ML20062F818

Environ Impact Appraisal Supporting Amends 42 & 17 to Oper Lics DPR-62 & 71 Re Cooling Tower Installation Date

ML20062F818
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	12/15/1978
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20062F800	List: ML20062F796 ML20062F806 ML20062F812 ML20062F815 ML20062F818
References
NUDOCS 7812210109
Download: ML20062F818 (18)

Text

"

1

1. % UNITED STATES y

• g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 l \

ENVIRONENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING AN AMENDENT TO THE FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES l REGARDING COOLING TOWER IMPLEMENTATION 7 ,

j BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO.1 AND ? (DPR-71 AND DPR-62) .

3 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO EANY j DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 I9 Description of Proposed Action A request has been made by Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) to amend the licenses for the Brunsyick Steam Electric Plant-Units 1 and

2. As described in CP&L's letter of March 4,1977, "[t]he basic thrust of the requested amendments is to eliminate the requirement to construct cooling towers and to tenninate NRC's independent assertion of jurisdic-tion over compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pemit issued by the Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA)."

t i

2 The NRC's previous action on CP&L's request has been the noticing of

opportunity for hearing on the proposed issuance of amendments which j

would modify or delete the requirement to install cooling towers. Further, the notice indicated the possible consideration by the Commission of (3'" alternatives (to CP&L's proposed amendment) consistent with the objective l of reconciling the operating licenses with the NPDES pemit. No requests for a hearing were received in response to the Federal Register notice.

The issuance of a modified NPDES pennit is still pending the final decision

' in the EPA adjudicatory proceeding. The Regional Administrator (RA) issued an Initial Decision which was subsequently remanded to him by '

I the EPA Administrator. The RA has supplemented the decision in response

! to the remand. While it is uncertain as to when the EPA Administrator i i

will reach a final decision, it is certain that CP&L cannot meet the '

" installation date" of January 1,1979 as presently required by the NRC-issued licenses. From any date that construction might recommence, l a period of 33 to 36 months has been estimated by CP&L for completion of cooling towers.

i

'7 812 210 M

.t o - o'

-wee wm e,

= e m -meo+ o-l

. ~. - - . '. .- -

7. , ,

4 9

d Based on the statutory mandate of the Federal Water Pollution Control i Tf Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972, Section 511(c)(2), NRC cannot impose l': ' cooling system requirements for protection of water quality and aquatic nH biota other than any effluent limitation issued by EPA pursuant to the

@r FWPCA. Furthemore, should EPA finally require cooling towers, the i

NRC could not impose a compliance deadline different from that set by g:.;!d i EPA.

[ ,My

hp We have detemined that action on CP&L's request to eliminate the license j

i; condition which requires cooling towers at Brunswick should be deferred.

.d1y NRC could not delete the license condition without perfoming a supple-

, 'hd .lj.j mental NEPA review, including the assessment of impacts. That assessment

1. 4 would be based on staff review and evaluation of the same information available to the EPA. Therefore, the staff has decided to use, insofar a ~i- as possible, EPA's assessment as input to any reassessment of the NEPA r., cost-benefit balance. Any present action to delete the coolin requirement would be unsupportable in view of the NRC's (AEC)analysis g tower j which supported the imposition of the closed-cycle cooling requirement 4

1 m '

and EPA's assessment which presently supports the need for reduced flow equivalent to the use of closed-cycle cooling towers.

A second action considered by the staff is whether to amend the licenses to delete or modify the cooling towers installation date. The only alternative to this action is withdrawal of the licenses (i.e., plant shutdown); the NRC is precluded from reviewing other options since the l

NPDES permit sets no additional limitation on interim operation with once-through cooling. We find that the factors which favored construction of the plant and operation with once-through cooling for the initial three year period also favor continued operation for certain arbitrary 1

i periods when compared with the alternative of closing down the plant.

The environmental costs are those considered in the FES and the EPA i

hearing. While these costs entail risks for the long-tem well-being

! of the Cape Fear Estuary, the benefits of electrical generation favor j ] continued operation in the short-tem.

4 . A The EPA Regional Administrator's Initial Decision supports a finding O that adverse impacts are being incurred with the once-through cooling

, .L system and that flow reduction should be implemented at the earliest

, H possible date. However, the presently effective Permit provision allows

'i ~

discharge of once-through cooling water until a date set by the RA as i

a result of his final determination.

i, j Having fcund that withdrawal of the licenses is not cost beneficial

' and since the NRC cannot impose a different compliance date than that j

set by the EPA, we conclude that the appropriate action is to modify t

the January 1, 1979 " installation date." Facility Operating Licenses DPR-71 (Unit No.1) and DPR-62 (Unit No. 2) should be amended to read '

[ as follows:

l l

. i I

. l m

_ . n_ _ _ __ e _ _

j .

j - 3-sj l "The licensee shall comply with all the tems, provisions,

~

and conditions of the " Stipulation by Applicant, Intervenor and AEC Regulatory Staff" dated July 8,1974 (hereafter "the

~

~

"1 Stipulation"), required to be perfomed by the licensee, including,

, , but not limited to any conditions expressly noted in a. above.

