|
|
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.4 CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT TERRESTRIAL HABITAT Various state and federal conservation agencies, along with the Nature Conservancy have adopted ecoregions for landscape-level planning. Ecoregions provide an ecological basis for portioning the state into coherent units with common habitat types, wildlife species, and landforms. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has developed a comprehensive conservation program for the state including detailed accountings of plant and animal species of concern within various ecoregions (ODNAP 2009a). | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| 2.4.1 ECOREGIONS The Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant lies in the Huron/Erie Lake Plains (HELP) Ecoregion.
| |
| This area, in northwestern Ohio, northeastern Indiana and southwestern Michigan, is bounded by Lake Erie and glacial moraines. Approximately one sixth of Ohio is within this ecoregion. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Indiana Biological Survey describe this ecoregion as follows (BSC 2009; lBS 2009; USEPA 2009):
| |
| This ecoregion is a discontinuous, broad, fertile, nearly flat plain punctuated by relict sand dunes, beach ridges, and end moraines. Originally, soil drainage was typically poor and black swamp elm-ash swamp and beech forests were dominant. Many wetlands are still present, but many have been drained and cleared for agriculture.
| |
| Streams within the moraine hills and valleys are often intermittent becoming perennial when they reach the valley floor. The majority of streams drain less than 100 square miles. Precipitationis evenly distributed throughout the year and region and averages from 31 - 35 inches annually. The ecoregion has few lakes and reservoirs with those present usually being less than a quartermile square.
| |
| Oak savanna, and more specifically mesic oak savanna, was characteristic in this region. Mesic oak savanna typically occurs on bluffs and ridges or morainal deposits.
| |
| Dominant species are white oak, bur oak, northern red oak, and black oak. This Biome was typically restricted to sandy, well-drained dunes and beach ridges. Nearly all savannas on mesic sites have been destroyed by land-use changes or altered by successional change and invasion of exotic species (USEPA 1993). Today, the natural climax vegetation of the area includes American elm, red maple, and black ash. Most of the area has been cleared and artificially drained and contains highly productive farms producing corn, winter wheat, soybeans, livestock, and vegetables; urban and industrial areas are also extensive. Stream habitat and quality have been degraded by channelization, ditching, and agricultural activities.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.4-1 Critical and Important critical and Terrestrial Habitat Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Within the HELP ecoregion, the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is more specifically located in the Marblehead Drift/Limestone Plain ecoregion, which has been described by the USEPA as follows (USEPA 2009):
| |
| This ecoregion has areas of thin glacial drift and limestone-dolomite ridges and islands.
| |
| Streams often flow on carbonate bedrock; originally, beech forests and, especially, elm-ash swamp forests were common. Scattered carbonate ridges supported distinctive mixed oak forests and prairies,marl plains had prairies,and the Lake Erie and Sandusky Bay shoreline often supported fens. Many geographicallyisolated plant species occurred in this ecoregion. Today, corn, small grains, soybeans, and hay are grown on artificially drained land. Vegetable and fruit farming is well adapted to the relatively mild climate near the shoreline.
| |
| Since the designation of ecoregions, states have made efforts to divide ecoregions into subecoregions by using information with greater resolution, specifically concentrating on differences in patterns of environmental characteristics of particular ecoregions. The regional subdivision is based on the vegetative differences of an ecoregion along with climate, physiography, land use, soils, and surface-water quality (ACWI 1995). Ohio recognizes five distinct physiographic regions within the state. The Davis-Besse site can be found within the Lake Plains physiographic region (Figure 2.4-1). The ODNR describes this region as being at one time, the bottom of a much larger ancient lake known as Lake Maumee. This region is an extremely flat plain that consists of a narrow strip of land along the Lake Erie coast in northeastern Ohio that widens significantly west of Cleveland. Historically, as water levels rose and fell, sandy beach ridges and dunes formed along the shore. The northwestern area of the physiographic region, where the Davis-Besse site is more specifically located, was called the Great Black Swamp that was distinguished by rich, black soils and poor drainage (ODNAP 2009c).
| |
| Remnants of this habitat are preserved in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR) which consists of three refuges, Ottawa, Cedar Point, and West Sister Island and two divisions, the Navarre and Darby Marshes. In total, the ONWR network of marshes encompasses more than 9,000 acres along the western shore of Lake Erie (ONWRA 2009). The Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Natural Areas and Preserves has identified several areas within and around the ONWR complex that are of importance for some threatened or endangered species as well as locations worth noting as they are deserving of priority for conservation efforts. These locations deserve priority due to their identification as being a rare or outstanding example of a particular community. Examples in and around the complex area include a bank swallow colony, a breeding amphibian site, a great blue heron rookery, a mussel bed, Piping Plover critical habitat and a waterfowl rest area. These areas are likely to harbor rare, threatened or endangered species (ODNAP 2009a).
| |
| Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.4.2 DAVIS-BESSE SITE The Davis-Besse site is typical of the HELP ecoregion. It is generally flat, with predominantly hydric or wetland soils. Approximately 700 acres (FirstEnergy 2008) of the site is marshland, with the remaining areas being classified as woodlands, low grasslands and poorly drained marginal agricultural lands (AEC 1973, Section 3.3.2).
| |
| The Davis-Besse site contains some of the best and arguably least disturbed examples of a marsh habitat in northwest Ohio (Campbell 1995, Page 138). The on-site Navarre Marsh is a small remnant of what was once the Great Black Swamp. The original area and location of the Swamp lie completely within this ecoregion. Since settlement, much of the region has been converted into farms and urban centers. The protected status of the Navarre Marsh on the Davis-Besse site has resulted in its becoming a refuge for native plants, animals and biological communities that were once more common in the surrounding landscape.
| |
| National Wetland Inventory Maps indicate that 15 different classifications of wetlands exist on or near the Davis-Besse property. Southeast of the intake channel there is a prominent area identified as being a Palustrine, emergent, persistant, semipermanently flooded area otherwise known as the Navarre Marsh. The Navarre Marsh is located on the southeast end of the Davis-Besse Site, on the southern edge of Lake Erie. It is owned by Davis-Besse, and leased to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) which operates it as a division of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR) located about five miles east of the Davis-Besse plant. The ONWR network has been recognized as an area of high biodiversity by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Department, as well as an outstanding example of a waterfowl rest area. Due to its ecological importance, the Navarre Marsh is protected habitat that is managed cooperatively by the utility environmental personnel and ONWR staff (FirstEnergy 2008). Navarre Marsh wetland characteristics can be viewed on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper portal (USFWS 2009a).
| |
| The majority of the area at Navarre is covered by freshwater marsh and contains nearly all the habitats associated with a marsh complex including freshwater marsh, swamp forest, wet meadow, and patches of buttonbush and deciduous forest which serve as a shelter and important refuge for migrating birds (FirstEnergy 2008; Campbell 1995, Page 138). There have been more than 325 species of birds recorded in or around units of the ONWR complex. The refuge complex is especially important to certain groups of birds, including waterfowl, neotropical migrant song birds, raptors, bald eagles, shorebirds and colonial-nesting wading birds such as herons (USFWS 2009c).
| |
| Approximately nine miles off shore is the 77-acre West Sister Island NWR. It is home to the largest colonial nesting bird rookery in the Great Lakes chain with approximately 3,500 nests. West Sister Island is the only designated national wilderness area in Ohio (GORP 2009). Additionally, during normal migration, waterfowl use of the ONWR Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Complex averages 3 million duck-use days and 800,000 individuals. Mallards, black ducks, American wigeon, pintail, lesser scaup, redhead and canvasback are the predominant duck species during migration and surveys indicate that approximately 70 percent of the black ducks in the Mississippi flyway use these wetlands during the fall migration (USFWS 2009c).
| |
| The Black Swamp Bird Observatory (BSBO), an independent, non-profit organization has worked in the Navarre Marsh and surrounding areas for the past 20 years collecting daily bird data throughout the spring and fall migrations. Due to the observatory's efforts, they provide the most up-to-date data for this area. The 10 most common passerine bird species banded by the BSBO during the spring 2008 migration on the Navarre Marsh alone were Myrtle warbler (1082), White-throated sparrow (758), Gray catbird (460), Yellow warbler (393), Traill's flycatcher (339), Magnolia warbler (414),
| |
| Nashville warbler (299), Western palm warbler (296), Red-winged blackbird (211) and the American redstart (250). In total, 140 different bird species had been banded, totaling 7,805 individuals. During the same 2008 spring time period, raptors were also surveyed throughout the entire ONWR wetland complex. The survey lists 18 different raptor species totaling 8,760 individuals (BSBO 2009a, b).
| |
| The marshes along the southwestern shore of Lake Erie provide much of the feeding areas for both migratory and nesting birds that utilize this region of Lake Erie. The variety of insect prey available in the marshes permits these birds to refuel for their continued migration. The nesting birds of West Sister Island, such as Herons and egrets, have been documented as flying several times a day to the mainland refuges for food (GORP 2009). Ensuring that a variety of high quality food as well as cover are available to the high diversity of species utilizing the marsh, the Navarre Marsh is heavily managed through the use of earthen dikes, which surround and transect the marsh, to control water levels to promote plant succession to meet seasonal wildlife's food and habitat needs (FirstEnergy 2008; AEC 1973).
| |
| About 35 species of mammals can be found within or around the ONWR wetland complex due to the abundance and variety of food and cover available in these habitats.
| |
| Common species include deer, coyotes, fox, rabbits, squirrels, muskrats, mink, skunks, shrews, mice and weasels (USFWS 2009c; Herdendorf 1987, Page 12).
| |
| Reptiles and amphibians are also present on the ONWR complex. Sixteen different species of turtles and snakes can be found in the area. Common reptiles and amphibians include garter snakes, fox snakes, northern watersnakes, Blanding's turtles, Midland painted turtles, snapping turtles, bullfrogs and leopard frogs. The Five-lined skink is the only lizard species found in the region and is common in the Navarre Marsh (Campbell 1995, Page 184; Herdendorf 1987, Pages. 102-104; USFWS 2009c).
| |
| Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Over 370 terrestrial vertebrates have been reported on or near the Navarre Marsh area, including 325 bird species (174 of these bird species were identified in the Navarre Marsh), 35 species of mammals, 5 species of amphibians and 11 species of reptiles (BSBO 2009a, b and USFWS 2009c).
| |
| Approximately 800 species of vascular plants are found in the low-lying marsh communities of the Lake Erie Region, of which, less than 100 species are trees and shrubs (Bolsenga and Herdendorf 1993, Page 372). Throughout this lowland area, common wetland species include cattail, bur reed, grasses, spatterdock, water lily and smartweed. A stable beach ridge separates the Navarre Marsh from Lake Erie.
| |
| Common plants growing on the beach ridge include sandbar willow, staghorn sumac and elderberry. Behind the beach ridge there is a hardwood swamp zone. Here, cottonwood, hackberry, sycamore, river-bank grape, black willow and staghorn sumac are commonly found. The plant communities that grow on the earthen dikes that surround the marsh likely change as the marsh is managed and dikes are repaired.
| |
| Common species found on earthen dikes are similar to those found in wet meadows and include common greenbrier, swamp thistle, cone flower, common milkweed, asters, river-bank grape and common burdock (AEC 1973;Section 2.7.2; Campbell 1995, Pages 189-192; Bolsenga and Herdendorf 1993, Pages 372, 380).
| |
| 2.4.3 HABITAT MANAGEMENT The USFWS completed the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 2000. The plan was created to outline how the Refuge will fulfill its legal purpose and contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge System's wildlife, habitat and public use goals. The Conservation Plan is intended to be updated every 5 to 10 years based on information gathered through monitoring the site (USFWS 2009c).
| |
| Within the Navarre Marsh, habitat is managed through the use of electric pumps. The pumps are used to lower marsh pools during spring migrations, exposing knolls thereby creating nesting habitat as well as promoting vegetation growth throughout the summer.
| |
| In early fall, the water levels are increased to accommodate southward migrations (FirstEnergy 2008; AEC 1973).
| |
| The biodiversity of this ecoregion is being challenged by invasive species. These species are of focus for study and control by the ODNR, USFWS and ONWR staffs.
| |
| Invasive species that are of concern and are considered a priority for management include purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, phragmites and flowering rush (USFWS 2009c).
| |
| Purple loosestrife, reed canary grass and phragmites all grow in a variety of wetland habitats, primarily in northern Ohio. All three species invade both natural and disturbed Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report wetlands, replacing native vegetation with nearly homogeneous stands of each. These three species are classified as "targeted species" by the ODNR as they are the most invasive and difficult to control. Management techniques used to eradicate loosestrife include hand-pulling or digging up small stands. Currently, biological controls using insects are being researched. Reed canary grass management techniques include burning and mowing and phragmites is best controlled by cutting. In all three species herbicides are used to treat larger stands (ODNAP 2009d; TNC 2009).
| |
| Flowering rush is not considered to be a targeted species by the ODNR, but is a species that is on the state's "well-established invasive species" list. Species put on this list have a distribution that is state-wide or regional in Ohio and pose moderate to serious threats to natural areas. Flowering rush can grow as an emergent plant along shorelines and as a submersed plant in lakes and rivers. This species is best managed by cutting the stalk of the plant below the water or digging it up taking care to remove all root fragments. Mechanical methods of harvesting are not recommended as root fragments of the plant are able to form new plants. Herbicides are effective, but not selective and can spread easily to native plants through the water (MIPN 2009; TNC 2009).
| |
| Within the marsh, there is a large lacustrine area which contains both permanently flooded and semipermanently flooded sections; the latter of the two contains some aquatic beds. There are sections of the marsh that are seasonally flooded, comprised of broad-leaved deciduous species as well as containing aquatic beds. The section of the Navarre Marsh that adjoins the intake channel is classified as being a mix between a broad-leaf deciduous scrub - shrub marsh and an emergent marsh, both of which are semipermanently flooded. To the northeast of and adjoining the intake channel there is a marsh area classified as having sections that are forested, containing broad-leaved deciduous species as well as sections that contain emergent species and that are persistent. Both areas are classified as being seasonally flooded. Notably, nearly all wetlands and lake-like areas located on the Davis-Besse site are classified as Palustrine aquatic bed, semipermanently flooded diked/impounded (PABFh) or Palustrine forested broad-leaf deciduous, seasonally flooded (PFO1C) (USFWS 2009a).
| |
| 2.
| |
| | |
| ==4.4 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| ACWI 1995. The Nationwide Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States, Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Quality Technical Appendices (F), http://acwi.gov/appendixes/AppendF.html, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| AEC 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1973.
| |
| Bolsenga and Herdendorf 1993. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Handbook, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan.
| |
| BSBO 2009a. Black Swamp Bird Observatory, 2008 Passerine Spring Migration Monitoring Navarre Marsh, http://www.bsbo.org/passerine/springnavarrepmm.htm, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| BSBO 2009b. Black Swamp Bird Observatory, 18th Spring Raptor Migration Surveys -
| |
| 2009 in the Lake Erie Marsh Region, http://www.bsbo.org/raptor.current-year-raptor-migrationsurvey.htm, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| BSC 2009. The Black Swamp Conservancy, The Great Black Swamp, http://www.blackswamp.org/BSCSwamp.html, accessed March 27, 2009.
| |
| Campbell 1995. The Marshes of Southwestern Lake Erie, Ohio State University Press, Athens, Ohio.
| |
| FirstEnergy 2008. Wetlands Management and Nature Education Programs: Marsh Management at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, http://www.firstenergycorp.com/environmental/New-Initiatives/Wetlands-Management-
| |
| _NatureEducation_Program.html, accessed March 21, 2009.
| |
| GORP 2009. Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resources/usnwr/ohottaw.htm, accessed March 26, 2009.
| |
| Herdendorf, C.E., 1987. The Ecology of Coastal Marshes of Western Lake Erie: A Community Profile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(7.9).
| |
| Herdendorf, C.E. and S.E. Herdendorf 1983. Flora and Fauna of the Islands Region of Western Lake Erie, CLEAR Technical Report #285, Ohio State University Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR), Columbus, Ohio, July 1983.
| |
| August 2010 and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-7 Critical and Critical Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report IBS, 2009. Indiana Biological Survey Aquatic Research Center, Huron-Erie Lake Plain Region, http://www.indiana.edu/-inbsarc/ecoregionsfiles/ecoregions_huronerie.html, accessed March 27, 2009.
| |
| MIPN 2009. Midwest Invasive Plant Network, Flowering Rush (Butomus Umbellatus),
| |
| http://mipn.org/Midwest%20Invasives%20Fact%2OSheets/PDF/floweringrush.pdf, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| NRC 1975. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1. Docket No. 50-346, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975.
| |
| ODNAP 2009a. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Natural Heritage Database. Lists of Preserves, Significant Ecological Features, Critical and Outstanding Habitats and Threatened or Endangered Species, March 18, 2009.
| |
| ODNAP 2009b. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Natural Heritage Database, Rare Plant List for Ottawa County, 06/04/2008, http://ohiodnr.com/Portals/3/heritage/CountyRarePlants/ottawa.pdf, accessed on March 22, 2009.
| |
| ODNAP 2009c. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. Ohio's Five Physiographic Regions, http://www.dnr.state.oh .us/Home/Nature/FivePhysiographicRegions/tabid/871/Default.a spx, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| ODNAP 2009d. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. Invasive Plants of Ohio, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/2005/Default.aspx, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| ODNR 2009. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Wildlife That are Considered to be Endangered, Threatened , Species of Concern, Special Interest, Extirpated, or Extinct in Ohio, Updated January 2009, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/ExperienceWildlifeSubHomePage/Endangeredthreate nedspeciesplaceholder/resourcesmgtplansspecieslist/tabid/5664/Default.aspx, accessed March 26, 2009.
| |
| ONWRA 2009. Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Association, http://www.onwra.com/our-refuge.html, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report TNC 2009. The Nature Conservancy, Invasive Plant Distribution Maps, Ohio, http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/science/art6279.html, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 1993. 1993 proceedings of the Midwest Oak Savanna Conference, U.S.
| |
| Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/upland/oak/oak93/haney.htm, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 2009. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/ohin/ohinfront.pdf, accessed March 20, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2008. Lake Erie Water Snake Fact Sheet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/reptiles/le-facts.html, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009a. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009b. Critical Habitat Portal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://crithab.fws.gov/index.jsp, accessed March 24, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009c. Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Planning/ottawa/index.html, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| August 2010 Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-9 and Important Critical and Critical Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.4-1: Ohio's Five Physiographic Regions Davis-Besse Source: ODNAP 2009c Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitat Page 2.4-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.5 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES 2.5.1 OVERVIEW The USFWS has listed several species with ranges that include the Navarre Marsh area as threatened or endangered at the federal level or candidates for such listing.
| |
| Similarly, threatened, endangered and candidate species have been designated at the state level under programs administered by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. The state resource agencies also use several additional classifications to guide conservation and management of wildlife resources. The total number of species according to taxa that are classified as endangered, threatened, species of concern, special interest, extirpated, or extinct for the state of Ohio is provided in Table 2.5-1. Table 2.5-2 lists those federally listed and candidate species that have been identified as being in, around or potentially occurring on the Davis-Besse site. Table 2.5-2 also lists state-listed, candidate and additional status given species that are considered to have a potential for occurring on or near the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| Federal and state-listed terrestrial species closely associated with the habitats found in the HELP ecoregion include the, star-nosed mole, Indiana bat, piping plover, Karner Blue butterfly, Virginia rail, sora, yellow-bellied sapsucker, least flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, Golden-winged warbler, magnolia warbler, Kirtland warbler, mourning warbler, Canada warbler, hermit thrush, sharp-shinned hawk, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, osprey, northern harrier, sandhill crane, American bittern, least bittern, king rail and black tern. Species and state and federal classification can be found in Table 2.5-2.
| |
| Federal and state-listed reptiles and amphibians that can be found in this ecoregion include the Lake Erie water snake, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, copperbelly water snake, spotted turtle, Blanding's turtle, box turtle and Kirtland's water snake (USFWS 2009c, d, e, f, g; ODNAP 2009a, b, c, d; ODNR 2009). The Lake Erie water snake is a federally-listed threatened species. They live on the cliffs and rocky shorelines of limestone islands and feed on fish and amphibians. Some of the Lake Erie water snakes are protected under the Endangered Species Act and some are not.
| |
| The distinction is made on the basis of where the snakes are found. The snakes that live on a group of limestone islands in western Lake Erie that are located more than one mile from the Ohio and Canada mainlands are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Water snakes on the Ohio mainland, Mouse Island, and Johnson's Island are not protected under the Endangered Species Act. The primary reason for the snakes decline is habitat destruction (USFWS 2008).
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Aquatic species that have been given a state or federal status that can be found in the HELP ecoregion include lake sturgeon, spotted gar, cisco, lake whitefish, burbot, eastern sand darter, channel darter, purple wartyback, snuffbox, wavy-rayed lampmussel, eastern pondmussel, black sandshell, threehorn wartyback, fawnsfoot, deertoe, and rayed bean (USFWS 2009c, d, e, f, g; ODNAP 2009a, b, c, d; ODNR 2009).
| |
| 2.5.2 DAVIS-BESSE SITE As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.4, the Davis-Besse site and associated wetlands provide habitat for numerous wildlife and plant species. Included are remnant habitats for terrestrial and aquatic organisms that were wide-spread before much of the region was converted to agricultural and urban lands. For example, Navarre marsh and similar surrounding wetlands were once part of a much larger wetland complex known as the Great Black Swamp that covered 300,000 acres. Today, only about 10% of this original wetland habitat remains (USFWS 2009c).
| |
| Federal and state-listed species occurring onsite or in the immediate vicinity of Davis-Besse are described by the USFWS and the ODNR. Several state, federal and independent agencies have reported listed species which include 1 mammal, 22 bird, 6 reptile, 7 fish, 9 mussel and 11 invertebrate species that are or potentially could be on the Davis-Besse site (USFWS 2009c, d, e, f, g; ODNAP 2009a, b, c, d; ODNR 2009; BSBO 2010a, b). Plant data is not as complete as animal data, so the rare plant list from Ottawa County, prepared by the Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, has been used to determine which species are associated with habitats similar to those found on the Davis-Besse site. Of the 69 state-listed rare plant species that occur in Ottawa County, 36 species grow in habitats that can be found within the Davis-Besse site and therefore could potentially be present. Of these, two species, the eastern prairie fringed orchid and the lakeside daisy are federally threatened (ODNAP 2009b).
| |
| In 2008, the BSBO banded several designated state-listed birds within the Navarre Marsh. These include Virginia rail, sora, yellow-bellied sapsucker, least flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, golden-winged warbler, magnolia warbler, Kirtland warbler, mourning warbler, Canada warbler, hermit thrush, sharp-shinned hawk, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, osprey, northern harrier, sandhill crane. Additional species not banded by the BSBO, but that could potentially utilize the Navarre Marsh include the American bittern, least bittern, king rail, and black tern. Of these species, only Kirtland's warbler is listed as federally endangered (ODNR 2009). Table 2.5-3 lists the passerine species for the spring and fall migrations for 2007 and 2008 along with total number of each species banded during each migration on the Navarre Marsh. Table 2.5-3 also lists the raptor species surveyed during spring of 2008 throughout the Navarre Marsh and ONWR complex as well as total number for each species sighted during that time period.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Review of the USFWS website revealed that the only designated critical habitat in the area was for the piping plover. Although the piping plover is not listed as being found on or potentially near the Davis-Besse site, it has a federal and state listing as endangered. The USFWS has designated two sites as piping plover critical habitat in northwest Ohio. The first site is located in Erie County around the Sheldon MarshState Nature Preserve, and the other site is in Lake County near the Headlands Dunes State Nature Preserve, approximately 30 miles and 115 miles east of the Navarre Marsh, respectively (USFWS 2009h,i).
| |
| All of the nine listed species of mussels were found in the western Lake Erie region by the Ohio State University Center for Lake Erie Area Research (Herdendorf 1983, Pages 121-122). Current data provided by the ODNR Natural Heritage Program indicates that these same species can still be found in this region of the lake, and therefore have the potential for occurring on or near the Davis-Besse Site (ODNAP 2009a). The only mussel given a federal status is the rayed bean, which is listed as a species of concern. There are seven fish species that can be found in this region of western Lake Erie that are also variously state-designated as being endangered, threatened, a species of concern or candidate species, none of which have been given a federal status (ODNR 2009, USFWS 2009d).
| |
| 2.
| |
| | |
| ==5.3 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| ACWI 1995. The Nationwide Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States, Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality Technical Appendices (F), http://acwi.gov/appendixes/AppendF.html, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| AEC 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1973.
| |
| Bolsenga and Herdendorf 1993. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Handbook, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan, 1993.
| |
| Page 2.5-3 August 2010 Threatened Endangered Species or Endangered Threatened or Species Page 2.5-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report BSBO 2009. Black Swamp Bird Observatory, 2008 Passerine Spring Migration Monitoring Navarre Marsh, http://www.bsbo.org/passerine/springnavarrepmm.htm, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| BSBO 2010a. Black Swamp Bird Observatory, 17th Spring Raptor Migration Surveys -
| |
| 2008 in the Lake Erie Marsh Region, http://www.bsbo.org/raptor/2008_raptor-migrationsu rvey.htm, accessed June 16, 2010.
| |
| BSBO 2010b. Black Swamp Bird Observatory, 18th Spring Raptor Migration Surveys -
| |
| 2008 in the Lake Erie Marsh Region, http://www.bsbo .org/raptor/2008_raptor-migrationsurvey. htm, accessed June 16, 2010.
| |
| BSC 2009. The Black Swamp Conservancy, The Great Black Swamp, http://www.blackswamp.org/BSCSwamp.html, accessed March 27, 2007.
| |
| Campbell 1995. The Marshes of Southwestern Lake Erie, Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.
| |
| CFR 2008a. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Code of FederalRegulations, Part 17, Chapter I - "United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior."
| |
| - "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants", subpart b - Lists, 17.11 -
| |
| "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife."
| |
| CFR 2008b. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Code of FederalRegulations, Part 17, Chapter I - "United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior."
| |
| - "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants", subpart b - Lists 17.12-
| |
| "Endangered and Threatened Plants."
| |
| Downhower 1988. The Biogeography of the Island Region of Western Lake Erie, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| Ewert and Rodewald 2008. Managing Habitats for migrating birds in the Western Lake Erie basin: A Guide to Landscaping and Land Management, The Nature Conservancy.
| |
| FirstEnergy 2008. Wetlands Management and Nature Education Programs: Marsh Management at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, http://www.firstenergycorp.com/environmental/New-Initiatives/Wetlands-Management-
| |
| _NatureEducation_Program.html, accessed March 21, 2009.
| |
| GORP 2009. Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resources/usnwr/ohottaw.htm, accessed March 26, 2009.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Herdendorf, C.E., 1987. The Ecology of Coastal Marshes of Western Lake Erie: A Community Profile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(7.9).
| |
| Herdendorf, C.E. and S.E. Herdendorf 1983. Flora and Fauna of the Islands Region of Western Lake Erie, Center for Lake Erie Area Research, Report # 285, July 1983.
| |
| IBS, 2009. Indiana Biological Survey Aquatic Research Center, Huron-Erie Lake Plain Region, http://www.indiana.edu/-inbsarc/ecoregions_files/ecoregions_huronerie.html, accessed March 27, 2009.
| |
| MIPN 2009. Midwest Invasive.Plant Network, Flowering Rush (Butomus Umbellatus),
| |
| http://mipn.org/Midwest%201nvasives%2OFact%20Sheets/PDF/floweringrush.pdf, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| NRC 1975. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50-346, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975.
| |
| ODNAP 2009a. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Natural Heritage Database, Lists of Preserves, Significant Ecological Features, Critical and Outstanding Habitats and Threatened or Endangered Species, March 18, 2009.
| |
| ODNAP 2009b. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Natural Heritage Database, Rare Plant List for Ottawa County, 06/04/2008, http://ohiodnr.com/Portals/3/heritage/CountyRarePlants/ottawa.pdf, accessed on March 22, 2009.
| |
| ODNAP 2009c. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. Ohio's Five Physiographic Regions, http://www.dnr.state.oh. us/Home/Nature/FivePhysiographicRegions/tabid/871/Default.a spx, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| ODNAP 2009d. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Invasive Plants of Ohio, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/2005/Default.aspx, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| ODNR 2009. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Wildlife That are Considered to be Endangered, Threatened, Species of Concern, Special Interest, Extirpated, or Extinct in Ohio, Updated January 2009, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/ExperienceWildlifeSubHomePage/Endangeredthreate nedspeciesplaceholder/resourcesmgtplansspecieslist/tabid/5664/Default.aspx, accessed March 26, 2009.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report ONWRA 2009. Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Association, http://www.onwra.com/our-refuge.html, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| TNC 2009. The Nature Conservancy, Invasive Plant Distribution Maps, Ohio, http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/science/art6279.html, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 1993. 1993 proceedings of the Midwest Oak Savanna Conference, U.S.
| |
| Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/upland/oak/oak93/haney.htm, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 2009. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/ohin/ohinfront.pdf, accessed March 20, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2008. Lake Erie Water Snake Fact Sheet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/reptiles/le-facts.html, accessed April 1, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009a. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009b. Critical Habitat Portal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://crithab.fws.gov/index.jsp, accessed March 24, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009c. Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Planning/ottawa/index.html, accessed March 23, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009d. Ohio Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 2008, http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/Endangered/lists/state-oh.html#plants, accessed April 5, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009e. Ohio: County Distribution of Federally-listed, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/ohio-cty.html, accessed March 29, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009f. Indiana: County Distribution of Federally-Listed, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/indiana-cty.html, accessed March 29, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009g. Michigan: County Distribution of Federally-Listed, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/michigan-cty.html, accessed March 29, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009h. Proposed Critical Habitat Units in Ohio, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/plover/piplchmaps/OH.pdf, accessed March 29, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009i. Summary of the Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes Breeding Population of the Piping Plover, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/pipingplover/summary.html, accessed March 29, 2009.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.5-7 Threatened Endangered Species or Endangered Threatened or Species Page 2.5-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-1: Number of Species in Major Taxa Classified as Endangered, Threatened, Species of Concern, Special Interest, Extirpated, or Extinct in Ohio, January 2009 Special Etrae xic Taxon Endangered Threatened Concern Interest Extirpated Extinct Mammals 5 0 8 0 9 0 Birds 16 11 13 31 4 2 Reptiles 5 2 13 0 0 0 Amphibians 5 1 2 0 0 0 Fishes 23 13 11 0 5 2 Mollusks 24 4 9 0 13 5 Crayfishes 0 2 3 0 0 0 Isopods 0 0 2 0 0 0 Pseudo-scorpions 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dragonflies 13 6 1 0 0 0 Damselflies 3 0 0 0 0 0 Caddisflies 3 6 3 00 0 0 Mayflies 2 0 1 0 0 0 Midges 1 3 1 0 0 0 Crickets 0 0 1 0 0 0 Butterflies 8 1 2 1 1 0 Moths 14 4 22 10 0 0 Beetles 3 2 6 0 0 0 Total 125 55 99 42 32 9 Source: ODNR 2009 August 2010 Endangered Species Page 2.5-8 Threatened or or Endangered Species Page 2.5-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-2: Federal and State Listed Species of Known Occurrences or Potentially Occurring on the Davis-Besse Site Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Plants alpine rush Juncus alpinus P American beach grass Ammophila breviligulata T American sweet flag Acorus americanus P American water milfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum T balsam poplar Populus balsamifera E baltic rush Juncus balticus P bearded wheat grass Elymus trachycaulus T Bebb's sedge Carex bebbii P bullhead-lily Nuphar variegata E bushy cinquefoil Potentillaparadoxa T Canada milk-vetch Astragalus canadensis T Caribbean spike-rush Eleocharis geniculata E deer's-tongue arrowhead Sagittariarigida P Drummond's rock cress Arabis drummondii E prairie fringed orchid Platantheraleucophaea T T flat-stemmed pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis P floating pondweed Potamogeton natans P Garber's sedge Carex garbed E golden fruited sedge Carex aurea T lakeside daisy Tetraneurisherbacea E T little green sedge Carex viridula P low umbrella sedge Cyperus diandrus P narrow-leaved blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium mucronatum E ovate spike-rush Eleocharis ovata E Philadelphia panic grass Panicum philadelphicum E Pursh's bulrush Schoenoplectus purshianus P Richardson's pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii P rock elm Ulmus thomasli P Smith's bulrush Schoenoplectus smithli E Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-2: Federal and State Listed Species of Known Occurrences or Potentially Occurring on the Davis-Besse Site (continued)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Smith's bulrush Scirpus smithii E Lophotocarpus (=Sagittaria) P southern waPato calycinus Sprengel's sedge Carex sprengelil T variegated scouring-rush Equisetum variegatum E wapato Sagittariacuneata T wheat sedge Carex atherodes P wild rice Zizania aquatica T Invertebrates Insects Canada darner Aeshna canadensis E elfin skimmer Nannothemis bella E frosted elfin Incisalia irus E Karner blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis E E marsh bluet Enallagmaebrium T persius dusky wing Erynnis persius E plains clubtail Gomphus extemus E purplish copper Lycaena helloides E silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene T tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis T unexpected cycnia Cycnia inopinatus E Mussels black sandshell Ligumia recta T deertoe Truncilla truncata SC eastern pondmussel Ligumia nasuta E fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis T purple wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata SC rayed bean Villosa fabalis E C snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra E threehorn wartyback Obliquariareflexa T wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola SC Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-2: Federal and State Listed Species of Known Occurrences or Potentially Occurring on the Davis-Besse Site (continued)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Fish burbot Lota Iota SC channel darter Percina copelandi T cisco Coregonus artedii E eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida SC lake sturgeon Acipensar fulvescens E lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis SC spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus E Reptiles Blanding's turtle Emydoidea blandingi SC box turtle Terrapene Carolina SC eastern massasauga swamp Sistrurus catenatus catenatus E C rattler Kirtland's water snake Natrix kirtlandii T Lake Erie water snake Natrix sipedon insularium E T spotted turtle Clemmys guttata T Birds American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus E bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T black tern Chlidoniasniger E Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis SI golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera E hermit thrush Catharusguttatus T king rail Rallus elegans E Kirtland's warbler Dendroicakirtlandii E E least bittern Ixobrychus exilis T least flycatcher Empidonax minimus T loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus E magnolia warbler Dendroicamagnolia SI mourning warbler Oporornisphiladelphia SI northern harrier Circus cyaneus E Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-2: Federal and State Listed Species of Known Occurrences or Potentially Occurring on the Davis-Besse Site (continued)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status osprey Pandionhaliaetus T peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus T sandhill crane Grus canadensis E sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus SC sora rail Porzana carolina SC Virginia rail Rallus limicola SC yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius E Mammals star-nosed mole Condylura cristata SC Sources: BSBO 2010a, b; ODNR 2009; USFWS 2009c, d, e; CFR 2008a, b Table Captions:
| |
| State Status E: ENDANGERED - A native species or subspecies threatened with extirpation from the state.
| |
| T: THREATENED - A species or subspecies whose survival in Ohio is not in immediate jeopardy, but to which a threat exists.
| |
| SC: SPECIES OF CONCERN - A species or subspecies which might become threatened in Ohio under continued or increased stress. Also, a species or subspecies for which there is some concern but for which information is insufficient to permit an adequate status evaluation.
| |
| SI: SPECIAL INTEREST - A species that occurs periodically and is capable of breeding in Ohio. It is at the edge of a larger, contiguous range with viable population(s) within the core of its range. These species have no federal endangered or threatened status, are at low breeding densities in the state, and have not been recently released to enhance Ohio's wildlife diversity.
| |
| P: POTENTIALLY THREATENED - A native Ohio plant species may be designated potentially threatened if one or more of the following criteria apply:
| |
| : 1. The species is extant in Ohio and does not qualify as a state endangered or threatened species, but it is a proposed federal endangered or threatened species or a species listed in the Federal Register as under review for such proposal.
| |
| Page 2.5-12 August 2010 Threatened or Threatened or Endangered Species Endangered Species Page 2.5-12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-2: Federal and State Listed Species of Known Occurrences or Potentially Occurring on the Davis-Besse Site (continued)
| |
| : 2. The natural populations of the species are imperiled to the extent that the species could conceivably become a threatened species in Ohio within the foreseeable future.
| |
| : 3. The natural populations of the species, even though they are not threatened in Ohio at the time of designation, are believed to be declining in abundance or vitality at a significant rate throughout all or large portions of the state.
| |
| Federal Status E: ENDANGERED - An animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
| |
| T: THREATENED - Likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range.
| |
| C: CANDIDATE - Sufficient information exists to support listing as endangered or threatened.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-13 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.5-3: Species and Total Numbers of Birds Banded and or Sighted at the Navarre Marsh or Throughout the ONWR Complex during Spring and Fall Migrations, 2007- 2008 Number of Birds Banded at the Navarre Marsh Passerine 2008 2007 Common Name Scientific Name Spring Fall Spring Fall Canada warbler Oporornisphiladelphia 105 9 182 8 golden-winged warbler Lanius ludovicianus 1 0 2 1 hermit thrush Wilsonia canadensis 95 183 98 262 Kirtland warbler Dendroica magnolia 0 N/A 0 N/A least flycatcher Sphyrapicus varius 56 1 96 6 loggerhead shrike Empidonax minimus 0 N/A 1 N/A magnolia warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 414 101 1,282 113 mourning warbler Dendroica kirtlandii 88 6 134 20 sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 12 0 4 1 sora Porzana Carolina 0 N/A 0 N/A Virginia rail Rallus limicola 0 N/A 0 N/A yellow-bellied sapsucker Botaurus lentiginosus 2 5 3 5 Raptors*
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name 2008 Total Count 2007 bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 371 181 northern harrier Circus cyaneus 167 122 osprey Pandion haliaetus 29 14 peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 3 8 sandhill crane Grus canadensis 13 43 sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 389 492 Source: BSBO 2009; BSBO 2010a, b
| |
| * Raptors are only surveyed in the spring.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2.5-14 August, 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.6 DEMOGRAPHY 2.6.1 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The study area is defined by a 50-mile radius around Davis-Besse and includes all or parts of 15 counties in Ohio, four counties in Michigan, and 10 Canadian census subdivisions in Ontario. Toledo, Ohio, is the nearest major city to Davis-Besse; its center is approximately 30 miles to the west-northwest of Davis-Besse. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau decennial census indicated that the urban area of Toledo has a population of 502,146. A portion of Detroit, Michigan, lies to the north of Davis-Besse.
| |
| This urban area's 2000 population is 3,900,539. To the north, most of the Canadian City of Windsor lies approximately 50 miles from Davis-Besse. The 2001 Canada Census estimated the population at 208,402. The urbanized area of Lorain-Elyria, Ohio, is approximately 50 miles east of Davis-Besse. The 2000 census population estimate for this urbanized area is 188,818. Cleveland, Ohio, is another major city in the vicinity; its center is approximately 70 miles (113 km) east of Davis-Besse. The urbanized population figure for the 2000 census for Cleveland is 1,785,038 (ESRI 2007). The study area is shown in Figure 2.6-1.
| |
| Table 2.6-1 through Table 2.6-7 present general demographic information for the jurisdictions around Davis-Besse. These include the population of U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) block-groups within a 50 mile radius of the plant. The Ohio counties of Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, and Wood are included in the general demographic information because most of the Davis-Besse work force resides within these areas (Section 3.4).
| |
| Background data presented includes the total population of the 19 U.S. counties and 10 Canadian census subdivisions that fall entirely or partly within 50 miles of the plant.
| |
| Population projections are included for the states of Michigan and Ohio, as well as the Canadian province of Ontario.
| |
| 2.6.1.1 Current Demographic Characteristics The population of persons residing within 20 and 50 miles of the Davis-Besse site was determined from the 2000 census block group data. Census block group population data were included if the block fell partly or entirely within an area. Most of the census blocks that fell partly within a zone were low density and, as a result, were not thought to significantly bias population size upward if included. Population density of the two zones was calculated using the total area circumscribed by their respective radii. This calculation provides a conservatively higher estimate of density than using an area defined by census blocks including those that may fall partly outside the 20 or 50 mile radii.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-1 Demography Page 2.6-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Using the methodology described above, an estimated 2,375,624 people lived within 50 miles of Davis-Besse in 2000, with a population density of 316 people per square mile (Table 2.6-1). This density is higher than the density for the state of Ohio (253 people per square mile), Michigan (103 people per square mile), and Ontario (27 people per square mile). Within the 20 mile area there were an estimated 129,411 persons, at a density of 169 persons per square mile (ESRI 2007).
| |
| Applying the GElS population sparseness criterion to Table 2.6-1, Davis-Besse is sparseness Category 4, "least sparse" (> 120 persons per square mile within 20 miles),
| |
| as shown in Table 2.6-1. Applying the GElS proximity criterion using Table 2.6-1 again, Davis-Besse falls into Category 4, "in close proximity" (>190 persons per square mile within 50 miles). Per the GElS sparseness-proximity matrix, Davis-Besse is located in a high population area (NRC 1996, Section C.1.4).
| |
| 2.6.1.2 Population Projections As shown in Table 2.6-1, a population increase of 3.1% for 2000 - 2005 was expected for the combined U.S. block groups and Canadian census subdivisions within a 50 mile radius of Davis-Besse (ESRI 2006, ESRI 2007, StatCan 2006b). A slight decline
| |
| (-0.4%) from the present population of 129,411 was expected for U.S. block groups within 20 miles of Davis-Besse (ESRI 2006, ESRI 2007). The expected change in population (2000 - 2005) for Ohio and Michigan are similar, 1.0% and 1.6%,
| |
| respectively (USCB 2006). Counties near Davis-Besse expected to have a declining population were Lucas, Ottawa, and Sandusky. Lucas County's population was expected to increase by 2.4% in the time period 2000 - 2005 (MHAL 1996; ODD 2004).
| |
| Population projections by county to 2040 indicate that five Ohio counties will experience a population decline: Crawford, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, and Seneca. One Michigan county, Wayne, will also have a population decline over the same time period (Table 2.6-2 and Table 2.6-4). Canadian population projections were derived from estimates of the entire Province of Ontario's growth over the time period of 2006 - 2040 (StatCan 2006a, b). The growth rate for this area is higher for the period 2006 - 2010, but declines thereafter (Table 2.6-3 and Table 2.6-5).
| |
| 2.6.2 MINORITY AND Low INCOME POPULATIONS Minority and low-income populations in the 50-mile geographic area were analyzed based on 2000 decennial census block data. The results were compiled and maps were produced showing the geographic location of minority and low-income populations in relation to the site. Information for both groups was then reviewed with respect to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation guidance (NRC 2004).
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-2 Demography Page 2.6-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.6.2.1 Minority Populations Minority populations are defined as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Multi-Racial, and Hispanic ethnicity. Other races are analyzed as one group (Other). The relative sizes of minority populations in jurisdictions surrounding Davis-Besse are included in Table 2.6-6 and Table 2.6-7.
| |
| The NRC determined that a minority population exists in a specific census block if either of two criteria is met:
| |
| * The minority population percentage of the census block exceeds 50%.
| |
| " The minority population percentage of the census block is significantly greater (more than 20%) than the minority population percentage in the geographic region chosen for comparison.
| |
| The comparison area selected for this analysis consists of the 19 counties surrounding Davis-Besse that are entirely or partly within 50 miles of the station. This area contains 4,002 census block-groups. The study area is defined as a 50 mile radius around Davis-Besse and is a subset of the comparison area, consisting of all or parts of the counties that fall within the 50 mile radius; 1,747 census block groups are within 50 miles of Davis-Besse (Figure 2.6-1). Figure 2.6-2 through Figure 2.6-7 locate the minority block groups with the 50-mile radius.
| |
| Within the Canadian census subdivisions, minority groups make up less than 14% of the population. Windsor has the most diversity with a white population of 79%, Asian population of 11%, and 5% other ethnic groups. Pelee's population of 256, has a relatively large Latin American population (13%) (Table 2.6-5 and Table 2.6-7).
| |
| 2.6.2.2 Low Income Populations Low-income populations are defined by assessing household income according to a poverty income threshold determined by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). The Canadian census provides the percentage of persons in low income after tax for census subdivisions. Figure 2.6-8 shows the low-income population block groups within a 50-Mile radius of the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| The NRC determined that a low-income population exists in a specific census block if either of two criteria is met:
| |
| * The low income population percentage of the census block group exceeds 50%.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-3 Demography Page 2.6-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The low income population percentage of the census block group is significantly greater (more than 20%) than the low income population percentage in the geographic region chosen for comparison.
| |
| The number of census block groups within a 50 mile radius of Davis-Besse meeting the above criteria for low-income households are included in Table 2.6-8 (50% criterion) and Table 2.6-9 (20% criterion). Thirteen block groups met the 50% criterion: eight are in Lucas County, two are in Wood County, and three are in Wayne County. One hundred twenty block groups met the 20% criterion, including block groups in Erie, Huron, Lorain, Lucas, Wood, Monroe, and Wayne counties. Lucas County, which contains Toledo, has 62 low income block groups. Wayne County, Michigan, which contains a portion of Detroit, has 36 low income block groups.
| |
| 2.6.2.3 Migrant Populations Migrant population totals by state, county, farms, and workers are summarized in Table 2.6-10. Data on migrant populations for the 19 counties in Ohio and Michigan within the 50 miles of Davis-Besse were obtained from the US Department of Agriculture 2002 Census of Agriculture.
| |
| Migrant laborers were defined as any worker whose employment required travel that prevented the migrant worker from returning to his/her permanent place of residence the same day and worked on a farm less than 150 days. The 2007 Census of Agriculture-County Data (USDA 2007a, b) estimates that there were 1,827 farms in the 15 Ohio counties surrounding Davis-Besse, with a total of 8,166 farm workers that worked less than 150 days. The four counties in Michigan surrounding Davis-Besse had 669 farms with a total of 3,379 farm workers that worked less than 150 days.
| |
| 2.6.2.4 Seasonal and Transient Populations As described in Section 2.9.6, the area in the vicinity of Davis-Besse comprises a significant percentage of all recreation in the four-county area. Ottawa County, in
| |
| ,particular, has the most facilities and acreage devoted to state parks, forests, natural preserves, and wildlife. Its location along Lake Erie and its islands provide a wide variety of opportunities for water-based recreational activities.
| |
| As a result, there are significant seasonal and transient population groups within a 10-mile radius of Davis-Besse. Table 2.6-11 lists the estir'nated population of these groups, along with the permanent population within the 10-mile area. The seasonal population group comprises those people who reside in the area during warmer months, principally May through October. The transient population group comprises those people who enter the area for a specific purpose (e.g., recreation) and who leave on the same day or stay overnight at motels and hotels.
| |
| Demography Page 2.6-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report As shown in Table 2.6-11, the total combined seasonal and transient population is equivalent to the total permanent population.
| |
| 2.
| |
| | |
| ==6.3 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| ESRI 2007. ESRI Data & Maps 9.2 (CD-Rom), Environmental Systems Research Institute. Redland CA, http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps/index.html, accessed April 15, 2009.
| |
| ESRI 2006. A Break from the Past: ESRI's 2006 Demographic Updates, An ESRI White Paper, Environmental Systems Research Institute. Redland CA, September 2006, http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdf/break-from-the-past.pdf, accessed April 13, 2009.
| |
| ESRI 2007. ESRI Data & Maps 9.2 (CD-Rom), Environmental Systems Research Institute. Redland CA, http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps/index.html, accessed April 15, 2009.
| |
| MHAL 1996. Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/8510_26104_7.pdf, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| NRC 2004. NRR Office Instruction No. LIC-203, Revision 1, Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 24, 2004.
| |
| ODD 2004. Ohio Department of Development Projected Population: County Totals, http://www.development.ohio.gov/research/FILES/P200/countytotals.pdf, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| StatCan 2001. Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles, http://www12.statcan.ca/engIish/profil01/CP01/1ndex.cfm?Lang=E, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-5 Demography Demography Page-2.6-5 IAugust 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report StatCan 2006a. Statistics Canada 2006 Community Profile, http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| StatCan 2006b. Statistics Canada Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories 2005 - 2031, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-520-x/00105/4167883-eng.htm, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| StatCan 2007. Statistics Canada, 2006 Community Profiles, 2006 Census, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 92-591-XWE, Ottawa, Released March 13 2007, http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| USCB, 2000a. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 US Census, Summary File 1 (SF1),
| |
| http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfilel .html, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| USCB 2000b. US Census Bureau, 2000 US Census' Summary File 3 (SF3).
| |
| http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3.html. accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| USCB 2006. U.S. Census Bureau.Estimated Population of Counties for April 2000 to July 2005. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2006-0 I.csv, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| USDA 2007a. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Census, State-County Data, Ohio, Table 7, Hired Farm Labor-Workers and Payroll: 2007, U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full Report/Volume_l,_Chapter 2 C ountyLevel/Ohio/index.asp, accessed October 23, 2009.
| |
| USDA 2007b. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Census, State-County Data, Michigan, Table 7, Hired Farm Labor-Workers and Payroll: 2007, U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full Report/Volume_l,_Chapter 2 C ountyLevel/Michigan/index.asp, accessed October 23, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 2005. Reaffirming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Commitment to Environmental Justice, EPA Memorandum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 4, 2005.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-6 Demography Demography Page 2.6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-1: Population Density and Recent Change in Major Jurisdictions Near Davis-Besse 2000 Density 2005 Density Location 2000 Percent (people/ (people/
| |
| Change sq. mi) sq. mi)
| |
| Ohio 11,353,140 11,470,685 1.0% 277 280 Michigan 9,938,444 10,100,833 1.6% 175 178 Ontario, Canada (1) 11,410,046 12,541,400 9.9% 33 36 Lucas County, OH 455,050 449,290 -1.3% 1337 1320 Ottawa County, OH 40,990 40,850 -0.3% 161 160 Sandusky County, OH 61,790 61,060 :1.2% 151 149 Wood County, OH 121,070 123,960 2.4% 196 201 Within 50 Miles of 2,375,624 2,448,608 3.1% 316 326 Davis-Besse Within 20 Miles of 129,411 128,878 0.4% 169 168 Davis-Besse Sources: ESRI 2007; StatCan 2001; StatCan 2006a; USCB 2000a; MHAL 1996(1); ODD 2004 Note:
| |
| (1) Population Figure for Ontario is from the 2001 Canadian census Demography Page 2.6-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6 Population Projections for Counties Surrounding Davis-Besse 2000 2005 Projections__________
| |
| State County Census Estimate 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Ohio Ashland 52,520 54,300 56,160 57,540 59,010 60,010 61,050 62063 63083 Ohio Crawford 46,970 46,250 45,450 44,800 44,250 43,850 43,390 42970 42540 Ohio Erie 79,550 81,020 81,420 82,260 82,400 83,180 83,060 83540 83870 Ohio Fulton 42,080 43,270 44,610 45,830 47,210 48,190 j 49,110 50070 51020 Ohio Hancock 71,300 73,030 74,180 75,740 76,910 78,250 79,040 80197 81262 Ohio Henry 29,210 29,440 29,540 29,850 29,990 30,200 30,110 30220 30280 Ohio Huron 59,490 60,830 62,040 62,610 63,430 63,690 64,020 64303 64598 Ohio Lorain 284,660 288,400 290,840 295,660 299,630 306,720 312,540 319207 325662 Ohio Lucas 455,050 449,290 444,870 439,370 434,650 426,860 417,870 409680 401290 Ohio Ottawa 40,990 40,850 40,790 40,450 40,270 39,400 38,520 37647 36772 Ohio Richland 128,850 128,190 128,900 128,770 130,050 130,460 132,180 133027 134092 Ohio Sandusky 61,790 61,060 59,940 58,910 57,900 57,130 56,420 55670 54930 Ohio Seneca 58,680 57,560 56,750 55,420 54,260 52,620 50,920 49260 47590 Ohio Wood 121,070 123,960 127,020 129,500 133,330 136,480 141,880 145780 150055 Ohio Wyandot 2290 22,870 23,090 23,180 23,400 23,360 23,240 23173 23093 Michigan Lenawee 98,890 100939 100286 102299 104025 105502 106704 107620 108242 Michigan Monroe 145,945 152234 153140 154592 155525 155845 155566 154690 153224 Michigan Washtenaw 322,895 343858 350008 361477 372946 384050 394823 405217 415186 Michigan Wayne 2,061,162 2025145 1914940 1864929 1822219 1785118 1753609 1727407 1706277 Sources: USCB 2000a; MHAL 1996(1); ODD 2004 Note: (1)Michigan county projections report estimated 2000 population; this table presents 2000 census.
| |
| Demography Page 2.6-8 .August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application I Environmental Report Table 2.6-3: Population Projections for Canadian Census Subdivisions near Davis-Besse Projections Location 2001 Census 2005 Estimate 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Amherstburg 20,339 21,466 22,537 23,322 24,048 24,732 25,335 25,822 26,187 Chatham-Kent 107,341 108,010 112,099 116,008 119,616 123,021 126,018 128,443 130,259 Essex 20,085 20,043 20,758 21,482 22,150 22,781 23,336 23,785 24,121 Kingsville 19,619 20,650 21,666 22,421 23,119 23,777 24,356 24,825 25,176 Lakeshore 28,746 32,345 34,450 35,651 36,761 37,807 38,728 39,473 40,031 Lasalle 25,285 27,179 28,655 29,654 30,576 31,446 32,213 32,832 33,297 Leamington 27,138 28,494 29,878 30,920 31,882 32,789 33,588 34,235 34,719 Pelee 256 281 297 308 317 326 334 341 346 Tecumseh 25,105 24,237 25,102 25,977 26,786 27,548 28,219 28,762 29,169 Windsor 208,402 215,022 224,322 232,143 239,365 246,176 252,176 .257,028 260,661 Sources: StatCan 2001; StatCan 2006b Notes:
| |
| (1) Estimates and projections based on growth rates for the entire Province of Ontario under scenario 1 (StatCan 2006b, Page 72).
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-9 Demography Demography Page 2.6-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-4: Annual Projected Population Percentage Change for Counties Surrounding Davis-Besse 2000 2005 Projections State County Census Estimate 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Ohio Ashland 52,520 314% 3.4% 2.5% 2.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%
| |
| Ohio Crawford 46,970 -1.5% -1.7% -1.4% -1.2% -0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%
| |
| Ohio Erie 79,550 1.8% 0.5% 1.0% 0.2% 0.9% -0.1% 0.6% 0.4%
| |
| Ohio Fulton 42,080 2.8% 3.1% 2.7% 3.0% 2.1% 1.9% 2.0% 1.9%
| |
| Ohio Hancock 71,300 2.4% 1.6% 2.1% 1.5% 1.7% 1.0% 1.5% 1.3%
| |
| Ohio Henry 29,210 0.8% 0.3% 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% -0.3% 0.4% 0.2%
| |
| Ohio Huron 59,490 2.3% 2.0% 0.9% 1.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
| |
| Ohio Lorain 284,660 1.3% 0.8% 1.7% 1.3% 2.4% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0%
| |
| Ohio Lucas 455,050 -1.3% -1.0% -1.2% -1.1% -1.8% -2.1% -2.0% -2.0%
| |
| Ohio Ottawa 40,990 -0.3% -0.1% -0.8% -0.4% -2.2% -2.2% -2.3% -2.3%
| |
| Ohio Richland 128,850 -0.5% 0.6% -0.1% 1.0% 0.3% 1.3% 0.6% 0.8%
| |
| Ohio Sandusky 61,790 -1.2% -1.8% -1.7% -1.7% -1.3% -1.2% -1.3% -1.3%
| |
| Ohio Seneca 58,680 -1.9% -1.4% -2.3% -2.1% -3.0% -3.2% -3.3% -3.4%
| |
| Ohio Wood 121,070 2.4% 2.5% 2.0% 3.0% 2.4% 4.0% 2.7% 2.9%
| |
| Ohio Wyandot 22,910 -0.2% 1.0% 0.4% 0.9% -0.2% -0.5% -0.3% -0.3%
| |
| Michigan Lenawee 98,890 2.1% -0.6% 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.6%
| |
| Michigan Monroe 145,945 4.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% -0.2% -0.6% -0.9%
| |
| Michigan Washtenaw 322,895 6.5% 1.8% 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5%
| |
| Michigan Wayne 2,061,162 -1.7% :5.4% -2.6% -2.3% -2.0% -1.8% -1.5% -1.2%
| |
| Sources: ESRI 2007; MHAL 1996; ODD 2004; USCB 2000a Note: (1) 2005 estimate and 2010-2040 projections indicate percentage increase from prior interval; i.e., population in 2010 is 3.9%
| |
| higher than estimated population in 2005.
| |
| Demography Page 2.6-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-5: Projected Population Change for Canadian Census Subdivisions Near Davis-Besse Location 2006 2010 Projection Census Projection (4 year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Amherstburg 21,748 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Chatham-Kent 108,177 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Essex 20,032 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Kingsville 20,908 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Lakeshore 33,245 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Lasalle 27,652 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Leamington 28,833 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Pelee 287 3.5% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Tecumseh 24,224 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Windsor 216,473 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 2.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.4%
| |
| Source: StatCan 2006b Notes:
| |
| (1) Estimates and projections based on growth rates for the entire Province of Ontario under scenario 1 (StatCan 2006b, Page 72).
| |
| (2) 2005 estimate and 2010-2020 projections indicate percentage increase from prior interval; i.e., population in 2010 is 3.9%
| |
| higher than estimated population in 2005.
| |
| Demography Page 2.6-11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-6: General Demography for American Jurisdictions Near Davis-Besse Sex Age Racial/Ethnic Makeup AmericanNative Location Median American Hawaiian or Multi-Female age Under 5 18+ 65+ White Black or Alaska Asian Pacific Other Racial Hispanic Native Islander U.S.Block groups within 50 miles of 51% 36.4 7% 74% 13% 85% 10% 0.4% 1% < 1% 2% 2% 5%
| |
| Davis-Besse Surrounding U.S. 51% 36.6 7% 74% 13% 88% 8% 0.3% 1% < 1% 2% 2% 4%
| |
| Counties Lucas County, OH 52% 35.2 7% 74% 13% 78% 17% <1% 1% <1% 2% 2% 5%
| |
| Ottawa County, OH 51% 41.0 5% 77% 16% 97% 1% < 1% <1% <1% 1% 1% 4%
| |
| Sandusky County, 51% 37.3 6% 74% 14% 92% 3% <1% <1% <1% 3% 2% 7%
| |
| OH Wood County, OH 52% 32.6 6% 76% 11% 95% 1% 0.2% 1% <1% 1% 1% 3%
| |
| Sources: ESRI 2007; USCB 2000a Demography Page 2.6-12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-7: General Demography in the Major Canadian Jurisdictions Near Davis-Besse Sex Age Racial / Ethnic Makeup Location Female Median Mli ai an Under 5 20+ 65+ White Black Asian Other Multi- Latin age I_______ _____ Racial American Amherstburg 51% 38.6 6% 73% 12% 97% 2% 1% <.1% <1% <1%
| |
| Chatham-Kent 51% 41.2 5% 75% 16% 96% 2% 2% < 1% < 1% < 1%
| |
| Essex 50% 40.8 5% 74% 14% 98% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%
| |
| Kingsville 50% 39.9 5% 75% 15% 96% 1% <1% <1% <1% 2%
| |
| Lakeshore 49% 37.5 6% 71% 10% 95% 1% 3% <1% <1% <1%
| |
| Lasalle 51% 37.3 6% 71% 10% 91% 1% 5% 2% 1% <1%
| |
| Leamington 49% 37.1 7% 72% 15% 90% 1% 2% 2% <1% 5%
| |
| Pelee 42% 45.1 2% 86% 16% 87% <1% <1% <1% <1% 13%
| |
| Tecumseh 51% 39.9 5% 73% 10%, 94% <1% 4% 1% <1% <1%
| |
| Windsor 51% 37.5 6% 75% 14% 79% 4% 11% 5% <1% 1%
| |
| Source: StatCan 2007 Demography Page 2.6-13 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-8: Minority and Low-Income Population Census Block Groups (50% Criteria)
| |
| Location Total Minority Block Native Low-Groups AmericanNaieow GopAmrcnHawaiian Multi- Income State County within Black or Alaska Asian or Pacific Other Mul or PaificRacial Aggregate Hispanic 50 Miles Native Islander Ohio Ashland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crawford 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erie 73 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Fulton 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hancock 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Henry 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Huron 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lorain 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 Lucas 431 67 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 8 Ottawa 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Richland 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sandusky 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seneca 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Wyandot 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan Lenawee 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monroe 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Washtenaw 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Wayne 584 56 0 0 0 0 0 73 28 3 Totals: 1747 129 0 0 0 0 0 169 31 13 Sources: ESRI 2007; USCB 2000a, b Demography Page 2.6-14 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-9: Minority and Low-Income Population Census Block Groups (20% Criteria)
| |
| Location Total Minority Block Native Low-Groups American Hawaiian Multi- Income State County within 50Mls Black aieor or Alaska Asian Hawiia Pacific Other Multi-Racial Aggregate Hispanic 50 Miles Native Islander Ohio Ashland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crawford 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erie 73 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 Fulton 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hancock 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Henry 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Huron 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lorain 87 16 0 0 0 3 0 20 11 8 Lucas 431 103 0 0 0 0 0 107 3 62 Ottowa 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Richland 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sandusky 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 Seneca 57. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wood 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Wyandot 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan Lenawee 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monroe 127 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Washtenaw 29 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Wayne 584 72 0 2 0 34 2 113 41 36 Totals: 1747 208 0 2 0 37 2 258 57 120 Sources: ESRI 2007; USCB 2000a, b Demography Page 2.6-15 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-10: Seasonal Workers in Agriculture for Counties Surrounding Davis-Besse 2007 Census of Agriculture 2007 Census of Agriculture State County Farms with Seasonal Workers Seasonal Workers (Workers by days worked - (Workers by days worked -
| |
| Less than 150 days) Less than 150 days)
| |
| Ohio Ashland 184 421
| |
| *Crawford 107 313 Erie 68 383 Fulton 148 686 Hancock 130 324 Henry 119 487 Huron 122 1,595 Lorain 156 651 Lucas 78 519 Ottawa 78 406 Richland 113 385 Sandusky 140 699 Seneca 154 347 Wood 148 600 Wyandot 82 350
| |
| .Ohio County Total 1,827 8,166 Michigan Lenawee 214 908 Monroe 193 1,035 Washtenaw 196 835 Wayne 66 601 Michigan County Total 669 3,379 Sources: USDA 2007a, b Demography Page 2.6-16 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-11: Seasonal and Transient Estimated Population Within 10 Miles of Davis-Besse Miles Estimated Population Permanent Seasonal Transient 0-2 715 0 0 2-5 1,357 1,863 9,454 5-10 12,998 963 3,237 Total 15,070 2,826 12,691 Demography Page 2.6-17 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-1: Demographic Study Area and Surrounding Counties Demography Page 2.6-18 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-2: Black Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site August 2010 Page 2.6-19 Demography Demography Page 2.6-19 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-3. Asian Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site Demography Page 2.6-20 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-4: Other Minority Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site Demography Page 2.6-21 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-5: Multiracial Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site Demography Page 2.6-22 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-6: Hispanic Ethnicity Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site I
| |
| Demography Page 2.6-23 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-7: Aggregate Minority Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site I
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.6-24 Demography Demography Page 2.6-24 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 2.6-8: Low-Income Population Block Groups Within a 50-Mile Radius of the Davis-Besse Site Demography Page 2.6-25 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Demography Page 2.6-26 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.7 TAXES The Ohio Tax Reform Act (Amended Substitute House Bill 66,126th General Assembly),
| |
| which went into effect on July 1, 2005, has made significant changes in the structure of almost all major state and local taxes. Major business tax components of the tax reform act consist of the phase-out of both the tangible personal property tax (which excludes electric companies) and the corporate franchise tax and the phase-in of the commercial activity tax. It is a privilege tax measured by gross receipts from activities within the state. The fully phased-in 0.26% commercial activity tax rate took effect on April 1, 2009 (impacting fiscal year 2010 tax revenues). Prior phase-in rates are as follows:
| |
| Tax Period Base Tax Rate Phase-in Effective Rate Percentage July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 0.06% N/A 0.0600%
| |
| January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006 0.26% 23% 0.0598%
| |
| April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 0.26% 40% 0.1040%
| |
| April 1,2007 to March 31, 2008 0.26% 60% 0.1560%
| |
| April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 0.26% 80% 0.2080%
| |
| After March 31, 2009 0.26% 100% 0.2600%
| |
| Table 2.7-1 compares property taxes paid by FENOC for Davis-Besse to the annual total operating budgets for Ottawa County, Carroll Township, the Benton-Carroll-Salem School District, and the Penta County Joint Vocational School for the years 2004 through 2008. During this five-year period, Davis-Besse property taxes contributed less than 10% to the Ottawa County total operating budget. The percentage of Davis-Besse property tax to the operating budget in Carroll Township, where Davis-Besse is located, varied widely from about 11 % to nearly 28%. Property taxes paid to the Benton-Carroll-Salem School District and the Penta County Joint Vocational School, on the other hand, were more stable, averaging about 17% for the school district and 1.6% for the vocational school.
| |
| The amount of future property tax payments for Davis-Besse and the proportion of those payments are dependent on future market value of the units, future valuations of other properties in these jurisdictions, and other factors. FENOC assumes that the values presented in Table 2.7-1 are substantially representative of conditions that would exist in the license renewal term of the unit.
| |
| Taxes Page 2.7-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.7-1: Davis-Besse Property Tax Distribution and Jurisdictional Operating Budgets, 2004-2008 Year Property Tax Paid for Operating Budget Percent of Operating Davis-Besse Budget Ottawa County 2004 $846,190 $13,808,101 6.1%
| |
| 2005 $1,171,511 $13,909,810 8.4%
| |
| 2006 $890,177 $15,111,168 5.9%
| |
| 2007 $949,380 $15,846,381 6.0%
| |
| 2008 $897,881 $16,053,182 5.6%
| |
| Carroll Township 2004 $485,644 $4,334,322 11.2%
| |
| 2005 $675,842 $3,510,297 19.3%
| |
| 2006 $533,277 $1,908,000 27.9%
| |
| 2007 $551,766 $2,307,692 23.9%
| |
| 2008 $558,791 $4,829,032 11.6%
| |
| Benton-Carroll-Salem Local School District 2004 $3,211,588 $20,142,955 15.9%
| |
| 2005 $4,484,582 $21,114,350 21.2%
| |
| 2006 $3,495,600 $20,953,869 16.7%
| |
| 2007 $3,607,888 $22,038,419 16.4%
| |
| 2008 $3,707,221 $23,938,413 15.5%
| |
| Penta County Joint Vocational School 2004 $372,018 $24,832,789 1.5%
| |
| 2005 $507,832 $25,644,335 2.0%
| |
| 2006 $397,738 $26,553,076 1.5%
| |
| 2007 $412,907 $28,015,110 1.5%
| |
| 2008 $417,247 $29,793,427 1.4%
| |
| Taxes Page 2.7-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.8 LAND USE PLANNING This section focuses on the four counties of Ottawa, Lucas, Wood, and Sandusky since approximately 88% of the permanent Davis-Besse workforce lives in these counties (see Section 3.4) and, as a result, would more likely influence present and future land use.
| |
| 2.8.1 EXISTING LAND USE County government in Ohio was established in 1788 as the administrative arm of the territorial government. Today, it serves the same purpose for the state, although the structure has changed and its range of responsibilities has increased. There are certain state-mandated services that all counties must provide, such as property tax assessment and collection, land records, election administration, public welfare and social services, and certain legal and judicial services that apply throughout the county.
| |
| State law also permits counties to perform certain functions for their residents if they so choose, e.g., parks and recreation, drainage, and economic development.
| |
| (Lucas 2008)
| |
| Table 2.8-1 lists the types of land use in the four-county area. As shown, three of the counties are principally rural. Only one county contains large urban area.
| |
| Ottawa County, the smallest of the four counties in land area (255 sq. mi.), is typical of the rural land-use character of the four-county area. Over 90% of the total county area comprises cropland, pasture, forest, open water, and wetlands. Urban areas, on the other hand, account for less than 10% of the total county area. Wood and Sandusky counties have a similar distribution of land area. Ottawa County, although the smallest in land area, has the most open water (7%), as its northeastern boundary abuts Lake Erie and includes a peninsula and several islands. (Ottawa 2008)
| |
| Lucas County has the largest urban area, accounting for nearly 37% of the total county area. It is also the most populated of the of the four-county area, with Toledo being the county seat and largest city. (Lucas 2008)
| |
| Wood County is the largest county in land area (617 sq. mi.) and comprises the most land in farms (over 301,000 acres). It also has the most number of farms (1,040) and largest average farm size (289 acres). (Wood 2008)
| |
| Sandusky County is similar in land category to Wood County, with most land in farms.
| |
| The county's land area (409.2 sq. mi.), number of farms (780), and average farm size (247 acres) is second only to Wood County. (Sandusky 2008)
| |
| Land Use Planning Page 2.8-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.8.2 FUTURE LAND USE FENOC surveyed the local townships in Ottawa County adjacent to Davis-Besse as to the existence of any growth-control measures that would restrict the development of residential housing. In Carroll Township, where Davis-Besse is located, there is no land use control mechanism such as zoning. Subdivision approval is subject to county rules and regulations, but the actual use of the land is not (Carroll 1995, Page 5). Erie Township, which is adjacent and east of Carroll Township, also has no land use control mechanism (Erie 1995, Page 6). Instead, both township land use plans encourage development in areas that can be served by existing infrastructure, while preserving open space and environmentally sensitive areas.
| |
| The other adjacent townships, Benton to the west and Salem to the south, both have land use zoning to control growth (Benton 1995, Page 5; Salem 2004, Page 5). Future land use residential growth, however, is limited due to the lack of an extensive public sewer system in each township. As a result, construction of single family residences is more likely than the construction of multi-family/high density housing development.
| |
| 2.
| |
| | |
| ==8.3 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| Benton 1995. Benton Township Land Use Plan, Benton Township, Ohio, March 1995.
| |
| Carroll 1995. Carroll Township Land Use Plan, Carroll Township, Ohio, July 1995.
| |
| Erie 1995. Erie Township Land Use Plan, Erie Township, Ohio, September 1995.
| |
| Lucas 2008. Lucas County Profile, Ohio Department of Development, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/lucas.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| Ottawa 2008. Ottawa County Profile, Ohio Department of Development, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/ottawa.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| Salem 2004. Salem Township Land Use Plan, Salem Township, Ohio, August 2004.
| |
| Sandusky 2008. Sandusky County Profile, Ohio Department of Development, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/sandusky.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| Land Use Planning Page 2.8-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Wood 2008. Wood County Profile, Ohio Department of Development, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/Wood.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| Land Use Planning Page 2.8-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.8-1: Land Uses in Four-County Area LandCateoryCounty Land gry Ottawa Lucas Wood Sandusky Land Cover (%)
| |
| - Urban (1) 8.12 36.69 9.42 5.71
| |
| - Cropland 60.62 36.56 80.38 71.64
| |
| - Pasture 10.90 1.81 3.51 10.46
| |
| - Forest 7.47 14.89 4.47 6.55
| |
| - Open Water 7.01 3.01 0.90 1.49
| |
| - Wetlands (2) 5.18 6.58 1.19 3.77
| |
| - Bare Mines 0.72 0.47 0.13 0.42 Land in Farms (acres) 109,000 75,000 301,000 193,000
| |
| - Number of Farms 500 390 1,040 780
| |
| - Average size (acres) 218 192 289 247 Total County Area (sq. mi.) 255.1 340.4 617.4 409.2 Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008 Notes:
| |
| (1) Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, Urban Grasses, Wooded, Herbaceous (2) Wooded, Herbaceous Land Use Planning Page 2.8-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.9 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Table 3.4-1 presents the places of residence of the Davis-Besse operational workforce.
| |
| The vast majority (88%) of the workforce reside in Ottawa, Lucas, Wood, or Sandusky counties. As stated in Section 3.4, FENOC believes that it can continue to operate the power plant for the 20-year license renewal period with the existing workforce and has no plans to add full-time employees to support plant operations during the period of extended operation. However, FENOC assumes that if any additional staff is required, that they will also reside primarily within the four-county area and in the same proportions as the existing workforce. Thus, the study area to describe the socioeconomic characteristics in the following sections is limited to the four-county area.
| |
| 2.9.1 ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT, AND INCOME 2.9.1.1 Economy The state of Ohio is one of the larger economies in the United States, with an estimated 2007 state gross domestic product of $466.3 billion in nominal dollars, making it the seventh-largest state economy (Ohio 2008, Economic Page 4). The four-county area is part of the northwest Ohio economic development region, referred to as Region 2 (Ohio 2008, Appendix A). As such, its economy reflects the encompassing county's character and is less dependent on the industrial and technology-based economy of Ohio in general and the "Rust Belt" image of the 1980s in particular. Most of the state's income, for example, is derived from commerce and manufacturing, whereas the four-county area shares the region's industry base with extensive farmland, which produces large amounts of crops and livestock. The subsections following illustrate this diverse economy for the years 2003-2007, before the economic downturn starting in 2008.
| |
| 2.9.1.2 Employment Table 2.9-1 lists the civilian labor force during the period 2003-2007. In general, the civilian labor force was stable in Ottawa, Lucas, and Sandusky counties. Wood County, on the other hand, increased its workforce from 2003 through 2006, before declining slightly in 2007. Unemployment rates during the five-year period generally declined in all counties from 2003 through 2006, with an increase occurring in 2007 in each county.
| |
| Wood County had the lowest unemployment rate, remaining below 6% over the 2003-2007 period.
| |
| In 2006, the combined four-county area had a total civilian labor force of over 279,050 people (Table 2.9-2). The combined largest industrial sectors providing employment included trade, transportation and utilities (19.8%); educational and health social services (16.1%); and manufacturing (15.5%). The trade, transportation and utilities Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report sector also was the largest industrial sector in Ottawa, Lucas, and Wood counties, but manufacturing was largest in Sandusky County. A large employer in all counties was combined government, with local government being the largest between federal, state, and local.
| |
| Industry growth since 2001, as shown in Table 2.9-3, has occurred in education and health services throughout the four-county area, with increases in financial services in most counties as well. The largest percentage industrial sector decline in all counties has been information services. Although still a significant employer, manufacturing has also seen a large decline in all counties, 2.9.1.3 Income Table 2.9-4 shows income and poverty levels for the four-county area and state of Ohio, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau from the three-year survey during 2005-2007 (USCB 2009). Ottawa County had the highest median household income, at $53,183, which is well above the state level of $46,296. Ottawa County also had the lowest poverty rates for both families (6.1%) and individuals (8.0%), which is well below the state levels of 9.7% and 13.2%, respectively. Lucas County had the lowest median household income, at $43,527, below the state level. Lucas County was well above the state poverty levels for both families and individuals at 12.9% and 16.8%, respectively.
| |
| 2.9.2 HOUSING Table 2.9-5 presents information about the housing market in the four-county area and the state of Ohio. The estimates are based upon U.S. Census Bureau data from 2005-2007 survey data (USCB 2009). The most notable characteristic is the high vacancy rate (32.6%) in Ottawa County: This is likely a result of seasonal properties associated with the county's large number of recreational facilities (see Section 2.9.6). Otherwise, housing vacancy is below the state rate of 10.7% in Wood and Sandusky counties, but above the state rate in the more urban Lucas County, which includes Toledo. The median house values in Ottawa and Wood counties are above the state value of
| |
| $134,400, but below the state value in Sandusky and Lucas counties.
| |
| Residential construction generally increased for the four-county area for the greater part of the five-year period, 2003 through 2007, as shown in Table 2.9-6. The number of total units, for example, increased in all counties through 2005, before starting a decline in 2006 through 2007. The average cost per unit of single and multiple-unit buildings followed a similar trend.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.9-2 Socioeconomic Characteristics Characteristics Page 2.9-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.9.3 EDUCATION Public education in Ohio is provided through regional school districts, which are funded by a school tax levied as part of the state income tax. Corporations, in general, are exempt from the school tax. (ODT 2006) Table 2.9-7 lists information regarding education in the four-county area.
| |
| Regionally, Lucas County, as the most populated of the four-county area, has the most schools, including college level. Ottawa County has the least number of students.
| |
| Ottawa County also has the smallest student-teacher ratio, the highest graduation rate, and expends the most per student. (Table 2.9-7)
| |
| Locally, the Benton-Carroll-Salem School district serves the area surrounding Davis-Besse. The school district has four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Enrollment was 1,984 during the 2008 school year and the district employed 102 teachers, with a 19:1 student to teacher ratio. (PSR 2009) The Benton-Carroll-Salem School district also works closely with the Penta County Joint Vocational School, which provides certificates in various trades for students in or beyond high school in a five-county area. The public institution is located in Perrysburg, Ohio, southwest of Toledo, in Wood County. Enrollment in 2007 was approximately 195 students (Penta 2009).
| |
| 2.9.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES Table 2.9-8 provides a summary of the public facilities in the four-county area. Included is information on libraries, health care facilities, and communication services, such television and radio stations, and daily newspapers. Lucas County, which has the most urban area (see Section 2.8, including Toledo, has the greatest number of facilities.
| |
| Ottawa County, on the other hand, has the least.
| |
| Table 2.9-9 provides a summary of the community public water systems in the four-county area from surface water supplies. Information included is the population served, water use, and system capacity. Due to its urban populations, Lucas County has the largest water supply systems. The smallest system (140,000 gallons per day (gpd) capacity) is Put-in-Bay Village located in Ottawa County.
| |
| 2.9.5 TRANSPORTATION The four-county area is served by all modes of transportation, depending on location.
| |
| August 2010 Characteristics Page 2.9-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics Socioeconomic Page 2.9-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Hiqhway State and interstate highways, especially U.S. 80/90, which includes the Ohio Turnpike, interconnects each county. State Highway Route 2, located immediately adjacent to the Davis-Besse site, provides local access to the surrounding area. The two-lane highway is used extensively for commercial truck carriers. Approximately six miles east of the site (and continuing east), Route 2 becomes a four-lane, divided and limited-access highway. (FENOC 2010, Section 2.2.2.1) Table 2.9-10 lists the annual average daily traffic (AADT) for various points along Route 2 and for Routes 190 and 590 that feed into Route 2 from the south.
| |
| As described in Section 2.9.6, there is a significant percentage of recreation in the four-county area and Ottawa County, in particular. The great majority of people using the facilities travel in private vehicles. As a result, there is an increase in the number of seasonal and transient vehicles within a 10-mile radius of Davis-Besse. Table 2.9-14 lists the estimated number of these vehicles, along with the resident vehicles within the 10-mile area. Seasonal vehicles are those that remain in the area during warmer months, principally May through October. Transient vehicles are those that enter the area for a specific purpose (e.g., recreation) and leave on the same day or stay overnight. As shown in Table 2.9-14, the total combined number of seasonal and transient vehicles is equivalent to the total number of resident vehicles within a 10-mile radius of Davis-Besse.
| |
| Airports The closest airport serving commercial airlines is Toledo Express Airport, located 38 miles west of the site. The nearest airport with a paved runway is at Port Clinton, located 13 miles east-southeast from the site. (FENOC 2010, Section 2.2.2.3)
| |
| Water Transportation Commercial shipping, both domestic and international, uses Lake Erie extensively.
| |
| However, the shallowness of the western lake basin, particularly near shore, limits any closer approach than eight miles for ships of any size. The nearest shipping lanes from the site are approximately 20 miles offshore. (FENOC 2010, Section 2.2.2.1)
| |
| Railroads Railroad transportation to the four-county area is available for passengers and freight.
| |
| Amtrak provides passenger rail service from Cleveland to Toledo, with service through Sandusky (Amtrak 2009). Mainline rail freight service is provided bythe Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. (ODOT 2009).
| |
| Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Locally, the nearest railroad to Davis-Besse is the Norfolk Southern, which runs in an east-west direction from Port Clinton to Oak Harbor, about five miles south of the site.
| |
| The Norfolk Southern continues to run from Oak Harbor northwest to Toledo.
| |
| (ODOT 2009) A local rail spur line services the site, starting at a point 7.5 miles southwest of the site. This entire spur is owned by Toledo Edison and was built solely for service to Davis-Besse. (FENOC 2010, Section 2.2.2.1)
| |
| Table 2.9-11 summarizes transportation data in the four-county area.
| |
| 2.9.6 RECREATION Activities on Lake Erie and the rivers and streams flowing into it comprise a significant percent of all recreation in the four-county area, as listed in Table 2.9-12. Ottawa County, in particular, has the most facilities and acreage devoted to state parks, forests, natural preserves, and wildlife. Its location along Lake Erie and its islands provide a wide variety of opportunities for water-based recreational and tourist activities. As a result, the area has large seasonal and transient populations, which are discussed in Section 2.6.2.4.
| |
| Other major regional recreational resources include three of the four U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges located in Ohio. The three refuges together protect approximately 9,000 acres of habit and some of the last remnants of the "Great Black Swamp" in the heart of the Lake Erie marshes (USFWS 2009).
| |
| * Ottawa NWR - located adjacent to the Davis-Besse site, management of the refuge focuses on providing resting habitat for migratory birds.
| |
| " West Sister Island NWR - located offshore and to the northwest of Davis-Besse, management of the refuge focuses on nesting habitat for the largest heron/egret rookery in the U.S. Great lakes.
| |
| " Cedar Point NWR - located northwest of Davis-Besse, the refuge provides a stopover habitat for migratory birds; its marsh land is divided into three large pools, one of which is a public fishing area.
| |
| The Ottawa NWR is split between Ottawa and Lucas Counties, with the majority in Ottawa County. The West Sister Island NWR and Cedar Point NWR are entirely in Lucas County.
| |
| As noted in Table 2.9-13, utilization of the major park facilities in the Ottawa-Lucas County region is nearly 70% during the summer months.
| |
| Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.
| |
| | |
| ==9.7 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| Amtrak 2009. Amtrak Home Page, http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/HomePage, accessed April 13, 2009.
| |
| BCSS 2009. Benton-Carroll-Salem Schools, http://www.bcs.kl2.oh.us/schools/,
| |
| accessed April 13, 2009.
| |
| FENOC 2010. Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No. 1 Docket No: 50-346 License No: NPF-3, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), Revision 27, June 2010.
| |
| Lucas 2008. Ohio Department of Development, Lucas County Profile, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/lucas.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| ODOT 2006. Ohio Department of Transportation, Traffic Survey Report, Ottawa County, December 2006, http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/offceorg/traffmonit/countinformation/defauIt.htm, accessed June 12, 2009.
| |
| ODOT 2009. Ohio Department of Transportation, Rail System Facts, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Services/Pages/rail.aspx, accessed April 13, 2009.
| |
| ODCR 2010. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Correctional Institutions Map, http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/prisprog.htm, accessed June 3, 2010.
| |
| ODT 2006. Guide to Ohio's School District Income Tax, Ohio Department of Taxation, November 2006.
| |
| ODNR 2009. Ohio Department of Natural Resources Facilities Guide by County, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/80/Default.aspx, accessed April 11, 2009.
| |
| Ohio 2008. 2008 Changing Course, Ohio Economic Analysis, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Office of Workforce Development.
| |
| OEPA 2010. PWS Contact Information, Ohio EPA, Division of Drinking and Ground Water, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pws.aspx, accessed February 19, 2010.
| |
| Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report OSUE 2009a. Water Resources of Lucas County, AEX-480.48-97, Ohio State University Extension, http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_48.html, accessed May 26, 2009.
| |
| OSUE 2009b. Water Resources of Ottawa County, AEX-480.62.98, Ohio State University Extension, http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_62.html, accessed May 26, 2009.
| |
| OSUE 2009c. Water Resources of Sandusky County AEX-480.72, Ohio State University Extension, http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_72.html, accessed May 26, 2009.
| |
| OSUE 2009d. Water Resources of Wood County, AEX-480.87, Ohio State University Extension, http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_87.html, accessed May 26, 2009.
| |
| Ottawa 2008. Ohio Department of Development, Ottawa County Profile, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/ottawa.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| Penta 2009. Penta County Joint Vocational School, http://www.citytowninfo.com/school-profiles/penta-county-joint-vocational-school, accessed June 9, 2009.
| |
| PSR 2009. Public School Review, Benton-Carroll-Salem School District, http://www.publicschoolreview.com/agencyschools/leaid/3904892, accessed April 13, 2009.
| |
| Sandusky 2008. Ohio Department of Development, Sandusky County Profile.
| |
| http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/sandusky.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| USFWS 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Profiles, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=31540, accessed April 14, 2009.
| |
| USCB 2009. U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder, Fact Sheet Year 2005-2007 for Ohio, Ottawa County, Lucas County, Wood County, and Sandusky County, http://facffinder.census.gov/, accessed April 10, 2009.
| |
| Wood 2008. Wood County Profile, Ohio Department of Development, http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/FILES/SO/Wood.pdf, accessed March 7, 2009.
| |
| August 2010 Characteristics Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-7 Socioeconomic Page 2.9-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-1: Civilian Labor Force by County, 2003-2007 County 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ottawa Labor Force 21,400 21,600 21,800 21,900 21,800 Employed 19,700 19,900 20,100 20,400 20,300 Unemployed 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,500 1,600 Unemployment Rate () 8.1 8.1 7.6 6.9 7.2 Lucas Labor Force 225,000 224,700 224,000 225,800 225,300 Unemployed 16,800 16,600 15,100 14,100, 15,100 Unemployment Rate ()
| |
| Wood 7.5 7.4 6.8 6.2 f 6.7 Labor Force 66,100 66,800 67,700 68,900 68,600 Employed 62,300 63,00 63,900 65,400 64,900 Unemployed 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,500 3,700 Unemployment Rate () 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.1 5.4 Sandusky ____________ ____________
| |
| Labor Force 33,000 33,400 33,300 33,400 J 33,900 Employed 30,800 31,300 31,200 31,500 J31,800 Unemployed 2,100 2,200 2,000 1,900 J 2,100 Unemployment Rate () 6.5 6.5 6.2 5.7 J 6.1 Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008 Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-2: Employment by Industry, 2006 Average Employment Employment by Industry Ottawa Lucas Wood Sandusky Four-County County County County County Area Private Sector 12,117 196,078 47,846 23,006 279,047 (83.6%) (87.4%) (81.6%) (87.8%) (86.2%)
| |
| Natural 305 481 304 290 1,380 Resources and (2.1%) (0.2%) (0.5%) (1.1%) (0.4%)
| |
| mining 547 10,343 2,998 897 14,785 Construction (3.8%) (4.6%) (5.1%) (3.4%) (4.6%)
| |
| Manufacturing 2434 25,528 13,206 8,859 50,027 Manufacturing (16.8%) (11.4%) (22.5%) (33.8%) (15.5%)
| |
| Trade, 3,441 44,349 12,402 3,902 64,094 Transportation, (23.7%) (19.8%) (21.1%) (14.9%) (19.8%)
| |
| Utilities Information 87 3,125 627 179 4,018 (0.6%) (1.4%) (1.1 %) (0.7%) (1.2%)
| |
| Financial 535 9,509 1,752 912 12,708 Services (3.7%) (4.2%) (3.0%) (3.5%) (3.9%)
| |
| Professional Busiess and 406 28,625 3,414 1,724 34,169 Services (2.8%) (12.8%) (5.8%) (6.6%) (10.6%)
| |
| Educational and 1,468 42,381 5,194 3,188 52,231 Health Services (10.1%) (18.9%) (8.9%) (12.2%) (16.1%)
| |
| Leisure and 2,474 22,996 6,159 2,225 33,854 Hospitality (17.1%) (10.2%) (10.5%) (8.5%) (10.5%)
| |
| 421 8,665 1,764 824. 11,674 (2.9%) (3.9%) (3.0%) (3.1%) (3.6%)
| |
| Unclassified No Data 74 26 7 107
| |
| (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (<0.1%)
| |
| Government 2,376 28,281 10,821 3,374 44,852 Sector (16.4%) (12.6%) (18.4%) (12.8%) (13.8%)
| |
| 176 1,993 243 119 2,531 (1.2%) (0.9%) (0.4%) (0.5%) (0.8%)
| |
| State 204 7,743 3,649 212 11,808 (1.4%) (3.5%) (6.2%) (0.8%) (3.6%)
| |
| Local 1996 18,545 6,929 3,043 30,513 1 (13.8%) (8.3%) (11.8%) (11.5%) (9.4%)
| |
| Source: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008 Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-3: Employment Change by Industry. 2001-2007 Employment by Average Employment Change (%)
| |
| Industry ____
| |
| Ottawa
| |
| __ ___
| |
| County
| |
| ___ ___
| |
| ___ ___
| |
| ___ _
| |
| Lucas County Wood County
| |
| ___ ___ ___ ___
| |
| Cand y County Natural atr Resources Reouce 18.2 -14.1 23.1 -13.4 and mining__________________ _____ ____
| |
| Construction -0.5 -10.9 -9.4 -13.7 Manufacturing -12.7 -19.4 -12.3 -10.8 Trade, Transportation, -5.9 -9.6 9.1 3.1 Utilities Information -27.5 -15.9 -31.3 -34.9 Financial Services 2.5 -1.0 10.7 30.8 Professional and BusiessiSealices -20.7 -1.8 -25.1 Business Services 16.7 Educational and 16.8 12.5 21.2 20.3 Health Services Leisure and -3.4 -2.3 26.8 8.4 Hospitality -3.4_-2.3_26.8_ 8.4 Other services -26.3 0.2 -6.7 -20.5 Federal -5.9 -8.6 2.1 -7.0 State 3.0 -1.4 4.3 7.6 Local 4.7 -3.8 6.6 -6.7 Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008 August 2010 Page 2.9-10 Socioeconomic Characteristics Characteristics Page 2.9-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-4: Income and Poverty Levels, 2007 Income (a) Ottawa Lucas Wood Sandusky State of Ohio
| |
| _County County County County Median 53,186 43,527 51,001 46,366 46,296 Household:
| |
| Median Family: 62,963 55,709 68,387 54,269 57,999 Per Capita: 27,246 23,759 25,878 21,447 24,296
| |
| % Below Poverty(b):
| |
| Families 6.1 12.9 6.3 7.0 9.7 Individuals 8.0 " 16.8 11.6 j 9.7 13.2 Source: USCB 2009 Notes:
| |
| (1) In 2007 inflation-adjusted dollars.
| |
| (2) Poverty level for a family of four people is $21,203; individual is $10,590.
| |
| Table 2.9-5: Housing Characteristics Housing Characteristic Ottawa Lucas Wood Sandusky State of County County County County Ohio Total Units: 26,897 202,655 51,445 26,070 5,038,654 Occupied: 18,125 178,247 48,712 23,915 4,500,621 Owner-occupied 14,001 118,721 34,261 17,819 3,152,182 Renter-occupied 4,124. 59,526 14,451 6,096 1,348,439 Vacant: 8,772 24,408 2,733 2,155 538,033 Total Vacancy Rate: 32.6% 12.0% 5.3% 8.3% 10.7%
| |
| Median House Value: $140,200 $123,300 $149,000 $116,000 $134,400 Source: USCB 2009 Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-6: Residential Construction, 2003-2007 County 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ottawa Total Units 259 255 336 300 276 Total Valuation (000) $21,389 $20,421 $64,256 $62,969 $48,837 Total single-unit bldgs 247 243 328 291 207 Avg cost per unit $84,489 $83,530 $195,866 $214,843 $209,529 Total multi-unit bldgs 12 12 8 9 69 Avg cost per unit $43,333 $10,250 $1,500 $50,000 $79,191 Lucas Total Units 1,681 1,947 1,507 938 1,076 Total Valuation (000) $240,742 $249,089 $236,733 $134,313 $111,087 Total single-unit bldgs 1,499 1,582 1,297 831 511 Avg cost per unit $155,266 148,590 $170,178 $153,623 $175,046 Total multi-unit bldgs 182 365 210 107 565 Avg cost per unit $43,945 $38,412 $76,248 $62,172 $38,298 Wood Total Units 1,095 1,705 1,152 651 521 Total Valuation (000) $108,648 $146,084 $126,344 $68,991 $54,626 Total single-unit bldgs 616 595 609 452 439 Avg cost per unit $134,020 $136,963 $139,909 $127,739 $109,392 Total multi-unit bldgs 479 1,110 543 199 82 Avg cost per unit $54,471 $58,190 $75,764 $56,548 $80,519 Sandusky Total Units 239 198 132 112 60 Total Valuation (000) $23,595 $23,597 $16,858 $14,117 $9,331 Total single-unit bldgs 156 167 128 102 60 Avg cost per unit $119,980 $127,883 $127,177 $128,398 $155,517 Total multi-unit bldgs 83 31 4 10 0 Avg cost per unit $58,768 $72,258 $144,759 $102,000 $0 Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008 Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-7: Education Characteristics Ottawa Sandusky Constituent County Lucas County Wood County County Public Schools: 18 153 50 29 Students 5,683 70,472 18,708 10,404 Expenditures per student $10,498 $10,104 $9,603 $8,575 Student-teacher Ratio 15.9 19.1 16.1 18.2 Graduation rate (%) 95.1 77.8 93.7 88.6 Non-Public Schools 2 42 9 7 Students 171 12,868 1,440 1,095 Colleges (public and private) 0 3 2 1 Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008 Table 2.9-8: Public Facilities Ottawa Sandusky Type County Lucas County Wood County County Public Libraries (Branches) 3 (2) 1 (19) 7 (4) 2 (3)
| |
| Hospitals 1 8 1 2
| |
| - Beds 25 3,119 162 263 Nursing Homes 4 67 18 19
| |
| - Beds 339 6,483 1,586 1,746 Residential Care 4 24 7 16
| |
| - Beds 238 1,821 381 636 TV Stations 0 6 2 0 Radio Stations 0 21 2 1 Daily Newspapers 1 2 2 1
| |
| - Circulation 6,100 147,000 21,500 14,100 Prisons 0 1 0 0 Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008; ODCR 2010 Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-13 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-9: Public Water Systems Public Water Population Treatment County System* Served Water Use (gpd)(gpd)
| |
| Lucas Toledo 380,000 75,838,000 181,000,000 Oregon City 18,334 4,463,000 8,087,000 Ottawa Marblehead Village 1,600 193,000 553,000 Put-in-Bay Village 700 67,000 140,000 Ottawa County 14,500 3,507,000 9,000,000 Regional Carroll 2,000 300,000 1,000,000 Sandusky Clyde 5,900 958,000 2,000,000 Fremont City 20,500 4,917,000 7,500,000 Wood Bowling Green City 30,000 3,389,000 5,400,000 North Baltimore 3,361 550,000 1,600,000
| |
| * Surface water community systems that do not purchase water.
