue to 16 be small. The reduced workforce size (1,970 to 400) would reduce groundwater withdrawals for potable 17 water use, but the existing groundwater impact is already small (Section 4.1.5). Leachate from coal 18 storage areas and waste disposal areas would have to be controlled to avoid groundwater contamination.
19 The closed-cycle cooling system alternative would introduce cooling tower blowdown that would be at 20 least two and one half times as saline as the Chesapeake Bay but, because of the reduced flow, water 21 quality impacts should still be small.
22 Air Quality 23 Air quality impacts of coal-fired generation would be moderate to large. Introducing particulate, j
24 nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide emissions of [TBD] tons per year would necessitate obtaining offsets [to 25 be verified]. Coal handling equipment would introduce fugitive particulate emissions; coal piles are 26 radioactive and coal combustion releases radionuclides and other hazardous air pollutants. These 27 impacts would be moderate to large.
4/8/97 5
{Esiiiig%ifMiifi6iss@Q99fAsii$iMJDndhiasssitJfigiftflkiyQisil%nlyfimyjga udE2$s5gjggmedrarhMest pen! ed fo[@Cjstt format and centent animo faSiiifgg I
'l Siting the coal fired generation elsewhere would not significantly change air quality impacts, although it 2
could necessitate installing more or less stringent pollution control equipment to meet applicable 3
standards. The impacts would still be moderate to large.
4 Waste 5
Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and air pollution control equipment generates 6
additional ash and scrubber sludge. Approximately 1.6 million tons of this waste would be generated 7
annually for 40 years and disposed of onsite, accounting for 600 of the 900 acres ofland use. This is a 8
moderate impact that could extend well after the 40-year operation life because revegetation 9
management and groundwater monitoring for leachate contaminant impacts could be a permanent 10 requirement. This impact would be moderate to large. Siting elsewhere would not alter waste 11 generation, although other sites might have more constraints on disposal locations.
12 Human Health
.13 Coal-fired generation introduces worker risks from fuel and time / limestone mining and worker and 14 public risks from fuel and lime / limestone transportation and stack emissions inhalation. Stack impacts 15 can be very widespread and health risks difficult to quantify. This alternative also introduces the risk of 16
. coal fires and attendant inhalation risks. Overall, however, these risks are small.
- 17 Socioeconomics 18 It is assumed that coal-fired construction would take place while the CCNPP nuclear plant continues 19 operation, finishing at the time that the nuclear plant would halt operations. Therefore, for the 6-year 20 construction period, the site would have between 1,500 and 2,000 additional workers. During this time, 21-the surrounding communities would experience demands on housing and public services that could have 22 large impacts. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss ofjobs; construction 23 workers would leave, the nuclear plant workforce (1,970) would decline through a decommissioning
- 24 period to a minimal maintenance size, and the coal-fired plant would introduce only 400 newjobs.
25-Socioeconomic impacts from start of construction through nuclear plant decommissioning would be
- 26. moderate to large.
27.- ~ Construction at another site would relocate some socioeconomic impacts but would not eliminate them; 28 the community around CCNPP would still experience the impact ofjob CCNPP operational job loss and 4/8/97 6
NEiih%frid FeViiijif11l1997hhih[DisfKnobbNikehist Rehri[Lic5EEERidesklBindCkl5Npifgyi k
iS5hadM$l*Ntf0$kU5M Prpided.fdNRCjijaff forina{ndjoatent reilesylygfljbssy.3 1
the communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary workforce 2
and a moderate, permanent workforce.
3 Cultural 4
Coal-fired generation at CCNPP would not affect cultural resources. Construction at another site could 5
necessitate instituting cultural resource preservation measures (power block area or transmission line 6
right-of-way), but impacts can generally be managed and maintained as small.
l 7
q l
i
[
i r
I t
l l
4/8/97 7
i
{
i
[EGespiiirhiiiiyelirnirf{lK1991lin kDrugQlosk5sdalRsishjDesNQRhisal4%ij;Cilwrtill#}@
s
$ m 551 SENI'AkM#ff/8N Provided for NRC staff format'and chutent reviewyntyhgdfy}
l Table 2.2-1. BGE fuel types cost of operation.
Expenses per Primary net Normal mode type of fuel kilowatt-hour Plant name Kind of plant ofoperation Nuclear
$0.0190 CCNPP Nuclear Baseload Coal
$0.0168 Conemaugh Steam Baseload Coal
$0.0184 Brandon Shores Steam Baseload Coal
$0.0193 Keystone Steam '
Baseload Coal
$0.0233 Crane Steam Baseload Coal
$0.0269 Wagner Steam Baseload Natural gas
$0.0617 Westport Combustion Peaking turbine Natural gas
$0.0630 Notch Cliff Combustion Peaking turbine Natural gas
$0.1393 Riverside 4 Steam Intermediate Oil
$0.0546 Gould Street Steam Intermediate Oil
$0.0858 Perryman Combustion Peaking turbine Oil
$0.1051 Wagner Combustion Intermediate turbine Oil
$0.1162 Crane Combustion Peaking turbine Oil
$0.1314 Riverside 6-8 Combustion Peaking turbine Oil
$0.1323 Keystone Internal Peaking combustion Oil
$0.1732 Conemaugh Internal Peaking combustion 2
3 Source: Modified from BGE(1995).
4/8/97 8
s,? Eit'eriits ifin(FeliH;rj 17; 1997 RnsgklDfaft EnslionmEntalRehrtjLlcens&AeniEsalSinje Calsit Cliffik
~
ig ;guclear Power Plant provided for;NRC staff format _and. content rev;iew only[
s ga j (.;!]
1 REFERENCES 2
3 BGE (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company),1995, FERC Form No,1: Annual Report of Major Electric 4
Utilities, Licensees and Others, May.
5 MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources),1996, AlarylandPower Plants and The 6
Environment, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis, Maryland, May.
l l
4/8/97 9
l
/
cc:
President Mr. Joseph H. Walter, Chief Engineer Calvert County Board of Public Service Commission of Commissioners Maryland 175 Main Street Engineering Division Prince Frederick, MD 20678 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21202-6806 D. A. Brune, Esquire General Counsel Kristen A. Burger, Esquire Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Maryland People's Counsel P.O. Box 1475 6 St. Paul Centre Baltimore, MD 21203 Suite 2102 Baltimore, MD 21202-1631 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge Patricia T. Birnie, Esquire 2300 N Street, NW Co-Director Washington, DC 20037 Maryland Safe Energy Coalition P.O. Box 33111 Mr. Terrence J. Camilleri, Director, Baltimore, MD 21218 NRM Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Larry Bell 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway NRC Technical Training Center Lusby, MD 20657-47027 5700 Brainerd Road Chattanooga, TN 37411-4017 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Barth Doroshuk Commission Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 287 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway St. Leonard, MD 20685 Lusby, MD 20657-47027 Mr. Richard I. McLean Mr. Robert Tucker Administrator - Radioecology Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Department of Natural Resources 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway 580 Taylor Avenue Lusby, MD 20657-47027 Tawes State Office Building, B3 Annapolis, MD 21401 Mr. Doug Walters Nuclear Energy Institute Regional Administrator, Region I 1776 I Street, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 400 475 Allendale Road Washington, DC 20006-3708 King of Prussia, PA 19406