ML20151V844
| ML20151V844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1987 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151V842 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8805030210 | |
| Download: ML20151V844 (23) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
h
.1*
, 9 .
, g
. ATTACHMDIT A '
a
. t Byron Station Environmental Protection Plan :
1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report l l
Section 4.2' Environmental Monitoring i
- Section 4.2.1 Aerial Remote Sensing The aerial photographic monitoring program was done in 1987, as scheduled in l the Environmental Protection Plan for Byron Station. The aerial photographs and the field survey covered an area of approximately one mile radius centered !
at the Byron Station cooling towers. The photographs were taken at a scale of ;
one inch to five hundred feet using falso color infrared film. The photography was done on August 17, 1987 and the field survey was done on ,
September 12, 1987. i 4 !
4 The examination and analysis of the photographs and the field survey was j
- performed by a consulting plant pathologist. Dead, dying and stressed foliage i 4
signatures and different plant types were identified and marked on the l photographs and then inspected during the field survey to determine the cause of the signatures on the photographs. j J. :
. The plant pathologist prepared a report covering the results of the analysis , j of the aerial photographs and the ground truthing field survey of the suspect [
areas. The conclusion being that a wide-range of plant species were observed !
in the survey area but no saline aerosol or salt injury was identified. ;
Abnormal foliage signatures seen on the photographs or in the field survey !
were found to ba the result of herbicide applications, plant diseases and j water damage or from planting and cultivating problems. A copy of the !
consultant's report is submitted herewith together with a set of positive !
- color transparencies encompassing the survey area. !
The 1987 aerial photographic monitoring represents 6.he second operational i
- survey, the third operational survey is scheduled to be done during the sunumer '
! of 1989.
i f
ll
[
t esososo2io 3M//
~
- l DR ADOCK o3000454 l DCD l l !
c
s
'. b ATTAC104ENT A Byron Station Environmental Protection Plan 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report Section 4.2 Environmental Monitoring Section 4.2.2 Confirmatory Sound Level _btevey A. During 1987, sound level surveys were performed at various points around the perimeter of Byron Station as well as noise sensitive locations within a five mile radius of the plant. All measurements were performed with Unit 1 and Unit 2 under normal operation and the cooling tower operating with a water flow rate near design capacity. Surveys were performed during the summer months with the foliage at near peak presence.
Real time octave and one-third octave band data was acquired at each microphone location. In addition, a twenty minute recorded sample was taken at each site location which was later analyzed in the Commonwealth Edison System Operational Analysis Department laboratory to determine the statistical variation of the sound levels. Efforts were made during field acquisition to eliminate extraneous noise events from the recorded samples. This was done so as not to bias the tape recordings with data that would not allow a true assessment of the amount of noise generated from the facility. However, in certain situations, the tape recorded data is simply an indication of the ambient noise as opposed to the station's contribution to it. This was the case either in high background noise areas or in areas distant enough from the Generating Station so that plant activity was not apparent. At some locations the traffic noise was the dominant noise. Since traffic noise was constant, efforts to eliminate it from the recordings were futile. In these cases, this information has been noted on the data sheets and the noise measured cannot be construed to indicate the actual impact of the facility upon that area.
All measurements taken conform with ANSI Standards and Procedures for Type-1 instrumentation setups. The results of the data analysis include the daytime, nighttime, and day / night equivalent sound levels measured. This appears on the data sheets in the form of exceedance levels of L-1 and L-99. The L-1 level is a statistical parameter indicating the noise level which is exceeded 1% of the time. This could be considered the high range of the noise levels present. On the other hand, L-99 indicates the noise level exceeded 99% of the time and can be considered to be the lowest levels present at this locale.
ATTACID4ENT A (Continued)
The data sheets, also delineate the overall A-weighted sound level measured as well as the octave band levels between the frequency bands of 31.5 to 8000 Hz center frequencies. Furthermore, the appropriate regulatory criteria or guidelines appear on the forms.
The State of Illinois Regulations were amended on January 22, 1987. The major amendment to the previous regulations consists of the Leq, with a one-hour reference time, as the measurement which shall be utilized to determine compliance with sound emissions standards of part 901. Analyses of the tape recordings indicate compliance with the State of Illinois regulations. At certain locations, the numerical values would exceed the criteria at various octave band frequencies. In these situations, a notation on the data form explains the reason for the high value. A tonal component was found at Location-1 as noted on Data Sheet 4.2.2-1. However, this level would not exceed the State of Illinois discrete tone rule, 901.106.
