ML19221A788
| ML19221A788 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-05.3.1.1, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-5.3.1.1, SRP-05.03.01.01, SRP-5.03.01.01, NUDOCS 7907090127 | |
| Download: ML19221A788 (9) | |
Text
Section 5.3.1.1 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 5.3.1.1 COOLING SYSTEM IMPACTS - INTAKE SYSTEM:
HYDRODYNAMIC DESCRIPTIONS AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 2.4 Hydrology 3.3 Station Water Use 3.4 Heat Dissipation System 5.1.2 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System: Physical Effects 5.1. 4 Effects of Operation of Heat Dissipation System: Ef fects of Heat Dissipation Facilities 5.6 Other Effects Environmental Reviews 2.3.1 Hydrology 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology
- 3. 3 Plant Water Use 3.4 Cooling System 5.3.1.2 Cooling System Impacts - Intake System: Aquatic Impacts 5.3.2.1 Cooling System Impacts - Discharge System: Thermal Description and Physical Impacts Standards and Guides Regulatory Guide 4.4, " Reporting Procedure for Mathematical Models Selected to Predict Heated Effluent Dispersion in Natural Water Bodies" Regulatory Guide 1.125, " Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants" State water standards State shoreline management laws and regulations River Basin Commission guidelines and regulations Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Sect ion 316 b)
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Other The site visit Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, regional and Federal agencies 108 1s9 1
7 9070 90tM 5.3.1.1-1
February 1979 REVIEW OUTFUTS Environmental Statement Sections 5.3.1.1 Cooling System Impacts - Intake System: Hydrodynamic Descriptions and Physical Impacts Other Environmental Reviews 5.3.1.2 Intake System: Aquatic Impacts 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 9.3.2 Alternative Circulating Water Systems 10.1 Unavoidable Ad-rse Environmental Impacts I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staff's description of intake hydrodynamics and analysis and assessment of predicted physical impacts caused by the ' low field induced by the intake system.
The scope of the i _ view directed by this plan will include consideration of the spatial and temporal distribution of the surface-water-body flow field and the physical effects of the flow field induced by intake system operation. The review will be in sufficient detail to describe intake hydrodynamics to the extent necessary for subsequent assessment of predicted intake system impacts to aquatic biota. In addition, the reviewer will predict and assess potential intake system physical impacts (e.g., bottom scouring, induced turbidity, silt buildup) and recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. When necessary, the reviewer will recommend consideration of alternative designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate or avoid predicted adverse impacts.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site-and station-specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following data or information will usually be required:
7
\\06 5.3.1.1-2
February 1979 A.
Bathymetry and sediment characteristics in the vicinity of the intake structure (s) (from ESRP 2.3.1).
B.
Maps depicting station layout with respect to the water body, including locations of all intakes and discharges (from ESRPs 3.1 and 3.4.2).
C.
Intake flow rates and velocities as a function of plant operating condi-tions (from ESRP 3.4.2).
D.
Detailed drawings of the intake structure (s), including relationship of the structure to the water surface (normal and minimum levels) (from ESRP 3.4.2).
E.
Ambient current patterns in the vicinity of the proposed intake struc-ture(s) (f rom 'SRP 2. 3.1).
F.
Descriptions of other intake system design and performance character-istics affecting hydrodynamics (e.g., horizontal and rertical approach veloc-ities, geometry of intake canals, submerged riprap) (frr m the ER).
G.
Descriptions of spatial and temporal alterations of the ambient flow field and of any other physical hydrologic ef fects induced by intake system opera-tion (from the ER).
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The reviewer's description of intake hydrodynamics will be linked to the environmental descriptions provided by the ESRPs for ES Sections 2.3.1, 3.3, and 3.4, to ensure that water-body characteristics affecting intake hydrodynamics are described in sufficient detail to allow prediction of the flow field induced by the operation of the intake system. The reviewer's analysis of physical impacts of intake system operation will be linked to the environtrental descriptioris and impact analyses of ES Sections 2.4. 2, 5. 3.1. 2, and 5. 3. 2.1, to ensure that those environmental factors most likely to be affected are described in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the predicted changes or impacts.
