ML20155F259: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
4 4- | 4 4- | ||
. In a letter dated November 5, 1982, the licensee was requested to review the FES for significant changes in the OCNGS or the environs that might affect the original FES conclusions. The staff has reviewed the FES and the licensee's December 21, 1982, March 21, 1983, and April 2, 1984, submittals to determine if an FES supplement was necessary. Some sections of the FES have not been altered. The staff's review has determined that in the context of current analytical procedures and rules, there are no significant environmental impacts beyond those previously identified and evaluated in the 1974 FES. The bases for this conclusion are set forth below. | . In a {{letter dated|date=November 5, 1982|text=letter dated November 5, 1982}}, the licensee was requested to review the FES for significant changes in the OCNGS or the environs that might affect the original FES conclusions. The staff has reviewed the FES and the licensee's December 21, 1982, March 21, 1983, and April 2, 1984, submittals to determine if an FES supplement was necessary. Some sections of the FES have not been altered. The staff's review has determined that in the context of current analytical procedures and rules, there are no significant environmental impacts beyond those previously identified and evaluated in the 1974 FES. The bases for this conclusion are set forth below. | ||
OCNGS has been operating since 1969. In' December 1974 the AEC (now the NRC) issued an FES (Ref. 9) related to the proposed issuance of an FTOL for OCNGS. The FES recommended conversion to the full-term license, while identifying numerous station-related impacts to aquatic resources, recommend-ing extensive aquatic monitoring, and requiring the evaluation of cooling system alternatives. The discussion that follows provides an update to the 1974 FES along with the present staff evaluation. | OCNGS has been operating since 1969. In' December 1974 the AEC (now the NRC) issued an FES (Ref. 9) related to the proposed issuance of an FTOL for OCNGS. The FES recommended conversion to the full-term license, while identifying numerous station-related impacts to aquatic resources, recommend-ing extensive aquatic monitoring, and requiring the evaluation of cooling system alternatives. The discussion that follows provides an update to the 1974 FES along with the present staff evaluation. | ||
2.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Numerous historical sites within 20 miles of the plant were identified in the FES. Two were listed in the National Register of Historic Places. | 2.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Numerous historical sites within 20 miles of the plant were identified in the FES. Two were listed in the National Register of Historic Places. | ||
| Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
-(1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA and (2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences ALARA. | -(1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA and (2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences ALARA. | ||
In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (JCP&LC) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976, (Ref. 2) the necessary information to permit an evaluation of OCNGS, with respect to the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I. In this submittal, JCP&LC chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. | In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (JCP&LC) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976, (Ref. 2) the necessary information to permit an evaluation of OCNGS, with respect to the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I. In this submittal, JCP&LC chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. | ||
By letter dated October 22, 1984, JCP&LC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for OCNGS. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are ALARA in accordance with 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a. | By {{letter dated|date=October 22, 1984|text=letter dated October 22, 1984}}, JCP&LC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for OCNGS. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are ALARA in accordance with 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a. | ||
e The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at OCNGS:~(1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to ALARA levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a, (2) to meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Sections II.A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and (3) to meet the cost-benefit objective set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. | e The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at OCNGS:~(1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to ALARA levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a, (2) to meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Sections II.A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and (3) to meet the cost-benefit objective set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:46, 9 December 2021
| ML20155F259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155F255 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604210441 | |
| Download: ML20155F259 (71) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.o_ . [ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CONVERSION OF THE. PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE TO A FULL-TERM OPERATING LICENSE GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219 DATE: April 10, 1986 8604210441 860410 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P PDR -
m 3 ,.
~
m TARLE Or CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.............................................. 1 2.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHE 0 LOGICAL' SITES ........................ 6 3.0-' REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY ....................................... 7 4.0 ENYTRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF OPERATION ....................... 7 4.1 INTAKE-EFFECTS ....................................... 8 4.2 DISCHARGE EFFECTS .................................... 10
-4.3 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES-AQUATIC ............ 29 4.4 CANAL BANK STABILIZATION ............................. 30 4.5 AREAS DENUDEn FOR PLANT OPERATION .................... 30
'4.6 'OTHER CONCERNS NOT MADE PART OF 1074 FES.............. 33 4.7 RADIOLOGICAL DISCHARGES .............................. 36-
.5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMDACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ............ 55 5.1 ' RISK FROM POTENTIAL-SEVERE ACCInENTS ................. 55 5.2 SITE FEATURES ........................................ 58 5.3 -ODEPATING EXPERIENCE ................................. 60 6.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS ............................... 60 7.0 NEED FOR THE DROPOSED ACTION .............................. 61 8.0 AI.TERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 62 8.1 ALTERNATIVE USE.0F RESOURCES ......................... 62 9.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ..................................... 62 10.0 RASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN FES SUPPLEMENT 63
11.0 REFERENCES
................................................ 65 1-
.e. o-LISTbFFIGURES PAGE 2
Fioure 1-1 Ocean County . . . . . . . ......... Fioure 1-? Topooraphy of the Site Vicinity, Preconstruction . . . . . .. ...... 3 Figure 1-3 Marshlands in the Site Vicinitv, 4 Preconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4-1 _ Canal.Dredgina - Disturbed Areas . . . . . . . 31 LIST OF TARLES Table 4-1 Calculated Deleases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid Effluents from Oyster Creek for Appendix I Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
~
Table 4-? Calculated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Effluents from Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 4-3 Principal Parameters and Conditions Used in Calculating Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liouid and Gasects Effluents from Oyster Creek Nuclear Generation Station . . . . . . . 43 Table 4-4 Summary of Goeratino Experience for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatino Station . . . . . . . 44 Table 4-5 Oyster Creek Relative Concentration (X/0) and Deposition (D/0) values Used for Dose Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Table 4-6 Comparison of Calculated Doses from Operation with Section II.A. II.B. and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 ....-......... 51 Table 4-7 Calculated Population Doses (Man-Rem) for Cost-Benefit Analysis, Section II.D of 4 Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 . . . . . . . . . 52
- ii -
- m. l
. 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) is located in Ocean County, New Jersey, 2 miles inland from Barnegat Bay. The 1416-acre site is owned by the licensee. It is situated partly in Lacey Township and, to a lesser extent, in Ocean Township. The site is about 60 miles South of Newark, 9 miles south of Toms River and 35 miles north of Atlantic City. The Garden State Parkway bounds the site on the west. Overland access to the site is provided by the Central Railroad of New Jersey and U. S. Route 9, both passing through the site and separating a 661-acre eastern portion from the balance of the property west of the railroad and highway. The station is about % mile west of the highway and 1% miles east of the parkway. The site property extends about 3 miles inland from the bay; the maximum width in the north-south direction is almost 1 mile. The enclosed Figure 1-1 from the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated December 1974 relates the site to the more pertinent features of the county. The site location is part of the New Jersey shore area with its relatively flat topography and extensive freshwater and saltwater marshlands. The South Branch Forked River runs across the northern side of the site, and Oyster Creek partly borders the southern side. Those features are shown in the enclosed Figures 1-2 and 1-3 from the 1974 FES, based upon maps prepared by the New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development and by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, prior to station construction. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued Provisional Operating License (POL) No. OPR-16 on August 1, 1969, to the Jersey Central Power and Light
a _a 2-t 1 ,/,----..._ l
\ .'
t
\ Y;
/
)s
,N A e
A
- i w i
/ ,
-. '""" Y * = =
I p,,/ , I S, / -- 1
\ ~
- 0. u . c . ;. .,. ' y -f . %lw:.I.. ,
- y. .-
,v. '\-
- j r.
l . {
\% -..a. J
\-
\. r .
\ y '
K\.---[. N f.
- . ~
\
/ y N..D ~ -
\. n- ,_ ,
~
%.)..
D
- 18) \g
\... _
susu.avo s.
**'_./,., ;
Ovv' elm Cases insta,Ama we
* *--= ..,
\, .,,
\
9 ' ,/ - 44 .
... 'b wy
' ,- ... ....f. '$," g ,
, . ~ .. , . .
l '.\. l th - ~~ i k, ' .
,'- N .j
. .l
\ ,#
e
'. /
l L. / g 1
\. R
/ -. .N.
( D): een
'M,\ ,
t'
. b._
FIGURE 1-l OCEAN COUNTY i e
l ,!
; . g;.,
$; a , 3
.'tell_
y l b' d .1{g . x. 3 3 j:l H S -,$ . v, ^ R h' A M E. p*/) ' N[f,.y s ; r y,3 3y> ,, , . w kt E - -;; D R
' > + ., ?
M1 <h,y.4. M y.> ks I , . s T f ,plr Q ki l di 0 N
! ?
t; i y; n N
^
_- O I 4j [ y 9
- a. M
.- I T
C l S
, i . ~f f N*~, '
. i.
U R _T T
~ 'T_M~..M6 .,n lk
~.U r i,s _ y~; S
- - O '
T ~_ N O K S. _ - [. 9 a 9, -
- n:. C
_x . " E mn "y, F-
;7 Na;,s.O m' ;:. *
- !. R
- 'j~ P
~ Y. - .
. T;<'
Kc_ E E R .__. ~ _ f : .,' _ ;g .; f,. y , Y T w .c~W i M s.
- C E R
T -
I N 3b A y I
?,W L .
8,4 G }[" .j C N A E M M- .
- g~ I V
R _**>
/# W GA nE b'N 2 - g_. ~ u - E E iv - ' T
e_
T n ,.
- I A . -
S T o - s- [ S E . E x
/ n o _ i _
H T
- r ; _
F T A G
/ Q 9. f_ -
- ~
\
O Y H P D. A E E R M" ,. _xh _ R C W nB. A - mN_,
- O P
O
\.
D L A E H
" d T R
U
- s. 2 l
"s\
D
- E_
~ R j uff. 6
[. S<gaQP ge c i n U G e Vu I ( I F c 5
, ^
^ - f .m
" ._ . a
+
x
=- 0 g% rm, /"O* x4 i '
o 1 ; - l N r
~1- Tu f
l
/ '6M
, a,
..s
-w E
1 s f? ".
~ e 4/ sppi;js ;
nn.
-w.A.
. y? ,cm.,
%^
[.,_ _
*4 y 7
l
, A!I :
a' ~ = . - . -
=r- _-
n - _/ ./ - m.
+<
f% 4k'
- .4 g
,~
4 Figure 1-3 MARSHLANDS IN THE SITE VICINITY, PRECONSTRUCTION b
Company and General Public Utilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation (the licensee) for operation of OCNGS at power levels up to 1930 megawatts thermal (Pwt). The original authorized licensee has evolved where now GPU Nuclear Corporation is the _ entity responsible for the operation of OCNGS. Since the license was granted, OCNGS has operated at or near 1930 Mwt except for outaces and derated plant operation because of plant operating conditions, i Pursuant to Section A of revised Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 50 (current 1v 10 CFR Part 51), the licensee submitted to the Director of Regulation an environmental repnrt. The revised regulation further required that the Director of Reoulation, or his designee, analyse this report and nrepare a detailed statenent of environmental considerations. It is within this franework that an FES related to the operation of OCNGS was issued by the staff in December 1974 The proposed action addressed in the FES was the conversion of the POL No. DPR-16 to a Full Term Operating License (FTOLi. The AEC issued a rotice of its intent to issue a FTOL in the FEDEDAL REGISTER on November 28, 1972 (37 FR 75190). The FES for DCNGS was issued in support of this action; however, the license conversion process was delayed due to the inception of the staff's Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). The SEP is a prooram to review the designs of older operatino nuclear plants such as OCNGS to document their safety aoainst newer licensing criteria.
