ML20246P175

Fes for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1

ML20246P175
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	07/31/1973
From:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
References
ENVS-730731, NUDOCS 8907200125
Download: ML20246P175 (297)

Text

,

• kcJ

.. ,c 9

~

'- ,, i

'env.aronmenta 2 2

. Os~fatement

, 3, -

L. .

related to the BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 )

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50 334 7"%

'o . .. . .. /

JULY 1973 0

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING kli272SEl$E25$$$3134 o soc (x,g god p' $@

Th5 ek .

7-10 REFERENCES

1. Federal Highway Administration, "1969 Accidents of Large Motor Car-riers of Property," December 1970; Federal Railroad Administration Accident Bulletin No. 138, " Summary and Analysis of Accidents on Railroads in the U.S.," 1969, U.S. Coast Guard, " Statistical Summary of Casualties to Commercial Vessels," December 1970.

2. 49 CFR ES 171.15, 174.566, 177.861.

3. Federal Radiation Council Report No. 7, Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection Standards; Protective Action Guides for Strcntium 89, Strontium 90, and Cesium 137, May 1965.

e i

8-1

8. IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED PROJECT 8.1 THE REQUIREMENT FOR POWER The area served by the applicants' utilities includes a part of western Pennsylvania and eastern and northern Ohio (see Figure 8.11. Although customers include the spectrum from residential to heavy industry. the region.is highly industrialized and the electrical load has a larger than national average industrial component.

8.1.1 Demand' The applicants are members of the Central Area' Power Coordinating group (CAPCO). This gr,oup consists of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and The Toledo Edison Company. Electrical statistics for this pool of utilities from 1960 to 1970 are shown in Table 8.1. From 1960 to 1970 the1r peak load and energy generation increased at annual average compounded rates of 6 and 6.3% respectively. -The applicants predictions suggest a continuation of such a growth in demand.

The Federal Power Commission 1970 National Power Survey considers this portion'of the country as part of the East Central Region. Although the Federal Power Commission projections of future loads in this survey draws heavily on individual utility estimates, these estimates are compared with s1milar areas of the country as well as considering the estimates made by FPC regicnal office staff members. The FPC projections for the East Central Region show an annual growth rate of 6.3%. .The nation as a whole has experienced an energy growth rate of,7.7% during the period between 1965 and 1970 and FPC projections show continuing growth at nearly this same rate through 1990. The increasing demand for energy should continue in the Beaver Valley region, since, as noted in Section 2.3, the popula-tion is expected to increase steadily through 1990, reversing the decline of the 1960-1970 period.

In assessing the variations in load with time throughout any region, the term " diversity" is often used. It is defined as the difference between the sum of the peak loads experienced by the individual units in the region and the coincident peak load. Through the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement (ECAR) the applicant utilities have evaluated the diversity experienced over the East Central Region. The FPC in assessing that study concluded that the diversity within the region was insufficient to be useful in long-range system planning." Thus, .

each subregion, such as the CAPCO pool, must essentially provide adequate I capacity to meet its load requirements and cannot depend on differences L in the times when their peak load occurs and when their neighbors' peaks l occur to make additional generation available.

l 1

1 e

I w . .- ._._________1____________.__.______.___________________.___.__._____________ . _________._____.____.__J

_ . , , - - - ~ - - -

8-2

~

< l a-  ; .

W"W 5 2 3C

=>  ;

E

=

W g  ;

, -b -

V

~ ~

5~~~

3  %.Ms.,

b =

v :. e \'

.\

x!

t Y l-

\s.  !

e

= 5 m

8 5 $

, [ +

ob

!e a

< e x u.

,. o

• I

' g S

1 e 5  ! $

i l

l [

-= -

5

-. ~ .. ~ ..--... __...__... _ {, e i

i 1

- -_ - - - _ -- - - - - - - - - - - 1

l a

i r

t s 1 01 3 44 21 1 1 8 u 555 555 55554 d

n I

)

(

l na oi i c t r 90099990002

)

ue 1 221 1 1 1 2222 s b m a e i m

( l r o S a t C C S s I i T y D S g I r l T e a A n i T E .t S .n e 5554 33 2333 5 L d 2 222 22 22222 A i C s I e R R 1 T C

8 E L

E E L )

B 0 r A 7 l b 907 1 1 1 4 631 7 T 9 a - 897 4 3624 64 0 1 t W 9,5,3 4,0,3,9,2,9 2,4,

- ok ,

0 T 4 57 924 7 81 56 6 8 22223333444 9 0 1 1

(

L O

O P

y .

O t 5 C i -

P l ) 97804 027 31 1 1 A iW 61 569864 960 -

C bM 3,5,9,1 3,4,6,3 4,7,5, I a( ,

p 6667777 8880 .

a 1 p C

4 t

d n n e a m m d e) 33547 903 7 1 5 n DW 628877 1 81 09 e M 8 0,1,5,8,2,7,0,8,2,6, m k( A

. a 4 5555667 7 88 e _

P 2 f

e R

r 01 2 34 567890

. a 66666666667 )

e 99999999999 a Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (

lI

8-4 i

8.1.2' Reliability Reliable operation of a power system requires some increment of reserve i capacity to be available to meet the demand in case.of unscheduled out-

. ages or unusual weather conditions leading to unusual demands. The ECAR agreement has led to. analysis of the reserve required for this region with its interconnections, gene stion plant sizes, and load. The analysis resulted in a 20% reserve requirement for attaining the desired goal of no more than 1 day /yr of dependence on outside power system.3 This amount of reserve is also recommended by the Federal Power Commission and is con-sidered a reasonable requirement by the staff. To meet the desired relia-bility goal, this reserve requirement was determined using a probabillstic method. Such methods ". . . provide the only analytical means of evalu-atinr the risk-associated with supplying system load requirements. This is generally accomplished by interrelating load and capacity models developed for the particular system and time period under. study."4 - As

-indicated in Table 8.2 the scheduled reserve capacity will be short of that required to attain this goal. .

i The Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 is presently planned.for operation

- early in~ 1975. Observing the anticipated loads for the latter half of the 1970's, it is apparent that generation capacity such as that provided by the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 is required to meet the projected load growth in the area. Without additional generation the reserve needed for reliable operation would quickly be used to meet the growing load and the quality of service would be sharply reduced.

8.1.3 Power Resources A utility has two fundamental resources available in meeting demand, either use of its own generating capacity or agreements.with neighboring utilities to purchase power from them when needed. Formation of pools, such as CAPCO, are precipitated by neighboring utilities desiring to make the exchange of power from their individual generating facilities simpler and by the reduced reserve requirement made possible by coordinated operation.

In many cases, they dico share ownership of generating facilities. j i

As tabulated in Table 8.2, the members of the CAPCO pool are attempting l to add sufficient generating cayacity to meet their load plus provide a {

satisf actory reliability margin through 19S0. They anticipate falling short of the actual reserve level they feel eutlicient for service of the desired reliability.

e 1 Examination of Table 8.2 reveals that the deletion of Beaver Valley 1 p from their generating capacity would reduce their 1975 summer reserve l' to 18.1%. The 1977 reserve assaning all ot.ter capability changes occurred would be only 9.6%. 1 1'

1' l

l e

C __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ li

• h ve .

1. 'WB i a t al el 6

1 7 8 1

7 1

9 9

1 1

V e

v r '

e 5 3 4 1 3 8 7 s

e 6 3 5 4 6 5 7 R '

1 1 2 2 1 1 1 E

V 5 s R l e E as S na E oh

- R s c ar K eu -

A SP 6 4 2 3 8 5 1 F W 5 2 3 7 5 6 1 P r+N 9, 4, 6, 3, 2, 1, 3, e

R my 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 E mt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M ui H

1 S c

- a S t P e8 D NC 2 N A

8 Y 6859 66552 5904 6 5 95 E T 9357 50235 2261 5 0 20 L I 1 1 898 5 8 9 8 2 B L 2 1 A I 5 -

T B s ) ) ) )

A e g

ee ) e) e P t t n t e t A n aa) w ar a C a rr . o ro pc r

p h pnt d O C uua t u u C (( r u ( we (

P y e h A t . .d 1

(

s 1 n

(

2 2 C i

- l C. C. ( y1 y y y D i CCt e t et s e e E b l e1 r 2l r n l l T a e .ro l s o l o o l l C p nsp asd p d ap i a a I a l I g V el g lV g t V V D C a n B er e n i 1 E -

rti r i! i ri d t r R oep eaf p f ep d e y ey P L np visp avp A v r v oi avni nai a r a o

.t h eaah aeh e e e W8S BDMS MBS '

N B P BP d '

a 2 8 8 7 9 4 3 7 n 9 6 6 3 1 0 0 0 i

2, 9 6, 3, 1, 9, 7, 6, r 0 0 1 2 3 3 4 5 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m

m u

S r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 a 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 e 9 9 9 9 9 1

9 1

9 1

9 1

Y 1 1 1 1 mL

8-6

~

8.2 ADVERSE EFFECIS WHICH CANNUr BE AVOIDED It is expected that the operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 (either in conjunction with or separately from the operation of the Shippingport Power Station) will cause the loss of drif t organisms which enter the intake structure and may seriously stress some which are entrained in the thermally elevated cooling tower blowdown discharge.

This loss was snown in Section 5.6.2.3 to be less than 10% (less than 3% for Beaver Valley Unit 1 alone) of those available even assuming highly pessimistic conditions. In addition, some fish may impinge on the intake screens.

Under normal operating conditions small quantities of radioactive mate-rial and other chemicals will be released to the atmosphere and to the Ohio River which will result in an insignificant dose increment, well below the limits prescribed in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, to individuals in the plant environs. The operation ef the plant will also result in the production of radioactive wastes which must be processed and stored.

Construction of the station buildings, cooling towers, and other facili-ties will cause some disturbance, both temporary and permanent , of the terrestrial ecosystem. Routine operation of the station, however, w'll produce no major terrestrial effects.

The presence of the station will have a visual impact on the surrounding land. In particular, the 500-f t natural-draf t cooling tower and its vis-ible plume will affect the view for recreational boaters on the Ohio River, the local residents who live nearby, and travelers using High-way 168 and the Shippingport bridge.

All the water used during station operation is withdrawn from the Ohio River, although some groundwater will be withdrawn from wells during the construction period.

8.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY On a scale of time reaching into the future through several generations, the life span of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit i vould be con-sidered a short-term use of the natural resources of land and water. The resource shich will have been dedicated exclusively to the production of electrical power during the anticipated life snan of the station will be the land itself, construction materials, and the uranium consumed. Although an annual consumptive use of 14,000 acre-ft of Ohio River water will be committed, this resource will be seasonally renewed and the only temporary effect is to preclude that cmount of water from being available to down-stream users. As noted previously this consumptive use amounts to about {

a j

I

}

i e i 1

f l

j

nh 'Of

, 8-7 0.06% of the_ annual flow ano is not considered to be significant. No deterioration of water quality is anticipated to occur due to the station

-effluents.

Approximately 12 acres of the 449 acre site will be devoted to Unit 1 for the production of electrical enert.r over the next 30 to 40 years.

,. At some future date, the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 will become

+'

obsolete and be retired. Phny. of the disturbances of the environment will cease uhen the station is shut down, and a rebalencing of the slight alteration ~in populations of biota would be expected. Thus, the " trade-off" .between production of electricity and small changes in the local:

environment is, in substance, reversible. Recent experience with other experimental and developmental nuclear plants has demonstrated the feas-ibility of decommissioning and dismantling such. a plant suf ficiently to

. restore the site to its former use. The degree of dismantling, as with most abandoned industrial plants, will take into account the intended new use of the site and a balance among health and safety considerations, sal-vage values, and environmental impact.

No specific plan- for the decommissioning of the Beaver Valley Power Sta-tion Unit 1 has been developed. This is consistent with the Commission's current regulations which contemplate detailed consideration of.decommis-sioning near the end of a reactor's useful'iife. . The licensee initiates such consideration by preparing a proposed decommissioning plan which is submitted to the AEC for review. The 11cena e will be required to comply with Commission regulations then in effect anu decommissioning of the facility may not emamence without authorization from the AEC.

To date, experience with decommissioning of civilian nuclear power reac-tors is limited to six facilities which have been shut down or dismantled:

Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Carolina Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR),

Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) Pever Station, Pathfinder Reactor, Piqua Reactor, and the Elk River Reactor.

There are several alternatives which can be and have been used in the decommissioning of reactors: (1) Tamove the fuel (possibly followed by decontamination procedures), aeal and cap the pipes, and establish an exclusion area around the facility. The Piquc decommissioning operation was typical of this approach. (2) In addition to the steps outlined in (1), remove the superstructure and encase in concrete all radioactive portions which remain above ground. The Hallam decommissioning operation

) , was of this type. (3) Remove the fuel, all superstructures, the reactor vessel and all contaminated equipment and facilities, and finally fil3 all cavities with clean rubble tepped with earth te grade level. This last procedure is being applied in decommissioning the Elk River Reactor.

Alternative decommissioning procedures (1) and (2) would require long-term surveillance of the reactor site. After a final check to assure e

pL l'

8-8 that a11 ' reactor-produced radioactivity has been removed, alternative (3) would not require .any subsequent surveillance. -Possible effects of ero-sion or flooding will be included in these considerations.

The cont of permanently shutting down the facility (including teactor -

core *;emoval, decontamination of remaining components, and building isola-tion) has'been estimated by the staff at several millions of dollars on a current c ost basis, plus annual maintenance costs to maintain the shut -

down facility in safe condition. The applicants estimate that costs associated with shutdown measures similar to those for Hallam, would not exceed $6.5 million and that surveillance and maintenance would cost approximately $60,000 per year.- In cost-benefit considerations, future decommissioning costs should be discounted to obtain their present worth.

At a discount rate of 8.75%/yr for s0 years of operation, costs incurred at the end of that operating period would be ~ divided by 12.4 to determine their present worth. Thus, even if the plant area were to be restored to its original condition, the present worth of the future costs involved would be only about 1% of the original construction cost. This indicates that including decommissioning costs would not alter any of the conclu-sions of the cost-benefit analysis in this statement.

The staff concludes that the benefits derived from the station in serving the electrical needs of the area outweigh any alternative short-term uses of the environ 3ent in its vicinity.

8.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Numerous resources are involved in construction and operation of a major facility such as the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1. These resources include the land upon which the facility is located, the materials and chemicals used to construct and maintain the station, fuel used to oper-ate. the station, capital and human talent, skill and labor.

Major resources to be committed irreversibly and irretrievably due to the operation of the station are essentially the land and the uranium consumed by the reactor. Only that portion of the nuclear fuel which is burned up or not recovered in reprocessing is irretrievably lost to other uses.

This will amount to on the order of 15 metric tons of uranium-235 assuming a 30-year life-time for the station. Most other resources are either lef t undisturbed, or committed only temporarily as duzir.g construction or during the life of the station, and are not irreversibly or irretrievably lost.

i of the land used for plant buildings, it would appear th.: only a small l

• portion beneath the reactor, control room, radwaste and the turbine- l generator buildings would be irreversibly commi? '.ed. Also, some compo- I nents of the facility such as large underground concrete fot adations and i

e l

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ ll

.(

S-9 certain equipment are, 'in essence, irretrievable due to practical aspects of reclamation and/or radioactive decontamination. The degree of dis -

mantlement of the station, as previously.noted, will be determined by,

?- the intended future use of the site, which will involve a balance of health and safety ' considerations, salvage values, and environmental effects. I The use of the environment (air,' water, land) by the station does not rep-resent significant irreversible or irretrievable resource cataitments, but rather a relatively short-term investment.. The biota of the region have been studied, and the probable impact of the plant is ' presented in Sec- l tions 4 and 5. . In essence, no significant short- or long-term damage or (

loss to the biota of the region has occurred or is anticipated.

Should an unanticipated significant detrimental effect to any' of the bio-tic communities appear, the monitoring programs are designed to detect it, and corrective measures would then. be required. of the applicants..

The staff concludes that the irreversible and irretrievable commitments are appropriate for the benefits gained.

1' l

h

_ _ l

8-10 REFERENCES

1. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey, p. I-3-14-15, December 1971.

2. Duquesne Light Co. , Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Power Co. , Beaver Vallay Power Station Unit 1, Environmental Report, Operating License Stage Docket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971.

3. Op. Cit., Ref 1, p. II-2-43.

4. Ibid., p. II-2-40.

5. Volume 1, Load Projections and Resource Planning, A Report by ECAR Bulk Power Members to the Federal Power Commission Pursuant to Docket R 362, Order 383-2, April 1972.

o l

l t

L - - -- --- -- - -- --- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - . - - --

9-1

_- 9. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES Only four sources of energy have any reasonable availability to the applicants to meet the need for a large, reliable source of baseload

. power by the late 1970's: coal, oil, nuclear, and purchasing the energy from neighboring utilities. Each of these vary in the degree to which they are realistic options to the applicants. The following section compares the various options to the selected nuclear facility and exam-ines the considerations required in making this decision.

9.1.1 Importing Power To consider the long-term importation of power there would need to be some fundamental reason why the power could be generated and transmitted l from some other site with a reduced generation cost or reduced environ-mental impact. Any reduced environmental impact at such other site would have to be weighed against the impact of added transmission lines and the. reduced reliability inherent.in such a remote installation, when compared to a plant location close to the load the plant'is being built to serve. After considering the impact of this plant, it is the staff's opinion that there is no reason to believe that a' site with substan-tially reduced impact could be found. The only other' situation where.

importing power would'be practical would be in the case of a neighboring utility having the generation capacity in place and the desire to sell the energy.

The CAPCO service area lies near the eastern edge of the Federal Power Commission's East Central Area. Examination of FPC projections for the East Central Area as well as for the adjacent Northeast Area provides the supply picture for CAPCO's neighbors. Table 9-1 summarizes the future energy and peak demand for these regions. 1 Clearly, growth throughout this part of the country is comparable to the growth forecast for the CAPCO service area. Even if there were any excess capacity in a neighboring area, it would be quickly used to meet that area's growing demand. In practice, adjoiniog areas are also in a critical reserve situation and the potential for buli oower sales out~

side their service areas rannot be foreseen.

• 9.1.2 Coal The Beaver Valley Station site is located rc ughly a mile downstream from another power plant site owned by the applicants; the proposed Bruce {

Mansfield site. The applicants are presently building two 800 MWe coal- j l

fired units on that site. Clearly then, the applicants find the use of 1 I

l I

l j

9 f

- _ _ - __- R

O n

1 9-2

~

- TABLE 9.1

. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND VALUES "'

l l=

1970 1980 1990 Energy Peak- Energy Peak Energy Peak ji East Central Region 260.1 44.0 486.6 81.9 877.4 148.0 Northeast 290.7 .52.9 515.3 92.8 914.7 164.7 Total U.S. Utilities 1534.6 275.7 3074.9 554.0 5828.2 1051.4-(a) Energy in million MWh (b) Peak in thousand MW coal as fuel to be reasonably competitive with' a nuclear power plant in this part of the country. Scheduling and the long lead times experienced with nuclear units, however, have played an important part in plant type selections and may have been controlling in this case.

A principal difficulty with' utilizing the . Beaver Valley site for a ' coal-fired station is the limited land area suitable for coal storage and waste disposal. In addition to the land on'which the unit icself is located, a minimum 20 acres of coal storage area (Ref 1, p. 8.4-31) and 12 acres of~onsite ash ponds would be needed for an 800 MWe unit (Ref 2, Amendment 4, p. 1.8-9). The site is basically a riverside flat of about 30 acres. Behind the flat, bluffs rise.quite sharply from the 735 eleva-tion of the flat to roughly 1000 ft. The usable plant site of about 30 acres is bounded on the northeast by highway 168.as it crosses the side of the site and approaches the bridge across the Ohio River. It is conceivable that additional land area could be purchased and used on the northeast side of highway 168 between the plant site and the Bruce Mans-field plant site. The land presently owned by the applicants extends to the northeast side of the highway, but sufficient usable land ic not presently owned there for the facilities required by a coal-fired station.

A receot analysis of capital costs for various central power station types has been used in estimating the capital cost difference between an

. oil-fired unit and a coal-fired unit.8 Recent fuel costs of 33.4 c/ mil-3 ion Btu's for this area have been used in 2stimating the cost of provid-ing power with this option (Ref 1, Amendment 4, p.1-8). The present worthed value of the generation costs using an 8.75% annual rate, over a e

- _ . - . _ . - .. - b

9-3 a j

' 30-year generation period, and assuming an 80% plant factor is $504 mil-lion. This cost includes capital cost estimate of $239 million, opera- i tion and maintenance at 1.2 mills /kW-hr, and fuel costs of 33.5 c/million  !

Btu's. This present worth value is comparable to the value of $469 mil-lion found for a similar nuclear power plant as discussed in Section 10.1. I 9.1.3 Environmental Impact A coal-fired electrical energy generating plant has soce environmental q impacts quite similar to a nuclear plant and some impacts that are dif- )

ferent. A coal-fired plant would not have the same radiological impact '

as the nuclear facility nor would it have the potential for an accident which would release material resulting in further radiological impact.

The coal-fired station, while meeting Environmental Protection Agency emission limits, would release the combustion products tabulated in Table 9.2.

TABLE 9.2 TYPICAL Df1SSIONS FROM AN 880 MWe COAL-FIRED FOSSIL PLANT MEETING EPA EMISSION STANDARDS 4 i

Emissions P roduct Metric Tons /yr S02 28,000 NO 16,000 Particulate 2,400 A coal-fired station would have a higher thermal efficiency and thus would reject less heat to the environment. Some of this heat would be dissipated to the atmosphere through the smokestack so such a plant would reject less heat to the sos ling water than the nuclear plant. The heat rejection rate would be about 70% of the rate for the nuclear plant and could be manifested in: smaller cooling towers, smaller intake facilities, smaller discharge facilities, lower consumptive water use,  ;

less fogging potential and less heat discharge to the stream; all to about this 70% value.

In addition to the gaseous and particulate combustion products, the same type of processes would take place in the cooling tower and in the plant water treatment facilities for either a coal or nuclear facility, result-ing in plant discharge water with an increased dissolved solids value, compared to the water supply.

__ _ __ _ __L

3 9-4

~

A coal-fired station would have substantial solid waste products to be considered as well. A coal-fired station, complying with the $02 emis-sion regulations of Pennsylvania, could use a scrubbing system such as planned for the Phillips facility and would generate 1,100,000 cubic yards of solid wastes each year (Ref 1, Amendment 4, p. 1-9). Over a 30-year lifetime this is a waste area a mile square and 32 ft deep.

These wastes include both the fly ash and the additional bulk introduced by the 50: removal from the stack gases.

Of a somewhat different nature, an 800 MWe coal-fired unit would require about 7400 metric tons of coal daily. This would require the full-time services of a train of 100 cars making one roundtrip daily between the mine and station.

9.1.4 011 011, being a fossil fuel, is similar to coal in many ways when used in the generation of electrical energy. The oil-fired plant will release gaseous and particulate combustion products to the atmosphere; the release rates shown in Table 9.3 could be considered representative of such a plant. An oil-fired unit would also have heat rejection require-ments similar to the coal-fired facility.

TABLE 9.3 TYPICAL EMISSIONS FROM AN 880 MWe OIL-FIRED FOSSIL PLANT MEETING EPA EMISSION STANDARDS" Emissions Product Metric Tons /yr S0 2 20,000 No 7,300 Particulate 2,400 Although the applicants, in their environmental report, considered the use of coal at the Beaver Valley site as not feasible due to the terrain, they considered the use of oil as feasible but difficult and expensive.

As discussed above, coal would require a large storage area at an eleva-tion reasonably close to the plant elevation. Oil also would require considerable fuel storage area in the form of a tank farm, but since oil I

l I

l l

e

m

, a ,

9-5 g,

~

'is amenable to being pumped to the storage area, a plateau 450 ft above the plant and 4000_ft to the southwest would conceivably provide the needed 50 acres (Ref 2, p. 8.4-30).

The use of oil for fuel would be considerably more expensive when com-pared to-the nuclear or coal costs for generating power. Oil costs have.

been increasing sharply over the last few years and there is con.siderable uncertainty in future oil costs; however, oil that could be used.in such a plant would presently cost in the neighborhood of 84 c/million Btu's (Ref 1, Amendment 4, p.1-8). Fossil-fuel costs make up a larger part of the energy generation costs from a fossil-fueled plant than do the nuclear fuel costs for a' nuclear plant. Use of the above fuel costs results in a present worth cost for 30 years of generation at 80% plant factor. for an 880 MW unit of $762 million, compared to the value for a similar nuclear plant of $469 million.

I Other fuels such as liquid natural gas or gas from coal gassification are.even more expensive and currently not available in guaranteed quanti-

~

ties. Hence, the staff does not consider them as realistic alternatives.

9.1.5 Other Alternatives In addition to the alternatives already discussed, there are other options which should receive some consideration in meeting the area's power requirements.

If the applicants were anticipating taking significant generation out of production,~ the possibility of continuing the use of such facilities.

should be weighed. From Table 8.2 it is clear that the applicants do not plan on substantial derating of units or removal from use of any existing capacity. Certainly, as modern more efficient units are added,.

the older less efficient units will supply less of the energy but will still be used in periods of high demand.

Gas turbine plants 'due to their relatively low capital costs are desir-able facilities when capacity is needed for a small fraction of the year, even with relatively high fuel costs (oil costs are discussed in a pre-vious section). Powever, gas turbines, due to maintenance requirements

~ .

I and fuel costs, are not a suitable power plant type to supply power for meeting the relatively continuous baseload demand. The decision to add high capital cost capacity to meet baseload requirements or to add low capital cost peaking units is dependent on the utilities' load character-

, istics and the characteristics of the units they already have. In recent years many utilities have fcund it necessary to add short lead time peaking units to meet short-term load requirements due to large unit construction and licensing delays. Generally, modern and efficient baseload capacity is an economical choice for many utilities.

l 1

0

9-6

-3 Hydropower, generated by dams, has played a relatively_ sr all role in

' this region with only 681 MW capacity within the entire East Central Region. Most remaining sites do net appear to be economically attractive and hydro is. not expected to "... play a major role as a power supply source'to this region."5 The production of energy by MHD, geothermal energy, -solar heat, fuel cells, or wind power must be dismissed as not feasible in the time period and in the area that will be served by Eeaver Valley.

9.1.6 Alternative Sites In reaching the decision to construct Beaver Valley Unit 1, the appli-cants considered constructing the plant on a number of pote'ntial sites.

These sites are included in their inventory for potential future units, and the decision to use Beaver Valley was based on consideration of which site appears most f avorable at this time.

Two general siting areas were considered: one along the shore of Lake Erie and the other along the upper Ohio River. The Lake Erie sites included (Ref 2, p. 8.3-4,-5):

Davis Besse - where one nuclear unit is already being constructed.

Beaver - an undeveloped site, within Lorain and Amherst, Ohio; felt suitable for up to four 980-1100 MWe fossil units.

Avon Lake - a potential fossil-plant site in the city of Avon Lake, Ohio.

Perry - an undeveloped nuclear site, potentially suitable for four nuclear units.

Camp Wise - a site suitable for two fossil units.

The river sites, in addition to Beaver Valley, included (Ref 2,

p. 8.3-4,-5):-

Cheswick - an existing plant with room for an additional fossil unit on the Allegheny River.

Mansfield - this site, near the Beaver Valley site is being developed with two fossil units and has roca for more units, either fossil or nuclear.

Warrenton - an undeveloped site in Jefferson County, Ohio, with room for four units.

e

9-7 e

The nuclear unit scheduled' as Beaver Valley Unit 1 with its cooling tower would potentially have a similar impact at any one of these sites:

1 consuming the same amount of water,

=

.using the same land area, and-

+ discharging the same wastes to the air and water.

L Any difference in im,4ct would be due to characteristics of the site such

l. as: terrain,, population proximity, and water body features. Population near sites is a principal reason for the applicants relating a fuel type to a particular plant site.

E All of the sites are located adjacent to large bodies of water, with attendant' assimilative capacities similar to that found at the Beaver Valley site for.the expected plant releases.

All of the differentials among the sites considered appear to be small.

According to the staff evaluation of the environmental 'r+ acts to be expected from operation of the station at the referenet ,ite, it is well chosen, i.e., the impacts are about as small as might.be expected from any site within the applicants' service areas.

Based on the above discussion the staff concludes that the preferred action is the continued construction and operation of the station at the reference site. Possible-advantageous modifications of the design are considered in the following sections.

9.2 ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS 9.2.1 Alternative Cooling Methods In addition to the referenca case, the closed-cycle natural-draft cooling tower, the applicant considered several other heat dissipation alterna-tives. These were once-through cocling with helper cooling tower, mechanical-draf t cooling towers, ponds, sr ay ponds, and dry cooling towers.

9.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling with Helper Tower f I

In a once-t'arough cooling system,' cold water is obtained from a nearby j natural body of water, circulated through the power atation condenser

• where it becomes heated, and then the warm condenser discharge water is-returned to the original source.

I According to the applicants, a major factor in the selection of the Shippingport site as the site for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 was i

s U

+

9-8 that at this location there is sufficient water (except for short per- 'l iods during the summer months) to meet the thermal regulations set forth-by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a once-through circulating water sys-tem. This type of system was initially adopted for Unit 1. A supple-mentary cooling tower was planned for the discharge of the system co accomplish part of the heat rejection in order to meet the thermal regu-lations during those critical periods in the summer.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania granted a construction permit for this arrangement. However, the Corps of Engineers was advised by- the Environ-mental Protection Agency [ EPA, then called the Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA)], to stipulate in its construction permit that the Duquesne Light Company devise an onsits system which would dissipate the total waste heat from the unit. Studies revealed that a supplementary system could not be designed that would remove all of the waste heat from the station all of the time, because of the dependence of the tower on two independent variables; namely, inlet water temperature and ambient wet-bulb temperature. The tower could, however3 be designed to dissipate the total heat for a given set of conditiona. This was explained in a meeting with the EPA and they agreed that the tower be designed to operate at full capacity for an upstream temperature of-87'F and an ambient wet-bulb temperature of 72*F. A tower was then sized to meet these conditions and the location of this tower was investigated.

The only practical location for a supplementary cooling tower is west of, or downstream from, the station. There is limited space in'this area as it is bordered on the north by the river and the elevation rises sharply only a few hundred feet south of the riverbank. The remaining narrow strip of level land dictated the use of a single mechanical-draft tower.

Cooling tower manufacturers indicated that a single tower of this type would have to be 800 to 1000 ft long to meet these conditions.

A tower of this great length would perform poorly under certain wind con-

.ditions, due to recirculation of the stack exhausts into the inlet louvers of downwind cells. For this reason and because of the relatively  ;

poor soil conditions in this area for a structure of this size, an inves-tigation was made of the possibility of converting the circulating water system from the open once-through type to a closed-loop type. The inves-tigation resulted in the adoption of a closed-loop natural-draft cooling tower system.

The staff made a comparative analysis of the thermal plumes, from data

, supplied by che applicants (Ref 1, Amendment 4), to be expected from once-through cooling w1th a helper tower. The concensus was that in the interests of enhancing the quality of Ohio River water and providing reasonable protection to the aquatic biots, the thermal discharges were not acceptable. As a consequence, no further consideration was given to this heat dissipation alternative.

1

t. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - I'

9-9 9.2.1.2 Mechanical-Draft Cooling Towers The mechanical-draf t cooling tower has the same capability for dissipating waste heat as the natural-draft cooling tower. The basic arrangement for mechanical-draft cooling towers at Beaver Valley would consist of two tow-ers each 420 ft long, 80 ft wide and 60 ft high and each consisting of 13 cells. The mechanical-draf t cooling towers are likely to produce more low-level fog, drift, icing of nearby roadways and noice than a natural-draft cooling tower. The staff concurs with the applicants' contention that at the Beaver Valley site there are no obvious environmental benefits to be gained by employing mechanical-draft towers rather than the natural-draft towers.

9.2.1.3 Cooling Ponds A cooling pond of the size required to dissipate waste heat from the Beaver Valley Station Unit 1 would require a surface area of approxi-mately 1000 acres. The staff finds that the destruction of 1000 acres of terrestrial habitat cannot be seriously considered in comparison to the relatively minor impacts already described in conjunction with the use of a closed-cycle natural-draft cooling tower. The potential saving of about two-fif ths of the 0.06% of the annual flow of the Ohio River com-pared to that consumed by evaporation from the cooling tower is not con-sidered significant.

9.2.1.4 Spray Ponds The use of spray ponds in closed cycle could also preclude release of about the same amount of heat to the Ohio River as the natural-draft cooling tower. Designs that have been evaluated to date suggest that the size of a spray pond serving Beaver Valley Unit 1 could be about 50 acres in size. Fog, drift and freezing rain at low elevations are potential adverse environmental effects associated with spray ponds.

Since the spray must be in contact with cool dry ambient air for cooling to take place, the placement on a narrow shelf between a high hill and the river is not conducive to efficient operation. The spray concept is considered by the staff to be less efficient and to offer no environ-mental benefits in comparison to a natural-draf t tower.

9.2.1.5 Dry Cooling Towers The use of dry cooling towers (fin nd tube heat exchangers) was not seriously considered by the applican,1 except in a hypothetical sense.

• Based upon studies made for other lar,e power generation facilities, che staff has estimated that six to ten , sers, each having a diameter of some 500 f t and placed 200 ft apart would be required to dissipate approximately 1000 MW of waste heat. The capital cost of these towers would be several times that of comparable conventional cooling towers, e

i

f 9-10 and the titermodynamic efficiency of the plant would be decreased by an estimated 6% in winter and 13% in summer due to the higher turbine j exhaust temperatures. Aside from the decreased plant efficiency that would result from use of dry cooling towers, the environmental conse-quences of such a large heated airmass (estimated at 100 to 200 million cfm and 30*F above ambient) rising through the atmosphere has not been evalu-ated in terms of potential weather modification;.

Although dry cooling towers have been employed in increasing numbers in  ?

l other parts of the world, mainly for small peaking units, their use in the present case is not seen to be an attractive alternative to the sys-J tem used. ]

9.2.2 Alternative Chemical Systems The source and amounts of chemicals that are discharged as waste into the Ohio River are discussed in detail in Sections 3.6 and 3.7. As shown  ;

in Table 3.1, it is estimated that 220,000 lb of chemicals annually will be discharged into the river, resulting from the demineralized and water softening operations. While these discharges are small when viewed on an I average daily discharge basis, and have been engineered to be within reg- ]

ulatory limits on an individual discharge basis, the long-term effects of these additions are significant in gradually increasing the total dis-solved solids content of the river as it moves downstream. In the inter-est of improving Ohio River water quality, it is recommended that the applicants investigate alternative water management techniques that will minimize chemical discharges.

9.2.2.1 Reverse Osmosis Retreatment of Demineralized Feed Water The use of reverse osmosis retreatment of feed water for ion exchange demineralization to make ultra pure water has been stated to be economi- ]

cally attractive and to offer several technical advantages.' Data from j a sustained reverse osmosis installation' pretreating 200 mg/ liter sur-face water feed to a final inn exchange polishing unit producing ultra ,

pure water, indicated that retreatment achieved approximately a 95% i reduction in total dissolved solide, an 80% reduction in silica, and an 1 almost total elimination of hardness ar.d iron when operated at 75%

recovery.

1 Applying these data to the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 and assum- ]

ing that the demineralized wastes would decrease in proportion to the '

total dissolved solids content of the demineralized feed water, the i neutralized demineralized wastes could possibly be reduced from about 205,000 lb/yr to about 10,000 lb/yr. If the domestic water system were  ;

supplied from the same reverse osmosis unit, the 15,000 lb of sodium }

chloride discharged from the water softener per year could also be j eliminated.

4 1

e

9-11

~

hssuming_an average value of 45 spm flow from the reverse osmosis unit at a 75% recovery factor, and- a mean total dissolved solids content of 214 mg/ liter for the river water, the waste brine from the reverse osmosis unit would amount to about 11 gpm at about 800 mg/ liter. Dis-l- ' charging this continuously to a cooling tower blowdown flow of- 15,000 gpm (33 cfs) would increase the blowdown total solids. content by about 0.6 mg/ liter.

In addition to the benefits realized from reduced regeneration frequency, many of the problems encountered in the operation of ion exchange units, resulting from specific constituents of the feedwater, are minimized by

.the reverse osmosfs retreatment, with a resultant increase in the reli-ability and life of the ion exchange resin charge.

9.2.2.2 Evaporation of Neutralized Reagent Wastes The use 'of evaporation equipment and imperviously lined ponds to concen-trate and store the neutralized dem1neralizer wastes has been proposed by the applicants. With this system, the demineralized wastes would be evaporated to about 50% total solids with'a falling film evaporator. The resulting condensate would be recycled to the filtered water storage tank, along with backwash and rinse water fractions, and the bottons slurry would be transferred to lined retention ponds. Weather dataB '9 suggests that the mean annual precipitation, less the mean annual evapo-ration at the Beaver Valley site will be very 'slightly positive, ,indi-cating a slight net annual increase in the volume of the stored solutions and the necessity of periodically pumping the c'ontents of the ponds into trucks and disposing of the materials in- certified disposal sites'. To avoid possible contamination of surface waters, the ponds should be designed to minimize the collection of surf ace runoff water and be -

located well above flood stage levels.

9.2.2.3 Alternative Biocides The- use of chlorine as a biocide in the main condenser cooling water syo-tem is dicctared in Section 3.6.4. As shown in Tabla 3.1, it is esti-nated that from 270,000 to 550,000 lb cf chlorine will bs added annually to the cocling water. While most of this chlorine vill be discharged to che . river as innocuous chlorides, sorts will be discharged as biologically toxic, free chlorine, chloramine compaunds or chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds. In addition, some chlorine and chloramine compounds may be air stripped from the cooling water in the cooling tower and discharged into the atmosphere.

The applicants state that additior of chlorine to the main condensers will be controlled to maintain the free residual chlorine content on the cooling tower blowdown to values no greater than 0.1 mg/ liter during the intermittent chlorination cycles.

? -

[?

9-12 w ~

n ,

However, e_acli of the .two main; condenser units will be - chlorinated ' 3 times

" a . day. for periods of approximately 30 to 60 minutes each, resulting in

.the free chlorine. concentration of the blowdown reaching ~approximately 0.1/mg/ liter for 3-6 hr/ day. While the limits for residual free chlorine' and chloramine compounds have not: been. clearly established, recent researchW suggests:that to. minimize the toxicity.of the blowdown to the biological population of the river, the total residual chlorine'concen-

tration of'the blowdown.should be:no greater than 0.01 mg/ liter if.ther discharge is continuous, or no greater than 0.2 mg/ liter if-the discharge is inttemittent and limitedito a period of 2 hr/ day.

In view of these~very low; recommended' discharge limits and in. view of the fact that additional chlorine may be required to control- the biological growth on the-cooling tower itself (Ref 1, p. 3.1-26), the use of chlo-rine as a biocide should be further. evaluated. While alternative bio-cides such as ozone and a:rolein have been proposed, the feasibility of employing these alternatives has not twen clearly' established.

9.2.2.4 Mechanical Cleaning Techniques The efficient extraction of waste heat from the condenser cooling system requires that the tubes in the condenser carrying the cooling-water be kept. free of bacterial growth and algal slimes. This. requires frequent cleaning of the condenser tubes, a measure usually' effected by periodic injection of chlorine into the condenser cooling water at the pump intake.

During chlorination, all biota in the circu ating water are probably killed. There.is'further risk to fish r s other aquatic'lifesin the vicinity of the cooling water return tu ti river, as is discussed in detail in Section 5.6.2.2.

An alternative to the use of chlorine is. mechanical cleaning of the.

condenser tubes. One such system continuously recirculates abrasive sponge rubber balls through the condenser tubes while the unit is in operation. Another system uses a traveling . brush for each tube. These brushes make a pass through the length of the tube each time the cooling water flow is reversed.

Use of these systems in the U.S. has not been extensive, and seems to have been mostly confined to lake sites, where there is less suspended silt than is generally found in flowing river waters. A principal objection to mechanical tube cleaning, methods is their apparent shorten-ing of tube life. Tests using these systems indicate that some 0.003 -

0.004 in. per year is abraded from the inner walls of the tubes.

In the event that the proposed chlorination program is found to have adverse environmental impacts, the applicants will be required to evaluate alternatives to reduce or eliminate the impact.

I e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ll -

L 9-13 L

l 1

REFERENCES l

1. Duquesne Light Co. , Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Power Co. , Beaver i

l Valley Powgr._ Station Unit 1, Environmental Report, Operating License Stage , Doc ket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971.

2. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. , Duquesne Light Co. , Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Power Co. , Toledo Edison Co. , Beaver Valley Power Station Ur.it 2, Environmental Report, Revision 1, Construction Permit Stage, Decket No. 50-412, September 25, 1972.

3.1000 MWe Central Station Power Plants Investment Cost Study, US-AEC-7206.3, vol. III, " Coal-Fired Fossil Plant;" vol. IV, "011-Fired Fossil Fisnt," United Engineers and Constructors, June 1972.

4. Fede ral Register, vt.1 36, no. 247, December 23, 1971.

5. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey, p. 11-2-32, December 1971.

6. W. J. Weber, Jr. , " Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality control," Wiley-Interscience,1972.

7. S. S. Kremen and J. Myers, " Reverse Osmosis for Water and Waste Treatment," Proceedings 31st International Water Conference , Engi-neers' Society of Western PA, Pittsburgh, PA,1970.

8. R. G. Kazmann, Modern Hydrology, Harper and Row, New York,1972.

9. Climate Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service , June 1968.

10. W. A. Brungs, " Literature Review of the Effects of Residual Chlorine 1 on Aquatic Life," J. of Water Pollution Control Federation (in press),

1973.

i 1

(

I e

_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - A-

10 ~

y _ 10. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Rhen considering the merits and penalties, or berefits and costs of a courseLof action, it is desirable to quantifv as many features of-the varicus alternatives as possible and summarize these evaluations in one J' place for comparison purposes. This is the purpose of this section of

.tbis statement. Wh6re possible, costs and benefits are quantified. If this was not possible, subjective appraisals. comparing the various alter-natives have been made and are included. l

~

10.1 ' ENERGY GENERATING COSTS The costs of constructing and operating a power plant of any kind include both.the monetary costs of construction and operation and environ-mental costs which may or may not be reflected in the monetary costs.

Monetary costs are the more easily quantified and are considered first in this cost evaluation.

The monetary energy generation costs can be considered for all options either as the present worth of all of the expenditures of both the con-struction and. operation of the plant or in terms of the unit cost of power, spreading the expenditures over the energy generation during the plant lifetime.

Since plant capital costs are strongly. influenced by the various options examined in considering plant construction, the "present-worth" method of analysis, in which all costs are reduced to an equivalent capital expense at a single point in time, has been used in this statement. .The time point of reference is chosen as the time of plant startup. By using this method, operating and capital expenses can be compared. Like-wise, the time value of money is accounted for when the expenses are spread over some period of time. In this analysis, costs were discounted at 8.75% and an economic lifetime of 30 years has been assumed.

A summary of the present worth of ths generation costs for various . alter-

! natives is included'in Table 10.3 found in Section 10.3. The Table sum-marizes the major environmental effects as well. The costs included in this statement are all on a ismon basis using a conscant 90% plant factor, au B.75% discounting rate, and a 30-year economic lifetim2. The present worth monetary cost of the reference plant es proposed by the

, applicants has been assessed based on estimates provided in the appli-

! cants' environmental report (Ref 1, p. 8.4-6). The capital cost of

$291 million, the fuel cost of 2.272 mills /kW-hr, and the operation and maintenance of 0.475 millw/kW-hr reduce to a present worth cost of

$470 million for the 885 MWe capacity unit.

h L __ _ __- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

)

10-2 10.2 SLHM/3YOFBENEFITS The principal benefit resulting from the construction and operation of the power plant will be the energy available to consumers of all types within the applicants' service area. An indication of the value of this energy is the price paid for the amount of energy this plant will gener-ate of over $100 million annually (Table 10.1) . This value is only indictative for two reasons: this is a delivered price, part of this value is related to the delivery costs, but secondly, the prices could probably be somewhat higher and the consumption would still be close to the same. All alternatives considered would provide the same principal benefit, the energy generated by the facility.

Of the portion of the utilities revenue associated with the facility, about $1 2 million would be used as annual salaries for the 80 employees associated with plant operation (Ref 1, p. B.4-4). This is a particularly notable contribution to the local economy when the additional service jobs are included and the stability of these employment opportunities is considered.

Although of a less constant nature, a large fraction of the construction costs will be spent on labor within the greater Pittsburgh area. The present value of the $90 million to be spent on construction labor over a 5-year period is $70 million (Ref 1, p. 8.4-4) . These employment opportunities are certainly a regional benefit of project construction.

The applicants estimate tax payments to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of $510,000 during construction and $625,000 annually during operation (Ref 1, p. 8.4-4). Utilities do not pay taxes to boroughs or counties in Pennsylvania, so the State tax is the principal regional benefit of this nature. In this light, the use of the site for a power station potentially has an adverse effect on the local tax base, since another industry using the site would probably be required to pay local taxes.

The applicents escimate that about $1 million will be spent on ecological research and nnaitoring ef forts between 1969 and 1981 (Ref 1. p. 8.4-5)

The results of such studies will have some value particularly in relation es the planning of future water and related land uses of the Ohio River. 4 i

2 10.3 SJhetARY OF COSTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS i Costs of two kinds are conconty incurred in providing a generating facil-

. ity such as Beaver Valley Power Station; monetary costs and environmental ,

costs or effects. In some cases the environmental effects can be benefi- I cial. but in many cases they ar e not, and are thus generally considered so costs.

j The costs to society beyond the monetary costs evaluated in Section 10.1 )

include the environmental impact of the unit's construction and opera- I tion. For the reference plant, the impacts include:

I h

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ f

1 l

a 6 6 6 x V) 0 1

0 1

0 1

9 1 4

t ( 4 n x x x x 1 e .

s 6 9 6 '3 1 e 5 6 9 2 r 3 3 3 P

n o

i

' ' ' 6 t

0 1

0 '0 0 0 t

a 1 1 1 1 r c i

x e i f ) x x x x n m e$ e o n( 8 2 7 2 9 g n e . .

o B 3 5 7 2 8 l c 3 3 3 0 a e 1 u n d n n a a

) r r  %

T )

o 5 I

a h 0 5 3 5 f 7 F ( - 2 8 7 9 E

N eW .

r 8 t k 1 l 2 3 o E a/ t f B R c c

( o R a 1 E f e t

W y a 0 O t r 1 P ) i b c t E F ( ' ' '

a s L

B O y) gr 0 0 '0 0 p e A N r y 1 1 1 1 a r c e T O e/ x x x x t I

nr  % n T Eh 2 0 8 5 0 i U 8 9 3 5 8 B l W I

ak 2 m

1 1 5 d o R u( n r T n a f S n I

A y ,

D t 6 i 0 c 5

) a p 0 g a c

1 d f e ery o s 8 9 4 9 0 U W/r s 5 0 2 0 0 M r or r 4 3 2 0 b t a e 1 0 - ce w 8W ay o 38 kf P - 0 2 l' h3

- a0 t 3 n1 rf i oo

.mxw po l

e l l a ,n7 1 t m ni r a a i 1 g . et e i i t n6 s e m r c n f i ef o t r e esf ri t s e d n RU oPl s u m i e u d m s h ) ) )

C n o e t ab c I

C R O ( ( (

1 t

i o

n y) s .

t r nd t y ie oiee e a l v isnb m ai t ei .m uR arr oes s g e e g

e n e g

Q r ot vd d g w o t el ir r n n n o n ri neh ysa at a a a n a eh ercl sd d e h h h k h t O cf een nm c c c c e a( n l k ca a t s W of aixt t e o o o o o U Coul eS Sb N N N N N r

e -

t e S a s T W U nr oy N

A ei/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L vt t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P iaf t r - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, D poe 4 6 7 3 1 4 5 E mpr uac 1 + + 1

+

1 -

L  % N -

E

)

sva  %

1 nE F o s

- C d L r I

ey a S)

Sa ng O( oac ri FS E eob FV e) l t u OI ss 5 b sc T U e 0 0 a 3 TA r 2 e e 0

e e 3l h n

+ i so 0

. CN AR d c na 1

g g 0, g g aai 1 PE a( n n 1 n n v ,l MT L a a + a a a l E I L h h h h ) i L A c c c c t em B L ot A AG o o o o Ni1 T TN N N N N ( s2 hI EL I

O CO

'O C nSh R i t I D f r VN t oo 5 NA E

s os W 0 0 1 5 6 8 3 C nt 7 - 2 3 6 3 L on 4 M 1 + > +

A l i e > +

I al s +

T tl e N oir E TMP R

E 1 F

F I r D - e l w ar o s

re T -

uw h r e t t o t t ate i f w n 1 N s w a o a ga r T l A

• enc h r D P n l i ge - s g ysd cl uw l a

d u

n d e

oo c o i

r C on rT l

- C e h i P o i -

d r t r n o F et e - e a s y C -

sff ep h d a l oae cl c n r y a l rR ne e o p r o CD( OH M P S D C

~

= .

. w

>ill N

i e n n l v e i o ai ul d i uR d a a t Q n oy c o gol t u ri ni i r eh i t el t t O t i gi s e a( l d r cn s W id a ao U S abf c r  ;

e - s t e t a s n WU nr a oy l ei/ 0 p vt t 0 i af 0, l t r - e po e 5 u mpr f uac  % -

s va l nE i o s C s o

f

)

d ) r e m o u r f n a i e) f d t s s e n U e k m o r 0 n u C d c 5 a s

( n a + t s a( a 3 L r o s .

0 F i 1 (

m E e L t B s A y T s .

g nSh i t gn f r ni t oo i d s W l a os 1 oo C nt 9 ol on 2 c l i e + l al s r a t l e em s r oir TMP ne eh d t n

or ce l

el s a t

am cs n

a er i c o P nf e

e d rd e ee r f z i ei F R s l )

i a O (

l!!

!ll l

g4 g ,

l t e c m - ,

a o is gl y p s ve nno l f t m no b r ii r l - oo I oot out t t a n t et n ues c ee sc veo svey i gvp su i s c uir a t nia er t t cm e i scs l t crf sca h susr s y aeid ya y t ard e h s r p e ar ya s et nh cs i t ot k r t nr e l nat uu o t r oi pt ape A Pil o Mo N A pnd S amsb h

l g - -

S a i g g E c h s o t o V i d ge g f n ug f

I gt l unm o T oc aoiu f l on l A l a nl l l ed mi ed N op ocop d vn ag vn R

E rm i tl cr o e c

ea g l o g ea g oI l l T e i e e u - gn l f - gn L t d vd w d wni a wni A e d eno e oic mf oic M Al at R L gi S o L gi G

N ,

I t - -

L cx s O t aa e O c pm r C a m t r p i ,cf% n e F m Tii3 o t O I tat r i n sd s t f t 4 T l aFi s i f oa C a c" mf o d o t 0 A c i5i ol d si 1 P i f s ae e eeb e M g i ssem v g cr a g E I o neet s l i n i ch n L l gr pai as a f a a B L o i c samia mn ms re h

c i

r0 a l h c

A A i T T B ut g ec c0i N msr h x o a0 r o E

M o4ieo N' Te N S1 t N N

O R n$h I i t V f r N t oo E s W 5 os L C nt 0 0 1 5 6 A on 7 -

W 2 3 I l i e 4 ' 1 +

T al s >

h t l e +

E oir X

E TMP T

I I t D - e l w a o r T u h t ) t t a e i f N s wg a _

a n r _

. e C hi D l r gl - s cee ywc uc oo l

a d

n -

C on rC c o Te h i P d r Tr n et e - e a s y sf f ep h d a oae cl c n r l rR ne e o p CD( OII M P S

! I!  !!l !! il

, il:  !' \ .

'~ ll ,l sC'

t z_

l -

c l d

p va ec m si I ns oat c thi e e i cn g g t reu n n e am t a a h l h h t il f c c s

e maa i rr o o A~ S ed N N

_. l l a 7_.

a c

cm' i r i t a f f rw

_ gt o s o s oc e t t l a vf nen nen op rm g o ona i rt ona i rt

,. oI ne t ou t ou e

t om rur ibl d rl ibl d rl e tl i di o di o

_ M S pa i ap Aap t e g

e~

c g

)

t c

a' p~

n a

n a

d' a m h h' e p i c c u m i

n' .I o n

t n

t n

t l a a n a y c c o . c l i i C .i l f f

~( g a i i o i n n 4 l t g g o n i i 0 i e s s 1 B s s~ o o

_ E. E N N I

B A

T n$h i t f r t oo s

os-W 8 .

C nt 6 3 1 on > 3 9 l 1 e + + 2 a1 s t1 e

+

_ oL r TMP s

r e t w n t o a n T l a P l g P n d i e d l r e C

o o

i F

i F

r l

y a 1 r o 1 D C 0

, llt t l  ! l,!ll jlll !I  ;(: i iII! i!! ll! i i t l!l< ll lllll L

10-10 All of these costs, clearly not all measurable on the same scale, are weighed against the benefits of providing the energy made available by plant construction.

Providing an adequate, reliable supply of electrical energy to the ser-vice areas of the applicants is required of the applicants by the States in which they operate. In addition, shortages of electrical energy, other than having an adverse effect on the region's economy, would also push users toward other fuel resources, including petroleum and natural gas which are in a more critical supply situation than the nuclear fuel of the proposed unit. It is the staff's opinion that the increment of generation is needed within the region and should be pro-vided, both to comply with public utility regulations and to avoid adverse effects on the areas economy and fuel usage patterns.

With this framework, comparisons must be made in two major area 6: the fuel type and the heat rejection option.

In the first of these areas (fuel type) at least three considerations other than monetary differences must be recognized in making a decision.

These are: 1) releases to the environment, 2) heat r3jection differ-ences, and 3) potential long-range impact of fuel utilization. As far as releases to the environment, a fossil-fuel fired unit will release substantial gaseous and particulate material to the atmosphere (Tables 9.2 and 9.3). Federal and State emission limits have, however, been established at levels which are expected to control the impact of the releases, both on people and property. A nuclear plant also releases some gaseous waste products, such releases during normal plant operation have also been limited by Federal regulations to 1cvels that eliminate the potential for damage.

A nuclear power plant of the type proposed will reject 30 to 40% more heat to the environment than a modern plant using fossil fuel. In the case of a plant using an evaporative cooling tower, this is manifested in a smaller tower, reduced watcr consumption, and reduced dissolved solids increases in the river. For a plant using a cooling lake, the lake could be smaller and evaporation less. For a plant using occe-through cooling, the river temperature rise veuld be sma13er, and for a dry cooling tower .

the tower could be smaller. On this point of comparison, the higher .

efficiency fossil-fueled option shows an advantage. The impact or cost of the difference depends on the cooling option selected and the water resource available.

Both nuclear fuel mateelal and coal appear adequate for continued use as a fuel in large power stations. Oil, as its price reflects, it becoming too scarce for this nee principally betsuse of the demand for cil to maet transportation fuel requirements.

l l

O I

mm___ _ _ _ __ _

10-11 The heat rejection options considered, in addition to the natural-draft cooling tower being proposed, included: once through with helper towers, cooling ponds, spray ponds, mechanical-draft towers, and dry cooling towers. Once-through cooling, originally instrumental in selecting this site, was found to have the lowest power costs. The applicants initially planned to use once-through cooling with a helper tower however, they were persuaded by Federal agencies to abandon the once-through concept.

Mechanical-draft towers represent an alternative with a similar monetary cost than the option the applicants have selected. Mechanical-draft towers are low profile structures and require more ground area than natural-draft towers. The site could not readily provide sufficient ground area at elevations near plant grade. Mechanical-draft towers also had increased potential for causing fogging problems in the valley.

The close proximity of the highway, and potential icing problems from the low mechanical-draft towers added to the potential impact of mechanical-draft towers.

Dry cooling towers would require land area greater than for mechanical-draft towers, a problem at this site. Dry cooling towers would also represent a substantial increase in generation cost. In addition, the largest dry cooling tower installation is on the order of 200 MW and providing the needed generation capacity on schedule could have been difficult with the application of a technology unproven for a large plant.

Cooling ponds require considerable land area and result in the destruction of terrestrial habitet. Sites near the plant would have required large dams directly above che plant with an attendant hazard. Sites farther from the plant would have substantial costs associated with their construction and use. In cither case any fogging resultins from the pond would be generated at ground level. Cooling ponds did not appear particularly suit-able for this plant site principally because of the hazard associated with the closest pond sites and the high cost associated with the more remote sites.

Spray ponds emuld either involve dams in valleys above the plant or some const:oction on the flat, possibly between the Beaver Valley site and the Exuce Mansfield site. Fogging and drift from such a pond could be expected to present a considerable hazard on the highways passing through the area.

Considering all of these options, with the site in mind and noting the l

. available choices at this time, the staff feels that the applicants have selected the cooling option which best balances the cost of providing the option against the potential environmental effects. q

)

I l

1 l

l i

l 10-12 1

The thermal and chemical discharges expected to result from the construc-i tion and operation of the plant with the exception of manganese will comply with all applicable limitations or other requirements imposed pursuant to the FWPCA (Section 5.6.2.4). The staff in considering the costs and benefits of the proposed action has evaluated the environmental ef fects on the basis of discharges at the level of such limitations or other requirements to the extent that the plant could be operated in a manner which would allow such levels to be reached. Where physical factors would necessarily keep discharges at levels more protective to the environment, the staff has evaluated assuming the lower levels. No significant environmental effects are expected as a result of thermal and chemical discharges.

The Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, as designed, is expected to have only a modest impact on the environment. The staff has considered the benefits and costs enumerated in this section in detail. It judges that the benefits from construction and operation of the station will substan-tially outweigh the costs.

l I

l

• 1

)

- _ - _ . . I1

10-13 REFERENCES

1. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Power ..Co. , Toledo Edison Co. , Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, Environmental Report, Revision 1 Construction Permit Stage, Docket No. 50-412, September 25, 1972 t

l l e

L _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _

_____._____.____.____.__________________._________,__l_

M-1.

l-t ; _

11. . DISCUSSION OF_ COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Pursuant to paragraph A.6 of Appendix D to 10 C'/R 50, the Draf t Environ-

..r mental' Statement of September was transmitted, with a request for comment, tc:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of, Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development

. Department of the Interior Department.of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission Office of Radiological Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania In' addition, the AEC requested. comments on the Draft Environmental Statement from interested persons by a notice published in the Federal Register on September 15, 1972 (37 FR 18764).

Comments in response to the requests referred to above were received from:

C Advisory Council on Historic Pre arvation Department of Agriculture Department of the Army Department of Commerce

. Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Federal Power Commission Environmental Protection Agency Pennsylvania State Agencies Mr. W. A. Buehring I I

Our consideration of comments received and the disposition of the issues l involved are reflected in part by revised text in other sections of this '

• Final Environmental Statement and in part by the following discussion. The comments are included in this statement as Appendix A. The applicants' response to agency comments is included as Appendix C.

t

- _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ - - _ - - . M!

11-2 Comment: iAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation, p'. A-2)

'In the case of.' lands not under the control or-jurisdiction of the Federal Government, a statement'should be'made as to whether or notL the proposed-u ndertaking. will: contribute to the preservation and- enhancement of _ non-

. federally owned districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects ofs

! historical, archeological, or cultural significance.

., Response :

The staff concludes that the proposed u'dertaking will make no direct contribution to the preservation or enh ancement of non-federally owned districts, eites, buildings, structures and objects of historical, archeo-logical, architectural or cultural significance.-

Comment: (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, p. A-2)

To insure a comprehensive review of historical, cultural, archeological,'and architectural resources, tl.e Advisory Council suggests that the environmental-statement contain evidence of contact with the appropriate' State Historic.

Preservation Officers and that copies _ of their comments concerning the effects of the undertaking upon these resources be included in the environ-mental statement.

Response

The staff has received comments on the Draft Environmental Statement from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission which indicate that, in its opinion, no adverse effects on historical sites, historical structures.

or archeological sites are known or anticipated. This comment is included in Appendix A of this Final Environmental Statement.

, comment: (Agriculture, p- A-5)

The statement does not outline the methods that the applicants intend to use to comply with Section 102 of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act, as amended. This Act requires a sediment and erosion control plan on.all earthmoving activities and a permit on all areas 25 acres or more in size that are disturbed at one time.

Response

• The applicants state that it is not expected that 25 acres or more will be disturbed at one time. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared for Beaver Valley Power Otation Unit No. I by January 1, 1974.

/

11 ..

Comment: _(Agriculture, p. A-5) m LLand treatment measures needed before, during, and after construction on the plant' grounds, rights-of-way,- access roads and borrow areas were not-g discussed. _ No mention was made as to whether topcoil from the area was salvaged before placement of the 1,100,000 cubic-yards of. fill.

Response

The applicants state that erosion control for the Beaver Valley site will-conform with the intent of the controls adopted in October 1972 by thef

-Environmental-Quality Board of Pennsylvania.

Stabilization'of the site will be accomplished by proper placing, grading and covering of the soil affected by construction. Sheet piling will be used as appropriate for erosion control. Excavated, graded and filled areas.

will be seeded for final sedimentation control.

Embankments are graded to no greater than a 1 to 1.5 slope and all surfaces will be stabilized to prevent storm erosion.

Stabilization of the fill area for the Unit 1 cooling tower is provided by concrete panels protected at all interconnecting joints by a filter cloth to prevent soil washout.

Topsoil from the area excavated unsuitable as granular fill was initially stored at che Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1 cooling tower site..

This topsoil was later sp<iled when the cooling tower was required.

Comment: (Agriculture, p. A-6)

The last paragraph of Section 3.8 contains the phrase "when the rights-of-way are cleared". We believe this refers to an action which has'already, taken. place. . It would clarify the matter, however, if this section had a sentence added stating flatly that existing rights-of-way will be utilized with no widening contemplated.

Response

Section 3.8 has been modified in response to this comment.

e l

e i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ l

11-4 Comment: -(Commerce , p. A-7)

From Table 3.5 we note that about 3/4 of the total annual operational re-lease of noble gases to the atmosphere will be by way of gas decay tanks.

Three such tanks are suggested, having a storage capecity of at least 30 days. It is not clear whether the release from these tanks is more or less instantaneous or over an extended period such as e month. If the former is the case, the annual average relative concentration value dis-cussed on page 5-12 is not appropriate to the decay tank releases.

Response

The staf f has assumed t he release to occur over a period of days and there-fore used the annual average dispersion factor. The staff feels that annual average meteorological conditions represent a conservative approxi-mation since the applicants will time releases to correspond with meteoro-logical conditions which tend to minimize the doses to the public.

Comment: (HUD , p . A-8)

The Atomic Energy Commission's statement details the chemical and radioactive discharges and leakages that will result. While these matters concern HUD, they are not within our purview to evaluate or control; however, we caution that land use controls outside site boundaries must be considered. For example, if'a remote danger of radioactive contamination exists, housing and food growing should be restricted or prohibited. River discharges also may necessitate restrictions on the recreational use of the river near outfalls.

Response

The technic-1 specifications, which form a part of the facility operating license, will limit radioactive effluent releases and exposures at the site boundary to levels considered acceptable 'cy the staff. These technical specifications will also define a monitoring program which will determine if the specified limits are being met and will require the applicant to take appropriate corrective action if such limits are exceeded.

The expected releasee from the plant and the resulting population doses are discuseed in Sections 3.5 and 5.4 of this Final Environinental State-ment. It is the staff's conclusion that the effluents resulting from normal plant operation will result in insignificant incremental doses above a normal background to area residents and that no restrictions such as those mentioned above will be necessary.

Comment: (HUD , p. A-9)

The 500-f oot cooling towers and their plumes will have a significant negative visual impact. We oppose this visual impact, but we realize that

w-. ,-----.-,---r--.- . , - -- - - - - - - - , - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - -

11-5 l

should the application be approved, this cannot be avoided. However, we.

~

feelithat'Iurther studies should be made to evaluate the possible extent of sunlight reduction and the increased precipitation on communities under the plume.

Response

The visual impact of natural draft cooling towers in relation to the'sur-roundings is one of subjective judgement. The staff'does not conclude a.

priori that the cooling towers at Beaver Valley will have significant negative visual impact. See also Section 5.3, Impact on the. Atmosphere.

Shadows cast by the- towers and their plumes will not, in the opinion of the staff, constitute a significant problem.

Comment: (HUD , p. A-9)

Chapter 7 of the Draft Environmental Statement for Unit 1. " Environmental' Effects of Postulated Accidents," is unclear. A suggestion to clarify the material would be to explain the probable sequence of events following an accident in scenario form. This would be especially effective with respect to the effect on surrourling communities.

Response

The staff has presented, in Section 7, an evaluation of the potential radio-logical impacts to the environment from eight classes of postulated

- accidents. Specific examples within each class are presented in Table 7.2 together with estimates of the resulting population doses. A more detailed description of accidents and possible sequences of events is presented in the applic nts' FSAR and the staff's safety evaluation report.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-101 The cumulative impacts of this plant and those of existing and planned facilities are not adequately covered. The impacts of Beaver Valley Unit 2-are readily available since this draft environmental statement is also available for review. The two 800 MW coal-fired electric generating plants or, the Bruce Mansfield site located about one mile upstream from the Beaver Valley site should also be considered in cumulative impact evaluations.

Response

o This Final Environmental Statement considers the environment 1 impacts of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. In its evaluation the staff has considered the combined impacts of Unit 1 and the adjacent Shippingport Power Station. In a separate document, the staff has considered the 9

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

11-6 environmental impact of the proposed Beaver. Valley P' ower Station, Unit- 2 an/,' has thus assesse'd the combined' impacts of Units 1, L 2 and the Shipping-pcrt facility. The Commission follows the practice oflconsidering the l sjditional impacts of existing facilities, but does not' include-the Jimpacts of new or planned facilities. Nevertheless, the staff ~is aware of the construction of the Bruce Mansfield plant. .The staff has considered the intc: action of atmospheric releases from the two, stations which will occur under appropriate wind conditions. and has concluded that the resulting environmental impact with the possible exception of increased icing'on trees will be minimal (see Section 5.3). The staff notes that the Bruce Mansfield plant will utilize cooling. towers'and will'thus represent an additional minor thermal load to the Ohio River. however, the staff does not believe such effects alter the conclusions reached in-this Final Statement.

Comment: (Interior 'p. A-10)

The information on recreation given on pages 3.1-3 and 3.1-4 of the appli-cants' environmental report is a more acceptable presentation than that presented in the environmental statement. We think that the final environ-mental statement should contain more data regarding recreation.

Response

The applicants state that the Ohio River is used extensively for pleasure boating and such activity is expected to increase as boating and other forms of water-oriented recreation continue to grow in popularity. In only a very limited area, such as immediately adjacent to the intake and discharge structures, will there be a potential interference by the station with pleasure boating. Fishing in the Ohio has been gradually improving the.

past several years and will continue to improve in direct relation to the extent pollution sources such as sewage, industrial effluents, and acid mine drainage are brought under control.

There are no parks within five miles of the site although several State and county parks are found about 10 miles fron.the site. The regional open space study prepared by the Southwestern Pennsylvar.ia Regional Planning Commission recommends the Raccoon Creek Valley as the location for a 15,000 acre park. This park would be located five to 10 miles southeast of the site and, in conjunction with the present Raccoon Creek State Park, would be a major attraction especially for the Pittsburgh urban residents. The Beaver Valley Power Station will not detract'from the scenic nature of

. these parks or interfere in any manner with park activities due first of all to the distance between the station site and the park locations and secondly, the relative secluded location of the station in addition to the generally quiet operation of nuclear power stations.

f

__u______.__.___z_____.__________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

11-7 Comme,nt: __(Ifiterior, p . A-ll)

(1 The following items should be added to Section 3 of the Summary and Conclusions :

1. Destruction of native vegetation due to construction and maintenance of transmission facilities.

2. Destruction of 400 feet of the riparian habitat at the mouth of Peggs Run.

3. Creat. ion of a thermal plume that will deny access of native fishes to portions of the river during certain periods of the year.

4. Increase in turbidity during maintenance dredging operations.

Responsel The sta?f has not attempted to be exhaustive in the list provided in the suc:.try s f environmental impact and adverse effects. An attempt has been made, howcver, to list those effects which in the staff's opinion have sufficient importance to warrant the special attention of the reader. The topics ment 'oned above have been discussed in the text in Sections 3.8, 4, and 5.

Comment: _fInterior,p. A-ll)

The proposed action will not directly affect any existing or proposed unit of the National Park System or any registered National Historic, Natural, or Environmental Education Landmark or any site now in process of registra-tion as a landmark.

However, the discussion in Section 2.4 does not represent the level of interdisciplinary investigation of environmental resources required for an adequate evaluation of environmental impacts. For example, the responses to several professional contacts are presented on page 2-5; however, the background data supporting these responses are not given. Therefore, we do not think that there is presented an adequate basis to conclude "no archeological sites of significance will be af fected by operation of the plant." Since construction is well under way, the extent that cultural resources have been affected will never be known. 3 in order to comply with Executive Order 11593 of May 13,1972, and the

• National Environmental Policy Act, the applicant should consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and discuss his findings and recommenda-  ;

tions in the final statement. Concurrently, an interdisciplinary investi- {

gation of the area should be undertaken in order to evaluate cultural (

I l

l l

1 0

- - _ _ _ _ _ -_ - _ _ _ - 1

11-8 resourcer which have not yet been destroyed and provide the basis for discussion in all relevant sections of the environmental statement.

Response

The staff's judgement that "no archeological sites of significance will be affected by operation of the plant is predicated on the fact that those sites which have been identified to be of archeological interest are suf-ficiently removed from the plant that no operational effects would be expected and/or the fact that the prevalence of early Indian campsites detracts from the importance of any findings which could reasonably yet exist on station property. Early construction, including the Shippingport Power Station, may indeed have obviated preservation of now unknown cultural resources. The operation of these facilities, however, is co'nsidered to be inconsequential in terms of any archeological findings of importance in the vicinity of the plant.

The Draft Statement has been reviewed by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Its comments are included in this Final Statement in Appendix A.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-12)

We suggest that the temperature and discharge data referred to on page 2-7 and given on pages 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 be related to the particular period of record involved. Also, the minimum discharge and maximum water tempera-tures occurring during each of the summer months should be identified.

Although the monthly. data is valuable, instantaneous extremes in discharge and temperatures will probably have a closer correlation with the aquatic productive capability of the Ohio River.

lesponse:

A. though a maximum-minimum envelope of temperature about a curve of average  ;

taaperatures is perhaps ideal in obtaining an overall impression of the i temperature regime, the temperature exceedance curve is considered by the staff to be adequate for present purposes. While minimum discharge data for the period are worthwhile to note, the use of the once-in-10-years - 7 consecutive days low flow parameter is considered to be a more appropriate indication of low flow conditions to be expected over the life of the {

plant. (See Fig. 2.4) If extremely unusual conditions were to occur

, during the life of the plant the option to curtail operation is always an alternative that could be called upon if warranted.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-12)

I We suggest that the first sentence, second paragraph, page 2-7 be modified ]

to indicate that the water quality described is under present conditions ]

l l

1

_ _ . _ _ O

11-9 I

~

. but that efforts ' are . being made to upgrade - the quality. The improvement of water quality in recent years with the resultant improvement in the

~ fishery resource is indicated on page 2-14 of the statement. The first sentence, second paragraph, page 5-19 should be modified likewise.

Response

The text of Sections 2.6 and 5.4.3 have been modified in response to this comment.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-12)

The second paragraph on page 2-14 states that there is no longer a commer-cial fishery in the affected portion of the river.and recreata.onal fishing exists only to a limited extent. This appears to be inconsistent w1th the  !

4 discussion on page 5-19 which indicates that 1,000 pounds of sportfish  !

are. caught. annually in the New Cumberland pool.

}

Response

l The text of Section 2.8.2 has been modified in response to this comment.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-12)

It is indicated on page 3-22 that av estimated 10,000 curies are associated with the 22 truckloads of radioactive solid wastes that will be shipped from the site each year. It is also indicated that the wastes will be shipped for " disposal in accordance with applicable regulations." The environmental statement should provide specific informatir. concerning the radionuclides that will be present, their physical-chekical states, and their estimated concentration in the solid wastes. A discussion of the licensing provisions for radioactive waste disposal and the AEC criteria and' responsibilities in connection with: (1) determination of the suit-ability of the disposal site to isolate the specific radioactive components of the Beaver Valley Power Station wastes from the biosphere for specific periods of time; (2) current and continuing surveillance and monitoring at the disposal site; and (3) any remedial o'; regulatory actions that may be necessary at the site through a specific period of time during which the radioactive componente may remain hazardous.

Response

, The offsite waste disposal sites for radioactive material and the compo-sition of the spent fuel elements are discussed briefly in Sect 1on 5.5 of this Final Environmental Statement. The AEC considers the environmental effects of a nuclear power plant up to but not including the ef fects of mining, preparation and processing of fuel, and radioactive waste storage.

Such environmental effects, beyond the transportation of radioactive

1 11-10  !

~

i materials are outside the scope of the environmental review for the plant and have been considered separately.1 l

Comment: (Interior, p. A-13) 1 l

We suggest that the last paragraph on page 3-31 be expanded to: (1) indicate frequency and times of year for right-of-way maintenance, including clearing of vegetation; and (2) vegetative types af fected by transmission line con-struction and operation. We further suggest that the applicant coordinate the scheduling of maintenance of these power line rights-of-way with local Soil and Water Conservation Districts and State game and fish agencies.

The method for applying the herbicides should be identified. Also, special precautions that will be used to avoid destroying desirable shrubs should be discussed.

Response

Clearing of transmission line rights-of-way will be performed as required (perhaps twice a year) during the summer growing season. Vegetation affected would be that indigenous t.o the area as described in Section 2.8 of this Final Statement. The applicants state that af ter the initial cut-ting and clearing, right-3 -wayf reaintenance consists of selective side cutting, by hand, of tree limus, and selective use of a basal spray on the stems of small plants LJd trens ot: the right-of-way. Grasses and berry bushes will be allowed to br?":

The staff agrees that the applicants should coordinate right-of-way main-tenance with the appropriate state agencies.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-13)

The data presented in this section should be supplemented by including stream cross sections of the entire portion of the Ohio River affected by the Beaver Valley Power Station thermal plume. These cross sections would show more clearly the amounts of nearshore shallows within the area influenced t; the plume. An analysis of the cross sections could also facilitate computation of the volume of water af fected at various iso-therms. We also suggest that the final statement indicate the area of the isotherms of 2*F and above when Shippingport, and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2, are operating.

Figures 5.1 through 5.5 should also indicate the discharge on each side of Phillis Island.

Res ponse:

Stream cross sections were used in modeling the thermal plumes; however, the format was somewhat awkward for publication in this form. The staff e

1, >

l; 11-11 O

t p ']

obtained a-blueprint sized copy of these ' cross sections from the Pittsburgh

-District of the Corps of Engineers.

The Final Statement for Beaver Valley 2 w111-indicate the area of the 2*F isotherm when Shippingport and Beaver Valley Units 1 and'2 are operating.

If by " discharge" the river discharge is meant, a nominal division of 20%

of flow behind Phillis Island and 80% of flow in the main channel was con--

sidered appropriate by the staff for the modeled thermal patterns.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-13) l The turbidity associated with normal maintenance operations for intake and L discharge structures should be added to the list of principal potential effects on the aquatic environment.

Response

i-The staff does not consider that turbidity'in the Ohio River arising from l these operations will present.an adverse environmental impact.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-13)

Section 5.6.2.1 should indicate that the mouth of Peggs Run has been channelized during construction of the power plant.

Response; Section 5 is primarily related to the effects of operation of the plant.

The modification made to Peggs Run was described in Section 4 Since relocation'is. completed, any construction effects that may have occurred.

as a result of this relocat3on have already taken place. Since Peggs Run is considered to contain acid mine effluents it is the staff's opinion that no significant ecological impact took place.

Comment: (Interioi . p. - A-14)_

We suggest that lengths and weights of fishes impinged on traveling screens be determined. This data would give added insight on the plant's impact on the river's biomase.

Response

The text of Section 6.2.2 has been modified in response to this comment.

9

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - 0

11-12

,t Comment: (Interior. p. A-14)

According to page 5-29, the staf f will require monitoring of the f ree residual chlorine and chloramine levels at the point of discharge. This .

requirement is necessary. However, the last sentence on page 6-5 appears i to be in conflict with the earlier requirement. We. suggest that the last sentence on page 6-5 be reworded to remove any conflicts between these- ]

two statements.

l

Response

1 The text of Section 6.2.4 has been modified in response to this comment. J i

Comment: (Interior, p. A-14)

Section 7 contains an adequate evaluation of impacts resulting from plant i accidents through Class 8 for airborne emissions. However, the environ- j mental effects of releases to water is lacking. Many of the postulated' )

accidents listed in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 could result in releases to the 1 Ohio River and should be evaluated.

)

We also think that Class 9 accidents resulting in both air and water releases should be described and

• ne impacts on human life anti the remaining environment discussed as long as there .is any possibility of occurrence. The conseqwnces of an accident of this severity could flave far-reaching effecte en land and in the Ohio River which could persist for centuries affecting millions of people. ,

Our previous comments to you on the applicant's environmental reports  ;

reflected our concern for the possible accidental release or spillage j of wastes into the Ohio River even though many safety features are k incorporated into the waste processing system. We continue to think i that the applicant should know the potential time of travel for slugs i of wastes to reach downstream water users for various river discharges.

This information should be contained in the final environmental statement.'

Response

.The doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radioactive materials resulting in both a direct and an inhalation dose. Our evaluation of the accident doses assumes that the applicant's environmental monitoring (which could be initiated subse-

, quent to an incident detected by in-plant monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in the environment in a timely manner such that

. remedial action could be taken if necessary to limit exposure from other potential pathways to man. It is therefore, the staff's opinion that 1 accidental releases of radioactive liquids would be detected and corrective action taken to minimize exposures to man.

1 3

6 l

L' - - - - _ - 1

11-13 With regard tb Class 9 accidents, the staff's opinion is that the postulated occurrences in Class 9 involve sequences of successive failures more severe than those required to be considered in the design bases for protection  ;

systems and engineered safety features. Their consequences could be severe.

However, the probability of their occurrence is so small that their environ-mental risk is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers),

quality assurance for design, manufacture and operation, continued surveil-lance and testing, and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain the required high degree of assurance that potential accidents in this class are, and will remain, suf ficiently small in probability that the environmental risk is extremely low.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-15)

Table 9.2 does not contain enough information to confirm the amount of pollutants omitted to the atmosphere from an alternative coal-fired plant.

Response

The emissions shown in Table 4 are based on compliance with the EPA limits stated in reference 4 of Section 9.

Comment: (Interior, p. A-15)

The words "small increases" in the third item on page 10-4 are subjective.

The amount of chemical wastes released into the river should be given since this data is available.

Response

Details on chemical waste releases are given in Section 3.6 of this Final Environmental Statement.

Comment: (Transportation, p. A-16)

It is felt that subject statement is incomplete by not addressing the environmental eft et of the free residual chlorine and chloramines in the discharge. Th2 statement admits the chemicals pose a threat, and will likely exceed recommended levels. The statement, "it is a major area of concern," does not satisfy the requirements. (Para. 5.6.2.2)

Response

Section 5.6.2.2 has been modified to respond to this comment.

Comment: (Transportation, p. A-16)

This statement leaves the impression that the environmental effects of the chemical discharge will be evaluated af ter operations bc i as, then a monitoring system will be devised, and then the design would be altered to i

I l

)

11-14 change the c iemical output. The intent of the NEPA in reqairing the EIS was to avoid this trial and error method to the greatest extent possible.

Response

The staff has evaluated the amounts and the environmental effects of chemical releases to the Ohio River in Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 5.6 of this Final Environmental Statement. The staff concludes that chemicals released during normal operation of the plant, with the exception of chlorine, will have no adverse environmental effects. The staff has proposed, as a condition to the operating license, a monitoring program which will ensure that environmental damage from chlorine discharges will be minimized.

Comment: (Transportation, p. A-16)

All discharge permits have been issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. However, Pennsylvania's discharge permit system is not federally approved. New applications will have to be made to the EPA under the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System.

Reroc y.el It is the opinion of the staff that such permits, which are issued under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) amendments of 1972, are not required where a certification pursuant to Section 401 of the FWPCA has been obtained. Under the conditions of the FWPCA the applicants must submit a Section 401 certification.

Comment: (Pa. Dept. of Environmental Resources, p. A-25)

The geologic data supplied by the AEC Report (Section 2.5) is totally inadequate and of fers no basis on which to make a judgment on the suitability of the proposed site for the reactor.

This comment points out the lack of a) geologic maps or cross sections, b) description of bedrock formations, c) results from boring samples, d) data on stability of river gravels, e) data on joints or fractures in bedrock, f) data on mining beneath the site, g) mention of ownership of mineral rights, and h) detailed geology and groundwater literature references in the Draf t Environmental Statement.

• Response:

The inclusion of a more thorough analysis of the geology and seismology of the region would needlessly duplicate the evaluation performed by other branches of the USAEC. The staff has provided only a general discussion of the area's geology and seismology. For the render who wishes additional, detailed information, reference should be made to the l

l 0

)

l ll

11-15 applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report. Sections 2.4 and'2.6 therein consider geological aspects, and Section 2.5 describes the seismic history of the area. The staff's analysis of these aspects of the region, as they.

~

affect Plant safety, is contained in its Safety Evaluation performed by

, the Directorate of Licensing during the construction permit stage.2 Comment: (Pa. Dept. of Environmental Resources, p.'A-25)

No mention is made of the fact.that while the proposed plant site it$ elf does not rest on any coals, the tract of land to be taken in conjunction with the specific site is partly underlain by-coals including the following:

Lower Kittanning, Middle Kittanning, Upper Kittanning, Lower Freeport,' and Upper Freeport. It should be noted that the Upper Freeport coal-is actually mined out under part of the property to be taken although it does not occur directly under the plant itself. It should also be noted that the state-ment under paragraph 2.5, that there has been no mining beneath the area, is technically incorrect inasmuch as'there has been mining under the proposed taking, even though not actually under the proposed structure itself.

No-mention is made as to who specifically owns the mineral rights for the various coal units cited above.

Response

The staff has been unable to verify the presence of any mining under the site. The staff will ensure, in its safety evaluation, the integrity of the area on which the plant is constructed. The applicants own the mineral ~ rights under the site.

Comment: (Pa. Dept. of Environmental Resources, p. A-25)

The section cnt ground water, 2.6., does not identify any.of the bedrock aquifers under the property nor indicate the structure. This nheds to be known just in case there would be a loss or. spill into the groundwater environment. It is not enough for the report simply to state, "there are no known aquifers of significance in the bedrock underlying the site."

Even if true, we should know the aquifers of significance.

Response

The applicants state that there are no known aquifers of significance in the bedrock underlying the site. Bedrock wells are known, however, in the uplands south of the river valley where domestic wells of small yield have been completed in the bedrock. Piezometric levels in the bedrock in this area are well above the river level. Those wells that have been investigated are of depths such that they do not extend to elevations as low as bedrock at the plant site. In general, wells completed in the bedrock south of the Ohio' River vicinity produce only a few gallons per minute and are considered suitabic only for individual domestic consumption or for farm use for livestock.

h

11-16' Comment: _(Pa. Game Commission, p. A-26)

The Pennsylvania Game Commission recommends that two manitoring programs be initiated by the applicant, one for each of the two power station units.

The monitoring prograns recommended should survey select game species within a five mile radius. These programs should be followed by 'similar programs -- or continuations of the initial ones -- af ter the proposed facilities become operational. The purpose of the latter programs will be to determine any increase in radionuclides.in game species.

Response

It is not- clear what is meant by "two monitoring programs." ,The kinds of animals monitored would be the same for each unit and to take twice as many samples would be unwise since it would further tax the natural supply and add unnecessary collection and analytical costs. The staff 1 recommends that since rabbits are an abundant species known to reflect release rates, they should be the backbone of the routine animal sampling program, (see Section 6).

Comment: (Pa. Dept. of Environmental Resources, p. A-25)  ;

i The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources presents a number of suggestions and recommendations on the operational radiological moni-toring program in its comments on the Draf t Statement. These include recommendations on iodine, milk, air, vegetation, soll, game, and biota sampling. These recommendations are detailed on pages A-26 through A-28.

Response

Pursuant to Section 50.50 of 10 CFR Part 50, each operating license for a nuclear power plant issued by the Commission will contain such conditions and limitations it deems appropriate. and necessary. Certain conditions and limitations corresponding to key parameters of the NEPA environmental review shall be incorporated into the operating license ac environmental technical specifications. The applicant fer an operating license will propose Environmental Technical Specifications for its plant which will be reviewed by the AEC regulatory staff, modified as necessary and included as Appendix B of the operating license. The staff will give careful con-sideration to those suggestions cade by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources when it prepares the technical specifications for the Beaver Valley Station and will incorporate those recommendations, where e appropriate, into the monitoring program. The staff will inform the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources concerning the contents of the technical specifications and the staff's actions on specific recom-mendations after the technical specifications are finalized. j

)

l 4

11-17 Comment: (Pa. -Fish Commission, p. A-31)

'gjfdLUR 3.1.3.2. Thermal Effects of Cooling Water Federal Standards state "The heat content shall be limited. . . . raise temperature of entire stream at discharge point 5'F above ambient temperature, or to a maximum of 87'F, whichever is less." Succeeding tables and calculations would appear to overlook this criterion. If temperature of the river were made to exceed 87*F below the ef fluent, the effluent should be reduced in flow or stopped until diurnal fluctuation permits discharge without exceeding this limit.

Walleye, which are expected to increase in importance as water quality improves, tolerate temperatures to 82*F, and expire when the temperature exceeds 84*F.

Response

This comment appears to be directed to the applicants' Environmental Repo rt for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. The staff has evaluated the thermal impact of the plant on the Ohio River and has concluded that its thermal discharges will be in compliance with the applicable Pennsylvania water quality standards and will comply with the 87*F temperature limit. (Section 5.6.2.4)

Comment: (Pa. Fish Commission, p. A-31)

PAR 5.2.1.3.1.3.3 (Amendment 2) The statement that loss of biota will not have an adverse ef fect on fish because " number of fish in this area of river is limited" is not acceptable. Other sections of this study point out that the water quality and fishing in this section of the Ohio River is improving which means that numbers of fish will continue to increase to the extent supported by the food supply.

Res ponse :

This comment appears to be directed to the applicants' Environmental Report for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. The staff has concluded that the operation of the plant is not expected to have a measurable effect upon plankton. As stated in the Draf t Statement, the thermal effects on benthos are expected to be minimal. Chemical re-leases resulting from plant operation are not expected to have a signi-ficant impact upon the benthos.

The applicant states that assuming extreme conditions, the thermal plume would affect 54 acre feet out of a total volume of 74,000 acre feet in the New Cumberland Pool. This represents less than one thousandth of the volume of the pool. It is not expected that such a loss of food organism would adversely affect current or future fish populations.

I l

L

11-18 Comment: IMr. W. A. Buehring, p. A-41)

The doses received by the people employed at the plant deserve a separate entry in Table 5.6 since these people receive their dose es a result of their choice to work at the reactor site. Similarly, it +<uld seem to make some sense to list the exposure received by the trav:. drivers and train brakemen separately from the exposure received by meibers of the general public who are exposed as the fuel or waste material is transported.

Response

The staff has chosen to limit the evaluation of the radiological impact to the general population in its environmental review to members of the general public who reside outside the plant boundary and are subjected to an involuntary dose as a result of plant operation. Doses to plant employees are monitored and controlled under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20 and are considered by the staff in its safety evaluation report.

Doses to truck drivers and train brakemen are not required to be monitored nor are such individuals considered " radiation workers" in the same sense as plant operating personnel. Hence, the staff considers doses received by these individuals to be involuntary and includes their exposure in the extra-plant dose evaluation in its environmental review.

Comment : (EPA, p. A-57)

Due to the possibility of high thyroid doses via the cow-milk pathway, the applicant should institute a continuing program to monitor the location of milk cows in the vicinity of the station.

Res ponse:

The staff has proposed that such a condition be included in the applicants' operating license. (See Section 5.4.1)

Comment: (EPA, p.A-57't The final statement should present sufficient information concerning the AEC's dose model and bases for the assumptions used for determining the thyroid dose due to vegetable consumption, to allow an independent evalua- ,

tion of the dose to be made.

Res ponse :

e The requested data is provided below :

e I

l L

11-19 Factors for Converting Air Concentrations of Radiciodine to Thyroid Dose via Consumption of Green Leafy Vegetables *

(mrem /yr per pC1/m )

(Te-132 Age I-129** I-1 30 I-131 1-132 1-133 1-134 1-135 +1-132) 1 yr 1485 26.8 1190 1.48 84.1 0.293 10.0 (4.04) 4 yr 1720 21.4 1090 1.13 63.5 0.224 7.62 (3.09) 14 yr 1650 10.0 594 0.507 28.5 0.101 3.53 (1.39)

Adult 5190 8.53 589 0.428 24.1 0.0844 2.94 (1.17)

• (1) All 12 months of vegetable consumption is from local gardens.

(2) 2-yr old eats 18 kg/yr (max), 4-yr old eats 32 kg/yr (max),

14-yr old eats 54 kg/yr (max), adult eats 72 kg/yr (max).

(3) Crops are exposed 3 months, above ground, to air deposition.

(4) 25% of fallout sticks to vegetables (75% on ground) with a T B of 14 days.

(5) No decay from garden to table.

(6) All radioiodine is inorganic. Elf only Z% of it is in an inorganic form, multiply DF's by Z/100.

• • Ignoring long term accumulation in soil (which adds 1.4% in 1 yr or 43% in 30 yrs.

e i

s D

I

"}

11-20

. Comment:7 (EPA, p. A-66)

The ' operation of Unit 111s not ' expected to have a significant adverse impact on the aquatic environment of the Ohio River, but an evaluation of _ the accumulative effects of.the cooling operations on the river indicates that'

. the thermal standards will not be met at alli imes. t .The' final statement

. should consider the interaction and stream loading requirements of all-thermal discharges in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley. station.

Response

The staff in Section 5.2 concludes that applicable Pennsylvania water quality :

standards with regard to thermal effluents will be met with Unit 1 and Shippingport in operation.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-59)

As presently designed, the radioactive waste management systems provided for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 are not capable of limiting releases of radioactive wastes from the f acility to within the guidelines of the -

proposed Appendix I.to 10 CFR Part 50. However, once the shared systems' for Unit 2 are operational, the releases of radionuclides from Unit 1 and Unit' 2 should be in conformance with the guidance of Appendix 1, with the exception of gaseous r'adiciodine. The final ctatement should include a schedule which will clearly indicate how quickly the shared systema will become operational and specifically how long the steam generator blowdown effluents will be discharged untreated.

Although the draft statement estimated doses resulting from the 9 C1/yr of liquid waste discharges from Unit 1, it 'did not evaluate the dose consequences which will result from the Unit 1 liquid releases following the completion and operation of.the shared Unit 2 waste treatment system.

The final statement should present estimates of the doses from liquid H releases when the shared systems are operational.

Response

The applicants have stated that they intend to augment the liquid waste treatment system for Unit 1. The staff has re-evaluated the impact from liquid releases and concludes that the Unit 1 treatment system as augmented is self sufficient. Dose, from the shared system are presented in the Final Environmental Statement for Unit 2.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-59)

The AEC and the applicant indicate that their individual estimates of effluent releases and waste treatment systems performance are both based on operating experience. In spite of this, however, the respective esti-mates of annual discharges are significantly different; and, according to our Laformation, there are no plants in operation which presently utilize  !

o

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ k

11-21 h

the same radioactive waste management systems as those that are proposed for this' facility. The final statement should present the data on which the AEC's projections were based, and should clarify whether the ' data referred to are related to equipment performance such as leak rates and partition factors, or plant performance such as total curies released.

Response

The staff's analysis is based partially on operating experience with partienlar pieces of equipment and partially on conservative assumptions where sufficient operating data is not available. The staff has described in Section 3.5 the major assumptions which cause its estimates to vary from those of the applicants.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-60)

The draf t statement calculated the thyroid dose to a one year old child from the consumption of leafy vegetables grown at the alte boundary.

Thic potential dose was estimated to be 20 mrem /yr, using apparently conservative assumptions. The final statement should present more detailed information concerning the AEC's dose model and the bases for the assumptions used in determining the thyroid dose due to vegetable consumption (including vegetables which concentrate radionuclides in their fruit). This information should be comprehensive enough to allow EPA to independently evaluate the potential dose contribution from this pathway. We concur with the AEC's requirement of the applicant to institute an environmental surveillance program as outlined on page 5-13 of the draft statement, and to take corrective action if the total thyroid dose, by all pathways, exceeds 5 mrem /yr.

Response

The consumption of leafy vegetables by a two year old child having a 2 gram thyroid is now considered so small as to produce a negligible dose. A revised' calculation of the thyroid dose to a 4-year old child has been made and is included in Section 5. The requested information on dose calculation assumptions has been presented above.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-61) j We recommend that a specific quality assurance program be incorporated into the applicant's pre-operational and operational radiological monitoring e programs. At a minimum, such a program should cover the gamma dosimetry, the milk, forage and soil samples. Such a program would be the most effective method of supporting the validity of subsequent results.

Furthermore, we recommend that forage samples be incorporated into the monitoring program, summarized in Table 6.1, to aid in quantitatively assessing the importance of the cow-milk dose pathway. The final state-ment should address the methods to be used to check the quality of the data reported by the applicant.

. , . .- _ __ b

11-22 Responsei ~

The staff has required as a condition that the applicants provide at least one year of preoperational background monitoring data acceptable to the staff prior to operation of Unit 1. The staff will carefully review the applicants' program and data to ensure the adequacy of the information. The staff has recommended that forage sampling be included in the operational monitoring program, (see Section 6.2.1).

Comment: (EPA,p.A-701 It is our recommendation that the final statements on the Beaver Valley Station include the following:

(a) Indication of the origin and reliability of the low river flow value cited in the draft statement. In the past, EPA has relied on the seven day-ten year low flow value.

(b) An analysis of the combined operation of these facilities with respect to compliance with the NTAC recommendations (based on the above low-flow value).

(c) A discussion of the means by which such compliance will be achieved.

Response

The date on river flow presented in section 2.6.1 was obtained from the Departmen*. of the Army, Corps of Engineers. The staff has evaluated the magnitude of the thermal plume from the combined operation of Beaver Valley and Shippingport in section 5.6.2.3. As indicated in Section 5.6.2.3, only about one-fifth of the total river flow would reach as much as 5'F above ambient under the most pessimistic of conditions. This allows four-fifths of the river for passage outside of a 5'F isotherm. The staff agrees that under these adverse conditions, the combined effect of Shippingport and Beaver Valley discharges could result at some points in more than 25% of the water in the channel between Phillis Island and the shore being r41 sed to a temperature greater than 5'F above ambient. {

Tba staff has assessed the thermal impacts of the combined discharges 1 in section 5.6.2.3 and concluded that it will be minimal. In addition, ,

the etaff notes that the planned removal of the western end of Phillis j Island will tend to eliminate the entrainment of the thermal plume in l

the chanoel behind the Island (see figures 5.3 and 5.4.) For these I

• reasons, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the entrainment of the thermal plume behind the island do not i warrant the enforcement of the NTAC recommendations for that fraction ]

of the river flowing behind the island. j l

)

e

11-23 Comment: JEPA. p. A-71)

To facilitiate a reduction in the combined thermal impact of Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 and Shippingport to acceptable limits, we recommend the following: (1) The Beaver Valley blowdown concentration factor should be increased from 1.8 to 5. (2) The Shippingport once-through cooling system should be converted to closed-cycle cooling by sharing the Beaver Valley cooling facilities or by constructing a closed-cycle system for Shippingport.

Response

The staff has noted in Section 5.2 that blowdown volume could be reduced if warranted. However, such reduction would require substantial design changes to the plant coolant piping and, since the staff has assessed the current anticipated thermal impacts from Beaver Valley and Shippingport as minimal, the staff currently considers such an alternative unnecessary.

In addition, the staff notes that increasing the concentration factor to 5 might place the plant in violation of the EPA approved water quality standard for dissolved solids.

Requiring conversion of the Shippingport plant to closed cycle cooling is not within the authority of the regulatory staff.

C omment : (EPA, p. A-69)

The possibility exists that spasaing fish may make preferential use of the channel and backwater areas between the plant site and Phillis Island (a small island 150 meters (500 feet) offshore from the plant site). An adequate zone of passage, free from excessive thermal discharge, should also be maintained in this stretch of the river.

Response

As Phillis Island is removed by its owners the channel betvecn the island and the plant site will become of less importance in terms of potential for spawning. As noted in Section 5.2, the temperature rise in the bulk of the water between the island and the site is expected to be less than 5*F at the surface and less than that at depth. As a consequence, an adequate zone of passage is expected to exist in this stretch of the river.

Comment: (EPA , p . A-66 )

• The section of the Ohio River in the vicinity of Beaver Valley has been severely impacted by the accumulative effects of thermal and chemical discharges from many sources. Steel mills are located between eight and ten miles upriver at Aliquippa and Ambridge; a zine s' melter is located six miles upriver; the applicants are currently building two 800 MWe coal-fired power units one mile upriver; the Shippingport Atomic Power Station Unit 1 is on the river, adjacent to the site; the Midland steel mill is located Lamediately across the river; and, a steel mill is located five miles downriver. With the exception of the Shippingport plant, the draft statement does not discuss the thermal discharges and effects of these sources.

l l

l

11-24 -

Response

The staff has included in its assessment of thermal impact those facilities producing thermal discharges in the immediate vicinity of the Beaver Valley plant. Some thermal increase in the Ohio River could be expected upon operation of the Bruce Mansfield plant located upstream of the Beaver Valley Station. Although the staff is unable to quantify the thermal releases of this plant, its contribution is estimated to be less than two-thirds that of the Beaver Valley Station since the units are coal-fired, slightly smaller than those at Beaver Valley and employ natural' draft cooling towers. Although the staff had not quantified the effect, upstream industries would not be expected to cause a significant thermal contribution at the Beaver Valley Station because of intervening dams and tributaries of the 0.hio River and the general requirements of Ohio River Quality Standards and Administrative Impact of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of.1972.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-72)

The final statement should be expanded to include a nonradioactive spill prevention, containment and countermeasure plan. The Beaver Valley Plant will be using chlorine, sulfuric acid, caustic soda, turbine oil, trans-former oil and other substances that could be considered hazardous to aquatic life if spilled in the river. Such a plan should include the following:

a. A description of the reporting system which will be used to alert responsible facility management and appropriate icgal authorities.

b. A description of facilities (including overall facility plat) which prevent, contain or treet spills and unplanned discharges, a

c. A list of all oil and hazardous materials used, processed, or stored at the facility.

Response

The facility design incorporates measures to contain plant liquids chemicals in the event of spillage. For example, the transformers _are surrounded by gravel pits to absorb oil in the event of leakage and the turbine plant oil storage and bulk chemical storage facilities are surrounded by dikes. The chlorine storage area is monitored and alarmed to indicate excessive chlorine

, levels. Emergency plans and reporting procedures are detailed in the applicants' Safety Analysis Report.

Consment : (EPA, p. A-74)

The estimates of the delay times for krypton and xenon holdup in the charcoal j beds (condenser air ejector cleanup), stated in the draf t statement, differ considerably from estimates by the applicant. The reason for these differences should be explained in the final statement. >

9

1 11-25 i

Response: -

Section 3.5 has been modified to clarify this point.

I l' . Comment: (EPA, p. A-74) 1 l

In the' draft statement, milk consumption is stated to be one liter per day and 274 3iters per year. This difference should be clarified in the final statement.

Response

The text of Section 5.2 has been modified to clarify this point.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-74)

Table 7.2 of the draft statement shows that in the event of a Class 8 1 event, the dose effects of a "small break" are greater than the effects of a "large break" by a factor of about twenty five. It appears that this may be due to an arithmetic or typographical error. The final statement should correct this apparent discrepancy or, if there is no error, it ~

'should discuss how: this can occur. In addition, details of the assumptions l used in the calculations of the accident consequences should be presented in the final statement, if they differ from those given in the Annex to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50.

Response

The calculeted doses resulting from a "small break" are indeed larger than those from a "large break". Following a "small break", the containment is

. assumed to be vented to the atmosphere after an appropriate holdup time.

No such venting is assumed following the "large break" accident.

The assumptions in the cited reference have been used in the accident analysis as stated in the text of Section 7.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-75 )

If available from the Shippingport Station, a longer period of meteorological data should be presented in the final statement and used to better characterize the site atmospheric dispersion characteristics.

. Response:

The staff examined the Shippingport data and concluded that it was not in ,

the proper form for utilization in the staff's dose and drif t calculations. j l

b

11-26 Comment: (EPA. p. A-7 5 )

The draft statement primarily addresses some ambient air impacts that result from Unit 1; however, the ambient air environmental impacts for the proposed Unit 2 in the adjacent area should be discussed in the final statement to properly evaluate such topics as the impacts of cooling ' tower plumes, auxi-liary boilers, and diesel engine sources of air pollutants.

Response

The impact of non radioactive gaseous releases from the proposed Unit 2 are discussed in the Final Environmental Statement for that plant.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-7 5)

The draf t statement does not provide information as to potential hydrocarbon emissions or control of fuel storage tanks that will be located at the site.

Additionally, there is no discussion regarding particulate emission or control strategies that may be employed in the concrete batch plant operation.

This information chould be provided in the final statement.

. Response

• Hydrocarbon emissions are addressed in Table 3.7. The meaning of control

'of fuel storage tanks is obscure. The staff assumes they are quiescent.

There are no particulate emissica controls or control strategies in use at the concrete batch plant operation.

Comment: (EPA p. A-7 9 Since the Beaver Valley Power Station is to be located in a highly industrialized area, the addition of part'Aulate and sulfur dioxide inte the ambient air basin should be assessed coccarvatively. For example, the following points should be addressed'(a) the expected ambient air concentrations of pollutants in the area at ground level during severely restrictive atmospheric dispersion conditions; (b) control strategies to be used to maintain ambient air quality stendards during poor dispersion cunditions; and (c) the relationship of pollutants from this source to the air pollution c0ntrol strategies for iceting national ambient air standards for this area.

Response

e The incremental quantity of particulate and sulfur dioxide which may be released into the atmosphere from the infrequently used fossil . fueled equipment is expected to be insignificant when compared to those amounts existing as a result of local industrialization. The curtailment of equip-ment testing during adverse atmospheric conditions would )bviate an aggrava-tion of pollutants concentrations. The staff recommends that the applicants defer testing of such equipment under such adverse conditions.

e

11-27 Comment: (EPA. p. A-76)

Using technical data referenced for Table 3.8 (page 3-29 of the draf t statement) and emission factors for diesel fuel as cited in the Office of Air Programs' Publication No.. AP-42, February 1972, we calculated the emissions for diesel engines as follows:

Average Emissions Maximum Emissions Tons / year Pound / hour Particulate 0.026 6.7 SO2 0.072 19.0 00 3.4 x 10 ~34 0.09 Hydrocarbons 5.1 x 10 1.34 NO 0.136 35.8 Alkehydes 3.4 x 10 ~3 0.9 These values should be included in the final statement in place of values presently cited in Table 3.8.

Response :

The indicated changes have been made to the text of Section 3.7.6.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-76)

The cooling tower plumes from Unit 1 and from Unit 2 should be discussed in the final statement and not treated as separate topics. The influence of the two adjacent cooling towers on the ambient air environment may be greater than a simple addition factor.

Response

The staff's Final Environmental Statement for Unit 2 addresses the effects of the combined plumes from the Unit 1 and Unit 2 cooling towers.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-76)

Regarding the water quality data on pages 2-7 to 2-10 of the draf t statementa, more recent and longer term water quality data are available from EPA for Ohio River Mile Point 40, (8.4 km or 5.2 miles) downstream from the site. The data in Table 2.3 (p. 2-9) was apparently obtained

, e from the STORET system and contains errors common to earlier versions u of thia data retrieval system. There are also some misprints, Corrections l follow:

1 Dissolved Oxygen should read 6.7 mg/l minimum not 0.00.

Acidity should read 25 mg/l maximum not 244 and mean should be 5 mg/1. The ,

mean alkalinity has always exceeded acidity.  !

1 i _ _ ______=___...__ __. _ b

i 11-28 Phosphorus _shi>uld read 0.00 minimum not 0.60 mg/1.

Iron should rec! 5.8 maximum not 58 mg/1.

Manganese ,should read 7.5 maximum not 11 mg/1.

Aluminum should read 2.1 maximum not 16 mg/1.

Phenol should read 0.06 maximum not 0.6 mg/l and a 0.01 mg/l mean not 0.10 mg/1.

Response

The information in Table 2.3 has been corrected as indicated except for iron and aluminum where the staff notes that the indicated maxima are below the currently reported means.

Coment : (EPA, p. A-77)

The water quality' standards which regulate the portion of the Ohio. River which flows through Pennsylvania were developed by the State of Pennsylvania and approved by EPA. The Ohio River Sanitary Comission may make recommenda-tions which may be accepted by the state and included in the water quality standards. This is in contradistinction to the assertion in the' draft statement that the Ohio River is presently being managed by water quality standards established by the Ohio River Sanitary Commission.

Response

The text of Section 2.6.3 has been modified to reflect the information presented in this cornnent.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-77)

The sanitary system description includes no method of pH adjustment by acid, CO 2 , or other means after tertiary lime precipitation. This must be provided for proper chlorine disinfection and maintenance of proper pH levels of the effluent.

Response

The ~inal Statement has_heen corrected to indicate that no tertiary lime precipitation process is contemplated. Hence, the pH adjustment mentiond

• above is not necessary.  ;

Comment: (EPA, p. A-77)

The plan to prevent siltation and turbidity increases should be described in greater detail. The sediment discharged to the river from the construction site of the Beaver Valley Power Station should be monitored. ,

i e

rl

11-29 Response: _-

The applicants state that sedimentation and erosion control for the Beaver Valley site will conform with the intent of the controls adopted in Octobqr, 1972, by the Environmental Quality Board of Pennsylvania. Stab 111zation of the site will be accomplished by proper placing, grading and covering of the soil affected by construction. Sheet piling will be used as appropriate for erosion control. Excavated, graded and filled areas will be seeded for final sedimentation control.

Silt deposition to the Ohio River during the relocation of portions of Peggs Run was minimized by sheet pile along the stream embankment. A stream encroachment permit for the relocation of Peggs Run was obtained for Unit 1 from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. The present arrangement minimizes erosion and uses the natural stream bank wherever possible, with one energy dissipating outfall. The outfall is suitably designed to handle the maximum flow without erosion. Silting is minimized by complying with the content of " Bridges, Walls, Fillings, and Channel Changes," Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources form FWR-23.

Embankments are graded to no greater than a 1 to 1.5 slope and all  ;

surfaces will be stabilized to prevent storm erosion. I Stabt.lization of the fill area for the Unit 1 cooling tower is provided by concrete panels protected at all interconnecting joints by a filter cloth to prevent soil washout.

The staff does not consider it necessary to monitor sediment discharges.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-7D There should be an unequivocal guarantee that no mining will be permitted under this plant site.

Response

The applicants have indicated that they own the mineral rights under the site. The staff will require as a safety condition that no mining be permitted which would endanger the integrity of the plant.

Comment: (EPA. p. A-78)

The* applicant has found it necessary to relocate several hundred feet of 8 the stream, Peggs Run. The present poor quality of Peggs Run does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of attempting to mitigate the i effects of rechannelizing, The final statement should discuss prospects I and plans for improving the water quality of the stream disturbed by this j l

dislocation.

e

11-30

~~

Response

The water quality of Peggs Run is determined upstream of the Beaver Valley site acd as a consequence no action by the applicant can reasonably be expecced to improve the quality of the water. As may be noted in Figure F.2-1 of Amendment 1 to the environmental report for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 the applicant plans to landscape along Peggs Run as well as the recounts of the site which should mitigate the artifical appearance of this water course resulting from channelization.

Comment: (EPA, p. A-53 A cost-effectiveness analysis which considers the addition of separate treatment systems for both the auxiliary building ventilation air and turbine building vents should be included in the final statement.

Response

The staff has evaluated the gaseous radioactive waste treatment systems for Beaver Valley, Unit 1, in section 3.5.2 and the resulting impacts of gaseous radioactive releases in section 5.4.1. Based on this evaluation the staff has calculated a dose to a child's thyroid via the pasture-cow-milk pathway at the location of the nearest dairy herd to be 3 mrem /yr. It is the staff's conclusion that releases of radioiodine in gaseous ef flusat during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences from Unit 1 meet the as low as practicable guidelines. To assure that the actual dose to a child's thyroid through the milk pathway does not exceed the as low as practicable guideline, the licensee will be required to provide a program for monitoring the radioiodine content in uilk at the location of the nearest dairy herd. This program will be delineated in the Technical Specifications and will relate to measuring the iodine releases from the plant. The operating license for Unit 1 will also require the licensee to maintain surveillance over the area around the plant where cows could be pastured and if cows are introduced implement an approprir.ce milk sampling program.

Should the actual iodine releases appear to exceed the as low as practicable guidelines the licensee will be required to take appropriate action to reduce these releases. Appropriate action may include modifying the reactor to limit the releases by the addition of treatment systems to reduce rJdio-iodine releases. The bases for this approach is that the staff's model used to calculate routine releases of radioiodine from the plant include limited 8

available operating data and contains a number of uncertainties. In addi-tion, the assumptions on meteorology, iodine deposition plateout and partition factors and species of iodine released may be conscryative.

Further, measurement programs now in progress at operating reactors may show that the dose calculation methods are quite conservative and that a requirement for additional control measure is not warranted at this time.

The entire matter of releases as low as practicable which includes cost-ef festiveness analyses is the subject of an AEC rule-making hearing (RM-50-1) which is still in progress.

e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b

, h,s

.11-31 1

_ l

. Footnote:

1. Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, November 1972. I

~2. USAEC, Division of Reactor Licensing, Safety Evaluation In the Matter of Duquesne Light Co..' Pennsylvania Power Co., and Ohio Edison Co.,

Beaver Valley Power Station, Docket No. 50-334, April: 24,1970.

l-i

'O

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ [

r. .-

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

l" f'

1- ~

l.

l l-1 I

l l

.)

O e

' --- - _ _ _ . _ . ._._ __ _ . . _ _ _ . . t.

l l A-1 1

1 APPENDlX A COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 o

l l

1 J

p

A-2 ADVISORY COUNCII. 0-334 ON ~

HISTORIC PRESERVATION N wassswatow. o.c. sense .g,7 3g, 1973

%/

Mr. Daniel R. Muller 6 ". 'i Assistant Director for Environmental 6 Y

Projects Directorate of Licensing A, :

ef 4,

j

[U- -

U.S. Atomic Energy Comission  % 9; /gf Washington, D.C. 20545 L k[ A 4\(

9 '

Dear Mr. Muller:

?

This is in response to your request of March 16, 1973, for conenents on the environmental statement for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has determined that while you have discussed the historical, architectural, and archeological aspects i related to the undertaking, the Advisory Council needs additional information to adequately evaluate the effects on these cultural resources.

Please furnish additional data indicating:

Compliance with Executive Order 11593' of Nav 13,1971.

In the case of lands not urder the control or juris-diction of the Federal Covernment, a statement should be made as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non. federally owned districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural significance.

To insure a comprehensive review of historical, cultural, archeological, and architectural resources, the Advisory Council suggests that the environmental statement contain evidence of contact with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers and that copies of their consnents concerning the effecits of the undertaking upon these resources be included in the environmental statement. The State Historic Preservation Officer for Pennsylvania is Mr. William J. Wawar, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Consnission, William Penn Memorial Museum and Archives Building, Bc'x 1026, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108, and the Historic Preservation Officer for Ohio is Mr. Daniel R. Porter, Director, the Ohio Historical Society, Coltanbus, Ohio 43211.

o i

sus cou.csi, e. 4.depe.de s .eene, of she sese.ede s, a of she rede a cesem. a. se dere.d 6, she Aes of oeseher ss. s,es. wea

. dea .a the Presideas e.d ce. press a se Asad of Misserie Peeerr sse ee a.e.ss a e. Fadee.l. federails essessed, e.d fedevail, lasemand

,s. ,co,eresse lassed de she Nesse f Repasser of Nesserie Ps es ore..ed.e ane.s res se e sedemase dres.ki.ps me.a #6.n.e,,e.

an 6 efees a ereseaw dn..., e. sae d . s ef 6eree es6e .  ;:: p.6s., s.sa s e.d p ne.eines.o.. ee .- .

sw.d.., saa es.d.,e er e,er as.dwe. .dn.., 6. she ,,e e=s et see.sans... e.d e=es., e.,

. e,en.sa.d := =, e.d ed.,es . d i o di.e ae ar.ned stesse ma. sara o s se seu,, sw.es ca sn fee she ss dn er the = e.d ao ans seem of cans. s Pn,an, 1

s. Ae.e. Joe'e.

4 l

i e

1 L

l 1

A-3 l

l 1

Should you have any questions on these coments or require any additional assistance, please contact Myra Harrison of the Advisory Council staff.

i Sincerely yours, I f  !

l l

/ d

( 4/

en Tapma V Compliance Officer l

i o

e

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ b_ _ _

l f

L ,,g,;, s 50-334 l  ? w.. '-

!/ DEPARTMEt4T OF AGR!CULTUPE j i  ; ' h, ' h'il O _ orr.cc or ruc stencnny , .,- '

.' @[ -

wAssmcToN. D. C. 20250 hM ' l.

d ,< l I .::Q' ,. ' , _

g I .'. ',L y fy.,

'l 't373 '.[ C ,

G' e.j . ,.> ,

h ,..g

.") *..,. ,',g.<

J

)

)

Mr. Daniel R. Phller y,i'Q'> .'"9 , T' . ' Y' Accistant Director for N- '

Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 205h5 i

Dear Mr. Fhller:

We have had the draft environmental statement for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Duquesne Power a .-i Light Company, j Pennsylvania, reviewed in the relevant agencies of the i Department of Agriculture, and comments from Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, both agencies of the Department, are enclosed.

Sincerely, n

y T. C. 3YERLY Coordinator, vironme tal Quality Activities Enclosures O

l e

'A-5

_-- SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, ' USDA COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT _ PREPARED BY THE U. S.-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1, DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, OHIO EDISON COMPANY, PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY )

1 The' statement does not outline the methods .that. the . applicant intends to use to comply with Section 102 of the Pennsylvania -

Clean Streams Act, as amended. This Act requires a sediment and erosion control plan on all earthmoving activi hes and a permit on all. areas 25 acres or more in size that are disturbed i at'one time.-

Land. treatment measures needed before, during, and after con-struction on the plant grounds, rights-of-way,. access roads and~ borrow areas were not disc ssed.

No mention was made as to whether topsoil from the area was salvaged before placement of the 1,100,000 cubic yards of fill.

It is expected that impacts on soil and water resources in the area will be minor.

The Soil. Conservation Service in Pennsylvania. has no projects which would- be affected by the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1.

l

\

l 6

h i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _

" i A-6  ;

i

-- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE  !

Fore st Se rvice i

l Re: Draft Environmental Statement - Beaver Valley Power Station, l Unit 1, Duquesne Light Company M<

As we read the draft, all site disturbance that will occur has already taken place, and transmiss' ion lines will occupy rights-of-way that are already cleared and in use. The last paragraph of Section 3. 8 contains the phrase "when the rights-of-way are cleared," but as we have stated, we believe this refers to an action which has already taken place. It would clar'ify the matter, however, if this section had a sentence added stating flatly that existing rights-of-way will be utilized with no widening contemplated.

