ML19345D877
| ML19345D877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1980 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012170689 | |
| Download: ML19345D877 (38) | |
Text
m 7
e i
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, ET &.
)
50-515
)
I (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW IN THE FORM OF A LIMITED PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SITE SUITABILITY MATTERS
- t l}
1 m
t=3 a
[:u A;h; D'
G 2:
or; m
HR s
o c3 u
G y}
I Benard M. Bordenick
-Counsel for NRC Staff l
l k
l l
December 2, 1980 i
f 8012170$%
- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
Preliminary Statement...
1 II.
Findings of Fact - Partial Compliance to Date With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Sections 102(2)(A), (C) and (D) and 10 C.F.R. Part 51........
6 A.
General 6
B.
Compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 8
C.
Fnvironmental Effects of Plant Construction and Operation 10 D.
Matters in Controve rsy.................
11 1.
Need for Power 11 2.
Al ternatives and Economic Costs..........
11 3.
Possible Algal Blooms in the Cooling Rese.voir 12 4.
Cooling Pond Performance 13 5.
Loss of Agricul tural Land.............
15 6.
Rad i ol og ical Rel e a s e s...............
20 1
7.
Environmental Monitoring 20 8.
Environmental Effects of Postulated Accidents...
20 9.
Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle..
21 II:
Site Suitability 21 l
l A.
General Background...................
21 B.
Popu:ation Density and Use Characteristics.......
22 C.
Nearby Industrial, Transportation and tiilitary i
l Fa c i l i t i e s......................
24 l
D.
Meteorology 26 i
i
(
Paae E.
Hydrology 27 F.
Founda tion Eng ineering.................
29 G.
Geol ogy a nd Seismol ogy...........
30 H.
Conclusions on Site Suitability 31 IV.
Conclusions of Law
.....................'31 V.
Orde r..
32 l
~
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NilCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
{
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, ET AL, 50-515 (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDSING 0F FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM OF A LIMITED PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS AND SITE SUITABILITY I.
Preliminary Statement 1.
This proceeding involves an application by the Portland General Electric Company (" Applicant") filed with the Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Applicant, pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, seeks authorization to construct and operate two pressurized water nuclear reactors each designed for initial base load operatian of 3600 mega-watts (thennal), with a net electrical output of 1260 megawatts.
The facilities are to be known as the Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and are to be located near the Columbia River in Gilliam County, Oregon. Da February 15, 1980, Applicant announced it had concluded that the proposed Pebble Springs facility cannot be completed in time to meet its late 1980's energy requirements and that it was evaluating t
other energy options.
Applicant stated that it now pla'nned on Pebble Springs for meeting its energy demands for the 1990's.
The Applicant also requested the Licensing Board to proceed on what it tenned " site suitability issues" and to issue a partial initial decision on those ma tte rs.
The health and safety review for the prwosed facility by the NRC Staff remains imcomplete. Likewise, there are several environmental and site-suitability issues, noted infra, where the record remains open in this proceeding.
Accordingly, this decision cannot, and does not, authorize any licensing action by the Staff.E 2.
In accordance with the requirements of the Abmic Energy Act, as amended, a Notice of Hearing was published in the Federal Register (39 Fed. Reg. 42938) on December 9, 1974. The Notice specified that persons whose interest might be affected by the proceeding could file a petition for leave to intervene, in accoria. e with the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
} 2.714, and further, made provisions for filing of requests by inter-ested persons to make limited appearances pursuant to the provisions of
-1/
We have proceeded to issue this limited Partial Initial Decision on the basi; of the Appeal Board's decision in Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975). We stress, however, with regard to this decision
- *
- that any findings which might be made on a record developed well in advance of final decision must be regarded as subject to reconsideratior should supervening developments 4
or newly available evidence so warrant. [citationomitted]
Douglas Point, supra,1 NRC at 545.
In this regard for example, with particular respect to the findings in Part III, infra, " Site Suitability," the Board notes that the Commission has under consideration the adoption of modified or additional regulations concerning the siting of nuclear power reactors.
See 45 Fed. Reg. 50350.
I 10 C. F.R. 6 2.715.
The Notice set forth the issues to be considered and decided by this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") in a public hearing to detemine whether or not, at the appropriate time, construction permits would be issued to Applic. ant. The Notice also stated that, in addition to considering and detemining the issues pertaining to radiological health and safety and the common defense and security, the Board would also consider and make deteminations on certain specified environmental matters, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 51, and general site suitability matters pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 2.761a.
3.
Althougn the above-referenced Federal Register notice set forth all the issues which must be considered and decided by this Board to detemine whether limited work aut;orizations or construction pemits should be i
issued, this Partial Initial Decision only addresses some, but not all environmental issues specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and some but not all site suitability issues specified in 10 C.F.R. 50.10(e)(2). A decision on other pending matters will be usued only after the record is closed subsequent to further public hearings which may be scheduled by the Board.
l 4.
On December 16, 1974; the State of Oregon made a request to participate l'
in this proceeding, by and through its Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council, now known as the Oregon Enemy Facilities Siting Council, as l
6n interested state pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.715(c). The Board approved the request of the State of Oregon in an Order issued on January 30, 1975.
I
5.
In addition, petitions to intervene were filed on January 5,1975, by R. J. Epping and on January 8,1975, by Lloyd K. Marbet, on his own behalf and on behalf of Forelaws on Board (F0B) and Coalition for Safe Power (CSP). These petitions were procedurally defective. However, on recommendation of the Staff, the Board on January 30, 1975, granted petitioners 30 days within which to file amended petitions. Amended petitions were filed by petitioners Marbet, F0B and CSP but not by petitior.er Epping.
