ML20209C576

Forwards marked-up Des,For Review.Metric Units of Measurements Should Be Provided Where Only English Units Appear

ML20209C576
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	10/28/1983
From:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19283C242	List: ML20209C571 ML20209C576
References
CON-WNP-1472 NUDOCS 8311160004
Download: ML20209C576 (19)

Text

_

.q . :. 10 c : 1- -^ -

.- : 6

. ~ . . . . = a u, , - ,-,

. ,u . . s

..m..,.

.:.2 ,cics : : :r::

rc

, ^ ;J

. c 03 2 f, E .

Oc:he. No.: 50-503 "iF.A nUM FOP.:

Willian V. Johnston, Assista.t Director for Materials, Chemical I Environmental Encineerinc Divisio c' Engineering Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Reciation Protection ~

Division of S.vstems Intec. ration- ,

, ,, ,,7 : , te3<e - - e,---,..

J .- - _i- -e' Di.ision cf icensinc S0piCT: WASHHiGTCN PUBLIC F0WER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCL-EAR PROJECT "0. 7 (WUP-3) - DES REV.IEW

'Erciend for ycur cerr.ent ar.d cer.currence is the DES for WMP-2. Copies c.re beir.g provided to the branch chiefs, section leaders and reviewers who .

provided input. We are recuired to prepare the DES using netric units for

?.11 reasurements. Many sections in the statement provided only english units.

We ask that as each reviewer proofs their particular sections, to please .

previce r.etric units where cniy english units appear.

The following sections are missing from the statement and should be provided at this time.

4.2.6 U nradioactive Maste Management Systens - (EHEB) 4,2 ? Water Quality - (EHES)

E.12 Noise - (EHEB)

5. j E..- e :. ?ic rinc Ir:Ec s - (EHEBi

~

8311160004 831108 M ADOCK 05000508

O *' % ,

l l

Please indicate your concurrence (with comments provided) by sigoing below and contact the Project Manager (A. Vietti, x24449) for pick up not later than C03 November 8, 1983.

b '

Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated -

Concur with attached comments. .

l' W . V.

I cc:  ?.. ~

Sailard ~

S. Samwortn C. Hickey .

G. LaRoche . . . .

M. Fliegal -

R. Gonzales- . ,,., . . .. ~

_W . Regin .. ..'.'*. ~ ' ; . ." . * ~ '

D. Cleary M. Kaltman L. Soffer A. Brauner A. Toalston E. Fields ,

L. Hulman W. Pasedag P. Easley W. Gammill -

J. Spickler -

J. Levine F. Congel J. Nehemias E. Eranagan .

,- (

s )

' (o) The NRC staff has determined that the environmental impact of this facility on the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid

• releases (including radon and technetium) resulting frcm the uranium '

fuel cycle is very small when compared with the impact of natural background radiation. In addition, the nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been found to be acceptable (Section 5.10).

arwWd product, (p) The opm auon mf the WNP-3 unit wi 19 P-W appr6ximately 6 billion , ,

kWh of baseload electrical energy " i;. . M, "

gM T' ,. ....., _..__. J ._1 ' ., ___ - . that the unit will"oper-ate at an annual average capacity factor of 55%. The addition of the l

1. gg t

lasu M+*^ M M plant will also improve the ability of WPPSS to supply system load requirements by contributing 1240 MW of generating capacity to the 4cach

• northwest region of the U.S.

n. l w +>+&a .

i

5. This statement assesses various impacts associated with the cperation of the facility in terms of annual impacts, and balances these impacts against the anticipated annual energy production benefits. Thus, the overall assessment and conclusion would not be dependent on specific operating life. Where appropriate, however, a specific operating life of 40 years was assumed.

6. The Draft Environmental Statement is being made available to the public, to the Environmental Protection Agency, and to other agencies, as specified in Section 8.

7. The personnel who participated in the preparation of this statement and their areas of responsibility are identified in Section 7. 4yg Q-

8. On the basis of the analyses and evaluations set forth in is statement,*ft u f

& R he4M after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, an other benefits against environmental and economic costs at the operatin license stage the staff concludes that the action called for under and 10 m N O the issuance of an operating license for WNP-3, subject to the following N conditions for the protection of the environment (Section 6.1): M */

(a) Ecfore engaging in additional construction or operational activities bc44

(

that may result in a significant adverse impact that was not evaluated 4" how or the that is significantly applicant greater shall provide written than notification that evaluated in this statement, Q of such activities to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and shall 9 receive written approval from that office before proceeding with such activities.

(b) The applicant shall carry out the environmental monitoring programs outlined in Section 5 of this statement, as modified and approved by I the staff, and implemented in the Environmental Protection Plan and Technical Specifications that will be incorporated in the operating license for WNP-3._ Monitoring of the aquatic environment shall be as specified in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

WNP-3 DES viii

e .-~ l y  :

l I

I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .............................................................. 111

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................... xiit LIST OF TABLES ........................................................ xiv FOREWORD .............................................................. xv()'

1 INTRODUCTION

.. <w,

..................................................... 1-1 s 4/

1.1 1.2 Re!stme/......................................................

Administrative History ......................................

1-1 k' 1-1 1.3 P e rm i t s a n d Li c e n s e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-J' J.