We believe that the proposal will have little, if any, other effect on forest land or forestry-related activities, e

i 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ )

A *A-

'

• CFFICE CF THE ASCISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

> . Washington. D.C. 20230 50-334 May 1, 1973 O

Mr. Daniel R. Muller g ,c ~

Assistant Director for Environmental g. -

- } \\

Projects Directorate of Licensing MAY3 1973 *q Atotnic Energy Commission n im mm Washington, D. C. 20545 9 $ ire w swa /

Dear Mr. Muller:

g to The draft environmental impact statement for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, which accompanied your letter of March 16, 1973, has been received by the Department of Commerce for review and comment.

The Department of Commerce has reviewed the draft environ-mental statement and has the following comment to offer for your consideration.

From table 3.5 we note that about 3/4 of the total annual operational release of noble gases to the atmosphere will be by way of gas decay tanka.. Tb*ee such tanks are suggested, having a storage capacity of at least 30 days. It is not clear whether the release from these tanks is more or less instantaneous or over an extended period such as a month.

If the former is the case, the annual average relative con-centration value discussed on page 5-12 is not appropriate to the decay tank releases.

We hope this comment will be of assistance to you in the preparation of the final statement.

Sincerely, o

e Sidney R. aller y Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs

_ _ _ _ _ 0

A-8

~0

[.**r' % 'g _ DEPARTMENT OF HOU$ LNG AND URB AN DEVELOPMENT 7, ,! -

PIT TSBURGH AR E A cFFIC E

• [- Two ALLE0HENY CENTER

• o Q *** PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLV ANIA 15212 REGION !!! #

Curtis Addias b h

n. ./.t *:";ti r#;".">,io MAY 9 1973 mo.-,,.,o, D 3.1PTP U. S. Atomic Energy Co m4ssion -

gh f, ,

Directorate of Licensing -

9; f -12 Washington, D. C. 20545 g) @:2 '

Attention: Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director /

Gentlemen: w

Subject:

Beaver Valley Power St .,ian Unit 1, Docket No. 50-334 Beaver Valley Power Staticn Unit 2, Docket No. 50-412 Detailed herein are the cor ents of the Pittsburgh Area Office of the Depart-ment of flousing and Urban development regarding the Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2. We have evaluated the environmental impact statements with respect to the projects' effects upon the surrounding community in relation to hTD projects and planning criteria. l AREA I"PACTICN Unit 2 vill require an 80-person work force, and Unit 1 vill require from 20 to 40 personnel to be dram from the Pittsburgh labor market. This nu=ber of individuals is not significant enough to impact area housing or community facilities. Since no housing relocation is required, there is no impact on the i= mediate housing co== unity.

LAND USE Land use is relatively unaffected, since site location is along an already industrialized river corridor. Of the total 449-acre site, only 21.5 acres are proposed for industrial development, while the remainder of the site is '

to be reserved in its natural state. Respecting these factors, this office does not object to the land use or site location on the basis of land use.

RADIATION o The Atomic Energy Co==ission's statement details the chemical and radioactive discharges and leakages that vill result. While these matters concern h7D, they are not within our purview to evaluate or control; however, we caution ,

that land use controls outside site boundaries must be considered. For l example, if a remote danger of radioactive conta=ination exists, housing l and food growing should be restricted or prohibited. River discharges also i may necessitate restrictions on the recreational use of the river near l outfalls.

. 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

A _ 2 VISIBLE PLUME The'500-foot cooling towers and their plumes will have a significant negative visual impact. We oppose this visual impact, but we' reali::e that should the application be approved, this cannot be avoided. However, we feel that further studies should be made to evaluate the possible extent of sunlight reduction and the increased precipitation on comunities under the plume.

DOCUMENTATION Chapter 7 of the Draft 2 environmental Statement for Unit 1, "Ihviron= ental' Iffects of Postulated Accidents," is unclear. A suggestion to clarify the material vould be to explain the probable sequence of. events following an accident in scenario form.. This would be especially effective with respect to the effect on surrounding comunities.

We hope our comments will assist your evaluation.

Sincerelyg_ ._.

_. :E~. . . .- t Q _ dby a -

^

~ L -- - -

Ehrest F. Hafsolan, Environmental Clearance l Officer l

l l

0 1

( -

L _--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - ___ ----- --- --- - - - - - - _ - - . - - K-

s A-10 "3, 50-334 s&%

United States Department of the Interior H f,. ~ ' ., )@

, s @ .i!f./

ge E OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY A . q g ,, N s.,. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 j g g' % .

In reply refer to: e @,, M '

. PEP ER-73/402 y 1 1971 sm bg- j'l3mt P g' p

$ 51 '(( ' ' j .

&s ~ .l h, ' %s,

/;p

Dear Mr. Muller:

/

This is'in response.to your letter of March 16, 1973, requesting.~our comments on the Atomic Energy Commission's draft statement, dated March 1973,.on environmental considerations for Beaver Valley Power Station', Unit 1, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

Our comments are presented according to the format of the statement or according to specific subjects.

Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts of this plant and those of existin;;

and planned facilitics are-not adequately covered. The im-pacts of Beaver Valley Unit 2 are readily available since this draft environmental statement is also available for review. The two 800 MW' coal-fired electric generating plants on the Bruce.Mansfield site' located about one mile upstream from the Beaver Valley site should also be considered in cumulative impact evaluations.

Recreation.

The information on recreation given on pages 3.1-3 and 3.1-4 of the applicant's environmental report is a more acceptable presentation than that' presented in the environ-mental statement. We think that the final environmental.

statement should contain more data regarding recreation.

-Also, it appears that a clearer overall picture of the

.g recreational impact,could be obtained if such information is presented in one place. If sc- tred references are necessary because of document for. c, a recreation summary, with page references would improve the presentation.

b

s s+

A-11

. ==

2 Summary and Conclusions The following items should be'added to section 3 of.the-Summary and Conclusions.

1. Destruction of native vegetation due to construction and maintenance of transmission facilities.

2. . Destruction' of 400 feet of the riparian habitat at the -

mouth of Peggs Run.

3. Creation of a thermal plume that will deny access-of native fishes to portions of'the river during certain periods of the year.

4. . Increase in' turbidity during maintenance dredging

' operations.

Historic and Archeological Sites The proposed action will not directly-affect any existing

.or proposed unit of the National Park' $ystem or ' any registered National Historic, Natural, or Environmental' Education Landmark or any site now in process of registra-tion as a landmark.

However,.the discussion in Section'2.4 does not represent the level of interdisciplinary investigation of environmental resources required for an adequate evaluation of' environmental impacts. For example, the responses to several professional contacts are presented on page 2-5; however, the background data supporting these responses are not given. Therefore, we do not think that there is presented an adequate basis to conclude "no archeological sites of significance.9ill be affected by operation of the plant." Since construction is well underway, the extent that cultural resources have been affected will never be known.

f In order to comply with Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1972, and the National Environmental Policy Act, the applicant should consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and discuss his findings and recommendations in the final statement.

Concurrently, an interdisciplinary. investigation of ~the area should be undertaken in order to evaluate cultural resources which have not yet been destroyed and provide the basis for discussion in all relevant sections of the environmental statement.

9 O

A-12 f

{

3 Surface Waters We suggest that the temperature and discharge data referred to on page 2-7 and given on pages 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 should be related to the particular period or record involved.

Also, the minimum discharge and maximum water temperatures l

occurring during each of the summer months should be identi-fied. Although the monthly data is valuable, instantaneous extremes in discharge and temperatures will probably have a closer correlation with the aquatic productive capability of the Ohio River.

We suggest that the first sentence, second paragraph, page 2-7 be modified to indicate that the water quality described is under present conditions but that efforts are being made to upgrade the quality. The improvement of water quality in recent years with the resultant improvement in the fishery resource is indicated on page 2-14 of the statement. The first sentence, second paragraph, page 5-19 should be modified likewise.

Acuatic Ecology The second paragraph on page 2-14 states that there is no longer a commercial fishery in the affected portion of the I river and recreational fishing exists only to a limited ex- l tent. This appears to be inconsistent with the discussion '

on page 5-19 which indicates that 1,000 pounds of sportfish are caught annually in the New Cumberland pool.

Solid Radwaste It is indicated on page 3-22 that an estimated 10,000 curies are associated with the 22 truckloads of radioactive solid 1 wastes that will be shipped from the site each year. It is j also indicated that the wastes will be shipped for " disposal  !

in accordance with applicable regulations." The environmental I statement should provide specific information concerning the o radionuclides that will be present, their physical-chemical states, and their estimated concentration in the solid wastes.

A discussion of the licensing provisions for radioactive waste disposal and the AEC criteria and responsibilities in connection with: (1) determination of the suitability of the disposal site to isolate the specific radioactive components of the Beaver Valley Power Station wastes from the biosphere for specific periods of time; (2) current and continuing l

l

w. ,

A-13 l:-

w 4

surveillance and monitoring at:the disposal. site; (3) any-remedial or regulatory actions that.may be necessary.at the site through a specific period of time during which.the radioactive components.may remain hazardous.

1 transmission Facilities We suggest that.the last paragraph on page 3-31 be expanded to: (1) indicate frequency and times of year for.right-of-way. maintenance, including clearing of vegetation; and-(2) vegetative types affected by transmission line construc-tion and operation. We further suggest that the applicant-

. coordinate.the scheduling of maintenance of these powerline rights-of-way with. local Soil and Water Conservation' Districts and State' game and fish agencies. The method for' applying the herbicides should be identified. Also, special pre-cautions that will be used to avoid destroying desirable shrubs should be discussed.

Water Use The data presented in this section should be supplementediby including stream cross-sections-of the entire portion of the Ohio River affected by the Beaver Valley Power Station. thermal plume. These. cross-sections would show more clearly the amounts of nearshore shallows within'the area influenced by the plume.

An. analysis of the cross-sections could also facilitate computation of the volume of water affected at various iso-

-therms. We also suggest that the final statement indicate

~

the area of the isotherms of 20F and above when Shippingport,.

and Beaver Valley, Units 1 and 2 are operating.

Figures 5.1 through 5.5 should also indicate the' discharge on-each side of Phillis Island.

Aquatic

• Ecology The turbidity associated with normal maintenance operations for intake and discharge structures should be added to the.

list of principal potential effects on the aquatic environment.

Effects of.the Intake Structure This section should indicate that the mouth of Peggs Run has been channelized during construction of the powerplant.

l e

- - . . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ L

A-14 1

5 Ecological Monitoring We also suggest that lengths and weights of fishes impinged l on traveling screens be determined. This data would give added insight on the plant's impact on the river's biomass.

Chemical Release Monitoring According to page 5-29, the steff will require monitoring of the free residual chlorine and chloramine levels at the point of discharge. This requirement is necessary. However, the last sentence on page 6-5 appears to be in conflict with the earlier requirement. We suggest that the last sentence on page 6-5 be reworded to remove any conflicts between these  ;

two statements.

Plant Accidents This section contains an adequate evaluation of impacts resulting from plant accidents through Class 8 for airborne emissions. However, the environmental effects of releases to water is lacking. Many of the postulated accidents listed in tables 7.1 and 7.2 could result in releases to the Ohio River and should be evaluated.

l We also think that Class 9 accidents resulting in both air j and water releases should be described and the impacts on human life and the remaining environment discussed as long as there is any possibility of occurrence. The consequences of an accident of this severity could have far-reaching effects on land and in the Ohio River which could persist for centuries affecting millions of people.

Our previous comments to you on the applicant's environmental reports reflected our concern for the possible accidental release or spillage of wastes into the Ohio River even though many safety features are incorporated into the waste procest-ing system. We continue to think that the applicant should e know the potential time of travel for slugs of wastes to r3ach downstream water users for various river discharges. This information should be contained in the final environmental statement.

e 1_

A-15 1

6 Alternative Energy Sources Table 9.2 does not contain enough information to confirm the amount of pollutants emitted to the atmosphere from an alternative coal-fired plant.

Summary of Costs and Environmental Ef fects The words "small increases" in the third item on page 10-4 are subjective. The amount of chemical wastes released into the river should be given since this data is available.

We hope these comments will be helpful to you in the preparation of the final environmental statement.

Since(Ely yo p, r

,k[

, I/

h::.,g Deputy Assistant SecretarW of the IrQerior Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects (f

Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 o

l i

b 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ._ ..b

i A-16 l DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i

[ M AILING ADDRc55.

1 I UNITED STATES COAST GUARD us Co^$7ou^ao

= seveNTw sracekGWS/83) so.

WASHINGTON, D C. 20590 y-

/.gn \.9.**'

• 4 e.. .

202 426-22 Y ~$ , i..i 50-334

. ~ ,- - ,

Mr. Daniel R. Muller 9~ c -

[ ;Q's (h,"  !

, ')

Assistant Director for d' -

Environmental Projects 1, .

' 't. b ,y/

e e.,

Directorate of Licensing 4 M

.U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ,3 VE Washington; D. C. 20546

Dear Mr. Muller:

This is in response to your letter of 16 March 1973 addressed to the Department of Transportation Coordinator for Water Resources regarding the draft environ-mental impact statement, environmental report and other pertinent papers on the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit One, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

The concerned operating administrations and staffs of the Department of Trans-portation have reviewed the material submitted. The Coast Guard commented

.on the draft statement as follows:

"It is felt that subject statement is incomplete by not addressing the environ-mental effect of the free residual chlorine and chloramines in the discharge.

The statement admits the chemicals pose a threat, and will likely exceed recom-mended levels. The statement, "it is a major area of concern," does not satisfy .

the requirements. (Para 5.6.2.2)

"This statement leaves the impression that the environmental effects of the chemical discharge will be evaluated after operations begin, then a monitoring system will be devised, and then the design would be altered to chenre the chem-leal output. The intent of the NEPA in requiring the EIS was to avot this trial and error method to the greatest extent possible.

O "All discharge permits have been issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. However, Pennsylvania's discharge permit system is not federally approved. New applications will have to be made to the EPA under the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System."

b

A-17 l

i ne Department of Transportation has no further comments to offer on the draft statement nor on the environmental report. It is felt, however, that the question raised by the Coast Guard regarding chemical discharges should be resolved.

, ne final statement must leave no doubt or impression that the environmental l effects of the chemical discharge will be evaluated only after operation 'of the plant commences.

' he opportunity for the Department of Transportation to review the draft environ-mental impact statement and other material for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit One is appreciated.

Sincerely, k . h N ,(. A G-E u j.D.?'$'.":1

'- Cgt9,U.S. D::.c :e Acting Chief,0l fica cf Danne Erwironment and Systems 4

)

2

A-18 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 5,0-334 Z WASHINGTON D.C. 20426 m meety nenn to:

(; _ . , -

e p b Mr. Daniel R. Muller $y 16 B73 - '

I Assistant Director for .. y Environmental Projects

. ' . i. . ,

Directorate of Licensing 9 ?I' U. S. Atomic Energy Cccmission y/

s ETA Washington, D. C. 20545 .

~~

Dear Mr. Muller:

This is in response to your letter of March 16, 1973, requesting co=ments on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement related to the c6ntinuation of construction permit CPPR-75 and the proposed issuance of an operating license to the Duquesne Light Company, the Pennsylvania Power Company, and the Chio Edison Ccmpany for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No.1 (Docket No.

50-334).

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the April 23, 1971, Guidelines of the Ccuncil en Environmental quality, these ec=ments re riew the need for the facilities as concerns the adequacy and reliability of the affected bulk power systems and matters related thereto.

In preparing these comments, the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power staff has considered the AEC Draft Environmental Statement; the Applicant's Environmental Report and Amendments thereto; related reports made in response to the Coc=ission's Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Order No. 383-2); and the staff's analysis of these documents tcgsther with related information from other FPC reports. The staff of the Bureau of Power bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk pcwer facility upon long-term considerations as well as the load supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of the facility.

Need for the Facility The Beaver Valley Pcwer Station, Unit No.1, is an 856-megawatt pressurized water reactor generating unit. The unit, originally scheduled for ccmcercial g

operation in June 1973, has been delayed and is presently scheduled for May 1975 Therefore, it is expected to be available in time to assist in meeting the 1975 summer peak loads. The plant is located adjacent to the Shippingport Power Station, in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, approximately 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.

e

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ b

'A-19 Mr. Daniel R. Muller The Beaver' Valley Power Station, Unit No.1, is jointly ' owned by the .

Duquesne. Light Company, the Pennsylvania Power Company, and the0hio Edison Company-(jointly referred to hereafter as the Applicants). The station vill:

be- operated by the Duquesne Light Company. .

The Applicants, . together with the Toledo Edison Company, comprise the CAPCO Pool which was formed in 1967 The Pool supplies electricity in the northern and central areac of Chio and the western part of Pennsylvania. The members of the Pool jointly determine the generating capacity needs for the entire Pool such that the Pool v111'not be dependent on power systems outside CAPCO more than one day per year for serving firm load. The Pool then allocates the generating capacity and financial responsibility for shares of each new generating unit among the members of the Pool. The allocated share of the unit is in' proportion to the member's contribution to and its need to draw from the Pool reserves to serve its own firm load.- Eence, the effect of a de-lay in the completion of the Beaver Valley Unit No.1 must be considered from the standpoint of the Pool.

Because the resources of the Pool are combined to provide adequate capacity-and reserve, it is possible to install large generating units taking advantage of the ecccomies of scale.

The baseload generation expansion program 'of the jointly owned 'CAPCO units through 1975 is tabulated below:

REITERATION EXPANSION PROGRAM CAPCO PODb Estimated Commercial In-Service Date Station g M Capability April 1975 Mansfield No.1 F 825 May 1975 Beaver Valley No. 1 N 856' May 1975 Davis-Besse No. 1 N 906 g Type: N - Nuclear; F - Fossil.

o The CAPCO Pool is a member of the East Central Area Reliability Council (ECAR) which is one of the nine regional councils comprising the National Electric Reliability Council. ECAR's main functions are the furthering of reliability. of the- members' bulk power systems through coordination of their expansion plans and subsequent operation of their generation and transmission facilities and the coordination of these facilities to provide short-term emergency relief in the event of contingencies normally experienced on 9

__._____n______..__________________,_ _ _ ______ _______ __________ ____ __ _ __ _____. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _..________._._______.._____.b

A-20

_.~

Mr. Daniel R. Muller interconnected power systems, rather than to provide a substitute for the firm pc.eer, baseload requirements of the members. In order to provide adequate reserves for the region, a proportionate reserve must be maintained by each system, based on its own load.

ECAR is currently carrying out extensive studies for judging the adequacy of reserve levels in order to establish criteria for minimum generating reserve capacity. While reserve requirements are dependent on system characteristics, the Bureau of Power staff has observed that many systems plan for an Installed generating capacity reserve of approximately 15 percent to 25 percent as being necessary to assure an adequate power supply.

The follcwing tabulation shews the electric power leads to be served by the CAPCO Pool's systems, and the relationship of the Beaver Valley Unit No.1 to the available reserve capacities on the summer-peaking Pool's systems at the time of the 1975 summer peak lead period. This is the anticipated initial service period of the unit, but the life of the unit is expected to be sote 30 years or more, and it is expected to constitute a significant part of the Applicants' total generatir.g capacity throughout that period. Therefcre, the uni: vill 'cs deps:.;ad up;r :: supply p wer to meet future aemaras ccer a perici of many years beyond the initial service needs discussed in this report.

FORECAST 1975 SGT.ER PEAK LOAD - SUPPLY SITUATIC'I Conditions with Beaver Valley Unit No.1 (856 megawatts)

Net Available Capacity - Megawatts 14,632 Net Peak Load - Megawatts 11,6681/

Reserve Margin - Megawatts 2,964 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 25.4 Conditions without Beaver Valley Unit No.1 Net Available Capacity - Megawatts 13,776 Net Peak Load - Megawatts 11,6681/

Reserve Margin - Megawatts 2,108

, Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 18.1 1/ Does not include 198 megawatts of interruptible load.

e

A-21

-4.

Mr. Daniel R. Muller The availability of Beaver Valley Unit No.1 for the 1975 summer peak period would provide the Applicants with a reserve margin of 2,96h megawatts or 25.4 percent of peak load. However, should delays result in the unavaila-bility of Unit No.1, the Pool's reserves would be reduced to 2,108 tegawatts or 18.1 percent of peak load. While these reserves may appear adequate, they are gross in that they include not only the capacity for meeting expected loads but also that which may be out of service due to scheduled maintenance or forced outages.and that which might be needed to meet unforeseen demands due to errors in load forecasting and exceptional weather.

The adequacy and reliability of the CAPCO Pool in meeting future loads are dependent upon the timely and commercial operation of the units scheduled in its construction program. If the in-service dates of any of the units currently  ;

scheduled for service prior to the 1975 summer period slip beyond the summer, '

the reserve situation will be greatly ;orsened. j In view of possible construction and licensing delays, as well as the brief ,

time for maturation of these units between their scheduled commercial service J dates and the summer 1975, the CAPCO Pool reserves are none too large.

i Transelscion Facilities l l

The Applicants state that no transmission lines are required specifically for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No.1. The Beaver Valley transmission j switchyard is an expansion of the existing Shippingport switchyard. The  ;

switchyard is required for interconnections between the CAPCO Pool companies l ans in being completed cnd placed in service for that purpose prior to com- l pletion of the Beaver Valley Power Station. The requirement for these inter- i connections at this location was one of the factors for locating Beaver Valley ,

Power Station Unit no.1 at this point to conveniently feed power into the l transmission system. Three 345-kilovolt transmission lines will be connected '

to the rwitchyard to meet CAPCO Pool requirements. Two 138-kilovolt trans-mission lines will tie the Duquesne Light Company system into the switchyard.

Beaver Valley Power Station Unit N 1 will also tie into the switchyard. How-ever, if Unit No. I were pot constructed, the switchyard and transmission lines might be constructed anyway to provide interconnections between the CAPCO i c ompanies . 2

• Alternates to the Proposed Facilities The Applicants, in determining the need for additional generation to meet their projected demands, considered a number of alternatives including location, type (baseload and peaking), fuel (nuclear, coal, oil, or gas), purchases of power, environmental effects, and economics. Due to system requirements, the final decision rested between constructing a baseload nuclear-fueled plant and a baseload coal-fired plant.

e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ - . .b

A-22 Mr. Daniel R. Muller l i

A number of factors, including environmental considerations and economics, influenced the decision that the Beaver Valley Pcver Station Unit Mc.1 should be nuclear. The Applicants state the unit will provide baseload electrical energy at the lowest cost. In making the economic comparison, the Applicants estimated the capital costs of a nuclearefueled plant at $291,000,000 while a similar sized coal-fired plant wa.c estimated to cost $239,000,000. Fuel costs of 2.272 mills per kilowatt-hour and operation and maintenance costs of -

0.475 mills per kilowatt-hour were calculuted fer the nuclear unit. Fuel costs of approximately 10.2 mills per kilowatt-hour and operation and maintenance costs of 1.2 mills per kilowatt-hour were estimated for a coal-fi:ed unit. An 80 percent plant factor was used for calculations for both units. The Applicants estimate that purchased power, backed by sufficient reserve to have reliability equivalent to that projected for the nuclear plant, would cost between 12 ana 15 mills per kilowatt-hour.

Conclusions The staff of the Bureau of Power concludes that the electric power output represented by the Beaver Valley Power Station 'Jnit No.1 is needed to implement the CAPCO Pool's generation expansion program fcr meeting projected loads and to provide ndequate reserve capacity fer the 1975 su-rer peak lead period.

Veb truly yours l  :

'f. 1 y_Nrhl " ~;2.}$1ll Robert B. Boyd Acting Chief, Bureau of Power 9

-- - - - - - - . _ _ - - . _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __{ _

'A-23 ODVERN O R'O O FFIC E '

' orries or afATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPldENT $Q.4 [. , CO MM ONWEALTM Dr PENNSYLVANIA i

                                                                                                 ]'                                       MAftR85BWRS PA. 17130 May 21,1973 Mr. Daniel R. ' Miller Assistant Director for Environmental Proj ects Directorate of Licensing United States Energy Commission Washington, D. C.       20545

Dear Mr. Miller:

                                                                                            >       We are enclosing the comments of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources relative to Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No.1. The Docket Number is 50-334. Please include these with the comments. we sent you May 14, 1973.

Sincerely, W R chard A. Heiss, Coordinator Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse en  %* D p .. Q,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .h

j. .

                                                                                                                                                                               -                  c.                                                                          p  1 4

3 #le.T.y/p 1 j

• o e

6

A-24 cop 4WpEALTH er PENNg NQ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

                                                                                            ..     ...,                  n e-a      pg,., n
                                                                                  ......o...    ... ... . .....          nk" qji,,g g g April 16, 1973                        APR 2 31973 0FFICE OF SI.UE PUag Alla ong;g;qjg,g

SUBJECT:

Department of Environmental Resources Review and Evaluation of PSCH No.: 73-01 3-005

Title:

Draft E.1.S. for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Oeaver County TO: Mr. R. A. Heiss, Coordinator Pe::nsylvania State Clearinghouse m ,' t' ROM: MAURICE K. dTW Secr etary se Environmental Resources The aforementioned has been reviewed by the Department of Environmental Resources. Thie evaluation is based strictly on the data submitted and actions as proposed. Any changes, even if minor, in the technical or the time frame-work, will require a re-evaluation of the project. The responsibility for the submittal of any new or revised information will remain with the applicant. The proposed project is granted conditional clearance and recommended for implementation. This clearance is cubject to the conditions given in the , attached

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION. e e

A-25

                                                     ~

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION PSCH No.: 73-01-3-005 TITLE: Draft E.I.S. for the Beaver Valley Power Date: April 16, 1973 Station Unit I LOCATION: Beaver County GEOLOGIC EVALUATION Part I. Comments on the AEC Environmental Impact Statement.

1. Section 2.5 on geology is outstanding for its brevity and lack of information. It is incredible that the geology of any engineering site, especially the site for a proposed reactor, should be presented in no more than 15 lines of a report.

2. No geologic map or cross sections were given; no bedrock formations were identified by name or physical properties.

3. No borings are listed and no test data is given on the strength or nature of the underlying materials.

4. No mention is made of the stability of the river gravels at the site or how they would be dealt with in the construction plans.

5. No data is given on the nature of joints or fractures in the bedrocks and whether they present any problem to bearing lond.

6. No mentton is made of the fact that while the proposed plant site itself does not rest on any coals, the tract of land to be taken in conjunction with the specific site is partly underlain by coals including the following: Lower Kittanning, Middle Kittanning, Upper Kittanning, Lower Freeport, and Upper Freeport.

It should be noted that the Upper Freeport coal is actually mined out under part of the property to be taken although it does not occur directly under the plant itself. It should also be noted that the statement under paragraph 2.5, that there has baen no mining beneath the area, is technically incorrect inasmuch as

• there has been mining under the proposed taking, even though not actually under the proposed structure itself.

7. No mention is made as to who specifically owns the mineral rights for the various coal units cited above.

8. The section on ground water, 2.6.2, does not identify any of the bedrock aquifers under the property nor indicate the structure.

This needs to be known just in case there would be a loss or spill into the groundwater environment. It is not enough for the report e I L--_ _- -- n

3e: var Vc11cy. A-26 Pcg3 2 \ simply to state, "there are no known aquifers of significance in

                                                 ' the bedrock underlying the site."   Even if true, we should know the aquifers of significance.

J

9. It is amazing that no references are cited at the end of the section dealing with geology or ground water, even though there are a great i number of published reports available on those subjects for that area.

Part II. Comments on the Environmental impact Statement by the Duquesne Light Company.

1. The same comments listed above for the AEC statement apply to the sections on geology and seismology (2.2.5) and section on ground water (2.2.4.1). These data are inadequate for either the company engineers, the AEC engineers, or the Federal and S, tate project reviewers to assess properly the proposed plan and project.

IMPACT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission has reviewed the submitted project data. No adverse effect on historical sites, historical structures or archeological sites is known or anticipated. The project appears to be consistent with the plans and objectives of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

1. Radioiodine Sampling: Sampling frequency for airborne and milk-borne radioiodine should be based on real conditions related to station performance, performance of other nearby sources, atmospheric weapons tests and/or the presence of anomalous data. This suggests that efforts be made to quantify and qualify the facility source terms, and meteorology on a thorou,h and continuing basis to a degree commensurate with the implications of proposed Appendix I to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50. The recommendation also suggests that the Operator be kept informed of the status of other potential sources of environmental radiciodines in his surroundings, namely the operations of Shippingport and the occurrence of

                                                 ' atmospheric weapons testing by nations not party to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It also suggests that the Operator be continuously
                          ,                        aware of the results of his ongoing surveillance program on a timely basis.

2. Milk Sampling: Milk should be sampled monthly at the six dairy farms identified by DLC during periods when I-131 is known to be absent from the facility's atmospheric source term, when I-131 is known to be absent from Shippingport's atmospheric source term, in times of Chinese weapons test inactivity, and when dairy cattle are supported solely on stored feed (October through April).

Milk sampling frequency should be increased to a weekly basis when 1-131 is present in Beaver Valley or Shippingport source e

9 Ba:vsr 7311GyL A-27~ F233 3 teres (Q>10-12Ci/sec) during grazing season. This weekly' sampling routine may be curtailed upon demonstration that :l radiciodine released'is not available to the cow-milk-man vector.to produce concentrations _in excess of 1pci/1. Weekly sampling of milk should be instituted at the six identified dairy farms seven days following a Chinese weapons test and continued for two plume passes during grazing season.

3. Sampling for' Airborne Radiciodine: It is recomunended that '

weekly sampling for airborne iodine be conducted only when the site boundary air concentration is likely to exceed the-thresho1d senettivity of the ec11ection und analytic technique. This recommendation implies that the operator'is cognizant of the facility source term and site meteorology.

4. Forage Sampling: The sampling of fresh fodder, pasture grass, and/or' stored sileage, as appropriate, should be done coincident-ally with milk sampling when I-131 is known to be present in the-environs in concentrations sufficient to lead to milk concentrations in excess of 1 pCi/1.

5. Human Food. Crop Sampling: This vector should be sampled at harvest and analyzed for those radionuclides of biosignificance known to be in the affluents.

6. Sampling of Ducks: We caution against the sampling of wild ducks due to the uncertainty associated with their actual residence time-in the area of the facilities, and the associated uncertainty in the meaning of the analytic results.

7. Sampling of Aquatic Feeding Terrestrial Animals: In that fish and other potential aquatic food are being sampled, it is reconumended that dose to raccoons and muskrats be estimated on fish, etc., data.

8. Sampling of Benthic Organisms: Benthic biota serve well as an indicator of the radiocontaminant history of a stream. .The distribution of radf'metivity among the various members of that trophic level is c' significance. We request, however, that AEC staff or the applicant consider. the possible impact that this program would have on the benthic population in the area of interest in that the size of live weight sample required for e radioanalysis approaches a kilogram wet weight. Caution should be esercised so as not to perturb, by sampling, the population being observed.

We also request that AEC staff advise,us as to the criteria whereby these radioanalytic data are to be evaluated.

9. Sampling of soil and Silt: We request that AEC' staff advise us as to the criteria whereby the results of soil and silt surveil-lance are to be evaluated.

e

3eavsr.Vallby:

                                                            'A-28 Pese 4-10... Bested westes: These~ comments are based.on presently expected
                        . thermal loads for the area including Beaver Valley Unit #2 and the Mansfield coal-fired station located upetream. Existing thermal loads.are assumed to contiuue unabated and to contribute to measured water temperatures.

The heat load during critical summer conditions would be about 1.5x108 BTU / hour, while the heat capacity of the river would be

' . 1.13x109 BTU / hour. A temperature increase of 0.13*F would result.

This'would create no problems.

11. Dissolved Solids: A dissolved solids increase in the river would result from the evaporation of river water and input from various waste streams, particularly dominera11ser and water softening wastes.

At a low flow of 5,000 cfs at Beaver Valley the dissolved solids content is expected to be 430 mg/l while the limit is 500 mg/1~- average monthly value. The capacity of the river is therefore about 2 million pounds per day, while the total discharge is expected to be 10,000 pounds per day from the three stations. Total dissolved solids in the river are expected to increase in the near future as the result of sulfur scrubbing devices for air pollution control. In the longer term future, after five years, dissolved solids should decrease as a result of abandoned mine drainage abatement and better control of industrial acids. The proposed discharge would create no dissolved solids problems.

12. Radioactivity: (Units 1 and 2 in operation) Depending on the loss rate estimates.used, and assuming a constant rate of. loss to 1 the water phase, the following activity increases would be noted after complete mixing at low flow (5000 cis):

55 Operation: . Unit I Units I & II 1 itium (AEC) 350 Ci/yr. 700 ci/yr. Tritium (Applicant) 506 Ci/yr. 1012 C1/yr. la River: (AEC) .077 pCi/1 .154 pCi/1 (Applicant) .111 pCi/1 .223 pC1/1 s In Discharge (AEC) 10.7 pC1/1 10.7 pCi/1 (Applicant) 15.5 pCi/1 15.5 pCi/1 Other (AEC) 9 Ci/yr 0.8 Ci/yr (Applicant) .014 Ci/yr .026 C1/yr In River. (AEC) 1.98x10 3pci/1 1.76x10 pCi/1 (Applicant) 3.08 10-6p ci/1 5.73x10 pC1/1 In Discharge (AEC) 0.275 pCi/1 .0245 pC j (Applicant) 4.28x10-4p ci/1 3.98x10g/l pC1/1 i i j

Bery;r V011cy

                                                                                                                  ]

Pcge 5 A-29 l 1 These increments are below the detectable limits of our monitoring  ! equipment. No damage should result to water users. l Montitoring for bio-accumulation of radioactivity in the discharge 3 plume should be undertaken to determine if excessive accumulation would occur.

13. Disinfectants: The disinfectant chosen is chlorine.- The applicant states that free residual chlorine in the discharge would not exceed 0.1 mg/1. The period of discharge would be 1/2 to 1 hour per day with Unit I in operation and 1 to 2 hours per day with Units I and II in operation.

U.S.E.P.A. data on the effects of residual chlorine' state that the chlorine for intermittent discharges should not exceed 0.2 mg/l for more than 2 hours per day for fish other than trout and salmon. The Ohio River is a warmwater stream and no trout or salmon are expected to be present. The proposal should be satisfactory. Monitoring of chlorine residuals is recommended because the chlorine demand of the river water is poorly defined at present and because abatement of chlorine demanding materials from upstream discharges should change conditions. IMPACT ON POWER GENERATION AND SUPPLY l The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has reviewed the data relative to the proposed project. The Commission has, since 1965, scheduled annual conferences with the electric utility compenies to discuss their construction programs and for-casted load growth. Our technical staff maintains a continuous surveillance of these major capacity additions and submits progress reports to the Commission for executive review. The electric utility companies in Pennsylvania are members of inter-connection systems which were organized to coordinate the economy exchange of electric power and improve the reliability of service to customers. Duquesne Light Company is a member of the Central Area Power Coordination Group (CAPCP) which consists of five companies serving over two million customers in a 14,000 square mile area in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The

• Construction of electric generating stations in both states will provide ample power for anticipated load growth of business, industry, and I residential development in the Northern Ohio and Westerm Pennsylvania l region.

The Commission, from the experience gained after the Northeast blackout on November 9,1965, and Mid-Atlantic bisckout on June 5,1967, insisted that the electric utility companies maintain a 20 percent reserve capacity to provide sufficient capacity in the event that loads exceeded forecasts or large generating units are unexpectedly forced out of service. Since it takes approximately six to eight years to construct a generating L____________ _ __ _ 0

                                                                ^~

Beav:r Valloy Fage 6 station of'any significant size, the companies Lumediately started their building programs. It is these capacity additions that are now being completed to meet-the peak loads of 1974 and 1975. This Commission believes that any further delay in these additions will, without question, be a prelude to load curtailment and blackouts during the peak periods of the next two years.. Our technical staff-has p:< pared the following figures which should be of-interest to you: Dit;amese.L&ght Company 1973 1974 1975 1975 (*) (**) Capacity (MW) 2,448 2,694 2,752 2,515 Load (MW) 2,230 2,355 2,470 2,470 Reserve (MW) 218 339 282 45 Percent 9.8 14 11.5 1.8 (*) Combustion turbines installed to offset delay in Beaver Valley. (**) Capacity additions delayed one year. As you can see, any further delays in Beaver Valley Station and other capacity under construction will place Duquesne Light company in a position of being unable to meet load and presumably necessitate scheduled load curtailment. In view of these uncertainties, I strongly urge approval of Beaver Valley Station and support for this project from all branches of government concerned with the welfare of the residential and industrial communities in Pennsylvania. Attached to this Report are the comments of the Pennsylvania Fish Canaission. o l i I l

                                                                                                   -     1

p..... .w co r .s. u . , . ...a , u . .. A-31 April 9,19,73

                                     .u .a c e,   Review of Beaver Valley Power Station Ikiit Nos.1 and 2 io.          Nick Nichols, Program Manager Office of Planning and Research Department of Environmental Resources
                                                                   . ~< . . .

P etOM; Fred W. Johnson, Admir_istrative Officer Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Pennsylvania Fish Commission The following review ccanments are' forwarded for your consideration and action deemed necessary. Comments are from background study data material and amendments.

1. PAR 3 1 32. Thermal Effects of Cooling Water Federal Standards state "The heat content shall be limited ...

raise temperature of entire stream at discharge point b above ambient temperature, or to a maximum of 877, which-ever is less." Succeeding tables and calculations would appear to overlook this criterian. If temperature of the i river were made to exceed 87 F below't6e effluent, the effluent should,be reduced in flow or stopped until diurnal fluctuation permits discharge without exceeding this limit. Walleye, which are expected to increase in importange as water quality improves, tolerate temperatures to 82 F, and expire when the temperature exceeds 8h F.

2. PAR 5.2.1313 3 (Amendment 2) The stat-ment that loss of biota will not have an adverse effect on fish because

                                                            " number of fish in this area of river is limited" is not acceptable. Other seetions of this study point out that                               j the water quality and fishing,in this section of the Ohio                             l River is improving which means that numbers of fish will                              !

continue to increase to the extent supported by the food l 89PlT. FWJ dk ocs Jack Miller 1 t _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _  ! I

A-32 G OVER N O R'S OFFICC crrics or eTATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 50-334

                                                                                           ._~       co MM O NWEALTH Or PENNSYLVANIA                      50-412 MAnnis suns. PA. iviso D     e 4)

May 14,1973 E, p M; 4.fy "/J7 j,

                                                                                                                                              ~              .. )

2 f & w 2  ?.p~'..b' l~ ,; Vl) '

                                                                                                                                                \        }

Mr. Daniel R. Miller 4 q(U/ Assistant Director for Environmental 5 Projects Directorate of Licensing United States Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr. Miller:

We are enclosing comments we have received to date from various State agencies concerning the Beaver Valley Power StaMon Units No. I and 2. The Docket Numbers on these are 50-334 and 50-412. Fler.se consider these comments in your further act-ivities with Beaver Valley. If we can.be of further assistance please contact us. Sincerely, Richard A. Heiss, Coordinator Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse o e

l-I f A-33 L _ ogMC# D Ag 4 DEPARTMENT OF. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES . l HARRSSOUme, PBMW9VLWAtstA 4383G 1 I MAY 0 91973 l l May 1, 1973

                                                                                                          )

OfflCE OF CTATE PLMNING  ! Ali0 CEVELOFMEilT

SUBJECT:

Department of Environmental Resources Review and Evaluation of i

                                      .      PSCH No.: 73-01-3-006                                        I

Title:

Draft E.I.S. for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit II Location: Beaver County l TO: Mr. R. A. Heiss, Coordinator Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse f ' I l FROM: MA . onrun o_ - Secretary of Environmental Resources The aforementioned has been reviewed by the Department of Environmental Resources. This evaluation is based strictly on the data submitted and actions as proposed. Any changes, even if minor, in the technical or the time framework, will require a re-evaluation of the project. The responsibility for the submittal of any new or revised information will remain with the applicant. The proposed project is granted conditional clearance and recommended

           ,   for implementation. This clearance is subject to the conditions given in the attached 

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION.

                                                                                             '            (

l _ ___ _ _ _ - _ t1

A-34  :) i l - 1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

l.

SUMMARY

OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION l PSCH No.: 73-01-3-006 TITLE: Draft E.I.S. for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit II DATE: May 1, 1973 , LOCATION: Beaver County The commants of ths.Dapartment. f Environmental Resources generally apply to the Beaver Valloy Power Station Unit II, as well as Unit I. The geologic data supplied by the AEC Report (Section 2.5) is totally. inadequate and offers no basis on which to make a judgment bn the suitability of the proposed site for the reactor.

                                                                              'The Pennsylvania Game Commission recommends that two monitoring programs be initiated by the applicant, one for each of the two power station units.
                                                                        ~The monitoring programs recommended should survey select game spacies within a five mile radius. These programs should be followed by similar programs - or continuations of the initial ones - af ter the proposed facilities become operational. The purpose of the latter programs will be to determine any increase in radionuclides in game species.

An examination of the project location indicates that the project  ! will not affect a known archaeological or historical site or. historical structure. The project appes.rs to be consistent with the plans and objectives of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The recosomadations of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission in connection with Power Station Unit 1 also apply to Unit 2. 0 jl

                                         'A-35
                      ~

l - l l

SUBJECT:

A 95 Comment April 27, 1973 TO: Richard Heiss Nick Nichols, Department of Office of State' Planning and Development Eny'ronmental Resources TROM: James Guest, Director Burecu g Policy Planning f, Information [ Deportadnt of Community Affairs MAY 011973 APPLICATION # 73-01-3-006 0FFICE OF STATE TL*.!:fii!:0 AND CEVELOP;i.Eiii Enclosed are comments on the above-referenced application. We anticipate no further comment from this Department. Please call 7-1114 if there are any questions. o i i

                                                                                                           ,i

o..ee. e .s A-36 se -z .mr., e, n,. pa ..

                                                                        ,o.,,,,,  A.95 Review -                                                                '.*-                       g Beaver Valify Power Station Unit 2                                          1 ,;.'. ,.h                T\
                                                                                                                                                                     ~ $.                    '

tj /. d,

                                                                       .,..        James W. Guest, Director.

Bureau of Policy Planning and Information ,

,'.).,,,'>j/c/;

4,3.. - '.-.:.,,,.

                                                                                                                                                         .                                   S"

r. . . . Gloria H. Fitzgibbons, Director v ',' , -

                                                                                 , Regiori V - Pittsburgh                           M  'f
                                                                                                                                                       ' "?//

Department of Community Affairs N , h.. , ' April 24, 1973-With reference to' the above . subject and our review for Unit I, the some is applicable to Unit 2 as well. o l l 0

           . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ___                                 _ _ _ . . _ _ . _                                                      _ _ _ ___           __l

l: ea.no s ga4,- A-37 co . u o .caut,, or ,,,,,,g ,, ,,, April 18,1973 s u.>< et PNRS 73-01-3-005-

                                  'o-          Nick Nichols                                             Richard Heiss Office of Planning and Research Office of State Planning -{

Department of Environmental Resources and Development , James W. Gues ector. Bunau of Poli anning and Information

                                                                                                                                         -1 i

Enclosed are comments from the Department of Community Affairs on the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit #1. While we have passed your deadline for having these comments incomorated in the integrated environmental statement, we nquest that they be' made a part of the PNRS records and fo2 Warded with the . Clearinghouse comments, i i 0 J l 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ i l

on sai s e A-3B ceuws =zai.tw o, es u sv u ,... N d

                                                                                                                                                       'M ~ '

I W. .} smee r, A-95 Review of Beas_t .olley Power Station Unit I 9,Q .  %

                                                                                                                                                    .e'4

• r /> s#

0' wg f[6 to, James.W. Guest, Director ., v Q

Bureau of Policy Planning and Information ,!;y . 'q. g [7

                                                                     -                                                                       -                    . .      .,g ,

MOMwd 'i)(,)A k

                                           "o*            lorio H. Fittgibbons,    Director                                                   ,
                                                                                                                                                                   ', 'j)

Region V - Pittsburgh N  : Department of Community. Affairs - April 16, 1973 The Pittsburgh Regional Office of the Department cf Community Aff edrs has recently reviewed the draf t and environmental statement by the Atomic Energy' Commission for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit #1. Our review was directed toward two principle directions -

1. On the community development, and

2. on the opportunity for municipalities and citizens to comment on the project.

It is believed that, while the proposed power station will have some impact upon Shippingport Borough and environs, such effect will not-be disproportionately negative vis-a-vis alternative developments. Inosmuch as the proposed facility will be located on the some site os other related facilities -- all of which have been operative without negative effect since the mid 1950's there is no disruption of land use or related community facilities and/or inf restructure. Furth er, there is no inconsistency with the thinking of the Beaver County Planning' Commission or with the comprehensive development plans of Midland and Industry Boroughs. No plan exists for Shippingport Borough. o Inosmuch as the great proportion of the land within approximately a five (5) mile radius of the site is wooded (nearly 70%), another 10% is used for agricultural purposes, another 7% undeveloped water and land, another 3% stripmined, and less than 5% of land utilized for residential purposes, the area seems particularly well suited to continuance of the proposed special industrial use. This land use breakdown has prevailed over the past fifteen (15) years. Further, population growth is not expected to exceed 5% growth over the next twenty (20) years, or until 1990. Hence, little development is expected.

A-3,9

                                                  'A-95 Review of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Page 2     -continued It is interesting to note, hodaver, tho't the Borough of Ship-pingport- is reported to be entering the development business, i.e., hos bought and is continuing to buy property within the Borough with the intent to subdivide for_ residential rescle.

Further, there have been 'recent requests for zoning changes from industrial to residential along the northern side of Rt.. 168. (It is understood that the entire crea within a half (1/2) mile radius of the original atomic power station was zoned industrial as a precautionary measure.) These two factors indicate that there must not be local concern regarding the proposed expansion of atomic energy facilities. I Also, as per. conversation with the Beaver County Planning Dir-ector, there' has been no concern elicited by either Midland or Industry Boroughs across the Ohio River.

                                                 'It is understood also that aside from the proposed atomic power station, a conventional fuel burning facility is proposed for construction concurrently at the other end of the site.

This proposal evidently doesn't come under A-95 review yet the negative environmental impact could surpass that of the atomic power station. The following comments relate to: "the opportunity for muni-cipalities, organizations, and citizens to comment" on the Beaver Volley Power Station Unit 1 Project (A-Power Plant) and secure consideration of their views. It seems that Atomic Energy Commission is adequately publicizing its plans to construct the plant and will afford the opportunity for the municipalities, organizations and citizens to have their views and connents considered. Please see the attached newspaper article provided by Susan Bernard. l o I l O

1 3-A-40 _MQ The PMsburg'n Press, Sun )larch !!.1973 AEC S!cies Hearings!n Reply To A-Power P!an? Fees !-!ere

                              *A public hearing will be held net electrical e a p a e it y of the Pennsv:vania Power Co.

1y the Atomic Energy Com. about ru't.CCO illowattJ. The AEC said the hearu The hearing will be conduct- burd will first set a time at Won (AEC) in de near ed by Samuci W. Jensch. chief place for a prehearing corJen future on shether an operat- AEC ndrninistrative law ence and later anncunce tA Ing' license shotJd be issued judge; Dr. John C. Geyer of time and = ptace for the ful-for a new Duquesne Ugh: Co. . Jchr.: llopkins University and public hegnng. noclear power plant near Ship. Frederick J.Shan of the Atorrue

                            .                                  Safety and Ucer. stag Board pic;po.'t.                             Pr.nel no AEC said the hearing is         When complete, the station being c&lled as the result of a will provide power for Du ,

p e ti t i o a fi!cd by the city, quesne. Ohio Edison Co. and g Mayor Pete Flaherty. Envi r ronmental Coalition en Nucle- l se Power, Ernest J. Stern- l glaas. David Marshall. Fr' ends 5 of the Earth. Environtnent: i Pittsburgh, and the Beaver i County Cit!zens Conservation i Cctps. De hearlag sonounceraent , f !cated the Enttroemental j

                                ;Goa participal:oo as na latervesar in the hearing mill ;     I ksve to be clarified before it is ,

s lowed. l The AEC said persons c!her i than those listed may also participate titer irJorming the AEC becretary in writir.; by April 1 Aho takla; part in the hear- l In: <;11 be represer.tatives of i various state agencies it.clud ; it:;t the Buresa of Vttal Statis ? tic 2. De bureau made an ex-haustiva study of charges by .- Stern;;Iass that e m i s s i o n s i from the present 6hippin:tport i plant caused an increPsd in ! infantmortalityir. Aliquippa. The ACC said documents and correspondence relating t to the licensing of the Desver Valley Power Station. Unit 1. will be placed on file for

                      . pub!!c inspection at the Bea-
       ,                 ver Area Memorial Ubrary.

100 College Ave., Beaver, and ' l at the commission's pblic document room in Washing- I ton, D. C.

                               %e new power plant, now nearia completion, is on the south bank of the Oh!o River le Shippingpart about 23 miles downriver from Pittsburgh.

The plant will use a pressur-Ized water reactor and have a  ! i I l i . E__ _____ _ _ _ _ 0i

i S A-41 S i3 f * ~ L p-bEgl4 %33_" - 85 Craig Ave. II Madison, Wis. 53705 O' g*y kps$ ottSi April 10, 1973 88 j 4 p i N s seputy Director for Beactor Projects Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Subjects Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Draft Environmental Statement--Docket No. 50-334 Dear Sir I am submitting this brief comment on the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit i Draft Environmental Statement although the meaning.of the comment is clearly applicable to other environment.1 statements as well. There appears :o be a basis for including the estimated radiation expesure of the people e: ployed at the plant. The expected Jose in man-rem for these people should be listed in Table 5.6 as a separate item. The doses to truck drivers and train brakemen resulting from delivery of new fuel and shipment of irradiated fuel and solid radioactive wastes are given in Section 5 5 5 Since radiation exposure of these people results from their employment, it seems logical to also estimate the radiation exposure of the people who are employed at the plant. Table 5.6 shows that esti=ated doses to the general public, truck drivers, and train brakemen sum to 7.6 man-rem per year. The Beaver Valley plant is expected to employ 80 people (Section 10.2). Examination of reports such as "The Centralization of Occupational Radiation Exposure Information," a report of 1970 experience by the Office of Workmen's Compensation and Radiation 'Hecords, U.S. A.E.C. indicates that these 80 employees would be ex have a cumulative exposure (man-rem per year)pectedthat isto considerably higher than the total of 7 6 man-rem for all categorios listed in Table 5.6. The doses received by the people employed at the plant deserve a separate entry in Table 5.6 since these people receive their dose as a result of their choice to work o at the reactor site. Similarly., it would seem to make some sense to list'the exposure received by the truck drivers and train brakemen separately from the exposure received by members of the general public who are exposed as the fuel or waste material is transported. ' Very truly yours. Wglb/H /? William A, Buehrin 9 L

A-42

              }Vs
                                          ~
             'A Duqu@esneUjit                                                         (412) 471 4300 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 May 1, 1973                /           .
                                                                                               .i , .        .

t  :;

                                                                                    $ bffyp~' ' NJ'

c

                                                                                   }-

19 7

                                                                                                            ' n.
                                                                                                               ' ' '3
                                                                                                                    ' ~,7- n-  .

United States Atomic Energy Commission ,

                                                                                        'q f, Division of Regulation Directorate of Licensing                                                           g
                                                                                                                       y !

Washington, D.C. 20545 Attention: Mr. Angelo Giambusso Deputy Director for Reactor Projects

Subject:

Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage Docket No. 50-334 Gentlemen: Submitted herewith are the Applicants' comments on the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1 Draft Environ-mental Statement issued March, 1973. Very truly yours, O - WILLIAM A. CONWELL Vice President {  !

      .O '

i 9 I

A-43 APPLICANTS' COMMENTS ON THE EEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Page i-3 10% possible mortality or sublethal stress of drift organisms. 10% is based on the operations of BV 1 and Shippingport at  ; critical low flows of 5000 cfs. This should be mentioned. The loss of drift organisms should provide for normal flows as well. Pages i and 5-30 Possible mortality or sublethal stress on 10% of drift organ-isms is incorrect for Unit No. 1. This figure includes flow passing through the Shippingport Station which is 5% at low river flow. In addition, the assumption of proportion of a part of the river section is invalid. The organisms that will experience 5 F or above are only those which are entrained in' that part of the plume. For example, in the summer months when low flows are expected, if the blowdown temperature was 10 F above the river, the flow entrained in the plume at the point of 5 F would be twice the blowdown or 2 x 36 cfs = 72 cfs. This amounts to 1.5% of the river flow, not 4%. The resultant total is then 1.2% + 1.5% = 2.7% in place of 10%. Page 1-4, Table 1.1 Gaseous wastes from auxiliary boilers and diesel generators have been submitted. Page 2-6, Section 2.6.1 Second paragraph should read: "A study by the Pittsburgh Dis-trict of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers resulted in a seven day low flow with a frequency of once in ten years of approxi-mately 5000 cfs." The tabulation below this paragraph should be omitted. Page 2-7 o Downstream dam failure (minimum water level) should read 648.6, not 649.0. Page 2-8 Table 2 Monthly River Temperature Data Avg. flow in Thousand cfs given. 4 The attached river water flow values which differ from those re-ported in the draft statement are based upon calculations using the normal runoff for the New Cumberland Pool. l e i 1

A-44 1 l U.S. ARMY COPRS OF ENGINEERS MONTHLY MEAN FLOWS FOR NEW CUMBERLAND POOL - BASED ON DATA FROM SEVERAL YEARS Month Flow-cfs January- 52,800 February 55,000 March 76,700 April 63,900 May 44,000 June 23,100 July 14,900 August 12,100 September 10,900  ; October 15,500 November 28,200

                                        .o       December                                43,300

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ l

A-45 Page 2-10 Section 2.6.3, Line 3 Change "5.0 mg/ml" to "S.O mg/1." Page 2-10, Section 2.6.3, Line 4 Change "4.0 mg/ml" to "4.0 mg/1." Page 2-11, Section 2.6.4_ The Midland Water Authority does not have its own intake but rathsr buys water from Crucible Steel which has its intake at about 1.3 miles downstream. Page 2-13, Section 2.8.1 Second paragraph should. read: " Included are dogwood (Cornus  ; spp.), sugar maple (Ace:r succharum) , red maple (Acer alba), I wild cherry (Prunus serotina), beech (Fagus grandifolia) , as well as several other s.pecies of oak and hickory."

         "The hill area appears to have typical understory shrubs and herbs though no survey of these species is available at this time nor is there information relative to spore-forming plants Fourth paragraph should read: "The hardwood forest . . . nest-ing for forest birds as well as . . . vertebrates. The appli-cant lists .   .  . animal census. In addition to these, shrew (Sorex sp.) , Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) , beaver (Castor Cana-densis) , and other rodents are present.      Only a long study of the site could . . ."

Page 2-14, Section 2.8.2 Sunfish should not be included in the majority catch but should be with bass and walleye. Page 2-14, Section 2.8.2.2 Should read: " Serious phytoplankton . . . The euglenoids, chiefly Trachelomonas, made up from 1 to 3% of the spring and fall com-munity but were . . . Several dinoflagellate genera representing the division Pyrrhophyta were present . . . " Page 2-15 o Figure 2.4 should have station number 6 included upstream of Mongoneny Dam. It is currently being used for the collection of fish samples for background data on environmental radiation studies and fish population studies. Page 2-16, Table 2.5 These values are off by a factor of 100. The decimal should be 9

L moved to the left two places then mg/l would be correct. These changes were~mado for the Status Report submitted to Duquesne Light. (See-2-17) Third paragraph - Chlorophyll a should be 14.9.ug/ liter.

                             - 'Page 2                                Chlorophyll concentrations of 1.49 mg/l *?e inco' r rect.       Ri'ce Division of NUS are presently revisir.3
                                     ~

Page 2-17, Table 2.5 CHLOROPl!YLL ESTIMATES FROM THE BEAVER VALLEY ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS (a) chlorophyll Transect Date Concentrations 1 10/29/70 02.8 3/14/71 tracib) 5/07/71 51.5 9/01/71 10.7 2 10/29/70 04.4 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 14.5 9/01/71 08.3 3 10/29/70 02.2 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 14.9 9/01/71 05.9 4 10/29/70 02.9 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 14.6 9/01/71 05.6 5 10/29/70 03.3 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 11.5

• 9/01/71 06.3 (a) Data represent ug/ liter values of three replicates at each s

of the five transects. (b) Turbidity problems made readings difficult. Page 2-22 First paragraph - B,rown bullhead should be b_rown bullhead. _-__2___1__.____.________ _ __ l

A-47

                                                             ~

Page 2-23, Table 2.9 Common sucher should be White sucker. Page'2-24, Table 2.10' Golden rehourse should be Golden redhorse. Page 2-27

(Spelling) centrachids should be centrar-chids.

                 'Page 3-4 Third sentence in second paragraph should read: ". . . the top of the 70 ft fill section of the 500 ft natural draft . .     ."

Page 3-11, Table 3.1 Containment purge should be twice per year. Purging is only done for cold shutdown, and it has been assumed that there will be two hot and two cold shutdowns per year. Page 3-16, Second Paracraoh, Second Sentence The blowdown will enter the blowdown flash tank, pass through a reboiler, and then be treated in the waste disposal systam prior to release. There is no direct release capability pro-vided. Page 3-16, Fourth Paragraph Insert " Unit 1" before " evaporator." Page 3-16, Fifth Paracraph Insert "of 4,320 GFD" before "from Unit 1." Page-3-19, Table 3-5 I - Amounts are too high. No credit taken for use of supplemen-tary leak collection filters on high radiation signal in &uxil-o .iary building. Page 3-25, First Paragraph

                                                                      " and the tabu-
                                                                                       )

omit starting with "Under these conditions . . . lation. End paragraph with, "No chemicals will be discharged to the river from the secondary system." Page 3-9, Third Paragraph, Last Sentence Should read ". . . independent and those . . .