Further opportunity to perfect the petition was granted to petitioners Marbet, F0B and CSP at a prehearing conference held in Arlington, Oregon, on March 25, 1975.
Petitioner Epping made no further written responses and did not, af ter notice, appear at tne prehearing conference.
In an order issued on April 25, 1975, the Board denied intervention status to Mr. Epping but granted status to F0B and CSP and admitted their contentions 1 and 7.
Applicant appealed the Board's Order asserting that F0B and CSP should not have been granted i
intervention status. Mr. Marbet also appealed the Board's Order denying n:s individual petition and F08, CSP and Mr. Marbet appealed the exclusion of contentions 2-6 from this proceeding. On May 28,1975, the Atomic Sc.fety and Licensing Appeal Board issueu a Memorandum and Order (ALAB-273, j
1 NRC 492) which affinned the Board's drder of April 24, 1975, in all regards except that Mr. Marbet was also granted intervention status in his own behalf.E All three petitions were subsequently consolidated by the Board.
_2]
ALAB-273 also denied Mr. Marbet's motion to disqualify Dr. Walter H.
Jordan as a member of this Board which motion had beea denied by us and referred to the Appeal Board as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.704(c).
. 6.
On January 23, 1973, the Board and parties were advised that Pacific Power & Light Company (PP&L) and Puget Sound Power & Light Company (Puget) had entered into an ownership agreement with PGE (all collec-tively referred to hereafter as the " Applicant").E On motion by the Staff, an amended notice of hearing was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1976 (41 Fed. Reg. 8002). The amended notice afforded any person whose interest may be affectiJ by the entrance of Puget and PP&L as joint-applicants the opportunity to participate in this proceeding under 10 C. F.R. 5 2.714. As a resalt of the amended notice of hearing, additional petitions to intervene were received. The Board subsequently approved the petitions of Project Survival, Phillip Levy, Dennison Levy, Charles Thomas, Sara Thomas, Al Bannon and Katherine Bannon.
In order to facilitate the conduct of the hearing and inasmuch as their interests and contentions were similar, the Board ruled that the approved Petitioners be consolidated as one party.
However, the participation of these later intervenors was limited to issues where the record has not been closed.
7.
Various evidentiary hearings in this matter have been held. As indi-cated above, the record in this proceeding remains open on several i
issues.
However, on October 1,1980, the Board directed the parties to y
The agreement provides that PGE will own 40 percent of the facility, and remain the principal owner with responsibility for constructing and operating the facility. PP&L will have 25-percent interest and Puget will have a 20-percent interest, with the remaining 15 percent an unallocated portion designated for "others." This 15 percent interest still remains unallocated.
file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on site-suitability and environmental issues where the record is closed.
Pursuant to the Board's order, the parties filed proposed findings.
In making the following findings and conclusions, we have reviewed and considered the entire record in this case and all of the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties which are not incorporated directly or inferentially into this Limited Partial Initial Decision are rejected as being unsupported in law or fact, as being unnecessary to the rendering of this decision, or on issues on which the record is not or should not yet be closed.
II.
Findings of Fact - Partial Compliance to Date with the National Environnen-tal Policy Act (NEPA), Sections 102(2)( A), (C) and (D) and 10 C.F.R. Pirt 51 A.
General 8.
The Notice of Hearing, issued on December 9,1974, provides that the Board is required to:
(1) determine whether the requirements of 5102(2)(A), (C), and (D) of NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 have been complied with in this proceeding.
(2) independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to L ;termining the appropriate action to be taken, and i
4 i
(3) detennine after weighing tne environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering available alternatives, whether the construction permits should be issued, denied or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values.O 9.
Applicant submitted, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51 an " Environ-mental Report - Construction Permit Stage" on the environmental effects of construction and operation of Units 1 and 2.
The Environmental Report was further expanded by the submission of supplements (Applicant's Exhibit A-2).
Upon receipt of the Environmental Report, the Staff commenced its review and in January 1975, issued a Draft Environmental Statement (DES).
(39 Fed. RS. 42938). The DES was circulated to various interested Federal, State and local agencies for comment.
Af ter the comments were received, they were evaluated and responded to by the Staff. The responses were included as part of the Final Environ-mental Statement (FES or Staff Exh. S-1) on Units 1 and 2 issued in April 1975.
- 10. The Final Environmental Statement describes the plant site, the major systems of the plant, the environmental effects of site preparation and transmission line construction, the environmental effects of both plant l
4f Since the record remains open on such issues as "need for power" and various alternatives to the proposed action, the Board must defer making a final judgment as to all these requirements.
. -. ~
i operation and postulated design basis accidents, and the Applicant's environmental monitoring program. The FES also contains an analysis of plant design alternatives, including cooling systems, and it discusses alternative energy sources and alternative sites.El In addition, the FES contains a cost-benefit analysis and a detailed evaluation of the proposed action in terms of the need for the power to be generated by the plant, adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, the relationship between short-term use of resources and the long-term productivity of the environment, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.
B.
Compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act i
- 11. The Commission may not issue any license or permit for the facility unless, in compliance with 6 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control i
Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), the State of Oregon either certifies l
(a) that there are no applicable effluent limitations or standards under il 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the FWPCA (" negative certification")
or (b) that there are such applicable standards and limitations and the discharges from the Pebble Springs facility will comply with those standards and limitations (" positive certification") or (c) in the alternative has waived certification.