2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION .................................. 2-1 3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................. 3-1 4 4-1 PROJECT. DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .....................

Qesunc.

4.1 M ...................................................... 4-1

, , 4.2 Facility Description ........................................ 4-1 4.2.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout ................. 4-1 4.2.2 Land Use ..................................... ....... 4-1 4.2.3 Water'Use and Treatment .............................. 4-3 4.2.4 Cooling System ....................................... 4-?" G 4.2.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems ................. 4-41 9

~

4.2.6 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems .............. 4 11 4.2.7 Power Transmission System ............................ 4-J&

4.3 Project-Related Environmental Descriptions .................. 4-kk ,

4.3.1 Hydrology ............................................ 4-Fr 4.3.2 Water Quality .............................,.......... 4-24 4.3.3 Meteorology ....................................... .. 4-33 4.3.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources .................... 4-34 4.3.5 Endangered and ThrejAenva Specie, ................... 4-50 4.3.6 Community Charac'dristicji........ ................... 4-51 4.3.7 Historic and Ar heo ogiesiteg . ....... ............ 4-55 4.4 References.....................7'........................... 4-h$

. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS ................ 5-1

.-A 8 5 . 1 { R

• s u m /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 \,

5 . 2 ' tand'U s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 a

. v.

5.2.1 Plant Site ........................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Transmission Lines ................................... 5-1

\

WNP-3 DES x1

'  ? '

,  :  ?

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4

. Pace 5.3 Water ....................................................... 5-1 5.3.1 Water Quality ........................................ 5-1 5.3.2 Water Use ............................................ 5-2 5.3.3 Other Hydrologic Impacts ............................. 5-18 5.4 A i r Q u a l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20 5.4.1 Fog and Ice .......................................... 5-20 5.4.2 Other Emissions ...................................... 5-20 5.5 Ecology ..................................................... 5-24 5.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology .................................. 5-24 5.5.2 Aquati Resources .................................... 5-28 5.6 Thre tened and E dangered Species ........................... 5-36 5.6.1 errestrial .......................................... 5-36 5.6.2 Aquatic ....... ................................ 5-36 5.7 Historic and Archeo gic Im cts ............................ 5-36 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts. ...................................... 5-37 5.9 Radiological Impacts ........................................ 5-37 5.9.1 Regulatory Requirements .............................. 5-37 5.9.2 Operational Overview ................................. 5-38 5.9.3 Radiological Impacts from Routine Operations ......... 5-40 5.9.4 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents......... 5-61 5.10 Impacts from the Uranium Fuel Cycle ......................... 5-62 5.11 Decom.missioning ............................................. 5-65 .

5.12 Noise ....................................................... 5-65 5.13 Emergency Planning Impacts .................................. 5-91 5.14 Environmental Monitoring .................................... 5-91 5.14.1 Terrestrial Monitoring............................... 5-91 5.14.2 Aquatic Monitoring .................................. 5-92 5.14.3 Atmospheric Monitoring ..............................

e 5-92

t. . v ,-- u- 4.-.'-- 47 ........................... 5-93 5.15 References .................................................. 5-95 6 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 6-1 6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................ 6-1 6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .... 6-1 . . .

6.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity ..................................... 6-1

~

WNP-3 DES xii

7 -

.i 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Resum4 This section contains a summary of changes that have occurred since the FES-CP was issued in June 1975. The major changa since the CP stage, as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, resulted from the cancellation of WNP-5. This change and its effects are detailed in various sections throughout the report. Sec-tion 4.2.3 describes the planned water use methods and water treatment measures ,

for WNP-3. Section 4.2.4 describes the cooling system intake and discharg6.

Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 describe waste management systems. Section 4.3.1 pro-vides updated data on the hydrology of the area $urrounding the plant, including surface water, groundwater, and the supplemental water sucoly. Also included '

is a description of water use in the regio.n and for the plant. Section 4.3.2 describes recently collected data on the quality of the kater. in the ren4mn ak A Me Section 4.3.S* describes updated meteorologyA'~5ection 4.3.4 describes the ter-restrial a u tic resources in the region, and Section 4.3.5 describes a' possible terrestria, eatened and endancere 6 species. Nof EaItID threatened or endangeregsype_cies are snown. dectin- 5 2.1 uu=crioes cet=Jaity statistics on population,~ employment, recreation, and land use. Section 4.3.7 describes measures taken to identify historic and archeological sites.

4.2 Facility Description 4.2.1 External Appearance and Plant Laycut -

Il~

A general description of these topics is in Section 3.1 of the FES-CP. Although Figure 4.1.provides more details than did the site icy 99t available at the tima ,

- of -the' CP r'eview, the orientation and arrangement of major site structures has not changed markedly. An exception to this conclusien is the base diameter of the twin natural ' draft cooling towers, which has been reduced frez 155.4 m (510 feet) to 128 m (420 feet). .

4.2.2 Land Use The WNP-3 site consists of a central tract measuring 551 ha (1360 acres) that '

is fee-owned by WPPSS. It includes an adjoining 336 ha (830 6cres) for which WPPSS has easement rights (ER-OL, RQ 29.14) as well as five nearby parcels, -

measuring a total of 154 ha (380 acres), which are used for access and support facilities. In comp?cison, the fES-CP stated that the main portion of the site encompassed approximately 879 ha (2170 acres).