The extent of the 171 5.3.1.1-3 I J 'i
February 1979 description of intake hydrodynamics and analysis of physical impacts should be governed by the magnitude of potential intake system impacts to aquatic biota.
A.
Intake Hydrodynamic Description As an initial step, the reviewer will conduct a simple hydrodynamic anal-ysis (e.g., calculations of the induced potential flow field by standard procedures described in a number of hydrodynamic references sucn as References 2,10, and 13 of this ESRP), and on this basis prepare an intake system hydrodynamic description.
This description will be discussed with the reviewers for ES Sections 2.4.2 and 5.3.1.2 to determine its adequacy for use in predicting intake system impacts to aquatic biota.
Wnen the reviewer for ES Section 5.3.1.2 determines that the induced flow fields will result in only minor impacts to aquatic biota (or that no biota will be impacted), this portion of the analysis will be completed.
When the reviewer for ES Section 5.3.1.2 determines that the simple hydro-dynamic analysis is insufficient (e.g., the analysis results in predictions of significant adverse impact, there are large populations of "important" aquatic biota in the vicinity of the intake), a detailed analysis of intake hydrodynamics will be made. This analysis will consist of a review of any applicant-supplied flow field predictions, or, if necessary, a reviewer prepared prediction of the induced flow field based on modeling procedures such as those described in References 1 to 4 of this ESRP. The reviewer will consu'lt with the reviewers for ES Sections 2.4.2 cdd' 5.3.1.2 to determine the extent of the surf ace-water body to be analyzed. For once-through cooling systems, the reviewer will also consult with the reviewer for ES Section 5.3.2.1 to ensure that the area of the water body to be analyzed is suf fi-cient to permit analysis of potential recirculation of discharged cooling water.
The results of the reviewer's analysis should provide a quantitative description of the induced flow field taking into account the ambient currents. The analysis will provide velocity vectors or other descriptors showing the areal extent of the region affected by the induced flow field.
B.
Physical Impacts of Intakes The reviewer will identify and analyze physical changes resulting f rom intake system operation, including shoreline erosion, bottom scouring, induced
}@
.,9
\\)
5.3.1.1-4
February 1979 turbidity and silt buildup. Staf f experience has found the impacts associated with these physical changes to be minor, and mitigative action or consideration of alter-natives has not been required. Unless adverse impacts are predicted, the reviewer's analysis need go no furthe-than the identification of the potential impact.
IV.
EVALUATION Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one of the following conclusions:
The impact is minor and mitigation is not required. When impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will accept design and operation of the intake system as proposed.
The impact is edverse but can be mitigated by specific design or proce-dure modifications that the reviewer has identified and determined to be practical.
For these cases, the reviewer will consult with the project manager and the reviewer for ES Section 9.3.2 for verification that the reviewer's recommended modifications are practical and will lead to an improvement in the benefit-cost balance.
The reviewer will prepare a list of verified modifications and recommended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact. These lists will be provided the reviewer for ES Section 5.10.
The impact is adverse, cannot be successfully mitigated, and is of such magnitude that it should be avoided. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer will inform the reviewer for ES Section 9.3.2 that an analysis and evaluation of alternative designs or procedures is required. The reviewer will participate in any such analysis and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid the impact and that could be considered practical. If no such alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing this information to the reviewer for ES Section 10.1.
The reviewer will ensure that the description of the intake flow field is 9
adequate to serve as a basis for the impact assessment of ES Section 5.3.1.2 jnn 4,-
5.3.1.1-5 IUO lJO
February 1979
.and for providing flow patterns necessary for the assessment of potential neated water recirculation conducted in ES Section 5.3.2.1.
The reviewer will ensure that analyses involving mathematical or physical modeling of intake flow fields are appropriate for the specific situation being modeled, have been verified or shown to be conservative, and are documented and referenced. The reviewer will consider the procedures of Regulatory Guides 4.4 and 1.125 in making this evaluation. For analyses involving less-detailed proce-dures than mathematical or physical models the reviewer will ensure that the procedures used were appropriate for the specific situation and were adequately conservative.