5/
The record as to all these matters remains open.
~
. _... _... ~,. _. _ _,. _... _. _.. _.. _. _,... _ _.
. 12.
On October 8,1974, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated effluent limitations and standards which defined the various levels of technology contemplated by the FWPCA to reduce the discharge of pollutants.
40 C.F.R. Part 523, (39 Fed. Reg. 36186). Accordingly, compliance with 9 401 of the PWPCA can now only be dem>nstrated by a " positive certifica-tion" or a waiver of certification.
- 13. By letter dated December 1,1975 (App. Exh. A-6, Tr. 892) the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality stated that it:
"* *
- certifies that the Pebble Springs Nuclear Project will comply with applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the [FWPCA] --i.e., there is reasonable assurance that it will not vi late applicable water quality standards."
14.
Because of the above-quoted certification by the State of Oregon, the B
d may not independently detennine compliance with applicable water qu ity standards and limitations, FWPCA 5 511(c)(2)).
In sum, the positive 401 certification from the State of Oregon is dispositive of l
the question of compliance with applicable limitations and standards.
Section 511(c)(2) of the FWPCA does not, however, change our obligation l
to weigh degradation of water quality in our NEPA cost-benefit balance when finally made. Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 712-13 (1978).
i l
l
_ C.
Environmental Effects of Plant Construction and Operation 15.
The Board finds that the following environmental effects will result fran plant construction and operation (References below are to sections of Staff Exh. S The FES):
a.
Approximately 1045 acres of dry range land out of a total site area of 8400 acres will be removed from current use. The portion 1
of the plant site not used for the reservoir and plant-related activities, parking lots, roads, etc., will be seeded and land-sca ped.
(2.1,4.1.2).
b.
If construction pennits are ultimately issued, the influx of construction workers into the community will place a stress on the housing and community services in the area.
(4.4).
c.
Minor temporary impacts to the biota of the plant area river bank will result from construction activities.
(4.3.2).
{
d.
The proposed plant will withdraw up to 45,000 gpm (56,800 acre-ft/yr) j of water from the Columbia. Approximately 2800 acre-ft of water wil! be used annually for irrigation. This withdrawal will not l
result in a significant change in the nature of the Columbia l
l River.
(3.3,5.1.1).
l l
I e.
It is anticipated that algal blooms and some of their attendant
~
problems will occur i the Pebble Springs Reservoir during the lifetime of the station. As further discussad below, measures are available for their control, if necessary.
(5.5.2.2).
f.
Aquatic organisms entrained in the makeup water for the plants will be killed due to thermal and mechanical shock.
Such loss is rot expected to disrupt the river's food chain or other aspects of that ecosystem.
(5.5.2.1).
D.
Matters in Controversy 1.
Need for Power 2.
Alternatives 5/ and Economic Costs At this time ti.a Board cannot make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the need for power, alternatives or the economic costs of the proposed facility because the record is not yet closed on these matters.
(See Board Orders of March 27,1980, April 25, 1980, and June 23,1980).
6/
Includes, inter alia, alternative sites.
g
~ - * + -
.ry y
v wn-
.e-vu-,ycy---
g
,-.e--
vv---
--w rr--w<-
-y-
--- =,,*
g---
- e
- -r oumu*r-ew**
- =--e*
- rw e-
--n--
3-r-
. 3.
Possible Algal Blooms in the Cooling Reservoir
- 17. There was concern expressed originally by the Staff and later by the Board concerning possible blue-green algal blooms in the proposed cooling reservoir and their effect on both watefowl and cattle (Tr.
93-4).
The Staff indicated that "it is not possible to accurately predict the occurrences or species composition of an algal bloom," due to the numerous factors which are believed to be contributory to such a phenomenon The Staff, and likewise the Board, is concerned, however, that if a toxic algal bloom should occur, domestic animals, waterfowl, and wildlife using the reservoir water could be stricken. The Staff also 'ndicated that while the probability that there will be a toxic algal bloom in the cooling pond is low, the possibility for such an occurrence exists (Tr. 628; Staff Exhibit S-1, Section 5.5.2).
While notification of water users under contract should be adequate to protect livestock in case a toxic algal bloom begins to develop, the Board finds that this action would not protect waterfowl or other wildlife using the reservoir water.
(Zussman, Fg. Tr. 597).
i.
18.
In view of the Staff's evaluation (Zussman, Fg. Tr. 597; Staff Exhibit S-1, p. 6-3), the Board finds that Ap,,licant should be required, as a i
condition to issuance of a construction permit, to conduct a study to predict which potentially toxic blue-green algae could multiply in the cooling reservoir and what algicide regimines would be effective, yet environmentally acceptable, in treating such blooms.
Furthemore, in view of the rapidity with which algal blooms can develop, the Board
. _. ~. _ _ _.. -. -,
finds that Applicant must include, in its operational monitoring program, teenn190es capable of predicting possible occurrences. The USEPA " Algal Assay Procedure; Bottle Test"U s one such technique.
In addition the i
Board finds that this or similar test methods can be adapted to detemine the minimum effective dose of specific algicides necessary to control algal populations indigenous to the Pebble Springs reservoir in the event that they begin to participate in algal bloom formation.
