ML20197C775
| ML20197C775 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0428, NUREG-428, NUDOCS 7811210199 | |
| Download: ML20197C775 (162) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ ._ .. _ _ i
- Draft Supplement to the NUREG-0428 fina environmenta .
statement related to construction of
- ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO.1 HOUSTON LIGHTING Et POWER COMPANY FEBRUARY 1978 Docket No. 50-466 l
j 781121019't i A boLW So - 4 '
- NU$.LL g Office of Nuclear U. S. Nuclear Regulatory . Commission e Reactor Regulation
. . -_ -. ~ . . .~. - . . . -
I l NUREG-0428 l 1 l j DRAFT SUPPLEMENT to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Related to the Construction of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 Houston Lighting and Power Company Docket No. 50-466 FEBRUARY 1978 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
.b
i i
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS), Units 1 and 2, which was issued in November 1974, was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. lhe probable environmental impacts and adverse effects of constructing and operating a twc unit nuclear station at the Allens Creek site, as described in the FES, are reconsidered because of project changes resulting from the deferral and subsequent rescheduling of Unit I and the cancellation of Unit 2.
- 1. This action is administrative.
- 2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the Houston Lighting and Power Company for the construction of ACNGS, located in Austin County, Texas (Docket No. 50-466), with one unit instead of the originally proposed two units.
The facility will employ an identical boiling water reactor (BWR) and similar cooling systems to those originally proposed for the two-unit station. Accordingly, at the 3579-MWt power level initially to be licensed (the maximum expected thermal power level is 3758 MW), a steam turbine generator will use the generated heat to provide a net electrical output capacity of 1146 MW. The exhaust steam will be cooled by the flow of water pumped from and discharged to a newly constructed lake, which is now designed with a surface area of about 2072 ha (5120 acres), representing a 38% reduction in the original design. The Brazos River will serve as the source of the makeup water and as the receiving body for the cooling lake discharges.
- 3. Major changes in the station design include: (1) a reduction in gross electrical generating capacity from 2400 to 1200 MW; (2) a reduction in the number and size of associated facilities; (3) a reduction in the cooling lake surface area from 3339 to 2072 ha (8250 to 5120 acres); (4) the addition of an external dam along the northern lake perimeter; (5) a significant reduction in the estimated water use requirements (i.e., a reduction in the makeup water requirements from 90,000 to 30,000 acre-ft/ year; a reduction in the total evaporative loss from 70,500 to 40,400 acre-ft/ year; and a reduction in discharge _ frem 71,000 to 26,200 acre-f t/ year); and (6) a redesign of the radioactive and nonradioactive waste systems to meet regulations now in effect.
Appendix 5.8 of this Supplement to the FES contains the summary and conclusions of the FES which, in part, summarize the environmental impacts and adverse effects (item
- 3) of constructing and operating two 1200-MWe nuclear units, a 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling lake, and a sociated facilities at the Allens Creek site. Similarly, the following summary describes the environmental impacts and adverse ef fects that will occur for the construction and operation of the proposed one unit station at the Allens Creek site. Changes in the station design as enumerated here will not modify the nature and types of impact. In fact, many of the environmental effects described here (f through k) will occur for either station design. Hnwever, because these effects are only amenable to qualitative assessments, the degree to which they will differ for the construction and operation of either station as designed cannot be quantified. The remaining environmental effects (a through e, and 1) will also occur in either station design; however, the degree to which they will occur is more readily quantified.
- a. Construction-related activities on the site will disturb about 2315 ha (5720 acres) of pasture and cropland, including the 2072 ha (5120 acres) of land inundated by the Allens Creek cooling lake, which will be constructed in conjunction l with the station (Sect. S.4.1).
- b. About 104 km (65 miles) of transmission-line corridors will require about 749 ha (1851 acres) of land for the rights-of-way (Sect. S.4.1.4).
- c. Relocation of the current pipelines as proposed will involve about 12 ha (30 acres). An access road and a railroad spur, which is less than 1.6 km (1 mile) long, will affect about 16 ha (40 acres),
s iii s
)
- d. Station construction will involve less extensive community impacts than those described in the FES. However, 16 familes will be displaced from the site. ]-
Also, traffic on local roads will increase due to construction and commuting l + activities. The influx of construction workers' families and the peak work force of 2400 persons will result in a demand for increased services in Austin County (Sect. S.4.4).
- e. The total flow of circulating water will be 55 m 3/sec (1940 cfs), which will be taken from and returned to Allens Creek cooling lake. The Allens Creek cooling lake will receive about 30,000 acre-f t/ year from the Brazos River,16,600 acre-ft/ year as direct rainfall, and 20,600 acre-ft/ year as runoff. About 40,400 acre-f t/ year will be evaporated, 26,200 acre-f t/ year will be returned to the Brazos River, and 600 acre-f t/ year 'will be lost as seepage. During the annual drawdown, the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in Allens Creek cooling lake will increase by a factor of 1.8 to 2.2, and the water returned to the Brazos River will cause an 11% increase in TOS concentrations in the river during low-flow conditions. - However, increases in TDS concentration will not significantly affect the aquatic productivity of Allens Creek cooling lake or the Brazos River. In addition, the thermal alteration of the Brazos River is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on aquatic productivity. However, the thermal alteration of Allens Creek cooling lake is expected to partially restrict the range of most game fish species and have an adverse effect on their productivity (Sect. S.5.3.2.2).
- f. The overall impact of construction activities on Allens Creek prior to filling of the cooling lake will be a reduction in aquatic populations in the lower half of the creek. When the cooling lake is filled, about 13.7 km (8.5 miles) of Allens Creek will be lost as running-water aquatic habitat. The loss of aquatic
, biota in this section of Allens Creek will be more than compensated for by the establishment of aquatic blota in the cooling lake through natural colonization and the introduction of game fish. Construction activities may temporarily reduce aquatic populations in the Brazos River near the ACNGS site. Such reduc - tions will probably be temporary and near the site (Sect. S.4.3.2).
- g. Entrainment of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton in the circulating-water system may reduce the overall productivity of the cooling lake, although the extent of this reduction cannot be determined. Some mortality of juvenile and adult fish in the cooling lake will result from impingement on traveling screens of the circulating-water intake structure. The low approach velocities to the screens should minimize impingement losses (Sect. S.S.3.1.2). Chemical discharges during operation of the ACNGS should not significantly affect aquatic blota in the cooling lake or in the Brazos River provided that the discharge of total residual chlorine to the cooling lake is maintained at a peak concentration of 0.1 ppm (Sect. 5.3.2.2).
- h. phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton will be subject to entrainment in the makeup-water intake system, although entrainment mortality is not expected to significantly reduce these populations in the Brazos River,
- i. The proposed cooling lake should provide a valuable recreational fishery. There is a strong probability of high phytoplankton densities in the cooling lake which may reduce water contact activity for certain periods during spring and summer months.
J. The proposed cooling lake will displace white-tailed kites which are considered endangered by the Texas Organization for Endangered Species. However, the lake may provide suitable habitat for southern bald eagles and American alligators which are considered endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The lake will also attract waterfowl, possibly in large numbers,
- k. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low.
- 1. ' No significant en 'ironmental impacts are anticipated f rom normal operational releases of radioactive materials. The estimated dose to be received by the offsite population within 80 km (50 miles) of station would be less than 39 man-rems / year. This value is less than the normal fluctuations in the 260,000 man-rems / year background dose that this populatio1 would receive (Sect. 5. 5. 4 ) .
s.iv
I 4 The following principal alternatives were reconsidered: a, purchase of power !
- b. alternative energy systems, ,
- c. alternative sites, and j
- d. alternative heat dissipation methods. j i
- 5. The following Federal, State, and local agencies were asked to comment on this Supplement l to the FES: )
1 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation j Department of Agriculture 1 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers l Department of Commerce 1 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare l Department of Housing and Urban Development- ! Department of the Interior . Department of Transportaticn ! Department of Energy i Environmental Protection Agency ) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ; Houston Lighting and Power Company Of fice of the Governor, State of Texas ; County Judge, Austin County, Texas j Houston-Galveston Area Council Mayor, City of Wallis Sierra Club
- 6. This Supplement was made available to the public and to other specified agencies in l February 1978. -!
- 7. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this Supplement, in the original FES, and in hearings before NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of ACNGS, Unit 1, against environmental and other costs, and after considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51 is the issuance of a construction permit for the station subject to several conditions for the protection of the environment. In order to minimize confusion, the conditions contained in the Summary and Conclusions in the. FES (Appendix S.B of this Supplement) are hereby vacated and are replaced in ;
their entirety by the following: I
- a. The applicant will submit a lake management program, including a development plan for the State parks, which will ensure that the Allens Creek cooling lake i will be a recreational asset with benefits equivalent to those given in the FES i (Sect. 5. 6. 4). In this plan, consideration should be given to making the lakeshore I buffer Zone, which will connect the two State parks on the south edge of the lake, into a hiking and fishing area; to modifying the character of the diversion dike by creating a more natural-looking land form; and to planting trees. The staff's approval of the program shall be obtained prinr to start of construction of the cooling lake, of the dam, or of structures directly associated with the lake,
- b. The applicant will control the addition of chlorine to the circulating water I' system so that the concentration of total residual chlorine at the point of discharge to Allens Creek cooling lake will be 0.1 ppm or less at all times.
- c. The applicant will not discharge chlorine upstream of the traveling screens for the circulating-water intake structure because significant fish impingement rates and fish kills may result.
- d. The applicant will not withdraw makeup water from the Brazos River during the spring spawning season (April to July) unless sufficient data on ichthyoplankton densities near the makeup pumping station to support the contention that this -
restriction is unnecessary to protect the Brazos River fishery are provided and l approved by the staff, s.v
. - - - - - - - . - -- , . - - ~- . -
- e. The applicant will take'the necessary mitigating actions, including those summarized in Sect. S.4.5 of this Supplement, during construction of the statien and associated
. transmission lines in order to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities,
- f. In addition to the preoperational monitoring program described in Sect. 56.1 of the Environmental Report Supplement, the staff recommendations in Sect. 5.6.1 of this Draft Supplement will be followed,
- g. The applicant will establish a control program that shall include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as prescribed herein and shall provide for periodic management audits to determine the adequacy of implemen-tation of environmental conditions. The applicant will maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all the environmental conditions herein.
- h. Before engaging in a construction activity not evaluated by the Commission, the applicant will prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such an activity.
If the evaluation indicates that the activity may result in a significantly adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated, or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this Supplement or the FES, the applicant will provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval from the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for the activities.
- i. If unexpected harmful ef fects or evidences of irreversible damage are detected during facility construction, the applicant will provide the staff with an acceptable analysis of the prcblem and a plan of action for eliminating or significantly reducing the harmful effects or damages, s.vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pagg
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS . . . s-iii FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . 5-XV S.1 INTRODUCTION .. . .. . S.1-1 S.
1.1 BACKGROUND
. . . . . . .. . . . . . S.1-1 S.I.2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW . . . 5.1-1 S.I.3 STATUS OF REV!EWS AND APPROVALS . . S.1-2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.1 . S.1-3 S.2 THE SITE ..... .. .. . . S.2-1 S.2.1 PEGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY . . . . , . . S.2-1 S.2.2 LAND USE . . . . . S.2-1 S.2 ?.1 The site .. ... . . S.2-1 S.2.2.2 The region ... . . .. S.2-1 S.2.2.3 Transmission line rights-of-way . . , . . S.2-3 S.2.2.4 Prime and unique farmlands . . S.2-4 S.2.3 METEOROLOGY . .. .... . ..
. . . . . S.2-5 S.2.4 ECOLOGY OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONS .. S.2-5 S.2.4.1 Terrestrial biota . .. 5.2-5 S.2.4.2 Aquatic biota . . S.2-7 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.2 . .. . 5.2-12 S.3 THE STATION . . .. ... .. . . . . S.3-1 S.3.1 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM , .. . . 5.3-1 S.3.1.1 Makeup-water pumping station . .. . . S.3-1 S.3.1.2 Allens Creek Cooling Lake . . .. 5.3-2 S.3.1.3 Circulating-water sys;em .. . .. . . S.3-4 l S.3.2 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS . . . .. . .. S.3-8 S.3.3 NONRADI0 ACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS . . . . ..... .. . .. S.3-8 S.3.3.1 Wastes containing chemicals or biocides .. .. . S.3-8 l S.3.3.2 Sanitary system wastes .. . .. . S.3-10 Sl3.'5 L OAD PR A ESROADS,kNDPIPELANDRElbCdT!0NS ... Sl REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.3 ... .. .. ... .... 5.3-12 S.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION . . . . . S.4-1 S.4.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE ... .. ... . . S.4-1 S.4.1.1 Station facilities . . . . .. . . S.4-1 S.4.1.2 Cooling lake .. .. . . ... . .. . S.4-1 S.4.1.3 Agricultural impact . . .... . . S.4-3 S.4.1.4 Transmission lines .. , . .. S.4-5 S.4.1.5 Other impacts . . . , , . . . .. . S.4-5 S.4.2 HfDR0 LOGICAL AND WATER USE IMPACTS . . .. S.4-5 S.4.3 ECOLOGICAL INPACTS . . . .. . . .. . . S.4-5 S.4.3.1 Terrestrial ecosystems . . S.4-6 S.4.3.2 Aquatic ecosystems . .. .. .. .. . ... S.4-6 S.4.4 SOCI0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS .. . . .. . ... . S.4-9 S.4.4.1 'ublic services and housing . . . S.4-11 S.4.4.2 Income effects . . . . S.4-11 S.4.4.3 Employment effects . . . . S.4-il S.4.4.4 Local purchases ..... . . . . ...... S.4-12 S.4.4.5 Estimated taxes . .. .... .
. S.4-12 S.4.4.6 Impact of construction noise, aesthetic impact, and displacement of residents . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. S.4-12 S.4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION . . S.4-13 S.4.5.1 Applicant commitments . . . . ... .... . S.4-13 S.4.5.2 Staff evaluation . .. . .. . .. . S.4-15 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.4 . . . . . .. . . S.4-16 s.vii
P_a g e. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF THE STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES . . . .... S.5-1 S.5.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE . . . . S.5-2 S.5.1.1 Station operations . . . . . S.5 2 S.5.1.2 Transmission lines . . . . . . 5.5-2 S.S.2 HYDROLOGICAL AND WATER-USE IMPACTS 5.5-2 S.5.3 COOLING SYSTEM IMPACTS . . . . S.5-2 S.5.3.1 Cooling-water intake systems . . . . S.5-3 S.5.3.2 Cooling-water discharge and blowdown systems . L.5-7 S.S.3.3 Impacts to terrestrial ecosystems . . 5.5-22 S.5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM ROUTINE OPERATION , . S.5-22 S.5.4.1 Exposure pathways . . . . S.5-22 S.5.4.2 Dose commitnents . . S.5-23 S.S.4.3 Direct radiation . . . . S.5-26 S.S.4.4 Radiological impact on man . . S.5-30 S.5.4.5 Radiological impacts to biota other than man . . S.5-31 S.5.5 URANIUM FUEL CYCLE IMPACTS . . . . S.5-31 S.S.6 SOCIDECONOMIC IMPACTS . . , . S.5-34 S.5.6.1 Physical impacts . . . . . . . 5.5-34 S.S.6.2 Social and economic impacts . . . S.5-34 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.5 . . . . . . 5.5-37 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS . S.6-1 S.6.1 AQUATIC . . . . . . . . . S.6-1 S.6.2 RADIOLOGICAL ,. , .. . . . S 6-5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S 6 . . . . . S.6-5 S.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS . . . S.7-1 S.8 THE NEED FOR POWER GENERATING CAPACITY . . . S.8-1 S.
8.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE POWER SYSTEM .. . . . S 8-1 S.8.2 PC'JER REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . S.8-1 S.8.2.1 Applicant's forecasts . . . . . S.8-3 S.8.2.2 Staf f's forecast . . . . . S.8-9 S.8.2.3 Potential impacts on conservation S 8-12 5.8.2.4 Change in utility-rate structure . . . . . . . S.8-15 S.8.2.5 Substitution of electricity for scarce fuel . . . S.8-17 S.8.2.6 Conclusions . .. . S.8-18 S.8.3 POWER SUPPLY , . . . . . S.8-18 S.8.3.1 Existing and planned generating capacity . . . . S.8-18 S.8.3.2 Power sales and purchases . S.8-19 S.8.4 NEED FOR THE PLANT . . . . . . . . . S.8-19 S.8.4.1 Reserve margin assessment S.8-19 S.8.4.2 Loss-of-load-probability asseselent . . S.8-20 S.8.4.3 Assessment of base-load generating capacity . . S.8-20 S.
8.5 CONCLUSION
S . . . . . . S.8-22 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.8 . . . S.8-23 S.9 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . . . S.9-1 S.9.1 ENERGY SOURCES AND SYSTEMS . . . . . . S.9-1 S.9.1.1 Alternatives not requiring creation of new generating capacity . ... . . . . . . . S.9-1 S.9.1.2 Alternatives requiring creation of new generating capacity . S.9-1 S.9.2 SITES . . . . . . . S.9-10 l S 9.3 STATION DESIGN .. . . . . S.9-11 S.9.3.1 Alternative cooling systems . . . . S.9-ll S.9.4 TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS . . . . . S.9-11 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.9 . . , , . S.9-12 S.10 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ... . . . . . . S.10-1 S.10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . 5.10-1 S.10.1.1 Abiotic e f fects . .. . . . . S.10-1 S.10.1.2 Biotic effects . ......... . . . . . . . . . S.10-1 S.10.2 RELATIONSHIP DETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY , S.10-2 S.10.2.1 Summary . . . S.10-2 I s.viii
Page 5.10.2.2 Adverse effects on productivity S.10-2 S.10.2.3 Decommissioning .... . . . S.10-2 S.10.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 5.10-3 5 .J.3.1 Scope .. 5.10-3 S.10.3.2 Commitments considered S.10-4 S.10.3.3 Biotic resources . S.10-4 S.10.3.4 Material resources 5.10-4 S.10.3.5 Land resources S.10-5 S.10.3.6 Water and air resources . S.10-5 S.10.4 COST-BENEFIT B ALANCE . . . . . 5.10-5 S.10.4.1 Benefit description of the proposed pla 5.10-5 S.10.4.2 Cost description of the proposed facili* S.10-6 S.10.4.3 Environmental costs . . S.10-6 S.10.4.4 Deconmissioning costs . . S.10-6 S.10.4.5 Sum. mary of cost-tenefit balance 5.10-8 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.10 . . . 5.10-8 Appendix 5.A - (Reserved for connents on Draft Supplement) . S.A-1 Appendix 5.B -
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2, DOCKET NOS. 50-466 AND 50-467, NOVEMBER 1974, UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING S.B-1 Appendix S.C -- NEPA PODULATION DOSE ASSESSMENT , . . S.C-1 Appendix 5.0 - DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS OF NUCLEAR POWER AND COAL POWER AS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES: GENERATING COSTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS . S.D-1 Appendix 5.E - COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENCRATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . S.E-1 l l s.ix
LIST OF FIGURES Ficure Page S.2.1 Site location . S.2-2 S.2.2 Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station wind roses . S.2-6 S.2.3 Allens Creek NJClear Generating Station Cooling lake . . . . . . S.2-8 5.3.1 Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station site S.3-2 S.3.2 Predicted water use at Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station . S.3-3 S.3.3 Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station cooling lake . S.3-4 S.3.4 Makeup intake-structure plan and section view . . . S.3-5 S.3.5 Area capacity curve of Allens Creek cooling lakt . S.3-6 S.3.6 Circulating-water intake structure: typical cross section 5.3-7 S.3.7 'lating-water discharge-canal cross section . . . 5.3-8 5 diagram of the demineralizer waste-treatment system S.3-10 ansmission-line routes . . S.3-11 Areas associated with construction activities at the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station site . . . S.4-2 S.4.2 Houston-Galveston region . . . . S.4-9 5.5.1 Isothermal patterns and streamlines for one-unit ACNGS operation at 1000 capacity (five-day critical meteorology) . . . 5.5-10 S.S.2 Toxicity of chlorine to freshwater organisms . . . . . . S.5-16 S.5.3 Generalized pathways for radiation exposure to man . , , 5.5-23 S.6.1 Aquatic, surface-water, and ground monitoring stations for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station . . . S.6-2 S.6.2 Terrestrial monitoring stations for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station . . . . . . S.B.1 Houston Lighting and Power Company service area . S.8.2 Peak-hour demand from 1967 to 1937 . . S.6 S.8.3 Loss-of-load probability (LOLP) analysis and results . . S.8-21 1 s.X
LIST OF TABLES , Table, Page
.2.1 Cumulative 1970 and projected population totals within a 16-km (10-mile) radius of the preposed site . 5.2-3 S.2.2 Sumnary of 1970 cumulative and projected population totals within an 80.5-km (50-mile) radius of the proposea site S.2 3 S.2.3 Population ostimates of all corrunities of 100 or nore inhabitants within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the site S.2-3 S.2.4 Estimated 1975 population of all unincorporated communities which have 1000 or more inhabitants and all incorporated cocrunities within 16 to s 80.5 km (10 to 50 miles) of the site S.2-4 S.2.5 Critical taana whose ranges inc!ude the Allens Creek area . S.2-7 S.2.6 Heavy-metal concentrations in Brazos River water (station B1) 5.2-9 S.3.1 Staf f's estimates of water velocities and circulating water intake structure 5.3-7 9
S.3.2 Increase in chemical concentration of effluents to Brazos Piver due to
- cooling-lake concentration S.3-9 f
Summary of areas af fected by construction activities 5.4-3 S.4.1 S.4.2 Crop prodaction and estimates for Allens Creek (1972), the five county region (1972-75) and Texas (1972-75) . S.4-4 l S.4.3 Estimated statewide employment ef fects of ACNGS construction . S.4-11 i S.4.4 Lifetime tax tenefit from Allens Creek Naclear Generating Station S.4-13 f 5.5.1 Summary of cooling lake operating characteristics S.5-1 S.5.2 Brazos River flow S.5-3 l S.S.3 Twelve-month pumping-mode water withdrawal from the Brazos River . 5.5-5 S.5.4 Coolir.g-lake evaporative-water loss, discharge, and total dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration . S.5-8 S.5.5 Cooling-lake condenser-inttke and spillway temperature 5.5-8 s S.5.6 Temperature effects on the Brazos River one-unit operation for six-month pumping mode . . S.5-11 S . '. 7 Staf f estimate of cooling lake operating characteristics S.5-11 , 5.5.8 Spaw' ng, growth,.and preferred temperatures of some important reser,;ir fishes 5.5-13 f S.S.9 Sunr.ary of toxicity of chlorine to freshwater organisms . S.5-17 S.5.10 Calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous ef fluents from ACNGS (curies per year per reactor) . . . . 5.5-24 - 5.5.11 Sucriary of atmospheric dispersion factors and deposition values for ACNGS 5.5-25 - e 4h s.xi
Table Pace S.5.12 Receptor and pathway locations selected for raximum individual dose comitments . 5.5-25 S.5.13 Maximum annual dose comitments to an individual near ACNGS 5.5-26 S.5.14 Calculated maximum dose commitments to an individual and the population from ACNGS operation S.5-27 S.5.15 Annual total body population dose connitments in the year 2000 S.5-28 S.5.16 Calculated releases of radioactive materials in liauid effluents from ACNGS Unit 1 S.5-28 S.5.17 Sumnary of hydrologic transport and dispersion for liquid releases from ACNGS . S.5-29 S.S.18 Environmental impact of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor S.5-30 S.5.19 Summary of environmental considerations for uranium fuel cycle 5.5-32 S.5.20 Predicted visitor days for proposed Allens Creek Lake and State Park: 1985-2014 S.5-35 S.6.1 Radiological program . S.6-4 S.6.2 Detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis S.6-5 S.7.1 Classification of postulated accidents and occurrences S.7-1 S.7.2 Sunnary of radiological consequences of postulated accidents S.7-2 S.8.1 heather variables S.8-3 5.8.2 Texas interconnected-systems and Houston Lighting and Power Company peak-hour denands: 1963 through 1972 . S.8-4 S.8.3 Nunber of custoners by class: December 1976 S.8-5 S.8.4 Historical annual usage and peak-hour denands, 1963-1976 S 8-5 S.8.5 Projections of intone, population, and employment for the service area 5.8-5 S.S.6 Original and revised forecasts of annual electricity demand, 1977-1987 S.8-6 S.8.7 Original and revised forecasts of peak-hour demands, 1977-1987 S.8-7 5.8.8 Annual and peak-hour demands with systen-load factors S.8-7 S.8.9 History of forecasts system net maximum hour usage S.8-10 S.8.10 Assumed growth rates (in percent) for exogenous variables 5.8-11 S.8.ll Unadjusted rate of growth forecasts of annual electricity usage in Texas, 1974-1990 (i) S.8-11 S.8.12 Adjusted forecast rates of growth of annual electricity usage in Bureau of Economic Analysis area 141: 1974-1990 (t) 5.8-12 S.8.13 Planned and proposed capacity additions of 100 M'.J or more to base-load systems: 1978 through 1984 S.8-18 S.8.14 Capacity, peak load, and reserves for the Houston Lighting and Power Company . S.B 19 s.xii
Table Page S.8.15 Loss-of-load probability and system reserves: 1984 through 1986 . S.8-20 S.8.16 Comparison of planned and required base-load capacity (megawatts) S.8-22 S.10.1 Environmental costs of the proposed Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station . .. . . . . 5.10-7 S.D.1 Assumptions used in CONCEPT calculations for Allens Creek Nuclear Generation Station . . .. S.D-3 S.D.2 Plant-capital investment summary for a single-unit ll46-MWe boiling-water-reactor nuclear power plant for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
- Station . . .. .. . . . S.D-3 S.D.3 Plant-capital investment summary for a two-unit, ll46-MWe coal-fired plant as an alternative to the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station S.D-4 S.D.4 Summary of annual nonfuel operation and maintenance costs for base-load steam-electric power plants in 1985 . , . . . S.D-4 l S.D.5 Summary of annual nonfuel operation and maintenance costs for base-load -
l steam-electric power plants in 1985 . . S.D-5 l l S.D.6 Variable operating and maintenance costs in 1985 as a function of plant factor, in thousands of dollars per year S.D-5 3.D.7 Material and service unit costs ... . . .. . . S.0-6 S.D.8 Nuclear fuel-cycle cost excluding carrying charges . S.D-6 S.D.9 Carrying charges for nuclear fuel . . S.D-7 S . D .10 Levelized generating costs of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (1146-MWe net output) at the staf f's estimated capital cost of
$900 million . . . . . . .. . S.0-8 S.D.11 Levelized generating costs of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (1146-MWe net output) at the applicant's estimated capital cost of
$1343 million . . . . . S.D-9 S . D .12 Levelized generating costs of two-unit low-sulfur coal-fired power station i
(ll46-MWe total output) at the staff's estimated capital cost of
$800 million . . . . . . . S.D-9 S . D .13 Levelized generating costs of two-unit low-sulfur coal-fired power station ,
(ll46-MWe net output) at the applicant's construction cost of
$690 million . . . S.D-10 S.D.14 Comparison of generating costs of the proposed nuclear plant with a low-sulfur coal-fired plant at the Allens Creek site . S . D -10 S . D .15 Summary of current energy source excess mortality per year per 0.8 GWy(E) . S.D-ll S.D.16 Summary of current energy source excess morbidity and injury per 0.8-GWy(e) power plant . .. . . . .. .. . .. . S.D-12 S . D .17 ftrbidity and injury per 0.8 GWy(e) for 100% nuclear-powered fuel cycle S.D-12 S.D.18 Excess mortality per 0.8 GWy(e) for 100% coal-fired fuel cycle . . S . D-13 '
5.0.19 Excess mortality per 0.8 GWy(e) for 100% nuclear-powered fuel cycle . S.D-13 S.D.20 Morbidity and injury per 0.8 GWy(e) for 100 coal-fired fuel cycle . S.D-14 s.xiii
FOREWO90 inis Supplement to tne FES was prepared ty tne U.S. Nuclear kegu'atory Comnission (NaC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in ecccrdance nitn the Conn 1ssion's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, tnat inglerent the requirements of t"e National Environnental Folicy Act of 1969 (NEFA). Tre Act scecifies, among other things, that it is tre continuing res;cnsibility of the Federal Governrent to use all practicable reans, consistent with other essential censiderations cf national oolicy, to improve and coordinate r ederal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation ray:
- Fulfill the responsibilities of each ceneration as trustee nf the envirorcent f or l succeeding ceneraticns.
Assure for all Arericans safe, healtnful, prcductive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrcundirgs. Attain the widest range of t'ereficial uses of the environment uitnout decradation, risi to health or safety, cr other undesirable and unintended consequerces. l Preserve iraortant nistoric, cultural, ard natural aspects of our national heritage and I naintain, w*erever possible, an environment which sup; orts diversity and variety of individual choice. Acnieve a balance between population and resource use wnich will permit high standards of living and a wide staring of life's amenities. Ennance the quality of reneaable rescurces and approach the maxirun atta inable recycling of de;1etable rescueces. Further, with respect to major Federal actions sicnificantly af fecting tre quality of tre human environment, Secticn 102(2)(C) of NEPA calls t;r tne preparation of a cetailed statement on the following (i) the envircnnental i-cact of the crc;osed action; (ii) any adverse environmental effects s.nicq cannot be avoiced should the proposal be irplemented; (iii) alternatives to tne pro;osed acticn; (iv) the relationship t<etween local snort-term uses of man's environment and the rainte-rance and enhancecent of lcng-ter" prcdu'.tivity; and (v) any irreversible and irretrie/atle crr.itrcnts of resources which would te involved in the proposed actico shosld te in;ierented. Fursuant to 10 CFR rart 51, the NRC Office of Nuclear Feactor RegJlation prepares a detailed stater.ent on the feregoing considorations witn respect to each acclicaticn for a construction perrit or full-pcwer operating license for a nuclear power reactor. When application is made for a construction pernit or an cperatir.g Ticense, the applicant subr:its an Environmental Pepcrt (ER) to the NRC. In ccrductirg the required NEPA revien, the staf f reets with the applicant to discuss items of information ir, the ER, to seek rew in f orca tion froir, the applicant tnat might be necessary for an adcquate assessment, and generally te ensure that thc staff his a tnorough understanding of the crcrosed project. In addition, the staff seeks information that will assist in the evaluaticn f rom other sources and visits and inspects the project site and surrounding vicinity. Members of the staff may neet with State and Iccal officials aha are charged with protecting State and local interests On the basis of all the foregoing and on the basis of other such activities or inqJiriE5 as are deemed useful and appro;riate, the staf f independently assesses the consideraticns specified in Sectior: 102(2)(C) of NEPA and in 10 CFR Part 51. s.xv
This environmental review deals with the impacts of construction and operation of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS), Unit 1. The scope of this review, however, is limited by the f act that an extensive review, which resulted in the issuance of a partial inii.ial decision by tne Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), was nade for a nuclear facility consistina of two units at the Allens Creek site. The purpose of this Supplement is to identify the project changes resulting from the deferral and subsequent rescheduling of Unit 1 and the cancellation of Unit 2 of tne initially proposed two-unit station for the Allens Creek site, and to assess the associated changes in the environmental impact and adverse effects that were evaluated in the FES and in staff testimony at the ASLB hearing. Tnis environmental review is larcely based upon an ER Supplement suDmitted by the applicant for the purpose of reactivating the construc-tion permit application for the ACNGS, Unit 1. The ER Sapolement consists of updated information that reflects changes in the ER resulting f rom the reduction in projec' scope and changes in schedule for construction and operation. Single cocies of this Supplement may be obtained by writing to the Director, Civision of Docuant Coltrol, Of fica cf A1"inistration, U.S. N : clear Regalatory Connission, Washington, D.C. , 20555. Frederick J. Hebdon is the NRC Environ. mental Project Manager for this Draft Saoplement. He ray De Contacted (301-492-3433) if there are questions regarding the contents of this Dra f t Supplement. Effective Januarj 19, 1975, activities under the U.S. Atomic Energy Comnission's regulatory program were assumed e ~ y the % clear Regulatory Comission in accordance with the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974. Any references to the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) contained herein or in the FES sh0Jld be interpreted as referring to the NJclear Regulatory Corrission (NRC). l s.xvi
s e , S.1. INTRODUCTION . S.I.1 BACKGROUND 1 Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) regulations in Title 10, cos of R&m? splat oce (CFR), an application was filed by Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) for construction permits for two generating units ' designated as the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS) Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467). The application was accepted for docketing on August 24, 1973. If approval i of the applicant's request had been given in accord with their schedule, construction of Units 1 I and 2 would have proceeded so that Unit I would begin conmercial operation in 1980 and Un!t 2 would begin comercial operation in 1982. Each of the proposed nuclear units was to use a boiling-water reactor (BWR) designed for initial operation at approximately 3579 MWt. Condenser cooling was to be accomnlished by the flow of water pumped from and discharged to a newly constructed ' 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling lake utilizing makeup water from the Brazos River. Efflucnts from the cooling lake were to be discharged into the Brazos River. The proposed 4cility was to be located on the utility-owned site of 4513 ha (11,152 acres) located in Austin County, Texas, approximately 6.4 km (4 miles) northwest of Wallis,11.3 km (7 miles) south-southeast of Sealy, and approximately , 72.4 km (45 miles) west of the center of Houston. I Following an environmental review by the NRC staff for compliance with the provisions of the l National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station was issued in November 1974, and Public hearings on environ-mental and site suitability matters were held in Wallis, Texas, on March 11 and 12,1975, before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (hereaf ter ASLB or Board). On September 25, 1975, HL&P delayed construction of the two-unit station indefinitely but requested the Board to make certain findings regarding environmental and site suitatility matters not likely to change. On November 12, 1975, the Board issued a partial initial decision which constituted a portion of the initial decision that was to be issued upon completion of the remaining environmental and site suitability matters and the radiological health and safety phase of the proceeding. On December 21, 1976, HL&P announced plans to reactivate the construction permit application for a one-unit station at the Allens Creek site. In addition, the size of the cooling lake would be reduced to 2072 ha (5120 acres), and project changes other than those directly associated with the reduction in project scope from a two-unit to a one-unit initial development at the station would be necessitated in order to comply with regulations now in ef fect and to accommodate state-of-the-art advances in design engineering concepts. Consequently, i on August 1, 1977, the applicant submitted a Supplement to the original Environmental Report (ER) consisting of updated information reflecting changes in the ER which resulted from the deferral and subsequent rescheduling of Unit 1 and the cancellation of Unit 2. If approval of . the applicant's request is given in accord with the revised schedule, construction of the station will conrence in late 1978, and will have an anticipated commercial operation date of March 1985. 5 .1. 2 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or his designee is required in 10 CFR Part 51 to analyze the applicant's ER and to prepare a detailed statement of environmental considerations. Within this framework, this Supplement to the FES related to the construction of ACNGS, Unit 1, has been prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the NRC. In view of the staff's documentation of detailed environmental considerations for a two-unit f6cility at the Allens Creek site, the primary objective of this Supplement is to focus on those elements of the previous analyses and considerations that have changed in the FES (as so , amended by staff testimony at the ASLB hearing), and to identify the impact of these changes. Hence, the scope of this environmental review is limited to new information which indicates that a construction or operational activity may result in a significant adverse environmental , 3 impact that was not evaluated in the earlier proceedings, or that is significantly greater than ; that evaluated in the FES or during the environmental hearings. Also, state-of-the-art analytical Nthods were employed to reassess the various environmental eFects and, where appropriate , to determine compliance with regulations now in ef fect. i S.1-1
S.1-2 Major documents used in tne preparation of this Supplement are the applicant's Environmental Report (ER)U Environmental Report Supplement 2 and suoplements thereto; the Final Environmental Statement (FES),' end the transcript of the ASLB hearings. In this Supplement, these documents . are cited extensively; however, their full titles and documentation are given only in the list of references for Sect. S.I. Elsewhere in this statement, references to Environmental Report, Final Environmental Statement, and Transcripts of the ASLB hearings will appear as the abbrevi-ations ER, FES, and ASLB (or the Board) hearings, followed by the nunber(s) of specific sections, pages, tables, figures, exhibits, and appcnd'ces. ^ Independent calculations and sources of infornation have also been used as a basis for the assessment of environnental impacts resulting from the proposcd project. In addition, infor-ration was gained from a visit by the staff to the Allens Creek site and surrounding areas in September 1977. To provide for a single coordinated environrental review, the NRC has e-tered into agreements, each ublished as a Menorandum of Understanding, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i regarding the issuance of pernits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the !Jnited $tates from point sources as defined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Amend ents of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). Under each Penorandum of Understanding, . the NRC acts as the lead agency to evaluate and consider environment 31 impacts of the proposed actions for nuclear power plants. During the corrent period on the Draf t Supplement, the participating agencies will review and g-coment oa the Supplement pursuant to Sect.1500.7(b) of the Council of Environmental Quality Gaidelines for Preparation of Environcental Impact Statements (August 1, 1973). These agencies will also participate with the staff in the review of comrents on this Draf t Supplement and in the preparation of the Final Supplement to the FES. Other appropriat:: agencies will also be ' requested to review and corrent on the Draf t Supplement. The views of these agem-ies will he set forth as an appendix in the Final Supplement, and concerns that they may raise will be addressed by the staff in the Final Supplement. As part of its safety evaluation, the Comission conducts a detailed evaluation of the applicant's plans and equipment for minimizing and controlling the release of radicactive naterials unaer botn normal operating conditions and potential accident conditions, including the effects of natural pnenomena. Inasruch as these aspects are corsidered fully in other documents, only the salient features that bear directly on the anticipated environmental effects are repeated in this Draft Supplement to the FES. Ccpies of this Draf t Supplement and the applicant's Environmental Report Supplement are available for public inspection at the Corrission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Sealy Public Library, Atchison Street, Sealy, Texas, 77474 5.l.3 STATUS CF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS Ine reduction in the ACMS generating ca;acity from two 12004.e nuclear units to one unit, and ' the reduction in the size of the associated cooling lake from 3329 to 2072 ha (8250 to S120 acres) have resulted in significant changes with regard to environmentally related per'its, approvals, and licenses. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has detemined that Alltns Creek is a navigabl^ water and therefore, a perr.' under Section 402 of the Federal Water pollution Ccotrol Act (FWPCA) < dill be reqJired. Eased in part on the Corps of Engireers deterriration, the EPA has decided that Allens Creek Lake is a cooling lake and not a cooling cond. Con sequen tl y , a permit under Section 402 of the FWPCA will be required for discharges to the lake, including the circulating water systen. In addition, EPA has decided that ACNGS will be a new sou ce r as defined in Section 306 of the FWpCA. Therefore, new source perforrance standards are applicable to ACNGS. All of these decisions are n bject to continued review and/or appeal and . l could be revised at a later date. The analyses co. tai" ! in this Supplement assume that these . l decisions will not be significantly modified. The sa.r believes that these issues will not preclude construction of AC1GS at the Allens Creek site. The applicant has provided a status lis*.ing of these environmentally related approvais and consultations required from Federal, State, regional, and local agencies in cor.nection with the proposed project (ER Suppl., Se:t. 512). The staff has reviewed this listing and has consul d with the appropriate agencies in an effort to identify significant environmental issues of Jncern to the reviewing agencies. No such issues have been identified. The staff is aware of no potential
- non-NRC licensing dif ficulties that would preclude constructicn of a nuclear station at ~
the Allens Creek site.
S.1 'a REI S CES FOR SECTION 5.1
- 1. Housten Ligoting and Fower Cor;?riy, r.... me ..,.~c.. , , t e. . ;:v ._ , - 1 - ;
~ ' +
m; : , Docket '.cs. 50-466 and 50 067, August 24, 1973.
- 2. Hcaston Lighting and icwer Can ary, _ .. e .c r *_ 3 f r. .- :, , ' *e ~
, , c a r w e :- v - ;t2: .: , x e
- , Docket 50 066, August 1977.
- 3. Directorata of Licensin; U.S. Ato.ic Energy Com ission. ~
rcc't* ; a e w .t,
.C 70 crc,' . :e . c Sev ra - r .:: <
., n : -! _, Ccciet hos. 50 *65 and 50 467, !
Nove--ter 1974 4 U .S. Lclear Regulatory Co-rission, ?>: - --* arc' ,, - - - -- se '; a:> j , s
.s % ':c : ' >
.r'< .. .:r >: , . > : 2 1z ' - i :n >; m. a, ~ :::,
."l;:-
_ -:1, 1s "t , transcript of evidentiary hearings before the Ato-ic Safety and Licensing O Ecard, OccLet las. 50-466 and 50-4ti7.
- 5. '
,.
- 43(251): 60115 (1975).
- 6. r c;. ;-e t ?C(165): 37110 (1975),
F ,e ,.s [ ..'
'4 9
1 l l l l l in
. /
9 1 d
,i N
'%..'d 1,}v, A
S.2. THE SITE l The site of ACNGS is located in the southern part of Austin County, Texas, inmediately west of the Brazos River and about 72.4 km (45 miles) west of the center of Houston (Fig. S.2.1). The i site consists of the same nominal 4513 ha (11,152 acres) of land that were originally proposed for the two-unit station (FES, Sect. 2.1). Of this 4513 ha (11,152 acres), the exclusion area and cooling lake will occupy 2315 ha (5720 acres), and an additional 259 ha (640 acres) will be I used as a recreational area. With few exceptions, the baseline descriptions of the Allens Creek site and environs and the regional characteristics given in the FES (Sect. 2) have not changed. The ER Supplement does, however, reflect c%nges in the population projections and land-use characteristics within the site vicinity (ER Suppl., Sect S2). Also, additional onsite meteorological data and the final results of the Allens Creek area biological monitoring program, which was initiated in October 1973 and covered a one-year period, are available. Previously, the staff based its analyses on an interim biological report covering the first six-month period. These descriptive ecological data as well as descriptions of the site and the regional characteristics are updated in the following sections. Site information which has not changed substantively is not addressed in this supplement. l l S.2.1 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY l The 1970 population estimates and population projections given in the FES (Sect. 2.2.1) were based I in part on data 9om the 1970 U.S. Census. The applicant's current (1977) estimates are made on i the basis of a site reconnaissance conducted during March 1977, on U.S. Bureau of the Census l county and city population estimates for 1975, and on estimates and projections published by various State agencies since the FES was developed (ER Suppl. , Sect. 52.21). Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 present the 1970 cumulative populations and the projected populations for the years 1935, 2000, and 2020 up to an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the Allens Creek site. Within a 16-km (10-mile) radius of the plant site, the 1970 cumulative population was 7999 persons. The applicant has reported, however, that the 1977 population within this same area is 8840, which represents an increase of approximately 841 persons, or 10.51, during the seven-year period (ER Suppl., S.2.2.1). Similarly, the 1970 cumulative population of 1,470,000 (Table S.2.2) within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant site increased to an estimated 1,676,000 persons (a 14% increase) by 1977. Tables 5.2.3 and S.2.4 present 1975 populations of communities within 16 and 80 km (10 and 50 miles) of the site. S.2.2 LAND USE 5.2.2,1 The site The major change in land use in the vicinity of the Allens Creek property since publication of the FES has been the discontinuance of farming on the land owned by the applicant. Prior to this change, an estimated 1740 ha (4300 acres) of the bottomland were farmed.1 Most of this area was planted with sorghum (1173 ha ) and hay (405 ha), but small amounts of corn and cotton were also grown. Soils supporting these crops have been assigned to soil capability unit IIs-4 in th' Soil Conservation Service system of land capability groupings.1 This designation indi-cates that the soils are well suited for crops and pasture but have management limitations because they drain very slowly, and if the soil is worked when it is too wet a clay pan will form. The remainder of the property was used for pasture (1105 ha), rangeland (1611 ha), and miscellaneous purposes, such as homesites and roads (57 ha). S.2.2.2 The region Within a 48-km (30-mile) radius of the Allens Creek property, the major land use is agricultural, with approximately 85% of the land used for either cropland or pasture. The remaining 15% is mainly wooded or heavily forested, and less than 3% of the whole region is developed land. To the east, beyond a 48-km (30-mile) radius, the urban development of Houston is displacing the dominant agricultural land use. S.2-1
S.2-2
'I
" r T $ 2
- ~ _ !! S j !' l '.s s ::
~
, , pes ,
7 'l ' ;N
.' , 5 j 2 e ;j.
\i -
,f ' ; t: }. y N n
. i 5 ! . ., j ll ..1 g 5 f12)/j,-g^^4k!7;y't h i l'f; "+
(( p
}, = ==
( i ./.3 ! *is.)33lip ;; 1 . i,i- 'g a
. . :.sa; . g!
;/n . 9 s!
v .' .. ~ ~ va 4, 2
/ !; ,j
- y[
- ~
, c ,, I ~
,w,r q[ y 1 j ,.
oy j l. , # ,~ i q! i [ [..
.. g sI ,'
s
~
l" 95
! 'g
.mif'! j cji ' [
3]f i Mc, '
;, /
~I e
! !; }- . Ti-l S A
. a.i . i ; : j;b l ,, 2 ' !." s ;
1 , . ,-'! ,
'. -L;y ;
4[ ' ' . \.' ..M., [ ,f [ [ , 5l . > 0,
,~',
; 2 e c-
, @ I \
3 z , -- J w Y -s ,r )' q 1 w j g d inu-' Ig l g@.=v-Pr i"i l u- - e 3 2 e u dii's L.. }y ib { ~.8J -~tl \- l s
.- 5
, e. -4i . - rp %- m o
-- l j r .,,
a 3.{ vlj s l , $ f qx L ,1 g, 3e g i
-f{p_Lr,i L,- {j 3 '
- c. j .qj.xb. tlv.g.yl i_l),
2 lji , i ~w py,l e[.%p , ; j
.[.: uI i L ; Lx [W[J sJ,J ~' ~l M{n or .h ;i4 i >
3 l --- 1 i .e
,i 1.
. _ _.. v ._, a.) i
.n ' r . Li _p ,y l-,--- ! I r i o
l l l7 {. -t w. ! - h Y {l-,J; E ll! 3 I [ i,' i ( i 1 l 1 1 'T ! I'Ii -
.r l'l l l !l LJL ~.._ 8 l J (,t l ~'J.II l I i l '
-rt. ) i ii .t _i_. _.i.
I l , _ , . _f_li ! il ' .L I I l l l ,~7 1 l 0 , i I_. l i ;f -t~
" r .I l l t 8il1 ..il . _i . t__ ;
; -~I
._ _ ,u, , ,,
l l t
-- ml j - ,
t__,_l..
- i I ,j l ml I ::
mj l lt N x c/l vi~, o u
%i,I l \'
2 hNr. a .. , w f. t 9 m_ _ _ . _ _______ ___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
S.2-3 4 Table S.21. Cumulative 1970 and proiected population totals withm a 16 km (10-mile) radius of the proposed site D: stance from s<te Ye d' W:tnm 3 km Wthm 8 km W thin 16 km (2 moest (5 maen (10 m *O 1970 72 1.844 7.999 - 1985 80 2.150 9,900 2000 110 2.450 12,030 2c10 120 2.710 13.840 2020 130 3.000 16.060 C __ . . _ . . . _ _ . . - _ - - . -- y Sour ce E R Suppt . Table S2 2 3 Table s 2.2. Summary of 1970 cumulative and projected population totals withm an 80 5 km (50 mile) radius of the proposed site Rad al d, stance from sue Yed' W thin 32 km W thm 4R km W thm 04 km W th!n 80 km 120 mde9 (30 maed (40 mlee (50 muco , 1970 34.000 94,000 525 000 t .4 70.000 1985 43.000 122.000 719 000 2.037.000 2000 55 000 156 000 967.000 2.784.000 2010 66.000 186.000 1 187.000 3.422.000 2020 79.000 226.000 1,464 000 4.237 000 Source E R Sura, Taree S2 2 6. Table S.2.3. Population estimates of alt communities of 100 or more inhabitants within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the site Distance frcm Po ulation estimates, Gr wth from Commun tv 5'te 0,rection 1970 -1975 (k ml (mde:) 90 1973 1975 m Orchard 16 10 CGE 292 377 411 40 8 San Fehpe 13 8 N 422 432 477 59 Sealy 11 7 NNW 2685 2801 3211 19 6 S> monton 13 8 E 150 b b Vaney Lodge 8 5 E b b b Wams 6 4 SE 1033 1055 1108 73
" Sour ce: ER Suppl, Table S2 2 4.
b Unmcorporated area, data not avadable. S.2.2.3 Transmission line rights-of-way The applicant originally planned t0 build three transmission lines having a total length Of 130.5 km (81.1 miles) and covering 890 ha (2200 acres). As a result of the reduced generating capacity of ACNGS, current plans are to construct only two transmission lines totalling 104 km (65 miles) in length and covering 749 ha (1851 acres). Route l A from the site to W. A. Parish substation is essentially the same as described in the FES; Route 2C from the site to the 0brien substation replaces Route 2A; and Route 3A connecting the site, the Addicks substation and the 0brien substation is bein, deleted. Land use along the proposed transmission line rights-of-way is described in the ER (p. 3.9-8) and in the ER Supplement (p. 53.9-1). Both transmission line routes run over cropland and
- rangeland. Rice fields comprise 37% (280 ha) Of the rights-of-way; other types of cropland .
comprise 33t (243 ha); rangeland comprises 304 (223 ha); and heavily wooded land comprises less than 11 (2 ha). The transmissio; ines have routed to avoid developed land as much as possible.
S.2-4 Table S.2 4. Estimated 1975 population of all umncorporated communities which have 1000 oe more inhabitants and all incorporated commumtm withm 16 to 80 5 km (10 to 50 miles) of the site Commun.ty Popula!.on -
D.r ec t .c n 197 -1 (km) (mded N Hempstead 2.011 47 29 N 63 Navasota 4.993 77 48 N -2.3 Pra r e V.ew 4 045 47 29 NNE 66 Wa' r er 1,192 45 28 NNE 6.1 B <ook s h i r e 2,165 19 12 NE 94 Tombei 4.651 68 42 NE 70 1 H-tsh e Vmage 789 63 39 ENE 25 8 Jersey Varage 828 58 36 ENE 82 Katy 4 993 31 19 ENE 70 8 Spong Vauey 3,473 60 37 ENE 96 Houston 1.326 809 56-88 35-55 E and E N E 59 Beca.re 17.057 61 33 E -10 3 8 ooks.de V4 age 1 597 79 49 E 60 Bsnker H.ll V,itage 4.241 58 36 E 66 Hedw g V.Hage 3.746 60 37 E 15 1 Hunters Creek 4,395 CO 37 E 11.0 Pevland 9 734 80 50 E 51 1 P<ney Pomt Vdiage 2.729 60 37 E 71 South S.de Place 1.263 68 42 E -13 8 St a Hor d 5.167 53 33 E 77 8 Sugar Land 7,306 50 31 E 120 2 West U%eus 3.161 42 26 W -54 We mar I935 66 41 W -80 Sch u.e nbu # g 2.313 76 47 W 08 La Grange 3.060 76 47 WNW - 1.0 Fayettev.He 422 60 37 WNW 55 Be:lvme 2.632 34 21 NNW 11 0 Round Top 100 71 44 NNW 64 8 enham 10.329 SG 37 NNW 15 8
'Not recorded separately m 1975 populat on et, mares Sour ce E R Suppt. Table 52.2 5 S.2.2.4 prime and unique farmlands The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has expressed concern over the loss of some of the Nation's lands best suited for production of food, forage, and timber.2 To mitigate this loss, the SCS has adopted a policy of making an up-to-date inventory of . designated prime and unique farmlands. Prime farmlands are lands best suited and available for producing food, feed, forarle, fiber, and oilseed crops; unique farmlands are those other than prime farmlands which are used for the production of high value food-and-fiber specialty crops.2,3 The Soil Conservation Service has not yet completed a detailed inventory of prime and unique farmlands in Texas, and no published soil survey of Austin County is available.
S.2-5 However, the SCS has provided the staff with field survey sheets of the site and inmediate , vicinity, and a listing of those soils on the property which are rated as prime-1 and prime-2 farmlands." prime-1 farmlands are those wich meet the criteria of prime farmland based on inherent soil properties, while prime-2 farmlands meet these criteria following installation of specific managenent practices such as irrigation or dra'nage.3 Based on the information provided _ by the SCS, the staff has determined that most cf the bottonland portion of the property is Brazoria clay, occasionally flooded, which is rated as prime-1 fannland. Although a diversity of soil types occurs on the upland portions of the site, the uplands area is dominantly prime-2 farmland. The transmission lines traverse a large area of rice fields and other agricultural land. The . applicant estimates that 405 ha (1601 acres) of the transmission line corridor is prime farmland, and 107 ha (264 acres) is unique farmland (ER Suppl. , pp. SH-57, SS). S.2.3 METEOROLOGY l The discussion of regional climatology, severe weather, and local meteorology, except for the discussion of wind characteristics at the Allens Creek site, remains unchanged from that presented , . in the FES (Sect. 2.6). Only one year (August 1,1972 to July 31,1973) of onsite meteorological data were available for inclusion in the FES; however, three years (August 1,1972 to July 31, 1975) of onsite data are now available. Wind data from the Allens Creek site for the 10-m level, representing the period August 1,1972 f to July 31, 1975 (Fig. S.2.2), indicate predominant winds from the southeast through south, occurring about 34t of the time. Winds from the south were most frequent, occurring 12.21 of the time. Winds from the west and west-northwest were least frequent, each occurring less than 2; of the time. There were only 0.3; calm conditions reported. The onsite wind roses for the l 10-m and 60-m levels for tne period August 1, 1972 to July 31, 1975 are shown in Fig. S.2.2. S.2.4 ELOLOGY OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONS The FES (Sect. 2.7) gives a general description of the ecology of the Allens Creek site and environs based in part on data collected in a biological monitoring program which was incomplete , at the time the FES was issued. Subsequently, the biological monitoring program spanning a one-year period (Octouer 11, 1973, through October 10,1974) was completed and later documented in the . lo?oj. > d '* tceS , ?rcJnr reper*.1 (Hereaf ter in this Draf t Supplement, the applicant's
- v final biological monitoring report will be cited as BMPR, followed by a specific page number or g section.) The following description updates the FES based on new information contained in the corpleted monitoring report, at 5.2.4.1 Terrestrial biota
~
I During the monito.ing program, the applicant recogn120d two unique plant connunities occurring on the site. The first is a native hay meadow, approximately 20 ha (50 acres) in extent, located in the arec being proposed as a State park. This meadow is unique in having a species composition simil)r to that of the original climax coastal prairie. Less than fifty rennants of such communities exist today, and many of these have been modified by man's activities. The second unique community occurs along the bluf f that will form the western edge of the cooling i lake. A variety of woody plant species he>ing restricted distributions in eastern Texas are present in this community, including the Texas persimmn (lWcpx termu), Mexican buckeye (h ' , 4 gu), Durand oak (h:m e imodis), laurc! oak (C. Imdfda), and bar nak (G. we nen) . ? Since the FES was written, the number of plant species identified as occurring on, or in close proximity to, the site has increased from 108 to 258 species. None of these plants has been proposed for either threatened or endangered status. '.. A preliminary list of fauna occurring on the site is included in Appendix B of the FES. At the
- completion of the monitoring program, 21 species of mammals, 36 species of reptiles end amphibians, 95 species of birds (32 resioent species), and 700 species of insects had been observed on the site or in close proximity to it. ( A more complete list is given in the BMPR.) No animal soecies listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5has been observed on the Allens Creek property. ,
Table S.2.5 lists critical fauna with ranges that overlap tne Allens Creek property. Section 2.7.1 of the FES discusses the status of those endangered species that are most likely to occur on the site. Additional observations by the applicant durino the monitoring program have shown 1 0
5,2-6 E S. - 4 366 NNw NNE
,/
wNw 7 [ _f' \ ENE 6 8 'P ' ( l '} WSw h m; S'/ / ESE SW S (a) 60-m LEVEL NNw NNE l NW ! NE
\r '
~
hj[Mh?E. O.3 ?. . E
\
j f
~
Y SW \s .
&lSE/
't,1 (0110- m LEVEL throug buy 59h5. )6 m e nr ) -
e
S.2-7 Table S 2.5. Cntical f auna whose sanges melude the Allens Creek area Commun name Sc.entific name status Mammals Red wolf Cams rugs E ndanger e## Black ber Ursus americanus hiteolus E ndanger ed Rmgta'l Bassarrscus astutus flavus uncommon, along nuer bottomf R:ver otter Lutra canadensis Rare m east Texa/ Jaguar Fehs onca veracrocis Pt"iphei al, threatened w.th em t metion*
- Mountam hon Fetis concolor stanleyana Pa phera'. nowhere common' Ocelot Fehs paros/is albescens Extmet or endang red m Texae' Reptiles and Amphebians Amencan amgator Athpitor onssissippiensis E ndan g.n nr'
- Texas horned bzard Phrynosoma cornutum hotected nongame species #
Western smooth green anake Opheodrys vernaus bianchards Threatenedb Houston toad Bufo houstonensos Endangere# b Buds southern bald eagie Hihaeetus leucucephalus E ndanger e## Att water 's prame chicken Tympanuchus copiW attwateri E ndanger e# # ! Osprey Pandion haliaetus E ndangm ed Wh te ta. led bre* E/ anus leucurus Endangered. penpherae
" D-pa rt me r t rf the Interior. F6h and Wadhfe Ser v 1c e. "Endangmed and Threatened Wddufe and f P ants. " . Fed Regist 42 3M20-31 (1977L
- T e n as Onym.zat on for E ndanger ed specaes, TOES Watch L ost of Endangered. Threatened, and i Peripheral Vertebrates of Texas, Pubhcation I, Tempte. Texas.197s
'G E. Lowman, A Sv'vey of Endangered Threatened Rare, Status undetermined. Peripheral, and Unnue Mammals of the Southeastern Natrona! Forests and Grasslands. USD A Fore't servsce, southern R e g, an Texas Peks and Wddhfe Depetment Regutat>on 121 lo. m Regulations for Takmg Possessing, and Trarssoort<ng Protected Nongsme Speces, ef fect.ve July 18. 1977.
'specms which have been observed on the Ahens Creek s'te dunng the b,olog, cat survey tnat at least four adult white-tailed kites (Ncr.w ;cumw), a species which is considered endangered (peripheral) by the Texas Organization for Endangered Species,6 are frequently present
,n the property. However, no evidente of nesting activity by this species has been observed.
Twenty-tto species of birds that are considered to have declining populations in all or a signifi-cant part of their range 7occur in the general vi linity of the ACNGS property, and nine of these species were seen on the plant site dur ing the mor 'toring program. Although the FES indicates that practically no habitat for aquatic birds exists at the site, hundreds of geese and dabbling ducks were observed feedin1 on crop residues on the bottomland fields of the site during the monitoring program. S.2.4.2 Aquatic biota l As described in Sect. 2.7.2 of the FES, the proposed construction and operation of ACNGS will affect two existing aqurtic environments: Allens Creek, which will be impounded to form the Allens Creek cooling lake; and the lower portion of the Brazos River, which will provide makeup water for, and will receive discharges from, the cooling lake. The following supplemental description of these aquatic environments deals only with significant seasonal changes in aquatic biota community composition and water quality, based on new data presented in the 3MPR which is not included in the FES. It is further noted that no species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5 has been observed in Allens Creek or in the Brazos River near Allens Creek. Moreover, based on a Seotember 1977 inspection of the proposed site and surrounding region, the staff concludes that no observable qualitative change in these aquatic habitats has occurred between 1974 and 1977. S.2.4.2.1 Allens Creek A general description of the Allens Creek aquatic habitat is given in the FES (pp. 2-12 to 2-15). As discussed, Allens Creek receives sewage effluents from the towns of Sealy rnd Wallis. Sealy discharges its sewage into the upper Allens Creek channel, and Wallis discharges into a southern
S.2-8 arn of the creek near its confluence with the Brazos River (Fig. 5.2.1). Additional organic dnd nutrient loading to the Allens Creek watershed Occurs along its channel from a nvmtger of . cattle operations on perr.anent pasture. Natrients and organic matter are added to the stream by runof f from these pastures or by direct addition to the stream channel from cattle during low-flow periods. Data presented in the EM;R (Sect. 3.6) suggest that nutrient and organic loading f r om cattle operatiens may exceed those f rtv, sewage outfalls. Quantitative estimates , of seasonal and yearly nutrient lcading in the Allens Creek watershed are not available. however, data given in the BMPR (Sect. 3.6) show Allens Creek to be highly nutrient-enriched (nitrate, as N: 2.73 mg/ liter and phosphate, as P: 2.4 ng/ liter) with low concentrazions of dissolved oxygen (1 ppm). w.
- c. . *
\,\ j '
'[ 'v
! } ' h ,i .[1
%\1
( 'f \
- s T
- l. .\
(
- })
\\~'w I l 1 f
(" )i ~ %l -p -l
'\ /QAu( u, \ i _ p- f j '
,' (
~
~ ,.s .~ A) x- $ /
s _
%> .,\, /-
N ) j ,. y ^' ' l .% j W 5 / / / i i i 1 . .s I \ b.\ 5.[ n $~.',e. lWh N s s -
/ ,. .g - *
.n.
4 .. % vs [ e% N&,~ a o s ah .", s ,ftr:# NQ.-Q*
*1 ' ., g,;g ,, ,
gv
;i y"A. . . . > ;h,
\ ','
(
\._/
g "g. g \ ,./ \
\j'gj!
W
/f 9A-sA ;
/(
h. c
\vO,Q.
A pt m
./ \
j,
~ .
r s . .) \ ^~g
&nM' '
JT- 7; [?b ws l f ..H ((
/ .5 s
'w ... ~.)rg ,,- ~
\N M ;-r ,~./
i;# Ns NN.,
>r.\ ;
,F y w
'l i 7 N. l M
~,.,.r.. n <
d' _- \ r .--) ( ,,
~,..-...u E-3 .
o .- gsm
. . . ..e**
.n.
.((
Q\
< ., . . . . .s 11
.v.,
Y '. h .. v .. # . . v . t s fig. S.2.3, Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station cooling lake. The yearly cycle of heavy-metal concentrations in Allens Creek water is given in the CM9R (Sect. 3.6). This data shows that the creek in the winter r.onths is relatively free of heavy-netal contamination except for copper and iron, but that concentrations of cadmium, cobalt, rran';anese, mercury, nickel, strontium, and zinc are all roaghly of the order of parts per billion dur6.) samer and fall . , l i
S.2-9 Table S.2 6. Heavy metal concentrations in Braios River water htation B11" Date - - - - - - CMm: urn Cobet Copper iron Lead Manganese Mercury N:ckel Strontium 2,nc 8 12/7'73 <t0 < t0 0 23 2 2.400 18 0 20 0 27 <10 120 0 80 1/2 74 <10 10.0 24 0 6 000" < 2.0 <20 36 0 <10 500 0 30 0 6 2'1'74 < !.0 <10 0 48 0 18.200 s20 <20 12 0 <t0 470 0 2.000 0 3 1/74 <1.0 < 10 0 27 0 1.100' <20 <2 0 <0 1 <10 <50 37 0 32774 <10 s IO 0 23 0 1,200' <20 <20 <01 < 1. 0 <50 14.0 4'23 74 <10 10 0 1.0 5.000' <20 <20 30 c!0 <50 20 . V7/74 <.1.0 < 10 0 50 4 400 6 <20 <:.2 0 21 (10 c50 20 6 6 4f74 <10 < 10 0 <l0 2.700 <20 120 0 10 10 <50 90 6 7 2'74 <10 10 0 15 0 1.900 <20 120 0 50 12 0 820 0 20 0 8'1/74 50 70 0 <10 3.600 <2 0 220 0 20 55 0 13800 22 0 9374 15 0 73 5 17 5 40.5006 <20 995 0 18 54 0 300 0 58 0 6 10'3'74 !? O 42 0 30 11.300 <20 190 0 05 40 0 400 0 50
'Srmon location is above totake st ucture locate hee BMPR. Sect 31. and E R Suppi . Eg 52 4)
D Totas iron SolutAe von Souge BMP R. Sec t 36 - Phytoplankton_ As stated in the FES (p. 2-13) the observed phytoplankton comunity of Allens Creek is dominated by diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) and green algae (Chlorophyta). Although the proportions of the texa (FES, Table 2.3) shif t according to season, the general species composition remains the same. Seasonal phytoplankton densities, however, fluctuate greatly where the numbers of organisms er liter show an increase from a winter low of approximately 8 x 102 cells per liter to a seasonal high of 5.3 x 106 cells per liter in mid-June. Species diversity in Allens Creek is inversely related to turbidity (BMPR, Fig. 3.3-2), and the species diversity increases somewhat near the confluence of Allens Creek with the Brazos River. Ha.CLOLh L teS. No aquatic macrophytes have been reported in Allens Creek. A complete list of macrophyte species reported in the area or suspected to be prime invaders of the proposed cooling lake are given in the CMPR (Table 3.2-1). Periphyton Thirty-one species were found during this period which were numerically dominated by pennate diatom forms. Seasonal increases in periphyton biomass were positively correlated with higher light intensities and temperatures during the sumer months. Blue-areen algae appeared during the sununer months but apparently did not become dominant. Quantitative data on all species reported is lacking; therefore, only presence-absence data can be compared for the whole community. , Due to water turbidity and stream shading, Allens Creek is not expected to sustain a large standing crop of periphyton, except possibly in scattered pools during intermittent low-flow periods (ER, p. 2.7-14A). l l r Zooplankton Zooplankton community composition by major taxa for Allens Creek is approximated in the FES ~ (Table 2.4). Ratifer and crustacean Zooplankton exhibited alternate numerical dominance during the course of the sampling year and only on occasion did the crustacean zooplankton become dominant as is characteristic of slower flowing creeks and streams.9 Zooplankton densities over a yearly cycle ranged from normally less than 5 to 7 organisms per liter to as hign as 150 to 200 organisms per liter in late May and early August respectively (BMPR, Figs. 3.3-5 and 3.3-7).
S.2-10 Sentnic ma:roinvertebrates A general disCJssion of the DenthiC macrcinverte: rate f a/3 foand in Allens Creek is given in the FES (p. 2-14 . Satsesent to publication of the FES, additional data on bentric ccTunity tccccsition has indicated that Allens Creer s;ffers light to moderate pollution e3 cept in rif fie areas (ECR, Sec t. 3.4) . Lcw diss0lved-oxygen corditions and associated Pysical-cnrical chan;es are postulated as factors that control ccTanity develorent. Mcst of the tentnos collected are cnaracteriz'd as being pollutant tolerant. As stated in the E"; (p. J.4-42) and tre FES (p. 2-14), tacroinvertebrate geosth in Allens Creek is reabatly limited tj the ink of suitacle octtcc substrate d;e to the irter-ittent-flow regime. Adult and x- iuvenile fish ine ??? (Sect. 3.5) reports fish data f rom cely f:;r sampling dates d; ring the year: tve ter 1973, February 1974, Jane 1974, and Se;tember 1974. ine Allens Crees fish ccT unity is co : sed of -csq itcfish, otner cyprinids, centrarchids, and 1ctalarids. A total of 36 sre:1es cf fish nave teen reported and are listed in tre EW (Table 3.5 4) niin tre general ta <a-abrdance distribution cattern shown in the FES (Table 2.6). From tne initial U d er 1973 fish collection reported in tre FES, winter sa pling revealed an increase in both the number of soecies present and in the total nuccer of individ;als ca2;nt Tne nners of indiviL31s collected decreased darin; tne s r ing saMling period. The su Ter data revealed a drastic declire in n rter a#d diversity of sne:ies and incividuals near the Allens Creek cont h.en:e witn the Erazos River and sho,ed an in:rease in fish numers drinated by osc,uitofish in areas upstream of the stre3~ FOJth (3"?R, lables 3.5-6 and 3.5-?). The suT er fish ccT anity is protably controlled by water-level fluct;ations and limiting environm ntal variarles, s;ch as dissolved cry;en (E N R, Sect. 3.c). Marj of tne species c;11ected are r abitual s~all-str e3~ 3xellers and crriete their life cycle within Allens Creek. Other species (e.g., crarnel cat #isn) collect e pria rily near the confl ence of the Era:cs River utilize s all tritutaries as staariag nabitat and carsery grc /ds. Fis* found in a breeding condition ir. Allers Creek aere gizzard shad, river carpsacker, carp, channel and blue catfish (spent fe-ales) (BMTR, p. 3.5-34). % ever, d,.e to the 1ereral low n rter of ripe ir-dividaals collectej (E"?R p. 3.5-64), it is ccncluded that Allens Creek dJes nct appear to be a rajar s;aunirg area for Era::s Fiver fisn, altm]n it ay fon: tion in this capacity to a li-ited degree. Deeper pertiers of Allens Creek rear its con-fluence with the frazos River ~ay be used as a nurserf area for p erile fish scar.ned ir Allens Cree,, as ray be the case for the river carpsucker. Trorhic relationships witM n the fish cc Tunity of Allens Creei and witn otner biological concrents are gi nn in tre 5"5 (Fig. 3.5 2). 5tracn analysis revealed that freshwater shrimp (?' m- ~ aw 2), rydrcpsy:nid caddisflies (Jr: ,-> :), m yfly n epns (IS e m - n) ard smil cyprinids arc roecillids cc:'orise tne rajer food ite-s for 3 Lit fish (E W , c. 3.5-33). Parasitis- of adalt fish did not ap ear to te significart darin; the 53 plirg a riod. Larval fisc e sc;itefish c -
-) nere the ncst c; Ten larval fish collected in Allens Creee Altho;gh other larval fisn see:ies were collected darirg the scrirg and sumer srcling periods, only a relatively Icw n rter Of i m ivi t als was observed G":F, p. 3.'-35),
S.Z.4.2.2 Era :s River ine FES (p; 2-15 to 2-18 and Sect. 2.5.3) rresents a general des:ription o' the Era::s ?iver watersned and habitat near Allens Creek and discusses ;eneral surface-water caality fer the Era:cs River. Yearly =ater-c;ality data tresented in Teble 5.2.f sto tnat r e co centrations of heavy etals vary seasonably.