Overall review of the data also indicates compliance with Federal EPA and HUD criteria. Noise levels at several locations would exceed Federal EPA and HUD criteria. However, again, explanations are offered by the notations on the data forms.
Similar sound level readings will be made at the same location during the winter months and a final assessment of the environmental impact with both units under normal operation will be made.
B. Noise Related Complaints - No noise complaints concerning Byron Station were received by Commonwealth Edison in 1987.
l I
ATTACitGNT A '
(Continued) t 6
Results of the 1987 Foliar Survey of the Byron Generating Station and its Environs ,
f 9
Prepared by ;
Barry J. Jacobsen, Ph.D.
Plant Pathologist ,
for Coerunonwealth Edison Company Chicago, IL L
r i
e n
. r 4
- (2001M/0217M/040888) l
Introduction.
The 1987 foliar survey done on 9/12/87. Plant foliage within 1-1.5 miles of the cooling towers was inspected for potential injury from saline aerosols.
This and previous surveys detail the plant diseases and other foliar abnormalities present in the survey area. Special attention was given to salt injury type damage, since work by McCune et al. (1) indicates that acute foliar injury from saline aerosols might be anticipated under certain conditions (eg., high temperature, high humidity, still air, prolonged inversion conditions) on sensitive plant species growing downwind from natural draft cooling towers. The most salt sensitive plant species comon in the environs of the Byron generating station include American elm, white pine, and alfalfa. This survey documents the condition of foliage 2 years after the plant became operational.
Methods and Materials.
Analysis of aerial infrared Cibachrome print photographs, ground truth examination of areas of unusual signature, and random ground surveys were all used in the survey. Infrared photographs, taken by Aerometric Engineering Inc., Sheboygan, WI on 8-17-87, were of high quality. The area photographed envered all or portions of sections 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of Marion township and sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 24 of Rockvale Township.
Ground surveys were generally limited to this area except for examination of similar plant species 10-20 miles away from the survey area.
Photographs 1-1 through 1-8 are from the most northerly flight line and show an area from approximately 0.25 mile east of Black Walnut Rd. to approximately 1
McCune. D., D. Silbernam, R. Mandel, L. Weinstein, P. Freudenthal, and P.
Giardina. 1977. Studies on the effects of saline aerosols cooling towers origin on plants. J. Air Poll. Contr. Assoc. 27:319-324.
2 0.6 miles west of Razorville Rd. The northerly limit of this set of photo-graphs is roughly Acorn Rd. and the southerly limit the parking areas on the northside of the generating station.
Photographs 2-1 through 2-8 depicted the approximately the same limits east i
and west as Photographs 1-1 through 1-8 but had a northerly limit of the ri.ilroad track at the north edge of the station and a southerly limit at the south edge of the generating station. [
Photographs 3-1 through 3-7 depict the area with approximately the same east and west boundaries on Photograph sets 1-1 through 1-8 and 2-1 through 2-8.
The northern boundary of this flight line is the south edge of the station and the southern boundary is approximately 0.5 miles south of Deer Path Road.
Photographs 4-1 through 4-3 are high altitude photographs and depict the area within sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and portions of 28, 29, and 30 of Marion township and sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, and portions of 25, 26, 27 of Rockvale township. l Results.
No saline aerosol or salt related injuries were identified in the survey area. Abnormal signatures on infrared photographs and in ground truth surveys were found to he due to soil erosion, weeds growing in crop fields, herLicide injury, root damage due to construction associated compaction or grade t changes, fertility deficiencies, plant diseases, insect damage, soil type differences, and transplant problems.. Specific examples are given in analysis of the following photographs.
, ',. 3 Photograph 4-1.
Site 4-1-1. This area is woody ornamental planting. Generally, hawthorn, green ash, viburnum, dogwood, maple, and linden specimens were healthy. Abnormalities found included anthracnose of green ash and early senescence of dogwood associated with stress.
Although not shown on the photograph the large maple (site 4-1-la) showed a significant amount of wind damage at the time of the survey. Limbs up to 6" in diameter were broken primarily on the northwest face of the tree.