A-48 Page 3-17 Fourth Paragraph, Last Sentence Eliminate the word " system." Page 3-9, Last Paragraph Should read ". "

                                          . . reactor or discharged .     . .

Page 3-14, Table 3-4 Regarding the liquid waste activity contribution from steam generator blowdown, it is expected that approximately 90% of the blowdown flow of 15 gpm is vaporized and directed to the main condenser for subsequent recycle to the steam generator feedwater system. The remaining 10% of the blowdown is pro-cessed in the waste liquid evaporation system. Since a por-tion of the blowdown is treated (shown incorrectly as un-treated in Tabulation 3.2), the result would be to reduce the v in~entory of activity released as described in Tabulation 3.4 to less than 3 ci/yr/ unit, of which <1 ci of iodine nuclides is included. Page 3-10, Figure 3.6 Blowdown tank should not be shown draining to river. Page 3-11, Table 3.1 Steam generator blowdown rate (before flashing) should be 7,500 lb/hr. Page 3-21, Second Paragraph Delete "The exhaust is released without traatment." Page 3-21, Fifth Paragraph Add "and reboiler" after>* flash tank." Page 3-13 Blowdown evaporation = 20 gpm. Page 3-12, Table 3.2 Steam gensrator blowdown should read O S.G. Blowdown _____ _ A B Y1T6 T376 Secondary 100 10 0 3 Footnote A - Omit ". . . and partial treatment of blowdown . . ." L_ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _

A-49 Page 3-17, becondParagraph Under Section 3.5.2, insert "with Unit 2" between " shared" and "are." Page 3-26, Last Paragraph, First Sentence Remove "although equipment for such treatment is built into the tower structure." Page 3-26, Section 3.6.4, Paragraph 1 Change last sentencc in paragraph to read: " Instrument systems control the chlorine injection rates to maintain a free residual chlorine level at the condenser discharge for effective biofoul-ing control, such that the free residual in the cooling tower blowdown will not exceed 0.1 mg/l free chlorine residual. Page 3-27, Section 3.7.3, First Paracraoh Remove . . . " phosphate removal and . . ." Page 3-27, Second Paracraph 2500 should be 4900. 5000 should be 6300. Page 3-27, Third Paracraph, Third Sentence Should read: , while the clarified effluent is treated with a chlorine solution injected into the effluent to kill any remaining bacteria prior to release into the river." Page 5-8 { The second paragraph is not valid because source of makeup water to the tower is the river and raw water pumps. The blowdown is simply the remainder after evaporation and drift out the tower. The station's demand on the river and raw water pumps cannot be reduced. Page 5-12, Section 5.4.1, First Paragraph l Handling the 154 ft containment release as ground level is overly  ; conservative. Some credit should be allowed for elevated release.  ! Page 5-13, Third Paragraph The assumption that cows will graze outdoors 9 months of the year is overly conservative. In the regions of the site, grass only grows about 7 months of the year, and a 6 month grazing period would be more realistic. O

A-50 d Page 5 The Staff has assun.ed that in the future a cow (or cows) may ' be grazed at a location on the site boundary, to the northeast. Factors precluding this eventuality include the roughness of the terrain, the general lack of adequate open pasture, and the avail-ability of economical, commercial milk supplies. It is highly I unlikely that even a single cow will ever be grazed at the posi-tion assumed by the Staff. In this light, the Staff assumption is unrealistic and does not reflect the actual situation. j 1 It is generally recognized that plume depletion may yield signi-ficant redactions in the estimated air concentrations of radio-iodine. The Staff has chosen to ignore this 2nd other dose reduction phenomena (such as delay prior to consu=ption) further increasing the disparity between its estimated exposure rates and those which may be realistically expected. Regarding the ingestion of green leafy vegetables, the Staff assumed that in three months an adult would ingest 18 kilograms and a child of 2 years would ingest 4.5 kilograms. These values far exceed those tabulated by the Bureau of the Census which when expressed in equivalent units amount to about 2.6 kilogrices for an adult and about 0.8 kilograms for children of ages be-tween 1 and 4 years. This degree of conservatism is unwarranted when evaluating the expected exposure rates. The assumption of no activity loss due to delay or preparation is similarly unrea-sonable. Page 5-17 The Steff has assumed that an individual might consume as much as 18 kilograms per year of edible fish flesh harvested from the immediate site vicinity. This rate of ingection represents about four times the annual average for the U.S. as a whole. Considering this intake is assumed to arise from a single source and that this source is for all intents and purpoces a very poor fishing area, the degree ~of conservatism becomes obvious. It should also be pointed out that the Staff assumes the fisherman to stand on shoreline where the applicable dilution factor is 10 to 1, whereas the activity concentrations in the fish are based on a dilution factor of only 3 to 1. The Staff has evaluated the potential effects of using Ohio River water to irrigate growing crops. The intake rates used in the analysis appecr to be unjustifiably hign, i.e., 18 kilograms per 8 year for vegetables and 50 kilograms per year for potatoes. Page 5-19_ The Staff has arbitrarily increased the estimated rate of sport fish catch in the New Cumberland Pool from 1000 pounds per year to 3000 pounds per year for the purposer of conservatism. Al-though the initial estimate of 1000 pounds per year was probably already high, the Staff assumption is excessively conservative. I

A-51 Section 544 The Staff estimates of radioactivity release rates are signi-ficantly higher than those derived by the applicant. As no detailed statement of the procedures used by the Staff in its derivation is available, no specific comments can be made other than to say hat the Staff release rates appear to be artifi-cially high. The information necessary to compare the Staff's models with those in common use has not been presented. Therefore, no comment can be made as to their adequacy. It would seem appro-priate that the Staff include at least a brief summary of the models and equations it has used as this information is neces-sary to fully evaluate the validity of the resulting dose rates. Page 5-23, Section 5.5, First Paragraph 53 should read 60. Page 5-28, Paragraph 4 The statement that fish could become confused in the absence of a current gradient is highly questionable. We are not aware of any supportive data that indicate such a behavioral response would occur in the given circumstances. If the statement is to remain in the report, appropriate references should be cited. Page 5-29

                     " Sufficient information has not been collected during field sampling in the area to support the statement that the area behind Phyllis Island has a greater nursing potential than other reaches of the river in the vicinity. Studies are con-tinuing.

We would request any supportive information that the AEC has to back up their statement. (In addition, present dredging activities at Phyllis .Tsland are severely stressing the aquatic ecosystem in this area. Conse-quently, it is doubtful that any additional stresses caused by the station blowdown would add significantly to the adverse conditions now present.)"

         ,           Page 5-30, Section 5.6.2.3 Mention should be made that 10% loss of drift organism is based on critical low flows. Mention should be made to normal flows also which would be less than 10%. It is not necessarily true that the drift organisms will fatally be affected.

After approximately 2/3 of the island is removed the benthic community could change but not necessarily because of thermal e

A-52

                                                                                           .                                                              releases, but because substrate conditions would possibly change to resemble the. main channel. 'The main channel-is less adaptive to a diversified benthic community.

Page 6-1 The. Staff states that the results of the. applicant's pre-operational radiological monitoring. program.have in part been inconclusive and that ancmalous values of Iodine-131 and Stron-tium-90 content of certain samples have datracted from the con-fidence in the program. The apparent anomalous values'obtained' in the. pre-operational radiological monitoring program have been thoroughly examined and:it is concluded that the results are'indeed unexpected and anomalous in the. sense that the-values are out of keeping with accepted notions of what those values should be. It should be noted, however, that reason-- , able explanations as to why these values appear to be reason- ' able and appropriate for the time the samples were taken have been made. I 1

                                                           .Page 6-1, Section 6.1.2 The. statement is made that only plankton is collected on a monthly basis. This is not true. Water chemistry samples are also collected along with physical measurements.

Variability in plankton can be expected over a period of a month and is, therefore, collected on a. monthly basis. This l is not necessarily true for the benthic ~ community and is, therefore, sampled on a quarterly basis. Paragraph on fish should be reworded to mention that ichthyo-plankton is going to be evaluated. l Sampling of benthos in the back channel of Phyllis. Island is  : being performed. Additional plankton samples are being collected to assess the 1 difference in population levels at Station 2. ) Section 6.1.2 should be reevaluated and brought up to date. Several of the items that the AEC suggests to be performed are L being done. For example, plankton is being evaluated on a l monthly basis, the fish program is being expanded, samples are l being collected from the back channel of Phyllis Island, and fish populations are being evaluated in the back channel, sep-arate from sampling stations 1-5 and control station 6. I ____ _ - _ . i!

A-53 Page 6-3 I The Staff itemizes the additional measurements which tSey believe should be contained in the pre-operational program. It should bu noted that in general the applicant's pre-operational radiological monitoring program is consistent with Regulatory Guide 4.1, issued January 18, 1973. However, it should be noted that the monitoring program is currently being reviewed and certain additions as has been suggested by the Staff will be added. At this time specific instances of program changes cannot be specified since ;hese are not yet final. However, the program is under review and more exten-sive monitoring is planned. Page 6-6 The draft statement recommends the use of analytical technique for free chlorine, combined available chlorine, monochloramine and dichloramine having a lower detection limit of at least 0.01 ppm and, preferably, 0.001 ppm. Of the techniques described in Standard Methods, 13th Edition, only the amperometric method is capable of differentiation of the desired chlorine residual fractions. None of the methods listed in Standard Methods is capable of a lower detection limit of less than .01 mg/l for any of the above mentioned residual fractions. Page 8-1, Second Paragraph The word "the" before Cleveland Electric Illuminating company and Toledo Edison Company should be capitalized. Page 8-6, Section 8.2, First Paragraph Ten percent should be reduced to 2.74 as explained in comment on Page 5-30. Page 9-11, Last Paragraph See comment for Page 3-26, Section 3.6.4. Page 10-4, Sixth Paragraph o Ten percent should be reduced to 2.7% as explained in comment ong Page 5-30. Page 10-8 Table 10.4 Ten percent should be reduced to 2.74 as explained in comment on Page 5-30. i

A-54 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 50-334

                                                                                          , . ; .v N                                 ]

g 2 9 JUN 19MV 4/3- ' N omes or m y #Q(.f*' - Aamunua

                                                                                %,                         h 4 #N29yyy                   ..;

Mr. L. Manning Muntzing $2ijQsr ke QQy i

                                                                                                        /l
                                           ' Director of Regulation                                       .

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission sv  % j washington, D. C. 20545 g

Dear Mr. Muntzing:

1 The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft environmental statement for the Beaver valley Power Station, Unit 1 and our detailed com-ments are enclosed. As presently designed, the radioactive waste treatment systems provided for the plant will not be capable of limiting releases of radioactive discharges from the facility to within the guidelines of the proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. However, it is anticipated that, with the exception of radioiodine, the releases from Unit 1 will conform to the guidelines of Appendix I once the shared systems for Unit 2-become operational. A schedule for the completion of the shared systems is required in order to evaluate the length of time that the discharges from Unit 1 will be released with insufficient treatment. The auxiliary building ventilation system air can be routed to the main purge tank for treatment, but the criteria for the use of this system, as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis for the provision of a separate treatment system, are necessary to properly assess the control measures which will provide the lowest practicable radioiodine dose. With respect to thermal and non-radiological dis-charges, we recommend the two. Beaver Valley units and the Shippingport facility be considered together in determining compliance with the Federally approved Pennsylvania State Water Quality Standards. Further, we believe that the recommendations of the National

A !

                                            ^

t Technical Advisory Committee (NTAC) concerning mixing zones should be used when calculating compliance with these standards. In this regard, it is our opinion that the thermal component of the discharge'may not conform with the mixing zone recommendation of the NTAC under all circumstances. We advise therefore, that the AEC indicate in the final statement how compliance will be assured. In light of our review of this draft statement and in accordance with EPA procedure, we have classified the project as ER (Environmental Reser-vations) and rated the. draft statement as " Category 2" (Insufficient Information) . We would be pleased to discuss our classification or comments with you 3 or members of your staff. Sincerely,

                                                                   ^

Ra) u m w N % Sheldon Meyers Director Office of Federal Activities Enclosure O l

I A-56 _ 9 S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY l 1

                                                                                                              }
                                                                                                             'o

• AL a hkg I$/)

Washington,.D. C. 20460 ~, y, . JUNE 1973 < ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENTS Oh

                                                                                                                             -ucy!

1 5 1 i Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTR 0leUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS 1 RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Radioactive Waste Management 3 Dose Assessment 4 Monitoring Program 5 Transportation 6 Reactor Accidents 7 NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Standards.and Thermal Dischargea 9 Chemical Discharges 15 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 18 i i i 1

                                                                                                                                                       )

o l e - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ l

A-57 INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS

                                                                                         ]

l The Environment) Protection Agency has reviewed the I l draft statement for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and issued on March 16, 1973. The following are our major conclusions:

1. Once the shared systems for Unit 2 become operational,  ;

i the radioactive effluents from Unit 1 should be in con-formance with the guidance of the proposed Appendix I i to 10 CFR Part 50 except for the discharge of gascous radtoiodine.

2. A cost-effectiveness analysis which considers the addition of separate treatment systems for both the auxiliary building ventilation air and turbine build-ing vents should be included in the final statement.

3. Due to the possibility of high thyroid doses via the cow-milk pathway, the applicant should institute a continuing program to monitor,the location of milk cows in the vicinity of the station.

4. The final statement should present sufficient information concerning the AEC's dose model and bases for the assumptions used for determining the thyroid 0 dose due to vegetable consumption, to allow an independent evaluation of the dose to be made.

5. With respect to thermal and non-radiological discharges, we recommend the two Beaver Valley units and the Shippingport facility be considered together l

A-$8 2 in determining compliance with the federally approved-Pennsylvania State Water Quality Standards. Further, we believe that the recommendations of the National Technical Advisory Committee (NTAC) concerning mixing - zones should be used when calculating compliance with these standards.

6. Our review of available information indicates that the thermal plume created by the discharge from the Beaver Valley-Shippingport complex may not conform to the NTAC recommendation for mixing zonas.- This recom-mandation is that the mixing zone occupy no more.than 25% of the cross-section and/or flow volume. In addition, we believe the plume should be so restricted in both the main stem of the river and in che channel and backwater areas between the complex site and Phillis Island. The final statement should indicate how this will be accomplished.

i o l l f ! _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ - - !1

                                                                - A-59 RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Radioactive Waste Management As presently designed, the radioactive waste management systems provided for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 are not capable of limiting releases of radioactive wastes from the facility to within the l

guidelines of the proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. However, once the shared systems for Unit 2 are operational, the releases of radionuclides from Unit 1 and Unit 2 should be in conformance with the. guidance of Appendix I, with the exception of gaseous radioiodine. The . l final statement should include a schedule which will clearly indicate how quickly the shared systems will become opratioval and specifica113 how long the steam generator blowdown effluents will be discharged untreated. The AEC and the applicant indicate that their individual estimates of effluent releases and waste treatment systems performance are both based on operating experience. In spite of this, however, the respective estimates of annual discharges are significantly different; and, according to our information, there are no plants in operation which presently utilize the same radioactive waste management systems as those that are proposed for this facility. The final statement should present the data on which the AEC's projections were based, and should

• clarify whether the data referred to are related to equipment performance such as leak rates and partition factors, or plant performance such as total curies released.

l 4

                                                                                                                                  )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

A-60' We note _fhat the auxiliary building ventilation system air (which accounts for more than half'of the radioiodine expected to be discharged) can be routed to the main containment purge system.- The final statement should include the criteria for usage of this treatment system and a cost-effectiveness analysis for the provision of a separate treatment system for the auxiliary building air. In addition, the final statement should also include an evaluation of potential turbine building releases with a cost-effectiveness analysis of control measures to reduce this iodine source. Dose Assessment Although the. draft statement estimated doses reau3ti.ng from the 9 C1/yr of liquid waste discharges from Unit 1, it did mot evaluate the dose consequences which will result from the Unit 1 liquid releases following the completion and operation of the shared Unit 2 waste treatment system. The final statement should present estimates of the doses from liquid releases when the shared systems are operational. The draft statement calculated a potential thyroid dose of 3 arem/yr, through the cow-milk pathway from the nearest dairy farm. From available site information, however, it appearr that in the future dairy cows could be located nearer to the site, with resulting potential thyroid doses of up to 200 mrea/yr. Because of this situation, the

• applicant should institute a program of monitoring and reporting of the location of milk cows in this area. This program should continue during the operational life of the facility.

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . __ b.

A-61

                                                                                                                                                         '5 The draft. statement also calculated the thyroid dose to a one year old child from the consumption of Icafy vegetables grown at the site
                                                 . boundary. This potential dose was estimated to be 20 mrem /yr, using apparently conservative assumptions.                  The final statement should present-more detailed information concerning the'AEC's dose model and the bases for the assumptions used in determining the thyroid dose due to vegetable consumption (including vegetables which concentrate radionuclides in their fruit). This information should be comprehensive-enough to allow EPA to independently evaluate the potential dose contribution from this pathway. We concur with the AEC's requirement of the applicant to institute an environmental surveillance program as outlined on page 513 of the draft statement, and to take corrective action if the total thyroid dose, by all pathways, exceeds 5 mrem /yr.

Monitoring Program The EPA concurs with the AEC concerning the need to, " alter the sampling methods and analytical. techniques used in the pre-operational monitoring program in such a way as to be satisfactory to the staff and to ensure that a statistically significant radiological background dose can be established...." We recommead that a specific quality assurance program be incorporated into the applicant's pre-operational and operational radiological monitoring programs. At a minimum, such a program should cover the gamma dosimetry, the milk, forage and soil samples. Such a program would be the most effective method of supporting the validity of subsequent results. Furthermore, we recommend that forage samples be l l 4

l A L, '6 1 incorporated into the monitorir.g program, summarized in Table 6.1, to aid in quantitatively assessing the importance of the cow-milk 'ose d pathway. The final statement should address the methods to be'used to check the quality of the data reported by the applicant. Transportation _ EPA, in its earlier reviews of the environmental / impact of transportation of radioactive material, agreed with the AEC that many aspects of this prob 1cm could best be treated on a generic basis. The generic approach has reached.the point where on February 5, 1973, the AEC pub ished for comment in the Federal Register a rulemaking propoFa1 concerning the Environmental Effects of Transportation of Fuel and ?Jaste . from vuclear Power Reactors. EPA commented on the proposed rulemaking-by e letter to the AEC, dated !! arch 22,.1973, and by an appearance at the public hearing on April 2, 1973. Until such time as a generic rule is established, the EPA is continuing to assess the adequacy of the quantitative estimates of environmental radiation impact resulting from transportation of radioactive materials provided in environmental statements. The estimates provided for this station are deemed adequate based on currently available infot1 nation. O e

1 A-63 7 Reactor Accrdents- l l EPA has examined the.AEC analysis of accidents and their potential l risks which AEC has develrped in the course of its engineering l evaluation of reactcr safety in the design of nuclear plants. The l various categories of in-plant ac idents are commor. to all nuclear power j plants a given types. EPA, therefore, concurs with AEC's approach to I evaluat the environmental risk for each acc11ent class on a generic J basis. AEC has in the past and still continues to devote extensive

             ,   efforts to assure safety through plant design and accident analyses in i

the licansing process on a case-by-case basis. EPA, however, favors the ) additienal step now being undertaken by AEC of a thorough analysis on a more quantitative basis of the risk of potential accidents in all ranges. We continue to encourage this effort and again urge the AEC to press forward to its timely completion and publicati n. EPA believes that this will result in better understanding of the possible risks to the environment. Discussion is~ underway between the two agencies to-reach an understanding for timely EPA participation in the review and discussions of the results of the generic studies directed at quantitative evaluation of accident risks. EPA asks to be kept informed of the scope and directions of these studies. EPA asks to be briefed periodically on a the status and progress that have been made and EPA seeks to have prompt I and complete access to the results of the studies. Concurrently, the results of EPA efforts which may contribute to the quantitative _ l evaluation of accident risks will be provided to the AEC in a similar l fashion. Meanwhile, EPA will continue its review of environmental 1 l I l a,

A-64 8 impact stati5ents in its areas of responsibility and will transmit its comments to AEC. We conclude that the level of safety developed through the present procedures and analyses on a case-by-case basis appears justified . based on currently available information. However, we believe that the application of evaluative techniques and quantification procedures, now being pursued by AEC quantitative risk studies, should permit a more objective and consistent ceans of appraising accident risks. If unwarranted risks are identified during the course of the generic studies, EPA will make its views known. In this event, we are confident that the AEC will take appropriate action.

                                                                                                                   )

l l

                                                                                                                     )

l 1 i O

                                                                                                                    )

l l  ! l 1 l

 - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _                                                                                 h

L A-65 l [ NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Standards and Thermal Discharnes Two pressurized water reactors, Unit 1 and Unit 2, are planned for the Beaver Valley Power Station site. They will produce 851.9 MWe and 856.7 MWe respectively. Condenser cooling for both units will be provided by a closed-cycle system with natural-draft cooling towers, with common intake and discharge structures on the Ohio River. The rate of. blowdown discharged to the Ohio River for Unit 1 is expected to range from 33 to 48 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 17,000 to 21,500 gallons per minute (gpm). Since the two Beaver Valley units are comparable, the combined blevdown for Units 1 and 2 will be approximately, double these amounts. The AEC has issued separate draft statenents for Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2. The Unit 1 statement' concerns continuation of a construction permit and. issuance of an operating license. The Unit 2 statement concerns a construction permit only. Although in some respects this separate evaluation may be warranted, in our opinion, this should not be the case for the station's thermal and chemical discharges. Therefore, this review considers both units. o In addition, since Las ontypiusper; *;umic rower Station Unit 1 is located on an adjacent site and the discharge plume of its once-through cooling system will merge with that created by the cooling tower blowdown from the two Beaver Valley units, our evaluation also includes the

                                                            -Shippingport station.

                                  ~ A                                                                                        10
               -Ehe section of the Ohio River in the vicinity of

_ Beaver Valley has been severely impacted by the accumu -

 ,         lative effects'of thermal and chemical discharges from-
         'many sources.      Steel mills are' located between eight and
          ~ ten miles upriver at Aliquippa and Ambridge; a zinc smelter
          'is located six miles upriver; the applicants are currently building.two 800 MWe coal fired power units one mile up-river; the Shippingport Atomic Poder Station Unit 1 is on the river, adjacent to the site; and the Midland steel mill is located immediately across the river. With the excep-tion of the4 St ippingport plant, however, the draf t statement does not discuss these thermal di, harges or evaluate their cumulative effects.      In our opinion. such an evaluation is important since it would characterize the present thermal environment of the Ohio River at the site and, thus, provide-a basis for determining:

a) The degree to which the thermal discharges from Shippingport and the two Beaver Valley units can be operated in compliance with the applicable federally approved state water quality standards-or, more importantly, the measures that will be o necessary to assure such compliance, b) The effect operati6n of these units will have L on downstream water quality, in particular, excess temperatures. This type of information is relevant not only to predicting the likely impact on aquatic life but also the extent to e L

A-67' 11 1 l which this facility will affect the situation

                                              ~

downstream in terms of specific compliance with standards of discharges frem other facilities. Further, and relevant to the above, it should be noted that this portion of the Ohio River may well be designated a water quality limited segment under sections 303(d), 303(c), and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Ammendments of 1972 (FWPCA). If so classified, the State of Pennsylvania will establish the total muimum daily loads for pollutants, including the thertial component. As a consequence, thermal discharge allocations or appropriate target allocations will be assigned to significant point source discharges. Since, under these conditions, discharge permits will be based on water quality considerations, it is likely that the required level of treatment will be more stringent than that required under the "...best practicable control technology currently available..." of Section 301(b)(1)(A). According to the draft statement, the combined blow-down of units 1 and 2 (66 to 96 cfs) will be discharged at a maximum temperature of 77'F and 90*F during the.vinter o and summer respectively. As a consequence, using represen-tative ambient temperatures of 37'F and 84'F, excess temperatures will be 40'F and 6*F respectively for these two seasons. The federally approved water quality standards for the State of Pennsylvania applicable to this portion of the e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - I

f J7 A-68 12 Ohio RLVer allow a maximum temperature of 87'F.(30.6'C) and a temperature rise;above ambient of 5.0*F.(2.8'C). 'As presently written, however, these standards do not mention either a mixing zone for temperature dissipation or'a zone of passage for. fish and other aquatic species. This situs-A tion notwithstanding, it is not obvious that such provisions are definitely precluded and as'a consequence, theLstandards. are subject to varied interpretation. . For example, Pennsylvania's current regulations for the Department of

                                                                                                      . Environmental Resources (Chapter 97, Title 25, concerning industrial effluents) state that, "The heat content of discharges shall be limited to an amount that could not:
                                                                                                  . raise the temperature of the entire strecm at the point of discharge 5'(F)'above ambient temperature...." This.seems

to permit a mixing. zone. that occupies the entire river

                                                                                                      ' width at the point of discharge. Although in general EPA cannot condone this interpretation, it appears equally unrealistic in siost instances to adopt the opposite view (i.e., that no mixing zone is permitted). It is important, therefore, that the current state standards be clarified.

l On January 18, 1973 EPA wrote to Governor Shapp re-questing revisions in the state standards in accordance with the i FWPCA. Although this letter did not specifically request a description of either a mixing zone or a r.one of passage.  ; i it and other correspondence

• did indicate EPA's reliance on j

                                                                                                      -

• January 4,1973, letter to Wesicy Gilbertson of the Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources.

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ __ _b

A-69 13 our "Cuidelinco for Developing and Revising Water Quality Standar2's" (EPA, January 1973, amended April 1973) an'd on the

                                              " Report of the.C'emmittee on Unter Quality Criteria" (i.e.,

Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee (NTAC), Federal Water Pollution Control Agency, April 1, 1968). Both of these documents address mixing zones and zones of passage, recommending thct no more than 25 percent of the cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow of a stream or estuary be occupied by a mixing zone, leaving at least 75 percent frec as a zone-of-passage where water quality standards are not contravened. In our opinion, the NTAC recommendations should apply

                                             .at the Beaver Valley-Shippingport complex and should include both the main stem of the river and te channel and ba;kwater areas between the plants and Philli's Island. Thus, in addition to an appropriate zone of passage in the cad.a stem, 75 percent of the channel should also be free of the thermal plume. Such .

a provision would, we believe, provide adequate protection for fish spawning that may well occur in these areas. In general, therefore, if the 5'F isotherm from the Beaver Valley-Shippingport complex falls within the 25 percent limit, EPA would not question the thermal discharge unless other evidence indicates that significant damage to aquatic biota vill occur. In our opinion, such restrictions are reasonable and thereby will serve, in part, as a basis for EPA's considerations regarding the issuance of a discharge permit for this facility. 1- . _ _ _ . _ _ ._. . _ _ b

A-70 14

                                                                   'After reviewing.the draft statements and the applicant's environpuntal reports and considering the thermal conditions at the Beaver Valley-Shippingport site, we have concluded the following:

a) The discharge from the Shippingport station alene may currently be exceeding the NTAC mi::ing zone recommendations in the channel during low flow periods (regardless of the season in which the icw flows occur). b) When Shippingport and the two Beaver Valley units are considered together, our calculations indicate that during low flow periods occuring in the winter, the NTAC recommendations for mixing zones will most certainly be exceeded in.the channel and may also be exceeded in the main stem of the river. It is our recommendation, therefore, that the fina1' statements on these two units include the following:

                                                                   -a) Indication of the origin and reliability of the 5000 cfs low river flow value cited in the draft statement. In the past, EPA has relied on the seven day-ten year low flow value based on U.S.

Geological Survey flow rates. b) An analysis of the combined operation of these

• facilities with respect to conformance with the NTAC recommendations (based on the above low-flow value).

c) A discussion of the means by which such conformance will be achieved.

a-11 _ In our opinion, in order to assure that the cor.bined thereni cffluent of the Beaver Valley-Shippingport compicx conforms with the tiTAC recommendations and to reduce the overall itcpact at all times, it tuay be necessary to consider instituting the following: (1) increasing the operational concentration factor of the cooling-tower system on the Beaver Valley units from 1.8 to 5, and (2) converting the once-through cooling system of the Shippingport f acility to closed-cycle by sharing the system of Beaver Valley Unit 1. Although we realize that the Shippingport facility is not under the jurisdiction of the regulatory branch of the AEC, it seems likely that some agreemen*. could be reached by the applicant and the AEC concerning the l conversion. Chemical Discharnes The AEC staff has conducted a very thorough review of the effects of station operation and has explored several

                          .very desirable alternatives with regard to chemical dis-charges. They have recommended that the applicants seek alternative chemical systems to reduce the discharge of dissolved solids to the Ohio River. Also, they estimate that the use of reverse osmosis retreatment of demineral-iser feed water might reduce the discharge from 93,070 kg/

yr (205,000 lbs/yr) to about 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lbs/yr). l- This would be a desirable goal and should be thoroughly l~ explored by the applicants. In addition, AEC has recommended that the applicant monitor the free residual chlorine and chloramine icvels _ _ _ _ - _- _ - a

   +

A-72 16 2

                                                                 ~

at the point of dischcrge. If neccccary, administrative and/or operating changes will be made to nnsure that concentrations releascd to the river are in accord with EPA recorr.cndations. The projected chemical effluent concentrations of the plant are well under those permitted by'the applicable water quality ctandards, and there is every indication that the applicant will comply with these standards. The planned bloudown line for Beaver Valley will pass across the Shippingport- blowdown diccharge line. In our opinion, therefore, the possibility of combining the two lines should be evaluated. This combined outict, in addition to possible economic benefits, would reduce the risk of an accidental overdischarge of chlorine to the river. Chlorine application at the two plae.ts could be staggered, and, if either plant received an accidental overdoselof chlorine, the final discharge to the river would be diluted by the unchlorinated blowdown from the other plant.

               ..                                              The final statement should be expanded to include a nonradioactive spill prevention,. containment and counter-measure plan. The Beaver Valley Plant will be using chlorine, sulfuric acid, caustic soda, turbine oil, transformer oil and other substances that could be considered hazardous to aquatic life if spilled in the river. Such a plan should include the following:

e . _____2____.__ ._ _ h

A*73 17, a

                  ~

a. A description of the reporting system which will be used to alert responsible facility management and appropriate legal authorities.

b. A description of facilities which prevent, contain or treat spills and unplanned dis- ~

charges.

c. A list.of all oil and hazard-us materials used, processed, or stored at the facility.

0 i i

                                 /

6

                                                                                        \

                                                                                       'l 1

A-74 18 j I _ ADDITIONAL CODENTS During the review we noted in certain instances that the statement does not present sufficient information to substantiate the conclusions presented. We recognize that much of this information is not of major importa ce in evaluating the envi anmental impact of the Beaver Valley Power S ation Unit 1. The cumulative effects, however, could be signiff ant. It would, therefore be helpful in determining the impact of the slant if the following topics were discussed in the final statems it.

1. The estimates of the delay times for krypton and xenon holdup in the charcoal beds (condenser air ejector cleanup), stated in the draft statement, differ considerably from estimates by the applicant. The reason for these differences should be explained in

       ,      the final statement.

2. In the draf t statement, milk consumption is stated to be one liter per day and 274 liters per year. This difference should be diarified in the"finalascatement.

3. Table 7.2 of the draft statement shows that in the event of a class 8 event, the dose effects of a "small break" are greater titan the effects of a "large break" by a factor of about twenty five. It

     ,        appears that th$s may be due to an arithmetic or typographical error. The final statement should correct this apparent discrepancy or, if there is no error, it should discuss how this can occur. In addition, details of the assumptions used in the calculations of the      )

accident consequences should be presented in the final statement, if

A-75.

                                                                                        .19 they differ from thoselgiven in the Annex to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50.

4. If available from:the Shippingport Station, a longer period of meteorological data.should be presented in the final statement and.

used to better' characterize the site atmospheric dispersion characteristics.

5. .The draft. statement primarily addresses some ambient air impacts-that result from Unit 1; however, the ambient air environmental

                  -impacts for the proposed Unit 2 in the adjacent area should be discussed in the final statement to properly evaluate such topics as-the impacts of cooling tower plumes, auxiliary boilers, and diesel engine sources of' air pollutants.

6. The draft statement does not provide information as'to potential hydrocarbon emissions or control of fuel storage tanks that will' be located at'the site. Additionally, there is no discussion regarding particulate emission or contro1' strategies that may be employed in the concrete batch plant operation. ,This information shou 1d be provided in the final statement.

7. Since the Beaver Valley Power Station is to be located in a highly industrialized area, the addition of particulate and sulfur dioxide into the ambient air basin should be assessed conservatively. For example, the following points should be o

addressed (a) the expected ambient air concentrations of pollutants in the area at ground level during severely restrictive' atmospheric dispersion conditions; (b) control strategies to be used. to maintain ambient air quality standards during poor dispersion conditions; and O L

A-76 20 (c) the relationship of pollutants from this source to the air pollution c ntrol strategies for meeting national ambient air standards for this area.

8. Using technical data referenced for Table 3.8 (page 3-29 of the draft statement) and emission factors for diesel fuel as cited in the Office of Air Programs' Publication No. AP-42, February 1972, we calculated the emissions for diesel engines as follows:

Average Emissions Maximum Emissions Tons / year Pound / hour Particulate 0.026 6.7 SO 2 0.072 19.0 CO 3.4x10[43 0.09 Hydrocarbons 5 1 x 10 1.34 NO 0.136 35.8 Al ehydes 3. 4 x 10 -3 0.9 These values should be included in the final statement in place of values presently cited in Table 3.8.

9. The cooling tower plumes from Unit 1 and from Unit 2 should be discussed in the final statement and not treated as separate topics.

                     .The influence of the two adjacent cooling towers on the ambient air environment may be greater than a simple' addition factor.

10. Regarding the water quality data on pages 2-7 to 2-10 of the draft statements, more recent and longer term water quality data are available from EPA for Ohio River Mile Point 40, (8.4 km or 5J milce) o wnstream from the site. The data in Table 2.3 (p. 2-9) was e

apparently obtained from the STORET system and contains errors common to earlier versions of this data retrieval system. There are I also some misprints. Corrections follow: Dissolved oxygen should read 6.7 mg/l minimum not 0.00.

                                                                                                   )

1

                                                                                               -   )

- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ \

A-77  ; 21 ' i Acidity should read 25 mg/l maximum not 244 and mean should

               .be 5 mg/1. The mean alkalinity has always exceeded acidity.

Phosphorus should read 0.00 minimum not 0,60 mg/1. ' Iron should read 5.8 maximum not 58 mg/1. Manganese should read 7.5 maximum not 11 mg/2. Aluminum should read 2.1 maximum not 16 mg/1. Phenol should read 0.06 maximum not 0.6 me/1 and a 0.01 mg/l mean not 0.10 mg/1.

11. The water quality standards which regulate the portion of the Ohio River which flows through Pennsylvania were developed by the State of Pennsylvania and approved by EPA. The Ohio River Sanitary Commission may make recommendations which may be accepted by the state and included in the water quality standards. This is in contradistinction to the assertion in the draf t statema.nt that the Ohio River is presently being managed by water quality standards established by the Ohio River Sanitary Oommission.

12. The sanitary system description dncludes no method of pH adjustment by acid, CO 2

                                          , or other means af ter tertiary lime precipitation. This must be provided for proper chlorine disinfection and maintenance of proper pH levels of the effluent. -

13. The plan to prevent siltation and turbidity increases should be o described in greater detail. The sediment discharged to the river from the construction site of the Beaver Valley Power Station should be monitored.

14. There should be an unequivocal guarantee that no mining will be permitted under this plant site.

i e t

, , m . . _ _ _ _ lh A-78' (. '22-

                                                                               .15. The applicant has.found it necessary to relocate several hundred feet of the stream, Peggs:Run. The present poor. quality ~of-lL                                                                               Peggs Run does not relieve the applicant of the' responsibility of L'                                                                              . attempting to mitigate the effccts of rechannelizing. The final l,

statenent should discuss prospects and plans"for improving the water quelity of the stream disturbed by this dislocation.

16. We recommend that a single final statement be issued on Units l'.

ani 2, incorporating an analysis of-the net effect of both plants, as sell as other discharges depacting this section of.the Ohio ri er. O 9 - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ - - _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ . - _ _ _ l

A-79 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY g Pf77S80RGH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS g . _ FEDC8tAL BUILDING.1000 LIBERTY AVENUE

                                               ~~

l PITTSSURGH PENNSYLVANIA 152s2. ORPED-PE 19 June 1973 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects , Directorate of Licensing l United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington- D. C. 20545 Draft Environmental Statement; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1;

Dear Mr. Muller:

Docket No. 50-334 We have reviewed the subject draft environmental statement, transmitted by your letter of 16 March 1973, with respect to the Corps' functional area,of;respocaibility.and expertise. . We note that you have included on page P.-7 the river stage information previously furnished by this office. It is also noted that the reactor containment vessel is located at about elevation 735 feet mal, which is above the maximum probable flood stage of 730 feet mal. It is suggested that a glossary be included in the statement for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with some of the terms and abbre-viations used in the statement. Overall, we find the statement to be well prepared and have no further comments to offer at this time. Sincerely,

                                                                                                              /

f9 l

                                                 @                4                  N. G. DELBRIDG                   j Colonel, Corps of        eers   /

o 8 e, (L District Engineer 4 (*n

                                      &           ..we $ih,an j
                                       . .a\ #~,r ,.ygv.R                 ,

ef ) <

                                                                                                                    .       I l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ __ ll

B-1 i APPENDIX B APPLICANTS' LETTER ON AUGMENTED MONITORING PROGRAM o 9

b-2 b $m mqs , m - Q+ h das sam Avenue um 4n 43oo t urph, Pennsylvania fl0 LL' _'_f; V y, h United States Atomic Energy Commission f-/ '*f'.. - Division of Regulation Q JUlia .; g7'2 ~ Directorate of Licensing a . Washington, D.C. 20545 .c 1 - [A .- >

                                                                                                                            ~       .e    ,.s:;

Attention: fir. Angelo Giambusso 7 EI Deputy Director for Reactor Projects

Subject:

Beaver Valley Power Station Units No. 1 and Mo. 2 Docket No. 50-334 and Dochet No. 50-412 Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statements Gentlemen: l We intend to expand the Environmental Radiological 14onitoring program for the Beaver Valley site. This program will be generally in accordance with the comments made by the AEC in the draft impact statements for Units No. 1 and Mo. 2 l (nanes 6-3 throunh 6-6) , the FPn Guide to Padiolacical Surveil-lance and AEC Regulatory Guide 4.1. We have attached for your information a revised Table 6.1 which indicates the location of sampling-points. In comparing this table with the attached original Table 6.1 you will note that we have maintained the same sample frequencies with the exception of milk sampling which will be increased to ucekly intervals if I-131 is detect-ed, and have added some sampling points and relocated others. The following comments apply to the revised programs o <

l. The AEC staff indicated in the draft statements that food crops and animal forage should be sampled at least quarterly during the grouing season and analyzed primarily for I-131. The revised program indicates that vegetation and forage will be sampled at each of the dairies at which milk is sampled on a quarterly basis. The analysis to be done on these samples will be gross beta, Sr-89, Sr-90, and gamma spectrum to identify gamma emitting nuclides present, including I-131.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b

                                                                     ?

B-3 United.Stntec Atomic Ennrgy Commission page 2 June 25, 1973_ In addition, the program identif:.es that if locations within 5 miles can be found for nampling fruits and vegetables these will be analyzec' either at harvest 3 time or during the growing season, as appropriate. 1 The analysis that will be done on these samples will include Sr-89, Sr-90, and a gamma spectrum analysis. { i

2. The staff in the Draft Environmental Statement recom- l mended the addition of benthic biota samples to be analyzed quarterly. We have not included this sample since the sediment samples that are taken include whatever benthic biota that may be present. l

3. The staff recommended more specific detail for the sampling of terrestrial animals and suggested that muskrats, raccoons and ducks be considered. The revised program has identified that wildlife samples will be primarily rabbits. These samples vill be taken on site on a quarterly basis by trapping. He plan to continue to cooperate with the Pennsylvania Game Commission in obtaining samples of large mammals, such as deer. This, however, has not been specified in the program. We do not believe that there is a sufficient number of ducks in the Beaver Valley area  !

to warrant sanpling; nor do we believe that muskrats should be sampled. Similarly, the staff recommended the sampling of aquatic plants. It is our understanding that there are no significant aquatic plants in the Ohio River to be sampled. Further, if sampling of the few aquatic plants that are present were to be instituted it would possibly result in the destruction of that species in the region.

4. The staff has recommended that a composite milk sample from local dairies and samples from cows maintained for private use located within 2 miles of the plant o should be sanoled and analyzed for radioactive I-131 at weekly intervals during the grazing season. The revised program requires sampling weekly at Meyers Dairy which is 1-1/2 m'iles from the plant. To our knowledge these are the only cows within 2 miles of the plant. Furthermore, we plan to obtain data con-cerning milk production and distribution practices for each of the dairies being sampled. We have in-creased the number of air particulate monitoring stations from 3 to 10 and have specified the addition of charcoal canisters for the sampling of airborne  ;

I-131. The cP_nge is consistent with the staff recommendations. I 1 . l

B-4 Ur.ited States Atomic Energy Commission Paye 3 _ June 25, 1973

5. We have rearranged the sample locations for bottom sediment and have added one additional sample loca-tion. The original program called for three samples, all essentially in the plant vicinity; the revised program now requires only one sample in the plant vicinity which will be near the Beaver Valley Power Station which is downstream of the Shippingport dis-charge. The original intake station was intended to be used as a control. This control location has been moved upstream of the Montgomery Dam, well away from the influence of the power plants. We have relocated a sample point to the upstream side of the New Cumber-land Dam where one would anticipate accumulations of sediment, and have added one station near the Midland water intake. These last two locations are consistent with staff recommendations.

6. We have relocated one surface water sample point from the Beaver Valley Power Statio- intake to upstream of the Montgomery Dam to serve .ss a better control point.

7. We have clarified the wording for the fish sampling to indicate that any available species will be sampled rather than all species that may be in the river.

8. We have increased the number of dosimeter stations to include not only the oriainal sites but also the sites for increased air monitoring. Additionally, we have identified that there will be monthly, cuarter-ly and annual dosimeters at each station. The location of sample point 45 was corrected to indicate that Mount Pleasant Church rather than Mount Plsd 4nt, Pennsylvania, is the sample location.

9. We have indicated that the analysis done on soil samples will also include Sr-89 in addition to Sr-90.

o Similarly, wildlife will be analyzed for Sr-89 and Sr-90 in bone, and a gamma spectrum analysis will be done on flesh, in addition to I-131 in the thyroid. Our consultant, NUS Corporation, has made arrangements with the Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory of the EPA to analyze a fraction of the sanples collected on a split basis. The initial program of split samples consists of two monthly water samples, one monthly milk sample, one composite ai. filter sample monthly, one quarterly vegetation sample, one quarterly fish sample and one semi-rnnual rabbit sample. The analyses to be performed by EPA will be as cpiled for in the monitoring pro-gram outline. The results of these analyses will be sent to a d

B-5 United States Atomic Energy Commission Page 4 - June 25, 1973 member of the NUS senior management group and will not be made available to other personnel within NUS until the NUS labora-tories' results are available. This program has already been placed in operation. Starting with the next monthly TLD change, control  ! dosimeters to better estimate the in-transit dose component will be added. Control' dosimeters will be included both when the dosimeters are sent'from Eberline and when the field exposed dosimeters are returned for reading. To allow a more accurate determination of ambient levels, NUS has purchased TLD processing equipment. This equipment receipt is expected within the next 30 days. NUS will, at that time, start processing TLD's; however, NUS will also continue the Eberline service for several months thereafter to provide indication of the adequacy of the NUS system and to gather data to reasonably estimate the magnitude of error which is associated with shipment of the TLD's over long distances by air. It is our understanding that this description of our expanded environmental radiation monitoring program will be included in the Final Environmental Statements for Beaver Valley Power Station Units No. 1 and No. 2. Should you require additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, c . G W E.o . WOOLEVER i Vice President o cc: Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing e 9 L

l B-6 l g3NgtONMEIRADICIDGICAL MONTTOUNG PROGRAM FOR THE SCAVER VALI2Y POWER STATION SAJ IP1M IEk maritubr amu 51 th2D'ftllCY A.Inf vam prw aare type af Samp4e Seagiales Potat Pre-Opme**amm a pggggge Sample Potat Deemiption Proyen 3 2 1 Surtece a Station Antaka Monthly cam- MontMy weeuy Daily Groos beta Gamme spectrum water 2 Station discharge posite of weekly (suspended when groes beta 3 Shippisersort stataan diacharge samples and dissolve U *t OpCVI partadic 4 MMiged unter plant how watert tritium grose alphe 5 East uverpool water plana tow mesart Drinklag 4 uutaad meter plant furneted weeMy comb- MantMy weekly Dnaly Grose been Gamma spectrum water wetart posito af daily (suspended when groes beta 5 East uverpool water plans samples and dissolved) >10pCVI partasas teneted watert arttlum grose alpha Fish tall 2 in ar near station discharge Quarterly senA- Quaterly Mosebly Gross beta evealable Aamun! Elesad Potas-apeeles) stum-40. gamma spectrum Se-90 (bemo) Battier- 1 Near statsoe Intake Quarterly Sena- Quarterly WomeMy (kees bees Sedimenta a In er near station discherse h8 Petasetum-40 1 In er aner Shippinypart sutwa gamme discharge spaceum well water 4.7 3 walls meer 8happsapport statnaa Quarterly Quarterly Quartsaly Quarterty Grose been Gemme speewum discharge (suspeeded when grees hana 8 Bartas southwest of site end diseeleud blDpCVL portadhe 8 On-stas well etstum We alphs 80.t3 2 melle la shipptapport, Pe. 12 Spring am Shipp4meport. Pa. 13 well at Meyer's Dalry Fers 14 Hookstown. te. Il Georgetous. Pa. 8 o 11 16.17 2 east cd alte Quarnarly Sead- Sema- Quarterly Grose beta 18.19 3 west of eata Aamun! A== =1 Posasetum-40 20.21 2 north ed sies gamma spectus 22.23 2 south of saa wilditfa 24 As evettabla ' Quartarty Seal. Send- Quarterly 1-131 an thyroed kleer, (semi-ennual maanmund Ammaal Ammuel Cs-137la rakhat, muscas, ar-90 pheesent, la bone etc) . Walk 25 8eartsht deary MeneMy MoseMy MameMy wenMy 3-131 36 Habbe dary Co-887 27 trunson daary 6 90 28 Shermee daary h et 29 Macanta daary Be-140 53 Meyers daary Q, Air 30 On esto east wesuy weekly wenMy westay Grose been Partedse gross Particulate 31 On-stas meet alphe, gamma 32 uutand, Pn. epoewum af pues beta pt@pCVm3 Gamma 38-34 Site pernpluey Menshir MantMy MastMy MastMy Data sad Eks tmenare le shippaasport. Ps. gamme dose 48 Mount Pleaseat. Pa. 30 On-sato anst Q 31 Orr site west at Madlead. Pe. 14 Hoekatown. Pa. . 15 Georpeeswa, Ps.

• Samsling frequencies to very aces >rding to sanometration of radiamuclides, C g, la sample with respect to meetmum permissible canoontreticae DeCle If Cg o 1/3 IWC IWCDs '1 will be used 1/3 arc 3 Cg > 1/10 arc WEGIAE 3 will be used 1/10 esPC t C g pm7- 3 will be maad 9

B-7 4

                                                                                                          .]

ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRN4 FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STVOION q 'I

• Sampling frequencies to vary according-Lto contentrtttion of nuclides, C 1 , in effluent with respect to maximum :t permissible concentrations. UiPC):  ;

If Ci> 1/311PC REGIMit 1 will be used

                                        ~1 /3 MPC > Ci > 1/10 MPC REGI!!E 2 will be used                      j j

1/10 MPC > Ci REGIME 3 will be used '

                         **            On site staticras to be relocated elsewhere r>n site due to interference with future construction..                              j
                        ***            The weekly sampling will be instituted at all dairies if I-131 is detected in any milk sample or if I-131 is detect:ed in the weekly airborne particulate samples. . Saapling.will          I continue at the weekly level until I 131' levels becone 1

l undetectable. 0 l l l l l l i. _ _ - - - - - - - _ - . _- - 1 :'

i B-8 ) 6-2 i [ TASI2 6.1 OM(IMA 281mONNENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SCAVER WALIEY POwtit $ FAT 10N

                                      "~

1Ap.tF LIPFG Q[1CpIFY10N S A M PLI f'RIO t.'[ NC f A NA LY5 t$ $[ M AJt LS

                                       $ae of                  Samsesi                Samplang totat              Pee-operet tenet                       RECI M

• j sample Pot 14 De sertpsien Program 1 2 1 Surface 1 Stetten intake Monthly com. > Wenthly weekly Detly Cross beta Gamma spectum water 8 Station discharge ' posite of weeuy (suspended when gross beta 3 8 hippingport station discharge samples and dissolved) #10pCVI periodte 4 11adia.uf water plant Irew waned trities gross alphs 5 test Liverpool water plant kee watert

                                        'Ortnking                  4      Mid, ant water plant irreated          weeur com.          . MontMy             weekly        Dauy     Gross beta       Gamme spectum gretar                           wetert                                 postia of deGy                                                  lauspeculed       when gross bete 5      East Lbsorpool water pLssa             semples                                                         and dissolvedt    bl0pCV4 pertadas (tweeted watert                                                                                        yttlem           gross alpha ytel6 Im13                 I      lin er no.w stause disciasgo             Quarterly '           Seas.            Quarterly    Monthly   Gross beta etellable                                                                                      Assuaal                                    Eleats Petes.

tapecteel stum-40, gesehs spectum Sr-90 lbonel bothene. I plear stat 6sn inta he Quarterly Semi. Quarteri t- MentWy Gross beta 3ettements I ht ist nees statstw discharge Annual Pota ssum-(0 3 In se near Shipptoghort slettoe gemma dischero* spoevues well water 4.F- 3 wells nest Shipp3ntipert statleri @iertarly O mrterly Quarterly ' Quarterly Cross beta Gamma spectum shecharges tsuspended when gross beta O Enring st>uthwsst of site and dissolved) DiopCVI pertadas 9 Os e:ta well trauum grose alpha

                                                                $4.31     I weils in Ships Anoport. Pa.

11 Surim ta $ttpptrasport. Fe.

                                                                 !!       Well at Meierte Dstry rare 14        Machstown. Pa.

Il Ceervetamm. 78. Brull 16.17 2 cent ad si".es Quarterly Seas. Semia Querterly Cross beta 28.19 ' 2 west sd aftal Annual Annual pasassium-40 20.23 8 aorth ed sitt samme specame 22.18 i south ad sus wtMitas 34 As swetlaMe Quartertr semi- Semi- Quarterly I-lat la thyroM ideer.  ! semi-ereimal isenAmuni Ansumet Annual Co-837 tu sebbst, muscle, ar-te plice ssac, s in bone I enA Mill 4 25 Saarbets dawy af t.atNy MentWy Weathly weeur 1-138 36 Notes d, sty Co-137 27 Brunton dairy St-90 38 Sheessa den Sr-49 39 Mnchner elater 8e-188 43 Meyer1 dek? lA*140 Elementas Ce ear 30 .On-site ease weekly weekly weeuy weeur Gross beta terlodic groes Atrucialates 31 Os-sits worst alpha, samme 53 6(Adland. Pe. specense af gross bete

                                                                                                                                                                                                   >46pCVm3 48* *8                II44                    P'"*'?                     Mem8My             mea 8hly           Monthly      Menthly    Sete end 6                                                  'II'*

gesehe dose Ik.samete 3 1 41 '5Mispiegrart, l's.

                                                                 @t!       Mount Pleasant. L%

35 thstte east 34 Co-sate west la netatenci. Pa. l ' l$ Nisu4tsason, Pa. 45 Gsegetown, fin. I

• Essap31sg fresluencipe to eary 1scoertling t o concentr stitm of radiomuclados, Cg. to

           ,.                                  sample ettA respett to mantin.An pes'inl op6ble noncenttetheria terC):

If C g t' 1/3seC RECLdl; & e481 lae weed L/3 Itpc 4 Cg

• 1/10 Jutc REGIMI: 1 omit be esed U18 *C a C, ascrus: 3 =11! be esed e

fi C=- - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ - A

t-: , C [..- [ ! ;, w: ( x .. 1' l' l l APPBilDIX C l l

                        ' APPLICANTS' RESP 0biSE TO COBSGDITS ON THE DRAFT ENVIR000 ENTAL STATDGDIT o

l E i 1 1 l i i

C-2

                                                  ~
                         'A@

U (4trun43oo 435 Sixth Avenue t% burgh, Pennsylvania 25, D73 a ~ D. United States Atomic Energy Commission N Division of Regulation #- Directorate of Licdnsing gN281973w ic Washington, D.C. 20545 ,E$@llll,,ra:r g " YIIlEllf // Attention: Mr. Angelo Giambusso 4 4 Deputy Director for Reactor Projects

Subject:

Beaver Valley Powcr Station Units No. 1 and No. 2 Docket ':o. 50-334 and Dochet No. 50-412 AEC Draft Environmental Statement Gentlemen: We have the following information to offer related to the comments on the AEC Draft Environmental Statements: Environmental Protection Agency Comments

1. Page 2, Par. 1 - Steam generator blowdown effluents for Unit No. I will always be sent to the liquid waste system fo:. treatment. This was documented in FSAR Amendment No. 1. Therefore, the comment made in the second half of the last sentence is not applicable.

2. Page 3, Par. 2 - The first sentence implies that the Unit No. 1 liquid discharge will change when Unit o No. 2 is complete. This is incorrect. Although certain systems will be shared / cross connected, each unit should have ecual contributions to the station liquid discharge level if the units are operating with the 'wne percent f ailure fuel. Therefore, there is no plan to share Unit No. 2 waste treatment systen which would alter the dose consequences of Unit No. 1 liquid releases.

L C-3 United-States Atomic Encrgy Commission June 25, 1973 Page 2 --

3. Page 8, Par. 1 - In.the second sentence, there is a typographical error concerning the net electrical output of Unit No. 2. "956.8 MWe" should road-

                                         "851.9 MWe" although the Unit' Environmental Report Section 3.3 and AEC Draft Environmental Statement Section 3.2 state 856.7-MWe. A future Environmental Report amendment will correct this error to agree with the Unit No. 2 PSAR Section l.1 and Figure 10.2-1.'

4. Pages 8 and 9 - The_ EPA conclusion that-Beaver Valley Power Station does not meet the Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria is based on no mixing of the dis-charge affluent with the river. The criteria, as stated in Paragraph 9282 of Chapter 97, Title 25, clearly assumes complete mixing of the affluent with the river. This would be clear if the quote on Page 9 were complete. Allowing this, the Beaver:

Valley Power Station discharge meets the thermal criteria.

5. Page 9, last Par. - Changing the blowdown concentra-tion factor might decrease the thermal discharge to the river, but would also. upset the chemical dis-charges and balance in the cooling tower system.

6. Page 12, Par. 2 - Non-radioactive spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures are discussed in the Industrial Waste Permit.

7. Page'14, Item 4 - Use of Shippingport Station meteoro-logical data is not recommended ~since the location of the meteorological tower on the Beaver Valley site is more suited to this area due to its proximity as well as the fact that wind speed sensors are at two levels (50 feet and 150 feet) rather than-at one sensor which is the case for the 3hippingport tower.

Mr. William A. Buehring's Comments The referenced report, "The Centralization of occupa-tional Radiation Exposure Information.".has been 1 requested from Mr. Harold Kneeland of the AEC and will be evaluated when received.

                                                                                                )

t

s C-4 h P United States Atomic Energy Commission June 25,1973 Page 3 Department of Commerce Comments Gases released via the waste gas systen first pass through the purification system charcoal delay beds. The heds are designed to provide 30 days' decay for xenon nuclides and two days' decay for crypton nuclides. The gases.are then directed to waste gas tanks for further decay. The fastest a gas decay tank could fill,would be 48 days and the operator would take approximately 48 days to bleed the other tank. The minimum time by design that a filled gas decay tank could be completely emptied is 14 days. , Release, therefore, from the tanks is over an ex-tended period and the annual average relative con-centration value is appropriate. Department of Agriculture': Soil Conservation Service Comments An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1 by January 1, 1974. Erosion and sedimentation con-trol measures are described in Amendment 4 to the Environmental Report, Responses F.1 and F.2. The top fill from the area excavated which was un-suitable as granular fill was initially stored at the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1 cooling tower site. This top soil was later spoiled when the cooling tower was required. Very truly yours, o

                                                                               ,     /     w e-E. J. WOOLEVER Vice President 1

i 1 cc: Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing 4 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

1-7 u C

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This Final 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 continuation of construction permit CPPR-75 and the issuance of an operating license to the Duquesne Light Company, the Ohio Edison Company and the Pennsylvania Power Company (the applicants) for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1,-

Docket No. 50-334.

                                                     ' The Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, which is located on the Ohio River near Shippingport in Beaver County, Pennsylvania utilizes a pressurized water reactor to produce up to 2660 megawatts thermal (MWt). A: steam turbine-generator will use this heat to provide-
                                                     .851.9 MW (net) of electrical power capacity. A design power level of 2774.MWt (885 MWe) is anticipated at a future date and is considered in the assessments contained in this statement. The disposal of waste heat is accomplished through the use of a closed-cycle natural-draf t cooling tower.

3. Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects:

Assignment of about 20 acres of land for the plant facilities, a A visible plume will occur from operation of the cooling tower, however ground level effects are not expected, a Small increase in chemical wastec' released to the-river, Discharges of small quantities of radioactive gases and liquids to the environment, Creation of a very low probability of accidental radiation risk to nearby residents,

                                                      -    Under pessimistic combinations of conditions the possible mortality or sublethal stress on less than 3% of the drif t
           ,-                                              organisms of the river as a consequence of being taken into the condenser cooling water or passing through the heated blowdown discharge plume.
                                                      -    Consumption of 14,000 acre-ft of water /yr.