"c -- ron L ah v.t.-e s ine Era:cs River is known for its unstable batten and relative lack of anatic racrcphyte develo: rect (EMPR, p. 3.5-22). Of tnese s;e:ies foana in the Erazos River, c'ly arroeead
( J:.y : u-O sp.) is consicered ccTon (SWR, Ap;endis. c. Table 3.2-1). Feriph, ton Feriphyton in the Brazos River were ccllected primarily frr three lirb scrapings. Te nty five species of the bentnic algae were identified d ring the year-len; survey (EM:P). These were n rerically dorirated by Dennate diatr s. The peripaytcn ccTunity consisted of pennate ciatrs
.-. . _ ._ _ _ _ . __ __ __ _ _ _ __ - . .m . . . S.2-ll (Bacillariophyceae,13 species), centrate diatoms (Bacillariophyceae, 2 species), green algae (Chlorophyta, 5 species), and blue-green algae (Cyanophyta, 5 species). According to the BMPR, most diatom densities are relatively constant in the'Brazos River throughout the year. Blue-green algae are evident only during the summer and fall months. Green algae species were not observed until April during the survey. The low number of organisms found indicate a relatively poor.periphyton habitat in the Brazos River, probably due to the shif ting substrate environment and poor shoreline stability. t Byt_oplankton A general description of phytoplankton comunity composition in the Brazos River is given in the FES (pp. 2-15 and 2-16). Phytoplankton density was maximal in September, with total concen-trations varying between B x 102 cells per liter to 5 x 10 7 cells per liter from winter to summer. Phytoplankton diversity is inversely proportional to turbidity and rate of flow in the Brazos. During periods of low turbidity and low flow, diversity increases and a more truly planktonic phytoplankton association is evident in the river. During periods of high flow, (presumably) meroplankton consisting primarily of diatoms dominates the phytoplankton. Zo,oplankton The general zooplankton taxa distribution found in the Brazos River is given in the FES (Table 2.8). The depression of crustacean zooplankters in favor of rotifer populations is characteristic of large rivers. Zooplankton population densities were found to decline through the winter months and remain low during the spring. An increase in zooplankton density was observed through August and September, and a decline reappeared in October (BMPR, p. 3.3-28). 1 Benthic macrotnvertebrates ! A general description of the Brazos River benthic macroinvertebrates and their approximate 1 distribution is given in the FES (Table 2.9). The observed benthic community is characteristic of l a moderately polluted, low-gradient stream. The oligochaete OpMdomio serpettna is numerically I dominant in the Brazos below its confluence with Allens Creek, and several species of chironomids 1 (Diptera) are numerically dominant above this area. Species diversity is difficult to estimate in the Brazos River due to the low number of benthic organisms collected. The Brazos is generally characterhed by a shifting sand substrate, which presents poor habitat for the benthic community and highly fluctuating benthic comunity with both species and numbers fluctuating inversely with the yearly flow-velocity regime. Adult and juvenile fish A description of the Brazos River adult fish community is given in the FES (p. 2-17). Thirty-one species were eventually identified during the one-year sampling period (BMPR, Sect. 3.5). low numbers of sport fish exist in the Catchaper-unit-effort data river. Three sport fishes indicate were found,that relatively(blue, channel, and flathead). Fish shelter all catfish in the Brazos is provided primarily by fallen trees, tree roots from shore, and their detrital accumulations. The distribution of these shelter areas is sparse, and the majority of the benthic area is intermittently scoured during high-flow periods. Spawning habitat is found in areas of fast water over gravel substrate. Such areas exist both upstream [at a distance somewhat greater than 500 m (1640 f t)] of the proposed intake location and downstream of the proposed cooling lake discharge. A large number of red shiners in breeding condition were collected below the outfall area in the spring. As water levels rise in the Brazos River ' during late spring and early summer, inundated vegetation also becomes available as spawning habitat for minnows. Such an area exists approximately 500 m (1640 f t) above the proposed intake location. Juvenile fish (primarily shiners) were observed in this area during the summer. Young-of-the-year fish, consisting of gizzard shad and various shiners (Notropio spp.) were also found in eddies and in slower water near the river shore. Stomach analyses of Brazos River fish indicate that aquatic insects are the principal food; occasional cyprinids are also found in the stomach contents. Parasitism in adult fish was not considered significant during the sampling period. An evaluation of the Brazos River recreational fishery shows it to be of poor yield (FES. p. 2-17). Larval fish Larval fish collected in the Brazos River riffle areas include those of spotted gar, flathead catfish, and various cyprinids. In slower current stretches over gravel substrate, early juvenile stages of channel catfish and river carpsucker have been collected during routine fish sampling using seines (0.32 cm mesh size). No special ichthyoplankton data using fine mesh net collection
'are reported.
S.2-12 REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.2 l
- 1. Dames and Moore, Inc. , Ayi mi tura: ~ract of the A!!cne Creek N:&ar Generatin;. utatior.,
Report for Houston Lightin9 and Power Company, Nov. 22, 1974.
- 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, " Proposed Rules: Prime and Unique Farmlands," red. Regiet 42(163): 42359-61
- 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, land Inceners and M.'nitorig Monrwde, TX- , hv: Frime ani Unique Funiamie, Temple, Texas, Jan. 31, 1977.
4 James M. McGuire, Area Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, letter to Dr. Robert M. Reed, Dec. 2,1977, ' Docket No. 50-466. l l S. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, " Endangered and Threatened l Wildlife and Plants," red. Regist. 42: 36420-31 (1977). '
- 6. Texas Organization for Endangered Species, Tri XOtA: Line of .Mmprn!, Rvatened, and ,
Feripheral Wetenueet of rens, Publication 1, Temple, Texas,1975, 1
- 7. R. Arbib, "The Blue List for 1977." A . Firde 30: 1031-39 (1976).
- 8. H. B. N. Hynes, N Dx?cg of Funnfrg Water, University of Toronto Press,1970.
- 9. C.1. Weber, Mab.;ica: Tick! ar i Lecratory Methode for Measuriy tlw ectitty of* Surfam Water Eff2aente, EPA-670/4-73-001. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Oh., 1973.
t
. - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - - . _ _ _ . - . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - . . - - . _ . - - - _ , _ . - . _ . - -n -
. - - - . -- . - ~ - . -. _ - - . ~ . - . . . . ._ .-
I l l S.3. THE STATION Changes in varion components of the station design were necessitated by the reduction in gen-erating capacity from two 1200-MW units to one 1200-MW unit, by the promulpeton of new regu-lations, and by technological advances in design engineering concepts. Basically, design changes in the components of the heat-dissipation system included reducing the size and configu-ration of the cooling lake (Fig. S.3.1), the size of the circulating-water intake structure and the discharge canal, and the size of the makeup-water intake in order to accormiodate smaller flows; thus, these design changes are directly associated with the reduction in project scope to a one-unit station. 3 Flows in the circulating-water intake and discharge canal are reduced from 107 to 55 m /sec (3780 to 1940 cfs); details of plant water use requirements are depicted in Fig. 5,3.2. Moreover, the makeup-water requirement from the Brazos River is reduced from 90,000 to 30,000 acre-ft/ year. Other station design changes, such as changes in the radwaste, sanitary-waste, and chemical- and biocide-waste systems, are essentially due to the promulgation of new regulations and technological advances. The external appearance of the proposed Allens Creek station also changes considerably. Figure S.3.1 shows the arrangement of the structures which are now found on a correspondingly smaller plant island. Notable in this figure are (1) the reduction in the surface area of the cooling lake from 3339 to 2072 ha (8250 to 5120 acres); (2) the omission of the 100-m (328-ft) stack; and (3) the emergence of the cylindrical domed containment structure as the dominant structure in the complex. The reactor and steam-electric system consists of one (instead of two, as called for in the original design) General Electric boiling-water reactor (BWR-6), a turbine generating unit, a heat dissipation system and associated equipment; this system is essentially the same system as that described in the FES (Sect. 3.2). Detailed descriptions of the station design, which in most cases is a scaled-down version of the original design, are included in the following sections. S,3.1 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM-The ACNGS, Unit 1, will employ an open-cycle cooling system to remove the excess heat from the main condenser and other related cooling systems (see FES, Sect. 3.4, for design of original heat dissipation system). Condenser cooling water will be withdrawn from a newly constructed cooling lake (Fig. S.3.3); will be circulated through the various cooling systems, whereby its bulk temperature will increase 10.8*C (19.5'F) aoove the inlet temperaturei and then will be discharged into the cooling lake via a discharge canal to complete the cycle. Makeup water in the cooling lake to replace evaporative losses and to maintain water quality will be derived from precipitation in the form of direct rainfall and runoff in the Allens Creek watershed and from water pumped from the Brazos River. To help minimize the amount of suspended' material flowing into the cooling lake, makeup water pumped from the Brazos River will flow through a sedimentation basin before entering the lake. The discharge from the cooling lake will be returned to the Brazos River via a spillway. 5.3.1.1 Makeup-water pumping station The. makeup-water pumping station, which will deliver water to the sedimentation basin of the cooling lake, will be located as shown in Fig. S.3.3. The intake structure has been designed as a shoreline intake in contrast to earlier designs that included a 152-m (500 ft) approach canal. As fig. S.3.4 shows, the intake structure consists of'two intake bays, with each bay housing a 2.3-m'/sec (82.4-cfs or 37,000-gal / min) pump. Each bay is also fitted with trash racks and fine screen guides. (Although guides for fine screens will be installed, fine screens will not be installed). Makeup 7water for the cooling lake will be withdrawn from the Brazos River at an annual rate of 3.7 x 10 m 3 (30,000 acre-ft) during either a three-month or a six-month period (ER Suppl,, Sect. 53.4.2.2.3). Although the logic for using either pumping scheme is based on ecological considerations, the applicant is not under contractual obligation to use any particular pumping scheme (FES, Sect. 5.2.1). To withdraw makeup water uniformly over the various pumping periods, both pumps must be employed for the three-month period, whereas only one pump is required for S.3-1
A A a m - - . - .. - 1_._- . 2a.a_ $r a m. g-2s gu,, . ,, ,, ,. _ _ _ _ _ i 5.3-2 i 4
' s 91 h ..
thh b u pl? i
\
' 'I w ,
. I &
- , T i!' ;
l[h N]l l . e
- n .f 3
, 4 e 4<t i a 7 .; : '
T[ f. .
t t . l f
;4 r t .. .
4
;j ,
k -
' Ljs jjs , s3 e d J
Am/? .
;3 .e .
. ;; n:;
- a. t i ;.; I ,
; ... !! i i ji : 2 L. >
..e. l
S.3-3 (S - ia m RECYCLE F R AOlo ACTIVE
> DEM E R AlllE R
~
bb lf h 50,000 gpd + REGE NE R ATION ME CHANICA L, DOMESTIC WAATES
- E oulPMENT AND LAUN DR Y N E U TR All2 A TION
& STORAGE 2 oNSITE WELLS g (2-500 gpm) W AS TE WA YE R ocre f Wear EVAPoRAtlVE LOSS !
1940 140,400 acre ft/vearl y WATER DISCH ARGE 2mWW M C0oLING LAKE l CON DE NSE RS =e - E 0 7 E PU P 1940 S T A TION
, f rfs i BRAZOS RIVER - sm -
RAINFALL (16.600 a.:ve f /t vert SE EPAGE = 000 acre hiyear A LLENS CREE K INF LOW (20,600 acre f tlyearl SPILLAGE = 26,200 acre ft/vear
- & ~
Fig. S.3.2. Predicted water use at Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. (Note: 1 cfs = 450 gpm = 725 acre-ft/ year.) Source: FES, Fig. 3.3 (modified); and ER Supplement. F ig . S 3. 3-1. six-month period. In any event, for both pumping schemes, the staff has estimated that [ based on a Brazos River elevation of 70 f t above mean sea level (MSL)] the approach velocity of water entering the intake will be 17.7 cm/sec (0.58 f t/sec). This value of the approach velocity is in accord with the values given in the ER Supplement (Fig. 53.4-6). S.3.1.2 Allens Creek coolin t ake l Figare 5.3.3 shows the present design of the cooling lake. Major changes from the previous design include a reduction in cooling lake area from 3339 ha [8250 acres (a 7600-acre effective cooling area)] to 2072 ha [5120 acres (a 4800 acre effective cmling area)]; the addition of a compacted-earth dam along the northern lake perimeter; a reduction in the size of, and a change in the configuration of, the sedimentation basin; and a reduction in the length of the diversion dike from 6035 to 4206 m (19,800 to 13,800 ft). The baseline description of the cooling lake area is otherwise accurately described in the FES (Sect. 3.4.3). When the external dam is extended to include the northern as well as the eastern lake perimeter, the compacted-earth dam will be 8687 m (28,500 f t) long and will form a barrier for about 50%, of tile lake perimet" (the remaining western and southern perimeters will consist of natural boundaries). The crest of the dam will remin at a constant elevation of 40.4 m (132.5 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) (refer to ER ' . , Sect. 53.4, for details). Moreover, the northern portion of the dam reduces the periphera chment area that will drain directly into the cooling lake from 33.4 to 13 km' (12.9 to o sq miles). Hence, the applicant plans to construct a drainage channel along the northern section of the external dam to intercept the runoff not draining into the lake due to the extension of the dam (ER Suppl. , Sect. 52.5.1.1). Thus, runof f in areas contiguous to portions of the dam located above the spillway will be intercepted by the drainage channel and conveyed to the spillway, which discharges into the Brazos River.
S.3-4 tS elRW. i
! l p - %
N \\h %.
+
i I l (
;/ t '
/ k>
g 4' I
/: f
,e ? h *j, s S wrj
/
_r
; % q, Y /; u/ N "E
/ ,1 q
[ l m m . . .. ./ 1 \ \\
,\ ..~.~.
* \ \
l / /%g , l l ( p $ ,"$ i
*b , _
+.
fa, .&w m:nn y , j
~j 4
j O ,
~g* ,_
4( ma.w.+u
' %n wm , , u
,A
\
\ 4hf% m, r (gf y
~
b , s s N- n'){ ~ / - m.~....,.... j taen e>.smma.<rcum. y cawn,g g.. , ,_
, , n,7 -,, _-._ , . y h4 y g _' r' j. 5._j s vt -.jM y, a u.a .
Fig. S.3.3. Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station cooling lake. Source: ER Supplement, S2.1-2 (modified). The area and capacity curves for Allens Creek cooling lake are shown in Fig. S.3.5; the area curve does not include the 77-ha (190-acre) sedimentation basin area until the water level is greater than 36.6 m (120 ft) MSL. As in the previous desi equipped with a separate piping system and overflowER weir (gns,Sect. Suppl., the sedimentation S3.4.2.2.4). Figure basin will be 5.3.3 shows the lccation of the basin. The nethod of construction of the c"kes tnat form the sedimentation basins remains unchanged (FES, Sect. 3.4.3). The design of the cooling lake spillway and connecting discharge canal has not changed signifi-cantly from the previous design, except for the replacement of the low-level outlet pipe with a 1.8- by 1.8-m (6- by 6-ft) tunnel. The low-level outlet will permit discharge of water into the spillway when the cooling lake water elevation is below 36 m (118 ft) MSL. S.3.1.3 Circulatin a ater system The circulating-water intake strue.ture and discharge canal for the station cooling system will be located as shown in Fig. S.3.3. The circulating-water intake structure will consist of four intake bays, each consisting of four intake cells. The intake cells of each bay will discharge into a comon plenum which houses a 12.9-m /sec (455.5-cfs) circulating-water pump. Each intake S cell will be fitted with trash racks, conventianal vertical traveling screens, and fine screen guides (although guides will be available for fine screens, the fine screens will not be installed). As Fig. 5.3.6 shows, cooling water will enter each intake cell through a trash rack and then through a traveling screen of 0.95-cm (3/8-in.) mesh before entering the pump for
S.3-5 g3.,3, fop of river DANK bd N
'60 f t f[l 30 f t % A
\
g
- . ,4 , /
.N j i 1 ,,A-# /
' 3 g sTABILIZEo SLOPE f c "%
$,['/)x
, ',,/
,/. -{
'N . \
Gh ,F N k%;, y
^'
/
)
{ ' ]! \\ \( f 7
\\ ,
e- BRAZos R /ER E S- 4 390 T. PUMP t T EL, t?O f t MSL Y"Ni. $[ }Ei;ili:'[%! } '
- [4 , ,
I, , i
~
II
' lt ! :- E! i g i.: i i- !;f O. u p .
2 ,,'..5g o lib ili ni l' . . . - -
.3_
kWW i BoTT EL. 66f t t \ 14 tt 2in Fig. 5.3.4. Makeup intake structure plan and section view. Source: ER Supplement. Fig. 53.4-5. transmission to the turbine building. The trash racks are designed to prevent large objects, such as logs, from entering the intake structure, whereas the traveling screens are designed to sts most of the small debris and fish. The overall width of the intake structure (measured derbss the face) will be 62,8 m (206 ft) with each cell having a channel width of about 3.1 m (10.2 ft). Provisions are not made as in the original design for the parallel fisa pass (or a window placed in each cell wall imediately behind the trash rack). The applicant has estimated that during plant operation the cooling lake water level will be greater than 34.4 m (113 ft) MSL at least 95% of the time (refer to Fig. S.3.6). floreover, the plant will be shut down at lake surface elevations of 33 m (108 ft) MSL and below, for which a decrease in lake surface area takes effect (Fig. S.3.5). Accordingly, the staff's estimates of the intake velocities for selected reservoir levels are given in Table S.3.1. l 1 The condenser cooling water will flow from the circulating-water pumps to an intake block for passage to the ACNGS, Unit 1 condenser via two 3-m (10-ft)-diam concrete pipelines. Upon passage through the main condenser and other cooling systems at a flow rate of about 52 m3/sec (1823 cfs), the cooling water will absorb 2344 MWt (8.0 x 103 Btu /hr) of waste heat at rated plant capacity, thus increasing the cooling-water temperature by 10.8'C (19.5'F). Then the l l
\l;l1lllllI ll li I )l ! !llI e ye 0
2' , 02 - 2 - 4 3 - 5 g . i F t n e m l e p 0 p 3' , 5 u 1 S R E
)
e - T c _
) E r S E u E F o -
S - R - C E A . - R . ke - F - C A a O l F S D N */ g O S i g n A S U 4' N O / , 0 0 1 D N A l o o c O H
& 4 S U k e
T (
# E+# #
4 O H e r T C A ( s
$J E - Y R n A
T I l e C l A A - 4 P A f C C o e
@ . r v
u c y _ 5' 3 O t S i _ c
\J a p
_ O a _ T c N T a O A 0 e . I r _ T A C IN2 1 E S _ N A N 5. N BO O I 3 - CG T NI V NA S E T E g P IL L - OSE i
.F 64 1 - 4 l O
O ' 0 5 0 5 0 S ' 2 8 t - I ' t 1 i 0 1 0 t ..
$" $ ww~ yw: -
l lIlIIl ( l ll f.Itl l
S.3-7 E s-$9 ts3 CIRCUL ATING WATER PUMPS (4) PUMPS AT 4SS cf s E ACH FINE SCREEN GUIDES T l q Te AVELING
--f-- SCREENS k TRASH f RACK 5 l
r > E L 138 0' M% E J I 1 NOW AL UPPER l AATER LEVEL l m 19 6 0 f t vst
~
"m PROB ABLE Lc/i WAT E R LEVEL
- r. it 3 o it MSL loa WATCA LEVEL
_ . _ . _ . 3.108.0 f f MSL FLOW
**" I,7 10% SLOPE 3
- EL.88.o' MSL L EL. loo ft
- 4 a f
M tzi/s.:N" f-i ABOVE ME AN I SEA LEVEL l L -- -
---t--
86 fi - ii in. 50 f t. NOT TO SCALE r'ig. S.3.6. Circulating-water intake structure: typical cross section. Source: ER Supplement, Fig. 53,4-10 (modified); and Ebasco Services Incorporated Allen 7cruk
't o! car 'ler.cratig 22ik.n aginesvig Ryort, report prepared for Houston Lighting and Power Company in support of an application to the Texas Water Quality Board, December 1973.
Table S.3.1. Staff's estimates of water velocities m the circulatmg-water mtake structure
- mter veloc tv l cm vc (f t/sec)) at va'ious cool;ngye water levels Locanon 33m (10810 34 4m i113 f t) 36m (118 to j Approaches to intak e bays" 18.2 to 60) 14 5 to 4 81 11 8 (0 391
( Theough t' ash racks' 20 o(0 65) 15.9(0 52) 130(043) Through travehng screens # 41.4 (1.36) 32 911.09) 27 o to 881
*Besed on total mtake flow of 1940 ets (see Fig S.3 2L
- Based on combined channel widths of mtake bays
' Based on a 9% reduction m chenei area by trash racks.
# Based on a 56% reductivn m channet area by traveling saeens.
heated water will be discharged in two 3-m (10-ft)-diam conduits through a seal well into the cooling-water discharge canal. The total residence time of the circulating water from the l intake inlet to the seal well outlet will be about 403 sec. Figure S.3.7 shows a cross-sectional view of the circulating-water discharge canal. The structure will be about 61 m (200 f t) wide and 549 m (1800 f t) long. The canal floor will be sloped in the streamwise direction from an elevation of 36 m (118 f t) MSL at the seal well to 35.7 m (117 f t) MSL at the point of discharge into the lake. This design concept contrasts with the originally planned design (ER, Fig. 3.4-8) in which the canal floor was sloped from an elevation of 31.7 m (103.9 ft) MSL to 31.4 m (103 ft) MSL. On the basis of a circulating-water flow rate of 55 m /sec (1940 cfs) and on the assumption of critical flow at the canal outlet, the staff has 3 estimated a mean discharge velocity of 1.9 m/sec (6.3 f t/sec).
S.3-8 Es 4276 I
-m k AMJSTASLE wElR (W ANUAL) EL l26'd o* /
FRou COBOE NSG LAKE NoRW MW EL II8 Co0UNG ,s+o - EL li e - EL IW t L ARE SHUTD(MN_ EL to8' SE AL wELL ) OsSchARGE CANAL 5 L (200"tw a1900tL) R too I. jg3, oRoV STRUCTURE Fig. S.3.7. Circulating-water discharge-canal cross section. Source: ER Supplement, Fig. 53.4-13. 5.3.2 RADI0ACilVE WASTE SYSTEMS In Part 50.34a of Title 10 of the Ca. l m .2 atin, an applicant for a permit to construc' ' car power reactor is required t include a prel'minary description of the design of equ' installed for keeping levels of radioactive materials in ef fluents to unre-str 'e- low as is reasonably achievable. The term "as low as is reasonably achievable" m' e iw s reasonably achievable taking into account the state of technology and the ec.. vcvrent in relation to benefits to the public health and safety and other so( ? J . r, . o. i oeconomic considerations and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in 5 6 * ,t htarest. Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance on design - obj w in ont water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive I mater i' e i cents released to unrestricted areas be kept as low as is reasoNbly achievable.
~
To m?et tu, requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a, the applicant has provided final designs of radwast' ;* ens and effluent control measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in effluents i unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable within the requirements of Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50 and the requirements of the Annex to Append'x ; dated September 4, 1975, elected in lieu of performing a cost-benefit analysis as required by Sect. II.D of Appendix !. In addition, the applicant has provided an estimate of the cuantity of ec:h princi-pal radionuclide expected to be released annually to unrestricted areas 16 liquid and g6secus effluents produced from normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The staff's detailed evaluation of the radwaste system and the capability of these syste s to' meet the requirements of Appendix I are presented in Chapter 11 of the Safety EWhation import. The quantities of radioactive mat? rial calculated by the staff to be released from the plant are also presented in Chapter 11 of the ufo r he n, N _r: and in Sect. 5.5.4 of this Environmental Statement with the calculated doses to individuals and the populatitn that will result from these effluent quantities. At the time of the operating license, the applicant will ta required to submit Tt chnical Specifications which will establish release rates for radioactive material in lihuid and ga eous effluents and which provide the routine monitoring and measurement of all principal release points to assure that the facility operates in conformance with the requirements of Appendix ! l to 10 CFR Part 50. 5.3.3 NONRAD10 ACTIVE WASTE 3YSTEMS l l 5,3.3.1 Wastes containing. chemicals or Diocidn l i The operation of ACNGS will result in chemical wastes that will be discha. ged into the cooling l lake and will eventually reach the Brazos River. The chemical wastes result from the concen-trating effect on the dissolved solids in the river water as a result of evaporation in the cooling lake and from the addition o' chemicals to the various systems during reactor operation.
. _ ._ . . . _ _ _ _ _ m - - , _ _ . _ <
S.3-9 A summary of chemicals discharged to the environment and a partial water analysis of makeup water from the Brazos River are presented in Table S,3.2. The relative magnitude of the chemical input to the environment may be judgeo from this table. It should be noted that the incremental increases in chemical concentratiow of these effluents in the Brazos River are, in general, within a few percent of the values given for operation of the originally proposed two-- unit station (FES Table 3.9), Table S.3.2. Increase m chemical concentration of efnuents m Brazos River due to coohng lake concentration ,, _ ~ . ~ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . - _ . - _ _ _ . _ Maximum concentr ation Madmum concentratinn g m Brazos R.ver m cool ng B Rw# at vte* fake 2
- (ppm)
B'ological ax) gen demand 4 8 o9 Chemical ur/ gen demand 39 78 83 Dissolved on ygen (001 7.6
' Surf ate ISO / "I 71 142 ,
15 1 chlonde (Cl ~ ) 81 162 17.3 Nitrate (NO3 * ) 011 13 E2 Phosphate (P0/ - ) 9.6 19.2 2.1 d Total dinalved 53ds (TOS) 681 1362 145 "Informatron based on E R. Tabie 2 5 3, and FES. Table 3.9 -
- Based on 2.0 concentration cycle.
' Based on 147 cis spillar flow and 542 cfs Brazos R ver flow (E R Suppl. Table $3 61-Dames and Moore. Inc . Biological Monitoring Program Progress Report: AHens Creek Nudear Generating Station Site. for Houston Ughting and Power Company, Docket Nos s0 466 and 5o 467 (March 1.1974).
S.3.3.1.1 Circulating-water system To prevent excessive biological fouling in the circulating-water system, chlorine will be injected periodically into the inlet cells of the circulating-water intake structure. The system will be designed to provide two 15-min shock doses per day to the circulating water (55 m3 /sec or 1940 cfs) with doses ranging up to 7 ppm; therefore, the total dosage of chlorine l to the. system (based on maximum concentrations) will be approximately 692 kg/ day (1525 lb/ day). The applicant estimates that these doses will be sufficient to maintain the design value of 0.2 ppm of free residual chlorine at the condenser discharge block (ER Suppl., 53,6.3). l In contrast to the design constraints of the one-unit station (0.2 ppm of free chlorine down-stream of the condenser), the two-unit St Mion was designed to maintain a free residual chlorine concentration of 0.1 ppm at the conden.. discharge block. Additionally, the chlorination system for the twc-unit operation was dLigned for alternate chlorination of each unit, thus - (during simultaneous operation) providing for dilution of the chlorinated water with the unchlorinated circulating water while the water would be in the seal well, thereby precluding the discharge of free available chlorine. The mixing of chlorinated and unchlorinated discharges would also reduce the total residual chlorine concentration, However, with the installation of I a one-unit station as presently designed, these dilution techniques are no longer achievable. I l S.3.3.1.2 Nonneclear regenerative waste Makeup water for the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) will be provided by demineralizing well water. Af ter presedimentation, well water will be pumped at a rate of 581 liters / min (150 gal / min) through the demineralizer trains where regeneration will occur with the addition of NaOH and H250a. This process will result in the generation of waste at amounts of 114 m /3 day (30,000 gal / day) for normal operation to 261 m3 / day (69,000 gal / day) for maximum design flow. Figure S.3.8 presents a flow diagram of the demineralizer waste treatment system. The applicant states l that the system will be designed to assure compliance with Federal Chemical Effluent Limitations ! Guidelines and with the Texas Water Quality Board's Heavy Metals Board Orderc It is estimated that neutralization of the normal flow will require the addition of approximately l 91 kg (E00 lb) of lime [Ca(OH)2] per day and approximately 181 kg (400 lb) of lime per day at , maximum flow (ER Suppl., Sect. 53,6.6). As Fig. 5.3.8 shows, these wastes will be discharged i to the cooling lake during normal operation at a rate of 75 gal / min for about 6 hr per day. '
5.3-10 l l i EswB C04C SULFURIC SULFURIC P ACID ACID STOREE DtLUTOJ S E , SLUDGE dew AT ERING LIME LIME SAD BED STCRME DILUTION TANK TANK ii j r it i [ WATER EARTHEN TREATVENT r EQUAUZATION h g h h $ + KE BUtL DING BASIN Q
@ NEUTRAUZATION / CHEV'r.AL ADDITION TANK P TRANSFER OR FEED PUVo COMULAil0N TANK SETTLING BASIN pH ADJUSTMENT pH RECORDER INDtCATOR AND CONTdOLLER Fig. 5.3.8. Flow diagram of the demineralizer waste treatment system. _Sou rc e :
ER Supplement, Fig. 53.6-1. 5.3.3.2 Sanitary system wastes The design of the permanent sanitary waste treatment systen for the two-unit station % as based on the anticipated wastewater loadings resulting frc- the maximum plant population (1 cersons) required to operate and maintain the plant (FES, Sect. 3.7). It is noted, however, tLat for the present systen, the applicant has adopted a concept that includes a design basis for both the construction-stage and operational-stage populations. A contact-stabilization activated-sludge system with effluent filtration and chlorination will be installed for the treatnent of sanitary waste during construction, and during the operation stage this systen will be converted to an extended-aeration activated-sludge system with effluent filtration and chlorination. The treated wastewater from the treatment plant will be discharged to Allens Creek daring the construction stage, and to the circulating-water discharge canal (and then to the cooling lake) during the operating stage. These effluents will be required to reet all applicable water quality standards. The system will mee t the require-ents of the Texas State Deoartment of Health. 5.3.4 POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS Several changes to the transmission systen have been proposed as a result of the redJCed gene-rating capacity of ACNGS. The transmission routes now being planned are Route 1 A connecting Unit I to the W. A. Parish substation; and Route 2C, connecting Unit I to the new Obrien sub-station (Fig. 5.3.9). Route 3 and that part of Route 2A that is being replaced by Route 2C will not be constructed. ine location of Route 1 A remains essentially the sare as described in the FE5 (Sect. 3.8). Some changes have been made in this route so that it will run through a 'less densely populated zone in the vicinity of Pleak.1
i l l S 3-11 2 , 2 I
? & vs a
a y :j w u o 8 e
" o w .= ,~
>- o (
wt-
- u. 9 c:
et
~
3"u = O y '2 Dj y C l 2 $ % s W sn 2 6 Oe 9 w -
- q o -
5 ;
,'f_ a x ~. x-e y aw w -
W P" d *2 @ O ' ,"3
; &- D e er -
( JO D O ~ a-l1 a. <1 x at l O
') l(3') < '
N . ./ l l / 7
/ m
/ e
/ 1_ m J /
i
/
~
q *-w
/ g L
/
/ i
' d
[ ,1
,' \
I
;ix (22
- g u
i o e t w oc Nw
/ I / m o
. <> .. 7 / t 5
e f EE M / / l
\
o x ,/ a a
=
w , a l
/ fm')
'9 / gu /ow E2
- t. / ..
m eo u
/ \ Is )
j i dosao i .c -z g I a .
; eE oe I a .~
n )
/m ) 0-I a .
I s ', z ? \ j@A f ?' l L ~y 3 \ e (1 ll \ E^
<% .s -
(Sh o L '. 'O d
/g j n. /
)
- d, I
s QN t di n / s' 3 / w / M u*
/
viy
/ \ m g!;g /
(f) 1
' - - Ig)-
'~r. \ . o
'E N \ \ tz r -- T. -
- - u. a 3
l . Us ^ l> J ts ' ' Q)) x U LJ q ,- /
>, Iw f L- / ,- \
he1 , 52 , 4 h
/
7-
- et 54u w at t, w u.,
e ue
- o1 n
v2 w .2
'd o O Dw*f
.> a >-
J Lee Q .) (f. o
. _. . . .- .._- -. . _ . __ - - . - - _ . - - . . . - ~ ~ _ ,
4 I S.3-12 l i The applicant plans to replace a portion of Route 2A with Route 2C, thus adopting the staff's j recommendation ".FES, p. 9-14) to reroute the transmission lines around the (original) cooling i lake perimeter. Route 2C will run in a northerly direction for about 5.3 km (3.3 miles), will turn ENE for about 8.0 km (5.0 miles) crossing the Brazos River, and will then intersect. the originally proposed Route 2A, which it will follow to the Obrien' substation (Fig. S.3.9). The line is approximately 46 km (28.5 miles) long and follows 18.5 km (11.5 miles) of existing 133-kV transmission lines at its eastern end. It crosses the Brazos River, Brazos Creek, several farm-to-market roads, and the Texas and New Orleans line of the Southern Pacific Rail-road. The 345-kV line will be reduced from a double circuit to a single circuit along Route 2C as a result of the reduced generating capacity of ACNGS. Double circuit towers will ce used along Route 1A, while single circuit towers will be used in the vicinity of the plant and along Route 2C. The applicant will follow the National Electric Safety Code in locating and construc-ting these transmission lines.
- The 0brien substation will be built in conjunction with the construction of Unit i as originally planned, and the W. A. Parish substation will be expanded. The.Addicks substation, which was originally planned as part of the Allens Creek distribution system, will no longer be required for that purpose, but will be built'in 1980 or 1981 as part'of the general system requirements of HL&P.
S.3.5 RAILROAD SPUR, ACCESS ROADS, AND PIPELINE RELOCATIONS The construction of a railroad spur and access roads remains essentially unchanged from the description in the FES (Sect. 3.9). As a result of the reduction in size of the cooling lake, only one pipeline will need to be relocated. This 61-cm (25-in.) natural gas pipeline, owned by Texas Utilities Company, will be rerouted along the northeast side of the cooling dam for a distance of approximately 8.5 km (5.3 miles) (ER, Suppl. , Fig. 52.1-4). The remaining pipelines described in the FES (Sect. 3.10) will not be affected by either the plant or the cooling lake. i i REFERENCE FOR SECTION S.3 ;
\
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Af fidavit of John A. Gill relative to transmission lines, (dated July 14,1975) Docket Nos, 50-466 ar.d 50-467.
,,n.~ -
- m. -. _ _. . _ .- .. . . m . - - . . _ _ . _ _ _ .
S.4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION The environmental ef fects of constructing ACNGS as originally proposed (i.e. , a two-unit station with a 3339-ha cooling lake) are described in Chapter 4 of the FES. This section of the Supple-
. ment to the FES describes the similar environmental effects of constructing ACNGS as now designed for a one-unit station with a P072-ha cooling lake.
As described in Sect. 5.3, the extension of the cooling lake dam te include the northern lake perimeter and a decrease in the number of structures associated with the station (such as the reactor, the turbine, and radwaste buildings, etc.) constitute the major changes in the station design. Accordingly, construction activities will be confined to correspondingly smaller portions of tne site area, however, the estimated number of construction personnel is about 9.1% larger, Moreover, a reduction in the scope of the proposed project will cause a reduction in the asso-ciated environmental impacts. However, the nature of the impacts and their qualitative assessment have not changed. S.4.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE Areas associated with construction activities for ACNGS, Unit 1, are shown in Fig. S.4.1. The prcperty and adjacent areas, which are owned by the applicant, comprise approximately 4513 ha (11,152 acres). The applicant estimates that the area affected by construction will total about 2315 ha (5720 acres), including 243 ha (600 acres) for the nuclear reactor and its ancillary structures, and about 2072 ha (5120 acres) inundated by the cooling lake. An update of areas to be affected by various construction activities is shown in Table S.4.1 (compare with the FES, Table 4.1). S.4.1.1 Station facilities In general, the construction impacts dascribed in Sect. 4.1.1 of the FES have been reduced as a result of the decreased size of the station and associated facilities. Changes to impacts pre-viously described are (1) a 4% reduction (from 398,000 to 382,000 m3 ) in volume of excavated material from the plant area, most of which will be used in the construction of the diversion dike; and (2) an increase in vehicular traffic to the site to more than 1800 vehicles per day, since the peak construction force has been increased by about 9.1%. Moreover, the ASLB has found that the applicant has satisfactorily conducted a review of the archaeological sites present on the property.1 Archaeological Site 41AU36 was named to the National Register of Historic places on March 21, 1975, as a result of a survey done by the Texas Archaeological Survey.2 The Board has found that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and that the impacts of construction on Site 41AU36 have been satisfactorily mitigated. Furthermore, the Board has stated that Condition 7b of the FES (see Appendix S.B , in this Supplement) has been satisfied and is no longer required as part of the construction
~
permit.1 S.4.1.2 Cooling lake The Allens Creek cooling lake will have an effective cooling area of approximately 1942 ha (4800 acres) and will be formed by an earthen dam about 8687 m (28,500 ft) long constructed along the northern and eastern perimeters.
-The dam will be approximately 10 m (32 ft) high, will be constructed of compacted-earth fill, and will be soil stabilized on the inside slopes and grass covered on the outside sinpes. The borrow areas located along the inside dam walls (Fig. S.4.1) will cover approximately 271 ha (670 acres). All construction runoff will be directed to a series of sedimentation basins within the cooling lake basin. The staff requires that the provisions of 40 CFR Part 423 be incorporated in the design of the sedimentation basins. Normal procedures to minimize erosion during construction of the dam will be used (ER Suppl., Sect. 54. 4. 3. 6.1 ) .
The design of the diversion dike is consistent with that described in the FES (Sect. 4.1.2), but the length will be reduced to approximately 4206 m (13,800 ft). The dike will be I S.4-1 i
rI 6 _ - E . - 2 . 4 ;* .
'6 _
g5
-y -,,
~
\[
s, _' i Q "~
~
\ ( ~
/ ft 1' ;
\
4a c
\ 1i
& \
\
{ ,.u ih .\
\- pl, k
~ w;h_ \ .
./ ,
e e
.- .wyw / r) _
._ 'Q _,,,
Cd p {Qw-.
/ h- e
~=>
si
=
e/ C . y nf ei 6)~ _ , l d
.3' l o
. "- n
.t~
/
i # - Am( f2 e h1
~ -
t -
- ~ 1
. ~ _~ " 'I t .
l
- a4
' 5 we,W~~~~_Qb""*u
)1\ s
_ e .
~ '
i g ti 4</ iF
' j),hc ,; v i ,
tt
. , cn
,( ~ ; l ae
- m F }t
#,pYV ne N'
,y n
~
n 7 C ol i p tp
- ,' cu
\
\1' q _- ; y uS r
tR w
,' sE Lg_
z C~ n
,l k \
L 1 o uA1 g .. N,, .a. nM 3 i s 4 mhw}?
,cM m~
s
.z g ~.
g
?; \
%"ll:
C c: hc t r i u wo e cM
%m o, n~
, ~
d e. 5
- wDiE s s' 2" t l.lU a
- nu s, ae
- N(e. G n= l i t L' f
'A
- u
- - l; ci os
~
, ~ !
T
- ~
- l/
4r _p, s sn
* * [2 _ ao "Jy i
. Fc ._~
- ,a
,e E~ -
n .m c st aa et
~ . ~Ji
* , . rS
/ _
A
/p ' .,.
. g n
. .'- f / I , ! 1
.i t
/i,s gl!
, a
~sf 3 p lQ
_ - , r
/ / t
- 4. e v /' -
I
; pde Sn e
/
3
/ w m
E. -j;~i g, /
, . v
]
c. s4 !ju e iy g ir
.G j ./
/
a m Fa e e ==;i
, l s
' w c u
f ' l ~+ r N d- $- ~
- s/
% r
. hhrE l-Gf
'(
.~
_ / fjj. . 4 _ ~
~ %
' \
. ~ , . . . . .-. _ = - - _ . - - ~ ..n. , ~ ~ - . .
S.4-3 ;
' Table S.4.1. Summary of areas affected by construction activities
-Land area
' Land me
- 1. Pf ar t construction (mdudes pa*k mg 61 150
' ds, concrete mm plant. switchyard, j
.ad circulatmg water dischege canal)
- 2. Access roads and ra Iroad sNr 16 40
- 3. Construction f ace'1 ties outsrde 24 60 of duect impact aiea 4 oam and intenor dAe ' 89 220 5 Bo"o* pits, heat sink. haul oah 405 1000 and conate uction de a 9 bcs ns (also 'ncluded in No 7L 6 Spatway, makeup pumpmg station 53 ;30 overbank stabd;m9n, and d:a natp l'aad 7, Lake ! " 2072 5120
- Total onsite area affecte#' N16 5720
- 8. Transmasion hne rights of.way 749 18si Total land area affected 3064 7571
# An adational 12 hd (30 acted wal be distuebed ternporanty by relocation of the 61tm l24dn j natural gas piphne.
approximately 8 m (26 ft) high and will be constructed of compacted earth and stabilized on both sides with riprap. S.4.1.3 Agricultural impact Development of ACNGS will directly remove an approximate 2315 ha (5720 acres) of potential agricultural land from production either by construction activities or by inundation of the
. cooling lake (Table S.4.-1). An additional.259 ha (640 acres) will be set aside'as a state park.
The applicant has made no definite plans for the remainder of the Allens Creek property (about 1939 ha), but is holding it.for unspecified future site development. A lengthy discussion, held during the evidentiary hearings before the ASLB on the ACNGS, Units 1 and 2, construction permit application, concerned the impact of removing both the entire property and only that portion to be inundated by the cooling lake from agricultural production. On the basis of that discussion, the Board stated that the Allens Creek land is only of average productivity, cannot be considered prime far.11and when compared to prime farmlanu in the Iowa-lilinois cornbelt, and has supported no crops which require either soil or climat 'c conditions unique to the area.1 Furthermore, the Board stated that this land-constituted a small to insignificant percentage of similar land available at the local, state and national levels.1 Since the ASLB hearings (1975), the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has clarified the definition and criteria for recognition of prime and unique farmlands.3 d Using these criteria and the information available on soil capability classes present on the Allens Creek property,5 the bottomlands have been tentatively identified by the applicant as prime farmlands, and the uplands as unique farmlands (ER Suppl., p. SH-60). The SCS has rated the majority of soils occurring on the ACNGS property as either prime-1 or prime-2 farmlands (Sect. S.2.2.4). Based on the information provided by the SCS, the staff has determined that 1882 ha (4650 acres) of prime-1 farmland will be inundated by the cooling lake and associated structures, and.ll2 ha (277 acres) of prime-1 and prime-2 farmland and 36 ha (89 acres) of unique farmland will be affected by construction of the station and ancillary
- tructures.
Estimated crop production from the Allens Creek property has been compared to projections of state and national production of similar crops at the ASLB hearings.1.5.5 7 The Board found 3 that agricultural productivity of the cropland on the site appeared to be above average for the local area (i.e., r.he five counties imr.ediately surrounding the site) and only average for the State of Texas.; The frequency of floodirg was estimated to decrease productivity to about 80% of its potential during a normal year. Table 5.4.2 compares site crop production estimates (based on land use in 1972)7 with the most recently available State and county production statistics. This comparison shcws: (1) sorghum productivity is slightly below average for the local five-county region and slightly above average for the State; (2) corn productivity __ - - ____________m__m. ._._ --, .
, q.m.. - , . v.- __ ..y-.- ,
S.4-4 fable S.4.2. Crop production estimates for Allens Creek (1972f, the five county region (1972-75L' and Texas (1972-75f - Crop S. te - Tm Sorghum M4 kgha 3.900 4.300 . 3,490 Renge 4.210 to 4 730 3.260 to 3.770 Area, ha 1.170 6a.260 2.587.000 Range 38.620 to 90.900 2.191000 to 2.914,000 l Product on, kg X 103 4.5 70 293.500 9.037.000 R an9e 182.800 to 382.500 7.925.000 to 10.590.000
.Com Yield, kg ha 3 500 4.320 7.520 R ange 3.630 to 5.340 6.760 to 8.090 i Area,ha 121 15.200 303.500 Range 13.190 to 16.960 186.700 to 445,200 ProduLt.on kg ' 10 3 430 65.620 2.284,000 Rane 49 960 to 90.120 1.258.000 to 3.603.000 Cotton Yield. kg ha 448 375 401 Range 242 to 456 301 to 483 A'ea. t'a 40 33.680 1.872 000 A ange 17.970 to 45.610 1.578.000 to 2,104,000 Product,on, kg N 10 3 18 12.640 750 100 Rany 6 823 to 20.803 519 300 to 1.019.000 Hay Y.eid, hg ha - 5.600 - 5.770 5.0 70 Rane 4 650 to 6.St0 4.550 to 5.420 Area ha 405 28.530 897.400 R any 22.220 to 33.140 777.000 to 971.200 Product.on. kg x 10 3 2.270 164.720 4.549.000 I R any 127.730 to 211.830 3 537.000 to 5.269.000 l
- Estimates of vield area. and product'on based on 1972 land use on the site. frorn l Sapolemental Direct restomony Re: Agricultural Impact of Allens Creek Protect, teste inony of Dr.. Pbdlip B.11 Ideixand. Docket Nos, 50 466.50-467. ;
- Five county reg on inchAes Austin County, Colorado County, Fort Bend County,
. Waher County, and Wharton Cooty, estimates of vield, area. and production catculated i from County Agricultural Statistics, Teus Departroent of Agoculture. Austin Texas
' Est. mates of v. eld, area, and oroduction for Texas cakulated from data in Agricultural Statsstscs. U S D A .1975 and 19 76-is considerably below average for both areas; (3) cotton productivi+y is somewhat better than average for both areas and (4) hay productivity is average for the local area and above average for the State. Cattle and calf production are estimated at 225,000 kg (495,000 lbs) for the property.7 Although a detailed inventory of prime farmlands at the local, state, and national levels is not yet complete, it is estimated that 6.8 million ha (16.8 million acres) of prime farmland are present in Texas (ER, Suppl., p. SH-57). Using this figure, the area c" rMme farmland which would be removed from potential agricultural production during the lifetime of the ACNGS develop-ment is approximately 0.029 of the prime farmland in the state. .There is little data available on the amount of unique farmland in the State of Texas. The majority of unique farmland in the Hoaston area is rice land. Assuming that the 36 ha (89 acres) of unique farmland to be lost were used for rice production, the area WOJld represent 0.2% of the total area in Texas planted to rite in 1975.
In sumary, the staff has found that (1) construction of the ACNGS and the cooling lake will directly remove 1994 ha (4927 acres) if prime farmland and 36 na (89 acres) of unique farmland from potential agricultural use fu at least the lifetime of the plant; (2) productivity of the . site is average for most crops at the state and local levels; (3) the prime and unique farmland directly affected by construction of the station and inundation of the cooling lake represents a very small percentage of the total prime and unique farmland in Texas. The staff concludes from the foregoing analysis that development of ACNGS will have an insignifi-cant impact on the total amount of prime farmland available in Texas, especially since i
.. - . .- . . . -- . - - ~ .
5,4-5 the possibility of draining the cooling lake at some future time could result in at least partial recovery of the land for agricultural purposes. S.4.1.4 Transmission lines The transmission lines e deu ribed in Sect. S.3.4 and in the ER Supplement (Sect. S3.9). The total area that will be a Wected by transmission corridors is approximately 749 ha (1851 acres). The transmission tower ba m wi!! cccupy about 3.2 ha (8 acres): Approximately 707, of the corridors (525 ha) is n opland, and about 30% (225 ha) is rangeland. About 687. of the total area through which the corridors will transverse is prime or unique farmland (ER Suppl.,
- p. SH-57). No permanant access or service roads will be allt to the rights-of-way. Temporary
' disruption or agricultural activities along the rights-of-way will occur during construction of the lines as a result of vehicle movement and storage of materials. Construction.will be scheduled to avoid unharvested fields, but if fields are disturbed or destroyed, surface '
construction marks will be removed, and farmers will be adequately compensated. Vehicle. movements along the rights-of-way will be controlled so as to minimize effects that could cause erosion, retard restoration of ground cover, or preclude resumption of agricultural use. The applicant plans to follow the National Electric Safety Code for locating and constructing the transmission lina. In addition, the staff requires the applicant to follow the U.S. Department-of the Interior w idelinese for locating transmission lines. The staff believes that construction of the transmission lines can be carried out without a significant long-term (r permanent effect on agricultural production. S.%) . 5 Other impacts Impacts of road construction and a railroad spur are essentially the same as those described in Sect. 4.1.4 of the FES. The imptct of pipeline relocation has been greatly reduced from that originally anticipated (F'5, Sect. 4.1.5) because only one pipeline needs to be moved. This pipeline will run along the eastern side of the dam so that its construction will cause little additional disruption to terrestrial habitat in that area. The pipeline corridor will be fertilized and planted to produce native grass cover. S.4.2 HYDROLOGICAL AND WATER USE IMPACTS The construction of a one-unit station and a 2072-ha (5120-acre) cooling lake at the Allens Creek sit ' will not result in significantly fewer environmental ef fects on water use than those described (FES, Sect. 4.2) for the construction of a two-unit station and a 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling lake. Because many of the construction impacts on water use can only be assessed qualitatively, the staff cannot d9 ermine the degree to which these environmental ef fects will
. differ for the construction of eithec the 1200-MW or the 2400-MW station. It is noted, however. l that the one-unit station will require significantly less construction because of the decreased number of structures; however, because this construction impacts mainly groundwater (due to l dewatering of excavation), its effect will be minor in any case (ER, Sect. 4.1.5.2), j The staff concludes, therefore, LSat the environmental effects on water use in the site vicinity i that result from the construction of a one-unit.statfor designed for the Allens Creek site, I will be essentially the same as these described in the FES (Sect. 4.2). Accordingly, both the I groundwater and surface-water reginas will be af fected. The groundwater regime will be affected initially by withdrawals of water for use during construction and by dewatering of excavations.
The surface-water regine will be affected initially by disturbance and alteration of Allens Creek, by channelizatic i of runoff north of the main dam, and by channel stabilization near the makeup water intake str c ure 1. the Brazos River. Ultimate, long-term ef fects on both ground-water and surface-wate regimes will be caused by the inundation of the 2072-ha (5120-acre) cooling lake. Constru. tion activities will also cause increases in turbidity in Allens Creek and the Bra 2os River. however, because the applicant plans to use the normal erosion control techniques (ER Supe Sect. 54.4.3.6), these effects should be localized and minimal. S.4.3 ECOLOGICAL !MPACTS In consideration of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended, the staff has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Comments from the USFWS concerning the ER Sup.;1ement are included in Appendix S.E. The staff has considered the comments presented as part of the environmental review of this proposed station.
- - . . . ~ _ -- .. . ., - - - . _ - . .-
S.4-6 S.4.3.1 Terrestrial ecosystems The impacts of construction on terrestrial ecosystems discussed in Sect. 4.3.1 of the FES apply equally well to the current station design. The reduced size of the station and associated facilities will result in the permanent loss of about 61 ha (150 acres) of terrestrial habitat and the loss, at least for the lifetime of the station, of an add tional 2072 ha (5120 acres) that will be inundated by the cooling lake. The applicant estima' es that 8% (194 ha) of the area affected by construction and the cooling lake is heavily forested with the remaining 92% having been recently used as either cropland or pasture (ER, Suppl . , p. ;4.1-4). Plants and animals inhabiting the majority of the site are cornon and representative of the surrounding agricultural region. A unique community of woody species occurring on the bluff forming the western boundary of the cooling lake (Sect. S.2.1.4.1) probably will be destroyed by construction of the cooling lake (BMPR,p.4.3-2). Onsite habitat for a resident deer population of approximately 33 individuals will be significantly reduced. Feeding activities of large numbers ef wintering geese and ducks on the hottomland fields will be greatly reduced or eliminated by development of the site, although the cooling lake will provide a new resting area for waterfowl moving through the general area. Development of the site will thus directly destroy 2315 ha (5720 acres) of terrestrial habitat and replact- it with 2072 ha (5120 acres) of aquatic habitat. The staff finds that the effect of construction activities on local flora and fauna will probably be minimal in terms of region-wide populations. Endangered species potentially occurring in the general vicinity of the Allens Creek property are listed in Table S.2.5. Most of these species are unlikely to be present on the site since either appropriate habitat is lacking (e.g., the Houston Toad requires loblolly pine forest), or the species is so rare in the area that it is unlikely to be present where agriculture is the dominant land use. Although no endangered species listed by the USFWS occur on the site itself, the transmission line corridor along Route 1A traverses some habitat of the endangered Attwater's prairie chicken (FES Sects. 2.7.1, 3.8, and 5.5.1). The applicant has found (ER Suppl., p. SH-65) ' that this population, which is located near the Orchard Dome Oil Fields, has been declining since 1973 due to loss of natural habitat. Apparently, much of the habitat available in 1973 had been converted tn rice fieldt by 1977. The applicant has cormitted himself to schedule construction to avoid the nesting season of the Attwater's prairie chicken in the area of the Orchard Done Oil Field (ER Suppl., p. 54.4-8). In accordance with Sect. 7 of the Endangered Species Act o' 1973 the stoff has requested consultation and assistance with the USFWS concerning this popula-tion of the Attwater's prairie chicken. Recorrendations made in response to this report will be reviewed and incorporated into the Final Supplement. S.4.3.2 Aquatic ecosystems 1 The activities associated with construction of ACNGS will affect the aquatic Wa in two existing bodies of water: (1) the lower half of Allens Creek and (2) portions of the G M zos River near the site, in addition, construction activities will create the Allens Creek ct.oling lake. The scope of construction impacts on existira aquatic systems for the original station design as discussed in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2) is applicable to the new station design. Con-Sequently, only changes or additions to the original analysis are giver below.
- 5.4.3,2.1 Initial impact of construction on Allens Creek Significant short-term changes in Allens Creek will be similar to those detailed in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2.1). However, the relocation of 1.6 km (1 mile) of the Allens Creek channel to accomodate a borrow area is no longer proposed. In addition, berms, ditches, and sedimentation basins will be used during construction (ER Suppl., Sect. S4.1) to reduce sediment loading of Allens Creek. The reduced size of the plant, switching yard, and other facilities should also decrease the significance of sedimentation problems as given in the FES. The overall impact of siltation, bridge construction, and construction effluents will, however, significantly reduce the aquatic pepulations in the lower half of Allens Creek during the tire between onset of construction and filling of the cooling lake.
S.4.3 2.2 Impac a on Allens Creek due to construction of the cooling lake ' A cooling lake of approximately 2072 ha (5120 acres) will be formed by impounding Allens Creek and by constructing an earthen dam 8687 m (28,500 ft) long aloag the eastern and northern boundary of the site. This proposed cooling lake represents a 38% decrease in surface area from the original design. Construction of the cooling lake for either station design will affect Allens Creek in two ways (1) approximately 12.9 km (8 miles) of the creek will be
.__ -m _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~. .. . . _ - - - .- - _ . - . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
l l S.4-7 inundated when the cooling lake is filled, and (2) the flow in the lower portion of Allens Creek below the cooling lake dam (approximately 0.8 km) will be reduced. The qualitative assessment of the impact resulting from these two events as discussed in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2.2) are not affected by the proposed design. changes. S.4.3.2.3 Predicted limnology of the proposed Allens Creek cooling lake and development of aquatic flora and fauna The proposed Allens Creek cooling lake will have a surface area of approximately 2070 ha'(5120 acres), which represents, as previously noted, a 33% reduc'. ion in the originally proposed size. Since the new cooling lake design will have approximately .he same average depth, orientation to the wind, propensity for complete mixing of the water column, and other similar physical and chemical characteristics as the original design, the pro, etted aquatic characterization of the cooling lake given in Sect. 4.3.2.3 of the FES is, in gueral, applicable to the current design of the proposed lake. In this section, the staff's projection of water quality and aquatic flora and fauna are reconsidered based on additional data and on experience acquired subsequent to the origina1' assessments. Water quality Quantitative estimates of water quality parameters to be expected in the proposed Allens Creek cooling lake are not amenable to analysis. However, certain qualitative aspects of the probable cooling lake water quality are discernible. Total nutrient loading to the cooling lake is expected to be high, given nutrient additions-from Allen: Creek, the Brazos River, and from flooded soils. Although the initial projections made in the FES are conservative, such nutrient levels will be sufficient to support abundant , algal growth in the new proposed lake. Since Allens Creek is an ungaged stream, nutrient loading from this source based on concentrations in water and flow rates cannot be estimated. -However, the concentration of all major nutrients in Allens Creek were reported to be consistently higher than those found in the Brazos River (BMPR, Sect. 3.6). Silt loading from Allens Creek may be significant in the flooded channel area, and delta formation is expected where the stream enters the cooling lake. Due to high levels of fecal coliform and fecal streptococci in the upper Allens Creek area (BMPR, Sect. 3.6), which probably originate from cattle and sewage, water quality may be poor where the stream enters the lake. Water quality in the southern arm of the proposed lake, which currently receives sewage outfall from the town of Wallis (Fig. S.2.3), is also expected to be poor. Fecal coliform and fecal streptococci in this area may not be a problem if sewage discharges are chlorinated. Possible levels of indicator bitteria and nutrient concentrations for this arm cannot be estimated as these parameters were i not measured during the biological monitoring program. Total dissolved solids (TDS) are expected to be high in the cooling lake due to reported high l levels in the Brazos River and in Allens Creek, and because of evaporative concentration in the lake itself (BMPR, Sect. 3.6 and FES, Sect. 4.3.2). TDS under the original lake design were pre-dicted to range from 875 to 2000 ppm. The staff finds that this range is still somewhat con-servative for the smaller lake. However, total dissolved solids in the cooling lake are expected to be well below levels constituting physiological stress to aquatic organisms, which generally is considered to occur in the TDS range of 5000 ppm.9,M High levels of some heavy metals (Table 5.2.6) have been measured on a number of occasions in Allens Creek and in the Brazos River (BMPR, Sect. 3.6). Due to the extremely complex aqueous chemistry of trace metals, the uncertainty of the overall water quality in the proposed cooling lake, and the unknown amount of trace element loading to.the lake, predictions of possible concentrations in cooling lake water cannot be made a priori. Similarly, little can be predicted about the possible effect of these trace elements on aquatic biota. However, if a concentration factor of two is used for the cooling lake (Table 5.3.2) and values given in Table S.2.6 are considered equilibrium dissolved concentrations (worse case assumption), then some seasonally high concentrations of heavy metals ma; enter the cooling lake through the wier overflow from the sedimentation basins. Of particular concern are mercury, zinc, copper, and cadmium. Analysis of catfish flesh (Iculww ;w.m.t:a) taken from the Brazos River in March 1974, however, revealed no mercury contamination. Although these elements are not yet considered a problem in Allens Creek or in the Brazos River, some loading to the proposed cooling lake will occur and could disrupt aquatic food chains or could bioaccumulate and eventually lead to ingestion by man. Additional monitoring (Sect. S.6.1) should provide the necessary data to evaluate the potential long-term effect on the aquatic biota of the proposed cooling lake.
-.. ~ . . . - - - . . - . - . - - -- - - - - - - - - . . _ . - ~ . ~ - -
1 S.4-8 l Aquatic flora and fauna l A generic assessment for development of aquatic blota in a new reservoir is prcsented in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2.3)'and is applicable to the proposed cooling lake. Due to the modified design ; of the cooling lake and new information available in the biological monitoring program, however, the following considerations need to be addressed. The proposed cooling lake may be susceptible to nuisance algae blooms. This situation may arise , because of high intermittent nutrient loading (BMPR, Sect. 3.6), reduced turbidity from the use of settling basins, and high ambient water temperatures in some sections of the lake during sumer (ER Suppl . , Figs, 5.3.4-20 to S.3.4-22), all .of which contribute to nuisance algae development. The presence of nuisance algae, especially surface scums of blue-green algae, may . limit recreational use of the cooling reservoir during the season of their occurrence (FES, Sect. 5.5.2.1.1) and may present problems to fish due to release of toxins during die-off of algae blooms. Although nuisance algae have not been reported to be a problem in other Brazos River reservoirs!! and neither the magnitude nor duration of such events can accurately be predicted l for the Allens Creek cooling lake, nuisance algae blooms may occur in late sumer during low- ) water periods.U M l The growth and maintenance of a viable recreational fishery in Allens Lake will be adversely affected by elimination of the natural shoreline on the northern edge of the site as provided in the original lake design. The exclusion of these shallow zones and backwater areas will sub-stantially reduce spawning and nursery habitat necessary for the development and maintenance of a self-sustaining recreational fishery in the lake. The embayments along the northern shore of the old lake design would have constituted about 25~. of the lake perimeter and about 50% of the shallow littoral zone. The originally conceived littoral areas will be replaced with a stabilized
- earth apron lying at 3
- 1 slope. Spawning on this apron will be minimal as will the deveicoment of periphyton and macrophyte comunities due to fluctuating water levels, water turbidity. and .
~
unsuitable substrate. Important littoral areas for fish reproduction under the new lake design -
'will be located primarily in the flooded Allens Creek channel and in nearby small bays (Fig. S.2.3).
Although this area has a dendritic drainage pattern, it is limited in extent and is subjected to substantial sediment load from Allens Creek runoff during intermittent high flow events. Therefore, it is not considered adequate to sustain the spawning habitat needs for the lake fishery. It is the opinion of Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission 17 that the projected 50 to 60% of the fishery being composed of game fish as stated by the applicant (ER Suppl., Sect. 5.5.1.6.1) is not probable in a shallow, thermally loaded reservoir such as proposed for Allens Creek. Supplemental stocking of game fish species or rearing fingerlings to larger sizes in the sedimentation basins to avoid j cannibalism may be necessary to sustain a viable fishery. The staff understands that the actual management plan to provide a recreational fishery will be developed in conjunction with the Texas 1 Parks and Wildlife Cocnission to maximize recreational potential (applicant's Master Develo pent . Plan). Although a sustained yield recreational fishery as originally proposed may not be pos-sible under natural reproduction in Allens Creek 1.ake, the aquatic environment created in < the proposed lake and its biotic resources will more than offset the loss of aquatic biota l due to construction and operational impacts in Allens Creek. S.4.3.2.4 Brush and tree clearing As discussed in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2.4), brush and tree clearing in the cooling lake basin prior to lake filling will have a potential effect on the future aquatic productivity in the proposed cooling lake. ,Although a detailed tree cutting and brush-clearing plan for the lake basin has not been received by the staff, the recommendations given in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2.4) and in the applicant's Master Development Plan for the Allens Creek Lake concerning fish habitat enhance-ment are applicable to the new lake design. S . 4. 3.2. 5 Effects of construction on the Brazos River The major effects of construction of ACNGS on the Brazos River are described in the FES (Sect. 4.3.2.4). A significant change from the origi.nal analysis is the addition of approximately 44 km2 (17 sq miles) of Allens Creek watershed runoff to direct inflow to the Brazos River (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.1). This runoff will be carried in a channel along the eastern and northern perimeters of the proposed cooling lake dam (ER Suppl., Fig. 52.5-1). When the cooling lake dam is completed and the lake begins to fill, a small percentage of direct runoff from Allens Creek watershed will be availabl( to augment flows in the Brazos River. This additjon, however, is expected to have little effect on the biota of the Brazos River because the total Allens Creek
. inflow generally amounts to only li of the Brazos River flow. The staff concludes that con-struction effects on the Brazos River will be localized and minimal and should not persist after construction is completed. >
i L _ .. m
S.4-9 S.4.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS The 1977 estimated populations within 16 and 80 km (10 and 50 miles) nf the proposed ACNGS are 8840 and 1,670,000 persons respectively (Sect. S.2.1). The present population of the total Housten metropolitan area is approximately 2.4 million persons.l* The site is within 60 min of off-peak travel time to the center of downtown Houston and is within 40 min of much of developing, ; western Houston (ER Suppl., 58.1.3.1). The site is within 20 to 30 min travel of the Richmond-Rosenburg area, an area with an estimated 1975 population of 23,500 persons. The staff has reassessed the current social and economic condition o^ communities surrounding the proposed site area and detemines that, for analytical purposes, the area within the 16-km (10-mile) radius of the site is appropriately defined as the Iccat impact area. This includes the towns of Wallis, Sealy, San Felipe, and Orchard with respective populations of 1055, 3200 , 447, and 441. The larger, ecgioul impact area is appropriately defined as that area encompassing the Houston Galveston region, a 13-county area (including Austin County) which is a major service area for much of East Texas (Fig. S.4.2). The applicant has proposed that nearly 2400 workers (a 9.1% increase from original estimates) will be needed to construct ACNGS during the eight-year construction period 1978 to 1985. ES 4280R k h G l l ULF.ER f MONIC0MERY
!hy LIBERif AU$IIN
(
\
g HARRIS hCHAM6ERS-h
' SEAL [
. 'ACNGS N WALLIS N. HOUSTON COLORADO y f g CALVESTON l n.)
/ BRAZORIA
/
/ %
MATACORDA 4 l ;
)
Fig. S.4.2. Houston-Galveston region. Source: Texas Regional Input-Output , Study, 1967. l 1
_= - .. -- - - _ . - _ - _ ~ - . ._ . - . _ - -_ .. _ S.4-10 Based on the staff's review of other nuclear plant sites that are withia daily comuting distance of metropolitan areas," as well as an assessment of the capacity of the Houston j metropolitan area to provide an adequate supply of labor and access to and from the plant site, ; the staff estimates that most construction workers will be drawn from the Houston regional 1 labor pool and will commute daily from their places of residence within the Houston--Galveston I area rather than relocate to the more remote plant site. Most of those workers who will be drawn from outside the area, and those workers who do choose to relocate from within the areas closer to the plant site, will, in the staf f's opinion, relocate within the rapidly growing western and southwestern suburban communities adjacent to Interstate 10 and State Highway 36. These newer suburban communities are becoming increasingly able to provide the needed economic, social, and political infrastructure to accommodate new populations. The community of Katy, for example, located 31 km (19 miles) east of the site on 1-10, grew 71% from 1970-1975. ; Richmond and Rosenberg, two communities approximately 32 km (20 miles) ESE of the site on State Highway 36, grew 46% and 15% respectively from 1970 to 1975.' Based on past experience at other plant sites,M recent metropolitan growth trends within the Houston area and the s'.ze of the labor force (Sect. S.4.4.3), the staf f believes that a reasonable estimate of the total peak in-migration of workers to the local area will be within the range ! from 10 to 157 of the total work force, or 240 to 360 workers. This assumption is a significant I departure from the original FES estimate of 25t, or 520 workers (FES, p. 4-10). If 10 to 15% of I the total work force move to within 16 km (10 miles) of the plant site and if it can be assumed ( that one-half of these workers are married and bring their families (estimating 3.5 persons per family), an increase of anproximately 420 to 630 persons would be anticipated for the local area, The staff's review nas determined that the local area, and primarily the nearby communities of Wallis and Sealy, will be able to provide needed services and facilities for the incoming workers and their families. It is the staff's opinion that the local area will not be severly impacted. Most construction-related impacts will be dispersed throughout the Houston metro-politan area. It is within this framework that the staff has reconsidered the possible social and economic impacts of constructing ACNGS. The following section updates and revises the staff's original analysis in the FES (Sect 4.4). S.4.4.1 Public services and housing Although an increase over the originally estimated size of the work force is planned, a decrease in the estimated percentage of workers who will relocate within the local impact l area will result in fewer workers relocating within the local impact area (240 to 360 ) workers). Tables 58.2-1 and 58.2-4 in the ER Supplement describe the available services, revenue, sources, and financial obligations of Wallis and Sealy. The staff concludcs that some public services may be overburdened, but in most instances present services will be adequate to meet demand. 1 There may be a need for the addition of two professional police officers in Wallis during construction. The daily influx of such a large number of people to the city and its environs may increase the possibility of traffic problems or public disruption during this time. A possible addition af approximately 120 to 180 children to the Wallis and Sealy school districts during peak construction may occur. This is a decrease from the staff's original FES estimate of 300 pupils, The consolidated Wallis-Orchard Independent School District (ISD) is presently constructing a new high school to be completed in August 1978. With an increased capacity of almost 500 students, this school will be more than adequate to meet the demand. Increased property taxes paid to the Wallis-Orchard ISD by the applicant will more than compensate for any additional students (see Sect. S.4.4.5). The Sealy 150 may also increase their enroll-ment. Sealy officials state that their public school system is presently at peak enrollment; they are scheduled to open ten new classrooms in September 1978. The Sealy ISD will also receive property tax payment from the applicant. The staf f is unaware at this time when payments will begin to each of the jurisdictions. An increased work force will mean increased transportation problems in the local area. However, the level of congestion problems due to the slightly increased vehicular traffice is not expected to change significantly. ' The staff requires that the applicant work with local and State offi-cials and undertake all possible measures to see that transportation problems, particularly those occurring around shift changes, are alloviated. The staff further requires that all necessary agreements be arranged accordingly between the applicant and the State to ensure adequate main-tenance of local roads. The staff understands that most construction workers will commute to the plant site via Inter-state 10 (approximately 11 km north of the site), State Highway 36 (adjacent to the site), and several area farm-to-market roads (ER Suppl. 52.1-3). To ensure adequate protection of the local road system, the applicant has proposed to (1) ship all materials by rail when practical, (2) schedule truck traf fic around local traffic flows, (3) implement traffic control measures
. _ m . . ._ _ _ . . _ _. .