| |
| Sources: OEPA 2010; OSUE 2009a, b, c, d August 2010 Page 2.9-14 Socioeconomic Characteristics Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-14 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-10: Ottawa County Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2006 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
| |
| Road / Location Vehicles Vehicles (2 axles) (>2 axles) Total SR-2, West of Davis-Besse At Lucas County Line 3,900 820 4,720 At SR-579 Intersection 5,190 1,240 6,430 At SR-590 Intersection 5,060 1,150 6,210 At SR-19 Intersection 4,810 1,070 5,880 SR-2, East of Davis-Besse At SR-358 Intersection 5,450 1,220 6,670 At SR-1 63 Intersection 9,480 1,550 11,030 At SR-53 Intersection 11,460 1,820 13,280 South of Davis-Besse SR-19, Salem-Carroll Rd. 2,050 150 2,200 SR-590, Trowbridge Rd. 320 10 330 Source: ODOT 2006 Table 2.9-11: Transportation Data Summary Type Ottawa Lucas Wood Sandusky County County County County Registered Vehicles 59,429 417,347 135,877 72,969 Passenger cars 36,412 3.12,305 87,837 43,420 Noncommercial trucks 10,451 46,578 19,462 13,541 Interstate Highway (mi) 4.57 48.59 54.64 27.34 Turnpike (mi) 4.57 14.56 11.18 27.34 U.S. Highway (mi) 0.00 65.20 61.32 62.68 State Highway (mi) 139.96 115.67 206.86 112.41 County, Local (mi) 549.08 2,068.35 1,610.78 925.58 Commercial Airports 5 1 4 2 Sources: Ottawa 2008, Lucas 2008, Wood 2008, Sandusky 2008 Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-15 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-12: Recreational Facilities Attributes Ottawa County Lucas County Wood County Sandusky County Acreage 5,540 4,359 670 4,018 Facilities 23 13 6 9 State Parks -East Harbor -Mary Jane Thurston
| |
| -Lake Erie Islands
| |
| -Catawba Island
| |
| -Kelleys Island
| |
| -Middle Bass Island
| |
| -Oak Point
| |
| -South Bass Island
| |
| -Marblehead Lighthouse Forests -Maumee Natural Areas -Lakeside Daisy -Audubon Islands -Scenic River: Maumee -Scenic River: Sandusky
| |
| -Lou Campbell Prairie
| |
| -Irwin Prairie
| |
| -Kitty Todd
| |
| -Scenic River: Maumee Wildlife -Green Island -Magee Marsh -Aldrich Pond
| |
| -Honey Point -Mallard Club Marsh -Miller Blue Hole
| |
| -Kuehnle -Metzger Marsh -Pickerel Creek
| |
| -Little Portage -Missionary Island -Resthaven (Erie)
| |
| -Magee Marsh -Willow Point (Erie)
| |
| -Toussaint Creek
| |
| -West Harbor Refuge August 2010 Page 2.9-16 Socioeconomic Characteristics Characteristics Page 2.9-16 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-12: Recreational Facilities (continued)
| |
| Attributes Ottawa County Lucas County Wood County Sandusky County Boating* -Brown's Marina -Cullen Park -Farnsworth Park -Fremont City Ramp
| |
| -Catawba Island Park -Farnsworth Metropark -Perrysburg City Ramp -Tackle Box 2
| |
| -Dempsey Wildlife Area -Lucas County Ramp -Orleans Park -Memory. Marina
| |
| -East Harbor Park -Metzger Marsh State -Otsego Park -Riverfront Marina Camp ground Wildlife Area -Rossford City Ramp -White's Landing
| |
| -East Harbor Park Marina -Walbridge Park
| |
| -Floro's Marina
| |
| -Little Portage Access
| |
| -Mazurik Access
| |
| -Oak Point Park
| |
| -Ottawa County Ramp
| |
| -Portage River Wildlife Area
| |
| -Put-in-Bay Docks
| |
| -South Bass Island
| |
| -Toussaint Creek Wildlife Area
| |
| -Turtle Creek Wildlife Area
| |
| * Lists obtained from referenced sources are not complete listings of boating facilities, ramps or marinas.
| |
| Sources: Ottawa 2008; Lucas 2008; Wood 2008; Sandusky 2008; ODNR 2009 August 2010 Page 2.9-17 Soci oeconomic Characteristics Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-17 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-13: Ottawa-Lucas County Region Park Utilization Facility 2009 Attendance Utiliation(
| |
| State East Harbor State Park 1,310,000 75%
| |
| Marblehead Lighthouse State Park 1,200,000 80%
| |
| Kelleys Island State Park 125,000 80%
| |
| North Bass Island State Park 1,335 80%
| |
| Middle Bass Island State Park 27,000 80%
| |
| South Bass Island State Park 511,000 80%
| |
| Maumee Bay State Park 1,100,000 70%
| |
| Federal Ottawa NWR 176,000 60 Cedar Point NWR 600 5 West Sister Island NWR (2)0 N/A Total 4,450,935 68%
| |
| Notes:
| |
| (1) Percent utilization is seasonal. Estimates are based on summer weekdays when the parks may be near peak attendance.
| |
| (2) Closed to the public.
| |
| Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-18 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-14: Seasonal and Transient Estimated Vehicles within 10 Miles of Davis-Besse Estimated Number of Vehicles Miles Resident Seasonal Transient 0-2 353 0 0 2-5 668 752 3,812 5-10 6,310 387 1,306 Total 7,331 1,139 5,118 August 2010 Socioeconomic Characteristics Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-19 Page 2.9-19 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Socioeconomic Characteristics Page 2.9-20 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.10 METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY 2.10.1 METEOROLOGY Lying in the humid continental zone, Ohio has a generally temperate climate. The Davis-Besse region also has a continental climate, but it is modified by its proximity to the Great Lakes. Summers are warm to hot, with humid weather being common.
| |
| Winter is cold although frequent thaws occur. The Great Lakes have a moderating effect on temperature and extremes are seldom recorded. On average, only 15 days a year reach or exceed 90 degrees. On about eight days a year the temperature drops to zero degrees or lower. (NOAA 2009)
| |
| While the Great Lakes contribute little to the annual precipitation, they do enhance cloudiness during the winter months. Heavy snow storms typically occur once or twice a winter, but light snows are common. Thunderstorms occur regularly from late spring through summer, with much of the summer precipitation coming from thunderstorm rains. Strong thunderstorms occur a few times each year. (NOAA 2009)
| |
| The terrain in the western Lake Erie region is mostly flat and has little influence on the weather. An east wind off Lake Erie will bring significant cooling to the lake shore areas each spring and fog can also occur. The lake breeze brings a comfortable cooling effect to the lake shore during the summer months. A prolonged strong east wind, although rare, can produce lake shore flooding. (NOAA 2009)
| |
| Table 2.10-1 summarizes various climatological data for the western Lake Erie region computed from daily observations gathered at the Toledo Airport (NCDC 2008). The prevailing wind direction during most of the year (10 of the 12 months) is from the west southwest (240-260 degrees). Mean monthly wind speeds range from 7-11 mph, with peak gusts of 50-70 mph expected throughout the year. Monthly temperatures range from a normal daily maximum in January of 31.3°F to a minimum of about 16.4°F. In July, the daily average normal maximum is 83.4 0F and the daily normal minimum is 62.6 0F. Annual precipitation is about 33 inches, with the maximum monthly values occurring from June through September. Snowfall averages about 37 inches per year and can occur throughout the year. Thunderstorms occur nearly 32 days per year, mostly during June, July, and August.
| |
| Locally, meteorological observations at Davis-Besse began in October 1968. Wind speed and direction are collected from various levels at a 100-meter primary tower and a nearby 10-meter backup tower. The 100-meter tower also measures differential temperatures at several levels to determine atmospheric stability. Precipitation is measured at the base of the 10-meter backup tower. (DBNPS 2009, Pages 119-120)
| |
| Meteorology and Air Quality Page 2.10-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report During 2008, winds at Davis-Besse occurred most frequently from south-southwest to west-southwest, accounting for about 40%. Annual wind speeds averaged nearly 9.4 mph, with the maximum speed of almost 45 mph occurring in January. Stability class D (neutral conditions) was the most frequent during the year, occurring 52% of the time.
| |
| Annual precipitation was nearly 28 inches, with the most (5.55 inches) occurring during June. (DBNPS 2009, Tables 31 and 32)
| |
| Meteorological data relevant to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis are provided in Attachment E.
| |
| 2.10.2 AIR QUALITY The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, and particulate matter (PM). The USEPA has designated all areas of the United States as having air quality better ("attainment") or worse ("non-attainment") than the NAAQS.
| |
| Areas that have been redesignated to attainment from nonattainment are called maintenance areas. To be re-designated an area must both meet air quality standards and have a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards and other requirements of the Clean Air Act.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located in the Sandusky Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.203), which includes Ottawa County. Since 1984, the overall air quality in the county has been in attainment (USEPA 2008). Ottawa County, as noted in 40 CFR 81.336, is better than the national air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). The county is considered unclassifiable/attainment for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03, including both the 1- and 8-hour average), and particulate matter less than 2.5 pm (PM2 .5).
| |
| Particulate matter less than 10 pm (PM 10) is considered unclassifiable, while lead (Pb) is not designated.
| |
| There are no mandatory Class I federal areas within the 50-mile radius of Davis-Besse (USEPA 2010). The closest area to Davis-Besse that is designated in 40 CFR 81.400 et seq. as a mandatory Class I federal area, in which visibility is an important value, is the Otter Creek Wilderness Area located in West Virgina, approximately 350 miles southeast of the site (40 CFR 81.435).
| |
| Section 9.1, Table 9.1-1, describes Davis-Besse air emission sources and lists authorizations.
| |
| Meteorology and Air Quality Page 2.10-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.
| |
| | |
| ==10.3 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| DBNPS 2009. 2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, including Radiological Effluent Release Report, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, May 2009.
| |
| NCDC 2007. 2007 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Toledo, Ohio (KTOL), National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, Ashville, NC.
| |
| NCDC 2008. 2008 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Toledo, Ohio (KTOL), National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, Ashville, NC.
| |
| NOAA 2009. NOAA e-mail, J. Kosanik to J, Snooks (AREVA), National Weather Service, March 3, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 2008. Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for all Criteria Pollutants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/,
| |
| accessed February 18, 2010.
| |
| USEPA 2010. List of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/oar/vis/classl.html, accessedFebruary 18, 2010.
| |
| August 2010 Page 2.10-3 Meteorology Air Quality and Air Meteorology and Quality Page 2.10-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.10-1: Summary of Local Climatology Data (Toledo)
| |
| Parameter() I Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun.I Jul IAugI Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Annual Temperature (deg F)
| |
| Daily Maximum Normal(2) 31.4 35.1 46.5 58.9 70.7 79.5 83.4 81.0 74.0 62.1 48.3 36.0 58.9 Daily Minimum, Normal(2) 16.4 18.9 27.9 37.7 48.6 58.2 62.6 60.7 52.9 41.6 32.6 22.3 40.0 Monthly, Normal(2) 23.9 27.0 37.2 48.3 59.6 68.8 73.0 70.8 63.5 51.8 40.5 29.2 49.5 Record High(3) 66 71 81 88 95 104 104 99 98 91 80 70 104 Year 2008 2000 1998 2002 1962 1988 1995 1993 1978 1963 2003 2001 Jul 1995 Record Low(3) -20 -14 -6 8 25 32 40 34 26 15 2 -19 -20 Year 1984 1982 1984 1982 2005 1972 1988 1982 1974 1976 1958 1989 Jan 1984 Precipitation (inches, water equiv)
| |
| Monthly, Normal(2) 1.93 1.88 2.62 3.24 3.14 3.80 2.80 3.19 2.84 2.35 2.78 2.64 33.21 Maximum Monthly(3) 4.61 5.50 5.70 6.10 6.80 8.48 9.19 8.47 8.10 6.26 6.86 6.81 9.19 Year 1965 2008 1985 1977 2000 1981 2006 1965 1972 2001 1982 1967 Jul 2006 Minimum Monthly(3) 0.27 0.27 0.58 0.88 0.96 0.27 0.34 0.40 0.58 0.27 0.55 0.54 0.27 Year 1961 1969 1958 1962 1964 1988 1995 1976 1963 2005 1976 1958 Oct 2005 Maximum in 24 hrs(3) 1.78 2.59 2.60 3.43 2.34 3.21 4.39 2.42 3.97 3.21 3.17 3.53 4.39 7
| |
| Year( ) 1959 1990 1985 1977 1991 1978 1969 1972 1972 1988 1982 1967 Jul1969 Snowfall(4) (inches)
| |
| Monthly, Normal (2) 10.8 8.5 5.6 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.6 8.3 37.4 Maximum Monthly(5) 30.8 23.6 17.7 12.0 1.3 Trace Trace Trace Trace 2.0 17.9 24.2 30.8 Year 1978 2008 1993 1957 1989 1995 1992 1994 1993 1989 1966 1977 Jan 1978 Maximum in 24 Hours(5) 12.0 7.7 9.7 9.8 1.3 Trace Trace Trace Trace 1.8 8.3 13.9 13.9 Year 2005 1981 1993 1957 1989 1995 1992 1994 1993 1989 1966 1974 Dec 1974 Meteorology and Air Quality Page 2.10-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.10-1: Summary of Local Climatology Data (Toledo)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Parameter() I Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May IJun Jul Aug I Sep I-Oct Nov Dec Annual 5
| |
| Wind' )
| |
| Mean Speed (mph)(6) 10.7 10.3 10.6 10.5 9.1 7.8 7.2 6.5 7.0 8.4 9.9 10.0 9.0 Prevailing Direction(7) 25 25 07 07 24 24 24 25 25 24 25 25 25 Maximum 2-minute (mph) 47 46 46 48 46 53 44 43 38 45 51 48 53 Direction (tenths) 26 26 24 25 25 25 36 26 24 24 21 30 25 Year 2008 2001 2002 1997 2000 2007 2008 1998 2001 1996 2005 1998 Jun 2007 Peak Gust (3-second) 56 56 69 61 68 62 54 54 47 59 66 66 69 Direction (tenths) 25 26 23 27 27 26 35 26 23 25 24 25 23 Year 2008 2001 2002 2003 1999 2007 2008 1998 2001 1996 1998 2008 Mar2002 Miscellaneous Pressure (inches)(6) 30.09 30.09 30.05 29.98 29.98 29.97 29.99 30.03 30.06 30.08 30.07 30.10 30.04 Percent Sunshine(8) 41 46 50 52 60 64 65 63 61 54 37 33 52 1 1.1 0.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.4 *2.4 17.4 Fog (days visibility <1/4mi) 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.8 0.8 Thunderstorms (days) 0.1 0.5 1.5 3.2 4.4 6.1 6.1 5.1 2.9 1.1 0.8 0.1 31.9 Notes:
| |
| (1) Source: NCDC 2008 (2) Based on 30-year period of record, 1971-2000 (3) Based on 53-year period of record; dates are the most recent occurrence (4) Includes all forms of frozen precipitation, including hail (5) Based on 47-year period of record; dates are the most recent occurrence (6) Based on 25-year period of record (7) Based on 34-year period of record; direction in tenths of degrees (8) Average from sunrise to sunset, 40-year period of record Meteorology and Air Quality Page 2.10-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Meteorology and Air Quality Page 2.10-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.11 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6, in Section 106, requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection.
| |
| Data relating to historic and archaeological resources was gathered by employing the Ohio Historic Preservation Office's Online Mapping System. A query of a 6-mile radius around the Davis-Besse site was used to identify previously recorded cultural resources that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); that have been determined eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP; and that have not been evaluated for NRHP listing.
| |
| As presented in Table 2.11-1 through Table 2.11-4, the background research identified 378 previously recorded cultural resources within a 6-mile radius of Davis-Besse. This number includes buildings, archaeological sites, cemeteries, churches, and other structures. Resource types range from a historic military base with many contributing structures to archaeological sites and individual architectural resources. Although consultation with the Ohio Historical Society prior to construction did not identify any known deposits of archaeological or geological interest (AEC 1973, Section 2.3), one resource, a historic-period site (Table 2.11-3, OT0025), appears to be located at the extreme southeastern corner of the Davis-Besse property. However, the area is overgrown with brush and there does not appear to be visible remnants of the site.
| |
| Of the 378 previously recorded cultural resources, only one was listed in the NRHP.
| |
| This includes Carroll Township Hall located about 3.2 miles to the southwest of Davis-Besse at the intersection of Toussaint E..Road and Behlman Road.
| |
| The majority of structures within the 6-mile radius are related to the Camp Perry Military Reservation, located 4.5 miles to the southeast of Davis-Besse, on the shore of Lake Erie, just north of the Portage River. Camp Perry includes housing, firing ranges, railroad tracks, and other structures related to the operations of the facility.
| |
| 2.11 .1 REFERENCES AEC 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1973.
| |
| Historic and Archaeological Resources .Page 2.11-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| * Table 2.11-1: National Register Listed Properties Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 1)
| |
| ID No. ..Name Criteria Function 90000385 Carroll Township Hall Event, Architecture/Engineering Social, Government Table 2.11-2: Cemeteries Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 5)
| |
| ID No. Name County 9173 Locust Point Ottawa 9174 Rusha Ottawa 9175 Saint Joseph, Saint Josephs Toussaint Ottawa 9195 Lacarp, Lacarpe Ottawa 9208 County Home Ottawa Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| Site Name Quadrangle Precontact / Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Site No. Status Historic Ward's Canale / Crane's Creek Oak Harbor Precontact Village T0004 Lacane Cemetery Site and Village Lacarne Precontact Cemetery / Village -- Not Assessed Precontact and Cemetery / Village LW, H Not Assessed OT0006 Arthur Libben Site Lacarne Historic OT0007 Montogomery Burial Site Lacarne Precontact Cemetery LW Not Assessed OT0025 Refuge Site Lacarne Historic Historic Building H Not Assessed OT0055 Riverview Site Lacarne Precontact Camp LW Not Assessed OT0072 Church'of God Isolated Lacare Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type I UP, H Not Assessed Find Historic Residential (1930-present)
| |
| OT0073 Horvath Site 1 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type LW Not Assessed OT0074 Gradel Site 1 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0075 Rockwell Historic Site Lacarne Historic Residential H (18th-19th C.) Not Assessed OT0076 Lipstraw Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed 0T0077 Van Rensselaer Lacarne Precontact Historic and Unknown UnrecordedPrecontact SiteType Historic Site Type! UP, H (1850-1899) Not Assessed OT0078 F. Miller Historic Scatter Lacarne Historic Residential H ( 19th- 20 th C) Not Assessed 0T0079 Miller Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Historic and Unknown ResidentialPrecontact Site Type! UP, H (1850-1929) Not Assessed Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Site No. Site Name Quadrangle Precontact / Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Historic Status OT0080 Jacobs Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0081 Dick Isolated Find A Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0082 Dick Isolated Find B Lacarne Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / UP, H (1880-1899, Not Assessed Historic Residential 20" C.) NotAssessed Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / UP, H (1850-1899, OT0083 Arvilla Winter Lacarne Historic Residential 20th C.) Not Assessed OT0084 Thorban Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0085 Rice Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type LW Not Assessed OT0086 Titus Road Lacarne Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / LW, H (19t-20th Not Assessed Historic Residential C.)
| |
| OT0087 Floro Marina Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type LA, LW Not Assessed 0T0088 Blausey Site Lacarne Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / (19 -20h LW, HC.) Eligible Historic Residential Eligible 0T0089 Finken River Edge Lacarne Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / LW, H (19th -20th Not Assessed Historic Unknown Historic Site Type C.)
| |
| OT0090 Finken Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type EA Not Assessed Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / LW, H (19th-201h OT0091 Moskal Site Lacarne Historic Government C.) Eligible OT0092 Moskal Site 1 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0093 Moskal Site 2 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental. Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Site No. Site Name Quadrangle Precontact Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Historic Status OT0094 Moskal Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0095 Laubacher Isolated Find B Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0096 Apling Site 1 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0097 Apling Site 2 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0098 Apling Site Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0099 Hemminger Site Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0100 Mosquito Site Oak Harbor Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type LW, PH, H (20" C.) Not Assessed Historic Residential OT0101 Kontz Isolated Find Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0102 Kontx &Mowl Historic Site Oak Harbor Historic Residential H ( 2 0 th C.) Not Assessed OT0103 Elmer Kholman Historic Oak Harbor Historic Residential H ( 19 th C.) Not Assessed Site OT01 11 5-Oaks Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT01 12 Tyma Historic Scatter Lacarne Historic Unknown Historic Site Type UP Not Assessed OT01 13 Tyma Isolated Find A2 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT01 14 Priesman Isolated Find Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT01 15 Dead Egret Site A Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-5 ,August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Site No. Site Name Quadrangle Precontact / Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Historic Status OT01 16 Dead Egret Site B Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT01 19 Laubacher Isolated Find A Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0122 Rusha Creek 1 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0123 Rusha Creek 2 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0140 Toussaint Burials Lacarne Precontact Cemetery UP Not Assessed Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type LW, H (19th-20th C. Eligible OT0141 Finken Site Lacarne Historic Residential OT0155 Dornbusch Isolated Find Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OTO0156 Fehr Isolated Find Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0160 Hetrick Isolated Find C Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0161 Hetrick Isolated Find B Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0162 Hetrick Isolated Find A Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0197 Roland Lewitz Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type EA Not Assessed OT0198 Lewitz Isolated Find C Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0199 Lewitz Isolated Find E Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0200 Lewitz Isolated Find F Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Site No. Site Name Quadrangle Precontact Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Historic Status OT0201 Lewitz Isolated Find G Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0202 Dick Site Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type EA Not Assessed OT0203 Dick Isolated Find C Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0204 Dick Isolated Find M Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0207 Floro A Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0218 Snyder-Nov 01 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0228 Oak Harbor Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0229 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0230 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed Precontact and Unknown Precontact Site Type / UP, H (19t'-20" C.) Not Assessed OT0231 Lacarne Historic Residential 0T0232 Lacare Precontact Historic and Unknown ResidentialPrecontact Site.Type / UP, H (19t'-20" C.) Not Assessed OT0233 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0234 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0235 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0236 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type LW Not Assessed Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Site No. Site Name Quadrangle Precontact / Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Historic Status OT0237 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type LW Not Assessed OT0238 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0239 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type LA Not Assessed OT0240 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0241 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type UP Not Assessed OT0242 Lacarne Historic Residential, Subsistence H (19 th-20th C.) Not Assessed OT0243 Lacarne Historic Unknown Historic Site Type H ( 1 9th-20th C.) Not Assessed OT0245 Lacarne Precontact Unknown Precontact Site Type EA, MA Not Assessed OT0294 Silo Lacarne Historic Residential, Subsistence H ( 1 9th- 2 0 th C.) Not Assessed OT0295 Lacarne Historic Subsistence H Not Assessed OT0296 Lacarne Historic Transportation H Not Assessed OT0297 Lacarne Historic Residential H (I9th C.) Not Assessed OT0300 Lacarne Precontact Unrecorded Precontact Site Type MW Not Assessed OT0302 Lacarne Historic Military H (1880-2000) Not Assessed OT0303 CP1 Lacarne Historic Military H (1930-1949) Not Assessed Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-3: Archaeological Sites Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 88)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| Site No. Site Name Quadrangle Precontact Site Type Components* NR Eligibility Historic Status
| |
| * Refers to the time period each site represents:
| |
| 19th C. = Nineteenth Century EA = Early Archaic (8000 to 6000 BC)
| |
| EW = Early Woodland (1000 to 1 BC)
| |
| H = Historic LA = Late Archaic (3000 to 1000 BC)
| |
| LW = Late Woodland (500 to 1000 AD)
| |
| MA = Middle Archaic (6000 to 3000 BC)
| |
| MW = Middle Woodland (1 to 500 AD)
| |
| PH = Protohistoric UP = Unknown Prehistoric Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-9 August 20 10
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-4: Structures Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 284)
| |
| NR ID No. Name Address Date Use Eligibility Ownership Agency Status
| |
| .OTT0058003 Albert Apling House 8592 Duff-Washa Rd 1900 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0063104 Richard Arnold House 5756 W Lakeshore Rd 1905 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0063204 James Deluca House 5510 W Lakeshore Rd 1914 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0063308 Dorothy Minier House 6862 W Harbor Rd 1900 Single Dwelling, Not Eligible Private OTT0063403 Ruth Dick Property 8645 Toussaint E Rd 1842 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0063503 Edward Moskal House 4864 W Lakeshore Rd 1919 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0063603 Latter Day Saints Church Toussaint S Rd 1870 Church/Religious Structure Not Eligible Private Kenneth Priesman Etal Not Eligible Private OTT0063703 Property Duff-Washa Rd 1870 Church/Religious Structure Toussaint Founders Club Entertainment/
| |
| OTT0063803 Toussaint E Rd 1875 Recreation/Cultural Not Eligible Private Hall Activities OTT0063904 Erie Twp Hall State Rte 163 and 1885 One Room Schoolhouse Not Eligible Public Erie Township Trustees Ontario Rd OTT0064004 Erie Twp Garage W Harbor Rd School Eligible Public Erie Township Trustees OTT0064104 Richard Tettau Property Tettau Rd 1912 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0064203 Carroll Twp Hall 9977 Toussaint E Rd 1874 Village/Twp/City Hall Not Eligible Public Carroll Townsh Trustees Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11 -10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-4: Structures Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 284)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| NR ID No. Name Address Date Use Eligibility Ownership Agency Status OTT0064403 Gerald Humphrey 12233 Zenzer Rd 1910 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private Property OTT0064503 Kenneth Gyde Property 11055 Duff-Washa Rd 1880 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0067008 Lorna Ballin House 7154 W Harbor Rd 1890 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0067303 Gary Apling Property 3770 Toussaint S Rd 1860 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private Btwn Lake Erie & SR OTT0068804 Erie Industrial Park 2 1920 Arms Storage Unknown Unknown Not OTT0069703 R &D Dwight House 3985 N SR 2 1900 Single Dwelling Assessed Private OTT0069803 John & Ruth Dick Farm 4090 SR 2 1900 Single Dwelling NotsPrivat Not Assessed OTT0069903 Arville Winter Farm 4216 N SR 2 ,1890 Single Dwelling Assessed Private Not OTT0070003 A Winter Farm 4216 N.SR 2 1890 Barn Assessed Private Not OTT0070103 Leona Fizer House 4445 N SR 2 1900 Single Dwelling Assessed Private Private SR 2 of Lemon Rd &
| |
| OTT0070203 Jeffrey King House SEC 1937 Single Dwelling Not Eligible SR 2 S of Toussaint Not OTT0070303 Blausey Property River 1850 Single Dwelling Assessed Private 1875 Single Dwelling Not OTT0070403 Farm van Rensselaer Phillip SRof2Rusha Creek on S Assessed Private Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11 -11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-4: Structures Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 284)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| NR ID No. Name Address Date Use Eligibility Ownership Agency Status Not OTT0070504 A Jacobs House 3225 N Lakeshore Rd 1920 Single Dwelling Assessed Private OTT0071708 Janet Welch Farm 8043 SR 163 1825 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private bTT0071808 SL Schau House 8213 SR 163 1865 Single Dwelling Not Eligible Private OTT0071904- Camp Perry Ariel Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0090604 Bldg 2811 Department OTT0090704 Camp Perry Cartwright Trail 1933 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's Bldg 5040 Department Camp Perry CR 171 1938 Post/Military Base Eligible Public AdjutantGeneral's Pump Station 4058 Department OTT0090904- Camp Perry Davis Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0091304 Bldg 2008 Department OTT0091404 Camp Perry MiFlgoeNara1876 Lawrence Rd opposite Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's Department Main Flagpole Niagara Depatmen OTT0091504- Camp Perry Lawrence Rd 1948 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0092004 Bldg 800 Department OTT0092104- Camp Perry N of Lawrence Rd 1910 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0092204 Range 5036 Department OTT0092304- Camp Perry Adjutant General's OTT0092604 Rodriguez Firing Range Lawrence Rd 1910 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Department OTT0092704 Camp Perry Near Niagara Rd 1906 Post/Military Base Not Eligible Public Adjutant General's Railroad Tracks Department OTT0092804 Camp Perry E of Niagara Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Not Public Adjutant General's Bldg 8E Assessed Department Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.11-4: Structures Within 6 miles of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (n = 284)
| |
| (continued)
| |
| NR ID No. Name Address Date Use Eligibility Ownership Agency Status OTT0092904- Camp Perry Niagara Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0093804 Bldg 3082Q Department OTT0093904 Camp Perry Niagara Rd opposite 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT__93904 Bldg No 2100 A Davis Rd Department Camp Perry Niagara Rd opposite 1945 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's Bldg No 2101 Q Davis Rd Department OTT0094104- Camp Perry Niagara Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0094504 Bldg No 1841 Q Department OTT0094604 Camp Perry Niagara Rd at Davis 1916 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's Bldg 2506 Rd Department OTT0094704- Camp Perry Niagara Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0095104 Bldg 2505 Department OTT0095204- Camp Perry Adjutant General's OTT0096204 Bldg No 3203 Scorpion Rd 1942 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Department OTT0096304- Camp Perry Trippe Rd 1943 Post/Military Base Eligible Public Adjutant General's OTT0097004 Bldg No 2024 Department OTT0097103 Priesmans Farm Market SR 2 &Humprey Rd 1900 Grange Hall Not Eligible Private OTT0101804 / Btwn Lake Erie & SR Some OTT0069404 Camp Perry 2 1937 Post/Military Base Structures Public Ohio National Guard are Eligible OTT0103004 Hess Property &Silo W Fritche Rd & 1920 Silo Not Eligible Private N Tettau Rd August 2010 Page 2.11-13 Archaeological Resources Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-13 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 2.11-14 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 2.12 KNOWN AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS IN SITE VICINITY This section describes the activities and projects, both Federal and non-Federal, in the local and regional area of the site that may potentially contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of Davis-Besse extended plant operation for an additional 20 years.
| |
| As shown in Figure 2.1-2, there are no urban areas within the 6-mile radius of Davis-Besse. The only Federal project is the Camp Perry Military Reservation, located 4.5 miles southeast of the site (FENOC 2010, Section 2.2.2.2). Camp Perry is an Ohio National Guard facility used for small arms firing. The limited firing of anti-aircraft ordnance was suspended in 1988 (FENOC 2010, Section 2.2.2.4). Immediately adjacent to and west of Camp Perry is the Lake Erie Industrial Park.
| |
| North of the Toussaint River is the former Locust Point Firing Range, which occupied approximately 70 acres of property currently owned by The Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison (both subsidiaries of FE). This area occupied a portion of the property currently within the eastern limits of the Davis-Besse site. The balance of the former Locust Point property extends to the northeast along the western edge of the Davis-Besse intake canal, and spans the beachfront between the canal and the Toussaint River. This property served as an anti-aircraft artillery range in support of the Erie Army Depot from 1953 to 1963. In 1996 and 2001, Davis-Besse personnel found ordnance rounds along the beach area near the mouth of the Toussaint River. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) was notified, who responded and disposed of the devices.
| |
| In 2010, the USACE initiated a preliminary assessment of the former Locust Point property. The focus of the assessment is to determine whether releases or potential releases of contaminants related to operation, occurred while the property was under the USDOD jurisdiction. The USACE completed a site inspection in April 2010. No physical evidence of contamination or ordnance was observed during the inspection.
| |
| Final reporting of the findings is anticipated in October 2010.
| |
| Beyond the 6-mile radius, Table 2.12-1 lists the number of local facilities within the Oak Harbor area that have the potential to contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts. These listed facilities produce and release air pollutants, have reported toxic releases, are hazardous waste sites that are or have the potential to be part of Superfund, or have permits to discharge to Lake Erie and surrounding rivers and other waters (USEPA 2009). Table 2.12-1 also lists these type facilities regionally in the four-county area of Ottawa, Lucas, Wood, and Sandusky.
| |
| Known and Reasonably Foreseeable Page 2.12-1 August 2010 Projects in Site Vicinity
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The nearest existing electric generating plant to Davis-Besse is the Bay Shore Plant.
| |
| Three coal-fired units, one petroleum coke-fired unit, and one oil-fired unit produce 648 megawatts of electricity (FECorp 2009). The plant site is situated on Maumee Bay in Oregon, Ohio, which is about 16 miles northwest of Davis-Besse.
| |
| New major utility facilities must obtain a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need prior to construction from the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB). A major utility facility is a generating plant of 50 megawatts-(MW) or more; an electric transmission line of 125 kilovolts (kV) or more; or a gas or natural gas transmission line capable of transporting gas at more than 125 pounds per square inch of pressure.
| |
| (OPSB 2007, Page 16)
| |
| As of 2007, the OPSB approved two generation plant applications within the Davis-Besse four-county area. One plant is operational, the other is under construction.
| |
| The Troy Energy Facility achieved commercial operation in 2002. It is a 600 MW gas turbine peaking plant located at the Lemoyne Industrial Park, Troy Township, Wood County (OPSB 2003, Page 17), approximately 20 miles southwest of Davis-Besse. The Fremont Energy Center is projected for commercial operation in 2011 (EEPI 2009). It is a 540 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle electric generating plant, with a peaking capacity of 704 MW (OPSB 2007, Page 22). The facility is located in Sandusky Township, Sandusky County, approximately 15 miles south of Davis-Besse.
| |
| 2.
| |
| | |
| ==12.1 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| EEPI 2009. Electric Energy Publictions, Inc, Electric Energy Online.com, http://www.electricenergyonline.com/?page=shownews&id=l 18772, accessed July 8, 2010.
| |
| FECorp 2009. FirstEnergy Corp., Bay Shore Plant Fact Sheet, http://www.firstenergycorp.com/environmental/files/Fact-Sheets/BayShore-Plant-FS-
| |
| %2808-2007%29.pdf, accessed 4/3/2009.
| |
| FENOC 2010. Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No. 1, Docket No: 50-346, License No: NPF-3, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), Revision 27, June 2010.
| |
| Known and Reasonably Foreseeable Page 2.12-2 August 2010 Projects in Site Vicinity
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report OPSB 2003. Ohio Power Siting Board, 2003 Annual Report, http:/lwww.puco.ohio.gov/emplibrary/files/media/OPSB/2003OPSBAR.pdf, accessed April 3, 2009.
| |
| OPSB 2007. Ohio Power Siting Board, 2007 Annual Report, http:/lwww.puco.ohio.gov/emplibrary/files/media/OPSBI2007OPSBAR.pdf, accessed April 3, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Envirofacts Warehouse, http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/efhome3.html?p~zipcode=wood%2C+oh&ptype=county, accessed March 26, 2009.
| |
| Known and Reasonably Foreseeable Page 2.12-3 August 2010 Projects in Site Vicinity
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.12-1: Potential Cumulative Environmental Impacts Facilities Potential Impacts Area (Number of Facilities)
| |
| Air01 ) Toxics (2) Waste(3) Water(4)
| |
| Oak Harbor 2 0 1 10 Ottawa County(5) 27(6) 7 1 57(6)
| |
| Lucas County 204 110 29 56 Wood County 88 50 0 63 Sandusky County 34 23 5 26 Source: USEPA 2009 Notes:
| |
| (1) Facilities that produce and release air pollutants.
| |
| (2) Facilities that reported toxic releases.
| |
| (3) Potential hazardous waste sites that are part of Superfund that exist.
| |
| .(4) Facilities issued a permit to discharge to waters of the U.S. (which includes Lake Erie and surrounding rivers and other waters in the four county area).
| |
| (5) Oak Harbor facilities are also included as part of Ottawa County.
| |
| (6) Number of facilities includes Davis-Besse.
| |
| Known and Reasonably Foreseeable Page 2.12-4 August 2010 Projects in Site Vicinity
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| "The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the applicant's plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures....
| |
| This report must describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the environment...."
| |
| FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) requests that the NRC renew the Davis-Besse operating license for an additional 20 years beyond the current operating license term, which is the maximum allowable under the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 54.31. Renewal would give the State of Ohio, FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiary companies, and other participants in the wholesale power market the option to rely on Davis-Besse to meet future electric power needs through the period of extended operation.
| |
| The Chapter 3 sections below describe the Davis-Besse facilities and activities relevant to the assessments presented in Chapter 4. Section 3.1 discusses the plant in general.
| |
| Sections 3.2 through 3.4 address the activities necessary to support the renewed operating license.
| |
| 3.1 GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION Davis-Besse is a nuclear-powered steam electric generating facility. The nuclear reactor is a Babcock and Wilcox-designed pressurized water reactor (PWR) producing a licensed reactor core power of 2,817 megawatts-thermal, and an electric rating of 908 megawatts-electric gross. Figure 3.1-1 depicts the site layout.
| |
| General information about the design and operational features of the Davis-Besse site from an environmental impact standpoint is available from a number of documents.
| |
| Among the most comprehensive sources are the Final Environmental Statement (FES) prepared by the NRC and the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). In 1975, the NRC issued the FES that addressed operation of Davis-Besse (NRC 1975). FENOC routinely updates the USAR (FENOC 2010) for Davis-Besse to reflect current plant design and operating features. FENOC relied on these documents, operating manuals, design-basis documents, technical documentation related to power uprate of the unit, and other relevant sources of information as a basis for descriptions of Davis-Besse presented in the remainder of Section 3.1.
| |
| August 2010 Action Page 3.1-1 Proposed Proposed Action Page 3.1 -1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.1.1 MAJOR FACILITIES The station site is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie and consists of 954 acres. Approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S.
| |
| Government as a national wildlife refuge. The topography of the site and vicinity is flat with marsh areas bordering the lake and the upland area rising to only 10 to 15 feet above the lake low water datum level in the general surrounding area. The site itself varies in elevation from marsh bottom, below lake level, to approximately six feet above lake level. (FENOC 2010, Section 2.1.2)
| |
| The major station structures are located approximately in the center of the site area, 3,000 feet from the shoreline. The Containment Building is located 2,400 feet from the nearest site boundary, which is to the north. (FENOC 2010, Section 2.1.2) The site, site arrangement, and location of the 17 major station structures are shown on Figure 3.1-1. The site boundary, as shown on Figure 2.1-3, is the limit of the exclusion area (FENOC 2010, Section 2.1.2.1). Ownership of the site area, within the site boundary, resides with FENGenCo (Section 1.3).
| |
| 3.1.2 NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY, CONTAINMENT, AND POWER CONVERSION SYSTEMS The Reactor Coolant System (RCS) consists of the reactor vessel, two vertical once-through steam generators, four shaft-sealed coolant circulating pumps, an electrically heated pressurizer, and interconnecting piping. The system is arranged as two heat transport loops, each with two circulating pumps and one steam generator (FENOC 2010, Section 1.2.2.1.1).
| |
| The RCS is designed to contain and circulate reactor coolant at pressures and flows necessary to transfer the heat generated in the reactor core to the secondary fluid in the steam generators. In addition to serving as a heat transport medium, the coolant also serves as a neutron moderator and reflector, and as a solvent for the soluble boron utilized in chemical shim reactivity control.
| |
| The steam and power conversion system provides steam for driving the main turbine and the main feed pump turbines. Steam is also used for the auxiliary feed pump turbines, gland sealing, condenser inventory heating, steam jet air ejector, turbine reheater steam heating, building heating (steam supplied unit heaters), station heating heat exchangers and outdoor tank heating.
| |
| The complete core has 177 fuel assemblies arranged in a square lattice to approximate a cylinder. All fuel assemblies are identical in mechanical construction and mechanically interchangeable in any core location. Each fuel assembly will accept any General Plant Information Page 3.1-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report control assembly. The fuel is sintered, cylindrical pellets of low-enriched uranium dioxide. The pellets are clad in Zircaloy-4 or M5 tubing and sealed by Zircaloy-4 or M5 end caps, welded at each end. The cladding, fuel pellets, end caps, and fuel support components form a fuel rod. (FENOC 2010, Section 4.2.1.3)
| |
| Refueling of the reactor core takes place approximately every 24 months. At this time, as dictated by the fuel management program, spent and partially spent fuel assemblies are replaced with new fuel assemblies. (FENOC 2010, Section 9.1.4.2.1) Fuel assemblies containing up to 5.00 wt% uranium-235 may be stored in the new fuel storage area. New fuel assemblies are transferred from the new fuel storage area into the spent fuel pool area. They are then transferred into the containment vessel by the fuel transfer carriages operating through the fuel transfer tubes. Transfer of new fuel and removal of spent fuel occurs after the reactor is shut down and the refueling canal is filled with borated water. (FENOC 2010, Section 1.2.7.2)
| |
| The Shield Building is a reinforced concrete structure of right cylinder configuration with a shallow dome roof. The Shield Building has a height of 279.5 feet measured from the top of the foundation ring to the top of the dome. The thicknesses of the wall and the dome are approximately 2.5 feet and 2 feet, respectively. (FENOC 2010, Section 3.8.2.2.1) The structure is designed to withstand an internal pressure of 40 pounds per square inch gage (psig) and sufficient to withstand design-basis accidents (FENOC 2010, Section 3.8.2.1.4.e).
| |
| Davis-Besse was initially licensed to operate at a maximum steady-state core power level of 2,772 megawatts-thermal (MWt). However, the Operating License and Technical Specifications were subsequently amended in 2008 to allow an increase in the Rated Thermal Power of 1.63%, to 2,817 MWt (NRC 2008). The description of plant facilities and operations and associated impact evaluations in this ER, therefore, assume operation at 2,817 MWt, which is equivalent to an electric capacity of 908 MWe (FENOC 2009).
| |
| 3.1.3 COOLING AND AUXILIARY WATER SYSTEMS 3.1.3.1 Service Water-and Make-up Water Treatment Systems The Service Water System (SWS) is designed to serve two functions during station operation. The first function is to supply cooling water to the component cooling heat exchangers, the containment air coolers, and the cooling water heat exchangers in the turbine building during normal operation. The second function is to provide, through automatic valve sequencing, a redundant supply path to the engineered safety features components during an emergency. Only one path, with one service water pump, is General Plant Information Page 3.1-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report necessary to provide adequate cooling during this mode of operation. (FENOC 2010, Section 9.2.1.1)
| |
| Three service water pumps are part of the SWS. They are installed in the intake structure and use Lake Erie as a source of water. Two pumps are used in normal operation. Motor-operated strainers at the pump outlets filter any material that may plug heat exchanger tubes and the orifices of the auxiliary feedwater pump bearing oil cooler, turbine bearing cooler, and governor oil cooler. (FENOC 2010, Section 9.2.1.2)
| |
| The Make-up Water Treatment System is designed to supply high quality water in sufficient quantity for primary and secondary plant makeup. Under normal operation, Lake Erie water, which may be treated with sodium hypochlorite and a molluscicide (i.e.,
| |
| sodium bromide) at the Intake Structure, is delivered to one of two chlorine detention tanks. Sodium hypochlorite may also be injected into the tanks, but not sodium bromide, which cannot be delivered to the tanks. From the chlorine detention tank the water is sent to a vendor supplied processing system. The vendor's system provides all necessary equipment and components to produce demineralized water for makeup to the demineralized water storage tank. The demineralized water in the storage tank, in turn, is transferred to various points throughout the station, such as the condenser hotwell, condensate storage tanks, and for miscellaneous flushing operations.
| |
| (FENOC 2010, Section 9.2.3.2) 3.1.3.2 Circulating Water and Cooling Tower Systems The Circulating Water System (CWS) is a closed cycle system consisting of the condenser, cooling tower, circulating water pumps, makeup pumps, and water chlorination system and chemical feed system. The CWS is designed to remove 6.69 x 109 Btu/hr from the power cycle. The condenser is designed to operate efficiently with circulating water over the range of 50'F to 100°F. (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.1)
| |
| Four equal capacity, motor driven, horizontal split-case circulating water pumps take suction from the common discharge channel from the cooling tower basin and supply cooling water to the two halves of the low pressure shell of the dual pressure condenser. Each half is supplied by two pumps. The circulating water leaves the condenser at the two high pressure shell outlet waterboxes in two independent steel pipes and returns to the cooling tower. A provision is made for cross-connecting the inlet low pressure shell waterboxes to equalize flow through each tube bundle and allow for less than four pump operation. (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.2.1)
| |
| A natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower rejects the heat from the circulating water.
| |
| Circulating water loss from the cooling tower occurs by evaporation and blowdown. A makeup water system replaces these losses. (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.2.1) The General Plant Information Page 3.1-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
| |
| * License Renewal Application Environmental Report tower is 493 feet high, constructed of non-combustible material, and its base is located about 700 feet from the closest structure, the Emergency Diesel Generator fuel oil storage tanks (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.3). See Figure 3.1-1, No. 15.
| |
| Blowdown from the cooling tower is accomplished downstream of the circulating water pumps and is controlled to maintain a dissolved solids concentration ratio. Slime and algae control is achieved by a chlorination system, which includes the addition of a sodium bromide solution to the sodium hypochlorite to enhance the biocidal effectiveness of the water treatment without increasing the level of chlorine. Should the sodium bromide portion of the system not be available, sodium hypochlorite solution may be used alone. (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.2.1)
| |
| The primary source of makeup water is the SWS, which is connected to the circulating water pump suction lines. Also, two vertical turbine pumps, located on the intake structure, can supply lake water as an alternate source of makeup water. Blowdown is not accomplished from a circulating water line when the same line is supplied with makeup. (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.2.1)
| |
| Chlorination of the CWS is done on a periodic basis to prevent algae growth within the system. Sodium hypochlorite and a sodium bromide solution are mixed to enhance the biocide effectiveness of the water treatment without increasing the level of chlorine and together are injected into those circulating pump suctions whose discharges are not providing blowdown water. Should the sodium bromide portion of the system not be available, sodium hypochlorite may be used alone. In this way, blowdown water contains essentially no free chlorine residual and the chloride content is unchanged. A chemical feed system is used to reduce scaling tendencies of the circulating water and disperse silt. Treatment increases the sulfate content of the water to more than 80 ppm.
| |
| Since the system water, in passing through the cooling tower, is in intimate contact with air to accomplish the cooling, the outlet water contains an oxygen content that is essentially at the saturation level corresponding to the cold water outlet temperature.
| |
| The oxygen content for the highest tower outlet temperature will be 7 ppm.
| |
| (FENOC 2010, Section 10.4.5.2.2) 3.1.3.3 Domestic Water System The source of water for the Domestic Water System is the off-site Carroll Township Water System. Water for the township system is taken from Lake Erie west of the Davis-Besse site, filtered and treated to meet the requirements of the OEPA. The township system pressure is maintained by the use of an elevated 500,000-gallon storage tank with a maximum water level of 742.5 feet International Great Lakes Datum, which provides sufficient pressure to supply all station needs. (FENOC 2010, Section 9.2.4.2)
| |
| General Plant Information Page 3.1-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.1.4 POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS During the original construction of Davis-Besse, three new high-voltage transmission lines were constructed to connect Davis-Besse to the nearby Toledo Edison (a-FirstEnergy transmission company) transmission 345 kV substations at Bay Shore, Lemoyne, and Ohio Edison - Beaver substation (AEC 1973, Section 3.7). See Figure 3.1-2. Office building support equipment at Davis-Besse receives some power from local distribution systems, but there are no transmission connections other than the three 345 kV connections described above (FENOC 2010, Section 8.1.1).
| |
| The Bay Shore line is about 21 miles long, extending from the Davis-Besse switchyard west and then northwest to Toledo Edison's Bay Shore substation. The right-of-way is 150 feet, except where it parallels the existing Bay Shore to Ottawa 138-kV line. In this region, the right-of-way is 145 feet, contiguous to the existing 100 feet for the 138 kV line. The Lemoyne line also is about 21 miles long, extending from the Davis-Besse switchyard west and then southwest to Toledo Edison's Lemoyne substation, with a 150-foot right-of-way. The Beaver line is about 59 miles long, extending from the Davis-Besse switchyard south and then southeast to Ohio Edison's Beaver substation.
| |
| The portion of the Beaver line for Davis-Besse only extends about 15 miles from the station south and then southeast to a tie point on the boundary between Toledo Edison and Ohio Edison. The remaining 44 miles was constructed under a separate project.
| |
| (AEC 1973, Section 3.7)
| |
| Approximately 1,800 acres, primarily flat agricultural land, were required for the rights of way (AEC 1973, Section 3.7). FirstEnergy conducts routine vegetation maintenance of its rural transmission line corridors approximately every five years. Trees and shrubs that do not interfere with transmission facilities are not disturbed, and portions of corridors that are not cultivated or devoted to other intensive uses are managed to promote a diversity of shrubs, grasses, and other groundcover that provides wildlife food and cover. Maintenance includes removal or pruning of woody vegetation as necessary to ensure adequate line clearance (no less than 30 feet from the conductor for transmission lines operated above 138 kV) and to allow vehicular access for maintenance. (FE 2007)
| |
| Toledo Edison uses transmission voltages other than 345 kV. The most important voltage is 138 kV (nominal). There are several interconnections to other utilities at 345 kV and 138 kV. Utilities connected to the Toledo Edison grid include Detroit Edison, American Electric Power, and Ohio Edison. Each of the 345 kV substations connected to Davis-Besse is associated with at least one inter-utility connection.
| |
| (FENOC 2010, Section 8.1.1)
| |
| The transmission lines related to Davis-Besse are also shown in Figure 2.1-1 Figure 2.1-2, and Figure 2.1-3.
| |
| General Plant Information Page 3.1-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.1.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 3.1.5.1 Non-Radioactive Waste System Non-radioactive waste is produced from plant maintenance, cleaning, and operational processes. The majority of the wastes generated consists of non-hazardous waste oil and oily debris and result from operation and maintenance of oil-filled equipment.
| |
| Universal wastes, such as spent lamps and batteries, common to any industrial facility, comprise a majority of the remaining waste volumes generated. Hazardous wastes routinely make up a small percentage of the total wastes generated and include and consist of spent and off-specification (e.g., shelf-life expired) chemicals, laboratory chemical wastes, and occasional project-specific wastes.
| |
| Non-radioactive chemicals, paint, oil, lamps, and other items that have either been used or exceeded their useful shelf life are collected in designated collection areas and managed in accordance with federal (40 CFR) and state (Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-50) rules via Davis-Besse and FENOC procedures. The materials are received in various forms and are packaged to meet regulatory requirements prior to final disposition at an offsite facility licensed to receive and manage the material.
| |
| Typical waste streams include waste oil, oily debris, glycol, lighting ballasts containing PCBs (not typical), lamps, batteries, and hazardous wastes. The FENOC Chemical Control Program establishes the standard method for the control of chemicals and promotes waste minimization.
| |
| Davis-Besse is a Small Quantity Generator registered with the OEPA. However, during refueling outage years, hazardous waste generation may exceed 2,200 pounds in a month, requiring Davis-Besse to file a report with the OEPA for a temporary Large Quantity Generator status in accordance with the OAC, Rule 3745-52-41 (FENOC 2008).
| |
| 3.1.5.2 Liquid Radioactive Waste Systems The Liquid Radioactive Waste System is designed so that effluents released by the system, when mixed with the cooling tower blowdown, meet the requirements in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50 (FENOC 2010, Section 11.2.1).
| |
| Before processed water is released to the environment it is mixed in a collection box with the discharge from the SWS, the dilution pump, a cooling tower make up pump, or the cooling tower blowdown. Processed liquid waste enters Lake Erie. The Off-site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) provides the day-to-day methods for determining release rates, cumulative releases and for calculating the corresponding dose rates and cumulative quarterly and yearly doses.
| |
| August 20!O Plant Information Page 3.1-7 General Plant Information Page 3.1-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The design is based on receiving, segregating, and batch-storing two categories of solutions:
| |
| Clean Liquid Radwaste System - The major source of waste for this system is reactor coolant letdown resulting from boron dilution operations or from coolant expansion during reactor startups. Other sources include leakage, drainage, and relief flows from valves and equipment containing reactor-grade liquid. (FENOC 2010, Section 11.2.2.2.1)
| |
| Miscellaneous Liquid Radwaste System - The major sources of this class of wastes are further categorized as non-detergent wastes such as miscellaneous system leakage, drainage from area washdown, sampling and laboratory operations, condensate polishing demineralizer backwash (if there is a significant primary-secondary leak), and detergent wastes. Detergent waste comes from the hot showers (used to decontaminate personnel) and drains in the laboratory. (FENOC 2010, Section 11.2.2.2.2)
| |
| The system can accommodate the full range of volumes and activities delivered to it.
| |
| Suitability for discharge is determined not only by comparison of waste samples with applicable limits, but also by the opportunity afforded the station to further reduce activity with existing equipment.
| |
| 3.1.5.3 Gaseous Radioactive Waste System The gaseous radioactive waste disposal system is designed to process effluents to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and 40 CFR Part 40 (FENOC 2010, Section 11.3.1). The system provides selective holdup such that the short-lived isotopes have decayed prior to release. It also provides a 30-day holdup of these gases when refueling cold shutdown degassing is required. The ODCM provides the day-to-day methods for determining release rates, cumulative releases and for calculating the corresponding dose rates and cumulative quarterly and yearly doses (FENOC 2010, Section 11.3.2).
| |
| When a decay tank is full (i.e., contains gas at 150 psig) or when the operator decides, it is valved out-of-service and another put in its place. A sample is then taken from the isolated tank and analyzed. If it shows a sufficiently low activity level, the stored gas can be released in a controlled manner through waste gas charcoal and high efficiency particulate air filters to the station vent. If the analysis indicates significant radioactivity, the gases are allowed to decay until future sampling shows that they are suitable for release to the environment. Using two of the decay tanks, gases can be held for at least 60 days with release spread out over the next 30 days. (FENOC 2010, Section 11.3.3)
| |
| General Plant Information Page 3.1-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Gaseous wastes that contain little or no radioactivity or may contain oxygen are handled separately. These gases are collected, passed through a charcoal filter, and then released through the station vent. (FENOC 2010, Section 11.3.3) 3.1.6 TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS Radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped from Davis-Besse in containers that meet the requirements established in 49 CFR Parts 171-180 for the Department of Transportation and 10 CFR Part 71 for the NRC. The radiation levels of the waste containers are monitored so that provisions can be made to ensure that radiation levels established by shipping regulations are not exceeded. Radioactive waste is transported to a commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility located near Clive, Utah.
| |
| Low activity waste may be transported to a vendor for volume reduction prior to disposal. The Davis-Besse Process Control Program and FENOC procedures related to shipment of radioactive material ensure compliance with the requirements governing packaging, transportation, and disposal of solid radioactive wastes, including spent resin liquor that is picked up and transported directly by a vendor for processing and disposal.
| |
| 3.1.7 MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REFUELING ACTIVITIES Maintenance and inspection activities are performed to ensure that plant equipment is functioning properly to support plant operations. Routine maintenance and inspection activities are performed during normal operation of the plant; other maintenance and inspection activities are performed during scheduled refueling outages. Maintenance, inspection and refueling activities are conducted in accordance with various plant programs implemented to comply with industry codes and standards, including the following:
| |
| * 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance;
| |
| * 10 CFR 50.55a, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code;
| |
| * 10 CFR 50.65, The Maintenance Rule.
| |
| In addition, periodic maintenance and inspection procedures have been initiated in response to NRC generic communications. Periodic maintenance, inspection, testing, and monitoring are also performed to meet Technical Specification surveillance requirements and for managing the effects of aging on systems, structures and components.
| |
| General Plant Information Page 3.1-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 3.1-1: General Plant Layout 0 50 86 IS 5 7, fl AppntS.IP ties LEGEND:
| |
| : 1. SWITCH YARD 12. WATER TREATMENT I INTAKESTRUCTURE Z RELAY HOUSE 13. FIREWATER STORAGE TANK
| |
| : 3. PRIMARY ACCESS FACILITY 14. DIESEL FUEL TANK
| |
| : 4. LOW LEVEL RAD WASTE STORAGE FACILITY 16. COOUPNG TOWER
| |
| $_AUXIUARY BUILDING 10.-IMTEOROLOGICALTOWER
| |
| : 1. TURBINE BUILDING 19.69KV SUBSTATION B.CONTAINMENT 20. DRY FUEL STORAGE FACILITY
| |
| : 9. STATION BLACKOUT DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING 21. WET WASH FACILITY 11; CIRC WATER PUMP HOUSE August 2010 Information Page 3.1-10 General Plant General Plant Information Page 3.1 -10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Figure 3.1-2: High-Voltage Transmission Lines Constructed to Connect Davis-Besse to Power Grid
| |
| -345 W~ Transmission Line County Boundary General Plant Information Page 3.1-11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| General Plant Information Page 3.1-12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.2 REFURBISHMENT ACTIVITIES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2); 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
| |
| "The report must contain a description of ... the applicant's plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in accordance with
| |
| § 54.21. This report must describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the environment...."
| |
| "The environmental report must contain analyses of ... refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal...."
| |
| FENOC has addressed refurbishment activities in accordance with NRC regulations and complementary information in the NRC GElS for license renewal (NRC 1996). In particular, NRC requirements for the renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants include the preparation of an Integrated Plant Assessment (IPA) in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21. The IPA must identify and list systems, structures, and components subject to an aging management review. Items that are subject to aging and might require refurbishment include, for example, the reactor vessel piping, supports, and pump casings, as well as items that are not subject to periodic replacement.
| |
| In addition, the GElS (NRC 1996, Section 2.6) provides information on the scope and preparation of refurbishment activities to be evaluated in this environmental report. It describes major refurbishment activities that utilities might perform for license renewal that would necessitate changing administrative control procedures and modifying the facility. The GElS analysis assumes that an applicant would begin any major refurbishment work shortly after NRC grants a renewed license and would complete the activities during five outages, including one major outage at the end of the 40th year of operation. The GElS refers to this as the refurbishment period.
| |
| NRC regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require environmental reports to describe in detail and assess the environmental impacts of refurbishment activities such as planned modifications to systems, structures, and components or plant effluents [10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)]. NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 do not define "refurbishment," but the GElS provides some examples of refurbishment activities and explains that these are actions that typically take place only once in the life of a nuclear plant, if at all (NRC 1996, Section 2.6.2.6). Relevant examples of possible refurbishment activities include replacing the turbine and turbine pedestal, steam generator, or reactor coolant system piping when these activities are carried out to ensure safe or more economic operations during the period of extended operations. The GElS assumes, however, that refurbishment activities would take place during a "refurbishment period"; i.e., within the 10 years prior to current license Refurbishment Activities Page 3.2-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report expiration, over the course of numerous outages, and culminating in a major outage immediately prior to the extended (license renewal) term.
| |
| FENOC plans to replace the reactor vessel head in 2011 (see NRC 2010) and the two original steam generators in 2014. FENOC has determined that the most cost-effective method for long-term management of the reactor vessel head, steam generators, and other large irradiated plant equipment, is to store them on-site in a dedicated storage facility, and then disposition them along with the remaining plant equipment when Davis-Besse is decommissioned. Therefore, a new permanent Storage Facility is planned to be constructed in 2011, which will provide approximately 12,000 square feet of space to house indefinitely the current (Midland) reactor vessel head, and later house the original steam generators and the Reactor Coolant System hot legs (see below). A permanent multi-story office building also is planned to be constructed in 2011 adjacent to the Auxiliary Building to house personnel that will support the replacement activities for the reactor vessel head and steam generators.
| |
| The replacement of the reactor vessel head and the construction of the two new permanent structures to support the head replacement project are being performed for and under the current facility operating license. Therefore, the associated environmental impacts are enveloped by the Final Environmental Statement for the current Davis-Besse operating license (NRC 1975).
| |
| In 2014, FENOC plans to replace the two original Davis-Besse once-through steam generators with new once-through steam generators, and plans to replace the Reactor Coolant System hot leg piping in conjunction with the replacement of the steam generators. Replacement activities are expected to last approximately 70 days and are currently planned to be conducted during a slightly-extended Cycle 18 refueling outage in the spring of 2014. FENOC considers the replacement activities associated with the steam generators and the hot leg piping to be license renewal refurbishment activities.
| |
| Therefore, the associated environmental impacts are assessed in this ER.
| |
| Each of the once-through steam generators is a vertically-mounted, straight-tube and shell counter-flow heat exchanger that converts heat from the reactor coolant system into steam to drive the turbine generators and produce electricity. The existing steam generators are each approximately 75 feet long, have a diameter of approximately 15 feet, and weigh approximately 590 tons. The replacement steam generators will be dimensionally equivalent to the original steam generators, but weigh only approximately 465 tons each.
| |
| The approximately 15,500 straight tubes in the original steam generators are 56 feet long and are made of Alloy 600 (inconel) material. This alloy degrades over time as a result of a variety of corrosion and mechanical factors. Alloy 600 degradation affects both of the steam generators at Davis-Besse. Accordingly, FENOC has determined that Refurbishment Activities Page 3.2-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report they should be replaced with steam generators that use Alloy 690 tubing material to minimize tube degradation due to Alloy 690's improved resistance to stress corrosion cracking.
| |
| The replacement steam generators are being manufactured in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada by Babcock and Wilcox Canada, Ltd., and will be transported to Davis-Besse.
| |
| The steam generators are planned to ship separately, and transport is expected to involve the following methods of transportation and routes:
| |
| * Rail transport from Cambridge, Ontario, to the Port of Toronto;
| |
| " Barge transport across Lake Ontario, through the Welland Canal, and across Lake Erie to the Port of Toledo; and,
| |
| * Rail transport from the Port of Toledo to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Babcock and Wilcox Canada, Ltd., is responsible for the transportation and delivery of the steam generators to Davis-Besse, and would ensure that all federal, state, and local requirements are met for associated transportation activities. Physical modifications to the rail lines may be necessary to transport the replacement steam generators.
| |
| After the replacement steam generators arrive at Davis-Besse, FENOC plans to transport the steam generators on a heavy-duty self-propelled modular transporter, and move them to a temporary New Steam Generator Storage Facility (described below) to be constructed at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Site planning, construction of temporary facilities, modification of existing buildings, and other preparation activities are planned to occur at Davis-Besse prior to removal of the original steam generators from the Containment Vessel.
| |
| Temporary facilities consisting of approximately 80,000 square feet are planned for additional offices, fabrication and assembly activities, mock-up activities, weld testing, decontamination, warehouse areas, and lay down areas. These temporary facilities consisting of tents and portable trailers would use portions of existing Davis-Besse structures and facilities (e.g., permanent parking lot, dry cask storage pad), would require construction of a concrete pad that may remain following the steam generator replacement project, or would consist of temporary structures that would be completely removed following completion of the project. All temporary facilities and any permanent concrete pads that remain following the replacement project are planned to be located within the developed industrial areas of the site on previously-disturbed land.
| |
| FENOC estimates that the total area disturbed by permanent and temporary construction, decontamination, and laydown activities would be less than 10 acres, all of Refurbishment Activities Page 3.2-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report which would be on previously-disturbed property within the bounds of the Davis-Besse owner-controlled area. A load-haul path consisting of fill and gravel would likely be constructed for transporting the original steam generators to the permanent Storage Facility. A minimal amount of fill soil may be temporarily required in certain locations along the on-site haul route to ensure the stability of the roads and transporter. The small amount of disturbed area and implementation of best management practices in accordance with FENOC and site procedures (e.g., watering) would minimize the amount of fugitive dust generated by refurbishment activities.
| |
| To perform the steam generator replacement, FENOC plans for a temporary construction opening approximately 24 feet wide by 39 feet high to be created in the Shield Building and free-standing Containment Vessel. The Shield Building is composed of reinforced concrete walls approximately two and one-half feet thick, and the free standing Containment Vessel is approximately 1.5 inches thick steel. The process of creating the opening would include activities such as removing concrete, cutting rebar, and cutting and removing a section of the steel Containment Vessel. A hydro-demolition (high pressure water) process or other mechanical methods are being considered to remove the Shield Building concrete, and mechanical methods are being considered to cut the Containment Vessel opening. After installation of the new steam generators, the openings would be sealed and the Containment Vessel and Shield Building returned to their original configurations and integrity.
| |
| The two original steam generators would be drained and cut-away from existing piping and supports. Steel covers would be seal-welded to the nozzles of main coolant, steam, and feedwater piping openings of the original steam generators to preclude the release of contamination and seal-off internal sections during removal, transport and storage. Loose contamination would be removed from the exterior of each original steam generator and a coating would be applied to affix any remaining contamination.
| |
| The steam generators would then be rigged-out of Containment through the temporary openings.
| |
| After removal from Containment, the original steam generators would be transported on a self-propelled modular transporter to the permanent Storage Facility. The replacement steam generators would be removed from temporary storage and moved by the self-propelled modular transporter to the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Containment, and rigged into place. Installation would include construction of supports, connection of piping, and testing of system integrity.
| |
| Construction activities would likely result in noise levels (primarily from hydro-demolition, if used, or other mechanical means of concrete removal) greater than those associated with normal Davis-Besse operation. Noise from construction activities, however, would be intermittent and temporary in nature, and would decrease as the distance from the source increases.
| |
| Refurbishment Activities Page 3.2-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The peak period of activity would likely occur when the actual removal and replacement of the steam generators take place. FENOC anticipates that approximately 900 additional workers would be on-site to support the replacement of the steam generators.
| |
| Approximately 1,300 additional temporary workers would be on-site supporting the refueling outage as well, for a peak total of approximately 2,200 additional workers.
| |
| FENOC anticipates that on-site storage of diesel fuel and various lubricating oils may be required during the 70-day steam generator replacement project. FENOC site and company environmental protection procedures (e.g., the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan) will be used to control the storage of fuel and oils. Non-hazardous waste generated during the steam generator replacement project and hydro-demolition concrete and demolition debris will be disposed of in accordance with FENOC and site procedures. Water used in the hydro-demolition process, and other temporary discharges will be addressed in accordance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
| |
| In advance of the steam generator replacement project, FENOC plans to resolve relevant environmental permit requirements (e.g., Ohio Final General Permit for Storm Water Discharge) to ensure compliance. No significant impacts to bodies of water, ecological resources, cultural resources or land use are anticipated in association with the steam generator replacement project because activities are planned to be undertaken on previously-disturbed parcels of land, and fugitive dust generation and water run-off will be managed in accordance with FENOC and site procedures and best-management practices. In addition, many of the facilities and activities will be short-term and temporary in nature.
| |
| August 2010 Page 3.2-5 Refurbishment Activities Refurbishment Activities Page 3.2-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Refurbishment Activities Page 3.2-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.3 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF AGING Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| "The report must contain a description of ... the applicant's plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures.. .This report must describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the environment...."
| |
| The IPA required by 10 CFR 54.21 identifies the programs and inspections determined to be necessary for managing aging at Davis-Besse during the additional 20 years beyond the initial license term. Appendix B of the Davis-Besse license renewal application contains descriptions of the programs and activities credited for managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Appendix B also identifies programs and activities that are new and describes proposed revisions (enhancements) to the existing programs and activities.
| |
| In addition to implementation of the specific programs and inspections identified in the IPA, some enhancements to Davis-Besse administrative control procedures may be required in association with license renewal. The additional programs and inspection activities, and the potential enhancements to administrative control procedures, are consistent with normal plant component inspections and, for that reason, are not expected to cause significant environmental impact.
| |
| Programs and Activities for Managing Page 3.3-1 August 2010 the Effects of Aging
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License. Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Programs and Activities for Managing Page 3.3-2 August 2010 the Effects of Aging
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 3.4 EMPLOYMENT 3.4.1 CURRENT WORKFORCE The non-outage work force at Davis-Besse, as of January 2009, consists of approximately 825 FENOC employees and approximately 60 contractor employees. As shown in Table 3.4-1, approximately 88% of employees reside in the four contiguous counties of Ottawa (37.2%), Lucas (19.8%), Wood (15.5%), and Sandusky (15%).
| |
| The Davis-Besse reactor is on a 24-month refueling cycle (Section 3.1.2). During refueling outages, which average about 48 days, site employment is supplemented with the addition of an average 1,300 temporary workers. Should turbine generator work occur during an outage, FENOC estimates that site employment would be supplemented with the addition of an average 1,500 temporary workers. FENOC expects the number of workers required on site for normal plant outages during the period of extended operation to be consistent with the number of additional workers used for past outages at Davis-Besse.
| |
| 3.4.2 LICENSE RENEWAL INCREMENT.
| |
| The GElS estimated that an additional 60 employees per unit would be necessary for operation during the period of extended operation to perform the license renewal surveillance, on-line monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping activities (NRC 1996, Table 2.8). FENOC, however, believes that it will be able to manage the necessary programs with existing staff.
| |
| Most of the new activities, for example, are one-time inspections that will be performed prior to entering the extended license period. Many other activities will be performed during outages, when supplemental technical staff is available. The few new ongoing programs that will continue into the extended license period are not expected to require plant resources beyond the current staffing. Therefore, FENOC has no plans to add non-outage employees to support plant operations during the extended license period.
| |
| As a result, there is no anticipated effect to indirect employment or population associated with the extended license period.
| |
| Employment Page 3.4-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 3.4-1: Estimated Distribution of Davis-Besse Employee Residences, January 2009 State County Percent of SWorkforce*
| |
| Ohio Ashland 0.12 Clark 0.12 Clyde 0.12 Crawford 0.24 Cuyahoga 0.12 Erie 5.58 Fulton 0.36 Hancock 0.24 Huron 1.09 Lake 0.12 Locus 0.12 Lorain 0.24 Lucas 19.76 Morrow 0.12 Ottawa 37.21 Portage 0.12 Putnam 0.12 Richland 0.12 Sandusky 15.03 Seneca 1.45 Summit 0.12 Wood 15.52 Michigan Monroe 1.70 Van Buren 0.12 Pennsylvania Beaver 0.12
| |
| *Includes approximately 825 FENOC employees.
| |
| August 2010 Page 3.4-2 Employment Page 3.4-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==3.5 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| AEC 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1973.
| |
| FE 2007. FirstEnergy Vegetation Management Specifications, FirstEnergy Forestry Services, Revision 2007.
| |
| FENOC 2008. Submittal of 2007 Annual Hazardous Waste Report Forms Site ID, 01 and GM, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), L-08-086, February 27, 2008.
| |
| FENOC 2009. FENOC Letter L-09-175, NRC Quarterly Performance Indicators Including Monthly Operating Report Data (P-50), July 10, 2009.
| |
| FENOC 2010. Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No. 1 Docket No: 50-346 License No: NPF-3, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), Revision 27, June 2010.
| |
| NRC 1975. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, NUREG 75/097, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975.
| |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| NRC 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NUREG-1437, August 1999.
| |
| NRC 2008. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 - Issuance of Amendment Re: Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate (TAC NO. MD8326) U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ML081410652, June 30, 2008.
| |
| NRC 2010. NRC Letter, M.A. Satorius to B. Allen (FENOC), CAL No. 3-10-001, Confirmatory Action Letter - Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, June 23, 2010.
| |
| .References Page 3.5-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 3.5-2 References References Page 3.5-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION AND MITIGATING ACTIONS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| "The environmental report must include an analysis that considers...the environmental effects of the proposed action...and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects." 10 CFR 51.45(c) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| The environmental report shall discuss the "...impact of the proposed action on the environment. Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance...." 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| "The information submitted.. .should not be confined to information supporting the proposed action but should also include adverse information."
| |
| 10 CFR 51.45(e) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| Chapter 4 assesses the environmental consequences associated with the renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license. The assessment is based on the 92 environmental issues that the NRC has identified, analyzed, and considered to be associated with nuclear power plant license renewal. The NRC has designated the issues as Category 1, Category 2, or NA (not applicable).
| |
| Category 1 issues met the following criteria:
| |
| * the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic;
| |
| * a single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts that would occur at any plant, regardless of which plant is being evaluated (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal); and
| |
| " mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
| |
| NRC rules do not require analyses of Category 1 issues that the NRC resolved using generic findings (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-I) as described in the GElS (NRC 1996). An applicant may reference the generic findings or GElS analyses for Category 1 issues.
| |
| Environmental Consequences of Page 4.0-1 August 2010 Proposed Action And Mitigating Actions
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report If the NRC analysis concluded that one or more of the Category 1 criteria could not be met, NRC designated the issue as Category 2. NRC requires plant-specific analyses for Category 2 issues.
| |
| Finally, NRC designated two issues as NA (not applicable), signifying that the categorization and impact definitions do not apply to these issues.
| |
| Attachment A of this report lists the 92 issues and identifies the environmental report section that addresses each issue applicable to Davis-Besse. For organization and clarity, FENOC has assigned a number to each issue and uses the issue numbers throughout the environmental report.
| |
| Category 1 License Renewal Issues FENOC has determined that, of the 69 Category 1 issues, eight are not applicable to Davis-Besse because they apply to design or operational features that do not exist at the facility. With respect to the remaining 61 Category 1 issues, including seven issues applicable to refurbishment, FENOC has not identified any new and significant information that would invalidate the NRC findings (at 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-i). Therefore, FENOC adopts by reference the NRC findings for these Category 1 issues.
| |
| Cate-gory 2 License Renewal Issues NRC designated 21 issues as Category 2. Sections 4.1 through 4.20 address these Category 2 issues, beginning with a statement of the issue. Nine Category 2 issues apply to operational features that Davis-Besse does not have. In addition, four Category 2 issues apply to refurbishment activities. If the issue does not apply to Davis-Besse, the section explains the basis for inapplicability.
| |
| For the 12 Category 2 issues that FENOC has determined to be applicable to Davis-Besse, the appropriate sections contain the required analyses. These analyses include conclusions regarding the significance of the impacts relative to the renewal of the operating license for Davis-Besse and, if applicable, discuss potential mitigative alternatives to the extent required. FENOC has identified the significance of the impacts associated with each issue as either SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, consistent with the criteria that NRC established in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-i, Footnote 3 as follows:
| |
| SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those Environmental Consequences of Page 4.0-2 August 2010 Proposed Action And Mitigating Actions
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered small.
| |
| MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
| |
| In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) practice, FENOC considered ongoing and potential additional, mitigation in proportion to the significance of the impact to be addressed (i.e., impacts that are small receive less mitigative consideration than impacts that are large).
| |
| "NA" License Renewal Issues NRC determined that its categorization and impact-finding definitions did not apply to two issues (Issues 60 and 92). FENOC has, however, included these issues in Attachment A.
| |
| NRC noted that applicants do not need to submit information on chronic effects from electromagnetic fields (10 CFR Part 51, Table B-i, Note 5). For the environmental justice issue, NRC does not require information from applicants, but notes that it will be addressed in individual license renewal reviews (10 CFR Part 51, Table B-i, Note 6).
| |
| FENOC has included environmental justice information in Sections 2.6.2 and 4.21 and both issues are listed in Attachment A, Table A-I.
| |
| Environmental Consequences of Page 4.0-3 August 2010 Proposed Action And Mitigating Actions
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Environmental Consequences of Page 4.0-4 August 2010 Proposed Action And Mitigating Actions
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.1 WATER USE CONFLICTS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and withdraws make-up water from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010 m 3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow of the river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological communities must be provided. The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 13]
| |
| The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 13. The issue, however, is dependent on river size and the corresponding annual river flow rate.
| |
| As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system.
| |
| Although the system uses a natural draft cooling tower, it withdraws make-up water from Lake Erie instead of a small river. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Water Use Conflicts Page 4.1-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.1-2 Use Conflicts Water Use Conflicts Page 4.1-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.2 ENTRAINMENT OF FISH AND SHELLFISH IN EARLY LIFE STAGES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinations...or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from... entrainment." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 25]
| |
| NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources from entrainment a Category 2 issue because it could not assign a single significance level (small, moderate, or large) to the issue. The impacts of entrainment are small at many facilities, but may be moderate or large at others. In addition, ongoing restoration efforts may increase the number of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period (NRC 1996, Section 4.2.2.1.2). Information needing to be ascertained includes (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or cooling pond), and (2) status of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) determination or equivalent state documentation.
| |
| The issue of entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages, however, applies to plants with once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that uses a natural draft cooling tower. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Page 4.2-1 August 2010 Early Life Stages
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Page 4.2-2 August 2010 Early Life Stages
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.3 IMPINGEMENT OF FISH AND SHELLFISH Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinations.. .or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. Ifthe applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from.. .impingement...." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 26]
| |
| NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources from impingement a Category 2 issue, because it could not assign a single significance level to the issue. Impingement impacts are small at many facilities, but might be moderate or large at other plants (NRC 1996, Section 4.2.2.1.3). Information that needs to be ascertained includes (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or cooling pond), and (2) current CWA 316(b) determination or equivalent state documentation.
| |
| The issue of impingement of fish and shellfish, however, applies to plants with once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 26). As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that uses a natural draft cooling tower. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Impingement of Fish and Shellfish Page 4.3-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Impingement of Fish and Shellfish Page 4.3-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.4 HEAT SHOCK Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act... 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock . [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 27]
| |
| NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock a Category 2 issue, because of continuing concerns about thermal discharge effects and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in the future in response to changing environmental conditions (NRC 1996, Section 4.2.2.1.4). Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 27.
| |
| The issue of heat shock, however, applies to plants with once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that uses a natural draft cooling tower. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Heat Shock Page 4.4-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Heat Shock Page 4.4-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.5 GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant...pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater use must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 33]
| |
| NRC made this groundwater use conflict a Category 2 issue because overuse of an aquifer could exceed the natural recharge. Locally, a withdrawal rate of more than 100 gpm could create a cone of depression that could extend offsite. This could inhibit the withdrawal capacity of nearby offsite users.
| |
| The issue of groundwater use conflicts, however, applies to plants that use more than an annual average of 100 gpm of groundwater. As discussed in Section 2.3, Davis-Besse does not use groundwater at the site for plant operations. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| August 2010 Use Conflicts Page 4.5-1 Groundwater Use Conflicts Page 4.5-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Groundwater Use Conflicts Page 4.5-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.6 GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS USING COOLING TOWERS WITHDRAWING MAKEUP WATER FROM A SMALL RIVER)
| |
| Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and withdraws make-up water from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x 1010 m 3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow of the river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological communities must be provided. The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 34]
| |
| The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling towers. Impacts may result, for example, from surface water withdrawals from small water bodies during low flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, Issue 34. The issue, however, is dependent on river size and the corresponding annual river flow rate.
| |
| As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system.
| |
| Although the system uses a natural draft cooling tower, it withdraws make-up water from Lake Erie instead of a small river. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants Page 4.6-1 August 2010 Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Makeup Water from a Small River)
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants Page 4.6-2 August 2010 Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Makeup Water from a Small River)
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.7 GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS USING RANNEY WELLS)
| |
| Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant uses Ranney wells.. .an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater use must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 35]
| |
| The issue applies to plants using Ranney wells for cooling tower make up water.
| |
| Ranney wells can result in potential groundwater depression beyond the site boundary.
| |
| Impacts of large groundwater withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of application for license renewal. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 35.
| |
| As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that uses a natural draft cooling tower. Davis-Besse does not use Ranney wells. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants Page 4.7-1 August 2010 Using Ranney Wells)
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants Page 4.7-2 August 2010 Using Ranney Wells)
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.8 DEGRADATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant is located at an inland site and utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 39]
| |
| The issue applies to plants at inland sites with cooling ponds. Evaporation from closed-cycle cooling ponds concentrates dissolved solids in the water and settles suspended solids. In turn, seepage into the water table aquifer could degrade groundwater quality. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 30.
| |
| As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that does not use cooling ponds, but instead uses a natural draft cooling tower that withdraws make-up water from Lake Erie. As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Page 4.8-1 August 2010 Degradation of Groundwater Degradation of Quality Groundwater Quality Page 4.8-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Degradation of Groundwater Quality Page 4.8-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.9 IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT ON TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E)
| |
| "All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment and other license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal habitats." [10 CFR Part 51 ,Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 40]
| |
| The impacts of refurbishment on terrestrial resources and the significance of the ecological impacts cannot be determined without considering site-specific and project-specific refurbishment details (NRC 1996, Section 3.6). Aspects of the site and the project to be ascertained are the identification of important ecological resources, the nature of refurbishment activities, and the extent of impacts to plant and animal habitat.
| |
| Activities associated with refurbishment at Davis-Besse are described in Section 3.2.
| |
| Based on the Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit 1 steam generator replacement experience in 2006, a Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project would have little potential for disturbing or otherwise impacting local flora and fauna. The total area disturbed would be less than 10 acres. The two new permanent structures should already have been constructed on previously-disturbed land in 2011 to allow them to be used in support of the reactor vessel head replacement project, expected to occur in 2011. Temporary facilities, including laydown areas and concrete pad construction, will be located within the developed industrial areas of the site. Additionally, the proposed transportation route is by rail along an existing right-of-way. Therefore, no natural habitat would be lost or altered due to the planned steam generator replacement project.
| |
| The only project effects are expected to be noise and construction activity-related impacts on existing wildlife populations, such as the bald eagles on site, possibly disrupting existing behaviors and distribution during the short period of on-site activity.
| |
| However, the use of mitigation measures for bird species (see Section 4.10.1), fugitive dust, or sediment transport as directed by FENOC and site procedures during construction activities associated with the temporary facilities for the Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project will reduce impacts to the terrestrial environment. Based on these elements, FENOC concludes that refurbishment project impacts on terrestrial resources would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted.
| |
| Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Page 4.9-1 August 2010 Resources
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Page 4.9-2 August 2010 Resources
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.10 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E)
| |
| "All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment and other license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 49]
| |
| The NRC has found that plant refurbishment and continued operation, in general, are not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation with appropriate agencies is needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be-adversely affected. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 49.
| |
| In addition, a site-specific assessment is required to determine whether any identified species could be affected by refurbishment activities or continued plant operations through the renewal period. Information pertinent to this assessment includes:
| |
| (a) actual or potential occurrence of threatened or endangered species on or in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse site and associated transmission lines that are in the scope of Davis-Besse license renewal, (b) impact initiators presented by continued operation of Davis-Besse and those transmission lines that could affect threatened or endangered species that do or may occur, (c) controls established for impact initiators, and (d) industry and plant experience related to potential impacts.
| |
| Section 2.2 of this ER describes the aquatic environment of Lake Erie near Davis-Besse. Section 2.4 describes the terrestrial environment of the Davis-Besse site and Section 2.5 discusses threatened or endangered species that occur in the vicinity of the site and associated transmission lines.
| |
| 4.10.1 REFURBISHMENT Section 3.2 describes Davis-Besse refurbishment activities and Section 2.5 addresses endangered, threatened or otherwise sensitive species potentially located at the Davis-Besse site. Based on this information and consultation with regulatory agencies, the only species that may be impacted by a planned steam generator replacement at Davis-Besse would be nesting and young bald eagles (see Section 4.10.2). FENOC plans to follow the requirements provided by the USFWS and ODNR regarding construction activities within the specified distance to nesting and young bald eagles.
| |
| August 2010 Endangered Species or Endangered Page 4.10-1 Threatened or Threatened Species Page 4.10-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report No impacts are anticipated for the Indiana bats, as described in the ODNR letter (ODNR 2009b) (see Section 4.10.2), because no tree removal is proposed in the areas where permanent and temporary facilities will be located.
| |
| All planned construction-related activities are on previously-developed or altered industrial lands on site. Additionally, the proposed transportation route is by rail along an existing right-of-way. As a result, FENOC concludes that refurbishment project-related impacts to threatened or endangered species would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted.
| |
| 4.10.2 LICENSE RENEWAL TERM Current Davis-Besse operations and the associated transmission lines do not adversely affect any special-status species or important habitats. As noted in Section 3.1.4, there are approximately 1,800 acres for the rights-of-way along the transmission lines, which are primarily located over existing farmland. FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) conducts routine vegetation maintenance of these rural transmission corridors approximately every five years. Trees and shrubs that do not interfere with transmission facilities are not disturbed, and portions of corridors that are not cultivated or devoted to other intensive uses are managed to promote a diversity of shrubs, grasses, and other groundcover that provides wildlife food and cover. Plant operations and transmission line maintenance activities are not expected to change significantly during the license renewal term.
| |
| FENOC has written to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which includes the Ohio Natural Heritage Program, requesting information on any listed species or critical habitats that might occur in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse site and along transmission line corridors, with particular emphasis on species that might be adversely affected by continued operation over the license renewal period. Agency responses are provided in Attachment C.
| |
| USFWS determined that the Davis-Besse license renewal project will not impact federally listed species and will have minimal environmental impacts, as no change in operation or extent of the facility is proposed. However, the USFWS noted that a bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus)nest exists on the Davis-Besse property. Although the bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species in July 2007 due to recovery, this species continues to be afforded protection by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To avoid disturbing nesting and young eagles, USFWS requested that no activity occur within 660 feet of the nest between January 1 and July 31, when the nesting eagles are most Threatened or Endangered Species Page 4.10-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report vulnerable. FENOC plans to incorporate the USFWS requirement into station procedures. (USFWS 2009)
| |
| NMFS stated that no threatened or endangered species listed by NMFS are known to occur in Lake Erie and that no Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as designated under the Magnuson-Steven Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, occurs in the vicinity of Davis-Besse. As a result, NMFS noted that no further coordination with NMFS on the effects of Davis-Besse license renewal is necessary. (NMFS 2010)
| |
| ODNR reported that the project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state and federally endangered species, and listed a number of high value trees that protect its habitat. ODNR requires that if such trees occur within the project area, these trees must be conserved. In addition, if suitable habitat occurs on the project area and trees must be cut, cutting must occur between September 30 and April 1. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months of April 2 to September 29, a net survey must be conducted in May or June prior to cutting. If no tree removal is proposed, the project is not likely to impact this species. FENOC plans to incorporate the ODNR requirement into station procedures. (ODNR 2009a)
| |
| ODNR also reported that the project is within the range of the following state, federal, or both endangered or threatened species:*
| |
| * Piping plover (Charadriusmelodus), a state and federally endangered bird species
| |
| " Eastern massasauga (Sistruruscatenatus), a state endangered and a federal candidate snake species
| |
| * Bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus), a state threatened species
| |
| * Eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta), a state endangered mussel
| |
| * Spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), a state endangered fish
| |
| * Blacknose shiner (Notropis heterolepis) , a state endangered fish
| |
| * American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), a state endangered bird
| |
| * Black tern (Chlidoniasniger), a state endangered bird
| |
| * Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), a state endangered bird
| |
| " Common tern (Sterna hirundo), a state endangered bird
| |
| * King rail (Rallus elegans, a state endangered bird
| |
| * Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) , a state endangered bird
| |
| " Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), a state endangered bird
| |
| * Snowy egret (Egretta thula), a state endangered species
| |
| * Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), a state endangered bird
| |
| *Section 2.5 provides a more comprehensive list developed by FENOC based on its data searches.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 4.10-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report ODNR determined that the Davis-Besse license renewal project is not likely to impact these species. Nevertheless, because the location of bald eagle activity frequently changes, a status update must be obtained from ODNR prior to any construction activity. This requirement is in addition to the USFWS request that no activity occur within 660 feet of the nest between January 1 and July 31. FENOC plans to incorporate the ODNR requirement into station procedures. Otherwise, ODNR is not aware of any threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of Davis-Besse. (ODNR 2009a)
| |
| Based on the list of species identified in Section 2.5, FENOC is not aware of any potential concerns regarding threatened or endangered species that could occur due to the site or transmission line operations. Maintenance activities necessary to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on-site and no additional land disturbance is anticipated in support of license renewal. In addition, there are no plans to alter plant operations during the license renewal term which would affect threatened or endangered species. Furthermore, FENOC has procedural controls in place to ensure that reviews are conducted for protection of envrionmental resources prior to engaging in land-disturbing construction activities on the site. These controls include activities involving disturbing land, removing trees, or vegetation, etc. Similarly, transmission line maintenance is conducted in accordance with FE policies that are protective of threatened or endangered species.
| |
| From the information above, including the results of correspondence with agencies, FENOC concludes that impact to threatened or endangered species from continued operation of Davis-Besse would be SMALL and do not warrant mitigation.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Page 4.10-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.11 AIR QUALITY DURING REFURBISHMENT (NONATTAINMENT AREAS)
| |
| Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak refurbishment workforce must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, Issue 50]
| |
| Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage.
| |
| Seel 0 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 50. Information needed to determine air quality impacts would include the attainment status of the plant-site area and the number of vehicles added as a result of refurbishment activities.
| |
| As discussed in Section 2.10, Davis-Besse is located in the Sandusky Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.203), which is in attainment for all national air quality standards. The nearest nonattainment area is located in Monroe County, Michigan, more than 50 miles northwest of the Davis-Besse site. The nearest maintenance area is located in the city of Toledo, Lucas County, approximately 25 miles west-northwest.
| |
| As a result, FENOC believes that this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse, whether or not refurbishment will occur, because Davis-Besse is not located in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area. Therefore, further assessment is not required.
| |
| Air Quality during Refurbishment Page 4.11-1 August 2010 (Nonattainment Areas)
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Air Quality during Refurbishment Page 4.11-2 August 2010 (Nonattainment Areas)
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.12 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH OF MICROBIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G)
| |
| "Ifthe applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges into a river having an annual average flow rate of less than 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x 1010 m3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, Issue 57]
| |
| Some microorganisms associated with cooling towers and thermal discharges can have deleterious impacts on human health, and their presence can be enhanced by thermal additions (NRC 1996, Section 4.3.6). These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects generically. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 57.
| |
| As described in Section 3.1.3, Davis-Besse has a closed-cycle heat dissipation system that uses a natural draft cooling tower and does not make use of a cooling pond, lake or canal. In addition, the cooling tower discharges into Lake Erie instead of a small river.
| |
| As a result, this issue does not apply to Davis-Besse and further assessment is not required.
| |
| Impact on Public Health of Page 4.12-1 August 2010 Microbiological Organisms
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Impact on Public Health of Page 4.12-2 August 2010 Microbiological Organisms
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.13 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS - ACUTE EFFECTS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)
| |
| "If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the transmission lines must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, Issue 59]
| |
| The NRC has concluded that electrical shock from energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures is not a problem at most operating plants and is not likely to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential at the site (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Table B 1, Issue 59). The transmission lines to be addressed for license renewal, as NRC noted in the GElS and its guidance, are those that were constructed to connect the plant switchyard to the existing transmission system and reviewed as part of the construction permit for the plant (NRC 1996, Section 4.5.4; NRC 2000, Section 4.13).
| |
| The electrical shock issue, which is generic to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants, is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with National Electric Safety Code (NESC). Without review of each nuclear plant's transmission line conformance with NESC criteria, it is not possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock potential. (NRC 1996, Sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.4.1)
| |
| According to the NESC, for voltages exceeding 98 kV alternating current to ground, either the clearances shall be increased or the electric field, or effects thereof, shall be reduced by other means as required to limit the steady state current due to electrostatic effects to 5 mA if the largest anticipated truck, vehicle, or equipment under the line were short-circuited to ground. The size of the anticipated truck, vehicle, or equipment used to determine these clearances may be less than but need not be greater than that limited by federal, state, or local regulations governing the area under the line. For this determination, the conductors shall be at final unloaded sag at 120°F (IEEE 2006, Rule 232 D.3.c).
| |
| The critical parameters associated with the calculation of electric fields below transmission lines include the line voltage, conductor and phase dimensions, the line configuration, and the overhead clearance above ground. The shape, size, and position of objects beneath the line and the electric field in the area determine the induced August 2010 Page 4.13-1 Electromagnetic Fields Electromagnetic -
| |
| Acute Effects Fields - Acute Effects Page 4.13-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report voltages and currents that will be developed in these objects. The maximum or peak field values occur over a small area at midspan, where conductors are closest to the ground. Transmission line electric fields at the edge of the right-of-way are not as sensitive as the peak field to conductor height.
| |
| As described in Section 3.1.4, three new high-voltage transmission lines were built to connect Davis-Besse to the nearby Toledo Edison (an FE transmission company) transmission 345 kV substations at Bay Shore, Lemoyne, and Ohio Edison - Beaver substation. These transmission lines were constructed before the NESC adopted the 5 mA provision in 1977.
| |
| Therefore, FENOC conducted a screening analysis for each road crossing under the three transmission lines to determine conformance with the existing NESC standard.
| |
| The analysis used methods prescribed by EPRI (EPRI 2008) to determine the current induced for the maximum vehicle size limited by Federal and state transportation regulations, located in the peak electric field under the transmission line, for the worst-case configuration, i.e., the vehicle is parallel to the conductors near the lowest clearance to ground.
| |
| For specific vehicle dimensions, the induced current is directly proportional to the electric field. Thus, for the maximum allowable vehicle (a triple tractor trailer combination measuring13.5 feet tall, 8.5 feet wide, and 95 feet long), the induced vehicle current is 1.2 mA per kV per meter of electric field. To meet NESC requirements of 5 mA maximum induced current, the maximum electric field must be limited to approximately 4.1 kV/m (5 mA/1.2 mA/kV/m).
| |
| For the configurations reviewed at each road crossing, the threshold electric field of 4.1 kV/m is exceeded if the transmission line road crossing clearance is less than 40 feet at 120'F. All road crossing clearances for the three Davis-Besse high-voltage transmission lines exceed 40 feet at 120'F, resulting in a calculated electric field at these locations of less than 4.1 kV/m. Consequently, the maximum induced current in a triple tractor trailer combination located in the peak electric field under the transmission line for the worst-case configuration is less than 5 mA.
| |
| Similar induced currents do not occur on railroad cars beneath transmission lines because the car is effectively connected to the track, unlike a vehicle mounted on insulating rubber tires. The distributed track to ground resistance is sufficiently low to discharge any rail car to ground capacitance before an electric charge can build within half a power frequency cycle.
| |
| Based on the above considerations, FENOC concludes that the potential for electric shock is of SMALL significance and mitigation measures are not warranted.
| |
| Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects Page 4.13-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.14 HOUSING IMPACTS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
| |
| "An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on housing availability... (impacts from refurbishment activities only) within the vicinity of the plant must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 63]
| |
| Housing impacts depend on local conditions. Impacts result when the demand for housing, caused by the project-related population increase, approaches or exceeds the number of available housing units in the vicinity of the plant. The magnitude of the impacts is determined by the number of additional workers associated with refurbishment activities or continued operation and maintenance, and by the population categorization, growth control measures, and housing inventory within the region.
| |
| 4.14.1 REFURBISHMENT As described in Section 3.2, FENOC estimates that approximately 900 additional temporary employees in addition to the approximately 1,300 temporary refueling outage workers would be needed to perform the planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project activities. The 1,300 temporary refueling outage workforce impacts are already addressed under normal operations, and will not be evaluated further. The temporary steam generator replacement project workforce, however, could generate demand for up to 900 additional housing units in the local area for a period of approximately 70 days.
| |
| FENOC expects to perform the steam generator replacement during the spring of 2014, a period when the seasonal and transient populations are low and many hotel rooms and short-term rental properties are available. As discussed in Section 2.6.2.4, the total combined seasonal and transient population is approximately equivalent to the total permanent population, and this transient population increase occurs predominantly in the summer to take advantage of outdoor recreational opportunities.
| |
| Based on the large population increase in the summer months, an additional 900 employees looking for short-term housing would have a beneficial impact to the local economy during the off-season period in which the steam generator replacement project should occur. In addition, Davis-Besse is located in a high population area that is near a major metropolitan area, Toledo (see Section 2.6.1). The number of refurbishment project workers, therefore, is small compared to the area's total population and would not cause a discernable change in housing availability, rental rates, or housing values.
| |
| Housing Impacts Page 4.14-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report As a result, FENOC expects steam generator replacement project-related housing impacts to be SMALL and does not warrant mitigation.
| |
| 4.14.2 LICENSE RENEWAL TERM NRC regulatory criteria indicate that housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium or high population area and in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are not in effect (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Table B-i, Issue 63). Sections 2.6.1.1 and 2.8 demonstrate that Davis-Besse is located in a high population area that, although it is subject to growth planning, is not subject to control measures that limit housing development.
| |
| Furthermore, FENOC does not anticipate a need for additional full-time workers during the license renewal period (Section 3.4).
| |
| FENOC concludes that, since there would be no increase in staffing, the impact to housing from the continued operation of Davis-Besse is categorized as SMALL and does not warrant mitigation.
| |
| Housing Impacts Page 4.14-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES: PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
| |
| "[T]he applicant shall provide an assessment of the impact of population increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water supply."
| |
| [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 65]
| |
| Potential for water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability. See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, Issue 65. These potential impacts to the public water supply system depend on both plant demand and plant-related population growth demands on public water systems.
| |
| Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if little or no change occurs in the ability to respond to the level of demand. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of facilities during peak demand periods occurs and LARGE if existing service levels (such as quality of water and sewage treatment) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to meet ongoing demands for services (NRC 1996, Section 3.7.4.5).
| |
| 4.15.1 REFURBISHMENT As discussed Section 3.2, FENOC estimates that approximately 900 temporary employees would be needed to perform the planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project activities for a period of approximately 70 days. The estimate also includes the assumption that additional indirect jobs would be filled by local residents, resulting in no additional population growth. Section 3.4.1 indicates that 88% of Davis-Besse employees reside in the four contiguous counties of Ottawa (37.2%),
| |
| Lucas (19.8%), Wood (15.5%), and Sandusky (15%). FENOC assumes that the project temporary workforce would find temporary residences within this area and the workers would not relocate their families.
| |
| As noted above, impacts on public utility services are considered small if little or no change occurs in the ability to'respond to the level of demand (NRC 1996, Section 3.7.4.5). Sections 2.9.4 and 3.1.3.3 describe the station and the public water supply systems in the four surrounding counties. Davis-Besse acquires potable water from the Carroll Township Water System, which has excess capacity of 700,000 gallons per day (Table 2.9-9). The combined water systems in the four counties surrounding Davis-Besse have a total excess capacity of approximately 121 million gallons per day.
| |
| Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Page 4.15-1 August 2010 Availability
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The impact to the Carroll Township Water System due to hydro-demolition techniques, if used during the steam generator replacement project, is expected to be SMALL.
| |
| Hydro-demolition requires up to approximately 230,000 gallons of water per day, which is approximately one-third of the excess capacity of the Carroll Township Water Supply system. Coordination between Davis-Besse and Carroll Township Water Supply personnel during hydro-demolition will minimize the impact of the increased demand in water use. Therefore, little or no change will occur in the ability of Carroll Township to respond to the level of water demand to its customers due to the use of hydro-demolition techniques during the proposed steam generator replacement project at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The maximum impact to the local water supply systems from the project temporary workforce was determined by calculating the amount of water that would be required by the temporary workforce for the planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project. The average American uses between 50 and 80 gallons per day for personal use. Conservatively assuming that each temporary employee used 80 gallons per day while at the Davis-Besse site, the additional maximum usage at Davis-Besse would be 72,000 gallons per day, well below the excess capacity available.
| |
| Also, conservatively assuming that each temporary employee also used 80 gallons per day while in their temporary residences, the additional maximum usage in the four-county region of interest would be 72,000 gallons per day, also well below the excess capacity available.
| |
| Lastly, portable sanitary units are planned to be used instead of the on-site sewage treatment facility to accommodate the temporary increase of steam generator replacement project employees. The portable units would be processed at a major wastewater treatment facility with adequate capacity, such as the Oregon or Toledo Bay plants in nearby Lucas County.
| |
| Based on the above, FENOC concludes that impacts resulting from the temporary work force at Davis-Besse and in their counties of temporary residence would be SMALL and would not require mitigation.
| |
| 4.15.2 LICENSE RENEWAL TERM FENOC does not anticipate a need for additional full-time workers during the license renewal period (Section 3.4). As a result, there will be no incremental impact to the public water supplies from refurbishment activities or additional workers in the four-county area near the plant.
| |
| Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Page 4.15-2 August 2010 Availability
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.9-9 provides details on the community water suppliers in the four-county area surrounding the Davis-Besse site, including the Carroll Township Water System that supplies Davis-Besse's potable water needs (Section 3.1.3.3). For all systems, the average daily demand on the current water systems is considerably below the respective system capacities. Therefore, plant operations during the license renewal period are not projected to cause an adverse effect on the local water supply. Because no site-related population increases will occur during the license renewal period, there will be no indirect impacts to any public water systems in the area.
| |
| Based on the above, FENOC concludes that impacts to public water supplies will continue to be SMALL and further consideration of mitigation measures is not warranted.
| |
| Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Page 4.15-3 August 2010 Availability
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Page 4.15-4 August 2010 Availability
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.16 EDUCATION IMPACTS FROM REFURBISHMENT Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
| |
| "An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on...public schools (impacts from refurbishment activities only) within the vicinity of the plant must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 66]
| |
| Impacts to education are a product of additional demand on the public education system resulting from refurbishment-related population growth and the capacity of the education system to absorb additional students.
| |
| As discussed Section 3.2, FENOC estimates that approximately 900 temporary employees would be needed for a period of approximately 70 days to perform the planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project activities. Based on FENOC experience from prior Davis-Besse refueling outages and the BVPS Unit 1 steam generator replacement experience gained in 2006, FENOC anticipates that the approximately 900 temporary workers would in-migrate, but would not relocate families to the plant site region for a project of this short duration. Therefore, FENOC estimates that few to no children would be relocated to the region, and there would be SMALL impacts to the education system.