Site 4-1-2 is an eroded area where corn growth is poor due to nutrient deficiency. Due to lack of crop competition, grassy weeds were the prevalent growth in this area of the corn field.
Photograph 4-3.
The site marked 4-3-1 is an area of pipeline construction. While foliar signatures are normal in the photo, ground survey identified root damage that will show up as unilateral dieback in future years.
Sites 4-1-3 and 4-1-5. These sites are corn fields showing lodging damage. Lodging was found to be caused by damage from stalkrot diseases and
- corn borer damage. At site 4-1-3, potash deficiency was evident and this predisposed the corn plants to stalkrot problems.
Site 4-1-4 denotes the unusual signatures on the borders of this corn field. Ground truth identified this as damage from corn crop herbicide taken up through the root system of woody plants such as slippery elm, hackberry and boxelder.
Photograph 1-1.
Site 1-1-1. This signature was described previously as site 4-1-5.
o
- 4 Site 1-1-2. This is a large dead oak. The cause of death could not be detennined.
Photograph 1-3.
Site 1-3-1 shows oaks with some stagheading. Ground truth indicated that this dieback appeared to be associated with a changed watertable, erosion, and culvert construction.
Photograph 1-4.
Site 1-4-1. These large trees are dying. A specific cause was not identified in the ground survey but both the oak wilt and Dutch Elm diseases are comon in this area. Surrounding trees have normal signatures. 3 Site 1-4-3. This planting of crabapple, maple, redpine, scotch pine, white spruce, honey locust, pin oak, and hawthorn were generally healthy. Some chlorosis was noted on some crabapple and pin oak specimens and appeared to be associated with planting depth and/or transplant shock.
Photograph 1-5.
Sites 1-5-1 and 1-5-2 are dead or dying trees. Site 1-5-2 is the same as 1-4-1. Site 1-5-1 is on private property (motocross course) and tree decline is likely associated with soil compaction or damage caused by motorcycle operations.
Photograph 1-7.
Sites 1-7-1 denotes an oak with significant dieback. Dieback is associated with road construction in previous years.
- . S Photograph 2-2.
Sites 2-2-1 and 2-2-3 denote elms dying from Dutch Elm Disease.
Site 2-2-3 has been discussed previously as site 4-1-2.
Photograph 2-3.
~
Site 4-1-4. This area has been discussed previously as site 4-1-4 on Photograph 4-1.
photograph 2-6.
i Site 2-6-1. This was a large boxelder with a heavy seed set. This indicates stress. There were no' obvious signs of pathology evident. However, other boxelder in the area also showed marginal chlorosis and heavy seed set.
This was also true in areas 10-20 miles away from the survey areas.
Site 2-6-2. Ground survey did not reveal any problem at this site.
l Photograph 3-1.
Site 3-1-1 were sites where decline most likely associated with decay. Site 3-2-1 were crabapples showing damage from the scab disease. Site 3-1-2 is an area of water damage.
Photograph 3-3.
Site 3-3-1 was an elm dying from Dutch Elm Disease.
Site 3-3-2. This is an area of differing soil types resulting in poorer corn growth.
Site 3-3-3 was a hackberry showing chlorosis typical of triazine type herbicide injury. Adjacent hackberry trees appeared normal.
' s 6
Photograph 3-4.
Site 3-4-1 was an area of erosion damage.
Site 3-4-2 was normal and the abnormal signature appears to be due to sun angle false signature.
General Coments.
The following are host abnormalities noted during the ground survey.
Corn---comon rust, grey leafspot, northern corn leaf blight, stalkrot, anthracnose, corn borer damage, potash and nitrogen deficiency Soybeans---Brown stem rot, Septoria brown spot, bacterial blight, downey mildew Grape (wild)---Isariopsisleafspot,blackrot,phenoxyherbicideinjury Brambles---Orange rust, Septorai leafspot, anthracnose Apple---Apple scab, transplant damage, Sooty b'otch, Flyspeck, blackrot Elm (American, Slippery, Siberian)---canker,herbicideinjury (photosynthetic inhibitor type), blackspot, Dutch Elm disease Maple---Storin damage, decay Hickory---Leafspot, tent caterpiller injury Oak---Storm damage decay, Actinopeltae leafspot, transplant damage Boxelder---Herbicide injury (both phenoxy and photosynthetic inhibitors type), heavy seed set and early senecence from suspected environmental stress.