S.4-11: to alleviate mystion in local communities..and (4) to construct haul roads on the site to minimize offst te transport of materials. l
. l The staff understands that relatively few housing vacancies exist wit.in the Wallis-Sealy-San Felipe area, in Wallis, building permits were first. issued in 1975; since that time, 21 new homes,14 businesses, and 5 mobile home permits have been issued.21 Similar information was not available for Sealy or San Felipe. The staff believes that most construction workers who choose to relocate near.-the plant site will do so in mobile home parks. Mobile home parks are permitted in Wallis, Sealy, and isolated areas of Austin Coun'y.
The staff reaffirms its position, however,'and states that relatively few workers will n .ocate
~
to the local area. 'Most workers will probably choose to reside closer to the confines ot.the l Houston area where more adequate services and facilities currently exist. Some. local demand-may exist for additional housing or rental property, but this should be relatively small. J S.4.4.2 Income effects Table S8.1-2 in the ER Supplement displays the direct, indirect, induced, and total income ' effects of construction of ACNGS. The applicant projects a direct income of over $54.9 million
~
at the peak of activity in 1930, and a total income effect of approximately $149.4 million for the same period. The. staff believes that these are reasonable estimates of increased income, and that most of the direct income effect will be dispersed throughout the greater Houston metropolitan area instead of being concentrated within the local impact area. S.4.4.3 Employment ef fects Ccnstruction labor force estimates and indirect and induced employment figures are provided in Table S.4.3. These show that construction employment will peak at approximately 2400 workers in 1983. Secondary employment is projected to generate approximately three jobs within the economy for every construction worker employed. The staff concurs with the applicant's employment estimates, but suggests that the secondary employment yielded by the construction of ACNGS will-be generated not only in the local area, but also in the greater Houston metropolitan area and in the State of Texas. Very little secondary employment may be generated locally from construction activity. Table S.4.3. Estimated statewide employment oflects of ACNGS construction Onect Indwt induced Total E mploymen t 8 E mploymenf Employmen # Employment# 1978 100 60 120 280 1970 - 950 600 1.110 2.660 1980 2.400 1.510 2,81o 6.720 1981 2.185 1.380 2.56o 6.125 1982 1,690 1.060 1.980 4,730 1983 94s 600 1.100 2.645 1984 400 25n 47o 1,12o 1985 160 100 190 _450 Total 8,83o 5.660 10.340 24.730
- Estimate by Ebasco Soroces. Inc.
#o 6?) times dwect income (from Ref. S8.12L
' t.170 tunes dueet income (from Ref. S8.12L
# Sun of duect, indaect, and induced income streams.
Source ~ E R Supplement. Table S8.14. The staff has reviewed employment statistics for both Austin County and the Houston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), which includes Brazoria, Ft. Bend, Harris, Montgomery, Liberty, and Waller counties.22 Recent estimates of employment in Austin County show that the number of employed persons ranged from 5,544 in January 1977, to 5,785 in July 1977. Unemploy-ment for the same period remained stable at approximately 1.8%. This was the same as the average. unemployment rate for 1975 and 1976. Most recent breakdowns of statistics by sector show that in 1975, 700 persons, or almost 14% of the total work force, were unemployed in construction activity. In the Houston SMSA, approximately 1,168,200 persons were employed in the labor force in May 1977. This represents an increase of approximately 84,100 employed
S.4 12 persons from May 1976. The umemployment rate of May 1977 was 4.8%. This rate compares favorably with the national adjusted unemployment rate of 6.9%. Of the estimated 1,146,400 wage-and-salary jobs in nonagricultural industries in the Housten SMSA in May 1977, approximately 123,100 persons, or 11% of the total labor force, were employed in conb act construction. According to U.S. Census information, the Houston SMSA is one of the largest _ labor markets in the Nation and ranks near the top in numbers of people employed in construction-related activities.23 One of the major benefits of the construction activity may be the provision of new employment opportunities for local area residents. Residents who are employed or who are working within the greater Houston metropolitan area may choose to work locally if the opportunity arises. The staf f believes thst joint participation in planning programs between the applicant and local school systems may enable graduating students to enter the work force through various trades and craf ts at ACNGS. S.4.4.4 Local purchases of materials The applicant estimates that the A'llens Creek project will purchase in the range of $22 to
$55 million worth of material goods from vendors in Austin, Fort Bend, and Harris counties during the construction perioo. The staff believes a sale volume of this magnitude is.very significant. The degree to which businesses are able to provide these items will depend upon their ability to supply the goods on a timely basis at competitive prices.
S.4.4.5 Estimated taxes The estimates of taxation have been considerably revised from the original FES. A reduction in the number of ACNGS units from two to one, as well as changes in construction costs and general inflation, have been the prime factors for taxation revisions. Property taxes from ACNGS will be paid directly to Austin County, to the Wallis-Orchard ISD, and, during construction and operation, to Austin County Road District 3. The ACNGS will almost triple the total assessed i property valuation within Austin County in 1985. Without ACNGS, Austin County's total propei ty valuation in 1985 would be approximately $160 million. At a cost of over $1 billion, the assessed value of ACNGS at the current Austin County (33.3%) assessment ratio would be $333 million (ER Suppl., Sect. 58.1.5.1). The construction of ACNGS within Austin County thus represents a substantial impact on the county's property taxes. The Wallis-Orchard ISD's assessed valuation will increase dramatically upon completion of ACNGS. The 1935 assessed valuation of the school district without ACNGS would be approximately $94 million. The ISD's assessed valuation with ACNGS would be approximately $744 million, an increase of almost $650 million. The ACNGS may account for over 85% of the total assessed valuation in the school district. The staff believes that this increase in total assessed valuation will more than compensate f 3r any increase in student enrollment due to the nuclear plant constructinn. The Sealy ISD will also receive some money from construction of ACNGS, but the amount as yet is undetermined. The ACNGS will also pay State and municipal sales taxes as well as franchise, gross receipts, and Federal income taxes. Table S.4.4 shows that the Mtal taxes to be paid over the lifetime of the plant would be almost $974 million. The annualized value of this total equals roughly
$94.6 million.
S.4.4.6 Impact of construction noise, aesthetic impact, and displacement of residents The discussion of the physical impacts of construction (noise, aesthetics, and displacement of residents located in the upland areas of the site) included in the FES (Sect. 4.4.6) are not affected by the proposed design changes. Accordingly, noise from some of the construction activi-ties will cause disturbance to some of the residents along State Highway 36 FM road 1458, FM road 1093, and the city of Wallis. The applicant plans, however, to select or treat equipment to avoid levels that will be objectionable to residents. Also, the aesthetic impacts associated with the earthmoving activities will not be visible except to users of FM road 1458 and from the bluff overlooking the cooling lake area, and the construction activities will displace a total of 16 families occupying site dwellings.
. ~ . -- - - .
S.4-13 Table S.4.4. Lifeterne tax benefit from Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (in thousands of dollars) Fiscal year Lifetime value . Annuahzed E stimation 1985 discnunted to 1985 value procedure Ad valorem taxes Austin County s 1.500 $ 36,200 $ 3,500 a Wams Orchard imb: pendent 2.600 62.900 6.100 a School District Sales tax e State of Texas 8.000 124,000 ' J00 59 6% of reenue. 4% tax rate Mumcipal 1.600 24.700 2.400 4L5% of revenue; 1% tax rate Other taxes F ranchne 8.900 139,000 13.500 Estimated at 2.67% of gross rewnue Gross receipts 4.300 67.000 6,500 Estemated at 1.29% of gross revenue Federaf income 33.500 520.000 50.000 Estimated at lo%
~~
of gross revenue Total estimated taxes $60.400 $973.800 s94.600 8 E R Supplement. Sect S8.15.1. Source: E R Supplement. Tatde 5817, e S.4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION S.4.5.1 Applicant commitments e Section 4.5.1 of the FES contains a sunmary of commitments made by the applicant to limit adverse effects during construction of ACNGS as originally proposed. In order to minim 1re con-fusion, the commitments described in Sect. 4.5.1 of the FES are hereby withdrawn and are replaced in their entirety by the following:
- 1. Measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation during site preparation and construction
- a. Erosion control berms, ditches, and sedimentation basins will be constructeo prior to, or simultaneously with, initiation of clearing, grubbing, and stripping .
operations (ER Suppl. , Sect. 54. 4. 3. 6.1 ) .
- b. Erodible slopes will be mulched or seeded with native grasses to provide short- and.
long-term cover if the slope is left undisturbed for an extended period, or perma-nently. Particular attention will be given to creek bank areas and steep slopes. Where excavation causes topsoil removal and replacement by subsoil, organic matter or selected fertilizers will be acded to promote revegetation (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.6.1).
- c. All ccnstruction runoff will be routed to sedimentation basins until completion of the dam. Thereafter runoff from the plant area construction activities will be s routed to the cooling lake. There will be no discharge of construction runoff to j Allens Creek or the Brazos River except in the event of an abnormally wet fear, and then only if the ponded runoff is of acceptable quality (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.6 2). 1 l
- 2. Disposal of waste materials
- a. Metal scrap will be collected in a trash disposal area for pickup by local scrap dealers (ER Suppl.. Sect. S4.4.3.4),
- b. Liquid wastes (chemicals, fuels, etc.) will be deposited or discharged into containers for salvage or su'> sequent removal to offsite locations (ER Suppl. , Sect, S4.4.3.4).
- c. Washings from concrete transporting equipment will be collected in a settling basin and covered with fill upon completion of construction (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.4).
_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . - . - ,
.- . . - ~. - - - -. -- . - . ~ . - - - - - - - - -
S.4-14 i
- d. Combustible materials including wastepaper, scrap wood, workmen's lunch leftovers, etc. will be burned in an incinerator approved under Texas Air Control Board Regulation 1. Ashes and other incombustible materials will be buried at designated, regulatory-approved landfill areas on the site (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.4).
- e. Merchantable logs and pulpwood removed by clearing operations may be collected and $
held foc comercial sale. Brush and trees of no value for either comercial sale or use in creating aquatic habitat will be burned using methods given under the Texas - Air Control Board Regulation 1 (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.4).
- f. Sanitary wastes of construction personnel will be treated onsite. Plans call for a sanitary waste collection system requiring the trucking of wastes on a regular basis
- from the approximately 100 portable toilets scattered throughout the construction area 4
'to the onsite treatment plant. This plant will have a contact-stabilization activated sludge system with effluent filtration and chlorination. The design of the system ,
will be in accordance with the Texas Department of Health Resources and in accordance l with Texas Water Quality Board Regulations, Approximately 3790 liters (1000 gal) of ; waste will be trucked to the treatment plant daily. It is designed to har.dle wastes I of the peak construction force (approximately 2400) and will be converted into an i extended aeration-activated sludge treatment system for use during operation cf the- I station (ER Suppl . , Sects. S3.7.3.1 and S4.4.3.5). )
- g. The concrete mix plant will be kept free of refuse and accumulative debris (ER SJppl.,S4.4.3.4).
- 3. Traf fic and dust control
- a. Incoming materials will be shipped by rail whenever practical (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.1),
- b. Truck operations will be handled and scheduled whenever practical to minimize irtpacts on, or interference with, local traffic patterns (ER Suppl., 54.4.3.1).
- c. Traffic control measures will be implemented as necessary to control truck traffic and )
to assure safe operations in the vicinity of small local comunities (or concentrations i of houses), currently uncontrolled intersect
- ions in rural areas, and school bus pickup i points (ER Suppl. , Sect. 54.4.3.1). l
- d. Haul roads w!ll be constructed onsite to minimize offsite transport of construction ,
equipment and materials between work areas (ER Suppl. , Sect. 54.4.3.1).
- e. Entrance roads bnd parking lots will be paved, and haul roads will be periodically +
watered to minimize dust dispersal (ER Suppl., Sect. S4.4.3.2). : I
- f. Dust control systems will be installed at the concrete batch plant to avoid excessive releases of cement dust (ER Suppl., 54.4.3,2). Regulations to'be followed are those specified in Texas Air Control Board Regulation 1.
- 4. Measures to minimize the effects of transmission line construction ,
- a. Routes were specifically selected to avoid populated recreational, forested, and visually sensitive areas as much as possible (ER, Sect. 3.9.4).
- b. Construction will be scheduled to avoid unharvested fields whenever possible. . When disturbance or destruction of field crops is necessary, all surface construction marks will be removed by disking, and farm operators will be adequately compensated (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.11). ;
- c. Construction will be scheduled to avoid the nesting season of the Attwater's prairie chicken in the areas near which it has been sighted (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.11).
- d. Vegetation clearing along transmission line rights-of-way will be limited and selective (Ek Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.11).
- e. Vehicle movements along transmission line rights-of-way will be controlled to minimize effects that could cause erosion, retard restoration of ground cover, or preclude -
resumption of agricultural use (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.11). E" - 6. e --- ,, --+m.. - --. , > - .
. -- .. . . . .. .. -. . - . . . . .- .-- . -- -- -c - - _. -
i S.4-15
- f. During transmission line construction and operation, no widespread chemical spraying will be done. Herbicides will be used only at the base of structures where brush and vines make inspection and maintcnance a problem. No. herbicides will be used in the rights-of-way near the Attwater's prairie chicken nesting ground (ER Suppl.,
Sect. 54.4.3.11 and Appendix SH, p. SH 63).
- g. Limbs and tether clearing debris will either be burned under conditions specified in Texas Air Control Board Regulation 1 or chipped and spread to provide mulch (ER Suppl.,
Sec t . 54.4. 3.11 ) .
~
.h. Denuded areas subject to erosion will be planted to native grass species to accelerate -
succession and to prevent erosion (ER Suppl., Sect. 54.4.3.11).
- 5. Other mitigative measures
- a. Most of the surface area of the plant site will be replanted following construction
- (ER, Sect. 3.1) .
- b. Sound suppression muf flers and emission controls on trucks and other equipment will -
be required in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws (ER Suppl.,
- Sect. 54.4.3.3).
- c. Night shift work, if implemented, will exclude high noise level work (ER Suppl. ,
Sect. 54.4.3.3). S.4.6.2 Staff evaluation Based on a review of the anticipated construction activities and the expected environmental effects, the staff concludes that the measures and controls to which the applicant is committed, as summarized here, are adequate to ensure that adverse environmental effects will be kept at the minimum practical level if combined with the following additional precautions:
- 1. A more detailed tree-cutting plan shall be prepared which will include the consideration of navigation hazards and the visual aesthetics of trees that may appear above the surface as. a the lake is drawn down.
- 2. The applicant shall follow the U.S. Department of the Interior guidelit es entitled
" Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems" in designing, locating, and con-structing the transmission lines.
- 3. The applicant shall follow guidelines for construction runoff as specified in 40 CFR Part 423.
t
. . ~ --- . -. - . _ . . .. - ~ ~~ . . -
S.4-16 ' REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.4
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Partial Initial Ccoision as to Some Pnvironwntal and Site Suitability Matters in the Matter of Housten Lighting and Pover Company, November 1975, Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467.
- 2. Texas Archaeological Survey, Archaeological Irwestigations at the Ernest Witte Site, Austin County,' Texas, prepared for the Houston Lighting and Power Company, Mar. 4,1977.
- 3. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Land Inventory and Monitoring Memorandun TX-2, Re:_
Prime _and; Unique Famlark!, Temple, Texas, Jan. 31, 1977.
- 4. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, " Proposed Rules: Prime and Unique Farmlands," red. Regist, j 42(163): 42354 61
- 5. Dames and Moore, A;ricultural Impaat of the Allens Creek Nuclear Ganerating Station, Report for Rcuaton Lighting and Pcuer Co many, Nov. 22, 1974.
- 6. Darre1 A. Nash, testimony given in Heurings on the Houston Lighting and Pouer Ccmpany, In the Matter of' Agricultumi Land Use as Related to Construation of Allens Creek Cooling Lake, November 197S. Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467.
- 7. Phillip B. Hildebrand, supplemental direct testimony given in Hearings on the Agricu!tural Impact Due to Preemption of Land at Allens Creek Site, November 1975, Docket Nos. 50-466 +
and 50-467.
- 8. U.S. Department of the Interior Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
- 9. Chu-fa Tsai, " Water Quality and Fish Life Below Sewage Outfalls," Trans. 49. Fish. Soc.
102(2): 281-92 (1973).
- 10. K. O. Allen and J. W. Avault, Jr., " Effects of Salinity or Growth and Survival of Channel Catfish: Ictalurus punctatus." in Proc. SE Assoa. Came a Fish Comissien,1969.
- 11. E. Gus Fruh, University of Texas, Austin, personal communication.
- 12. P. R. Gorham, " Toxic Algae," pp. 307-336 in Algae and Man, D. F. Jackson Ed... Plenum Press, N . Y . , 1964.
- 13. G. E. Fogg, W. D. P. Stewart, P. Fay, and A. E. Walsby, " Freshwater Ecology," pp. 255-280 in The BZue-Creen Algas, Academic Press, N.Y., 1973.
14 L. Provasoli, " Algal Mutrition and Eutrophication," pp. 574-593 in Eutrophioation: Causes, consequences, correceives, National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C., 1969.
- 15. Ernest M. Davis Dept. of Public Health, University of Texas. Houston, personal communication.
- 16. J.~K. G. Silvey, Dept. of Biology, North Texas State University, personal communication.
- 17. R. Bounds. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Tx., personal communication. L
- 18. U.S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of the Census Population Estimates and Projsocions, ,
Series P-25, No. 691,1977. r l 19. B. J. Purdy et al. , A Poet Licensing Study of Cweranity Effects at 2w Operating Nuaicar l Fouer Plants, ORNL/NUREG/TM-22, Oak Ridge Nationai Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. t
- 20. U.S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of Census, Population Estimates and Projections, Series P-25, No. 691, Wasnington, D.C., 1977.
L 21. M. Noel, Dames and Moore, Inc., and B. Gregar, Mayor's Office, Wallis, Texas, Sept. 2,
- 1977, personal comunication.
^
- 22. Texas State Employment Comission, Speciat Monthly Labor Market Information Report, Austin, Texas, 1976.
23; U.S. Department of Comerce, Bureau of Census,1970 Census of Population and Housing, census ' Tracts: Houston, Texas, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1972. l
S.5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF THE STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES-The environmental ef fects of operating A"NGS as orighially proposed [i.e. , a two+ unit s tation with a 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling lake] are described in the FES (Sect. 5). In this section, similar environmental effects of operation of a one-unit (1200-MWe) station with a 2072-ha (5120-acre) cooling lake at the Allens Creek site are described. Table S.5.1 summarizes the cooling lake operating characteristics of both station designs, The water balance (i.e. , makeup requirements, inflow, outflow, etc.) for the 2072-ha (5120-acre) lake involves significantly ' smaller quantities of water than the-3339 ha (8250-acre) lake although the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations and spillway temperatures are not significantly differents i Table S.S.1, Summary of coolinglake operating charactenstics' ACNGS, Unit 1 6 ACNGS. Units 1 & 2" Makeup requirements, acre f tlyear 30,000 90.000 intmw, acre-et/ year 20,600 24.000 Precepitation, acre f t/ year 16,600 28,500 Seepage, acre-ttiyear 600 1,000 Evapoeation, acre ft/ year Natur al 27.300 46,144 Forced 13,100 24.403 Descharge, acre f t/vear Sp.llage 24.900 64,500 Controlled releases 1,300 6,500 Annual average coohng lake IDS concentration, mg/ liter 897 840# AnnuaI average TDS concentrations in cochng lake discharges,. mg/h ter 891 Monthly average spillway temperature range,'C (*F) 12 6-30.6 (s4 7-87m 12.3-31.0 (54 1-87.9)* Monthiy average range of AT m spillway,'C (* F) 0.3-1.6(06-2.9) 0.3~1.3 to 6-2 4)'
' Apphcant's estimate based on a six-month pumping mode (October-March) and on meteorological data for the '
period January 1952-December 1968, and on 80% plant f actor. O Nommal ettective cochng area is 1942 ha t 4800 acres).
' Nominal ef fective cooling area is 3076 ha (76N] actes).
Staf f estimates based on E R Sect. 3.4.3.
- Based on 100% plant factor; ER, Table 3.4 3.
Basically, major changes in the operational imoacts from those of the two-unit station design are associated with the aquatic ef fects on the ecosystem of the cooling lake, radiological impacts, and socioeconomic ef fects. With respect to the ecology- of the cooling lake, the most significant parameters for comparative purposes in assessing the changes in operational effects are (1) the number of acres of effective cooling area per unit megawatt (electrical) for thermal loading and (2) the effective cooling volume available for dilution of each quantity of dis-charged effluent, both radiological and nonradiological (Table S,5.1). Other parameters are equally important when eithbr size station is considered, but the factors that influence many of these effects (such as entrainment, impingement, etc.) remain unaffected by the project changes or may be evaluated f rom these parameters. Because these gauging parameters in each case are roughly equal or larger for the design of the one-unit station, the related operational impacts will be about the same or less than those for the two-unit station. These conclusions are reached in the following sections. In any case, the nature of the impacts and their qualitative assessment have not changed; consequently, updates are provided as appropriate. S.5-1
-- _ - - - - . - _ ~ -- .. -- =. . .. - . . .
S.5-2 1
]
S.5.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE 5.5.1.1 Station operations The major land-use impact of station operation will be the loss of agricultural production from the site during tht lifetime of the station (Sect. S.4.1.3). The applicant estimates that the ' present worth of agricultural production over the lifetime of the station would be approximately
$34 million (ER Suppl., p. S8.2-3). The beneficial impacts of establishing two State parks along the shores of the cooling lake are discussed in Sects. 5.1.1 and 5.6.4 of the FES.
S.5.1.2 Transmission lines The 104 km (65 miles)-of transmissio'n line corridors will traverse 280 ha (692 acres) of rice-land, 243 ha '601 acres) of other cropland, and 223 ha (552 acres) of rangeland (ER, p. 3.9 8, and ER Suppl., p. 53.9-1). Only 2.4 ha (6 acres) of heavily wooded land will be included in 1 the corridors. The 345-kV lines have been routed as much as possible to avoid populated areas, ' , parks, scenic areas, highways, and extensively wooded areas (ER, p. 3.9-6). The visual impact of ! Route 2A, which was routed over the cooling lake (FES, Sect. 5.1.2), has been eliminated by the i The transmission towers will occupy -i applicant's about selecting) 3.2 ha (8 acresRoute 2Cnnich of laad as the willpreferred thus be alternative. lost to production. Herbicides (Banvel pellets) will be used at the base at towers where brush and vines make ir.spaction and maintenance a problem No herbicides will bu used in the vicinity of the Attwater's prairie chicken nesting grounds (ER Suppl., p. SH-63). Transmission line circuits will be designed to minimize induced voltage and ground currents, insulator strings proven to give adequate performance with respect to corona ef fects will be used (ER, Sect. 3.9.7). . The staf f concludes that the transmission lines will not interfere with agricultural operations 06 production to a significant extent. However, the staff requires the applicant to follow the Rural, Electrification Administration guidelires (REA Bull. 62-4)1 for minimizing the electrostatic and electromagnetic effects of overhead transmission lines. S.5.2 HYDROLOGICAL AND WATER-USE IMPACTS l 1 Operation of ACNGS will result in impacts on the local hydrology and, insequently, on water users downstream. Groundwater characteristics, including flow patterns and water level distri- l butions, will be altered to some extent because of onsite well use and seepage losses from the ' cooling lake. Surface-water hydrology will also be affected because of the consumptive (or ) evaporative) losses of the heat dissipation system and the alteration of runoff characteristics ' in the site vicinity. These effects were considered in detail in the FES (Sect. 5.2) and in the ER (Sects. 5.1.8.2 and,5.1.8.3) for the two-unit station, and the staff found that these effects would not be appreciable. Because both the seepage and consumptive losses are estimated to be substantively less for the one-unit station.(40 and 43% less) than the losses for the two-unit station, the associated impacts will be less. The staff described in detail (FES, Sect. 5.2.1) the applicant's contractual agreements with the Brazos River Authority for the withdrawal of makeup water from the Brazos River. To date, the contract is in effect. S.5.3 COOLING SYSTEM IMPACTS The operation of the station heat dissipation system as described in Sect. S.3.1 will potentially
' af fect the aquatic ecosystems of both the Allens Creek cooling lake and the Brazos River and to some extent the terrestrial ecosystem of the Allens Creek cooling lake. The nature of the impacts and adverse effects may be categorized or identified with those resulting from operation of the cooling water intake system, from operation of the cooling-water discharge and blowdown systems, and from the overall operational characteristics of the station in relation to the terrestrial ecosystem. Impacts associated with the cooling-water intake system include (1) the physical alteration of flow patterns in the various water bodies which result from the mere presence of -
, the intake' structures and from the hydrodynamic effects of withdrawing relatively large volumes of cooling water and (2) the phenomeria of the entrainment of organisms into the circulating-water system and the impingement of fish and other blota against the intake screens, both of which are related to the withdrawal of cooling water. Impacts associated with the cooling-water discharge and blowdown systems include the effects of increased temperatures and concentration of chemicals (both above ambient values) of the discharged effluents, which alter certain water quality parameters and result in a stressed aquatic ecosystem (although localized here). Finally, because the newly created reservoir will create a suitable habitat for some animals, the terres-trial ecosystem will be' impacted as a result of the station operation.
- -- -- . .. .. . -. ~__- ._ -. ~ -- - - - ~ , - . - - . -
S.5-3 The environmental assessments of the effects of operation of the cooling system for the original a station design (2400-MWe facility) are given in Sects. 5.3 and 5.5 of the FES. Most important, detailed consideration was given to the characterization of ' ; above enumerated impacts in view of extant'information for related systems ,The qualitative asset ,ents of these effects for the design now under consideration remain unchanged. Consequently, in the following sections, _ numerical updates of the corresponding cooling-system impacts in the FES are provided, 2 5.5.3 1 Cooling-water intake systems' ! 5.5.3.1.1 Physical impact _s, l Brazos River As described in Sect S.3.1.1, 30,000 acre-ft of makeup water for the cooling lake will be withdrawn from the Brazos River each year during either a three--(November to January) or six-month (October to March) periori. , The conventionally designed intake structure (Fig. S.3.4) will-i be located along the shoreline of the Brazos Rher (see Fig. S.3.3 for location). i I The staff has reviewed the design of the makeup-water pumping station in relation to the way in which its location.and proposed operation characteristics may influence the local hydraulics of the Brazos River flow. - Of-chief concern were (1) the alteration of the local flow patterns to - the extent that increases in local turbidity or other related phenomena occur and (2) the zone of influence of the intake flow (or the offshore extent of water entering the intake), which may be a factor associated with intake-related phenomena, such as impingement and entrainment - (Sect. S.5.3.1.2). Inspection of the intake design and location reveals that localized increases in turbidity caused by well-defined eddy motion and turbulence are~not likely to occur. The extent of the zone of influence, howevere is not readily determined without the use of appropriate flow models and knowledge of the flow data in the Brazos River. Thus, for boundary conditions, the staff assumes that the intake structure (when in operation)'will pump at the maximum capacity of about 164 cfs and that the monthly average river flows will be those in Table 5.5.2. From October through March (the months of tentative operation), the intake flows will be less than.10% of the Brazos River flow (i.e., if river flows of less than 1100 cfs are not considered, as stipulated in the contractual agreements between the applicant and the Brazos River Authority). This aspect of the flow analysis is important in relation to the entrainment of organisms'in the intake. With these data and the river bathymetry given -in Table $3.4-10 of the ER Supplement, the staff made conservative estimates of the zone of influence of the intake flow by employing potential flow approximations. At an intake flow of 10% of the river flow, with the magnitudes
- given in Table 5.5.2, the staff estimates that water columns extending beyond 9.4 m (31 f t) offshore will not enter the intake. These estimates are considered below in the staff's assess-ment of entrainment effects, t
Table 8.5.2. Braros Rivet flow MontNy now IcN 1952 1963 1954 1955 1956 1957 '1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 January 642 4 487 2.252 582 962 682 9 529 1,411 16.516 38.378 .3.996 3.656 875 7,842 3.872 1.159 18.155 F ebeuary 953 1.9 74 960 4 826 2.078 914 14.654 . 5.806 12.274 34.782 3.911 3.930 2,068 18.289 7,581 853 12.596 Much 1.287 4.243 445 458 1.053 3.630 13.087 2.177 6.331 14.107 2.391 1,791 3.478 6,273 6.526 539 15 161 Apot 5.620 1.260 828 4,504 893 18.073 5.986 14.531 2.576 ' 5,696 1,898 2.750 1,646 7.34 5 1.416 2,109 16.187 Mn 5.784 26.724 7,075 4.111 5.197 77.169 26.443 3.544 7,767 2.829 3.097 1.304 2.6 54 38.073 36,697 2.842 36.335 June 3.578 1.913 2.886 6,54 5 786 58,350 4,773 5,354 6.999 15.568 5.715 3.122 2.500 10.945 5.469 2.906 25.053 My 913 994 866 1,700 716 15.922 6.322 4.335 6.352 16,720 2.936 1,950 1,34 9 5.260 1,944 1,3 73 17,100 l 4 August 600 800 926 1,212 636 3.282 1,861 2,263 1.802 5.375 4.428 549 550 3.707 3.7 t l 1.304 2.717 GsteWxir 609 1,949 414 . 899 602' t,656 4,994 1.308 1.168 12,661 7,502 572 2.450 1,832 11.229 1.255 3.898 Ocuber 202 3.447 590 10.898 642 28,762 4 097 23,658 7,619 5,960 4.886 852 2,952 2.082 5.047 1.039 3.160 Nos ember 433 3.353 . 866 1,120 1,283 17 592 2.188 10.075 17,785 6.580 2,459 1,069 4.16s 7.017 1.513 4.606 2.975 Dec ede 3.740 3.565 480 783 1.021 7,200 1.696 10,690 20.203 6.746 6,184 1.079 2.770 7.835 1.380 2,580 8.981 Sowrer ibasco Serwet loc., Mens Craek Nuclev Generating stetron Engmeeemg Report, Ebasco Semces. Inc. New Yort 1973. 1
.l 1
S.5-4 Allens Creek cooling lake Section S.3.1.3 contains a description of the circulating-water intake structure, and Fig. 5.3.3 shows its location. Circulation patterns in the proposed Allens Creek impoundment will be derived from (1) wind shear due to the prevailing meteorology, (2) the driving force of .the condenser water intake-discharge system, and (3) intermittent inflows from Allens Creek. Of these, the prevailing meteorology and the source-sink (or intake-discharge) systems will be the dominant mechanisms influencing circulation patterns in the lake. Section S.S.3.2.1 describes the applicant's method of calculating the flow patterns caused by the various driving forces. The circulating-water intake system (namely, the intake structure) is an integral part of the forces that cause the flow. Therefore, this system cannot be treated in a manner similar to that given to the installation of intakes on water bodies with existing flow patterns. In any case, it is the staf f's opinion that the condenser intake system as proposed will not have any significant physical impacts on the cooling lake. S.5.3.1.2 Aquatic impacts Because the operation of ACNGS will require the withdrawal of water from both the Brazos River and the Allens Creek cooling lake, the aquatic ecosystems of both wate r bodies may be adversely affected by the potential intak<. efrects, which include the entrainment of phytoplankton, zoo-plankton, and ichthyoplankton; and, in the case of the intake from Allens Creek Lake, the impingement of fish c1 the intake screens. The assessment of these effects follows that given in the FES (Sect. 5.5.2), Brazcs River Water is to be withdrawn from the Brazos River to provide makeup to the Allens Creek cooling lake at a volume level of 3.7 x 107 m 3 (30,000 acre-f t) from November through January (three-month pumping mode) or from October through March (six-month pumping mode) during each year of operation (Sect. S.3.1.1) . This water will be withdrawn under the terms of a contract with the Brazos River Authority (FES, Sect. 5.2.1). The makeup pumping station will be located as shown in Fig. S.3,3. The detailed design of the makeup +whter intake structure - which will consist of two bays, each fitted with trash racks, stop log guides, fine screen guides (fine screens will not be installed), and a 2.3 d /sec (37,000-gpm) pump - is discussed in Sect. S.3,1.1. Signifi-cant changes from the original design of the makeup-water intake structure include (1) a reduction in the total pump capacity from 7.0 to 4.6 m 3
/sec (250 to 164 cfs); (2) the addition of fine screen guides; and (3) an intake located at the shoreline as opposed to one recessed in a canal.
The maximum approach velocity to the trash racks remains approximately the same as for the original design [18.3 cm/sec (0.6 fps)]. Although fine screen guides are included in the makeup intake design, the applicant does not plan to install fine mesh screens. Consequently, the makeup water intake ef fects will consist of the entrainment of fish as well as plankton. Entrainment of planktonic organisms. In the staff's assessment of entrainment effects for the original intake design (FES, p. 5-32), for which the pumping rates were about 33", higher than for the design now under consideration, it was concluded that the entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would not significantly alter food chains in the Brazos River. The reduction in the pumping capacity by about 33% which will potentially reduce the entrainment of planktonic organisms by an equivalent amount further supports this conclusion. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton from the Brazos River will not signifi-cantly alter the biotic productivity of the river, especially in light of nutrients and organic matter in the spillway discharges (Sect. S.4.3.2.3). New information presented in the BMPR (Sect. 3.5) and discussed in this Supplement (Sect. 5.2.4.2) shows that fish spawning habitat is located upstream of the proposed intake structure location. As shown in Table S.S.3, makeup water withdrawal from the Brazos River under a 12-month pumping mode and maximum pumping rate during the worst-case flow conditions could result in substantial entrainment of ichthyoplankton during March through June (16 to 19% of total flow if uniform cross sectional distribution of ichthyoplankton is assumed), and may create an unacceptable impact on the Brazos River fishery and on aquatic biota in general. However, under average-flow conditions, an extension of makeup-water pumping beyond the six-month pumping mode from October through March would be acceptable except during low-flow periods in late summer from the stand-point of entrainment. If a six-month pumping mode is used (October through March), only March spawning occurrences would be susceptible to entrainment effects. Under worst-case low-flow conditions (Brazos River flow at 1100 cfs, makeup-water pumping rate at 164 cfs), and with water released from upstream reservoirs (164 cfs),13% of the total Brazos River water would be entrained. This would significantly alter the success of early spring (March) spawning in the Brazos River, especially if the ichthyoplankton were concentrated in the current near the intake shoreline.
i S.5.5 Table S.5.3. Twelve-month pumping-mode water withdrawal from the Brazos River Percentage of total flow removed' - Worst coe8 Average case' January 15 2 February 7 , 2 March 13 3 Ap61 ~16 2 May 3 1 June ' 17 2 July I9 4 August 21 8 Septemtser '21 5 October 20 3 November 11 4 December 14 3
- Assuming maximum pumping rau of 164 cfs whee Percentage of Brazos, makeup flow Rever water pumped Brazos now O
Using appucanrs worst case yearly low flows in 1956.
'Uung appheant's average-flow data.1951'to 1970 <
Source: ER Suppl , p. SH-46; and ER. Fig. 2.5.3 Without a complete ichthyoplankton study for the Brazos River, the amount of ichthyoplankton en-trained - if pumping occurs during the spring spawning period (March through July) - cannot be determined. If ichthyoplankton densities are not uniformly distributed over the river cross section, which may be expected if spawning activity occurs on the same side of the river as the intake structure location, then ichthyoplankton entrainment probably will exceed the 0.5% figure given in the ER Supplement (Sect. 55.1.6.4). Because this exact figure is unknown, no assessment can be made on the probable impact of entrainment mortalities on the Brazos River fish popula-tions. The staff therefore requires that makeun-water pumping not be done during the spring
~
spawning season (March to July) unless sufficient data are provided to support the contention that this restriction is unnecessary to protect the Brazos River fishery (refer to- Sect. S.6.1 for monitoring program). With respect to ichthyoplankton entrainment, the staff finds a six-month pumping mode from September through February to be acceptable.
,Entrainment of fish. The staf f b" considered in detail the factors that influence entrainment of the fish species present in the . azos River (FES, p. 5-33), and what bearing these factors (namely, fish swimming speeds; Table 5.20 of the FES) would have on entrainment in view of makeup-water intake velocities of 15 cm/sec (0.5 f t/sec). Although juvenile fish have been found
~
upstream of the makeup-water intake site (Sect. S.2.4.2), the magnitude of juvenile fish entrain-ment cannot be estimated due to a lack of information on their seasonal downstream movement past the proposed intake location. However, the staff concludes that the low intake velocities will be an important factor in minimizing the number of fish entrained. An important modification to the original intake design is the elimination of a long. intake canal and substitution of an intake structure located closer to the shoreline. Elimination of the long intake canal which might have attracted fish should, in general, reduce the pottmtial for fish entrapment and entrainment into the intake structure. riowever, from the intake structure drawings in Fig-5.3.4, it is apparent that a small embayment or intake canal will still exist within the concrete apron in front of the trash racks. As small embayments or canals also serve to entrap or assess fish in an otherwise unidirectional current environment, the presence of this area will increase the entrainment of jrenile fish. The staff therefore recommends that the applicant design the make-up .iater intake structure to minimize the embayment and'take advantage of the natural river flow to sweep fish past the intake structure, Allens Creek cooling lake The circulating-water intake . system is described in Sect. S.3.1.3. The intake. structure will consist of four intake bays, each fitted with trash racks, conventional vertical traveling screens, and fine screens. Each bay will also house a 12.9-m3 /sec (455-cfs) circulating-water pump (Fig. 5.3.6). The location of the structure will be about the same as in the original design (Fig.S.3.3), Basically, the design is consistent with the intake design of the two-unit station, exce, t that the intake flow is reduced by about 49I (from 3780 to 1940 cfs). Approach velocities in front of the traveling screen will be 0.5 fps (Sect. S.3.1.3).
, n Entrainrent. A general description of entrainr nt problems associated with the two-unit statinn 'de'sW5rsloying the 333%ha (8250-acre) cooling lak e is given in the FES (p. 5-30). Most of the organisms that enter the intake structure with lengths greater than 20 to 30 mm will probably be irpinged against the 1-cm (3/8-in. ) mesh screens. ' Wi th small organisms being entrained, mortality should be high (FES, Sect. 5.5.2).
Although phytoplanktoa and zooplankton will be continuously entrained into the circulating-water system, under the circulation patter ns outlined in the ER Supplement (Appendix SH,
- p. SH-138) adequate refuge areas will exist for plankton production towards the edge of the cooling lake. Due to the short generation time of most planktors and the long travel (or cir-culation) tiu around the outer areas of the lake (Sect. S.% 3.2.1), only a small overall effect from plankton entrainrent is expected. Cecause nutrients will be returned to the lake in the discharge, available nutrients and resulting algal or macrophyte growth may be found to be some-what higher near the discharge area. The staff has reviewed the proposed design changes as they relate to the entrainment of phytoplankton and Zooplankton, into the circulating-water intake system and concludes (as in the FES) that, although the extent of reduction cannot be quantifled entrainn ent will not significantly reduce the planktonic productivity of the cooling lak e.
The extension of the cooling lake dam along the northern lake perimeter is a significant change in the coolinq lake design and eliminates the potential aquatic breeding areas (fES, Fig. 3.4) that would have been located north of this dike. These areas would have been embayments and would have constituted about 25; of the lake perimeter (also about 505 of the littoral zones). Consequently, the spawning area of the flooded Allens Creek channel which is located inmediately south of the proposed intake area is now of chief concern tecause it is the major littoral spawninq area under the new design. Probable circulation patterns resulting from cooling water uptake and prevailing wind directions suggest that ichthyoplankton spawned in the southern and western areas of the lake may migrate towards the intake location, especially during periods of low flow in Allens Creek. Although the travel time (or drift) of organisms from the flooded channel spawning area to the intake location cannot currently be estimated, a potential exists for significant entrainment of ichthyoplankton from this area. Since this area represents the main littoral spawning habitat in the lake under the new design, any entrainment will serve to debilitate further the natural reproduction prospects for the reservoir fishery. Fish that may use the inner face at the rip-rapped diversion dike as spawning habitat, sush as white crappie, may also have their larvae entrained as a result of the circulation patterns, in general, for those fish suspected to be present in the coolinq lake (FES, Sect. 4.3.2.3), clupeids (shads) have planktonic eggs and larvae that are susceptible to entrainment. Also, perches and terperate basses (white, yellow, and striped bass and white perch) have planktonic larvae that are susceptible tc entrain-nent losses. However, ictalurids (catfish) and centrachids (sunfish) which undertake parental care of eggs and young are not as susceptible to entrainment.1 Although enti ainment of ichthyo-plank ton cannot be quantitatively predicted, some reduction in fish reproduct've success will result. However, it is the staff's opinion that this reduction via entrainment is not as signifi-cant as the loss of spawninq habitat due to the reduced lake size. p p_in p ent. Potential im;iingement of fish at the circulating-water intake structure is discussed in the FES (p. 5-30). Current design changes allow for the elimination of the parallel fish passages and the retention of a fish return system, in addition, the chlorine injection system is located upstream of the travelling screens. The intake velocities remain essentially the same (15 cm/sec; 0.5 fps). Of the fish that enter the intake structure, those individuals larger than 20 to 30 mm will be susceptible to impingement on the intake screens. Juvenile fish which are too small or weak to overcome the approach velocity to the intake screens are most readily inninged. Althouqh most adult fish can usually avoid impingement, stressed and weakened individuals will also suf fer impingement if they enter the intake structure, f?y injecting chlorine a few feet in f ront of the travellinq screens, additional stress on fish in the vicinity of the intake will occur and their susceptibility to imningement will increase. Tne staff therefore requires that the chlorine injection system be placed downstream of the trcvelling screens to minimize fish impingement. The FES (Table 5.20) gives data on the ef fect of swimming speed and terrperature on possible impingement of juvenile fish it is evident that increasing temperature will have an adverse effect on swimming spoed above some optimal temperature which varies between fish species. Although juvenile fish impingement will be minimized by the low approach velocities, summer water temperatures above D-31'C (86-88"F) may have an adverse ef fect on the ability of juvenile fish to avoid impingement. From previous experience in reservoirs, it is suspected that gizzard shad will constitute e sizable percentage of the fish impinged in the cirrulating-water intake structure. Therefore, it is the staf f's opinion that a fish return systen may not be appropriate if large numbers of clupeids (such as qizzard shad) wMch have low survivorship af ter impinaement are impinged and returned to the lake in dead or dying condition. Alternative disposal should be made available
y i S.5-7 for these impinged fish. The staff also concurs with the applicant that a fish by-pass system based on tangential velocities just past the trash racks is not appropriate for the circulating-water intake structure, As the technical specifications for plant operation will require impingement monitoring, the staf f recomends that a fish return system be used only if monitoring l demonstrates that game or sport fish are impinged in significant numbers and that a fish return ' system would be advantageous to their productivity in the cooling lake. If significant numbers of fish are impinged, other mitigatino measures may also be necessary. The staff concludes that some juvenile fish will be impinged on the travelling screers of the circulating-water intake structure, and that impingement will be increased due to high tempera- ; tures and releases of chlorine uostream of the travelling screens (if the chlorination injection system is not relocated). However, fish impingement will not significantly alter fish production in the cooling lake. S.5.3.2 Cooling- hter discharge and blowdown systems , S.5.3.2.1 Cooling lake operating characteristics and physical impacts on Brazos River The operating characteristics of the proposed Allens Creek cooling lake as originally designed (for a two-unit station) and the design now under consideration are summarized in Table S.5.1. Inspection of these data reveals that the effluents that would be discharged into the Brazos River for both' systems would have similar total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations (within a few percent), and excess temperatures (spillway temperatures above Brazos River temperatures). > Accordingly, it can be concluded that physical impacts on the Brazos River which would . result from operation of the one-unit station employing the 2072-ha (5120-acre) cooling lake would be < . substantially less than those for the two-unit station employing the 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling ! lake because the two-unit station requires significantly larger quantities of makeup water, and its spillway discharges are also much larger. To compare the effectiveness of each cooling lake design qualitatively (Table S.5.1), the number of hectares of effective cooling area per unit megawatt of (gross) electrical capacity, and the s quantity of chemical effluents (both radiological and nonradiological) released into the cooling
- lake per unit volume of the cooling lake should be considered. For thermal loading, these ,
gauging parameters are 1.6 and 1.3 ha/MWe (4.0 and 3.2 acres /MWe), respectively, for the one-unit (2072-ha cooling lake) and the two-unit (3339-ha cooling lake) stations. Although the gauging parameter for chemical loading of the cooling lake is not as easily calculated, it can be con-cluded that since the' volume of chemical effluents is reduced by roughly one-half for the one-unit station whereas the volume of the cooling lake is reduced by less than one-half, the quantity of chemical effluents released into the cooling lake per unit of cooling lake volume is less for the one-unit station. Consequently, with respect to thermal and chemical loading, the Allens Creek cooling lake is relatively larger as designed for the one-unit station than the one , originally proposed for the two-unit station. The effects of operation of the heat-dissipation system for the initially proposed two-unit station are described in detail in the FES (Sect. 5.3); a similar des:ription for the proposed one-unit station is given here. The analytical methods used by both the applicant and the staf f for the assessments that follow are essentially identical to those delineated in the FES. A311 cant's analysis Details of the applicant's computational procedures and results of the operating characteristics of the cooling lake and associated physical impacts on the Brazos River are given in Sects 53.4.3 and 55.1.2 of the ER Supplement. First, a one-dimensional reservoir-yield model was used to make predictions of condenser intake temperatures, evaporation rates, cooling lake volume and operating levels, and TDS concentrations. These calculations were made for i meteorological data consisting of surface observations taken at Victoria, Texas, from. January 1952 through December 1968. Both the three-month and six-month pumping schemes were considered; however, the applicant is not under contractual obligation to employ either scheme (FES, l Sect. 5.2.1). { Tables S.5.4 and S.5.5 show the cooling lake operating characteristics as calculated from the 1 reservoir-yield model for the six-month pumping mode. It is noted that a hydrodynamic model was also employed to estimate the spillway temperatures (Table S.5.5). The results for the three-month pumping mode, whta considered on a total or yearly average basis, for the study period data (1952 to 1968) are essentially identical to those for the six-month pumping mode (Tables S.5.4 and S.6.5) except for the respective TDS concentrations. The resulting cycles of TDS. concentration were larger for the three-month pumping scheme by about 11%. , l
. _ . . . __. _ .. _m m - . r _%
' 3 Table S.S.4. Cooling lake evaporative-water loss, discharge, and total dissolved sohds (TOS) concentration Design basis:
One unit operation at 1.200 MWe 9 Heat load a 6 4 X 10 Btu /hr (80% capty) Makeupwater pumping rate e 5,000 acre f t month for sem monins
- Study penod: 1952 to 1908
^ * *' ## "
ev orat ve e s Brazos ' water lou d docharge C d#n Rever T DS concentr at,on' lacre f t) occurred l ppm) concPntiation Januar y 1.805 16 4.857 ' 469 844 1,173 1.8 February 2,148 15 6.173 432 843 1,503 2.0 March 2,940 17 3,000 561 834 1,28 t 1.5 April - 3,591 5 5.333 4?4 982 1,214 2.3 May 4,310 5 3.746 400 827 961 21 June 4,874 4 9.695 464 772 1.307 1. 7 July 4,897 - 4 2,001 525 882 1,044 1. 7 August 4,496 ' 6 1,703 667 1,070 1,516 16 t September 3.910 5 1.175 613 1.055 1.631 1.7 October 3,243 8 2,704 561 1,018 1.718 1.8 November 2.358 8 4,566 444 815 1,120 1.8 December 1,824 10 5,771 405 751 1,095 1.9 Total or 40,396 20,203 # 489 891 1,297 1.8 average
' Average based upon 1052 to 1968 study penod data
" Based upon months when discharges occut.
' Cycles based upon average discharge of TDS and upon TOS in the Braios River.
# Average total annual discharge over the entire 17 year study penod Source ER Suppl. Table 53 4-7 (modified).
Table S.6.5. Coohng-take condenser 4ntake and spillway temperature Des;gn basis-One unit operation at 1200 Mwe 80% plant capacity Condenser nse = 15.3"F at 80% capa< ity 9 Heat load = 6.4 X 10 8tu/hr Study penod 1952 to 1968 Average Average Condenser A ver age Temperature Month equibbr .3m equihbnum intake spillway rise at temperature' temperature" temper ature' temperature 0 spillway # January 52,0 51.8 55.5 54.7 29 i; February 55.2 55.6 58.1 57.9 2.3 March 62.7 62.7 64 3 64.4 1.7 April 71.8 69.2 73.2 70.2 1.0 May 78.8 78.3 79.8 79 0 07 June 84.5 84.2 85 5 84.9 0. 7 July - 86.7 86.2 87,7 86 9 0.7 , Au0ust . 85.7 86.4 86.8 87.1 0. 7 September 81.0 80.8 82.3 81.0 0.8 October 71.6 72.5 73.5 73.9 1.4 November 60.9 60.6 63.5 62.7 2.1 ! Decemter 53.6 53.3 57.0 56 2 29
'8ased upon meteorology for the 1952 to 1968 study penod 6
8ased upon data for months when discharges occur for six month pumping.
# Rrse above equilibnum temperature.
Source E R Supp'.. Table S3.4 2 (modified).
S.5-9 To estimate the temperatures of the spillway discharge, the applicant used a two-dimensional hydrothermal model that provides estimates of the trajectory of the fluid particles (or stream-line patterns) in the cooling lake. The temperature of each fluid particle along the various streamlines (see Fig. S.5.1 for typical streamline patterns) is then assumed to dissipate heat only to the atmosphere, making the particle temperature a function of position only along the streamlines (ER, Sect.5.1.2.2).. Consequently, the spatial temperature distribution over the surface of the cooling lake (and over the depth also, because the model is depth-averaged) is obtained for the prevailing meteorological conditions. Figure S.5.1 shows these calculations for data judged to represent five-day critical meteorology. The applicant has also estimated (ER, Suppl., p. SH-139) that for average meteorological conditions, travel times of particles along the diversion deke and the cooling lake dam will be 12.3 and 65.4 days respectively. Table S.5.5 presents the applicant's estimate of spillway temperatures and excess temperatures for monthly average meteorological conditions (801 plant load factor; 1952 to 1968 study period). The average monthly spillway temperatures range from a low of 12.6'C (54.7'F in January to a high of 30.6'c (87.l'F) in August, with excess temperatures of 1.6*C (2.9)F) and 0.39'c (0.70*F) re pectively. s Additionally, the applicant calculated a maximum monthly average summer discharge temperature of 31.2'C (88.2'F) at a plant load factor o_f 100%, as opposed to 31 l'C (88F) which was previously predicted for the two-unit, 3330-ha (8250-acre) lake design i Durin)g December (4*F . Although (the period of' naximum AT), the excess temperature is expected to be about 2.2 Cin the results meteorology, various causes were considered for which daily and hourly data were employed. For example, excess temperatures for three-hourly meteorological data calculations (December 1963) ' were figured at a 100% capacity factor, with a resulting maximum discharge AT of 5.9'C (10.6*F) (ER Suppl., S3.4-27). The applicant's thermal analysis also included an investigation of the mixing characteristics of the thermal effluents discharged into the Brazos River. Table 5.5.6 presents the results of the cases investigated for the six-month pumping mode. In nearly all cases, the discharge flow was less than 10'I, of the Brazos River flow, and the maximum AT was 1.9 C (3.5'F). The areatest plume penetration downstream for the 1.1 C (2*F) excess temperature isotherm is 381 m (1250 ft), and the corresponding maximum offshore extent is 6.4 m (21 ft). Similar results were found for the three-month pumping mode; however, due to dif ferent flow conditions, the plumes were much larger. These results are for monthly averaged conditions, and the plumes may on occasion cover : significantly larger portions of the Brazos River (i.e., for larger discharge excess temperatures). Staff's analysis The estimates of cooling lake behavior in Tables S.S.4 and S.5.5 are based on a plant capacity factor of 190%. To assess the cooling lake operation characteristics (from the applicant's model) for a plant capacity factor of 100%, the staff compared the results of the respective cases for the 3076-ha (7600-acre) cooling lake simulations (ER, Tables 3.4-1 A and 3.4-18). The plant capacity factor was increased from 80 to 100% during the months of May through October for the average year of meteorological data (1964). The results show that during this period, forced evaporation increased by an average of 20%, and the cooling lake TDS concentration increased by an average of 2%. l To make an independent assessment of the cooling lake operating characteristics, the staff used the model of Ryan and Harleman." The various pumping modes were not simulated; instead, the j surface level of the cooling lake was assumed to remain constant. Calculations were made for the cooling lake gross evaporation rates, equilibr um temperatures, and circulating-water intake temperatures, all on a monthly averaged basis iv eteorological observatio=s recorded at Houston, Texas, during the 20-year period January 1952 the sgh December 1971. It was also assumed that the plant would operate at A full load (100% plant capacity factor), thus discharging about ' 2490 MWt (8.5 x 109 Btu /hr) of excess heat into the cooling lake. In the staff's previous analysis of the operating characteristics of the 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling lake design (FES, Sect. 5.3.2), the simulations were based on meteorological data recorded at Victoria, Texas (the applicant's choice of data for both analyses), instead of at Houston, Texas. For these data, the staff's and the applicant's results were in close agreement. In particular, the staff's estimate of gross water-evaporation rates (yearly average) from the cooling lake was about 4% larger than the applicant's estimate. This was attrituted to the slightly higher heat lcad used in the staf f's analysis. Similar trends were also found in the staff's simulations employing the smaller cooling lake design. Table S.5.7 shows that the average evaporative-water loss is estimated to be 43,855 acre-f t/ year, which is about 8.6% higher than the applicant's estimate (Table S.5.5). It is the staff's opinion that this increase is mainly due to the higher heat load used by the staf f and not due to dif ferences in the meteo-rological data. 1 i v , , , - - - - , - ,- , , - -. , - r ,, , , . , - -,
~
- I o. "N
. * * - .'*. j. l
[ -
- )/
\
f,
'..A.
g ), ;_A ,;
' ' \, g,
.N., 4 Aoi J-- maat-o, s
e
/ { . , j g
- g. J
\'
{ l,,
,{ , .
' _ PUMP'# G ST a t icia '
"-s . / ' ny
~* I
~)) ) \; ,' ., / /
4
,n s Ir 2_ ,/9 .
'_* f %,
..s.' .8
.s.
N
/.4>
s
- v. f.-
W M W47 -# .. Sf DIMEN TAf tog ggSit .a . !
% x ggg g ,$ g,gg,
,4 4*H0F ~ --- W PARR
$70ist g raygg, ,, S , a .gr
- i (O AV USE SY e 1.0 AREAL
' u-
..m l .
- g .
eo 2, .
=
# ...... ===~....,,%.. .
t o g3 . **.
*r'. -- . ~~~..y .
1
'00F ,,,
h9 - f
* *g
*.,f*~ *
.......\-
. ""* 4 F' 'fF ,y . g
^. '
g4, -' p,0 7s gg'N -g
. . . g**_ - - ._A 1 ;
m q -
, /., -
1
.*%[.i g.
Q f A
*CSFl r
,.*.*p l -----.~.*,
I t --* C
/ .*. ,/
I..... ,,,,.,,...***
**.****a.....'***"****%. y Rf ST A6CY E D f a
I, aay a 7 .. 90UNDART
.* j ,I f
.# , . . , ,
- y*- % +.
-* ," . / ; / ***....,,***".............***,. f
=
#
- We7 /
/ * * [ ' '* *%..,,
* '/ ,7 %
, 'd ,ros < .t' * * * - . , ~ . - #
, s o y ' -. , ,
e'*.- . . ! ,
, "i #8 e p
j ,I .
**.- O' 400'2000'
' '] A
} l Ots' 7- ? i 1
-_.J
- . i i f " ,
fe ,'--~ N4 ,1
' '} ij l$WVD l Q '.
t
..-# etOtttTON LIGM?sess a powse (campaans
' t .[# %y -
"" - c' ' " '-- c '
- s s -
Q ) 5 l
.* t, ,-
y ( s\ u. , y JOk ' V 417 1
^~ ~~'~
t * .. ALL E RS CRitt g, $ FATE PARE
'0
. '\ i l * .--a*- 9 ,. .
* * . p
' %q
\\ s
.'D r..i 4 0/-
; ', ' ' . l @ W e.
c t
.w
.. y . sf m ;@
' A > nai Fig. 5.5.1. Isothermal patterns and streamlines for one-unit ACNGS operation at 100% capacity (five-day critical meteorology). Source : ER Supplement, p. SH-138.
.._ __ . . _. ~ _ - .- _ ._ . - - , S,5-11
. Table $.5.6. Temperature effects on the Braros Rever one umt operation for six-month pumpmg mode
~
Discharge . p % ggg Average f t B(am Mixed tentperaw temperature Bratos Max (mum Maumam $"' M8 Month Year ## Bram Brazos , g ams "5" Descharge River R ver nse River downstream of f shore U depth ' width # ft s (N (ft) Uti January 1952 27' 66 54 2 2 61 203 0.071 0 24 2 1,250 21 0 28 January 1963 35 136 3.656 5.23 309 0.200 0.13 2. t ,150 I1 0.20 4 3' 350 10 'O 04 Decemter 1953 ' 2. 7 lio . 3.565 5.19 307 0.197 0.12 2 900 ' 14 0,16 January 1967 '3i 60 1.159 3 17 221 0.035 0.15 2 1,250 11 0.20 3 250 10 0 03 s
- Fetnuary 1907 28 . 66 853 2.92 211 0 083 'O 20 2 1.750 15 0.35 Source. ER Suppl . Yerk S3 4 to Table S.5.7. Staff estimate of cooling lake operating characteristics" 8 Average Avera9e Condenser Temperature
- evaporative. equihbnum mtake - rise at g temperature temperature spillway' water loss (acre f t) ' "C *F 'C *F a*C a*F Januar y 2.168 11.5 52 8 14 5 58.2 3.0 5.4 February 2,346 13 4 56 2 15 8 60 5 2.4 4.3 March 2.952 17.3 63 2 19.3 66.7 2.0 35' April 3.570 27.3 72.2 23 6 74 5 - 1.3 2.3 May 4 227 26.4 79 5 27.5 81 6 1.1 21 June 4.776 30 0 86.1 31.3 88.3 1.3 2.2
- July 4.885 32.2 90.0 33 1 91 5 o9 1.5 August 4.748 31 4 88 5 33 0 91 4 II 29 September 4.546 28.3 83 0 29 9 85 9 1.6 2.9 October 4.019 230 734 25.1 77.2 2.1 3.8 ,
November 3.159 16 6 61.9 19 3 66 7 2.7 48 l December 2.459 12 9 55 3 16.o 60 8 3.1 55 l Total or yearty average 43.855 l l l
- Design has's One-unit operation at 1200 MWe. ST
- 10 8*C (19 5*F), circulating water flow - 55 i
mhsec (1940 cf st eBased upon nwteorofogy Imonthly averagel recorded at Houstor). Texas, for the penod 1952-1971.
' Approvernated as value of condenser mtake temperature above the average equilitinum temperature.
The staff's estimates of circulating + water intake (or conde'nser) temperatures and cooling lake equilibrium temperatures (Table S.5.7) are also in agreement with the applicant's results (Table S.S.5). Although the staf f's estimates are slightly higher for each month, they agree reason-ably well in the relative variations (,,n a monthly basic, As in the design of the 3339 ha (8250-acre) cooling lake, July is the month of highest intake temperatures. The staff's method of determining the spillway temperatures was to construct graphically a flow net (or streamline patterns) in the cooling lake by employing potential flow theory and neglect-ing the driving forces due to wind shear. Af ter determination cf the streamlines, the flow rates in each cell are obtained, allowing for an estimate of travel times for fluid particles through the various flow circuits. Because it is assumed that the temperature of the fluid particles along each streamline varies with travel time in exactly the same fashion, estimates of spillway temperatures can be made. This method, although approximate and crude, is essen-tially-identical in theory to the applicant's model-(ER Suppl . , Sect. 55.1.2.2).
i 5.5-12 Moreover, by employing this method for the larger cooling lake design, the staff concluded that, within the accuracy of the method, the spillway temperatures were about the same SS the circulating-water temperatures. Similar results were also obtained for this case. Inspection of the appli-cant's calculations (Table S.S.5) reveals that, on the average, the condenser intake temperatures are slightly higher. Consequently, the staf f calculated the excess temperatures of the ef fluents discharged via the spillway by equating the spillway temperatures to the condenser intake temper-atures, Table S.5.7 shows that the excess temperatures range from 0.9 to 3.l*C (1.5 to 5.5*F). Rather than perform an independent set of calculations to determir e the extent of the thermal plume in the Brazos River, the staf f reviewed in detail the applitant's method and assumptions used for these calculations (Table S.S.6). The nature of 'the discharge and the flow conditions are either ill defined or too dependent on the applicant's mode of operating the cooling lake for the staff to make precise estimates with reasonable confidence. Therefore, the staff believes that for the cases solved, the applicant's results (Table 5.5.6) are conservative in - that near-field or jet-type mixing was not included at the discharge to the Brazos River. S.5.3.2.2 Aquatic impacts The operation of ACNGS potentially will affect two aquatic ecosystems - the Allens Creek cooling l lake and the Brazos River. As in the FES (Sect. 5.5.2.1), the staf f concludes that operation of the plant will not have any significant impact on the biota cf Allens Creek. Allens Creek cooling lake Sources of impact on the proposed cooling lake from the cooling water discharge system are (1) temperature alterations,' (2) chemical discharges, and (3) water quality changes. A general dis-cussion of the potential impacts resulting from these effects is given in Sect. 5,5.2.1.1 of the , FES. 3 Temperature. The yearly thermal regime of the proposed cooling lake will be somewhat modified from the original analysis because of (1) the reduction of effective cooling area of the lake, (2) the redesign of the circulating-water discharge canal to achieve less near-field mixing, i and (3) the reduction in volume of the discharged effluents. As in the original analysis (FES, , Sect. 5.5.2.1.1), the circulating-water system of ACNGS will discharge heated water into Allens Creek cooling lake with a maximum AT of 10.8*C (19.5 F). Figure 5.5.1 shows that elevated temperatures will exist near the conderser discharge canal during worse case conditions. No substantial differences due to three- or six-month makeup pumping modes are revealed in the isothermal patterns in the lake (ER Suppl. , p. 55-16). During an average year, lake tempera-tures will be highest in July. Moreover, during the sununer months of an " average" year, the 35.5 C (96*F) isotherm will include ab'out 207, of the lake surface and the 31-32*C (86-88'F) isotherms will include about 85% of the total lake surface (ER Suppl., figs. 53.4-21 and S3.4-22). These conditions will prevail for at least one month and probably somewhat longer during the period July to August. Fish. References reviewed and presented in the ER Supplement (Sect. S5.1) and in the FES (Sect. 5.5.2.1) provide evidence for the lack of substantial impact to fish populations resulting from releases of heated water into those Texas reservoirs which have been studied to date. However, as stated in the FES (p. 5-24), many factors other than temperature influence fish production in heated reservoirs and these factors have not been adequately addressed in the various studies. In addition, no information has been found on fish production in these systems prior to receiving heated ef fluents. Consequently, this literature review is of limited value in the current assessment (FES, p. 5-24). Under the original cooling lake design, the zone of exclusion resulting from high temperatures could have covered approximately 30% of the lake surface (FES, Table 5.7). As given above, the present zone of exclusion for fish [35.5*C (96'F)] under worse case thermal conditions will be 20% of the total lake surface (Fig. S.5.1). This zone of exclusion under the current design will not prevent a fishery from being established and maintaineo. When these high-temperature areas occur, they will probably be avoided by fish. Shallow cooling reservoirs like the pro-posed Allens Creek cooling lake may, however, reach sufficiently high temperatures throughout the water body during da abnormally warm summer to stress fish and other biota.3 Table S.5.8 gives spawning, growth, and preferred temperatures for some important reservoir fishes, and Table 5.17 of the FES gives incipient lethal tem;erature thresholds for selected fish. From comparisons of these data and tne results of the applicants thermal analysis (ER, Suppl. Figs. S3.4-14 to 53.4-26), more than 50% of the total reservoir surface area will .be above 32
w- . . . _ . . . . . . ._ _ _ . - . .- _ ~ - ~~. S.5-13 Table S.S.8. Spawneng, growth, and preferred temperatures - of some important reservoir fishes Temperature at Temperature for Preferred temperature Species w'vch spawnmg occurs opomum growth range Sources e C 'C
-..- "C Golden shiner 15.6-21.0 1 7.0 - 24.0 a. 6. c Threadftn shad ,14.0 -21.0 e
, Bluegitt 20.o~ 27 o-32 o b, d, e White crappie 14.0-23 0 - 16.0-23 o a, b Largemouth bass 20 0 -24.0 27.0 27.o-32 o af White bau 120-24.0 to o-31 o e. p Stnped bass 13 o-20 0 / Channel cathsh ' 21,0-27,0 50.0 26.o-30 a, b. A Sources:
'J. S. Har;, " Geographic Vanations m Some Physeological and Morphological Characters in Certaen Freshwater Fesh," Pubhcation of the Ontario Fah Research Laboratory. vol. 72, Universtty of Toronto
~ Biologicd Senes No. 60. Ontano. Canada.1952.
*) M. Reutter and C. E. Herdendorff. " Laboratory Estimates of Fess Response to the heated Discharge from the Davis Besse Ene, Ohio " Center for Lake Ene Area Research. Ohio State University, Columbus.
1975
'K. D. C&ander, Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology vol. I: Life History Data on Freshwater fisfrs of the United States and Canada, Excusive of the Perciformes, Iowa State Unwerssty Press. Ames, 1969.
F. 8 Cross, handbook of Fishes of Kansas. Museum of Natural History. Unweroty of Kansat Lawrence, 1967.
'C, C. Coutant, " Temperature Selection by Fish: A Factor in Power Plant impact Assessments", it, Environmental Effects of Cooling Systems at Nuclear Pourt Plants. Internat,onsi Atom <c Energy Commission. Vienna.1975
' A. J McClane, McClane.s New standard Fishing Encyclopedos. Holt. Rinehas t. and Wmston. Inc.. N.Y.
"C. C. Rsggs. "%productoon of the white Bass: Morone chrysops." invest. Indiana Lakes Streams, 4 B7-110. (195sl "J. W. And<ews. L H. Knight. and T. Muras " Temperature Reaunements for High Density Rearing of Channel Catfish from Fingerbng to Market Sde." Prop Fish Cult. 34: 240 1972.