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.16-1 Education from Refurbishment Impacts from Education Impacts Refurbishment Page 4.16-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 from Refurbishment Page 4.16-2 Education Impacts Education Impacts from Refurbishment Page 4.16-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.17 OFFSITE LAND USE Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
| |
| "An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on...land use...within the vicinity of the plant must be provided."
| |
| Refurbishment: "Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas...." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 68]
| |
| License renewal term: "Significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal."
| |
| [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 69]
| |
| Impacts to off-site land use take place when pressures resulting from project-related population or tax revenue increases result in changes to local land use and development patterns. These impacts could occur as a result of either refurbishment or during the license renewal period.
| |
| 10 CFR Part 51 identifies that housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Moderate or large housing impacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing development. See 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
| |
| 4.17.1 REFURBISHMENT As discussed in Section 3.2, FENOC estimates that approximately 900 temporary employees would be needed for a period of approximately 70 days to perform the project activities associated with a planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project. The estimate also includes the assumption that additional short-term indirect jobs would be filled by local residents, resulting in no additional population growth.
| |
| The NRC stated in the GElS that, if project-related population growth is less than 5 percent of the study area's total population, off-site land-use changes would be small, especially if the study area has established patterns of residential and commercial development, a population density of at least 60 persons per square mile, and at least one urban area with a population of 100,000 or more within 50 miles (NRC 1996, Section 3.7.5).
| |
| Offsite Land Use Page 4.17-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.6-1 indicates that, within 20 miles of the Davis-Besse plant, which is assumed to be a reasonable commuting distance to work, and within which a majority of the 825 Davis-Besse employees reside, there are 129,411 persons, which equates to 168 per square mile. Five percent of this value is 6,471 persons. The project-related temporary population growth of 900 is well below 5 percent of the study area's total population.
| |
| Also, within 50 miles, there are several urban areas (Toledo, Ohio, and portions of Detroit, Michigan) with populations of 100,000 or more. The population within 50 miles of Davis-Besse is 2,448,608 persons, which equates to 326 per square mile. Therefore, the area surrounding the Davis-Besse plant satisfies the GElS criteria for predicting project-related offsite land use changes.
| |
| Due to the small number of project workers compared to the area's total population, available residential and commercial development, proximity to a major metropolitan area, and the short duration of a planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project, FENOC expects that project-related off-site land use changes would be SMALL and would not warrant mitigation.
| |
| 4.17.2 LICENSE RENEWAL TERM During the license renewal term, new land use impacts could, as noted in the GELS, result from plant-related population growth or from the use of tax payments from the plant by local government to provide public services that encourage development (NRC 1996, Section 4.7.4.2).
| |
| Population-Related Impacts NRC concluded, based on the GElS case-study analysis, that all new population-driven land use changes during the license renewal term at all nuclear plants would be small.
| |
| Population growth caused by license renewal would represent a much smaller percentage of the local area's total population than the percentage presented by operations-related growth (NRC 1996, Section 4.7.4.2).
| |
| FENOC agrees with the NRC conclusion and judges that new population-driven land use changes at Davis-Besse during the license renewal term will, therefore, be SMALL.
| |
| Furthermore, FENOC does not anticipate that additional workers will be employed at Davis-Besse during the period of extended operations (Section 3.4). As a result, there will be no impact to the offsite land use from plant-related population growth.
| |
| Tax Revenue-Related Impacts Significance levels for license renewal are considered small if tax payments are less than 10% of the jurisdiction's tax revenue, moderate if payments are 10-20%, and large if payments are greater than 20%. (NRC 1996, Section 4.7.2.1).
| |
| Offsite Land Use Page 4.17-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 2.7-1 lists the proportional contribution of property taxes from Davis-Besse to Ottawa County and the Carroll Township property and school district tax bases for the five-year period 2004-2008.
| |
| Regionally, the tax contribution to Ottawa County and the Penta County Job Vocational School is less than 10%. Locally, the tax contribution to Carroll Township and Benton-Carroll-Salem local school district is greater, averaging nearly 19% for the township and 17% for the school district during the five-year period.
| |
| Lastly, FENOC plans to add two new permanent structures at Davis-Besse in 2011 to support the reactor vessel head replacement project. As a result, there may be related tax-increase-driven changes to offsite land use and development patterns during the license renewal term.
| |
| FENOC concludes that the regional tax-driven land use impact would be SMALL and mitigation is not warranted. FENOC concludes that the local tax-driven land use impact would be MODERATE, but positive, and for that reason mitigation is not warranted.
| |
| Offsite Land Use Page 4.17-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Use Land Use Page 4.17-4 Offsite Land Offsite Page 4.17-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.18 TRANSPORTATION Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)
| |
| "All applicants shall assess the impact of highway traffic generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local highways during periods of license renewal refurbishment activities and during the term of the renewed license." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 70]
| |
| Transportation impacts, as discussed in the GELS, would continue to be of small significance at all sites during operations and would be of small or moderate significance during scheduled refueling and maintenance outages. However, because impacts are determined primarily by road conditions existing at the time of the project, the impact significance needs to be determined at the time of license renewal.
| |
| (NRC 1996, Section 4.7.3.2)
| |
| Transportation impacts are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with the additional workers and local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites.
| |
| See 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 70.
| |
| 4.18.1 REFURBISHMENT As discussed in Section 3.2, FENOC estimates that approximately 900 temporary employees would be needed for a period of approximately 70 days to perform the project activities associated with a planned Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project. Access to the Davis-Besse site would be via State Route 2, and the major commuting routes to the site are in rural and uncongested areas (Section 2.9.5).
| |
| Historically, increased traffic during outages at Davis-Besse has not degraded the capacity of local roads, and does not create the need for additional or widening of roads, or traffic control devices. Some slowing of State Route 2 traffic using portable flashing caution and warning signs, however, is necessitated during outages to allow site traffic safe exit from the station into traffic flow on State Route 2.
| |
| More importantly, as shown in Table 2.6-11, the seasonal and transient populations that enter the region in the summer months cause the local population to nearly double as almost 13,000 persons descend on the area. Additionally, shown in Table 2.9-14 there are over 13,000 vehicles estimated to be within 10 miles of the plant. The addition of 900 vehicles from the temporary steam generator replacement project workforce results in an increase of less than seven percent of the total number of vehicles in the area.
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.18-1 Transportation Transportation Page 4.18-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Based on the seasonal and transient population changes and the number of vehicles within 10 miles of the plant, FENOC concludes that the impacts to area transportation of approximately 900 additional temporary workers and truck material deliveries associated with a short time duration (i.e., approximately 70 days) Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project expected in the spring season (i.e., off-season) would be SMALL and would not warrant mitigation.
| |
| 4.18.2 LICENSE RENEWAL TERM During the license renewal term, the GElS noted that transportation impacts would continue to be of small significance at all sites during operations and would be of small or moderate significance during scheduled refueling and maintenance outages (NRC 1996, Section 4.7.3.2). In particular, highway Level of Service (LOS) A and B are associated with small impacts because the operation of individual users is not substantially affected by the presence of other users. LOS A conditions allow free flow of the traffic stream and users are unaffected by the presence of others. LOS B conditions allow stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished. At these levels, no delays occur and no improvements are needed. (NRC 1996; Section 3.7.4.2; NRC 2000, Section 4.18)
| |
| Given the rural character of the area in the Davis-Besse vicinity, the absence of pronounced grades, and the presence of few small metropolitan areas, commuter congestion arising from continued station operation will remain short-lived and not substantially affect other users of the roads. As a result, no added delays are expected and no improvements are needed.
| |
| Additionally, there is no expected increase in the number of employees required to support plant operation during the license renewal period (Sections 3.2 and 3.4).
| |
| Therefore, impacts to transportation would be similar to those experienced during current operations and there should be no incremental impacts to transportation during the license renewal term.
| |
| Although the roads in the vicinity of Davis-Besse are adequate, compensating measures, such as staggered shift starting and ending times, are taken by the site to account for the increased traffic flow during outages to maintain a reasonable level of service. Therefore, FENOC concludes that impacts to transportation due to continued operation of Davis-Besse during the license renewal period would be SMALL and further mitigation is not warranted.
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.18-2 Transportation Transportation Page 4.18-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.19 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K)
| |
| "All applicants shall assess whether any historic or archaeological properties will be affected by the proposed project." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 71]
| |
| Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are expected to have only small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological resources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 71).
| |
| The GElS notes that sites are considered to have small impacts to historic and archaeological resources if (1) the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identifies no significant resources on or near the site; or (2) the SHPO identifies (or has previously identified) significant historic resources but determines they would not be affected by plant refurbishment, transmission lines, and license renewal term operations and there are no complaints from the affected public about altered historic character; and (3) if the conditions associated with moderate impacts from site activities do not occur.
| |
| (NRC 1996, Section 3.7.7)
| |
| Moderate impacts, as noted in the GELS, may result if historic resources, determined by the SHPO not to be eligible for the National Register, nonetheless are thought by the SHPO or local historians to have local historic value and to contribute substantially to an area's sense of historic character. Lastly, the GElS notes that sites are considered to have large impacts to historic resources if resources determined by the SHPO to have significant historic or archaeological value would be disturbed or otherwise have their historic character altered through refurbishment activity, installation of new transmission lines, or any other construction (e.g., for a waste storage facility). Determinations of significance of impacts are made through consultation with the SHPO. (NRC 1996, Section 3.7.7) 4.19.1 REFURBISHMENT There were no known deposits of archaeological interest on the site prior to construction (Section 2.11). In addition, a recent query of the Ohio Historic Preservation Office's Online Mapping System conducted for a 6-mile radius around the site identified 378 previously recorded cultural resources. This number includes buildings, archaeological sites, cemeteries, churches, and other structures. Resource types range from a historic Page 4.19-1 August 2010 Historic and Historic Archaeological Resources and Archaeological Resources Page 4.19-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report military base with many contributing structures to archaeological sites and individual architectural resources. One resource, an historic-period site (Table 2.11-3, Site No.
| |
| OT0025), appears to be located at the extreme southeastern corner of the station property. Only one resource was listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the Carroll Township Hall, located about 3.2 miles to the southwest of the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| As discussed in Section 3.2, the Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project activities involving ground disturbance are the construction of temporary or permanent concrete pads for temporary facilities. These temporary facilities and any permanent concrete pads that remain following the replacement project are expected to be constructed on previously disturbed land that was graded and otherwise disturbed during station construction. Also, as noted above, there were no known deposits of archaeological interest on the site prior to construction and only one resource appears on the Ohio Historic Preservation Office's Online Mapping System, which is located well beyond the proposed disturbed area.
| |
| All activities associated with the proposed Davis-Besse steam generator replacement, including construction and excavation for temporary structures and laydown areas, are planned for previously-disturbed and evaluated areas that should not require consultation with the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office prior to commencing work.
| |
| These activities also include the rail delivery of the new steam generators to Davis-Besse and any physical modifications to improve existing rail lines, and transportation of the steam generators on-site.
| |
| Based on the above, FENOC concludes that the impacts of a Davis-Besse steam generator replacement project on archeological, cultural, or historic resources would be SMALL and further mitigation is not warranted.
| |
| 4.19.2 LICENSE RENEWAL TERM FENOC is not aware of any historic or archaeological resources that have been affected by Davis-Besse operations, including operation and maintenance of transmission lines.
| |
| Nevertheless, FENOC has procedural controls in place to ensure that environmental reviews are conducted prior to engaging in additional construction or operational activities that may result in an environmental impact at the site, These controls include activities involving disturbance of surface or subsurface land areas and demolition of existing structures.
| |
| FENOC also contacted the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) for information related to any known archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse site. In the opinion of the OHPO, license renewal will not affect historic properties (OHPO 2010). Copies of the correspondence are included in Attachment C.
| |
| Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 4.19-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report As a result, FENOC concludes that the potential impact of continued operation of Davis-Besse during the period of the renewed license on historic or archaeological resources will be SMALL and further mitigation is not warranted.
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.19-3 Historic Historic and Archaeological Resources and Archaeological Resources Page 4.19-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.19-4 Historic Archaeological Resources and Archaeological Historic and Resources Page 4.19-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.20 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L)
| |
| "Ifthe staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for the applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an environment assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be provided." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 76]
| |
| This section summarizes FirstEnergy's analysis of alternative ways to mitigate the impacts of severe accidents. Attachment E provides a detailed description of the severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) analysis.
| |
| The term "accident" refers to any unintentional event (i.e., outside the normal or expected plant operation envelope) that results in the release or a potential for release of radioactive material to the environment. NRC categorizes accidents as "design basis" or "severe." Design basis accidents are those for which the risk is great enough that NRC requires plant design and construction to prevent unacceptable accident consequences. Severe accidents are those that NRC considers too unlikely to warrant design controls.
| |
| The NRC concluded that the generic analysis summarized in the GElS applies to all plants and that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance for all plants. However, not all plants have performed a site-specific analysis of measures that could mitigate severe accidents.
| |
| Consequently, severe accidents are a Category 2 issue for plants that have not performed a site-specific consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives SAMAs and submitted that analysis for Commission review. (NRC 1996, Section 5.5.2.5)
| |
| The Level 1 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and Level 2 PRA models for Davis-Besse (as discussed in Attachment E, Sections E.3.1, E.3.2, and E.3.3) were used to estimate the core damage frequency (CDF) and release category frequencies. The release category frequencies and characterizations (using the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) code) from the Level 2 PRA were provided as input to the subsequent Level 3 PRA. The Level 2 PRA results were combined with Davis-Besse site-specific parameters (e.g., population, meteorological data, topography, and economic data) for the Level 3 PRA to estimate the off-site dose and off-site property losses. Then, based on NRC guidance in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997), the maximum achievable benefit for any Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Page 4.20-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report SAMA candidate at Davis-Besse was estimated. This value provided an upper bound of any potential SAMA candidate benefit and was used to eliminate a SAMA candidate from ,any further analysis.
| |
| The following provides a summary of the steps used during the SAMA process:
| |
| Level 3 PRA Analysis - The Level 3 PRA model developed to support this cost-benefit evaluation used the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS2), which simulates the impact of severe accidents at nuclear power plants on the surrounding environment. The results of the Level 3 PRA model are vectors of off-site exposure and off-site property costs associated with each release category. These consequence vectors were combined with the results of the Level 2 PRA model (i.e., release category frequencies) to yield the probabilistic off-site dose and probabilistic off-site property losses. The final results of the Level 3 PRA evaluation for each SAMA candidate were the value of the cumulative dose expected to be received by off-site individuals and the value of the expected off-site property losses due to severe accidents given the plant configuration under evaluation. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of assumptions associated with the site population, meteorological conditions, and evacuation timing when defining the input parameters to MACCS2. The Level 3 PRA is discussed in Attachment E, Sections E.3.4 and E.3.5.
| |
| * Cost of Severe Accident Risk - The cost of severe accident risk was estimated using guidance from NEI 05-01 (NEI 2005) and NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997). The cost of severe accident risk was defined as the maximum achievable benefit a SAMA candidate could achieve if it eliminated all risk. The maximum achievable benefit was obtained by evaluating the total risk in U.S. dollars considering the risk of dose to the public and workers, off-site and on-site economic impacts, and replacement power costs. Any SAMA candidate for which the implementation cost was greater than the maximum achievable benefit was eliminated from any further cost-benefit analysis. The severe accident risk cost calculation is provided in Attachment E, Section E.4.
| |
| * Candidate SAMA Identification - SAMA candidates are defined as potential enhancements to the plant design, operating procedures, inspection programs, or maintenance programs that have the potential to prevent core damage and prevent significant releases from the Davis-Besse containment. A comprehensive initial list of SAMA candidates was developed by reviewing industry guidance documents, SAMA analyses of other plants, Davis-Besse Individual Plant Examination (IPE),
| |
| Davis-Besse Individual Plant Examination External Events (IPEEE), Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA (SAMA PRA Model, Revision 01), and Davis-Besse Level 2 PRA (SAMA PRA Model, Revision 01). The PRA results were reviewed for the dominant cutsets, system importance, significant contributors to Level 2 release categories, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Page 4.20-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report and any insights or recommendations provided. The list of initial SAMA candidates is discussed in Attachment E, Section E.5.
| |
| * Phase I SAMA Analysis (Screening) - A qualitative screening was performed for each of the candidates identified on the initial SAMA candidate list. Several SAMA candidates were screened on the basis that the SAMA candidate was not applicable to Davis-Besse, was already implemented at Davis-Besse, required excessive implementation cost, or had very little perceived (risk) benefit. If SAMA candidates were similar, one was subsumed into the more risk-beneficial SAMA candidate. The screening process for each SAMA candidate is discussed in Attachment E, Section E.6.
| |
| * Phase II SAMA Analysis (Cost-Benefit) - Those SAMA candidates that passed the qualitative screening were selected for a detailed cost-benefit analysis, which compared the estimated benefit in dollars of implementing the SAMA candidate to the estimated cost of implementation. The methodology used for this evaluation was based on the regulatory guidance for cost-benefit evaluation in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997). The estimated benefit was determined by applying a bounding modeling assumption in the PRA model. For example, if a SAMA candidate would reduce the likelihood of a specific human error, the human error probability would be set to zero in the PRA model. This would completely eliminate the human error for the SAMA candidate, thus overestimating the potential benefit. This bounding treatment is conservative for a SAMA evaluation because underestimating the risk in the modified PRA case makes the modification look more beneficial than it may actually be. The costs to implement SAMA candidates considered for further evaluation were estimated by a Davis-Besse Expert Panel. If the estimated benefit exceeded the estimated implementation cost, the SAMA candidate was considered viable for implementation. The cost-benefit evaluation is discussed in Attachment E, Section E.7.
| |
| * Sensitivity Analysis - Sensitivity cases were performed to investigate the sensitivity of the results to certain modeling assumptions in the Davis-Besse SAMA analysis.
| |
| Seven sensitivity cases were investigated. These cases examined the impacts of assuming damaged plant equipment is repaired and refurbished following an accident, a lower discount rate, a higher discount rate, higher on-site dose estimates, higher total on-site cleanup costs, higher costs for replacement power, and a higher non-internals event hazard groups' multiplier. Details on the sensitivity cases are discussed in Attachment E, Section E.8.
| |
| The results of the evaluation of 167 SAMA candidates did not identify any cost-beneficial enhancements at Davis-Besse. However, assuming a lower discount rate, higher replacement power costs, or an increased multiplier identified one potential cost-beneficial SAMA candidate. The SAMA candidate identified in the sensitivity cases is Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Page 4.20-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report not related to plant aging. Therefore, the identified cost-beneficial SAMA candidate is not a required modification for the license renewal period. Nevertheless, this SAMA candidate will be considered through the normal FENOC processes for evaluating possible modifications to the plant.
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.20-4 Mitigation Alternatives Accident Mitigation Severe Accident Alternatives Page 4.20-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.21 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B1 "The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be addressed in plant specific reviews." [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Issue 92]
| |
| Environmental justice was not reviewed in the GELS. However, Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," issued in 1994, is intended to focus the attention of Federal agencies on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low income communities.
| |
| The consideration of environmental justice is required to assure that federal programs and activities will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Accordingly, the NRC's Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office has a procedure for incorporating environmental justice into the licensing process (NRC 2004).
| |
| As the NRR procedure recognizes, if no significant off-site impacts occur in connection with the proposed action, then no member of the public will be substantially affected.
| |
| Thus, no disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations would occur from the proposed action.
| |
| Section 2.6.2 presents demographic information relating to environmental justice to assist the NRC in its review.
| |
| August 2010 Justice Page 4.21-1 Environmental Justice Page 4.21 -1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Environmental Justice Page 4.21-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 4.22 REFERENCES EPRI 2008. EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book- 200 kV and Above, Third Edition, EPRI Product 1011974, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 2008.
| |
| IEEE 2006.. National Electrical Safety Code, Standard C2-2007, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2007 Edition.
| |
| NEI 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Guidance Document, NEI 05-01, Nuclear Energy Institute, November 2005.
| |
| NMFS 2010. Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Adminsitration, U.S. Department of Commence, NMFS letter, M.A.
| |
| Colligan to B. Allen, January 15, 2010, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
| |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| NRC 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, NUREG/BR-0184, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January, 1997.
| |
| NRC 2000. Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2000.
| |
| NRC 2004. NRR Office, Instruction No. LIC-203, Revision 1, Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 24, 2004.
| |
| ODNR 2009a. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, ODNR letter, J. Navarro to B. Allen, December 22, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| ODNR 2009b. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, ODNR e-mail, B. Mitch to C.I. Custer, December 22, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| OHPO 2010. Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society, OHPO letter, N.J. Young to C.I. Custer (FENOC), March 23, 2010.
| |
| USFWS 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, USFES letter, M.K. Knapp to B. Allen (TAILS #3142002010-TA-0132), December 16, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| References Page 4.22-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 4.22-2 References Page 4.22-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)
| |
| "The environmental report must contain any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware."
| |
| The NRC licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants and provides for license renewal, requiring a license renewal application that includes an environmental report (10 CFR 54.23). NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 51 prescribe the environmental report content and identify the specific analyses the applicant must perform. In an effort to perform the environmental review efficiently and effectively, the NRC has resolved most of the environmental issues generically, but requires an applicant's analysis of all the remaining issues.
| |
| While NRC regulations do not require an applicant's environmental report to contain analyses of the impacts of those environmental issues that have been generically resolved (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i)), the regulations do require that an applicant identify any new and significant information of which the applicant is aware (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)). The purpose of this requirement is to alert the NRC staff to such information so that the staff can determine whether to seek the Commission's approval to waive or suspend application of the rule with respect to the affected generic analysis. The NRC has explicitly indicated, however, that an applicant is not required to perform a site-specific validation of GElS conclusions (NRC 1996a, Pages C9-13, Concern NEP.015).
| |
| FENOC considers new and significant information would include the following:
| |
| * information that identifies a significant environmental issue not covered in the GElS and codified in the regulations, or
| |
| " information that was not covered in the GElS analyses and which leads to an impact finding different from that codified in the regulation.
| |
| The NRC does not define the term "significant." As a result, FENOC used guidance available in Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for its review. CEQ guidance provides that federal agencies should prepare environmental impact statements for actions that would significantly affect the environment (40 CFR 1502.3),
| |
| to focus on significant environmental issues (40 CFR 1502.1), and to eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)). The CEQ guidance Assessment of New and Page 5.0-1 August 2010 Significant Information
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report includes a definition of "significantly" that requires consideration of the context of the action, and the intensity or severity of the impact(s) (40 CFR 1508.27). FENOC assumes that moderate or large impacts, as defined by the NRC, would be significant.
| |
| Section 4.0 presents the NRC definitions of "moderate" and "large" impacts.
| |
| Assessment of New and Page 5.0-2 August 2010 Significant Information
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==5.1 DESCRIPTION==
| |
| OF PROCESS FENOC relied on two processes to identify potential new and significant information.
| |
| First, a FENOC procedure establishes the method and guidance to perform and document environmental evaluations when required by the FENOC regulatory applicability determination process or by the design review process. The procedure requires due consideration of the 92 environmental issues identified in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, before approving station changes, tests, and experiments (i.e., "proposed actions"). The environmental review also considers other applicable or relevant standards (e.g., 40 CFR and applicable state code) when judging the effects of proposed actions. Acceptance criteria for these effects include the environmental regulatory analyses supporting the current licensing basis.
| |
| Second, FENOC established an integrated information gathering process to identify potential new and significant information specific to Davis-Besse license renewal. The integrated process included the following tasks:
| |
| * A review of internal and external documents and records including, but not limited to environmental assessments and monitoring reports, procedures, and other management controls, compliance history reports, and environmental resource plans and data.
| |
| " A review of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements associated with other license renewal applications to determine ifthere were new and significant information identified for those plants that may be applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| * Interviews with FENOC and FirstEnergy subject-matter experts regarding Davis-Besse environmental impacts and the appropriateness of GElS scope and conclusions with respect to Davis-Besse.
| |
| " Solicitation and review of information relevant to environmental impacts of Davis-Besse from regulatory agencies and other stakeholder organizations.
| |
| Information identified as a result of these tasks was evaluated by a panel of subject-matter experts to determine its significance and then documented.
| |
| Description of Process Page 5.1 -1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 5.1-2 of Process Description of Description Process Page 5.1-2 .August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 5.2 ASSESSMENT Based on the processes employed to identify new information and changing conditions, FENOC is not aware of any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of Davis-Besse license renewal.
| |
| One issue, however, was identified as new subsequent to when Davis-Besse became operational, but determined by FENOC to be not significant. Another potentially significant environmental issue identified as part of the original Davis-Besse operating license was determined subsequently to be not significant. These issues are described in more detail below.
| |
| Recovery of Burrowing Mayflies Burrowing mayflies (Hexageniasupp.) are native to western Lake Erie and were abundant until the 1950s, when they disappeared due to degraded water and sediment quality. Nymphs were absent from sediments until 1993, when several small populations were discovered near the western and southern shores of Lake Erie. By 1995, nymphs had spread throughout the western and eastern half of the lake. Factors that have permitted the mayfly recovery include improved sediment and water quality attributed to pollution abatement programs implemented in the early 1970s.
| |
| (Krieger et al. 1996)
| |
| Increasingly larger swarms of winged Hexagenia (mayflies) came onshore at Davis-Besse during the spring seasons in the 1990s. Attracted by station lighting, the mayflies became both a safety and security issue. The mayflies produced a slipping hazard due to the large number of carcasses strewn about the site. The mayflies also reduced the effectiveness of station lighting, resulting in a security issue in or around sensitive areas. By 1996, it became necessary for FENOC to implement procedures to mitigate the effects of the spring mayfly infestation.
| |
| The mayfly populations and intensities during the spring seasons, however, have varied over the years. This variation is likely the result of frequent or extended periods of lake stratification, which causes fall mayfly nymph recruitment failures. A trend toward increasing frequency of hot summers in the region could result in recurrent loss of mayfly larvae in western Lake Erie. (Bridgeman et al. 2006) Consequently, FENOC deems the spring mayfly infestation, although a new environmental issue, to be not significant due to the variability of infestations and the implementation of mitigation procedures.
| |
| Assessment Page 5.2-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Cooling Tower Bird Collisions Avian mortality resulting from collisions of birds with the natural-draft cooling tower and other structures at Davis-Besse was an initial concern identified during the construction and operating licensing stages. As a result, extensive surveys were required to study the topic and included as part of the Environmental Technical Specifications, Appendix B, Section 3.1, to the Davis-Besse operating license. (AEC 1973, Pages and iv; NRC 1975, Pages i and iii)
| |
| The significance of the mortality caused by the cooling tower was determined by examining the actual numbers and species of birds killed and comparing this mortality with the total avian mortality resulting from other man-made objects and with the abundance of bird populations near the towers and other structures from fall 1972 to fall 1979. The survey results were submitted to the. NRC in 198.0 (Toledo Edison 1980) and are discussed in the GElS (NRC 1996b, Section 4.3.5.2).
| |
| In 1981, the NRC staff concurred with the survey report's conclusion that there was no significant adverse effect on bird populations due to the cooling tower and other site structures. As a result, the NRC removed further monitoring of bird collisions at Davis-Besse. (NRC 1981)
| |
| August 2010 Page 5.2-2 Assessment Assessment Page 5.2-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==5.3 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| AEC 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1973.
| |
| Bridgeman, et al., 2006. Recruitment of Hexagenia Mayfly Nymphs in Western Lake Erie Linked to Environmental Variability, Ecological Application, 16(2), pp 601-611, 2006.
| |
| Krieger, et al., 1996. Recovery of Burrowing Mayflies (Ephemeorptera: Ephemeridae:
| |
| Hexagenia) in Western Lake Erie, Journal of Great Lakes Research, 22(2), pp 254-263, International Association of Great Lakes Research, 1996.
| |
| NRC 1975. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, NUREG-75/097, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975.
| |
| NRC 1981. NRC Letter, J.F. Stolz to R.P. Crouse (Toledo Edison Co.), Docket No. 50-346, Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Around the Davis-Besse Site, Serial No.
| |
| 646, April 14, 1981.
| |
| NRC 1996a. Public Comments on the Proposed 10 CFR Part 51 Rule for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses and Supporting Documents: Review of Concerns and NRC Staff Response, NUREG-1529, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1996.
| |
| NRC 1996b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| Toledo Edison, 1980. Toledo Edison Co. Letter, R.P. Crouse to R.W. Reid (NRC),
| |
| Docket No. 50-346, Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Programs at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Serial No. 643, August 22, 1980.
| |
| References Page 5.3-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| References Page 5.3-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 6.0
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| OF LICENSE RENEWAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING ACTIONS 6.1 LICENSE RENEWAL IMPACTS This section summarizes in tabular form the environmental impacts related to license renewal for the Davis-Besse operating license for Category 2 issues discussed in Chapter 4. In Section 4.1, FENOC incorporates, by reference, the NRC's findings for the 61 Category 1 issues that apply to Davis-Besse, all of which have impacts that are SMALL (see Attachment A). Sections 4.2 through 4.21 present FENOC's assessment of the Category 2 issues that apply to the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| Table 6.1-1 summarizes the impacts that Davis-Besse license renewal would have on resources associated with all Category 2 issues. As shown, the Category 2 issues evaluated are either not applicable or have impacts that would be SMALL, except a MODERATE beneficial impact due to tax revenues for off-site land use during the license renewal period.
| |
| Summary Of License Renewal Page 6.1-1 August 2010 Impacts And Mitigating Actions
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 6.1-1: Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at Davis-Besse No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants) 13 Water use conflicts (plants with cooling NONE. This issue does not apply because ponds or cooling towers using makeup Davis-Besse withdraws make-up water from Lake water from a small river with low flow) Erie instead of a small river with low flow.
| |
| 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)
| |
| Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation systems) 25 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early NONE. This issue does not apply because life stages Davis-Besse does not use a once-through or 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) cooling pond heat dissipation system.
| |
| 26 Impingement of fish and shellfish NONE. This issue does not apply because 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) Davis-Besse does not use a once-through or
| |
| _
| |
| I_ cooling pond heat dissipation system.
| |
| 27 Heat shock NONE. This issue does not apply because 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) Davis-Besse does not use a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system.
| |
| Groundwater Use and Quality 33 Groundwater use conflicts (potable and NONE. This issue does not apply because service water, and dewatering; plants Davis-Besse does not use groundwater for plant that use > 100 gpm) operations.
| |
| 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) 34 Groundwater use conflicts (plants using NONE. This issue does not apply because cooling towers or cooling ponds and Davis-Besse withdraws make-up water from Lake withdrawing makeup water from a small Erie instead of a small river.
| |
| river) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) 35 Groundwater use conflicts (Ranney NONE. This issue does not apply because wells) Davis-Besse does not use Ranney wells.
| |
| 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) 39 Groundwater quality degradation (cooling NONE. This issue does not apply because ponds at inland sites) Davis-Besse does not use a once-through or 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D) cooling pond heat dissipation system.
| |
| License Renewal Impacts Page 6.1-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 6.1-1: Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at Davis-Besse (continued)
| |
| No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact Terrestrial Resources 40 Refurbishment impacts SMALL. Impacts are expected to be minimal 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) because, based on FENOC refurbishment experience at BVPS Unit 1 in 2006, the refurbishment work will be conducted within the existing industrial footprint of the station, which has I_ previously been disturbed.
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species 49 Threatened or endangered species SMALL. Impacts are expected to be minimal during 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) refurbishment because FENOC will follow the requirements provided by the USFWS and ODNR regarding bald eagles and Indiana bats.
| |
| Additionally, operation and maintenance of the plant and associated transmission lines are not expected to change significantly during the license renewal term.
| |
| Air Quality 50 Air quality during refurbishment (non- NONE. This issue does not apply, whether or not attainment and maintenance areas) refurbishment will occur, because Davis-Besse is 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) not located in or near an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area.
| |
| Human Health 57 Microbiological organisms (public health) NONE. This issue does not apply because (plants using lakes or canals, or cooling Davis-Besse uses cooling towers that discharge to towers or cooling ponds that discharge to Lake Erie instead of a small river.
| |
| a small river) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) 59 Electromagnetic fields, acute effects SMALL. The Davis-Besse transmission lines (electric shock) conform to the NESC provisions for preventing 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H) electric shock from induced current.
| |
| License Renewal Impacts Page 6.1-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 6.1-1: Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at Davis-Besse (continued)
| |
| No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact Socioeconomics 63 Housing impacts SMALL. FENOC plans refurbishment during the 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) spring of 2014, when seasonal and transient populations are low and hotel rooms and short-term rentals are plentiful. Also, no additional workers are anticipated during the license renewal term.
| |
| Therefore, impacts to housing are expected to be minimal due to refurbishment or continued operation of Davis-Besse.
| |
| 65 Public services: public utilities SMALL. Impacts are expected to be minimal during 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(1) refurbishment and the license renewal term because water suppliers in the four-county area in the vicinity of Davis-Besse have ample excess capacity.
| |
| 66 Public services: education SMALL. Impacts are expected to minimal because, (refurbishment) based on FENOC refurbishment experience at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) BVPS Unit 1 in 2006, the temporary workers in-migrate and do not relocate families to the region due to the short duration of refurbishment.
| |
| 68 Offsite land use (refurbishment) SMALL. Impacts are expected to be minimal 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) because the number of project workers is small compared to the area's total population, there is available residential and commercial development, there is proximity to a major metropolitan area, and refurbishment is of short duration.
| |
| 69 Offsite land use (license renewal term) MODERATE. No plant-induced changes to offsite 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) land use are expected from license renewal.
| |
| Continued Davis-Besse operation would bring positive impacts due to the proportion of tax revenues to regional jurisdictions.
| |
| 70 Public services: transportation SMALL. Impacts to transportation are expected to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) be minimal due to refurbishment or continued operation of Davis-Besse because the area transportation infrastructure is capable of handling large seasonal and transient populations, FENOC plans refurbishment when seasonal and transient populations are low, and no additional workers are anticipated during the license renewal term.
| |
| August 2010 Renewal Impacts Page 6.1-4 License Renewal License Impacts Page 6.1-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 6.1-1: Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at Davis-Besse (continued)
| |
| No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact 71 Historic and archaeological resources SMALL. Refurbishment and continued operation of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) Davis-Besse would require limited land-altering construction and be restricted to previously disturbed areas. FENOC and site procedures ensure protection of potential unidentified archaeologically and historically sensitive areas.
| |
| Postulated Accidents 76 Severe accident mitigation alternatives SMALL. No impact from continued operation.
| |
| 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) FENOC did not identify any cost-beneficial enhancements, but did identify one potential cost-beneficial SAMA candidate, which FENOC will consider through normal processes for evaluating possible changes to the plant.
| |
| License Renewal Impacts Page 6.1-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Renewal Impacts Page 6.1-6 License Renewal License Impacts Page 6.1-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 6.2 MITIGATION Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii)
| |
| "The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part."
| |
| When adverse environmental impacts are identified, 10 CFR 51.45(c) requires consideration of alternatives available to reduce or avoid these adverse effects.
| |
| Furthermore, "Mitigation alternatives are to be considered no matter how small the adverse impact; however, the extent of the consideration should be proportional to the significance of the impact." (NRC 2000, Page 4.2-S-5)
| |
| As discussed in Chapter 4 and summarized in Table 6.1-1, the Category 2 issues evaluated are either not applicable or have impacts that would be SMALL, except for a MODERATE but beneficial impact on the local school district tax revenue, and do not require mitigation. For these issues, the current permits, practices, and programs that mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operations are adequate.
| |
| Current plant operations include monitoring programs that would continue during the license renewal period to ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the environment.
| |
| These programs include, for example, the radiological environmental monitoring program, air quality emissions monitoring, and effluent chemistry monitoring. Their purpose is to ensure that the plant's permitted emissions and discharges are within regulatory limits and any unusual or off-normal emissions/discharges are quickly detected, thus mitigating potential impacts. Accordingly, FENOC concludes that further mitigation measures are not warranted.
| |
| Mitigation Page 6.2-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Page 6.2-2 August 2010 Mitigation Mitigation Page 6.2-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 6.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(b)(2)
| |
| The report shall discuss ..."[a]ny adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented" as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2).
| |
| FENOC adopts, by reference, for this ER the NRC findings stated in the GElS for applicable Category 1 issues (see Attachment A), including discussions of any unavoidable adverse impacts.
| |
| Chapter 4 contains the results of FENOC's review and analyses of Category 2 issues, as required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii). These reviews take into account the information that has been provided in the GELS, Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, and information specific to Davis-Besse.
| |
| From the Chapter 4 reviews, FENOC identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of license renewal and refurbishment activities:
| |
| * The cooling water system would cause some consumptive use of Lake Erie water to compensate for drift and evaporation losses from the cooling tower.
| |
| " The cooling tower and its vapor plume would be visible from offsite. This visual impact would continue during the license renewal term.
| |
| " Procedures for the disposal of sanitary, chemical, and radioactive wastes would be intended to reduce adverse impacts from these sources to acceptably low levels.
| |
| Solid radioactive wastes would be a product of plant operations and long-term disposal of these materials must be considered.
| |
| " Operation of Davis-Besse would result in a very small increase in radioactivity in the air and water. However, fluctuations in natural background radiation would be expected to exceed the small incremental increase in dose to the local population.
| |
| Operation of Davis-Besse also would create a very low probability of accidental radiation exposure to inhabitants of the area.
| |
| * Land is required to store the old steam generators onsite pending disposal.
| |
| Based on these reviews and analyses, FENOC is not aware of significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided upon renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license.
| |
| August 2010 Adverse Impacts Page 6.3-1 unavoidable Adverse Unavoidable Impacts Page 6.3-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 6.3-2 Adverse Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6.3-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 6.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(b)(5)
| |
| The report shall discuss ... "[a]ny irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented" as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2).
| |
| The continued operation of Davis-Besse for the license renewal term will result in the following irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments:
| |
| * Nuclear fuel that is used in the reactor and is converted to radioactive waste.
| |
| * Land required to store permanently or dispose of spent nuclear fuel offsite and low-level radioactive wastes generated as a result of plant operations.
| |
| * Water that evaporates during cooling tower operation.
| |
| " Elemental materials that will become radioactive.
| |
| " Materials used for the normal industrial operations of the plant that cannot be recovered or recycled or that are consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms.
| |
| Other than the above, there are no major changes in operation of Davis-Besse planned during the license renewal period that would irreversibly or irretrievably commit environmental components of land, water, and air. However, if Davis-Besse ceases operations on or before the expiration of the current license, then the likely power generation alternatives would require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement plant as well as for fuel to operate the plant.
| |
| Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Page 6.4-1 August 2010 Commitments
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Page 6.4-2 August 2010 Commitments
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 6.5 SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(b)(4)
| |
| The environmental report shall discuss ... "[t]he relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity" as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2).
| |
| The current balance between short-term use and long-term productivity at Davis-Besse has remained relatively constant since the plant began operating in 1978. The Final Environmental Statements (FESs) evaluated the relationship between the short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity associated with the impacts of constructing (AEC 1973) and operating (NRC 1975) Davis-Besse.
| |
| The period of extended operation will not change the short-term uses of the environment from the uses previously evaluated in the FESs. In fact, these evaluations note in particular the arrangement between FENOC and the USFWS that furthers the interests of conservation by increasing the extent and improving the quality of the site marshland available as a wildlife refuge. FENOC notes that the current balance is now well established and can be expected to remain essentially unchanged by the renewal of the operating license and extended operation of Davis-Besse. The period of extended operation will postpone the availability of the land and water resources for other uses. However, extending operations will not adversely affect the long-term uses of the site.
| |
| Refurbishment would result in the consumption of additional water during hydro-demolition, if used, but the consumption would be limited in duration and would cease once the steam generators are replaced. Likewise, noise impacts would be localized and of short duration.
| |
| After decommissioning, many environmental disturbances would cease and some restoration of the natural habitat may occur. Thus, the "trade-off' between the production of electricity and changes in the local environment is reversible to some extent.
| |
| Lastly, experience with other experimental, developmental, and commercial nuclear plants has demonstrated the feasibility of decommissioning and dismantling such plants sufficiently to restore a site to its former use. The degree of dismantlement will take into account the intended new use of the site and a balance among health and safety Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Page 6.5-1 August 2010 Productivity of the Environment
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report considerations, salvage values, and environmental impact. However, decisions on the ultimate disposition of these lands have not yet been made. Continued operation for an additional 20 years would not increase the short-term productivity impacts described here.
| |
| Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Page 6.5-2 August 2010 Productivity of the Environment
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==6.6 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| AEC 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1973.
| |
| NRC 1975. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50-346, Proposed by Toledo Edison Company, NUREG-75/097, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1973.
| |
| NRC 2000. Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, September 2000.
| |
| August 2010 Page 6.6-1 References Refere nces Page 6.6-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 6.6-2 References Page 6.6-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3)
| |
| The environmental report shall discuss "Alternatives to the proposed action."
| |
| [adopted by reference at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)].
| |
| This chapter assesses alternatives to the proposed renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license. It includes discussions of the no-action alternative and alternatives that meet system generating needs. Descriptions are provided in sufficient detail to facilitate comparison of the impacts of the alternatives to those of the proposed action.
| |
| In considering the level of detail and analysis that it should provide for each category, FENOC relied on the NRC decision-making standard for license renewal:
| |
| ...the NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable.
| |
| [10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)]
| |
| As noted in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), a discussion is not required of need for power or economic costs and benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such costs and benefits are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation.
| |
| Section 7.1 addresses the "no-action" alternative in terms of the potential environmental impacts of not renewing the Davis-Besse operating license, independent of any actions taken to replace or compensate for the loss of generating capacity. Section 7.2 describes feasible alternative actions that could be taken, which FENOC also considers to be elements of the no-action alternative, and presents other alternatives that FENOC does not consider to be reasonable. Section 7.3 presents the environmental impacts for the reasonable alternatives.
| |
| The environmental impact evaluations of alternatives presented are intended to provide enough information to support NRC decision-making by demonstrating whether an alternative would have a smaller, comparable, or greater environmental impact than the proposed action. Additional detail or analysis was not considered useful or necessary if it would identify only additional adverse impacts of license renewal alternatives; i.e.,
| |
| information beyond that necessary for a decision. This approach is consistent with the CEQ regulations, which provide that the consideration of alternatives (including the proposed action) be adequately addressed so reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits (40 CFR 1502.14(b)).
| |
| Alternatives to the Proposed Action .Page 7.0-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The characterization of environmental impacts in this chapter applies the same definitions of "SMALL," "MODERATE," and "LARGE" used in Chapter 4 of this ER and by the NRC in the GElS (NRC 1996). Chapter 8 presents a summary comparison of environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
| |
| Alternatives to the Proposed Action Page 7.0-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 7.1 No-ACTION ALTERNATIVE FENOC considers the no-action alternative is not to renew the Davis-Besse operating license. With this alternative, FENOC expects Davis-Besse would continue to operate until the expiration of the existing operating license in 2017, at which time plant operations would cease, decommissioning would begin, and FirstEnergy or others would take the appropriate actions to meet system-generating needs created by discontinued operation of the plant.
| |
| Section 7.1.1 addresses the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning, whereas Section 7.1.2 discusses the actions to replace power from Davis-Besse.
| |
| 7.1.1 TERMINATING OPERATIONS AND DECOMMISSIONING In the event the NRC does not renew the Davis-Besse operating license, FENOC assumes for this ER that it would operate the plant until the current license expires, then terminate operations and initiate decommissioning activities in accordance with NRC requirements. For purposes of this discussion, terminating operations includes those actions directly associated with permanent cessation of operations, which may result in more or less immediate environmental impacts (e.g., socioeconomic impacts from reduction in employment and tax revenues).
| |
| Decommissioning, as defined in the GELS, is the safe removal of a nuclear facility from service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license (NRC 1996, Section 7.1).
| |
| The two decommissioning options typically selected for United States reactors are rapid decontamination and dismantlement (DECON), and safe storage of the stabilized and de-fueled facility (SAFSTOR), followed by final decontamination and dismantlement (NRC 1996, Section 7.2.2). Under the DECON option, radioactively contaminated portions of the facility and site are decontaminated or removed promptly after cessation of operations to a level that permits termination of the license; these activities require several years for large light-water reactors like Davis-Besse (NRC 1996, Table 7.8).
| |
| The SAFSTOR option involves safe storage of the stabilized and defueled facility for a period of time followed by decontamination to levels that permit license termination.
| |
| Regardless of the option selected, decommissioning typically must be completed within 60 years after operations cease in accordance with NRC requirements at 10 CFR 50.82 (NRC 1996, Section 7.2.2).
| |
| FENOC has not selected a decommissioning method for Davis-Besse. The decommissioning method for Davis-Besse would be described in post-shutdown decommissioning plans for the plant, which must be submitted to NRC within two years No-action Alternative Page 7.1-1 August 2010.
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report following cessation of operations. For purposes of the present analysis, FENOC assumes-that the DECON option would be employed upon license termination.
| |
| The NRC presents in Chapter 7 and Section 8.4 of the GElS a summary of generic environmental impacts of the decommissioning process and an evaluation of potential changes in impact that could result from deferring the decommissioning process for up to 20 years (NRC 1996). For a pressurized water reactor decommissioning, NRC used a 1,175 MWe reference reactor. Although larger than Davis-Besse (910 MWe), FENOC considers the reference reactor to be representative of Davis-Besse. As a result, FENOC believes the decommissioning activities described in the GElS to be representative of activities FENOC would perform for decommissioning at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The NRC concluded from its evaluation that decommissioning impacts would not be significantly greater as a result of the proposed action, assumed to result in 20 additional years of operation (NRC 1996, Sections 7.3 and 8.4). The NRC conclusions also indicate that the impacts of the decommissioning process itself, addressed in this ER as part of the no-action alternative, would have SMALL impacts with respect to radiation dose, waste management, air quality, water quality, and ecological resources (see 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I). FENOC considers this generic evaluation and associated conclusions applicable to Davis-Besse as well.
| |
| The NRC has provided additional analysis of the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NRC 2002). Except for issues that require site-specific evaluation, environmental impacts, including radiological releases and doses from decommissioning activities, were assessed to be SMALL (NRC 2002, Sections 4.3 and 6.1).
| |
| Regardless of the NRC decision on license renewal, FENOC will have to decommission Davis-Besse; license renewal would only postpone decommissioning for an additional 20 years. In the GELS, the NRC concludes that there should be little difference between the environmental impacts from decommissioning at the end of 40 years of operation versus those associated with decommissioning after an additional 20 years of operation under a renewed license (NRC 1996, Section 7.4).
| |
| By reference, FENOC adopts the NRC findings regarding environmental impacts of decommissioning in the license renewal GElS (NRC 1996) and in the decommissioning GElS (NRC 2002), and concludes that environmental impacts under the no-action alternative would be similar to those that occur following license renewal. Further, FENOC believes that decommissioning activities would not involve significant land-use disturbance offsite or significant activities beyond current operational areas that would offer potential for impacts on land use, ecological resources, or cultural resources.
| |
| No-action Alternative Page 7.1-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Decommissioning impacts would be temporary and occur at the same time as those associated with the operation of replacement generating sources.
| |
| 7.1.2 REPLACEMENT CAPACITY Davis-Besse is a base-load generator of electric power, with a net generating capability of 908 MWe (Section 3.1.2). In 2008, Davis-Besse generated approximately 8.3% of FirstEnergy's total base-load electricity generation (FirstEnergy 2008a, Page 7; USDOE 2010). The power produced by Davis-Besse, which represents a significant portion of the electricity FirstEnergy supplies to 2.1 million customers in its service territories located in Ohio (FirstEnergy 2009a, Page 81), would be unavailable in the event the Davis-Besse operating license are not renewed. As provided in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), FENOC does not consider the need for power from Davis-Besse in this analysis, but does consider the potential impact of alternatives for replacing this power. Replacement options considered include building new base-load generating capacity, purchasing power, delaying retirement of non-nuclear assets, and reducing power requirements through demand reduction, as discussed in Section 7.2.
| |
| August 2010 Alternative Page 7.1-3 No-action Alternative Page 7.1-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 7.1-4 No-action Alternative No-action Alternative Page 7.1-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 7.2 ALTERNATIVES THAT MEET SYSTEM GENERATING NEEDS Ifthe Davis-Besse operating license is not renewed, then the State of Ohio, FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiary companies, and other participants in the wholesale power market would lose approximately 910 MWe* of base-load capacity. Renewal would preserve the option of relying on Davis-Besse to meet future electric power needs through the period of extended operation.
| |
| While many methods are available to generate electricity, the GElS indicates that a "reasonable set of alternatives should be limited to analysis of single, discrete electric generation sources and only electric generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially viable" (NRC 1996, Section 8.1). Considering that Davis-Besse serves as a large base-load generator, FENOC considers reasonable alternatives to be those that would also be able to generate base-load power. FENOC believes that any alternative would be unreasonable if it did not consider replacement of the energy resource.
| |
| 7.2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE FENOC believes that coal-fired and gas-fired generation capacity are feasible alternatives to nuclear power generating capacity, based on current (and expected) technological and cost factors, as compared to the other alternatives listed in the GElS (NRC 1996, Section 8.1). FENOC considers the coal-fired and gas-fired technologies reasonable alternatives for purposes of this analysis to replace Davis-Besse generating capacity in the event its operating license is not renewed. FENOC considers the other technologies listed in the GElS as not reasonable alternatives for the reasons discussed in Section 7.2.2.
| |
| The GElS further notes that natural gas combined-cycle plants are particularly efficient and are used as base-load facilities (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.10). The specific coal-generating technologies that would represent viable alternatives are less certain, particularly in view of potentially higher air emissions compared to natural gas firing.
| |
| For example, large-capacity integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) and fluidized-bed-combustion (FBC) technologies (atmospheric and pressurized) are at or near commercial viability and could prove to be appropriate replacements. However, modern pulverized coal plants with advanced, clean-coal technology air emission controls represent currently proven technology and are economically competitive and commercially available in large-capacity unit sizes that could effectively replace Davis-Besse. Therefore, FENOC uses a representative plant of this type for purposes 910 MWe is used for calculation convenience instead of 908 Mwe, as noted in Section 3.1.2.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-1 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report of impact evaluation, noting that air emission impacts of IGCC and FBC options may be lower than modern pulverized coal, but would be higher than the gas-fired combined-cycle alternative (USDOE 1999, Pages 5-7).
| |
| The NRC has noted that, while there are many methods available for generating electricity and many combinations of alternative power generation sources that could provide base-load capacity, such an expansive consideration of alternatives would be too unwieldy (NRC 1996, Section 8.1).
| |
| 7.2.1.1 Representative Coal-Fired Generation For purposes of this analysis, FENOC assumed development of a modern pulverized coal-fired power plant with state-of-the-art emission controls similar to that described in its license renewal application, Appendix E (Environmental Report), for the Beaver Valley Power Station (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.2.2). In defining the Davis-Besse coal-fired alternative, FENOC has used site-specific input as appropriate.
| |
| The representative plant would consist of commercially available standard-sized units, with a nominal net output of approximately 910 MWe, and would be designed to meet applicable standards with respect to control of air and wastewater emissions. As a minimum, FENOC assumed that the plant would feature low nitrogen oxide burners with overfire air to minimize formation of nitrogen oxides, and selective catalytic reduction for post-combustion nitrogen oxide control. Emissions of particulate matter and mercury would be limited by use of a fabric filter (baghouse), and sulfur oxide emissions would be controlled using a wet scrubber using limestone as the reagent.
| |
| Table 7.2-1 lists the basic specifications for the representative plant.
| |
| The Davis-Besse site would not be a viable location for the representative plant as a result of space limitations (see Section 7.3.1, Land Use). Land area requirements for a coal-fired plant of similar capacity to Davis-Besse would be approximately 1.7 acres per MWe (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.9), or 1,547 acres for a 910 MWe plant. The needed land area, therefore, far exceeds the 954-acre Davis-Besse site, most of which is occupied by marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge (Section 2.1).
| |
| Therefore, FENOC assumed for the analysis that the representative coal-fired plant would be located elsewhere at a greenfield or (preferably) brownfield site close to a commercially, navigable waterway or existing railway. A navigable waterway location would be highly desirable from a technical and economic perspective, considering the relative abundance of cooling water and low fuel cost afforded by barge transportation of coal and limestone. FENOC further assumed for the analysis that the representative coal-fired plant would use closed-cycle cooling with a natural draft cooling tower.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-2 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Lastly, FENOC assumed for the analysis that the environmental impacts associated with siting, design, and operation of the plant would be subject to comprehensive review under Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) rules or a comparable process.
| |
| 7.2.1.2 Representative Gas-Fired Generation For purposes of this analysis, FENOC assumed development of a modern natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant based on a commercially available design similar to that described in its license renewal application, Appendix E (Environmental Report), for the Beaver Valley Power Station (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.2.1). In defining the Davis-Besse gas-fired alternative, FENOC has used site-specific input as appropriate.
| |
| The representative plant would consist of commercially available standard-sized units, with a nominal net output of approximately 910 MWe, and would be designed to meet applicable standards with respect to control of air and wastewater emissions. As a minimum, FENOC assumed that the plant would use natural gas as its only fuel and feature dry low-NOx burners to minimize formation of nitrogen oxides during combustion and selective catalytic reduction for post-combustion nitrogen oxide control. Emissions of particulate matter and carbon monoxide would be limited through proper combustion controls.
| |
| Table 7.2-2 lists the basic specifications for the representative plant.
| |
| The Davis-Besse site is uncertain as a viable location for the representative plant due to space limitations. Land area requirements for a gas-fired plant of similar capacity to Davis-Besse, for example, would be approximately 0.11 acres per MWe (NRC 1996, Table 8.1), or 100 for a 910 MWe plant. Of the 954 acres of land occupied by the Davis-Besse site, 733 acres is occupied by marshland that is leased to the U.S.
| |
| Government as a national wildlife refuge (Section 2.1). The remaining 221 acres is mostly occupied by Davis-Besse structures. Therefore, FENOC assumed for the analysis that the representative gas-fired plant would be located elsewhere at a greenfield or (preferably) brownfield site, but has not identified a specific site. However, primary considerations for a cost-competitive site include close proximity to adequate natural gas supply, transmission infrastructure, cooling water, and sufficient land suitable for development. For this analysis, FENOC assumed, based on FirstEnergy experience in gas-fired plant siting, that northwestern Ohio would be a realistic general area to locate the new plant (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.2.1). FENOC further assumed for the analysis that the representative gas-fired plant would use closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers.
| |
| Lastly, FENOC assumed for the analysis that the environmental impacts associated with siting, design, and operation of the plant would be subject to comprehensive review under Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) rules or a comparable process.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-3 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 7.2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AS NOT REASONABLE The following alternatives were considered as not reasonable replacement base-load power generation for one or more reasons as listed in Section 7.2.2.1 and Section 7.2.2.2. Although several of the alternatives could be considered in combination for replacement power generation at multiple sites, they do not generally provide base-load generation, and would entail greater environmental impacts.
| |
| 7.2.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity This section discusses the economic and technical feasibility of supplying replacement energy without constructing new base-load generating capacity. Specific alternatives include:
| |
| * Conservation measures (including implementing demand side management (DSM) actions);
| |
| * Delayed retirement of existing non-nuclear plants; and
| |
| * Purchased power from other utilities equivalent to the output of Davis-Besse (i.e.,
| |
| eliminating the need for license renewal).
| |
| Conservation Programs There is a variety of conservation technologies (e.g., DSM) that could be considered as potential alternatives to generating electricity at Davis-Besse. Examples include:
| |
| * Conservation Programs-homeowner agreements to limit energy consumption; educational programs that encourage the wise use of electricity.
| |
| * Energy Efficiency Programs- discounted residential rates for homes that meet specific energy efficiency standards; programs providing residential energy audits and encouraging efficiency upgrades; incentive programs used to encourage customers to replace older inefficient appliances or equipment with newer versions that are more efficient.
| |
| * Load Management Programs - programs that encourage customers to switch load to customer-owned standby generators during periods of peak demand; programs that encourage customers to allow a portion of their load to be interrupted during periods of peak demand.
| |
| On a national basis, DSM has shown great potential in reducing peak demand (maximum power requirement of a system at a given time). In 2008, a peak load Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-4 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report reduction of 32,741 MWe was achieved nationally, which is an increase of 8.2% from 2007; however, since these DSM costs increased by 47.4%. DSM costs can vary significantly from year to year because of business cycle fluctuations and regulatory changes. Since costs are reported as they occur, while program effects may appear in future years, DSM costs and effects may not always show a direct relationship. Since 2003, nominal DSM expenditures have increased at 22.9% average annual growth rate.
| |
| During the same period, actual peak load reductions have grown at a 6.2% average annual rate from, 22,904 MW to 32,741 MW (EIA 2010, Page 9).
| |
| In Ohio, as part of Senate Bill 221, utilities must implement energy efficiency programs that, beginning in 2009, achieve energy savings of at least 0.3% of the utility's three-year average annual kilowatt-hour (kWh) sales, with energy savings increasing to 22.5% by the end of 2025. Peak demand reductions of 1% in 2009 and increasing to 7.75% by the end of 2018 are also required. (FirstEnergy 2009a, Page 100) However, since these DSM-induced load reductions typically are considered in load forecasts, the reductions do not offset the projected power demands that are expected to be supplied with the power generated by Davis-Besse.
| |
| Although FENOC believes that energy generation savings can increase from DSM practices, it would be unrealistic to increase those energy savings to completely and consistently replace the Davis-Besse generating capability. The variability in associated costs also makes DSM a less desirable option. Consequently, FENOC does not see DSM as a practicable offset for the base-load capacity of Davis-Besse.
| |
| Delayed Retirement Extending the lives of existing non-nuclear generating plants beyond the time they were originally scheduled to be retired, as described in the GElS (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.13),
| |
| does not represent a realistic option with respect to FirstEnergy's generating assets.
| |
| Also, FENOC is not knowledgeable of retirement plans of other regional electric power suppliers. Even without retiring any generating units, FirstEnergy expects to require additional capacity in the near future. Therefore, even if a substantial portion of its capacity were scheduled for retirement and could be delayed, some of the delayed retirement would be needed just to meet load growth.
| |
| Approximately 56% of FirstEnergy's generating capacity consists of coal-fired plants which, due to a lower cost of generation, are used at capacity factors higher than other fossil-fuel generating units (FirstEnergy 2008b). Virtually all of FirstEnergy's non-nuclear base-load generating capability is from coal firing. These coal-fired plants were developed in the 1980s or earlier and represent the only plants in FirstEnergy's portfolio that would have any potential for continued operation to replace the base-load generation represented by Davis-Besse. However, older plants that do become candidates for retirement generally represent less efficient generation and pollution Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-5 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report control technologies than are available in more modern plants, and continued operation typically would require substantial upgrades to be economically competitive and meet applicable environmental standards. In many cases, it is unlikely that such upgrades would be economically viable. FENOC believes that the environmental impacts of implementing such upgrades and operating the upgraded plants are bounded by the assessments presented in Section 7.3 for the gas-fired and coal-fired alternatives.
| |
| For these reasons, the delayed retirement of non-nuclear generating units is not considered by FENOC as a reasonable alternative to the renewal of Davis-Besse's license.
| |
| Purchased Power Each of the states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) in which FirstEnergy serves load have undertaken electric industry restructuring initiatives that promote competition in retail energy markets by allowing participation of non-utility suppliers. Retail customers historically served by the regulated operating subsidiaries of FirstEnergy now have the option to choose between FirstEnergy-affiliated suppliers and other state-qualified energy suppliers. (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.3.2)
| |
| In theory, purchased power is a feasible alternative to Davis-Besse license renewal.
| |
| There is no assurance, however, that sufficient capacity or energy would be available during the entire license renewal time frame to replace the approximately 910 MWe of base-load generation. In addition, even if power to replace. Davis-Besse capacity were to be purchased, FENOC assumes that the generating technology used to produce the purchased power would be one of those described in the GELS. Thus, the environmental impacts of purchased power would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region.
| |
| As a result, FENOC has determined that purchased power would not be a reasonable alternative to replace power lost in the event the Davis-Besse operating license is not renewed.
| |
| 7.2.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity The following conventional power plant types are evaluated in this section as potential alternatives to license renewal:
| |
| " New Nuclear Reactor
| |
| * Petroleum Liquids (Oil)
| |
| In addition, with the passage of Ohio's Senate Bill 221 in 2008, at least 25% of electricity supply for retail customers must come from renewable and advanced energy Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-6 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report resources by 2025 OHPUCO 2009, Pages 3 and 4). Accordingly, the following alternative energy sources are evaluated.
| |
| * Hydropower
| |
| * Wind
| |
| * Solar
| |
| " Geothermal
| |
| " Biomass (Wood Waste)
| |
| * Municipal Solid Waste
| |
| " Other Biomass-Derived Fuels (Energy Crops)
| |
| * Fuel Cells Criteria used to determine if the potential energy alternatives represent a reasonable alternative include whether the alternative is developed and proven, can provide generation of approximately 910 MWe of electricity as a base-load supply, is economically feasible, and does not impact the environment more than Davis-Besse.
| |
| New Nuclear Reactor Increased interest in the development of advanced reactor technology has been expressed by members of both industry and government. With energy demands forecasted to increase and public opposition to new carbon-fueled power plants, some companies are pursuing permits and licenses to build and operate new nuclear reactors to meet the country's future energy needs. As of June 2010, for example, 18 applications, for 28 units, for combined licenses have been submitted to the NRC for review (NRC 2010).
| |
| Nonetheless, there is ongoing uncertainty with respect to future electric demand due to the potential impacts of policy changes that could be enacted to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The downturn in the world economy also has had a significant impact on energy demand as well. The recovery of the world's financial markets is especially important for the energy supply outlook, because the capital-intensive nature of most large energy projects makes access to financing a critical necessity. (EIA 2010, Pages 5). Moreover, the economics of new nuclear plants remain uncertain with escalating fuel and construction costs emerging as forces which could affect this option.
| |
| In consideration of the extended schedule for construction of a new nuclear reactor, access to capital, and the schedule for the new reactor licensing process, construction of a new nuclear reactor at the Davis-Besse site or at an alternative site is not feasible prior to the period of extended operation for Davis-Besse, i.e., in this case, 2017.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-7 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Therefore, a new nuclear reactor is not considered a reasonable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license..
| |
| Petroleum Liquids (Oil)
| |
| Oil-fired generation has experienced a significant decline since the early 1970s.
| |
| Increases in world oil prices have forced utilities to use less expensive fuels (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.11). From 2002 to 2008, for example, the average cost of petroleum for power generation increased by more than a factor of three (EIA 2010, Table 3.5).
| |
| This high cost of oil has prompted a steady decline in its use for electricity generation.
| |
| Within Ohio, for example, oil-fired units produce only 0.2% of power generation (NEI 2008). Increasing domestic concerns over oil security also will intensify the move away from oil-fired electricity generation.
| |
| Therefore, FENOC does not consider oil-fired generation a viable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Hydropower Considering the FirstEnergy transmission and distribution territory, Ohio and Pennsylvania have a combined potential for 1,758 MWe of additional undeveloped hydroelectric capacity, with Ohio contributing 57 MWe (INEEL 1998, Table 4). Thus, hydropower is a feasible alternative to Davis-Besse license renewal in theory.
| |
| However, as noted in the GELS, hydropower's percentage of United States generating capacity is expected to decline because the facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public concern about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural river courses (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.4). For example, the GElS estimated that land requirements for hydroelectric power are approximately 1 million acres per 1,000 MWe. Replacement of the Davis-Besse generating capacity would therefore require flooding a substantial amount of land (910,000 acres). Consequently, even if the capacity for development were available in Ohio-Pennsylvania, there would be large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Davis-Besse.
| |
| As a result, developing a hydropower base-load capacity of approximately 910 MWe is not considered by FENOC to be a reasonable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-8 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Wind Power Areas suitable for wind energy applications must be wind-power Class 3 or higher (NREL 1986, Chapter 1). Coastal regions along Lake Erie in northwestern Ohio have an estimated wind power of Class 3, increasing to Class 5 over offshore areas (NREL 1986, Chapter 3) and some Class 6 areas mid-lake (USDOE 2009a). The rest of the state, however, is devoid of Class 3 or higher wind-power areas. Pennsylvania is mostly a wind power Class 1 region, although some areas, particularly along ridgelines, may provide wind classes ranging from 4 to 6. West Virginia is also mostly a wind power Class 1 region, with Class 2 and higher resources along highlands and ridges in the east-central part of the state. The total wind generation capacity for the three-state region in 2008 was 698 MWe. (USDOE 2009a)
| |
| Thus, wind power in coastal Ohio along Lake Erie and along ridgelines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia is a feasible alternative to Davis-Besse license renewal in theory.
| |
| However, wind power by itself is not suitable for large base-load capacity. As discussed in the GELS, wind has a high degree of intermittency and average annual capacity factors for wind plants are relatively low, less than 30 percent (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.1). Wind power in conjunction with energy storage mechanisms might serve as a means of providing base-load power. But current energy storage technologies are too expensive for wind power to serve as a large base-load generator.
| |
| (NRC 2009b, Section 8.2.5.2)
| |
| Environmentally, wind turbine generators produce no air emissions, consume no water for cooling, result in zero wastewater discharges, require no drilling, mining or transportation of fuel, and produce no hazardous or solid wastes other than used lubrication oil that can be recycled. However, the amount of land needed for operation can be significant. An estimated 214 square miles of land are needed to generate 910 MWe of power (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.1), although much of the land could be collocated with other resources (e.g., solar energy production, or agriculture). Noise produced by the rotor blades, visual impacts, and bird and bat fatalities are also of some concern (EERE 2008).
| |
| Considering that wind conditions are variable, energy storage technologies do not currently allow supply to more closely match demand, and large land requirements and associated aesthetic impacts, FENOC does not consider a utility-scale commercial wind power project a reasonable alternative to Davis-Besse license renewal.
| |
| Solar Power Solar power technologies, both photovoltaic (PV) and thermal, depend on the availability and strength of sunlight. As such, it is an intermittent source of energy, requiring energy storage or a supplemental power source to provide electric power at Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-9 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report night. Solar resource availability in Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and northern West Virginia is low compared to other parts of the United States. The three-state region, for example, has about 3.3 kWh per square meter per day of solar radiation, which is less than half of that available in the southwestern United States (NRC 1996, Figure 8.2).
| |
| The land requirement for solar technology is large. As noted in the GELS, it requires 14 to 35 acres for every 1 MWe generated, depending on the solar technology (NRC 1996, Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3). At a minimum, it would require approximately 12,740 acres to replace the 910 MWe produced by Davis-Besse. In addition, although solar technologies produce no air pollution, little or no noise, and require no transportable fuels, many solar power technologies are still in the demonstration phase of development and cannot be considered competitive with fossil or nuclear-based technologies in grid-connected applications, due to high costs per kilowatt of capacity (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.2). Lastly, since the output of solar generated power is dependent on the availability of sunlight, supplemental energy sources would be required to meet the base-load capacity of Davis-Besse.
| |
| For the reasons noted, FENOC does not consider solar power to be a reasonable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for base-load power where available (NRC 2009b Section 8.2.5.5). However, geothermal electric generation is limited by the geographical availability of geothermal resources.
| |
| As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GELS, no feasible eastern location for geothermal capacity exists to serve as an alternative to Davis-Besse (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.5). As a result, FENOC does not consider geothermal energy to be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the Davis-Besse operating license.
| |
| Biomass Enerqy Biomass is any organic material made from plants or animals. Agricultural and wood wastes such as forestry residues, particularly paper mill residues, are the most common biomass resources used for generating electricity. Regionally, eastern Ohio and most of Pennsylvania provide the largest biomass resources (EERE 2009a, b). The costs of these fuels, however, are highly variable and very site specific (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.6).
| |
| Most biomass plants use direct-fired systems by burning biomass feedstocks to produce steam directly for conventional steam turbine conversion technology. Although the technology is relatively simple to operate, it is expensive and inefficient. Conversion efficiencies of wood-fired power plants are typically 20-25%, with capacity factors of Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-10 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report around 70-80%. As a result, biomass plants at modest scales (<50 MWe) make economic sense if there is a readily available supply of low-cost wood wastes and residues nearby so that feedstock delivery costs are minimal. (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.6)
| |
| The construction impacts of a wood-fired plant would be similar to those for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built on smaller scales.
| |
| Like coal-fired plants, biomass and wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing. They also create impacts to land and water resources, primarily associated with soil disturbance and runoff, in addition to air emissions.
| |
| However, unlike coal-fired plants, biomass and wood-waste plants have very low levels of'sulfur oxide emissions. (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.6)
| |
| FirstEnergy is retrofitting units 4 and 5 of the R.E. Burger plant in Shadyside, Ohio, for biomass capability. When completed, the units will be one of the largest biomass facilities in the United States capable of producing up to 312 MWe (FirstEnergy 2009b). Nevertheless, due to the relatively small scale of other potential projects and uncertainties in securing long-term fuel supplies, biomass is not considered by FENOC to be a reasonable alternative to replace Davis-Besse's base-load power generation.
| |
| Municipal Solid Waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities that convert waste to energy use technology comparable to steam-turbine technology for wood waste plants, although the capital costs are greater due to the need for specialized separation and handling equipment (NRC 1996, -Section 8.3.7). The decision to burn MSW for energy is typically made due to insufficient landfill space, rather than energy considerations.
| |
| There are 89 operational MSW energy conversion plants in the United States (USEPA 2009a), none of which were located in Ohio as of 2007 (WTE 2007). These plants generate approximately 2,500 MWe, or about 0.3% of total national power generation (USEPA 2009a). At an average capacity of about 28 MWe, numerous MSW-fired power plants would be needed to replace the base-load capacity of Davis-Besse.
| |
| Construction impacts for a waste-to-energy plant are estimated to be similar to those for a coal-fired plant. Air emissions are potentially harmful. Increased construction costs for new plants and economic factors (i.e., strict regulations and public opposition) may limit the growth of MSW energy generation (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.7; USEPA 2009a).
| |
| For reasons stated, MSW is not considered by FENOC to be a reasonable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-11 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Other Biomass-Derived Fuels In addition to biomass energy such as wood and municipal solid-waste fuels, there are other concepts for biomass-fired electric generators, including direct burning of energy crops, conversion to liquid biofuels, and biomass gasification. The GElS indicated that none of these technologies had progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a base-load plant (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.8). After recently re-evaluating current technologies, the NRC staff believes other biomass-fired alternatives are still unable to reliably replace base-load capacity (NRC 2009b,. Section 8.2.5.8). For this reason, FENOC does not consider biomass-derived fuels to be a reasonable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Fuel Cells Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that generate electricity without combustion and without water and air pollution. Fuel cells began supplying electric power for the space program in the 1960s. Today, they are being developed for more commercial applications. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) is currently partnering with several fuel cell manufacturers to develop more practical and affordable designs for the stationary power generation sector. If successful, fuel cell power generation should prove to be efficient, reliable, and virtually pollution free. At present, progress has been slow and costs are high. The most widely marketed fuel cell is currently about $4,500 per kilowatt (kW) compared to $800 to $1,500 per kW for a diesel generator and about
| |
| $400 per kW or less for a natural gas turbine. By the end of this decade, the USDOE goal is to reduce costs to as low as $400 per kW. (USDOE 2009b).
| |
| However, fuel cells presently are not economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for base-load capacity. Therefore, FENOC does not consider fuel cells to be a reasonable alternative to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Combination of Alternatives Individual evaluation of renewable and advanced energy resources shows that, by themselves, these energy resources are not considered by FENOC to be reasonable alternatives to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license. When considered in various combinations with generation equivalent to that of Davis-Besse, these same renewable and advanced energy resources still fail to be reasonable alternatives to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| For example, consider a mix of 25 percent of renewable and advanced energy resources, such as wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and biomass, with 75 percent natural gas generation to replace the baseload 908 MWe of the Davis-Besse plant.'
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-12 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report This mix of energy resources would result in an increased uncertainty in energy output due to the fluctuation of wind and solar resources. The environmental impacts associated with the large amount of land required for siting the various resources would likely exceed those associated with continued operation of Davis-Besse. And, the air quality impacts of operation of the natural gas plant greatly exceed those associated with continued operation of Davis-Besse. Therefore, FENOC believes that various combinations of renewable and advanced energy resources with generation equivalent to that of Davis-Besse are not reasonable alternatives to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-13 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 7.2-1 Coal-Fired Alternative Emission Control Characteristics Characteristic Basis Net capacity = 910 MW Equivalent to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Capacity factor = 80% From FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2 Firing mode: subcritical, tangential, dry-bottom Widely demonstrated, reliable, economical; pulverized coal tangential firing minimizes NOx emissions (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Fuel type = bituminous coal Type used in FirstEnergy Ohio River plants Fuel__type_=_bituminouscoal_(FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Fuel heating value = 12,285 Btu/lb FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield Plant average Fuel__heatingvalue_=_12,285_Btu/Ib_(FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Heat rate = 9,800 Btu/kWh at full load FirstEnergy experience (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Fuel sulfur content = 3.52 wt% *2.86 lb/MMBtu FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield Plant average (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Fuel ash content = 11.88 wt% FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield Plant average (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Uncontrolled SOx emissions = 130 Ib/ton coal USEPA estimate calculated as 38 x wt% sulfur in coal (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Uncontrolled NOx emissions = 10 lb/ton coal USEPA estimate (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Uncontrolled CO emission = 0.5 lb/ton coal USEPA estimate (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| = 120 USEPA estimate calculated as 10 x wt% ash in coal Uncontrolled PM emission 0b/ton coal (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| USEPA estimate calculated as 2.3 x wt% of ash in Uncontrolled PMlo emission = 27 lb/ton coal ca (FENOC coal FNC20,Tbe722 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| C02 emissions = 6,000 lb/ton Approximate average for bituminous coal combustion (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| SOx control = wet limestone flue gas Best available technology for minimizing SOx desulphurization (95% removal) emissions (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| NOX control = low NOX burners, overfire air, Best available technology for minimizing NOx selective catalytic reduction (95% reduction) emissions (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Particulate control = fabric filters Best available technology for minimizing particulate (99.9% removal) emissions (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-2)
| |
| Btu = British thermal unit MW = megawatt CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides CO 2 = carbon dioxide PM = particulate matter ft3 = cubic feet PM, 0 = PM with diameter less than 10 microns kWh = kilowatt-hour SOx = sulfur oxides lb = pound USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MMBtu = million Btu wt% = percent by weight Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-14 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 7.2-2: Gas-Fired Alternative Emission Control Characteristics Characteristic Basis Net capacity = 910 MW Equivalent to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Capacity factor = 80% From FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1 Fuel type = natural gas Assumed Heat rate = 6,500 Btu/kWh FENOC Estimate (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1) 3 Fuel heating value = 1,025 Btu/ft From FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1 Fuel sulfur content =.0.2 grains/1 00 scf From FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1 (0.00068 wt%) FromFENOC __007,_Table_7.2-1 SO 2 emissions = 0.00064 lb/MMBtu USEPA estimate for natural gas-fired turbines (0.94 x wt% sulfur in fuel) (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1)
| |
| NOx emissions (assuming dry low-NOx USEPA estimate for best available NOx combustors) = 0.099 lb/MMBtu combustion control (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1)
| |
| NOx post-combustion control: selective USEPA estimate for best available NOx post-catalytic reduction (90% reduction) combustion control (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1)
| |
| CO emissions (assuming dry low-NOx USEPA estimate (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1) combustors) = 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM emissions (all PM10 ) = 0.0019 lb/MMBtu USEPA estimate (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1)
| |
| CO 2 emissions = 110 lb/MMBtu USEPA estimate (FENOC 2007, Table 7.2-1)
| |
| Btu = British thermal unit MW = megawatt CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides C02 = carbon dioxide PM = particulate matter ft3 = cubic feet PM 10 = PM with diameter less than 10 microns kWh = kilowatt-hour scf = standard cubic feet lb = pound SOx = sulfur oxides MMBtu = million Btu USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wt% = percent by weight Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-15 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Alternatives that Meet System Page 7.2-16 August 2010 Generating Needs
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Environmental impacts are evaluated in this section for the coal- and gas-fired generation alternatives determined by FENOC to be reasonable in Section 7.2.1 compared to renewal of Davis-Besse's operating license.
| |
| The impacts are characterized as being SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of these impact descriptions are the same as presented in the introduction to Chapter 4, which in turn are consistent with the criteria established in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, Table B-i, Footnote 3. FENOC believes the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of new generating capacity at a greenfield site would exceed those for the same type plants located at Davis-Besse or at another existing disturbed site, i.e., brownfield site.
| |
| The new generating plants addressed in Section 7.2.1 would not be constructed only to operate for the period of extended operation of Davis-Besse. Therefore, FENOC assumes for this analysis a typical design life of 40 years for the coal-fired plant, 30 years for the combined-cycle natural gas-fired plant, and considers impacts associated with operation for the entire design life of the units in this analysis.
| |
| Chapter 8 presents a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives discussed in this section.
| |
| 7.3.1 COAL-FIRED GENERATION This section presents the impact evaluation for the representative coal-fired generation alternative. As discussed in Section 7.2.1.1, FENOC assumed for purposes of this analysis that the representative plant would be located at a greenfield or (preferably) brownfield site along commercially navigable waterway or existing-rail way. This assumption is a result of the space limitation at the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| Land Use Land area requirements for a coal-fired plant of similar capacity to Davis-Besse, for example, would be approximately 1.7 acres per MWe (NRC 1996, Table 8.1), or 1,547 acres for a 910 MWe plant. This amount of land use will include plant structures and associated infrastructure. Additional acres would be needed offsite for transmission lines and possibly rail lines, depending on the location of the site relative to the nearest inter-tie connection or rail spur. This acreage could amount to a considerable loss of natural habitat or agricultural land for the plant site alone dependent upon whether a greenfield or brownfield site was used, excluding that required for mining and other fuel-Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report cycle impacts. Some portion of the impacts could be mitigated by constructing new transmission line in existing rights-of-way (ROW) to as great an extent as possible.
| |
| Land-use changes also would occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to supply coal for the plant. For example, the GElS estimated that approximately 22 acres of land per MWe would be affected for mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a coal-fired plant during its operational life (NRC1996, Section 8.3.9).
| |
| Therefore, for the 910 MWe plant used in this analysis, approximately 20,020 acres of land would be needed. Partially offsetting this offsite land use would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for Davis-Besse. The GElS estimated that approximately one acre per MWe would be affected for mining and processing the uranium during the operating life of a nuclear power plant (NRC1996, Section 8.3.12). Therefore, for Davis-Besse uranium mining and processing, approximately 910 acres of land would be required, resulting in offsite mining net land use of 19,110 acres for the representative coal-fired generation alternative.
| |
| In consideration of the above, FENOC considers that land use impacts associated with a coal-fired plant at an alternate site would depend on the location of the plant and be MODERATE to LARGE.
| |
| Water Use and Quality - Surface Water Construction-phase impacts on water quality of greatest potential concern include erosion and sedimentation associated with land clearing and grading operations at the plant site and waste disposal site, and suspension of bottom sediments during construction of cooling water intake and discharge structures and facilities for barge delivery of coal and limestone. However, land clearing and grading activities would be subject to stormwater protections in accordance with the NPDES program, and work in waterways would be regulated by the USACE under the CWA Section 404 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. These activities would also be subject to corresponding state and local regulatory controls, as applicable. In addition, these adverse effects would be localized and temporary. As a result, FENOC considers that impacts on surface water quality associated with construction of the representative plant at an alternative site would be SMALL.
| |
| FENOC expects that potential impacts on water quality and use associated with operation of the representative plant would be similar to impacts associated with Davis-Besse operation. Cooling water and other wastewater discharges would be regulated by an NPDES permit, regardless of location. Cooling water intake, evaporative losses, and discharge flows for the representative coal-fired plant, assumed to use a closed-cycle cooling system, would be similar to or lower than those resulting from Davis-Besse operation (see Chapter 4). As a result, FENOC considers that Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report impacts on surface water quality associated with operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would be SMALL.
| |
| In view of the environmental review afforded under OPSB rules or a similar program, FENOC considers the impacts of surface water use and quality from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would be SMALL.
| |
| Water Use and Quality - Ground Water Impacts will depend on whether the plant will use ground water for any purposes, as well as the characteristics of local aquifers. Effects to ground water quality can also depend on waste-management and coal-storage practices, although proper disposal and material handling should reduce the likelihood of an effect, as would recycling a greater percentage of waste products. Regardless of location, FENOC believes it highly unlikely that a coal-fired power plant at an alternate site will rely on ground water for plant cooling, and that ground water and waste-management regulations will limit impacts to SMALL.
| |
| Air Quality Air quality impacts of coal-fired generation differ considerably from those of nuclear generation. A coal-fired plant emits sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
| |
| particulate matter (PM), and carbon monoxide (CO), all of which are regulated pollutants. Additionally, there are substantial emissions of carbon dioxide (C02), a greenhouse gas, although future developments such as carbon capture and storage and co-firing with biomass have the potential to reduce the carbon footprint of coal-fired electricity generation (POST 2006). Coal also contains other constituents (e.g.,
| |
| mercury, beryllium) that are potentially emitted as hazardous air pollutants, which are also of concern from a human health standpoint (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.9).
| |
| As noted in Section 7.2.1,.1, FENOC has assumed a plant design that includes controls to minimize emissions of regulated air pollutants effectively. Based on emission factors, estimated efficiencies for emission controls, and assumed design parameters listed in Table 7.2-1, operation of the plant would result in the following annual air emissions for criteria pollutants:
| |
| " Sulfur dioxide = 8,267 tons
| |
| * Nitrogen oxides = 5,087 tons
| |
| " Carbon monoxide = 636 tons
| |
| * Total filterable particulates = 153 tons
| |
| * PM 10 = 34.3 tons.
| |
| The annual emissions of carbon dioxide, which is currently unregulated, would be approximately 7.63 million tons. See Table 7.3-1 for details.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC expects that these emissions would result in a decrease in local air quality compared to operation of a nuclear plant. However, FENOC anticipates that both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will be subject to cap and trade programs (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.1.3). As a result, the plant would not be expected to add to regional sulfur dioxide emissions and may not add to regional nitrogen oxide emissions, at least during the ozone season (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.2, Air Quality). The representative plant would add to regional concentrations of other pollutants, including the criteria pollutants carbon monoxide and particulates; hazardous air pollutants; and carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.
| |
| Subject to regulatory controls, FENOC anticipates that the overall air quality would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. As a result, FENOC considers that the impacts to air quality from operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would be MODERATE.
| |
| Ecoloqical Resources Onsite and offsite land disturbances form the basis for impacts to terrestrial ecology.
| |
| Constructing a coal-fired plant at an alternate site could alter onsite ecological resources because of the need to convert about 1,547 acres of land at the site to industrial use for the plant, coal storage, and ash and scrubber sludge disposal (see the Land Use subsection above). Coal-mining operations will also affect terrestrial ecology in offsite mining areas, although some of this land is likely already disturbed by mining operations.
| |
| Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Impacts, however, will vary based on the degree to which the proposed plant site is already disturbed. On a previous industrial site, impacts to terrestrial ecology will be minor, unless substantial transmission line ROWs, a lengthy rail spur, or additional roads need to be constructed through undisturbed or less-disturbed areas. Any onsite or offsite waste disposal by landfilling will also affect terrestrial ecology at least through the time period when the disposal area is reclaimed.
| |
| During construction, impacts to aquatic ecology are likely. Regardless of where the plant is constructed, site disturbance will likely increase erosion and sedimentation runoff into nearby waterways, increasing turbidity. While site procedures and management practices may limit this effect, the impact will likely be noticeable. This is particularly true when intake and outfall structures are constructed alongside or in the body of water, as well as when any ROWs, roads, or rail lines require in-stream structures to support stream crossings. Noise and disturbance from construction, in addition to increased turbidity, may have a noticeable effect. Required regulatory permits, however, will help to mitigate these impacts.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report During operations, the cooling water system would have a potential impact to aquatic communities. However, this system would be designed and operated in compliance with the CWA, including NPDES limitations to ensure appropriate protection of aquatic communities from thermal discharges and cooling water intakes. The cooling water intake and discharge flows would be comparable to or less than for Davis-Besse, the impact from which is considered to be SMALL (see Chapter 4). Therefore, associated impacts at a comparable site on commercially navigable waterway would also be expected to be SMALL.
| |
| Management of runoff from coal piles will also be necessary. However, subject to regulatory oversight, as afforded under OPSB rules or a similar program, FENOC considers the impacts to ecological resources from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site may be noticeable, but not destabilizing.
| |
| On this basis, FENOC considers that the overall impact to ecological resources of constructing a coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site would be MODERATE.
| |
| Human Health Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risk from coal and limestone mining, worker and public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of coal combustion wastes, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. For example, the GElS noted that there could be human health impacts (cancer and emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but the GElS does not identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.9). In addition, the coal-fired alternative also introduces the risk of coal pile fires and attendant inhalation risks, though these types of events are relatively rare (NRC 2009b, Section 8.2.1, Human Health).
| |
| Regulatory agencies, including the USEPA, USOSHA, and state agencies, set air emission standards requirements for workers and the public based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health.
| |
| Given these extensive health-based regulatory controls, FENOC considers that operating the representative coal-fired plant at an alternate site would be SMALL.
| |
| Socioeconomics The peak workforce during construction of the coal-fired plant alternative is estimated to range between 1.2 to 2.5 workers per MWe and the workforce required during operation is estimated to be 0.25 workers per MWe (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.9, Table 8.1 and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.2). For a plant with a capacity of 910 MWe, workforces of approximately 1,092 to 2,275 construction workers and 228 permanent employees would be required.
| |
| Potential impacts from construction of the coal-fired alternative would be highly location dependent. As noted in the GELS, socioeconomic impacts are expected to be larger at a rural site than at an urban site, because more of the peak construction work force would need to move to the area to work (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.9). Not considering impacts of terminating Davis-Besse operations, socioeconomic impacts at a remote rural site could be LARGE, while impacts at a site in the vicinity of a more populated metropolitan area (e.g., Toledo) could be SMALL to MODERATE. FENOC assumed that the OPSB or comparable review process, including application of appropriate mitigation found to be needed as a result, would ensure that these construction impacts would not be destabilizing to local communities.
| |
| At most alternate sites, coal and lime would be delivered by barge, although delivery is feasible for a location near a railway. Transportation impacts would depend upon the site location. Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would be MODERATE to LARGE. Barge delivery of coal and lime/limestone would have SMALL socioeconomic impacts.
| |
| As noted in Section 4.17, communities in Ottawa County, particularly those within the tax jurisdiction of Carroll Township and the Carroll-Benton-Salem School District, would experience losses in both employment and tax revenues due to Davis-Besse closure, assuming the plant is constructed outside the area.
| |
| Based on the above, FENOC considers that the overall socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation of the representative coal-fired plant at an alternate site would be MODERATE.
| |
| Waste Management The representative coal-fired plant would produce substantial solid waste, especially fly ash and scrubber sludge. Based on emission factors and controls scaled from Beaver Valley (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.2 and Table 7.2-2) , the plant annual waste generation amounts would be approximately 300,000 tons/year of ash and 470,100 tons of flue gas desulphurization waste (dry basis), consisting primarily of hydrated calcium sulfate (gypsum) and excess limestone reactant. Although these wastes represent potentially usable products, FENOC assumed the total waste generated would be disposed of at an offsite landfill. Based on a fill depth of 30 feet and scaling from Beaver Valley (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.2), approximately 644 acres would be required for the landfill over an assumed plant operating life of 40 years.
| |
| The scale factor for coal is the ratio of total electric capability, 910 MWe/1980 Mwe, or 0.460.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Disposal of the waste could noticeably affect land use and ground water quality. In addition, the December 2008 failure of the dike used to contain fly ash at the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee, and subsequent cleanup, highlight other waste management issues (USEPA 2009b). However, environmental impacts related to the location, design, and operational aspects of waste disposal for the plant would be subject to regulatory review under OPSB rules or similar programs. As a result, FENOC believes that with proper disposal siting, coupled with current waste management and monitoring practices, waste disposal would not destabilize any resources.
| |
| On this basis, FENOC considers that waste management impacts from operation of the representative coal-fired plant at an alternate site would be MODERATE.
| |
| Aesthetics Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of the representative coal-fired plant include visual impairment resulting from the presence of a large industrial facility, including 500-foot-high stacks, and cooling towers up to approximately 500 feet high with associated condensate plumes. The stacks and condensate plumes from the cooling towers could be visible some distance from the plant. There would also be an aesthetic impact if construction of a new transmission line or rail spur were needed.
| |
| Similarly, noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime/limestone if used would be most significant for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route.
| |
| These impacts, however, are highly site-specific. Site locations could reduce the aesthetic impact of a coal-fired generation, for example, if siting were in an area that was already industrialized versus locating at largely undeveloped sites.
| |
| In view of the environmental review afforded under OPSB rules or a similar program, FENOC considers that the impacts to aesthetics from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would depend on location and be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| Cultural Resources FENOC assumed that the representative coal-fired plant, associated infrastructure (e.g.,
| |
| roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way), and associated waste disposal site would be located with consideration of cultural resources afforded under OPSB or comparable rules. FENOC further assumed that appropriate measures would be taken to recover or provide other mitigation for loss of any resources discovered during onsite or offsite construction.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report On this basis, FENOC considers that the potential impact on cultural resources from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would be SMALL.
| |
| 7.3.2 GAS-FIRED GENERATION This section presents the impact evaluation for the representative gas-fired generation alternative. As discussed in Section 7.2.1.2, FENOC assumed for purposes of this analysis that the representative plant would be located at a greenfield or (preferably) brownfield site in northwestern Ohio. This assumption is a result of the space limitation at the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| Land Use Land-use requirements for gas-fired plants are relatively small, at about 100 acres for a 910 MWe plant (Section 7.2.1.2). An estimated 240 - 270 additional acres would be needed offsite at a greenfield location for new gas and electric transmission lines (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.1, Land Use) and increased land-related impacts, which in turn would be location-specific.
| |
| Land use in northwestern Ohio is predominantly rural agricultural cropland with scattered rural residences and woodlots. Located in a rural area, the change in land use would be locally apparent and could include displacement of cropland, which is highly productive for corn, wheat, and soybeans relative to other areas of the state; however, substantial buffer with respect to highly incompatible land uses (e.g.,
| |
| residential use) could be provided and destabilization of overall land use would not be expected. If the plant were located in an area designated for industrial use, associated land-use impacts would not be significant. Agricultural practices could continue along most of the area occupied by offsite rights-of-way. (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.1, Land Use)
| |
| Regardless of where the natural gas-fired plant is built, additional land would be required for natural gas wells and collection stations. Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for Davis-Besse. The GElS estimated that approximately one acre per MWe would be affected for mining and processing the uranium during the operating life of a nuclear power plant (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.12). Therefore, for Davis-Besse uranium mining and processing, approximately 910 acres of land would be required, resulting in a net gain in reclaimed land for the representative natural gas-fired generation alternative.
| |
| In view of the environmental review afforded under OPSB rules or a similar program, FENOC considers that the overall impacts of land use from construction and operation Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report of the representative plant at an alternative site would depend on plant location and be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| Water Use and Quality - Surface Water Cooling water intake, evaporative losses, and discharge flows for the plant would be less than that of Davis-Besse, primarily because less power would be derived from a steam cycle (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.2.1).
| |
| During operation, cooling water and wastewater discharges would be regulated under the federal CWA and corresponding state programs by an NPDES permit. Construction activities would be similarly regulated to ensure protection of water resources. In addition, impacts on water use and quality would be subject to scrutiny in the planning stage under OPSB or similar governing authority rules.
| |
| Overall, FENOC considers that the impacts from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site on surface water use and quality would be SMALL.
| |
| Water Use and Quality - Ground Water Impacts will depend on whether the plant will use ground water for any purposes, as well as the characteristics of local aquifers. Regardless of location, FENOC assumes that a gas-fired power plant at an alternate site will not rely on ground water for plant cooling, and that regulations for ground water use for potable water will limit impacts to SMALL.
| |
| Air Quality Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel with nitrogen oxides being the primary focus of combustion emission controls. As noted in the GELS, air quality impacts for all natural gas technologies are generally less than for fossil technologies of equal capacity because fewer pollutants are emitted (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.10).
| |
| As noted in Section 7.2.1.2, FENOC has assumed a plant design that includes controls to minimize emissions of regulated air pollutants effectively. Based on emission factors, estimated efficiencies for emission controls, and assumed design parameters listed in Table 7.2-2, operation of the plant would result in the following annual air emissions for criteria pollutants:
| |
| * Sulfur dioxide = 13.3 tons
| |
| * Nitrogen oxides = 205 tons
| |
| * Carbon monoxide = 311 tons
| |
| * Total filterable particulates = 39.4 tons Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report The annual emissions of carbon dioxide, which is currently unregulated, would be approximately 2.28 million tons. See Table 7.3-2 for details.
| |
| FENOC expects that these emissions may result in a noticeable reduction in local air quality. However, FENOC anticipates that both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will be subject to cap and trade programs (FENOC 2007, Section 7.2.1.3).
| |
| As a result, the plant would not be expected to add to regional sulfur dioxide emissions and may not add to regional nitrogen oxide emissions, at least during the ozone season (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.1, Air Quality). The representative plant would add to regional concentrations of other pollutants, including the criteria pollutants carbon monoxide and particulates; hazardous air pollutants such as mercury; and carbon dioxide, which is presently unregulated.
| |
| Subject to regulatory controls, FENOC anticipates that the overall air quality would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. As a result, FENOC considers that the impacts to air quality from operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would be MODERATE, but smaller than those of coal-fired generation.
| |
| Ecological Resources As noted in the Land Use subsection above, development of the representative combined-cycle natural gas-fired plant may require approximately 100 acres for the plant site and approximately 240 - 270 additional acres for offsite infrastructure.
| |
| Although the GElS noted that land-dependent ecological impacts from construction from gas-fired plants would be smaller than for other fossil fuel technologies of equal capacity (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.10), the type and quality of terrestrial habitat that would be displaced is location-specific.
| |
| However, FENOC considers it likely that most of the area required for construction would consist of agricultural cropland with relatively low habitat value. Stream crossings and wetland disturbance, if any, would be subject to provisions of a USACE permit (CWA Section 404) and relevant state and local requirements. (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.1, Ecology)
| |
| The most significant potential impacts to aquatic communities relate to operation of the cooling water system. However, the cooling system for the plant would be designed and operated in compliance with the CWA, including NPDES limitations for physical and chemical parameters of potential concern and provisions of CWA Sections 316(a) and 316(b), which are respectively established to ensure appropriate protection of aquatic communities from thermal discharges and cooling water intakes. Also, the siting, design, and operation of the plant would be subject to the environmental protections under OPSB rules.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Overall, FENOC expects that development of the representative natural gas-fired plant would likely have little noticeable impact on ecological resources of the area. As a result, FENOC considers that the overall impacts to ecology resources from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would depend on plant location and be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| Human Health The GElS cites risk of accidents to workers and public health risks (e.g., cancer, or emphysema) from the inhalation of toxics and particulates associated with air emissions as potential risks to human health associated with the gas-fired generation alternative (NRC 1996, Table 8.2). However, regulatory requirements imposed on facility design, construction, and operations under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Clean Air Act, and related statutes are designed to provide an appropriate level of protection to workers and the public. Additionally, regulatory agencies, including the USEPA, USOSHA, and state agencies, set air emission standards requirements for workers and the public based on human health impacts.
| |
| Given the extensive health-based regulatory control, FENOC considers that operating the representative gas-fired plant at an alternate site, regardless of plant location, would be SMALL.
| |
| Socioeconomics Major sources of potential socioeconomic impacts from the representative gas-fired generation alternative include temporary increases in jobs, economic activity, and demand for housing and public services in communities surrounding the site during the construction period. Countering these increases are losses in permanent jobs, tax revenues, and economic activity attributable to gas-fired plant operation and termination of operations of Davis-Besse.
| |
| The estimated number of peak construction workers expected to build a gas-fired plant with a capacity of 910 MWe is 1,092 - 2,275 (NRC 1996, Tables 8.1). To operate the plant would require 137 workers (NRC 1996, Tables 8.2). Although northwestern Ohio is predominantly rural, most areas are within commuting distance of the metropolitan areas like Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio. Considering the proximity of these sources of labor and services, FENOC expects that most of the construction workforce would commute and relatively few would relocate into the area, and associated socioeconomic impacts during construction would be SMALL.
| |
| Communities in Ottawa County, however, particularly those within the taxing jurisdiction of Carroll Township and the Benton-Carroll-Salem School District, would experience losses in both employment and tax revenues due to Davis-Besse closure that could constitute MODERATE impact (see Section 4.17).