This was observed in areas 10-20 miles remote from the plant.
Hackberry---Nipple gall mite damage, herbicide injury (photosynthetic inhibitortype)
Green Ash---Anthracnose, dieback associated with transplant stress Blackcherry---tent caterpillar damage
7 Alfalfa---common leafspot, leafhopper burn Horsenettle---chlorosis of unknown causes Smartweed---Septoria leafspot Golden rod---aster yellows Hhite pine---minor ozone injury Conclusion.
No saline aerosol or salt related injury was identified in the area surveyed. Abnormalities noted were caused by plant diseases, transplant shock, construction, drainage problems, fertility, soil differences, erosion, herbicide injury, or weeds.
It should be noted that in the area of new pipeline construction west of the generating station dieback of oaks and other hardwoods can be expected where grades were changed or where soil piles sit for more than 30 days. This damage will be most pronounced in 2-3 years.
P 4
1 .
ATTACHMENT A (Continued)
Results of the 1987 Confinatory Sound Level Survey of the Byron Generating Station and its Environs Prepared for Byron Station by Terrence J. Whalen System Operational Analytical Department cw ealth Edison Company Chicago, Illinois
[
l l
i
[
(2001M/0217N/040888)
l M5iiiiiiid.~
~' '
. O d E E c
- c
+
2n B o
Black Walnut Rd.
Natural l* (,t,9,?,. ' . tt e ? ? ???3.tt e ? ? ? .f tt ? ? ? ? . tt ? ? ? ?.tt e.Y.)
h COO Draf t lIng g
a
= . .: ::. m
- ?
- ::: .!:: Towers E
$ !!i< litj $
':* y
(.* ? .:i "s?.y.
. .:. i.:. .:
.. . p j:ji .....:iGerman Church Rd.' . , . :!'j f:! ..... ... ..?" .: 3 ~M il.! .
.. ,. : $.P. .l.s.. ri.t.T.....!!: . _i!! . 0. i. ,.
Elmner.er
- ! =:. .::::::..
=
'* -i:: m Cliurcli
- .. !.:. ,fi:i.
. . i:::.s j' :- ....s
. .. . . . . ... ... :.CL
.:........,........I.........,,
. . . v . . t :: Mechanical .- 3 :;; . ;: i t :
iii Draft i: /" 5
- m
.,,i :iCooling 1ower : :::. m nawk Ud.
HOllSe :: m N:
....,,,,..s' .. . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . . .';- ! " 7% H0tlSeS
- . z:.'......... Rator vlile Rd.
- . d!: ,.::.Y ec .. ..
! e :: . j'g
& :: Bi: .i: e i #ii .:.; ..: : : rc of River 44 j. p,::,;.:n4: g or Screen House j:) !! O j( j vinc or. E
. . e
- ., : o
- i j j. i Cellietery ii V)_niver nd._ s I n,.
o} IIRON NUttttt CINIRillNC 11til0M
..................... Sit e B o u n d a r y . UNIi$ 1 & 2 ._
O"oi e erediciioa 'ocaiioa FIGUR E 4. 7-.2. -1
'~ '- -- -
l p t ] I ll'l lijf llHij lfu A l[Illl'.
SCALE IN FEET '
f ~
l Lt AF tiV t p tyRON h \
.-f 8
/ R StLtMAN i
V AttLY D avl $
i- g, PtANT JUNCTION O2 ,'.
l MT. mot tis \ h e A, , [ HOLCOMS 64 pay (g$
\
P olN T e
- . . /
'I'{, % #
l U
Ott00N f gino s (0 9 OAYSYlLLE CHANA su t itAGO CENit t i 5, e ROCHELLE Q.
l e lultti s
-C' Statt E s.