(90"F) during July and August. Approximately 15 to 50% of the lake surface will be at 32'C (90#F) or above during the summer period of June to Seotember. Although many soecies of fish likely to inhabi' the Allens Creek cooling lake have been colle:ted in high-temperature areas (FES, Table 5.16), growth and spawning will be adversely affected and the incident rate e of disease may increase if temperatures above 32*C (90*F) prevail for more than a month 3*S Adverse effects from the summer temperature regime will be especially evident for those fish species which may be forced, in the absence of any thermal refuges, to inhabit lake water above their preferred temperature range. Although some refuges of cooler water temperatures below 32 C (90*F) will exist in the lake, the une- to two-month period of restriction of this area during summer months (July and August) will have an adverse effect on the maintenance ci the reservoir game fish populations. Rough fish to game fish ratios in the lake will also be affected by extreme summer temperature because rough fish will have a competitive advantage due to their generally higher optimal temperature regime.6 In addition, since the temperature increase in the condenser cooling water will be 10.8*C (19.5*F) above ambient, dissolved gases present in the cooling water wi11 become supersaturated and may lead to problems of gas bubble disease in fish J However, the incident rate of gas-bubble disease in fish near the discharge canal is not currently amenable to prediction and the staff believes that this occurrence will not significantly alter fish production in the cooling reservoir. Cold shock stress on ' resident fish populations is another potential problem in thermally loaded reservoirs. The probability of cold shock occurring in the original station design was reduced by the low probability that both units of the station would be shut down simultaneously (FES,
- p. 5-24). However, using the one-unit operating design, themal cold shock may be an occurrence of significance in the cooling lake during winter months in the event of plant shutdown. During winter months, fish tend to seek preferred temperatures in themal plumes; therefore, sudden loss or dissipation of these plumes by storms or plant shutdowns can result in severe p; ysio-logical stress or death. The staff was unable to find any evidence of cold shock occurring in Texas reservoirss probably because of the subtropical climate and mild winter conditions allowing
S.5-14 for more gradual acclimation of fish populations to ' lower temperatures. In this climate, cold shock m?y be possible only during a combination of rare cold weather ano plant shutdown. The staff concludes that themal loading of Allens Creek cooling lake b.* plant c;eation will adversely affect productivity of those fish with temperature optima of .0'C (80if) or less but that direct fish mortality will not result. Rough fish populations will probably be enhanced at the expense of game fish populations due to high summer water temperatures'in the lake. Fish mortality due to cold shock should be negligible since it would only occur when severe winter cold weather is coupled with plant shutdewn. Gas-bubble disease may be present in fish but should not significantly affect fish production. Benthic macroinvertebrates. The analysis of temperature effects on benthic macroinverteorates presented in the FES (p. 5-24) is appropriate for the current cooling lake design and operation. Although localized differences in benthic macroinvertebrate biomass and diversity are expected, no significant effect of temperature on total lake benthic productivity is probable for the expected yearly isothem cycles given in the ER Supplement (Sect. S3.4). Zgeplankton and phytoplankton. The impact of elevated temperatures on plankton in Texas reservoirs is considered in the FES and in Sect. S.4.3.2.3 of this supplement. Algal bloom , occurrences are considered probable in the high nutrient Allens Creek cooling lake. These ) algal blooms may be enhanced somewhat by thennl releases from plant operation. The impacts ) from these blooms are considered in Sect. S.4.3.2.3. Pathogenic amoebat. During the review of this proposed facility, the staff reviewed information concerning primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAtlE). Three cases of PAME were reported in the United States in 1977, one each in North Carolina, Georgia and Texas. All of these cases involved individuals who had reportedly been swimming in waters with elevated temperatures and each case resulted in death. This disease has been attributed to pathogenic amoeba of the genus llr, bda and Amthwcia. Since the cooling lake may at times be at elevated temperatures, both naturally and during operation, and sc eAcria fcekri, one of the primary causal pathogens, has been identified in some thermally loaded Texas reservoirs,8 the staff did a detailed survey cf current ecological and epidemeological literature relative to the potential presence of pathogenic amoeba in the Allens Creek cooling lake. The survey revealed that: (1)flacAccl2 and Acadamb are ubiquitou; in nature and can be free-ltdng in fresh water without an apparent need for an intermediate host; (2) llaeAcria and Acadmda can live on bacterial - populations present in fresh water; (3) bacteria populations are stimulated by organic nutrient ) loading and heat input to freshwater bodies; (4) amoeba undergo interspecific competition such that pathogenic forms seem to be favored over nonpathogenic foms at higher temperatures [above 35-37*C (95-97'F) but especially above' 42'C (108'F)] . In the preceding analysis (Sect. S.4.4.2), the staff has shown that Allens Creek cooling lake will be a thermally loaded eutrophic system with high bacterial populations during wam water seasons. The staff therefore concludes that it is possible for the cooling lake to provide appronriate habitat for llagleria and Acadamela. However, as revealed by the literature survey, there presently exists no capacity to predict whether amoeba that may develop in the lake will be pathogenic; and, if pathogenic amoeba do develop, what, if any, will be the rate of contraction of the amoebic diseases in individuals coming in contact with the lake waters. Chemical discharges Chlorine. During normal plant operation, chlorine will be injected into the inlet cells of the circulating-water intake structure as a biocide to prevent fouling in the cooling system. Chlo-l rine will be discharged to the Allens Creek cooling reservoir at a maximum rate of 692 kg/ day (1525 lbs/ day). The applicant states that chlorine will be discharged in two daily doses of I -15 min each at a concentration sufficient to maintain a 0.2 mg/ liter free chlorine residual at l the condenser di nharge block (ER approximately Suppl., Sect. 3.6.3). This level corresponds with
- EPA's chemical effluent limitations guidelines. This will result in a maximum total residual chlorine (TRC) discharge of approximately 2.2 mg/ liter to the lake (during two 15 min periods each day) if no loss of free chlorine along the discharge canal occurs. Unlike condenser operation for the two-unit' operation or*ginally proposed in the FES, no dilution will occur in the con-denser system. Although some of the free residual chlorine will undoubtedly be taken up by the biological chlorine demand of the discharge canal,9 dilution will only occur when chlorine enters the lake. The proposed total residual chlorine release of 2.2 ppm is greater than the i
projected release of 1.0 + 0.5 ppm TRC estimated for the original plant design (testimony of Hildebrand and Zittel)\ _ Consequently, further discussion of the effect of chlorine releases into the cooling lake is warranted. I l
-~ . . - - - - . . = . - - . - .- - - --- .
5.5-15 Total residual chlorine will enter the lake with the themal effluent and will be dispensed by circulation patterns in the cooling lake. These circulation patterns will be affected by cooling-water intake and discharge, by the prevailing wind, and by the inflow from Allens
~
Creek. Due to the uncertainties of the water chemistry of the proposed cooling lake (Sect. S.4.4.2.3) and the ud nown amount of atmospheric losses, the dispersion of TRC in the lake cannot be properly s...alated.9 10 because the cooling lake will be eutrophic and organically rich, much of the TRC will be in the form o' combined residual chlorine, which has a slower reaction tme with the chlorine demand of the lake water (estimated at 2 mg/ liter for the original lake plan).9 Although the instantaneous chlorite demand of th 'ooiing lake water will eliminate the free residual chlorine when it enters the lake, the c.nbined residual chlorine compounds consisting primarily of chloramines will be dispersed to a much greater degree, Cecause chloramines are toxic to aquatic biota,10 some efft.O from the discharge of 2.2 ppm TRC on the biota of the cooling lake will occur. Chlorine ef fects on biota throug_h short-term exposure. The general toxicity considerations of cnlorine to aquatic biota are discussed in the FIS Tsect. 5.5.2.1.1). Figure 5.5.2 is an update of Fig. 5.6 given in the FES. All organisrn entrained into the cooling system during chlorination events should suffer 1003 mortality. Although overall plankton productivity in the lake will be reduced, no significant effects are expected from this occurr 2nce. Benthic macrcinvertebrates in the vicinity of the discharge canal will be affected by the total residual chlorine releases. Because the tcoling lake will be eutrophic, which usually means that chironomids and oligochaetes will dominate tne benthos. Only these organisms are considered. Since chironomids are relatively resistant to chlorine poisoning, their distribution will not be affected as much as that of the more sensitive oligochaetes (Table S.S.9).M The areal extent of the probable shif t in relative population densities cannot be estimated, but the , overall benthic macroinvertebrate productivity in the cooling lake will not be severely affected by the chlorine releases. At the discharge area, any fish found in the themal plume dispersion path may swim out of. the area during periods of chlorinat on if given an appropriate warning.ll floweYer, fish kills have been raported to occur in discharge plumes during intermittent chlorination events.7,i2 The applicant's projected TRC discharge of 2.2 ng/ liter will therfore cause fish distress if avoid-ance does not occur in the discharge area. From fig. S.5.2 it follows that the acute toxicity threshold for aquatic biota (0.15 mg/ liter for 15.ain) will be exceeded twice a day in some area near the discharge canal. Further, the staff's analysis predicts that dispersion by diffusion concentration by the time the dischaaged water reaches the bend in the diversion dike (Sect. S.5.3.2.1). Thus, a substantial area of the upper lake will be affected by high TRC concentrations. This may be especially detrimental to resident fish populations during winter months if fi h exhibit a preference for the thermal plume.7.ll Also, if white crappie or other fish cpecies spawn along the rip-rapped diversion dike shoreline in the discharge canal area, their spawn will be subjected to high TRC levels. It is the staff's opinion that although the areal extent I and magnitude of TRC effects on fish populations in the cooling lake cannot be predicted with ' certainty, the applicant's proposed chlorine release of 2.2 mg/ liter TRC will adversely affect fish populations in the cooling lake. Chlorine effects on biota through long-tem exposure. As stated in the FES (p. 5-25) total residual chlorine discharged to thc lake in the themal effluent will be composed primarily of chloramines which are generally more persistent than but with apparently the same order of magnitude toxicity (to aquatic orgacisms) as free available chlorine. Long-tem exposure to chloramines may therefore produce some negative effects on the biota of the Allens Creek cooling ) lake in the vicinity of the discharge canal. From inspection of Fig. 5.5.2 and from the pre- l vious discussion of the dispersion of TRC in the cooling lake, it is apparent that TRC discharges l of 2.2 ppm will greatly exceed the suggested conservative limit for continuous exposure of .i 0.0015 ppml0 over some area near the discharge location. As previously stated, neither the ! areal extent nor concentration or duration of the exposure to TRC compounds can currently be j predicted. Conseque'tly, the magnitude of the effects upon the aquatic biota of Allens Creek cooling lake from long-term exposure to TRC cannot be estimated. It should be pointed out that many non-game fishes, which will probably dominate the Allens Creek cooling lake tishery, are more resistant to chlorine than are most of the cold water species used to develop the conserva-tive estimate of TRC concentration for protection on a continuous basis (ER, Suppl. , p. S5.4-6). It is the staff's opinion that some effect of long-tem exposure to TRC compounds will be evident l in the Allens Creek aquatic biota due to the applicant's projected release of 2.2 ppm TRC during two 15-min daily periods. l l
m we.* - ro,Wma O3 n7o o,Co<fD e3> <e.g og eo c- s mao,+ci o"O a--, *
. C c . "( -D -
- 'Dse oonGs+, o -
4.N scN ;c, o% 4mn o,c5'.sc nxo n.,3 3 nma M "e,aoao. i n 5o_On+c" r 4,g +rg ,o.DomD<o-r r - - c - -
*rs, onoe~- n. o3 n
- C c O e " o, +, nsO
- .br'h n+rma e<e w o* auene EoC a w og na3,ca. < c"+rm s +r'G U*o+r O msoaCr,+r <.rx r .
+
o4 - 3o m' ? <o ,. e 7(D e+,m s +rsm,e,oso ,(n
,ea no 3eQ+r ey( c D a.noo_ acN 3 Mscmt 7g,+r' +r a -
-t D
*r e
c cuu*. nms+, &rD- sDoc r3C -
*rm' iUn o"s" - 3c +ca' smo, so e3s ,(cad +r 7m >w ,o +r o; + <,' ur "+
c.mnzc,e"' - < - no,3+c - s 1' 2e 3r n ectoDa L ri+co gm +rsm muW o "sD. 3mo,"ao +r,msen, t*r VQeC ao . . a= c, o" oen umom r 4%- >m .+cc.*oC - eNn s c=a
- +x c m s+remou.~ct a
no3ne3e,*n o3 = +rD o7 oc"c. eo *c%_.i a m3+r c+o %mo~ent c r- ( ooo 3c - o, " e osO doc *+, nre og . .-rO - B ' ' os o. Ea%~. . -4oo . ( s a @o +r D r a
~
o ,
+r.mc '95 ooo<' o.moCoo~os na n ne <' +,- @s m > . nTm3 m,g% Ct3".D3 oDD3 a-r s +rC;r,os oc aD 3oe nmrow =oEe<o,. +r'mr m+ca%,,e o =oye%c -5o,D e
- r. '
D o trc G 7o c-e,oeon o,nea g sD*D,"c r( 7D - m<P e o n: r. 3o o, u +sc," eOc a P o Ct . " D 7"eo e * ,oa1sn( x +r2 d < = o,L t - ( -(c r tue,3 +c ~mc Cv +r - ( D mmD +o r anOs r Bo 5D -( <D a *r o s O.* - ' o mt mm> aon aDM r'mm+s*n - -
- ( r- . t oam**3=3o+rmsD a-o s c,cO+rO, +c*= o.4- 9c% 4mm. - +r ^m +raa ocNo=mn e' h w oD a.o3 - "s ~sm.
- *r s a +c 2momm o"e3 - - -np2,s mim t ' >n.=*o.M.
5 e<D smo,n+r@ os e rr 3 o2->n*m, e oem o%
- a,eae 0s5b7 - . - rr r"nD 3c,* soec n'-
r - 6 ,r(,1l,i' iy 4 l1,iI!!I' i ;'44 , -l3 ia. I4f!1;,' I-] 4 - 4 3 3 g i- .'
. 2 ?
?. -D..
L _ 3 5 S + i i* 3
,'-i '
, . -O. 0 H
t E 1 _ S.
-R.
7
.- E .
,- _ e 5 e <A 5 2 H
-T Y
4
-
- d
-
- T. 2 n I a 4 L e
;t?. i;o 7
Qu A 4 c . 0 5 T iM
+li, .'!.jI ,ei' <,1,' Ii ;' , 41 6 59-* *
- t
, .-(';
. ,q"- 9 97i k' 3 R. 1 t
m ** 7,* 7 8D 5 4 b
- O a?
e"+ 4 q-
-m . ,-n . 3 . *g
- y; o s# M. M o
.T 2- nL
- c.O ._ n. - =*
.5
_4 m4 4 -
- C 5
S -
.n t
4 r, 7 "1 n" a,- s - I JR
'. % i*
cm O y- N
.sa*
E. '; *n O r
*
- 9 ?
R 2 :
,* 9 2 ,c
- 2 O.. g" O ,*
1 T ,* H e 7
-.- 3*=
- O*
- e. .1 8 9 c g
u' '.- eS C ) r t
- *
- 3 n u j,9ljt:i' 3:
,s
.l,3,l,-+t 0 i o n 9 a ;1l;47t:1;i;'
i .f*'r ,. Il :j! o i -
..16 0 v l 1 m S 3.'- s !
( i - 7 8 3. .
- a*
r
- i. it
. a Me ,ts R ' .
E
- 6 7_ C 'u v'- 5 4~
sn 7-
- t 5 R mi sr 3 -
3 E* U i o
- s- _
n(J S nl
- x,.-
- a ,c 7 5 O. g* -
O ah gC F* P r _ 1 9 3 3 2 X ot 1 - _5 - - ,d 0 3"
. 3 g-8* E ra n
4- - 1 A -
- ., a **
2 el
.1f -
- i.l c
)
4' gq*94 c ie ,
, i;ir' J ' iI;:j.:il'ii,,*
0 F 1 O tP a wr
*7 g - h e i
7._4 , J t sw 3 .tt >g -
,/ N eo rP b -
- v. -
L 5 O f i- M s.
'n #
,._ Kg/
I T oo f A
'.s,. w :;, -
. t R n eo .
q-q-
~ E U ini) t6 D r?
- 3 hQ, - ou9
- 5
- + 2 C[j i_. '0 lla(
h 1
.iil 4, , , cv
, ' te 8 ! ,- ' '
1
. - q I
E8 f 0
- oc3 1
i2
- 5 yf -
i:
.t i c8
. ice i 4 p2 2 xS o- :
2 T e) t0
.i1 0 S(
2
.t' 1l;
,,..a.l; !1t I
, i j ' '
0 2. ",4 8 S. l
. 1 S ed
.t e
,- _. 5 tF
- gi
.i Z l t
- _ - F Ew .o
. - n
_ . c
.rt
- 2 Hc lIL C_ L-i"L'LIg;; - -
rtI rF'!r - ~ -b{ - -_ 1'->Yt6;
---_ - d t
0 1 0 5 2 j 5 2 j- eo 1 5 2 .I 1 0 O Q O. mc v. 0 0 0 0 o nv O 0. - 0 0 A. EGC- 7sC FqT+ <.wVZOU wc-QOJ_,A u 0 0 0
. . _ _ - . - . _ _ _~ -. . _
l
- 5. 5-N . :
t-Table S.S.9. Summary o toxicity of chlorina to freshwater organisms Duration of Data point and Descriptwe Contmration ex osure Effect scientific name ' name (mg/hterl Plants
' Chlorophy ta , . .
*. Chloretto pyrenoidasa = 0.18 1,440 50% decrease M ger' A tb
- 2. Cheretta pyrenoide w -04 300 50% decre.se in groath
- 3. Chlorepa os -emidosa 0.6 1.200 43% mortahty
- 4. Chlorella variegata 2 4.320 Decreased growth
- 5. Sctnedesmus ob/niuus 2 4,320 Decreased growth
- 6. Scenerkuns sp. 10 5.760 Mottahty thresho;d Chrysophyta
- 7. Comphonerro parvuiu.- 2 4,320 Decreased growth 8 Nitzschiapalea 2 1,320 Decteased growth Cy anophy ta l 9. Cytendrospermum 2 4.320 Decreased growth .
Iichenu forme
- 10. Micracystis aeruguncs.< 2 4,320 Decreased growth M,seellaneous Not given Phytoplank toa 0.4 Not given Stops growth .
Invertebrate animals PrcMioa nany species) 2-8 C Some mor tahty . Arthropoda crustacea
- 11. Asellus aquaticus Water louse 0.5 60 No reproduction
- 12. Ase/lus racovinai Isopod 0.613 1,440 50% mortahty t 15'C)
- 13. Cyclops sp. 1 - 30 Some mortahty
- 14. Daphnia magna Water flea 4 2.880 Mortahty threshold
, 15. Daphnia magna Water flea 0.125 240 100% mortahty . t
- 16. Onphn/a magna Water flea 0.002 20,160 Decreased reproduction *
- 17. Daphnia magna Water fiea - 0.5 4.320 100% mortahty
- 18. Daphnia sp. Water nea 0,5 60 Some mortahty
- 19. Gynmarus tmnus Scud 0 023 2.880 EO% mortahty (15"Cl 20 Garnmarus pseudolimnaeus Scuo 0.035 151,200 80% mortahty 21 Gammams preudo/imnaeus Scud ' O 22 5,760 50% mortahty
- 22. Gammarus psetulatimnaeus ' Scud 0.0034 151,200 Almost no reproduction
- 23. Gammarus pseudohmnaeus Scud 0.054 161,280 Decreased survwal* -
- 24. Gammarus pseudo'imnaeus ' Scud 0.019 201,000 Decreased reproduction *
- 25. Gamnurus pseudolomnanus Scud 0,135 43.200 No ef fect*
- 26. Gammeruspsemfolimnaeus Scud 0.000 ' 1.440 50% mortahty*
27 Orronectes writes Crayfish 0.780 10.080 50% mortahty*
-At the opoda-insect a
- 28. Centroptilium so. Mayfly 0 071 1.440 50% mortahty (6*C) 29 Chironorruis sp. Mide larvao 7 1.440 80% mortahty 30 rphemerellalata Mayfiv 0.027 2.880 50% mortahty i15'C) r
- 31. Nydropsyche bifida Caddisfly 0.396 480 50% martaMy (25^C) [
- 32. t/ydropsyche sp Caddisfly 0.55 10.080~ 50% mortahr/
33 Iran ' humeralis Mayfly 0.046 480 50% mortahty (WC)
- 34. Isonychna sp. Mayfly 0 0093 2,880 50% mortahty (tiCl 35 Pe/ toper /a nuaria Stonetly 0 020 2.880 50% mortahty (15'C) ~
- 36. Pterynartys sp. Stonefly 0480 4.320 50% mortahty*
4 37. Stenonerra sthaca Mayfly 0 502 480 50% mortahty (25*C) Annehda ,. 38 Nars commums Ohgochaete worm 1.0 . 35 95% mortahty i 39 Nais sp. Obg)chaete warm 1.0 34 100% mortahty
- 40. Nais so- Ohgochaete worm 0.5 30 Disentegration Nematoda Cher/obus quadrilobiatus Nematode worm 91 30 50% mortahty
- 41. D@logaster rmdecapitatus Nematode worm 13 0 120 50% mortahty
- 42. Trilobusgracobs Nemutode 20 0 150 100% mortahty 42 Trilobus gracitis Nematode timmaturet 3.0 90 100% mortahty Mollusca
- 43. Campetoma decisum Operculate snad >0 8 0 20,160 50% mortabty*
44 Goniolusis virginica Operculate snad Obl4 5.760 50% mortahty (25*C)
- 45. N,tocris (Anculosa) Operculate snad 0.086 5,760 50% mortahty (25*C)
Carina ta
- 46. Physa integra Pulmonate snad >0 810 20,160 50% mortahty*
' 47. Physa beterostrotma ' Pulmonate snail 0.258 5.760 50% mortahty (25*C)
.. - . ~ _ - . . .- . .. .. - .._ _n - _ . - - ~. ~-, ,.
S.5-18 i Table S.S.9 (continuv6 Duratnn of
. Data pomt ud De script.ve Co...entration ex osure E f fect scientific name name lmg/htorld Vertebrate animals Amph@a 48 Esna caresbi, u Tadpole 2.4 510 100% moriahty Fish Clupe rd+
49 Dorosoma ayaedianum Ginard shad 0 62 10 Some mortahty Salmonedae . 50, Oncor/ /nchus kisurch Coho sa: nun 0 016 1.440 Mortabty threshold 50, Oncor synchus Aisurch Coho salmon 0.004 5.760 Mortabty threshold S t. Oncorhync/rus kisurch Coho salmun hngerbnos - 0. 2 1.152 76% mortahty (free OCO
- 51. Oncorhynchus kisurch Coho salrnon tingebngs 0,75 180 100% mortahty (NH 3CO' l
- 51. Orn;orhrnchus ?ts9tch Coho salmon fmr,erbnos 0 15 <48 100% mortahty (NHCl2 )
Oncorhynchusa isurch . Coho salmon fingert ajs - 0.2 <1 ' immede i distress
- 52. Onc orhyrn hui Arsutc/s . oho salmon 0 230 720 50% mortahty*
- 53. Oncorhynchc' tshanytscha nmook salmon fry 1.0 12 100% mortabty 54 Salma pirdnersi riambow trout C 02 7.200 50% mortahty*
, 50% mortahty* I 54 L/mo pairdnerii Rambow trout 0 014 5.760 54 Salmo parrdnersi ' Rambow trout 0 029 t.760 50% mortahty*
GS. Salmo gairdnerii Rambow tat 07 2,220 100% mortahty ,
- 56. Salino perr/nerii Rambow trcut 02 300 50% mortahty
- 56. Salmo pirdneril Rainbow trout 05 5C ' 50% mortahty
- 57. Salmo perdneni Rambow trout 0.108 672. 60% mortahty .
- 57. Salmo gairdnerii Rambow trout 0.354 330 40% mortahry
- 58. Salmo pirdnerit - Rainbow trout 04 120 100% mortahty
- 59. Salmo pairdnerii Rambow trout 0.04 5.760 50% mortahty (20-80 mmi (i0. Sa/ino pirdnerii Rambow trout fmgerlmgs 0.2 240 100% mortahty -
61 Sa/mo trutta Brown trout 0 35 1.440 Mor tah ty'
]
- 62. Ss/mo trutta Brown trout 05 120 50% mortahty .j
- 63. Salmo trurta Brown trout 0 09 180 50% mortahty
- 63. Salmo frutta Brown trout 0 05 360 50% mortahty 63 Sa/mo trutta Brown trout 0 02 660 50% mortahty
- 64. Salmo trutta Brown trout fingerlmgs 0.5 90 50% mortahty
- 65. Sa/velinus /ontinates Brook trout 0 01 10,080 Mortahty threshold l 65 Live /inus /ontmaiss Brook trout 0.005 10,080 Activity depressed 66 Salvelinus /ontinalis Drook trout 0.01 10.080 Mortahty threshold
- 60. Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout 0 05 2.880 100% mortahty
- 67. Salvelinus /ontinalis Brook trout 0 06 5.760 50% mortahty
- 68. Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout 10 0 1,440 100% mortahty
- 69. Salvelinus fontinatis Brook trout 0360 720 50% mortakty" 70 Salvelinus /ontinalis Brook trout U.102 5.760 50% mortahty (20"C)
E socedae
- 71. Esox lucms Northern pike 0.7 1,800 100% mortahty (temp 4.5N7"C)
- 72. Eson wrmiculatus Grass pickerel 1 60 100% mortahty (af ter 24 hr)
Catastomidae 73 Catastomus commermni White sucker 1 60 100% mortahty >
- 74. Catastomus commermni White socker 0 248 720 50% mortahty*
Cypnnidae
- 75. Carrassius auratus Goldhsh 16 24 0 100% mortahty
- 76. Not O!ven Goldfish 1.0 480 Some mortahty
- 77. Not given Goldfish 0.3 1.440 100% mortahty *
- 78. Carrassss auratus Goldfish 1.0 5.760 100% mor tabty 79 Cyprinus carpio Carp 0 72 65 Some mortauty
- 80. Cyprinus carpio Carp 0. 7 6,000 80% mortakty Notamigonus crysoleur.as Golden shiner > 3,000 0.17 Death
- 81. Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shmer 0.8 240 100% mortahty 82.. Notropis cornurus Common shirer 0. 7 76 100% mortahty
- 83. Nortopis ru/w//us Roseyface shmer 0 07 180 100% mortahty B4. Nntroprs rutv//us Rowyface shmer 0.7 79 100% mortahty 85 Pimephaley norJtus ' Mmnow huntnose 07 81 100% mortahty 86, Pirmpbeles promesas Fathead minnow larvae 0.108 43.200 60% mortahty -
- 87. Pimeph*Vsprometas Fathead mmnow larvae 0 108 43.200 68% decreased growth
- - . . . ~ __ ..m - _.. - , _ _ . .% . . - , .~ _. ,
5.5-19 Tatde S.S.9 (contmoeds Data pomt and DescriptWe uration of f Concentrat, ion exp sure E f fect scientihe name name (mphter) _.-.c..__.~ _ _._ . ;_ . ; (mm)
- 88. Pimephelespromelas Fathead .nmnow 0.043 10.080 50% decreased spawnmg
- 89. Pimephelesprome/as Fathead minnow - 0.08 0.19 5.760 50% mortakty 90 Pimepheles promelas Fathead minnow 0.05 5,760 Threshold mortahty
- 91. Pimepheles prome/as Fathead minnow 0 02 7,200 ' 50% mortahty
- 92. Pimepheles prometas Fathead mmnow 0.185 720 50% mortahty*
- 93. Pimephelesprometas F athead mmnow 0110 100.800 No spawnmg*
94 Rhioichthys arronaus Mmnow 07 79 100% mortahty .
- 95. Scardinius erythrechthalmus Rudd 0. 7 2.460 100% mortahty
- 96. Tinca tinca Tench 0. 7 6.000 20% mortahty letaluridae
- 97. /cta/urus melas Black bullhead '4.5 1.440 50% mortahty
- 98. /cta/urus me/as Black boHhead 1.36 . 25 Some mortahty Angwihdae
- 99. Angml/a anpi//a Eel 0.7 6,000 Mortanty threshoid Poecibidae 100 Gambr.sra a#inis Mosquitchsh 05-1.0 4.320 Mo*tahty threshold Senanidae 101. Morone saxatitis Strrped bau 0.3 1,440 50% mortai ty 101. Morone saxari/ss Stnped bass 0 25 2,880 50% mortabty Centrarchidae 102 lepomrs cyane//us Green sunhsh 2 1.440 60% mortahty Lepomis cyane//us Green sunhsh 0.4 Not g ven E ven tual mor tahty 103 M<cropterus dolomievi SmaNmouth hau D5 900 SOT, mortabty 104 Micropterussalmoides Largemouth bass 0 494 1.440 50% mortahty*
105. Pomails nigramxu/atus Black crappie 1.36 25 Some mortahty Perc4dae 106. Pen a flavescans YeHow perch 0 72 65 Some martahty 107, Pema //avescans Yellow perch 0.365 720 50% mortahti6 108 Staostedson vitream Waheve 0.267 720 50% mortahty* vitreum M,scenancous 109, Not given Freshwater manows. 0.3 120 No d stress "kilbes"
*Mabgrams per hter and parts per mdlion were treated as equwalent umts.
- Wastewater chlormahon.
' Measured time of f ast "ag tationf but deatn occurred about I mm later.
Source J S Matace and R E Lttet. " Site specibc evaluation of power plant chlorinaison." / water Po//ut. Control Fed. 48(101(1976h Water quality Chemical discharges from the sanitary waste system to the Allens Creek cooling lake are given in Table 5.3.2 and the ER Supplement (Sect. 55,5-1). None of the chemical concentrations remaining af ter 1.7 x 105 dilution in the discharge canal (ER Suppl. , Sect. 55.5,1) are expected to have any significant impacts on the aquatic biota as they will be below known toxic levels. The discussion of enrichment effects of the nutrients released given in the FES ia applicable for either station design. The maximum concentration of TDS in the cooling lake has been estimated to approach 1800 ppm (ER Suppl. , Fig. 53.4-31). Monthly averages will be within'800 to 1200 ppm, which are well within the range of acceptable concentrations for the pretection Of aquatic life (FES, Table 5.18). High levels of some trace elements have been reported in Braz0s River (Table 52.6). Heavy metal concentrations by element do not show consistent seasonal behavior during the one year Of data given. Consequently, makeup water pumping during any time of year will lead to some heavy metal contamination of the cooling lake. Further heavy metal inputs to the cocling-lake will come from runoff from the Allens Creek drainage (BMPR, Sect. 3.6). .The aquatic bicta of Allens Creek cooling lake may therefore-experience impacts from some toxic trace elements. Of ' special significance and concern is the potential for bloaccumulation of toxic trace elements such as mercury, cadmium, and lead leading to ingestion by man. However, due to the uncertainty of heavy metal water chemistry in the proposed cooling lake and the uncertainty of the yearly
l 5.5-20 l l concentration cycle b/ element for Brazos River water (which cannot be confirmed by one year's ! jata), the staff cannot make an accurate assessrent of pcssible irpacts fron either a three- cr j six-conth pur. ping mode relative to heavy retal loading. Continuirrg analysis of the possible extent of heavy metal pollution in the Brazos River as it nay affect the Allens Creek cooling lake is necessary. The staff therefore requires additional sa gling (Sect. 5.C) for the preserce of heavy (metal accumulation in adult fish in the Brazos River because sa pling to date has beenB.'tPR, S limited conditions.
- lign fetal colifom and fecal streptococci numbers have also been reported in Allens Creek.
Sone seasonal restriction in the recreational use of the Allens Creek embaynent may result. 44cwever, an adequate cota base for a detailed assessment of the prebable levels of the bacteria is not available. The staff has therefore suggested a monitoring progran (Sect. 5.C) because of possible health hazards due to the potential occurrence of fecal indicater bacteria in the j Allens Creek enbaynent frm upstream cattle operations and donestic sweage infics.s. i 3razos River. The major sources of impact on the Brazos River from opdration of the ccoling-water discharge system will include (1) terperature changes, (2) chemical discharges, and (3) water quality changes. Releases from the cooling lake to the Brazos River will result from soillage during high-water periods in the lake and f rm controlled low-level releases to augment low ficms in the Brazos (ER, Suppl., Sect. 53.4). The effects of tht:se discharges are discussed in general in tne FES (Sect. 5.5.2.1.2p The folicwing section contains data on the effects of a three-or a six +onth puroing node only. The staff reccrnends against use of a twelve-conth prping node due to potentially high entrairr ent lesses of ichthyoplankton (Sect 5.5.3.1.2). Temperature. Predicted spill,:ay temperatures are compared to anbier.t Brazos River terperatures W 5ect. 5.5.3.2.1. Table 5.5.5 shows inat average spillway temperatures will te eaxicum in Jaly (>LC'C (87.l'F)] ard minim in January (13.4*C (SE.2'F)]. with a predicted racim ti of 1.9'C '(3.5'F) (lable 5.5.6), Maximan excess temperatures will occur in January and December. l These results will essentially be the sane for either a three- or six-month peping r: ode (Sect. l 5.5.3.2.1). Based on these data, the staff concludes that the operation of AChG5 will not l result in significant thercal impacts on Brazos Piver biota. 1 Chlorine will be used as a biocide and will be discharged to the m iing lake. Although TC Jischarges to the Bra 20s River from the Allens Creek cooling lave s not be accurately siculated, it is the staff's opinion that due to the long travel tine between i discharge canal and the 3razos River spillway (Fig. 5.5,1) and the subsequent high dilution, the IRC discharge to the Brazos River will be no greater than 0.001 prn. This concentration is less than the recomended TPC discharge limit to the Crazos River at 0,01 pon given in the original analysis (FES,
- p. 5-31). Dilution of this concentratien in the Brazos River should be sufficient to protect acuatic life (Fig. 5.5.2 and Table 5.5.9).
'.later quality. A general description of dissolved cxygen in spillage water and its organic and nutrient content as it may affect the Crazos River is presented in Table 5.3.2 and in the FES j (p. 5-32). A situation similar to that described in the TES will prnbably exist under the new l lake design and power plant cperation, and no adverse impact resulting fror the oxygen demand and nutrient content of spillway discharges to the Crazos River is expected.
Spillage from the Allens Creek cooling lake will contain relatively high cencentrations of total dissolved solids compared to the ambient concentration in the Brazos River (Table 5.5.4). As shown in Table 5.5.4, the maximum discharge of TOS to the Brazos River will be 1220 rg/ liter daring October of an average year. Beca:se this TOS concentration is below inte toxic levels to aquatic biota reported in the Brazos Ffver (FES, Table 5 '.8), the staff concludes as in the FE5 (p. 5-32) that little impact, other than scoe possible movement of biota away from the dis-charge area during high TD5 releases, will occur in the Brazos River. / TDS concentratiens in the cooling lake are estimated to be less than 1503 ppe about 951 of the tiire (ER Suppl . , Sect. 53.4.3.1) . The applicant's permit fron the TEG permits a axirm renthly average discharge concentration of 1850 p;n from the coolirg lake (ER Suppl ., Sect. 53.4.3.3). The applicant's analysis (ER Suppl., Table 53.4-11) shows that this limit will net be exceeced. Based on these data, the staff concludes that TDS concentratiens of the spillway discharges will not significantly affect existing aquatic biota of the Brazos River.
. - - - .- . _ ~~
S.5-21 The staff has evaluated the effect of upstream water impoundment on the supply of sediment and suspended silt load to the Brazos River estuary. As the Allens Creek cooling lake impoundment will not be on the main river channel, only the suspended silt load from that fraction of total river flow pumped into the cooling reservoir would potentially be lost and unavailable for down-stream enrichment of the estuary. If water levels are maintained in the Brazos River by upstream releases from reservoirs, then total bed load transport should not be affected to any significant degree by the Allens Creek cooling lake system. Since water enriched with nutrients and.part cu-i late organic matter will be released from the cooling lake to the Brazos Piver, some return oi entrained silt load is expected. A quantitative comparison between the present silt load of the Brazos River and that occurring during plant operations is not available due to the qualitative nature of the data on the proposed Allens Creek cooling lake. However, operation of upstream main stem reservuirs such as Lake Granberry should have a much greater impact on the transport of sediment and silt to the Brazos River estuary than will operation of the proposed cooling lake. Consequently, it is the staf f's opinion that, although some nutrients will probably be retained by the cooling lake, the level of impact on the Brazos River estuary production should be small. S.5.3.2.3 Water quality standards Liquid effluents from ACNGS will be required to comply with appropriate State of Texas and Federal standards. Water quality criteria for Texas streams are esc 6blished and enforced by the Texas Water Quality Goard (TWQC). The EPA is kept informed of TWQB activities on all matters affecting EPA functions as promulgated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA) of 1972. , As described in Sect. S.3.1, the plant cooling system will employ a newly constructed cooling lake to dissipate the excess heat, and the lake will discharge into the Brazos River. The TWQB13 designates the following water uses that are known and suitable for the Brazos River near the ACNUS site: (1) contact and noncontact recreation uters, (2) domestic raw water supply, (3) propagation of fish and wildlife, and (4) irrigation waters. The following criteria apply to the specific waters of the Brazos River Casin (identified as segment 1202) which lie above the tidal zone and extend to Whitney Dam (and therefore include the portions of the Brazos River that will receive effluents from ACNG5):
- 1. chloride, average not to exceed 600 mg/ liter;
- 2. sulfate, average not to exceed 225 mg/1f ter;
- 3. total dissolved solids, average not to exceed 1500 mg/ liter;
- 4. dissolved oxygen, not less than 5.0 mg/ liter;
- 5. pH range, 6.5 to 8.5;
- 6. fetal coliform, logarithmic average not more tnan 200 per 100 ml; and
- 7. temperature, maximum upper limit FC (EV), or a 2.0'C (5'F) rise above ambient temperature.
However, the Texas Water Quality Standardsl3 make allowances for mixing zones for which these criteria are applicable only outside of these designated regions. Because of varying local physical, chemical, and biological conditions, no single criterion for determining the mixing zones is applicable in all cases. Consequently, mixing zones are established by the TWQB or, a case-by-case basis. Guidelines are established, however, in cases for which fishery resources are considered significant. These guidelines state that the allowed mixing zone shall not preclude the passage of free-swimming and drif ting aquatic organisms to the extent that their populations would be significantly affected. Nomally, mixing zones should be limited to no , more than 2% of the cross-sectional area and/or the volume of flow of the stream or estuary, 15 ..., " has t 751: free as a zone of passage, unless otherwise defined by a specific Board order or pemit. With respect to the discharge of efflucnts into the Grazos River, HL&P cbtained a permit from the TUQB which permits a TDS concentration of 1850 mg/ liter in the cooling lake discharge. Although the permit is based on the two-unit operation of a 3339-ha (8250-acre) cooling reservoir, the applicant's cooling lake simulations for the one-un't design (ER Suppl . , Table $3.4-11) do not exhibit any months in which this limit is exceeded. However, if a flow release were required during a period when the lake water TDS concentration exceeded the permit limitation or when Allens Creek flow is needed for operation. HL&P could draw on upstream water storage to supplement the Brazos River flow as required.
. . .. - ~ ~ .- . - .. _-
S.5-22 Additionally, the applicant has shown that the maximum Ponthly average temperature differential between spillway temperature and ambient temperature of the Brazos River during Decenber (in 1963 study period, the period of predicted maximun LT) will be about 2.2'C (4'F); consequently, a mixing zone would not be required. The st 4f's results, although not conclusive, show slightly . higher excess temperatures in the spillway discharges. It is the staff's opinion, however, that a mixing zone may be required because (Sect. S.5.3.2.1) LTs greater than 2.8't (5'F) will occur - on a daily basis if the same meteorological conditions were to persist that occurred in the simulations for the study period ( 1952 to 1968). Moreover, the staff has concluded that in any event, discharges from ACNGSi tuld not have any significant environmental inpact (in relation to thermal alterations) on the aquatic biota of the Crazos River (Sect. 5.5.3.2.2). t Also notable in the Texas Water Quality Standards, which have applicability to AChGS, are temperature requirements and other numerical criteria pertainirg to freshwater impoundments (Allens Creek cooling lake). For offstream or privately owned reservoirs constructed principally for industrial cooling purposes, there are no' temperature requirements . The epa, however, has deter-nined that Allens Creek is a navigable water) ody, and its impound ent as proposed for the ACh35 will qualify the reservoir as a cooling lake; therefore, the circulating-water systen will be con-sidered a cor:ponent of a once-through, instead of a closed-cycle system. If, in fact, the EPA's current classification of the proposed Allens Creek impoundment is the final classification effluent limitations (temperature and chamicals) will be est lished at' tte outlet of the cir-culating water discharge canal. t 5.5.3.3 Impacts to terrestrial ecosystens The impacts of operation of the Allens Creek station have been discussed in Sect. 5.5.1 of the FES and are essentially the ssne for the reduced size of the plant and cooling lake. The selec-tion of transmission line Route 2C has reduced the concern for waterfowl collision with power lines as discussed in the FES. The decline in the population of Attwater's prairie chicken along Route 1 A may be irreversible, but the staf f suggests that the applicant make every ef fort to provide and maintain tall-grass prairie habitat along his rights-of-way in this area, con-sistent with reconnendations which nay be made by the USFWS (Sect. S.4.3). The applicant is holding approximately 1939 ha (4792 acres) of his property for future developnent and intends either to lease them for agricultural purposes or to allow then to undergo secondary succession until the time that they are needed for other purposes. The staff considers either type of land use acceptable. The applicant has identified a unique native hay meadow (CMPR, pp. 4.2-1 to 4.2-3) within the . area of the proposed state park. The staff considers this neadow to be one of the most valuable terrestrial habitats present on .the site. The Master Development Plan for the proposed State Parkl5 states that this meadow will be preserved and no development util take place t! thin it. 5.5.4 . ADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM ROUTINE OPERATION 5.5.4.1 Exposure pathways The environmental pathways that were considered in preparing this section are shown in Fi g. 5.5.3. The specific pathways evaluated were:
- 1. Direct radiation from the plant.
- 2. For gaseous ef fluents,
- a. Imnersion in the gaseous plume;
- b. Inhalation of iodines and particulates;
- c. Ingestion of fodines and particulates through the milk cow, goat, neat animal and vegetation pathway;
- d. Radiation fran iodines and particulates deposited on the ground.
3. For liquid effluents.
- a. Drinking water;
- b. Ingestion of fish and invertebrates; (
- c. Shoreline activities, boating and swimming in water containing radioactive effluents;
l 5.5-23 ES-2510 GASEOUS EFFLUENT NUCLE AR POWER PL ANT 5 D L o f 1 pg $ 2 Q P A3 LlOUlO EFFLUENT
$. i5 !
[. f { 'kg #d
=5-
[ {g g4, e o, oueci . Irraoianon RI s i 3 . . _ h FUEL TRANSPORT
~~
kbM ang. o ,, -shonhne r%,, x egai.m.v<cor,gsyjo
,,r,,,,
3 - -
\t n ~
c r MIS @C3@ dip ra ' # c94!> e a cP %,, g,gnon ff ed m ~ j/ s g - g s . c:. . .- f $ y ygwo* / --- f
~
e 2 ~
~
8, ._ __. lit =l;;p A Fiq. 5.5.3. Generalized pathways for radiation exposure to man,
- d. Irrigated foods.
Only those pathways associated with gaseous effluents that were reported to exist at a single location were combined to calculate the total exposure to a traximally exposed individual. Path-ways associated with liquid effluents were combined without regard to location but were assumed to be associated with a maximally exposed individual other than the individual from gaseous effluent pathways. , The models and considerations for environmental pathways leading to estimates of radiation doses to individuals near the plant and to the population within an 80-km radius of the plant resulting from plant operations are discussed in detail in Reg;1atory Guide 1.109. Use of these models with additional assumptions for environmental pathways leading to exposure to populations outside the 804m radius are described in Appendix 5.C of this statement. 5.5.4.2 Dose commitments The qu'ntities of radioactive matericl that may be released annually from the plant are esti-mated based on the description of the raddaste systems given in the applicant's R and PSAR i and using the calculational model and parameters described in NUREG 0016 and 0017. The applicant's site and environmental data provided in the ER and in subsequent answers to the staf f's questions are used exter ' in the dose calculations, Using these quantities of
. _ , . _ - . .. . -- . . . - - . _ . . .. _ . . ~ ~ . . - -
5.5-24 radioactive materials released and exposure pathway information, the dose commitments to individuals and the population are estimated. Population doses are based on the projected population distribution of the year 2000. The dose cottanitments in this statement represent the total dose received over a period of 50 years following the intake of radioactivity for nne year under the conditions existing 15 years af ter the station is started up. For the 'ounger age groups, changes in organ mass with age after the initial intake of radioactivity u.'e accounted for in a stepwise manner. In the analysis of all ef fluent radionuclides released from the plant, tritium, carbon-14, radiocesium, radiocobalt, and radiciodine inhaled with air and ingested with food and water were found to account for essentially all total- bdy dose commitments to individuals and the population within 80 km of the plant. S.5.4.2.1 Dose comitments from radioactive releases to the atmosphere Radioactive effluents released to the atmosphere from the Allens Creek Unit 1 facility will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations. The staff's estimates of the l expected gaseous and particulate releases listed in Table 5.5.10, and the site meteorological ' considerations discussed in Sect. 5.2.3 of this Supplement and summarized in Table 5.5.11 were used to estimate radiation dose to individuals and populations. The results of the calculations are discussed below. Table S.5.10 Calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents from ACNGS (cunes per year per reactur) Reactor Tmbme Au uhary An egctca Mechamcat
""C *'
, bu id.ng bmidmg buHdmg waste gas - vacuum pump . I Kr 83m a a a a 3.300 a 3 300 Kr 85m 3 68 3 a 29.000 a 29.000 Kr 85 a a a a 200 a 29o Kr87 3 130 3 a- 5,300 a 5.400 K-88 3 23o 3 a 50.000 a 50 000 Xe 131m a a a a 170 a 170 Xe 133m a a a a 820 a 820 X e-133 66 25o 66 to 62.000 2.300 05.000 Xe 135m 46 65o 46 a a a 740 Xe 135 34 630 34 45 17 350 1.100 X e-138 7 1,400 7 a a a 1.400 1 131 1.7 4 - 1 l* 1 9(- 1) 1. 7 F1 ) SF2) a 3( - 21 61F11 1-133 6 8(~ 1) 7.0f -1 ) 68( 1) 1 51 - 1) e a 23 Cn51 3f- dr 1 3t - 21 3h4) 9 H31 u c 2 3(-- 21 MwS4 3(-3) 6(-41 3F36 3(-2) c c 3.7f - 2r Fe 59 4F4) Sr41 4 F4) 1.5F 2) c c IEt -?> CHB 0F 6F 4) 6F4) 4 5F3) c c 6 3F3r Co 60 1( 2F3) t h 21 DI-2) e c ) .1 h t i Zn 65 2Hm 2H4) 7t -31 15h36 e c 5 7t - 31 Sr 89 91 - 41 6( -3: DFS) 4 SF4) c r 6 6(- 3) S 90 5( - 61 2F5) SF 61 3F4) ( c 33( 41 Zr 05 4 F41 t h4) 4(-41 5(- 5) c c 9 5t -41 Sb 124 2N41 3F4) 2F41 5F5i c c 7 5(-4) l Cs 134 4t-3) 3h41 4(- 3) 4 5H31 ' c c 13H 2) I Cs 136 3(- 41 Sb 51 3F4) 4 SF4) c c 1 11 -3r Cs 137 5.51- 3) 6F41 5Sh3 9h31 c c 21h21 04 140 4(-46 1.1 F 2) 41-4) 14-4) e c 12< - 2) Cc141 IF41 GH4) t b41 2 5 F 3) c c 3 41-3 C 14 a e a a 9.5 a 95 ,. H3 39 39 78 Ar.41 25 e e c c c 25 ( 'Less than 1.0 C4 ear for noble gases,less than to- d Cdves for todme. l
- E xponentsa! notation. 7.ol-3)
- 7;0 X 10~ 3
't ess than 1% of total for f adlonuCbde.
l l 1 ;
- - - - - - --------m "m r F
- .- . - - _ _ . - - ~ _ . .
S.5-25
* ' . Radiation dose commitments to individuals Individual receptor locations and pathway locations considered for the maximum individual are listed in Table S.5.12. The estimated dose commitments to the maximum individual from radio-iodine and particulate releases at selected offsite locations are listed in Tables S.5.13 and S,5.14. The maximum individual is an infant who consumes 330 liters of milk per year and resides ;
at a residence for the entire year. _ The maximum annual beta and gama air dose and the maximum total body and skin dose to an individual . .at the maximum site boundary, are presented in Tables S.S.13 and S.S.14.- Table S.S.11. Summary of atmospheric dispersion factors and deposition values for ACNGS' Location Source y/O (sec/m3 ) n"2y depo Nearest
- site boundary c 2.4 X 10~7 4.6 X 10~ '
(1.2 miles S) d 5.5 X 10 1.1 X 10-8 e 1.3 X 10-- a f 6.5 2.9 X 10-X 10'.e? 1.2 X 10 Nearest farm reudence, c 9.3 X 10-a 3 4 X 10- 'O muk animal, and meat animal d 1.9 X 10-7 8.9 X 10~ ' O (3.2 m,les NW) e 2.2 X 10~ 7 1.0 X 10 4
/ 5.2 X 10' 7 1.3 X 10-'
'The dose presented in the following tables are corrected for radioactive decay and cloud depletion from deposition. where appropriate, in 'accordance with Regulatory Guide 1,111, Rev.1 " Methods for Estimat ng Atmospheric Trar oort and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routme Releases from Ltght Water Reactors /* July 19R
*" Nearest" refers to that type of locat on where the highest radiation dose from all appropriate pathways is expected to occur.
4 Plant vent stack (contmuousl.
# Plant vent stack ('mtermittent 4 times per year for 24 hr).
j l " Plant vent stack (mtermittent 24 pmes per year for 2 htL
' Radioactive waste buildmg vent (cont nuous).
i Table S.5.12. Receptor and pathway locations selected for # 1aximum individual dose i.ommitments Sector Distance Site boundary' S 1.2 m+Ies (1900 m) Residence
- NW 3.2 miles (5200 m)
Milk cow NW 3.2 miles (5200 m) Meat animal NW 3.2 miles (5200 m)
- Beta and Gamma a+r doses, total body doses, and skin' doses from noble g,ises are determined at site boundaries.
- Dose pathways mcludmg inhslation of atmos-pheric radioactivity. exposure to deposited radio-nuclides, and submersion in gaseous radioactivity are evaluated at ressdences.
Radiation dose commitments to populations The estimated annual radiation dose commitments to the population within-80 km of the Allens Creek nuclear plant from gaseous and particulate releases are shown in Table 5.5.14 Beyond 80 km the doses were evaluated using average population densities and food production values discussed in A.npendir S.C. Estimated. dose commitments to the U.S. population based on the , projected population distribution for the year 2000 are shown in Table S.5.15. Background a radiation doses are provided for comparison. The do'se commitments from atmospheric releases 1 from the Allens Creek facility during normal operation represent a small increase in the i normal population dose from background radiation sources. l l r
--a-.---..+ ._ - - - .-- -- ..,..n. . . . - . . - - --. - - - - _ , ._ ,
j i i S.5 Table S 6.13. Maximum annual dose commitments to an indn edual near ACNGS' Location Pathway Radiciodme and particulates in gaseous effluents Total body Thyroid 8 Ground depout Nearest farm res.dence. o.092 mdhrem o 092 mithrem mHk cow, and meat animal lohalation <o.01 mdhrem o.057 mdhrem 13.2 Mes NW) Mikl o 024 mdhrem 3.2 mdhrerm Totat (to an in' ant) o 12 milkrem 3.4 milbrems Lequid effluents Total body Bono Liver Nearest drinkmg Water ingestion <o.1 mdhrem <o 1 materem < o.1 isrem ; water - cochng take
- Nearest fish at hsh mgestion 1.2 mdhrems o.7 mdhrem 16 mdhrems cooling lake ,
Irngated foods Vegetation. mdk. <o 1 milbrem <o.1 millirem < o 1 rn ihrem and meat - Totat (to an adult) 14 mdhrems 1 o rmthrem 18 miturems Noble gases in gaseous of fluents Total body Skin Gamma air dvse Beta air dose i Nearest' site txiondary 4.3 mdhrems 6 8 milbrems 6 4 melbrads 2.6 mdhrads (l.2 mdes si 8awd on annual dose per reactor unit. 6" Nearest" refers to the loc 6 tion where the hsghest radiation dow to an indivglual from all apphcable Dathways has been estimated.
'" Nearest" refers to that sde boundary location where the highest rachation doses due to gaseous ef fluents have been eshmated to occur.
i l 5.5.4.2.2 Dose comitments from radioactive liquid releases to the hydrosphere l l Radioactive effluents released to the hydrosphere from the Allens Creek Unit 1 facility during , normal operation will result in small radiation doses to individuals and populations. The j staff's estimates of the expected liquid releases listed in Table S.5.16 and the site hydro- ; logical considerations discussed in the FES (Sect. 2.5) and sumarized in Table S.S.17 were < used to estimate radiation dose comitments to individuals and populations. The results of the calculations are discussed below. i Radiation dose commitments to individuals The estimated dose commitments to the maximum individual from liquid releases at selected offsite locations are listed in Tables S.5.13 and S.5.14. The maximum individual has been estimated to be an adult, who consumes fish harvested from the cooling lake, drinks water from the cooling lake, and uses the shoreline of the lake for recreation. Radiation dose commitments to populations The estimated annual radiation dose commitments to the population within 80 ku of the Allens Creek Unit i nuclear plant from liquid releases, based on the use of the cooling lake and' Brazos River water (recreation, sport fishing, commercial fishing. and irrigated foods) are shown in Table 5.5.14 Dose commitments beyond 80 km were based on the assumptions discussed in Appendix 5.C. Estimated dose commitments to the U.S. population are shown in Table 5.5.15.
. Background radiation doses are provided for comparison. The dose commitments from liquid releases from the Allens Creek facility during normal operation represent a small increase in
..the.. normal population dose from background radiation sources.
Table S.S.14. Calculated maximum dose commitments to an individu.I and the populatoon from ACNGS operation Comparison of ACNGS Unit I wittt Apper@x 1 to 10 CF R Past 50 Sections ti,A. Il B. and ll C tM,y 5.19751 and Section 6t.D, Annex (Sept. 4.1975) Appendix 1 Anne x Calculated doses , Cntenon Design Obsectives' Des >gn Obtectius" Unit No.1 individual doses Liqued etfluents Dose to total tiody from all pathways 3 mennems per year per unit 5 mahrems per year per site 1.4 malirems per year per unit Dose to any organ from art pathways 10 m.threms per year per unit 5 mithrems per year per site 1.8 mdhrems per year per unit Liquid releases (ewept intium No bmit specified 5 Ci per year # 0 25 Ci per ye.s r and dissofwed noble gases) Noble gas ef fluents (at site boundarv ) 10 mdhrads per year per unit 10 mithrads per year per s;te 6.4 mdhrods per yea < per unit Gamma dose m air 20 mdhracs per year per un+t. 20 mdhrads per ye.1 per s:te 2.6 mdhrads per year per unit Beta dose in air Dase to total txxfy of an mdevidual 5 mdhrems per year per unit 5 mdhrems per veer per site 4 3 mdbrems per yew per unit Dose to sk n of an individual 15 mdhrems per year per unit 15 millirems per year per s;te 6 8 methrems per year per umt -
' Radioiadines and par teculates# i.n Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mdhrems per year per unit 15 mdhrems per ye.ir per site 3.4 mithrems per year per unit rb Releases (t 131} No Emit specif,ed 1 Ci per year per unit 0.61 C4 per year per unit Population doses within 80 km (50 miles)
Total Body Thyroid Natural rad +ation takgiound" 260.000. man-rems per year per unit L6qued e+f tuents 28. man-rems per year per un't 28. momrems per year per undt Noble gas ef fluents 10. mamrems per year per unit 10- man-rems per year per onit Rad oiodrnes and particulates 1.2 man-rems per year per unrt 7.4 man. rems pes year per unit
- Appendix 1 Design Objectives from Sect. II.A. fl.B.11 C. and ll D of Appenda t,10 CF R Po rt 50. cunsiders mammum doses to mdmduai nd population per reactor unit. From Fed Reg st. 40.19442. (May 5.1975).
8 Gu des on Design Objectives proposed by the NRC st#f on Fett 20.1974; consders doses to mdiv;dua!s f om all units on site. From ConcMng 6 Statement of Position of the Regtdarory Staff, Docket No. RM 50 2. Feb. 20.1974. pp. 25-30. U.S. Atomic Energv Commission. Washington D.C.
'Exclud4ng tntium and d:ssoived noble gases.
# Carbon 14 and tritism have been added to th s category.
~
" Natural Radrarion Exposure m the UnitedStates, U S. Environmental Protect.on Agency. ORP-SID-72-1 Uune 1972); us;ng the overage Tewas State -
background dose (92 milbrems per year) and year 2000 proiected populatron of 2,780.t;00. 6
. . . _ - .- - _ . _ .__ _ m. -
_. - - . . - -m.
. . . .. . - - . ~ . .
5.5-28 Table 5.5.15. Annual total body population dose commitments in the year 2000 U'S' P"P" "'d "**""*"' Caw for the site Natural background radiation
- 27.000.000 (rnarerems per year) '
ACNGS operation (man terns per year per site) Plant mukers 500 Gene'al pubhc Radionuclides and particulates 42 Liquid and eff 6uents 41 Noble gas of fluents 33
*iransportation of fuel and waste 7
'Usmg the average U.S. background dose (102 mili. rems per year) and year 2000 projected U.S. population from ~ Population Estimates and Projections."
Series 11, U.S Dept. of Commc4ce. Bureau of the Census, Series P 25. No. 541 (Fetzuary 1975). Table S.S.16. Calculated releases of r.deoactive materials m hqued effluents from ACNGS Umt 1 Radionuchde Curies per year Rad 4onuclide Curies per year 1 Corrosion and activation products Fission products (contmued) l Na 24 8.5( -3)' Rh-103 6(- 5) l P 32 5.2(-4) Ru 105 3. 7( +4 l l Cr 51 14(-1) R h-105m 3.7(-41 1 Mn 54 1.21- 1) Rh-105 3 3(-4) i Mn 56 3.2(-3) Ro 106 2 4(-3) Fe55 31- 3) Ag 110 4 41-4) Fe 59 8(- 51 Te.129m 1.1(-41 Co-58 4.61- 3) Te.129 7(-5) . Co 60 9 9(- 3) Te.131m 1 51 - 4) i N-65 2(- 5) Te.131 3(- 5) I Cu-64 2.4(-2) 1131 4.5(-2) Zn-65 6(-4) Te 132 2(-5) 2n 69m 1.71- 3) 1132 1.8(- 31 Zn-69 l 9( - 31 1 133 2.B(- 2) 2r 69 1.4(-3) 1134 2(-4 ) Mb-95 2(-3; Cs 134 1.4( -2 ) W 187 4(-4) s.135 8.71 - 3) Np 239 1.4(- 21 Cs 136 5(-41 Fission products s 137 2.6( - 2 > Ba.137m 1. 8(- 3) Br 83 2(-4) .Cs138 2(- 51
$r 80 2.9(-41 Ba. t 39 1.21- 4i St-90 2(- 5) ea 140 1( m 3; Sr91 2.4(- 31 La- 140 3.5( 4)
, Y.91m 1.6(-3) La 141 9(-5) 'i Y 91 1 7(-41 Ce.141 9(- 5) Sr92 7.1(-4) La.142 91- 5) Y 92 2.3(- 31 Ce-143 5(-5) Y-93 2.5( - 31 Pr143 1. I l-41 Zr 95 2(- 51 Cc-144 5.2(-3) Ntr95 2(-5) All Others 6(- 5) Tc9 n 9 3 Ru-103 2( - 51
' Exponential notation: 8 5(-3)
- E5 X 10-a,,
i c
. , . . ~ . ~ .
l l S.5-29 Table S.S.17. Summary of hydrologic transport and dispersion for liquid releases from ACNGs' Location Dilution factor Nearest drinkino water intake
- o.1 1 (coolmg lake outf all)
, Nearest sport fishing location - o.1 .1 . (coohog lake) Nearest shoreline .o1 1 (cooling lake)
- Nearest irrigated crops 6 0.1 1 (cooling lake outfalf)
*See Regulatory Guide 1.113, Estimatiry Aquatic Dispersion of i,
Emuems from Accidwtal aid Routine Reactor Releases. (Apnl 1977, Rev.II.
- Assumed for purposes of an upper 4imit estimate.
S.5.4.3 Direct radiation S.5.4.3.1 Radiation from the facility j Radiation fields 'are produced in nuclear plant environs as a result of radioactivity contained within the reactor and its associated components. Although these components are shielded, dose rates around the plants have been observed to vary from undetectable levels to values of the order of I rem / year. , Doses from sources within the plant are primarily due to nitrogen-16, a radionuclide produced in the reactor core. For boiling water reactors, nitrogen-16 is transported with the primary coolant to the turbine building. The orientation of piping and turbine components in the turbine building determines, in part, the exposure rates outside the plant. Because of variations in equipment lay-out, exposure rates are strongly dependent upon overall plant design. Based on the radiation surveys that have been performed around several operating BWRs,' it appears to be very difficult to develop a reasonable model to predict shine doses. Thus, older plants should have a:tual measurements performed if information regarding direct radiation and sky-shine rates is needed. l For newer BWR plants with a standardized design, dose rates have been estimated using sophisti-cated Monte Carlo techniques. The turbine island design proposed in the Braun SARi f' is estimated to have direct radiation and skyshine dose rates of the order of 20 man-rem per year per unit at - a typical site boundary distance of 0.64 km (0.4 mile) from the turbine building. This dose rate is assumed to be typical of the new generation of boiling water reactors. The integrated popu-lation dose from such a facility would be less than one man-rem per year per unit. { Low-level radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 mrem / year at the site boundary.
~
S.S.4.3.2 Occupational radiation exposure Based on a review of the applicant's safety analysis report, the staff has determined that the applicant is committed to design features and operating practices that will assure that indi- , vidual' occupational radiation doses can be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and l that individual and total plant population doses will be as low as is reasonably achievable? j For the' purpose of portraying the radiological impact of the plant operation on all onsite ' personnel, it is recessary to estimate a man-rem occupational radiation dose. For a plant ' designed and proposed to be operated in a' manner consistent with the 10 CFR Part 20, there . will be many variables that influence exposure and make it difficult to determine a quantitative total occupational radiation dose for a specific plant. Therefore, past exposure experience from operating nuclear power stations 18 has been used to provide a widely applicable estimate to be used for all light water' reactor power plants of similar type and size. This experience indi- < cates a value of 500 man-rems per year per reactor unit. ; On this basis, the projected occupational radiation exposure impact of the one-unit Allens Creek station is. estimated to be 500 man-rems per year, i l
- .- .. ~~ ~~ . ~~ .- - . -. ..- . .- . - . . . - - . _ . - -
1 S.5-30 S.S.4.3.3 Transportation of radioactive material The transportatiott of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive waste from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the NRC report entitled, Dwiramental Survey of Transportation of 511toaative NatoriaZo to and fm Naalcar Pown F; ants. The estimated population dose commitments associated with transportation of fuels and wastes are listed in Tables 5.5.15 and 5.5.18. Table S.S.18. Environmental impact of transportatiori of fuel and waste to and from one hght water cooieo nuclear power reactor Normal conditions of transpor t Environmental impact Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit! 250.000Btulhr 1 Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions! 73.000 tb per truck; 100 tons per cask per rail car Traf f te dens <ty Less than one per day Rad Less than three per month Estimated Cumulat.ve dose number of ' Range of doses to eaposed to exposed d Exposed population persons individuals per reactor year poputahon per b , e x posed- (milbrems) reactor year (man rems) Transportation workers 200 o 01 to 300 4 General public Onnookers 1, t oo 0.003 to 1.3 3 Along rou te 600,000 0.001 to 0.06 Accidents in transport Environmental risk Radiological effects Small' i Common (nonradiologicall causes 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years. I non- , fatal iniury in 10 reactor years: $475 i property damage per f reactor year < The Federal Radiat<on Council has recommended that the radiat on doses from all sources of radiation other than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5000 milbrems! year for individuals as a result. of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 maihrems/vear for individuals in the general population. The dose to indiv duals due to average natural background radiat on is about 130 mdhr ems!y ear. OMan-rem is an express,on for the summation of whole body doses to individuals m a group, Thut if each member of a population group of 1000 people were to receive e dose of oint ,em (1 mdhrem), or if two people were to receive a dose of o 5 rem t500 milhiemsl each, the total nian rem dose m each case would be 1 man tem. 8 Although the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming 8 rom transportation accidents is currently incapable of bemg numerically quantified, the risk remams small regardless of whether it is being g apphed to a single reactor'or a multi reactor site. Source. Data supporting this table are given in the Commission's Environmental Survey of Tranwortarion of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Piants. WASH 1238, December - 1972. and Supplement I, NUREG 75/038. Apfd 1975-S.5.4.4 Radiological impact on man The actual radiological impact associated with the operation of the proposed Allens Creek nucleer power station will depend, in part, on the manner in which the radioactive wa treatment system the radwaste is operated,t systerit, i is concluded that the system as proposed is capable of meeting the dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. The applicant has elected to meet the requirements of the' Annex to Appen'ix ! (dated Septec;ber 4.1975) in lieJ of perforning the cost-benefit
.-.,a e- ,-r-m-, ~-e w
. . .- . .~ - . - . . . - - - - - - , - . - - - . . - - .
i. S.5-31 i analysis' required by Sects 11.0 of Appendix l. . Tabl.e 5.5.14 compares the calculated maximum individual doses to the dose design objectives. However, since the facility's operation will' j be governed by operating license technical specifications and since the technical specifications
~will be based on the dose design objectives 'of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, as shown in the first column of Table 5.5;14 ' the actual radiological impact of plant operation may result in doses close to the dose' design objectives. . Even if this situation exists the individual doses will
'still be very small when compu.'d to natural background doses (%92 man-rems / year) or of the dose -limits specified in 10 CFR 2 L As a -result, the staf f concludes that there will be no measurable radiological impact ca man from routine operation of the Allens Creek Unit 1 plant. ;
S.5.4.5 Radiological impacts to biota other than man Depending on the pathway and radiation source, terrestrial and aquatic biota will receive doses approximately the same or somewhat higher than man receives. Although guidelines have not been established for acceptable -limits for radiation exposure to species other than man, it is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are also conservative for other species, Experience has shown that it is the maintenance of population stability that is crucial to the survival of a species, and species in most ecosystems suffer rather high mortality rates from natural causes. Although the existence of extremely radiosensitive biota is' possible, and whereas increased radiosensitivity in organisms nny result from environmental interactions with other stresses -(e.g. , heat, biocides, etc ), no biota have yet been discovered that show a sensitivity (in terms of increased morbidity or mortality) to radiation exposures as low as those expected in the area surrounding the Allens Creek Unit i nuclear power plant. Furthermore, in all the plants for which an analysis of radiation exposure to biota other than man has been made, there have been no cases of exposures that can be considered significant in terms.of harm to the species, or that approach the exposure limits to members of the public permitted by 10 CFR Part 20. M Since the BEIR Report 20 concluded that the evidence to date indicates that no other living organisms are very much more radiosensitive than man, no measurable radiological impact on populations of biota is expected as a result of the routine operation of this plant. S.S.5 ~ URANIUM FUEL CYCLE' IMPACTS Section 5.4.3 of the FES summarizes the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of_ irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low- and high-level wa tes. These environmental effects were set out in Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51 as it then appeared, which was reproduced as Table 5.15 in the ACNGS FES. On March 14, 1977, the Commission presented in the Fedom ! Register (42FR13803) an interim rule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle. It is effective through September 13, 1978 and revises Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51. Final rulemaking proceedings will be conducted .so as to allow for additional public concent and specific details with respect to time, place, and format of such proceedings and shall be presented in a subsequent Federal Register notice. The interim rule reflects new and updated information relative to reprocessing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management as discussed in NUREG-Oll6, Dwlromtal .%ney of the Ruromesig md uaste 4mujement Portions of the 4kW Fuel Cyals and NUREG-0216, which presents staf f responses to comments on NUREG-Oll6. The contributions in the new table for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle), that is, the cycle that resulted in the greater impact was used. The rule also con- j siders other environmental factors of the uranium fuel cycle including mining and milling, isotopic ' enrichment, fuel fabrication, and management of low , and high-level wastes. These are described in the &mimmeal Sancy of the Uno ium Enat cyde (AEC report WASH-1248). I Specific categories of natural resource use are included in Table S-3 of the interim rule and are reproduced in this Draf t Supplement as Table S.5.19. These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thennal effluents, electrical energy use, fossil fuel combustion, chemical and radioactive effluents,~ burial of transuranic and high/ low level wastes, and radiation doses from J transportation and occupathnal exposures. In accordance with the interim rule, the assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel I cycle as.related to the operation of ACNGS is based upon the values given in Table S.5.19. For ' the sake of consistency, the analysis of fuel-cycle impacts other than those due to land use has been cast in terms of a mcdel 1000-MWe light-water reactor (LWR).
