ML20209H915
| ML20209H915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, 05000026 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1437, NUREG-1437-S02, NUREG-1437-S02-DFC, NUREG-1437-S2, NUREG-1437-S2-DFC, NUDOCS 9907210092 | |
| Download: ML20209H915 (200) | |
Text
..
NUREG-1437 Supp. 2 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Suppletaent 2 Oconee Nuclear Station Draft Report for Comment
/
e,( o 7 9 q D (0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f - s, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation fm-Washington, DC 20555-0001 g fog 72100ESo 6
AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu- NRC Public Document Room lations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal 2120 L Street, N.W_, Lower Level Regulations, may be purchased from one of the fol- Washington, DC 20555-0001 lowing sources: < http://www.ntc. gov /N RC/PDR/pdr1.htm >
~
- 1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Microfiche of most NRC documents made publicly RO. Box 37082 available since January 1981 may be found in the Washington, DC 20402-9328 Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRsj located in
< http://www. access.g po. gov /su_ docs > the vicinity of nuclear power plante. The locations 202- 512-1800 of the LPDRs may be obtained fnm the PDR (see previ us paragraph) or through:
- 2. The National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161-0002 <http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/NUREGS/
<http://www.ntis. gov /ordernow> SR1350/V9/lpdr/html>
703 -487- 4650 Publicly released documents include, to name a The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures few, NUREG-series reports; Federa! Register no-(NUREG/BR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of confer' tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents ences (NUREG!CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting and correspondence; NRC correspondence and from international agreements (NUREG/lA-XXXX), internal memoranda; bulletins and information no-(4) technical and administrative reports and books tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens-
[(NUREG-XXXX) or (NUREG/CR-XXXX)], and (5) ee event reports, and Commission papers and compilations of legal decisions and orders of the their attachments.
Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under Documents available from public and special tech-Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG. nicallibraries include all open literature items, such l XXXX) as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder-al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, A single copy of each NRC draft report is available and congressional reports. Such documents as free, to the extent of supply, upon written request theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla-as follows: tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.
Address: ' Office of the Chief Information Officer Reproduction and Distribution Copies of industry codes and standards used in a Services Section substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint Washington, DC 20555-0001 North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockvile, MD E-mail: < DISTRIBUTION @nrc. gov > 20852-2738. These standards are available in the Facsimile: 301 - 415- 2289 library for reference use by the public. Codes and A portion of NRC regulatory and technicalinforma- standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if tion is available at P'RC's World Wide Web site: ,
they are Arerican National Standards, from-
< http://www.nrc. gov >
American National Standards Institute All NRC documents released to the public are avail- 11 West 42nd Street able for inspection or copying for a fee, in paper, New York, NY 10036-8002 microfiche, or, in some cases, diskette, from the <http://www. ansi.org>
Public Document Room (PDR): 212- 642 -4900
NUREG-1437 Supp.2 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 2 Oconee Nuclear Station !
Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: May 1999 Date Published: May 1999 Divisi:n of Regulatory Improvement Programs Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcshington, DC 20555-0001 ;
1
,, 1
@..iif).,
i i
NUREG-1437, Supp. 2 Draft has been reproduced from the best available copy.
TO: Addressees for NUREG-1437, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," Supplement 2, Oconee Nuclear Station 1
This draft supplement documents the NRC staff's review of the environmentalissues at the Oconee Nuclear Station in support of Duke Energy Corporation's application for license renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3. The draft supplement was prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 51.71. This supplernental environmental impact statement includes the staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of attematives to the proposed action, and attematives available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. it also includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
Please provide any comments you may have on the draft supplement no later than August 16, 1999. Written comments may be sent via mail to:
Chief Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Mailstop T 6 D 59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C. 20555-0001 Submittal of electronic comments may be sent by the Intemet to the NRC at oconeeis@nrc.aov.
Comments may also be hand-delivered between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays to:
Chief Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20853 Please feel free to contact Mr. James H. Wilson at 301-415-1108 if you have questions.
Sincerely, 1
fl David B. Matthews, Director Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s
1 Abstrcct 2
3 4 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental effects of renewing 5 nuclear power plant operating licenses for a 20-year period in the Generic Environmentallmpact 6 Statement for Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, and codified the results in 10 CFR 7 Part 51. The GEIS identifies 92 environmentalissues and reaches generic conclusions related to 8 cnvironmental impacts for 68 of these issues that apply to all piants or to plants with specific design or 9 site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining issues. These plant-10 specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS.
11 12 This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an 13 application submitted to the NRC by Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) to renew the operating licenses 14 for Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Units 1,2, and 3 for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54.
15 This SEIS includes the staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects 16 of the proposed action, the environmentalimpacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and 17 alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's preliminary 18 recommendation regarding the proposed action.
19 20 N:ither Duke nor the staff have identified significant new information for any of the 68 issues for which 21 the GEIS reached generic conclusions and which apply to the ONS. Therefore, the staff concludes for 22 these issues, that the impacts of renewing the ONS operating licenses will not be greater than the 23 impacts identified in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the GEIS conclusion is that the impact is of 24 small significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-25 level waste and from spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level) and that additional 26 mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
27 28 Erch of the remaining 24 issues that applies to the ONS is addressed in this SEIS. For each applica-29 ble issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental effects of renewal of 30 th2 operating license is small. The staff also concludes that additional mitigation measures are likely 31 not to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. j 32 ;
33 Based on the analysis and findings in the GEIS, the Environmental Report submitted by Duke, consul- 1 34 t tion with other Federal and State agencies, and its own independent review, the staff's preliminary )
35 recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for the Oconee Nuclear 36 Station Units 1,2 and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy 37 plrnning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
iii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
1 Crnt:nt3 2
3 4 Paae 5
6 Abstract.................................................................... iii 7
8 Executive Su mm ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 9
10 Abbreviations / Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii 11 12 ' 1.0 I ntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 13 1.1 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 14 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 15 1.3 Comphance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 16 1.4 R ef e ren ce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 17 18 2.0 Description of Nuc! ear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment . . 2-1 19 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Renewal Term Plant Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 20 2.1.1 Extemal Appearance and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 21 2.1.2 Reactor Syste m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 22 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 23 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems . . . . 2-9 24 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Management Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . . . . 2-10
- 25 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Management Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . 2-11 26 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
.27 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 28 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
'29 2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 30 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 4 31 2.2.1 La nd U s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
'32 2.2.2 W a t e r U se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 33 2.2.3 W ate r Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 17
' 34 2.2.4 Air Quali ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 35 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18 36 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19 37 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 38 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23 39 2.2.8.1 H ou si n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 2-24 )
l40 2.2.8.2 Public Se rvices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
.41 2.2.8.3 Off site Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29 42 2.2.0.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30 43 2.2.8.5 Demog raphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30 v Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Cont:nts 1 Paae 2
3 2.2.9 Historical and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35 4 2.2.9.1 Cultu ral Backg round . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39 5 2.2.9.2 Historical and Archaeological Sites at ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40 6 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42 7 2.3 R ef e rence s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43 8
9 3.0 Envkonmental lmpacts of Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 10 3.1 R ef e re nc e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 11 12 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 13 4.1 Cooling Syste m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 14 4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 15 4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 16 4.1.3 H e at S hoc k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 17 4.1.4 Microbiological Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 18 4.2 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 19 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 20 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 21 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 z2 4.4 Socioeconomic impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal Period . . . . 4-17 23 4.4.1 Housing impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18 24 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 25 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 {
26 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 l 27 4.4.5 Historical and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 28 4.4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 22 29 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25 30 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 31 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on impacts of Operations 32 During the Ren ewal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 28 1
33 4.8 Summary of impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . ............ 4-29 34 4.9 R ef e re nce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29 35 36 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 37 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 5-1 38 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 39 5.2.1 I ntrod u ction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 i 40 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 41 5.2.2.1 Duke Risk Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 ,
1 42 5.2.2.2 Review of Duke's Risk Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 43 5.2.3 Potential Design improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 44 Paae Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 vi j l
1
Cont:nts 1
Paae 2
3 5.2.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Design improvements . . . . . . . . . 5-9 4 5.2.3.2 Staff Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 5 5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Design improvements . . . . . . . . . ..... . ... 5-14 6 5.2.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Design improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14 7 5.2.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 8 5.2.6.1 Duke Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 9 5.2.6.2 Staff Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18 10 5.2.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18 11 5.3 R e f e r e n ce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19 12 13 6.0 Impacts from the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 14 6.1 The U ranium Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 15 6.1.1 Transportation of Radiological Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 16 6.2 R e f e re n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 17 18 7.0 Decom missionin g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 19 7.1 R ef e re n ce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 20 21 8.0 Alternatives to License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 22 8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 23 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3 24 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4 25 8.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4 26 8.2.1.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12 27 8.2.2 Gas-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15 28 8.2.2.1 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16 29 8.2.2.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22 30 8.2.3 Imported Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23 31 8.2.4 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24 32 8.2.4.1 Wind.................................... ..... ...... 8-24 33 8.2.4.2 Solar................................................. 8-25 34 8.2.4.3 Hydropower . . . . . . . ...... ............................. 8-25 35 8.2.4.4 Geothermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .... . 8-25 36 8.2.4.5 W ood En e rgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25 37 8.2.4.6 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26 38 8.2.4.7 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ......... 8-26 39 8.2.4.8 Oil............................ ................ ..... 8-26 40 8.2.4.9 N u cle a r Powe r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26 41 8.2.4.10 Fu el Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27 42 8.2.4.11 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27 43 8.2.4.12 Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 8-27 44 8.3 R e f e re n ce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28 vii Draft NUREG-1437. Supplement 2 t
I
Cont:nts 1 Paae 2
3 9.0 ' Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 4 9.1 Environmental impacts of the Proposed Action - License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3 5 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4 6 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5 7 9.1.3 _ Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5 8 9.2 Relative Significance of the EnvironmentalImpacts of License Renewal 9 and Alte matives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5 10 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6 11 9.4 R e f e re nce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6 12 13 Appendix A - tieserved for Comments on the Draft Supplement Environmental 14 Impact Statement Related to Duke's Application for License Renewal, 15 Oconee Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 16 17 Appendix B - Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B-1 18 19 Appendix C - Chronology of Licensing Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 20 21 Appendix D - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 22 23 Appendix E - Duke Compliance Status and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 24 25 Appendix F - GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to the Oconee Nuclear Station . . . . . . F-1
)
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 viii
Cont::nts 1 Figures 2
3 4 2-1 Location of Oconee Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 5
6 2-2 Oconee Nuclear Station - One-Mile Exclusion Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 7
8 2-3 Location of Oconee Nuclear Station Relative to Other Parts of 9 Keowee-Toxaway Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 10 11 2-4 Oconee Nuclear Station Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 12 13 2-5 Oconee Nuclear Station (aerial photo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?-6 14 15 2-6 Transmission Lines Attributable to the Oconee Nuclear Station in the Final 16 Environmental Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 17 18 2-7 Oconee Nuclear Station - Water Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16 19 20 2-8 Oconee Nuclear Station km (10-mi) Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34 21
' 22 2-9 Oconee Nuclear Station km (50-mi) Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39 23 24 4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 25
.26 4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-income Populations Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS . . . . . . 4-26 4
l ix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplernent 2 4
i
Contents l 1 Tables 2
3 4 1-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 5
6 2-1 Transmission Lines from Oconee Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-13 7
8 2-2 Land Use in Oconee County in 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 9
10 2-3 Endangered, Threatened, and South Carolina State Listed Plant and Animal Species 11 Found on or Historically Occurring in the Vicinity of the Oconee Nuclear Station . . . . . . . . 2-21 12 13 2-4 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Known or Potentially Occurring 14 Near the ONS or in Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines Associated with the ONS . . 2-22 15 16 2-5 Employee Residence information, Oconee Nuclear Station, January 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25 17 18 2-6 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County 1970-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26 l 19 l 20 2-7 Population Growth in Oconee, Pickens, and Anderson Counties, South Carolina . . . . . . . 2-26 l 21 l 22 2-8 Major Public Water Supply Systems in Oconee County in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27 l 23 24 2-9 Estimated Population Distribution in 1990 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS . . . . ......... 2-32 25 26 2-10 Estimated Population Distribution in 2010 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ON3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32 27 28 2-11 Estimated Population Distribution in 2020 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 29 30 2-12 Estimated Population Distribution in 2030 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33 31 32 2-13 Estimated Population Distribution in 1990 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36 33 34 2-14 Estimated Population Distribution in 2010 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36 35 36 2-15 Estimated Population Distribution in 2020 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS . . . . . ...... 2-37 37 38 2-16 Estimated Population Distribution in 2030 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37 39 40 2-17 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2-38 41 42 2-18 Transient Population Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38 43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 x
Abbrsviations/ Acronyms 1 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 2 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 3
4' SAMA Severe Accident Mitigation Altemative 5 SCDHEC South Carolina State Department of Health and Environmental Control 6 SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 7 SCR selective catalytic reduction 8 SCSHPO South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 9 SEIS supplemental envircnmental impact statement 10 SGTR steam generator tube rupture 11 SRM staff requirements memorandum 12 SSF standby shutdown facility 13 14 UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report l
l i
I xix Draft NUREG-1437, Suppiement 2
Cont:nts 1 Tables (cont'd) 2~
3 4 3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 I
5 6 3-2 Category 2 issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 i 7
8 4-1 Category 1 issues Applicable to the Operation of the ONS Cooling System During 9 th e R e ne wal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 10 11 4-2 Category 2 issues Applicable to the Operation of the ONS Cooling System During the 12 R e newal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 13 14 4-3 Fluctuation in Pelagic Fish Populations Behveen Spring and Fall Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 15 16 4-4 Category 1 issues Applicable to the ONS Transmission Lines During the 17 R e n ewal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 18 19 4-5 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the ONS Transmission Lines During the 20 R e n ewal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 21 22 4-6 Category 1 issues Applicable to RadiologicalImpacts of Normal Operations During the 23 R en ewal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 24 25 4-7 Category 1 issues Applicable to Socioeconomics Related to the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . 4-17 26 27 4-8 Category 2 issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18 28 29 4-9 Category 1 issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the 30 R e n ewal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 31 32 4-10 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During the 33 R e newal Te rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28 34 35 5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . 5-2 36 37 5-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . 5-2 38 39 5-3 ONS Core Damage Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 40 41 5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment End-State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 42 43 5-5 Value-impact Results for Potentially Cost-Beneficial SAMAs that Prevent Core Damage . . 5-11 44 xi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
! ! Cont:nts l
1 Tables (cont'd)
.g
! 3- I l 4 5-6 . Value-impact Results for Potentially Cost-Beneficial SAMAs that Improve 5 Containment Performance . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 6'
7 6-1. Category 1 lasues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste 6- Management During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
!i9 13 6-2. Category 2 issue Applicable to the' Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste )
11 Management During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
'12 13 7-1 ~ Category 1 issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of the ONS Following the 14 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
,15
- 16. 8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts from No-Action Altemative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 17 18 8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts from Coal Altemative-Once-Through Cooling . . . . . 8-5 19 l20 8-3 Summary of Environmentalil Impacts from Altemate Cooling System (Cooling l21 . Towers with Closed-Cycle Cooling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13 l22
- 23' 8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts from Gas-Fired Generation-Once-Through l l24 Cooling Altemative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17 l'
- 25 26 8-5 Summary of Environmentalimpacts of Gas Fired Generation with Altemate Cooling
- 27 System (Cooling Towers with Closed-Cycle Cooling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23 ;
- 28 j
- 29 9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Nternative, !
- 30 and Altemative Methods of Generation Assuming a Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . 9-8 l l
Dr;ft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 - xii 1
e
1 Ex:cutive Summ ry 2
3 4 By letter dated July 7,1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted an application to the 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1,2, 6 and 3 operating licenses for an additional 20-year period. If the operating licenses are renewed, ,
7 Federal (other than NRC) agencies, State regulatory agencies, and the owners of the plant will !
8 ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for (
9 power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the operating j 10 licenses are not renewed, the plant will be shut down at or before the expiration of the current operating (
11 licenses on February 6,2013, for Unit 1; October 6,2013, for Unit 2; and July 19,2014, for Unit 3.
12 13 Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 14 required for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The 15 NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commis-16 sion requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor operating 17 license; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating license renewal stage will be a 18 supplement to the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 19 (GEIS), NUREG-1437.
20 21 Upon acceptance of the Duke application, the NRC began the environmental review process described 22 in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff 23 visited the ONS site in October 1998 and held public scoping meetings on October 19,1998, in 24 Clemson, South Carolina. The staff reviewed the Duke environmental report (ER) and compared it to 25 the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an independent review of the issues following 26 the guidance set forth in the draft Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 27 Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supp.1.
28 29 This supplemental EIS (SEIS) includes the staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 30 environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed 31 action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's 32 preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
33 34 The Commission has adopted the following definition of purpose and need for licence renewal from 35 the GEIS:
36 37 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an 38 option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power 39 plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be 40 determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
41 xiii Draf t NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Executiva Summ ry 1 The Commission, in 10 CFR 51.95, has also provided the criterion to be used in evaluating the 2 cnvironmentalimpacts, as follows:
3 4 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that 5 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be 6 unreasonable.
7 8 The statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion both implicitly acknowledge that there 9 tre factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether ONS continues to 10 operate beyond the period of the current operating licenses.
11 12 The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequencas of renewing an 13 operating license and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 14 92 environmental issues using a three-level standard of significance---small, moderate, or large-based 15 on Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. These significance levels are defined as follows:
16 17 SMALL Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 18 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
l 19 20 MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 21 important attributes of the resource.
22 23 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 24 attributes of the resource.
25 26 For 68 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS has shown:
27 28 (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 29 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other plant or site 30 characteristics 31 32 (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except 33 for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 34 disposal) 35 36 (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it 37 has been determined that r,dditional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be 38 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
39 40 These 68 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of significant new 41 information, the staff will rely on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS for 42 issues designated Category 1 in Appendix B to 10 CFR 51, Subpart A.
43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 xiv
Executive Summary 1 Of the 24 issues not meeting the criteria set forth above,22 were identified as Category 2 issues 2 requiring analysis in a plant-specific suppisment to the GEIS. The remaining two issues, environmental 3 justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. Environmental justice was 4 not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the 5 Gels. Information on chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS 6 was prepared or at the time this document was prepared.
7 8 This SEIS evaluates all 92 environmental issues considered in the GEIS. The SEIS considers the 9 environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license renewal and compares the envionmental 10 impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that are considered 11 include the no-action alternative (not renewing the ONS operating licenses) and alternative methods of 12 power generation. Among the alternative methods of power generation, coal-fired and gas-fired 13 generation appear the most likely if the power from ONS is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated 14 assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the DNS site or an 15 unspecified "greenfield" site.
16 17 Duke and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the 18 significance of any new information on the environmentalimpacts of license renewal. Neither Duke nor 19 the staff is aware of any significant new information related to Category 1 issues that would call into 20 question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither Duke nor the staff has identified any new issue 21 applicable to the ONS that has a significant environmentalimpact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the 22 conclusions of the GEIS for all 68 Category 1 issues.
23 24 The staff has reviewed the Duke analysis for each Category 2 issue and has conducted an independent 25 review of each issue. Five Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to plant 26 design features or site characteristics not found at ONS. Four additional Category 2 issues are not 27 discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to refurbishment. Duke has stated that 28 their evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major 29 plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued operation of ONS 30 beyond the end of the existing operating licenses. In addition, any replacement of components or 31 additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and 32 therefore, are not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations 33 evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for ONS.
34 35 The remaining 13 Category 2 issues, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of 36 electromagnetic fields, are discussed in detailin this SEIS. For all issues, the staff concludes that the 37 potential environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the GEIS. For severe 38 accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort 39 was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for ONS, the staff 40 concludes that none of the candidate SAMAs are cost beneficial.
41 42 Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate 43 environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional mitigation 44 measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
xv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l
-J
1 Executiva Summ:ry 1 in the event that the ONS operating licenses are not renewed and the plants cease operation at or 2 before the expiration of their current operating licenses, the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will 3 not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of ONS. The impacts may, in fact, be 4 greater in some areas.
5 6 The staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal 7 for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license 8 -- r:newal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable, based on (1) the analysis and 9 findings in the GEIS, (2) the ER submitted by Duke, (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and iocal 1
10 ggancies, and (4) its own independent review.
l Drift NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 xvi e
1 Abbrevictisns/Acrsnyma {
2 3
4 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 5 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 6 ALI annuallimits on intake 7 AOC averted offsite propert/ damage costs 8 AOE averted occupational exposure 9 AOSC averted onsite costs 10 APE averted public exposure 11 12 BWST borated water storage tank 13 14 CCW condenser cooling water 15 CDF core damage frequency 16 CEO Council on Environmental Quality 17 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 18 COE cost of enhancement 19 CRAC Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences 20 21 DO dissolved oxygen 22 DOC Department of the Census 23 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 24 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 25 Duke Duke Energy Corporation 26 27 EC effluent concentration 28 EIS EnvironmentalImpact Statement 29 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 30 ER environmental report 31 ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan for License Renewal 32 EWST elevated water storage tank 33 34 FEPC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 35 FES final environmental statement 36 FR Federal Register 37 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 38 ft feet 39 FWPCA Federal Water Pollution ^ trol Act (also known as the Clean Water Act) 40 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ~ a 41 42 GEIS Generic Environmental . ,4ct Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 43 NUREG-1437 44 gpd gallons per day 45 gpm gallons per minute 46 ha hectare 47 HE high energy xvii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Abbreviations / Acronyms c
1 HLW- high-level waste 2 HPI high pressure injection 3 HPSW high pressure service water
{
i 4 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning - l 5
6 IPE Individual Plant Examination 7 IPEEE Individual Plant Examination for External Events 8 IRP Integrated Resource Plan 9 ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 10 11 km kilometer 12 kV kilovolt 13 14 LOCA loss of coolant accident 15 LWR light-water reactors 16 17 m meter )
18 MACCS Melcor Accident Consequence Code System 19 mi mile -
20 MTHM metric tonnes of heavy metal
, 21 MTU metric ton of uranium 22 MW megawatt 23 MW(e) megawatts electric 24 MW(t) megawatts thermal 25 mwd /MTU megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium 26 27 NAS National Academy of Sciences 28 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 29 NESC National Electric Safety Code 30 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 31 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 32 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 33 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 34 NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,
35 l 36 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 37 ONS- Oconee Nuclear Station 38 39 PDS plant damage states
- 40. PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment 41 PSI pollutant standards index 42 43 RAI request for additionalinformation 44 RCM reactor coolant makeup DrOft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 xviii u._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .
i 1.0 Intrsducticn 2'
3 l 4 Duke Energy Corporation (Duke)(*) holds operating licenses DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-58 issued by 5 tha U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Units 1, 2, and 6 3 in northwestem South Carolina. These operating licenses _will expire in 2013 for Units 1 and 2 and in 7 2014 for Unit 3. By letter dated July 7,1998, Duke submitted an application to the NRC to renew the 8 ONS operating licenses for an additional 20 years under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 9 - (CFR) Part 54. Duka is a licensee for the purposes of its current operating licenses and an applicant i 10 for the renewal of the operating licenses.
11
(
12 - Th3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) for i 13 mrjor Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. As provided in the 14 G:neric EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1437 15 - (NRC 1996), under NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 implementing 16 NEPA, renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license is identified as a major Federal action signifi-17 cantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an EIS is required for a plant license i 18 renewal review.. The EIS requirements for a plant-specific license renewal review are specified in 19 10 CFR Part 51. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), Duke submitted an environmental report 20 (ER) (Duke 1998) in which Duke analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 21 cction, considered attematives to the proposed action, and evaluated any alternatives for reducing 22 cdverse environmental effects.
23 24 As part of NRC's evaluation of the application for license renewal, the NRC staff is required under 25 10 CFR Part 51 to prepare an EIS for the proposed action, issue the statement in draft form for public 26 comment, and issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. This report is 27 th3 plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (supplemental environmental impact statement [SEIS]) for 28 ths Duke license renewal application. The staff will also prepare a separate safety evaluation report in 29 tccordance with 10 CFR Part 54.
30 31 The following sections in this introduction describe the background and the process used by the staff to 32 essess the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, describe the proposed Federal 33 cction, discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and present the status of compliance 34 with environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, 35 rrgional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. Chapter 2 describes 36 tha site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the 37 potential environmental impacts of plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term, 38 r:spectively. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of potontial environmentalimpacts of plant accidents 39 cnd includes consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). Chapter 6 discusses 40 tha uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management, and Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning. The j
-41 tit:rnatives to license renewal are considered in Chapter 8. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the 42 findings of the prior chapters, draws conclusions related to the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided l
1 (a) Duke Energy Corporation has held the license for the ONS Unit 1,2, and 3 since l 2 September 16,1997. Before that date, Duke Power Company held the license. Duke Power !
3 ~ Company remains a division of Duke Energy Corporation.
1-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
introduction
! (the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-2 ment of long-term productivity, and the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources), and l 3 presents the preliminary recommendation of the staff with respect to the proposed action. Additional 4 information is included in Appendices. Appendix A is reserved for comments on this draft supplement 5 to the GEIS. Appendix B lists preparers of this supplement, and Appendix C lists the chronology of 6 correspondence between NRC and Duke with regard to this supplement. The remaining appendices 7 are identified in subsequent sections.
8 9 Generic Environmental impact Statement 10 11 The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmentalimpacts associated with the license 12 renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting the assessment 13 results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This assessment is provided in the 14 GEIS. The GEIS serves as the principal reference for all license renewal EISs.
15 16 The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the environ-17 mental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them 18 for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the analytical approach 19 (1) described the activity that affects the environment, (2) identified the population or resources that is 20 affected, (3) assessed the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population or resource, 21 (4) characterized the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse effects, (5) determined 22 whether the results of the analysis applied to all plants, and (6) considered whether additional 23 mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the same significance level for all 24 plants.
25 26 The standard of significance was established using the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 27 (40 CFR 1508.27) for assessing environmentalissues as small, moderate, or large. These 28 significance levels are defined as follows:
29 30 SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize 31 nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
32 33 MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably but not to destabilize 34 important attributes of the resource.
35 36 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 37 attributes of the resource.
38 39 The GEIS assigned a significance level to each environmentalissue. In assigning these levels, it was 40 assumed that ongoing mitigation measures would continue.
41 42 The Gels included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmentalissue could be applied 43 to all plants, and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were then Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1-2
introduction I c:igned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are 2 those that meet all of the following criteria:
3 4 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 5 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 6 plant or site characteristic.
7 8 (2) A single-significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts 9 (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste 10 (HLW) and spent fuel disposal).
I1 12 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts asscciated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it 13 has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 14 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
15 16 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required 17 unl:ss new and significant information is identified.
18 19 Crtegory 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore,
- 2 additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.
21 i 22 As set forth in the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmentalissues and determined that 68 qualified 23 as Category 1 issues,22 qualified as Category 2 issues, and two issues were not categorized. The 24 litt:r two issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, will be addressed 25 in a plant-specific analysis. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues is listed in Table 9.1 of the 26 GEIS and is codified in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B Table B-1.
27 28 License Renewal Evaluation Process 29 i 30 An applicant seeking a renewal of its operating license is required to submit an ER as part of its 31 application. This ER must provide an analysis of the issues listed as Category 2 in 10 CFR Part 51, 32 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii). The ER must include a 33 discussion of actions to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and environ-34 m:ntal impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. Certain issues, including the need for power, 35 th3 economic benefits and costs of the proposed action, economic benefits and costs of alternatives to 36 ths proposed action, and other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action 37 need not be considered. In addition, the ER need not discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel.
38 Th3 ER is not required to contain an analysis of any Category 1 issues unless there is significant new 39 information on a specific issue. New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a 40 significant environmentalissue not covered in the GEIS and codified in10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 41 Appendix B or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS and 42 which leads to an impact finding different from that codified in 10 CFR Part 51.
43 1-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
r-Intaduction 1 in preparation for submission of its application to renew the ONS operating licenses, Duke developed a 2 process to ensure that new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license 3 renewal for ONS was properly reviewed before submitting the ER and to ensure that new and signifi-4 cant information related to renewal of the ONS licenses will be identified, reviewed, and addressed 5 during the period of NRC review. Duke reviewed the Category 1 issues appearing in 10 CFR Part 51, 6 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid with 7 respect to ONS. This review was performed by personnel from Duke's Group Environmental Health 8 and Safety and the Oconee station personnel. Duke has committed to repeating this review process at 9 1-year intervals until a determination on the Oconee license renewal application is made. Duke also 10 committed to including discussions with South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 11 Control (SCDHEC), the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and the U.S. Fish 12 and Wildlife Service (FWS) as part of the review process and making revisions to the ER if new issues 13 are identified that were not included in the GEIS or if changes to conclusions made in the ER are 14 required.
15 16 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is 17 described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, 18 Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (February 1999 pre-19 publication copy) (NRC 1999b). The search for new information includes review of an applicant's ER 20 and process for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information, review of records of 21 public meetings and correspondence, review of environmental quality standards and regulations, and 22 review of the technicalliterature. Any new information discovered by the staff is evaluated for signi-23 ficance using the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant 24 information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the !
25 assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does not 26 include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information.
27 28 The discussion of the environmentalissues considered in the GEIS that are applicable to ONS is found 29 in Chapters 3 through 7. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a table that 30 identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is discussed.
31 Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 issues for which there 32 is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of short paragraphs that state the 33 GEIS conclusion codified in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the staff's review 34 steps and conclusion. For Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of GEIS sections where the issue is 35 discussed, the tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describe the analysis required 36 and the SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections discussing the Category 2 37 issues listed immediately follow the table.
38 )
39 1
l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1-4
L Introduction 1 The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal as well as 2 a comparison of these impacts to the onvironmentalimpacts of altematives. The evaluation of Duke's 3 license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for docketing
.4 (63 FR 42885, August 11,1998). The staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct 5 ' scoping (63 FR 50257, September 21,1998). Two public scoping meetings were held on 6 October 19,1998, in Clemson, South Carolina. Comments received during the scoping meeting were c 7 tummarized in the EnvironmentalImpact Statement Scoping Process, Oconee Nuclear Station, 8 Summary Report, January 1999 (NRC 1999a).
9 10 Tha staff conducted a site visit at ONS on October 19 through 22,1998, performed a review of the 11' comments received during scoping, and consulted with state, regional, and local agencies. A list of the 12 . orginizations consulted is provided in Appendix D of this document. Other documents related to ONS 13 were also reviewed and are referenced.
14 15 Th3 ESRP provides guidance for the staff review and for the preparation of the SEIS. Because the 16 ESRP was under development at the time of the Duke application, a draft of the ESRP was used 17 during the review of the ER. The staff issued Requests for Additional information (RAl) to Duke by 18 lett rs dated December 29,1998 (NRC 1998a and NRC 19986). Duke provided its responses in a 19 lett2r dated March 4,1999 (Duke 1999). The staff reviewed this information and incorporated it into its 20 cnalysis. The results of the staff's evaluation are contained in this SEIS. The SEIS presents an 21 enalysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the license renewal, the environmental 22 impacts of attematives to license renewal, and attematives available for avoiding adverse environ-23 m:ntal effects. A preliminary recommendation on whether the adverse impacts of license renewal are 24 so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be 25 unr:asonable is provided in Chapter 9, Summary and Conclusions.
26 27 NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of SEISs 28 prepared at the license renewal stage:
29 30 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to include 31- discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action 32 or of attematives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either 33- essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of attematives 34 considered or relevant to mitigatic~ In addition, the supplemental environmental impact statement 35 prepared at the license renewal Nap : need not discuss other issues not related to the environ- j 36 mental effects of the proposed acuva and the attematives, or any aspect of the storage of spent j 37 fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in $51.23(a) and in accordance I
.38 with $51.23(b).N 39 1 (t) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is " Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations -
2 generic determination of no significant environmental impact."
15 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2
introduction 1 This SEIS is being released in draft form for public comment as required in 10 CFR 51.73. Comments 2 received during the comment period will be considered. The disposition of the comments will be 3 cddressed in Appendix A to the final SEIS.
4 5 1.1 The Proposed Federal Action 6
7 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating licenses for ONS Units 1,2, and 3. ONS is 8 located in Oconee County, South Carolina, approximately 13 km (8 mi) northeast of Seneca, South 9 Carolina. The plant has three pressurized light-water reactors, each with a design rating for net 10 electrical power output of 887 megawatts (MW). Plant cooling is provided by a once-through heat 11 dissipation system into Lake Keowee which, along with the Keowee Hydroelectric station, was 12 constructed at approximately the same time as the ONS. ONS produces electricity to supply the 13 needs of more than 730,000 homes. The current operating licenses for Unit 1 expires on 14 February 6,2013, for Unit 2 on October 6,2013 and for Unit 3 on July 19,2014. By letter dated 15 July 7,1998, Duke submitted an application to renew these operating licenses for an additional 16 20 years of operation (i.e., until February 6,2033, for Unit 1, October 6,2033, for Unit 2, and 17 July 19,2034, for Unit 3).
18 19 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action 20 21 Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a plant beyond the term of the existing 22 operating license, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be met 23 for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once licensed, 24 State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will 25 continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's 26 jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
27 28 Thus, for license renewal reviews, the Commission has adopted the following definition of purpose and 1 29 need from the GEIS.
30 31 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an 32 option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant 33 operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by 34 State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
35 )
36 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that unless there are findings 37 in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the NEPA 38 environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does 39 not have a role in the energy planning decisions of state regulators and utility officials as to whether a l 40 particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the perspective of the licensee and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1-6 I l
l
Introduction 1 tha State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an operating license is to maintain the 2 cv2ilability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the current term of the 3 plant's license.
4 5 1.3 Compliance and Consultations 6
7 Duke is required to hold certain Federal. State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet 8 relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. Duke provided a list of the status of authorizations 9 from Federal, state, and local authorities for current operations as well as environmental approvals and 10 consultations associated with ONS license renewal. Authorizations most relevant to the proposed 11 license renewal action are summarized in Table 1-1. The full list of authorizations provided by Duke is 12 included as Appendix E.
13 14 The staff reviewed the list and has consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to 15 identify any significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies. Agency interactions 16 identified no new and significant environmental issues. The staff has also not identified any new and 17 significant environmentalissues.
17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Introduction 5 Table 1-1. Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License Permit Permit Expiration or Actidty 3 Agency Authority Requirement Number Consultation Date Covered 4 NRC Atomic Energy Act, Operating DPR-38, DPR- Expires February 6,2013, Operation cf DNS 10 CFR Part 50 license 47, DPR-58 October 6,2013, and Units 1,2, and 3 July 19,2014 5 FERC Federal Power Act, Associated FERC Project Expires 2016 License for Keowee Section 4(e) hydro project No. 2503 Dam and Hydro station 6 FWS Endangered Species Consultation NA Consultation initiated Operation during the Act, Section 7 June 23,1998 renewal term 7 SCDHEC Clean Air Act, Air quality 1820-0041 April 22,2002 Air quality permit Section 112 permit 8 SCDHEC Safe Drinking Water Water quality 202098Aland in compliance ONS has two permits Act 42 U.S.C.1412 204558 for drinking water wells in protected area 9 SCDHEC RCRA subtitle 1 Permit 06673,11174, Issued January 1,1982, Underground storage 11843 November 3,1988 tanks November 3,1989 10 SCDHEC FWPCA Section 402 State discharge SCR000000 Issued October 1,1992 in General storm water permit compliance permit 1I SCDHEC FWPCA Section 402 Water quality SCR00s 15 Expired (* Discharges of process waste water (NPDES permit) 12 SCSHPO National Historic Consultation NA Letter from Duke requesting Operation during the Preservation Act, consultation dated renewal term Section 106 September 30,1997 13 EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 15 FWPCA - Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act) 16 FWS - U.S. Fish M.d Wildlife Service 17 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 18 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 19 SCDHEC - South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 20 SCSHPO - South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 21 NA - Not app licable 22 (a) Section 2.2.3.
23 24 25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1-8
I Introduction 1 1.4 References 2
3 10 CFR Part 51," Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 4 R:gulatory Functions."
6 .10 CFR 51.23, " Temporary Storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation - generic 7 determination of no significant environmentalimpact."
8 1 9_10 CFR Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related I 10 Regulatory Functions."
11 12 10 CFR 51.23, " Temporary Storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation - generic 13 determination of no significant environmentalimpact."
14 15 10 CFR 51.53, ."Postconstruction environmental reports."
16 17 10 CFR 51.73, " Request for comments on draft environmental impact statement."
18 19 10 CFR 51.95, "Postconstruction environmental impact statements."
20 21 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1," Environmental effect of renewing the operating 22 lic:nse of a nuclear power plant."
23 24 10 CFR Part 54, " Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
25 26_10 CFR 54.23, " Contents of application - environmental information."
27 28 . 40 CFR 1508/27, " Terminology and index - Significantly."
i 29 30 63 FR 42885," Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for a 31 H:aring Regarding Renewal of Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DRP-55," August 11,1998.
32 33 63 FR 50257, " Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping 34 Process." September 21,1998 35 36 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,42 USC 2011, et seq.
37 38 Duke Energy Corporation. 1998. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses - Oconee Nuclear 39 St: tion, Units 1,2 and 3. Volume IV, Environmental Report.
40 .
41 Duke Energy Corporation,1999. Letter from M. S. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation to U.S.
42 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
License Renewal-Response to Requests for Additional 43 Information, Oconee Nuclear Station. Dated March 4,1999.
44 1-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Introduction 1 Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 USC 1531 et seq.
2 3 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, 33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as the 4 Clean Water Act).
5 6 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended,16 USC 470 et seq.
7 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmentallmpact Statement for
.9 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C.
10-11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1998a. Letter from U.S. NRC to William R. McCollum, 12 Duke Energy Corporation.
Subject:
Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Oconee 13 Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3. Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal-14 Environmental. Dated December 29,1998.
15 16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1998b. Letter from U.S. NRC to William R. McCollum, 17 Duke Ener ' Corporation.
Subject:
Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Oconee 18 Nuclear Station Unit Nos.1,2 & 3 Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal- SAMA.
19 Dated December 29,1998.
20
-21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1999a. Environmentallmpact Statement Scoping 22 Process: Summary Report - Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South 23 Carolina. Washington, D.C.
24 25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion (NRC).1999b. Standard Review Plans for Environmental 26 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating Ucense Renewal, NUREG-1555, 27 - Supplement 1. Washington, D.C.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1-10 I
1 2.0 De:cripti2n of Nucl:Cr P0wcr Plant cnd Sit 3 end Plant 2 Interaction with the Environment 3
4 5 The Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) is located near State Highways 130 and 183 on Lake Keowee in 6 castern Oconee County, South Carolina, approximately 13 km (8 mi) northeast of Seneca, South 7 Co.olina. The site is within 40 km (25 mi) of the boundaries of the States of North Carolina and f8 Georgia, as shown in Figure 2-1. ONS is a three unit plant. Each unit is equipped with a nuclear 9 st:am supply system manufactured by Babcock and Wilcox that uses a pressurized light-water reactor 10 and once-through cooling with water from Lake Keowee. The electricity generated is transferred to the 11 switchyards located at the ONS site. Each unit has a design rating for net electrical power output of 12 887 megawatts electric (MW(e)). Each unit is rated at 846 MW(e) net power. This provides a 13 combined station total of 2538 MW(e) net power. The amount of electricity produced by ONS can 14 supply the needs of more than 730,000 homes. Descriptions of the plant and its environs follow in 15 Section 2.1, and the plant's interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.
16 North Carolina gM[~ }
_.._.._.._..g"*",* '"
~
s.or,na .{
. / s. -
%>\
- I* '"'
5 Greenville C na 'D '
Six Mile .
Walhalla y G
("Oconee ub. rey
/
~'X\
n Norr . .
weetman.ier .I Clemson (i
seneca ,
a Pendleton North Carolina b
j .
1
^
Georgia s_th x carolina
_ _ _ 2.r r - -
^"d'"_M
\
17 18 Figure 2-1. Location of Oconee Nuclear Station 19 20 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plant end ths Environm:nt i
1 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Renewal Term Plant Operation l 2
3 ONS is located on 210 ha (510 acres) in a rural part of northwestern South Carolina. Figure 2-1 shows 4 the location of ONS in relationship to the tri-state area (northwest South Carolina, northeast Georgia, 5 and southwest North Carolina). The site is surrounded by an exclusion area of 1.6 km (1 mi) radius as 6 shown in Figure 2 2. All land is owned by Duke in full except for a small rural church lot, a highway 7 right-of-way, and approximately 4 ha (9.9 acres) included in the Hartwell Reservoir project.
8 9 The region surrounding ONS was identified by the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) as 10 having a medium population density. Approximately 1700 persons comprise the non-outage work 11 force at ONS. There are 1350 Duke employees normally on site. The remainder of the 1700 persons 12 are contract or vendor workers. The plant is located near the cities of Seneca, Walhalla, Clemson, and 13 Central South Carolina. The nearest town is Six Mile, located 6 km (4 mi) east northeast. The majority 14 of the land area is forest, with pasture, cropland, and residential development each contributing 15 significant proportions of land-use. The land within 8 km (5 mi) of the plant is primarily forest.
16 17 The property consists of rolling hills, with surface elevations ranging from about 210 m to 273 m (700 ft 18 to 900 ft) within the region. The area is well drained by several intermittent streams flowing away from 19 the center of the site in a radial pattern. The site lies within the drainage area of the Little and Keowee 20 Rivers, which flow southerly into the Seneca River and subsequently discharge into the main drainage 21 course of the Savannah River. The average annual rainfall at the site area is approximately 135 cm 22 (53 in.).
23 24 ONS is part of Duke's integrated energy producing area called the Keowee-Toxaway complex. ONS 25 was constructed as a part of the Keowee-Toxaway Project (FERC Project #2503). This project also 26 included the construction of Lake Keowee, Lake Jocassee, and the associated hydroelectric stations.
27 Construction of the project occurred between 1968 and 1974. The Keowee-Toxaway Complex is 28 located in the upper Savannah River drainage basin. It consists of the three-unit ONS, the Keowee 29 Hydroelectric Station (a two-unit conventional hydroelectric facility), the Jocassee Hydroelectric Station 30 (a four-unit pumped storage hydroelectric facility) and the Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project (a four-31 unit pumped storage hydroelectric facility). The Jocassee Hydroelectric Station can operate in a 32 generating mode or in a pumping mode to store water for later generation of electric power. In the 33 generating mode, electricity is generated by abwing water to flow from Lake Jocassee (upper pond) 34 into Lake Keowee (lower pond). In the pumping mode, water is pumped into Lake Jocassee from Lake 35 Keowee for generation of electricity at a later time. The Bad Creek Pumped Storage Facility uses Lake 36 Jocassee as the lower pond, and the Bad Creek Reservoir serves as the upper pond. Figure 2-3 37 illustrates the location of ONS in relationship to the rest of the Keowee Toxaway project and the Bad 38 Creek project.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-2 i
I Plant and the Environment
( Lake Keowee l
y 5*n*"
O l t.ke xeo.ee gna /
tion Fence y Old Pickens SC 183 cod *dE e cemetery I
\
U"cMAn"2."*d'"*
Boundary Legend
,[ W Not Owned by Duke e u,w
-N- Owner Control Area o .s xuo, w.
jj l l Lake Area 1
2 Figure 2-2. Oconee Nuclear Station - One-Mile Exclusion Area 2-3 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2
Plant and tha Environm: int 1
Bad Creek Pum Storage 1 Station 1065 (e l FERC Project No. 2 40 Bad Creek Reservoir Lake Jocassee Full Pool El. 2310 ft (704 m) MSL Full Pool El.1110 ft (338 m) MSL 370 acros (150 ha) 7500 acres (3035 ha) 11 Jocassee Pumped Storage Station 610 MW (e) 11 North CwoHeta
+
south CaroHna es as Connecting Canal % Keowee H dro Station
_u-Oconee Nuclear Station ]
i 2568 MW (t) (each unit) s in e sn Lake Keowse Little River Full Pool El. 800 ft (244m) MSL Dam 18,500 acres (7486 ha) 2 Figure 2-3. Location of Oconee Nuclear Station Relative to Other Parts of Keowee-Toxaway Project l 3 (Jocassee Pumped Storage Station and Keowee Hydro Station) !
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-4 l
Pl2nt and tha Environm:nt i ONS is on the shores of Lake Keowee, which is located immediately north and west of the site. Lake i 2 Keowee was formed by damming the water of the Little River and the Keowee River above the Hartwell 3 R:servoir. Hartwell Reservoir, an Army Corps of Engineers' reservoir, is located south and 4 downstream of the site. Lake Jocassee is approximately 17.5 km (11 mi) to the north. Keowee Lake 5 covers about 7490 ha (18,500 acres) and has 480 km (300 mi) of shoreline, which is developed with 6 both permanent and vacation residences, along with campgrounds, boat launch areas, marinas, golf 7 courses and some small retail establishments. The volume of Lake Keowee is 1.175x10dm8 8 (952,300 acre ft). The mean depth is 16 m (52 ft) with a maximum depth of 43 m (141 ft). In addition 9 to uses for the needs of the nuclear and hydroelectric power plants, Lake Keowee is used as a source 10 of municipal drinking water by Greenville and Seneca and is extensively used for recreation by 11 fi hermen, swimmers, skiers, and boaters.
12 13 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting 14 15 Tho station is sited within a forested valley and is only visible from the neighboring highways in a few 16 locations. The most obvious view is one of the water tower. ONS consists of three cylindrical concrete 11 r=ctor building structures, approximately 38 m (125 ft) in diameter and about 61 m (200 ft) high. A 18 turbine building and an auxiliary building are shared among the three units. Switchyards are located i 19 n=r the turbine building. Various other o# ice buildings and facilities are located at ONS to support the 20 st: tion. Figure 2-4 shows the general features of the ONS site. Figure 2-5 presents an aerial view of 21 tha facility showing the three cylindrical reactor buildings.
22 23 Duke has an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located on the site that has a license 24 separate from the operating license. Duke was issued a Materials License (No. SNM-2503) for the 25 ISFSI on January 29,1990, with an expiration date of January 31,2010. The ISFSIis outside the ;
26 scope of this review.
27
, 28 Th3 Old Pickens Presbyterian Church and Cemetery are located to the southeast of ONS on a small 29 parcel of land that is not owned by Duke, The church is the only building remaining from the original 30 Pickens town site. A Visitor's Center on a hill just above the site displays "The Story of Energy," which 31 discribes how sources of energy are found in nature and converted into electricity by Duke's gener-32 eting facilities. There is also a lakeside picnic area and landscaped grounds. .