4

7 . ' ~

Provided, however, that the installation date for cooling towers

- G as set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Stipulation of May 1,1978 is

~..' -- ' hereby deleted and the installation date will be that date established 1

~ as a result of the Enviromental Protection Agency's Adjudicatory 1

Hearing proceeding on the fadlity's Section 402 Federal Water Pollution Control Act pemit."

,J

Background

'l An operating license (DPR-62) for Brunswick Unit 2 (the first of the

!  : two units to be placed in operation) was issued December 27,1974. The

~

! _ license incorporated, by reference, a stipulation agreement entered i into by CP&L, the Intervenor (Project Enviroment) and the AEC Regulatory staff (now the NRC) on July 8,1974. Paragraph 3 of the " stipulation" states that:

} " Applicant will proceed with engineering and procurement activities 4

and with construction of coolina towers on a schedule consistent with the completion of installa' tion of cooling towers (exclusive of their connection ta the cooling systems) not later than

. May 1,1978 (" installation date")."

!  : The NPDES pemit," issued by EPA-Region IV on December 31, 1974, was

] consistent with the Unit 2 Operating License in requiring cooling towers I

at the Brunswick plant by May 1,1978. CP&L requested and was granted a hearing by EPA on March 19, 1975. On March 12, 1976, CP&L petitioned8 for a declaratory order by EPA confirming that the compliance date in

!- the pemit was within the scope of the contested issues and, therefore, A

stayed under 40 CFR I 125.35 (d)(2). The EPA Administrative Law Judge

, O so found and issued an order 8 which granted a stay in the compliance

[ l schedule for construction of cooling towers conditioned upon CP&L obtain-1

- 1 ing written concurrence for such stay from the NRC.

i

! The NRC staff conducted an Enviromental Appraisal of the possible delay

] in cooling tower construction and detemined that operation of the plant with once-through cooling until January 1,1979 would be equivalent

! to three years operation of both units at design flow, and so would be acceptable. Bases for this finding were the FES analysis, the delayed start-up of Unit 2, and reduced volume of cooling water passed through the plant. Subsequently, the licenses for both Units 1 and 2 were amended 7 1

to incorporate the revised " installation date" of January 1,1979 or j that date set by EPA, whichever came first.

I h . . ._ _ . - . . . _ .. _ ._

I Parties to the EPA adjudicatory proceeding entered into a stipulated agreements on June 8,1976 which included:

l. modification of the NPDES pemit as issued on

'i .P December 31,1974, and 3 s..-

i 2. identification of the ultimate issues to be determined

.{ q in the proceeding.

i A subsequent stipulation,9 approved by the RA on June 22,1976, added

r - a themal effluent limitations for periods of once-through ccoling opera-tion. The " stipulated NPDES permit" is that set forth by these two i '! agreements.

Part I. A. of the stipulated pemit would authorize once-through cooling discharge (outfall serial numbers 001 and 002) with a temination date "to be developed as a result of redetemination by the Regional Adminis-

, O '

trator pursuant to 40 CFR 125.36" and would authorize discharge of cooling system blowdown (outfall serial number 003) with a beginning date "to be developed as a result of redetemination by the Regional Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 125.36 if closed cycle cooling is ultimately required."

Part I.B.I.b. reiterates the compliance schedule.

Part III.E provides for the possible modification of the pemit to allow for seasonal operation in a. once-through mode. This provision had also been included in the original NPDES pemit issued on December 31, 1974.

The stipulated issues to be resolved in the EPA adjudicatory proceeding were:

1. Whether the NPDES pemit should defer detemination pursuant j

1 to Section 316(b) and the imposition of Section 316(b) require-ments until December 1977 (or such later date as may be appropria te) .

A

%) 2. Whether the closed-cycle cooling requirement in the December 31,

.] 1974, NPDES pemit is justified under Section 316(b).

, 3. Whether the December 31, 1974, NPDES permit should provide for i

a deferred determination pursuant to Section 316(a) and suspend implementation of closed cycle cooling requirements until December 1977 (or such later date as may be appropriate).  ;

j 4.

Whether an alternative Section 316(a) thermal effluent limita-t tion allowing open-cycle cooling is presently required,  ;

considering existing data and the low potential thermal impact r

of the plant.  !

I l

I l

. l 1  :

I, .. .

j j a j

5. Whether the heat treatment should be pemitted to go to the e intake canal. ,

, \

'.. 6. '

Legal issues referred to the Office of General Counsel for  !

J M, Ms resolution pursuant to 40 CFR 125.36 (m).  !