4 4-
. In a letter dated November 5, 1982, the licensee was requested to review the FES for significant changes in the OCNGS or the environs that might affect the original FES conclusions. The staff has reviewed the FES and the licensee's December 21, 1982, March 21, 1983, and April 2, 1984, submittals to determine if an FES supplement was necessary. Some sections of the FES have not been altered. The staff's review has determined that in the context of current analytical procedures and rules, there are no significant environmental impacts beyond those previously identified and evaluated in the 1974 FES. The bases for this conclusion are set forth below.
OCNGS has been operating since 1969. In' December 1974 the AEC (now the NRC) issued an FES (Ref. 9) related to the proposed issuance of an FTOL for OCNGS. The FES recommended conversion to the full-term license, while identifying numerous station-related impacts to aquatic resources, recommend-ing extensive aquatic monitoring, and requiring the evaluation of cooling system alternatives. The discussion that follows provides an update to the 1974 FES along with the present staff evaluation. 2.0 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Numerous historical sites within 20 miles of the plant were identified in the FES. Two were listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
~
Subsequently, several additional properties within 20 miles have been added to the Register. The Joseph Holmes Mill in Forked River about 2 miles NNE
of the plant is the closest listed property. Continuing operation of the plant, however, will have no adverse effect on any known historic or archeological property. 3.0 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY The FES included population estimates for 1970 and projections for 2010. The anticipated residential population growth rate of 4% per year between 1970 and 1980 was realized. The applicant's estimate of 66,815 residential population within 10 miles for 1980 is close to the staff's estimate. The staff estimates the 30 mile 1980 population to have been approximately 582,000 and the 50 mile population to have been 3,490,000. Seasonal population within 10 miles has grown essentially as anticipated in the
-FES. Peak seasonal population for 1980 is estimated at 179,840. A continued growth rate in the 10-mile residential population of 4% for the century, anticipated in the FES, is now forecasted by the staff to decline steadily to approximately 0.5% by the year 2000.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF OPERATION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has developed regulations
.and procedures for implementation of Clean Water Act provisions applicable to aquatic and water quality aspects of nuclear steam electric generating stations. The Clean Water Act procedures apply to and constrain the major impacting features of the NRC licensed projects. The NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decided in the Yellow Creek Case (ALAB-515; 8 NRC
707, 1978) that the NDC should not inoose any non-radiological license conditions for the protection of the aquatic environnent because the Clean Mater Act places full responsibility for such matters with the USEPA for those states to which authority has been delecated). Effluent limitations and water Quality monitoring at power plants are imposed by USEPA via the National Pollution Discharoe Elimination System (NPDES 1 Permit issued for each facility. Amendment 66 to POL No. DPR-16 for OCNGS became effective en March 24, 1983, and deleted from the Appendix R Environmental Technical Specifications nonradiological requirements related to the followinn: limiting conditions for operation (LCOs); thermal plume analysis; hydro-graphic analysis; and ecological studies. The USEPA issued NPDFS permit No. NJ0005550 for DCNGS on January 31, 1975. The permit exoired on January 30, 1980, but remains in effect during the renewal process by the State of New Jersey, which has been delegated permittina authority by the USEPA. A new draft permit has been prepared by the State for OCNGS (Ref. 431 Followino the public review, the State will finalize the Parnit and formally reissue it for a 5-year period. 4.1 Intake Effects The 1974 FES for OCNGS assessed the effects of water withdrawal on the aquatic resources of Oyster Creek, Forked River, and Barnegat Ray. Those effects were related to flow changes in the Creek and River, and to impingement and entrainment of Barneoat Bay biota.
g 4 0 4.1.1 Flow Chances The 1974 FES recognized that dredoina of Oyster Creek to accommodate OCNGS discharges and the operation of the once-through coolina system changed the pattern of flows and the physical-chemical regimes in both Oyster Creek and the South Rranch Forked River. In conclusion, the FES stated:
" Construction and operation of the intake-discharge canal changed the flows of Oyster Creek South Aranch Forked River from alternatina to unidirectional flows, changing the typically estuarine streams to ones of constant bay salinity throucheut the canal. Althouah this has eliminated nursery areas used by many marine organisms this elimination is not a sionificant impact." ISummary and Conclusion 3(b13 Present Staff Evaluation The staff's conclusion on the overall impact of nursery area losses resulting from flow and salinity changes remains unchanged. The altered L
flows (compared with the natural pre-operational ones) in Forked River have contributed to impingement and entrainment losses, while the flows, thermal effluents, and salinity chanaes in Oyster Creek have contributed to altered populations of marine shipworms. These are discussed in the appropriate sections below. s , . ,- - ,
r-4 10 - 4.1.2 Impingement and Entrainment The 1974 FES assessed the impacts of impingement on Barnegat Bay biotic resources based on a very limited amount of data collected by the licensee during April - July 1971 (Section 5.5.2.2.). While recognizing the inadequacies and the speculative nature of the analyses, the FES found that major impacts were occurring to important Bay fishery resources. In conclusion, the FES stated:
" Impingement on the intake screens results in the estimated annual loss of 1 million blue crabs and 24,000 winter flounder, in an area heavily used for sport fishing. The impact of this loss is believed to be significant, and will be the subject of a study program."
[ Summary and Conclusion 3(f)] l The 1974 FES also assessed the impacts of entrainment mortality to Barnegat Bay biotic resources based on limited studies conducted during 1970 and 1971 (Section 5.5.2.3). The FES found that sufficient information to quantify entrainment impact at OCNGS were not availcole and that the predictions made were considered to be speculative. In conclusion, the FES stated:
" Annually an estimated 150 tons of zooplankton, 100 million fish larvae, and 150 million fish eggs are lost by passage through the station's condensers. The impact of this loss [is] believed to be
significant, and will be the subject of a study program." [ Summary and Conclusion 3(g)] The findings of significant impact resulted in several FES requirements for: mitigation of impingement and entrainment mortalities [ Summary and Conclusions 7(j) and 7(k)]; ecosystem monitoring of Barnegat Bay for impact assessment [ Summary and Conclusions 7(d) and 7(f)]; and an examination of cooling system alternatives [ Summary and Conclusions 7(e), 7(f), a-d 7(g)]. Present Staff Evaluation (1) Impingement and Entrainment: Studies and Findings The licensee conducted studies of impingement, entrainment, and studied the biota and fisheries of Barnegat Bay during the period 1975-1982 and reported the results in a series of annual reports (Refs. 15 to 21). Additionally, the licensee submitted its 316(a) and (b) demonstration to the USEPA and to the State of New Jersey on May 31, 1978 (Ref. 22). The 316 demonstration presented data for the years 1975-1977. In summary, the total estimated annual impingement losses and the losses of winter flounder and blue crab have been as follows (in numbers of organisms): Sampling Winter Blue Total Impingement Year Flounder Crab (all species) 1975-76 8,908 5,627,253 11,486,113 1976-77 18,618 230,691 1,481,396 1977-78 27,370 1,157,562 6,097,468 1978-79 147,212 309,661 6,738,714 1979-80 16,122 277,727 4,258,936 1980-81 48,511 1,831,654 10,293,611 1981-82 25,768 247,108 2,968,519 1982-83* 37,170 46,259 5,629,917
" Data for a 7-month period (Sept-Mar) due to station outage.
d A h The FES used actual impingement data (from 1971) to estimate the losses of winter flounder and blue craD. Even though the data were limited, the predictions were close to the actual levels observed since 1975. g ~ Impingement of winter flounder has been near the level of 24,000 fish per 7 year predicted in the FES during all years but one. During the last 3 , full years, it has ranked between 4th and 6th in total number of fishes E impinged (behind bay anchovy, Atlantic silverside, and northern pipefish, ( principally), but has ranked first in total weight of fishes impinged E (being 4-7 times higher than the next most frequently impinged fish in biomass). The estimated total weight of winter flounder impinged during g the last 3 full years ranged between 3,312 kg (7,032 lbs) and 8,645 kg -- (19,058 lbs). 7 { Blue crab exceeded the FES prediction of 1,000,000 crabs impinged per year b qh during 3 of the 8 years of study. During the last 3 full years, it has j ranked behind sand shrimp in number of invertebrate animals impinged, but g has been the dominant organism (including fishes and invertebrates) in terms of biomass impinged. The estimated total weight of impinged blue crabs b during the last 3 full years of study ranged between 14,534 kg (32,042 lbs) and 43,809 kg (96,580 lbs). 4 The total estimated annual entrainment of fish eggs and larvae (all species ' as and winter flounder) and for blue crab larvae (zoaea and megalopae) have [ been as follows (in millions of organisms): E 3 l, g i g 4 -
3 Sampling Total Winter Blue 6 6 6 Year Fish (10 ) Flounder (10 ) Crab (10 ) 1975-76(E) 24,800 - - (L) 2,660 161 52 1976-77(E) 750 - - (L) 3,150 1,920 189 1977-78(E) 3,020 - - (L) 1,260 413 66 1979-80(E)- 606 - (L) 400-
- 109 1980-81(E) 12,225 1,769 -
(L) 1,557 270 57 (E) - Eggs; (L) - Larvae (
- Sampling not conducted due to station outage during January-May.
The annual estimates of fish eggs and larvae entrained at OCNGS have i 6 6 exceeded the FES predictions (of 105 X 10 eggs and 100 X 10 larvae) during every sampling year for which data are available. For most of the years, the' total (egg plus larvae) entrainment estimates were 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater than the FES predictions. The reason for this appears to
?