For specific physical impacts identified by the analysis procedure section, the reviewer will evaluate each impact with regard to water standards and guides or good operating procedures for intake systems. Unless potentially severe impacts have been identified, no further evaluation is required.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplian the following ob.jectives:
(1) physical description of the induced hvdrodynamic flow field resulting from operation of the intake system, (2) Jescription and assessment of physical impacts resulting from intake system operation, (3) presenta-tion of the basis for the staf f's review and analysis, and (4) presentation of staf f conclusions and recommendations. The extent of tne hydrodynamic description input to the environmental statement will be governed by the potential for impacts to aquatic biota (ES Section 5.3.1.2).
The extent of the physical impacts to be included in the environmental statement will be determined by the results of the analysis procedure section in identifying potentially significant changes.
The following information will usually be included in ES Section 5.3.1.1:
A.
Hydrodynamic description of the intake-induced flow fields, including effects of ambient flow patterns. Tab!es er figures may be used.
1
'I L 3 k J a 0
- 5. 3.1.1-6
February 1979 B.
Description and assessment of the analysis technique used.
C.
Intake flow conditions that may result in severe impacts to aquatic biota.
D.
Description and assessment of potential physical impacts.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to the following ES sections:
A.
Sections 5.3.1.2.
The reviewer will provide a description of the intake system hydrodynamic flow field to the reviewer for ES Section 5.3.1.2.
B.
Section 5.10.2.
The reviewer will provide the reviewer for ES Sec-tion 5.10.2 with a list of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts that are to be recommended for consideration in the licensing process.
C.
Section 9.3.2.
The reviewer will provide the reviewer for ES Sec-tion 9. 3.2 with a list of adverse physical impacts that could be mitigated or avoided through alternative intake system designs or operational procedures. The reviewer will assist the reviewer for ES Section 9.3.2 in determining appropriate alternatives.
D.
Section 10.1.
The reviewer will provide the reviewer for ES Sec-tion 10.1 with a summary of the unavoidable adverse physical impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of intake system operation.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
I. P. King, W.
R.
Norton, and K. R.
Iceman, Finite Element Model for Two-Dimensional Density Stratified Flow, Water Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Walnut Creek, CA,1973.
2.
L. Dresner, V.
R. Cain, and W. Davis, Jr., Intake:
A Numerical Program to Calculate Fluid Velocity Profiles Near a Rectangular Inlet in a Stream with Cross Flow, USAEC Report, ORNL-TM-4185, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN,1973.
5.3.1.1-7 108 130
~ ruary 1979 3.
D. S. Trent, A Numeri al Model for Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Energy Transport, USAEC Topical Report, BNWL-1803,1973.
4.
J. J. Leendertse, Aspects of a Computational Model for Long Period Water-Wave Propagation, Document No. RM-5294-PR, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA,1967.
5.
Reviewing Environmental Impact Statements--Power Plant Cooling Systems, Engineering Aspects, EPA 660/2-73-016, Pacific Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR,1973.
6.
D. Schreiber, C. Becker, J. Fuguay, and R. Chitwood, " Intake System Assess-ment for Central Columbia River," Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. P02, Proc. Paper 11001, pp. 139-155, December 1974.
7.
J. C. donnichsen Jr., B.
W.
Bentley, G.
F.
Bailey, and R.
E.
- Nakatani, A Review of Thermal Power Plant Intake Structure Designs and Related Environmental Considerations, HEDL-TME-73-24, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1973.
8.
Lake Michigan Cooling Water Intake Technical Committee, Lake Michigan Intakes:
Report on the Best Available Technology, LMCWITC, 1973.
9.
R. K. Sharma, Fish Protection at Water Diversions and Intakes:
A Bibli-ography of Published and Unpublished References, ANL/ ESP-1, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, I L,1973.
10.
Development Dccument for Best Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures far Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact, EPA 440/1-76/015-a, U. S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, April 1976.
11.
R. T. Richards, and M.
J.
Hroncich, " Perforated-Pipe Water Intake for Fish Protection," J. Hydraulics Division, ASCE, pp. 139-149, 1975.
5.3.1.1-8
February 1979 12.
H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics, 6th edition Dover Publications, New York, NY,1945.
13.
H. Rouse, Ed.
Advanced Mechanics of Fluids, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY, 1959.
14.
D. Trent and R.
Welty, Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-73-162, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1973.
15.
Shore Protection Manual, U.S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center,1973.
1 0 8
'l :. vn 5.3.1.1-9