• - As part of the adjudicatory proceeding, an EPA hearing was held during

.,1 the period June 2-16, 1976 and the transcript was certified 10 by the Administrative Law Judge on September 24, 1976. The interim " stipulated }

NPDES pemit" was issued on March 25, 1977. Because the record was l

.- S insufficient on the fifth issue (i.e., the heat treatment discharge),

.. . . _ on August 17, 1977, the Acting RA served all parties to the hearing t 1 '

with a Request for Information on that issue. By letter dated September 7,1977, CP&L withdrew the request for approval of the heat treatment discharge and entered a request that the hearing be reopened to review data which had been collected since the June 1976 hearing.11 j

' (7 The RA issued his Initial Decision (ID)12 on November 7,1977, which denied

'J CP&L's request to reopen the hearing and ordered "...the issuance of

. a new permit restricting capacity or flow of the intake to the absolute

minimum levels consistent with the safe operation of the plant ...Further, i the new permit shall include a compliance schedule which will ensure i that this reduction is implemented at the earliest possible date." (ID, i pp. 90-91).  ;

The following are findings presented in the RA's Initial Decision in i support of his order: }

.I t 8

"...entrainment and impingement at Brunswick is a significant  !

l adverse environmental impact which must be minimized as quickly  !

{

as possible in order to protect and preserve the Estuary  !

ecosystem with its many valuable species of fish and shellfish." i j (ID. p. 44). v

.j h "The record is clear that the location of Brunswick's intake structure does not comply with the requirements of Section 316(b)."

(ID. p. 54).

l

, The evidence in the record indicates that the design of the l Brunswick intake structure is not the best technology available  !

to minimize the adverse environmental impacts occurring as a j result of operation of the plant with its current once-through i cooling system." (ID. p. 57). i i

4 l "The capacity of the plant with operation of a once-through cooling

! system is not the best technology available to minimize adverse f t

! environmental impact at that site." (ID. p. 61).  !

I l

l I i i i i'

l l _. .__ - _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ __. -- . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - .

o -

]

i

"...the cost of significantly reducing the capacity of Brunswick's cooling water intake structure...is not wholly disproportionate to a

+ ' 967, reduction in the severe adverse environmental impacts of the q plint." (ID. p. 69).

"The evidence indicates that withdrawals of water from the Estuary in 5' that amount [2,000,000,000 gallons of water per day]* will cause a

,' a decrease in indigenous species, loss of critical aquatic organisms I which are important elements in the food web, a reduction in fish

-! population composition, with a resulting decrease in commercial and sport fisheries, along a significant portion of the Eastern seaboard.

Therefore, CP&L is not entitled to a Section 316(a) variance." (ID.

p. 71).

'l

"...the only currently feasible alternative at Brunsuick to alle-viate current and future adverse environmental impacts is to severely restrict the flow of water (capacity) through the plant."

(ID. p. 73).

3 "In considering CP&L's current request for further delays for

-' studies, the record contains overwhelming evidence which indicates j that a two-year delay is unjustified." (ID. p. 77-78).

"The record establishes that two more years of study would not alter the ultimate conclusion that the operation of Brunswick with its once-through cooling system is having an adverse environmental impact on the Estuary, therefore, the Section 316 determinations must not be deferred. CP&L is not precluded, however, from conducting studies it deems necessary to make a demonstration regarding seasonal operation of its once-through system." (ID. p. 86).

j

"...the permit to be developed as a result of this redeter-mination should not include references to specific cooling

} technologies, but rather should be confined to limitations h on those technical parameters authorized by the statute."

(ID. p. 87).

. On December 1,1977, CP&L petitioned the EPA Administrator for reviewl3 ,

i of the RA's Initial Decision and of the General Counsel's Decision, l requesting (1) summary reversal of the Initial Decision and issuance of CP&L's Proposed Findings, or, alternatively, (2) reopening of the record and review of the Initial Decision based on the supplemented i record, or (3) granting of appeal to review the present record. Other parties to the proceeding (i.e., the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development of the State of North Carolina, and the l

• Information added for clarification.

..,-,,,._--.,.,_r.._ . , _ , . . , . . _ _ _ . , _ , , . , , _ ,

,a s p . . .

l '

~

'"', Commission Staff of the Utilities Comission of the State of North Carolina) also filed petitions for review of the Initial Decision. The ga.y "Public Staff" of the Utilities Commission of the State of North Carolina jQ 4- ' requested recognition as an additional party and entered a petition for c rmiew of the Initial Decision. On January 27, 1978, additional petitions 1

l for leave to intervene were filed by Brunswick County, North Carolina and

,. ;t by the City of Southport, North Carolina.

', ;j J< J On February 20, 1978, the EPA Administrator remanded the Brunswick casel

3 to the RA with instructions to revise the Initial Decision to comply with i 40 CFR 125.36(1)(2). Specifically, the Administrator found that the RA, in

~a his initial decision, had not addressed all issues of fact or discretion i submitted by the parties in their proposed findings and conclusion.

Further, the RA was requested to describe, in his revised decision, (1) the l existing data presented by CP&L, (2) data tendered by CP&L in support of i

l p) its request to reopen the hearing, and (3) data proposed to be collected by CP&L during the remainder of its study. Finally the Administrator admitted j ,

the "Public Staff" as an additional party and authorized Brunswick County l and the City of Southport to participate as amici curiae.