The exclusion area boundary, also shown in Ficure 4.1, has a radius of 1463 m

- (4800 feet) centered on the WNP-3 cantainment building; it lies ecmpletely within the fee-owned and easement rfghts property.

The land used for access and support facilities was not well defined at the CP -"

stage. These areas, also shown in Ficure_4.1, include the construction water wells and game mitigation land, the matn and west access roads, the makeup water well site, and the barge unloading facility.

WNP-3 DES 4-1

. n 4.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species-4.3.5.1 Terrestrial The FES-CP (page 2-30) lists 16 bird species that might occur on and near the site and access roads that are considered to be threatened by the State of -

Washington or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

On July 6, 1983, the NRC staff, by letter (Knighton, 1983b), notified the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regional office in Portland, Oregon, of the ,

proposed 11 censing of WNP-3. The letter formally requested information on any Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the vicinity of the project. The FWS responded on August 30, 1983 (Bottorff, 1983) that "tc the best of our present knowledge there are no listed or proposed species occurrin0 within the area of the subject project."

As part of NRC's environmental review, the staff asked the applicant for updated information of any sightings of bald eagles on or in the immediate vicinity of '

the site (Knighton, 1983a). The applicant's response (Bouchey, 1983) states that bald eagles were sighted during February, April, May, June, July, and Sep-

• tember 1981 along the Chehalis River from river miles 15 through 24. In addi-tion the Washingtor. Department of Game has identified two active nests. One, known as the " South Elma Nest," was established in 1982; it is on the north bank of the Chehalis River, neaf river mile 27, about 4.5 miles east-northeast of WNP-3. The other, the "Brady Loop Nest," has been active since 1979; it is located near the WNP-3 Ranney wells in the Greenbanks Slough araa, about 3.5 miles west-northwest of the plant.

The Washington State Department of Game lists the bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucoceobalus, as a threatened species (Washington, 1983). '

4.3.5.2 Aquatic As noted above, in July 1983 the NRC staff asked the FWS for information on any l Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species near WNP-3. The l FWS replied that no Federally listed or proposed species occur in the Chehalis River or other surface waters within the immediate WNP-3 site vicinity (Bottorf, .

1983).

The State of Washington Department of Game does not list any fishes as threat-ened or endangered (Washington,1983).

( 4.3.6 Community Characteristics The socioeconomic descriptions of the area including demography, )and use, and l community characteristics in general are in Sections 2.1, 4.4, and 5.6 of the l FES-CP. The WNP-J_sife, located in southeastern Grays Harbor County, Washing-A h,M ' ton, is approximate 1NLJntirNouth of the Chehalis River, near its confluence l with the Satsop River.N The fargest cities within 80 km (50 miles) of the site l are Olympia and Aberdeen, WasAington, Olympia, the state capital, had a 1980 p, g h,m*~$~opuTation or u,4ou and jW26, mi_le_sj east of the site; Aberdeen, with a 1980

population of 18,739, isa(L6 MIesYwdst of the site. The closest incorporated - --

ff, M communities with populatf6ns excehding 1000 are Elma (population 2720), pproxi- g y - matel[milesinortheastofthesite,andMontesano(population

- - s 3247) milesJ Q L e

l WNP-3 DES 4-23

'q J

west-northwest. The applicant developed' population figures within 16.1 km (10~ miles) of the plant thrcugh field surveys of housing units (ER-OL, page 2.1-1). TabJe 4.61shows the applicant's data for the 16.1-km area. With h *1 the exceotion

' narcer County,oM6.goyare giles than inic'h' grew by mWFe }cf Mason County, 11% between 1970this and area 1950. isFor composed popula-of Grays tion within 16.1 km to 80 km (10 to 50 miles), the applicant used an equal area approachtoallocating1980gensuscataattheenumerationdistrict, tract, and block levels, as .,hown in Table 4.7.

census Projections prepared by the applicant for 10 year periods from 1990 to 2030 were based on a number of sources, including county population forecasts prepared by the Wasnington State Office of Financial Management, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, as well as on discussions with various regional planning agencies. These data are in ER-OL Table 2.1-2.

To evaluate the applicant's population data within 80 km (50 miles), the staff relied on the applicant's survey witnin 16 bn (10 miles) as a method that has the potential for producing relatively accurate data. For projections of popu-lation data from 16 to 80 km, the staff used a computerized allocation model and U.S. Bureau of Econcmic Analysis growth factors. Table 4.8 presents the staff's population projections for the year 2010. An examination of these data and ER-OL Table 2.1-2 indicates that the applicant's data are conservative from the staff's perspective.

The transient population in the area around the site is associated with educa-tional and and nursing recreational institutions, activities. logging There are operations three school districtsand industrial within/7' miles facjlities) of WNP-3: Satsop School District 104 (62 students; 6 staff members), r.ima School District 68 (1734 students, 169 staff members), and Montesano School Dht 66 (1478 students, 101 staff members). Four nursing homes are within A b h .ricles of the site, the largest being the Oakhurst Convalescent Center ="M (1 A nor neast) with 180 patients aac 148 sta f membe s. The nearest hospital, the lo.Q b" A {

• Mark E. Reed Hospital, is approximatel miles rom the site; it is licensed for 26 teds, but has an aver.Rj atient Vdpulati n of 11 and a staff of 55.