0 Q--__--____--____-___ - - _ - -

11 d a

4. Principal alternatives considered were:

Acquisition o' power from other'sourcae:

                              -     Alternative fuels,

• Alternative' sites,

                              -    -Once-through cooling with helper tower.. mechanical draft cooling towers,' cooling' ponds, spray ponds and dry cooling towers as heat dissipation methods, Alternative chemical treatment systems.

S. The following Federal, State and local agenc;f I - _' ' ,.,]' 4.f I , ' 4 .I

                                                  ^1   >

_. f . _

                                                                                                                                   -1 3 -m                                               ,

iv !?. , l

                                                                                 . -                                                                                    L L                                                           -In harmful. ef fects or: evidence of potentially irreversible damage                                      .i
                                                           .'are detected .the applicants will provide an analysis'of.the-problem..
                                                                                                            ~
  ,.       4 s,-                                        .and a proposed course'of' action to! alleviate the' problem. - If th'e 6                                          . ecology.of the river'significantly, changes at a future'date,'the'.

[ applicants 'will' provide .an analysis of expected impacts which will = result'from the change and a course of action'to.. minimize the impacts.: II t I f$

        ~. .
             ,4 I,

I e 9 6

                      .._1_l____n_________.._______._..._        _ _ _ _ . _ _ _              . _ _ _ _ _ . _

p

l I y.

      .                                                                                                                                                                      v
      ,n i           ,
                                                          .__                                                                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS j3 Page l;

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS . ................... i-LIST OF FIGURES . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . .-. .<. . . . . . . . xi-FOREWORD. .... ..... ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . xiv 1.- INTRODUCTION.' . . ..................... 1-l' i 1.1 STATUS'0F PROJECT. . . . . .'._.. . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS. . . . .. . . . . . 1-2

2. THE SITE. ... . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . .. 2 l 2.1' PLANT LOCATION . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ,.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . ,  2-1 2.2- PROMINENT NATURAL FEATURES .                                                                                                  . .. . . . . . . . . .              2-1 2.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE . .                                                                                                       . . . . . . . .         2-1 l                                              2.4 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES .                                                                                                      . .-. . . .. . .           2-5 l

2.5.. GEOLOGY. . ..................... 2-5 2.6 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER, AND WATER USE. . . . . . . 2-6 2.6.1 Surface Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.6.2 Groundwater . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 2.6.3 Water Quality Management. . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.6.4 Water Use . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.7 METEOROLOGY. ....;.-............... 2-12 2.8 ECOLOGY. . . .................... 2-13 2.8.1 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 e 2.8.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2.9 NATURAL RADIATION BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

3. THE PLANT . . . ..................... 3-1 9

u_____.__________ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ .l !

vi l l ~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) l l Page 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 3-1 3.2 REACTOR STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEMS'. .. .. . . . . . . 3-1 L 3.3 PLANT WATER USE. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . 3-1 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM. . . . . .. . ... . . . . 3-1 3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 3-7 3.5.1 Liquid Radwaste . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 3-7 3.5.2 Caseous Radwaste. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 3-16 3.5.3 Solid Radwaste. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3-21 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE EFFLUENTS . . . . .. .. .. . 3-21 3.'i .1 Reactor Coolant Chemicals . .. . . .. . . . 3-22 L.6.2 Secondary Coolant Wastes. ... . . . . . . . 3-22 3.6.3 Water Treatment Wastes. . ... .... . . . 3-24 3.6.4 Condenser Cooling System Output . .. . . . . . 3-25 3.7 SANITARY WASTES AND OTHER EFFLUENTS. . .. .. . . . 3-26 3.7.1 Sewage Treatment Wastes . .. . . .... . . 3-26 3.7.2 Effluents from Trash Racks. . . ... ... . 3-26 3.7.3 Storm Drainage. . . . . . .. ... . .. . . 3-27 3.7.4 Boiler and Diesel Engine Emissions. .. .. . 3-27 3.7.5 Condenser Tube Corrosion Producte . . . . . . 3-27 3.7.6 Laboratory and Other Wastes . . ..... . . 3-27 3.8 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29

4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION. ... .. .. ... 4-1

5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION. . .. . . . ... . . 5-1 5.1 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... 5-1 g

5.2 WATER USE. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . 5-1 5.3 IMPACTS ON THE ATMOSPRERE. . . . ... .. . .. . . 5-9 e - - _ - - _ _ - tl

T vii TABLE OF CONTENTS _(Continued)

~

r Page 5.3.1 Plume . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 5-9 5.3.2 Fogging . . . .-. . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... 5-10 5.3.3 Drift . . . ... . . ' . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 5-10 5.3.4 Synergistic. Effects ... . .'. .;. .. . . .. . 5-11

                                                                       -5.4           RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN .                         . . . ... , . . .. . .-                                                                       5                                                                                         5.4.1, Impact of Gaseous Releases. . . .                                                             . . . . . .                                  5-13.

5.4.2 Impact of Liquid Releases . . . . . . .. . . .5-16 5.4.3 Population Doses From A11~ Effluent Sources. . 5-18 5.4.4 Evaluation of Radiological Impact . . . . . . 5-22' 5.4.5 Dose Estimates Associated with the. Shipping-port Power. Station... . . - . . . . . .. . . . 5-22 5.5 TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24 5.5.1: Transport of New Fuci . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24 5.5.2 Transport of Irradiated Fuel. . . . : . . - . . . 5-24 5.5.3 Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes . . . .- 5-25 5.5.4 Principles of Safety-in Transport . . . . . . 5-25~ 5.5.5 Exposure During Normal (No accident) Conditions. ...... . . . . . .. . . . . 5-26. 5.6 NONRADIOLOGICAL-EFFECTS IN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. . . . 5-28 5.6.1 Terrestrial . . ........ . . . . . . . 5-28 5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.7 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON OTHER BIOTA.. . . . . . . . . 5-35 5.8 EFFECTS ON COMMUNITY . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . 5-37 l

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS. . . . 6-1 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1.l ' Radiological Surveillance Program . . . . . . 6-1

            .                                                                          6.1.2                Ecological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . .                                                 . .                                6-1 6.2 OPERATIONAL PROGRAM. . .                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                          b-3 6.2.1                Radiological Surveillance Program .                                                             . . . . .                    6-3 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ l

viii h TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                                                               .P_, age _

6.2.2 Ecological Monitoring . ........... 6-4 6.2.3 Thermal Effluent Monitoring . . ....... 6-5 6.2.4 . Chemical Release Monitoring ... . ...... .6-5

7. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS . . . . . . 7-1 l

7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS. . ... . . . . . . . ......... 7-1 7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS . ..... ........ 7- 7 7.2.1 'New Fuel. . . . . . . . . .......... 7-7 7.2.2 Irradiated Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 7.2.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes. . . . . . ..... 7-8 7.2.4. Severity of Postulated Transportation Accidents . . . . .............. 7-9 7.2.5 Alternatives to Normal Transportation Procedures. . . . ....... ....... 7-9

8. IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED PROJECT. .... ........ 8-1 8.1 THE REQUIREMENT FOR POWER. . ............ 8-1 8.1.1 Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.1.2 Reliability . . . . . . . .......... 8-4 8.1.3 Power Resources . .............. 8-4 8.2 ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED. .. ... 8-6 S.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.. . . . . . .............. 8 8.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

9. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. . . . ....... 9-1 9.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-1 o

9.1.1 Importing Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 9.1.2 Coal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 9.1.3 Environmental Impact. ....... ..... 9-3 9.1.4 011 . . . . . . . .............. 9-4 e _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ fl

2

1x.

iy y TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continucd)

                                                                                                                                                                      . Pa ge, .

9.L5 Other Alternatives. . . . ... . . . . . . .. . 9-5. l 9.1.6 Alternative Sites ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 9.2 ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS. . . . . , .. . , . . . . .9-7 9.2.1 Alternative Cooling !fethods , . ..

                                                                                                                                                  . . . . . .            9-7 9.2.2 . Alternative Chemical Syste.es.                . . . . . . . -           . 9-10

10. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 10-l' 10.1 ENERGY GENERATING COSTS . . . . , . . . . .- . . . . 10-1 10.2

SUMMARY

OF BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . 10-2 10.3 -

SUMMARY

OF COSTS AND F.NVIROMfENTAL EFFECTS. . . . . 10-2 10.4 COST-BENEFIT BAIRiCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4

12. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS iECEIVED ON THE DRAFT

                                                                             ' ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .                . . . .              .-  11-1 APPENDICES AFPENDIX A            Comments on the ut,:ft Environmental Statement                          .. A-1

1. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation . A-2

2. De.partment of Agriculture . . . . . . , . . A-4

3. Department of Consoerce . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 4, Department of Housing an,i Urban Development. A-8 5, Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . A- 10 6, Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . A-16 7,- Federal Pow r Commission . . . . c . . . . . A-18 B. PeanuyWania State Agencies . . . . . . . . A-23

9. Mr. Willian A. Buehring . . . . . . . . . . A-41

10. Duquesnc Light Company. . . . . . . . . . . . A-42

11. Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . A-54 e 12. Department of the Army . . . , . . . . . . . A-79 APPENDIX B Applicants' Letter on Augmented Monitoring Ptogr8m . . . . . . ............... B-1 APPENDIX C Applicants' Response to Agency Comments . . . . . C-1 l

e i..... .. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S

7_-_-- X t. LIST OF FIGURES _ l { Page 2.1 MAP SHOWING SITE AND 50-MILE RADIUS. . . . . . . . . . . .2-2 2.2'. BEAVER VALLEY SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 12.3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF CONSTRUCTION SITE AND ENVIRONS, AUGUST 1972. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.4 DROUGHT FREQUENCY, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION . . . . . 2-7 2.5 SAMPLING TRANSECTS, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. . . . . 2-16 3.1 ARTISTS CONCEPT OF BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION . . .. . . 3-2  ; 3.2 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 PLOT PLAN . . . . . . 3-3 3.3 WATER USE DIAGRAM. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.4 THE PLANT WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3.5- DISCHARGE STRUCTURE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. . . . . 3-8 3.6 LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3.7 BEAVER VALLEY GASEOUS RADUASTE SYSTEM UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2. 3-17 3.8 TRANSMISSION LINES . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 5.1 HORIZONTAL ISOTHERMS 5000 cfs NATURAL RIVER FLOW SHIPPINGPORT PLANT ONLY. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2' 5.2 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.3 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5.4 SURFACE TD(PERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 5.5 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 o 8.1 CAPCO SERVICE AREA . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ l.

                                                                                                                                                            ,l xi                                              j J
  .n
                                                                    . . ,                            LIST OF TABLES Page l.1          PERMIT STATUS' JANUARY 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1-3 2.1 MONTHLY RIVER TEMPERATURE AND FLOW DATA . . . . . . .- 2 -9 2.2 DAILY RIVER TEMPERATURE DATA 2.- . . . . . . . . . . .. ~2-9' 2.3' WATER QUALITY IN NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OHIO. RIVER, MILE POINT 40, JUNE 1968 TO JANUARY 1970. . . . 10 2.4 LAPSE RATE STABILITY DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . . .. . 2-13 2.5 CHLOROPHYLL ESTIMATE FROM THE BEAVER VALLEY ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS'. .. . .. . . . . . ' . . . . . . . 2-18 2.6 TAXA COLLECTED EY THE F.W.Q.A..DURING THE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

                                                             -2.7         TAXA AND NUMBERS OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED BY THE F.W.Q.A. IN THE 1969 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM.                    2-21 2.S         NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN GILL NETS IN THE OHIO RIVER
                                                                          !A' BEAVER VALLEY, OCTOBER 12-14, 1971. . . . . . . . .

2-22 2.9 SIZE OF SPECIES DOMINANT IN GILL NET COLLECTIONS FROM-OHIO RIVER STUDY AREA, OCTOBER 12-14, 1971 . . . . . . 2-24 2.10 PERCENTAGE OF CATCHES, NUMBERS OF SPECIMENS AND SPECIES, AND BIOMASS (1b) 0F FISH IN FISH POISON COLLECTIONS FROM OHIO RIVER-AT MONTGOMERY LOCK'AND DAM,' BEAVER CO., PA. .............. . . . . 2-25 2.11 TOTAL BIOMASS / ACRE AND BIOMASS OF PREDOMINANT FORMS, MONTGOMERY LOCK AND DAM, 1968-69 . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27 E l 3.1 LIST OF STAFF ASSUMPTIONS FOR BEAVER VALLEY I RADWASTE ANALYSIS . .... . ... . . . . . . . . .. 3-11 3.2 LIST OF STAFF ASSUMPTIONS FOR LIQUID WASTE TREATMENT . 3-12 3.3 LIQUID RADWASTE TANK CAPACITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.4 STAFF ESTIMATED ANNUAL RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE LIQUID EFFLUENT FROM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 e m____1____._-_..__.__1_ . _ _ . . ._ fl

xii LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page 3.5 STAFF ESTIMATED ANNUAL RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE GASEOUS EFFLUENT FROM UNIT 1. . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3.6 STAFF ESTIMATED ANNUAL RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE GASEOUS EFFLUENT FROM UNIT 2 . . . . . . . . .. 3-19 3.7 ESTIMATED RELEASE OF CHEMICALS TO THE OHIO RIVER . . . 3-23 3.8 EMISSIONS FROM BOILER AND DIESEL ENGINES . . . . . .. 3-28 5.1 AREAS INCLUDED WITHIN SPECIFIED ISOTHERMS. . . . . . . 5-8 5.2 ESTIMATED DOSES RECEIVED BY AN INDIVIDUAL FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED AT THE BEAVER VALLEY STATION UNIT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 5.3 FRESHWATER BI0 ACCUMULATION FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . 5-17 5.4 EXPOSURE RATES AT THE SECURITY FENCE FROM YARD TANKS IN mR/HR/ TANK . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19 5.5 CUMULATIVE POPULATION, ANNUAL MAN-REM DOSE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL DOSE IN SELECTED CIRCULAR AREAS AROUND BEAVER VALLEY, UNIT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21 5.6 ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION DOSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO BEAVER VALLEY, UNIT 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22 5.7 SHIPPINGPORT GASEOUS RELEASES 1972 . . . . . . . . . . 5-23 5.8 SHIPPINGPORT LIQUID RELEASES 1972. . . . . . . . . . . 5-23 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 7.1 CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES 7-2 o 7.2

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

                                                                                                                         . . . . .         8-3 8.1                              CAPCO POOL 1960-1970 ELECTRICAL STATISTICS .

8-5 l 8.2 PREDICTED CAPCO CAPABILITY AND SUMMER PEAK RESERVE . l l f e-- . _ _ _

xiii _- LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page 9.1 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2 9.2 TYPICAL EMISSIONS FROM AN 880 MWe COAL-FIRED FOSSIL PLANT MEETING EPA EMISSION STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . 9-3 9.3 TYPICAL EMISSIONS FROM AN 880 MWe OIL-FIRED FOSSIL PLANT MEETING EPA EMISSION. STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . 9-4 10.1 DISTRIBUTION OF POWER BENEFIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3 10.2 DIFFERENTIAL COST OF FOSSIL-FUELED PLANTS AND COOLING ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5 10.3 DIFFERENTIAL EF7IRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FOSSIL-FUELED PLANTS AND COOLING ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6 10.4 DIFFERENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF COOLING ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8 o 1 '

                                   .                                                                                I l

(

l xiv FOREWORD This Final Statement on environmental considerations associated with the proposed continuation of Construction Permit CPPR-75 and the issuance of an operating license for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-334, was prepared by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Direc-torate of Licensing (staf f) in accordance with the Commission's regula-tion, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, pro-grams and resources to the end that the Nation may:

          -   Fulfill the responsibilities of ' each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.

• Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
• Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesir-able and unintended consequences.

          -   Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environ-ment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
          =   Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.
           -  Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Further, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102 (2)(C) of the NEPA calls for preparation of a detailed statement on: (i) The environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) Alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environ-ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productiv2iya and 6

                                                                                                                                       ;xv
                           ~(v) Any Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Pursuant to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, the.AEC Directorate of Licensing prepares.a detailed statement on the foregoing considerations with respect to each application for a construction permit or full-power operating license for a nuclear power reactor. When application is made for a construction permit or a full power operating. license, the applicant submits an environmcatal report to the AEC. The. staff evaluates this report'and may seek further information from the applicas.5, as well as other sources, in making an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102 (2)(C) of NEPA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50. This evaluation leads-to the publica-tion of a draft environmental statement, prepared by the Directorate of Licensing, which is then circulated to Federal, State and local govern-menta1' agencies for comment. Interested persons are also invited to comment on the draft statement. After receipt and consideration of comments on the draft atatement, the staff prepares'a final environmental statement, which includes a discus-sion of problems and objections raised by the comments end the disposi-tion thereof; a final cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as environmental economic, technical and other benefits of the facility; and a conclusion as to whether, after weighing the. environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental: costs and considering available alternatives the action called for is the issuance or denial of the proposed permit or license or its appropriate condition-ing to protect environmental values. In addition, in a proceeding such as this which is subject to Section B of Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, the final detailed statement includes a conclusion as to whether, after weighing the environmental economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, the action called for as regards the previously L issued construction permit is the continuation, modification or termination of the permit or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values. 1

       ,               Single copies of this statement may be obtained by writing the Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.                                                                                     20545.

l- Dr. J. D. Jenkins is the AEC Environmental Project Manager for this l statement (301/973-7263). e {_-___-___-_--____-__- __

1-1 1 I _-- 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 STATUS OF PROJECT By an application dated January 13, 1969 and subsequent amendments, the Duquesne Light Company, the Pennsylvania Power Company and the Ohio Edi- , son Company (jointly referred to hereaf ter as the applicants) filed an I application for a construction permit for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit No. 1 to be constructed on a site adjacent to the Shippingport reac-tor on the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. These three compa-nies will own the plant as tenants in common and will share in the expenditures for the construction and operation of the plant and in the energy produced. The Duquesne Light Company is responsible for the design and construction of the proposed facility.1 A Preliminary Safety Analysis Report was submitted aa nsrt of the appli-cation and a notice of the application was published in the Federal Reg-ister on February 2,1969. Copies of the submission were made available to the following agencies and/or Ccmmission consultants: U. S. Public Health Service Air Resources Environmental Laboratory Environmental Science Services Administration U. S. Dept. of Interior - Geological Survey Fish and Wildlife Service Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Coast and Geodetic Survey and to Mr. J. A. Coombs, Mayor of Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Comments were received from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Geological Survey and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of the C ;artment of Interior and from the Air Resources Environmental Laboratory.1 Notice of a public hearing on consideration of a construction permit for the Beaver Valley Power Station was published in the Federal Register on May 1,1970 and the hearing was held in Beaver, Pennsylvania, May 25, 1970. On June 26, 1970, a construction permit was issued by the Commiesion authorizing construction of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. A Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), pertaining to operation of the Beaver Valley plant, was submitted March 28, 1972 and in revised form Septem-ber 13, 1972. A notice of the application for an operating license was published in the Federal Register November 10, 1972. o An environmental report was submitted September 24, 1971 and amended Jan-uary 5,1972, September 13, 1972, November 6,1972 and December 13, 1972. Copies of the environmental report were sent to: 9

1-1 l

                                                          ~

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                                                   ' Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Departmcut of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency
                                           .'        Federal Power Commission Office of Radiological Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and to Mr. J. A. Coombs, Mayor of Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

Copies of the FSAR, the AEC's Safety Evaluation. the environmental report and subsequent documents related to the Beaver Valley Power Sta-tion Unit 1, are available for public inspection in the AEC's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. and in the Beaver Memorial Library,10G follege Avenue, Beaver, Pennsylvania,15009. This statement is based on information contained in the above writings and also takes into account discussions held with representatives of the Duquesne Light Company and with local of ficials. Further, independent calculations and other sources of information were utilized as a basis-for the Commission's ' assessment of environmental impacts associated with the Beaver Valley plant. In addition, comments received from local, State and Federal agencies on the Draf t Environmental Statement have been taken into account in the preparation of this Final Environmental Statement. 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS In addition to applying to the Atomic Energy Commission for the requisite licenses under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the applicant has applied for other Federal, State and local permits and approvals. The current status of permits and approvals is summarized in Table 1.1.

                                  .o e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ l

l!II  ;!iI  !' 7 1 7

                                              -                    .t    -

5 ci-

                                              -                      ed ;

4 l d r f ae n C e w ) o E rro t A otd gi s C E y t of gt e nm i r k A b snt ge r d eii dP a o w e gl m e m - t e d nob - r0 - e i naou d1 R d v eh cs e R e mc f t sn d r 'a noe y eo di a r eg ut w e bi n l c r d sot ce o n oeio nS F U Tdt n I( 21 77 04 12 09 s 1 0 u 0 1 d 0 1 1 71 0 t 7 7 d e 7 7 07 7 7 a - - et - - 7 - 2 - - t 6 2 t t 6 5 - 2 25 7 S 2 2 ei 2 2 8 - - - 1 3 - - k m - - 8 08 - 7 6_ 3 cb 5 2 9 1 9 9 ou d d 1 d d DS d d d e de d e e e e ed ed e Y u u R . u u un un u R s s s s se se s A s s A S R. s s sm sm s U I I FE I ~ I I A IA I 1 N A 1 J E S t L U n B T e f t A A m ) on T T nme t . S r f a R. oh o T I y p eal E. i c sa s M c p R n DtnD. i o vr r E e g aeP ic o P i m( D n C A nn ,E aos ys vre li c

                                                                 .                .     .d n

mr re yvr R. R. R. a Ae R. snu n C nEo n C E. E. E. s .i E. s m S. ng s, E ef e E D. D. D. a A PoR A P P PD UE P e g n r n o a g e o t i h d i i t a e c s ns ae r a t a m r c s i t h c e i n D t s c i t P f e na s f

• i m n i

t i c r e eW m i D i t r o r L t t e r e i e a av d s e P t c C g n W ei rt ne ar C u e i g Tc u e t t n a et t C- a a i ro kc a s t r l ei au t n S e o td t r S o p o aa nt C O C WR IS IllIlll ll! _

g n s i g k _ r d a e

   -                        m           - -      -    -          -      r         -     -

e d - R s e d u l c n I s  : u 92 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 t 67 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 a - - - - - - - - - t 56 3 7 2 6 5 3 2 S 2 - 2 - 1 2 1 2 2 1 - 2 d - - - - - 61 9 1 e 1 '4 4 8 9

                    )                '

t d dd d d t d d d d d e ee e e i e e e e e u uu u u m u u u u u n ss s s b s s s s s i ss s s u s s s s s t I I I I S I I I I I n . o C ( - t t t f n f n n 1 oe oe e

                      .                                             m                       m    m 1                                            nh                     nh       t oc    f                oc       r E                                           i a     o             i a        an L

y so so po B i r s i r ei A c vc p vc Dt T n i n r i n g e DE o- DE at C s i r A - d ye r d no n n ap

                                .                  .    .         .a    me rn
                                                                                    .     ..a    vs l n R.               R. R.         R. s   Ai g      R. R. - s     ya s

E. E. E. E. an .n E. E. a n nT D. D. D. D. D S. E D. D. D n-r ef P P P e P U' P P P o n l s

                                        . o               ir ti                 oo                      n st                 B t                     o na                     a                  i ot        -         gr                     t     n cs        s    e    ne                     a     o i     v   i n                     c   i rr       D    i    t e                    i    t o,                          oo             t    aG                    f      a e     ff          e    c    e                     i      c t  g              s  v    a   Hl                      t     o i  a       yt     e i     o       e                   r   l m w       rn     t t ei        .s                    e     e r et      ae     s  cgd       xe    p C    R e S n     rn     a  ara       ui P      e   oa     W  oar      AD    i                 e     n ym      pm       ih -            l                 t     u rt aa mr ee s

u dcn a o S a t R t e TP t R N e g S s g i r u g nT s r a a a e S G B P

         .f!fp!

l l

           's k

r a m - - - - - e R _ ~ d e t t i m b u s s 9 u - 0 6 t n 0 7 - 2 a o 7 - 0 7 t N d - 4 1 - S e 9 2 - 1 t - - 1 - d r 6 6 1 2

     )           e     a d          r      t  d          d        d          d e         a      s    e         e        e             e u         p           u         u        u             u n         e      t    s         s        s            s i          r      o    s         s        s             s t         P      N   I          I        I          I n

o C ( h 1 c - a - - - 1 no t t g E f or rr n o i c ao i L - sn pp p B y s iE es p A c n p v D n i T. r id a h g e o D n ar S C s a iT _ A r - n f ye me r n

                        .    .sam    l af vo n

o hgt Ai g R. R. D nt yt o sni ur

                  .n  E. E. f     e  net      oo S. E   D. D.

on nma e rp A o A U P P P B F

             ,         n o   n i    u t   R          e a              c c   s          n s ,   i    g         a et    f    g         r                    n gi    i    e         t                    ot t       rm    t   P           n                  ii o    i       ar)    r             E        t          t m m      h e3    e   r                  i           ar r       cP1   C    e         d         m         ie e       s          v         a         r          vP P      ien    e    o         o         e         A y Dso    t              R        P ui a   t                              l c df t   t    r         s         g          an iec    S    e         s         n         re uR e       v         e        i          eg q( S      l          c         n         dA i           u         c         o         e L          C          A        Z          F

1-6 \ i _ j REFERENCES 1

1. USAEC, Division of Reactor Licensing, Safety Evaluation, In the Matter of Duquesne Light Company.., Pennsylvania Power Company and Chio Edison Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Docket No. 50-334, April 24, 1970.

l 0 I

                                                                                                         . j i

l i__ ___ ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

t. 2-1

                                                       #~

2. THE SITE

                                         '2.1'   PLANT LOCATION The site of.the~ Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 comprises about 449 acres on the south bank of. the Ohio River, adjacent to the Shipping-port Power Station in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, approximately 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. The site, and its relation to the surrounding area,.is shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. The construction site and_ environs, as they' appeared'in August 1972,'are shown in an aerial photograph pre-sented in Fignre 2.3.

2.2 PRM 1NENT NATURAL FEATURES The site is located within the Allegheny Mountains section of the Appala-chian Plateau physiographic province which is characterized by relatively flat upland plateaus with deeply dissected river valleys (Ref.1, p. 2.3-2). Locally, the landscape is dominated by relatively.high, rolling wooded hills. The valley of the Ohio River, which passes through these hills, is the r st promir.ent natural feature ~ in the vicinity of the power station. 2.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE There were 18',100Lpeople living within 5 miles of.the plant site in 1970, and the population within this distance is expected to grow to 19,300 by 1990. The 1960 population was 3,831,000 within"50 miles of the plant site; in 1970 it_was 3,804,000; however, by 1990 it is expected to grow to 4,267,000 (Ref 2, p. 2.2-12). The greatest portion of the population is found in the greater Pittsburgh area, centered 20 miles southeast of the plant. Other notable population centers and their 1970 populations include: East Liverpool, Ohio (20,020), 5 miles west of the plant; Aliquippa, Pennsylvania (22,277), 8 miles east; Ambridge, Pennsylvania (11,324),10 miles east; Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania (14,375) Weirton, West Virginia (27,131), 15_miles 10 miles south; northeast; Steubenville, Ohio (30,771), 19 miles south; and New Castle, Pennsylvania (38,559),- 25 miles north (Ref 2, p. 2.2-11) . River valleys near the plant constitute one of the most industrialized areas of the nation. .The steel' industry and supporting industry are well

     ,                                   developed in these areas because of readily available raw materials and also transportation and cooling water. In addition to the Midland steel mills across the river from the site, there are steel mills in Aliquippa, 8 miles to the east; East Liverpool, 5 miles to the west; and Ambridge, 10 miles to the east. There is a zine saciter on the river 6 miles east of the site. Suitable sites for heavy industry are at a premium in the area due to prior commitment and to the physical limitations of the l,                                        valley itself.

l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0

L l 2 .2 1 _. l

                                                                ..                                                                                                                1 3

l 34t?ltANGO RiyER (pu4 6 RestRvoiR

                                                                                                        ~~                       '

g*[v

                                                                                                                                               \                                  l Igo l                          #                                                                                             !
                                                 -    U-                                            I}h 'd~qf%.s/%                              .h
                                                                 %                 INARREN         f V*                                -

j to SH uok

                                                  ~

pN / y p~~ s yps NC cAs7L1 MpuANCE ov h  % \ E. uvtm.oot

                                                                                                  -f          gh
                                                                                                                                                         /'
                                                                          --                       kg#.AND r               . ._R              (i9 BEAVE1 VALLEY f                                          NEW K1NSINGTON POWEP, STA110N Ng Si S HS8PINGPORT                q f            i f W1Li(INSBURG l  SfE          QLLE                l                                              -N-MC KEE      R,                  e o/                                 J)"                                                  l'
                                                                                         /        .
                                                                                                                               %lQs @
                                                                                                     .AE..,      N
                                                                                                                       ~.

cm v wNetuNo I N g

                                                                    ~

4 o+ 8

                                                                                                                -        q i                                                                      ,

O 20 40 MILES o FIGURE 2.1 MAP SHOWING SITE AND 50-MILE RADIUS e

           .~
         =;
     . L.

u. -

I S

                    ?                                                                                               E L
                .fg; I

M i y: y 1 .

                                                                                                -   Ji              N I

E L A C

                                      -                                                                             S
                                        ?

jj z C s ': ,

                                                                                 *I M         N--

0 g7 ON - T O . NF AI IO$ T , i AA1 T% T R A T . VT OS P R S TI G ER ERN N VEU I W A W' PO E PP B O P I H S N g

                                                                   ~

7

                                                                                    .g.
                                                                                             -                ~
                                                                                % ~-

N -

                                                                                                        'y-N/f b
                                                                                               /.

D N F t! h j A L D . I M h U N Y' > 4 d . 4- ,

2-4 g '. '

                         .,          c.                                                                                                                   s                   n I              .             .

(

                                            ,                                                            ".                                                                   En 1/                                                                                                             $     j
        .-                       t
                                                                                             )Y                                                                              a fj .                e             -                          3                                                             y                     g

{ l J 1 m g )

                                              ~
                                                    ;                    ./,   .

[ .. l

                                                                                                                                          ;%.                                =

s v .

                                                              .k.                  );a .

f~ s ,, . , ' g f g 1 -

• ji ,

                                                                                                                                     ;.s;_;,.                                ~
   ,           ,,                                                                                                        ' 'J 6                      ,

k i n ' . r 1

                                     .                                                       y e

o .s . , c l' Ic ..ms 1 - I

J. 2-5 The countryside.away from the river valley in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station can be considered rural. Of the total land area of Beaver County (282,000 acres) 48% is forest and 29% -is crop or pasture-- land. Beaver County is considered a semiagricultural area since' farming is ' not of great economic importance. Less than 1% of the labor force-is employed on. farms and the wages received are about 0.08% ci the total personal income in the county. On an economic basis, dairy products ranked first while livestock and poultry products ranked second in value

                                                                                                            ~

(Ref 1, p. 2.1-8). In spite of the fact that the general area is highly. industrialized, approximately 40% of the land area within 50 miles of the plant is classified as farms. Roughly one half of this area is actively used for croplaud_or pasture and the remainder is idle cropland or woodland. A. substantial fraction of'the area remote from communities surrounding the greater Pittsburgh area is relatively undisturbed woodlands. 2.4 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES The National Registry of Historic Places lists an historic marker noting the beginning of U.S. Public Land Surveys about 5 miles west of the Beaver Valley site at East Liver The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concluded (pool, Ohio.a) "that the probable effect of the plant upon National Register properties could not be judged sufficiently adverse enough to warrant Council comment." The Anthropology Center of the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh lists several

archeological sites in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station.

One Indian village site is near the abandoned Shippingport ferry docks. on the south bank of the Ohio River about 0.5 mile upriver from the station. It may also be noted that almost every major floodplain area along this stretch of the Ohio River was the site of a prehistoric Indian village at one time or another for many thousands of years. In the staff's judgement no archeological sites of sigtificar.ce will be affected by operation of the plant. 2.5 GEOLOGY The Beaver Valley Power Station is founded upon a gravel terrace having a maximum thickness of about 100 f t. These gravel materials, which are relatively dense and' incompressible soils, rest directly upon Pennsyl-vanian age shales which form the bedrock of the area. The bedrock is horizontally bedded and essentially undeformed and has dips of only 15 to O 20 ft/ mile. There_has been no coal, oil, gas or salt mining from beneath (a) letter dated April 14, 1969 9 -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. fl

2-6 the area, n6 is any anticipated since existing deposits of these mate-rials are not commercially recoverable (Ref 1, p. 2.4-1). There are no known faults under or near the site. The nearest known fault lies approximately 60 miles southeast from the site. Historically, no earth-quake of intensity V or greater on the modified Mercalli scale, has occurred within 80 miles of the site. Only one earthquake, having an epicenter within 60 miles of the site, has been reported. This event took place at Sharon, Pennsylvania, ab 'ut 40 miles north of the site August 17, 1873. It was estimated to have had an intensity of III-IV (Ref 1, pp. 2.4-2, 2.5-1). 2.6 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER, AND WATER USE 2.6.1 Surface Waters The Beaver Valley Power Station is located on the Ohio River which is formed by the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and extends for 981 miles to Cairo, Illinois, where it joins the Mississippi River. The plant is located at river mile 34.8 and is 3.1 miles downstream from the Montgomery Lock and Dam, and 19.6 miles upstream from the New Cumberland Lock and Dam. The Beaver River joins the Ohio at mile 25.2 just upstream from the Mont-gomery Lock and Dam. River flow at the Beaver Valley Power Station is regulated by a series of dams and reservoirs on the Beaver, Alleghany and Monongahela Rivers, and their tributaries. A study by the Pittsburgh District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 indicated a seven day low flow with u frequency of once in ten years of approximately 5000 cfs (Ref. 1, p. 2.3-1). In addition a drought frequency curve (Figure 2.4) was developed showing the percent of time a given river discharge would be equaled or exceeded. Average flow of the Ohio River by month at the Beaver Valley site is pre-sented in Table 2.1. Variations in river w'ater temperatures and river temperature exceedence percentages, representative of the station area, are presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 (Ref 2, p. 2.5-7), respectively. These values are based ou 10 years of :ombined daily records of the Ambridge and South Heights U.S. Geologic Survey Gauging Stations. These stations were selected on the basis of adequate temperature records and proximity to the plant. o Water quality in th New Cumberland Pool is dominated by the acid mine drainage discharges contributed by both the Allegheny and Monongahela Basins. There are additional industrial wastes from the Pittsburgh region and below to the plant site. Although there are large numbers of discharges into the Ohio River, various groups have pressed for and e

1 w N4 l I 9 9 9 5 9

                                               '9                  w
                                    %          9 9         N O
                                   %           8 I

T a 9 A . T

                                  %            5 9

S R , S E S W 0 L E O _ 9 P R O Y E 0 L L 8 A L U A m Q E V 0

                                               / S      R
                             %                       R  E 0 A      V 6 E      A             _

0 Y E 5 0 B 0

                           %                   0     1    ,

4 Y R C 0 P [ N 3 E U m 0 C S E Q E 2 N R E F R N 0 U 1 R C C T H G g 5 G U O R

                     -                                 D
                  %                            2 4

1 N 5 0 2 E R U G I 1 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 6 4 2 2 1 1

             @S"    "m" 3 w'      Go 7- Ee

~ ,

 !                                                               L_

8 obtained ghadual improvements in water quality, especially in the last 20 years -(Ref 2, p. 2.5-5) . Further improvements are also expected in the future. A '11st of water quality parameters in the New Cumberland Pool,.during a recent 18 month period as measured by Federal Water. Quality Administration. (now the Water Quality Office of 'the Environmental - Protection Agency), is presented in Table 2.3. The following river stage information prepared _by the Corps of Engineers 3 was used to provide a basis for assessment of the effects of-high water on the reactor containment structures. River level at' site (ft MSL) Downstream dam failure (minimum water level,.4000 cfs flow) 648.6 Normal pool 664.5 Ordinary high water 678.5 Maximum high water 693 Standard project flood (SPF)(a) 705.0 SPF with upstream dam failure 725.2 Probable maximum flood 730.0 (a) Reduced from 707.2 ft in January 1970 The reactor containment vessel is located on a terrace at about 735 ft MSL, a height that flood waters would not be expected to reach (Ref 1,

p. 2.51).

2.6.2 Groundwater There are no known aquifers of significance in the bedrock underlying the site. Normal well yield in these rocks is potentially less than 10 gpm with an occasional well yielding up to 60 gpm. Piezometric levels in bedrock wells south of the river valley are well above the river level, o Groundwater occurs in large volumes in the gravel terraces which lie along the river. Well yields commonly range from 500 to 1000 gpm. Groundwater from these terraces is drawn heavily for industrial and municipal use along the river. These terraces occur intermittently a10ng both banks as arcuate structures of variable length and width, i m ___________ ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

2-9

                              .-                          TABLE 2.1 MONTHLY RIVER TEMPERATURE AND FLOW DATA (8)

Water Temperature (*F) Average Flow in Month. Average Maximum Minimum Thousands of cfs January 37.7 42 34 52.8(b) February 37.8 42 34 55.0 March 42.2 47 37 76.7 April 50.6 56 44 63.9 May 63.9 72 59 44.0 June 73.2 79 67 23.1 July 79.2 83 76 14.9 August 79.2 82 75 12.1 September 75.4 78 72 10.9 October 64.3 69 56 15.5 November 52.2 60 47 28.2 December 40.5 I:6 34 43.3 TABLE 2.2 DAILY RIVER TEMPERATURE DATA

                                                                           % of Time Water (*F)                         Temperature was Equaled Temperature                              or Exceeded 86                                         0 84                                         2 82                                         5 80                                       10 70                                        33 60                                       49 50                                       63 40                                       82 32                                      100 l 0                (a) Based on 10 years of record: January 1, 1946 to October 1, 1946 October 1, 1947 to July 1, 1953 l                                                            October 1, 1956 to January 1, 1958 October 1, 1963 to January 1, 1966 i

(b) Ltr. W. A. Conwell, Duquesne Light to A. Giambusso USAEC May 1,1973 cite data based on calculations using normal run off for New Cumberland Pool. I l l - -- - _-_-- -

%s <

      .                                                                                                     '2-10 t

TABLE'2.3 s WATER QUALITY-IN NEW CUMBERLAND POOL OF THE OH RIVER ,' MILE POINT 40, JUNE 1968 TO JANUARY 1970 Parameter (b). Mean Maximum Minimum Discharge-(cfs) 16,100.00 33,000.00 .7,500.00

    .                                                               Turbidity (JTU)               . .

9.27 45.00 2.00 Color (Platinum. Cobalt Units) -6.63 15.00 5.00 Conductivity 25 C (Micrombos) 420.00. '680.00 255.00 Dissolved.0xygen 6.28- 13.10 0.00 BOD - 5 Day 2.01 3.50 0.50 pH (Standard Units) 6.76 7.30 6.40. Total Alkalinity (Ca003) 21. 80 28.00 12.00 Total Acidity (CACO 3) 5.0 25.0 0'00-Residue'- Total 308.00 538.00 164.00 Residue 1 Total Fixed 32.00 93.00 14.00

                                                                   ~ Oil-Grease-Total                             1.50          2.00            0.00-Organic Nitrogen (N)                          0.33          0.94            0.00 Ammonia NH3 (N)                               0.98          1.60            0.40.

Nitrate N04 (N) 1.43- 12.80 0.10-Phosphate Total (P) Wet 0.13 0.33: 0.00 Total Organic Carbon (C) 3.07 5.80 0.90 Cyanide (CN)- 0.02 0.08 0.00

                                                                   . Total Hardness                             123.00        212.00           25.00 Calcium (Ca) Diss.                           39.70         76.00-          24.00 Magnesium (Mg) Diss.                          9.33        -15.00            6.00 Chloride (C1)                                30.90        146.00-          12.00 Sulfate (SO4)                               125.00        265.00           52.00

_ Fluoride (F) Diss . 0.51 0.90 0.30 Arsenic (As) Diss. 0.05 0.38 0.00 Chromium (Cr) Hex-Val 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iron (Fe) - Total 14.20 58.00 0.04 Iron (Fe) Diss. 3.00 5.00 1.00 Manganese (Mn) 5.24 7.50 0.00 Phosphate Total 0.05 0.38 0.00 Aluminum ( A1) Diss. 6.36 16.00 0.15 Phenol 0.01 0.06 0.00 Co11 form (Number /100 ml) 11,300.00 40,000.00 600.00 Fecal Coliform (Number /100 ml) 435.00 2,800.00 30'.00

      .o;                                                           Streptococcus (Number /100 ml)              164.00     1,300.00             1.00 (a) Ref 2, p. 2.5-6 (b) All readings are reported as mg/ liter unless specified.

e

2-11 The site is. located near the downstream end of an isolated terrace remnant which interconnects only at depths under the river, if at all, with other terraces at the communities of Industry, upstream, and Mid-land and Georgetown, downstream (Ref 2, Amendment 4, Figure A, 5-1) . Recharge to the gravels of the terrace is primarily by inflow from the river and the groundwater gradient is slight, but in a downstream direc-tion (see also Regional Groundwater Map Ref 2, Amendment 4, Fig-ure 2.3-3). There is no Municipal use of the groundwater in the terrace on which the Beaver Valley Station is located. All but three of approximately 48 domestic wells located upstream of the station are isolated from the groundwater under the station by a bedrock nose. The three remaining wells are on the site and are for temporary supply of water during con-struction only. The nearest domestic well, 2300 ft upstream of the plant, had a groundwater level in the well 15 f t above the groundwater level in the station area at the time of observation. Bedrock wells in the upland area have a low yield and terminate at ele-vations above the site elevation. At the station, the groundwater velocity toward the river is 0.3 to 1.5 ft/ day (Ref 1, p. 2.3-4). 2.6.3 Water Quality Management The Ohio River is presently being managed to the following water quality criteria established by the State of Pennsylvania and approved by EPA: Dissolved Oxygen - Daily average higher than 5.0 mg/l and not less than 4.0 mg/l at any place outside approved mixing zones pH - No values below 6.0 nor above 8.5, except as values in excess of 8.5 related to photosynthetic activity occur Temperature - Not to exceed the following monthly limits: (*F) January 50 May 80 September 87 February 50 June 87 October 78 March 60 July 89 November 70 April 70 August 89 December 57 1 Conductivity - For public water supply source; Not to exceed 800 mic-romhos/cm (25'C) as a monthly average value, nor to exceed 1200 at any time. This is equivalent to TDS values of 500 and 750 mg/ liter respectively. o 2.6.4 Water Use In the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station, the Ohio River is used for transportation of bulk cargos, as a water supply for e oling 6 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ 0

1 l 2-12 and chemical processes for the heavy industry that line its banks, for domestic purposes by nearby municipalities and for recreation. The Mid-land Borough Municipal Water Authority obtains water withdrawn near the opposite shore about 1.3 miles downstream fruc the plant- #or domestic purposes. The recreational use of the Ohio River in the New Cumberland Pool includes boating and sport fishing. There appears to be no commercial fishing or water withdrawals for irrigation purposes in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley site. 2.7 METEOROLOGY The climate in the area of the Beaver Valley Power Station day be classed as humid continental (Ref 4, p. 2.6-1) . Because of the influence of the Bermuda high pressure system, summers tend to be warm and humid. Winters are characterized by cloudiness and precipitation which is typical of localities near the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence storm track. Only 2 years of climatological data have been obtained from onsite mea-surements. In order to develop climatological means and extremes over a longer period of time, data obtained at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport was taken as representative. The staff concludes that these values are only useful as a regional guide because of local terrain effects near the site. The monthly mean temperature was 50.3*F. The liighest tempera-ture recorded was 102*F in July 1936 and the lowest recorded temperature was -18'F in January 1936. On the average, the maximum temperature is above 90*F for 8 days /yr and the minimum temperature is below 32'F for 126 days /yr. Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year. During the winter months about one fourth of the precipitation occurs as snow and there is about a 50% chance of measurable precipitation on any day." A yearly mean total of 36 in, of precipitation can be expected along with a mean snow fall of 47 in. The mean yearly relative humidity values are 76, 79, 57 and 62% at 1:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m., respectively. Heavy fog will occur at a mean value of 18 days /yr persisting more during the colder months. Severe weather, in general, occurs infrequently at the Beaver Valley site. Thirty-five thunderstorms can be expected at the site each year with ' 2 majority of these occurring in June, July and August. Thunderstorms in this area are noted for high winds, heavy a rainf all, and in some cases hail (Ref 2, p. 2.6-3) . From 1917 to 1970, 5 tornadoes have been reported in the county in which the plant is located. The probability of a tornado occurring at a point within a one degree square (approximately 3600 square miles) in which the site is located is 6.6 x 10- per year.5 e _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ll )

2-13 The diffusion efimatology of the cite has been defined by an onsite meteorological program conducted from September 1969 te September 1971. Winds were found to be predominantly from the NW and S. By seasons, the predominant wind directions are: spring - NW; summer - SSW to SW; autumn - WNW to NW; winter - NW. Wind speeds are highest in the winter (7.2 mph) end lowest in the summer (4.2 mph) with a mean yearly value of 5.6 mph. Calms occur about 2.5% of the time annually. Data for the greater Pittsburgh Airport give a yearly maan wind speed of 9.4 mph from the WSW. The fastest recorded wind speed was 58 mph from the W. The stability distribution based on temperature gradients and winds at 150 f t for the period 9/5/70 through 9/5/71 are presented in Table 2. 4. TABLE 2.4 LAPSE RATE STABILITY DISTRIBUTION (% Occurrence) Stability Class A B C D E F G 0.39 0.39 3.84 16.41 57.62 10.07 10.83 Tables of the joint distributions of wind direction versus wind speed for all Pasquill stability classes, bastd on temperature lapse rate and for individual stability class are given in Ref 1, Appendix A. 2.8 ECOLOGY 2.8.1 Terrestrial Ecology The site of the Beaver Valley Power Station is typical of southwestern PennsglvaniaandisclassifiedasamixedMesophyticForestregionby Braun with predominance of beech, sugar maple, hemlock, oak and hickory. Adjoining the river, ancient flood plains have historically provided fine clay and/or silt ledges on which sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia) were dominant and grew tosether with a wide variety of other deciduous species including several nickory and oak species, as well as elm and a number of other hardwood forest species.7 This type of environment would be typical of the eastern end of the applicant's prop-erty; however previous developments have largely destroyed the native forest in this more level area. One small section of this remnant flood-plain forest persists northwest of the Beaver Valley facilities and pro-vides some screening of the low-level buildings from the downstream river side, e

g 2-14 The major land area, about 80% of the site, is west of the reactor and consists of a high hill rising approximately 500 ft above the river and < is cut on its southeast side by Peggs Run. The major portion of this hill is occupied by trees of the white oak (Quercus alba) association.7 included are dogwood (Cornus spp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), as well as several other oak species, hickory, and i lesser trees. The presence of pine, hemlock, apple and black locust on I the site indicates both interaction with nearby dominant forest associa-tions and introduction of species by man (Ref 2, p. 2.7-1). The hill area appears to have typical understory shrubs and herbs though no sur-vey of these species is available at this time nor is there information relative to nonseed forming plants (Thallophyte or Bryophytes) on the site. A north-south transmission line right-of-way passes through this area and the taller trees have been cleared to prevent interference with the lines. Peggs Run flows close to much of the southeast boundary of the site. This stream is classified by its acidity as carrying acid mine drainage waters. The routh of this stream had been disturbed by installation of pipelines, railroad, highway, etc. , prior to start of the present construction. The hardwood forest of the hill, stream and river bank provides excellent nesting for birds as well as cover for mammals and lower vertebrates. The applicant lists 10 mammalian and 15 bird species (Ref 2, p. 2.7-3) that were observed on the site during visits for purposes other than animal census. In addition to these, shrew (Sorex sp.), muskrat (Ondotra zibethica), beaver (Castor sp.), and other rodents are probably present" but less obvious. Only a year-round check of the site could provide an adequate description of the birds and animals using or living in it. Only one " rare or endangered" species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), has been known to inhabit the general area. Approximately 10% of the county's residents have obtained hunting licenses which indicates .significant interest in the sport. Squirrels, rabbits and pheasants are the principal game animals hunted.9 White-tailed deer are hunted to a lesser extent. The site is posted to prohibit hunting within its boundaries. There are four State or county parks within 10 miles of the site with three additional game lands. In addition, the Wildflower Nature Conser-vancy Reserve is located about 9 miles southeast and three potential park g sites have been identified. As a consequence, there are over 13,000 acres of controlled land now in existence and over 17,000 acres in the planning stages. The approximately 300 acres within the Beaver Valley site, which remain remote from operations and essentially unused, will add to the area of sanctuary available for native birds and animals. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ Il _

                                                                                               '2-15 2.8.2    Aquatic Ecology The Ohio River has been subjected to various insults for a number of years. These range from acid mine water drainage to domestic sewage and industrial wastes from sceel mills. The magnitude of this pollution has limited the fishery resource to the point that there is no longer a commercial fishery in this portion of the river. Recreational fishing yields a catch of about 1000 pounds annually with the majority of the catch being. carp, bullhead, and catfish.          Some bass, walleye and sunfish are taken, but their number is limited by the pollution. The improvement of water quality in recent years has resulted in an improvement in the fishery resource (Ref 2, pp. 2.2-13, 2.7-4, 2.7-24, 2.7-26).

2.8.2.1 Bacteria As a part of the preoperational survey being conducted by the applicants, bacteria were sampled beginning in October 1970 using standard plate counts (Ref 2, p. 2.7-5). In summary, the data showed a decline in popu-lation of bacteria during the period sampled with the maxima always occurring at Station 3 (see Figure 2.5) which is downstream from the con-struction site. The declining numbers of bacteria could indicate an improvement in the water quality for this stretch of the river.  ! 2.8.2.2 Phytoplankton Serious ' phytoplankton studies of the Ohio River date from the early part of this century (see Taxonomic List Ref 2, Table 2.7-7, p. 2.7-13) . In the 1960's, the University of Pittsburgh began a series of comprehensive studies on the river.10 These investigations reveal a picture of a river dominated by diatoms from January to May. During the rest of the year, the phytoplankton community is dominated by the green algae. The most abundant diatom genera were Synedra, Navicula, Asterionella, Cyclatella, Stephanodiscus, Fragilaria, Meridion, and Melosira. The most common green algae genera were Chlamydomonas, Ankistrodesmus, Scenedesmus, Pediastrum, Micractinium, Crucigenia and Dictyosphaerium. The euglenoids, chiefly Trachelomonas, made up from 1 to 3% of the spring and fall commu-nity, but were relatively scarce during the summer months. The blue-green algae, Cyanophyta, were represented in February _by Oscillatoria and in _ September by Merismopedia. Microcystis was present in July and August, but never made up a significant portion of the total community. Several dinoflagellate genera represented the division Pyrrhophyta were present in the collections, but again, these never represented a significant por-tion of the community. The distinct seasonal changes in the taxonomic composition of the phytoplankton community revealed by this study were attributed mainly to low-flow conditions. O mi __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. O

                                                                                                                                                                 '2-16
                                                                                                                 ' PENNSYLVANIA MONTGOMERY DA OHIO MIDLAND                  M 3            1 SHIPPINGPORT
                                                                                                                                          ,                            O       -

BRIDGE BEAVER VALLEY 2 POWER STATION' yg 7g SHIPPINGPORT l 00WER STATION

                                                                                                          @ LOCATION br St.MPLING STATIONS 0                                 1               2       3  4       5 i                                  i               i      i   i       i SCALE-MILES o                                                  FIGURE 2. 5 SAMPLING TRANSECTS, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION e

&___._______._.____ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ l.

2-17 The applicants' preoperational survey data (Ref 2, p. 2.2-7) generally agree with the University of Pittsburgh studies. The applicants report that in general, there appear to be a few significant differences among the algal communities of the various transects in the area of the plant, during each season. The one exception may be a somewhat higher abun-dance of coccoid blue-green algae in Transects 2 to 5 over Transect 1 in the later summer. During the month of May, there also appears to have been a trend toward higher diversity and counts as one progressed down-stream from Transect 1. Diatons comprised the major part of the samples throughout the year in this survey. In most cases they amounted to over 50% of the cells in the sample. The preoperational survey revealed several notable trends in the phytoplankton community. As in the Univer-sity of Pitt. burgh studies, the diatoms were of grea, test significance in the winter and early spring. Their numbers tend to decline relative to the numbers of the other groups as summer progresses. Lowest counts were observed in early fall, but in terms of numbers, diatoms were still an extremely important group even in this season. The blue-greens increased to their highest numbers in the fall, comprising as much as 51% of one sample at Transect 4 The phytoplankton diversity was lower in the winter and spring compared to fall and summer. This was attributed to the low winter temperatures and to dilution from high run-off in the , spring. In the preoperational survey, the winter phytoplankton community was dominated by the diatom Navicula. Other important genera included the diatoms Synedra, Nitzschia, Melosira, Cyclotella and Astsrionella. Navicula was a very abundant component of the spring community followed by Synedra, Nitzschia, Melosira and Diatoma. The diatom Cyclotella dominated the summer community. It was followed by the desmids Scene-desmus and Ankistrodesmus and the diatoms Synedra and Melosira. The filamentous blue-green algae became abundant in the fall along with the diatoms Nitzschia, Fragilaria, Melosira, Cyclotella and Navicula. Ankistrodesmus was also common. The estimation of phytoplankton standing crop frcm Chlorophyll a data indicated that the highest chlorophyll concentrations was 14.9 pg/ liter and the lowest was present in trace amounts below the sensitivity of the method used (Table 2.5) . 2.8.2.3 Zooplankton A taxonomic listing of the zooplankton of the Ohio River is given in 0 Ref 2, Table 2.7-6, p. 2.7-12. The zooplankton collected at the five transects during the first year of the preoperational study are also presented in Ref 2, Table 2.7-5, p. 2.7-7. The results of this survey show that rotifers were dominant; copepods and cladocerans were also relatively abundant. The numerically dominant genera throughout the year and at all five transects was a rotifer. Even though more common 9

2-18 i

                                                                         ~

TABLE 2.5

                                                      . CHLOROPHYLL ESTIMATES FROM THE BEAVER VALLEY ECOLOGICAL. SURVEYS (*}

Chlorophyll Transect Date Concentrations 1 .10/29/70 2.8 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 51.5(b) 9/01/71 ;10.7 2 10/29/70- 4.4 3/14/71 trace-5/07/71 14.5 9/01/71 8.3 3 10/29/70 2.2 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 14.9 9/01/71 5.9 4 10/29/70 2.9 3/14/71 trace 5/07/71 14.6 9/01/71 5.6 5 10/29/70. 3.3

                                                                                             '3/14/71                      trace 5/07/71                     11.5 9/01/71                     6.3 L

(a) Data represent pg/ liter values of three replicates at each of the five transects. (b) Turbidity problems made readings difficult. o e L_- _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - - _ - _ _ .

 >                                                                                         2-19 than other 2groups, the copepods and cladocerans were represented by only three genera. The dominant copepod was Cyclops sp. and Bosmina longirostris was the most common cladoceran.

The zooplankton tended to be lowest during the winter and highest during the spring and summer. Rotifers always compriseo at least 33% of the population by number, and usually were over 50%. In the spring and summer they constituted as much as 95% of the total number. 2.8.2.4 Benthos Previous studies of the benthic community in this area of the Ohio River describe a community of limited diversity and low numbers (Ref 2, Appen-dix C). The applicants report a Federal Water Quality Administration' (FWQA) (1969) study of the benthos of the New Cumberland pool that gives the results of. three dredge samples in the pool. The data collected are listed in Table 2.6. In these samples, oligiochaetes and flatworms are the dominant members of the community. A sampling of artificial sub-errates yielded a gre,ater diversity and larger numbers (Table 2.7). 011gochaetes and midge larvae were the most numerous organisms. The results of the applicants' preoperational benthic survey are given in Ref 2, Table 2.7-10, p. 2.7-18. Again the oligochaetes predominated. Nematodes occurred in all samples but not in great numbers. The next most common group was the midges; the genus Psectrocladium was the most common. The applicant found the results of the preoperational survey to be in agreement with those of previous benthic surveys in the area. 2.8.2.5 Fish A list of fish species collected from or likely to occur in the New Cumberland Pool is given in Ref 2, Table 2.7-12, p. 2.7-21. The list included those collected by the applicants' preoperational survey and those reported in other studies (Ref 2, p. 2.7-22). There are 42 species and one hybrid in the list. In the past, this area of the Ohio also sup-ported populations of other species such as the paddlefish and lake sturgeon, but various factors including dams, pollution and fishing pres-sure have combined to reduce their populations. The results of the preoperational survey of fishes conducted for the applicants are given in Table 2.8.* This data represents the fish collected in gill net operations on both sides of the river in

     .                           October 1971. The applicants' consultant encountered the usus1 sampling problems in making the preoperational survey of fish. Heavy commercial river traffic disturbed the configuration of hoop, trap and fyke nets

• The data presented in Tables 2.8 and 2.9 represent a very limited sampling and generalizations should be made with caution.

9 _ 1 ____ . _ _ . _ . _ _ b

1 2-20 F

                                                                                          ~

TABLE 2.6 TAXA COLLECTED BY THE F.W.Q.A. DURING WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM, 1969 Number  % occurrence Flatworms 22- 20.8 Physa 2 1.9 Psectrocladius sp. 2 1.9 Nemertea sp. 1 0.9 Hirudinea- 3 2.8 011gochaetes 76 71'.7 106 100.0 (a) The number rep' resents the total number of organisms taken in three dredge samples. l~ Q l-l 1 , _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ - - _ _ . _ _ - 0

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ , _ . - - _ _ = - - - _ _ - ---_ ___ _ 2-21

                                                                       ;- -                         TABLE 2.7 TAXA AND NUMBERS OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED BY-THE F.W.Q.A. IN THE 1969 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM (a)
                                                                                                                                                  -Exposure Taxa                        May 16-Jan 30 Jan 30-Aug 13 -Aig 13-Sept li Damselflies Enallagma sp.                                                                    1 Argia sp.-                                                                                                              1 Crayfish Orconectes sp.                                                                   2                                      1 Scuds.