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC believes that these impacts, although noticeable, would not be destabilizing.
| |
| As a result, FENOC considers that the overall socioeconomic impact of construction and operation of the representative gas-fired at an alternative site would be MODERATE.
| |
| Waste Management Gas-fired generation would result in minimal waste generation, producing minor (if any) impacts (NRC 1996, Section 8.3.10). As a result, FENOC considers waste management impacts from the operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would be SMALL.
| |
| Aesthetics Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of a gas-fired plant include visual impairment resulting from the presence of a large industrial facility, including multiple exhaust stacks at least 150 feet high, and mechanical-draft cooling towers with associated condensate plumes. Considering the flat topography in northwestern Ohio, the stacks and condensate plumes would likely be visible for several miles from the site; new transmission lines constructed to connect the plant to the grid would also be relatively visible for the same reason, though would not be out of character for the rural northwestern Ohio landscape. (FENOC 2007, Section 7.3.1, Aesthetics) FENOC expects that the plant likely would be located in a rural area, and assumed that adequate buffer and vegetation screens would be provided at the plant site as needed to moderate visual and noise impacts.
| |
| In view of the environmental review afforded under OPSB rules, FENOC considers that the impacts to aesthetics from construction and operation of the representative plant at an alternative site would depend on location and be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| Cultural Resources FENOC assumed that the representative gas-fired plant and associated gas-supply pipeline and transmission line would be located with consideration of cultural resources under OPSB or comparable program rules. FENOC further assumed that appropriate measures would be taken to avoid, recover, or provide other mitigation for loss of any resources discovered during onsite or offsite construction.
| |
| On this basis, FENOC concludes that the potential adverse impact on cultural resources of the representative plant at an alternative site, regardless of location, would be SMALL.
| |
| August 2010 Alternatives Page 7.3-12 Impacts of Environmental Impacts Environmental of Alternatives Page 7.3-12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 7.3-1: Air Emissions from Coal-Fired Alternative Parameter(1 ) Calculation Result Heat Rate Total Gross Capability x x Conversion Factors x Capacity Factor tons/year Annual Coal Heat Value Consumption 910 MW x 9,800 Btu lb 1,000 kW 8,760 hr ton x-x x- x x0.80 2,543,644 kW x hr 12,285 Btu MW year year 2,000 lb Emissions Coal Consumption x Uncontrolled Emissions x Conversion Factors x [100 - removal efficiency (%)](2) tons/year 2,543,644 tons 130 lb ton 100-95 sox x -x - x 8,267 year ton 2,000 lb 100 N0x 2,543,644 year tons 10 lb ton 100-60 ton 2,000 lb 100 CO 2,543,644 tons x--x0.5 lb ton 636 year ton 2,000 lb PM 2,543,644 tons x 120--lb x ton x 100-99.9 152.6 year ton 2,000 lb 100 PM10 2,543,644 tons 27 lb ton 100-99.9 3434 year ton 2,000 lb 100 C 2 2,543,644 tons x 6,000 lb x ton -- 7,630,933 year ton 2,000 lb Btu = British thermal units CO = carbon monoxide CO2 = carbon dioxide hr = hour kW = kilowatt lb = pound MW = megawatt NOx = nitrogen oxides PM = total filterable particulate matter PM 10 - PM having a diameter less than 10 microns SOx= sulfur oxides Notes:
| |
| (1) Source: Table 7.2-1 (2) There are no emission controls for CO and C 2.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-13 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 7.3-2: Air Emissions from Gas-Fired Alternative Parameter(1) Calculation Result Gross Capability x Heat Rate x Conversion Factors x Capacity Factor MMBtu/year Annual Gas Heat Input 910 MW x6,500 Btu 1,000 kW x 8,760 HeaInut_10_Wxx -- hr x 0.80 41,452,320 kW - hr MW year Emissions Annual Gas Heat Input x Uncontrolled Emissions x Conversion Factors x [100 - removal efficiency (%)] (2) tons/year S02 41,452,320 x 0.00064 lb x ton 13.3 year MMBtu 2,000 lb 41,452,320 0.099 lb ton 100- 90 year MMBtu 2,000 lb 100 CO - lb x ton 41,452,320 x 0.015 -311 year MMBtu 2,000 lb 41,452,320 0.019 lb ton year MMBtu 2,000 lb 41,452,320 110 lb ton COy year x MMBtu
| |
| - x 2,000-- lb 2,279,878 Btu = British thermal units CO = carbon monoxide CO2 = carbon dioxide hr = hour kW = kilowatt Ib/MMBtu = pounds per million British thermal units MW = megawatt NOx = nitrogen oxides PM = particulate matter PM10 = PM having a diameter less than 10 microns SOx = sulfur oxides (mainly SO2 )
| |
| Notes:
| |
| (1) Source: Table 7.2-2 (2) There are no emission controls for SO 2 , CO, PM, and CO 2.
| |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Page 7.3-14 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==7.4 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| Note to reader: This list of references identifies web pages and associated URLs where reference data were obtained. Some of these web pages may likely no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. FENOC has maintained hard copies of the information and data obtained from the referenced web pages.
| |
| EERE 2008. Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Website:
| |
| http://wwwl .eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windad.html, accessed July 8, 2009.
| |
| EERE 2009a. Ohio Wind Resource Map, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, available at http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/astate-template.asp?stateab=oh, accessed June 30, 2009.
| |
| EERE 2009b. Pennsylvania Wind Resource Map, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, available at http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/astate-template.asp?stateab=pa, accessed June 30, 2009.
| |
| EIA 2010. Electric Power Annual 2008, DOE/EIA-0348(2008), U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, January 2010.
| |
| FENOC 2007. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2, License Renewal Application, Appendix E, Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage, Facility Operating License No. DPR-66 and NPF-73, Akron, OH, ADAMS Accession No. ML072470523.
| |
| FirstEnergy 2008a. 2008 Annual Report, FirstEnergy Corp., Akron, Ohio, Website:
| |
| http://www.firstenergycorp.com/financialreports/index.html, accessed January 12, 2010.
| |
| FirstEnergy 2008b. FirstEnergy Generation System, 6/25/08, Website:
| |
| http://www.firstenergycorp.com/corporate/Corporate-Profile/FirstEnergyGeneration-Sy stem.html, accessed July 13, 2009.
| |
| FirstEnergy 2009a. FirstEnergy Boston Investor Meetings, June 11, 2009, Website:
| |
| http://investors.firstenergycorp .com/phoenix.zhtml?c= 102230&p=irol-presentations, accessed June 21, 2009.
| |
| FirstEnergy 2009b. FirstEnergy to Repower R.E. Burger Plant With Biomass, News Release, FirstEnergy Corp., Akron, Ohio, April 1, 2009.
| |
| References Page 7.4-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report INEEL 1998. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment Final Report, Document DOE/ID-10430.2, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, December 1998.
| |
| NEI 2008. Nuclear Energy in Ohio Fact Sheet, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 2008.
| |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| NRC 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586 Supplement 1, Volume 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, November 2002.
| |
| NRC 2009a. Combined License Applications for New Reactors, Website:
| |
| http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html, accessed July 13, 2009.
| |
| NRC 2009b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Supplement 36, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission., Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 2009.
| |
| NRC 2010. Combined License Applications for New Reactors, Website:
| |
| http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html, accessed June 18, 2010.
| |
| NREL 1986. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/CH 10093-4, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, October 1986, Website: http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/atlasindex.html, accessed July 13, 2009.
| |
| OHPUCO 2009. Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, Chapter 4901: 1-40, Ohio Public Utilities Commission, December 2009.
| |
| POST 2006. Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, October 2006, available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf, accessed July 8, 2009.
| |
| USDOE 1999. Executive Summary, Clean Coal Technology Evaluation Guide - Final Report, December 1999, available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/bibliography/program/bibp-ev.
| |
| html, accessed June 26, 2009.
| |
| USDOE 2009a. Installed U.S. Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations, Website:
| |
| http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/windinstalledcapacity.asp, accessed July 9, 2009.
| |
| References Page 7.4-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report USDOE 2009b. Future Fuel Cells R&D, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology, Website:
| |
| http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/, accessed June 30, 2009.
| |
| USDOE 2010. Monthly Nuclear Generation by State and Reactor, 2008, U.S.
| |
| Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Website:
| |
| http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nucgeneration/gensum.html, accessed January 12, 2010.
| |
| USEPA 2009a. Electricity from Municipal Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Website: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/municipal-sw.html, accessed June 30, 2009.
| |
| USEPA 2009b. EPA's Response to the TVA Kingston Fossil Fly Ash Release, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, May 11, 2009.
| |
| WTE 2007. 2007 Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants in the United States, Waste-to-Energy Resources, Energy Recovery Council, Website: http://www.wte.org/waste-energy-resources-a2985, accessed June 30, 2009.
| |
| References Page 7.4-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Page 7.4-4 References References Page 7.4-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 8.0 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF LICENSE RENEWAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3)
| |
| "To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be presented in comparative form." as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)."
| |
| FENOC presents its evaluations of the environmental impacts of Davis-Besse license renewal in Chapter 4 and reasonable alternatives in Chapter 7. In this chapter, FENOC provides a comparative summary of these impacts.
| |
| Table 8.0-1 summarizes environmental impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and the alternatives, for comparison purposes. The environmental impacts compared in Table 8.0-2 are those that are either Category 2 issues for the proposed action or are issues that the GElS (NRC 1996) identified as major considerations in an alternatives analysis. For example, although the NRC concluded that air quality impacts from the proposed action would be small (Category 1), the GElS identified major human health concerns associated with air emissions from alternatives (Section 7.2.2).
| |
| Therefore, Table 8.0-1 compares air quality impacts from the proposed action to the alternatives. Table 8.0-2 is a more detailed comparison of the alternatives.
| |
| As shown in Table 8.0-1 and Table 8.0-2, environmental impacts of the proposed action (Davis-Besse license renewal) are expected to be SMALL for all impact categories evaluated. In contrast, FENOC expects that environmental impacts in some impact categories would be MODERATE or MODERATE to LARGE for the no-action alternative (NRC decision not to renew Davis-Besse operating license), considered with or without development of replacement generation facilities.
| |
| As a result, FENOC concludes that the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Davis-Besse, providing approximately 910 MWe of base-load power generation through 2037, are superior to impacts associated with the best case among reasonable alternatives. Davis-Besse continued operation would create significantly less environmental impact than the construction and operation of new base-load generation capacity. Additionally, Davis-Besse continued operation will have a significant positive economic impact on the communities surrounding the station.
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-1 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-1: Impacts Comparison Summary Proposed No-Action Alternatives(1 )
| |
| lmpaCt( 2 ) Action Base (License (Decommissioning) With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired Renewal) Generation Generation Land Use MODERATE to SMALL to SMALL
| |
| *LARGE SMALL MODERATE Water Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE(3)
| |
| Ecological SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to Resources MODERATE Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE Waste Magee SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL Management SMALL to SMALL to SMALL SMALL MATE MODERtE Aesthetics MODERATE MODERATE Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Notes:
| |
| (1) Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of new coal-fired or gas-fired generating capacity at a greenfield site would exceed those for a coal-fired or gas-fired plant located at a brownfield, i.e., existing disturbed site.
| |
| (2) From 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Footnote 3:
| |
| - SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| - MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| - LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
| |
| (3) Moderate, but less than with coal-fired generation.
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-2 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-2: Impacts Comparison Detail No-Action Alternatives(1 )'(2)
| |
| Proposed Action Base (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired Generation Generation Alternative Descriptions Davis-Besse license Decommissioning New construction at New construction at renewal for 20 years, following expiration of greenfield (but greenfield (but preferably followed by current Davis-Besse preferably brownfield) brownfield) site.
| |
| decommissioning license. Adopting by site.
| |
| reference, as Pulverized coal units, Combined-cycle units, bounding 910-MW (equivalent to 910-MW (equivalent to Davis-Besse Davis-Besse); capacity Davis-Besse); capacity decommissioning, factorv0.80. factor 0.80.
| |
| GElS description (NRC 1996, Closed-cycle cooling Closed-cycle cooling Section 7.1). with 500-foot-tall with mechanical-draft natural-draft cooling cooling towers.
| |
| towers.
| |
| Coal and limestone Delivery of natural gas delivery via waterway or via a new 10-mile-long rail. pipeline.
| |
| Air emission controls: Air emission controls:
| |
| Particulates: fabric filter Nitrogen oxides: dry low-(99.9% removal) Sulfur NOx burners; selective oxide: wet limestone catalytic reduction (90%
| |
| scrubber (95% removal) removal). Particulate Nitrogen oxide: low-NOx matter and carbon burners, overfire air, monoxide emissions selective catalytic limited through proper reduction (95% combustion controls.
| |
| removal).
| |
| Emissions dispersed via Exhaust dispersed via 500-foot-tall stacks. 150-foot-tall stacks.
| |
| 825 permanent and Estimated workforce: Estimated workforce:
| |
| 60 contract workers Construction: 1,092 - Construction: 1,092 -
| |
| (Section 3.4). 2,275; Operation: 228 2,275; Operation: 137 Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-3 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-2: Impacts Comparison Detail (continued)
| |
| No-Action Alternatives1 )' (2)
| |
| Proposed Action Base (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired Generation Generation Land Use Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE -
| |
| reference Category 1 reference applicable - 1,547 acres required 100 acres for facility and issue findings NRC impact for the powerblock and 240 to 270 additional (Table A-1, Issues 52, conclusions in the associated facilities; acres for gas pipeline 53). GElS Section 8.4 and assumed 10 miles of and electric transmission Supplement 1 to 345-kV transmission line lines (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| NUREG-0586. on a 150-foot right-of-way; 22 acres/MW for mining and disposal (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Water Quality Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Construction SMALL - Construction reference Category 1 reference Category 1 impacts minimized by impacts minimized by issue findings issue finding regulatory controls; regulatory controls; (Table A-i, Issues 1-3, (Table A-i, Issue 89) operation-phase cooling water and 6-11 and 31). Five in the GElS Chapter 7 impacts similar to those wastewater discharges Category 2 water and Section 8.4, and of Davis-Besse; cooling subject to regulatory quality issues do not in Supplement 1 to water and wastewater controls (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| apply: Section 4.1, NUREG-0586. discharges subject to Issue 13; Section 4.6, regulatory controls Issue 34; (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Section 4.5, Issue 33; Section 4.7, Issue 35; and Section 4.8, Issue 39.
| |
| Air Quality Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by MODERATE - MODERATE -
| |
| reference Category 1 reference Category 1 8,267 tons SOx/year 13.3 tons SO 2/year issue finding issue findings 5,087 tons NOx/year 205 tons NOx/year (Table A-i, Issue 51). (Table A-i, Issue 88) 636 tons CO/year 311 tons CO/year One Category 2 issue in the GElS Chapter 7 153 tons PM/year 39.4 tons PM/year' does not apply: and Section 8.4, and 34.3 tons PM 10/year 2.28x10 6 tons C0 2/year Section 4.11, Issue 50. in Supplement 1 to 7.63x1 06 tons C0 2/year (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| NUREG-0586. (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-4 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-2: Impacts Comparison Detail (continued)
| |
| Proposed Action (License___________ Teewl Base (Decommissioning)____
| |
| (Liens Reewa)
| |
| (ecomisionng)
| |
| Ecological Resource ImpactsGeraineeato With__
| |
| No-Action Alternatives 1 '(2 Coal-FiredWithGas-Fired WiteCal-ireoWt Gas-Faired SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by MODERATE - Potential SMALL to MODERATE -
| |
| reference. Category 1 reference Category 1 loss or alteration of Approximately 100 acres issue findings issue finding more than 1,500 acres onsite and 240 to 270 (Table A-i, Issues (Table A-i, Issue 90) of habitat (e.g., acres offsite of largely.
| |
| 14-24,28-30, 41-43, in the GElS Chapter 7 transmission, waste agricultural land would and 45-48). Three and Section 8.4, and disposal landfill); be converted to industrial Category 2 issues do in Supplement 1 to facilities siting would be use for plant site and not apply: Section 4.2, NUREG-0586. subject to regulatory offsite infrastructure, Issue 25; Section 4.3, controls limiting impacts respectively; facilities Issue 26; Section 4.4, to ecological resources, siting would be subject to and Issue 27. including wetlands and regulatory controls threatened or limiting impacts to endangered species. ecological resources, Impact on aquatic including wetlands and habitats and biota from threatened or dredging (e.g., for intake end angered species.
| |
| and discharge Potential for impacts to structures and, if aquatic resources from applicable, barge construction and terminal), cooling water operation (e.g., cooling withdrawal, and water withdrawal and discharge would be discharge) reduced by subject to regulatory best management controls (Section 7.3.1). practices and regulatory Icontrols (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| Threatened or Endangered Species Impacts SMALL - Federally SMALL.- Not an SMALL - Federal and SMALL - Federal and and state threatened or impact evaluated by state laws prohibit state laws prohibit endanagered species the GEIS. destroying or adversely destroying or adversely are protected through affecting protected affecting protected company and plant species and their species and their procedures. habitats. habitats.
| |
| (Section 4.10, Issue_49)___________ ________ ____
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-5 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-2: Impacts Comparison Detail (continued)
| |
| No-Action Alternatives(1 )' (2)
| |
| Proposed Action Base (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired Generation Generation Human Health Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Some risk of SMALL - Similar to the reference Category 1 reference Category 1 cancer and emphysema coal-fired alternative issues (Table A-i, issue finding from air emissions and (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| Issues 54-56, 58, 61, (Table A-i, Issue 86) risk of accidents to 62). One Category 2 in the GElS Chapter 7 workers, as the NRC issue does not apply: and Section 8.4, and notes in the GELS.
| |
| Section 4.12, Issue 57. in Supplement 1 to Assumed that regulatory Risk due to NUREG-0586. controls would reduce transmission-line risks to acceptable induced currents levels (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| minimal due to conformance with consensus code (Section 4.13, Issue 59).
| |
| Socioeconomic Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by MODERATE - MODERATE -
| |
| reference Category 1 reference Category 1 Reduction in permanent Reduction in permanent issue findings issue finding work force and tax base work force and tax base (Table A-i, Issues 64, (Table A-i, Issue 91) at Davis-Besse would at Davis-Besse would 67). Two Category 2 in the GElS Chapter 7 adversely affect adversely affect issues do not apply: and Section 8.4, and surrounding surrounding Section 4.16, Issue 66 in Supplement 1 to communities. communities.
| |
| and Section 4.17.1, NUREG-0586. Construction and Impacts from Issue 68. Location in operational impacts construction would be high population area would depend upon the mitigated by siting plant with no growth controls site location, within commuting minimizes potential for Regulatory controls and distance of large housing impacts appropriate mitigation metropolitan areas (Section 4.14, would ensure that (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| Issue 63). impacts are not destabilizing (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-6 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-2: Impacts Comparison Detail (continued)
| |
| No-Action Alternatives(1 )' (2)
| |
| Proposed Action Base (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired Generation Generation Capacity of public water supply as well as education and transportation infrastructures minimizes potential for related impacts (Section 4.15, Issue 65; Section 4.16, Issue 66; and Section 4.18, Issue 70).
| |
| Plant tax payments range from <10% to nearly 20% of local jurisdictions tax revenues (Section 4.17.2, Issue 69).
| |
| Waste Management Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by MODERATE - Annual SMALL - Solid waste is reference Category 1 reference Category 1 waste of approximately minimal (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| issue findings issue finding 30.0,000 tons ash and (Table A-i, (Table A-i, Issue 87) 470,000 tons flue gas Issues 77-85). in the GElS Chapter 7 desulphurization waste, and Section 8.4, and requiring disposal offsite in Supplement 1 to in a 644-acre landfill NUREG-0586. over an assumed 40-year plant life (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Aesthetic Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting by SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE -
| |
| reference Category 1 reference conclusions - Highly dependent on Highly dependent on issue findings in the GElS location. Stacks, location. Stacks, cooling (Table A-i, Section 8.4 and cooling tower plumes tower plumes would be Issues 73, 74). Supplement 1 to likely would be visible visible offsite NUREG-0586. for several miles. (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| Operation of waste disposal site would have adverse impact potential (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-7 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 8.0-2: Impacts Comparison Detail (continued)
| |
| No-Action Alternatives(1 )' (2)
| |
| Proposed Action Base (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired Generation Generation Cultural Resource Impacts SMALL -License SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Siting of plant SMALL - Same as the renewal does not reference conclusions and offsite infrastructure coal-fired alternative require additional land in the GElS (e.g., transmission line, (Section 7.3.2).
| |
| disturbance Section 8.4 and natural gas pipeline)
| |
| (Section 4.19, Supplement 1 to would be subject to Issue 71). NUREG-0586. regulatory review, and mitigation measures would be implemented (Section 7.3.1).
| |
| Btu = British thermal unit CO = carbon monoxide CO 2 = carbon dioxide ft 3 = cubic foot GElS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NRC 1996) kWh = kilowatt hour lb = pound MM = million MW = megawatt NOx = nitrogen oxides PM = particulate matter PM10 = particulates having diameter less than 10 microns SOx = sulfur oxides Notes:
| |
| (1) Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of new coal-fired or gas-fired generating capacity at a greenfield site would exceed those described in the table for a coal-fired or gas-fired plant located at a brownfield, i.e., existing disturbed site.
| |
| (2) From 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Footnote 3:
| |
| - SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| - MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
| |
| Comparison of Environmental Impact of Page 8.0-8 August 2010 License Renewal with the Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==8.1 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| References Page 8.1 -1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| References Page 8.1-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 9.0 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE This chapter lists and discusses the compliance status of the requirements in connection with the proposed action as well as the alternatives.
| |
| 9.1 PROPOSED ACTION Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(d) and 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| "The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection.
| |
| Table 9.1-1 lists the various federal and state environmental permits, licenses, approvals, or other entitlements that FENOC has obtained for current Davis-Besse site operations. As needed, FENOC intends to seek timely renewal of these authorizations during the current license period and throughout the period of extended operation with the objective of ensuring compliance with the provisions of these authorizations and applicable environmental standards and requirements. Because the NRC regulatory focus is prospective, Table 9.1-1 does not include authorizations that FENOC obtained for past activities that did not include continuing obligations.
| |
| Before preparing the application for license renewal, FENOC conducted an assessment to identify any new and significant environmental information (Section 5.2). The assessment included interviews with FENOC subject-matter experts, review of Davis-Besse environmental documentation, and communication with state and federal environmental protection agencies. Based on the most recent assessments, FENOC concludes that Davis-Besse is in conformance with applicable environmental standards and requirements.
| |
| Table 9.1-2 lists additional environmental consultations related to NRC renewal of the Davis-Besse license to operate. As indicated, FENOC anticipates needing relatively few such authorizations and consultations. These items are discussed in more detail below.
| |
| August 2010 Compliance of Compliance Page 9.1-1 Status of Page 9.1 -1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Threatened or Endangered Species Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires federal agencies to ensure that agency action is not likely to jeopardize any species that is listed, or proposed for listing as endangered, or threatened. Depending on the action involved, the Act requires consultation with the USFWS regarding effects on non-marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine species, or both.
| |
| USFWS and NMFS have issued joint procedural regulations at 50 CFR Part 402, Subpart B, that address consultation, and FWS maintains the joint list of threatened or endangered species at 50 CFR Part 17. Additionally, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) maintains a list of endangered species in the state (Ohio Revised Code 1531.25).
| |
| Although not required of an applicant by federal law or NRC regulation, FENOC has solicited comment from federal and state resource agencies regarding potential effects that Davis-Besse license renewal might have on species of concern. Attachment C includes copies of FENOC correspondence with USFWS, NMFS, and ODNR.
| |
| USFWS determined that the Davis-Besse license renewal project will not impact federally listed species and will have minimal environmental impacts, as no change in operation or extent of the facility is proposed. However, the USFWS noted that a bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus)nest exists on the Davis-Besse property. Although the bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species in July 2007 due to recovery, this species continues to be afforded protection by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To avoid disturbing nesting and young eagles, USFWS requested that no activity occur within 660 feet of the nest between January 1 and July 31, when the nesting eagles are most vulnerable. FENOC plans to incorporate the USFWS requirement into station procedures. (USFWS 2009)
| |
| NMFS stated that no threatened or endangered species listed by NMFS are known to occur in Lake Erie and that no Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as designated under the Magnuson-Steven Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, occurs in the vicinity of Davis-Besse. As a result, NMFS noted that no further coordination with NMFS on the effects of Davis-Besse license renewal is necessary. (NMFS 2010)
| |
| ODNR reported that the project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state and federally endangered species, and listed a number high value trees that protect its habitat. ODNR requires that if such trees occur within the project area, these trees must be conserved. In addition, if suitable habitat occurs on the project area and trees must be cut, cutting must occur between September 30 and April 1. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months of April 2 to September 29, a net survey must be conducted in May or June prior to cutting. If no tree removal is proposed, the Proposed Action Page 9.1-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report project is not likely to impact this species. FENOC plans to incorporate the ODNR requirement into station procedures. (ODNR 2009a)
| |
| ODNR also reported that the project is within the range of 15 other state, federal, or both endangered or threatened species (ODNR 2009a). However, ODNR determined that the Davis-Besse license renewal project is not likely to impact these species (see Section 4.10.2). Nevertheless, because the location of bald eagle activity frequently changes, a status update must be obtained from ODNR prior to any construction activity. This requirement is in addition to the USFWS request that no activity occur within 660 feet of the nest between January 1 and July 31. FENOC plans to incorporate the ODNR requirement into station procedures. Otherwise, ODNR is not aware of any threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of Davis-Besse.
| |
| Historic Preservation Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct (16 USC 470 et seq.) requires federal agencies having the authority to license any undertaking to, prior to issuing the license, take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Council regulations provide for the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to have a consulting role (36 CFR 800.7). Although not required of an applicant by federal law or NRC regulation, FENOC invited comment on the proposed action by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. Copies of the correspondence are included in Attachment C. In the opinion of the OHPO, license renewal will not affect historic properties (OHPO 2010).
| |
| Water Quality (401) Certification Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license who conducts an activity that might result in a discharge into navigable waters to provide the licensing agency a certification from the state that the discharge will comply with applicable Clean Water Act requirements (33 USC 1341).
| |
| In 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, issued a renewal to the Davis-Besse National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (OEPA 2006). NRC has indicated in the GElS (NRC 1996, Section 4.2.1.1) that issuance of a NPDES permit implies certification by the state. FENOC is applying to NRC for license renewal to continue Davis-Besse operations. Consistent with the GElS, FENOC is providing Davis-Besse's NPDES permit approval letter and cover sheet as evidence of state water quality (401) certification (see Attachment B).
| |
| August 2010 Action Page 9.1-3 Proposed Action Proposed Page 9.1-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Coastal Zone Management Program Compliance The CoastalZone Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq.) imposes requirements on applicants for a federal license to conduct an activity that could affect a state's coastal zone. The Act requires the applicant to certify to the licensing agency that the proposed activity would be consistent with the state's federally approved coastal zone management program [16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)]. The Act further requires that the license applicant provide its certification to the federal licensing agency and a copy to the applicable state agency [15 CFR 930.57(a)].
| |
| The NRC's office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has issued guidance to its staff regarding compliance with the Act. This guidance acknowledges that Ohio has an approved Coastal Management Program (NRC 2004). Davis-Besse, located in Ottawa County, is within the Ohio Coastal Management Program. Accordingly, FENOC has contacted the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Program.
| |
| Copies of the correspondence are included in Attachment C. A copy of the certification of consistency is included in Attachment D.
| |
| Proposed Action Page 9.1-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 9.1-1: Environmental Authorizations for Current Davis-Besse Operations Issue or Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Authorized Date Federal Authorizations U.S. Nuclear Atomic Energy License to NPF-3 Issued: Operation of Regulatory Act (42 USC operate 4/22/1977 Davis-Besse Commission 2011, et seq.), Expires:
| |
| 10CFR50.10 4/22/2017 U.S. Nuclear 10 CFR Part 72 Requirements Certificate Number Issued: Use of Regulatory to store spent 1004 1/23/1995 radioactive Commission nuclear fuel Expires: waste cask and high-level 1/31/2015 Model Number radioactive NUHOMS-24P waste U.S. 49 CFR Part Hazardous 042009 450 Issued: Transportation Department of 107, Subpart G material 002RT 5/19/2009 of hazardous Transportation registration Expires: materials 6/30/2012 (Renewed Triennially)
| |
| U.S. RCRA [42 Notification of EPA ID# Issued: Generation Environmental U.S.C. s/s 321 regulated OHD000720508 -- and Protection et seq. (1976)] waste activity Expires: accumulation Agency Indefinite of hazardous waste State and Local Authorizations Ohio Federal Water National Ohio Permit No. Issued: Treatment of Environmental Pollution Pollutant 21B0001 1*ID 9/1/2006 wastewater Protection Control Act, as Discharge Expires: and effluent Agency, amended (33 Elimination 4/30/2011 discharge to Division of U.S.C Section System (every 5 surface Surface Water 1251 et seq.); (NPDES) years) receiving Ohio Water Permit waters Pollution (Toussaint Control Act River and Lake (Ohio Revised Erie)
| |
| Code Section 6111)
| |
| Proposed Action Page 9.1-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 9.1-1: Environmental Authorizations for Current Davis-Besse Operations (continued)
| |
| Issue or Activity Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Authorized Date Ohio Federal Water NPDES Ohio Permit No. Issued: Construction of Environmental Pollution construction 2GC02563*AG 12/21/2009 Switchyard Protection Control Act, as stormwater Expires: Upon project and Agency, amended (33 permit project control-Division of U.S.C Section completion discharge of Surface Water 1251 et seq.); stormwater in Ohio Water Ottawa Pollution County, Carroll Control Act Township (Ohio Revised Code Section 6111)
| |
| Ohio Clean Air Act, Permit to Permit Application Issued: Operation of Environmental 40 U.S.C. 1857 operate an air No. Annual station Protection et seq.; Ohio contaminant 0362000091BOOl reporting auxiliary boiler Agency, Air Pollution source Expires:
| |
| Division of Air Control Act Indefinite Pollution (Ohio Control Administrative Code Chapter 3745-31)
| |
| Ohio Ohio Report of EPA ID# Issued: Generation, Environmental Administrative regulated OHD000720508 Annual accumulation, Protection Code Chapter waste activity reporting and off-site Agency, 3745-52-41 Expires: disposal of Division of Indefinite hazardous Hazardous waste Waste Management Ohio Ohio Revised Scientific Permit #10-21 Issued: Collection of Department of Code Section collection Annually wildlife Natural 1531.08 permit Expires: specimens for Resources, 3/15/2011 Radiological Division of Environmental Wildlife Monitoring Program (REMP)
| |
| Proposed Action Page 9.1-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 9.1-1: Environmental Authorizations for Current Davis-Besse Operations (continued)
| |
| Issue or Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Activity Date Authorized Ohio Ohio Revised Water Registration # Issued: Withdraw and Department of Code Section withdrawal 00598 1/1/1990 use of more Natural 1521.16 and use Expires: than 100,00 Resources, registration Indefinite gallons of Division of and file annual water daily Water report from all Resources sources Ohio Ohio X-Ray Registration # Issued: Operation of Department of Administrative generating 17-M-07181-005 Biennially X-ray Health Code 3701: 1- equipment Expires: generation 38-03(C); Ohio registration 5/31/2012 equipment Revised Code 3748.06 and 3748.07 Ohio Ohio Underground Certificate # Issued: Registration of Department of Administrative storage tank 62000072 Annually underground Commerce, Code 1301: 7- registration Expires: diesel storage Division of 9-04 6/30/2011 tanks T00001, State Fire T00002, and Marshal T00003 Tennessee Tennessee License to Tennessee Issued: Shipment of Department of Code deliver Delivery License # Annually radioactive Environment Annotated 68- radioactive T-OH003-LO9 Expires: material to a and 202-206 waste 12/31/2010 licensed Conservation disposal-processing facility within the State of Tennessee August 2010 Action Page 9.1-7 Proposed Action Proposed Page 9.1-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table 9.1-2: Environmental Consultations Related to License Renewal Agency Authority Activity U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Act Requires federal agency issuing a Service & National Marine Section 7 (16 USC 1531) license to consult with US Fish Fisheries Service and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding terrestrial and freshwater species, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding marine species (including anadromous fishes).
| |
| Ohio Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Requires federal agency issuing a Office Act, Section 106 (16 USC 470) license to consider cultural impacts and consult with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), who must concur that license renewal will not affect any sites listed or eligible for listing.
| |
| Ohio Environmental Clean Water Act (CWA), State issuance of NPDES permit, Protection Agency, Division Section 401 (33 USC 1341) which constitutes 401 certification of Surface Water that discharge would comply with CWA standards.
| |
| Ohio Department of Natural Coastal Zone Management Requires an applicant to provide Resources, Coast (16 USC 1451) certification to the federal agency Management Program issuing the license that license renewal would be consistent with the federally-approved state coastal zone management program. Based on its review of the proposed activity, the state must concur with or object to the applicant's certification.
| |
| Proposed Action Page 9.1-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 9.2 ALTERNATIVES Regulatory Requirement: 10 CFR 51.45(d) and 51.53(c)(2)
| |
| "...The discussion of alternatives in the report shall include a discussion of whether the alternatives will comply with such applicable environmental quality standards and requirements."
| |
| The coal- and gas-fired generation alternatives, and purchased power alternatives discussed in Section 7.2.1 could be constructed and operated to comply with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements. FENOC notes, however, that increasingly stringent air quality protection requirements could make the construction of a large fossil-fueled power plant infeasible in many locations.
| |
| Alternatives Page 9.2-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Alternatives Page 9.2-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| | |
| ==9.3 REFERENCES==
| |
| | |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| NRC 2004. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, NRR Office Instruction No. LIC-203, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 24, 2004.
| |
| NMFS 2010. Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Adminsitration, U.S. Department of Commence, NMFS letter, M.A.
| |
| Colligan to B. Allen (FENOC) January 15, 2010, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
| |
| ODNR 2009a. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, ODNR letter, J. Navarro to B. Allen (FENOC), December 22, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| ODNR 2009b. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, ODNR e-mail, B. Mitch to C.I. Custer (FENOC), December 22, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| OEPA 2006. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, EPA ID No. OH0003786, Permit No. 21B001 1*ID, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, August 14 and September 8, 2006.
| |
| OHPO 2010. Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical Society, OHPO letter, N.J. Young to C.I. Custer (FENOC), March 23, 2010.
| |
| USFWS 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, USFES letter, M.K. Knapp to B. Allen (FENOC), TAILS #3142002010-TA-0132, December 16, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| References Page 9.3-1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| References Page 9.3-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment A:
| |
| NRC National Environmental Policy Act Issues For License Renewal Attachment A August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment A Page A-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report A.1 NRC NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) has prepared this environmental report in accordance with the requirements of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation 10 CFR 51.53. NRC included in the regulation a list of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.
| |
| Table A-1 lists these 92 issues and identifies the section of the environmental report in which an applicable issue is addressed. For organization and clarity, FENOC has assigned a number to each issue and uses the issue numbers throughout the environmental report.
| |
| August 2010 A Page A-3 Attachment A Attachment Page A-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue( 1 ) Category Environmental (Section/Page)
| |
| Report Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)
| |
| : 1. Impacts of refurbishmenton 1 4.0 3.4.1/3-4 surface water quality
| |
| : 2. Impacts of refurbishment on 1 4.0 3.4.1/3-1 surface water use
| |
| : 3. Altered current patterns at intake 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.1/4-5 and discharge structures
| |
| : 4. Altered salinity gradients 1 NA 4.2.1.2.2/4-5 Issue applies to a plant feature, discharge to saltwater, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 5. Altered thermal stratification of 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.3/4-6 lakes
| |
| : 6. Temperature effects on sediment 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.3/4-8 transport capacity
| |
| : 7. Scouring caused by discharged 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.3/4-6 cooling water
| |
| : 8. Eutrophication 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.3/4-9
| |
| : 9. Discharge of chlorine or other 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 biocides
| |
| : 10. Discharge of sanitary wastes and 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 minor chemical spills
| |
| : 11. Discharge of other metals in waste 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 Water
| |
| : 12. Water use conflicts (plants with 1 NA 4.2.1.3/4-13 once-through cooling systems) Issue applies to a plant feature, once-through cooling, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 13. Water use conflicts (plants with 2 NA, and 4.3.2.1/4-29 cooling ponds or cooling towers discussed in Issue applies to features, using make-up water from a small Section 4.1 cooling ponds or water river with low flow) withdrawals from a small river, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| Attachment A Page A-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2 )
| |
| Issuet 1 ) Category Environmental Report (Section/Page)
| |
| Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)
| |
| : 14. Refurbishment impacts to aquatic 1 . 4.0 3.5/3-5 resources
| |
| : 15. Accumulation of contaminants in 1 4.0 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 sediments or biota
| |
| : 16. Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.1/4-15 zooplankton
| |
| : 17. Cold shock 1 4:0 4.2.2.1.5/4-18
| |
| : 18. Thermal plume barrier to migrating 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.6/4-19 fish
| |
| : 19. Distribution of aquatic organisms 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.6/4-19
| |
| : 20. Premature emergence of aquatic 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.7/4-20 insects
| |
| : 21. Gas supersaturation (gas bubble 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.8/4-21 disease)
| |
| : 22. Low dissolved oxygen in the 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.9/4-23 discharge
| |
| : 23. Losses from predation, parasitism, 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.10/4-24 and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses
| |
| : 24. Stimulation of nuisance organisms 1 4.0 4.2.2.1.11/4-25 (e.g., shipworms) T Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)
| |
| : 25. Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 2 NA, and 4.2.2.1.1/4-16 early life stages for plants with discussed in Issue applies to a plant once-through and cooling pond Section 4.2 feature, once-through cooling heat dissipation systems or a cooling pond, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 26. Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 NA, and 4.2.2.1.2/4-16 for plants with once-through and discussed in Issue applies to a plant cooling pond heat dissipation Section 4.3 feature, once-through cooling systems or a cooling pond, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| August 2010 A Page A-5 Attachment A Attachment Page A-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue(1 ) Category Environmental (Section/Page)
| |
| Report (Section/Page)
| |
| : 27. Heat shock for plants with once- 2 NA, and 4.2.2.1.4/4-17 through and cooling pond heat discussed in Issue applies to a plant dissipation systems Section 4.4 feature, once-through cooling or a cooling pond, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)
| |
| : 28. Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 1 4.0 4.3.3/4-33 early life stages for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems
| |
| : 29. Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.0 4.3.3/4-33 for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems
| |
| : 30. Heat shock for plants with cooling- 1 4.0 4.3.3/4-33 tower-based heat dissipation systems Groundwater Use and Quality
| |
| : 31. Impacts of refurbishment on 1 4.0 3.4.2/3-5 groundwater use and quality
| |
| : 32. Groundwater use conflicts (potable 1 4.0 4.8.1.1/4-116 and service water; plants that use
| |
| < 100 gpm)
| |
| : 33. Groundwater use conflicts 2 NA, and 4.8.1.2/4-117 (potable, service water, and discussed in Issue applies to an dewatering; plants that use > Section 4.5 operational feature, annual 100 gpm) average groundwater withdrawals greater than 100 gpm, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 34. Groundwater use conflicts (plants 2 NA, and 4.8.1.3/4-117 using cooling towers withdrawing discussed in Issue applies to a feature, make-up water from a small river) Section 4.6 withdrawals from a small river; that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 35. Groundwater use conflicts (Ranney 2 NA, and 4.8.2.2/4-120 wells) discussed in Issue applies to a feature, Section 4.7 Ranney wells, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| Attachment A Page A-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue( 1 ) Category Environmental (Section/Page)
| |
| ________ Report
| |
| : 36. Groundwater quality degradation 1 NA 4.8.2.2/4-120 (Ranney wells) Issue applies to a feature, Ranney wells, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| .37. Groundwater quality degradation 1 NA 4.8.2.1/4-119 (saltwater intrusion) Issue applies to a feature, location in estuary or oceanic areas, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 38. Groundwater quality degradation 1 NA 4.8.3/4-121 (cooling ponds in salt marshes) Issue applies to a feature, cooling ponds, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 39. Groundwater quality degradation 2 NA, and 4.8.3/4-121 (cooling ponds at inland sites) discussed in Issue applies to a feature, Section 4.8 cooling ponds at inland sites, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| Terrestrial Resources
| |
| : 40. Refurbishment impacts to 2 4.0 3.6/3-6 terrestrial resources
| |
| : 41. Cooling tower impacts on crops 1 4.0 4.3.4/4-34 and ornamental vegetation
| |
| : 42. Cooling tower impacts on native 1 4.0 4.3.5.1/4-42 plants
| |
| : 43. Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.0 4.3.5.2/4-45
| |
| : 44. Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 NA 4.4.4/4-58 resources Issue applies to a feature, cooling ponds, that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 45. Power line right-of-way 1 4.0 4.5.6.1/4-71 management (cutting and herbicide application)
| |
| : 46. Bird collisions with power lines 1 4.0 4.5.6.2/4-74 August 2010 Page A-7 Attachment A A Page A-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue(1 ) Category Environmental (Section/Page)
| |
| Report
| |
| : 47. Impacts of electromagnetic fields 1 4.0 4.5.6.3/4-77 on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)
| |
| : 48. Floodplains and wetlands on power 1 4.0 4.5.7/4-81 line right-of-way Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)
| |
| : 49. Threatened or endangered species;] 2 4.10 3.9/3-48 (refurbishment) 4.1/4-1 (renewal term)
| |
| Air Quality
| |
| : 50. Air quality during refurbishment 2 NA, and 3.3/3-2 (non-attainment and maintenance discussed in Issue applies to areas that areas) Section 4.11 Davis-Besse is not located near.
| |
| : 51. Air quality effects of transmission 1 4.0 4.5.2/4-62 lines Land Use
| |
| : 52. Onsite land use 1 4.0 3.2/3-1
| |
| : 53. Power line right-of-way land use 1 4.0 4.5.3/4-62 impacts Human Health
| |
| : 54. Radiation exposures to the public 1 4.0 3.8.1/3-27.
| |
| during refurbishment
| |
| : 55. Occupational radiation exposures 1 4.0 3.8.2/3-42.
| |
| during refurbishment
| |
| : 56. Microbiological organisms 1 4.0 4.3.6/4-48 (occupational health)
| |
| : 57. Microbiological organisms (public 2 NA, and 4.3.6/4-48 health) (plants using lakes or discussed in Issue applies to features -
| |
| canals, or cooling towers or cooling Section 4.12 cooling pond, cooling lake, or ponds that discharge to a small discharges to a small river -
| |
| river) that Davis-Besse does not have.
| |
| : 58. Noise 1 4.0 4.3.7/4-49
| |
| : 59. Electromagnetic fields, acute 2 4.13 4.5.4.1/4-66 effects (electric shock)
| |
| Attachment A Page A-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue( 1 ) Category Environmental (Section/Page)
| |
| Report
| |
| : 60. Electromagnetic fields, chronic NA 4.0 4.5.4.2/4-67 effects The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to this issue.
| |
| : 61. Radiation exposures to public 1 4.0 4.6.2/4-87 (license renewal term)
| |
| : 62. Occupational radiation exposures 1 4.0 4.6.3/4-95 (license renewal term)
| |
| Socioeconomics
| |
| : 63. Housing impacts 2 4.14 3.7.2/3-10 (refurbishment) 4.7.1/4-101 (renewal term)
| |
| : 64. Public services: public safety, 1 4.0 Refurbishment social services, and tourism and 3.7.4/3-14 (public services) recreation 3.7.4.3/3-18 (safety) 3.7.4.4/3-19 (social) 3.7.4.6/3-20 (tourism & rec.)
| |
| Renewal Term 4.7.3/4-104 (public services) 4.7.3.3/4-106 (safety) 4.7.3.4/4-107 (social) 4.7.3.6/4-107 (tourism & rec.)
| |
| : 65. Public services: public utilities 2 4.15 3.7.4.5/3-19 (refurbishment) 4.7.3.5/4-107 (renewal term)
| |
| : 66. Public services: education 2 4.16 3.7.4.1/3-15)
| |
| (refurbishment)
| |
| : 67. Public services: education (license 1 4.17 4.7.3.1/4-106 renewal term)
| |
| : 68. Offsite land use (refurbishment) 2 4.17.1 3.7.5/3-20
| |
| : 69. Offsite land use (license renewal 2 4.17.2 4.7.4/4-107 term)
| |
| : 70. Public services: transportation 2 4.18 3.7.4.2/3-17 (refurbishment) 4.7.3.2/4-106 (renewal term)
| |
| : 71. Historic and archaeological 2 4.19 3.7.7/3-23 (refurbishment) resources 4.7.7/4-114 (renewal term)
| |
| : 72. Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 1 4.0 3.7.8/3-24.
| |
| : 73. Aesthetic impacts (license renewal 1 4.0 4.7.6/4-111 term)
| |
| Attachment A Page A-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-I. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| SSection of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue( 1 ) Category Environmental (Section/Page)
| |
| Report (Section/Page)
| |
| : 74. Aesthetic impacts of transmission 1 4.0 4.5.8/4-83 lines (license renewal term)
| |
| Postulated Accidents
| |
| : 75. Design basis accidents 1 4.0 5.3.2/5-11 (design basis) 5.5.1/5-114 (summary)
| |
| : 76. Severe accidents 2 4.20 5.3.3/5-12 (probabilistic analysis) 5.3.3.2/5-19 (air dose) 5.3.3.3/5-49 (water) 5.3.3.4/5-65 (groundwater) 5.3.3.5/5-96 (economic) 5.4/5-106 (mitigation) 5.5.2/5-114 (summary)
| |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management
| |
| : 77. Offsite radiological impacts 1 4.0 6.1/6-1 (intro)
| |
| (individual effects from other than 6.2.1/6-8/6-8 (background) the disposal of spent fuel and high- 6.2.2.1/6-8 (effluents) level waste) 6.2.2.3/6-20 (dose) 6.2.3/6-22 (sensitivity) 6.2.4/6-27 (conclusions) 6.6/6-87 (summary)
| |
| : 78. Offsite radiological impacts 1 4.0 6.1/6-1 (intro)
| |
| (collective effects) 6.2.2.1/6-8 (effluents) 6.2.3/6-22 (sensitivity) 6.2.4/6-27 (conclusions)
| |
| : 79. Offsite radiological impacts (spent 1 4.0 6.1/6-1 (intro) fuel and high-level waste disposal) 6.2.2.1/6-8 (effluents) 6.2.3/6-22 (sensitivity) 6.2.4/6-27 (conclusions)
| |
| : 80. Nonradiological impacts of the 1 4.0 6.2.2.6/6-20 (land use) uranium fuel cycle 6.2.2.7/6-20 (water use) 6.2.2.8/6-21 (fossil fuel) 6.2.2.9/6-21 (chemical)
| |
| : 81. Low-level waste storage and 1 4.0 6.4.2/6-36 (low-level disposal definition) 6.4.3/6-37 (low-level volume) 6.4.4/6-48 (renewal effects)
| |
| : 82. Mixed waste storage and disposal 1 4.0 6.4.5/6-63 Attachment A Page A-1 0 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table A-1. Davis-Besse Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issues (continued)
| |
| Section of this GElS Cross Reference(2)
| |
| Issue1 Category Environmental Report (Section/Page)
| |
| : 83. Onsite spent fuel 1 4.0 6.4.6/6-70
| |
| : 84. Nonradiological waste 1 4.0 6.5/6-86 (wastes) 6.6/6-87 (summary)
| |
| : 85. Transportation 1 4.0 6.3/6-31, as revised by Addendum 1, August 1999.
| |
| Decommissioning ___
| |
| : 86. Radiation doses 1 4.0 7.3.1/7-15 (decommissioning)
| |
| : 87. Waste management 1 4.0 7.3.2/7-19 (impacts)
| |
| (decommissioning) 7.4/7-25 (conclusions)
| |
| : 88. Air quality (decommissioning) 1 4.0 7.3.3/7-21 (air) 7.4/7-25 (conclusion)
| |
| : 89. Water quality (decommissioning) 1 4.0 7.3.4/7-21 (water) 7.4/7-25 (conclusion)
| |
| : 90. Ecological resources 1 4.0 7.3.5/7-21 (ecological)
| |
| (decommissioning) 7.4/7-25 (conclusion)
| |
| : 91. Socioeconomic impacts 1 4.0 7.3.7/7-24 (socioeconomic)
| |
| (decommissioning) 7.4/7-25 (conclusion)
| |
| Environmental Justice
| |
| : 92. Environmental justice NA 2.6.2 and 4.21 Not in GElS Notes:
| |
| (1) Source: 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A, Table B-I. (Issue numbers added to facilitate discussion.)
| |
| (2) Source: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437).
| |
| NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.
| |
| NA = Not Applicable Attachment A Page A-1 1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment A Page A- 12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment B:
| |
| National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit August 2010 B
| |
| Attachment B August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Page B-2 August 2010 B
| |
| Attachment B Page B-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency STREETADDRESS ... MAILINGAOORESS:
| |
| Lazarus Government Center TELE: (614) 644-3020 FAX: (614) 644-3184 P.O. Box 1049 122 S. Front Street wýv .epa.state.oh.us Columbus, OH 43216-1049 Columbus, Ohio 43215 September 8, 2006 Re: Ohio EPA Permit No. 21B0001 1*ID Facility- Davis-Besse Nuclear Po!
| |
| Application No. OH0003786 ip I! IV I!
| |
| FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company avr 5501 North State Route 2 SEP 12 M .
| |
| Oak Harbor OH 43449 "
| |
| Ladies and Gentlemen: . DBNPS We propose to make to following minor modifications to the above referenced permIt.
| |
| Page Correction 3 Revise Total Residual Chlorine notes for final outfall 21B0001 1001.
| |
| 7 Revise Total Residual Chlorine notes for final outfall 21B00011004.
| |
| Ifyou consent to these changes, please sign below and incorporate the corrected pages into your permit.
| |
| The proposed minor modifications will become effective on the date we receive this signed letter from you at the following address: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Permit Administration Section, P. 0. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149.
| |
| 6 *-"incerely, Patti L. Smith, Supervisor Permit Processing Unit Division of Surface Water PLS/dks Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL I consent to the minor modificati "Name T91e
| |
| *Date/
| |
| Bob Taft, Governor Bruce Johnson, Lieutenant Governor Joseph P Koncelik, Director PntedWRcyedpaper Ohio EPA is an Equal Opportunity Employer Attachment B Page B-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 3 21B00011*ID
| |
| **** Total Residual Chlorine or Total Residual Oxidants may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than 2 hours per day. If it is necessary to discharge TRC or TRO for more than two hours, the discharge shall be treated with a dehalogenating agent dosed to achieve levels of 0.038 mg/1 TRC or 0.01 mg/1 TRO as appropriate. (1) Total Residual Oxidants reflects the use of bromine compounds.
| |
| Bromine can be used separately or in combination with chlorine. These limits are effective when bromine is used. Discharge limitations for TRO may be met using a dehalogenation agent, if necessary. Dehalogenation shall then be achieved by using stoichiometric calculations to determine the amount of dehalogenating agent necessary to completely eliminate the residual.
| |
| ***** Dissolved Oxygen: In addition to the monitoring requirements noted above, sampling shall be performed daily by grab sample during discharge of hydrazine.
| |
| ****** Water Temperature: Report daily average.
| |
| ******* Total Residual Chlorine & Total Residual Oxidants shall be monitored daily (during treatment event) except on days when plant is not normally staffed. Report "AN" on the monthly report form for those days.
| |
| (2) Report on days when bromine compounds are used with or without chlorine. On days when no bromine compounds are used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (3) Report on days when ONLY chlorine compounds are used (i.e. no bromine compounds. On days when bromine or a combination of bromine and chlorine IS used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (4) Monitor when discharging.
| |
| - See Part II for other requirements.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment B B Page B-4 Page B-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 7 21B00011*ID and/or bromination. The daily grab samples for TRC and TRO shall represent the maximumm concentration discharged during chlorination and/or bromination.
| |
| ** Measure TRO, TRC, and Cl/Br duration on days when using treatment.
| |
| *** Grab sample for TRO and TRC will be taken during treatment event.
| |
| **** Asbestos, See Part II, Other Requirements, Item 0.
| |
| *****Total Residual Chlorine or Total Residual Oxidants may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than 2 hours per day. If it is necessary to discharge TRC or TRO for more than two hours, the discharge shall be treated with a dehalogenating agent dosed to achieve levels of 0.038 mg/I TRC or mg/1 TRO, as appropriate.
| |
| (1) Total Residual Oxidants reflects the use of bromine compounds. Bromine can be used separately or in combination with chlorine. These limits are effective when bromine is used. Discharge limitations for TRO may be met using a dehalogenation agent, if necessary.
| |
| Dehalogenation shall then be achieved by using stoichiometric calculations to determine the amount of dehalogenating agent necessary to completely eliminate the residual.
| |
| (2) Report on days when bromine compounds are used with or without chlorine. On days when no bromine compounds are used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (3) Report on days when ONLY chlorine compounds are used (i.e. no bromine compounds. On days when bromine or a combination of bromine and chlorine IS used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (4) Daily monitoring is required for the parameters during discharge from the circulating water system (i.e., Cooling Tower Basin Drain).
| |
| B-5 August 2010 Page August 2010 Attachment B Page B-5
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report OI*E State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency CC.
| |
| STREET ADDRESS: MAILINGADDRESS Lazarus Government Center TELE:(614) 644-3020 FAX: (614) 644-3184 P.O. Box 104N 122 S. Front Street www.epastale.oh.us Columbus, OH 43216-104S Columbus, Ohio 43215 August 14, 2006 Re: Ohio EPA Permit No. 21B00011*ID Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
| |
| !I' :. ,
| |
| FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449
| |
| <K AUG 6 2006 )
| |
| Ladies and Gentlemen: ,L) l.
| |
| Transmitted herewith is one copy of the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit referenced above.
| |
| You are hereby notified that this action of the Director is final and may be appealed to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission pursuant to Section 3745.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The appeal must be in writing and shall set forth the action complained of and the grounds upon which the appeal is based. It must be filed with the Environmental Review Appeals Commission within thirty (30) days after notice of the Director's action. The appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of $70.00 which the Commission, in its discretion, may reduce if by affidavit you demonstrate that payment of the full amount of the fee would cause extreme hardship. Notice of the filing of the appeal shall be filed with the Directors within three (3) days of filing with the Commission. Ohio EPA requests that a copy of the appeal be served upon the Ohio Attorney General's Office, Environmental Enforcement Section. An appeal may be filed with the Environmental Review Appeals Commission at the following address:
| |
| Environmental Review Appeals Commission
| |
| '309 South Fourth Street, Room 222 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Patti L. Smith, Supervisor Permit Processing Unit Division of Surface Water PLS/kep Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL Bob Taft, Governor Bruce Johnson, Lieutenant Governor Joseph P. Koncelik. Director Paper Printed, Recycled Ohio EPA is an Equal Opportunity Employer Attachment B Page B-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Ohio EPA Invoice/Receipt Date Printed: August 11, 2006 Revenue ID: 568806 Please include this Revenue ID with all correspondence.
| |
| Organization ID: 12148 Information: FirstEnergy Corp Due Date: 16, 2006
| |
| !ptember 76 S Main St Amount Due: $1,625.00 Akron, OH 44308-Effective Date: September 01, 2006 Revenue
| |
| | |
| == Description:==
| |
| DSW- NPDES Permit Issuance Program Name: NPDES Permitting Reason: NPDES Permit Issuance 21B0001 lID-Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant Forsome Revenues, Interest and/or Penaltiesmay be chargedfor late payment.
| |
| Next Interest Date (if applicable): October 16, 2006 Next Penalty Date (if applicable):
| |
| Organization ID: 12148 Information: FirstEnergy Corp DueDate: *ep16,2006 76 S Main St Akron, OH 44308- Amount Due: *1,625.00 Secondary Typelld: SNPDE / 21B00011 Revenue Type: PTONI Amount Enclosed: $
| |
| C~ T~r Remit to: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency - OFA Department L-2711 Columbus, OH 43260-2711
| |
| 'do "W" Check ID:
| |
| Check Date:
| |
| Check Number:
| |
| Check Amount: $
| |
| 112148 -1FirstEnerg corp ........... 162500 ]PioN 568806 Attachment B Page B-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 1 21B00011*ID Application No. OH0003786 Issue Date: August 14, 2006 Effective Date: September 1, 2006 Expiration Date: April 30, 2011 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and the Ohio Water Pollution Control Act (Ohio Revised Code Section 6111),
| |
| FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company is authorized by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter referred to as "Ohio EPA," to discharge from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station located at 5501 North State Route 2, Oak Harbor, Ohio, Ottawa County and discharging to Lake Erie, Navarre Marsh and the Toussaint River in accordance with the conditions specified in Parts I, II, and Ell of this permit.
| |
| This permit is conditioned upon payment of applicable fees as required by Section 3745.11 of the Ohio Revised Code.
| |
| This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on the expiration date shown above. In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the above date of expiration, the permittee shall submit such information and forms as are required by the Ohio EPA no later than 180 days prior to the above date of expiration.
| |
| *seph P.Koncelik Director Total Pages: 26 Page B-8 August 2010 Attachment Attachment B B Page B-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application, Environmental Report
| |
| .Page 2 2IB00011*ID Part I, A. - FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 21B0001 1001. See Part II, OTIHER REQUIREMENTS, for locations of effluent sampling.
| |
| Table - Final Outfall - 001 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuring Sampling Monitoring Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequency Type Months 00011 - Water Temperature - F 1/Day Continuous All 00300 - Dissolved Oxygen - mg/I - 6.0 I / 2 Weeks Grab All 00400 - pH - S.U. 9.0 6.5 I/Day Grab All 01119 - Copper, Total Recoverable - ug/l I/Quarter Composite Quarterly 34044 - Oxidants, Total Residual - mg/I 0.05 When Disch. Grab -All 50050 - Flow Rate - MGD I/Day 24hr Total Estimate All 50060 - Chlorine, Total Residual - mg/I 0.2 When Disch. Grab All 78739 - Chlorination/Brominiation Duration 120 When Disch. 24hr Total All
| |
| - Minutes Notes for station 2IB0001 1001:
| |
| * The Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) and Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) limits are the maximum allowed at the outfall at any time.
| |
| Analyses are to be performed by amperometric titration, Orion Residual Chlorine Electrode, or other approved methods during chlorination and/or bromination. The daily grab samples for TRC and TRO shall represent the maximum concentration discharged during chlorination and/or bromination.
| |
| ** Measure for TRO, TRC, and Cl/Br duration on on days when using treatment.
| |
| *** Grab sample for TRO and TRC will be taken during treatment event.
| |
| Page B-9 August 2010 Attachment B
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 3 21B00011 *ID
| |
| **** Total Residual Chlorine or Total Residual Oxidants may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than 2 hours per day. (1) Total Residual Oxidants reflects the use of bromine compounds. Bromine can be used separately or in combination with chlorine.
| |
| These limits are effective when bromine is used. Discharge limitations for TRO may be met using a dehalogenation agent, if necessary.
| |
| Dehalogenation shall then be achieved by using stoichiometric calculations to determine the amount of dehalogenating agent necessary to completely eliminate the residual.
| |
| ***** Dissolved Oxygen: In addition to the monitoring requirements noted above, sampling shall be performed daily by grab sample during discharge of hydrazine.
| |
| ****** Water Temperature: Report daily average.
| |
| ** ***** Total Residual Chlorine & Total Residual Oxidants shall be monitored daily (during treatment event) except on days when plant is not normally staffed. Report "AN" on the monthly report form for those days.
| |
| (2) Report on days when bromine compounds are used with or without chlorine. On days when no bromine compounds are used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (3) Report on days when ONLY chlorine compounds are used (i.e. no bromine compounds. On days when bromine or a combination of bromine and chlorine IS used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (4) Monitor when discharging.
| |
| - See Part II for other requirements.
| |
| August 2010 Page B-b Attachment BB Page B-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 4 21B00011*I)D Part I, A. - FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 21B0001 1002. See Part II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for locations of effluent sampling.
| |
| Table - Final Outfall - 002 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuri ng ins Sampling Monitoring acy.
| |
| Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequen cy Type Months 00300 - Dissolved Oxygen - mg/I - 6.0 When Diisch. Grab All 00400 - pH - S.U. 9.0 6.5 I/Wee*k Grab All 00530 - Total Suspended Solids - mg/l 100 - 30 I/Wee*k Grab All 00550 - Oil and Grease, Total - mg/I 20 15 I/Weeek Grab All 50050 - Flow Rate - MGD. 1/Da Y 24hr Total Estimate All Notes for Station Number 21B0001 1002:
| |
| * Dissolved Oxygen: Sampling shall be performed daily by grab sample only during discharge of hydrazine.
| |
| Page B-li August 2010 Attachment BB Page B-1 1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 5 21B0001 *ID Part 1, A. - FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 21B0001 1003. See Part II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for locations of effluent sampling.
| |
| Table - Final Outfall - 003 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuring Sampling Monitoring Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequency Type Months 00530 - Total Suspended Solids - mg/I When Disch. Grab All 50050 - Flow Rate - MGD - When Disch. 24hr Total Estimate All Notes for Station Number 21B0001 1003:
| |
| *Monitoring required only when discharge occurs. Flow estimation is required for any day that a discharge occurs; monitoring for suspended solids is required once per month during discharge.
| |
| Page B-12 August 2010 Attachment BB Page B-1 2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 6 21B00011*ID Part I, A. - FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 21B00011004. See Part II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for locations of effluent sampling, Table - Final Outfall - 004 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitor ing Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuring Sampling Monitoring Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequency Type Months 00400 - pH - S.U. 9.0 6.5 When Disch. Grab All 00951 - Fluoride, Total (F) - mg/I When Disch. Grab Quarterly 00978 - Arsenic, Total Recoverable - ug/I When Disch. Grab Quarterly 00980 - Iron, Total Recoverable - ug/l When Disch. Grab Quarterly 00999 - Boron, Total Recoverable - ug/l When Disch. Grab Quarterly 01009 - Barium, Total Recoverable - ug/I When Disch. Grab Quarterly 01079 - Silver, Total Recoverable - ug/I When Disch. Grab Quarterly 01104 - Aluminum, Total Recoverable - When Disch. Grab Quarterly ug/I 01119 - Copper, Total Recoverable - ug/l When Disch. Grab Quarterly 34044 - Oxidants, Total Residual - mg/I 0.05 When Disch. Grab All 50050 - Flow Rate - MGD When Disch. 24hr Total Estimate All 50060 - Chlorine, Total Residual - mg/I 0.2 When Disch. Grab All 78739 - Chlorination/Bromination Duration 120 When Disch. 24hr Total All
| |
| - Minutes 81855 - Asbestos - Fibers/L When Disch. Grab Quarterly Notes for station 21B00011004:
| |
| Flow estimation is required for any day that a discharge occurs;
| |
| * The Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) and Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) limits are the maximum allowed at the outfall at any time.
| |
| Analyses are to be performed by amperometric titration, Orion Residual Chlorine Electrode, or other approved methods during chlorination August 2010 Page B-13 August 2010 Attachment B Page B-1 3
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 7 21BOOOI *ID and/or bromination. The daily grab samples for TRC and TRO shall represent the maximumm concentration discharged during chlorination and/or bromination.
| |
| ** Measure TRO, TRC, and CI/Br duration on days when using treatment.
| |
| *** Grab sample for TRO and TRC will be taken during treatment event.
| |
| **** Asbestos, See Part II, Other Requirements, Item 0.
| |
| *****Total Residual Chlorine or Total Residual Oxidants may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more than 2 hours per day.
| |
| (1) Total Residual Oxidants reflects the use of bromine compounds. Bromine can be used separately or in combination with chlorine. These limits are effective when bromine is used. Discharge limitations for TRO may be met using a dehalogenation agent, if necessary.
| |
| Dehalogenation shall then be achieved by using stoichiometric calculations to determine the amount of dehalogenating agent necessary to completely eliminate the residual.
| |
| (2) Report on days when bromine compounds are used with or without chlorine. On days when no bromine compounds are used, state this ir the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (3) Report on days when ONLY chlorine compounds are used (i.e. no bromine compounds. On days when bromine or a combination of bromine and chlorine IS used, state this in the remarks section and LEAVE THE DATA AREA BLANK.
| |
| (4) Daily monitoring is required for the parameters during discharge from the circulating water system (i.e., Cooling Tower Basin Drain).
| |
| Page B-14 August 2010 B
| |
| Attachment B Page B-1 4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| LicenseNuclear Davis-Besse Renewal Power Station Application Environmental Report Page 8 21BOO011OtID Part L A.- FINAL EFFLUENT LIKITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMIETS to discharge
| |
| : 1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiraion date, tihe permittee is authorized in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 211B00011601. See Part I1,OTHER REQUIREMIENTS, fur locations of effluent sampling.
| |
| Table - Internal Monitoring Station - 601 - Final Discharae Limitations Monitonring meoi~reients.
| |
| Effluent Charcristii~c ConcentrationS pedled Units Loading* kg/lay Measuring sarniping Monitoring Montlhly. Daily Weekly Monthly F"eUency Typ: Monibs Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly I /Day Estiiate All 00083 - Color. Severity - Units 1l/2 Webe Grab All 00310- Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 45 30 Day- mg/i 30 I f IWeeks Grab AUl 00530 - Total Suspnded Solids - mg/l 45 1/Day Estimate All 01330- Odor, Severity- Units L/Day Estimate All 01350 - Turbidity, Severity - Units I /Day 24hrTotaltstinile A/ll 50050 - Flow Rate - MOD Notes for station 211300011601:
| |
| *Color, Odor, Turbidity See Part I, Item G.
| |
| **See Part IL Other Rrqpirements, Item B for location of sampling station.
| |
| Page B-15 August 2010 Attachment B
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 9 21B00011*ID Part I, A. - FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge in accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements from outfall 21B0001 1602. See Part II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for locations of effluent sampling.
| |
| Table - Internal Monitoring Station - 602 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuring Sampling Monitoring Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequency Type Months 00530"-Tlotal Suspended Solids - mg/I 100 30 1/2 Weeks Grab All 00550 - Oil and Grease, Total - mg/I 20 15 1/2 Weeks Grab All 50050 - Flow Rate - MGD I/Day 24hr Total Estimate All Notes for station 21B0001 1602:
| |
| *See Part II, Other Requirements, Item B for location of sampling station.
| |
| August 2010 Page B-16 Attachment BB Page B-1 6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 10 21B00011 *lD Part I, B. - SLUDGE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. Sludge Monitoring. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee shall monitor the treatment works' final sludge at Station Number 21B0001 1588, and report to the Ohio EPA in accordance with the following table. See Part I1, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for location of sludge sampling.
| |
| Table - Sludge Monitoring - 588 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitatiions Monitoring Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuring Sampling Monitoring Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequency Type Months 80991 - Sludge Volume, Gallons - Gals l/Year Total December NOTES for Station Number 21B0001 1588:
| |
| * Monitoring is required when sewage sludge is removed from the permittee's facility for transfer* to a publicly owned treatment works.
| |
| Monthly Operating Report (MOR) data shall be submitted in December. The total for the entire calendar year shall be reported in the data area for the first day of December. If no sewage sludge is removed from the permittee's facility during the calendar year, report "AL" in the first column of the first day in December on the 4500 Form. A signature is still required.
| |
| - See Part II, Items J. and N.
| |
| August 2010 Page B-17 Attachment B Attachment Page B-1 7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page II 21B00011 *ID Part I, B. - INTAKE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
| |
| : 1. Intake Monitoring. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until the expiration date, the permittee shall monitor the Intake at Station Number 211300011801, and report to the Ohio EPA in accordance with the following table. See Part II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS, for location of sampling.
| |
| Table - Intake Monitoring - 801 - Final Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitatiions Monitoring Requirements Concentration Specified Units Loading* kg/day Measuring Sampling Monitoring Parameter Maximum Minimum Weekly Monthly Daily Weekly Monthly Frequency Type Months 000 11 - Water Temperature - F I/Day Continuous All Page B-18 August 2010 Attachment B Attachment B Page B-18 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 12 21B00011*ID Part II, OTHER REQUIREMENTS A. The wastewater treatment works must be under supervision of a Class I State certified operator as required by rule 3745 02 of the Ohio Administrative Code.
| |
| B. Description of the location of the required sampling stations are as follows:
| |
| Sampling Station Description of Location 21B00011001 Pump station sampling port prior to discharging to Lake Erie (Lat: N 41 36' 05"; Long: W 83 04' 10")
| |
| 21B00011002 Outfall from Training Center Pond to Navarre Marsh Pool No. 3 (Lat: N 41 35' 35"; Long: W 83 05' 20")
| |
| 21B00011003 Outfall from screen wash catch basin prior to Navarre Marsh Pool No. 2 (Lat: N 41 35' 45"; Long: W 83 05' 00")
| |
| 21B00011004 Outfall to ditch @ State Route 2 (Lat: N 41 36' 02"; Long: W 83 05' 40")
| |
| 2B300011588 Sludge removed from the wastewater treatment facility and disposed of at another municipal wastewater treatment plant 21B00011601 Sanitary sewage treatment plant effluent prior to mixing with other wastewaters.
| |
| (Lat: N 41- 35' 58"; Long: W 83 05' 03")
| |
| 21B00011602 Lowvolume wastewater settling basin overflow.
| |
| (Lat: N 41 35' 59"; Long: W 83 05' 05")
| |
| 21B00011801 Intake water prior to cooling operation C. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under Sections 301(b)(2)(C) and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or approved.
| |
| : 1. Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any effluent limitation in the permit; or
| |
| : 2. Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.
| |
| The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable.
| |
| D. All parameters, except flow, need not be monitored on days when the plant is not normally staffed (Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays). On those days, report "AN" on the monthly report form.
| |
| August 2010 Page B-19 Attachment B Attachment B Page B-19 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 13 21B00011 *ID E. In the event that the permittee's operation requires the use of cooling or boiler water treatment additives that are discharged to surface waters of the state, written permission must be obtained from the director of the Ohio EPA prior to use. Reporting and testing requirements to apply for permission to use additives can be obtained from the Ohio EPA, Central Office, Division of Surface Water, Water Resources Management Section.
| |
| Reported information will be used to evaluate whether the use of the additive(s) at concentrations expected in the final discharge will be harmful or inimical to aquatic life.
| |
| F. Permit limitations may be revised in order to meet water quality standards after a stream use determination and waste load allocation are completed and approved. This permit may be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable water quality effluent limitations.
| |
| G. If Severity Units are required for Turbidity, Odor, or Color, use the following table to determine the value between 0 and 4 that is reported.
| |
| REPORTED SEVERITY VALUE* DESCRIPTION TURBIDITY ODOR COLOR 0 None Clear None Colorless I Mild 2 Moderate Light Solids Musty Grey 3 Serious 4 Extreme Heavy Solids. Septic Black
| |
| * Interpolate between the descriptive phrases.
| |
| H. Composite samples shall be comprised of a series of grab samples collected over a 24-hour period and proportionate in volume to the wastewater flow rate at the time of sampling. Such samples shall be collected at such times and locations, and in such a fashion, as to be representative of the facility's overall performance.
| |
| I. Grab samples shall be collected at such times and locations, and in such fashion, as to be representative of the facility's performance.
| |
| August 2010 B Page B-20 August 2010 Attachment B Page B-20
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 14 21B00011*ID J. Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the permittee shall submit two (2) copies of a report summarizing the sludge disposal and/or reuse activities of the facility during the previous year. One copy of the report shall be sent to the Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Central Office, and one copy of the report shall be sent to the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office. This report shall address:
| |
| : 1) Amount of sludge disposed of/reused in gallons.
| |
| : 2) Method(s) of disposal/reuse.
| |
| : 3) Summary of all analyses made on the sludge, including any priority pollutant scans that may have been performed. (If a priority pollutant scan has been conducted as a part of the pretreatment program, the most recent analysis should be submitted.)
| |
| : 4) Problems encountered including any complaints received. The cause or reason for the problem and corrective actions taken to solve the problem should also be included. Any incidents of interference with the method of sludge disposal shall be identified, along with the cause of interference (i.e., excessive metals concentration, contaminated sludge, etc.) and the corrective actions taken.
| |
| K. There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
| |
| L. Right of Entry The permittee shall allow authorized representatives of Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA upon the presentation of credentials subject to applicable requirements under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and any regulations, order, license or technical specification or other requirement established or required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission thereunder; A. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and B. At reasonable times to have access to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this permit; and to sample for any pollutants. And C. To enter upon the permittee's premisis at any reasonable time to inspect any collection, treatment , pollution management, or discharge facilities required under this permit.
| |
| August 2010 Page B-21 Attachment B B Page B-21 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 15 21B00011*ID M. The permittee shall take every possible measure to reduce discharge of hydrazine (used as an additive) through outfalls 21B0001 1602 and 21B0001 1002. In order to protect aquatic life from toxicity, hydrazine must not be discharged above 8.7 ug/1 (within a discharge period of 48 hours) and above 0.39 ug/l (for a period beyond 48 hours). During discharge of hydrazine from outfalls, one detailed sample result per month from each outfall must be sent to Ohio EPA Northwest District Office (Attention: Group Leader, NPDES Permit Section). If only one outfall discharges hydrazine, sampling must be done for that outfall.
| |
| N. All disposal, use, storage, or treatment of sewage sludge by the permittee shall comply with Chapter 6111. of the Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 3745-40 of the Ohio Administrative Code, any further requirements specified in this NPDES permit, and any other actions of the Director that pertain to the disposal, use, storage, or treatment of sewage sludge by the permittee.
| |
| : 0. The permittee shall use analytical Method 2570B in Standard Methods, 19th Edition to satisfy asbestos monitoring requirement at outfall 21B000 11004. Results of analysis shall be reported in # of asbestos fibers/ liter.
| |
| Page B-22 August 2010 Attachment B Attachment B Page B-22 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 16 2IBO00011 *D PART III - GENERAL CONDITIONS
| |
| : 1. DEFINITIONS "Daily discharge" means the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limitations expressed in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.
| |
| "Average weekly" discharge limitation means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar week divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that week. Each of the following 7-day periods is defined as a calendar week: Week I is Days I - 7 of the month; Week 2 is Days 8 - 14; Week 3 is Days 15 - 21; and Week 4 is Days 22 - 28. If the "daily discharge" on days 29, 30 or 31 exceeds the "average weekly" discharge limitation, Ohio EPA may elect to evaluate the last 7 days of the month as Week 4 instead of Days 22 - 28. Compliance with fecal coliform bacteria or E coli bacteria limitations shall be determined using the geometric mean.
| |
| "Average monthly" discharge limitation means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that month. Compliance with fecal coliform bacteria or E coli bacteria limitations shall be determined using the geometric mean.
| |
| "85 percent removal" means the arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the values for influent samples collected at approximately the same times during the same period.
| |
| "Absolute Limitations" Compliance with limitations having descriptions of "shall not be less than," "nor greater than," "shall not exceed," "minimum," or "maximum" shall be determined from any single value for effluent samples and/or measurements collected.
| |
| "Net concentration" shall mean the difference between the concentration of a given substance in a sample taken of the discharge and the concentration of the same substances in a sample taken at the intake which supplies water to the given process. For the purpose of this definition, samples that are taken to determine the net concentration shall always be 24-hour composite samples made up of at least six increments taken at regular intervals throughout the plant day.
| |
| Page B-23 August 2010 Attachment B Attachment B Page B-23 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 17 Part III General Conditions (Con't) 21B300011*ID "Net Load" shall mean the difference between the load of a given substance as calculated from a sample taken of the discharge and the load of the same substance in a sample taken at the intake which supplies water to given process. For purposes of this definition, samples that are taken to determine the net loading shall always be 24-hour composite samples made up of at least six increments taken at regular intervals throughout the plant day.
| |
| "MGD" means million gallons per day.
| |
| "mg/I" means.milligrams per liter.
| |
| "ug/l" means micrograms per liter.
| |
| "ngl" means nanograms per liter.
| |
| "S.U." means standard pH unit.
| |
| "kg/day" means kilograms per day.
| |
| "Reporting Code" is a five digit number used by the Ohio EPA in processing reported data. The reporting code does not imply the type of analysis used nor the sampling techniques employed.
| |
| "Quarterly (I/Quarter) sampling frequency" means the sampling shall be done in the months of March, June, August, and December, unless specificially identified otherwise in the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements table.
| |
| "Yearly (1/Year) sampling frequency" means the sampling shall be done in the month of September, unless specificially identified otherwise in the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements table.
| |
| "Semi-annual (2/Year) sampling frequency" means the sampling shall be done during the months of June and December, unless specificially identified otherwise.
| |
| "Winter" shall be considered to be the period from November 1 through April 30.
| |
| "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of the treatment facility.
| |
| "Summer" shall be considered to be the period from May I through October 31.
| |
| "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
| |
| "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
| |
| Page B-24 August 2010 Attachment Attachment BB Page B-24 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Part III General Conditions (Con't) Page 18 ki 21B30001 1"'ID "Sewage sludge" means a solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works as defined in section 6111.01 of the Revised Code. "Sewage sludge" includes, but is not limited to, scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes. "Sewage sludge" does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator, grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works, animal manure, residue generated during treatment of animal manure, or domestic septage.
| |
| "Sewage sludge weight" means the weight of sewage sludge, in dry U.S. tons, including admixtures such as liming materials or bulking agents. Monitoring frequencies for sewage sludge parameters are based on the reported sludge Weight generated in a calendar year (use the most recent calendar year data when the NPDES permit is up for renewal).
| |
| "Sewage sludge fee weight" means the weight of sewage sludge, in dry U.S. tons, excluding admixtures such as liming materials or bulking agents.Annual sewage sludge fees, as per section 3745.11 (Y) of the Ohio Revised Code, are based on the reported sludge fee weight for the most recent calendar year.
| |
| : 2. GENERAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS The effluent shall, at all times, be free of substances:
| |
| A. In amounts that will settle to form putrescent, or otherwise objectionable, sludge deposits; or that will adversely affect aquatic life or water fowl; B. Of an oily, greasy, or surface-active nature, and of other floating debris, in amounts that will form noticeable accumulations of scum, foam or sheen; C. In amounts that will alter the natural color or odor of the receiving water to such degree as to create a nuisance; D. In amounts that either singly or in combination with other substances are toxic to human, animal, or aquatic life; E. In amounts that are conducive to the growth of aquatic weeds or algae to the extent that such growths become inimical to more desirable forms of aquatic life, or create conditions that are unsightly, or constitute a nuisance in any other fashion; F. In amounts that will impair designated instream or downstream water uses.
| |
| : 3. FACILITY OPERATION AND QUALITY CONTROL All wastewater treatment works shall be operated in a manner consistent with the following:
| |
| A. At all times, the permittee shall maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee necessary to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with conditions of the permit.
| |
| B. The permittee shall effectively monitor the operation and efficiency of treatment and control facilities and the quantity and quality of the treated discharge.
| |
| C. Maintenance of wastewater treatment works that results in degradation of effluent quality shall be scheduled during non-critical water quality periods and shall be carried out in a manner approved by Ohio EPA as specified in the Paragraph in the PART III entitled, "UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES".
| |
| Attachment B Page B-25 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Part III General Conditions (Con't) Page 19 21B30001 1*ff)
| |
| : 4. REPORTING A. Monitoring data required by this permit may be submitted in hardcopy format on the Ohio EPA 4500 report form pre-printed by Ohio EPA or an approved facsimile. Ohio EPA 4500 report forms for each individual sampling station are to be received no later than the 15th day of the month following the month-of-interest. The original report form must be signed and mailed to:
| |
| Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Lazarus Government Center Division of Surface Water Enforcement Section ES/MOR P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Monitoring data may also be submitted electronically using Ohio EPA developed SWIMware software.
| |
| Data must be transmitted to Ohio EPA via electronic mail or the bulletin board system by the 20th day of the month following the month-of-interest. A Surface Water Information Management System (SWIMS)
| |
| Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) must be signed by the responsible official and submitted to Ohio EPA to receive an authorized Personal Identification Number (PIN) prior to sending data electronically.
| |
| A hardcopy of the Ohio EPA 4500 form must be generated via SWIMware, signed and maintained onsite for records retention purposes.
| |
| B. If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified below, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the reports specified above.
| |
| C. Analyses of pollutants not required by this permit, except as noted in the preceding paragraph, shall not be reported on Ohio EPA report form (4500) but records shall be retained as specified in the paragraph entitled "RECORDS RETENTION".
| |
| : 5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHOD Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored flow. Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to regulation 40 CFR 136, "Test Procedures For The Analysis of Pollutants" unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit. The permittee shall periodically calibrate and perform maintenance procedures on all monitoring and analytical instrumentation at intervals to insure accuracy of measurements.
| |
| : 6. RECORDING OF RESULTS For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information:
| |
| A. The exact place and date of sampling; (time of sampling not required on EPA 4500)
| |
| B. The person(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; C. The date the analyses were performed on those samples; D. The person(s) who performed the analyses; E. The analytical techniques or methods used; and F. The results of all analyses and measurements.
| |
| Attachment B Page B-26 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Part III General Conditions (Con't) Page 20 (Cant)21B30001 l*ID
| |
| : 7. RECORDS RETENTION The permittee shall retain all of the following records for the wastewater treatment works for a minimum of three years except those records that pertain to sewage sludge disposal, use, storage, or treatment, which shall be kept for a minimum of five years, including:
| |
| A. All sampling and analytical records (including internal sampling data not reported);
| |
| B. All original recordings for any continuous monitoring instrumentation; C. All instrumentation, calibration and maintenance records; D. All plant operation and maintenance records; E. All reports required by this permit; and F. Records of all data used to complete the application for this permit for a period of at least three years, or five years for sewage sludge, from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application.
| |
| These periods will be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation, or when requested by the Regional Administrator or the Ohio EPA. The three year period, or five year period for sewage sludge, for retention of records shall start from the date of sample, measurement, report, or application.
| |
| : 8. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS Except for data determined by the Ohio EPA to be entitled to confidential status, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the appropriate district offices of the Ohio EPA. Both the Clean Water Act and Section 6111.05 Ohio Revised Code state that effluent data and receiving water quality data shall not be considered confidential.
| |
| : 9. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking, and reissuing, or terminating the permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
| |
| : 10. RIGHT OF ENTRY The permittee shall allow the Director or an authorized representative upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law to:
| |
| A. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit.
| |
| B. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of the permit.
| |
| C. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),
| |
| practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit.
| |
| D. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
| |
| Page B-27 August 2010 Attachment BB Attachment Page B-27 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 21 Part III General Conditions (Con't) 21B0001 l*ID
| |
| : 11. UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES A. Bypassing or diverting of wastewater from the treatment works is prohibited unless:
| |
| : 1. Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage;
| |
| : 2. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
| |
| : 3. The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph D. of this section, B. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
| |
| C. The Director may approve an unanticipated bypass after considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines that it has met the three conditions listed in paragraph 11.A. of this section.
| |
| D. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in section 12. A.
| |
| E. The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded if that bypass is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.
| |
| Page B-28 August 2010 Attachment Attachment BB Page B-28 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| : Page 22 21130001 I*ID Part III General Conditions (Con't)
| |
| : 12. NONCONPLIANCE NOTIFICATION A. The permittee shall by telephone report any of the following within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery at (toll free) 1-800-282-9378:
| |
| : 1. Any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment;
| |
| : 2. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; or
| |
| : 3. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
| |
| : 4. Any violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Director in the permit.
| |
| B. For the telephone reports required by Part 12.A., the following information must be included:
| |
| : 1. The times at which the discharge occurred, and was discovered;
| |
| : 2. The approximate amount and the characteristics of the discharge;
| |
| : 3. The stream(s) affected by the discharge;
| |
| : 4. The circumstances which created the discharge;
| |
| : 5. The names and telephone numbers of the persons who have knowledge of these circumstances;
| |
| : 6. What remedial steps are being taken; and
| |
| : 7. The names and telephone numbers of the persons responsible for such remedial steps.
| |
| C. These telephone reports shall be confirmed in writing within five days of the discovery of the discharge and/or noncompliance and submitted to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office. The report shall include the following:
| |
| : 1. The limitation(s) which has been exceeded;
| |
| : 2. The extent of the exceedance(s);
| |
| : 3. The cause of the exceedance(s);
| |
| : 4. The period of the exceedance(s) including exact dates and times;
| |
| : 5. If uncorrected, the anticipated time the exceedance(s) is expected to continue, and
| |
| : 6. Steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and/or prevent occurrence of the exceedance(s).
| |
| Page B-29 August 2010 Attachment B Page B-29 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Part III General Conditions (Con't) Page 23 21B000 I1*ID D. Compliance Schedule Events:
| |
| If the permittee is unable to meet any date for achieving an event, as specified in the schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit a written report to the appropriate district office of the Ohio EPA within 14 days of becoming aware of such situation. The report shall include the following:
| |
| : 1. The compliance event which has been or will be violated;
| |
| : 2. The cause of the violation;
| |
| : 3. The remedial action being taken;
| |
| : 4. The probable date by which compliance will occur; and
| |
| : 5. The probability of complying with subsequent and final events as scheduled.
| |
| E. The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under paragraphs A, B, or C of this section, at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed
| |
| -in paragraphs B and C of this section.
| |
| F. Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant application or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
| |
| : 13. RESERVED
| |
| : 14. DUTY TO MITIGATE The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.
| |
| : 15. AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. Such violations may result in the imposition of civil and/or criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act and Ohio Revised Code Sections 6111.09 and 6111.99.
| |
| : 16. DISCHARGE CHANGES The following changes must be reported to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office as soon as practicable:
| |
| A. For all treatment works, any significant change in character of the discharge which the permittee knows or has reason to believe has occurred or will occur which would constitute cause for modification or revocation and reissuance. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
| |
| Notification of permit changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
| |
| B. For publicly owned treatment works:
| |
| : 1. Any proposed plant modification, addition, and/or expansion that will change the capacity or efficiency of the plant;
| |
| : 2. The addition of any new significant industrial discharge; and
| |
| : 3. Changes in the quantity or quality of the wastes from existing tributary industrial discharges which will result in significant new or increased discharges of pollutants.
| |
| Attachment B Page B-30 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 24 Part III General Conditions (Con't) 21130001 1113 C. For non-publicly owned treatment works, any proposed facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications, which will result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants.
| |
| Following this notice, modifications to the permit may be made to reflect any necessary changes in permit conditions, including any necessary effluent limitations for any pollutants not identified and limited herein. A determination will also be made as to whether a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review will be required. Sections 6111.44 and 6111.45, Ohio Revised Code, require that plans for treatment works or improvements to such works be approved by the Director of the Ohio EPA prior to initiation of construction.
| |
| D. In addition to the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 122.4 1(1) and per 40 CFR 122.42(a), all existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers must notify the Director as soon as they know or have reason to believe:
| |
| : 1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge on a routine or frequent basis of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit. If that discharge will exceed the highest of the "notification levels" specified in 40 CFR Sections 122.42(a)(l)(i) through 122.42(a)(1)(iv).
| |
| : 2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the "notification levels" specified in 122.42(a)(2)(i) through 122.42(a)(2)(iv).
| |
| : 17. TOXIC POLLUTANTS The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307 (a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
| |
| Following establishment of such standards or prohibitions, the Director shall modify this permit and so notify the permittee.
| |
| : 18. PERMIT MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION A. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified or revoked, by the Ohio EPA, in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
| |
| I. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
| |
| : 2. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; or
| |
| : 3. Change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge.
| |
| B. Pursuant to rule 3745-33-04, Ohio Administrative Code, the permittee may at any time apply to the Ohio EPA for modification of any part of this permit. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification or revocation does not stay any permit condition. The application for modification should be received by the appropriate Ohio EPA district office at least ninety days before the date on which it is desired that the modification become effective. The application shall be made only on forms approved by the Ohio EPA.
| |
| Attachment B Page B-31 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Part III General Conditions (Con't) 25 Page 25
| |
| \Ofl)21BOOO I I*ID
| |
| : 19. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL This permit may be transferred or assigned and a new owner or successor can be authorized to discharge from this facility, provided the following requirements are met:
| |
| A. The permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or successor of the existence of this permit by a letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office. The copy of that letter will serve as the permittee's notice to the Director of the proposed transfer. The copy of that letter shall be received by the appropriate Ohio EPA district office sixty (60) days prior to the proposed date of transfer; B. A written agreement containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility and coverage between the current and new permittee (including acknowledgement that the existing permittee is liable for violations up to that date, and that the new permittee is liable for violations from that date on) shall be submitted to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office within sixty days after receipt by the district office of the copy of the letter from the permittee to the succeeding owner; At anytime during the sixty (60) day period between notification of the proposed transfer and the effective date of the transfer, the Director may prevent the transfer if he concludes that such transfer will jeopardize compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. If the Director does not prevent transfer, he will modify the permit to reflect the new owner.
| |
| : 20. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
| |
| : 21. SOLIDS DISPOSAL Collected grit and screenings, and other solids other than sewage sludge, shall be disposed of in such a manner as to prevent entry of those wastes into waters of the state, and in accordance with all applicable laws and rules.
| |
| : 22. CONSTRUCTION AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
| |
| : 23. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY Except as exempted in the permit conditions on UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES or UPSETS, nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
| |
| : 24. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable state
| |
| * law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act.
| |
| : 25. PROPERTY RIGHTS The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
| |
| Attachment B Page B-32 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Page 26 2IB0a01 lID Part III General Conditions (Con't)
| |
| : 26. UPSET The provisions of 40 CFR Section 122.41(n), relating to "Upset," are specifically incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. For definition of "upset," see Part III, Paragraph 1, DEFINITIONS.
| |
| : 27. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
| |
| : 28. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS All applications submitted to the Director shall be signed and certified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.22.
| |
| All reports submitted to the Director shall be signed and certified in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Section 122.22.
| |
| : 29. OTHER INFORMATION A. Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
| |
| B. ORC 6111.99 provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per violation.
| |
| C. ORC 6111.99 states that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per violation.
| |
| D. ORC 6111.99 provides that any person who violates Sections 6111.04, 6111.042, 6111.05, or division (A) of Section 6111.07 of the Revised Code shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
| |
| : 30. NEED TO HALT OR REDUCE ACTIVITY 40 CFR 122.41(c) states that it shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with conditions of this permit.
| |
| : 31. APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULES All references to 40 CFR in this permit mean the version of 40 CFR which is effective as of the effective date of this permit.
| |
| : 32. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SEWERS Not withstanding the issuance or non-issuance of an NPDES permit to a semi-public disposal system, whenever the sewage system of a publicly owned treatment works becomes available and accessible, the permittee operating any semi-public disposal system shall abandon the semi-public disposal system and connect it into the publicly owned treatment works.
| |
| Attachment B Page B-33 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 B Page B-34 Attachment B Attachment Page B-34 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment C:
| |
| Agency Consultation Correspondence August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment C Page C-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report ATTACHMENT C Table of Contents Page Threatened or Endangered Species B.S. Allen (FENOC) to Mary Knapp (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service),
| |
| No v e m b e r 12 , 2 0 0 9 ............................................................. ....................................... C -4 Mary Knapp (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) to B.S. Allen (FENOC),
| |
| D e c e m b e r 16 , 2 0 0 9 ..................................................................................................... C -8 B.S. Allen (FENOC) to Patricia Kurkul (National Marine Fisheries Service),
| |
| Nove m ber 12, 2009 ............................................................................................ . . C -10 M.A. Colligan (National Marine Fisheries Service) to C.I. Custer (FENOC),
| |
| J a n u a ry 15 , 2 0 10 ...................................................................................................... C -1 4 B.S. Allen (FENOC) to David Graham (ODNR, Div. of Wildlife),
| |
| Nove m ber 12, 200 9 ............................................................................................ . . C -15 John Navarro (ODNR, Div. of Wildlife) to B.S. Allen (FENOC),
| |
| D e ce m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 09 ................................................................................................... C -19 B.S. Allen (FENOC) to Greg Schneider (ODNR, Div. of Natural Areas and Preserves), November 12, 2009 ......................... C-22 Brian Mitch (ODNR, Environmental Services) to C.I. Custer (FENOC),
| |
| D e ce m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 09 ................................................................................................... C -2 6 Coastal Zone Management B.S. Allen (FENOC) to Steven Holland (ODNR, Office of Coastal Zone Management), November 12, 2009 ........................ C-38 Brian Mitch (ODNR, Environmental Services) to C.I. Custer (FENOC),
| |
| De ce m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 ................................................................................ .................. C -2 6 Historic and Archaeological Resources B.S. Allen (FENOC) to Mark Epstein (Ohio Historic Preservation Office)
| |
| No ve m b e r 12 , 2 0 0 9 .................................................................................................. C -4 2 N. J. Young (Ohio Historic Preservation Office) to C.I. Custer (FENOC),
| |
| Ma rc h 2 3 , 2 0 10 ......................................................................................................... C -4 7 Attachment C Page C-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report 0:1P Hairiot, Oh~o 4344ý'
| |
| Barry S. Allen . 676 Viae Pre~s)J,,en - pt,¢lear Fax:, 4 932F1?.15.82 November 12, 2009 L-09-295 Ms. Mary Knapp Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological Services Field Office 4625 Morse Rd., Suite 104 Columbus, OH 43230
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| | |
| Request for Information on Threatened or Endanaered Species FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is preparing an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renewthe operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). If approved, the renewal term would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original Davis-Besse license expiration date in 2017.