I be that data on fish egg and larval abundance were not available when the FES was prepared. Entrainment loss estimates were calculated using ) zooplankton abundance, with an assumption of similar fish egg and larval abundances. The observed losses during station operation have been shown to be substantially higher than predicted. Annual estimates of larval (predominantly megalopae) blue crabs ranged between 52 and 189 X 106, The studies conducted at OCNGS since 1974 substantiate the FES predictions of impingement and entrainment losses. The FES conclusions on impact remain valid. l 1 1 _n
14 (2) Mitigation of Mortalities: Impingement Cdolingwaterintake-relatedlossesoffishesandshellfisheshavebeen substantial enough to warrant the implementation of modifications to reduce ( nortalities. Organism and debris washed from the traveling screens originally were passed into the condenser discharge area of the discharge canal via the screen-wash flume. In order to reduce the stress of thermal shock following impingement, the fiume was rerouted so that impinged organisms now are passed into ambient temperature dilution pump discharge flow. From there they mix with the thermal effluent and pass along the discharge canal that emptiestinto Barnegat Bay. This modification was completed during the summer of 1977 (Refs. 23 and 24). l l _ The six conventional traveling screens used at the OCNGS intake have been replaced with Ristroph-type bucket screens that utilize a low pressure screen wash system to remove impinged biota and return them to the environment. This type of system has been shown to reduce the initial mortality of impinged organisms at other power plants. The latent or long-term mortality, from placement of impinged biota into the discharge effluent for passage down the canal, still is of concern and is in need of definition. During the station outage in 1984, a fish handling system was installed that permits impinged organisms to be washed from the screens and diverted to a collection and sampling pool, where they can be studied and observed for survival and mortality. This sampling pool is isolated from
-4; - . -
s J the normal discharge flow. The new traveling screens, screenwash system, and sampling pool are described in detail in the licensee's submittal of
- AP rit 2, 1984, in response to NRC staff's questions 291.1 and 291.2 (Ref. 24). -
_-(3) Mitigation of Mortalities: Entrainment i
-Potential reductions in'entrainment mortalities (in comparison with the impacts noted in the FES) might be achieved by reduced' chlorine, and perhaps copper, levels in the condenser cooling water effluent. The FES (Sections i-
'3.7.5 and 5.5.25) recognized that corrosion products from the aluminum- ,
bronze. alloy condenser. tubes could affect marine-life. In 1976, the alloy tubing was replaced with titanium tubing,'thereby removing the source of cooper'in.the circulating water (Ref. 24). Of more potential significance in reducing entrainment mortality is a reduction in chlorine addition to the circulating and' effluent water. The FES (Sections 3.6.2 and 5.5.2.5) found.that the addition of chlorine (at 1,000-2,000 pounds daily) on a continuous 3.5-hour-on and 0.5-hour-off cycle could affect marine biota. The NPDES Permit issued subsequent to the FES restricts the addition of chlorine to a maximum of 820 pounds per day. During 1982, the amount of chlorine used was 623 pounds (Ref. 25). The NPDES Permit also regulates the timing of chlorine additions and discharges as follows:
"Neither free available nor total residual chlorine may be discharged for more than one condenser section [of the six present] in any one I
.1 i
l
o . day, and not more than one condenser section may discharge free avail-able chlorine or total residual chlorine at any time." In practice, each of the six condenser sections is sequentially chlorinated for 20 minutes every 4 hours when chlorination is necessary. Thus, chlorine is released for 12 hours of every 24 hours with 2 hours of no discharge between releases. The quantities and duration of chlorine release, there-fore, are less than were evaluated in the FES. Another reduction in chlorine addition-to the condenser effluent was achieved in 1982 when the station completed a sewer tie-in with the Lacy Municipal Utilities Authority. Domestic and sanitary wastes that were
-chlorinated and released to the discharge canal now are routed to the municipal sewage treatnient facility (Ref. 23).
Amendment 66 to the OCNGS Appendix B Technical Specifications deleted many of the monitoring requirements related to aquatic biota. Prior to the effective date of that amendment (March 24, 1983), the licensee proposed to undertake studies of the initial and latent mortality of entrained organisms (Ref. 23), and thereby attempt to quantity the survival and mortality of the many millions of organisms passed through the condenser cooling system annually. During this environmental review, NRC staff discussed the intake-related impacts with staff of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Ref. 26 and 27). As noted above, the State currently is reviewing the i l
NPDES Permit for renewal. One issue the State will examine is the. chlorination of the 0CNGS condenser. On July 1, 1984, new USEPA limitations became effective that limit the discharge of total residual chlorine in once-through cooling water to a duration of no more than 2 hours per day, unless the discharger can demonstrate that a discharge for longer duration is required for macroinvertebrate control. On January 4, 1984, the licensee petitioned the State of.New Jersey (in advance of the July I effective datel for authorization to chlorinate the OCNGS con #nser system on a schedule comparable with that in use under the existing NPDES Permit (Ref. ?81. The State of New Jersey also is proceeding with its review of the OCNGS 316(a) and (b) demonstration on the impacts of water withdrawal and discharce. As well as examining the impacts of the large quantity of biota imoinged and entrained, the State will assess the initial and latent impingement and entrainment mortality, dilution pump-induced mortality, and collecticn efficiency of the traveling screens. The State has approved the licensee's program of study on these matters that is to begin after the onset of operation following the 1984 outage (Ref. 29). (4) Cooling System Alternatives The FES required the licensee to conduct a study of alternatives to the once-through cooling system being used in 1974 It further required monitoring and data evaluation related to the acceptability of continued operation with once-throuch cooling. On November 30, 1977 the licensee
J 18 - submitted the required study (Ref. 30) to NRC, in fulfillment of the FES ~" requirements. 4.1.3 Intake Effects Summary The'FES assessed the impact potential of cooling water withdrawal to important aquatic resources of the Barneaat Bay system. It concluded that the larce water reauirements for condenser cooling and thermal effluent
-dilution were believed to be causino sionificant impacts. The FES predictions of impingement losses have been verified by several years of operational studies. The actual estimates of entrainment losses have been below the FES oredictions by I to 2 orders of magnitude. The FES conclusions, therefore, remain valid.
The licensee has conducted studies of coolina system alternatives and mitigative measures to reduce the mortality of impingement and entrainment, and the mortality of returning impinaed biota to the environment via the
. effluent discharge canal. Mitigative measures implemented since the FES include: elimination of copper as a corrosion product in the effluent; reduction in the addition of chlorine to the circulating and effluent water; replacement of the conventional traveling screens with bucket screens usina a low-pressure screen wash system for removal of biota and reduction of initial impinaement mortality; rerouting of the screen-wash fluent so that imoinged biota are returned to ambient water in the discharoe canal, for reduction of thermal stress. The overall success in reducina
r mortalities and mitigating impact are yet to be quantified. It is likely that some studies will need to be conducted in order to cuantify the effectiveness of these measures. The NRC eliminated most of the monitorino reauirements defined by the FES with the approval of Amendment 66 to the OCNGS operating license (effective March 24, 1983). In so doina, NRC placed its reliance on the State of New Jersey, under authority of the Clean Water Act, for assessment of operational impacts and for any further requirements for intake-related mitigation, should that be necessary, In this regard, the State is in the process of renewing the NPDES Permit and reviewing the 316(al and (hi demonstration for OCNGS. d.? Discharce Effects The 1974 FES for OCNGS assessed the effects of effluent discharaes to the aquatic resources of Oyster Creek, Forked River, and Barnegat Bay. Those affects were related to chemical effluents, thermal effluents and statior. shutdowns, and to enhanced marine borer activity. 4.2.1 Chemical Discharges The FES recognized that the addition of chemicals to the discharge effluent had the notential to impact important shellfish and other aquatic biota. Of imoortance were copper, released as a result of condenser tube corrosion, and chlorine, added to the condenser coolina water for biofouling control. In conclusion, the FES stated:
r-
. 20 -
" Chemicals discharged with the effluent water are diluted to Linnocuous levels, with the possible exception of copper and chlorine."
[ Summary and Conclusion 3(1)]. Present Staff Evaluation In 1976, the aluminum-bronze alloy condenser tubes were removed and replaced with titanium tubing, thereby removing the source of copper in the circulating water. This eliminated this potential source of impact identified in the FES. Section 3.1.2 (3) of this environmental assessment (above) summarizes the reductions in the addition of chlorine to the condenser cooling and effluent water compared with the assessment in the FES. These reductions result from: (1) routing of chlorinated domestic and sanitary wastes to a municipal treatment plant; and (2) limitations on the quantities and duration of chlorine usage and releases by the NPDES Permit. The NPDES Permit is in the renewal process and is being reviewed by the State of New Jersey. Part of the review will include the new USEPA limitations on 2-hour per-day chlorine discharges, and the licensee's request (Ref. 27) to discharge up to 12 hours per day. NRC will rely on the conditions of thL NPDES Permit and the decisions made by the State of New Jersey to ensure that chemical usage will not create a significant environmental impact. l
r 4.2.2 Thermal Effluents and Station Shutdowns The FES found that thermal effluents and changing effluent temperatures during and after station shutdowns can impact biota of Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay. In conclusion the FES stated:
" Periodic kills of fish, attracted to the warm discharge canal water, occur during winter shutdowns of the station. The impact of this occurrence on the overall fishery is not significant." [ Summary and Conclusion 3(a)]
The FE5 discussed the licensee's proposed operational strategies for reducing thermally-related fish kills but found no "... additional simple or easily implemented design and/or operational methods to reduce the ' cold shock' impact to an acceptable level" (FES Section 5.5.2.4). The FI required the licensee to "... install appropriate controls, and employ operating procedures and measures that will mitigate the extent of fish mortalities" [ Summary and Conclusion 7(k)]. Two of those operating procedures involved the use of dilution pumps when the discharge canal temperature exceeds 87*F and when the ambient water +emperature is less than 60*F, in order to minimize thermal stress and attraction of fishes to the canal. These procedures became requirements of the FES [ Summary and Conclusions 7(h) and (i)], as well as requirements of the NPDES Permit. Other procedurer for controlling thermal effluents became LCOs in the
.,e,, .,
..m e - . . - - - - , - . . - , . . , . - - - - - . . . - - - . - - , . , . , . . , , , .,.e ,
- 2? -
station Environmental Technical Specifications. Those procedures included LCOs for maximum WT, maximum discharge temperature, and for the rate of change of discharge canal temperature during winter shutdowns. Present Staff Evaluation The 1974 FES cited " cross estimates" (for which no detailed measurements were attempted) of fish kills that ranoed from "100's-1000's" in December 1972 to "100,000-1,000,000" in January 1972 (Table 5.10 of Section 5.5.2.4 in the FESI. FES Section 6.2.3.1 recommended studies designed to evaluate the imnact of fish mortalities resulting from winter shutdowns. These studies have been conducted, with results reported in the annual prooress reoorts, in special reports, and in the OCNGS 316(a) and (bl demonstration. Fish kills (due to shutdowns and . y losses of dilution and circulatino pumps) have numbered no fish on several e asions (Refs. 19, 20 and 31). between 3-350 fish (Refs. 18 and 22), and between about 7040 fish (Ref. 18) and 7774 fish (Ref. 32). The predominant soecies involved in the latter two events were bluefish and Atlantic Menhaden. Fish kills of a magnitude of "100,000-1,000,000" have not been reported since the publication of the 1974 FES. Operational procedures to minimize fish kills have been used at OCNGS since 1974. To minimize the impacts of shutdown on fish in the discharge canal, dilution pumps are operated during the fall to lower the effluent temperature and reduce fish attraction. Since 1975, dilution pumpina has
been-stopped at the onset of winter shutdowns to reduce the flow of cold water and crolong the cool-down within the discharge canal. A slow cool-down allows more time for fishes to ad,iust to decreasing temperature, thus reducing the cold shock impact potential. The mitigation measures in use appear to have reduced thermal shock-related fish kills to a minimal level. Fish kills probably will continue to occur, however, on a magnitude comparable with those experienced since 1975. The numbers of fishes observed during the incidents have been relatively few durino most years. The estimated numbers of bluefish (1531 and 50001 and menhaden (5447) killed in the latter two events noted (Refs. 18 and 32) were comparable with the numbers estimated to have been impinged durino the same years of study. The 1974 FES cnnelusion that fish kill impacts are not significant to the overall fishery remains valid; however, the losses of some imoortant economic species are additive to the losses incurred by impincements and entrainment. Other thermal effects related to mortality of impinged and entrained oroanisms (returned to the environment via the discharge canal) will be examined by the State during its renewal of the NPDES Permit and its review of the licensee's 316(al and (b) demonstration for OCNGS. NRC will rely on the State of New Jersey, under authority of the Clean Water Act for any further requirements for discharge-related mitigation and on the conditions of the NPDES Permit to ensure that thermal effluents will not create significant environmental impact. 1 i t i
D 'O 4.2.3 Thermal Effluents and Marine Wood-Boring Organisms The 1974 FES recognized that operation of OCNGS contributed to an enhanced population of marine borers and to borer-related damage to submarine wooden structures in Oyster Creek. In conclusion the FES stated:
" Temperature and salinity changes in the lower portions of Oyster Creek resulting from station construction and operation have caused submarine wooden structures and trashwood in the part of Oyater Creek to harbor a resident breeding marine borer population that spawns at greater frequency than corresponding populations in the bay. This resident breeding population has significant potential for wider spread borer activity than has previously be experienced in the area"
[ Summary and Conclusion 3(c)).