33 l 34 Tha site's geological setting is in the southeastern Piedmont physiographic province, and the site is 35 underlain by crystalline rocks (AEC 1972). This northeastward-trending belt of ancient metamorphic 36 rocks extends northward from Alabama east of the Appalachians, and in South Carolina, it crosses the 37 stite from the fallline on the east to the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains on the west. These 38 rocks are generally recognized as being divided into four parallel northeast-southwest-trending belts in 39 the Carolinas. From southeast to northwest, these are the Carolina state belt, the Charlotte belt, the 40 Kings Mountain belt, and the Inner Piedmont belt. The site is in the northwestern inner Piedmont belt. l 2-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l
Plant and the Environment
+
j h x2 Q cf-l J.,..tx.G .me gZr m'e'e" !1 .-S
- 3. .a y. . < ~
,;..g';';
.g 3,, s. ;
,r' ' ** + - : ;yyr-smr.; ,
,d%:...,$.1,.A.
a.a. n J9 l *
~.,*e p... a
- 'fAlN Y .,
M9""*"#f _ ' - % - f; , -
6
_. ^(t I .-
1i
(?M
'1 JMi Jj-j.? 'l
-'7
=-',e l
.L.'
n <>. .
[
o 14
~
esme Ul v.,
eu,, c
,..'eiy;L s' ** \
';:e. , , ,
- m , .s -
. , 4.4.-
, N
--e,,
, omo.
,' se.r.si p an , -
ons Pinhens
,e , L8"M p e sah nor
/ d GR. "
e Ys1
[:~h* W
.yr:
's
,a
., ' r ,-o Oconee Nuclear Station
^1.1 , ! .- - . <- _m gt, .
g Ss te in Feen g- u .3 . u u
---o ,c w .o, 1 Figure 2-4. Oconee Nuclear Station Layout 2
3 1
1 W:
.a. .. .
.. .-;. . - - . -"a- _ - ~ ~
- g. . - .
..e 1
~
R:
h i l
s ,. : .,
w . .c .. n . . .m.
. ..: .,;w .
~
..4.
., 1 P
. m 4
5 Figure 2-5. Oconee Nuclear Station (aerial photo)
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-6
Pl nt and tha Environment i The rocks are geologically ancient and complex. These rocks were folded and metamorphosed when 2 the Appalachian Mountains were formed during the Appalachian Revolution, some 270 million years 3 cgo. Faults and other lines of weakness dating from this Revolution may serve to locate present-day 4 minor crustal movements that produce small earthquakes, and their location is of some importance.
5 The most important is the Brevard fault zone that passes 17.5 km (11 mi) northwest of the site. The 6 design criteria for the Station took this fault zone into account. Small earthquakes have been detected 7 clong this zone with intensities of IV to VI. Using this scale of intensities, V and Vi represent 8 disturbances that can dislodge plaster, etc.; X, XI, and Xll represent disturbances that are severely 9 damaging (AEC 1972). l 10 l 11 in addition to the Brevard fault, there are fault zones 48 km (30 mi) to 320 km (200 mi) southeast 12 where quake intensities of Vil or Vill have been recorded. But because of their distance, these zones 13 cre of slight importance for ONS (AEC 1972). I 14 15 ONS is in the drainage basins of the Little and Keowee Rivers, which receive the runoff of surface 16 water and groundwater from the site. The residual soil in the area is comparatively impermeable, 17 particularly in late winter and early spring when the soil is saturated, and much of the precipitation goes 18 into direct surface runoff. The residual soils do accept some water, and the area is underlain by a 19 witer table that is a subdued replica of the topography. Groundwater is not an important source of 20 w;ter supply in the crea; all neighboring towns obtain their municipal supplies from above-ground 1 21 sources.
22 23 The rate of movement of the groundwater was calculated to be 45 m to 76 m (150 ft to 250 ft) per year 24 (AEC 1972). The residual soil has excellent ion exchange properties.
25 26 2.1.2 Reactor Systems 27 28 ONS is a three-unit plant. Each unit is a pressurized light-water reactor, with a nuclear steam supply
)
29 system manufactured by Babcock and Wilcox. Each unit has a design rating for net electrical power 30 output of 887 MW(e), and is operated at a maximum core thermal power output level of 2568 MW(t).
31 The turbines are manufactured by General Electric Company. Each turbine is a tandem, compound, 32 six-flow exhaust, indoor unit.
33 34 ONS fuel is slightly enriched (3.7 percent by weight)(*) uranium dioxide in the form of pellets contained :
35 in zirconium alloy fuel rods (tubes fitted with welded end caps).
I I (5) Naturally occurring uranium contains several forms of uranium, including approximately 0.7 percent !
2 uranium-235, the form that a nuclear reactor uses. The nuclear fuel manufacturing process 3 removes some of the other forms, resulting in a slightly higher percentage (" enrichment") of l
j uranium-235.
4 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plant and ths Environm:nt
.I Duke can operate ONS at a maximum fuel bumupWrate of 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton 2 uranium (mwd /MTU).
3 4 Reactor containment structures are designed with engineered safety features to protect the public and 5 plant personnel from accidental release of radioactive fission products, particularly in the unlikely event 6 of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). These safety features function to localize, control, mitigate, and 7 terminate such events to limit exposure levels below applicable dose guidelines. The reactor is 8 controlled using a combination of chemical controls (boric acid dissolved in coolant water) and solid 9 absorber material (tubes of boron carbide).
10 11 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 12 13 ONS is equipped with a once-through heat dissipation system that withdraws cooling water from the 14 Little River arm of Lake Keowee, from underneath a skimmer wall. The discharge for the cooling water 15 is located on the Keowee River arm of the lake just above the Lake Keowee dam. The Keowee River 16 and the Little River basins are connected by a canal, approximately 31 m (100 ft) wide and 12 m (40 ft) 17 deep (illustrated in Figure 2.2). It is nearly 3.2 km (2 mi) by lake from the point of discharge to the 18 mouth of the intake canal. A natural cove was deepened and extended to within a few hundred feet of 19 the power plant as part of the project when initially licensed. Across the mouth of the cove, a skimmer 20 wall was constructed extending from above the surface of the lake (normally 244 m (800 ft)) above 21 mean sea level) down to an elevation of 223 m (735 ft). This wall ensures that cooler water from near 22 the bottom of the lake enters the intake canal. Further into the intake cove is a submerged dam, or 23 weir, with its crest at 233 m (770 ft) above mean sea level. The purpose of this dam is to retain 24 enough water in the intake canal to provide ample condenser cooling for an orderly shutdown of the 25 plant in the event that one of the Lake Keowee dams or dikes fails, and the lake drains. The distance i 26 from the weir to the intake structures is nearly 1.2 km (0.75 mi). Figure 2-4 shows the water flow for 27 the plant and illustrates the location of the skimmer wall, intake structure, submerged dam, and the 28 outfall for the once-through cooling system.
29 30 Each generating unit has three separate water loops. The primary coolant loop is a closed piping 31 system- pressurized water in the system is circulated through the reactor and transfers heat from the 32 reactor to the steam generator. The secondary loop is also a closed system-water from this system 33 is converted into steam (in the steam generators) that is used to drive the turbine. The third loop is an 34 open system-water from the Little River arm of Lake Keowee is used to cool the spent steam in the 35 secondary loop, and then it is retumed to the Keowee River arm of Lake Keowee. The principal i 36 components of the third cooling loop are the skimmer wall, intake structure, circulating water pumps, 37 condensers, and discharge conduits.
38 1
)
1 (a) " Burn-up" is the length of use of, or total energy generated by, the nuclear fuel and is measured as 2 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-8
Plant and ths Environment 1 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 2
3 ONS uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and process 4 the liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes that are the by-products of the ONS operation. These systems 5 reduce radioactive liquid,' gaseous, and solid effluents before they are released to the environment.
6 L The ONS waste processing systems meet the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, and 7 control the processing, disposal, and release of radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes.
8 Ridioactive material in the reactor coolant is the source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive 9 wrtes in light-water reactors (LWRs). Radioactive fission products build up within the fuel as a 10 consequence of the fission process. These fission products are contained in the sealed fuel rods, but 11 cmill quantities escape the fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. Neutron activation of the 12 primary coolant system also is responsible for coolant contamination.
13 14 Non-fuel solid wastes result from treating and separating radionuclides from gases and liquids and 15 from removing contaminated material from various reactor areas. Solid wastes also consist of reactor 16 components, equipment, and tools removed from service as well as contaminated protective clothing, 17 paper, rags, and other trash generated from plant design and operations modifications and routine 18 maintenance activities. Solid wastes may be shipped to a waste processor for volume reduction befora 19 deposal or may be sent directly to the licensed burial site. Spent resins, filters, and evaporator 20 concentrates are dewatered and stored or packaged for shipment to an offsite processing or disposal 21 facility.
22 23 - Fu;l rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and that are removed from the reactor 24 cora for disposal are called spent fuel. ONS currently operates on an 18-month refueling cycle for all 25 three units. Spent fuel is stored onsite either in a spent fuel pool in the Auxiliary Building or in dry 26 storage at the ONS ISFSI. ONS also temporarily stores mixed waste onsite. This storage is govemed 27 by the Atomic Energy Act for radioactive material and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for 28 ' hazardous waste, consistent with NRC and EPA requirements (42 USC 2011-2259; 42 USC 6901).
29 30 Th3 systems used for processing-liquid waste processing, gaseous waste processing, solid waste
' 31 processing, and nonradioactive waste systems-are discussed in the following sections.
-32 33 The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) provides the methodology and parameters used to 34 calculate potential offsite doses due to radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and to ensure 35 compliance with the dose limitations of the Selected Licensee Commitments (Section 16.11 36 Radiological Effluents Control of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)). These dose 1 I
37 limits require:
38 39 1) The concentration of radioactive liquid effluents released from the site to the unrestricted area will 40 be limited to ten times the effluent concentration (EC) levels of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 41 Table 2.
42 ,
43 2) The exposures to any individual member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents will not result !
44 in doses greater than the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. !
2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplernent 2 l
Pitnt cnd tha Environm:nt 1
2 3) The dose rate at any time at the site boundary from radioactive gaseous effluents will be limited to 3 (a) less than or equal to 5 m3v/yr (500 mrem /yr) to the whole body and less than or equal to 4 30 mSv/yr (3000 mrem /yr) to the skin for noble gases and (b) less than or equal to 15 mSv/yr 5 (1500 mrem /yr) to any organ for iodine-131 and 133, tritium, and for all radioactive materials in 6 particulate form with half-lives greater than 8 days.
7 8 4) The exposure to any individual member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents will not 9 result in doses greater than the design objectives of b CFR Part 50, Appendix 1.
10 11 5) The dose to any individual member of the public from the nuclear fuel cycle will not exceed the 12 limits of 40 CFR Part 190 and 10 CFR Part 20.
13 14 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Management Systems and Effluent Controls 15 16 Radioactive liquid wastes from the operation of ONS are accumulated in storage tanks based on the 17 waste source and process train. These wastes are collected in the Auxiliary Building and transferred to 18 the Radwaste Facility for processing by filtration or demineralization or both. The Auxiliary Building 19 processes high-activity wastes, low-activity wastes and miscellaneous wastes from the Radwaste 20 Facility. There is also an Interim Radwaste Building that can process liquid wastes, but it is not 21 currently in use.
22 23 ONS liquid wastes are disposed of by one of the following three methods based on the concentration 24 of radioactive materialin the waste:
25 26 = Collected, sampled, and ana!yzed (diluted to meet the permissible concentration limits for 27 discharge) and then discharged directly to the tailrace of the Keowee Hydroelectric plant.
28 29 . Processed by filtration or demineralization or both, collected, sampled, and analyzed with the filters +
30 and or resins and then packaged and shipped to an approved licensed burial ground.
31 32 . Processed by filtration or demineralization or both, collected, sampled, and analyzed with the filters 33 and or resins and then packaged and shipped to an offsite vendor waste processor.
34 l
35 The liquid waste holdup capacity for the three units is 28,343 m (944,773 ft ) per year. The actual 36 liquid waste generated is reported in the Oconee Annual Effluent Report.
37 38 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-10 l
PIInt and the Environrnent l
1 The ODCM prescribes the effluent release rate that will ensure that the concentration of radioactive 2 liquid effluents released from the site to the unrestricted area is less than ten times the effluent 3 concentrations of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. In addition, the ODCM provides calculations for the 4 rrdiation monitor alarm / trip set points that define the relationship between the measured effluent 5 actmty, the maximum allowable effluent activity, and the effluent flowrate needed to ensure that the 6 instantaneous release rate is not exceeded and thereby the Selected Licensee Commitments are met.
7 8 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Management Systems and Effluent Controls 9
10 R dioactive gaseous wastes at ONS are created by the evolution of gases in liquid wastes stored in 11 tanks. The wastes are monitored and released at a permissible rate prescribed by the ODCM. Units 1 12 and 2 share a Gaseous Waste Disposal System, and Unit 3 has a separate system that can be 13 interconnected to the Unit 1 and 2 system. The purposes of the Gaseous Waste Disposal Systems 14 cra: .1) to maintain a non-oxidizing cover gas of nitrogen in tanks and equipment that may contain 15 r:dioactive gas,2) to holdup gas for decay, and 3) to release the gases under controlled conditions.
16 17 The gaseous wastes are to be released in the following ways depending on the source, quantities, and 18 concentration of radioactive material: 1) release of Auxiliary Building ventilation air and Reactor 19 Building purges into the unit vents,2) release of Reactor Building purges through high efficiency
~20 particulate and charcoal iodine filters to the unit vents,3) release of waste gas directly or through high 21 cfficiency particulate and charcoal iodine filters to the unit vents,4) diversion of gaseous radioactive 22 waste to waste gas tanks with controlled release after sampling and analysis through the waste gas 23 system high efficiency particulate and charcoal iodine filters to the unit vents, and 5) release of 24 Radwaste Facility heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and process exhaust.
25 26 The ODCM prescribes the effluent release rate to ensure that releases are less than the Selected 27 Licensee Commitments. In addition, the ODCM provides the calculational methodology for the 28 r:diation monitor alarm / trip set points, which defines the relationship between the measured effluent 29 actuty, the maximum alinwable effluent activity, and the effluent flowrate needed to ensure that the 30 instantaneous release rate is not exceeded, and thereby the Selected Licensee Commitments are met.
31 32 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing
.33 34 Solid waste is packaged in containers to meet the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 61 and 71 35 for transportation and disposal. There are no releases to the environment from radioactive solid 36 wastes created at ONS. NRC and the state of South Carolina have approved the disposal of slightly 37 contaminated materials within the Company Controlled Area. For each onsite disposal, the waste is 38 cnalyzed and confirmed to have acceptably low radionuclide concentrations, following the approval l 39 process described in 10 CFR 20.2002. i 40 41 l
l 2-11 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2 l
l
Plant and the Environment 1 There are approximately 150 shipments made from ONS each year. About 120 are radioactive 2 material shipments (contaminated parts, tools, equipment, sources, etc.) and 30 radwaste shipments 3 (dry active waste, dewatered resins, irradiated hardware, etc.). The radwaste shipments may be 4 shipped to a waste processor to reduce the volume before disposal or may be sent directly to a 5 licensed burial site.
6 7 From year to year, the volume of radioactive contaminated waste generated will vary, but averages 8 about 750 m (25,000 ft ) 8per year. ONS nas been aggressively reducing volume and minimizing 9 waste for several years and plans to continue to do so in the future.
10 11 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 12 13 The primary nonradioactive chemical wastes produced by ONS are from reactor coolant feedwater, 14 steam generator feedwater, water treatment demineralizers, and deborating demineralizers. Laundry 15 and cleaning detergents are also considered nonradioactive chemical wastes. Most wastes are 16 neutralized and sent to the holding pond, eventually being discharge to the tailrace of the Keowee 17 Hydroelectric Station. Sanitary wastes are chlorinated before discharge to the Keowee River 18 downstream from the Keowee Hydroelectric station.
19 20 . 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance 21 22 Routine maintenance performed on plant systems and components is necessary for safe and reliable 23 operation of a nuclear power plant. Some of the maintenance activities conducted at ONS include
' 24 . inspectum, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the plant and to ensure 25 compliance with environmental and public safety requirements. Certain activities can be performed 26 while the reactor is operating. Others require that the plant be shut down. Long-term outages are 27 ' scheduled for refueling and for certain types of repairs or maintenance, such as replacement of a 28 major component. Scheduled refueling outages commonly have a duration of 45 to 55 days for a 29 single unit. An additional 800 to 900 workers are onsite during a typical outage. Scheduled refueling 30 outages for ONS occur on 18-month intervals for all three units.
31 32 Duke performed an aging management review and developed an integrated plant assessment for 33 managing the effects of aging on systems, structures and components in accordance with 34 10 CFR Part 54. The integrated plant assessment identified several activities that must necessarily be 35 conducted during the period of extended operation. These activities include inspections and 36 replacement of certain components. The licensee indicated that replacing these components and 37 conducting additional inspections are within the bounds of normal plant operations. Therefore, Duke 38 expects to conduct these activities during plant operation or normal refueling and other outages, but 39 plans no outages specifically for the purpose of refurbishment. Duke has no plans to add additional 40 full-time persons (non-outage workers) at the plant during the period of the extended license.
41 42 l
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-12
g i
Plant and ths Environm:nt 1 2.1.7 Power Transmission System 2
3 The ONS FES (AEC 1972) lists the transmission lines shown in Table 2-1 as being " attributable to the 4 (Oconee) nuclear station". These lines account for 528 km (330 mi) of lines and about 3120 ha 5 (7800 acres) of land in the rights-of-way. Figure 2-6 illustrates the location of these transmission lines.
6 7 These transmission lines were constructed concurrently with the construction of Oconee and the 8 Keowee-Toxaway project and at a time that the Duke transmission system was being expanded in the 9 Piedmont area. These lines are owned and operated by Duke Electric Transmission, a division of 10 Duke Energy separate from Duke Power (Duke 1998a). The applicant indicated that the transmission 11 lines will remain in service following the termination of operation and the decommissioning of Oconee,
- 12. unless business needs require otherwise. The applicant stated that the 525 kV and the 230 kV lines 13 from the Oconee substation provide an outlet for the 1675 MW of electrical power at the Jocassee and 14 Bad Creek Pumped Storage Hydro plants, and a source of power when these units are in pump mode.
15 in addition, Duke stated that three of the lines were energized before initial ONS startup. These lines 16 are also used for tie-ins to the Virginia-Carolinas subregion of the Southeastem Electric Reliability 17 Council as well as for connections to Georgia and Florida. Duke (1998a) proposed that the 18 transmission lines that should be consioered to connect the plant to the transmission sistem are only 19 those lines from the Oconee Turbine Building to the 230 kV and the 525 kV switchyards. However, as
- 20. provided in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the scope of the review of transmission lines for the Category 2 21 issue concerning electric shock is the set of transmission lines that were constructed for the specific 22 purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system. The NRC staff has determined that the 23 scope of the review of transmission lines for the Category 2 issue conceming threatened or 24 cndangered species should be identical to the scope of review for electric shock (NRC 1999b). As 25 stated above, the ONS FES indicates that all the transmission lines listed in Table 2-1 were 26 " attributable to [ONS)." Accordingly, the staff has determined that all these lines were constructed for 27 the specific purpose of connecting ONS to the transmission system and determined that all of the 28 transmission lines discussed in the FES should be evaluated.
29 30 Table 2-1. Transmission Lines from Oconee Nuclear Station 31 Double or Distance Width of Right-of-way Date Line was 32 Destination Sinye kV (ml) (ft) Energized 33 Tiger d 230 53 150 November 1,1973 34 Central (2) d 230 9 270 October 31,1970 35 Site H s 525 130 200 July 2,1974 36 (McGuire) ;
37 Newport s 525 110 200 April 1,1973 38 N. Greenville d 230 28 200 January 1,1970 39 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 i
Plant end ths Environm:nt i
2 y a 'y j\ ;
8"2, 7 ,, o . io a 2o a = = =
- w.. Q,
= :=:-
~
uxes Caro / a ue
\ -
, en_ , _.
m ~L ~
y q.4 2
> F . ' enk e packiibwe cGw
- T. / m,r,,, s aMy s '..~3 ..--.... .
c yg,
/ , ah y/t ag on. eve. -
3 , */ "$* A, N )
>c g i r unu)n un ' cad.,
N wem hon'8" a
So\ uth ogfo, 4.n ,A.
olin w,A S
g est9 6 g ,,p,,,
/ ww a
/
g b m onsmo,.
}3 ~
3 Figure 2-6. Transmission Lines Attributable to the Oconee Nuclear Station in the 4 Final Environmental Statement (AEC 1972) 5 6 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment 7
8 Subsections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment as background 9 information and detailed descriptions where needed to support analysis of potential environmental 10 impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal term as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.
11 Subsection 2.2.9 describes the historical and archaeological resources in the area, and 2.2.10 12 describes possible impacts on other Federal project activities.
13 14 2.2.1 Land Use 15 16 ONS is located in the northwest corner of South Carolina. The station is in the eastern portion of 17 Oconee County, it is approximately 13 km (8 mi) northeast of the city of Seneca, the largest city in Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-14 i
Plant and ths Environment i Oconee County. Lake Keowee occupies the area immediately north and west of the station. Lake 2 Keowee covers approximately 7500 ha (18,500 acres) and was created by dams on the Lower Keowee 3 cnd Little River.
4 5 The total area occupied by the station is 210 ha (510 acres). Forests cover the majority of the land 6 ar:a in the region surrounding ONS. The topography of the immediate area is undulating to rolling.
7 Surface elevations range from approximately 210 m (700 ft) to 275 m (900 ft).
8 9 Oconee County is predominantly rural. The county's major population centers and developed areas 10 tra concentrated in the east central portion of the county around the municipalities of Walhalla, 11 Westminster, and Seneca. Walhalla is the county seat for Oconee County. Table 2-2 shows a break-12 down of land use in Oconee County in 1994. The amount of developed land is increasing with time.
13 14 Th3 land occupied by the station it an unincorporated portion of Oconee County. There are no 15 zoning or land-use restrictions irrr ' by Oconee County in the unincorporated portions of the 16 county.
17 18 Table 2-2. Land Use in Oconee County in 1994 (Talbert & Bright 1996)
'19 20 Land Use Hectares % of Total (Acres) 21 Farming 97,700 (241,300) 56.3 22 Residential 5,700 (14,100) 3.3 23 Government Owned 41,000 (101,200) 23.6 24 Other (commercial and 9,500 (23,500) 5.5
'25 industrial) 26 Water Bodies 19,700 (48,600) 11.3 27 Total 173,600 (428,700) 100 28 29 30 2.2.2 Water Use 31 8 8 32 Watzr from Lake Keowee (8.3x10 m /d [2200 million gpd]) provide once-through condenser cooling 33 wat:r (CCW) for ONS (see Section 2.1.3), serves as the lower pond for the Jocassee Pumped Storage N Station, and furnishes energy to drivG the Keowee Hydroelectric Station. Water from the Seneca water h5 tratment plant (1200 m'/d [0.3 million gpd]) is used for potable water. Treated waste water (51 m /d 36 [0.01 million gpd]) from the plant's liquid rad waste system is diluted and returned to the Keowee dam 37 tailrace. Treated water (5300 m /d [1.4 million gpd]) from the sewage treatment system, the chemical 38 treatment system, the landfill teachate collection system, chemical treatment ponds, storm water runoff, 39 and the turbine building sump are retumed to the Keowee River at a location below the tailrace.
40 Figurs 2.7 illustrates the water flow for the plant.
2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plant and tha Environment 1Ncoe ace.4
_ ^
M" I 1
I I
- =aar=*'s LakeK we t.no m (LNuo Alvor Arvn)
(Koowse River Arm) m aos,sse .or.e ses.ooo .ce.4
\
/ ',,,
q l}
v E
~
/ l
/ =. .:.
1 2 Figure 2-7. Oconee Nuclear Station - Water Flow Diagram 3
4 in addition to serving the needs of the nuclear and hydroelectric power plants, Lake Keowee is used as 5 a source of municipal drinking water for the cities of Greenville and Seneca. Lake Keowee 6 experiences extensive recreational use by fishermen, boaters, skiers, and swimmers.
7 8 ONS has permits from the state of South Carolina for four groundwater wells. One of these wells has 8
9 a pumping capacity of 0.0019 m /s (30 gpm) and is used to supply drinking water and a restroom 10 facility at the station baseball field. The other three groundwater wells are used for supplying irrigation 11 water for landscaping at the site during the summer months (June through September). The estimated 12 combined pumping rate for all four groundwater wells at Oconee is less than 0.068 m /s (100 gpm).
13 14 Draft NUREG-1437, Supp'ement 2 2-16
Plant and the Environrn:nt 1 2,2.3 Water Caality 2
3 The concentrations in Lake Keowee of all minerals are very low, with total dissolved sc' ids of less than 4 25 mg/ liter (0.00021 pounds / gallon). Water clarity is generally very high. Dissolved oxygen 5 concentrations in the surface waters are adequate, and a'gae are never present in nuisance 6 concentrations. Due to low nutrient content of its waters, Lake Keowee has a relatively low standing 7 crop (pounds per acre) of fish.
8 9 SCDHEC, as part of the Clean Lakes program, monitors the water quality and use of lakes in the 10 State. These results are published in Watershed Water Quality Assessment, Savannah and 1I Salkehatchie Basins, TechnicalReport No. 003-97. In this document, SCOHEC reported that 12 13 . Eutrophication assessments indicate that Lake Keowee is the least eutrophic large lake in South 14 Carolina, characterized by very low nutrient concentrations. Preservation of this lake's desirable 15 trophic condition is recommended. Aquatic life uses are not supported in Lake Keowee due to 16 occurrences of copper in excess of the aquatic life acute standards, including a high concentration 17 of copper measured in 1995, compounded by a significant increasing trend in pH. A significant 18 increasing trend in dissolved oxygen concentration and a significant decreasing trend in five-day 19 biochemical oxygen demand suggest improving conditions for these parame:ers. Recreational 20 uses are fully supported at this site.
21 22 Pursuant to the Federal Water Pellution Control Act (FWPCA), also known as the Clean Water Act, the 23 water quality of plant effluent discharges is regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge 24 Elimination System (NPDES). The SCDHEC is the agency delegated by the EPA to issue the NPDES 25 permit. The current permit (SC0000515) was issued on November 1,1993, and expired 26 S:ptember 30,1998. The permit is currently being renewed. A toxicity compliance issue is currently 27 outstanding and must be completed before final approval and issuance of the NPDES permit 28 (SCDHEC 1999). Any new regulations promulgated by EPA or the SCDHEC would be included in 29 future permits.
30 31 2s2.4 Air Quality 32 33 ONS is located on the eastem slope of the Appalachian Mountains at an elevation of about 240 m 34 (800 ft) mean sea level. The climate of the region is generally mild. Climatological records for 35 Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina (NOAA 1998), which should be representative of the site, show 36 normal daily maximum temperatures ranging from about 10*C (50*F) in January to about 31 *C (88*F) 37 in July; normal daily minimum temperature range from about -1 C (30*F) in January to about 20 C 38 (68*F) in July. Precipitation, which averages about 130 cm (51 inches) pu year, is spread rather 39 uniformly through the year. Monthly average wind speeds range from 2.7 m/s (6.1 mph) to 3.75 m/s 40 (8.4 mph), with the highest speeds during the winter and lowest speeds during the summer. The 41 influence of the Appalachian Mountains is seen in the prevailing wind directions, which are west 42 southwest and northeast. Section 2.3 of the ONS updated final safety analysis report UFSAR 43 (Duke 1998b) contains a more detailed description of tM c!imate of the region and site.
44 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Pilnt cnd ths Environment 1 Climatological records also show that the area is subject to occasional storms, including destructive 2 winds. In most years, one or more tropical storms affect the site; however, ONS is sufficiently far 3 inland that the winds associated with these storms are below hurricane force. Tornadoes are 4 infrequent in this region and are generally small when they occur.
5 6 For about two-thirds of the year, the region is under the influence of the Bermuda high pressure 7 system. High pressure systems are typically associated with low winds and increased potential for air 8 pollution problems. As indicated in 40 CFR 81.334,40 CFR 81.341, and the 1997 South Carolina Air 9 Quality Annual Report (SCDHEC 1998) South Carolina and North Carolina are in attainment of the 10 National Air Quality Standards. The only non-attainment area in Georgia is an ozone non-attainment 11 area in the Atlanta region (40 CFR 81.311). The Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) is an air quality index 12 developed by the EPA in cooperation with the Council on Environmental Quality. For the 1997, the 13 average PSI for the Spartanburg, Greenville, Anderson metropolitan area was 48, which is associated 14 with Good air quality (SCDHEC 1998). The daily PSis for 211 days were in the Good range, and the 15 remaining daily PSis were in the Moderate range. The days with Moderate PSis resulted from ozone 16 formation.
17 18 The EPA has published revisions to the ground-level ozone and particulate matter s'arJards. Although 19 collection of monitoring data to determine compliance with the revised standards h% not been 20 completed, the state of South Carolina has indicated a concern about meeting the revised standards in 21 some parts of the state, including Oconee County (SCDHEC 1998).
22 23 The Oconee site is within 100 km (62 mi) of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Shining 24 Rock Wildemess Area Class I Areas for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. As a result of the 25 proximity of the Oconee Site to these Class I areas, future industrial development at the site will be 26 subject to strict Federal standards for pollution control (SCDHEC 1998).
27 28 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources 29 4 30 Lake Keowee serves the needs of the local nuclear and hydroelectric power plants and is also used as 31 a source of municipal drinking water by the cities of Greenville and Seneca, South Carolina. It is used 32 extensively by fishermen, boaters, skiers, and swimmers, and its banks are developed with vacation 33 and parmanent residences, campgrounds, boat launch areas, marinas, golf courses, and small retail 34 establishments.
35 36 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplemnnt 2 2-18 I
Plint and tha Environm:nt 1 Algae have never been present in nuisance concentrations, and, because of the low nutrient content of l
2 the water, Lake Keowea has a relatively low standing crop of fish. A creel census conducted in 1973 3 i.ndicated that largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and crappie 4 (Pomoxis, spp.) were the most important recreational species in Lake Keawee (Edwards et al.1976).
5 Dita on angler effort and harvest rates collected over a period from 1974 to 1993 (Barwick et al.1995) 6 confirmed that largemouth bass remained the most important sportfish in the reservoir and that sunfish 7 (Lepomis spp., including bluegill) and crappie were the only other species that contributed in a 8 significant way to the reservoir's sport fishery. !
9 10 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in a letter dated April 17,1998, provided a list of the 11 Federally endangered and threatened species that potentially occur in Oconee County, South Carolina.
12 No federally listed aquatic species were identified for Oconee County. However, the bog turtle 13 (Clemmys muhlenbergii) occurs in neighboring Pickens County and was listed as a threatened species 14 due to similarity of appearance to the northem population of the same species. A survey conducted 15 during June 1998 by Dr. L.L. Gaddy (Duke 1998a) found no Federal or state listed threatened or 16 endangered aquatic species present within a 1.6-km (1-mi) radius of ONS, Unit 2's reactor building.
17 This includes the owner-controlled areas as well as additional lands along the Keowee River and along 18 Lake Keowee. No State-ranked aquatic species listed as occurring in O onee or Pickens Counties 19 have been identified as occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of ONS. j 20 21 The importance of fishery resources to the local community has promoted a partnership between Duke 22 cnd SCDNR. Recently, SCDNR and Duke Power Company signed a Memorandum of Uncerstanding 23 (Keowee-Toxaway Fisheries Resources 1996) and developed a 10-year work plan to enhance !
24 communication between the two groups and provide for continued research, management, and 25 enhancement of the fisheries resources in the watershed.
26 27 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 28 29 The vegetation in the vicinity of ONS has been variously described as part of the oak-pine-hickory l 30 biome of the eastern deciduous forest (Greller 1988) or as part of the southern mixed forest province 31 (Bailey 1976,1980). Much of the Piedmont region near ONS was cleared and converted to cotton )
32 production during the late 1800s, and then abandoned in the 1930s. Most of the existing forested I' 33 cr:as in the vicinity of ONS consequently represent second growth forests. The various pine species, 34 such as lobiolly (Pinus taeda), shortleaf (P. echinata), and Virginia (P. virginiana) pines, are the 35 dominant conifers. Common hardwoods include red and white oaks (Quercus rubra, O. alba), hickory 36 (Carya sp.), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), among others. The under story is dominated by 37 thrubs such as dogwood (Cornus florida), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and redbud (Cercis 38 canadensis), as well as many species of herbs and grasses.
39 40 White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
41 r:bbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis and Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), beavers 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plint End the Environment 1
1 (Castor canadensis), muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes ,
2 vulpes), opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), skunks (Mephitus mephitus and Spilogale putorius), river 1
3 otters (Lutra canadensis), mink (Mustela vison).and various mice, votes, and shrews are wildlife 4 species found in the project area. The white-tailed deer is the most popular game species, and black 5 bear are hunted in the areas to the west of ONS.
6 7 The turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), and mourning dove (Zenaida 8 macroura), are the most common game birds. Many species of songbirds inhabit the area, including 9 the eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
10 tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), woodthrush (Hylocichla mustelina), summer tanager (Piranga rubra),
11 blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), and Carolina wren 12 (Thryothorus ludovicianus). The box turtle (Terrapene carolina), common garter snake (Thamnophis 13 sirtalis), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and assorted frogs, toads, and salamanders comprise 14 the herpetofauna.
15 16 Extensive areas of ONS are protected or managed as upland natural areas, wetlands, or wildlife areas.
17 in support of the environmental report, Duke funded a survey of alllands within a 1.6-km (1-mi) radius 18 of the plant site. This survey, which was conducted in May and June 1998, identified several areas 19 that retain characteristics of mature upland forests that the applicant has designated as protected 20 natural areas. Wetlands were also identified during this survey, and these are managed as sensitive 21 environmental areas. The applicant has a program of wildlife enhancement in unused portions of the 22 plant site that was designed in partnership with the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, the SCDNR, 23 and the National Wild Turkey Federation. This program has established semi-natural meadows, 24 enhanced wetland native plants, placed wood duck and bluebird nosting boxes, and developed a 25 butterfly garden.
26 27 The field survey also included an inventory of endangered, threatened, and otherwise noteworthy plant 28 and animal species within a 1.6 km (1 mi) radius of ONS. No federally listed, proposed, or candidate ,
29 threatened or endangered species were identified during the onsite survey. However, three state-listed 30 plant species and one plant species not previously known in South Carolina (Table 2-3) were identified.
31 The populations of these four species were all confined to " natural areas" located toward the periphery 32 of the survey area, well away from areas used for normal plant operations. Three additional state-33 listed plant and one animal species have been reported from the general area in the past, but were not 34 located within the 1.6 km (1 mi) radius of ONS during this survey (Table 2-3).
35 36 During the spring of 1998, Duke contacted the FWS and the SCDNR to request information about 37 threatened or endangered species that potentially could occur in the vicinity of the ONS. The staff 38 contacted the FWS during the spring of 1999 to request similar information conceming the ONS 39 related transmission lines. The FWS identified nine species that have been reported to occur within 40 either Pickens or Oconee counties, South Carolina and eight additional species reported from the other 41 counties crossed by the transmission lines (Table 2-4). None of the species listed in Table 2-4 are 42 known to inhabit the immediate vicinity of the ONS.
43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-20
Plant and ths Environm:nt 1 Federally listed species that have been occasionally sighted near ONS include the threatened bald ;
2 cigle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the endangered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Bald j 3 c gles are occasional visitors near the ONS site, but are not known to nest or to reside near the site for j 4 significant time periods. Bald eagles are known to be more numerous and spend more time in the 5 vicinity of the Jocassee and Bad Creek Reservoirs. Peregrine falcons are occasional transients near 6 ONS. Attempts have been made to introduce individuals near the Jocassee dam, but they are not l 7 known to reside near ONS.
8 9 Table 2-3. Endangered, Threatened, and South Carolina State Listed Plant and Animal 10 Species Found on or Historically Occurring in the Vicinity of the Oconee 11 Nuclear Station 12 13 Scientific Name Common Name State StatusW Occurrence * )
14 ANIMALS 15 Sigmora robusta a centipede SC Historical 16 PLANTS 17 Carexlaxiflora Loose-flowered sedge SR Present 4 18 Carexprasina Drooping sedge SC Present 19 Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE,SC Historical 20 Nestronia umbellula Indian olive SC Present 21 Orobanche uniflora One-flowered broomrape SC Historical 22 Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny spurge SC Historical 23 Viola tripartita Three-parted violet SC Present 24 (a) FE = Federally endangered, SC = Species of Concern in South Carolina, SR = new state 25 record for species.
26 (b) Historical = species have been reported from the general area in the past but were not located 27 within the one-mile radius of ONS during the applicant's survey; Present = species was found 28 within a one-mile radius of ONS.
29 30 Transmission lines associated with the ONS extend through a number of additional counties in both 31 South Carolina and North Carolina. The FWS provided the staff information about threatened and 32 endangered species that may occur in these counties. This list is summarized in Table 2-4.
33 34 Examination of the National Heritage Databases from South Carolina and North Carolina indicates that 35 three plant species listed in Table 2-4 may occur within or near the transmission line rights-of-way.
36 The bunched arrowhead occurs in the corridors located northwest of Greenville, South Carolina and in 37 the corridors located northeast of Traveler's Rest, South Carolina. The dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs 38 n*.ar corridors northeast of Traveler's Rest and also between Landrum, South Carolina and the 39 McGuire substation. Schweinitz's sunflower is known to occur near the Newport and McGuire 40 cubstation at the far eastern end of the ONS related transmission system.
41 l
l 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 I
l Plint and ths Environm nt l 1 Table 2-4. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Known or Potentially Occurring 2 Near the ONS or in Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines Associated with the ONS.
3 4 COUNTY U N y E U W el m u . Z g U U g S
5 d M U T d z Z W m L 5 $ $ $ - S b i $ $ $
3 h O k .! d -$ $ $ 0 5 0 5 Species Common Name ANIMALS h O r$ M ) $ $ es b b b b k 6
7 Halieeatus leucocephalus Bald eagle T X X X X 8 Falco pereginus anatum Peregrine f alcon E X X X X 9 Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E X 10 Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E X X 11 Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T' X X X 12 PLANTS 13 Sisynnchium dichotomum White insette E X X 14 Hexastylus naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartlleaf T X X X X X X X 15 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E X X 16 17hus michauxii Michaux's sumac E X 17 Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E X X X 18 Helonius bullata Swamp pink T X 19 lsotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T X X 20 Sagittaria fasciculata Bunched arrowhead E X 21 Sarracenia rubra ssp.jonesil Mountain sweet pitcher plant E X X 22 Amphianthus pusillus Little amphianthus T X 23 Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E X X 24 Trillium persistens Persistent trillium E X 25 Isoetes malanospora Black-spored quillwort E X 26 (a) E = Endangered, T = Threatened, T* = threatened due to similarity of appearance 27 28 2.2.7 Radiologicalimpacts <
29 30 Since 1969, Duke has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) around 31 ONS. The radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment have been carefully 32 monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate standards. The purposes of the REMP 33 are to 34 I
35 = verify that radioactive materials and ambient radiation levels attributable to plant operation are 36 within the limits contained in the Selected Licensee Commitments and the Environmental Radiation 37 Protection standards as stated in 40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards 38 for Nuclear Power Operations 39 40 . detect any measurable buildup of long-lived radionuclides in the environment i
l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-22
1 Plant and ths Environm:nt I
l I
- monitor and evaluate ambient radiation levels 2
3 e determine whether any statistically significant increase occurs in the concentration of radionuclides 4 in important pathways.
5 6 These releases are summarized in the annual reports titled "Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3 7 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report" and the annual Effluent Release Reports, and l
8 includes the results of the monitoring for the ISFSI. The limits for all radiological releases are specified 9 in the Selected Licensee Commitments, and these limits are designed to meet Federal standards and 10 requirements. The REMP includes monitoring of the aquatic environment (Lake Keowee, aquatic 11 organisms, shoreline sediment), atmospheric environment (air particulates and lodine), terrestrial i
, 12 environment including vegetation, and direct radiation.
, 13 )
l 14 R: view of historical data on releases and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the doses to j l 15 miximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of ONS were fractions of the limits specified in the l 16 Environmental Protection Agency's environmental radiation standards 40 CFR Part 190 as required by 17 10 CFR 20.1301(d). For 1997, dose estimates were calculated based on actual 1997 liquid and 18 gaseous effluent release data (Duke Power 1997). Calculations were performed using the plant .
! 19 effluent release data, onsite meteorological data, and appropriate pathways identified in the ODCM. I 20 21 A review of whole body and organ doses (Duke Power 1997) revealed the following results: the total 22 body dose estimate to an adult from environmental measurements was 0.0014 mSv/yr (0.14 mrem /yr),
23 ttnd the total body dose estimate from all effluent release pathways was 0.00615 mSv/yr (0.615 24 mr:m/yr). The critical pathway for both of these estimates was from fish consumption. Cesium-137 25 w1s the major contributing radionuclide. These doses, which are representative of the doses from the 26 past five years, are provided to demonstrate that the impact to the environment from releases from 27 ONS is small.
28 29 Ths applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or j 30 exposures from ONS operations during the renewal period and, therefore, the impacts to the 31 environment are not expected to change.
32 33 2,2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 34 35 Th3 staff reviewed the applicant's environmental report, and information obtained from several county I 36 stiff members, local real estate agents / appraisers, and soc.al services providers during the October ;
37 1998 site visit. The following information describes the ecornmy, population, and communities near i 38 ONS.
39 40 I
2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1
Plint tnd the Environment i 2.2.8.1 Housing 2 l 3 Between 1970 and 1990, total housing units in Oconee County increased from 14,032 to 25,983 4 (DOC.1991; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1988). Approximately 146 new households, or one percent of 5 the growth in households may be attributed to ONS employment (NEC 1996). A total of 891 ONS 6 employees currently live in Oconee County (as of January 1999). As of January 1999,515 ONS 7 employees live in Pickens County and 161 live in Anderson (see Table 2-5). County growth has 8 continued since 1990. Based on the estimates in the GEIS (NRC 1996) of 2,300 direct employment in 9 1990, immigrant ratio of 16.4 nercent, and indirect employment multiplier of 0.41, ONS may have 10 accounted for 3,243 direct and indirect jobs in Oconee, Pickens, and Anderson counties, 11 378 households, and less than two percent of the housing growth from 1970 to 1990. Between 1980 12 and 1990, the number of housing units in the Tri-County (Oconee, Pickens, and Anderson) area 13 increased approximately 22.5 percent to a total of 122,602 units (Knight 1998a). Table 2-6 provides 14 the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies by county in the Tri-County area for the years 15 1970 to 1996.
16 17 Since 1990, Oconee County population has continued to increase from 57,494 at the 1990 Census to 18 64,n59 in 1998 (Table 2-7). Pickens County increased in population from about 93,894 in 1990 to 19 109,318 in 1998 (Table 2-7). About 4,000 units were added to the Oconee County housing stock 20 between 1990 and 1996, as the county became a more popular bedroom community, recreation area, 2 ?- and second home and retirement community, and as manufacturing jobs were added (Table 2-6). The 2? east end of Pickens County increasingly became a bedroom community for Greenville. At the 1990 23 Census about 10,700 Pickens County residents per day commuted to Greenville County (Knight 1997),
24 and this number likely has increased. Clemson University is a major employer in Pickens County, with 25 7,156 jobs in 1997 (Knight 1997). Anderson County increased in population from 145,177 at the 1990 26 Census to 160,791 in 1998 (South Carolina Statistical Abstract (South Carolina Office of Research and j 27 Statistical Services 1998), due largely to growth in branch plant manufacturing. In 1997 Anderson l 28 County employed 15,800 in major manufacturing facilities, compared with 8,400 in Oconee County and l 29 6,800 in Pickens County (Knight 1997). Oconee County added 4,017 housing units between 1990 and I 30 1996; Pickens County added 4,835 housing units over the same period; while Anderson County added 31 6,947 units (Table 2-6). Housing availability in the Tri-County area is not limited by growth-control 32 measures. With a 1996 vacancy rate of approximately ten percent, over 14,300 units are available for 33 occupancy in the th ee closest counties (Bureau of Census 1996).
34 35 l
I l
l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-24
Plant and tna Environm:nt 1 Table 2-5. Employee Residence Information, Oconee Nuclear Station, January 1999 2
3 County and Selected Cities Duke and Contractor Employees 4 Oconee County 891 5 Salem 50 6 Seneca 454 7 Tamassee 19 8 Walhalla 138 9 West Union 75 10 Westminister 125 11 Other Cities and Towns 30 12 Pickens County 515 13 Central 102 14 Clemson 45 15 Easley 127 16 Liberty 68 17 Pickens 83 18 Six Mile 79 19 Other Towns and Cities 11 20 Anderson County 161 21 Anderson 88 22 Belton 13 23 Pendleton 20 3
24 Other Towns and Cities 40 25 Greenville County 35 26 Other Counties 29 27 North Carolina 49 28 Georgia 65 29 -Other States 40 l 30 Total 1785 31 Source: Duke (1999) 32 i
2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plint end the Environment ,
l i
1 Table 2-6. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County 1970-1996 2
3 1970 1980 1990 1996 4 OCONEE COUN1Y 5 Housing Units 14032 20226 25983 30000 6 Occupied Units 12764 17373 22358 25200 7 Vacant Units 1268 2853 3625 4800 8 PICKENS COUNTY 9 Housing Units 18673 28469 35865 40700 10 Occupied Units 17274 25986 33422 38200 11 Vacant Units 1399 2483 2443 2500 12 ANDERSON COUNTY 13 Housing Units 35981 51369 60753 67700 14 Occupied Units 33277 46944 55481 60700 15 Vacant Units 2704 4375 5264 7000 16 Source: 1990 Census of Housing, file STF1 A, Table H2; Reference 1 17 (DOC.1991); 1988 City and County Data Book; South Carolina Statistical 18 Abstract (South Carolina Office of Research and Statistical Services 1998).
19 20 Table 2-7. Population Growth in Oconee, Pickens, and Anderson Counties, 21 South Carolina (1970-1998)
I 22 23 Oconee County Pickens County Anderson County Annual Annual Annual 24 Population Growth % Population Growth % Population Growth %
25 1970 40,728 -- 59,956 - 105,474 -
26 1980 48,611 1.8 79,292 2.8 133,235 2.4 27 1990 57,494 1.7 93,896 1.7 145,177 0.9 28 1998 64,059 1.4 107,087 1.7 160,791 1.3 29 Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Population Estimates for July 1,1998 and Population 30 Change for July 1,1997 to July 1,1998, Population Estimates Program Population Division, 31 March 12,1999; Knight 1998a.