Crangonyx sp. 1 Hydroids Crodylophora sp. (b) (b) Hydra sp. .(b) (b) Flatworms

                                                                 .Turbe11 aria                                                                     3                                     6 Snails Ferrissia sp.                                                                                                          1 Midges C1yptotendipes sp.                                                               3 Tanytarsus sp.                           1 Psectrocladius sp.                                                             22                                         7 Orthocladius sp.                                                                                                          1 Bryozoa Nemated                                  (b) l                                                               Namatoda                                                                            1 l

l Aquatic Worms l

• 011gochaeta 31 68 l

l (a) Numbers represent the total number of organisms collected. (b) Recorded as present only, not co,unted.

                                                                                                                                                                                      .                      i

l 5

                                            ~

TABLE 2.8

                  .-)

NUMBERS OF FISH CAUGHT IN GILL NETS IN THE OHIO RIVER

                     "                                     AT BEAVER VALLEY, OCTOBER 12-14, 1971 South River Bank'                                                        North River Bank 9tations                                                            1                2  3           4                             5          1    2   3                            4   5 Species Gizzard shad.                                                      1                -  -           -                            -

1 - - - - River herring - - - 1 3 - .- - - - 4 1 -

                                                                                                                                                                               ' 1   1                            1. 6 Quillback 3                   3 White sucker                                                       5                1  -           -                             4          3    4   2-                           1  '3 Redhorse sucker                                                    -                -  -           -                             -          -    -

l' -- - Carp . _ 6 3 6 1 3 1 4 7 3 4 Yellow bullhead 1 1 - 1 7- - - . 1 4. Brown bullhead 1 3 4 3 6 5 5 2 '2 2 Channel catfish 1 5 8 2 7 6 11 4 5 11

                               ~ Rock bass                                                         -                -

1 - 1 - - 1 - 1

                               -Smallmouth baas                                                    2                -  -

1 - 4- 2 - - - Largemouth bass 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - Black crappie' 4 - - - - - 3 Yellow perch 2 1 3 1 1 - 2 - - 1 Walleye 2 2 3 - - 1 1 1 - -

                               ? Individuals                                                      29 20 28 11 32'                                                          21 32 28 14 32 -

Species 12 8 7 8 8 7 10 8 6 8 o e _n_.x____________________._____._.____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _. . _ _ _ _ _ ..___ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _____ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _

                                                                                                'i 2-23                                        I l

so thaf~they would not fish properly. Hand seining was reported to be ineffective due to the presence of snags and other debris along the river. Gill nets wers the most effective of sampling methods attempted, l However this method of sampling does result in some selectivity in sampling the total fish population. l A total of 247 individuals representing 15 species were collected by j the gill nets. The population netted during the preoperational survey { was dominated numerically by channel catfish (60 individuals), followed 1 by carp (38), brown bullhead (33), wnite sucker (23) and quillback (21); ) the size ranges and average sizes of these dominant species are given I in Table 2.9.* Gill netting samples only the adult segment of the population. In com-parison, poison samples are more representative of the diversity and relative abundances of the true population. Data from such samples are available from collections made at the Montgomery Lock and Dam (Table 2.10) . f Using this data, Krumholz and Minckley ll examined the relationship of fish populations to water quality. At the time of the 1957 and 1958 collections, the water quality was reportedly degraded somewhat. The most abundant species during these two collections were ccrp and black bullhead. Other common fish were gizzard shad, goldfish, carp, gold-fish hybrid, emerald shiner and bluegill. The June 1959 sample was collected af ter primary sewage treatment had been init1ated in the area and does not demonstrate a significant change in the fish populations. The fish populations improved markedly in the collection made 11 days after the steel mills had shut down (July 1959). This change was attri-buted to an increase in the collection of fish that had normally inhabited the cleaner tributaries and backwaters of the river. The September,1968 collection also exhibited an increased diversity and an apparent increase in sport fishes including green sunfish, pumpkin-seed, bluegill, rock bass, largemouth bass and black crappie. This may be an indication of improving water quality. An estimace of fish produc-I tivity for 1968-1969, made by the EPA (Ref 2, p. 2.7-26) is given in l Table 2.11. From this table, it can be seen that carp accounted for 67.4% of the biomass in 1968 and 81.9% in 1969. The three species of bullheads accounted for 12.2% and 11.3% of the biomass, in order of decreasing biomass, the other important species were gizzard shad, chan-nel catfish, sunfishes, walleye and emerald shiner. l

• The data presented in Tables 2.8 and 2.9 represent a very limited sampling and generalizations should be made with caution.

i p

i 2-24 I'

                                     ~

TABLE 2.9 1 SIZESOFSPECIESDOMINANTINGILLNETCOLLECTIO{S} FROM OHIO RIVER STUDY AREA, OCTOBER 12-14, 1971 Number Average Species Measured Size Range Sizo Carp 35 6.0-25.9 10.1 Quillback 19 6.6-17.3 14.8 White sucker 9 8.1-10.5 9.5 Yellow perch 11 7.4- 8.8 8.1 I Channel catfish 11 8.3-18.4 11.5 (a) Measurements are total length in inches. o l l l 1 e

t 1 2-25 1 1

                                                                                             --                             TABLE 2.10 PERCENTAGE OF CATCHES, NUMBERS OF SPECIMENS AND SPEClES, AND BIOMASS (lb) 0F FISH           IN FISH LOCK MONT0GOMERY     POISON       COLLECTIONS AND DAM,             BEAVER CO., PA FROM a             OHIO (RfVER AT '

August' July June July September Species 1957 1958 1959 1959 1968 'tl 7 Gizzard shad - 3.3 0.4 1.6 10.7 White sucker - - - - 3.7 - Stoneroller - - - 0.1 - Goldfish 1.8 0.5 - T -

                                                                          -Carp                                           43.8                     5.2          0.4           2.7         19.7 Carp X goldfish                                1.4                             -     -             -              --

Bigeye chub - - - 0.9 - Silver chub - - 0.4 0.2 - Spotfin shiner - - - - 0.1 Colden shiner - 0.5 - 0.1 - Emerald shiner 0.5 11.3 - 0.8 0.9-River shiner 0.5 - - - - Ghost shiner - - - 0.1 - Striped shiner - - - 0.3 - Rosyface shiner- - - - 0.9 - Sand shiner - 0.5 - 29.0 0.5

                                                                        - Mimic shiner                                      -                           -        -

24.0 2.6 Bluntnose minnow - 0.5 ' O.2 4.6 0.8 Creek chub - - - 0.1 - Black bullhead 45.6 77.4 96.7 30.4 0.4 Yellow bullhead ~0.5 - - - 15.8 Brown bullhead 0.5 - - - 11.5

.                                                                           Channel catfish                                 -                           -        -             -

20.2 Banded killifish - - - T - Golden redhorse - - - - 0.1 Warmouth - - 0.2 - - Green sunfish 0.9 - 1.0 T 2.8

                                                                         'Pumpkinseed                                       -                           -

0.2 - '5 J Orangespottaa sunfish - - - - - Bluegill 4.6 - - - 3.4 Rock bass - - - - 0.4 Smallmouth bass - - - - - 0 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ b

2-26 TABLE 2.10 (Continued) August July June July September Species 1957__ 1958 1959 1959 1968 Largemouth bass - 0.9 - - 0.3 White crappie - - 0.2 0.1 - Black crappie - - - - 6.2 Yellow perch - - - 0.1 - Walluye - - - - 0.1 Number of specimens 219 213 480 2587 742 Weight in pounds 20.4 25.1 9.0 36.6 116.9 Number of species 9 9 9 21 19

                                                                                                               )

(a) Collections were made by Krumholz and Minckely (1964) on Augus t 29,1957, July 30,1958, Jebe 27,1959 and July 20, 1959. September 19, 1968 data were obttined from EPA, Water Quality Office, Wheeling, West Virginia. T = <0.1%. I O e

2-27

               ;-                  TABLE 2.11                         I TOTAL BIOMASS / ACRE AND BIOMASS OF PREDOMI. ANT FORMS, MONTGOMERY LOCK AND DAM, 1968-69 a) 1968              1969 Total                         254.0            344.0 Carp                          171.3 (67.4)     281.7 (81.9)

Bullhead 28.7 (11.3) 41.8 (12.2) Gizzard shad 28.9 (11.4) 3.5 ( 1.0) Channel catfish 10.4 ( 4.1) 6.8 ( 2.0) Sunfishes 11.6 ( 4.6) 5.5 ( 1.6) Walleye-Sauger 1.3 2.1 Emerald shiner Trace 2.0 (a) Figures are lb/ acre and % of total (in parenthesis) for single collections in September. Collected by Water Quality Office, EPA. o l f l

    ^

l" 2-28 p 1 The applicant states. that the collections from the study area suggest

                                      . that the fish populations exhibit an abnormally high ratio of. " trash"
                                                             ~

l y fishes to sport fishes and that this is a result of environmental stresses. The fish populations' are dominated by the trash and some. food and. game fish which are more tolerant to. existing environnentel stresses. Of the~ dominant species found.here,.the carp and goldfish are usually ) considered trash fish,'while the bu11 heads and channel catfish are i desirable game and food fish. The more desirable sport fishes-that were collected, including the walleyei black crappie, rock bass, bluegill, sunfish, and smallmouth bass all accurred in relatively small numbers. However, the evidence does indicate that their numbers may have increased during the period from 1957 to 1969. Spawning areas of .the f1sh ~ are determined by the type of schstract needed and water quality. The fishes have a sinking type (demeraal) egg and need a clean bottom where- the developing eggs would not to smothered - by silt or mud. The centrarchids usually scoop out shallow nests in areas of relatively stable bottom where. excessive silt or sludge does not exiet.- Tae Ohio Rivit fish found in the study area probably spawn primarily in the tributaries or near the mouths of the tributaries where the substrate and water quality are desirable, although some undoubtedly spawn in the slack water afforded by Phillis Island. 2.9 NATURAL RADIATION BACKGROUND The applicants have conducted a program of background monitoring as part of . their preoperational environmental survey. . The staf f found the . data from this program insufficient to establish firm background levels for the area. However, based oc &n analysis of reported effluent from the Shippingport reactor, discuss ed in Section 5.5, and on a reanal; sis of the applicants ' data, the stef f concludes that the background at the site can be assumed to be en tae same order as that for Pennsylvania in general, that is, s125 mreri/ year.12 o e xJ~i________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j

2-29 _- REFERENCES

1. Duquesne Light Co. , Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Iower Co. ,

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Final Safety Analysis Report, September 13, 1973.

2. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Duquesne Light Co., 0 hic Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co., Toledo Edison Co., Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, Environmental Report. Revision 1 Construction Permit Stage, Dceket No. 50-412, September 25, 1972.

3. Analysis of Flood Heights, Ohio River at Shippingport PA., Hydrologic Engineering Investigation by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Pitts-burgh Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA., January,1970.

4. Local Climatological Data. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.D.C.

i. H.C.S. Thou, " Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, vol. 91, No. 10, October-December 1963.

6. E. L. Braun, Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America, Hafner Pub-lishing Company, New York, 1950.

7. O. E. Jennings, " Classification of the Plant Societies of Central and Western Pennsylvania" , Proc. Pennsylvania, Acad. Sci., vol 1, pp. 23-55, 1927.

8. E. R. Hall and K. R. Kelson, " Mammals in North America" Ronald Press ,

New York, 1959.

9. Op. Cit., Ref 2, p. 2.7-1.

10. R. T. Hartman, " Composition and Dis tribution of Phytoplankton Communi-ties in the Upper Ohio River," Studies on the Aquatic Ecology of the Upper Ohio Rive'r System, Special Publication No. 3 Pymatuning Labora-tory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh,1965.

11. L. A. Krumholz, and Minckley, " Changes in the Fish Populations in the Upper Ohio River Following Temporary Pollution Abatement," Trans- 4 acticns of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-5, '

1964. 0

12. Special Studies Group, Office of Radiation P:ogram4, EPA, " Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United TLsies, 1960-2000, 2nd printing, 39 71.

9

               - _ - _ - - _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ . ._                                                                               I

 @<                                                                                                              il n

3-1 Si 'l l _ 3. THE PLANT 3.1' EXTERNAL APPEARANCE YI An 'artista rendering of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 as' it .  :{ 1 will. appear, when completed, is shown in Figure 3.1. The right hand por -

                                                                                                 ~

lW tion. of the rendering also shows' the existing Shippingport Power Station. A simplified diagram showing the location of the major structures in relation to the Ohio River and to. the Shippingport bridge is shown in Figure 3.2 Dominating the complex will be cus cylindrical reactor con-tainment' structure with its dosed top and the hyperbolic cooling tower. [ The planned' earth green color of.the siding should blend with the back-drop of the slope and contrast with the warm grey of the exposed concrete. When the construction is completed, te'mporary buildings removed, and land-scaping completed, it is. expected that the Beaver Valley Plant will blend in relatively welliwith the local environmental features and other indus-

f. . trial complexes in the vicinity, f.

3.2 REACTOR STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEMS Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 includes a pressurized water reactor nuclear-steam-supply-system and turbine generator furnished by Westing-house Electric Corporation and is similar to other pressurized water reactor power plants in the United States. The b.tlance of the unit is - designed and constructed by the applicants, with t he assistance of their agent, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. The nuclear steam supply system is designed for a estracted power output of 2660 MWL, which is the license application rating, with an equivalent unit net electrical output of 851.9 MWe. The steam supply system output is based upon an-expected ultimate output of approximately 2774 MWt with an associated 885 MWe net output and all safety systems are designed and evaluated for that higher power level. 3.3 PLANT WATER USE The Ohio River will supply all the water ured by ' the station. No ground-water will be used or altered during routine operation of the permanent station (Ref 1, p. 3.1-6). Water not evaporated or not consumed by per-sonnel will be returned to the river. The cooling' tower will cause an average water lose due to evaporation of 8600 gpm. Cooling tower drift will account for another 250 gpm maximum. The station is expected to con $ume a total of about 8850 gpm of water or 14,000 acre-ft annually. This is dbout 0.06% of the 24,000,000 acre-ft of water which flow past

                ,                  the site annually 1(Ref 1, p. 3.1-7).

3.4 HEA" DISSIPATION SYSTEM The thermodynamic process by which steam-electric generating plants pro-duce electricity, yields quantities of exhaust steam which must be 6 ____2_____________.______ _ _ _ _ 0

W ' 1 l 3-2 5

                           'k,                                                                                                             . .
                              '4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ?

I i,, e,', I ' . Ig u ,' ; ,-- t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ;-                   l

• y -

                                                                                                                                                                                     .&ys'
                                                                                                                                                                                                         *g                                                                  g :
                   'd
                                                                                                              ~                    .                                                                            '                      -
                    \                                                    '
                                                                                                                         $                                                                                   ' ' . .-          p                                                                            J A)                                                    -
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ' ' .g ' .                                                            .            .
                              '                                                                                                         'l                               .
                           . .g                                                                                      . ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ' gi                        !                                                              j ny                                                ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .                                           ;l: ..

1: - l

                                                                \                    4           . , f, g
                                                                                                       .                                                                 j g
                                                                                                                                                       , _ 'g 
                                                                                                                               '                                                                                         a O      l m      l
                                                      ' f                                                        . '                                   e. ,'.s H

I ey ..

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -                 -                          Y
                                                                                                                       \>.                                 .

m j M I

                                                                                                                          =:

y

                                                                                                                                'N .
                                                                                                                                                    'S                  }'                         -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .,                                                          o g                                                                                                                                '

I' g

                                                                      .    ..,,.3                                                                                                                                    . .}                           -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    'g
                                                                                                                                                                              <                              r O                                       -

g . < ,

                                                                                                                                                                   -                                                                                                                                g m
                                                                                                                                                 .            V                                               .

9 k e ' 9' r

                                                                                                                .                                                                                .. m s                                                                                                                                                           ,

2

y. s. / o

s. _.,- '

                                                                                                                                          ..                     l               1 l :...                                  d                                                                .

y

                                                                                                                         )              f(,-                                               .

o s ^

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               o gl 4                 *
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ,?

m y a

                                                                                                                                                                                                      'p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     '. ' {y .
                                                                                                                                         ,?>                                                            Mt                                                                                         w r                                _           _-,
                                                                                                                                                                                ' 5 .4%, .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  >                      ,#                  l                                     p.
                                                                                                                                                       /.,                                        ....                                                ,

j 7

                            ,?
                                                                                                                                             .       f..

O

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         } ..

4 .' ' .1, -. . 3

                                                                      -.,            , p..[ M i                                                                                              s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~ _ .~. *
                                                - > ..                                                                                                        .ye) 4 r,3
       =                      -

a 9, ;' , i ,; ,,~_ ' 0 . , k g ;; -

s. ..

e * , , 2

                                                   ,,r<                            ,                                                                                                                                                                       l                               ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .a
                                                                                                                ,; e a.. .
                                                                                             ..,g                                                                                                                                   -

9-c

                              ,        .\
                                                                                                                                   .,-a                           4hg                                                                                 E..                        !W l

l i

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            \

l

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             \

e I

i;1' !lIi;!I j ]  ! 7 '. , e yw q g E - T U Oa R i __ V -

                                                                *'                                                                                                     =
                                                                                                                                                                       =     j I

R \ O

                                                                 - PE                                                                                         >
                                                                 - NGG   D PRI I                                                                                           -

PB . I H N ~ S U R S .

                                                                                                                                                                            ~                      _

_ G

                                                                                                                        '                     G                                                  N

_ E A s( P

                                                                                                                                                                           -                     L
                                                                                                                                                           .Y. PD P

_ NE - T L. s O I L 1 E . L N WW P

                                                                                                                                              ~

P O R NR Pl i D_L WP 0 l D t AR L RH E G B R 1 T Bg_1[ . DAI tIN S _ MU I , E G _ UB N "A R E C5 U e - vN A 8*A WT T

                                                                                           #              0                            uIO B

_ ~ 1 T tI i E I NP N

                                                                                            ~

IN AA vI l O . I

                                                                                             ~                                            Si E

iR R N T N~ vE U E A K ,. It W _ A T A I E

                                                                                              -                           T N

_ T _ N DGR - uB PO '/ S I uET A MN R 8' A 0H nAt T A - R E gSR I. m.__ T A 1 C _ EEP E W S I D , _ T I __ W O P R , Y E E V , D R L l A L

     .,                                                 M I

k Y H A V W~N 7 O R - C I O , T R H PE O GK S WI E NA \ I T , V PN A PI t E 1 G Et B S HI NW 7f; e~ 1N 1 5E 1xR EC E

                                                                                                                              +
                                                                                                                                                                 ~                               2 S                        +*                                                                   3
                                                                                                                         *+                                          .

E

                                                                                                                                                                    -                            E
                                                                                                                    +,[GG      INR  Aa                                                           R IRE OG PR GA NH IC P   S
                                                                                                             +                T HN 5

1 E X CNTN DIr PGIOlA NS l yN U G I F Y E PI I D H 5 Su RON I PR PE SP W ' IHO'N LE L G _ AR VA R C H

                   '                                                                E V

A I S\ ' E D B N l! fi(iIl t!!l! l

lb 3-4 condensed. Uecondensationprocessrequiresthatheatberemoved. This process occurs in_the main condenser and the heat is removed by the circulating water system. At the Beaver Valley plant, water is drawn from the Ohio River initially-to charge the condenser cooling system. The system is a closed-cycle system utilizing a natural-draf t cooling tower, and once charged, will require water only to replace that evaporated and that discharged as blowdown. The system that supplies this makeup water from the Ohio River is referred to as the river water system. Another system, called the raw water system, also supplies part of the makeup water and supplies the plant's ' secondary components ' cooling water needs. A diagram showing water use at the Beaver Valley plant is shown in Figure'3.3. The 480,400 gpm of water which will flow in the main' circulating water system will remove 6.265 x 109 Btu /hr from the condensing steam. The b temperature of the water will rise 26*F as it passes through the conden-ser. Four one q uarter capacity pumps lift the water from a pump well to the top of the 70 foot fill section of the 500-ft natural-draf t cooling tower. From there the water flows by gravii.y through the tower to tne cooling tower basin and back to the main condenser. The transfer of heat from the circulating water to the atmosphere is accomplished in the cooling tower by evaporation of the cooling water and by raising the temperature of the air in the tower. The density of the heated air in the tower is lower than ambient,' causing it to rise and discharge at the top of the tower. The river water system and the raw water system draw water from the Ohio River through an intake structure shown in Figure 3.4. Notable features of the intake structure include coarse bar racks, which prevent large debris from entering the water system pumps, and 3/8 in. mesh traveling screens (50% open space) that prevent smaller objects from entering the pumps. By means of a subsurface intake opening, surface water and float-ing trash are prevented from ontering the intake pumps. The maximum flow velocity past the traveling preens is about 0.2 fps; the traveling screens are cleaned by pumped t Ockwash water and debris is disposed of at an offsite fill area. The raw water system takes water from the river, passes it through the plant's secondary components' heat exchangers, and discharges the heated water to the circulating water system downstream from the main condenser, g The flow through plant's secondary components' heat exchangers is ) 16,000 gpu with a temperature rise of 10'F. The river water system takes water from the river, passes it through the plant's primary components' heat exchangers, and discharges the heated water to the circulating water ystem downstream from the main condenser. The if ow through the two primary components' heat exchangers required for normal operation is about 11,000 gpm. Total flow of the river and raw water systems exceeds ! _- that required for makeup and the excess is returned to the river through l the discharge structure. 9 C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ l

3-5 _-- I

                                                                                                                                          .)

OHIO RIVER [ DISCH ARGE ]

                                                                                                                          \ INTAKE ]

COOLING '.; TOWER B A BLOWOOWN - .j 15,000 gpm (min.) 3 S 12,000 gpm (max.) D 16,000 gpm ll,000 gpm COOLING TOWER F E

                                                                                            \U                  S-A. RIVER WATER PUMPS B. RAW WATER PUMPS C. CONTROL ROOM AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSERS CONTROL RCOM REDUNDANT COOLING COILS CHARGING PUMP LUBE OIL COOf.ERS
                                                                                                                                           ] 1 PRIMARY COMPONENT COOLING WATER HEAT EXCHANGERS                        ,

I EMERGENC/ DIESEL HEAT EXCHANGERS RECIRC. SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGERS i D. CHILLED WATER UNIT CONDENSERS SECONDARY COMPONENT COOLING WATER HEAT EXCHANGERS E. MAIN CONDENSER , F. COOLING TOWER PUMPS FIGURE 3.3 WATER USE DIAGRAM o O

? 3.6 1 i _- i

                                 -                                                                                                               1
                                 =                                                                                                               i w

WQ

                                 =                  v.                                                                                           1 mo
                                                    -                                  N'
                            -o wm            ,a
                                                    =0 o-g"                M                       h 2"
                            ,=

55 "M x

                    -                 x=
                                      '             do*                                                ~
                                                                                                                          /

g* ov<wz-E o g -m 4'

                    -       CW        a#                                                                                      R o
                    -       di
                            -         [" mwa        EM
                                                                                                                        ,   T/:

O o o og D o me

                                 =

n o. o J ea q w-I =< >o z EM

                                      .mm                           W at 4                   ,M4 41    g                 gg gwu=

w= =* --e= 8" '

              =             o                                       gd                                        + =g 2 ,

m m s \. -~

                                                                       =d                      , W w,rms ~E                       ao       W 5"5 gv eq
                         *nVA L-
                                      =_= _                         05.

m.

                                                                                  /7
                                                                                  // ,/                    . #4
                                                                                                         . =

FT II -o 13 o m5 >

                                                                            /           !                      _ _J               mt       5 m

o< . - .- 2" . cl %g 5" y wE O l! _., 2@ t$ < g <a =< // ..-+ _

                                                                                                                                  .a
                                                                                                                                     -     g 44                                                                                           ~ ~_                          =M       >=4 sE as w                              l                                     .,                              -d
                                                                                                             -e M

u.3 oD C rj p

                                           'I                                                                  W                ENn
   $                                            /                                                           -4                      ==

o

                             #                                                                             ~
                                                                                                             -W                 N      3 M
                            /                                                                               -
                                                                                                                                    <      J
   >        1                                                                                                   1               Msw         b app                                                                                    --                                      e t= o

{ m- h *** A w

            )                                                                         -

r .-- zw N - o %T

   =                                                          h. 1 m ,                                                ; ,                  g

_/ -~_ .

                                                                                                                      = oa                 w a       '            cd W                    D
                                                                                                              &               g
                                                                                      \

q - - o w

                                                                      / 'O i i M.

a A r M 3 o i l I e o d o

                                                                                                                              >=
                                              ~

A e ===us l

• 1

                                                                                      'w                      M               o 7*W i

o g C/ j

                                                                =r=L~ g O

m N O a a has W O

3-7

                                                                                                                                                                    .)

{ i 3 The discharge Ehructure is located downstream from the Shippingport discharge 'i1 outfall and is shown in Figure 3.5. k Altogether, about 27,000 gpm of water will be withdrawn from the river' for makeup in the cooling tower and, assuming about 12,000 gpm evaporation, a minimum of about 15,000 gpm will be discharged back into the river through the discharge structure. This intake-discharge rate differential

                                                           .results in a 1.8-fold concentration in the dissolved solids that are pumped in through the intake.

3.5 RADWASTE SYSTEMS During the operation of nuclear power reactors, radioactive material is produced by fission and by neutron activation reactions in metals and other material in the reactor coolant system. Small amounts of gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes enter the waste streams which are processed and monitored within the station to minimize the radioactive nuclides that will ultimately be released to the atmosphere and into the' Ohio River. The radioactivity that may be released during operation of the station will be in accordance with the Commission's regulations as set-forth in. 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50.

• While this statement is for Unit 1, the following description of the, waste treatment system addresses both the equipment installed in Unit 1 and that planned for Unit 2 because of the proposed interrelationship between the two plants, which results in shared' equipment.

The additional processing equipment associated with the proposed Unit 2 would serve to augment treatment of Unit 1 liquid effluents, and accordingly, releases are shown for both Unit 1 systems alone and as modified by the availability of Unit 2 equipment. However, for the purpose of assessing radiological impact in Section 5 of this Statement, Unit 1 is considered to operate alone. The waste handling and treatment systems to be installed at the station are discussed in detail in the Safety Analysis Reports and the Environmental Report for Unit 1 and Unit 2. In these references the applicant has pre-pared an analysis of the treatment systems and has estimated the annual effluents. The following' analysis is based on these conditions. Staff calculated effluents are, therefore, different from the applicant's;  ! however, the model used results from a review of available data from l operating power plants. 3.5.1 Liquid Radwaste The liquid radioactive waste system will consist of the process equipment and instrumentation necessary to collect, process, monitor, store and dispose of radioactive liquid wastes for Units 1 and 2. Treated wastes I 9 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - - 0

3.8 m i * .:! -

                                                                                          =         W55.?                                                                                                      g E           *::                                                                                                      &

E l-'!! 3 U d ,33 E 5 k h!55 $ 4 ki:E / D M5 ,.:. d

                                                                                    \

E9 \d $ t $ 6 0 .'Ly 5

o. m /\ .

                                                                                                                          -                                                                                    =
                                                                                                           /              .-                                                                                   @

g -

                                                                                                             )       >=

y W E a ,

                                     "                                                                                    O o

d 9' R

                                     >-                                                                              co e

o

                                     *            -                                                          ,_                                                                                                w M                                                          m       d                                                                                         O p'          I-

• 5 o

u

                                                                                   +                         :
                                                                                                             -       -         -                                                                               s
                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~

g j

                                                          ~ ~ ~ -

_ , w O

                     -                                k                    -

n w er

                                                                    =.-             ,'                       E       h         -                                                                               M E
                     -                                                                                       >                 a                                                                               w O

b [ ~ M we D e. o N 4 p

                     $                                                                                                       "A                                                                                    I 4'                                    gw-                                                                                   I
                                                                                              .4 o                                                             4 1

i j 9 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ _ . . _ _ - . _ _ - _ h

3-9 l will be handled ~on a batch basis as required to permit optimum control and release of radioactive waste. Prior to release of any treated liquid wastes, samples will be analyzed to determine the type and amount of radioactivity in a batch. Based on the analysis, these wastes either will be recycled, released under controlled conditions via the cooling tower blowdown, or retained for further processing. Radiation monitoring equipment will automatically terminate liquid waste discharge if radia-tion levels are above a predetermined level in the discharge line. The liquid waste treatment system is divided into the boron recovery sys-tem, deaerated system, aerated system and blowdown system to allow for the special processing that will be required for each of these categories. The Beaver Valley plant will have an integrated liquid waste processing system which will serve Unit 1 and Unit 2. A separate blowdown treatment system will be installed with Unit 2 for use of both units. A schenatic of the system is shown in Figure 3.6. A list of assumptions used in evaluating the system is given in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Capacities of tanks in the liquid radwaste system are given in Table 3.3. Our estimated releases are given in Table 3.4. Portions of the system which are independent and those which are shared are indicated in the figures and tables. The chemical and volume control system (CVCS) for each unit will maintain the quality of the primary coolant. A 60 gpm stream will be continuously letdown, cooled, passed through a mixed-bed demineralized, filtered and fed to the volume control tank from which it will be returned to the reactor. The boron recovery system (BRS) for each unit will reduce the boric acid concentration in the primary coolant by diverting a portion of the CVCS stream to the BRS. The BRS also processes the deaerated liquid. Deaerated liquid wastes from various primary system equipment orains cond leakoffs will be collected in the primary drain tank. The primcry drain tanks will be pumped to the boron recovery system for processing through cation demineralized beds to the coolant recovery tanks where the liquid will be stored until processing through the boron evaporators and collec-tion in the test tanks. Af ter sampling this liquid will be sent to th.e primary water storage tanks for recycling in' the reactor or discharged to the river with the cooling tower blowdown. Our evaluation assumed 720 gal / day / unit of deaerated wastes from the primary drain tank and 860 gal / day / unit from the shim bleed for boron control will be processed by the boron recovery system and that 90% will be recycled and 10% discharged. ( i ij

                                                                                                                                                                                               ;j'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ;!!j I~                                                                                                                                 _

S M

          ]j GS                                                       O T K                                                                   E            .

INR TN E n K u E OA =

                                                                                                                                                                                      .M=~

L A OW B. T AC l R Op CT PD AL T N R U _ == E E S 0VO I T 1 EH N N I S = T=== H E S R D g S i R U N N Sfg N Re NS?f E I O C W N." O A n' K n' W O A 0t? 1a W K n'D O N uf" GZ) NID L

                                                                                                                                                                           =~Z~~ L = =

D A I D D Ra HALH C W T ,,"" gt Te j De W Oa l W T w ^" SRA I OP" O I EH

          '    l 3                           O L      O oc,u" L

Hos LA= BV2 0 E L E0 B T0 S0D 2 1 L OIN$( PM E T=C=== _ D S D 7 _

                                                                  +                     -

E 2K n l t N ' A A s' . i T o R E R _ o s. n NE t T t MA RS f M EW E K "g S E E D T N '

• M T i

AA WT )l f [ y

                                                                                                   !              PT AT O        T S Y A S S              E 1 t t,

• s A

T,,_. .

                                  ~

a Y RG E s e

                                                                                           *g g

VO EB W DA L f F r Os o u a AA s *,

                                                                                          #c,                                  I S                     i                    :                                    :

I N s i M R L O 1Ou  : M t V t a a t N I O RT OP SS 2  : E N

TO u PS I

                                                                                                                                                                                   ~                         _

SI M D t Y T o s

                                                                                                                   'd        4                                                                                   ::: E AS S

T MTO AA ER T E S N S R l

                           , N W

OK DN WA OT S D l Y R E O V CSwo 8 2 s u e.s E S R O, T, A R t_ M~~:=h

                                                                                                                                                                            ^

5: '-

                                                                                                                                                                                           ^

R_ E W R O

TS R AE

WWO&2 E

ss IV P1 T YSE T 6 3 e r E L E EKeR RNo - 5 ^ t _ C I u g Be 5 0" 5: A L N TA c. a ^ G B .

                                                                                      '                         g                                                                                                          LU   i E 5:^                                         5    O    A Nr                         e w                     -                                                                                               F
                                                       -                     Oi              NTs sa                                                   3l t

A e N,

                                                                                                                                               "                            5: 5-: I V

( E & sK T A L O O ,_ R _ s-n E ~-

                                                                                                                                                                            ^
                                                                                                                                                                                    -      = 5-                  5 DAR a       M          R                   C                O o                                 ^
                                                                                                                                                                                    -      2 N                                                                 -         i-                                            -

C U L MEA O ELi T . 5 =95s 5s DRE VA h TI L - I V S F, O sj) 1 - " 5s UE D YsR

                                                                                 '            I III Il

• 5-5 95s QB N SRT 5 5ss L I

A LEN S - - - i 5 :+8s OlO M ^ i O - R L RLC  : 5 A E 5 :^ 5: TAE T T G Zg - 5:-: 5: C NRM I EU O K . N Lo I MONL B N8 s E Ct Ao _. I H RR AE

                                                                                                                                                                    -        5:

5 5:

                                                                                                                                                                        -5: : 5:

RT eR r H MOV aJ w E S A I E C o O DA S T Ln P LNH ' 5 u A R Os A OIs PM( 5=95: 5:95

5 ::

j O Ha WV O E E D

5:

P 5: 5 :: LN K A 5=95 YN V BW ^ OO M5 RA  : E TD i^-- AT I

                                                                                                                                                                             ^

+5 -

MN - 5 :: I RAI T N S 2-5:M5

                                                                                                                                                                    -    -            : 5:        -

o PR D E M S i

                                                                                               . i t                                 Ko n
                                                                                                                                                                          -   5::-    -                5:

NE 5:: N K mm AR 3-5 : : N u u  ::95 I n - A o Ta 5 T A T Ts s 5: N O E N N n a Si E i E R Mf :: - CG MI N E A G { I A l i s 'y n  ! Tt U T _ +i

i:  :

R [nc, Ea

                                                                                                                                                                                        =:

C K E OD L I D ; e T f C

+ - 5 Rl G U A Am U 55 S f uN L S EL e R

955 I,

R N E i. Le os O I SO I L T 'l, w + 55 SA NY P R S U S e ILw e lU o. S -  : ER

+ 555 E _ ~

T S D SIAR TE R A M A ZO A W l l e To So Q Ot 8 A I E I is Is L s

_M55 AT SDI LS t D

A N WN S A t D A -

:-55 D

E E F MO T :P K F W EU DT E A DK N A A N R E I L E L 7 _ 5: 58 T 84 D SB M C _ AUA S ~ HOE AF N A HAA E DM I 2-AE L L E E D A f!lll .l _

\ l 3-11

                                ;-                    TABLE 3.1 LIST OF STAFF ASSUMPTIONS FOR BEAVER VALLEY I RADWASTE ANALYSIS               !

Design Thermal Power 2766 MWt Plant Factor 0.8s ( i Total Steam Flow 1.162 x 107 lb/hr Number of Steam Generators 3 Failed Fuel (a) 0.25% Steam Generator Leak Rate (Primary to Secondary) 20 gal / day Steam Generator Blowdown Rate (before flashing) 7000 lb/hr Rate of Shimrod Bleed 860 gal / day Containment Purge 4 times /yr Rate of Primary Coolant Degassification 60 gal / minute Primary Coolant Degassed 2 times /yr Containment Volume 1.8 x 106 cu/ft Flow Thru Kidney Filter 4,000 cfm Containment Leak Rate 40 gal / day Turbine Building Leak Rate 1700 lb/hr Auxiliary Bldg. Leak Rate 20 gal / day Decontamination / Partition Coefficients for Iodine Steam Generator Internal Partition' 1 x 10-2 Condenser Air Ejector (Unit 1)5 x 10 0(Unit 2) Primary Coolant Leakage to Containment 2.8 x 10-2 (Includes C. V. kidney filter D. F.) Primary Coolant Leakage to Aux. Bldg. 5 x 10-3 Secondary System Leakage to Turbine Bldg. 1.0 o (a) This value is constant and corresponds to 0.25% of the operating power equilibrium fission product source term. e m________ __ b

0 O n 2 P w o Y '

                                              +

d R " 5 5 6 5 w A N 0 0 0 0 0 o D O 1 1 1 1 1 l N I - B O T C A

                .         E                   R S            7      O C.                              P    '

S 0 0 1 A l A 0 0 V 0 1 E 2 [ T N E -

                                              ]

M 5 H 5 T

                    ~

S A 5 5 0 4 I 4 E eB 8 1 0 L R t 8 1 O T s P a E W + 5 5 6 5 T S d N 0 0 0 0 0 A e O 1 1 1 1 1 W t a I T D r A I e 7 U A R Q 5 5 0 1 P 1 I A 8 1 0 A L 8 1 V 2 ) E RT [ 3 OI FN E U L S e B NR t A OE s T IP a T( P - W . _ M d 0 0 0 0 ) 7 U eB 8 0 1 3 N S t 5 1 O S a 1 I A r T e A F' a R _ F e G A D P T A 2 ' 4 5 5 S &- V E 0 1

                                                                 '0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 F y O r + n e T v N ' S o O ia I c I t L e 0 0 0 0 T 7 a r RA 8 0 1 6 A _ 5 1 C e p _ n 1 [ o o r o n . B i v d i . o t e n c g s o _ y A r y & _ a a s a t 1 _ d . h y d 0u - _ / l c a . 1 o t l o s d - e i a o i F. st n . g C D e t e D ea U m n m dl up _ - . e i e i l s h t m b T m t l b l t i t a R c2 r i u r o l a d r n0 e W e e p P t l l , I1 h _ n i r o v s o t _ I  %  % F T H O 1 C Y M O A

                                          ..,                                                  3-13 1:

TABLE 3.3-LIQUID RADWASTE TANK CAPACITIES

    ,                                               No.                             Name"              . Capacity (gal each)-

2. Waste Drain tanks .

5,000

                                                                                        .                Unit 1 2              Waste Drain tanks 2,000 2            . Waste Drain tanks                    Unit 2        -7,500.

1 Waste disposal: evaporator (a)-- Shared- 6 gpm 2 Distillate test tank'(a) s Shared- '3,000 r 2 ' Coolant recovery tanks (*) Shared. 190,000

                                                   '2            . Boron evaporators (a)                Shared-     115'gpm.

2~ Test: tanks (a) Shared ~12,000 2 Blowdown hold tanks (b) . Shared 50,000

                                                   .2              Blowdown evaporators (b)             Shared       20 gpm 2              Blowdown test tanks (b)              Shared       12,000 (a)- Located in Unit 1 (b) Located in Unit 2 I

l 9 L_:-.:__=____-__--_.._- - -. .- - - i

3-14 I TABLE 3.4 STAFF ESTIMATED ANNUAL RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES IN THE LIQUID EFFLUENT FROM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 Ci/Yr/ Unit Nuclide A B Br-82 0.00005 0.00004 Br-83 0.00002 0.00002 Sr-89 0.00001 0.00001 Y-91 0.00013 0.00014 Mo-99 0.00030 0.00019 Tc-99 m 0.00029 0.00018 Te-127m 0.00001 0.00001 127 0.00002 0.00001 129m 0.00005 0.00005 129 0.00003 0.00003 131m 0.00004 0.00003 132 0.00075 0.00064 1-130 0.00018 0.00016 131 0.23 0.34 132 0.0020 0.0018 133 0.049 0.041 135 0.0067 0.0063 Cs-134 0.0029 0.0029 136 0.00064 0.00073 137 0.0019 0.0019 Ba-137m 0.0018 0.0018 140 0.00002 0.00002 La-140 0.00001 0.00001 Na-24 0.00001 -- P-33 0.00001 0.00001 Cr 0.00^15 0.00005 Mn-56 0.000t5 0.00005 Fe-55 0.00005 0.00005 59 0.00003 0.00003 Co-58 0.00047 0.00046 60 0.00006 0.00006 Nb-92 0.00001 -- W-187 0.00005 0.00004 o Np-239 0.00001 0.00001 TOTALS 0.3 0.4 (except tritium) l Tritium 350 Ci l Note: A - This column is for Unit 1 before Unit 2 is in operation. I B - This column is for Unit 1 when Unit 2 is in operation. Values less than 0.000005 are not listed. I I 1 l .

- _ _ _ _ _   _                                                                                      9

3 Aerated liquid waites from the containment and auxiliary buildings, labs and sampling sources, demineralized sluice and other wastes will be collected in the waste drain -tanks. With only Unit 1 in operation, blow-down f rom the steam generators will enter the blowdown flash tank, pass through a reboiler, and the'11guid will then be processed by the aerated . i

                    . waste disposal system. The blowdown system is designed to flash 90% as-steam to the main condenser, the remaining 10% being liquid for processing.
                    ' Aerated and blowdown wastes collected in the waste drain tanks will be evaporated and the distillate collected in test tanks. After sampling
                     .the wastes will either be recycled for additional processing and/or sent through a polishing demineralized or discharged.

Based on Unit 1 in operation, our evaluation assumed 885 gal / day of

                   . aerated wastes and 2,000 gal / day of blowdown will be processed by the evaporator and polishing demineralized and 100% of the distillate will be discharged.

With Unit 1 and' Unit 2.in~ operation, our evaluation assumed 885 gal / day / unit of aerated wastes will be processed by the evaporator and polishing demineralized and 100% of the distillate will be discharged. The blowdown treatment system to be installed with Unit 2 will process the total blowdown from Unit 1 and Unit 2 by evaporation, and demineral-ization if needed. The system is designed to flash 90% as steam to the

                   ' main condenser, the remaining 10% being liquid for processing. The water will be collected in blowdown hnid tanks and batch processed through the
                  . evaporator.      It may additionally be processed by a polishing demineralized.

The treated blowdown will then be sent to the demineralized water tanks or primary water storage tanks for reuse, or discharged. Our evaluation assumed a blowdown of 20,000 gal / day / unit before flashing, will be processed by evaporation and demineralization and that 90% will be recycled and 10% discharged. In addition to the sources listed above, we estimate slightly less than 0.1 Ci/yr/ unit will be released in untreated effluent from the turbine building drains, and about 0.04 Ci/yr/ unit will be released from the laundry system. We estimate that about 0.3 Ci/yr excluding tritium, will be discharged by Unit 1 before Unit 2 is in operation; and, 0.4 C1/yr/ unit af ter Unit 2 is in operation. The applicant has estimated 0.014 Ci/yr, excluding g tritium, when only Unit 1 is in operation and 0.013 Ci/yr/ unit will be discharged when Units 1 and 2 are operating. The applicant has considered less volume being processed and discharged from the system and used higher decontamination factors. Based on operating experience of other pressurized water reactors, we estimate that tritium releases will be approximately 350 Ci/yr. The applicant has estimated 506 Ci/yr of tritium will be released. l l 9 Li___ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ l

3-16 3.5.2 Gaseous Radwaste During operation of the plant, radioactive materials released to the atmosphere in gaseous ef fluents will include fission product- noble gases (krypton and xenon), halogens (mostly iodine), tritium contained in water vapor, and particulate material including both fission products and acti-

                                                 .vated corrosion products. The primary source of gaseous radioactive-
                                                 - wastes will be f rom the degassing of the primary coolant, condenser air, ejector offgas, and auxiliary building ventilation. Other sources of-gaseous waste activity include purging of containment, turbine building ventilation, and sweep gas for the various liquid tanks. Gaseous waste processing and ventilation systems are shown in Figure 3.7. A list of' assumptions used in evaluating the system is given in Table 3.1.

Our estimated releases are listed in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Portions of the system which are independent and those which are shared with Unit 2 are indicated in the figures and table. Gases stripped from the letdown flow in the chemical _ and volume control system and from the deaerated wastes and shim bleed in the boron recovery system will be processed by the gaseous waste recycle system. This sys-

                                                 - tem includes four charcoal delay beds providing 30 days decay ' for xenon and 1.5 days decay for krypton, a surge tank, and three gas decay tanks providing storage time in excess of 30 days by our calculation. The applicant considers 30 days decay for xenon and 2 days decay for krypton in the charcoal delay beds and 30 days decay in the gas decay tanks.

During normal operation, hydrogen gas will be returned from the surge tank to the volume control tank. All but 1% of the gas (hydrogen and l decayed fission product gases) will be recycled to the volume control tank and reused as carrier gas for gases being collected from the letdown. The gas that will be removed from the circulating stream will be removed from the surge tank to one of the three decay tanks for holdup before processing through the charcoal HEPA filters (gaseous waste disposal fil-ters) and released to the process vent which discharges to the elevated release above the cooling tower. It is estimated these releases will occur over a period of days. Upon shutdown, the gases will be stripped from the primary coolant. For startup after refueling, the coolant must be deaerated (for oxygen removal) through the degassifier and the residual radioactive gases will be vented to the atmosphere using a bypass vent. o The condenser air ejectors will remove gases which collect in the conden-ser. These gases will be processed by the charcoal and HEPA filters (gaseous waste disposal filters) and released to the process vents when only Unit 1 is in operation. When Unit 2 is installed, these gases from I l l

3-17 7 UEBINE MAIN y UNIT 1 CON DE NSE R W e - TO G A5EOUS AIR EJECTOR e W ASTE OtSNSAL sv57EM 9 , 20 cfm l g - . . . F UTU R E - - - ., AIR EJECTOR UNIT F 2 '-- la* UNIT 2 I 12 CHARCOAL l STE AM l DECAY 11 7 Ns TANKS l GENERATOR N ON.C OND E NSI B L E S l , , g g 2 DAv5 he I qj ANO STEAM BACn 70 g DELAY 0 "A'NCONDENSE" L .15M,AJ. E . 01. . .., ., ,., h g TO G ASE OUS W ASTE _ [ BLOWDOWN T A 015pOS AL SYSTEM FLASH TANK} (ELE V ATE DI SECONDARY SYSTEM 4 RETURN TO CHEMICAL CHARCOAL

                                                                                                                                       #U "         "O" " '

DECAY TO LETOOWN GAS T l GASEOUS FLOW w T AN KS ,

l L W A5yg 60 epm ST RIPPE R ti.b TONS) a nco ctfyr 4, j DeSpOSA L 30 OAY xe (INCLUDES t

SYSTEM l .S DAYS Mr W PE RICOs c DELAv SURGE DEG A551 ngl 3 DECAY TANKS (ELEV ATE D) ($MAREO) TANK 8 600 cf/yr - COMPRESSORS FROM UNIT 2 2 GASEOUS EFFLUENT FROM CHEMICAL VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM & BORON CONTROL AUXILIARY BUILDING I UNIT 1: AUKILI ARY BUILDING VENT

                                                                                                ==r                                        y FUEL BUILDING WASTE GAS STORAGE 4 UNIT-2 ' " "

CONTAINME NT PURGE  ;  ; C A ggggg LEAK COLLECTION AND ,, CONTAINMENT OGG NG AIR EJECTOR + TO ATMOSPHERE

                                                                                                        'e          ,
                                                                                                                      ,  RELEASE SYSTp                            eUiLDING VENT. l SO f t.

UNIT 1 & UNIT 2 BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEMS (2) Y ,,,,, P R ESS AUXILI ARY BUILDING (OPT 80N) DECAY TANKS 3000 ellyr i AIR EJECTORS , , - PROCESS TANKS AND SUMPS <-= CONTAINMENT VACUUM PUMP == C A= I E

                               ' CONTAINMENT PURGE tOPTION)                                                  ==                                                         U   "

BLOWERS GASEOUS WASTE DISPOSAL FILTERS o G ASEOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM BE AVER VALLEY GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEM UNITS 1 AND 2 Figure 3.7 l 6 1 _ . - _ _ - - _ _ . _ - _ . . _ b

{1! w4en 1 5 9 3 9 ~ 6 4 8 1 2 1 3 6 9 5 2 1 1 8 8 l 7 3 0 0 a u g t 9 o M T r o 1 3 - - - t - - - - - - - - ct 2 es 1 7 5 ju 0 0 E a 0 0 h rx 0 0 iE A t n e V - - - ns wa og df S wf E oO D l I t B L i C n U1 U - - N / - - 5 - - - 6 - 9 - - - - 0T r s 5 2 4 I I y gu 7 DN / no AU i i u h C pn M pi FO - it OR rn e t o F E t SC ST a R s 5 - - - - - - AN - - 4 - - - - - 5 EE an LU e G w 3 EL s o RF a d E F e t L LE l u B A e h A US R S T NU NO AE - - - 1 - - - - 5 1 S t - - - - - . DA n 2 0 0 EC e 0 0 T me ng 0 0 AE MH ir _ 1 T au T t P SN n 4 3 EI o 0 0 C F - - - - 0 0 _ F - - - - - - - - - A g _ T en S ni _ i d bl ri uu TB y 1 5 - 3 9 - - 3 0 1 2 1 3 4 3 . o rg 2 1 3 5 an 1 0 0 ii ld 0 0 il xi uu AB e m m m d m m 1 3 3 5 5 7 8 5 7 8 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 i 3 5 1 3 3 l 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1

                                                                                                   -       -       -        -        -         -     1      1 c        -       -        -        -       -       -       -

e e e e e e - u r r r r r r e - N K K K K K K X X X X X X X 1 I

 !ll!                                                                                                                                                            _

r o - _ tt cs eu ja - Eh 1 '4 - 1 6 - 2 5 - - x - 2 - rE 1 i A' s a g

                       'n f wf                       .

oO d . wt . on l e BV S g E en - D ni - - - - - - - - - - 4 0 I id - 6 4 L bl 0 0 C ri 0 0 _ U2 uu N - TB 0 0 OT I I DN AU y rg R an M 2 0 FO ii - 7 9 OR ld 1 5 - 3 9 - 3 5 1 2 3 0 0 F il - - 2 1 ' . 0 0 E xi 1 ST uu 0 0 AN AB 6 EE - LU 3 EL RF E F . L LE t B A n 4 4 A US e 0 0 T NU me ng 0 0 NO - 0 0 AE i r - - - - - - - 1 - S au 2 0 0 DA tP EG n T o AE C MH . I T T _. SN gn EI ni - it - - 7 - - 7 - - - - - - F pn 5 - 2 9 F po 7 4 A iC T r S t Sn scw ad Gt - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - u O h S_ e m m m d m m 1 3 3 5 5 8 i 3 5 5 7 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 l 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 c - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 u r r r r r e e e e e e - - N K K K K K X X X X X X I I 1 ,! i I ti

3-20 both Units l~ nd 2 will be processed through charcoal delay beds (pro-viding 2 hours decay for krypton and 2 days decay for xenon, and removal i of essentially all iodine), charcoal and HEPA filters (gaseous waste  ! disposal filters), and then released by the process vent. The applicants consider one day decay for krypton and 16 days decay for xenon in the charcoal delay beds. The staff used larger condenser inleakage rates to calculate the delay time resulting in less decay time. Radioactive gases may be released in the auxiliary and turbine buildings due to equipment leaks. The ventilation system for the auxiliary build-ing has been designed to insure that air flow will be from areas of low potential to areas having a greater potential for the release of airborne radioactivity. The exhaust is released without treatment. During abnor-mal operations the auxiliary building ventilation may be processed through the supplementary leak collection and release system (charcoal and HEPA filters) and to the containment building vent. The turbine building ventilation will be released without treatment. Radioactive gases may be released inside the reactor containment when components of the primary system are opened to the building atmosphere or when minor leaks occur in the primury system. The reactor containment atmosphere will be purged through charcoal and HEPA filters and discharged to the containment building vent. Prior to purging, the containment recirculation system will reduce the iodine and particulate activity by recirculating the containment atmo:phere through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers. Our estimate of releases from the containment purge assumes a 16-hour operation of the recirculation system before purging. Gas spaces in liquid tanks such as the waste drain tanks, coolant recovery tanks, and test tanks will be removed by a gas sweep system and replaced with fresh air to prevent these gases from diffusing into build-ing atmospheres. These ef fluents are expected to be small and will be released through the charcoal and HEPA filters (gaseous waste disposal filters) and the process vent. The steam generator blowdown flashtank and reboiler vent will be routed to the main condenser eliminating this effluent stream. Main steam will be used for the gland cealing system. The gland seal leakoff steam will be routed to the gland seal condenser. The noncondensibles will be vented to the roof vent and the condensibles drained to the condensate storage tank. gland seal gases are expected to be negligible. o We estimate about 1150 C1/yr of noble gases and 0.09 Ci/yr of iodine-131 vill be released when only Unit 1 is in operation. We estimate 1150 Ci/yr/ unit of noble gases and 0.08 Ci/yr/ unit of iodine-131 will be released from Unit 1 and 0.014 C1/yr/of iodine-131 from Unit 2 when both are in operation. The applicants, in the environmental report , estimate l l

                                                                            . i l

, I ' I

3-21 n k r- - f1 t [ ' ""' 'y- 2273 Ci/yr nf noble gases and'O.0046.C1/yr of iodine-131 will be released when' only Unit 1,is in operation. The applicants cstimate 4046 Ci/yr/ unit of noble gases and 0.0128 Ci/yr/ unit of iodine-131 will be released from Unit 1 and Unit 2 in operation. The applicants have considered less-

                                      ' auxilicry building leakage than the staff and consider higher charcoal filter efficiencies.

3.5.3 Solid Radwasco The solid radwaste system will be designed to collect, monitor, process,- package 'and provide temporary storage for radioactive solid wastes ! ' prior to offsite- shipment and disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. Spent demineraliter resins from the variour, treatment systems will be

                                      . transferred to a spent resin shipping cask. .The resins will then be dewatered. The resin sluice will be processed later by the aerated waste system.

Evaporator concentrates from the waste disposal evaporator and the boron evaporators will be pumped to an evaporator concentrates shipping con-tainer where it will be mixed with an absorbent to solidify it. Expended filter cartridges will be placed into cacks or drums depending on the activity. Other dry solid wastes consisting of contaminated raga, paper, protective clothing and miscellaneous contaminated items will be packaged in drums' or other suitable . neainers for disposal. Containers will be filled and sealed by remote control when the radia-tion levels require it. A31 containers will be centained and shipped.in g .accordance with AEC and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. We estimate approximately 10,000 Ci/yr of solid wastes will be shipped offsite from the two units. 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE EFFLUENTS The normal operation of the power plant requires the ust of certain chemi-cals, some of which are discharged ultimately into the Ohio River, via-the cooling tower blowdown line. These chemicals serve variouu functions 3 including: 1) reactor reactivity control, 2) corrosion control in the steam generator units, 3) the production of the high purity water,

4) decontamination and cleaning, 5) laboratc> ; uses, and 6) biological O growth control in the cooling water circuitt 9

7rx , . o 3-22 m The estimated average and maximum discharges of chemical wastes, along with the resultant increases,of naturally occurring chemical species in the s river. water have been provided by the applicants and are listed in' Table 3.7. It is the staff's opinion thac these discharges represent renconable estimates

                                                    .for the Beaver Valley station. A_ discussion of the significant chemical waste effluents is given below.

3.6.1. Reactor Coolant Chemicals The reactor primary coolant is distilled water. Small quantities'of boric acid, lithium hydroxide and hydrazine are added to the coolant for reactivity, pH and corrosion control, respectively. Reactivity is decreased by injecting a concentrated boric acid solution inte the primary coolant, and is increased by diluting the boron content of the coolant with water from the primary water storage tanks. Lithium hydroxide is used for pH control of the primary coolant; however, lithium is formed from the naclear a-n reaction of boron and an excess of lithium ' is gradually built up. Excess lithium is removed by passing the cooled, depressurized, and decontaminated letdown flow intermittently through a cation demineralized bed before returning it to the primary water storage tanks. Boron dischargcs are estimated at 27 lb/yr and lithium discharges are estimated at.0.02 lb/yr. Hydrazine, added to the primary coolant for corrosion control, slowly breaks down to hydrogen, ammonia, and water in the primary system, and-combines with any oxygen present that would pose a corrosion problem. Hydracine breakdown products and residual free hydrazine are released to the caseous waste disposal system f rom the degassifier as the; letdown is processed through the boron recovery system, with the free hydrazine being oxidized rapidly by the oxygen in the system. Hydrazine accompanying primary system leakages will react with atmospheric oxygen and quickly become innocuous. It has been estimated by the applicant that 0.75 lb of hyirazine may be released annually; however, in the opinion of thc staff it will not reach the river- as such, but as innocuous oxidation products. 3.6.2 Secondary Coolant Wastes Demineralized water is used for the secondary coolant and normally small quantities of sodium phosphates and morphaline are added; to maintain

                                                    - suitable water chemistry; phosphates to minimize scaling on the heat exchange surfaces and the volatile morphaline to control the pH of the steam generator water and condensates.