| |
| As part of the license renewal process, the NRC requires (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E))
| |
| license renewal applicants to assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. The NRC also will request, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531). an informal consultation with your office at a later date. By contacting you early in the application process, FENOC wishes to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed or information that your office may require to expedite the NRC consultation.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio (Attachment 1). Coordinates for the station are 410 35' 49" north Latitude and 830 05' 16" west Longitude. The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge (Attachment 2), Approximately 100 miles of transmission lines were constructed to connect the station to the regional electric grid.
| |
| FENOC has no plans to alter current Davis-Besse operations over the 20-year license renewal period. In addition, maintenance activities necessary to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on site. License renewal at Davis-Besse would require neither the expansion of existing facilities nor additional land disturbance, As a result, FENOC is confident that continued operation of Davis-Besse during the license renewal period would have minimal environmental impacts.
| |
| Attachment C Page C-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-295 Page 2 To ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, FENOC requests information from your office regarding concerns you may have, if any, related to potential environmental impacts from continued operation of Davis-Besse, including the associated transmission lines and corridors. FENOC would appreciate receiving a letter in reply detailing any concerns you may have or confirmation that no concerns exist. Receipt of your reply by December 31, 2009, will provide us the time needed to evaluate and incorporate the information into our application.
| |
| Thank you for your attention to our request.
| |
| Please feel free to contact Mr. Clifford Custer, Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager, at 724-682-7139. Please address any questions or need for additional information about the environmental review to:
| |
| Mr. Clifford I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Telephone: 724-682-7139 Email: custerc()firstenerqycorp.com Sincerely, Barry S. Allen Attachments:
| |
| : 1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius
| |
| : 2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map cc: DB-! NRC Senior Resident Inspector Attachment C Page C-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 1 L-09-295 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius Page 1 of 1 Attachment C Page C-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 2 L-09-295 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map Page 1 of I Attachment C Page C-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report United States Department of the Inte p[
| |
| FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE E -C:E Ecological Services DE " 2 2 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104 Columbus, Ohio 43230 (614) 416-8993 / FAX (614) 416-8994 DBNPS December 16, 2009 Mr. Barry Allen TAILS 0 31420-2010-TA-0132 First Energy Nuclear Operating Company 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr. Allen:==
| |
| | |
| This is in response to your November 12. 2009 letter requesting our review and comment on the proposed project. The project involves the renewal of the operating license for the Davis-Bcsse Nuclear Power Station.
| |
| Ottawa County, Ohio for a 20 year term beginning in 2017 and ending in 2037. T[he site consists of 954 acres. of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. government as part of Ottawa Naiional Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). There are no current plans to alter the current operations of the facility or to disturb any land outside of previously disturbed areas. As part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewal process. you have requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's assistance in assessing the impact of the license renewal on threatened and endangered species.
| |
| In general, we agree that the proposed renewal of the operating license will not impact federally listed species and will have minimal environmental impacts, as no change in operation or extent of the facility is proposed.
| |
| Should you subsequently propose any activities that would result in ground disturbance, tree clearing, or habitat modification, further coordination with this office and the Refuges is requested.
| |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES COMMENTS: The project lies within the range of the Indiana bat, piping plover, Lake Erie Watersnake, Lakeside daisy, eastern prairie fringed orchid, and eastern massasauga, federally listed endangered, threatened and candidate species. Due to the project type, location, and onsile habitat, none of thcse species would be expected within the project area, afnd no impacts to these species are expected. This precludes the need for further action on this project as required by the 1973 Endangered Species ACL as amended.
| |
| MIGRATORY BIRD COMMENTS: The project area lies within the range of the bald eagle (Htaliaectus leucocephalus). The bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species in July 2007 due to recovery. This species continues to be afforded protection by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bald eagle nest exists on the Davis-riesse property. In order to avoid disturbing nesting and young eagles, we request that no activity occur within 660 feet of the nest between Januarv I and July 3 1, when the nesting eagles are most vulnerable. If'this recommendation cannot be implemented, further coordination with this office will be necessary.
| |
| These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
| |
| 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (t".ESA). as amended, and are consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Page C-8 August 2010 Attachment C C Page C-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Service's Mitigation Policy. Please note that consultation under section 7 of the ESA may be warranted for this project since suitable habitat for the Indiana bat may be impacted by this project. This letter provides technical assistance only and does not serve as a completed section 7 consultation document, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may of additional assistance, please contact Biologist Megan Seymour at extension 16 in this office.
| |
| Sincerely, fr Mary M. Knapp, Ph.D.
| |
| Supervisor cc: ODNR Division of Wildlife SCEA Unit, Columbus, OH Page 0-9 August 2010 Attachment Attachment C C Page C-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC .....
| |
| 50 5501 North State Route 2
| |
| %%Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 FRrstEJnrgyNuclear Operating Company Barry S. Allen 419-321-7676 Vice President - Nuclear Fax, 409-321-7582 November 12, 2009 L-09-296 Ms. Patricia Kurkul Regional Administrator NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| | |
| Request for Information on'Threatened or Endangered Species FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is preparing, an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renewthe operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). If approved, the renewal term' would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original. Davis-Besse license expiration date in 2017.
| |
| As part of the license renewal process, the NRC requires (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(il)(E))
| |
| license renewal applicants to assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species In accordance with the Endangered Species Act. The NRC also will request, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531), an informal consultation with your office at a later date. By contacting you early in the application process, FENOC wishes to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed or information that your office may require to expedite the NRC consultation.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio (Attachment 1). Coordinates for the station are 410 35' 49" north Latitude and 830 05' 16" west Longitude, The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge (Attach me nt 2).
| |
| FENOC has no plans to alter current Davis-Besse operations over the 20-year license renewal period.. In addition, maintenance activities necessary to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on site. License renewal at Davis-Besse would require neither the expansion of existing facilities nor additional land disturbance. As a result, FENOC is confident that extending Davis- Besse. operation will continue to have minimal environmental impacts.
| |
| Attachment C Page C-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-296 Page 2 To ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, FENOC requests. information from your office regarding concerns you may have, if any, related to potential environmental impacts from continued operation of Davis-Besse. FENOC would appreciate receiving a letter in reply detailing any concerns you may have or confirmation that no concerns exist. Receipt of your reply by December 31, 2009, will provide us the time needed to evaluate and incorporate the information into our application.
| |
| Thank you for your attention to our request.
| |
| Please feel free to contact Mr. Clifford Custer, Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager, at 724-682-7139. Please address any questions or need for additional information about the environmental review to:
| |
| Mr. Clifford I, Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Telephone: 724-682-7139 Email: custerccfirstenergvcorp.com Sincerely, Barry S. Allen Attachments:
| |
| : 1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius
| |
| : 2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map cc: DB-1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Attachment C Page C-1 1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 1 L-09-296 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius Page 1 of 1 Page C-12 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-1 2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 2 L-09-296 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map Page 1 of I Page C-13 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-1 3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report o , " UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
| |
| /"*' V ~ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratlon NA'fONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA01930-2276 JAN 15 2010 Clifford I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-BesseNuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr,==
| |
| Custer, This is in response to a letter dated November 12, 2009 from Barry Allen regarding the preparation of an application for relicensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. If approved, the renewal term would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original Davis-Besse license expiration date in 2017. Your letter requested information on the presence of species listed as threatened or endangered under the jurisdiction of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse facility.
| |
| The Davis-Besse facility is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erid in Ottawa County, Ohio. No species listed by NMFS are known to occur in Lake Eric. As such, no further coordination with NMFS on the effects of the reticensing of the facility is necessary. While not specifically requested in your letter, NMFS has also reviewed the location of the facility and has determined that no Essential Fish Habitat (EFHf) as designated under the Magnuson-Stcven Fisheries Management and Conservation Act occurs in the vicinity of the facility. As such, no further coordination regarding impacts to EFH is necessary.
| |
| Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence or require any additional information, please contact Julie Crocker of my staff at (978)282-8480 or by e-mail (Julic.Crockerw noaa.gov).
| |
| Sincerely, Mary A. *"*liganJ?
| |
| Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources Cc: Chiarella, F/NER4 File Code: se 72009-no spccies Ilk NO-.,
| |
| Attachment C Page C- 14 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC F~~~rsl~~~r*JgyOaf NuJý pai@Cl**y0kHfaror, 5501 North Sle Roue 2 Ohio 43449 PAfsi&wegy Nuciaat OpatafiVn Company Barry S. Allen 41"-321.7676 Vice President- Nucleaf Fax, 4 F9.f2 .7582 November 12, 2009 L-09-298 Mr.. David Graham Chief Division of Wildlife Ohio Department of Natural Resources 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg, G-3 Columbus, OH 43229-6693
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| | |
| Reauest for Information on Threatened or Endanoered Species FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Is preparing an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). If approved, the renewal term would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original Davis-Besse license expiration date. in 2017.
| |
| As part of the license renewal process, the NRC requires (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E))
| |
| license renewal applicants to assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act The NRC also will request, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531), an informal consultation with your office at a later date. By contacting you early in the application process, FENOC wishes to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed or information that your office may require to expedite the NRC consultation.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa .County, Ohio (Attachment 1). Coordinates for the station are 410 35' 49" north Latitude and 830 05' 16" west Longitude. The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge (Attachment 2). Approximately 100 miles of transmission lines were constructed to connect the station to the regional electric grid.
| |
| FENOC has no plans to alter current Davis-Besse operations over the 20-year license renewal period, in addition, maintenance activities necessary to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on site. License renewal at Davis-Besse would require neither the expansion of existing facilities nor additional land disturbance. As a result, FENOC is confident that extending Davis-Besse operation will continue to have minimal environmental impacts.
| |
| Attachment C Page C-1 5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-298 Page 2 To ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, FENOC requests information from your office regarding concerns you may have, if any, related to potential environmental impacts from continued operation of Davis-Besse, including the associated transmission lines and corridors. FENOC would appreciate receiving a letter in reply detailing any concerns you may have or confirmation that no concerns exist. Receipt of your reply by December 31, 2009, will provide us the time needed to evaluate and incorporate the information into our application.
| |
| Thank you for your attention to our request.
| |
| Please feel free to contact Mr. Clifford Custer, Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager, at 724-682-7139. Please address any questions or need for additional information about the environmental' review to:
| |
| Mr. Clifford I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Telephone: 724-682-7139 Email: custercO-firstenerg)vcorp.com Sincerely, Barry S. Allen Attachments:
| |
| : 1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius
| |
| : 2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map cc: DB-1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Attachment C Page C-1 6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 1 L-09-298 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius Page I of I Attachment C Page C-1 7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 2 L-09-298 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map Page 1 of 1 Attachment C Page C-1 8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Ohio Department of Natural Resources TErl) I1ICKULND. GUOI".RNOR SEAN 1). LOGAN, DIRF.C*OR Division of Wlldltfe David M. Graham,Chief 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. G Columbus, OH 43229-6693 Phone:(614) 265"300 December 22, 2009 Barry S. Allen FENOC 5501 North State Route 2 Oak harbor, OH 43449 RE: Request for Information on Threatened or Endangered Species Renew Operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr. Allen:==
| |
| | |
| This is in response to your letter to Chief Graham dated November 12, 2009 regarding the project referenced above. In your letter you request information regarding concerns we may have, if any, related to potential environmental impacts from continued operation of Davis-Besse, including the associated transmission lines and corridors. After reviewing the information provided, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife (DOW) has the following comments.
| |
| The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a state and federally endangered species. The following species of trees have relatively high value as potential Indiana bat roost trees: Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), Shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa), Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), Black ash (Fraxinus nigra), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), White ash (Fraxinus americana), Shingle oak (Quercus imbnicaria), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), Slippery elm (Ulmus rnbra), American elm (Ulmus americana), Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Silver maple (Acer saccharnnum), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), Post oak (Quercus stellata), and White oak (Quercus alba); Indiana bat habitat consists of suitable trees that include dead and dying trees of the species listed above with exfoliating bark, crevices, or cavities in upland areas or riparian corridors and living trees of the species listed above with exfoliating bark, cavities, or hollow areas formed from broken branches or tops. If suitable trees occur within the project area, these trees must be conserved, If suitable habitat occurs on the project area and trees must be cut, cutting must occur between September 30 and April 1. If suitable trees must be cut during the summer months of April 2 to September 29, a net survey must be conducted in May or June prior to cutting. If no tree removal Is proposed, the project is not likely to impact this species.
| |
| ohiodnr.cxi Page C-19 August 2010 C
| |
| Attachment C Page C-1 9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report PAGE TWO Barry S. Allen December 22, 2009 The project is within the range of the piping plover (Charadriusmelodus), a state and federally endangered bird species. This species does not nest in the state but only utilizes stopover habitat as they migrate through the region. Therefore, the project is not likely to have an impact on this species.
| |
| The project is within the range of the Eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), a state endangered and a federal candidate snake species. Due to the location of the project, the project is not likely to impact this species.
| |
| The project is within the range of the bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus), a state threatened species. The location of bald eagle activity frequently changes. Therefore, closer to the actual date of construction, the applicant must obtain an updated status of bald eagle activity in the area. To obtain any changes in status, contact Andrea Tibbels or Dave Sherman at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Crane Creek Wildlife Research Station, for current information on the presence of bald eagles in the area. Andrea can be reached at (419) 898-0960 extension 25 and Dave at extension 24. If a nest is located within 1/22mile of the project site, coordination with the DOW is required.
| |
| The project is within the range of the eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta), a state endangered mussel, the spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), a state endangered fish, and the blacknose shiner (Notropis heterolepis), a state endangered fish. Since no in-water work is proposed for this project, the project is not likely to impact these species.
| |
| The project is within the range of the American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), a state endangered bird, the black tern (Ch/idonias niger), a state endangered bird, the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), a state endangered bird, the common tern (Sterna hirundo), a state endangered bird, the king rail (Rallus elegans), a state endangered bird, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a state endangered bird, the Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), a state endangered bird, the snowy egret (Egretta thula), a state endangered species, the trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), a state endangered bird. Due-to the type of project proposed, the project is not likely to impact these species.
| |
| Otherwise, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, is not aware of any threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of this project. However, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves maintains the Natural Heritage Database, the state's most comprehensive record of Ohio threatened and endangered species. If you have not already done so, it is recommended you contact the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves at (614) 265-6453. To process future projects more efficiently, I recommend you contact the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves prior to contacting the Division of Wildlife. To help expedite the process, please include the results of the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves' Natural Heritage Database request when contacting us regarding future projects.
| |
| Page C-20 August 2010 Attachment C C Page C-20 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report PAGE THREE, Barry S. Allen December 22, 2009 The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife is available to provide guidance on avoiding or minimizing impacts to any listed fauna and/or their habitat.
| |
| If you should need further assistance, please feel free to contact Becky Jenkins at (614) 265-6631.
| |
| Sincerelyi/1 JOH VARRO Pro ram Administrator JN/BJ/al cc: Mr`..Cliffoid"I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak harbor, OH 43449 Page C-21 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-21 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC ~Oak 5501 Noth 9ateRoute 2 Harbor,Ohio 43449 FirslEnergyNuclear OperalingCompany Barry S. Allen 419f-321-7676 Vice President.-Nuclear Fax. 419.321-7582 November 12, 2009 L-09-297 Mr. Greg Schneider Group Manager Ohio Natural Heritage Program Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Natural Areas and Preserves 2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. F-1 Columbus, OH 43229-6693
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| | |
| Request for Information on Threatened or Endangered. Species FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is preparing an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). If approved, the renewal term would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original Davis-Besse license expiration date in 2017.
| |
| As part of the license renewal process, the NRC requires (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E))
| |
| license renewal applicants to assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species In accordance with the Endangered Species Act. The NRC also will request, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531), an informal consultation with your office at a later date. ,By contacting you early in the application process, FENOC wishes to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed or information that your office may require to expedite the NRC consultation.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio (Attachment 1). Coordinates for the station are 410 35' 49" north- Latitude and 830 05' 16" west Longitude. The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge (Attachment 2). Approximately 100 miles of transmission lines were constructed to connect the station to the regional electric grid.
| |
| FENOC has no plans to alter current Davis-Besse operations over the 20-year license renewal period. In addition, maintenance activities necessary to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on site. License renewal at Davis-Besse would require neither the expansion of existing facilities nor additional land Attachment C Page C-22 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-297 Page 2 disturbance. As a result, FENOC is confident that extending Davis-Besse operation will continue to have minimal environmental impacts.
| |
| To ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, FENOC requests Information from your office regarding concerns you may have, if any, related to potential environmental impacts from continued operation of Davis-Besse, including the associated transmission lines and corridors. FENOC would appreciate receiving a letter in reply detailing any concerns you may have or confirmation that no concerns exist. Receipt of your reply by December 31, 2009, will provide us the time needed to evaluate and incorporate the information into our application.
| |
| Thank you for your attention to our request.
| |
| Please feel free to contact Mr. Clifford Custer, Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager, at 724-682-7139. Please address any questions or need for additional information about the environmental review to:
| |
| Mr. Clifford I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Telephone: 724-682-7-139 Email: custercDfirsteneraycorp.com Sincerely, Barry S. Allen Attachments:
| |
| : 1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius
| |
| : 2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map cc: DB-1 NRC Senior Resident inspector Attachment C Page C-23 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 1 L-09-297 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius Page 1 of 1 Page C-24 August 2010 Attachment C C Page C-24 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 2 L-09-297 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map Page 1 of 1 Page C-25 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-25 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Cliftd I CudfflrtnEmm To Steven R OoriJFirstEnergy@FirstEnergy 01104V2010 0814AM cc bcc Subject Fw: 09-0417, FENOGOavis-Besse License Renewal
| |
| 'Ywch, Bftn*
| |
| To <custerc@firstenergycotpcorn>
| |
| cc
| |
| ~1212JI2009 03:13 PM Subject 09-0417; FENOC Davis-Besse License Renewal ODNR COMMENTS TO Mr. Clifford I. Custer, Mail Stop 3370, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, 5501 North State Route 2, Oak Harbor, Ohio Project: The applicant, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, is preparing an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission to renew the opeiating license for the Davis-B esse Nuclear Power Station, As part of the license renewal process, the NRC requires license renewal applicants to assess the impact of the proposedaction on threatened or endangered species.
| |
| Location: The site is located in sections 1; 2, and 6, CarroUl Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.
| |
| The Ohio Department ofNatural Resources (ODNR) has completed a review of the above referenced proj ect.
| |
| These comments were generated byan inter-disciplinary review within the Department These comments have been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, Ohio Revised Code and other applicablelaws and regulations. These commentsafe also based on ODNR's experience as the. state natural resource managenent agency and do not supersede orreplace the regulatory authority ofany local, state or federal agency nor relieve the applicant of the obligation to comply with any local, state or federal laws or regulations Rare and Endangered Species: The ODNR, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Natural Heritage Database contains records of rare species near the site, The map included with this letter displays the locations of the records and corresponds to theattached list.
| |
| There are no state nature preserves, or scenic rivers in the vicinity of the sites However, the site is near the Crane Creek State Park. The siteisalso near the Toussaint and MaGee Marsh Wildlife Areas.
| |
| Our inventory programn has not completely surveyed Ohio and relies on information supplied by many individuals and organizations. Therefore, a lack ofrecords for any particular area is not a statement that rare species or unique features areabsent from that area.
| |
| Fish and Widlfe: The ODNR, Division of Wildlife (DOW) has the following comments.
| |
| Theproject is within the range of the Indiana bat (AfycMs soda1s ), a state and federally endangered species. Since no tree remnoual is proposed, the pmject is not likely to impact thisý species.
| |
| The project is within the range of the piping plover (Charadflusmelodus ),a state and federally endangered bird species. This species does not nest in the state but only utilizes stopover habitat as they migrate through the region, Attachment C Page C-26 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Therefore, the project is not likely to have an impact on this species.
| |
| The projectis within the range of the spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus ), a state endangered fish, and the blacknose shiner (Notropisheterolepis ), a~state endangered fish, Since no in-water work is proposed for this project, the project is not likely to impact these species.
| |
| The project is within the range of the cattle egret (Bublicitsibis ). a state endangered bird, the loggerhead shrike-Lanius ludovicianus ), a state endangered bird, the Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus ), a state endangered bird, the
| |
| ,snowy egret (Egretla thula ), a state endangered species, and the trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccin.ator ), a state.
| |
| endangered bird. Due to the type of project proposed,. the project is not likely to impact these species, The Natural Heritage Database has a record near the project area for the lake sturgeon (Acipenserfidivescens ) a state endangered species, the Canada darner (Aeshna canadensis ), a state endangered species, the Northern shoveler (arias cl)peata ), a state species of special interest, the green-winged teal (Anas crecca ),.a state species of special interest, the gadwall (Arias strepera ), a state species of special interest the-redhead (Aythi'a ainencana ), a state species of special interest, the upland sandpiper (Bartramialongicauda ), a state threatened speciesthe American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus ), a state endangered species, the black tern (Chlidoniasniger), a state endangered species, the sedge wren (Cistoihorusplatensis ). a state species of concern, the Cisco (Coregonus ariedi ), a state endangered species, the lake whitefish (Coregonnsclupeaformis ), a state species of concern, the purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata), a state species of concern, the Eastern fox snake (Elaphe vulpina gloydi ), a state species.
| |
| of concern, the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), a state species of concern, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a state threatened species, the least-bittern (Ixabrychus evilis ), .a state threatened species, the Eastern pondm ussel (Ligurmia nasitta ), a state endangered species. the black sandshell (Ligumia recta ), a state threatened species, the melanistic garter snake (Thanmnophis sirtalis), a state species of concern, the threehornwartyback-(
| |
| Obliquariareflevxa ), a state threatened speciesthe sara rail (Porzanacarolina ). a state species of concern, the king rail (Ralhis elegans ), a state endangered species, the Virginia rail (Rallus lirnicola ),.a state species of special concern, the common tern (Sterna hinmdo ), a state endangered species, the Western meadowlark (Stirnefla neglecta ), a state species of special interest, the fawnsfoot CTruncilla donacifonnis ), a state threatened species, and the deertoe (Tunicilla trumcaa ), a state species of concern. Since no new site disturbance is-proposed, the project is not likely to impact these species.
| |
| Coastal Management: The ODNIR Office of Costal Management comments that. pursuant to the Coastal Zone Manageaient Act of 1972, as amended. federl licenses or permits. listed in the approved Ohio Coastal Management Program Document may not be issued until ODNR has determined that the activity is consistent with the program's enforceable policies. The following is listed as being subject to Federal Consistency reviews in the Ohio Coastal Mianagement Program Document:
| |
| Licensing and determination of the siting, construction and operation of nuclear generating stations, fuel storage, and processing centers pur-suant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Title IUof the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, In order to commencea Federal Consistency-review, the following information must be received by ODNR:
| |
| I. A Federal Consistency Certification signied by the permit applicant (not an ag~iit or represeritative)
| |
| : 2. A copy of the application for the federal license or permit and
| |
| : a. All material relevant to a State's management program provided to the Federal agency in support of the application; and
| |
| : b. To the extent not included in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a~l)(1i) of this section, a detailed description of the proposed activity, its associated facilities, the coastal effects, and any other information relied upon by the applicant to make its certification. [Vaps. diagrams, and technical data shall besubmitted when a written-description alone will not adequately describe the proposal-
| |
| : 3. Information specifically identified in the management program as required necessary data and information for an applicant's consistency certification. The management program as originally approved or amended (pursuant to 15 CFR part 923, subpart IH)may describe data and infnrmation necessary to assess' the consistency of federal license or permit activities, Necessary data and information may include completed State or local government permit applications which are required for the proposed activity, but shall not include the issued State or local permits. NEPA documents shall not be considered necessary data Attachment C Page C-27 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report and infomaation when a Federal statute requires a Federal agency to initiate the CZMA federal consistency review prior to its completion of NEPA compliance. States shall not require that the consistency certification and/or the necessary data and inforrmtion be, included in NEPA documents. Required data and information may not include confidential and proprietary material; and
| |
| : 4. An evaluation that includes a set of findings relating the coastal effects of the proposal and its associated facilities to the relevant enforceable policies of the management program Applicants shall demonstrate that the activity will be consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program Applicants shall demonstrate adequate consideration of policies which are in the nature of recommendations. Applicants need not malce findings with respect to coastal effects for which the management program does not contain enforceable or recommended policies.
| |
| A copy of a Federal Consistency Certification isattached.
| |
| ODNR appreciates the opportunity 1o provide these comments. Please contact Brian Mitch at (614) 265-6378 if you have questions about these corrnerls or need additional information.
| |
| Brian Mitch, Environmental ReviewManager Ohio Department of Natural Resources Environmental Services Section 2045 Morse Road, Building F-3 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 Office: (614) 265-6378 Fax: (614) 262-2197 brian.mitchtdnr state. oh.us oledatamso Consistency CettificationStatementdoc 09.0417.lisLpdI 09-0417.inveits.pdf 09.041L7.Veats.pdf 09-0417._plants.pdf 09.0417ma pdl Page 0-28 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C, Page C-28 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report f409-0417 lENOC David-Besse Licentse Renewa~l Scientific Name ,Common Name State Status Federal Status Last Observed Aciperser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon E 1997-05 Acorus americanus American Sweet-flag P 1971-08-03 Aeshna canadensis Canada Darner E 1997-09-27 Ammophila breviligulata Americarn Beach Grass T 1970-09 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler SI 1983-06-30 Anas crecca Green-winged Teal SI 1983-08-10 Anas strepera Gadwall SI 1983-08-10 Anas strepera Gadwall 81 1983-06-12 Arabis divadcarpa Limestone Rock Cress E 1973-05 Astragalus canadensis Canada Milk-vetch T 1968-08-27 Astragalus canadensis Canada Milk-vetch T 1979-071 1 Aythya americana Redhead SI 1984-07 Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper T 1983-08 Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern E 1977 Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern E 1984-05 Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern E 1977 Cakile edentula Inland Sea Rocket P 1979-09 Cakile edentula Inland*Sea Rocket P 1997-07-15 Carex aquatills Leafy Tussock Sedge- ,p 1990-07 Carex atherodes Wheat Sedge P 1990-07 Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge p 2004.08-26 Carex bebbii Bebb'sSedge p 2003-08-21 Chlidonias, niger Black Tern E 1984-07-08 Chlidonias niger Black Tern E 1984w0714 Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren SC 1984-08 E=Endangered, FT'=Federally Threatened SC=Specia! Concern T=Threatened FE=Federally Endangered P=Potentially Threatened Sl=Special Interest Page 1 of 4 Page C-29 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-29 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status Last Observed cOstothorus platensis Sedge Wren Sc 197- (NO DATE Coregonus artedi Cisco E 1976 Coregonus clupeaformis Lake Whitefish Sc 1976 (NO DATE Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback Sc 1977.06 Cyperus diandrus Low Umbrella-sedge P 2003-08-21 Cyperus diandrus Low Umbrella-sedge p 2004-08-26 Cyperus diandrus ,Low Umbrella.sedge. P 1991-09-13 Cyperus schweinilzii Schweinitz' Umbrella-sedge T 1967-09 Cyperus schweinilzii Schweinitz' Umbrella-sedge T :2009-07-06 Elaphe vulpina gloydi Eastern Fox Snake Sc 1980.06.24 Elaphe vulpina gloydi Eastern Fox Snake SC 1980M06 Elaphe vulpinagloydi Eastern Fox Snake SC 1980-08 Elaphe vulpina gloydi Eastern Fox Snake Sc 1998-05-06 Elaphe vulpina-gloydf Eastern Fox Snake Sc 1980-07 Emydoidea blandingii Blandingjs Turtle Sc 1980-06 Emydoldea blandingii Blanding's.Turtle Sc 1997-05-16 Emydoidea blandingii Blandings Turtle Sc 1970-07 Emydoldea blandingli Blahding's Turtle 'SC 1980-06 Emydoidea blandingli Blanding's Turtle -Sc 1980-07 Euphorbia polygonifolia Seaside Spurge 1979-09 Euphorbia polygonifolia Seaside SpUrge P 1997-07-15 Euphorbia polygonifolia Seaside Spurge 1990-08 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T 2000-06 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T 2000-06 Ha haeelus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T 2000-06 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T 2000-06 E=Endangered FT=Federally Threatened SC=Special Concern ThThreatened FE=Federally Endangered P=-Potentially Threatened Sl=Special Interest Page 2 of 4.
| |
| Page C-30 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C' Page C-30 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Scientific Name Common Name St*ite Status Federal. Status Last Observed Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T 2A00-06 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T 2000-06 Hallaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle' r 2000-06 Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern T 1984-08-03 INobrychus exilis Least Bittern T 1983,08-10 Ligumia nasuta Eastern Pondmussel E 1978-07 Ligumla nasUta Eastern Pondmussel E 1978-07-08 Ligumla nasuta 'Eastern Pondmussel E 1968-07 Ligumia recta Black Sandshell T 1978-07-17 Ligumla recta Black Sandshell T 1978-07 Melanistic garter snake Thamnophis Sirtalis SC 1980-06-24 Melanistic garter snake T-hamnophiis Sirtalis SC 1980-06 Melanistic garter snake Thamnophis Sirtalls .SC 1980-06 Nuphar varlegata Bullhead-lily E 2003-08,21 Nuphar variegaia Bullhead-lily E 2004-08-26 Obliquaria reflexa Threehorn Wartyback T 1977-06 T
| |
| Obliquaria reflexa Threehorn Wartyback 1968-07 Obliquaria reflexa Threehorn Wartyback T 1978-07-08 Oenothera oakesiana Oakes' Evening-primrose P 2003-08-21 Oenothera parviflora Small-floWered Evening-primrose P 2003-08-21 Panicum tuckermanii Tuckerman's Panic Grass T 1991-09-13 Panicum tuckermanii Tuckerman's Panic Grass T 1991-09-13 Phragmites australis ssp. americ: anus American Reed Grass T 2003-08-21 Porzana carolina Soia Rail SC 1984-06 Porzana carolina Sora Rail -SC 1984-06 Potamogeton natans Floating Pondweed P 1980-07 E=Endangered FT=Federally Threatened SC =Special Concern T=Threatened FE=Federally Endangered P=Potentially Threatened SI: =Speclal Interest Page 3 of 4 Attachment C Page C-31 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Scientific Name Common Name ,State Status: Federal Status Last Observed Potamogeton zosteriformis Flat-stemmed Pondweed P 2003-08-21 Potentilla paradoxa Bushy Cinquefoil T 1970-09 Rallus elegans King Rail E 1984-06 Rallus elegans King Rail E 1983-07 Rallus, limicola Virginia Rail SC 1983-08 Sagittaria cuneata Wapato T 2004-08-26 Sagittana cuneata Wapato T 1998-08-18 Sagittaria montevidensis Southern Wapato P 2005-07-27 Sagittaria montevidensis Southern Wapato P 1968-08-27 Sagittaria rigida Deers-tongue Arrowhead P 1998-08-12 Sagittaria ngida Deers-tongue Arrowhead P 1998-08-04 Sagittaria igida Deer's-tongue Arrowhead P 2009-09-25 Sagittaria rigida Deers-tongue Arrowhead P 2003-08-21 Sterna hirundo Common Tern E 2003 Sterna hirundo Common Tern E 2003 Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Sl 1997-05-18 Triplasis purpurea Purple Sand Grass P 2009-08-21 Triplasis purpurea Purple Sand Grass P 1968-09 Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot. T 1966.05 Truhclila donaclformis Fawnsfoot T 1977-06 Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot T 1968-07 Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot T 1978-07-08 Truncilla truncata Deertoe Sc 1966-05 TrUncilla truncata Deeftoe SC 1977-06 Truncilla truncata Deertoe SC 1978-07-08 Truncilla truncata Deertoe SC 1968-07 E=Itndangered FT=Federally Threatened SC=Special Concern T=Threatened FE=Federally Endangered P-Potentially Threatened SI=Special Interest Page 4 of 4 Attachment C Page C-32 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| #09-0417 FENOC David-Besse License Renewal Miles 00.51 2 3 4 Butch Grieszmer, Natural Heritage Program Legend Invertebrates 09-0417 Attachment C Page C-33 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| #09-0417 FENOC David-Besse License Renewal W+ E S
| |
| Miles 00.51 2 3 4 Butch Grleszmer, Natural Heritage Program Legend MVertebrates 09-0417 Page C-34 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-34 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| #09-0417 FENOC David-Besse License Renewal W0.
| |
| P Miles 00.51 2 3 4 Butch Grleszmer, Natural Heritage Program Legend
| |
| - Plants 11/24/2009 09-0417 Attachment C Page C-35 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| #09-0417 FENOC David-Besse License Renewal L
| |
| II r7V 1'~~T~ i~ -
| |
| ::r4 jtir4~L Miles 00.5 1 2 3 4 Butch Grieszmer, Natural Heritage Program Legend 09-0417 E Managed Areas Attachment C Page C-36 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report J Ohio Coastal Management Program "
| |
| ' Consistency Certification Statement ,
| |
| I, do certify that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of Ohio's appro ved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program (16 U.S.C. § 1456 and O.R.C.
| |
| §1506.03).
| |
| Address:
| |
| City- State: Zip Code:
| |
| Telephone Number- (._
| |
| Applicant's Signature: Date:
| |
| Project Name/Description:
| |
| Please list all local, State, and Federal permi~, licenses, leases, and/or other authorizations Please list all local, State, and Federal permits, licenses, leases, and/or other authorizations required for this project:
| |
| 1) 2)
| |
| 3) 4)
| |
| 5)
| |
| Please submit an original copy of this document signed by the applicant (not an agent or representative) with your Federal permit application or submit to:
| |
| Federal Consistency Coordinator Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management 105 West Shoreline Drive Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Page C-37 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-37 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC ~Oak 5 orth Stale Route 2 Harbor, Ohio 43449 Firs1fnergyNuclear Operaning Comnpany Bany S. Allen 419.321-7676 V*ce President
| |
| * Nuclear Fax 4 f9-32 t.7582 November 12, 2009 L-09-300 Mr. Steven Holland, MPA Coastal Network Section Manager Federal Consistency Coordinator Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management 105 W. Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| | |
| Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Certification FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is preparing an application to the U,S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). If approved, the renewal term would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original Davis-Besse license expiration date In 2017.
| |
| The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451, et seq.) imposes requirements on an applicant for a Federal license to conduct an activity that could affect a state's coastal zone. The Act requires an applicant to certify to the licensing agency that the proposed action would be consistent with the state's federally approved coastal zone management program. The Act also requires the applicant to provide to the state a copy of the certification statement and requires the state, at the earliest practicable time, to notify the federal agency and the applicant whether the state concurs with, or objects to, the consistency certification (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)), By contacting you early In the application process, FENOC wishes to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed or information that your office may require to expedite its review.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie In Ottawa County, Ohio (Attachment 1). Coordinates for the station are 410 35' 49" north Latitude and 830 05' 16" west Longitude. The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge (Attachment 2).
| |
| FENOC has no plans to alter current Davis-Besse operations over the 20-year license renewal period. In addition, maintenance activities necessary to support license Attachment C Page C-38 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-300 Page 2 renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on site. License renewal at Davis-Besse would require neither the expansion of existing facilities nor additional land disturbance. As a result, FENOC is confident that continued operation of Davis-Besse during the license renewal period would be consistent with the policies of the Ohio CZM program.
| |
| To ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, FENOC requests information from your office regarding concerns you may have, ifany, related to renewal of the Davis-Besse facility operating license. FENOC would appreciate receiving a letter in reply detailing any concerns you may have or confirmation that no concerns exist and that a renewed operating license is consistent with the policies of the CZM program.
| |
| Receipt of your reply by December 31, 2009, will provide us the time needed to evaluate and incorporate the information into our application.
| |
| Thank you for your attention to our request.
| |
| Please feel free to contact Mr. Clifford Custer, Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager, at 724-682-7139. Please address any questions or need for additional information about the environmental review to:
| |
| Mr. Clifford I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Telephone: 724-682-7139 Email: custerc(afirstenerpycorp.com Sincerely,,
| |
| 'Z4 7 . ,S-L_
| |
| Barry S. Allen Attachments:
| |
| : 1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius
| |
| : 2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map cc: DB-1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Attachment C Page C-39 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 1 L-09-300 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius Page 1 of 1 Page C-40 August 2010 C
| |
| Attachment C Page C-40 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 2 L-09-300 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map Page 1 of 1 Page 0-41 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-41 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC FE5O 50 W North qele Route 2
| |
| *'* OaR Haribor,Oh~io 43449 FireJEnerg)y NuafoarOPW8avir9 Coa*anly Berry S. Allen 4 f 9-321-7626 Vice President - Nuclear Fax 419-321.7582 November 1Z 2009 L-09-299 Mr., Mark J. Epstein Department Head Resource Protection and Review Ohio Historic Preservation Office 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211-2497
| |
| | |
| ==SUBJECT:==
| |
| | |
| Reauest for Information on Archaeological and Historic Resources FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is preparing an application to the U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse). If approved, the renewal term would be for an additional 20 years beyond the original Davis-Besse license expiration date in 2017.
| |
| As part of the license renewal process, the NRC requires (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K))
| |
| license renewal applicants to assess whether any historic or archaeological properties will be affected by the proposed project The NRC also may request, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470), and Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800), an informal consultation with your office at a later date. By contacting you early in the application process, FENOC wishes to identify any potential Issues that need to be addressed or information that your office may require to expedite the NRC consultation.
| |
| Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio (Attachment 1). Coordinates for the station are 410 35' 49" north Latitude and 830 05' 16" west Longitude, The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government asa national wildlife refuge (Attachment 2). Approximately 100 miles of transmission lines were constructed to connect the station to the regional electric grid..
| |
| Based on consultation with the Ohio Historical Society prior to construction, there are no known deposits of archaeological interest on the site. A.recent query of the Ohio Historic Preservation Office's Online Mapping System conducted for a 6-mile radius around the site identified 378 previously recorded cultural resources. This number includes buildings, archaeological sites, cemeteries, churches, and other structures.
| |
| Attachment C Page C-42 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-299 Page 2 Resource types range from a historic military base with many contributing structures to archaeological sites and individual architectural resources. One resource, a historic-period site (OT0025), appears to be located at the extreme southeastern corner of the station property. Only one resource was listed In the National Register of Historic Places, the Carroll Township Hall, located about 3.2 miles to the southwest of the Davis-Besse site.
| |
| FENOC has no plans to alter current Davis-Besse operations over the 20-year license renewal period. In addition, maintenance activities necessary to support license renewal would be limited to previously disturbed areas on site. License renewal at Davis-Besse would require neither the expansion of existing facilities nor additional land disturbance. As, a result, FENOC is confident that continued operation of.Davis-Besse during the license renewal period would have minimal impact on any archaeological or historic resources.
| |
| To ensure that impacts are adequately addressed, FENOC requests information from your office regarding concerns you may have, if any, related to potential impacts to listed archaeological and cultural resources from continued operation of Davis-Besse.
| |
| FENOC would appreciate receiving a letter in reply detailing any concerns you may have or confirmation that no concerns exist. Receipt of your reply by December 31, 2009, will provide us the time needed to evaluate and incorporate the information into our license renewal application.
| |
| Thank you for your attention to our request.
| |
| Please feel free to contact Mr. Clifford Custer, Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager, at 724-682-7139., Please address any questions or need for additional information about the environmental review to:
| |
| Mr. Clifford I. Custer Davis.Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Telephone: 724-682-7139 Email-- custerc)firstenergvcorp.com Sincerely, Barry S. Allen Attachment C Page C-43 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station L-09-299 Page 3 Attachments:
| |
| : 1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius
| |
| : 2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map cc: DB-1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Page C-44 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-44 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 1 L-09-299 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Area Map, 6-Mile Radius Page 1 of 1 Attachment C Page C-45 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment 2 L-09-299 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Site Map Page 1 of 1 Page C-46 August 2010 Attachment C Attachment C Page C-46 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
| |
| -License Renewal Application Environmental Report OHIO March 23, 2010 Clifford I. Custer Davis-Besse License Renewal Project Manager Mail Stop 3370 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr. Custer:==
| |
| | |
| Re: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Renewal, Ottawa County, Ohio This is in response to correspondence, received on November 16, 2009 regarding the renewal of the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ottawa County, Ohio. My comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the associated regulations at 36 CFR Part 800.
| |
| Based on the limited information included in your submission, the proposed license renewal, as the only action being reviewed, does not appear to have a high probability effecting historic properties. It is my opinion that the proposed license renewal will not affect historic properties.
| |
| No further coordination with this office is necessary unless there is a change in the project.
| |
| Additionally, any future improvements or earthmoving activities at the Davis-Besse facility requiring review under the regulations at 36 CFR 800 will need to be coordinated with this office.
| |
| If new or additional historic properties are discovered during implementation of this project, this office should be notified as required by 36 CFR 800.13.
| |
| If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me, at (614) 298-2000. Thank you for your cooperation.
| |
| Sincerely, Nathan J. Young, Project Reviews Manager Resource Protection and Review OHIO HISTORICAL SOCIETY Ohio Historic Preservation Oflice 1029497
| |
| *1982 Velma Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43211-2497 ph: 614.298.2000 fx: 614.298.2037
| |
| .www.ohiohistoqy.org Attachment C Page C-47 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment C Page C-48 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| *Attachment D:
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Consistency August 2010 D
| |
| Attachment D August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment D Page D-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY This certification documents the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) determination that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) operating license would be consistent with enforceable policies of the approved Ohio Coastal Management Program.
| |
| FENOC has patterned this certification after the example included as Appendix E to NRC, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office, Instruction No. LIC-203, Revision 1 (NRC 2004). The certification describes background requirements, the proposed action, (i.e., license renewal), anticipated environmental impacts, Ohio enforceable coastal resource protection policies and Davis-Besse compliance status, and summary findings.
| |
| Page D-3 August 2010 Attachment D Attachment D Page D-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Ohio Coastal Management Program
| |
| * P Consistency Certification Statement t1" I, Barry S. Allen , do certify that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of Ohio's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program (16 U.S.C. § 1456 and O.R.C.
| |
| §1506.03).
| |
| Address: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, 5501 N. State Route 2 City: Oak Harbor State: OH Zip Code: 43449 Telephone Number: ( 419 )a321 - 7676 Applicant's Signature: I'ina~tureo ieoni§l ae Date:
| |
| Project Name/Description: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal /
| |
| Submittal of a License Renewal Application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew the Davis-Besse Facility Operating License for an additional 20 years beyond the original license expiration date in 2017 Please list all local, State, and Federal permits, licenses, leases, and/or other authorizations required for this project:
| |
| : 1) Please refer to the Davis-Besse License Renewal Application, Appendix E, "Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage," Attachment D, "Coastal Zone Management Consistency," Table D-2, "Environmental Authorizations for Davis-Besse Operation."
| |
| 2) 3)
| |
| 4)
| |
| Please submit an original copy of this document signed by the apDlicant (not an agent or representative) with your Federal permit application or submit to:
| |
| Federal Consistency Coordinator Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management 105 West Shoreline Drive Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Attachment D Page D-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report D.1 NECESSARY DATA AND INFORMATION D.1.1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq.) imposes requirements on an applicant for a Federal license to conduct an activity that could affect a state's coastal zone. The Act requires an applicant to certify to the licensing agency that the proposed action would be consistent with the state's federally approved coastal zone management program. The Act also requires the applicant to provide to the state a copy of the certification statement and requires the state, at the earliest practicable time, to notify the federal agency and the applicant whether the state concurs with, or objects to, the consistency certification. See 16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A).
| |
| The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has promulgated implementing regulations that indicate the certification requirement is applicable to renewal of federal licenses for activities not previously reviewed by the state [15 CFR 930.51 (b)(1)]. NOAA approved the Ohio coastal zone management program in May 1997. In Ohio, the approved program is the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP), which was authorized by the Ohio General Assembly passage of the Ohio Coastal Management Law in 1988. (ODNR 2009b)
| |
| Ohio has a networked coastal management program, which means the program is based on several different state authorities. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) serves as the lead agency (ODNR 2009b). The Coastal Management Program Document describes the major components of the program and has been updated several times to reflect changes in Ohio Revised and Administrative codes, and organizational changes. The document was most recently updated and federal re-approved in April 2007. (NOAA 2007)
| |
| The OCMP does not affect all activities and projects in the coastal area. Only those activities considered to have a direct and significant impact on the coastal lands, waters and resources are identified as managed activities. Consequently, of the 41 policies in the OCMP, all or portions of 30 policies are enforceable. The remaining 11 polices are enhancement policies. The polices are enforced pursuant to Ohio Revised Code, Title 15, Conservation of Natural Resources, Chapter 1506, Coastal Zone (O.R.C.
| |
| 1506).
| |
| Table D-1 lists the enforceable policies of the OCMP and discusses for each the applicability to Davis-Besse and, where applicable, the FENOC basis for certifying consistency. Table D-2 provides a list of all certifications, permits, and authorizations for current operation of Davis-Besse.
| |
| Page D-5 August 2010 Attachment D Attachment D Page D-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report D.1.2 PROPOSED ACTION FENOC is applying to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse license to operate for an additional 20 years beyond the current expiration date of April 22, 2017. FENOC expects Davis-Besse operations during the license renewal term to be a continuation of current operations as described in the following paragraphs, with no changes that would affect the Ohio coastal zone. FENOC certifies that license renewal complies with the enforceable program policies of the Ohio approved coastal management program and that continued plant operation will be conducted in a manner consistent with such policies.
| |
| D.
| |
| | |
| ==1.3 BACKGROUND==
| |
| INFORMATION Davis-Besse is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio.
| |
| Nearby communities include Oak Harbor approximately 8 miles southeast, Fremont 16 miles south, and Toledo 24 miles west northwest.
| |
| The site consists of 954 acres, of which approximately 733 acres are marshland that is leased to the U.S. Government as a national wildlife refuge. To the west is the main unit of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge and the State of Ohio Magee Marsh Wildlife Area. On the southern boundary is the Toussaint River, which empties into Lake Erie 700 feet from the lake shoreline site boundary. The land area surrounding the site is generally agricultural with no major industry in the vicinity.
| |
| Davis-Besse is a single-unit plant with a pressurized water reactor and turbine generator licensed for an output of 2,817 megawatts-thermal (MWt), and an electric rating of 908 megawatts-electric (MWe) gross. The plant employs a closed-cycle circulating water system that withdraws water from and discharges water to Lake Erie in accordance with a state-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit. Heat is rejected from the main condenser via a natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower, whose blowdown and service water discharge to the lake via a submerged jet. The discharge permit also encompasses storm water runoff and effluent from an onsite wastewater treatment plant.
| |
| Three high-voltage transmission lines were built to connect Davis-Besse to Toledo Edison (a FirstEnergy transmission company) transmission 345 kV substations. The transmission lines occupy rights of way of approximately 1,800 acres, primarily flat agricultural land, with routine vegetation maintenance of the transmission line corridors approximately every five years. Maintenance includes removal or pruning of woody vegetation as necessary to ensure adequate line clearance (no less than 30 feet from the conductor for transmission lines operated above 138 kV) and to allow vehicular access for maintenance.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report FENOC employs approximately 885 employees and contractor employees at Davis-Besse. Approximately 88% reside in the four contiguous counties of Ottawa, Lucas, Wood, and Sandusky. During refueling outages, which occur about every two years and average about 48 days in length, site employment is supplemented with the addition of an average 1,300 temporary workers.
| |
| D.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS D.
| |
| | |
| ==2.1 BACKGROUND==
| |
| INFORMATION The NRC has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NRC 1996) on impacts that nuclear power plant license renewal could have on the environment and has codified its findings (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i). The codification identified 92 potential environmental issues, 69 of which the NRC identified as having small impacts and termed "Category 1 issues." The NRC defines "SMALL" as:
| |
| SMALL - For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they Will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any importantattribute of the resource. For the purpose of assessingradiologicalimpacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissiblelevels in the Commission's regulationsare consideredsmall as the term is used in this table (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B- 1).
| |
| The NRC based its assessment of license renewal impacts on its evaluations of impacts from current plant operations. -The NRC codification and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement discuss the following types of Category 1 environmental issues:
| |
| * Surface water quality, hydrology, and use
| |
| " Aquatic ecology
| |
| " Groundwater use and quality
| |
| " Terrestrial resources
| |
| " Air quality
| |
| * Land use
| |
| * Human health
| |
| " Postulated accidents
| |
| " Socioeconomics
| |
| * Uranium fuel cycle and waste management
| |
| * Decommissioning In its decision making for plant-specific license renewal applications, absent new and significant information to the contrary, the NRC relies on its codified findings, as amplified by supporting information in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, for assessment of environmental impacts from Category 1 issues [10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)].
| |
| Attachment D Page D-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report For plants such as Davis-Besse that are located in a coastal zone, many of these issues involve potential impacts to the coastal zone. FENOC has adopted by reference the NRC findings and Generic Environmental Impact Statement analyses for the 611 applicable Category 1 issues.
| |
| The NRC regulation identified 21 issues as "Category 2," for which license renewal applicants must submit additional site-specific information.2 Of these, 12 apply to Davis-Besse 3 , and like the Category 1 issues, could potentially involve impacts to the coastal zone. The applicable issues and FENOC's impact conclusions are listed below.
| |
| Aquatic ecology:
| |
| o Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages - This issue addresses mortality of organisms small enough to pass through the plant's circulating cooling water system. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), in issuing the plant's NPDES discharge permit, has determined that the plant maintains the best available technology to minimize impact. FENOC concludes that these impacts are SMALL during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.
| |
| o Impingement of fish and shellfish - This issue addresses mortality of organisms large enough to be caught by intake screens before passing through the plant's circulating cooling water system. The NPDES permit also addresses impingement. FENOC concludes that these impacts are SMALL during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.
| |
| o Heat shock - This issue addresses mortality of aquatic organisms by exposure to heated plant effluent. The OEPA, in issuing the plant's NPDES discharge permit, has determined that more stringent limits on the heated effluent are not necessary to protect the aquatic environment. FENOC 1 The remaining Category 1 issues do not apply to Davis-Besse because they are associated with design or operational features that Davis-Besse does not have, e.g., once-through cooling.
| |
| 2 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 also identifies two issues as "NA" for which the NRC could not come to a conclusion regarding categorization. FENOC believes that these issues, chronic effects of electromagnetic fields and environmental justice, do not affect the "coastal zone" as that phrase is defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act
| |
| [16 USC 1453(1)].
| |
| 3 The remaining Category 2 issues do not apply to Davis-Besse because they are associated with design or operational features that Davis-Besse does not have, e.g., once-through cooling.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report concludes that these impacts are SMALL during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.
| |
| * Threatened or endangered species: This issue addresses effects that Davis-Besse operations potentially could have on species that are listed under federal law as threatened or endangered. In analyzing this issue, FENOC has also considered species that are listed under Ohio law. Table D-3 lists the threatened and- endangered animal and plant species whose range is known to occur in the vicinity of Davis-Besse. FENOC has identified no adverse impacts to these species and consultation with cognizant state and Federal agencies has identified no impacts of concern (ODNR 2009a, b; NMFS 2010; USFWS 2009).
| |
| FENOC concludes that Davis-Besse impacts to these species are SMALL during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.
| |
| * Human health: Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock) - This issue addresses the potential for shock from induced currents, similar to static electricity effects, in the vicinity of transmission lines. Because this strictly human-health issue does not directly or indirectly affect natural resources of concern within the Coastal Zone Management Act definition of "coastal zone" [16 USC 1453(1)], FENOC concludes that the issue is not subject to the certification requirement.
| |
| * Socioeconomics:
| |
| " Housing - This issue addresses impacts that Davis-Besse employees required to support license renewal could have on local housing availability.
| |
| The NRC concluded, and FENOC concurs, that impacts would be SMALL for plants located in high population areas with no growth control measures.
| |
| Using the NRC definitions and categorization methodology, Davis-Besse is located in a high population area and locations where additional employees would probably live do not have growth control measures. In addition, as FENOC does not intend to add additional permanent employees to the Davis-Besse workforce, FENOC concludes that impacts during the Davis-Besse license renewal term would be SMALL.
| |
| o Public services; public utilities - This issue address impacts that adding license renewal workers could have on public water supply systems. FENOC has analyzed the availability of public water supplies in candidate locales and has found no limitations that would suggest that additional Davis-Besse workers would cause impacts. As FENOC does not intend to add additional permanent employees to the Davis-Besse workforce, FENOC concludes that impacts during the Davis-Besse license renewal term would be SMALL.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report o Offsite land use - This issue addresses impacts that local government spending of plant property tax dollars can have on land use patterns.
| |
| Davis-Besse property tax payments are less than 10% of the regional tax revenue and nearly 20% of the local tax revenue. FENOC expects this tax revenue distribution to remain generally unchanged during the license renewal term. The NRC concluded, and FENOC concurs, that impacts to offsite land use would be small if tax payments are less than 10% percent of total revenue and moderate if payments are 10-20%. FENOC concludes that regional impacts during the Davis-Besse license renewal term would be SMALL and that local impacts would be MODERATE, but positive.
| |
| o Public services; transportation - This issue addresses impacts that adding license renewal workers could have on local traffic patterns. As FENOC does not intend to add additional employees to the permanent workforce for the license renewal term, this would result in SMALL impacts o Historic and archaeological resources - This issue addresses impacts that license renewal activities could have on resources of historic or archaeological significance. Although a number of archaeological or historic sites have been identified near the Davis-Besse site or associated transmission lines, FENOC is not aware of any adverse or detrimental impacts to these sites from current operations and FENOC has no plans for license renewal activities that would disturb these resources. FENOC correspondence with the Ohio Historic Society, State Historic Preservation Officer, identified no issues of concern.
| |
| o Severe accidents - The NRC determined that the license renewal impacts from severe accidents would be small, but that applicants should perform site-specific analyses of ways to further mitigate impacts. Results from the FENOC severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis have not identified any cost-beneficial enhancements to further mitigate risk to public health and the economy in the area of the plant, including the coastal zone, due to potential severe accidents at Davis-Besse.
| |
| D.2.2 FINDINGS
| |
| : 1. The NRC has found that the environmental impacts of Category 1 issues are SMALL. FENOC has adopted by reference NRC findings for Category 1 issues applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| : 2. For Category 2 issues applicable to Davis-Besse, FENOC has determined that the environmental impacts are SMALL or if larger have a positive benefit.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report
| |
| : 3. To the best of FENOC's knowledge, Davis-Besse is in compliance with Ohio licensing and permitting requirements and is in compliance with its state-issued licenses and permits (Table D-2).
| |
| : 4. FENOC's license renewal and continued operation of Davis-Besse would be consistent with the enforceable provisions of the Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program.
| |
| D.3 STATE NOTIFICATION By this certification that Davis-Besse license renewal is consistent with the Ohio Coastal Management Program, the State of Ohio is notified that, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.63(a),
| |
| it has six months from the receipt of this letter and accompanying information in which to concur with or object to the FENOC certification. However, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.63(b), if Ohio has not issued a decision within three months following commencement of State agency review, it shall notify the contacts listed below of the status of the matter and the basis for further delay. The State's concurrence, objections, or notification of review status shall be sent to the following contacts:
| |
| Ms. Paula E. Cooper Mr. Clifford Custer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Davis-Besse License Renewal Project One White Flint North Manager 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 3370 Rockville, MD 020852-2738 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 D.4 REFERENCES NMFS 2010. Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commence, NMFS letter, M.A.
| |
| Colligan to B. Allen (FENOC) January 15, 2010, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
| |
| NOAA 2007. Combined Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the State of Ohio, Vol. 1, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commence, Revised April 2007.
| |
| NRC 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1996.
| |
| Page D-11 August 2010 Attachment D Attachment D Page D-1 1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report NRC 2004. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, NRR Office Instruction No. LIC-203, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 24, 2004.
| |
| ODNR 2009a. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, ODNR letter, J. Navarro to B. Allen (FENOC), December 22, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| ODNR 2009b. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, ODNR e-mail, B. Mitch to C.I. Custer (FENOC), December 22, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| USFWS 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, USFWS letter, M.K. Knapp to B. Allen (FENOC), TAILS #3142002010-TA-0132, December 16, 2009, Columbus, Ohio.
| |
| Page D-12 August 2010 Attachment DD Page D-1 2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION Coastal Erosion and Flooding (1-4)
| |
| POLICY 1 - LAKE ERIE COASTAL EROSION FENOC is unaware of any impacts to coastal AREA MANAGEMENT erosion from Davis-Besse operations. In Minimize threats to human safety and property addition, license renewal will not include any due to Lake Erie-related erosion while construction-related projects.
| |
| protecting the functions of natural shore features.
| |
| {Pursuant to O.R.C. 1506.06 and 1506.07, ODNR administers a permit system for construction, erection and redevelopment of permanent structures within Lake Erie coastal erosion areas.)
| |
| POLICY 2 - SHORE EROSION CONTROL Not applicable - This policy applies to land-Promote sound decisions regarding control of disturbing activities that FENOC has no plans shore erosion. to undertake at Davis-Besse for the purpose of license renewal.
| |
| person
| |
| {Pursuant to O.R.C. 1521.22, any planning to construct a beach, groin or other structure that will arrest or control erosion, wave action or inundation along or near the Ohio shore of Lake Erie must first submit plans and specifications to ODNR for review.}
| |
| POLICY 3 - FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: Not Applicable - Davis-Besse is a privately Minimize future flood damages and prevent owned facility. In addition, license renewal will potential loss to existing development in not include any construction-related projects.
| |
| coastal floodplains.
| |
| {O.R.C. 1506.04 mandates that all communities with coastal flood hazard areas designated under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) must either participate in the NFIP or enact regulations that meet or exceed the standards required for such participation.)
| |
| POLICY 4 - FLOOD PROTECTION AND Not Applicable - This policy applies to land-MITIGATION disturbing activities, such as construction of Promote effective flood protection. dams, dikes, and levees, that FENOC has no
| |
| {Pursuant to O.R.C. 1521.06 et seq., the plans to undertake at Davis-Besse for the ODNR Division of Water requires construction purpose of license renewal.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-1 3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION permits for new dams, dikes and levees and makes periodic inspections of existing dams, dikes and levees)
| |
| Water Quality (6,7,9,11,)_
| |
| POLICY 6 - WATER QUALITY Davis-Besse operations are consistent with its Maintain and improve the quality of the state's NPDES permit requirements, which are based coastal waters for the purpose of protecting on federally approved water quality standards, the public health and welfare and to enable the and FENOC has no plans that would change use of such waters for public water supply, this practice for the license renewal term.
| |
| industrial and agricultural needs, and propagation of fish, aquatic life and wildlife.
| |
| {Water quality standards set forth in O.A.C.
| |
| Chapter 3745-1, which establish minimum requirements for all surface waters of the state, have been approved by the U.S.
| |
| Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as well as the enforcement procedures and authorities of OEPA.}
| |
| POLICY 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL Davis-Besse has a spill prevention control and CONTAMINANTS: PREVENTION AND countermeasure (SPCC) plan and related EMERGENCY RESPONSE emergency response procedures. In addition, Davis-Besse's storm water runoff is covered Prevent and/or minimize to the greatest extent by its NPDES permit, which is evidence of possible, damages to the public health, safety state water quality (401) certification.
| |
| and welfare, and to the environment from contaminants.
| |
| (Pursuant to O.R.C. 3745.01, OEPA administers the laws pertaining to chemical emergency planning, community right-to-know, and toxic chemical release reporting.)
| |
| POLICY 9 - POTABLE WATER SUPPLY Davis-Besse receives its potable water from an off-site public water supply system, the Ensure that a safe supply of water is available Carroll Township Water System.
| |
| for private, community, industrial, agricultural and commercial uses along Lake Erie.
| |
| {OEPA's Division of Drinking and Ground Waters ensures that a safe supply of water is available per P.L. 93-523, the Safe Drinking Attachment D Page D-1 4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION Water Act and its Amendments 42 U.S.C.
| |
| 300(f) et seq.)
| |
| POLICY 11 - GROUND WATER Davis-Besse operations do not use ground water and FENOC has no plans that would Promote the protection and management of change this process for the license renewal Ohio's ground water resources. term. In addition, Davis-Besse has a ground
| |
| {Ohio's Department of Health, OEPA, and water cnaiatsmonitoring network to detect potential State Fire Marshal administer the state's ground water programs relating to water quality concerns, including implementation of permits, monitoring and planning activities.
| |
| and technical assistance to local governments per O.R.C 1509, 3701, 3718, 6109, 6111 and O.A.C. 3701 and 3745.)
| |
| Ecologically Sensitive Resources (12,14,15)
| |
| POLICY 12 - WETLANDS Davis-Besse's associated Navarre Marsh site Protect, preserve and manage wetlands with wetlands are protected habitat that is the overall goal to retain the state's remaining managed cooperatively by FENOC and the wetlands, and, where feasible, restore and Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge. FENOC has create wetlands to increase the state's no plans that would change this practice for wetlands. the license renewal term. In addition, (All coastal area wetlands fall within the Davis-Besse's storm water runoff is covered jurisdiction of the U.S:Army Corps of by state NPDES its water permit, quality which is evidence of (401) certification.
| |
| Engineers (COE) in regulating activities under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section
| |
| : 10) and/or the Clean Water Act (CWA),
| |
| Section 404. The scope of Ohio's authority under Section 401 of the CWA and Ohio water pollution control laws (O.R.C. 6111 and O.A.C.
| |
| 3745) is coterminous with that of the COE and covers all surface waters within the coastal area, including wetlands.)
| |
| POLICY 14 - RARE AND ENDANGERED FENOC has identified no adverse impacts to SPECIES these species from Davis-Besse operation and Preserve and protect rare, threatened and consultation with cognizant state and Federal endangered plant and animal species to agencies has identified no impacts of concern prevent their possible extinction, related to Davis-Besse license renewal.
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Wildlife protects fish and Attachment D Page D-1 5, August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION wildlife species threatened with .statewide extinction per O.R.C. 1531.25.1 POLICY 15 - EXOTIC SPECIES Not Applicable - Davis-Besse is an electric Prevent introduction of and control exotic generating facility that neither sells nor imports species to preserve the balance and diversity exotic species and FENOC has no plans of natural ecosystems of Ohio's Lake Erie during license renewal that would change this region. practice.
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Wildlife and Division of Natural Areas and Preserves prevent introduction of and control exotic species to preserve the balance and diversity of natural ecosystems per to O.R.C. 927 and O.A.C.
| |
| 1501.1 Ports and Shore Area Development (16,17)
| |
| POLICY 16 - PUBLIC TRUST LANDS Davis-Besse license renewal will not include Protect the public trust held waters and lands any construction-related projects that would underlying the waters of Lake Erie, protect affect public trust lands.
| |
| public uses of Lake Erie and minimize the occupation of public trust lands for private benefit.
| |
| {ODNR protects the public trust held waters and lands underlying the waters of Lake Erie per O.R.C. 1506.11 and O.A.C. 1501-6-01 through 1501-6-06).
| |
| POLICY 17 - DREDGING AND DREDGED Davis-Besse license renewal will not include MATERIAL DISPOSAL any construction-related projects. Dredging to Provide for the dredging of harbors, river maintain the intake canal, if needed, is channels and other waterways and to protect coordinated through the OEPA, which would the water quality, public right to navigation, include a 401 certification.
| |
| recreation and natural resources associated with these waters in the disposal of the dredged material.
| |
| {OEPA regulates discharges of dredged materials into Ohio waters through a state water quality certification that the discharge will comply with the Clean Water Act per O.R.C. 6111.03(P).}
| |
| Attachment D Page D-1 6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION Recreational and Cultural Resources (21,23,24,26)
| |
| POLICY 21 - LAKESHORE RECREATION Due to the heightened national security AND ACCESS situation and at the direction of the U.S.
| |
| Provide lakeshore recreational opportunities Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Davis-Besse and public access and encourage tourism has closed its lakeshore area to public access along Lake Erie. for recreation. However, adequate lakeshore access is available nearby and will remain
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Parks and Recreation is available during license renewal.
| |
| charged with the development, operation and maintenance of a system of state parks in Ohio for the recreational use of the citizens of Ohio (O.R.C. Chapter 1541)1 POLICY 23 - RECREATIONAL BOATING Due to the heightened national security Satisfy and serve the public interest for situation and at the direction of the U.S.
| |
| recreational boating opportunities and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Davis-Besse watercraft safety in the coastal area has closed its lakeshore area to public access for recreational boating. However, adequate
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Watercraft is responsible lakeshore access for recreational boating is for the enforcement of the state watercraft available nearby and will remain available laws and pursuant regulations (O.RC. during license renewal.
| |
| Chapter 1547).}
| |
| POLICY 24 - FISHING AND HUNTING Due to the heightened national security Provide expanded sport fishing and safe situation and at the direction of the U.S.
| |
| hunting opportunities in the coastal area. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Davis-Besse has closed its lakeshore area to public access
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Wildlife issues hunting, to fishing and hunting. However, adequate trapping, and fishing licenses per O.R.C. 1533 lakeshore access for fishing and hunting is and conducts related safety programs.} available nearby and will remain available
| |
| ,during license renewal.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-17 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION POLICY 26 - PRESERVATION OF FENOC is unaware of any Davis-Besse CULTURAL RESOURCES impacts on designated or registered historic Provide for the preservation of cultural districts or sites and license renewal will not resources to ensure that the knowledge of alter this belief. FENOC has been in contact Ohio's history and pre-history is made with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, available to the public and is not willfully or which is in agreement that license renewal for unnecessarily destroyed or lost. Davis-Besse is unlikely to affect historic sites or districts.
| |
| (The Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) within the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) coordinates cultural resource protection per O.R.C. 149 and 1506,1 Fish and Wildlife Management (27,29)
| |
| POLICY 27 - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FENOC is unaware of any Davis-Besse Assure the continual enjoyment of the benefits impacts on the fisheries of Lake Erie and received from the fisheries of Lake Erie and to consultation with cognizant state and Federal maintain and improve these fisheries, agencies has identified no impacts of concern related to Davis-Besse license renewal.
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Wildlife regulates fish habitats, including protection, preservation, propagation, and management per O.R.C.
| |
| 1531.)
| |
| POLICY 29 - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT FENOC promotes wildlife management Provide for the management of wildlife in the through the lease of 733 acres of Davis-Besse coastal area to assure the continued property to wildlife preservation, including the enjoyment of benefits received from wildlife. Navarre Marsh and Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge.
| |
| {ODNR's Division of Wildlife regulates wildlife habitats, including protection, preservation, propagation, and management per O.R.C.
| |
| 1531.)
| |
| Environmental Quality (30,31,32,33,)
| |
| POLICY 30 - AIR QUALITY Davis-Besse operations are in compliance with Attain and maintain air quality levels that its air pollution control permit application protect public health and prevent injury to plant (Table D-2) and FENOC has no plans that and animal life and property by surveying and would change this practice for the license monitoring air quality; enforcing national renewal term. In addition, Davis-Besse ambient air quality standards through permits promotes cleaner air in Ohio by avoiding and variances; and restricting open burning, emissions of greenhouse gases.
| |
| (O.R.C. Chapters 3745, 3706 and 5709). 1 Page D-18 August 2010 Attachment D Attachment D Page D-1 8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION
| |
| {OEPA implements and enforces Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is approved by USEPA, to control state-wide air pollution.}
| |
| POLICY 31 - HAZARDOUS, SOLID AND Davis-Besse operations are in compliance with INFECTIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT OEPA's solid and hazardous waste Ensure that the generation of solid, infectious management requirements (Table D-2) and and hazardous waste is reduced as much as FENOC has no plans that would change this possible. practice for the license renewal term.
| |
| {OEPA's Division of Hazardous Waste Management implements and enforces the management, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste (O.R.C. Chapter 3745))
| |
| POLICY 32 - MARINA FACILITIES Not Applicable - Davis-Besse is an electric Assure that marinas will provide adequate generating facility that does not include a sanitary facilities for the watercraft using the marina.
| |
| marina, and that such marinaswill be constructed, located, maintained, and operated in a sanitary manner so as not to create a nuisance or cause a health hazard (O.R.C. 3733.21 through 3733.30 and O.A.C.
| |
| 3701-35).
| |
| {Ohio Department of Health and local health departments regulate marina construction to assure proper sanitary facilities.)
| |
| POLICY 33 - VISUAL AND AESTHETIC Davis-Besse operations are consistent with its QUALITY environmental protection authorizations Protect the visual and aesthetic amenities of (Table D-2) and FENOC has no plans that Lake Erie and its shoreline to enhance the would change this condition for the license recreational, economic, cultural and renewal term.
| |
| environmental values inherently associated with the coastal area.
| |
| {O.R.C. 3767.32, prohibits litter deposit on any public property, on private property not owned by that individual, or in or on waters of the state; O.R.C. 1531.29 prohibits the disposal of any litter into watercourses of the state or onto banks thereof.)
| |
| Atahmn D PaeDI uut21 Attachment D Page D-1 9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CON SISTENCY JUSTIFICATION Energy and Mineral Resources (34,35,36,37,38)
| |
| POLICY 34 - ENERGY FACILITY SITING Not applicable - Davis-Besse is an existing Provide for environmentally sound siting of facility and FENOC has no plans for major electric energy generating and construction of additional electric generation transmission facilities in the coastal area, and facilities on the Davis-Besse site as part of to regulate the siting of these facilities to license renewal.
| |
| protect the health, safety, and welfare of Ohio's citizens and the natural resources of the state.
| |
| {Per O.R.C. Chapter 4906, the Ohio Power Siting Board (PSB) within the Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) is the lead agency to implement a "one-stop" process for all permits involving the construction, operation, and maintenance of a major utility facility.)
| |
| POLICY 35 - ENERGY RESOURCE Davis-Besse operations are in compliance with STORAGE AND TRANSSHIPMENT its diesel storage underground tank Regulate the storage of energy related registration, air pollution control permit, and resources (coal, oil and gas) in the coastal NPDES permit (Table D-2).
| |
| area through planning assistance and permit review to assure the safe and efficient use of these resources; and to ensure that air, water and other environmental standards are met (O.R.C. 4906.06 and O.A.C. 4906-13-02).
| |
| { The Ohio Power Siting Board (PSB),, as a part of the certification process described in Policy 34, reviews the location and layout of all storage areas for proposed major utility facilities per O.R.C. 4906.01 (B)).
| |
| POLICY 36 - OIL AND NATURAL GAS Not Applicable - Davis-Besse is an electric DRILLING generating facility that does not conduct Protect public safety and welfare and the onshore or offshore oil or natural gas drilling.
| |
| environment and assure wise management.
| |
| {ODNR, Division of Mineral Resources Management (DMRM), requires a permit for any oil or natural gas drilling, including plugging and abandonment per O.R.C.
| |
| 1509.05 and 1509.13).
| |
| Attachment D Page D-20 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION i
| |
| POLICY 37 - OFFSHORE MINERAL Not Applicable - Davis-Besse is an electric EXTRACTION generating facility that does not conduct the Provide for and regulate the extraction of extraction of mineral or other substances.
| |
| minerals and other substances from and from under the bed of Lake Erie, through the issuance of Ohio Department of Natural Resources mineral leases and permits, to protect the public safety and welfare, and to minimize adverse environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on littoral owners' rights (O.R.C. 1505.07).
| |
| {ODNR requires a lease or permit before removing sand, gravel, stone or other minerals or other substances from or from under the bed of Lake Erie per O.R.C. 1505.07.1
| |
| *1*
| |
| POLICY 38 - SURFACE MINING Not Applicable - Davis-Besse is an electric Regulate surface mining activities to minimize generating facility that does not conduct adverse environmental impacts, prevent surface mining.
| |
| damage to adjoining property, ensure reclamation of all affected areas through the issuance of Ohio Department of Natural Resources permits and see to the health and safety of all persons within the mining facility (O.R.C. 1514.02, 1514,021, 1561, 1563, 1565 and 1567).
| |
| {ODNR, Division of Mineral Resources Management (DMRM), requires a permit prior to any surface mining activity per O.R.C.
| |
| 1514.02 (A)).
| |
| 4 Water Quantity (39, 41)
| |
| POLICY 39 - WATER DIVERSION Davis-Besse operations are in compliance with Manage diversion of Lake Erie and tributary its water withdrawal registration and NPDES waters. permit (Table D-2).
| |
| {ODNR regulates diversions in excess of 100,000 gallons per day out of and into the Lake Erie Basin per O.R.C. 1501.32 and O.A.C. 1501-2-01 through 1501-2-12).
| |
| Attachment D Page D-21 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-1. Ohio Coastal Management Program Enforceable Polices (continued)
| |
| POLICY i CONSISTENCY JUSTIFICATION POLICY 41 - WATER MANAGEMENT Partially Applicable - Davis-Besse operations Collect and analyze water resources are in compliance with its water withdrawal information to promote water resources registration and well monitoring program planning and management. (Table D-2). Otherwise, FENOC is a privately owned, non-governmental company that does
| |
| {ODNR administers a water withdrawal facility not conduct water resources planning and registration program for water withdrawal management..
| |
| facilities with a capacity of more than 100,000 gallons per day, a well closure program, and collects and analyzes data and develops governmental water supply plans per O.R.C. 1521 et seq.}
| |
| Page D-22 August 2010 Attachment D Attachment D Page D-22 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-2: Environmental Authorizations for Davis-Besse Operation Issue or AuthrityActivity Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Authorized
| |
| -_ Date Federal Authorizations U.S. Nuclear Atomic Energy License to NPF-3 Issued: -Operation of.
| |
| Regulatory Act (42 USC operate 4/22/1977 Davis-Besse Commission 2011, et seq.), Expires:
| |
| 10CFR50.10 4/22/2017 U.S. Nuclear 10 CFR Part 72 Requirements Certificate Number Issued: Use of Regulatory to store spent 1004 1/23/1995 radioactive Commission nuclear fuel Expires: waste cask and high-level 1/31/2015 Model Number radioactive NUHOMS-24P waste U.S. 49 CFR Part Hazardous 042009 450 Issued: Transportation Department of 107, Subpart G material 002RT 5/19/2009 of hazardous Transportation registration Expires: materials 6/30/2012 (Renewed Triennially)
| |
| U.S. RCRA [42 Notification of EPA ID# Issued: Generation Environmental U.S.C. s/s 321 regulated OHD000720508 -- and Protection et seq. (1976)] waste activity Expires: accumulation Agency Indefinite of hazardous waste State and Local Authorizations Ohio Federal Water National Ohio Permit No. Issued: Treatment of Environmental Pollution Pollutant 21BOO01 1*ID 9/1/2006 wastewater Protection Control Act, as Discharge Expires: and effluent Agency, amended (33 Elimination 4/30/2011 discharge to Division of U.S.C Section System (every 5 surface Surface Water 1251 et seq.); (NPDES) years) receiving Ohio Water Permit waters Pollution (Toussaint Control Act River and Lake (Ohio Revised Erie)
| |
| Code Section 1 6111) 1 Attachment D Page D-23 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-2: Environmental Authorizations for Davis-Besse Operation (continued)
| |
| Issue or Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Authorized Date Ohio Federal Water NPDES Ohio Permit No. Issued: Construction of Environmental Pollution construction 2GC02563*AG 12/21/2009 Switchyard Protection Control Act, as stormwater Expires: Upon project and Agency, amended (33 permit project control-Division of U.S.C Section completion discharge of Surface Water 1251 et seq.); stormwater in Ohio Water Ottawa Pollution County, Carroll Control Act Township (Ohio Revised Code Section 6111)
| |
| Ohio Clean Air Act, Permit to Permit Application Issued: Operation of Environmental 40 U.S.C. 1857 operate an air No. Annual station Protection et seq.; Ohio contaminant 0362000091BOOl reporting auxiliary boiler Agency, Air Pollution source Expires:
| |
| Division of Air Control Act Indefinite Pollution (Ohio Control Administrative Code Chapter 3745-31)
| |
| Ohio Ohio Report of EPA ID# Issued: Generation, Environmental Administrative regulated OHD000720508 Annual accumulation, Protection Code Chapter waste activity reporting and off-site Agency, 3745-52-41 Expires: disposal of Division of Indefinite hazardous Hazardous waste Waste Management Ohio Ohio Revised Scientific Permit #10-21 Issued: Collection of Department of Code Section collection Annually wildlife Natural 1 531.08 permit Expires: specimens for Resources, 3/15/2011 Radiological Division of Environmental Wildlife Monitoring Program (REMP)
| |
| Attachment D Page D-24 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-2: Environmental Authorizations for Davis-Besse Operation (continued)
| |
| Issue or Activity Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Authorized Date Ohio Ohio Revised Water Registration Issued: Withdraw and Department of Code Section withdrawal #00598 1/1/1990 use of more Natural 1521.16 and use Expires: than 100,00 Resources, registration Indefinite gallons of Division of and file annual water daily Water report from all Resources sources Ohio Ohio X-Ray Registration # 17- Issued: Operation of Department of Administrative generating M-07181-005 Biennially X-ray Health Code 3701: 1- equipment Expires: generation 38-03(C); Ohio registration 5/31/2010 equipment Revised Code 3748.06 and 3748.07 Ohio Ohio Underground Certificate # Issued: Registration of Department of Administrative storage tank 62000072 Annually underground Commerce, Code 1301: 7- registration Expires: diesel storage Division of 9-04 6/30/2011 tanks TO0001, State Fire T00002, and Marshal T00003 Tennessee Tennessee License to Tennessee Issued: Shipment of Department of Code deliver Delivery License # Annually radioactive Environment Annotated 68- radioactive T-OH003-LO9 Expires: material to a and 202-206 waste 12/31/2010 licensed Conservation disposal-processing facility within the State of Tennessee Attachment D Page D-25 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-3: State and Federal Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Davis-Besse Site Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Plants alpine rush Juncus alpinus P American beach grass Ammophila breviligulata T American sweet flag Acorus americanus P American water milfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum T balsam poplar Populus balsamifera E baltic rush Juncus balticus P bearded wheat grass Elymus trachycaulus T Bebb's sedge Carex bebbii P bullhead-lily Nuphar variegata E bushy cinquefoil Potentillaparadoxa T Canada milk-vetch Astragalus canadensis T Caribbean spike-rush Eleocharisgeniculata E deer's-tongue arrowhead Sagittariarigida P Drummond's rock cress Arabis drummondii E prairie fringed orchid Platantheraleucophaea T T flat-stemmed pondweed Potamogetonzosteriformis P floating pondweed Potamogetonnatans P Garber's sedge Carex garberi E golden fruited sedge Carex aurea T lakeside daisy Tetraneurisherbacea E T little green sedge Carex viridula P low umbrella sedge Cyperus diandrus P narrow-leaved blue-eyed Sisyrinch/um mucronatum E grass ovate spike-rush Eleocharis ovata E Philadelphia panic grass Panicumphiladelphicum E Pursh's bulrush Schoenoplectus purshianus P Richardson's pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii P rock elm Ulmus thomas/i P Smith's bulrush Schoenoplectus smithii E Attachment D Page D-26 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-3: State and Federal Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Davis-Besse Site Vicinity (continued)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Smith's bulrush Scirpus smithii E southern wapato Lophotocarpus (=Sagittaria) P calycinus SprengelIs sedge Carex sprengelii T variegated scouring-rush Equisetum variegatum E wapato Sagittariacuneata T wheat sedge Carex atherodes P wild rice Zizania aquatica T Invertebrates Insects Canada darner Aeshna canadensis E elfin skimmer Nannothemis bella E frosted elfin Inc/sal/a irus E Karner blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis E E marsh bluet Enallagma ebrium T persius dusky wing Erynnis persius E plains clubtail Gomphus externus E purplish copper Lycaena helloides E silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene T tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis T unexpected cycnia Cycnia inopinatus E Mussels black sandshell Ligumia recta T deertoe Truncilla truncata SC eastern pondmussel Ligumia nasuta E fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis T purple wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata SC rayed bean Villosa fabalis E C snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra E threehorn wartyback Obliquariareflexa T wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsi/is fasciola SC Attachment D Page D-27 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-3: State and Federal Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Davis-Besse Site Vicinity (continued)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Fish burbot Lota Iota SC channel darter Percina copelandi T cisco Coregonus artedii E eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida SC lake sturgeon Acipensar fulvescens E lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis SC spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus E Reptiles Blanding's turtle Emydoidea blandingi SC box turtle Terrapene Carolina SC eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatuscatenatus E C swamp rattler Kirtland's water snake Natrix kirtlandii T Lake Erie water snake Natrix sipedon insularium E T spotted turtle Clemmys guttata T Birds American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus E bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T black tern Chidoniasniger E Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis SI golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera E hermit thrush Catharusguttatus T king rail Rallus elegans E Kirtland's warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E least bittern Ixobrychus exilis T least flycatcher Empidonax minimus T loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus E magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia SI mourning warbler Oporornisphiladelphia SI northern harrier Circus cyaneus E osprey Pandion haliaetus T Attachment D Page D-28 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-3: State and Federal Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Davis-Besse Site Vicinity (continued)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status peregrine falcon Falcoperegrinus T sandhill crane Grus canadensis E sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus SC sora rail Porzanacarolina SC Virginia rail Rallus limicola SC yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius E Mammals star-nosed mole Condylura cristata SC Table Captions:
| |
| State Status E: ENDANGERED - A native species or subspecies threatened with extirpation from the state.
| |
| T: THREATENED - A species or subspecies whose survival in Ohio is not in immediate jeopardy, but to which a threat exists.
| |
| SC: SPECIES OF CONCERN - A species or subspecies which might become threatened in Ohio under continued or increased stress. Also, a species or subspecies for which there is some concern but for which information is insufficient to permit an adequate status evaluation.
| |
| SI: SPECIAL INTEREST - A species that occurs periodically and is capable of breeding in Ohio. It is at the edge of a larger, contiguous range with viable population(s) within the core of its range. These species have no federal endangered or threatened status, are at low breeding densities in the state, and have not been recently released to enhance Ohio's wildlife diversity.
| |
| P: POTENTIALLY THREATENED - A native Ohio plant species may be designated potentially threatened if one or more of the following criteria apply:
| |
| : 1. The species is extant in Ohio and does not qualify as a state endangered or threatened species, but it is a proposed federal endangered or threatened species or a species listed in the Federal Register as under review for such proposal.
| |
| : 2. The natural populations of the species are imperiled to the extent that the species could conceivably become a threatened species in Ohio within the foreseeable future.
| |
| Attachment D Page D-29 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Table D-3: State and Federal Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Davis-Besse Site Vicinity (continued)
| |
| : 3. The natural populations of the species, even though they are not threatened in Ohio at the time of designation, are believed to be declining in abundance or vitality at a significant rate throughout all or large portions of the state.
| |
| Federal Status E:. ENDANGERED - An animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range.
| |
| T: THREATENED - Likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range.
| |
| C: CANDIDATE - Sufficient information exists to support listing as endangered or threatened Attachment D Page D-30 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report Attachment E:
| |
| Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis Attachment E August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment E Page E-2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table of Contents Page A TTA C HMENT A ..................................................................................................................... A -1 ATTACHMENT B .................................................................................................................... B-1 A TTA C HMENT C ..................................................................................................................... C -1 A TTA C HMENT D ..................................................................................................................... D-1 A TTA C HMENT E ..................................................................................................................... E-1 LIS T O F TA BLES ..................................................................................................................... E-7 EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ...................................................................................................... E-9 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... E-1 1 E.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ E-15 E .1 .1 P UR PO S E ..................................................................................................... E -15 E.1.2 REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... E-15 E.2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... E-17 E.3 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ................................... ............................ E-19 E.3.1 LEVEL 1 PRA
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ............................................................................. E-19 E.3.1.1 Internal Events ................................................................................ E-19 E.3.1.2 External Events ...................................... E-25 E.3.2 LEVEL 2 PRA
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ............................................................................. E-28 E.3.2.1 Description of the Level 2 PRA Model ............................................ E-28 E.3.2.2 Level 2 PRA Model Changes since IPE Submittal ......................... E-30 E.3.3 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL REVIEW
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ...................................... E-30 E.3.4 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL - LEVEL 3 PRA INPUTS ................................ E-33 E.3.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... E-33 E.3.4.2 Population Data .............................................................................. E-34 E.3.4.3 Meteorological Data ........................................................................ E-35 E.3.4.4 Other Site Characteristics ............................................................... E-35 E.3.4.5 Release Categories Characteristics (from MAAP) .......................... E-37 E.3.4.6 Evacuation Model Parameters ........................................................ E-39 E.3.4.7 Core Inventory ................................................................................ E-40 Attachment E Page E-3 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table of Contents (continued)
| |
| Page E .3.4 .8 E conom ic Data ............................................................................... E -40 E.3.5 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL - LEVEL 3 PRA RESULTS ............................ E-41 E .3.5.1 B ase C ase ...................................................................................... E -42 E.3.5.2 Sensitivity Cases ...................................................................... E-42 E.4 COST OF SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK ....................................................................... E-46 E.4.1 OFF-SITE EXPOSURE COST ...................................................................... E-46 E.4.2 OFF-SITE ECONOMIC COST ...................................................................... E-49 E.4.3 ON-SITE EXPOSURE COST ........................................................................ E-49 E .4.3.1 Im m ediate D ose Cost ..................................................................... E-50 E.4.3.2 Long-Term Dose Cost .................................................................... E-51 E.4.3.3 Total Accident-Related Occupational Exposure Costs ................... E-52 E.4.4 ON-SITE ECONOMIC COST ........................................................................ E-52 E.4.4.1 C leanup/Decontam ination .............................................................. E-52 E.4.4.2 Replacement Power Cost ............................................................... E-53 E.4.4.3 Total Averted On-Site Costs .......................................................... E-55 E.4.5 TOTAL COST OF SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK ...................... E-55 E.5 CANDIDATE SAMA IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................... E-57 E.5.1 REVIEW OF INDUSTRY DATA .................................................................... E-57 E.5.2 DAVIS-BESSE IPE AND IPEEE REVIEW .................................................... E-58 E.5.3 LEVEL 1 INTERNAL EVENTS DOMINANT CUTSETS ................................ E-60 E.5.4 LEVEL 1 SYSTEM IMPORTANCE ................................................................ E-61 E.5.5 LEVEL 2 IMPORTANCE INSIGHTS ............................................................. E-62 E.5.6 INITIAL SAMA CANDIDATE LIST ................................................................. E-63 E.6 PHASE I SAMA ANALYSIS - SCREENING .............................................................. E-63 E.6.1 NOT APPLICABLE - CRITERION A ............................................................. E-64 E.6.2 ALREADY IMPLEMENTED - CRITERION B ................................................ E-64 E.6.3 EXCESSIVE IMPLEMENTATION COST - CRITERION C ........................... E-65 E.6.4 VERY LOW BENEFIT - CRITERION D ........................................................ E-65 Attachment E Page E-4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table of Contents (continued)
| |
| Page E.6.5 SUBSUMING OF SAMA CANDIDATES - CRITERION E ........................... E-65 E.6.6 CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION - CRITERION F ................. E-65 E.7 PHASE II SAMA ANALYSIS - COST-BENEFIT ........................................................ E-66 E.7.1 SAMA BENEFITS .......................................................................................... E-67 E.7.1.1 SAMA Candidate Evaluation .......................................................... E-67 E.7.1.2 Best-Estimate Benefit Calculation .................................................. E-68 E.7.1.3 Cost-Benefit Evaluation .................................................................. E-68 E.7.2 SAMA CANDIDATE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ........................................ E-69 E.8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... E-70 E.8.1 PLANT MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................ E-70 E.8.2 UNCERTAINTY ............................................................................................. E-70 E.8.3 EVACUATION SPEED .................................................................................. E-71 E.8.4 REAL DISCOUNT RATE ............................................................................... E-72 E.8.5 ANALYSIS PERIOD ...................................................................................... E-72 E.8.6 OTHER SENSITIVITY CASES ...................................................................... E-72 E.9 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... E-74 E.10 FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................ E-75 E.11 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... E-191 Attachment E Page E-5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Attachment E Page E-6 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E- Environmental Report List of Tables Page Table E.3-1: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Dominant Initiating Event Contribution to Core Damage (Initiating Events) .................................................................... E-75 Table E.3-2: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Top 30 Components by Fussell-Vesely (Inte rna l E ve nts) ................................................................................................ E -76 Table E.3-3: Mapping of Level 1 Accident Sequences into Level 2 Release Categories ...... E-77 Table E.3-4: Mapping of Release Categories to MAAP Runs ............................................... E-79 Table E.3-5: Description of Representative Release Sequences ......................................... E-81 Table E.3-6: Release Severity Source Term Release Fraction ........ ..................................... E-83 Table E.3-7: Release Timing Classification Scheme ........................... E-84 Table E.3-8: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Top 30 Components for Level 2 by Fussell-V esely (Internal Events) ........................................................................ E-84 Table E.3-9: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Top Ten Operator Actions for Level 2 by Fussell-Vesely (Internal Events) ................................................................... E-85 Table E.3-10: O hio State C ensus Data .................................................................................. E-85 Table E.3-1 1: Total (Permanent and Transient) Escalated Population (50-Mile Radius -
| |
| Davis-Besse) for the Year 2040. ........................ ........ E-86 Table E.3-12: Mixing He ig ht ................................................................................................... E -8 6 Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 ............................................................................. E-87 Table E.3-14: Groundshine and Cloudshine Shielding Factors (Base Case) ........................ E-94 Table E.3-15: Groundshine and Cloudshine Shielding Factors (Sensitivity Case) ................ E-94 Table E.3-16: Summary of Shielding Factors ........................................................................ E-94 Table E.3-17: Davis-Besse Core Inventory (Full Core at EOC; 177FAs) ............................... E-95 Table E.3-18: Eco nom ic D ata ................................................................................................ E-96 Table E.3-19: MACCS2 Economic Parameters Used in CHRONC ....................................... E-96 Table E.3-20: F req uency V ecto r ............................................................................................ E-97 Table E.3-21: Base Case Results for Internal Events at 50 Miles ......................................... E-98 Table E.3-22: Base Case Consequence Input to SAMA Analysis ......................................... E-99 Table E.3-23: Comparison of Base Case and Case Si ....................................................... E-100 Table E.3-24: Comparison of Base Case and Case S2 ....................................................... E-100 Table E.3-25: Comparison of Base Case and Case S3 ....................................................... E-100 Table E.3-26: Comparison of Base Case and Case M1 ...................................................... E-100 Table E.3-27: Comparison of Base Case and Case M2 ...................................................... E-1 00 Attachment E Page E-7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Environmental Report List of Tables (continued)
| |
| Page Table E.3-28: Comparison of Base Case and Case Al .................................................. E-100 Table E.3-29: Comparison of Base Case and Case A2 ...................................................... E-101 Table E.3-30: Comparison of Base Case and Case A3 .................................................. E-101 Table E.3-31: Comparison of Base Case and Case El ........................ E-101 Table E.3-32: Comparison of Base Case and Case E2 .................................................. E-101 Table E.4-1: Total Cost of Severe Accident Impact ......................................................... E-101 Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets ......................................................................... E-102 Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level 1 PRA Im portance ............................................................. E-130 Table E.5-3: Basic Event LERF Im portance ........................................................................ E-136 Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates ....................................................................... E-140 Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates ....................... E-1 55 Table E.7-1: Summary of PRA Cases ................................................................... I............. E-1 81 Table E.7-2: Internal Events Benefit Results for Analysis Cases ................................... E-183 Table E.7-3: Total Benefit Results for Analysis Cases ................................................... E-186 Table E.7-4: Implementation Cost Estimates ....................................................................... E-187 Table E.7-5: Final Results of Cost-Benefit Evaluation .................................................... E-188 Table E.8-1: Final Results of the Sensitivity Cases ........................................................ E-189 Attachment E Page E-8 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Executive Summary The purpose of the analysis is to identify severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) candidates at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) that have the potential to reduce severe accident risk and to determine if implementation of each SAMA candidate is cost beneficial. The cost-benefit evaluation is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations governing the license renewal process.
| |
| A summary of the Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA and Level 2 PRA is provided. A Level 3 PRA model was developed to support the SAMA analysis. The development of the Level 3 PRA input files, execution of the base case, and execution of sensitivity cases are described. Dose and economic consequence metrics from the Level 3 PRA, combined with the release category frequency vector (from the Level 1 PRA and Level 2 PRA), have been used as input to the SAMA cost-benefit analysis.
| |
| A set of SAMA candidates was developed using industry and Davis-Besse-specific information. Qualitative screening criteria (not applicable to Davis-Besse, already implemented at Davis-Besse, low benefit, high costs) were applied. For the SAMA candidates screened as considered for further evaluation, PRA cases were run to estimate the delta core damage frequency and an expert panel was convened to estimate the implementation costs. Several input parameters were subject to sensitivity analysis.
| |
| The cost-benefit evaluation of SAMA candidates performed for Davis-Besse provides significant insight into the continued operation of Davis-Besse. The results of the evaluation of 167 SAMA candidates indicate no enhancements to be cost-beneficial for implementation at Davis-Besse.
| |
| However, the sensitivity cases performed for this analysis found one SAMA candidate (AC/DC-03) to be cost-beneficial for implementation at Davis-Besse under the assumptions of three of the sensitivity cases (lower discount rate, replacement power, and multiplier). SAMA candidate AC/DC-03 considered the addition of a portable diesel-driven battery charger for the DC system. While the identified SAMA candidate is not related to plant aging and therefore not required to be resolved as part of the relicensing effort, FENOC will, nonetheless, consider implementation of this candidate through normal processes for evaluating possible changes to the plant.
| |
| The cost-benefit evaluation performed used several modeling conservatisms. These conservative assumptions, combined with the results of several sensitivity cases, demonstrate the robustness of the SAMA analysis results.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment Attachment EF Page E-9 Page E-9 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| Page F-b August 2010 Attachment F Attachment E Page E-10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations AC Alternating Current AFW Auxiliary Feedwater AMSAC ATWS Mitigation System Actuation Circuitry AOC Averted Off-site Property Damage Cost AOE Averted Occupational Exposure AOSC Averted On-site Cost AOV Air-Operated Valve APE Averted Public Exposure ATWS Anticipated Transient Without Scram BWR Boiling Water Reactor B&W Babcock & Wilcox BWST Borated Water Storage Tank CAFTA Computer-Aided Fault Tree Analysis CCF Common Cause Failure CCW Component Cooling Water CDF Core Damage Frequency CET Containment Event Tree CIV Containment Isolation Valve CST Condensate Storage Tank CWRT Clean Waste Receiver Tank DC Direct Current DHR Decay Heat Removal ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EDG Emergency Diesel Generator EOP Emergency Operating Procedure EPRI Electric Power Research Institute EPZ Emergency Planning Zone FCIA Fire Compartment Interaction Analysis FIVE Fire Induced Vulnerability Evaluation FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report Attachment E Page E-1 1 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
| |
| FTREX Fault Tree Reliability Evaluation eXpert F-V Fussell-Vesely GL Generic Letter HEP Human Error Probability HPI High Pressure Injection HRA Human Reliability Analysis HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ICS Integrated Control System IPE Individual Plant Examination IPEEE Individual Plant Examination - External Events ISLOCA Interfacing Systems Loss of Coolant Accident LERF Large Early Release Frequency LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident LOOP Loss of Off-site Power LPI Low Pressure Injection LPR Low Pressure Recirculation MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System MCC Motor Control Center MDFP Motor-,Driven Feedwater Pump MFW Main Feedwater MGL Multiple Greek Letter MSIV Main Steam Isolation Valve MSSV Main Steam Safety Valve NFPA National Fire Protection Association NNI Non-Nuclear Instrumentation NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PAMS Post Accident Monitoring System PCAQR Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report PDS Plant Damage State Attachment E Page E-1 2 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
| |
| PORV Power Operated Relief Valve PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment PWR Pressurized Water Reactor RCP Reactor Coolant Pump RCS Reactor Coolant System' RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel RRW Risk Reduction Worth SAMG Severe Accident Management Guideline SAMA Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative SBO Station Blackout SER Safety Evaluation Report SGTR Steam Generator Tube Rupture SMA Seismic Margin Assessment SPDS Safety Parameter and Display System SQUG Seismic Qualifications Utility Group SRV Safety Relief Valve SSIE Support System Initiating Event TDAFW Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater USAR Updated Safety Analysis Report Page E-13 August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-13 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| [This page intentionally blank]
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-14 Page E-1 4 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.1 INTRODUCTION E.1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the analysis is to identify severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) candidates at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) that have the potential to reduce severe accident risk and to determine if implementation of each SAMA candidate is cost-beneficial. The cost-benefit evaluation is required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations governing the license renewal process.