Finally, the Board also finds that the Applicant must include, in its operational monitoring program, techniques (e.g., mouse injection) to detemine if algal toxins are present in the reservoir during periods of incipient algal bloom to aid in detemining if algal control will be necessary.
(Zussman, Fg. Tr. 597).
4.
Cooling Pond Perfomance
- 19. With respect to the Staff's analysis of the Pebble Springs Cooling Pond perfomance, as outlined in Chapter 5 and Appendix C of Staff Exhibit S-1, the Board finds that almost all predictive models treat cooling ponds as simple, completely mixed or plug flow ponds as described in Appendix C of Staff Exhibit S-1.
The reason for this is that many of the heat and mass transfer processes that occur in a real lake or pond are of ten too complicated to model.
Decisions must be made whether or not they can be ignored in a given situation. Some complications such as the presence of side arms (areas of the lake not in the main flow)
JJ Algal Assay Procedure; Bottle Test, National Eutrophication Research Program Environmental Protection Agency, August,1971.
or entrance mixing can be handled in a variety of ways, all which are approximations to the true situation at hand (Mamer, Fg. Tr. 601).
- 20. Other phenomena that are easy to understand and very important to the cooling process are extremely difficult to formulate analytically. The best example is heat transfer due to evaporation. Several different a
formulae have been proposed and can be found in the literature. They are all functionally dependent upon the wind speed, but, to date, no definitive analysis has been performed to detemine which evaporation fomula yields results closest to reality.
In fact, since this tem is so site specific, it is very likely that such a task would be impossible (Mamer, Fg. Tr. 601).
- 21. The Staff addressed the Board's concern that the circulation time of 8.5 days stated in the Staff Exhibit S-1 might be inaccurate since its '
calculation involved the entire volume of the lake.
If the cooling pond is strongly stratified, then only the epilimnion can be considered as a plug flow pond and it is true that the circulation time will be less than 8.5 days (Mamer, Fig. Tr. 601). However, the cooling metFod 1
is primarily a surface phenomenon, and since the lake area does not chenge, the temperature predictions are still valid. This can be seen from equations (4) and (10) of Appendix C of Staff Exh. S-1.
The l
l temperature at the cool end of the lake is given by l
T
-E F
-Kt /oC l
=e p
p T
~
O l
I
4 However, the term t /L in the exponential is just the ratio of the p
surface area of the lake A to the plant flow rate Q.
In this form T
-E p
-KA/oC Q
=e p
T
~
O so that the temperature predictions are seen to be area and flow rate dependent alone (Marmer, Fg. Tr. 601).
1 22.
Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Staff has been suffi-ciently conservative in its temperature predictions, notwithstanding the difficulties inherent in analytically modeling a cooling pond accurately.
The Board also finds that the Staff's analysis of the cooling pond performance has been accurate and ressonably conservative.
l 5.
Loss of Agricultural Land-23.
The effects of the loss of agricultural land from its present use for at least 40 years due to construction and operation of the Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant and reservoir was examined by the Staff and Board.
A comparison or balance of this loss against the agricultural
~
benefits that could result from the availability of reservoir water for irrigation was conducted.
l 8_/
The Staff concurs in Applicant's proposed finding 5-13, at pages 5-8 of Applicant's proposed findings relating to uncontested land use matters related to construction of the proposed facility.
- _ _ i
- 24. The Board finds that Gilliam County, Oregon, encompasses an area of 773,120 acres.
In earlier days, the natural vegetation of the entire county was steppe, various shrub-bunchgrass communities adapted to the low annual precipitation and very dry, hot suriners. The agriculture of he area has developed within these restraints and almost all of the usable land in the county is devoted to dryland agriculture. The most important cash crop in 1974 was wheat, with lesser amounts of barley, oats and rye being grown. The total harvested acreage for ali grains i_
in 1974 was 130,700 with wheat accounting for 122,600. However, the total number of acres devoted to grain production is closer to twice this figure because in mcst cases a grain crop is grown on a particular parcel of unirrigated aan; only every second year using the summer fallow method. By using this method, two years moisture is held in the soil to grow one crop.
In addition to grains, 4,800 acres of hay and 200 acres of other field crops were harvested in Gilliam County in 1974. Only about 1.7% (4500 acres) of these field crops are presently being grown under irrigation, the water being obtained fran wells. The value of all field crops in 1974 was $19,527,000. The only other important agricultural product in Gilliam County is livestock.
Approxi-mately 14,000 head of cattle and 3,600 head of sheep were grazed on about 500,000 acres of dryland range in 1974.
For the most part this dryland range is the existing unirrigated shrub-grass vegetation (steppe).
In the county, only about 6000 acres of this rangeland have been improved by seeding and/or brush removal. About 0.5% (2500 acres) of the total grazing land is presently in irrigated pasture. These pastures are
~
I used to graze cattle when they are not on dryland range. The value of all livestock in 1974 was $3,374,000.
ihus, the Board fisu. that field crops and dryland livestock grazing account for over 761,000 acres of Gilliam County, which is almost all of the usable agricultural land (Hinchman, Fg. Tr. 599).
25.
The Board finds that construction and operation of the Pebble Springs Nuclear plant will result in changes in the land-use patterns of the site and the contiguous 35,000 acres owned by Krebs Brothers, Inc.