Due to continuous losses of steam and condensate from the secondary sys-tem, a small continuous blowdown of the steam generator is required to avoid a buildup of solids in the steam drum. In addition, possible 4 __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _____ ...___._ __. _ _ l

toeuem i3w4 gh _ S stoee o p t n pt sl atj m aorer_ e

                                      .n                                      - _

at . e _ mt t E ; isxn krsu T' Noml ti t i e

                                                 ,i lB ssg /

i Lom r R sw 'a.t. r re E at ag m.14 4 114 1t  : - - 7 - 8 tm1 3 V nelfg o i1 7 F I R wwn "a 0 l s f f tt t e t

                                                *g O                  n            ,

S s en to g "o s0 5 wD 1 T tD tI i ~ - e - t Ni E H T r. y O d [ s T ettb O 60 a r 0 t s au m m, I M f. 00 00 t 0 6 "I-S e Sane w i o. a

                                                $       5 100 7  L            ts       le      r 1

7% A i se 3 C t I E M L E B H A C yw} _ I T F O met el e( u e en_ qt e 7 WF 6 10 I6 t/ E frf o D_ S A E L

                             )

I I' E yd. s I d se I0 8 R teet 0 M $ 4 - E rleno 0 l - l I D *eRtfn E o T A ) M T I I d (e ' T tas c way el IO S oec 0 0 7 F I E ml 9 M 3 - lT 74 A e o - RA3 t 2.10D D .ee 3 ss e nn t reoo ul pp d s gbss lee s , g le ia ee FTRR ira O al w, 0j H taee C . . tee ale a a 2 10 4 y 8 3 0 t t15 tt d1.44. MR s m N lC h $5 tt t L e 1 tnmno 1 eee m rn s 4 8 ennn aeee e e lo t gn e s s weee t ts r e n pAheA s t r

                                        . a           e    r                     n    t to e

aM W e r e n t . 21,I.t.1. n e C o &t n e tnd d e e  ; s C y a a i t aei dr fto u ity n e rt rn o ffffte eeee RRRRR r u e

                                        - t
                                        .le el bl        s          ge         v ts os tet e  wt ns dr e

re tae it , rn e e i i i t l iort tc oo er 12)45 O see e et ma tet loo t e r e ec ee nr oo i l i i 1 tie Mse i e st e tm eh (S R t st i Ct l

I 3-24 leakage of the prEmary coolant into the secondary system, with its attendant radioactivity and boron content, also would require a continu-ous blowdown to minimize radioactivity and boron buildup in the secon-dary system. Thus, the quantity of blowdown processed is dependent on  ! the secondary steam and condensate losses, the magnitude of the primary-to-secondary leakage, and on the radioactivity and bcron content of the primary coolant. Normally the bloudown is decontaminated by evaporation, and the conden-sate is demineralized and used as makeup feed to the primary coolant system or recycled tc the secondary system. The evaporator bottoms are combined with the other radwaste materials that are drummed for eventual disposal. 3.6.3 Water Treatment Wastes Approximately 70,000 gal of raw river water per day are chemically treated to supply the domestic and process water needs of the plant. Initially, lime, ferric sulfate and clay are added to coagulate and settle the suspended solids. The coagulated solids and chemical addi-tives are removed from the treated water by settling tanks and sand fil-ter units, and the accumulated solids are periodically pumped to a tank truck for offsite disposal at a state certified site. Chlorination of the raw water is required to control biological growths in the water treating equipment. Chlorine addition to the clarifier is controlled to masotain a residual concentration of about 0.1 mg/ liter at the discharge of the sand filters. The 65,00J 31 af hip. curity water needed daily for the steam generation and primary cooling systems are produced by pumping the filtered water through ion exchange beds which corb the ionic forms of chemicals such as sodium, calcius, magnesium, chloride, bicarbonate and sulfate from the water. When the capacity of f on exchange beds to remove those chemicals is exhausted, the beds are regenerated by treating them with sulf 11c acid and sodium hydroxide solutionra. The cation and anion demine .alizer units are regenerated approximately once a week, generating about 13,000 gal of neutralized waste containing approximately 36,000 ppm of dissolved solids, mostly sodium sulfate. The mixed-bed polishing demineralized is regenerated once every 2 to 3 months, generating about 3000 gal of neutralized waste containing approximately 39,000 ppm dissolved solids, also mostly sodium sulfate. After neutralization, these waste solutions are discharged to the cooling water blowdown line at about 3 100 gpm, increasing the total dissolved solids content of the blowdown by about 260 mg/ liter. 9

3-25 i The r4maining filtered water is routed through a water sof tening ion exchange unit to supply the domestic needs of the station. The ion exchange unit replaces the calcium and magnesium ions in the clarified and filtered water with the more soluble sodium ions. When the capacity I of the f on exchanger to replace those ions is exhausted, the unit is regenerated with a concentrated sodium chloride brine. The water I softener is regenerated every 7 to 10 days, generating about 270 gal of waste containing approximately 170,000 ppm of dissolved solids, mostly sodium chloride. The waste brine is discharged directly into the cooling tower circuit at 18 gpm, and eventually into the. river via the blowdown line. 3.6.4 Condenser Cooling System Output The cooling water is chlorinated periodically to control the growth of biological slimes which ficurish on the warn heat exchanger surf aces, restricting the flow of cooling water through the equipment and reducing the ef festiveness of the heat transfer surfaces. The frequency and amount of chlorine used is dictated by the requirements of the individual circuits and by seasonal variations, with warmer summertime water requir- ' ing larger additions to compensate for the more rapid ingrowth of fouling  ! organisms and the increased chlorine demand of the raw water. Instrument systems control the chlorine injection rates to maintain a free residual chlorine level at the condenser discharge at an effective level but which will not exceed 0.1 mg/l in the cooling tower blowdown. To subject the fouling organisms to ef fective chlorine concentrations, and yet minimize its concentration in the cooling tower blowdown waters, chlorine is injected alternately inco the two sections of the main conden-ser three times a day. The injection periods vary from 30 to 60 minutes depending on the season. Chlorination of the auxiliary component cooling systams is scheduled as required and is ef fected out of phase of the main condenser treatment cycle. Limited data indicate that the normal chlorine demand of the river water ranges from about 2.5 mg/ liter in the winter to about 5 mg/Jiter in the summer, and it is estimated that approximately 500 to 1000 lb of chlorine will be consumed daily to obtain the treatment conditions proposed. Free residual chlorine concentrations in the cooling tower basin and blowdown line are anticipated to reach maximum values no greater than 0.1 mg/ liter during the chlor % nation cycles. No additional biocide treatment is anticipated to maintain freedom from O slime growths in the cooling tower. Chloramines, formed during and sub-sequent to the chlorination cycles, may become sir stripped from the cooling water in its transit through the cooling tower and be released to the environment from the tower plume. It has been conservatively D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ A J

3-26 estimated by the applicants that under the most adverse atmospheric diffusion conditior.3, ground level concentrations of chloramines from the plume should not exceed 50 ppb by volume. It is the staff's opinion that these intermittent concentrations will not produce detectable odors and will have no effect on vegetation and terrestrial organisms. 3.7 SANITARY WASTES AND OTHER EFFLUENTS 3.7.1 Sewage Treatment Wastes Domestic and sanitary wastes from the nonradioactive areas of the plant are discharged to a packaged sewage treatment facility utilizing an extended aeration modification of the activated sludge process, followed by chlorinc disinfection. The capacity of the treatment facility is 10,000 gal / day, with the following effluent parameters: Reduction of BOD 5 day 90% Reduction of suspended solids 90% Reduction of settleable solids %100% Maximum effluent residual chlorine 1.0 ppm Minimum effluent dissolved oxygen 1.0 ppm Approximately 4900 gal / day of raw sewage is expected to be the eventual normal hydraulic loading of the system, with 6300 gal / day anticipated di~ing refueling operations. Raw sewage flows into an aeration tank where it is continuously air sparged and mixed with the activated sludge of the system. The aeratiin tank is sized to retain the sewage for approximately 24 hours before it overflows into a settling tank. Scum and settled sludge from the settling tank are returned to the aeration tank for further treatment and to mix with the incoming raw sewage, while the clarified ef fluent is treated with a chloriae solution to kill any remaining bacteria prior to release into the river. Excess activated sludge, and phosphate sludge, are removed pe-iodically from the settling tanks for disposal offuite by licensed contractors. In the wnt of a mechanical failure or an upset in the biological opera-tion of the sewage treatment plant, raw sewage will be trucked offsite by a contractor for suitabic disposal until the normal operation of the sys-tem can be re-established. o 3.7.2 Effluents from Trash Racks River debris, carried into the intake r*ructure with the water entering the plant, is stopped either on the coarse inclined bar racks or on the finer meshed, vertical traveling water screens. Debris collected on the trash racks is routinely raked up the inclined bars and into the trash e - _ _ - - _ - - - _ - - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ 1

l I l l' 3-27 l pit. The traveling screens are arranged in an endless loop, with the upper end of the loop rising above the water surf ace in the intake struc-ture. A water spray system, directed cn the back side of the exposed screens, flushes the accumulated leaves, aquatic plants, and other fina debris f rom the screens and into a sluiceway leading to the trash pit, Debris accumulated in the trash pit is periodically removed for offsite 1 disposal. Water draining from the trash pit is routed back to the river without treatment. 3.7.3 Storm Drainage Roof drainage and noncontaminated floor and equipment drainage systems will be discharged to the storm sewer. Oil contained in drainage from the turbine oil room and floor areas around the turbine oil conditioner, and from oil-sealed equipment is removed by an oil skimmer before the drainage 12 discharged to the storm sewer. Oil is periodically removed from the oil skimmer for of fsite disposal by private contractors. Oil spillage from transformers is absorbed in slag-filled pits under and around the transformers. The pits are curbed to prevent surface water from flooding the pits and floating off the oil, in the event of major oil leakage, the oil-filled slag will be removed to an appropriate dis-posal site and replaced with fresh slag. 3.7.4 Boiler and Diesel Engine Emissions Two small, oil-fired heating boilers, two diesel-driven emergency elec-trical generators, and one diesel-driven fire pump which are operated periodically during emergency procedure testing operations, release combustion products to the atmosphere. Emission data on the boiler and diesel equipment are given in Table 3.6. 3.7.5 Condenser Tube Corrosion Products The metal loss from 'the 304 stainless steel main condenser tubes, due to the scouring tetion of the suspended solids in the cooling water, is not expected to increase the metal ion concentrations of the river water significantly. A loss of approximately 3000 lb/yr is anticipated from the condenser tubing, resulting in an increase in the iron, chromium and nickel concentrations of the blowdown of 0.03, 0.009 and 0.005 mg/ liter, respectively. o 3.7.6 Laboratory and Other Wastes Potentially contaminated floor drains, and laboratory drains are routed , to waste drain tanks, while laundry and decontamination shower wastes are l collected in laundry and shower drain tanks. Depending on the analysis l I l 1 _ - ~ , - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __

3-28 TABLE 3.8 EMISSIONS FROM BOILER AND DIESEL ENGINES 1 ,3(a,b) Average Emission Maximum Emission tons /yr lb/hr Emission Type Boilers (c) Diesels (d) Boilers (e) Diesels (f)_ Particulate 4.0 0.026 6.1 6.7 SO2 24 0.072 36 19 CD 0.02 0.34 x 10-4 0.03 0.09 Hydrocarbons 1.0 5.1 x 10-3 1.5 1.34 NO2 53 0.136 80 35.8 Aldehydes 0.5 3.4 x 10-3 o,7 o,9 Organic Acids - 0.005 - 1.3 (a) Ref 1, Amendment 4, Response D.21 (b) Number 2 fuel oil with 0.3% sulfur used for both boiler and diesel equipment 6 (c) Total yearly fuel consumption: 1.01 x 10 gal for two boilers 3 (d) Total yearly fuel consumption: 3.4 x 10 gal for three diesel units (e) Maximum rate of fuel consumption: 760 gal /hr for two boilers operating (f) Maximum rate of fuel consumption: 447 gal /hr for three units operating a l

1 3-29 of representative samples, the tank contents are transferred either to the radwaste liquid waste system, or through filters, directly to the cooling water tower blowdown line. 3.8 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES The Beaver Valley transmission switching station (switchyard) is an expansion of the existing Shippingport switchyard. . It is required for interconnections between the CAPCO pool companies and is being completed and placed in service for that purpose in 1972 prior to completion of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1. The requirement for these inter-connections at this location between the CAPCO companies was one of the' , reasons for locating Beaver Valley Power Station U it 1 at this point to conveniently feed power into the transmission 4 tem. There are no transmission lines required specifically for the Heaver Valley Power Station Unit 1. Three 345 kV lines will be connected to the switchyard to meet CAPCO pool commitments. Two 138 kV lines will be installed to tie the Duquesne Light Company System into the switchyard located at the terminus of the three 345 kV lines. Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I will connect to the switchyard, However, if Unit--I were not constructed, the saitchyard and transmission lines would still be installed to provide-interconnections between the CAPCO companies. (Ref 1, Amendment 2, p. 3.3-42). Previously, there were three transmission lines feeding into the Beaver Valley site: a single 345 kV line, the Beaver Valley-Sammis, Ohio Edi-son interconnection;.and two 138 kV lines, the Beaver Valley-Midland and Beaver Valley-Crescent Lines. (Ref 1, p. 3.3-42.) Four lines which will carry power from -the Beaver Valley Power Station have been erected and energized:

1. The beaver Valley - Crescent No. 2 line (138 kV - 2 circuits, energized March 4,1972 and July 11, 1972) was installed by rerouting approxi-mately 0.5 mile of the old Phillips-Midland 69 kV line being con-verted to 138 kV into Beaver Valley Subscation using existing towers to form a Beaver Valley - Crescent No. 2 circuit. The remaining line to Midland Substation will be left out of service.

2. The Beaver Valley - Crucible line (138 kV, energized Septem-ber 24, 1972) was installed by rerouting approximately 0.5 mile of the old Phillips-Crucible 138 kV line into Beaver Valley, using existing a towers.

9 L

L 3-30 I i 1

3. The Beavdr Valley - Shenango line (345 kV, energized June 9. 1972) i was installed as the Duquesne Light portion of the Pennsylvania Power l Company interconnection to their Shenango Substation. Dur,uesne Light  ;

Company installed approximately 2 miles of new line utilizing corro- l sion resistant steel towers on a new right-of-way from Beaver Valley 1 Power Station to the Ohio River.

4. The Beaver Valley - Collier line (345 kV, energized October 13, 1972) connects Beaver Valley with Collier Substation. The line was con-structed on an old existing 134 kV right-of-way for 14.3 miles and on -4 new right-of-way for 11 miles. It consists of corrosion resistant steel towers and sceel poles. The old existing right-of-way is narrower than normal 345 kV requirements and utilizes steel pole con-struction with a vertical configuration of V-string insulators to make use of the 138 kV right-of-way. This line passes within 6500 ft of the west end of the east-west runway of the Greater Pittsburgh Air-port, within 1000 ft of the southwest end of the Service Creek Reser-voir and within 3 miles of an Allegheny County Park.

Installation of one core line is planned to carry power from the Beaver Valley plant. That line is the Beaver Valley - Crescent No.1 circuit (345 kV, to be energized October 1, 1974) and will connect Beaver Valley with Crescent Substation. This line will be installed on the 12 mile right-of-way occupied by the Phillips-Crucible 138 kV line. The old wood pole H-frame line was removed and replaced by corrosion resistant steel poles with a vertical configuration of V-string insulation to make use of the old right-of-way (Ref 1, Amendment 4, p. F.4). An aerial view of the switchyard and some transmission lines is presented in Figure 3.8. j Almost all of the rights-of-way described above consist of easements on land owned by others. Although erection of structures would not be per-mitted beneath the transmission lines other uses of the land along the rights-of-way such as grazing would not be prohibited. It is the applicant's practice that, when rights-of-way are cleared, logs are lef t for the land owners tase and small branches and brush are shredded and lef t along the right-of-way. The right-of-way for a 345 kV double line is typically 150 ft wide. After initial cutting and clearing, right-of-way j maintenance consists of selective use of a mixture of low volatile esters 1 2-4-5 T and 2-4 D mixed in water on the stems of small plants and trees. Grasses and berry bushes are allowed to grow.

                                                                                                                                                      )

1 0 b i l e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ l

3-31 9 i - e,  : .

                                           ~
                                                     .I                           i            ,

g h ^ f k ,_6 [ '$ s 7,: y , i , - j;

                                                                             .            )J                         . ....                    -
                                                 /,                                                                                            !
                                                                             ..           5              ' Y' g                                   ,
                                                                                  ,2 T                    '?

p ) q j. 3

                                                            -                                                                                  s d                                                                                         9         i t                                                                                         j
                                                 .                 J,ny
                                                                                                                                               =

O' '

                                                                              . t                                        ...

i s(;

                                                                ).                     ,
                                                                                                      .- . ;,j a               .
                                                       ,                                            4                       ..
                                                         'g 4                      ,

gi 3

                                                                                                                                             . l

_ -- _ ------ - - - - - - - - - - - i!

3-32 _~ REFERENCES

1. Duquesne Light Co. , Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Power Co. , Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, Docket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971.

2. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co., Toledo Edison Co., Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2. Environmental Report, Revision 1, Construction Permit Stage, Docket No. 50-412, September 25, 1972.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of fice of Air Programs, "Com-pilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," (AP-42), Research Tri-angle Park, N.C., 1972.

e i l l 9 - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ . --__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

4-1 a,

                                                                   ;4          ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION Tae site for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 had been substantially disrupted, prior to the initiation of construction, by the construction and access to the.Shippingport reactor, by numerous oil pipelines which cross-the site and by the approach to the Shippingport bridge across the Ohio River. Most of the present construction rests upon a gravel shelf' whose elevation has been considerably increased.by bringing in 1,100,000 cubic yards of fill. A residual stand of trees, lining the riverbank northwest of Unit 1, has been left standing and serves to mini-mize surface erosion to the Ohio River ~during construction. Dewatering of holes for footings has created little if any sediment input to the river since such underground seepage is filtered by the sub's oils through which the water moves.'

Esisting oil and gas lines which would have been under the new facilities were moved during early construction stages but in the massive construc- , tion which ensued such trenching was of little consequence. Two of these  ! lines, the 12 in. People's Watural Gas Line and the Laurel Pipeline now lie in the area of the newly located auth of Peggs Run. To provide space for the cooling tower of Unit 1, 425 ft of-Peggs Run have been relocated closer to the fill supporting the south approach to the Shippingport highway bridge. To prevent any undermining of the high-way, cooling tower, and pipelines, the stream is contained through this area by pilings and concrete bottom. Peggs Run is classified as containing acid mine water run-off and aquatic life is reported to be sparse (Ref 1, p. 3.1-40) . There was no aquatic vegetation in the relocated section and only a few small fish were evident (Ref 1, B.V. 1, p. 3.1-40). The relocation and fluming resulted in the destruction of the few benthic organisms present. These could be reasonably expected to repopulate with time. An area of several acres east of the highway bridge approach was cleared and built up with spoil not suitable as fill material. This was leveled and is being used for temporary storage during construction. The appli-cants' plans show this area being restored to meadow grass. Beautifica-tion in this area would complement that recommended along Peggs Run. An additional 30 acres of leased land was used for storage and will be allowed to revert to grass and brun.h foll m ng construction. All such land uses reduce the area available for native species but, becausa of the proximity of the storage and structural areas to cones of high human occupancy, dis-

• placement of native life forms is relatively slight. The remaining 80 +%

of the site will continue in its native state with no apparent consequen-ces to its terrestrial biota from the construction. 1 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ l

ll 4-2 r. A small amount dredging necessary for construction of intake and dis-1 - charge structures and the barge slip resulted in a transient silta-tion problem (Ref 1, p. 3.1-40). _The benthic populations in the immediate area of the dredging operations were reported by the applicants I to have a low density and diversity (Ref 1, p. 3.1-40). These populations L would be expected to re-establish themselves after completion of construction. The staf f judges that such a temporary effect will not significantly affect the aquatic environment in this section of the Ohio River. Two shallow temporary wells are used in support of construction. One well which draws about 100 gpm provides water for domestic use and a smaller well provides water for concrete batching. These wells will be abandoned after construction has been completed. This water use is jvdged to be insignificant in terms of environmental impact. Construction of Beaver Valley 1 does'not appear to'have an adverse effect on any aspect of human activities near the plant beyond occasional traffic congestion when workers are arriving at or leaving the site. The poten-tial serious. effects of an influx of temporary labor providing a burden on schools-and other.public facilities has not developed. This is due to the mobility of the labor force which is principally being drawn from the greater Pittsburgh area labor pool. ] As discussed in Section 3.8, transmission lines, which will carry the power .from the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, ,are already in place. Impacts on the environment as a result of these installations have already

                                                                                                                    ~

occurred. Although tall species of flora were sacrificed for these trans-mission lines the staff, judges that recovery from installation impacts has probably begun for other terrestrial species. l O 9 k,

4-3 REFERENCES

1. Duquesne Lif,ht Co., Ohio Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co.,

Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, Docket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971. 9 _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ I

l 5-1 a _- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION 5.1 LAND USE The Beaver Valley site covers about 449 acres and the space occupied by the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 amounts to about 12 acres. An { additional 13 acres are in use for parking lots, toads and temporary con- l structicn buildings. The Shippingport facility occupies about 6 acres. Of the total,186 acres have been owned by the Duquesne Light Company since 1933 and 233 acres were acquired in 1954. Another 30 acres have been acquired more recently. The land on which Beaver Valley Power Sta-tion Unit 1 is situated is owned jointly by the applicants. The Beaver I Valley complex will occupy less than 20% of the site and the remainder will remain essentially undisturbed. The majority of the land to remain idle consists of steep wooded headlands which rise behind the site. The staff judges that the potential for more productive uses of that land is small and that in terms of environmental impact there is no significant j conflict in land use associated with the Beaver Valley Station. 5.2 WATER USE f The consumptive use of water associated with Beaver Valley P&wer Station Unit 1 was discussed in Section 3.3 and it was concluded that about 0.06% of the annual flow of the Ohio River would be consumed as a result of plant operations. In the staff's judgement this use will have little or no environmental impact. The addition of chemicals to the river was discussed in Section 3.6 and the biological implications of those discharges will be discussed in Section 5.7. This section deals with the discharge of heated water into the Ohio River and its effect thereon. The staff has made an independent analysis of the thermal impact on the Ohio River from the discharge of blowdown from the Unit 1 cooling tower and has taken into account the thermal discharge of the Shippingport Power Station. Thermal plumes resulting from the Shippingport Power Sta-tion as prepared by the applicants' consultant are presented in Figure 5.1. The model used by the staffl is a phenomenological model developed and tested under flow conditions similar to those existing in the Ohio River.2 In addition the staff evaluated the results of the applicants' thermal analysis of heated discharges as performed by the Alden Research Labora- l tory (Ref 3, Amendment 4). The evaluations presented include the situation where nearby Phillis Island remains substantially as it existed at the time of the applicants' study

• and the potential situation where the major portion of the island has been  ;

removed by its owner fer use as fill material. The applicants do not own the island nor do they control its removal. It is understood, however , that the owner does not now plan to remove the island beyond what is hereaf ter referred to as the " modified" island (see Figure 5.3) . l l 1 i b i i R_J

3-2  ; I

                                                                    ~

l SHIPPINGPORT  ! FLOW 254 CFS AT 14.3 BEAVER VALLEY DISCHARGE j FLOW 0 CFS RIVER FLOW 5000 CFS , , y 0 1000 b2.3 . DEFIH OF ISOTHERMS 1 FT l

                                                                                           --                                               62.5 LLIS ISLAND         5 j                             SHIPPINGPORT 62.3 1              DEPTH OF ISOTHERMS 5 FT D     'd                        --

62.5

• 62.7 LLIS ISLAND SHIPPINGPORT FIGURE 5.1 HORIZONTAL ISOTHERKS 5000 cfs NATURAL RIVER FLOW SHIPPINGPORT PLANT ONLY (Ref 3, Ammendment 4.)

i e

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

l 5-3  :

                                                                    ~

f The staff's eveluation predicts thermal plumes in the river for times of maximum temperature difference between the blowdown discharge and ambient river temperature (winter conditions) and for times of maximum total tem-perature of the blowdown discharge (summer conditions). The first case is represented by an ambient river temperature of 37'F and a blowdown of 38.7 cfs at 77'F (AT 40'F). In this case the once-through cooling of the Shippingport Power Station results in a thermal discharge of 254 cfs at 51.5'F. The second case is represented by the maximum expected temperature of 84*F, a Unit 1 blowdown discharge of 36.9 cfs at 90*F (AT 6*F) and a Shipping-port discharge of 254 cfs at 98.5*F. Isotherm predictions prepared by the staff for " winter" conditions and a river flow of 5000 cfs (the expected minimum flow, although unlikely to occur during winter months) and both the full Phillis Island and modified island are shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 respectively. Other assumptions made in the plume predictions include a mixing depth of 3 ft, water depth of the main river of 14 f t and water depth of the side channel of 10 f t. The staf f also prepared thermal plume predictions for minimum flow (5000 cfs) and " summer" conditions which are illustrated in Figure 5.4. It may be noted that the cooling tower is more effective in the summer time and the aT of the blowdown is only 6*F. To illustrate the effect of additional flow on the predicted thermal plumes, an analysis for " winter" conditions and a river flow of 10,000 efs is shown in Figure 5.5. The ereas encompassed by selected isotherms resulting from the operation of Beaver Valley Unit 1 only (does not include Shippingport) are presented i for various conditions and assumptions in Table 5.1. The analysis of thermal discharges made by the staff indicates that the great-est thermal impact would occur during the unlikely combination of extreme low river flows and low air temperatures. In that case the area within the 5'F isotherm resulting from thermal discharges from Beaver Valley 1 enly was calculated to be 4 acres. The analysis confirms the applicants' findings that significant recirculation of heated effluent through the Beaver Valley or Shippingport intakes will not occur. Based on extensive field examinations of thermal discharges, the staff has concluded that e 4

N I E _ K E Y A G E T R L A L N. H E A C G V S R I A R C D H E D C V G T S R A N R I E E I O D V B P P I P G Y R I N E H I L O S P L I P A H I V O H S R _" g E o V A g A _O E o B

           -         M' 8.'-

F f' D -

                      % A :w $i N                4 q$.-

d'LS $ fI [ 5' QI u S WLr L Iq GPq H

                    ${ft-
                   $i S

9[$ S FF C F

                 %                                        F C0 0        5 7F 8 4 .          0 D        3 54 80 S N                     21 34 N A S O L F                 .

I S C P W W T I MO O I 0 E LT L D L 0 T FA F N L 0 O U M C F 5 A Y F E T E 0 0 R R L 2 0 W T O L 0 O S P A 1 L P G V F U N T I R E R R P E hF

 . F E                                    E E P            V 0                                                                 A 4                                               V V       I I    I    H      E R R S            S 0
   \

A R Y T A E N H E L I C G L S RA A T I V R D HC S O N R P T' S O E G R I I A V N O D T C I P E P G Y I R B N EL D

                            ;.P                               E E                     I R

V p P L I 3 P AV P R I F H F O S R E A I V T H S O A E B E S I R

                                   ^F

_ S E R U T A R E P M E F F T

                     "                                        E 2 4 C

D A N F A R L U S S I S 3 I L 5 L I E S R H S F U P F FF C G D C0 I N 8 5 7F F A 3 4 . 0 S L 54 80 N S 21 34 O I S I F . T D C P W W I E MO O D I 0 E LT LT N F 0 T FA FA O I 0, F C D M O 5 A Y 0 M E T E 4 R R L W T O L

        \                              O S P L P G A1 V

F U N T I RI R R P EN

    .                                  E E P            VU V V       I      A I     I   H      E R R S            B l!l,

E E K I A I T N E I E K A G Y T R E N A L I H E L C G A T S R V I A R R D H E R O C V P T SI S E N I V G R R A M O D O I I E P -- P T O B G Y C _ I - P N EL I I H I D O H P L E S P AV R I P H F

                       #g S RE                      F V                   A A                   T E                   S
                          -                                        B F                             ,
                        -                                 o                            E 5                            S
                          -                                                            I R

- E R U T A R

                                          ,F        -

E 7 P 2 0 M 4 E T D A N - E C L A S tf }' F I R 7> 4 'fh U S I L

                                          .Q S

S 49Q~ S F 4 L FF C I C0 5 H ~ 5 F P 4 . 9. 0 E D F 54 6 R N U 21 36 U A 4 G S L 8 I N S F O I S I F . W W F T D C P O O F I E M LT LT O D I 0 E FA FA 2 "4 N F 0 T O I 0, C D M 0 O 5 A Y 0 M E T E 0 R R L 1 W T O L O S P A T L P G V E F U N E I R F R R P E

          ~                                                    E E P            Y V V        I     A I    I     H     E 0                        R R S            B 3

l l! - m

A G Y T R E N L I A E L H G A T C R V R S I A O H D C

                               \RE          P G           S V      N T I A      I       R O

D E P R B P P Y E I G E V H N I L I S L R P A P V I O I H S R H E O V

             -                                         A B

E p - F U S D a p 0 4 7 N _ A S L .3 F' f I f Y S oMd I L

                                ~.(*

y g,' L S I h S F H FF C P D F C0 N 5 7F A 8 4 . 0 S L 3 54 80 N S S 21 34 O I F I C . T D PW W p I E 0 M O O 0 D I 0 E LT LT 4 N F 0, T Fa FA O I C D 0 M O 1 A Y M E T E 0 R R L 0 W T O L _ F 0 O S P A 1 L P G V 0 F U N 2 I R R R P E E E P V

   .                                                  V V     I      A I   I   H      E 0                                R R S          B y   II ,

i 4 5-8 i

                                                   -                                                                                       I
                                                 ~

TABLE 5.1 AREAS INCLUDED WITHIN SPECIFIED ISOTHERMS (UNIT 1 AND SHIPPINGPORT OPERATING) i Temperature conditions, 5*F Isotherm 4*F Isotherm 2*F Isotherm Flow Island Status (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)

                                   " winter", 5000 cfs, full island                                   4               27           110
                                   " winter", 5000 cfs, modified island                               4               27           110
                                   " winter", 10,000 cfs, modified island                               3               15           110
                                   " summer", 5000 cfs, modified island                               2                 3            75 the heated effluent will be located in the upper 3 to 5 f t of the river.

The staff also concludes that applicable Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (a) and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (b) regulations will be met. The staff has included in its assessment of thermal impact those facilities producing thermal discharges in the immediate vicinity of the Beaver Valley plant. Some thermal increase in the Ohio River could be expected upon operation of the Bruce Mansfield plant located upstream of the Beaver Valley Station. Although the staf f is unable to quantify the thermal releases of this plant, its contribution is estimated to be less than two-thirds that of the Beaver Valley Station since the units are coal-fired, slightly smaller than those at Beaver Valley and employ natural draf t cooling towers. Although the staff had not quantified the effect, upstream industries would not be expected to cause a significant thermal contribution at the Beaver Valley Station because of intervening dams and tributaries of the Ohio River and the general requirements of Ohio River Quality Standards and administrative impact of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 72-500). e The blowdown flows reported by the applicants are significantly larger than flows reported by some other stations of comparable size. It is the opinion of the staff that these flows, and therefore the heat rejected to the river could be substantially reduced if warranted. Such reduction would curtail substantial plant design modifications. (a) Pollution Control Standards No. 1-70 and 2-70 of Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. (b) Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Rules and Regulations. I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ __ il

5-9 o. In the opinton of the staff, there will be no significant effect on sur-rounding domestic wells from plant operation and construction. 5.3 IMPACTS ON THE ATMOSPHERE The proposed design for Beaver Valley Unit 1 includes a natural draft cooling tower about 500 ft high having a top diameter of about 220 ft. Most of the waste heat involved in the process of power generation will. be dissipated from this cooling tower in the form of heated water vapor released directly to the atmosphere. 5.3.1 Plume With a natural draft cooling tower the most obvious atmospheric impact is the visible plume in the sky. The plume can be expected to be most per-sistent under conditions when the capacity for the atmosphere to hold addi-tional water vapor is lowest. This occurs when the relative humidity is high and/or the air temperatures are low. The 500-ft release height of the cooling tower combined with the buoyancy and momentum of the plume will enable the plume to penetrate low-level inversions in the valley. Because the effects of inversion layers in the utmosphere have not been taken into account, the models used by the appli- 1 cants may not adequately predict long plume behavior. Observations of a number of cooling tower installations in the same region suggest that under limiting meteorological conditions the visible plume extended 1 or 2 miles." Some observers indicate, however, that under restricted condi-tions plumes could possibly extend downwind a distance as great as 20 to 30 miles.4-10 The plume, under certain restricted conditions, could have a maximum width of about 2 miles and a maximum depth of about 1000 ft. In the staff's judgement, the plume would infrequently, if ever, reach the vicinity of the Greater Pittsburgh Airport (13 miles southeast) and, if it did reach that far, would not interfere with normal operations because of its height and low density. The potential for freezing rain or freezing drizzle occurs at the' site an average of 15 hr/yr. When this occurs the natural freezing rain can be increased up to 25% by passing through the plume 1500 ft or less from the cooling tower. This effect decreases to 10% about 25 ft from the plume's edge and would be negligibic at a 1-mile radius (Ref 3, Amendment 4, Question H.II.2c). Cooling tower pleaes have not been associated with detrimental climatolog-

• ical influences.ll A few qualitative observations of minor precipitation attributable to cooling tower plumes have been reported. However, precipi-tation does not appear to be a common occurrence. The relatively high air 1

                                                                                                                                                     . i.
                                                                                                                                                            )

i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l.

5-10 pollution"ba[kgroundapparentlyexistinginthevicinityoftheBeaver valley site suggests the possibility of the formation of snow due to seed-ing by nuclei in winter when the droplets become supercooled in the plume. l ' station. However, the lack of such Snowfall.has been reported from one observations from similar stations in the region implies that snowfall from the plume is not likely to be a problem under local conditions. 5.3.2 Fogging The visible plume from the natural-draf t cooling tower at Beaver; Valley Unit 1 has been estimated to occur.less than 3% of the time.at a height of. 400 ft (100 f t below the top' of the tower) . Observations have shown that despite some theoretical predictions to the contrary,13natural-draft cool-ing. cower plumes rarely, if ever, reach ground level. If*the cooling tower plume results in ground level fogging and perhaps icing on rare occasions, this will be most likely to occur at higher elevations sur-rounding the site. .One estimate is that this could occur a maximum of 3%- of the time (Ref 14, p. 5.1-4) . Natural fogging occurs in the' range of between 2 and 16% of the time in this region (Ref 16, p. 5.1-4). ' Further,. a more sophisticated sec tor analysis model predicted the expected fre-quency of ground interaction nf the visible plume and the surrounding topography to be zero in all directions (Ref 3, Amendment 4, L pp. H-7,H-8) . This'latter estimate is in agreement with reported observations from' other natural-draft cooling towers in the region." In the staff's judge-ment, ground intersections of the plume will be very rare, if they occur at all.

                                 $.3.3   Drift                                                                                     ,

Entrained in the plume are a nu6ber of small droplets of the cooling water. These will either evaporate or fall out in the imn.ediate region of the tower. The major impacts of these droplets, called drift, are an icing potential, and impurities being emitted into the atmosphere and deposited.on the ground and other surfaces. The maximum drift will depend largely on the drif t rates. Based on the manufacturer's guarantee, of a 0.05% maximum drif t rate (Ref 14, p. 8.4-13), a maximum of 250 gpm drif t is predicted. However, the staff estimates that actual operation can be expected to have up to an order of magnitude lower drift rates, and-proportionally lower total drift. Since this drift is composed primarily of cooling water from the tower, it has the chemical and mineral composition of the cooling water. These o chemicals will be released into the atmosphere when the droplets evaporate. The applicants estimate that the maximum deposition will be at a time rate of 80 lb/ acre /yr at 1500 ft from the tower (Ref 14, p. 5.1-4). This deposition rate corresponds to the. assumption that the bulk of the chemical deposition i 0 ____________________.________z____._______.____.____ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _b.

5-11 occurs wfthin approximately two miles of the plant. The staff considers the applicants' estimates to be high but concludes that even at these levels, no adverse environmental impact is expected. The relatively heavy rainfall in this region is expected to prevent any buildup of surface concentrations. The composition is expected to be the same as the river water: calcium carbonate (CACO3 ), calcium sulfate (CaSou ) , mag-nesium carbonate (MgCO 3 ) and possibly magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) (Ref 14, p. 5.1-4). The maximum ice deposition which is expected to occur as the result of drift has been estimated to be about 0.0001 in./hr at 1500 ft (Ref 14, p. 8.4-1, 13-11.1). Again, the staff considers the applicants' estimate to be high but, in the staff's opinion, such an accumulation rate will not cause significant icing problems on nearby highways or on the bridge located approximately 1500 f t northwest of the plant. 5.3.4 Synergistic Effects A potential exists for the cooling tower plume to interact with industrial emissions to form hazardous substances such as acids. This potential haz-ard is appreciably reduced by the release height of the cloud in the case of natural-draft towers. The cooling tower plume may be expected to inter-act with natural and industrial hygroscopic particles to form water drop-lets which could increase upper level haze. This region has a number of industrial emissions which may interact with the plume directly. Across the river is a steel plant operated by Crucible Steel Co. for which the applicants have supplied emissions data (Ref 3, Amendment 4). Besides the very small releases from the coke oven and blast furnace gas, the principal releases seem to be from the combus-tion of No. 6 fuel oil with between 0.2% and 2.5% sulphur. The effect of mixing between the cooling tower plume and plumes from nearby plants can be expected to be minimal because of the height of the plume release. Hales et al., has shown the limiting mechanism is the desorption of the S02 in the air below th6 plume. This means that droplets that have excess S02 as a result of combining with industrial plumes, will lose that excess S02 while falling. Therefore, the concentration of SO2 at ground level in drift and other dro'plets falling out of the plume can be expected to be , not very much different than normally expected by the ambient S02 air con- l centrations. The sulfate compounds can be expected to be increased slightly, although the very short residence time will be very limiting. There is evidence that high humidities in the presence of fly ash increase the rate at which SO2 is converted to S03 . The Keystone fossil fuel plant, located 60 miles to the east, has four natural-draft cooling towers and e is located in among rolling hills typical of this region. Here, where the i potential for adverse effects by mixing of the cooling tower plume with j stack emissions would seem the worst, there has been no substantiated damage or adverse ef f ects." 8

5-12 The mixing of the Keystone combustion and water vapor plumes has been studied during actual Keystone operations.37 Mixing was observed to occur between 200 and 1000 meters downwind of the station and remained mixed for distances up to 11,200 meters (the farthest boundary of the study). Concentrations of SO 2 in the plume ranged up to 0.4 ppm, coln-ciding the plume.fairly closely with the isopleths of higher relative humidity of Ground level traverses beneath the Keystone plume showed no increase of ground level humidities underneath the path of the plume. Also, no adverse weather effects as a result of the operation of the Keystone Station could be shown conclusively. They were unable to detect over.liquid water droplets beneath the tower from water droplet carry-any Theit plume as travels can be expected to interact with the local air pollution sources downwind. The chemical nature of these reactions cannot be accurately predicted because of the number of variables in terms of catalytic actions. conversion of S0 2 toFor S0 3 example, the reaction rates reported for the range f rom five minutes to days. However, it is certain that some sulfuric acid will be formed. Also the impact of the plume cannot be reasonably expected to have any greater ground level impact than natural impact directly fogging at ground in the region which, by definition, has its level. In the future, if air quality in the region improves, this effect should become minimal. A relatively high concentration of hygroscopic particles will be found in the air in this region. The applicants' model assumes condensation at a relative humidity of 100% which is realistic. The hygroscopic particles active at lower relative humidities can be expected to lead to formation of a few under the larger plume. drops which will fall out or evaporate in the drier air The staf plant f has been informed of the construction of the Bruce Mansfield (a 2,800 MW unit plant employing cooling towers) approximately one mile upstream. In the staf f's opinion the atmospheric releases from Beaver conditions. However, theplants Valley and the Mansfield will interact under appropriate wind staff believes that the resulting environmental impact of such interaction, with the possible exception of increased icing on trees, will be minimal, based on its analysis of the beaver Valley towers. No detrimental cooling towers ineffects have been substantiated for other natural-draft this region. It is the staff's opinion that no signif-icant of additionaleffects. synergistic effects on the surrounding area will occur as a result e

5-13 5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN In the design and operation of any facility using or generating radioac-tive materials, e consideration of primary importance is the radiation . dose which people in the station environs might receive. The release l rates of radionuclides to the environment must be in conformance with  ! Federal regulations set forth in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50, which require that the releases be "as low as practicable." 1 The staff has estimated the radiation doses that may be received by people { from the concentrations of radionuclides that are anticipated in the air, the water and on the ground as a result of radionuclides released during the normal operaticn Of the Beaver Valley Station, Unit 1. These Beaver , Valley release rates, listed previously in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, are based  ! upon operating experience with power reactors of similar design and having similar Indwaste systems. 5.4.1 Impnet of Geseous Releases F.stimation of dosee which may be received by both individuals and the pop-ulation in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Station were calculated from redianuclide releases from Unit 1 only. Releases from the 154-ft vent of Beaver Valley were handled as a gto*:.nd release for conservatism.(a) The 520*ft cooling-tower-stack releases were assumed to be released at 520 ft with no plume rice ut building-wake corrections. The meteorological frequency tables used in the calculations of the doses I were those for the 50-f t level (for containment vent releasus) and the 150-ft level (for the cooling-tower-stack releases). These tables were supplied l by the applicants (Ref 14, Appendix A, p. 2a.3-2 and 2a.3-3). As a result of a site visit and an inspection of the equipment used in obtaining these 1 data, the staff finds no reason to doubt the validity of the data. The . 50-f t wind speeds were mathematically adjusted to 33 f t using a power i function.15 The 150-ft vind speeds were adjusted to the height of the cool-ing tower stack (520 f t) . Although the applicants have stated that releases will only be made periodically under specified conditions (Ref 3, p. 3.3-34), atmospheric dilution factors (X/Q) used in the following dose estimates were conservatively averaged over the entire year.16 The maxlcum exposure rate at the site property lina ir expected to occur 0.17 mile NNW of the Unit 1 containment building at the edge of the river (X/Q = 1.1 x 10-4 secim 3 with respect to the containment vent), The total-body dose to an individual continuously exposed at this location is e (a) Conserystism as used in this section implies those conditions which would tend to overestimate rather than underestimate the radiological impact. e

5-14 estimated to_br 0.8 mrem /yr, principally from Kr-88 and Xe-133. The skin dose was estimated to be somewhat higher (1.5 mrem /yr) because of the. beta particle dose contribution from the radionuclides released with the gaseous

      . effluents.

Individuals likely to receive the grcetest exposure to effluents released

                                                                          ~

by the plent are those residing at a house about 0.44 miles northeast of the Unit 1 containment building (X/Q = 2.3 x 10-5 with respect to the containment vent). The exte';nal air submersion total-body dose to an indi-vidual residing all year at this location was estimated to be_0.2 mrem /yr; bis skin dose, 0.3 mrem /yr. These doses are summarized in Table 5.2. Air concentrations of I-131 end I-133 were estimated to be 5.9 x 10-2 and-6.2 x 10-2 pC1/m 3 respectively at this house. Inhalation of such concen-trations would result in an estimated thyroid dose of 0.8 mrem /yr to an adult and 1 mrem /yr to a child with a 2 gm thyroid, principally from I-131 (Table 5.2). The closest dairy herd to the plant from which the accve individuals would be likely to consume milk was reported by the applicauts to be located 1.5 miles southwest of the station Tref 3, Appendix B, p. 35). The air concentrations of I-131 and I-133 at this dairy farm are estimated to be 8.9 x 10-" and 9.2 x 10-" pCi/m3 , respectively (X/Q = 3.6 x 10-7 vith respect to containment vent, 2.5 x 10-9 with respect to cooling tower). For calculation of the thyroid dose derived from the consumption of milk from this herd, it was assumed that the cows were pastured at this location 6 months of the year and that there was no depletion of the radiciodines prior to reaching the pasture. On this basis, the estimated dose to a child's: thyroid from drinking 1 liter / day of milk from these cows would be 2 mrem /yr; the adult dose- would be about 0.2 mrem /yr (Table 5.2). Monitor-ing, administrative measures and/or design changes will be required to insure that the actual dose does'not exceed 5 mrem /yr. The closest location at which a cow could.be pastured is near the appli-cants' property line approximately 0.38 miles NE of the Unit l' containment building (X/Q = 3.1 x 10-5 with respect to containment vent). Using the

   , above assumptions and assuming that a milk cow might be pastured this close to the otation, the hypothetical dose to an ' adult's thyroid would be 20 mrem /yr; to a child's, 150 mrem /yr.

If in the future milk producing animals are indeed located closer to the station than at present, the applicants will be required to evaluate the thyroid radiation doses likely to result from consumption of milk from

• animals pastured at the new location and to take whatever action is neces-sary to reduce these doses to levels compatible with the then-existing limits for human exposure.

l t

                          ;l;i                ;l
                                                      !'           l    l                                       l              :         l li!                   I 1i!llI;                                                                       i:

v p 3 l I e ) 7 4

                                                                                                          ~       ~

3

                                                                                                                    )

5

                                                                                                                          )

e n 6 7 0 0 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 B - - - x x x - 0 0 3 2 9 ( ( (

                                                                                                                    )     )

d 3 5 i ) ~ - o 6 9 3 2 0 0 r 1 7 2 5 8 1 1 1 8 0 y x x . h 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 9 1 9 A T ( ( ( D. E } S

                                                                                                                    )     )

A 3 3 3 5 E .t ) ~ ~ ~- - L c J E I. a 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 R Gr - - - x x x x - a _ T 0 7 6 2 2 . -_ S ( ( ( T N E - 3 5 y l l y 3 ~ - g ad t o 6 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 F1 oB - - - x x - -

                                   . E               T               0                             0       0       2      9 T

MI ON RU 3 4 F , n ~ ~ i 8 0 0 LN k 2 1 1 AO UI S - - - - - x x - - 0 2 1 5 DT 2 I A) ) 3 5 VT r I S y ( f h e c d c D / e r r a r ) nr E NY a 'l r e e e e g au L I E e au t t t ( o B L r us r 3 i g g i r r i g 4 s A T NL A A (a no np h m l k k l h h l k V 3l. Y Ax E 6 0 2 8 8 G 0 0 2 8 a BR 6 7 0 3 8 1 1 1 7 3 0 5 0 1 8 1 sn' erd h s E 8 7 l ee t DV bt m n EA axu o VE Tes m I B

• s E

                                   . CE
                                                                                                }

( l l nma i o 6 EH n ( ( l l rt r RT ' o E E E l d a a E df n o ST i t N N W S N l a n a f f W N e e f t t S t eu r EA a i i i f l u u i ssl yy S c m m i m t d O O i m i of a/

                                   .O                         o                       m             u     i                          m                 ldf               d s       -
                                   -D                        L       4    4                4      O       M          r    r                    4                e        /h 4    4         5      4                        a     a         5          4        sl                rt D                                                              n       t         e    e                             eatdd en E                                0    0         1      0      I       A        N     N          1          0       t aneet o T                                                                                                                   ar ammim A                                                                                                                   rel uul M                                                       n                                               n              t pss             3 I                                                       o                       s                       o           en         ss1 T                                                      i                         e                     i            sif aa                r S

E t i g t a o f o p t n p es nnof n m < i i n m l enoo y o u o v t o u et oiinn n i s i r i a i s rait t oo a o t n t e t o t n ct uuii

• w i p o p t c B p o niullt t h s m C m a A m C odlii pp t r n u u W & u nidd mm a e o s e s e s e did - u u P m i n l n g n g n l e 11 s s b t o b o n i n o) bf s)1: : nn S

u l a C t a C i k l e i m Cd l af tl a B( 361 cc

00 oo a k e h n r m ki ei r h l g s i o i lh gh )))))) )

i n l e i r h w iC eC ab cd ef g A I I I V F D S S M( V( ((((((( I!i ' r ,j [ lf _ __

5-16 Radiciodines-in the gaseous effluents will be deposited on food crops (leafy vegetables) as'well as on animal forage. An estimate was made of the dose to an individual consuming fresh green leafy vegetables obtained from gardens along the site boundary (approximately 0.44 miles northeast cf the Unit 'l containment building). The estimate is based on the conser-vative assumptions that (1) the individual adult eats 18 kg of the vege-tables during 3 months of the year; (2) 25% of'the radioiodine deposited on the garden surfece is deposited directly on the vegetables; (3) the environmental half-life of the radisiodines on vegetation is 14 days; (4) the leaves are exposed above ground for 3 months before being harvested; and (5) there is a 50% loss of radioiodine through decay or preparation of the vegetables before eating. On the basis of these assumptions, the adult thyroid dose is estimated to be 4.5 mrem /yr. The calculated dose to the thyroid of a hypothetical child, 4 years oldo con-suming 8 kg of vegetables during 3 months of the year is 9 mrem /yr. . Monitor-ing, administrative measures and/or design changes will be required to insure that the actual dose to any individual from gaseous releases through all pathways does not exceed 5 mrem /yr. 5.4.2 Impact of Liquid Releases The staff has estimated the radiation doses from radionuclides released into the liquid effluents from the Beaver Valley Station, Unit 1. The construction of Unit 2 and the incorporation of its radwaste treatment sys-tems will slightly alter the radioactive emissions in liquid ef fluents. (See column B, Table 3.4) The following evaluation is based on releases from Unit 1 alone. Radionuclides listed in Column 2, Table 3.4 are mixed with the station's cooling tower blowdown flow of 50 cfs and released to the Ohio River (Ref 3. Appendix B, p. 37). It was assumed that the individual likely to receive the highest radiation dose via the liquid pathway would be a fisher-man who might spend considerable time fishing in the vicinity of the station outfall. It was assumed that this individual swims and boats a total of 200 hr/yr in the river in the same arean and that he is exposed for 500 hr/yr to the radionuclides accumulated in the sediment along the shoreline where a river dilution of 10:1 was assumed. In addition, this individual was as-sumed to eat 18 kg/yr of fish 24 hours af ter harvest from the Beaver Valley outfall area where a dilution factor of 3:1 was assumed. Bioaccumulation factors for aquatic food chains were used to estimate the dose contribution from fish consumption (Table 5.3) . e The total-body dose to the above individual from fish consumption was esti-mated to be 0.1 mrem /yr; and an additional 2 x 10-3 mrem /yr was estimated to be received from exposure to radionuclides on the shoreline (nearly all of the latter dose results from radiocesium accumulated in the silt). The total-body dose from swimming and boating would be substantially less (9 x 10-5 mrem /yr). 1 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ b.

5-17 l

                                  ~

TABLE 5.3 FRESHWATER BI0 ACCUMULATION FACTORS 20,21 (pCi/kg Organism per pCi/ liter Water) Element _ Fish Crustacea Molluscs Algae H 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 P 100,000 20,000 20,000 500,000 Cr 20 2,000 2,000 4,000 Mn 400 90,000 90,000 10,000 Fe 100 3,200 3,200 1,000 Co 50 200 200 200 Br 420 330 330 50 Sr 30 100 100 500 Y 25 1,000 1,000 5,000 Mo 10 10 10 1,000 Tc 15 5 5 40 Te 400 75 75 100 1 15 5 5 40 Cs 2,000 100 100 500 Ba 4 200 200 500 La 25 1,000 1,000 5,000 W 1,200 10 10 1,200 Np 10 400 400 300 0 O u_______ _ _ _ _ . _ _ 0

i 5-18 l Although the applicar.ts state there is no Ohio River water taken for irrigation downstream from the station, a dose to a hypothetical indi-  ! vidual was calculated assuming the consumption of leafy vegetables and f potatoes grown in gardens downstream from the plant and for which river I water was used as irrigation. The individual was assumed to consume 18 kg/yr of green leafy vegetables and 50 kg/yr of potatoes (one day after harvest). It was assumed that the garden was sprinkler ir ' ,ated with l vater containing plant effluent completely mixed in the river at a ratio of 730:1.(a) The above-ground growing season was assumed to be 3 months and the yield 1.5 kg/m2 for the vegetables and 1.8 kg/m2 for the potatoes. Twenty-five percent of the radionuclides deposited on the garden surface from the water applied at a rate of 110 liter /m /2 month is deposited directly on the vegetables. Using these assumptions the individual total-body dose 4 mrem /yr; from the from the leafy ve potatoes,1 x 10-getables was mrem /yr. Theestimated to be adult thyroid 4 x 10-doses were calculated to be 9 x 10-4 for each vegetable. The dose from drinking water was calculated for a resident of Midland who drinks 730 liter /yr of water from the city water plant which has its intake 1.3 miles downstream from the atttion (Ref 3, p. 2.2-22). It was estimated by the staff that the water is diluted by a factor of 1/60 to that of the reactor effluent. No removal of radionuclides in the water treatment plant was assumed and it was assumed that the water was ceasumed 1 day af ter release by the plant. The total-body dose to this individual was estimated to be 0.01 mrem /yr. The calculated thyroid dose from drink-ing this water was 0.1 mrem /yr (Table 5.2). Estimates were made of the exposure rates at the security fence surround-ing the plant from storage tanks located in the yard. Using the tank activities reported by the applicants (Ref 3 Auendment 4, p. 92), exposure rates were talculated cnd are listed in Table 5.4. 5.4.3 Population Doses From All Effluent Sources _ in addition to the doses to the gydividual, the staf f has estimated the total population dose *(man-rem) resulting from operation of the Beaver Valley Station Unit 1. A total annuti total-body dose from submersion in the gaseous effluents from this reactor was calculated for the 4 million people (1980 estimate) living within a 50-n.ile radius of the station. No reduction was taken for shielding or occupancy factors in the calculations. e (K) Fif ty cfs plant ef fluent totally n.ixed with 30,000 cfs average river flow. (b) A measure of the total radiation dose absetbed by a group of persons. The product of the number of persorte and the average dase in rem absorbed by each. 9 -~~~.L~---.--__.--____. _ _ _ _ _ _ j

5-19 TABLE 5.4 EXPOSURE RATES AT THE SECURITY FENCE FROM YARD TANKS IN mR/HR/ TANK Exposure Capacity Activity (3) Receptor Rate Tank Gallons Curies Location mR/hr Remarks Refueling Water 425,000 J0.2 170 ft SE <4x10-8 Only Top Part Storage Tank of Tank in View Coolant Recov- 195,000 960 70 ft NE 0. 3 ery Tanks Boric Acid 30,000 1,030 65 ft NE 0.4 Storage Tank Waste Gas Tanke 987 26.6(b) 80 ft NE <7x10-3 Tank Under- ' ground but Not Used in Estimate

                                           ~

(a) Cs-137 and 'Ba-137m Assumed at Equilibrium (b) Total Activity for all Tanks 5 9 9 _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ b

f i 5-20 l Table 5.5 Ifits the cumulative population, cumulative dose and average dose to the total body from gaseous effluents (primarily noble gases) at various radial distances from the station. The population dose was estimated to be about 0.4 man-rem /yr. There are no fish caught commercially at present in the New Cumberland Pool (the 23 mile stretch of water between the New Cumberland Lock below the station and the Montgomery Lock and Dam above the Station). However, according to the applicants, about 1000 pounds (live weight) of sportfish are caught each year in this pool (Ref 3, p. 2.2-24) . For purposes of dose estimation, and in anticipation of improvements in the sports fishery due to improve-ments in Ohio River water quality it was conservatively assumed that 3000 lbo of sportsfish were harvested in the section of the river within the 50 mile radius from the station in waters containing effluent radionuclides at a dilution of 730:1. An elapsed time of 1 day is assumed between release of radionuclides to the river and the total catch by the people of the area. An edible to live weight ratio of 30% was used in estimating the dose. Bioac-cumulation factors used in the calculations wf.re those listed in Table 5.3 for freshwater organisms. Based on these assumptions, the resultant total-body dose to the population from the consumption of fish harvested locally from the Ohio River was estimated to be 1 x 10-5 man-rem /yr. A population dose from drinking water was estimated by assuming each resi-dent of Midland drinks an average of 440 liter /yr of water supplied by the city water works containing effluent radionuclides at a dilution of 60:1. To this dose was added the doses acquired by people drinking water f rom city water oystems located downstream to the 50-mile radius (Ref 3, Appendix B, p. 56). For this dose estimate a total dilution of 600:1 was assumed. No reduction was used for radionuclides removal by the municipal water systems and 1 day was assumed to elapse between release of the radio-nuclides from the reactor and consumption of the water. The combined total-body dose from drinking water was calculated to be 0.1 man-rem /yr. External exposure to the population associated with the liquid effluents from Unit I was also estimated by the staff. It was assumed that 10% of the population within 50 miles of the station each spend 10 hr/yr on the river shoreline (fishing, hiking or picnicking), 5 hr/yr swimming, and 10 hr/yr boating where the river contains station effluent at a dilution of 730:1. The total popul$ tion dose from these recreational activities l l was estimated to be 3 x 10-3 man-rem /yr, primarily from shoreline activities. These doses are summarized in Table 5.6. e 9 l

5-21 TABLE 5.5 CUMULATIVE POPULATION, A'JNUAL MAN-REM DOSE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL DO IN SELECTED CIRCULAR AREAS AROUND BEAVER VALLEY, UNIT 1 Cumulative Average Annual Dose Annual Dose Radius Cumulative Population (mrem) (1980) (man-rem) _ (miles) 0.054 0.090 1 610 0.12 0.018 2 6,500 0.14 0.C14 3 10,000 0.15 0.010 4 15,000 0.15 7.9 x 10-8 5 19,000 0.22 1.4 x 10-3 10 160,000 510,000 0.27 5.3 x 10~" 20 0.34 1.9 x 10~" 30 1,800,000  ! 0.38 1.2 x 10~" 40 3.100,000 0.40 1.0 x 10~" 50 4,000,000 e I l

       .-                                                                        [l

5-24

                                                                                                                   -r rivertank) . The hypothetical dose to a child's thyroid from drinking milk-from a cow pastured at a point 0.5 miles NE of the stack (the near-                  J est point where a cow could be pastured) would be_0.02 mrem /yr                           !