Specifics regarding these and other facilities are listed in ER-OL Table 2.1-3.

i With the e>:ception of public empicyment, the larges +. employee categories are i associate 4withloggi and wood related industries iae a- '

b ocob that themIO9,000 acres of commercial forest withi EpQehp.icant e estimates f the site can h rf .r.,ppun.ahproxicate 20f employees during the cc P e t T y k me Tour larges 1_emolovf,yLwithirAQ mile _st-Elma Plywoct, Waton Corporation, Andi.rson h '~T6gging Company, and EMa'Clrdar FFoducts--employ an estimated 2e5 piersons at l their peak of operation. Elma Plywood (* '^

! employer at peak, accounting for 120 persons.Igh gnertheast) is the largest

. Opportunities for recreation also contribute to the generation of transient population. The applicant has estimated the peak number of big gam'a and upland ly\

bird hunters within 16 km pf the site. Hunting activities are primarily concen-

. Med in d&s i.CimrT60hh of the plant site (ER-CL, FfGure 2.1-5). The i applicant has also estimated the number of fisherman on the Chehalis River and its tributaries, and on the Satsop ang Wynoqchee Rivers (ER-OL, Table 2.1-5).

% g " Three sites, recreational facilitief,ylthisaJ in addition to opportunities ailes)of foFricaTing, the plant picnicing, offer hiking, swimming, 98 campingp and horseback riding. Camp Delezene, a year-round Boy Scout cam l

3 a,iles)/ j t ,l.) k.k l

[

WNP-3 DES 4-24 l -

a

Table'4.6 Population distribution within 0-10 miles in 1980*

Sector 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 Total N 9 8 77. 174. 61 210 539, NNE O 3 280 419- 38 62 802 NE O 11 13 716' 1955 1462 4157 ENE O O 105 100 129 375 709 E O O 3' 20- 74 562 659 ESE O O O 6 46 267 319 SE O O 3 0 0 119 122 SSE O C 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.

W 3 0 0 18 35 1748 1804 WNW 0 29 28 - 109 356 4214 4736.

NW 0 31 84 477 53 0 645 NNW 3 12 204' 116 59 259 653 Total 15 94 797 2155 2806 _9298 15,165 Source: EK-OL, Table 2.1-2

• To change miles to km, multiply the values sho n by 1.69f .

Table 4.7 Population distribution within ~ -

miles in 1980*

Sector 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 410 42 18 3 473 NNE 499 1019 1577 1817 4912 NE 1902 8680 5334 15247 31163 ENE 2292 26535 13321 223901 266049 -

E 406 34920 34345 11299 80970 ESE 2491 6231 2760 2438 13920 SE 1789 13210 12560 6619 34178 SSE 440 638 1455 2741 5284 ~

S 562 444 396 1111 2513 SSW 811 1919 269 1349 4348 SW 436 4128 1056 2213 7833 WSW 147 684 1596 0 2427 W 30073 3937 4075 0 38085 WNW 1107 859 2255 73 4304 NW 430 667 46 749 1392 NNW 50 145 695 548 1438 Total 43845 104063 .91768 270108 499789 Source: ER-OL, Table 2.1-2

• To change miles to km, multiply the values show oy WNP-3 DES 4-25

Table 4.8 Population distribution within 0-50 miles in 2010*

1 Sector 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total  !

N 713 0 95 162 0 257 NNE 1306 0 3227 3011 434 6672 NE 5878 2636 19466 6186 19748 48036 ENE 1006 2926 35968 13794 220884 273572 E 892 692 39900 51198 9536 101326 ESE 438 3252 15604 6755 4768 30379 SE 179 1827 12527 18292 9890 42536 SSE 0 0 1971 1493 3358 6822 S 0 0 1079 0 1852 2931 SSW 23 2550 2196 1505 1581 7832 SW 0 0 5649 1616 2319 9584 WSW 3 0 2685 0 0 2685 W 3205 43233 3609 4714 0 51556 WNW 6406 0 0 3420 0 3420 NW ,

851 1927 1795 101 1055 4878 NNW 872 0 162 1185 442 1789 Tot al 21777. 59043 145933 11343 758,67 594275

• Tochangemilestokm,multiplythevaluesshownfy1.6#

toutheast of WNP-3, is used by an estimated 350 scouts in a 12-month period (EP.-OL, pa s2 tom.; 4e4) to 2.1-5).

Within 16 gof the plant site, land use is dominated by hetivities related to timber and agricultural production. FPcm the southeast sector through the west-southwest sector out to 16 km, virtually all land is devoted to timber produc-tion and logging. Although only a relatively small percentage of the land within 16 km contains soil that is suitable for intensive agriculture, agri-cultural activities are concentrated in the fertile bottor lands and flood-plaihs of the Chehalis and Satsop Rivers. Agricultural land has been under .

pressure in Grays Harbor County as a result of residential subdivision activity, particularly in the eastern, unincorporated portions of the county (ER-OL, pages 2.1-5 to 2.1-6). There are no plan's for new or expended industrial ac- -

' tivity within the site area. Programs that do exist for stimulating nonresi-dential activiths have focused on Grays Harccr as a deep water port and the -

exploitation of the region's natural resources (FSAR, page 2.2-3).