STROM -:f'at GLNER411NG $1All0N 21113 .1 &2 i !GURE 4.2.2-2 LOCA7!' A 0F C0f t!!UtilTIES WlitilN 5 f " I. . af THE STATICfl USED lli
( m~n A' . ~ bei fl015E f1E A3UREllEllT S w
. ~ BYROtt UNIT-1 and UNIT-2 SOUND LEVEL SURVEY DATA SHEET 4.2.2-1 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS DUE TO NORMAL CONTINUOUS OPERATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN HERTZ dBA 11 11 125 210 10D 11 21 si Al CClit LOCATION NUMBER ONE (ll)
Winter Day Winter Night Summer Day 37 46 44 39 35 33 30 29 28 26 Sumer Night 64 53 52 47 52 42 37 40 41 60 (1,2)
LOCATION NUMBEK TWO (42)
Winter Day Winter Night e
Summer Day 37 46 41 37 27 27 25 27 34 27 (1) e e Sumer Night 42 36 34 29 26 28 26 33 32 41 (1) i ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD RULES, SECTION 901.102 (3)
Daytime (Rule a) -75 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Highttime (Rule b) 69 67 62 54 47 41 36 32 32 CODMENTS (1)
- High levels in these octave bands due to the contribution of insect noise.
(2) & Tonal component in the 250 octave band does not exceed the State of Illinois discrete tone rule.
(3) 6 Ammended January 22, 1987. The new amendmet.0 which only affects the measurement procedure, has no significance, in this case, since the station noise is continuous and steady-state.
(2010M/0220N/041388/1) s
., BYRCal UNIT-1 and UNIT-2 SOUND LEVEL SURVE7 DATA SHEET 4.2.2-2 MEASURED NOISE LEV 4LS DUE TO NORMAL CWTINUOUS OPERATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER TREQUENCIES IN HERTE dBA H H H5 210 120 h h h h C0th.
LOCATION NUMBER THREE (83)
Ninter Day Ninter Hight Summer Day 38 57 53 46 33 33 31 20 29 29 e e Sunener Night 59 60 59 51 37 33 32 30 34 54 (1)
LOCATION NUMBER TOUR (04)
Ninter Day Ninter Night Sunener Day 44 52 54 52 45 40 38 36 31 27 e e Summer Night 59 49 52 47 37 33 29 33 37 48 (1) i ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD RULES, SECTION 901.102 (2)
Daytime (Rule a) 75 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Nigt.ttime (Rule b) 69 67 62 54 47 41 36 32 32 COG 4ENTS :
(1)
- High levels in these octave bands due to the contribut. ion of insect noise.
(2) i Amnended January 22, 1987. The new amenenent which only affects the measurement procedure, has no significance, in this case, since the station noise is continuous and steady-state.
(2010M/0220M/041388/2)
I
., BYRON UNIT-1 and UNIT-2 SOUND LEVEL SURVEY DATA SHEET 4.202-3 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS DUE TO NORMAL CONTINUOUS OPERATION OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN HERTZ dBA H H ni HQ 3RQ R h ik n Coll.
BYRON CITY LIMITS Winter Day Winter Night Summer Day 35 45 49 44 34 29 27 25 25 26 e e Summer Night 46 35 35 27 26 18 17 32 42 42 (1)
OREGON CITY LIMITS Winter Day Winter Night Summer Day 41 47 50 52 41 35 32 28 30 27 e e Summer Night 43 44 46 48 35 29 25 30 39 38 (1) 8 ILLINOIS POLUUTION CONTROL BOARD RULES, SECTION 901.102 (2)
Daytime (Rule a) 75 74 69 64 58 52 47 43 40 Nighttime (Rule b) 69 67 62 54 47 41 36 32 32 COM ENTS:
(1)
- High levels in these octave bands due to the contribution of insect noise.
(2) i Ammended January 22, 1987. The new mnendment which only affects the measurement procedure, has no significance, in this case, since the station noise is continuous and steady-state.
(2010H/0220H/041388/3)
SYR(El UNIT-1 and UNIT-2 SOUND LEVEL SURVEY DATA SHEET 4.2.2-4 CALCULATED SATATISTICAL NOISE LEVELS DUE TO NORMAL CONTINUOUS OPERATION NOISE LEVELS IN DECIBELS Ld La Ldn L1 le.91 LOCATION NUMBER ONE (ll)
Winter Day Winter Night i
Sumner Day 39 68 46 35 4 i Sumner Night 62 68 67 51 LOCATION NUMBER 'INO ( O2)
Winter Day Winter Night Sumer Day 45 49 52 36 Sumer Hight 42 49 45 40 LOCATION NUMBER THREE (83)
Winter Day Winter Night i
Sumner Day 42 65 51 37 4 4 Sumer Night 59 65 62 50 Ldn FEDERAL GUIDLINE Evnironsmental Protection Agency (EPA) <55 TEDERAL CRITERIA Housing & Urban Developenent (HUD) <65 COW 4ENTS : (4) High level due to contribution of insect noise.