| |
| E.1.2 REQUIREMENTS As part of the Environment Report prepared to support the Davis-Besse License
| |
| :Renewal Application, 10 CFR Part 51 contains the requirements to perform a SAMA analysis, as noted below.
| |
| 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L)
| |
| The environmental report must contain a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents
| |
| ... if the staff has not previously consideredsevere accident mitigation alternativesfor the applicant'splant in an environmentalimpact statement or relatedsupplement or in an environment assessment...
| |
| 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 76 (Severe Accidents)
| |
| ... The probability weighted consequences of atmosphericreleases,fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be consideredfor all plants that have not consideredsuch alternatives....
| |
| F Page E-15 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-1 5 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report This page intentionally left blank August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-16 Page E-16 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.2 METHODOLOGY The SAMA analysis approach used for the Davis-Besse assessment consisted of the following steps:
| |
| * Determine Severe Accident Risk Level 1 and 2 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Model The results of the Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA and Level 2 PRA models were used as input to a Level 3 PRA. The Level 2 PRA defined release categories that have been characterized using the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) computer code. Output from MAAP was used to generate input for the Level 3 PRA. In addition, the release category frequency vector from the Level 2 PRA was used as input to the SAMA analysis. Davis-Besse PRA models are only available for internal events and high winds.
| |
| Level 3 PRA Model The results of the Level 1 PRA and the Level 2 PRA, and Davis-Besse-specific meteorological, demographic, land use, and emergency response data were used as input for a Level 3 PRA. One set of consequence results (i.e., off-site dose and economic impacts of a severe accident) were used to estimate the maximum benefit achievable.
| |
| * Determine Cost of Severe Accident Risk / Maximum Benefit The NRC regulatory analysis techniques in NUREG/BR-0184 (Reference 1) were used to estimate the cost of severe accident risk. The maximum benefit that a SAMA candidate could achieve if it eliminated all risk, i.e., the maximum benefit, was also estimated.
| |
| * SAMA Candidate Identification Potential SAMA candidates (that prevent core damage and that prevent significant releases from containment) were identified from the PRA models, Individual Plant Examination (IPE) and IPE - External Events (IPEEE) recommendations, and industry documentation. The list of potential SAMA candidates in the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Table 14 of NEI 05-01 (Revision A) (Reference 2) was the initial list and was supplemented with insights from the Davis-Besse PRA model. As has been demonstrated by past SAMA analyses, SAMA candidates are not likely to prove cost-beneficial if they only mitigate the consequences of events that present a low risk to the plant.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 7 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Therefore, risk importance analyses play a key role in the SAMA candidate identification process.
| |
| * Preliminary Screening (Phase I SAMA Analysis)
| |
| Potential SAMA candidates were screened out that were not applicable to the Davis-Besse plant design, were already implemented at Davis-Besse, were identified as having extreme cost, or were identified as having very little (risk) benefit. Some SAMA candidates were subsumed into other identified SAMA candidates. Those SAMA candidates that were not screened out were considered for further evaluation.
| |
| * Final Screening (Phase IISAMA Analysis)
| |
| The benefit of severe accident risk reduction to each remaining SAMA candidate was estimated and compared to an implementation cost estimate to determine net cost-benefit. The PRA was modified to determine the core damage frequency (CDF) and release category frequency vector for each remaining SAMA candidate. To determine the benefit, the delta CDF and change in the release category frequency vector between the base case and enhanced case were compared. To estimate the cost of implementation, costs associated with adopting the SAMA candidate were considered; these included costs related to
| |
| .design, engineering, safety analysis, installation, long-term maintenance, calibrations, and training.
| |
| 0 Sensitivity Analysis A number of assumptions and input parameters used in the Level 3 PRA and SAMA analysis were subjected to a sensitivity analysis to determine the cost-benefit sensitivity.
| |
| * Identify Conclusions The results of the cost-benefit analysis were summarized. There were no potential SAMA candidates for which the cost-benefit analysis showed that the SAMA candidates were cost beneficial. However, the sensitivity analysis identified one SAMA candidate that was potentially beneficial when considered in the context of the sensitivity analysis.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment EF Page E-18 Page E-18 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.3 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse models use PRA techniques to:
| |
| * develop an understanding of severe accident behavior;
| |
| * understand the most likely severe accident consequences, fission product releases; and 0 evaluate hardware and procedure changes to assess the overall probabilities of core damage and fission product releases.
| |
| The PRA was initiated in response to Generic Letter (GL) No. 88-20 (Reference 3),
| |
| which resulted in IPE and IPEEE analyses. The current models are separate Level 1 PRA and Level 2 PRA models including internal and some external initiating events for power operation. Severe accident sequences have been developed from internal and external initiated events, including internal floods and high winds.
| |
| E.3.1 LEVEL 1 PRA
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| E.3.1.1 Internal Events E.3.1.1.1 Description of Level 1 Internal Events PRA Model The updated PRA model, used to determine CDF, is the SAMA Analysis Model. The SAMA Analysis Model was created by modifying the Davis-Besse Revision 4 PRA model to address some existing gaps identified in an internal peer review and gap assessment. The SAMA Analysis Model contains the Level 1 PRA for internal events.
| |
| The software used to update the model is CAFTA (Computer-Aided Fault Tree Analysis)
| |
| (Reference 4). The Level 1 PRA presents the risk for core damage. For the SAMA Analysis Model, core damage is defined as MAAP-calculated maximum core node temperature exceeding 18000 F for a period of 60 seconds. The 60-second time delay is used to prevent short-lived temperature transients from defining core damage.
| |
| The Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA internal events CDF is estimated to be 9.2E-06/yr and when including high winds, and internal flooding, CDF was estimated at 9.8E-06/yr.
| |
| Table E.3-1 provides a breakdown of CDF by initiating event, and Table E.3-2 provides Level 1 importance measures. The quantification was calculated using a truncation cutoff frequency of 5.OE-1 3/yr.
| |
| Note: The results presented in this report are based on an updated PRA model (SAMA Analysis Model), which had a "freeze date" of July 9, 2009, for the plant configuration, Attachment E Page E-19 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report and a "freeze date" of August 1, 2006, for component failure data and initiating event data. Equipment unavailabilities based on Maintenance Rule availability have freeze dates of April 30, 2007, and January 1, 2006, for non-Maintenance Rule unavailability.
| |
| E.3.1.1.2 Level 1 PRA Model Changes since IPE Submittal The major Level 1 PRA changes incorporated into each revision of the Davis-Besse PRA model are discussed below.
| |
| Revision Change Summary The Davis-Besse IPE was issued in February, 1993 (Reference 5). The IPE examined risk from internal events, including internal flooding. The IPE Level 1 CDF was 6.6E-05/yr. The sum of the release categories for the Level 2 PRA was 6.5E-05/yr. No large early release frequency (LERF) was issued for the IPE.
| |
| The Davis-Besse PRA was dormant from 1993 to 1999. Following the issuance of PRA model Revision 0, successive PRA model Revisions 1 and 2 occurred throughout 1999 to recover the Davis-Besse PRA. These successive revisions would be considered a single revision by today's standards.
| |
| Davis-Besse PRA, Revision 0 - CDF = 1.4E-05/yr to Revision 2 CDF = 1.7E-05/yr and LERF = 7.3E-08/yr
| |
| " Performed plant-specific data update for failure rates, unavailability, common cause, initiating event frequency, and human reliability analysis.
| |
| 0 Modified the PRA model to encompass all plant modifications to date to reflect the as-built, as-operated plant including changes to plant operating procedures.
| |
| This included adding the station blackout (SBO) diesel generator, removal of a start-up feed pump that was abandoned, improvements to modeling of component cooling water (CCW) and service water systems, update of the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event tree to reflect changes in emergency procedures, and internal flooding model improvements.
| |
| * Improved model documentation to comport with draft PRA standard requirements.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-20 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report The Level 2 IPE model information was also updated in October of 1999, but due to software limitations, the Level 2 model was evaluated in a back end analysis using various software and spreadsheets.. This back end analysis quantified frequencies of various types of containment failure, fraction of core damage frequency that results in each of the containment failure modes, frequency of release categories and frequency of large early release.
| |
| The site conducted an industry peer review of PRA internal events Level 1 and LERF model on November 8, 1999 as a pilot for the B&W fleet using draft standards and processes. Areas for improvement were associated with PRA guidance, success criteria documentation, thermal-hydraulic analysis documentation, basis for HRA timing, more detailed dependency tables, no uncertainty analysis performed, and lack of plant walk down and system engineer reviews. This peer review resulted in 18 supporting requirements at B level of significance, and no A level issues.
| |
| Following the industry peer review, Davis-Besse then conducted a revision 3 PRA model update, to close gaps to the draft standard and explicitly model LERF with the PRA model.
| |
| Davis-Besse PRA, Revision 3, effective date 5/16/2001 - CDF = 1.3E-05/yr and LERF =
| |
| 3.8E-08/yr at a cutoff frequency of 1E-1 1/yr.
| |
| " Added an explicit LERF model to the PRA.
| |
| * Addressed all B level significant findings resulting from peer review.
| |
| * Performed a complete update due to incorporation of RELMCS quantification software.
| |
| * Reorganized the PRAQUANT file to combine all sequences into a single run.
| |
| * Reduced truncations to a minimum of 2.OE-10.
| |
| * Deleted sequence for interfacing systems LOCA (ISLOCA) due to premature opening of the reactor coolant system (RCS) drop line isolation valves (DH1 1 and DH12). This sequence was judged to not be credible.
| |
| " Deleted reactor vessel rupture event AV. A frequency for this event was not published in NUREG/CR-5750 (Reference 6), so this event lacks a justifiable frequency. Based on the large LOCA frequencies in NUREG/CR-5750, this event should be a negligible contributor to the total CDF. (Note this was put back in the SAMA analysis model.)
| |
| * Added events to model conditional probability that a reactor trip will occur due to loss of either 4160 bus C or D.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-21 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * Revised logic for loss of start-up feedwater pump due to circulating water flooding.
| |
| * Revised large and medium LOCAs to require one of two core flood tanks.
| |
| * Improved model documentation to comply with draft PRA standard requirements.
| |
| Davis-Besse PRA, Revision 4, effective 9/28/2007 - Internal CDF = 4.7E-06/yr and Total CDF = 5.3E-06/yr. No LERF quantified or updated.
| |
| * Performed a complete update due to new quantification software.
| |
| " Increased the amount of time that operators have to trip the reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) following a loss of CCW from ten minutes to one hour since the high pressure injection (HPI) pumps can run for one hour without CCW cooling.
| |
| * Added tornado initiating events to the model (only high wind effects are considered). The tornado events are divided into six categories corresponding to the tornado intensity classes FO through F5 (TFO, TF1, TF2, TF3, TF4, and TF5).
| |
| * Changed modules that contained house event(s) or dependent events to basic events.
| |
| * Reduced truncations to a minimum of 5.OE-1 3.
| |
| * Made all initiators CAFTA initiating events.
| |
| * Reduced the number of modules, but all common-cause modules were retained.
| |
| " Updated database and converted database from Btrieve to Access.
| |
| Following PRA model Revison 4, on April 7, 2008 a "gap" self-assessment was conducted using a team of industry peers and internal staff. This assessment was specifically targeted at meeting Capability Category 2 for all high level requirements and supporting requirements in Reference 7. Therefore, some A and B level findings would meet Capability Category 1, but not Capability Category 2, and the gap is associated with what would be required to meet Capability Category 2. In this assessment, internal flooding was not reviewed as it was clear it would not meet the requirements of the standard for Capability Category 2. There were four A level findings and 23 B level findings. These areas for improvement related to the following:
| |
| * Need to put back into the PRA model reactor pressure vessel rupture event.
| |
| " Correct common cause modeling inconsistencies, missing common cause within support system initiators, and perform generic data update.
| |
| * Document control and verification of PRA thermohydraulic calculations used to support the PRA model for medium LOCA success criteria.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-22 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * Correct missing information in system modeling documentation.
| |
| * Correct logic error in SFAS system fault tree for HRA actuation versus automatic actuation and permissives and lockouts incorrectly modeled.
| |
| * Correct support system dependency inconsistencies in modeling and documentation.
| |
| " Plant-specific data documentation should add consideration of service condition when grouping components when assessing failure rates. There is also inconsistent use of time in denominator for some failure rates when Bayesian update performed. There is also a recommendation to use only plant-specific data for certain failure rates where sufficient data exists.
| |
| * Need more rigorous SGTR analysis to meet Category 2.
| |
| * Need to improve on model convergence to verify truncation value.
| |
| * Need to improve PRA model update process and control of documentation including analysis used to support PRA.
| |
| " Need to perform HRA update and improve HRA documentation. For example, LERF review did not include determining if engineering analysis can support continued operation or operator action that could reduce CDF, current analysis meets Capability Category 1.
| |
| Following the self-assessment, Davis-Besse proceeded to close the A and B level findings in the next model update. Due to implementing new processes for controlling PRA model update and supporting analysis, the next model revision would be referred to as PRA-DB1-AL-R05. The Davis-Besse SAMA analysis model is a clone of the PRA-DB1 -AL-R05 "Working Model," which is effectively the Revision 4 model with all A and B level findings addressed, but full model update not yet complete, hence the term "Analysis Model." Due to the number of changes being made, the "Working Model" was considered to be the best representation of the as-built, as operated plant and would be frozen mid-update as an "Analysis Model." The Davis-Besse SAMA analysis model was documented in accordance with plant processes and retained in plant records. The Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA internal event CDF is estimated to be 9.2E-06/year and when including high winds and internal flooding, the CDF is estimated at 9.8E-06/year. The quantification was performed using a truncation cutoff frequency of 5.0E-1 3/year. The results presented in this report are based on a "freeze date" of July 9, 2009, for the plant configuration, and a "freeze date" of August 1, 2006, for component failure data and initiating event data. Equipment unavailabilities based on Maintenance Rule availability have freeze dates of April 30, 2007, and January 1, 2006, for non-Maintenance Rule unavailability. The release category frequencies are the same as the Containment Systems State frequencies calculated by the Level 2 PRA model, and the sum is slightly Attachment E Page E-23 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report different than the CDF calculated by the Level 1 PRA due to the delete term approximation and the additional systems included in the Level 2 PRA models.
| |
| Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model, Effective 7/9/2009 - CDF = 9.8E-06/yr and LERF =
| |
| 6.6E-07/yr
| |
| * Reviewed all system fault trees for component dependencies (air, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), power, cooling water, water source, actuation logic, permissives/interlocks), and updated the fault trees with missing dependencies, where necessary.
| |
| * Added the reactor vessel rupture initiating event, which directly leads to core damage in the model.
| |
| * Changed the core flood tank success criteria for large LOCAs from one required to two required to match the criteria specified in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
| |
| * Restructured the CCW and service water system fault trees to correct errors in the CCW and service water trees with regard to system lineups, to correctly model dependencies, and to move the model from a single assumed alignment to a model that uses split fractions to model all alignments simultaneously.
| |
| * Adjusted all system trees that had assumed a particular alignment to use split fractions to model all alignments simultaneously. Affected systems: CCW, service water, Turbine Plant Cooling Water, Instrument Air, Containment Air Coolers, and the Makeup System.
| |
| " Revised the common cause failure (CCF) modeling to use the CAFTA common cause tool and the Multiple Greek Letter (MGL) methodology. Updated the MGL data to currently acceptable values where applicable. Reviewed components for inclusion in common cause groups and groups created where appropriate.
| |
| * Updated the Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) events using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) HRA Calculator software. Replaced all Revision 4 combination events with combination events generated by the HRA Calculator.
| |
| * Restructured support system initiating events (SSIEs) to comply with EPRI 1013490, "Support System Initiating Events: Identification and Quantification Guideline." (Reference 8)
| |
| * Removed most modules from the fault trees. The individual events under the former module gate now appear in cutsets.
| |
| * Developed the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 PRA fire model in conjunction with the analysis model. As such, added gates to the model to Attachment E Page E-24 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report accommodate the fire modeling functionality. Since the fire modeling is not complete, the fire logic is tied to a single fire initiating event (IEFIREDUMMY) that has a frequency of zero; therefore, the fire logic currently has no effect on the solution to the fault trees.
| |
| * Developed new processes for PRA model update and associated analysis.
| |
| Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model (Level 1 Quantification)
| |
| * Addressed sequence success gates by PRAQUANT in Revision 4. The success gates are now incorporated into the sequence fault tree so that the quantifier (FTREX) will perform the DELTERM function.
| |
| " Included many mutually exclusive events under the gate MUX016. This change does not alter CDF, but does increase the efficiency of the quantification process.
| |
| " Performed quantification in two steps. The first quantification is performed at a truncation of 5.OE-09 with the post-initiator HRA events set to one. The second quantification is performed at 5.OE-1 3 with the post-initiator HRA events set to their nominal values. The cutsets are then merged and recovery rules applied.
| |
| The 5.OE-09 cutsets preserve cutsets that contain combination events, and the 5.OE-13 cutsets capture those cutsets that are above the desired 5.OE-13 truncation limit and do not contain post-initiator HRA combinations.
| |
| E.3.1.2 External Events E.3.1.2.1 Internal Fires To evaluate fire risk for the IPEEE, Davis-Besse used the EPRI FIVE methodology (Reference 9) supplemented by PRA analyses. Since the FIVE methodology was intended for plants built more recently than Davis-Besse, the FIVE methodology allowed few of the Davis-Besse fire compartments to be screened. Therefore, modification of the FIVE process was employed to include more detailed analysis of affected circuits, improved fire initiation frequency quantification, inclusion of fire effects evaluations, and accrediting of fire prevention and suppression activities at the site. These modifications were primarily taken from the EPRI Fire PRA Implementation Guide (Reference 10).
| |
| The FIVE process consisted of several phases. Fire compartments of potential risk significance were identified using the initial qualitative and quantitative screening steps of FIVE. The first phase of the FIVE process included identification of safe shutdown equipment and the route of supporting electrical cables in the plant. This information was qualitatively evaluated to determine if there were any plant locations which could be screened out due to the absence of any safe shutdown equipment or cables. The fire Attachment E Page E-25 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report barriers of the plant were also evaluated to ensure that any screened out compartments could not cause a fire in any adjacent compartment that could not be screened out. The results of the Fire Compartment Interaction Analysis (FCIA) were used by the FIVE program in the detailed fire analyses of each compartment.
| |
| The second phase of the FIVE process used PRA for plant areas that did not pass the initial screening criteria. In this phase, equipment failures beyond those caused by the fire were considered. Plant areas that had a fire-induced core damage frequency below
| |
| <1 E-06/yr were screened from further evaluation.
| |
| The third phase of the FIVE process involved a detailed fire analysis of the unscreened compartments. This work entailed incorporation of the Fire PRA Implementation Guide information, detailed evaluation of the potential for fire damage due to specific fires within an area, and detailed evaluation of the function of individual cables within the safe shutdown equipment circuitry. The results of these evaluations permitted modification of the fire induced equipment failure lists and allowed more compartments to be screened.
| |
| Following completion of the detailed fire anlaysis, there were four fire areas identified with an estimated bounding CDF value above the screening criteria of 1.OE-06/yr. The compartments and the resulting CDF included:
| |
| : 1) Q.01, High Voltage Switchgear Room B, CDF of 8.2E-06/yr
| |
| : 2) S.01, High Voltage Switchgear Room A, CDF of 6.5E-06/yr
| |
| : 3) X.01, Low Voltage Switdcgear Room, CDF of 5.9E-06/yr
| |
| : 4) FF.01, Control Room Cabinets, CDF of 4.3E-06/yr The total CDF for the four areas was approximately 2.5E-05/yr.
| |
| Based on the identification of fire compartments with CDF values above the screening criteria, Davis-Besse committed to having Severe Accident Management Guidelines in place by December 31, 1997 with emphasis on the prevention/mitigation of core damage or vessel failure, and containment failure of these compartments. The FIVE model has not been updated since the IPEEE.
| |
| E.3.1.2.2 Seismic Events To evaluate seismic risk for the IPEEE, Davis-Besse performed a Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA) (Reference 11). As a consequence of using an SMA, Davis-Besse did not quantitatively estimate the seismic CDF contribution.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-26 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Davis-Besse was classified as a 0.3g focused-scope plant for the IPEEE. However, Davis-Besse decided a 0.15g reduced scope SMA was more appropriate.
| |
| Nevertheless, the seismic margin analysis indicated that the overall high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) of plant capacity was great than 0.26g.
| |
| Davis-Besse expanded its USI A-46 program to include all equipment and components on the IPEEE safe shutdown list. This list was developed using the EPRI SMA methodology for both the primary and secondary shutdown paths. The SMA indicated an overall high confidence of a low probability of failure of plant capacity.
| |
| As stated in Section 2.4 of the Davis-Besse IPEEE (Reference 12), no actions beyond those previously identified for the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) program were identified from the seismic analysis. The SMA model has not been updated since the IPEEE.
| |
| E.3.1.2.3 Other External Events For the assessment of applicable external phenomena, a progressive screening approach was used as recommended in Section 5 of NUREG-1407 (Reference 13).
| |
| Based on the results in the Davis-Besse IPEEE, it was concluded that the plant structures and facilities at the site are well designed to withstand high winds, external floods, extreme rainfall, and transportation and nearby facility accidents. No events were found to exceed the screening criteria.
| |
| As discussed previously, since the IPEEE, Davis-Besse has added a tornado high winds model to the plant PRA. The model can be used to quantify the effects of tornadic winds on the structures of the Davis-Besse site; the model does not include tornado-generated missiles.
| |
| As stated in Section 2.4 of the Davis-Besse IPEEE (Reference 12), the analysis of high winds, floods and other external events were found to screen below the applicable screening criteria. Several actions were taken, however, to further reduce the plant risk to postulated significant external events as follows: (1) Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR) 96-0186 was initiated to address the issue of onsite hazards from hazardous material; (2) USAR Change Notice 96-58 was initiated to revise the description of the hazards from chemicals stored or transported onsite; (3) the controlled materials program was revised so that new materials approved for use onsite will be evaluated for control room habitability; and (4) PCAQR 96-0956 was initiated to document plugged roof drains and standing water on the 643 foot elevation of the Auxiliary Building roof.
| |
| August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-27 Page E-27 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report In the SER on the Davis-Besse IPEEE, the NRC concluded that the IPEEE process was capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities, and that the results were reasonable. (Reference 14)
| |
| E.3.1.2.4 External Event Severe Accident Risk This section describes the method used to address external events risk.
| |
| As discussed in Section E.3.1.2.2, Davis-Besse used the SMA to evaluate the risk from seismic events. While this methodology does not provide a quantitative result, the resolution of outliers ensures that the seismic risk is low and further cost-beneficial seismic improvements are not expected. Also, as discussed in Section E.3.1.2.3, no other external events were found to exceed the screening criteria. Therefore, the FIVE results were used as a measure of total external events risk.
| |
| As discussed in Section E.3.1.2.1, using the EPRI FIVE methodology, Davis-Besse conservatively estimated the Fire CDF to be 2.5E-05/yr. Since the FIVE methodology contains numerous conservatisms, a more realistic assessment could result in a substantially lower fire CDF. As noted in NEI 05-01 (Reference 2), the NRC staff has accepted that a more realistic fire CDF may be a factor of three less than the screening value obtained from a FIVE analysis.
| |
| Based on the Davis-Besse FIVE CDF of 2.5E-05/yr, a factor of three reduction would result in a fire CDF of approximately 8.3E-O6/yr. This value is the same order of magnitude as the internal events CDF of 9.2E-O6/yr. Therefore, this justifies use of an external events multiplier of three to the averted cost estimates (for internal events) to represent the additional SAMA benefits in external events.
| |
| E.3.2 LEVEL 2 PRA
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| The Level 2 PRA model determines release frequency, severity, and timing of a release based on the Level 1 PRA, accident progression analysis, and containment performance.
| |
| E.3.2.1 Description of the Level 2 PRA Model The Level 2 PRA model addresses the effects on containment of the core damage accidents evaluated in the front-end analysis, and determines the potential for and severity of radionuclide releases that might result.
| |
| Level 1 PRA accident sequences that lead to core damage are grouped into core damage bins according to similarities in their impact on subsequent containment Attachment E Page E-28 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report response. These bins help ensure that the sequences are developed in sufficient detail to permit them to be properly tracked in the containment event tree (CET).
| |
| The core damage bins are quantified through a containment systems bridge tree to evaluate the status of various containment systems (e.g., containment air coolers, containment spray, containment isolation). The status of these systems helps define the capability of containment to prevent a release. The core damage bins, together with the states of containment systems, comprise the plant damage states (PDSs).
| |
| The CET provides the framework for evaluating containment failure modes and conditions that would affect the magnitude of the release. The probabilities of the CET end states were quantified for each PDS. Finally, the PDS frequencies are combined with the conditional probabilities of containment failure to provide the frequencies of the release category end states.
| |
| Each combination of PDS and CET outcome is assigned to one of nine general release categories: 1) Containment Bypass - SGTR; 2) Containment Bypass - ISLOCA; 3)
| |
| Large Isolation Failure; 4) Small Isolation Failure; 5) Early Containment Failure; 6)
| |
| Sidewall Containment Failure; 7) Late Containment Failure; 8) Basemat Metlthrough; and 9) No failure. Table E.3-3 provides a matrix showing the mapping of the Level 1 accident sequences into the Level 2 release categories.
| |
| As shown in Table E.3-4, the the release categories are subdivided to account for additional release characteristics (e.g., fission product scrubbing). The release categories characterize the release of fission products to the environment in terms of release fractions for major fission product groups, release start time, release duration, and location. The release fraction represents the fraction of the initial core inventory from a particular radionuclide, or group of radionuclide's, that is released to the environment. Table E.3-5 provides a general description of the representative release sequences. Table E.3-6 and Table E.3-7 provide descriptions of the release severity source term release fraction, and release timing classification scheme.
| |
| The Level 2 PRA model used for the SAMA analysis was the most current model (updated in conjunction with revision 3 of the PRA). The Level 2 SAMA model also included the following enhancements:
| |
| * Added 14 additional plant-damage states to better define the status of certain containment systems. This was done to support quantification of the CET.
| |
| * Further automated the framework in which the containment systems (e.g.,
| |
| containment air coolers, containment spray) bridge tree was quantified. Success logic was added to perform the DELTERM function, and top logic was added so that all contributors to each plant-damage state could be solved at once.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-29 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| " Quantification of the Level 2 PRA model was performed twice (as described in the Level 1 PRA), and the full Level 2 PRA model was quantified.
| |
| * All Level 1 PRA model changes (PRA revision 4).
| |
| The SAMA analysis model calculated a LERF of 6.6E-07/year. Table E.3-8 ranks the top 30 components for Level 2 PRA based on Fussell-Vesely importance measure.
| |
| Table E.3-9 provides the top ten operator actions for Level 2 PRA ranked by Fussell-Vesely importance measure.
| |
| E.3.2.2 Level 2 PRA Model Changes since IPE Submittal Following the IPE, a major update of the Davis-Besse PRA was performed in 1999 (PRA Revisions 0-2). This included an update to the Level 2 analysis. In addition to the Level 1 changes, the Level 2 added PDSs, and enhanced the manner in which the frequencies were calculated. This update included nearly 500 PDSs to accommodate the core-damage bins and the various combinations of systems that could affect containment response. A framework was also established to allow all of the PDS frequencies to be calculated in a manner that could be readily repeated. In this update, the LERF was calculated to be 7.3E-O8/yr. LERF sequences included early containment failures, bypass failures and containment sidewall failures. This update concluded that containment would retain its integrity for approximately 93% of the core damage sequences. The IPE concluded that containment would retain its integrity for approximately 84% of the core damage sequences.
| |
| Another update to the Level 2 PRA was performed after the industry peer review in conjunction with Revision 3 to the PRA. In addition to the Level 1 changes, the Level 2 included simplifying LERF quantification. In this update, the LERF was calculated to be 3.8E-08/yr. Of the 500 PDSs, five contributed 85% of the LERF: 1) ISLOCA; 2) SGTR;
| |
| : 3) SBO; 4) loss of feedwater with induced SGTR; and 5) RCP seal LOCA.
| |
| E.3.3 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL REVIEW
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 1 (Reference 15), Section 2.2.3 states that the quality of a PRA used to support an application is measured in terms of its appropriateness with respect to scope, level of detail and technical acceptability, and that these are to be commensurate with the application for which it is intended.
| |
| The PRA technical acceptability of the model used in the development of this SAMA application has been demonstrated by a peer review process. The peer review was completed in March 2000, by the [former] B&W Owner's Group. The overall conclusions of the peer review were:
| |
| Attachment E Page E-30 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report During the peer review, all parts of the PRA elements identified as part of the peer review process were included in the PRA. Each technicalelement was assessedas sufficient to support applicationsrequiringrisk ranking determination supportedby deterministic insight, but in one case this assessment was contingent upon enhancingsome specific aspect of the PRA. Furthermore, of the 11 technical elements, nine were assessed as sufficient to support risk significant applicationssupportedby deterministicinsights, but in one case this assessment was contingent upon enhancingsome specific aspects of the PRA.
| |
| There were no Category A observations identified by the peer reviewers.
| |
| The Category B observations were as follows:
| |
| OBSERVATION AS-3 The sequence analysis success criteriaappearto be a mixture of FinalSafety Analysis Report (FSAR), Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) memos, hand calculations,andpoorly documented RELAP analysis. The level of documentation is not adequate to determine the validity of the success criteria. Additionally, the references that are included do not always support the criteriabeing used. Also, many of the references are over ten years old, raising concerns that they may not be consistent with the currentplant operation.
| |
| CLOSED The success criteria in the PRA that differ from the Design Basis success criteria are primarily for transients such as "feed and bleed cooling" and for small break LOCA.
| |
| Transients and small break LOCA make use of the make-up pumps in combination with the HPI pumps for inventory control and heat removal. Make-up pumps are not credited for accident mitigation in the Design Basis. The completed calculations provide the basis for the success criteria for feed and bleed cooling and small break LOCA. These calculations generally verify the PRA existing success criteria of the PRA and provide additional flexibility.
| |
| OBSERVATION AS-5 In the sequence analysis notebook, the success criteriafor large and medium LOCAs reference a RELAP5 calculation as the basis for the core flood tank requirements. The reference was availablefor review, but there was no evidence of any technicalreview associatedwith this calculation.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-31 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report CLOSED This observation is a specific example of the issue addressed for AS-3. The success criteria for the large and medium LOCA only credit one core flood tank. The PRA SAMA update resolved this issue by crediting both core flood tanks for the large LOCA.
| |
| This change turns out to have a small effect on large LOCA, but no impact on overall CDF.
| |
| OBSERVATION MU-6 The Davis-Besse ProbabilisticAssessment Program Guidelines, which includes guidance for maintenance and update of the PRA, is weak in the discussion of evaluation and interpretationof results in Section 2.5.
| |
| CLOSED The Davis-Besse Probabilistic Assessment Program Guidelines have been replaced by the following Nuclear Operating Business Practices: "Probabilistic Risk Assessment Model Management," Revision 0, and "Probabilistic Risk Assessment Applications Management," Revision 0. Both of these Business Practices became effective January 19, 2009, and provide a rigorous basis for the maintenance and upgrade of the existing PRA models and the application of the PRA model for risk-informed applications and assessments.
| |
| OBSERVATION QU-4 There was no evidence of sensitivity studies other than those done for the valve ranking calculations. Sensitivity studies should be performed on the base model to investigate the sensitivity of the results to modeling assumptions. Forexample, the CDF could be significantlyaffected by the RCP seal LOCA model assumptions.
| |
| OPEN:
| |
| FENOC plans to include a Sensitivity Analysis Notebook in Revision 5 of the PRA.
| |
| OBSERVATION SY-9 Basic event EB3EF15Fis in two different modules EMMOEF15 and EMM2EF15.
| |
| OPEN:
| |
| This case corresponds to failure of the same motor control center (MCC) but in two mutually exclusive service water system alignments. Therefore, there is no impact on Attachment E Page E-32 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report the PRA results. In Revision 5 of the PRA, FENOC plans to change EMMOEF1 5 and EMM2EF15 to be OR gates instead of modules. FENOC also plans to include basic event EB3EF15F under each OR gate.
| |
| E.3.4 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL - LEVEL 3 PRA INPUTS E.3.4.1 Introduction This section describes the development of the inputs needed to perform a Level 3 PRA for Davis-Besse. For the SAMA analysis, the cost-benefit analysis required comparison of comparable quantities; dose results from the Davis-Besse Level 3 PRA were converted into dollars for the purpose of comparison.
| |
| The Level 3 PRA relied on the results of the severe accident consequence code MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS2) (References 16, 17).
| |
| Version 1.12 of MACCS2 was used for this analysis. MACCS2 simulates the impact of severe accidents at nuclear power plants on the surrounding environment. The principal, phenomena considered are atmospheric transport, mitigative actions (based on dose thresholds), dose accumulation via a number of pathways (e.g., food and water ingestion), early and latent health effects, and economic costs.
| |
| The scope of a Level 3 PRA is generally driven by the nature of the release categories, which are the end states of a Level 2 PRA. The release categories are viewed as the initiating events of a Level 3 PRA. Accordingly, to use the output results of MACCS2 on a comparative basis, the release category consequence parameters were weighted by the likelihood of that release category to create a consequence. The risk metric was created by using the results of the Level 1 PRA and the Level 2 PRA, in the form of a release category frequency vector, containing the release frequency of each release category and the Level 3 PRA consequence parameters for each release category.
| |
| Release category frequency vectors were only available for initiating events. As with the initiating events and CDF for a Level 1 PRA, the risk results of a Level 3 PRA were summed over all of the release categories.
| |
| The Level 3 PRA analysis considered a base case and eleven sensitivity cases to account for variation in data and assumptions. The following list describes the sensitivity cases, which are discussed in Section E.8:
| |
| " Case S1 - Use estimated 2060 site population data (with an escalation rate of 4.7%/decade); the same escalation rate for the base case population to 2040
| |
| * Case S2 - Use a less conservative escalation rate of 1.5% to estimate the 50-mile population around Davis-Besse in 2040 Attachment E Page E-33 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| " Case S3 - Set all watershed indices to "1"
| |
| " Case Ml - Use 2007 meteorological data
| |
| " Case M2 - Use meteorological data from circa late-1990s
| |
| " Case Al - Use an alternative method to estimate PLHEAT
| |
| * Case A2 - Use conservative meteorological boundary conditions
| |
| * Case A3 - Use a longer OALARM value to better reflect operator's ability to react
| |
| * Case El - Use a more realistic (higher) speed of evaluation (ESPEED)
| |
| " Case E2 - Set sheltering shielding factors based on brick house (versus wood housing used in the base case)
| |
| E.3.4.2 Population Data The population data were extracted using SECPOP2000 (Reference 18) with 2000 census data for Davis-Besse sited at latitude of 41 degrees, 35 minutes, 50 seconds, and longitude of 83 degrees, 5 minutes, 11 seconds. The population data were adjusted to account for the transient population within 10 miles of Davis-Besse. The transient population segment, includes seasonal residents, transient population, and boating population. The population escalation factor was developed considering different sets of population data, e.g., state-wide versus within a 50-mile radius of the plant.
| |
| The year 2040 was selected as the year to estimate the population since a 20-year license renewal for Davis-Besse will extend its operating license from 2017 to 2037.
| |
| For the Level 3 PRA model, the estimated population for 2040 overestimated the population at the end of the extended operating license, and therefore generated conservative results because the population dose and economic impact costs are a function of increasing population. The escalated population estimate is conservative for a second reason, since an accident could only occur between now and 2037, the actual population would be less than what is used in the Level 3 PRA model, and the benefit of each SAMA candidate evaluated is over-estimated.
| |
| Ohio State census data are provided in Table E.3-10. Population of the counties surrounding Davis-Besse has been reasonably constant until 2004, after which the population declines (Reference 19).
| |
| To be conservative, the state-wide data were used to estimate an escalation factor for the population. Despite the decreasing population rate trend indicated for the population within the 50-mile radius of the plant, a constant escalation rate (per decade)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-34 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report was assumed based on the state-wide data presented in Table E.3-10. A constant escalation rate of 4.7%/decade was used to estimate the population for 2040 (base case) and for 2060 (sensitivity case).
| |
| The population used in the base case was conservative, since the transient population was included and escalated in a manner similar to the resident population. Table E.3-11 shows the 2040 population used in the base case.
| |
| E.3.4.3 Meteorological Data Meteorological data were obtained for the years 2006 through 2008 recorded at the Davis-Besse permanent on-site meteorological tower located "within a fenced compound in the southwest corner of the plant" (Reference 20, Section 2.3.3). The meteorological tower is located approximately a half-mile southwest of the containment building. Meteorological data included wind speed, wind direction, delta-temperature, and precipitation for each hour of the year.
| |
| An initial review identified long sequences of unusable meteorological data for 2008. As it was not reasonable to replace such a long sequence using the data substitution strategy, the 2008 meteorological data were deemed to be not viable as MACCS2 input.
| |
| Accordingly, only the data for years 2006 and 2007 were reviewed. It was determined which of these years contained the least number of unusable meteorological data entries. This was the criterion used to determine which year would be the base case meteorological data. The second best year was used for a sensitivity case.
| |
| The meteorology data from 2006 were found to have the least amount of unusable data, therefore the 2006 meteorological data were used as the base case and the meteorological data from 2007 were used as a sensitivity case. Results of the sensitivity cases confirmed that the 2006 meteorological data were representative and typical.
| |
| The mixing height values were estimated from Figures 2-5 (morning), and Figures 7-10 (afternoon) from Reference (21), as shown in Table E.3-12. The values were provided as real numbers in 100s of meters in the MET file.
| |
| E.3.4.4 Other Site Characteristics Other site characteristics include land fraction, region index, watershed index, crop and season share, and building dimensions, which are discussed below.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-35 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report The land fraction is the fraction of land in each section. Using maps (see Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 in the body of the Environmental Report), the land fraction in each grid sector was estimated by visual inspection.
| |
| The region index equates the counties for which economic data have been specified for each section of the grid. The region index block was developed from Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 in the body of the Environmental Report. These figures show the ten concentric rings and 16 wind directions overlaid on the Ohio and Michigan State counties, Lake Erie, and Canada. Each section was evaluated to determine which county occupied the most land in the sector; this was then used as the region index.
| |
| The watershed index is assigned either a "1" or a "2." Using Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 in the body of the Environmental Report, any region (sector) that contained some land was assigned a watershed index of "1" (run-off possible). An index of "2" was assigned for the segment if there was no runoff to a public water supply. Any region that was exclusively water (i.e., Lake Erie) was assigned a watershed index of "2." The sensitivity of these assignments were tested with a sensitivity case assigning a "1" to all the sectors.
| |
| The growing season used was the default growing season specified by MACCS2. The default growing season for pasture is March 1 to August 30; for all other crops, the growing season is April 30 to July 30.
| |
| The fraction of farmland devoted to specific crops was estimated from the total acres of farmland in the region and acres devoted to each crop. This input was generated using the 2007 Census of Agriculture Data for Ohio (Reference 22) and Michigan (Reference 23). The total farm land in the region was summed from the acres of farmland in each county.
| |
| Seven categories of crops were accounted for: pasture, forage, grains, vegetables, other food crops, legumes and seeds, and roots and tubers. To calculate the other food crops harvested, the crops mentioned above less the pasture was subtracted from the total farmland harvested. This difference was assumed to be other crops that were not accounted for in the six categories.
| |
| The ATMOS file also required reactor building dimensions to determine the parameters SIGYINIT (oy) and SIGZINIT (oz). Building dimensions were taken from Figure 1.2-1 (height) and Figure 3.8-3 (width) (Reference 20) for the MACCS2 base case. The reactor building width is approximately 44 meters; the building height is approximately 73 meters.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-36 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.3.4.5 Release Categories Characteristics (from MAAP)
| |
| Each release category was processed in the MACCS2 code. Over 30 accident sequences involving a spectrum of LOCAs, transients, and SGTRs were analysed using MAAP. In addition, several sensitivity study runs were performed to further define the potential impact of uncertainties in release categories associated with phenomenological modeling in MAAP. The input that differentiates each release category is the information that is extracted from the MAAP run (for each release category). One of the outputs of the Level 2 PRA is the definition of the release categories and their frequencies. Each release category with a non-zero frequency is characterized by a MAAP run. The definition of each release category and the correspondence to a MAAP run are presented in Table E.3-4.
| |
| There are some differences in how radioisotopes are grouped in MAAP and MACCS2.
| |
| The MAAP grouping is as follows:
| |
| Group Description 1 Nobles & Inert Gases 2 CsI, Rbl 3 TeO 2 4 SrO 5 MoO 2 6 CsOH, RbOH 7 BaO 8 La 2 0 3, Nd 2 0 3 , Y 20 3 , Pr 2 0 3, Sm 20 3 9 CeO2 10 Sb 11 Te 12 NpO 2, PuO 2 The MACCS2 grouping is as follows:
| |
| Group Description 1 Xe, Kr 2 I 3 Cs 4 Te, Sb 5 Sr Attachment E Page E-37 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Group Description 6 Ru, Co, Mo, Tc, Rh 7 La, Y, Zr, Nb, Am, Cm, Pr, Nd 8 Ce, Pu, Np 9 Ba Based on these groups, the following mapping was used between the MAAP and MACCS2 radioisotopic groups:
| |
| MAAP 1 2 6 3,10,11 4 5 8 9,12 7 MACCS2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Table E.3-13 summarizes the data extracted from MAAP. The data were collected and simple calculations were performed to support the base case and some of the sensitivity cases.
| |
| Table E.3-13 shows the correspondence between the MAAP runs and the release categories (as identified in Table E.3-4). The warning time (MACCS2 variable OALARM) was extracted from MAAP as the time to core uncovery. The heat of release (MACCS2 variable PLHEAT) was calculated using information extracted from MAAP.
| |
| The height of release (MACCS2 variable PLHITE) was extracted from MAAP and used directly as input to MACCS2. The release fractions (MACCS2 variable RELFRC(x))
| |
| were mapped from twelve radioisotopic groups defined for MAAP to the nine radioisotopic groups defined for MACCS2. For MACCS2 group 4, the maximum of MAAP groups 3, 10, and 11 was used; for MACCS2 group 8, the maximum of MAAP groups 9 and 12 was used. The duration of the release (MACCS2 variable PLUDUR) was used as input to MACCS2.
| |
| The time to core uncovery for a number of release categories (2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.5, 7.6, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2) is about 300 seconds (five minutes). This may be an unrealistically short time to expect Davis-Besse to declare a General Emergency. A sensitivity case was performed extending the OALARM parameter to 1200 seconds (20 minutes); there was little or no change in the consequence metrics used to support the SAMA analysis. Accordingly, the SAMA analysis results were not sensitive to this parameter and the MAAP value of 300 seconds remained in the base case.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-38 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.3.4.6 Evacuation Model Parameters E.3.4.6.1 Weighting Fraction A weighting fraction of 95% of the people was used, i.e., 95 percent of the people are evacuated and five percent of the population remains within the emergency planning zone (EPZ) during the entire problem time.
| |
| E.3.4.6.2 Evacuation Speed The travel speed can be defined during the three phases of the evacuation: initial, middle, and late (MACCS2 variable ESPEED). The evacuees are presumed to move from a spatial element when they cross the boundary dividing the two elements (MACCS2 variable TRAVELPOINT using the BOUNDARY option). When the BOUNDARY option is used all three values of ESPEED are identical. To determine the speed of evacuation, the time to evacuate the EPZ (ten-mile radius) was estimated.
| |
| Time-to-clear-affected-population data for a variety of scenarios were used. The most conservative (longest time) scenario was selected: summer, midday, weekend, rain.
| |
| The time to evacuate from the EPZ area around the plant (ten-mile radius) was estimated as 7 hours, 45 minutes. This is equivalent to a constant evacuation speed of 0.58 meters/second. This value is "slow" compared to a more typical evacuation speed of 1.0 or 2.0 meters/second; accordingly, a sensitivity case with an evacuation speed of 1.0 meters/second was performed.
| |
| E.3.4.6.3 Evacuation Delay Time The results of the evacuation time analysis for "Summer, Midday, Midweek," was used since these conditions were close to the conditions used to estimate the evacuation speed. For evacuation areas 1 to 12 (which corresponds to the EPZ), the clear time relative to the siren alert was used to estimate the delay time from the siren alert to when individuals take shelter (MACCS2 variable DLTSHL). The clear time related to the order to evacuate was used to estimate the delay time from sheltering to evacuation (MACCS2 variable DLTEVA). DLTSHL was set at 10800 seconds (three hours), and DLTEVA was set at 17700 seconds (four hours, 55 minutes).
| |
| E.3.4.6.4 Shielding Factors The groundshine and cloudshine shielding factors used in the base case are presented in Table E.3-14. The basis for the values used in the base case is wooden houses. As a sensitivity case, values based on brick houses were used, as presented in Table E.3-15. The cloudshine and groundshine shielding factors, protection factors, Attachment E Page E-39 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report and breathing rate for normal activities, evacuation, and sheltering are presented in Table E.3-16.
| |
| E.3.4.7 Core Inventory The Davis-Besse core inventory is defined as full core inventory at 24-month end-of-cycle (177 fuel assemblies). The core inventory was calculated using ORIGEN-2 (Reference 24) . Table E.3-17 shows the core inventories as provided in curies and in becquerels, to be used as input into MACCS2.
| |
| E.3.4.8 Economic Data Using the 2007 Census of Agriculture Data of References (22) and (23), Table PD-30 from Reference (25) (Ohio property values), Exhibit 22 from Reference (26) (Michigan property values), and 2007 census data from Reference (27)' , the following site-specific (averaged per county) inputs in Table E.3-18 were generated: fraction of land devoted to farming, fraction of dairy farm sales, total annual farm sales, farmland property value, and non-farmland property value. The last two values were averaged to provide input to the CHRONC file.
| |
| Additional site-specific economic parameters are given below. While many of the parameters were obtained from a government website (extracted in July 2009 and October 2009), these values are considered to be a snapshot in time to perform this analysis. The source of this information does not imply that these values need to be updated as the websites are revised.
| |
| EVACST - The daily cost of compensation for evacuees and short-term relocatees who are removed from their homes as a result of radiation exposure during the emergency-phase relocation period. This value includes the following components: food, housing, transportation, and lost income.
| |
| The daily cost was calculated by using the 2000 census economic data of per capita income for each state (Reference 28) and the per-county per-diem rate for meals, expenses and lodging (Reference 29). The per capita income was found in the quickfacts section of the website: $21,003 (Ohio) and $22,168 (Michigan). The per-diem rate for Ohio of $147/day was based on the maximum per-diem rate in Erie and Huron counties; the per-diem rate for Michigan of $156/day was based on the maximum per-diem rate in Wayne County.
| |
| *The population data used for this analysis were extracted from the 2007 Population Estimates.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-40 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report For Ohio State, EVACST is $204.54/person-day; for Michigan State, EVACST is
| |
| $216.73/person-day. The average of the Ohio and Michigan EVACST values was used as input in the CHRONC file.
| |
| RELCST - The daily cost of compensation for evacuees and short-term relocatees who are removed from their homes as a result of radiation exposure during the intermediate-phase relocation period. This value includes the following components: food, housing, transportation, lost income, and replacement of personal property.
| |
| RELCST was estimated using the evacuation costs plus the average property cost per person. The average property cost per person was calculated from the total property value in the state, which can be found on the individual state's Department of Revenue websites:
| |
| * $256,088,369,000 for Ohio (Reference 25, Table PD-30)
| |
| * $340,545,761,049 for Michigan (Reference 26, Exhibit 22)
| |
| The total property cost was divided by the total population (11,353,140 for Ohio and 9,938,444 for Michigan) (Reference 27).
| |
| For Ohio State, RELCST is $266.34/person-day; for Michigan State, RELCST is
| |
| $310.61/person-day. The average of the Ohio and Michigan RELCST values was used as input in the CHRONC file.
| |
| Other economic input parameters used in the CHRONC file are provided in Table E.3-19.
| |
| E.3.5 DAVIS-BESSE PRA MODEL - LEVEL 3 PRA RESULTS The results are presented via a set of two output parameters that are used to support the SAMA analysis. These parameters are described as followed:
| |
| Whole Body Dose (person-rem) (population dose) - this is defined as the sum of the whole body dose received by the population within x miles of the site, where x= 1, 10, and 50 miles. (MACCS2 parameter L-EDEWBODY from TYPE5OUT)
| |
| Economic impact ($) - this risk is defined as the sum of the population- and farm-dependent costs; because of the uncertainties associated with the cost input parameters, the economic impact results were only used in a relative manner (never considered as an absolute dollar amount) for the SAMA analysis to compare the cost of an alternative to the base case. (MACCS2 parameter defined as TYPIOOUT)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-41 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report To estimate risk, each consequence parameter was weighted by the frequency of the release categories in which the consequence was manifested. These risk results are presented on a per-release category basis, on a rolled-up release category basis, or as a total risk (the sum over all the release categories). Typically, the risk is presented for each parameter from zero to 50 miles summed over all of the release categories.
| |
| The Level 1 and Level 2 PRA results are summarized in the release category frequency vector, which contains the frequency (from initiating event) of an individual release category occurring. The frequency vector is presented in Table E.3-20. Values for the base case output parameters were manually extracted from the MACCS2 output file, and then a weighting of the consequences per release category was performed by multiplying by the release category frequency and summing the products. The results from the sensitivity cases were also processed similarly to the base case. For the sensitivity cases, the further step of comparison against the base case was performed.
| |
| E.3.5.1 Base Case The results for the base case are presented in Table E.3-21. The results show the estimated population dose (whole body dose in person-rem/year) and the economic impact in dollars/year. While there are a variety of other consequence metrics that are estimated by MACCS2, these two consequence metrics are the ones used in the SAMA cost-benefit analysis.
| |
| Table E.3-22 gives the consequences for each release category for whole body dose and economic impact at 50 miles. These data were used as input into the SAMA analysis.
| |
| E.3.5.2 Sensitivity Cases The sensitivity cases presented in this subsection were performed to demonstrate the robustness of the input parameters selected to support the MACCS2 model developed for the Level 3 PRA. There is no guidance in NEI 05-01 (Reference 2) on the nature of
| |
| .location of these sensitivity cases in the SAMA analysis documentation. Discussion of these sensitivity cases immediately follows the discussion of the Level 3 PRA model and is deemed the most appropriate location in the documentation. There are other sensitivity cases recommended by NEI 05-01 (Reference 2) that deal specifically with the cost-benefit evaluation. As recommended in NEI 05-01 (Reference 2), discussion of the cost-benefit sensitivity studies can be found in Section E.8.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-42 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.3.5.2.1 Site Case S1 - The population used in the base case was for the year 2040. Case S1 used the 2060 population, which is population of the site in a 50-mile radius around the plant more than 20 years after the extended license would expire. Thus, this sensitivity case represents the most conservative estimate of population around the plant.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-23 show the expected uniform increase in all parameters as a result of the increased in the population. The model shows the appropriate sensitivity to an increase in the population.
| |
| Case S2 - The population used in the base case was 2000 population data from SECPOP2000 escalated to 2040 using an escalation factor of 4.7% per decade derived from census data. Case S2 uses a less conservative escalation factor of 1.5% (using population increase estimate for the 2000 to 2010 decade). This sensitivity case provides more realistic, less conservative consequence estimates.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-24 show the expected, uniform decrease in the consequences as reflected in the reduction of the population in this sensitivity case. The model shows the appropriate sensitivity to an increase in the population.
| |
| Case S3 - The base case was run with two watershed indexes. This sensitivity case determines the impact of assuming all the watershed indices are set to 1, i.e., maximum runoff consequences.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-25 show there is a minimal impact on the consequences when all the watershed indices are set to 1.
| |
| E. 3.5.2.2 Meteorological Case Ml - The base case was performed with Davis-Besse weather data from 2006, which had the least number of unusable meteorological data points. A sensitivity case was performed to demonstrate the typical nature of any particular year's worth of meteorological data. Data from 2007 were chosen as being the second best with respect to the number of unusable meteorological data points.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-26 show that there is minor variability in the results, which is due to the Monte Carlo meteorological model. This sensitivity case supports the typical nature of any particular year's worth of meteorological data.
| |
| Case M2 - An additional sensitivity case was performed to further demonstrate the typical nature of any particular year's worth of meteorological data. These data are Attachment E Page E-43 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report circa late-1990s, but no specific year could be identified, and therefore are only to be used as a second sensitivity case.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-27 are similar to sensitivity case Ml, with some minor variability in the consequence, demonstrating the representativeness of any year's worth of meteorological data.
| |
| E.3.5.2.3 ATMOS Case Al - A different approach was taken in the Davis-Besse Level 3 PRA for estimating the energy of release from the MAAP output data for each of the release categories. Accordingly, this sensitivity case, Al, provides a comparison to the simpler method of estimating the heat of release. The energy of release was obtained from MAAP by multiplying the flow rate of the break junction by the enthalpy of the release gas.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-28 show that the method used to determine the heat of release in the base case generates more conservative results than the method used in sensitivity case Al.
| |
| Case A2 - A sensitivity case was run with more extreme values of the meteorological boundary parameters, i.e., mixing height (BNDMXH), stability class (IBDSTB), rain rate (BNDRAN), wind speed (BNDWND). In general, the sensitivity case considered all of these boundary parameters collectively (i.e., all considered in one case). The rain rate boundary condition was set at 0.0 mm/hour for the base case; there is no value more conservative than that. The conservative boundary parameters had no impact on the results as shown in Table E.3-29.
| |
| Case A3 - With some warning time (MACCS2 variable OALARM) values at about 300 seconds, there is a question about the operator's ability to react in such a short period of time. Accordingly, this sensitivity case was performed using 20 minutes (for those release categories with an OALARM value of about 300 seconds); this approach is consistent with the time to oxidation for those release categories.
| |
| The results in Table E.3-30 show virtually no impact with the change in OALARM values. Accordingly, the OALARM values as derived from the MAAP time to uncovery will be maintained as the base case.
| |
| E.3.5.2.4 EARLY Case El - The base case was performed with an evacuation speed of 0.58 meters/second, based on Davis- Besse-specific evaluation information. This evacuation Attachment E Page E-44 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report speed is among the slowest used (in other models), although it includes the most adverse evacuation conditions. Accordingly, a sensitivity case was performed with a faster evacuation speed to gauge the sensitivity of this parameter.
| |
| This increase in the evacuation speed results in a minor decease in the consequence values, as shown in Table E.3-31. This result is expected, as faster evacuation should remove the population from the radiological damage more quickly.
| |
| Case E2 - The base case was performed with the shielding factors assuming wood housing. This sensitivity case sets the sheltering shielding factors based on brick housing. The results in Table E.3-32 show that brick provides greater shielding (as indicated by the shielding factors), which results in less consequence to the population.
| |
| However, the decrease is minor, suggesting that the use of shielding factors based on wood housing, while conservative, is appropriate.
| |
| Page E-45 August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-45 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.4 COST OF SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK The SAMA candidates placed in the Consideredfor FurtherEvaluationcategory in Section E.5 required a cost-benefit evaluation. The cost-benefit evaluation of each SAMA candidate was based on the comparison of the cost of implementing a specific SAMA candidate (in U.S. dollars) with the benefit of the averted on-site and off-site risk (in U.S. dollars) from the implementation of that particular SAMA candidate. The methodology used for this evaluation was based on regulatory guidance for a cost-benefit evaluation as described in Section 5 of Reference (1). This regulatory guidance determines the net value for each potential SAMA candidate according to Equation E.4-1:
| |
| Net Value = (APE + AOC + AGE + AOSC)-COE (E.4-1)
| |
| : where, APE = present value of the averted public exposure ($)
| |
| AOC = present value of the averted off-site property damage costs ($)
| |
| AOE= present value of the averted occupational exposure ($)
| |
| AOSC = present value of the averted on-site costs ($)
| |
| COE = cost of the enhancement ($)
| |
| The purpose of this section is to quantitatively determine the maximum benefit for Davis-Besse. The maximum benefit was defined as the maximum benefit a SAMA candidate could achieve if it eliminated all risk. If the estimated cost of implementation of a specific SAMA candidate was greater than the maximum benefit, then the alternative was not considered economically viable and was eliminated from further consideration. This section shows the maximum benefit evaluation for internal events 2 .
| |
| E.4.1 OFF-SITE EXPOSURE COST The term used for off-site exposure cost is designated as averted public exposure (APE) cost. The off-site dose within a 50-mile radius of the site was determined using the MACCS2 model developed for the Davis-Besse Level 3 PRA in Section E.3.4.
| |
| 2 The Davis-Besse internal events PRA model also includes the risk impact from high winds; reference to the internal events PRA model or the CDF therefore includes the risk contribution from high winds.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-46 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-21 provides the off-site dose for each release category obtained for the base case of the Davis-Besse Level 3 PRA weighted by the release category frequency. The total off-site dose for internal events (Dt) was estimated to be 2.0 person-rem/year. The APE cost was determined using Equation E.4-2 (Reference 1, Section 5.7.1).
| |
| APE= Wpha = (C)(Zpha) (E.4-2)
| |
| : where, Wpha = monetary value of public health risk after discounting (APE) ($)
| |
| C = present value factor (yr)
| |
| Zpha = monetary value of public health risk per year before discounting (s/year)
| |
| The present value factor (C) was determined using Equation E.4-3, which was obtained from Section 5.7.1 of Reference (1).
| |
| C - (E.4-3) r
| |
| : where, r is the discount rate (%/yr) = 7%/yr = 0.07/yr t is the time to expiration of the renewed Davis-Besse license = 28 years (2009-2037)
| |
| The present value factor was calculated in Equation E.4-4, and was used throughout the document.
| |
| 1- 0jO07l(28yrs)
| |
| (E.4-4)
| |
| =12.7y
| |
| )E44 August 2010.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-47 Page E-47 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report The monetary value of public health risk per year before discounting (Zpha) was determined using Equation E.4-5 (Reference 2, Section 4.1).
| |
| Zpha = (RXD,) (E.4-5)
| |
| : where, R = monetary equivalent of unit dose ($/person-rem)
| |
| Dt= total off-site dose for internal events (person-rem/yr)
| |
| The conversion factor used to establish the monetary value of a unit of radiation exposure was $2,000 per person-rem averted. This monetary value was used for the year in which the exposure occurs and then discounted to the present value to evaluate the values and impacts. The monetary value of public health risk per year before discounting (Zpha) for Davis-Besse was calculated using Equation E.4-6.
| |
| Zpha =2,000 $ 2.0 persn- rem = $4000/yr (E.4-6) person -rem yr)
| |
| : where, R = $2,000/person-rem Dt= 2.0 person-rem/year The values for the base case are:
| |
| C = 12.27 yr Zpha = $4,000/yr APE = (I 2.27yr)-$4000 = $49,080 (E.4-7)
| |
| E Page E-48 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-48 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.4.2 OFF-SITE ECONOMIC COST The term used for off-site economic cost is designated as averted off-site property damage costs (AOCs). The off-site economic loss for a 50-mile radius of the site was determined using the MACCS2 model developed for the Davis-Besse Level 3 PRA in Section E.3.4. Table E.3-21 provides the economic loss for each release category obtained for the base case of the Level 3 PRA weighted by the release category frequency. The total economic loss from internal events (I/)was estimated to be
| |
| $1,600 per year. The averted cost was determined using Equation E.4-8 from Reference (1), Section 5.7.5.
| |
| AOC = (c)(It) (E.4-8)
| |
| : where, AOC = off-site economic costs associated with a severe accident ($)
| |
| C = present value factor (yr)
| |
| It = monetary value of economic loss per year from internal events before discounting
| |
| ($/yr)
| |
| The values for the base case are:
| |
| C = 12.27 yr It= $1,600/yr AOC = (12.27yr) 16005 = $19,632 (E.4-9)
| |
| E.4.3 ON-SITE EXPOSURE COST The term used for on-site exposure cost is designated as averted occupational exposure (AOE). The NRC methodology used to estimate the AOE consists of two components: (1) the calculation of immediate dose cost (short-term) and (2) long-term dose cost (Reference 1, Section 5.7.3). The development of the two contributors is discussed in Sections E.4,3.1 and E.4.3.2.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-49 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.4.3.1 Immediate Dose Cost The immediate doses were those doses received at the time of the accident and during the immediate management of the accident. The immediate on-site dose cost was determined using Equation E.4-10.
| |
| W,0 = (R)(F)(D o)(C) 0 (E.4-10)
| |
| : where, o= monetary value of accident risk avoided from immediate doses, after discounting ($)
| |
| R = monetary equivalent of unit dose ($/person-rem)
| |
| F= CDF (events/yr)
| |
| DIO = immediate occupational dose (person-rem/event)
| |
| C = present value factor (yr)
| |
| The values for the base case are:
| |
| R = $2,000/person-rem F= 1.OE-05 events/yr [Table E.3-20] (internal events)
| |
| D10 = 3,300 person-rem/event C = 12.27 yr W0 $ events person-rem ).OE-050 r2,000 (E.4-11) yr I event )
| |
| person-remf Page E-50. August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-50. August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.4.3.2 Long-Term Dose Cost The long-term doses were those doses received during the process of cleanup and refurbishment or decontamination. The long-term on-site dose cost was determined using Equation E.4-12.
| |
| WLTO= (R) (F) (DLTo)(C) (-1 err
| |
| =T (E.4-1 2)
| |
| : where, WLTO = monetary value of accident risk avoided from long-term doses, after discounting ($)
| |
| R = monetary equivalent of unit dose ($/person-rem)
| |
| F= CDF (events/yr)
| |
| DLTO = long-term occupational dose (person-rem/event) r = discount rate (%/yr) m = on-site cleanup period (yrs)
| |
| The values for the base case are:
| |
| R = $2,000/person-rem F= 1.OE-05 events/yr [Table E.3-20] (internal events)
| |
| DLTO = 20,000 person-rem/event C = 12.27 yr r = 7%/yr = 0.07/yr m= 10yrs August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-51 Page E-51 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| (
| |
| $00 vetVperson.re (10yr) ( . - 3
| |
| '> ,/_e_____r__
| |
| 2 WLTO =2,'0000p-0 person. rem -0 OOOO event (.r7 (12.27yr) 1 e (E.4-13)
| |
| WLTO $3530 E.4.3.3 Total Accident-Related Occupational Exposure Costs The AGE costs were estimated by combining the immediate on-site dose cost (W1o) and long-term dose cost (WLTo) equations and using the numerical values calculated in Sections E.4.3.1 and E.4.3.2.
| |
| The base case accident-related occupational exposure cost is:
| |
| AOE = W10 + WLTO = $810 + $3,530 = $4,340 (E.4-14)
| |
| E.4.4 ON-SITE ECONOMIC COST The term used for on-site economic cost is designated as averted on-site costs (AOSCs). To determine the AOSC, the estimation consists of three components:
| |
| (1) the estimation of cleanup and decontamination costs, (2) repair and refurbishment cost, and (3) the replacement power costs over the remaining life of the facility (Reference 1, Section 5.7.6). The repair and refurbishment costs are only considered for a recoverable accident and not for a severe accident. Therefore, this component did not need to be evaluated for this analysis. The development of the remaining two contributors is discussed in Sections E.4.4.1 and E.4.4.2.
| |
| E.4.4.1 Cleanup/Decontamination The present value of the cost of cleanup and decontamination over the remaining life of the facility (UcD) was determined by using Equation E.4-15.
| |
| UCD = (PVcD)(CXF) (E.4-15)
| |
| : where, PVCD = present value of the cost of cleanup/decontamination ($)
| |
| C = present value factor (yr)
| |
| E E-52 Page E-52 August 2010 Attachment E Page August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report F = CDF (events/yr)
| |
| Section 5.7.6 of Reference (1) assumes a total cleanup/decontamination cost of
| |
| $1.5E+09 as a reasonable estimate and this same value was adopted for these analyses. Assuming a ten-year cleanup period, the present value of this cost was determined by using Equation E.4-16.
| |
| PVy =CC0 1-r.) (E.4-16)
| |
| : where, PVCD = present value of the cost cleanup/decontamination ($)
| |
| CCD = total cost of the cleanup/decontamination effort ($)
| |
| m = cleanup period (years) r = discount rate (%/yr)
| |
| The values for the base case are:
| |
| CCD= $1.5E+09 m = 10 years r = 7%/yr = 0.07/yr C= 12.27. yr F = 1.OE-05 events/yr [Table E.3-20] (internal events)
| |
| UD 09
| |
| ,$1 .*5E _+ I - ee-( ° °07)(loyrs)/
| |
| UCD= ( 1 *007 (12.27yrX1.OE _05)= $132,362 (E.4-17)
| |
| E.4.4.2 Replacement Power Cost Replacement power costs were calculated in accordance with Reference (1, Section 5.7.6). The replacement power is needed for the time period following a severe accident and for the remainder of the expected generating plant life. Therefore, Attachment E Page E-53 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report the long-term power replacement equations were used to calculate replacement power costs. The present value of replacement power was calculated using Equation E.4-18.
| |
| Equation E.4-18 was developed for discount rates between 5% and 10%.
| |
| PVRP = B( 1- ert) (E.4-18) r
| |
| : where, PVRp = present value of the cost of replacement power for a single event ($)
| |
| tf = years remaining until end of facility life (yr) r = discount rate (%/yr) and B is a constant representing a string of replacement power costs that occur over the lifetime of a reactor after an event (for a 910 MWe "generic" reactor, Reference (1) uses a value of $1.2E+08/yr). The net power level for Davis-Besse is 908 MWe. Therefore, the value of $1.2E+08/yr for B is representative for Davis-Besse and is used in the analysis.
| |
| The values for the base case are:
| |
| tf= 28 yrs r= 7%/yr = 0.07/yr B= $1.2E+08/yr 0.07 ( 28ys
| |
| -$1.2E +08/yr - e- =Yr
| |
| $1.27xl 0' (E.4-20)
| |
| To account for the entire lifetime of the facility, URp was then calculated from PVRP as follows:
| |
| URP = PVRP (I e-' )2(F) (E.4-21) r
| |
| : where, URp = present value of the cost of replacement power over the remaining life ($)
| |
| E Page E-54 August 2010 Attachment E Attachment Page E-54 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report tf = years remaining until end of facility life (yr) r = discount rate (%/yr)
| |
| F = CDF (events/yr)
| |
| Based upon the values previously assumed for the base case:
| |
| 0.07 2ys URp- E+09 1-e
| |
| -$1(.2O 0.07) ( yr J (1.OE-05)= $133,917 (E.4-22)
| |
| E.4.4.3 Total Averted On-Site Costs The AOSCs were estimated by combining the cleanup and decontamination (UcD) and replacement power costs (URp) equations, and using the numerical values calculated in Sections E.4.4.1 and E.4.4.2.
| |
| The base case averted on-site cost is:
| |
| AOSC = UCD + URP = $1 32,362 + $133,917 = $266,279 (E.4-23)
| |
| E.4.5 TOTAL COST OF-SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK The total cost of severe accident impact for internal events was calculated by summing the public exposure cost, off-site property damage cost, occupational exposure cost, and on-site economic cost. The cost of the impact of a severe accident for internal events was $339,331 as shown in Table E.4-1. Davis-Besse does not have external events (fire, seismic, other external events) PRA from which risk contributors could be combined with the internal events risk. This analysis assumed that the benefit from each hazard group's (i.e., fire, seismic, and other external events) contribution is equivalent to that of internal events. This approach is conservative, based on the discussion in Section E.3.1.2. Therefore, the cost of SAMA candidate implementation was compared with a benefit value of four times (i.e., lx for internal events plus 3x for external events) that calculated for internal events to include the contribution from internal events, fire, seismic, and other hazard groups. This approach provided a comparison of the cost to the risk reduction estimated for internal and external events E Page E-55 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-55 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report for each SAMA candidate. The maximum benefit for Davis-Besse was $1,357,324 as shown in Table E.4-1.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-56 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.5 CANDIDATE SAMA IDENTIFICATION The first step in the SAMA process was to create a comprehensive list of potential SAMA candidates for qualitative evaluation. This was performed to capture any potential SAMA candidates that were not generated by our analyses, but were identified by others within the industry. This list of potential SAMA candidates was a compilation of candidates form several sources. These sources included:
| |
| * Industry SAMA guidance documents
| |
| * Previously completed SAMA analyses
| |
| * Davis-Besse IPE and IPEEE conclusions and recommendations In addition, the latest Davis-Besse PRA results were evaluated to identify any additional SAMA candidates that may be unique to Davis-Besse. This review included the following results from the Davis-Besse Level 1 and Level 2 analyses:
| |
| * Top 100 Level 1 cutsets
| |
| * Level 1 CDF importance values
| |
| * Level 2 LERF importance values Once the comprehensive list of SAMA candidates was assembled, each candidate was first qualitatively screened. For those that remained following the qualitative screening, a detailed cost-benefit was performed. The following sections provide a detailed description of this process.
| |
| E.5.1 REVIEW OF INDUSTRY DATA Since Davis-Besse is a PWR, particular interest was paid to existing SAMA candidates for PWRs. NEI 05-01 (Reference 2) provides a standard list of PWR SAMA candidates, which was used as the starting point for the potential Davis-Besse SAMA candidates.
| |
| In addition to the SAMA candidates provided in Reference (2), Table 14, a review was undertaken of the PWR SAMA analyses completed and documented as supplements to NUREG-1437 (References 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38). These supplements were reviewed to identify any SAMA candidates that might apply to Davis-Besse, but were not included in Reference (2). No additional candidates were identified by the review of the supplements to NUREG-1 437.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-57 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.5.2 DAVIS-BESSE IPE AND IPEEE REVIEW A review was performed of the following documents:
| |
| * IPE for the Davis-Besse, February 1993 (Reference 5).
| |
| . IPEEE for the Davis-Besse, November 1996 (Reference 12).
| |
| The IPE identified the major contributors to CDF for plant internal events, including internal floods. The IPE identified the following major contributors to plant CDF (Reference 5, Section 1.4.1):
| |
| * Total Loss of CCW Several SAMA candidates were considered that would either address the reliability of the CCW system or provide alternate cooling sources to CCW loads.
| |
| These include CW-10, CW-21, CW-22, CW-23, CW-24, and CW-25.
| |
| " Electric power dependence between AFW and makeup/HPI cooling SAMA candidates AC/DC-25 and AC/DC-26 were considered that would improve the reliability of AFW DC power and separate its dependence from HPI DC power.
| |
| " Failure to switchover from RCS injection to either high pressure or low pressure recirculation (LPR) for medium and large LOCAs SAMA candidates CC-07 (manual switchover to recirculation and CC-08 (automatic switchover to recirculation) were considered to address this finding.
| |
| * Failure to replenish the Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) in the event of an ISLOCA SAMA candidate CC-09 was considered to address this recommendation.
| |
| In addition, the following insights as to potential areas of improvement were identified from the original IPE study:
| |
| * Operator error of commission during ISLOCA (may not be realistic)
| |
| SAMA CB-7 was considered to address operator training for ISLOCA scenarios.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-58 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * Shedding of DC loads during loss of AC power scenarios SAMA candidate AC/DC 4 considered this issue.
| |
| * Sump recirculation using the make-up pumps SAMA candidate CC-20 was developed to address this issue.
| |
| * Isolation of RCP seal return line following loss of seal cooling SAMA candidate CW-1 9 was developed to address this issue.
| |
| * Service water room ventilation SAMA HV-06 was developed to address this issue.
| |
| * Limited supply of fuel oil to the SBO diesel generator SAMA candidate AC/DC-27 was developed to address this issue.
| |
| The IPEEE was reviewed for risk insights for external events and internal fires. The following results were presented in the IPEEE (Reference 12):
| |
| * The internal fire PRA consisted of a screening methodology using the EPRI developed FIVE methodology. The conclusions are stated as follows:
| |
| The results of the topicalassessments performed under the FIVE Fire Risk Scoping Study indicate that the following FRSS issues have been adequatelyaddressedby DB, and the applicable aspects of the DB Fire ProtectionProgram therefore are in conformance with the intent of the FRSS guidelines, as tabulatedin Attachment 10.5 of the FIVE methodology:
| |
| (1) Potentialseismic/fire interactions.
| |
| (2) Manual fire fighting effectiveness.
| |
| (3) Total environment equipment survival.
| |
| (4) Potentialcontrol systems interactions.
| |
| No plant-specific fire vulnerabilities were presented.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-59 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * The IPEEE used a seismic margins methodology. No PRA modeling was performed and no seismic vulnerabilities were found.
| |
| * No other plant vulnerabilities that would impact PRA CDF were identified in the IPEEE.
| |
| E.5.3 LEVEL 1 INTERNAL EVENTS DOMINANT CUTSETS A review was performed of the top 100 cutsets for the latest Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA (internal events, including internal flooding). Table E.5-1 provides a summary of the top 100 Level 1 PRA cutsets. These cutsets represent over 56% of the total CDF. This list includes all cutsets above 0.11% of the total CDF. This provides a strong confidence that all significant risk contributors to Level 1 risk are captured within this list.
| |
| From these cutsets, the following significant contributors were identified:
| |
| * Partial or complete loss of CCW.
| |
| Several SAMA candidates were considered that would either address the reliability of the CCW system or provide alternate cooling sources to CCW loads.
| |
| These include CW-10, CW-21, CW-22, CW-23, CW-24, and CW-25.
| |
| * Reactor vessel rupture initiating event.
| |
| No SAMA candidates were found that would reduce the CDF risk further.
| |
| * Operators fail to trip RCPs following loss of CCW Procedures at Davis-Besse instruct operators to trip RCPs on loss of CCW, with at least an hour available to trip RCPs to prevent RCP seal damage following loss of CCW. Current Davis-Besse procedures were judged to be adequate, and no additional SAMA candidates were identified.
| |
| * Small and Medium LOCA with operator failure to establish LPR.
| |
| No weakness in procedures or training was identified for establishing recirculation cooling. SAMA candidate CC-19 addresses providing automatic switchover of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) suction from the BWST to containment sump when BWST low level is reached.
| |
| E Page E-60 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-60 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * SGTR events with failure of operator actions such as isolation of the affected steam generator, failure to provide makeup to the BWST and failure to provide cooldown via HPI.
| |
| SAMA candidates addressing SGTR events include CB-09 through CB-19.
| |
| It should be noted that Davis-Besse plans to replace the existing steam generators with an improved design (CB-10). This should significantly reduce the risk of SGTR events.
| |
| E.5.4 LEVEL 1 SYSTEM IMPORTANCE Davis-Besse Level 1 PRA basic events were evaluated with respect to their risk reduction worth (RRW) importance measure. Having a high RRW indicates that improving the reliability of that system would result in a greater CDF reduction than systems with a relatively lower RRW value.
| |
| The list of basic event importance values includes all basic events with a RRW value of 1.005 or greater. It is judged that this list captures all risk significant basic events for the Level 1 PRA model.
| |
| Table E.5-2 provides a ranking of the basic events by RRW. Basic events with high RRW values include the following:
| |
| * Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater SAMA candidate FW-01 addresses the installation of a digital feedwater control system to improve main feedwater (MFW) reliability. No weakness in training or procedures was identified pertaining to initiation of HPI cooling on loss of all feedwater.
| |
| " Failure to start motor-driven feedwater pump (MDFP) after loss of feedwater SAMA candidate FW-01 addresses the installation of a digital feedwater control system to improve MFW reliability. No weakness in training or procedures was identified pertaining to starting the MDFP on loss of all feedwater.
| |
| * Operator failure to trip RCP following loss of CCW SAMA candidates CW-07, CW-08 and CW-09 address operator training and procedures addressing loss of CCW. Procedures at Davis-Besse instruct operators to trip RCPs on loss of CCW, with at least an hour available to trip Attachment E Page E-61 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report RCPs to prevent RCP seal damage following loss of CCW. Current Davis-Besse procedures were judged to be adequate, and no additional SAMA candidates were identified.
| |
| " Failure of operator actions in response to loss of off-site power (LOOP), including starting and aligning the SBO diesel generator or emergency diesel generators (EDGs), EDG 1-1 or EDG 1-2, to the MDFP.
| |
| No potential improvements in operator training or procedures for starting the SBO diesel generator or aligning the SBO diesel generator or EDGs were identified. SAMA candidates were identified that had the potential to reduce the likelihood of SBO events. These included SAMA candidates AC/DC-09, AC/DC-14, and AC/DC-24. In addition, numerous SAMA candidates in category AC/DC address enhancing the ability to cope with SBO scenarios. These SAMA candidates included increasing battery life and emergency battery charging systems.
| |
| * Operators fail to control AFW on loss of direct current (DC) power SAMA candidates AC/DC-25 and AC/DC-26 provided redundant sources of DC power to the AFW control system.
| |
| E.5.5 LEVEL 2 IMPORTANCE INSIGHTS Davis-Besse PRA basic events were also evaluated with respect to their RRW importance measure for LERF. Having a high RRW indicates that improving the reliability of that system would result in a greater LERF reduction than systems with a relatively lower RRW value. Therefore, systems with high RRW values will be considered as potential SAMA candidates.
| |
| The list of basic event importance values includes all basic events with RRW value of 1.005 or greater. It is judged that this list captures all risk significant basic events for the Level 1 PRA model.
| |
| Table E.5-3 provides a ranking of the basic events by RRW. LERF importance is dominated by SGTR and ISLOCA events. Basic events with high RRW values include the following:
| |
| Steam Generator Tube Rupture In addition to the SGTR initiating event, basic events associated with SGTR include:
| |
| Attachment E Page E-62 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * Operators fail to cooldown during SGTR,
| |
| * Failure to close main steam isolation valve (MSIV) and isolate affected steam generator,
| |
| * Main steam safety valve (MSSV) fails to reseat during SGTR,
| |
| * Operators fail to attempt cooldown via makeup/HPI cooling, and
| |
| * Failure to makeup to BWST either due to operator error or valve failure.
| |
| SAMA candidates addressing SGTR include CB-09 through CB-19. It should be noted that FENOC plans to replace the existing steam generators with an improved design (CB-1O). This replacement should significantly reduce the risk of SGTR events.
| |
| Interfacing System LOCA in the Decay Heat Removal (DHR) System SAMA candidates addressing ISLOCA events include CB-01 through CB-08. SAMA candidate CB-21 was developed specifically for Davis-Besse to provide early indication of a potential ISLOCA in the DHR system.
| |
| Pressure switches fail high preventing opening of DHR valves Davis-Besse has an abnormal procedure for loss of DHR that allows the restoration of the decay heat flow path by bypassing the two DHR suction valves (DH 11/12) by opening manual valves in containment. No other SAMA candidates addressing opening of the DHR valves were identified.
| |
| E.5.6 INITIAL SAMA CANDIDATE LIST Based on the review of the aforementioned sources, an initial list of 167 SAMA candidates was assembled. The comprehensive list of initial SAMA candidates considered for implementation at Davis-Besse are provided in Table E.5-4, where each SAMA candidate is categorized and identified according to a global modification identifier.
| |
| E.6 PHASE I SAMA ANALYSIS - SCREENING The cost-benefit evaluation performed as part of this analysis was concerned only with those modifications that reduce the severe accident risk associated with plant operation if implemented at Davis-Besse. Therefore, the purpose of the initial (qualitative)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-63 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report screening was to identify the subset of those SAMA candidates identified in Table E.5-4 that warrant a detailed cost-benefit evaluation.
| |
| Since most of the SAMA candidates were derived from industry sources, they include a wide variety of potential enhancements that may not be directly applicable to Davis-Besse. In addition, several SAMA candidates initially considered may have already been implemented at Davis-Besse or met the intent of the SAMA candidate.
| |
| Some SAMA candidates were screened on the basis of excessive implementation cost (no cost estimate is necessary) or very low benefit (no PRA case is needed to be run).
| |
| Each of the SAMA candidates was screened consistent with guidance in Reference (2).
| |
| Table E.6-1 provides the results of the qualitative screening.
| |
| E.6.1 NOT APPLICABLE - CRITERION A The SAMA candidates were reviewed to determine which ones were not applicable to Davis-Besse. Potential enhancements that were not considered applicable to Davis-Besse were those developed for systems specifically associated with boiling water reactors (BWRs) or associated with specific PWR equipment that is not present at Davis-Besse. For example, Davis-Besse does not have a gas turbine generator.
| |
| Therefore, installing tornado protection is not applicable for Davis-Besse. Also, some SAMA candidates addressed the use of systems from a second unit at a multi-unit site, which also did not apply. SAMA candidates meeting this criterion were eliminated from further analysis.
| |
| The SAMA candidates that were not applicable to Davis-Besse were reviewed to ensure that other potential modifications similar in intent, and applicable to Davis-Besse, were identified.
| |
| E.6.2 ALREADY IMPLEMENTED - CRITERION B The remaining SAMA candidates were reviewed to identify those modifications that have already been implemented at Davis-Besse. Some of the SAMA candidates had been implemented as a result of insights gained from the Davis-Besse IPE and IPEEE studies. For example, Davis-Besse has the capability to transfer alternating current (AC) power automatically from normal to standby power; this satisfies the SAMA candidate that calls for the addition of an automatic feature to transfer the AC from normal to standby power. The SAMA candidates meeting this criterion were eliminated from further analysis.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-64 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.6.3 EXCESSIVE IMPLEMENTATION COST - CRITERION C Some SAMA candidates were determined to be prohibitively expensive by inspection.
| |
| An example of this type of SAMA candidate was an extensive and extremely expensive modification to the containment. If a SAMA candidate required extensive changes that obviously exceeded the maximum benefit, the candidate was not retained for further evaluation. The maximum benefit (defined in Section E.4 and reported in Table E.4-1) was less than $1,400,000.
| |
| E.6.4 VERY LOW BENEFIT - CRITERION D If a SAMA candidate was related to a non-risk-significant system for which the change in reliability had a negligible impact on the risk profile, the SAMA candidate had a very low benefit and was not retained for further analysis. Determination of non-risk-significance was based on a combination of factors, including importance values and inclusion in dominant cutsets.
| |
| E.6.5 SUBSUMING OF SAMA CANDIDATES - CRITERION E During the screening process, if a particular SAMA candidate was found to be similar in nature and could be combined with another SAMA candidate to develop a more comprehensive or more plant-specific candidate, it was subsumed by the most appropriate SAMA candidate for Davis-Besse. The subsumed SAMA candidate was not evaluated further; however, the intent of such SAMA candidates was captured by the SAMA candidate by which they were subsumed.
| |
| E.6.6 CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION - CRITERION F SAMA candidates that did not meet Criterion A, B, C, D, or E were considered for further evaluation and subject to a cost-benefit evaluation.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-65 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.7 PHASE II SAMA ANALYSIS - COST-BENEFIT Those SAMA candidates not eliminated by the qualitative screening were selected for cost-benefit analysis. The first step in the cost-benefit analysis was to use the Level 1 PRA and Level 2 PRA models for Davis-Besse to evaluate the impact on the CDF and release category frequencies for each SAMA candidate requiring additional consideration.
| |
| The Level 1 PRA core damage sequences were mapped to specific PDSs that reflects the condition of the RCS and to some extent, the conditions in containment prior to vessel breach. Each PDS groups Level 1 PRA sequences based on their impact on subsequent containment response. Characteristics of a PDS include:
| |
| * time of core damage,
| |
| * leakage rate from the RCS,
| |
| * RCS pressure,
| |
| * availability of heat removal via steam generators,
| |
| * water inventory in the reactor cavity,
| |
| * status of containment boundary,
| |
| " status of containment heat removal loss of coolant injection,
| |
| * status of fission-product spray removal, and
| |
| * status of systems important to the containment performance assessment.
| |
| In the Level 2 PRA analysis, each PDS is evaluated by the CETs. The CET models accident progression and containment performance from the PDS to the eventual source release characterization. Level 2 PRA results were binned into one of 34 release categories. The frequency and source term characteristic for each release category was provided as input to the subsequent Level 3 PRA. A summary of each Level 2 PRA release category is provided in Table E.3-4.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-66 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.7.1 SAMA BENEFITS The Davis-Besse baseline PRA model provided the CDF and release category frequencies for input into the cost-benefit evaluation. The CDF was used to determine the maximum benefit of eliminating all risk from the plant. The release category frequencies were used in the Level 3 PRA analysis to determine the maximum monetary loss and population dose. These values were then used in the maximum benefit evaluation.
| |
| E.7.1.1 SAMA Candidate Evaluation The benefit of each SAMA candidate was estimated by modifying either the Level 1 PRA or Level 2 PRA model to reflect the benefit that could be derived (by implementing the SAMA candidate). The estimated benefit was determined by applying a bounding modeling assumption in the PRA model. For example, if the objective of a particular SAMA candidate was to reduce the likelihood of a certain component or system failure, that component or system was modeled to be perfectly reliable, even though the SAMA candidate would likely not completely eliminate failure of that component or system.
| |
| This bounding treatment is conservative for a SAMA analysis, since underestimating the risk in the modified PRA case makes the modification look more attractive than it may actually be.
| |
| Initially applying conservative bounding estimates for an expected SAMA candidate benefit simplified the PRA modeling changes that are required, and therefore improved the efficiency of the entire process. For all the cases, a bounding analysis was sufficient to eliminate a SAMA candidate from further consideration. If the results from a bounding assumption had not provided an unambiguous conclusion for the cost-benefit analysis, then an additional case(s) would have been performed by applying a more detailed analysis and less bounding PRA modifications to better estimate the true benefit.
| |
| The PRA model modifications and calculations were performed for the at-power internal events PRA. The release frequencies for the base case are provided in Table.E.3-20.
| |
| It is important to note that the sum of the containment systems state frequencies calculated by the Level 2 PRA model does not exactly equal the CDF calculated by the Level 1 PRA model. The reason for this difference is the delete term approximation used to quantify successes in the sequence trees; this is an approximation to the negation which is valid when the probabilities of events are small. There are also differences in the systems included in the Level 1 and Level 2 models (e.g., the Level 2 model included containment spray and the containment isolation valves (CIVs) that are not included in the Level 1).
| |
| Attachment E Page E-67 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report The enhanced CDF for each SAMA candidate PRA case was calculated by adding the release category frequencies. A summary of the 14 PRA results for the SAMA candidates analyzed is provided in Table E.7-1.
| |
| E.7.1.2 Best-Estimate Benefit Calculation The reference value parameters included the discount rate, time to expiration of the renewed Davis-Besse license, cost per person-rem, short term exposure, long-term exposure, on-site cleanup duration, total on-site cleanup cost, replacement power net present value, and present value factor. These reference values were used in the baseline calculation performed in Section E.4. A total of 14 PRA cases were modeled to analyze the benefit of plant-specific SAMA candidates identified in the screening process in Section E.6. The final inputs required were the consequence parameters.
| |
| The consequence parameters, off-site dose and economic impact, were provided from the Level 3 PRA described in Section E.3.4. These consequence parameters were provided for each of the 34 release categories.
| |
| The next step in the analysis was to calculate the benefit (in U.S. dollars) for each modeled PRA case associated with the implementation of a SAMA candidate. A delta CDF was used to calculate the benefit for each SAMA candidate. The total benefit included the contribution from all hazard groups. Therefore, a worksheet was developed to calculate the benefit for internal events and total benefit including the contribution from external events. The internal events worksheets used the equations discussed in Section E.4 to calculate the AOE, AOSC, APE, and AOC. For each case, the benefit from internal events and external events (fire, seismic, and other hazard groups) were summed in a worksheet to determine the total benefit of implementing the SAMA candidate. As discussed in Section E.4.5, the fire, seismic, and other hazard group risk contribution was conservatively estimated to be equivalent to three times the internal events risk contribution.
| |
| The results of the benefit analysis for all the SAMA candidate cases are presented in Table E.7-2 for internal events. Table E.7-3 represents the total benefit for all the SAMA cases. These are the final benefit results used for comparison against the implementation costs.
| |
| E.7.1.3 Cost-Benefit Evaluation The results of the cost-benefit evaluation are presented in Table E.7-5. This table provides a comparison of cost with the benefits of SAMA candidate implementation and final conclusions drawn for each SAMA candidate.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-68 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.7.2 SAMA CANDIDATE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS To assess the viability of each SAMA candidate considered for a final cost-benefit evaluation, the cost of implementing that particular SAMA candidate was estimated and compared with the estimated benefit. If the cost of implementation was greater than the attainable benefit for a particular SAMA candidate, then the modification was not considered economically viable and was eliminated from further consideration.
| |
| The cost of implementation was established from estimates provided by Davis-Besse Expert'Panel review. Expert Panel review is a knowledge-based review process that requires the personnel participating to have combined knowledge of:
| |
| * Facility design and plant configuration;
| |
| * Facility operation and how SAMA candidates would be accomplished;
| |
| * B(5)b mitigation plans;
| |
| * Minor/rapid response-type repairs and modifications;
| |
| * Corrective maintenance for accomplishment of repairs;
| |
| * Major modification costs and cost-estimating;
| |
| * Electrical and instrumentation and control design and operational options;
| |
| * Radiation hazards - to judge feasibility of a mitigation strategy; and
| |
| * Training - to evaluation training impacts of changes and modifications.
| |
| The Davis-Besse Expert Panel consisted of senior staff members from the PRA group, Project Management, Design Engineering, Operations, Operations Training, Technical Services Engineering, Procurement Engineering, and License Renewal. This panel, based upon their knowledge and experience, judged for each SAMA candidate whether a modification could be made to the plant, or whether procedure changes or training could be implemented to address the SAMA issues. The panel also estimated the associated costs for each modification, procedure change or training item identified for the SAMA candidates. -The purpose of this approach was to minimize the effort expended on detail cost estimation. Table E.74 provides the implementation cost estimate in 2009 U.S. dollars for the SAMA candidates.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-69 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS E.8.1 PLANT MODIFICATIONS There are no plant modifications that are currently pending that would be expected to impact the results of this SAMA analysis. There are two pending plant modifications (steam generator replacement and installation of digital feedwater control) that have been accounted for in the SAMA candidate screening process (CB-10 and FW-01) (see Sections E,5.4 and E.5.5).
| |
| E.8.2 UNCERTAINTY While the results of the sensitivity cases in Section E.3.5.2 show the robustness of the Level 3 PRA model, and the sensitivity cases in this section showed the robustness of the SAMA cost-benefit evaluation, these analyses contained a number of conservative assumptions and inputs. No explicit uncertainty was performed since the number of conservative assumptions and inputs account for any uncertainties in the calculations.
| |
| As the SAMA candidates generally appear to be not cost-beneficial when considering the sensitivity cases, the conservatisms add further assurance of the appropriateness of the results and the subsequent conclusions. Thus, the gap between benefit and cost could be increased ifsome of the conservative assumptions were relaxed. Some of the base case conservatisms included:
| |
| Each of the PRA cases to estimate the change in CDF used bounding assumptions in the manipulation of the PRA model, which offsets the CDF uncertainty. For example, ifa SAMA candidate could reduce the likelihood of a large break LOCA, the bounding assumption was that there would be no large break LOCA, overestimating the benefit of the SAMA candidate.
| |
| The multiplier used to account for fire and seismic risk contributions is conservative. The contribution of risk due to fire has been estimated to be on the same order of magnitude as the internal events CDF, while the contribution of risk due to seismic events is considered to be small compared to the internal events CDF. Using a multiplier of three (total CDF considered was four times the internal events CDF), overestimated the benefit of a SAMA candidate. For Davis-Besse, the risk contribution due to high winds is included in the internal events PRA model.
| |
| F Page E-70 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-70 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * Davis-Besse cost-benefit analysis used an analysis period of 28 years (the time from now to the end of Davis-Besse's requested license renewal period). This analysis period is conservative in contrast to the 20 years of license renewal extension, which is often used in the base case calculations as part of the SAMA analysis cost-benefit analysis. Accordingly, use of a 28-year analysis period in the base case is conservative.
| |
| " Davis-Besse-specific cost estimates were estimated by an expert panel.
| |
| Detailed cost estimations would likely include factors that were not considered for this analysis; accordingly, the cost estimates are likely conservatively underestimated. The large, more generic costs far exceed the estimated benefit, such that many orders of magnitude of uncertainty could be considered without impacting the results.
| |
| " In the Level 3 PRA, several of the input parameters were purposely developed in a conservative manner:
| |
| o The value of release fractions were taken from the end of the time traces, rather than when the release was estimated to be terminated; this approach overestimated the source term.
| |
| o The population was escalated to 2040, three years beyond the end of the requested license renewal period. In addition, the escalation factor used was a constant, despite the census indication that the Ohio state population was increasing at a decreasing rate. Such an overestimation of the population conservatively impacted the consequence metrics used to estimate off-site dose and economic consequences of the SAMA candidates.
| |
| E.8.3 EVACUATION SPEED A sensitivity case was performed to investigate the sensitivity of each analysis case to the evacuation speed used in the Level 3 PRA analysis. The whole body dose was used in this sensitivity case to represent the impact of the evacuation speed on the cost-benefit analysis. The Level 3 PRA sensitivity case involving evacuation speed is discussed in Section E.3.5.2.4 (sensitivity case El). The whole body dose for Case El is provided in Table E.3-31. The equations used and calculations performed are consistent with Section EA. The result of the evacuation speed sensitivity case is summarized in Table E.8-1.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-71 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.8.4 REAL DISCOUNT RATE Two sensitivity cases were performed to investigate the sensitivity of each analysis case to the real discount rate. The first sensitivity case assumed a lower discount rate of three percent and the second sensitivity assumed a high discount rate of ten percent.
| |
| The equations used and calculations performed are consistent with Section E.4. The results of the low and high discount rate sensitivity cases are summarized in Table E.8-1.
| |
| E.8.5 ANALYSIS PERIOD Since an analysis period of 28 years (the time from now to the end of Davis-Besse's requested license renewal period) is used in the base case versus the less conservative 20 years (license renewal period), there is no need to perform a sensitivity case. The base case already incorporates the more conservative value of the analysis period.
| |
| E.8.6 OTHER SENSITIVITY CASES Six additional sensitivity benefit calculations were performed, which are briefly described below. The equations used and calculations performed are consistent with Section E.4.
| |
| * The first sensitivity case investigated the impact of assuming damaged plant equipment is repaired and refurbished following an accident scenario, as opposed to automatically decommissioning the facility following the event.
| |
| * The second sensitivity case investigated the sensitivity of each analysis case to the on-site dose estimates. This sensitivity case assumed higher short-term dose (14,000 person-rem) and long-term dose (30,000 person-rem)
| |
| (Reference 1, Section 5.7.3).
| |
| * The third sensitivity case investigated the sensitivity of each analysis case to the total on-site cleanup cost. This sensitivity case assumed a higher on-site cleanup cost of $2,000,000,000 (Reference 1, Section 5.7.6).
| |
| * The fourth sensitivity case investigated the sensitivity of each analysis case to the cost of replacement power. An inflation rate was determined by assessing the electricity costs in 1993 and in 2009 dollars for the state of Ohio. The inflation rate was used to calculate the 2009 dollar value for the string of replacement power costs.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-72 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| * The fifth sensitivity case investigated the sensitivity of each analysis to the non-internal events hazard groups' multiplier by assuming a multiplier of five.
| |
| * The sixth sensitivity case investigated the sensitivity of each analysis to the off-site economic cost. This sensitivity case assumed the off-site ecomonic cost was increased by twenty-five percent.
| |
| The results of the sensitivity cases (Repair, On-site Dose, On-site Cleanup, Replacement Power, Multiplier, and Off-site Economic Cost) are summarized in Table E.8-1.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-73 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.9 CONCLUSIONS The cost-benefit evaluation of SAMA candidates performed for the Davis-Besse license renewal process provided significant insight into the continued operation of Davis-Besse. The results of the evaluation of 167 SAMA candidates indicated no enhancements to be potentially cost-beneficial for implementation at Davis-Besse.