32 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-26
l Plant and ths Environm:nt I
I 2.2A2 Public Services 2 l I
3
- Water Supply 4
5 Potable water ussd in Oconee County is from both subsurface and surface sources and is used 6 primarily for domestic and industrial uses. The county has four privately owned water systems, five 7 municipal water systems, and a single sewer commission that serves the incorporated towns in the 8 county and some selected rural areas. Table 2.8 shows source and capacity information on selected 9 w ter supply systems in communities near ONS, as well as the area served by each. Both Seneca and 10 Greenville are served with surface water from Lake Keowce, which is very high quality and has !ow 11 concentrations of minerals and nutrients. Large areas of Oconee County are not served by public 12 w ter supplies. According to the Oconee Community Facilities Plan, some supplies are threatened by 13 Incompatible development, including septic tanks around lakes and sedimentation and erosion from 14 land-clearing activities. Both Senoca and Walhalla (which draws water from Coneross Creek, above 15 Lake Keowee) have identified current plant capacity as inadequate for meeting future water d3 mand.
16 Seneca is searching for a location for a new treatment plant to meet future demand, while Walhalla is 17 cxpected to construct a new treatment plant in the next five years, drawing on Lake Jocassee 18 (reducing its need to depend on the limited capacity of Coneross Creek).
19 20 Table 24. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Oconee County in 1997 21 Maximum Daily Average Daily 22 Water System Source Consumption Consumption Are Served ,
23 Salem Water Two wells on SC Unavailable Unavailable City Limits 24 Department Highway 130 City of Seneca, with 25 Seneca Light and 5.914 million 4.406 million
- * *** lines 16 km (10 mi) 1 26 Power gallons gallons north and south aa 2.2 million gallons Coneross Creek T w o W st nio ,
p e g Surrounding area 29 Westminster navaHaNe, but
. 3.62 million 2.314 million 30 Commission of Chauga River generaHy along US 123 gallons gallons 31 Public Works and US 76 Seneca and South portion of county, 32 Pioneer Water Westminster Unavailable Unavailable including Fair Play and systems Townville 34 Source: Oconee County Planning Commission 1997.
35 .
l l
2-27 Oraft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1
Plant and ths Environm:nt 1 Availability of adequate wastewater collection is considered to be a current constraint on development 2 in both Oconee and Pickens County. Public wastewater collection is provided in Oconee County by the 3 municipalities of Seneca, Walhalla, and Westminster, while water treatment is provided by the Oconee 4 County Sewer Authority (Oconee County Planning Commission 1997). Private treatment operators 5 serve Chickasaw Point, Keowee Key, and Newry. The Authority operates the Coneross Waste 6 Treatment Plant, which was expanded in capacity to 0.4 m /s (7.8 million gpd). Average daily volume 7 is only 0.14 m /s (3 million gpd). While the difference allows considerable excess capacity for 8 cconomic development within the area served by the system, there are large portions of the county not 9 served, and there are institutional constraints that make serving the I 85 corridor a problem in Oconee 10 County. Pickens County has limited excess capacity, and this constrains the county's ability to absorb 11 or recruit manufacturing. Current excess capacity has been only about 0.02 m /s (500,000 gpd) and a 12 current $12 million upgrade is expected to primarily replace older, environmentally unacceptable 8
13 capacity, expanding excess capacity to 0.04 m /s (800,000 gpd).
14 15
- Education 16 17 In 1996, there were approximately 49,600 students enrolled in schools in the Oconee-Pickens-18 Anderson County area (Knight 1997). Enrollment totals for the public schools were 10,056 in Oconee 19 County,26,187 in Anderson County, and 13,353 in Pickens County. Oconee County has 11 public 20 elementary schools, four middle schools, four high schools, and four private schools. In Anderson 21 County, there are 27 public elementary,11 middle /unior J high schools, nine high schools, and five 22 private schools. Pickens County has 15 public elementary schools, five middle schools, five high 23 schools, and eight private schools. Pickens and Anderson Counties have some post-secondary 24 capability. Anderson County has Tri-County Technical College (enrollment 3,250), Forrest Junior 25 College (enrollment 899), and Anderson College (a private, four-year university with an enrollment of 26 245). Pickens County has Clemson University, with 16,526 enrollment, and Soutnern Wesleyan 27 University, with an enrollment of 1,298. Economic development also benefits from the presence of 28 technical college and university education in nearby Greenville, especially Greenville Tech.
4 29 30 The area has comparatively low student / teacher ratios, despite also having relatively low property 31 taxes. For 1996, student / teacher ratios were 14.8/1 in Oconee County,16.9/1 in Pickens County, and 32 varied from 15.4/1 to 18.5/1 among the five school districts in Anderson County (Knight 1997).
33 Propeny tax rates in 1997 were $1.99/$1,000 in Oconee County (Knight 1998b) , $2.04/$1,000 in 34 Pickens County, and $2.24/$1,000 in Anderson County (an average of the range among 31 districts of 35 $1.95 to $2.64)('). Reflecting population growth, during the 1996-97 school year, the Oconee School 36 District opened two new elementary schools, Fair Oak and Orchard Park, with a combined enrollment 37 of over 1,100 students (Oconee County Planning Commission 1997). Fair Play Elementary School 38 was closed and replaced by Fair Oak. All schools in the county except West Oak and Seneca High 39 Schools received some expansion or upgrade. These two schools had received upgrades irt recent 40 years.
41 1 (a) Personal contact, Hara T. Knight, South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments, March,1999.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-28
____ __J
Plant and ths Environrn:nt 1
- Transportation 2
3 Oconee County is served by I-85 at its southeast corner, plus U.S. highways 76 and 123 and State 4 highways 28 and Scenic 11. ONS is on a two-lane highway with service to the site being convenient 5 from four main oirections. Highway access remains adequate for the time being, but population growth 6 in the county may create crowded conditions in the future, particularly at selected intersections.
7-8 Pickens County is not served by the Interstate Highway system, but has ready access to the I-85 9 ' corridor via U.S. 76,123, and 178. State Highways 8,96,135,137,124, and Scenic 11 complete the 10 m;jor road net. Highway 123 runs the length of Pickens County from east to west with four lane 11 service to Greenville. State Highway 133 (which runs north-south on the east side of Lake Keowee) 12 end State Highway 183 from Pickens serve as a commuting highways from Pickens County to ONS.
13 Although several of the residential communities on both sides of Lake Kmwee have long, narrow 14 cccess roads, none of these roads has been identified as seriously bottlenecked.
15 16 Th3 period from 1995 to 2015, has been projected by the State of South Carolina to be one of 17 moderate population growth (1.1 percent per year). Oconee County is projected to grow at about the 18 same rate as the state during that period, while Pickens and Anderson Counties are expected to grow 19 ct about 0.9 percent per year. At these rates, Oconee County would increase its current population by 20 about 50 percent at the end of the license renewal period (see Section 2.2.8.1 and Knight 1998a).
21 Significant upgrading of most arterial links and main highways is likely to be required to accommodate 22 such growth. The population of the other two counties would grow by about 40 percent and also likely 23 would require highway upgrades.
24 25 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 26 27 Oconee and Pickens Counties both have land use plans, but neither has zoning regulations (Talbert &
28 Bright, Inc.1996; interview with Pickens County Director of Planning, October 22,1998). Industrial
- 29 development is concentrated in the I-85, S.C. Route 123, Route 28, and Route 76 corridors in the two 30 counties and in Anderson County. There are some restrictions on building practices, but these are not 31 extensive. Industrial development has been limited in Pickens County by lack of sewer and water 32 infrastructure. Oconee County has been relatively selective about the industry they target. They also 33 have a sanitary landfill that is nearly at capacity and may constrain growth if it is not replaced (Oconee 34 County Planning Commission 1997).
35 36 -. Th3 continued availability of ONS and the associated tax base is an important feature in Oconee 37 County's ability to continue to invest in infrastructure and to draw industry and new residents. In 1998-38 1999 the Oconee County Operational Budget was $26.2 million and the school operating budget
'39 $41.1 million, for a total of $67.4 million. Duke will pay $22.3 million in taxes on ONS in 1998-1999, or l
2-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 ,
i
Plant stnd the Environment I roughly a third of the county combined operational ar?d echool budget.N In Pickens County, continued 2 presence of the plant will have less influence on deve!opment or land use, since the plant does not 3 directly contribute to the tax base of the county. There is relatively little impact on land use in 4 Anderson County from Oconee-related population. Duke helps with industrial recruiting in all three 5 counties.
6 7 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 8 ,
9 From the air, the princpal visual features of the ONS region are Lakes Keowee, Jocasee, and Hartwell 10 and the countryside, which is generally wooded or in small farms. The position of the plant relative to 11 Lake Keowee is such that the ONS is only visible from the water within the first 1.6 km (1 mi) to the 12 north. Further north, islands and the topography of the shoreline render the plant invisible. From the 13 lake, the shoreline appears mostly wooded with upscale housing developments and boat launches.
14 15 Scenic resources inland from the lake have changed since ONS construction due to population growth.
16 This growth has resulted in housing and some roadside development supplanting agricultural and 17 wooded areas. However, South Carolina Highway 1$which follows the east side of Lake Keowee 18 south of the plant and follows the west side of the like to the north of the plant, mainly affords 19 attractive views of the lake and surrounding hilly, wooded countryside with interspersed development 20 and occasional agricultural lands. This is the main access route to the plant from either north or south.
21 The view on South Carolina Highway 183 coming from either the east or west shows mainly woods and 22 fields and does not show ONS until the traveler is within a hundred yards of the plant gate.
23 24 Because of woods and topography, noise from the ONS is generally not an issue. The only sounds 25 ' heard offsite are the plant loudspeakers, which can be heard nearby on the lake.
26 27 2.2.8.5 Demography 28 29 . The update to Duke's Final Safety Analysis Report (Duke 1998b) refers to Duke's emergency response 30 plan which had an estimated resident population as 65,423 within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS for the year 31- 1990. This is only slightly different than Duke's current estimate of 64,405 (Duke 1999a). Seasonal 32 resident population adds another 6,694, transient summer weekend visitors add 8,636 more, and on 33 Clemson football weekends, there may be over 75,000 visitors to the area.
- 34 35 Tables 24.1 through 24.5 in Duke (1999a) estimated resident population for 1990 and each decade 36 through the proposed ONS license renewal term (2010,2020,2030). The 2010 projections represent 37 estimated population near the first year of license renewal for Unit 1 (2013), and the projections for the 38 year 2030 represent populations after the end of the renewal term (2034 for Unit 3). Near the end of 39 the license renesal term (2030), the population within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS is expected to be 40 approximatMy 1.3 million, as compared with 990,000 in 1990 (Duke 1998b).
41 l
1- (a) Letter to Michael J. Scott, Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory from Phyllis E. Lombard.
-2 Finance Director, Oconee County, October 22,1938.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-30
l I
Plant and the Environm:nt 1 D .ta for 1990 are based on the 1990 Census of Population. Future population estimates were 2 d:veloped by combining information that was available from the 1990 Census (*) and resident l 3 population projections found in the GEIS, Vol. 2, page A-46. l 4
5 The 1990 resident population distribution (by distance and directions) is found in Table 24.1 of Duke ,
6 (1999a). Populations for the sectors *) were calculated using population values at the census block 7 1; vel, the smallest enumeration level used by the Census Bureau. Census blocks whose geographic l 8 centroid was located within a sector were considered to lie within that sector. For each sector that is 9 located within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant, the population numbers for the blocks within each sector 10 w re summed to give a total for that sector.
I1 12 The projected population within the sectors for the years 2000,2010,2020, and 2030 was calculated 13 by increasing the 1990 population for each sector by the percentage increases between the respective 14 periods.
15 16 The projected 1990 population within 80 km (50 mi) of the Oconee Nuclear Station from the GEIS, is 17 990,000 persons. The 1990 Census Bureau data for the year 1990 indicated 1,021,226 people living 18 within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant. This difference (3.2 percent) was considered to be small. Therefore, 19 Duke (1999a) used the predicted total population values found in the GEIS for the 80 km (50 mi) radius 20 cround the plant o extrapolate the 1990 population distribution data forward in time for the years 2010 21 end 2030. The total resident population within the 80 km (50-mi) radius for the year 2020 (not listed in 22 thm GEIS) was determined by using linear interpolation between the population totals for the years 23 2010 and 2030. This same procedure was applied by the staff to Duke's estimates to obtain the 24 population by sector within 16 km (10 mi).
25 26
- Resident Population Within 16 km (10 mi) 27 28 The estimated resident population within 16 km (10 mi) of the ONS for the years 1990,2010,2020, 29 and 2030 is listed in Tables 2-9 through 2-12. Figure 2-8 illustrates the 10-mile radius from ONS.
30 31 Between 1970 and 1990, the population within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS increased about 70 percent, from 32 37,831 (AEC 1972) to 64,405 (Duke 1999a). Current projections indicate that by the year 2010, the 33 population within 16 km (10 mi) will be 73,789 (obtained from the FSAR (Duke 1998b]), which is about l
l 1 (t) US Census Bureau C90STF3A 1 (b) A sector is identified by a combination of its compass direction and the distance of its outer edge from the 2 plant. For instance, the sector that is between 11.25 and 33.75 degrees and 64 km (40 mi) and 80 km (50 3 mi) from a plant is identified as NNE50.
2-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Pl:nt and the Environment 1 Table 2-9. Es. Jated Population Distribution in 1990 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS 2
O to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 S to 10 3 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 4 N 0 O O 8 3 143 154 5 NNE O O 30 64 9 186 288 6 NE O 13 44 192 222 1,351 1,823 7 ENE 2 0 39 206 387 1,599 2,233 8 E 6 23 123 167 229 2,128 2,676 9 ESE O 12 38 121 436 2,768 3,375 10 SE O 103 158 84 144 6,825 7,314 11 SSE O O O O 105 14,858 14,963 12 S 0 8 6 0 202 3,823 4,038 13 SSW 0 5 5 4 86 10,989 11,090 14 SW 0 26 3 145 120 2,916 3,210 15 WSW 0 0 44 277 114 2,858 3,294 16 W 0 43 34 176 142 4,192 4,587 17 WNW 0 16 38 66 67 1,227 1,415 18 NW 0 14 62 661 35 1,514 2,285 19 NNW 0 40 110 364 140 1,007 1,660 20 Total 8 302 735 2,535 2,440 58,384 64,405 21 Source: U.S. Census Bureau - 1990 Census. File C90STF3A (DOC.1991) 22 23 Table 2-10. Estimated Population Distribution in 2010 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS O to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 25 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 26 N 0 O O 9 3 164 176 27 NNE O O 34 73 10 213 330 28 NE O 15 51 220 254 1,548 2,089 l 29 ENE 2 0 45 236 443 1,831 2,558 30 E 7 26 141 192 262 2,438 3,066 31 ESE O 14 43 139 500 3,171 3,867 l 32 SE O 117 181 96 165 7,820 8,380 33 SSE O O O O 120 17,023 17,143 34 S 0 9 7 0 231 4,379 4,626 35 SSW 0 6 6 5 98 12,591 12,706 36 SW 0 30 4 166 137 3,342 3,678 37 WSW 0 0 51 318 131 3,274 3,774 38 W 0 50 39 202 163 4,802 5,255 39 WNW 0 19 44 75 77 1,406 1,621 40 NW 0 16 71 758 40 1,735 2,618 4 41 NNW 0 45 126 417 160 1,153 1,902
' 2,796 66,891 73,789 42 Total 9 346 842 2,905 43 Source: Computed from Table 2-14.
44 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2 32
Plint and ths Environm:nt i Table 2-11. Estimated Population Distribution in 2020 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS 2
O to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 S to 10 3 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 4 N O O O 9 4 174 187 5 NNE O O 36 78 11 226 350 6 NE O 16 54 234 270 1,641 2,214 7 ENE 3 0 48 250 470 1,941 2,711 8 E 7 27 149 203 278 2,584 3,249 9 ESE O 14 46 147 530 3,361 4,098 10 SE O 124 192 102 175 8,288 8,881 11 SSE O O O O 127 18,041 18,168 12 S 0 9 7 0 245 4,641 4,903 13 SSW 0 6 6 5 104 13,344 13,466 14 SW 0 32 4 176 145 3,541 3,898 15 WSW 0 0 54 337 139 3,470 4,000 16 W 0 53 41 214 173 5,090 5,570 17 WNW 0 20 47 80 81 1,490 1,718 18 NW 0 17 75 803 42 1,839 2,775 19 NNW 0 48 134 442 170 1,223 2,016 20 Total 10 367 892 3,079 2,963 70,893 78,204 21 Source: Computed from Table 2-15.
22
- 23. Table 2-12. Estimated Population Distribution in 2030 Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS 24 O to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 S to 10 .
25 Sector Miles Miles Milos Miles Miles Miles Total 26 N O O O 10 4 184 198 27 NNE O O 38 82 11 238 369 l 28 NE O 17 57 247 285 1,733 2,338 29 ENE 3 0 51 264 496 2,050 2,864 30 E 8 29 158 214 294 2,730 3,433 ,
31 ESE O 15 48 156 560 3,550 4,329 32 SE O 131 203 107 185 8,755 9,382 33 SSE O O O O 134 19,060 19,194 34 S 0 10 8 0 259 4,904 5,180 35 SSW 0 7 7 5 110 14,097 14,226 36 SW 0 33 4 186 154 3,741 4,118 37 WSW 0 0 57 356 147 3,666 4,225 38 W 0 56 43 226 183 5,377 5,884 39 WNW 0 21 49 84 86 1,574 1,815 40 NW 0 17 79 848 44 1,942 2,931 41 NNW 0 51 141 466 179 1,291 2,129 42 Total 11 388 942 3,252 3,130 74,893 82.615 43 Source: Computed from Table 2-16.
2-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plznt end the Environment North Carolina ,.. ' ** ,
Roads Georgia Bad CNek l ------ Railroads Reservoir Lake _,_
JoCBSSee 02 4 6 8 10 Miles
" I. 0_ _ _10 Kilometers Salem eN Pickens Radius .
4 M '
.3 '} Easley Lake ..
Six Mile >--- l Keowee 6
f
)
Walhalla n.' Oconee Norris ,.. ;
Nuclear f
/ '.
Statiog Liberty I
V ,
re *g . ..,
. ::- ! . . . . , ~ ,
, .. ' -- ', . Clemson e7:
Seneca
'.. - ) Westminster bf:MA/ -
. Pendleton 1
s N 2 Figure 2-8. Oconee Nuclear Station km (10-mi) Radius 3
4 39 percent higher than projected in the original FES (AEC 1972). The higher growth within the 16-km 5 (10-mi) radius is primarily related to rapid population growth in Oconee County. Between 1980 and 6 1990, Oconee County grew half again as fast as the State (1.7 percent per year vs.1.1 percent per 7 year). According to agency projections, it is expected to grow at about the same rate as the state 8 through the year 2015 (Knight 1998a). Factors stimulating growth in Oconee County include proximity 9 to high-quality recreation and to Greenville. To these factors one could add relatively easy commutes Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-34
Plant end ths Environm nt I to metropolitan areas (45 minutes to 1-hour commute by car), less development and lower taxes than 2 those areas, and less stringent land use, zoning, and development regulations compared with some 3 surrounding counties.
4 5
- Resident Population Within 80 km (50 mi) 6 7 The estimated resident population distribution within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS for the years 1990,2010, 8 2020, and 2030 is shown in Tables 213 through 2-16. Figure 2-9 illustrates the 80-km (50-mi) radius 9 from ONS.
10 12 Between 1970 and 1990, the population within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS increased approximately 12 36 percent, from about 730,000 (AEC 1972) to about 1,020,000 (Table 2-14). Current population 13 projections in the environmentai report (ER) (Duke 1998a) indicate that by the year 2010, the 14 population within 80 km (50 mi) will be approximately 1,170,000.
15 16 Tcble 2-17 lists the age distribution of Oconee County in 1990 compared to the United States 17 population.
18 19
- Transient Population 20
- 21. The transient population in the vicinity of ONS can be identified as daily or seasonal. Daily transients 22 tre associated with places where a large number of people gather regularly, such as local businesses, 23 industrial facilities, and schools. Seasonal transients result from the use of weekend recreational areas 24 such as Lakes Keowee, Jocasee, and Hartwell. it is estimated that seasonal transients increase the 25 population within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS by approximately 10 percent during the summer months 26 (Oconee Nuclear Station Emergency Response Plan, Duke 1999b). The daily and seasonal population 27 cssociated with selected industry and recreation within 16 km (10 mi) of the station is listed in 28 Table 2-18.
29 30 1t should be note, that on most weekdays, a significant portion of the resident population is absent 31 from Oconee County during daytime hours. According to the 1990 Census of Population,25 percent of 32 cmployed County residents (about 6,700 people) commuted to jobs outside of Oconee County while 33 over 4,200 commuted into the county (Talbert & Bright 1996). With increased numbers of in-movers to 34 the County, the number of commuters likely has increased, although no post-1990 numbers are 35 cvailable.
36 37 2.2.9 Historical and Archaeological Resources 38 39 This section discusses the cultural background and the known historical and archaeological resources 40 et the ONS site and in the surrounding area.
41 42 2-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Pl:nt end the Environmrnt 1 Table 2-13. Estimated Population Distribution in 1990 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS 2
3 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 4 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 5 N 154 355 2,557 444 22,328 25,838 6 NNE 288 547 6,285 18,676 26,660 52,456 7 NE 1,823 4,692 4,331 4,631 41,165 56,642 8 ENE 2,233 13,845 34,721 46,169 36,182 133,150 9 E 2,676 29,511 112,819 117,286 30,134 292,426 10 ESE 3,375 5,678 25,609 14,078 12,455 61,195 )
11 SE 7,314 5,916 36,445 12,423 11,055 73,153 12 SSE 14,963 11,038 38,834 9,191 2,715 76,741 13 S 4,038 3,363 6,624 9,659 13,001 36,685 14 SSW 11,090 5,290 7,450 10,407 9,024 43,261 15 SW 3,210 6,814 8,155 5,772 6,847 30,798 16 WSW 3,294 4,722 13,914 13,605 20,881 56,416 17 W 4,587 3,070 2,403 3,427 3,540 17,027 18 WNW 1,415 1,017 4,945 3,116 4,151 14,644 19 NW 2,285 579 2,678 14,770 5,142 25,454 20 NNW 1,660 354 1,946 7,872 13,508 25,340 21 Total 64,405 96,791 309,716 291,526 258,788 1,021,226 22 Source: U.S. Census Bureau - 1990 Census, File C90STF3A (DOC 1991).
23 24 Table 2-14. Estimated Population Distribution in 2010 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS 25 26 0-10 10-20. 20-50 30-40 40-50 27 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 28 N 176 407 2,930 509 25,501 29,602 29 NNE 330 627 7,201 21,397 30,544 60,098 30 NE 2,089 5,376 4,962 5,306 47,162 64,894 31 ENE 2,558 15,862 39,779 52,895 41,453 152,548 32 E 3,066 33,810 129,255 134,372 34,524 335,027 33 ESE 3,867 6,505 29,340 16,129 14,269 70,110 34 SE 8,380 6,778 41,754 14,233 12,666 83,810 35 SSE 17,143 12,646 44,491 10,530 3,111 87,921 36 S 4,626 3,853 7,589 11,06G 14,895 42,029 37 SSW 12,706 6,061 8,535 11,923 10,339 49,563 38 SW 3,6-'8 7,807 9,343 6,613 7,844 35,285 39 WSW 3,774 5,410 15,941 15,587 23,923 64,635 40 W 5,255 3,517 2,753 3,926 4,056 19,508 41 WNW 1,621 1,165 5,665 3,570 4,756 16,777 42 HW 2,618 663 3,068 16,922 5,891 29,162 43 NNW 1,902 406 2,229 9,019 15,476 29,032 44 Total 73,788 110,892 354,836 333,996 296,489 1,170,000 45 Source: Duke 1999a.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-36
Pl nt cnd tha Environment 1 Table 2-15. Estimated Population Distribution in 2020 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS 2
3 0-10 10-20. 20-30 30-40 40-50 4 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 5 N 187 431 3,105 539 27,111 31,373 6 NNE 350 664 7,631 22,677 32,371 63,693 7 NE 2,214 5,697 5,259 5,623 49,984 68,776 8 ENE 2,711 16,811 42,159 56,060 43,933 161,674 9 E 3,249 35,833 136,985 142,412 36,590 355,071 10 ESE 4,098 6,894 31,095 17,094 15,123 74,305 11 SE 8,881 7,183 44,252 15,084 13,423 88,824 12 SSE 18,168 13,403 47,153 11,160 3,297 93,181 13 S 4,903 4,083 8,043 11,728 15,786 44,544 14 SSW 13,466 6,423 9,046 12,636 10,957 52,529 15 SW 3,898 8,274 9,902 7,009 8,314 37,396 16 WSW 4,000 5,734 16,895 16,520 25,354 68,502 17 W 5,570 3,728 2,918 4,161 4,298 20,675 18 WNW 1,718 1,235 6,004 3,784 5,040 17,781 19 NW 2,775 703 3,252 17,934 6,244 30,907 20 NNW 2,016 430 2,363 9,558 16,402 30,769 21 Total 78,202 117,526 376,063 353,979 314,227 1,240,000 22 Source: Duke 1999a.
23 24 Table 2-16. Estimated Population Distribution in 2030 Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS 25 26 0-10 10-20. 20-30 30 40 40-50 27 Sector Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Total 28 N 198 455 3,280 570 28,642 33,144 29 NNE 369 702 8,062 23,957 34,199 67,289 30 NE 2,338 6,019 5,556 5,941 52,805 72,659 l 31 ENE 2,864 17,760 44,539 59,224 46,413 170,801 32 E 3,433 37,856 144,721 150,451 38,655 375,116 33 ESE 4,329 7,284 32,851 18,059 15,977 78,499 34 SE 9,382 7,589 46,751 15,936 14,f 81 93,839 35 SSE 19,194 14,159 49,815 11,790 3,483 98,441 36 S 5,180 4,314 8,497 12,390 16,677 47,058 37 SSW 14,226 6,786 9,557 13,350 11,576 55,494 38 SW 4,118 8,741 10,461 7,404 8,783 39,507 39 WSW 4,225 6,057 17,848 17,452 26,786 72,369 40 W 5,884 3,938 3,083 4,396 4,541 21,842 41 WNW 1,815 1,305 6,343 3,997 5,325 18,785 ,
42 NW 2,931 743 3,435 18,947 6,596 32,652 I 43 NNW 2,129 454 2,496 10,098 17,328 32,505 44 Total 82,617 124,161 397,295 373,961 331,966 1,310,000 45 Source: Duke 1999a.
46 2-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plant end ths Environm:nt 1 Table 2-17. Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 1990(*)
2 3 Year and Age 4 Group Oconee County, South Carolina United States 5 Number Percent Number Percent 6 1990: Under 5 3,573 6.2 19,512,000 7.6 7 5-19 12,106 21.1 53,523,000 21.0 8 20-44 21,241 36.9 101,416,000 39.8 9 45-64 12,666 22.0 48,348,000 19.0 10 65 and Over 7,908 13 6 32,283,000 12.7 57,494 255,082.000 100.0 l} Total 100.0 13 (a) U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, File STFIA (DOC 1991).
14 15 Table 2-18. Transient Population Within 16 km (10 mi) of ONS 16 Seasonal Clemson Resident Winter Winter Summer Football 17 Direction Population Weekday Weeknight Weekend Weekend 18 N 25 20 0 392 20 19 NNE 39 0 0 0 0 20 NE 235 0 0 0 0 21 ENE 229 0 0 0 0 22 E 272 0 0 0 0 23 ESE 300 210 90 90 90 24 SE 491 468 322 2,515 378 25 SSE 738 1,486 1,294 1,133 73,688 26 S 383 100 60 60 0 27 SSVV 848 597 447 797 457 28 SW 318 1,002 335 3,300 235 29 WSW 453 1,420 120 169 169 30 W 517 275 127 122 122 31 WNW 215 0 0 0 0 32 NW 715 0 8 0 50 33 NNW 687 8 0 0 8 34 Offsite 6,465 5,586 2,803 8,578 75,217 35 ONS 1395 698 698 698 36 Total 6,981 3,501 9276 75,915 37 Source: Oconee Nuclear Station Emergency Response Plan (Duke 1999b),
38 Revision 99-01, Figures J-3B to J-4E, 39 40 41 Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 2 2-38
1 Plant and tho Environm:mt l
p'p+ g n9.;Q ,,. . y 99 -
p v
.f-- n p g' % ,y "y50 Miles
..- . a. e oconeesite T
, e >j
/-
m
,y i'4 -
LQ Urban Areas
~
Roads j g m 'g - , . 4
- Counties '
'r S- ",
. ". .L . cw . Lakes
. 4
- m:
, Q,
- 'y,
.- - ,4'$( w' ~ )
. - y g.4 gp,46 2. .
u- ( p.ap. m 4
l(
. e , m-m ;s '
G.
' . TeSWE
'2 rj '. J' 3
, n
, ,f _.
G ' $m.n ' . .,4-s
', s + %g.y. -ak,aa _ '
E
_X .
j j
' ( 7wer. - ,
! t x
., 3 s s- ,
Q . ?/.v' ;
y s
.[ 4
~
+.
a
,,m,
~
+
- /,
e ,g ^ .
_y',.
&,yt *'
e ..
40 0 40 80 Mnes 1
2 Figure 2-9. Oconee Nuclear Station km (50-mi) Radius 3
4 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background )
5 6 Th) area around ONS is rich in prehistoric and historic Native American and historic Euroamerican 7 cultural resources. This part of northwestern South Carolina has an archaeological sequence that 8 cxt:nds back to about 10,000 B.C., although human use of the area was probably limited until about 9 4000 to 5000 B.C. when numerous small campsites are evident in the record. By 1000 B.C.,
10 trchaeological data suggest a shift from scattered campsites to a more sedentary settlement and a 11 sublistence system that was concentrated on ravine settings. By A.D.1000, the archeological 12 cvidence for ancestral Cherokee culture is present, beginning with the regional Pisgah Phase l 13 (A.D.1000 to 1500) and the following contact period Qualla Phase (A.D.1500 to 1850) (Dickens 1976; 14 Knl 1976). Pisgah villages included upright wooden post houses encircled by a palisade. These 15 villages were commonly located in the larger alluvial valleys where soils were suitable for horticulture.
16 This general village pattern continued into the Early Oualla Phase with the Late Qualla being 17 ch racterized by the Europeanization of Native American technology, economy, and settlement 18 patterns after A.D.1820.
19 2-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l
1 Pl:nt and ths Environm:nt 1 The Cherokee were first noted in the written record by Spanish explorers in 1540. During the Qualla 2 historic period, the Cherokee indian cultural group has been divided into three subgroups, based on 3 cultural, linguistic, and environmental distinctions (Dickens 1979). Of these subgioups, the Lower 4 Cherokee grouping occupied the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains near the upper reaches of the 5 Savannah River system. The Keowee River valley, which includes ONS and the associated reservoir, 6 was one of the principal ravine settings for Lower Cherokee settlements of this period. Other Lower 7 Cherokee villages are documented from historical written references in this part of North Carolina 8 (Sheriff 1994; Ross 1980). During the 18* century, Keowee was the most important of these villages 9 (Harmon 1986). The Cherokee village of Keowee, which is today located beneath the waters of Lake
- 10. Keowee about 8 km (5 mi) north of ONS, was partially excavated during a pre-impoundment 11 archaeological project sponsored by Duke in 1966-68. Also investigated by this project was Fort 12 Prince George, a garrison constructed across the river from Keowee Village by the British Govemment 13 in 1753 to protect the Lower Cherokee from French intrusions into the area and to secure trade 14 relations between the British and the Cherokees (Hembree and Jackson 1998; Williams 1998).
15 16 The Cherokee Indian presence throughout their former extensive homelands came to a close in the 17 late 1700s through a series of treaties with the Colonies and the United States, culminating wim the 18 well documented removal of the Cherokee and other southeastem tribes to Indian Territory in the West
- 19. (Perdue and Green 1995). The part of South Carolina including the Oconee project area was included 20 in a land cession treaty completed in May of 1777 (Royce 1884). A small number of Cherokee in North 21 Carolina avoided the removal actions and today are recognized as the Eastem Band of Cherokee 22 Indians, with their tribal headquarters at Cherokee, North Carolina, some 80 km (50 mi) north of ONS.
23 Cherokees removed to the West are today known as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.
24 25 Following the 1777 treaty, northwestem South Carolina was immediately occupied by land-hungry 26 . white settlers. The first deeds in the Keowee River valley date to 1784; by the tum of the century, most 27 of the land along the Keowee and adjacent valleys had been deeded. Hembree and Jackson (1998) 28 document the historical development of the Keowee River valley from initial settlement through ,
29 construction of Duke's Keowee-Toxaway Project that transformed the entire river valley.
30 31 2.2.9.2 Historical and Archaeological Sites at ONS 32 33 Archaeological 34 35 As noted above, archaeological investigations were conducted throughout the Keowee-Toxaway 36 Project area, basically the Keowee River valley from the present Keowee Dam and ONS north to 37 include the inundated portion of Lake Keowee. This effort was conducted by personnel from the South 38 Carolina State Department of Archaeology during which 39 archaeological sites were recorded. Of this 39 total, nine of the sites were archaeologically tested, and significant excavations were completed at six ;
40 sites, including Keowee Indian village and Fort Prince George (Beuschel, no date). Although final !
41 reports of these activities were not issued following the fieldwork, recent documents have provided j 1
42 some detail (Harmon 1986; Williams 1998). Information gained about both the Cherokee occupation 43 and the British operation of Fort Prince George is also presented in the interpretive displays at the 44 Keowee-Toxaway State Park.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-40
Plant and ths Environmant 1 Archaeological site file searches at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History and the 2 Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, reveal the presence of four 3 recorded Native American sites within a 1.6-km (1-mi) radius of ONS. Two of these sites (380C104 4 and 105) were recorded during a field survey of the Oconee-Bad Creek 500 kV transmission line 5 (Brockington 1978). Both of these archaeological sites, located northwest of the ONS, are low-density 6 lithic tool scatter sites and were evaluated as not possessing characteristics that would make them 7 cligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The other two archaeological sites (380C225 and 8 38PN51) are located southwest of the plant, along Highway 183 with one being on either side of the 9 bridge that crosses the Keowee River below the dam. Each of these sites is also categorized as a 10 nondescript lithic scatter.
11 12 Historical 13 14 . The pre-inundation archaeological project focused solely on the prehistoric and early historic Cherokee 15 sit:s and Fort Prince George. The architecture and archaeology of historic Euroamerican period 16 settlements in the overall project area were not documented and evaluated, including the Old Pickens 17 townsite at the location of ONS. A number of cemeteries in the valley were relocated before 18 inundation. Additionally, many historic structures were relocated by Duke, including residences, a girl's 19 camp, two sawmills, and a covered wooden bridge.
20 21 The original town of Pickens on the west bank of the Keowee River was active between 1828 and 1868 22 as the courthouse town of Pickens District, which then included present-day Oconee and Pickens 23 Counties (Hembree and Jackson 1998; Holder 1991). In 1868, the Keowee River was designated as 24 ths boundary line between the two newly formed counties. In response to this division, a new town, 25 tiso called Pickens, was established about 24 km (15 mi) northeast to be the seat of Pickens County.
26 Most of the buildings in the original town of Pickens were tom down or dismantled and moved to the 27 nIw town of Pickens or to Walhalla, the new county seat of Oconee County.
28 29 The original townsite apparently included much of what became ONS. According to Hembree and 30 J ckson (1998), "The Pickens townsite stretched from the bank of the Keowee, along what is now the 31 Pickens-Walhalla Highway (Highway 183], west across the Duke construction and maintenance shaps, 32 and north over the site of the nuclear plant."
33 34 Today, the only standing structure at the Old Pickens townsite is a one story brick building bui4 in 35 1849-51, commonly known as the "Old Pickens Presbyterian Church." A cemetery with over 200 36 mrrked graves surrounds the church, including the original cemetery associated with the church and 37 r: located graves from 14 family or other cemeteries that were moved to Old Pickens in the late 1960s 38 b: fore Lake Keowee was filled. A complete listing of tombstone inscriptions from the original and 39 r: located cemeteries is found in the Pendleton Chapter of South Carolina Genealogicra Society (1983-40 84). The Old Pickens Presbyterian Church was nominated for inclusion in the Naticnal Register of 41 Hi; toric Places in 1994 and listed in 1996 (Sherard 1994).
42 43 No other historic period sites are currently recorded at ONS. While no historic structures are present, 44 th:re is potential for either surface or buried historic archaeological remains (e.g., artifact scatters, j 2-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 i
Plant and tha Environm:nt 1 privies, and refuse dumps) that could exist in areas that have not received substantial scil disturbance.
2 Any such remains could have been associated either with the Old Pickens townsite, with nearby 3 homesteads along the river, or along Highways 183 and 130. According to the Keowee-Toxaway 4 Project description (Duke 1971),17 houses were relocated in connection with development of ONS.
5 6 - Hembree and Jackson (1998), for example, illustrate a historic two-story home, known in the 1800s as 7 the Pleasant Alexander House, that once stood in the Oconee project area on the west bank of the 4 8 Keowee River. During dam construction in the 1960s, Duke used the house as an office, after which it 9 . was moved to High Falls County Park where it continues to serve as park offices. In a 1968 aerial 10 photograph of the ONS construction site, the house is clearly evident on the west bank, just below the 11 damsite (Hembree and Jackson 1998). In the same view, two other then extant historic houses can be 12 seen along the north side of Highway 183, along the southern edge of the plant site. At the same 13 location near the current access road into the plant from Highway 183, there is a small fenced 14 cemetery on the knoll above the road. This cemetery has not been recorded and is not included in the 15 listing of Oconee County historic cemeteries (Pendleton Chapter of South Carolina Genealogical 16 Society (1983-84). Household artifacts in the vicinity of this cemetery indicate that a house was 17 probably at one time associated with the graves.
18 19 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities 20 21 The Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), issued a 22 _ license (FERC Project No. 2503) to Duke Power Co. on September 1,1966, for the construction of the 23 Keowee hydroelectric station and the Jocassee pumped storage project. Lake Keowee, from which the 24 ONS draws cooling water, is formed by dams en the Keowee River and Little River. The Keowee 25 hydroelectric station is located at the dam on the Keowee River. The station serves as the onsite 26 - emergency electric power source for ONS. The license for the Keowee and Jocassee hydroelectric 27 projects will expire in the year 2016. Under current FERC rules, Duke will need to filo a notice of intent 28 with FEHC by the year 2011 declaring whether it intends to seek a new license ter the Keowee and 29 Jocassee hydroelectric projects. At least 2 years before the license expires, Duke will need to file an 30 application for a new license (relicense). FFRC procedures for processing a new license are similar to 31 those for an originallicense.
32 33 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies including FERC might impact 34 the renewal of the operating license for the ONS. Any such activities could result in cumulative 35 environmental impacts and the possible need for such a Federal agency tc Wome a cooperating 36 agency for preparation of the SEIS.
37 38 The staff determined that there were no Federal project activities in the vicinity of ONS that could result 39 : in cumulative environmental impacts or that would make it desirable for another Federal agency to 40 become a cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS. The Natural Resources Conservation 41 Service (NRCS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was the only Federal agency to 42 participate in the scoping process. NRCS submitted a letter stating that it has partnered with Duke in 43 planning, implementing, and promoting environmental stewardship such as the cooperative work to 44 prevent and control soil erosion at work sites in the South Carolina mountains and foothills.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-42
Plint and ths Environment 1 2.3~ References 2
3 ' 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for protection against radiation."
4
- j 5 . 10 CFR 20.1301, " Dose limits for individual members of the public."
6 7 : 10 CFR 20.2002, " Method for obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures." l 8
9 .10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, " Annual limits on intake (ALis) and derived air concentrations
- 10. (DACs) of radionuclides for occupational exposure; effluent concentrations; concentrations for Release 11 to Sewerage."
12-13 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, " Numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for 14 operation to meet the criterion 'as low as is reasonably ach!evable' for radioactive material in light-15 witir-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents."
16 17 .10 CFR 54.21, " Contents of application -- technical information."
18~
19 ; 10 CFR Part 61," Licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste."
20 21 10 CFR _Part 71, " Packaging and transportation of radioactive material."
22.
23 '40 CFR 81.311," Georgia."
'24 l
-25: 40 CFR 81.334,." North Carolina."
26 27 40 CFR 81.341, " South Carolina."
28l 29 _ 40 CFR Part 190, " Environmental radiation protection standards for nuclear power operations." l 30 31 Bailey, R.G.1976. Ecoregions of the United States (map). Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, 32 -Int:rmountain Region. 1:7,500,000.
33 341 Bailey, R.G.1980. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Misc.
35 - Publication No.1391.
36 37 ' : Barwick, D.H., L.E. Miller, W.R. Geddings, and D.M. Rankin. 1995. Fish biomass and angler harvest 38 - from a South Carolina cooling reservoir. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
~ 39. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49: 129-139.
40 41 Beuschel, L.L. No Date.~ Keowee Toxaway Reservoir Project: A Partial Account of the Archaeology.
42 Draft report prepared for Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC. Copy on file at the South Carolina 43 Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
44 2-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plant end ths Environm:nt 1 Brockington, P.E. 1978. An Archaeological Survey of Duke Power's Oconee-Bad Creek 500 kV and 2 Jocassee-Bad Creek 100 kV Transmission Unes, Oconee County, south Carolina. South Carolina 3 Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 130, Columbia, South 4 Carolina.
S ,
I 6 Dickens, R.S., Jr.1976. Cherokeo Prehistory. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
\ 7 l 8 Dickens, R.S., Jr.1979. The Origins and Development of Cherokee Culture. In The Cherokee Indian 9 Nation: A TroubledHistory, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 3-32. University of Tennessee Press, 10 Knoxville, Tennessee.
I1 12 Duke Energy Corporation.1998a. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses Oconee Nuclear 13 Station - Units 1,2 and s. Volume IV - Environmental Report.
14 15 Duke Energy Corporaticn.1998b. Oconee Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Charlotte,
)
16 North Carolina.
17 18 Duke Energy Corporation.1999a. Letter from M.S. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation to U.S.
19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
License Renewal- Response to Requests for Additional 20 Information, Oconee Nucleer Station. Dated March 4,1999.
21 22 Duke Energy Corporation.1999b. Oconee Nuclear Station Emergency Plan, Rev. 99-01. Charlctte, ,
23 North Carolina.
i 24 25 Duke Power Company.1971. Supplemeni to Environmental Quality Features of Keowee-Toxaway 26 Project. Charlotte, North Carolina.
27 28 Duke Power Company.1977. Oconee Nuclear Station Environmental Summary Report 1971-1976, 29 Volumes 1 and 2. Duke Power Company Steam Production Department.
30 31 Duke Power Company.1997. Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 3, Annual Radiological 32 Environmental Operating Report.
33 34 Edwards, T.J., W.H. Hunt, L.E. Miller, and J.J. Sevic.1976. An evaluation of the impingement of 35 fishes at four Duke Power Company steam-generating facilities. Pages 373-380 in Esch, G.W. and 36 R.W. McFarlane (eds.). Thermal Ecology 11. National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department 37 of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia.
38 39 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251 et seq. (Also know as the '
40 Clean Water Act). ;
41 42 Greller, A.M.1988. " Deciduous Forest." Pp. 287-316, in North American Terrestrial Vegetation, M.G.
43 Barbour and W.D. Billings, eds., Cambridge University Press, New York.
44 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-44
__._____._____________m___- ---__ __
Plant and the Environment 1 Hrrmon, M.A.1986. Eighteenth Century Lower Cherokee Adaptation and Uses of European Material 2 Culture. Scuth Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Volumes in Historical 3 Archaeology 2, Columbia, South Carolina.
4 5 H:mbree, M. and D. Jackson.1998. Keowee: The Story of the Keowee River Valleyin Upstate South 5 Carolina. Fourth Printing, Revised. No publisher given.
7 8 Holder, F.C., Compiler.1991. Historic Sites of Oconee County, SC: Part of the History of Oconee 9 County Told Through Historic Preservation. Second Edition. Oconee County Historical Society.
10 11 Kiel. B.C.1976. Cherokee Archaeology. Univeaity of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
12 13 Keowee-Toxaway Fishery Resources.1996. Ten-Year Work Plan: January 1996-December 2005.
14 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Duke Power Company.
15 16 Knight, H.T. (Ed.) 1997. 1997 Upstate Profile. Quality of Life of the S.C. Upstate. Part Three: Upstate 17 Living, Upstate Leisure, Business Travel, and Tourism. South Carolina Appalachian Council of 18 Govemments, Greenville, South Carolina.
19 20 Knight, H.T. (Ed.) 1998a. 1998 Upstate Profile. Developmont of the SC Upstate. Part 1: Population, 21 Income, and Housing. South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments, Greenville, South
.22 Carolina.
23 24 Knight, H.T. (Ed.) 1998b. 1998 Oconee County Economic Profile. Comprehensive Overview of South 25 Carolina's Golden Comer. South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments, Greenvilee, South 26 Carolina.
27 28 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. "1997 Local Climatological Data 29 Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Greenville-Spartanburg (Greer), South Carolina." Asheville, 30 North Carolina.
31 32 Oconee County Planning Commission 1997. Oconee County Community Facilities Plan. Prepared by 33 th3 Oconee County Planning Commission and the Appalachian Council of Governments, Walhalla, 34 South Carolina., August 1997.
35 36 Pendleton Chapter of South Carolina Genealogical Society. 1983,1984. Oconee County, South 37 Carolina Cemetery Survey. 2 Vols. A Press, Greenville, South Carolina.
38 39 P:rdue, T. and M.D. Green, Editors.1995. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents.
40 Bedford Books, Boston, Massachusetts.
41 42 Ross, l W.1980. A Short History of the Cherokee Indians in Oconee County, SC. No publisher 43 giv:n. Pamphlet,8 pp.
44 2-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Plant end ths Environm:nt l
1 Royce, C.C.1884 Map of the Former TerritorialLimits of the Cherokee " Nation of" Indians Exhibiting 2 the Boundaries of the various Cessions of Land Made by them to the Colonies and to the United States 3 by Treaty Stipulations, from the Beginnings of their Relations with the Whites to the Date of their 4 Removal West of the MississippiRiver.1977 Reprint by the Museum of the Cherokee Indians, 5 Cherokee, North Carolina.
6 7 Sherard, G.W. Compiler. 1994. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Old Pickens 8 Presbyterian Church. Copy of file at South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, 9 South Carolina.
10 11 Sheriff, A., Editor.1994. Cherokee Villages in South Carolina, including Information on Fort Prince 12 George and Fort Rutledge. Second Edition. Forest Acres /McKissick Quest Program Easley, South 13 Carolina.
14 15 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC).1998. South Carolina 16 Air Quality AnnualReport, Volume XVil 1997. Columbia, South Carolina.