(Krebs). At present, the primary land use in the site area and of the Krebs parcel is dryland range. Approximately 2045 acres of this land, 0.4% of the rangeland in the county, will be modified or inundated due to the construction of the plant and reservoir and thus will not be available for grazing. However, the acplicant has stated (App. Exhibit A-2, p. 8.1-7) that up to 2800 acre-feet of irrigation water per year will be purchased by Krebs, as part of the nuclear plant site purchase i
agreement with Applicant. The water will be used for irrigation of pasture to replace the dryland range lost by construction of the reser-voir and the facility.
The location of the land to be irrigated has not been identified at this time. Up to 25,000 gallons per day of I
l water for livestock watering will also be made available to Krebs.
(Hinchman, Fg. Tr. 599).
l 26.
Based on data provided by the Gilliam County and Oregon State University Cooperative Extension Service, the Staff detennined and the Board finds
._. ~.
that the availability of reservoir water for the uses mentioned above i
will allow more cattle to be maintained in the site area on the existing dryland range.
If the water were used on cropland, it could increase j
grain production over the dryland summer fallow method predominant in the county (Hinchman, Fg. Tr. 598).
- 27. The Board finds that average dryland range in Gilliam County will support approximately 0.2 animal units (one animal unit = one cow plus i
one calf) per acre for the six-month grazing season (equivalent to 50 acres per animal unit). The 2045 acres lost due to the plant would i
support less than 50 animal units (about 0.3% of the total production).
Irrigated pasture will support two animal units per acre for the grazing season.
Two thousand-eight hundred acre-feet of water will provide about 933 acres of irrigated pasture (36 inches of water per acre per season) which will produce a net increase of 6,513,100 lbs. of dry forage per season over the 2045 acres of dryland range that will be lost. Thus, if all of the 2800 acre-feet of available reservoir water is used to irrigate pasture, e net increase of 1825 animal units will i
be supportable in the county, based on a feeding rate of 20-25 lb. of dry forage per day per animal unit. This is equivalent to a 37% increase in acreage of irrigated pasture and to a net economic gain of approxi-mately $426,000 (12.6%) in Gilliam County livestock production, based on 1974 prices (Hinchman, Fg. Tr. 599).
4 j
- 28. The Board finds that if the 2800 acre-feet of water were used to irrigate wheat cropland (1400 acres), the net economic gain for the county (1974 4
prices) would be approximately $456,900 (2.6%), assuming 2045 acres of dryland range (the area covered by the reservoir and plant) were lost.
The net economic gains cited above are the total value, at 1974 prices, of the agricultural products that could be produced assuming the avail-ability of Pebble Springs Reservoir irrigation water and the 100 of 2045 non-irrigated acres due to plant construction. These figures do not reflect any of the costs involved in producing these agricultural products, such as purchasing, pumping and conveying the water for irrigation or stock watering nor for maintaining the livestock during the six months they are not in pasture.
(Hinchman, Fg. Tr. 599).
29.
The agricultural benefits which will accrue due to the availability of irrigation water, coupled with the long-term environmental benefits the I
reservoir may provide (see Staff Exhibit S-1, p. 5-16), were balanced against the very small losses in acreage of dryland range and agricultural production due to construction and operation of the plant. No losses of cropland are anticipated. This comparison led the Staf.f to conclude, and the Board finds, that operation of the Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant should have a substantial net beneficial effect on the use of the land comprising the site and the Krebs property, and will not affect existing land-use patterns of the adjacent area.
l
. 30. The Staff also evaluated the alternative cooling systems discussed in i
Staff Exhibit S-1, Sec. 9.3.1, specifically in terms of agricultural land use impacts. As a result of this evaluation, the Staff reaffirmed the conclusions expressed in Sec. 9.5, Staff Exhibit S-1, and the Board finds that the cooling reservoir is the most reasonable choice of cooling systems.
In terms of potential agricultural gains and losses, the Board finds that the cooling reservoir is as good, if not better, l
than the other cooling alternatives (Hinchman, Fg. Tr. 599).
6.
Radiological Releases l
At this time the Board cannot make findings of fact on issues involving radiological releases since the record is not closed on this matter.
(See Board Orders of March 27,1980, April 25,1980, and June 23,1980).
l 7.
Environmental Monitoring I
32.
[The Staff concurs in Applicant's proposed findings 79-85, at pages 31-33 of its proposed findings, related generally to Environmental i
Monitoring.]
8.
Environmental Effects of Postulated Accidents 33.
[The Staff concurs in Applicant's proposed findings 86-88, at pages 33-35 of its findings.]
_- 1 9.
Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle i
1
- 34. At this time, the Board cannot make findings on the environmental effacts of the uranium fuel cycle as the record on this aspect of the proceeding must be updated.
[Cf. Applicants Proposed Findings 90-125]
III. Site Suitability i
A.
General Background 35.
The Staff evaluated the suitability of the proposed Pebble Springs site for nuclear reactors of the general size and type proposed from the standpoint of radiological health and safety considerations (Staff Exh.
S-2.E/ If constructed, the Pebble Springs facility will consist of two pressurized water reactors.
Each unit is designed for a rated core thermal output of 3600 MW and a net electrical output of about 1260 MW.
The Staff's site evaluation was conducted for an ultimate core thermal power of 3760 MW. The nuclear steam supply systems will be purchased from the Babcock & Wilcox Company and the turbine generators will be purchased from the General Electric Company. Bechtel Corporation is the architect engineer for the plant.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 2).
9/
The Staff's evaluation was originally conducted in order to deterniine whether the Board could authorize issuance of a limited work author 1-zation(LWA).