(2010N/0220H/041388/4)
, , BYRON UNIT-1 and UNIT-2 SOUND LEVEL SURVEY ,
- DATA SHEET 4.2.2-5 I
CALCULATED SATATISTICAL NOISE LEVELS DUE TO NORMAL CONTINUOUS OPERATION >
NOISE LEVELS IN DECIBELS i
Ld LA LdA L-l L 9.1 !
LOCATION NUMBER ONE (44)
Winter Day Winter Night e
Sunumer Day 48 66 54 44 :
e e
["
Sunener Night 60 66 62 58 BYRON CITY LIMITS [
Winter Day Winter Night I Sunener Day 39 53 44 34 Summer Night 47 53 51 45 l
OREGCM CITY LIMITS i Winter Day 1
! Winter Night
- i Sunener Day 43 56 40 40 !
e a 7
Sunener Night 50 56 60 43 [
Ldn '
TEDERAL GUIDLINE Evnironmental Protection Agency (EPA) <55 TEDERAL CRITERIA Housing & Urban Development (HUD) <65 COM4ENTS : (*) High level due to contribution of insect noise.
't v
(2010N/0220M/041388/5)
Byron Station Environmental Protection Plant 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report.
ATTAC19ENT E List of Environmental Protection Plan non-compliances and corrective actions.
None (2001M/0217N/040888)
Byron Station Environmental Protection Plan 1987 Annual Environetntal Operating Repor_t ATTACHMENT C Section 3.1 Plant Design and Operation List of changes in station design, operation, tests and experiments which involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental question.
- 1. In 1987, the City of Byron sought to lease or buy approximately one acre of land on the station site for the purpose of building a water tower. The land parcel is located on the make-up and blowdown corridor, west of Razorville Road, on the south side of Acorn Road.
The action was reviewed for environmental affects &nd it was determined that it did not represent an unreviewed environmental question with regard to the design or operation of Byron Station. It was decided that the parcel would be sold to the City of Byron and the NRC was informed of the action. A Copy of the memorandum confirming the review is attached.
- 2. The make-up and blowdown lines between the station and the Rock River were replaced during 1987. The plans for the replacement were reviewed and it was determined that all the construction activity was to be confined to on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction, and was not subject to an environmental evaluation requirement. A copy of the memorandum confirming the review is attached.
(2001M/0217M/040888)
pt- i .n
.a: ,.
w.@.:.96N-4....
R E 7. -
March 25, 1987 To: H. A. onishi subject: Water To.ser on Byron station Property Environmental Affairs (RAD) has reviewed the request for location of a water tower on Byron station property, reference J. J. Bruen's February 24 and March 17 letters. MAD defers to Transmission and Distribution Engineering, concerning clearance free present and future transmission
- facilities.
In our opinion, building a water tower at this location would not result in any adverse environmental impacts and would not represent an unreviewed environmental question with regard to tiis design or operation of Byron station. However, the selected location is part of the restricted
!. area of the station as specified in section 2.1.1.3 of the Byron Final
- safety Analysis Report (FEAR). In Secticn 2.1.1.3 of the FSAR the
, following statement regarding site land use is made: *2ere will be no l industrial, institutional, commercial, recreational, or residential
! structures on the site other than those used by ccuseonwealth Edison Company in the normal conduct of its utility business. The development of the site for uses other than power generation and agriculture is not planned". This ecsunitment would have to be revised in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory commission before entering into any agreement for a use such as the proposed water tower.