17 18 South Carolina Office of Research and Statistical Services.1998. South Carolina Statistical Abstract.
19 South Carolina State Budget and Control Board. Published by the Office of Research and Statistics, 20 Columbia, South Carolina.
21 22 Talbert & Bright, Inc. and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.1996. Oconee County, South Carolina 23 1996 Land Use Plan.
24 25 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).1972. Final Environmental Statement related to operatir of 26 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. March 1972. Washington, D.C.
27 28 U.S. Bureau of the Census.1988. County and City Data Book. Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
29 Govemment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. l 30 31 U.S. Bureau of the Census.1996. Population Estimates Branch, Estimates of Housing Units and 32 Households of Counties 1990-1996. U.S. Govemment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
33 34 U.S. Bureau of the Census.1999. County Population Estimates for July 1,1998, and Population 35 Change for July 1,1997 to July 1,1999, Population Estimates Program Population Division.
36 37 U.S. . Department of Commerce (DOC). 1991. 1990 Census - Population and Housing; Public Law 38 94-171 Data. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
39 40 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmental /mpact Statement for 41 License Renewalof Nuclear Plants (GEIS), HUREG-1437. Washington, D.C.
42 i
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 2-46
l Plant and tha Environm:nt 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1997. Letter from NRC to Framatome Technologies, 2 inc.
Subject:
Acceptance for Referencing of FCF Topical Report BAW-10186P " Extended Burnup 3 Ev;luation." Dated April 29,1997.
4 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1998. Letter from NRC to Duke Energy Corporation.
6
Subject:
Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station Unit Nos.1, 7 2, & 3 Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal- Environmental. Dated December 29, 8 1998.
9 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1999a. Letter from NRC to Duke Energy Corporation.
11
Subject:
Use of Framatome Cogema Fuels Topical Report on High Bumup - Oconee Nuclear Station, 12 Units 1,2, and 3. Dated March 1,1999.
13 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1999b. Letter from NRC to Duke Energy Corporation.
15
Subject:
Determination of the Scope of Transmission Lines impact Assessment for Oconee License 16 R:newal. Dated May 10,1999.
17 18 Williams, M.W.1998. A Memoir of the ArchaeologicalExcavation of Fort Prince George, Pickens 19 County, South Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Research, 20 R: search Manuscript Series 226, Columbia, South Carolina.
21
)
i
(
2-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
i i 3.0 Envircnm ntalimpacta cf R3furbichment 2
3 4 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities were discussed in the Generic Environ-5 m:ntalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996).
6 The GEIS included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be 7 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were then 8 cssigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. Category 1 issues are those that the GEIS 9 defines as having met all of the following criteria:
10 11 (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 12 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 13 plant or site characteristics 14 15 (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except 16 for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal) 17 18 (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it 19 has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be 20 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
21 22 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required 23 unless new and significant information is identified.
24 25 Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, 26 additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.
27
'28 License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These actions
.29 m y have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type of action and 30 tha plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment that were determined to 31 be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.
32 33 Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these conclusions 34 could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2 issues. These are 35 li:ted in Table 3-2.
36 37 The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified and the analysis would 38 be summarized within this section if such actions were planned. Duke indicated that it has performed 39 en evaluation of structures and components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 to identify activities that are
.40 n::cessary to continue operation of ONS during the requested 20 year period of extended operation.
41 These activities include replacement of certain components as well as new inspection activities and are 42 discribed in Exhibit A of the Oconee Application for Renewed Operating Licenses (Duke 1998).
43 However, Duke stated that the replacement of these components and the additional inspection 44 cctivities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and inspections; and therefore, 45 era not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds of plant operations as evaluated in 1
3-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 i
l Environm:ntalImp cts of R:furbishm:nt f l
1 i
1 Table 3-1. Category 1 issues for Refurbishment Evaluation )
2 3 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 4 SURFACE-WATER QUAUTY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS) 5 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1 6 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1 7 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS) 8 Refurbishment 3.5 9 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY 10 Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2 11 LAND USE 12 Onsite land use 3.2 13 HUMAN HEALTH 14 Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1 15 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2 16 SOClOECONOMICS 17 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3 18 recreation 3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6 19 Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8 20 21 l 22 the final environmental statement (FES) (AEC 1972). In addition, Duke's evaluation of structures and 23 components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or 24 modifications necessary to support the continued operation of Oconee beyond the end of the existing i
25 operating licenses. Therefore, refurbishment is not considered within the scope of the SEIS.
l 1
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 3-2
Environm:ntalimp; cts of Rtfurbishm:nt 1 Table 3-2. Category 2 issues for Refurbishment Evaluation 2
10 CFR 51.53 3 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS (c)(3)(ii) 4 Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph 5 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 6 Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E 7 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS) 8 Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E 9 AIR QUAUTY 10 Air quality during refurbishment (non-attainment 3.3 F 11 and maintenance areas) 12 SOClOECONOMICS 13 Housing impacts 3.7.2 1 14 Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 l 15 Public services: education 3.7.4.1 1 16 Offsite land use 3.7.5 l 17 Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J 18 Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K 19 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 20 Environmental justice Not addressed 21 22 23 3.1 References 24 25' 10 CFR 54.21," Contents of application - technicalinformation."
26 27 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1," Environmental effect of renewing the operating 28 lic nse of a nuclear power plant."
2.9 30 Duke Energy Corporation 1998. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses, Oconee Nuclear Station 31 Units 1,2, and 3. Volume IV - Environmental Report.
32 33 3-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Environm:ntalimpacts of R:furbishm:nt 1 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).1972. Final Environmental Statement related to Operation of 2 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3. March 1972. Washington, D.C.
3 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1996. Generic Environmentallmpact Statement for 5 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 3-4 I
u
i 4.0 Envircnm:ntalimp;cta cf Operati n During tho Ranswd 2 Term 3
4 5 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities were discussed in the Generic Environ-6 m:ntalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a).
7 Th3 GEIS included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be 8 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were then j 9 casigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. Category 1 issues are those that the GEIS 10 d; fines as having met all of the following criteria: 1 11 12 (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 13 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 14 plant or site characteristics 15 16 (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except 17 for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal) 18 19 (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it 20 has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be 21 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
22 23 For issues that meet the three Category 1 cutaria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required 24 unless new and significant information is identified.
25 26 Citegory 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, 27 cdditional plant-specific review for these issues is required. l 28 29 This chapter addresses those issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in 30 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to ONS. Section 4.1 addresses 31 th3 Category 1 issues applicable to the ONS onco-through cooling system, while Category 2 issues 32 applicable to the ONS cooling system are discussed at greater length in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.5. I 33 Section 4.2 addresses Category 1 issues related to transmission lines and land use, while Category 2 l 34 issues are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 42.2. Section 4.3 addresses the radioW .:'mpacts of 35 normal operation. There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts or normal operation.
36 Section 4.4 addresses the Category 1 issues related to the socioeconomic impacts of normal operation 1 37 during the renewal term. Category 2 socioeconomic issues are discussed in Sections 4.4.1 through 38 4.4.6. Section 4.5 addresses the Category 1 issues related to groundwater use and quality. Category 39 2 groundwater use and quality issues are discussed in Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. Section 4.6 discusses 40 the impacts of renewal-term operations on threatened and endangered species, a Category 2 issue.
41 Section 4.7 addresses new information that was raised during the scoping period. The results of the 42 cviluation of environmentalissues related to operation during the renewal term are summarized in 43 Section 4.8. Finally, Section 4.9 lists the references for Chapter 4.
41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During ths R:n:wil Term 1 4.1 Cooling System !
2
.3 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to ONS 4 cooling system operation during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. Duke stated in its 5
6 Table 4-1. Category 1 issues Applicable to the Operation of the 7 ONS Cooling System During the Renewal Term 8
9 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 10 SURFACE WATER QUAUTY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS) 11 Altered current pattems at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2 12 Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.2; 4.4.2.2 13 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2.
14 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2 15 Eutrophication d.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2 16 Discharge of chlorine or other blocides 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2 17 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2 18 Discharge of other metals in waste water 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2.2 19 Water-use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3 20 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS) 21 Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.3; 4.4.2.2 22 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1; 4.3.3; 4.4.3 23 Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5; 4.3.3; 4.4.3 24 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3 25 Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3 26 Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7; 4.4.3 27 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8; 4.4.3 28 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9; 4.3.3; 4.4.3 29 Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among 4.2.2.1.10;4.4.3 30 organisms exposed to sublethat stresses 31 Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11; 4.4.3 32 HUMAN HEALTH 33 Microbial organisms 4.3.6 34 Noise 4.3.7 35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-2
Opsration During tha Ranswal Term
- 1. environmental report (ER) (Duke 1998a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information 2 casociated with the renewal of the Oconee operating licenses. No significant new information has 3 be:n identified by the staff in the review process and in the staff's independent review. Therefore, the 4 staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
5 For all of the issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation 6 m!asures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
7 !
8 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each of 9 th:se issues follows.
10 11
- Altered current oatterns at intake and discharoe structures: Based on information in the GEIS, the 12 Commission found: " Altered current pattems have not been found to be a problem at operating 13 nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The 14 staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the 15 site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information including 16 reposts of studies of Lake Keowee. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 17 altered current pattems during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
18 19 e Altered thermal stratification of lakes: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
- 20 " Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants 21 and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified 22 any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping 23 process, and its independent evaluation of available information, including reports of studies of 24 Lake Keowee performed for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 25 (SCDHEC). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of altered thermal 26 stratification of Lake Keowers during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
27 28 . Temoerature effects on sediment transoort capacity: Based on information in the GEIS, the 29 Commission found: "These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 30 power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff has 31 not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, 32 the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff 33 concludes that there are no impacts of temperature effects on sediment transport capacity during 34 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
35 36 . Scourina caused by discharaed coolina water: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 37 found: " Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants and l 38 has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of 40 the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of 41 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of scouring during 42 .. ,ewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
43 3 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During ths R:nswal Term 1 . Eutrochication: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Eutrophication has not 2 been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem 3 during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 4 review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 5 evaluation of available information including plant monitoring data and technical reports. Therefore, 6 the staff concludes that there are no impacts of eutrophication during the renewal term beyond 7 those discussed in the GEIS.
8 9 . Discharae of chlorine or other biocides: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
10 " Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not expected to be a 11 problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new informa-12 tion in its review of the Duke ER and the ONS NPDES permit, or through the site visit, the scoping 13 process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 14 that there are no impacts of discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the renewal term beyond 15 those discussed in the GEIS.
16 17 . Discharae of sanitarv wastes and minor chemical soills: Based on information in the GEIS, the 18 Commission found: " Effects are readily controlled thorough the NPDES permit, and modifications, 19 if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewsl term." The staff has 20 not identified any significant new informat!cn in its review of the Duke ER, the National Pollutant 21 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for ONS, or through the site visit, scoping process, 22 and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there 23 are no impacts of discharges of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills during the renewal term 24 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
25 26 . Discharae of other metals in waste water: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission j 27 found: "These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants 28 with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other 29 plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.' The staff has not )
30 identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the NPDES permit for ONS, l 31 or through the site visit, scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information.
32 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of other metals in waste 33 water during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
34 35 . Water-use conflicts (plants with once-throuch coolina systems): Based on information in the GEIS, 36 the Commission found: "These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear l 37 power plants with once-through heat dissipating systems." The staff has not identified any signifi-38 cant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, scoping process, and its 39 independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 40 water-use conflicts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
41 42 Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota: Based on information in the GEIS, the 43 Commission found: " Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few ruclear power 44 plants, but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-4
Op2 ration During ths Ranswai Term I of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff
'2' has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site 3' visit, scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff 4 ' concludes that there are no impacts of accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota during 5 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
6 7
- Entrainment of obvtoolankton and zooolankton: Based on information in the GEIS, the 8 Commission found: "Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a
,9 problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license 10 renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke
]
11 ER, or through the site visit, scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available 1 12 information including reports by Hudson and Nichols (1978) and Duke (1977). Therefore, the staff
.13 conclydes that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the
- 14. renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
15 16 = Cold shock: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Cold shock has been 17 satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems, has not 18 endangered fish populations or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with 19 cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a probiem during the license renewal 20 term? The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or ,
21 through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent avaluation of available information j 22 including Barwick et al. (1995). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of cold 23 shock during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
24 .
25 . Thermal olume barrier to miaratina fish: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
26 " Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are 27 not expected to be a probicm during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any 28 significant new information in its review of the Duke EP or through the site visit, the scoping 29 process, and its independent evaluation of available information including information from Oliver 30 and Hudson (1987). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of thermal plumes 31 ' during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. J
- 33. . Distribution of aauatic oraanisms: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
34 . " Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger geographical 35 distribution of aquatic organisms." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 36 review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 37 evaluation of available information including pre- and post-operational reports by Oliver and 38 Hudson (1987), Barwick (1984), and Barwick et al. (1995). Therefore, the staff concludes that 39 there are no impacts on the distribution of aquatic organisms during the renewal term beyond those 40 discussed in the GEIS. l 41 42
- Premature emeraence of aaustic insects: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 43 found: " Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear 44 power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during the license 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During ths R:ntwal Term 1 renewal tv,rm." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke
'2 ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available 3 ~ information, including pre- and post-operational studies reported by Oliver and Hudson (1987).
4 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of premature emergence of aquatic insects 5 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
6
.7 . Ga= supersaturation (aas bubble disease): Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 8 found: " Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear power plants 9 with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. It has not been found to 10 be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not 11 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any 12 significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping
.13 process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 14 that there are no impacts of gas supersaturation during the renewal term beyond those discussed 15 in the GEIS.
16 17
- Low dissolved oxvoen (DO) in the discharoe: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission le found: " Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through 19 cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at 20 operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a 21 problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new informa-22 tion in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 23 evaluation of available information including pre- and post-operational studies conducted by Oliver 24 and Hudson (1987) and the 316(a) demonstration report (Duke 1995). Therefore, the staff 25 concludes that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the renewal term beyond those 26 discussed in the GEIS.
27 28 . Lo=== from oredation. Darasitism. and disease amono oroanisms exoosed to sublethal stresses:
29 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: "These types of losses have not been
'30 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem 31 during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 32 review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 33 evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 34 losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethat stresses 35 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
36 37
- Stimulation of nuisance oroanisms: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
38 " Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power 39 plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found 40 to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not 41 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any signifi-42- cant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, 43 and its independent evaluation of available information including the 316(a) demonstration report Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-6
l Op3 ration During ths Rantwal Term I (Duke 1995). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of stimulation of nuisance 2 organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
3 4 . Microbioloaical oraanisms (occupational health): Based on information in the GEIS, the 5 Commission found: " Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued 6 application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures." The staff has 7 not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, 8 scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff 9 concludes that there are no impacts of microbiological organisms during the renewal term beyond 10 those discussed in the GEIS.
11 12 e Noise: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Noise has not been found to be 13 a problem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license 14 renews.1 term." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke 15 ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available 16 informstion. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of noise during the renewal 17 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
18 19 Citegory 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are applicable to 20 ONS are discussed in the sections that follow. These issues are listed in Table 4-2.
21 22 Table 4-2. Category 2 issues Applicable to the Operation of the ONS Cooling System During 23 the Renewal Term 24 I 10 CFR 25 ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.33(c)(3)(ii) SEIS 26 Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections subparagraph Section 27 Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems) 28 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early 4.2.2.1.2; 4.4.3 B 4.1.1 29 life stages 30 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3; 4.4.3 B 4.1.2 l 31 Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4; 4.4.3 B 4.1.3 32 Microbiological organisms (human health) 4.3.6 G 4.1.4 '
33 34 4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 35 36 For plants with once-throu0h cooling systems, entrainment of fish and shellfish in early I fe stages into 37 cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered a Category 2 issue, 38 requiring a site-specific assessment prior to license renewal.
39 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
OperItion During ths R:n:wil Term 4
1 The staff reviewed NPDES Permit #SC0000515 (that govems the release of effluents by Oconee 2 Nuclear Power Station into the receiving waters of Lake Keowee). The current permit was issued on 3 November 1,1993 and expired September 30,1998. Duke Energy has applied to renew its NPDES 4 permit. A toxicity compliance issue is currently outstanding and must be completed before final 5 approval and issuance of the NPDES permit (SCDHEC 1999).
6 7 The EPA-issued NPDES permit effective February 18,1975, required Oconee to implement a program 8 to monitor entrainment through plant intake structures in accordance with Section 316(b) of the Federal 9 Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), also known as the Clean Water Act. Rates of entrainment were 10 studied and summarized in a letter report to the EPA on March 24,1976 (letter from W.D. Adair,1976 11 in Duke 1999a). The summary report, which Duke considers its 316(b) demonstration, indicated that
-12 no fish eggs or larvae were collected after extensive sampling that began in May 1973.
13 14 While no formal record of acceptance by the EPA of this 316(b) demonstration has been identified, the 15 EPA did issue a modified NPDES permit on August 30,1976, that deleted requirements to monitor 16 entrainment through plant intake structures (Duke 1998a). No further studies or analyses were 17 required in subsequent NPDES permits.
18 19 However, while the EPA was reviewing the 316(b) demonstration report, Duke was conducting addi-20 tional larval entrainment studies weekly from March through August 1976 to document the efficiency of 21 the skimmer wall to reduce entrainment of larval fish (Olmsted and Adair 1981). Standing crops of fish 22 larvae in the intake canal and in Lake Keowee v ere compared to numbers of fish larvae entrained 23 under the skimmer wall and through the condensers. Overall, the density of fish larvae entrained was 24 always less than 1 percent of that noted in concurrent lake sampling at ONS. The difference in larvae 25 densities between the lake and intake canal was attributed to the skimmer wall's depth being below the 26 thermocline during the spawning season. Thus, this study served to reinforce the results of the 316(b) 27 demonstration.
28 29 On March 2,1979, the staff issued Amendments to the Licenses for Oconee Units 1,2, and 3 that 30 deleted the aquatic surveillance and special studies programs because the Environmental impact 31 Appraisal performed for this amendment concluded the impact of Oconee on the aquatic environment 32 was within the bounds of the final environmental statement (FES) and that the special study programs 33 were no longer necessary (letter from R.W. Reid, March 1979 in Duke 1999a).
34 35 The staff has reviewed the available information relative to potential impacts of the cooling water intake 36 system's entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages. Based on this review, the staff has 37 concluded that the potential impacts are SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
38 39 4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish-40 41 ' For plants with once-through cooling systems, impingement of fish and shellfish on debris screens of 42 - cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered a Category 2 issue, Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-8
c Op: ration During ths Renswal Term I requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. Impingement of shellfish is not an issue )
2 because there is no significant population of endemic shellfish species in the vicinity of ONS (Duke 3 1999b).
4 5 Th3 staff reviewed NPDES Permit #SC0000515 which was istued on November 1,1993 and expired 6 on September 30,1998 (as discussed in Section 4.1.1). This permit governs the release of effluents 7 by Ooonee Nuclear Power Station into the receiving waters of Lake Keowee.
8 9 An early EPA-issued NPDES permit effective February 18,1975 required Oconee to implement a 10 program to monitor impingement of fish on plant intake structures in accordance with Section 316(b) of 11 ths Clean Water Act. Rates of impingement were studied and summarized in a letter report to the EPA 12 on March 24,1976 (letter from W.D. Adair,1976 in Duke 1999a). The summary report indicated that i 13 14 ... impingement of game and sport fish has been low. Small bluegill and yellow perch were the 15 fishes most commonly impinged prior to the introduction of threadfin shad into Lake Keowee.
16 Since threadfin have become established, we have a situation which is typical of cooling reservoirs 17 in the southeastern U.S. Threadfin comprise the majority of those fish impinged (over 90 percent j 18 on most occasions) and contribute most to seasonal trends - i.e., high impingement rates in winter I 19 and low in summer. In view of the species and number of fishes affected it is doubtful that 20 impingement at Oconee exerts any significant impact on resident fish populations of Lake Keowee.
21 22 Thise findings on impingement were drawn largely from a study conducted by Duke (Edwards et al.,
23 1976) that determined the number of finfish impinged on stationary screens at Oconee Nuclear Station 24 between July 1974 and May 1975. Six screens (two screens per unit and 25 percent of total screen 25 crea) were removed and inspected at 2 week intervals. Over the entire study period 241,697 fish were 26 collected on representative screens.
27 28 Overall, species composition found impinged during the study included threadfin shad, Dorosoma 29 petenense (49.3 percent), yellow perch, Perca flavescens (2.5 percent), and bluegill, Lepomis 30 microchirus (1.4 percent), even though threadfin shad were only introduced to Lake Keowee in 31 February 1974 and did not show up in impingement samples until November 1974. Many fish collected 32 during the study were unidentifiable (46.8 percent) but suspected to be almost entirely threadfin shad 33 (Duke 1998a, Attachment B) and the remainder were miscellaneous species that comprised an 34 inlignificant portion of the impingement samples.
35 36 SCUBA divers inspected all 24 species at ONS between September 16 and 19,1974 to ensure that 37 impingement rates were similar for all screeris and that subsampling at representative screens from 38 ' cich unit was realistic for estimating totalimpingement. Significant differences among screens was 39 not apparent (Duke 1908a, Attachment B). Electrofishing, gill-net, and cove rotenone data were used ;
40 to compare species composition throughout the lake to species found on intake screens. All species 41 collected on the intake screens were represented in field collection samples, but 33 species collected 42 in the field were not observed on intake screens. This suggests that susceptibility to impingement was, 43 in part, species specific.
44 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During ths Rrnewal Term l' impacts from impingement are determined relative to recreationally or commercially important species.
2 A creel census conducted in 1973 indicated that largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill, 3 and crappie (Pomoxis spp.) were the most important sport fish taken from Lake Keowee. Data on 4 angler effort and harvest rates collected over a period from 1974 to 1993 (Barwick et al.1995) 5 confirmed that largemouth bass remained the most important sportfish in the reservoir and that sunfish 6 (Lepomis spp., including bluegill) and crappie were the only other species that contributed in a 7 significant way to the reservoir's sport fishery. Cove samples conducted from 1972 to 1993 indicated 8 that these species were also the most common sportfish in the reservoir (Duke 1995). Occasional 9 impingement of these species is not expected to produce population-level effects. Again, only 10 1.4 percent of fish impinged in the 1974-75 study (Edwards et al.1976) were bluegill. Other sunfish 11 species, largemouth bass, and crappie were included in the " miscellaneous" category that made up 12 less than 0.3 percent of the total fish impinged. Threadfin shad, which were the most frequently 13 impinged species (49.3 percent), are a forage fish species and are not considered important by either 14 recreational or commercial standards, although they were impinged in large numbers.
15 16 Over the years, NPDES permits issued to Duke for ONS gradually reduced requirements for evaluating 17 impingement because research indicated that important aquatic species were not being adversely 18 impacted. Although the 316(b) demonstration was not formally approved, the EPA issued a modified 19 NPDES permit on August 30,1976 that deleted requirements to monitor impingement through plant 20 intake structures (Duke 1998a). No further studies or analyses were required in subsequent NPDES 21 permits. On March 2,1979, the staff issued Amendments to the Licenses for Oconee Units 1,2, and 3 22 that deleted the aquatic surveillance and special studies programs because the Environmental impact 23 Appraisal performed for this amendment concluded the impact of Oconee on the aquatic environment 24 was within the bounds of the FES and that the special study programs were no longer necessary (letter 25 from R.W. Reid, March 1979 in Duke 1999a).
26 27 Although special studies were no longer required, additional impingement studies were performed from 28 January through March 1990 (Barwick 1990). During this period of weekly sampling, only three fish 29 species were found in impingement samples, none of which are considered important sportfish 30 species. Threadfin shad comprised 91.5 percent of the total fish impinged, blueback herring (Alosa 31 aestivalis) comprised 8.4 percent, and yellow perch comprised 0.1 percent. The numbers of fish 32 impinged were 2.6 times the number of impinged fish that were reported by Edwards et al. (1976) and 33 were estimated to reprcsent 11.1 percent of the pelagic fish population in the Keowee Reservoir.
34 Although threadfin shad are not commercially or recreationally important, the high rate of impingement 35 merits some discussion. Mobile hydroacoustic surveys conducted during spring and fall 1989,1990, 36 1996, and fall 1997 show a pattern in threadfin shad population dynamics that helps explain the high 37 percentage of impinged fish (Duke 1999a).
38
.39 Table 4-3 (Duke 1999a) shows the fluctuation in pelagic fish populations (approximately 51 percent 40 ' threadfin shad and 49 percent blueback herring) between spring and fall surveys.
41 42 The estimated numbers of small pelagic fish are always lower in spring than fall, following a period of 43 high wintar mortality. Blueback herring are not overly susceptible to cold temperatures, but threadfin 44 shad become stressed at temperatures less than 10*C (50*F) and exhibit complete mortality at 4*C Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-10 l l
l
Op: ration During th3 R:n:wal Term 1 (39*F)(Griffith 1978). Areas of Keowee Reservoir often drop below 10*C (50*F) during the winter, 2 s1verely weakening large numbers of threadfin shad that die or become stressed and unable to resist 3 intnke currents. According to the seasonal study conducted by Edwards et al. (1976),88 percent of all 4 thrradfin shad impingement at Oconee occurred between January and March. However, as indicated 5 by the hydroacoustic survey results showing seasonal population fluctuations, threadfin shad have a 6 high fecundity and generally expand their population considerably by fall so long as an adequate 7 number of spawners survived the winter. Edwards et al. (1976) concluded that 7he impingement of 8 thrradfin shad at (Oconee) does not appear to be a major cause of mortality but is rather an indication 9 of natural mortality of the species".
10 11 Based on these data, the staff has reviewed the available information relative to potential impacts of 12 th3 cooling water intake system on the impingement of fish and shellfish, and concludes that the 13 potential impacts are SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
14 15 4.1.3 Heat Shock 16 17 For plants with once-through cooling systems, the effects of heat shock are listed as a Category 2 18 is:ue and require plant-specific evaluation before license renewal.
19 20 Table 4-3. Fluctuation in Pelagic Fish Populations Between Spring and Fall Surveys 21 22 Numbers of Small Pelagic Fish (m:illons) Date of Mobile Hydroacoustic Survey 23 3.0 March 1989 24 4.9 November 1989 25 2.6 March 1990 j 26 14.1 November 1990 27 12.5 March 1996 28 28.2 November 1996 l 29 3.7 ,
November 1997 30 l 31 Th3 staff reviewed NPDES Permit #SC0000515 which was issued on November 1,1993 and expired l 32 on September 30,1998 (as discussed in Section 4.1.1). Tiiis permit governs the release of effluents i 33 by Oconee Nuclear Power Station into the receiving waters of Lake Keowee. l 34 35 Th3 staff also reviewed the results of a 316(a) demonstration that Duke submitted in January 1995 1 36 (Duke 1999a). Based on the study, the SCDHEC granted a 316(a) variance. Duke submitted a 37 r:rpplication in April 1998 and supporting documentation .in May 1998 to the SCDHEC requesting a 38 continuation of the variance.
39 40 ONS complies with State standards and has an approved NPDES permit and 316(a) vanance. Under 41 such circumstances, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51(c)(3)(ii)(B), no further assessment of heat shock is 42 required. Thus, the staff concludes that potential heat shock impacts resulting from operation of the 43 plint's cooling water discharge system to the aquatic environment on or in the vicinity of the site are 44 SMALL and mitigation is not warranted.
4-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Oper; tion During th) R:new 1 Term 1 4.1.4 Microbiological Organisms 2
3 For plants discharging cooling water to cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small rivers, the effects of 4 microbiological organisms on human health are listed as a Category 2 issue and require plant-specific 5 evaluation before license renewal.
6 7 ONS has a once-through cooling system that uses Lake Keowee as the cooling source. The Keowee 8 cnd Little Rivers were impounded to form Lake Keowee. Combined, these two rivers have a flow rate 9 that is lower than the 9 x 108m8 per year (3.15 x 10 52ft' per year) specified in l 10 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) as being a concern from the standpoint of the potential for enhancement of j 11 the presence of thermophylic microorganisms such as Naegleria fowleri, which could be a potential j 12 health concern for members of the public swimming in the cooling source (Duke 1998a).
13 14 Although Lake Keowee is a popular site for water-based recreational activities including swimming and 15 water skiing, these activities are dispersed throughout the lake, rather than being concentrated in 16 specific areas such as near the plant. In addition, the nearest private pier located on the Keowee River 17 trm of the lake is 1300 m (4200 ft) from the discharge structure.
18 L 19 in a letter included with the Environmental Report (Duke 1998a), the State Toxicologist at the SCDHEC 20 indicated that there "seems to be no significant threat to off-site persons near such heated recreational 21 waters (from operation of ONS) ."
22 23 Thus, although there is a potential for deleterious thermophylic microorganisms to be associated with 24 the cooling system, the results of analyses and evaluations, including the results of consultation with 25 the State Public Health Department, indicate that the impact of deleterious microbiological organisms 26 during continued operation of the plant during the renewal term are SMALL, and mitigation is not 27 warranted.
28 29 4.2 Transmission Lines 30 31 The FES discussed five transmission lines with a total length of 528 km (330 mi) that connect the plant 32 to the Duke Energy Transmission System. They were constructed concurrently with the construction of 33 Oconee and the Keowee-Toxaway Project and connect both Oconee and the Keowee-Toxaway Project 34 hydro-plants to the Duke Energy Transmission System.
35 36 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to the 37 ONS transmission lines are listed in Table 4-4. Duke stated in its ER that it is not aware of any new 38 and significant information associated with the renewal of the Oconee operating licenses. No 39 significant new information has been identified by the staff in the review process and in the staff's 40 independent review. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues 41 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are 42 SMALL and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be 43 warranted.
44 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-12 l
l i
Operation During ths R:n:wal Term 1 Table 4-4. Category 1 issues Applicable to the ONS Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term 2
3 ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 5 Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide 4.5.6.1 6 application) 7 Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2 8 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, 4.5.6.3 9 agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) 10 Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-way 4.5.7 11 AIR QUAUTY 12 Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2 13 LAND USE 14 Power line right-of-way 4.5.3 15 16 17 A brief description of the staff's review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each of 18 th;se issues follows.
19 20 e Power line rioht-of-way manaaement (cuttina and herbicide application): Based on information in l 21 the GEIS, the Commission found: "The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are )
22 expected to be of small significance at all sites." The staff has not identified any significant new 23 information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, consultation 24 with the FWS and SCDNR, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the 25 staff concludes that there are no impacts of power line right-of-way management during the 26 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
J 27 i 28
- Bird collisions with oower lines: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: j 29 " Impacts [of bird collisions with power lines) are expected to be of small significance at all sites." !
30 The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through 31 the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information including 32 the status of the Duke monitoring program, Duke efforts to document collisions, and Duke efforts to 33 protect species nesting on the power lines. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 34 impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 35 GEIS.
36 4 13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 a
' Operation During ths Rin:wil Term I
1 . tme=cLE of e!adromaanetic fields on flora and fauna (plants. aaricultural croos. honevbees. wildlife.
2 livestock): Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: "No significant impacts of 3 electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are not 4 . expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any 5 significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping 6 process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 7 that there are no impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the renewal term 8 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
9 10 . Floodolains and wetland on oower line rioht-of-way- Based on information in the GEIS, the 11 Commission found: " Periodic vegetction control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath 12 power lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is 13 expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified 14 any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping 15 process, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and its independent evaluation 16 of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on floodplains 17 and wetland on power line right-of-way during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 18 GEIS.
19 20 . Air cuality effects of transmission lines: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
21 " Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to 22 ambient levels of these gases." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 23 review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 24 evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no air quality 25- impacts of transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
26 27 . Power line rioht-of-way (land use): Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
28 " Ongoing use of power line rights-of-way would continue with no change in restrictions. The effects ,
29 of these restrictions are of small significance." The staff has not identified any significant new 30 ~ information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, consultation 31 with FWS, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 32 that there are no impacts of restriction on use of power line right-of-ways during the renewal term 33 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
34 35 There is one Category 2 issue related to transmission lines and another issue related to transmission 36 lines that is being treated as a Category 2 issue. These issues are listed in Table 4-5. They are 37 discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
38 39 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects 40 41 The GEIS analysis for electric shock from transmission lines was unable to reach a conclusion on the ,
42 significance of the electric shock potential because for earlier licensed plants, electric shock was not l 1
l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-14
l Operction During ths R:n wal Term 1 addressed, some plants may have choses to upgrade the voltage line, and land use my nave 2 changed. It is stated in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H) that if the transmission system does not meet the 3 recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code, an assessment of the potential shock hazard 4 L must be provided by the applicant.
5 6 In the ER, Duke stated that the transmission lines that connect Units 1 and 2 to the 230 kV switching 7_ ttation and the lines that connect Unit 3 to the 525 kV switching station meet the vertical clearance 8 requirement specified in the 1997 Edition of the National Electric Safety Code (NESC 1997). Duke 9 _ states further that the transmission lines constructed concurrently with the Oconee and the Keowee-10 Toxaway Project are part of the Duke Energy Transmission System. These transmission lines were 11 constructed to the standards of the National Electric Safety Code,6* edition, published in November 12 1961. According to the ER, there have been no upgrades in line voltage on these transmission lines 13 since they were constructed. Duke reviewed the vertical clearances of the 528 km (330 mi) of 14 transmission lines attributed to Oconee in the FES (AEC 1972) using the 1997 Edition of the Nr.tional 15 Electric Safety Code and determined that all clearances exceeded the minimum requirements of the 16 1997 NESC (Duke 1999a).
17 18 Table 4-5. Category 2 issues Applicable to the ONS Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term 19 10 CFH 20 ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(li) SEIS 21 Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections subparagraph Sections 22 HUMAN HEALTH 23 Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1 24 (electric shock) 25 Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2 1 26
'27 Based on the above, the staff concludes that the impact of the potential for electrical shock is SMALL 28 - and mitigation is not warranted.
29 30 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects 31 32 Th2 chronic effects of. electromagnetic fields from power lines were given a finding of "not applicable" !
33 rather than a Category 1 or 2 designation until a scientific consensus is reached on the health implica-34 tions of these fields.
35 36 Th3 GEIS states that the maximum measured magnetic field strengths beneath 500-kV lines often 4
37 cvarage about 7x10 telsa (70 milligauss). During peak electricity use, the field strength may peak at 4
38 14x10 telsa (140 milligauss). The potential for chronic effects from these ficids continues to be 39 studied and is not known at this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ;
40 (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Epidemiological and 41 cxperimental evidence are still inconclusive.
4 15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 -
.Operrtion During ths R:n:wil Term 1 4.3 RadiologicalImpacts of Normal Operations 2
3 - Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to ONS 4 with regard to radiological impacts are I:sted in Table 4-6. Duke stated in its ER that it is not aware of 5 any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the Oconee operating licenses. No 6 significant new information has been identified by the staff in the review process and in the staff's l 7 independent review. Therefore, the stati concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues !
8 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are ;
4 SMALL and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be !
10 warranted.
11 12 Table 4-6. Category 1 issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 13 During the Renewal Term 14 15 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table '3-1 GEIS Sections 16 HUMAN HEALTH 17 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 18 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 19 20 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each of 21 these issues follows.
22 23 . Radiation exposures to oublic (license renewal term): Based on information in the GEIS, the 24 Commission found: " Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with 25 normal operations." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the 26 ' Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available 27 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of radiation exposures to the 28 public during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
29 30
- Occuoational radiation exoosures (license renewal term): Based on information in the GEIS, the 31 Commission found: " Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are 32 within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, 33 and would be well below regulatory limits." The staff has not identified any significant new informa-34 tion in its review of the Duke ER, or through the sita visit, the scoping process, and its independent 35 evaluation of available information. Therefore,ine staff concludes that there are no impacts of 36 occupational radiation exposures during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
37 I
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-16
i 1
< t Op::r:: tion During ths R::nswal Term 1 4.4 Socioeconomic impacts of Plant Operations During the License 2 Renewal Period 3
4 C tegory 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to 5 socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-7. Duke stated in its ER (Duke 6 1998) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the 7 Oconee operating licenses. No significant new information has been identified by the staff in the 8 r: view process and in the staff's independent review. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 9 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues, the GEIS 10 concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 11 sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
12 13 Table 4-7. Category 1 issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term 14 15 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 16 SOClOECONOMICS 17 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 18 recreation 4.7.3.6 19 Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1 20 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6 21 Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8 22 23 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each of 24 th:se issues follows.
25 26
- Public services: oublic safety. social services. and tourism and recreation: Based on information in 27 the GEIS, the Commission found: " Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and 28 recreation are expected to be of small significance at all sites." The staff has not identified any 29 significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping 30 process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 31 that there are no impacts on public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation during the 32 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
33 34
- Public services: education (license renewal term): Based on information in the GEIS, the 35 Commission found: "Only impacts of srnali significance are expected." The staff has not identified 1 36 any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping I
37 process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes 38 that there are no impacts on education during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 39 GEIS.
40 4-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During the Ren:wal Term 1 = : Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term): Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 2 found: "No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term." The staff has not 3 identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the 4 scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff 5 concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in 6 the GEIS.
7 8 . Aesthetic imoacts of transmission lines (license renewal term): Based on information in the GEIS, 9 the Commission found: "No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term." The i 10 staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, or through the 11 site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, 12 the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts of transmission lines during the renewal 13 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
14 15 Table 4-8 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis and 16 environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS.
17 18 4.4.1 Housing impacts During Operations 19 20 in determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS (NUREG-1437),
21 which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors, " sparseness" and 22 " proximity" (GEIS Section C.1.4). Sparseness measures population density within 32 km (20 mi) of the
.23 site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 80.5 km (50 mi). Each factcr has 24 categories of density and size (GEIS Table C.1), and a matrix is used to rank the population category 25 26 Table 4-8. Category 2 lssues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term 27 10 CFR 28 ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(li) 29 Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections subparagraph SEIS Section
'30 SOClOECONOMICS 31 Housing impacts 4.7.1 1 4.4.1 32 Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 1 4.4.2 33 Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 4.4.3 34' Public Services, transportation 4.7.3.2 - 4.4.4 35 Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5 36 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 37 Environmental Justice Not 4.4.6 addressed Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-18
1 Opsration During ths Rantwal Term '
I as low, medium, or high (GEIS, Figure C.1). ONS was selected by the NRC to be evaluated as a 2 - pot:ntial socioeconomic case study site. The results of this evaluation, published in the GEIS, 3 clis:ifies the current ONS population as " medium" (GEIS Table C.2).
4 i 5 As' described in Section 2.2.8, the Tri-County (Oconee, Pickens, and Anderson) area around ONS is 6 not cubject to growth control measures that effectively limit housing development, although Oconee 7 County in particular is attempting to steer the growth toward the center of the county, where the 8 infrastructure is most completely developed. In 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, l9 NRC concluded that impacts on housing availability are expected to be of small significance at plants 10 located in a " medium" population area where growth control measures are not in effect. ONS is 11 located in a medium population area and is not located in an area where growth control measures limit 12 housing development, so housing impacts would be expected to be email, even if there were plant-i
'13 raltted increases in population.
' 14
< 15 Small impacts result when no discernable change in housing availability occurs, changes in risntal rates
,16 End housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing construction or conversion 17 occurs. Although significant housing impacts are expected in all three counties as a result of popula-l 18 tion growth, it will be difficult to discem the impact from license renewal activities. Although the GEIS
' 19 assumed an additional staff of 180 permanent workers during the license renewal period, Duke, in the
' 20 ER, indicated that they "have not identified any increases in staffing related to license renewal-related
'21 programs." The staff has reviewed the available information relative to housing impacts. Based on this
'22 revi:w, the staff has concluded that the impact on housing during the license renewal period is SMALL, 23 and mitigation is not warranted.
24 25 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility impacts During Operations 26
,27 Impacts on public utility services are considered small if there is little or no change in the ability of the 28 syst m to respond to the level of demand, and thus there is no need to add capital facilities. Impacts 29 tra considered moderate if overtaxing occurs during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered 30 12rgs if existing levels of service (e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded, and addi-31 tional capacity is needed to meet ongoing demands for services. The GEIS indicates that, absent new 32 significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be significant are 33 impacts on public water supplies. The staff believes that, in view of the expected population increase 34 in the three counties, there may be reason to add significant public services and infrastructure other 35 then water supply during the next 40 years. None of the increase would be due to the impact of addi-36 tional ONS workers because no need for additional workers has been identified.
37
'38 Analysis of impacts to the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plant-related 39 population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the plant's permitted withdrawal rate and the plant's actual
'40 us3 of water. The applicant does not expect plant demand to have a direct effect cn water resources.
'41
- 42. As described in Section 2.2.8, Walhalla and Seneca in eastern Oconee County have some water plant 43 capacity problems, but only Walhalla is actually limited by the water source (Coneross Creek).
, 44 Walhalla is expected to construct a new water treatment plant on Lake Jocassee. Seneca draws from 4-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During ths R:n:wil Term 1 Lake Keowee, which is considered adequate. Because ONS obtains its water from an adequate 2 renewable surface water source and there is no increase in population expected as a result of the 3 renewal of the ONS operating license, there is no impact expected from license renewal on water 4 supplies. The staff concludes that the impact on water supply is SMAl.L and that mitigation is not 5 warranted.
6 7 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations 8
9 Land use in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant may change as a result of plant-related population j 10 growth. It is noted in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that significant changes in !
11 land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal. l 12 However, Section 3.7.5 of the GEIS notes that if the plant-related increase in population is less than j 13 5 percent of the study area's total population and if plant total tax payments are small relative to the 14 community's total revenue, new population-driven and tax-driven land-use changes during the plant's 15 license renewal term would be small, especially if the community has pre-established patterns of ]
16 development and has provided adequate public services to support and guide development.
17 18 The analysis of offsite land uso during the renewal term has two components, population-driven 19 changes in offsite land use and tax-driven changes in offsite land use. No plant-related, population-20 driven changes in land use are expected during the license renewal term, because no increase in 21 employment is expected.
22 23 Oconee County is the only jurisdiction that taxes ONS directly, and it is the principal jurisdiction that 24 receives direct tax revenue as a result ONS's presence. Because there are no major refurbishment 25 activities and no new construction as a result of the license renewal, no new sources of plant-related 26 tax payments are expected that could significantly influence land use in Oconee County. However, 27 continued operation of the plant would provide a significant continuing source of tax revenues to 1 28 Oconee' County. As discussed in Section 2.8, the applicant is expected to pay $22.3 million in property j 29 taxes to Oconee County in 1998-99. This payment represented about one-third of the county budget 30 and has a subctantial, positive impact on the fiscal condition of Oconee County.
31 32 The staff has determined that the significance of project-related tax payments are moderate if the pay-33 ments to a jurisdiction are between 10 and 20 percent of the total tax revenue of the jurisdiction, and 34 large if the percentage is greater than 20 percent (GEIS). Using these criteria, ONS tax payments, 35 representing around 33 percent of the total Oconee County budget, are of large significance, if the 36 tax-related revenues are medium to large relative to the jurisdiction's total revenue, tax-driven land-use i
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-20
Operation During ths Ransw21 Term 1 ' changes would most likely be moderate if the community has no pre-established patterns of develop-2 ment (i.e., land use plans or controls), or has not provided adequate public services to guide land-use 3 changn M the past (GEIS). The staff defined the magnitude of land-use changes as follows:
4-5
- SMALL - Very little new development and minimal changes to the area's land use pattern.
6.
7
- MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to land-use pattems.
8 9
- LARGE - Large-scale new development and many changes to land-use pattems.
10 11 Tha County has experienced significant population growth and moderate land-use changes. The 12 growth is not directly related to the presence of the ONS. Other factors, such as development of Lake 13 Keowee recreational property, industrial growth, proximity to Greenville and Anderson, and less 14 stringent land-use, zoning, and development regulations compared to surrounding counties clearly play 15 a role. However, the county has not adopted land codes or ordinances nor does it enforce a minimum 16 housing code (Talbert & Bright 1996). However, the County has well established pattems of 17 development and has public services in place to support development, which is being directed toward 18 tha center of the county. In combination, these two factors would be expected to result in SMALL land-19 use impacts from ONS-related taxes.
20' 21 Continuation of Oconee County's tax receipts from ONS keeps tax rates below what they otherwise 22 would have to be to fund the County's govemment and also provides for a higher level of public 23 infrastructure and services than otherwise would be possible. This enhances the county's attractive-24 n:ss as a place to live and tends to accelerate the conversion of open space to residential and 25 commercial uses. On the other hand, the presence of Duke's real estate arm as a major landowner 26 has provided a considerable degree of discipline on develooment in the county.
27 28 Based on this review of the issues, the staff concludes that the net impact of plant-related population 29 increases and tax receipts is likely to be SMALL While the tax receipts are large enough to result in 30 moderate impacts on land use, Oconee County has a conservative approach to providing water and 31 sewer that limits upgrades and could slow future economic development except in areas already 32 served. in addition, while the relatively low taxes and high levels of public service afforded by 33 ONS-related tax receipts tend to draw population growth to the County, these same receipts make 34 possible formal tax relief programs that favor open space or land-use control programs, if such 35 programs are deemed necessary in the future. Additional mitigation does not appear to be warranted.
36 37 - 44.4 Public Services: Transporution impacts During Operations 38 39 There is significant population growth expected in all three counties in the study area by the year 2034, 40 ' as was discussed in Section 2.2.8 of this report. However, ne ce of this expected growth will be due 41 directly to increases in employment at ONS. It may be argued that the industrial tax base afforded by 42 ONS makes the county a more affordable and pleasant place to live and indirectly increases popula-43 tion, but even this indirect impact is likely to be fairly small and difficult to predict. Future general 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Suppiernent 2 l
Operation During ths R:n:w:1 Tcrm 1 population increase likely will degrade the highway level of service at choke points, but the magnitude 2 of impact of ONS on this service degradation is likely to be SMALL and not require mitigation.
3 4 4.4.5 Historical and Archaeological Resources 5
6 Since the Duke license renewal application (Duke 1998a) covering an additional 20 years of operation j 7 of the ONS does not include plans for future land disturbances or structural modifications beyond 8 routine maintenance activities at the plant, there would be no identifiable adverse effects to known 9 historical and archaeological resources. Consultation between the license renewal applicant and the 10 South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office resulted in a determination by the State office that no 11 known historical properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic j 12 Places would be affected by the proposed action.
13 14 Continued operation of the power plant and protection of the naturallandscape and vegetation within 15 the site boundaries would have a beneficial effect in that known or undiscovered resources would 16 receive de facto protection for the term of the license renewal period, being located in an undisturbed 17 area with secured access. Duke has assisted in conservation and security of the adjacent National 18 Register property, the Old Pickens Church and cemetery. This assistance will continue to enhance 19 long-term preservation of that property.