Because of subsequent developments, the Applicant no longer seeks an LWA.
f 5
Y t
i
! 36.
The Staff's review included the reactor site criteria given in the Commission's regulation concerning site suitability as related to radiological health and safety (10 C.F.R. Part 100).
The factors considered by the Staff were the population density and the use characteristics of the site environs; nearby industrial, military or transport facilities that could influence acceptability of the site; and the meteorology, hydrology, foundation engineering, geology, and seismology characteristics of the site.
Each of these factors was considered in detail by Staff specialists qualified in the technical disciplines involved. The Staff evaluated information provided by the Applicant, made visits to the site, and perfonned independent studies and calculations.
(Staff Exh. S-2, pp. 2-3).
B.
Population Density and Use Characteristics
- 37. The exclusion area is an area based on a radius of 800 meters (0.5 railes) from the centers of each reactor in units 1 and 2.
Part of the exclusion area is occupied by the proposed man-made cooling reservoir. There are no public roads, railroads, or waterways which traverse the exclusion a rea. The Applicant owns all the surface rights within the exclusion area.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 3; Tr. 271).
- 38. The Applicant has selected a low population zone (LPZ) radius of two miles from the center of the facility. The population data, cited below, are in accordance with the 1970 census. Nine persons then
. ~.,.. -,
- resided within the LPZ. There is no significant transient population within the LPZ. The largest community within 10 miles of the site is Arlington, located three miles to the northwest, which has a 1970 population of 375 persons. The nearest population center, as defired in 10 C.F.R. Part 100, with more than 25,000 persons has been defined as the Tri-Cities of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, Washington, located 55 miles northeast of the site which had a combined 1970 population of about 55,000 residents. The population center distance is at least one and one-third times the LPZ distance.
(Staff Exh. S-2, pp. 3-4).
- 59. The 1970 population density within 10 miles of the site was less than two people per square mile, and is projected to increase to 2.2 people per square mile by the year 2020. Within 30 miles of the site, the 1970 population density was about 1,5 people pe square mile and is rojected to increase to 2.5 people per square raile by the year 2020.
Since the nearest large city is more than 30 miles away, no special considerations need to be given to distance from the population center.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 4).
40.
The Board finds that the specified exclusion distance and low population radius are of sufficient size that there is reasonable assurance thf!
l suitable engineered safety features can be provided to satisfy the exposure guidelines of 10 C.F.R. Part 100. The Board also finds that the Staff's evaluation of the low population zone indicates that appro-priate protective measures can be taken in the environs of the facility to protect the health and safety of the public.
l i
I
( C.
Nearby Industrial, Transportation and Military Facilities
- 41. No nearby industrial, transportation or military facilities have been identified for which the facility could not be designed against, as necessary, to protect the health and safety of the public. The nearest public road is Rhea Road passing approximately 0.6 miles north of the facili ty.
Other nearby transportation facilities are State Highway 19 and a spur line of the Union Pacific Railroad, both running parallel to one another and located about 1.25 miles southwest of the ;acility.
f Other major nearby transportation routes include Interstate Highi ay I-80N, the r inline of the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Columbia River, all located about three miles northwest of the site where they also run parallel to each other. (Staff Exh. 5-2, pp. 4-5).
The Staff has evaluated the effects of major accidents occurring either on the highway, railroads, or the river, and based on distances of these routes from the facility, and the Board finds that there potential hazard sources need not be considered in the design of the f6cility.
42.
The only airport within 10 miles is located two miles northwest of the site. The field serves only light planes and has less than one landing per day.
The single gravel runway is aligned in an east-west direction i
so that landings and takeoffs are nc ' in the direction of the facility.
Tne closest airport with regularly scheduled commercial service is at Pasco, Washington, about 55 miles northeast of the site. Two commercial airways pass through the site vicinity.
Airway J-16, a high altitude l
- airway where flights are restricted to about 24,000 feet altitude, passes directly over the site; while Airway V-112, a low altitude route, passes more than 10 miles south of the facility.
Because of the high altitude o rcraft crossing the site on Airway J-16, and the distance of Airway V-112, the Board finds that the hazard from flights on these airways is that associated with general overflights only.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 5).
The Board concludes that these potential hazard sources need not be considered in the design of the facility.
43.
There are no military bases within five miles of the site. The nearest base is the U.S. Navy Weapons System Training Facility (WSTF) located about 20 miles east of the site. Activities at the WSTF involve training of U.S. Navy pilots based at Whidbey Island, Washington, in weapons delivery techniques employing 25-pound inert devices.
(Staff Exh. S-2,
- p. 6). The Board finds on the basis of distance from the proposed site, and the nature of the approach, departure and operational tiight patteri;s at the W2TF, that these activities are not of such a nature as to preclude site suitability.
44.
There are no oil or gas pipelines within five miles of the site. Two petroleum products storage facilities are located two miles west of the l
site. Up to 130,000 gallons of gasoline may be stored there.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 6). Based upon the distances to these storage facilities and the quantities of materials stored there, the Beard finds that the effects of accidents there need not be considered in the design of this facili ty.
l l
-. -,. - - ~.
45.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Board finds that there are no nearby activities that would preclude site acceptability.
D.
Meteorology 46.
The site for this facility is in a region where atmospheric dispersion conditions are about average for the western United States.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 6). A description of meteorological conditions at the site, including the climatology of the region, local meteorological conditions, and expected severe weather, is presented in Staff Exh.
S-1, Section 2.6.