4.3.7 Historic and Archoclegical Sites FES-CP Sections f..1.1 ano 2.3.2, respectively, describe historic and archeologi-cal sites. Informition obtained since the it.suance of the FES-CP consists of new surveys and the ider.tification and retrieval of resources. The applicant ratained profes:ional archeologists to orient construction personnel, to conduct field reconnaissances, to monitor construction activities, and to recover, eval-uate, and preserve cultur&1 resource materials. During construction, 2Jre- --

l historic and 21 historic sites were identified and documented. Work-on two l

l l WNP-3 CES 4-26 e ,---o - - . - - ,e- , -,--r

sites involved with the relocation of Keyes Road and the removal of farm build-ings in the area of the water intake facilities resulted in the retrieval and preservation of materials. These materials were placed in the Washington Arche 6-logical Collections Repository in Pullman, and a few materials were released to WPPSS for display. Finally, the applicant has determined that within the vicin-ity of WNP-3 there are no properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (ER-OL, Section 2.6).

4.4 References t

Baldwin, J. L. , " Climates of the United States," U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 1973.

Bottorff, J., FWS, letter to George W. Knighton, NRC, " Endangered and Threatened Species in Vicinity of WPPSS-3 Site," August 30, 1983.

Bouchey, G., WPPSS, letter to H. R. Denton, NRC, " Response to NRC Request for Information," June 2, 1983. ~

Envirosphere Company, " Environmental Monitoring Program, 1978, Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects 3 & 5," Bellevue, WA, 1979.

-- , " Environmental Monitoring Program, 1979, Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects 3 & 5," Bellevue, WA, 1980.

-- , " Environmental Monitoring Program 1981, Washington Public Power Supply

- System Nuclear Projects 3 & 5," Bellevue, WA, 1982.

-- , " Siltation Impact Evaluation in the Vicinity of Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects No. 3 & 5," Bellevue, WA, 1978.

Knighton, G. , NRC, letter to R. L. Ferguson, WPPSS, " Request for Information Resulting from Staff's Environmental Sita Visit," April 6,1983a. '

-- , letter to R. J. Myshak, FWS, Portland, OR, " Request for Information Concerning Endangered and Threatened Species in Vicinity of WPPSS-3," July 6, 1983b.

Mills, M. E. , EFSEC, letter to A. Vietti, NRC, " Fish Planting for Grays .

Harbor-Chehalis River System, Supplied to NRC by Washington State Department of I Fisheries," July 7, 1983.

National Climatic Center, " Washington--Climategr1phy of the United States:

Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1941-1970," Asheville, NC, August 1973. ,

1 1 -- , " Local Climatological Data, Olympia, Washington," 1981.

l Water Information Center, Climates of the States, Vol 2, Western States, Port Washington, NY, 1974.

l Thorne, R. E., R. B. Grosvenor, and R. L. Fairbanks, "Chehalis River Ultrascnic --

i Fish Tracking Studies in the Vicinity of Washington Public Pcwer Supply System j Nuclear Projects No. 3 & 5," Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA, 1978.

WNP-3 DES 4-27 l

6

. .-~, -

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, " Potential Forestland Productivity Grays Harbor County, Washington," a map at 1:100,000 scale, 1982. ,

, Washington, State of, Department of Game, Draft Special Species Policy, WFL-Pol .602, February 7,1983, including a listing of endangered and threatened 4

species.

4 e

O h

C '

i WNP-3 DES 4-28

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

~

P unable to escape the plume in situations in which the temperature differential is great or the absolute temperatures are high will, no doubt, be affected. In the event of plant shutdown, some fishes may be killed by thermal shock (FES-CP '

Section 5.3.2.2 and ASLB Finding No. 54 at page 984); however, it was concluded that the thermal effluent would have a minimal effect upon aquatic life because only a small portion of the river would be affected and the difference between the temperature of the discharge and ambient river temperature would be small.

For protection of the aquatic environment, since the CP-stage review the State of Washington has imposed thermal limitations and imposed mixing zone require-ments on the blowdown effluent in conjunction with issuance of an NPDES Permit for WNP-3 and WNP-5 (see Section 4.2.4 above and Appendix G). To ensure that there is compliance with the State's thermal criteria, WNP-3 will use a supple-mental cold-side heat exchanger on an as needed basis. This capability should ensure that the effluent temperature is within the acceptable range for impor-tant aquatic organisms. Additionally, there will be less interaction between fishes and the effluent because of (1) a reduction in effluent volume by more than 50% (as a result of the cancellation of WNP-5) and (2) relocation of the diffuser away from fish migratory paths. This further reduces the potential and probability for impact compared to that evaluated at the CP stage. The conclusions that there will be minimal effects on aquatic biota remain valid.