. The total annual land requirements for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe LWR are approxi-mately 405 ha (100 acre) [38 ha (94 acres) temporarily committed and 2.9 ha (7.1 acres) perma-wently committed]. Over 'the 30-year operating life of the plant, tnis amounts to about 1700 ha
T a. s s a L5-32
. , s er.*_ ,_.#e o es,* os. . s i N eaed m maara ten aan ad be no..,ement (W A1641248 s e reheesse's op stor peer %;pf G gligpl i
J 4.sunaf eeeeusoe One T ets 44 eewn e r*ect par enned ev d eespoeme,e or sehenao . 8cte, goe of modet 1000 We LW A 4 aus ase, femowe* caram,nter" $4 Lemm.rtest vet is Chvmed esa - J2 (secoeedt le IN We suel feed eereeptert Pe<m ene tly s, nawineo - F1 06c%44 meed wadt am of Mii 28 l evement se % htse s.d e.,,4 poes.p s
' ~ "
n ewa48Wr.s.tlett of34tprio t Ortsnasad se er - 15 9 s 2 pi1 el mosp 10% Mbt >e L 4R e+* ese ag 99ese Ne'reytt so eam' teateo + 19 000 [hieae ed to paisas 121 I*** 11 313 4 a t se evnet t 009 We L*A e-e once suener seismg e4.m.m.w-~ -
- m:n
$2swxm eneige ionesse* s et 121 - t act et musses t 6,0t Mwe Lna mieput setegemets passe t t tepeefeat sees Hheseie 117 E,,.essent to sne am,w pua of a 4's Moe casi f.evo of Mf ! e+=e.e ion r
$ssaieias oss imin eano e 168% 124 0 3 ert o' moser' 1014 We essic sww I #A.se*ts. anem ses tMT i (iew. Imatu ty esp oinmeret t 3
$0, 4 4a10 40,4 - -
1.190 Equisasons teemese ene deem 49 We tom fue4 ese*e 'as a veas Ib e as ebene . - -- 14 CO .. . _ . . '29 4 Petun.sene - - 1 Ig4 (tyist geseg F~ ~ 0$P Peuiopew fo9en tsfa poidiectico *"w abaseet aavs rosmosawag Cuareawet,an enta,e esage et euw twin. ween - boom het that has se twte on he*se near* MO- . - _ ._ _. - 0014 L> ew e SO g I$ f seat esserheeset lue6 6a8sneateen anel sepsogespeg ecope Comecamerm Wiat acattdu a
, e outee.a s for eM se 8'O a
- 25 8 eaeuanments e"tet me pae**at sa swee socceat andes sad sesmee odebend ete8 stean berewemg bestres F
- e"* 12 9 of =cer se tege85 boom peerusinese sea %fa-di The een<titwears that reewas $4stre **d tele Rae es d.se Ce 54 men ,ese ce 95
,Cg.5 gy, % -W @ T bO 3 '#0
- 81 --
10 0 Fe 04 Iavhega lebbett 'P<mrtaridt ed MT J 240 f *duit sendit tetty see 6tybbiant 88'8'*eant te ensar erfa's"t Lt d> - - 910D0 P .ac,e ph I.e= aus= no e puheens ensueati to ewaennwm fit 99ea tt reSeietpcW EWadtl i Gcee ,nemeey emp** ment r 8Ea 222 74 %
- h,,isip# ##e** **Hsvg essee m cet se%f e estwatet ecmf3 but feit h4* *"ang Re 27tk 0 U2 Th 210 0 02 W e=we - 00H Ta num amouteie L , is 1 C 84 24 Da 5% itenaweisne & 400 Mw 106 - 0 14 Pe'r.c.o#N f om Oc seemsewne staasi 612S . -
IJ t 111 082 94 ear es,mbets eed es enn.ee cs 0 kol l i mpms e e ten yesem end da F tet - 21 Penncipes6, hem m.pging ani, seed .n ted.nge fiques and sweened to ptosed * *e **tben a $seefore see r 8ect e e*tegegaweede Na 2N 00 L% $ se't (jig 9*eed49 Nun T* 210 9044 h 214 - - Ot p,eni 9,et get,,,,,e, see. ..,,weetroman to seg et to CF A 2rl hit tote ereseswig 26 anaes twe* eems**ane$ei frit #t&903 L All F owan and ersett*e eveibst - % 9 ' 108 b(de <tesfied syi se 4 08We ten he@ eseel .pftsbase 5 - 11.1W $ IM C4 enmet feeput lee toeed teette optes arid I 600 C)ecastes from esectue dormateastraeums and decemauss,u. seg (bected ei lorrel hueee! taeolities 600 C. gaenes f rom ordts -enasudess te radittip requessed to peued ' SC C; eenoes itent eon =eeeen ased 86 tent 4* sed storaspe he 8,ytebce44 ethwisMI to me eme+ eon sheett I3lU end HlW ideses, - 1 1810 ' b4e st61 Fedet# sepoedt*e l efbe=0 - Ikenged .tsehgs S of SetteeB ] 4d2 *434968 mfatre 1009 h44e La A tee #Hbd tpnet%* Itar spitetseeeri use t<p* sesta l E sensure 25 et meus and paced putioic Dessuasarier eseeve theeina eemt 22 8 Feera eessessie.nt ese Seite measement
'Do es tusenemme e m tamar es geen un sie "Eas.mnmceted breeg of me ureuva Feel Ceo.
- W Atps Idad Aeros le P4 e Ineerarimened hero of 9%Amearess.ag med We=* MW:*e*a' Praetene el spie { WllIappl Cefle " NUME G 0118 !bes 1 to 4 4 5s41243, and f*e 'D.oressma of Commisen Aegeeeng the Es+eise* mental bones of ice Awesorameng e=4 nage Mene.pment s I Perocrit ref $a LWW Feel Cygte ' B0014$G 0216 ibop i to W A$6e 1248 p. fine gar $Rstetudet from fepensemag mene mensomment and fespokestatsene of egetes me semineesositips es$er e Sie toed bsel to e ese'%ef and ei wee 48ee4 twe and rDbeethee easts fearn e opertet W uith P 2 hee' tYtten kertriseadEt emis ePd Re 80Cv4W1 Ille tenerstaaten frasm tsariteter%elsep escluet tretwe*Leset of es tantHbend as tense $ 4 el 984 Il 201g! I8te sentpasattiebt fa ere $te *Weef I met of Ihe tisM (Wale are peon re Sediament & 1 of testle & H 00 # A5te 1745 s
#Ihe coper Dieben$ Ab fampeart99 8.egsseetstWd haped legase segnmemung me $4f peeeet d esteM ese t 16dte the eeei$dete Watsotery erutspect artet#46 80 etr1Een of shef**e De getapet teetteet j toeIns leti ve se 5i seertoes fe 30 ye II. FEsHhatd af0WeMet beeed ope 4 tenItt190H el e'es'ede#% $9sI Im $88 8$88e*499tel I I h55 bes# staewcas get egP eid P8etent
' Gee <=e e8*ue44 teen eesse emissement convisumie samut si seeeeem *eva notd tesh i to n8two u 1 eseadatasa pee e,ined toes esipomment ** este eeive evasier veas ses me seeiniem ene, ses vos aptnen flut toestringstuest suas the ne ete4 gee gsness ve ! E pergge essn Per essepe gese aff pastselssp6af geeeems eMlwertti teakut Aes gotas speesesgns (suqtretart amenet ] 70 pe, sept seen (vased esupp i to e4SepW U $ pehWeesen ese SWIude fe t seg,eeemeng et eeSpeeme peerde tem f an ese e % 0 002 oct of one escae aaneel men keemad sesaman dos to m.: popuiseen 6 wee evenecea.as searass steo etnem J10 persies som 'speel hadeist ene need el J M sereisse som te eMe w U.E peendetae *** woo sem 66 e= esereeman for sie anisennesese of efsase loroep eues se smeevanels ist e gro,p Tam, s
af e# smenuedire sea Sepes&etion gruesp ad 10:10 pe<isse mese en sese.se e dame of 9 001 som il embemos 6 e of 2 peopeo eroe to ease,ee a eine est 0 & seni 200 esekeeni) een i sne intal sense. <eas dose en eerA gee emeld by I peegert repia Ine show et out setessee U g papieseisme shee to areamy eeteece tea pes,ad e abateam a emmel 2810 ' eerter> eene peo year fite C0. vim senes : fnam enwesentA ttsteetteet use one el au'veed esede lhead en LWft IN'JR8 G dim?) eneserei a messie=sts emesse et anoise 4anse C, of Rm 227 enen semicinue.ent
- sews ei.a.ng me eestassed ettstst4 0002 esso isiessees s
r Set ptedth4g spsWbts 99 edagesq $@ ppgest gege (hpeal Ml etd see 1EhfSun$ eeP9tbDE mea,e 100 m essa stesse mash I of a was et asianst $10 petite > eosin liraus tese k we attue U $ poses eee tre* esupos h,se seassesentent 5 et etese 4 gne Lapwiid reegesipi.al ee., e, ,e,e,esi.e .ee 489teene lunmie egeupaveneing
.e., e e e.,me- .. .e..e ei.e densi e e.mee msetemees'une,fie.e
. ,e - ets .tese u.s t.he hatt00e*49e ees,t.eeee -e.e.,seinereute see ~,. ee 14,e* 10mse e* ,,e ,sson+eist u s p.,,,,e,,e. festal
,e, _teuslyl e, ,,se,to effsete (1,,3 papideais cou6eshfesghed$ e DeGeegees toGregr vee, Tb, essse se + 0 00M eve o8 she eteesee meew*al hedyssend emitetten dame te mes pieutecosi M91* $PCM#F fl, I99 af*EW4rhde to the Chelren48 DI thf# A'l$ Pa'te I, Dr, Pol ter l'. M r**46 An 0#415 Ienel QP(Ptolsel
- l s' H(ttfe'V8 Pe i8te A4 0 kiMeinsemf l y MI4 that ge>4e l", r3 l19d %ub$ t A4t \ J] 468ei(Ifb#1 41 to th@ (Offf(IRA 4% fl thl$ Y4lu@.
ehtfet (stetr4ry leng t rset t letit fM tite Qnsteli$ico, tPs prMeet valor 1 st (kl$ re e l191 I@le S(,laelst omt',$till l* gl e#m ef f e(1 {1M), NIN0 h $ A d,IMO $0;, l ThrM '!1le lqlgn4 81u( \ gA P $ ta t (sie, (typi t Nrt , 2) , $[ M . 4'A , fW l
-- ~ . . - ..- - -. . .~ . , -. - - ,
S.5-33 (4200 acres),* which is'slightly smaller than' the total land commitment for ACNGS. Considering , common classes of land use in the United States, the fu' land requirement related to the j operation of ACNGS does rit constitute a significant;' '
-1 The annual total water use and thermal effluents assoc 'h fuel-cycle operations to' support '
a 1000-MWe LWR are, respectively, about 4.2 x 10' '(i gal) and 3500 x 103 Btu. The corresponding annual water use and thermal output iCNC. , . uming an 80% capacity factor, are 8.6 x 107 m3 (23 x 109 gal) and 56,125 x 109 Btu r _ ectively. The staff finds these quantities of indirect water consumption and thermal loadings to be acceptable relative to the use of water and thermal discharges at the power plant. Electrical .enetgy and pro' cess heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process. The electrical energy is usually produced by'the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. As indicated in Table S.5.19, electrical energy associated with the fuel cycle represents less than ST, of the annual. electrical power production of a typical 1000-MWe nuclear plant. Process heat is generated primarily by the' combustion of natural gas. As noted in Table-5.5.19.. this gas consumption, if used to generate electricity, would be less tnan 0.3% of the electrical output from a 1000-MWe plant. The staf f finds,'therefore, that both the direct and' indirect consumptions of electrical energy for fuel-cycle operations are small and acceptable relative to the net power production of the plant. The quantities of semical gaseous and particulate effluen's associated with fuel-cycle processes are given in Table.S.5.19. ihe principal species are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particu-lates. Based upon data in a CEQ report.21 the staff finds that these emissions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading in comparison to these emissions from the stationary fuel-combustion and transportation sectors in the United Statest that is, approxi-mately 0.02% of the annual (1974 base) national releases for each of these species. The staff believes such small increases in releases of these pollutants are acceptable. Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel-cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment, fabrication, and reprocessing operations and may be released to receiving waters. These efflu-ents are usually present in dilute concentrations so that only small amounts of dilution water l are required to reach levels of concentrations that are within established standards. Table 5.5.19 specifies the flow of dilution water required for specific constituents. Additionally, ( all liquid discharges into the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the fuel-cycle operations will be subject to requirements and limitations set forth in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by an appropriate Federal regulatory agency. Tallings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions and solids are not released in sufficient quantities to have a significant impact upon the environment. Radioactive effluents released to the environment estimated to result from reprocessing and waste-management activities and other phases of the fuel-cycle process are set forth in Table 5.5.19. It is estimated that the overall gaseous dose commitment to the U.S. population from the total fuel cycle for a 1000-MWe reference reactor would be approximately 370 man-rems per year, This dose is less than 0.002% of the average natural background dose of approximately 20 million man-rems to the U.S. population. Based on Table S.5,19 values, the additional dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid effluents due to all fuel-cycle f operations would be approximately 100 man-rems per year for a 1000-MWe reference reactor. ' Thus, the overall estimated annual involurlary dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle for a 1000-MWe LWR is approximately 470 man-rems.** The occupational dose attributable to the reprocessing and waste-management portions of the fuel cycle is 22.6 man-rems per reference-reactor year. Tne quantities of buried radioactive material (including low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes) are specified in Table S.5.19. For low-level wastes, which are buried at land burial
*The temporarily'comitted land at the reprocessing plant is not prorated over 30 years . -I because the complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years. (See footnote b to Table S.5.19.)
**As noted in Table S.S.19, the entry for radon-222 excludes the contribution from mining.
Footnote e to Table S.S.19 indicates a maximum release of about 4800 Ci of randon-222 when con-tributions from mining are considered. This, in turn, would increase the estimated dose commit- f ment for the ' total fuel cycle by some 600 man-rems per reference-reactor year, maximized for the fuel cycle, it is still small Lompared to the natural background exposure level of some 20 million man-rems per year.
S.5-34 facilities, the Commission notes in Table S-3 of '10 CFR Part 51.20 that there will be no significant effluent to the environment. For high-level ar" transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that these are to be buried at a Federal repository, and in accordance with Table S-3 of
'10 CFR Part 51.20, no release to the environment is associated with such disposal. NURE G-Ol l 6, which provides t,ackground and context for the new values established by the Con 1ission, indicates ;
that these buried wastes, which are placed in the geosphere, are not released to the biosphere and no radiological environmental impact is anticipated from them. The transportation dose to workers and the public is specified in Table S.5.19. This dose is small and is not considered significant in comparison to the natural background dose. i The use of a fuel cycle entailing no recycle (neither plutonium nor uranium) would not affect this discussion because the Commission has considered such a cycle in developing the values given in Table S.S.19 (see footnote a) with respect to reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes. The contribution to the impacts described was maximized for eitb' of the fuel cycles; that is, the cycle with the greatest impact was used.* 5.5.6 SOCI0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS This section contains updated material to the FES findings associated with the possible local and regional socioecc1omic impacts from ACNGS operation. It is concluded that socioeconomic impacts will be minor except for significant increases in the local property tax base (Sect. S.3.4.5) and for the addition of the proposed Allens Creek recreational area,
%.5.6.1 Physical impacts in Sect. 5.6 of the FES (pp. 5-36 and 5-37), detailed consideration is given to (1) the visual impact of the station design, (2) the effects of station operating noise, and (3) the impact of increased fogging and icing fron the cooling lake. With the exception of tne elimination of the 100-m stack along the cooling lake shore (FES, Fig. 3.1), the visual impact will be essentially the same for either station design. Similarly, the staff's assessments of Station operating noise and the effects of increased fogging and icing from the cooling lake for the station remain valid in view of the proposed design changes.
The staf f therefore concludes for either station that (1) although the plant and the cooling lake dam will present an intrusion into an otherwise rural landscape, the creation of a large-surface water body in a region where few lakes exist will mitigate the adverse visaal impact; (2) although the noise levels created by the plant may be distinguishable to the nearest resi-dents during nighttime, they will not be disturbing because they will be below the 45- to 65-dB( A) "normally acceptable" level established by HUD; and (3) the total impact of the presence of the cooling lake with regard to average temperature, relative humidity, and frequency of fogs is expected to be minimal. 1 S.5.6.2 Social and economic impacts 5.5.6.2.1 Emp,lopent benefits The applicant estimates that approximately 100 persons will be needed to operate ACNGS (ER Suppl., Table 58.1-5). After examining operations work forces at other plants, the staff 4 believes this figure is low and that about 125 persons will, in fact, be needed for operation. The applicant further states that secondary employment resulting from ACN35 operation will generate over 300 jobs within the Houston cetropolitan region and in the State of Texas (ER Suppl., Table 58.1-5). The staff concurs with this estimate and understands that rest of this employment will be generated. outside tte local area. Or.ly a few local jobs are expected to be created from the operation of ACNGS. S.5.6.2.2 Estimated income for plant operation The applicant estimates that the averag! annual salary of opera tions workers in 1985 will be
$24,500 (ER Suppl., Table 58.1-5). Because the staf f assumes that approximately 125 workers will be enployed, this represents an estimated first year payroll of $3.,062,500, and a 30-year present worth direct income ef fect of 548 million (5% escalation,10% discount rate). The
*7Is noted in Table S.5.19, the entry for radon-222 excludes the contribution f rom mining.
Footnote a to Table S.5.19 indicates a maximun release of about 4800 Ci of radon-222 when con-tributions from mining are considered. This, the turn, would increase the estimated dose commit-ment for the total fuel cycle by some 600 man-rems for reference-reactor years, maximized for the fuel cycle, it is still small compared to the natural background exposure level of some 20 million non-rems per years.
e S.5-35
~
staf f believes an income level of $24,500 will be considerably higher than that to be paid.to most other local area residents in 1985. Income estimates from the U.S. Census show that in 1974, for example, Austin County's per capita income was $3,149, as compared to $4,188 for the State of Texas.22 Austin County's per capita income estimates in 1974 were also considerably
- lower than those for the four surrounding counties - Colorado, f ort Bend, Waller, and Sharton.
A recent survey of buying power in July 1977 shows that the median household " effective buying income" in Austin County was $8,645 compared to $16,289 for the Houston-Galveston area. The staff concludes that much of the generated income from operations workers' salaries will be dispersed throughout the Houston metropolitan area and will not accrue directly to the local communities within the vicinity of the plant. i S.5.6.2.3 Recreation benefits i The applicant, in cooperation with the Texas Park and Wildlife Department, is developing plans for a public recreational area at the Allenx Creek site that will include a 640 acre park and the 5000 acre Allens Creek Lake. Only 4000 lake acres will be available for public use, however, because of exclusion zone requirements. The Texas Park and Wildlife Department will have responsibility for operJting Jnd maintaining the area. A description of the proposed recreta-tional facitilities can be found in the Water Development Plan, Allens Creek Lake and State Park.15 Several regional factors indicate that demand for a park / lake area is high and that such demand will likely increase. The proposed park is 45 miles west of metropolitan Houston; the population within a 50 mile radius of the park site is projected to increase over 1970 levels by 397, in 1985 and 89; in 2000 (S.2.1.2, Table S.2.2). Such growth will increase l competition for available land; however estimates indicate that less than 9% of the land in metropolitan Houston is currently undeveloped.15 In such a growing urban center it is unlikely that large recreational parks will be the generated land use for limited developable acreage. Current availability of recreational areas in the region will also influence the demand for such facilities. The proposed park will be located in the Texas Park and Wildlife Department Planning Region 24 which currently has an average facility unit to population ratio well below the statewide average. Region 24 has 15.3 recretational acres per 1.000 population; and Region i 25, which includes metropolitan Houston, has 3.1 recreational acres per 1,000 population.15 Both l Regions are significantly L,elow the statewide average of 148.2 acres per 1.000 population. Based upon an inventory of visitations at Huntsville Lake Somerville, Martin Dies, Jr., and Stephen Austin-State Parks during 1973-1974, the Texas Park and Wildlife Department estimated that at least 400,000 visitors annually would use the proposed Allens Creek park / lake facility.15 This estimate is also consistent with the staff's testimony accepted by the Atomic Safety and I Licensing Board in their Partial Initial Decision.25 The staff judges this estimate to be con-servative yet reasonable. Table 5.5.20 presen's two additional estimates of visitor days by the National Economic Research Association of New York which assume a 4000 acre lake and of fering amounts of competing recreational acre lake and differing amounts of competing recreational acreage. The predictive model from which these visitor estimates were generated omits the potentially important variable of per capita incame and thus probably conservatively estimates the demand for a park. In light of the projected population growth within the area, the limited supply of recreational acreage and the proximity to Houston, the staff concludes that demand for a lake / park recreation area is relatively high. For the reasons stated above the staff concludes that the projected visitor days in Table 5.5.20 are reasonable if somewhat conservative. The staff concludes that the construction of the Allens Creek Lake and State Park is one of the most attractive benefits to be gained from construction of the nuclear facility. The proposed reservoir will provide a wide range of water-oriented activities, and the 259-ha (640+ acre) state park will provide a much needed area for icking, hiking, and camping. Currently, many Houston residents lack such facilities wi omuting distance. The development of these recreational facilities will not only b local area residents, but will also provide increased recreational resources for much of egional population. The staff further concludes that the in-migratio:1 of such a large number of visitors into the area may provide new opportunities.for economic growth for the local communities. The staff suggests, however, that any economic development which takes place proceed with caution. Rapid and unchecked economic growth accompanying resort development may create problems for the indigenous population if left unplanned (see ref. 24, for example).
.- . - ~ _ . . . . . . . . , _ ~ - . ., - ~ - . - . . . , .
5.5-36 Teble 5 5.20. Predicted visitor days for proposed Allem Creek Lake and State Park: 1985-2014 Wsitor days (m tNmsands)' Year Case 1" ' Case 2' ' 1985 728 614 1986 .731 617 a 1987 734 619 1988 '37 622 1989 739 624 1990 742 626 '
'1991 749 632
'1992 756 638 1993 762 644 1994 768 .649 1995 774 655 l 1996 780 660
, 1997 " 786 665 1998 791 670 1999 797 675 2000 802 68o 2001 809 686 2002 816 693
- 2003 823 $99 '
2004 829 704 ? 2005 835 710 2006 842 716 2007 848 721 2008 853 727 , 2009 859 732 4 2010 865 737 2c11 871 743 2012 876 748 2013 882 753 2014 887 759 i
'Estimatet we for visitations by Mrsom with.
in 50 miles of the site 6 Assumes a competeg acreage of 18.050 acres.
' Assumes a compet ng screage of 518.050 acres.
Sovce: E R Supot., Table $8.1-10. S.S.6.2.4 Conclusions The staff concludes that' the major socioeconomic impacts during plant operation will be an in-crease.in the local tax base (Sect. S.4.4) and in added recreational facilities for the areas. Few operations workers are expected to reside locally; most will probably commute from the western suburban areas of Houston. ' Very little impact on local institutions or public services will occur. The operation of the facility may indirectly induce some growth in the local area, but most growth will occur from other economic and social activities in the region and from.the continued western suburbanization of the greater Houston metropolitan area, Of the local benefits 4111 be the construction and development of the Allens Creek Lake and i- State Park. This' recreational facility will benefit' both local residents and the regional population withir the Houston area. l l
___ . . _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _._.._ _ __m _ - .
- l. S.5 !
REFEREGCES FOR SECTION 5.5 i
- 1. Rural Electrification Administration, " Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Effects of-
' Overhead Transmission Lines," RSA Full. es-4,1976,
- 2. J. M. Loar, J. S. Grif fith, and K. D. . Kumar, An Analycie of Factors Influencing fish Impingement at Fouer Plante in the Southeaatern United States, ORNL/TM (in press).
- 3. B. R. Parkhurst and H. A. McLain, An Dwironmental Aseecament of Cooling Rcservoirs, ORNL/TM (in press).
4 P. J, Ryan and D. R. F. Harleman, An Analytical and Experimental Study of Transient
- CooZing Pond Behavior, Report No.161, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
January 1973.
- 5. W. Neill, Texas A & M, College Station,' Tex. , personal communication, September 1977.
- i. 6. R. Bounds, Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, Austin, Tex. , personal communication, I September 1977.
- 7. W. A. Brungs, " General Considerations Concerning the Toxicity to Aquatic Life of .
Chlorinated Condenser Effluent," In Fiofouling Control Procedurca, Loren D. Jensen, Ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc. , New York, pp. 109-113.
- 8. A. R. Stevens, R. C. Tyndall, C. C. Coutant, and E. Willaert, " Isolation of the Etiologic Agent of Primary Amoebic Meningoen Chephalitis from Artifically Heated Waters," J. Appl.
Dw. Microbiol. (in press).
- 9. H. E. Zittel and S. G. Hildebrand, Testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467. U.S. Nuclear Reguiatory Commission, In the matter of: !!auston Lighting and Prxer Car"pany, Aliena Creek Ku: lear Generating Station, Unita 1
,. and 2 - ikaringo at Watlie, Texas, Mar. 11-12, 13??. l
- 10. J. S. Mattice and H. E. Zittel, " Site-Specific Evaluation of Power Plant Chlorination,"
J. Water Pollut. Cc-ntrol Fed. 40(10): 2284-2308 (1976). l 11. A. S. Brooks and G. L. Seegert, "The Toxicity of Chlorine to Freshwater Organisms Under Varying Conditions," in The Dwironmentat Impact cf Water Cnlorination Conference Proceedings, R. L. Jolley, Ed. , ORNL, ERDA, EPA, NTIS, CONF-751096,1976, pp. 277 ,98.
- 12. J. G. Truchan, " Toxicity of Residual Chlorine to Freshwater Fish: Michigan's Experience,"
in Biofcaling Contral Proacdurcs, L. D. Jensen, Ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1977, pp. 79-89.
- 13. Texas Water Quality Board, Texas Water Quality Standards, Austin, Tex. , February 1976.
- 14. H. G. Bergman, EPA Region VI, letter to F. W. Conrad Esquire. ,
- 15. Dames and Moore, Inc., h m er Deve bpnent Plan: Allene Creek Lake and State Fark, for Houston Lighting and Power Company, Houston. -Tex. , November 1974,
- 16. h2n Safety Analyste Report, Docket No. STN 50-532, June 27,1975, p.12,1-56.
- 17. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
- 18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cecupational Radiation E.cpcaure to Light Water CooZed Reacters 19F3-7074 NUREG 75/032 June 1975.
- 19. B. G. Blaylock and J. P. Witherspoon, " Radiation Doses and Effects Estimated for Aquatic Biota Exposed to Radioactive Releases from LWR Fuel-Cycle Facilities," Vaa?. Safety 17:351 (1976).
- 20. The Effecte on Populatione of Exposure to !w Levela of Ionizing Radiation, (BEIRReports),
NAS-NRC, 1972. 21, Council on Environmental Quality, The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Envirowwntal q Cuality, September 1976, Figs.11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-39. t
S.5.38
- 22. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Omrent ForaZathn Report, Series P-25, No. 691. April 1977.
- 23. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch Texas Mdoor Rcewation Plana 1980-1985, Austin, Tex.
- 24. J. C. Dobson, The Clayin) Control of Econorsic Activity in the CatWituy, Tenneesec, Area, 1930-1973, doctoral dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. , fiarch 1975.
- 25. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Partial Initial Decision as to Some Environmental and Site Suitability Matters in the Matter of Houston Lighting and Power Company, November 1975, Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467.
2 l i T l l
_ _ = _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . S 6. ENVIRON:lENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS The applicant's environmental measurements and monitoring programs are described in the FES (Sect. 6). Since the publication of the ER and the FES, the applicant made available the results of the year-long baseline biological surveyl conducted on the Allens Creek site between November 1973 and November 1974, and the final results of the meteorological measurements program (con-sisting of onsite meteorological data for August 1972 through July 1975). These results (which were included in the staff's analyses in Sect. S.4 and 5.5) coupled with major changes in the station oesign (Sect. S.3) provide a basis for further evaluation of the proposed future moni-toring (ER, Sect. 6.0) In the ER Supplement (Sect. S6.1), the applicant provides a description of the modifications to be made to the preoperational environmental program. Notable in the revisions is a reduction.in the number of biotic sampling stations as well as the relocation of various stations; both of these revisions were necessitated by the revised lake design. Figure S.6.1 shows the aquatic, surface-water, and groundwater monitoring stations, and Fig. S.6.2 shows the terrestrial monitor-ing stations, Moreoever, the frequency of measuring the physical and chemical parameters, pesti-cides, and heavy metals has been modified (ER Suppl., Table S6.1-1). In addition, the applicant has proposed a radiological environmental monitoring program to meet the objectives discussed in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev.1 " Programs for Monitoring Radio-activity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants," and in the Radiological Assessment Branch Technical Position. August 1977, " Standard Technical Specification for Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program." The applicant's proposed preoperational radiological environmental moni-toring program is presented in Sect. 6.1.5 of the ER and sumarized here in Table S.6.1. The applicant proposes to initiate parts of the program two years prior to operations of the facility, with the remaining portions beginning either 6 months or one year prior to operation. The staff has evaluated the applicant's proposed monitoring (preoperational) programs for the Allens Creek site and concludes that they are generally broad enough in scope for the environ-mental effects of the site preparation and plant cons'ruction, and the potential impacts of plant operation to be assessed adequately. However, the fellowing changes and additions are recommended to improve the ef fectiveness of the aquatic monitoring program:
- 1. A one-time adult fish sampling program should be conducted in the Brazos River to gather data on heavy metal bloaccumulation in resident fish species. Trace elements to be analyzed include those shown in Table 5.2.6; these are cd, Cu, Te, Pb, Ni, Hg, and Zn. Fish tissue analysis should be reported by species and should include both muscle (e.g., axial muscle) and fatty tissue. Replication should be sufficient for adequate statistical treatment of the reported data.
- 2. Brazos River water should be sampled for an additional year on a monthly basis to determine heavy metal contamination, both particulate and dissolved fractions. Trace elements to be analyzed should include those given in Table S.2.6.
- 3. Fecal colifom and fecal streptococci should be monitored on a monthly basis for one year in the Wallis sewage discharge area (sampling station A3 of the BMPR or sampling station L8 in ER Supplement. Fig. $6.1-1). This will allow for further assessment of potential impacts of treated sewage discharge into the southern arm of the proposed cooling lake.
- 4. The applicant has proposed to sample for larval, juvenile, and adult fish entrained during lake filling (ER Suppl., Sect. 56.1.1.2.3) as presented in the FES (Sect. 6.1.3.2), If makeup water pumping is proposed for those months when spawning activity occurs in the Brazos River (approximately March to July), the applicant should include an ichthyoplankton drif t study at the makeup water intake structure location. This study should include densities and cross-sectional distributions in the river.
S.6-1
.n -
r
** E14J03 g
s,N -
\N',f.
#'~~.
~ W h.
p- [x j l '
,/ N -am ,/ .1j k j; .
e s, p.- y -
~ '
.'j Al 1 QyTf' p = '
/
5 .t~wN w %.x'sY -.. j- U J'^ \ sz 'N w i y I wm
, ,h %y q \ O a .= n == ana a m .o j z ,
q N O
..r.nima r4
- usv aan v
/
q ( \ N
/
-) - - . r, o. . m %
* - ~ ~ - - += =
.s .
g - . g u ru,< v,tu.x
. === v.w 3p 4)\
, p t \, ,fl_
x/ - . .
<y ,-wx.7 , ~q,- . ,
;.g ,~ w
'y a g { '7 .q.) ' .
\\-1 -
ks .. m
. ~ ;,
-- 9@w.pyh g -
-=.-
s / --
\,
$\. , /,,
_- ' ,( }Svf,,,. 3 f- \\ '_'.
.. . . . ...f*ia
. l;*n,; *;,_
,k
\,
s . v\e ,4 ' /y s
.,.hj.\,
A / /
, ,, .l/I .
ja,
,a t
/ . , . .j
\
\
s k.. u._ y t g .., ,
. , y), i .,9 -
s a,, -$', ,i?:h Y / Y ~
._ s x% 4,.m._
r 2
.N/ -
/
/
/
t / l 3. t
. '1 -,..'A-%
e y :-
+
~ N[s d M
\. . . u .- . - - .
.,g Fig. S.6.1. Aquatic, surface-water, and ground monitoring stations for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Source: ER Supplement, Fig. 56.l-1.
r
*, ES 4204 M
, \ a
$. k, [i j
i
! m x ut N :;,r N
i W: s
, - ---w
.-.y e
^; -'
f X -\g jg l i /%fy L! 's L '? tze
}%fg5 .Q_h t~g
.l ys m y 4
/
c. A_ ),I d 1, N'x'g _ dg f{ G ELEAH:ML A445
- 1 ss O traus:rm ao astecia aara f
j q ae O caa.:w tai aan q/ g ,,.. N -- enter uu a uv et 7
/ \. / ..' \ , a a:snna eatuna smus s '. \ ,/ sinnas t -
\ 0 y,c' i
-( 4 dJ d' [
>\
, mis
..::. .Q
/ ,n,' ~M., -
; O. ~,
} 3 Y /
3
, 8 ,
~e s. .. \
2 9 ,. ~ep - p - N, .* e m
-W.,'\_
y , Q. m T m s 9. -
.? , 3,
, ,-- (-
j-
= :: .\m - s. as Y.y\,, .. _.p
-,'/,.
s%. g ,
- /'
Q94, , )~ :Q ~ ~ ~ / ~'
.c v
y\ppy~r' n -j z-s@ -
;;1. .::.:.,s;a",:.::i ..%;":fd,'g .
_' , a ll -% r
%?bR>% o}lr< '
%~na- J p\y
,a f 3- .
y,x d,c-- 2 ,
~-..
n [3--
.'.-f s) x ', / 1
% s. ) m.g: . ,
~y .y- = -: - c:9 " _ _ ~_ _ . . . . . . .
; , . y >
Fig. S.6.2. Terrestrial monitoring stations for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Source: ER Supplement, Fig. 56.1-2.
S 6-4 l 1 1 l l l l l Table S.6.1.' Radiological program Exposure pathway Approximate number and Collection Analysis type and and/or sample their locations frequency frequency Direct radiation (TLD) ' ' 7 - Each air sampling location Quarterly and Gamma dose quarterly 3 - Site perimeter annually and a'nnually 2 - Recreation (shoreline) areas
' 15 - See E R, Sect. 6.1.5.1 Air iodine 3 - 4.5 miles N,3.5 miles S. 4.5 miles Weekly 1-131 weekly NNW (three sectors with highest A/0)
' 1 - Residence wtth highest x!O I - Wallis 1 - Sealy l 1 - Approximately 20 miles SE of plant I in least prevalen'. wind directton)
Aa particulate Same as air iodine Weekly Beta (af ter 24 hr) weekly; gamma isotopic monthly: St 89, Sr 90 quarterly Surface water 2 - Cooling take near recreation areas Monthly Gamma isotopic rnonthly; 2 - Bratos River St-89, Sr 90, and tritium quarterly Groundwater 2 - Wells most likely to be affected Quar terly Gamma isotopic and and used for drinking water tritium quarterly Drinking water 1 - Wallss (well water) Quarterly Gross beta, gamma isotopic. Sr 89, Sr-90, and tiitium quarterly Milk 1 - Areas within 5 miles with milk cows Monthly 1-131, St 89, Sr 90, and where highest airborne concentrations gamma isotopic monthly ' are expected 1 - Area about 20 miles SE of plant Vegetables or 1 - Vegetable garden within 6 miles Monthly during Gamma isotopic monthly cat'le forage harvest season Fish 4 - Coolmg lake Semiannually Gamma isotopic analysis 4 - Brazos River of flesh and Sr-89 and Sr 90 in bones semi-annually Sediment, aquatic 2 - Cooling lake Semiannually Gamma isot'opic, Sr 89, plants, and benthic 2 - Brazos River and Sr-90 semiannually - organisms Deer and game bards Within 10 miles of site When available Gamma isotop'c Rice West of site At harvest Gamma isotopic Soil 7 - Each air sampling location Pnor to startup Gamma isotopic and Sr-90 5 - Farms within 5 miles and every three l years thereaf ter 1 s Meat and poultry 1 - Farm near site where ammals dnnk . Annually Gamma isotopic on from cooling lake er eat forage grown edible portions within 10 miles downwmd I l-I- t
.______1___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ , a.
S.6-5 In addition, the following changes and additions are recommended to improve the effectiveness of the radiological monitoring program:
- 1. The Brazos River water sampling station, located downstream of the cooling pond spillway (B-3), should have sampling equipment capable of collecting hourly aliquot samples relative to the compositing period.
- 2. The Wallis municipal well water sample should be collected monthly. The composite well water sample should be analyzed monthly for gross beta and gamma isotopic content. The composite water sample should be collected with the same type of equipment as described in 1 above.
J. Milk samples from milking animals when on pasture and in areas where doses are calcu-lated to be greater than 1 mrem / year should be analyzed for radiciodine and gamma isotopic semimonthly. 4 The lower limits of detection (LLD) for the radiological environmental monitoring program should be the same as those listed in Table S.6.2. Table S.6.2. Detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis Lower hmit of detection (LLD) A.rbor ne
. Water # pai t <culate Fish Milk Food products" Sed. ment
'# (pCi per hterl or gas (pCi rwr ig. weti !pCi per hteri (pCi per kg. wetl (pCi per kg, dry)
(pCi per m3 ) Gross tmta 2 1 X 10-3 3 H 330 6d Mn 15 130 "Fe 30 260 es soCo 15 130 "2n 30 260 ( " Zr -N b to 6 3'l o.5 7 X 10-2 08 25 ( '3C'3'Cs "0 15 1 X 10- 2 13o 15 80 . 150 Ba-La 15 15 r 'LLD for drinking water. 6 LLO for leafy vegetables. I i Data obtained from these monitoring programs with the staff's recommendations included should be adequate for the staff to reassess or characterize the state of the local environment prior to licensing of the station for operation. The staff also notes that the aquatic, surface wattr, and groundwater stations (Fig. S.5.1) are suitably located fnr the implementation of various operational monitoring programs, as reconmended by the staf f (Sect. S.5), to ensure that the aquatic ecosystems in the site region are not severely impacted. The operational radiological, chemical-ef fluent, thermal ef fluent, meteorological, hydrological, and ecological monitoring programs will evolve from the combination of the preoperational monitoring programs described in the applicant's ER and ER Supplement and those changes
'reconmended by the staf f. Because the present action pertains to the issuance of a construc-tion permit, detailed staff evaluation of the operational program will be done at the time of application for an operating license, and monitoring requirements will be included in the environmental technical specifications of the operating license.
REFERENCE FOR SECTION S.6
- 1. Dames and Moore, final Repor% Biologiall Manitoring Program Allcns Creek klaar Gsmwati.n] Station Site, for i!:ueton Lighting and Potxr Cc"qws Feb. 15,1975.
a g - - Awa.au2_ _-a u1.1-e-.. 2 5- 4.d- ha .2.A.,-- ssh44___Jd _ A.-,_.a L _ i- 44.-.*.44.,- :-4 , 4# I S.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS A high degree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents is provided through correct design, manufacture, and operation of ACNGS, and through the quality assurance program 3 used to establish the necessary high integrity of the reactor system; these factors will be considered in the Commission's Safety Evaluation. _ System transients. that may occur are handled '1 by protective systems to place and hold the plant in a safe condition. Notwithstanding these safeguards, the conservative postulate is made that serious accidents might occur, even though they are extremely unlikely; and engineered safety features will be installed to mitigate the consequences of those postulated events which are judged credible. In Sect. 7.1 of the FES, the staf f considered the probability of occurrence of. accidents and the spectrum of their consequences from an environmental effects standpoint, using the best l estimates of probabilities and realistic fission-product release and transport assumptions. Table 5.7.1 lists the nine classes of postulated accidents and occurrences, ranging in severity from trivial to very serious, that were evaluated. The staf f concluded (FES, p. 72) that the environmental risks due to these postulated radiological accidents would be extremely small. Table S.7.1, Classification of postulated accidents and occurrences Co on deser pt on l I Trmal mcid ints included under routine releases 2 Small releaui riuts de included under routine releases containment 3 Radioactive waste systems Equipment leakage or malfunction; fadure release of waste gas storage tank; release of Louid-waste storage tank inventory 4 Fisuon products to Fuel cladding defects and fuel; primary system (BWR) f a6 lures induced by of f des.gn k transients 5 Fission products to . Not vppbcable l primary and secondary systems (PWR) 6 Refuehng accident Fuel bundle drop; wavy ob lect drop onto fuel 7 Spent fuel handhng Fuel assembly drop on fuel storage accident pool and spent fuel sh pping cask dr op 8 Accident initiation Loss of coolant accident; rod drop events considered m accident, steamhne break; instrument design basi evaluation hne break m the $dfety Analysis Report ' 9 Hypothetical sequence of Not considered iailures more severe than Class 8
- a Source FES. Table 71 fmoddiedL S.7-1
S.7-2 The staff has reevaluated these postulated accidents and their probability of occurrence in I view of the proposed design changes (Sect. S.3) and has considered advances in analytical l methods employed for such calculations. The dose analysis was modified to consider the increase in the projected population for the year 2020, within an 80-km (50-mile) radius (as listed in the PSAR Table 2.1-4, Amendment 36) and to remove the beta skin-dose component which was included in the earlier dose estimates. As Table S.7.2, shows, these changes have resulted in i a general reduction in the estimated individual and population doses contained in Table 7.2 of j the FES. These results indicate that the realistically estimated radiological consequences of I the postulated accidents to an individual assumed to be at the site boundary would result in exposures that are less than those which would result from 0 year's exposure to the maximum ; petriissible concentrations (MPC) of 10 CFR Part 20. Table S 7.2 also shows the estimated ) integrated exposure from each postulated accident of the population within 80 km (50 miles) of l the plant. Any of these integrated exposures would be much smaller than those from naturally < occurring radioactivity. When considered with the probability of occurrence, the annual potential radiation exposure of the population from the postulated accidents is an even smaller fraction of the exposure from natural background radiation and, in fact, is well within naturally occurring variations in the natural background. It is concluded from the results of the realistic analysis that the environmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small and need not be considered further.
. Table s.7.2. Summary of radblogical consequences of postulated accidents
- Estimated fraction of to CFR Part 20 Estimated dose to population m Ch M Um t at site boundary 80 km (so m'le) rad,us (man rems)
Io T mal modents c c 2o Sma4 releasm outs.de contaement c c 3o Radaaste system f ailures
- 3. I Eampment leakage or maHunct.on o007 2.1 32 Helease of waste gas stcaage tank mventory o 028 87 )
3.3 Relea e of hymd waste storage tank mventory <o 001 o 029 4.o F,ssron products to premary system (BWRi <o.001 0.13 4i F uenciaddmg deNcts c c 42 Of t des gn tr ans>ents that mduce tuel o.001 o 8s f adures auove those expected 5o Fas on products to ps . mary and Not apphcable Not apphcabie secondary si, stems {PWn) 6o Hefuehng accidents 61 F vet bonte deop <o001 o 046 62 Heavy object drop onto fuel in core 0.001 0.38 7o Spent bei handieng accident 7.1 Fuel awmbly dron n fuet rack o 017 o 106 72 Hear object drop onto fuel sack Not appbcable Not apphcable 73 Fu* mk drop Not apphcable Not apphcab'e 8.0 Acc+nt m.t.at.on ever:ts contdered m des.gn havs evaivat.on m the Sa4ty Analysus Report 8i Loss-ot coctant acodents Small break <o001 o 127 Large break o oil 29 1 811at Bieak m mstrument hne from pr < mary (o 00 t o006 system that perietrates the containment 8 2(a) Rod e;ect.on acc dent (PW R) Not apphcabie Not appbcable 8.2(b) Rod drop accelent (BWR) o oo16 1 26 8 3tal steamhne breaks (PWRs outud s Not appbcable Not apphcable conta nment) 8 3f b) steamline break [BWR) , Smal: break <0.001 o 28 Large break oaos 1.46
'The doses catculated as cor15euvences of the postulated accider'ts are based on a.rborne transport of red 4oactive mater.ats resultmg m both a d, rect and an mhalation dose, staf f evaruation of the accident dmes assumes that the appbcant's envuonmentat mor9tormq program and appropriate additional monitormg (which could be mitiated subsequent to a bquid release mc dent detected by m p6 ant monitoring) would de ect the prese,w. of rad,oactmty m the envronment m a timeiv manner so that remediar act on covid Le taken d necessary to om>i exposure f rom other polcutial pathways to man.
- Represents the calculated haction of a whole body dose of soo mdhrems, or the equivaient dose to an organ.
'These radionuchde releases a,e considered in developing the gaseous and bquid source terms included in the doses in Sect S 5 4
- , , -_. . .. - - . -~ . -
- - _ . _ ~ .
S.8 NEED FOR POWER GENERATING CAPACITY Major disruptions in the nation's energy markets in the form of precipitous price increases and declining availability of fossil fuels have altered energy demand patterns throughout the United States since the oil embargo of 1973 To some extent, the resulting decline in elec-tricity demand growth in the area served by HL&P is responsible for the decision to delay construction of ACNGS and to reduce the planned generating capacity of the proposed facility. Consequently, substantial revisions have been made in the demand forecasting analysis presented in the FES (Sect. 8). Since the filing of the Allens Creek ER in 1973, HL&P has modified its methodology for forecasting annual peak demand and generation. The new methodology, combined with additional historical data (Sect. S.2.1) not available when the previous forecast was sub-ntted, has produced lower projections of load growth than those contained in the ER. Originally,
.ae applicant had forecasted an average annual growth rate of electricity demand of 6.6% from 1977 through 1984 This forecast has now been reduced to 4.7%, and the applicant now projects that the 1977 system capability of 10,170 MWe must be expanded to 15.560 MWe by 1987 to meet the projected load growth (ER Suppl. , Sect. 51.1). The staff concurs with this revision in light of the changed circumstances and additional information available since the original forecast was made.
, The results of tne revised analysis of the need for additional generating capacity are reported in this section. The staff concludes that in order for HL&P to meet the projected growth rate, an additional generating capacity of about 1200 MWe will be required for the 1985 to 1987 period. S.
8.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE POWER SYSTEM i Figure S,8.1 shows the HL&P service area which occupies a 14,504-km2 (5600-sq mile) contiguous region on the Gulf Coast of Texas, and which may be roughly described as the Houston-Galveston-t Freeport Gulf Coast area. The system covers all or parts of ten counties and serves customers under franchises in 67 incorporated municipalities, including the cities of Houston, Galveston, ! Freeport, Baytown, and Pasadena. The total population for the area served is estimated at 2,755,000, which is about 20% of the population of Texas. Because of the subtropical climate of the area and the consequent high level of air-conditioning load, the peak-hour demand for the HL&P system normally occurs in June, July, and August. Tables 5.8.1 and S.8.2 present-information on heating- and cooling-degree days and peak-load fluctuations in the system, in ' 1972, an estimated 57% of the residential customers within the system had central air condi-tioning or its equivalent in room air conditioners. This saturation is expected to reach 90% by 1985 and is forecasted to approach 100% by the year 2000. Air-conditioning load is a major factor in the months April through November, and the sununer peak has typically been about 140% of the December peak. The system is expected to continue to peak during the summer. The FES (Sect. 8.1.2) contains a description of the regional relationships within the HL&P q service area. The applicant remains a member of the Texas Interconnected System (TIS). No significant changes in operating philosophy or makeup of the group have been reported in the ER Supplement. S.8.2 POWER REQUIREMENTS The HL&P serves a large industrial load, which is a major economic base for the area. Kilowatt-hour sales to the industrial class of customers have recentiv been about 51% of total kilowatt-hour sales. Sales to residential customers have been about 23%; sales to corsnercial customers have been about 20%; and sales to other public utility distribution systems have been about 6 The numbers of customers in these various classes are given in Table 5.8.3. Some of the more l important sectors by percentage of the industrial and commercial market comprising the total l kilowatt-hour sales for 1972 included chemicals, 21.4%; refining industry, 7.2%; primary metals. ' 4.9%; hospitals and health services,1.5%; and food and beverages,1.3%. S.8-1 m _ _ -__ _ __ _ - _ . - __ _ ._. ____- - .
S.8-2 ES 4202R
.: nour% oo DALLAS D i t .a TEXAS ausr>~ o ~
0 m N aw rosso N N N
\
/ 'N
\
th fERC,ONNEC 75 n'TH T1 E AS (mf m & tHrHf COMPANY '\
$4 ~
MA(.NQttA TOM 94L L , (*Q',9 v
.i , . - _ . t j
'u,wt a~n, s\ ea ,,,,.3,J,,,<,,,,
j wattra musry vittaca F= W"M i no vane p 'g ,,,, [ .h
._, ,st. .. - m .m~s -
7 l,,) eu n ea nitt ) HV4f 6H5 CA 1"'"'*
'AME
** 'y"*'-
L A ,on t $ g evtRSITY , TACE
'U.C'IY SH( ACM r.5
,g agy k i
w
--4M u ur '
y,.,6,, o,,,4
'avt"*^Nf*?'"
oa < > <rwaa suo.um a t*~osio+ g x, ,ua op .g ,x ,,,,, g,,, i t 'Aco ,,s
-m- y .
~
e t.=,, g,a c , ( g ..uw mnnsa ya A ,, 2
,,,m,,,,
mcauo=o was via : y , a w *a5"o LP g o4tve srou g%
\
,.1 % wrcex.
(/ Y NE E DVlt ti
* /
wh*AR rON $.g p ,y (.. f, I\ / \ ,d' 't
- y !
\ \
(AKE JACK $rJh mcwwooo 1
-)>
f court g I"'
/ y JONtG CRif t ,
Jy .
/
TRANSMISSION LINES: 3
-- 345 KV EXTRA HIGH VOLTAGE -[ . ,
5 138 KV HIGH VOLTAGE
------ 69 KV HIGH VOLTAGE a
i GENERATING PL ANTS ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT SITE Fig S.8.1, Houston Lighting and Power Company service area.
.. _,. -... . , . - a ~- - - . - . . - .
~'
S.8-3 . Table S 8.1. Weather variables , Co@ng & gree . Heatmg & gree Coobng degree Yter hours, hours. hours, annud* annue -- day of peak i 1970 ; 33.804 41,903 35 6 96 M1 1971 '33.593 30,680 35.0 95 247 1972 37,077 30313 33 9 93 2 73 1973 34.831 37,239 35.0 95 299 1974 34.980 31.200 34 4 94 276 1975 33.721 31,544 35 6 96 270 1976 31,550 34,496 33 9 93 289 1977 35.396 37,097 35 o 95 280 1978 35,396 37.097 35.0 95 280 1979 35.396 37,o;7 35 o 95 280 1980 35,396 37,097 35 o 95 280 1981 35,396 37,097 35.0 95 280
- Base temperature = 22.2'C (72" F).
- Base temperature
- 18.3*C (65* FI Sowce E R SupW., Appendix SH, p. SH 79.
r i i ) The applicant has one large-load customer with contract provisions set up on a limited inter- ' ruptibility basis, with a normal demand of 225 MWe. This customer has a generating capacity of i approximately five times its normal demand on the applicant. The applicant can use this load as spinning reserve because the customer can absorb interruptions with his own generation (ER, '
- p. 1,1-3A). Contract provisions allow this load to be reduced to zero cemand during an agreed number of hours at the discretion of HL&P.
Table 5.8.4 presents historical data on the annual use and peak-hour demand for electricity in the HL&P service area. From 1963 through 1976, annual demand grew from 13,213,000 to 43,355,000 MWhr. Annual growth rates over this period ranged from a low of 4.1% in 1974 to a high of 13.6% in 1965, with the average annual growth rate equal to 9.6%. Prior to 1973, the average annual growth rate was 11.2%, whereas the post-1973 figure is 5.9%. Peak-hour demand
~
grew from 2bl6 to 8019 MWe from 1963 through 1976, with annual percentage growth rates ranging 4 from' a low of 4.6% in 1975 to a high of 15.2% in 1969. The average annual growth rate in peak-hour demand over this period was 9.4t, with a pre-1973 average of 10.2% and a post-1973 average i of 7.5%. Trends of past electricity U.,e are helpful in assessing future use levels. In addition, forecasts of energy. demand are influenced by trends in income, population, and employment. . Forecastsl of ; these factors.in the applicant's service area (Table S.8.5) show continued growth, but at a declining rate. An additional factor affecting future demand is the type of industrial activity; the petrochemical industries, natural gas processing, and petroleum sectors - all heavily represented. In the applicant's service area - show some of the highest growth rates of the nation's manufacturing industries.2 5.8.2.1 Applicant's forecasts The applicant currently maintains a forecast of kilowatt-hour energy sales and peak-hour demands extending 20 years into the future; this forecast is reviewed and updated annually. A separate
~
forecast of kilowatt-hour sales is made for each of 11 different groups of customers, who are grouped primarily on the basis of rate schedule. For one of the forecasted groups, consisting of about 70 of the largest industrial customers, estimates are made individually for the first five years. These estimates are based on data supplied by the customers and are modified using information such.as specific market conditions and present and future plant expansions, In forecasting beyond five years, group forecasts are , used. . Estimates are made on the basis of the long-term trend toward increased electrical use ! in local industry. Relationships are then established between this trend and that of expected employment trends for the area. For the first five years, estimates of kilowatt-hour use by. the public utilities class are obtained directly from the Comunity Public Service Company. Extrapolation of the bistorical growth trend was used after five years. For the municipal street lighting class, the number of lamps is derived.from the number of households and is then '3 mul tiplied .by.. kilowatt-hour use. '
I l Table S 8.2. Texas Interconnected Systems and Houston Lightmg and Power Company peak-hour demands: 1963 through 1972 Yeady pesb Monthly peak hous demands (MWi# Year hour demand - -- Jamar y February March April May June July A ugust September Octobes November December (MW) 1963 HL&P" 2.516 1.503 1.461 1.637 1.980 2,200 2.378 2.469 - 2.508 2.516 2.017 1,751 - 1.617 TIS" 8.501 e c e e c c c c c c c c 1964 HL&P 2.778 1.602 1.585 1.621 2.016 2.337 2.576 2.707 2,778 2,756 2227 2,050 1.909 Tis 9.367 e c c e c c c c c c c c 1965 HL&P 3.039 1.842 1.921 2.023 2.274 2.614 2.875 3.039 3.029 3.031 2.482 2219 2.084 i Tts 9.896 e c c c. c c c c c c c, c , i 1966, HL&P 3.338 2.114 2.069 .2,171 2,570 2.962 3.157 3.325 3.338 3.268 - 3.027 2.478 2.393 TIS - 11.087 e e e e e c c c c_ c c c HL&P . 2.256 2.611 3.152 3.462 4.712 3.774 3.896 3.558 3.296 2.718 2,842 1967 3.752 2.268 . TIS 18.308 e c e c c e c c 9,990 9.535 7.850 8.038 to 1968 HL&P 4.076 2.620 2.551 2.580 3.066 3.727 4.122 4.152 4260 4.096 3.834 3.196 2.893 b3 TIS 13.257 7.788 7.878 7.488 8.498 10.702 c 18.784 13.263 18.854 11.100 9204 8.863 1 1969 HL&P 4.701 2.885 2.779 2.806 3.396 4.077 4.686 4.849 4.921 4.756 4290 3.696 3253 TIS 15.680 8.388 e 8.497 9.571 c 14.760 15.581 ' 15.827 14.861 18.609 10.299 9.800 1970 HL&P 5.069 . 3.230 3.167 3.108 4.230 - 4.335 4.966 5.134 5 229 5.104 4.577 3.463 3.708 TIS 16.410 10.087 9.870 9.498 11,790 12,227 15.340 16.240 16.589 15.946' 13.361 10.351 10.776 1971 HL&P 5.308 3.625 3.404 3.817 4.481 - 5.058 5.443 5.530 5.361 5,328 5.163 4.737 4.287 TIS 10.785 10.270 10.883 12.943 14.902 16.558 17.584 16 821 17,413 14.938 18 868 -11.484 17.614 1972 HL&P 6,010 4.092 3.928 4.823 5.110 5.526 6.201 5.982 6.238 6.131 5.662 4 963 4.357 TIS 19.366 12.115 11.229 12.609 15.606 16.573 19.363 18.667 e 19 150 17.181 13.247 13.188
- Houston Ligh ting and Power Company.
- Texas interconnected systems.
# information not awaalable for reference period, dMonthly peak-hour demands include interruptible load, wher eas yearly peak-hour demand does not
. . _ . . . - .- . _ _ _ _ - . . .~ . _ , .
l i ( S;8 Table S.8.3. Number of customers by class: - December 1976 Numtwr of customers Residential 663.095 Commercial 94.556 Industrial 1.353-Government and municipal 75 i Public utilities 6 Total 759,085 i Source' ER Suppl., Appendex SH, p. SH 70. 1 ( Table S.8.4. Historical annual usage and peak hour demands, 1963-1976 y Annual demand Peak-hour demand (July 1) Annual demand MWhr, ' Annual demand Net peak-hour demanf Annual increase
' in thousands growth rate W! (MWe} (MWel ' (%)
1963 13.213 2.516 1964 14.368 8. 7 2,778 262 10.4 1965 16,328 13 6 3,039 261 9.4 1966 18,258 11.8 3,338 299 . 9.8 1967 20.427 11.9 3,752 414 12.4 1968 22,966 12.4 4.076 324 86 1969 25.921 12.9 4.697 621 15.2 1970 27,741 7.0 5.067 370 7.9 1971 30,888 11.3 5,308 246 48 1972 34,468 11.6 . 6,010 702' 13.2 1973 36.694 6.5 6.4 84 474 7.9 1974 38,191 4.1 6,930 446 69 1975 40,276 55 '7.252 322 46 1976 43.355 7. 6 8.019 767 10.6 Does not include interruptible load Source ER Suppl., modif eed frorn Tables S1.11 and S1,1-2. I i l Table S.8.5. Projections of income, population, and employment for the service area
. . . .. ~ , . - . . _ _ _
Total per sonal income . capita personal income . Popt 'ation E mployment" Year M,llions of Ave: age encrease Aver age increase Average increase Average ircreaw dollae s (percent per year) - DM (percent per year) g gg, (percent per year) (percent per year) 1960 4 29 . 2536 1.7 0.6 1970 7.61 5.9 3308 77 ' 2.3 3.1 08 4.1 i 1980 13.12 56 4565 33 29. 23 ~ 1.1 25 - 1990 21.04 4.8 5821 2.4 34 6 18 1.3 6 1.7 j _ _ _ . _ _ , . , . _ . ~ . - _ _.__ _ .-_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . - . - _ -
~ ~-
"For the four major counties. Harris. Galveston, Bratoria, and Fort Bend, in the servce # ea.
6 The staff changed these projections to be consistent with Series E rather than Series O population projections of the U.S. Water Resources - Council's 1972 OBERS Projet tions, Washington, D.C., Apol 1974. Source: Texas Water Development Board, Economic Forecasts: Harris County and Vicinity, Economics Branch, Austin, Texas, March 8.1974; and F ES, T. able 8.1. I l
S.8-6 l Equations were developed that model sales for the residential, commercial, and the small industrial groups in these classes. The major elements of these equations are service area population, persons per household, price of electricity, household income, and weather conditions. The papulation forecast was constructed from a projection for the nation by the U.S Census Bureau and from assumptions as to the ratio of local area population to the U.S. po;ulation. Recent substantial revisions of population growth estimates in the Houston area since the 1970 census were incorporated. A projection of future persons per household was also made, which, ' when combined with the p7pulation, provides an estimate of the number of households for the area. The number of households then provides the basis for the number of customers in each customer group. , Household income is used as a' variable to model residential megawatt-hour sales, in-combination with the number of customers, household income captures part of the growth trend associated with acquisition and use of appliances, including air conditioning and electric heating. . The price of electricity is a variable in the equations of residential, commercial, and small , industrial use. This variable is used along with household income to capture variation in the growth trends associated with changes in the relative cost of acquiring and operating electric i equipment. Two weather variables - cooling-degree hours and heating-degree hours - are used in ) forecasting for residential, commercial, and small industrial groups. The projections of. megawatt-hour sales are based upon average weither conditions. Assumptions have also been made as to what portion of nra dwelling units.will be multifamily vs single-family units, and as to the breakdown of future individual- vs master-metered multifamily units. Af ter 1980, it was assumed that all new apartments would be individually metered and would be included in the residential class. , The applicant's original and revised forecasts of annual electricity demand for 1977 through. 1987 are presented in Table S.B.6. The original forecast did not contain data for 1985 through 1987. Note that for the 1977 through.1984 period, the average annual-growth-rate forecast for total demand was 6.6% in the original estimate and 4.7". in the revised estimate. By the end of 1984, the revised estimate is 18,163,000 MWhr below the original estimate - a mduction of 22%. Note that the reduced growth rate forecast for 1983 is the result of an wticipated loss of a l large industrial user from the HL&P system. This loss also affects the figures reported in ) Tables S.8.7 and S.8.8. Taue S 8.6. Original and rrnsed forecasts of annual electricity domand,1977-1987 _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ .- . _ . ~ . . . _ - . . . _ . . _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . Year ---
# $b ---- - W]$F#" l Annual demand (MWhr. Annuakiemand Annual demand (MWhr. Annualdemand ,
g g }} in thousands) growth rate (N in thousands) growth rate (%) , i 1977 53,198 47.246 1978 57,173 7.5 51.117 8.2 1979 61.354 7.3 53.826 5.3 1980 65.583 69 57,318 6.5 1981 69.746 6. 3 Go, t 12 49 1982 74.042 62 62.467 39 r 1983 78.488 6.0 62.536 01 1984 83.066 58 64,903 38 1985 67.769 44 1986 70.780 44 1987 74.o29 46 Source ER suppl. Tade St.12 (mehedL Original and revised forecasts of peak-bour demands for the 1977 through 1987 period are given in Table 5.8.7. For lche 1977 through 1984 period, the average annual growth rate for peak-hour demand was 7.1% in the original estimate and 5.0T, in the revised estimate. At the end of this period, the revised estimate is 2725 MW below the original estimate - a reduction of 18%.
. Figure S.8.2 shows the growth in peak-hour demand forecast for the '1967 through 1987 period for
- the four classes of customers.
In obtaining peak demand, class contributions to system peak demand for the residential, commer-cial, and small industrial groups have been modeled as functions of class energy consumption, number of customers, peak temperature, and degree hours on the day of the peak demand. These equations model the effects on peak demands of changes ,in weather conditio,is, calendar-month generation, and number of customers, thereby explaining the changes in demand growth rates,
~
i
, _ . .. _ _ _ .. _. . . . - , -~,_ . -.. - .- -
S.8-7 l 1 l l I L Table S.8.7. Original and revised forecasts of peak-hour demands, 1977-1987
.-- ~ . - . . _ . - - . . - . . . ~ . . . . . _ . . _ .
. - - . - - k.b"_dNf*C81.__.._._ . . __ _
_ . . _.. . ._Reyised forecast , j U Ammi incieaw Net peak-hour demand
- Net peak-hout demand
- _ Annual ncrease,_
(MWhr) (MWhrl (%) ~(MWhr) (MWhr) ' l(%J 1977 9.050 750 90 8.650 1978 9.800 750 ' 8.3 9200 550. 64 ' 1979 10.600 800 8. 2 9.750 550 6.0 1980 11.450 650 8. 0 10.375. 625 64 1981 12,200 -750 6.6 10.950 575 55 1982 12.950' 750 6.1. 11.425 475 4.3 , 1983 13,700 750 58 11,700 275 24 1984 14,400 700 5.1 12.175 475 41 l 1985 12,675 500 4.1 1986 13.225 550 43 1987 13.775 550 . 4.2
*Does not include infuruptible load.
Source: E R, Table 1.12; and E R Suppl., Tabe S t.1 1. i Table S.8.8. Annual and peak hour demands with system-load factors
., u....~ - - - - - - - - - - . .
Annual demand Peak. hour demand' System-load factor (MWhr, m thousands) (MWe) 1963 13.213 ( Al* 2.516 (A) 59.9 (A) , 1964 14,368 ( A) ; 2.778 ( A) 59.0 (A) 1%5 16.328 (Al 3.039 (A) 61.3 (A) 1966 18.258 (A) 3.338 ( A) 62 4 (A) 1967 20.427 ( A) 3,752 (A) 621 (A) 1968 22,966 ( A) 4.076 (A) 64 3 (A) 1969 25.921 (A) 4.697 (A) 63 0 (A) 1970 27,741 ( A) 5.067 (Al 62 5 (A) 1971 30.888 (Al 5.308 (A) 66 4 (A) 1972 34.468 (A) 6.010 (A) 655 (A) 1973 36.694 ( A) 6.484 ( A) 64.6 (Al 1974 38.191 (A) 6.930 (A) 62.9 (A) 1975 40,276 (A) . 7,252 ( A) 63 4 (A) 1976 43.355 ( A) 8,019 (A) 61.7 (A) 1977 47.246 (F)b 8,650 (F) 62 4 (F) 1978 51,117 (F) 9.200 (F) 63 4 (F) 1979 53.826 (F) 9.750 (F) 63 0 (F) 1980 57.318 (F) 10,375 (F) 63.1 (F ) 1981 60,112 (F) 10.950 (FI 62.7 (Fl 1982 62.467 (F) 11.425 (F) 62.4 (F) 1983 62,536 (F) . 11.700 (F) .61.0 (F) 1984 64.903 (F) . 12.175 (F) 60.9 (F) 1985 67,769 (F) 12,675 (F) 61.0 (F) 1986 70.780 (F) 13.275 (F) 61.1 (F) 1987 74,029 (F) 13,775 (F) ' 61.3 (F)
*(A)
- Actual egpg Forecasted C Does not include mterruptible load Source. ER Suppi., Tables S1.11 and SI,12.
5
- . - __ . _ _ _ a -- . - __ . - . . - _ . - - -
ES 4277 14 i
! [ i t ;
l l l l l 1 e i i l 1 i I
- i f.
- i i : i
_ _.,t._ [. g, ._7 _. p . .. .-r, 9 _ .. - 9 q
. . . _ . , 3, _,
i i t 4 <' . i i i '. TOTAL PUBt!C UTILITIES AN0 0GERS j i I l I 4", {: ( i : i *e 1 12 e
' INDUSTRIAL r
+
s j
.- ~
r
.i t- +-
w=, i ; i , a* i i (
..+..%...l,'
_._.a'... .- CCrcE RCI AL I. p i 32
- a
- I- L' _._
i : , c
'. 4 t
D atstoExti At ! i
,r .
+ - 2 * ,# . , .- ..w - .L 4.---------
10 - . .- - t- -
., i r
! 1 {
- l-r
; i ! , .y ;
..]'.s_:w _ __ _.i -
- 4 . ,.. . , . _ .a
_ . _ . . . _ . _ _ 4._ .. . 4 . . . . -_
~
~
y-- . , ' I ? E t , ,
. - { f_ -{ ,
8 f' I . . 7
.....,!..._.w'.!.=,
' I f
[ e ._ i 4 l. d v I.
.' . ..'..c + ,. _;p
.i.--..g,.
'. p . . . s. _
g ___7.. ; .t i
, .1 ;,_.
- . i j.,. q.
l .. .i . '4
. , . , ; M',i 8
( ?
~j. !'
.i g
, . .i ,' , ,. ~.g.
e t.
, a. tn..y f.i. a -. - ~ ~ ~ ~;~; -
h> l, k y ,
- e, : s: . ;;c
.. 1'-
- h-
.n' y a.
s c,j.,. -$I~, y' ,$ ' / , - , /
- 9 ,.......',r .,,y,,,,4,.,.,, n.i g '^i1, ,.,.'.,+,,. ,-#
6 -t . -, n s - . .a . ,. . E
. . . . .. i.-..+._,...a: ..o,.- ,
. l * $'N
/, /.f , /_l >
~: 1 f
( r.-
.- - I ~.. ; 1 ' ',. ;y,'
4 '
. > '. , , y -_-r- - .
t 1, 1 ..t- .:1 ' ..g.- n y, ,. -/+. r -, / v.-<, ., .. ,-
, .h r c.o
.;sysj,y // ,;~ ' >
a . ' m s r_ g- .....,4..,we.. c
.&.. . s . y . ?. h J, f,s,j, ,m ,.,9 n ,-/ /,.7,~,,,,p a .
g ;' ,
/. ' '. .;f : m: . - +/,
; s ,.
' 'L z ;t '
'1 ;% L i.
>. / V,7/.)/ w ,.._s_7 '__L_;;~o f.e
+
i 'p.
- . }:. 'y/ y:;; ' j;
.}_y "i. ,. j 4 ..n...<. . . . _ , - . n ~,.n n ,,n ,,,, - -.
.y_;
- e,R ' ' ,h s ,. 3 /;j ': '- ' ;~ ~ .._.l_- [. t_ j >
. i. { '}~ __,
- .. i , /q: 5 . ,/ /-; // .o; - m, .' - '
, . . ..: . h.
+-
- i. };
. va. = ma, . ~m m' w ~ . ~ , : + .
j.h
,, j '/ f.[ ', ' f .
.[.j 2 Ley1 ,,'.$S,:yi'd
; r.'s -
'41 s ;.
! 4A .
'I 4
,; -. . I%Mbba 4 a.
.g 1:_ ? : -
t -!
.}, .i 9j ;
~.1.,
~.J s. . -i. '. .
g Jl .
- f. .- 3 1%7 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 El E2 83 84 85 86 1987
( YEAR $ i Fig. S.S.2. Peak-hour demand from 1967 to 1987. Source: ER Suppl.. Fig. 51.1-1. t 1 i I l l l l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _._____m_____ _ _ _ _ __ .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
S.8-9
' 1 The large industrial, government and municipal, and public utilities class demands have been estimated using typical load factors. The overall system load factors, both historical and forecasted, are presented in Table S.8.8. As can be seen in this table, these are predicted to decline slightly in the future. The average load factor observed over the 1963 threugh 1976 period is 62.7%, whereas that forecast for the 1977 through 1987 period is 62.0%
The reduced-use and peak-hour-demands forecast in the revised estimate result from two major causes. First, the oil embargo of 1973 and the ensuing energy price increas:s led to a reduction in the quantity of electricity demanded. Second, the econcmic recession that followed the embargo led to a reduced rate of growth of many of the factors that influence electricity demand: income, industrial output, and others. Forecasts that were made prior to these occur- 2 rences were unable to foresee these events and, as a result, generally overpredicted electricity ' demand in the postembargo era. A detailed account of the accuracy of the applicant's forecasts in the past is provided in Table S.8.9. Note that the general trend throughout the 1960s was to underestimate demand growth. This tendency was reversed in the early 1970s. Since the embargo of 1973, the applicant's forecasts have tended .to err on the high side. This trend, however, may again reverse as economic recovery proceeds in the Houston area. S.8.2.2 Staff's forecast A current research project 3 provides an econometric model of electricity demand and supply in the United States capable of generating price and quantity forecasts for three sectors at the state level. The model is a nonlinear simultaneous system of six equations (price and quantity for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors) which has been estimated with historical data Rates of growth of primary exogenous variables that were assumed in the forecast for electricity use in Texas are given in Table S.8.10. These growth rates and the forecasts that are generated from them are for the entire State of Texas. To the extent that the HL&P service , area experiences growth patterns that diverge from the State average, these assumptions will bias ' the forecast. Projections made by the U.S. Water Resources Council" indicate a I.10% annual rate of growth in population for the State of Texas over the 1980 through 1990 period and a 1.73% rate of growth in population for the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) area 141 (which roughly cor-responds to the applicant's service area). Consequently, the assumptions in Table S.8.10 are likely to lead to an underestimate of electricity demand growth in the relevant geographic area. Table 5.8.11 presents the staff's unadjusted forecasts of annual percentage rates of growth of electricity use over the 1974 through 1990 period for the State of Texas. Separate forecasts , are generated for the three consuming sectors for three different fuel price scenarios (Table > S.8.10). Overall annual electricity use is predicted to increase at a rate of 3.9 to 4.2% per year from 1974 through 1990. Note that the scenario that incorporates the high-price assumption regarding alternative fuels (natural gas, oil, and coal) results in a reduction in electricity consumption relative to the base case and the low-price case. Higher prices for these fuels lead to an outward shift in the demand curve for electricity, which would tend to increase use. However, generation costs are also increased by such price increases; as a result, the supply curve is shifted inward, tending to reduce consumption of electricity. After equilibrium is established, the net effect is an overall reduction in electricity consumption and an increase in electricity prices caused by rising alternative fuel prices. ; Due to the d vergent growth rates projected for primary exogenous variables between the State , and the appl
- cant's service area, the forecasted growth rates for the State as a whole are
- likely to prcvide a downward-biased estimate of the electricity consumption growth rate for the-applicant's s!rvice area. This effect is due to the faster economic growth expected in the Houston area than that in the rest of the State, and is likely to hold true regardless of the alternative fu'l price scenario adopted. Consequent 1y, an adjustment factor has been calculated to correct for the divergent growth patterns likely to occur in the future. This factor is given by the ra;io of the O'ffice of Business and Economic Research (OBERS)" predicted average rates of growth af total personal income in BEA area 141 and the State as a whole over the period 1970 to 1990. Th9 resulting number is 1.17, which, when multiplied by the growth rates forecast for the State, resJlts in the predicted values given in Table 5.8.12. Although this adjustment technique is obviously crude, it is interesting to note that the resulting forecasted growth rates closely bracket *he figure of 4.7% obtained with the applicant's methodology.