The facility design is consistent with the Regula-tory Tornado Model (240 miles / hour maximum wind speed) which is suf-ficient for this region of the United States.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 7).
- 47. The Applicant has provided a one-year period (1/74-12/74) of onsite joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction at the 30-ft.
level by atmospheric stability (defined by the vertical temperature gradient between 30 ft. and 130 ft.).
An evaluation of short-tem accidental releases from buildings and vents, assuming a ground-level 2
release with a building wake factor, cA, of 1365m, was made using the onsite data and the diffusion model as described in Regulatory Guide 1.4 but with modifications for desert climates. The modified model includes the effects of plume meander and decreased vertical dispersion encountered in such regions by incorporating lateral and vertical dispersion parameters (sigma-y and sigma-z) which are based on diffusion data developed at the National Reactor Testing Station. A comparison of the short-tem (0.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) relative concentration (X/Q) value esti-mated for the Pebble Springs site with similar values calculated by the Staff for over 40 other sites indicates that the dispersion conditions at Pebble Springs are better than at 85% of the other sites (Staff Exh.
S-2, p. 7). Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that there are no meteorological characteristics that would preclude site acceptability.
E.
Hydroloay 48.
The facility site is located about three miles southeast of the Columbia River in north-central Oregon.
Plant grade is over 400 feet above the Columbia River historic flood level.
Pebble Springs Reservoir will N a man-made condenser cooling reservoir fomed by damming two shallow depressions in the plateau separating Alkali and Eightmile Canyons.
The reservoir can be designed to safely store the Probable Maximum Flood from its small drainage area (6.1 sq. mi.) and to withstand the associated wind effects. The site will not be subject to local flooding resulting fram intense ensite precipitation based on the proposed site grading plan.
(Staff Exh. S-2, pp. 7-8).
Because of the elevation of the site, the Board finds that there is no possibility of flooding due to upstream failures of dams or natural stream blockage.
49.
The Columbia River is the sou. ce of makeup water pumped into Pebble Springs Reservoir. A Seismic Category I spray pond is provided for
l l
' each generating unit as an Ultimate Heat Sink for emergency cooling.
Drill records at the site indicate very high permeabilities which may affect the retention capabilities of the ultimate heat sink.
Engineer-ing solutions are available to deal with seepage from these storage basins; consequently, the Board firds that the high permeability rates i
do not preclude the acceptability of the site.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 8).
All water requirements at the facility site, both during construction and during operation will be pumped by pipeline up from the Columbia River. Groundwater will be used only during construction of the plant.
(Staff Exh. S-2, p. 8).
50.
In the unlikely event of a spill of radioactive material onto the ground, infiltration to either seasonal perched groundwater or to the groundwater mound resulting from seepage from Pebble Springs Reservior may occur, however, it would not reach the main groundwater body confined beneath impenneable basalt flows.
(Staff Exh. S-2, pp. 8-9, Tr. 534).
1 Those radwaste system components whose failure could lead to radiological consequences in excess of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 will be located in suitable structures and will be designed to appropria?.e cuality group requirements.
(Staff Exh.
S-2, p. 9 ).
- 51. The Board finds that the site safety-related facilities are not susceptible to flooding from any source, and that an adequate safety-related water supply will be provided that does not require unique design requirements,
.._._..~... _.. _. _. _ _. - -. _ _, _ -. _. - _. _, _... _ _ _
based upon similar facilities that have been proposed and found acceptable.
Furthermore, the Board finds that the magnitude of groundwater travel time, dilution, disperslon, and ion exchange factors available in the event of a postulated liquid radwaste spill are not generally different than at similar sites that have been licensed and are acceptable.
These findings are based on the Staff's independent evaluations and the comparison of hydrologic engineering factors at this site with those for other plants of similar size that have been licensed.
(Staff Exh.
S-2, p. 9 ).
F.
Foundation Engineering
- 52. There are no known foundation engineering hazards such as landslide potential, liquefaction, bearing capacity or differential settlement failure at the Pebble Springs site which could adversely influence the acceptability of the site. The site is underlain by flood basalt flows of the Columbia River Group. These are hard basalt rocks interbedded with hard and dense tuffaceous sedimentary materials. The top of the Columbia River Basalt is about 410 feet below the ground surface.
l Directly above the Columbia River Basalt, is the Selah member which is composed of a breccia and vesicular zone.
- 53. Another tuffaceous and sedimentary deposit, the Rattlesnake Ridge member composed of 20 to 30 feet of very still to hard, clayey, sandy silt overlies the Pomona flow. The Dalles formatien lies directly over l
36 -
the Rattlesnake Ridge member. Dalles soils usually less than 20 feet thick are commonly coarse cemented gravels and fine silts.
Surficial materials consist of sandy silts and sand und gravel depreits which are commonly less than 5 feet thick.
(Staff Exh. S-2, pp. 9-10).
54.
All major Seismic Category I structures will be supported on very hard Pomona Flow-Dense Basalt.
For major seismic category I structures which do not penetrate the dense Pomona Flow, excavations will be extended to the dense Pomona Flow.
Concrete backfill will be ssed under these structures. The emergency seWice water spray ponds Nill be lined, as required, to provide imperviousness and stability under all conditions.
(Staff Exh. 5-2, p.10).
- 55. Based on available foundation engineering data, the Board finds that there are no foundation engineering considerations that would preclude the acceptability of the site.
G.
Geology and Seismology 56.