5.6 Endangered and Threatened Species 5.6.1 Terrestrial The staff expects station operation to have little or no impact on the bald eagle. Although the Ranney wells are located near a bald eagle's nest (Sec-tion 4.3.5), these wells protrude only about 20 feet above the floodplain.

Collision with cooling towers or other buildings is not likely because bald eagles have keen eyesight and fly mostly along the river, away from where these structures are located. The potential that bald eagles would be electrocuted because they touch two conductors at the same time is negligible because eagles have wing spans from 1.9 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 feet), while the minimum vertical '

spread distance between phase lines of a given structure will be 3 m (10 feet) and the horizontal spread will be 9.1 m (30 feet). '

5.6.2 Aquatic -

There are no threatened or endangerad aquatic species in the WNP-3 site vicinity (see Section 4.3.6.2); therefore, no impacts will result from facility

, operation.

l Sk 5.7 Historic and Archeologic,Imoacts rg i As stated in Section 4.3.7, there are no properties listed or eligible to be '

listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the vicinity of WNP-3.

The staff's preliminary determination is that the operation and maintenance of '

l the station will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of significant i historic resources. A final determination will be made after further consulta-tion with the State Historic Preservation Officer.

l l

WNP-3 DES 5-7 '

I

5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts The socioeconomic impacts of station operation are analyzed in Sections 5.6 and 10.4 of the FES-CP. Changes that have occurred since the issuance of the FES-CP include an fi; crease in the estimated operating work force to 514 people; of '

this total, 470 would be WPPSS employees (including security personnel) and 44 would be employees of centractor:;. The work i'orce is estimated to have a pay-roll of $20,560,000, assuming an initial average salary of $40,0,00* (ER-OL, page 8.1-1 and RQ 310.01). .The applicant has projected a buildup of operating workers over a 5 year period, reachir.g 514 in 1986 (ER-OL, RQ 310.05). The appitcant also expects that nearly all the operating staff will reside in com-munities throughout the Aberdeen to Olympia area (ER OL, page 8.1-1). Because of the gradual buildup of staff and dispersed residential locations, the staff concludes that local public and private services and facilities will have an opportunity to adjust to ini:reased demands and that such demands will not be 1 significant. .

i The applicant will make some local purchases of fuel and other materials and services (ER-OL, page'8.1-1). The staff expects that such purchases will be small compared to the size of the local economy and will not be a significant impact. .

Tax payments are considered as indirect benefits of the station's operation because they are transfer payments. Although the publicly owned portion of WNP-3 will not be subject to local real estate taxes, the investor-owned util- .

ities that own 30% of the plant will pay an estimated $5.7 million in property s taxes. The Elma School District, Grays Harbor County, and the City of Aberdeen '

will be major beneficiaries..(ER, RQ-310.04). The applicant also estimates that a privilege tax on the publicly owned portion of the plant will pay approxi- .

mately $1.0 million per year (in current dollars); of this, 62% would be  ;

returned to local taxing jurisdictions. Sales tax revenues on local purchases

! by the applicant will yield an additi6nal $2.0 million. Finally, purchases by operating workers will result in approximately $465,000 in sales taxes, assum-( N page M ;; rate for retail sales in the state (ER-OL, ing a8.1-1). 5% sales The tax and staff a 45% g; des no other significant socioeconomic impacts anticip '

from station operation.

5.9 Radiological Impacts 1

5. 9.1 Regulatory Requirements l Nuclear power reactors in the United States must comply with certain regulatory requirements in order to operate. The permissible levels of radiation in unre-stricted areas and of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas are i recorded in 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation. These regu-lations specify limits on levels of radiation and limits on concentrations of radionuclides in the facility's effluent releases to the air and water (above

. natural background) under which the reactor must operate. These regulations

• All dollar values for costs and benefits are escalated costs for the first -"

full year of operation. The assumed cost escalation until the first year of operation is 8% per ~ year.

WNP-3 DES 5-8

- __ - . - _ _ . . - - m.._, .. _ .-. _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ .

\

. '. j l

In addition, the staff estimates that the outage time associated with an acci- ,

dent will total 8 years. The applicant states (in response to staff question '

320.1) that, during years of favorable weather, energy that would be forthcoming from WNP-3 could be replaced by a combination of hydroelectric and coal-fueled energy at a cost comparable to that of WNP-31 However, during years of adverse weather conditions, energy would have to be purchased from oil-fueled facilities in California.

For purposes of this economic risk analysis, the staff conservatively assumes (tending toward a high cost estimate) tha",the accident occurs during the first yearofthe4yearadversewaterpeciod.h,'nFederalPowerCommission(FPC) X Hear-ing Proceeding--High Ross Dam LP No. 553 1974-1975--the FPC staff assumed a 4 year adverse water period for planning purposes.).- The staff estimates that g

annual system fuel costs would increase by approximately $404 million (1986 dollars). This estimate assumes that the energy replaced will be equivalent to the amount of energy forthcoming from WNP-3 if it were to operate at an average annual capacity factor of 55%. This estimate further assumes that there is a reasonable possibility that 25% of this energy could be replaced by coal-fueled facilities while the remainder would have to be replaced by oil-fueled genera-tion from California. If this annual penalty were incurred during the entire 4 year adverse period, $1616 million (1986 dollars) would have to be expended for replacement energy. For an 8 year outage, total accident cost would be approximately $3296 million dollars, the sum of the recovery costs and the replacement power costs.