" Marinas located in the lower portion of Oyster Creek are sustaining severe physical damage, liability risks, and economic losses from destruction of pilings and other submarine wooden structures due to activity of marine borers that have proliferated as a result of operation of the station. This also represents a threat to valuable recreational resources provided by the marints" [ Summary and Conclusion 3(d)).
The FES further found that the operation of OCNGS would contribute to: (1) the introduction of shipworm larvae into the Southern Branch of Forked
River; and (2) the presence of shipworm larvae in the Oyster Creek plankton throughout most of the year [FES Section 5.5.2.1). The FES findings of impact and projections of spreading borer activity resulted in FES recommendations for: (1) minimizing the impact of marine borers in Oyster Creek, perhaps by removal of infested wood [ Summary and Conclusion 7(b)); and (2) the licensee to quantify the contribution of OCNGS to the spread of borer activity to other areas of Barnegat Bay [ Summary and Conclusion 7(c), and Section 6.2.3.1). Present Staff Evaluation Marine borers and foulers have been studied for many years at OCNGS, in relation to thermal effluents and habitat conditions in Oyster Creek, Forked River, and Barnegat Bay. Since the publication of the 1974 FES, the licensee has undertaken extensive studies, with comparative across year (June 1975 - November 1983) summaries contained in several recent documents (Refs. 23, 33 and 34). These studies are continuing. The NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research also sponsored an independent study of borers and foulers at OCNGS during the period September 1976 through December 1982, with a final report published in October 1983 (Ref. 35). I
- , The general conclusions of the above studies related to wood-boring shipworms are summarized below.
. Four species of molluscan shipworms were found in the area: two native species Bankia couldi and Teredo navalis; and two introduced tropical-subtropical species Teredo bartschi and Teredo furcifera.
. OCNGS operation created a suitable environment for the survival of the non-native species in the station area, once they were introduced. Their introduction was unrelated to station operation.
. The non pcGive species differed enough in niche parameters from the t.ative species for all four species to coexist, thus the survival of the additional species increased the total amount of wood-boring damage.
. The area affected by thermal effluents included Oyster Creek, Forked River from its mouth upstream through the South Fork (via recirculated effluent), and the coastline of Barnegat Bay from Forked River to Waretown Creek. A nursery affect was created in which organisms bred in Oyster Creek were broadcast into this area. The non-native species never became established outside the range of the thermal plume.
. During the period 1971-1976, shipworm outbreaks were worse, due to higher station effluent temperature, than in subsequent i
t* 1
- 0. Je t
years. The NRC imposed mitigative measures of reduced effluent temperature (due to dilution pumping) and removal of most untreated and infected wood in Oyster Creek reduced the degree of shipworm damage, especially due to the native species, but did not eliminate it (or the shipworms) from Oyster Creek or Fork River.
. Breeding populations of the introduced T. furcifera disappeared completely from the sampling areas after 1978. The winter-spring 1982-83 station outage apparently also eliminated the second non-native species T. bartschi from the sampling area.
. -The native shipworm species are present throughout Carnegat Bay.
Operation of OCNGS influences these species in the thermal effluent area, but apparently not in areas of the bay unaffected directly by station effluents. The FES projections on the introduction of shipworms into Forked River have been verified. Shipworms, especially the non-native species, also have spread to Barnegat Bay, but only to those areas of the western bay under the immediate influence of OCNGS thermal effluents. An apparent elimination of non-native species subsequent to a prolonged station outage, and an apparent non-influence of OCNGS on shipworms outside of the thermal plume area, suggest that wide-spread shipworm impact has not occurred as projected by the FES. Reasons for this appear to be mitigation in the form
r of reduced effluent temperature and wood removal (during 19761, enhanced by a winter station outage that killed the less tolerant non-native shipworm species. In this renard, an outaae that resulted in a kill of greater than 7000 fishes (see Section 3.P.2 abovel, helped to reduce the local imoact of shipworm infestation. The NRC sponsored study found that while OCNriS certainly contributed adult and larval shipworms to Barnegat Bay, no dramatic buildup of shipworms in the hay occurred (except in areas influenced by station thermal effluents 1 Such a builduo u unlikely in the future, given the present thernal regime and the frequent,' of station outeces (Ref. 35). The natural introduction of non-native shipworms into the area during the early 1970s (coupled with their enhancement by OCNriS operation 1, succests that re-introduction at a future date is possible. The mitigative measures taken by the licensee decreased the suitability of the area as a shipworm habitat, however, the area still is habitable. The NRC sponsored study (Ref. 35) found that as lonn as there is any unprotected wood in the area influenced by station discharges, a breedino population of borers will be maintained under present OCNGS operating conditions. The study concluded that the best course of action is for the licensee to continue to assist local affected property owners in replacing wooden structures with properly treated wood. Nevertheless, as previously indicated, data sugaests that the widespread shioworm impact proiected by the FES has not occurred and nothing beyond the FES recommendations (Summary and Conclusion 7(bl, 7(c) and Section 6.7.3.11 is warranted.
e; e
'4.3 -Endangered and Threatened Species-Aquatic On January 25,-1984, the NRC notified (Ref. 40) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of this proposed FTOL action. NRC requested to be notified of any federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of OCNGS. The Fish and Wildlife Service response of February 7, 1984, listed the oistribution of the endangered shortnose sturgeon to include New Jersey (Ref. 36). The annual reports of ecological studies and the 316(a) and (b) demonstration submitted by the licensee for OCNGS do not record any captures of shortnose sturgeon within the study area of Barnegat Bay and its western shore tributaries. Shortnose sturgeon, therefore, will not be impacted by continued operation of OCNGS.
The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection maintains a listing of state-recognized threatened and endangered species (Ref. 37). Of the five fishes listed by the State, only American shad (listed as threatened) has been captured during the studies at OCNGS. It has been captured in low abundance ($1-20 fish per year) by netting studies, and has been recorded, also, in impingement samples (<1000 fish estimated per year). The installation of mitigative measures at OCNGS to reduce impingement mortality could enhance the survival of those American shad that are impinged. The NRC staff believes it unlikely that the impingement of this amount of fish on an annual basis would jeopardize the American shed stock in New Jersey. The present review of the licensee's 316(b) demonstration by the State will include an assessment of impingement impacts and the effectiveness of the mitigative measures in reducing impingement mortality.
m
".- u6 4.4 Canal Rank Stabilization
~ Erosion of the banks by runoff has been a problem since the canal was built. The canal. banks were originally dredged with a design slope of 11 to 1 vertical to horizontal. As reported in the 1974 FES the licensee had beaun stabili7ing the eroding banks and were to be required to completely stabilize the canal banks.
In lo75 the bank stabilization orogram was completed. This proaram included linine the intake and discharce canal banks west of U.S. Route 9 and portions of the canal banks east of U.S. Route 9 with riprap, placinq smaller stones above the riorap and spraying the stone with AC-?O oil to increase stabilization (Ref. 73). On a May 16, 1984 visit, the NRC staff noted that the canal banks are now well stabilized. 4.5 Areas Denuded For Plant Construction Erosion occurring on exoosed areas continues to result in the addition of silt to surface waters. During the construction of OCNGS a number of areas were stripped of vegetation for laydown or other construction activities. Much of the disturbed area has not been replanted. In addition the dredge spoil resulting from the construction of the intake and discharge canals was deoosited at various locations on and off site (Fig.4 11. Areas of the intake canal have been dredged and the spoil deposited on the southeastern portion of the site. Aporoximately 50% of this dredging has been comoleted (Ref. 49).
31 -
--t p. . - v _. ... ,.. g...,,.. . . _ , , _ . , ,-
^ .. u . - e ... w . y; 1 .qj
. . , .. . _7 :
nj er g i , .=. Nh-. q% .9 m:g q, . . c a &. .<s R C x?.Ey.er: n etg*b~.f !flf<,,'f h i '
}' .
, ;.L,: ht gyl fMi.-
%s '~ . gy ._
- .; . ... . .I I _
. ..angs;cima,y.g.g #n y. , --
. . ; n .
a-{g - - -Joex- ra
.c . g .;: s pw<: s : *e
. . e. -
,1---
M*. < n J E t.e, . fE;- . g
~ .
o p
~g. .
U.*\ ^ 'j$,$l-E. h
&g .
$kk. . .
~
.g.
- m. M d$l "-
;.y&.,..p? n..
- J.
. c-t:.
~
m c r ~.5pb e; % g;. 7:~ .;
- i. / sy
- c. .
., ..: ;w F. . .
.. ! . <- g
.=
; ,.m j. - . ..; w
..' . .'t ., ,~'y ..O 3, -
,.4..
,-a 4r s
k[,d $ j ._ g . Y., .
^
t[, , va.m ! w
% e r
e, . . - R m
.s
+
.. o '
C' . .
~
~ s s*
! : ., Y.
g,' .
. i
..a-
- i.
4 6 h I i L -
- 4. . f
, 3 l *" ,d
[. . d ..~i . ' Q C bl.Wr '. . ,ii* . ,'IM -
. g'-p,UN# R h[$
_r ,
. y .
3.