)
a - -
C( o s
. . .ghes 1339e Bas:JHH:pp cc: R. E. @aario W. H. Desmasy A. H. Getty T. c. cihlar W. E. Everson J. 5. Able K. A. Ainger M. Grivffra J. J. Bruen File: 06-Gebi-
Commonwealth Edison One Frst Natonal Plazt Chicago. Innos Address Reply to: Post Offce Box 757 Chcago, Innos 60690 0767 June 17, 1987 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Site Boundary Revision NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Gentlemen:
This is to provide an advance copy of an FSAR change concerning a revision to the Byron site boundary. Commonwealth Edison plans to sell a small portion of our Byron sit, property to the City of Byron for a water tower. The City of Byron proposes to install a 100-foot woter tower on property which has been part of the pipeline corridor from the plant to the Rock River. A 200' by 233' parcel will be sold to them for this purpose.
The location of this parcel is identified by an arrow on the attached revision of FSAR Figure 2.1-6.
Building a water tower at this location does not involve any adverse environmental impacts, unreviewed environmental question, or unreviewed safety question. The change to Figure 2.1-6 will be included in a future FSAR amendment.
Please direct any questions regarding this matter to this office.
Very truly yours, l Cd K. A. Ainger l
1 Nuclear Licensing Administrator Attachment cc: Byron Resident Inspector NRC Region III Office 3221K oh
.iy A/ ,-
742r//d[ .
4, 7 - .-. .. __ __
l ee
- em ~ ; y
.:e '.. m,, . . ;
As /,
~
,. ;;g,:
o ,
\ '
s s' Is ' ' b. .# U,
, y -.; ., , -'V , ' . ;<.
s
' ' ,~vc
,,,<fb 'u'k. u',,',, ,-
[ ,.
e
' '['h 3;t.; ,',! I',h(T*s, )'s - IJ o ,i +, ! h'.f'g'f, .',. l , 2 I
" ~
, l i
@@'ERfi%9D i ' t c
,_ y
- l. E! -!i u* og l
$4 * - I g$
^T*
.. -I wd
-s J
o gt .
p, '8be.- y n- _ . ,
gi
- 5
- k' j! ,$ 3 '
f ;'
- w w.
^
t4g4, w, 2,I M e 6}- . . .
c s d I s'M;' (
k 4e g !
b-p 7 y ugj w. ~
- ;3.y s w a t i l
Qg ? E 'e e'
- JRRGl h s ~%
h., -.
r;mwgh ea .wp sj wm n y. p un .
m .,,,.,,,
khI h'agkM9;& mQ. """" k. : k' h.6h hh S& MMD6ms i"" -
\ M WRMQB 7,
NL,
- , ;3 gT' y)..-ppy .q -
i f ' '
l-a ,
w . -r J .r -
j sl i
% =l
- 4mir i
, .~..
,%%M.g', , A,y t
.e - .
I~ '
s, .
W April 6, 1987
,==a n m mn-s-To: W. P. Dijstelbergen f1 "'[
Subject:
Environmental Review of Proposed R E T. ._. _ . , _
Replacement of Make-Up and Blowdown L.ines at Byron Station Section 3.1 of the Byron Station Environmental Protection Plan requires that any additional construction activity which may significantly affect the environment be evaluated for any environmental affects prior to engaging in construction activities.
The Environmental Affairs Department has reviewed the plans for replacing the make-up and blowdown lines at Byron Station and finos that this construction activity can be excluded from the environmental evaluation because all the measurable environmental effects are confined to on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction.
The basis for this finding is contained in the following considerations. The new pipelines will be placed within the previously cleared corridor between the station structures and the river screenhouse and blowdown structures. Traffic will be maintained on the two local roads which cross the project route. The corridor and fenced areas have been previously surveyed for archeological sites and none will be affacted by construction. The land contours will be restored, topsoil replaced and seeded to restore the area disturbed by construction. No additional off-site storm water runoff is expected. Local residents and the Illinois and Federal Environmental Protection Agencies have expressed concerns about contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the construction area.
They have been informed of the construction project and will be allowed to take soil samples as construction progresses.
C. L.. McDonough 1403e BBB : :CL.M:dd cc: R. 5. Querio
- 0. Sorensen -
K. A. Ainger P. R. Donavin T. E. Hemminger S. K. Winship H. F. Bernhard File: 06-GEN-
=. .
~e .., , .
s
- o Byron Station Environmental Protection Plant' 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report ATTACHMENT D List of non-routine reports submitted in accordanna with Subsection 5.4.2.
None r
l.
l.
e f
(200lM/0217M/040888)
. . . - - - - - . . . - - . - . . . _