20 21 Because there is a possibility that undiscovered and/or unrecorded prehistoric and historic period 22 archaeological sites could exist in the 206-ha (510-acre) plant site, additional care must be taken 23 during normal operational or maintenance conditions to ensure that cultural resources are not 24 inadvertently impacted. These activities may include not only operation of the plant itself, but also land 25 management-related actions such as recreation, wildlife habitat enhancement, or maintaining /
26 upgrading access roads throughout the plant site.
27 28 The staff concludes that impacts on historical and archaeological resources is SMALL, and mitigation 29 is not needed.
30 31 4.4.6 Environmental Justice 32 33 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy in which Federal actions should not result in dispropor-34 tionately high and adverse impacts on low-income or minority populations. Executive Order 12898 35 (26 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider environmental justice under NEPA, and 36 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) has provided guidance for addressing environmental 37 justice under NEPA (CEO 1997). The Commission has committed to undertake environmental justice 38 reviuvs. Specific guidance is provided in Attachment 4 to NRR [ Nuclear Reactor Regulation) Office 39 Letter No. 906. Revision 1: Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and 40 Considering EnvironmentalIssues (NRC 19966).
41 42 The scope of the review as defined in NRR Office Letter No. 906, Rev.1 (NRC 1996b) should include 43 an analysis of impacts on low-income and minority populations, the location and significance of any l 44 environmental ;mpacts during operations on populations that are particularly sensitive, and any l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-22
Op: ration During ths R:n:wal Term 1 cdditional information pertairnng to mitigation. The descriptions to be provided by this review should be 2 of sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts, in 3 particular whether these impacts are likely to be disproportionately high and adverse, and to evaluate 4 the cignificance of such impacts.
5 6 Air, land, and water resources within about 80 km (50 mi) of ONS were examined. Within that area, 7 th:ra are a few potential environmentalimpacts that could affect human populations; all of these were 8 considered SMALL. These include 9
10 e groundwater use conflicts 11 12 e clectric shock 13 14 e microbial organisms 15 16 e cccident scenarios.
17 18 To decide whether any of these impacts could be disproportionate, the staff examined the geographic 19 diitribution of minority and low-income populations recorded during the 1990 Census (DOC 1991),
20 supplemented by field inquiries to the local planning departments in Oconee, Pickens, and Anderson ,
21 Counties, and to social service agencies in the three counties. The staff focused this portion of the 22 r;vi:w on the geographic areas most likely to experience the impacts discussed above, i.e., the three 23 closest surrounding counties. This area is referred to as the study area.
24
' 25 G:nerally speaking, minority populations are a small, dispersed, and declining proportion of the study's 26 tr:3's population. Figure 4-1, taken from the 1990 Census (DOC 1991) shows the geographic 27 4-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
1
)
OperItion During ths R:n:wil Term
~' sw.tn i y . .a ,,
%_ _- t-v.,, y 7,. -, ..
w nj .- ,'
- I:::
,.h rb'C cr h i-- . ',/ { 5
' \ ' " ' . . k# ['\., ,g Henderson /
N.g l
/p qd,/ .sa.cu,on ( -
T y7 N ,
~ X J ~7 s^ ) W
'J y
* . Polk -
. q(q * ,
7"^ s #\ q 3
.}
q_ . ,4 7 Hacon - 4 "e ,lg :N i
'{ # _
~
~
~,
- c. .
$ Transv1vanff
.e -
cing
"\' *' ,
4
/ ~
[ ,. f g, -
~-
j' i Towns 3
'y = Af l ,< - sp.r
)
'_ 1 e
,.4 c.. reenvi)le'
__ ^[ r.
' . (#a-> Rabun f .,Pickens L
- k. -t
*f - ) t.
~
( ,.. . N "** 4 4 poor I - (pe,vf. '\ .
\ % C,rt L.( / ,- - $. : -.A - /f t %
1 g,j : ~ ,. l
.T ' u t.$. ,
y ~ y v . }/ v, . - 3'x...
/ ,
N
\ ., j . ,
} -/ . y - ; Ep5ky.k
~
~
' st.pa.k -
Y Y'
\
'[ N , j
+ -
pj W ' -
\, $
~ resis,/ ~\'
/ i\ /
i 4
, /\< s.nk, .
"H.rt"(
/ - \/ .
Halll . 4 x - ' y g. N 3 ' \,
/. x A i 'N ..- j 'f A.
~
.;N ._( ~
{ .
/,/'
h
' " "III'
\, \l Jac6en Hadiso'%- ' Elbert i '
~'
'A / ('k ,/ cc..nwooa, j 1
2 Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations 3 (shown in shaded areas) Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS 1 I Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2 4-24
1 1 Operation During ths R:n:wil Term 1 distribution of minority populations within the 80 km (50 mi) radius of the plant. A minority population is 2 defined to exist if the percentage of minorities within the census blocks exceeds the percentage of 3 minorities in the entire state of South Carolina by 10 percent, or if the percentage of minorities within , 4 th] census block is at least 50 percent. For census blocks within the states of Georgia or North l 5 Carolina, the percentage of minorities is compared to the percentage of minorities in the respective 6 st:te. Minority populations are located primarily in Greenville and Anderson. However, there are a few 7 scattered census block groups that showed significant concentration of minority individuals in the 8 Seneca and Clemson areas. Figure 4-1 indicates that minority populations in general are either 9 rclitively well-mixed into the majority population, or concentrations of minority individuals are too small 10 to be caught in the census detail. This is consistent with the results of field interviews. Ii 12 Figure 4-2, also taken from the 1990 Census (DOC 1991) shows the geographic distribution of low-13 income populations within the 80 km (50 mi) radius of the plant. The cross-hatched census blocks 14 show areas where the percentage of households below the poverty level is 10 percent or more greater 15 thin the percentage of households below the poverty levelin the entire state of South Carolina for i 16 those census blocks within the state of South Carolina. It also includes census blocks where the 17 percentage of households below the poverty level exceeds 50 percent. For census blocks within the 18 ttates of Georgia or North Carolina, the percentage of households below the poverty level is compared 19 to the percentage of households below the poverty level in the corresponding state. The largest 20 concentrations of low-income populations within the 80 km (50 mi) radius are located in North Carolina. 21 Th:re are some small groups scattered throughout the three-county area although none is within 16 22 km (10 mi) of ONS. Some of these individuals are known to be ex-sharecroppers effectively engaged 23 in subsistence agriculture. The 1990 Census (DOC 1991) shows concentrations of low-income 24 population at Seneca, Easley, and Clemson, the latter partly due to a large university student 25 population. Low-income housing tends to be concentrated in the Seneca and Clemson area. 26 27 Ex mination of the various environmental pathways by which low-income and minority populations 28 could be disproportionately affected reveals no unusual resource dependencies or practicos through 29 which these populations could be disproportionately affected. Specifically, no pathways were found 30 through which subsistence agriculture was significantly affected. In general, the prevailing atmospheric 31 transport direction from the ONS site are toward the northeast, thus missing the most of the census 32 blocks showing minority and low-income populations. Therefore, the impact is SMALL, and no special 33 mitigation actions are warranted. 34 35 4,5 Groundwater Use and Quality 36 37 A Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, is applicable to ONS 38 groundwater use and quality and is listed in Table 4-9. Duke stated in its ER that it is not aware of any 39 n:w and significant information associated with the renewal of the Oconee operating licenses. No 40 cignificant new information has been identified by the staff in the review process and in the staff's 41 independent review. 4-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Oper: tion During th3 R:n:wil Term
,s < .g (j,-%-
e ~..~ / \ Ha9 wood l ,A %ain . , .,l'
'J /' ,
1 i <s p ~-%37 . . j lp% __/~4 ?-} i / . /// - i s .f' N k.~v
's Grahwi s
\,,
! / . _
y / s Henderson/ ' j [ .-/ \ Jackson N ,- hf ', r ', [,, ~~ -)' //// < l
] l olk P \
l l( Hae r 9- 7 4,,< . Trans91vsnips,pL \ _L_,
>#v v/ ,\ /f
- e
,h l l
! v .
f
'// '
gf/j \ J.W ~[ n '"# L '^
~
i i j l//jg g Towns j k )- Sparte N ,,J ' - f '. g ! j f y ( g Rabun
?
,f (
\
Pickens t
=/ ..
r Gre m itle Q\ j g4% .f ' Oconee j.A , . ' / y,J[ite T L m g) r x, p [
,/ s
- s. ,.
/
~
il g,pg,,N s 1, /
/ *. / %,
h /
\ \ lgi,., M / \. %.
t i
~ .c 1
s
/
Stephensk
/4 .,
/ ..
'"*" r, b N '-] Lauri
\ / \, ,~ K J' f' , fw. * 'o y\
y' 's
\
/-,/
/ g Frankliri 1 A'-
i Banks / Har t\ Hall " #
's -' /'
'(, '
,( j j' '% ,
- q) A_e s - .,
x J
,f lr
, j(_e
.. ./ \,
". l bbeville r ;
Jackson
}j Hadism t Elbert ( ' J
f '/' & , ,
) Greenwoodj \
,,^
*~
s ,L., .A' m. 5,F/*-i ,' I s sa - .-q iy . .s ,, . _ , , Lr/ .w. , 1 Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-income Populations 2 (shown in shaded areas) Within 80 km (50 mi) of ONS J 3 4 5 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to this issue beyond those discussed in 6 the GEIS. For these issue, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific 7 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. l J Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-26
Op rction During ths R:n:wal Term 1 Table 4-9. Category 1 issue Applicable to Groundwater Use 2 and Quality During the Renewal Term 3 4 ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 5 Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 6 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY 7 Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; 4.8.1.1 8 plants that use <100 gpm). 9 10 11 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, follows. 12 13
- Groundwater use conflicts footable and service water: plants that use <100 aom): Based on 14 information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected 15 to cause any groundwater use conflicts." As discussed iri Bection 2.2.2, ONS's groundwater use is 16 less than 0.068 m8 /s (100 gpm). The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 17 review of the Duke ER, or through the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 18 evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 19 radiation exposures to the public during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
20 21 There are no Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality. 22 23 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species 24 25 Threatened or endangered species is listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 26 Appendix B, Table B-1. The issue is listed in Table 4-10. 27 28 This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or 29 cndangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. Consultation under 30 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was initiated by Duke during April 1998 with a request for 31 information to FWS concerning species potentially occurring near ONS. The FWS identified (FWS 32 1998a) nine listed species known to occur in either Oconee or Pickens Counties and one species that 33 could possibly occur in those counties (see Section 2.2.6). Subsequent to that letter, Duke performed 34 a survey of all of the land within 1.6 km (1 mi) of ONS during May and June of 1998. No Federally 35 li ted, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered species were identified during that survey. 36 Th3 results of the survey were documented for the FWS and the South Carolina Department of Natural 37 R:: sources (SCDNR) (Duke 1998b; Duke 1998c). 38 l 39 Th3 FWS concurred with Duke's determination that the proposed action will have no effect on listed or I 40 proposed endangered or threatened species (FWS 1998). The SCDNR also concurred with the 41 findings presented in the report submitted by Duke (SCDNR 1998). 42 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l
Oper1 tion During ths Ren:wil Term 1 Table 4-10. Category 2 issue Applicable to Threatened or 2 Endangered Species During the Renewal Term 3 l 10 CFR 4 ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS 5 Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Sections 6 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS) 7 Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6 8 9 10 Four plant species of concem to the SCDNR were identified within the surveyed area (see 11 Section 2.2.6, Table 2-3). These species were all confined to " natural areas" located toward the 12 periphery of ONS, well away from areas used for normal plant operations. 13 14 Based on its review of the applicant's report and their independent analysis, the FWS(*) and the 15 SCDNR concluded that continued operation of the plant under license renewal will have no effect on 16 listed or proposed endangered or threatened species within the immediate vicinity of the ONS. 17 18 Federally-listed species are known to occur near the transmission line rights-of-way et'ributable to the 19 ONS (see Section 2.2.6). Of these, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf and the bunched arrowhead occur 20 within or very near the rights-of-ways of the McGuire 525 Kv line and the Tiger 230 Kv lines 21 respectively. 22 23 The staff has initiated the consultation process (NRC 1999) with the FWS relative to potential impacts 24 to listed and proposed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats from continued operation 25 and maintenance of the transmission system. In its preliminary analysis with respect to the Federally-26 listed species known to occur near the transmission line rights-of-way, the staff considered the 27 infrequent need for maintenance, Duke's maintenance practices, and Duke's procedures for 28 conducting surveys of sensitive habitats prior to initiation of maintenance activities. 29 Based on the available information conceming the species distributions and the operational and 30 ' maintenance activities, it is the staff's preliminary determination that the impact would be SMALL and 31 further mitigation is not warranted. 32 33 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant information on impacts of 34 Operations During the Renewal Term 35 36 The staff has not identified new and significant information on environmental issues related to opera-37 tion during the renewal term listed in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The staff 38 reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts associated with operation during the renewal term in 1 (a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998. Letter dated August 4,1998, from the Acting Field 2 Supervisor for the Charleston Field Office to Duke Power indicating that continued operation or 3 refurbishment of ONS will have no effect on listed or proposed endangered or threatened species. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-28
l l Operation During ths R:n:w;1 Term ( l the GEIS and has conducted its own independent review, including the public scoping meetings, to 2 identify issues with significant new information. Processes for identification and evaluation of new 3 information are described in Section 1.0 under-License Renewal Evaluation Process. 4 5 418 Summary of impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term 6 7 Neither Duke nor the staff is aware of significant new information related to any of the applicable 8 Category 1 issues associated with the ONS operation during the renewal term. Consequently, the staff 9 concludes that the environmental impacts associated with these issues are bounded by the impacts 10 described in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts would be 11 SMALL and that " plant-specific mitigation measures are not IAely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant 12 implementation." 13 14 Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 13 Category 2 issues applicable to ONS 15 operation during the renewal term and for environmental justice. For 12 issues, the staff concluded 16 that the potential environmentalimpact of renewal term operations of ONS would be of SMALL 17 significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS, and that mitigation would not be 18 w;rranted. Relative to threatened and endangered species, the staff's preliminary determination is that 19 th] impact resulting from license renewal would be SMALL and further mitigation is not warranted. 20 2i in cddition, the staff determined that a consensus has not been reached by appropriate Federa! health 22 cgencies that there are adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. 23 24 4,9 References 25 26 10 CFR 51.53,"Postconstruction environmental reports." 27 28 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B," Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a
'29 Nuclear Power Plant."
30 31 Barwick, D.H.1984. Role of fish distribution on estimates of standing crop in a cooling reservoir. 32 North American Joumal of Fishery Management 4:308-313. 33 34 Barwick, H.1990. Fish impingement at Oconee Nuclear Station - 1990. Scientihc Services, Duke 35 Power Company, Huntersville, North Carolina. (should come with RAI) 36 37 Barwick, D.H., LE. Miller, W.R. Geddings, and D.M. Rankin.1995. Fish biorms and angler harvest 38 from a South Carolina cooling reservoir. Proceedings of the Annual Conferenc: of the Southeastem 39 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49.129-133 40 i 41 Council on Environmental Quality (CEO).1997. EnvironmentalJustice: Guidance Under the National 42 Environmenta/ Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, 43 Wcshington, D.C. l 4-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 ) l
Operation During tha R:n:wil Term i ; 2 Duke Power Company.1977. Oconee Nuclear Station Environmental Summary Report 1971-1976, 3 Volumes 1 and 2. Duke Power Company Steam Production Department. 4 5 Duke Power Company.1995. Oconee Nuclear Station 316(a) Demonstration Report. 6 7 Duke Energy Corporation.1998a. Application for Renewed Operating Ucenses, Oconee Nuclear 8 Station, Units 1,2, & S. Volume IV - Environmental Report. 9 10 Duke Power Company.1998b. Letter from J. Huff, Duke Power, Charlotte, North Carolina, to Mr. R. 11 L. Banks (FWS, Charleston, South Carolina) June 23,1998, Conveys the Gaddy Report to FWS). 12 13 Duke Power Company.1998c. Letter from J. Huff, Duke Power, Charlotte, North Carolina to R. E. 14 Duncan, SCDNR. Dated June 23,1998. Conveys the Gaddy Report to SCDNR. 15 16 Duke Energy Corporation.1999a. Letter from M.S. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation to US 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
License Renewal. Response to Requests for Additional 18 information, Oconee Nuclear Station. Dated March 4,1999. 19 20 Duke Energy Corporation.1999b. Letter from W.R. McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation to U.S. 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
Followup to Staff's Request for Additional information 22 Dated December 29,1998, Related to the Environmental Position of the Review of the License 23 Renewal Application for Oconee Units 1,2, and 3. Dated May 13,1999. 24 25 Edwards, T.J., W.H. Hunt, L.E. Miller, and J.J. Sevic.1976. "An evaluation of the impingement of 26 fishes at four Duke Power Company steam-generating facilities." Pages 373-380 in Esch, G.W. and 27 R.W. McFarlane (eds.). Thermal Ecology ll. National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department 28 cf Commerce, Springfield, Virginia. 29 30 Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income 31 Populations." 59 FederalRegister7629-7633 (1994). 32 33 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended,33 USC 1251-1387 (also known as Clean 34 Water Act). 35 36 Griffith, J.S.1978. Effects of low temperature on the survival and behavior of threadfin shad, 37 Dorosomapetenense. Transactions # the American Fisheries Society.107: 63-70. l 38 39 Hudson and Nichols.1978. Relation between zooplankton migration and entrainment in a South 40 Carolina cooling reservoir. Waste Heat Management and Utilization Conference, Miami Beach, l 41 Flonda, December 4-6,1978. 42 43 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).1997. Institute of Electrical and Electric Engineers, Inc., New 44 York. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-30 l
Op:rttion During ths R n walTerm 1 Oliver and Hudson 1987. Thermal and dissolved oxygen characteristics of a South Carolina cooling 2 rservoir. Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association,23(2): 257-269. 3 4 Olmsted, L.L. and W.D. Adair.1981. Protection of fish larvae at two southeastern power plants using 5 tkimmer walls. Resean:h Report PES /81-30. Duke Power Company, Huntersville, North Carolina. 6 7 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC).1997. Watershed Water 8 Quality Assessment, Savannah and Salkehatchie River Basins. Technical Report No 003-97, 9 SCDHEC, Columbia, South Carolina. 10 11 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR).1998. Letter from Robert E. Duncan 12 (SCDNR) to Ms. Jennifer Huff (Duke Power). 24 September 1998. 13 14 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC).1999. Letter from 15 R. Michael, Gandy, South Carolina. Department of Health and Environmental Control to U.S. Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
status of NPDES and land disposal permits for Oconee Nuclear 17 Station. Dated April 21,1999. 18 i 19 Tribert & Bright, Inc., and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc. 1996. Oconee County, South Carolina 20 1996 Land Use Plan. 21
- 22. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of 23 Oconee Nuclear Station units 1,2, and 3. March 1972. Washington, D.C.
24 25 U.S. Department of Cornmerce (DOC). 1991.1990 Census-Population and Housing; Public Law 26 94-171 Data, Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C. 27 28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1998a. Letter from R. L Banks (FWS, Charleston, South Carolina) to 29 J. Huff (Duke Power, Charlotte, North Carolina) dated April 17,1998. Letter provides a list of 9 species 30 in Oconee Pickens Counties. 31 32 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1998b. Letter dated August 4,1998 from the Acting Field Supervisor 33 for the Charlecton Field Office to Duke Power indicating that continued operation or refurbishment of 34 ths Oconee Nuclear Station will have no effect on listed or proposed endangered or threatened 35 species. 36 37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996a. Generic Environmentallmpact Statement for 38 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C. 39 40 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996b. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 41 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental issues, Attachment 4 to NRR Office 42 Letter No. 906, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. 43 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Operation During ths R:n:wal Term 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1998. Letter from NRC to Duke Energy Corporation. 2
Subject:
Request for Additional nformation for the Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station Unit Nos.1, 3 2, & 3 Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal- Environmental. D dad December 29, 4 1998. 5 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.1999. Memorandum from J. H. Wilson to B. Zaleman.
Subject:
7 Consultation Process for Oconee License Renewal. Dated May 17,1999. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4-32
1 5.0 Envircnm:nt:Iimp cta cf Psctultt;d Accidanta 2 3 4 Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents that might occur during the license renewal 5 t:rm were discussed in the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 6 Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). The GEIS included a determination of whether the analysis 7 of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures 8 would be warranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. 9 C:tegory 1 issues are those that the GEIS defines as having met all of the following criteria: 10 11 (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all l 12 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 13 plant or site characteristics 14 15 (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except 16 for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent 17 fuel) 18 1 19 (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it 20 has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be 21 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 22 23 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required 24 unless new and significant information is identified. l l25 26 Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, 27 cdditional plant-specific review for these issues is required. 28 29 This chapter addresses the postulated plant accidents in Section 5.1 and the Severe Accident 30 Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) analysis in Section 5.2. 31 32 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents 33 34 A Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, is applicable to ONS 35 po:tulated accidents and is listed in Table 5-1. Duke stated in its environmental report (ER) (Duke 36 1998a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the 37 Oconee operating licenses. No significant new information has been identified by the staff in the 38 r view process and in the staff's independent review. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 39 impacts related to this issue beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For this issue, the GEIS concluded 40 that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently 41 b:neficial to be warranted. l 5-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Environm:ntil Impicts 1 Table 5-1. Category 1 issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term 2 3 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 4 Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 5 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS J 6 Design-Basis Accidents 5.3.2; 5.5.1 7 8 9 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for the 10 issue follows. 11 ] 12 Desian-Basis Accidents: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: "The NRC staff {' 13 has concluded that the environmentalimpacts of design basis accidents are of small significance for all i 14 plants." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the 15 site visit, the scoping process, or in its independent evaluation of the available information. Therefore, 16 the staff concludes that there are no impacts of design-basis accidents beyond those discussed in the j 17 GEIS. 18 19 A Category 2 issue related to postulated accidents that is applicable to ONS is discussed in Table 5-2. 20 21 Severe Accidents: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found the following: 22 23 The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases fallout onto open bodies of 24 water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are 25 small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for 26 all plants that have not considered such alternatives. 27 28 Table 5-2. Category 2 issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the Renewal Term 29 30 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, 31 Subpart A, Appendix B, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(li) SEIS 32 Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Sections 33 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS j 34 35 Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; L 5.2 5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4; 5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2 36 l l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-2
l Environm:ntalimpacts 1 Th3 staff has not identified any significant new information with regard to the consequences from 1 2 severe accidents in its review of the Duke ER, the Duke Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Duke j 3 1998b), the site visit, the scoping process, or in its independent evaluation of the available information. 4 Th refore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in 5 ths GEIS. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed SAMAs for 6 ONS. The results of its review are discussed in Section 5.2. 7 8 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 9 10 in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), it is required that license renewal applicants provida a consideration of I 11 tit:rnatives to mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously considered SAMAs for the 12 applicant's plant in an EIS or related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The purpose of 13 this consideration is to ensure that plant design changes with the potential for improving severe 14 cccident safety performance are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously 15 considered for ONS, therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5.0 addresses those alternatives. 4 16 17 5s2.1 Introduction 18 l 19 Duke submitted an assessment of SAMAs for ONS as part of the Environmental Report ,(Duke 1998a). 20 This assessment was based on Revision 2 of the ONS Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Duke 1997a). 21 R: vision 2 constitutes a full-scope Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) with the analysis of 22 both internal and external events; the internal events analysis is an updated version of the Individual 23 Plant Examination (IPE) model (Duke 1990), whereas the external events analysis is the same as the 24 Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) model (Duke 1995). In identifying and 25 cviluating potential SAMAs, Duke took into consideration the insights and recommendations from 26 carlier risk studies as well as several more recent risk studies. Duke concluded that none of the , 27 candidate SAMAs evaluated were cost effective for ONS. ! 28 29 Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, NRC issued a request for additional information (RAI) to l 30 Duke by letter dated December 29,1998 (NRC 1998). Major issues concerned the process used by 31 th3 license renewal applicant to identify potential SAMAs, the implementation status of numerous l 32 enhancements identified in previous studies, and the inclusion of averted onsite costs (AOSC) in l 33 Duke's value impact analysis. Duke submitted additional information by letter dated March 4,1999 34 (Duke 1999) clarifying the SAMA identification process, the disposition of previously identified design 35 enhancements, and the impact of AOSC on the cost-benefit analysis. This response provided 36 cdditional clarification regarding the staff's concerns and reaffirmed that none of the SAMAs would be 37 cost-beneficial even when averted onsite costs are included. 38 39 Th3 staff's assessment of SAMAs for ONS is presented below. 5-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Envir:nm:ntil Impacts 1 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk for ONS 2 3 Duke's estimates of the offsite risk at ONS are summarized below. The summary is followed by the 4 staff's review of Duke's risk estimates. 5 6 5.2.2.1 Duke Risk Estimates 7 8 The ONS PRA model, which forms the basis for the SAMA analysis, is a Level 3 risk analysis., i.e., it 9 includes the treatment of core damage frequency, containment performance, and offsite conse-10 quences. The model, which Duke refers to as PRA, Revision 2, consists of an internal events portion, 11 based on an updated version of the IPE (Duke 1990) and an external events portion, based on the 12 current version of the IPEEE (Duke 1995). The calculated total core damage frequency for internal 13 and extemal events in Revision 2 is 8.9E-5 per year. 14 15 Since the ONS PRA is a "living" PRA, the original version of the IPE is being continuously updated to 16 reflect various design and procedural changes, such as those related to the improvements identified in 17 the IPE, to incorporate comments from the " peer review certification" and to reflect up-to-date opera-18 tional experience. A comparison of risk profiles between the original IPE PRA (which was reviewed by 19 the staff) and the current version (internal events portion of PRA, Revision 2) indicated that there are 20 no significant differences that could change the results of the SAMA analysis by impacting the 21 approach used to identify potential SAMAs or the assessed risk reductions. 22 23 Since the issuance of the ONS PRA, Revision 2, report, the total core damage frequency has been 24 recalculated. An IPEEE supplemental report (Duke 1997b) further evaluated the relay chatterissue 25 and updated the seismic core damage frequency (CDF) to be 3.5E-5 per year. A high pressure 26 injection (HPI) reliability study performed in response to an operational event (Duke 1997c) resulted in 27 an updated core damage frequency of 4.3E-5 per year for all events, excluding seismic. Thus, by 28 removing conservative assumptions related to the original seismic analysis and the HPl system, the net 29 effect of these two studies would be to reduce the total CDF for ONS to 7.8E-5 per year. Despite the 30 availability of these later studies, the results of the ONS PRA, Revision 2, were used as the basis for 31 the SAMA analysis since the later studies did not include Level 2 and Level 3 calculations and because 32 the net impact of the changes was a small decrease in CDF. 33 34 Since Duke's PRA is based on ONS Unit 3, the licensee perfonned an analysis to determine the 35 applicability of the PRA results to Units'1 and 2 and submitted the analysis as part of the IPE. This 36 analysis concluded that inter-unit differences do not have a significant impact on the PRA results. 37 Most mechanical and electrical systems of Units 1 and 2 are redundant and diverse from those of 38 Unit 3. Those systems and structures that are shared affect all three Units in a similar fashion during a 39 severe accident scenario. Because civil structures of Un:ts 1 and 2 are similar to those of Unit 3, 40 extemal events impact structures and components similarly for each Unit. Therefore, the results and 41 insights of the ONS PRA are applicable to all three units. 42 43 The Level 2 (also called containment performance) portion of the ONS PRA, Revision 2, model, includ-44 ing the plant damage state descriptors, the Containment Event Tree, and the source term binning and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-4 i
l Environm:ntal Impsis l 1 containment release categories, is essentially the same as the IPE Level 2 analysis. The offsite (or 2 Levil 3) consequence analyses were carried out using the NRC-developed Calculations of Reactor 3 Accident Consequences Version 2 (CRAC2) code, and site-specific data for meteorology, population, 4 and evacuation modeling. 5 6 Duke estimated the total CDF for internally- and externally-initiated events to be 8.9E-5 per year based 7 on Revision 2 of the ONS PRA. The breakdown of the CDF is provided in Table 5-3. External event 8 initiators represent about 71 percent of the total CDF and are dominated by seismic (44 percent of total 9 CDF) and tornado initiators (16 percent of total CDF). External flood and fire initiators together account 10 for cbout 11 percent of the total CDF. Intemal event initiators represent about 29 percent of the total 11 CDF and are dominated by internal flood (11 percent of total CDF), transient (9 percent of total CDF), 12 cnd loss of coolant accident initiators (8 percent of total CDF). Remaining contributors together 13 account for less than 2 percent of total CDF. 14 15 Table 5-3. ONS Core Damage Frequencies 16 17 initiating Event Frequency (per year) % of Total CDF (Int + Ext) 18 EXTERNAL INITIATORS 19 Seismic 3.9E 5 44 20 Tornado 1.4E-5 16 21 Extemal Flood 5.9E-6 6 22 Fire 4.5E-6 5 23 Total External 6.3E-5 71 24 INTERNAL INITIATORS 25 Intemal Flood 9.5E-6 11 26 Transients 8.2E-6 9 27 LOCAs* (sma 1, medium, large) 6.8E-6 8 28 RPV Rupture 1.0E-6 1 29 St:am Generator Tube Rupture 4.1 E-7 <1 30 ATWS 1.7E-7 <1 31 Interfacing systems LOCA 6.9E-9 <1 32 Total Internal 2.6E-5 29 33 Total CDF (Internal + External) 8.9E-5 100 34 'LOCA = loss of coolant accident. 5-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l
Environmt:ntal Impacts 1 Duke estimated the dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the ONS site from all 2 initiators (internal and external) to be 4.92 person-rem per year (Duke 1999). The breakdown of the 3 total population dose by containment end-state is sumrnarized in Table 5-4. Of the total risk from all 4 initiators, about 80 percent is due to external events. Interfacing system LOCA, containment isolation 5 failure, and late containment failure dominate external event risk (Column 3 of Table 5-4) and total risk 6 from all initiators (Column 4 of Table 5-4) with nearly equal contributions from each. Early containment 7 failure accounts for approximately 10 percent of the total risk from all initiators, with the majority of this 8 contribution coming from external events. Only about 20 percent of the total risk from all initiators is 9 due to internal events, with the majority of thic risk from late containment failure (Column 2 of 10 Tablo 5-4). All other internal event contributors combined account for less than 10 percent of the total 11 risk from allinitiators. 12 13 Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment End-State 14 (Total Dose = 4.92 person rem per year) 15
% of Total Dose % of Total Dose % of Total Dose 16 Containment End-State InternalInitiators External Initiators All initiators 17 Steam Generator Tube 2.7 <0.1 2.8 18 Rupture 19 Interfacing System LOCA 0.8 24.4 5.2 20 Containment isolation Failure 0.5 22.0 22.5 21 Early Containment Failure 3.7 6.5 10.2 22 Late Containment Failure 9.4 22.8 32.2 23 Basemat Melt Through 2.2 4.6 6.8 24 No Containment Failure <0.1 0.2 0.3 25 Total 19.3 80.7 100 26 27 28 5.2.2A Review of Duke's Risk Estimates 30 Duke's estimate of offsite risk at ONS is based on Revision 2 of the ONS PRA. For purposes of this f 31 review, the staff considereo the ONS study in terms of the following major elements: I 32 33 a the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the November 1990 IPE submittal (Duke 34 1990) 35 36 . the major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in Revision 2 of the PRA 37 (Duke 1997b) 38 Dratt NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-6
Environm:ntalImpacts 1
- the external event models that form the basis for the December 1995 IPEEE submittal (Duke 1995) 2 3 e the analyses performed to translate fission product release frequencies from the Level 2 PRA 4 model into offsite consequence measures.
5 6 Th3 staff reviewed each of these analyses to determine the acceptability of Duke's risk estimates for 7 the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 8 9 Tha staff's review of the ONS IPE is described in an evaluation report dated April 1,1993 (NRC 1993). 10 in that review, the staff evaluated the methodology, models, data, and assumptions used to estimate 11 CDF and characterize containment performance and fission product releases. The staff concluded that 12 Duke's analysis met the intent of Generic Letter 88-20 (NRC 1988); that is, the IPE was of adequate 13 qu;lity to be used to look for design or operational vulnerabilities. Although the staff reviewed certain 14 cspects of the IPE in more detail than others, the review primarily focused on the licensee's ability to 15 cxamine ONS for severe accident vulnerabilities and not specifically on the detailed findings or quanti-16 fication estimates. However, ONS's risk profile and important IPE findings compare well to those of 17 other B&W plants (NUREG-1560) (NRC 1997a) and any differences are well understood. Overall, the 18 stiff believes that the ONS PRA is of adequate quality to be used as a tool in searching for areas with 19 high potential for risk reduction and to assess such risk reductions, especially when the PRA models 20 tra used in conjunction with insights, such as those from risk importance, sensitivity, and uncertainty l 21 Enllyses. ' 22 23 Th3 staff's review of the applicant's IPEEE is currently under way. The preliminary results did not 24 id:ntify any significant shortcomings or deficiencies. A limited review of the Duke submittal finds that 25 tha overall method, scope, and level of detail are generally comprehensive. The staff also notes that i 26 ths Duke IPEEE has been subjected to both internal and external peer reviews. Based on these 27 findings, the staff concludes that the extemal events portion of the ONS PRA provides an acceptable 28 platform for identifying potential SAMAs and for assessing risk reductions. 29 30 Th3 staff reviewed the process used by Duke to extend the containment performance (Level 2) portion 31 of the IPE to the offsite consequence (Level 3) assessment. This included consideration of the source 32 t:rms used to characterize fission product releases for each containment release category and the j 33 m:Jor input assumptions used in the offsite consequence analyses. This information is provided in 34 S:ction 6.3 of Duke's IPE submittal. Duke used the Modular Accident Analysis Program code to 35 analyze postulated accidents and develop radiological source terms for each of 35 containment release 36 cat:gories used to represent the containment end-states identified in Table 5-4. These source terms 37 wers incorporated as input to the CRAC2 analysis. The staff reviewed Duke's source term estimates 38 for the major release categories and found these predictions to be in reasonable agreement with 39 cstimates of NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990a) for the closest corresponding release scenarios. The staff 40 concludes that the assignment of source terms is acceptable. 41 42 Tha CRAC2 code has been superceded by the Melcor Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS), 43 which, among other advancements, incorporates more recent models for calculating health effects 44 (e.g., latent cancers). Although MACCS represents a significant improvement over CRAC2, both 5-7 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplernent 2
Environm:nt:1 Impacts 1 codes use a straight line Gaussian plume dispersion and transport model and, for the same input 2 cssumptions, provide comparable estimates of population dose (person-rem). Thus, the CRAC2 code 3 is considered acceptable for purposes of estimating population dose for a severe accident. 4 5 The CRAC2 input in PRA, Revision 2, used site-specific meteorological data processed from meas-6 urements taken during the mid-1970s. To assess the impact that data from two different time periods 7 may have on offsite dose, Duke obtained more recent data from the ONS site for the period January 1, 8 1997, through December 31,1997. Re-analysis of the Level 3 portion of the PRA using the 1997 l 9 meteorological data (Duke 1999) shows that the risk results are only slightly impacted (reduced by 10 cbout 2 percent). The staff therefore considers the meteorological data in PRA, Revision 2, to be i I 11 representative of the climate for the site. 12 13 The population distribution used in Revision 2 of the PRA is based on 1990 cer. sus data. The impact 14 of population increases was not included in Revision 2 since the purpose of the PRA was to under-15 stand the risk associated with current operation of the plant. Based on information contained in 16 NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ONS site is projected 17 to increase by about 33 percent between the years 1990 and 2030. Since the population dose is 18 roughly proportional to the total population, use of the increased population value would result in an 19 increase in the total risk from allinitiators of approximately 1.6 person-rem per year. This increase is 20 smallin absolute terms and does not have a significant impact on the conclusions of the SAMA 21 analysis, as discussed later. 22 23 Evacuation modeling is based on site-specific evacuation studies carried out by Duke. It was assumed 24 that only 95 percent of the people within the emergency planning zone (determined by the plume 25 exposure pathway) would participate in the evacuation. The remaining 5 percent would delay 26 evacuation for 24 hours. This assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990a) 27 study, which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency planning 28 zone. 29 30 Site-specific economic data were used in the CRAC2 code. However, as discussed later, the applicant 31 based their assessment of offsite costs on generic cost estimates rather than CRAC2 code 32 calculations. 33 34 The staff concludes that the methodology used by Duke to estimate the CDF and offsite consequences 35 for ONS provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an assessment of risk reduction ) 36 potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF ) 37 and offsite doses reported by Duke. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-8
Environm:ntalImp; cts 1 5 2,3 Potential Design improvements 2 3 The process for identifying potential design improvements, the staff's evaluation of this process, and 4 the design improvements evaluated in detail by Duke are discussed in this section. 5 6 5.2.3.1 Process for identifying Potential Design improvements f 7 8 Duke's process for identifying potential plant improvements consisted of the following three elements, 9 10 e the core damage cutsets from Revision 2 of the ONS PRA were reviewed to identify potential 11 SAMAs that could reduce CDF 12 13 - the Fussell-Vesely (F-V) importance measures were evaluated for the basic events (including, 14 initiating events, random failure events, human error events, and maintenance / testing
- 15 unavailabilities), and the importance ranking was examined to identify any events of significant F-V 16 importance 17 18 e potential enhancements to re.$.sce containment failure modes of concem for ONS (including early 19 containment failure, containment isolation failure, and containment bypass), were reviewed for 20 possible implementation.
21 22 This included a review of recommendations from the ONS IPE and IPEEE (those that had not been 23 implemented), results of otner plant-specific SAMA analyses, and insights from the staff's report on the 24 individual plant examination (NRC 1997a) for possible inclusion of these concepts as additional 25 SAMAs. 26 27 As a starting point for the core damage cutset review, Duke developed a listing of the top 100 cutsets 28 (severe accident sequences) based on intemal initiators and the top 100 cutsets for extemal initiators. 29 Th so 200 sequences include all potential core damage sequences with at least a 0.06 percent contri- 1 30 bution to the total CDF. Duke reviewed the cutsets to identify potential SAMAs that could reduce CDF. 31 Cutoff values of 4.5E-7 per year and 8.5E-7 per year were used to screen internal and external events, 32 r:spectively. To account for the cumulative effect of cutsets below these cutc't values, the basic 33 cy:nts importance measure was also used to identify potential enhancements, as discussed below. 34 35 For each seismic initiator cutset, Duke calculated the associated offsite risk based on the person-rem l 36 risk and CDF for the plant damage states (PDSs) attributable to the seismic initiator. Duke conserva-37 tiv:ly assumed that the implementation of plant enhancements for seismic events would completely 38 climinate the seismic risk and calculated the present worth of the averted risk based on a $2000 per 39 person-rem conversion factor, a discount factor of 7 percent, and a 20-year license renewal period. 40 This process was repeated for each of the remaining seismic initiator cutsets above the tutoff 41 frequency. The present worth of averted risk for all of the seismic cutsets combined was estimated to 42 be cbout $51,000. Duke cited sensitivity studies performed previously as part of the IPEEE analysis, 43 which show that most of the seismic upgrades to plant components would result in only a small reduc-44 tion in CDF (less than SE-6 per year). On the basis of the smail risk reduction achievable and the large 5-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Environm:ntal Impicts 1 costs associated with substantial seismic upgrados, Duke eliminated seismic SAMAs from further , 2 consideration. 3 4 Duke reviewed the F-V Basic Event importance Ranking presented in the ONS PRA, Revision 2, report 5 and identified the top 30 basic events for further consideration. These included seismic-related events, 6 initiating events, equipment failures, and human error events. Seismic-related events were not ; 7 evaluated further for reasons discussed above. Duke judged that all but one of the initiating events, 8 such as tornado, dam failure, and fire events, could not be significantly impacted by SAMAs and that 9 the remaining initiator (reactor trip initiator) is adequately addressed by their cunent ORAM-SENTINEL 10 configuration management system. Based on a review of the remainder, Duke identified nine events / 11 sequences and a potential plant enhancement to address each event. The list of the potential 12 enhancements to reduce CDF are presented in Table 5-5. 13 14 Duke also considered potential alternatives to reduce containment failure modes of concern for ONS. 15 These alternatives included nine containment-related improvements evaluated as part of the staff's 16 assessment of Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives for Watts Bar (NRC 1995a) and five 17 containment-related improvements derived from the staff's report on the individual plant examination 18 program (NRC 1997a). Duke eliminated those alternatives that are either (1) not applicable to ONS 19 (e.g., containment air return fans used only in ice condenser containments), (2) related to control of 20 hydrogen combustion (since the Level 2 PRA shows the ONS containment is capable of withstanding 21 large hydrogen burns), or (3) already implemented at ONS, e.g., by inclusion either in emergency 22 operating procedures, severe accident management guidelines, or the operator training program. 23 Based on the screening, Duke designated seven of the containment related SAMAs for further study. 24 The list of the potential enhancements to improve containment performance is presented in Table 5-6. 25 26 5.2.3.2 Staff Evaluation 27 28 Duke's effort to identify potential SAMAs focused on areas found to be risk-significant in the ONS PRA. 29 The list of SAMAs generally coincide with accident categories that are dominant CDF contributors or 30 with issues that tend to have a large impact on a number of accident sequences at ONS. Duke made 31 a reasonable effort to use the ONS PRA to search for potential SAMAs and to review insights from ! 32 other plant-specific risk studies and previous SAMA analyses for potential applicability to ONS. The ! 33 staff notes that Duke identified a number of recommendations for reducing risk as a result of the ONS 34 IPE and IPEEE, and that many of these plant improvements have been implemented or are planned 35 and being tracked for resolution (Duke 1998c, and Duke 1999). For those recommendations that were 36 not implemented, Duke provided justification as to why these improvements are not warranted. l i Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-10
m@ Toy @i_ E $Es t n f e t ome M M M M K 0 M M M M s c 1 5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 on $
> 5 $
Cah $ > > > n _ e g E a m - a t nh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D et r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e se o 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 PrW r 4 9 0 7 3 2 2 3 7 o 7 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 6 3 C 1 1 1 t n - e n v o e r i t c
"mo 6 0 7 3 6 1 1 3 1 P u R- 4 0 8 4 1 8 8 6 0 t d 1 1 a e P ht R
t s n "F A e c 1 4 5 3 9 0 0 6 1 M r e D 2 1 6 3 2 6 6 4 1 A P C S l a i c m er e n fi n u d le i r e h s s e o t sl o lt ik t h kn e le n d it ya i r el fo f u ui s rr wna it r s s e e s a sf t n ea 5t wta u s e
- or r t B- s ag e rb s v wn ad Cg Ae Ae t
e e Me p t Crg e r t r n e Ci r dd i s h o r r p o s lo Ou Ou t d p Rf g ei l o t c o d A e t ab u t mf L sr Laesr hg a e C s g a F n Sid v een I P Do ao ae t ep ep ih s r e ly e Sil lei H f sp sp eA l r m n u b p e5 uu uu t aC h a u a ig b l a e ad ad t it l i e d e i r l f u w sg sn cn a c an iit O f o n F t a lan et r g s ad i t a r t a r inL e t e / s h ob i on od o c o e h e h e o nr g lu r _ o e t T t r ua m t i r t J ec s w sw e t t t _ P c sS e et r eu r elo ex e o keo r u i ia _ luhit De lud r f f _ r n iws k lu a h e k p p lud s o e r k iag ir l i ia n u _ f u q t sd iawes iana f f f ri n f t oels s a s a fr tio t l t r l l o e s e on r s r t f ot na s o e oru s v e dofo do o o la n l t u s S d a a m m t a vo r e ec t ag r er a t ad r el r ludo mu a er aeau mu r t r c ei r t a n o p eJ po el o po pc o R e oo Tr Oionf Ot s Op iao Ff l Tf oi l a oi Tfa l Ore S p t r c e a a p l li l r e g s e h ig e y _ o d f e ir r u o / _ m e e u r h mk. _ d r f a s d o en na n a o* i
- t n b r t a
e omo ia t e e m n r e nt o y . _ d p n t t o ei pu .en r u mPl i t at t p o p o gl t s lo it s lc t r e dn a t s eH r o f u ibr t y c e l e r a icend er ak oic c V n a h it yo t F d n us i j n s ptof ai a2 r nmc s ea t sf I S t n s r. et ps w P u i e pk S o ine v w 5- h y un H r r t n m e9 eo t jnn t d lania A t t a k at e a o e 5 M ew si d c f o ht r ai e4 r r u
/y 4 at t el o 5 =edwuoruo f
e A wo a b g ae p a f o ir e gF p a n s s h o l b S d nm t s r cr a w t r a h cd it n wi o e E 9 s oteyr scsf sc u 8 d ab or eo r a aT o io t at s h g b wta sa t p T mr s c d c ps s l ts S e ss icuc t
= seora n r
h ie aW 4 oe it a h it v 0t h t ar t o c Fib t ah o egl e c 6i mc i eB 2 t ua t m e w a Df =ts r i = nd en "F aw o ht t o 1 4 ot o er e r f cot = =h A laaS FM=C t t h a r nd eg u e r e ue e l t gs S o a a s a p d g ar u c ooWSCPO t t l s Sta l t n l l a n ll a nmd e n re la vlai lalo e r la ks r i gl d a s s lp TTBSRHL r on se o t t t t a p s o c n s n piu s e e ) ) ) ) ) ) Ub i p Rn t n p r ) Sroiw Mo inleco I I Ina t ab cd ef g ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 2 3 456 789 01 2 34 5 67 89 01 2 3456789 01 11 1 11 1 11 11 22 2 2222222 33
?1 ~ oBgE$a8"- @{e@?. m
m3io3$s 5yaS l; t n e f ome M MM M M M M e t s c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c on $ n a Cah n mr E f o r e t P nh et 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t n ser or 2, 2, 0 3, 0 1, 3, 3, 0 3, e P W 6 6 7 3 4 7 7 m 4 4 2 1 n ia t n n N o o 7 7 2 8 9 7 7 C it c m o 3 3 5 2 0 6 6 e u R- 4 4 2 1 v d P o r e p R t m n I e M t cr F A A A A A A A a e D N N N N N N N ht P C s A e M r u A s s n d S d e i s e l e r en e c e e a s re p b io r uh t t s r-u s dig e e ic e e u r e dt c l e inh r c r c v s lue iacn i f r s v n n n e d o re o ot f ndi ce s se oc n d ee o e A mp m d buqu a ec - c-o - o hicd gr un e e B- s e f r r e fr e t r s e nl e o r r o t s r u e r v o e h v wor ot itaf qia u c c r ae em eh ee t l o l i lu m lu
- p r t o t o
C a iaae ia Ai sm b s ly F/ s f t t f t Ch n e nt ul e deu er t t d e u ns n go er m c mtom l e er e Og u e e ia t c n mo m L o ar e nae r r lu r r u n e ner in mhr s eu iaeo ias lasn i e u ia u a et s n nc t n e ssoee t f f q t t o o t o e nt n t sdi t t P S ora o yeli it d er e cgr u ai mc t ai mc t cep c s t ab r- ga cp cms t e ar e ar r e e uh eas s s e at e o eipit d ig irt eer a m t t e L a t a at f s Lt Inmc Inh Ds p Bi n Bi n lt r. u a s e y e / e r R t o m u y m r m e t p t c a e s e e r
- .ur a
r p t s y s a t a t s m e nn oee t p s s p w y t t y d s s sdb m n t n y r i u i e n e b e e o s . ectpc r e m n v t n e f f it a g n e r a2 ao t u ia t n m o iz i icv e 9. tna la A t e n e r d o / y4 a r e M n u e 5- = lon V A o c m n ia t cru "R s s lo f d Ee cgoe S ia n oT e y n 9 s 6.- t n t o c sG r p it o o oma f n v 8 d e n S it o t e a n s 5 d n c lan no ed d c e = ese e e p d ioi d e n uc o r r o t e r Fi slots Df f t e == t l b e it a t t e r e t pd c c e Co a d d n da e ei n a a r o l AR T ins lt i d ne e r e r c laaCT ooOG f t t l m l l m l l l la te la lar u i c la la la TTLS t s s t s t t ss d u s t t s t d d s ) ) ) ) Iny s I n Inn i Ar e n I I n I n ab cd ( ( ( ( 1g 3 45 6 78 90 1 2 3 45678 1 1 1 1 1111 1 oB:: zC3?.$.