On March 20, 1978, the RA petitioned 15 the Administrator to reconsider or clarify his remand of the Initial Decision on the bases: that "all '.

issues of fact" means all " material " issues of fact relevant to the questions of whether an NPDES permit should be issued, denied, or modified; i

that the material and legal issues to be determined as a result of the j hearing were defined in the stipulation entered into by the parties; that the Initial Decision adequately discusses these and that if issues of fact relative to the determination have not been adequately addressed, those q issues should be specified by the Administrator.

i l CP&L wrote to NRC, on May 16, 1978, reiterating their request for amend-j ment of license or waiver of enforcement of the installation date.16 y

f) NRC responded on August 2,1978, requesting from CP&L information on mitigative alternatives with focus on those alternatives which could

j

' be implemented b January 1, 1979 and serve in the interim period until 3 theEPAdecision.{7 i

By letters of June 14, August 2, August 3, and August 16, 1978 CP&L proposed alternatives to closed-cycle cooling for consideration by EPA as a settlement of the pending issues before the EPA Administrator. EPA requested agencies.jechnical review EPA of the Federal NRC notified byproposed letter datedalternatives August 24,by1978 other that the information available did not revise NRC's original position that closed-

] 4 cycle operation is the preferred mode.19 i

- ~ . , . - - --

y_

." 1 . . . - _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . - - - - , _ , , _ - - - . _ _ _ _ - , , _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ , . , . , _ _ , . .

_._,.._-_,._--.m._ ._ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _

1 l By letter dated August 28, 1978, CP&L responded to NRC's request for 1

infonnation,19 reiterating its view that the NRC had no authority to impose interim mitigative measures and further indicated that the ,

measures which CP&L had studied would require three years for full l implementation. In CP&L's opinion, any interim measures required by

' l the NRC would constitute a more restrictive effluent limitation than

]  ?

required by the existing NPDES permit.20 The RA provided21 the Administrator with a decision in response to the i i

remand which was in the form of a " Supplement to the Initial Decision," [

dated August 31, 1978. On this same day, the RA issued a denial of 1 i CP&L's motion to reopen the hearing record.22 The supplement supported i

the RA's conclusion that flow reduction (equivalent to closed-cycle) was required at the Brunswick Plant at the " earliest possible date."

Action by the EPA Administrator is still pending. l By letter of September 1,1978, EPA informed CP&L that their proposed alternatives to closed-cycle were inadequate to meet the "best available

,, technology standard."23 Discussion In the FES, the staff evaluated the impacts of continued once-through operation at the Brunswick Plant and found that, on balance, the action required was conversion to a closed-cycle cooling system. A three-year t period was selected as an acceptable period of operation while cooling i towers were being constructed. By selecting the three-year period, corresponding with the minimum time estimated for completion of tower construction, the staff implied that conversion to closed-cycle should l be accomplished at the earliest possible date. i t

l' T.le following excerpts from the FES sunnarize the NRC staff findings related to potential impacts on aquatic biota from impin '

i entrainment at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP)gement  : and l [

r

! c "The major impacts...arise primarily from the physical l d presence of the canal and its operation. The major impacts  !

relate to (a) impingement and entrainment..., (b) modifica- "

! tion of marshlands, and (c) partial loss of a freshwater resource." (p.V-1)  ;

j "...it is apparent that Snows Marsh including Walden Creek is 4

highly productive, and serves as a nursery ground for many

.l species of connercial importance, including shrimp, blue i

! crab, spot and croaker. It is likely that substantial numbers l

of shrimp, spot and blue crabs from the Walden Creek and Snows

(

Marsh environs will eventually pass through the plant. These  :

i organisms will be particularly vulnerable during their migra-tions into and out of the Walden Creek-Snow Marsh area" (p. V-26).

, l l

1 I r e m .~ . s mem ,4.wwwn -==u,m-e--o.e..w-n .mw-

L - - - .

.-. . . . - . - -l - - - -

4 . .

" Fish populations will become established in the intake canal and it is expected these populations will rapidly increase until the supporting capacity of the system is reached. ... Adult resident fish that are able to withstand the water velocities

...are less likely to become impinged on the traveling screens

' .dc than the transient populations of juvenile shrimp and spot. The

.] flow velocity... ranges from about 0.5-0.8 fps under normal

! conditions and up to 1.4 fps during extremely low water conditions.

j Juvenile shrimp and spot entering the intake canal, may be 1 impinged on the screens. At velocities greater than 1 Tps there is a sharp drop in the ability of juveniles to swim against the current. These data and the fact that Snows Marsh is an important nursery area lead the staff to conclude that significant numbers will be impinged on the traveling screens, especially during low-water conditions" (p. V-28).

i

" Sufficient data are not available to determine the exact impact

,3 resulting from the entrainment of plankton in the cooling water system and the impact of impingement of larger organisms on the traveling screens. Probable estimates based on the

~

qualitative data provided can be sumnarized by the following sta tements:

1. During certain periods, all organisms passing through the traveling screen will be killed by either thermal shock, i mechanical damage, or chlorination or a combination of these.