The probability of a core melt or severe reactor damage is assumed to be as high as 10 4 per reactor year (this type of accident probability accounts for all severe core damage accidents leading to significant economic consequences for the owner). Multiplying the previously estimated costs of $3296 million (the sum of the replacement power and recovery costs) for an accident to WNP-3 during the initial year of its operation by the above 10 4 probability results in an economic risk of approximately $329,500 (1986 dollars) applicable to WNP-3 during its first year of operation. This is also the approximate economic risk (1986 dollars) anticipated for the second and each subsequent year of the unit's operation. Although the economic consequences of an accident tend to lessen as the unit ages (the unit depreciates in value and may operate at a reduced capa-city factor), this tendency is offset by higher future costs of decontamination and restoration.

A severe accident that requires the interdiction and/or decontamination of land areas is likely to force numerous businesses to temporarily or permanently close.

These closures would have additional economic effects beyond the contaminated areas through the disruption of regional markets and sources of supplies. This section provides estimates of these impacts and risks; the estimates were made using: (1) the RSS consequence model discussed elsewhere in this section, and (2) the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (NUREG/CR-2591).

The industrial impact model developed by BEA is based on contamination levels of a physically affected area defined by the RSS consequence model. Contamination levels define an interdicted area immediately surrounding the plant, followed by an area of decontamination, an area of crop interdiction, and finally an area - - -

of milk interdiction.

WNP-3 DES 5-58

I

)

The output loss risk can be astimated by~ multiplying the probabilities of the five release categories (Table 5.6) by the probability of the wind blowing in * '.

that direction and the associ ted consequences. The overall risk associated with these five categories then estimated as the sum of the individual 5 products. The risk calculations use consequences with none of the compensating effects discussed earlier because of the time that would elapse before the ccm-pensating effects could occur. Table 5.9 presents the regional economic output and employment impacts and corresponding expected risks associated with the five different release categories. The estimated overall risk values using output losses as the measure of accident consequences, expressed in a per reactor-year ,

basis, is $25,990 per reactor year. This number is composed of estimated direct impact losses of $20,166 in the nonagricultural sector and $2,979 in the agricul-I tural sector. The indirect impacts of decreased exports and supply constraints are estimated to be a loss of $2,845 per reactor year. The corresponding esti- t i mated employment loss per reactor year is 1.5 jobs.

i It should be noted

- are the result of#c,that moreofthan ategory 60% travelling release of the expected losses per in a particular reactor yeara direction; i

Category C release going toward the northeast, which has an expected risk of

$16,052 and 1 job loss per reactor year. These losses relate to the total losses of more than $8 billion and 274,000 jobs for the accident occurrence described. Alternatively, the minimal impacts for each release category result in expected losses of from $0 to $11 on a per-reactor year basis. No offsite l regional economic impacts are included for Release Category I, which has no con-I tainment failure, because none was large enough to have been reported by the l simulation model.

l The total estimated economic risk per year from WNP-3 from reactor decontamina-tion and restoration, replacement fuel costs, and the first post-accident year's regional economic impacts is $212,000 (1980 dollars). This includes the replace-

' ment and the power and recovery

" expected costs losses per discussed reactor year [abogbut expressed

_ ]," in Table 5.9m in 1980 dollars)Not in in the $212,000 total are the costs of MecontaMiMtiinT evacuationFfero~chIisn.j

~

w " " tsaatment. J e_c.,o,sts ofQ econtaminatjon', evac 0atibnand rElicition

- are abost half of theVcosts shown in Tabla m iG,f13,000 (1980 dollars)-per reactor-year. The other half includes costs also accounted for in the estima-tion of regio}nal economic impacts. ,Jbe.r.efore, the total of the economic risks -

considered in this study is about **19000 (1980 dollars). Economic risky from medical treatment were not considered fet- this study.

)$ w %lL (7) Uncertainties The probabilistic and risk assessment discussion above has been based on the l methodology presented in the RSS (WASH-1400).

In the consequence calculations, uncertainties arise from an over-simplified analysis of the magnitude and timing of the fission product release, from uncer-tainties in calculated energy release, from radionuclide transport from the core to the receptor, from lack of precise dosimetry, and from statistical variations of health effects. Recent investigations of accident source terms, for exampie, have shown that a number of physical phenomena affecting fission product tran- --

sport through the primary cooling system and the reactor containment have been neglected. Some of these processes have the potential for reducing the quantity WNP-3 DES 5-60 L

p,~ Q

• a N $'l < &-n. l V C ~^~ *

~

jp,Jru w h med%92M M i i

ubufd I fable 5.9 Estimated regional economi impacts of output and' employment

~

_ -- ,j'.

_ Economic Impact, millons of 1980 $ C Loss in Direet . employ .