| |
| However, the sensitivity cases performed for this analysis found one SAMA candidate (AC/DC-03) to be potentially cost-beneficial for implementation at Davis-Besse under the assumptions of three of the sensitivity cases (low discount rate, replacement power, and multiplier). SAMA candidate AC/DC-03 considered the addition of a portable diesel-driven battery charger for the DC system. While the identified SAMA candidate is not related to plant aging and therefore not a required modification for the license renewal period, FENOC will, nonetheless, consider implementation of this candidate through the normal processes for evaluating possible plant modifications.
| |
| The cost-benefit evaluation performed used several conservatisms. The guidance document, Section 5 of Reference (1), used to perform the cost-benefit evaluation is inherently conservative. The PRA cases used a conservative approach to estimate the benefit from a particular SAMA candidate. The estimation of the total benefit assumed, conservatively, that the contribution due to fire, seismic and "other" external events was three times the risk contributions of internal events, although evidence suggests that it is less than that. The use of an analysis period of 28 years was conservative. These conservative assumptions, combined with the results of several sensitivity cases, demonstrate the robustness of the SAMA analysis results.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-74 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.10 FIGURES AND TABLES Table E.3-1: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Dominant Initiating Event Contribution to Core Damage (Initiating Events)
| |
| Contribution Percent of Cumulative Initiator Description to Internal Internal Percent of CDF CDF* Internal CDF*
| |
| T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.91 E-06 21% 21%
| |
| T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.32E-06 14% 35%
| |
| TMPP43XF- All CCW pumps fail to run due to 6.64E-07 7% 42%
| |
| CC ALL CCF (initiating event)
| |
| R SGTR (initiating event) 6.22E-07 7% 49%
| |
| T2 Plant trip due to loss of MFW 5.72E-07 6% 55%
| |
| (initiating event)
| |
| AV Reactor vessel rupture 5.00E-07 5% 61%
| |
| S Small LOCA (initiating event) 4.25E-07 5% 65%
| |
| T13A-1-3-1EF Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event 4.09E-07 4% 70%
| |
| Pump 1 running T13A-2-3-1EF Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event 3.84E-07 4% 74%
| |
| Pump 2 running TMPP43XF- CCW pumps 1 & 2 failure to run due 2.69E-07 3% 77%
| |
| CC 1 2 to CCF (initiating event)
| |
| F3AM Maximum flood in CCW pump room 1.98E-07 2% 79%
| |
| from service water (initiating event)
| |
| M Medium Break LOCA 1.47E-07 2% 80%
| |
| T2B-1 SP6A fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.33E-07 1% 82%
| |
| T2A-1 SP6B fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.32E-07 1% 83%
| |
| SP6B T12B7-1EF Service water pump room ventilation 1.27E-07 1% 85%
| |
| failure (T<86)
| |
| T2A-2 FICICS35B fails high (initiating 1.22E-07 1% 86%
| |
| event)
| |
| T2B-2 FICICS35A fails high (initiating 1.22E-07 1% 87%
| |
| event)
| |
| T18-IEF Loss of DC power from Bus d2p 1.10E-07 1% 88%
| |
| (initiating event)
| |
| F7L Large circulating water flood in 8.84E-08 1% 89%
| |
| turbine building (initiating event)
| |
| T9-IEF Loss of DC power (initiating event) supply NNIX I 8.24E-08 II 1% 90%
| |
| Percentages are rounded to whole numbers. Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) sequences are modeled as a failure to trip after an initiating event; ATWS sequences contribute approximately 1%
| |
| to CDF. SBO sequences involve a LOOP (as the initiating event or following an initiating event), along with subsequent failure of power to both safety buses, C1 and D1 (i.e, a loss of both EDGs and the SBO diesel generator); SBO sequences contribute approximately 5% to CDF and are dominated by sequences initiated by a LOOP (T3).
| |
| Attachment E Page E-75 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power.Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-2: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Top 30 Components by Fussell-Vesely (Internal Events)
| |
| Rank Component Description Fussell-ID Vesely 1 P43-2 CCW Pump 1-2 1.26E-01 2 P43-1 CCW Pump 1-1 1.26E-01 3 P43-3 CCW Pump 1-3 1.21 E-01 4 P14-1 Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater (TDAFW) Pump 1-1 1.15E-01 5 P14-2 TDAFW Pump 1-2 9.75E-02 6 K5-2 EDG 1-2 9.00E-02 7 HX11B Auxiliary Transformer 11 to Bus B Breaker 4.92E-02 8 LTSP9A6 SG2 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH1 4.29E-02 9 LTSP9A7 SG2 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH3 4.29E-02 10 LTSP9B8 SG1 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH1 4.29E-02 11 LTSP9B9 SG1 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH3 4.29E-02 12 LTSP9A8 SG2 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH2 4.28E-02 13 LTSP9A9 SG2 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH4 4.28E-02 14 LTSP9B6 SG1 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH2 4.28E-02 15 LTSP9B7 SG1 SU LVL XMTR for SFRCS LCH4 4.28E-02 16 HX02B Start-up Transformer 02 to Bus B Breaker 3.70E-02 17 SP17B1 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 18 SP17B2 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 19 SP17B3 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 20 SP17B4 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 21 SP17B5 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 22 SP17B6 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 23 SP17B7 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 24 SP17B8 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 25 SP17B9 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 3.69E-02 26 SW1 424 CCW Heat Exchanger 1 Outlet Temperature 3.15E-02 27 SW1 434 CCW Heat Exchanger 2 Outlet Temperature 3.08E-02 28 K5-1 EDG 1-1 2.55E-02 29 K5-3 SBO Diesel Generator 2.49E-02 30 HX11A Auxiliary Transformer 11 to Bus A Breaker 2.42E-02 Attachment E Page E-76 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-3: Mapping of Level 1 Accident Sequences into Level 2 Release Categories Source Term Release Categories Containment
| |
| - SGTRBypass TContass-Bypa -iewl Large BConainen Containment Isolation Failure Small Containment Isolation Failure Early Containment Failure SidewallFailure Containment AS' 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 ARX XX_
| |
| mIX x x x x x x x x x x x x ARX x x x x x x x x x x SIN X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sly x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x SRN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x SRY x x x x x x x x x x x x x. x TIN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TIY x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TRN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x RIN x x RIY x x RRN x RRY x V x x
| |
| *Level 1 Accident Sequences (AS) defined in terms of Core Damage Bin (i.e., Type of Initiating Event, Timing of Failure, Availability of SG Cooling)
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Attachment F Page E-77 Page E-77 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-3: Mapping of Level 1 Accident Sequences into Level 2 Release Categories (continued)
| |
| Source Term Release Categories Basemat No Late Containment Failure Containment Containment Failure Failure AS* 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 AIX x x x x x x x x x x x x ARX x x x x x x x x x x x x MIX x x x x x x x x x x x x MRX x x x x x x x x x x x x SIN x x x x x x x x x x x x SlY x x x x x x x x x x x x SRN x x x x x x x x x x x x SRY x x x x x x x x x x x x TIN x x x x x x x x x x x x TIY x x x x x x x x x x x x TRN x x x x x x x x x x x x RIN RIY RRN RRY V
| |
| *Level 1 Accident Sequences (AS) defined in terms of Core Damage Bi (i.e., Type of Initiating Event, Timing of Failure, Availability of SG Cooling)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-78 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-4: Mapping of Release Categories to MAAP Runs Release Category Description Release MAAP Case Characterizing Category Fission Late Source Term Number Containment Core Product Re Failure Type Cooled? Scrubbing Revization?
| |
| Cooled?____
| |
| _Late?
| |
| 1.1 Bypass - SGTR Y Y NA ST11_RIYVXINN_52Y-0021a 1.2 Bypass - SGTR Y N NA ST12_RIYVXINN_52Y-0021a 1.3 Bypass - SGTR N Y NA ST13_RIYVXINN_52Y-0021a 1.4 Bypass - SGTR N N NA ST14_RIYVXINN_52Y-0021a 2.1 Bypass- N N NA ST21 ISLOCA ISLOCA 2.2 Bypass- N Y NA ST22 ISLOCA ISLOCA 3.1 Large Isolation Y Y NA ST31_AXI1a_4 3.2 Large Isolation Y N NA ST32_AXI 1a_4 3.3 Large Isolation N Y NA ST33_AXI1 a_4 3.4 Large Isolation N N NA ST34_AXI1a_4 4.1 Small Isolation Y Y NA ST41 AXIla 4 4.2 Small Isolation Y N NA ST42 AXIla_4 4.3 Small Isolation N Y NA ST43 AXIla 4 4.4 Small Isolation N N NA ST44 AXIla 4 5.1 Early Y Y NA ST51_SIYYFYYN_36Y-002 5.2 Early Y N NA ST52_TINYNINN_53Y 5.3 Early N Y NA ST53_SIYYFYYN_36Y-002 5.4 Early N N NA ST54_TINYNINN_53Y 6.1 Sidewall Y Y NA ST61_TINYNINN_53Y 6.2 Sidewall Y N NA ST62 TINYNINN_53Y 6.3 Sidewall N Y NA ST63 TINYNINN_53Y 6.4 Sidewall N N NA ST64_TINYNINN_53Y 7.1 Late Y Y N ST71 AXIla_4 7.2 Late Y N N ST72 AXIla 4 7.3 Late Y Y Y ST73 TINYNINN_53Y 7.4 Late Y N Y ST74_TINYNINN 53Y Attachment E Page E-79 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-4: Mapping of Release Categories to MAAP Runs (continued)
| |
| Release Category Description Release MAAP Case Characterizing term Category Fission Soure Number Containment Core Fission Product Late Rvpr Source Term Failure Type Debris Scrubbing Revapor-Cooled? Late? ization?
| |
| 7.5 Late N Y N ST75_AXIla 4 7.6 Late N N N ST76 AXIla_4 7.7 Late N Y Y ST77_TINYNINN 53Y 7.8 Late N N Y ST78_TINYNINN 53Y 8.1 Basemat N Y NA ST81 AXIla_4 8.2 Basemat N N NA ST82 AXIla_4 9.1 No Failure Y Y NA ST91 AXIla 4 9.2 No Failure Y N NA ST92_AXIla 4 Attachment E Page E-80 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-5: Description of Representative Release Sequences Release Category Representative MAAP Accident Sequence Based on the Level 1 sequence RIYVXINN; a double-ended tube rupture above the steam generator lower tube sheet. ECCS injection fails and, an MSSV on the faulted generator sticks open. AFW was secured at time zero.
| |
| RCs 1.1 and 1.3 include fission product scrubbing; AFW is restored to the faulted steam generator when core exit temperatures exceed 600 F, but limited by CST inventory. RC 1.1 and 1.2 include debris coolability; containment spray injects the contents of the BWST at the time of vessel failure.
| |
| 2 Based on containment bypass sequence - guillotine rupture of the 12-inch diameter decay heat removal return line with failure of two valves in series. Primary system coolant is discharged to mechanical penetration room #2 which communicates with the shield building annulus (wire mesh doors). Following the pipe rupture, the room blowout panels fail allowing a release to the Auxiliary Building and environment.
| |
| ECCS injection fails.
| |
| Based on the Level 1 sequence AXIla; a 4.0 ft2 cold leg break with ECCS injection and CAC failures. The large isolation failure was modeled as a failure to isolate a single 8-inch vacuum breaker line to containment.
| |
| RCs 3.1 and 3.3 include fission product scrubbing; containment spray in injection and recirculation.
| |
| Based on the Level 1 sequence AXIla; a 4.0 ft2 cold leg break with ECCS injection and CACs failures. The small isolation failure was modeled as a failure to isolate the normal containment sump line.
| |
| RCs 4.1 and 4.3 include fission product scrubbing; containment spray in injection and recirculation.
| |
| 5 RCs 5.1 and 5.3 are based on Level 1 sequence SIYYFYYN; a loss of CCW and a 100 gpm seal leak per RCP at 30 minutes. AFW was failed at time zero. CACs and containment spray are available, but ECCS injection fails.
| |
| RCs 5.2 and 5.4 are based on Level 1 sequence TINYNINN; a SBO, and loss of AFW at time zero. The loss of power fails containment spray, so there is no fission product scrubbing.
| |
| Vessel failure and debris discharge are into an essentially dry containment. Early containment failure due to hydrogen combustion of ex-vessel steam explosion coincident with vessel failure.
| |
| Page E-81 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-81 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-5: Description of Representative Release Sequences (continued)
| |
| Release Category Representative MAAP Accident Sequence 6 Based on the Level 1 sequence TINYNINN; a SBO and loss of AFW at time zero.
| |
| RCs 6.1 and 6.2 assume direct impingement of entrained core debris on the containment free standing steel shell to obtain sidewall failure even with a coolable debris bed geometry. Sidewall failure 2 minutes after vessel failure results in early containment failure. Sidewall failures communicate with the shield building annulus and auxiliary building #4 mechanical penetration room. Release of fission products to the environment occurs following blow out panel failures; no annulus or auxiliary building decontamination factors are credited.
| |
| RCs 6.3 and 6.4 include uncoolable debris beds; the debris is assumed to pool in the lower compartment against the outer concrete curb. Late containment failure occurs when sufficient concrete is eroded.
| |
| RCs 6.1 and 6.3 include fission product scrubbing via containment spray and CACs.
| |
| RCs 7.3, 7.4, 7.7, and 7.8 involve late containment failures with revaporization and are based on Level 1 sequence TINYNINN; a loss of offsite power and loss of battery power for 2 hours. ECCS injection and CACs fail. After 2 hours, pressurizer control is lost (PORV fails closed), and AFW level control is lost (steam generator overfills). The overfill fails the AFW pumps leading to steam generator dryout followed by heatup and loss of primary coolant.
| |
| RCs 7.1, 7.2, 7.5, and 7.6 involve late containment failures without revaporization and are based on Level 1 sequence AX1la; a 4.0 ft2 cold leg break with ECCS injection, containment spray and AFW, but no CACs.
| |
| RCs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 include a coolable debris bed; containment spray is modeled to inject the BWST contents to containment to create a deep water pool overlying the debris bed. If fission product scrubbing is successful, containment spray recirculation is also modeled.
| |
| 8 Based on the Level 1 sequence AX1l a; a 4.0 ft2 cold leg break with containment spray but ECCS injection failure. The uncoolable debris bed with basemat failure from core-concrete attack results in a large containment failure. Although containment failure occurs at the cavity floor elevation (below grade level), and debris could be leached and transported to ground water, basemat failures were treated as airborne releases at grade elevation.
| |
| RC 8.1 includes fission product scrubbing; containment spray in injection and recirculation.
| |
| 9 Based on the Level 1 sequence AXIl a; a 4.0 ft2 cold leg break with CAC operation but ECCS injection failure.
| |
| RC 9.1 includes containment spray injection and recirculation; coolable debris and fission product scrubbing.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-82 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-6: Release Severity Source Term Release Fraction Release Category Cesium Iodine % Release 1.4 46.60%
| |
| 2.1 37.60%
| |
| 3.2 36.30%
| |
| 2.2 34.80%
| |
| 3.4 33.60%
| |
| 5.4 25.50%
| |
| 5.2 23.90%
| |
| 6.2 20.40%
| |
| 1.2 17.00%
| |
| 1.3 15.50%
| |
| 6.1 12.00%
| |
| 1.1 11.30%
| |
| 6.4 4.59%
| |
| 4.2 1.96%
| |
| 7.8 1.43%
| |
| 8.2 1.25%
| |
| 5.1 0.70%
| |
| 5.3 0.65%
| |
| 3.1 0.60%
| |
| 3.3 0.59%
| |
| 7.2 0.55%
| |
| 4.4 0.53%
| |
| 7.6 0.36%
| |
| 4.1 0.12%
| |
| 4.3 0.08%
| |
| 6.3 0.04%
| |
| 7.4 0.01%
| |
| 7.3 0.01%
| |
| 9.2 0.01%
| |
| 9.2 0.01%
| |
| 7.1 0.00%
| |
| 7.7 0.00%
| |
| 7.5 0.00%
| |
| 8.1 0.00%
| |
| 9.1 0.00%
| |
| Attachment E Page E-83 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-7: Release Timing Classification Scheme Classification Category Time of Release Late greater than 6 hrs Early less than 6 hrs (1) Relative to declaration of a General Emergency.
| |
| Table E.3-8: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Top 30 Components for Level 2 by Fussell-Vesely (Internal Events)
| |
| Rank Component Description Fussell-ID Vesely 1 K5-2 Emergency Diesel Generator 1-2 1.47E-01 2 K5-1 Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 1.09E-01 3 SP17B1 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 4 SP17B2 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 5 SP17B3 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 6 SP17B4 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 7 SP17B5 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 8 SP17B6 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 9 SP17B7 Main Steam Line1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 10 SP17B8 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 11 SP17B9 Main Steam Line 1 Code Safety 8.34E-02 12 HX11B Auxiliary Transformer 11 to Bus B Breaker 6.76E-02 13 K5-3 Station Blackout Diesel Generator 6.37E-02 14 HX11A Auxiliary Transformer 11 to Bus A Breaker 5.39E-02 15 MS101 Main.Steam Line 1 Isolation 5.38E-02 16 DH11 RCS to Decay Heat Removal System 5.09E-02 17 DH12 RCS to Decay Heat Removal System 5.09E-02 18 ICS 11 B Main Steam Line 1 Atmospheric Vent 4.60E-02 19 SP17A1 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 20 SP1 7A2 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 21 SP1 7A3 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 22 SP1 7A4 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 23 SP17A5 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 24 SP17A6 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 25 SP1 7A7 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 26 SP17A8 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 27 SP1 7A9 Main Steam Line 2 Code Safety 4.52E-02 28 MS100 Main Steam Line 2 Isolation 4.47E-02 29 P14-1 Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 1-1 3.80E-02 30 C25-4 EDG Room 1 Ventilation Fan 3.14E-02 Attachment E Page E-84 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-9: Davis-Besse SAMA Analysis Model Top Ten Operator Actions for Level 2 by Fussell-Vesely (Internal Events)
| |
| Rank Basic Event Description Fussell-Vesely Name 1 XHAMUCDE Operators fail to attempt cooldown via makeup/HPI cooling 3.76E-01 2 CHASGDPE Operators fail to cooldown during a SGTR 3.33E-01 3 LHAMSIVE Failure to close MSIV and isolate steam generator 3.07E-01 containing ruptured tube 4 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 6.49E-02 5 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to 6.17E-02 Bus D1 6 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator to 6.06E-02 supply MDFP 7 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater coincident with 5.71 E-02 reactor trip 8 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 3.88E-02 1-2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 9 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1-1 or EDG 1-2 to 3.71 E-02 supply MDFP given LOOP 10 UHAISBOR Operators fail to manually isolate containment normal sump 3.49E-02 Table E.3-10: Ohio State Census Data Estimated Escalation Comment Year Population (per decade) 1990 10,847,115 --
| |
| 2000 11,353,140 4.7%
| |
| 2008 11,485,910 1.5% Equivalent escalation from 2001 to (estimated) 2010 assuming uniform escalation per each year in the decade, the per-year escalation rate is (1.012)(118)% or 1.0015 per year.
| |
| For a per-decade rate, (1.0015)10
| |
| = 1.015, or a rate of 1.5% per decade.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-85 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-11: Total (Permanent and Transient) Escalated Population (50-Mile Radius - Davis-Besse) for the Year 2040 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 mile miles miles miles miles miles miles miles miles miles N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54861 351575 NNE 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 828 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 2229 219 0 13561 ESE 0 0 320 0 0 0 11198 50152 20763 104445 SE 662 661 0 0 6786 27558 7443 9301 35612 11828 SSE 661 729 60 71 109 1593 2075 23880 6229 20419 S 4 12 55 328 651 1680 34083 7301 34694 7138 SSW 17 5 82 79 482 5743 4141 6025 26881 12565 SW 37 20 20 469 197 1728 9970 9130 7669 64607 WSW 0 50 0 35 84 1050 8246 12404 47735 14163 W 0 53 72 66 87 847 19318 259606 102087 25871 WNW 683 723 156 0 7274 4821 7009 207932 58896 13460 NW 0 165 595 0 0 1763 u09 530092 20356 25771 NNW 20 138 0 0 0 0 0 20080 77289 233548 Table E.3-12: Mixing Height Time Mixing Heights (meters)
| |
| Morning/Winter 700 Morning/Spring 550 Morning/Summer 350 Morning/Autumn 500 Afternoon/Winter 900 Afternoon/Spring 1500 Afternoon/Summer 1600 Afternoon/Autumn 1200 Attachment E Page E-86 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 Davis-Besse ST11_RIYVXINN_5 ST12_RIYVXIN ST13_RIYVXINN ST14_RIYVXIN ST21_
| |
| MAAP Case ID 2Y-0021a N 52Y-0021a 52Y-0021a N 52Y-0021a ISLOCA Release Category 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 OALRM(unovry)(hs)Core Ucvr QALAM r(IEVNT(49))
| |
| (ucovry) hrs)(IEnTcovery_____ 1.67 1.67 1.67 _______ 1.67 8.34E-02 QALARM (uncovery) (s) Core Uncovery .6000 6000 6000 6000 300 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 6.94E+07 6.94E+07 6.94E+07 6.94E+07 6.92E+06 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 18.44 18.44 18.44 18.44 2.13 RELFRC FREL(1) 9.81 E-01 7.OOE-01 7.70E-01 9.41 E-01 FREL(2) 1.13E-01 1.70E-01 1.55E-01 4.66E-01 3.48E-01 FREL(3) 6.29E-02 1.43E-01 8.62E-02 2.03E-01 3.75E-01 FREL(4) 9.34E-04 9.67E-05 1.01 E-03 2.73E-04 6.51 E-03 FREL(5) 9.91 E-03 7.22E-04 9.91 E-03 6.74E-04 1.04E-02 FREL(6) 5.26E-02 6.30E-02 5.85E-02 7.15E-02 3.25E-01 FREL(7) 8.20E-03 8.18E-04 8.28E-03 1.54E-03 1.1 7E-02 FREL(8) 1.64E-04 1.72E-05 2.01 E-04 4.09E-05 2.01 E-04 FREL(9) 2.46E-04 3.24E-05 3.70E-04 1.01 E-04 8.82E-04 FREL(10) 3.56E-01 4.03E-02 3.65E-01 1.21 E-01 1.58E-01 F RE L(11) 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 4.68E-05 9.54E-05 2.91 E-05 FREL(12) 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 1.25E-06 4.66E-07 1.87E-07 PDELAY (hrs) 73.20 2.17 73.1 2.17 0.42 PDEILAY(s) 263520 7812 263160 7812 1512 PLUDUR (hrs) 42.93 13.76 75.20 48.95 11.76 PLUDUR (s) 154548 49536 270720 176220 42336 End of Release (hrs) 116.13 15.93 148.3 51.12 12.18 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-87 Page E-87 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 (continued)
| |
| Davis-Besse ST22_ ISLOCA ST31_AXIIA 4 ST32_AXIIA 4 ST33_AXIIA 4 ST34_AXIIA 4 MAAP Case ID .. .. __ __ _ ....
| |
| _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ .. _ _
| |
| Release Category 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 QALARM (uncovery) (hrs) Core Uncovery 8.38E-02 8.37E-02 8.37E-02 8.37E-02 8.37E-02 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| QALARM (uncovery) (s) Core Uncovery 302 301 301 301 301 OALARM___(un__oery)_ ( (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 9.44E+06 2.22E+06 2.63E+06 2.22E+06 2.63E+06 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 2.13 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 RELFRC FREL(1) 1.00E+00 9.99E-01 9.68E-01 9.99E-01 9.94E-01 FREL(2) 3.76E-01 6.02E-03 3.63E-01 5.86E-03 3.36E-01 FREL(3) 3.75E-01 4.25E-03 3.34E-01 4.23E-03 3.25E-01 FREL(4) 2.59E-02 5.78E-04 5.54E-03 5.63E-04 1.75E-02 FREL(5) 1.27E-02 6.59E-03 4.56E-03 6.26E-03 4.62E-03 FREL(6) 3.43E-01 5.06E-03 2.89E-01 4.97E-03 2.85E-01 FREL(7) 2.12E-02 1.38E-03 9.69E-03 1.34E-03 1.50E-02 FREL(8) 1.60E-02 1.64E-05 1.61 E-04 1.59E-05 1.48E-02 FREL(9) 3.62E-02 2.68E-05 6.88E-04 2.65E-05 3.46E-02 FREL(10) 2.49E-01 7.21 E-03 2.10E-01 6.78E-03 2.72E-01 FREQL(11) 3.29E-03 1.80E-08 5.54E-05 1.02E-06 6.71 E-03 FREL(12) 3.29E-04 2.21 E-13 1.63E-07 2.32E-09 2.94E-04 PDELAY (hrs) .0.50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 PDE LAY(s) 1800 1188 1188 1188 1188 PLUDUR (hrs) 10.96 11.43 49.56 19.52 49.56 PLUDUR (s) 39456 41148 178416 70272 178416 End of Release (hrs) 11.46 11.76 49.89 19.85 49.89 Attachment E Page E-88 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 (continued)
| |
| Davis-Besse ST41 AXI1A 4 ST42 AXIIA 4 ST43 AXIIA 4 ST44 AXIIA 4 ST51_SIYYFYYN MAAP Case ID . .. .. . S. 36Y-002 Release Category 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 QALARM (uncovery) (hrs) Core Uncovery 8.34E-02 8.37E-02 8.34E-02 8.37E-02 6.68E-01 OALARM____(un__very (s __ (IEVNT(49))
| |
| QALARM (uncovery)"(s) Core Uncovery 300 301 300 301 2406 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 9.28E+05 2.31 E+05 7.41 E+05 2.21 E+05 3.25E+06 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 45.42 RELFRC FREL(1) 5.33E-01 5.62E-01 4.69E-01 5.52E-01 9.82E-01 FREL(2) 1.22E-03 1.96E-02 8.26E-04 5.32E-03 7.02E-03 FREL(3) 1.24E-05 1.16E-02 6.63E-06 4.47E-03 2.84E-03 FREL(4) 7.00E-11 9.71 E-05 1.35E-08 2.30E-03 6.90E-06 FREL(5) 2.78E-10 180-04 9.37E-08 9.10E-05 1.75E-04 FREL(6) 1.03E-04 9.31 E403 1.90E-04 3.95E-03 1.61 E-03 FREL(7) 3.67E-10 1.99E-04 1.34E-07 1.07E-03 6.63E-05 FREL(8) 2.18E-12 4.04E-06 1.40E-08 1.97E-03 2.19E-06 FREL(9) 4.54E-12 1.79E-05 3.43E-08 4.39E-03 2.42E-06 FREL(10) 5.17E-05 1.50E-02 1.39E-03 2.22E-02 1.40E-03 FREL(11) 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 2.92E-04 1.34E-03 3.16E-08 FREL(12) 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 3.42E-08 3.43E-05 0.OOE+00 PDELAY (hrs) 12.75 0.42 14.52 0.42 1.84 PDELAY(s) 45900 1512 52272 1512 6624 PLUDUR (hrs) 36.95 49.25 35.17 49.24 15.26 PLUDUR (s) 133020 177300 126612 177264 54936 End of Release (hrs) 49.7 49.67 49.69 49.66 17.1 Attachment E Page E-89 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 (continued)
| |
| Davis-Besse ST52_TINYNIN ST53_SIYYFYY ST54_TINYNIN ST61_TINYNINN ST62_TINYNINN MAAP Case ID N 53Y N 36Y-002 N 53Y _53Y 53Y Release Category 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 QALARM (uncovery) (hrs) . Core Uncovery 9.17E-01 6.68E-01 9.17E-01 9.18E-01 9.18E-01 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| Core OALARM (uncovery) (s) Uncovery 3300 2406 3300 3305 3305 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 1.07E+07 3.07E+06 9.10E+06 6.44E+07 9.70E+07 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 45.42 .45.42 45.42 2.13 2.13 RELFRC FREL(1) 9.72E-01 9.70E-01 9.95E-01 9.89E-01 9.87E-01 FREL(2) 2.39E-01 6.51 E-03 2.55E-01 1.20E-01 2.04E-01 FREL(3) 2.90E-01 2.81 E-03 3.07E-01 3.56E-02 5.84E-02 FREL(4) 1.78E'04 8.36E-06 2.78E-02 1.44E-05 6.02E-05 FREL(5) 6.36E-04 1.65E-04 5.16E-04 8.56E-05 1.25E-04 FREL(6) 1.28E-01 1.58E-03 1.30E-01 1.69E-02 2.84E-02 FREL(7) 1.12E-03 7.81 E-05 1.34E-02 9.34E-05 3.04E-04 FREL(8) 3.81 E-05 2.42E-06 2.41 E-02 2.18E-06 7.71 E-06 FREL(9) 8.53E-05 2.72E-06 6.87E-02 5.32E-06 1.79E-05 FREL(10) 3.23E-02 1.32E-03 2.57E-01 7.95E-03 1.97E-02 FREL(11) 0.OOE+00 5.73E-07 1.05E-02 9.14E-09 5.86E-06 FREL(12) 0.OOE+00 2.34E-09 4.36E-04 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 PDELAY (hrs) 2.00 1.84 2.00 2.33 2.33 PDELAY(s) 7200 6624 7200 8388 8388 PLUDUR (hrs) 48.01 12.50 48.02 2.17 48.13 PLUDUR (s) 172836 45000 172872 7812 173268 End of Release (hrs) 50.01 14.34 50.02 4.5 50.46 Attachment E Page E-90 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 (continued)
| |
| Davis-Besse ST63_TINYNIN ST64_TINYNIN ST71_AXIIA_4 ST72_AXIIA_ ST73_TINYNIN MAAP Case ID N_53Y N_53Y N_53Y Release Categ6ry 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 QALARM (uncovery) (hrs) Core Uncovery 9.18E-01 9.18E-01 8.37E-02 8.37E-02 3.51 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| Core Uncovery 3305 3305 301 301 12636 OALARM (uncovery) (s) (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 6.19E+07 9.17E+07 2.80E+07 2.78E+07 2.89E+07 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 2.13 2.13 45.42 45.42 45.42 RELFRC- FREL(1) 9.99E-01 9.94E-01 9.99E-01 1.OOE+00 1.00E+00 FREL(2) 3.61 E-04 4.59E-02 6.43E-06 5.48E-03 8.98E-05 FREL(3) 1.13E-05 2192E-03 6.30E-05 1.67E-04 1.92E-05 FREL(4) 1.06E-09 2.99E-04 1.73E-08 4.16E-08 6.03E-10 FREL(5) 3.94E-09 2.38E-05 1.44E-07 6.39E-07 1.27E-08 FREL(6) 9.30E-06 1.29E-03 1.27E-04 5.36E-04 1.87E-06 FREL(7) 5.42E-09 1.39E-04 4.42E-08 1.24E-07 4.59E-09 FREL(8) 4.06E-10 2.94E-04 5.30E-10 1.37E-09 9.34E- 11 FREL(9) 7.24E-10 9.23E-04 1.43E-09 2.33E-09 2.08E-10 FREL(10) 9.52E-06 2.14E-02 9.80E-05 1.81 E-04 2.11 E-05 FREL(i1) 2.61 E-06 1.48E-03 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+'00 FREL(12) 5.47 E-11 9.07E-06 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 O.OOE+00 PDELAY (hrs) 11.92 11.02 28.94 33.6 35.14 PDELAY(s) 42912 39672 104184 120960 126504 PLUDUR (hrs) 38.44 39.44 20.69 16.02 7.51 PLUDUR (s) 138384 141984 74484 57672 27036 End of Release (hrs) 50.36 50.46 49.63 49.62 42.65 Attachment E Page E-91 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 (continued)
| |
| Davis-Besse ST74_TINYNIN ST75_AXIIA_4 ST76_AXIiA 4 ST77_TINYNINN ST78_TINYNIN MAAP Case ID N 53Y . .. . 53Y N 53Y Release Category 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 QALARM (uncovery) (hrs) Core Uncovery 3.51 8.37E-02 8.34E702 3.51 3.51 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| QALARM (uncovery) (s) Core Uncovery 12636 301 300 12636 12636 (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 2.84E+07 2.24E+07 2.56E+07 1.96E+07 2.53E+07 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 RELFRC FREL(1) 1.00E+00 9.98E-01 9.62E-01 8.39E-01 9.41 E-01 FREL(2) 1.38E-04 9.65E-07 3.60E-03 4.87E-06 1.43E-02 FREL(3) 2.30E-05 6.62E-07 5.28E-03 5.70E-07 9.70E-03 FREL(4) 6.03E-10 2.08E-08 5.92E-06 6.96E-10 1.58E-05 FREL(5) 1.27E-08 1.90E-07 1.38E-06 1.27E-08 1.43E-06 FREL(6) 3.18E-06 2.02E-06 1.24E-03 4.49E-07 5.33E-04 FREL(7) 4.59E-09 5.35E-08 4.79E-06 4.68E-09 8.15E-06 FREL(8) 9.34E-11 6.38E-10 3.77E-06 1.96E-10 1.43E-05 FREL(9) 2.08E-10 1.55E-09 9.35E-06 4.80E-10 4.93E-05 FREL(10) 1.09E-05 1.45E-05 4.01 E-02 1.36E-05 1.78E-02 FREL(11) 0.OOE+00 1.02E-06 5.34E-03 1.99E-06 2.59E-03 FREL(12) 0.00E+00 4.79E-12 2.16E-07 6.80E-12 4.48E-07 PDELAY (hrs) 40.41 35.77 35.29 51.01 41.54 PODELAY(s) 145476 128772 127044 183636 149544.
| |
| PLUDUR (hrs) 9.60 13.93 14.52 2.26 11.75 PLUDUR (s) 34560 50148 52272 8136 42300 End of Release (hrs) 50.01 49.7 49.81 53.27 53.29 Attachment E Page E-92 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-13: MAAP Output for MACCS2 (continued)
| |
| Davis-Besse ST81_AXila_4 ST82_AXIla_4 ST91_AXIIA_4 ST92_AXIIA_4 MAAP Case ID______________
| |
| Release Category 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 OALARM (uncovery) Core Uncovery 8.34E-02 8.34E-02 8.34E-02 8.37E-02 (hrs) (IEVNT(49))
| |
| OALARM (uncovery) Core Uncovery 300 300 300 301 (s) (IEVNT(49))
| |
| PLHEAT (watts) 1.15E+07 9.07E+07 2.65E+02 3.29E+02 PLHITE (meters) TDPLHITE 0.00 0.00 45.42 45.42 RELFRC FREL(1) 8.73E-01 9.88E-01 1.47E-03 1.50E-03 FREL(2) 7.91 E-07 1.25E-02 6.34E-07 5.54E-05 FREL(3) 1.03E-06 3.98E-03 5.71 E-07 4.59E-05 FREL(4) 2.04E-08 6.40E-05 1.86E-08 4.98E-07 FREL(5) 1.89E-07 9.69E-06 1.82E-07 1.96E-06 FREL(6) 3.26E-06 3.49E-03 5.66E-07 3.99E-05 FREL(7) 5.42E-08 4.OOE-05 5.11 E-08 1.18E-06 FREL(8) 6.48E-10 4.68E-05 6.09E-10 2.20E-08 FREL(9) 1.54E-09 1.18E-04 1.49E-09 8.60E-08 FREL(10) 2.31 E-06 7.20E-02 4.55E-07 3.18E-05 FREL(11) 3.11 E-07 3.45E-03 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 FREL(12) 1.35E-12 2.36E-06 0.OOE+00 0.OOE+00 PDELAY (hrs) 33.32 16.04 0.33 0.42 PDELAY(s) 119952 57744 1188 1512 PLUDUR (hrs) 16.43 33.71 5.94 24.58 PLUDUR (s) 59148 121356 21384 88488 End of Release (hrs) 49.75 49.75 6.27 25 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-93 Page E-93 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-14: Groundshine and Cloudshine Shielding Factors (Base Case)
| |
| Evacuation Normal Sheltering Comments Cloudshine Evacuation - Outside Shielding 1.0 0.9 0.6 Normal - Wood house Factor (CSFACT) .Sheltering - Wood house basement Groundshine Evacuation - Car on fully contaminated road Shielding 0.5 0.4 0.1 Normal - One- or two-story wood house Factor Sheltering - House basement with one or (GSHFAC) two exposed walls Table E.3-15: Groundshine and Cloudshine Shielding Factors (Sensitivity Case)
| |
| Evacuation Normal Sheltering Comments Cloudshine Evacuation - Outside Shielding 1.0 0.6 0.4 Normal - Brick house Factor (CSFACT) Sheltering - Brick house basement Groundshine Evacuation - Car on fully contaminated road Shielding 0.5 0.2 0.1 Normal - One- or two-story brick house Factor Sheltering - House basement with one or two (GSHFAC) exposed walls Table E.3-16: Summary of Shielding Factors Category Evacuation Normal Sheltering Cloudshine Shielding Factor 1.0 0.9 0.6 Groundshine Shielding Factor 0.5 0.4 0.1 Protection Factor for Inhalation 1.0 0.41 0.33 Skin Protection Factor 1.0 0.41 0.33 Breathing Rate (meter 3 per second) 2.66E-04 2.66E-04 2.66E-04 Attachment E Page E-94 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-17: Davis-Besse Core Inventory (Full Core at EOC; 177FAs)
| |
| Activity Activity Isotope Activity Activity Isotope (Curies) (Bq) (Curies) (Bq)
| |
| Kr-85 9.68E+05 3.58E+16 Te-132 1.09E+08 4.05E+18 Kr-85m 1.87E+07 6.91E+17 1-131 7.71E+07 2.86E+18 Kr-87 3.54E+07 1.31E+18 1-132 1.11E+08 4.12E+18 Kr-88 4.98E+07 1.84E+18 1-133 1.55E+08 5.73E+18 Rb-86 2.10E+05 7.76E+15 1-134 1.69E+08 6.26E+18 Sr-89 6.76E+07 2.50E+18 1-135 1.45E+08 5.36E+18 Sr-90 7.66E+06 2.84E+17 Xe-133 1.51E+08 5.57E+18 Sr-91 8.49E+07 3.14E+18 Xe-135 3.93E+07 1.45E+18 Sr-92 9.31E+07 3.44E+18 Cs-134 2.05E+07 7.58E+17 Y-90 8.OOE+06 2.96E+17 Cs-136 5.41 E+06 2.OOE+ 17 Y-91 8.83E+07 3.27E+18 Cs-137 1.12E+07 4.13E+17 Y-92 9.35E+07 3.46E+18 Ba-139 1.37E+08 5.06E+18 Y-93 1.10E+08 4.06E+18 Ba-140 1.32E+08 4.90E+18 Zr-95 1.25E+08 4.63E+18 La-140 1.40E+08 5.17E+18 Zr-97 1.26E+08 4.68E+18 La-141 1.25E+08 4.61E+18 Nb-95 1.26E+08 4.67E+18 La-142 1.20E+08 4.44E+18 Mo-99 1.44E+08 5.35E+18 Ce-141 1.26E+08 4.65E+18 Tc-99m 1.26E+08 4.68E+18 Ce-143 1.14E+08 4.24E+18 Ru-103 1.23E+08 4.56E+18 Ce-144 9.73E+07 3.60E+18 Ru-105 8.76E+07 3.24E+18 Pr-143 1.11E+08 4.12E+18 Ru-106 4.81E+07 1.78E+18 Nd-147 5.05E+07 1.87E+18 Rh-105 8.05E+07 2.98E+18 Np-239 1.73E+09 6.39E+19 Sb-127 8.84E+06 3.27E+17 Pu-238 4.56E+05 1.69E+16 Sb-129 2.56E+07 9.48E+17 Pu-239 3.33E+04 1.23E+15 Te-127 8.75E+06 3.24E+17 Pu-240 5.38E+04 1.99E+1 5 Te-127m 1.16E+06 4.28E+16 Pu-241 1.21E+07 4.47E+17 Te-129 2.52E+07 9.33E+17 Am-241 1.64E+04 6.06E+14 Te-129m 3.75E+06 1.39E+17 Cm-242 4.03E+06 1.49E+ 17 Te-131m 1.13E+07 4.19E+17 Cm-244 6.62E+05 2.45E+16 Attachment E Page E-95 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-18: Economic Data Fraction of Fraction of Total Annual Farmland Nonfarm Region Name, Land Devoted Farm Sales Farm Sales Property Property Value State to Farming in Resulting for the Value for the for the Region Region from Dairy in Region Region (o/peRson Region____ Region ($/hectare) ($/hectare) ($/person)
| |
| Crawford, OH 0.854 0.044 1301 1295 266 Erie, OH 0.522 0.025 1186 1616 23037 Fulton, OH 0.709 0.086 1802 1451 6598 Hancock, OH 0.729 0.032 1007 1316 10215 Huron, OH 0.697 0.055 1507 1399 4935 Lorain, OH 0.395 0.106 2612 1821 21053 Lucas, OH 0.289 0.000 1881 1761 20782 Ottawa, OH 0.706 0.019 990 1170 33272 Sandusky, OH 0.694 0.024 1081 1250 10013 Seneca, OH 0.764 0.021 985 1264 1411 Wood, OH 0.698 0.044 1125 1359 15504 Lenawee, MI 0.727 0.244 1142 1294 19618 Monroe, MI 0.591 0.011 1547 1548 33156 Wayne, MI 0.045 0.000 4074 3133 25408 Table E.3-19: MACCS2 Economic Parameters Used in CHRONC Value Variable Description (in Davis-Besse model)
| |
| DPRATE Property depreciation rate (/year) 0.20 DSRATE Investment rate of return (/year) 0.12 POPCST Population relocation cost ($/person) $5000/person CDFRMO Cost of farm decontamination for various levels of $562.50/hectare, decontamination ($/hectare) $1250/hectare CDNFRM Cost of non-farm decontamination per person for various $3000/person, levels of decontamination ($/person) $8000/person DLBCST Average cost of decontamination labor (s/person-year) $35,000/person-year Attachment E Page E-96 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-20: Frequency Vector Release Category Frequency (/year) Percent 1.1 2.2E-08 0.22%
| |
| 1.2 1.3E-08 0.13%
| |
| 1.3 5.9E-07. 5.83%
| |
| 1.4 1.2E-09 0.01%
| |
| 2.1 5.4E-08 0.06%
| |
| 2.2 6.0E-09 0.53%
| |
| 3.1 2.5E-09 0.02%
| |
| 3.2 2.8E-11 0.00%
| |
| 3.3 2.5E-11 0.00%
| |
| 3.4 1.7E-09 0.02%
| |
| 4.1 1.OE-09 0.01%
| |
| 4.2 3.4E-08 0.34%
| |
| 4.3 1.1 E-11 0.00%
| |
| 4.4 7.7E-09 0.08%
| |
| 5.1 2.9E-08 0.29%
| |
| 5.2 3.8E-09 0.04%
| |
| 5.3 2.8E-09 0.03%
| |
| 5.4 8.9E-10 0.01%
| |
| 6.1 4.4E-10 0.00%
| |
| 6.2 3.3E-11 0.00%
| |
| 6.3 4.5E-09 0.04%
| |
| 6.4 3.1 E-08 0.31%
| |
| 7.1 1.4E-11 0.00%
| |
| 7.2 5.7E-10 0.01%
| |
| 7.3 2.2E-12 0.00%
| |
| 7.4 2.4E-09 0.02%
| |
| 7.5 2.7E-11 0.00%
| |
| 7.6 1.9E-08 0.19%
| |
| 7.7 3.6E-11 0.00%
| |
| 7.8 9.8E-08 0.97%
| |
| 8.1 6.3E-08 0.62%
| |
| 8.2 1.3E-07 1.28%
| |
| 9.1 7.6E-06 75.11%
| |
| 9.2 1.4E-06 13.84%
| |
| Sum (CDF) 1.OE-05 3 100.00%
| |
| 3 The sum of the Containment Systems State frequencies calculated by the Level 2 PRA model is slightly different than the CDF calculated by the Level 1 PRA due to the delete term approximation and the additional systems included in the Level 2 PRA models.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-97 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-21: Base Case Results for Internal Events at 50 Miles Release Whole Body Dose Economic Impact Category (50, rem)/yr (50, $)/yr 1.1 4.4E-02 4.2E+01 1.2 2.7E-02 2.6E+01 1.3 1.2E+00 1.2E+03 1.4 3.2E-03 2.5E+00 2.1 2.8E-02 2.1 E+01 2.2 5.OE-01 2.3E+02 3.1 1.9E-03 1.1 E+00 3.2 1.1 E-04. 9.8E-02 3.3 1.9E-05 1.1 E-02 3.4 1.1 E-02 6.8E+00 4.1 3.5E-05 8.7E-03 4.2 3.1 E-02 1.8E+01 4.3 6.6E-07 1.2E-04 4.4 1.OE-02 7.3E+00 5.1 9.OE-03 2.9E+00 5.2 1.1 E-02 9.9E+00 5.3 8.7E-04 2.7E-01 5.4 6.6E-03 3.4E+00 6.1 4.8E-04 4.OE-01 6.2 5.3E-05 4.6E-02 6.3 3.9E-05 5.9E-03 6.4 1.7E-02 7.4E+00 7.1 5.3E-07 3.1 E-05 7.2 6.8E-05 2.6E-02 7.3 5.1 E-09 3.5E-07 7.4 7.7E-06 7.2E-04 7.5 3.5E-08 O.OE+00 7.6 6.1 E-03 1.7E+00 7.7 2.7E-08 2.3E-07 7.8 1.8E-02 7.4E+00 8.1 1.1 E-04 7.6E-04 8.2 9.1 E-02 2.9E+01 9.1 2.OE-03 1.1 E-04 9.2 2.OE-02 1.3E+00 Total 2.OE+O0 1.6E+03 Attachment E Page E-98 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-22: Base Case Consequence Input to SAMA Analysis Release Whole Body Economic Impact ReleategorDose Category (50, rem) (50, $)
| |
| 1.1 2.OE+06 1.9E+09 1.2 2.1 E+06 2.0E+09 1.3 2.OE+06 2.OE+09 1.4 2.7E+06 2.1 E+09 2.1 4.7E+06 3.5E+09 2.2 9.3E+06 4.3E+09 3.1 7.7E+05 4.3E+08 3.2 4.1E+06 3.5E+09 3.3 7.6E+05 4.2E+08 3.4 6.3E+06 4.OE+09 4.1 3.5E+04 8.7E+06 4.2 9.1 E+05 5.3E+08 4.3 6.OE+04 1.1 E+07 4.4 1.3E+06 9.5E+08 5.1 3.1 E+05 9.9E+07 5.2 3.OE+06 2.6E+09
| |
| .5.3 3.1 E+05 9.5E+07 5.4 7.4E+06 3.8E+09 6.1 1.1 E+06 9.2E+08 6.2 1.6E+06 1.4E+09 6.3 8.6E+03 1.3E+06 6.4 5.5E+05 2.4E+08 7.1 3.8E+04 2.2E+06 7.2 1.2E+05 4.6E+07 7.3 2.3E+03 1.6E+05 7.4 3.2E+03 3.OE+05 7.5 1.3E+03 O.OE+00 7.6 3.2E+05 8.7E+07 7.7 7.4E+02 6.5E+03 7.8 1.8E+05 7.6E+07 8.1 1.8E+03 1.2E+04 8.2 7.OE+05 2.2E+08 9.1 2.6E+02 1.5E+01 9.2 1.4E+04 9.3E+05 Total 5.26E+07 3.52E+10 Page E-99 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-99 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-23: Comparison of Base Case and Case S1 Internal Events Base S1 % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 2.23E+00 9.3%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.73E+03 j 8.8%
| |
| Table E.3-24: Comparison of Base Case and Case S2 Internal Events Base S2 % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 1.81E+00 -11.3%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 I 1.43E+03 1 -10.1%
| |
| Table E.3-25: Comparison of Base Case and Case S3 Internal Events Base S3 % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 2.09E+00 2.5%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.59E+03 0.0%
| |
| Table E.3-26: Comparison of Base Case and Case M1 Internal Events Base M1 I % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 2.07E+00 1.5%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.57E+03 -1.3%
| |
| Table E.3-27: Comparison of Base Case and Case M2 Internal Events Base M2 I% diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 1.87E+00 -8.3%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.52E+03 -4.4%
| |
| Table E.3-28: Comparison of Base Case and Case Al Internal Events Base All % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 1.52E+00 -25.5%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.25E+03 -21.4%
| |
| E Page E-100 August 2010 Attachment E Attachment Page E-100 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.3-29: Comparison of Base Case and Case A2 Internal Events Base A2 % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 2.04E+00 0.0%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.59E+03 0.0%
| |
| Table E.3-30: Comparison of Base Case and Case A3 Internal Events Base A3 % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 2.04E+00 0.0%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.59E+03 0.0%
| |
| Table E.3-31: Comparison of Base Case and Case El Internal Events Base El % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 2.02E+00 -1.0%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.59E+03 0.0%
| |
| Table E.3-32: Comparison of Base Case and Case E2 Internal Events Base E2 % diff.
| |
| Whole Body Dose (50) (person-rem/yr) 2.04E+00 1.66E+00 -18.6%
| |
| Economic Impact (50) ($/yr) 1.59E+03 1.23E+03 -22.6%
| |
| Table E.4 Total Cost of Severe Accident Impact APE $49,080 AOC $19,632 AOE $4,340 AOSC $266,279 Severe Accident Impact $339,331 (Internal Events)
| |
| Fire, Seismic, Other $1,017,993 Maximum Benefit
| |
| $1,357,324 (Internal Events, Fire, Seismic, Other)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 01 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 1 6.55E-07 6.71% 1.04E-03 TMPP43XF-CCALL All CCW pumps fail to run due to CCF (initiating event) 6.30E-04 ZHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 2 5.00E-07 5.12% 5.00E-07 AV Reactor vessel rupture 3 1.95E-07 2.00% 3.10E-04 F3AM Maximum flood in CCW pump room from service water (initiating event) 6.30E-04 ZHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 4 1.44E-07 1.47% 7.00E-03 R SGTR (initiating event) 5.OOE-01 AASGTR11 SGTR occurs on OTSG 1-1 (split fraction) 1.00 CHASGDPE Operators fail to cooldown during a SGTR 1.00 LHAMSIVE Failure ub to close MSIV and isolate steam generator containing ruptured tube 1.00 XHAMUCDE Operators fail to attempt cooldown via makeup/HPI cooling 4.10E-05 COMBINATION661 HRA events 5 1.44E-07 1.47% 7.OOE-03 R SGTR (initiating event) 5.O0E-01 AASGTR12 SGTR occurs on OTSG 1-2 (split fraction) 1.00 CHASGDPE Operators fail to cooldown during a SGTR 1.00 LHAMSIVE Failure to close MSIV and isolate steam generator containing ruptured tube 1.00 XHAMUCDE Operators fail to attempt cooldown via makeup/HPI cooling 4.10E-05 COMBINATION661 HRA events August 2010 Attachment F Attachment E Page E-102 Page E-102 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Evn Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Event Description 6 1.29E-07 1.32% 1.01 E-03 TMPP43XF-CC_1 2 CCW pumps 1 &2 failure to run due to CCF (initiating event) 4.OOE-01 4CCW XHOS-RUN2STBY COW pump 1 running, pump 2 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 7 1.29E-07 1.32% 1.01 E-03 TMPP43XF-CC_1_2 CCW pumps 1 & 2 fail to run due to CCF (initiating event) 4.OOE-01 XHOS-CCW2RUN1STBY COW pump 2 running, pump 1 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 8 9.09E-08 0.93% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.40E-02 EMBEDG1 2 EDG Train 2 in maintenance 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOPO07BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 9 8.87E-08 0.91% 1.36E-01 T2 Plant trip due to loss of MFW (initiating event) 2.42E-04 QTPOOOXA-CCO1 2 CCF of two components: QTPOO01A & QTPOO02A 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater Attachment E Page E-103 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 10 7.60E-08 0.78% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.17E-02 EDG0012A EDG 1-2 fails to start 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator i.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 11 7.59E-08 0.78% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 7.35E-02 EDG0012F EDG 1-2 fails to run 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 8.90E-02 ZOP006ER Failure to restore off-site power within 30 minutes after loss of AFW 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 12 6.80E-08 0.70% 4.OOE-05 M Medium Break LOCA 1.70E-03 ZHALPRME Operators fail to initiate LPR for a medium LOCA 13 6.73E-08 0.69% 1.36E-01 T2 Plant trip due to loss of MFW (initiating event) 1.83E-04 PLT09XXD-CCALL CCF of all components in group 'PLT09XXD-CC' 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater Attachment E Page E-104 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset W Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 14 5.60E-08 0.57% 1.00 TI 3A-2-3-IEF Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event Pump 2 running 1.34E-01 TTC1434T Temperature control valve SWI 434 fails to throttle (initiating event) 3.27E-03 WCDC1 13C Breaker AC1 13 fails to close 4.OOE-01XHOS-4.E-01 CCW2RUN1STBY CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 15 5.60E-08 0.57% 1.00 T1 3A-1 IEF Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event Pump 2 running 1.34E-01 TTC1424T TCV SW1424 fails to throttle (one-year mission time) (initiating event) 3.27E-03 WCDD1 13C Breaker AD1 13 fails to close 4.00E-01 XHOS-4CCW RUN2STBY COW Pump1 running, Pump 2 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 16 5.54E-08 0.57% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 8.33E-02 FMFWTRIP MFW/Integrated Control System (ICS) faults following trip 2.42E-04 QTPOOOXA-CC_1_2 CCF of two components: QTPOO01A & QTPOO02A 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-105 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 17 4.93E-08 0.50% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 2.42E-04 QTP000XA-CC_1_2 CCF of two components: QTP0001A & QTP0002A 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 4.40E-03 COMBINATION372 HRA events 18 4.38E-08 0.45% 5.00E-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 8.77E-05 LSC007XN-CC_1_2 CCF of two components: LSCO076N & LSCO077N 19 4.21 E-08 0.43% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 8.33E-02 FMFWTRIP MFW/ICS faults following trip 1.83E-04 PLT09XXD-CCALL CCF of all components in group 'PLT09XXD-CC' 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 20 4.18E-08 0.43% 4.40E-04 F3AL Large flood in CCW pump room from service water (initiating event) 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHAF31SE Failure to isolate flood in room 328 before CCW pumps are affected 9.50E-05 COMBINATION1226 HRA events Attachment E Page E-106 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability EventDescription 21 4.11 E-08 0.42% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 2.49E-03 ECIZ10ON Breaker HXi 1B fails to open 7.35E-02 EDG0012F EDG 1-2 fails to run 1.00 EHAD1ACE Failure to lineup alternate source to D1 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 FHASUF3E Operators fail to actuate the startup feedpump 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 2.20E-04 COMBINATION465 HRA events 22 4.11 E-08 0.42% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 2.49E-03 ECI Z1 53C Breaker HX02B fails to close 7.35E-02 EDG0012F EDG 1-2 fails to run 1.00 EHAD1ACE Failure to lineup alternate source to D1 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 FHASUF3E Operators fail to actuate the startup feedpump 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 2.20E-04 COMBINATION465 HRA events Page E-107 August 2010 F
| |
| Attachment E Page E-107 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 23 3.81 E-08 0.39% 1.00 T1 3A-2-3-IEF Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event Pump 2 running 9.11 E-02 TMPP432F CCW Pump 1-2 fails to run (initiating event) 3.27E-03 WCDC113C Breaker ACl 13 fails to close 4.WRE-01 XHOS- STBY CCW2RUN1 CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 24 3.81 E-08 0.39% 1.00 T1 3A-1 IEF Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event Pump 1 running 9.11 E-02 TMPP431 F CCW Pump 1-1 fails to run (initiating event) 3.27E-03 WCDD1 13C Breaker AD1 13 fails to close 4.00E-01XHOS-4.E-01RUN2STBY CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 2 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 25 3.63E-08 0.37% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 9.68E-05 VMFC31XA- CCF of all components in group 'VMFC31XA-CC' 00_ALL 7.50E-01 XHOS-SWTEMP- Service Water temperature less than 72 LOW 26 3.03E-08 0.31% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 2.42E-04 QTPOOOXA-CCO1_2 CCF of two components: QTPOO01A & QTPOOO2A 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-108 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 27 2.98E-08 0.31% 2.21 E-05 TF2 Tornado F-Scale 2 (initiating event) 7.35E-02 EDGO01IF EDG 1-1 fails to run 7.35E-02 EDG001 2F EDG 1-2 fails to run 1.00 NORCVRT3 No recovery of off-site power following a tornado 5.00E-01 NTKTOR2J Condensate storage tank (CST) fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 2 tornado 5.OOE-01 SBOTOR2A SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 2 tornado 28 2.88E-08 0.29% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.44E-02 FMM00003 Any MSSV on SG1 fails to reseat 7.26E-04 QMV0599K Motor-operated valve AF 599 fails to remain open 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 29 2.88E-08 0.29% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.44E-02 FMM00004 Any MSSV on SG2 fails to reseat 7.26E-04 QMV0608K Motor-operated valve AF 608 fails to remain open 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-109 Page E-1 09 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 30 2.82E-08 0.29% 6.69E-06 TF3 Tornado F-Scale 3 (initiating event) 7.35E-02 EDG0011F EDG 1-1 fails to run 7.35E-02 EDG0012F EDG 1-2 fails to run 1.00 NORCVRT3 No recovery of off-site power following a tornado 8.84E-01 NTKTOR3J CST fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 3 tornado 8.84E-01 SBOTOR3A SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 3 tond tornado 31 2.66E-08 0.27% 1.40E-04 F2CL Large flood in room 53 from service water return .(initiating event) 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 SHAF21SE Failure to isolate flood before service water pumps are affected 1.90E-04 COMBINATION1157 HRA events 32 2.63E-08 0.27% 1.36E-01 T2 Plant trip due to loss of MFW (initiating event) 1.29E-02 QMBAFP12 AFW Train 2 in maintenance 5.55E-03 QTPOO01A AFP/T-1 fails to start 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 33 2.51 E-08 0.26% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 5.03E-05 LMPP42XF-CC_1 2 CCF of two components: LMPP421 F & LMPP422F 34 2.47E-08 0.25% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 3.72E-02 QBLAUXBF Auxiliary boiler fails to supply steam 2.42E-04 QTPOOOXA-CC_1 2 CCF of two components: QTPOO01A & QTPOO02A 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater Attachment E Page E-1 10 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 35 2.41 E-08 0.25% 1.36E-01 T2 Plant trip due to loss of MFW (initiating event) 1.18E-02 QMBAFP11 AFW Train 1 in maintenance 5.55E-03 QTP0002A AFP/T-2 fails to start 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 36 2.28E-08 0.23% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 3.51 E-03 EMFZ163A Vent Fan 3 fails to start 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 37 2.28E-08 0.23% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 3.51 E-03 EMFZ165A Vent Fan 4 fails to start 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOPO07BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 11 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 38 2.27E-08 0.23% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 3.50E-03 EMD5336C Motor-operated damper HV5336B fails to close 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 39 2.27E-08 0.23% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 3.50E-03 EMDZ1 19N Motor damper HV5336A fails to open 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events Page E-112 August 2010 Attachment E Attachment E Page E-1 12 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability EventDescription 40 2.27E-08 0.23% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 3.50E-03 EMDZ1 21 N Motor damper HV5336C fails to open 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 41 2.05E-08 0.21% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 4.10E-05 ZHASDCSE Operators fail to establish shutdown cooling or LPR after small LOCA 42 1.97E-08 0.20% 1.00 T1 3A-1 IEF Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event Pump 1 running 1.15E-03 SAV1434N Air-operated valve SW 1434 fails to open 1.34E-01 TTC1424T TCV SW1 424 fails to throttle (one-year mission time) (initiating event)
| |
| XHOS-4.00E-01 CCW1 RUN2STBY CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 2 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events Page E-113 August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 13 August* 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 43 1.97E-08 0.20% 1.00 T13A-2-3-IEF Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event Pump 2 running 1.1 5E-03 SAV1424N Air-operated valve SW-1 424 fails to open 1.34E-01 TTC1434T Temperature control valve SW1 434 fails to throttle (initiating event) 4.OOE-01 XHOS-CCW2RUN1STBY CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 44 1.95E-08 0.20% 1.02E+00 TI Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 2.93E-02 QMBAUXB1 Auxiliary Boiler unavailable due to maintenance 2.42E-04 QTPOOOXA-CCO 1 2 CCF of two components: QTPOO01A & QTPOO02A 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 45 1.89E-08 0.19% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.40E-02 EMBEDG12 EDG Train 2 in maintenance 1.18E-02 QMBAFP11 AFW Train 1 in maintenance 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 4.40E-03 COMBINATION297 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 14 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 46 1.88E-08 0.19% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.83E-04 PLT09XXD-CCALL CCF of all components in group 'PLT09XXD-CC' 3.72E-02 QBLAUXBF Auxiliary Boiler fails to supply steam 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 47 1.86E-08 0.19% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 2.42E-04 QTP000XA-CC_1 2 CCF of two components: QTP0001A & QTPO002A 1.00 MHARMVTE Operators fail to compensate for loss of room cooling for makeup pumps 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 4.60E-01 ZOP006CR Failure to restore off-site power 3.60E-03 COMBINATION674 HRA events 48 1.81 E-08 0.18% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating, event) 1.28E-05 QSV64XXD-CCALL CCF of all components in group 'QSV64XXD-CC' 6.60E-02 ZHARMVTE Operators fail to compensate for loss of room cooling for makeup pumps 4.60E-01 ZOP006CR Failure to restore off-site power 49 1.68E-08 0.17% 1.36E-01 T2 Plant trip due to loss of MFW (initiating event) 4.58E-05 PAVZ01XN-CC_1 2 CCF of two components: PAVZO0 1N & PAVZO1 2N 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 15 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 50 1.67E-08 0.17% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.40E-02 EMBEDG12 EDG Train 2 in maintenance 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 QHAMDF3E Failure to start MDFP prior to depletion of BWST during makeup 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 4.60E-05 COMBINATION817 HRA events 51 1.64E-08 0.17% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 8.33E-02 FMFWTRIP MFW/ICS faults following trip 1.29E-02 QMBAFP12 AFW Train 2 in maintenance 5.55E-03 QTPOO01A AFP/T-1 fails to start 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 52 1.62E-08 0.17% 1.01 E-03 TMPP43XF-CC_1 3 CCW Pumps 1 & 3 fail to run due to CCF (initiating event) 5.OOE-02XHOS-5.E02 RUN3STBY CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 3 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events August 2010 F
| |
| Attachment E Page E-116 Page E-1 16 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 53 1.62E-08 0.17% 1.01 E-03 TMPP43XF-CC_1 3 CCWPumps 1 &3 fail to run due to CCF (initiating event) 5.OOE-02 XHOS-CCW3RUN1STBY CCW Pump 3 running, Pump 1 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 54 1.62E-08 0.17% 1.01 E-03 TMPP43XF-CC_2_3 CCW Pumps 2 & 3 fail to run due to CCF (initiating event) 5.O-2XHOS- "
| |
| 5.E-02 CCW2RUN3STBY CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 3 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 55 1.62E-08 0.17% 1.01 E-03 TMPP43XF-CCO2_3 CCW Pumps 2 & 3 fail to run due to CCF (initiating event)
| |
| XHOS-5.00E-02 CCW3RUN2STBY CCW Pump 3 running, Pump 2 in standby 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events August 2010 Attachment F Attachment E Page E-117 Page E-1 17 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 56 1.58E-08 0.16% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.17E-02 EDG0012A EDG 1-2 fails to start 1.18E-02 QMBAFP11 AFW Train 1 in maintenance 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 4.40E-03 COMBINATION297 HRA events 57 1.51 E-08 0.15% 1.00 VD-IEF ISLOCA due to internal rupture of DHR suction valves 3.51 E-04 LMVF01 1 R Internal rupture of DH 11 (Annual frequency) 4.29E-04 LMVU012R Internal rupture of DH 12 since cold shutdown 1.OOE-01 LPPNISOZ ISLOCA occurs in non-isolable portion of DHR system 58 1.51 E-08 0.15% 1.00 VD-IEF ISLOCA due to internal rupture of DHR suction valves 3.51 E-04 LMVF012R Internal rupture of DH 12 (Annual frequency) 4.29E-04 LMVU01 1 R Internal rupture of DH 11 since cold shutdown 1.OOE-01 LPPNISOZ ISLOCA occurs in non-isolable portion of DHR system 59 1.50E-08 0.15% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 8.33E-02 FMFWTRIP MFW/ICS faults following trip 1.18E-02 QMBAFP11 AFW Train 1 in maintenance -
| |
| 5.55E-03 QTPOO02A AFPIT-2 fails to start 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 18 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 60 1.48E-08 0.15% 1.02E+00 TI Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.83E-04 PLT09XXD-CCALL CCF of all components in group 'PLT09XXD-CC' 2.93E-02 QMBAUXB1 Auxiliary boiler unavailable due to maintenance 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 61 1.46E-08 0.15% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.29E-02 QMBAFP12 AFW Train 2 in maintenance 5.55E-03 QTPOO01A AFP/T-1 fails to start 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 4.40E-03 COMBINATION372 HRA events 62 1.40E-08 0.14% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 1.40E-04 LMPP42XA-CC_1 2 CCF of two components: LMPP421A & LMPP422A 2.OOE-01 ZRCLPIPR Fail to recover LPI pump from start fault (at least 2 hrs available for recovery) 63 1.40E-08 0.14% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.17E-02 EDG0012A EDG 1-2 fails to start 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 QHAMDF3E Failure to start MDFP prior to depletion of BWST during makeup 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 4.60E-05 COMBINATION817 HRA events I Attachment E Page E-1 19 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 64 1.40E-08 0.14% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 7.35E-02 EDG0012F EDG 1-2 fails to run 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 QHAMDF3E Failure to start MDFP prior to depletion of BWST during makeup 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 8.90E-02 ZOP006ER Failure to restore off-site power within 30 minutes after loss of AFW 4.60E-05 COMBINATION817 HRA events 65 1.34E-08 0.14% 1.00 T1 3A-1 IEF Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event Pump 1 running 4.OOE-01 CCWlXHOS-RUN2STBY CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 2 in standby 9.11 E-02 TMPP431 F CCW Pump 1-1 fails to run (initiating event) 1.1 5E-03 SAV1434N Air-operated valve SW 1434 fails to open 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 66 1.34E-08 0.14% 1.00 T13A-2-3-IEF Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event Pump 2 running 4.OOE-01XHOS-*
| |
| 4.E-01 CCW2RUNSTBY CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby 9.11 E-02 TMPP432F CCW Pump 1-2 fails to run (initiating event) 1.1 5E-03 SAV1424N Air-operated valve SW-1 424 fails to open 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 20 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 67 1.34E-08 0.14% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.18E-02 QMBAFP11 AFW Train 1 in maintenance 5.55E-03 QTPOO02A AFP/T-2 fails to start 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 4.40E-03 COMBINATION372 HRA events 68 1.24E-08 0,13% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.91 E-03 EC2ZOOON Breaker AD1 10 fails to open 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.00 QHAOVF2E Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine 1-2 speed 5.60E-01 ZOP007BR Failure to restore off-site power within one hour to prevent loss of DC 2.50E-04 COMBINATION243 HRA events 69 1.23E-08 0.13% 2.21 E-05 TF2 Tornado F-Scale 2 (initiating event) 2.23E-03 EDGOOIXF-CC_1_2 CCF of two components: EDG001 1F & EDG001 2F 1.00 NORCVRT3 No recovery of off-site power following a tornado 5.OOE-01 NTKTOR2J CST fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 2 tornado 5.OOE-01 SBOTOR2A SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 2 Tornado Attachment E Page E-1 21 Aug ust 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 70 1.23E-08 0.13% 1.00 T13A-1-3-IEF Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event Pump 1 running 4.OOE-01 4CCW XHOS-RUN2STBY CCW Pump 1 Running, Pump 2 in standby 2.93E-02 THXE221 P CCW heat exchanger plugs during operation (initiating event) 3.27E-03 WCDD1 13C Breaker AD113 fails to close 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 71 1.23E-08 0.13% 1.00 T13A-2-3-IEF Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event Pump 2 running 4.OOE-01 XHOS-CCW2RUN1STBY COW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby 2.93E-02 THXE222P CCW heat exchanger 1-2 plugs during operation (initiating event) 3.27E-03 WCDC1 13C Breaker AC1 13 fails to close 1.00 QHARCPCE Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling 1.00 WHASPREE Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train 3.20E-04 COMBINATION1240 HRA events 72 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2A-1 SP6B fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B6D Level Transmitter LTSP9B6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B8D Level Transmitter LTSP9B8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 22 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 73 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2A-1 SP6B fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B6D Level Transmitter LTSP9B6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B9D Level Transmitter LTSP9B9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 74 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2A-1 SP6B fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B7D Level Transmitter LTSP9B7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B8D Level Transmitter LTSP9B8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 75 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2A-1 SP6B fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B7D Level Transmitter LTSP9B7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B9D Level Transmitter LTSP9B9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 76 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2B-1 SP6A fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A6D Level Transmitter LTSP9A6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A8D Level Transmitter LTSP9A8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 23 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 77 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2B-1 SP6A fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A6D Level Transmitter LTSP9A6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A9D Level Transmitter LTSP9A9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 78 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2B-1 SP6A fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A7D Level Transmitter LTSP9A7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A8D Level Transmitter LTSP9A8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 79 1.22E-08 0.13% 1.29E-02 T2B-1 SP6A fails to throttle (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A7D Level Transmitter LTSP9A7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A9D Level Transmitter LTSP9A9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 80 1.22E-08 0.12% 1.00 T9-IEF Loss of DC power supply NNIX (initiating event) 1.OOE-06 KI Reactor fails to trip following automatic demand 1.22E-02 TPXNNIXF NNIX power supply no output August 2010 F
| |
| Attachment E Page E-124 Page E-1 24 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset ,Frequency CDF Probability EventDescription 81 1.21 E-08 0.12% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 9.68E-05 VMFC31XA- CCF of all components in group 'VMFC31 XA-CC' CCALL 2.50E-01 XHOS-SWTEMP- Service Water temperature greater than 72 2.50-01HIGH 82 1.20E-08 0.12% 5.00E-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 9.62E-05 VMFC31XA-CC_1 3 CCF of two components: VMFC31 1A & VMFC314A 2.50E-01 XHOS-SWTEMP- Service Water temperature greater than 72.
| |
| HIGH 83 1.20E-08 0.12% 5.00E-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 9.62E-05 VMFC31XA-CC_1 4 CCF of two components: VMFC31 1A & VMFC315A 2.50E-01 XHOS-SWTEMP- Service Water temperature greater than 72 HIGH 84 1.20E-08 0.12% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 9.62E-05 VMFC31 XA-CC 2 3 CCF of two components: VMFC312A & VMFC314A XH OS-SWITEM P-2.50E-01 HIGH Service Water temperature greater than 72 85 1.20E-08 0.12% 5.OOE-04 S Small LOCA (initiating event) 9.62E-05 VMFC31XA-CC_2 4 CCF of two components: VMFC312A & VMFC315A XHOS-SWTEMP-2.50E-01 HIGH Service Water temperature greater than 72 Attachment E Page E-1 25 Aug ust 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 86 1.20E-08 0.12% 4.64E-02 T3 LOOP (initiating event) 1.00 EHAD2DGE Operators fail to align power from EDG 1 or 2 to supply MDFP given LOOP 1.00 EHASBD1 E Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to Bus D1 1.00 EHASBDGE Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator 1.40E-02 EMBEDG12 EDG Train 2 in maintenance 1.18E-02 QMBAFP11 AFW Train 1 in maintenance 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 7.10E-01 ZOP006FR Failure to restore off-site power 2.20E-03 COMBINATION374 HRA events 87 1.17E-08 0.12% 6.69E-06 TF3 Tornado F-Scale 3 (initiating event) 2.23E-03 EDG001XF-CC_1_2 CCF of two components: EDG0011F & EDG0012F 1.00 NORCVRT3 No recovery of off-site power following a tornado 8.84E-01 NTKTOR3J CST fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 3 tornado 8.84E-01 SBOTOR3A SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 3 tornado 88 1.1 6E-08 0.12% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 5.81 E-03 FVV01 1AT AVV ICS1 1A fails to reseat after steam 7.26E-04 QMV0608K Motor-operated valve AF 608 fails to remain open 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 26 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 89 1.16E-08 0.12% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 5.81 E-03 FVV01 1 BT AVV ICS1 1 B fails to reseat after steam 7.26E-04 QMV0599K Motor-operated valve AF 599 fails to remain open 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 90 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.36E-01 T2 Plant trip due to loss of, MFW (initiating event) 5.55E-03 QTPOO01A AFP/T-1 fails to start 5.55E-03 QTP0002A AFP/T-2 fails to start 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 91 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2A-2 FICICS35B fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B6D Level Transmitter LTSP9B6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B8D Level Transmitter LTSP9B8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 92 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2A-2 FICICS35B fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B6D Level Transmitter LTSP9B6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B9D Level Transmitter LTSP9B9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 27 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Description Cutset Frequency CDF Probability 93 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2A-2 FICICS35B fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B7D Level Transmitter LTSP9B7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B8D Level Transmitter LTSP9B8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 94 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2A-2 FICICS35B fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09B7D Level Transmitter LTSP9B7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09B9D Level Transmitter LTSP9B9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 95 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2B-2 FICICS35A fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A6D Level Transmitter LTSP9A6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A8D Level Transmitter LTSP9A8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 96 1.1 3E-08 0.12% 1.1 9E-02 T2B-2 FICICS35A fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A6D Level Transmitter LTSP9A6 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A9D Level Transmitter LTSP9A9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events Attachment E Page E-1 28 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-1: Davis-Besse Top 100 Cutsets (continued)
| |
| Cutset % Event Event Cutset Frequency CDF Probability Description 97 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2B-2 FICICS35A fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A7D Level Transmitter LTSP9A7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A8D Level Transmitter LTSP9A8 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 98 1.13E-08 0.12% 1.19E-02 T2B-2 FICICS35A fails high (initiating event) 1.88E-02 PLT09A7D Level Transmitter LTSP9A7 fails to respond 1.88E-02 PLT09A9D Level Transmitter LTSP9A9 fails to respond 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 99 1.12E-08 0.11% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.44E-02 FMM00003 Any MSSV on SG1 fails to reseat 2.83E-04 QCV0049R Check valve AF 49 fails to remain closed 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss ofall feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203 HRA events 100 1.12E-08 0.11% 1.02E+00 T1 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event) 1.44E-02 FMM00004 Any MSSV on SG2 fails to reseat 2.83E-04 QCV0052R Check valve AF52 fails to remain closed 1.00 QHAMDFPE Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater 1.00 UHAMUHPE Failure to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater 2.70E-03 COMBINATION1203. HRA events Attachment E Page E-129 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level 1 PRA Importance Event Name F-V RRW Description UHAMUHPE 2.59E-01 1.349 Failure o l edae to initiate makeup/HPI cooling after loss of all feedwater QHAMDFPE 2.45E-01 1.324 Failure to start MDFP after loss of feedwater
| |
| .QHARCPCE 2.32E-01 1.302 Operators fail to trip RCPs after a total loss of seal cooling T3 1.96E-01 1.243 LOOP (initiating event)
| |
| EHASBDGE 1.64E-01 1.196 Operators fail to align power from SBO diesel generator to supply MDFP EHASBD1E 1.58E-01 1.187 Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to bus D1 EHAD2DGE 1.53E-01 1.181 Operators fail to align power from EDG 1-1 or EDG 1-2 to supply MDFP given LOOP Ti 1.35E-01 1.156 Reactor/turbine trip (initiating event)
| |
| QHAOVF2E 1.22E-01 1.139 Operators fail to take local manual control of TDAFW pump 1-2 speed.
| |
| ZHARCPCE 1.10E-01 1.124 Operators fail to trip RCPs following loss of seal cooling WHASPREE 1.07 E-01 1.12 Failure to recover CCW using spare CCW train (pitdmge (pirt amage)
| |
| QMBAFP11 7.61 E-02 1.082 AFW Train 1 in maintenance XHOS-CWR 2T 7.54E-02 1.082 CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 2 in standby CCW1 RUN2STBY EDG0012F 7.12E-02 1.077 EDG 1-2 fails to run ZOP007BR 7.09E-02 1.076 Failure to restore off-site power TMPP43XF-CCALL 6.79E-02 1.073 All CCW pumps fail to run due to CCF (ntaigeet (initiating event)
| |
| XHOS-CCW2RUN1STBY 6.57E-02 1.07 CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby R 6.37E-02 1.068 SGTR (initiating event)
| |
| EHADIACE 5.90E-02 1.063 Failure to lineup alternate source to D1 T2 5.86E-02 1.062 Plant trip due to loss of MFW (initiating event)
| |
| NORCVRT3 5.57E-02 . 1.059 Offsite power recovery not possible after a tornado.
| |
| AV 5.12E-02 1.054 Reactor vessel rupture QTPOOOXA-CC-1-2 5.1 3E-02 1.054 CCF of two components: QTPOO01A &
| |
| QTPOO02A (TDAFW)
| |
| QTPOO01A 4.90E-02 1.051 AFP/T-1 fails to start.
| |
| QMBAFP12 4.67E-02 1.049 AFW Train 2 in maintenance ZOP006FR 4.58E-02 1.048 Failure to restore off-site power S 4.35E-02 1.045 Small LOCA (initiating event)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-130 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse NuclearPower Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level 1 PRA Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description T13A-1-3-IEF 4.18E-02 1.044 Loss of CCW Train 1 initiating event Pump 1 running MHARMVTE 4.17E-02 1.043 Operators fail to compensate for loss of room cooling for makeup pumps by.
| |
| XHAMUCDE 4.1 OE-02 1.043 Operators fail to attempt cooldown via makeup/HPl cooling.
| |
| T1 3A-2-3-1EF 3.93E-02 1.041 Loss of CCW Train 2 initiating event Pump 2 running EMBEDG12 3.85E-02 1.04 EDG Train 2 in maintenance CHASGDPE 3.63E-02 1.038 Operators fail to cooldown during a SGTR FMFWTRIP 3.71 E-02 1.038 MFW/ICS faults following trip FMM00003 3.52E-02 1.037 Any MSSVs on SG1 fail to reseat EDG0012A 3.46E-02 1.036 EDG 1-2 fails to start AASGTR11 3.42E-02 1.035 SGTR occurs on OTSG 1-1 (split fraction)
| |
| LHAMSIVE 3.34E-02 1.035 Failure to close MSIV and isolate steam generator containing ruptured tube QHAMDF3E 3.34E-02 1.035 Failure to start MDFP prior to depletion of BWST during makeup QTPOO02A 3.25E-02 1.034 AFP/T-2 fails to start EDG001 1F 3.1 3E-02 1.032 EDG 1-1 fails to run FCIRCTMP 3.OOE-02 1.031 Circ water temperature not acceptable EClZ100N 2.84E-02 1.029 BKR HX1 1B fails to open EC1 Z153C 2.84E-02 1.029 BKR HX02B fails to close FHASUF3E 2.78E-02 1.029 Operators fail to actuate the startup feed pump as backup to the turbine-driven pump PLT09XXD-CC-ALL 2.85E-02 1.029 CCF of all components in group 'PLT09XXD-AASGTR12 2.75E-02 1.028 SGTR occurs on OTSG 1-2 (split fraction)
| |
| CCW Pumps 1 & 2 fail to run due to CCF TMPP43XF-CC_1 2 2.75E-02 1 .028 (ntaigeet (initiating event)
| |
| QHAOVF1 E 2.64E-02 1.027 Operators fail to take local manual control of AFW turbine-driven pump 1-1 speed.
| |
| TF2 2.35E-02 1.024 Tornado F-Scale 2 (initiating event)
| |
| NTKTOR2J 2.23 E-02 1.023 Condensate storage tank (CST) fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 2 tornado Temperature control valve SW1 424 fails to TTC1424T 2.22E-02 1.023 throttle (one-year mission time) (initiating event)
| |
| ZOP006CR 2.27E-02 1.023 Failure to restore off-site power NTKTOR3J 2.14E-02 1.022 CST fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 3 tornado TF3 2.20E-02 1.022 Tornado F-Scale 3 (initiating event)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 31 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level 1 PRA Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description Maximum flood in CCW pump room from service water (initiating event)
| |
| TTC1434T 2.09E-02 1.021 Temperature control valve SW1 434 fails to throttle (initiating event)
| |
| EHASBC1 E 1.88E-02 1.019 Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to bus C1 FMM00004 1.86E-02 1.019 Any MSSVs on SG2 fail to reseat SBOTOR2A 1.84E-02 1.019 SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 2 Tornado SBOTOR3A 1.86E-02 1.019 SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 3 Tornado XHOS-SWTEMP-HIGH 1.88E-02 1.019 Service water temperature greater than 72 EDGOSBOA 1.75E-02 1.018 SBO diesel generator fails to start XHOS-T-BELOW-86 1.77E-02 1.018 Outside ambient temperature < 86 F EClZXXXN-CC 1 2 1.64E-02 1.017 CCF of two components: EC1 Z089N &
| |
| EC1Z100N WCDD 13C 1.66E-02 1.017 BKR AD1 13 fails to close ZOP006ER 1.72E-02 1.017 Failure to restore off-site power within 30 minutes after loss of AFW QBLAUXBF 1.60E-02 1.016 Auxiliary boiler fails to supply steam QTPOO01F 1.56E-02 1.016 AFP/T-1 fails to run RMBRC11N 1.55E-02 1.016 Operation with power operated relief valve (PORV) block valve (RC1 1) closed WCDC113C 1.54E-02 1.016 Breaker ACl 13 fails to close XHOS-SW23RUN 1.59E-02 1.016 Service water pumps 2 and 3 running ZMMDCBUR 1.62E-02 Failure to recover Bus after a Bus fault (at least 1.016 t oh two usa hours al be available)
| |
| M 1.50E-02 1.015 Medium break LOCA TMPP431 F 1.49E-02 1.015 CCW Pump 1-1 fails to run (initiating event)
| |
| EMBEDG11 1.40E-02 1.014 EDG Train 1 in maintenance FVV01 1 BT 1.34E-02 1.014 AVV ICS11 B fails to reseat after steam QTPOO02F 1.41 E-02 1.014 AFP/T-2 fails to run RHAO11NE 1.43E-02 1.014 Operators fail to open the PORV block valve (RC 11) to permit use of PORV for MU T2A-1 1.35E-02 1.014 SP6B fails to throttle (initiating event)
| |
| T2B-1 1.36E-02 1.014 SP6A fails to throttle (initiating event)
| |
| TMPP432F 1.40E-02 1.014 CCW Pump 1-2 fails to run (initiating event)
| |
| EMBSBODG 1.25E-02 1.013 SBO diesel generator in maintenance QMBAUXB1 1.25E-02 1.013 Auxiliary boiler unavailable due to maintenance QMV0608K 1.28E-02 1.013 Motor-operated valve AF 608 fails to remain I__ I Iopen Attachment E Page E-132 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level 1 PRA Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description T12B7-IEF 1.30E-02 1.013 Service water pump room ventilation failure (T<86)
| |
| T2A-2 1.24E-02 1.013 FICICS35B fails high (initiating event)
| |
| T2B-2 1.24E-02 1.013 FICICS35A fails high (initiating event)
| |
| TMFC99XF-CCALL 1.25E-02 1.013 CCF of all components in group 'TMFC99XF-CC, XHOS-AMB->40F 1.24E-02 1.013 Ambient temperature is > 40 XHOS-SW1 3RUN 1.31 E-02 1.013 Service water pumps 1 and 3 running EDG0011A 1.12E-02 1.011 EDG 1-1 fails to start QMV0599K 1.10E-02 1.011 Motor-operated valve AF599 fails to remain open T18-1EF 1.13E-02 1.011 Loss of DC power from bus d2p (initiating eet event)
| |
| ZHARMVTE 1.07E-02 1.011 Operators fail to compensate for loss of room cooling for makeup pumps.
| |
| EMD5336C 9.88E-03 1.01 Motor-operated damper HV5336b fails to close EMDZ1 19N 9.88E-03 1.01 Motor damper HV5336a fails to open EMDZ121N 9.88E-03 1.01 Motor damper HV5336c fails to open EMFZ163A 9.91 E-03 1.01 Vent Fan 3 fails to start EMFZ165A 9.91 E-03 1.01 Vent Fan 4 fails to start EDGOSBOF 9.33E-03 1.009 SBO diesel generator fails to run ELOOPRT 8.53E-03 1.009 LOOP given reactor trip F7L 9.04E-03 1.009 Large circulating water flood in turbine building (initiating event)
| |
| PAVZO 11 N 9.14E-03 1.009 Air-operated valve MS 5889A fails to open CCF of two components: PAVZO1 1N &
| |
| PAVZ01XN-CC 1 2 9.38E-03 1.009 PVO2 PAVZ012 N QMPMDFPA 8.68E-03 1.009 MDFP fails to start Loss of DC power supply NNIX (initiating T9-1EF 8.43E-03 1.009 eet event)
| |
| XHOS-CWR ST 9.1OE-03 1.009 CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 3 in standby CCW1 RUN3STBY XHOS-CWR 2T 9.26E-03 1.009 CCW Pump 3 running, Pump 2 in standby CCW3RUN2STBY LSZOO12R 7.58E-03 1.008 POS Switch ZS DH 12 fails to remain closed PLT09A6D 7.92E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9A6 fails to respond PLT09A7D 7.92E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9A7 fails to respond PLT09A8D 7.80E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9A8 fails to respond PLT09A9D 7.80E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9A9 fails to respond PLT09B6D 7.80E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9B6 fails to respond PLT09B7D 7.80E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9B7 fails to respond Attachment E Page E-133 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level I PRA Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description PLT09B8D 7.92E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9B8 fails to respond PLT09B9D 7.92E-03 1.008 Level transmitter LTSP9B9 fails to respond QSV6452D 7.55E-03 1.008 Solenoid valve FW 6452 fails to operate
| |
| 'QSV64XXD-QSV64XXD-CCALL
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ 7.99E-03
| |
| __ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| 1.008
| |
| _ _ _ _ CC' of all components in group CCF XHOS-CWR ST 8.24E-03 1.008 CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 3 in standby CCW2RUN3STBY XHOS-CWR IT 8.07E-03 1.008 CCW Pump 3 running, Pump 1 In standby CCW3RUN1STBY XHOS-SW12RUN3AS1 7.85E-03 1.008 Service water pumps 1 and 2 running, 3 Spare and aligned as 1 XHOS-SW1 2RU N3AS2 7.85E-03 1.008 Service adainda water pumps 1 and 2 running, 3 Spare and aligned as 2 FVV011AT 7.06E-03 1.007 AVV ICS1 1A fails to reseat after steam LSZ0011R 7.10E-03 1.007 POS switch ZS DH 11 fails to remain closed T7 6.86E-03 1.007 Loss of power from bus YAU (initiating event)
| |
| XHALPRME 6.96E-03 1.007 Operators fail to initiate LPR for a medium LOCA XHOS-SAC1-STBY 6.95E-03 1.007 Service Air Compressor is in standby XHOS-SAC2-RUN 6.95E-03 1.007 Service Air Compressor 1-2 is running EMFZ1XXA-CC
| |
| _ _
| |
| ALL
| |
| __ -__
| |
| _ _ _CC' 6.16E-03 1.006 CCF of all components in group 'EMFZ1XXA-K1 5.63E-03 1.006 Reactor fails to trip following automatic demand NTKTOR4J 6.08E-03 1.006 CST fails due to high winds from an F-Scale 4 tornado PAVZO12N 6.1OE-03 1.006 Air-operated valve MS 5889B fails to open RRZRC2AN 5.89E-03 1.006 PORV (RC2A) fails to open SAV1434N 5.81 E-03 1.006 Air-operated valve SW 1434 fails to open SHAF21SE 6.37E-03 1.006 Failure to isolate flood before service water pumps are affected T10-IEF 5.97E-03 1.006 Loss of Service Water Train 1 T19A-2-IEF 6.02E-03 1.006 SAC 1-2 fails to run (initiating event)
| |
| TAMZ009F 5.76E-03 1.006 SAC 1-2 fails to run TCID202R 5.95E-03 1.006 INT D202 fails to remain closed TF4 6.21 E-03 1.006 Tornado F-Scale 4 (Initiating Event)
| |
| TM PP301 F 5.95E-03 1.006 Service water pump 1-1 fails to run (one-year mission time)
| |
| TPXNNIXF 5.93E-03 1.006 NNIX power supply no output CCF of all components in group 'VMFC31XA-VMFC31XA-CCALL 5.63E-03 1.006 cc Atahmn - PaeE CC'Agst21 Attachment E Page E-134 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-2: Basic Event Level 1 PRA Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description XHOS-SWTEMP-LOW 5.51 E-03 1.006 Service Water temperature less than 72 EBC002PF 4.79E-03 1.005 Charger 2P no output EC1XXXXC-CC 1 2: 5.33E-03 1.005 CCF of two components: EC1XO2AC &
| |
| EC1Z153C EC1Z088C 4.89E-03 1.005 BKR HX01A fails to close ECIZ089N 4.89E-03 1.005 BKR HX 1iA fails to open EC2ZOOON 5.30E-03 1.005 BKR AD110 fails to open EDG001XF-CC_1_2 4.96E-03 1.005 CCF of two components: EDG001 1F &
| |
| EDG0012F F7S 4.88E..03 1.005 Small circulating water flood in turbine building F7_4_8-0__00 (initiating event)
| |
| FLCO101F 5.27E-03 1.005 Logic card fails during operation HMBHPI11 4.66E-03 1.005 HPI Train 1 in maintenance LMBDHP11 4.88E-03 1.005 LPI Train 1 in maintenance LMBDHP12 4.75E-03 1.005 LPI Train 2 in maintenance LPPNISOZ 4.82E-03 1.005 ISLOCA occurs in non-isolable portion of DHR system LSC007XN-CC 1 2 CCF of two components: LSCO076N &
| |
| 4.93E-03 1.005 LSCO077N LTKTOR3J BWST fails due to high winds from F-Scale 3 5.42E-03 1.005 Tornado PMV0106N 4.68E-03 1.005 Motor-operated valve MS 106 fails to open Motor-operated valve AF 3870 fails to remain QMV3870K 5.44E-03 1.005 open QSV6451D 5.08E-03 1.005 Solenoid valve AF6451 fails to operate SAV1424N 5.40E-03 1.005 Air-operated valve SW-1 424 fails to open SBOTOR4A 5.36E-03 1.005 SBO diesel generator damaged due to high winds from an F-Scale 4 Tornado SMPP302A 5.06E-03 1.005 Failure of service water pump 1-2 to start Ti1 -1EF 5.OOE-03 1.005 Loss of Service Water Train 2 T17-1EF 4.90E-03 1.005 Loss of DC power from bus D1 P (initiating event)
| |
| TBDOD2PF 5.35E-03 1.005 PNL D2P local faults THXE221 P 4.57 E-03 1.005 CCW heat exchanger plugs during operation (initiating event)
| |
| TMPP302F 4.97E-03 1.005 Service water pump 1-2 pump fails to run (one-year mission time)
| |
| VD-IEF 5.07E-03 1.005 ISLOCA due to internal rupture of DHR suction vle valves WHAF3SE 4.50E-03 1.005 Failurepumps CW to isolate are flood in Room 328 before affected Attachment E Page E-135 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-3: Basic Event LERF Importance Event Name F-V RRW Description R 9.OOE-01 10.048 SGTR (initiating event)
| |
| XHAMUCDE 6.10E-01 2.563 Operators fail to attempt cooldown via makeup/H PI cooling CHASGDPE 5.40E-01 2.175 Operators fail to cooldown during a SGTR LHAMSIVE 4.97E-01 1.989 Failure to close MSIV and isolate steam generator containing ruptured tube AASGTR11 4.81 E-01 1.926 SGTR occurs on OTSG 1-1 (split fraction)
| |
| AASGTR1 2 3.93E-01 1.646 SGTR occurs on OTSG 1-2 (split fraction)
| |
| FMM00003 7.90E-02 1.086 Any MSSVs on SG1 fail to reseat VD-I EF 7.54 E-02 1.082 ISLOCA due to internal rupture of DHR scinvle suction valves FLCO101 F 7.31 E-02 1.079 Logic card fails during operation - MSIV 101 fails to close LPPN ISOZ 7.18E-02 1.077 ISLOCA occurs in non-isolable portion of DRsse DHR system FMM00004 6.80E-02 1.073 Any MSSVs on SG2 fail to reseat FLCO100F 6.13E-02 1.065 Logic card fails during operation - MSIV 100 fails to close Failure to start MDFP as backup to turbine-QHAMDFPE 5.96E-02 1.063 driven feedwater pumps for transient, Small LOCA or SGTR events EC1ZXXXN-CC_1 2 5.19E-02 1.055 CCF of two components: ECl Z089N &
| |
| EC1Z100N LPSRC2BH 4.93E-02 1.052 Press DH switch PSH RC2B4 fails high - fails DHR LPSZ416H ~ 4.93 E-02 1.052 Press DH switch PSH 7531A fails high - fails DHR LMVF012R 4.53E-02 1.047 Internal rupture of DH 12 (annual frequency)
| |
| LMBCWRT1 4.12E-02 1.043 CWR Train 1 unavailable due to manenc maintenance EDG0012F 3.47E-02 1.036 EDG 1-2 fails to run FCIRCTMP 3.OOE-02 1.031 Circ water temperature not acceptable FVV011BT 3.04E-02 1.031 AVV ICS11B fails to reseat after steam LMVF01 1 R 3.01 E-02 1.031 Internal rupture of DH 11 (annual frequency)
| |
| ELOOPRT 2.93E-02 1.03 LOOP given reactor trip Operators fail to align power from SBO EHASBDGE 2.70E-02 1.028 diesel generator to supply MDFP given LOOP EHAD2DGE 2.65E-02 1.027 Operators fail to align power from EDG 1-1 or EDG 1-2 to supply MDFP given LOOP FVV01 1AT 2.61 E-02 1.027 AVV ICS11 A fails to reseat after SGTR Attachment E Page E-1 36 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-3: Basic Event LERF Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description LMVU01 1 R 2.41 E-02 1.025 Internal rupture of DH 11 since cold shutdown LMVU012R 2.41 E-02 1.025 Internal rupture of DH 12 since cold shutdown LM BCWRT2 2.16E-02 1.022 CWR manenc Train 2 unavailable due to maintenance FLCO1IBF 1.97E-02 1.02 CS logic card fails ICS11B (AVV SG1) fails to open FLCOl11AF 1 .84E-02 1.019 ICS logic card fails ICS1 1A (AVV SG2) fails to open ECi71 ON 1 .79E-02 1.018 Breaker HX1 1 B fails to open - fails power
| |
| _ _from SU1 an d SU2 to Bus B EC1Z153C 1 .79E02 1.018 Breaker HX02B fails to close - fails power from SUW to Bus B EHASBD1 E 1.56E-02 1.016 Operators fail to start SBO diesel generator and align to bus D1 ET4DF12F 1.54E-02 1.016 Transformer DF 1-2 local faults LAV1761N 1.57E-02 1.016 Air-operated valve WC 1761 fails to open LMV001 1H 1.52E-02 1.015 Motor-operated valve DH 11 fails to hold on high exposure XHOS- 1.53E-02 1.015 CCW Pump 1 running, Pump 2 in standby CCWlRUN2STBY XHOS- 1.51 E-02 1.015 CCW Pump 2 running, Pump 1 in standby CCW2RUN1STBY EHAD1ACE 1.43E-02 1.014 Failure to lineup alternate source to D1 EB200D1F 1.31 E-02 1.013 Bus D1 local faults not including fire EDGOSBOF 1.33E-02 1.013 SBO diesel generator fails to run Manual valve WC 125 fails to close -
| |
| makeup to BWST for SGTR LXV0169N 1.1 2E02 1.011 Manual valve WC 169 fails to open -
| |
| makeup to BWST for SGTR LXV0171C 1.12E02 1.011 Manual valve WC 171 fails to close -
| |
| makeup to BWST for SGTR Manual valve WC 172 fails to close -
| |
| makeup to BWST for SGTR LXVBW15C 1.1 2E-02 1.011 Manual valve BW 15 fails to close - makeup to BWST for SGTR LXVBW1 6N 1.1 2E02 1.011 Manual valve BW 16 fails to open - makeup to BWST for SGTR LXVSF79N 1.1 2E02 1.011 Manual valve SF 79 fails to open - makeup to BWST for SGTR LXVSF80C 1.1 2E-02 1.011 Manual valve SF 80 fails to close - makeup to BWST for SGTR Attachment E Page E-137 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-3: Basic Event LERF Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description LXVSF87N 1.1 2E-02 1.011 Manual valve SF 87 fails to open - makeup to BWST for SGTR LXVSF92C 1.1 2E-02 1 .011 Manual t WTfrST valve SF 92 fails to close - makeup to BWST for SGTR LXVWC44N 1.1 2E-02 1,011 Manual valve WC 44 fails to open - makeup to BWST for SGTR EDGOSBOA 1.03E-02 1.01 SBO diesel generator fails to start FIV0101C 1.03E-02 1.01 MS 101 (MSIV SG1) fails to close VHAISOLR 1.03E-02 1.01 Operators fail to attempt to close DH1A to isolate ISLOCA 1 .03E-02 1.01 Failure to find and isolate ISLOCA resulting from reverse flow through LPI injection line FIV0100C 8.51 E-03 1.009 MS100 (MSIV SG2) fails to close ZOP007BR 9.05E-03 1.009 Failure to recover offsite power within one hour to prevent loss of DC EMBEDG12 7.83E-03 1.008 EDG Train 2 in maintenance XHABWMUE 7.93E-03 1.008 Operators fail to initiate makeup to the BWST during a SGTR.