I ! 1 6 , ? Table S.8.9. Hestory of forecasts system net maximum hour usage , t
~~
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 .'1974 1975 1976 1977 Year 1960 1961 _ . - ' i. t 1955 1540(5)*
. 1956 2440 (4) 2480 (5) 5 1957- 2209(3) 249614) 2820t51 ,
- 1958 1900 (2) 2100(3). 2350 (4) 260015) 1959 1900 (1) 2050 (2) 2200 (3i 2400(4) 2550(5) 1960 1931 (A@ 2000til 2130 (2) 2250 (3) 2430 (4) 2600 (5) 1961 1957 ( A) 2160(1) 2360(2) 2490 (31 2630141 2750 (5) 1962 2338(A) 2365(1) 2489(2) 2672 (3) 2856(4) 3047 (5) 1963 2516 ( A) 2751 (1) 2975(2) '3219 (3) 3478(4) 3729 (5) !
1%4 2778iAl 3000 (1) 325012) 3500 (3) 3800 (4) 4050 (5) ' 1965 3039(A) 3300 (1) 3600 (2) 3900 (3) 4200 (4) .4500 (5) 4900(6) 5250 (7) 5650 (8) 6350(91 6450 (10) -6900 (11) 7350(12)' 1966 3338 ( A) 3700 (1) 4000 (2) 4350 (3) 4750 (4) 5150 (5) - 5600 16) 605017) 6500 (8) 7000 (9) 7150 (10) 8000 (11t 3752 ( A) 4100 (1) - 4450 (21 ~ 4800131 5250 (4) 5700(5) . 6100 (6) 6500 (7) 6950 (8) 7450 (9)-- 8000 (10)
- 1967 - F-1968 4076 (A) 4450(1) 4850 (2) 5300 (31 5750 (4) 6250 (5) 6800(6) - 7350 (7) 785018) - 8450 (9F 1969 4697 ( A) 5000 (1) 5550 (2)- 6150 (3) ' 6750 (4) 7400 (Si 8000(6) 8550 (7) . 9150 t81 -?
1970 5067 (Al 5600 (16 6150 (2) ' 6650 (3) .-7150 (4)- 7750t5) , 8300 (6) 8950t7) 8 1971 5308 (A) 6050 (1)- 6600(2) '7200 (3) 7800(4) 8500 (5) 9250(61 1972 6010 ( A) 6650 (1) 7250 (2) 8000 (3) - ' 8700(4) 9450(5!
.1973 6484 (A) ' 7200 (11 7950 (2) . 8850(31 .- 9550 (4) 6930 ( A) 7600 (1) .- 8300 (2)~~ 9050 (31
'1974 .:
1975 7252 (A) : 8150(1) 8700(2) 1976 8019 ( A) 8650 (1) i, 1977
-._._ _...a.___ __.
. _ u. _ -- . __ . _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
*The number in parentheses mdicates bow many years the estimate was made poor to the actual.
8( A) = Actual net mamirnum hour (minus interrupt.ble load) in year. Soutcr ER Suppl.. p. EH 85. I y g -it"T-9%- 'i+t* _ - 9 m b nr .*
- P W
tr i
~
Table S.8.10. Assumed growth rates hn percent) for exogenous variables in the Chern model*
- .~ - . - - . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - - _. . _ - . ,
Base case Low price case H gh price case Vanables -~ - -- - --- - - - - - - - -- - - ~ ~ ~ 1974-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 1974-1980 1980 -1985 1985 -1990 - 1974-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 Population 0 70 1.10 1.10 0 70 1 10 1.10 0 70- 1.10 1.10 Residentiat customers 1.99 1.72 1.72 1.99 1 72 1.72 1 99 1 72 1.72 Real per cap.ta 3.59 2.67' 2 67 3.59 2.67 2 67 3.59 2 67 2.67 personal income Commereral customets 2.55 2 55 2.55 2 55 2.55 2 55 2.55- 2.55 ' 2.5 - Industrial custome's 4.69 4 69 4 69 4 69 4 69 4 69 4.69 4 69 4.69 , Vatue added in 4.91 3 58 3 58 4.91 3 58 3.58 4 91 3 58 3 58 rnanufacturtik) f Costof fiving eden 5 20 4 80 3 90 5 20 4 80 3.90 5 20 4.80 3 90 f Wholesate price inden 5 10 3.40 2.70 5.10 3 40 2:70 - 5 10 3.40 2 70 , s i
- Pnce of natural gas . 1.91 1 06 2 55 3.82 2.18 5 10 (reudertial and
, commercral) l Pnce of naturat gas 2 Ot 2.49 3 75 4.02 4 98 7.50 bndustria0 f.n Pru of No. 2 diesel oit 0 10 1,39 1.89 0 20 2.78 3.78 ? f residential and 3 l commercia0 i
- Pree of No, 6' diesel oil 0.15 2.79 3.09 0 30 5 58 6 18 bndustria0
' ~ i Pnce of coar 2 26 3 48 3.31 4.52 6 96 6 G2 l _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ . . _ . _ _ . . , . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . . ~ . _ _ - - ,. . _ _ _ _ - _ . .
*w S. Chern and B D Holcomb. A Reguonal forecast ngi MorM for Electric Energy, to be pub l<shed by Ouk Ridge Nat<onal LaborMo<v.
i. l Table S.8.11. Unmisusted rate of growth forecasts of annual electreity usage in Texas, 1974-199Q (%f , -__ ... _ . _ .- _ .~ .._ _ ___ _ _ . ._ l
~
Growth caw Residential Commerciar todust ial Total Base case 49 4. 7 29 40 Kgh pnce case 51 46 7.5 39 Low-price case 4.8 4. 7 3.4 4.2 _ _ _ ~ . ~ . _ Generated from the mr*t by W. O. Chern and B D. Holcomb, A Regional Forecasung MacM for Electrk Energy, to be puthshed by Oak R,dy Narmal . Laboratory. 6 i m-__ e
. . , _ - - - ., - 2, .v. - . .
. ~ - . _- - , . a _. 5.8-12 1 Table S.8.12. Adjusted forecasted rates of growth of annual electricity usage in Bureau of Economic Andysis area 141: 1974-1990 (V
,__ _ ___.._.m _ . - . _ _
Heodent.al Commeroaf industrial Total Base case 5 73 6.50 3 39 4 68 Rgh poco case 5 97 5.38 2.93 4 53 Lnw pnce case S 62 5 50 3.98 4.91
'Stee.tevel forecast (TaNe S.8.11) adjusted by a f actor of 1.17.
5.8.2.3 _ Potential impacts of conservation The forecasts presented above do not explicitly account for potential ef fects of future conserva- l tion policies or ef forts. Consequently, the estimates of electricity demand growth that are obtained may be somewhat biased as a result. This section attempts to at least partially remedy this shortcoming by discussing in qualitative terms the kinds of effects that are likely to be generated by conservation measures in the HL&P service area. In April 1977, president Carter revealed the details of the National Energy Plan 5 for dealing with the U.S. energy crisis. The Plan has three primary objectives: (1) to reduce dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to supply disruption, (2) to keep U.S. imports low enough to weather the period when world oil production approaches its capacity limitations, and (3) to have renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth. Among elements of the Plan, conservation and fuel efficiency act as the cornerstone; this emphasis reflects in part the fact that conservation is cheaper than the production of new energy supplies and'is also an effective means of protecting the environment as well as being compatible with economic growth. The specific goal toward which the conservation elements of the National Energy plan are directed is a reduction to less than 2% in the annual growth of j the total energy demand.5 1 In its broadest sense, energy conservation might be defined as any reduction in energy consump-tion. Thus, in the context of a static economy, if the United States were to consume less energy tomorrow than it does today, energy would be conserved. More realistically, in the l context of a dynamic and growing economy, if the growth rate in energy consumption were to be
~
reduced in the future in comparison to historical trends of increases in consumption, energy also would be conserved. For the purpose of this review, energy conservation is defined as any reduction in the growth rate of energy consumption resulting from the implementation of specific l governmental actions that have been adopted for that purpose. -Electricity conservation, in ' turn, is defined as any reduction in the growth rate of electrical energy consumption resulting from governmental action adopted for that purpose. The staff recognizes, of course, that almost all of the elements of the National Energy Plan are conservation oriented; that is, they are directed toward reducing the United States' con a sumption of scarce oil and natural gas resources both by directly reducing demand and by developing alternative energy resources. Although many of these proposed elements are directed towards reducing the consumption of oil and natural gas, they could'have indirect effects leading to reductions in the consumption of electricity. For example, to the extent that rising oil or natural gas prices increase the costs of electricity generation, or that the development of new, lower-cost energy sources induces consumers to substitute these in lieu of electricity,1the consumption of electricity wil' be reduced if all other factors remain equal. However, for the purposes of this review, such reductions in electricity consumption are not considered to be electricity conservation. It is possible to define three principal categories of governmental actions designed to reduce the consumption of electricity: (1) programs to encourage electricity-rate reform, (2) programs to encourage changes in the technology of electrical energy use, and (3) programs to encourage and promote electricity-saving changes in life-style through consumer education and appeals for voluntary cooperation. The impact of electrical rate reform is discussed in Sect. S 8.2 4. - A review of the potential impact on electricity consumption resulting from the adoption of specific actions in the remaining two categories is present9d here. The specific electricity conservation policy proposals presented in the National Energy Plan are found in Sect. 5.8.2.3.3. g - - - ,
- . , - - . . - ~ ~ ~ - - - . - - - -_- -- .
l S.8-13 I S 8.2.3.1 Technology-related conservation Policies relating to the technological conditions of energy consumption focus on the development and implementation of new and existing products or processes that are capable of maintainirg a given level of output of some good or service (space heat, refrigeration, lighting, etc.) while simultaneously reducing the level of energy input into the production of that particular good or service. During the past two years, many industries, the Federal government, and state and local governments have made the promotion of energy-conserving technology a priority program. The U.S. Department of Commerce has developed a department-wide effort to (1) encourage businesses to conserve energy in the operation of their own processes and building, (2) encourage the manufacture and marketing of more energy-efficient products, and (3) encourage businessmen to disseminate information on energy conservation. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has been given a leading role in promoting the development and implementation of energy saving standards. Programs include voluntary labeling of household appliances; research, development, and education in energy conservation in buildings; efficient energy use in industrial processes; and improved energy efficiency in environmental control processes, i The potential reduction in energy demand possible through adoption of technology-oriented pro-I grams has been the subject of considerable research in recent years. To a large extent, this l research has focused on two principal areas in which energy savings appear to be available in the immediate or near-term future. The first of these areas involves insulation and other building improvements that permit the maintenance of a given level of space conditioning (i.e., both air conditioning and heating) with a reduced level of energy consumption. It appears that substantial energy savings are potentially feasible through the implementation of this class of conservation measures. ' For i example, the sevenqtory Federal Office Building to be built in Manchester, New Hampshire, illustrates the potential for energy conservation in future commercial buildings using existing technology. For this particular building, energy savings are anticipated at a minimum of 20 to
'25% over a conventionally designed building in the same location. Heat savings alone are ex-pected to be 44% because of improved wall insulation, small window areas, the use of ef ficient heating and heat storage equipment, and the use of solar collectors on the roof.
In 1971, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) established new insulation standards that would reduce average residential heating losses by one-third. Studies 6 have shown that it is possible to produce even greater reductions in heat loss through improved insulation at economical costs over a period of years. Improved insulation not only conserves energy in winter but also reduces the air-conditioning burden in the summer. The Federal Energy Administration (FEA) has estimated that voluntary building standards (proposed in ASHRAE 90-75) would result in average reductions (in comparison to 1973 construction and operation practices) in energy consumption in buildings of IL3% in single-family residences, 42.7% in low-rise apartment buildings, 59.7% in of fice buildings, 40,1% in retail stores, and 48,1% in school buildings. Finally, a detailed engineering econometric model of energy use in the residential sectora has bcen used to estimate the effect of a vigorous construction standards program aimed at energy conservation in the residential sector. If energy prices continue to rise at present trends, preliminary results indicate that such a program would, if all other factors remain constant, result in a reduction from 1.7 to 1.5% in the average annual growth rate of residential energy use from 1976 to 2000. Other studies support the conclusion that significant energy savings can be realized through improved insulation and building standards.9 The second category of technology-related conservation measures consists of various appliance efficiency standards that might be adopted to reduce the energy input requirements of a variety of household appliances. These measures of ten result in an economic trade off between front-end capital costs and lifet;ime operating costs; as a result, their acceptability of ten hinges on available and attractive financing arrangements. For example, a recent studyl0 has shown that refrigerator electricity use can be reduced by 52% by increasing insulation thickness and improving compressor efficiency. These operating cost savings are obtained, however, only by a 19t. increase in initial capital cost. Another study, dealing with room air conditioners, has estimated that an improvement in average efficiency from 6 to 10 Btu per watt hour could poten-tially save electric utilities almost. 58,000 MW in 1980.!! Air conditioners capable of achieving such efficiencies require a combination of increased heat-exchanger size and higher-ef ficiency compressors, resulting in higher initial cost. l.ighting, which has accounted for about 24% of all electricity sold nationally, is another area where savings are being realized. Many experts believe recomended lighting levels in typical commercial buildings have been excessive.12 It has been calculated that adequate illumination in comercial buildings can be achieved at 50% of current levels through various design and operation changes. Another study indicated that if all households in 1970 had changed from incandescent to fluorescent lighting, the residential use of electricity for lighting would have been reduced approximately 2.5L 13 However, because the majority of residential lighting occurs in off-peak hours, the reduction of peak demand would be'less than 1%'.
.- - - , --- - - - . - - . _ -_- -- . - -.. - - . . - - ~ . .
S.8-14 For the residential sector as a whole, the Hirst engineering-econometric model8 estimates a potential reduction from a baseline of 1.7% to 1.5% in the energy use growth rate if national appliance ef ficiency s tandards are implemented. If new construction standards are also imple-mented, an overall growth rate of 1.31 for the residential sector will result. In addition to lighting and air-conditioning efficiency, there are many opportunities for-electricity conservation in industry. Electric motors should be turned of f when not in use, and motors should be carefully sized according to the work they are to perform. Small savings can be realized by de-energizing transformers whenever possible. Fuel requirements for vacuum fulnaces can be reduced by 75% if local direct-combustion low-quality heat rather than high-1 quality electrical resistance heating is employed. h S.8.2.3.2 Nontechnological conservation Nontechnological conservation measures are thost that encourage a reduction in energy consumption within a given technology framework. This reduction necessarily involves a substitution of non-energy-intensive products or processes for energy-intensive ones. For example, additional clothing or blankets may be purchased instead of space heating, or hand frowers may be employed instead of power mowers. Policy measures designed to encourage this form of conservation may be classified into two basic categories: information-dissemination policies and preference-alteration policies. First, those policies that alter behavioral patterns by providing relevant information on prices and opportunities available enable consumers to make better educated choices among energy sources and conservation measures available. Second, those policies that appeal to social conscience or altruism attempt to alter consuners' preferences through effecting a change in consumer attitudes. The first category includes such measures as appliance labeling. The NBS is working with an industrial task force from the Association of Home Appliance Manuf acturers in a voluntary labeling program that would provide consumers with energy consumption and efficiency values for each appliance and would educate consumers on how to use this information. Room air conditioners are the first to be labeled. The next types of household appliances to be labeled are refrigera-tors and refrigerator / freezers and water heaters. Also ins.luded in the first category are individual metering, peak-load pricing, and other techniques that alter the energy-pricing frame + work to provide individuals with information concerning the real ecenomic costs of the services provided. The probable result of such measures is an overall decline in average electricity i consumption; therefoN. these measures constitute potential conservation policies.
)
The second category makes use of such conservation measures as advertisements and public appeals that are intended to persuade consumers to use less energy within a given technological, price, I and information framework. Actually, the potential energy savings achievable through such measures is quite large. A recent studyB found that an energy savings ranging from 20t in , Minneapolis to 40!, in Atlanta may be realized if residential indoor temperatures are reduced I from 72 to 68 F in the daytime and reduced from 68 to 60'F at night, in practice, however, ' these potential savings are seldom realized through attempts at moral suasion. A study (1970-1974) of natural gas and liquid propane gas (LPG) users in Indiana reveals that the national conservation ethic is ineffective in reducing consumption except when combined with fuel price increases. M Thus, it appears that large energy savings are not likely to be realized through this category of conservation measures. S 8.2.3.3 Analysis of conservation elements of the National Energy Plan Among the major elements of the National Energy Plan designed to reduce ecergy consumption, those having the potential for directly reducing the consumption of electruity include a 4 program to decrease the waste of energy in buildings, a program to establish mandatory appliance efficiency standards, a program to promote industrial conservation and fuel ef ficiency improve-ments, and a program to effect utility reform. To implement these programs, a wide variety of
- - policy initiatives are proposed. Those initiatives that attempt to reduce electrical consumption through the manipulating of electricity prices or electricity-use costs include phasing out promotional, declinir.3-block, and other electricity-utility rates that do not reflect cost incidence, requiring electric utilities to offer daily off-peak rates and prohibiting master metering. Those initiatives that attempt to encourage changes in the technology of electrical energy use include giving tax credits for approved industrial conservation measures; requiring utility-provided residential insulation service; facilitating residential conservation loans; providing increased funding for the low-income-household weatherization program; establishing a rural home conservation loan program; giving tax credits for business investments in conservation measures; providing a Federal grant program to assist public and nonprofit schools and hospitals in insulating their buildirgs; developing mandatory efficiency standards for new buildings; and establishing mandatory minimum energy-ef ficiency standards for major appliances.
- . _ . - .~ ~ --.- - .- --. - - - -- - - - ---- - - . . .
$.8-15'
, The foregoing energy conservation initiatives can be characterized as those which have the potential for directly reducing the consumption of electricity (and other fuels as well). To the extent that they are eventually adopted, they will probably reduce the demand for elec-tricity and the need for power, in addition, the National Energy Plan also contains a large number of other proposed policy initiatives designed specifically to conserve fuels other than electricity. If these initiatives are adopted, the effect on the demand for electricity will be indirect, and.the,various initiatives may serve either to reduce or to increase the demand
) for electricity and the need for power. S . 8. 2. 3,. 4 M_alor initiatives of the National Energy Plan af fecting other fuels A brief review of the major initiatives affecting the use of other fuels and the resulting potential impact on the demand for electricity is outlined here. Initiatives affecting the prices of other fuels I One of the principal strategies of the National Energy Plan is that the prices of oil and gas ! should reflect the true cost of replacing these fuels. As a result, the Plan contains several , proposals that would have the effect over time of increasing the prices of domestic oil and natural gas. To the extent that such policies would increase the prices of these fuels in relation to the price of electricity, the demand for electricity would, in fact, increase. I_nttiatives designed to promote the adoption of new energy technologies Because one of the objectives of the National Energy Plan is to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy, thereby reducing the Nation's reliance on conventional fuels I (e.g., oil and natural gas), the Plan contains several proposals such as removing institutionals barriers for co-generation, providing tax credits on the purchase of solar energy equipment, and extending the tax deductions for cost of geothermal energy development. To the extent that ( such policies may serve'to reduce the prices of energy from these sources in relation to the price of electricity, the demand for electricity could decrease. It is not now possible to forecast che overall impact of the National- Energy Plan-on the demand for electricity and need for power. Many conservation proposals, particularly those directed specifically toward electricity consumption (Sects. S.8.2.3.1 and S.8.2.3.2), individually would have the effect of reducing electricity demand, However, other elements of the Plan (Sect. S 8.2.3.3) may indirectly lead to increases in the demand for electricity. Thus, while ! implementation of the Plan may reduce the annual growth of total energy demand to less than 2%, the growth of electricity demand will not necessarily be reduced to that level. Several studies recently have been published which attempt to evaluate the National Energy Plan. m ta Although the authors of these studies express agreement with many of the Plan's , initiatives, they also indicate concern that the Plan will in some cases fall short of its l goals. Therefore, they recomend, in part, that additional or alternative energy conservation l . measures be adopted. Until a national energy plan is ultimately adopted, is then analyzed, and its effects are forecasted in a detailed and comprehensive way, it s obviously not possi le to predict the impact uf such a plan on the consumption of electricity S.8,2,4 Change in utility rat,e structure At present, utility rate structures are generally designed to encourage increased kilowatt-hour consumption by each customer through the use of declining-block rates. Under this rate struc- - ture, the energy charge per kilowatt-hour decreases as thq quantity of electricity consumed during the me.th increases. In the past, under conditions of abundant fuel resources, the economic logic for declining-block rates was never seriously disputed. However, the use of declining-block rates considerably improves the competitive position of electricity for activi-ties which require the largest use of energy in the average home and which represent inefficient a uses of electric energy if weighed against the comparative amount of energy required for genera-tion using other types of fuel. This latter point is often cited by critics of the present rate structure. Comonly mentioned alternatives to declining rates are increasing block rotes, peak-load pricing, or a flattened rate structure.. Under increasing block rates, the energy charge per kilowatt
- hour increases at higher levels of consumption; if adopted, this rate 4 structure would, in theory, discourage inefficient uses of electricity and the overall growth of total energy sales.
. .- , . . . - - ~. - - .- . .
S.8-16 pricing systems based on marginal costs, which vary.by time of day and season of the year, are generally referred to as peak-load pricing systems. Under this price system, customers would pay a higher rate for all electricity they would demand during peak periods. The establishment of a price differential between peak and off-peak periods would correctly reflect the higher costs of providing electricity during the peak. The higher costs exist because utilities must add capacity (peaking units) to meet this demand. Furthermore, these peaking units are particu- ' larly wasteful because they operate infrequently and incur very high operating costs when-used. In contrast, consumption shif ts to off-peak periods will permit greater utilization of existing base-load units having relatively low operating costs. Utility companies have generally reacted unfavorably to these new rate designs, mainly because they are uncertain about the effects of such a policy on the demand for electricity and, there-fore, about their ability to earn a fair return on existing capital investment. There is little evidence available at the present time to alleviate this uncertainty. The confusion rests on the definition of price. Economic theory implies that decisions are based on the marginal price of a product, whereas many econometric studies se average price data as a proxy because it is readily available. Both concepts generate rse relationships between price and quantity of electricity demand; nevertheless, finer distictions do exist, particularly in the context of analyzing the effect of alterna"ve rate str ctures. u Under a declining-block ra$ the average price paid by any customer will be higher than the ,
; marginal price. Consequen i< . if the marginal price is the correct determinant of demand, the quantity of electricity used by the customer could oe reduced by increasing the marginal price, even though the average price would remain constant. This action is equivalent to moving toward (1) flattening the rate structure or (2) inverting the rates for this particular customer.
However, even if this relationship holds true for each individual customer, it does not follow that the new rate structures will reduce overall demand for electricity among all customers. Each customer consumes different amounts'of electricity; consequently, prices vary between lustomers. If the rate schedule is flattened and the average price received from the whole < group is kept constant, then customers who use relatively small quantities of electricity may now pay a lower marginal price than before, even though large users will pay a higher price. i It is the relative importance of these two competing effects that determines whether flattening ) or inverting the rate schedule will reduce electricity consumption. l l An atter ?t has been made at Cornell University to estimate the impact of such a revision in the rate structure. M The methodology used in thi3 analysis consisted of a model for forecasting , electricity consumption in which characteristics of both the level and the steepness of the I rate schedule were identified as explanatory variables. Results of the study show that there is no evidence to support the contention that flattening rate scheduies will lead to drastic reductions in the use of clectricity. In fact, investigators found that there might be a slight expansion of consumption, because customers who currently use small quantities of electricity increase consumption at a faster rate than large users make the offsetting reductions. Other investigations have produced similar results.M Studies have shown that the elimination of the differences among industrial, commercial, and residential rates lowers industrial demand and accelerates residential and comercial demand, with aggregate growth remaining unchanged. In some circumstances, rate equalization was shown to cause a slight increase in aggregate g rowth. Although these studies suggest that flattening or inverting the rate schedule is not expected to reduce overall electricity demand, this action may still serve as an effective conservation measure in terms of total energy use, For example, flattening the rate schedule for residential customers will tend to discourage the use of electricity for space and water heating for which more efficient alternative fuels exist. Customers using relatively little electricity will provide the offsetting consumption increases related to activities for which no practical substitutes exist, such as lighting and the power source for standard electric appliances. With rerpect to peak-load pricing, the staff agrees that the development of a peak-demand sur-charge can discourage consumption during peak periods. However, the Allens Creek plant consti-tutes.a base-load unit, and it is base load, not peaking capacity, that must be considered. Although peak consumption may be lowered or its growth rate may be reduced, it is only logical to expect that part of the consumption that is curtailed will not be eliminated but will only - l be shifted to off-peak periods. Thus, the result of such a rate revision will be to increase 8 the system's base load beyond what would have existed under the prevailing rate structure. Therefore, the proposed rate revision would only enhance the need for base-load units such as the Allens Creek plant. Furthermore, there is the potential that a " needle peak" would result. That is, even though consumption during the peak period is cut back, the absolute peak will remain relatively un-affected. On a diagram depicting hourly consumption for the entire year, this phenomenon would t
. - . . . - - - - . - - -, .~ - =- .,
S.8-17 appear as a needle because the absolute peak remains high for a very short duration, while other peak periods fall back toward base levels. This result would suggest that customers either cannot, or will not, do without electricity during conditions that bring about the absolute peak (e.g., space-conditioning load and extreme weather conditions). The Governor's Energy Advisory Council of the State of Texas reports that a successful imple-rentation of load-management policies would reduce the need for new generating capacity in the f u tu re .11 It is estimated that a 201 improvement in the average load factor in Texas (from approximately 48 to 68%) would result in a reduction of 20 to 25% in the required capacity by the ye6r 2000. It is pointed out, however, that a reduction of new capacity additions would extend the useful life of thc existing capacity, which is fueled primarily by increasingly scarce natural gas. Consequently, the short- and medium-term result would be a continued de-pendence on high-cost fuel in existing plants; therefore, the price of electricity would be higher than it would be without load management until a substantial portion of the existing gas-fired capacity would be retired or converted. Furthermore, since the HL&P's load factor is currently above 60%, there may be little improvement to be gained from the introduction of additional load management techniques in the Houston area. In the staff's opinion, it is still too early to judge the extent to which the preposed rate designs will be effective in reducing electricity demand and/or in improving the load factor. With respect to inverted and flat rates, the Cornell studyM suggests that energy consumption would actually increase under such rate structures. Nevertheless, the staff af firms the general desirability of initiating peak-load pricing by electric utilities. If ef fective, it should improve the system load factor (i.e., utilization of existing capacity) and reduce the need for peaking units. However, a shift in time of use by electricity customers may actually increase the need for base-load units such as the Allens Creek plant. S.8.2.d Substitution of electrici_ty for scarce fue_i_s_ Since the new emphasis on energy conservation has resulted principally from the energy crisis, it is equally important to inquire about the extent to which the future substitution of electrical energy for fuels in short supply (namely, oil and natural gas) will tend to increase the demand for electric power, thus offsetting the impacts of conservation measures. Recognition of this positive stimulus to future electrical demand has been frequently noted in the literature. Preliminary data already indicate shif ts by consumer groups toward increased electricity use due to price and supply considerations associated with natural gas. For example, in the residential sector during the first six months of 1973, the sale of gas ranges was down 0.6% from that of the previous year, whereas the sale of electric ranges was up 12.6% over the same time period. Water heater sales suggest a similar trend; gas water heater sales were up l.2%, whereas electric water heater sales were up 18.4L Sales of electric dryers increased 17.5%, but gas dryer sales increased only 5.5%. In the space-heating category, gas-fired unit sales were down 9.3%, whereas electric unit sales increased 15%. In 1974, the Electric Energy Association predicted that for the first time, more than half the ncN1y built homes in the United Strtes would be heated electrically.. Recently, in the 50th American Assembly - a symposium attended by 62 experts from government, industry, and the academic community - a general consensus was reached. Although the rate of growth for U.S. electric power demand would probably be less than the historic growth rate, it is unlikely to be less than 5 to 5.5% in view of the need to substitute electrical energy for some of the present uses of oil and gas.22 Another study 23 also acknowledges the importance of substitution for oil and natural gas on future electric demand and identifies these shif ts as being long-term in nature. These investi-gators conducted a survey of the major energy-consuming manufacturing industries in the United States to determine the effect of potential short-fall; of fossil fuels on future industrial electric energy requirements. The 15 most energy-intensive manufacturing groups were selected, which represent over 90% of the energy consumed by the industrial sector in the United States. Ten companies from each of these groups were selected for interviews, and, in all, 142 companies and approximately 25 trade associations, electrical equipment manufacturers, and electric utility industry representatives were contacted. Of the 142 companies surveyed, 80% indicated that they expect a short-fall of certain types of fossil energy, and 61% plan significant changes in their energy mix during the next ten years and have developed contingency planc. Of those companies expecting to make energy use changes in the immediate future, most antic @te greater reliance on oil, apparently due to the ease of conversion. However, although oil will remain the dominant alternate fuel for the two- to five-year immediate period, increased shif ts to electricity and to new coal apolications are anticipated. This study concluded that "over the long term, the number of companies using coal and electricity is expected to increase significantly."23
S.8.18
!he staff expects that substitution of electricity for scarce energy sources will probably accelerate in the applicant's service area because of the uncertainty of oil and gas supplies i and the outlook for higher prices in relation to the price of electricity produced from coal-fired or nuclear plant: r example, electric space heating is projected to grow nationally from 7.6% fur all hcr 'n " 'o 16% in 1980, and to 27!. in 1990. Other increases are fore-casted in the growt> ater heaters and ranges. The advent of electric automobiles or other new uses 0 , annot be discounted but are not now quantified in projecting need for power becat such items is speculative, It is the staff's evaluation that 1 substitution ef fect'. 'egree offset any savings from other conservation of electri-city techniques.
A second kind of substi is relatively important in considering the applicant's need 1 to add the proposed nut . tu this system is the desirability of adding nuclear capacity I as soon as possible to > -1 consumed by gas- or oil-fired units that now form a signifi- ' cant part of the applic. :em . This addition, in turn, will increase the availability of these scarce material r .or other uses for which there is no available substitute. 5.8.2.6 Conclusions The applicant does not believe that any energy conservation measures, substitution effects, or I load management techniques (FES, Sect. 8.2.3.4) will be significant enough to change the pro-jection of power needs. Although energy conservation measures have a potential for reducing the ' future demand for electricity, there is no reliable way at this time to quantify the reduction in power demanJ resulting from conservation methods which mould be implcitented either by Federal, i state, or local regulating bodies or by voluntary public action. The staff's ability to predict is speculative because of (1) the uncertain nature of the effectiveness of the measures that may be taken, (2) the substitutional effects, and (3).the possible regulations that may require increased electrical demand. Finally, even if conservation of energy measures are effective in reducing the demand for electricity in the 1980s, it is desirable to add nuclear capacity to reduce the amount of fuel consumed by gas- or oil-fired units, thus increasing the availability i of these limited resources for which there are no available substitutes. 5.8.3 POWER SUPPLY 5.8.3.1 Existing and planned generating capacity Houston Ligh. ting and Power Company's installed system shows a total capability of 10,170 MW for 1977, with all units in the system being gas-fired. From March 1978 through 11 arch 1984, the company has under construction or has projected a total addittonal capacity of 4700 MW, includ-ing 2730 MW of coal-fired capacity and 1970 f1W of nuclear capacity (including the 1200 MW l represented by the proposed ACNGS). Table 5.8.13 lists all planned and proposed capacity addi- ' tions of 100 MW or more for the 1978 to 1984 perio: .
- Table S.8.13. Planned and prop, ed capacity addahans of 100 MW or more to base load v stemt 1978 through 1984 Umt name. no Pated carv aty (MW) Pomary fuel in Service date W A. Pe nh s 600 Coa! 3!78 W A Pansh 6 660 Coal 3/79 W A. Parsh 7 Goo Coal 3'81 South Texas Project 1 385 Nuclear 10 'B0 South Texas Prop.ct 2 385 Nuclear 3/82 Anens Creek 1 1200 Nuchsar 3fBs Undetermmed 1 375 Coal 3/83 Undetermn 12 375 Coa! 3/84 "HL&P owm 3o 8% of the total capaaty of the South Texas Project.
Source: E R ()uppl , Appendtx SH, p SH 100
. ~. .- - . . - . _ . . . ,- - - - - . _ _ . - -
S.8-19 i S,8.3.2 . Power sales and purchases I l The HL&P has no conwitments for firm interchanges or purchases of power at this time, nor are I any such conmitments planned within the foreseeable future. 5,8,4 NEED FOR THE PLANT The staff's assessment of HL&P's need for new base-load generating capacity consists.of three i parts: (i) a comparison of planned total capacity in relation to forecasts of peak-load demand i (taking into account the need for reserve margins); (2) the results of the applicant's loss-of-load probability (LOLP) analysis; and (3) a comparison of planned base load capacity with base-lo'.d demand, 5,8.4.1 Reserve margin assessment l The neers for a system is defined:by the staff as the difference between aet generating l resources and peak-load demand, Net gewratby reewxc are defined as installed capacity, t plus firm purchases, minus firm sales, Because firm purchases and sales are zero throughout this analysis, not generating resources are equal to installed capacity. The~ra c ne margin is then defined as the reserve divided by peak-load demand. Table S.8.14 presents figures for installed capacity, peak demand, reserves, and reserve margin for HL&P from 1963 through 1987. Table S.B.14. Capacity, peak load, and reserves for the Houston Lightsng and Power Company Powee available (MWI Year installed Peak Arnount of Reserve percentage capdcity deman[ feserWe 1963 3.004 2,516 488 1940 1964 3.004 2.778 226 8.14 1965 3.377 3.039 338 11.12 1966 3.858 . 3,338 520 15.58 1967 4.401 3.752 649 17.30 1968 5.010 4.076 934 22.91 1969 5.575 4,697 878 18 69 1970 5.575 5.067 508 10.03 1971 6,325 5.308 1017 19 16 1972 7,375 6.010 1365 22.71 1973 7.708 6.4 B4 1224 18 88 1974 8.760 6.930 1830 26 41 1975 9.810 7.252. 2558 35 27 1976 9,810 8.019 1791 22 33 ! 1977 10.170 8.650 1520 17.57 1978 10.830 9.200 1630 17.70 1979 11,490 9.750 1740 17.80 1980 11,490 10 375 1115 1070 1981 12,475 10,950 1525 13 90 1982 12.860 11,425 1435 12 60 1983 13,235 11.700 1535 13.10 1984 13,610 12,175 1435 11,80 1985 14.810 12,675 2135 16 80 1986 14,810 '13.225 1585 12.00 1987 15.560 13.775 1785 1300
*Dres not include interruptible demand.
Source. tR Si ppL, Table S t,1-3. For 'a n' umber of reasons, utilities are required .to have more capacity than the anticipated peak load. Among these reasons are scheduled maintenan;e, forced outages, errors in forecasts, and extremes in temperature. Based on a LOLP analysis, most U.S. electrical systems are designed on the assumption of one generating outage in ten years of operation. On a standard percent reserve basis, this requirement is approx;mately equivalent to a 15 to 25% reserve margin, depending upon individual system characteristics.
..- ~ - - .. -~-- -- - - . . - - . . - -
i 5,8-20 l 1 l J
' As shown in Table 5,8.14, the reserve margins for HL&P for 1980 through 1987 are, with one l exception, below the 15% level recomended by TIS. Without ACNGS, the company would be in a ,
negative reserve position by 1987 (i.e., generating resources would not be adequate to meet ! forecasted peak demand). On this basis, it is the staff's opinion that an additional generating capacity at least equal to that of the Allens Creek plant is needed within the proposed time f rame . S.8.4.2 Loss-of-load-probacility assessment > System reserve requirements are established, in part, by loss-of-load probability calculations. These calculations make use of demand forecasts, planned capacity, and assumed forced-outage , rates. The LOLP program groups outage probabilities, corresponding to classes of megawatt-outage states, into a cumulative outage probability table. The net capability minus the i predicted daily peak load is then compared to the outage probability table to determine the ! probability that a megawatt outage which would Exceed this daily margin nay occur. The daily probabilities of deficient margins are then accumulated for every weekday of the year to obtain .j the yearly loss-of-load probability. Figure 5.8.3 presents the results of this analysis. :I Table 5.8.15 gives-LOLP figures and corresponding reserve margins under three alternative l scenarios. As can easily be seen, any delay in the addition of ACNGS would cause serious impacts on reserve margins, thereby jeopardizing system reliability. Table S.8.15. Loss of load probabshey and system reserves: , 1984 through 1986 Year R ewve ime f r aw.c 1984 o 043 I t.8% 198s o,02s 16 8% No delav 1986 0.109 12 0% 1984 0.043 11 8% Dway of 198s 0182 '7 4 'b one year I 1996 0.109 120% ] 1984 o 043 11.8% Delay of 1985 0.182 .74% two veas 1986 o.767 29% Source: ER Suppi, Appende sH, p. SH 104 1 1 It should be noted that all LOLP results and reserve margin calculations are based on the .! assumption that ACNGS will be available for full operating capacity from the proposed date for comercial operation. Historically, however, regulatory restrictions and mechanical considera-tions have limited the operating capacities of new nuclear units. Also, these results do not > reflect any possible fuel oil and natural gas curtallments in future years, although it is certainly possible that such curtailments will occur. Because fuel oil and natural gas are becoming more scarce every day, it is desirable to increase the mix of generating capacity to include nuclear and coal-fired units. Consequently, this analysis, while clearly demonstrating the need for ACNGS, probably understates the real need for this unit. 4 S.8.4.3 Assessment of base-load generating capacity The staf f has also evaluated the need,for base-load capacity in the HL&P system. Essentially, , this evaluation consisted of a quantitative approximation of projected base-load demand and base-load capacity from 1984 through 1987. The results are given in Table S.8.16, i Base-load demand was approximated by the average hourly demand for the given year. Base-load ( capacity.was calculated by including all but those units used only for peaking. Both of these ! approximations would tend to bias the results against demonstration of need for additional base-load capacity. As shown in Table 5.8.16, however, base-load capacity will fall short of base- : load requirements in 1987, even with the addition of the 1200-MW ACNGS in 1985, and the capacity , is only marginally above the required base-load capacity in the three preceding years. On this basis, it is the staff's opinion that the base-load generating capacity proposed by HL&P is , needed within the time frame of 1985 to 1987 as proposed by the applicant. I
l l S.8-21 ES 42 70 I.q,.:C T,1, _ T.m.'~~T,*":.!!. J.Z L ':.. l! TZ Z7.T;~f.,.+. - .- . . _ + .w + _ . . .. -
.. - . ,.. y..-_ 4 ._ _. . . _ .
.-9 ..4+,_-.
j .-.. _-.-,,._..q- y. 4 4 + r .r. . . . _ . .. . + . . _ - .
.4. - J d . ,] .c. + ... ~ . , ..m. . , .
- ~ & _. L
. , - .-..~,-H~~, _. - } - --
m..
.t..,..,4.,,.,
._.n_
a...~,.* l
-,_-,..-[~.n. . .i . ,. .
. , ..r..,.
. + . - .,-.. ,.
I
- a. o ., m . ,
. . . . , - . - ..e. _ . . - -_ + - ~ .q. --... y _ . . . --- ..
.g- ,,.
i t
' ~ ' ~ * ~~~ ~ * ^ " ~'~ " ' ~ ~
i BASE SCHEDULE A1. LENS CREEK 1.00 -----. CMED M YEAR _ L. ._, . . , . __. _ _ __ um._. ._
.2. ALLENS CREEK . - - - ....i..-. . + .
~ . . .
,, DELAYED WO YEARS - - - - - -
..t
---H.._.._-.f'.i-~....._...-
_-.p_,.. ._q._.- ?
..g'....4._..
f
, . . i .
s
.. 4..__ ..,.+_._._ _ ._4._.._.
q _. ~.p__ -.1-....i_
- j. .;. .s. ;/ -
. . . - . _ __. . . _ _.__ __ . - _ .. _. (.. . . . \g.j;. .__
'l ~i~ 3 'l' ' / s% N \:
- g. .'. __;. ;. /
. goo 1. _. . .
g _..
.._._-,g..-7
.y___. _4 .. . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ f y .. _
.._r__.. _ _ ..._.f._ _..., _ . .____ . _ . . . _.
-4.,_, . . .
7 . ._
-_ - 7..-___
.p.....
~ . , _ . _ . _ . . , _ . .._. . _ _ _
.%. __ .f _/ _. .
r . _ . . . . , .
.p.
.. . . . _ . .. .,- ... -.. .+
.g - , i . . ..
D. M I . ,
..g.._i._2 y
p t
- b. i -
S: r d_. - .i_- -- -_ _d.L.__._._..._ : _ uZa . - 010 - - a.
._ _ _ .. ._3
_ _ . . ..___;.___ ___m,_ . _ . . . . . . .._ . . . . .
.- g. .-.,.[..-..
.-4... -.....(
. -- .. m.. , .-
i
-n-,
1 ! } l 7 ..
.q t i ,
.! i !
.001 - ~ _ . . - - - _ . . . . 4. . . _ . . . . . , . . _ . ...q..__- _ _ .4 .
...._.4.,__.
.._4_.. , . _ . _....._
_-.+.._.._.
. g ._ _,
...q_.-. . , . .
-.y., -.
.._.7.
_.s
.. -...u.-
4
...,-i. ._a... . ,
.I._
.. . . - . . ' _ . _, - t .___ I_ . .
. - . . . . - _ ..-.w_- - + . . - . , - -_..n-.
.;_ p .j_
- - .- _ . . _ . ___...;... ._. J ._ _.
!, . ,i ..
a . _, .- r 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 YEAR Fig. S.8,3. Loss-of-load probability (LOLP) analysis and results. Source: ER Supplement, Fig. 51.1-3.
l l S.8-22 Tab;e s.8.16. Cnmparison ad planned and requered base-load capacity (megawatts) Average hourly Baseload Baseload demand requfrement - capacity
] '
.1984 7,409 ~ 1 f,398 -11.513 '
1985 7.736 11,902 12,713 1986 8,080 ' 12.431" 12,713 1987 8.451 13.002 12,713 ,
- Assumes a o 65 plant factor for base load units.
b includes intermediate capacity. q l
'l l
S.8.5' CONCLUSIONS The foregoing analyses and findings indicate that (1) electricity demand growth within the HL&P 'l service area is likely to create'the need for the additional generating capacity represented by I ACNGS; (2) a sufficient portion of the overall growth in demand is likely to be of the base-load variety which will justify construction of the proposed 1200-MW nuclear plant; and (3) an additional need exists within.the system for diversification of gcuerating capacity away from the present preponderance.of gas-fired units. For these reasons ACNGS, Unit 1, should be constructed within the proposed time frame.
'1 j
1 l 1 i I j 4 l l 1 f i
_, _ _. ~ . _ . ._ _ . . _ _ . _ ._ ._ _ s 5.8-23 ; REFERENCES FOR SECTION S.8 r
- 1. Texas Water Deve10pment Board, Eacncmic Fcrecaste: Harrie County and Vicinity, Economics v Branch, Austin, Texas -Mar. 8,1974. I
- 2. Houston-Galveston Area Council, Amd uce and Ibru2ation Irojectione, 1930 to 2 % 0, Houston, Texas. December 1969, pp.10-11.
- 3. W. S. Chern and B. D. Ho1 comb, A Ecgional Forecasting Model for Electric Dwrity, to be published by'0ak Ridge Natior.a1 Laboratory.
4 U.S.' Water Resources Council, 1972 CBERS Trojecticnc. Washington, D.C., April 1974.
- 5. Executive Office of the President The Eational. Encr;ry Phm, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C., April 1977.
J
- 6. Federal Energy Administration, Enczyy Coneemtion in New Building Design: An Impact i
AcrescunL of ASHRAE Standard 90-?E; Cor.servation Papr HB, U.S. Government Printing y Office, Washington, D.C., 1976. '
- 7. ASHRAE Comittee on Standards, ASHRAE Standard 00-?E: En8r;y Coneervation in Neu Basiling besipi, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, N.Y., August 1975.
- 8. E. Hirst and J. Carney, Residential Energy vec to the Year 2000: Conee m tion and 'i Econonics, ORNL/ CON-13, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., September 1977. ,
- 9. ' Gordian Associates, Inc. , UCAN Nahual of Conawoation Measurce: Energy Ccnactvation and Dwironment; Conscroation Paper J6, . PB-249-343, a report to the Federal Energy Administra-tion (distributed by NTIS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va.), Gordian Associates, N . Y . , 1975,
- 10. .R. A. Hoskins and E. Hirst, Enenrs and Cost Anale e ic of Recidential liefrigerations, ORNL/ CON-6, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. Tenn., January 1977.
- 11. J. Moyers, The twom Air Canditioner as an Energy Coneumer, ORNL-NSF-EP-59, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., October 1973. '
- 12. R. Stein, " A Matter of ' Design." Environment, 14: 16-29 (1972),
i
- 13. J. Tansil, heidentiat Conewrtion of Electricity: 1950 to 1970, ORNL-NSF-EP-51, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. , July 1973, 14 C. Berg, "A Techni*:al Basis for Energy Conservation," '&chno!. Rev., 76: 14-24 (1974).
- 15. R. D. Ellison, saving in Enemy conote"ption by Raeidential Haat P.cyo: The Effecte of Lower Indoor Temperaturco and of ?iight setbag, ORNL/ CON-4, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., January 1977.
- 16. A. E. Peck and 0. C. Doering, "Voluntarism and Price Response: Consumer Reaction to the Energy Shortage," Bell .7. Econ, Manago. Sci., 7: 287-92 (1976).
- 17. Congress of the United States. Office of Technology Assessment, AnaZysia of the Ivorceed National Energy P22n, U.S. r.overnment Printing Of fice, Washington, D.C., August 1977.
- 18. U.S. General Accounting Office, An Eva?uatien of the Nationa? Energy P?an, EMD-77-48, 3 Washington, D.C., July 1977.
- 19. L. D. Chapman et al . , Electricity Demand: Project indqendence wl the Clcun Air Act, ORNL-NSF-BP-89, Contract W-7405, November 1975, pp. 31-37.
- 20. L. D. Chapman, " Electricity in the United States," in The Encrgy Question: North America, E. Erickson and L. Waverman, eds. (Toronto 1974).
21; The Governor's Energy Council, Fina; Report on t.he Provision of E;ectria Pwer in Tcxas: Xcy Jeaaea and uncertaintise, vol .1. Technical Report 77-100 prepared by ihe University of Texas at Austin, March 1977, pp.1.15-1.16. 1 I i
- . ~, .. - . . . . . . _ _ . . - . . . . . -
S 8-24 ] i
- 22. The American Assembly, Columbia University,liepcre of t/se Fiftieth A m rican Assemb!;<,
April 21-rs,1976, Arden House, Harriman, N.Y. ,1976. i .; 23.' Stone and Webster, Inc., Founthil Pdc ls Shift: A Stawy of Contispri:u Flansiing by lunaf2aturing !>Liactrics in the Urticed States, prepared for the Edison llectric Institute, May 1976.
- 24. Federal Nwer Conunission. 7/ orth,saat Pern Failure, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. , December 1965.
I
, I l
i 1 i 4 1 1 1 i I i I h
. - - . . . . _ , . . - - - -. . - . .. ., , ._. -. - . - - - - - . . . _ . - - ~ . . . _ _ - ----- --~--- -- --a
.- - -. . . ._ . . . ._ -- . - . ~ . - . . .
' l S.9. SENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES s
The staff has established (Sect. S.8) that HL&P will need additional generating capacity of about 1200 MWe for the 1985 to 1987 period as opposed to the original forecast of 2400 MWe for the 1980 to 1982 period. In view of the five-year delay and a sizeable reduction in project scope, the staf f .has reconsidered the alternatives that might be adopted. These include alternative energy sources and systems, alternativ. cooling systems, and alternative sites. It is worth noting that, in most cases, the conclusions reached in the FES (Sect. 9) in considera-tion of these alternatives for the initially proposed two-unit station are equally applicable for the assessments in tnis section. After reviewing both the conventional and potential energy sources, the staff specifically concludes that only coal is a viable alternative source of energy for the proposed 1200-MWe nuclear power facility. Moreover, because of the lower probable genera-ting cos'.s of nuclear power in the late 1980s and its lesser effects on the health of the general population, the selection of nuclea'r plants is favored over the coal-fired alternatives. With I respect to the selection of the Allens Creek site and the use of the proposed cooling lake as the l preferred cooling system, the staff concludes that in view of the new design criteria the appli-cant has made sound choices and that the criteria used and the methods of analysis are acceptable. Alternatives to various aspects of the proposed project are onsidered in detail in this section. Also, the basis for making the above conclusions is considered. 1 S.9.1 ENERGY SOURCES AND SYSTEMS l S.9.1.1 Alternatives not requiring creation of new generating capacity In the FES (Sect. 9.1.1), the staff explored the alternatives of purchasing power or diversity exchange, reactivating or upgrading Cider plants, and the base-load operation of existing peaking facilities as a means of HL&P's meeting increasing load demands without construction of new generating capacity, it was concluded that the purchase or exchange of power was not a viable , alternative; deactivated units were not of sufficient size to meet the projected power require-ments (which were then 2400 MWe); the upgrading of existing units was not practical for design or engineering reasons; and base-load operation of existing peaking facilities was inadequate to meet future demands. The staf f has reconsidered each of these alternatives in view of the new projected energy require-nents of 1200 MWe (Sect. S.8) and concludes that no significant changes have occurred which affect these conclusions. Thcrefore, construction of new generating capacity remains the only practical alternative to meet future demand requirements, 5.9.1.2 Alternatives requirin3_ creation of new generating capacity To determine whether the new generating capacity should be nuclear, the staff has evaluated possible alternative energy sources and compared the possible alternative generating systees resulting from its evaluation of energy sources. The energy sources evaluated as possible alternatives to the proposed 1200-FMe nuclear unit can be grouped relative to type in two broad categories: conventional and potential future energy sources. S.9.1.2.1 Conventional energy sources The conventional energy sources evaluated include (1) 011. (2) natural gas, (3) water or hydro-electric power, and (4) coal. These sources were evaluated with respect to their availability and possible cost in the applicant's service area. S.9-1 _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ o r - m - ,,e- ,, , _ r, _
. _ _ __ _ _ _m S.9-2 011_ in 1973, the United States used about 17,307,000 bbl of oil products per day, but domestic production of crude oil in 1973 was only about 9,203.000 bbl / day.1 Thus, imports of crude oil 1 and oil products in 1973 totaled about 8,100,000 bbl / day. Total domestic demand for oil during 1974 declined about 3% to 16,735,000 bbl / day.2 Domestic production was about 10,495,000 bbl / day, while imports total 6,275,000 bbl / day. In 1975, domestic demand for oil products averaged 16,200,000 bbl / day, with total imports of approximately 6.2 million bbl / day.3 Annual electrical generation (usually closely proportional to consumption) for 1976 was about 6.33 greater than in 1975.4 and generation so far in 1977 is about 71 greater than last year.5 The total U.S. energy demand, which declined for two consecutive years, increased by 4.8% in 1976.6 This increase was attained by a 6.6% increase in consumption of oil and its products, including a 21.4% increase in imports. These imports amounted to 40.6% of the total U.S. demand for oil and its products in 1976. This dependency on imports, expected to continue for l many years,7,3 necessitates dealing in an international oil market supplied mainly by the Middle East and North African countries, which produce almost half of the world's oil. The availability and cost of imported oil are subject to the quite often politically motivated production and pricing policies of foreign producers, and the reliability of fuel supplies from such sources cannot be considered dependable over the long term. The national balance-of-payments problem is also aggravated by the importation of large quantities of oil. Further, the petrochemical and fertilizer industries depend on petroleum and its derivatives and have a higher claim to available supplies than the electric utilities when other fuel sources are available, in summary, the staff believes that the uncertain nature of the oil supplies, their high cost, ) and their importance in other aspects of the U.S. economy preclude consideration of oil-fired - steam-electric base-load power stations as an alternative to the 1200-MWe ACNGS. Natural gas From an caviro1 mental standpoint, natural gas is the preferred fossil fuel because its sulfur and ash contents are negligible, llowever, the demand 'or this energy form has recently exceeded its Jomestic availability. This situation of excess demand is expected to persist and become l l nationwide as producing regions are required to export to consuming regions. The total domestic consumption of natural gas increased 72.3% from 1961 through 1970. Electric utility consumption l of natural gas increased 113.4% during that period, with natural gas accounting for one-third ! of the total fossil fuel consumption by electric utilities in 1970.
]
The results of a 20-year forecast made by the Bureau of Natural Gas for the Federal Power i Commission (FPC), published in 1972, indicate that the rate of development of natural gas l supplies, both conventional and supplemental, will be inadequate to meet current projections of future demand.to This prediction included consideration of future prospects for additions to domestic reserves, imports of pipeline and liquified natural gas, Alaskan gas, ar.d synthetic gas from coal and liquid hydrocarbons. A successful program of develo ent or implementation was assumed for each of these major current or future supply programs.pO l Early1 in 1973, shortages of natural gas brought about the issuance of Order No. 467 by the FPC. This order sets forth initial priorities based on end use of gas to be followed by pipeline companies. Users of natural gas with the lowest priority are those with "interruptible requirements of more than 10,000 mcf per day where alternative fuel capabilities can meet such requirements." In view of the shortage, the position taken by the FPC is that the use of natural gas for boiler fuel is an inferior end use and that all large quantity sales of gas for use in boilers should be made under interruptible rather than firm contracts. By a rule adopted May 5, 1975, the Federal Energy Administration (M A) established its program to implement Sects. 2(a), (b), and (c) of the Energy Supply and Environmental CooMination Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-319 ESECA) related to prohibiting certain power plants and major fuel-burning installations from burning petroleum products or natural gas as their primary energy source. Utilities have been advised by the FEA that gas use for electric power generation must be phased out and that the use of oil as a power plant fuel is also being restricted. The failure of natural gas supply to meet demand is due to stimulation of demand and constrained resource discovery and development resulting from regulated prices that have become artificially low when compared with competing fuels.12 Deregulation of the price of newly developed natural gas supplies is expected to stimulate supply and restrain growth of demand,s,12 thus eliminating the current shortage problems. However, deregulated prices approaching $2.00 per 1000 ft3 , which are typical in the unregulated intrastate market, would be equivalent to the current cost of fuel oil and, therefore, too costly for boiler fuel.
I S.9-3 The HL&P currently employs natural gas as its primary fuel for generating electricity. Because current restrictions do not permit the use of natural gas as a boiler fuel and because future prices are expected to be too high, the staf f does not find natural gas to be a viable fuel for an 1200-MWe base-load power station. Hydroelectric power The HL&P does not have any conventional run-of-river hydroelectric generation facilities. Considering the topography and the rivers in the south Texas region, the staff does not expect development of any conventional hydroelectric facilities. Development of pumped-storage facilities may be.possible, although currently unplanned, but this type of facility only provides peaking capacity at the expense of increased utilization of base-load facilities. Therefore, hydroelectric power is not an alternative to the proposed ACNGS. Cgal Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States, accou3 ting for 73% of the total recoverable fossil fuels.13 Currently, its primary use is in the manufacture of steel and other gcods and in the generation of electricity. Coal supplied 54% of the energy used in thermal power generation in 1970u' but decreased to about 44% by 1975.15 In terms uf contained energy, electric utilities used about 66% of the coal consumed in'the United States in 1975.15 The National Petroleum Council Coal Task Group's projected demands for coal produced in the United States for the years 1975,1980, and 1985 are as follows: M proiected demand (millions of tons) Consumer ~~T975 1980 19'65 U.S. electric utilities 415 525 654 Total United States 621 734 863
- j. Exports 92 111 138 i Subtotal M F4T WOT Replacement 30 65 70 Total M M T07T The values given as " replacement" in the preceding tabulation are assumed replacement for shortfalls in other fuel supplies.
The FEA forecast of coal consumption in 1985 is approximately the same, assuming conticuation of the high price ($13 in 1975 dollars) for imported 011.8 Expanded use of coal, particulirly for generation of electricity and for production of synthetic liquid and gaseous fuels, has been the proposed energy policy goal of both President Ford and President Carter. The projected demands represent an average annual increase in coal production of 3.7% during the period through 1985. The Coal Task Group concluded that, even under the most favorable circum-stances, it is unlikely that coal alone, could completely eliminate the nation's dependence on imported fuels prior to 1985. M In fact, the FEA studies 8 indicate that favorable development of all domestic fuel resources (coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear) will only restrain petroleum imports in the mid-1980s to the undesirable 1974 level, with hope for import reductions to begin af ter 1985. Because of the adequate availability and reasonable price of coal (compared to other fossil fuels), the staff concludes that coal is the only conventional fuel at present that is a viable alternative to nuclear fuel for a large base-load power station. An environmental and economic comparison of coal-fired and nuclear-fueled power plants is presented in Sect. S.9.1.2.3. 5.9.1.2.2 Potential future energy sources Potential future energy sources applicable to central-station power generation may be the result of technological developments that either improve energy conversion ef ficiencies and techniques or unleash energy sources for new applications. Magnetohydrodynamics and fuel cells are examples of energy conversion techniques currently being investigated. Energy forms from other conversion techniques considered include.(1) synthetic fuels and (2) energy released by combustion of refuse. The "new" energy sources considered in this evaluation are (3) geothermal energy, (4) solar energy, and (5) controlled nuclear fusion. These forms and sources are discussed in the following paragraphs.
- , , . . .- - ~ . - - - - - -. . ~ - . _ - - - . - . . .
S.9-4
- Mgnetohy,drodynamics Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is an engineering technique for more efficient conversion of thermal energy from energy sources such as the fossil fuels or nuclear reactors into electrical energy.
The MHD generator is a heat engine that combines the features of a conventional turbine-generator into a single apparatus by eliminating the turbine and replacing the rotating conductor of a commercial generator by an electrically conductive plasma or fluid flowing in a conduit through. a magnetic field. MHD concepts include both open-cycle and closed-cycle systems. 'n the open-cycle 1ystem, fossil fuel (most likely coal) is burned at sufficiently high temperatures to , produce ionized gas plasmas; conductivity is enhanced .by seeding with conductive ionized salts. In the closed-cycle system, ionized gases and/or liquid metals, heated by fossil or nuclear energy, are caused to flow througir the MHD generator. As noted in the Atomic Energy Comminion (AEC) draft statement for the Liquid . Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program,17 all MHD power generatlon concepts are currently in the development stage. A number of laboratory and pilot-plant-scale plasma MHD generators have produced significant amounts of power (several megawatts) for a few minutes at a time, while those employing liquid metal systems have produced energy on a much smaller scalt. Attention has been directed toward testing various system components; however, until recently, no continuously operating MHD pilot plants have been built. In the spring of 1577, it was announced that the University of Tennessee Space Institute (UTSI) had succeeded in burning high- t sulfur coal in an MHD plant to produce electricity while-containing more than 957, of the sulfur
- without using an expensive desulfurization process.M The UTSI researchers expect their coal-burning MHD plant to have a conversion efficiency of 55% by combining the high-temperature MHD plasma process with a conventional lower temperature steam-electric turbine generator. A second-stage pilot plant, scheduled for completion in 1978, with a capacity of 3 MWe is currently being built by UTSL n addition ERDA reported that Soviet Union researchers have operated a natural-gas-fired MHD plant based on the UTSI model for 250 consecutive hours.le These advances ;
in MHD technology are believed by the UTSI researchers to offer significant confidence that MHD ' may enter the Comercial market sometime between 1985 to 1990. However, this encouraging schedule does not offer much. hope for MHD as a reliable alternative for a power plant planned to begin operation in 1985. Fuel cells r el cells, which are similar to conventional electrolytic batteries, produce electricity through the electrochemical reaction of hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels (such as oil, gas, or j methanol) with oxygen. The electric conversion efficiency is only about 35 to 40%. However, ; the packaged, modular design of fuel cells permits the application of this technology to dis- i persed siting at point of use, such as industrial plants, integrated commercial-residential J complexes, and utility substations.19 In the first two siting examples, the reject neat may 1 also be readily applied to process or space neating and cooling systems, thus increasing the ! overall fuel-use efficiency. In the utility application, the fuel cell can be operated as an J , unattendeo load-following device, thus reducing the quantity of centralized base-load capacity required and substituting for the more complex turbine or diesel-type peak capacity generating units. Fuel-cell research peaked during the early 1960s when the problem of providing electric power for space vehicles was a critical issue. Research and development then declined until the energy crisis developed in 1974, and the Federal government began to expand its interest in developing a greater variety of energy sources. In _1976, ERDA, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and United Technologies Corporation announced their intent to construct a 4.8-MWe fuel-cell demonstration plant.20 lhis effort is expected to result in a certifis. module of a fuel cell power plant by about 1980 and to help with the introduction of larger plants shortly thereaf ter. (Consolidated Edison in New York City has been chosen to operate thi. demonstration plant beginning sometime in 1978.21) Although this technology does offer unique possibilities for increased energy efficiency and environmental advantages associated with dispersed siting and reduced gaseous pollution (fuels are not burned), the question of commercial acceptability and economic viability remain to be shown through demonstrations in the next five years. Thus the staff does not believe that fuel-cell power plants can be considered as an alternative to central-station plants planned for operation'beginning in 1985, nor is it likely that sufficient fuel cells will be installed by individual consumers to reduce the growth rate of electrical energy required from the HL&P during the next decade.
. - .- - .~ -. . - - . . . . ~
S.9-5 l
- Sy n,Lt,htt,i_c_,f,u els, Synthetic fuels from domestic coal and oil shale cannot be considered as alternative sources of energy for the period under study because the processes for producing most of the synthetic fuels are in the developmental or prototype stages. In a 1973 study,M the National Petroleum Council concluded that production facilities for synthetic' liquids and gases from coal could not be developed fast enough to replace the nation's expanding imports of petroleum. Coal gasi-fication and liquefaction plants represent complicated engineerin
- processes not previously tried in the United States. Prototype facilities have been proposed or are under construction to test processes and delineate potential problems, but operation is still in the future. Com-mercial development leading to a significant production capacity of synthetic fuels is not currently committed, although a gasification plant for 50 million f t3 of natural gas per day will be built by ERDA and Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division for operation in the early 1980s ? Two important problems are economics and the environment. 'It has been estimated that' synthetic fuels would cost the equivalent of $15/bbi (1975 dollars).23 A recent information overview has pointed out the environmental hazards, including the potential leakage'of cancer-inducing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during the production of synthetic fuels?
In 1976, the Mobil Oil Cnrporation Senior Vice President. Dayton H. Chewell, stated at the Third Energy Technology Conference in Washington, D.C.. that synthetic fuels will supply about 2.5% of the nation's energy needs by 1990.25 It is the staf f's opinion that no significant change in supply or demand has occurred to alter his prediction. ( 011 shale is the second most abundant source of energy available in the United States. exceeded only by coal. Vast oil-shale deposits exist in the Green River area of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.23 This area covers some 16,000 to 17.000 sq miles of land and is estimated to contain ! some 2.6 trillion bbl of potentially recoverable oil. Although not included in the published figures on " proved reserves," the shale oil in the Green River area is much greater than the oil in the entire Middle East. u However, shale oil is not expected to play a major supply role < between now and the middle 1980s. Production was estimated to start off at about 50,000 bbl / day i in the early 1980s and perhaps reach 250 thousand to 500 thousand bbl / day by 1985, if production problems are overcome. However, this estimate now appears overly optimistic because large-scale development has been slowed pending improved commercial economic benefit, particularly federal i guarantees of investment loans in order to limit financial risks. Finally, ARC 0's President. Thorton Bradshaw, believes that limited water availability will limit ultimate shale-oil produc-tion capacity to near 2.5 million bbl / day unless new technology is developed.M This amount will only help to hold the level of imports of petroleum to current levels but not reduce the nation's dependence on imports.B Combustion of refuse Substantial sources of energy exist in the refuse generated in this nation each year, and many j cities and counties in the United States are studying ways to take advantage of garbage as a source of energy. Although processes for converting municipal garbage and sewage sludge into , methanol, synthetic natural gas, or fuel gas are being evaluated, the combustion of refuse in steam systems for production of electric' power or to provide process or space heat appears to provide the most immediate promise. ; Practical and economic considerations make the burning of refuse for power generation more feasible as an auxiliary to the use of more conventional fossil fuels. The primary concern of a utility company is to deliver electricity to its customers. and the fuel necessary for this purpose must be available to follow the load for operation of a power plant. Storage or stock-piling of raw garbage for this purpose is not practical for aesthetic and health reasons. Further, the ca,nital cost of a. refuse-burning-only steam-electric plant is very high, the base- ) load opert ting and maintenance costs are high, and the cost of the refuse fuel is relatively l low ? ! The model for the design and operation of large dry-materials separation plants being considered is the existing 300 ton / day material separation plant being operated by the city of St. Louis in ' a cooperative program with the Union Electric Company. The city collects and processes refuse by dry shredding and magnetic separation and delivers the shredded waste to Union Electric, 3 where it is burned in the furnaces of two 125-MWe steam generators. However, pulverized coal is i j the primary fuel for these boilers, and 10 to 20% of the total heat input is derived from refuse.20 Use of the estimated potential energy from refuse as a substitute for electric energy at point i of use could reduce the annual electric energy provided by HL&P, Whether this energy is put to -j use is dependent on factors such as development of technology, economics, institutional and : i legal encouragement, and governmental support. Examples of energy from refuse can be found in Nashville and Crossville, Tennessee. Nashville has a steam supply system to supply space and s process heat to a portion of its downtown area.M- In Crossville, a boiler is being installed to i
)
i
_ - - - . - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - . ,_ .
.S.9-6
~
supply process steam to a small industry while burning the wastes collected by the county-wide collection system.30 Wheelabrater-Frye has been involved with two large projects for burning municipal wastes: 1200 tons / day near Boston, Massachusetts,31 and for Jersey Central Power and Light at a central New Jersey location by 1980.32 Information gained in current projects will be useful in determining the best ways of utilizing refuse to obtain energy.
-The staf f believes that refuse should be used to regain lost energy but does not expect that this alternative will be adopted to a sufficient extent during the next decade to lessen the projected need for ACNGS.
1 Geothermal energy, In the United States, there are basically four types of geothermal energy reservoirs: steam, hot water, abnormal pressure zones, and hot rock. The most convenient and economical form of geothermal energy for electric power production is steam. However, dry steam reservoirs are known only in the Larderello-Mt. Amiata region of Italy and at The Geysers in California.33 Hot-water reservoirs are the most common type, but the areas in the United States meeting the criteria for classification as known geothermal resource areas are found only in Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.33 The states con-taining potentially valuable areas include Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The only major known abnormal pressure or geopressured strata zones in the United States are in the northern Gulf of Mexico basin. 34 The two main areas of geopressured strata are in southern Texas and southern Louisiana, extending' offshore. in both areas. '16 wever, there are no known areas of ,qeopressured reported strata ig4the applicant s service area. Geopressured strata have also been in Mississippi, The greatest promise for large-scale development of geothermal energy lies in the utilization of the heat content of hot rock. The western part of the United States holds excellent prospects for finding enormous hot-rock formations. Work in this area, still in the research stage, is being conducted at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico.13 Because there are no known geothermal sources in the HL&P service area, the staff has concluded that geothermal energy is not an available alternative source of energy for the proposed 1200 MWe of base-load generating capacity. Solar energy. There are several approaches to the collection and conversion of solar energy with a potential for power generation, and these approaches can be classed as either natural or technological. The natural collection approaches include wind energy, utilization of photosynthetic materials as fuels and methane production from biological wastes, and ocean thermal gradients. The techno-logical collection and conversion approaches include direct conversion of solar energy to electr.icity (photovoltaic conversion) and solar thermal conversion. Direct solar radiation can also be collected for heating and cooling of buildings. Wind energy. Wind energy can be converted to electric energy for direct consumption or used to electrolyze water and to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells or thermal electric generating stations, In a report to Congress, W. L. Hughes, head of the School of Electrical Engineering at Oklahoma State University, stated that wind generation cannot totally replace power plants using oil, gas, coal, or nuclear fuel.35 The role of wind. power in solving the energy crisis depends primarily on the development of economical commercially available energy storage. systems. The most significant possible use of wind power would be to pump electricity into existing electric transmission systems when the wind is blowing.36 The limiting factors in the large-scale direct application of wind power are a combination of available wind energy and possible weather modification, The current ERDA national solar-electric conversion program includes research and development of three general sizes of wind-onergy devices. These are small machines for farm use, large-scale experimental units (over 100 kW), and multiunit facilities (clusters up to MW scale).37 Under l ERDA sponsorship National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) designed and is operatin I a 100-kWe horizontal-axis wind turbine generator at its Plum Brook Station at Sandusky, Ohio.3g The capital cost of this first-of-a-kind test model with its 125-f t-diam twin-bladed rotor was
$5500/kWe of rated capacity, but the cost of the following 200-kWe test model is estimated at
$2340/kWe. A six-story-high vertical-axis wind turbine with an output. capacity of 60 kWe is being designed at Sandia Laboiatories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as part of the ERDA wind-energy program.39 The output from the generator will be 60-cycle ac power that can be syn-chronized with grid requirements of existing power dhtribution systems.