. ?u" gh 9g lIl(l lll!l ll!
l EnvironmtntalImpacts 1 The staff reviewed the set of potential enhancements considered in Duke's SAMA identification 2 ~ process. These include improvements oriented toward reducing the CDF and risk from major 3 contributors specific to ONS, improvements identified as part of the NRC containment performance 4 . improvement program, accident management strategies identified by NRC in Generic Letter 88-20, j 5 Supplement 2 (NRC 1990b), and improvements identified in the previous severe accident mitigation 6 design attemative review for Watts Bar (NRC 1995a) that would be applicable to ONS. The SAMAs 7 : tiso include a filtered containment vent and a flooded rubble bed core retention device, which are cited j 8 specifically in NUREG-0660 (NRC 1980) for evaluation as part of Three Mile Island Task Action Plan j 9 ItIm II.B.8. 10 11 The staff notes that most of the SAMAs involve major modifications and significant costs and that less 12 expensive design improvements and procedure changes could conceivably provide similar levels of 13 rl:k reduction. However, lower cost improvements are not expected to offer significant risk reduction, 14 givzn that extemal events account for the majority (80 percent) of the risk. Much of this risk is due to I 15 ' postulated earthquakes with ground accelerations significantly greater than the ONS design-basis 16 - earthquake. As such, SAMAs that would significantly reduce overall risk would involve substantial 17 upgrades in the seismic ruggedness of the plant and would be very costly. 18 19 it should be noted that Duke has been a pioneer in the development and use of PRA methods to gain 20 . inlights regarding severe accidents at ONS. Risk insights from various ONS risk assessments, such 21 as the ONS IPE, the ONS iPEEE, the Keowee PRA, and ONS HPl reliability study, have been 22 identified and implemented to improve both the oesign and operation of the plant. For example, using 23 ti, i IPE process, Duke identified and implemented modifications to procedures to (1) isolate the high ' 24 prLssure service water (HPSW) to the component cooling water (CCW) pumps during a turbine 25 building flooding event to extend the time the elevated water storage tank (EWST) inventory would last, 26 (2) power the standby shutdown facility (SSF) from the Unit 2 main feeder bus, (3) terminate contain- > 27 mint sprays to conserve the borated water storage tank (BWST) inventory to enhance long-term HPl ; 28 cooling following a flooding event in the turbine building, and (4) cope with common cause failure of i 29 both HPl suction valves. Examples of plant improvements that resulted from IPEEE findings and 30 whose implementation is being planned by Duke are (1) the mounting of the combustible storage
!31 locker rear the SSF dieses to prevent combustible materials from being spilled around the diesel during L32 a seismic event or knocked over by personnel, and (2) the replacement of the deluge (open head) 33 sprinklers in the Cable and Equipment Rooms with closed head sprinklers to reduce water damage to 34 equipment important to safety during a fire. The implementation of such improvements reduced the
- 35. risk associated with the major contributors identified by the ONS PRA and contributed to the reduced j 36 number of candidate SAMAs identified as part of Duke's application for license renewal.
37 38 The staff concludes that Duke has used a systematic process for identifying potential design improve-39 m:nts for ONS and that the set of potential design improvements identified by Duke is reasonably
- 40 . comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable.
5-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Environm:ntil Impicts 1 5.2.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Design improvements 2 3 The process used by Duke to determine the risk reduction potential for each enhancement is described 4 in Section 4.3 of the ER. 5 6 For each seismic initiator cutset, Duke calculated the associated offsite risk based on the person-rem 7 risk and CDF for the PDSs attributable to the seismic initiator. Imp'ementation of the plant enhance-8 ment was assumed to completely eliminate the seismic risk associated with the cutset. For each (non-9 seismic) sequence / enhancement, Duke assigned a PDS based on the type of plant damage and 10 potential containment release characteristics. In general, where an alternative impacted more than one 11 PDS, Duke used the PDS with the highest conditional person-rem risk to characterize the associated 12 risk and assumed that implementation of the alternative would completely eliminate the risk. For each 13 containment-related improvement, Duke assumed that all of the person-rem risk associated with the 14 release categories impacted by the SAMA would be eliminated. For those altematives that benefit 15 more than one containment failure mode (i.e., independent containment spray system, reactor depres-16 surization system, and filtered containment vent), the total person-rem dose for all affected failure 17 modes was assumed to be completely eliminated by implementing the alternative. 18 19 The staff notes that Duke evaluated the risk reduction potential for each SAMA in a bounding fashion, 20 1.e., each SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate all sequences that the specific enhancement 21 was intended to address. As a result, the benefits are generally over-estimated and conservative. 22 Accordingly, the staff based its estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on Duke's risk 23 reduction estimates. 24 25 5.2.5 Cost impacts of Candidate Design improvements 26 27 Duke's estimated costs for each potential design enhancement are provided in Tables 4-2 and 5-1 of 28 Attachment K to the ER. For most of the SAMAs, Duke estimated the cost of implementation to be 29 greater than $1 million based on cost estimates developed in previous industry studies. For three 30 SAMAs, Duke developed plant-specific cost estimates because there was no readily available 31 information on the estimated cost to implement similar alternatives and because the basic events 32 associated with these alternatives were found to have a high importance in the ONS PRA. These 33 SAMAs involve (1) increasing the height of the SSF flood barrier, (2) manning the SSF 24 hours a day 34 with trained operators, and (3) installing a protective barrier for the upper surge tanks or upgrading the 35 4160 volt switchgear to withstand tornado winds. The costs to implement these SAMAs were 36 estimated to be on the order of $500,000, $5 million, and $1 million, respectively. Because the safety 37 benefits of the potential SAMAs were significantly less than their estimated implementation costs (by 38 about a factor of five), none of the cost estimates were further refined. 39 40 The staff compared Duke's cost estimates with estimates developed elsewhere for similar improve-41 ments, including estimates developed as part of the evaluation of were accident mitigation design Draft !JUREG-1437. Supplement 2 5-14 t
EnvironmentalImpacts 1 citirnatives for operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The staff notes that Duke's 2 ' estimated implementation costs of $1 million dollars or greater are consistent with the values reported 3 in previous analyses for changes of similar scope and are not unreasonable for the SAMAs under 4 consideration, given that these enhancements involve major hardware changes and impact safety-5 related systems. 6 j 7 Although the applicant did not provide the underlying bases for its cost estimates, the staff views their ! 8 cost estimates as reasonable for evaluating the SAMAs because the estimates are consistent with 9 those developed by others and because the spread between the estimated costs and benefits is
.10 significant. Accordingly, the staff adopted Duke's cost estimates for the various candidate I11 -improvements.
L12 1 3 . 512,6 Cost-Benefit Comparison
.14 15 Th3 cost-benefit comparison as evaluated by Duke and the staff's evaluation of the cost-benefit
- 16 Enalysis are described in the following sections.
.17 18 5.2.6.1 Duke Evaluation L19 i
20 in the analysis provided in the ER, Duke did not include several factors in its cost-benefit evaluation, l 21 specifically, the averted onsite cleanup and decontamination cost, replacement power cost, and
'22 Ev:rted offsite property damage cost. In view of the significant impact of these averted costs on the 23 - cstimated benefit for a SAMA, the staff requested that Duke include these factors in their cost-benefit 24 cnalysis for each affected SAMA. In their response to the request for additional information, Duke 25 updated the benefit estimates to include these factors for all SAMAs that reduce CDF. The method- '26 ology used by Duke was based primarily on NRC's guidance for performing cost-benefit analysis, i.e.,
27 NUREGlBR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b), and 28 NUREGIBR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 29 1995b). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA according to the following 30 formula: l31 32 Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE 33 34 where APE = present value of averted public exposure ($) 35 AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($) 36 AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure ($) 37 AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($) i 38 COE = cost of enhancement ($) 39 40 if ths net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the benef;t
- 41 associated with the SAMA and is not considered beneficial. Duke's derivation of each of the associ-42 ated costs is summarized below.
.43. 5-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
- Environm:nt .1 Imp: cts 1 ' Averted Public Exoosure (APE) 2 3 Averted public exposure costs were calculated using the following formula:
4
'5 APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (6 person-rem / reactor-year) 6 x monetary equivalent of unit dose i 7 x present value conversion factor j l
8-9 Duke estimated the annual reduction in public exposure for each SAMA as discussed previously. The 10 reduction in public exposure (person-rem per year) was converted to a monetary equivalent by apply-11 - ing NRC's conversion factor of $2000 per person-rem and then discounting the monetary equivalent to 12 present value.~ A 20-year period for the license renewal period and a 7 percent real discount rate was 13 cssumed, resulting in a present value conversion factor of 10.76. 14 15 . As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of the 16 public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public health risk due 17 : to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential losses extending over the 18 remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. Thus, it reflects the expected annual
- 19 loss due to a' single accident, the possibility that such an accident could occur at any time over the 20 renewal period, and the effect of discounting these potential future losses to present value.
21 22 Averted Offsite Prooerty Damaae Costs (AOC) 23 24 Averted offsite property damage costs were calculated using the following formula: 25 ' 26 AOC = Annual CDF reduction 27 x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per event basis) 28 x present value conversion factor 29 30 Duke determined the offsite economic costs for a severe accident based on the weighted costs for
. 31 offsite property damage for the five NUREG-1150 plants (reported in Table 5.6 of NUREG/BR-0184).
32 - These costs were inflated to year 2000 dollars based on a 4 percent inflation rate, yielding a value of 33 $364 million. Calculated values for offsite economic costs were discounted to present value in the 34 same manner as for avened public exposure. 35 36 ' Averted Occuoational Exposure (AOE) l 37 l 38 Averted occupational exposure was calculated using the following formula: 39 40 AOE = Annual CDF reduction ! 41- < x occupational exposure per core-damage event l 42- x present value conversion factor
.43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-16 m__
Environment:1 Imp: cts 1 Duke derived the values for averted occupational exposure based on information provided in 2 Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 199/b). Best estimate values provided for 3 immediate occupational dose (3,300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose (20,000 person-4 r:m over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these doses was calculated using { 5 equations provided in the handbook, in conjunction with a monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 ' 6 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent, and a time period of 20 years to represent the 7 license renewal period. 8 9 Averted Onsite Costs (AOSC) 10 11 AOSC includes averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted power replacement costs. 12 Duke derived the values for AOSC based on information provided in Section 5./.6 of the regulatory 13 cnalysis handbook (NRC 1997b). 14 15 Averted cleanup costs are calculated using the following formula: 16 17 ACC = Annual CDF reduction 18 x present value of cleanup costs per core-damage event 19 x present value conversion factor 20 21 The net present value for cleanup and decontamination of a severe accident (discounted over 22 10 years) is given as $1.1 billion in the handbook (NRC 1997b). Use of a discount factor of 10.76 to 23 cccount for the 20-year license renewal period yields an integrated cleanup cost of $12 billion. This 24 vilue was multiplied by the annual reduction in core damage frequency to obtain the averted cleanup 25 costs portion of the AOSC. 26 27 Long-term replacement power costs (Ung) are calculated as 28 29 Unp = Annual CDF reduction 30 x present value of replacement power for a single event 31 x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is required 32 33 in recordance with guidance provided in Section 5.7.6.2 of the handbook (NRC 1997b), Duke esti-34 mited the net present value of replacement power for a single event to be $1.23 billion, based on a 35 r: placement power cost for each ONS unit of $152 million (year 2000 dollars), a real discount rate of 36 7 percent, and a 20-year license renewal period. This value was multiplied by a factor of 8.1 to obtain 37 e summation of the single-event costs over the entire license renewal period, yielding a replacement 38 power cost of $10.0 billion. This value was multiplied by the annual reduction in core damage fre-39 quency to obtain the averted replacement costs portion of the AOSC. 40 5-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Environm:ntal impacts 1 The value-impact results for the 16 SAMAs are presented in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. All of the SAMAs 2 have a negative net value even when bounding risk reduction benefits are assumed and AOSC is I 3 included. Duke concluded that implementation of SAMAs is not justified since the cost of implementa-4 tion far exceeds the benefit of these SAMAs. As such, Duke has decided not to pursue any of these 5 SAMAs further. 6 7 5.2.6.2 Staff Evaluation 8 9 The updated cost-benefit analysis provided by Duke (Duke 1999) was based primarily on NRC's 10 Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b). The only noted deviation from the 11 regulatory guidance was the omission of the averted offsite property damage cost component for those 12 SAMAs that impact only containment performance. (A reduction in offsite consequences results in 13 both averted public exposure and averted offsite property damage. Duke appropriately considered 14 averted offsite property damage costs for the SAMAs that prevent core damage, but failed to include 15 these averted costs for the SAMAs that improve containment performance.) The staff has evaluated 16 the aver 1ed offsite property damage cost component for these SAMAs and found it to be small (less 17 than $100,000 for the most effective mitigative SAMA identified) and well below the cost of the 18 enhancements. Thus, the total present worth benefit for any of the containment-related SAMAs would 19 be less than $150,000. 20 21 The staff conclude a that the cost of implementing any of the 16 SAMAs would far exceed the estimated 22 benefit, with a margin of about a factor of five. Based on its review, the staff notes the following: 23 24 . Averted onsite costs are the single most important factor in the cost-benefit analysis. However, no 25 SAMAs are cost-beneficial when these costs are included in the analysis in accordance with NRC's 26 regulatory analysis guidance. 27 28 Use of a 3 percent discount rate in place of the 7 percent discount rate used in the base case 29 analysis increases net values, but does not lead to identification of any cost-beneficial SAMAs. 30 31 . The effect of implementing the SAMA in the near term rather than delaying implementation until the j 32 start of the license renewal period (i.e., use of a 35-year rather than a 20-year period in the value 33 impact analysis) is bounded by the sensitivity study which assumed a 3 percent discount rate, and 34 does not lead to identification of any cost-beneficial SAMAs. 35 36 5.2.7 Conclusions 37 38 Duke completed a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate potential cost-beneficial plant i i 39 enhancements to reduce the risk associated with severe accidents at ONS. As a result of this assess-40 ment, Duke concluded that no additional mitigation alternatives are cost-beneficial and warrant imple-41 mentation at ONS. 42 43 Based on its review of SAMAs for ONS, the staff concurs that none of the candidate SAMAs are cost 44 beneficial. This conclusion is consistent with the low residual level of risk indicated in the ONS PRA Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-18
Environmsnt:1Impicts 1 cnd the fact that Duke has already implemented many plant improvements identified from previous 2 plant-specific risk studies. Both the conditional probability of an early release of fission products and 3 the total offsite risk at ONS are .quite small (less than 4 percent and 5 person-rem per year, respec- , 4 tiv:ly). Extemal events account for the majority (80 percent) of the risk, with much of this from 5 postulated earthquakes with ground accelerations significantly greater than the ONS design-basis 6 GItthquake. Because of the low level of residual risk and the large cost of containment-related i 7 - enhancements, cost-beneficial enhancements that can significantly reduce risk are unlikely. The 8 mirgins in the analysis are considered ample to cover uncertainties in risk and cost estimates given 9 that, in general, estimates for these factors were conservatively evaluated. 10 11 5.3 References 12 13 10 CFR 51.53, "Postconstruction environmental reports." 14
-15 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, " Environmental effect of renewing the operating license 16 of a nuclear power plant."
17 18 Duke Energy Corporation.1990. Letter from Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation.
Subject:
19 Transmitting Individual Plant Examination. Dated November 30,1990. 20 21 Duke Energy Corporation.1995. Letter from Hampton, Duke Energy Corporation.
Subject:
22 Transmitting Individual Plant Examination for External Events. Dated December 28,1995. 23 24 Duke Energy Corporation.1997a. Letter from Hampton, Duke Energy Corporation.
Subject:
25 Tr:nsmitting Oconee Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Dated February 13,1997. 26 27 Duke Energy Corporeton.1997b. Letter from McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation.
Subject:
28 . Transmitting Oconee Supplemental Individual Plant Examination for Extemal Events Submittal Report. 29 - Dated December.18,1997. 30 - 31 Duke Energy Corporation.1997c. Letter from McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation.
Subject:
32 Transmitting High Pressure injection Reliability Study. Dated December 18,1997. 33 ' 34' Duke Energy Corporation.1998a. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses, Oconee Nuclear 35 Station-Units 1,2, and 3. Volume IV-Environmental Report. 36 37 Duke Energy Corporation.1998b. Final Safety Analysis Report (Oconee Updated FSAR). Charlotte, 38 North Carolina. 39L
'40 Duke Energy Corporation.1998c. Letter from McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation,
Subject:
SOUG 41 R: solution of USl A-46 (Generic Letter 87-02) Expected Completion of SOUG Outliers. Oconee 42 Supplemental IPEEE Submittal Report. Dated June 30,1998. 43 5-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplernent 2 L
Environm:ntil Impicts 1 Duke Energy Corporation.1999. Letter from M. S. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation to U.S. 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
License Renewal- Response to Requests for Additional 3 Information, Oconee Nuclear Station. Dated March 4,1999. 4 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1980. NRC Action Plan Developed As a Result of TM/-2 6 ' Accident. NUREG-0660. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 7 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1988. Generic Letter 88-20, " Individual Plant 9 Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities." November 23,1988. 10 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1990a. Severe Accident Risks.- An Assessment for Five 12 U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 13 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1990b. Letter from J. G. Partlow, U.S. NRC, to All 15 Holders of Operating Licenses and Construction Permits for Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities. April 4, 16 1990.
Subject:
Accident Management Strategies for Consideration in the Individual Plant Examination 17 Process - Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement No. 2. 18 19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1993. Weins (NRC) letter dated 4/1/93 transmitting 20 Evaluation of the Oconee 1,2,and 3 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) - Internal Events 21 1 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1995a. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 23 Operation of Watts Mr Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement 1. U.S. Nuclear 24 - Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 1 25 l 26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1995b. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. 27 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 28 Commission, Washington, D.C. 29 30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmental /mpact Statement for 31 License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 32 Commission, Washington, D.C. 33 34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program: 35 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 36 Commission, Washington, D.C. 37 38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 39 Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 40 41 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1998. Letter from NRC to Duke Energy Corporation. 42
Subject:
Request for Additional information for the Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station Unit Nos.1, 43 2 & 3 Environmental Report Associated with License Renewal- Environmental. Dated December 29, 44 1998. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 5-20 D
1 i 6.0 Imp cta frcm th3 Urcnium Fu;l Cycla cnd Sslid 2 Waste Management 3 4 l 5 Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management were 6 discussed in the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 7 (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). The GEIS included n 4 termination of whether the analysis of the 8 environmental issue could be applied to ali plants and whether additional mitigation measures would ba 9 w:rranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. Category 1 issues 10 era those that the GEIS defines as having met all of the following criteria: 11 12 (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 13 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 14 plant or site characteristics 15 16 (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except 17 for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent 18 fuel disposal) 19 20 (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it ; 21 has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be 1 22 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 23 24 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required 25 unless new and significant information is identified. 26 27 Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, 28 cdditional plant-specific review for these issues is required. 29 30 This chapter addresses those issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 31 m:nagement during the license renewal term that are listed in Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 32 10 CFR Part 51 that are applicable to ONS. The generic potentialimpacts of the radiological and non-33 r:diological environmentalimpacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and 34 w:stes are described in detail in the GEIS based on the generic impacts provided in 10 CFR Part 51, 35 Tcble S-3," Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," and Table S-4," Environmental impact 36 of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." 37 Th3 GEIS also addresses the impacts from radon and technetium. With the exception of 38 transportation of high-level waste, all aspects of the impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid 39 w;ste management are Category 1 issues. 40 41 6,1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle i 42 43 C:tegory 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to ONS 44 from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1. Duke stated in its ER l 45 l I i 6-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
imp 0 cts 1 Table 6-1. Category 1 lssues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle 2 and Solid Waste Management During the Renewal Term 3 4 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 5 URAfeUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 6 Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than 3.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 7 the disposal of spent fuel and high level waste) 6.2.4; 6.6 8 Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4 9 Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4 : 10 disposal) 11 Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 6.2.2.9; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6 12 Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1; 6.2.2.2;6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1; 6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 6.4.4.2; 6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5; 6.4.4.5.1; 6.4.4.5.2; 6.4.4.5.3; 6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6 13 Mixed waste storage and disposal 6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4; 6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2; 6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4 14 Onsite spent fuel 6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2; 6.4.6.3; 6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6 15 Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6 16 17 .18 (Duke 1998) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of 19 the Oconee operating licenses. No significant new information has been identified by the staff in the 20 review process and in the staff's independent review. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 21 impacts related to these issues beyond those discucsed in the GEIS. For all of those issues, the GEIS 22 concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 23 sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 24 25 A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each of 26 these issues follows: 27-28 . Offsite radiolooical imoacts (individual effects from other than the disoosal of soent fuel and hiah 29 level wastek Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: 30 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 6-2
r Impicts 1 Offsite impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 2 of this part [10 CFR Part 51). Based on information in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from 3 , radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, are small. 4 5 The staff has not identified any sigrificant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site 6 visit, mu scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the
,7 staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the 8 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. '9 10 + Offsite radiolooical imoacts (collective effects): Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 11 found:
12 13 The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, HLW, 14 and spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800 rem [148 Sv], or 12 cancer fatalities, 15 for each additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contri-16 bution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large 17 populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include many tiny 18 doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the United States. The 19_ result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this 20 result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effect that will not 21 ever be mitigated (for example, no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these 22 ' doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions are
~23_ questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer 24 fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regula-25 tory limits and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations.
26 27 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implica-28 tions of these matters should be made, and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in 29- every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these
- 30. impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA 31 conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be 32 eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a sin @e value of significance 33 for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
-34 35 The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site 36 visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the 37 staff concludes that there are no collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal 38 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
39 40 . Offsite radioloaical imoacts (soent fuel and HLW disposal): Based on information in the GEIS, the 41 Commission found: 42 43 For the HLW and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there are no current regula-l- 44 tory limits for the offsite releases of radioactive nuclides for the current candidate repository 45 site. However, if we assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National 46 Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, " Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that 6-3 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2
Imp: cts 1 in accordance with Commission's Waste Confidence Decision,10 CFR 51.23, a repository can 2 and likely will be developed at some site that will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually 3 all individuals will be 100 millirem (1 mSv) per year or less. However, while the Commission 4 has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable 5 uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has been com-6 pleted or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible path-7 ways to the human mvironment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem (1 mSv) per year 8 should be considered an a starting point for limits for individual doses, but notes that some 9 measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the limits should 10 be some fraction of the 100 millirem (1 mSv) per year. The lifetime individual risk from 11 100 millirem (1 mSv) annual dose limit is about is about 3x10~ . 12 ) 13 Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The 14 likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the integrity of a deep 15 geologic repository were evaluated by DOE in the " Final Environmental Impact Statement: 16 Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste," October 1980. The evaluation , 17 estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum individual and to the I 18 regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year 19 of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, 20 the NRC and other federal agencies have expended considerable effort to develop models for 21 the design and for the licensing of a HLW repository, especially for the candidate repository at 22 Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of population doses rc,ay be possible in the future 23 as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. 24 Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative 25 population doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on 26 maximum individual dose. The relationship of the potential new regulatory requirements, based 27 on the NAS report, and cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the 28 report articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for 29 a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR i 30 Part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to 31 population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the 4 32 ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The l 33 standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by imposing " containment requirements" 34 that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting 35 performance standards that will be required by EPA are expected to result in releases and 36 associated health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature cancer deaths 37 with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths worldwide for a 100,000 metric tonne 38 (MTHM) repository. 39 40 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory NEPA implica-41 tions of these matters should be made, and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in 42 every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these 43 impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA 44 conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 6-4
Impicts I eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single value of significance 2 for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1. 3 4 The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site 5 visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the 6 staff concludes that there are no collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal 7 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 8 9 ' Nonradiolooical imoacts of the uranium fuel cycle: Based on information in the GEIS, the 10 Commission found: 11 12 The nonradiologicalimpacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating 13 license for any plant are found to be small. 14 15 The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site 16 visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the 17 staff concludes that there are no nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the 18 - renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 19 20
- Low-level waste storace and disposal: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
21 22 The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being 23 achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment will remain small 24 during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional onsite land that may be 25 required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and associated 26 impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radio-27 logical and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste from 28 any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that 29 there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made 30 available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommission-31 ing requirements. 32 33 The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site 34 visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the 35 staff concludes that there are no impacts of low-level waste storage and disposal associated with 36 the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 37 38
- Mixed waste storaoe and dianosal: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found:
39 40 The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place 41 ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials 42 for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal will riot increase the small, 43 continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The 44 radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste 6-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
impacts I from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes 2 that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be made 3 available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommission 4 requirements. 5 6 The staff has not identified any significant new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site 7 visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the 8 staff concludes that there are no impacts of mixed waste storage and disposal associated with the 9 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 10 11 . Onsite scent fuel: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: 12 13 The expected increase in volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be 14 safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all 15 plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available. 16 17 The onsite spent fuel impacts were determined to be SMALL. The staff has not identified any 18 significant new information in its review of the Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) environmental 19 report (ER), the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available 20 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of onsite spent fuel 21 associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 22 23 . Nonradioloaicalwaste: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: 24 25 No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and 26 procedures are in p! ace to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at all plants. 27 28 The nonradiological waste impacts were determined to be SMALL. The staff has not identified any 29 significant new information in its review of the BGE ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its 30 independent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 31 nonradiological waste impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 32 33 The GEIS and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 lists transportation, which is 34 discussed in Subsection 6.1.1 (see Table 6-2) as a Category 2 issue. I Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 6-6 l - -.
impacts 1 Table 6-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and 2 Solid Waste Management During the Renewal Term 3 i 4 ISSUE-10 CFR 10 CFR SEIS 5 Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(ii) Supplement 6 Appendix 3, Table B-1 Category Sections Subparagraph 1 Section 7 URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 8 Transportation 2 6.3.1; 6.3.2; M 6.1.1 6.3.3; 6.3.4 9 10 11 6.1.1 Transportation of Radiological Waste 12 13 The staff reviewed the submittal by the applicant regarding transportation for the uranium fuel cycle 14 end waste management which is a Category 2 issue for license renewal. 15 16 This issue has two components. The first component is that the effects of transporting fuel and waste 17 sh ll be reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 51.52," Environmental Effects of Transportation of Fuel 18 cnd Waste-S-4." 19 20 Section 51.52 includes Table S-4, which identifies the environmentalimpacts of transportation of fuel 21 end waste. The impacts identified in Table S-4 are valid if a licensee meets all of the criteria outlined. 22 23 in recent years, licensees have requested authorization to increase fuel enrichment and fuel burnup. l 24 Duke can operate ONS at a maximum fuel bumup rate of 62,000 mwd /MTU, in accordance with the ! 25 m:thodology presented in B&W topical report BAW-10186P-A, which was approved by the staff in its 26 1:tter dated Aprii 29,1997 (NRC 1997). Based on a reassessment of the impacts resulting from the 27 tr:nsportation of spent f uel, the staff's preliminary determination is that the environmental impacts are 28 cither unchanged or reduced from those summarized in Table S-4. 29 30 Th3 second component of this issue is that the review include a discussion of the generic and cumu-31 litive impacts associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of a HLW repository site. The 32 candidate site at Yucca Mountain was to be used for the purposes of this analysis. In its application, 33 Duke referenced a staff-initiated rulemaking activity to change the categorization of this issue, and 34 therefore, Duke did not provide a site-specific review of the environmental impacts from transportation 35 of HLW. A proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) to categorize the impacts of 36 transportation of HLW as a Category 1 issue was published in the Federal Register in February 1999 37 (64 FR 9884). 38 39 Th3 staff anticipates that a final rule will be published in the Federal Register no later than August 1999 ' 40 cnd will be effective 30 days later, no later than September 1999. The basis for the proposed rule is a 6-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Imp cts I supplemental analysis performed by the staff to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of 2 spent nuclear fuel transport to the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository. 3-4 in a staff requirements memorandum (SRM)," Staff Requirements - SECY-97-279 - Generic and 5 Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Transportation of High-Level Waste (HLW) in the Vicinity of an 6 HLW Repository (SRM M970612)," dated January 13,1998 (NRC 1998), the Commission directed the 7 staff to require an applicant to provide a discussion in the plant-specific ER only if a license renewal 8 application is received before the rulemaking activity is completed and a delay due to the generic 9 rulemaking might affect the licensing process for a license renewal. Because the rulemaking is 10 scheduled to be completed before the completion of the staff's environmental review for ONS license 11 renewal, a plant-specific evaluation is not performed in this SEIS. 12 13 Duke has stated that it is unaware of any new and significant information related to impacts from the 14 transportation of radiological wastes. The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 15 review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of available 16 information. Therefore, the staff concludes the radiological environmentalimpacts from the trans-17 portation of fuel and waste attributable to license renewal of a power reactor are small. It is the staff's 18 preliminary determination that the impacts of transporting spent fuel with average burnup for the peak 19 rod to levels up to 62,000 mwd /MTU would not appreciably change the impact values contained in 20 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4," Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to 21 and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." The proposed rule confirmed that the 22 values in Table S-4 are bounding for transportation of high-level waste in the vicinity of a high-level 23 repository. 24 25 6.2 References 26 27 10 CFR Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Ucensing and Related 28 Regulatory Functions." 29 30 10 CFR 51.23," Temporary storage of spent fuels after cessation of reactor operation-generic 31 determination of no significant environmentalimpact." 32 33 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, " Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from 34 One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." 35 36 10 CFR 51.53(c), "Postconstruction environmental reports, operating license renewal stage." 37 38 10 CFR Part 54," Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." 39 40 40 CFR Part 191, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of ; 41 Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste." 42 43 64 FR 9884. February 26,1999, " Changes to requirements for environmental review for renewal of 44 nuclear power plant operating licenses." Federal Register. Draft NUREG-1437. Supplement 2 6-8
l Impacts 1 Duke Energy Corporation.1998. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses. Oconee Nuclear 2 Station Units 1,2, and 3. Volume IV Environmental Report. 3 4 National Academy of Sciences (NAS).1995. TechnicalBases for Yucca Mountain Standards, 5 W:shington, D.C. 6 7 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).1980. Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement: Management of 8 Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, Washington, D.C. 9 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmentallmpact Statement for 1I License Renewal of Nuclear Plant (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C. i 12 13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1997. Letter from NRC to Framatome Technologies, 14 inc.,
Subject:
Acceptance for Referencing of FCF Topical Report, BAW-10186P," Extended Burnup 15 Evtluation." Dated April 29,1997. 16 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1998. Staff Requirements - SECY-97-279 " Generic and 18 Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Transportation of High-Level Waste (HLW) in the Vicinity of an 19 HLW Repository (SRM M970612)." Dated January 13,1998. 20 1 21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1999. Letter from NRC to Duke Energy Corporation. 22
Subject:
Use of Framatome Cogema Fuels Topical Report on High Burnup - Oconee Nuclear Station, 23 Units 1,2, and 3. Dated March 1,1999. 24 25 6-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
i 7.0 D ccmmiccinning 2 3 4 Environmental issues associated with decommissioning resulting from continued plant operation during 5 ths renewal term were discussed in the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal 6 of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). The GEIS included a determination of whether 7 tha analysis of the environmentalissue could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation 8 m:asures would be warranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. 9 Category 1 issues are those that the GEIS defines as having met all of the following criteria: 10 11 (1) the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been det6rmined to apply either to all 12 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 13 plant or site characteristics 14 15 (2) a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts 16 (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent 17 fuel disposal) 18 19 (3) mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, 20 and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 21 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 22 23 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required 24 unless new and significant information is identified. 25 26 Category 2 issues are those that did not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and therefore, 27 cdditional plant-specific review for these issues is required. 28 1 29 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to ONS 30 d commissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. Duke stated in its ER (Duke 1998) 31 that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the Oconee 32 op: rating licenses. No significant new information has been identified by the staff in the review process and in 33 the staff's independent review. 34 35 Th:refore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 36 discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are 37 SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be 38 warranted. 39 4 l 7-1 Draf; NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l l l
Decommissioning i Table 7-1. Category 1 issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of the ONS 2 Following the Renewal Term 3 4' ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, GEIS Sections 5 Table B-1 6 DECOMMISSIONING 7 Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4 8 Waste management 7.3.2; 7.4 9 Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4 l l 10 Water quality 7.3.4; 7.4 11 Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4 12 Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4 13 14 15 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions as codified in Table B-1 for each of 16 the issues follows: 17 18 Radiation doses: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Doses to the public 19 will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of vehich decommissioning method is 20 used. Occupational doses would increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by buildup of long-lived 21 radionuclides during the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new 22 information in its review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 23 evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no radiation doses 24 associated with decommissioning following license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 25 26 Waste manaaement: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Decommission-27 ing at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no more solid wastes than at the 28 end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C 29 wastes would be expected." The staff has not identified any significant new information in its 30 review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of avail-31 able information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of solid waste associated 32 with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 33 34 . Air auality: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Air quality impacts of 35 decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the end of the current operating term or at 36 the end of the license renewal term." The staff has not identified any significant new information in 37 its review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of 38 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of license renewal 39 on air quality during decommissioning beyond those discussed in the GEIS. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 7-2
i 1 ! D: commissioning l t i 1 . Water auality: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: "The potential for 2 significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether decommissioning l3 occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original 40-year operation period, and l4 measures are readily available to avoid such impacts." The staff has not identified any significant l5 new information in its review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its inde-l6 pendent evaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 7 impacts of the license renewal term on water quality during decommissioning beyond those l 8 discussed in the GEIS. 9 10 . Ecoloaical resources: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: " Decommission-11 ing after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license renewal period is not expected i 12 to have any direct ecologicalimpacts." The staff has n t identified any significant new information I 13 in its review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent evaluation of l 14 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of the license 15 renewal term on ecological resources during decommissioning beyond those discussed in the 16 GEIS. 17 18 . Socioeconomic impacts: Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found: "Decommis-19 sioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be increased 20 by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year relicense period, but they might be 21 decreased by population and economic growth." The staff has not identified any significant new 22 information in its review of the Duke ER, the site visit, the scoping process, and its independent 23 cvaluation of available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of 24 license renewal on the socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning beyond those discussed in the 25 GEIS. 26 27 7.1 References 28 29 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B," Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 30 Nuclear Power Plant." 31 32 Duke Energy Corporation.1998. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses. Oconee Nuclear 33 Stition. Units 1,2, and 3. Volume IV-Environmental Report. 34 35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic Environmentallmpact Statement for 36 License Renewal of Nuclear Plant (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C. 7-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
i i 8.0 ' Alt 3mativaa to Licsncs Rsnawal
~2 3
4 This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying a renewed
- 5 ' operating license (i.e., the no-action altemative); the potential environmental impacts from electric 6 g:nerating sources other than from the renewal of the ONS operating licenses; the potentialimpacts 7 ' from instituting additional conservation resources to reduce the total demand for power; and the 8 pot ntialimpacts from powerimports.
9 10 8,1 No-Action Alternative-11 ,12 ' For license renewal, the No-Action attemative refers to a scenario in which NRC would not renew the
,13 ONS operating licenses, and the applicant would then decommission ONS when plant operations 14 cease. Demand side management and energy conservation (perhaps supplied by an energy service 15 company), imported power, or some generating attemative other than ONS would replace the capacity 16 of ONS to generate electricity. However, due to the influence of the ongoing deregulation of the retail !
17 mirket, Duke might not be the ultimate power supplier. 18-19 Duks would be required to comply with NRC decommissioning requirements whether or not the 20 operating licenses are renewed. If the ONS operating licenses are renewed, decommissioning 21 cctivities may be postponed for up to an additional 20 years. If the licenses are not renewed, then 22 Duk3 would begin decommissioning activities when plant operations cease, beginning in 2013 or '23 perhaps sooner. The impacts of decommissioning would occur concurrently with the impacts of 24 cupplying replacement power. The GEIS (NRC 1996), and the Final Generic Impact Statement on 25 Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586 (NRC 1988) provide a description of 26 decommissioning activities.- 27 28 Th3 environmental impacts associated with decommissioning under the no-action attemative would f29 be bounded by the discussion of impacts in Chapter 7 of the GEIS, Chapter 7 of the SEIS, and )30 NUREG-0586 (NRC 1996). The impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of operation generally 31 would not be significantly different from those occurring after 40 years of operation. ) 32 1 33 . Th3 GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an l34 operating license and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 92 l 35 _ environmental issues using a three-level standard of significance-small, moderate, or large--based q l36 on Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. These significance levels are defined as follows: l 37 ) 38 SMALL Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize 39 nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. ' 40 41 MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize j 42 important attributes of the resource. l 43 44 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important i 45 attributes of the resource. I 46 8-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
AltImativrs 1 When ONS ceases operation, there will be a decrease in employment and tax revenues associated 2 with the closure. This impact would be concentrated in Oconee County, and to a lesser degree in 3 Pickens, Anderson, and Greenville counties. Most secondary employment impacts and impacts on 4 population would also be expected in these counties. Table 2.5 shows the current geographic l 5 distribution of the residences of ONS employees by county. Most of the tax revenue losses would 6 occur in Oconee County. The No-Action altemative results in the loss of these taxes and payrolls 7_ 20 years earlier than if the licenses are renewed (Table 8-1). l 8 I 9 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmentalimpacts from No-Action Altemative 10 11 Impact Category impact Comment 12 Socioeconomic MODERATE to LARGE - Decrease in employment and tax revenues 13
-14 Archaeological and SMALL to LARGE Sale or transfer of land within plant site 15 Historical Resources leads to changes in land-use pattem 16 17 Environmental Justice SMALL to MODERATE Loss of employment opportunities and social programs 18 19 20 . Socioeconomic: Duke pays taxes on ONS of about $22 million per year to Oconee County, as 21 stated in Section 2.2.8. This tax base would be lost in the No-Action attemative. it is expected that ;
22 energy costs in the area would also be higher in a regulated utility environment. It is not clear from 23 the staff's interviews with local real estate agents and appraisers whether there would be a signifi-24 cant adverse impact on housing values as a result of closing ONS. While the loss of payrolls and 25 workers would be substantial, particularly in Oconee County, future real estate values may be 26 driven more by vacation / retirement home demand and the suburban growth surrounding Greenville. 27 28 it is not clear that Duke's industrial recruitment efforts in the Tri-County region or their success f 29 would be maintained after closure of the Oconee plant. Duke's power costs would be expected to 30 be higher without the plant, and there would be fewer incentives for Duke to assist in recruiting in 31 the region if its presence is significantly diminished. 32 33 The recreational property, lake, and hydroelectric facilities associated with the Keowee-Toxaway 34 project are not likely to be affected by the closure of Oconee. However, there is one potential 35 change that could be significant. In part, because of the need for clean water at the ONS, Duke 36 has provided aggressive corporate, political, and technical leadership in maintaining high water 37 quality in Jocasee and Keowee Lakes. Hydroelectric facilities can tolarate much lower water quality 38 and Crescent Resources (the real estate division of Duke Energy Corporation) may have divested 39 enough holdings by 2013 that Duke will have fewer corporate incentives to keep water quality i 40 exceptionally high if ONS closes. Therefore, many of the water quality services currently provided 41 by Duke may become the responsibility of the counties or the state if water quality begins to 42 decline, then tourism and the vacation home and retirement industry in the area may be adversely 43 affected. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-2
Altsrnatives 1
- Archaeoloaical and Historical Resources: The potential for future adverse impacts to known or 2 unrecorded cultural resources at the ONS following decommissioning will depend on the future land 3 use of the site. Known resources and activities include the current visitors center and associated 4 interpretative effoits that are funded and maintained by Duke. Eventual sale or transfer of the land 5 within the plant site could result in adverse impacts to these resources should the land-use pattern d 6 change dramatically.
7 8 . Environmental Justice for No-Action: Current operations at ONS do not have disproportionate l 9 impacts on low-income and minority populations of the surrounding counties, and no environmental 10 pathways have been identified that would cause disproportionate impacts. Since closure would 11 . result in a decrease in employment and tex revenues in Oconee County, it is possible that the 12 county's ability to maintain social services could be reduced at the same time as diminished 13 economic conditions reduce employment prospects for the low-income or minority populations. 14 There is some possibility of negative and disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority 15 populations from this source under the No-Action Altemative. 16 17 8,2 Alternative Energy Sources 18 19 Nuclear power plants are commonly used for base-load generation; the GEIS indicates that coal-fired 20 cnd gas-fired generation capacity are the feasible attematives to nuclear power generating capacity, 21 bis:d on current (and expected) technological and cost factors. The alternatives of coal-fired gener- i I 22 ction and gas-fired generation are presented in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2, respectively, if such plants 23 wers constructed at the ONS site, using the existing water intake and discharge structures, switchyard, 24 cnd transmission lines, or at an attemate location which could be either a current industrial site or an , 25 undisturbed, pristine site requiring a new generating building and facilities, new switchyard, and at least 26 some new transmission lines. For purposes of this SEIS, a "greenfield" site is assumed to be an 27 undisturbed, pristine site. 28
- 29. Depending on the location of an alternative site, it might also be necessary to provide a connection to 30 thn nearest gas pipeline (in the case of natural gas) or rail connection (in the case of coal). The 31 r:quirement for these additional facilities also likely would increase the environmental impacts relative 32 to those that would be experienced at the ONS site, although this is less certain.
33 l 34 The cooling water needs of a fossil-fired plant of equal capacity to the ONS facility would require use of 35 cith:r a once-through cooling system located on a large body of water such as Lake Keowee or a 36 closed cycle system using cooling towers. 37 38 Th3 potential for using imported power is discussed in Section 8.2.3. Imported power is considered 39 fee:ible, but would result in the transfer of environmental impacts from the current region in South
' 40 . Carolina to some other location in South Carolina, another state, or a Canadian province. Several 41 oth:r technologies were considered, but were determined not to be reasonable replacements for a 42 . nuclear power plant. These options included wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, wood energy, 43 municipal solid waste, oil, advanced nuclear, fuel cells, delayed retirement of other generating units, '44 cnd conservation.
l 8-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Alt:mativas 1 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation 2 3 - it was assumed that it would take 2500 MWe of coal-fired generation capacity to replace the 4 . approximately 2500-MWe ONS. The typical size (MWe) and configuration used by the electrical power 5 industry in the application of coal-fired generation technology varies. 6 i 7 8.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling System 8 i 9 Section 8.2.1.1 sets forth the environmental impacts of converting the current ONS site to a coal-fired j 10 generation facility with once-through cooling and building a similar facility on a greenfield site. 11 Differences in impacts with closed-cycle cooling are covered in Section 8.2.1.2. Land use in the i 12 discussion that follows was based on two of Duke's current coal-fired generating plants: the four-unit, 13 2090 MWe Marshall Steam Station in Catawba County, North Carolina, which occupies 650 ha 14 (1600 acres), and the 2-unit,2370 MWe Belews Creek Steam Station in Stokes County, North 1 15 Carolina, which occupies 280 ha (700 acres) (Duke 1999a). Environmental impacts were based on 16 data in EPA (1995). The impacts are summarized in Table 8-2. 17 ' 18 Construction of the coal-fired alternative would take approximately 5 years. The workforce during the 19 construction period would be expected to average 1500, with a peak of 2500 (GEIS, adjusted for large 20 - scale of the ONS replacement plant) and during operations to average 500 (Duke 1998). 21 22 Additional water would be needed for controlling wet-scrubber sulfur oxides emissions and for boiler 23 makeup. 24 25 = Land Use 26 27 Based on Duke operating experience, approximately 900,000 MT (1,000,000 tons) of solid waste 28 per year would be generated, including 630,000 MT (700,000 tons) of flyash and bottom ash, 29 selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst (used for nitrogen oxides control), and sulfur oxide 4 30- scrubber sludge / waste. Approximately 90 percent of this would be flyash, and 10 percent would be 31 bottom ash, depending on the type of coal bumed and the type of emission control equipment 32 used. The SCR would generate approximately 230 m' (8000 ft') of spent catalyst material per 33 year. This catalyst material would have high concentrations of metals that are removed from the fly 34 ash. A new coal-fired facility would also require sulfur oxides scrubbers to be installed as emission 35 control equipment. This would result in the generation of approximately 350,000 MT (387,000 tons) 36 per year of scrubber sludge. Facilities would be constructed to control and treat leachate from coal 37 storage areas and ash and scrubber waste disposal areas. These facilities are included in the 38 I: Suse estimates. The existing switchyard and transmission system would be used. Duke 39 4 umed that between 220 ha (550 acres) and 800 ha (2000 acres) would be required based on 40 wo existing Duke coal-fired power plants. It is assumed that coal-fired generation structures and , 41 facilities, including coal storage and waste dispoeal, would be located in one or more of the unused 42 areas of the Oconee site and on adjacent Duke-owned land. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-4
Alt:rnativrS I Table 8-2. Summary of EnvironmentalImpactS from Coal Alternative-Once-Through Cooling 2 ) i 3 ocone. Site Afternative Greenfield Site 4 Impact Category impact Comments impact Comments 5 Land Use MODERATE Uses another 220 ha (550 acres) MODERATE 200 ha (500 acres) to 800 ha within or adjacent to ONS site, plus to LARGE (2000 acres), including 25 ha (60 acres) for 13-16 km transmission lines (B-10 mi) railline 6 7 Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas in current MODERATE Impact will depend on ecology of ONS site plus other nearby land, to LARGE site plus raft corridor 8 9 Water use and Ouality 10 - Surface Water SMALL Uses existing intake and discharge SMALL to impact will depend on volume structures MODERATE and other characteristics of Volume 1 m*/sec (16,000) gpm and receiving water temperature rise same as ONS II - Groundwater SMALL Little groundwater is currently used SMALL to impact will depend on site at ONS. This practice likely would LARGE characteristics and availability of continue groundwater 12 13 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides MODERATE Same impacts as Oconee site.