The Board finds that it is inappropriate to make proposed findings on the geology and seismology of the site at this time. As to volcanology, recent events (i.e., the eruptions at Mount St. Helens) call into question the validity of the present record in these proceedings as to those matters.
Subsequent to publication of Staff Exh. S-2, (at pp.
11-15), Mount St. Helens located approximately 105 miles west-northwest
_- of the proposed Pebble Springs site began erupting. The effects of these eruptions, which began in '. ate March,1980, particularly the very explosive eruption on May 18, 1980 are still under investigation. The Staff has advised us that they are maintaining close communications with those scientists who are.monitu %g the volcano's activity, such as the U. S. Geological Survey, the U. S. Forestry Servige, the State of Washington and several universities.
H.
Conclusion on Site Suitability 57.
The Board finds that the infonnation and analyses provided by the Applicant and Staff, to date, as supplemented by responses to questions by the Board, provide reasonable assurance, except as to geology and l
seismology, and any changes required by new siting regulations, that the proposed site is a suitable location for the construction and 4
operation of two nuclear power reactors of the general type and power level proposed from the standpoint of radiological health and safety I
considerations under the Atomic Energy Act and the rules and regula-tions promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
IV. Conclusions of Law
- 58. The Board has considered all documentary and oral evidence presented by the parties to date where the record is closed.
3a. sed upon our review
. of the record in this proceeding to date and the foregoing findings, the Board has concluded as follows:
a.
The environnental review conducted by the Staff to date, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy A<:t of 1969 (NEPA), as further modi-fied or augmented in this Partial Initial Decision, is adequate.
b.
The requirements of Section 102(2)(c) and (D) of NEPA, and 10 C.F.R. Part 31 of the Commission's regulations have, to date, been complied with in this proceeding.
c.
Based upon the available infomation and review, to date, there is reasonable assurance that the proposed Pebble Springs site, except as to matters involving geology and seismology which have been deferred and any reconsideration required by new siting regulations, is a suitable location for nuclear power reactors of the general size and type proposed by the Applicant from the standpoint of radiological health and safety l
considerations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the j
rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission.
V.
ORDER Based upon the Board's Findings and Conclusions, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This Limited Partial Initial Decision shall constitute a portion of the Initial Decision to be issued upon completion of the remaining environmental-site
=- - -....
33 -
sui tability and radiological health and safety phase of this proceadir.g.
IT IS FJRTHER ORDERED THAT:
In accordance with Sections 2.760, 2.762. 2.764, 2.705 and 2.786 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R. Part 2, this Limited Partial Initial Decision shall be effective immediately and i
shall constitute the limited initial action of the Commission thirty (30) da. s after the date of issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the Rules of Practice.
Exceptions to this Partial Initial Decision may be filed by any party within ten (10) days after service of this Limited Partial Initial Decision. A brief in support of the exceptions 5 hall be filed within thirty (30) days thereafter, forty (40) days in the case of the Staff. Within thirty (30) days after service of the brief of appellant (forty (40) days in the case of the Staff), any other party may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, the eneptions.
Respectfully submitted, NM ved M. Bordenick '
ic' vor NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 2nd day of December,1980.
T
=,,
. - +,,.,. - -.
-.,,.,,-m.,,m.,
,,,,,-,w
_c~..~,..
r_,--.,.,
-r.,
}
l UNITED STAfES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SALETY AND LICENSING 00ARD In the Patter of PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY
)
50-515
)
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,
)
i Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
I hereby certify that copies of "RkC 5TAFF'S PROPOSED. FINDINGS OF FACT AND
~
~
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE FORM 0F A LIMITED PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ENVIRON-l MENTAL AND SITE SUITABILITY MATTERS" in the above-captioned proceeding have l
been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 2nd day of December,1980:
l.
- Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, D. C.
20555 Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. William E. Martin Washington, D. C.
20555 Scnior Ecologist i
Battelle Memorial Institute James W. Durham, Esq./ Warren Hastings, Esq. -
Colunbus, Ohio 43201 Portland General Electric Company i
121 S.W. Salmon Street Dr. Walter H. Jordan TB17 881 West Outer Drive Portland, Oregon 97204 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Frank 14. Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
l Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Department of Justice
=
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 520 S. W. Yamhill Beard Portland, Oregon 97204 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
I Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Department of Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Room 111, Labor & Industries Bldg.
Scard Salem, Oregon 97310 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
i Washington, D. C.
20555 J. Carl Frcedman l
Box 553 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 i
1 I
--.-----,..-__..,m,_
..,.. ~..,..,,..,.,. - -,. - -,.... _
~,.,,, -
2 Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet
- Atonic Safety and Licensino Forelaws on Coard Arpcal Panel 19142 S. Bakcrs Ferry Road U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coring, Oregon 97009 Uash:.ejton, D. C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Frank Josselson, Eso.
William L. Hallnark, Esq.
Board Panel R. Elaine Hallnark, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8th Floor Washinqton, D. C.
20555 One Southwest Columbia Fortland, Oregon 97258
- Dock: ting and Servii.e Section Office of the Secretary Ms. Eernice Ireland U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cealition for Safe Power Washinnton, D. C.
20555 10544 N.E. Sinpson Fortland, Oregen 97220 Kathleen H. Shea, Eso.
Lo'..:nstein, Nc. nan, Reis
& "a el rad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
'la shincton, D. C.
20036 s
Bernard M. Bordenick i
Counsel for NRC Staff l
l l
l l
!