I (X/Q = 1.8.x 10-5 sec/m3 ). The dose from the liquid releases was insignificant: the thyroid dose

                          .to an individual drinking Midland water would be 1 x 10- 5mrem /yr; his               '

total-body dose from eating 18 kg/yr of fish caught from 100% plant effluent would only be 0.01 mrem /yr. l 5.5 TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLE _AR FUEL AfiD SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE The nuclear fuel for the' Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 is slightly enriched uranium in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets encapsulated-in zirceloy fuel rods. Each year in normal operation about 60 fuel elements are replaced. The applicants have indicated that new fuel for the reactor will be trans-ported by truck from Columbia, South Carolina, a' distance of. approximately 520 miles. Irradiated fuel will be transported either to Barnwell, South '., Carolina, West Valley, N.Y. or Morris, Illinois, by rail and truck, the i longest distance being about 520 miles. The applicants have not indicated i where solid radioactive waste will be shipped but they have indicated that the probable mode of shipment will be by truck. The staff assumes a dis-tance of 750 miles for shipping the solid radioactive vastes. 5.5.1 Transport of New Ful The applicants have indicated that new fuel will be shipped in AEC-DOT approved containers which hold two fuel elements per container. About 5 truckloads of 6 containers each will be required for the initial loading. 5.5.2 Transport of Irradiated Fuel Fuel elements removed from the reactor will be unchanged in appearance and will contain some of the original U-235 (which is recoverable). As a result of the irradiation and fissioning of the uranium, the fuel element will contain large amounts of fission products and some plutonium. As the radioactivity decays, it produces radiation and " decay heat." The amount of radioactivity remaining in the fuel varies with the length of time after discharge from the reactor. After discharge from the reactor the i fuel elements are placed under wcter in a storage pool for cooling before beir_g loaded into a cask for transport. Although the specific cask design has not been identified, the applicants state that the irradiated fuel elements will be shipped after at least 100 days cooling in approved casks deeigned for transport by rail. To transport the irradiated fuel, the applicants indicate three possibilities; e Ci__________________..____

                                                                                                                          }

5-25 _.,c

                                       . transportation by legal weight truck, requiring'53 shipments /yr, trans-portation ty overweight ' truck, requiring 18 shipments /yr, or transporta-tion by rail, req 0 iring 6 nuclear shipments /yr.
                                       -5.5.3     TJassbort of Solid Radioactive Wastes                                      l Spent resins and waste evaporator bottoms will be solidified, and soft, solid wastes compactednin drums for._ shipment and disposal. ~The appli-cants estimate about 22 truckloads of waste will be generated each year             '

by the operation of Unit 1. 5.5'4 Principles of Safety in Transport The transportation of radioactive material is regulated by the Department of Transportation and the Atomic Energy Commission. The regulations pro-vide protection of the public and transport. workers from radiation. This protection is achieved by a combination of standards and requirements applicable to packaging, limitations on the contents of packages and radi-ation levels from packages, and procedures'to-limit the exposure of per-sons under normal and ace.ident conditions. y Primary reliance for safety in transport of radioactive material is I placed on the. packaging. The packaging must meet regulatory standards 21 established according to the type and form of material for containment, shielding, nuclear criticality safety, and heat dissipation. The stan-dards provide that..the packaging-shall prevent the lose or dispersal of the radioactive contents, retain shielding efficiency, assure nuclear criticality safety, and provide adequate heat dissipation under normal conditions of transport and under specified accident damage test condi-tions. -The contents of packages not designed to withstand accidents are limited, thereby limiting the risk from releases which could occur in' an accident. The contents of the package also must be limited so that the standards for external radiation levels,, temperature, pressure, and con-tainment are snet. Procedures applicable to the shipment of packages of radioactive material require that.the package be labeled with a unique radioactive materials label. In transport, the carrier is required to exercise control over

                                       ' radioactive material packages including loading and storage in areas sep-arated from persons and limitations on. aggregations of packages to limit the exposure of persons under normal conditions. The procedures carriers must follow in case of accident include segregation of damaged and leak-ing packages from people and notification of the shipper and the Depart-e                 ment of Transportation. Radiological assistance teams are available through an intergovernmental program to provide equipment and trained personnel, if necessary, in such emergencies.

Within the regulatory standards, radioactive materials are required to be safely transported in routine commerce using conventional transportation I i s 1 O_- _- _ _ \

5-26 i equipment wit 5 no special restrictions on speed of vehicle, routing, or ambient transport conditions. According to the Department of Transporta-tion (DOT), the record a tafet'y in the transportation of radioactive

                               ' materials exceeds that           any other type of hazardour; commodity. DOT                          2 estimates approximately . 0,000 packages of radioactive material are cur-rently being shipped in the United States each year. Thus far, based on the best available information, there have been no known deaths or seri-                            !

ous injuries to the public or to the transport workers due to radiation from a radioactive material shipment. Safety in transpot' " ion is provided by the package design and limita-tions on the contents and external radiation levels and does not depend  ! on controls over routing. Althoughtheregulationsrequire,allcarrters of hazardous materials to avoid congested 2

                                                                                                                                      }

areas wherever practical to { do so, in general, carriers choose the most direct and fastest route. i Routing restrictions which require use of secondary highways or other than the most direct route may increast the overall environmental impact i of transportation as a result of increased accident frequency of severity. Any attempt to specify routing would involve continued analysis of routes in view of the changing local conditions as well as changing of sources of material and delivery poirts. 5.5.5 Exposure During Normal (No accident) Conditions 5.5.5.1 New Fuel Since the nuclear radiations and heat emitted by new fuel are small, there will be essentially no effect on the environment during transport i under normal conditions. Exposure of individual transport workers is estimated to be less than 1 millirem (mrem) per shipment. For the 5 shipments, with two drivers for each vehicle, the total dose would be about 0.01 man-rem /yr. The radiation level associated with each truck-load of _old fuel will be less than 0.1 mrem /hr at 6 f t from the truck. A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average dis-tance of 3 ft from the truck might receive a dose of about 0.005 mrem per shipment. The dose to other persons along the shipping route would be extremely small. 5.5.5.2 Irradiated Fuel Based on actual radiation levels associated with shipments of irradiated fuel elements, we estimate the radiation level at 3 ft from the truck or

                             ,       rail car will be about 25 mrem /'hr.

Train brakemen might spend a few minutes in the vicinity of the car for an average exposure of aboat 0.5 millirem per shipment. With 10 differ-ent brakemen involved along the route, the annual cumulative dose for 6 rail shipments during the year is estimated to be about 0.03 man-rem. Each truck shipment of approximately 520 miles would result in two truck drivers spending approximately 15 hours in the cab and perhaps 1 hour 0

5-27

    '/

J

                      ~

outside _the truck at an average distance of 3 f t from the cask. Under these conditions, each truck driver could receive about 30 mrem from an irradiated fuel shipment, Actual experience indicates that average j exposures are much less than 30 mrem / trip; in mos t cases, less than ' 10 mrem / trip. The same driver is unlikely to be used for more than 30 shipments /yr, 't which case he would receive about 300 mrem in a year based on 10 mrem /e . The cumulative annual dose to all drivers for 53 shipments /yr would total about 1.0 man-rem, and for 18 shipments /yr, abou t 0.4 man-rem. A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average dis-tance of 3 ft from the rail car or truck might receive a cose of as much as 1.3 mrem. If 10 persons were so exposed per shipment, the annual cumulative dose would be about 0.08 man-rem for shipment by rail, 0.24 man-rem for 18 truck shipments and 0.69 man-rem for 53 truck ship-ments/yr. Approximately 150,000 persons who reside along the 520-m11e route over which the irtadiated fu91 is transported might receive an annual cumulative dose of about 0.06 man-rem from rail shipments, 0.18 man-rem from 18 truck shipments, or 0.53 man-rem from 53 truck ship- 1 ments. The regulatory radiation level limit of 10 mrem /hr at a discance of 6 ft from the vehicle was used to calculate the integrated dose to persons in an area between 100 ft and 1/2 mile on both sides of the ship-ping route. It was assumed that the shipment would travel 200 miles / day and the population density would average 330 oersons per square mile along the route. The amount of heat released to the air from each cask will be about 250,000 Btu /hr. For comparison, 115,000 Btu /hr is about equal to the heat cutput from the furnsce in an average size home. Although the temperature cf the air that contacts the loaded cask may be increased a few degrees, because the amount of heat is small and is being released over the entire transportation route, no appreciable thermal effects on the environment will result. j 5.5.5.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes Under normal conditions, the individual truck driver might receive as much as 15 mrem / shipment. If the same driver were to drive all 22 truck-loads in a year, he could ' receive an estimated dose of about 330 mrem during the year. The cumulative dose to all drivers for the year, assum ing 2 drivers / vehicle, m'.ght be about 0.66 man-rem.

       , A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average dis-tance of 3 f t from the truck right receive a dose of as much as 1.3 mrem.

If 10 persons were so exposed per shipment, the annual cumulative dose would be about 0.3 man-rem. Approximately 150,000 persons who reside along the 750 mile routa over whic'h the solid radioactive waste is trans-ported might receive an annual cumulative dose of about 0.22 man-rem. ] These doses were calculated for persons in an area between 100 ft and t m___

5-28

                                                                              ~

L i 1/2' mile on either side of the shipping route, assuming 330 persons per-square' mile, 10 mrem /hr at 6 ft from the vehicle, and the shipment travel-ing 200 miles / day. I: 5.6- NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS I'i ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 5.6.1 Terrestrial l Operation of the' Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 will involve intensive i use of less than 20% of.tne site, with the area used restricted to one end of'the applicants' 449 acres of property. Since these few acres were already cut by' roads and pipelines and contained the Shippingport Reactor, it does not appear that the additional-intensive use now planned will greatly-modify the terrestrial biota. The remaining 80% or more of the site is a ridge sloping on one side to ' the Ohio River and on the other to Peggs Run. This ridge is in a near native state cut only by a north-south transmission line. It is covered by typical hardwood forest and hunting is forbidden. It appears that this area will remain nearly inviolate and will serve as a refuge for wildlife 3 since the opetation of the Beaver Valley Power Station will directly j involve very little of this area. { The most likely direct effect to this natural area appears to be due to ,

                                         -increased ~ ice formation during ice storms. The. applicant indicates that,                                   !

with rainf all rates of 2.5 m/hr, increases'in raindrop size resulting from operation of one tower could cause'ep to a 25% increase in buildup j of ice (Ref 3, Amndment 4). During periods of ENE. winds the plume from the Beaver Valley plant could be crossing over this natural area during ice storms with rates.of ice formation up to 25% above that expected from natural causes. Serious limb fall could result with signif. cant consequences to this natural area. l It is doubtful that the slight amount of drift anticipated (Ref 14,

p. 8.4-19) will have any impact other than imediately adjacent to the l' cooling-towers, both because small amountn are anticipated and these drop-lets " rain" out soon after leaving the towers. (ikewise, some rain out 1 of particulate and chemicals present in the air as a consequence of ]

nearby industries .:.ay occur but should not cause detrimental effects to i local plants or animals. The most likely long-term effect to the exist-ing biota will result from total area development consequent to availabil-

                                     .      ity of more power. Increased rime ice may occur on rare occasions during the winter if the plume approaches the ground -(Ref 14, p. 5.4-1) which would                                  ]

produce some loading of limbs, but it is doubtful that sufficient mass will  ; accmulate to cause significant damage to trees and other vegetation. l The existing right-of-way for the 138 kV Crucible powe . line which cuts north-south through the " undisturbed" area will continue to be maintained with the low growth undisturbed and tree growth controlled by celective I i i

                                             . j' u

1 u p j 5-29 )

                                                                                          'i
          \

i', cutting and application of appropriate spray to basal portions of tree sproutii'(Ref 3, Amendment 4, p. F-5). The applicante will comply with all federal and state regulations governing use of herbicide.s for transmis-sion line right-of-way control. The applicants should confine the use of herbicides to areas removed from human habitation and frequent human use. In addition, measures will be taken to insure that water supplies. l

            . pasturelands and accessible, edible, wild fruits and berries are not        'J contaminated. There is substantial evidence 23,24 that transmission lines
             , carrying even higher voltages than the 138 kV Crucible line across the property do not produce sufficient ozone to be damaging.

5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology The principal potential effects of the operation of the Beaver Valley J Power Station Unit 1 on the aquatic environment include the following: j The impingement of some fish on the treveling screens of the l intake structure { The entrapment of some fish in the intake structuro

                  +

The destruction of drif t t rganisms paning through the condenser cooling system 1 l The thermal and chemical stress on organisms passing through i the cooling tower blowdown discharged to the Ohio River. 1 5.5.2.1 Effects of the Intake Structure The intabe structure was shown in Figure 3.4 The approach velocity of 0.2 fps during maximum intake conditians should preclude entrainment of fish as small'as 0.5 in into the circulating water system since it is generally accepted that the maximum burst or escape speed of fish is about 10 times its body length per second (about 0.4 fps for a 0.5 in.  ; fish). The installation of the intake structure flush vitt the shore line eliminates any embayment which might' attract and therefore concen-trate fish in front of the intake 'atructure. The structure does incorporate cave-like chambers near the bottom and in front of +:he trash racks and traveling screens'to which fish may be attracted.25 . Since fish exhibit a positive rheotaxis, the lack of a current gr6dient might cause them to become fatigued'and become impinged on the traveling screens. While this condition is a possibility, it is e judged that it would not involva enough fish to have a significant impact on aquatic life. Since most of the fish of the area are nest builders and cast damers.a1 egge, principally around the mouths of tributaries to the Ohio River, any significant reduction in fish population through destruction of eggs > k d

5-30 passing through the condenser cooling system is not expected. This view may be further supported by the finding of the applicants that no fish eggs or larvae were collected during preoperational plankton studies. This latter finding may, however, be complicated by inadvertent sampling bias. Some plankton will be drawn into the intake structure. The exact amount is not known since concentrations of plankters in the vicinity of the intake structure depends on their spatial distribution in the river. A first order approximation can be made, however, of the fraction of avail-able organisms that will be entrained. If a uniform distribution of plankton is assumed and if the water withdrawn for Unit 1 is about 60 cfs, then about 1.2% of the minimum river ficw of 5000 cfs would be drawn into the condenser cooling system. If it is assumed that none of the organisms would survive the condenser cooling system, a los of about 1.2% of avail-

          .ble drift organisms would result.

5.6.2.2 Effects of Chemical heleases The estimated chemical releases resultinF from normal plant operation are discussed in Section 3.6. Because of the low volmnes discharged and the resulting concentration of the chemicals when diluted with river watet, it is judged that most of these discharges will not represent a threat to the biota of the Ohio River. The discharge of chlorine is of particular interest, however, because chlorination of water during normal plant operation is necessary to con-trol growths of biological material within the plant. The addition of chlorine to water containing nitrogenous compounds may also result in the formation of chloramines. Both free residual chlorine and chloramines j have been reported to represent a threat to aquatic life even when present j in very low concentrations.26,27,28 The effects of these releases on Ohio River biota have not been assessed by the applicants; however, they state that thn free residual chlorine concentrations of the cooling tower blow-down wi:.1 not exceed 0.1 mg/ liter during chlorination (Appendix A). The staf: b63 f eves that chlorine in the form of chlorsmines will be stripped i from the cooling water during its passage through the cooling tcwer and will not be present in significant amounts in the cooling tower blowdown.36 - In the ataff's opinion the area behind the island is perhaps the area L naving the greater nursery potential for aquatic life for several miles l above and below t ie Beaver Valley Site. Since the Beaver Valley discharges are initially confined behind Phillis Island, adverse impacts, if any, on

      ,   aquatic organisms could best be observed in that area. The staff will          j 1

require monitoring of the free residual chlorine and chloramine levels at j the point of discharge to insure that free chlorine releases do not exceed j 0.1 mg/ liter. In the staf f's opinion this level of intermittent chlorine I release should not present an unacceptable environmental impact. i l l l l l l, i  ! L_____

o 5-31 5.5.2.3 Eff'ects of Thermal Releases The thermal plume resulting from discharge of heated water from the com-bined operation of Beaver Valley Unit 1 and the Shippingport Power. Sta-tion were described in Section 5.2. It was shown that under a cambina-tion of pessicdstic conditions, the area encompassed by the 5* AT iso-therms amounted to about 4 acres in surface extent and that it would not likely exceed one-third of the depth of the near channel nor will it cover more than about one-half of the channel width nor more than one- J fourth of the total river width. After the planned modification of the island is completed the channel effect is expected to be essentially non-existent. The staff concludes that the impact of the heated water on adult fish will be negligible. The relatively small area included within the 5' isotherm and the shallow depth of the discharge plume should mini-mize any impact on snavning activities if indeed the area behind Phillis Island is important for spawning. By making several assumptions, an estimate of the quantity of drift organ-isms which may be affected by the operation of the Beaver Valley and Ship-pingport plants can be made. It has been determined that about 20% of the water passing downstream by the Beaver Valley Station will pass behind Phillis Island. If at extreme low flow of 5000 cfs, the depth of the channel in taken to be 10 f t and the maximum width of the 5*F AT isotherm is about 400 ft and the water is heated to this extent to a depth of 3 ft, this volume of heatec water presents a cross-sectional area of about 1200 ft2 At the same point of measurement, the width of the channel is about 600 ft for a cross-sectional area of about 6000 f t. If the distri-bution of drift organisms is assumed to be uniform, about one-fifth of the organisms entering the channel would enter the water heated 5*F above ambient. As a result it could be concluded that about 4% of the total drift organism population would pass through this heated zone. If it is further assumed that as a result of this exposure these organisma suffer at least adverse stress if not mortality, then it could be concluded that about 4% of available drif t organisms were subject to adverse affects. Adding this assumed loss to the 1% assumed lost as a result of, passage through the condenser cooling system and about 5% assumed to be lost through passage through the Shippingport condenser cooling system, the total loss of planktonic forms would be about 10% of those available. This calculation is canaidered to represent a worst case under most pessimistic assumptions No significant impact en drift aquatic species is expected even in the unlikely event of such a loss because of their high r6 productive capacity. An estinate of quantity of drift organisms that might be affected if the j Beaver Valley Power Station Urit 1 alone was operating any also be made. In this case low flows under sammer conditions and blowdown temperatures of 10*F above ambient are assumed. To a first order approximation, the blowdown would be 5"F above ambient when diluted with on the order of f twice the blowdown flow or about 72 cfs. On that basis about 1.5% of J l

                                                                                                                        )

i I e

l i ' 5-32 I ' I i i the river would be at a temperature of 5*F above ambient. If it is further l assumed that drift organisms are uniformly distributed then about 1.5% of 1 those available wculd enter the water heated 5'F and above and might auffer I thermal stress if not mortality. Adding this quantity to the assumed loss  ! of 1.2% of available organisms due to passage through the condenser water system a total of less than 3% of available drift organisms might be adverse 1.y affected. The potential for cold shock to fish acclimated to the warmer temperatures of the discharge plume during winter months is not considered likely to i result frorn an abrupt ehutdown of Beaver Valley Unit 1. The presence of j Shippingport Power Station with its thermal discharge would likely result j in little temperature change actuallv taking place. J

                                                                                                                     )'

Since the heated discharge plume will, for the most part, be limited to the upper few feet, the exposure of benthic organisms to elevated temper-atures will be minimized. Some charge in the diversity of the benthos exposed to the elevated temperatures can be expected, but it is unlikely I that any of the area vill be devoid of benthos as a result of the plant's operation.

                                                                                                                     )

The increased temperatures may result in more rapid development of aquatic ) insect larvae leading to an earlier envergence of the aQults. The ecologi- ) cal significance of this cannot be predicted now, but the impact of the I heated water discharge on the benthic community as a whole is expected to  : be minor and localized in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. It is possible that the addition of heat to a portion of the Ohio River j could result in a change in the species composition or relative abundance I of the members of tse phytoplankton community due to excessive growth of j some members at the elevated temperatures. This should not be a signifi- l cant problem at the Ecaver Valley site due to the low volume of water, ] short exposure time and relatively low thermal increments involved, f 5.6.2.4 Compliance with Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 On January 29, 1973, the Commission published an Interim Policy Statement (IPS), effective on that date, implementing the Federal Water Pollution i Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USCA 1151) (FWPCA), particularly l section 511 thereof (38 F.R. 2679). On the same date, a Memoraudum of Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the

• Commission for the purpose of implementing NEPA and the FWPCA in a manner consistent with both acts was also published in the Federal Register (38 F.R. 2713).

In general, the IPS provides that the Commission will continue to exercise its NEPA author 1ty and responsibility in licensing proceedings subject

                   .o Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 so as to avoid, to the acximum extent                              I l

• l 1

- = - - - _ ___ _- . _ _ _ _ _ 3

                                                                                       ~     ~    '~~-~ ' - - - -     -
     ,                g

• 5-33' i

j

                                    - possible, needless dup!' cation of regulatory effort or, convorsely, any hiatus in, Federal resprasibility and authority, respecting environm2ntal
       ,                             matters embraced by both NEPA and FVPCA, in the interim period before actions are taken under the FWPCA.

Section 3 of the IPS provides that if and to the extent that there are applicabic limitations'or other requirements' imposed pursuant to the FWPCA, the Commission will not (with cercsin exceptions) impose different limita- 'i tions or requirements pursuant to NEPA as a condition to any license or permit. y Section 4 of the IPS sets out the limitations on AEC consideration of R alternatives relevant to water quality in particular situations. Generally, it indicates that the Commission will not consider various alternatives where such action would constitute a review of similar consideration of alternatives under the FWPCA and upset a limitation or requirement imposed as a result thereof or where a particular alternative has been required to be adopted pursuant to the FWPCA. Section 5 of the IPS concerns the effect of the FWPCA on cost-benefit analyses.- It states, in summary, that the Commission will determine, , except in certain situations specified in Section 5(c), none of which i are here applicable, whether the facility will comply with appif Jie ) ' limitations or other requirements, if any, promulgated or imposed pur-euant to the FWPCA; and (2) if it determines that there will be compliance, the Commission will evaluate and give full consideration to environmental impacts expected. co result from discharges or'other activities essociated with the facility to be licensed at the level of limitations or other requirements promulgated imposed pursuant to the FWPCA. The only limitations or other requirements promulgated or imposed pursuant to the FWPCA (as defined in Section 2(a) of the IPS) which are here appli- - cable are certain Pennsylvania water quality standerds, continued in effect pursuant to Section 303(a) of the FWPCA. In this case, the applicable thermal limitation of the Commonwerith of Pennsylvania for the area of the Ohio River where the Beaver Valley facilities are located has been continued in effect, pursuant to section 303 of the FWPCA. This limitation, set forth in the Pennsylvania Water Quality criteria contained in the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Environmental Resources, is as follows: the temperature is "not to exceed 5'r rise above ar31ent temperature or a raximum of 87"F, whichever is less; not to be changed by more than 2*F during any one-hour period."I8

• Under section 303(a)(1) of the FWPCA, this previously approved limitation remains in effect since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not notif{9the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of a desired change by January 18, 1973.

h m._.- _ - _ _ _'_ __.__.i_____ m

ur e 5-34 Under the Interim Policy Statement, the staff must determine whether the Beaver Valley facilities will be in compliance with the approved thermal standard. This determination, however, is complicated by the. need to establish the precise area for temperature measurement. In many cases, the point or area of such measurement is the boundary _of a thermal " mixing zone." The Pennsylvania standard does not contain a reference to a point of measurement, or to a mixing zone. The staff has obtained clarification from. EPA with respect to this matter.35 EPA states that no mixing zone standard was approved as part of its approval of Per.nsylvania water quality < criteria. EPA also states that the presently approved water quality thermal standard does not impose a point of discharge limitation; rather, the thermal limitation is applicable after some limited mixing in the river. EPA indicates that its policy with respect to such mixing restricts the mixing zone to no more than one-fourth of the creas-sectional area and/or volume of the flow'of the stream. Therefore, the presently approved Pennsylvania standards with respect. to thermal discharges in the river are applicable at the boundaries of a mixing zone which is no fixed by such approved standards. As discussed in section 5.2 above the staff has assessed the magnitude of the thermal plume resulting from the plant both for the case when the plant operates alone, and for the case when the plume merges with the thermal plume from the Shippingport Station. For the worst cas! condition, i.e., with all stations in operation and at low flow conditions, the staff notes from Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 that the 5'F isotherm is entirely contained behind Phillis Island, both for the island in ite current configuration and for the case when the island is pertially removed. As noted in section 5.6.2.3 approximately 20% of the total river flow' passes behind Phillis Island. In view of this, the staff cencludes that the~ mixing zone-encompassed by the 5'F isotherm will be in compliance with the guidelines established by EPA and that the 2pplicable Pennsylvania water quality standards will be met. The staff also notes that the AT of the liquid affluent from the Beaver Valley Station will be approximately 6'F in the summer. This effluent, when combined with the Shippingport discharge of 254 cfs at an assumed. temperature of 98.5'F is calculated by the staff to increase the total river temperature by approximately l'F for minimum flow conditions. Since the maximum expected water temperatures upstream from the plant are expected to be 84*F, the staff concludes that the applicable Pennsylvania water quality standard (which limits river water temperatures to 87'F) will be met.

       .                With respect to other matters covered by applicable Pennsylvania water quality criteria (pH, dissolved oxygen, iron, dissolved solids, and bacteria),

it is the considered judgement of the staff that the facilities will be in compliance with the relevant State standards (see sections 3.6, 3.7 and 5.6.2.2). The staff notes, however, that the mean ambient concentration of manganese in the Ohio River is reported to be 5.24 ppm (Table 2.3). This ambient mean concentration is itself in excess of the applicable Pennsylvania l l 9 L_.______-----_---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

5-35 standard of 1 ppm. Passage of this water through the Beaver Valley station will result-in concentration of manganese in the blowdown effluent by approximately a factor of 7, with a resulting small increase in the manganese concentration in the river below the plant. This increase would be approx-imately 0.004 at minimum flow conditions. The staff concludes, therefore, that with respect to manganese, the plant appears not in accord with the applicable standards. The staff also notes, however, that the plant itself does not add manganese to the river. This matter, in any event, will be settled at the time when the applic ant receive 2 the state water quality certification required pursuant to section 401 of the FWPCA. With respect to chlorine, there is no applicable standard; the staf f has considered the impact of chlorine discharges on the biota of the Ohio River and, as noted in section 5.6.2.2 has proposed conditione to the operating license which vill insure that chlorine impacts to the river will be minimal. l Assessment of impact on the aquatic environment of chemical and other waste discharges at levels equivalent to those of the approved standards does not affect our analysis. 5.7 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON OTHER BIOTA Radiation doses that may be received by aquatic organisms in the Ohio River near the station and by their terrestrial predators can be predicted on the basis of estimated release rate.s of radionuclides into the circu-lating water system (Table 3.2), their subsequent dilution in the receiving water, and the bioaccumulation factors previously listed in Table 5.3 for freshwater organisms. Based on radionuclides concentrations in the dis-charged effluent, entrained planktonic forms such as algae would recieve doses on the order of 10-5 mrad /hr. Doses to plankton drif ting through the mixing zone would diminish rapidly as the effluent passes downstream from the discharge area and is diluted with river water. Organisms likely to receive the highest radiation dose from the station are aquatic species living in or near (moving in and out of) the ef fluent plume such as sessile invertebrates and fish. A clam living on the bottom at the discharge outfall would receive an estimated total dose of about 7 mrad /yr. The dose to a fish, such as a catfish, living continuously near the bottom sediments in the undiluted effluent was estimated to be 5 mrad /yr, whereas a fish spending most of its time near the surface of the undiluted effluent such as a bass would be 3 mrad /yr.

• The doses to some representative animals which might subsist on aquatic organisms living in the undiluted effluent from the Beaver Valley Station were also estimated. A small mammal, such as a muskrat that makes its den near the shore in the vicinity of the discharge plume and eats only aquatic vegetation grown in the plant discharge effluent, would receive a dose of about 10 mrad /yr. A raccoon, 10% of whose diet is made up of fish taken 9

m______._

5-36

                              ~

out of the undiluted Beaver Valley effluent, might receive a dose of 2 mrad /yr. A duck, 50% of whose diet might consist of aquatic vegeta-tion consumed from the undiluted effluent might receive 7 mrad /yr. Most of this dose comes from the mud and silt along the river bank. For com-parison, these same animals receive on the order of 100 mrad /yr from nat-ural background radiation. Radiation damage can occur from either acute or chronic exposures. Values of LD-50 (lethal dose resulting in 50% mortality for acute radiation) for aquatic organisms have been listed by Donaldson and Foster,29 and by Polikarpov.30 Lethal amounts of acute radiation differ widely among organ-1sms because of such f actors as species, age, physiological state and body size. In the aquatic environment, these variations are complicated by the interaction of such factors as temperature, dissolved oxygen, chemical composition and salinity. Exclusive of eggs and larvae of invertebrates and fish, most of the freshwater and marine organisms for which data exist appear to be relatively radiation resistant.31 Bacteria and algae may tolerate acutt xposure to thousands of roentgens, but freshwater fish, the most sensitive group listed by Donaldson and Foster,29 were affected ) by considerably lower doses. The LD-50 for adult raidbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) ranged from 300 to 3000 roentgens, while the LD-50 was as low as 16 roentgens for the most se.nsitive stage of the developing trout egg. Chronic exposures from the continuous discharge of low amounts of radio-activity are of main interest at the Beaver Valley Station. Annual doses in the range of those predicted for aquatic and terrestrial organisms below the outfall of the station (1 to 10 mrad /yr) are several orders of magnitude below chronic dose levels that might produce demonstrable damage to aquatic organisms. Field and laboratory studies concerned with dose versus effect relationships are summarised by Templeton, et al.31 l 1 Chironomid larvae (Insecta) commonly called bloodworms, living in bot. tom i sedimenta near the Oak Ridge facility in Tennessee, which have been irra-diated at the rate of about 230 to 240 rad /yr for more than 130 genera-tions have not decreased in abundance, even though displaying a slightly greater than normal number of chromosome aberrations.32 The brood size i of a freshwater fish (Gambusia) increased when exposed to chronic radia- ) tion of 10.9 rads / day, although somewhat vore dead embryos and abnormali-ties were observed in irradiated populations than in controls, increased fecundity is the means by which animals having a short life cycle and pro-ducing large numbers of progeny can adjust to radiation stress.33 The irradiation of salmon eggs and larvae at a rate of 500 mrad / day did not affect the number of adult fish returning from the ocean or their ability to spawn.31 The number of salmon spawning in the vicinity of the Hanford reactors on the Columbia River has not been affected b'y dose rates in the range of 100 to 200 mrads/wk.34 ) i j 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1i

5-37 The conclusions that populations of aquatic organisms residing near the outfall of the Beaver Valley Station will not be adversely affected by radionuclides in the discharged ef fluent is based on the follouing con-siderations: 1) the expected release of radionuclides will be a small fraction of releases that have occurred in the past at major nuclear facilities without detectable adverse ef fects, 2) the estimated dose rates will be several orders of magnitude less than those expected to cause i radiation damage. Monitoring will be conducted by the :pplicants to evaluate the accumulation of radionuclides from adsorption oh suspended silt with resulting deposi-tion in the bed of the river. 5.8 EFFECTS ON COMMUNITY A stable work force of around 80 is expected for operation of Beaver Valley Unit 1. This number of family units, if they do move into the area, is not expected to have any adverse effect in view of the fact that over 18,000 people already live within 5 miles of the plant and the additional 20 to 40 families would not tax the existing community services already available, e 9 _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ b\

l l- 5-38

                                                                ~~

REFERENCES l 1. J. C. Asbury, A. A. Frigo, A Phenomenological Relationship for Pre-dicting the Surface Areas of Thermal Plumes in Lakes _, ANL-ES-5, April 1971.

2. Northern States Power Company, Environmental Report and Supplement, Monticello Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-263, November 1971.

3. Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co., Beaver Vallev Power Station Unit 1, Environmental Report , Operating License Stage, Docket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971.

4. Pollution Control Council, "A Survey of Thermal Power Plant Cooling Facilities," Pacific Northwest Area, 1969.

5. G. E. McVehil, " Evaluation of Cooling Tower Effects at Zion Nuclear Cenerating Station," Final Report to Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL, By Sierra Research Corporation, Boulder, 00, 1970.

6. Sierra Research Corporation, " Atmospheric Effects of Cooling Tower Plumes," Northern States Power Ccmpany, Sherburne County Generating Plant, Final Report to Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, MO, 1971.

7. Preliminary Report, "Effect of Cooling Tower Effluents on Atmospheric Conditions in Northeastern Illinois," Circular 1000, Illinois. State Water Survey, Urbana, IL, 1971.

8. D. J. Brochl, " Field Investigation of Environmental Effects of Cooling Towers for Large Steam Electric Plants," prepared for Portland General Electric Company, Portland, OR, 1968.

9. G. F. Bierman, G. A. Kunder, J. F. Sebald and R. F. Visbisky, "Charac-teristics, Classification and Incidence of Plumes from Large Natural-Draf t Cooling Towers," paper presented at the American Power Conference ,

33rd Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, p. 24, April 22,1971. I

10. R. F. Visbisky, G. F. Bierman, and C. H. Bitting, Plume Effects of Natural Hyperbolic Towers, Interim Report, prepared by Gilbert Assoc.

Inc., Reading, PA, for Metropolitan Edison Co., p. 9, 1970. e

11. Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Forked River Nuclear Station Unit 1, Environmental Rgport, p. 46, January 21, 1972.

i e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ fl '

5-39 _ REFERENCES (Continued) 12, W. M. Culcoski, "An Anomalous Snow at Oak Ridge, Tenn. ," Monthly Weather Review, vol. 90, pp. 194-196, 1962. l

13. J. E. Carson, "The Atmospheric Consequences of Thermal Discharges from Power Generating Stations," Annual Report of Radiological Physics Division for 1971, Argonne National Laboratory - 7860, Part III, August 1972.

14. Cleceland Electric Illuminating Co., Duquer.ne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co., Pennsylvania Power Co.. Toledo Edison Co., Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2. Environmental Report. Revision 1 Construction Permit Stage, Docket No. 50-412, September 25, 1972.

15. O. G. Sutton, Micrometeorology, McGraw-Hill p. 85., 1953.

16. D. H. Slade, ed., Meteorology and Atomic Energy, 1968, p. 113, Equation 3.144, July 1968.

17. S. E. Thompson, C. A. Burton, D. J. Quinn, and Y. C. Ng, Concentration Factors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms, USAEC Report UCRL-50564 Rev. 1. University of California, Lawrence Radiction Laboratory, October 1972.

18. J. F. Fletcher, W. L. Dotson, HERMES --- A Digital Computer Code for Estimating Regional Radiological Effects From the Nuclear Power Industry, USAEC Report HEDL-THE-71-168 Hanford Engineering Develop-ment Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1971.

19. A. W. Klement Jr., et al, " Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP/CSD 72-1, pp. 8,10,12, August 1972.

20. Letter from M. E. Miles to D. R. Muller;

Subject:

Shippingport Radio-active Waste Disposal Data, February 21, 1973.

21. 10 CFR Part 71, 49 CFR Parts 173 and 178.

22. 49 CFR 5 397.1 (d) .

23. H. N. Schere, Jr. , B. J. Ware, C. H. Shih, " Gaseous Effluents Due to

• EHV Transmission Line Corona," Preprint of Paper presented at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, San Francisco, CA, July 9-14, 1972.

1 [ l 1 l t h di

7t 5-60 REFERENCES (Continued)

24. M. Frydman, . A. Levy, S. E. Miller, " Oxidant Measurements in the Vicinity of Energized 765-kV Lines," Preprint ci paper presented at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, San Francisco, CA, July 9-14, 1972.

25..J. C..Sonniensen, B. W. Bentley, " Biological Considerations Jur the Design for Thermal Power Plant Intake Structure, HEDL-SA-289, 1971.

26. C. D. Becker, T. O. Thatcher, Toxicity of power plant chemicals to aquatic life, BNW Topical Report in press, 1973.

27. J. W. Arthur, and J. G. Eaton, " Chloramine Toxicity to the Amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnarus and the Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas,"

Journal Fish. Res. Bd., Canada, vol. 28, pp. 1841-1845, 1971.

28. W. A. Brungs, " Literature Review of the Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life," J. of Water Poll. Control Federation, (in press),

1973.

29. L. R. Donaldson and R. F. Foster, " Effects of Radiation of Aquatic Organisme.," pp. 96-102, The Ef fects of Atomic Radiation on Ocean-ography and Fisheries, Nat. Acad, Sci., National Restarch Council Publication 551, pp. 96-102,1957.

30. G. G. Polikarpov, Radioecolagy of Aquatic Organisms, (Trans, from Russian) Scripta Technica, Reinhold Publ. Co., New York, P. 314.

1966.

31. W. L. Templeton, R. E. Nakatani and E. E. Held, " Radiation Effects,"

Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, Committee on Oceanography, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 223-239, 1971.

32. B. G. Blaylock,'" Cytogenetic Study of a Natural Population of Chironomus Inhabiting an Area Contaminated by Radioactive Waste," Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into Seas. Oceans and Rivers, pp. 835-845, 1969.

33. B. G. Blaylock, "The Fecundity of a Cambusia Affinis Affinis Population Exposed to Chronic Environmental Radiation," Radiation Res., vol. 37, pp. 108-117, 1969.

e

34. D. G. Watson and W. L. Templeton, " Thermal Luminescent Dosimetry of Aquatic Organisms," Third National Symposium on Radioecology, Oak Ridge, TN, 1971.

l __ - .R

wn:.;p w- , [ .Y ( '[i . ,.

 ',4      t                          i,
  ?'g                                                                                       5 gn, .                                ;9 '

pp O -

  ~ , . .

_ ' REFERENCES -(Continued)

            ~
              "~                                      35. Letter. . S. . R. Wassersug, EPA, to T. - Englehars'.c. USAEC, April 3,1973 (Docket Nos.-50-277 and 50-278).
                                                     .36. J. E. Draley,'The Treatment of Cooliha Waters with Chlorine Special Report ANL/ES-12, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, h                                                           February 1972.'
       ,                                              37. Stochas, J. (1971). Cooling Tower Study, IIT Research Institute
   '+
                  , ,                                    : Report No. C6187-3, January 1971.

I f J.f 4 A N

                            . 3 e

9 't , x

                    ,, ,        t

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

3.t 6-1 _6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS'AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM w k 6.1.1 Radiological Surveillance Program l The applicants initiated a preoperational radiation monitoring program in 1971. . This study was to obtain data for the establishment of existing levels of radioactivity in the environment around the station and to pro-vide a base against which the future emissions from the station could be compared. The preoperational program includes both measurement of natural radiation background and the sampling and radiological analysis of airborne particu-lates, surface water, bottom sediments, well water, and drinking water. In addition, samples of local fish (all available species) and terrestrial life such as deer, rabbit, pheasant, etc.., are taken and analyzed at reg-ular intervals (quarterly). Table 6.1 summarizes the sampling locations, frequencies and analyses of the applicants' preoperational program. Details and results of the preoperational radiation monitoring program are con-tained in the applicants' Environmental Report, Ap;andix D. The results of the applicant's preoperational radiolog*:al. monitoring pro-gram, based on 1971 data, have in part' been inconclusive. For example, anoma-lous values of tr.e I-131 and Sr-90 content of certain samples were reported. In addition, measurements of natural background radiation doses have been variable. As a consequence, the staff will require that the applicants augment their radiological preoperational monitoring program and institute appropriate controls and procedures such that adequate background data covering a period of at least one year is available prior to operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1. 6.1.2 Ecological Monitoring l The preoperational ecological monitoring program was started in the fall of 1970 and is described in detail in Reference 1, p. 4.1-2. In that

• See Appendix 5"for details of augmented program.

1 e 1 l l l [ 9 l ___ __.___u __ ___ , Ui

u 6-4 l J

                                      *-    Food crops and animal forage should be sampled at least quarterly during- the growing season and analyzed primarily for I-131.
                                          ' Other benthic biota such as clams, worms, and crustacea should be
                                            .ampled and radioanalyzed at least quarterly. The types of benthic biota should be specified'as to species.                                                      k Rabbits, fish,.and perhaps deer samples should be specified in the terrestrial sampling program. This selection is considered' by the' staff to be sufficient.

A few aquatic plants which are used as food for animals should be. sampled quarterly. Composite milk samples from local dairies and samples from cows maintained for private use and located within 2 miles of the plant should be sampled and analyzed for radios, dine at weekly intervals during the grazing season. Periodic tallies of milk-producing' animals'in the vicinity of the plant shall be undertaken to insure that milk and forage samples are being collected'at the most appropriate locations. Air monitoring for radioiodine should be undertaken using high-efficiency iodine samplers (potassium iodide impregnated charcoal packs or equivalent). As a minimum, these. samples should be taken at each air. monitoring station, as given in the applicants' preoperational radiation monitoring program and collected and anal-yzed fortnightly. A more accurate system than the one outlined by the applicants for the preoperational program for background gamma monitoring should be devised and implemented. l At least two more bottom sediment sampling points should be included in the program; one downstream of the station near river mile 36 at Midland and the other at the upstream side of the New Cumber-land' Lock and Dam. The details of the radiological survei21ance program will be stipulated in the Technical Specifications to insure that the program is adequate as to sufficiency of sites, frequency of sampling, nuclides sampled, and preci- i sion and that adequate' account is taken of potential bioaccumulation l factors-e 6.2.2 Ecological Monitoring In addition to the continuation of the preoperational monitoring program, the numbers, species, and total weight by species of fish impinged on the L E _ _ _ m

6-5 traveling s,creens should be determined weekly for the first year. ~ Also.

   . the plankton population actually entrained in the condenser cooling water should be determined. Evidence or lack thereof of early emergence of -

adult ' aquatic. insects in the channel behind Phillis Island should be

   'obtained.

During periods lof freezing rain the rate of formation of ice on tree limbs and the extent of limb breakage should be determined for comparison with preoperational findings. 6.2.3. Thermal Effluent Monitoring The applicants have described.a program for measuring the thermal patterns - in the outfall area of the Ohio River. The field measurement program will be performed at a time when the station can be in full load operation for a minimum of 18 hours. Measurements will require about 12 hours to com-plete and will begin af ter 6 full hours of plant operation. The stretch of river on which measurements will be made is shown in Figure 2.3. The measured span of river will begin at Station No.1 and continue downstream to a point below Station No. 3. The measuring instrument will be a boat fitted with . ~Lsensitive therm-istor which has an accuracy of 0.2*F and a response time of approximately 1 second. The measurement positions will be triangulated from two known baseline points on the shore. Sampling points will be concentrated where the discharge plume has the greatest influence. Five to fif teen tempera-ture measurements will be made at various depths at each sampling point. The number and position of the temperature measurements at various depths, will depend on the thermal plume conditions at any given sampling point. The data generated will be processed to. produce isoplots for selected depthe, and thermal cross-sectional maps for sections of the river. The thermal field survey results will be compared with the results of model studies of the thermal plume. The applicants state that several flow conditions v111- be studied such as high, low and normal flows. ..The staff recommer.ds that the measurement program be carried out at times when the most critical combination of atmospheric and hydrological con-ditions are likely to occur. Furthermore, the measurements should be made when the Shippingport Power Station as well as Unit I are at full load. l 6.2.4 Chemical Release Monitoring

• Although the monitoring program needed to assure compliance with discharge regulations has not yet been finalized, the preliminary program as out-l lined by the applicants (Ref 1 Amendment 4, Response D.16) appears appropriate to the staff. The program proposes to collect river water h

! JL

l 6-6 i samples fTom both a horizontal and vertical grid system that wil) extend from a~)oint above the plant site to a point approximately 2 miles down-stream from the site. Routine sampling 'on a monthly or bi-weekly basis - has been suggested, and such parameters as pH, conductivity, total dis- f solved solids, alkalinity, :hemical oxygen demand, and residual chlorine l will be monitored. I The staf f recommends tnat the sampling schedule should be designed in such a manner that some of the downstream samples are taken during periods when the neutralized demineralized regenerant vastes and the water softener wastes are being discharged to the river, thus monitoring the effect of these intermittent discharges on the river water quality. In addition, the staff recommends that to give a more complete picture of the potential j influence of the biocide discharged into the river, the total residual j chlorine analysis should be expanded to include free chlorine, combined i available chlorine, monochloramine, and dichlor<nmine concentrations, and that an analytical technique be used for these analyses having a lower detection limit of at least 0.01 mg C1/ liter.2,3 Further, the staf f recommends that the applicants' waste management program include the maintenance of a perpetual inventory of all chemicals discharged to the river, either by measurement or by inventory difference. l s 1 l l l 9 l I

1 6-7 1 _,-- REFERENCES i i I

1. Duquesne Light Co. , Ohio Edison Co. , Pennsylvania Power Co. , Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1. Environmental Report. Operating License Stage. Docket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971.

2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, APRA,  ;

AWWA & WPCF 13th Edition, 1971.

3. R. S. Lishka and E. E. McFarren, Water Chlorine (Residual) No. 2, I Report Number 40. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs , Cincinnati, OR,1971, i 1

I 1 1 j l e { i 1 I j J 1 l l l l l - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \ l

7-1 1

7. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS 1

A high deFree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents  ! at the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 is provided through correct design, I l manufacture, and operation, and the quality assurance program used to estab- l lish the necessary high integrity of the reactor system, as considered in I the Commission's Safety Evaluation dated April- 24, 1970. Deviations that may l occur are handled by protective systems to place and hold the plant in a l safe condition. Notwithstanding this, the conservative postulate is made j that serious accidents might occur in spite of the fact that they are i extremely unlikely and engineered safety features are installed to miti-gate the consequences of these postulated events. The probability of occurrence of accidents and the spectrum of their con-sequences to be considered from an environmental effects standpoint have been analyzed, using best estimetes of probabilities and realistic .ission product release and transport assumptions. For site evaluation in the Com-mission's safety review, extremely conservative assumptions are used for the purpose of comparing postulated doses resulting from a hypothetical j release of fission products from the fuel against the 10 CFR Part 100 sit-  ! ing guidelines. The computed doses that would be received by the popula-tion and environment from actual accidents would be significantly less than those calculated for the site evaluation. The Commission issued guidance to applicants on September 1, 1971, requir-ing the consideration of a spectrum of accidents with as.mmptions as real-1stic as the state of knowledge permits. The applicants' response was con-tained in the Applicants' Environmental Report - Operating License Stage dated September 24, 1971. The applicants' report has been evaluated, using the standard accident assumptions and guidance issued as a proposed amendment to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 by the Commission on December 1, 1971. Nine classes of postulated accidents and occurrences ranging in severity from trivial to very serious were identified by the Commission. In general, accidents in the high potential consequence end of the spectrum have a low occurrence rate and those on the low potential consequence end have a higher occur-rence rate. The examples selected by the applicants for these cases are shown in Table 7.1. The examples selected are reasonably homogeneous in terms of probability within each class, although the release of the waste gas decay tank contents is considered more appropriately in Class 3 and

            ,   the steam generator tube rupture more appropriately in Class 5. Certain assumptions made by the applicants do not exactly agree with those in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, but the use of alternative assumptions does not significantly affect overall environmental risk.
                                                                                                  )

1 e i --- -_---_ - - 1

7-2 1 TABLE 7.1 CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENIS AND OCCURRENCES j I Class AEC Description Applicants' Example (s) 1.0 Trivial incidents Not considered 2.0 Small releases outside Leak in the volume control tank containment sampling line 3.0 Radwaste system Malf unction or error which vould failure allow initiation of activity release from the waste gas decay tank. Release of 10% of the noble gas activity in the waste gas decay tank to the outside atmosphere. 4.0 Fission products to Not applicable primary system (BWR) 5.0 Fission products to failed fuel a.nd eteam generator primary and secondary tube leak systems (PWR) 6.0 Refueling accident Fuel assembly mishandling; evaluation of fuel handling accident inside containment.

7. 0 Spent fuel handling Refueling accident outside accident containment; mishandlio; of fuel assembly 8.0 Accident initiation Loss of coolant pipe break, events considered in steam line break, steam design basis evaluation generator tube rupture, vaste in the SAR gas decay tank rupture, and volume control tank rupture.

9.0 Hypothetical sequence Not considered of failures more severe than Class 8.0 s l O

7-3 Staff estimates of the dose which might 'e received by an assumed individ-ual. standing at the site boundary in the downwind direction, using the assumptions in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, are presented in Table 7.2. { Estimates of the integrated exposure that might be delivered to the pop-ulation within 50 miles of the site are also presented in Table 7.2. The man-rem estimate was based ,on the projected population (based on 1970 census data) around the site for the year 1990. To rigorously establish a realistic annual risk, the calculated doses in Table 7.2 would have to be multipled by estimated probabilities. The events in Classes 1 and 2 represent occurrences which are anticipated during plant operations; and their consequences, which are very small, are considered within the framework of routine effluents from the plant. Except for a limited amount of fuel failures and some steam generator leakage, the events in Classes 3 through 5 are not anticipated during plant opera-tion; but events of this type could occur sometime during the 40-year plant lifetime. Accidents in Classes 6 and 7, and small accidents in Class 8 are of similar or lower probability than accidents in Classes 3 through 5, but are still possible. The probability of occurrence of large Class 8 accidents is very small. Therefore, when the consequences indicated in Table 7.2 are weighted by probabilities, the environmental risk is very low. The postulated occurrences in Class 9 involve sequences of succes-sive failures more severe than those required to be considered in the design bases of protection systems and engineered safety features. Their consequences could be severe. However, the probability of their occur-rence is so small that their environmental risk is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers), cuality assurance for design, manu-facture and operation, continued surveitierra and testing, and conserva-tive derign are all applied to provide and maintain the required high degree of assurance that potential accidents in this class sre, and will remain, sufficiently small in probability that the environmental risk is extremely low. Table 7.2 indicates that the realistically estimated radiological conse-quences of the postulated accidents would result in exposures of an assumed individual at the site boundary to concentrations of radioactive materials within the Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR Part 20. The Table also shows that the estimated integrated exposure of the population within 50 miles of the station from each postulated accident would be orders of magnitude smaller than that from naturally occurring radioactivity. The exposure from naturally occurring radioactivity corresponds to approximately 2400 man-rem /yr within 5 miles and approximately 530,000 man-rem /yr within 50 miles of the site. This estimate is based on a natural background of 125 mrem /yr. When con-sidered with thu probability of occurrence, the annual potential radiation exposure of the population from all the postulated accidents is an even smaller fraction of the exposure from natural background radiation arJ. in a 1 I

• _ _ _ _ _ _-- ---- _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - l-

n---.- 7-4 TABLE 7.2

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS (a) Estimated Fraction Estimated Dose of 10 CFR Part 20 to Population in Limit at Site 50-m11e Radius Class Event Boundary (b ) (man-rem) 1.0 Trivial Incidents (c ) (c) 2.0 Small releases outside (c) (c) containment 3.0 Radwaste System failures 3.1 Equipment leakage or mal- 0.073 10 function 3.2 Release of waste gas 0.29 41 storage tank contents 3.3 Release of liquid waste 0.008 1.1 storage contents 4.0 Fission products to primary N.A. N.A. system (BWR) 5.0 Fission products to primary and secondary systems (PWR)

                                              <ne 5.1      Fuel cladding defects and            (c)               (c) steam generator leaks 5.2      Off-design transients that        0.002                 0.24 induce fuel failure above those expected and steam generator leak 5.3     Steam generator tube              0.076                14 rupture e
                                                     .                                              I e
                                                                                                    \

7-5 l .-

l- TABLE 7.2 (Continued) Estimated Fraction Estimated Dose of 10 CFR Part 20 to Population in Limit at Site 50-mile Radius Class Event Bounda ry (b ) (man-rem)

. 6.0 Refueling accidents l

6.1 Fuel bundle drop 0.015 2.2 6.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel 0.26 38 in core 7.0 Spent fuel handling accident 7.1 Fuel assembly drop in 0.01 1.4 fuel rack 7.2 Heavy object drop ento 0.04 5.5 fuel rack 1.3 Fuel cask drop N.A. N.A. 8.0 Accident initiation events considered in design basis evaluation in the SAR 8.la Loss'of-Coolant Accidents Small Break 0.16 41 Large Break 0.056 1.5 8.lb Break in instrument line from N.A. N.A. Primary system that penetrates the containment 8.2a Rod ejection accident (PWR) 0.006 1.5

             ,                                  8.2b    Rod drop accident (BWR)             N.A.                 N.A.
                                                                                                                       '   I

i 7-6 TABLE 7.2 (Continued) Estimated Fraction Estimated Dose of 10 CFR Part 20 to Population in Limit at Site 50-mile Radius Class Event Boundary (b) (man-rem) 8.3a Steamline breaks (PWR's outside containment) Small Break <0.001 <0.1 l l Large Break <0.001 0.14 8.3b Streamline break (BWR) N.A. N.A. (a) The doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radioactive materials resulting in both a direct and an inhalation dose. Evaluation of the accident doses assumes that the applicants' environmental monitoring program i and appropriate additional monitoring (which could be initiated l subsequent to an incident detected by in-plant monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in the environment in a timely manner such that remedial action could be taken if necessary to limit erposure from other potential pathways to man. (b) Represents the calculated fraction of a whole body dose of 500 mrem, or the equivalent dose to an organ. (c) These teleases are expected to be in accord with proposed Appendix I  ; for routine effluents (i.e., 5 mrem /yr to an individual from either l gaseous or liquid effluents). N.A. - Not Applicable e 1 _______________ _ ')

7-7 fact, is welt within naturally occurring variations in the natural back-ground. It is concluded from the results of the realistic analysis that the environmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small. 7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS Based on recent accident statistics,1 a shipment of fuel or waste may be expected to be involved in an accident about once in a total of 750,000 shipment-miles. The Staff has estimated that only about 1 in 10 of those accidents which involve Type A packages or 1 in 100 of those involving Type B packages might result in any leakage of radioactive material. In case of an accident, procedures that carriers are required to2 follow will reduce the consequences of an accident in many cases. The procedures include segregation of damaged and leaking packages from people and noti-fication of the shipper and the Department of Transportation. Radiologi-cal assistance teams are available through an intergovernmental program to provide equipped and trair.ed personnel. These teams, dispatched in response to calls for emergency assistance, can mitigate the consequences of an accident. 7.2.1 New Fuel i Under accident conditions other than accidental criticality, the pellet-ized form of the nuclear fuel, its encapsulation, and the low specific activity of the fuel limit the radiological impact on the environment to negligible levels. The packaging is designed to prevent criticality under normal and severe , accident conditions. To release a number of fuel assemblies under condi-tions that could lead to accidental criticality would require severe dam-age or destruction of more than one package, which is unlikely to happen in other than an extremely severe accident. The probability that an accident could occur under conditions that could result in accidental criticality is extremely remote. If criticality were to occur in transport, persons within a radius of about 100 f t from the accident might receive a serious exposure but beyond that distance, no detectable radiation effects would be likely. Persons within a few feet of the accident could receive fatal or near-fatal exposures unless shielded by intervening material. Although there would be no nuclear explosion, heat generated in the reaction would probably separate the , fuel elements so that the reaction would stop. The reaction would not be i expected to continue for more than a few seconds and normally would not I recur. Residual radiation levels due to induced radioactivity in the j fuel elements might reach a few roentgens per hour at 3 ft. There would j be very little dispersion of radioactive material. l l l I e I _ _ _ _ __ _ 0!

c_ 7-8 i 7.2.2 Irradrated Fuel. Effects on the environment.from accidental releases of radioactive mate-rials during shipment of irradiated fuel have been estimated for the situ-ation where contaminated coolant is released and the situation where gases and coolant are released. 7.2.2'.1 Leakage of Contaminated Coolant Leakage of' contaminated coolant resulting from improper closing of the cask is possible as a result of human error, even though the shipper is required to follow specific procedures which include tests and examina-tion of the closed container prior to each shipment. Such an accident is highly unlikely during the 40-year life of the station. Leakage of liquid at a rate of 0.001 cc/second or about 80 drops /hr 1s-about the smallest amount of leakage that can be detected by visual obser-vation of a large container. If undetected leakage of contaminated liquid' coolant were to occur, the amount would be so small that the individual exposure would not exceed a few mrem and only a very few people would receive such exposures.. 7.2.2.2 Release of Gases and Coolant Release of gases and coolant is an extremely remote possibility. In the improbable event.that a cask is involved in an extremely severe accident such that the cask containment is breached and the cladding of the fuel assemblies penetrated, some of the coolant and some of the noble gases might be released from the cask. In such an accident, the amount of radioactive material released would be limited to the available fraction of the noble gases in the void spaces in the fuel pins and some fraction of the low level contamination in the coolant. ' Persons would not be expected to remain near.the accident due to the severe conditions which would be involved, including a major fire. If releases occurred, they would be expected to take' place in a short period of time. Only a limited area would be'affected. Persons in the downwind region and within 100 ft or so of the accident might receive doses as high as a few hundred millirem. Under average weather conditions, a few hun-dred square feet might be contaminated to the extent that it would require decontamination (that is, Range I contamination levels) according to the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.

• 7.2.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes It is highly unlikely that a shipment of solid ralloactive waste will be involved in a severe accident during the 40-year life of the station. If a shipment of low-level waste (in drums) becomes involved in a severe acci-dent, some release of waste might occur but the specific activit of the

                                                                                                                                *      \

1

     - - - _ - - - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ . _ _                 -_ _                                                                    }

7-9 q t i waste will be so low that the exposure of personnel would not be expected to be significant. Other solid radioactive wastes will Se shipped in l Type B packages. The probability of release from a Type B package, in even a very severe accident, is sufficiently small that, considering the j solid form of the waste and the very remote probability that a shipment l of such waste would be involved in a very severe accident, the likelihood of significant exposure would be extremely small. In either case, spread of the contamination beyond the immediate area is unlikely and, although local clean-up might be required, no significant exposure to the general public would be expected to result. 7.2.4 Severity of Postulated Transportation Accidents The events postulated in this analysis are unlikely but possible. More severe accidents than those analyzed can be postulated and their conse-quences could be severe. Quality cssurance for design, manufacture, and use of the packages, continued surveillance and testing of packages and transport conditions, and conservative design of packages ensure that the probability of accidents of this latter potential is sufficiently small that the environmental risk is extremely low. For those reasons, more severe accidents have not been included in the analysis. 7.2.5 Alternatives to Normal transportation Procedures Alternatives, such as special routing of shipments, providing escorts in separate vehicles, adding shielding to the containers, and constructing a j ' fuel recovery and fabrication plant on the site rather than shipping fuel to and from the station, have been examined by the Staff for the general case. The impact on the environment of transportation under normal or postulated accident conditions is not considered to be sufficient to jus-tify the additional effort required to implement any of the alternatives. e s 4

                                                                     ---_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ L}}