-11,800 MT (13,000 tons)/yr although pollution control
-allowances required standards may vary Nitrogen oxides
-11,800 MT (13,000 tons)/yr
-allowances required Particulate
-1600 MT (1800 tons)/yr Carbon monoxide
-1600 MT (1800 tons)/yr Carbon dioxide
-16 million MT (18 million tons)/yr v00
-190 MT (210 tons)/yr Trace amounts of mercury, arsenic, chromium, beryllium, selenium 14 15 Waste MODERATE 636,000 MT (700,000 tons)/yr fly MODERATE Same impacts as Oconee site; ash and scrubber sludge waste disposal constraints may vary 17 Human Health SMALL impacts considered minor SMALL Same impact as Oconee site 18 19 Sociooconomics MODERATE 1500 to 2500 additional workers MODERATE Construction impacts would be during 5-year construction penod, relocated. Community near ONS followed by reduction from current would still experience reduction 1700 workforce to 500 persons from 1700 persons to 500 persons 20 8-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
~ Altrmitivzs 1 Table 8-2. (contd) 2 3 oconee site Asternative-Greenfield site 4 Immast cotomory Imonet 0 - z__ _ Imonet C;- - ^ _
5 Aesthenes MODERATE Visualimpact of large industrial MODERATE Altomate locatums could reduce to LARGE facility and stacks would be to LARGE aesthetic impact if siting is in an signrlicant industrial area 6 7 Archeological and sMAU. Affects pronously & J f+1 parts sMALL Altemats location would l 8- Historical Resources of current oNs site. nearby land. necessitate cultural resource ; and 13-16 km (8-10-mi) rail corridor studies 9 10 Erwironmentd Justice MODERATE impacts onlowincome and sMALL to impacts will vary dependmg on rnanority communities should be LARGE population distribution and make similw to those exponenced by the up population as a whole. some imoncts on housina are likehr. I1 12 13 As described above, the coal-fired generation attemative would necessitate converting roughly an 14 additional 220 ha (550 acres) of the Duke-owned land across Highway 130 or 183 from the ONS 15 (the current site is only 207 ha [512 acres]) to industrial use (plant, coal storage, and ash and 16 scrubber sludge disposal), expanding the altered area at the site from 200 ha (500) acres to over 17 400 ha (1000 acres). The land surrounding ONS is owned by one of Duke's subsidiaries and could 18 most likely be made available. 19 20 in addition, a new rail line would have to be built between Newry and the ONS site (13 to 16 km '21' [8 to 10 mi]) requiring approximately 25 ha (60 acres) to bring the coal to the site. The impact of 22 coal-fired generation on land use is best characterized as MODERATE. 23 24 in contrast, land use for a coal-fired generation alternative using once-through cooling at an 25 - attemative greenfield site would require 4 ha (10 acres) for offices, roads, etc. This is in addition to 26 up to 800 ha (2000 acres) for generating facilities and cooling structures, coal storage ash basin, 27 and flyash disposal discussed previously. Additional land might be needed for transmission lines, 28 depending on the location of the site relative to the nearest intertie connection. Depending on the 29 transmission line routing, these alternatives could result in MODERATE or LARGE land-use 30 impacts consistent with the GEIS characterization of land-use at a greenfield site. 31 32 . Ecology 33 34 Locating an alternate energy source at the existing ONS site would noticeably alter ecological 35 resources because of using undeveloped areas and modifying the existing intake and discharge 36 system. The impact to the Lake Keowee ecology would be expected to remain unchanged l Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-6
I Altsrnitivrs ! I because the once-through cooling system at ONS has not shown significant negative impact to the 2 lake. The appropriate characterization of coal-fired generation ecological impacts of the ONS site 3 would be MODERATE 4 5_ Constructing a coal-fired plant at a greenfield site, particularly one sited in a rural area with 6 . considerable natural habitat, would certainly alter the ecology and could impact any endangered or
.7 threatened species present at the site. These ecological impacts could be MODERATE to LARGE, 8 consistent with the GEIS characterization of ecological impacts at a greenfield site.
9 10
- Water Use and Quality 11 12 Surface Water. The coal-fired generation altemative is assumed to use the existing ONS intake 13 and discharge structures as part of a once-through cooling system. This attemative would 14 minimize environmental impacts since minimal construction would be required to adapt the system 15 to the coal-fired attemative. It is assumed that the coal-fired attemative cooling water volume and 16 temperature rise woeld be approximately the same as for the current nuclear plant (1 m8/sec 17 [16,000 gpm]. This temperature rise would comply with the ONS National Pollutant Discharge 18 Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The GEIS analysis determined that surface water quality, 19 hydrology, and use impacts for license renewal would be SMALL. Because the coal-fired 20 generation attemative is assumed to have the same discharge characteristics as ONS, surface '
21 water impacts are expected to remain SMALL; the impacts would be so minor that they would not 22 noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 23 24 For attemative greenfield sites, the impact to the surface water would depend on the volume 25 tssociated with the cooling system and characteristics of the receiving body of water. The impacts 26 - would be SMALL or MODERATE. 27 ' 28 Groundwater. No variation would be expected in the amount of groundwater used, since 29 groundwater wells only are used to supply water for drinking and the restroom facility at the station 30 baseball field, as well as to supply irrigation water for site landscaping during the summer months ! 31 (June through September). However, the leachate from coal storage areas and ash and scrubber
'32 waste disposal areas would have to be controlled to avoid groundwater contamination. For this 33 reason, the appropriate characterization of coal-fired generation groundwater impacts would be 34 SMALL; the impacts would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute 35 of the resource.
36 37 For attemative greenfield sites, the impact to the groundwater would depend on the site 38 characteristics, including the amount of groundwater available. The impacts would range between 39- SMALL and LARGE. 8-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 I i
T Alt:rnativ:s 1 . Air Quality 2 3 Air quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear power due to 4 emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and carbon monoxide. Although the entire 5 ' State of South Carolina and the nearby areas of North Carolina and Georgia are currently in 6 attainment for meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Oconee site is within 80 km 7 (50 mi) of two Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I areas (Great Smoky Mountains 8 National Park, and Shining Rock Wildemess Area) that would be of concern for a major coal-fired 9 plant. Also, future economic and population growth may make future compliance more difficult. 10 11 Sulfur oxides emissions. Using current control technology for sulfur oxides emissions, the total 12 annual stack emissions would include approximately 11,800 MT (13,000 tons) of sulfur oxides, 13 most of which would be sulfur dioxide. Additional reductions could become necessary. The acid 14 rain provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Sections 403 and 404) capped the nation's sulfur dioxide 15 emissions from power plants. Under the Act, affected fossil-fired steam units are allocated a 16 number of sulfur dioxide emission allowances. To achieve compliance, each utility must hold 17 enough allowances to cover its sulfur dioxide emissions annually or be subject to certain penalties. 18' If the utility's sulfur dioxide emissions are less than its annually allocated emission allowances, then 19_ the utility may bank the surplus allowances for use in future years. A sulfur dioxide allowances 20 market has been established for the buying and selling of allowances. Duke has sulfur dioxide 21 allowances for its existing coal-fired plants, however, Duke would have to purchase additional 22 allowances in order to operate an additional coal-fired plant (Duke 1999b). 23. 24 Nitroaen oxides emissions. Using currently available control technology, the total annual nitrogen 25 oxides emission would be approximately 11,800 MT (13,000 tons). Section 407 of the CAA 26 establishes an annual reduction program for the nitrogen oxides emissions program. The new EPA 27 8-hour ozone standard, the new EPA PMu particulate standard, and Regional Haze rules create 28 additional burdens on coal use. To cite one example, the South Carolina Department of Health and i 29 Environmental Control (SCDHEC) has identified several counties that may be impacted, including 30 - Anderson and Greenville Counties, as well as counties of concern, including Oconee and Anderson 31 Counties (South Carolina Air Quality Annual Report Volume XVil,1997 [SCDHEC 1998]). To 32 implement a coal-fired attemative, Duke might be required to offset its corporate nitrogen oxides 33 emissions through further reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions elsewhere, by shutting other 34 sources down, or by back-fitting to reduce nitrogen oxides formation (e.g., installing over-fired air, 35 low nitrogen oxides burners, flue gas re-circulation, and selective non-catalytic and catalytic 36 reduction systems). Altematively, offsets might be available for purchase on the open market. 37 38 Particulate emissions. The total estimated annual stack emissions would include 1600 MT 39 (1800 tons) of particulates. In addition, coal handling equipment would introduce fugitive _ 40 particulate emissions. 41-42 Carbon monoxide emissions. The total carbon monoxide emissions would be approximately 43 1600 MT (1800 tons) per year. 44 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-8
e . . . Altsrnativas 1 Carbon dioxide emissions. The total carbon dioxide emissions wculd be approximately 2 16 million MT (18 million tons) per year. 3 4 Mercury. Coal-fired boilers account for nearly a third of mercury emissions in the United States.
'S Techreiogies available to control mercury emissions have varying degrees of success. In 6 response to growing concerns with mercury, the CAA Amendments of 1990 have required the EPA 7- to identify mercury emission sources, evaluate the contributions of power plants and municipal 8 incinerators, identify control technologies, and evaluate the toxicological effects from the 9 consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. It is likely that these studies will lead to additional 10 restrictions conceming mercury emissions associated with coal-fired power plants, as well as other 11 sources of mercury emissions. Recent studies by the Maryland Power Plant Research Program 12 have indicated that although coal-fired power plants contribute to mercury emissions, the resulting 13 concentrations are not high enough to adversely affect humans or other organisms (Maryland 14 Department of Natural Resources 1999). Therefore, the probable affect of trace mercury 15 emissions on human health would be SMALL.
16 17 The GEIS analysis did not quantify coal-fired emissions, but implied that air impacts would be 18 substantial and mentioned global warming and acid rain as potentialimpacts. Adverse human 19 health effects from coal combustion have led to important Federal legislation in recent years, and 20 public health risks, such as cancer and emphysema, have been associated with the products of 21 coal combustion. Federal legislation and large-scale concerns, such as acid rain and global 22 warming, are indications of concerns about air resources. Sulfur oxide emission allowances, 23 nitrogen oxide emission offsets, low nitrogen oxide bumers, overfire air, selective catalytic 24 reduction, fabric filts.ur electrostatic precipitators, and scrubbers may be required as mitigation 25 measures. As such, the appropriate characterization of coal-fired generation air impacts would be .26 MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality. 27 28 Siting the coal-fired generation elsewhere would not significantly change air quality impacts, 29 although it could result in installing more or less stringont pollution control equipment to meet 30 applicable standards. Therefore, the impacts would be MODERATE. 31 32-
- W aste 33 34 Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution
- 35 generates additional ash and scrubber sludge. Based on Duke experience at two coal-fired plants, 36 approximately 636,000 MT (700,000 tons) of this waste would be generated annually for 40 years 37 and disposed of onsite, accounting for between 60 percent and 40 percent of land used at the site 38 (120 out of 200 ha to 160 out of 800 ha [300 out of 500 acres of 400 out of 2000 acres]). While 39 only half of these values are directly attributable to the alternative to a 20-year ONS license 40 renewal, the total values are pertinent as a cumulative impact. This impact could extend well after 41 the 40-year operation life because revegetation management and groundwater monitoring for 42 leachate contaminant impacts could be a permanent requirement.
43 8-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Altamitivas 1 The GEIS analysis concluded tlat large amounts of fly ash and scrubber sludge would be 2 produced and would require constant management. Disposal of this waste could noticeably affect 3 land use and groundwater quality, but with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not 4 destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land would be 5 available for other uses, and regulatory requirements would ensure groundwater protection. For 6 these reasons, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste generated from burning coal 7 would be MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize any 8 important resource. 9 10 Siting the facility on an attemate greenfield site would not alter waste generation, although other 11 sites might have more constraints on disposal locations. Therefore, the impacts would be 12 MODERATE. 13 i 14
- Human Health !
15 16 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from fuel and lime / limestone mining and 17 worker and public risks from fuel and lime / limestone transportation and stack emissions inhalation. 18 Stack impacts can be very widespread and health risks difficult to quantify. This alternative also 19 introduces the risk of coal-pile fires and attendant inhalation' risks. 20 21 The GEIS analysis noted that there could be human health impacts (cancer and emphysema) from 22 inhalation of toxins and particulates, but did not identify the significance of this impact. Regulatory 23 agencies, such as the EPA and SCDHEC, focus on air emissions and revise regulatory sequire. 24 ments or propose statutory changes, based on human health impacts. Such agencies also impose 25 site-specific emission permit limits as needed to protect human health. Thus, human health 26 impacts from inhaling toxins and particulates generated by buming coal would be SMALL. 27 28 Siting the facility at an alternate greenfield site would not etter the expected human health effects. 29 Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL. 30 31 . Socioeconomics 32 33 Construction of the coal-fired attemative would take approximately 5 years. It is assumed that 34 construction would take place concurrently while ONS continues operation and would be completed 35 at the time ONS would cease operations. Thus, the workforce would be expected to average 1500 36 with a peak of 2500 additional workers during the 5-year construction period, based on estimates 37 given in the GEIS (NRC 1996) and scaled for the large plant size. The surrounding communities 38 would experience demands on housing and public services that could have large impacts. After 39 construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of jobs; construction workers would 40 leave, the nuclear plant workforce (1700) would declino through a decommissioning period to a ; 41 minimal maintenance size, and the coal-fired plant would introduce only 500 new jobs. 42 43 The GEIS analysis concluded that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an 44 urban site because more of the 1200 to 2500 peak construction workforce would need to move to Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-10
e Alt::rnativ:s I I the area to work. While the site ic not rural within the meaning of the GEIS, the facility is roughly 2 twice the size examined in the GEIS. Operationalimpacts could result in moderate socioeconomic 3- benefits in the form of several hundred additional jobs, substantial tax revenues, and plant 4- expenditures. 5. 6 - The size of the construction workforce for a coal-fired plant and plant-related spending dunng 7- construction would be noticeable. However, due to the site's proximity to large labor pools in the 8 Greenville and Spartanburg areas, significant numbers of construction workers would not be 9 expected to move to the ONS area. Operational impacts would include an eventual loss of 10 approximately 1200 jobs (1700 for three nuclear units down to 500 for the coa! fired plant), with a 11 commensurate reduction in demand on socioeconomic resources and contribution to the regional 12 economy. The area's rapid population growth would prevent any destabilization of socioeconomic 13 resources. For these reasons, the appropriato characterization of socioeconomic impacts for a 14 coal-fired plant would be MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not 15 destabilize any important resource. 16 17 Construction at another site would relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate 18 them. The community around ONS would still experience the impact of ONS operational job loss, 19 and the communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary 20 workforce and a moderate, permanent workforce. Therefore, the impacts are MODERATE. The 21 impacts would be notbeable, but would not destabilize the economy or community. 22 23
- Aesthetics 24 25 Plant structures (the stacks) would be visible over intervening trees for kilometers around, 26 particulady along Lake Keowee. This view would contrast strongly with what is otherwise a natural-27 appearing vacation-home and rural area, with woods and farming areas. Coal-fired generation 28 would also introduce additional mechanical sources of noise (e.g., induced-draft fans and coal 29 handling equipnient) that rnay be audible offsite due to their proximity to Lake Keowee.
- 30 31 The GEIS concluded that aesthetic impacts from such a large construction effort in a rural area 32 could be substantial. Industrial structures that would be located at the Oconee site would tower 33 above area vegetation and create a noticeable visual impact for a large area. Aesthetics is a 34 significant attribute of Lake Keowee, given the predominantly natural-appearing rural viewscape 35 from the lake and shoreline. A coal-fired generating station would contrast strongly with the 36 existing resevrce. The aesthetics impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE; noticeable but not 37 destabilizing.
38 39- Alternative locations could reduce the aesthetic impact of coal-fired generation if siting were in an 40 area that was already industrialized. In such a case, however, the introduction of such tall stacks 41 and cooling towers would probably still have a MODERATE incremental impact. Other sites could 42 show a LARGE impact. 43 8-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Altarnativ:s 1 Archaeological and Historical Resources 2 3 The GEIS analysis concluded that impacts to cultural resources would be relatively SMALL unless 4 important site-specific resources were affected. Under this alternative, cultural resources inven-5 tories would be required for any lands that have not been previously disturbed to the extent that no 6 archaeological or historical resources might remain. Other lands that are purchased to support the 7 facility would also require an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording of 8 extant archaeological and historical resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects from 9 subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant site. Therefore, 10 the impacts would be SMALL i1 12 Construction at another site would necessitate studies to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential l 13 impacts of new plant construction on cultural resources. This would be required for all areas of 14 potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new 15 construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, or other rights-of-way). Impacts can 16 generally be managed and maintained as SMALL. 17 18 . Environmental Justice 19 20 No environmental pathways have been identified that would result in disproportionately high and 21 adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations if a replacement coal-fired I 22 plant were built at the ONS site. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during construc-23 tion might occur, and this could disproportionately affect the minority and low-income populations. 24 Impacts at other sites would depend upon the site chosen. These impacts would be MODERATE. 25 26 If the replacement plant were built in Oconee County, the county's tax base would be largely 27 maintained, and some potential negative socioeconomic impacts on the minority or low-income 28 would be avoided. If the plant were built elsewhere, environmental justice impacts would be 29 SMALL to LARGE, depending on the plant location and nearby population d;stribution. 30 31 8.2.1.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 32 , I 33 This alternative would add an approximately 160-m (520 ft) high natural draft cooling tower to each 34 unit, which would occupy a total of approximately 10 ha (25 acres). This section describes the 35 differences in impacts of using a closed-cycle cooling system at a coal-fired power plant that would 36 replace ONS. These differences would be roughly the same at both the Oconee site and other 37 greenfield sites. Based on Duke's experience with a similar cooling tower at the Catawba Nuclear 38 Station, cooling water consumption would be approximately 1.5 m /s (24,000 gpm) (Duke 1999a). The 39 closed-cycle cooling system would introduce cooling tower blowdown that would be much higher in 40 dissolved solids in comparison to Lake Keowee. Cooling tower operation would require more electrical 41 power than the once-through cooling system due to the modified pumping systems. The towers would 42 discharge a plume of water vapor and a measurable amount of cooling tower drift. 43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-12
}
Alt:rnativ:s j I Mechanical draft cooling towers are an alternative to natural draft cooling towers. Mechanical draft 2 cooling towers are 15-m (50-ft) to 30-m (100-ft) tall, but would demonstrate operational impacts similar 3 to the natural dra# towen noted above. 4 5 The change in environmental impacts from redesigning the site for cooling towers are listed in 6 Table 8-3. The overallimpacts are also discussed below. 7 8 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Altemate Cooling System 9 (Cooling Towers with Closed-Cycle Cooling) 10 Change in impact from ONS Once-Through 11 Impact Cateaory Coolina Comments l 12 Land Use Minor to moderate change 10 additional ha (25 acres) required l 13 14 Ecology Minor change Additional impact to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift Reduced impact to aquatic ecology 15 16 Water Use and 17 Quality 18 Surface Water Minor change Blowdown has higher dissolved solids Reduced flow /Less thermalload 19 Groundwater No change None 20 21 Air Quality No change None 22 23 Waste No change None 24 25 Human Health No change None 26 27 Socioeconomics No change None 28 29 Aesthetics Small change Addition of 160-m (520-ft) cooling towers or Noise from mechanical draft towers and vapor plume 30 31 Archaeology and Minor change Minimal cultural studies possibly required 32 Historical 33 R: sources 34 35 Environmental No change None 36 Justice 37
'38 8-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 4
Alt:rnativ:s 1 . Land Use 2 3 A closed-cycle cooling system alternative would impact an additional 10 ha (25 acres) for cooling tower 4 construction at either the greenfield site or the ONS site (Duke 1999). These attematives would result in a 5 minor to moderate change above those already considered for the once-through cooling attemative. The 6 overall impact would be MODERATE at ONS, MODERATE to LARGE elsewhere. 7 8 . Ecology 9 10 The closed-cycle cooling system altemative would further reduce operational aquatic ecology impacts, but 11 would introduce risk to vegetation from salt drift. However, these ecological impacts result in minor changes 12 above those for the once-through cooling altemative, resulting in MODERATE overall impacts at ONS and 13 MODERATE to LARGE impacts elsewhere. 14 15 Water Use and Quality 16 17 Surface Water. Although surface water impacts are expected to remain small, the closed-cycle cooling 18 system attemative would introduce cooling tower blowdown that would have higher dissolved solids, but 19 because of the reduced f!ow, changes that impact surface water quality would result in minor changes 20 above those already considered for the once-through cc:!!ng attemative. Thermal load would be less than 21 with a once-through cooling system. The overall impact would be SMALL at ONS and SMALL to 22 MODERATE elsewhere. 23 24 For attemative greenfield sites, the impact to the surface water would depend on the volume associated with 25 the cooling system and characteristics of the receiving body of water. The impacts would be SMALL or 26 MODERATE. 27 28 Groundwater. The facility's use of groundwater would not be impacted as a result of the variation betweer, a 29 once-through cooling system and a cooling tower-based system. Overall impacts would be SMALL at ONS 30 and SMALL to LARGE elsewhere. l 31 ! 32 For alternative greenfield sites, the impact to the groundwater would depend on the site characteristics, 33 including the amount of groundwater available. The impacts would range between SMALL and LARGE. l 34 l 35 Air Quality 36 37 The air quality would be the same whether a cooling tower-based closed-cycle cooling system or a once-38 through cooling system was used. Overallimpacts would be MODERATE at all locations. 39 40 . W aste 41 42 The amount of waste and impacts resulting from waste disposal would be the same whether a cooling tower- l l 43 based closed-cycle cooling system or a once-through cooling system was used. Overall impacts would be 44 MODERAYE at alllocations. 45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-14
Alt:rnativ s 1 . Human Health
.2 3 Human health effects would be the same whether a cooling tower-based closed-cycle cooling system or a 4 once-through cooling system was used. Overall impacts would be SMALL at all locations.
5 6 . Socioeconomics 7 8 Socioeconomic impacts would be the same whether a cooling tower-based closed-cycle cooling system or a 9 once-through coo'eg system was used. Overall impacts would be MODERATE at all locations. 10 11 e Aesthetics 12 13 The closed-cycle cooling system attemative would increase aesthetic impacts by adding three 160-m 14 (520-foot) cooling towers and associated plumes. Although the environmental report assumed the use of 15 natural draft towers as an attemative technology, mechanical draft towers are also available. Such devices, 16 being only 15-m (50 ft) to 30-m (100-ft) tall, would reduce the visual impact of natural draft towers. 17 Mechanical draft towers, however, introduce another noise source. Small incremental change; MODERATE 18 to LARGE overallimpact. 19 20 e Archaeological and Historical Resources 21 22' Minimal amounts of additional cultural resource studies would be required before construction of cooling 23 towers. If towers were constructed on land that had already had cultural resource studies, further studies 24 would not be necessary. Minor incremental change; SMALL impacts at all locations. 25 26 . Environmental Justice 27 i 28 Environmental justice impacts would be the same whether a cooling tower-based cbsed-cycle cookng 29 system or a once-through cooling system was used. Overall impacts are MODERATE at ONS; SMALL to 30 MODERATE elsewhere. 31 32 8,2.2 Gas-Fired Generation 33 34 it was assumed that a replacement natural gas-fired plant would use combined cycle technology. In the 35 combined cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a combustion turbine rotate thu turbine to generate electricity. 36 Wrste combustion heat from the combustion turbine is routed through a heat recovery steam generator to gen-37 crz.te additional electricity. The size, type, and configuration of gas-fired generation units and plants currently 38 operational in the United States vary and include simple-cycle combustion and combined cycle units that range 39 in size from 25 MW to 600 MW (EPA 1994). As with coal-fired technology, units may be configured and 40 combined at a location to produce the desired amount of megawatts, and construction can be phased to meet 41 electrical power needs. 42 43 Section 8.2.2.1 discusses the environmental impacts of converting the current ONS site to a natural gas-fired 44 generation facility with once-through cooling and building a similar facility on a greenfield site. Differences in 45 impacts with closed-cycle cooling are discussed in Section 8.2.2.2. 46 8-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 j
Alt:rnitiv s 1 8.2.2.1 Once-Through Cooling System 2 3 Providing 2500 MW of replacement power with a combined cycle would require a minimum of 5 units. Natural 7 8 4 gas typically has an average heating value of 3.7 x 10 J/m (1,000 Btu per cubic foot) (DOE 1996; EPA 1993), 8 5 and it would be the primary fuel; the gas-fired attemative plant would burn approximately 1.24 J/m -s (100 billion 6 cubic feet per year). Low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil would be the backup tuel (Duke 1998), but due to the relatively 7 high cost of fuel oil, would not be the primary fuel for this technology. The discussion in this section mentions in 8 passing the few differences in the impacts between gas- and oil-fired combustion turbine / combined cycle power 9 plants. 10 11 As a surrogate for a similar-sized gas-fired attemative plant, the staff used Baltimore Gas and Electric's 12 Perryman Power Plant and Polk Power Plant (BGE 1989; EPA 1984). The staff assumes that each unit would 13 be less than 30 m (100 feet) high and would be designed with dry, low nitrogen oxides combusters, water 14 injection, and selective catalytic reduction. 15 16 Each unit would exhaust through a 70-m (230-foot) stack after passing through heat recovery steam generators. 17 This stack height is consistent with EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.100), which address requirements for determin-18 ing the stack height of new emission sources. 19 20 Natural gas would have to be delivered via pipeline. Approximately 60 ha (150 acres) would be disturbed during 21 pipeline construction. The nearest gas pipeline large enough to support a new combined cycle plant is at 22 Anderson, near Interstate 85, approximately 40 km (25 mi) from the Oconee site. Construction cost of installing 23 a gas line to Oconee averages approximately $1 million per mile (Duke 1999b). Duke believes that the 24 installation of a gas line to the Oconee site would not be economical and would require an additional 60 ha (150 25 acres) of land (Duke 1999b). To the degree existing rights-of-way could be used, the level of impact could be 26 reduced. 27 28 Environmental impacts of conversion to the gas-fired generation option at both ONS and a "greenfield" site are 29 summarized in the following text, and are listed in Table 8.4. 30 31 . Land Use 32 33 Gas-fired generation at the Oconee site would require converting a minimum additional 24 ha (60 acres) of 34 the site and adjacent land to industrial use. Almost all would be used for the power block. An additional 35 60 ha (150 acres) would be disturbed during pipeline construction. Gas-fired generation land-use impact at 30 the existing ONS site is MODERATE; the impact would noticeably alter habitat but it would not destabilize 37 any important attribute of the resource. 38 39 Construction at a greenfield site would impact approximately 8 ha (20 acres) to 20 ha (50 acres) for offices, 40 roads, parking areas, fuel tanks, and a switchyard, as well as the 20 ha (50 acres) required for the power 41 block, in addition, another 170 ha (424 acres) would be necessary for transmission lines (assuming the l 42 plant is sited 16 km [10 mi) from the nearest intertie connection). Plants of this type are usually built very 43 close to existing natural gas pipelines. Including minimal acres required for pipeline construction, a 44 greenfield site would require approximately 30-40 ha (70-100 acres). Depending on the transmission line 45 routing, the greenfield site alternative could result in SMALL to MODERATE land-use impacts. 46 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-16
Altern:.tiv:s i The GEIS estimated that land-use requirements for a 1000-MW gas-fired plant at a greenfield site would be 2 SMALL (approximately 45 ha [110 acres) for the plant site), and that co-locating with a retired nuclear plant 3 would reduce these impacts. The Duke land-use estimate is about the same as the GEIS, even though the 4 plant is larger. The land-use change should not noticeably alter the overall site pattem for natural land-use. 5 Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. 6 7 Table 8-4. Summary of EnvironmentalImpacts from Gas Fired 8 Generation-Once-Through Cooling Attemative 9 10 Oconee Site Alternative "Greenfield" Site i1 Impact Category impact Comments impact Comments ~ 12 Land Use MODERATE Additional 24 ha (60 acres) required for SMALL to 30-40 ha (70-power block MODERATE 100 acres) required Additional 60 ha (150 acres) disturbed for pipeline construction 13 14 Ecology MODERATE Constructed on land adjacent to Oconee SMALL to impact depends on site. Significant habitat loss due to pipeline MODERATE location and construction endangered and threatened species 15 16 Water Use and 17 Quality 18 Surface Water SMALL 70% reduction in water flow SMALL to impact depends on MODERATE volume and , characteristics of I receiving body of water l 19 Groundwater SMALL Reduced groundwater withdrawals due to SMALL to Groundwater woud be reduced workforce LARGE used for potacie water only 20 21 Air Quality MODERATE Primarily nitrogen oxides MODERATE Same impacts as for
--4300 MT/yr (4,700 tons /yr) with Oconee site gas
-11,800 MT/yr (13,000 tons /yr) with fuel oil Sulfur dioxide
-3600 MT/yr (4,000 tons per yr) with fuel oil, none with gas i Particulates
-2300 MT/yr (2,500 tons /yr) with fuel oil
-280 MT/yr (310 tons /yr) with gas Carbon dioxide
-11 million MT/yr (12.5 million tons /yr) with fuel oil
--8 million MT/yr (9.2 million tons /yr) with gas 22 23 Wasto SMALL Waste generation is 740 m2/yr 8000 (ft2/yr) SMALL Same impacts as for of spent catalyst with fuel oil, minor with Oconee site gas 24 25 Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to be minor SMALL Same impacts as for Oconee site 8-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Alt:rnativ s 1 Table 8-4. (contd) 2 3 oconee Site Alternative "Greenfield** Site 4 Impact Category impact Comments impact Comments 5 Socioeconombs SMALL 500 to 750 additional workers during 3-year SMALL Construction impacts construction period; followed by reduction would be relocated. from 1700 persons to 300 persons (400 if Community near ONS fuel oilis used) would still experience reduction from 1700 persons to 300 persons. 6 Aesthetics SMALL to Visualimpact of stacks and equipment SMALL to Attemate locations MODERATE would be noticeable, but not as significant MODERATE cc.uld reduce the as coat option aesthetic impact if siting is in an industrial area. 7 8 Archaeological and SMALL Only previously disturted and adjacent SMALL Attemate location - 9 Historical areas would likely be affected would necessitate l 10 Resources cultural resource ! studies 11 12 Environmental SMALL to impacts on minority and low income should SMALL to impacts vary 13 Justice MODERATE be similar to those experienced by the MODERATE depending on population as a whole. Impacts on housing population distribution are possible. and makeup 14 15 16 . Ecology 17 18 Siting gas-fired generation at the existing ONS site would have MODERATE ecologicalimpact 19 because the facility would be constructed partly on previously disturbed areas and would disturb 20 relatively little acreage at the site. However, significant habitat (60 ha [150 acres]) would be 21 disturbe.d by 40 km (25 miles) of pipeline construction (Duke 1999b). To the extent that existing 22 rights-of-way could be used, impact would be reduced. Ecological impacts would also be mini-23 mized by using the existing intake and discharge system. Past operational monitoring of the 24 effects of once-through cooling at ONS have not shown significant negative impacts to Lake 25 Keowee ecology, and this would be expected to remain unchanged. At the existing site, adding 26 gas-fired generation would introduce construction impacts and new, albeit incremental, operational 27 impacts. 28 29 The GEIS noted that land-dependent ecological impacts from construction would be SMALL unless 30 site-specific factors should indicate a particular sensitivity and that operational impacts would be 31 smaller than for other fossil fuel technologies of equal capacity. The staff has identified the gas 32 pipeline as a site-specific factor that would make gas-fired alternative ecological impacts larger 33 than for the license renewal. The appropriate characterization of gas-fired generation ecological 34 impacts would be MODERATE. 35 36 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-18 _______________________0
Alt:rnativ:s 1 Construction at a greenfield site would certainly alter the ecology of the site and could impact 2 threatened and endangered species. These. ecological impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE. 3 4 . Water Use and Quality 5 6 Surface Water. The plant would use the existing ONS intake and discharge structures as part of a 7 once-through cooling system; however, since cooling requirements would be less (70 percent 8 reduction; EPA 1994). Water quality impacts would continue to be SMALL. 9 10 Water quality impacts from sedimentation during construction was another land-related impact that 11 the GEIS categorized as small. The GEIS also noted that operational water quality impacts would 12 be similar to, or less than, those from other centralized generating technologies. The staff has 13 concluded that water quality impacts from coal-fired generation would be small, and gas-fired 14 titernative water usage would be less than that for coal-fired generation. Surface water impacts 15 would remain SMALL; the impacts would not be detectable or be so minor that they would not 16 noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 17 18 For altemative greenfield sites, the impact on sudace water would depend on the volume and other 19 characteristics of the receiving body of water. The impacts would be SMALL or MODERATE 20 1 21 Groundwatg. No variation would be expected in the amount of groundwater used, since 22 groundwater wells only are used to supply water for drinking and the restroom facility at the station 23 baseball field, as well as to supply irrigation water for site landscaping during the summer months 24 (June through September). The groundwater impacts would be SMALL; the impacts would be so 25 minor that they would not noticeably alter any important resource. 26 27 For alternative greenfield sites, the impact to the groundwater would depend on the site character- < '28 i; tics, including the amount of groundwater available. The impacts would range between SMALL 29 end LARGE. 30 l31 . Air Quality i32 33 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. Because the ONS is not or near a non-attainment 34 crea for ozone, air quality impacts of gas-fired generation would not be of concern. Nitrogen
- 35 oxides emissions from the ges-fired attemative would be 4300 MT (4700 tons) with gas to 11,800
,36 MT (13,000 tons) with fuel oil per year. 37 38 The GEIS noted that gas-fired air quality impacts are less than other fossil technologies because 39 f:wer pollutants are emitted, and sulfur dioxide is not emitted at all. Emissions from the gas-fired 40 citernative would be less than emissions from the coal-fired alternative. However, the gas-fired 41 titernative would contribute nitrogen oxides emissions to an area that in the future may become a 42 nonattainment area for ozone. Because nitrogen oxides contribute to ozone formation, the reduced 43 nitrogen oxides emissions are still of future concem, and low nitrogen oxides combusters, water 44 injection, and selective catalytic reduction could become regulatory-imposed mitigation measures. 8-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Alt:mativ:s 1 For these reasons, the appropriate characterization of air impacts from a gas-fired plant would be 2 MODERATE; the impacts, primarily nitrogen oxides, would be clearly noticeable, but would not be 3 sufficient to destabilize air resources as a whole. 4 5 Siting the gas-fired plant elsewhere would not significantly change air quality impacts since the site 6 could also be located in a greenfield area that was not a serious nonattainment area for ozone, in 7 addition, the location could result in installing more or less stringent pollution control equipment to 8 meet the regulations. Therefore, the impacts would be MODERATE. i 9 10 . W aste 11 3 12 There will be only small amounts of solid waste products (i.e., ash) from burning natural gas fuel. 13 The GEIS concluded that waste generation from gas-fired technology would be minimal. Gas-firing ; 14 results in very little combustion byproducts because of the clean nature of the fuel. Waste genera-15 tion would be limited to typical office wastes. This impact would be SMALL; waste generation 16 impacts would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter any important resource attribute. 17-18 Siting the facility at an attemate greenfield site would not alter the waste generation; therefore the 19 impacts would continue to be SMALL. 20 21 . Human Health
.22 23 The GEIS analysis mentions potential gas-fired alternative health risks (cancer and emphysema).
24 The risk may be attributable to nitrogen oxides emissions that contribute to ozone formation, which 25 in tum contributes to health risks. As discussed in Section 8.2.1 for the coal-fired alternative, 26 legislative and regulatory control of the nation's emissions and air quality are protective of human 27 health, and the appropriate characteiization of gas-fired generation human health impacts would be 28 SMALL; that is, human health effects would not be detectable or would be so minor that they would 29 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 30 31 Siting of the facility at an attemate greenfield site would not alter the human health effects that 32 would be expected. Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL. 33 34 . Socioeconomics 35 36 It is assumed that gas-fired construction would take place while ONS continues operation, with .37 completion at the time that the nuclear plant would halt operations. Construction of the gas-fired 38 attemative would take much less time than it would for construction of other plants (NRC 1996). 39 During the time of construction, the surrounding communities would experience demands on 40 housing and public services that could have moderate impacts. After construction, the communi-41 . ties would be impacted by the loss of jobs; construction workers would leave, the nuclear plant 42 workforce (1700) would decline through a decommissioning period to a minimal maintenance size, -43 and the gas-fired plant would introduce about 300 or an oil-fired plant, 400 new jobs. 44 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-20
Alt:rn tivzs 1 The GEIS concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a gas-fired plant would not be 2 very noticeable and that the small operational workforce would have the lowest socioeconomic 3 impacts (local purchases and taxes) of any nonrenewable technology. Compared to the coal-fired 4 citemative, the smaller size of the construction workforce, the shorter construction time frame, and 5 smaller size of the operations workforce, all would reduce socioeconomic impacts. For these 6 reasons, gas-fired generation socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL; that is, socioeconomic 7 effects would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 8 citribute of the resource. 9 10 Construction at another site would relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate 11 them. The community around the ONS site would still experience the impact of ONS operational 12 job loss, and the communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a 13 moderate, temporary workforce and a small, permanent workforce. Therefore, the impacts would 14 be SMALL.
- 15 16 . Aesthetics 17 18 The combustion turbines and heat recovery boilers would be relatively low structures and would be 19 screened from most offsite vantage points by intervening woodlands. The steam turbine building 20 wou'.1 be taller, approximately 30 m (100 feet) in height, and together with 70-m (230-foot) exhaust ;
21 stacks, would be visible offsite. 22 23 The GEIS analysis noted that land-related impacts, such as aesthetic impacts, would be small 24 unless site-specific factors indicate a particular sensitivity. As in the case of the coal-fired alterna-25 tive, aesthetic impacts from the gas-fired attemative would be noticeable. However, because the 26 gas-fired structures are shorter than the coal-fired structures and more amenable to screening by 27 vegetation, the staff determined that the aesthetic resources would not be destabilized by the gas-28 fired attemative. For these reasons, the appropriate characterization of aesthetic impacts from a 29 gas-fired plant would be SMALL to MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would 30 not destabilize this important resource. 31 32 Alternative locations could reduce the aesthetic impact of gas-fired generation if siting were in an 33 crea that was already industrialized. In such a case, however, the introduction of the steam 34 generator building, stacks, and cooling tower plumes would probably still have a SMALL to l35 MODERATE incrementalimpact. l i36 37
- Archaeological and Historical 38
)
39 .The GEIS analysis noted, as for the coal-fired alternative, that gas-fired alternative cultural ) 40 r: source impacts would be small unless important site-specific resources were affected. Gas-fired 61 citemative construction at the ONS site would affect a smaller area within the footprint of the 42 coal-fired attemative. As discussed in 8.2.1, site knowledge minimizes the possibility of cultural 63 resource impacts. Cultural resource impacts would be SMALL; that is, cultural resource effects 8-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 j l
Alt:mativ;s I would not be detectable or would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably 2 alter any important attribute of the resource. Therefore, the impact is SMALL. 3 4 Construction at another site could necessitate instituting cultural resource presentation measures, 5 but impacts can generally be managed and maintained as SMALL. Cultural resources studies 6 would be required for the pipeline construction and any other areas of ground disturbance 7 associated with this attemative. 8 9 . EnvironmentalJustice 10 11 No environmental pathways have been identified that would result in disproportionately high and 12 adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations if a replacement gas fired 13 plant were built at the ONS site. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during i 14 construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect the minority or low-income 15 populations. The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts at other sites would depend 16 upon the site chosen, if the replacement plant were built in Oconee County, the county's tax base 17 would be largely maintained, and some potential negative socioeconomic impacts on the minority 18 or low-income populations would be avoided. If the plant were built elsewhere, Environmental 19 Justice impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the population density. 20 21 8.2.2.2 Closed-Cycle Cooling System 22 23 Cooling for the gas-fired facility could also be accomplished by a closed-cycle system, which would 24 also use the existing intake and discharge structures, but flow requirements would be 90 percent less 25 than the once-through cooling system (Gilbert / Commonwealth 1996). This alternative would use an 26 approximately 160-m (520-ft) high natural draft cooling tower for each unit. Based on Duke's 27 experience with a similar cooling tower at the Catawba Nuclear Station, cooling water consumption 28 would be approximately 1.5 m 8/s (24,000 gpm) (Duke 1999a). The closed-cycle cooling system 29 attemative would introduce a cooling tower blowdown that would be higher in dissolved solids in 30 comparison to Lake Keowee. Cooling tower operation would require more electrical power than the 31 once-through alternative due to the modified pumping systems. Cooling towers would discharge a 32 plume of water vapor and a small amount of cooling tower drift. Thermal rise would be less than with 33 oace-through cooling. 34 35 Mechanical draft cooling towers are an alternative to natural draft cooling towers. Mechanical draft 36 cooing towers are 15-m (50-ft) to 30-m (100-ft) tall, but would demonstrate operational impacts similar 37 to the natural draft towers noted above. 38 39 The incremental environmentalimpacts of converting to a closed-cycle cooling system at a gas plant 40 are essentially the same incremental impacts of converting to a closed-cycle cooling system at a coal-41 fired plant. The impacts are discussed in Section 8.2.1.2 and are listed in Table 8-5. 42 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-22
Alt:rn:tiv:s 1 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmentalimpacts of Gas Fired Generation with Alternate 2 Ccoling System (Cooling Towers with Closed-Cycle Cooling) 3 Change in impact Oconee I 4 Impact Category Once-Through Cooling Comments 5 Land Use Minor change Uses an additional 10 ha (25 acres) for 6 cooling tower construction 7 8 Ecology Minor change Additional impact to terrestrial ecology from 9 cooling tower drift; Reoaced impact to aquatic ecology 10 11 Water Use and Quality 12 Surface Water Minor change Blowdown has higher dissolved solids ; Reduced flow 13 Groundwater No change None 14 15 Air Quality No change None 16 17 W :ste No change None 18 19 Human Health Small Impacts considered minor 20 21 Socioeconomics No change None 22 23 A:sthetics Minor change Addition of eight 160-m (520-ft) high natural draft cooling towers or noise from mechanical draft towers and vapor plume 24 25 Archaeology and Minor change Minimal studies (if necessary) before 26 Historical Resources construction of cooling towers 27 28 Environmental Justice No change None 29 ! 30 8,2,3 Imported Electrical Power ' 31 32 " imported power" means power purchased and transmitted from electric generation plants that the 33 applicant does not own and that are located elsewhere within the region, nation, or Canada. Duke M purchases substantial amounts of capacity on the wholesale market. For example, requests for 35 proposals in 1995 yielded numerous short- and long-term proposals, from which Duke purchased 36 options for 250 MW of capacity from PECO Energy for the period 1998 through 2001 (Duke 1998). 37 In theory, importing (purchasing) additional power is a feasible alternative to ONS license renewal. 38 However, Duke points out that there is no assurance that sufficient capacity or energy would be 39 cvrilable in the 2013 through 2034 time frame to replace the 2500 MW(e) base load generation. More I 40 importantly, regardless of the technology used to generate imported power, the generating technology l 41 would be one of those described in this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably coal, natural gas, nuclear, or 8-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Alt:rnativ s 1 Canadian hydroelectric). The GEIS, Chapter 8, description of the environmentalimpacts of other 2 technologies, is representative of the imported electrical power alternative to ONS license renewal. 3 4 According to the EIA's International Energy Outlook 1998 (EIA 1997): 5 6 Hydro Quebec has targeted the U.S. market for future sales growth. Hydro Quebec currently owns ! 7 Vermont Gas and has signed a deal with Enron to market electricity in the Northeast while selling 8 Enron's gas in Quebec. In April 1997, Hydro Quebec petitioned the FERC (Federal Energy 9 Regulatory Commission) to sell electricity in the United States, in return, it would allow U.S. 10 competitors to wheel electricity into Quebec. In November 1997, Hydro Quebec received FERC 11 approval to sell power in the United States at market-based rates. 12 13 Depending on transmission availability, relative power costs, whether Ccnadian environmental and 14 aboriginal rights controversies over the hydroelectric James Bay Projou in Northern Quebec could be 15 solved, and appropriate transmission agreements and facilities could be put in place, Hydro Quebec 16 could be a future source of imported power. However, there would be significant environmental 17 impacts in Northern Quebec. 18 19 8.2.4 Other Alternatives 20 21 This section identifies alternatives to ONS license renewal that are not feasible and describes why the 22 attematives are not feasible and will not be considered further within this SEIS. 23 24 8.2.4.1 Wind 25 2 26 Wind power in the northwest area of South Carolina averages less than 100 w/m2 (9.3 w/ft ) at 10 m 27 (33 ft) elevation or 200 w/m 2(18.6 w/ftz) at 50 m (164 ft) per hour. This is the lowest class on the 28 7-point scale (Wind Energy Resource Atlas, PNL-3195 [Zabransky et al.1981]). The National Wind 29 Technology Center, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, classifies potential wind farm resource 30 areas from Power Class 1 through Power Class 7. Areas designated as Class 4 or higher are 31 considered as areas of potential wind farm development using advanced wind turbine technology 32 under development today. Power class 3 areas may be suitable for future generation technology. The 33 avikage annual capacity factor was estimated by the applicant at 21 percent in 1995 and projected at 34 29 percent in 2010 (Duke 1998). This low capacity factor compared with current base load technolo-35 gies (Oconee's capacity factor is 78 percent) results from the intermittency of the wind resource 36 (DOE /EIA-0561). Current energy storage technologies are too expensive to permit wind power to 37 serve as a large base load. Based on the GEIS land-use estimate for wind power (the GEIS, 38 Section 8.3.1, estimates 60,750 ha [150,000 acres] per 1000 MW-electric for wind power), replacement 39 of ONS generating capacity, even assuming ideal wind conditions, would require dedication of almost 40 150,000 ha (375,000 acres) in the area in which ONS is located. Given the amount of land required, a 41 large greenfield site would be necessary, which would result in a large environmental impact. 42 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2 8-24
Alt:rn tiv:s 1 8.2.4.2 Solar 2 3 Solar power technologies, photovoltaic and thermal, cannot currently compete with conventional fossil-4 fu; led technologies in grid-connected applications due to high costs per kilowatt of capacity (DOE 5 1995). The average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity factor 6 for solar thermal systems is about 25 percent to 40 percent. Energy storage requirements prevent the 7 use of solar energy systems as base load. According to the GEIS, land requirements are also high-8 14,000 ha (35,000 acres) per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic and 6000 ha (14,000 acres) per 9 1,000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems. Neither type of solar electric system would fit at the ONS site, 10 cnd either would have large environmental impacts at a greenfield site. 11 12 8.2.4.3 Hydropower 13 14 Hydroelectric power has an average annual capacity factor of 46 percent. As GEIS, Section 8.3.4, 15 points out, hydropower's percentage of the country's generating capacity is expected to decline 16 because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public concem over flooding, 17 destruction of natural habitat, and destruction of natural river courses. GEIS, Section 8.3.4, estimates 18 land use of 400,000 ha (1 million acres) per 1000 MW(e) for hydroelectric power. Based on this 19 estimate, replacement of ONS generating capacity would require flooding more than 6700 km 2 20 (2600 mi2). Due to the lack of locations for siting a hydroelectric facility large enough to replace ONS, 21 local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to ONS license renewal. 22 23 8.2.4.4 Geothermal 24 25 Geothermal has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload power where 26 cvrilable. However, as illustrated by the GEIS, Figure 8.4, geothermal plants might be located in the 27 w: stern continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent, 28 but there is no feasible location for 2500 MW(e) of geothermal capacity to serve as an alternative to 29 ONS license renewal. 30 31 8.2.4.5 Wood Energy 32 33 A wood burning facility can provide base load power and operate with an average annual capacity 34 factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent efficiency (GEIS, Section 8.3.6) The fuels 35 required are variable and site-specific. A significant barrier to use of wood waste to generate electricity 36 is the high delivered fuel cost. States with significant wood resources, such as California, Maine, 37 Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan, benefit from using local resources. The pulp, 38 paper, and paperboard industries, which consume large quantities of electricity, are the largest 39 consumer of wood and wood waste for energy, benefitting from use of waste materials that could 40 otherwise represent a disposal problem. The larger wood waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW in 41 size. Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overalllevel of construction impact should be approxi-42 mrtely the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be 43 built at smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage 44 cnd processing and involve the same type of combustion equipment. Duke estimates that a rough 8-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplernent 2
. Altemativas.