At other times, the mortality due to passage through the con-densers may be relatively low, but the entire process of extreme pressure and turbulence, elevated temperatures for a period 6

of up to five hours, exposure to chlorine and chlorine residuals

' and final exposure to cooler oceanic tanperatures can be expected to cause significant mortality rate to planktonic forms throughout

! the year.

- I j

([) 2. Commercial species, particularly shrimp, utilizing the marsh j environs for nursery grounds will be killed in significant numbers resulting in an estimated economic loss to Brunswick

], County alone estimated at $325,000/yr. '

3. White shrimp from the Cape Fear contribute to the shrimp catch in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Entrainment of shrimp larva as well as impingement of developing juveniles will have an effect on the shrimp fishery in those states.  !

As previously stated, the value of the annual shrimp catch in northern South Carolina is estimated at $262,000. Most of these shrimp caught in this region appear to come from the Cape Fear estuary.

i

-. - ... .-_ - :--.]

l i

1 10 - [

l "The applicant states that the plankton mortality resulting I from passage through the plant condensers is not considered  !

to represent a significant loss from the estuary due to the small percentage of water from the estuary that will be i

^

diverted though the plant. The staff cannot accept this i

'{. conclusion based on the data available. The staff believes  !

j that entrainment will be significantly greater because of l

-i the productivity of Snow Marsh and Walden Creek. Thus,  ;

! the staff concludes, on the basis of the available data and  !

! experience from other similar once-through cooling systems, l j that the operation of Brunswick 1 and 2 with the proposed j once-through cooling system has the potential for serious and

.., perhaps irreversible effects on the environment of the Cape l 4 Fear Estuary. The staff considers that the impact of plant 3 operation under the present cooling system design will be j serious but not irreversible if such operation is limited I

to the proposed three year period while an alternative cool- ,

1 i

_) ing system is installed" (p. V-31).

CP&L initiated testing of circulating water pumps in January 1974 and, l by monitoring the trash screens and intake flow, obtained data on impinge-  !

ment and entrainment losses. In tne ASLB hearing, the staff noted that the  ;

number of finfish impinged during pump testing was somewhat lower than had  !

s been anticipated; however, the staff did not believe these preliminary data  !

i were sufficient to evaluate fully the potential impact ( ASLB Hearing Tr. at  !

p. 758). '

Staff testimony before the ASLB demonstrates subjectivity in the selection l of three years as an acceptable period for once-through cooling. The period  ;

! was clearly based on the practicality of construction schedules and a subjective judgement that impact during the three years would be reversible.

3 j c l 1

l One effect of the Stipulation, agreed to by the applicant, intervenor, f 1

- e t .

and the AEC Regulatory Staff (now the NRC), was to remove this issue i

. t - from litigation in the ASLB herring. The conditions imposed by the  !

j Stipulation were incorporated in the ASLB's Decision issued on December i r 26, 1974. Pertinent findings presented in the Board's Decision are:

]  !

that irreversible impacts on aquatic biota will not result l from plant operation with once-through cooling, provided that l operation does not extend beyond the three-year period

i l

• that Staff testimony establishes this three-year time frame on the  !

basis of a subjective compromise between hardware availability and l probably reversible enviromental effect  ;

i  : '

I that the staff will require Applicant to conduct monitoring programs i adequate to perinit assessment of any serious enviromental impact l which might occur  !

4 i

r i

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

-,.p,.- ,.-..-,,w-  %. ---._-y---- .,.r-g ,,--m- -i-w**--+m :---ti-+--es- ----yw .--irwe -q.---w.su-er ji g.-isr.--e-------r.--- -,--i,-i,---e-.-m-.m ,-eei.5.---#-i.m + -

11 -

that the principal benefit of the continued construction of the plant 1 is the addition of approximately 11.5 billion kilowatt hours of '

electricity per year ,

that the enviromental and economic benefits from tFa continued l 1! construction and operation of the plant, particularly the necessity i for CP&L to supply electrical power to meet the demiad and expected i

growth in electrical use within its service area, are greater than the enviromental and economic costs which will necessarily be

.. incurred by continued construction and operation of the plar.t.

Nearing the end of one year with pump testing at Unit 2 CP&L petitioned EPA for an adjudicatory hearing to contest the tems of the original NPDES pemit, which like the license condition effectively required conversion to cooling towers. The request for hearing was granted by EPA on March 19, 1975.

( In a conference between EPA and CP&L representatives on June 4,1975, CP&L presented a data summary of their pump testing studies and proposed a two-year delay in cooling tower construction while additional data were being collected. The same proposal was made infomally to NRC representatives in a meeting with CP&L on June 6,1975. CP&L convened a technical meeting on June 27, 1975 to discuss their data and conclusions with concerned agencies and citizen groups.

Since EPA had granted a hearing on the NPDES pemit, that agency took the lead in soliciting comments on CP&L's data results and proposal.