I l a- m -.
.- - . ~ . - - . - - . .- ~
S.9-7 These examples illustrate that wind-powered large-scale electrical generation facilities are only now in the stage of design, development, and testing experimental prototypes. Demonstra- ) tion of megawatt-scale machines (10 to 100 MWe), including site certification and completion of system dynamics studies, may be possible in the early 1980s." Information obtained from such demonstrations would include estimates of the economic, environmental, and operational feasibility of wind-powered power stations. Because demonstration, acceptability, and commercial availability of wind-powered central power stations are not expected before' the middle 1980s, the staff has concluded that wind cannot be considered a viable alternative source of energy for the proposed 1200 MWe of base-load generating capacity. Photosynthetic materials and organic wastes. Photosynthetically produced organic material Tgrown specifically for ut'Ilization as fuel material) and organic solid wastes (animal wastes and sewage) r.an either be burned directly to produce steam in equipment similar to that used with coal or can be subjected to anaerobic fermentation to methane.36 To be burned directly, these fuels must first be dried in order for combustion to be self-sustaining. If the organic material has a high water content, the energy-required for drying prior to combustion may equal or exceed the heat ccatent of the material itself. The growing of plants fo energy generation is relatively inefficient because the solar conversion efficiency of the photosynthetic process is seldom over 3% during the growing season. Therefore, the amount of land required.for a given energy output is very high. Based on a heating value of 7500 Btu /lb of dry plant tissue and yields of 10 to 30 tons of biomass per acre per year, the land required for a 100-MWe organic-fired power plant would be between 25 and 50 sq miles,36 or 600 to 1200 sq miles for a plant equivalent to the proposed ACNGS. Based on southern softwood forests and kraft pulp mill operation, Szego and Kemp assumed a j softwood growth yield on a sustained basis of 2 cords (5 tons) per acre per year to determine that ] about 1 sq mile of managed forest would be required per MWe capacity at 55% load factor.O i These land requirements are greater than the proposed ACNGS [about 4513 ha (11,152 acres)]. The staf f does not believe that growing plants for electrical energy production is acceptable in , Texas. The technical feasibility of bioconversion of organic material to methane has been established for many years. The immediate goal is to establish the economics of the process using organic wastes and organic materials resulting from photosynthesis. However, anaerobic fermentation to methane of the entire amount of organic solid wastes believed to be economically recoverable would represent a recovery of 3.6 to 7.8 x 10h Btu / year, or approximately 2 to 3% of the yearly i consumption of methane in the United States.36 - Fifteen-year research and development programs are foreseen to make the processes for both direct combustion and conversion to methane of photosynthetically produced material and solid organic wastes economically and technically feasible on a commercial basis.36 Production of methane on a large scale is not now a reasonable al terna tive. Ocean thermal gradients. The difference in water temperature at the surface of the ocean and several thousand feet below the surface can possibly be used to generate electricity in a conventional heat engine. A collection of heat engines moored on 1-mile spacings along the length and across the breadth of the Gulf Stream off the southeastern coast of the United States might provide an annual energy production of 26 x 1012 kwhr.36 If, for economy of energy transport, the electrical power thus generated could be conducted to electrolytic cells, converted and transported as hydrogen gas, and subsequently reconverted to electricity in fuel cells, about one-half to two-thirds of the energy would be recovered. 36 A 15-year research and development program was proposed by the National Science Foundation in 1972 to study the technical and economic problems that could influence large-scale use of ocean thermal differences.36 In mid-1975, three separate research teams claimed to have proved the feasibility of building offshore power plants that use natural differences in ocean temperatures to generate electricity I and are seeking Federal funding for a pilot power plant off the coast of Florida or Hawaii."2 However, the estimated costs range from $45 million to $210 million for a 100-MWe plant and
$425.6 million for a 160-MWe plant. The current ERDA solar-electric-conversion program includes research and development on components (particularly on heat exchangers and deep-water pipes) i for such plants.37 Other renewable ocean-energy options such as waves, currents, tides, and ;
salinity gradients may also be examined.37 However, offshore ocean thermal gradient power ' plants cannot be considered a- viable energy source for Texas consumers in the late 1980s. Photovoltaic conversion. Solar energy can be converted directly to electricity by means of solar cells using photovoltaic conversion, which does not involve moving parts, circulating fluid, or consumption of material. The theoretical maximum conversion efficiency of silicon solar cells is 23%, and efficiencies of 161 have been obtained."3 However, photovoltaic con-
.. version appears today to be economically quite unattractive because the current purchase price of'a sliicon solar cell is about $20,000 per kilowatt.46 )
I
. . . .. ~ .. . .. - .- - ~-- - - - . . -
l S,9-8 The current ERDA solar-electric conversion program includes research and development directed toward l- to 4-MWe demonstration plants with array costs under $500/kWe. H Research ef forts . will be directed toward crystal growth, encapsulation, concentrators, and the production of l low-cost silicon arrays, with emphasis on the use of automation and efforts to reduce material cost. However, it is estimated that solar cell costs must be reduced to about $200/kWe before they will he economically feasible for large-scale power generation. " Therefore, power produc-tion using photovoltaic conversion devices is not currently economically feasible. Solar thermal conversion. Solar thermal conversion systems to generate electricity in central
~
ifitIons will possibly be comprised of solar collectors and concentrators, receivers, a means of transferring the heat to a thermal storage facility or to the turbogenerator, and a turbo-generator to produce electricity. As for all approaches involving the use of direct solar ra.11ation, the basic problems associated with central station electric power generation through solar thermal conversion are related to the variability of solar radiation, nt cessitating either energy storage or backup power, and the low density of solar radiation, requiring large land I areas devoted to energy collection. An area of approximately 10 sq miles would be needed for i the heat collectors required to operate a 1000-MWe plant in the southwestern part of the United l States at an average of 70% of capacity E M Although the fuel itself is free, the capital l investment for collecting, storing, and transforming solar radiation into electricity in thermal l conversion power plants with projected efficiencies of 20 to 30% will be high. , The National Science Foundation recommended a 15-year research and development program with an I estimated cost of $1130 million in 1972 that was intended to make a sol.ir-thermal conversion power plant commercially available by 1990. M The current ERDA solar-electric conversion prugram includes research and development on solar thermal energy conversion power plants, with prelimi- 1 nary ef forts directed toward central receiver and collector systems,37 A key goal of the program a is cost reduction. Such systems will not be economical unless capital cost estimates can at ' least be cut in half." Hot-water heating and the heating and cooling of individual buildings appear to be the most ) promising near-term applications of solar thermal conversion that might provide a substantial j savings in the fuel costs for both individual consumers and electric utilities by the middle or late 1980s. Solar heating and cooling systems could represent 21 of the total U.S. energy use or about 10% of the anticipated heating and cooling energy demand in the year 2000.% Economic analyses of solar heating and cooling applications throughout the United States indicate that heat pumps and heat exchangers (vapor compression cooling) are generally more cost competitive with electricity than absorption systems. For solar space heating only, the range' of solar I effectiveness (fractional energy use from solar) for the most cost competitive systems is 50 to j 85% in the southwestern United States, and the homeowner's capital cost (1975 dollars) for a single-family residence would be from $2000 to $6000."5 Solar hot-water heating system energy costs are estimated to be less than for electric hot-water heating in most of the United States, and the solar effectiveness in optimum-cost systems is from 80 to 90%. The system capital cost to the user wi.ll range from $1000 to $2500 for a single-family residence with an approximate , 1/2-day storage capacity.45 l Significant reductions in the high initial cost of these solar systems, possibl.y through large-scale production, will be required to make them competitive with electric systems. One approach being investigated, which would alleviate the high initial cost to the consumer, involves entry of utility companies into the distribution market for mass-produced solar heating and cooling systems within five to ten years." A homeowner could rent a supplemental solar energy system from the utility and save about 15%/ year on heating, cooling, and hot-water costs after monthly payments for rental of the system. These supplemental solar energy systems would also provide the utility a fuel-cost saving. However, the results of the preceding cost-optimization analyses were based on the assumption that the solar heating and cooling systems involved were ' ! equipped with backup sources of electric energy that would be available when required at a cost equal to current residential rates. Even though electric utilities might experience fuel-cost savings as a result of the use of solar systems in individual buildings, the,v would still need installed generating capacity adequate to meet peak load demands and transmission and dis-tribution networks capable of carrying these loads. The load factor for this backup power would be lower than it would be if there were no individual solar systems in the service area, and the cost of providing this standby capacity would be proportionately higher. If all of these solar-energy-related research and development programs were to be undertaken now or in the near future, the commercial availat ility of the forms of solar energy applicable to central-station power generation probably would not be demonstrated until about 1990 or later. The staf f therefore concludes that solar energy is not an available alternative source of energy for the proposed 1200-MWe power generating plant. Even if a great many customers have individual solar systems installed in 1986, the applicant would still need generating capacity to meet load demands when these systems switched to their backup supplies of electricity during a period of several ci;idy days, although such capacity would be composed of peaking rather than nuclear units. Thus the use of individual solar heating and cooling systems in the service area would not substantially reduce the applicant's overall generating capacity requirements.
S-.9-9 Controlled nuclear fusion : ; There are several concepts currently being investigated for collecting energy from thennonuclear fusion processes. However, fusion power development is in a less advanced stage than solar energy. It is presently estimated that an orderly research and development program might pro-vide commercial fusion power by about the year 2000 and that fusion could then have a signifi- ! cant effect on electrical power production by the year 2020.47 The staff has therefore con-cluded that controlled nuclear fusion is not an available alternative source of energy for the t proposed power plant. o C_oncl us ions Af ter reviewing both the conventional and ptential future energy sources, the staff concludes that only coal is a viable alternative source of energy for the proposed 1200-MWe nuclear power ' plant. The uncertainty about the availability of natural gas and oil from either domestic or foreign sources in quantities sufficient for life-time operation of a power plant eliminates ' oil-fired base-load steam units, combined-cycle units, and gas-turbine units for consideration as alternative energy systems. The lack of available sites eliminates conventional hydroelectric power as an ' alternative, and the lack of demonstrated technology on a commercial basis eliminates the potential future energy sources from consideration as alternatives for central-station power generation by the late 1980s. Neither the potential energy sources nor the more efficient con-version processes are likely 23 be in use sufficient to reduce the growth rate of electric energy t required from central power stdions during the next decade. S.9.1.2.3 Comparison of alternative energy systems: ' coal versus nuclear systems { Having concluded that the only viable alternative energy system to the proposed nuclear facility is a coal-fired generating station, the staff has conducted a detailed comparison of the health effects and the direct economic costs of electricity production with these two alternative fuels. The complete analysis is presented in Appendix 5.D. The following sections sumarize the results of this analysis. Health effects In comparing the dif fering health effects from the use of coal and nuclear fuels, the entire fuel cycle was considered. For coal, this cycle consists of mining, processing, fuel transporta-tion, power generation, and waste disposal. The nuclear fuel cycle includes mining, milling, uranium enrichment, fuel preparation, fuel transportation, power generation, irradiated-fuel transportation and reprocessing, and waste disposal.
~
For each phase of the respective fuel cycles, excess mortality, morbidity, and injury among both occupational workers and the general public were estimated (the term " excess" is used to mean those effects occurring at a higher than normal rate). Although it is extremely difficult to provide precise quantitative values for these effects, a number of estimates have been prepared on the basis of current knowledge of health effects, and present-day plant design, emission , rates, occupational experience, and other data. Although future technological improvements in both fuel cycles may result in significant reduc- I tions in health effects, based on current estimates for present-day systems it must be concluded - that the nuclear fuel cycle is considerably less harmful to' man than the coal fuel' cycle. 'As ; shown in Appendix S.D (Tables S.0.15 and S.D.16), the coal fuel-cycle alternative may be more ' harmful to man by factors of 4 to 260 in an all-nuclear economy, depending on the effect being l considered, or by factors of 3 to 22 assuming all electricity used in the uranium fuel cycle is generated by coal-powered plants. Although there are large uncertainties in the estimates of most of the potential health effects of the coal cycle, the impact of transportation of coal is based on firm statistics. This' . impact alone is greater than the conservative estimates of health effects for the entire uranium fuel cycle (in an all-nuclear economy), and this impact can.be' reasonably expected to worsen as more coal is shipped over greater distances. When {oal-generated electricity is used in the nuclear fuel cycle, primarily for uranium enrichment and auxiliary reactor systems, the impact of the' coal power accounts for essentially all of the impact of the uranium fuel cycle. However,'lest the results of this analysis be misunderstood, it should be emphasized that the increased risk of health effects for either fuel cycle represents a very small incremental risk 4 to the average person. For example, Comar and Sagan 8 have shown that such increases in risk of health effects represent minute increases in the normal expectation of mortality from other causes, i 1
.S.9-10 1
l N more comprehr sive assessment of these'two alternatives and others is anticipated from the ' National Reseach Council Comittee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems." This study may
. assist substancially in reducing much of the uncertainty in the analysis presented.
Direct economic costs The staff has prepared a detailed comparison of the direct economic costs of power generation with a nuclear-fueled power station and a coal-fired power station using western low-sulfur coal. The. CONCEPT computer program 5 0 was'used to obtain the staff estimate of capital costs for
. the proposed nuclear power station and for an equivalent two-unit low-sulfur coal-fired station +
without flue-gas desulfurization equipment. . The recently developed OMCST computer program 51 was used to estimate nonfuel operating and maintenance costs for the two alternative generating stations. The nuclear fuel cycle cost calculations are based on the general procedures outlined ) in the Guida fcr Ewnonio Esahations of Nuaiear Rea3 tor Plant Deeigns (NUS-531), using the .} reference fuel cycle cost components developed in the Final Generio Environmental Stafewnt en the Cac of Recycle Flutoniwn in Mixed Crido het in Light Water Cooted Esactcre (CESm D (NUREG-0002). Fuel cost estimates for the coal-fired station.were calculated by escalation (at I 5%/ year) from the current asking price for 0.5% low-sulfur coal (8100 Stu/lb) from Northeastern Wyoming. The calculations for generating-cost estimates are described in detail in Appendix 5.0. In the final comparison, the applicant's capital cost estimates and the staff's operating and maintenance and fuel cost estimates were used. Table S.D.14 (Appendix S.0) summarizes the results of these calculations. As seen in this table, nuclear generation costs are less than coal generation costs by 5%, when operating at a 50% capacity factor, to more than 20%, when operating at an 80; capacity factor. Use of the staff-derived capital costs would increase the economic advantage of the nuclear alternative. Also, use of the applicant's suggested fuel . costs slightly increases the eco.. -h 4 vantage of nuclear-powered generation. The staff's calculations indicate that c coal-firN plot would'be cost effective only if the achieved capacity factor under the coal altunative were significantly greater (20% or more) than thatiof e the nuclear alternative (historically, the two have experienced similar capacity factors),'cr if 5 nuclear fuel costs would increase significantly faster than the cost of coal between 1977 and' a 1985. Neither of these conditions are thought likely to occur. 'Therefore, the staf f concurs with the applicant that 'the nuclear generating station is economically preferred. Conclusions
' The staff has concluded that the lower probable generating costs in the late .1980s and lesser effects on the health of the general population of the nuclear plant favor its selection over the coal-fired alternatives. The staff is aware of some uncertainty associated with. future "
i construction costs and fuel costs. However, it is generally expected that variation in these . costs will be in the upward direction by about the same proportion for all the plant types, in I which case the nuclear plant 'becomes more favorable.due to its much lower proportion of fuel costs. Downward changes in costs, if any, are expected to be slight and have little effect on the comparison of nuclear vs coal costs. S.9.2 SITES .j
.j In Sect. 9.1.2.1 of the FES, the staff considered in detail the site-selection process used by the applicant for ACNGS. It was found that two sites (Lower Mill Creek and the Gulf of Mexico) in addition to the Allens Creek site appear to be suitable locations. In conclusion, the i f
staff-accepted the. recommendation of the Allens Creek site by the' applicant, not on the basis ' of its proven preference over the other two sites, but because there appeared to be no factor or combination of factors that makes any of the alternative sites clearly superior to the Allens Creek site. The staff has reappraised the applicant's methodology both'of selecting candidate sites and of the screening of candidate sites in view of the reduction in project scope from a two-unit to a one-unit station. Of the particular subregions that were identified as candidate site locations and the screening of ucceptable sites by the selected criteria..no subregions or sites were rejected on the basis that they were unsuitable because of the size of the initially proposed station (2400.MWe). Moreover, the reductions in generating capacity and cooling-lake size'in no way modify the suitability of the Allens Creek site.' For these reasons, the staff concludes that the Allens Creek site remains an acceptable choice for the location of the proposed
~
nuclear station. !r . l p l-t
S.9 111 S,9.3 STATION DESIGN S.9.3.1 Alternative Cooling Systems In the FES the staff considered the following alternative cooling systems for the two-unit (2400-MWe) station design: (1) once-through cooling; (2) dry cooling systems; (3) wet-dry cooling towers; (4) mechanical-draf t wet (evaporative) towers; (5) natural-draft wet (evaporative) towers; and (6) a spray canal (FES, Sect. 9.2.1). The once-through cooling system was rejected on the basis of insufficient flow in the Brazos
. River to provide the continuous flow of 107 m 3
/sec (3780 cfs) of water required for dissipating the waste heat of a 2400-MWe station.. The reduction in generating capacity to a 1200-MWe facHity, which now requires a comparatively smaller circulating 6whter flow of 55 m 3/sec (1940 cfs), does not provide'a premise for the consideration of a once-through system. The Brazos River near the Allens Creek site is not an adequate source of water for the employment of a once-through cooling system for a 1200-MWe generating station.
Of the three generic types of cooling systems that were considered (i.e., the dry, wet-dry, and wet types), only the wet cooling systems were considered to be viable alternatives. Basically, dry cooling systems (which involve no evaporative loss) and wet-dry cooling systems (which have plume-abatement applications) were eliminated from detailed consideration because of economic reasons (FES, p. 9-10) . Based on a reappraisal of these systems, the staff concludes that neither the reduction in the project scope nor the recent technological advances provide substantiation for further consideration of these generic cooling systems. Accordingly, the staff has reviewed the applicant's designs, cost comparisons, environmental .
. impact assessments, and overall comparisons of the mechanical draf t, natural draf t, and spray +
canal cooling systems, all on the basis of the current project scope, as alternatives to the , proposed cooling lake system (ER, Suppl., Sect. 510.1). The staff is of the opinion that spray canals would not be a preferable alternative because of.the lack of experience and the costs of- 1 large-sized systems. Furthermore, the staff is unaware of any closed-cycle cooling system employing spray canals that has been constructed for a power station of this size and that has - been completely successful in its operation, for the cooling tower alternatives (natural draf t and mechanical draft), the staff concludes as ' before (FES, Sect. 9.2.1.2) that they are viable alternative cooling systems for the A1 lens Creek station. The applicant has provided a summary of principal engineering features and a summary of comparative environmental effects and impacts of the cooling tower alternatives (ER Suppl . , Ta bles 510.1-5, 510.1-6, and 510.1-1 respectively). Of particular interest is the water balance for each system. It is shown (ER Suppl., Table S10.1-1) .that total evaporation losses from the cooling lake is 40,400 acre-feet / year as compared to about 18,550 acre-feet / year for the cooling towers. However, the induced (or forced) evaporation losses for the cooling towers are higher by about 26%. Also, natural evaporation from the cooling lake accounts for a significant portion of the total evaporation (about 68%). The staff found similar results for the design of the two-unit station. In any event, the differences in the environmental costs of these alternatives as compared to the proposed cooling system are not of sufficent magnitude to indicate a significant environmental advantage for either system. The overriding environ-mental consideration favoring the cooling lake alternative is the recreational benefit which it, in conjunction with the state park, will provide.
'l S.9.4 TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS The applicant has discussed the alternative routes of the two transmission lines in the ER (Sect.10.9) and in the ER Supplement (510.9). The major changes to the transmission line routes have been discussed in Sect. S.2.2.3. Route 2C is now the proposed route over Route 2A; Route 3A and its alternatives have been eliminated, and the Addicks substation is no longer needed as part of the Allens Creek distribution system. In addition, minor adjustments have been made in Route 1A to minimize impacts of the transmission lines near the community of pleak.s2 The staf f concurs on the ~ routes chosen by the applicant.
l
S.9 12 I REFERENCES FOR SECTION S 9
- 1. "011 Scene May Be Brighter Than First Expected,'#0f! Gu J.' 72(4): 107-111'(1974).
- 2. " Uncertainties Plague '75 Outlook for Oil," Oil a2m J. 73(4): 103-118 (1975).
- 3. "FEA Predicts Sharp Rise in Oil Imports," cit cas J. 74(13):'60~61 (1976).
4 E;cetrical World, January 1977.
- 5. Ele: trual Adv?d, July 1977.
- 6. " Annual U.S. Energy Up In 1976," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines News Release, Mar. 14, 1977.
- 7. "TRC Told U.S. Oil Picture Bleak in '76." ci! Cas J. 74(13): 62-63 (1976).
- 8. Federal Energy Administration, National Energy outlook, Report FEA-N 75/713, February 1976.
- 9. Federal Power Commission, The .1970 N: tional Vcuer Survey, Part T, A Report by the Fedaval Pruer corrtission, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Washington, D.C. ,1971, p.1-4-14.
- 10. Bureau of Natural Gas, Naticnal Gas surply and Dermi,137M330, staff Report No. 2, Federal Power Commission Series 218, U.S. Government Frinting Office, Washington, D.C.,
1972.
- 11. Fed. Ecsise. 38(46): 6384.6386 (1973).
- 12. National cao survey, Vol .1. Chap.1, Preliminary .Draf t, Federal Power Comission, February 1975.
- 13. W. N. Peach, The Energs Outivok fc-r the 1990c, .a study prepared for use of the Subcommittee on Economic Progress of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of 'the United States, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,1973,
- 14. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 Dat.ional Pour suracy, Part I, A Report by the Federa Fouhr Ceneriesion, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ,1971, pp.1-1-19 and I-1-20.
- 15. " Annual U.S. Energy Use Drops Again," Department of the Interior News Release, Apr. 5, 1976.
- 16. National Petroleum Council, U.T En.fr3y DucZook Coal Availability, U.S. Department of the Interior,1973. ,
- 17. Energy Research and Development Administration. Finai Envivormwntal Etacc> cnt, Liquid Metil Fact Breedce Reaetcr Peopzn, ERDA-1535, December 1975.
- 18. The Knoxalite Neva-Sentinel, May 15, 1977.
19' S. H. Nelson, ruel Ce2I sancfit Ana!.cle,
! Report ANL/ES-51, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. , June 1976, i
- 20. Journal of Comern, Aug. 10, 1976 New York.
- 21. Electrical World, Aug. 15, 1977.
- 22. 'The Kno.cuille Neua--Sentir.el, Aug. 30, 1977.
- 23. Ensejy Research Reparto, 1(5): 13 (1975).
- 24. Environ:wntal, Health, cr,d Cor. trol Anrecto of Coal Ccnxrsion: An Infcmation Overvicu, ed. by H. M. Braunstein, E. D. Ccpenhaver, and H. A. Pfuderer, Report ORNL/EIS-94, Draft, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., August 1976. j
- 25. '.' Synthetic Fuels Debated," Encrw p:g. 6(5): 515 (May 5, 1976).
- 26. "Bradshaw Sees Crude Prices Holding at $10-12/ bbl," oft G1e J. 72(33): 32-34 (1974).
i L'
l ! S.9-13 1
- 27. A. E. Evanson, " Solid Waste as 'an Energy Source, the GIPO Cycle," pp.11-17 in Recource kaoverj Thru Incineration (papers ' presented at the 1974 Na ional incinerator Conference).
The American Society of. Mechanical Engineers, New York, May 1974.
- 28. J. F. Mullen, " Steam Generation From Solid Wastes: The Connecticut Rationale Related to the St. Louis Experience," pp. 191-202 in Recouroe Fecovery Thru Indneration., (papers-presented at the 1974 National Incinerator Conference). The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,' May 1974.
- 29. J. W. Meyer, " Solid Waste for the Generation of Electric Power," Monograph No. 7. MIT Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, June 1975.
- 30. Willard Yarbrough, "Crossville is Preparing for Incinerator Testing," N Enoxvitle Neve-Seneinc2, Aug.19,1977.
- 31. " Environment," E7 ectr. ' vorld, October 15, 1974, p. 108.
- 32. F2eetric2! ver!d, . June 15,1975, p.19. l
- 33. L. H. Godwin et al. , Cicanification of Public Lande Vala2ble for Geothemal Steam and Accooiated Ceccher"ui Resources, Geological Survey Circular 647. U.SJ Department of the
' Interior, Washington, D.C. ,1971.
- 34. B.. R. Hise and M. F. Hawkins, Jr. , A Briefing cn Gaccrecoured Water as an Energy Resource for the Con;;rceaional. Delegations cf the Statea of Louietana and Miselecippi, Louis 1ana State University, Baton Rouge, June 13,1973, p.1.
- 35. " Wind Studied as Possible Energy Source," T1.c Enoxvi!Ie !!cus-SantineI, May 22,'1974.
- 36. National Science Foundation / National Aeronautic and Space Administration Solar Energy Panel . An Aeecesment of Solar Energli as a National Energy Fccource, Report NSFlRANN-73-001, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, Washington, D.C. , December 1972.
- 37. " Solar-Energy Plan Published " Eleotr. World 184(6): 28 (1975).
- 38. T. W. Black, "Me<jawatts from the Wind," Power EnJ. 80(3): 64-68 (1976).
- 39. " Wind Turbine Slated to Produce 60 kW." Electr. Abrld 185(5): 32 (1976).
- 40. Energy Research and Development Administration, Ecdcra! Find Er.ergy Progran, surr:ary Fer o nt, ERDA-77-32, Jan. 1, 1977.
- 41. G. C. Szego and C. C. Kemp, " Energy. Forest and Fuel Plantations," Chemtoch, May 1973, 1
- p. 275.
- 42. " Power from Ocean Moves Ahead," Elecer. World 184(2): 27 (1975).
- 43. Statement of.Dr. P. E. Glaser, pp. 104-112 in " Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, !
Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session on Project Independence Blueprint," Serial No. 93-70 . l U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 21 and 25, 1974.
- 44. Mark Davidson, Donald Grether, and Kenneth Wilcox, Ecological Censiderations of the Solar Alternatioc, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory University of California, Berkeley, LBL-5927 February 1977.
- 45. D. F. Spencer, " Solar Energy: A View from An Electric Utility Standpoint," paper presented at American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Apr. 21-23, 1975.
- 46. A. McFeatters, " Solar Energy Units May Be Of fered for Rent in 5 to 10 Years," The Knoxville nevo-sentinct, May 4, 1975, p. C-7.
47/ Special Committee, R. L. Hirsch, Chairman, fusion Power: An Assessment of Ultimate Potential, Report WASH-1239. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Controlled Thermo-nuclear.Research, Washington, D.C.,' February 1973.
- 48. C. .L. Comar and L. A. Sagan, " Health Ef fects of Energy Production and Conversion," in Armua7 Reuteu of Energy, vol .1, J. M. Hollander (ed. ),1976, pp. 581-600.
.-. . - - - .. - . .- - .. . .-. .- . -..--.. -.- _. . . . . . . . . . . - . . - ~ . . _ . . . . . - - - - ~ . ~ .
e i f l i $.9-14
- I l 49. Interim Repcet of the Naticra; Resaar..h Ccweil Comit
- se on Nucicar ani 1, tcr~utive I
Entr;3 Qrtcms, Assembly of Engineers, NRC/NAS, Washington, D.C. , January 1977.
- 50. H._ l. Bowers, R. C. DeLozier, and R. J. Barnard, cera? - A Ccqwtcr code fcr Canupad Coct Ectinatee of Steam-Eicatric Ecoer Fianta, Phua H Uccr's M:v:za: , Report ERDA-108, j Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1975.
1 51. S. T. Brewer et 'a1. , A In.ndure for Estimatiry Scnfuel Operating and Mainten:ve Caste ! lbr Larcie Secam-Eiestriv Peuer Pl2nts, Report ERDA-76-37, Energy Research and Development . l- Administration, Washington, D.C. , October 1975. ! i ,
- 52. in the Mitter of % houcionlightiny and P:cer Oman: - Affidavit of John A. G111,
- relative to transmission lines, July 14, 1975 Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467,. ,
! l 1 4 i , I 1 I i i 1 i l J l 1 l
?
+
N
S.10. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION In the preceding sections, the staff has described the probable environmental effects and asso-clated impacts of the construction and operation of ACNGS, Unit 1 as set forth in the ER Supplement. This section summarizes the staff's evaluation of the proposed action to construct Unit 1 of the origir. ally proposed two-unit station but with a reduced station size and with a substantially smaller cooling reservoir. Because the conclusions contained in Sect. 10 of the FES may no longer apply or require modifications and in an attempt to minimize confusion, they are hereby vacated and are replaced in their entirety by this section. 5.10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EMIIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5.10.1.1 Abiotic effects 5.10.1.1.1 Land use Construction-related activities on the site will disturb about 2315 ha (5720 acres) of pasture and cropland, including the 2072-ha (5120-acre) area inundated by the Allens Creek cooling lake, which will be constructed in conjunction with the station. The land inundated includes about 13 km (8 miles) of Allens Creek. Approximately 104 km (65 miles) of transmission line corridors will require about 749 ha (1850 acres) of land for the rights-of-way. Relocation of the current pipelines as proposed will involve about 12 ha (30 acres). An access road and a railroad spur, less than 1.6 km (1 mile) long, will affect about 16 ha (40 acres). ( S.10.1.1.2 Water use During construction there will be localized increases in turbidity of surface waters. The con-crete batch plant will use about 154 liters / min (40 gpm) from groundwater supplies during the early stages of construction. l During operation about 30,000 acre-f t per year will be pumped from the Brazos River. In addition, the entire runof f of 20,600 acre-f t per year f rom the Allens Creek catchment area and 16,600 acre-f t per year nf direct rainfall will be added to the cooling lake. Approximately 26,200 acre-ft per year will be returned by spillage to the Brazos River. This will result in a 11% increase in the river water TDS consentration during low-flow conditions. About 40,400 acre-f t per year will be lost by combined forced and natural evaporation. S.10.1.2 Biotic effects S.10.1.2.1 Thermal ef fects The thermal alteration of the Brazos River is not anticipated to have an adverse ef fect on aquatic productivity. The thermal alteration of Allens Creek cooling lake is expected to par-tially restrict the range of mast game fish species and have an adverse effect on their produc-tivity. Thermal shock on planktonic forms entrained in the circulating-water intake may reduce the overall productivity of the cooling lake. S.10.1.2.2 Chemical . e f Nc,t_ss Chlorine used as a bioc<de will kill most organisms entrained in the circulating-water intake system of the cooling lake. However, no significant adverse e'fect on aquatic biota 'in the > cont' 3 lake or the Brazos River due to discharges of chlorine and other chemicals from the e.ont is anticipated provided that the TRC concentratio1 in the discharge canal is held below 0.1 ppm. High nutrient levels in the cooling lake may lead to high algal densities during certain periods in the spring and summer months, i r S.10-1 I 1
S.10-2 l l l S.10.1.2.3 fkchanical effects Impingement and entrainment losses of fish in the cooling lake and in the Brazos River should be minimal due to the low intake velocities. These losses are not expected to result in signifi-cant imM cts. S.10.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY S.10.2.1 Sumary The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires t 'he staff to consider specifically the
" relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-ment of long-term productivity." On a time scale of several generations, the use of a site during the anticipated life of a proposed nuclear station would be considered a short-term use of the natural resources of land and water. The resources dedicated exclusively to the production of electric power during the life of the plant will be the land itself, the materials used for construction, the materials used for maintenance and operation, the labor effort expended, and the uranium consumed. The commitment of land and water constitutes a significant use of valuable' natural resources. The land comitted for the 30-year plant life precludes future uses that possibly would be deemed more useful to society than the generation of electric power.
5.10.2,2 Adverse effects on productivity , S.10.2.2.1 Impacts on la.nd use On a short-term basis (i .e. , during construction and operation of the station), 51% of the ACNGS property [2315 ha (5720 acres)] will be removed from potential agricultural use, since it will be covered by the station, its ancillary structures, and the cooling lake. Most of this land [1994 ha (4927 acres)] is classified as prime fannland. During the lifetime of the plant, -l the loss of agricultural production is estimated by the applicant to be approximately $34 i million (1977 price level). On a long-term basis, the 61 ha (150 acres) covered by the station , , and its ancillary structures will be permanently lost for agricultural purposes. Part of the i ! area covered by the cooling lake, however, could be returned to agricultural use by draining 3 ' ! the 13ke when the station is decommissioned. l , Land Jse in the site vicinity is expected to remain predominantly rural. Coastruction and l oport tion of the plant and transmission lines will cause only small impairment of current and futu e land uses. The proximity to Wallis of the proposed Allens Creek State Park and the cool .ng lake, combined with the large property tax benefits provided by the plant, can be expt:ted to accelerate residential and commercial development of the area. S.lt.2.2.2 Impact of water use Maxi num evaporative losses from operation of ACNGS are not expected to exceed 54.3 x 106 m3 !' (44,000 acre-ft) annually. These losses combined with the station's other consumptive water uses are not likely to be competitive with other potential water uses in the river basin during j the lifetime of the plant. S.10.2.3 Decomissioning No specific plan for the decommissioning of the proposed nuclear plant has been developed by HL&P. This policy is consistent with NRC's current regulations that require detailed con-sideration of decommissioning near the end of the reactor's useful life. The licensee initiates such consideration by preparing a proposed decommissioning plan that is submitted to NRC for review. The licensee will be required to comply with the Commission regulations then in effect, and decommissioning of the plant may not comence without authorization from NRC. Under current regulations, the. Commission generally requires that all quantities of source, special nuclear, I and by-product materials not exempt from licensing under Parts 30, 40, and 70 of Title 10 CFR l either be removed from the site or be secured and kept under' surveillance, f Experience has been gained with the decommissioning of six nuclear electric generating stations that were operated as part of the AEC's power reactor development program: Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Piqua Nuclear Power Facility, Boiling Nuclear Superheat Power Station, Elk River Reactor, Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor, and Pathfinder Atomic Power Plant. The last two facilities were licensed under 10 CFR Part 50; the others were Commission-owned and operated under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 115.
. - -c . , . - .- + - , - , . .~ .
1 S.10-3 1 Several alternative modes of _decomissioning have been used in those cases. They may be generally sumarized as four alternative levels of restoration of the plant site, each with a distinct level of effort and cost.
'l. Nachballing: Upon completion of operation, the plant is put into a state of protective storage. In general, the plant will be lef t intact with the exception of the removal from the site of all fuel, radioactive fluids, and waste. Adequate radiation monitoring, environmental surveillance, and security procedures will be established to provide assur-ance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered. Carolinas-Virginia
. Tube Reactor was decommissioned in this fashion.
- 2. Convaraion-fossil fact or nad am: The conversion process consists of utilizing the turbine system with a new steam supply system. 'As in mothballing, all fuel, radioactive fluids, end waste will be-removed from the site. The original nuclear steam-supply system will be disposed of upon separation ~ from the electric' generating system. Pathfinder i Atomic Power Plant was decommissioned in this manner.
- 3. In-plaes sncombmenc: This consists of sealing most of the radioactive and contaminated components, such as the pressure vessel and internals, within a structure that is integral.
with the biological shield. The structure must be designed to provide integrity over. the period of time in which significant quantities of radioactive material exist in the entomb-ment. All. fuels, fluids, and certain selected components will be disposed of of fsite. Boiling Nuclear Superheat Power Station, piqua Nuclear Power Facility, and Hallman Nuclear. Power Facility were deconnissioned in this manner. 4 Completo dismancling: All vestiges of the reactor plant (except subgrade foundations) will be removed and disposed of. All radioactive material above accepted levels will be-removed from the ' site. Upon completion of the dismantling operation, the site will have been returned to the approximate condition that existed prior to the installation of the reactor plant. The areas free of structures are revegetated with a mixture of species
, indigenous to the area. The revegetation process may also include the planting of various tree and shrub species to allow, as well as to enhance, natural succession and revegetation of the area. This treatment will speed'up the revegetation process, whereas a longer period of time would be needed for succession to revegetate.the cleared areas. The Elk River Reactor is being co..ipletely dismantled in this fashion.
The costs of these procedures have been evaluated recently for the Atomic Industrial Forum i The least expensive alternatives are mothballing or entombing methods which would have 1975 costs.(including long-term maintenance and surveillance) of less than $10 million. It appears rather unlikely that the prompt dismantling method will be undertaken because of the necessarily
.large radiation expousre of persor.nel . It is also not necessary to dismantle nonradioactive portions of the station. Therefore, if a period of mothballing surveillance is followed by dismantling of the radioactive portions of a boiling-water nuclear power unit, the 1975 cost would be about $39 million.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations [10 CFR Part 50.33(f)] for licensing of production and utilization facilities state: "If the application is for an operating license, such infor-mation shall show that the applicant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of operation for the period of the license or for five years, whichever is greater, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition." This information is not required in an application for a construction permit, nor is it required at the early site review stage. S.10.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES S.10.3.1 Scope Irreversible commitments generally concern changes set in motion by the proposed action that, at some later time, could not be altered to restore the present order of environmental resources. Irretrievable commitments generally involve the use or consumption of resources that are neither ! renewable nor recoverable for subsequent utilization. Conmitments inherent in environmental impacts are identified in this section, although the main discussions of the impacM are found in Sects. S.4 and S.S. Conmitments that involve local long-term effects on productivity are discussed in Sect. 5.10,2. i
. .- __ - _ _ . _ - - - - . .- ,. ~. -
__ _ _. . . .- . . _ . . . _ . . . _ - . _ _ . _ _~ . . t' S.10-4 S.10.3.2 Commitments considered The types'of resources of concern in this case can be identified as (1) material. resources,-- such as construction materials, renewable resource materials consumed in operation, and deple-table resources consumed; and (2) nonmaterial resources, including a range of beneficial uses of the environment. Resources that generally may be irreversibly .conwitted by the operation of ACNGS are (1) the biological species in the vicinity that are destroyed; (2) construction materials that cannot be recovered and recycled using present technology; (3) mterials that are rendered radioactive but cannot be decontaminated, and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable waste, including the (f-235 and U-238 consumed; (4) the atmosphere and water bodies used for disposal of heat and certain waste effluents to the extent that other beneficial uses are curtailed; and (5) land areas rendered unfit for other uses. 5.10.3.3 Biotic resources 5.10.3.3.1 Terrestrial resources Approximately 61 ha (150 acres) will be covered by the station and will be effectively lost for biological production. Terrestrial habitat supporting 258 plant species,152 vertebrate species, and 700 insect species will be reduced by approximately Sla due to construction of the station and the cooling lake. A woodland comunity along the bluff which contains a number of species having restricted distributions.in eastern Texas, will probably be destroyed. S.10.3.3.2 Aguatic resources The lower 13.7 km (8.5 miles) of Allens Creek will be lost as running-water habitat due to con-struction of ACNGS. There will be an irretrievable loss of some fish and planktenic organisms from the Brazos River due to the filling of the Allens Creek cooling lake and the withdrswal of makeup water necessary for operation of the plant. 5.10.3.4 Material resources 5.10,3.4.1 Construction materials Construction materials are almost entirely in the depletable category of resources. Concrete and steel constitute the bulk of these materials, but numerous other mineral resources are incorporated in the physical plant. Some materials are of such value that economic values clearly promote recycling. Plant operation will contaminate only a portion of the plant to such a degree that radioactive decontamination would be needed to reclaim and recycle the constituents, some parts of the plant will become radioactive by neutron activation. Radiation shielding around the reactar and around other componer.ts inside the primary neutron shield constitutes the major material in this category for which separation of the activation products from the base material is not feasible. Components that come'in contact with the reactor coolant or With radioactive wastes will sustain various degrees of surf ace contamination, some of which could be removed if recycling is desired. The quantitles of materials that could not be decontaminated for unlimited recycling are probably very small fractions of the total amount of these resources available that are in broad use in industry. Many materials on the "Iist of Strategic and Critical Materials"2 (e.g. , aluminum, antimony, asbestos, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, tin, tungs ten, and zinc) are used in nuclear plants. Construction materials are generally expecfed to remain in use for the full life of the plant,
~
in contrast to fuel and other replaceable components. A long time will lapse before final disposition must be decided. At that time, quantities of materials in the categories of precious metals, strategic and critical materials, or resources having small natural reserves must be considered inolvidually, and plans to recover and recycle as much of these valuable depletable resources as is practicable will depend on need. S.10.3.4.2 Replaceable components and consumable materials Uranium is the principal natural resource irretrievably consumed in plant operation. For practical purposes, other materials consumed are fuel. cladding materials; reactor control elements; other replaceable reactor core componer.ts; chemicals used in processes, such as water
- l. S.10-5 !
l l treatment' and ion exchanger regeneration; lon-exchange resins; and minor quantities of materials , used-in maintenance and operation. Except for the U-235 and V-238, the consumed resource q materials have ~ widespread .use; therefore, their use in the proposed operation must be reasonable with respect to needs in other industries. The major use of the natural isotopes of uranium is to produce useful energy,3 Estimated nuclear fissile-fuel energy-equivalent resources exceed the reserves of fossil fuels, which are also useful raw materials for other industries. The estimates of energy resources and demands for the United States compiled by the Bureau of Mines show that the total recoverable yl resources, expressed as theoretically available equivalent energy, are 27 x 1021 J for all foms of fossil fuels, 62 x 1021 J for uranium, and 39 x 1021 J for thorium,
- 5 .]
The quantities of ore that will have to produced and processed and the volume of space that f will be required' for storage and wastes can be inferred from the Comission's report, Dwinw-mental Surwy of tha !Awicar NJ CyeZe.6 In the long term, the stock of depleted uranium may_ be used as feed material in breeder reactor fuel cycles. In consideration of the reserves of . all depletable fuels, the staff feels that uranium consumption in the proposed operation is a i reasonably productive use of this resource. S.10.3.5 Land resources About 2315 ha (5720 acres) of land will be completely comitted to the construction and operation of this nuclear generating station for the 30 years that it will be licensed to operate. The staff does not expect this land to be returned to present uses af ter decomissioning of the station, but anticipates that it will either contin 1e to be used as a cooling system or will be developed as an: independent recreation area. No commitments have been made by the applicant concerning the use of the remainder of the property [2198 ha.(5431 acres)] except for the estab-lishment of a 259-ha (640 acre) state park. S.10,3.6 Water and air resources use of the water consumed by ACNGS can be viewed as an irreversible loss, onlycin.the same sense that natural evaporation from water bodies is an irreversible loss. The staff does not believe that such use will have a long-term effect. The effect of construction and operation of the proposed ACNGS will have little effect on air i resources beyond the minimal impact caused by the various equipment emissions. l S.10.4 COST-BENEFIT BALANCE. S.10.4.1 Benefit description of the proposed plant .l S.10.4.1.1 Electricity produced The electrical energy that will be produced by ACNGS, Unit 1, represents the primary benefit from the proposed project. Operation of this station will result in the annual sale of some 7.9 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity (assuming an annual average capacity factor of 801). Over the 30 years of assumed plant life, this will total over 200 terawatt hours. The present value (in 1985 dollars) of the revenue from the sale of this electricity, assuming an even annual flow over 30 years and a 9% rate of discount, is approximately $5.2 billion. S.10.4.1.2 Local economic and social benefits Because the ACNGS site is within daily commuting distance of much of Houston, it is anticipated that most construction workers will comute from existing residences, rather than choosing to relocate near the site. Additionally, the site is within commuting distance [less than 90 km (56 road miles)] of a number of rapidly developing suburban areas west of Houston, as well as Richmond, Rosenberg, and Katy. Thus, those project workers who do choose to relocate nearer the site (from more removed sections of Houston or from out of town) will find an ample supply of new housing units for rent or purchase. During operation, the station will require approximately 125 employees, about half of whom are expected to reside within the local area. The associated direct increase in local population is expected to be in the neighborhood of 200 people. This magnitude of growth should not cause substantial changes in local growth patterns.
. _ . - . - - - . . - . ~ . - -. - . .. .- ~. --
5,10-6 S.10.4.1.3 Recreational benefits The applicant proposes that a 600-acre area along the southwest shore of the lake be developed and operated as a state park, and that a 40-acre area.at the southern end of the dam be developed for day use only and for boat' access during periods of peak visitation. It is anticipated that the proposed Allens Creek State Park, because of its proximity to the heavily populated areas > of the western sections of the Houston metropolitan area only 72 km (45 miles) away, will-experience heavy use of its day use and lake' facilities as well as its overnight camping . facilities. S.10.4.2 Cost description of the proposed facility The primary internal costs of ACNGS are (1) the capital cost of the onsite facilities. (2) the I fuel costs, (3) the transmission and hook-up costs, and (4) the operating and maintenance costs. The total construction cost of the facility, including interest during construction, is estimated to be $1.3 billion in 1985 dollars. The 1985 present worth of projected annual fuel costs is estimated at $754 million. The estimated 1985 cost of transmission lines directly related to the Allens Creek station is $29 million, and total operating and maintenance costs are projected to have a 1985 present worth of $208 million. S.10.4.3 Environmental costs The major environmental impacts expected to be incurred by construction and operation of the proposed ACNGS, Unit 1, are summarized in Table S.10.1. 5.10.4.4 Decomissioning costs No specific plan has been developed for decommissioning ACNGS, but estimated decommissioning costs tin 1975 dollars) range from $1 million, plus an annual maintenance charge of about
$100,000, to about $39 million for complete restoration of the site (Appendix S.D). In terms of a sinking fund established over the 30-year operation life, the annual cost would be on the order of $100,000.
S.10.4.5 Summary of cost-benefit balance The staf f concludes that the primary benefits of the increased availability of electrical energy and the improved reliability of the applicant's system outweigh the environmental and economic costs of the station. As indicated in Sect. S.9, the staff believes that there would be no reduction 1.i overall costs by the use of an alternative site, the use of an alternative generating system, or any combina-tion of these. The staff concludes that a nuclear station using the Brazos River as a water source, in conjunction with a coolirg lake, is a system that is at least as cost effective as eny alternative system. I a
- - ~ , - - >w . , -
S.10-7 Table S.10.1. Environmental costs of the proposed Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Station E f fect Reference Summary description Land use Land required for plant Sect. S.4.1. 61 ha (150 ac es) Land requered for transmission Sect S.4.1. 749 ha (1850 acies) Land required for cooling take Sect. S 4.1. 2072 ha (5120 aciest ' Land required for pipeline relocation Sect. S 4.1 12 ha (30 acres) Land requirwf for access road and railroad spur Sect. S.4.1. 16 ha (40 acres) - Water use Comsumptive water use Fig S.3.2. Cooling take evaporation,40,400 acre f t ' year Chemical discharges to Brazos River Eact. S.3.3. Negligible Thermal discharges to Brazos River Table S 5.6 .1.3 x 10s Stu/hr for extreme conditions Maximum AT of oischarge to Brazos River Table S 5.7. Estimated at 3.1*C (5.5'F) Chem cal discharges to cooling lake Sect. S.3.3 Chemicals includmg biocides released at approved levels Thermal discharges to cooling lake Table S.5.4. 8.0 X 10' 8tu/hr at f ull power Maumum AT of discharge to cooling lake Table S.S.4. 10.8'C (19 5*F) at full power Social and economic effects During conttruction Sect. S.4 4. M.nemal adverse effects are anticipated. Most workers will ummute from the Houston metropohtan area. During operation Sect. S.S.6. Minimal adverse effects are anticipated. Allens Creek Lake and State Park will provide added recreational facilities for the local and regional areas. Impacts on aquatic life Construction Sect. S 4.3.2. Siltation. bridge construction, and - constructinn effluents will significantly reduce aquatic populations in the lower half of Allens Creek. About 12.9 km (8 miles) of Allens Creek will be inundated by the cooling lake. Temporary reductrons in aquatic popula-tion in the Brazos River near the site wiH occur. Entrainment and impingmera Sect. S 5.31.2. F.ntrainment of plank tonic organisms in the circulating water system will not significantly reduce the productiv'ty of the cochng lake. Sorne mortality of juvenile and adult fish in the cooling lake will result from impinge-ment on travehng screens of circulating. water intake structure. Entrainment mortality in the makeup-intake system should not significantly reduce phytoplankton, tooplankton, or fish populations in the Brazos River. Chemical dacharges Sect. S.5.3 2.2. Total residual chlorine should be 'imited to 0.1 mg/Irter in the circulating-water discharge canal. Impacts on terrestriallife Construction of plant Sect. S 41.1. Construction-related activities on the site wif' disturb about 2315 ha (5720 acres) of pasture and cropland, includmg the 2072 ha (5120 acres) of land inundated by the Allens Creek cookng take, Sect. S 4.1.4. Some additional stress on the population of Construction of transmission lines the Attwater's praine chicken is expected. Operation of plant Sect. S 5.3 3. No segmficant impact is anticipated Operation of transm,ssion lines Sect. S.5 3 3 No significant impact is expected, but some modification of land use is anticipated.
,. . - - - - . _ . . _...-.._-..-- - ----. . .- - - - .~...- _ .~ .. .. _ . . . - .. - - . 1 I S.10-8 lil
~ REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.10
- 1. National Environmental Studies Project, An Engineering Evaluation of Nuclear Pouer Reactor vacc *rn'osioning AZ ternatives t 'Samans Report, Atomic Industrial Forum, N.Y. , November 1976.
- 2. G. A. Lincoln, ' List of Strategic and Critical Materials," Pcd. Regist. 37(39): 4123 q (1972).
1 3. U.S. Dapartment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Preblema, Washington, k
- i D.C., 1970.
- 4. U.S. Atomic Energy Cosanission, Statietical ihta of the Uraniw, Industry: alanuary 1, 1972, (GJ0-100), Grand Junction Of fice, Grand Junction, Colo. ,1972. ,
l S. R. L. Faulkner, " Outlook for Uranium Production to Meet Future Nuclear Fuel Needs in the. United States," in Prco. 4th Int. Conf. Feaceful Useo At. Energy, Geneva, Sulinertand,. ; September 6-16, 1971, (Paper A/ Conf. 49/P/059), United Nations, New York,1972.
- l
\
- 6. U.S. Atomic Energy Consnission Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fue Cycle, Directorate j of Licensing Washington, D.C. , November 1972, i
) i 1 i l [ l i t' . . _ - .- ._ -...a_.-,
. . . . - - ~ . . , - . . - - ~ . - . . . . ~ . . . - . - . - . .. . -. - . . - --. ...... . - -- ,~ .- -. - . - - .- .-.... -. i. l' s j. l'. 1 4 )- l i ! Appendix S.A ' l C0tffENTS l (Reserved for consnents on the Draft Supplement to the I Final Environmental Statement) t ( l l 1 l ) l i S.A-1 l
1. I t Z
- j. ,
l l , Appendix S.B
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ALLENS
- j. CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2. DOCKET NOS. 50-466 AND 50-467, NOVEMBER 1974, ;
i UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING i 1 . a l'
.- 1 l
1. I L S.8-1
- . - . ~ . . . .. - . - - , . . . .. _ . . - . . _ . . . . . . . . . - ,, ,.,.
5.B.-2
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS i' This Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing.
- 1. This action is administrative.
- 2. The proposed action is the issuance of construction permits to the Houston Lighting and power Company for the construction of the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units .1 and 2, located in Austin County, Texas (Docket Nos. 50-466 and 50-467).
The station will employ two identical boiling water reactors producing 3579 megawatts. thermal (MWt) each. A steam turbine-generator will convert this heat to 1146 MWe (net) of electricity. A design rating of 3758 MWt is anticipated at a future date and has been' considered in the assessments contained in this statement. The exhaust steam will be cooled by the flow of water in a closed-cycle system incorporating a newly constructed cooling lake utilizing makecp water from the Brazos River. Blowdown from the cooling lake will.be discharged into the Brazos River.
- 3. Summary of environmental impacts and adverse effects:
- a. Construction-related activities on the site will disturt> about 9000 acres of pasture "
and cropland, including the 8250 acres of land inundated by the Allens Creek cooling lake, which will be constructed in conjunctioO with the station. The land inundated -i includes about eight linear miles of Allens Creek.
'~
i
- b. Approximately 81 miles of transmission-line co ridors will require about 2200 acres of land for the rights-of-way.
. c. Relocation of the current pipelines as proposed will involve about 60 acres, An access , road and a railroad spur, less than one mile long, will affect about 50. acres. l
- d. Station construction will involve extersive comunity impacts. Sixteen families will i be displaced from the site. Traffic on local roids will increase due to construction i and commuting activities. The influx of construction workers' families (2100 peak l work force) is expetted to strain the local housing situation. There will be a demand for increased services in Austin County.
- e. The total flow of circulating water will be 3800 cfs which will be taken from and-returned to Allens Creek cooling lake. -The Allens Creek cooling lake will receive about 90,000 acre-ft/ year from the Brazos River, 28,500 acre-ft/ year as direct rainfall and 24000 acre-f t/ year as runoff. About 70,500 acre-ft/ year will be evaporated,
- 71,000 atre-f t/ year will be returned to the Brazos River, and 1000 acre-f t/ year will be lost as seepage. During the annual drawdown the total dissolved solids (TOS) in Allens Creek cooling lake will increase by a factor of 1.3 to 1.9 and the water returned to the
. Brazos River will cause an average increase in TDS in the Brazos of 0.8*.. The thermal a' tera' ions and increases in total dissolved solids concentration will not significantly affect the aquatic productivity of Allens Creek cooling lake or the Brazos River, The overall impact of construction activities on Allens Creek prior'to filling' of the
~
f. cooling lake will be a reduction in aquatic populations in the lower half of the creek. When the cooling lake is filled, approximately 8.5 miles of Allens Creek will be lost as running water aquatic habitat. The loss of aquatic biota in this section of Allens Creek will be more than compensated for by the establishment of aquatic biota in the cooling like through colonization and introductions of game fish. Cons truction activities may temporarily reduce aquatic populations in the Brazos River near the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station site. Such reductions will most likely be temporary and near the site. l
S.B.-3
- g. Entrainment of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton in the circulating water system may reduce the overall productivity of the cooling lake although the extent of this reduction cannot be estimated. Some mortality of juvenile and adult fish in the cooling lake will resuli, from imp-ingement.on traveling screens of the circulating water . i intake: structure. The low approach velocities to the screens should minimize impingement losses. Chemical discharges during operation of the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station should not significantly affect aquatic blota in the cooling lake or the Brazos River,
- b. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish in the Brazos River will be subject to entrainment in the makeup water intake system. Entrainment mortality should not significantly reduce phytoplankton and' zooplankton populations in' the Brazos River. The effect of entrainment on fish populations in the Brazos River cannot be estimated but low approach velocities should minimize fish entrainment mortality in the Brazos River.
- i. .The proposed cooling lake should provide a valuable recreational fishery. There is a high probability of high phytoplankton densities in the cooling lake which may reduce ,
j water contact activity for certain periods during spring and summer months. I J. The proposed cooling lake will displace white-tailed kites tut may provide suitable habitat for Southern bald eagles and American alligators. It will' attract waterfowl, , possibly in large numbers.
- k. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low, i 1. No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operation release of radioactive materials within 50 miles. The estimated dose to the offsite population within 50 miles from operation of the station is 9 man-rems / year, less than the normal fluctuations in the 175,000 man-rems / year background dose this population would receive.
4 Principal alternatives considered: i a. purchase of powerl , b. alternative energy systems; l c. alternative sites;
- d. alternative heat-dissipation methods.
- 5. The following Federal, State,.and local agencie; were asked to coment on this Draf t
( Environmental Statement: l Advisory Council on Historic preservation l Department of Agriculture i Department of the Anny, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce j Department of Health, Education, and Welf are i Department of . Housing and Urban Development 1 Department of the Interior Department of Transportation I Environmental Protection Agency I Federal Power Commission Office of the Governor, State of Texas County Judge, Austin County, Texas The following organizations submitted comments on the Draf t Environmental Statement, which was published in July 1974: Department of Agriculture ( AGR) Department of the Anny, Corps of Engineers (ARM) Department of Commerce (DOC) Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Department of the Interior (INT) Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Coast Guard , Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) l Federal Power Commission (FPC) Office of the Governor, State of Texas (TEX) Houston Lighting and Power (HLP) Sierra Club (SC) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Copies of these coments are in Appendix A of this Final Environmental Statement. The staff has considered these coments and the responses are located in Sect 11. I
- - . - - .- -- - - . _~ - -. --- ~_ .- -- - - -
5.B.-4 6, This Environmental Statement was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other specified aaencies in July 1974.
- 7. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, af ter weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, against environnental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the staf f concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51 is the issuance of construction I permits for the facilities subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment; I
- a. The applicant shall submit a lake management program, including a development plan for 1 the state parks, which assures that the Allens Creek cooling lake will be a recreational l asset with benefits equivalent to those given in Sect. 5.6.4 of this Statement. . Con- )
sideration should be given in this plan to making the lakeshore buffer zone on the ] south edge of the lake connecting the two state parks into a hiking and fishing area, i and also to modifying the character of the diversion dike by creating a more natural ( looking land form and planting trees. The staff's approval of the program shall be l obtained prior to start of construction of the cooling lake, the dam, or associated structures,
- b. The applicant shall complete the investigation, to the satisfaction of the Texas Historical Commission, of the 20 selected archaeological sites in the vicinity of the plant and cooling lake prior to the start of construction activities that could impact these sites,
- c. The applicant shall control the addition of chlorine to the circulating water system such that the concentration of total residual chlorine at the point of discharge to Allens Creek cooling lake is 0.1 ppm or less at all times. The concentration of total 1 residual chlorine discharged to the Brazos River shall be kept below 0.01 ppm. ;
l
- d. The applicant shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those summarized in Sect. 4.5 of this Environmental Statement, durirg construction of the station and associated transmission lines to avoid unnecessary adserse environnental impacts from construction activi ties,
- e. The applicant shall modify the monitoring programs in accordance with staff recommenda-tions and canplete the preoperational environmental studies (Sect. 6).
- f. A control program shall be established by the applicant to provide for a periDdlC review of all construction activities to assure that those activities conform to the environ-mental conditions set forth in the construction permits !
- g. Before engaging in a construction activity which may result in a significant adverse I environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that i eva' lated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant shall provide written notifi- I cat,sn to the Director of Licensing.
- h. If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible damage are detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage.
- 8. The Draf t Environmental Statement, under Section 7, included one additional condition for the protection of the environment:
l l "The applicant shall use alternate transmission line route 2C around the north end of the ! cooling lake, rather than the proposed route 2A which crosses the cooling lake." The applicant will use this routing, as stated in Appendix G of the Environmental Report i (submitted as Amendment 7 to the ER) and also in comments on the DES which are reproduced l in Appendix A of this Statement. l l i t I l r W v~ "- %--m+ e -- --=< , u- , - - - - - - _ - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - . - - ---
_ _ . . _ . . . ~_ . _ _ . _ . _ . ~ - . _ - . _ - . . . . . _ - . _ 1 1 l l l l l l l l l l Appendix S.C NEPA POPULATION DOSE ASSESSMENT l l t-S.C-1 we a
S.C-Z Appendix 5.C NEPA POPULATION DOSE ASSESSMENT Population dose comitments were calculated for all individuals living within 80 km (50 miles) of the facility by employing the same models used for individual doses (see Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1). In addition, population doses associated with the export of foo:! crops produced within the 80-km region and with the atmospheric and hydrospheric transport of the more mobile effluent species such as noble gases, tritium, and carbon-14 have been considered. S.C.1 NOBLE GAS EFFLUENTS For locations within 80 km of the reactor facility, exposures to these effluents are calculated using the atmosphere dispersion'models in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev.1, and the dose models described in Sect. 5.1 and Regulatory Guide 1.109. Rev. 1. Beyond 80 km, and until the. effluent reaches the northeastern corner of the United States, it is assumed tnat all of the noble gases are dispersed uniformly in the lowest 1000 m of the atmosphere. Decay in transit was. also considered. .Beyond this point, noble gases having a half-life greater than 1 year (e.g. , Kr-85) were assumed to mix completely in the troposphere of the world with no cemoval mechanisms operating. Transfer of tropospheric air between the northern and southern hemispheres, although inhibited by wind patterns in the equatorial region, is considered to yield a hemi-sphere average tropospheric residence time of about 2 years with respect to hemispheric mixing. Because this time constant is quite short with respect to the expected mid-point of plant life (IS years), mixing in both hemispheres can.be assumed for evaluations over the life of the nuclear facility. This additional population dose comitment to the U.$, population was also evaluated. S.C.2 100lNES AND PARTICULATES RELEASED TO THE ATH0 SPHERE Effluent nuclides in this category deposit onto the ground as the effluent moves downwind, which continuously reduces the concentration remaining in the plume. Within 80 km of the facility, the deposition model in Regulatory Guide 1.111. Rev. 1, was used in conjunction with the dose mon ts in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Rev. 1. Site specific data concerning production, transpc! t, and consumption of foods within 80 km of the reactor were used. . Beyond 80 km, the deposition model was extended until no effluent remained in the plume. Food not consumed within the 80-km distance was accounted for, and additional food production and consumption represen-tative of the eastern half of the country was assumed. Doses obtained in this manner were then j assumed to be received by the number of individuals living within the direction sector and distance described above. The population density in this sector is taken to be representative of the eastern United States, which is about 160 people per square mile, S.C.3 CARBON-14 AND TRITIUM RELEASED TO THE ATMOSPHERE Carbon-14 and tritium were assumed to disperse without deposition in the same manner as Kr-85 over land. However,' they do interact with the oceans. This causes the carbon-14 to be removed with an atmospheric residence titne of 4 to 6 years with the oceans being the major sink. From this, the equilibrium rati6 of the carbon-14 to natural carbon in the atmosphere was determined. Ite same ratio was then assumed to exist in man so that the dose received by the entire popula-tion of the United States could be estimated. Tritiun was assumed to mix uniformly in'the world's hydrosphere, which was assumed to include all of the water in the atmosphere and in the upper 70 m of the oceans. With this model, the equilibrium ratio of tritium to hydrogen in the environment can be calculated. The same ratio was assumed to exist in man and was used to calculate the population dose, in the same manner as with carbon-14. S.C.4 . l.10U10 EFFLUCNTS Concentrations of effluents in the receiving water within 80 km of the facility were calculated in the same manner as described for the Appendix 1 calculations. No depletion of the nuclides [ . . . .
S.C-3 present in the receiving water by deposition on the tiotto:n of the cooling lake was assumed, it was also assumed that aquatic biota concentrate radioactivity in the same manner as was assumed for the Appendix I evaluations. However, food consumption values appropriate for the average individual, rather than for the maximum individual, wert used. It was assumed that all of the sport and commercial fish and shellfish caught within the 80-km area here eaten by the U.S. population. Beyond 80 km, it was assumed that all of the liquid ef fluent nuclides except tritium have ' # deposited on the sediments so they make no further contribution to population exposures. The tritium was assumcd to mix unifonnly in the world's hydrosphere and to result in an exposure to the U.S. popul6 tion in the same manner as discussed for tritium in gaseous effluents. 4-E
/
\
Appendix S.D , DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS OF NUCLEAR POWER AND COAL POUER AS ALTERNATIVE Ei1ERGY SOURCES: GEfiERATING COSTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS k = 1
- /
S.D-1 i
S.0-2 Appendix 5.D DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS OF NUCLEAR PDWER AND C0AL POWER AS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES: GENERATING COSTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS S.D.1 COMPARISON OF GENERATING COSTS FOR NUCLEAR FUELED AND WESTERN LOW-SULFUR COAL-FIRED PLANTS In this section, the staff has prepared an economic comparison of a nuclear-fueled' power station and a coal-fired station that uses western low-sulfur coal. This comparison includes a sensi-tivity analysis for the following. variables: construction costs, fuel costs, and plant capacity factors. Included in the discussion are the derivation of each of the cost components and an example illustrating the assembly of these cost components through a standard engineering cost computational procedure into a comparison of generating costs. Because the procedure utilized by the staff is not equivalent to that used by the applicant; the final- results cannot be canpared for each fuel type. However, the difference in prncedure will not affect the ability to make a valid comparison between fuel types. S. D. l .1 . Capital costs The staff used the CONCEPT computer program 1 (phase V) to obtain a separate staff estimate for the proposed nuclear power station and for a low-sulfur coal-fired station without flue-gas desulfurization equipment. This computer program has access to cost-index' data files for 20 major cities in the United States. These files contain wage rate data for 16 construction craf ts and unit cost data.for 7 site-related materials as reported weekly over the past 15 years in the trade publication Engince>4rg Ieua-Rea,nd. These data are used to determine historical trends.(escalation rates) in costs of site labor and materials and to provide a current base for projecting future costs. The basic site labor requirement of 9.7 man hours per kilowatt used by the staff is about the same as that used by the applicant for the nuclear alternative. The staff assumed a slightly lower value of 7.0 man-hours per kilowatt for the coal-fired plant. The staff used escalation rates derived from the CONCEPT data bank, although, on the average, they are not significantly dif ferent fran the 7% per year used by the applicant. The staff adopted an interest rate for borrowed money that. is consistent with current financial considerations: 9% per year compounded. The basic assumptions used by the staff are summarized in Table S.D.I. The assumption of mechanical draf t cooling towers is used since estimates for cooling lakes are not available in the CONCEPT program. The incremental capital costs for cooling lake development is believed to be of the same magnitude as for cooling towers. Summaries of the estimated capital investment for. construction of the nuclear and coal-fired alternatives are given in Tables 5.0.2 and S.D 3. The total capital cost of the nuclear alternative is $1104 million, which is about 18% less than the applicant's estimate of $1343 mil-lion. The result for the coal alternative is $911 million, or 32% more than the applicant's estimate of $690 million (ER Suppl. , Sect. 59.3). The dif ferences will be used to illustrate the sensitivity of total generating cost to variations in construction cost. It is important to note that the range of construction costs given for nuclear and coal-fired plants is not inconsistent with values presented in other re orts during the past two years. 5.D.1.2 0p_erating and maintenance [0&Ml_ costs The staff used the recently developed OMCST computer program 2 to estimate 0&M costs for both the nuclear and the coal-fired stations. The nonfuel 0&M costs in 1985 for the two alternatives at d 601 plant capacity factor (approximate industry average) are given in Tables S.D.4 and S.D.5. As shown, the annual O&M costs for the power plants are given by the DMCST program in fixed and variable expenditures. The variable expenditures are only a few percent of the total for both types of plant. In using the data from Tables S.D.4 and S.0.5 to develop the generation costs, the variable expenditures can~ be computed as a function of plant capacity factor by recognizing that for each
S.D-3 Table S D.1, Assumpthins used in CONCEPT calculations for Allens Creek Nuclear Generation Station (Revised October 19,1977) Plant type Smote un t 8WR with mechamcal draf t coulmg tenwes Af ternate plant types Twaumt coal Un t sue II46 MWe-riet, each unit, nuclear plant; 573 MWe net, each unit, coal bred plant Pf ant location - Actual Austin County, Texas CONCEPT ca!culations Dallas Site later requirements 9.7 man-hours /kWe - nuclear 7.0 man-hours /kWe - coal without FGC7* Escalation durma construction Purchased eqmprnent 6.0%.'vaar Site labor 7.9%/v e'ar Site matenals 5.8%/ year interest dur#ng constructton 9%/ year, compound j Start of-design date NSSS ordered ' June 1975 Ceaal plant June 197 7 Start of-construction date - Nuclear plant November 1978 l Fosul af ternative November 1980 i Start of-cortmercial operation date November 1985 d FGS - flue-gas desulfuruation - Table S O.2. Plant capitalinvestment summary for a single unit 114&MWe boilme-water-reactor nuclear power plant for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Revised Nov. 17,1977) I D. rect costs (mittions of dollars' Land and land rights 2 l Structures and irnprovements 96 , Reactor plant equ:pment 122 Turbine plant equipment 113 Electnc plant equipment 36
%$cellaneous plant equ pment 11 Mam condenser heat rejection system 21 Subtotal 401 Spare parts allowance 6 Contmgency allowance 40 Subtotal (direct costs) 447 indirect costs (millions of dollars)d Construction servrees 73 Home othce engineering and services ' 50 Field office engineering and services 30 Subtotal hnd4 rect costs) 153 Total costs (milhons of dollars)#
Total d< rect and indirect costs' 600 Allowance toe escalatson 153 Allowance for interest 351 Plant cap 4tal cost at commercial operation Millions of dollars 1104 Dollars per kilowatt 963
*In m<d-1977 dollars.