., ment, Loss in Wind Non- Direct ^ Annual- output /

Release Birec- Agri- Agri- ized reactor-2ategory tion cultural cultural Indirect Total dobs yr 1980 $

MAXIMUM LOSSES B NE 7140 93 890 8123 274000 688 C NE 7140 93 890 8123 274000 16052 F ENE 1218 43 155 1416 55000 212 H ENE 1218 43 155 1416 55000 700 I ---

0 0 0 0  ; O O MINIMUM LOSSES B NNW 11 0 1 12 <1000 0 C NNW 11 0 1 12 <1000 11 F NNW 2 0 '0 2 dOOO 1 H NNW 2 0 O 2 <1000 1 I ---

- 0. 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPECTED LOSSES, per reactor-year, 1930 $ . b A

B All 766 96 106 968 <1

• C. All 17910 2238 2477 22625 1

• F All 347 150 61 558 <1

• H All 1143 495 201 1839 <1 .

I All 0 0 0 0 0

• All All 20156 2979 2845 25990 1. 5

• release categories

• Not applicable, as the expected loss is already expressed in the " Total" column for this portion of the' table.

Source: Bureau of Econcmic Analysis, U.S. Department of Comercq with assumptions supplied by the NRC staff. # >

m ee N

l WNP-3 OES 5-61 r_ _ ,. .,

, Table 6.1 Benefit-cost summary Primary impact and effect Quantity

• on population or resources (Section) Impacts **

BENEFITS Direct Electrical energy 6 billion kWh/yr Large Additional capacity 1240 MWe Large (Section 6.4.2)

COSTS Environmental Damage suffered by other water users Surface water consumption 1.2 m3 /sec Small (42 ft 3/sec)

Surface water contamination (Section 5.3.2) Small Groundwater consumption (Section 5.3.2) None W M.

Damage to aquatic resources ru (sede sw y.7,t) h Impingement and entrainment (Section 5.5.2) None Thermal effects (Section 5.3.2) Small Chemical discharge (Section 5.3.2) Small Cooling lake drawdown (Section 5.5.2) Small Damage to terrestrial resources Station operations Cooling tower emissions (Section 5.5.1) Small Cooling lake drawdown (Section 5.5.2) Small Transmission line maintenance (Section 5.5.1) Small Economic i fuel 13.6 mills /kWh*** Small Operation and maintenance 9.0 mills /kWh*** Moderate Decommissioning $160 million*** Small-l moderate Adverse nonradiological health effects

• Water quality changes (Section 5.3.2) None Air quality changes (Section 5.4) l Adverse radiological health effects Routine operation (Section 5.9.3) Small l Postulated accidents (Section 5.9.4) Small Uranium /uel fycle (Section 5.10) Small l

Adverse socioeconomic effects

! [Effectonhistoricandarcheolo l A resources (Section_5.7) Small 1, a w _D

' yn; y = -

L_ Demands on public facilities and _,

i services (Section 5.8) Small l

f Sao(**kha a/w afMs.

WNP-3 DES 6-2 l

[..

Table 6.1 (continued)

Primary impact and effect Quantity

• on population or resources (Section) Impacts **

[ Demands on private facilities and  !

services (Section 5.8) Small  ;

[ Noise (Section 5.12) Small

• Where a particular unit of measure for a benefit / cost category has not been specified in this statement or where an estimate of the magnitude of the benefit / cost under consideration has not been made, the reader is directed to the appropriate section of this report for further

. information.

• • Subjective measure of costs and benefits is assigned by reviewers, where quantification is not possible: "Small" = impacts that in the reviewers' judgmentsr'are of such minor nature, based on currently available infor-mation, that they do not warrant detailed investigations or considerations of mitigative actions; "Large" = impacts that in the reviewers' ' judgments A represent either a sev re penalty or a major benefit. Acceptance requires that large negative imp acts should be more than o~ffset by other overriding project considerations. ,

• • • 1988 dollars. *#

w M ' A L w.e.t a J (. = / -

Ah um% ;d. i ,aA M A.,,3,d.a ss.);

6.4.2 Benefits -

v. ,74 -

A major benefit to be derived from the operation of th'e WNP-3 unit is the approximately 6 billion _kWh_of baseload electrical energy that will be produced

. annually. (This projectionkonservativek (low) assumes that the unit will operate at an annual average capacity racror of 55%.) The addition of the plant will also improve the ability of WPPSS to supply system load requirements by contributing 1240 MW of generating capacity to the northwest region of the United States.

In previous environmental statements, the NRC staff has provided general esti-mates of the economic benefit expected from the nuclear facility under consider-ation during the first 5 years of its proposed operation. This calculated benefitWsulted because the nuclear facility hdd substituted for more expensive .

generating resources on the applicant's system, and the benefit has typically l been expected to continue to accrue over the life of the facility. However, in I the case'of the WNP-3 facility, no such 5 year benefit was observed.

Q9

! If the unit were not allowed to operate, replacement energy is likely to be l

6 available at a cost that would average about the same as the cost of energy Q from the WNP-3 unityssuming sufficient hydroelectric energy could be made X availab.le at zero incremental cost. Thisassumptionwouldchane1/ system 7-k load growth accelerates and/or if adverse weather reduces the a lability of hydroelectric ener'gy. Over the 0 year life of the unit, there is increased i 3

$ likelihood that these condition will occur. Under these changed operating -"

conditions, economic benefits at are typically forchcoming from nuclear Y

WNP-3 DES 6-3 l

'