Comments provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA's own technical staff unanimously concluded that the data presented by CP&L did not justify a two-year delay (see RA's ID at p. C-ll). Following review of the same infomation, Counsel for Project Enviroment infomed both EPA and NRC that:

c

" .. Project Enviroment does not object to the proposal b' .

outlined by Carolina Power and Light Company and does not intend to object to such modifications of the Company's licenses, pemits and other documents as may be necessary in order to pemit further study of the impact of the plant's once-through intake system while two units are operating."

On August 13, 1975, CP&L fomally requested the NRC to amend the Unit 2 license, deferring the cooling tower installation date for 31 months

' until December 31, 1980. Prior to the completion of NRC staff review of the technical reports, EPA notified CP&L that it was denying the extension request but indicated that the question of any extension could be explored at the adjudicatory hearing. Th NRC staff's technical review and assess- ,

ment was completed subsequently.$5 Staff findings indicated that the CP&L infomation did not refute the FES assessment as to the unacceptability of w e.- ~ . . . . . . . .w w--

-.w.,,.---- ,_, ..m._

.. -, - - _ - . .- .- . .%.- --- - --------,mc - ___s

^

- .. =-2. . _ = . ~ - - . . - - -

i a

two-unit operation for an extended ,eriod with the once-through cooling system and that there was no technical basis for extending the schedule for conversion to closed-cycle cooling. By letter from H. Denton to H. Zeller dated February 4,1976, EPA was notified of NRC's intent to y cooperate in the adjudicatory hearing by providing testimony on the a results of our evaluation of the Brunswick monitoring data. This action

{ was taken pursuant to the mandate of the FWPCA directing maximum coopera-

, tion among Federal agencies in the administration of the Act [Section i 101(f)] and reflected agreements between NRC and EPA in the Second Memorandum j of Understanding dated December 17, 1975.

I Prior to the EPA Hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order staying the cooling tower compliance schedule conditioned on CP&L obtain-ing written concurrence for such stay from the NRC. The amendment which CP&L requested pursuant to this order was evaluated by the NRC staff i on the basis of the extent of pumping which had occurred since the time Brunswick had begun operation. Amendment No.15 to the Unit 2 license m

extended the " installation date" by eight months to January 1,1979.

The period of once-through cooling operation would have been equivalent to the three years originally analyzed in the FES. The staff's intent in that action was to "...pemit the EPA adjudicatory hearing to proceed free of an operating license condition similar to the contested NPDES pemit condition and... [was] not [to] be taken as affecting the merits of the cooling tower questions presently being litigated before EPA."

The eight-month extension was expected to cover the period of time necessary for resolution by EPA of the ultimate questions concerning cooling towers at the Brunswick plant. The staff recognized that EPA could require either an earlier or a later tower installation date and that an assess-ment of impacts and further license amendment would be necessary if EPA's compliance schedule allowed once-through operation subsequent to January 1,1979. The staff did not anticipate having to reconsider the question of a compliance date for cooling tower implemetantion until a final EPA detemination had been made on the need for cooling towers, l 1.e., the ul timate question.

("'

The RA has reached an Initial Deci: ion and has further supported that >

decision by his supplement in response to the remand of the EPA Adminis-trato r. (The Background discussion presents excerpts which summarize the RA's findings.).

I i The staff believes it to be prudent and proper to apply the findings l i of the RA in this appraisal. The Commission's order in the Seabrook -

l case makes clear that the NRC may, and in appropriate cases, should l accept and use EPA's detemination of the magnitude of aquatic impacts  !

from cooling systg operation in striking an overall cost-benefit balance -

j 3

for the f&cility. Thus, although the NRC is not required to use EPA ,

i I

I l

t

- _ _ _ _ -- ~ _ _ .

m.

__ l a. ---

_.i 6

l . .

.j . ,

deteminations in every case, we are deferring to the EPA in the Brunswick case for the following reasons:

, a 1. The EPA has held an adjudicatory hearing on those issues which 7, were not litigated in the ASLB hearing.

4 ~

[. 2. The public interest of the Intervenor in the NRC proceeding

,, has been further served by the EPA Hearing. The Intervenor q waived the opportunity to becon a a party to the proceeding.

i 3. The NEPA concerns of the NRC staff have been given full con-sideration in the EPA hearing process:

(a) Staff findings in the FES were used and referenced.

(b) Testimony of an expert technical witness for the NRC was

! received in the EPA hearing.

a '

(c) The RA's Initial Decision supports the FES findings and reflects the concerns expressed by the NRC expert witness.

4. The EPA Initial Decision presents specific factual findings on the magnitude of enviromental impacts with continued once-through cooling system operation.

4 Once a final EPA decision is reached, the NRC staff should be able to  :

rely heavily on these findings in conducting a cost / benefit assessment j of the impacts of operation in confomity with the EPA decision. In accepting the EPA deteminations, there arise two items of potential

]j conflict between the NPDES pemit and the Operating Licenses:

A. Flow Reduction vs Cooling Towers

] The RA's Initial Decision, as supplemented in response to the EPA

.j j

Administrator's reand, supports the need for flow reduction from that associated with once-through cooling to a level equivalent i

... j to closed-cycle operation. Since the NRC has approved cooling towers 1

• as the fom of closed-cycle cooling to be used, there is a possibility of conflicting requirments between the license and the NPDES pemit if flow reduction, equivalent to the use of a different technology, is approved by EPA. However, until such conflict should arise, there l is no basis for removal of the cooling tower requirement.