.. w r O'k &
~~
1g . E2$$h.A DyJEXC S hlerm , y83%
"@gM5.@;
F .3
- "d 2!
l l l
..-.n_ . - - . . - . , - - -- - , - - , - . .------,-,---,,_,-.,,n. - - -.,,-,--.--,,------,-m-,----.-- .- , - . - , - - . -
e 7 o One of the provisions stated in the 1974 FES was that the applicant "will take action to revegetate the areas denuded by plant construction." Because the licensee has not revecetated the site,'this provision is still appropriate. l There are 11 areas that have not been revegetated (Ref. 24). Of these 11 areas, 5 have been revegetated, 4 are scheduled for 1986 and, for the remaining twn, 1 is scheduled to be revegetated by 1987 and I by 1988 (Ref. 401. The spoil, dredged in 1984 and 1985, will be revegetated after completion of dredging in 1985, accordino to the dredging permit with the
-County Soil Conservation District.
I In addition a second nuclear generating station was to be constructed on this site (Forked River) and 80 acres were cleared for its construction. These 80 acres are cresently unvegetated and are used for laydown or are occupied by temporary or permanent buildings by the licensee. The State of New Jersev reaulates all types of construction. These regulations are administered through County Soil Conservation Districts. Under these regulations, the utility needs permits tn install erosion control facilities and to deposit dredge spoil. In order to get the permits the utility must submit plans for approval for each area to the Ocean County Soil Conversation District (the County in which OCNGS
r; - e e L i is located). Because the County Soil Conservation District is working with the utility to control erosion and because their personnel know the local conditions, the NRC staff recommends that the licensee meet the State of New Jersey's requirement for the control of soil erosion and the revegeta-tion of denuded areas. In addition environmental reviews of the dredoing project will be performed by the ll.S. Army Corps of Engineers (aoplication number NAPOP-R-830241), and the New Jersey Department o' Environmental Protection (docket number 'or Waterfront Development Permit / Water Ouality Certification is 83-0492: (Ref. 24). 4.6 Other Concerns Not Made Part of 1974 FES 4.6.1 Use of Herbicides in Transmission Ct;rridor Richt-of-Way (ROW) The licensee's Environmental Report (Ref 46) Table A12-1 lists chemicals used to control vegetation in the R0W. An updated list of chemicals presently used to control veoetation in the R0W is Table 1 of Reference 24. All these chemicals are subject to the New Jersey Pesticide Control Act and the llSEPA regulations. l-l i-
4.6.2 Fogging and Icing Caused by Discharge Canal Allegations of fogging resulting from the discharge canal causing hazardous conditions in the canal and at the U.S. Route 9 bridge over the discharge canal were not substantiated by the staff's investigation as reported in the 1974 FES Section 5.2.3.4. In order to determine if icing or fogging has caused hazardous conditions on the U.S. Route 9 bridge crossing the discharge canal since 1974, the staff requested the licensee to report the number of times such incidents occurred. The licensee replied it had not received nor was it aware of any complaints of traffic problems on U.S. Route 9 as a result of icing and/or fcgging from the discharge canal (Ref. 23). 4.6.3 Problems With Farm Animals The FES, page 11-50, item 2 states that a local resident claimed there had been problems with livestock and honey bees in the vicinity of OCNGS. The staff requested the licensee to report the number of times and types of problems with farm animals it has received since the 1974 FES was published. The licensee stated it has not received nor is it aware of any complaints of problems of the type reported by a local resident since the publication of the 1974 FES (Ref. 24).
1g, i_
?
4.6.4 -Endanaered Species In-the 1974 FES (p 11-22) the U.S. Department of Interior expressed concern for the Federally endangered bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus; the bog turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergi; listed as endangered by the State of New Jersey, the king black rail, laterallus ,iamaicensis; and the sedge wren
- (short-billed marsh wren), Cistothorus p1atensis, listed as rare by the State of New Jersey.
'In order to check on t.he present status of any endangered species that might be impacted by the operation of the OCNGS, the staff contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ref. 40) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Ref 42).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service replied that except for occasional transient species, no Federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under its .iurisdiction are known to exist on the pro.iect impact area (Ref. 411 Therefore, even if an occasional transient endangered i species were somehow killed by the presen:e or operation of OCNGS, which is not likely, this would not be a threat to the existence of that species. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection j l - stated in response to a staff inouiry (Ref 42) that there are several l t records of the State threatened northern oine snake and corn snake from the area of the site near the Garden State Parkway. 1 u _ j
O: p 4.7 Radioloaical Discharoes
-In Section 3.5, Radwaste Systems, of the 1974 FES, the staff presented calculated annual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from OCNGS. These are given in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 of the 1974 l
FES, respectively. The radioloaical impact on man was addressed in Section 5.4 of the 1974 FES. The conclusion in Section 5.4.5 of the FES was the following:
" Based on conservative estimates, the total dose from all pathways received each year by the aooroximately 4,500,000 people who will be living within 50 miles of the station in 1980 will be ahnut 860 man-ren for present system and 490 man-rem for the proposed system durina normal station operation. By comoarison, the individual natural backoround radiation dose of about 0.013 rem /yr in New Jersev result in an intearated dose of about 467,000 man-rem /yr to the same population. Therefore, routine station operation contributes only a small increment to the radiation dose that area residents receive from natural backaround. The increment will be unmeasurable, since fluctations of the natural background dose may be expected to exceed the small incremental dose contributed by the station."
Present Staff Evaluation Since the 1974 FES, the staff has reevaluated the radwaste systems at OCNGS as part of its implementation of Appendix I, Numerical Guides for..."As Low as Reasonably Achievable" For Radioactive Material in... Reactor Effluents, to 10 CFR Part 50 for OCNGS. This has included new calculations of the expected releases of radioactive discharges from the station. This is presented below. i l On May 5, 1975, the Nuclear Reaulatory Commission announced its decision in the rulemaking proceeding concerning the numerical guides for desion l l i
objectives and LCOs to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achiev-able" (ALARA) for radioactive materials in light-water-cooled nuclea: power reactor effluents. This decision is set forth in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. (Ref. 1) Section V.B of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2,1971, to file with the Commission by June 4,1976:
-(1) information necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA and (2) plans for proposed Technical Specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences ALARA.
In conformance with the requirements of Section V.B of Appendix I, the Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (JCP&LC) filed with the Commission on June 4, 1976, (Ref. 2) the necessary information to permit an evaluation of OCNGS, with respect to the requirements of Sections II.A, II.B. and II.C of Appendix I. In this submittal, JCP&LC chose to perform the detailed cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. By letter dated October 22, 1984, JCP&LC submitted proposed changes to Appendix A Technical Specifications for OCNGS. The proposed changes implement the requirements of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 and provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are ALARA in accordance with 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a.
e The purpose of this report is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment systems installed at OCNGS:~(1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to ALARA levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a and 50.36a, (2) to meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Sections II.A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and (3) to meet the cost-benefit objective set forth in Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Evaluation The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's proposed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff's evaluation consisted of the following: (1) a review of the information provided by the licensee in its June 4, 1976 submittals (Ref. 2) (2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Ref. 3); (3) a review of the licensee's response to the staff for additional information (Ref.4); (4) a review of the Final Description and Analysis of the Augmented Offgas System (Ref. 5); (5) a review of Amendment 1 to the Final Description and Analysis of the Augmented Offgas System and the Preliminary Liquid / Solid Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems (Ref. 6); (6) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluent (source terms) for OCNGS; (7) the calculation of relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (0/Q) values for the site; (8) the calcula-
tion of individual doses in unrestricted areas; and (9) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for potential radwaste system augments, using the methods outlined in " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-I Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." (Ref. 7). The staff's evaluation is i l discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. r. The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at Oyster 4 Creek Station have been previously described in Section 11.0 of the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated February 3, 1975,(Ref. 8) and in Section 3.5 of the FES. Since the FES and SER were issued, the licensee has been l l in the process of modifying the liquid and gaseous radwaste system to include: (1) the addition of two 34,400 gal collection tanks and redundant processing trains, each consisting of a 150 gpm filter and two 150 gpm demineralizer
'('150 ft3 ) in series to the High Purity Liquid Waste System; (2) the addition of one 15,000 gal collection tank to the Floor Drain System; (3) upgrading the Chemical Waste Sy', tem (CWS) with the addition of two 15,000 gal collection / neutralizer tanks and redundant processing trains, each consist-ing of a filter, 30 gpm evaporator, and 30 gpm distillate demineralizer in series; (4) the modified CWS which will allow processing of all floor drain waste as well as chemical waste; (5) additions to the modified offgas system include a recombiner system, charcoal delay beds, and a HEPA filter down-stream of the charcoal delay system. The modifications noted above were considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other operating nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to OCNGS, and on changes in the staff's t ' -
calculation models, new liquid and gaseous source terms have been generated to determine conformance with the requirements of Appendix I. The new source terms, shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, were calculated using the model and ' parameters described in NUREG-0016.(Ref. 10) h making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system and equipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the station for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal = parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liquid and gaseous source terms are given in Table 4-3. The staff alsu reviewed the operating experience accumulated at OCNGS in order to correlate the calculated releases given in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 with observed releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents. Data on liquid and gaseous effluents are contained in the lir.asee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the period for July 1970 through December 1976. A summary of these releases is given in Table 4-4. OCNGS reached initial criticality on May 3, 1969, and commercial operation in December 1969. Since the Staff does not consider data from the first year of operation to be representative of the long term operating life of the plant, only effluent release data from July 1970 through December 1976 were used in comparing actual releases from Oyster Creek. The observed range of releases of mixed fission and activation products released from the liquid waste system is 12.1 Ci/yr to 0.22 Ci/yr and the