| |
| EB300F1F 6.53E-03 1.007 Bus F1 local faults EDG0012A 6.64E-03 1.007 EDG 1-2 fails to start EMBSBODG 7.40E-03 1.007 SBO diesel generator in maintenance LMV001 1N 7.09E-03 1.007 Motor-operated valve DH 11 fails to open LMV001 2N 7.09E-03 1.007 Motor-operated valve DH 12 fails to open QMBAFP12 6.78E-03 1.007 AFW train 2 in maintenance VL20-IEF 6.47E-03 1.007 ISLOCA via Train 2 injection line reverse flow (initiating event)
| |
| XHOS-AMB->40F 7.27E-03 1.007 Ambient temperature is > 40 EC1BET9N 6.07E-03 1.006 CCF for failure of 13.8 kV breakers to open EClCC09N 6.07E-03 1.006 Breaker HX 1A OR HX1 1B fails to open EC2ZO12R 5.58E-03 1.006 Breaker AD1 DF1 2 fails to remain closed EDG001IF 5.53E-03 1.006 EDG 1-1 fails to run LMV0011X 6.02E-03 1.006 Motor-operated valve DH 11 fails to close while indicating closed LMV001 2X 6.02E-03 1.006 Motor-operated valve DH 12 fails to close while indicating closed QMBAFP11 6.29E-03 1.006 AFW Train 1 in maintenance VL10-IEF 6.45E-03 1.006 ISLOCA Via Train 1 injection line reverse flow (initiating event)
| |
| LCVF030R 5.42E-03 1.005 Internal leak develops in check valve cf 30 LCVF031R 5.40E-03 1.005 C(per year)
| |
| LCVF031 R 5.40E-03 1.005 Check valve fails to remain closed (per year)
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 38 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-3: Basic Event LERF Importance (continued)
| |
| Event Name F-V RRW Description NORCVRT3 4.70E-03 1.005 Off-site power recovery not possible after a tornado ZHABWMUE 4.49E-03 1.005 Operators fail to initiate makeup to the BWST during a SGTR.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-139 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Enhancements Related to Alternate Current (AC) and DC Power This SAMA candidate would provide [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-01 Provide additional DC battery longer battery lifetime during SBO [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| capacity, events. [31, Table G-3],
| |
| [35, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would replace [2, Table 14],
| |
| batteries with fuel cells increase the [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| AC/DC-02 Replace lead-acid batteries with fuel time available for recovery of off-site [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| cells. power. Therefore, the likelihood of [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| recovery of off-site power would be increased.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide [2, Table 14]
| |
| C a portable, diesel-driven battery Add longer battery lifetime during SBO AC/DC-03 Addhare tortablexdiesel charger to existing D n tem. events. Increasing battery capacity DC system. would increase the time available for recovery of off-site or on-site power.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would extend [2, Table 14]
| |
| battery lifetime during an SBO scenario, AC/DC-04 Improve DC bus load shedding. and thereby would increase the likelihood of recovering on-site or off-site power.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14],
| |
| the availability of DC power system. [30, Table 5-5]
| |
| Provide additional DC power to the This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| 120/240V vital AC system. the availability of the vital AC buses.
| |
| Add an automatic feature to transfer This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| AC/DC-07 the 120V vital AC buses from normal the availability of the 120V vital AC to standby power. buses.
| |
| Increase training on response to loss This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| AC/DC-08 of 120V AC buses that cause the chances of successful response to inadvertent actuation signals. loss of 120V AC buses.
| |
| Provide an additional diesel This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-09 ge n al the availability of on-site emergency AC [32, Table 5-5],
| |
| generator. power. [34, Table 5-6]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| AC/DC-10 Revise procedure to allow bypass of likelihood of unnecessary diesel diesel generator trips, generator trips during LOOP events.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| AC/DC-il Improve 4.16kV bus cross-tie ability, the availability of on-site AC power.
| |
| [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-12 Create AC power cross-tie capability This SAMA candidate would increase [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| with other unit (multi-unit site). the availability of on-site AC power. [31, Table G-3]
| |
| Attachment E Page E-140 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier
| |
| [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-i 3 Install an additional, buried off-site This SAMA candidate would reduce the [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| power source. probability. of LOOP. [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| Adding a gas turbine-powered [2, Table 14],
| |
| generator would improve the reliability [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| AC/DC-1 4 Install a gas turbine generator. of emergency power through increased [35, Table 5-5]
| |
| redundancy, and more importantly, by adding diversity.
| |
| Typically, additional on-site power [2, Table 14],
| |
| sources have been classified as non- [30, Table 5-5]
| |
| Install tornado protection on gas safety, and as such may not be housed AC/DC-i5 turbine generator. in tornado-resistant structures. For those designs, this SAMA candidate would upgrade that structure to be tornado resistant.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| AC/DC-1 6 Improve uninterruptible power the availability of power supplies supplies, supporting front-line equipment.
| |
| Create a cross-tie for diesel fuel oil This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| (multi-unit site), availability of the diesel generators.
| |
| Develop procedures for replenishing This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-1 8 diesel fuel oil to the emergency and availability of the diesel generators. [5]
| |
| SBO diesel generators. aaalyfhdelnrts[
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide an [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-19 Use fire water system as a backup alternate cooling water supply to an [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| source for diesel cooling, EDGainloss with the ofevent of awater cooling LOOPtoconcurrent the diesel [31, Table G-3]
| |
| generator.
| |
| Add a new backup source of diesel This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| generator cooling, the availability of the diesel generators. [31, Table G-3]
| |
| In the event of a loss of bus due to a [2, Table 14],
| |
| failed breaker, this SAMA candidate [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| AC/DC-21 Develop procedures to repair or would provide the ability to repair or [33, Table 5-5],
| |
| replace failed 4kV breakers. replace 4kV breakers in a timely [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| manner to restore AC power to the [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| affected division.
| |
| In training, emphasize steps in This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| AC/DC-22 recovery of off- site power after an human error probability (HEP) during SBO. off-site power recovery.
| |
| AC/DC-23 This SAMA candidatewould improve Develop a severe weather conditionsof-iepwrecvyfloin [2, Table 14]
| |
| procedure. off-site power recovery following I I external weather-related events.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-141 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| AC/DC-24 Bury off-site power lines, likelihood of LOOP from severe [31, Table G-3]
| |
| weather by burying the cables.
| |
| Provide a dedicated DC power This SAMA candidate would increase [5]
| |
| AC/DC-25 system (battery/battery charger) for the reliability/availability of the TDAFW TDAFW control. pumps in an SBO event.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would allow the [5]
| |
| Provide an alternator/generator that TDAFW pumps to continue operation AC/DC-26 would be driven by each TDAFW independent of other DC power pump to provide DC control power supplies in the event of an SBO.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [5]
| |
| Increase the size of the SBO fuel oil the reliability of the SBO diesel and tank. allow more recovery time for off-site power or EDGs.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) Events This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| AT-01 Add an independent boron injection the availability of boron injection during system. an ATWS.
| |
| Add a system of relief valves to This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| AT-02 prevent equipment damage from the equipment availability after an pressure spikes during an ATWS. ATWS.
| |
| Provide an additional control system This SAMA candidate would add [2, Table 14]
| |
| AT-03 for rod insertion (e.g., ATWS redundancy to the rod control system Mitigation System Actuation Circuitry and reduce ATWS frequency.
| |
| (AMSAC)).
| |
| Install an ATWS-sized filtered This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| AT-04 containment vent to remove decay the ability to remove reactor heat during [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| heat. ATWS events. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| Discharge of a substantial fraction of [2, Table 14]
| |
| steam to the main condenser (i.e., as opposed to into the primary Revise procedure to bypass MSIV containment) affords the operator more AT-05 isolation in turbine trip ATWS time to perform actions (e.g., lower scenarios, water level, depressurize reactor pressure vessel (RPV)) than if the main condenser was unavailable, resulting irn lower human error probabilities.
| |
| Allows immediate control of LPI. On [2, Table 14]
| |
| Revise procedure to allow override of failure of high pressure core injection 6LPI during an ATWS event, and condensate, some plants direct reactor depressurization followed by five minutes of automatic LPI.
| |
| AT7 Install motor generator set trip This SAMAofcandidate frequency core damagewoulddue reduce to an the [2, Table 14]
| |
| AT-07 breakers in control room. ATWm e I I ATWS.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 42 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier This SAMA candidate would decrease [2, Table 14]
| |
| Provide capability to remove power the time required to insert control rods if AT-08 from the bus powering the control the reactor trip breakers fail (during a rods. loss of feedwater ATWS that has a I I rapid pressure excursion).
| |
| Enhancements Related to Containment Bypass Install additional pressure or leak This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CB-01 monitoring instruments for detection ISLOCA frequency. [31, Table G-3]
| |
| of ISLOCA.
| |
| [2, Table 14],
| |
| 2 Add redundant and dierse limit This SAMA candidate would reduce the [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| CB-02 switches to each CIV. frequency of containment isolation [31, Table G-3],
| |
| failure and ISLOCAs. [37, Table G-3]
| |
| [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| 'Increase leak testing of valves in This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CB-03 ISLOCA paths. ISLOCA frequency. [30,
| |
| [37, Table Table 5-5],
| |
| 5-5]
| |
| CB-04 Install self-actuating CIVs. This SAMA candidate feunyo slto wouldalrs reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| frequency of isolation failures.
| |
| CB05 Locate DHR system inside This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| containment, frequency of ISLOCA. [30, Table 5-5]
| |
| Ensure ISLOCA releases are [2, Table 14],
| |
| scrubbed. One method is to plug This SAMA candidate would provide [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| CB-06 drains in potential break areas so the ability to scrub ISLOCA releases. [31, Table G-3],
| |
| that break point will be covered with t [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| water.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| likelihood that LOCAs outside Revise emergency operating containment are identified. For CB-07 procedures (EOPs) to improve example, a DHR ISLOCA could direct ISLOCA identification. initial leakage back to the pressurizer relief tank, giving indication that the LOCA was inside containment.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would decrease [2, Table 14],
| |
| Improve operator training on ISLOCA CB-08 coping. the ISLOCA consequences. [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| [5]
| |
| Institute a maintenance practice to [2, Table 14]
| |
| CB-09 perform a 100% inspection of steam This SAMA candidate would reduce the generator tubes during each frequency of a SGTR event.
| |
| refueling outage.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| Replace steam generators with a CB-1 new design. frequency of a SGTR event. [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| [37, Table 5-51 Attachment E Page E-143 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Increase the pressure capacity of the This SAMA candidate would prevent a [2, Table 14]
| |
| CB-11 secondary side so that a SGTR direct release pathway to the would not cause the relief valves to environment in the event of a SGTR lift, sequence.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would enhance [2, Table 14]
| |
| C-1l2 depressurize the primary system depressurization capabilities during 2deurize te pr r SGTR to reduce the duration of the during a SGTR. rlae
| |
| .relea se.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would be a [2, Table 14]
| |
| Proceduralize use of pressurizer vent backup method to using pressurizer valves during SGTR sequences. sprays to reduce primary system pressure following a SGTR.
| |
| Provide improved instrumentation to This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CB-14 detect SGTR, such as Nitrogen-16 mitigation of SGTR.
| |
| monitors.
| |
| Route the discharge from the MSSVs he intent of this SAMA candidate is to [2, Table 14]
| |
| GB-i 5 through a structure where a water spray would condense the steam and scrub the release to reduce the remove most of the fission products. consequences of a SGTR.
| |
| Install a highly reliable (closed loop) [2, Table 14]
| |
| CB-16 steam generator shell-side heat The intent of this SAMA candidate is to removal system that relies on natural reduce the consequences of a SGTR.
| |
| circulation and stored water sources.
| |
| Revise EOPs to direct isolation of a This SAMA candidate would reduce [2, Table 14]
| |
| faulted steam generator. consequences of a SGTR.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide for [2, Table 14]
| |
| improved scrubbing of SGTR releases B-i 8 Direct steam generator flooding after by maintaining adequate water a8 SGTR, prior to core damage. coverage of a ruptured steam generator tube.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would route the [2, Table 14]
| |
| C13-1g Vent MSSVs in containment. MSSVs steam releases back into containment to minimize releases to the environment due to a SGTR event.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would relieve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CB-20 Install relief valves in the CCW pressure buildup from a RCP thermal system. barrier tube rupture and aid in preventing the onset of an ISLOCA.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide [2, Table 14]
| |
| Install pressure measurements indication of failure of inboard isolation CB-21 between in the linethe twotheDHR from RCSsuction valves hot leg. v valves allowing time to initiate mitigating actions to prevent ISLOCA.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Core Cooling Systems Install an independent active or This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| passive HPI system. the prevention of core melt sequences.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-144 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier
| |
| [2, Table 14],
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [31, Table G-3],
| |
| GG-02 Provide an additional HPI pump with frequency of core melt from small [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| independent diesel generator. LOCA and SBO sequences. [37, Table 5-5],
| |
| [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| Revise procedure to allow operators [2, Table 14]
| |
| GC03 to inhibit automatic vessel This SAMA candidate would extend the depressurization in non-ATWS use of high pressure and LPI systems.
| |
| scenarios.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CG-04 Add a diverse LPI system. injection capability.
| |
| [2, Table 14],
| |
| C-05 Provide capability for alternate LPI This SAMA candidate would improve [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| via diesel-driven fire pump. injection capability. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| During energetic large LOCA events, [2, Table 14]
| |
| debris such as insulation could be dislodged and potentially block the CC-06 Improve ECCS suction strainers. ECCS strainers, thereby failing ECCS suction. This SAMA candidate would reduce the likelihood of strainer blockage during LOCA events.
| |
| CG07 Add the ability to manually align This SAMA candidate would enhance [2, Table 14]
| |
| ECCS recirculation. the reliability of ECCS suction.
| |
| Add the ability to automatically align This SAMA candidate would enhance [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-08 ECCS to recirculation mode upon the reliability of EGGS suction.
| |
| BWST depletion. trlbltoECSin Provide hardware and procedure to This SAMA candidate would extend [2, Table 14],
| |
| CC-09 refill the BWST once it reaches a BWST capacity in the event of a SGTR. [5]
| |
| specified low level.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide a [2, Table 14]
| |
| continuous source of water to the safety injection pumps during a LOCA event.
| |
| Water released from a breach of the CC-10 Provide tanm rc primary system collects in the in-water storage tank, containment reactor water storage tank, and thereby eliminates the need to realign the safety injection pumps for long-term post LOCA recirculation.
| |
| Modify procedures to throttle LPI [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-1 1 pumps earlier in medium or large This SAMA candidate would extend break LOCAs to maintain BWST BWST capacity.
| |
| inventory.
| |
| Emphasize timely recirculation This SAMA candidate would reduce [2, Table 14]
| |
| GG1 2 Easiznmet timopelyarecircuiatnn HEP associated with recirculation alignment in operator training, failure.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-145 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Upgrade the chemical and volume An upgrade to the chemical and volume [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-1 3 control system to mitigate small control system would decrease the break LOCAs. frequency of core damage.
| |
| Change the in-containment reactor [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-14 water storage tank suction from four This SAMA candidate would reduce check valves to two check and two common mode failure of injection paths.
| |
| air-operated valves.
| |
| Replace two of the four electric This SAMA candidate would provide [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-1 5 safety injection pumps with diesel- diversity within the high and low powered pumps. pressure safety injection systems.
| |
| Provide capability for remote, manual Thischance the SAMA ofcandidate would successful improve operation [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-1 6 operation of secondary side pilot- during o eve ss ope ra operated relief valves in an SBO. during SBO events in which high area operatedreliefvavesinanSB _. temperatures may be encountered.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would allow low [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-i 7 Create a reactor coolant pressure ECCS injection in the event of depressurization system. a small break LOCA and high pressure safety injection failure.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would allow low [2, Table 14]
| |
| CC-i 8 Make procedure changes for RCS pressure ECCS injection in the event of depressurization. a small break LOCA and high pressure safety injection failure.
| |
| This SAMA candidate will increase the Provide automatic switchover of HPI reliability of switchover of suction from CC-1 9 and LPI suction from the BWST to the BWST to the containment sump by containment sump for LOCAs. providing both manual and automatic switchover.
| |
| Modify EOPs to allow using the This SAMA candidate would improve 15]
| |
| CC-20 make-up pumps for high pressure the reliability of high pressure recirculation from the containment recirculation following the loss of HPI.
| |
| sump.
| |
| Reduce the BWST level at which This SAMA candidate would extend the [5]
| |
| CC-21 switchover to containment time available to accomplish BWST recirculation is initiated, refill.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Containment Phenomena This SAMA candidate would enhance [2, Table 14],
| |
| CP -0 Create a reactor cavity flooding debris coolability, reduce core concrete [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| system. interaction, and increase fission product [36, Table 5-6],
| |
| scrubbing. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| [2, Table 14],
| |
| CP02 Install a passive containment spray This SAMA candidate would improve [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| system. containment spray capability. [37, Table 5-5],
| |
| 1 1_ 1 [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| Attachment E Page E-146 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier
| |
| [2; Table 14],
| |
| Use the fire water system as a This SAMA candidate would improve [33, Table 5-5],
| |
| CP-03 backup source for the containment Ti AAcniaewudipoe [3 al -1 spray system. containment spray capability. [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| Install an unfiltered, hardened decay heat removal capability for non-containment vent. ATWS events, without scrubbing released fission products.
| |
| Install a filtered containment vent to This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| CP-05 remove decay heat. decay heat removal capability for non- [36, Table 5-6]
| |
| Option 1: Gravel Bed Filter ATWS events, with scrubbing of Option 2: Multiple Venturi Scrubber released fission products.
| |
| Enhance fire protection system This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14],
| |
| CP-06 fission product scrubbing in severe [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| hardware and procedures. accidents. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CP-07 Provide capability, post-accident containment likelihood inerting monoxide of hydrogen gas and carbon combustion.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| cooling and containment of molten core [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| Create a large concrete crucible with debris. Molten core debris escaping [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| CP-08 heat removal potential to contain from cuil the vessel n isaecontained oln within the coe deris.crucible moltn and a water cooling mechanism cools the molten core in the crucible, preventing melt-through of the base mat.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| cooling and containment of molten core [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| debris. Refractory material would be [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| placed underneath the reactor vessel CP-09 Create a core melt source reduction such that a molten core falling on the system. material would melt and combine with the material. Subsequent spreading and heat removal from the vitrified compound would be facilitated, and concrete attack would not occur.
| |
| Strengthen primary/secondary This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CP-10 containment (e.g., add ribbing to probability of containment over-containment shell), pressurization.
| |
| Increase depth of the concrete base [2, Table 14]
| |
| OP-i 1 mat or use an alternate concrete This SAMA candidate would reduce material to ensure melt-through does probability of base mat melt-through.
| |
| not occur.
| |
| Page E-147 August 2010 Attachment E Page E-147 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| Provide a reactor vessel exterior potential to cool a molten core before it [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| cooling system. causes vessel failure, by submerging [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| the lower head in water.
| |
| Construct a building to be connected This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CP-1 3 to primary/secondary containment probability of containment over- [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| and maintained at a vacuum, pressurization. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CP-14 Institute simulator training for severe arrest of core melt progress and prevention of containment failure.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| piping surveillance to identify leaks prior CP-1 5 Improve leak detection procedures. to complete failure. Improved leak detection would reduce LOCA frequency.
| |
| CP-1 6 Delay containment spray actuation This SAMA candidate would lengthen [2, Table 14]
| |
| after a large break LOCA. time of BWST.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would extend the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CP17 Install automatic containment spray time over which water remains in the pump header throttle valves. BWST, when full containment spray flow is not needed.
| |
| CR18 Install a redundant containment This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| spray system. containment heat removal ability.
| |
| CP-i9 Install a redundant containment fan This SAMA candidate would increase system. containment heat removal ability.
| |
| Install or use an independent power [2, Table 14]
| |
| supply to the hydrogen control system using either new batteries, a CP-20 non-safety grade portable generator, This SAMA candidate would reduce the existing station batteries, or existing hydrogen detonation potential.
| |
| AC/DC independent power supplies, such as the security system diesel generator.
| |
| CP21 Install a passive hydrogen control This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| system. hydrogen detonation potential. [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| __________ _________________________ ___________________________ [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| Erect a barrier that would provide [2, Table 14]
| |
| enhanced protection of the C ntainmedprtentio 2 ws (hel fThis SAMA candidate would reduce the C P-22 containm ent walls (shell) frompr b ilt of c n a m e t alu .
| |
| ejected core debris following a core melt scenario at high pressure.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Cooling Water Add redundant DC control power for This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| service water pumps. the availability of service water.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 48 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier This SAMA candidate would replace [2, Table 141, Replace ECCS pump motors with the ECCS pump motors with air-cooled [31, Table G-3],
| |
| air-cooled motors. pump motors that would eliminate the [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| ECCS system.dependency on the CCW Enhance procedural guidance for This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-03 use of cross-tied component cooling frequency of loss of CCW and service or service water pumps. water.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-04 Add a redundant service water the availability of cooling water to one pump. of the two safety divisions.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-05 Enhance the screen wash system. potential for loss of service water due to clogging of screens.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| Cap downstream piping of normally frequency of loss of CCW initiating [31, Table G-31 CW-06 closed CCW drain and vent valvesl events, some of which can be attributed to catastrophic failure of the many single isolation valves.
| |
| Enhance loss of CCW (or loss of This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-07 service water) procedures to facilitate potential for RCP seal damage due to stopping the RCPs. pump bearing failure.
| |
| Enhance loss of CCW procedure to This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 141 CW-08 underscore the desirability of cooling probability of RCP seal failure.
| |
| down the RCS prior to seal LOCA.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-09 Additional training on loss of CCW. the success of operator actions after a loss of CCW.
| |
| Provide hardware connections to efc This SAMA fls candidate fCWbwould rvdn reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW10 allow another essential raw cooling effect of loss of CCW by providing a S allwanther esste ntiacol crawgcooing charging pu means to maintain the charging pump water system to cool pump seal injection following a loss of normal seals, cooling water.
| |
| On loss of essential raw cooling This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW1 1 water, proceduralize shedding CCW the time before loss of CCW during a loads to extend the CCW heat-up loss of essential raw cooling water time. sequences.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-1 2 Increase charging pump lube oil the time before charging pump failure capacity. due to lube oil overheating in loss of cooling water sequences.
| |
| Install an independent RCP seal This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CW-1 3 injection system, with dedicated frequency of core damage from loss of [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| diesel generator. CCW, service water, or SBO. [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| Attachment E Page E-149 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Install an independent RCP seal This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CW-1 4 injection system, without dedicated frequency of core damage from loss of [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| diesel generator. CCW, service water, or SBO. [31, Table G-3],
| |
| [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CW-15 Use existing hydro test pump for frequency of core damage from loss of [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| RCP seal injection. CCW, service water, or SBO. [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CW-1 6 Install improved RCP seals. likelihood of RCP seal LOCu c [35,
| |
| [38, Table Table 5-5],
| |
| 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| CW-1 7 Install an additional CCW pump. likelihood of loss of CCW leading to a [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| RCP seal LOCA.
| |
| If spurious HPI relief valve opens [2, Table 14],
| |
| Prevent make-up pump flow creating a flow diversion large enough [37, Table 5-5]
| |
| CW-18 diversion through the relief valves, to prevent RCP seal injection, then this SAMA would reduce the frequency of.
| |
| loss of RCP seal cooling.
| |
| Change procedures to isolate RCP This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-1 9 seal return provide (or flow on loss enhance) of CCW,onand guidance frequency of RCP sealof cooling.
| |
| coradate geddue to a loss loss of injection during seal LOCA.
| |
| Implement procedures to stagger This SAMA candidate would allow HPI [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-20 high pressure safety injection pump to be extended prior to overheating use after a loss of service water, following a loss of service water.
| |
| Use fire prevention system pumps as This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-21 a backup RCP seal injection and frequency of a RCP seal LOCA.
| |
| high pressure make-up source.
| |
| Implement procedure and hardware This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-22 modifications to allow manual the ability to cool DHR heat alignment of the fire water system to exchangers.
| |
| the CCW system. exchangers.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| CW-23 Install a CCW header cross-tie, the ability to cool DHR heat exchangers.
| |
| Replace the standby CCW pump the ther COWSAMA This candidate reliability would improve by reducing the CW-24 with a pump diverse from the other a by ofdall the two CCW two CW pmps.likelihood pumps. pms of a CCF of all three CCW I pumps.
| |
| Provide the ability to cool make-up This SAMA candidate would allow CW-25 pumps using fire water in the event continued injection of RCP seal water in of loss of CCW. the event of loss of CCW.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 50 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Enhancements Related to Internal Flooding This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| FL-01 Improve inspection of rubber frequency of internal flooding due to expansion joints on main condenser. failure of circulating water system expansion joints.
| |
| Modify swing direction of doors [2, Table 14]
| |
| FL-02 separating turbine building basement This SAMA candidate would prevent from areas containing safeguards flood propagation.
| |
| I equipment. I Enhancements to Reduce Fire Risk This SAMA candidate would decrease [2, Table 14]
| |
| FR-01 Replace mercury switches in fire the probability of spurious fire protection system. suppression system actuation.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would decrease [2, Table 14]
| |
| FR-02 Upgrade fire compartment barriers, the consequences of a fire.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| FR-03 isolation switches f number of spurious actuations during a fire.
| |
| FR-04 Enhance fire brigade awareness. This SAMA candidate would decrease thcosqeesfafi. [2, Table 14]
| |
| the consequences of a fire.
| |
| FR-05 Enhance control of combustibles and This SAMA candidate would decrease [2, Table 14]
| |
| ignition sources, the fire frequency and consequences.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Feedwater and Condensate This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| FW-01 Install a digital feedwater upgrade. chance of loss of MFW following a plant [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| trip. [31, Table G-3],
| |
| [35, Table 5-5]
| |
| Create ability for emergency [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW02 connection of existing or new water This SAMA candidate would increase sources to feedwater and the availability of feedwater.
| |
| condensate systems.
| |
| FW-03 Install an independent diesel for the This SAMA candidate would extend the [2, Table 14]
| |
| CST make-up pumps. inventory in the CST during an SBO.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| the availability of feedwater.
| |
| Install manual isolation valves This SAMA candidate would reduce [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW-05 around the TDAFW pump steam dual turbine-driven pump maintenance admission valves, unavailability.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 51 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier This SAMA candidate would provide [2, Table 14]
| |
| control air accumulators for the TDAFW FW06 Install accumulators for TDAFW pump flow control valves. These pump flow control valves, accumulators would eliminate the need for local manual action to align nitrogen bottles for control air following a LOOP.
| |
| Install a new CST (AFW storage This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| tank). the reliability of the AFW system.
| |
| FW-08 Modify the TDAFW pump to be self- This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| cooled. the success probability during an SBO.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| Proceduralize local manual operation AFW availability during an SBO. Also FW-09 of AFW system when control power would provide a success path should path is lost. AFW control power be lost in non-SBO sequences.
| |
| Provide hookup for portable diesel [2, Table 14],
| |
| FW-10 generators to power the TDAFW This SAMA candidate would extend the [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| pump after station batteries are availability of AFW. [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| depleted. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| This SAMA candidate would create a [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW-11 Use fire water system as a backup backup to main and AFW for steam for steam generator inventory, generator water supply.
| |
| Change failure position of condenser This SAMA candidate would allow [2, Table 14]
| |
| 2make-up valve if the condenser greater inventory for the AFW pumps make-up valve fails open on loss of by preventing CST flow diversion to the air or power. condenser if the condenser make-up valve fails open on loss of air or power.
| |
| Provide a passive, secondary-side This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW-13 heat-rejection loop consisting of a potential for core damage due to a loss condenser and heat sink. of feedwater event.
| |
| Modify the startup feedwater pump [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW-14 so that it can be used as a backup to This SAMA candidate would increase the AFW system, including during an the reliability of decay heat removal.
| |
| SBO.
| |
| Replace existing pilot-operated relief This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW-15 valves with larger ones, such that the probability of a successful feed and only one is required for successful bleed.
| |
| feed and bleed.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| FW-16 valves used for backup AFW pump the success probability for providing an suctions alternate water supply to the AFW pumps.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-152 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Enhancements Related to Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide [2, Table 14]
| |
| Provide a redundant train or means either a redundant cooling train to the HV-01 of ventilation, critical switchgear room or a cross-tie to the critical switchgear room from another cooling train.
| |
| Add a diesel building high This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| HV-02 temperature alarm or redundant the diagnosis of a loss of diesel building louver and thermostat. HVAC.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| HV-03 Stage backup fans in switchgear the availability of ventilation in the event rooms. of a loss of switchgear ventilation.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14],
| |
| HV-04 temperature alarm. the diagnosis of a loss of switchgear [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| HVAC. [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| Create ability to switch emergency This SAMA candidate would allow [2, Table 14],
| |
| HV-05 feedwater room fan power supply to continued fan operation in an SBO. [31, Table G73]
| |
| station batteries in an SBO.
| |
| Provide procedural guidance for This SAMA candidate would prevent [5]
| |
| HV-06 establishing an alternate means of the loss of one train of service water in room ventilation to the service water the event of loss of one HVAC fan for pump room. the service water pump room.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Instrument Air and Nitrogen Supply Provide cross-unit connection of This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| IA-01 uninterruptible compressed air the ability to vent containment using the supply (multi-unit). hardened vent.
| |
| Modify procedure to provide ability to This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14],
| |
| IA-02 align diesel power to more air the availability of instrument air after a [30, Table 5-5]
| |
| compressors. LOOP.
| |
| Replace service and instrument air This SAMA candidate would eliminate [2, Table 14],
| |
| compressors with more reliable the dependence of instrument air [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| IA-03 compressors that have self- system on CCW and service water [31, Table G-3]
| |
| contained air cooling by shaft-driven stonCt fans. cooling.
| |
| Install nitrogen bottles as backup gas This SAMA candidate would extend the [2, Table 14]
| |
| IA-04 supply for safety relief valves SRV operation time.
| |
| (SRVs). SRVoperationtime_
| |
| IA-05 Improve SRV and MSIV pneumatic This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| components. the availability of SRVs and MSIVs.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-153 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.5-4: List of Initial SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA Candidate SAMA Candidate Description Derived Benefit Source Identifier Enhancements Related to Seismic Risk This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| Increase seismic ruggedness of plant the availability of necessary plant components, equipment during and after a seismic event.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would increase [2, Table 14]
| |
| SR-02 tanksP the availability of fire protection given a seismic event.
| |
| Other Enhancements This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14],
| |
| OT-01 Install digital large break LOCA probability of a large break LOCA (a [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| protection system. leak before break). [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| OT02 Enhance procedures to mitigate This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| large break LOCA. consequences of a large break LOCA.
| |
| Install computer-aided This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| instrumentation system to assist the the prevention of core melt sequences operator in assessing post-accident by making operator actions more plant status. reliable.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| OT-04 Improve maintenance procedures. the prevention of core melt sequences by increasing reliability of important equipment.
| |
| Increase training and operating This SAMA candidate would improve [2, Table 14]
| |
| OT-05 experience feedback to improve the likelihood of success of operator o-eperiene operator ressedc response. tactions taken in response to abnormal conditions.
| |
| Develop procedures for This SAMA candidate would reduce the [2, Table 14]
| |
| OT-06 transportation and nearby facility consequences of transportation and accidents, nearby facility accidents.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would prevent [2, Table 14],
| |
| secondary side depressurization should [30, Table 5-5],
| |
| Install secondary side guard pipes up a steam line break occur upstream of [35, Table 5-5],
| |
| Ins07 tall sec sid guathe MSIVs. This SAMA candidate [38, Table 5-5]
| |
| would also guard against or prevent consequential multiple SGTRs following a main steam line break event.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 54 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement) II Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Enhancements Related to AC and DC Power This SAMA candidate would provide DC power for extended periods Provide additional DC battery Criterion F of time during an SBO event to allow for a greater likelihood of capacity. Considered for Further Evaluation recovery of either on-site or off-site power. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require AC/DC-02 Replace lead-acid batteries with Criterion C $2,000,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of fuel cells. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide DC power for extended periods Add a portable, diesel-driven Criterion F of time during an SBO event to allow for a greater likelihood of AC/DC-03 battery charger to existing DC system. Considered for Further Evaluation recovery of either on-site or off-site power. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| If power is lost to DC MCC 1 or DC MCC 2, selective battery load Criterion B shedding is performed in accordance with Attachment 5 of DB-OP-Already Implemented 02521. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Criterion B DC cross-ties already exist at Davis-Besse. Therefore, the intent of Already Implemented the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would provide DC power for extended periods Provide additional DC power to the Criterion E of time during an SBO event to allow for a greater likelihood of 120/240V vital AC system. Subsumed recovery of either on-site or off-site power. This SAMA candidate will be subsumed inAC/DC-01.
| |
| Add an automatic feature to Criterion B The Davis-Besse 120V vital AC is normally aligned to emergency AC/DC-07 transfer the 120V vital AC buses power backed up by EDGs. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA from normal to standby power. Already Implemented candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Page E-155 Page E-1 55 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Abnormal Procedure DB-OP-2532 addresses the loss of both AC Increase training on response to Criterion D and DC power to both the Non-Nuclear Instrumentation (NNI) and AC/DC-08 loss of 120V AC buses that cause the ICS that are powered from uninterruptible AC instrumentation inadvertent actuation signals. Very Low Benefit distribution panels YAU and YBU. It is judged that operator awareness to the required actions is well established.
| |
| Davis-Besse has an SBO diesel in addition to the two EDGs. A large Provide an additional diesel Criterion E contributor to loss of all diesel generators is operator failure to Subsumed manually start the SBO diesel. Therefore, an additional EDG may AC/DC-09 generator. Subsumed be of low value, but for conservatism, this SAMA is subsumed in SAMA candidate AC/DC-1 4.
| |
| Procedure DB-OP-02043, "Emergency Diesel Generator 1 Alarm Revise procedure to allow bypass Criterion B Panel 43 Annunciator," instructs operators to reset any protection AC/DC- of derelays, and clear and reset any alarms when the EDG is running in of diesel generator trips. Already Implemented "'Emergency Mode." Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The 4.16 kV safety buses C1 and D1 can be cross tied in numerous Improve 4.16kV bus cross-tie Criterion B ways. For example, Bus C1 can be powered from either 13.8 kV AC/DC-il non-safety bus, the SBO diesel, EDG 1 or EDG2 and Bus D1. Bus ability. Already Implemented D1 can similarly be supplied. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Create AC power cross-tie Criterion A Davis-Besse is a single unit site. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA AC/DC-12 capability with other unit (multi-unit site). Not Applicable candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require AC/DC-i 3 Install an additional, buried off-site Criterion C more than $25,000,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the power source. Excessive Implementation Cost implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 56 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Criterion F This SAMA candidate would increase the reliability of emergency AC/DC-1 4 Install a gas turbine generator. power during a LOOP event by adding a diverse AC power source.
| |
| Considered for Further Evaluation Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| AC/DC-i 5 Install tornado protection on gas Criterion A Davis-Besse does not have a gas turbine. Therefore, the intent of turbine generator. Not Applicable the SAMA candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Uninterruptible power supplies have been updated and have proven AC/DC-1 6 Improve uninterruptible power Criterion D to be very reliable. Based on dominant cutsets and component supplies. Very Low Benefit importance values, UPS failure is not a significant risk contributor at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Create a cross-tie (multi-unit site). for diesel fuel oil Criterion A Davis-Besse is not a multi-unit site. Therefore, the intent of the Not Applicable SAMA candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Develop procedures for Davis-Besse procedures provide adequate guidance to replenish AC/DC-18 replenishing diesel fuel oil to the Criterion B SBO diesel fuel oil during a LOOP event. A more beneficial SAMA of the SBO day tank. This is emergency and SBO diesel Already Implemented candidate into described is SAMAincrease the size candidate AC/DC-27. Therefore, the intent of generators. the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse has the capability to use fire water to cool the Train 2 AC/DC-i 9 Use fire water system as a backup Criterion F ECCs pumps (including makeup pump) and the Train 2 decay heat source for diesel cooling. Considered for Further Evaluation removal heat exchanger. By providing the ability to supply the Train 2 EDG, this alignment could also operate in LOOP conditions.
| |
| Davis-Besse has the capability to use fire water to cool the Train 2 Add a new backup source of Criterion E ECCs pumps (including makeup pump) and the Train 2 decay heat AC/DC-20 dremoval heat exchanger. By providing the ability to supply the Train diesel generator cooling. Subsumed 2 EDG, this alignment could also operate in LOOP conditions. This SAMA candidate will be subsumed in SAMA candidate AC/DC-1 9.
| |
| By pre-staging safety-related breakers and developing procedures to AC/DC-21 Develop procedures to repair or Criterion F replace failed breakers, many components/buses could be restored replace failed 4kV breakers. Considered for Further Evaluation ina timely manner ifthey have failed due to breaker failure.
| |
| Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 57 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements On loss of power to the startup transformers, the procedure directs Intraining, emphasize steps in Criterion B the operators to inform the System Dispatcher all necessary steps AC/DC-22 recovery of off-site power after an were taken to restore power to the startup transformers. This occurs SBO. Already Implemented whether or not an SBO occurs. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Develop a severe weather Criterion B Procedure RA-EP-02810, "Tornado," is initiated whenever a tornado AC/DC-23 watch conditions procedure. Already Implemented SAMA or warning has candidate has already been issued. Therefore, theatintent been implemented of the Davis-Besse.
| |
| In order to realize a significant benefit from this SAMA, the length of power lines buried must be significant. The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was AC/DC-24 Bury off-site power lines. Criterion C estimated by Entergy Operations to require more than $25,000,000 Excessive Implementation Cost in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates.
| |
| Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide a dedicated DC power AC/DC-25 system (battery/battery charger) Criterion F For SBO scenarios, this SAMA increases the time available before for TDAFW control valve and Considered for Further Evaluation manual this SAMAcontrol of the TDAFW candidate pumps is considered forwould required. Therefore, furtherbeevaluation.
| |
| NNI-X for SG level indication.
| |
| Provide an alternator/generator Criterion F For SBO scenarios, this SAMA candidate would eliminate the need AC/DC-26 that would be driven by each to assume manual control of the TDAFW pumps. Therefore, this TDAFW pump. Considered for Further Evaluation SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would extend the time before the SBO fuel Increase the size of the SBO fuel Criterion F tank would require filling, thereby increasing the reliability of the SBO oil fFdiesel and offering more time for recovery of either off-site power or.
| |
| AD t.ne tank.
| |
| 7oil Considered for Further Evaluation the EDGs. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 58 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E " Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements (Potential Enhancement) S Cir Enhancements Related to ATWS Events Add an independent boron Criterion D Based on the top 100 cutsets and the component importance AT-01 .measures, loss of emergency boration is not a significant risk injection system. Very Low Benefit contributor at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Add a system of relief valves to Criterion D Based on the top 100 cutsets and the component importance AT-02 prevent equipment damage from 'measures, inadequate pressure relief during an ATWS event is not a pressure spikes during an ATWS. Very Low Benefit significant risk contributor at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide an additional control Criterion B Davis-Besse has an equivalent system - the Diverse Scram System.
| |
| AT-03 system for rod insertion (e.g., Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been AMSAC). Already Implemented implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Vermont Yankee was estimated by Entergy Nuclear to require more than Install an ATWS-sized filtered. Criterion C $2,000,000 in 2007. The cost associated with the implementation of AT-04 containment vent to remove decay heat. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse already has the ability and procedures in place to open Revise procedure to bypass MSIV Criterion B the MSIV bypass valves, equalize pressure around the MSIVs and AT-05 isolations Already Implemented re-open the MSIVs. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate scenarios. Ahas already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Revise procedure to allow override Criterion A ATWS scenarios at Davis-Besse would not be mitigated by RCS AT-06 of LPI during an ATWS event. Not Applicable depressurization and LPI. Therefore, candidate is not applicable the intent of the SAMA to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Based on the top 100 cutsets and component basic event importance, failure to trip the reactor is not significant risk contributor AT07 Install motor generator set trip Criterion D at. Davis-Besse. Also, ifthe reactor poweris not decreasing, breakers in control room. Very Low Benefit procedures instruct the operators to first de-energize substations E2 and F2, and if necessary locally open reactor trip breakers in the Low Voltage Switchgear room.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-159 Page E-1 59 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Provide capability to remove Criterion B Davis-Besse procedures call for de-energizing 480 V substations E2 AT-08 power from the bus powering the and F2 ifreactor power is not decreasing. Therefore, the intent of control rods. Already Implemented the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Containment Bypass The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Install additional pressure or leak Criterion C $2,300,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of CB-01 monitoring instruments for detection of ISLOCA. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Add redundant and diverse limit Criterion D LERF results are dominated by containment bypass events such as CB-02 sSGTR and ISLOCA events. Containment isolation is not a significant 2switches to each CIV. Very Low Benefit contributor to LERF.
| |
| HPI and LPI injection check valves are leak tested per Appendix J.
| |
| DHR suction lines are not tested, but rather than a leakage test, it is CB03 Increase leak testing of valves in Criterion D judged that continuously monitoring these valves at power would be ISLOCA paths. Very Low Benefit preferable to leakage test. A SAMA candidate to continuously monitor the DHR suction valves is provided in SAMA candidate CB-21.
| |
| Important CIVs receive a close signal from the safety actuation CB-04 Install self-actuating CIVs. Criterion D system. Many are air-operated and fail inthe closed position. It is Very Low Benefit judged that self-actuating valves would not provide any significant increase inthe reliability of isolation.
| |
| This would require relocating DHR pumps within the primary Locate DHR system inside Criterion C containment. These pumps would need to be protected from the CB-05 containment. Excessive Implementation Cost hostile environment resulting from a significant LOCA. This would require extensive modifications within the primary containment, which are judged to be excessive in cost.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-160 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Ensure ISLOCA releases are This SAMA candidate would have very little benefit. It is likely that the break would scrubbed. One method is to plug Criterion D significant height be of well waterabove wouldfloor drain level.
| |
| be required Therefore, before a any scrubbing CB-06 drains in potential break areas so that break point will be covered Very Low Benefit took place. At these levels, the water level would likely have with water. undesirable effects such as threatening mitigating equipment due to I _flooding.
| |
| Revise EOPs to improve ISLOCA Criterion B Davis-Besse has in place procedures that take steps to identify any CB-07 iiresulting leaks. Therefore, the. intent of the SAMA candidate has identification. Already Implemented already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| This SAMA would reduce the risk of ISLOCA events by improving CB-08 Improve operator training on Criterion E the likelihood of timely identification and diagnosis of ISLOCA events ISLOCA coping. Subsumed and thereby increasing the likelihood of successful mitigating actions. This SAMA will be subsumed in CB-07.
| |
| Institute a maintenance practice to C Davis-Besse is scheduled to replace the steam generators in 2013, CB-09 perform a 100% inspection of Criterion D which would result in inspecting new steam generator tubes.
| |
| steam generator tubes during Very Low Benefit Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered very low benefit for each refueling outage. Davis-Besse.
| |
| Replace steam generators with a Criterion B Davis-Besse is scheduled to replace the steam generators in 2013.
| |
| CB-10 nTherefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been new design. Already Implemented implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Increasing the secondary side pressure capacity would potentially require significant design changes. Increasing atmospheric and Increase the pressure capacity of safety valve setpoints would impact heat removal and AFW pump CB-11 the secondary side so that a Criterion C performance, and plant response to various transients. Pressure SGTR would not cause the relief Excessive Implementation Cost capacity of the steam generators and piping could not be increased valves to lift. without significant implementation cost. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-161 Page E-161 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Install a redundant spray system Criterion C $5,000,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of CB-1 2 to depressurize t pRi Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA system during a SGTR. Ecandidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Proceduralize Davis-Besse has a procedure in place that directs the operator to CB-13 vent use of valves during pressurizer SGTR, Criterion B use of the PORV or Pressurizer Vent Valve for large SGTR tube sequences. Already Implemented leaks. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide improved instrumentation Criterion B Main steam lines include radiation monitors (RE600, RE609).
| |
| CB-1 4 to detect SGTRs, such as Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been Nitrogen-16 monitors. Already Implemented implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Route the discharge from the The cost of implementing this at Davis-Besse was estimated by MSSts through aaisthruue MSSVs throuh where CFirstEnergy to require more than $8,500,000 in 2009. The cost structure where Criterion C associated with the implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds CB-1 5 a water spray would condense steam and remove most of the the Excessive Implementation Cost the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this fission products. SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install a highly reliable (closed The cost of implementing this at Davis-Besse was estimated by FirstEnergy to require more than $11,500,000 in 2009. The cost CB-1 6 loop) steam generator heat removal system thatshell-side relies on Criterion C associated with the implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds natural circulation and stored Excessive Implementation Cost the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this water sources. SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The preferred method to respond to a SGTR at Davis-Besse is to Revise EOPs to direct isolation of Criterion B cooldown to 500'F using both steam generators, then isolate the a faulted steam generator. Already Implemented affected steam unaffected steamgenerator and Therefore, generator. continue plant cooldown the intent of theusing SAMAthe candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-162 Page E-1 62 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Direct steam generator flooding Criterion D Flooding the SG prior to core damage could impact efforts to CB-1 8 after a SGTR, prior to core mitigate the SGTR. For example, flooding may present a risk to the damage. Very Low Benefit operation of the TDAFW pumps by risking steam generator overfill.
| |
| This SAMA candidate would result in plant decay heat being Criterion D deposited into primary containment, resulting in a harsh CB-19 Vent MSSVs in containment. environment. The possible advantages for SGTR will be offset by the Very Low Benefit negative impacts for other events where secondary steam is deposited into containment with intact steam generators.
| |
| Install relief valves in the CCW Criterion D Based on the top 100 cutsets and component basic event CB-20 importance, ISLOCA inthe CCW is not significant risk contributor at system. Very Low Benefit Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install pressure measurements This would provide operators with indication of failure of inboard CB-21 betweeninthe two DHR suction Criterion F isolation valves and provide them time to initiate mitigating actions to valves the line from the RCS hot Considered for Further Evaluation prevent an ISLOCA through these valves. Therefore, this SAMA leg. candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Core Cooling Systems Install an independent active or Criterion F This SAMA would increase the reliability of HPI for smaller break CC-01 passive HPI system. Considered for Further Evaluation LOCA scenarios.
| |
| further evaluation. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Provide an additional HPI pump Criterion C $5,000,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of CC-02 with independent diesel generator. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Revise procedure to allow CC-03 operators to inhibit automatic Criterion A Davis-Besse does not have an automatic vessel depressurization inhibit nuton-tc N Ap b system. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate is not vessel dpepressurizati vesse depressurization in non-iot Not Applicable applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| ATWS scenarios.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-163 Page E-1 63 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Examination of dominant cutsets and component basic event Criterion F importance shows the failure of LPI pumps to have moderate risk CC-04 Add a diverse LPI system. significance at Davis-Besse. This SAMA candidate would improve Considered for Further Evaluation the reliability of the LPI/DHR system. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| CC-05 Provide capability for alternate LPI Criterion F This SAMA would initiate LPI during an SBO event. Therefore, this via diesel-driven fire pump. Considered for Further Evaluation SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| Criterion B ECCS suction strainers have been replaced at Davis-Besse.
| |
| CC-06 Improve ECCS suction strainers. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been Already Implemented implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Add the ability to manually align Criterion B Davis-Besse manually aligns ECCS to the recirculation mode after CC-07 Ethe BWST inventory has been exhausted. Therefore, the intent of ECCS recirculation. Already Implemented the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse currently has the ability to initiate automatic switchover Add the ability to automatically Criterion E from the BWST to the containment sump on low BWST level, but CC-08 align ECCS to recirculation mode this feature has been deactivated. The cost would by minor to upon BWST depletion. Subsumed reactivate this feature. This SAMA candidate will be subsumed in SAMA candidate CC-19.
| |
| Davis-Besse has the ability to refill the BWST using the Clean Waste Provide hardware and procedure Criterion B Receiver Tank (CWRT). The CWRT contains borated water.
| |
| CC-09 to refill the BWST once it reaches a specified low level. Already Implemented Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| This SAMA candidate is intended to increase reliability by eliminating the need to switch from the BWST to the containment sump.
| |
| Provide an in-containment reactor Criterion C Implementing major modifications inside containment is estimated to CC-10 w aErequire excessive implementation costs. A SAMA candidate to water storage tank.
| |
| O Excessive Implementation Cost implement the automatic switchover from the BWST to the containment sump is considered a much more cost-effective way to address this issue.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E E Page E-164 Page E-164 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Davis-Besse Operators are prohibited from throttling LPI pumps Modify procedures to throttle LPI earlier in medium or large break LOCAs to maintain BWST Criterion D inventory.
| |
| CC-11 pumps earlier in medium or large break LOCAs to maintain BWST Very Low Benefit If BWST flow was throttled down to reduce flowrate, the additional inventory. time gained is approximately 20 minutes, which, from a PRA perspective, is of low benefit for a LOCA condition.
| |
| 2 Emphasize timely recirculation Criterion B Alignment to ECCS containment recirculation is a critical action in CC al n iresponse to a LOCA event. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA alignment in operator training. AireadylImplemented candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The make-up system can be used to provide make-up to the RCS in Upgrade the chemical and volume Criterion D the event of a small LOCA. Because of the separate HPI and make-CC-13 control system to mitigate small up systems, the plant has essentially four separate systems capable break LOCAs. Very Low Benefit of injecting from the BWST into the RCS at high pressure. This was identified as a unique safety feature inthe IPE.
| |
| Change the in-containment reactor haknf Criterion A Davis-Besse does not have an in-containment reactor water storage CC-i 4 water storage four check tan tosuction valves rom two check Not Applicable tank. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| and two air-operated valves.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Replace two of the four electric Criterion C $2,000,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of CC-1 5 safety injection pumps with diesel-powered pumps. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide capability for remote, CC-16 manual operation of secondary Criterion B Davis-Besse procedure includes operator action to provide manual side pimanualooperatedn rif vvesindr A reyimetedn Bcontrol of atmospheric vent valves. Therefore, the intent of the side pilot-operated relief valves in Already Implemented SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| an SBO.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E E Page E-165 Page E-165 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Create a reactor coolant Criterion C $4,600,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of depressurization system. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| There currently exist several ways to depressurizing the RCS. The Make hardware and procedure Criterion B one uses the normal pressurizer spray, and two methods use the CC-1 8 changes to allow RCS depressurization. Already Implemented vent path. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide automatic switchover of Davis-Besse currently has the ability to initiate automatic switchover HPI and LPI suction from the Criterion F from the BWST to the containment sump on low BWST level, but BWT to cthis feature has been deactivated. The cost would by minor to BWST to containment sump for Considered for Further Evaluation reactivate this feature. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is LOCAs. considered for further evaluation.
| |
| The cost of implementing this at Davis-Besse was estimated by Modify hardware and procedures FirstEnergy to require more than $10,000,000 in 2009. The cost to allow using the make-up pumps Criterion C associated with the implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds for high pressure recirculation from Excessive Implementation Cost the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this the containment sump. SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Reducing the level at which switchover occurs (nine feet) would not Reduce the BWST level at which Criterion D significantly extend the time to switchover, and would increase the CC-21 switchover to containment probability of pump failure due to loss of suction head. Davis-Besse recirculation is initiated. Very Low Benefit has installed more accurate BWST level instrumentation which allows reaching a lower level prior to switchover to recirculation.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Attachment E Page E-166 Page E-166 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA ID SAMA ID [ Modification (oetaEnacmt)Screening (Potential Enhancement) JI Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Enhancements Related to Containment Phenomena The capability exists to dump BWST water into the containment.
| |
| Create a reactor cavity flooding Criterion B Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs) describes the including several methods to move the the contents for cp-0 systrategy performing, of the BWST into the containment. Therefore, intent of system. Already Implemented the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install a passive containment Criterion C Installing a passive containment system is considered prohibitively CP-02 expensive. implementthis beneficial to Therefore, SAMA candidate is not considered cost at Davis-Besse.
| |
| spray system. Excessive Implementation Cost Use the fire water system as a Criterion D Davis-Besse has a very large dry containment. Containment over-CP-03 backup source for the containment spray system. Very Low Benefit pressurization is not a significant risk contributor.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Install an unfiltered, hardened Criterion C $3,100,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of CP-04 containment vent. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install a filtered containment vent The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas to remove decay heat. Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require CP-05 Option 1: Gravel Bed Filter Criterion C $5,700,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA Option 2: Multiple Venturi candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost Scrubber beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment Attachment E Page E-167 Page E-167 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements This SAMA candidate addresses the scrubbing of radioactive releases into certain areas by actuating the fire protection system.
| |
| Although some scrubbing benefits might be realized, this SAMA Enhance fire protection system Criterion D candidate presents the risk of impacting required equipment by hardware and procedures. Very Low Benefit spray or flooding. This could only be performed with fire protection systems that could be remotely actuated. Ifthe temperature in certain areas became high enough, some existing fire protection systems may automatically actuate.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require CP07 Provide post-accident containment Criterion C $10,900,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation inerting capability. Excessive Implementation Cost of this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Create a large concrete crucible Criterion C $108,000,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation CP-08 with heat removal potential to contain molten core debris. Excessive Implementation Cost of this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at J.A.
| |
| Fitzpatrick was estimated to cost more than $5,000,000. The cost Create a core melt source Criterion C associated with the implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds reduction system. Excessive Implementation Cost the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Significant modifications to the primary/secondary containment, if Strengthen primary/secondary Criterion C possible, are considered prohibitively expensive. Therefore, this CP-10 containment (e.g., add ribbing to containment shell). Excessive Implementation Cost SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-168 Page E-168 Aug ust 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E.- Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Vermont Increase depth'of the concrete Yankee was estimated by Entergy Nuclear to require more than CP11 base mat or use an alternate Criterion C $5,000,000 in 2007. The cost associated with the implementation of concrete material to ensure melt- Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA through does not occur. candidates. Therefore, this.SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require Provide a reactor vessel exterior Criterion C $2,500,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of CP-12 cooling system. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Construct a building to be Construction of a building connected to the primary/secondary CR13 connected to primary/secondary Criterion C containment, if possible, is considered to be prohibitively expensive.
| |
| containment and maintained at a Excessive Implementation Cost Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to vacuum. implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse currently does not have severe accidents modeled on the plant simulator. Training on severe accidents is accomplished C1 Institute simulator training for Criterion B by other means, such as table-top exercises, computer-based severe accident scenarios. Already Implemented training and in Emergency Response Organization training.
| |
| Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse has a Reactor Coolant System Integrated Leakage CP-15 Improve leak detection Criterion B Program. Davis-Besse also has a Containment Leak Detection procedures. Already Implemented System and associated procedures. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| CP-16 Delay containment spray actuation Criterion D The delay time that could be realized if containment spray was would be less than 10 minutes. This SAMA candidate is after adelayed after a large break LOCA. Very Low Benefit considered to be of very low benefit.
| |
| Page E-169 August 2010 F
| |
| Attachment E Page E-169 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| *Modification SAMAID (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements The capability already exists at Davis-Besse to throttle containment Install automatic containment Criterion D spray after the switchover to the sump. The delay time that could be CP-1 7 spray pump header throttle valves, Very Low Benefit realized minutes. ifThis containment spray wasis throttled SAMA candidate consideredwould be ofless to be verythan low 10 benefit.
| |
| Install a redundant containment Criterion C Significant modifications to the containment, ifpossible, are 8spray system. considered prohibitively expensive. Therefore, this SAMA candidate Excessive Implementation Cost is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install a redundant containment Criterion D Based on component basic event importance, containment fan CP-19 fcoolers are not significant risk contributors at Davis-Besse. This 9fan system. Very Low Benefit SAMA candidate is considered to be very low benefit.
| |
| Install or use an independent power supply to the hydrogen control system using either new batteries, a non-safety grade Criterion D Davis-Besse has a very large dry containment. Hydrogen burn does CP-20 portable generator, existing station not present a significant risk. This SAMA candidate is considered to batteries, or existing AC/DC Very Low Benefit be very low benefit.
| |
| independent power supplies, such as the security system diesel generator.
| |
| Install a passive hydrogen control Criterion D LERF is dominated by containment bypass events such as SGTR CP-21and ISLOCA. Failure of containment is not a significant contributor system. Very Low Benefit to LERF. This SAMA candidate is considered to be very low benefit.
| |
| Erect a barrier that would provide The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Vermont enhanced protection of the Yankee was estimated by Entergy Nuclear to require more than containment walls (shell) from Criterion C $12,000,000 in 2007. The cost associated with the implementation ejected core debris following a Excessive Implementation Cost of this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA core melt scenario at high candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost pressure. beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 70 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA ID Modification (Potential Enhancement) [ Screening Criteria Basis for ScreeninglModification Enhancements Enhancements Related to Cooling Water Based on the top 100 cutsets and component basic event importance, the most risk significant impact from service water Add redundant DC control power Criterion D pumps is failure to run. This would likely not be impacted by DC CW-1 for service water pumps. Very Low Benefit power failure. Failure of DC power would impact much more than service water and improving the reliability of DC power to only service water would have very limited valueý Replace ECCS pump motors with Criterion B The ECCS pump motors at Davis-Besse are air-cooled. Therefore, CW-02 athe intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at air-cooled motors. Already Implemented Davis-Besse.
| |
| Procedure DB-OP-02523, "Component Water System Malfunctions,"
| |
| Enhance procedural guidance for Criterion B provides steps to cross connect CCW. For example, CCW Loop 1 CW-03 use of cross-tied component can be cross connected to HPI Pump 2, .LPI Pump 2 and CTMT cooling or service water pumps. Already Implemented Hydrogen Analyzer 2. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Add a redundant service water Criterion D Davis-Besse has three service water pumps. In addition, the supply CW-04 pnormally pump. Very Low Benefit of servicerunning cooling tower water following loss ofmakeup water.is the preferred service pump The Davis-Besse water supply from Lake Erie travels through a long Criterion D canal before reaching the intake structure. There is a screen at the CW-05 Enhance the screen wash system. intake from Lake Erie. The long distance traveled through the canal Very Low Benefit results in a significant fraction of material passing through the initial screen settling out prior to reaching the intake structure.
| |
| Cap downstream piping of Criterion D Loss of CCW through drain and vent lines is not considered to be a CW-06 normally closed CCW drain and significant contributor to loss of CCW. These lines are small, and vent valves. Very Low Benefit any leakage would likely be low.
| |
| Procedure DB-OP-0251 1, "Loss of Service Water Pumps/System" Enhance loss of CCW (or loss of Criterion B and procedure DP-OP-02523, "Component Cooling Water System CW-07 service water) procedures to Malfunctions," call for tripping all RCPs when specific conditions are facilitate stopping the RCPs. Already Implemented met. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-171 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Enhance loss of CCW procedure Seal LOCA is not a concern at Davis-Besse if the RCPs are tripped.
| |
| CW-08 to underscore the desirability of Criterion D On loss of CCW, the makeup pumps can continue operation for at cooling down the RCS prior to seal Very Low Benefit least one hour. Therefore, if operators trip the RCPs within one hour LOCA. of loss of CCW, an RCP seal LOCA is not a risk concern.
| |
| Seal LOCA is not a concern at Davis-Besse if the RCPs are tripped.
| |
| Criterion D On loss of CCW, the makeup pumps can continue operation for at Very Low Benefit least one hour. Therefore, if operators trip the RCPs within one hour of loss of CCW, an RCP seal LOCA is not a risk concern.
| |
| Provide hardware connections to Davis-Besse has the capability to provide cooling to Train 2 ECCS allow another essential raw Criterion B components (including makeup pumps) and Train 2 decay heat cooling water system to cool Already Implemented coolers. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already charging pump seals, been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Significant CCW loads are shed if CCW temperature limits are On loss of essential raw cooling reached. Letdown flow is reduced on high letdown temperature.
| |
| C-1 water, proceduralize shedding Criterion B RCPs are tripped on high temperature. If an SFAS signal is CCW loads to extend the CCW Alreadygenerated; numerous non-essential CCW loads will be automatically CCWoat-heat-up timexW time. Already Implemented isolated.
| |
| hour If required, without LPI andTherefore, CCW cooling. HPI pumps thecan operate intent of theforSAMA up to one candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| CW-1 2 Increase charging pump lube oil Criterion D Davis-Besse makeup pumps can operate for at least one hour on capacity. Very Low Benefit loss of CCW.
| |
| Davis-Besse estimated the cost for a major safety-related modification with calculation support and procedure changes with Install an independent RCP seal Criterion C engineering support and testing or training required to be CW-1 3 injection system, with dedicated $1,500,000. Once cost of the equipment is included in the diesel generator. Excessive Implementation Cost implementation cost, it will exceed the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-172 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Davis-Besse estimated the cost for a major safety-related modification with calculation support and procedure changes with Install an independent RCP seal Criterion C engineering support and testing or training required to be CW-14 injection system, without dedicated $1,500,000. Once cost of the equipment is included inthe diesel generator. Excessive Implementation Cost implementation cost, it will exceed the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Seal LOCA is not a concern at Davis-Besse ifthe RCPs are tripped.
| |
| Cw1 Use existing hydro test pump for Criterion D On loss of CCW, the makeup pumps can continue operation for at RCP seal injection. Very Low Benefit least one hour. Therefore, if operators trip the RCPs within one hour of loss of CCW, an RCP seal LOCA is not a risk concern.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 was estimated by Entergy Operations to require CW-16 Install improved RCP seals. Criterion C $2,500,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse estimated installing a diverse CCW pump for Criterion C $7,500,000 in 2009. This cost estimate bounds this SAMA CW-1 7 Install an additional CCW pump. Excessive Implementation Cost candidate. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| CW-18 Prevent make-up pump flow Criterion D The make-up system is continuously operating. Malfunctions of relief diversion through the relief valves. Very Low Benefit valves would be immediately detected during operation and corrected.
| |
| Change procedures to isolate RCP Procedure DB-OP-025 15, "Reactor Coolant Pump and Motor seal return flow on loss of CCW, Criterion B Abnormal Operation," instructs the operators to isolate the seal CW-19 and provide guidance on (or lossenhance) of injection Already Implemented return line ifvarious conditions are present. Therefore, the intent of during seal LOCA.o i A the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Page E-173 Page E-173 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID Enhancmn (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Implement procedures to stagger Procedure DB-OP-02523 provides caution that HPI, LPI, and high pressure safety injection Criterion B makeup pumps can be operated for one hour without CCW cooling.
| |
| CW20 hh prssue saftet injossofservct AOperators are aware of limited running time of pumps without pump use after a loss of service Already Implemented cooling water. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has water. already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Use fire prevention system pumps The fire protection system is not a high pressure system capable of as a backup RCP seal injection Criterion B providing seal injection. Davis-Besse has the capability to provide CW-21 cooling and high pressure make-up source. Already Implemented Train 2 to candidate Trainheat decay 2 ECCS components (including coolers.
| |
| has already been Therefore, makeup theatintent pumps) and of the SAMA implemented Davis-Besse.
| |
| Implement procedure and Davis-Besse has the capability to align fire protection water to cool CW-22 hardware modifications to allow Criterion B the Train 2 ECCS pumps and decay heat removal heat exchanger.
| |
| manual alignment of the fire water Already Implemented Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been system to the CCW system. implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Criterion B Davis-Besse has the ability to align the standby CCW pump at either CW-23 Install a CCW header cross-tie. Train 1 or Train 2. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has Already Implemented already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The cost of implementing this at Davis-Besse was estimated by Replace the standby CCW pump FirstEnergy to require more than $7,500,000 in 2009. The cost CW-24 with a pump diverse from the other Criterion C associated with the implementation of this SAMA candidate exceeds two CCW pumps. Excessive Implementation Cost the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide the ability to cool make-up Criterion B Davis-Besse has.the capability to align fire protection water to cool CW-25 pumps using fire water in the Train 2 Makeup pump. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate event of loss of CCW. Already Implemented has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-174 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID ( Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements
| |
| ~(Potential
| |
| _________ Enhancement) _________________
| |
| Enhancements Related to Internal Flooding Improve inspection of rubber Criterion D Based on the top 100 cutsets and component basic event FL-01 expansion joints on main importance, circulating water breaks are not a significant risk condenser. Very Low Benefit contributor at Davis-Besse.
| |
| In defense against steam line breaks in the turbine building doors Modify swing direction of doors from the turbine building to areas containing safety equipment open FL02 separating turbine building Criterion B such that they seal against the frame during steam line breaks. This will also provide resistance to flood propagation from basement fconfiguration basen from areas containing Already Implemented the turbine building to areas with safety related equipment.
| |
| safeguards equipment. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Fire Risk Inadvertent actuation of fire protection water is not considered risk FR-1 Replace mercury switches in fire Criterion D significant and currently not modeled in the PRA. Any fire protection protection system. Very Low Benefit system water should be handled by existing drains and is not considered a significant flooding threat.
| |
| FR-02 Upgrade fire compartment Criterion D The Davis-Besse IPEEE did not identify any weakness in.the fire barriers. Very Low Benefit barrier performance.
| |
| Currently isolation switches exist for a control evacuation. Some Install additional transfer and Criterion D manual actions beyond operation of isolation switches are required FR-03 i(e.g., plugging connectors, removing/inserting fuse blocks). Adding 3isolation switches. Very Low Benefit additional transfer/isolation switches is not considered to be of significant benefit.
| |
| FR-04 Enhance fire brigade awareness. Criterion D The Davis-Besse IPEEE did not identify any weakness in fire Very Low Benefit brigade performance.
| |
| Enhance control of combustibles Criterion D The Davis-Besse IPEEE did not identify any weakness in the FR-05 and ignition sources. Very Low Benefit combustible control program.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E E Page E-175 Page E-1 75 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| SAMA ID j Modification (Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Enhancements Related to Feedwater and Condensate Criterion B Although Davis-Besse currently does not have a digital feedwater FW-01 Install a digital feedwater upgrade. control system, it is planning to install one. -This need not be Already Implemented considered further.
| |
| FW-02 Create ability for emergency connection of existing or new Criterion B The fire water system can be used a backup to the AFW pump water sources to feedwater and Already Implemented suction. Therefore,atthe been implemented intent of the SAMA candidate has already Davis-Besse.
| |
| condensate systems.
| |
| Davis-Besse has the capability of replenishing the CST using fire Install an independent diesel for Criterion D protection water. This can be done even on loss of AC power.
| |
| the CST make-up pumps. Very Low Benefit Adding diesel for condensate makeup pumps would not add much benefit.
| |
| The MDFP can supply steam generator following loss of MFW the TDAFW pumps. The MDFP can be supplied by either EDG in the Criterion B event of a LOOP. In addition, the startup feed pump can be used to Already Implemented supply the steam generators in the loss of all AFW. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| The purpose of the SAMA candidate was to reduce dual turbine-Install manual isolation valves Criterion D driven pump maintenance unavailability. Although manual isolation FW-05 around the TDAFW pump steam Very Low Benefit valves do not exist, Davis-Besse has valves within the steam lines admission valves. that allow isolation of one TDAFW pump for maintenance while leaving the second TDAFW pump available.
| |
| Davis-Besse TDAFW pump flow control valves are solenoid-FW06 Install accumulators for TDAFW Criterion A operated flow control valves that would not benefit from the use of pump flow control valves. Not Applicable an accumulator. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install a new CST (AFW storage Criterion D Based on the top 100 cutsets and component basic event FW-07 importance, failure of the CST or lack of condensate storage tank). Very Low Benefit capacity is not significant risk contributor at Davis-Besse Attachment E Page E-1 76 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID (Potential Enhancement), Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements FW08 Modify the TDAFW pump to be Criterion B The TDAFW pumps are self-cooled, with service water cooling Fself-cooled:
| |
| 8 Already Implemeted available as a backup. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Proceduralize local manual Criterion B Procedure DB-OP-02521 addresses manual control of AFW in the FW-09 operation of AFW system when event of loss of AC and DC power. Therefore, the intent of the control power path is lost. Already Implemented SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide hookup for portable diesel A portable generator is placed on the turbine deck and cables are FW-IO generators to power the TDAFW Criterion B run to provide power for steam generator level information. The pump after station batteries are Already Implemented TDAFW intent of pump is then the SAMA run manually candidate at the pump.
| |
| has already Therefore, the been implemented at depleted. Davis-Besse.
| |
| Davis-Besse has the ability to align fire protection water to the AFW FW-1 1 Use fire water system as a backup Criterion B system. In addition, service water will automatically be aligned to for steam generator inventory. Already Implemented the AFW system on low system pressure. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Change failure position of FW-12 condenser make-up valve ifthe Criterion D On loss of air or electric power, several components required for cn s m u vsecondary heat removal would be lost, therefore the state of the condenser make-up valve fails Very Low Benefit condenser make-up valve is not relevant.
| |
| open on loss of air or power.
| |
| The cost of implementing a similar SAMA candidate at Shearon Harris was estimated by Carolina Power &Light Company to require Provide a passive, secondary-side Criterion C $1,700,000 in 2005. The cost associated with the implementation of FW-1 3 heat-rejection loop consisting of a condenser and heat sink. Excessive Implementation Cost this SAMA candidate exceeds the attainable benefit for all SAMA candidates. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is not considered cost beneficial to implement at Davis-Besse.,
| |
| Modify the startup feedwater pump The startup feed pump can be used to supply the steam generators FW- 14 so s that hti it can a be eueused assabcu a backup Criterion B in the loss of all AFW. The startup feed pump can be supplied by to the AFW system, including Already Implemented emergency AC from the EDGs or the SBO diesel generator using during an SBO. bus ties. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is already implemented.
| |
| August 2010 F
| |
| Attachment E Page E-177 Page E-177 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Replace existing pilot-operated Failure of the PORV to open only shows up in the Level 1 relief valves with larger ones, such Criterion D importance with a RRW of 1.006 (cutoff 1.005). It does not show up that only one is required for Very Low Benefit in the top cutsets or the LERF importance list. Therefore, it is judged successful feed and bleed. to be very low benefit.
| |
| Perform surveillances on manual Criterion B These valves are cycled, cleaned and lubricated annually.
| |
| FW-16 valves used for backup AFW Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been pump suction. Already Implemented implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
| |
| Provide a redundant train or Criterion F Loss of switchgear ventilation is a risk significant contributor for HV-01 Davis-Besse. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for means of ventilation. Considered for Further Evaluation further evaluation.
| |
| Add a diesel building high Criterion B Davis-Besse has a diesel building high temperature alarm installed.
| |
| HV-02 temperature alarm or redundant Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been louver and thermostat. AlreadyImplemented implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| HV03 Stage backup fans in switchgear Criterion F Loss of switchgear ventilation is a risk significant contributor for rooms. Considered for Further Evaluation Davis-Besse. Therefore, this SAMA candidate is considered for further evaluation.
| |
| The high voltage switchgear rooms do not require forced ventilation.
| |
| Add a switchgear room high Criterion D Low voltage switchgear rooms require forced ventilation. Operators HV-04 tmonitor the temperature of the low voltage switchgear their plant tours. Loss of ventilation to the low voltage rooms temperature alarm. Very Low Benefit during switchgear is shown to not be risk significant.
| |
| Create ability to switch emergency Criterion D Loss of ventilation to AFW is not a risk significant contributor at HV-05 feedwater room fan power supply to station batteries in an SBO. Very Low Benefit Davis-Besse.
| |
| Provide procedural guidance for HV-06 establishing an alternate means of Criterion D Service Water ventilation includes four 50% fans. Loss of service room ventilation to the service Very Low Benefit water ventilation is not a significant risk contributor at Davis-Besse.
| |
| water pump room.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-178 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA ID
| |
| ___ J ~(Potential
| |
| ( Enhancement) _ _
| |
| Screening Criteria
| |
| _ _ _ _
| |
| Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Enhancements Related to Instrument Air and Nitrogen Supply Provide cross-unit connection of Criterion A Davis-Besse is a single unit site. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA IA-01 uninterruptible compressed air supply (multi-unit). Not Applicable candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Modify procedure to provide ability Criterion D Service Air and Instrument Air are not significant risk contributors IA-02 to align diesel power to more air compressors. Very Low Benefit based on top cutsets and risk importance measures.
| |
| Replace service and instrument air compressors with more reliable Criterion D Service Air and Instrument Air are not significant risk contributors IA-03 compressors that have self-contained air cooling by shaft- Very Low Benefit based on top cutsets and risk importance measures.
| |
| driven fans.
| |
| IA04 Install nitrogen bottles as backup Criterion A The PORVs at Davis-Besse are electric powered. Therefore, the
| |
| - gas supply for PORV. Not Applicable intent of the SAMA candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| IA-05 Improve PORVs pneumatic Criterion A The PORVs at Davis-Besse are electric powered. Therefore, the components. Not Applicable intent of the SAMA candidate is not applicable to Davis-Besse.
| |
| Enhancements Related to Seismic Risk Increase seismic ruggedness of Criterion D The Seismic Qualifications Utility Group (SQUG) previously SR-01 ~?identified plant components. Very Low Benefit the needhave These restraints for already additional seismic been restraints in the plant.
| |
| added.
| |
| Provide additional restraints for Criterion D The CO2 tanks are located outdoors. These tanks supply only the CO tanks.turbine generator. No other components are protected with CO 2. A C02 tanks. Very Low Benefit seismic failure of the CO2 tanks has minimal risk.
| |
| Other Enhancements Install digital large break LOCA Criterion D Large break LOCA is not a significant risk contributor (0.2% CDF).
| |
| OT-01 pDavis-Besse protection system. Very Low Benefit hasfrom to identify leaks a Containment Leakage and vessel penetrations Detection nozzles.System (FLUS)
| |
| August 2010 Attachment F Attachment E Page E-179 Page E-179 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.6-1: Qualitative Screening of SAMA Candidates (continued)
| |
| Modification SAMA(Potential Enhancement) Screening Criteria Basis for Screening/Modification Enhancements Large break LOCAs must be mitigated by automatic actions. Also, T-02 Enhance procedures to mitigate Criterion B review of the top cutsets and component basic event importance large break LOCA. Already Implemented verified that a large Davis-Besse. break the Therefore, LOCA is not intent a significant of the risk contributor SAMA candidate has at I_ already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install computer-aided The Davis-Besse computer system includes a Safety Parameter and OT03 instrumentation system to assist Criterion B Display System (SPDS) and a Post Accident Monitoring System the operator in assessing post- Already Implemented (PAMS). Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already accident plant status. been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Criterion D Davis-Besse has a qualified Maintenance Rule program in place.
| |
| Very Low Benefit No deficiencies in maintenance practices have been identified.
| |
| Increase training and operating Criterion D OT-05 experience feedback to improve No deficiencies in operator training or feedback are identified.
| |
| operator response. Very Low Benefit Davis-Besse already has procedures to respond to off-site events Develop procedures for Criterion B such as chemical and oil spills or other events that could impact the OT-06 transportation and nearby facility accidents. Already Implemented station or personnel. Therefore, the intent of the SAMA candidate has already been implemented at Davis-Besse.
| |
| Install secondary side guard pipes Criterion D Steam line breaks are not a significant contributor to LERF. The OT-07 up to the MSIVs. Very Low Benefit derived benefit would not justify the implementation cost required.
| |
| August 2010 F
| |
| Attachment E Attachment Page E-180 Page E-180 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear.Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-1: Summary of PRA Cases Enhanced Internal Case # Description Model Approach Events CDF (1lyr)
| |
| The off-site power non-recovery probabilities were recalculated 9.E-06 AC/DC-O1 Provide additional DC battery capacity; based on seven hours of battery life.
| |
| AC/DC-03 Add a portable, diesel-driven battery charger to existing DC system.
| |
| Removed prevent thethe batteries' station from batteries beingdependence depleted. on charging to 7.8E-06 AC/DC-14 Install a gas turbine generator. Made the SBO diesel generator and corresponding HRA 9.0E-06 events perfectly reliable.
| |
| AC/DC-19 Use fire water system as a backup source for diesel Each EDG was modeled independent of cooling from the CCW 9.8E-06 cooling, system.
| |
| AC/DC-21 Develop 4kV All 4kV breakers were made perfectly reliable. 9.7E-06 breakers.procedures to repair or replace failed AC/DC-25 Provide a dedicated DC power system Made the TDAFW system independent of the station DC 8.5E-06 AC/DC-25 (battery/battery charger) for TDAFW control. power.
| |
| AC/DC-26 Provide an alternator/generator that would be driven Made the TDAFW system independent of the station DC 8.5E-06 by each TDAFW pump to provide DC control power. power.
| |
| reliable. actions to refuel the tank were made perfectly AC/DC-27 Increase the size of the SBO fuel oil tank. Operator 1.0E-05 CB-21 Install pressure measurements between the two DHR Removed all latent failures of the upstream DHR suction valve. 1.OE-05 suction valves in the line from the RCS hot leg.
| |
| CC-01 Install an independent active or passive HPI system. Made one train of HPI perfectly reliable. 1.OE-05 CC-04 Add a diverse LPI system. Made one train of LPI perfectly reliable. 1.OE-05 CC-05 Provide capability for alternate LPI via diesel-driven Made one train of LPI perfectly reliable and independent of 1.0E-05 fire pump. AC/DC power. _______
| |
| CC-19 Provide from BWST to switchover the automatic containmentofsump HPI and LPI suction for LOCAs. HRA events for switchover were made perfectly reliable. 9.9E-06 Attachment E Page E-1 81 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-1: Summary of PRA Cases (continued)
| |
| Enhanced Internal Case # Description Model Approach Events CDF (l/yr)
| |
| HV-01 Provide a redundant train or means of ventilation. Low voltage switchgear room ventilation was made perfectly 1.OE-05 reliable.
| |
| Low voltage switchgear room ventilation was made perfectly 1.0E-05 HV-03 Stage backup fans in switchgear rooms. reliable.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-1 82 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-2: Internal Events Benefit Results for Analysis Cases Case AC/DC-01 AC/DC-03 ACIDC-14 ACIDC-19 AC/DC-21 (DCBattery) (Battery Charger) (GasTurbineGen) (FireWaterBackup) (RepairBreakers)
| |
| Off-site Annual Dose (rem) 2.0E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 2.OE+00 2.0E+00 Off-site Annual Property Loss ($) $1,588 $1,430 $1,464 $1,591 $1,593 Comparison CDF 4 1i0E-05 1i0E-05 1.OE-05 1.0E-05 1.OE-05 Comparison Dose (rem) 2.OE+00 2.0E+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.0E+00 Comparison Cost ($) $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 Enhanced CDF 9.4E-06 7.8E-06 9.OE-06 9.8E-06 9.7E-06 Reduction in CDF 6.00% 22.00% 10.00% 2.00% 3.00%
| |
| Reduction in Off-site Dose 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00%
| |
| Immediate Dose Savings (On-site) $49 $178 $81 $16 $24 Long Term Dose Savings (On-site) $212 $777 $353 $71 $106 Total Accident Related Occupational Exposure (AOE) $260 $955 $434 $87 $130 Cleanup/Decontamination Savings (On-site) $7,942 $29,120 $13,236 $2,647 $3,971 Replacement Power Savings (On-site) $8,035 $29,462 $13,392 $2,678 $4,018 Averted Costs of On-site Property Damage (AOSC) $15,977 $58,581 $26,628 $5,326 $7,988 Total On-site Benefit $16,237 $59,536 $27,062 $5,412 $8,119 Averted Public Exposure (APE) $0 $4,908 $4,908 $0 $0 Averted Off-site Damage Savings (AOC) $147 $2,086 $1,669 $110 $86 Total Off-site Benefit $147 $6,994 $6,577 $110 $86 Total Benefit (On-site + Off-site) $16,384 $66,530 $33,639 $5,523 $8,204 4 The sum of the Containment Systems State frequencies calculated by the Level 2 PRA model is slightly different than the CDF calculated by the Level 1 PRA due to the delete term approximation and the additional systems included in the Level 2 models.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-183 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-2: Internal Events Benefit Results for Analysis Cases (continued)
| |
| Case AC/DC-25 AC/DC-26 AC/DC-27 CB-21 CC-01 (DedDCPower) (GeneratorTDAFW) (SBODieselTank) (DHR valves) (HPl System)
| |
| Off-site Annual Dose (rem) 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 1.8E+00 2.OE+00 Off-site Annual Property Loss ($) $1,579 $1,579 $1,600 $1,516 $1,589 4
| |
| Comparison CDF 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 Comparison Dose (rem) 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 Comparison Cost ($) $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 Enhanced CDF 8.5E-06 8.5E-06 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 Reduction In CDF 15.00% 15.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
| |
| Reduction In Off-site Dose 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00%
| |
| Immediate Dose Savings (On-site) $121 $121 $0 $0 $0 Long Term Dose Savings (On-site) $529 $529 $0 $0 $0 Total Accident Related Occupational Exposure (AOE) $651 $651 $0 $0 $0 Cleanup/Decontamination Savings (On-site) $19,854 $19,854 $0 $0 $0 Replacement Power Savings (On-site) $20,088 $20,088 $0 $0 $0 Averted Costs of On-site Property Damage (AOSC) $39,942 $39,942 $0 $0 $0 Total On-site Benefit $40,593 $40,593 $0 $0 $0 Averted Public Exposure (APE) $0 $0 $0 $4,908 $0 Averted Off-site Damage Savings (AOC) $258 $258 $0 $1,031 $135 Total Off-site Benefit $258 $258 $0 $5,939 $135 Total Benefit (On-site + Off-site) $40,850 $40,850 $0 $5,939 $135 4 The sum of the Containment Systems State frequencies calculated by the Level 2 PRA model is slightly different than the CDF calculated by the Level 1 PRA due to the delete term approximation and the additional systems included in the Level 2 models.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-184 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-2: Internal Events Benefit Results for Analysis Cases (continued)
| |
| Case CC-04 CC-05 CC-19 HV-01 HV-03 (LPlpump) (LPIDieselpump) (BWST to Sump) (Redundant HVAC) (Backup-fans)
| |
| Off-site Annual Dose (rem) 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 Off-site Annual Property Loss ($) $1,600 $1,600 $1,599 $1,599 $1,599 4
| |
| Comparison CDF 1.0E-05 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 1.OE-05 1.0E-05 Comparison Dose (rem) 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 2.OE+00 Comparison Cost ($) $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 Enhanced CDF 1.OE-05 1.0E-05 9.9E-06 1.0E-05 1.OE-05 Reduction In CDF 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00%
| |
| Reduction In Off-site Dose 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
| |
| Immediate Dose Savings (On-site) $0 $0 $8 $0 $0 Long Term Dose Savings (On-site) $0 $0 $35 $0 $0 Total Accident Related Occupational Exposure (AOE) $0 $0 $43 $0 $0 Cleanup/Decontamination Savings (On-site) $0 $0 $1,324 $0 $0 Replacement Power Savings (On-site) $0 $0 $1,339 $0 $0 Averted Costs of On-site Property Damage (AOSC) $0 $0 $2,663 $0 $0 Total On-site Benefit $0 $0 $2,706 $0 $0 Averted Public Exposure (APE) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Averted Off-site Damage Savings (AOC) $0 $0 $12 $12 $12 Total Off-site Benefit $0 $0 $12 $12 $12 Total Benefit (On-site + Off-site) $0 $0 $2,718 $12 $12 "The sum of the Containment Systems State frequencies calculated by the Level 2 PRA model is slightly different than the CDF calculated by the Level 1 PRA due to the delete term approximation and the additional systems included in the Level 2 models.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-185 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-3: Total Benefit Results for Analysis Cases AC/DC-01 AC/DC-03 AC/DC-14 AC/DC-19 AC/DC-21 AC/DC-25 AC/DC-26 (DCBattery) (Battery Charger) (GasTurbineGen) (FireWaterBackup) (RepairBreakers) (DedDCPower) (Generator TDAFW)
| |
| Internal Events $16,384 $66,530 $33,639 $5,523 $8,204 $40,850 $40,850 Fires, Seismic, Other $49,153 $199,590 $100,916 $16,568 $24,613 $122,551 $122,551 Total Benefit $65,537 $266,120 $134,554 $22,091 $32,818 $163,402 $163,402 AC/DC-27 CB-21 CC-01 CC-04 CC-05 CC-19 HV-01 (SBODieselTank) (DHR valves) (HPISystem) (LPIlpump) (LPlDieselpump) (BWSTtoSump) (RedundantHVAC)
| |
| Internal Events $0 $5,939 $135 $0 $0 $2,718 $12 Fires, Seismic, Other $0 $17,819 $405 $0 $0 $8,155 $37 Total Benefit $0 $23,755 $540 $0 $0 $10,874 $49 HV-03 (Backup fans)
| |
| Internal Events $12 Fires, Seismic, Other $37 Total Benefit $49 Attachment E Page E-186 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-4: Implementation Cost Estimates SAMA Candidate Potential Enhancement Estimate ID AC/DC-01 Provide additional DC battery capacity. $1,750,000 AC/DC-03 Add a portable, diesel-driven battery charger to existing DC system. $330,000 AC/DC-14 Install a gas turbine generator. $2,000,000 AC/DC-19 Use fire water system as a backup source for diesel cooling. $700,000 AC/DC-21 Develop procedures to repair or replace failed 4kV breakers. $100,000 AC/DC-25 Provide a dedicated DC power system (battery/battery charger) for the $2,000,000 TDAFW control valve and NNI-X for steam generator level indication.
| |
| AC/DC-26 Provide an alternator/generator that would be driven by each TDAFW $2,000,000 pump.
| |
| AC/DC-27 Increase the size of the SBO fuel oil tank. $550,000 CB-21 Install pressure measurements between the two DHR suction valves in $550,000 the line from the RCS hot leg.
| |
| CC-01 Install an independent active or passive HPI system. - $6,500,000 CC-04 Add a diverse LPI system. $5,500,000 CC-05 Provide capability for alternate LPI via diesel-driven fire pump. $6,500,000 00-1 9 Provide automatic switchover of HPI and LPI suction from the BWST to $1,500,000 containment sump for LOCAs.
| |
| HV-01 Provide a redundant train or means of ventilation. $50,000 HV-03 Stage backup fans in switchgear rooms. $400,000 Attachment E Page E-187 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.7-5: Final Results of Cost-Benefit Evaluation SAMA Estimated 2009 Candidate Modification estit Estimate Conclusion ID Benefit Cost AC/DC-01 Provide additional DC battery $65,537 $1,750,000 Not Cost Effective capacity.
| |
| Add a portable, diesel-driven AC/DC-03 battery charger to existing DC $266,120 $330,000 Not Cost Effective system.
| |
| AC/DC-14 Install a gas turbine generator. $134,554 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective Use fire water system as a AC/DC-19 backup source for diesel cooling. $22,091 $700,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-21 Develop procedures to repair or $32,818 $100,000 Not Cost Effective replace failed 4kV breakers.
| |
| Provide a dedicated DC power system (battery/battery charger)
| |
| AC/DC-25 for the TDAFW control valve and $163,402 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective NNI-X for steam generator level indication.
| |
| Provide an alternator/generator AC/DC-26 that would be driven by each $163,402 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective TDAFW pump.
| |
| AC/DC-27 Increase the size of the SBO fuel oil tank. $0 $550,000 Not Cost Effective Install pressure measurements between the two DHR suction CB-21 valves in the line from the RCS $23,755 $550,000 Not Cost Effective hot leg.
| |
| CC-01 Install an independent active or $540 $6,500,000 Not Cost Effective passive HPI system.
| |
| CC-04 Add a diverse LPI.system. $0 $5,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-05 Provide capability for alternate $0 $6,500,000 Not Cost Effective LPI via diesel-driven fire pump.
| |
| Provide automatic switchover of CC-1 9 HPI and LPI suction from the $10,874 $1,500,000 Not Cost Effective BWST to containment sump for LOCAs.
| |
| HV-01 Provide a redundant train or $49 $50,000 Not Cost Effective means of ventilation.
| |
| HV-03 Stage backup fans in switchgear $49 $400,000 Not Cost Effective rooms.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-188 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.8-1: Final Results of the Sensitivity Cases SAMA Low High On-site On-site Replacement Multiplier 2009 Candidate Repair Discount Discount Dose Cleanup Perlase Case Estimated Conclusion ID Case Rate Power Case Case Case Rate Case Case Case AC/DC-01 $39,825 $98,897 $44,950 $66,591 $76,126 $87,110 $98,306 $1,750,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-03 $171,842 $402,477 $184,578 $269,984 $304,946 $345,221 $399,180 $330,000 Cost Effective AC/DC-14 $91,701 $203,926 $94,302. $136,310 $152,203 $170,509 $201,831 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-19 $13,521 $33,344 $15,171 $22,442 $25,621 $29,282 $33,137 $700,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-21 $19,962 $49,524 $22,513 $33,345 $38,112 $43,604 $49,227 $100,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-25 $99,122 $246,559 $112,037 $166,036 $189,874 $217,334 $245,103 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-26 $99,122 $246,559 $112,037 $166,306 $189,874 $217,334 $245,103 $2,000,000 NotCost Effective AC/DC-27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 Not Cost Effective CB-21 $23,755 $36,674 $18,183 $23,755 $23,755 $23,755 $35,632 $550,000 Not Cost Effective CC-01 $540 $833 $413 $540 $540 $540 $810 $6,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-05 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-19 $6,588 $16,407 $7,454 $11,049 $12,639 $14,469 $16,311 $1,5000,000 Not Cost Effective HV-01 $49 $76 $38 $49 $49 $49 $74 $50,000 Not Cost Effective HV-03 $49 $76 $38 $49 $49 $49 $74 $400,000 Not Cost Effective Page E-189 August 2010 E
| |
| Attachment E Attachment Page E-189 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report Table E.8-1: Final Results of the Sensitivity Cases (continued)
| |
| SAMA Cana Evacuation Off-site 20 2009 Candidate Estimated Conclusion ID Speed Economic Cost Cost AC/DC-01 $67,501 $85,169 $1,750,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-03 $268,083 $285,752 $330,000 Cost Effective AC/DC-14 $136,517 $154,186 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-19 $24,054 $41,723 $700,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-21 $34,781 $52,450 $100,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-25 $165,365 $183,034 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-26 $165,365 $183,034 $2,000,000 Not Cost Effective AC/DC-27 $1,963 $19,632 $550,000 Not Cost Effective CB-21 $25,718 $43,387 $550,000 Not Cost Effective CC-01 $2,503 $20,172 $6,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-04 $1,963 $19,632 $5,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-05 $1,963 $19,632 $6,500,000 Not Cost Effective CC-19 $12,837 $30,506 $1,5000,000 Not Cost Effective HV-01 $2,012 $19,681 $50,000 Not Cost Effective HV-03 $2,012 $19,681 $400,000 Not Cost Effective August 2010 Attachment E Attachment E Page E-190 Page E-1 90 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report E.11 REFERENCES
| |
| : 1. NUREG/BR-0184, "Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook,"
| |
| January 1997.
| |
| : 2. Nuclear Energy Institute NEI 05-01 [Rev. A], "Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document," November 2005.
| |
| : 3. Generic Letter 88-20, "Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10 CFR 50.554 (f)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 23, 1988.
| |
| : 4. Computer-Aided Fault Tree Analysis (CAFTA) Software, Version 5.4.
| |
| : 5. Individual Plant Examination for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, Revision 0, February 1993.
| |
| : 6. NUREG/CR-5750, also INEEL/EXT-98-00401, "Rates of Intitiating Events at U.S.
| |
| Nuclear Power Plants: 1987 - 1995," Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1999.
| |
| : 7. ASME RA-Sb-2005 Addenda to ASME RA-S-2002 "Standard For Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications," December 30, 2005.
| |
| : 8. EPRI Interim Report 1013490, "Support System Initiating Events: Identification and Quantification Guideline," December 2006.
| |
| : 9. EPRI TR-100370, "Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation," April 1992.
| |
| : 10. EPRI TR-105928, "Fire PRA Implementation Guide," December 1995.
| |
| : 11. EPRI Report NP-6041-SL, EPRI Seismic Margins Methodology, Revision 1.
| |
| : 12. Individual Plant Examination of External Events for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, November 1996.
| |
| : 13. NUREG-1407, "Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,"
| |
| June 1991.
| |
| August 2010 Attachment E Attachment E Page E-191 Page E-191 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| : 14. Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station IPEEE Submittal, February 8, 2001.
| |
| : 15. Regulatory Guide 1.174, "An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,"
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 1, November 2002.
| |
| : 16. NUREG/CR-6613 (SAND97-0504), D. Chanin, and M.L. Young, "Code Manual for MACCS2," prepared for U.S. NRC and U.S. DOE, Volume 1, May 1998.
| |
| : 17. NUREG/CR-4691 (SAND86-1562), H-N Jow, et. al., "MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description," Sandia National Laboratories for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Volume 2, February 1990.
| |
| : 18. NUREG/CR-6525 (SAND2003-1684P), N.E. Bixler, et. al., "SECPOP2000:
| |
| Sector Population, Land Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program," Sandia National Laboratories, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision 1, August 2003.
| |
| : 19. U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2000, State and County QuickFacts, Website: http://www.census.gov, accessed October 2009.
| |
| : 20. Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No. 1, Docket No: 50-346, License No: NPF-3, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), Revision 27, June 2010.
| |
| : 21. George C. Holzworth, "Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States," Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, AP-1 01, January 1972.
| |
| : 22. "2007 Census of Agriculture: Ohio State and County Data," Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 35, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2009.
| |
| : 23. "2007 Census of Agriculture: Michigan State and County Data," Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 22, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2009.
| |
| : 24. RSCI Computer Code Collection CCC-371, "ORIGEN 2.1-Isotope Generation and Depletion Code-Matrix Exponential Method," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, August 1991.
| |
| E Page E-192 August 2010 Attachment E Attachment Page E-192 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| : 25. "Real Estate, Public Utility Personal, and Tangible Personal Property Taxes:
| |
| Assessed Value and Taxes Levied for Taxes Payable in Calendar year 2007, by County." Ohio Department of Taxation, Table PD-30, No. 72, November 3, 2008.
| |
| : 26. "The Michigan Property Tax Real and Personal 2006 Statistical Update," Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis Michigan Department of Treasury, Exhibit 22, October 2007.
| |
| : 27. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Website:
| |
| www.factfinder.census.gov, accessed October 2009.
| |
| : 28. U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2000, State and County QuickFacts, Website: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, accessed July 2009.
| |
| : 29. U.S. General Services Administration, Per Diem Rates, Website:
| |
| http://www.gsa.gov, accessed July 2009.
| |
| : 30. NUREG-1437, Supplement 3, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Final Report," April 2001.
| |
| : 31. NUREG-1437, Supplement 19, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Final Report," April 2005.
| |
| : 32. NUREG-1437, Supplement 9, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report," December 2002.
| |
| : 33. NUREG-1437, Supplement 12, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, Final Report," August 2003.
| |
| : 34. NUREG-1437, Supplement 8, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report," December 2002.
| |
| : 35. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report," November 2002.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-193 August 2010
| |
| | |
| Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application Appendix E - Environmental Report
| |
| : 36. NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3, Final Report," December 1999.
| |
| : 37. NUREG-1437, Supplement 11, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, Final Report," May 2003.
| |
| : 38. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report," November 2002.
| |
| Attachment E Page E-194 August 2010}}
| |