! 8. Compliance Date vs Installation Date i

.l l The interim NPDES pemit issued on March 25, 1977 allows once-

}] through operation to an undefined date. The NRC-issued licenses l t

require conversion to cooling towers on January 1,1979. There  !

is the possibility that the final EPA Administrative decision will  !

not be reached before January 1,1979 and the certainty that cooling l w~

4

~

, s . -

. l-r . .

j .

i  !

towers will not be available by the " installation date"; CP&L has I estimated 33 to 36 months would be required to cT elete the cooling i i towers upon resumption of the construction activity. We have i detennined that the appropriate action is to delete the installation  !

." '~_'

date and defer to that compliance date to be established by the  ;

RA upon completion of the EPA Administrative action. The consequences of this staff action are evaluteo in the following section.

Evaluation f

In his Initial Decision, the RA detemined that:

; " ..the evidence already in the record indicates that the plant's

once-through cooling system is adversely impacting the Estuary and ecosystem. The exact magnitude of adverse impact remains unknown.

4 The statute does not require that the exact magnitude be detemined. 1 Two more years of additional study proposed by CP&L will not yield (

n. infomation which will alter the detemination of adverse impact.  :

i- Each year the plant operates with its once-through cooling system, l

greater ham occurs to the Estuary and'its resources." (ID supple- '

i ment at p.134).

t The RA states that "[c]ertain testimony in the record misconstrues the statute in emphasizing that effects of Brunswick's intake structure may not be irreversible or irretrievable. The statutory test is ' adverse.'

It is possible that those parties who dealt so extensively on the irrevers-i 3

ibility question did so in order to show that no pemanent damage would  !

be done to the Estuary if that detemination were deferred while further '

studies were conducted. However, in light of the fact that existing  !

data are sufficient to make a Section 316(b) detemination at this time, r the issue of irreversibility is simply not a relevant consideration" l (ID, p ). 28-30). In a footnote to this discussion, the RA further states t l that ":w]e are not, however, convinced that the effects of two years l of two unit operation with once-through cooling would not be irreversible,

-- (}

' particularly when considered together with the additional time that will be required to install off-stream cooling" (ID at p. 30, Footnote l

61). I t i Based on these and other findings in the Initial Decision, the RA ordered 1

the issuance of a new NPDES pemit restricting capacity or flow to the

i absolute minimum levels consistent with the safe operation of the plant i

and including a compliance schedule which will ensure that this reduction  !

j is implemented at the earliest possible date (ID at pp. 90-91). j The NRC and the EPA Regional Administrator concur in the adversity of f

, impacts with continued once-through operation of the Brunswick Plant. i j Both agree on the urgency of implementing flow reduction (equivalent '

to off-stream cooling) at the earliest possible date. What the NRC t

. l i

' _ _ _ _ - . - . _ . _ . _ . 1. ___ ___,.,_ _

- ~

g__ _ _ _ _ _ . __. ___- _. _ -

1 l I l

, must now determine under NEPA, is whether the costs outweigh the benefits I

if the plant is allowed continued operation with once-through cooling i until flow reduction is implemented. In its 1974 Decision, the ASLB l determined that the benefits favored the completion of construction and initial operation with once-through cooling even though serious

' short-term effects were expected. These short-term effects were not expected to result in irreversible impacts if the period of operation was limited to a stipulated three-year period. To ensure that a more serious effect was not incurred during the three-year period, the Board required that monitoring be an integral part of a continuing assessment.

l The Licensee has conducted more extensive monitaring than required by the Environmental Technical Specifications to support its case in the

• EPA proceeding. Monitoring of the direct effects of entrainment and impingement has shown the magnitude of these observable losses to be i increasing as the plant intake flow rate approaches the normal two-unit

, operational level. Monitoring of the estuarine populations has not identified any catastrophic effects; however, adverse effects can still N be predicted with a choice of realistic assumptions in the development and application of theoretical models. The RA concluded that: "In view of the testimony, the results of all the modelers affimatively demonstrate that adverse environmental impacts are occurring and will continue to occur so long as the plant is operated with once-through cooling" (ID supplementatp.113).

The RA noted that the exact magnitude of impact remains unknown; therefore, it is instructive in regard to the present assessment to review the range of predicted impact. The licensee believes that its model, which predicts less than 10% decrease in the larval population of the estuary, is conserv- '

ative. A reduction in the larval populations at the lower level of 2 to i

3% is thought more probable by CP&L based on the plant taking in only 2 to 3% of new water flowing into the Estuary with each tide.* With a further hypothesis that the plant flow may induce an increased larval recruitment from the ocean to the Estuary, CP&L concludes that the actual decrease will be closer to 0% than to the model predicted 10% and may even result in a O slight increase in the estuarine larval populations.** Witnesses for EPA estimated 46-63% larval reduction and 70% reduction due to both entrainment

• The RA notes that this assumption presupposes homogeneous larval distribution throughout the estuary but that the record contains testimony that such is not '

the case (10 supplement, p.107).