. TABLE 4'-1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM OYSTER CREEK FOR APPENDIX I EVALUATIONS ,,
Nuclide Ci/yr Nuclide Ci/yr Corrosion 4 Activation Products Fission Products Na-24 1. 0 (-3) Ag-110m 4. 4 (-4) P-32 7.0(-5) Te-129 2.0(-5) Cr-51 2.0(-3) Te-131m 2. 0 (-5) Mn-54 1. 0 (-3) 1-131 1. 2 (-1) Mn-56 6.8(-4) 1-132 4.9(-4) Fe-55 4. 6 (-4) 1-133 2.1(-2) Fe-59 1. 0 (-5) 1-134 1.0(-4) Co-58 4.1(-3) Cs-134 1.3(-2) Co-60 8.9 (-3) 1-135 1.9(-3) Cu-64 3.0(-3) Cs-136 1.1(-4) 2n-65 9.0(-5) Cs-137 2.5(-2) 2n-69m 2. 2 (-4) Ba-137m 5.3(-4) In-69 2.3(-4) Cs-138 2. 0 (-5) Zr-95 1.4(-3) Ba-139 4.0(-5) Nb-95 2. 0 (-3) Ba-140 1.4 (-4) w-187 5.0(-5) La-140 7. 0 (-5) Np-239 1. 5 (-3) La-141 2. 0 (-5) Ce-141 1. 0 (-5) Fission Products La-142 3. 0 (-5) = Br-83 5.0(-5) Ce-143 1. 0 (-5) S2-89 4.0(-5) Pr-143 1.0(-5) Sr-91 3.2 (-4) Ce-144 5.Z(-3) Y-91m 2.0(-4) Y-91 3.0 (-5)
.ll Others 5.0(-5)
Sr-92 1.5(-4) Y-92 4.0 (-4) Total (except--
- 2. 2 (-1)
Y-93 3.3(-4) Tritium) Mo-99 4.7(-4) Tc-99m 1.3(-3) H3 24 Ru-103 1.5(-4) Ru-105 6.0(-5) Rh-105m 6. 0 (-5) Rh-105 5.0(-5) Ru-106 2.4(-3)
TABLE 4-2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MARRIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM OYSUR. CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (Ci/yr/ Reactor) g ing. Ventilation ,, , Nuclide Reactor Tufbine Radwaste Offgases Vent Pump Totals a a a 38 25 a 63 Kr-83a 44 a 2900 Kr-85h 6 68 a 2800 a a 140 a a 140 Kr-85 a a 11 150 a 300 Kr-87 6 130 230 a 2000 150 a 2400 Kr-88 6 a a a 650 a 650 Kr-89 a , Xe-131a a a a S1 a a 51 a a a 42 2 a 44 Xe-133m 250 10 11000 60 2300 14000 Xe-133 130 650 a a 18 a 760 Xe-135 92 a a a a 790 a 790 Xe-137 1400 a a 600 a 2000 Xe-138 14 25000 Total Noble Gases 1-131 3.4(-1)b 2 (-1) 5(-2) a 1.7(-2) 3(-2) 6.4(-1) 1-133 1.36 8.1(-1) 1. 8 (-1) a 6.6(-2) a 2.4 Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) 9 (-5) a e cl 1.4(-2) Mn-54 6(-3) 6(,4) 3(-4) c c c 6.9(-3) 5(-4) 1.5(-4) c c c 1.4 (-3) Fe-59 8(-4) c Co-58 1. 2 (-3) 6(-4) 4.5 (-5) c c 1. 8 (-3) Co-60 2(-2) 2(-3) 9 (-4) e e c 2.3(-2) Zn-65 4(-3) 2(-4) 1.5(-5) c e c 4.2 (-3) Sr-89 1.8(-4) 6(-3) 4.5 (-6) c c c 6.2(-3) 3(-6) c c c 3. 3 (-5) Sr-90 1(-5) 2 (-5) Zr-95 8(-4) 1(-4) 5(-7) c c c 9.0 (-4) Eb-124 4(-4) 3 (-4) 5(-7) c c c 7.0 (-4) Cs-134 8 (-3) 3(-4) 4.5(-5) c c 3(-6) 8.3 (-3) Cs-136 6(-4) 5(-5) 4.5 (-6) e c 2(-6) 6.6 (-4) Cs-137 1.1(-2) 6 (-4) 9 (-5) c c 1(-5) 1.2(-2) Ba-140 8 (-4) 1.1(-2) 1(-6) e c 1.1(-5) 1. 2 (-2) 6(-4) 2.6 (-5) c c c 8. 3 (-4) Co-141 2 (-4) a - less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 10~4 Ci/yr for iodine b - axponential notation; 3.4(-1) = 3.4 x 10'I c - less than 1% of total for nuclide
. - - . . . .--,-y_ _ _ , . _ - - . - - _ _. _ - - - - - - - - - - , -- --
43 TABLE 4-3 PRINCIPAL PARAME11RS AND CONDITIONS LISED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAiS IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUEhTS FROM OYSTER CREEK NUCtJ.AR GENERATING STATION Reactor Power Level (MWt) 1930 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Offgas Release Rate Noble Gases, uCi/see after 30 min. delay
- 60,000 Iodine-131, Ci/yr. Downstream of Main Condensate Air Ejector 5 Primary Coolant System Mass of Coolant in Reacter Vessel (1bs) 4.2 x 10 5 Mass of Steam in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 1.5 x 10' 5
Cleanup Domineralizer Flow (Ibs/hr) 1.9 x 10 Steam Flow Rate (Ibs/hr) 7.26 x 106, Ntunber of Main Condenser Shells 3 Air Inleakage to Main Condenser 10 cfm/shell Building Ventilation System Decontamination Factors HEPA Filter, Particulates 100 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Offgas System (hrs)* 0.5
~
Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.029 Other Decontamination Factors (DF) I Cs, Rb Nuclides 3 2 3 High Purity System 10 10 . 10 5 6 Low Purity System 10 2 x 10' . 10 ,
~
5 6* Chemical Waste System 10 2 x 10' ' 10 5 6 Regenerant Solution 10 2 x 10' ' 10
- Prior to processing by the offgas treatment system.
1 TAtt,E 4-4 St20ERY OP OPERATING EXPEP AENCE FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATION STATION Docket No. 50-219 Liquid Release Data July 1970 throughb) 1971*I 1972 N 1973 El 1974 I 1975 II 1976 33 Radioactive December 1970 6 mo. Curies Curles Curles Curles Curies Curies Curies Waste Total Fission 2.27 0.41 0.22 and activation 2.74 12.1 10.0 4.15 ' Products Total < 0.0142 0.059 0.0009 lodine-131 (a) (a) 0.45 < 0.134 21.5 61.6 35.9 14.1 17.8 38.6 Total Tritium 11.5
. s Gaseous Effluent Release Data 516,000 866,000 812,000 279,000 206,000 167,000 Total Noble Cases 68344 1.33 d 6.3 6.7 3.31 5.5 6.2 '
Total lodine-131 (a) 2.03 19.1 30.3 23.3 41.3 46.4 Total llalogens 0.178 0.092 40.0801 Total Particulates O 0.00669 0.11 0.23 0.42 0.216 Total Tritium (a) - 0.109d 0.75 0.32 0.415 2.8 1.11 "INot identified. 0 1ncludes nuclide with half-life greater than are equal 8 days. gFrom data in the Semismunal Operating , IIFree data in the Semiannual Operating Reports
! Reports No. 3, Docket 50-219. Nos. 8 4 9, Docket 50-219. .
CIFrom data in the Sealannual Operating gData from Semiannual Report Nos. 10 4 II, 50-219. n Reports No. 4 4 5, Docket 50-219.
} Data from Semiarnual Report Nos. 12 4 13, 50-219.
d) Data from second half of 1971.
'IFrom data in the Semiannual Operating N Data from Semiannual Report Mos. 14 4 15, 50-219.
Report Nos. 6 6 7 Docket 50-219. gIpata from first half of 1976.
calculated release is 0.22 Ci/yr. The observed releases from the gaseous radwaste system are as follows: (1) Noble gases 866,000 Ci/yr to 167,000 Ci/yr; (2) Particulates 0.42 Ci/yr to < 0.08 Ci/yr; and (3) Iodine 6.7 Ci/yr to 3.3 Ci/yr. The calculated releases are 25,000 Ci/yr, 0.093 Ci/yr and 0.63 Ci/yr for noble gases, particulates, and iodines, respectively. The differences between the actual and calculated values can be attributed to the lack of full operation of the modified radwaste systems. When both the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems are fully operational, the staff believes that the calculational model will reasonably characterize the actual releases of radioactive material from this system. The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmosphere dispersion conditions for the site using an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term release (Ref. 11). The model used by the staff is based upon the
" Straight-Line Trajectory Model" described in Regulatory Guide 1.111. (Ref.12)
This evaluation is different from and replaces the evaluation given in Section 11.0 of the SER (Ref. 8) and in Section 3.5 of the FES (Ref.9). Using the guidance given in Regulatory Guide 1.111, the staff considered that gaseous effluents from the reactor building were through the elevated stack, while radwaste building releases from the turbine building were at ground level. The calculations also include an estimate of maximum increase in calculated relative concentration and deposition due to the spatial and temporal variation of the airflow not considered in the straight-line trajectory model. The contributions of the variations are discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
Three years of meteorological data for 1966 through 1968, collected at the site, were selected by the staff and found to be reasonably representative of long term conditions expected at the site. The staff's dose assessment considered the following three effluent categories: (1) pathways associated with radioactive materials released in liquid effluents to Cyster Creek and Barnegat Bay, (2) pathways associated with noble gases released to the atmosphere; and (3) pathways associated with radioiodines, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere. The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the dose calculations to the maximum exposed individual are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Ref. 13). The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radioactive materials in liquid effluents was based on the maximum expesed individual. For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption of fish (21 kg/yr) harvested in the immediate vicinity of the discharge from OCNGS into the Oyster Creek and use of the shoreline for recreational purposes (10 hr/yr). Since there are no drinking water sources receiving liquid effluents from OCNGS this pathway was not considered in the staff's evaluation. The dose to the population living within 50 miles of the OCNGS due to the radioactive materials released in liquid effluents was based on the following parameters: (1) the year 2000 population within 50 miles of the station which is estimated to be 7.7 million people will consume 46 million
47 - ko of fish taken from Barnegat Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, (2) the year 2000 population within 50 miles of the OCNGS was estimated to consume 6.6 million kg of shellfish harvested from Barnegat Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, and (3) the year 2000 population within 50 miles will spend about 100 million man-hours along the shoreline for recreation purposes. The dose evaluation of noble cases released to the atmosphere included a calculation of beta and gamma air doses at the site boundary and total body and skin doses at the residence havina the highest dose. The maximum air doses at the site boundary were found at 0.35 mile SE relative to the station. The location of maximum total body and skin doses were determined to be at the same location. The dose evaluation of pathways associated with radiciodine, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmoSDhere was also based on the maximum exposed individual. For this evaluation, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the consumption of milk (330 liters /yr) from a cow grazing at 0.75 mile SSE of the station. The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received pasture ecuivalent to 6 months per year total diet. Usina the dose assessment parameters noted above and the calculated releases of radioactive materials in liouid effluents given in Table 4-1, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any orcan of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem / reactor and 10 mrem / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II.A of Appendix 1.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents given in Table 4-2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) value given in Table 4-5, the staff calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad / reactor and 20 mrad / reactor, respectively, in conformance with Section II.B of Appendix I. Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radiciodine, carbon-14, tritium, and particulstes given in Table 4-2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/Q) and deposition (D/Q) values given in Table 4-5, the staff calculated the annual dose or dose commitment to any organ of the maximum exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem / reactor in conformance with Section II.C of Appendix I. The calculated dose to the population living within 50 miles of the station due to the releases of nuclear gases, radioiodines, particulates, carbon-14, and tritium was based on the following parameters: (1) the year 2000 population within 50 miles of OCNGS is estimated to be 7.7 million people; (2) annual food production for human consumption within 50 miles consists of 270 million liters of milk, 24 million kilograms of meat, and 74 kilograms of vegetables (Ref.14); (3) all of the production estimated in (2) above would be consumed by the population living within 50 miles; and (4) milk animals would receive pasturage equivalent to 6 months per year of.their total diet from grazing.