~
.S.D-4 Tatae 5 01 hwn<apte et-mweens se.1=mwy far a reet -
- 11444.twe teas bred paent as an absense,e to the
~ Areca Cmt %c5m Generatee $wseva tRerned ~*see 17,197h Ccw es. y 4e
- , . , -...a .w.~ - ~ .n-..n..n. . . , ~ , . .
Dwett as's 4%4.am se oytet? Lsc eM two e17 - 7
$cucves rd me swa 55 Bows stet +wome*.* 541 Tysvap.enw2w W t 93 E'wic*r C pa*4 t%!p*W, **1
- U ete%wa pem ecrsor*et 14 lbc emdwr cet nyct us >>ce - t7 L!bral 264 Sors Ws exrwor 1 Cer?+ m ,a4 w ee .35
%f>*att 19tzt cWs1 437 1en rett tous (misero o' wher>Y Cestre.c sm441 42 Ha-w cWe reg eerm ed r,co ces . 13 6 red c%se ergwfss rd wre ces Q.
$,tito*Ja lect 1 mtsi 73 Tar # c:nts 4% nom of oc4a'st
' Teta! de+:3 se%1 n1'M1 owf 450 ADNrwe fu ele.4i4W f54 Awaaw he r vem 747
$*#* CJpTE CCMt i al Cta'*Fff* Cap Opteg*@
10&ow 04 Wyg - 3)$ Do'imm ;+ 6 #oer 76
'M N 1977 d@a-1 Tatwe S D 4 $ mar.ry M memd a.adwes apersten and mantenasce costs ke tasebad stemmenetw power plaats a 1985 I % ew of wmts w sirw 1 W *h We eq 1es e l
TM *.s' eewi ge wt. VM $473 P.rt nr* beg 1 f g*.e,6% pe a 4% c a 13.6fC M 4 *C N1 F#ff:+'tCt. $4* C.f'*t M$
& EB Ve t,1/At det 'KF4 1,146 A%.4 ffi 9F'4"M 4F, f'b-hCW5 C44 YS%* ' 6_E23 E9" Y#!T 7 $ fQ Sta*f < t 45 pm.ces et 114 UXr n 1 ;m w y 4 isx ue+w4% mee,(. $ t.m ,w 2300 F , e4 - poet 2;M
- ecce vee t 25 Vr at. s - gir t 0
- te m W e m'
. $.45F*Fs #$d ta Firt. $ l@ tw4" 4750 hes - tret Tzn h4) C4 27(O V v s< - van ?:c Nsrce and tws $13&rer $M Cor o nw.e :-me, mm 1M Gce+ 1 & apt, %sw #s3 0:e-r m *m 73 Acewsvwee we p'-ra. 513X ,w ti13 Tew F <aed cws. Stm .w 17303 Tcia'
- r.r>+ cr#L $10C0 Vw 243 Tet.* rea.* O & V mu,5 tEws t7140 hs+d 9M O & M CDeti. Fdh.% A% 2 14 Vr he v rt O & W c-4rt AsiwNt r 0 44 IGf M W.* O & M fXf5*.k. W ?k 4Wrf 2.T $
a S.D-5 Table 5.D.5. Summary of annual nonfuel operation and maintenance costs for base load steam electric power plants in 1985 Plant tvpe Low-sulfur coal Number of units per station 2 Wrth cool ng take Withou1 SO3 removat Thermal input per unit. MWt 1508' Plant net neat rate 9000 Plant net efficiencv. percent 38 Lach unit, MWe net rating 573 Annuar net generation, milbons of kwhr 6023 Plant factor 0 60 Staff (230 persons at $34.0001. $1000/ year 7800 Maintenance material, $1000 year 2750 Fixed - plant .2165
- coohng lake 25 Variable - plant 540
- cochng lake 20 Supphes and enpenses $1000/vear 3500 Fixed - piarit 850
- fuel oil 2650-variable - plant 0 Insurance and fees. $1000/ year 0 Commercial babAty msurance O Government hab hty insurance 0 Operatrng fees .
O Adm.ntstrative and general. $1000!vear 1150 Total f xed costs. $1000/ veer ~ t 14640 Total vanable costs, $1000'vear 560 Total annual O & M costt $1000!vear 15200 F:xed unit O & M costs. mills /kWhre ' 2 43 Vanable urut O & M costs, m*sikWbre 0.09 Tntal unit O & M costs m*s/kWhre 2 25 , Table S.D.6. Variable operating and maintenance costs in 1985 as a function of plant factor, in thousands of dollars per year Fuel cycle type Plant factor N ' Sc 60 70 80 Nuclear 200 240 280 320 Lowsulfur coal 465 -560 650 750
)
type of plant variable cost is constant when expressed in terms Of unit energy generation; that is, as mills per kilowatt-hour. The variable costs for these plants are summarized for plant capacity factors of 0. 5, 0.6, 0. 7, and 0.8 in Table 5.0.6. The fixed costs for these plants are
$12.9 million for nuclear-power generation and $14.64 million for low-sulfur coal-power generation.
5,0.1,3 Fuel costs The nuclear fuel cycle cost calculations are based on the general procedures outlined in the Guide for Ecanmic Evaluaticme of Nuclear Reactor Plant ::caigne (NUS-531), The reference fuel cycle cost components used are those developed in the Final Generic Environnontal Statement on the Dee of Recycle Plutontun in Mixed-Wide Fud in Light-Water-Cooled Reactora (CESMO) (NUREG-0002). The fuel-cycle calculation
- are based on equilibrium conditions. Under current Federal
-policy, reprocessing and fuel recycle are not included. Without recycle, the spent fuel'is stored.for five years and then is shipped to a repository for disposal. The assumptions used3 in ' the fuel cycle calculations are sumarized in Table S.D.7 Costs for the various components of the fuel cycle are calculated in dollars per kilogram of heavy metal and are converted to mills per kilowatt-hour based On an irradiation level Of 27,500 megawatt-days per metric ton of heavy metal (MWD /MTHM). The costs are calculated 'in 1975
S.D-6 Table S.D.7. Matenal and serv 6ce unit costs Compone n t Unit cost basis 1975 doll.rs Minmg and mdimg* Kilogram of U3Og 61.7 Conversvon to UF, Kilogram of uramum 35 Uraneum ennchment Separatable work 75 umts (SWU) UO3 f armcation Kdogram of heavy 95 me tai Spent fuel transportat on Kdogram of heavy 15 me tal Spent fuel storage Kdogram of heavy 5 rretal per year Spent fuel dnposal b Kdogram 100
'Use weighted average cost (1975-20001 vanes with consumptmn
- Five years' spent fuel stor age costs and shipptr'g to repository are inCUffed in addilloh "O dMPGsal Costs.
dollars, and the cotal fuel-cycle cost is chen escalated dt 4 per year to 1985.4 Table S.D.8 summarizes the nuclear .'uel cycle costs excluding carrying charges. It should also be acted that the $61.7/kg for U 30 3is a use-weighted average cost (1975-- 2000) and takes into account the increasing cost of U303due to depletion of high-grade ores. Table S.D.8. Nuclear fuel <ycle cost excludmg carrying charges w-eme. No recycle Fuel cycle component
$'kg of heavy metal Ells!kb U30, w,th ennchment 684 3 24 F a bncation 95 0 45 Spent 109 disposal Storage (5 years, cost per yead 25 0 12 Shippmg 15 0 07 Disposal 100 047 Subtotal ( 1975 doll vs) 919 4.35 Escalated to 1986 dollars at 5% 1497 709 The carrying charges for the fuel cycle costs are sununarized in Table S.D.9. These calculations are based on che following assumptions:
- 1. The time span ior U303 purchase through conversion to UFe, enrichment, and fabrication covers a one-year period.
- 2. Resident time in the reactor is based on plant CFs of 50, 60, 70, and 80s, and on an irradiation level of 27,500 MWD /MTHM exposure.
- 3. A five-year storage of spent fuel elements is included before final disposal.
- 4. A 10% interest charge on invested funds is required to support the fuel cycle.
According to staf f estimates, the total 1985 nuclear fuel cycle cost including carrying charges ranges from 7.74 to 8.04 mills / kwhr. These estimates are about 30 less than the applicant's estimate of a,) proximately 10.2 mills / kwhr, or 50.D ver million Btu (ER Suppl,, p. SH-109). The staff finds that the current contract asking price for 0.5% low-sulfur coal (8100 Btu /lb) from northeastern Wyoming is $7.00 par ton.5 Long-Jistance freight costs are estimated to be about ode cent per ton per mile, oc about $14.00 per too, to Houston, Texas. The total delivered cost, $21 per ton, is e pivalent to about $1. 30 par million Btu. Escalating this value by 51 per year, the staff Jerives a 1985 cost of delivered low-salf ar cual of about $1.92 per million Btu, or abouc $21 per tua Jelivered price for 8100 Btu /lb of Wyoming cual. This is about 15% less than the costs used by the applicant for 1985 (ER Suppl. , p. SH-10)). The $1.92 per iaillion-Btu
S.D-7 Table S.D.9. Carrying charges for nuclear fuet' Cost for no recycle at Cost factor omt __ Perc".tyJe of capacity f actor _ _ _ 50% 60s 70% 8(f.
. _ . _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _
1975 ddiars per knogram of heavy nwtal 123 105 92 82 Chargo esc #ated ta 1985 donaes 205 174 15. 136 Umt Cost. mdis per kwhr (1985) o 97 o 83 o 73 o 65 At10% cost converts to about 17.3 mills / kwhr at a heat rate of 900, Btu. 7. r . Thus , the fir 3t-war cost of coal would be more than twice the cost of nuclear fuel. S.0.1.4 Power-generation costs The staff's estimates of capital costs, annual OLM costs, and annual fuel costs were used to determine the probable range of generating costs for the two types of power plants considered. The 1985 present worth (PW) of O&M and fuel costs is calculated by assuming a 5'; per year escalation rate and a 101 per year discount rate over an assumed 30-year plant operating life - E for each alternative type of power plant at capacity factors ranging from 50 to 80T These PW values are added to the 1985 PW of the capital cost of each alternative, and the sum is divided by the PW f actor (without escalation) for 30 years at a discount rate of lot per year to obtain the levelized cost of station generation. This cost is then converted to mills per kilowatt-hour (levelized) for each capacity factor. 5.D.1.4.1 Nuclear station The following procedure illustrates the method used to compute the power generation costs for the , nuclear station using the staf f-derived valles and a plant factor of 60T. The 1985 annual O&M cost estimctes used by the staff for the ll46-MWe station were comprised of a fixed component of $12 million and a variable component (Table S.D.6). At a plant factor of 60;, the total 1965 0$M cost for the station is i
$12,900,000 (fixed O&M) + $240,000 (variable O&M) = $13,140,000 (1)
The FW factor for the prescribed 30-year unit life (n = 30 years) at an escalation rate (e) of Si per year ar.d a discount rate (i) of 10*, per year 1,;
.o I
[ ( 1 + c )"' (1 + f)* = 15.8 (2) 3,,
-(1 + i). '
Thus, the PW of the annual O&M cost for the nuclear station operated at a capacity factor of 60% over its 30-year life is PW n 0&M = $13,140,000 x 15.8 = $207,600,000 (3) At a capacity factor of 60%, the 1985 nuclear fuel cost is 7.92 mills / kwhr, and the annual fuel cost (FC) for the ll46-MWe nuclear station is
- FC 2 1,146,000 (8760 hr/ year)-(0.6)-($0.00792/ kwhr) = $47,705,000 ;
the 1985 PW of this cost over the 30-year station life is PW nF C = $47,705,000 (15.8) = $753,740,000 (4) The 1985 PW of the total annual cost of the nuclear station at a capacity factor of 60% over its 30-year lifetime is PW nC = PW n 0&M + PW Fn C = $961,340,000 (5)
S.0-8 The estimated levelized annual cost (LC) of capital, OAM, and FCs for the 30-year operating lifetime was deterttiined by adding the staff's estimated capital cost of the station in 1985 dollars to the 1985 PW of the O&t4 and FC, and multiplying the sum by the capital recovery factor
~ (CR) for 30 years discounted at 10% per year. The CR is the reciprocal of the PW factor, excluding an escalation component, or CR = f(1+i)" =gg. l (6)
(1 + i)y -1 Thus, at a CF of 60%, the LC of the nuclear station is LC = (capital cost + PWasC) x CR = ($1,104.000,000 + $961,340,000) x h
= $2,065,340,000 x h = $219,000.000 (7)
The levelized unit generating cost (GC) of the nuclear station at a 60% plant factor is (leveltzed cost in dollars per year _} (mills per dollars)
- FtBon capacity in'liTlowatts) (hours per year) (plant capacity factor)
~
$219,000000_(100 x--~
- T T46,000 (8760 0.6T
= 36.37 mills / kwhr (8)
~
The generating costs for the nuclear station operated at capacity factors of 50, 70,.and 80% were also computed in the same manner. The effects of potentially higher ruclear fuel costs, due to shortages or higher rates of escalation, were investigated by increasing the fuel cost in two-nominal 25% increments, that is, by raising the cost up to 1.5 times the base cost, thus encom-passing the applicant's nuclear fuel cost estimates. The generating costs in mills per kilowatt-hour are given in Table -S.D.10 as a function of capacity factor and nuclear fuel cost, using the staff's capital cost estimate. Table s.D,10. Levelind generstmg costs of Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg station (114&MWe net output) at the staff's estimated capital cost of s1104 mdlion' Basic nucleaf Cust in rrrlis ' kwhr at h percentage of capacity factor # fuel cost imilis! kwhr) m Goh ~id ~h d 7 09 ' 41.2 36.4 32 9 30.3 8 86 44 6 39.7 36.2 33.6 10 64 48 o 43 0 39.5 36 7
' ' Costs specifsed m 1985 dollars over a ranga of capacity f actors, for a 30-year plant life.
O Ihe carrymg charge for nuclear fuel is a(kled to these basic charges.
' Rounded to nearest one tenth mal per kwhr.
# Value derived m text.
The sensitivity of generation cost to capital cost is illustrated by the results shown in Table 5.0.11, in which the applicant's capital cost estimate was substituted into the computations by the staff. From Tables 5.D.10 and 5.D.ll. it can be seen that the nuclear plant generation costs can range from a low of about 30.3 mills / kwhr for the low construction cost and low fuel cost assumptions at an 807 CF, to a high of about 53.0 mills / kwhr at a 50% CF when both capital costs and nuclear fuel costs are about 50% higher. L_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
S.D-9 Table S D.11. Levehred generating costs of Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (1146 MWe net output) at the appbcant's estimated capital cost of $1343 mdhon' Basic nuclear Cost in midUkWhr at fuel cost
- _ percentage of ca.miy f actor' (mdis 'k Whi ) 50 % 60% 70 % Ns 7 09 46 3 40 6 36 5 33 5 8 86 49 6 43 9 39 8 36 7 1o 64 53 o 47.2 43 1 40.0
" Costs specifred in 1985 dollars over a range of capacity f actors for a 30 year plant hfe.
8 The carrying charge for nuclear fuel as added to these basrc charges
' Rounded to nearest one tenth mill per kwhr.
After the useful life of nuclear power units is over, a utility must consider methods and costs of decommissioning the nuclear unit. This can be accomplished by one of the following methods: (1) mothballing, (2) entombment, (3) prompt dismantling, (4) mothballing and delayed dismantling, or (5) entombment and delayed dismantling. The costs of these procedures have been evaluated recently for the Atomic Industrial Forum.7 The least expensive alternatives are mothballing or entombing methods which would have 1975 costs (including long-term maintenance and surveillance) of less than $10 million. It appears rather unlikely that the prompt dismantling method will be undertaken because of the necessarily large radiation exposurc of personnel. It is also not necessary to dismantle nonradioactive portions of the station. Therefore, if a period of mothballing surveillance is followed by dismantling of the radioactive portions of a boiling-water nuclear power unit, the 1975 cost would be about $39 million. If the delayed dismantling method is selected and a 5% escalation rate is applied to 1975 costs, the 1985 value would be about $36 million per unit; 50 years af ter the end-of-plant life, the decommissioning cost might be about $1.8 billion. The annualized 30-year cost of generation to cover the decommissioning costs would be about $92,000 with a 10% per year discount rate. Com-pared to an annual generation cost of about $219 million (Eq. 7), the annualized deconnissioning cost is a very small increment. S . D.1. 4. 2 Low sulfur coal-fired station The generation costs of the coal-fired power station are computed in the same manner as those of the nuclear station, but the estimated values for the fuel and O&M costs for a coal-fired station are used. The staf f applied the same variation to the 1985 delivered cost of coal - 25 and 50% greater than the baseline - as they applied previously to the nuclear case. The com-puted generation costs for this range of coal prices and the 50 to 80% range of CFs are shown in Table 5.0.12 Jsing the staff's estimate of $911 million for construction. Table S D.12. Levehred generating costs of two unit low-se' fur coal fired power station (1146 MWe total output) at the staff's estimated capital cost of $911 mdhon"
.- - . - - . . - _ - - . - - . . ~ - . . - . -
Coal f> red fuel cost _ at percentage of capacity f actor # Cents per 106 Btu Mdis! kwhr' 50% 60% 70% 80% 192 17.3 52 4 49 3 46 4 44 5 240 21.6 60 4 56 5 53 6 51 7 288 26 o 67.8 63.9 61.0 59.1
' As a funchon of fuel cost and capacity factor, assuming a 30 yea: plant hie.
- Rounded to the nearest one tenth mdf per kwhr.
'Mdb per kdowatt-hour obtained by assuming a net heat rate of 9000 Btu kwhr.
i
S.D-10 using the applicant's lower capital cost value of $690 million the staff has computed the generation costs for the coal-fired plant as shown in Table S.D.13 for the same range of fuel costs and capacity factors. Table S D.13. Levehred generatmg costs of two-unit low-sulfur coal-bred power station (1146.MWe net output) at the appbcant's construction cost of $690 milhon# Coal I red fuel emt percentage of capacity factor e Cents per 106 Btu M ilk . k W hr ' 192 17.3 48 6 454 43 1 41.3 24 0 21 6 55 8 52 6 50.3 48 5 288 26 6 G32 60 0 57 6 55 9
# As a funct an of f uel cost and capacity f actor, assuming a 30 year piar,t hfe.
8 Rounded to nearest one tenth mdi per kilowatt hour It can be seen from Tables S.D.12 and S.D.13 that the coal-fired generation costs may vary from 41.3 mills / kwhr for the low fuel cost case and applicant's capital cost estimate at the highest capdcity factor, to 67.8 mills / kwhr for the case of low capacity factor, high fuel cost, and the sta f f's inves tment-cos t es timate. S. D. l . 5 Summarund conclusions Table S.D.14 summarizes the nuclear and coal-fired generation costs using the applicant's capital cost estimates which favor the fossil fuel option and the probable O&M and fuel costs derived by the staff. These results indicate that nuclear-generation costs are less than those of coal-fired plants, ranging from 5; less at a 50t capacity factor to more than 20% less at an 80t capacity factor. L uis Pa staf f-derived capital costs would increase the economic advantage for the nuclear plar.t alternative as illustrated in Tables S.D.10 and S.D.12. The staff finds that using the applicant's suggested fuel costs also slightly increases the economic advantage of nuclear-powered generation. The staff's calculations indicate that coal-fired plants would be economically competitive only if the achieved capacity factors are significantly greater (20% or more) than those of nuclear-fueled power stations (which has not been the case historically), or if nuclear fuel costs increase significantly faster than coal costs between 1977 and 1985. Neither of +hese aberrations are thought likely to occur. Therefore, the staf f agrees with the applicant that the nuclear-p9wered generating station is economically preferred. Table S.D.14. Comparison of generating costs of the propowd nuclear plant with a low. sulfur coal. fired plant at the Allens Creek site On milhons of dollars, unless otherwice specified) 1146 MWe nuclear plant 1146 MWe coal bred plant Cmety factor N Capacity factor (%) gg 50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80 1985 cap 4tal cost 1343 1343 1343 1343 690 690 690 690 1985 PW# operat.on and 207 207.6 208.2 208.9 233 6 240 2 241 6 2432 maintenance cost F uel cost, muls. kwhr 7.09 7.09 7.09 7.09 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 Nuclear fuel carrwng 0 07 0 83 0 73 0.65 charge, mals/ kwhr Total nuclear fuel cost, mills / kwhr 8 06 7 92 7.82 7.74 1985 PW fuel cost 639.3 753 7 868 2 982 1 1372.1 1646 4 1920.8 21952 1985 PW total cost 2189.3 2304.3 2419 4 2534.0 2300 7 257G 6 2852 4 3128 4 Levehted annual cost 232.2 244.4 250 6 268 8 244.1 273 3 302 6 33 t .9 Levehted generating cost. mills / kwhr 463 40 6 36 5 33 5 48 6 454 43 1 41.3 PW = Present worth, assummg a 5% escalation rate and a 10% discount rate during a 30 year operating hfe. l _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ -
5.0-11 5 S. D. 2 HEALTH EFFECTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO C0AL AND NUCLEAR-FUEL-CYCLE ALTERNATIVES Dif fering health effects from using coal and nuclear fuels have been considered in the environ-mental assessment of each alternative. In making these assessments, the entire fuel cycle rather than just the power generation phase was considered in order to compare the total impacts of each cycle. For coal, the cycle consists of mining, processing, fuel transportation, power generation, and waste disposal. The nuclear fuel cycle includes mining, milling, uranium enrichment, fuel preparation, fuel transportation, power generation, irradiated-fuel transportation and repro-cessing, and waste disposal. In preparing this assessment it has been recognized that there are large uncertainties due to the lack of an adequate data base in certain areas of each fuel cycle alternative. The overall uncertainty in the nuclear fuel cycle is probably about an order of magnitude (increased or decreased by a factor of 10), whereas there is an uncertainty of as much as two orders of magnitude in the assessment of the coal fuel cycle. The much greater uncertainty associated with the coal fuel cycle results from (1) the relatively sparse and equivocal data regarding cause-ef fect relationships for most of the principal pollutants in the coal fuel cycle and (2) the ef fect of Federal laws on future performance of coal-fired power plants, mine safety, and culm-bank stabilization.
" Health ef fects," as the term is used here, is intended to mean excess mortality, morbidity (disease and illness), and injury among occupational workers and the general public. (" Excess" is used here to mean effects occurring at a higher than normal rate, in the case of death, the term is used synonymously wi th premature mortali ty. ) The most recent and detailed assessments of health effects of the coal fuel cycle have been prepared by the Brookhaven and Argonne national laboratories."13 The most complete and recent assessment of the radiological health effects of
, the uranium fuel cycle for normal operations was prepared for the Final annie Fnvirmwntal
+ " 'mn t an the Uce cl*
. c :pic Plutoniw, in l'wMwide Fuc t in Light-Mr-Waled Re 'tcro (L I).14 However, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.20(e), the current impact of the uranium fuel cycle (excluding reactors and mines) is defined by the March 14, 1977, revision of Table S-3,10 CFR Part 51. Consistent with the Commission's announced intention to reexamine the rule from time to time to accommodate new information [ Fed. Regiet. 39: 14188 (1974); and Fed.co h t. 42:
13803 (1977)], staff studies are under way to determine what areas, in addition to waste manage-ment and reprocessing, may require updating in Table S-3 [uxim of Prqued Rale-dig, Docket No. RM 50-3; and " Environmental Ef fects of the Uranium Fuel Recycle," Fed. Regist. 41: 45849 (1976)). Using the Table S-3 ef fluents and the models developed for 290 J, it was possible to estimate the impact on the general public of the uranium fuel cycle for routine plant operations. These values are shown in Tables S.D.15 through S.D.20, and some critical assumptions related to estimates are shown in this Appendix, Sect. S.D.3. Table S D 15. Summary of current energy source excess mortahty per year per o 8 GWytc) Fuel cycle Ompadou b M MW igag Acc' dent Disease Accedent D sease Nuclear: U S populat>on All nuclear f uel cycie o 22' O. I 4 6 0 05' o 06 6 oo 6 All coal f ared f uei cycle o 24 to o 25d# 014 Io o 46 ' o lo' ' o 64 io 4 68 11 to 5 4
# 12' Coal: req!onal population o 35 to o 65 o to P 13 to 1108 15 to 120 Range ratio of coal to nuclear cycles 32 to 2fic All nucleanpowered cycle ' ,
14 to 22 All coal powered cycle"
#Pomanly f atal noniadiological acc&nts such as f alls, euplosions, etc.
6 Pomanly f atal ead egenic cancers and leukemias from normal opet at.ons at mmes, rmla. power plants, and reprocessmg plantt Pnmanly fatal transportation accidents (Table S 4.10 CFR Part 51) and senous nuclear accidents d Pnmardy f atal minmg accedents such as cave ins. fires. emploseons, etc.
'Pomanly coal workers pneumocomosis (CWP) and related respiratory d!seases leading to respiratory fadufe
'Pnmardy members of the general pubhc lulled at rad crossmgs by coal trains 8Pnmanly respu atory f ailure among the sick arid eldedy from combustion products from power plants.
but mcludes deaths from waste coal bank fires
^Wah 100% of all e!ectocity consumed by the nuclear fuel cycle produced by coal power. umounts to 45 MWe per 0 8 GWyteh a
m.i.
5.D-12 Table S.D.16. Summary ed current energt source esceu mod.edity and myry pet 0.8-GWyle) power plant Occuoatcriai . Generai puttnc Mort >d ty inkry Morted ty loWry
- Nuclear U S poWaton Altn clear u fuel cycie . OW 12 8
.OW 01 # 14
- M coa) fired fuet cycle 13 to 4 t' 13 to 14 8 13 to 5 3' . 0 5!/ 17 to 24 '
Aat. retonal poNatd 20 to 70' - 17 to 34" 10 to 100 10' 57 to 210 Range: rat o of coal ttmectev cydes 41 to 15 M rwcreer powed cyc'e 3 4 to 8 8 AD coalpowered cvete'
'Primardy runfat# cswers and thyrord nAles.
8 Pnmedy conf atat irianes anoceted mth accgjerets m uranium mmes such at rock fans. expics:Ons, erC.
'Pdenan:v rersfate cancers, thyro >d rWees, gmerca9y refated deseases, and nonfataf dinesses
- such as rad <aton tnvrovd;t s. prodromal vomittrq. and temporary itechty - f;;4towerg bry1
' f arfiaten &>ses_ .
# Transporteon-reisted rniuries from Tatse Sr4.10 CFR Part St.
' 'Pomwily runiaraf d-seases asecciated wit" cod tr9nery such as CWP troncNtes, errphysema, est.
'Pr.enanly rno;ratory d.seases among Flits a-d childreo caused by suf fur eessaons from coal fsted power piarits and maste-coabbank f wes
'Permarily nor'f atal triunes among membetk from cotirses mth coal trains at raoroad erossey
*Prwar ety iriores to coa! n. nets from cave ww. f.res. e=ptos.orw. etc.
'W,th 100% of ait estncity cor.surned by the nuctw f uet cyc e prodxed trv cosi power, amounts to 45 MWe per 0 8 G Av tes.
- Coal effects se based on a retonal sumiatron of 3 S mdfe peopte w th.n a) km of the coat plant. The 80 km poNatron in the ver 2000 near Yeoon Creek ss about 0 $ mAun people Theretare, tne health 4# fects re<ated to coal should be reduced by one order of m#tAe iJ/d t The cod ettects outs.de an 80km rades have tot teen consgiered trr the sta+f; however,it is tne onr on that thev wou;d increne those calculated for ee 80 km aasus.
Tabte S D.17. Morbiety and insury per 0.8 GWyte) for 100% nuclear powered feel cycle
- Occupat.ona' Gener a: piorc
, TM M ybety infurv 8 Mortxt tv ' tnpy '
Remece recovery d 10 e 'O Pro &wng' d 06 e O Powerpeeratcn d .1.3 e 'O F u+t sto4 age d a e 'O Terspostate d <1 e 01 Reprocessing d y e y Wnte manar nent d y e 'O Totd 0 84 12 038 01 14
'Det24d asta from summry in Tatse 5 016,
*L O Huntion. ed.. The Health and Dwovenfa! Effects of Electacity Generefron 4 Prehmmary Report. Sm9 haven Natiov Latnratory, My 1974
'Taue S4.10 CF R Pet 51
#Nonf atat carcers are ieu than ce eovat to fat # cance s tesclud.ng toyfonti, or ce about 0.14 Norf atal thy to d cancers and twr+ r'odees are about 3 trnes me numtet of f ata, cancers. or me atmt 0 47 Genet >c sefects ve about 2 trrnes the number of f atM cancert or se abo-t 0 ?&
'Rextoe accideats Ten te,es the rvmter of f atAt.es or as e atnut 0.40 rontate caws Normd typergtans honf ati cancers ye less thai or equa! to f atM CaMets 3' Fe atnut 0 064. Nor-f atai thy oed cancers v.d nodules are about 3 timn the n-. mtn< of fatar cancers. or ere aoout 019 Genetc efreets are atiout 2 t<mn the weer of fatat caacert or aie ateut 0 013
't cfudes mihW,. urane benafluoride prah.cte. uramum enrechment and fuei f-st# sc a( Cet
#The eHect5 essOC+ated w'th the%e 3Ctr4-'f-es erg not k WM at this time. Arthough slech effects are general'y (MbeeHf to be small, t hey would mcrease the tC4M A The COsumn.
5,0-13 Table S.D.18. Excess mortality per 0.'8 GWyis) for 100% coal fired fuel cycle
- Fuel cycte component Total Accident Disease Accident Disease Reso arce recovery 0.3 to 0 6 0 to 7 b b Processing 0 04 b b 10 Power generation 0,01 b b 3 to 100 Fuel storage b b b b Transportation b b 1.2 b
- Waste management b b b b Total 0.35 to 0.65 0 to 7 12 13 to 110 15 to 120
' Detailed data from summary in Table S D.t 5.
b From L D. Hamdton, ed.lThe Health and Environmental Effects of Electncity Generation: A Preliminary Report. Brookhaven National Laboratory July 1974.
'The ef fects associated with these actWities are not known at this time. Although such ef fects are generally believed to be small they would increase the totalin the column.
Table S.D,19. Excess mortality per 0.8 GWy(e) for 100% nuclear powered fuel cycle' Fuel cycle component Total Acciden t
- Disease 08' Accident'd I,isease' Resource recovery 02 0.038 -0 g Procesuns* 0 005' O.042 / 0.002 Power generation 0.01 0.061 0.04 0.011 Fuel storage / -0 / -0 '
Transportation ~0 -0 0.01 -0 Reprocessmg / 0 003 i 0.050 Waste management / 'O / 0 001 Total 0 22 0.14 0.05 0.064 0 47 Detailed data from summary in Table S.D.15.
*L D. Hamilton, ed., The Health and Envoronmental Effects of Electricity Generation A Pre /iminary Report Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 1974.
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm>ssion, Fma! Generic frwironmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Platonium in Mhed Oxxie Fuelin Light Water-Cooled Reactors, NUR EG-0002, August 1976.
10 CF R Part 51. Table S 3.
*10 CFR Part 51, Table S 4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reacror Safety Study, WASH 1400. NUREG-75/014 October 1975.
'These effects are not included in Table S-3,10 CFR Part 51. Reference cited in footnote c above indicates about 0 023 excess deaths per 0 8 GWylel due to radon-222 emission.
A lncludes milhng, ur amum hexafluoride production, manium enrichment, and fuci fabrication.
' Corrected for factor of 10 error, based on references value given in The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (Light water-Cooled) and Related facilities, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH 1250, July 1973.
i The effects associated with these activities are not known at this time. Although such effects are generally believed to be small, they would mcrease the total in the column. Because Table S-3 (in 10 CFR Part 51) excludes radon releases from uranium mines, the health effects of such releases on the general public are not included in Tables S.D.15 through S.D 20..
.The effects of such releases would result in some small increases in the total risks of mortality and morbidity as discussed in this Appendix, Sect. S.D 2.3.
In addition Table S-3 does not generically address releases for light-water-cooled power reactors. The estimated Mtal-body population-dose commitments for both occupational workers and the general public were taken i,-- T!n T (uranium-recycle-only option). In addition, the occupational-dose commitments to %.+ars in >=nium mines, mills, uranium hexafluoride plants, uranium fuel plants, and uranium enrichment plants ce taken from c/ESNO I, because they are not considered in Table S-3. However, these. dose commitments are comparable to those that would result from the radiological releases described in NUREG-0216, which provides background support for Table S-3. The' dose commitments o the public and occupational workers in the March 1977 revision of Table S-3 'were used for estimating health effects from the reprocessing and waste management aspects of
S.D 14 Table S.D.20. Mortudity and injury per 0.8 GWy(el for 100% coal bred fuel cycle d Fuel cycle component . Total Mortud.tv Injury Morbidity injur y Resource recovery 20 to 70 13 to 30 e c Process ry c 3 e r Power generation c L2 to to 100 c F uei stor age c c c c Tranmortation c c c- 10 Waste management c c t c Total 20 to 70 17 to 34 to to too 10 57 to 210
- Detailed data from summary given in Table S 0.16.
b C. D. Hamniton, ed., The Health and Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation: A Prelim / nary Report, Brookhaven Nat.onal Latxwatory. July 1974. Tne eHectl assoctated With thse activities are not known at this tirne. Although such ef fects are generalIY beheved to be Small they would increase the total in the column. the uranium fuel cycle. The risk estimators used to estimate health effects from radiation dose commitments were taken from GESM9 I and the Reacta Safety Studjf.15 The impact of accidents in fuel cycle facilitiesik and reactors 1s generally does not markedly increase the impact of nonnal operations for the uranium fuel cycle, but has been included in this assessment for completeness. No comparable' analysis of health ef fects resulting from accidents in coal-fired plants is available at this time. Estimates of death, disease, and injury from nonradiolo
- are evaluations from Brookhaven National Laboratory.e-tgical with the causes exception forofthetransportation-uranium fuel cycle accident-related deaths, which were taken from Table S-4, 10 CFR Part $1. The results of these assessments are shown in Tables S.D.15 and S.D.16. It should be noted that there are two lines under the nuclear fuel cycle: the first assumes all of the electricity used within the uranium fuel cycle is generated by nuclear power (i.e., an all-nuclear economy); the second line asssumes, as shown in Table S-3 (10 CFR Part 51), that 100% of the electricity used within.the nuclear fuel cycle comes from coal power. This is equivalent to a 45-MWe coal-fired plant, or 4.5% of the power produced.
S.D,2.1 The uranium fuel _g g Currently, the NRC estimates that the excess deaths per 0.8 gigawatt-year electric [GWy(e)] will be about 0.47 for an all-nuclear economy. This estimate is probably somewhat high because of the conservatism required in evaluations of generic plants and sites. (" Conservatism" is used here to mean that assumptions regarding atmospheric dispersion, deposition of particulates, bicaccumu-lation, etc. , generally result in estimates of impact that are typically ." upper-oound" estimates, in most cases, the estimates would be lower for real plants.) However, this estimate is not greatly different from those made by others , such as Comar and Sagan17 (0.11 to 1.0), Ham' iton8 (0.7 to 1.6), and Rose et al.18 (0.50). The uncertainty in the estimate is about an ordet of magnitude. If, as shown in Table S-3,100% of the electrical power used by the uranium fuel cycle enmes from coal-fired power plants, the NRC estimates there would be about 1.1 to S.4 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e). Of this total, about 0.62 to 4.9 excess deaths per 0,8 GWy(e) would be attributable to coal power (Table S.D.15). The uncertainty in the estimate is about one order of magnitude. The total number of injuries and diseases that might occur among workers and the entire U.S. population as a result of normal operations and accidents in the uranium fuel cycle was estimated to be ehout 14 per 0.8 GWy(e) for an all-nuclear economy. Injuries among uranium miners from accidents account for 10 of the 14 cases (Tables 5.0.16 and S.D.17). If 100% of the electrical power used by the uranium fuel cycle comes from coal-fired power plants, the NRC estimates there would be about 17 to 24 injuries and diseases per 0.8 GWy(e). Of this total, about three to ten excess events per 0.8 GWy(e) would be attributable to coal power (Tables S.D.16 and S.D.18).
.The uncertainty in the e timate is also about one order of magnitude.
Although anticipated somatic (nongenetic) ef fects associated with normal releases of radioactive effluents from the nuclear fuel cycle are limited to potential cancers and leukemias, for the higher doses associated with serious nuclear accidents there is some small risk of various non-fatal somatic ef fects (footnote o, Table S.0.16). At this time, only light-water-cooled power reactors have been thoroughly evaluated.15 However, it should be noted that power reactors probably account for most of the potential health effects associated with nuclear' accidents in the uranium fuel cycle. L -. . _ _ _ _ . . ._ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . .. . . . . . . . .
5.0-15 l This results from the f act that power reactors represent 80% of all fuel cycle f acilities expected to be operating for the balance of this century l4 and account for the majority of occupationally expesed individuals. In addition, although the probability of serious accidents is extremely small, if one were to occur, the health ef fects would be larger than those for any other type of fuel cycle facility. Serious nuclear accidents in power reactcrs might also contribute about 0.04 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e), whereas transportation-related accidents are estimated to contribute about 0.01 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) (footnote e. Table 5.0.16). . Early and latent nonfatal somatic ef fects that might be expected af ter high radiation doses include a variety of effects (footnote 2, Table 5.D.16). It is possible that nonfatal somatic ef fects could be an order of magnitude greater than excess deaths resulting from accidents;l5 thus, the total number per 0.8 GWy(e) would be about 0.4 This accounts for about one-third of the morbidity shown for the general public and an all-nuclear economy in Table S.D.16. The number of nonfatal thyroid cancers (5 to 10t mortality rate) and benign thyroid nodules would be about 0.6 per 0.8 GWy(e) from routine releases to the public and occupational exposures (pri. marily external irradiation), whereas other nonfatal cancers would be less than or equal in num H r to fatal cancers [about 0.2 per 0.8 GWy(e)]; (footnote e, Table S.D.16). It is believed that genetically related diseases (e.g. , cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, certain anemias, and congenital abnormalities such as mental retardation, short-limbed dwarfism, and extra digits) and abnormalities in the descendants Of workers and the general public from both normal operations and accidents would be perhaps twice the number of excess deaths due to cancer from total-body irradiation;l bl9 this could add another 0.3 health ef fects per 0.8 GWy(e) among workers, and 0.2 health ef fects per 0.8 GWy(e) among the general public (compare footnote on Table S.U.16 and footnote d on Table S.D.17). [n assessing the impact of coal power used in the uranium fuel cycle, Table S-3 (lG CFR Part 51) was used as the basis for the assumption that 1005 of the electricity used in the uranium fuel cycle, primarily for uranium enrichment and reactor operation, came from coal-fired plants. Adding 4.5% of the health effects per 0.8 GWy(e) from the coal fuel cycle significantly increases the health effects per 0.8 GWy(e) from the uranium fuel cycle, as shown on the second lines of Ta b les S.D.15 and S. 0.16. . S.0.2.2. The coal fueicycle Current estimates of mortality and morbidity resulting from the coal fuel cycle are quite uncertain; this is the principal reason for the wide range of values reported in the literature. - These uncertainties result from the limited number of epidemiological studies and dif ferences in interpretation of the results of such studies. There is additional uncertainty regarding the ef fects of new Federal laws on coal-cycle facilities in the next decade. Current estimates of i e/tess deaths for the entire coal cycle range from 15 to 120 deaths per 0.8 GWy(e), whereas disease and injury estimates range from 57 to 210 cases per 0.8 GWy(e), in the case of occupational ef fects, there is considerable uncertainty because of anticipated reductions in health effects resulting from the implementation of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Saf(tty Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-173). The provisions of this ect should result in signif t- x cant improvement of the underground work environment, p articularly in regard to coal dust. Coal dust is a cause of (1) underground explosions and fires and (2) coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), commonly called black lung disease, and subsequent progressive massive fibrosis (PMF).%12 In addition, more coal in the years ahead is expected to be produced by strip mining, I which results in lower mortality rates.8 As a result, the frequencies [per GWy(e)] of both types of events are anticipated to decline in the years ahead. On the other hand istics show that new coal miners experience higher mortality and injury rates than experte, 12 As a result of expected coal production increases, an influx of inexperienced . end to increase the mortality and injury rates for miners as a group. For the general public, there is also considerable uncertainty in the estima, on of health effects. (in the case of coal plant ef fluents, consideration of health effects was limited to the popula-tion within 80 km of such plants.) For example, although there are estimates of health ef fects related to burning culm banks (waste banks from coal screening), recent efforts by mine operators have greatly reduced such fires, and future processing activities are expected to avoid fires as a result of new methods of stabilizing the banks to prevent slides.21 Curre t o timates of excess deaths in the public from sulfates from such fires range from one to ten per 0.8 GWy(e) (footnote y. Table 5.0.15). Power generation is estimated to result in 3 to 100 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) (footnote J. Table S.D 15), whereas excess morbidity ranges from about 10 to 100 per 0.8 GWy(e) (footnote c. Table 5.0.16). The uncertainties are even greater in the power generation phase of the coal cycle, where 3 estimates of healm ef fects range over several orders of magnitude.17 This is largely due to the lack of a reliable data base for predicting health effects from the various pollutants
S f-16 emitted frr coal planta , and tre INtem ef fects of the i 1-for coal plants regardin1 particulate and sulfur emissions in future years. There is scre unc"tainty as to wnether these standards can be n.et in large coal-fired power plants over the life of the plant, The major pollutants emitted include:
- 1. m: < These contain large amounts of toxic trace metals in respirable particle '
size, such as arsenic, antiMn), cadmium, lead, seleniu~, raq anese, and thallium, significant quantities of be'ylliun, chromium, nickel, titanium, zinc, nolybdenum, ' and cobalt; ' and traces of radiu -226, m radiun-22E, thorium-223, and thoriun-232.
- 2. ...n ,. These include very potent carcinow ns (cancer-causing substances) such as benzo (a) pyrene.
- 3. :Q L , m
- 5. er. < These include ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon dicxide, mercurj vapor, and radon-222.
These rollutants have no well-established epidemiologic cause-ef fect relationships that csr be used to estimate total health ef fects accurately, either ef fects resulting f rr acute exposures during air pollution episodes or those resultirq fron chronic long-tem ecosures. Although definitive cause-ef fect relationships are lacking, tentative cause-ef fect rel6tionships for sulfur emissions have been used b/ numerous groups to estimate health effects from sulfur e,issions free coal plants. They are described by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in a recent report to the U.S. Senate. The most widely quoted studies are those by Lave and Seskin, ' Winkelstein et al., and an unpublished study by the EPA that was used in the NAS/N9C study for the U.S. Senate in general, the effects range from excess deaths frca cardiovascular fai!ure and increases in asthma attacks during severe air pollution to excess respiratory disease frce londtem chronic exposures. Most of the acute deaths are among the elderly and the severely ill, Wreas morbidity from long-tern ecosure also includes children. Although widely accepted cause-ef fect relationships were not derived fron studies of acute air pallution episodes in London in 1952, ' in Donora, Pennsylvania, ir. 1948, ' and in New York,' these studies definitely support the Conclusions regarding excess death and disease associated with emissions fron CCrbustion of coal. There are no esttrates of possible long-tem carcinogenic ef fects by sulfur oxides or associated pollutants. In addition, tne recently comleted (1976) large-scale EPA Corrunity Health and Environ ~ ental Surveillance System (CHESS) study f ailed to provide any new or definitive cause-effect relationships for any of the pollutants from coal-fired plants that could te used to proilde better estimates of he3lth ef fects tnan are c;rrently available. C The $22 nillion CHESS study attemoted to correlate air pollution data collected frm six U.S. cities with a variety of health probler
!f it is assuM d that nea coal-fired plants in the 1930s can reet , ,. . a .cef n .1
._. (which could require 93 sulfur removal for high-sulfur coal and about W partiulate removal) and can reet other Federal laws regard,ng mine safety and culm-bank stabilizaticn, the nurter of deaths should be reduced. Thus, current estimates of 15 to 120 deaths per 0.8 GWy(e),
due largely to sulf ates f rom combuttion coal, nay be reduced by about half. Recently, Argonne National Laboratory developed a predictive cadel for deaths from emission of benzo (:) pyrene, which indicates about 1 to 4 deaths per 0.8 GWy(e), dependirs on use of convu tional cortustion or fluidized-bed conoastion. ') Such effects, although greater than the e wected deaths from the entire uranium f uel cycle (all-nuclear econry), do not significantly cnange tne total impact of the coal fuel cycle and were not included in the effects listed in Table 5. D 15. Protably the most reliable estimates of deaths associated with the coal fuel cycle are those associated with transportation accidents. Because a 1000-PWe coal-fired plant consumes about 2.7 million tonnes (three nt111on tons) of coal per year, there are literally thousands of carloads of coal being transported by rail from mires tn plants. It has been estimated th3t about one cut of every ten trains in the United States is a coal train going to a coal-fired powe r plant. il These trains are estimated to travel an asersge distance of about 430 km (300 miles) from the mine to the plants.2' As a result, there are about 1.2 deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) among workers and the general public. Further, because most of these deaths occur at railroad crossings, the numbers can l'e expected to increase as more autccobiles are operated ard driven greater distances, and as rail transportation distances increase when hauling low-sulfur western coals to eastern markets.
l S.0-17 Sickness among coal miners and the general public accounts for most of the nonfatal occurrences in the coal fuel cycle, with most of the remainder due to injuries among coal miners. As a result of implementation of Federal laws, it is probable that future rates among underground miners will be substantially reduced. It is not unreasonable to assume that current estimates of about 57 to 210 cases of sickness and injury among workers and the general public could be reduced in the years ahead, inasmuch as occupational sickness and injury currently account for about half of the total nonfatal health effects. The overall uncertainty in the estimates of health effects for the coal fuel cycle in this assessment is probably about one order of magnitude because the Brookhaven estimatesb H generally fall within the range of estimates in the literature. l S.D.2.3 O_ther considerations Although the w x ter A fc q R udsl5. has helped provide a perspective of the risk of mortality or i morbidity from potential power reactor accidents (the current experience for serious accidents is - l zero), there is the additional problem associated with individual perception of risk. Thus, I although the study concluded that "all nonnuclear accidents examined in this study, including fires, explosions, toxic chemical releases, . dam failures, airplane crashes, earthquakes, hurri-canes and tornadoes, are much more likely to occur and can have consequences comparable to, or larger than, those of nuclear accidents," there will continue to be uncertainty associated with such evaluations. Furthermore, there may be a problem of public acceptance of potential accidents, because the consequences can be severe. In fact, it appears that some people more readily: accept, for example, having 55,000 people actually killed each year in violent highway accidents, one or two at a time, than they do the unlikely occurrence during their lifetimes of perhaps several thousand possible deaths from a single catastrophic accident. As noted in the March 1977 revision of Table S-3 (footnote 5) in 10 CFR Part 51, the ENO 1 radon-222 release increases from 74.5 to about 4800 Ci when releases from mines are included. This would result in a small increase in the total number of excess deaths shown in Table 5,0.15, although the mortality per 0.8 GWy(e) for the general public would increase by about 30L It is a well-established fact with regard to the coal fuel cycle that the use of coal results in numerous other costs to society that have not yet been adequately quantified. These include;
- 1. Short- and long-term impacts of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides on biota and materials occur. Acid rain, for example, is known to be severely damaging to terrestrial and aquatic j habitats. Argonne National Laboratory provides _ a detailed discussion of these and other ;
1 ef fects of sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions.u However, as more coal plants come on line, these effects can be expected to expand to surrounding areas.
- 2. Materials such as paints, building surfaces, statuary, and metals are damaged by emissions of sulfur oxides, ozone, and nitrogen oxides. A 1976 review of such effects indicates that ,
the costs could range into billions of dollars per year in the United States alone. " ] 1 l
- 3. Soil and vegetation are contaminated to toxic levels by such mechanisms as deposition and bioaccumulation of trace elements present in gaseous emissions.
1
- 4. Entire ecosystems in streams and rivers are destroyed by acid mine drainage, and the !
potential exists for public health ef fects from downstream use of such water for domestic ] or agricultural purposes. 1
- 5. In addition to the occurrence of excess mortalities, injuries, and morbidities, society 1 suffers medical care costs, lost productivity, and other social losses, which represent a significant consideration that has not been completely evaluated at this time. Some recent studies have attempted to deal with these extremely complex issues,33* H and f have concluded that social costs' from one coal-fired plant may currently be about $50 million per year, not considering the rest of the costs for the coal fuel cycle.
- 6. There is the possibility of the so-called " greenhouse effect," a phenomenon expected'to occur sometime early in the next century as a result of the present and future anticipated ,
oroduction rates of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuel.35 Because each j IC03-MWe coal plant produces about 6.8 to 9.5 million tonnes (7.5 to 10.5 million tons) l
- of carbon dioxide per year,8 it is believed these emissions from hundreds of fossil-fueled power plants may result .in greater releases of carbon dioxide than the atmosphere and oceans can cycle. As a result, the carbon dioxide concentrations would be expected to increase in the atmosphere. Because carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared radiation, it is oostulated that the mean atmosphet ic temperature will rise several degrees. This may cause 1 or part of the polar ice caps to melt, resulting in inundation of many inhabited areaf / the world. At the same time, drought would be expected to prevail in many of the agricattural areas of the temperate zones, resulting in huge crop losses. It is possible
. - . . - .- - ~~ -
, .= -
S.D-18 , that the particulates emitted by fossil plants will counteract some of the greenhouse effect by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. However, another-effect from carbon dioxide released by coal combustion occurs because coal has essentially no carbon-14. In effect, the stable carbon dilutes the carbon-14 in the biosphere, resulting in a reduction,in the radiological impact of both naturally occurring and man-made carbon-14. 7 An additional consideration that ha not been evaluated for'the coal cycle is the radiological impact of mining and burning coal. Of interest is the release of radon-222 from the decay of radium-226 in coal. Not only is the radan released during mining and combustion, but it will continue to emanate from fly ash for millions of years af ter the
-coal has been burned. Although Pohl M has shown that this is not a problem with most eastern coal (generally of high sulfur content but with a uranium content of 1-3 ppm), the average uranium and radium content of some reserves of low-sulfur western coal is as much l as 50 times higher than that of most eastern coal."'M Combustion of the coal and disposal l Of the remaining ash lead to about the same health effects from radon-222 emissions as '
do uranium mill-tailings _ piles. These releases would account for only about 0.02 excess' deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) due to fuel cycle activities during the rest of this century. As a result, such releases do not significantly affect the conclusions reached with regard to a comparison of the two alternative fuel cycles. In addition, some believe39 that if the physical and biological properties of the radium released from conventional I coal-powered plants (burning coal with I to 2 ppm of uranium-238 and thorium-232) are ' considered, such plants discharge relatively grea!.er quantities of radioactive materials into the atmosohere than do nuclear plants of comparable size. The EPA has estimated radiation doses from coal and nuclear plants of early designs and has reached similar conclusions.U' S.D.2.4 Con.lusions
)
For the reasons cited herein, it is extremely difficult to provide precise quantitative values l for excess mortality and morbidity, particularly for the coal fuel cycle. Nevertheless, esti-mates of mortality and morbidity have been prepared, based on present-day knowledge of health ef fects and present-day plant design, anticipated emission rates, occupational experience, and other data. These are summrized in Table S.D.15 and Table S.D.16 (footnote J) with some impor-tant assumptions inherent in the calculations of health effects listed in this Appendix, Sect. D.3. Although future technological improvements in both fuel cycles may result in significant reductions in health effects, based on current estimates for present-day technology it must be concluded that the nuclear fuel cycle is considerably less harmful to man than the coal fuel I cycle. e- 12, n ,1 % 2 p ,3'W As shown in Tables S.D.15 and S.D.16, the coal fuel cycle alterna- l tive may be more harmful to man by factors of 4 to 260 (depending on the effect being considered) J if all the electricity used is assumed to come from an all-nuclear economy, or by factors of 3 l to 22 if all of the electricity used by the uranium fuel cycle is assumed to come from coal- ' powered plants. Although there are large uncertainties in the estimates of most of the potential health effects of the coal cycle, it should be noted that the impact of transportation of coal is based on firm statistics; this impact alone is greater than the conservative estimates of health effects for the entire uranium fuel cycle (all-nuclear economy), and can reasonably be expected to worsen as more coal is shipped over greater distances. In the case where coal-generated electricity is used in the nuclear fuel cycle primarily for uranium enrichment and auxiliary rear, tor systems, the impact of the coal power accounts for essentially all of the impact of the uranium fuel cycle. However, lest the results of this be misunderstood, it should be emphasized that the increased risk of health effects for either fuel cycle represents a very small incremental risk to the average public individual. For example, Comar and Sagan17 have shown that such increases in risk of health effects represent minute increases in the normal r apectation of mortality from I other causes. A more comprehensive assessment of these two alternatives and others 'ts anticipated later in 1977 f rom the National Researcn Council Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems.3 '*5 This study may assist substantially in reducing much of the unct tainty in the analysis presented.
. _ = _ .- - _ _ ._. . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ __
S.0-19 S.D.3 ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO ESTIMATES OF FUEL-CYCLE HEALTH EFFECTS Some important assumptions in this study affecting evaluations of fuel cycle health effects have been made_for both uranium and coal fuel cycles. S.D.3.1 The uranium fuel cycleh For mine and mill emissionf[it was assumed that population density in the United States varies f rom 2.9 perstms/km2 (7.5 persons /sq mile) in the West to 62 persons /km2 (160 persons /sq mile) in the East, all uniformly distributed. For 611 other facilities, density was assumed to be 62 persons /km2 . (It should be noted that most of the calculated health effects would occur outside the 80-km radius of the plant. The mortality rate for the U.S. population is about 2,000,000 per year from all causes.)
" A box" atmospheric dispersion model was used with vertical dispersion limited to 1000-m, 2-m/sec windspeed,' and 1-cm/sec deposition velocity for particulates. Resuspension of deposited particulates was ' considered.
A 50-year dose comitment for one year of operation of each type of fuel cycle facility was calculated. The 50-year commitment considered biological uptake of long-lived radionuclides for 40 years following the year of release. The total impact of the fuel cycle to the U.S. population for 1975 to 2000 was calculated using the needs for all types of facilities in order to meet current projections of power plants. A plant capacity factor of 80% was assumed in these calculations. Radioactive materials were not considered to be removed from food chains except by radioactive decay. Only in the case cf carbon-14 was an environmental sink assumed to be acting on biologi-cel availability. Bioaccumulation of radioactivity in food chains was also consu red (generally using upper-bound estimates). Krypton-85 and carbon-14 not removed from.the plume in the United . States were assumed to mix uniformly in the world's atmosphere. Tritium is assumed to be mixed uniformly in the,world's circulating water volume, l ( S.D.3.2 The coal fuel cycle 2 -4 l l The major impact of the coal fuel cycle results from power-plant emissions; only those critical assumptions are addressed here. Actual population distributions within 80 km of several nuclear plant sites were used in estimating the impact of the coal fuel cycle. The average population of 3.8 million people has an annual mortality rate of about 26,000 persons from all causes. Actual meteorological data from the same plants were used to calculate inhalation exposures to sulf ates out to 80 km, with the assumption that the oxidation rate for conversion of sulfur dioxides to sulfates would be 10% per hour. A 75% plant capacity factor was assumed. It was ; also assumed that the plant would '. ave a 1000-f t stack for emissions, and that 99% of the particulates would be removed from plant emissions. Resuspension of deposited particulates was not directly considered, although deposition was. l The dose-response relationships of Lave and Seskin.25 Winklestein et al. 26 and others e ,9 M were used to calculate excess mortality and morbidity; adjustments were made for fractions of sulfates in the total suspended particulates. Use of 3% sulfur coal with 12% ash and 28 MJ/kg (12,000 Btu /lb) (eastern coal) for an upper-bound estimate of health effects was assumed; use of 0.4% sulfur coal with 3% ash and 28 MJ/kg (eastern coal) for a lower-bound estimate was assumed. i l
')
- . _ . . . - , - . . . _ _ . - - . ... - .~ - , - - - - . - - - - . - . - . _ _
5.D-20 l' REFERENCES
- 1. H.1. Bowers, R. C. Delozier, and R. J. Barnard, OcSCEPT - A ccgater code for conecptual c
coot Eocimatec of Stczn-E:ectrie hver Flante: Thace IV User'n Manual, ERDA-108, Energy Research and Development Administrattor, Washington, D.C., June 1975. ' 2. S. T. Brewer et a1. , A Procedure fcr Eninating N:nfuel Werating and kintenande Ccata ) for Large ste w slee M e roteer Tiants, ERDA-76-37, Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C., October 1975.
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor negulation, Final Environ- .
i mental St-atewnt cn Black For Statix, Unita 1 and 2, of tha %Mie Scroico Com my of OHah m , NUREG-0176, Washington, D.C., February 1977, i
- 4. V. . A. Moore, ADEP Prdcat Instruction #7e 6, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Division l of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, July 20, 1976.
j i 4
- 5. Ca ; usek, June 20, 1977, p. 3.
1
- 6. D. R. Muller, ADEP Projcet Instruction #?e-3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Reactor Licensing, Sept. 16, 1975. l f 7. National Environmental Studies Project, An Engineerin,7 feakettien cf N M ar nrm r caMor recamissior ig A2ternatiscs: Smary Ecpert, Atomic Industrial Forum, N.Y. , November 1976.
- 8. L. D. Hamilton, Ed. , The Health and Envirur:mcnta! Effects of Electricity G naracicn: A Pre lf -in.zrj E.:part, Brookhaven National Laboratory, July 1974.
- 9. L. D. Hamilton and S. C. Morris, " Health Effects of fossil Fuel Power Plants," in Population Upca:nes: Proceedinge of the Eighth SHdyar hpic21 Syqosium cf the Haaith
( Physics sce(ety, October 1974, a
- 10. L. D. Hamilton, " Energy and Health," in Trsceedinge of the Connecticut Conferanu ev.
! Enamp, December 1975.
- 11. S. C. Morris and K. M. Novak, Hansack l3r the @cmt ific2ticr. of Heahh Fffecto fren coa l Enciw S.ctev t (draf t report), Brookhaven National Laboratory, Dec. 15, 1976.
l 12. A. J. Dvorak et al. , Health and Esa?ogical Fffems of Coc! Utizimien (draf t report), Argonne National Laboratory, November 1976.
- 13. Argonne National Laboratory, Ar Accceoment of the Fealth and D.vincment.at ivyacts of..
[ Finidind-Bad Cc" hun an cui ao qplied to E enrical Utility 9yetero (draf t report), Jan. 25, 1977. , l
- 14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fina! Gencrie Environmental Statement en the Uca of Recple P:u tonium in Mixed-3:W Fuc t in Light-Water-Cooled Reactore (CE55m 1), NUREG-0002, August 1976.
- 15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, m agtor F:2fety Striy, WASH-1400; NUREG-75/0 b October 1975.
- 16. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, N Safet.y of Nlcar Peeer Reactore (Light-Ener-Cooledt and Re ?ated Fact Meies, WASH-1250, July 1973,
- 17. C. L. Comar and L. A. Sagan, " Health Ef fects of Energy Production and Conversion," pp.
581-600 in Aenaa Eceica cf Energy, vol.1. J. M. Hollander. Ed. ,1976.
- 18. D. J. Rose, P, W Walsh, and L. L. Leskovjan, " Nuclear Power - Compared to What?" Am. Sci.
64: 291-99 (1976).
- 19. D, Grahn, " Cost-Benefit as Weighed on Genetic Scales," pp. 371-86 in Encrgy and the Environmer:t: C.act-Fenefit Analysis, R. A. Karan and K. Z. Morgan , Eds. , Pergamon Press ,
N.Y., 1976.
- 20. " Energy and the Environment," p, 43 in council en Environmental gaality, August 1973.
21, D. F. S. Natusch, J. R. Wallace, and C. A. Evans , " Toxic Trace Elements : Preferential Concentration in Respirable Particles," science 183: 202-04 (1974). L
- m. _ .
i l 5.0-21 l
- 22. S. T. Cuf fe and R. W. Gerstle, EHiesiono frem Coal-Fired Four Plants: 'A Comprehensive Err:ary, PHS-999-AP-35, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service, 1967,
- 23. J. E. Martin, E. D. Harward, and D. T. Oakley, " Radiation Doses from Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Plants," in Powr r;curatien and Enriromancal change, D. A. Berkowitz and A. M. Squires Eds , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971.
- 24. Committee on Natural Resources, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Air bality and Stationary Cource Emiacion cont >R Seria1 No. 94.4, prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, March 1975; pp. 599-610,
- 25. L. B. Lave and E. P. Seskin, "An Analysis of the Association between U.S. Mortality and Air Pollution," J.. Am. Statistical Aesoc. 68: 284-90 (1970).
- 26. W. Winkelstein, Jr. , et al. , "The Relationship of Air Pollution and Economic Status to ;
Total Mortality and Selected Respiratory System Mortality in Men: I. Suspended Particulates," Arch. Environ. #calth 14: 162-71 (1967).
- 27. Ministry of Health, Mortality and Mcrbidity d:aug the London Fag cf Dece rber, lou, Report 95, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1954,
- 28. H, H. Schrenk et al., Air Pollution in lcncra: Epideviology of the Unusual Gmog Episode of October, 1NB: A Ireliminary Report, Public Health Bulletin 306 (1959).
- 29. H. Schininel and L. Greensburg, "A Study of the Relation of Pollution to Mortality: New I York Ci ty, 1963-1968," e. Am. I>ollut. control Assoc. 22(8): 607-16 (1972).
- 30. C. Normal, " Castles in the Air," Nature 264: 394 (1976),
- 31. L. A. Sagan, " Health Costs Associated with the Mining, Transport, and Combustion of Coal in the Steam-Electric Industry," .h ture 250: 107-11 (1974).
- 32. J. E.10 Con bnd N. Grappone, Effecta of Power Plant Ehiceion on Materiale, The Research Corporation of New England, for The Electric Power Research Institute, July 1976.
33 S, M. Barrager, B. R. Jedd, and D. W. North The Economic and Social Coe.ts of coal and halear EZech<e ceneration, Standford Research Institute, March 1976.
- 34. D. W. North and M. W. Merkhofer. "A Methodology for Analyzing Emission Control Strategies,"
com;mt. @e a. Fec. 3: 187-207 (1976) Pergamon Press U,K.
- 35. C. F. Baes, Jr. , et al. , ne Global carbon Mc.rida Prollam, ORNL-5194, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. Tenn., August 1976. ,
3t. R. O. Poh*1, " Health Effects of Radon-222 from Uranium Mining," scarch 7(5): 345-350 ( August 1976). ,
- 37. N. W. Denson et al., branict in sal in the Westerm United States, U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1055, U.S. Geological Survey, 1959.
- 38. R. F. Abernethy and F. H. Gibson, Rare Elements in coal, Information Circular 8163, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,1963.
- 39. M. Eisenbud and H. G. Petrow, " Radioactivity in the Atmospheric Effluents of Power Plants that Use Fossil Fuels," saicnee 148: 288-89 (1964).
- 40. L. B. Lave and L. C. Freeburg, " Health Ef fects of Electricity Generation from Coal, 011, and Nuclear Fuel," /;ucl. Saf.14(5): 409 428 (1973).
- 41. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Comarative Pick - Coat Benefit Study of Alternative Bouroco of E2cetrical Fneryy, WASH-1224, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. December 1974.
- 42. K. A. Hub and R. A. Schlenker, " Health Ef fects of Alternative Means of Electrical Generation," in Population Dese Esaluation and Ctandards for M.m and His Environment, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,1974.
- 43. Assembly of En9 1 neering. Interim Mercrt of the National ?cscarch Council co rr:ittee on Nacicar and Alternative Enerjy spatcms, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. , January 1977.
._... .---- ..- - ---- .----- .. - .-~.-- --- ---. . - - - - . - - . . ~
l l S.D-22 a l '. l '~ 44. Perschal comunication, Dr. Leonard Hamilton, during National Academy of Sciences Coal l forum Meeting Washington, D.C. ,- Apr. 5,1977. l- 45. Personal comunication, Dr. . James F. Crow, during the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the
- ;-- Radiation Research Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 8, 1977, i
l 46 L. H. Goodwin et al. , Cluaaification of M Ua kmdo l'alu d le lhr Gecthemal Cisam cmd j ? Associated Ccothcmal Rcsaaws, Circular 647, U.S. Geological Survey,1971. q !> l I. , f i r l 1 I e i i h l l i l l l i I
l l l
)
1 Appendix S.E COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2. FROM THE V.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE l S.E-1
.S.E-2 T, .
n?'a,'::ald2:
- ^n United St- sartment of the Interior
.Tj CS d WU.DUFE.5ERVICE,i h Fj .uNGTON,OC. 202to ' .
- . . ~ -
In Reply. ; - , 2';. d SEP 2 01977 FWS/ES 'C ER .73/15~ _;.m s. a e.w . ,* d:' j 7.Q{e N f 4' Mr. E' ,. Case ". T?.; i Act r .ector, Office of "~ s i' F- Reactor Regulation NV Regulatory Commission Wa-- , ton, D.C. 20555 De
., Case
,ve reviewed.the supplement to the environmental report' Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,
, ein County, Texas (Docket Nos. 50-466/467). Our response is provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
General Commerits The project site contains important fish and wildlife habitat and resources. 'In our August 27, 1974, comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for this project, we suggested that a fish and wildlife management and public use plan be developed for the project site through coordina-tion with appropriate Foderal, State, and local agencies. Although the applicant has taken important steps to assure recreational use of a major portion of the site, the issue of compensating for significant habitat losses through such means as-the preservation and enhancement of remaining ! habitat on and adjacent to the site has not yet been addressed. l Specific Comments l Page S2.5-1. Reference is made to the construction of a drainage channel to divert runoff from that portion of the Allens Creek Watershed north of the proposed project site to the Brazos River. 'The channel would be designed to I convey peak flows for a ten-year flood. Justification for this should be provided since no flood damage was u jo!"ot
?
E k .,se ' 4 4 f6$"O/ d.f* i I
l S.E-3 i 2 described for that area. In addition, the project applicant should consult with the Corps of Engineers to determine whether a permit is required for the channel. Page S3. 4-1. Although only one 1200 KW unit is proposed for the power plant, the cooling lake described is designed to handle twice the proposed plant capacity. The feasibility of a smaller or modified impoundment should therefore be discussed. For example, a cooling lake receiving all or part of the runoff from watershed sub-areas I, J, and { K (see Figure S2.5-1) and only receiving diverted high-flows from Allens Creek appears to offer the possibility ot+coeling system which could pzeserve important strong bed and riparian habitat along Allens Creek. Additional make-up water might then be required from the Brazos River, but the site's recreational potential could possibly be enhanced and significant fish and wildlife habitat would be preserved. s Page 54. 1-7 An increase in fish production is projected ! to result from the creation of the cooling lake. The effects ) of water loss due to evaporation from the cooling lake and the trapping of nutrients at the project site on downstream estuarine life forms should also be addressed in the Environ- l mental Report. Page S4. 3-1. It is stated that ". . . it would be possible to restore the area to essentially its original condition l in the event of plant decommissioning." Because the loss of wildlife habitat and agricultural production is a direct result of project construction, the cost and methods of restoring these site uses should be addressed and the party responsible for restoration should be identi-fled. The costs and methods of perpetually maintaining the cooling lake should also be described in the event that it is to be retained for recreational use beyond the useful life of the power plant. Page SS. 4-5. The entrainment of fish in the cooling water intake area during chlorination due to the location of the chlorinator diffusers upstream of the traveling screens was identified. The possibility of minimizing or preventing this loss by locating the chlorinatcr diffusers downstream of the traveling screens should be d.'scussed. Page SS. 8-1. The effects of mining 5.0 million tons of ore to develop fuel for the proposed plant should be considered in analyzing the impact of the project. , 1 1 l I i 1 a l L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
S.E-4 2 Page Slo. 1-12. It is stated that the proposed cooling alternative is the only one associated with major environ-mental gains. Although the cooling lake would provide significant recreational opportunities, this cooling method would result in far greater wildlife habitat losses than other possible alternatives. It is also stated that the cooling lake would require less Brazos River water than other cooling methods. Not mentioned is the vastly greater use of Allens Creek water associated with the proposed cooling system. Additional factors which have not been adequately addressed in the cited comparison of alternative cooling systems are the reduction in freshwater and nutrient input to the down-stream estuarine system, the value of los'; agricultural production, and the cost of maintaining or restoring the cooling lake site following the useful life of the proposed power plant. Page S12 1-1. Reference is made to an application to extend the expiration date of Corps of Engineers Permit Number 10095, issued on January 5,1975, for the intake structure, spillway, ; and discharge canal. The Corps of Engineers should be ' consulted concerning the need for a permit for the proposed cooling lake and the drainage channel referred to earlier. Furthermore, if a permit is required for project implementa-tion, our submission of comments on the Environmental Report does not preclude our providing additional comments on fish and wildlife matters to the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). Sincerely yours,
, .d 24. .
Director s __ . _ _ _ ___ __}}