• • The RA states that he finds no support in record for CP&L's belief that the operation of the intake may result in an increase in larval populations in the estuary. (10supplementp.111).

, i i

e

.- L- - -

.=.L-Y i .

1 -

i .

and impingement (ID at p. 40). Included in the hearing record (EPA Exhibit  !

33) are estimates for larval reduction, provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, ranging from 66-2/3% on the average to 99.9% for the extreme case with a three-week period of larval vulnerability to the intake. In the FES, the staff estimated losses to the shrimp fishery on the basis that about 35% of the shrimp productive area in the Cape ,

..d Fear estuary would be affected adversely by the plant circulating water

. j system (FES, p. XI-19 and Appendix C).

1 l

1 With the wide range of estimated losses, i.e., from 0% (or even a C,eorized 1 gain) to 99.9%, the question of whether to allow continued operation

'l remains a subjective judgement. The RA concluded:

~l "...it appears that a larval reduction somewhere between 25%

1 and 75% is to be expected from full two-unit operation with

! once-through cooling. But it must be pointed out that even a i

i larval reduction of 1-5% could result in a substantial reduc- ,

\q tion in population levels over a long period of time" (ID supplement, p.113). ..

It is the staff's present judgement that larval losses in the predicted range of 25% - 75% are incompatible with the long-tenn well-being of the Cape Fear Estuary ecosystem. However, based on the available data, we do not believe it likely that irreversible damage has been incurred during the first three years of plant operation. Damage which may be inci:rred in the short-tenn will not alter the balance, previously struck

, by the staff and the ASLB, which favored the construction and initial operation with once-through cooling. Further, the methodology for impact assessment does not allow for pin-pointing in time when this balance may ae upset. In recognition of this inadequacy of the methodology, we concur 'a

! the RA's finding that flow reduction should be implemented at the earliest possible date. We cannot construct a balance which provides better defini-tion of a suitable or necessary installation date.

1 1O i

coaciosioas for weo tive oecieratioa 4 Under 10 CFR 5 51.5 (c)(1), the NRC staff has concluded that this environ-mental appraisal (rather than an environmental impact statement) provides the necessary analysis in support of the amendment. This conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that the NRC has detennined that it is appropriate to defer to decisions,to be made by EPA, as to the choice and installation date of the cooling system. It was further influenced by the fact that the results of this appraisal have not altered the funda-l mental conclusions of the FES. Having made this conclusion, we find that a

,  ; Negative Declaration is appropriate for this licensing action.

DEC 151978 l

.___ . ~ . _ . m., m

_ = - . - ___

0 References i

1. Letter from E. 5. Utley, CP&L Senior Vice President, Power Supply, to Benard C. Rusche, Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, dated March 4,1977.

2. Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 217, November 10,1977. pp. 58582-3.

3. Stipulation by Applicant Intervenor, and AEC Regulatory Staff, dated July 8,1974. Appendix A to ASLB Initial Decision in the matter of Carolina Power and Light Company (Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2), December 26, 1974.

4. NPDES Pemit No. HC0007064 issued by EPA Region IV, December 31, 1974.

5. CP&L Petition for Declaratory Order and Motion for Reconsideration,  !

filed with EPA Region IV, on March 12, 1976. (Supporting Brief filed with EPA Region IV on March 17,1976).

( -) 6. Order by EPA Administrative Law Judge dated March 17,1976 and corrected by Order dated March 19, 1976.

7. Letter from Robert A. Purple, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #1, to CP&L (ATTN: J. Jones), dated May 18, 1976, transmitting Amendment No.

15 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 (Brunswick Steam Electric ,

Plant, Unit No. 2).

8. Stipulation for the Regional Administrator's Approval . In the Matter of NPDES Pemit No. NC0007064, CP&L's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, approved June 22, 1976.

9. Stipulation for the Regional Administrator's Approval, In the Matter of *

NPDES Pemit No. NC0007064, CP&L's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, approved June 22, 1976.

n, m 10. EPA Administrative Law Judge's Certification of Transcript and k) Recommendations in the matter of NPDES Pemit No. NC0007064, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, dated September 24, 1976,

11. CP&L letter to EPA Region IV, dated September 7,1977. '

12. EPA Region IV Administrator's Initial Decision in the Matter of NPDES

- Pemit No. NC0007064, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, dated November 7,1977.

13. CP&L Petition to EPA Administrator for Review of the Initial Decision of i the Region IV Administrator and of the Decision of the General Counsel

• No. 41, dated December 1,1977.

t

.n., .e.,~~ -~-~~~

~~~r- -

-v . . . - - . - - - . . - - - - ---m.,