The summary of calculated doses given in Table 4-6 are different from and replace those given in Table 5.5 of the FES. Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (Ref. 1) requires that liquid and gaseous radwaste systems for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors include all items of reasonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, c'fect reductions in dose to the popula-tion reasonably expected to be withir, 50 miles of the reactor. The staff's cost-benefit analysis was performed using: (1) the dose parameters stated above and in Table 4-7; (2) the analysis procedures outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.110 (Ref. 7); (3) the cost parameters given in Table 4-8; and l (4) the capital costs as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110 (Ref. 7). For the liquid radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from liquid releases to the projected population within a 50-mile radius of
-the station, when multiplied by $1,000 per total body person-rem and $1,000 per person-thyroid-rem, resulted in cost-assessment values of $7.00 for the total body dose and $77 for the thyroid dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 2 gpm Reverse Osmosis unit to the laundry waste system.
The calculated cost of $78,600 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values for the liquid radwaste system. The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the modified liquid radwaste system meets the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
TABLE 4-5 OYSTER CREEK REl.ATIVE CONCENTRATION (X/Q) AND DEPOSITION (D/Q) VAI.UES tlSED FOR DOSE CALCllLATIONS Distance X/Q D/ Receptor Type Direction (miles) Release Type (sec/m3 ) (mg) Site boundary SE 0.35 Stack-continuous 3.6 x 10 4.1 x 10 i
, Turbine, Vent - 3.8 x 10 1.2 x 10' continuous
~ "
Cow SSE 0.75 Stack-continuous 1.3 x 10 1.4 x 10 8.2 x 10 -6 Turbine, Vent - continuous 2.4 x 10' , f O I J 0 9
O 9 l 51 - TABLE 4-6 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM OPERATION WITH SECTIONS II.A II.8, AND II.C OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART 50 (Dose to Mari== Individual Per Reactor Unit) Appendix I Dose Calculated Criterion Design Objective Doses Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 ares /yr 0.022 area /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 ares /yr 0.39 area /yr Noble' Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 0.083 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.58 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual S area /yr 0.055 area /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 ares /yr 0.10 area /yr Radiciodine and Particulates" Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 area /yr 8.8 ares /yr
" Carbon-14 and Tritium have been added to this category. ,-~w_- -% , -- . . - - - _, .,r. _, , - _ . . -
. a TABLE 4 7 CALCULATED POPULATION DOSES 04AN-RDO FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX I 1010 CFR PART 50*
Pathway Total Body Thyroid Liquid 0.007 0.077 Gaseous 6.0 21.0 sed on the population reasonably expected to be within a 50 mile radius of the reactor. TABLE 4-8 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN 1NE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region I") 1.6 Cost of Money ) 16.0% Capital Recovery Factor") 0.1619
*)From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (March 1976).
b)From Reference 4. t
y -- For the gaseous radwaste system, the calculated total body and thyroid doses from caseous releases to the pro.iected population within a 50 mile radius of the station, when multiplied by $1,000 per total body person-rem and $1,000 per person-thyroid rem, resulted in cost-assissment values of $6,000 for the total body dose and $21,000 for the thyroid dose. The most effective augment was the addition of a 15,000 cfm Charcoal /HEPA filtration system to the reactor ventilation exhaust system. The calculated cost of $57,300 for this augment exceeded the cost-assessment values for the gaseous radwaste system. The staff concludes, therefore, that there are no cost-effective aucments to reduce the cumulative population dose it a favorable cost-benefit ratio, and that the modified gaseous radwaste system meets the
-requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Conclusion Based on the foregoing evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at OCNGS are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "ALARA" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34a, and therefore, are acceptable. In addition, the staff's evaluation has shown that the liquid and caseous radwaste systems meet the cost-benefit objectives set forth in Section II.D of-Appandix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
& :O The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the OCNGS radwaste systems. This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents during normal operation including anticipated operational occur-rences such that the individual doses will not exceed the numerical dose design objectives of Section II.A, II.B, and II.C of Appendix I. The staff has also performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional augments can be added to the modified radwaste systems that will effect a reduction in dose to the population within a 50 mile radius of the station for a' favorable cost-benefit ratio.
Environmental Assessment The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate the OCNGS, located in the State of New Jersey, in Morris County, at power levels up to 1930 MWt. The' proposed changes to the liquid and gaseous release limits will not result in an increase or decrease in the power level of the unit. Since neither power level nor fuel burnup is affected by the action, it does not affect the benefits of electric power production considered for the cap-tioned facility in the Commission's 1974 FES for OCNGS. The calculated exposures to man do not change the staff's conclusion in Section 3.5 of the 1974 FES. The revised liquid and gaseous effluent limits will not significantly change the total quantities or types of radioactivity discharged to the environment from OCNGS.
The revised Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) implement ' the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and will provide reasonable assurance that releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous
' effluents will be "ALARA." If the plant exceeds one-half the design objec-tives in a quarter, the licensee must: (1) identify the cases, (2) initiate a program to reduce the releases; and (3) report these actions to the NRC.
The revised Technical Specifications specify that the annual average release be maintained at less than twice the design objective quantities set forth in Section II.A, II.B and II.C of Appendix I. The licensee proposed-RETS for OCNGS in its letter ~ dated October 22, 1984. These RETS are being reviewed by the staff and will be issued as a separate action to this environmental assessment. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
-5.1 Risk From Potential Severe Accidents At the time the OCNGS FES was published, the risks. from severe accidents ;
I (Class 9 accidents) which involved both core damage or melt and containment j
~
failure were not considered in the Environmental Statements. A new policy l i for the NRC and the industry was issued as " Nuclear Power Plant Accident - Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," 48 FR 40101, June 13, 1980, and it provided for the consideration of severe accidents in Environmental Statements. For each subsequent FES for which there was not plant-specific Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), the staff l 4
~
.'- C
~
calculated, using methodology developed in the Reactor Safety Study, the risks from severe accidents. Measures of risk included early fatalities, latent
. cancer fatalities, total person-rems of exposure, and costs (includino those
'of offsite mitigation measures). For these risk calculations, the staff used estimates of releases and their associated probabilities, type-specific (boiling water reactors or pressurized water reactors) or plant-specific, combined _with site-specific data on oopulation distribution, meteorology, emeraency response, and economic factors.
For this evaluation, the staff did not do a site-specific calculation of the risks from severe accidents because the Commission's policy does not require such for plants for which the FES had been published prior to the policy statement. However, the following sectica presents health impacts and their associated risks from severe accidents based on recent calculations for other plants. Further, the staff is continuina to evaluate the safety of the plant via the SEP. One product of this program is the "Intearated Plant Safety Assessment," NUREG-0822 dated January 1983 (Ref. 47), which includes the results of the assessment of design basis accidents, and the results of a PRA Study. The latter was done to determine which of the changes sugaested by the SEP would have the most impact on risk, with the emphasis beina on i the risk from core-damaging accidents. Not all of the precursors to severe accidents were studied, however, since the assessment of severe accident risk was not the primary purpose of the SEP. + 1 One can gain a perspective on the health impact from severe accidents at OCNGS from results of recent calculations using the methodology described 1 t t
. --- . . . , - - - , - - , . _ , , , _ _ . . . - _ _ , _ _ _ , , , , , . . .m , _..,
above for other plants or sites which have characteristics in common with OCNGS. For instance, the staff has estimated the risks from severe accidents at Perry Units 1 and 2 (" Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plants, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-0884). Perry 1 and 2 are in northeastern Ohio, and are boiling water reactors as is OCNGS, but with a 94% higher power level than OCNGS (the quantity of radionuclides in a reactor is roughly proportional to the power level). For Perry, the staff calculated the average values of environmental risks due to accidents per reactor year to be 470 person-rems total population exposure, 0.000016 early fatality, and 0.029 total latent cancer fatality. These risks were calculated by postulating several accidents that have severe consequences, but that have low probabilities. The probabilities of severe accidents lie in the range 10 -6 to 10 -5 per reactor year for Perry. In the event of a severe accident at Perry, to a good approximation, the population at risk is that within about 10 miles of the plant, about 80,000 persons. Accidental fatalities per year for a population of this size, based upon overall averages for the United States, are approximately 18 for motor vehicle accidents, 6 from falls, 2 from drowning, 2 from burns, and 1 from firearms. This corresponds to a fatality risk of 0.00036 per year. The calculated severe accident early fatality risk for Perry of 0.000016 per reactor year is thus a small fraction of the total risk embodied in the above-considered accident modes. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the risk calculations for reactors, for which the staff has estimated that the total uncertainty in the risk calculations could be larger than a factor of 10, but smaller than a factor of 100. I
The staff experience in conducting risk assessments indicates that risks are in large measure a function of power level and population. Therefore, the risks at OCNGS should be a fraction of those at Perry because both the power level and population distribution at Oyster Creek are smaller. Indeed, the reactor accident latent cancer fatality number of 0.029 per year calculated for Perry is at least a factor of 100,000 less than the expected number of cancer fatalities from natural causes within 50 miles of OCNGS. Thus, early fatality and latant cancer death rates due to severe accidents at OCNGS are small compared to those from natural causes. 5.2 Site Features The NDC's Reactor Site Criteria, 10 CFR Part 100, require that the site for every power reactor have certain characteristics that tend to reduce the risk and potential impact of accidents. The following presentation briefly describes the OCNGS site characteristics and how they meet these reouirements. First, the site has an exclusion area, as required by 10 CFR Part 100. The
' total site area is about 1416 acres. The exclusion area, located within
/ the site boundary, has a minimum distance of 13S8 feet from the reactor centerline. There are no residents within the exclusion area. The ifcensee owns all surface and mineral rights in the exclusion area, and has the authority, as required by 10 CFR Part 100, to determine all activities
2 s in this area. Parts of the exclusion area are traversed by U. S. Route 9 and arrangements have been made to control traffic on U. S. Route 9 in the event of a plant emergency. Second, beyond and surrounding the exclusion area is a low population zone (LPZ), also required by 10 CFR Part 100. The LPZ for Oyster Creek is 1.2 km (0.75 mile) radius. Within this zone, the applicant must ensure that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be taken on behalf of the residents in the event of a serious accident. In case of a radiological emergency, the licensee has made arrangements to carry out protective actions, including evacuation of personnel in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. The applicant has indicated that approximately 66,815 persons lived within a 10 mile radius in 1980. Third, 10 CFR Part 100 also requires that the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated area containing more than about 25,000 residents be a least one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ. Because accidents of greater potential hazards than those commonly postulated as representing an upper limit are conceivable, although highly improbable, it was considered desir-able to add the population center distance requirement in 10 CFR Part 100 to provide protection against excessive doses to people in large centers. Dover Township, New Jersey, with a 1980 population of 64,455 located 9.5 miles north of the site, is the nearest population center. This population center is at least one and one-third times the LPZ distance. The population
O b density within a 30 mile radius of the site was 191 people /mi in 1980 and is projected to increase to about 221 people /mi by the year 2000. The safety review of the site has also included a review of external hazards (i.e., activities offsite that might adversely affect the operation of the nuclear plant and cause an accident). This review encompassed nearby industrial facilities, pipelines, road, rail and water transportation routes that might create explosive, fire, t.issile or toxic gas hazards. The risk to the Oyster Creek site from such hazards has been found to be negligible. A more detailed discussion of the compliance with the Commission's siting criteria and the consideration of external hazards is in the Oyster Creek SER. 5.3 Operatino Experience In July 1982, a contractor to the staff issued a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) on the review of the operating experience history of Oyster Creek through 1981 for the NRC's SEP (Ref. 45). This TER included significant shutdowns, power reductions, reportable events and operational experience. The staff's conclusion upon review of this TER is that the risk to the public from operation of Oyster Creek is negligible 6.0 SOCIAL AND FCONOMIC EFFECTS The effects of the station and its employees on the local public and economic infrastructure were discussed in the FES. The staff concluded
that any adverse effects would be minimal and more than offset by tax revenues, expenditures within the region and payroll. These conclusions remain valid. 7.0 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The Requirement for Power In the 1974 FES, the staff analyzed the requirement for power from two perspectives. The first perspective considered whether additional capacity was actually necessary to maintain a suitable level of reliability. The second perspective evaluated whether the needed capacity would be best supplied by the OCNGS. The staff's analysis concluded that the reliability of the licensee's service area would suffer if additional capacity in the amount offered by the station were not available. The staff further con-cluded that needed capacity should come from OCNGS in order to diversify the mix of generating units on the licensee's system. Present Staff Evaluation Issues related to need for power have been eliminated from consideration in ongoing and future operating license reviews for nuclear plants unless a showing of "special circumstances" is made under 10 CFR 2.758 or the Commission otherwise requires such issues be considered. (See Commission rulemaking in 47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982.)