1 ' construction cost for a 2500 MW(e) plant in the Oconee area would be about $2400/KW, which would 2 not be competitive for baseload power (Duke 1998). 1
-3 4 8.2.4.6 Municipal Solid Waste 5 -6 The initial capital costs for municipal solid waste plants are greater than for comparable steam turbine 7 technology at wood waste facilities. This is due to the need with municipal solid waste for specialized 8 waste separation and handling equipment. The decision to bum municipal waste to generate energy is 9 ~ usually driven by the need for an altemative to landfills rather than by energy considerations. The use
. 10 of landfills as a waste disposal option is likely to increase in the near term; however, it is unlikely that 11 many landfills will begin converting waste to energy because of unfavorable economics, particularly 12 with electricity prices declining (DOE 1995). Therefore, municipal solid waste would not be a feasible 13 attemative to ONS license renewal, particularly at the scale required. 14 15 8.2.4.7 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 16-
- 17. In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling electric 18 generators, including buming energy crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol (ethanol is 19 primarily used as a gasoline additive for automotive fuel), and gasifying energy crops (including wood 20 waste). The GEIS points out that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being 21 competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a baseload plant such as ONS. For 22 these reasons, such fuels do not offer a feasible attemative to ONS license renewal. i 23 J
24 8.2.4.8 Oil 25 26 Oil is not considered a stand-alone fuel because it is not cost-competitive when natural gas is 27 available. The cost of oil-fired operation is about eight times as expensive as nuclear and coal-fired 28 operation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation j 29 increasingly more expensive than coal-fired generation (DOE 1996). For these reasons, oil-fired l 30 generation is not a feasible attemative to ONS license renewal. l 31 32 8.2.4.9 Nuclear Power 33 34 . Work on advanced reactor designs has continued, and nuclear plant construction continues overseas. ! 35 However, the cost of building a new nuclear plant and the political uncertainties that have historically 36 surrounded many nuclear plant construction projects are among the factors that have led energy 37 forecasters such as the Energy Information Administration to predict no new domestic orders for the 38 duration of current forecasts (through the year 2010 [ DOE 1996]). For these reasons, new nuclear 39 plant construction is not a feasible altemative to ONS license renewal. 40 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-26
Alt:rnatives 1 8.2.4.10 Fuel Cells 2 3 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells are the most mature fuel cell technology, but they are only in the initial 4 stages of commercialization. Two-hundred turn-key plants have been installed in the United States, S Europe, and Japan. Recent estimates suggest that a company would have to produce about 100 MW 6 of fuel cell stacks annually to achieve a price of $1000 to $1500 per kilowatt.(*) However, the current 7 production capacity of all fuel cell manufacturers only totals about 60 megawatts per year. Therefore, 8 thm staff considers fuel cells not to be a feasible alternative to license renewal at this time. 9 10 8.2.4.11 Delayed Retirement i1 l 12 Duks's 1997 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (Duke 1998) discusses the strategy for meeting overall 13 cn:rgy needs for the next 15 years. The IRP discusses decision dates (as opposed to retirement i 14 dat:s) for the following proposed combustion turbine generating requirements: 303 MW(e) in 2004; 15 88MW(e) in 2005; 85 MW(e) in 2006. The IRP also discusses retirement of the following fossil < 16 g:n: ration: 276 MW(e) in 2010 and 438 MW(e) in 2011. The period of time evaluated for the IRP does 17 not extend to the retirement dates for Oconee. 18 19 However, the delayed retirement of the above generation resources could not be used to replace the 20 2500 MW(e) generated at Oconee. In part because of their high operating cost, combustion turbines 21 cnd small fossil units are used for peaking and intermediate generation. Therefore, it would not be 22 f:rgible for the combustion turbines and small fossil plants listed above to replace base load genera-23 tion. Additionally, it is unlikely that these fossil units could operate economically for an additional 24 20 years after the current decision dates. Duke does not have any plans to retire any of its base load 25 units. Therefore, delayed retirement of base load fossil units could not be ustd as an alternative to 26 license renewal. 27 28 8.2.4.12 Conservation 29 30 Demand-side measures have been included in the past IRPs, and Duke currently has several general 31 dem:nd-side actions in their current plan (Duke 1998). These measures are discussed below. !32 l33 Focus on Education - to help maintain competitive electricity rates, Duke is shifting the energy i34 cfficiency focus from an emphasis on energy efficiency options that are large, high-cost, and
- 35 incentive based to less costly education-based options.
36 37 Imolementation of Demand-Side Competitive Biddina - Duke assessed the potential benefits of 38 paying a third-party or customer to design and/or market demand-side resource options. Duke has 39 entered into contracts with four bidders for a total projected resource of 4.7 MW. 40 1 (a) Source: "Advar.ced Fuel Cell Systems - A Revolutionary Power Technology" U.S. Department of 2 Energy / Fossil Energy-Fuel Cell Power Systems overview. http1/www.fe. doe. gov / coal-3 power /fc_ sum.html. 8-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Altomatives 1 Demand-side options currently used at Duke include the following. 2 3 Enerav efficiency - High Energy (HE) compressed air systems and HE motor systems and 4 replacements 5 6 Interruptibles - Residential load control ride: A/C and water heating, power service rider, generator 7 control rider 8 9 Load shifts - Residential water heating, controlled / submerged ; 10 ) 11 Strateale Sales - Electrotechnology strategy, HE food service appliance, nonresidential space i 12 heating 13 14 Enerav Efficiency and Strateaic Sales - New residential housing program, existing residential 15 housing program, and nonresidential heat pump program. 16
)
17 Currently, the demand side measures are expected to account for 950 MW(e) in 1999. This number is 18 projected to decrease to 750 MW(e) in 2004. In addition, the demand side measures are included in 19 the growth projections. The applicant considers it unlikely that another cost stfective 2500MW(e) can 20 be found to replace ONS. Therefore the conservation option is not considered a reasonable 21 replacement for the license renewal altemative. 22 23 8.3 References 24 25 40 CFR 50.9, " National primary and secondary ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide." 26 27 40 CFR 50.10, "Postconstruction environmental reports." 28 29 40 CFR 51.100, " Definitions." 30 31 Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE).1989. Perryman Power Plant Certification of Public Convenisnce 32 and Necessity, Environmental Review Document, Vol-2, Baltimore Gas and Electric, Baltimore, 33 Maryland. 34 35 Duke Energy Corporation. 1998. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses - Oconee Nuclear 36 Station, Units 1,2 and 3. Volume IV - Environmental Report. 37 38 Duke Energy Corporation.1999a. Letter from M. S. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation to U.S. 39 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
License Renewal-Response to Requests for Additional 40 Information. Oconee Nuclear Station. Dated March 4,1999. 41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 8-28
Alt:rnativas 1 Duk2 Energy Corporation.1999b. Letter from W. R. McCollum, Duke Energy Corpo;ation to U.S. 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Follow-up to Staff's Request for Additional Inforrnation Dated 3 December 29,1998, Related to the Environmental Portion of the Review of the 1.icense Renewal 4 Application for Oconee Units 1,2, and 3. 5 1 6 Energy Information Administration (EIA).1997. Annual Energy Outlook 1908, Table A2. DOE /EIA- } 7 0383 (98), Washington, D.C. 8 9 Gilbert / Commonwealth.1996. Update to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Cooling 10 Tower System Study. 11 12 M;ryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1999. Maryland Power Plants and the 13 Environment: A review of the impacts ofpowerplants and transmission has on Maryland's natural
;14 resources. PRRP-CElS-10, Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
15 16 South Ca,U:'.m Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC).1998. South Carolina 17 Air Quality AnnualReport, Volume XVil 1997. Columbia, South Carolina.
- I8 19 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).1993. Renewable Resources in the U.S. Electricity Supply.
20 DOE /EIA-0561, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 21 22 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).1995. Electric Power Annual. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 23 Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 24 25 U.S. Departc::ent of Energy (DOE).' 1996. Annual Energy Outlook; 1996 with Projections to 2015. 26 DOE /EIA-0383(96), U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 27 28 U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration (EIA).1997. Annua / Energy Outlook 1998, 29 Table A2, DOE /EIA-0383(98), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 30 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1993. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: l32 StItionary Point and Area Sources. EPA, AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, l33 D.C. l34 !35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1994. Fina/ Environmental /mpact Statement, Volume It ! 36 - Ttmpa Electric Company- Folk Power Station. EPA 904/9-94, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- 37. Wcshington, D.C.
38 '39 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Final Generic Impact Statement on 40 Decommisssoning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 41 Wcshington, D.C. 42 63 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental /mpact Statement for 44' License Renewalof Nuclear Plants (GE/S). NUREG-1437, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Alt:mitiv s 1 Washington, D.C. 2 3 Zabransky, J., J. M. Vilardo, J. T. Schakenback, D. L. Elliott, W. R. Barchet, and R. L. George. 1981. 4 Wind Energy Resource Atlas: Volume 6-The Southeast Region. PNNL-3195 WERA-6, Pacific 5 Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 6 7 Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2 8-30
i _. 9.0 Summary cnd Concluciana 2 i 3 4 By letter dated July 7,1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke 1998) submitted an application to the
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1,2,
'6 end 3 operating licenses for an additional 20-year period. If the operating licenses are renewed, j
-7 Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers, state regulatory agencies, and the owners of the plant will 8 ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based 'on factors such as the need for 9 power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the operating 10 licenses are not renewed, the plant will be shut down at or before the expiration of the current 11 operating licenses on February 6,2013, for Unit 1, October 6,2013, for Unit 2, and July 19,2014, for 12 Unit 3.
13 14 Under the. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 15 required for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The , 16 - NRC has implemented section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the 17 Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor oper-18 ~ tting license; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating license renewal stage will I 19 _ 62 a supplement to the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 20 Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 21 22 Upon acceptance of the Duke application, the NRC began the environmental review process described 23 in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping 24 ' (63 FR 50257). The staff visited the ONS site in October 1998 and held public scoping meetings on 25 October 19,1998, in Clemson, South Carolina (NRC 1999). The staff reviewed the Duke ER and 26 compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an independent review of the 27 issues following the guidance set forth in the draft Standarri Review Plans for Environmental Reviews 28 for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC 1999). 29 30 This supplemental environmental impact statement (SElS) presents the staff's preliminary analysis of 31 the environmentalimpacts of renewal of the ONS operating licenses. The analysis considers and
'32 w:ighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmentalimpacts of attematives to 33 th3 proposed action, and attematives available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also l 34 includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
l 35 36 Tha Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from t 37 th3 GEIS. 38 39 - The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option 40 thit allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating 41 licinse to meet future _ system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, 42 end, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. 9-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 l l
l Summ ry end Conclu: ions i 1 The criterion to be used in evaluating the environmental impacts, found in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and in -2 the GEIS is as follows: 3 4 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that 5 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be 6 unreasonable. 7 8 The statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion both implicitly acknowledge that there 9 are f actors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether ONS continues to : 10 operate beyond the period of the current operating licenses. Ii 12 NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of SEISs 13 prepared at the license renewal stage: 14 15 Tha supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to include 16 discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action 17 or of attematives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either 18 essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an attemative in the range of attematives 19 considered or relevant to mitigation in addition, the supplemental environmental impact statement 20 prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other issues not related to the 21 environmental effects of the proposed action and the attematives, or any aspect of the storage of 22 spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the generic determination in f 51.23(a) and in 23 accordance with 9 51.23(b).(*) 24 25 The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an 26 operating license and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 92 27 environmental issues using a three-level standard of significance-small, moderate, or large-based 28 on Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. These significance levels are defined as follows: l 29 l 30 SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 31 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 32 33 MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 34 important attributes of the resource. 35 36 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 37 attributes of the resource. I (a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is " Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor 2 operations-generic determination of no significant environmental impact." Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 9-2
Summary and Conclusions 1 For 68 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS has shown: 2 3 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 4 plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other plant or site 5 characteristics 6 7 (2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts 8 (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste 9 (HLW) and spent fuel disposal) 10 11 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis and it 12 has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be 13 sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 14 1 15 These 68 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In accordance with 16 10 CFR 51.71(d), the staff will rely on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS 17 for issues designated Category 1 in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 in the absence 18 of significant new information. 19 l20 Of the 24 issues not meeting the criteria set forth above,22 were identified as Category 2 issues 21 requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues, environmen-22 t:1 justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. Environmental justice l 23 was not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the 24 GEIS. Information on chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS 25 w s prepared or at the time this document was prepared. ; 26 1 27 This SE!S evaluates all 92 environmentalissues considered in the GEIS. The SEIS considers the 28 environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license renewal and compares the environmental 29 impicts of license renewal and the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that are consid- 1 l 30 cred include the no-action altemative (not renewing the ONS operating licenses) and alternative 31 m thods of power generation. Among the altemative methods of power generation, coal-fired and ; 32 gis-fired generation appear the most likely if the power from ONS is replaced. These alternatives are 33 cv*.luated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the ONS site or ' 34 en unspecified "greenfield" site. !35 36 9.1 Environmental impacts of the Proposed Action - License Renewal 37 38 Duko and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the signifi-39 cance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither Duke nor the 40 stiff is aware of any significant new information related to Category 1 issues that would call into 9-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Summ;ry cnd Conclusions j 1 question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither Duke nor the staff has identified any new issue l 2 applicable to the ONS that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the 3 conclusions of the GEIS for all 68 Category 1 issues. 4 5 Duke's license renewal application presents analyses of the Category 2 issues. The staff has reviewed 6 the Duke analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. Five 7 Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to plant design features or site charac-8 teristics not found at ONS. Four additional Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS because 9 they are specifically related to refurbishment. Duke (1998) has stated that their evaluation of structures 10 and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities 11 or modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of Oconee beyond the end of the 12 existing carating licenses. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection 13 activities are within the bonds of normal plant component replacement and therefore are not expected 14 to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the FES for ONS. 15 i 16 The remaining Category 2 issues, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electro- l 17 magnetic fields, are discussed in detail in this SEIS. For 12 issues, the staff concludes that the l 18 potential environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the GEIS. For threatened 19 and endangered species, the staff's preliminary determination is that the impact of license renewal 20 would be SMALL and further mitigation is not warranted. For severe accident mitigation alternatives {' 21 (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and 22 evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for ONS, the staff concludes that none of the 23 candidate SAMAs are cost-beneficial. For transportation of spent fuel, it is the staff's preliminary 24 determination that the impacts of transporting spent fuel with average bumup for peak rod levels up to 25 62,000 mwd /MTU would not appreciably change the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c). 26 Summary Table S-4," Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One 27 Light-Water-cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." 28 3 29 Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate 1 30 environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional mitigation 31 measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 32 33 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse impacts 34 35 An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review conducted in 36 support of a construction permit stage because the plant is in existence at the license renewal stage 37 and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts associated with the initial 38 construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have occurred. The environmentalimpacts 39 to be evaluated for license renewal are those associated with refurbishment and continued operation 40 during the renewal term. 41 42 The adverse impacts identified are considered to be of SMALL significance, and none warrants 43 implementation of additional mitigation measures. The adverse impacts of likely alternatives in the 44 event that ONS ceases operation at or before the expiration of the current operating license will not be Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 9-4
Summiry and Conclusions I smaller than those associated with continued operation of ONS, and they may be greater for some 2 impact categories in some locations. 3 4 9.1.2 Irreversible or irretrievable Resource Commitments 5 6 The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of the ONS during its current 7 license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be considered in this 8 SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an additional 20 years. These resources 9 include materials and equipment required for plant maintenance and operation, the nuclear fuel used 10 by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent storage space for the spent fuel assemblies. Ii 12 The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are the fuel 13 cnd the permanent storage space. The ONS replaces approximately 60 fuel assemblies in each of the 14 three units during every refueling outage, which occurs on an 18-month cycle. Assuming no change in 15 use rate, about 2400 spent fuel assemblies would be required for operation during a 20-year license 16 rcnewal period. 17 18 The likely power generation alternatives in the event ONS ceases ooeration on or before the expiration 19 of the current operating licenses will require commitment of resources for construction of the 20 replacement plants as well as for fuel to run the plants. 21 22 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity 23 24 An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the ONS 25 tit) was set when the plants were approved and construction began. That balance is now well estab-26 li:hed. Renewal of the ONS operating licenses and continued operation of the plants will not alter the 27 cxi: ting balance, but it may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial of the application 28 to renew the operating licenses will lead to shutdown of the plants and wi!! alter the balance in a 29 minner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental consequences 30 of turning the ONS site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different. 31 1 32 9.2 Relative Significance of the EnvironmentalImpacts of License Renewal 33 cnd Alternatives 34 35 Th3 proposed action is renewal of the operating licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3. l 36 Chapter 2 describes the ONS and the environment in the vicinity of the plant. Chapters 4 through 7 37 discuss environmentalissues associated with renewal of the operating licenses. Environmentalissues 38 cssociated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation are discussed in 39 Chapter 8. 40 41 Th3 significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the application for 42 r:newal of the operating licenses), the no-action alternative (denial of the application), and alternatives 43 involving coal and gas-fired generation of power at the ONS site and an unspecified "greenfield site" 9-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 i i
Summary cnd Conclusions 1 are compared in Table 9-1. Continued use of the ONS once-through cooling system is assumed for 2 Table 9-1. Substitution of a cooling tower for the once-through cooling system in the evaluation of the 3 coal-fired and gas-fired generation alternatives would result in somewhat greater environmental 4 irnpacts in some impact categories. 5 6 Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are SMALL 7 for all impact categories. The attemative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have 8 environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE 9 significance. 10 11 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations 12 13 Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the Generic Environmental /mpact Statement for Ucense 14 Renewal of Nuclear Fower Plants, NUREG-1437, (2) the Environmental Report submitted by Duke, (3) 15 consultation with other Federal and State agencies, and (4) its own independent review, the staff's 16 preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Oconee 17 Nuclear Station Units 1,2 and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for 18 energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 19 20 9.4 References 21 1 22 10 CFR Part 51," Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory 23 fi t;tions." 24 25 10 CFR 51.20, " Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring 26 environmental impact statements." 27 28 10 CFR 51.23," Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic 29 determination of no significant environmentalimpact." 30 31 10 CFR 51.71, " Draft environmental impact statement-contents." 32 33 10 CFR 51.94, " Requirement to consider final environmental impact statement." 34 35 10 CFR 51.95, " Supplement to final environmental impact statement." 36 37 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1," Environmental effect of renewing the operating 38 license of a nuclear power plant." 39 40 10 CFR 54.21, " Contents of application-technical information." 41 42 63 FR 50257, " Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental impact Statement and Conduct Scoping 43 Process." September 21,1998. Draft NUREG 1437, Supplement 2 9-6
Suminary and Conclusions l Duke Energy Corporation. 1998. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses - Oconee Nuclear 2 Station, Units 1,2 ands. Volume IV, Environmental Report. 3-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental /mpact Statement for 5 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C. 6 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1999. Environmentallmpact Statement Scoping 8 Progress: Summary Report-Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3. Oconee County, South 9 Carolina. Washington, D.C. 9-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
$99gnocOo yuE6 ,
d E E E E E E l oT oT oT o T oT oT n e t L A L A t t L A t E A L L L LL L t L A LL t L A o i f et L R L R R LG R L R R A E A L A E A E A E A R E A A A ni L L i eS A E t a r e e r M S MO D SM OD SM OD SML A OD SM SM SM MDM S MO S MD SO n G M M M M e, e i v G t d am n r e i e r E T E T E T oT E oT E F- L L A LL L L t t A A A L L A et s S e L L L L L lt y s R R A A R A A A L R LA L R A S G a Ni OS t E E M M E D MS SMS M A E A E n o g D D S S MDM MD it in O M O M O M S MO S SO M cl o Ao - oC o l
'I h o o eg d t t E E E E t E E oT o T T T E o h uo n l
e TE TE t A t E A A L AL TE L t E t r o i f e AG AG L L R LCL R R A R AG L LG L l aT
,h i t
nit eS RR RR A E A R AE DE D M E RR M EA A AR w- EA D DL DLEA M SDO MS L a e MA e e r e G r O O O O S O DL S O S L n c en n M MM M e M M M RO G ea sg d e o E E E E E t E n ei n i F-r T T T T T E TE L T icm A A L L A A L A L A L u l a S et R R L A L A R R A R AG L R o Ni RR A s E E E E D M DE E f osA C OS D D M S M S D EA M D e O O O O S O DL S O O _ cn M M MM M M no ait M icar f o in e n n e t E o E ige ot v f l oa E oT L L L L L L LL TE L t t A SG it tc e l a ew L A L A L A L A L L AG L LG L LL R la o Ar n MA MA EARR M A A R A E f i nn M M M M M t n s - e ot DR ee S S S S S S S DL S M LA MS D S O ed NA l O mo nh t M M _ o r e _ i vM ne d Ev it e n ea l L L L L L L L L L L L f oan soi o swe n L A L A L A L A L L A A A A L L L A L A L A yr pt c e n c e M M M M M M M M M M M r at e oA r i LR S S S S S S S S S S S P _ mlA md un S a la 1 e icr 9 c o a t e e f r is c l b u H it S s a y s d n u T r
- - c a J o
g y yr h l l a a it t e lt a im a c t n la li at a e o s e t a e u u w y n s ige C s it H o c oc m t U y g Q Qd la n c e it e lo r n c o r r r n u e a o h e u o a ee eu Q hc so t d s ir ic t p n lo t a a t t a or a m s v a c r u o e r e n i m L E WW WG iA W H S A AR E E=zgmOa8N.@u" $ rat i o d o
!I l
l Appendix A Reserved for Comments on the Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement Related to Duke's Application for License Renewal Oconee Nuclear Station {
Appendix A Reserved for Comments on the Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement Related to Duke's Application for License Renewal I Oconee Nuclear Station l l 1 I I l l A-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
l l l l l l Appendix B Contributors to the Supplement 4 l l l l l
\
1 Appendix B 2 3 Contributors to the Supplement 4 5 6 Tha overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of Nuclear 7 R=ctor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The statement was prepared by 8 m:mbers of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other NRC organizations 9 cnd the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 10 11 Name Affiliation Function or Expertise 12 NUCLEAR REGULATOR / Commission 13 J mes H. Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager, Ecology i 14 Thomas Kenyon Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager 15 Barry Zaleman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief and Technical Monitor 16 Cynthia Sochor Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Engineer 17 Rtiph Architzel Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Assistant 18 Claudia Craig Nuclear Reactor Regulaticn Environmental Engineer 19 Kimberly Leigh Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Scientist 20 Robert Jolley Nuclear Reactor Regulation Environmental Engineer 21 Thomas H. Essig Nuclear Reactor Regulation Health Physics 22 Robert Palla Nuc': ar Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Attematives 23 John Moninger Nucuar Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Altematives 24 Sid Feld Nue, ear Regulatory Research Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 25 Nick Saltos Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 26 PACIFIC NORTHVMST NATIONAL LABORATORY *) 27 R:bekah Harty Task Leader 28 Eva Eckert Hickey Deputy Task Leader / Radiation Protection 29 Jimes V. Ramsdell, Jr. Air Quality 30 Michael J. Scott Socioeconomics l 31 Duane A. Neitzel Aquatic Ecology 32 Susan L. Blanton Aquatic Ecology 33 Charles A. Brandt Terrestrial Ecology ' 34 Michael R. Sackschewsky Terrestrial Ecology 35 Paul R. Nickens Cultural Resources 36 Paul L. Hendrickson Land Use . l 37 Lance W. Vail Water Use, Hydrology j 38 Wayne C. Cosby Technical Editor 39 ( ) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial 40 institute. B-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supp. 2
l l Appendix C Chronology of Licensing Correspondence I l i
I Appendix C 2 3 Chronology of Licensing Correspondence 4 5 6 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the NRC and Duke Energy 7 Corporation (Duke) and other correspondence related to the NRC staff's environmental review, under 8 10 CFR Part 51, of Duke's application for renewal for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Units 1,2, 9 cnd 3 operating licences. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary informa-10 tion, have been placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 i 11 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and the Local Public Document Room for the ONS Units 1,2, and 3 l 12 licenses in the Oconee County Library,501 West Broad Street, Walhalla, SC 29691. 13 14 July 6,1998 Letter from M. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation, to the NRC Document Control Desk, transmitting application to renew operating licenses for Oconee, Units 1,2, and 3 for an additional operating period of twenty years beyond their current expiration dates 15 July 31,1998 Letter from C. Grimes, NRC, to W.McCollum, Jr., Duke Energy Corporation, transmitting proposed NRC review schedule for Duke Energy Corporation application for renewal of operating licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3 16 August 5,1998 Letter from J. Roe, NRC, to W. McCollum, Jr., Duke Energy Corporation, transmitting Federa/ RegisterNotice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR 56 For an Additional 20-Year Period 17 August 26,1998 Letter from W. McCollum, Jr., Duke Energy Corporation, to the NRC Document Control Desk transmitting determination from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning effect of Oconee on listed or proposed rare or endangered species 18 S:ptember 14,1998 Letter from T. Essig, NRC, to W. McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation, transmitting Federa/ Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process in support of the application for renewal of the Oconee Units 1,2, and 3 operating licenses for an additional 20 years 19 October 10,1998 Memorandum from J. Wilson, NRC, to T. Essig, NRC, providing the Meeting Notice announcing Oconee Nuclear Station's environmental scoping meeting open to the public 20 November 5,1998 Memorandum from J. Wilson, NRC, to T. Essig, NRC, summarizing the Oconee Nuclear Station scoping meeting held in support of the review of the license renewal application 21 November 9,1998 Memorandum from J. Wilson, NRC, to T. Essig, NRC, summarizing the Oconee Nuclear Station site visit in support of the environmental review for the license renewal application. 22 November 20,1998 Acknowledgment letter from J. Wilson, NRC, to scoping commentors who provided written comments regarding Oconee Nuclear Station license renewal C-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supp. 2
Appendix C 1 December 29,1998 Letter from J. Wilson, NRC, to W. McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation, forwarding requests for additional information for the review of the Oconee Nuclear Station license renewal application regarding severe accident mitigation attematives 2 December 29,1998 Letter from J. Wilson, NRC, to W. McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation, , forwaruing requests for additional information for the review of the Oconee l Nuclear Station Environmental Report associated with license renewal 3 March 4,1999 Letter from M. Tuckman, Duke Energy Corporation, to the NRC Document l Control Desk, transmitting the response to the requests for additional information 4 April 29,1999 Letter from J. Wilson, NRC, to W. McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation, forwarding followup to request for additional information dated December 29, 1998, related to the environmental portion of the review of the license renewal application for Oconee Nuclear Station. 5 April 29,1999 Letter from W. McCollum, Duke Energy Corporation, to the NRC Document Control Desk, transmitting the response to the followup to the request for additionalinformation related to the environmental portion of the review of the license renewal application for Oconee Nuclear station. 6 May 10,1999 Letter from C. Carpenter, NRC, to W. McCollun, Duko Energy, transmitting NRC staff's determination of the scope of transmission lines for the review of Duke Energy's license renewal application. 7 j Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 C-2
{
}
Appendix D Organizations Contacted i I l i 1 t i i 1 l l
1 Appendix D 2 3 Organizations Contacted 4 5 6 During the course of the staff's independent review of environmentalimpacts form operations during 7 tha renewal term, the following State, regional, and local agencies were contacted: 8 9 Anderson County, Department of Economic and Community Development, Anderson County, 10 CI:mson, South Carolint 11 12 App lechian Council of Governments, Economic Development / Planning Services, Greenville, 13 South Carolina 14 15 Bureau of Water, SC Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, South Carolina 16 17 Coldwell Banker (Appraiser), Anderson, South Carolina 18 19 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC 20 21 HITT & Associates (Appraiser), Pickens, South Carolina l
- 22 i
l23 institute of Earth Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina l24 '25 Knowee-Toxaway State Park, Sunset, South Carolina , l 26 27 Knight Realty & Appraisals, Pickens, South Carolina 28 29 Lcndrith and Associates (Appraisers), Seneca, South Carolina 30 31 Luth r Fields (Appraiser), Clemson, South Carolina 32 33 Moss and Associates (Appraiser), Walhalla, South Carolina 34 35 Mus:um of the Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina 36 37 North Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North 38 C:rolina 39 40 Oconee County, Department of Economic Development, Oconee County, Walhalla, South Carolina 41 42 Old Pickens Presbyterian Church, Perpetual Care Committee, Salem, South Carolina 43 44 Pick:ns County, Economic Development and Planning Department, Pickens County, Pickens, South 45 Carolina 46 47 Pick:ns County Museum, Pickens, South Carolina 48 49 Plinner for Oconee County Social Services, Oconee County, Walhalla, South Carolina 50 51 Secretary for the Oconee County Planning Commission, Walhalla, South Carolina D-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supp. 2
I Appendix D 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Diversity office 2 3 South Carolina institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (State Archaeologist), University of South 4 Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 5 6 South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Columbia, South Carolina 7 8 State Toxicologist, South Carolina Department of Haalth and Environmental Control, Columbia South , 9 Carolina 10 11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charlotte, North Carolina 12 13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, South Carolina Draft NUREG-1437, Supp. 2 D-2
Appendix E Duke Compliance Status and Consultations I 1
I Appendix E j 2 ' 3 Duke Compliance Status and Consultations 4 5 6 As part of Duke Energy Corporation's (Duke's) application for renewal of their operating licenses for 7 Units 1,2, and 3, they prepared a list of licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained 8 from Federal, State, regional, and local authorities pertinent to ONS operations. The list with minor 9 ch nges, is shown in the first attachment, i 10 11 Correspondence from Federal and State agencies acknowledging Duke's permits and status 12 compliance with requirements is also attached including 13 14
- SCDHEC letter providing status of NPDES permit 15 16
- SCDHEC letter stating that there seems no significant threat to off-site persons from pathogenic 17 microorganisms whose abundance might be promoted by artificial warming of recreational waters.
18 19
- FWS letter concurring with determination of no effect on listed or proposed endangered or 20 threatened species 21 22
- State Historic Preservation Office letter stating that they know of no properties included in or 23 eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places which will be affected by this project.
1 E-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
App:ndix E I Table E-1. Oconee Environmental Permits and Compliance Status 2 3 Oconee Federal, State Date Permit 4 Environmental or Local lasued or Expired / 5 Permits Federal Act Permitting Agency Compliance Status 6 Operating Licenses Atomic Energy Act, U.S. Nuclear Expires February 6,2013; 7 DPR-38, DPR-47 and 10 CFR Part 50 Regulatory October 6,2013; and 8 DPR-58 Commission July 19,2014 9 Independent Spent Atomic Energy Act, U.S. Nuclear Expires January 31,2010 10 Fuel Storage 10 CFR Part 72 Regulatory 11 Installation, Materials Commission 12 License No. SNM-2503 13 FERC Project Federal Power Act, Federal Energy Expires 2016 14 No.2503 Section 4(e) Regulatory Commission 15 National Pollutant Federal Water SCDHEC Expired / currently 16 Discharge Elirnination Pollution Control being evaluated 17 System (NPDES) Act (FWPCA) 18 Permit # SC0000515 Section 402 19 Part A Hazardous Resource SCDHEC issued March 9,1988 - 20 Waste Permit Conservation and in compliance 21 #SCD043979822 Recovery Act 22 Interim Storage Facility (RCRA) Section 23 for Mixed Wastes 3005 24 Operating Permit Clean Air Act- SCDHEC issued April,221997 - 25 #1820-0041 Air Quality Section 112 In compliance 26 Landfill Permit RCRA Subtitle D SCDHEC lssued January,11 1995 - 27 #373303-1601 In compliance l 28 Drinking Water Wells Safe Drinking SCDHEC In compliance 29 Permit #202098Al and Water Act 42, 30 Permit #204558 U.S.C.1412 31 General Stormwater FWPCA Section SCDHEC lssued October 10,1992 - 32 Permit SCR000000 402 in compliance 33 Infectious Waste N/A '3 HEC issued May 6,199E - 34 Permit #SC37-0051G in compliance Draft NUREG-1437 Supplem ant 2 E-2
App ndix E 1 Table E-1. (contd) 2 3 Oconee Federal, State Date Permit 4 Environmental or Local issued or Expired / c 5 Permits Federal Act Permitting Agency Compliance Status 6 Environmental N/A SCDHEC lssued May 6,1992 - 7 liboratory in compliance 8 Cer1ification 9 #37756001 10 Underground Storage RCRA Subtitle i South Carolina Issued January 1,1/1982 - 11 Tcnk #06673 Department of Health In compliance and Environmental Control 12 Underground Storage RCRA Subtitle i SCDHEC lssued November 3,1988 - 13 Tcnk Permit #11174 in compliance 14 Underground Storage RCRA Subtitle i SCDHEC lssued November 3,1989 - 15 Tenk Permit #11843 in compliance 16 Endangered Species Endangered FWS Consultation Species Act, Section 7 - Consultation 17 Historic Preservation National Historic South Carolina Consultation Preservation Act, Historic Preservation Section 106 Office 18 1 E-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Appendix E U r oM T17Ro eT F & 2eco sd seca Colombia,sc 292011705 April 21,1999 Document Control Desk , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l ATTN: Jim Wilson l Mail Stop 0-11 F-1 l Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Wilson,
in response to your request concoming the status of NPDES and land disposal permits for the Oconee Nuclear Station, the following is l submitted for your review. ( s The Oconee Nue! ear Station has been assigned NPDES permit number, SC0000515. Currently, the resolution of toxicity testing issues involving Outfall 002 and the public notice and comment period must be completed before final approval and issuance of the permit to Oconee. Included in this process is the approval for land disposal of solids. The solids land application permit is included and will be issued upon finalization of the NPDES permit. The Bureau of Water is in the process of working with Oconee Nuclear staff towards the resolution of these issues. These are the only issues being considered by the Bureau (under the Clean Water Act) impacting water quality at the Oconee Nuclear Station and it's ability to continue operation and maintain compliance in the future. Should you nave any questions or need additional information, please call me at 803-896-4246 or e mail at gandyrm@columb34.dhec. state.sc.us Sincerely, R. Michmol Gandy. Health Physicist SCDHEC Nuclear Power Relicensing Coordinator Division of Radioactive Waste Management Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 E-4
App:ndix E South Carolina DHEC o.p mn nt a n an .no e,4a a c.ew M $D 0013I W . l October 25,1996
,,(g ,
Mr. Thomas W. Yocum .
'yg OME-Environmental Ergineermg Duke Power /MG03C1 -
y
' U. .*pt 1339 Hagers Ferry Rd. y j Huntersville,'NC 28078-7829 #
D $N # -A A
Dear Mr. Yocum:
Thank you for the telephone discussions and for technical documents you sent relative to public health considerations of thermophilic microorganisms. I have reviewed this material and related technical information in my own library. While some microorganisms associated with thermal water discharges, especially related to air conditioning cooling towers, have been demonstrated to have deleterious human health effects, these events have occurred rarely and none have been identified with heated water sources associated with nuclear power plants, to my knowledge. 1 Pathogenic species of I2rionella bacteria and Naerleria amoeba have been identified in heated cooling waters associated with nuclear plants. In most cases, the heated waters showed a very small increase (approximately 10-fold) over unheated source waters, but were higher in source waters in a few cases. The most likely exposure to Legionella aerosol would be to workers within the plant. This would not impact the general public beyond the plant boundaries. A similar exposure possibility exists for Naerleria amoeba, with a slightly greater exposure potential for swimmers. The pManti=1 public health hazard from pathogenic microorganisms whose abiindarre might be promoted by arti5cial warmmg of recreational waters is largely theoretical and not s@e=ari=W by available data. There is some justification for providing appropriate respiratory protection and dermal protection for workers regularly exposed to known contaminated water, but there seems no significant threat to off-site persons near such heated recreational waters. Routine monitoring for pathogenic microorgamsms could be established if suspicious illnesses arose or if there were significant community concerns. Please contact me at 803/73 /4170 if you desire additional discussion of this matter. Sincerely, f9W , l/M h i John F. Brown, DVM, PhD State Toxicologist E-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Suppiement 2
Appendix E 6 CL' Win & pDuke .gesavr+aa) ** " t #8%mer. f.t,
;1993 ' bT,%
Charlerne. NC 2420t.8006 June 23,1998 Mail Code EC12Y m,,,,m,...c.,.,,,,,,,,, . x
.e Mr. Roger L. Banks US Fish and Wildlife Service PO Box 12559 RECEIVEDJUN 2.E 33 Charleston, SC 29422 2559
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station - NRC License Revewal FWS Log No. 4-6-98-227
Dear Mr. Banks:
Duke Power Company is in the process of preparing a license renewal package for Oconee Nuclear Station. As part of the license renewal process, the Nuc! car Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that applicants identify adverse impacts to rare and endangered species resulting i from continued operation of the facility or refiurbishment activities. Duke Power Company hired Dr. L.L. Gaddy to survey a one mile radius around the facility to identify any rare or endangered species. Enclosed please find the results of this survey titled
" Endangered Threatened and Otherwise Noteworthy Plant and Animal Species of the Oconee Nuclear Statiort "
Dr. Gaddy located four state-listed plant species within the one-mile radius. The locations of these plants are shown on Map 1 of the attached report. These areas are remote from the actual operation of the plant and there are no plans for future refurbishment activities in these loestioic Therefore, Duke Power does not believe that continued operation of the facility will adversely impact these species. We ask that you provide your comments regarding both the survey report and our determination of no adverse impact. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 704/373-4392 If you have any questions. Sincerely:
~~
Based on the lakrmation rectived _ - we concur with yaw daanmnstson that the proposed '
'h"5 I*'
Scientist I have no affect on listed or proposed e:wiangered or eseaiened p D is no( likely so adversely affect listsd or proposed endangerud or threatened species. Enclosure O is act like2r to have $isairie:,i a:herse -euand M cc: Mr. Ed Duncan. SCDNR Field Supsvtw. ee: Dr. L.L. Gaddy U.S.
- an % its Servi p ,3 g49,[ceatirston Field Omco
,,3,, q Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 E-6
App:ndix E U CCO K) - tJeorE- OF ~~ 0g3
&guke ^^"
, X Gm9 Enkmne. Heald &.%fery m ai,% 13339 Hagers Ferry Reed ENVIRONMENTA1. ENGlWEERING
""""'"m sc 2so7sm V AND f1ANNING SECTION OCT 2 41997 September 30,1997 O FILE D TICKLER DATE Ms. Nancy Brd S uth C rol Partment ofg[gN REC"" "")
OCT - 31997 and st ry PO Box 11669 - S. C D U'AHI W 8 Mi Columbia, SC 292111 O ROUTE ABCHfvES & HISTOR5
Subject:
Oconee Nuclear Station Historic and Archaeological Properties
Dear Ms. Brock:
Duke Power is currently preparing an application for renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station's operating license. One of the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion's (NRC) requirements is that Duke must identify impacts to cultural resources resulting from the renewal of the license. Duke does not believe that there will be any impacts to cultural resources due to the fact that refurbishment is not anticipated to require any land-disturbing activities. I have enclosed information about the relicensing process from Oconee's Environmental Report and the NRC's generic environmental report. After you review the enclosed information, please send ine a letter statmg that impacts to culneral resources will be nururnal and that there is no need for mitigation. Please do not hesttate to contact me at (704) 875-5966 if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely: Jennifer A. Rudisill' . U tfre Resource Management lPEt te(x Enclosures (2) O><*-6
% ww e.
E-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
I I Appendix F GEIS Environmental lasuea Not Applicable to the Oconee Nuclear Station
1 Appendix F 2 3 GEIS EnvironmentalIssues Not Applicable 4 to the Oconee Nuclear Station 5 6 { 7 The following table lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact 8 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpast A, 9 Appendix B , Table B-1 to that are not applicable to the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) because of 10 - plint or site characteristics. I1 12 ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 13 Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment i 14 SURFACE WATER QUAUTY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS) 15 Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2 ONS cooling system does not 4.4.2.2 discharge to an estuary. Lake Keowee is freshwater. 16 Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling 2 4.3.2.1 This issue is related to heat 17 ponds or cooling towers using makeup 4.4.2.1 dissipation systems that are not 18 water from a small river with low flow) installed at ONS. 19 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING-TOWER-BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)
' 20 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heat 21 c:rly life stages dissipation systems that are not installed at ONS.
22 Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heat dissipation systems that are not installed at ONS. 23 Heat shock 1 4.3.3 This issue is related to heat dissipation systems that are not installed at ONS 24 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY 25 Groundwater use conflicts (potable and 2 4.8.1.1 ONS uses < 100 gpm of 26 service water, and dewatering; plants 4.8.2.1 groundwater. 27 that use >100 gpm) 28 Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using 2 4.3.2.1 This issue is related to heat 29 cooling towers withdrawing makeup 4.4.2.1 dissipation systems that are not 30 water from a small river) installed at ONS or are operated I on bodies of water that are much smaller than Lake Keowee. 31 Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney 2 4.8.1.4 ONS does not have or use 32 wells) Ranney wells. F-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2
Appendix F ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment i Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.2 ONS does not have or use 2 (Ranney wells) Ranney wells. 3 Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.1 ONS is located on Lake Keowee, 4 (saltwater intrusion) a freshwater lake. 5 Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.3 This issue is related to a heat 6 (cooling ponds in salt marshes) dissipation system that is not l installed at ONS. i 7 Groundwater quality degradation 2 4.8.3 This issue is related to a heat 8 (cooling ponds at inland sites) dissipation system that is not I installed at ONS. 9 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 10 Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 4.3.4 This issue is related to a heat 11 omamental vegetation dissipation system that is not installed at ONS. 12 Cooling tower impacts on native plants 1 4.3.5.1 This issue is related to a heat , dissipation system that is not installed at ONS. 13 Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 This issue is related to a heat dissipation system that is not installed at ONS. 14 Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 4.4.4 This issue is related to a heat 15 resources dissipation systems that is not installed at ONS. 16 17 References 18 19 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1," Environmental effect of renewing the operating , 20 license of a nuclear power plant." I 21 { 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1996. Generic EnvironmentaIImpact Statement for ) 23 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C. l l l 1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 F-2
NRCFoRM 33s UA NUCLEAR REGULATORY Commission 1. REPORT NI.AeEQ -Q4e) (Analemed tiy senc, Add vol., supp., Rev., $'sE BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET """*"'""""*"*N3 l rsee m eucerme an em .es
- 2. TITLE AND SUBTITtz NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 1
' Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants i Supplement 2 3. DATE REPORT PUBUSHED Oconee Nuclear Station Mowrw YsAR l May 1999 Draft Report for Comment (, g g G AUTHOR (S) s. TYPE OF REPORT Technical
- 7. PERIOD COVERED thchmae Desse)
O.PERFORhaNG ORGANEZATION NAhE AND ADDRESS trmc pamfe owsm oncew Aegm u.S Alucmar Asgusskry c_- -- and memna acess; aamencer. pense nome and mesne eneene) D# vision of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 p SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS trmc type *seme as ebwe* #conescar pam mcthem onceorRepm u s mrasanegatrycanmaam I and mahno ammes} Same as 8. above.
- 10. SuPPLEAENTARY NOTES Docket Numbers 50-269,50-270,50-287
- 11. AasTRACT 000 nave e ases)
This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared iri response to an application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) to renew the operating licenses for the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Units 1,2, and 3 for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. The supplemental environmental impact statement includes the stafs preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmentalimpacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and attematives available for reducing or l avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the staffs preliminary recommendations regarding the proposed action. Based on the analysis and findings in the GEIS, the Environmental Report submitted by BGE, consultation with other Federal and State agencies, and its own independent review, the staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of heense renewal for ONS Units 1,2, and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decessonmakers would be unreasonable.
- 12. KEY WORDSOESCRIPTORS (tat mods cr earenes met wo essesf reaewehers m kret.ng en repet) 3 AvALAasuTY STATEMENT unlimited Oconee Nuclear Station Supplement to the Generic Environmental impact Statement " secume-icAvow National Environmental Policy Act cram e.,e; NEPA unclassified Ucense Renewal (nim amp-o unciassified
- 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
- 16. PRICE NRc FORM 335 Q49) This krm was emetrunceny psoduced try Eine Federal Fems, Inc.
l I Printed on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program
l N U C P WL AA E _ E N S R A L TO HI N R Y F GEU N FF OC I T GI RI A O LE UT PL ,N AD RB I D OT TS VU C AS RA TI EN E 2YT US SS 5C E 0 S
.E 5O 5R 3
3 0 0M 0A I 0 0S 1 S I O N P O S P TI F E AR R GSET M TI AC - NL C D A S FS E G 6
- EM SA 7 l Pl AI D ,}}