i 8.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION i-In the 1974 FES-for the OCNGS, the staff considered deferring scheduled generating unit retirements as an alternative not requiring the creation of new capacity. The staff also considered alternatives requiring the creation of new capacity. These alternatives included combustion turbires, an oil fueled steam plant, a coal fueled steam plant and another nuclear facility. The staff concluded that none of the alternatives considered were economi-cally viable, and that continued operation of the Oyster Creek facility would give the most favorable cost / benefit balance. 8.1 Alternative Use of Resources l Present Staff Evaluation The Commission has amended its regulations, effective April 26, 1982, to provide that issues related to alternative energy sources will not be considered in ongoing and future operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants (47 FR 12940, March 26,1982) and that issues related to alternative sites and plant designs will not be considered at the operating license stage (46 FR 28630, May 28, 1982). 9.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS In the 1974 FES, the staff provided a benefit / cost analysis which concluded that among other things:
- 1. The continued operation of the OCNGS will produce electrical power more economically than any other method of power generation available to the applicant, at that time.
- 2. -The principal direct benefit of 4.3 billion kWh (80 percent capacity factor) of electrical energy each year to meet the power needs of the service area far exceeds the expected environmental cost.
Present Staff Evaluation Although the staff currently prefers a more conservative (low) estimate of average annual capacity factor, on the order of 55-65 percent, the staff continues to find considerable support for the conclusions drawn in the 1974 FES particularly those. relative to the economic advantage that operating nuclear facilities hold over conventional fossil plants. 10.0 BASIS AND CONCLUSION FOR NOT PREPARING AN FES SUPPLEMENT The NRC has evaluated the environmental effects of the continued operation of OCNGS snd reexamined the impacts initially presented in the 1974 FES. This review has not led to the identification of any significant new environmental impacts or any significant changes in those identified previously in the FES, with respect to the proposed FTOL for OCNGS. Accordingly, the NRC has determined, based on this assessment, and there are no new impacts that differ significantly from those evaluated in the FES, there are no substantial
changes in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impact. Therefore, the staff has determined that (1) the issuance of a supplement to the FES is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act, and (2) the conclusion on page 10-10 of the 1974 FES for conversion of the OCNGS POL to an FTOL is still valid.
i s . l l
11.0 REFERENCES
- 1. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Federal Register V. 40, P. 19442 May 5, 1975.
- 2. " Response to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Files: Oyster Creek Nuclear Station. Letter of Transmittal, June 4, 1976. Enclosed " Appendix I Evaluation Report."
- 3. Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Final Safety Analysis Report -
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,1967.
- 4. " Responses to the Staff for Additional Information, Letter of Transmittal, October 4, 1976.
- 5. Final Description and Analysis of Augmented Offgas System, September 9, 1975.
- 6. Amendment 1 to the Final Description and Analysis of Augmented Offgas System and the Preliminary Description and Analysis of Proposed Liquid /
Solid Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, April 25, 1977.
- 7. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regalatory Guide 1.110,
" Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors", March 1976.
- 8. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-219, Washington, D.C. February 3, 1975.
- 9. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, JCP&L Co., Docket No. 50-219, December 1974.
- 10. NUREG-0016, "Calculai. ion of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water heactors (BWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
- 11. Sagendorf, J.F. and Goll J.T., 1976: X0QD0Q, Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations,(DRAFT). U.S. Nu.: lear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
- 12. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.111,
" Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," March 1976.
- 13. Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109,
" Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Implementing Appendix I," March 1976.
- 14. Census of Agriculture, 1976, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- 15. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., " Ecological Studies for the Oyster Creek Generating Station: Progress Report for the Period September 1975 - August 1976," Two Volumes, 1977.
- 16. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., " Ecological Studies for the Oyster Creek Generating Station: Progress Report for the Period September 1976 - August 1977," Two Volumes, 1978.
- 17. Ichthyological Associates, Inc., " Ecological Studies for the Oyster Creek Generating Station: Progress Report for the Period September 1977 - August 1978," 1979.
- 18. Ecological Analysts, Inc., " Ecological Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station: Progress Report September 1979 - August 1980,"
[also includes data for the period of April-August 1979),1981.
- 19. Ecological Analysts, In::., " Ecological Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station: Progress Report September 1980 - A" gust 1981," 1982.
- 20. Ecological Analysts, Inc., " Ecological Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station: Progress Report September 1981 - August 1982," 1983.
- 21. Ecological Analysts, Inc., " Ecological Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station: Progress Reprot September 1982 - August 1983," 1984.
- 22. Jersey Central Power & Light Company, "0yster Creek & Forked River Nuclear Generating Stations 315(a) & (b) Demonstration," 1978.
- 23. Letter dated March 21, 1983 from: P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear, M:
D. M. Crutchfield, USNRC, with attachment, Re: environmental review for license conversion of OCNGS.
- 24. Letter dated April 2, 1984 from: P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear, M:
D. M. Crutchfield, USNRC, with attachment, Re: Responses te staff questions related to license conversion of OCNGS.
- 25. GPU Nuclear, "0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 1982 Annual Environmental Operating Report," 1983.
- 26. Telephone conversation of January 9, 1984 between C. Hickey, USNRC, and R. Califano, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
- 27. Telephone conversation of June 29, 1984 between C. Hickey, USNRC, and E. Marra, NJDEP.
S , . b R F
?8. Letter dated January 4, 1984 from: P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear, to:
- P. C. Kurisko, NJDEP, with two attachments Re: (1) technical ,iuitifi-cation for alternate chlorination limitations, and (2) Oyster Creek condenser chlorination report dated March 1977.
- 29. Letter dated February 3, 1984 from: P. C. Kuristo, NJDEP, to:
R. W. Heward, GPU Nuclear, with attachments Re: Oyster CreeE impingement and entrainment studies.
- 30. Jersey Central Power & Light Company, "0yster Creek Nuclear Generatina Station Alternative Cooling Water System Study," 1977.
- 31. Himchak, P., " Field investigations related to the shutdown of the L Oyster Creek Nuclear Generationg Station on Feburary 11, 1983,"
NJDEP, 1983. 3?. Jersey Central Power A Licht Company, "0yster Creek Nuclear Generatina d Station Winter Outage Fish Sampling Procram Report for the Period September 1982 - August 1983," 1984. _ 33. Letter dated February 28, 1984 from: R. W. Heward, Jr., GPU Nuclear, - to: J. J. Lombardo, USNRC, with attachment Pe: " Summary of Woodborer [ 5Iudies form 1975-1983." 34 Hillman, R. E., C. I. Bellmore, R. A. McGrath, and P. T. Banas, " Study . of Woodborar Populations in Relation to the Oyster Creek Generating Station, Final Annual Renort for the Period December 1, 1982 to , November 30, 1983," Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Duxbury, MA,
- 1984.
g 35. Hoagland, K. E., " Ecological Studies of Wood-Boring Bivalves and F Fouling Organisms in the Vicinity of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Final Report September 1976 - December 1982," NUREG/CR-3446, 1983. l l L 36. Letter dated February 7, 1984 from: C. J. Kulo, U.S. Fish and ' Wildlife Service, to: D. M. Crutchfield, USNRC, with attachment i Pe: " Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in New Jersey."
- 37. Letter dated February 14, 1984 from: C. D. Jenkins, Jr., NJDEP, to:
t C. Hickey, USNRC with attachment Re: " Endangered and Threatened - 5 Wildlife in New Jersey January 17, 1984."
- 38. Letter dated December ?1, 1982 from: P. B. Fiedler., GPU Huclear, to- --
l D. M. Crutchfield, USNRC. E
- 39. Letter dated February 25, 1983 from: P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear, to: -'
Mr. Ronald C. Hayes, Administrator, USNRC Reaion 1.
- 40. Letter dated January 25, 1984 from: D. M. Crutchfield, USNRC, to: -
= Charles Kulo, 'J.S. Fish and WiTHTTfe Service. 0 P 5 t i l l I l l l
- 41. Letter dated February 7, 1984, from: Charles J. Kulp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service g: D. M. Crutchfield, USNRC.
- 42. Jenkins, C. David, Jr.,1984 State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, letter to Clarence Hickey, USNRC, February 14,
- 43. FES 1979. Terrestrial Environmental Program Forked River Nuclear Station Annual Report March 1978 - February 1979. Terrestrial Environmental Specialist, Inc., Phoenix, NY.
44 Telephone conversation between C. Hickey, USNRC, and E. Marra, New Jersey Division of Environmental Protection, on June 29, 1984
- 45. Oak Ridoe National Laboratory Technical Evaluation Report to USNRC under contract W-705-enq-26, ORNL/NSIC-173, Review of the Operating Experience History of Oyster Creek Throuch 1981 for the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Procram, July 1983.
- 46. Jersev Central power & Licht Company, Environment Report, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 1972
- 47. Inteorated Plant Safety Assessment Report fo' Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatino Station, NUREG-0822, Docket No. 50-219, dated January 1983.
I 48. Letter dated October 27, 1984, from: P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear, 3: l Mr. Walter A. Paulson, USNRC.
- 49. Telephone conversation between R. Lacey, GPU Nuclear, and J. Donohew, USNRC, on April 3, 1986.
Principal Contributors: L. iall, D. Cleary, E. Fields, C. Hickey, G. LaRoche, M. Wc11 and J. Donotew. Dated: April 10, 1986 l l l}}